A REPLY TO A RELATION, OF THE CONFERENCE BETWEEN WILLIAM LAUDE and Mr. FISHER the Jesuit.  
By a Witness of JESUS CHRIST.  JOB 38.2. 
Who is this, that darkeneth Council by words without knowledge?  1 KINGS 18.21. 
How long halt you between two opinions? If the LORD be GOD follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.  CANT. 2.15. 
Take us the Foxes, the little Foxes that spoil the Vines: for our Vines have tender Grapes.  
IMPRINTED, Anno MDCXL.   

A SAD AND SERIOUS CONSULTATION OF A DISCONSOLAE MOTHER (CHRIST'S VIRGIN-Spouse) with twelve of her Children about her, whose names are Faith, Hope, Charity, Zeal, Humility, Prudence, Piety, Patience, justice, Mercy, Verity, Prayer: whose several judgements the Mother requireth in a doubtful case.  MOTHER. 
MY Dear Children, how doth the very sight of you revive my doleful spirits, almost drowned in the 
* Rev. 1●.  Dragon's flood? You are to me as that 
‡ vers. 1.  twelve-starred Crown upon my head. But to the purpose, for which I have called you together: (though indeed you are never asunder, nor absent from me) and it is this: You have taken notice of a notorious Book lately published by the Prime Prelate of England, which he calls a Relation of a Conference etc. And how to that Relation a Son of mine (no less known to you all, then assisted by you in the work) hath made here a Reply, and presented it to me. But now how to improve and dispose of it for the best, is the doubt. The Relator (the Prelate) engageth the King in it by two bonds; the one of Patronage, the other of Command; as if the King had first commanded it to be published, and now did give it Patronage and protection: which if true, it puts me in a strait, what to do with this Reply. For who so fit to take notice of it, yea and to give it Protection too, if both the matter and the consequence of it (being of so high a nature) be well and wisely weighed? It hath much perplexed me. Now therefore give me your best advice. And first,  
Faith what sayst thou?  Faith. 
Dear Mother, put away from you all such perplexed thoughts. 'Tis true, If we look on worldly means with a carnal eye, we are all in a strait. But this is our safety. 'Tis well the world hath never an object to allure our confidence to pitch upon it. And best of all, when all the world is banded against us, and our Christ. Is not he alone sufficient to cope with them? Doth he not 
* Psal. 2.  laugh at their proud, but vain attempts, which are no less against him, then against us? Is not the Cause than his? And are not we his? And is not 
‡ Rom. 8.32  he for us? Who then shall be against us? What though Principalities and Powers, and Spiritual wickednesses in high places, be, with all the power and policy of the world, with all the craft and cruelty of the Dragon and Devil armed against us? why, still Christ is for us. That's sufficient. Therefore there be more with us, then against us. We are a little flock against a world of Wolves and Foxes, Lions and Bears: but we have a watchful and powerful Shepherd, whose Legions of mighty Angels those heavenly Hosts, do pitch their tents round about us. We are his Paradise on earth, which he defends continually with his Cherubims flaming sword, that proud Apostates cannot so invade us, as to take one Tree of life from us. Let the wild Beasts then rage, and war upon us: let the Egyptian troops pursue us, as with open mouth to devuore us: but stand we still and see the salvation of the LORD. He that led his people through the Sea, never wants power to deliver his, when in most desperate straits. Mother, Cheer up. Not a hair of your head shall perish. The faithful and True hath said it. As for outward means, if we have them we use them, as God's ordinances▪ if we have them not, nay, if all be against us, yet our Faith in GOD is the same, and ever greater, stronger and nobler, without and against means, then with them. And much more is our GOD the same, and his glory most shineth, where outward means are either least helpful, or most opposite. My resolution then is this: The Reply in my judgement is very necessary to be published, and withal (as most pertinent and important) to be presented to the King. But whether he will read it or no, leave that to GOD. We shall neither lose our labour, nor reward. For great is the Truth, and shall prevail, what ever opposition Men or Devils make against it. And in this Reply the true Faith is defended against the Prelates false and counterfeit Faith. I have said.  Mother. 
Well, Hope, what sayst thou?  Hope. 
Dear Mother, I am of the same mind and spirit with my Sister Faith. By all means cast away all anxious and perplexed thoughts, and be of good comfort: though our Ship be shrewdly weatherbeaten, and shaken, yet Christ is at the stern. And I have already cast 
* Heb. 6.19  Anchor in the Havens mouth, on a firm ground within the Veil. When Noah's Ark floated over the tops of the highest Mountains in that dreadful Deluge, when the world was a Sea: what Pilot safely guided and steered its course, that it should rest upon the Mount Ararat? Even the same Pilot we have, to conduct us through these Floods to the Haven where we would be. Let the Reply for truth against falsehood be published, under Christ's Patronage and protection: that's sufficient. As for Men, the less we hope in them, the less we fear them. And while we do our duty with the one hand, we lay hold on the Crown with the other. I have said.  Mother. 
Charity, what sayst thou?  Charity. 
Dear Mother, as my Sister Hope is the Anchor both sure and steadfast, So I am the threefold Cable not easily broken: and therefore be of good comfort. For 
‡ Cant.  Love not all the floods can drown it. Now for the Relation, were those many passages in it (noted by the Replyer) some common slips of ignorance, or humane frailty, I would cast my large mantle over them: but being of a high nature, and full of impiety against GOD and CHRITT, and the Holy Ghost, and the holy Scriptures, and against your holy Spouse-ship, and against Faith, and against Charity, and so against all true Religion: yea proceeding also from a Prime Prelate pretending great learning and knowledge, and professing such singular eminency and dexterity of wit and judgement, as being the only able Champion of the Church of England, to defend the truth against a Jesuit, and all this under the fair white veil of hypocrisy, only his Blackmoors skin too grossly appearing in his malignant practices in persecuting the Truth, and in those malicious and impious passages in his Book, so as he is left altogether naked of all plea of ignorance: therefore I hold it fit, that his hypocrisy should be unmasqued, his bold falcities confuted, his insollencie suppressed, his impiety rebuked, and the Truth maintained against him before all the world: and therefore that the Reply be published. And if it shall be thought fit to be dedicated to the King, I wish that mine own hand might present it. For (to say no more) how highly doth the Cause concern the King and his Kingdom, did he but truly know it? And how he should come to know it, but this way, I know not. And I hope his Majesty will not refuse it at Charity's hand. I have said.  Mother. 
Zeal, what sayst thou?  Zeal. 
Dear Mother, can we see our God so highly dishonoured, our Christ so belied, his Spirit so despised, his Word so disparaged, his Worship so depraved, his Saints so destroyed, his true Spouse unchurched, and excommunicated out of the Creed, and a false Church, fasle Faith, false Religion, false Gods set up in Christ's Throne to be Judges in matters of Faith, and proud men to usurp over the Consciences and Souls of his people, and the like: and are we not to set a work all the irons in the fire that may be, to arm us against such an all-daring Philistin, who dare so desperately defy the Hosts of the living God? And blessed be our God, who hath raised up and enabled such a Replyer; and blessed be the Replyer, who ever he be, that takes up David's sting and stone to throw at that Giantlike Mushrumme. And were there an hundred such Replies, let them all be published, and all be presented to the King, to the confusion of all Babell-builders, or Ierecho's rebuilders. And if men will wilfully close their eyes, and stop their ears against the Truth, at their peril be it. I have said.  Mother. 
Humility, what sayst thou?  Humility. 
Dear Mother, I humbly pray, that the Reply be published; and if my Sister Charity do present it to the King, all my ambition is to weight upon her as her handmaid, to bear up the Train of her manifold sin-covering Mantle. This is all I can do, or say.  Mother. 
Prudence, what sayst thou?  Prudence. 
Dear Mother, although I accord with all that my Sisters have here said, yet seeing it pleaseth you to impose this task upon me, I shall give you a faithful and just account, what I further conceive to be not altogether unworthy our serious consideration, about the dedicating and presenting the Reply to the King.  
First, we all know what reward others have had for the like service, and that of fresh memory▪ as a Minister, appealing from the Prelates, to the King for a just and equal hearing of his Cause, which was about the discharge of his Ministry in Preaching: was delivered over to the Censure of a Court, wherein his main Adversary sat a Judge, and the Censure was accordingly so terrible, as no age can parallel.  
And, Secondly, the same Adversary that was the Prime instigator to inflict the said Censure, continues still in the same power and favour in Court, so as if my Sister Charity herself, together with Humility, should present the Reply, I know not what security she can have from the like Censure of being both Schismatical and Seditious, because she thus appears against a most notorious Adversary of CHRIST and his Word, but such, whose power and favour in Court, can so far prevail to the abusing of the sweet and unsuspicious nature of Princes, as to make them believe that they cannot possibly be misled by such a Leader, although the Prelate himself confess, that Worth once misled, proves of all other the greatest Misleader; and the Replyer hath detected and proved him the most notorious blind Leader, that ever sat in Canterbury Chair.  
And, Thirdly, who sees not the main work, that so many arrows of persecution against God's Ministers and people, and so the Gospel itself (as appears too palpably by the Prelates usual practices) do aim at? As, namely, the rooting out of the Gospel, and the erecting of all Popish Superstition and Idolatry, and so the bringing in of Atheism and Infidelity, with Antichristian Tyranny, and all to reduce England to a Reconciliation with Rome, as also the Relation itself doth unblushingly discover. And the Merchants do tell us from abroad, how the Priests and Friars can tell them (upon occasion of the Scots first standing out) that this course was by the Prelatical Faction reaching as far as Rome, resolved on before yesterday.  
And, Fourthly, when we look upon the hideous outrages of the Prelates, against which no complaint can take place, nor find better success, then as when a man casts stones upward, which fall down again upon his own head: doth it not argue the Estate of things to be desperate, and at the height, when such men as the Prelates are mounted on a throne of iniquity, framing mischief as by a Law? But yet,  
Lastly, (notwithstanding all this) when I consider, how mercifully God hath heard the earnest prayers of his people, in moving the King's heart to such an accord with Scotland, as of late (although those bitter Roots, which GOD never planted, and which po●son the very ground they go on (the Prelates I mean, so fast are they rooted in the earth) are left still unplucked up) and that the King's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the Rivers of waters, and that if he were once rightly possessed of the State of things, wherein he hath been by the Prelates extremely abused, and his State exposed to the wrath of heaven, we should be in good hope of Reformation: so as what lawful means may be most likely and probable to conduce hereunto, is worth the putting in practice, though full of hazard; saving that the same GOD, who mightily and mercifully moved the King's heart so far to yield to his Scottish Subjects, as to enjoy in a good measure (the Prelates only excepted) their liberty of Conscience: can also persuade him to do as much, and more, for his Subjects, Christ's people, in England. And therefore my conclusion is: I am so far from Sacrificing to humane discretion, or carnal reason, in this point, that I could be content to accompany my Sisters, Charity, and Humility, in presenting the Reply, resolving with Hester, And if I perish, I perish. And this is all I have to say for the present.  Mother. 
Piety, what sayst thou?  Piety. 
Dear Mother, I owe a duty, as to GOD principally, and in the first place, so to the King God's vicegerent, in the second place: and therefore what may conduce to the happiness and welfare of the King in this kind, I would for it hazard all. And I am for the pubilshing and presenting of the Reply to the King, in hope he may possibly read and understand the true State of things, being of such high importance, as in the world there cannot be a greater. And if this be not done, things going on as they have done, there willbe no longer abiding for us in this place. I have said.  Mother. 
Patience, what sayest thou?  Patience. 
Dear Mother, what yourself and my loving Sisters here do, or shall resolve of, my office is to prepare my back to bear whatsoever the malignity and iniquity of the Times shall lay upon me▪ which I am most willing to undergo for his sake, who suffered death, that we might live. And never had I more employment to exercise me in any age.  Mother. 
justice, what sayst thou?  justice. 
Dear Mother, I hold it both just and necessary that the Reply be published; both for the beating down of the insolency of the Relator, and the raising up of the drooping spirits of God's people, and the settling them in the Truth. As for presenting it to the King, though I be not against it, yet for my part I have engaged myself in an Appeal to the High and Righteous judge of all the world for justice in this Cause, where I shall be sure to have it. So as I resolve not to descend to any inferior Court, and there too, where the like Cause (inferior to none for pure innocence) and that also upon Appeal, so foully miscarried. So as I am altogether taken up in waiting for an Answer from my Righteous judge, wherein I shall desire my Sister Patience to lend me so much of her virtue, as may preserve my Attendance from fainting.  Mother. 
Mercy, what sayst thou?  Mercy. 
Dear Mother, I am engaged with my Sister justice in the same Petition to the throne of justice and Mercy, that the Righteous judge will for his mercy sake to his people give righteous judgement between them, and the Relator; for else they, and the Cause must fall to ground. And this course I stick unto; not that I descent from my other Sisters, but what yourself and they shall resolve on in this case, my Petition with my Sister justice may stand in no small stead, when GOD shall be pleased to move the King's heart to vindicate the Cause of Christ, and of his innocent people, from the unjust and unmerciful dealing of the Relator: against whom I stand a daily Petitioner, with my Sister justice, not departing from the Courtgate of heaven, till we have a full Answer.  Mother. 
Verity, what sayst thou?  Verity. 
Dear Mother, I would willingly accompany my other Sisters to the Court in presenting the Reply to the King, but that there, I am better known then trusted. So as I could never yet have any good success there. Insomuch as I have made myself (as they have made me) altogether a stranger at Court, because my naked simplicity can no way suit with the garb of the Court-fashion, which can turn themselves into all forms, but mine, which is unchangeable. Yet if my Sister Hope could lend me her habit, I durst adventure with my Sisters once more within the Court-gates, in hope the Courtiers would not reject me, as not knowing me to be Verity. And should they by my language descry me, yet seeing me in Hope's habit, they might perhaps turn Truths Disciples in hope of some gain or preferment, so much affiance they have in hopes. But (alas!) their hope is nothing a Kin to my Sister Hope; for her object are things spiritual and eternal; but theirs only temporal. And besides, the Relator hath forced his Pack with such a deal of trumpery, and painted stuff, gilded over with the glittering Titles of Truth, and Peace, and Piety, and Devotion, and the Church, and the like, that these his fair polished Bristow-stones are preferred by his Court-Disciples before the true and precious Diamonds, because presented in their ragged, or russet Coat, so as these prove not merchantable there, where otherwise even Truth itself is bought and sold. And therefore it shallbe sufficient, that my Sisters, so many as go, wear me (as always) as a Jewel in their bosoms; so I shall not be taken notice of; and the fewer they appear, the better, lest the Prelate conjure them down for a sort of Factious Spirits, as he did those THREE of late in the Star-chamber. I have said.  Mother. 
Prayer, what sayst thou?  Prayer. 
Dear Mother, and all my dear Sisters here present, come I pray you, and kneel down here, and assist me by joining in earnest supplication to our GOD, that he would direct and lead us in that way, which in this business may most conduce to the advancement of the Cause of Christ, and the honour of the King.  Prayer. 
O Lord God Almighty, Who shall not fear thee, thou King of Saints? Great and marvellous are thy works; just and true are thy ways. Thou art the great King over all the Earth, the righteous judge of all the world, the GOD that hearest Prayer, and helpest thy People, when they cry unto thee, and judgest their cause when thou seest their strength is gone. But how long, LORD, Holy and True! when wilt thou arise, and have mercy upon Zion? Is not now the time, the set time come? Is it not now a day of rebuke and blasphemy? Are not the children brought to the birth, and there is none, to deliver? How long shall thy people cry, and thou answerest not? How long shall the enemy roar, and thou regardest not? How long shall he blaspheme thy Name? For ever? Why pluckest thou not thy right hand out of thy bosom? Art not thou our King of old, working Salvation in the midst of the Earth? Didst not thou divide the Sea for thy People to pass through? And art not thou the same GOD of Israel still? Or is thine arm shortened, that it cannot save? And dost thou not remember this, how the enemy hath reproached, O LORD, and blasphemed thy Name? And wilt thou deliver the soul of thy Turtle Dove unto the Beast? Wilt thou forget the Congregation of thy poor for ever? Remember thy Covenant O Lord, for we are thy People, and thou art our GOD. Other Lords besides thee have had dominion over us: but by thee only will we make mention of thy Name. And yet dost thou not see, the dark places of the Earth full of the habitations of Cruelty? O let not the oppressed return ashamed. The poor and needy cry unto thee, they trust in thee, they weight for thee, that they may praise thy Name. Arise therefore, O GOD, plead thine own Cause, remember how the foolish man reproacheth thee daily. Forget not the voice of thine enemies; the tumult of those that rise up against thee, increaseth continually. And now behold here spread before thee, a Book of Reproaches and Blasphemies against thy Majesty, and against thy Son jesus Christ, and against thy Holy Spirit, and against thy Holy Word, and against thy Holy Ministers, and against thy Holy People, and against thy Holy and Pure Worship, yea, and against the King's Sacred Majesty, whom thou hast set over thy People to govern them according to Truth and Equity, under whose Patronage and Authority, notwithstanding, the Relator is bold to shroud this his Book with all the Blasphemies and Falsities therein contained; So as hereby, not only the exterpation of all true Faith and Religion in the Land is threatened, but consequently the utter ruin and extermination of the Nation itself hastened, already fitted as dry fuel for thy wrath, by this Incendiary. For behold Lord what havoc is made in the Land? What superstitions in will-worship? what oppression of the Gospel? what persecution of thy Ministers? what effusion of their innocent blood? What dispersion of their poor families? What profanation of thy holy Sabbaths? What erection and adoration of Antichristian Altars and Images? What suspension of the doctrines of Grace and Salvation? What usurped Tyrannical Domination over thy Ministers and People? What imposition of the intolerable yoke of Ceremonies upon their necks, bringing them again under Antichristian bondage, whom Christ by the shedding of his precious blood hath made free? And what urging and pressing with furious rage reaching up to heaven, the observation of all humane Ordinances, while, yea and whereby thy divine Ordinances are cast out? And what wilt thou now do to thy great Name? Thou hast of late by terrible signs from heaven, as it were by sound of Trumpet, summoned the whole Land, threatening to destroy it. Surely the provocations are great, were not thy Patience greater. But thou expectest Repentance, with Reformation of all these abominations. But little appearance as yet, and as little hope, while such Books as this, are Patronised and Authorized. What then Lord? Wilt thou therefore proceed to judge the whole Land for these things? Surely the whole Land is defiled, and so the cause were just. But yet remember Lord, that thou hast a remnant yet left therein, that have not bowed the knee to Baal. And consider withal, that they are a Faction principally of some few persons, as the Prelates, that have caused such confusions in the Land. And wilt thou destroy the righteous with the wicked far be that from thee. Shall not the judge of all the world do right? And even now do not thy People lift up strong cries unto thee against their Egyptian Taskemasters, and Babylonian Lords? And behold Lord what a desperate Leader this Faction hath got (even as judas was to the Rout) the Primate and Metropolitan of all England (those Antichristian Titles he so much vaunteth of) who because he walks in Factious and lawless byways, therefore hath this Fox for his better defence gotten upon him the Lion's skin, pretending the King for the Author and Patron of all his practices. Now the Foundations being thus cast down, what can the Righteous do? But thou art in the holy Temple. Thy Throne is in heaven, wherein and whence thou swayest all Sceptres here below. Thou art the King of Kings, and in whose band the King's heart is, as the rivers of waters, turning it which way it pleaseth thee. And thou hast of late mercifully turned his heart to grant to his Scottish People their ancient Christian liberty, both by freeing them from Ceremonies, and from the High Commissions, thereby cutting shorter at least the Horns of the Beast, in the exercise of Prelatical Tyranny. Now o Lord be pleased to perfect this thy work, both in Scotland and England, and throughout all Christendom, by causing the Kings of the Earth (that formerly were as horns to the Beast, and had given their power unto him) to hate the Whore and strip her naked, and that by throwing down the Hierarchy, the main Pillar of the Antichristian Throne, which is advanced above and against the glorious Kingdom and Throne of our Lord jesus Christ. And for this cause, o Lord, open the King's eyes clearly to see the notorious hypocrisy of his Prelate, who under a Colour of Peace and Truth, goes about to overthrow all true Peace and Truth in his Kingdom. Let him see, o Lord, how dangerous it is to maintain or countenance an Antichristian Faction within his Kingdom. Let him see, how naked his Kingdom lies at this time, exposed to all the storms of heaven, through so many crying Sins, and desperate iniquities, which the whole Land groaneth under, ready to sink to the bottom of hell. Let him see, and be roused up to a more watchful Care, and diligent attention upon the grave and weighty affairs of a King, and especially not to commit the Care of Religion to Romish Prelates, which are no members of the true Church of jesus Christ. And withal, o Lord, quicken the King's heart with a Coal from thine Altar, even with the zeal of the Spirit of jesus Christ, to enter into a present strict examination of the State of Religion, as it now stands in his Kingdom. And because thou hast in mercy stirred up, and strengthened a Servant of thine, to discover to the King not only the great dishonour his Name sustaineth, but the great danger his Kingdom incurreth, while such intolerable things are suffered, as thy Servant hath in his Reply laid open: Now, o Lord, let it be thy pleasure to bring this work to a full perfection by the publishing of it, that so both the King and his People by taking knowledge thereof may come to see what a miserable condition they are brought into by one blind guide, and bold Prelate. And let thy Spirit o Lord awaken and quicken the minds of the Lords and Nobles of the King and State, to consider what a base vassalage all those are brought under, who suffer themselves to be made slaves to serve the lawless lusts of one domineering Primate: and at length wisely to foresee the mischiefs, which the Altering of Religion to the worse, and reducing all back again to Rome, may and will certainly bring upon the Land, and upon themselves too, if not the more speedily prevented by a sound and serious thorough Reformation. Make the great ones of the world, o Lord, sensible, that there is a judgement to come, and that there is a terrible GOD above them, that shall call them to a strict reckoning for all those ungodly practices, wherein themselves have either been Agents, or Instruments, either Principals, or Accessories, as in oppressing thy Word and Truth, in persecuting thy faithful Ministers, and the like. And Lord stir up all thy people to fervent and continual Prayer, and strengthen them therein to persevere and watch, until an Answer come forth from thy Throne to all their Petitions, and Supplications, which from day to day they have and do and shall present unto thee. Oh, let not our God be angry with his people, that pray unto him with unfeigned hearts and lips; nor let their enemies Say, Where is now their GOD? But Lord stir up thy strength and come and help us. Put the wicked in fear, O Lord, that they may know themselves to be but men. And show some token upon thy servants for good, that they which hate us, may see it, and be ashamed, because thou Lord hast holpen us, and comforted us. And let the Atheistical Scornful world see, that it is not in vain to serve God, and to call upon him, and to wait for him. And now Lord avenge the Cause of jesus Christ against Antichrist: and break down Antichrists throne, and exalt Christ's Throne, that himself alone may sit, and rule, and reign over his People, and the show● of that King may be heard among them. And for us thy poor handmaids here humbly suppliant before thee, let thy holy Spirit, direct, lead, and assist us in the way, which may be most acceptable to thy Majesty and profitable for thy People, and comfortable to us all in our distressed estate. And show unto thy Servants what thou wouldst have us to do in this difficult business about the presenting of this Reply to the King, which with ourselves and all thine we humbly commend to thy grace and blessing through jesus Christ, to whom with thee o Father, and the Holy Ghost, be all honour and glory now and ever, Amen.  Mother. 
Now my dear Children, I will tell you what resolution GOD hath put into my heart, upon the very close of this Prayer: namely, that we address ourselves to the King with this Reply, together with an humble Petition. And because all of us perhaps would be too many, let as many of you as are willing to attend me, go with me to the King: the rest, let them go and be humble suitors at the Throne of Grace, that our GOD would give us to find Grace in the eyes of the King, so as harkening to our Petition, he may do accordingly. Such therefore of you as are willing to accompany me, stand on this side: and the rest, stand on that side. Well, I see you are equally divided: Six with me, and Six for me. With me, Charity, Humilty, Prudence, Piety, Patience, and Verity: For me, Faith, Hope, Zeal, justice, Mercy, Prayer. Now my Gracious Children, be strong and of a good courage. Our Cause is good, and GOD is for us; and though our enemies be great, yet they shall not prevail against us.   

TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. THE TRUE CHURCH AND CHILDREN, THE TRUE FAITH AND RELIGION OF JESUS CHRIST do humbly present their Petition of Right.  
THAT whereas a Book entitled, A Relation of a Conference between WILLIAM LAUDE, and Mr. FISHER the jesuit, hath been by the said WILLIAM, now of Canterbury, lately republished, and that, under your Majesty's Patronage, and in the publishing whereof (as he saith) he hath obeyed your Majesty: And whereas A Reply to the said Relation is now, under the Patronage of JESUS CHRIST, and in obedience to his Word, and by assistance of his Grace, here published and presented to your Majesty and before all the World; in which Reply are detected and clearly evinced, by manifold and infallible Testimonies sundry particular passages and Doctrines of the Relator, which directly overthrow all true Christian Faith and Religion: And whereas in this Reply is clearly proved, that Prelatical Government of the Church, or the Hierarchy (as they call it) is mere Antichristianisme, and the very Mystery of Iniquity, branded by the Apostle, and expressly forbidden by Christ himself to his Apostles, whose Successors the Prelates falsely pretend to be; and that all Prelates, even as they are Prelates, are both by their Profession and Practice, so many Antichrists, adversaries to CHRIST, who (as the Great Antichrist) sit as Gods in the Temple of GOD, Lording over the Faith, Soul, and Conscience of GOD'S People, thrusting CHRIST out of his Throne: And whereas notwithstanding the manifest truth hereof confirmed by most clear Testimony, and undeniable Proofs of Scripture, the Relator, or Prelate, hath in his said Relation uttered sundry blasphemous Speeches, belying the Wisdom, Counsel, and Providence of GOD, and of CHRIST, as making Him the Author and Ordainer of such a hierarchical Government of his Church, which is to Father upon GOD and CHRIST, a most notorious Lie and Falsehood; where he adds withal a blasphemous New Article of Belief of the Church of England, that this is a truth: And whereas the Holy Scriptures is and hath been in all Ages, and by all Sound and Orthodox Divines, both Ancient and Modern, both Foreign and Domestic, universally received, held, and constantly believed and maintained against all Adversaries of the Truth, to be the Only Rule of Faith and judge of Controversies in Divinity, and alone Selfe-sufficient to give Testimony to it self, that it is the undoubted Word of GOD; as in this Reply also is fully proved: And whereas the Relator notwithstanding hath loaded the Scripture with many intolerable repr●ohes, and blasphemous words of disgrace, censuring it as an insufficient witness to it self, and an incompetent judge of Controversies in Faith, as being both a blind, dumb, and dead Judge, and that it hath no light in itself, but is as a Candle in a box without light, till, Tradition of the present Church do light it; and the like, the very ground of all Infidelity and Apostasy. And whereas notwithstanding all such his blasphemies against the Scripture, wherewith he hath stuffed some 30 leaves in Follio, besides many other the like, scattered all along his Book, he, the same Relator out of his gross hypocrisy addeth this proud Blasphemy to all the rest, That he hath given the Scripture all honour, and ascribed unto it Sufficiency more then enough: And whereas also (as appeareth in this Reply) the Relator belies and blasphemes the Holy Ghost himself, making him the Author of most notorious lies and vanity: And whereas the Relator doth define a mere false and counterfeit Catholic Church, contrary to that Holy Catholic Church, believed in the Creed, whereby he overthrows both that Article of Faith, and with all the Communion of Saints, teaching, that his Catholic Church, though it cease to be holy, yet is a true Church of CHRIST still: And whereas of and in this his new Catholic Church which the Relator believeth, he makes the Church of England and of Rome to be one and the same Church, and both to hold one and the same Faith of that his Catholic Prelatical Church (which Faith is declared in the Reply not to be the true saving Faith) and that they both do set up and profess one and the same Religion, not different, in which Faith and Religion of the Church of England and of Rome (he saith) as he hath lived, so he resolves to die; as much to say, as he will live and die an English-Romish-Catholicke: And whereas the Replyer proveth (and which no Papist denyeth) that the main substance of the Romish Religion is the Mass: And whereas the Relator confesseth, that (though a simple Papist may, as he saith) yet no Romanist, as a Romanist, living and dying in the Roman Faith can be saved, and yet this Faith of Rome is the same with that of England, wherein he will end his days; So as the Church of England may hereby see in what a case she is, and how highly she is preferred by her Primate, as to be brought to be of the same Church, the same Faith, the same Religion with Rome; enough to startle all your Majesty's Subjects, that till now thought themselves to be Protestants, and no Papists; and to cause all zealous Christians to abandon all communion with such a Church, as is the same Church, of the same Faith and Religion with Rome: And whereas this Relator professeth and teacheth a blind Charity (suitable to his Faith) which he boldly affirmeth to be not a mistaken Charity, in granting, that a silly ignorant Papist, so living and dying, may be Saved by his Ignorance in that Religion, conforming himself to his Religious life: and on the contrary condemning such Protestants of stiffness and churlishness, that are not of the same Charity with him, though the Replyer proveth, that there is no true Charity without true Faith and Verity: And whereas the same Relator is showed in this Reply to give much more liberty to your Majesty's Protestant People to go● to the Romish Mass (as being with him one and the same undiffering Religion with that of England) than the Jesuit doth to his blind Romanist, to come to the English Church: And whereas the same Relator hath many passages, wherein he makes a General Council of Prelates, judge in all Controversies of Faith, ascribing unto them an Infallibility; and in case they shall err, and that even in gross things, and points of Faith, yet that all men are bound to yield obedience, at least external, till another General Counsel equal to the former reverse those Errors; whereupon by Consequence of this Prelatical doctrine (as the Replyer doth instance) the Church of England itself is bound to observe the worship of Images, and the forbearance of the Cup in the Sacrament, etc. decreed in General Counsels, and not yet reversed by other General Counsels equal to those: And whereas the Relator calls Transubstantiation, Purgatory, and the forbearance of the Cup but disputable and Improbable Questions (the nature of which is, to be taken indifferently Pro and Con: And whereas he never once in all his Relation calls the Romish-worship of Images, and of the Sacrament, or any other Idolatry in all the Romish Church, but only by the name of Superstition, abstaining altogether from the name of Idolatry, as if with him the Roman Church were no Idolatress: And whereas he much lamenteth the Separation and rent between the Protestants and Rome, with the continuance of it; although with the jesuit, he confess, that error in Faith is just cause of separation: And whereas he the same Relator doth cunningly, yet palpably enough, in sundry passages of his Book (as also he hath openly done viva voce at the High-Commission-Board) exclude all the Reformed Protestant Churches beyond the Seas, as no Churches of Christ, as not admitting the Hierarchy; Finally also in his Book quipping Luther, and in him all the Reformed Churches, as having made a rent not only from Rome with her corruptions, but even from the Catholic Church itself; which indeed (in the Relators sense and definition of the Catholic Church) is most true, to wit, from the universal Hierarchy: And whereas he, the Relator, doth every where highly extol his Ceremonies in God's worship, as without which (he saith) there is no light left to shine before men that they may see his Devotion, and so glorify GOD, (therein most foully and odiously perverting and abusing the holy Text of Scripture uttered by CHRIST to a clean other purpose as the Replyer hath noted) all which Ceremonies, being a will-worship after the Tradition and Commandment of men, the Apostle doth utterly condemn, as whereby the very merits of Christ's death are made of none effect, who in his death destroyed All Ceremonies in Religion obliging the Conscience, and not only the Levitic●ll, but all other whatsoever of humane Ordinance, as the Replyer clearly proveth; So as it is not left to any Power on Earth to impose the least Ceremony, (yea though it be of nature indifferent) to bind the Conscience in the service of GOD, seeing all such imposition is Antichristian Tyranny: And whereas all Prelatical, Heretical, and Antichristian Faction erected by the Prince of darkness against jesus Christ, and his Kingdom, as is apparent both by their profession and practice, wherein they have nothing at all, yea not any one thing to show, wherein they resemble either Christ, or any one of his Apostles (except judas) Christ's Kingdom being altogether spiritual, and not of this world, but the Hierarchy a mere carnal and worldly Kingdom, only guilded over with the bare name of spiritual: And whereas the Relator throughout his whole Book bewrayeth his most palpable and profound ignorance, and notorious blindness in the whole mystery of Faith and all true divinity, in so much as when ever he Cites Scripture, he still perverts it to a wrong sense, and is not able to bring any proof either from Scripture, or Common Reason (except from some of his Jesuitical Authors) for any of his Paradoxes and strange doctrines, delivering all without Book, tanquam è Cathedra, as but of some Papal unerring Chair, upon the Authority of his bare word, and upon mere trust: And whereas the Relator saith, That worth once misled, is of all other the greatest misleader, and who of greater worth in the Church of England, and in the Esteem of Great ones too, than the Great Primate himself, whose very word with many is taken as a divine Oracle; So as if the Church and State of England will but pin their souls upon this Leaders sleeve, he will not fail to lead them in that way, the issue whereof (seem it never so right in the eyes of credulity) will certainly prove to be (as Solomon saith) the ways of death: And whereas by the Relator, sundry occasions are ministered to the Replyer of instancing divers practices charged upon the Prelate, as the principal Agent or Instrument of setting up sundry Innovations in Religion in the Church of England, all which have been done under his Primacy; as, The republishing under your Majesty's Name, the Book for liberty of profane Sports on the Lord's day, with pressing Ministers to read the Said Book in their several Congregations, and upon refusal, extremely persecuting them, and thrusting them from their Ministry and means, with their poor wives and children; The authorising and licensing of some Doctor's Books, which cry down the Morality of the 4 th' Commandment for the Sanctifying of the Lords Sabbath day▪ The setting forth of a New Order to restrain Preachers from Preaching in the Afternoons on the Lords days, much pressed by the Prelates and their Officers in all their visitations: The setting forth of a Declaration in your Majesty's Name, prefixed to the Articles of Religion, which the Prelate's practices plainly interpret to be for the restraining, and prohibiting altogether the Doctrines of Saving Grace to be preached, and wherein the genuine sense of those Articles touching Grace (which formerly were universally interpreted to have but one sense agreeable to the Scripture) is confounded with the heterodox heretical doctrines of the Pelagians and Arminians, so as none can tell what to make of those Articles, saving that by this means the Orthodox Ministers must not preach the truth, and the Adverse party and Faction may find footing and countenance for their groundless and graceless heresies, and all this to the manifest dishonour of the Word of Grace, the distraction of good Ministers, and the destruction of many thousand souls; The pressing and setting up of Altars, attended with sundry adorations, images, crucifixes, to the open Scandal of many, and for non-admittance whereof, with other Innovations, or rather Renovations of old Popish Relics, many good Ministers and people of GOD have deeply suffered; by all which practices and sundry more, the Replyer hath plainly and particularly proved, how the very Foundations of Faith and Christian Religion are not only terribly shaken, but razed, and ruined, so as the very Foundations of the earth do tremble withal, and more especially, how not only by unmoralizing of the 4 th' Commandment (whereby the Floodgates of all profaneness are broken up) and the uncannonizing (as it were) or making void of the doctrines of grace, but by the setting up of Altars, with all their Service and Ceremonies, is an absolute denying and renouncing of jesus Christ our only Altar, as the Replyer hath showed at large: And whereas notwithstanding terrible persecutions (if it be lawful to call a Spade a Spade) have followed upon these Innovations, which have fallen most heavy upon the faithful Ministers and their Families, yet the said Relator (whether out of notorious hypocrisy▪ or egregious malice, or both) is not afraid to abuse the Sacred Name of GOD, nor ashamed to cast a mist before the open eyes of all the world, saying, * GOD forbid, I should ever offer to persuade a Persecution in any kind, or practise it in the least; whereas, if Persecution be Persecution, whether he hath persuaded to it, or dissuaded, perhaps your Majesty can tell; and how little he hath practised it, thousands have sufficiently felt: And whereas the Replyer upon occasion by the Relator, hath declared fully the Tragical Story of the Cause, Censuring, and suffering of a late Minister of the Gospel (depriving him of his Ministry and all worldly comforts) and all for the mere discharge of his Ministerial duty, in admonishing his people of such dangerous Innovations, as were then creeping, yea and crowding into many Churches; for the which he hath been so terribly censured, and still suffereth both close Imprisonment and Punishment, with Divorcement and Separation from wife, and children, and all friends whatsoever, as a man buried quick in a Marble Tomb of perpetual Calamity, the very Image of hell; such an Example as no age, no history, sacred or profane is able to parralel, that a man should be so terribly Censured, and that upon this very ground, that he would not do that, whereby he should assent to the condemning of his Cause before the hearing his Answer in Court for Defence of his Cause being wholly precondemned by the two Judges, as impertinent and Scandalous: And whereas notwithstanding the Relator doth still insult, trample upon, and embitter his ink with gall, blacking the innocent with foul reproaches, whom all the Court could not charge with the least offence or crime, but that they said, he was too bitter, which he gave good reason for: And whereas the cry of innocent blood both of that Servant of Christ, and of his Companions, is gone up to heaven against the whole Land, pleading and claiming justice at that High and righteous Throne, so as heaven and earth are troubled with the cry, which will not be appeased, till justice be done: And whereas GOD hath put into your Majesty's hand, both the word of his Truth, as the only Rule whereby to reform all errors and corruptions wherewith his worship is profaned; and the Sword of justice to vindicate the Cause of the oppressed Innocents': And whereas so great a work, as the Reformation of Religion is above the Spheere of any ordinary Court of your Kingdom, so as even the Honourable Board of Star-chamber disclaimed that Office, where the said Innocent standing before them desired Justice in that behalf; yea and is too heavy a burden to lie upon the King's shoulders alone, and much more as the case now stands in such a perplexity of things, and universality of corruptions, which as a leprosy hath overspread the whole body of the Land: And seeing Christian, Prudent, Grave and Pious Princes use not upon the first sound or sight, to slight, or reject as fables or flashes of some brainsick man, such deep charges as the Replyer here presenteth, and presseth hard upon the Relator by such sound and demonstrative arguments, and which do so nearly concern the State of the whole Land, which (by reason of Prelatical outrages, seconded with the publication of the said Relation, the very Portent of Confusion) lies now a bleeding: And whereas the contempt of just complaints, and neglect of justice in such Cases of so high a nature, would necessarily argue, that men have sold themselves, as having made a covenant with death (as the Prophet speaks) and an agreement with hell, being justly given up of GOD to destruction, as in the case of Amasiah King of juda, who threatening the Lords Prophet for reproving him, 
1 Chron. 25.  the Prophet replied, Now I know that God hath determined to destroy thee, because thou hast not harkened to my Counsel; even as it came to pass a little after in the same Chapter, Amasiah would not hear; for it came of God, that he might deliver them into the hand of their enemies, because they sought after the Gods of Edom: as the Prelate professeth for the Church of England one Faith and Religion with Rome: And whereas the Hierarchy being an Antichristian Kingdom, shall perish with Antichrist, and all they together, that support and confederate with it against Christ's Kingdom, his Gospel, and Truth, as the Relator doth in his Book; So as to suffer such a Rebel against Christ (as the Replyer hath proved him to be) and much more to Patronise him and his work, were to maintain open war against heaven, and to make your Majesty guilty of all those blasphemies and heresies in it; which GOD forbid: And whereas to whom much is committed, of him much shallbe required, and the Office of Kings is of all other highest on earth, and therefore God will require the strictest account of them, and the more, where the light of the Gospel hath also clearly shined forth, leaving no place for pleading ignorance, it being lo the honour of Kings to search out a matter (as Solomon saith) throughly to inquire into the Cause brought before him, and therein to do exact and impartial justice, much less committing the Cause to be judged by the Adversary or Party, but to judge righteous judgement: And whereas GOD hath sent of late sundry fearful signs from heaven, as warning-pieces to England, to awaken the State thereof to a more deep consideration of the condition, wherein it stands obnoxious unto, and naked before that dreadful Judge for her most notorious and hideous crying sins, iniquities, transgressions and impieties in all kinds, and in the highest degree, and to lay down her high pride, and selfe-confidence, and giantlike daring in lifting herself up against jesus Christ and his High-Throne, in oppressing and trampling upon his sacred Word, and Ministers, and People; least by standing out in open defiance against God, and in the defence and maintenance of her Rebellion with a high hand, God be provoked altogether to confound her; So as (if a more mature Reformation of such hideous enormities, whereof the Relator is here, by the Replyer, convinced, be not seriously thought of, and speedily and effectually put in execution) to be secure in looking for Peace, or any Good, (not having thus made peace with God) were but to bewray a mind desperate, and past all hope of remedy: And lastly, whereas the Replyer to all these his high Charges upon the Relator hath (for some special reasons to himself) not set his Name (it being neither out of any distrust of the goodness of his Cause, nor yet fear of men by others Example) when as your Majesty shallbe pleased to send forth your Royal Edict, commanding that the Repyer (whoever he be) come forth and appear to make proof of all his Allegations against the Relator, assuring him of an equal, just, and fair unpartial hearing in such a Court of justice, as the Replyer himself shall nominate, and appeal unto, which is not, cannot be less, than the most High and Honourable Court of Parliament, which the necessity of things, so nearly concerning the whole Land, doth with all importunity call for; he (the Replyer) will then be ready (God giving him life and health) in all humble duty and allegiance to present himself, and personally face to face, before the Honourable Court (by the assistance of that Grace, which first set him a-work, and enabled him to finish it) make good his whole Reply against the Relator.  
It would therefore please your most Excellent Majesty (the weighty Premises seriously considered, and upon your mature revisal of this Reply, or at least of the brief contents thereof prefixed to the Reply, with the eye of your soundest and sollidest judgement, directed by the wisdom of Gods own Spirit, which hath the hearts of Kings in his all-swaying hand, and for vindicating of God's glory, and your own honour, so deeply suffering in the forenamed respects, and for staying of God's hand stretched out, and the preventing of further calamities) not only to take to heart, and into your Royal hand the speedy reformation of such things, as have been done (and all in your Majesty's Name still; for that must bear all the burden) since the Relators Primacy: as namely in the first place, to send forth your Royal Edict for the taking down of all Altars (which where ever they stand, do stand in open defiance against Christ) another, for the calling in of your Book for Sports on the Lords days: a third, for the calling in of your Declaration before the Articles of Religion: a fourth, for the calling in of all Orders for the restraint of Preaching: a fifth, for the restoring in Integrum, that is, not only to their Ministry and Charge, but to their liberty in Christ from the bondage both of Prelates and Ceremonies, all those godly Ministers, who out of Conscience and duty towards God, and not out of any disrespect, or muc● less disloyalty towards your Majesty, for refusing to read the said Book, have been by the Prelates thrust out of all: a sixth (if not the First) for the quite releasing and setting at full liberty your three poor banished Prisoners, that the loud cry of their oppressions break not through the walls and bars, and roofs of their strait enclosure to the piercing of the heavens, and the provoking of their wrath to dart down the thunderbolt of Divine revenge to the blasting of the beauty of your State, while (as a tall Cedar, or sturdy Oak) it stoutly lifts itself up on high, as if it would threaten heavens throne: and lastly, all this done (without which what can prosper?) and that you may make your Peace with GOD, as you have done with Scotland, to Proclaim a Public Fast with Prayer and Humiliation, for the deprecating of God's high displeasure for what is past, and the procuring of his favour and blessing upon you and your Kingdom: and thereupon send forth your Royal writs for the calling of a Parliament for the redressing and removing of the main Causes of all the disorders and enormities in the Church and State: So shall your Kingdom be established, and your Crown flourish in abundance of Peace and Prosperity to your Majesty, and your Royal Posterity, which the Petitioners, the true Church and Children, the true Faith and Religion of jesus Christ will never be wanting to solicit the throne of Grace for.   

THE CONTENTS OF THE PRINCIPAL PASSAGES IN THIS ENSUING REPLY; 
For the King.  AND first to the Relators Epistle Dedicatory.  
The lefthand Figure notes the Page of the Relators Book: the right-hand the Replyers.  

L. page 1. HOw the Prelate by pinning his Book upon the King's Patronage, doth thereby expose him to the peril of being guilty of patronising all the blasspemies & falsities therein, page 2.  
2. What Truth, and how the Prelate seeks it, ibid.  
7. What use the Prelate makes of Gods restoring him from his Fever, p. 3.  
7. What he means by the Scandalous and Scurrilous pens of some bitter men, with a short Narration of their Cause, and Tragical suffering, ibid.  
Notorious Hypocrisy of the Prelate, and taking God's name in vain, pag. 3, & 4.6.8.  
Prelate's mercies exceed all Heathen cruelty, 6.  
A strange Precedent without Precedent, to censure a Man, because he would not consent to the condemning of his Cause before the Hearing, 7.  
The Prelate Shrewdly put to it for his blood-guiltiness, and shameless hypocrisy, 7, 8.  
A newfound Art, under colour of Answering Jesuits, to strike a leagve with Popery, 9  
7. The Prelates notorious perverting of Scripture, which is retorted upon himself by a true Application, 10, 11, 12.  
7. God's Ministers for sharp, and particular reproving of sin and sinners, proved not to be Libellous, nor Scandalous; by many examples, 11, 12, 13.  
How Prelates, with the High Priests and Pharisees are guilty of all the blood of the Saints, shed from Abel hitherto, 15, 16.  
True marks of a Minister of Christ extraordinarily raised up of God, ibid.  
7. What kind of Men the Prelate's Divines of worth and Note be, 16, 17.  
How the Prelate publisheth his Book to vindicate his Reputation, and with whom, ibid.  
7. A Prosopopaeia, representing the Prelate's Divines speaking to him, 17, 18.  
7. The Prelate selfe-deluded by the unanimous Counsels of his Divines, as Ahab was by his false Prophets, 19  
The Prelate's Book like Caesar's sacrifice, ibid.  
The Replyers Council to the Prelate, 19  
The Prelate's Book how reprobate Silver, 21.  
The Mystery of burning Salis his Devotions opened, 20.  
How the Prelates Tract needs leading into the light, 21.  
11. Notorious hypocrisy of a most persecuting Prelate, detected as most detestable, 21, 22. worse than that of Stephen Gardiner and Bonner, ibid.  
The Prelate sore pressed with sundry Scriptures by the Replyer, 23, 24.  
A notable Prophecy of Scripture against the Anti Sabbatarians in these days, 24.  
How the Prelate takes God's Name in vain, 25.  
Difference between Rome's Fishermen, and Christ's, 26 to 30.  
The Prelates subtle laying all the Load upon the King, what ever be amiss, 29, 30.  
Good Laws may sleep, ibid.  
What he means by the wakening of Discipline, ibid.  
12. The Prelate's meaning of Anglers in a shallower water fished out, 29.  
And how they differ from Rome's Fishers.  
The Prelate's Council to the King how perilous in his sly and subtle enticing him against godly Preachers.  
The Prelates sly Speeches in some Cases, how best interpreted by his Practices.  
And how and what he counseleth the King, 29, 30.  
Perilous Consequences of Prelates practices in altering of Religion, how considerable for States. 30, 31.  
The Prelate put to his proof, whether he loves the King's Crown, or the Prelate's Mitre better, 32.  
13. Prelate how condemned of the Same Scripture by himself alleged, 32, 33.  
How the Prelate is an Enemy to the Gospel, and to the preaching of it, 33.  
What be the Prelate's Foundations of Faith, and how shaken, 34.  
How the Prelate's Practices not only shake, but quite overthrow the true Foundations of Faith: and that by his own Instances, wherein he is selfe-condemned, and his palpable hypocrisy detected, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39  
Altars overthrow the Foundation Christ, 35.  
13, 14. The Prelate's comparison of the Church to a Hive of Bees Scanned: so as nothing is left him but the Sting, 40, 41, 42, 43.  
Prelates and their Clergy no true Order of Priesthood, 41.  
The Prelate calls his Hypocrisy, Integrity and Sincerity.  
The great difference between the King, and the Prelate's Priest, about the Bee hive, 41, 42.  
And how perilously they are joined together by the Prelate, 43, 44,  
What Integrity of the Church in Doctrine and Manners we may expect, when the Prelate, or his Priest, is joined to the King in Reformation, 45.  
Two places of Scripture vindicated from the Prelates perverting of them, and whereby himself is stung, for being too busy about the Beehive, 46, 47.  
For what good Service the Prelate's Priest, meddling with the Beehive, is stung by the true Bees, 48, 49.  
The Prelate's Church in England, together with Rome, wherein fallen from the ancient Catholic Faith, in maintaining Doctrines of Devils: And what the true Catholic Faith i●, 51.  
The Prelatical Church in England how Antichristian, and what Antichristianisme is. 52, 53, 54, 55, 56.  
The Mystery of Iniquity in the Prelacy, ibid.  
The place in John (1 John 2.22.) vindicated against Jesuits and Prelates: and thereby Prelates proved to be Antichrists, in that they deny Jesus to be the Christ, that is, King, Priest, and Prophet: distinctly proved, 56, 57, 58, 59  
No Priest, but Christ, ever had power to forgive sins, 58.  
The true Reformed Churches beyond the Seas vindicated to be true Churches of Christ, against the Prelate, 62.  
And Prelatical Churches proved to be false Churches, ibid.  
16. Who have cause to cry out of persecution, the Prelate's Jesuit, Or his Separatist, 63.  
What Cause the Prelate gives of Separation from his Church, which he saith is the Same with Rome, 64.  
And wherein, ibid.  
The Prelate's Riddle, 65.  
In how many paritculars these two Sisters are alike, yea one and the same, 64, 66, 67, 68  
And so how the Prelate's Church in England being one and the same with that of Rome, must needs be a false Church, 69.  
How the Prelate overthroweth all the learned works of the Orthodox English Divines, ibid.  
17. The Prelates blasphemous putting a most notorirus lie upon Christ, 70.  
What Interpretation of Scripture we may expect from Prelates, whereof his Church consisteth, 71.  
The Prelate selfe-condemned, as a most notorious forcer, and perverter of Scripture, where ever he doth but touch it with his finger, ibid.  
What need there is of the Prelate's Oracle in settling the true sense of the 39 Artcles, which under his Primacy have been declared doubtful, and of a double sense, 72.  
What cause we have to expect an Index Expurgatorious from the Prelate to purge the writings of all our Oxthodox Divines against the Church of Rome, ibid.  
18. How the Prelate without his Prophesying, doth by his practice hale in Atheism and Irreligion, 73, 74.  
What we are still to understand, when the Prelate names Truth, etc. 74.  
What he He calls an unworthy way of contending for Truth: which we must contend for notwithstanding against such Adversaries, 75.  
What is that Atheism, and Irreligion properly which the prelate nameth and meaneth, 75.  
19 The Prelates external will-worship, what it is a Great Witness of, 76, 77.  
The prelate's swelling pride and conceit of His Will-worship, 77, 78.  
All Will-worship expressly forbidden in the Scripture. It is no Service of God, but of man's lust, ibid.  
The prelate's upright heart down right hypocrisy, 79.  
The prelate's notorious and bold perverting of Christ's words to His own blind Devotion, 78.  
How God is dishonoured by the prelate's will-worship, 79, 80  
The prelate's Sincerity in Religion how it drives conscientious men from Communion with His English Church, 81.  
The prelate how clearly he deals with His Majesty, 82.  
What is with the Prelate Decent, and what orderly Settlement in the worship of God, 83, 84, 85.  
Sundry Innovations, or rather Renovations under the primate. ib.  
Of Ceremonies in God's worship. Of Natural, Moral, and Religious Actions, how they differ in point of Ceremony, 87.  
Prelate's Ceremonial worship Heretical, 88  
What Heresy is, ibid.  
Christ the only Master of Ceremonies in God's service, 88  
How this is an Article of our Faith, 8●.  
Christ never imparted this His Prerogative, or any part thereof, to any Humane Power, 90.  
The Apostles words for Deceny and Order (1 Cor. 14.40) cleared from Prelatical perverters, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94.  
Prelate's Pretence for Antiquity of His Ceremonies absurd, 94, 95, 96.  
Prelate's Cerremonies will fit neither Time nor Place, but as they are forced, wherein the Prelate is too zealous and forward, 97.  
What rubs and tough knots the Prelate meets withal about His Ceremonies, 98.  
And how He hath been crossed since his Crucifying of His Three bitter men, and why? and how? 99  
The Prelates practise not so politic, as julian's was, 98.  
Even Mediocrity in Ceremonies is an Extreme, 99  
So as the very least overburthens the Church of Christ, ibid.  
How the Prelate had need to fit His Ceremonies, some for Summer, and some for Winter, for overburthening His Priest, 100  
The Replyer requireth of the Prelate a just number of so many Ceremonies, so as they may neither overburthen, nor leave his Service naked, 100, 101.  
The Prelate like the Pharisees in binding burdens on others, ib.  
How the Prelate needs many Ceremonies, as Herbs to straw the way to the celebrating of the marriage between England and Rome, ibid.  
How the Prelate's Service is naked, without his Ceremonies, 1●2  
Prelates pompous Service condemned by the Heathen, 102, 103  
The levitical Pomp, as a Type, altogether abolished by Christ, 105.  
Adam more glorious in his innocent nakedness, then with his devised Fig-leaves, how applied to the Prelatical Church, 103, 104.  
Prelate's Service sensual and heathenish, as done to an unknown God; fully displayed, 104.  
Prelate's pompous Ceremonies like the Cardinal's Sumpter, 105.  
No necessity of Prelate's Ceremonies, sith both Superstitious, and Superfluous, saving that they are all the Substance of their Religion, 106, 107.  
True Reformation ought to have no Ceremonies at all to bind the Conscience, 107.  
Prelate's Ceremonies strengthen Superstition and Idolatry, and destroy true piety. 108.  
What is that Substance of Religion, which Prelates Ceremonies do fence, 106, 107.  
And what strength they add to his Religion, how it is weakness not to see, 108.  
Prelate's Ceremonies are beggarly Rudiments: yea Egyptian bonds, and Babilonish Chains, 108.  
How by the Prelate's Ceremonies so eagrely urged, the Jesuits win ground. 108, 109.  
Rome's Reconciliation hastened by hossing up wooden Altars, and hurling down golden Ministers, 109.  
The Jesuits hale in Popery through the Prelates broad Gates he hath laid open, ibid.  
21. How the Prelate hath laid open the wider-gates of his Catholic Church by pulling down the walls and bulwarks of Christ's true Church, 109.  
The Prelate's wider-Gates whither they lead, 110.  
The Prelate hath nothing to do with the true Faith, nor Communion with the true Saints, ibid.  
He perverteth the Scripture (Judas 3.) falsely applying the Saint's Faith to his boundless Catholic Church, 110.  
What Truth the Prelate professeth, and with what singleness of heart, 110, 111.  
And his notorious hypocrisy in deluding the King, 111.  
The Prelate puts all his Book upon the King, as published in obedience to his Majesty's command, ibid.  
What we may expect from the Prelate, who resolves to die in that Faith, wherein he hath lived, ibid.  
And so what hope he can have of God's favour, 112.   

THE CONTENTS OF THE MAIN POINTS AND PASSAGES IN THIS ensuing Reply to the Relation itself.  
2. WHat is that Church, whose judgement the Prelate would have the people to depend upon, 113.  
And not to be too busy with Scripture, but moderately, in things obvious, 114.  
How the Prelate yields the Jesuit this, that the Church of Rome is a true Church, on whose judgement people must depend, 115.  
The Prelate a Subtle underminer of the Truth. 116.  
4. The papal Church holds no one point of Saving Truth, ibid.  
23. How the Prelate vaunts himself for the great Champion of the Church of England, 117.  
29. How the Prelate overthrows Christ, while he makes things, not Fundamental in the Faith, necessary to some men's Salvation, but tells us not who those be, 117, 118.  
31. How the Prelate can bind all men to peace by his Church's Declaration: yea though it be not the Churches, 118.  
The dangerous Consequences hereof, 119.  
32. The Prelate selfe-condemned, for adding things contrary, and detracting things necessary, 120.  
35. How (against the Prelate) things considered in the manner of Being only, are fundamental in the Faith. Instanced in sundry particulars, 120, 121.  
The many absurd consequences of Popish Reall-presence, ibid.  
37. How the Prelate makes things, which are fundamental in the Faith, not to be so to all men, 122. See 117.118.  
If the Prelate do at all discern what the true Faith is, what use he makes of it, 122.  
39 How the Prelate falsifies Lyrinencis, and is loath to English some of his words, 123.  
If the Church of Rome be Lupanar Errorum, a Stews of Errors, 'twere good that all should know her in plain English to be so, to avoid her, though the Prelate be loath English men should know it, ibid.  
How the Prelate applauds the jesuit Stapleton in a gross point of Popery, whom Dr. Whitakers in the Chair at Chambridge confuted, 124.  
How therein the Prelate prefers Stapleton before Bellarmine, who comes nearer to the Truth, ibid.  
40. How the Prelate is justly as an Enemy to Assurance of Salvation, and so of true Saving Faith, 124.  
43. How the Prelate makes it whether for a penny, Belief of Scripture, or the Creed, hath the Precedency of a Prime Principle of Faith, 125.  
44. The Prelate allows some Traditions for Apostolic, though not fundamental in the Faith, ibid.  
45. The Prelate's Faith of Christ's Descent into hell; which Article is by the Replyer discussed, 126, to 129.  
47.48. For default of examining the Articles of the Creed by Scripture, the Prelate overthrows two Articles, The Catholic Church and the Communion of Saints, 129.  
51. Notwithstanding the Prelate, we ought boldly and publicly to affirm The Truth against error, 132.  
53. The Prelate submits the Faith of the Church of England, to the judgement of the Fathers, whether her Articles be according to Scripture. How by those Fathers he is condemned, 132, 133.  
With what limitation the Church, within the first 400, or 500 years may be said to have been at the best, 133, 134.  
How the Replyer declines the occasion of entering into a comparison between the truly Reformed Protestant Churches, and that within the first 500 years after the Apostles, 134.  
Conformity to Popish Rites a Pretence to bring Papists to Church, as the Christians anciently entertained Heathen manners, to draw them to be Christians, 134.  
Augustine complained of Ceremonies then, when (if the Prelate say true) the Church was at the best, ibid.  
62. The Prelates false professed Faith concerning the Catholic Church in the Creed, which he defines to be the Society of all Christians, 135.  
66. How the Prelate jumps with Bellarmine, for a word of God as well unwritten, as written, 135, 136, 137.  
Baptism of Infants a Doctrine of Scripture, not an unwritten Tradition.  
We ought to repair to Scripture in all doubts of Faith, 137.  
72, 73. How the Prelate's words, not well examined, may make us believe, he is no Arminian, but Orthodox in the Doctrine of Grace: while he abuses the Scripture most palpably and grossly, 138, 139.  
75, 76. What the place and office of natural Reason is in judging of Scripture: against the Prelate magnifying natural Reason to the vilifying of Scripture: the blindness and vanity thereof in judging of Divine things, and matters of Faith, 140, 141, 142, 143.  
Unsanctified Reason how it judges the Scripture to be false, 143.  
How the Prelate is put to his natural Reason's pregnancy in matters of Faith, 1●2.  
77. The Prelates extreme blindness or malice, in saying The Scripture is strengthened with probable Arguments from the light of Nature, and humane Testimony to convince men, without which it is not so demonstratively evident of itself, 144. At large confuted, 14●, to 149.  
A secret power in Scripture convincing a natural man in the reading or hearing of it preached, that it is the very word of God, 148, 149, 150. See also,  
A motion of the Replyer to the Prelate, how he shall make trial of the Scriptures powerful sufficiency, to convince him, that it is the word of God, 149.  
A comparison of the Scripture with the Sun, 151.  
God's word preached, and not Church-Tradition, the ordinary prime motive and instrument of Faith. Illustrated by pregnant Comparisons. ib.  
83. How the Prelate hangs the Belief of Scripture to be the word of God, necessarily upon the Authority of the present Church, and other such poor inducements, all but mere probabilities, which may beget opinion, but never belief, 152, 153, 154, 155.  
All examined, and proved to be mere vanity: in all which the Prelate destroys all Faith, and hope of Salvation, 156. also 157.  
In what sense and way only a Natural Man being led by the Prelate's hand, as of the present Church to read the Scripture, may be induced to believe it is the very word of GOD, 154.  
84. Further notorious blasphemies of the Prelate in derogating from Scripture, as having no light, but as a candle in a box of 12 in the pound, till Tradition of the present Church do light it: 

Examined, 157 158, 159.  
How the Prelate perverts the Scripture, and puts out the light of it, 157.  
Other blasphemies of the Prelate against the Scripture, God's word, and the Holy Ghost, making his Church-Tradition the eyes inlightner, 159, 160, 161.  
God's own voice in Scripture read and preached, begets belief, that it is God's word, 161.    
85. The Prelate's prosecution of this Argument in advancing his present Church Authority, further confuted, 162, 163.  
85, 86. A Subtle and Sly evasion of the Prelate from the Jusuites true objection, 164.  
A pretty trick of Legerdemain, 195.  
Scriptures full light teacheth a perfect knowledge: against the Prelate's Evasion, 165, 166.  
87. The Prelates perverting of Scripture in his Babylonish confounding the Historical, with the Saving and justifying Faith (as he always doth) and another Scripture, in confounding the regenerate with the unregenerate, 166. to 170.  
Whereupon the Replyer adds a notable Discourse of the nature of true Saving Faith, 170, to 174: as namely of its admirable operations in the several faculties of the Soul, with its excellency, etc.  
The Prelate Contradicts himself, not knowing whereof he affirmeth. Saving that by Faith he ever meaneth a false Faith, whereby he destroyeth the true, 173.  
The Sure belief of Scripture is a Christians sure comfort in trouble, 172, 173.  
88 hooker's Sensible Demonstration so applauded by the Prelate, throughly scanned, and sound proved to be false by most evident Demonstrations, proving the Scripture to prove itself God's word, 174, to 177.  
The Prelate's Ground from Nature, being applied to Scripture, proved false: and Christ's Saying, which the Prelate objecteth, cleared, 177, 178.  
89. hooker's stating of the Question, commended by the Prelate, for Tradition, as the Key to open the Entrance to Scripture, proved false in the Prelate's sense, and that Key to be a false picklock, 178, 179.  
91. How the Prelate in charging the Pope for usurping Lordship over the world, is taken tardy for doing the like himself over All England contrary to S. Peter's rule, alleged by the Prelate 180.  
93. What assistance Lawfully sent Pastors and Teachers have ordinarily of God, 180.181.  
95. The Prelate selfe-condemned, ibid.  
98. The Prelate belies the Scripture, to credit his Church-Tradition, 182.  
Scripture little heholden to the Prelate's Church-Tradition, ib.  
His bold belying the Scripture, as if that gave Authority to his usurped Church-Tradition, ib.  
The Prelate catcht in his own Dilemma, or Net, ibid.  
A Solecism of the Prelate, ibid.  
100 The Prelate maliciously yokes the precise party (as he calls it) with the Jesuit, only making that 10 times worse, 183, 184.  
The precise party, with the Prelates factious silence Ministers, vindicated from his wicked and false reproaches, 184, 185, 186.  
The Prelates 3 marks of his imagined Author of Ipswich News, 186.  
The Prelates hypocritical words, and desperate deeds for Preaching, how they agree, and his cursed hypocrisy cried shame of by his infamous practices, 187.  
The Prelate knows not what true Preaching means, 188.  
Difference between true Sermons, and the Preachers, for infallibility, ibid.  
The Prelates Diabolical malice against the true Preachers of God's word, 189.  
The Replyer at length forced by the Prelate to answre his compari-tween the Ancient Fathers, and the best modern Reformed Dison be vines, for Preaching, 190, 191.  
Other Cavils of the Prelate answered, 192, 193.  
104. The Prelate perverteth the Fathers, to uphold Tradition still, which they were against, to the Prelate's sense, 194, 195, 196.  
Prelate's Popish pretence of Scriptures deepness, to draw men from them, to seek to the Oracles of the present Church Tradition, 196, to 199.  
With the mischiefs that may follow upon it, ibid.  
The Prelates Popish zeal noted by occasion, in his forcing all Bibles to be bound with Apochryphas, 196, 197.  
How the Prelate overthrows a true Principle and Maxim, by a false, 198.  
Grace makes Supernatural truth more evident, than Nature doth the Natural, 199.  
106. Another excellent discourse of Saving Faith, occasioned by the Prelate, bewraying his profound ignorance herein, 200, 201, 202.  
The Prelates bold belying and blaspheming Gods secret Counsels, 202.  
The Prelates broad blind Popish way, 203. Fully confuted, 203, 204.  
109. Prelate again blasphemeth in belying Gods Counsels, 205.  
1●6. The Prelate hangs the Credit of Scripture upon man's opinions of God's sufficiency, ibid.  
Man's opinion of God's sufficiency how vain, blind, and impotent, 206.  
The Prelate himself proved to have a blind opinion of God, and of his Sufficiency, and consequently he is an Infidel, not believing the Scripture to be God's word, 207, 108. as which (saith he) depends on man's opinion of God's sufficiency.  
111. The Prelate still detracts from Scripture all along. 208.  
113. By the Prelate's Doctrine, the Faith of all the Apostles, Martyrs, ancient Fathers, and Doctors, which know no such Tradition of the present Church as a necessary prime inducement to lead them to the belief of Scripture to be God's word, is Heretical and Schismatical, 206, 210. Ergo the Prelatical Church Schismatical and Heretical.  
115. Most notorious blasphemy of the Prelate against the Holy Ghost, making him the Author of falsehood: as is showed, 211, 212, 213, 214.  
Sundry probable Reasons laid down by the Replyer, why the Prelate should, as he doth, choose the light of nature, as the Second to his Church Tradition, to introduce belief of Scripture to be God's word, and of God to be God, 212, 213.  
No reverend persuasion of Scripture had, till first the Tradition of of the present most Reverend Father commend it as Laudable, 212.  
How the Prelate dallies with Romish Idolatry, 211.  
How the Prelate hangs man's belief of God, as of Scripture, upon his Church Tradition, 212.  
116▪ The Prelates good inclination to man's freewill in believing. The Prelates notorious and gross hypocrisy pretending respect to the Scripture to be the motive of his tedious, vain groundless and gracec●ss● discourse in disgracing and vilifying of it altogether, and that as grossly, as ever any jesuit did, 215, 216.  
The Prelate's most wick●d perverting and abusing of Scripture, 216  
Who are his Christianly disposed men, whom in his Discourse he endeavoureth to satisfy, ibid.  
118. A nimble shift and put off of the Prelates, 217.  
The absurbity of his Comparison of his Church-Tradition to the morning Light detected, and showed to halt downright of all four, 217, 218.  
The Prelate still unreasonably inculcates his Church-Tradition, 218, 219.  
He is brought into a Circle, 219.  
121. The Prelate's Whimsy, sucked in from the Popish School, That Divinity hath a Science about it: confuted, 219, 220.  
What true Divinity properly is, ibid.  
122. The Prelate selfe-condemned, while his leaning too much upon Tradition, may misled Christians, 221,  
The Prelate still prosecutes his Tradition, ibid.  
His misapplying of his Schoole-distintion, 222, 223, 224.  
Shoole-distinctions must be well examined by Scripture, 224.  
125. The Prelate calls the Protestants Separation from Popery a miserable rent, which he lamenteth with a bleeding heart, 225, 226.  
His vanity discovered, ibid.  
A most shameful, or rather shameless lie of the Prelate detected, 226.  
His blasphemous lie that he hath given the Scripture more then enough, 227.  
The Prelate confesseth he goeth the same way with the Jesuit for Church-Tradition, ibid.  
A subtle and sly insinuation of the Prelate detected of vanity, ibid.  
The only difference between the Prelate and Jesuit about Tradition noted, 228.  
128. The Prelate vaunting the Roman Church to be a true Church with his reasons confuted, 229, 2●0, 231, 232, 233, 234. Rome holds neither Word nor Sacraments: Ergo no true Church.  
131, 132. The Prelates privy nipping, and pretty quipping of Luther, and in him all the Reformed Protestant Churches, as separating from Rome not only as it was then false, but as once formerly true, 236.  
And so he shuts them out as Separatists from the true Catholic Church as ●e accounts ●t, ibid.▪  
133. How tenderly the Prelate toucheth Rome for her Superstition and error, and not once in all his Book charging her with Idolatry▪ 23●.  
Who be the Prelate's best men, who (he saith) most bemoan his miserable rent, ibid.  
Reconciliation of true Protestants with Rome impossible, ibid.  
The vanity of the Prelate's Apology for the Protestants about the Rent, 238.  
The Synagogue of Rome and her Corruptions are grown into one entire body, ibid.  
135. The Prelate no observer of his own Law, in interpreting of words, ibid.  
The Prelates vain condition to the Jesuit about Reconciliation with Rome, 238, 239.  
Why the Prelate so names The Great Sacrament of the Eucharist, 239.  
136. True Protestants protest against such damnable Corruptions of Rome, as the Prelate accounts essential parts of his Catholic Church, ibid.  
138. Why the Replyer hath so sharpened his style against the Prelate, 241  
The Example of Irenaeus arguing with Victor, declared and retorted upon the Prelate concerning Ceremonies, 241, 242, 243.  
140. The Prelate believes, that though his whole Militant Church cease to be holy, yet she is a Church of Christ still, 245, confuted to 251.  
The Prelates Militant Church, why so called. It is the Malignant and Antichristian Church, 251, 252.  
The Prelate implies, his Militant Church may fall from the Foundation, and cease to be holy, and become Heretical, and an Assembly of Heretics, ibid.  
The true difference between the Prelates false Militant Church, and of the only True, ibid.  
Christ's true Militant Church cannot fall from the Foundation.  
A notable instance and demonstration, showing that deniers of the Christian Sabbath day to be commanded in the 4th Commandment, is an overthrowing of a fundamental point of Faith, and consequently of the whole Faith, 248, 249.  
A clear Declaration of the Sabbath day commanded in the 4th Commandment, and applied to us Christians, 248, 249, 250.  
How far in this and other points of faith the Prelate's Church of England is fallen, is put to the Prelate's consideration, 250.  
141, 142. Rome's errors being died in grain, cannot (by the Prelate's confession) consist with holiness, 251, 252.  
142. A peremptory Speech of the Prelate, 252.  
The Prelate plainly enough blameth the Protestants, both for making and continuing the Separation, and that most peremptorily, ibid.  
How Jesuits are by the Laws of England to be disputed with, and where, 253.  
The Prelate's honesty wherein it consisteth, 254. namely in excluding the Scripture as judge an disputation, ibid.  
148. The Prelates Faint confession, that Rome's errors do only endanger Salvation, 254.  
The Prelates tender Heart, loath to make the rent wider, ibid.  
Not so tender to Christ's Lambs, as to the Romish wolf, 255.  
How by the Jesuits Confession alleged by the Prelate, the Protestants can abandantly justify their Separation from Rome, ibid.  
The Ten Tribes under Jeroboam how no true Church against the Prelate, 255, compared with Rome, 256.  
153, 154. The Prelates notorious hypocrisy detected, in his calling Pelagianism that great bewitching Heresy. As also in naming s●me Counsels, as setting the Church right therein. Retorted upon the Prelate. 259, 260, 261.  
1●5. The Prelate confuted by those examples himself allegeth, about his Princes and Clergies power and direction for Reformation of Religion, 261, 262.  
Of England's halfe-Reformation now made a whole Deformation, 262.  
To whom Reformation of Religion belongs, and how, ib.  
The Replyer justifies his answering the Prelate by his own confession, 262.  
157. The Prelate still persists in his obstinacy, not allowing the Scripture for judge in doubtful Cases, 263.  
171. The Prelate glories in the Title of Patriarchate of the other world, which the Pope gave to his Prdecessor Anselm, 263, 264.  
An honest Cobbler to be preferred before all the Prelates Pontifical and pompous Titles, 264.  
175. Authority of Prelates over the Clergy no Calling from God, 264, to 268.  
Of what known use and benefit they be for unity and peace. Hieromes words omitted by the Prelate: That Prelates were brought in by humane presumption, and not by Divine Institution, 264.  
Scripture hath no Diocesan Bishops, 267, 268. 2. but they are usurpers and Tyrants.  
177. Domination Prelatical, with Subjection thereto, confessed by the Prelate to be grounded on Canon, and Positive Law, 267.  
How the Prelates are fallen between two Stools, 268.  
2. They call themselves Princes, 269.  
2. What kind of Princes they be, 270.  
And who be the true Princes, 269▪ 2.  
183. The Prelate's necessity of one Ordine Primus, and confession that the Pope's Principality was the very fountain of Papal Greatness: do prove, that of necessity the Prelatical Catholic Church is the very Head and Body of Antichrist, confederate against Christ, and his true Church, 268, 269, 270, 271.  
182. How, and whereupon the Prelate would reduce all to Rome, 272, 273.  
Where his subtlety anent the Pope's Supremacy and Infallibility i● detected. He is selfe-condemened, 274.  
199. How by the Prelate's confession, the Pope (and so other Prelates) cannot prosper, because they have no Authority from God, 274.  
Proud Prelates are none of Christ's privy Council, 276, 277.  
200. The Prelate's blasphemy against Christ, making him the Author of the Antichristian Hierarchy: detected, and confuted, 275, to 289. Prelate's Ecclesiastical Government not Aristocratical, but Tyrannical, 275, 276. How Prelates differ from true Bishops in Scripture, 278, to 281. For Prelates to be Vice-Roys, how impious and absurd, 28, to 286. How unlike they are to Christ, 282. Their Kingdom merely Temporal, 283. Their Government oligarchical, ibid. Christ's Congregations have no need of Prelates to visit them, having their own lawful Pastor to feed them, 285. The Govenment of Christ's Church is most perfect of all other, as consisting of the 3 States of good Polity, or Government, to wit the monarchial, the Aristocratical, and the democratical, 286. Prelate's Lordly Tyranny expressly condemned by Christ, as Heathenish, 287, to 290.  
204. The Prelatical Church in England no less Triumphant, than the Prelate taxeth Rome to be, 290, 291.  
205. By the Prelates own allegation, nor Kings, nor Priests may do any thing in Reformation of Religion, besides God's prescript Law, 291, 292. And so by his Confession implicitly, where the foundation of Faith and Good Manners are shaken, therein Magistrates are not to be obeyed in which respect the Prelate is shrewdly put to it in sundry instances, 293, to 297.  
210. The Prelate again blasphemeth God's Name, as if a favourer of the Prelatical practices in England, 297.  
A blasphemous Article of Faith of the Prelates pinning upon the Church of England, ibid. Prelatical Canons, yea and Papal too, yoked and equalled by the Prelate with Scriptures in Governing the Church.  
We must not join in Prayer with notorious profane Hypocrites, and Enemies of Christ, and of his Truth, 298. A special Prayer for the King in these perilous times, ibid.  
King and State abused, and endangered by the Prelate's practices, and putting forth of this his Book, ibid.  
The Prelate proves all his Speculations with his bare word, 199.  
What a Polititiant he Ch. of Eng. is grown under such a Primate.  
Prelates no visible Judges of God's Institution, proved at large against the Prelate's Blasphemy, 399, 300, 301. Prelate's Canons such Law-books, as wherewith Christ's Law-book cannot consist, but is made of none effect. They are Antichristian bondage, ibid.  
No more necessity of one Primate over all England, then of one pope over All, 302.  
A Special duty of Christian Magistrates, ibid.  
212. How uniny and certainty of Faith is preserved by the Prelates, 303.  
194. The Prelate makes the Scripture a blind, dumb, and dead Judge, 303, 304.  
Of General Counsels sundry notable Passages scattered along his Book, and collected by the Replyer, and detected to be some of them ridiculous, and all of them most impious and detestable: from 304, to 324. How by the Prelate's Doctrine, both himself and his Church of England are bound to worship Images and to forbear the Cup in the Sacrament, as being decreed by General Counsels, and not yet reversed by any other equal to those, 312, 313. The Apostles Assembly (Act. 15.) no Precedent for General Counsels in after Ages to be Judges in Controversies of Faith, 314, 315. and therefore that example not prudently, but surreptitiously taken up by the Prelatical Church. The Prelate confesseth, that General Counsels have no Authority by Christ's Institution, 312, 313. How unlike Prelatical Counsels are to that Act. 15. whereof not only the Apostles, but the Presbyters, and the Brethren, the People of God, were the Body, 313, 314. How the Prelate holds the Difinitions of General Counsels to be infallible, and that there is no more question to be made of the assistance of the Holy Ghost in them, then that the Holy Ghosts assistance is without error, 325, 326. The Prelate boldly professeth, that he absolutely maketh a General Council Judge of Controversies, 327. Wherein he is abolutely fallen from the Catholic Faith. His sundry assertions, some ridiculous, some contradictorious, some blasphemous, some dark riddles, which he propounds, and leaves unresolved, and can never Resolve, 321, 322. He is catcht fast in his own Net. And the more he struggleth to unwind himself out, the more he is entangled.  
213. Though the Council of Trent were not General, yet it is so General, as the Decrees thereof do bind all Papists under Anathema, 328.  
227. Another Reason of the Prelates, why a General Council erring, yet should stand in force; namely for the peace of Christendom: confuted. He is content to forgo the Truth, for Peace sake, 328.  
The Prelate's Heresy, in holding it a branch of Heresy to say, The Church Militant is without spot or wrinkle, according to Ephes. 5. confuted, 329, 330.  
The Prelate overthrows an Article of the Faith, 331.  
The Prelate's Key of Doctrine primely in the Church, wherewith he shuts out Truth, and lets in Error, 329.  
He makes it but a supposition for the Key of Doctrine to let in Truth, ibid.  
The Prelates subtle, but futile and vain Distinction of Transubstantiation, confuted, 332. He makes Christ's Institution not to be clear against Transubstantiation, as against Communion in one Kind. Confuted fully, 333, 334.  
Romish Adoration of Images minced by the Prelate, set forth by the Replyer in its full proportion, and showed to be more gross Idolatry, then that of the Heathen, 334, 335, 336.  
280. The Prelates notorious hypocrisy in confessing Images in Churches, and other Romish Superstitions to have given great Scandal to many, so as to drive them quite away from them; detected and selfe-condemned by his practices, 337, 338.  
Will-worship in Altar-Service and the like, a Service of the Devil, 340, 341.  
The Prelates hot zeal in pressing more of Rome's Ceremonies, makes the old justly suspected, as smelling rank, 341. illustrated by a similitude, ibid.  
The Prelate's Ceremonies condemned by the Same Testimony, which he allegeth, 343, 344. the By being put for the Main See before.  
280. The Prelate stands stiffly in this That a silly ignorant Papist living and dying in the Romish Faith, may thereby (conforming himself to his Romish Religious life) be saved: with his Reasons, his so learning of Christ, and his Charity not mistaken: confuted, 345, to 350.  
That which the Prelate calls Churlishness in the Protestants is better than the Prelate's Charity, ibid.  
294, 295. The Prelates quoting of 3. Martyrs, for the Name of Real Presence, which he would fain have to be brought in use, answered, 350, 351, 352, 353.  
Reason's why we ought not to name the Real Presence in the Sacrament, 351.  
297. The Prelate dallies with Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Forbearance of the Cup, in saying, they are Disputed, or Disputable, and Improbable Questions, 353, 354.  
Rome's Tyranny confessed by the Prelate, the Image whereof is proved to be in the Prelacy of England, 356, 357.  
How he daubs with the Jesuits about their Salvation, 357, 358.  
299. The Prelate contradicts himself, and so overthrows his Faith and Charity, concerning a silly Papists Salvation, in Saying, That as a Romanist he cannot be saved, 357, 358. The Prelates vain ridiculous and absurd hope of the Salvation of some Papists living in the Church of Rome 358, to 363. The Prelate's confession of the Romanists Faith crosseth his hope of their Salvation, 372. The Prelate still hath a Reservation for the Salvation of his silly ignorant Papists.  
302. The Prelate's worth misled, the greatest misleader, 363.  
The Prelate's Rule, 'Tis safest to believe the Article of Christ's Descent into hell, as both the Churches of England and of Rome, do agree upon 363, 364. He contradicts himself, ibid.  
307. Jesuits Commendation of the English Liturgy, whether it be a good sign, 364.  
318. How the Prelate rewards the late Dr. White for his Deserts, and what they were, 364, 365.  
The true Church of Christ proved against the Prelate not to be always visible, and conspicuous; by many Instances. Though the Prelatical be always conspicuous, 366, 367, 368.  
Most pitiful and perplexed contradictions, and confused and false Speeches of the Church of Rome, by the Prelate, 369.  
Rome a Tree wholly corrupt, without so much as the Bark of a true Church, 370.  
321. Dr. Whites Errors Fundamental reductiuè, confuted, 371, 372.  
325. Wherein the Prelate's Church of England is departed from the Foundation, 373.  
The Prelate's Latitude of faith in reference to different men's Salvation, which he can no more fit to them, than a coat for the Mo●ne, 373, 374.  
True Preachers must teach all, what and how to believe though it be no work for the Prelate's pen, 373.  
327. The Prelate confesseth that Romanists dare not believe, but as the Church of Rome believes, which (saith he) believes not aright. How then can his Ignorants be saved? 374, 375.  
332. Apocrypha by the Prelate how neatly brought in as a co-witness with the Scripture to prove points of Faith, 375.  
336. The Prelate's Resolution to live and die in the Faith of the Primitive Church, confuted by sund●y Instances, 375, 376.  
338. The Prelate holds not the Saving Faith, as not acknowledging other, than Rome's Faith, 377, 378, 379.  
And the Saving Faith is not in the Church of Rome, 377  
The Prelate holds a false Hope and Charity, together with a false Faith with Rome, wherein he will live and die an English Romish-Catholicke, 379, 380.  
339. The Prelates ha●ting, and halfing with the Jesuit, 380.  
In charging Rome he checketh himself.  
340. His halting again, 381.  
Yet he confesseth, that the now Roman Faith is not the Catholic, which Roman Faith he will live and die in, 380.  
What Contradiction is, ib.  
His contradiction noted, 382.  
His halting downright all along, 382, 383.  
342. How the Prelates Saving Faith of Rome is by himself proved to be Infidelity, 384.  
So as (compared with the former) he will live and die in the Roman Infidelity. Confer 375, 376, 377.  
His Collusion, 382.  
349, Who the first Founder of Purgatory, 386.  
365. The Prelates false root of the true Church's existence; and true root of the false, 387, 388.  
370. The Church of Rome how yielded by the Replyer to be visible, yet not Apostolic; against the Prelate, 387, 388.  
371. Of Peter's being at Rome, 388.  
The Church of Rome for what preserved of God, 389.  
375 How the Prelate gives more liberty to his Protestants to go to the Romish Church to hear Mass, which he calls the Service of God, than the Jesuit doth to his Roman Catholics to go to the English Service, 390, 391, 392.  
376. The Prelate's Assertion, That the Church of Rome, and the Protestant Church (of England) do not set up a different Religion, 392. (And so no great difference of going to either) yet, that both accuse each other of gross corruptions, endangering Salvation, 393.  
Ibid. Who are the Prelates Indifferent Readers, to whom it appears by his Discourse (as himself saith) That the Religion professed in the Church of England comes nearest to the Primitive Church. And what Readers will judge the contrary, 394.  
377. Not only Superstition (as the Prelate stints it) but gross Idolatry in Adoration of Images, in Invocation of Saints, in Adoration of the Sacrament, 395.  
378. By the Prelate's confession to the Priest, A. C. there should be but little pride in his heart, 396.  
379. The Prelates wan hope of mercy to the dead Lady, 396, 397.  
388. The Prelates Close, or Conclusion: wherein he excuseth himself by reason of his other weighty affairs: and of his Age: His misnaming of the Penman of the 90 Psalm (lest he should through all his Book, but touch or name any one Scripture, and withal not mistake, misapply, or pervert it) His fearful and desperate condition laid home unto him by the Replyer. His mocking and abusing God's Name and Mercy in his hypocritical Prayer, and impenitent heart. His blaphemy in Fathering all his Book (written and published for the meeting of his Popish Truth and Peace in a Reconciliation with Rome) upon God's Free Grace. His wicked and false hope, that God will bring to pass that his Diabolical Design and Desire; which cannot come to pass, but with the utter confusion of the whole Land. His hypocritical and faithless giving Glory to God, after all his black mouthed blasphemies and disgraces throughout his Book cast upon the Majesty of God, of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; also upon God's holy word, the Scripture: as if he would in the close of all with this one plaster heal so many broken heads, 397, to 405.   
This suffice for a rude Model. But what's that to the House itself? Enter therefore, and take a free and full view Consider what thou readest, and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.   

TO THE AUTHOR AND PUBLISHER OF THE RELATION.  
MY Lord, that you find not my Name in Front, the Reasons are to myself. And when you find it, 'twill appear, that fear of your displeasure (though terrible enough) was not the Cause. But whoever I be, you will Say perhaps I am some mad fellow, and too bold to make a Reply to your Relation. But your own words will (I hope) excuse me for that. For you Say: 
* Pag. 138.  A right sober m●n may without the least touch of insolency or madness dispute a business of Religion, with the Roman either Church or Prelate; so it be with modesty, and for the finding out or confirming of Truth, free from ●anity, and purposed opposition against even a Particular Church. So you: Now my manner in disputing with one so Great, though a single Prelate, and no Church, being with modesty, and 〈◊〉 from vanity, and purposed opposition against your Person; and the end, for finding out and confirming the Truth, which God himself knoweth: I h●pe (I Say) your Lordship willbe as good as your word, not to cast upon me an aspersion, or Censure of the least touch of Insolence or madness. But this indeed I must confess unto you, and profess before all the world, that in a Cause so weighty as this, wherein I find my Lord jesus Christ so deeply engaged, so much dishonoured, and his only true Faith and Religion so much depressed and disparaged, and that by so great a Prelate: I must crave pardon, if herein I be both zealous, and plain with you. And that so much the more, that one so Great (I say) so high in favour in Court, and so potent and prevalent in the State, should so do. And to this purpose, I remember another Speech in your Book: 
‡ Pag. 302.  Worth is no necessary concluder for Truth; For worth once misled, is of all other the greatest misleader. And such is your worth, in the esteem of Great ones too, that misled, it is the greatest misleader. But there you add: And yet God forbid, that to worth weak men should not ye●ld in difficult and perplexed Questions. Certainly, my Lord, what ever my weakness be, it will hardly yield to your worth (though never so great) where I find your worth misled, and so to become the Great Misleader, and that of no less than the whole Church of England. You know it is every good Subjects part to be zealous of the King's honour, when he seeth it wounded or wronged. And shall not every good and faithful Christian be zealous for the honour of his Lord jesus Christ, and of his Kingdom, when he seeth them either openly opposed, or secretly undermined by Any; though never so Great, and honourable in the world? And this I shall make manifest, and (I hope) convince your Lordship of (if clear evidence of holy Scripture, and Reason will do it) that you have, as in your common practice, so in this your Last Book, not only bewrayed, but confirmed to the world (at least to all that have their 
* Eccle. 2.14▪  eyes in their head, as the Preacher saith) your amity with the Church of Rome, and enmity against jesus Christ, and his true Church, and so to the Salvation of men's souls. This, by God's Grace I shall make clear in my ensuing Reply. Wherein I shall observe no other method, but as I meet with such Passages all along (though perhaps not all as are worthy of Animadversion, to tell your Lordship plainly my mind of them. And although (as the Proverb is) Plain dealing is a jewel (that is, for the rarity of it) yet it is not so highly esteemed in Court, as others of a more glistering lustre. And whereas you may imagine and hope (as you have expressed yourself) that this your Book will make for your Reputation, as being interlaced with some ●arger Discourses, or Disputes against the Jesuit, which may be a goodly broad 
* Gen. 3.7.  Figge-leaves to cover the nakedness of the rest: yet many things in it are so palpably gross and directly opposite to the Truth, that when you have laid on never so much varnish and guilding, All will prove but as a 
‡ Mat. 23 27.  painted Sepulchre. The 
‡ Deut. 22 9  Law of God forbids the Jews to sow their field with divers kinds of seeds, lest the whole fruit be defiled. This was to teach them, and us, not to mingle Truth with Error, nor to 
§ 1 Ki. 18, 22.  halt between GOD and Baal, for so, all their Religion comes to be defiled. But your field here is sown, with many Tares, mingled with some grains of Wheat, which 
† Mat. 13. 27·28.  o●●ekthròs Anthopos, the enemy having sown, and being grown up to such a rankness, and ripeness, marvel not, that I have brought so 
* Rev. 14.18.19.  Sharp a Sickle to cut it down.  
The letter L. is to no●e your Lordship's words: p. the page: and P. the Replyers Answer. And in all I shall be somewhat brief, though perhaps tedious. And I suppose your Lordship so formidable by That Late Censure, and so secure by the Sure and Close cooping up of those 3 once troublesome men, expected not, that any should be left of that mettle, so hardy, as to take up, and maintain such a quarrel against the Great Metropolitan of all England. But my Lord, deceive not yourself: The Lord jesus Christ, rather than fail, will out of the very dust raise up witnesses, to stand up against Antichrist, or any of his Confederacy. And so in the first place I come to your Epistle Dedicatory to his Majesty.   

THE REPLY TO THE RELATORS EPISTLE DEDICATORY TO THE KING.  
L. p. 1. THIS Tract will need Patronage, as Great as may be had: and that's yours.  
P. Thus you begin your Epistle. But you might have added, on Earth. On Earth, no doubt, the greatest Patronage you can have, is the Kings But haply you neither thought, nor hoped of any higher Patron of this Tract, then on Earth. And therefore it will so much the more need some humane Patronage, and that as Great, as may be had; and all little enough, you will find in the end. But I hope, when once your Tract shallbe well trodden out and beaten, that you will find but few that will travel your way, or follow such a Leader, and much less hazard their own both honour and safety, by Patronising such a perilous Tract, as this will appear to be. And though you should find some to protect you from the Courts of Civil justice, yet never from Christ's dreadful Throne, where you shall certainly be judged, 
* Rom. 2.6.  according to your work. And let me tell you, in putting forth this your Book under the King's Patronage, you lay a greater burden upon his shoulders, than he is able to bear; and should he undertake it, it would break his back. For than he must Patronise all your blasphemous lies against GOD and his Word, and against all Truth; which when he comes once to know, instead of Patronising, he will Anathematise both you and your Book.  
L. p. 2. He that seeks it (Court Truth) with a Roman Bias, or any other, then for itself, will run counter, when he comes near it, and not find it, though he come within the Kenning of it.  
P. Sir you say true. And for proof hereof, it will appear, and that too palpably, that this Roman Bias hath too much wheeled you about from the Truth, which you pretend to seek, but neither come near it, nor within the Kenning of it. Or if within Kenning, so as you have been at any time by its clear light convinced of it, the greater is your sin, and the more desperate your case, not to confess it, but how much more to fight against it? And think not my L. that your plausible naming of Truth here, will so blind men's eyes, as to believe all is truth, that you have written in your Book. If you seek Truth, 'tis but as those 
* Gen. 19.11.  Sodomites sought for Lot's door, to violate his Angel-guests. For where you find the Truth sincerely preached and professed, do you not lay violent hands upon God's Angels, the Messengers of his Truth, and break into the houses of those righteous Lots, those Preachers of Righteousness, to cast them out? And then marvel not, if GOD smite you with blindness, that you shall never find the Truth, for the end you seek it, namely to destroy it.  
L. p. 6. He did but skip up and down, and labour to pick a hole here and there, where he thought he might fasten; and where it was too hard for him, let it alone.  
P. What the Jesuit did, let him answer for himself. But perhaps, you will say the like of me here. For I touch not every particular passage, as where for your reputation sake you speak some truth, thereby to gain credit to what is contrary, as you know 
* Math. 4.  who useth to do▪ and therefore 
‡ Mark 1.34.  Christ would not suffer the Devils to confess him at all: nor need I labour to pick holes here and there, when every where I find such wide gaps, wherein you lie so open, that you give me advantage to fasten at pleasure. And I have unmasked such dark holes, as yourself have made with such artifice, as through which men may easily pass thick and threefold to Rome. So as I fear you will rather complain of me, as for being too busy in reading some of your dark and mystical Riddles, which perhaps you would not have had all men to have known.  
L. p. 7. I fell into a most dangerous Fever, but it pleased GOD, beyond all hope, to restore me to health.  
P. This was (as you there tell us) upon your thoughts of giving A. C. an Answer. But how ever, surely your Fever was as well sent of GOD to admonish you to desist from such an Enterprise, as you had then in hand, which was, under pretence to Answer a Jesuit, to overthrow the truth, and to reconcile the Church of England with that of Rome: as your restoreing was, to oblige you to walk more worthy of that mercy for the future, and not to renew and prosecute this your Design. Or else it pleased GOD so to restore, and reserve you, to be not only a scourge to his People for their further trial and humiliation, for a time, until he had (as now he is in hand) 
* Isa. 10.12.  performed his whole work upon his Zion: but also to be a plague to that sinful Land, upon which, since that your restoring, you have been an Instrument to bring so many and grievous sins, as open profanation of the Sabbath, Altars, shedding of much innocent blood both of souls and bodies, and of terrible discontents, and divisions in the State, and the like: and so at length, that he might call you 
‡ jer. 20.3.  Magor Missabib, Fear- roundabout, making you a terror to yourself, when you shall come to feel the fire of his fiery indignation to kindle upon you.  
L. ibid. How of late I have been used by the Scandalous and Scurrilous Pens of some bitter men (
Notable Hypocrisy.  whom I heartily beseech God to forgive) the world knoweth; little leisure, and less encouragement given me, to Answer a jesuit, or set upon other Services, while I am under the Prophet's affliction, Psal. 50.19, 20.  
P. And what those Scandalous, and Scurrilous pens are, and who those some bitter men, the marks you have set upon them are sufficient to show, the Scars whereof they will carry to their graves, to be a witness against you in the great day of doom. And bitter men you may well call them, as whose lives you have filled with all manner of bitterness, and that in a high degree, as hell could invent. Of these THREE Remarkable bitter men, one was a Minister, of your own Coat, saving that his was not of the 
* Rev. 17.3.  Scarlet couloured-Dye. He preached against the Scarlet-sins of the Land, especially in the Church, which touched your Lordship not a little, and therefore Bitter. For this, he was extraordinarily summoned to the Court of High-Commission; from whence appealing to his Majesty he was notwithstanding proceeded against by suspension in the same Court: his house violently broken open, and searched, his person neither flying nor resisting) seized on, and carried away late in the night to prison, and made a close prisoner; his very Wife debarred from him: brought into the Star-chamber, and there Censured to be degraded, deprived of his living, of his Liberty, of his Ears on the Pillory, fined in five thousand Pounds to the King, and to endure perpetual Close imprisonment, in Lancaster-Castle, whence he was after 12. week's imprisonment there, in the base Common Goal, where his Wife might not come to him, nor any Physician in his necessity; closely conveyed to the Sea side, and thence by a Sea of six week's space in a stormy winter, and dangerous Seas, to be carried to Guersosey Castle, where ever since he hath endured Banishment in Close prison; where nor wife, nor children, nor any friend, nor acquaintance, are permitted to visit him; and where he is not allowed the use of pen, and ink, and paper, a little to deceive time withal in his solitary muse, the solace of a Scholars life. And what was the Cause of all this sharp and teerrible Censure? In sum this: He had put in his Answer to the Bill into Court, and that by special Order of the Court, where it was, upon his Oath to be a true Answer, admitted. But about a week after, the main body of his Answer, which contained his defence of what he had confessed upon Oath to be his (which was one only Book, entitled, For GOD and the King, containing the effect of his two Sermons, preached in his own Church, on November 5 th'. 1636. for which, he was first questioned by the High Commission; together with an Apology of an Appeal, all in one Book) which was by the two Lords Chief justices wholly expunged (containing about fourscore sheets of paper) as Impertinent and Scandalous, and all this, before the Interrogatories were brought to him in his Close Prison, to Answer▪ the Answer whereunto was to be reckoned as a part of his Answer in Court, such as now it was left. So as the Interrogatories coming at length to be tendered to him (for I have all circumstances by credible intelligence) he refused to make Answer to them, alleging, that his Answer, which he had put into the Court, being expunged as Impertinent and Scandalous, he saw not himself any further bound to Answer Interrogatories; for so doing, he should assent to the condemning of his Cause before the hearing, by assenting to the expunging of his true Answer, as Impertinent and Scandalous. Hereupon his Censure was drown up in black and white, and concluded on, before the Day of hearing came, in which he tendered to the Court a Copy of his Entire Answer, as it was f●rst put into the Court, desiring the Court it might be there publicly read, but it was refused; then he tendered a Copy of his Reasons (seven in number) of not Answering the Interrogatories, desiring they might publicly be read in Court; but that was also refused. And in all the King's Attorneys Pleading (which was his Special Task against BURTON) he could allege or object nothing at all, in his Book confessed, against him, but some Few Passages, wherein they said he was too bitter. To which he Answered, there was Cause for it; and that he had not exceeded the Latitude or Liberty of a Minister in reproving of Sin: and for any thing in his Book, he was there ready (as he told the Court) to make it good, if he might be heard. But his Doom was already set down in the black Book, before the Censure came, which (for all he could say) must not be reversed: So he was Censured (as before) as one holding Seditious and Schismatical opinions, though none was or could be proved against him. And the like censure had the other two with him, the one a Physician, the other a Lawyer. Now my Lord, do not you well enough know all this to be true, and better than I can tell you? I know you do: but I tell you, to rub over your memory, and awaken your sleepy Conscience, who were the main moving cause of all this, as All the world knows. And how far you we●e an Instigator of the Court, so to censure, and of the King to inflict; you very well know. Who? Your Lordship? far be it. For your Piety doth heartily beseech GOD to forgive them. Indeed in the conclusion of that your Pamphlet which you read then in the Court after the Censure was past, 
Notorious Hypocrisy of the Prelate.  you had these words, or the like, whom I leave to the Mercy of GOD, and the justice of the King. But if indeed you do heartily and unfeignedly beseech GOD to forgive them: why do you not (if indeed they have justly offended GOD, and the King, in transgressing any Law, divine or humane) both yourself from your heart forgive them, if they have done you any wrong, and testify it by a serious soliciting of the King, and that now after two whole years, and more Imprisonment, and Banishment, yea and Divorcement from their Wives, to release and acquit them? Or why do you not (if you be as you pretend, one of Christ's Ministers) at least inform the King, how contrary it is both to God's Law, and Man's Law, and the Law of Nature, to separate Man and Wife in this sort, without any just cause given on either part? But the King, in his Clemency had granted to their Wife's liberty and leave to go to their Husbands: And do not you know, my Lord, whose piety and charity, and equity, and policy it was to reverse and hinder it? Well my Lord, let me deal freely with you, and that from the mouth of the Great judge, 
* jam. 2.13.  There shall be judgement without Mercy, to him that showeth no Mercy. Yea, Suppose the Cause of that most terrible Censure had been just: yet should there be no place for Mercy, and that now after so long a time, and so sharp a Trial? What? Not one drop, nor crumb of Mercy? That's enough for hell. But you will say (as you have done) Mercy was showed in sparing their lives. How I pray you? They were never questioned for their lives, much less was any Sentence of death passed upon them; nor was there any Cause found, although perhaps narrowly searched for, but no precedent was found. Again, Suppose they had been in a legal way, and justly sentenced to die: yet so to spare life, as to make and leave it worse than any death can be, as being a continual and languishing death: Call you this a mercy? Take heed, lest herein that be verified of you, which the wiseman saith, 
* Pro. 12.10.  The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. Or shall the examples of Heathen cruelty be justified by theirs, who profess to be Christians? 
Prelate's Mercies exceed all Heathen Cruelty.  But what Heathen example can you parallel to this? Indeed I remember one, and but one, that comes somewhat near it. The Roman Verres, Praetor in Sicily, close imprisoned one Apollonius a rich Citizen there, so as neither his old Father, nor young Son might, for the space of one whole year and a half, come to see him; and this for no other cause, but that he was rich; a punishment (saith the Orator) to be redeemed with a man's very life; when life hath nothing left Praeter Calamitatem, but mere Calamity. Whereupon the Author saith (who was himself no mean Statesman) Haec cum accidunt, nemo est, quin intellegat ruere illam Rempub. Haec ubi veniunt, nemo est, qui ullam spem salutis reliquam esse arbitretur. I need not English it to your Lordship, Yet I will: When such things happen, there is none but understands that Commonwealth to be falling: when these things come to pass, there is none, that can imagine any hope of safety to be left. And what have you left to those THREE remarkable Men, Praeter Calamitatem? What, but a miserable life? As the Prophet saith of Ierusalem's Captivity in Babylon: 
* Lam. 4.6.  The punishment of the daughter of my people, is greater than the punishment of the Sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hand Stayed on her. And 
‡ vers. 7.  They that be slain, with the sword, are better than they, that be slain with hunger: for these pine away, stricken through for want of the fruits of the Field. So as a life, stripped of all the outward comforts of the world, yea and of the means of spiritual comfort, which one Friend should minister unto another, having nothing left Praeter Calamitatem, but Calamity, is it not a greater punishment, than death itself? How is it then a mercy, instead of death undeserved, to grant such a life. But you say, 'tis just. For they were Censured pro Confesso. Pro Confesso? Of what? Of all charged in the Bill. Why, they did Answer, and it was condemned before hearing. And, Si sat est accusasse, quis innocens erit? If it be enough to have accused, who shallbe innocent? And again, let the Court-Records be searched, if there be ever such a Precedent, that a man should be so censured, for not assenting to the condemnation of his Cause, before the hearing? Or that ever any Defendants whole and entire body of his Answer, containing his just Defence, yea and when he could not expect any Counsel to plead for him, that either would, or durst: should unaliturâ, at one dash be expunged, as Impertinent and Scandalous, and that after it was orderly admitted upon Oath into the Court? Or if this be found to be the Custom of such Courts, may not a man here apply the foresaid Speech of that Roman Orator: When such things happen, there is none, but understands that Commonwealth to be falling: when these things come to pass, there is none that can imagine any hope of Safety to be left? Were not these things Prognostications and Presages, if not rather immediate forerunners, and causes of some terribl● imminent and impendent Storms, that should shortly after fall upon the Land? 
* Is●. 26.11.  But, O Lord, when thy hand is lifted up, they will not see. But they shall see, and be ashamed, etc. But how ever you are so charitable, 
Prelate's notable hypocrisy.  as heartily to beseech GOD to forgive them. Now, suppose you did this from your heart, as some natural man may do: do you think it a sufficient discharge to your Conscience, or holy water enough to wash you clean from the guilt of the blood of these men, which you have so shed? Is not this a mere mocking of GOD and Men, to pretend piety in praying for those, whom you still most cruelly persecute with all the damnable malice and hatred which you could learn of none, but of the Schoolmaster of Hell? And doth not your notorious hypocrisy appear in this, that you still pretend piety in praying GOD, and that heartily, to forgive those, as Malefactors and Offenders, whom your own Conscience knows to be innocent, and of whose punishments (at least some of them) you cannot give so much as the least colour of reason, or just cause, other than such, as the very Heathen do hiss out of all Courts of justice, as the bane and ruin of Commonweals? So as while you heartily beseech GOD to forgive those that be innocent persons, you forget once to pray to GOD to forgive your self, who have been the main Instrument of committing such an example of Diabolical cruelty and iniquity, as is without all example either in the Christian or Heathen world.  
And yet running on furiously in this desperate course, you say 
† Pag. 388.  after in the very Conclusion of your Book, that you are now 65. years of age: and yet you tremble not to think it cannot be long, before you must appear before that strict Judge, from whose Tribunal and Sentence not your Greatest Patron in the world can rescue you. And if this be all your Charity, thus to pray for these men, whom you desist not to plague, they may say to you, as Christ did to those women, that 
* Luk. 23.28.  wept for him, Pray not for us, but pray for yourself, that GOD would pardon your sin, in not taking vengeance on you for the blood of his Servants, which you have shed. And consider how you have used Christ's Minister, with what horrible and detestable cruelty, and all for the faithful discharge of his duty, in reproving such enormities, and impieties, as yourself cannot be but guilty of; the very remembrance whereof were enough to shake all the veins of your heart, and to cause your Conscience to quake and tremble, had you but the least spark of common grace in you. Oh, the blood and members of a Man's body are precious: and do you think they were made, and Redeemed with such a price, as Christ's own blood, for any Man to satisfy the lust of his Diabolical and damnable malice upon, in taking them away gratis, and so easily? And especially the blood of Christ's Servant (which you have shed for no other cause, but for bearing witness unto the Truth) is it not 
* Psal. 72.14.  precious in God's sight? And When he 
‡ Psal. 9.12.  maketh inquisition for blood, will he not remember, and not forget the complaint of the poor? Without doubt my Lord, his Great King and Master will utterly shame and confound you for ever, unmasking all your hypocrisy, and leaving you naked before all the world, if you still desperately go on in this course. Nor is it your Fine-spun-cob-web-Lawne-veile, that can hide the grossness and foulness of your actions from the world's eyes. And though you could mock men, yet God you cannot; 
† Gal. 6.7.  but, Whatsoever ye sow, ye shall reap. Do you believe the Scripture? What saith it? A man that doth violence to the blood of any Person, shall flee to the pit, Let no man stay him. But I leave you to GOD, whom 
‡ Pro. 28.17.  because you have no changes, you do not fear: yet one day shall you feel.  
But you tell us, that you have little leisure, and less encouragement thereby, to answer a jesuit, or to set upon other Services. To answer a jesuit. Oh glorious word! A Sound Protestant sure, that Answers a jesuite· What may we not expect? This one word were enough to vindicate that reputation of yours, which you tell us anon of. But the mischief is, I have observed a 
§ A New found Art.  New-found-Art of Late-dayes, that which our Protestant Doctors of the Now Church of England, have practised, and grown great Proficients in: namely, under the name and colour of Answering a jesuit, or so to meet him at least the halfway between England and Rome, if he go not further. So did your Brother of Chichester in his Appeal to Caesar, his Answer to the Popish Gagger. How finely jumps he with the Jesuit, and comes close to his doors? A pretty veil, to bring that old Hag into request again, and to set up her Throne in the Church of England. And whether your Lordship do thus or no, in this your glorious Answer to the jesuit, we shall see at after. But why you should complain of little leisure, when you have so many Chapleins and Doctors at hand, and command, to set a work: and, of less encouragement, when for such services, you have gotten the Metropolitanship of all England: I cannot see.  
But before I pass further, I may not balk the close of your words, complaining, You are under the Prophet's affliction: Psal. 50.19, 20. And what is that? Between the mouth that speaks wickedness, and the tongue that sets forth Deceit. And whose affliction was this? The Prophets you say. What david's? Yes. How prove you that out of that Psalm? 'Tis true, David had many afflictions in this kind; which he in other Psalms much complains of: but he speaks not a word of his own proper afflictions in this kind in that Psalm, which you quote. Therefore to pass by both your forced expression of the words, and false application of the sense: Let us take the Prophets own word: But unto the wicked, GOD saith what haste thou to do to declare my Statutes, or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee? When thou sawest a thief, thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with Adulterers. Thou gavest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. Thou sittest, and speakest against thy Brother, and thou slanderest thine own Mothers Son. These things hast thou done, and I kept silence, and thou thoughtest, that I was altogether such a one as thyself: but I will reproove thee, and see them in order before thee. Now consider this, ye that forget GOD, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver. Thus far GOD speaketh in that Psalm. In all which you see plainly, that the Prophet complains not of his own suffering such things of wicked tongues. It is GOD that speaks here to wicked men. And if you had well and wisely looked ●our face in that Glass, you might far sooner have discerned yourself to be one of those to whom GOD speaketh, then to be as the Prophet so afflicted by them. And because you are so brief in perverting the Scriptures, to make them a veil for your iniquity, and a Vergula Censoria to argue and accuse Gods own innocent Servants, as if their mouth spoke wickedness, and their tongues set forth deceit: lend your patience a little, while we do truly interpret, and impartially appy the forecited words of this Psalm. Here GOD speaks to the wicked, and sets him forth by sundry marks and properties: as First, his notorious and audacious, shameless hypocrisy, in pretending to be for GOD, and for his true Religion: For he taketh upon him to declare God's Statutes, and takes his Covenant in his mouth, but for all this, he hateth instruction, and casteth God's word behind him. Secondly, his taking part with Thiefs and Adulterers. Thirdly, his giving his mouth to evil, and framing his tongue to deceit. Fourthly, his sitting and speaking against his Brother, and slandering his own Mother's Son. Fifthly, his carnal security, and vain and wicked thought concerning GOD, as if he favoured him, and his wicked practices, and all because GOD was silent and patient, in forbe●reing to reprove and punish him. Now to apply this. If you can find any, to whom these things may more fitly and truly be applied then your self, do you apply them home unto them. But till you do, give us leave to apply them so far to your Lordship as we have sufficient warrant, and good evidence for. First, do not you in this your Book in particular pretend at least to declare God's word, and speak of his Covenant, as if you would become a Champion to maintain the holy Scripture, against the Roman Adversaries thereof? This you profess, and willingly grant. But in the proof hereof, you set us up Man's Authority above the Scripture, as we shall see in the due place. And do you not withal hate instruction, and cast God's word behind you, when being by God's Minister (as of late) reproved and convinced of such things, as you neither could, nor can deny to be true, as being written in Capital Letters in your forehead, and on the palms of your hands: yet you not only hated and despised the reproof, and instruction, which was according to God's word, and the duty of a Minister, whose strict charge is among other things, to 
* Tit. 2.15.  reproove with all authority: but also have manifested this your hatred and contempt, in persecuting this poor Minister beyond all measure and example, yea and still continue persecuting him to this day, and that most Antichristianly; and not only him, but his Wife and Children, who have done you no offence at all, not suffering the one to go see her Husband, nor the other their Father. O my Lord, heaven rings of this your fury, and the earth groaneth under such more than Heathenish inhumanity, not sorting with the Law of common humane nature. O 
* Math. 23.38  How shall you escape the damnation of hell? And what plagues may not the Land expect, for being guilty of such innocent blood, and of such unheard of Barbarism, and that also maintained and continued in cold blood? Yea and doth not the spirit of the Beast in you breath out persecution, and blast many other of God's faithful Ministers, never leaving them, till you have rooted them out? And this you neither fear to practise, nor shame to profess. And then again, 
vers. 19  Do you not give your mouth to Evil, and frame your tongue to Deceit? You frame it as having a special art and 
* Ephes 4.14. Kubeia, Ka●ournia, methoda.  Method in it, as the Apostle spekas: which you express in the fourth mark especially. Sitting and speaking against your brother, and slandering your own Mother's Son; as will further yet appear, and doth by your continual and daily practices, and specially in or at your High Commission chair or Board, where (as else where) you have a power to do what you list without control or contradiction. And for carnal security, in an impious and Atheistical conceit of GOD, as if a favourer of wicked practices, because a patient forbearer to punish them presently: examine your own heart; nay may we not both read it in your courses, and understand it by your speeches, in sundry places of your Book, where you would seem to have a special interest in God's favour; as in his admirable restoring you (as you say) from your dangerous Fever, though you there forgot (as those nine Lepers that Christ cleansed) to return him thanks, so much as verbal. And for the further and fuller clearing of the verefying of all this in yourself, I shall call your Book to witness. In the mean time here, Hear God's doom against this wicked Man: But I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thee. 
* Eccles. 12.  He will bring every work to judgement, with every secret thing, whether good or evil. And as David elsewhere saith, 
§ Psal. 10.13.14, 15.  Wherefore doth the wicked contemn GOD? He hath said in his heart, Thou wilt not require it. Thou hast seen it O GOD, for thou beholdest mischief and spite to require it with thy hand: the poor committeth himself unto thee, Thou art the helper of the Fatherless. Break thou the arm of the wicked, and the evil man: Seek out his wickedness, till thou find none. But, 
‡ Rom. 6.10.  How long, Lord, Holy, and True? Surely, when he maketh inquisition for blood, he remembreth them: he forgetteth not the cry of the Humble. There is a day of God's visitation a coming, and it hasteneth, yea we may see it even at the doors. Therefore David's inference hereupon will sort well in this place. O consider this ye that forget GOD, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.  
Thus you may see what need you have to beware how you meddle with such edged tools, in misapplying the holy Word of God: for it is a sharp two edged sword, which not skilfully handled (as a Sword in a mad man's hand) but applied to a wrong use and object, will rebound back upon you, and wound you. God give you Grace to repent, if possible, if you be not come to that 
§ Rome▪ 2.5.  Sklur●tata kai ametanamton kardian (as the Apostle speaks; hardness, and impenitent heart, treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath. I am plain, you see, if there may be hope, and surely 'tis no time now to spare, when we hear God's Trumpet sounding the Alarm. You proceed:  
L. p. ibid. In the midst of these libellous outcries against me, some Divines of great note, and worth in the Church of England, came to me▪ one by one, and no one knowing of the others coming (as to me they protested) and persuaded with me to reprint this Conference in my own Name. This they thought would vindicate my Reputation, were it generally known to be mine.  
P. What libellous outcries, my Lord? Of Scandalous and Scurrilous pens? If Scurrilous, I approve not: If Scandalous, is not that in your sense only, because against you? But the Authors names were to the Books, which they avowed to be theirs. How then libellous? And Master BURTON in special offered to the full Court at his Censure, to prove all his Book to be true. And how then Scandalous? And if just reproof of Iniquity and Enormities, and that by a Minister of GOD in his own Charge, be Censured for Scandalous: then how shall the writings of the Apostles, and Prophets, and the words of Christ's own mouth, escape this Censure of being Scandalous? For Master BURTON was a Minister of CHRIST, which under the Gospel is called a 
* 1. Cor. 14.4.  Prophet, whose Office is to convince and reproove sin. But he named your Lordship, and some other of your Brethren in his Book. True. And what of that? Do you make this to be Scandalum Magnatum? Then what say you to the Prophet Elias, telling King Ahab to his face, 
(a) 1 Kings 18.18.  Thou art he, that troubleth Israel? And in his 
(b) 2 Chron. 21.12, etc.  writing to King jehoram, he told him his own, which he shortly after found too true. So the Prophet Elisha, when he spoke to the Elders of Israel, and called this Iehoram (ahab's Son) a 
(c) 2 Kings 6.32.  Murderers Son, was at least Scandalous. The Prophet jeremy is sent to the King and Queen, to admonish them to repent, and to humble themselves. 'Tis true indeed the 
(d) jer. 38.4.  Nobles incensed the King against jeremy, as a troubler of the Land. The Prophet Nathan told King David, 
(e) 2 Sam. 12.  Thou art the Man. The Prophet Isaiah named 
(f) Isa. 22.15.  that Treasurer Shebna. The Prophet Hosea said of the company of Priests (Chap. 6.9.) They make the King glad with their lies; as also vers. 5. All these Prophets of the LORD, it seems were Scandalous men. And was Christ's tongue Scandalous, when he spoke to some, saying, 
* Luk. 13.32.  Go and tell Herod that Fox? Or Paul's, in naming Demas and Alexander the Copper Smith, and Hymeneus and Philetus? And john for telling of 
‡ 3 joh 9, 10.  Diotrephes his ambitious pride, and prating against the Apostle, and playing other Prelatical pranks? Alas▪ Sir, you want either leisure, or the spirit of right judgement, to observe and discern the nature of such things. And what then will you say of the Prophet Isaiah, who thus thundereth against the State, and against jerusalem. 
† Isa. 1 21.22.23.  How is the faithful City become an Harlot? It was full of judgement▪ Righteousness lodged in it: but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross: thy wine mixed with water. Thy Princes are rebellious, and companions of thiefs: Every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the Fatherless, neither doth the cause of the Widow come unto them. And what of the Prophet Micah? Who saith 
* Mic. 3 8.  Truly I am full of power by th● spirit of the Lord, and of judgement, and of might, to declare unto jacob his transgressions, and to Israel his sin. Hear this I pray you, ye Heads of the house of jacob, and Princes of the house of Israel, that abhor judgement, and pervert all equity, that build up Zion with blood, and jerusalem with iniquity. The Heads thereof judge for reward, and the Priests thereof teach for hire, and the Prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us? None evil can come upon us. And again: 
‡ Mic. 7.2▪  The good man is perished out of the Earth, and there is none upright among men: They all lie in wait for blood, they hunt every man his brother with a net. That they may do evil with both hands earnestly: The Prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward, and the Great man he uttereth his mischievous desire: so they wrap it up. The best of them is as a briar: the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge: the day of thy watchmen, thy visitation cometh, now shallbe their perplexity. And what of the Prophet Zephanie? 
‡ Zeph. 3.1.  Woe to her, that is filthy and polluted, and to the oppressing City: She obeyed not the voice: she received not correction: she trusted not in the Lord: she drew not near to her God: Her Princes within her are roaring Lions: her judges are evening Wolves, they gnaw not the b●nes till the m●r●ow: Her Prophets are light and treacherous persons: her Priests have polluted the Sanctuary: they have done violence to the Law. And what again of the Prophet Isay? 
† Isay. 29. 2●.  For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the Scorner is consumed, and all that w●●ch for iniquity are cut off. That make a man an offender for a word: that lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought. Infinite are the Instances in this kind, both in the Prophets, and elsewhere, as in the New Testament. This is the very dialect, and usual language of the Prophets, when they reproove sin, and especially, scarlet and predominate sins of the Court, and of Great ones. They deal plainly, roughly, and home. So john Baptist. So Christ: 
* Mat. 3.7. & 23.33.  O Generation of vipers, how shall ye escape the vengeance to come, the damnation of hell? So Paul to Elymas the Sorcerer, 
‡ Act. 13.10▪  O full of all Subtlety, and all mischief, thou Child of the Devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And Paul here is said to be full of the Holy Ghost. And Elymas the Sorcerer was of great power with Sergius Paulus the Governor. Now my Lord, to recollect all, with some application: Suppose either your Lordship had lived in those times of the Prophets, and of Christ, and his Apostles, or they had lived in these our times, and had used the like language to you, and your Compeers, which they used to the wicked Priests, Prophets, and Princes of Israel: what would you have done? Would you not have been one of the foremost in 
(a) Act 7.57.  stoning some, in 
(b) Heb 11.37  sawing some, in 
(c) Rev. 20.4▪  beheading some, in 
(d) Math. 27▪ 20.35.  crucifying some, in 
(i) Heb. 11.  imprisoning some, in scourging some; and (if it had been, then in use, as it is not much unlike the Cross) in pilloring some, and cutting off of the Ears close to the stumps, with many other grievous things? And when ye had done all this, would ye not have loaden them with the infamous reproaches of Bitter Men, Scandalous tongues Libellous pens, and Seditious persons? But perhaps you will say, as the Pharisees did, 
* Math. 24.30, 31, 32, ●3.  If we had been in the days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the Prophets. But Christ tells them wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the Children of them, which killed the Prophets. Fill up then the measure of your Fathers. Ye Serpents, ye generation of Vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore behold I send unto you Prophets, and Wisemen, and Scribes, and some of them you shall kill and crucify, and some of them shall you scourge in your Synagogues, and persecute them from City to City. That upon you may come all the righteous blood, shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias, the Son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the Temple and the Altar. What, did these hypocritical Pharisees ●lay Zacharias, which was many hundred years before? So faith Christ here. Why, but they professed the contrary. True: and so will you. But did not those Pharisees crucify the Lord jesus Christ, the Prince of the Prophets, and afterwards persecuted and slew his Apostles, and that for no other cause, but for that truth which they preached? Thus hereby they proved themselves guilty of all the blood of the Prophets shed by their murderous Forefathers; So as if they had then lived, they that crucified Christ himself, would also have slain his Prophets, who spoke before of him. Now what fence hath your Lordship against this Sword of Christ, to ward off the like imputation of guilt of the bloodshed of the Saints and Servants of God? Have you not shed the blood of a Minister of Christ, and that for no other cause, then for beareing witness to the truth, in discharge of that Embassage committed unto him? And so consequently have you not brought upon your soul the guilt of the blood of JESUS, who under Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession, and so of all his Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs? But you will say, BURTON had no such special mission, and commission as the Prophets had. No? Could not you see, that he was extraordinarily raised up by GOD, and by him extraordinarily assisted, both in his Sermons, and in his Book, and in his free and undaunted Spirit in his appearance and Answer before so many 
‡ jer. 15.20▪ 21.  Terrible ones in that Court, and in that fiery trial on the Pillory, and other trials, wherein he carried himself from the First to the Last with that constant magnanimity, that he seemed rather a Triumphant, than a Patient? Can you ascribe this to any humane strength of a poor impotent Man, wrestling and warring against such a dreadful and direful host of Adversaries: and not to the sole and extraordinary support of the Spirit of Christ in him? So as, when being a Spectator of the Tragedy (as you had been the main Author) wherein you thought to glut your eyes with such a Spectacle, and to make yourself even drunken with his blood: were you not on the contrary amazed and confounded, to see a Man on the Pillory triumphing over your incomparable cruelty? Did not your Conscience then at least check you, and tell you, that you did then Pillory jesus Christ in his 
§ Act. 9.4.  Servant, as it were nailing him 
‡ Heb. 6.6.  afresh to the Cross, and putting him to an open shame? But you go on: Saying:  
Now in the midst of these Libellous outcries (what?) some Divines of great note and worth in the Church of England, etc. 'Tis no hard matter to Divine of what stamp, your Notable and worthy Divines in the Church of England be. But I pass them by, as unsaluted, it being obvious to all men, what kind of Divines do merit to be accounted of you of Note and Worth in the Church of England: who are, and must be either Arminian, or Popish, or both, Flatterers and Sycophants, Proud and Profane persons, by which they are most noted and known, and whose worth is valued according to the rate of the magnitude or multitude of their Fat Benefices, prebend's, Deaneries, Prelacies, or other dignities, and according to their great Scholarship showed in their seldom preaching in their own Cures, and their curious and acquaint Rhetorizing in the Court, where the plainest part of the Sermon is down-right-rayling against the Puritans, and the base and gross flattering of the Court. ●ut what of these your worthy divines? First they come to your Lordship. Well, that's but good manners, to express their officiousness, though but with a compliment. Secondly, not together, but one by one, not one knowing of another's coming. Every one thinking perhaps to prevent other in so notable a piece of Service, and so to promerit all the thanks. Well, thirdly, What's the matter of this casual, or rather miraculous confluence? To persuade with you to reprint this your Conference in your own name. But cui bono? To what purpose? For it would vindicate your Reputation, being generally known to be yours. Now lest your Lordship may run into a strong misconceit, as if this strange concurrence of persons and Spirits, not one knowing of another's coming, or occasion, were from some Constellation of the Stars, or rather from Divine Providence for your good: you know your Brother of Chichester protested in his Appeal, that he had never read Arminius: and yet how pat did he hit upon, and hold all the Arminian Points, as if he had been an old Disciple of Arminius his School? By what Spirit trow you was this? But to the point: All this was to vindicate your Reputation. With whom? With Jesuits? Certainly not with any good Christians. Yet this you labour too, with laying on colous enough. But this Art of writing against Jesuits is now grown so stale, and trivial, as in these days it begets new Suspicions of a Popish Spirit, especially when it once comes forth under the Authority, or Name of Canterbury. Yet haply your Divines are Astrologers, observing the Constellations of the times, and thereupon divining or conjecturing, what fearful events might come of it, and those perhaps prognosticating and ominating little good to your Lordship upon whom they saw a general bad and malignant Aspect to be cast: might strain their wits, and use their strongest reasons to persuade you to use the best means to prevent the worst, whereof they imagined this their motion to be the best. And therefore they might perhaps frame their Speech in such a like form, as this: My Lord, we observe abroad what discontents possess most men against your Grace, about these late Innovations in the Church (as they call them) and you know, the Truth of Religion (as they apprehend it) as also the Liberty of their Consciences, are with the Puritans of high estimation: and men will not easily part with them, especially those that be Zealous indeed; as accounting them their best freeholds; Such especially, as acknowledge no other King over their Souls and Consciences in matters of Faith and God's worship (as we have heard them say) but only CHRIST. And they have shroud Arguments herein for themselves: And you see what necessary occasions and exigents may constrain the King to call a Parliament, and how far that (being a means to fasten and confirm the Subjects affections to his Majesty now especially upon this Defection of Scotland) may draw the King to be willing to give his People contentment, in permitting them that purity in Religion in Faith and Discipline, which Christ and his Apostles (they say) have taught, and left them, without which (they say) they cannot be freed from the Yoke of Antichristian or humane Ordinance (for we use but their words) and how dangerous this may be to your Grace, whom they have marked out, as the main Active Agent, or Instrument in disturbing their peace, and distracting their minds, and trenching upon their said Liberty, as they account it: And considering how the whole Land generally groaneth under many heavy Grievances (as People now adays account Grievances) as their deep Sighs do interpret their minds: and of these your Honour is reputed one of the Prime Movers: And however your Lordship may haply conceive, that if ye be put to a pinch, your Book▪ your late Conference set forth against Fisher, will prove sufficient to ward off, and beat back all accusations annent Religion: yet my Lord, it is not put forth in your own Name, they may Question whether it be yours, or no, and say, that, being nameless, you may in time disclaim it, if ever you can bring your pious purpose for peace to pass: And besides, 'tis now a long time since it was Printed, and so is forgotten: Wherefore our humble advice (with all due Submission to your Lordship's pregnant wisdom) is, that your Grace would revise, correct and more fully express yourself in some things, in the said Book, and so republish it in Print under your own Name: This in our poor opinions, will mightily take with the vulgar, and easily vindicate, and set upright your Grace's Reputation. And because we are not ignorant of your multiplicious and weighty affairs in Court, not permitting your thoughts that vacancy, which such a work would require: let not that trouble your Lordship, our Service shall not be wanting. Thus, or so your Divines. Well, now that you hear your friend's Counsel, what's your Resolution.  
L· ibid. I confess I looked round about these men, and their motion; and at last my thoughts working much upon themselves, I began to persuade myself, that I had been too long diverted from this necessary work: And that perhaps these might be in voce hominum tuba Dei, in the still voice of men, the loud Trumpet of God.  
P. And perhaps my Lord (and that whereof it may be ye willbe the rather persuaded) the unanimous consent of these Divines, might be by the instigation of that same Spirit, in which those 
* 2 King. 22.  400. Prophets by their unanimous vote prevailed to persuade King Ahab, to go up to Ramoth Gilead, that so according to Gods own purpose he might there perish. But it might be, you say, God's loud Trumpet. What, to hasten you to Judgement? Certainly, that lying Spirit in those Prophets was sent from GOD, to prepare the way of executing vengeance on that Ahab the more speedily, as who had sold himself to work wickedness, in shedding Nabaths blood. And surely when I looked into the entrails of this your Book (as the Roman Soothsayers of old did into the bowels and entrails of their Sacrifices) and found them so exceedingly vicious and corrupt, and withal (like to Caesar's Sacrifice, wherein was found no heart, which the Astrologers took for a bad sign) no heart at all to the true Religion indeed: it suggested these conceits into my mind, about this very passage of yours. But time will try all things. And if you will have my poor opinion, I am persuaded, if you had never put pen to paper (it having been super-sufficient to have expressed your mind in your other handiworks, or Practices) and so had reserved your Apology (when requisite) to your persuasive Language, and powerful Rhetoric, men might have had less hold to take off you, when you might have put all your other Actions upon a higher moving Cause, as usually ye do. But for writing, you know Litera Scripta manet. Or else it had been better to have reprinted your First Copy, as it was at first, without Alteration, and in your Chaplains name still; for so you should both have vindicated it from obscurity, lying hid, and lurking in the belly of Dr. Whites Works, and also at pleasure have either owned, or disclaimed it, as you found occasion. Or might have excused any thing, that might be taken in it as offensive, either imputing it to your Chapleins mistake, or to want of leisure to revise it, or (which is the surest and most beaten way) to the Printer▪ as was lately done about that notorious Popish Book of Salis his Devotions. And hereof (if your Lordship knows it not) I will tell you a pretty Tale. This Book of Devotion of Salis, 
A pretty tale.  bearing the Title of Bishop of Geneva (although the Church of Geneva have no such Bishops) had been so long ago translated into English, and being purged from those gross points of Popery, which were in the Original Copy, was by Authority published in Print, and sold well. But of late days, since you came to sit in that Chair, one undertook to translate the Original anew, and entire, as it was at first set forth by the Author, without altering any thing, as the Translator professed in his Epistle Dedicatory to Mistress Anne Roper, a notorious Recusant. This Translation being brought to your chaplain to licence, it past for currant, as containing nothing in it against Faith and Manners, and so was licenced without the least correction of the grossest things in it. It came to the Printer, who falling a-work upon it, began to stumble at some no small Popish blocks, that lay in his way, insomuch as he was afraid to go on, but went and showed them to your chaplain▪ who making a tush at it, bade him go on, and he would bear him out in it. So Printed it was. And coming abroad, some began to find fault with it; and the stink of the Book more and more increasing with stirring, it came at length to be smelled by your Lordship. Hereupon what serious examination you used about it, I know not: but there being some Jealousy, that some one of those THREE forementioned troublesome bitter men (whose Cause was then shortly to be heard) might haply among other things (might they have been permitted to speak freely (cast that Book in your Lordship's dish: the next news we heard of it, was, that a Proclamation is published for the burning of the Book in Smithfield, wherein also all the blame was laid upon the poor Printer, for which he must to prison, and you and your chaplain were acquitted and cleared, as no way faulty. So easy is it with the least breath to blow away the blackest clouds, when they threaten a storm either against you, or your chaplain in such cases. But now in this your Book, so exactly Reprinted, and revised, and republished, wherein also you have ratified and avowed all in your former Book for yours, you have for ever fast bound your hands, that you cannot help yourself at a dead lift. Well, 'tis too late now either to prevent, or remedy what is past. Yet one thing there is, which you may perhaps deem to be operae pretium, worth your pains, as wherein lies your main Confidence of vindicating your Reputation with good men: and that is, some Large Discourses in your Book, wherein you seem to be point blank against the Papists; as about the Scripture Transubstantiation, etc. This indeed might say well to it, and pass for currant, were there not in some of them so much gross allay, as makes the whole to be 
* jer. 6.30.  reprobate Silver, as the Prophet saith; and also, did you not commit a gross Solecism in writing a seeming Truth, and practising apparently contrary; and did you not overbalance seeming Truths with too much Popish Truth throughout your Book, as will all along appear. And you know that if one 
‡ Eccles. 10. 1·  dead Fly will corrupt a whole box of ointment, how much more a Swarm? And a little poison corrected, and infused in a Potion, proves medicinal: but if uncorrected, and of two great a quantity it becomes mortal, and so instead of bealing, kills the Patient. But to proceed.  
L. p. 9 I have thus acquainted your Majesty with all occasions, which both formerly, and now again have led this Tract into the Light.  
P. And not without cause needs your Tract to be led into the light. I will not here apply that speech of Christ, 
Blind needs leading.  If the blind lead the blind, but leave it to the event.  
L. p. 11. GOD forbid, I should ever offer to persuade a Persecution in any kind, or practise it in the least.  
P. How? What do I hear? GOD forbid? What, neither persuade, nor practise Persecution, no not in the least? And must GOD be named in it too? What meaneth then (as 
* 1 Sam. 15.14.  SAMUEL said to SAUL) the bleeting of the Sheep, and the bellowing of the cattle in mine ears? Or you mistook the word, when instead of GOD forbid, you should have said, GOD forgive me both for persuading Persecution, and for practising it, and that in as high a measure as possibly I could, the times considered. And GOD forgive, should be from your Heart; whereas GOD forbid, is but from the lips outward, and spoken out of mere Hypocrisy, shameless grown with Impiety; Or else Persecution is with you, as sin is with many, so frequent and habitual, as the custom of Persecuting takes away, the sense of it. Or else as Paul, before his conversion, was 
* Act. 26.11.  mad with persecuting the Saints: So you are so intoxicated with drinking the blood of innocents', that you know not what either you say or do. Or, in a word, notwithstanding you have been so long a Practitioner in this kind of Trade, yet you know not what persecution is, nor what or who the Saints of GOD be, nor who are the true Ministers of Christ, nor who are his true members. 'Tis well, if Ignorance will excuse you: that you might come once to say with Paul, 
* 1 Tim. 1.13  But I was received to mercy, for I did it ignorantly through unbelife. But can you say so? Or rather do you not sin against the light of God's Word, against the light of your Conscience, against the light of natural Reason, and the Law of Humanity, and against God's Law, and against Man's Law, and (I had almost said) against the Holy Ghost itself? Unless you be one of those, that for blindness stumble at noon day. How many godly and able Ministers of Christ, together with their Wives and Children, are cast out, and undone by you, and all for not daring to obey you in those things, wherein of necessity they must have dishonoured GOD? Or for omitting one of your Ceremonies, perhaps but once, or twice, and the like? Yet this with you is no persecution, no not in any kind. What is it then? Only a punishing of the Puritans, that so they may be rooted out. This you blushed not to say openly in Star-chamber, when you with your Brethren were charged for casting out above a hundred Ministers in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Kent, Surrey, and where not? But you neither practised, nor persuaded to it. Why did you not dissuade? Why did you not interpose? Why did you not relieve them, when upon Petition to the King, they were referred to you? No such thing. They are a sort of Puritans: they must be rooted out, This is enough to wash your hands of persecution: as Pilate did of his condemning of Christ: for they are Puritans. So the Popish Prelates in Queen Mary's days, in burning the Martyrs, were no persecuters; for those Martyrs were Heretics. Nor will the High Priests and Pharisees prove persecuters, and murderers in Crucifying of Christ, for they could say, He was a seducer and deceiver. And so in sum, There willbe found no such thing in rerum naturâ, not in the whole world, as persecution is. Now what patience can refrain itself at these things? O notorious, impious, shameless, graceless Hypocrisy. Or Hypocrisy shall I call that, which hath not the least veil, or cloak, or vizard, or pretence, or colour, or shadow of a shadow to overshadow it withal, but mere shameless impiety daring God to his face, using his Sacred name as a white veil to lay over the black-butchery of Gods own dear Saints, saying God forbid, when his own wicked heart, and blood-guilty Conscience, and foul bloody practices, cannot but convince him of a more impious and shameless lie, than the Devil himself, (except he were incarnate) durst make? Not practise Persecution in any kind, no not in the least? What kind of persecution is there, o Prelate, whereof thou art not an Actor, and that in the highest Degree? Dost thou not persecute God's Ministers with Suspension, Silencing, Excommunication, Deprivatoin, Degradation, spoiling their dwelling place, Confiscation of their goods by intolerable Fines, Imprisonment, dismembering of their bodies, shedding of their blood, banishment, or driving them to seek for refuge from thy cruel Tyranny among the wild Beasts, and wild Woods, and wild Savages, in Countries not inhabited, in desolate Deserts, the worst of which is to be preferred before thy all-destroying Cruelty? Nay when they have escaped thy Lion's Claws with their Skin, dost thou not (
* Rev. 12.  as the Dragon) vomit after them a Flood of persecution with thy venomous tongue? So insatiable is thy bloodthirsty Cruelty: and yet after all this hast thou a Forehead to say, God forbid, that I should practise Persecution in any kind, no not in the least. Now I call heaven and earth to witness against thee; and that holy and righteous God, the Father and King of Saints, whom thou persecutest, and whose Sacred Name thou darest profane with tongue and pen, judge thee for all thy Cruelties, and Lawless persecutions of the poor Servants of jesus Christ. Lawless indeed, wherein thou outstrippest the persecutions of Stephen Gardiner and Edmond Bonner, who had a Law for what they did, but thou hast none. O what punishments in Hell shall be sufficient for these things! I must confess my zeal is here transported, but it is not beyond the Cause provoking it. I will conclude with this hearty Prayer, though in your words, but not with your Spirit. God forbid that you should ever, to wit, for ever, persuade Persecution in any kind or practise it in the Least. God forbid you should Ever do it: Ever? Amen. Ever. Nay what saith the Lord? 
* Psal. 12▪  For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, Now will I arise, saith the Lord, I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. Now: even Now from him that puffeth at the godly? Who is that? The Tongue-master, he that speaks with flattering lips, and a double heart, and proud things, saying, Who i● Lord ●ver us? Now, Now will the Lord arise against such as are in the highest and ruff of all their wickedness. And do not you think you are one of these, yea and a Prime one too? You think? Say I? Doth it ever enter into your thought, that you shallbe judged for these things, and that, Now, even Now? The Scripture tells us No. For David Saith, 
* Psal 92.6.7  A brutish man knoweth not, neither doth a fool understand this, (what this?) when the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish, it is, that they shallbe destroyed for ever. Even Then in the top of their flourishing estate they shallbe destroyed. Yea their flourishing estate is the immediate cause of their perishing: when the wicked spring and flourish: It is that they shallbe destroyed for ever. But wicked is a General word, and perhaps it hath no reference here to you in particular. Yes certainly, you in particular; the Holy Ghost doth in this Psalm point you out as it were with the finger. How? Note but the Title of the Psalm: A Psalm for the Sabbath day. But it may seem strange that David should hear speak of the wicked, and of their flourishing estate. What coherence hath this with the Sabbath day? Surely hereby the Spirit of Prophecy notes out unto us a special time or age of the Church, wherein ungodly men should most notoriously oppose themselves against the sanctification of the Sabbath day, and wherein they should extraordinarily flourish and prosper, even as the green and goodly bladed 
* Psal. 129.6.  Grass, that groweth on high upon the house tops: but in that their flourishing estate, they should suddenly perish. And of all other times and ages of the Church, ever was this Prophecy so extraordinarily and remarkably verified, for ungodly and desperate offenders in this kind, as in this present age, and especially in the Church of England, now since your springing up and flourishing upon the tops of Canterbury Palace? For show us any age, wherein the sanctification of the Sabbath, or Lords day was by public Edict dispensed with, and by sundry Printed Books cried down, and you shallbe excused from being of those men, whom the Holy Ghost notes out here for wicked and ungodly. But you cannot. Therefore this Psalm for the Sabbath day speaks of you in special, as being a professed enemy of the sanctification of the Sabbath, and so of all true holiness, and yet you do so flourish and prosper in this your wicked and impious opposition to all Godliness as never any have done more, nor so much in man's memory. But what's the issue of this? These wicked enemies of Godliness, and of the sanctification of the Sabbath in special shallbe destroyed for ever? But when? Even then, when they are in the top of their flourishing estate. But how shall we know this? First, GOD hath said it, and therefore 'tis sure enough: and Secondly, this their flourishing estate is an immediate both sign and cause of their utter ruin. But doth your Lordship believe that this shall ever be verified of you? Why should you not? For are not you the great Instrument and Agent in advancing the Edict for Sports to its full execution; And why should you not then believe the rest, that in the height of your present prosperity you shallbe destroyed for evermore? And why do you not believe it? For David saith, A brutish man knoweth not, neither doth a fool understand this: to wit, when he wicked spring as the Grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish, it is that they shallbe destroyed for ever. And do you not know, do you not understand this▪ Then you fill up the Prophecy to the full, as verified of you wholly.  
L. p. ibid. But on the other side, GOD forbid too, that your Majesty should let both Laws and Discipline sleep, for fear of the name of Persecution, and in the mean time, Let Master Fisher and his fellow's angle in all parts of your Dominions for your Subjects, etc.  
P. Here (I hope) you speak it seriously, GOD forbid. At least in part. For you name two things: Laws, and Discipline: Laws, against Jesuits, as Fisher and his fellows. And herein it may be questioned perhaps by some, whether you speak seriously GOD forbid, that such Laws should sleep. For you know they have slept so long a time, and so sound, 
Taking Gods Name in vain by the Prelate.  that I fear your God forbid will not prove loud enough to awaken them. And as for Discipline, that's for your Puritans. And for that you need not trouble the King to break his sleep, yourself I trow, can look well enough to the keeping of that awake. For in truth it can take no rest for you. And therefore neither in this respect need your God forbid to be serious, as being altogether superfluous. Only the best use, that you can make of it (as you know it better than I can tell you) is, is that your God forbid here may prove so happy (for the vindicating of your Reputation) as to persuade the misdeming world, that if the Laws against Jesuits do sleep, you are not the cause of it, who ever else: God forbid: and if Discipline be over wakeful and too quick, and exceed all bounds, as having no Law to confine it (alas!) you are not the Man, God forbid. For wake or sleep your [God forbid your Majesty should let them sleep] argueth plainly, that the keeping of the Discipline awake, is his part, whose it is not to let them sleep? 'Tis well, my Lord you have so strong a back to lay your burdens upon (as is touched before) especially when they press too hard upon you, as in the clamours and outcries against your outrages. But what? Do you come here with your God forbid your Majesty should suffer Discipline to sleep, when but a little before, and almost with the same breath, you said God forbid I should ever offer to persuade a Persecution in any kind? Do we not know what the awakening of Discipline is? Is it not like the awakening of a sleeping Lion? Doth not then the rigorous and incessant restless execution of Discipline (so as it can never be suffered once to sleep) trench upon Persecution at least as near, as you say at after, sundry errors of the Church of Rome come near the overthrowing of the Foundation, or as their worshipping of Images comes too near heathenish Idolatry? But in your Close, you apply your God forbid only against the Jesuits. That's well, that you press it not with your Discipline upon your Puritans, as you do the Laws against Rome's Fishermen. And I note here, that for Jesuits you have Laws: but for Puritans you have Discipline, without Laws: or as it stands in opposition to Laws. But what followeth? Alas! what do I find saluting me in the very front of your next page?  
L. p. 12. Now as I would humbly, beseech your Majesty to keep a serious watch upon these Fishermen, which pretend S. Peter, but fish not with his net: so I would not have you neglect an other sort of Anglers in a shallower water.  
P. Yet your words seem to import a greater zeal in you against the Jesuits, then against your Puritans. For touching those, you humbly beseech: but concerning these, you only would have. And yet what you only would have, is somewhat, and perhaps as prevailing (especially when you set it on in private) as your open humbly beseeching. Yea being Primate of all England, or Patriarcha Alterius Orbis, I know not whether you may speak it in the Pope's stile, 
* Platina in ●ita Bon. 3.  Volumus & jubemus, as much to say, I would have: and then by this reckoning it would surmount, I humbly beseech. But what's this other sort of Fishers, that you would not have his Majesty to neglect? Or what these Anglers in a shallower water? or what their bad nets? This hath relation to Discipline, as the former to Laws; and so though for your Reputation sake you modestly spare to name them, yet they are in plain English, your Puritans, and those, Puritan-Preachers especially, because Anglers. But where are there any such creatures, as Puritan-Preachers now adays? Do not all conform, and submit to your Discipline? And are not all Non-Conformists put to perpetual silence, as in the grave? O, but you say, there is a sort of Puritan Conformists which are worse than the Non-Conformists, whom you have often said, you would worm out. And to worm out, is as men tread out the worms out of the ground. Only we must not call this Persecution, to set your feet with all your weight, upon God's Ministers. God forbid. But who are they? Such as will not conform to your New Discipline and Ceremonies: Such as will not read in their congregation the Edict for Sports on the Lord's day: Such as will not observe the King's order for not preaching of Predestination, and other doctrines of Grace: Such as will not observe the order for bare Catechising out of the Book, by Simple Question and Answer, without any exposition: Such as will not forbear preaching in the Afternoon, and that often times beyond their hour, the people standing on thorns the while, to be at their Sports, considering that Afternoone-Sermons are forbidden, but not afternoon-Sports: Such as though for fear they submit to their Prelate's domination, yet you suspect them to be disaffected with your Church Government, as being an intolerable Tyranny. These are that Serious Sort of Fishers you mention. But what are those Shallower waters, which you say they Fish in? Perhaps you mean, they are a Sort of Shallow-braind fellows, poor Snakes, that angle in shallow waters, that is, have but a poor Vicarage, or Stipend, or preach to Shallow-simple people, (the Great-fish being in your deeper Seas taken with your Long-lined Angle, or Sweep-net) or in a Shallow water, and that of force, because you forbid them to Fish in the Deep waters of Election and Predestination, leaving them only the Shallows of moral Divinity to fish in, whereby they shall never be able to catch one good Fish, but only such small Gudgeons, as when the net is drawn to shore, or cast away. And the Shallower waters ye oppose to these Deep waters the jesuits' Fish in. For they Fish in all the deep Rivers, and Ponds in the Land, yea and most, in the Bishop's Seas, or Cathedrals, where they find and enclose whole Shoals of Fish; and they 
* Egkathetoi.  Fish in the Deeps of men's hearts, and leave not a Creek unfished, and those no simple ones neither, I will not say, Lords and Ladies in the Court, though themselves dare profess it So as they can 
‡ Episcari.  Fish out of them the discovery of all the Mysteries of State, whereby they maintain a rich Trade of such Commodities, by way of intelligence to Rome and Spain and other Foreign parts. Whereas your other sort of Anglers have indeed an Angle and Line, that will dive into the secrets of Man's heart, and that is the plain and powerful preaching of God's Word, which pierceth even to the dividing asunder of Soul and Spirit, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart: but haply, this is that which you call their bad nets, which they Fish withal. Indeed they Fish not with the Golden-nets of Heliogabalu●; they use not to bait their hooks with guided Flattery, nor with the glittering show of humane learning, in pouring forth Greek Sentences, which the Fish only gaze upon, but never by't, only (as 
* Nihil est facilius, quam imperitam multitudinem volubilitate verborum decipere, quae quicquid non intelligit, plus miratur. Nabis sine Cortice▪ H●r.  Jerome saith) most admiring, what they least understand; and which every novice newly cropped out of the shell of Grammar School, with the help of Books can con, and recite: which is not to Fish with Peter's net, not to preach sound Divinity to the edification and Salvation of God's people, but to Fish for a Whale, for some great Cathedral, or so. And therefore perhaps also you call the nets of these men, bad nets, as being either broken with age (preaching the good old Saving Truth) such as will not hold a good Fat Fish, or benefice, as when they take to themselves such a liberty in Preaching the truth, and against sin, as they come to lose all: or too small, such as will not enclose a plurality of great Fishes, though they be in Several Seas or Diocese. Or not like to the Monks net, which he used to spread his Table withal, till under this veil of humility he crope up to the Lord Abbot's chair, and rich Table, where he used his net no more, having taken the Fish he looked for. Thus I suppose by this time I have fished out your meaning of that other sort of Fishers and Anglers, whom you would not have his Majesty to neglect. But if he do, I hope your Lordship will not neglect to hinder such Fishers from setting up their Busses in your Seas, or to have the least private Pond or Chapel to angle in. You said well to such fellows (when the time was) when with the help of Noy's Ark you suppressed that great Buss of the Feoffees in Trust, which had it gone on, would have in time drawn many Fishes out of the Devils 
* 2 Tim. 2.26 Ezogremenoi  nets, of whom they are taken captive at his will, and have translated them out of your brackish and bitter Seas, into those Fresh Rivers of the waters of life, where they should have been out of danger to be catcht with your carnal baits, though they could hardly escape your tearing Hooks. But enough of this. Yet one thing more here I cannot but note, and that is this: you humbly beseech his Majesty to keep a serious watch over the Romish Fishers: and withal you add, 
The Prelate's Counsel to the King perilous.  that another Sort of Anglers be not neglected. Who this other sort is, is showed, namely your Puritan Preachers: that is to say, The most godly, painful, zealous Ministers in the Land; and so the most vigilant watchmen to preserve the flocks of Christ from Wolves and Foxes, that seek to devour them. And who are these Wolves and Foxes, but these Romish Fishers you speak of? that I may not say also, your homebread Wolves and Foxes, the Prelates, and their Faction. Now if the Laws against these Wolves and Foxes do sleep, and if the faithful watchmen be removed, and none but a sort of dumb 
* Isay. 56.10, 11.  dogs left, that either cannot, or will not, or dare not bark, but themselves help to devour the flocks, as the Prophet speaks: do you think, that though the King should keep never so serious watch, it were possible to preserve his people from perishing by these Wolves? Certainly the case being so, though the King should watch both night and day, and had Argus his eyes, yet he should but weary himself to no purpose, yea although he had the help of your many-eyed dogs your Pursuants (who are cunninger at fastening upon the Shepherds, then upon the Wolves) to boot. For then how easily and quickly may the Wolves and Foxes devour all the Flocks in the Land, when the faithful Shepherds and watchmen (as your Lordship knows Leo-well) are taken away; and when those Fishers can show the people this your Book, which as a vast net were able at one draught to enclose multitudes, by exerting them to be reconciled to Rome, and that upon this one ground, that the Church of England and of Rome is one and the same Church, no doubt of that? of which anon.  
But yet, me thinks, I have not all this while dived deep enough to sound the bottom of this word, Not neglect. Somewhat of a moderate Speech, in the smoothness of the bark. Not neglect, as if you should say, I would not have your Majesty to be too rigorous against the Puritan Ministers, good men, but yet I would not have you to neglect them. But we cannot better find out the full meaning of this word, but by the large Commentary of your Practices, which summed up together, amount to thus much. I would not have your Majesty to neglect, that is, I would not have your Majesty neglest means, that can possibly be devised, for the utter rooting out of these Puritans, that do so pester your Kingdom. And for that you must make your main aim at the suppressing of the Puritan Ministers. For smite the Shepherd, and the sheep willbe Scattered. Now forasmuch as all Non-conformists, are put to perpetual silence, wherein we have been helped by your good Laws: and we want Laws to deal● with your Puritan Conformists: therefore we must supply that with policy, backed with your Royal Power. Your Majesty must set forth Edicts, laying a strait charge on us Prelates, to see them executed. For instance: That all Ministers, yea and that in their own Persons▪ not by their Curates, do read in their several Congregations respectively your Book for Sports on Sundays and Holidays. This will pack away a good many of them, who I know will never read it. Le● another be made, for setting up of Altars in all Churches, as that for S. GREGORY'S under S. Paul's, which would be pulished in Print, although in the mean time it be safely kept among the Records of the Counsel Board; and your Proclamation since enjoins all Orders for Religion to be observed, whether Public, or Private, being made at the Counsell-Board. A third, to prohibit all Lectures on the week days, and also preaching on the Afternoons on Sundays. A fourth, prohibiting Controverted points to be preached on at all, or Predestination, etc. which will mainly pinch the Puritans. A fifth, That whatsoever Rites we Bishops do or shall impose upon the Churches, may be ratified under your Majesty's Broad Seal, both for the preventing of Premunires, and suppressing Clamours of the People against the Prelates, and enforcing Ministers to obey them. A sixth, That a Proclamation be published, to inhibit all men from speaking or writing against the Religion of the Church of England, As it is now established, leaving out that other Phrase, as it was in Queen Elizabeth's time, and turning into, As it is Now established. And to all these add, Under pain of your Majesty's most heavy Displeasure; not nominating any particular punishment, because of the Laws, but leave that to us▪ for so long as you do but give us power, we shall not want means and ways to punish them, so long as either the High Commission, or Star-chamber do stand. And thus in short time, there should not one Puritan be left in the Land. And all this I mean, by, I would not have you neglest.  
Thus we know your mind, But in the mean time, my Lord you might do well to consider and consult, what may be the Consequences of these things, that you thus load the King withal, What? Thus to root out the Puritans, and so by your Innovation of the State of Religion by Law established, to make way for your Reconciliation with Rome? Take heed what you do. Have you not learned that principle in the Politics, That Sudden Changes in the Civil Government, and most of all in Religion, is full of peril? And another notable point of prudence I have read of, For a Prince (how ever he may haply connive, yet) not to appear the prime Author of such projects and practices, as may breed a heartburning in the people. For as the Heathen Poet sung, 
Invidia Siculi non invenere Tiranni  
Majus Tormentum—.  And the Wiseman saith, 
* Pro. 27.4.  Who can stand before Envy? Not Caesar himself And therefore if you tender the King's honour, and the peace and weal of his Kingdom, do not lay too great a burden upon him. Give way, that some things may be imputed to your zeal, so as if you should come to be questioned for it (as you have no such fear, so long as there is no Parliament, which I hope you will look too well enough) the King may have opportunity to show his favour, in spreading his Royal wing over you. But my Lord you profess great love to his Majesty, and to the peace and prosperity of his Kingdom: Will you now show how zealously and sincerely you love the King and his people at this time? At this calamitous and dangerous time, when you see a whole Kingdom, even his Native Country fallen off at one clap. And for what cause? Some say, 'Tis for Religion, because they cannot enjoy it in that purity, nor their Consciences in that liberty, as anciently they did, before the Prelates came to be set over them; but by that their means, they are more and more pressed (as they complain) to bring them to a full conformity to your Church of England, as now you have made it, which you say, is all one with the Church of Rome, and which in your Book you labour to reconcile to Rome. And can there be any thing more offensive to true Christian Stomaches, than the burdening of their Consciences with such things as are against God's Word, and Christ's Kingdom, and their Christian Liberty? Or is it not for this Cause▪ that they are thus fallen off? But the Late Proclamation given at White-Hall Febru. 27. 1639. seems to intimate, that one main Cause of the Scots discontent, is the hierarchical Government. For there it is said, We neither can, nor will permit Episcopal Government established by many Acts of Parliament in that our Kingdom, to be abolished. And again, the Proclamation saith, And further we think to declare unto you, and to the Christian world, that by our Intention of introducing the Service Book into that Kingdom, we had not the least thought of Innovation in Religion, in this or that, but merely to have a conformity with that Worship of God, which is observed within both our other Kingdoms, though il-minded men have wrested some things in it to a Sinister Sense. Thus it seems to me, that the Scots are discontented with Episcopal Government, and Ceremonies; which usually go together. Now were it not a worthy and admirable piece of Service in your Lordship to his Majesty to study, how the State may be reduced, and that in the most peaceable and safe way, that may be? Will you be pleased to take a Fool's Counsel? Would you purchase to yourself an immortal name, and become a Mirror and Miracle of this age, and an example to all posterity (the King having past his word) and so do the best service to the King, that ever any of his Subjects hath done? Do no more but this: Cast away your Rochet and Mitre; Divest yourself of all Episcopal Ornaments and Titles▪ Utterly renounce and relinquish your Hierarchy, as being not only against Christ's word and Kingdom (as afterwards shall by God's Grace appear) but also as being most pernicious to the Peace and Welfare of Civil States, most Antichristian, and one particular cause expressly of the defection of a whole Kingdom from his Majesty. Now show hereby, that you so love the King, that rather than he shall lose one of his Kingdoms thus, you will utterly and voluntarily depose yourself from your hierarchical throne. And I know your Lordship doth every where profess your love to peace, and tell us very much of it in your Book. Now can there be a more peaceable way then this to reconcile Scotland, and reduce them under the King's Government? And as for ceremonies, if they stand in the way, I assure myself, were your Hierarchy but once removed out of the way, either his Majesty would take an Order for them, or they would even sponte sua of their own accord fall, as having now no more Masters to wait upon. But enough of this. It shall be my daily prayer in the mean time, that GOD would establish his Majesty's Kingdoms with the Gospel of peace, and the Peace of the Gospel in our days, and to our Posterity till the coming of jesus Christ. You proceed.  
L. p. 13. 'Tis truth, I must tell it, 'tis the Gospel I must preach it. 1 Cor. 9.16.  
P. 'Twere well, if you told nothing but Truth, and that not only, of necessity, with a must, but of 
* Phil. 1.15.  love, and of a ready mind. But your Book will further show what truth you tell And for the Gospel, when do you preach it? Or how? What? As the Apostle did whom you quote? And if you must preach it, why do you restrain others from it? That yourself only might preach? Why then preach you no oftener? Surely your restraining of others from preaching, puts the greater necessity upon yourself (if indeed you be a Minister of the Gospel, and not a dumb Priest) to preach the more frequently. For indeed you Prelates take upon you to be as so many Popes, or universal Pastors over all the Churches in your Diocese respectively (though you seldom or never preach in any) and the Ministers must be but your Curates; So as they also must preach no more, nor oftener, nor otherwise, than you their good Lords and Masters do prescribe and limit them, by virtue of their oath of Canonical obedience. Thus have you taken away the 
* Luk. 11.  Key of knowledge, and hanged it at your own girdle, so as neither ye go into heaven yourselves, and those that would enter, ye hinder. But what do I say? Have you and your Prelates reserved to yourselves (as one of the Papal Reserved Cases) the power of preaching the Gospel? My Lord under correction you forget yourself. Do you not remember the King's Order for preaching, or rather for not preaching, that no Ministers, of what degree or rank soever they be, Archbishop, Bishop, and all under them, shall not preach of the Doctrines of Election, Predestination, Redemption of the Elect only, Effectual vocation of the Elect only, justification of the Elect only, Assurance of Salvation to the Elect only in Grace, all which Doctrines are the main and sole Doctrines of Grace, and of the Gospel, So as for Ministers not to preach of these, and maintain them against the Adversaries thereof, and especially in these times of opposing and undermining the truth of Grace, and of the Gospel, is to cease to be Ministers of the Gospel? According to which reckoning (if the said Order be strictly observed, as you Prelates in all your Visitations do charge the Ministers, enquiring of those, that be Delinquents in this kind, to suspend or admonish them) you have no preachers of the Gospel left in the Church of England. And do you not remember, that one Lent, after the said Order was come forth, two of the learnedst, 
Du●ham, Sarisbury.  and most Orthodox Prelates of the Church of England for preaching before the King of such points, were both checked for it, since which time, I do not hear they have transgressed the said Order? And therefore I conceive, that his Grace of Canterbury is by the same Order inhibited to preach the Grace of the Gospel, or the Gospel in these days. King james indeed gave out an Order, inhibiting all inferior Ministers only to preach of those points, but reserved a liberty to Prelates and Deans, to preach of them, as being men of more discretion, then ordinary. But now Bishops, nay Archbishops, and all are involved. Therefore had not your Lordship forgot yourself, I suppose, you would not have told the King to his face, That the Truth you must tell, and the Gospel you must preach. Therefore correct that word, my Lord.  
L. ibid. And when the Foundations of Faith are shaken, be it by Superstition, or Profaneness, he that puts not to his hand, as firmly as he can, to support them, is too wary, and hath more care of himself, then of the cause of Christ.  
P. A Speech Surely, which without any more ado were sufficient to vindicate your Reputation with all good men▪ had your words but a right meaning. But your Foundations of Faith are laid so low in the Earth, 
* Polosus versatur in universalibus.  in Generalibus, that no man can come clearly to discern them, or what you mean by them. And besides, did you in this place mean the true Foundations of Faith indeed, yet being not constant to this in other of your passages, and much less in your practices, this is of the less credit, to obtain even of Charity itself any favourable interpretation. And having read over your Book, we come to be so well acquainted with your Foundations of Faith, that we may say truly, It no more belongs to you to put to your hand to support the true Foundations, than it did to 
§ 2 Sam. 6.6, 7  Vzzah to stay the Ark, when the Oxen shook it. For which his meddling, the Lord smote him. And I fear little better will be your reward. Nay what reward shall you expect, who instead of supporting the Foundations of Faith, do put your heart, and head, and hand, and all you can to supplant them? (As we shall see all along.) And I am persuaded, the more you speak in this kind, the more you rub and gall your own Conscience, and make it so tender in this respect, that the least touch of conviction goes to your heart.  
But stay: Do I not mistake, Foundations of Faith, instead of Superstition and Profaneness? For Them, here, may have for Antecedent aswell Superstition and Profaneness, as Foundations of Faith. And so the sense runs thus, He that puts not to his hand as firmly as he can to surport them, that is, Superstition and Profaneness, is too wary, etc. And now that I consider it better, this must be your meaning, if your words and deeds agree. And for proof, let us come to particulars. You give us two general instances, whereby the Foundations of Faith are shaken. The one, Superstition, the other Profaneness, Answerable to these two, I will help you out with two particular instances, the one of Superstition, the other, of Profaneness; by both which the Foundations of Faith are shaken; which we shall see how firmly you Support.  
First, For Superstition, I instance in Altars. These you erect: these you bow unto. Now to set up, and bow unto, or before, or pray towards an Altar of wood or stone, overthowes Christ, the Prime and main Foundation of Faith; and that by your own Confession. For Altars in the Old Testament were ordained of GOD to be Types and Figures of Christ, as also were the Sacrifices, and the Priests. But now Christ being come, our only Sacrifice, our only High Priest, and our only Altar, those Types do all cease. And in the New Testament, as Christ is called our Sacrifice and High Priest; So also our Altar. 
* Heb. 13.10.  We have an Altar (saith the Apostle) whereof they have no right to eat, which serve the Tabernacle. Why so? For the Levites or Priests, which still served the Tabernacle, rested still in the Typical Altar, denying Christ to be come, and so they have no right to Christ the true Altar, he being come, and having abolished all Types. And the Apostle there doth clearly prove this our Altar to be Christ. For (saith he in the very next words, as a reason annexed) The bodies of those Beasts, whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary by the High Priest for sin, are burnt without the Camp: Wherefore jesus also, that he might Sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the Gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the Camp, bearing his reproach For here we have no continuing City, but we seek one to come. By him therefore let us offer the Sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name. In which words taken together, Christ is set forth unto us both as our only Altar, and as our only High Priest, and as our only Sacifice. First, as our only Altar, vers. 10. Secondly, as our only High Priest; For so he stands in relation to the levitical Priesthood, as the Truth to the Type, v. 11, 12. Thirdly, as our only Sacrifice, in offering his own blood, v. 11. And thus he is said to Sanctify us. And this sanctifying hath special relation to Christ, as the only Altar. For in the 
* Exod. 29.37.  Law, no Sacrifice, or Offering was sanctified, but by the Altar. being offered up upon it. As Christ saith to the Scribes and Pharisees those blind guides. 
‡ Math. 23.19  Ye Fools and blind: whether is greater the gift, or the Altar, that sanctifieth the gift? Thus every gift, every Sacrifice is sanctified by the Altar, on which it was offered up. This Altar is only Christ, whose blood being offered up upon the Altar of his Divinity, Person, or Nature, was thereby sanctified, and accepted of GOD, for an All-sufficient Sacrifice for our sins. And thus both the persons of all true believers, and their Spiritual Sacrifices are Sanctified, being offered up, and presented to GOD on the Altar Christ. Our Persons, as, Heb. 13.12. and our gifts, or Sacrifices, v. 15. By him therefore let us offer the Sacrifice of praise continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his Name. Thus through Faith in Christ's Name, all our Sacrifices of Prayer, of Praise, of Alms, and of a Contrite heart, are Sanctified and accepted of GOD, as Testimonies of our Faith, Charity, Repentance, Thankfulness, and Obedience, as being offered up upon our only Altar Christ. This only Altar it is, that Sanctifieth the gift. Thus we see how these three, Altar, Priest, Sacrifice, are equally, and inseparably resident in Christ. So as he is as well our only Altar, as our only High Priest, and our only Sacrifice of expiation. And Bellarmine himself confesseth, that these three, Altar, Priest, Sacrifice, are Relatives, and always go together. He therefore that sets up another Altar besides Christ, may as well set up another High Priest, and another propitiatory Sacrifice, as Antichrist doth in the Mass. And to set up any one of these, not only shakes, but quite overthrows the main Foundation Christ. And for the Altar, the Sanctification of all Sacrifices and offerings is so proper and peculiar unto it, that one of your 
* Dr. P●●klinton in his Sermon of Christian Altars.  Divines, going about to maintain your Christian Altars (as he calls them, but indeed Antichristian) saith expressly, that of necessity there must be an Altar in every Church, as of wood or stone, to Sanctify the Sacrifice, otherwise it should be altogether unsanctified. And how comes this Altar of his and yours to have such a treasure and overplus of holiness in it, as to communicate such holiness to the Sacrifice, yea to the Sacrifice of Christ's body upon it (as he puts it) but by the Bishop's Consecration of it, as the same Author saith, whose Book is by your Chapleins licence published in Print. So as it seems your Episcopal consecration of the Altar infuseth a holiness into it, and the Altar communicates and imparts its holiness to the Sanctifying even of the Sacrifice of Christ's body itself, which you would not have to be far off from the Altar. But now it being most evident hereby, that your Altars do quite overthrow the Foundation Christ, who is our only Altar: how firmly you put to your hand to support this Foundation, I call heaven and earth to witness against you; who being on the contrary a Supporter of Altars, and so a Supplanter of the only true Altar jesus Christ, you give sentence against yourself, as one that is too wary, and hath more care of himself, then of the Cause of Christ. And forasmuch as you are so zealous in promoting your Altars in every Church, I do here in the Name of jesus Christ, protest against you, as a most notorious Adversary of Christ, and so an Antichrist, a setter up of Judaisme or Heathenism in your Altars; and I do utterly renounce all communion with you in your services, the principal part whereof you place in your Altars, which are so many damnable Idols, which you adoring, are damnable Idolaters, and which are set up and upholden to the intolerable reproach of Christ, and whereby he is altogether denied and renounced. And thus you give just cause to all true Christians to separate themselves from your communion, in your worship of a false Christ, as your false Altar, if they will hold their communion with Christ.  
Now for the second Instance of shaking the Foundation Christ, which is Profaneness. Tell me, are not the ten Commandments Fundamentals, as being the principles and rules of our Sanctification. So as the Pope's Parasites are not so impudent, as in their Decretals, and other writings, to affirm, that he can dispense with the moral Law, although they say of him in the decretals, That Papa aliquando nimium Papaliter dispensat, The Pope sometimes dispenseth too papally, or Pope-like. What say you then of the 4 th' Commandment, touching the Sabbath day of the Lord our God, and the Sanctification thereof? Dare you say, the Commandment is not Moral, being placed in the midst of the Ten? And though that seaventh day (being the Last of the week, as wherein God rested after the finishing of the work of Creation, which he therefore appointed to be the Sabbath day, of the Old Testament) be now abrogated, as giving place to a new Sabbath day, the First of the Week wherein our Lord jesus Christ (having finished the work of a New creation) rising again, entered into his Rest, namely the State of Rest, Immortality, and Glory: is therefore the 4 th' Cammandements Morality so abrogated, as it is not still in force to enjoin us Christians the Sanctification of that day of the Week, which is the Sabbath day of the Lord our God, jesus Christ? Or doth it not aswell, and by the same Reason bind us Christians to the Sanctification of the first day of the week, as whereon the Lord our God jesus Christ rested from a greater work of Creation: as it did the Jews to the Sanctification of the 7 th' or last day of the Week, as whereon the Lord God rested from his work of the Creation of Heaven and Earth? It is so demonstrative and clear, that to deny it, argues not only gross ignorance in the knowledge of Christ and of Divinity, but also a mind destitute of grace and true sanctity, that dare imagine the least imperfection or mutability to be in that, or any other of the Moral Commandments. Now if the 4 th' Commandment bind us Christians (as 'tis clear it doth, and as hereafter I shall take occasion to be a little more large in it) to the Sanctification of the Sabbath, or rest day, of the Lord our God, which is now the First day of the week, upon the same Reason, that it obliged the Jews of the Old Testament to keep the 7 th' or last day of the week: then is not the open profanation of the Lords day by sports and pastimes, a shaking of a foundation of Faith? Nor do I mean only a Profanation thereof de facto, in practice, either through ingnorance, or custom, or frailty: but by open and professed Toleration and Dispensation, and that by public Edict, encouraging people to such vain sports, and pastimes, as do most Heathenishly profane not only the Day, but the very name of Christianity and Christian Profession. So as this Profanation and so violation of the 4 th' Commandment, is of a very high nature, and a sin of presumption, as wherein humane Authority lifts itself up against and above the Lawgiver himself, daring to dispense with his holy and eternal Law, and that in giving liberty to the flesh to commit sin, even with greediness. Now this Foundation of Faith, whereby the Communion of Saints, and all true sanctification of life, is supported, and maintained, to wit, in the due sanctification of this day, in all holy duties, public and private, being thus not only shaken, but with high contempt trodden under profane feet, through intolerable pride of men: have you put to your hand as firmly as you can to support it? Did you interpose yourself, that that Book for Sports might not be revived out of the Ashes, wherein it had lain so long buried, as it was all, rotten, and forgotten? Or, that it might not be reprinted, with a new Enforcement? Or at least (if it must needs be so) that it might not be pressed upon Ministers, to read it in their Congregations to the manifest dishonour of GOD, and their holy Ministry, and to the great offence of their Consciences, and of their People? And when the fear of GOD, and their own Conscience withheld some from reading of it: did you spare any of them from suspension at least? Did you spare Mr. Wilson of Kent, from Suspending him with your own mouth? Nay were not divers Ministers, in Surrey and else where, as in Kent, Essex, etc. so prosecuted, as either they were put out of their livings, as Mr. Snelling of Kent, or else for fear of worse, did voluntarily quit their livings, and got them gone? And when upon petition some were referred to you, what relief had they? Did you put to your hand, as firmly as you could to support the poor men? Or did you show them the least mercy or favour? Nay, on the contrary, are you not the Grand, if not the Sole Instrument both of reviving, republishing, pressing it upon Ministers, punishing and oppressing them, yea and undoing them about it? Is this to put to your hand as firmly as you can to support such a Foundation of Faith, when you not only shake, but break down the Pillars, by whose Ministry such a foundation is maintained? Are you not then not only too wary, and one that hath more care of himself, then of the Cause of Christ: but too unreasonably bold, and impious, in not only not supporting, but putting to your hand as firmly as you can to the utter demolishing and ruinating of these holy Foundations of Faith, both by your Antichristian superstition, and Heathenish profaneness? Nay, in so shaking one Foundation, the 4 th' Commandment, in the open toleration of the profanation of the Lords Sabbath day, you shake all those ten Foundations, overturning all holiness, all duties to God and Man, as Infidelity against the first Commandment; Setting up your May-Idol-Poles against the second Commandment: taking God's name in vain, in breaking that Baptismal vow of Christianity, in renouncing all vanity, against the third Commandment: despising and abusing Gods Ordinances against the fourth: teaching irreverence and disobedience to Parents and Masters, and that expressly against the fifth Commandment: giving occasion of murder, against the sixth: of adultery, against the seaventh: of drunkenness, and so of theft, and opening the very flood gate to all wickedness. To conclude this point, Either your Lordship is most grossly ignorant of the Foundations of Faith, what they be, or you are extremely self blind in imagining, that the world will not suspect any Serpent lurking under the green leaves of your goodly words, having too much tasted of your bitter fruits; so as your fair words, and foul actions, must needs make men as much abhor your graceless hypocrisy, as they do your shameless impiety, while under a fair colour and mere pretence of holding and upholding the Foundations of Faith, you undermine them, and blow them up.  
L. p. [13, 14. Comparing the Church to a Hive of Bees, you say] Now the King and the Priest, more than any other, are bound to look to the Integrity of the Church, in Doctrines and Manners, and that in the first place. [And a little after] Now in this great and busy work, the King and the Priest must not fear to put their hands to the Hive, though they be sure to be stung. The King's case (as King david's) is to be stung with Bees: but when it comes to the Priest, the case is altered: they come about him like Wasps, or like Hornets, rather; All sting, and no honey there. And all this for no offence, nay sometimes for service done them, would they see it, etc.  
P. However you may please yourself in your conceits, in playing with this your similitude of Beehive: yet perhaps upon a review of all circumstances, you will begin to discern no small incongruity, except you can salute it with, Similitudo non currit quatuor pedibus: A Similitude runs not upon all four. For first, A Hive of Bees you know, is a kind of complete Commonweal within itself. Such is Christ's true Church. The Chief and great Master-Bee in this Hive, is Christ, and his holy Spirit: A Christian King, who is in and of the Hive, is under Christ, a kind of Subordinate Master-Bee; whose Office it is, to see, that the express voice and Law of Christ, and that alone, both touching Doctrines and Manners, be duly observed both by the Ministers and People, and that the Delinquents and Offenders be either reform, or punished, according to the same Law of Christ. As for the Priest, whom you name, and set Cheek by Jowl with the King, and that twice here for failing: let me tell you, that the New Testament, and so the true Christian Church knoweth not, neither acknowledgeth any Priest, besides Christ, who is, as the only Altar, so the only Priest of his Church; as is noted before. And did not I say, That Altar and Priest would ever go together? Here you are up with your Priest. And who is this Priest? Even no less, than the Metropolitan of all England. Poor humble Priest! But a Priest, however. Otherwise what should you do with your Altar, we spoke of, if you had not a Priest to it? And having an Altar and Priest, you must needs have a Sacrifice too, else all would be lame. As Isaac said to his Father, 
* Gen. 22.7.  My Father, here is fire and wood, but where is the Sacrifice? So you may Say, we have here an Altar, and Priest; we must have a Sacrifice too. But (I say) the true Church of GOD acknowledgeth no Priest, but Christ, as no Altar, no Sacrifice but Him. Only indeed all true believers are called, and made of GOD 
‡ Rev. 1.6.  Kings and Priests and 
‡ 1 Pet. 2.5.9.  a royal Priesthood, as were also the believing 
§ Exod. 19.6.  Jews under the Old Testament, to whom Moses saith, Ye shallbe unto me, saith God, a Kingdom of Priests, and an holy Nation. As for Aaron's Priesthood, it is abolished and swallowed up in our only High Priest, jesus Christ, 
† Heb. 7.17.  made a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. Yet every believer is a Priest, to 
* 1 Pet. 2.5.  offer up Spiritual Sacrifices to God by jesus Christ. Which shows a plain difference between Christ's Priesthood, and our royal Priesthood. For We offer up Spiritual Sacrifices to God by jesus Christ, but he by himself offered the Sacrifice of himself to GOD for us. So as not even Ministers of God's word are otherwise Priests, but as they are believers only in their public Ministry they are the mouth of God's people, in offering up to GOD Spiritual Sacrifices of Prayer and thanksgiving by jesus Christ. But your Priesthood, my Lord is a new Order, of humane Ordinance, and Ordination, not found in, nor founded upon God's word, and therefore a false, and unlawful Priesthood. 
‡ Heb. 5.4.  For no man takes this honour upon him, but he that is called of GOD, as was Aaron. But your Priesthood hath no calling from GOD. Nor doth the New Testament once call a Minister of the Gospel hierùs, Sacerdos, Priest. It calls them Presbutèrous indeed, Presbyters, or Elders, but never hiereiss, Sacerdotes, Priests; for hiereùs, is properly such a Priest, as offereth a slain Sacrifice, as hiereion, is a Sacrifice that is slain. And thus are you Priests, in Sacrificing either Christ's body, as in the Mass, or else the Bodies of his Saints, who are in this respect accounted as Sheep for the Slaughter. Rom. 8.36. Let therefore the Church of Rome, (and yours of England, if ye will) have her Priests, Altars, Sacrifices: as for the true Church of Christ, she admitteth none of all these. And though you yoke your Priest, or (as at 
* P. 155.  after) your very aliâs, the Archbishop of Canterbury with the King: yet we must put kasma méga, a vast difference and disparity between them. For first a Christian King, or Magistrate Supreme is (as we touched before) both within, and of the Hive: but the Priest you speak of, is quite without the Hive, and none of the Hive, no Priest of Christ's true Church, but an intruder, Drone, Wasp, or Hornet.  
Secondly, good Christian Princes, executing their office aright, are 
§ Isa. 49.23.  Nursing Fathers to the Church, and help to bring in supply to the Hive, and guard it from vermin and weather: but your Priest, even the whole Generation, and swarm of them, are Step-fathers' to the Bees, and are Drones, eating up the Honey, as you confess here of some; if not Wasps and Hornets also, Stinging and Killing the Bees, or chase them out of the Hive, into some hollow tree in the Desert.  
Lastly, the King doing his office in, and to the Hive, is loved, reverenced, and obeyed by the Bees, and they yield him a Tribute of their Honey: But when your Priest puts his rough hand to the Hive, the Bees are ready to fly about his ears, as not acknowledging any such Usurper. And have you never read nor heard, that if one that is chaste, come among the Bees, not offering violence unto them, they will never offer to sting him: but if an adulterous person come amongst them, they will quickly smell him out, and be all about his ears? And be sure, Christ's Bees cannot brook such Priests, as smell of the whore of Babel's Smock, and commit spiritual whoredom with her, or have any hankering affection after her. And therefore marvel not, if (as you say) when it comes to the Priest, the Bees come about like Wasps, or Hornets, all sting, and no honey for your Priest there. And you seem to speak it feelingly. Surely if you deal roughly with the Bees, and begin to lay about you, they will be about your Ears. Therefore be not cursed unto them, lest you make them as angry as a Bee. Thus by your patience I have truly and genuinely applied your Similitude. As for the occasion, what ever it be, or may be, whereupon you bring it in, and so apply it, so much complaining of the Bees, for their stinging, as if you felt the present smart of it: though perhaps an ordinary Bee may smell it out, yet I will not take upon me to divine it. But if you will contend and offer violence to a whole Hive, forcing the Bees beyond their nature, though you be never so well armed Cap a pied, from top to toe, as with 
* 1 Sam. 17.38.  Saul's armour, so as the Bees cannot reach you: yet how shall you escape the sting of the great Master-Bee, JESUS CHRIST, who is able with one whoop to raise an army of flies to plague the Egyptian Tyrants and Taskmasters, for their extreme violence offered to his poor Bees. And never look that such Bees should ever brook your Priest, as having learned by too much experience, that 
§ joh. 1●. 10.  he comes not but to kill, and take the honey. As Christ saith of the Thief, or Usurper, that climbeth up into the Sheep-fold another way, He cometh not, but to steal, kill, and to destroy.  
Again, I must crave a little more of your patience, while I somewhat more thoroughly Scan your Conjunction of the King and Priest so close, and inseparably together. The King and the Priest: or, The King and the Prelate: or, The King, and the Bishop: according to a new Late Start up Proverb, or (as you make it) a new Maxim in the Politics, No Bishop, no King. Now for a ground whereon to pitch the Mathematical Staff of my ensuing Demonstration, I must beg two Ait●mata, or Demands: First, That ever a King is, good; this is such a principle, as transcends the Demonstration of Art. For, 
* Rom. 13.  He 〈◊〉 Minister of GOD to thee for Good: Ergo Good. The Second is, That a Priest or Prelate (as being out of the rank of God's Creation, and Ordination) is ever Bad. These two things granted, (as they may not be denied) I say: It is not good, that Good and Bad be joined together. Although as 
‡ Scal. Exercit. contra Cardanum.  Scaliger saith, Malum non est, nisi in bono: Evil is not, but in good. But the King and Priest thus linked together, are like to two Planets in Conjunction, the one (as Astronomers tell us) Benign, the other Malignant▪ and during the Conjunction, the Benign Planet is not so forcible in its kindly influence, as the Malignant is potent in hindering it, and in sending forth his own more predominant Malignity, not so easily qualified by the Benignity of the other. And they say again, that some Planets are of such a temper, as they are neither good, nor bad, but as they are in Conjunction with others; if with a good Planet, they are good; if with a bad, evil. As we read of King 
‡ 2 Chro. 24.  joash, who so long as good jehoiada the High Priest lived▪ reigned well: but he being dead, he by the bad Counsel of his Princes fell to Idolatry. So an evil Planet being in Conjunction with an indifferent, may cause it to do hurt, which in its own nature is not much malignant. Again, 'tis observed of the Oak (which for strength among all the Trees, may be an Emblem of a King) being all overgrown with the Ivy (which for its many insinuations and windings every way, may well resemble your Priest) it thrives not; the fewer leaves and branches it puts forth, for shade and protection from a shower or storm, or heat of Summer: and little fruit, to feed the hungry: for it is hidebound, so girt in by the Ivy, that it cannot prosper. Yea such a Conjunction cannot be more fitly parallelled, in my judgement, then to the feet of that Image in 
§ Dan. 2.  Daniel: the Head whereof was of gold: the breast and arms of silver: the belly and thighs of brass: his legs of iron: his feet part of iron, and part of clay. The Image represented the Successive Reigns in the Babylonian Monarchy, each worse than other, till at last it came to ruin. And it may be an Emblem of all Kingdoms and States, which if they want the ancient Roman Lustration, or Purgation every five years (like some old Statutes of England for a Triennial Visitation, a certain thing, which was wont to be called a Parliament) or so, will (according to an old observation in the Politics) easily grow worse and worse. As the Roman Poet observed in his time: 
Aetas parentum pejor avis; Tulit nos equiores,  
mox daturos Progeniem vitiosiorem.   
In English thus: 
Our Father's Age, which they did pass,  
Grew worse than our Grandfathers was:  
Ourselves worse than our Parents be,  
And our next race proves worse than we.   
But we pitch (to be silent in the rest of the Image) upon the feet, mixed of iron and clay; the last legs (as the Proverb) which that Empire went upon. Iron (as Daniel interprets it) signifies strength; but Clay, brittleness; which intermeddled with the Iron, adds no strength to it, but only makes it swell the bigger, which swelling portends and causes ruin. For the Iron relying on its mixture with the Clay, and the Clay presuming to do great things, by being joined and backed with the Iron: here is the Portent. 
* Rev. 17.  In the Revelation we read of Kings, giving their power to the Beast, that is, giving way to the Beast, or to his limbs, the Priests, to exercise a power over them, and their Kingdoms: For which cause England was wont to be called the Pope's Ass. 
‡ v. 16, 17.  The ten horns, which thou sawest upon the Beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate, and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their Kingdom unto the Beast, until the words of God shallbe fulfilled. On this GOD, and on his word, will we wait. Sure we are, that the whore of Babylon, with her Priests, shall 
‡ Rev. 18, 19  come down into the dust. And 
§ vers. 4.  all God's people are admonished to come out of her, lest they partake of her sins, and receive of her plagues; So in due time, when God's word shall be fulfilled, the Iron shall unmixe itself from the Clay, that the one may be preserved, and the other go to his 
* Act. 1.25.  own place, to the earth, whence it came, and whereof it is.  
But in the next place, for what good end and purpose do you link your Priest with the King? Because (say you) They, more than any other are bound to look to the Integrity of the Church, in Doctrine, and Manners. Surely, for the first, the King, we do in all humility embrace and acknowledge him, as God's vicegerent, bound to do that office for the true Church of Christ, which Gods word hath enjoined and requires of him. And that consists generally in ●his, as he is Custos utriusque Tabulae, the 
* Deut. 17.18.19.  Keeper in trust of both the Tables of the Law: he is to see, ut currat Lex, that God's Law and Word hina treke, that it may run, have a free passage, without impeachment; that the Commandments of the Law be kept Sarta tecta, safe and sound, without diminishing, much less demolishing any one of them; that nothing be done, either in Doctrine or Manners, or in the worship of GOD, besides the prescript and precise Rule of Gods written word: that able and godly Ministers, duly chosen by God's people, and Congregation, be set over every Congregation, to preach God's word diligently to the people, and that the well deserving be cherished, encouraged, countenanced, and protected from oppression, but the Drones cast out of the Hive. This is all the King need to be careful of about the Hive of Christ. For then, as for Doctrine and Manners Gods word in the due administration thereof, will sufficiently direct, inform, instruct, and teach both what to believe, and how to live, and 
† 1 Pet. 2.17.  worship God, and honour the King.  
But for the Priest you speak of, to intermeddle: Procul o! hands off, Here's no room for him, he may get him to Rome to his Sacrifice. This Priest (as is already touched) hath no calling of GOD at all, and therefore not bound to any such thing: much less ought he to yoke himself with Kings, that he may prescribe what Doctrines and Manners do best please his own corrupt and blind fancy. And as for you my Lord, if you be that Priest (as 'tis most likely) what kind of doctrine we might look for at your hand, your Book here will sufficiently inform us, as we shall see throughout, and as partly we have seen by your acts, edicts, declarations, and practices. And for Manners: I pray you what Manners will your Priest teach us? Namely, how to make a leg, or a courtesy at our coming within the Church, with the posture of our face towards your Altar: devoutly and lowly to bow, passing by, or approaching your Altar: devoutly to pray with the face east-wards, towards your Altar: to make a low leg, or cringe, when the name jesus is named: to doff the bonnet, with some other courtesy, before an 
‡ Appeal to Caesar.  Image, Cross, or Crucifix: to receive the Communion kneeling before your Altar: and many such like, as will fit time and place. Yet whether these be your Manners or Doctrines, you can best resolve us. And if you mean Moral Manners in life and conversation, can your Priest teach them? Can he that ruffles up and down the Court in his Silks and Satins, teach men humility? Can he that ambitiously aspires to honours and riches in the world, teach men contempt of the world, and contentedness with a mean estate? Can he that flatters and dissembles, and plays the Hypocrite, teach men Sincerity and Truth? Can he that is an 
* R●v. 12.10.  Accuser of the Brethren, teach men Charity? Can he that is a cruel persecuter of God's servants and children, teach men to be merciful? Can he that oppresseth the innocent in their cause, and takes away the righteousness of the righteous from him, teach men to do justice? Can he that hates the very name of holiness, and the practice and profession thereof in a strict life, as GOD commandeth, teach men to be holy? Can he that labours all he can to put out the light, and to put down 
‡ Rev. 1.20.  Candlesticks that hold it forth, to set up his blind Priesthood, teach men to walk as Children of the light? Can he that stops Ministers mouths for preaching the truth, teach how Ministers ought to preach? Can he that hates holy Wedlock, and violently 
‡ As in the Case of Dr. Bastwick, and Mr. Burton.  Separates Man and Wife without Cause, teach Man and Wife their mutual duties to each other? Can he teach Chastity, who thus exposeth married Couples to Satan's temptations to 
§ 1 Cor. 7.5.  incontinency? Or (in a word) is he fit to look to the Integrity of the Church in Doctrine and Manners, whose both judgement and affections in both, are altogether corrupted? Away therefore with your Priest from the King, lest that come to pass indeed, which here you say (as it were to prepare the way) that the Priest undertaking to qualify the Church, with a new kind of integrity (as he hath already done in a good measure in Doctrine and Manners, he bring to utter ruin both Church and Kingdom.  
Lastly, before I leave your Comparison of the Beehive, I cannot but note two places of Scripture, which you make (as you use to do, when you apply any Scripture, which is not a Shoe will fit your foot) very bold with. For the first: you say, The King's case (as King david's) is to be stung with the Bees. For this you quote in the Margin, Psal. 118.12. And you apply it to the King, saying, God grant it be never yours. Why, was David stung by the true Church and Children of GOD, which you compare to a Hive of Bees? You are much mistaken. David there speaks not only in his own Person, but as a Type, in general of God's Church, and in particular of Christ. First, as in his own Person: who were those Bees that stung him, or buzzed about his ears? Were they any of God's Children? Was it not especially Saul, who continually persecuted him, and sought his life, to have stung him to death? Wherein was he not rather the Master-Wasp, or the Master-Hornet, that with his 
* 1 Sam. 20.  Swarms of Wasps and Hornets, armed troops pursued after David's life, and sometime enclosed him like a Swarm of Bees? And for this very Cause, did not David complain to the Lord of Saul's cruelty, setting forth his wickedness under the name 
‡ Psal. 59.58.  of Heathen? For when 
‡ Psal. 59 Title of the Psalm.  Saul sent, and they watched the house to kill him, coming about him like Bees: David thereupon flies to GOD in prayer, to deliver him from the workers of iniquity, and to save him from bloody men. 
ver. 1.2. § 5.  Thou therefore, O Lord God of Hosts, the God of Israel, awake to visit all the Heathen: be not merciful to any wicked Transgressor's. And vers. 8. But thou, O Lord, 
vers. 8.  shalt laugh at them, thou shalt have all the Heathen in derision. Now by Heathen here is plainly meant, Saul and his wicked Servants and Officers, and that for their heathenish cruelty, seeking to murder innocent David. With such Bees therefore was he compassed about. That's for his Person. Secondly, David in that Psalm, 118. represents the Church of God, that Be hive you Spoke of, whose Bees are often smoked out of their Hive, or smothered in the Hive, and their honey devoured by the wild Boars of the Forest, the Common Bee-hunters, a right Emblem of the cruel persecuters of God's Children and Church, who are here in the world, as Sheep in the midst of Wolves. One fresh bleeding-new example I could give you of one Member of this Church, one Bee of this Hive, whom you sent your Officers with Swords and Weapons beseting his house to take him, as you did, and though not to kill him presently, yet with intent, that in case He did live, His life should be worse than any death. So as, hath not such a one reason to hold himself one of that Church, which David in his 
† Psal. 58. Psal 59  Psalms, prefigured, as touching the afflicted estate thereof in this world? But enough of this Instance before. Thirdly, in that Psalm, and that passage by you quoted, and so foully misapplyed, David speaks Typically and Prophetically of Christ, and that principally. They came about him like Bees. Who? The High Priests, the Scribes and Pharisees, who also hooked in the secular power, Caesar, and the Priest; these came Swarming about Christ, like Bees; which they did, first in the Garden, where they apprehended him; then in the High Priests hall, where they accused him; then in the Praetorium, before Pilate, where they condemned him; as before Herod, where they mocked him: and last of all, they Stung him to the heart with a Roman Spear, his hands and feet fast nailed to the Crosse. Thus the Great Master Bee of the Hive was stung to death by the Hierarchies instigation. And thus indeed, GOD grant it never be our King's case, as it was Christ's. Thus I hope you see by this time, what a Divine you are in your application of Scripture. If you hear but the buzzing of a Bee, presently that's the Bee that stings you. Whereas in truth, you and all such as you, who are persecuters of Christ, and murderers of him in his Saints, and Servants, are those Bees that David, and in him Christ complains of, They came about me like Bees. But take with you what follows: They (these Bees) are quenched as the fire of thorns: For in the Name of the Lord I will destroy them.  
The Second place (which I wonder at more; and yet I will now 
* Nil admirari, prope res est una, Solaque quae 〈◊〉 facere & s●rvare b●atum.  cease to wonder at any thing you either do, or dare to speak) which you quote, is Rev. 22.12. Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give to every man according as his works shallbe. Now this you apply to yourself, as a medicine to cure that sting, which (you say) the Bees have given you. Why, what Bees do sting you? If any, are they not (and that by your own confession) the Bees of Gods own Hive, his true Church? And why do they sting you? Is it not for your slapping of them, and smoking them out of their Hive? But how, or wherewithal do they sting you? Alas, poor souls, they have no other stings, but Prayers and Tears, and the sting of Truth, which they preach and profess. These are their proper stings. Perhaps (as they have cause enough) they pray against you, as a most cruel persecuter of the poor painful Bees of Christ, his Ministers, and an overthrower of their Hives, and a destroyer of the Bees. But such stings you little care for, as which you are not afraid to provoke more and more against you every day. But believe it, their Prayers like winged darts, or arrows, fly swiftly, and pierce deep, and will deadly wound where they light, though as yet ye be not sensible of it. But all this while I hear not a word of the Hornets-Selfe- stinging. Why do ye not yet cry out of the deadly sting of your own Conscience, For all the innocent blood of God's Servants, which you have shed, and for all the havoc you have made in his Hive? Nay rather, your heart is so hardened with sin, and blinded with Romish zeal, that instead of remorse, you look for a reward. And a reward you shall have of him, whose words you fear not to cite, who Saith, Behold I come quickly, and my Reward is with me, to give to every man, according as his works shallbe. But you tell us immediately before this, that you are stung of the Bees, many times for no offence, nay sometime for Service done them, would they see it. Many times for no offence. Therefore it seems sometimes it is for offence done them by you. But can you name any one time, when they sting you without being extremely provoked by your offence given them? Show it if you can. Nay, sometimes (you say) for Service done them. Sometimes? When? And what Service? Your oppressing and burdening their Consciences with more and more Romish rites and Ceremonies? Your fetching them up to your High-Commission, and there undoing of them, clipping their wings, that they can now no more do their office, and bring any more honey to the Hive; and so muzling their mouths, that they cannot, dare not, so much as hum? What other Service can they see you do them? Or do you yourself know any, that you do in private for these Bees? Do you now and then whisper a good word for them in the King's ear? That were a good hearing, if you did it on the right side. But this service we confess you do them: You drive them closer to their GOD, make them pray the more earnestly and fervently, and to be the more provident in the well husbanding of that poor stock of honey they have got, both because you have stocked up all those flowers, on which they should gather more; and lest that which they have, you should take from them.  
For a Conclusion of this your similitude of the Beehive: the Church of Christ upon earth you compare to a Hive of Bees. And when the Priest putteth his hand to the Hive, he shallbe sure to be Stung, and there is no Honey for him. This Priest is the Prelate, an hierarchical man. And as I noted before, the true Bees of Christ, his true Church, cannot brook such Priests, such hierarchical men, to meddle with them. Ergo hence I conclude, that the Hierarchy, consisting of Priests, and such like men, as Prelates, or an hierarchical Church, is no true Church of Christ, is not this Hive of Bees, to which you compare the Church of Christ upon earth. How so? For your Prelatical Church is such a Hive of Bees, as the Priest may put his hand to the Hive without any fear or danger of stinging, at his pleasure. For in that Hive all the Bees are so conformable to the Priest their Master-Bee, as they yield all subjection to his dictates, neither do they, or dare they, at any time offer to sting him. But if this Priest offer to meddle with Christ's Beehive, and to impose his Cannon Law, and Ceremonies upon Christ's Bees, to enforce them to conformity to his Rules, the Bees do no more acknowledge such a Priest, or Prelate for a Master, than Christ's Sheep, which will not hear the voice of a strange Shepherd. 
john 10.5.  And if he will needs force them, he must not blame them, if they sting him. For as Christ said to the Jews, Ye are not of my Sheep: So such Priests, with their Hierarchy, are none of Christ's Hive. Prelatical Churches, therefore are none of Christ's true Churches. And thus much of the Beehive.  
L. p. 15. The Church of England is in a hard Condition. She professes the Ancient Catholic Faith, and yet the Romanist condemns her of Novelty in her Doctrine. She practices Church Government, as it hath been in all Ages, and places, where the Church of Christ hath taken any rooting, both in, and ever since the Apostles times, and yet the Separatist condemns her for Antichristianisme in her Discipline.  
P. It matters not so much, who they be, that thus condemn your Church of England, as how true it is, whereof you are condemned. Doth the Romanist condemn you of Novelty in Doctrine? And what defence have you against this charge? You say, She professeth the Ancient Catholic Faith. Is this your best Apology for your Church of England? 
Profession of Faith no Sound and Sufficient proof of a true believer.  Is profession sufficient, when you are departed from the Ancient Catholic Faith? And is not the Ancient Catholic Faith, that, which Christ and his Apostles taught, and have left recorded in the Scriptures? Dare you deny this? Now in what particular the Romanist condemns you for Novelty in Doctrine, I know not. Surely not in those, wherein themselves are equally condemned, I will instance in two Doctrines, wherein both you and they are Apostatised and departed from the Ancient Catholic Faith in your Novelty of Doctrine. The first is your Forbidding of Marriage, wherein thus far you go with the Romanist, in forbidding Marriage to all sorts of persons for certain times in the year, in all, amounting to upon 20. weeks, wanting not half a quarter of half of the year. The Second is, Forbidding Certain Meats, on certain days, and weeks, in the year. And your Zeal in the observation hereof showeth plainly, that you make it a matter of Religion, as the Romanist doth, and not a mere civil thing, as the Statute makes it. Now let us see what the Adostle saith of both these: for he couples them together: 
* 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the Faith, giving heed to seducing Spirits, and Doctrines of Devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, and commanding to abstain from Meats, which GOD hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them, which believe and know the Truth. For every Creature of GOD is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving. For it is sanctified by the Word of GOD, and Prayer. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good Minister of jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of Faith and good Doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. So the Apostle. Where we may observe these particulars. First, That these two Doctrines, Forbidding of Marriage and certain Meats, are, Doctrines of Devils: Secondly they proceed from lying Spirits: Thirdly they are lies spoken in hypocrisy; as if some times were more holy than Marriage itself, 
* Heb. 13.4.  which is honourable amongst all, and at all times: or, as if some meats were holier than other, or some more unclean than other, at some times. Fourthly such as teach, hold, and practise these Doctrines, have cauterised or seared Consciences, which instead of remorse, glory in these Doctrines, and stiffly maintain them, and out of which your Prerogative Courts, and other Episcopal Courts suck no small advantage, making a rich merchandise of them. Fifthly, That the holding of these Doctrines is a departing from the faith: Apost●sonta, tines, some shall apostatise, or be Apostates from the faith; such as hold these Doctrines. And this faith is the true, ancient, Catholic Faith, which they depart from. Sixthly, These Doctrines, are the marks and fruits of the last times, perilous times, times of Antichrist, and Antichristian Apostasy; and therefore they are Doctrines of Novelty. Seaventhly, For the truth and confirmation of all this, The Spirit speaketh it expressly, So as it admits of no doubting, or gainsaying. Eightly, and lastly, That it is the duty of every good Minister of jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and good Doctrine, to put the brethren in remembrance of these things. So as it were to be wished, that the Church of England had some good Ministers of jesus Christ, that durst and would cry out against these Doctrines of Devils, practised by the Prelates and their Disciples, and learned from Antichrist himself, and upheld by his Canon Law against the express word of God. Thus then doth not the Church of England justly lie under the Apostles sentence of condemnation for Novelty in Doctrine, yea holding Doctrines of Devils, and that by the express testimony (not of Romanists,) but of God's Spirit, that cannot lie? I could give many more instances of novelty in your Doctrine, though not as yet generally professed, yet practised, preached and printed by Authority (though if ye be charged home with it, either that Book shallbe burned, and the Printer blamed, or they will prove but private men's opinions, as you say in your Book) As Invocation of Saints, justification by Charity, Erection of Altars, with many other Popish Doctrines, as also New Arminian Heresies, old Pelagianisme, newly raked out of hell again, whither they had been long ago remaunded, which to entertain, and maintain in your Church of England, you have made your Articles of Religion (and that by an Edict, or Declaration prefixed before them) to be of a dubious sense, and to equivocate, having a mental Reservation of sense for the adverse party, while the Orthodox imagineth the letter to be on his side, and as it hath ever so been taken, till you altered the case: But the two former Instances shallbe sufficient witness against you for the present, that you are departed from the Ancient Catholic Faith, being justly condemned of Novelty in Doctrine, yea Doctrines of Devils. So as here ye may have a sounder Answer to stop the Romanists mouth, charging the Church of England with Novelty in Doctrine, then to say, She professeth the Ancient Catholic Faith: Tell the Romanist by way of Retortion, That in some things the Church of England is no more to be condemned of Novelty in Doctrine, than the Church of Rome is, nor altogether so much.  
We come now to your discipline, wherein the Separatist (you say) condemns her (the present Church of England) of Antichristianisme. A sore Charge, and sufficient, if true, to separate from you. But what defence have you for this? Surely you say, She practiseth Church-Government, as it hath been in use in All Ages, and all Places, where the Church of Christ hath taken any rooting, both in, and ever since the Apostles times, and yet the Separatist condemns her for Antichristianisme in her Discipline. Here you say something indeed, and to some purpose, could you make it good. For to say, you profess, is nothing: but to profess and practise, that's matter of clear evidence. And yet I say, could you prove it so, it were but to some purpose, and not sufficient to acquit you from Antichristianisme, which is the main Point. For Some things were in use even in the Apostles times, and have continued ever since in all Ages, and all Places too, where the Church you mean of, hath taken now in tract of time a deep rooting in the Earth, yea even there also, where Christ's true Church hath taken rooting: and yet all this is no sufficient Argument or warrant for the true Church of Christ presently to embrace them. For instance, The Mystery of Iniquity began to work in the Apostles time, as he affirmeth, 2 Thesse's. 2.7. And an example hereof St. john notes in his third Epistle, of Diotrephes, 
3 john 9  who was ambitious of Prelacy, he loved to have, The Preeminence, the Bishop's Chair, he prateth against john, he receives not the brethren, and forbids them that would, and and throws them out of the Church by Excommunication, just as you and the Pope do. This ambition and erection of Prelacy or Hierarchy, was that Mystery of Iniquity, which Satan began to brood and hatch even in the Apostles days, and wherein we have Diotrephes, quickly grown up as the first Cock of the Game, of special and particular note, and name, that durst affront even the Apostle himself. And this Mystery of Iniquity, hath continued ever since, though at first, and in the first Ages it grew up but slowly, by reason of a tò katekon, à Remora, or main impediment, the Roman Empire, whose Imperial Seat being once removed from Rome to Constantinople by Constantine, who consopited, appeased, and put an end to those ten Persecutions, which had been a great hindrance to Antichrists growth: then began this Mystery to perk up, and the Bishop of Rome Silvester the first could be content to wear a Crown, put upon his head by Constantine, which upon Boniface the eight his head, was multiplied to a triple Crown, one for heaven, another for earth, and third for purgatory; and thus by degrees successively it grew up to that height, which we see it now arrived at, even its Akmè, or full Stature, beyond which it cannot go, though it would: So as its main care, strength, 
Nec ultra quo jam progrediatur habet.  and policy, is all little enough Parta tueri, to maintain what it hath got. Now (I say) in this Mystery of Iniquity (I mean the Prelacy, or Hierarchy) was Antichrist begotten, born, bred up, and at length brought to his full maturity and perfection. Now is this Mystery of Iniquity therefore good, because it is able to vie and plead Antiquity even as high up, as the Apostles own times, and so along down to ours? Though I do more than suspect, that you take it in foul Scorn, that I should Antichristen your Prelacy or Hierarchy with the name of the Mystery of Iniquity. But if ye will be patient a while, I shall, ere I have done, give you (I hope) good Satisfaction. And in the mean time the Apostle shall pass his word for it, who in the very same place, where he speaks of the Mystery of Iniquity, doth speak also of the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition, who is an Adversary, and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, who sitteth as God in the Temple of God, showing himself, that he is God. The very recital of which words may suffice to stay any reasonable man's stomach from breaking out into outrageous impatience, against him, that saith, The Prelacy is the Mystery of Iniquity. But you shall have it (God willing) at full anon.  
Again, some of your Divines go about to drive the Antiquity of your holy Lent-Fast from the Apostles very times, and so to have continued ever since in all Ages, and Places, where the Church hath taken any rooting. And indeed some Christians even then began to observe 
* Col. 2.21.  Touch not, Taste not, handle not; and to 
‡ Gal. 4.10.  observe Times, days & Months: but the Apostle condemns all such observation; and (as before) brands them for Doctrines of Devils, and departing from the Faith, and denying of Christ. So as though you could prove your Church-Government to have been in use both in, and ever since the Apostles times, yet it will not follow, that it is such a Government, as either was practised, or yet approved by the Apostles themselves. For your Church-Government is altogether hierarchical, by Prelates; which the Apostles never practised themselves, nor yet approved, but condemned in others, that either began to practise it, or were inclined and affected thereto. 
‡ 1 Pet. 5.  Not as Lords over God's Heritage, saith Peter. 
§ 2 Cor. 1.24.  Not as having dominion over your Faith, saith Paul. 
† Math. 20.  It shall not be so among you, saith Christ. 
* 3 joh. 9  Diotrephes loveth to have the Preeminence, saith john. But of this we shall have occasion to speak more at after. In the mean time, take this with you, Did the Apostles, nay (for some hundred years after them) did Prelates keep Courts, and Consistories, with their Chauncellors, Archdeacon's, Commissaries, officials, Tipstaffs, Pursuivants, Apparators, like the Roman Lictors, with their 
‡ I. lictor, liga.  rodds, for terror, and state? Or had they their private Courts to excommunicate whom they pleased, and that by a dumb Priest, and for every trivial matter, and for no just cause? Prove these things my Lord, to have been in use in the Primitive Ages, at the least for the first 500 years, or in any place, but where Diotr●phes was, until Antichrist, the Pope, set up that frame of Hierarchy, with all its Equipage, Train, and Rabble, the just Image whereof you have set up in the Church of England? You speak big indeed, but you cannot be as big as your word. If you had leisure to read the Histories of the Church, and among the rest the 
‡ Though your Altar-man Dr. Pockl. in his Christian Altar hath censured those Centuriators.  Centuries, they will show you what a vast difference there is between your Church-Government (as both now and of long time it hath been practised in the Church, both of Rome, and England) and that ancient Government practised by the ancient Prelates in the Primitive Ages. And in the Pope's Canon Law, and other Records, à Polidor Virgil De Inventorebus rerum, etc. you may come to know the Antiquity of your Prelatical Courts and Consistories, Chancellors, Archdeacon's, officials, Commissaries, Registers, and all the frie. For beyond that seven held City, the head-spring of this Seaven-Streamed Egyptian Nilus is not found.  
Hath not then the Separatist (as you call him) just cause and ground to charge your Church of England with Antichristianisme, whose Church-Government, and Discipline is such as the Apostles never approved, but expressly reproved and condemned, and practised the contrary? For if your Church-Government be that, which the Apostle brands with the Mystery of Iniquity, and of Antichrist, then surely you cannot excuse it from Antichristianisme. If you say, This is rather meant of the Church of Rome, and of the Pope the Head thereof, who you must needs confess is very like to Antichrist, if he be not the very Antichrist, as indeed he is: then of the Church of England. Why, wherein differeth the Church of England, from that of Rome in Church-Government? Do you not say you are both one and the same Church? And wherein one and the same, but in Church-Government especially? Of which we shall speak more anon.  
Now for Antichristianisme, you know it comes of Antichrist: 
Of Antichristianesme and Antichrist.  and Antichrist is a compound word, Anti, in the Greek signifying both for and against: So as Antichrist is one, that under pretence of being for Christ, is against Christ. Such is the Pope, who pretends to be Christ's Vicar, which is as much to say, as Antixristos, Antichristus, as Anthupatos, Pro consul, so Antichristus, Prochristus, or Vice-Christ. And yet he is Anti, Against, 
* Act. 13.12.  Antikeimenos, an Adversary to Christ, as the Apostle sets him forth. So as the Pope is Antichrist, both as he pretends to be Christ's Vicar, for Christ, or Vice- Christ, as he practiseth against Christ. And for this reason he is noted to be ho Antikristos, That Antichrist, by a note of singularity, 
1 john 2.22.  as 1 john 2.22. to distinguish him from other Antichrists, of whom there are many, as 1 john 2.18. 
1 john 2.18.  Of which many your Lordship and all Prelates are, and especially Archprelates, or Patriarches, as the Pope called you. For you tell us at after, that you Prelates are Viceroys, whereby Christ governs his Church. So as you being Christ's viceroy, over the Church of England, you are as vice Christus, vice-Christ, or in the Greek Antikristos, as Anthúpatos, Viceroy, under the King Christ. This you confess and profess. And under this Title you practise Antichrist, you are an 
* 2 Thess. 2.4.  Antikeimenos, an Adversary, as all your practices proclaim you; and as we have in part noted, and shall yet more set you forth. And this is that Mystery of Iniquity. For it were not else a Mystery, if it were not veiled with a pretence and profession to be for Christ, and under that to be against Christ. So as the definition of Antichrist pertaineth no less properly to you, than it doth to the Pope, only he is Antichrist with an Ho, That Antichrist, And you are An Antichrist, and no little one neither, as being Papa alterius Orbis, The Pope, or Patriarch of the other world, to wit, of England, as the Pope said of you. Now this being so clear, as is without all contradiction, and you being Metropolitan of all England, and the Church of England under you, and the Government thereof being Prelatical or hierarchical, and this Hierarchy being that Mystery of Iniquity of such Antiquity, for it pretends and professes to be for Christ, as the Government of a viceroy, but in practice is against Christ, and so is altogether Antichristian: can you blame your Separatist, for condemning your Church of England of Antichristianisme, and that for that very Church-Governments sake, which you Say hath been used both in, and ever since the Apostles in all Ages and Places, where the Church hath taken any rooting.  
But you will, with the Jesuit, allege that place of john, to defend you from being an Antichrist, as they do, to defend the Pope from being that Antichrist. john saith, 
‡ 1 joh. 2.22.  Who is a liar, but he that denyeth, that jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist. But you Say, you do not deny jesus to be Christ, therefore you are neither a liar, nor Antichrist. 'Tis true indeed, none is a more devout adorer of the Name JESUS, than yourself: but yet I must tell you, that for all this, you deny the Person jesus to be the Christ. But you confess him to be the Christ. In words you do. But what saith the Apostle? They 
‡ Tit. 1.16.  profess that they know God, but in works they deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and to every good work Reprobate? So that in words a man may confess and profess Christ, and yet in works deny him. And so do you for all your fair pretences, and professed love to jesus. And who was fitter to betray Christ, than he that with a Hale Master Saluted him with a Kiss? But let us now see, what it is to deny jesus to be the Christ. jesus in that place is spoken of his Person: and Christ is spoken of his Offices. So as there is meant, not a denial of jesus to be the Son of God, or God-man, not a denial of his Person, and two Natures; these you do not deny: but a denial of Iesu● to be the Christ, the Anointed of the Father. And this you deny. How? For Christ is that Anointed King, Priest and Prophet: which three Offices of his are comprehended and signified in the Title ho Kristòs, The Christ, as john there sets it down, and our English doth well express it. The Christ, That Anointed, Anointed above his fellows, namely King, Priest, and Prophet, so as none of his fellows, those foregoing Types, or Figures of him, were anointed. Melchisedech was King and Priest: Samuel was Priest and Prophet: David was King and Prophet: but never any was this ho Kristòs, The Christ, The Anointed, King, Priest, and Prophet. And Christ was anointed solemnly, and in a conspicuous and visible manner King, Priest, and Prophet, by the Holy Ghost lighting upon him at his Baptism, whereupon that voice of the Father from heaven proclaimed him King, Priest, and Prophet, 
* Mat. 3.17. & 17.5. 2 Pet. 1.17. Luke 9.35.  This is my Beloved Son (there he is King) in whom I am well pleased (there he is Priest) hear him; there he is Prophet. Now he that denyeth, or destroyeth any one of these three Offices of Christ, which are inseparably inherent in him, and incommunicable to any Creature, denyeth jesus to be the Christ, as either denying him to be the only King, or the only Priest, or the only Prophet of his Church. Now 'tis no hard matter to prove, that you Prelates as Prelates, deny and destroy all these three Offices of Christ. And first, you deny jesus to be the Only Priest, and that not only in taking upon you the Title of Priests, but also the Office. The Title of Priest you profess, and take a pride in. And the Office of Priest, you Priests of the Church of England do in part at least usurp. For the Office of Christ, as Priest, is in two things: First, to Sacrifice: Secondly, to forgive Sins. Now though you do not yet openly profess yourselves to be sacrificing Priests, as the Romish Priests do: yet you take upon you to do that, which never any Priests under the Law did, or might by their Office do, namely to forgive Sins. This, I say, never any of the levitical Priests did. This was and is Christ's only Prerogative, as he is God and Priest. For who can forgive Sins, but only God? This the proud Pharisees confessed. But this power you Say, you have derivatively from Christ, by his Authority committed unto you, as Priests. But first, we have before proved that you are no Priests of Christ. Secondly, where hath Christ given any such power, even to his Apostles and true Ministers of the Gospel, to forgive Sins? Indeed he saith unto them, 
‡ joh. 20.22▪ 23.  Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose Sins ye remit, they are remitted: and whose Sins ye retain, they are retained. Was this by a Priestly Absolution? But the Apostles were no such Priests as you profess to be. Therefore it was not by any such Priestly Absolution, as you practise. How then? How then, Say you? You are here at a Nonplus, if it was not by a Priestly Absolution. It must needs remain then, that it was by the Ministry of the Gospel, and by the preaching of Faith and Repentance, and pardon of Sins to the Penitent Believers. As 
* Mar. 16.15, 16.  He, that believeth, and is baptised into Christ, professing his true Faith and Repentance, hath his Sins remitted: but he that believeth not, hath his Sins still retained. And this is that remitting of Sins Declarative, the power whereof Christ committed to his Apostles, and their Successors, the true Ministers of the Gospel, who by their preaching declare who have their sins pardoned, and who not. So as your colouring over your usual evasion of the Papists about their merits, which, they say are not absolutely meritorious of themselves, but as being dipped and died in Christ's blood, whence they receive the tincture of merit. But as the merit of Christ is altogether immanent in himself, and not transient to us, but only by Imputation through faith, and not by any infusion or inherency, as Papists teach: So the power of Priestly Absolution is so proper and peculiar to the Person of Christ, that it is not communicative, or derivative to any Creature. No not (I say) to the levitical Priests, who otherwise were Types of Christ. They only offered sacrifices for sins, but as Types, and which 
‡ Heb. 10.4.11.  could never take away Sins, as the Apostle speaks. And their Office was to 
‡ Levit. 13.  discern and judge of the Leprosy, and to pronounce a man clean or unclean, according to those signs and marks, which God himself gave. Now Leprosy was an Emblem of Sinne. And as those Ministers of the Old Testament, did with the Leprosy, namely pronounce or declare it only, to be, or not to be: So the Ministers of the Gospel are to declare unto believers the pardon of sins, by those signs and marks, which God hath set in his Word, and to impenitent persons condemnation, except they believe and repent. But for power of Absolving men from Sins, as to Say, Thy Sins are forgiven thee, that's Christ's voice alone. Never any of the Apostles used this voice to any, Thy Sins are forgiven thee: but as Peter said to those that were pricked in their hearts, and asked, Men and brethren what shall we do? 
§ Act. 2.37, 38.  Repent (saith he) and be baptised every one of you in the Name of jesus Christ, for the Remission of Sins. But to Say, I absolve thee from thy Sins, or Thy Sins are forgiven thee, is only his, who can give Repentance and Faith. These two Prerogatives are inseparable in Christ, as Peter showeth. 
* Act. 5.31.  Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give Repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of Sins: and we are witnesses of these things, Saith he. Now if you can prove that Christ hath made you Such Princes and Saviour's, as to give you a power (which 
‡ Act. 8.19▪  Simon Magus would have bought with his money) to give Repentance to any man: then I will without any more ado confess, that you have also a power to forgive Sins. Otherwise not till then, by your assumed and usurped Priesthood, and presumptuous, yea blasphemous forgiving of Sins, I Absolve thee: you deny jesus to be the Christ, the only Christ, to wit, the only Priest, who only hath merit and power, as to give Repentance, so remission of Sins to whom he will. And thus, as you take upon you to be a Priest, both by your profession and practice, you are an Antichrist. For who is a liar, but he that denyeth jesus to be the Christ? He is Antichrist, Saith the Apostle john.  
Secondly, neither were it any great difficulty to prove, that you Prelates, (and that according to your own Doctrine in many places of your Book) do deny jesus to be the Christ; to wit, the only Prophet of his Church. For you allow no belief, that the Scripture is the voice of Christ the Prophet, except the voice and Tradition of the present Church do first usher it in. And this Church must always be meant of a Prelatical Church. No question of that. And for Exposition and Sense of Scripture, you deny that the Scripture itself, and of itself, hath sufficient light, (as at after we shall see at large) and therefore you refer us either to the Exposition of the Primitive Church, or the Decisions of General Counsels, for the right Sense of the Scripture. Thus you do akuronsa, (as Christ saith) or make void and of no authority the voice of Christ, by your Tradition. Nay you Say also, That if a General Council should Conclude and Decree an Error, yet all men ought to yield obedience (at least external) thereunto, till another General Council, equal to that, shall reverse and correct it. And (by the way) what if it shall make it worse, or add more Errors to it? But thus do you not deny Christ to be the only Prophet of his Church (of whom God Saith, Hear Him, Him only, His Word only, His Voice only) when you do not take his Word to be light enough, and to be sufficient to interpret itself, but that you must have recourse to General Counsels, consisting of Prelates; as your Oracles, to decide all doubts and controversies of Faith? Do you not thus attribute a greater light to men, then to the voice of Christ? GOD Saith of Christ, that Prophet, 
* Act. 3.22.  Hear him in all things, whatsoever he shall say unto you: but you say, In all doubts and controversies of faith, hear what a General Council Saith, yea though it determine Errors, yet all men are bound to yield obedience thereunto. Thus the express voice and clear word of Christ that Prophet, must depend upon Men, and those an Assembly of Prelates or Priests, which Christ never ordained in his Church; and not men, upon It. And so in this respect also, denying Christ to be the only All sufficient Prophet to instruct and establish his Church in all Truth, while you deny his word to be Autópistos, and Autàrkes, of selfe-Credit, of itself to be believed, and selfe-sufficient to show and interpret itself: you prove yourself an Antichrist: For who is a liar, but he that denyeth that jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist. Your Grace therefore is an Antichrist.  
But I come to the third Instance, to which (I confess) I thought to have confined myself, and not to have touched the other two in this place, though they be no less proper, than this: which is, That you Prelates, both by Profession and Practice, as you are Prelates, do deny jesus to be the Christ, in that you deny him to be the only Lord, and King of his Church. For what is for Christ to be the King of, and over, and in his Church, but (as to exercise his Almighty power, and Fatherly care, and Spouse-like love, in protecting and preserving his Church, from all evils, in comforting her in the midst of afflictions, in supplying her with all necessary Graces and Blessings, and in vindicating the cause of his People against all their Persecuters and Oppressors: So also) in bearing a Special Kingly Rule in and over their Souls and Consciences, in all things concerning Faith, in the Worship and Service of God. So as the people of God do, and aught to acknowledge Christ herein their only King, and not to suffer their consciences to be captivated, and ensnared by any ordinance of Man, whatsoever in point of faith and ceremonies in God's service, enjoining a necessary conformity thereunto. 'Tis Christ's Prerogative alone in this case, to sit as King in the throne which he hath set up for himself in every man's conscience. And Christ hath redeemed us from all bondage and subjection to humane devises in Spiritual things: as the Apostle saith, 
‡ 1 Cor. 7.23.  Ye are bought with a price, be not the servants of men So as this Kingly office▪ this Kingdom over his Church, Christ hath purchased with a dear price, even his precious blood. But Prelates ●ra●ple this blood of Christ under their feet, and make this his purchase void, by setting themselves in his throne, by sitting in and over men's consciences, making Laws, and imposing Rites (as absolute Kings over the Church) binding the Conscience to a necessary conformity to them in the worship of God. And to this purpose, this their Kinglike Authority (indeed intolerable usurpation and Tyranny) comes usually armed with a strong guard of Canons, and attended with metà pollens phantasías, with a pompous train of Ceremonies, ever waiting at their heels. For their Maxim is, No Ceremonies, no Bishop. A Bishop and his Ceremonies are Relatives, and can no more be separated one from the other, than an Altar and a Priest. But of Ceremonies I shall have occasion to speak more anon: and therefore I am the briefer here. The Sum is, That a Prelate, as a Prelate attended with his Ceremonies, which he imposeth upon the Consciences of God's people in the worship of God, doth thereby deny Christ to be the only King of his people, and so to be their Redeemer, as who hath freed them, as from all levitical and Legal Rites, so from all humane Ordinances and Devices in the worship of God. I conclude therefore, That a Prelate, by his very place, profession and practice, as a Prelate, usurping domination over men's Consciences in God's worship, by imposing his Ceremonies, denyeth Christ to be the King of his people, denyeth jesus to be the Christ, and so is a Liar, and Antichrist; For who is a liar, but he that denyeth jesus to be the Christ? He is Antichrist.  
Thus the Case being so, that the Church of England, being a Prelatical and hierarchical Church, and so for Church-Government and Discipline, ruled and Lorded over by the Prelates: doth thereby (as a Prelatical Body united to Prelatical Heads) and by subjection and conformity unto their Lordly impositions and injunctions in point of Ceremonies, and of the worship of God, conspire with the Prelates in denying Christ to be her only King; and so with them denying that jesus is the Christ, is justly condemned of Antichristianisme.  
I should now proceed to some other passage, but that one rub here comes in the way, and that is concerning the Church of Christ, which here ye name. For you say, The Church of England practices Church-Government, as it hath been in use in all Ages▪ and all Places where THE CHRCH OF CHRIST HATH TAKEN ANY ROOTING. Why, my Lord, what say you to all the reform Churches beyond the Seas? Hath your Church-Government in England been in use in all places where th●se Churches have been rooted now for the space of at least 100 years? What? In Geneva? In France? In Belgia, and other places? Now therefore you must either plainly confess this one Clause to be most notoriously false; or else, that the best Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, are no true Churches of Christ. But for that you pass not much to confess, that those Reformed Churches are no true Churches, because they have no Prelates. This you Spoke openly not long ago at your High-Commission, in Cathedra, when your charity called that famous and glorious shining Lamp, Mr. CALVIN, Rascal, when you gave those Churches that doom. Had you been a Prelate in Queen Elizabeth's time, durst you have done so? Nay in King james his time, who with the Church of England gave all those Reformed Churches the right hand of fellowship, as true Churches of Christ (as in the Council of Dort) durst you have done it? And why now tam audax omnia perpeti, as that Heathen 
* Horace.  Poet said? And have not these Churches taken rooting? How then have they continued so long, and flourished so much, and put forth so many beautiful and goodly branches, godly and learned Divines, and brought forth such abundant good fruit? Could all this be without taking root? yea and a sound rooting too, well planted by Gods own hand, and watered abundantly with his blessed showers of Grace from heaven, and fenced about with the wall of his mighty protection, against Storms and Tempests? And I trust they shall stand and flourish, when all 
‡ jer. 2.21. Math. 15.13.  degenerate plants, which our heavenly Father hath not planted, shallbe plucked▪ up by the roots, as bearing no other fruit, but the Apples of Sodom; without beautiful, but all black and rotten within. Although it might justly be feared (could you effect your so laboured thorough Reconciliation with Rome, to become all one, as you say, you already be) you would do your best, to root out all those Reformed Churches, as that of the Palatinate now is. And 'tis true indeed, that no particular visible Churches can promise to themselves perpetuity of continuance in one place, longer than God is pleased. But for thee, O 
‡ Psal. 137.8. Rev. 17. & 18.  daughter of Babylon, thou Mother of whoredoms, God hath particularly designed, and marked thee out for destruction, so as thou, with all thy confederate Lovers, shall not escape; and the day of thy visitation sleepeth not. But for the Kingdom and Church of jesus Christ, it shall abide, to triumph over Antichrist, and all his accursed Crew. And for thee o Church of England, beware of being an Ivy about that old rotten Romish Oak, lest you both be cut down together, and be cast into the same burning Lake for ever, beware of grappling thyself with that old leaking and sinking Peter-boate, as thy pilot would persuade thee, lest you both be swallowed up together.  
L. ibid. 'Tis very remarkable, that while both these (the Romanist, and Separatist, press hard upon the Church, both of them cry out of Persecution, like froward Children, etc.  
P. What cause the Romanist hath so to cry, I know not; especially if the just Laws against them be suffered to sleep. But for your Separatists, (among whom you reckon and rank godly and zealous Ministers, and all good men, whom you hunt after, and prosecute continually in all your Courts) what cause these have to cry out of persecution, and that even in the throwing of them out of their Churches and Houses, and native Country, that they can rest no where for you, and so what cause they have to cry, and complain to their GOD of such persecution, (as having none on Earth to complain to) both the world may see, and you shall one day feel, withot speedy repentance, which we have as little hope of, as you can have of heaven. But they being thus persecuted, you impute the cause to their hard pressing upon the Church, comparing them to froward Children. Indeed Children will cry, when they are swaddled, or beaten, and misused. And the poor Innocent, or Infant, being pinched too hard with the swathing bands, or pricked with a pin mis-put, will cry out, and roar, till they find ease. So as there is cause enough of their crying. And is it not (trow you) your too hard pressing upon your Separatists, with your Canons and Ceremonies, and which as with swaddling bands you bind them too straight withal, and your hard and rough handling of them, that gives them just cause to cry? But however, for all this, your hard usage must by no means be called persecution. far be that from your piety, and clemency, that you should either persuade to Persecution in any kind, or practise it in the least.  
L. p. 16. To the Papists common Objection, Where was your Church before Luther? Your Answer is: It was just there, where theirs is now. One and the same Church still, no doubt of that. One in Substance, but not one in Condition of State and Purity; their part of the same Church remaining in Corruption: and our part of the same Church under Reformation. The Same Naaman, and he a Syrian still, but leprous with them, and cleansed with us; the Same man Still.  
P. Here you teach us a Point, which had the Divines of the Church of England in former Ages known, it might have saved them a great deal of puzzle, which the subtle Jesuits, for diversion and gaining of time put them unto, in tracing the footsteps of the Protestant Church, and the professors thereof, through all ages, years, weeks and days, ever since the Apostles times. Where was your Church? Why, it was just there, where Rome's is now. This had been a short Cut to find the Protestant Church; Like the North-East passage to China, or the North-West to the Westeran- America, could they be found out. But you have at length found out a Southeast passage to Rome, where the present Church of England, losing her self, may find her self. Which passage or path had now for a long time through disuse, and want of Travellers and Pilgrims thither, been grown up with grass, till now again beaten out, by your hard and continual travail in it. Would an English Protestant then know, where his Church was before Luther? Why, go but to Rome, and if you have lost both Church, and Religion in England, there you may be sure to find it again; no doubt of that. Surely I hope Jesuits willbe no longer such fools, as to take such a tedious pilgrimage, compassing Sea and Land, to the Shrine of Canterbury, to ask of the Oracle there, where your Church of England was in diebus illis. They might have stayed at home, and there have found it, even in Rome, within the Sacred Thresholds of S. Peter, or S. john Lateran, and that (with some favourable Interpretation) where and when the Priest is at his Mass. So as well might your Lordship call it (as you do) an Idle and Impertinent Question, Where was your Church before Luther? What a jest is that? Just there, where Rome's is Now. One▪ and the Same, no doubt of that. And who shall doubt that, what your Lordship è Cathedra defines, out of Canterbury Chair defines? But now henceforth I hope, you will not so much complain of Separatists from your Church of England. For you teach them to Separate from the Church of England, as from Rome itself, as being one and the same Church. And you know that all Protestants of that Spirit, cannot away with the Church of Rome. So as you may expect every day new Companies, and that by threaves, to get them packing from your Church of England; and that according to Christ's warning piece, Rev. 18.4. Come out of her my people, lest ye be partakers of her Sins, and lest ye receive of her Plagues.  
But you distinguish: Yours in Purity, and under Reformation: Rome's Church under Corruption; yours Naaman cleansed; theirs Naaman Leprous; yet both one Naaman, and be a Syrian, the Same man still. A paradox indeed. 
A Riddle.  A Riddle to pose Oedipus himself For riddle me this: One and the Same Man both Leprous, and▪ Cleansed, at the same time. Cannot the Priest in the Mass as easily riddle, how one and the same numerical body of Christ may be both in heaven, and in his Masse-pix, or on his Altar, at one and the same instant? Even as soon. But not to stretch your paradox too far, lest we tear it, and so make the rent wider betwixt you and Rome (which in your Book you say, you are loath to do) Is your Church of England Cleansed, and Rome's Leprous? Remember yourself well; and Consider. Why then do you not cast out that Leprous woman, and 
* Levit. 13.46.  Shut the door upon her? Nay, why would you so fain be reunited with that filthy and polluted Leper? And yet, why not? For is the Church of England in the Condition of Purity, and under Reformation? Indeed Solomon saith, 
‡ Pro. 30.12▪  There is a Generation, that are pure in their own eyes: and yet is not washed from their filthiness. And is your Church of England Cleansed from all her Leprosy and pollutions? What from the bitter root of the Hierarchy, which hath defiled the Land with Idolatrous Altars and Images, and Sundry Superstitious Ceremonies; and open Profanation of the Lords day, by tolerating of Heathenish Sports, and Whorish and Drunken meetings? Is it cleansed from those Doctrines of Devils forementioned, accounting holy Wedlock unclean at Some times, and at Some times the Creatures unclean? Or is England cleansed from the guilt of Innocent blood of the Saints and Servants of jesus Christ, whom she hath cruelly persecuted and oppressed, and with whose blood the whole Land is defiled, and yet she is not washed from it, She repenteth not, but goes still on, to fill up the measure of her Cruelty? How art thou then purified, o Land! How reform! How cleansed! Nay dost thou not hate and persecute true holiness, and purity, and especially in godly and painful Ministers, who preach against thy profanations? So as may it not be said of thee, as the Lord said of jerusalem, 
‡ Eze. 22.24▪  Thou art the Land, that is not cleansed?  
Seeing then thou art not cleansed from thy Leprosy, but art a Syrian still, a Leprous Naaman still: well mayst thou be Said to be One and the Same Church with Rome, even one and the same body, even one and the same in Substance. For what is that substance wherein you say, the Church of England and Rome, are one and the same? Is it not that, which you account the very Essence, Form, and Being of your Church? And what is that? Or what be those things, wherein the Substance of your Church consisteth, as wherein the Church of England and of Rome, are both one and the same, so as we need make no doubt of that? Surely wherein we find you both one and the same, we need not doubt, but in those things consists the one and only substance of your one and the same Church. For as for other things, wherein the Church of England either in profession dissenteth, or in practice differeth from the Church of Rome, you reckon those among Rome's corruptions. Therefore on the contrary, in whatsoever you are one and the same Church with Rome, those must be no corruptions, but the very pure Essence and Substance of that one Church, which is just there where Rome's is now. And what are those? Namely: One and the same in the Hierarchy, or Prelatical Government, which is so essential to your Church, as where 'tis not, there's no Church: Only with this difference: The Pope Christ's Vicar over the whole world, and your Lordship his Viceroy over all England, that other world. One and the same, in all the members of this great body of the Hierarchy, and in all the Officers of this Church-Government: as Chancellors, Archdeacon's, officials, Commissaries, and so down to the very Skirts of that goodly guarded Babilonish Government. One and the Same in all your Ecclesiastical Courts: as the Prerogative Court, the Court of Arches, the Bishop's Ordinary Court, the Spiritual Court, the Court of Inquisition, and High Commission; with a little difference in the name. One and the Same in their Canons, and chiefly the Pope's Canon Law. One and the Same in your Episcopal Robes and vestments, both rare and rich, as purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, as it were the livery whereby you are known to be of one and the same house, or family, with that Woman (Rev. 17.) aliâs, the Great Whore of Babylon, with whom you claim Sisterhood; So also in your Mitres, your Rochets, Palls, Semiters, Square Caps, Tippets, and so cap a pied. One and the Same in your Liturgy, Service, or Matins, or Service-Booke, which even your jesuit confessed to be Catholic; and so One and the Same in all your Service dressing and garb: as rich Copes, Palls, and other Altar-ornaments, goodly guilt plate, fair Crucifixes over them, and devout adoration unto them, and praying toward the East, where your Altar and Crucifix standeth; goodly gay Images, and Loud-sounding Organs, and sweet chanting Choristers and Chanters, Deans, and Subdeanes, and prebend's, Epistlers, and Gospelers, Singing-men and Viergers, and a huge Sately pome, and Equipage, more than I can tell: where you have Long Service, and Short Sermons, or rather (to avoid tediousness) none at all: yea and your Service in your cathedrals in an unknown tongue, the Popish Service mumbled in a strange tongue, and yours in a strange tone chanted and roared out so loud by a sort of profane and drunken Singing Men, and Apish Boys, with such a black Sanctus, as the people is no way edified, as not knowing whether they sing a Song of Robin Hood, or play a Scotish Jig. One and the Same in your Altars, Priests, Sacrifices: Only with some small difference in some terms, and manner of expression, both holding a real presence, Rome explicitly by Transubstantiation, and England implicitly, not daring to speak plainly how; only willing to come as near Rome, as the time will give leave; in stead of an Host, you will have at least your Crucifix, a representation of Christ's body▪ Sacrificed on the Cross, either upon the Altar, for a pawn till the Host itself come, or as near over the Altar, as may be. One and the Same in exercising an Antichristian Tyranny over men's Souls, Consciences, Bodies, Purses, Estates, by holding them in hard bondage under your roaring Canons, and intolerable burdens of Ceremonies; but this is rather to be referred to the Title or Caput of Hierarchy, the Essence, and Substance of your One and the Same Church. One, in punishing the Transgressor's of Ecclesiastical Canons, more severely, then of God's Commandments. One, in execution of Discipline by Excommunication in your blind Courts, for every trifle, which must cost more than a trifle to get off, So as there must be a Commutation, and Solution, for Absolution. One, in Dispensations and Prohibitions, dispensing with such as will dispend, that by Licence they may Marry, or eat flesh in Lent. One and the Same in persecuting the true Church of Christ, his Word, his Ministers, his People, only Rome doth it under the name of Heretics, of which you are none, and you under the name of Puritans, the worst of Heretics. One and the Same in bowing at the Name jesus. One and the Same in observation of Holidays, only with some difference, Rome hath more: yet not an English Almanac, but sets them forth at least in black attire, (as the Papists veil their Images all the Lent from the people's view, to make them hunger the more after such food after their long Fast, at Easter) in hope that in time, they may come to be clad in 
* In red Letters.  Scarlet, their Holiday suit; So as, a 
‡ Mr. Gellybrand, quem honoris causa nomino.  Religious Gentleman, late the Astronomy-Reader in Gressham-house, but now translated above the Stars for Setting out an Almanac with a Martyr to every day, in stead of the Pope's Saints, was brought into the High Commission Court, where he hardly escaped findging for an Heretic. One and the Same in profaning and disesteeming the Lords day; both accounting it to be of humane Authority; both, preferring their Church-holy-dayes before it, both, profaning it, only with this difference, Rome profanes it only practically, but England both practically, and professedly, and Authentically, by Special Dispensation and Edict. One in condemning Innocents' in your Ecclesiastical Courts, mixed with temporal judges, as in your High Commission; and in temporal Courts, mixed with Ecclesiastical judges, such a sour leaven, as 
* As in the Case of Mr. B. first Suspended in the High Commission, and then brought into a temporal Court, where yourselves are also judges, and Parties.  after Ecclsieasticall Censure, you deliver them over to the Secular power, where through your instigation no mercy can be expected, yourselves being both Parties, and judges. One and the Same in holding the rule of Faith, only with this difference; Rome, equalling her Tradition with the Scripture▪ and you, putting a necessity of the present Church's Tradition and voice, as without which the Scripture cannot be believed to be the word of God, as was touched before, and as will appear more fully at after: So as Rome yoaketh her traditions in equal rank with the Scripture, and you put your Church's Authority and Tradition for the Fore-horse, to draw and lead the Scripture into men's belief (as the 
‡ 2 Sam. 6.6.  Oxen drew the Ark towards jerusalem) that it is the word of God. One and the Same in exempting your Clergy from the Civil power and judicature; only with this difference: Rome hath got it in possession, and you have often attempted it, and openly professed your hope of Seeing the Clergy of England, as high, as ever they were; or as the Lawyers now are. In a word, One and the Same in your Babilonish Faith and Religion: For Rome hath so contrived some of her doctrines (as those about Grace) laid down in the Decrees of Trent, as that those two mighty dissenting Sides about merit of Congruity, 
See the History of the Council of Trent.  to wit, Andreas Vega with his Franciscans, and Dominicus Soto with his Dominicans, both Sides bearing a great sway and swinge in the Council: as that each side persuaded itself, that the Decrees (brought from Rome in a Cloak-bag, as most of the rest were) was for them, and favoured their side: And the present Oracle of the Church of England, (Papa alterius Orbis) hath so handled and hammered the matter in his forge, that by a Declaration before the Articles of Religion, he hath with no great difficulty, made those Articles concerning Grace, so to speak, as to please both the dissenting parties. Like to a Picture, which each man in the room imagines looks upon him in particular. Or, as easily (I say) as if a man should take away the prick of a Hebrew Letter from the right side, and place it on the left, according to which variation a man pronounceth respectively the word 
* judg. 12.6.  Schiboleth, or Sibboleth: The false pronounciation of which word cost the Ephraimites their lives. Lastly (to end as I began) The Church of England and of Rome are One and the same, in turning Christ's Kingdom, which is altogether Spiritual, and not of this world, into an earthly and secular Kingdom, although Styled a Spiritualty, and Hierarchy, or holy Government, and Kingdom, whose Governors are temporal Lords▪ calling themselves Christ's viceroys, whose kingdom, glory, pomp, dignity, riches, is all earthly, not heavenly; carnal, not spiritual, verefying that of the Apostle, 
‡ Phil. 3.18.  They are the enemies of the Cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, whose glory is in their Shame, which mind earthly things. Here are particulars enough (to be silent in the rest) to prove your Speech true, That the Church of England and the Church of Rome, are in Substance one and the Same; no doubt of that. As for Rome's corruptions (as you account and call them) they are neither so many, nor so great (So long as they overthrew not the foundation, as you not say, they do) but that the large Mantle of your Charity is broad enough to cover them; So as that need not to break square, or greatly hinder your so much desired and attempted Reconciliation; wherein I know you will be ready to meet Rome the half way, or three quarters and more rather than fail, to give his Holiness the kiss of peace, so he will be content to leave your Patriarchate or Popedom in England, while himself enjoyeth the Vicarship of the wider world, and at his death leave you his Heir apparent of the triple Crown. Yet perhaps for your Reputation sake you would require, that some grossness at least might be paired off the outsides of her fouler corruptions, and they a little smoothed over: and for your part (I dare say) you will not be behind hand to bring on the Church of England in such a fair forwardness, and nearness (as possibly the time will permit) to a just conformity in all things feasible.  
But is the Church of England, now come to this, to be in Statu quo, So as a man may find her just there, where Rome is now? Alas, poor England! Shall not now all thy brave Worthies, that are for the most part dead and gone, and Some yet surviving, as brands out of the flame, rise up, and bring their 
‡ Learned Treatises. Rev. 17. & 18.  Evidences, as witnesses against Rome, that She is a False, Heretical, Idolatrous, Apostatised, Antichristian Church, the very Whore of Babylon, plainly described in the Revelation? And one of the last Books written against her to purpose indeed, Entitled BABEL no BETHEL, (which came forth in a good season, somewhat before you came to sit in the Chair of Canterbury: and for which you may remember you convented the Author before your High Commission Board at London house out of Term, and committed him to prison, (Mr. BURTON I mean) now a close prisoner and Exile) hath by many impregnable Arguments so strongly proved the Church of Rome, to be no true Church of Christ, but a mere Antichristian Apostasy from the Faith: So as neither his two hot 
* Mr. Chalmley, and Mr. Butterfield, who is since gone to Douai and turned jesuit.  Antagonists, your 
‡ Bishop of Exon.  Brother's Champions; nor any Jesuits since hath undertaken to Answer it, as being indeed unanswerable; And so it Stands, his Adversaries giving him the Bucklers in the plain Field. And yet now is the Case so altered, that so suddenly the Church of England is become One and the Same with the Church of Rome, So as She may find herself just there where Rome's is now, and that, no doubt of that. But how doth this appear? Surely you may take it for truth, for the Primate and Metropolitan of all England hath so bestirred himself, and played his part, in Chopping and Changing, putting down truth, and setting up error and superstition in the Church of England, that she is Suddenly so metamorphosed into another form, and in a manner transubstantiated, into a new Substance of a Church, as now you may find her just there, where Rome's is now, both one and the Same Church, no doubt of that.  
If then we may take your word for your Church of England in this Case, and considering that the Church of Rome is that notorious Harlot: how any true Christian (as I said before) that will not become the member of a Harlot, can hold longer communion with you, I cannot see. And for my part, I do here ingenuously profess, and protest against you, again and again, that I abhor you, and all such Churches as hold communion with Rome, as one and the Same Church, and do utterly separate from you, till you separate from all communion and conformity with that Babylon in all those particulars forementioned. And so I have done with you thus far in this point. You proceed.  

Notorious blasphemy in putting aly upon Christ.  L. p. 17. According to Christ's Institution, the Scripture, where 'tis plain, should guide the Church: and the Church, where there's doubt and difficulty, should expound the Scripture.  
P. How? Where, I pray, hath Christ so instituted? And who hath bewitched you to dare to utter such a notorious, 
Prelate's Blasphemy against Christ.  and pernicious untruth, as this, and to Father it upon Christ, and that upon your bare word? For What Scripture do you, or can you bring For this? Nay if the Scripture, Christ's own voice, and wherein the Spirit of Christ breatheth, be not sufficient to interpret itself, and that in all more doubtful and difficult places of it: what Man, or Men, or Church, shallbe able to do it? For how can any interpret difficult places of Scripture, especially such as concern Faith and Salvation, but by the Scripture itself? But we shall speak more fully of this afterwards. And you have told us what the Church is, namely a Hierarchy, or Kingdom of Prelates, who generally 
* Rom. 8.5.  Savour the things of the flesh, and not of the Spirit: And if you● Lordship should but stand for a proof and Say in this Case, and that all other Prelates would hazard their credit upon your Ability in interpreting the Scripture: it would quickly appear what hope the world might have of Prelates help at a dead lift, for the establishing of our Faith and Consciences in some perplexed Cases. O then what brave Prelatical Glosses should we have? As for the purpose: Some doubts of late are risen in England about Altars, Prelates Calling, Ceremonies▪ Now if they should consult your Lordship Sitting in the Chair of Canterbury to resolve them in these difficulties, what would be your final determination of them? For the first, would you not allege Heb. 13.10. We have an Altar? For the second, Psal. 45.16. Princes in all Lands, that is Prelates. For the Third, to wit Ceremonies 1 Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done, decently, and in Order: Ergo, what Ceremonies the Bishop shall enjoin, you must observe. These are your Glosses, and such interpretations as these we must look for of your Church. Such as the Church of Rome is very dextrous and expert in. As 
‡ Mat. 26.26.  This is my body: Ergo, The Bread is transubstantiated into Christ's very body. 
‡ Luke 22.32  I have prayed for thee Peter: Ergo, the Pope cannot err. 
§ Luke 5.4.  Launch out into the deep: Ergo, the Pope may fish all the world. 
† Act. 10.13.  Arise Peter, Kill and eat: Ergo, the Pope may kill the Venetians. 
* 1 Cor. 3.15.  As it were by fire: Ergo, there is a Purgatory. Thus the Scripture, where 'tis plain, should guide the Church; otherwise not: but in doubt and difficulty the Church should expound the Scripture, that is, guide the Scripture. Ergo, the Church is above the Scripture, because only where 'tis plain, it guides the Church: but where difficult, the Church must guide it, interpret it. In difficulties then the Scripture, it must not guide the Church. Ergo, in difficulties and doubts the Church may interpret, as She pleaseth.  
No, not so: for you add ibid. Saying, Yet so, as neither the the Scripture should be forced, nor the Church so bound up, as that upon just and further evidence, She may not revise that, which in any Case ●ath slipped by her.  
P. Here be two things enterfeerinch each other. First, a Caution. 
Prelate's Subtle, but vain evasion.  Secondly, a Condition. The Caution, That the Scripture be not forced. Take heed of that. But who shall Judge of that? Even the Same that forceth it, the Church. And who shall defend that Scripture from forcing; if it be left to men's interpritation, and those men in matters of doubt and difficulty are not guided by the Scripture, but the Scripture by the Church's interpretation? But in no Case let the Scripture be forced. You will have a care of that. 
Prelate a most notorious forcer of Scripture.  But why then do you show yourself so expert in forcing and misapplying the Scripture, and that most pitifully, as both hath been showed, and will all along appear? But however the Condition will help all. Forcing, or not forcing, the Church must not be bound, but that upon just and further Evidence She may revise that, which in any Case hath slipped by her: Now what is this just and further Evidence? Or what, this Revising? And what this Sliping by her? I take the Sense and Sum of all to be this: That here you lay your ground to make way for an Index expurgatorious to revise. But is that all? Nay 'tis employed, that some thing else be done: as to correct and expunge, or at least more clearly interpret; but indeed, to expunge, with a Deleatur, let it be blotted out, whatsoever in any Books formerly Printed by Authority in England, hath in any Case slipped by her; or if the main Subject of the Book be not Catholic, and consonant to the Doctrines of the present Church, that they may be censured as Prohibited Books, and so una Litura canceled. And withal, whatsoever you find in any Books, which you do not very well resent, to declare which be the Doctrines of the Church of England, and which private men's opinions. And 'twill be requisite, in my judgement, that you hasten this work, to dispatch it in your time, lest if you die, such another Phoenix will hardly arise out of your Ashes, that will have the courage to adventure upon these things. But among all other things, leave us not in that perplexed estate; whereinto you have brought us by your Declaration before the Articles of Religion; but make us a New Declaration, to certify us what to believe, and rather resolve us plainly, that the Articles are to be taken in that sense, which agreeth with your own opinion, then that they should give an uncertain sound: for than who shall prepare himself to the battle? And there may be great reason, why we should prefer your Lordship's opinion, before the judgement of all other those learned men that have formerly lived in the Church of England, because the Church may now see more, and further into a Millstone, then of old; as a Dwarf upon a Giants shoulders. And so what slips have formerly passed by the Church of England, your Lordship with your Chapleins and Divines will so revise, and repurg, as there shallbe nothing left upon record, whereby it might appear to Posterity, that there is any such difference between the Church of England and of Rome, as to hinder their most wished and desirable reconciliation. And I think I am not in this far wide of your Project. The Wardens of the Company of STATIONERS can tell, what you lately gave them in Charge about such a matter for the revising of Puritan Books; that so when you have purged out the Puritanism, there may be neither Purity nor Verity left. As I remember the Orator said of a certain 
* Chaerea.  Roman, that he always had his head and eyebrows Shave, that men might take him not to have one hair of a good man. Thus when you have given such Books a dry shaving, you will make them to appear as ridiculous, as 
‡ 2 Sam. 10.4.  David's Messengers, whom the young Ammonitish King took, and caused half their beards to be Shave off, and their garments to be curtalled to their bare buttocks. But herein you prudently follow both the example of Rome, and the Counsel of Franciscus â S. Clara, who commends you for setting afoot this Project. But I hope, the Stationers will look a little better to their tò méroes, & ●rgasía, the gain of their Trade, and that which is their Freehold, and Livelihood; as well knowing, that if the good Books be guelt of their masculine virtue, and verity, none will buy them, except perhaps Chandler's, to stop their Mustard pots, and put about their Candles. And then should the Company of Book sellers, and their Posterity be deprived of the benefit of their Copies, which are as a Copyhold of Inheritance to them, and theirs. But time will try all things.  
L. p. 18. And though I cannot prophesy, yet I fear, that Atheism and Irreligion gather strength, while the truth is thus weakened by an unworthy way of contending.  
P. Cannot you prophesy, being the High Priest of England, as that High Priest did, 
‡ john 11.50▪  that it was necessary Christ should die, that the whole Nation perish not? So, cannot you prophesy, That it is necessary that all Puritans, Christ's members should perish, that the whole Generation and Hierarchy of Priests perish not? But though you cannot, no more than 
§ Num. 23.23. & 24.1.  Balaam, prophecy, or bring an Enchantment against the Children of Israel, that God should curse them: yet can you not do, as that wicked Prophet did, in 
* Rev. 2.14.  Counselling King Balack to put a stumbling block before the Children of Israel, by enticing them to his Idols, with his fair Damosels? You can tell us, that the Church of England, and of Rome, are one and the Same Church, and that her worship of Images, is but a trenching, or coming near Idolatry (as at after) so as none need fear communion with her, so he be but ignorant of her Corruptions. Of which more hereafter. But though you cannot prophesy, what is all your practice, but a clear Prognostication, and that, not only foretelling, but causing and haling in a Deluge of Atheism and Irreligion flowing in upon you. 
Prelate's Practice.  Yea witness this your Book, which could not spring, but from the root of Atheism, and Source of all Irreligion; and which doth not only prognosticate, nor only teach the way, how Atheism and Irreligion may gather strength: but doth certainly presage, and that by necessary consequence, most terrible Judgements and Calamities, to fall upon the Church of England; I would say rather, upon the Hierarchy of England: and which you do with both hands, in writing and publishing this Book, and by all other your practices, pull upon your own heads.  
But this your fear of Atheism and Irreligion to gather strength, is (say you) while the Truth is weakened by an unworthy way of contending. What Truth? Or what is that unworthy way of contending for the Truth? Or what is your Atheism and Irreligion? For all these terms need your interpretation. But your prudent modestly therein we will make bold, as well as we can, to Supply. First for Truth, it is much in your mouth, I mean, the name and word Truth. But when you name Truth, you always mean Falsehood; as when you Speak of the Church, you mean such a Church, as is a false Church; and when you Speak of Peace, you mean such, as is a false Peace, when your Reconciliation with Rome, is a Conspiracy against Christ, and his true Church; and when you name Priest, you mean, such, as is a false Priest; and when you name Devotion, you mean such, as is a false Devotion, of humane devising: and when you name Faith as the gift of God, you mean not the true Saving Faith, whereof the Apostle speaks, where he Saith, 
‡ Ephe. 2.8.  Faith is the gift of God. As we shall see at after. So as ever under the green leaves of such fair words, as Truth, Peace, Church, Devotion, Faith, etc. we may ever Suspect, and shallbe ever sure to find a false Serpentine Sense to lurk.  
Secondly, your unworthy way of contending for the Truth, what is it, but that, which the 
* jude 3.  Apostle exhorts unto, that Christians should earnestly contend for the Faith, given to the Saints; and 
‡ Phil. 1.27.  Paul, that we should sunathlein, wrestle together (as for Mastery, or for a Crown) for the Faith of the Gospel. Now is not this that, which you call an unworthy way of contending for the Truth? No doubt of th●●. As to write Books, or preach Sermons, proving the Pope to be Antichrist; and the Church of Rome to be a false Church, or no Church of Christ; and no Salvation to be hoped for in that Church: and that all true Christians ought to have no Communion with that Church, but to abhor, and abandon her, as the 
‡ Rev. 18.4.  Lord commandeth; and that Prelates are not Jure divino, but are Antichristian, and their Hierarchy Tyrannical; and that Altars in Churches are a denying of Christ the Only Altar; and that all Ceremonies invented and imposed by men in the Service of God, is a will-worship, condemned by 
§ Mat. 15.9.  Christ, and his 
† Col. 2.8.16.18. Gal. 4.10.  Apostles▪ and many such like. This is that unworthy way of contending, whereby (you say) the Truth is weakened. No marvel.  
Thirdly, what is that Atheism and Irreligion, which you fear will gather Strength, while the Truth is weakened by such an unworthy way of contending? This, I take it, may be taken two ways. Either that by Atheism you mean the true Faith of Christ, which is opposite to the Romish faith, wherewith you hold such correspondence; for whatsoever is contrary to Rome's faith, or (which is all one) your faith, is with you branded for Atheism. Or Secondly, Atheism, truly and properly taken gathers strength, by such an unworthy way of labouring a Reconciliation between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome, which to make way for, you are glad to say, that these two Churches are for substance one and the Same Church. Now before your time, the Church of England, though in many things it symbolised with Rome, (as hath been showed) yet still it renounced all communion with her, as being a Strumpet, and that great Whore, whose Husband is the great Antichrist. But now you have so turned the Cat in the pan, by making way to bring the Church of England back again to an union, and communion with Rome, that you put the people to a stand, to a nonplus, so as they know not what to believe, or what to think, but are ready to cast off all further thought of God, as if there were no God, because they see those to flourish, and to go on unpunished, who overthrow the faith formerly professed in England, setting up the Romish faith again, where it had been cast out: and on the other side, Preaching and Preachers to be put down, and the true Professors to be persecuted, and thrown out of all, and forced to quit their native Country, and the like. Now where all this is, do you but fear, that Atheism gathers Strength? Nay is not the root of all your cruelly in persecuting Christ's Ministers and People, mere Atheism? It is noted of the Sadduces, that of all other Sects they were the most cruel in their judicial Censures: As Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 14. out of josephus. And no marvel. They denied the Resurrection, and the Last judgement. So as they were Atheists. This made them dare to practise all cruelty, and injustice. For Maxima peccandi illaecebra, impunitatis Spes. So, how durst you be so unjust and cruel in your oppressions and persecutions, did you certainly believe, that there is a Resurrection and Last Judgement, wherein you shall be Judged. But this by the way, 'tis an Item.  
And Irreligion also: what's that? That's soon resolved, to wit, Obstinacy in not admitting of Altars in some Churches: Irreveverence, in not bowing to Altars, and worshipping towards the East: and adoring the name jesus, and the like. This is with you Irreligion: because your whole Religion is placed in these things. For so you tell us in the words following.  
L. p. 19 The external worship of God, in his Church, is the GREAT WITNESS to the world, that our hearts stand right in the Service of God. Take this away, or bring it into contempt, and what light is there left to shine before men, that they may see our Devotion, and glorify our Father, which is in heaven.  
P. Surely were it not for this GREAT WITNESS (which here you bring in arrayed in Capital Letters) to wit, your external will-worship in many devised Ceremonies, of seeming Humility, Devotion, and Piety: the world could not come to know, what Religion is in your heart towards God, in that internal part of his worship, which you Speak of. But now through the clear perspective of your bright shining Devotion without, we can discern what Devotion is within. Herby we come to know all that spirit of Infidelity, and Apostasy, and consequenty of Atheism, and Irreligion, which is in your heart. Do you set up Altars, and adore them, and set up Priests to serve at them, to which you must needs add a Sacrifice suitable, some material and corporal thing? Hereby we come to know, how in your heart you deny jesus Christ to be the only Altar, Priest, and Sacrifice, as is showed before. And were it not for your lowly bowing at the bare nameing of the Name jesus, you should want witness to testify to the world that deep hypocrisy in your heart, while in bowing to jesus, you persecute the Lord jesus Christ in his Word, in his Ministers, in his Members. So as your external ceremonial worship is the GREAT WITNESS to the world, that there is in you an Antichristian heart, a Popish heart, a Superstitious heart, an Idolatrous heart, an 
* Heb. 3.12▪  Evil heart of unbelife, in departing away from the living God. How then, with what inward testimony of your Conscience, with what evidence of truth can you say, that your heart stands right in the Internal worship of God, when the external is so crooked, and bowed together with so many lowly duckings and crindgins, so as your Head and Feet do even meet together? And is not the Devotion of your heart every way as crooked? Doth not your heart bow, as, and when your body doth? And is not the Same object which your body boweth unto, the object, to which your heart boweth, and wherein your internal worship is ultimately terminated and bounded? For as Aug. Saith, Quis intuetur Semulacrum, etc. Who beholdeth an Image, that is not so affected as to imagine the Divinity to be in that Image, which he adoreth? And do not you Say, that your God-Almighty is upon your Altar, which you bow unto, when you Say of your Altar, you will have none to fit above God Almighty? So as either you Locally place God there; or you make your Altar your God, and go no further. But suppose you do in and by that Altar, which you bow unto, worship God: Who hath required such worship at your hands? Nay hath not GOD in the Second Commandment expressly forbidden any such worship, in or by an Image, or any such thing as Man deviseth, in and by it to represent and worship GOD? And such will-worship is it not the fruit of the Will of your Evil, Corrupt, and Superstitious, Idolatrous, and Proud Heart, whence it springeth, and proceedeth? O Proud and Blind Hearts indeed, that dare make choice of their own self-pleasing devises in God's worship, thinking thereby to please GOD? But GOD abhors all such will-worship. But it is (Say you) a testimony of your Humility. But the Apostle expressly condemneth such 
‡ Col. 2.18.  voluntary Humility. And tell me, what is there in all the World (setting your Honours, and Dignities, and Favour in Court aside) wherein you take more Pride and Glory, then in such counterfeit Humility▪ 
Prelatical pride in Will-worship  wherein your Heart is more lifted up, in persuading yourself, that thereby the World comes to take you for the most Devout and Pious Prelate, or Person in all England, and as whereby you so bewitch the Court with an opinion of your incomparable Sanctity, then simply in these your external Ceremonial Compliments; 
Will-worship is no true Service of God.  Saving only that they Serve for your GREAT WITNESSES to all the world, that your heart stands right in the Service of God; which indeed is a Service done to yourself? And this appears in part through those Swelling words set down at large Characters, external WORSHIP, GREAT WITNESS. Is not this a clear expression of a heart full of pride, self-conceit, and vain glory, when you do thus (as the Poet said) Proijcere ampullas, & Sesquipedalia verba, strut it in such a swelling Style, and big words?  
And that the world may yet further see how little I misjudge in this, let your own immediate words further witness. For Say you, Take this away (this external WORSHIP this GREAT WITNESS) and what light is there left to shine before men, that they may See our Devotion, and glorify our Father which is in heaven. I remember indeed what Christ said, to his Disciples, 
* Math. 5.16.  Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. These be the words you play withal as a Descant of your Devotion. But 
‡ Rev. 22.18, 19  cursed is he (Saith Christ) that addeth to, or taketh from God's word. Here you do both, for you leave out good works, and in stead of that put in your Devotion▪ and you put out the true Light there, which is faith, and put in the place of it your false Light, which is your blind Devotion. I say, blind Devotion, because of your own devising. For as the Prophet saith, 
‡ Isa. 8.20.  If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them: So I say of that Fear, or Devotion, which is taught by the precepts of men: Such have no light in them. But your Dovotion is your Light, when both you and it be blind. As I have read of some Creatures, that are múopes, Mope-eyed (as we Say) that see better in the dark, then in the day. To such, darkness is light. Such a light is your Devotion. And such Devotion was in the Priests of Baal, which was mixed, or rather inflamed with great zeal. 
§ 1 King. 18.26.29.  Zeal, in Lancing themselves, that the blood sprang out: Devotion, in their long Prayers from Morning till Noon. And this (secundum usum Sacrum) after their manner. Now might not they have said, as you do, This our external worship is a GREAT WITNESS to the world, of our Zeal to our God, and without which, what light have we left, whereby men may see our Devotion? And such also was the Devotion of Hypocrites, of whom Christ saith, 
† Math. 6.5.  They pray standing in the Synagogues, and in the Corners of the Streets, that they may be seen of men. Now might not these Hypocrites say for themselves, This our external Devotion is the GREAT WITNESS unto the world, that our hear●s stand right, being testified by standing in Prayer, so as without this light men could not see our Devotion? So the Pharisees who were curious Masters of Ceremonies in will-worship, 
* Math. 23.5. & 14.  they wore goodly broad Phylacteries, and for pretence made long prayers. Might not they also have said, as you: This our external worship in long Prayers, in our Solemn Robes, with goodly Boarders, is the GREAT WITNESS to the world, that our hearts stand right, and without this Light men could not see our inward Devotion towards God? And say not you, Our external worship is that light, without which men could not see our Devotion? Just, as the Pharisees, 
‡ Math. 23.5▪  All they did, was to be seen of men.  
But you would persuade us you do it to a higher end, which is God's glory. For you Say, 
‡ Prelates abusing of Scripture  Take this away, and what Light is there left to shine before men, that they may see our Devotion, and glorify our Father which is in heaven? So here be two ends of all your external worship, and solemn service, and great pomp, and humble expressions of Devotion: First, that men may see your Devotion; for else it were not worth a rush: Secondly, that they may glorify God. As I noted before, these words of Christ you falsely apply to your blind Devotion, which he Spoke concerning the Light of faith shining forth in good works to the glory of God. Whereas your external worship, as it is a fruit of your blind Devotion, so it is that, whereby God is greatly dishonoured; and that both actually in itself, and effectually in the beholders: First, Actually in itself, all false worship, or will-worship (for both is one) is a dishonour to God. 
§ Math. 15.9.  In vain they worship me, teaching for Doctrines the Precepts of Men. Now God is not glorified, or honoured with any vain worship. Nay, on the contrary, he is greatly dishonoured by it. For such will-worship is a high presumption, derogating from the Majesty of God, who willbe worshipped no otherwise, then as himself hath expressly commanded in his word. As the Prophet saith, And shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure: And such is all will-worship. Secondly, God is greatly dishonoured, by such external will-worship effectively in the Beholders. First, because when they see such a great Prelate as yourself use such gestures in God's Service, they are apt to imitate you, and so to partake of your sin, as too many do. Secondly, because in such false worship, the nearer they think to 
* Isa. 29.13.  approach to God in imitating of you, the further off their hearts are from God, as the Prophet Speaketh. And they whose hearts are far removed from God, cannot glorify God. Now your will-worship, which is taught by the Precepts of men, though it seem to be very humble, and so to draw near unto God: yet it draws away men's hearts far from God; as there the Prophet showeth. And such as behold, and affect, and imitate your devises in external worship, they are as much puffed up with vainglory, that they imitate and so please such a great Man, as yourself, as they never think of glorifying God. And lastly, God is not glorified by blind and Superstitious worshippers: but by good works springing from the inward light of Faith. Now your blind Devotion is not to be reckoned and ranked among good works. For good works are such, and so done, as God hath commanded: but your external worship (as you call it) being a will-worship, and so a false worship, which God no where hath commanded, but every where expressly forbidden, are no good works, but as Aug. Saith, Splendida peccata, a glaring false worship. But it seemeth this your external worship, the fruit of your Devotion, is all the good works you have to show, that men thereby may See what Kind of light is in you; which is not any true, but a false light.  
I proceed. But how hath this ignis fatuus of yours carried me so out of my way, that I have over Skipped one Passage in the same Page, a little before? But yet coming in here, it will the more fitly usher in the next, which we shall note in the Same Page.  
L. ibid. This I have observed further, that no one thing hath made Conscientious men more wavering in their own minds, or more apt and easy to be drawn aside from the Sincerity of Religion professed in the Church of England, than the want of uniform and decent Order, in too many Churches of the Kingdom.  
P. A little 
* Pag. 34.  before you commended unto us the Integrity of the Church in Doctrine and Manners; and but now, how right your hearts stand in the Service of God: here, you use a third word, Sincerity of Religion, and that professed in the Church of England. By this time we are sufficiently acquainted with your Sincerity of Religion, professed in the Church of England. For we have your external worship as the GREAT WITNESS thereof, of which your Sincerity so much is spoken, as we have left a great hole in it. And the nature of that your Sincerity of Religion, professed in the Church of England, duly considered, can we marvel, if most men's minds in the Kingdom fall a wavering; yea, and if they be truly Conscientious men indeed (not such as you mean, to wit, mere Formalists, or Newters) no marvel if you find multitudes of them (if multitudes of such be left) to fall quite off from the Sincerity of your Religion professed in the Church of England. But if any of your Conscientious men be drawn aside: what's the Cause? Want of uniform and decent Order in too many Churches in the Kingdom. But do you not see on the other side a whole Nation driven aside, and that (as they Say) by your too much pressing upon them your uniform and decent Order in all Churches for the erecting of the Sincerity of Religion professed in the Church of England? And yet you complain, that you cannot set up your uniformity in too many Churches in England. Surely, ye might have done well, first to have made all uniform at home, before you pressed too hard upon your Neighbour-Countrey. And if too many Churches in England be not uniform, whose fault is that? Not yours, I dare say. Have not you and your brother Prelates done pretty well to it, in Suspending, Silencing, Excommunicating, Casting out of their Ministry and Living, so many Ministers? Witness Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Kent, Surrey, and other Diocese and Shires. Will not these Examples, terrify all other Churches in England? But yet if nothing else will do it, the publishing of this your Book anew, will certainly effect it, or nothing. And therefore you add.  
L. Ibid. To deal Clearly with your Majesty these thoughts are they, and no other, which have made me labour so much, as I have done, for Decency and an Orderly Settlement of the external worship of God in the Church. Now no external action in the world can be uniform, without some Ceremonies: And these in Religion the ancienter they be, the better, so they may fit Time and Place. Too many overburthen the Service of God, and too few leave it naked, etc. Ceremonies are the hedge, that fence the Substance of Religion from all the indignities, which Profaneness and Sacrilege too commonly put upon it. Weakness it is, not to see the Strength, which Ceremonies (things weak enough in themselves, God knows) add even to Religion itself; but a far greater, to see it, and yet to cry them down, All, and without choice, by which their most hated Adversaries Climb up, and could not cry up themselves, and their Cause, as they do, but by them.  
P. I shall have here occasion, and that in sundry respects, to be more large upon your words. First, for the Substance of the matter, being of such moment. Secondly, for the Circumstance of the Person, to whom you speak, his Sacred Majesty, which makes your matter of the greater Consequence: and Lasty, in respect of the Excellency of the Person jesus Christ, whose honour and regal Sovereignty is here undermined by you. For when Kings are misinformed, and miscounselled in matters of Religion especially, and that by those, whom they repose greatest confidence in▪ and whose judgement they most rely upon, and have that high opinion of, both for Learning and Sanctity; which they conceive to be in them; 'tis a matter full of weight. And when we see the glory of Christ, and of his Kingdom trodden under foot, it will, & aught to stir up, and kindle the Zeal of every true Servant of Christ, to vindicate his Master's honour, to the utmost of his power. Now to your words.  
And to deal truly with your Majesty. What else? Surely one of your honourable place, and in whom such trust is reposed, should deal clearly with Kings at all times, and in all things. But wherein do you deal clearly with his Majesty? In this (as you say) in telling him, These thoughts are they and no other, which have made me labour so much, as I have done, for Decency and an Orderly Settlement of the external worship of God in the Church. Is it so? Why, a little before (if you remember) you told his Majesty that you put forth this work, wherein you have bestowed so much pains, for the vindicating of your Reputation: And now you tell him, that your thoughts for Decency, etc. and no other●, made you thus to labour. And no other than? Then what's become now of your Reputation? Yea, and (pag. 9 before cited) do you not tell his Majesty expressly, saying, I have thus acquainted your Majesty with all occasions, 
Prelate's Contradiction.  which both formerly, and now again have led this Tract into the Light? All? But how all, where here is one more comes in the Rear, not mentioned before, which excludes all other, Saying, These thoughts are they, and no other, which have made me labour so much, as I have done, for Decency, and an Orderly Settlement, etc. And herein, you say, you deal Clearly with his Majesty. Did you not then deal Clearly in the rest? You have occasion now to clear yourself. But to let this pass; we can easily believe, (that setting your Reputation aside) these thoughts of yours were of greatest force with you to set upon such a work. For I believe you have been no small time in hammering this Project, how to beat and fashion it to such a Decency and Orderly Settlement of the external worship of God in the Church of England, as you speak of▪ But what do you call Decency? Certainly that only is Decent in the worship of God, which God himself approveth, and that is only That, which himself commandeth in his word. But you account and call that only Decent in the worship of God, which either yourself, or that Whore of Babylon hath devised for Decent, as the setting up of her pompous Devotion, and voluntary humility in Rites and Ceremonies in God's worship, as ye pretend. And can you Say, that your decencies are not just the Same, with those of Rome? Perhaps you cannot yet attain to all hers. And if not hers, how could they with you be Decent? But She being That Whore, and marked out for such, even by her very attire (Rev. 17.) Will Christ (trow you) aporove that for decent in his Spouse▪ which is the Whores Fashion? Is not this enough to provoke his jealousy, and (if he knew it not) to suspect your Church of England for Scarce an honest Woman? Yea an honest Woman for her Credit sake, will not go in gaudey and garish garb, proper and peculiar to such as are notorious Strumpets, and such too, as whereby famous Whores are known from honest and virtuous Matrons? But let it be the Decency of your Church of England, to be suited like her Sister Rome; that so they may be the better known for Sisters, and both of one House, and (to prove your words true) both one, and the Same Church.  
But decency is not all. Your thoughts are also for an Orderly Settlement of the external worship of God in the Church. Why, what Settlement? Were not all things sufficiently settled (yea and 
* jer. 48.11.  upon the Lees too) in the Church you speak of, before you were settled in the Throne of Canterbury? Was there not settled an universal conformity to those Ceremonies prescribed and limited by Act of Parliament? Are not all Non-conformists Silenced, and cashiered? Was not all quiet then? Yea so quiet, that the Church of England was fallen quietly asleep, and so securely settled (I say again) upon 
‡ Zeph. 1.12.  her Lees. What hath now then made the disturbance, and unsettled the State of things? Did not that begin with your Primacy? How so? For just then, when you were Scarce warm in the Chair, began there not to be republished, with an Addition, that Edict to dispense with the due Sanctification of the Lords day, by giving liberty for profane Sports; wherein also God's people, whom you call Puritans, were marked out, as not worthy to be suffered in any Country. Then also, began there not to be published a Declaration with and before the Book of your 39 Articles, prohibing all Disputes about all the Controverted Points in those Articles, and commanding to keep to the letter of the Text, which yet (as it saith) might be taken either way? So as was not this a most gross unsettling of the Doctrines of your Church, and a strowing of the way to Fr. a S. Clara his Book, wherein he goes about to prove, that the Doctrines of England and Trent, are one and the Same, or with but small difference, which Book coming forth was much Graced by you in Court. And so that Declaration because also a Shelter to Shroud your Arminian Faction against a Storm, if ever it should come, yea and to defend their Heresies, and defeat the truth (had it no surer footing, than your prevaricating Articles) when once you could make your party good. Began not then an Order to be a new set forth, with an Enlargement of restraint, reaching even to Deans and Prelates, and the greatest Rabbis of your Church not to meddle in their Sermons with those controverted points, as of Predestination, Election, etc. but strictly to observe the said Declaration? Under your Primacy began there not a more remarkable restraint of writing, or at least of Printing against the Pope, and a larger licensing of most notorious Popish Books? As Shelfords' five Sermons or Treatises, wherein (among many other like things) he endeavours to prove justification by Charity, and the Pope not to be Antichrist, and no necessity of frequent Preaching, and none to preach but Bishops and Deans, and that only and especially at the three Solemn times in the year. Also another Book entitled the Female Glory, as full fraught thoughout with the most gross, blasphemous, Idolatrous Popish Stuff, as it can hold; and this in plain English, allowed by one of your Chapleins, or of London house; and for aught I hear, not yet suppressed, or called in. Besides many other of the same bran, some whereof are printed, but kept up under deck, not daring yet to peep forth, till the Storm (as in Star Chamber you called it) raised by BURTON and others, be over; and lest they should be made Popish Martyrs in Smithfield, as Salis his Devotions were, which for fear were burned, as afore. Under your Primacy hath there not been a mighty stirring and stickling for the setting up of Altars, etc. yea of Images too, and Crucifixes, and that in Collegiate Churches, or Chapels, both in Oxford, you being Chancellor, and in Cambridge, where you want not a Vice-Chauncellour, and which you endeavour in all the Churches of England? Under your Primacy, have not your pregnantest wits, and profoundest Divines been set a-work to write Books to unmorallize the 4th Commandment for the perpetual keeping of the Lords Sabbath day, and so unbind Christians from the sanctification of the Lords day; and their Books allowed by your Authority, and Dedicated to great ones, and much applauded by your Faction? Under your Primacy have not your Doctors also written stoutly for your Altars, and that, even unto blasphemy, Saying, that the use of the Altar is to sanctify the Sacrifice, and without an Altar the Sacrifice is not Sanctified, or dedicated by the Bishop? Under your Primacy began not Ministers to be Suspended, Silenced, Excommunicated, put out of their Benefices and Cures of Souls, for refusing to read the Book of Liberty for Sports on the Lord's day, and to set up Altars in their Churches at their Ordinaries Command. These these my Lord being thus, do you complain of unsettledness? Who hath troubled the Fountain? The Wolf, above at the Spring head, or the Lamb below? To recollect then, and recapitulate these things: When Profanation of the Lords day is by public Edict allowed: when the Articles of Religion are made as the Delphic Oracles, to be taken two contrary ways: when the Doctrines of God's Grace are universally restrained and forbid to be preached: when Popish Books publicly allowed in Print, and Orthodox Books against Popery restrained: when Altars set up in all Churches, where there was none before: when Books published by Authority to disannul Gods Moral Law: when Books allowed publicly to maintain the setting up of Altars in Churches: when Godly Ministers by multitudes put down, for not yielding to those things, which are contrary to the Laws of God and man: and all this in the State of England, where from the first Reformation (such as it was) have been universally and constantly maintained both by writing and preaching, the morality of the 4th Commandment for the sanctification of the Lords Day: the Articles of Religion concerning Grace, to have but one Orthodox sense: the free and unrestrained preaching of God's word, and confuting of all opposite Errors: that the Pope is that Antichrist: that the Lords Supper was to be celebrated only at the Lords Table: that Minister's Conformity was extended no further, then was limited by the Law: all these things considered, in the tumult of so many bold Innovations, (Innovation? I cry you mercy: Renovations I should say, of old Popish rags and outcast relics, for you disclaim Innovation) against God's law and Man's law: what settlement, what peace, what tranquillity can be expected? and then again all these new Attempts for Uniformity and Conformity coming in under and with your Primacy, can they vindicate your Reputation from a general opinion of your being the most perilous and pernicious Instrument of unsettling and troubling the State o● the Land, 
What a Settler the Prelate is,  and of Religion (and you may, if you will, take Scotland in to boot) with general discontents and heart burnings, to see the State of Religion, thus turned topsie turvie turvy▪ And do you complain notwithstanding, that you cannot attain to an Orderly Settlement? Stay, my Lord, be not so eager: See Scotland first settled, before you proceed further in the settlement of England, lest you unsettle all. Be not deceived in the confidence of your own active brain, and borrowed power. And see also how your Book will take. For Certainly therein you have run yourself upon the Pikes, get off as you can. Your Reputation (if you mean it for the Repute to be a good Protestant: unless you mean it, that you would be accounted what you are, a member of one and the Same Church with Rome) is now bound to the Stake, ready to be Sacrificed for a whole-burnt Offering. For what your Ordinary practices proclaimed to the world of you, now in your Book you stick not openly to profess, that you desire for the Church and State of England to be reconciled to the Sea of Rome. So as your Book, besides the turbulent matter in it▪ (like the Trojan horse, full of armed enemies) could not possibly have been borne into the world in a more unhappy time, then now, when you see two Kingdoms all in a combustion, which the Sprinkling of your Rome's Holy water willbe so far from quenching, or allaying, that it will prove rather as Oil to increase and feed the flame. But GOD give the King the Spirit of Wisdom and judgement to see into these things betimes, both for the preventing of further mischiefs, and for the reuniting of the great rent between his two Kingdoms. But as jehu said to jehoram, when he asked, Is it peace, jehu? What peace (said he) so long as the Whoredoms of thy Mother jezabel, and her Witchcrafts are so many? So what peace can be expected in the Land, where such an Uniformity and Settlement is required, as is so repugnant to the Laws of Christ's Kingdom, and conformable to Antichrists Tyranny, and conducible to a reconciliation with that old jezabel of Rome? Certainly, the case being so, as Deborah said in her Song, They chose new gods, than was war in the gates: So when a Nation falls to advance higher and higher a new and false Religion, where it had been formerly in some good measure cast out, to set up Idolatrous and Romish Altars, whereby Christ the true and only Altar of true Christians (as hath been showed) is denied and renounced: and to cry down Gods holy Commandments: and to oppress Gods holy Word in the Ministry of it: and to persecute Gods faithful Ministers and People: and like the Egyptians to oppress God's People more and more with intolerable burdens of humane inventions, to the great reproach of Christ, and the throwing down of his incommunicable Royal Sovereignty over his Church and People, in matters of Faith, and the worship of God: Can peace, or settlement be expected there? Can, or will the Lord jesus Christ long suffer such things? And what doth England now attempt? The recovery of Scotland? First, o England, be thou thyself reconciled to God: humble thyself for thy fearful Apostasy: revoke and call in all thy ungodly Edicts against Christ, and his Word: reform all thy oppressions of God's People, and thine own: maintain not still open war against the Spiritual Kingdom of jesus Christ, lest he destroy thy temporal: look up to God, as highly offended with thee, and who hath for the present rend a whole Kingdom from thee, who hast rend thyself from his Kingly Dominion over thee. Be no longer rebellious against God: stand not upon the confidence of thine own conceited Prudence and Power, which unless thou hast God on thy side, shallbe but a snare unto thee, and shall stand thee in no stead at thy need, except thou dost repent and turn to God unfeignedly, and refrain thy violent courses, and reform all. My zeal hath carried me thus far for my God, and for my King, and for my Country, and for all the People of God, and the King, in all his Kingdoms, my daily prayer being for Truth and Peace; as the Prophet Saith, 
* Zach. 8  Love the Truth and Peace. Truth is both the Mother, and Nurse of Peace.  
But to proceed: you say, No external action in the world can be uniform, without some Ceremony. If you speak of Natural Actictions, 
‡ 1 Cor. 11.14.  nature itself doth teach a fit manner in doing of them. If of Moral, or Civil actions, we commonly use such Ceremonies, as either humane Laws, Customs, or a man's own reason hath brought in use. But if you Speak of Religious actions, such as are conversant about the worship of God: That's quite of another nature, for point of Ceremony. Only thus far it holds proportion with the other: that as every natural action hath for its manner of performance and carriage certain Principles of Nature to guide a Man in the decent and orderly doing of it: and as every Civil and Moral action hath for its manner of the decent carriage of it some Rule, either intrinsical, within a man, and in his own choice and power, or extrinsecall and without him, according either to Custom, or humane Law: even so the external manner of performing God's worship, hath for its Sole Principle and Rule the will of God himself, whose service it is, and over which he is the Sole Lord, whose will for his whole service both internal and external he hath clearly expressed in his word, the holy Scripture. And this is a principle, which every man, that seeth not but by the Spectacles of Nature's Light, assenteth unto, as a firm and universal truth, namely That every Master is so to be served, as himself commandeth. And if a Servant presume to serve his Master as himself listeth, and not as his Master commandeth, shall have small thanks for his labour. How much more, and beyond all comparison is God to be served of us, not as we fancy, but as himself hath expressly commanded in his word? And this is a safe obedience, wherein a man, observing his Rule, cannot err. Whereas obedience to Man's command is only so far good, as the commandment itself is good and lawful. But God's Word and Commandment being every way perfect, and given us with a strict charge, and under a most severe penalty, even a Curse to those, that shall either add to it, or detract from it: who, but 
* Katàras tékna.  Children of the curse, will presume to invent what manner of external service of God his own proud fancy liketh best? Such service cannot be called the service of God, as wherewith he is served and pleased, but the service of Man, wherein he pleaseth himself. Yea when a man hath pleased his own fancy in the invention of this or that Ceremony in religious worship, and not content herewith, doth withal impose and enjoin it to be of necessity observed of all, so as their Conscience is now by humane Law captivated thereunto: 

Heresy what it is.  
Prelate's Ceremonial worship Heretical.   this service of God becomes Heretical. For what is Heresy in the common use among Divines, but an obstinate holding, and maintaining of an error in faith, which man's pride hath made choice of But, not only presumtuously to elect, and obstinately and pertinaciously to maintain, but to make a Law to enforce others to conform to any such error in faith: this is the highest degree of Heresy that can be. And that the inventing, holding and imposing of such Ceremonies in God's worship is an error in faith, and so heretical, is clear. For it is a point and 
‡ Artcile of faith, Christ the only Lord in and over his own house and Service.  Article of Christian faith to bebeleeve, that Christ is the only Lord and King of his Church; and therefore in the Creed we say, And in jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. To whom then doth the power of ordaining Ceremonies in Gods holy service appertain, but to the King or Master of this service? This power is Christ's Prerogative in his Church. This is Christ's Throne, wherein he sitteth, reigneth, and ruleth in and over the Souls and Consciences of his people, as before is touched. He is the only Teletarkes, or Master of ordaining Ceremonies in God's house, or family (as the learned Budaeus interprets that word out of Dionysius Areopageta) so as Teletarkía, which signifies a Prerogative and Power in GOD, incommunicable, to ordain Ceremonies in his worship, is used for the Sovereign Deity or Godhead, and so for the Holy Trinity. And Christ hath ever from the beginning reserved this power entire and peculiar to himself, even as his glory, not imparting it to any earthly power, not to his Church, not to his Prophets and Apostles, not to the Kings of Israel under the Law, nor to the Fathers before the Law. For before the giving of the Law in Mount Sina, 
* Gen. 4. & 7. & 8. & 35. ●.  GOD taught his Church the use of Sacrifices and Altars, and other Rites, with the difference of Meats clean, and unclean. At the giving of the Law, GOD showed Moses a pattern for the Tabernacle, and all things thereunto belonging, 
‡ Exod. 25.9.40.  with a Charge to do all things according to the Pattern which he had seen. Not the least Ceremony, no not a pin about the Tabernacle was left in Moses power or choice to make of his own head. So afterward, when the Temple was to be built, David received the 
‡ 1 Chro. 28·12. 19.  pattern thereof, and of all things appertaining to the whole service thereof from God in writing, which David delivering to his Son Solomon appointed of God to build the Temple Said, All this the Lord made me understand in writing by his hand upon me, even all the work of this Pattern: even the 
§ v. 12.  Pattern of all that he had by the Spirit. So as, though David was a King, and a Prophet, and that of singular eminency, 
† 1 Sam. 13.14.  a man according to Gods own heart, and abundantly endued with the holy Spirit of God, and 
* 2 Sam. 2●. 14.  the Sweet Psalmist of Israel: and though King Solomon was endued with admirable and incomparable wisdom: yet the Lord would not commit to either of them any part of this his Prerogative in appointing what manner of service they thought good, or in the fashion of building the Temple. Nor yet did the Lord deliver the pattern of these things by tradition, but in writing, that in nothing they should come short, or over shoot their bounds. Neither had any of the Kings of judah the power afterwards, either to add, or alter the least thing, but at their peril. No not the King, and the Priest together, as you would now have it. So as when in a case of necessity (no Law or Rule for us to take liberty to do what we please, without warrant from God's word) 
* 2 Chron. 30.2, 3, 4.  King Ezechias was to keep the Passeover in the Second Month: he did it not alone, nor with the Priest alone, but with the unanimous assent and approbation of all the Princes and People in jerusalem: So as the thing pleased the King, and all the Congregation. Likewise when 
‡ 2 Sam. 6. & 1 Chron. 15.1, 2, 3, 4.  King David was to bring the Ark to jerusalem, he did it not alone, or with the Priest alone, but gathered all the chosen men of Israel together about it. And what to do? Not what himself, and they thought fit, but according to the Law and Commandment of the Lord. And is it come to this pass now, that the King and the Priest must do all, and that according to their own Fancy in the worship and service of God? 
‡ 2 King. 16.  When the Priest Vriah had according to the King's Commandment built an Altar, according to the pattern sent him by the King from Damascus, on which the King offered Sacrifice, did God approve it? Is he not branded with this note, which sticks upon his name to this day, 
§ 2 Chron. 28.22.  This is that King Ahaz? And did not the Lord 
† 2 Chro. 26.  smite King Vzziah with Leprosy, for offering Incense, which pertained to the Priest only? And was not 
* 1 Chro. 13.  Vzzah smitten, for but putting his Hand to stay the Ark, when the Oxen shook it, it not pertaining to him, being but a Levite, and not a Priest, who only was to meddle with the Ark? So dangerous is it for men, to take upon them, be they Prince, or Priest, or both, to intermeddle in any thing about the service of God, which God hath not given them warrant for. Now where hath Christ, or his Apostles from him left any such power to man, Prince, or Priest, or both (as you claim and usurp) or to the Church, to ordain any Ceremonies in Religion, to bind the Conscience of his People to the observation of them? And if ye have either a pattern, or patent for it from Christ, and under black and white, in writing, not by any unwritten Tradition, produce and show it. But none can you show, we are sure. I know your usual places, which you use to wrest for this purpose. As 1 Cor. 14. 4●. Let all things be done Decently and in in Order. Hereupon (it seemeth) your words of decency, and orderly settlement are grounded. But what conclude you hence? Ergo the King and the Priest (although in things of this nature you use the King but as a cipher, to back and countenance the Priest in what he doth) may appoint what Ceremonies they please in the service of God. But frame your Argument in a Syllogism.  

All things in the Church are to be done Decently and in Order.  
But for the King and the Priest to prescribe and impose what Ceremonies they please in God's Service is Decent and Orderly.  
Ergo, it is left to the Power of the King and the Priest to prescribe and impose what Ceremonies they please in God's Service.   
Or thus:  

What is Decent, and according to Order, is lawful to be done in the worship of God.  
But for the King and Priest to prescribe and impose Ceremomonies in God's Service, is Decent, and according to order:  
Therefore it is lawful for the King and the Priest to prescribe and impose Ceremonies in the Service of God.   
Now if I have not framed your Argument according to your mind, I desire you to mend it. But I conceive it is all that can be framed upon that test, which you allege, so as if you argue not thus, you can make nothing at all of it, according to the Rules of Logic. Nor for answer. First, I deny, that the Apostle speaks there of the Service of God in Prayer, but only of an Order, and Dencie in Prophesying, such as was then in use in the Church: as, first, that it should be done 
* 1 Cor. 14▪ 31.  one by one, and not confusedly. Secondly, 
‡ v. 34.  that women should not be permitted to speak in the Church. Thirdly, 
‡ v. 27.  that it be not in a strange tongue, without an Interpreter. And such like. And to this hath that of the Apostle particular and immdediate reference, Let all things be done decently and in order. As for Praying in the Church, the Apostle gives no other Rule but this, that it be not done in a strange tongue. Again, we have before excluded the Priest you speak of, from having any thing at all to do, or meddle in God's service, for the Reason's fore-shewed. So as if for the King and the Priest you put the Church, I answer. First your Prelatical Church is a false Church, as hath been proved, and so with your Priest is altogether excluded here from having any such power, as to ordain Ceremonies in God's service to bind the Consciences of God's people. For in so doing you show yourselves to be Antichrists, and Tyrants over men's souls, as before is showed. Secondly, not even the true Churches and Congregations of Christ, the King, Minister, and People put together, have power to ordain and impose any Ceremony in God's service to bind the Conscience: For the Apostles themselves neither had, nor exercised any such power. We find not any one footstep of it in all the New Testament. But in this case Christians were left altogether free. And the Apostle admonisheth the Collossians, and in them all Christians, Saying, 
* Col. 2.8.  Beware, lest any man spoil you through Philosophy, and vain deceit, after the Tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. And v. 16. Let no man judge you in meat, or drink, or in respect of an holy day, etc. which are a shadow of things to come: but the body is of Christ. Let no man Judge you: that is, subject not your Conscience to Man's command and ordinance in these things, as matter of Religion. And v. 20. If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as living in the world, are subject to Ordinances, Touch not, Taste not, Handle not; which all are to perish with the using; being after the Commandments and Doctrine of men; which have indeed a Show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility in neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the Satisfying of the flesh. The sum of all which is to show, that Christians being freed by Christ's death from all humane Ordinances and Traditions in matters of Religion, they ought to be so mortified, as to be dead to these things, and not any more to suffer themselves in such things to be vassalized by men: which to do, is to deny Christ's death, and so to fall away from Christ, not holding the Head, that is, not holding Christ, as the Apostle Saith, v. 19 And therefore he chargeth, Saying, 
‡ v. 18.  Let no man beguile your reward (or the Crown of your victory, as the 
‡ Katà.  word imports) in a voluntary humility, etc. That is, Subject not yourselves to men's devises in matters of Religion, though they have never so fair pretences of voluntary humility, and devotion: for so you suffer yourselves to be spoilt of your Crown, that you fight for; as Christ Saith, 
† Rev. 3.11.  Hold fast that thou hast, that no man take thy Crown. Thus we see, that it is a matter of no small moment and consequence, to be subject to Man's devises in matters of Religion, and God's worship, when it is a denial of Christ's death, yea a falling from Christ, and so a losing of our eternal Crown. And here again on the other side, such as willbe Masters of Ceremonies in the service of God, may take notice of their damnable pride and presumption, in daring to bring into bondage the people of God, whom Christ with his own precious blood hath redeemed from all such Slavery. And for matter of decency: Is it decent, for a Judge set over a Province by the King, or Supreme Magistrate, with express written Laws how to govern, and no otherwise, to take upon him to rule them as he list, and to yield what service to the King he pleaseth? Or is it decent, that one King, subordinate to a higher, as Emperor, or so, as King Herod was to Caesar Augustus, should presume to make Laws to bind Caesar's Subjects, without any express warrant so to do? Now all earthly Princes are subordinate to Christ, as his vice-gerents, who is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.  
Nay more than this: Christ's Kingdom here on earth, is Spiritual, and the Laws thereof altogether spiritual, enacted by his Spirit, and recorded in the Scripture: Is it decent then, that earthly Powers, or Princes, or Priests, how ever styled, should make Laws according to their carnal fancies, for the government of this Spiritual Kingdom, and the service of God, who willbe 
* joh. 4.23 24.  served in Spirit and Truth? Yea, in this Spiritual Kingdom, Christ our King keeps his perpetual residence by his Spirit immediately, and that in the heart, soul, spirit, and conscience, of every one of his Subjects and Saints, the true believers. So the Apostle: 
‡ Heb. 3.6.  But Christ, as the Son ●ver his own house, whose house we are, etc. And, 
* 2 Cor. 6.26  you are the Temple of the living God, as God hath Said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and I willbe their God, and they shallbe my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye Separate, Saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you: And I willbe a Father unto you, and ye shallbe my Sons and Daughters, Saith the Lord Allmighty. And 
§ 1 Cor. 3.17  Know ye not, that ye are the Temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the Temple of God, him will God defile, or destroy: For the Temple of God is holy, whose Temple ye are. And, 
† 1 Pet. 2.5  Ye are built up a Spiritual house, an holy Priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by jesus Christ. Now, is every true believer the Temple of God, a Spiritual house, over which the Son of God ruleth as King, and in which he dwelleth and walketh, in which also spiritual Sacrifices and Services are offered up in Christ's Name, as himself hath commanded in his word? And is all strange service, devised by men a profaning of the Temple of God, as the 
* Exod. 30.9 Levit. 10.1.3 Mal. 1.7. 2 Chro. 36.1.  Scripture every where teacheth? And must God's people Separate themselves from all such profaneness, and touch no unclean thing, by subjecting themselves to profane ordinances of men, whereby they should cast off God for their Father, and Christ for their King, and the Holy Ghost from his residence and dwelling in them? Then how not only undecent, but unholy, profane and impious is it, for any sort of men whatsoever, to impose the devices of their own brains upon the Consciences of God's people in the worship of their God? What is this, but to thrust Christ out of his Throne (as before) and to set up an Antichristian Throne of Tyranny (like Caesar's Image in the Temple, the abomination of desolation) in the living and spiritual Temples of jesus Christ? Thus Christ being that O●kodespotes, the Father of the Family of God, is it decent for any Steward (Such whose Office you do usurp) of his own head, without warrant, to give carnal Laws to the Family for their spiritual Service to their Lord, and 
* Math. 24.49.  to beat them, if they refuse to conform unto them.  
Secondly, neither is it according to Order, for men to Set up Ceremonies in God's service. First, because they have no order from God so to do: So as God may Say unto them, 
‡ Isa. 1.12.  Who required these things at your hands? And, 
‡ Math. 15.9.  In vain they worship me, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men. Again, 'Tis the greatest violation of Order in the World, for any Man to usurp and exercise a Tyranny over his Fellow-Servants, 
§ Math. 24.48.49.  which the Lord hath expressly forbidden, and which he will most severely punish. And of all Tyrannies in the world, is not this the greatest, and most intolerable, to hold under the yoke of bondage the Consciences of God's people, in the observation of humane rites in the worship of God, from all which Christ hath freed them by the shedding of his blood? And will a King think it to be according to Order, and not the highest degree of rebellion, for a Subject to usurp his Throne? Can it then be either decent, or orderly, for any power on earth, Prince or Priest, or altogether, to invade Christ's Throne, and therein exercise their Tyranny over his people? Certainly such as do so, 'tis just with God to thrust them out of their Thrones, and to break the Staff of their Tyranny, wherewith they beat his Children, over their heads. Thus this Scripture, the Same weapon, which you violently wrest and take out of God's Armoury, to beat us withal: we vindicate out of your hands, and turn both edge and point against your usurped Tyranny. And so being beaten out of the main Fort, which you had violently seized, you can have small confidence in the rest.  
But you go on, and Say, Ceremonies in Religion, the ancienter they be, the better; So they may fit Time, and Place. We all know your Lordship to be no small adorer of venerable and hoary Antiquity in point of Ceremonies. Indeed Solomon Saith, 
† Pro. 16.31. Antiquitas sin● Veritate vetustas erroris est▪  The hoary head is a Crown of glory, if it be found in the way of Righteousness. Else not. And Tertullian an ancient writer of the Church, Saith, Antiquity without Verity, is oldness of Error. And again; Illud antiquissimum, quod ●erissimum: That is most ancient, which is most true. You commend unto us ancient Ceremonies; and the ancienter the better, so they may fit time and place. But here is never a word, how fit, and agreeable they be to the word of God. As Tertullian else where Saith to Hermogenes the Heretic, Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis Officina; Si non est Scriptum, timeat vae illud adijcientibus▪ etc. Let Hermogenes his Shop show this to be written; if it be not written; let him fear that woe to all them, that add to, or take from the word of God, etc. But if antiquity be with you in such request, you may take in also the Mystery of Iniquity, if antiquity will commend it for good. For even in the Apostles time (as is noted before) it began to work, though (as a Mystery) more covertly, as not yet then fitting time and place. Not time: For the Apostles then living, thundered it into holes and thickets. Not place: For not jerusalem, but Rome must be the place for it, but was not yet fitted for it. And the Devil, with his Lies can plead great antiquity. And with his Lies came in all Errors, which may stand in competition for antiquity even with verity itself For Satan's Religion had the Start for antiquity of time, even of the Gospel itself; as we may see, Gen. 3.1.15. And therefore no marvel if your Lady Mother Rome do stand so much upon the Tiptoes of her antiquity, both in her Hierarchy, and its whole frame of Errors, and Superstitious Ceremonies, as all claiming from the antiquity of the mystery of Iniquity, the common Grandmother and root, whence hath sprung in successive ages the Stock and branches of all Popery.  
But for answer to all your Plea▪ and Pretence of Antiquity, we allege against you the antiquity of Truth. And if you plead for antiquity of humane devices, because Satan's Lies were born into the world, and embraced, before Christ was revealed; So as the very foundation of all will-worship, and inventions in the service of God, was laid in Adam's fall from God, by the Serpent's seducement: yet we prefer the Religion of Christ before it, because this brings with it the blessing. As in the Old Testament, when through Adam's fall nature had lost her birthright, the blessing still descended upon the younger, and that through grace. And doth not the antiquity of your ancient Ceremonies take its very rise and Original from that poison of pride, which the Serpent infused into our First Parents, telling them they should be as Gods, selfe-wise, selfe-sufficient? Now there is nothing, wherein men would seem more wise, and please themselves more in that opinion, than their own devises in the worship of God. As the Apostle notes of the Gentiles, 
* Rom. 1.22.  Who professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Wherein wise? The Apostle showeth, in their devised worship of God, in framing and worshipping false similitudes of God, yea even Images of beasts, and creeping things. Herein they thought themselves very wise men. And do not you so in all your Train of humane inventions in the service of God? If you do not think it the highest point of your wisdom, why do you make it your main Study, and spend all your wits, and strength, to fill the Church with such inventions? But you will Say, They are not your own invention, they are ancient, and the ancienter the better. But your setting them up, makes them your own, and makes them new again, where they had been antiquated and cast out to the dunghill. Nay one thing more for antiquity of your Ceremonies you have from the Old Serpent, to be persuaded that you are as Gods, that you have all power in your hands over men's Consciences, in imposing upon them what Ceremonies you please in the service of God. Do you not here take upon you to be as Gods? Sat you not in Christ's Throne, while you thrust him out? Thus we see what antiquity not only your Ceremonies, but your absolute Tyranny in imposing of them may justly challenge. Well, take, your antiquity, but withal there's another antiquity goes with it, which falls unto you by right of inheritance from that Old Sire of your Ceremonies, and that you may find in those words, to the Serpent and his Seed 
§ Gen. 3.14, 15.  Cursed art thou. And this is confirmed unto you (Deut. 27.26.) Cursed is he that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do them. And do you not make the word of God of no effect by your Traditions, 
Ceremonies in the worship of God put for the very Substance of Religion.  while you set up your Ceremonies for and Essential part of God's service? For so you call them in plain terms, The external worship of God, which you express to be those external actions which you use in your Church-Service, as your devout bowing to your Altars, and the like. Thus you make God's word of no authority, which allows of no other worship of God, internal and external, but such as he hath expressly commanded in his word. To which purpose Christ allegeth against those hypocritical Pharisees the Prophet Isaiah, in these words, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men. Which is expressed in Isaiah thus: 
§ Isa 29.13.  Their fear towards me is taught by the Precepts of men. Where, by fear is meant the worship of God; as is noted before▪ but you give me new occasion here to mention it again. And I have no other Weapon, but God's word, to encounter your vanities withal.  
So they may fit Time and Place. Can you find any time or place in these days in England, so uncivil, or so irreligious in your religion, as not to entertain your ancient venerable Ceremonies? Or is not time yet ripe for it, but that some places at least shut out such guests? Why then, what's wanting? Have you not a remedy in a readiness? Either the Pope's Dispensation, to suspend all those without Law, that stand out, or some Edict or other will serve the turn. And no marvel, if your English Christians, so long brought up in Christ's School, think Scorn to be brought back to Rome's A.B.C. again. And they have read how josua and the Elders of Israel, not consulting God, were deceived by the Gibeonites fair pretence of longinquity, by the appearance of Antiquity, Showing itself in their mouldy bread, and old Shoes. Which was all they had to pretend for themselves, to be received into a League with Israel. The Same pretence is yours, who to strike a League between England and Rome, you pretend your Ceremonies come from far, from antiquity itself, and the Ancienter the better. But all this Chaff will not entice the old Birds into your Snare. Your Ceremonies for all their antiquity, will not yet fit Time and Place, at least not all Places in these Times. Why my Lord cannot your zeal be patient a while, till Time fit the Places? Though you do parturire, are in travail to bring forth whether a Man, or Monster, or perhaps (as the 
* Parturient Montes, Nascitur ridiculu● Mu●. Hor.  Mountains once did) a mouse: yet you must wait for Time and Midwife to help to deliver a birth of such Difficulty. Soft and fair. Rome was not built in one day. 'Tis too rude, at first dash to hoist up your Altar, and flap down upon it presently your God-Allmighty. And though the heat of your zeal hath hastened the times to such a ripeness, as they are even white again (as your Rochet) with a pure outside of sanctity: yet some places being of a more solid and well watered soil (not like Summer fruits, soon ripe, soon rotten, but as Winter corn, that abides many a storm, and many a nipping frost) all your zeal cannot so easily work upon; insomuch, as you shall sooner burn those fields, than ever come to reap your harvest of them. Ah, my Lord, you have undertaken a hard task upon you, so as before you shall come to fallen down that good old Oak of the Gospel, that hath grown so long, and taken such rooting in England, you will meet with many a hard knot, that will go near to turn the edge of your hatchet. Oh these Puritans (my Lord) are tough Lads, you cannot with all your Rhetoric woo them to be in love with old Mother Babel, or so much as once shake hands with her. And they are a strong Faction: for the head of it is Christ, and the guard of it is the holy Angels, and their weapons are such, as you cannot take from them (though you labour to strip them of all the rest, as their faithful Pastors, and solemn Fasts and days of humiliation) and that is, their Prayers and Tears, which are of a prevailing power. So as you may suspect some thing is the Cause, that since you have so hampered them, and more remarkably since you cooped up those three Men, you have thriven so ill, as your Cause is rather gone backward, then got any ground; and on the contrary the Puritans are mightily multiplied, and their zeal and courage sharpened against you. And how comes this to pass? Do you not know? Why, partly by the Antiperistasis of a hard frosty winter, and partly by their strong cries to God; which are also redoubled in their fervency, by reason of the outward cold, and of your h●t and furious pursuing of them. And this is no new thing. The 
* Exod. 1.10. Psal. 105.25.  Israelites of old in Egypt, the more subtly and cruelly they were handled by the Egyptians, under hard tasks, the more they multiplied And the High Priests, Scribes and Pharisees, thought they had made their Kingdom Cocksure, and utterly overthrown Christ's, when once they had nailed him fast to the Cross, and Sealed him up in the Tomb: but it proved quite contrary, even the ruin of their State, and the enlargement of Christ's Kingdom over the world. And Ecclesiastical Stories tell us, that the Primitive Christians in the greatest heat of those 10. Persecutions, did so multiply, that at length they wearied out their persecuters. And it is noted of that Apostata julian, that when he saw his cruel persecuting of the Christians, and banishing of their Bishops nothing avayld, but that they did the more increase, he altered his course, and began to use them gently, and to recall their banished, and to promote them: So as by this means he drew a number of them to his bow, and they grew cold and feeble in their Christian profession, whereas by his former downright cruelty, they grew upon it. And my Lord, be not so eager in your zeal for a Reconciliation with Rome, as therefore to fall out with all good men. You have done much for your Time, as any one possibly could do, yea and more a great deal, than I am persuaded any Man of wisdom and judgement (all things considered) either would or durst have done, although he had all your encouragements; which though great▪ yet because humane, a wise Man would not put so much confidence in. And besides, though you have calmed those THREE: yet is the Storm you Spoke of in the Star-chamber at their Censure, over, otherwise then over your heads, So long as you storm so upon others? You have exasperated the world against you by your desperate fury and cruelty: but much more the wrath of Heaven. And have you not had some terrible Signs of God's wrath upon the Land, since their Censure? Are all things quiet, now that they are in safe-Custody? And though they be quiet, poor men, yet do you not hear the voice of their blood crying out against you? Can you wash your hands of it, while the guilt of it sticks so close to your Conscience, as the fire rather must purge it, than the water wash it.  
But you go on: Too many overburthen the Service of God, and too few leave it naked. You seem here somewhat reasonable: neither too many, for burden; nor too few, for nakedness. You could be content then with some reasonable mediocrity, could you hit upon the mean. But my Lord, in this Case of Ceremonies, Even Mediocrity is Extreme: and even your too few (in your reckonig) are too many, and do overburthen the true service of God. For indeed the Imposition of your Ceremonies, though you think them too few, doth so burden men's Consciences, that their backs are ready to break; and it doth so alter the property and nature of God's service, that it is to be termed rather a servitude of men, than the service of God. For God's Service is perfect Freedom, as your own Service Book Saith: but your Ceremonial service is a yoke of bondage, and therefore no service of God, but such as God saith of it, In vain they worship me, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men, and for my Service the Ceremonies of Men. But admit, that Ceremonies were lawful: who shall limit the Mediocrity inter nimium & parum, between too many and too few? How few or too few? And how many are too many. Mediocrities, you know, are as hard to be kept, as to be found. And especially in Religion you must have a care, that not only the Service itself, but lest your servants the Priests, be not overburthened. Therefore as one of your Canons provides, that your Priest that is not able to have a Long Gown, may wear a Short Cloak: So you may do well to provide, that your Ceremonies and habits in your Service be fitted both to the Persons, and to the Seasons. For some Ceremonies may be tolerable in Winter, which are not so fit for Summer: as for your Priest to administer, and preach in his Surplice and Hood in Winter time, is more tolerable, yea and perhaps more useful too, as keeping both his Corpse, and cold Sermon that hath never a Soul, nor any heat of zeal in it, warm from freezing. But in Summer time to administer and preach with Surplice and Hood, 'tis enough to stifle any man, especially if he be a fat Parson. But you will say, he may Preach the seldomer, and when he doth Preach, it may be the shorter. For better, Preaching be omitted, than the least of your Ceremonies should be neglected. But yet for shame of the world, at least in the Church of England (which is not yet grown so Romish, as that Ceremonies should altogether thrust out Preaching) me thinks you might do well, as men do for their wearing apparel, to have some habits for Summer, and some for Winter. But now I remember myself, that will put many a poor Priest to the more charge. And therefore to prevent both trouble and charge, I remember a pretty device of 
* Plutarch.  Dionysius, who coming into an Idols Temple, and finding rich cloth of gold, very Massy, upon the Idols, he took away their Robes of gold, Saying, they were both too heavy for Summer, and too cold for Winter, and he put upon them good course Frieze, saying, this would be both light wearing for Summer, and warm for Winter. But I suppose you would be loath to have your rich cloth of gold Copes, and the like, to be turned into course Frieze, as preferring Aurei Calices, & Lignei Sacerdotes, before Lignei Calices, & Aurei Sacerdotes; which were of old in fashion: Golden Chalices, and Wooden Priests, before Wooden Chalices and Golden Priests; I mean, such Golden Priests (so called) as then were, when the Chalices were of Wood, that is, Learned, Godly, and Preaching Presbyters. For otherwise, as Rome, so you, want not your Golden Priests suitable to your Golden Chalices, as Bernard in his Book De Consideratione to Pope Eugenius the Fourth hath liberally taxed in the Pope and his Clergy of Priests: But these things I leave to your Lordship's Cosideration.  
But to return to the point: in plain terms my Lord till you do resolve us justy how many Ceremonies you will have, and no more, for burdened the Service, or how few Ceremonies, and no fewer, for leaving all naked (though I think you incline rather to the extremity of Excess, in the too many, then to the extremity of Defect, in the too few, as loath to leave your Service naked) you do to a hair's breadth resolve us, you must give us leave with one voice or 
* The Shout of Mariners when they hale together.  Kéleusma, to cry down all your Ceremonies of what sort soever, whereof the very lest is a burden intolerable to God's People in the service of God. For (as we said before) God's service admits not of any Will-worship at all, no not in the least Ceremony, wherewith the Conscience as it is bound, so it is overburthened. One Fetter, or Link, or Chain, or Bolt makes a Prisoner as sure, as many. As the Israelites were enslaved by the Egyptian Taskmasters, as well when they were allowed Straw, as when it was denied them. Though the bondage was the greater. But when a man is once made a Slave, who shall hinder his Master to lay as much burden upon him, as he pleaseth? And if you have a power to impose one Ceremony, who shall stint you for more, for ten, twenty, an hundred, if you do but say the word that too few leave the Service naked? But you will not have too many, for burden. But how will you know when 'tis a burden, for you touch it not with one of your fingers, and so feel it not, as the Egyptian Taskmasters did, while the poor people of God cry out for intolerable burdens? All your burden is to get it but up upon the people's, and your Priests shoulders, and then you are so far from feeling any more burden, as you turn it into no small benefit, in Case any for very weariness and irksomeness of the burden, do either lay it down, or cast it quite off, yea or do but rest himself a little with some intermission. Then your High Commission shall ring of him. Nor can we in any reason imagine that a few Ceremonies will serve the turn. For your main Scope is to bring your Church of England to a full Reconciliation with Rome, the way to which must be strewed with many Ceremonies, as at a Marriage they strew the way to the Church with Herbs, that so when you have brought the matter to a pretty Conformity with as many Ceremonies as Time and Place will permit, the Match being already agreed upon and concluded between the parties, and friends, there may nothing be wanting to hasten the full and final consummation. But herein the main burden will lie upon you. For it can little be hoped, that Rome for her part will abate any of her Ceremonies, so as the greater addition and accumulation willbe required on your part; to make up tò íson, an equality in some reasonable proportion at least. For Amici●ia est inter pares. Friedship is between Equals. But howe'er, in any Case not too few; for than your Service would be naked; and it might either hinder your Project, or hurt your reputation with Rome, when upon your coming home to Rome, She should find you naked (such guests as Rome useth not to entertain) unless you will trust to her Kindness in furnishing you out of her rich Wardrobe and Magazine of Ceremonies, wherein She hath a large Overplus of Treasure, which your Church of England might afterwards recompense, either with reviving the Peter-pences, or returning his Holiness his Old Tribute of Annates.  
But in the mean time, how would too few leave your Service naked? Surely many ways, now when I better consider it. Without the Surplice and Hood, the Minister naked: without rich Ornaments and a Crucifix, the Altar naked: without a Sign of the Cross, Baptism is naked: without Kneeling before the Altar at the Communion, the Sacrament naked: without a devout Cringe when jesus is named, jesus is naked: without looking towards the East when you Pray, Prayer naked: without goodly Images, the Walls naked: without the rich Copes, the Epistle and Gospel naked: without a fair pair of Organs, and Chanting to it, the whole Service naked. But what if the whole Service were thus naked? God neither requires, nor respects any such pomp in his Service. You will say, 'Tis, sightly and stately. But one of the Heathen 
* Persius' satire. 2. Heathen more holy than Prelates.  Poets could tell you, that God regards more a simple and honest heart, than all such gifts, or pompous Service. As he saith: 

Dicite Pontifices, in Sancto, quid facit aurum? etc.  
Compositum jus, fasque animi sanctosque recessas  
Mentis, & incoctum generoso pectus honesto.   

Tell us, ye 
‡ Or Bishops.  Pontifies, what such glittering gold  
Makes on your Temples? etc.  
A mind composed of justice, and of right,  
And holy contemplation (God's delight)  
A breast well dipped in the purple grain  
Of noble honesty, That will not slain.    

‡ Horace Carm. lib. 3. Ode. 23.  Another of them saith: 

Immanis Aram si tetigit manus,  
Non sumptuosa blandior hostia  
Mollibit aversos Penates,  
far pio, & saliente mica.   

Th' innocent hand, if it the Altar touch,  
The sumptuous offering pleaseth not so much,  
T' appease the anger of your household Gods,  
With Sacred Corn, and savoury Salt by odds.    
Yea and every Schoolboy knows that Distich of old Cato: 

Si Deus est animus, nobis ut carmina dicunt,  
Hic tibi praecipuè sit pura ment colendus.   

If God as Poems say, a Spirit be:  
Then with pure mind let him be served of thee.    
And as the Roman Orator also said. Non in Ambrosia Deus, etc. I do not think (saith he) that God is delighted with Ambrosia, or Nectar, or such like sensual delights in his Service. [Tuscul. Quaest lib. 1.]  
Thus you see how those Heathen, even by the glimmering light of nature, had a better opinion of God, than our modern Prelates have, or at least, than our present Oracle of Canterbury hath showed himself to have, for how near came they to that truth uttered by Christ 
§ john 4.23.24.  God is a Spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and truth, etc. And if you propound the Jews for example of State in the service of God; first, God commanded it: and the magnificence of it was a Type of Christ, and of his Spiritual Temples, 
† Psal. 45.13  all glorious within. Those Types are all vanished, the truth being come. And to revive that Service, and those Types, or to set up an Image of them, you do with the Jews deny Christ to be come. And for this Jerome shall answer you, Si placeat aurum, placeat et judaei: If gold please you so well in the service of God, let the Jews also, and Judaisme please you. And the Poet: Dicite Pontifices in Templo quid facit aurum? Tell us you Pontificial Priests, what makes gold in the Temple? And tell me, whether was Adam and Eve more beautiful in God's eyes, and their own too, having no other clothing, or ornaments upon them, but their naked Innocence▪ then in their new devised fashion of Fig-leave-Aprons? Although they now seemed gay with their borrowed leaves, as the Crow with his borrowed feathers. And surely this may be a very fit pattern to Sample your Church by. For yours and Rome's Church, having lost their Primitive and Original beauty of Innocence, Simplicity, and Purity of Christ's Spouse, as the Love of God, Saving Faith, Soundness of Doctrine, Sanctity of Conversation, and Purity of his Worship, which you have by so many of your Superstitions so miserably corrupted: think you now to please GOD with a curious painted Service, which serves to no other purpose, then to please your own fancy, and other men's carnal senses? Is not this a GREAT WITNESS to the World of your notorious blindness, and most gross and palpable ignorance of the very nature of the Godhead, who Is a Spirit, and therefore will be worshipped in Spirit and truth? And they who thus worship him in Spirit and Truth, are the true Worshippers, as the same Scripture Speaks; and GOD seeketh such to worship him; as is noted before. So as that Inscription, which the Apostle found upon that Altar in Athens, 
* Act. 17.23.  Agnósto Theo, To the unknown God: may it not be written as well upon your whole service, which you dedicate to the unknown God▪ which being patched up, like a Fools gay Coat, of so many divers coloured shreds, wherein your service being dressed up, you think it is wondrous pleasing to God: doth not all this bewray, that you do all this service to a God, whom you know not, as whom your fancy frameth to be some carnal Man, whose senses are delighted with such service: as his Ears with Organs, his Eyes with goodly Images, curious wrought Copes, rich Palls, fair guilded Plate: his Smell with sweet Incense, his Majesty with sitting upon your Stately High Altar, as upon his Throne, and to keep his Residence in your goodly Cathedral as in his Royal Court? May not then that which the Apostle thereupon Preached to the Athenian Philosophers, be hereupon applied to the Romish Rabbis, and blind Prelates of Rome, and of the Church of England? 
‡ Act. 17.22▪ 23. etc.  Ye men of the Church of England, I perceive, that in all things ye are too Superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your Devotions (mark your Devotions) I found an Altar (for blind Devotion cannot be without an Altar) with this Inscription, To the unknown God: whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world, and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in Temples made with hands, neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, etc. 
* ve●s. 29.  Forasmuch then, as we are the Offspring of GOD, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto Gold, or Silver, or Stone, graven by art, and man's devise. And the times of this Ignorance GOD winked at, but now commandeth all men every where to Repent. Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in Righteousness, etc. Now what say you to this, all you blind Ceremony-Mongers? Are you grown so stupid, as not to be sensible how this toucheth you, as much, yea and much more, than those Athenians? What? Are you so blind and senseless, as for all this to dream, that GOD accepts your ga● Puppet-play as a Service of Piety done to him? Nay, GOD took so little delight in those Sacrifices and Rites, which himself ordained in the Law, and much less when the people rested in the outward performance and observance of them, that he Saith, 
‡ Is●. 1.12. Psal 50.8. etc.  Who required these things at your hands to tread in my Courts, etc. So also Psal. 50.8. I will not reprove thee for thy Sacrifices, to have been continually before me: I will take no bullock out of thy house, etc. No: 
‡ v. 23.  Who so offereth me thanks and praise honoureth me: and to him that ordereth his Conversation aright, will I show the Salvation of God. 
§ v. 22.  Now consider this, ye that forget God▪ lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver. Yea the consideration hereof, brought 
† Psal. 4.6.7. Heb 10. ●▪ 6, 7▪ 8, 9, 10  Christ down from the bosom of his Father, to offer up his body as the only acceptable, and All sufficient Sacrifice, to put an end to all carnal rites and services. If then Gods own Ordinances in the Law did not please him, but that he must send his Son in the flesh to fulfil all things▪ then what hope can you have, that your vain Superstitious devises should please GOD, or that he should otherwise be affected with them, but thereby to be provoked to send his Son the Second time 
* 2 Thess. 1. ●▪ 8▪ 9  in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God (even all blind worshippers, but much more wilfully blind) such as obey not the Gospel of our Lord jesus Christ, etc. Then shall all your Sumptuous Ceremonies, and Solemn Service be discovered, and the rotten inside of your hypocritical formalities be turned out to the view of all the world. Like to Cardinal Campeius his Sumpter, which with a justle in Cheapside, the girts bursting, down it falls, and out fly the old Boots and Shoes, and such like baggage which it was stuffed withal, becoming a ridiculous spectacle to all the beholders. So when your fair glorious guilden earthen pot, striving with your Maker (as the Prophet speaketh) comes to justle with the godlen pot of Manna jesus Christ, and to be struck with a blow of his Iron-rod, all that filthy inside of hypocrisy, and infidelity, shall fly out, to become a laughing stock, to all the world, which shall then see that GREAT WITNESS of what sincerity was in your heart, when you bleared ignorant men's eyes with the glaring lustre of your▪ external worship. Yea your external pompous service, as wherewith you think to please Christ, argues you to have no other conceit of Christ, than such as the Jews had, dreaming of a temporal Messias, and an earthly Prince.  
But let us hear your tale out: And scarce any thing hath hurt Religion more in these broken times, than an opinion of too many men, that because Rome had thrust some unnecessary, and many Superstitious Ceremonies upon the Church, therefore the Reformation must have none at all. For Answer in short, All your Ceremonies are Superstitious, and therefore unnecessary; or (if you will) all unnecessary, and therefore both Superstitious and Superfluous. What necessity (I pray you) of your Cross in Baptism? What necessity of a Surplice, except to hide your poor Priest's doublet, when 'tis either greasy, or out at the elbows? What necessity of Kneeling at the Sacrament, and so before your Altar? And how can you sever these from Superstition? What's a sign made in the Air, to signify and set forth the life of a Christian, and that also after Baptism, the seal of his vow to renounce the Devil and all his works, and to be a soldier and servant of jesus Christ? And how is your Surplice a sign of sanctity, when commonly he that wears it hath least holiness, and hath cause to blush, when he hath no better sign to hang out, then that which tells the world, there's no true Sanctity within? And when you so devoutly kneel before your Altar, at the receiving of the Sacrament, (to which your Altar-men, usually apply that in the Psalm, O come Let us worship, and bow down and kneel before the Lord our Maker.) What is it a sign of? Of your adoring Christ's body imagined to be in the bread? Or of your adoring the Altar, as which you call Gods-Mercy-Seat, and where Christ keeps his personal residence? Or of your adoring the Crucifix, upon or over your Altar? Or is it a sign in general of your humility, 
See pag. 3. Will-worship Idolatry.  or of your Idolatry rather, or both together, Idolatrous humility, or humble Idolatry? And so is it not a plain sign of your pride and presumption, in perverting the ordinance of Christ, while you enjoin such gestures before an Altar in receiving the Lords Supper, which Christ ordained not at an Altar, but at a Table, where a Supper ought to be eaten as a Supper sitting, and not kneeling.  
But (say you) ought the Reformation to have none at all? Yea, none at all, of men's devising to bind the Conscience of any Christian. For else how is it Reformation, if it retain any thing, that is either unnecessary or Superstitious? Your Reformation is deformed with your Hierarchy, and Ceremonies the very badges and Ensigns of Antichristian Tyranny, and Romish Apostasy; for thereby (as is noted before) you thrust Christ, the King of his Church out of his Throne, and put a yoke of bondage upon his people's necks.  
But (say you) Ceremonies are the hedge, that fence the Substance of Religion from all the indignities, which profaneness and Sacrilege too commonly put upon it. You mean such Substance of Religion, wherein Rome and you are both one Church▪ that is Hierarchy and Ceremonies; as is showed before. And you use your Ceremonies as the Train and Guard of your Hierarchy and Principality, which were contemptible, without such Attendance. And 'tis not without need, that you make such use of these beggarly Rudiments, when you have no fence for yourselves in God's word. And in one respect your Ceremonies may fitly be termed a hedge, yea 
* Mi●h. 7.4.  Sharper than any thorn hedge (as the Prophet speaketh) which who so offereth to thrust away, must be (as David saith) 
‡ 2 Sam. 23. 7·  fenced with iron, and the Staff of a Spear, to be utterly burnt with fire in the same place, otherwise they will pierce thorough his hand. And this hedge of your pious seeming Ceremonies is a fence to your Hierarchy against Profaneness, while profane ignorant persons, led by their carnal sense, are thereby more than half persuaded, that Prelates, when they are at their Church-devotion, are pious and holy Men, although they do not so much as seem so out of the Church. And again, Ceremonies you use as a hedge to fence you against Sacrilege: for were it not for your pompous daily Service, and at Solemn Feasts, in your cathedrals, you might be in some danger of having all those fat Corpses alienated to some other use, then to the maintenance of a sort of Idle-bellies. As once a 
‡ Dr. Andrew's  Brother of yours answered, being asked of King james to what use their Cathedrals did serve: your Majesty (quoth he) is there daily and Solemnly prayed for. Although those Solemn prayers, in regard of their fat feeding, and customary Chanting and Roaring out of a Sort of ignorant Chanters, may be thought to have but little virtue in them, except it be for the poor Singing men's poverty, whose allowance will scarce maintain their Credit upon the Alehouse Score.  
You add: And a great weakness it is not to see the strength, which Ceremonies (things weak enough in themselves, God knows) add to Religion itself: but a far greater to see it, and yet to cry them down, All, and without Choice, by which their most hated Adversaries Climb up, and could not cry up themselves, and their Cause, as they do, but by them. Now, as we said before, Considering what your Religion itself is, in Substance one with that Religion of Rome: 'tis weakness indeed, not to consider▪ what a Strength your Ceremonies do add unto it. Yet what strength in Ceremonies, so weak in themselves, as you seem to acknowledge, when you Say, God knows? And indeed the Apostle calls them 
* Gal. 4.4.  Weak and beggarly Rudiments. But as weak as they be in themselves, yet being backed with your Canons and Courts, they prove strong enough to make the strongest to stoop, and veil bonnet unto them. Yea are they not strong bonds and chains to bind and captivate the Conscience of God's people worse than either the Egyptian or Babylonian captivity. 
B●nds of Egypt  So as were it not for your Canons mounted, and full charged, these hedges or mud-walls would prove but weak enough to fence the Substance of your Religion. And indeed this is the reason, that so many cry them down, All, without Choice, because of that strength which they add to your Romish Superstition, your Religion itself: and because on the other side, they eat out the very heart of true piety, and the power of true Religion in all those, or the most part, who are ensnared by them. Although you call this Weakness in those, that cry them all down. But I hope this weakness is So crying, especially reaching up to heaven, will in time so prevail with God, as to batter them down, and to dismount your Canon that holds them up.  
But such consider not (Say you) that by this means, their most hated enemies (the Jesuits, I suppose you mean) cry up their cause, and not else, but by them. Surely, [By them] here, if rightly taken, 'twill prove very true, you Say. By them, that is by your Ceremonies. For what is there, whereby the Jesuits do more climb, and cry up themselves, and their Cause, than your crying up of your Ceromonies? This they profess in their Books and English Pamphlets, which they scatter among the People, that the Church of England is coming amain towards Rome, as being weary of her Religion, or ashamed of it. And all this especially, since you have climbed up to the top-pinnacle of Canterbury Church. And well you Say, Their most hated Adversaries▪ You say not, Your most hated Addversaries, the Jesuits: for than you should account Jesuits no better than Puritans. Though I think your Lordship can give no great good reason why the Jesuits should be the Most hated enemies of those, that most cry down your Ceremonies, except you will give the Jesuits precedency of you in persecuting those men. But (I say) your Zeal for Ceremonies is a fiery Chariot, to carry the Jesuits to that heaven of their happiness, to wit, England's Reconciliation with Rome, which is hastened and advanced by nothing so much, as by hoisting up of Altars, and other Idolatrous Superstitions, and putting down of good Ministers, and all true Religion. This, this is the Ladder, by which Jesuits Climb up, not now to the top of Tyburn, but to the top of their Mount Tabor; beholding the Church of England transformed into the Church of Rome; being also so exceedingly helped up and advanced by this your handy work now published for that end.  
L. p. 21. In this ensuing Discourse, I have endeavoured to lay open those wider Gates of the Catholic Church, etc.  
P. So you have indeed, having set open England's broad Gates, that That Great Whore of Babylon, with all her Train and Trinkets, her Superstitions and Idolatries, may have the more easy reentry, without so much as the ruffling of her Ruff. Nay rather than fail, as the Trojans, at the Subtle Counsel of their perjured Sinon, broke down a great part of their City-wall to let in the Trojan horse, (which unknown to them, was full of armed Greeks, their Enemies) by which means their City was surprised, sacked and burnt: So you having been a great Instrument, of not only Setting open the broad Gates, and making them wider than they were before, but of pulling down the Walls and Bulwarks of the Church of England, to wit, in Suppressing God's Word, and Supplanting the most Painful and Godly Ministers, as the Watchmen of the City, yea the Chariots and Hose-men of Israel: and having prepared it by the Setting up of your Altars, and Superstitious Service and Devotion attending thereupon, all conformable to Rome; do in this your Book now published, as with open voice proclaim, how happy a thing it were, that the Church of England and of Rome, were perfectly reconciled and reunited.  

The Prelates wider Gates whither they lead.  Again, you have in this also laid open those wider gates of your Catholic Church, in that therein you have in some respects made those broad Gates that lead to destruction, wider than they were before. For at after in your Book you can find a broad way for the silly ignorant Papists to find Salvation in the Church of Rome, and so to be Saved living and dying in the Roman Faith. But of this in its due place. Only you have altogether shut the Gates of the Catholic Church against all Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, as having no Prelates, and therefore no Churches. As hath been noted.  
You add: (The Catholic Church) confined to no Age, Time, or Place, nor knowing any bounds, but that Faith, which was once (and but once for all) delivered to the Saints. Judas 3.  
P. My Lord, what have you to do with the Saints faith, except that you endeavour to destroy it? Or with those Saints, except to persecute and root them out? Or would you make us believe, that you are one of those Saints? Certainly then you must become anothergates Man, then as yet you have showed yourself to be. Your Tyranny, your Hypocrisy, your Superstitions, your Persecutions, your Reconciliation with Rome must be utterly abandoned. Except by continuing in them, you hope to be the next Canonised Saint to▪ Ignatius, the Father and Founder of the Jesuits Society, Lately Canonised by his Holiness at Rome, for his good Service for the Catholic Cause: and so may you haply after 100 years, come to be Canonised for the notable Service you have done in the Church of England for the Church of Rome, if ever you shall bring them to a perfect Reconciliation. And as for that Faith you Speak of, as the bound of the Catholic Church, which you say you and Rome do both profess: we shall have occasion hereafter to speak more largely of it.  
L. p. 22. I have delivered with a single heart, that truth which I profess.  
P. What truth it is, which you profess, we have in part already discovered, in this your Dedicatory, and shall further and more fully in your ensuing Discourse. But with what singleness of heart you have done it, that we leave to the Judge of all hearts. Only where we find your hypocrisy so palpable, as that we cannot choose, but use it as a Perspective to see into the constitution of your heart, as where we find your words so directly contradicting your deeds and practices, the clearest Indices of your mind, expressed and written in Capital Letters: we do not spare to inform you of it; both because 
* jer. 17.9▪  the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? So as your own heart, when you think it single, may double with you: and that others also taking warning by such a dangerous example, as the greatest Prelate of England, may not also be deceived and seduced by your deep dissimulations.  
L. ibid. In the publishing whereof I have obeyed your Majesty, discharged my duty, to my power, to the Church of England given account of the hope that is in me, and so testified to the world that Faith, in which I have lived, and by God's blessing and favour purpose to die.  
P. For your obedience to his Majesty, we say no more, having touched before, how strong that back had need to be, that bears all your burdens, so intolerable to be borne. But is this the discharge of the duty of the Metropolitan of all England to the Church of England, to compile and publish such a Book to reconcile England with Rome? What thanks the Church of England may return you, I know not. But thus did not any of your Predecessors, ever. And have you more Charity, or more Devotion, than they had? And for the hope in you, whereof you give account to the world, and your faith testified, wherein you have lived, and resolve to die: I will say as Jerome said to the Pelagians, Sententias vestras prodidisse, Superasse est: The discovery of your opinions, is our victory. So, thus to give account of your hope, and testify your faith to all the world, as that wherein you have lived, and resolve to die: Let's see by your own testimony, now irrevocably upon Record, what to judge of you formerly, namely as of one, Qui cum Lacte nutricis errorem Suxisse videatur: who seemeth to have sucked in Error with his Nurse's Milk; 
Tuscul. Quest. lib. 3.  As the Orator Speaks of all natural men: and what to expect of you hereafter: that as you have lived a most notorious Persecuter of the truth of Christ, and of his Saints; So we must look for it Still, so long as you live. And this is our victory, that we have to deal with one, who is not now any longer a disguised, but unmasked Enemy of the true Faith and Religion of JESUS CHRIST. And however you may flatter yourself in regard of the World, and favour in Court: yet if you repent not of your former life, but die as you have lived, you can have neither hope nor faith in expecting God's blessing or favour. And so I pass from your Dedicatory to your Discourse, as followeth.   

THE REPLY TO THE RELATION OF THE CONFERENCE.  
L. p. 2. IT is very fit, the People should look to the judgement of the Church, before they be too busy with particulars But yet neither the Scripture, nor any good Authority denies them some moderate use of their own understanding and judgement, especially in things familiar and evident, which even ordinary Capacities may as easily understand, as read. And therefore some particulars a Christian may judge, without depending.  
P. What you mean by Church, you have told us before, namely that, wherein your Church of England, and that of Rome, are one and the same, one Prelatical and hierarchical Church, out of which are excluded all those Reformed Churches, which neither have, nor acknowledge Prelates to be of divine Institution. We have also made a Say of the difficulties: So as it is no difficulty to divine, what Christians we are like to prove in understanding and judgement in the mystery of Faith and Salvation, when we must be limited to that narrow Scantling of some moderate use of our own understanding and judgement, and that but in things familiar and evident to every ordinary Capacity. O poor Christians, that for Understanding in the Scripture must be at the allowance of Antichristian Lords, who would bring into bondage God's people, by Chaining them up in Darkness and Ignorance, and do with them, as 
* 1 Sam. 11.2.  Nahash the Ammonite answered the men of jabeth Gilead; On this condition will I make a Covenant with you, that I may thrust out all your right eyes, and lay it for a reproach upon all Israel. But the Apostle exhorts Christians, Saying, 
‡ 1 Co●. 14.20  Be not children in understanding; howbeit, in malice be children, but in understanding Téleio ginesthe, be perfect. And, 
‡ Heb. 6.1.  Leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, Let us go on unto perfection. And, 
§ Heb. 5▪ 14.  Strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those, who by reason of use have their Senses exercised to discern both good and evil. But you allow Christians only some moderate use of their own understanding, and that in things familiar and evident, which men of ordinary Capacities may as easily understand, as read. So as what they read, except with the very reading they do as easily understand it, as they read it, they must not meditate further of it, but in what they presently upon the reading understand not, they must depend upon your Church's judgement. So as you would exclude your Christians from being of those 
† Psal. 1.1, 2·  blessed men, of whom David Speaks, which delight in the Law of the Lord, and in his Law to meditate day and night. You would not have them with 
* He●. 5.14.  use to exercise their wits and Senses to discern 〈◊〉 good and evil. Yea the Apostle useth a word very emphatical, di● tò exin, by an habitual use, or long custom have their Senses gegumnasm●na, exercised▪ the word properly signifieth such an exercise, as Wrestlers, or such, as contend for victory, do use, which is with all their might and strength, being trained up unto it by long exercise. So as the Scripture doth not only not forbid, but Commands and exhorts Christians to all diligence in the Study of the Scriptures, 
C●l.. 2.2.  That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the aknowledgement of the Mystery of God; as the Apostle speaks. And, 
Col. 3.16.  Let the word of God dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another, etc. And the Bereans are Said to be dugenésteroi, more noble, than those of Thesselonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so, which Paul taught. Lo ●ere, they examined Paul's Doctrine by the Scriptures: they depended not upon his bare word; and therefore the Holy Ghost marks them forth for men of a more noble spirit. But you would have your Christians to be poor and beggarly in the knowledge of the mystery of Christ, and to be so baseminded, as in all things, which are not obvious to every Capacity, to depend merely upon your Church-Authority and Judgement. So as what you mean hereby, except to bring into your Church of England the jesuitical blind obedience, captivating the people's senses to your Dictates, that they might pin their Salvation and Faith upon your Priest's Sleeve: I cannot imagine. Which will appear yet more clearly at after.  
Again, these words of yours are in Answer to the Jesuits words, namely, That it was not for the Lady, or any other unlearned Persons, to take upon them to judge of Particulars, without depending upon the judgement of the true Church. 
The Prelate yields the jesuit this, that the Church of R●me is a true Church▪ on whose judgement people must depend.  To which all your Answer in full is, as before. Wherein you easily let the Jesuit slip, and run away with this, that the Church of Rome is that true Church, on whose judgement for Particulars all unlearned Persons must depend. But you understand the true Church to be that, wherein you told us before, your Church of England and of Rome, are one and the Same. And so for Rome to be a true Church, you plainly confess at after. But your words here may stand you in very good Stead, to be a fair Item to all the Readers of your Book, not to be too busy with the Particulars of it, but first to look to the judgement of the Church of England, whose mouth you seem to be in this your whole Discourse. So as I may see my Doom already set down in black and white, that I must be Censured as one too busy, or Allotroepíoskopos, playing the Bishop in another's Diocese, in our English Translation, a busy body. But I must bear it off with Head and Shoulders. And, as the Proverb is, Over Shoes, over Boötes. I have already waded through the Fords of your Dedicatory, and now I must launch into the Deep of your Discourse. And there's now no returning. Nor have I put my hand to the Plough to turn up your weeds by the roots, to look back, or desist, for fear to be censured as one too busy. Yea all my business is about particulars; and namely such, as summed up together in the total, conclude you to be, though not a professed Invader, yet a most subtle and pragmatical Engineer, and underminer of that Truth of Christ in the Scripture, which yet the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against.  
L. p. 4. Bellarmine of very great ability, to make good any truth, which he undertakes for the Church of Rome.  
P. What one thing (I pray) which Bellarmine undertakes to make good for the Church of Rome (as the Church of Rome) is a truth? I say, as the Church of Rome. For what he undertakes to make good for the Church of Rome properly, must needs, be some point of Popery, or Popish Doctrine. Otherwise he undertakes not to make it good, as for the Church of Rome. Now the Church of Rome, as it is the Church of Rome, namely the Papal Church, holds not any one Saving Truth. I say again, it holds not any one Saving Truth. I shall prove this more particularly at after. Yet you seem to intimate here, that either all, or most things so undertaken by him, are truth. But the contrary will appear; So as what things are in themselves false and erroneous, can by no humane ability either of that Champion of Rome Bellarmine, or of the great Champion of the present Church of England, be so made good, as to deserve the name of Truth.  
L. ibid. After Bellarmine hath distinguished, ●o express his Meaning, in what sense the particular Church of Rome cannot Err in things which are de Fide, of the Faith: he tells us, this Firmitude, is, because the Sea Apostolic is fixed there. And this he saith is most true.  
P. Your last words here are somewhat dark, whether we should take them for Bellarmine's words, he saith; or for your own assent therein, And this he saith is most true. This Later is the Likelier. And then again, here is another doubt, whether [And this he saith is very true] it be referred to the whole Sentence going before, and alleged by you; or only to the Last Clause. If to the whole Sentence, then in Saying, And this he saith is most true; you assent, that Rome's infallibility consists in the Firmitude of the Sea Apostolic fixed there. Which you seem afterwards more expressly to contradict. But if only to the Last Clause your Speech hath reference, And this he saith is most true: then first, you should have expressed it more Clearly and punctually, as in some things you do. But taking it in the best sense, you confess it is most true, that the Sea Apostolic is fixed there: thus you give occasion of Dispute, about Peter's being at Rome, and of his being Bishop of Rome; and if so, whether consequently Rome be yet the Sea Apostolic. But because your words, here are not Clear enough, and at after you declare yourself herein more plainly, what we have to say of this, we will reserve to a fitter place.  
L. p. 23. I shall ever be glad, that the Church of England may have far more able Defendants, than myself.  
P. Certainly the Church of England herself may be glad hereof, to vindicate her Reputation, which you, by this your Defence, have laid flat in the dust. But, May have, seems to import, that now she hath not, at least, now, that Dr. White is dead. Nor hath the Church of England any great cause to glory in either of you both, as Defendants, unless by the Church of England you understand that new Startup Faction of Arminianized, and jesuited Atheists, whose Standard-beares you have been and are to bring the whole Land back again to Rome, and so to make a full League and Confederacy against the true Church of jesus Christ.  
L. p. 29. Things not Fundamental, yet to some men's Salvation are necessary.  
P. How prove you this? Seeing what is necessary to some men's Salvation, is necessary to all, and every man's Salvation. And Fundamentals only, to wit, Such things as are de Fide, of Faith, are the only things necessary to every man's Salvation. According to the Athanasius his Creed. Whosoever will be Saved, it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith: which Faith unless a man keep whole, and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. For the Catholic Faith comprehends all Fundamentals, which to violate in any one particular, overthrows the Faith, and cuts a man off from Salvation. But your adding of other things, besides and unto the Fundamentals, as necessary to Some men's Salvation: doth necessarily infer this Consequence, that there be other things besides Christ, which are necessary to Some men's Salvation: And so you make Christ an insufficient Saviour to some men at least, as to whose Salvation things not Fundamental are necessary. For things not Fundamental are extra Christum, out of, or without Christ. Whereas the Scripture Saith of CHRIST, 
* Act. 4.12.  That there is no Salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given, whereby Dei sothenai emas, we Must be Saved, which words do plainly evince, that besides Christ, nothing under heaven is necessary to any man's Salvation. But give us some one particular instance of such things, as being not fundamental, yet are necessary to some men's Salvation. You tell us of certain (I wot not what) Deductions from the Articles of Faith, which you make to be your not-fundamental, and yet necessary to some men's Salvation: but for our better Information you particularise in nothing, neither in the things, nor in the persons, for whose Salvation they are necessary, but leave all in the Clouds, the fittest man●le to fold●up such foul and blind errors in.  
L. p. 31. The Church's Declaration can bind us to peace, and external obedience, where there is no express Letter of Scripture, and Sense agreed upon.  
P. By the Latitude of this Sentence, you, or your Church of England may (as you have done) by your Declaration prefixed to your Articles of Religion (as before) bind Ministers not to preach of those Doctrines of Grace, as Election, Predestination, etc. because, though there be express Letter of Scripture for them, yet the Sense is so far from being agreed upon by your present Church, as that you Say plainly, they may be taken in two opposite Senses. So as upon this your Church's Declaration of the ambiguities of your Articles, you have stopped all the Ministers mouths, binding them to peace, and external obedience. Although I cannot yet conceive, how that Declaration should be the Church of England's, though published in the King's Name, and perhaps compiled in the Conclave of Canterbury. And thus also that Order for the Altar of S. GREGORY'S, which yet is but Dormant in Cryptis, not published in Print, in which respect it cannot be called the Declartion of the Church, yet must be of force to bind all Ministers to Peace and Obedience; first to Peace, not to speak a word against Altars, for his Ears: and next to Obedience, that if he refuse to have an Altar set up in his Church, himself shallbe made a Sacrifice. But why should such an Order thus bind? I must crave pardon for making Question. And the rather, because your Lordship here gives us a Rule or Canon saying, The Church's Declaration can bind us to Peace, and external, Obedience, where there is no express Letter of Scripture, and Sense agreed on. Now though we have express Letter of Scripture, proving Christ to be the only Altar of Christians (as before is showed) yet because this sense is not agreed on by your Lordship, and so by your present Church of England, therefore men must be peaceable, and obedient in that point, and quietly submit to Authority, in the admitting, and the Adoring too (if you will) of Altars in every Church. And so in all other your superstitious Ceremonies, of what force is the express Letter of the Scripture, where the Sense of it is not by you and your Church agreed upon? To give an Instance or two more, This is my Body: the Sense of these words is not agreed on between your Church of England, and that of Rome (though you are in Substance both one Church) what then? Ergo Ministers are bound to Peace and Obedience, in not meddling to or fro with the manner, How Christ is present in the Sacrament (though your Article of the Lords Supper doth declare it, both affirmatively, and negatively, how it is, and is not) but to content themselves with Really; which is a very peaceable word, about which Rome and you have no great reason to fall at odds. Again, for bowing at the nameing of the Name jesus, although you have no express Letter of Scripture for it, (no not Phil. 2.10. where it is Said, En to onómati, In, or (as your Translation hath it) at the name of jesus every knee should bow; but it is not Said, En to onomazethai tò onoma jesoun, or jesous, In the naming of the name jesus, every knee should bow: So as that place is plainly expounded, and agreed on by other places of Scripture, as Isa. 45.23. and Rom. 14.10. as some of your old English Bibles note those places in the Margin over against the place; as in that of Isaiah, there is set in in the Margin, Rom. 14.10. and Phil. 2.10. all which three places unanimously show the universal Subjection of all Creatures in heaven, and earth, and under the earth to Christ in the day of judgement) yet because this Sense is not agreed on by the present Church of England, therefore her Declaration in her Canon binds all to Peace and Obedience: to Peace, in not speaking or writing against bowing at the nameing of the name jesus, nor in preaching to expound the Letter of Scripture (Phil. 2.10.) by the plain sense of other Scriptures, as afore cited: and to Obedience, by bowing themselves, when they hear that Name to be named. So as your Lordship's Rule here is very useful for many things, although you have neither Letter, nor Sense of Scripture for them.  
L. p. 32. The power of adding any thing contrary, and detracting any thing necessary, are alike forbidden. No power of the Church can do this.  
P. This Sentence you allege out of Vincentius, and allow it; So as it is to be accounted your own Confession, which I suppose you will not deny. Whereupon you with your Church fall under just condemnation, both for adding things contrary, and detracting things necessary. For you add to the service of God (as you call it) your Altars, and sundry other superstitions, which the Scripture excludes and condemns, and so are contrary: and you detract things necessary, as Preaching of the saving Doctrines of Grace, Preaching on the Lords days in the after noon, Preaching Weekday Lectures, and Cathechising by expounding the Grounds of Religion. Which things are necessary, profitable, and useful to the people of God, and which God commandeth; as 2 Tim. 3.15.16. and 4.1.2. Gal. 6.6. Let him that is Katekoúmenos, Cathechised in the word, communicate To katekounti, to him that Catechiseth, or instructeth him, in all good things. Thus you and your Church take upon you to do those things which are alike forbidden, and which no power of the Church can do, though you can.  
L. p. 35. Wrangle while you will, you shall never be able to prove that any thing, which is but de modo, a consideration of the manner, of being only, can possibly be fundamental in the Faith.  
P. Wrangle I will not, but prove, that some things which are, de modo, considered in the manner of being only, not only may possibly, but are really, in that very respect, fundamental in the Faith. So as to deny them, or not to believe them, is in itself damnable. And hereof I shall give some Instances. 1. Christ's body in receiving of the Sacrament, is to be considered in the m●nn●r of its being present to the believing Communicant. In so much as to exclude such manners of being present, as do destroy either the Article of his perpetual Residence in heaven till his coming again, or the truth of his Natural Body, doth deny and destroy two Articles of the Faith, 1. touching Christ's sitting 〈◊〉 t●e rig●● hand of God, from whence he shall come to Judgement▪ and 2 lie. that he was borne of the Virgin Mary, with a true humane body. As the Papists apprehending and believing Christ's natural body to be locally present in the Eucharist, do thereby overthrow his perpetual residence in heaven, 
 till his coming again: and withal, the truth of his natural body: which being a true natural body, with all its natural properties, cannot be locally or corporally in many places at one and the same time; which yet the corporal presence in the Eucharist doth necessarily import. And if the truth of Christ's natural body be destroyed (as by the Manichees, and other Heretics) Christ is wholly evacuated, and shall profit nothing. Besides, this Popish belief of Christ's corporal Presence in their Eucharist, makes Christ's natural body, which hath its dimensions of length, breadth, thickness, to be a mere fantastical and imaginary body, as being contained within the narrow circle and compass of a thin Wafer-cake: and so they destroy Christ's body. And so also, in that they believe they eat this body of Christ, which is to destroy it: as 1 Cor. 6.13. And this belief of Christ's corporal presence as aforesaid, destroys spiritual communion with Christ, and with the Holy Ghost, and consequently the Article of faith concerning the Communion of Saints. For Christ saith to his Disciples, 
* john 16.7▪  I tell you the truth, it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you: but if I depart, I will send him unto you. So as to believe Christ to be corporally present on earth, and that men have by that means a corporal communion with him, doth debar such men from all communion of the Spirit of Christ. And 
‡ Rom. 8.9.  If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, the same is none of his. He hath not Christ, that hath not his Spirit: and he hath not Christ's Spirit, that rests in the belief of Christ's corporal presence on earth, as before. For except I depart (saith Christ) that is, except I be absent from you, as concerning my corporal presence, the Comforter will not come unto you. And thus by a false belief of the very manner only of Christ's presence in the Popish Eucharist, Christ the Foundation is overthrown. And this error de modo, of the manner of being only, overthrowing the Foundation, must needs be a Fundamental error, if any error may be said to be Fundamental.  
My Second Instance is about Christ's humane Nature, 
Synodi Chalcedonensis ●lepistis: Asmukutos: Akoristoes', Adiairétoes', Atr●ptoes▪  de modo Subsistendi, of its manner of subsisting in the Person of the Son of God. For to believe, that it is either after the manner or way of Commixtion, or by adherence, as one thing cleaving to another, or Inherence, as an Accident in the Subject, or by Conversion into the divine nature, or by concomitancy, as Bellarmine saith, Christ's divinity and soul is present with his body in the Eucharist by concomitancy: all these manners do destroy the personal union of Christ's two natures in one person. As those two Heretics, Nestorius and Eutiches, the one condemned in the Council of Ephesus, the other in the Council of Chalcedon, the later for holding, that Christ had but one Nature, the humane converted into the Divine Nature: the other, that Christ had two Persons: both these destroyed Christ the Mediator, who is not a Mediator, unless he be both God and Man in one Person Christ. So Bellarmine's devise in holding Christ's divine nature, and humane soul to be present in and with that body, which they frame unto him in the Mass, by way of concomitancy, as being inseparable companions: destroys the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion, wherein the soul of Christ was in death separated from his body, until his Resurrection. Now the Papists say, they offer up Christ's body in the Mass, as representing the Sacrifice of his death and Passion. Which how can it be, when they say his soul is by concomitancy with his body offered up; So as all this while there is no representative, or Commemorative, much less a propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ's death, Seing in that body (as they say) Christ's soul is inseparably present? And again, to say Christ's divine nature is present with that body of concomitancy, this destroys the Personal union. For concomitancy is no personal union of the two natures, concomitancy being but an accompanying of each other. Whereas the divine nature of Christ doth not accompany the humane nature, but assumes it: and the humane nature doth not accompany the divine, but subsists in it. Thus it is clear, that the Consideration of the manner of being only may possibly prove to be Fundamental in the Faith.  
L. p. 37. All, which pertains to Supernatural, Divine, and infallible Christian faith, is not by and by fundamental in the Faith to all men.  
P. You told us 
* See pag. 94. ●●fore.  before, That things not fundamental, yet to some men's Salvation are necessary: and here, that all that pertains to Christian faith is not fundamental in the faith to all men. It seems you have some peculiar way to heaven, which is not common to all. But take heed, least leaving the common roadway of true Saving Faith, attended with a holy life, you fail of heaven. 
‡ john 14.6.  I am the way, the Truth, and the Life, saith Christ. And is not Christ this way, Truth, and Life to all that are Saved? Is not he to all such as are called, both jews and greeks, Christ, the Power of God, and the Wisdom of God? But what do I speak to you of Christ, or what do you speak of Christian faith, that know not what Christian faith is, otherwise, then as you discern in it some thing, for which, in whomsoever you find it, you persecute it to the death?  
L. p. 39 If new Doctrines be added to the old, the Church may be changed in Lupanar errorum, which I am loath to English.  
P. Nay, are you not ashamed to English it? For this you Speak of the Church of Rome: and you have told us, that the Church of England and of Rome are one and the Same Church. And now you Say, If new Doctrines be added to the old, the Church may be changed in Lupanar errorum. And this the Church of Rome hath done, as you elsewhere affirm: She hath added new Doctrines to the old, and such new, as She doth with the old, a● men do when they put on a new suit, make the old a Cast suit. But because you are loath to English in Lupanar errorum, for the reverend respect you bear to that Venerable Apostolic Sea, I will do as much for you, as to English it: If new Doctrines be added to the Old (as the Church of Rome hath done) the Church may be changed into a Stews of Errors. This Phrase you take out of Vincentius Lyrenensis his Sentence, quoted in the Margin: which is this in English, The Church by adding new Doctrines to the old, becomes a Stews of impious and beastly Errors, which was before a Sacrary of chaste and undefiled verity. Whence I note, how you, not only smother some of his words, but smooth others, Saying, for, [The Church becomes a Stews] The Church may be changed. So as herein you falsify the worthy Saying of Vincentius, when you make but a May be, of his, Is made. But let the Conclusion be, If a Church be turned Whore, 'tis good that all should know her to be so in plain English, that they may avoid her, and (as Solomon saith) 
* Pro. 5.8.  remove their way far from her, and not come near the door of her house. And for this Cause have I taken the Pains to be your Translator.  
L. p. 39 Some Decisions, yea and of the Church to●, are made, or may be, (if Stapleton inform us right) without an evident, nay without so much as a probable testimony of holy writ. But Bellarmine falls quite off, and confesses in express terms, that nothing can be certain by certainty of Faith, unless it be contained immediately in the word of God, or be deduced out of the word of God by evident consequence. And if nothing can be certain, then certainly no Determination of the Church itself, if that Determination be not grounded upon one of these, either express word of God, or evident consequence ●ut of it. (And a little before) Every wrangling Disputer may neither deny, nor doubtfully dispute, much less obstinately oppose the Determinations of the Church, no not when they are (Dogmata deposita, Deposed Principles.  
P. Now all these Passages weighed together, do clearly and distinctly resolve themselves into these Conclusions: 1. That the Church may decide and determine some things, without any evidence, or so much as a probable Testimony of holy Writ; and herein you consent and jump fully with that notorious Papist, and adversary of the once Church of England, Stapleton, whom the learned Dr. Whitakers publicly confuted in the Divinity Schools in Cambridge, as his Works can yet testify. And yet behold now the Church of England hath got a Champion in the Chair of Canterbury▪ who pleads for, and applauds that in Stapleton, which Dr. Whitakers, and many other learned Divines in England formerly have refuted. And for further Confirmation hereof, you tax Bellarmine as of untruth, where he confesses, that nothing may be certain by certainty of Faith, unless it be contained immediately in the word of God, or be deduced thence by evident consequence. Whereupon you infer, that if nothing can be certain, then certainly no Determination of the Church itself, wanting express word, or evident Consequence out of it. Thus you condemn Bellarmine's true Saying (if by the Word of God he understand the Scriptum alone, and not his word unwritten) and approve and prefer Stapletons' false and heretical sentence before it. Secondly, That things so decided and determined by the Church, without either evident, or so much as probable Testimony of holy writ, yet are so de fide, so firmly to be believed, as every wrangling Disputer may neither deny, nor doubtfully dispute, much less obstinately oppose. Consonant hereunto you ●ay at after (pag. 224.) The Determination of a General Council ●●ring, is to stand in force, and to have external obedience at least yielded to it, till evidence of Scripture, or a Demonstration to the Contrary make the error appear, and until thereupon another Council of equal Authority do reverse it: And so also, pag. 226. etc. Where here I mention for clearer proof of what you say here, but not to anticipate or prevent our fuller Answer, when we come to those places, where we shall supply our brevity here.  
L. p. 40. I hope A. C. will not tells us, there's any Tradition extant unwritten, by which particular men may have assurance of their Several Salvations.  
P. But what think you of it? Will you tell us there is no such thing written in the Scripture, That true Believers may have assurance of their own Salvation? But if there be, why do you forbid Preachers to meddle with it, considering the true and solid comfort which it bringeth to him that hath it? As the 17 th' Article confesseth, might it be suffered to speak out, and had you not put a gag in the mouth of it.  
L. p. 43. Mine is, That the belief of Scripture to be the word of God, and infallible, is an equal, or rather a preceding prime Principle of Faith, w●th, or rather to the whole body of the Creed.  
P. How? The Belief of Scripture to be God's word, and infallible, no more but an equal, or rather a preceding prime Principle of Faith, with, or rather to the whole body of the Creed? This is yours (you say) your Saying. And I believe it to be yours. For it is as like to one of your Sayings, as may be. For here you attribute no more credit to the Scriptures, then to the Creed, both equal, only differing perhaps in point of some precedency of time, or So, with an, or rather equal, or rather preceding, the difference not great, if any. Thus do you not equal a Church Tradition with the Divine Scripture? For we have it by Tradition that the Apostles compiled the Creed, and each his Several Article. And is this or any other Tradition of equal Credit with Scripture? And is not the Scripture the Rule, whereby the Articles of the Creed are to be interpreted, which are no otherwise to be believed, but as they are agreeable to the Scripture? So as (for the Purpose) if you go no further for the Sense of the Article of Christ's Descent into hell, than the very Letter of the Article, you can make no Sense of it, nor give any reason for it. And how then can you give a reason of your Faith in this particular? Except you do believe it, because you do believe it, and because the words are, He Descended into Hell. But of this more by and by.  
L. p. 44. Some Traditions I deny not, etc. to be Apostolical, but yet not fundamental in the Faith.  
P. You might do well to point out unto us, which be those your Apostolical Traditions, that we may distinguish them from those Traditions, which Rome calls Apostolical. Or rather perhaps you admit of all those as Apostolical indeed, but yet not Fundamental. Surely if you can prove them to be truly Apostolical, namely, that the Apostles delivered them immediately to the Church by word of mouth, why are they not fundamental in the faith? Why are not all bound to believe them, or give as much Credit to them, as to the Articles of your Creed, which you Say are fundamental in the faith.  
L. p. 45. The Church of England taketh the words, He descended into hell, as they are in the Creed, and believes them without further Dispute, and in that Sense, which the ancient Primitive Fathers of the Church agreed in.  
P. Here a Question may be moved, 1. In general, Whether a man taking up a matter upon such trust, as he gives equal belief unto it, as to the Scriptures themselves, do not therein Sin damnably. As making that a fundamental ground of his Faith, which is not found to be in the Scripture. Secondly, in particular, Whether a man resting in the very Letter of the Article, He descended into Hell, believing thereupon, as surely as he believes that God is in Heaven, that Christ's Soul did locally descend into Hell among the damned there, having no regard at all to what the Scripture Saith of it, whether the Scripture Say any such thing, or no: do not hereby make way for his own Descent into Hell? Or thirdly, Whteher you do as verily and firmly believe Christ's Descent into Hell, as you do his Ascent into Heaven, Seeing the Scriptures Speaks clearly and expressly of this, but not so of that; and whether you are a● much bound to believe his Descent into Hell, because you find such words in the Creed, as his Ascent into Heaven, because you find it in the Scripture? Now for Answer to all these together, I conceive, that to make any thing of the necessity of Faith to Salvation, besides what is found in the Scripture, is Sin, and in particular to believe, that because it is Said in the Creed, He Descended into Hell, therefore Christ did locally in Soul descend into Hell, the place of the damned, without any proof from Scripture, is Sin. My reasons are these: 1. Because this opens a gap to men to believe humane Traditions to be of Faith to Salvation, as of equal credit and authority to the Scriptures. Now it cannot be proved, that the Creed itself, with its form and words, and Articles, and Title, called The Apostles Creed, is other, than a humane Tradition, or that the Apostles composed the Creed. Secondly, This argues, as a too high estimation of a thing humane, as if it were autópistos, of selfe-Credit: so a too base estimation, and undervaluing of the holy Scripture, as if they alone were not the Rule of Faith, or not to be relie● and rested on alone for all matters concerning Christian Faith. So as to give Credit to any thing else besides the Scripture, as of equal Authority with the Scripture, (as you make your Creed to be) and not examining it by the Scripture, is a detracting from the Authority of Scripture, and consequently a denying of the Scripture to be the Sole Rule of Faith. For the Creed, it is either a part of the Scripture, or not a part: if it be not a part of Scripture (as indeed it is not) than all the Articles of Faith in it (being but a small abridgement of Christian Faith, and so, of necessity, and in comparison of Scripture itself, very obscure, and Scanty) are to be proved and illustrated from Scripture, the Sole Rule of Faith, and Trial of all Truths. Thirdly, in Particular, to believe Christ's descent in Soul into hell locally, must stand with some reason, and analogy or proportion of Faith laid down in the Scripture. For Christ did or suffered nothing, but the Scripture shows the Reason, Cause, and End of it. For instance: Isaiah Saith, 
* Isa. 9.6.  To us a Child is borne, to us a Son is given. So the Angel to the Shepherds, 
‡ Luke 2.11▪  To you is borne this day a Saviour which is Christ the Lord. This then shows the End of Christ's Incarnation, namely for our Salvation. Then for his Death, 
‡ Rom. 4.25▪  He was delivered up for our Sins. And, 
§ Heb. 2.14, 15.  Forasmuch as the Children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the Same: that through death he might destroy him that had the power of d●ath, that is, the Devil. And deliver them, who through fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage. So for his Resurrection, 
† Rom. 4.  He rose again for our justification. So for his Ascension, It was that he might 
* joh. 16.7.  send the Holy Ghost, and go to prepare a place in heaven for all his. So for his Sitting at God's right hand, 
‡ Ephes. 4.8. joh. 14.2. Rom. 8.34. Psal. 2.6. Act. 7.56. Heb. 1.13.  There he makes Intercession for his people, rules as King his Church, in preserving, protecting, governing his people, and making his and their foes his Footstool. But for any such thing, as Descent into hell, neither is it found in the Scripture, nor much less any reasons given there of it. Indeed Peter Speaking of Christ's Resurrection, allegeth Psal. 16. Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell: So in the English. In the Hebrew it is commonly taken for the Grave, not for the place of the damned. But will you take Peter's exposition of it Speaking by Christ's own Spirit? 
‡ Act. 2.29, 30, 31, 32.  This (saith he) David Seeing before, Spoke of the Resurrection of Christ, that his Soul was not left in Hell, neither his flesh did see Corruption. So then, this place (Psal. 16.) was by the Holy Ghosts own Interpretation, a Prophecy of Christ's Resurrection from the Grave, and not of any Descent into Hell, the place of the damned. For he is not said to rise out of hell, as you say he went down into Hell, nor to ascend out of Hell, as you believe he descended into Hell. Will you have a particular Article of Christ's descent into Hell, and shall you not need another Article for his Ascent out of Hell again? And the Apostle saith, 
§ Eph. 4 9▪  Christ descended Eyes tà katótera mère tes ges, to the lowest parts of the Earth, which is spoken of his humiliation to the Death, and the Grave: but here is no word of his Descent into any such place as Hell, the place of the damned. But admit your Faith to be true, that Christ's Soul descended locally into Hell: I ask, to what end or purpose? Can you show any Reason from Scripture for this? Will you say, his Soul went thither to suffer? Surely that had its 
* joh. 19.30. Psal. 18.5.  Consummatum est upon the Cross, there it was finished. Will you say, he went to triumph over the Devil in his own D●nne? That was also done on his 
‡ Col. 2.15.  Cross, as on his Triumphal Chariot. And can you give any reason why Christ should descend into hell in regard of us? What▪ that so he might deliver our Souls out of Hell? Surely this also was done in his 
‡ Heb. 2.14, 15.  Death. And again, if it were necessary that Christ's soul should go locally into hell, to deliver our souls: then also it was necessary for his body to descend into hell, to deliver our bodies from thence. For he came to redeem our bodies, as well as our souls. Or what else can you Say? Certainly what ever you can invent, the Scripture will presently discover the vanity of it. But for my part, I dare believe nothing concerning Christ, and my Salvation, but what the Scripture hath revealed. But the Scripture hath revealed no such thing, as the Descent of Christ's Soul into Hell locally. But you will then object unto me, Do I not believe my Creed, and every Article in it? I answer, I do. Why then (say you) Do I not believe the Article of Christ's Descent into Hell? I say, I do, being understood, or expounded according to the Scripture, and the Analogy of Faith therein. How is that? Christ died, and in his Passion he suffered the Torments of Hell in his 
† Psal. 18.5. Math. 26.38, 3●. & 27.46.  Soul on the Cross, and in the Garden. But his Descent into Hell is set after his burial. And do you not know, that the ancient Heathen used to put Hádes for the state of the dead. So as katelthein eye hadou, is to go, or to abide in the state of the dead, which Christ did for 3. days, and then arose again and revived. So as the Article shows the continuance of Christ's being dead and buried, till his Resurrection. Again, you know the Nicene Creed mentions only Christ's burial, and no Descent into Hell: and Athanasius his Creed, katelthen eyes hadou, He Descended into Hell, without speaking a word of his burial. All which do confirm what I say, that christ in being buried, remained so long in the State of the d●ad, his soul separated from his body: and being said to Descend into Hell, hades signifying also the Grave, thereby is meant his being buried for so long a time, till his rising again. As it is said in the next Article, The third day ●e rose again from the dead, that is, from the Grave, where he abode in the state of the dead.  
Now I have given you a reason of my Faith: Can you give one reason of yours, concerning this Article, as you take and believe it with your Church of England? Show but one reason, or shadow of a reason out of Scripture. Nay, except you bring every Article of the Creed to the examen or trial of Scripture, for the staying and establishing of your Faith, you may run into many monstrous errors. What do you believe concerning Christ's death? You believe that he died. But for whom? Whether for the Elect only, in God's Purpose, Account, Appointment, Acceptance: or universally for all men, Elect and Reprobate? I tell you, my Lord, if you believe that Christ died for all men universally, as well for the Reprobate, as the Elect, you destroy both God's Grace in giving Christ for his people only, the Elect, and also the merit and eff●icacy of Christ's death. The Scripture shows these things abundantly. But I mention this only by the way. Again, What do you believe concerning the holy Catholic Church? You believe (I dare say) and you do say it, that 
* L. p. 62. compared with other places. See p. 109.  the Catholic Church on earth, consists visibly of all Prelates, and those that are subject unto them, as one entire Body. This is your Faith. But if you examine this by the Scripture, you will find it to be an Error no less soul than false, as hath been showed. So, do you not believe the Article of the Communion of Saints? You do. But who are your Saints on earth? You will hardly allow any Saints on earth, till after their death, they be Canonised by his Holiness at Rome. Nay in plain terms you persecute both the Saints themselves, and their Communion. Can you endure such as but profess holiness? And for their Communion, do you not hunt out and persecute Private Fasting and Prayer among the poor souls of Christ, when public they can have none, and no other remedy or weapons are left them to defend themselves withal against your bloody Cruelty? So as the truth is, you neither rightly believe the Holy Catholic Church, nor the Communion of Saints; but are a notorious both denye● and persecuter of both. And therefore we see what a necessity there is, that we should bring the Articles of the Creed to the Standard Rule, the Scripture, both as the surest and safest way, yea and the only way to preserve our Faith from Error.  
But you object the Fathers for the Sense of this Article of Christ's Descent into hell, as you believe it. What if they believed so? Is their example a sufficient Rule for us? We must examine their sense they held of it, by the Scripture. If it be not according to the Scripture, we reject it. The Father's might for a time hold an erroneous generally received opinion, before it came to be controverted, and well sifted and examined by Scripture. But they were ever ready to have their faith, and opinions tried by the Scriptures. All the ancient Fathers were of this mind and spirit. As before 
* Nondum ●ato Pelagio, securius loque●●ntur P●t●●s. Aug. Epist. 103  Pelagius his time, the Fathers spoke too liberally of Man's freewill: which after, upon his Heresy, they reform, and by Scripture abundantly confuted the Pelagians, and especially Augustine▪ Jerome, Prosper, Fulgentius, Hilarius, and others. And Augustine enticing a Donatist to dispute about that Heresy, Saith unto him, Ratione agamus, divinarum Scripturarum authoritate agamus: Let us dispute the matter by Argument, let us be guided by the Authority of the Divine Scriptures. Not what I, and thou Say, but what Christ Saith. And this was the Spirit (I say) and practise of all the Fathers in such cases. So as if this Article of of Christ's descent into hell had been by occasion of controversy about it well searched into, and examined by the Scripture: no doubt but the Fathers would therein have regulated their Faith according to the truth of Scripture.  
But the Church of England (say you) holds and believes that Article, as you do. No marvel, when you do. And should you hold otherwise, must it not do so too. And yet we have but your bare word for it. But you will allege your Article, That Christ went down into hell. But we must examine your Article by the Scripture. And it is not the sound of your Article, but the sense, and that it agreeth with Scripture. But we have showed, that no such thing is in Scripture. And you tell us withal, what Mr. Rogers upon the Articles saith of this; That then (Than I say) in diebus illis, the Church of England was not resolved of this Article: and he was then the Archbishop of Canterbury his chaplain, your Predecessor Richard Bancroft. But now your Lordship's bare word is enough to Sway the Balance, which before stood but in aequilibrio in an even peize, not resolved; but now resolved. But this I can tell you, what ever your Church of England now believes, there is (and I hope a good sound Church of Christ) yet in England, that believes the Creed, and all the Articles thereof, and this in particular, no otherwise, than they find them agreeable to the Scripture, and the Analogy of Faith. And this is agreeable to that, which once a 
‡ Dr. Bilson.  Prelate of England said, By the general confession of all Antiquity, Traditions must he warranted by the Scriptures, or else we must reject them. And Isidore saith: A Prelate, if he teach or command any thing, besides that which is evidently cammanded in the holy Scriptures, let him be taken for a false witn●ssie to God, and a committer of Sacrilege.  
But looking a little further, I find you confessing, That the Church of England hath not determined as yet either way by open Declaration upon this Article. No, hath she not? How then do you affirm, and would persuade us, that you believe, with the Church of England that Christ descended into hell, without any further Dispute? We hope therefore it will not be long, before your Declaration come forth with a Definitive Sentence, determining the sense of this Article one way or other. And the rather, because in the late Declaration before the Articles, wherein this Article of Christ's going down into hell is particularly set down for one, they are declared to be of ambiguous sense, and yet men must hold to the letter of the Article. So as by that Declaration we are less resolved of the Articles, than before. A new Declaration therefore we would fain see, which is clear, Declarative, and Determinative; and therein tell us, whether Christ's Soul descended into Hell, the place of the damned, or into Purgatory▪ the Suburbs of hell, and whether Locally, and for what end and purpose (because the Scripture is altogether silent in this whole mystery) and whether you find hell to be in the Centre of the Earth, or no, because your Article saith, He went down into hell, etc. But in the mean time, I have for my part ingenuously given you a reason of my Faith touching this Article, which I am so resolved on by the Scripture, that whatsoever Declaration you or your Church of England shall set forth to the contrary, I must crave pardon if it be not of the same faith with you. And thus far you allow any in the Church of England this liberty, for your words are, 
* p. 45.46.  Is it not lawful for any in the Church of England to say, I conceive thus or thus of it, & c? Although you add  
L. p. 51. It is one thing to hold an opinion privately, within himself, and another thing boldly and publicly to affirm it.  
P. I do, I confess, boldly and publicly affirm this my faith concerning this Article, which my faith I do assure myself is true, being grounded upon good and clear evidence of the Scripture, on which my faith is built, and not upon any thing of humane Authority. And in making open confession of this my faith, I do therein follow the Rule of Scripture, which saith 
‡ jam. 5. 1●.20.  brethren, if any of you do err from the Truth, and one convert him: Let him know, that he which converteth a Sinner from the error of his way, shall save a Soul from death, and shall hide ● multitude of Sins. Now what know I, that this Declaration of my Faith with Reasons from the Scripture, may by God's grace be a means to convert, if not your Lordship from your error, yet others, or may preserve them from falling into it, being dangerously entered into it by such an example, as yourself And however, if it be lawful for you boldly and publicly to affirm such things of belief, which are not found to be in Scripture: why may it not be as lawful for me boldly and publicly to affirm the Contrary? But the Scope of your Speech (as I conceive) is, to maintain your practice in punishing in High Commission, such as expound this Article by and according to the Scripture▪  
L p. 53. For that all the Positive Articles of the present Church of England, are grounded upon Scripture, we are content to be judged by the joint and constant belief of the Fathers, which lived within the first four or five hundred years after CHRIST, when the Church was at the best, and by the Counsels held within those times, and to submit to them in all those points of Doctrine.  
P. But first (as is before noted, as you give occasion) why have you made your Articles to be Dípsucoi, of a double sense. So as in that respect, how can you call them Positive, being so perplexed in themselves? And again, Whom do you mean here, by, We? I suppose you and your church of England. You are contented to be Judged by Fathers and Counsels within the first 500 years, whether your Church-Articles be grounded on Scripture or not. Are you contented so indeed? Then you must be contented to undergo the Censure of departing both from the judgement of the Scriptures, as disavowing them for the only rule of Faith and Doctrines to be tried by: and also from the joint and constant belief both of Fathers and Counsels within the first 500 years. For their joint, constant, and unanimous belief was, that nothing besides the Scripture, is to be Judge in matters of Faith. And if you want leisure to read the Fathers, do but peruse the learned Discourses and Disputes of the Divines of the Church of England before your being a Prelate, as Dr. Carleton of the Church, De Ecclesia, Dr. Whitakers forementioned, Dr. White his way to the true Church, Dr. Bilson, yea and all those that have written of these Controversies, and they will abundantly show this, that it was ever held as a Principle, and therefore not to be denied, nor needful to be proved; and which Dr. Carleton in his said Book proves never to have been altered, till in and by the Council of Trent, That the Scripture is the sole rule of Faith. But thus you and your Church of England are contented to be one and the Same Church with Rome, in refusing the Scripture as the Sole judge of your Doctrines. But will you be judged by the joint and constant belief of Fathers and Counsels within the first 500 years, whether your Articles about Grace, Election, Predestination, etc. bearing (as you Declare) a double and opposite sense, in their Pelagian and Arminian sense be according to the Scriptures, or no: If I name only Augustine, who was Pelagionorum Malleus, that Hammer to knock down the Pelagians, both the Fathers and Counsels within those first 500 years did jointly and constantly profess that which he writ to be the Belief of the whole Church, it was so clearly and fully proved out of Scripture. In so much as you may read in the Histories of the Counsels, as in Binius, how that some Counsels and Bishops of Rome set down Large Passages in Augustins' Tracts against the Pelagians, as the judgement of the Catholic Church, and the particular Decrees and Acts of such and such counsels. If then you will stand to the Judgement of those ancient Father's and Counsels, than you must at their Bar hold up that hand, which was a chief instrument in drawing up the said Declaration, which hath so enigmatized and darkened the Articles, as they have no other Light left, but a kind of twilight, which inclines rather to the night, then to the day, rather to favour the Pelagian Heresy, than the Orthodox verity. But this being your language all along, that you put not only your Articles and the Articles of the Creed, but the Mysteries also of the Scriptures to the judgement of the Primitive Church, Fathers, General Counsels, we will Supersede from speaking more of it in this place.  
Again, where you say, that the Church was then at the best: if you understand it, during the age and time of the Apostles, 'tis most true: but if of the Succeeding ages within 500 years, we may doubt of it, or rather resolve the contrary: unless you mean it comparatively to the ages after that, wherein Antichrist and the Mystery of Iniquity began more brightly to shine forth and display themselves in the Roman Sea, both in corruption of doctrine, and of God's worship, beyond all excess. For you may know, that within the space of the first 500 years, the Church was so overgrown and pestered with the heresy of Arius, as the world groaned under it, wondering it was become an Arian; as Hierome speaks. Totus ingemuit mundus, miratus se factum esse Arianum. And among many corruptions, and much unsoundness in Doctrine, what multitudes of Superstitious devises, and heathenish Customs, not only crept but crowded into the service of God? Which Heathenish Rites (as we find in B. Rhenanus his Annotations upon Turtullian) were by the Christians in a kind of carnal policy admitted, both because many ancient men being converted to Christianity (such as it was) could not easily part with their old Customs: as also that thereby they might draw other of the Gentiles to become Christians. Just such a policy, as our new Doctors, (I mean of your Church of England) have used, in a pretence at least, making us believe, that coming as near as you can to the Papists in their Ceremonies, you shall thereby bring them to the Church. And surely this is the ready way either to bring Papists to your Church, or you to their Church. But (I say) the Church was so pestered with Rites and Ceremonies even in Augustins' days, that he complained, that Christians were now in a worse case and condition, under the Gospel, than the jews were under the Law: for though their yoke was grievous, yet those levitical rites were of Gods own ordaining, and commandment, but Christians (saith he) are brought under an intolerable yoke of Ceremonies of men's devising and imposing.  
But now on the other side, if I should enter into a Comparison between the Reformed Churches since Luther, and those Primitive and ancient Churches as aforesaid, I know it would be very tedious to your Lordship and extremely move your Patience; especially if I should by many degrees prefer Calvin, Bez●, Zanchius, junius, and many hundred more Worthies both for learning and piety, and chiefly for Soundness in Doctrine, in the Reformed Churches, beyond the Seas, yea and not a few, on this side, as Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, all Martyrs, jewel, Whitakers, Reynolds, Perkins, with infinite more, and all within one Century, before such as those Centuries aforesaid produced, whose Names for Envy-sake I forbear to mention.  
Lastly, you say, you are content to submit to them in all those points of Doctrine. If you be, then for Shame clear away those Clouds, which the said Declaration hath overcast your Articles withal, and cast away your Arminian Pelagian sense, and take off your Suspension of them, and let them speak one single truth, as they formerly did, and as all understood them, according to the Scriptures.  
L. p. 62. The Catholic Church we believe in our Creed to be the Society of all Christians.  
P. What you believe is one thing. But we believe the Catholic Church of Christ in the Creed to be the number and Society of all the Elect, as the next Article expounds it, The Communion of Saints: but not that Company of all Christians which you name and mean, Christians in name and profession, tag and rag, pell mel, good and bad, Papists and Protestants, of which the greatest number are no true living members of the true Catholic Church, the mystical body whereof Christ is the Head, and which by Faith only we apprehend (for we believe the Holy Catholic Church) but cannot discern with our bodily eyes, as we do a visible Object. This is that 
* Ehes. 5.25, 26.  Church which Christ loved, for which he gave himself, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, to present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. This we believe to be the Holy Catholic Church, and no other. But thus indeed (as you tell us before) you make wider the Gates of the Catholic Church, than ever Christ made them; or rather indeed you exclude the Catholic Church of God's Elect, and set up a new Catholic Church, which may be seen, but ought not to be believed.  
L. p. 66. Agreed on for me also it shallbe, that God's word may be written, and unwritten.  
P. Agreed on? with whom? Even with no less, than Bellarmine. For in the very next words you give us the reason, why it is agreed upon for you, that God's word may be written and unwritten. For (Say you) Cardinal Bellarmine tells us truly, that it is not the writing or Printing, that makes Scripture the word of God, but it is the Prime unerring Essential Truth, God himself uttering and revealing it to his Church, that makes it Verbum Dei, the word of God. Doth Bellarmine say so? And that truly? And to what end, I pray you, doth the Cardinal say so? Is it not to overthrow the Scripture for being the Sole word of God, and to bring in another word of God, which he calls verbum non Scriptum, an unwritten word, that is, a word besides the Scriptures, and equal to the Scriptures, which is Rome's unwritten Traditions. And to this end and purpose Bellarmine using these words, doth he tell you truly, and is this the reason, for which it is agreed on for you, that God's word may be written, and unwritten? Now though it be true, that that which is spoken by God, is his word though it be not written: yet to us there is now no other word of God, but that which is written, that which is contained in the Scriptures. And this word written is that alone, which our Faith is grounded and settled upon. According to that of john: 
* joh. 20.30, 31.  Many other Signs truly did jesus in the presence of his Disciples, which are not written in this Book: But these things are written, that ye might believe, that jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing, ye might have life through his Name. So as we are not to inquire further, what Christ spoke, or did, besides what we find written. But your Lordship tells us before, of certain Traditions Apostolical, which it seems are that word of God▪ which may be unwritten. For you say: 
‡ pag 52.53.  If the Scripture be a Foundation, to which we are to go for witness, if there ●e doubt about the Faith; and in which we are to find the thing that is to be believed, as necessary in the Faith: we never did, nor never will refuse any Tradition that is Universal and Apostolic, for the better exposition of the Scripture. And to this place you refer that which you say, pag. 58. As for Tradition, I have said enough for that, and as much as A. C. where 'tis truly Apostolical. From which words, first we observe, that you make but an If, of the Scripture as a Foundation, If the Scripture be a Foundation: and, If in it we are to find the thing that is to be believed; as If it were to be found in any thing else. And Secondly, how home you come to A C. the Jesuit, in admitting Tradition Apostolic to expound any doubt about the Faith: and so with Bellarmine you are agreed for a word of God unwritten, as well as written. And you further add here (pag. 66.) Speaking of the Scriptures: their being written gave them no Authority at all, in regard of themselves. Written or unwritten the Word was the same. But it was written, that it might be the better preserved, and continued with the more integrity to the use of the Church, and the more faithfully in our memories. So you. Now 'tis true, that by the writing of the Scriptures God's word contained therein is preserved, continued in integrity, and the more faithfully kept in our m●mories. But is thi● all? Nay the very writing of them, though it added no Authority to God's word in regard of itself, yet as the Scriptures are to us, God's word, is of the greater Authority, because written. For we acknowledge no other word of God as t●e Rule and Foundation of our Faith, but what we find written in the holy Scriptures. This is that word of God which is authentical, of Authority to his Church; and therefore Authority to us, because written. So as your unwritten word, wherein you agree with Bellarmine, and your Apostolic Traditions, wherein you come home to your A. C. the Jesuit, we receive none of them all as authentic, or to have any thing to do to expound the Scripture in any doubt about the Faith. But if you can show us any Traditions Apostolic, we will by your leave examine them by the Scriptures, and not the Scriptures by them. You name baptising of Infants for a Tradition Apostolic. We doubt not but the Apostles baptised the Infants of believing Parents. For the Infants or Children of such are 
* 1 Cor. 7.14.  holy, as the Apostle showeth; And so they belonged to the Covenant. And as the Children of the Jews in the old Testament were circumcised, as pertaining to the Covenant and promise made to Abraham and to his Seed: So Baptism, succeeding in place of Circumcision, as a Seal of the Same Covenant, belongs to all Children of believing Christian Parents. As the Apostle saith, 
‡ Rom. 4.16.  Therefore it is of Faith, that it might come by Grace, and the Promise might be sure to all the Seed, not to that only which is of the Law, but to that also which is of the Faith of Abrah●m, who is the Father of us all. So as believing Christians have the same interest in the Covenant with Abraham, and their Children or Infants have the like privilege of Baptism, as the Infants of the ancient Israelites had for Circumcision. Therefore the Baptising of Infants was certainly practised by the Apostles, as well as the baptising of believing Parents. So as we do not baptise Infants, because you tell us it is a Tradition Apostolic, but because it is as clearly and firmly grounded in the Scripture, as the baptising of believing Parents. We exclude therefore whatsoever Word unwritten, or Traditions Apostolic (as you call them) as being either partial or equal Rules of Faith with the Scriptures, as Bellarmine calls them, or as Interpreters and judges of the Scripture in doubts about Faith, as you are bold to affirm. We have no word of God, but the Scripture: we acknowledge no Traditions Apostolic, but what we find they delivered in Scripture. The Prophets in the old Testament sent God's people to the Scripture, for information, instruction, resolution in all matters of Faith, and Cases of Conscience. 
‡ Isa. 8.20.  To the Law and to the Testimony (Saith Isaiah) if they Speak not according to this word: it is because there is no light in them. He Saith not, To the Traditions of our Fathers, but, To the Law, and to the Testimony, God's word written. Else, there is no light in men; they are blind guides, that in matters of Faith lead us any where, but to, and by the Scriptures. And the Prophet jeremiah: 
〈◊〉. 8.9.  They have rejected the word of the Lord, and what wisdom is in them? All wisdom, without this word of God, is foolishness: all knowledge, without this, is ignorance and blindness. So our Saviour Christ: 
‡ 〈◊〉. 5.39.  Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think to find eternal life, and they are they, which testify of me. So as Christ allows us no other Testimony of him, and of Faith in him, but the Scriptures. We must erunan, Search them, not the Archives, or Sacraries of blind Traditions though guilded over never so fair with the name of Apostolic, nor of any pretended word of God unwritten. And Christ answereth the Lawyer, when he asked 
‡ Luke 10.25.26.  what he should do, to inherit Eternal life: What is written in the Law? How readest thou? And the Apostle, 
§ 1 Cor. 4.6.  That none presume above that which is written. And, 
† Rom. 15.4.  Whatsoever things were written afore time, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. And Peter: 
* 2 Pet. 1.19.  We have a more sure word of Prophecy, (to wit the Scriptures of the old Testament) whereunto ye do well, that ye take heed. In all which places, and many more, the Scripture is still commended to us, as the only absolute, sufficient, perfect and complete Rule of our Faith in all matters, or doubts of Faith touching our Salvation, So as it hath no other interpreter, but it self, not any Tradition, not any word unwritten. But of this you will give us occasion to speak more at after.  
L. p. 72, 73. Faith is the gift of God, of God alone, and an Infused habit, in respect whereof the soul is merely recipient. The Sole Infuser is the Holy Ghost. Till the Spirit of God move the heart of man, he cannot believe.  
P. I confess, when first I read these words, I began to muse with myself, and to argue thus: What, is my Lord of Canterbury turned Orthodox, no Arminian, in the Doctrine of Grace? But looking a little further, and observing both the Authors you allege (as Stapleton, a great man with you, and other Popish Authors (as is usual with you throughout your Book) and also considering of what Faith you here Speak, I changed my conceit, and found that you were no Changeling For whereas I thought that all this fair flourish of Faith is the gift of God, of God alone, A habit infused, The Holy Ghost the Sole Infuser, The soul merely recipient, Till God's Spirit move man's heart, he cannot believe: had been meant of that Grace, of Saving and justifying Faith, which the Scripture teacheth, and particularly the Apostle, Ephes. 2.8. By Grace ye are saved through Faith, and not of yourselves: it is the Gift of God, etc. I imagined (I say) that as you used the Apostles very words, and the Language of Scripture, so you had done it in the sense and mind of the Apostle, and of the Scripture, which Speaks so of the Saving and justifying Faith. But when I found the contrary, I confess I blushed at my folly, in having such a conceit of you, having had so much experience both of your usual perverting of Scriptures, and your corrupt sense throughout your Book, and considering that light and darkness cannot stand together, and how you h●ve altogether suppressed the Preaching of the Doctrines of Grace, and finding that all this Faith you Speak of, is nothing else, but that historical Faith in believing the Scriptures to be the word of God, which belief is common to the very Reprobates, and Devils themselves, who 
* jam. 2. 1●.  believe and tremble Phristou●i, they quiver and Shake, as when men's teeth Chatter in their head in extreme cold. And yet how do you abuse the Scripture, and your Reader, in giving to this Faith those peculiar Attributes, which are proper and peculiar to the only Saving Grace of Saving Faith, the Sole Infuser, Giver, and worker whereof is the Holy Ghost? Tell me, how come the Devils to that historical faith, whereby they believe the Scripture to be the very word of God, and all things therein to be most certainly true, and so all those plagues written therein, and threatened against Reprobates and Devils, shallbe most certainly inflicted, in belief whereof they tremble? What, have they this Faith given them of God, and is the Holy Ghost the Sole Infuser of it, or any Infuser of it at all? And yet I say, This historical faith is that which you Speak of here. For you do in that 16 th' Section, consisting of about 30 leaves in folio, Speak of that Faith alone, which believes the Scripture to be the word of God, the only subject of that long and tedious Discourse, wherein you have spent so much sweat to so small purpose. And the words immediately preceding do show this. And your words immediately following are to confirm it, which you allege out of Stapleton, Saying, The Holy Ghost did not leave the Church in General, nor the true members of it in particular without Grace to believe, what himself had revealed, and made credible. Whereupon you infer a little after: Till the Spirit of God move the heart of man, he cannot believe, be the object never so credible. Thus we see your mind at full, what Faith, what Gift of God, what Grace, this is, which you Say none but the Holy Ghost giveth to his Church▪ namely, not that faith, not that gift of God, not that Grace, not that work of the Holy Ghost, whereby a man comes to believe in Christ, and to be endued with the Grace of Regeneration, and Sanctification, the proper work and gift of the Holy Ghost, whereof the Apostle speaketh in the forecited place: but such a faith, such a grace, as the 
* Co●●il. Trid. Sess. 6.  Council of Trent professeth and alloweth, and so, that which Stapleton, and all other Pontificials write of, which is common to all wicked men and Reprobates, as we have elsewhere fully proved.  
L. p. 75. The world cannot keep a man from going to weigh the Scripture at the Balance of Reason, whether it be the word of God, or not. 
‡ Abasing of the Scripture, in subjecting it to natural Reason.  For the word of God, and the Book containing it, refuse not to be weighed by Reason. And, (pag. 76.) For Reason by her own light can discover, how firmly the Principles of Religion are true: but all the light She hath, will never be able to find them false.  
P. 'Tis ●rue, that man's natural Reason, being not bridled by grace, is so headstrong, that the world itself cannot restrain it within its own bounds, but will be meddling. But yet, though Reason be not excluded from giving her voice and assent to the Scripture, yet She must know her place, She must come in the Rear of all, and as a handmaid, not as a Mistress. Nor is it Reasons office to bring her balance to weigh the Scriptures, whether it be the word of God, or not; for herein She hath no negative voice, but only of assent: So as in this respect; as a Judge, God's word refuseth to be weighed by Reason: much less can it be true, that Reason by her own light can discover, how firmly the Principles of Religion are true. For man's Reason being but Natural, and God's word Supernatural, there is no proportion between them, and Reason can no more judge of Scripture in this respect, than a blind man can judge of colours. So as Reason must not come in with her balance and weights, till a man be illuminated by the Scriptures themselves, and by the Spirit of God; and then being convinced of the truth thereof, She gives her full assent, that the Scripture is the word of God. The Apostle saith, 
‡ 1 Cor. 2.14.  The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned. How say you then, That Reason by her own Light can discover how firmly the Principles of Religion are true? Point blank against the Apostle. 
§ Act. 16.14.  The Lord openeth the heart of Lydia, to attend to the things spoken of Paul. Now if the natural man by the light of his natural reason, receiveth not, nor is thereby capable of the things of the Spirit of God contained in the Scripture, but that they are foolishness unto him, until God open the heart, and 
* 1 Cor. 2.  reveal those things by his Spirit (as the Apostle saith) than Reason cannot judge of Scripture by her own light. For what is Reason's light in a natural man? Surely darkness itself, unto Spiritual things. Ye were once darkness, saith the Apostle. Darkness in the very abstract. Man's natural understanding and Reason darkness. And therefore as Christ saith, 
‡ Math. 6.23.  If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness? And Rom. 8.5. They that are after the flesh, tà tes sarkòs phronousin, do savour the things of the flesh: but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. Spiritual things are as unsavoury to a natural man's Reason, as wholesome meat is to an aguish palate. They are unto him 
* 1 Cor 2.14.  moría, foolishness, saith the Apostle. And Rom. 8.6. 
§ Rom. 8.6.  The wisdom of the flesh is death, 
“ v. 7.  and ekthrà, enmity against God; and it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be. Ye saith jeremy, 
† jer. 10.  Every man is brutish in his own knowledge. Can you then hale the Scripture to the bar of man's natural Reason, which is brutish, to be judged by it, whether it be God's word, or no? And David saith, 
* Psal. 62.9.  Surely men of low degree, are vanity. Yea, say you, Men of low degree: but not so, men of high degree, of learning and parts. But take all with you: Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie: to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than vanity. What, men of low degree, vanity? and men of high degree a lie? Yea Surely, yea altogether lighter than vanity itself, being ●ayd in the balance. But in what balance? In the uneven balance, with the false Scales of your natural Reason? No: but in the 
§ Exod. 30. ●3  Balance, and with the weights of the Sanctuary your Reason must be weighed. And this balance of the Sanctuary is the Scripture. If then your Reason must be weighed at the balance of the Scripture, and there be found too light, yea lighter than vanity, yea altogether lighter than vanity, yea, Surely altogether lighter than vanity, yea a very lie: then what weights can your Reason bring, being altogether lighter than vanity itself, whereby to weigh the Scriptures? Or how shall Reason, which is a lie, with her unequal Balance, and false weights weigh verity itself?  
But if all this will not put you out of conceit of your natural Reason, as an incomptent Judge of Scripture to be the word of God (which must needs argue the truth of Scripture, that man's Reason is blindness, darkness, enmity against the truth, brutish, vanity, a lie, altogether lighter than vanity itself) give me leave a little to put you to it. You persuade yourself that you can by the strength and light of your natural Reason judge, 
Prelate's Reason put to its trial.  or weigh the Scripture, whether it be God's word, and discover how firmly the Principles of Religion are true (for had you been persuaded hereof by God's Spirit, you would never have attributed so much to man's Reason; but herein you have consulted altogether with flesh and blood, having no acquaintance certainly with the Spirit of truth, that leads his into all truth.) Now then by the Same Reason, you may discover whether Christ be of God or no; for he is the Sum, Substance, and Scope of the whole Scripture, and so is called 
* Rev. 19 13.  The word of God. And Christ Saith, Search the Scriptures, for these testify of me. Do you believe then that the Scripture is God's word, and therefore true? Do you believe all things in it to be true? And to be a word of wisdom, surpassing all the wisdom in the world? Do you believe this? And that to obey and follow this word of God, is man's chief wisdom, and happiness? Doth your Reason apprehend this? What say you then to that word of Christ, 
‡ Luke 9.22.  If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his daily Cross and follow me? Doth your Reason comprehend this? Is it not durus sermo, a hard Saying, as that to the rich man, Vade, vend omnia, 
† Luk 18.21.  Go, Sell a●l, and give them to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come and follow me? But all God's Saints do thus. M●ses accounted the R●buk●s of Christ greater riches than the Treasures of Egypt, and chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, th●n to enjoy the pleasures of Sin for a Season. 
§ Psal. 8.8.  Paul accounted all his Prerogatives loss, and dung to win Christ. The Apostles forsook all to follow Christ. You will Say, A few poor 〈◊〉 nets. Nay, Saith Aug. they forsook not only what they had, but whatsoever they might have in the world. Abraham, when God called him, forsook his native Country▪ and all his friends. Do you believe these men did wisely in doing this? Doth your Reason apprehend so? Do you thereupon Conclude, that this Scripture is God's word, because it teacheth such things, as the doing whereof brings a man to true happiness? Can you then be content to follow Christ upon his Conditions, to forsake all, and take up your Cross daily, and follow him? Can your Reason down with his, or your Stomach digest this? Or will you Say, To forsake all, is but matter of Council, not of Precept? Yes certainly of Precept, in those things especially, the retaining whereof detains us from Christ, and are a bar to come to him, and so to heaven. Si in Limine Pater jaceat, per calcatum perge patrem: Saith Jerome: 
Hieronimus Epist.  If they old Father lie cross the threshold to hinder thee from Christ, tread on thy Father to come to Christ. If any thing stand in our affections in competition with Christ, we must forsake it. 
* Math. ●●. 3●.  He that loveth Father, or Mother, or lands, or honours, more than me (Saith Christ) is not worthy of me. For 
‡ jam. 4.4.  the amity of the world, is enmity against Christ. Now if things in themselves good and lawful, being loved above Christ, keep us from Christ, and therefore must be forsaken: then how much more, such things, as are in themselves evil, unlawful, unwarrantable, for a man to keep, as being against God's word, and against Christ, and against a man's salvation? How then can your most refined Reason persuade his Grace of Canterbury to deny himself, to abandon all that Grace, to forsake his Hierarchy, as being enmity against Christ, and a Tyranny over his Church, and therewith to account all his Dignities as dung, to cease persecuting of God's word, Ministers, People, to abandon his counterfeit and hypocritical Devotion in in will-worship, which is a vain worship of God, and in stead of all these, to take up his Cross daily, and to follow Christ in obedience, in patience, in humility, in meekness, in holiness? Doth your Reason apprehend this to be good, to be the wisest and only way to come to heaven and happiness? For this God's word commandeth. Then either follow this word, as God's word, or else never look to persuade the world that your own Reason can with her own light discover how firmly the Principles of Religion are true. No, no, my Lord, away with these vain Speculations, and presumptuous Speeches, which have not one crumb of Salt in them. 
‡ Tit. 1.16.  Will you profess you know God, and in works deny him? Do you believe the Scripture to be God's word, and yet by accounting the preaching of the Cross foolishness, make God a liar.  
But I will conclude with your last Clause: Reason (say you) for all the light she hath, will never be able to find the Principles of Religion false. Nay certainly, although you deny Reason any ability by her own light to discover how firmly the Principles of Religion are true: yet we will not deny unto her blind impotency a Special faculty in finding them to be false: not false in themselves, but yet false, in her own apprehension. For is not this one of the main Principles of Religion, to wit, to know jesus Christ, and him Crucified? This was the Apostles Chief Learning, 
§ 1 Cor. 2.2.  I determined (saith he) to know nothing among you, save jesus Christ, and him Crucified. But (saith he) 
† 1 Cor. 1.18.  The preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness: but unto us which are Saved, it is the power of God. And who are they that perish? Such as are wise in their own conceit, and prudent in their own understanding and Reason; as the Apostle saith in the next words: for it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nought the understanding of the prudent; Such as exalt their own understanding and Reason to such a height, as they presume therewith, as with a Balance, to weigh, whether the Scripture be God's word, or no; and with the light thereof to discover how firmly the Principles of Religion are true. And when they have said and done all, their actions and practices do plainly show, that they reject and despise the Scripture, as being none of God's word▪ yea they Persecute, oppress, and seek all the ways they can to destroy it, and utterly to quench the light of it. As will yet more clearly appear by those things that follow.  
L. p. 77. Though this Truth, that the Scripture is the word of God, is not so demonstratively evident, à priori, as to enforce assent: yet it is strengthened so abundantly with probable Arguments, both from the light of nature itself, and humane Testimony, that he must be very wilful, and self conceited, that shall dare to suspect it. [And more plainly] pag 80. 
Prelate's blasphemy against 〈◊〉 Scripture.  The light which is in Scripture itself, is not bright enough, it cannot bear sufficient witness to itself. The Testimony of the Holy Ghost, that is most infallible, but ordinarily it is not so much as considerable in this Question; which is not, how, or by what means we believe, but how the Scripture may be proposed as a Credible object, fit for belief.  
P. We are still in your 16 th' Sextion, mentioned before, which continueth from p. 59 to 116. wherein are sundry passages ●o this purpose, whereof the last was one, and the rest we shall touch, as we meet with them. And here I cannot, (though I said I would no more wonder) but admire, that such Speeches should flow down so fast from the Sea of Canterbury, which is a mighty Catarrhact or distillation of the eye, drowning the sight, and flowing from such an abundant humour in the head, as it is like to turn into a Dropsy, possessing and putrifying the whole body, which if not prevented by some remedy from heaven, must needs prove Epedemically mortal. You are the first Antagonist of Jesuits, that ever uttered such things, and you might well have given them leave to utter such base Speeches of the holy Scriptures, as more proper for a Jesuit, than one pretending the Faith of a Protestant. But the difference is not great, nor matters is much, which of you be the mouth, having all one Spirit, and being all one and the Same Church. So as being the Metropolitan of that Church, which with Rome is one and the Same: you have the greater privilege to speak in the language of that pregnant Mother▪ who is so 
* Rev. 17.3  full of the names of Blasphemy against the word of God.  
Now is not the Scripture so demonstratively evident in itself, as to enforce assent? What then shall do it? Probable Arguments from the light of Nature. But Nature is blind, as we showed before of natural Reason. And again, how can that which is but probable, confirm that which is truth? For the Scripture is Truth itself. As Christ saith, Thy word is Truth. Now there being strictly, no proportion between Probability and Truth: how can the Light of Nature, which you say is but probable, confirm that which is truth. And we showed also how the Natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, which things are contained in the Scripture. But you add, Arguments from humane Testimony, confirm the Scriptures to be God's word. That which is but humane, cannot strengthen that which is Divine. I receive not the Testimony of man, saith Christ. 
joh.  So the Scripture is so far above humane testimony, that it can receive no strength from it, no more than God can receive strength from the creature, God's word from man's word. And the Scripture, being Gods written word, is above Man's bare word. As Christ tells the Jews, who took Christ for a mere Man: If ye believe not Moses his writings, how shall you believe my words? Thereby implying, That Writings, the Scripture, are above man's words. Again, humane testimony in Comparison to God's word, is but a lie. For 
* Rom. 3.4▪  every man is a liar. Moreover, in saying, The Scripture is not evident enough to demonstrate itself to be the word of God, and to enforce assent: but being strengthened by Probable Arguments from the light of Nature, and of humane Testimony, 'tis then wilfulness and pride to suspect it: Here you set the light of Nature above the word of Grace, probability above Truth, humane Testimony above Divine, Man above GOD. For Christ tells us, that the Scriptures bear witness of him: And you Say, the Scriptures are not sufficient witnesses of themselves, and so consequently of Christ, without man's testimony, So as hereby you disable the Scripture, as being an incompetent witness of Christ, because not evident enough in themselves without humane Testimony, So as how you can clear yourself from blasphemy, I see not. But this is but one degree. For you add, The light which is in Scripture is not light enough, it cannot bear sufficient witness to itself. Now you open your mouth a little wider to blaspemy. But we shall have yet more of this Suff out of your Wardrobe. Of which I may say this by the way, That you bewray how grossly and palpably blind you are in discerning the Scriptures glorious brightness, being like that Woman in Lipsius, who being blind herself, blamed the house she was in for being very dark: So you, because you are blind yourself, the 
* 2 Cor. 4.4.  god of this world having blinded your eyes: therefore you blame the holy Scriptures of GOD for being dark, not bright enough to to bear witness to itself. Why, Surely all light is Sui index, & sui Communicativum, it is a witness to itself, that it shineth, So as all in the house do see it; yea though it be but the 
‡ Math. 5.15.  light of a Candle, as Christ saith. If therefore the Scriptures have not so much light in them, as all may see it to shine forth, than they have no light at all. For if there be any light at all, it will show itself. But this you will not stick to tell us anon, that the Scripture hath no light in itself, and therefore no marvel if here you say, the Light that is in it is not bright enough. And you tell us here also, That the Testimony of the Holy Ghost ordinarily is not so much as considerable in this Question. Why? What is the Question? Is it not how, or by what means we believe the Scriptures to be the word of GOD? Is not this the Subject Question of this whole 16 th' Section, and which you handle throughout? And this being so, have you forgotten what you told us before of this belief, that the Scripture is the word of GOD? Namely that faith is the gift of God, of God alone; and an infused habit, in respect whereof the Soul is merely recipient, and that the sole infuser is the Holy Ghost? and Till the Spirit of God move the heart of man, he cannot believe? And now do you come and tell us, The Holy Ghost ordinarily is not so much as considerable in the Question? Yea, but here you tell us, this is not the Question. What then? Namely, how the Scripture may be proposed as a Credible Object, fit for belief. And for this you set us down a rule of Proposal, which must of necessity take its rise from the Tradition, or Authority of the Present Church. Whereof we shall hear more anon. But by your leave, this is not the Question, but the other. For this your manner of Proposal, you put it not as a Question, but as an a'ítema, a Question begged, not to be argued, and disputed upon, as the nature of a Question is to be, but you do dogmatízein, obtrude and force upon us a novel opinion of your own devising, without proof of Reason, Argument, or Authority from the Scripture. And therefore we deny your Question, or Position as Heterodox, or a Paradox, contrary to the truth of God word, which is the only rule of determining all Questions in Divinity about faith, whereof this is not the least, How, or by what means a man comes to believe the Scripture to be the word of God? Now for the determining hereof you would tie us to the one only manner of Proposing the Scripture, as a Credible object fit for belief: and that is, necessarily to begin at the Tradition or Authority of the present Church, or else there is no dealing with you. But what if we shall propose a better manner and way of propounding the Scripture as a Credible object fit for belief? And this we shall do, God assisting, overthrowing your false way, and vindicating the only right and true, safe and sure way, that will certainly lead us to this belief, That the Scripture is the word of God.  
And for a ground hereof, I lay down the Contradictory of your words for my true Position, which is this, That the light which is in Scripture itself, is bright enough, it can and doth of itself beware sufficient witness to itself. For proof hereof: The Scripture is the witness of Christ, as is said before: and a witness must be a sufficient and competent witness, without all exception; else 'tis rejected. Now the Scripture is without all exception, it is a holy, true, and faithful witness, free from all vice, or defect. It is pure and perfect, so as it needs nothing to be added to it. So Solomon, 
* Pro. 30.5, 6▪  Every word of God is pure: Add thou not unto his word, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Add thou not; Ergo it is a most perfect and competent witness. Again, as the Scripture is every way a Competent and sufficient, a perfect and Complete witness, without all exception: So it brings full and clear Evidence with it for that whereof it is a witness. For this, Solomon saith, 
‡ Pro. 8.8, 9  All the words of my mouth (saith Wisdom) are in righteousness, there is nothing froward or perverse in them: they are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge. The Scripture is plain, clear, and evident. So Peter saith, 
‡ 2 Pet. 1.19.  Ye have a beba●oterón tòn prophetikon logon, a most sure word of Prophecy, whereunto you do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place. The Scripture than is a most sure witness, and it is a light that shineth. The light is not in it, as the fire in the flint: but it a light shining forth, as the light of the Sun. 
§ Psal. 119.105.  Thy word (saith David) is a Lamp unto my feet, and a Light unto my path. And, 
* Psal. 19.8.  The entrance of thy words giveth light, it giveth understanding unto the Simple. The very first entrance or gate (as the word signifieth) of God's word, doth illuminate, and give light, it giveth understanding to the Simple, the rude and ignorant; it 
‡ Ps. 119.130  enlighteneth the eyes. Now all this could not be, without a light that shineth, and that clearly too, such as upon the first entrance of it giveth light and understanding to the simple.  
But how comes this light of the Scripture to shine forth? I Answer, First of its own proper nature. Let but an unregenerate Man read the Scriptures, 
Scripture convincing a natural man.  and he shall feel such a Convincing light in them, as he will perceive there is a Divine power in them. But this light of Scripture, by Gods own appointment, shines forth more bright, and is more effectual, when it is preached. Of this the Apostle saith, 
‡ 1 Cor. 14.24, 25.  If all prophecy, (that is, preach the word of God, as in that place) and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest, and so falling down on his face, he will worship God, and report, that God is in you of a truth. Now whence is all this Conviction, and Confession, but from the power of God's word preached. So Heb. 4.12. The word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two edged Sword, 
Heb. 4.12.  piercing even to the dividing asunder of Soul and Spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. This, this is that, that dazleth man's clearest reason, convinceth and confoundeth his Conscience, and as a mighty Engine 
§ 2 Cor. 10.4, 5.  batters down, and lays level Strong holds, and all high things that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God, bringing into Captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ: as the Apostle speaks. And is God's word (the Scripture preached in the power and purity of it) a discerner of the thoughts and intents of man's heart? Then let that man tell me, whether, without any more testimony, this be not the very word of God? And that there is in it▪ Theiónti a divine Spirit, and power, that thus can search into the inmost bowels, and secrets of man's heart? So as, as the Samaritan woman said to her neighbour, Come, and see the man, that hath told me all that ever I did; is not he the Christ? So a natural man thus convinced and confounded by the power of God's word, and Secrets of his heart discovered, may he not now truly report, and say Come, and hear that word, which hath discovered unto me all the Secrets of my heart: must not that needs be Gods own, word▪ So as this Discovery, is it not by that native, operative, effectual, and resplendent penetrating lihgt, shining in the Scripture, the beams whereof are displayed in the Ministry of this word of God? what is it then, that enforceth and even extorteth this assent and confession from a natural man, but the clear evidence of God's word preached, that the Scripture is the word of God, which is so preached?  
And to bring this a little nearer home, and set it close against your own Gate: What Say you my Lord (for I must deal plainly with you, seeing you are so bold with the Scripture) will you be tried by this word of God, whether it have not sufficient Light in itself, and of itself, even to convince your own heart and Conscience, that the Scripture is the word of God? I say, in, and of itself, without all those circumstances which you put as necessary previous inducements to this belief, whereof your Church Authority is ever the Prime. Will you be content but to make trial of yourself in this Case? How is that? Why, do but once come into some obscure, poor Parish Church, 
A motion.  where there is a good Zealous, and Orthodox Preacher; and come disguised (as 
* 1 King. 22▪  Ahab at the Battle of Ramoth Gilead) in a private manner, not in your Pontificalibus, with your long Sattentraine carried after you, et magna comitante Caterva, a troop of gallants at your heels; So as none takes notice of you, much less the Preacher: and come yourself in person, not sending your tà o'ta, your Long Ears, I mean your Scouts and Spies, Informers, Promoters, Priests, or Pursuivants, Delators, and Sycophants; for these will seldom tell you the truth of things: But I say, come yourself in a private disguise, and so stand muffled up in the Crowd, and hearken diligently to the Preacher, first how he doth o'rthotomein tòn lógon, divide his text aright, as it were anatomising and ripping up the bowels of it and then how fitly he grounds his docttrines, or points of Instruction upon his text, and so prosecutes them with proofs of Scripture, and Reasons; and lastly applies this word in sundry uses to the hearts and Consciences of the hearers, reproving this or that sin, and pressing it home; And all this while, knowing nothing, that any such Creature, as the Archbishhop of Canterbury is in his Congregation, in the ardour of his holy Zeal, he lets fly his Darts of sharp Reproof, Steeled with Divine Authority of GOD'S Word, the Scripture, as against Pride, Hypocrisy, hatred of GOD'S Word, Persecution of God's Ministers and People under a colour of piety, and peacemaking in the Church, and the like, and so drives the nail to the head, as that the dart▪ pierceth through all your armour of proof (as the 
* 1 King. 22.  Arrow, shot at adventure, hit Ahab between the joints of his Armour) to the the very quick of your Conscience, not only to the awakening of it, but driving it to a trembling fit, (as Paul's preaching did to 
‡ Act. 24.25.  Felix) and to be in a cold Sweat, and to wax won and pale, (as Belshazzar at the sight of the hand-writing, which is a part of Scripture) what would you imagine of this? Perhaps, that the Minister knew of your being there. But the contrary appears to yourself, you did it so secretly, as you knew none could discover it; as you want neither wit nor art to do such a feat, if you will. Well, you can draw no other Conclusion from that your Conviction upon this occasion, but that sure those were the Darts of the Scripture, that wounded you, yea and sounded you, and found you out in the Crowd, pulling off the veil of hypocrisy from off the the face of your Conscience, and therewithal so terrifying it, as you are persuaded all the men in the world could not have struck such terrors into your Soul: and thereupon you are forced to Conclude, and Confess, that surely the Scripture must needs be the word of God, having such a mighty power in it, being applied but by a weak man. As the Apostle saith, 
‡ 2 Cor. 4.7.  We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power might be of God, and not of us. For you could discern nothing of the Minister himself, but that he was a simple plain man, and did but speak, as his text led him, and for which he brought good proof from the Scripture. Thus if your Lordship should make but such an experiment as this, would you not do with this your Book (wherein you have, besides many other strange passages all along, as will appear yet more at large, pronounced so many disgraceful Sentences against the Sufficiency of the Divine Scripture, to prove itself to be the word of God) as those Converts in the Acts did with their Books of Curious Arts, or as you did (though against your will) with that Popish Book of the Bishop of Geneva in Smithfield. But I proceed.  
As the Scripture, not only in and of itself, but by the Ministry of it discovereth such a clear selfe-light, as whereby even natural men are convinced, and enforced to believe and confess, that Surely the Scripture is the very word of God: so this word, this Scripture is not (as the Papists say, and you say little better) a dead letter: but as it is the word of God, uttered by his Spirit, by which 
* 2 Pet. 1.21.  holy men spoke and wrote it: so it carries meat in the mouth (as we say) it never goes alone, but is accompanied with the Spirit of God, which Spoke it, giving testimony unto it, that it is the undoubted word of God. For even as the veins in a natural body do carry and convey in them the life-blood, and as the Arteries do contain in them those animal Spirits conveyed from the head to all the members, whereby they are vegetated, and moved: So the Scriptures and every part of them have in them the Spirit, whereby they are quickened, and which is in them, as the light in the body of the Sun, their proper light, wherein they shine forth in such a brightness, as is sufficient to convince all men, that they are the word of God, and effectual in persuading and assuring all the Elect of God of the truth thereof, even to their Salvation. And as the Soul with its faculties, as understanding and Reason, in man's body, do show him to be a reasonable creature, Man: So the Spirit of God, breathing and moving in the Scriptures, do show them to be the very word of God. For in the Scripture do shine forth God's Majesty, Wisdom, Holiness, Power, Providence, justice, Mercy, Truth, Goodness, Omniscience, and all his excellent Attributes, so as they all bear testimony unto it, that it is the word of God. So as to separate these from the Scripture, as they do, who affirm, that the Scripture is not bright enough to be a sufficient witness to itself, to the begetting of Belief, that it is the word of God: 
Comparison.  is as if they should abstract and separate the light from the Sun, and say, it is not sufficient to prove itself to be the Sun. For indeed take away the light from the Sun, and then you may say truly, it is not bright enough to show itself to be the Sun. Nay it ceaseth to be the Sun any more, when the light and heat of it is taken away. For the Sun is pherónumos, according to its names in the Hebrew, Shemesh, so called, because by its light it is a Minister or Servant to the world: or some derive it, quasi Shamesh, ibi ignis, There is fire: or according to another name, from its property of calefaction, or heating. But take away its light, and it looseth both its nature, and its name, and serves for no use. So if you take from the Scripture those things in it, which are its life and soul, its native light and ●uster, which can no more be separated from it, than the light from the Sun (nay the Sun 
* Mat. 24.29▪  shall come to lose his light, as it once did at the Eclipsing of the 
‡ Mal. 4.2.  Sun of Righteousness in 
§ Mat. 27.45.  his Passion on the Cross, but God's word 
† Ps. 119.89.  endureth for ever in heaven) you quite destroy the nature of the Scripture, and so make it to be no longer the word of God.  
I might here enlarge my Discourse upon this excellent Subject, but I shall have further occasion ministered by you to speak something more of it, as I pass along. For you proceed.  
L. p. 83. A man is probably led by the Authority of the present Church, as by the First informing, inducing, persuading means, to believe the Scripture to be the word of God: but when he hath studied, considered, and compared this word with itself, and with other writings, with the help of ordinary Grace, and a mind morally induced, and reasonably persuaded by the voice of the Church: the Scripture than gives greater and higher Reasons of Credibily to itself, than Tradition alone could give.  
P. Here you begin to tell us your manner of proposing the Scripture as a credible object, fit for belief. And you place the Authority of the Present Church in the forefront, as a prime leader and inducer to this belief. And this you inculcate very often, and Say, pag. 120, I confess every where, that Tradition introduces the knowledge of them. And pag. 126. you tell the Jesuit, A. C. saying, Herein we go the same way with you, because we allow the Tradition of the present Church to be the First inducing Motive, etc. So as herein you jump with the Jesuit. So then, Authority of the present Church is the Prime. Or as sometimes you call it Tradition, or otherwhiles, The voice of the Present Church. All comes to one reckoning. Then, to this Leader you muster up a troop of followers; as here, Ordinary Grace, a mind morally induced, and reasonably persuaded; and before: a man's own Reason, and humane Testimony, moral persuasion, Reason, and Force of the present Church, the Holy Ghost, Conferring of the Scripture with itself, and other writings. And what then? Then, and not before, the Scripture gives greater and higher Reasons of Credibility to itself, than Tradition alone could give. What? No more effect for all this, but a Credibility? I expected you should with such a Troop, under the command of such a General, as the Authority, Tradition, and voice of the present Church have effected that Rocky For● of man's heart to have yielded to open the Gates of his Infidelity to let in this Belief, that Scripture is the word of God. And can you obtain no more than a Credibility? Alas poor Scripture! Can all Man's witty inventions advance thy credit (which they have taken away) no higher, then to a Credibility? But thus we may see the vanity of Man's wit, when it hath cast away the truth. This is right, as the Preacher Saith, 
* Eccles. 7.29▪  L●e, this only have I found, That God made man upright: but they have sought out many inventions. So when men reject the word of the Lord, what wisdom is in them? Then they fall to their inventions, like 
‡ 1 Sam. 19.13.  michal's stuffing her Image with Goat's hair, and laying it in the bed, instead of David. Or a right Emblem hereof we have in our First Parents: when they had disrobed themselves of that plain, simple seamelesse, but glorious robe of their Innocence, having thus lost their uprightness, wherein God made them: presently they fall to their inventions; they will supply the want of that robe with a many fair fresh Fig-leaves sowed together without either needle or thread, vainly imagining, that this would cover their shame, when indeed it was a plain sign, they had lost their Glory, and yet could not hide their nakedness. So when a man hath lost the Truth, he shall lose his wits in his manifold Inventions, before he shallbe able thereby to make up his loss. Thus did the Church of Rome of old, no sooner had they thrust out God's word, and the preaching of it out of their Temples, but up go their Images for laymen's Books, and in comes crowding a multitude of Ceremonies, the Inventions of man, as if these would make amends, with advantage, instead of the holy Scriptures. Just your practice in the Church of England at this day. And just your like practice here. When you have cast a black veil over the Scriptures native beauty and light, disabling them as sufficient witnesses, to prove themselves the word of God: 
Magno 〈◊〉 magnas nuga●▪  you invent here a number of things to stop our mouths, to make us believe, that by these you will bring Man's natural blindness to see, and his infidelity to believe just nothing at all, that the Scriptures are the word of God. So as you deal with us here, as some Parents do with their Children, take the piece of gold from them, and please them with a handful of deaf nuts. Only, they do it providently, to preserve the Gold from being lost: but you Popishly, to destroy the Gold, and to set up the painted dress of your New-nothing. Or you put out the Eyes of the Scripture, and then light your Candle before it: as after you tell us.  
But let's a little examine your words. First I note here, what a blind guide you commend to blind men, to lead them to the belief of the Scriptures to be the word of God. For what is it? Certainty? No, Probabilty. A man is probably led. But of Probability we have spoken before. And take this with you for a certain truth: Probability may beget an opinion: but never, a belief. But by whom probably led? By the Authority of the present Church. What present Church? Of the Prelates, or Hierarchy ever. But who gave you Authority, to be a Church? Or Suppose you were the true Church of Christ: who gave you this Authority to take away from the Scriptures their sufficiency of guiding men to the faith of them, and to tie men to depend upon the Authority of the present Church, thereby to be induced to believe the Scriptures? And what's your present Church? Is it not the Same with that of Rome? And is not this Authority which you arrogate, Romish? And what if your present Church with Rome, shall induce us to believe the Apocryphal Books to be part of Scripture? Or some word unwritten, which you call Apostolic Traditions, to be equal with the word written, as you agree with Bellarmine in this Distinction of the word written, and unwritten; as before is touched? And what if (as you have given us too much proof) you should limit us in believing the Scripture, what part to believe for Canonical, and what otherwise? For as 
* Adversus Luciferian●s.  Hierome saith, The Scripture consists more in the marrow of Sentences, then in the bark of words, more in the Sense then in the Syllables. What say you then to the 4 th' Commandment, which your present Church denies to be Moral for a Seventh day Sabbath, and thereby overthrow the Sanctification of the Lords day? What say you of the Doctrines of Grace, which you have overthrown by your Declaration before your Articles? What of Altars, and the like? If herein you overthrew the Sense of Scripture, do you not proclaim to the world, that such and such Scriptures are not Canonical? Or if the words be still holden for Canonical, yet it must be according to the Sense of your present Church. As Paulus 4. the Pope, in the End of the Council of Trent, ties all Priests by oath to interpret the Scriptures no otherwise, but according to the Sense of the Catholic Church; the Sum whereof is the Decrees and Canons of Trent. Is not thus the whole Scripture made void?  
But, come on, let men be primely induced by the Authority of the present Church, 
The only way how men may know the Scripture to be God's word as the Prelate teacheth.  to wit, of the Prelates or Hierarchy (for no other Church you allow, nor we you to be any other, but of Antichrist) by what Argument (trow you) is it likeliest they will be persuaded, that the Scriptures are the word of God? Will you give me leave to tell you my Opinion? It is this in brief: When men upon your Authority and Commendation should be brought to read the Scriptures, and therein should find many Prophecies, and among the rest, how there should come 
* Math. 24.  False Prophet's, being Wolves in Sheep's Clothing: 
‡ Revel. 13.  pretending holiness, but Persecuting Gods Saints; pretending Religion, but oppessing God's word, pretending to be 
‡ Math. 24.  Christ viceroys, but 
§ Col. 2. ●8.  tyrannising over his people; and such as should Apostatise from the Faith, and set up Doctrines of Devils, as in abstinence from certain Meats, and Marriage at certain times, and how Christ and his Apostles were humble, and despised the world, being crucified unto it, and how they which were proud, pompous Lords, claiming to be their Successors follow none of their steps, neither in diligent preaching, nor practise of a holy life, are such Antichrists as the Scripture hath foretold: and how 
† 2 Tim. 3.13 2, 3, 4, 5.  in the last days perilous times should come: when men should be Selfe-lovers, covetous, boastors, proud, blasphemers, unholy, without natural affection, implacable, covenant-breakers, false, accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of them that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures, more than lovers of God, Having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof; with many other like things; which when they come to compare with the State of the present times, and especially of the present Church, and chiefly of the Prelates themselves, and shall find most of these Prophecies fulfilled in these present times, they will certainly hereupon conclude, that these be those last days, and perilous times wherein these things, so long ago foretold, do clearly show, that certainly the Scriptures are the word of God.  
The next thing I note here is, that you Say, a man so probably led, must compare the Scripture with itself, and other writings. What other writings, I pray you, shall he compare the Scriptures with? Shall humane writings light him a Candle to show him the Sun shining at noon day? But thus humane testimony comes in for a Second Inducer. And for all your previous inducement, you must still at last join some thing of man with Scripture.  
Well, what's the third? Ordinary Grace. And this with the Authority of the present Church may beget in a man an ordinary belief, that Scripture is the word of God. As it seems such ordinary Grace brought King 
* Act 26.28▪  Agrippa to believe the Prophets to be the word of God: yet for all that he was but almost persuaded to become a Christian. And this Ordinary Grace is (it seems) that Holy Ghost, which you told us of before.  
The Fourth is moral inducement. Well, admit this bring him to a moral belief or opinion. The Fifth is a reasonable persuasion by the voice of the Church. Well, what the●? After all this, the Scripture gives greater and higher reasons of Credibility to itself, than Tradition alone could give. Here's then the upshot of all (as we noted before) you by these steps advance the Scripture to a Credibility. So as all this while, you have walked the round, and gone in a Circle, and end just where you began; for you began at Probability, and end in Credibility; whereas the Scriptures were credible at least, that is such as might be believed; before you taught this new way to come to the belief of them. So as this your Conclusion comes to just nothing. Only you seem to attribute some thing to the Scripture, being assisted with those other inducements, wherein it surpasseth your Tradition alone. Which is such a comparison and commendation, as you could not devise the like, to abase the Credit of the Scripture. But to conclude: What a Tedious Dispute you make here with the Jesuit about that, which (when you have done all you can) will never bring a man upon any sure grounds so much as to believe, that the Scripture is the word of God: much less to bring him to Saving faith in Christ. But what do I speak of Saving faith? Alas, that's no work for your pen. You are for a Scholastical Dispute here, which is so jejune, and barren, that many Scholasticks would hiss it out of their Schools, much more Divines out of the Divinity Schools, as indeed nothing pertaining to true Divinity, but to a 
* Col. 2.8.  Spoiling through Philosophy and vain deceit, as the Apostle Speaks. But the sum of all your inducements (the Prime whereof must necessarily be your present Church's Authority) amounts to this: That men being by a bond of necessity tied to this your Church as without which he cannot come to believe Scripture to be God's word: and without this belief, no faith of Salvation: and your Tradition with all other helps cannot bring a man to that belief, when all is done: the Conclusion is, that according to your Tradition no man can come to be Saved. So as thus by this your new Doctrines you overturn the Foundation of Faith by the very roots, leaving no footing for faith to stand upon, whereby a man may have any hope of Salvation.  
But I showed you before, a short and sure way for a man to come to this belief, and not only so far, as to believe the Scripture to be the word of God, but to believe, that he hath his part of Salvation in that word. And this way is, by hearing the word of God preached. For 
‡ Rom. 10.  Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. And this faith being the Saving faith in Christ, as it apprehends all the Promises of God in the Scripture to be true, and to belong to him, so it comprehends the belief of Scripture to be the word of God. And this, this word of God preached and heard, is that voice of the Church of Christ, or rather Christ's own voice in the Church, calling men, yea and instrumentally causing, God's Spirit effectually working in and by the word, to believe unto righteousness, and to confess to Salvation, whatsoever is written in the Scripture to be most true, as being the word of God himself. And besides this true Christians in all ages, never believed and Authority, Tradition, voice of men simply to be any necessary prime inducement to believe so much, as the Scriptures to be the word of God.  
L. p. 84. That divine light, which the Scripture, no question, hath in itself, is not kindled, till these helps come. Thy word is a Light. So David. A Light? Therefore it is as much a manifestation to itself, as to other things, which it shows, but still, not till the Candle be lighted: not till there hath been a preparing instruction, 
Prelates Blaspheming of Scripture all along, and exalting his Present Church's Authority above it.  what light it is, till Tradition of the Church, and Gods grace put to it, have cleared his understanding: So Tradition of the present Church, is the first moral motive to believe.  
P. These words confirm your former, with a little illustration. A divine Light here you confess to be in the Scripture. But you mean some dim Light. At the best, not bright enough, not sufficient to show itself to be the word of God. And here, That Light, whatever it is, is not kindled, till these helps come. 'Tis but a kind of Light potentially in the Scripture, as fire in the flint, which must be struck out with the steel. Nay you compare it but to the light of a Candle; and yet not all that neither: for the Candle must first be lighted. The Scripture then of itself is but as a Candle in the box, of 12 in the pound, as you Say ibid. which hath no Light, till it be lighted. And Tradition of your present Church must light the Candle. And surely, then may not the Tradition of your present Church put out the light of this Candle again, after you have lighted it? As the Pope crowned the Emperor with his feet, and then struck the Crown off again with his foot, to teach the Emperor, that his Crown was at his Holiness Devotion to dispose of as he pleased. So may you do with the Scripture, light the Candle, and put it out again. 
Prelate lighting the Scripture▪ and putting out the Candle.  As you have done with the Doctrines of Grace, with the Sabbath, or Lords day, with preaching, and the like. And Thy word is a light: So David. But not, So you. For David Said, Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my paths. So say not you. You like not (it seems) such a lamp and light to your ways. For ways you leave out, as the Devil did, when he recited that Scripture, Psal. 91.11. He shall keep thee: but he left out, In all thy ways: as Luk. 4.10. And you could never have the hap hitherto to cite Scripture right. And no marvel if you be out of your way, when you come to the Scripture, seeing you can find no light in it to give you sufficient direction. But you Add: A Light? Therefore it is as much a manifestation to itself, as to other things. Even just as much as if you had Said, A blind man seeth as much in the dark, as in the day. So 'tis here with the Scripture, for the light you allow it. And what's that? But none still, no light, till the Candle be lighted. 'Tis just so then, as I say. I guest your meaning right. But you add: Not till there hath been a preparing Instruction, what light it is, till the Tradition of the Church and God's grace put to it, hath cleared his understanding. How? I am here at a loss, except you help me out, and clear the understanding of your words. For before, you must have the Candle first lighted: and here, you seem to grant some light, when 'tis once discovered to be a preparing instruction what light it is. I pray you my Lord deal plainly with us. Speak out. Hath the Scripture a light in it, or no, before the preparing instruction hath showed what light it is? For to show, what light it is, doth necessarily presuppose that there is a Light. And if there be a Light, how is it true, that you Say, Not till it be lighted by Tradition of the Church? Must Tradition do all, both light the Candle, and also show what light it is? Or doth Tradition with the same act of lighting the Candle, show also what light it is? If so, than I begin through this dark lantern of yours to discern what light the Scripture hath: namely a borrowed light, lent it by Tradition. For you say, The Candle is not lighted, till Tradition light it. Or if I be out, 'tis for want of Clear Light from your dark Lantern. But here follows a worse perplexity. For from the lighting the Candle of Scripture by Tradition, you come to the lighting of another Candle, namely the Clearing of the natural man's understanding by the Tradition of the Church, and Gods grace put to it. 'Twas well you put God's grace to it. For if the Tradition of your present Church have but Gods grace put to it, it may work wonders. But stay. Cannot your Churches Tradition or Authority, do the deed without God's grace; at least do its office of the fore-horse, as the necessary prime leader? Or is your Church's Tradition some jade, that puts all the brunt upon the next horse that follows? Then you should rather give God's Grace the Precedency. But now I remember, this Grace of God is but an ordinary Grace, as you told us before, which at the most worketh but an ordinary moral and probable belief, that Scripture is the word of God, but not certain and evident: So as the natural man's understanding being but thus far cleared to have a probable opinion of Scripture to be God's word, except you can bring him to believe in Christ, and forsake his sins, his opinion will but aggravate his condemnation so much the more. But what evidence can you show us, that your Church Tradition is certainly seconded with so much ordinary Grace? For if your Tradition be derogatory from the Credit of the Scripture, you cannot hope for the least degree of ordinary Grace to give it either assistance, or attendance. It behoves you therefore to prove, that this your Authority in this point is from God, is God's ordinance: and if so, you may then easily persuade us, that God's grace will accompany his own Ordinance. But this you will hardly prove. But will Say, Traditions are Traditions, and therefore not to be proved from Scripture: and this Church-Tradition is that, which the Scripture must be proved and tried by. And so here upon belike it is, that you conclude: So Tradition of the present Church is the first moral motive to believe. The Conclusion might serve the turn well enough, if you had but good logical or rational Premises to bring it in, better than yet you bring, for the inducing of belief, That Scripture is the word of God.  
L. ibid. So after Tradition of the present Church hath taught and informed the Soul, 
More and more Blasphemy of the Prelate, ascribing that to his Tradition, which is only proper to the word and Spirit of Christ.  the voice of God is plainly heard in the Scripture itself. And then here's double Authority, and both Divine, that confirms Scripture to be the word of God, Tradition of the Apostles delivering it, and the internal worth and argument in the Scripture, obvious to a Soul prepared by the present Church's Tradition, and God's Grace.  
P. The more you speak, the more we come to Sound the depth of your meaning. You told us before of the present Church's Tradition, and Gods Grace put to it, by which the natural man's understanding is first cleared. And here Tradition of the present Church alone doth the deed: for you say, After Tradition of the present Church hath taught and informed the Soul, then, the voice of God is plainly heard in the Scripture itself. Surely my mind gave me all this while, that although for fashion sake, and for a colour you named the grace of God in the second place after your Tradition, yet your principal aim was to advance the Credit of your Church-Authority, as that alone, which does the deed. This, this is it, that clears the natural man's understanding; this it, that teacheth and informeth the Soul (Tradition I say of the present Church) before the voice of God is plainly heard in the Scripture itself. As if you had Said, The Tradition of the present Church does all, it openeth the blind eyes of the natural man's understanding to see, and the deaf ears of his Soul to hear: for after it hath cleared his understanding, and taught and informed the Soul, than the voice of GOD is plainly heard in the Scripture itself.  
And besides you tell us here, that after Tradition of your present Church hath taught and informed the Soul, the voice of GOD is plainly heard in the Scripture. Ergo not till then. Ergo your Tradition opens the ears of the deaf. And then there's double testimony, and both Divine. What? Tradition of the Apostles delivering it. You mean surely, the divine Tradition of your present Church, one of your obstruse Apostolic Traditions. Otherwise, what doth the mention of the Apostles Tradition in this place? And thus you acquaint us with the whole Mystery of your new Divinity. New, I call it, because it is contrary to the old. For the old is (which is not yet antiquated) 
* Psal. 19·8.  The Commandment of the Lord, (that is the word of God) is pure, enlightening the eyes. And vers. 7. The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the Soul: the testimony of the Lord 〈◊〉 sure, making wise the simple. And Psal. 119.30. (mentioned before) The entrance of thy words giveth light, it giveth understanding unto the simple. Now who is the blind and simple, but the natural man, before his Conversion and Regeneration? And what is that, which enlightens his eyes, and clears his understanding? God's word. For, The entrance of thy words giveth light, it giveth understanding unto the Simple. The light of God's word going forth in the Ministry of it, is the first that makes entrance into the Soul. Now doth not your Lordship grant all this? Yes, you cannot but confess it: but always provided, that it is ever understood, the Tradition of the present Church must prepare the way first: that must first clear the natural man's blind eyes of his understanding; that must first teach and inform his Soul, before God's word can enlighten his eyes, and give understanding to the Simple. But do you consider what you Say? The Scripture (you must needs confess, you cannot deny) inlightneth the eyes. Well, but you Say again, your Tradition must first clear the understanding, and light the Candle of Scripture. Now to clear the understanding, is to open the eyes. How then can God's word be said to open and enlighten the eyes, when they are cleared before? Or how can it give understanding to the simple, when the Soul is taught and informed before? The Tradition of the present Church prevents all, and saves the word that labour. Unless you will say, The Tradition of the present Church is a preparing instruction to the opening of the eyes by the Scripture, as the 
* john 9▪  anointing of the blind man's eyes with clay went before his washing in the pool of Siloam, whereupon he received his sight. Indeed your Church-Tradition in this Case might well be compared to the daubing of a natural man's blind eyes with Clay, to confirm him in his blindness, that he shall never see, so long as he depends upon the necessity of your present Church-Tradition as a preparing instruction to clear his understanding, and to teach and inform his soul, as without which he shall never come to have his eyes enlightened by the word of God. So as in very truth this Tradition, Authority, voice of the present Church, which you every where so plead for, and press, as a necessary previous inducer, 
A Doctrine of damnable Blasphemy.  yea clearer of the natural man's understanding, and teacher and informer of his Soul, before he can plainly hear the voice of God in the Scripture itself, is a Doctrine of Damnable Blasphemy against Christ, and his holy word. For this clearing of the natural man's understanding, this enlightening of the blind eyes of his mind, this teaching and informing his Soul, is both the proper and prime act of Christ, of his Spirit, and of his word, working together. Of the words enlightening David hath sufficiently informed us before. And Christ sends us to the 
‡ joh. 5.39.  Scriptures for search (and not to any Church Tradition) as bearing witness of Christ, and so directing us to him for eternal life. And Saith Christ, 
† joh. 6.44▪ 45  No man can come to me, except the Father, which sent me, draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. As it is written in the Prophets. And they shall be all taught of God▪ Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh to me. Herd? What? The Tradition of the present Church? No, the preaching of God's word, which is Gods own voice (as we said before) this voice in the ear, being accompanied with God's learning and teaching within (as 
§ August. in johan▪ & alibi. Act. 16.14.  Augustine hereupon well notes) is that, which brings us unto Christ, Thus the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, that she attended to the things which were spoken of Paul. It was not the Tradition of the present Church, but as she was hearing the word, the Lord opened her heart, both to attend, and to believe Paul's Doctrine. And Luke 24.45. Then opened he their understandings, that they might understand the Scriptures. Away then with your Blasphemous Romish Doctrine of Tradition of your present Church, from having any thing to do in this divine business, wherein only God, and Christ, and the Holy Ghost, and the voice of God in the Ministry of his Word, have the whole and sole work in opening both the eyes and ears of man's Soul to see and hear the wondrous things of God's Law contained in the Scriptures. As David Saith, 
* Ps. 119.18.  Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy Law.  
But you add: And then here's double Authority, and both Divine, that confirms Scripture to be the word of God, Tradition of the Apostles delivering it, and the internal worth, and argument in the Scripture, obvious to a Soul prepared by the present Church's Tradition, and God's Grace. And. Then. Sill: Then, and not before, all goes currant: Worth in Scripture comes in with their double Divine Authority. Then, when the Soul is prepared (as before) with the present Church's Tradition. Else, all the fat is in the fire: Nor Apostles Tradition, Nor worth in Scripture, are worth a rush in this matter. And thus all must depend upon your present Church's Tradition Still. But here you bring in again, God's Grace, as a Second to your Tradition. But I told you before, and tell you again, that your present Church's Tradition hath nothing to do with God's Grace, nor with any Grace of God, not with common and ordinary Grace, God's Grace is a concomitant and Assistant unto his own Ordinance. But for the Authority and Tradition of the present Church to be a necessary inducer to the belief of Scripture, by clearing a natural man's understanding, and teaching and informing his Soul is none of God's ordinance, but an Antichristian Romish presumption, and therefore hath no promise of, and so no title to God's Grace, either to accompany or assist it. When Christ took his Farewell of the Apostles, he left his Commission with them for the Ministry of his Word, and Sacraments, and thereupon gave a Promise of his continual assisting grace to them, and to all his faithful true Ministers of his Word successively to the end of the world: 
‡ Mat. 28.19, 20.  Go, Saith he, and teach all nations, baptising them, etc. teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you: And Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Now 'tis plain (as is both showed before, and will yet more) that your present Church being Prelatical, and hierarchical, is a false and Antichristian Church, a Church of Priests of a strange Order, not of Christ's institution, nor your Government of Christ's ordinance, and so your Church is of no Auhority: nor do you faithfully and truly preach the Word, and administer the Sacraments, but with the mixture of your own Superstitious devises, nor do you teach men to observe all things, whatsoever Christ commanded in his word, and hath left written in the Scripture: but on the contrary, you suppress the preaching of his word, and oppress his faithful Ministers, and by public Authority assumed, make void Christ's eternal Law (as before.) So as God's people have cause to take up that complaint and prayer of David, It is time for thee, Lord, to work: for they have made void thy Law: And therefore, that promise of Christ to his Apostles and true Ministers of the Gospel, pertains not to you, and so not to any of your usurped Authority, and pretended Tradition of your present Church.  
But you proceed: L. p. 85. After the moral persuasion, reason, and force of the present Church, there is ground enough to move any reasonable man, that it is fit he should read the Scripture, and esteem very reverently and highly of it. And this once done, the Scripture hath then In, and home Arguments enough, to put a soul that hath but ordinary Grace out of doubt, that the Scripture is the word of God, infallible and Divine.  
P. The same man Still. But what if, as with the Church of Rome and the Jesuits your present Church of England doth hold this Paradox, so She should take up Rome's practice, and by your Authority forbid all men the reading of the Scriptures, but such only, as shallbe thought fit to be dispensed withal to read it? We know not what you may do, if once you can obtain voices in Convocation (as what may not you do) to make this your bare assertion, and Antichristian opinion an Irrefragable Canon of the present Church of England, That men ought not to presume to read the Scriptures, till the Authority of the present Church hath made way, and her Tradition cleared their understanding, and taught and informed their Souls, and thereupon very reverently and highly esteem of it. For this is the Clear Sum of your words here: No reading of the Scriptures, no esteeming highly and reverently of it, no In, and home Arguments enough to pu● a soul out of doubt, that Scripture is the word of God, Infallible and Divine: So as till he be persuaded hereof, 'tis but vain and frivolous for a man to read the Scriptures: and this persuasion he cannot have, till after the moral persuasion, reason, and force of the present Church. And here I note again, how you put the Tradition of your present Church single and alone, forgetting to Second it with God's Grace: which doth but confirm what I said before, that God's Grace, Ordinary Grace, when you do mention it, it is but when you stumble upon it, and it stands but for a Stale; it is your Tradition, and Authority of the present Church that is all in all. But you proceed.  
L. p. 85, 86. Thirdly, you (to wit, A. C.) pretend that we make the Scripture absolutely and fully known Lumine suo, 
A subtle and sly evasion of the Prelate from the jesuit, who objecteth truly.  by the light and testimony which it hath in, and giveth to itself, etc. We do not Say, that there is such a full light in Scripture, as that every man upon the first sight, must yield to it, The Question is only of such a light in Scripture as is of force to breed Faith, not to make a perfect knowledge.  
P. The pretence of A. C. herein, was not without just cause; only he considered not what the present Church of England now, under your Primacy, doth hold. So as you should or might have shaped your Answer thus: A. C. Distingue tempora: Distinguish the times. Know you not who sits now in the Chair of Canterbury? True it is, that formerly the Church of England, or rather some private men, all or most of the Divines thereof that have written of this Subject, although very learned (I confess) and of great note, place and rank in the Church in their time, held and writ so against you: but that was only their private opinion, though all their Books were published by Authority. But what's all this to the Church of England now? Now you may hear, and understand by me, who am the voice of the present Church of England, that it is otherwise. And what you do pretend, I do thus interpret: We do not Say, etc. But what do you not Say? We do not Say that there is such a full light in Scripture, as that every man upon the first sight must yield to it. How? So perhaps not any hath Said. Yet this all our Orthodox Divines before you have said, That there is such a full light in Scripture, as that every man by the thorough and serious reading over of the Scripture, hath sufficient evidence therein to convince him, as to yield it to be the very word of God. And if he do not thereupon yield, the defect is not in the Scripture, but in himself. 
A miserable Shift.  But at first sight? This is a miserable shift, and poor put off, to answer fully to the Jesuits pretence, or rather true assertion. For in this he saith true, that we (to wit, all the Orthodox Divines of the Church of England as aforesaid) do hold the Scripture absolutely and fully to be known lumine suo, by the light and testimony which it hath in, and gives to itself. Only we do not make it so (as you express the Jesuit) but we find, know, and believe it to be so. But they never said, At first sight, This is your own Flam. But what our ●ormer Divines have written hereof, they have with such Arguments confirmed, as not you with all your Divines of note and worth, of which you patch up your present Church of England, are able to Answer, oudè gru, not one word or Syllable.  
But come we to the Question as you State it. The Question is (say you) only of such a light in Scripture, as is of force to breed faith, not to make a perfect knowledge. And what's your resolution of this Question of your own Stating? Do you yield thus much, that there is in the Scripture such a light, as is of force to breed faith? Nay, you have already again and again, and I know not how often expressly and flatly denied, that there is in Scripture so much light, as of itself hath force to breed so much faith, as to believe it to be the word of God. And this was all the Question with you but even now. But how comes in this Negative, Not to make a perfect knowledge? The Question was not all this while, whether the Scripture had so full a light in it, as to make a perfect knowledge. But seeing you took this in, to cast a mist before men's eyes, that they may not so easily discern your 
* A pretty juggling trick of Legerdemain.  juggling trick in answering A.C. and yet keeping your credit, as if you herein maintained no other thing, than what they Divines of the Church of England have held, that which you say the Jesuit pretends: I will answer this too: That all Orthodox Divines do hold (and that according to the Scripture) that there is in it such a full and clear light, as to make a perfect knowledge. For First, there is a knowledge perfect: and 2 lie we have no other Schoolmaster to teach it, but the Scripture: and 3 lie this perfect knowledge is required of Christians: 
‡ 1 Cor. 14 20.  Be not children in understanding (saith the Apostle) but in understanding be men. So the English hath it. But the Original is tais dè phresì téleio gínesthe. In understanding, or wisdom be ye perfect. So, Heb. 6.1. Wherefore leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, let us be carried on to perfection. That is, to perfection of Knowledge in the mystery of Christ. Now this knowledge is no where, but in the Scripture, and so this perfection no way to be attained unto, but by the Scripture, as the only rule and means thereof. So the Apostle to Timothy saith, 
‡ 2 Tim. 3.15, 16.  From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto Salvation through faith which is in Christ jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. So as Tertullian might well say, Adoro plenitudinem Scripturarum, I adore, or admire the fullness of the Scriptures. It is a Fountain, yea an Ocean of Knowledge. And if we cannot attain to that full perfection of Knowledge in this life, which is to be found in the Scripture, it is defectus vasis, non fontis: the defect is in the vessel, man's soul, (For 
* 1 Cor. 13.  we know but in part, and we prophesy in part, saith the Apostle) and not in the fountain, the Holy Scripture, which is like Jacob's Well, full of Water, but deep▪ so as every one hath not such a lage vessel, and long line, as can draw forth a full measure of knowledge out of it; yet he may draw for a plenitude or fullness of the vessel, according to its quantity, and the 
‡ Rom. 12.6.  proportion of Faith given to every man; yet not so exactly full, by reason of our infirmity, and in-capacity of our vessel, which is partly of a leaking condition, plenus rimarum, as he said, full of cracks, and a great deal we lose in the very drawing of it up, as a bucket doth of water, before it come to the top. So as the defect is not in the Well, wherein it was, but now over head and ears (as we Say) under water, and fuller than it could hold: but in the bucket in bringing it up, or containing and retaining of it.  
L. p. 87. Faith's evidence is not so clear, for it is of things not seen (Heb. 11.1.) in regard of the object; and in regard of the subject that sees, it is in 
‡ Prelate perverts the sense of Scripture, confounding the Regenerate with the Unregenerate, and Saints Faith with Historical.  enigmate in a glass, or dark speaking. Now God doth not require a full demonstrative knowledge in us, that the Scripture is his word: and therefore in his Providence hath kindled in it no light for that, but he requires our faith of it, and such a certain demonstration, as may fit that. And for that he hath left sufficient light in Scripture to Reason, and Grace meeting, when the Soul is morally prepared by the Tradition of the Church.  
P. Speaking Still of that Faith, whereby a man believes the Scripture to be the word of God, which Faith is Historical: here you confound it with the Saving justifying Faith, just as the Papists do. For as 
† Andrea's Vega. Bellarmine, and others.  they, so you here allege for your faiths unclean evidence, Heb. 11.1. where the Apostle describes Faith thus: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. By which very description, it is clear and evident, that he speaks not of that Historical Faith of Scripture, common to all men: but of the Saving Faith peculiar to Gods Elect; Tit. 1.1. and given to the Saints. Judas 3. which notwithstanding comprehends in it, the Historical Faith of Scripture to be the word of God, and that in a higher degree and measure, than any Reprobate can have; even as the Rational Soul of man being it comprehends in it the Sensitive faculty in a more excellent manner, than it is in the bruit beasts, and the Vegetative faculty in a more excellent manner, than it is in the plants; because as the sensitive and vegetative qualities of the soul of man being comprehended under the rationals, are subjected to the rule and command of Reason, and so do participate in some kind of the very nature of the Rational faculty; man being both moving, and seeing, and hearing, and smelling, and tasting, and touching, not as a bruit beast, but as a Reasonable creature. So Historical Faith, being comprehended under the Saving and Justifying Faith in a true believer, it is in him more excellent, and advanced to a higher pitch of perfection, than it is, or can be, in a natural man; so as it participates so far of that plerophoría tes písteoes, that full assurance of Saving Faith, as that it not only apprehends and believes the Scripture to be the word of God, but doth believe it so certainly and firmly, and with such an affiance and affection, as that the Believer will rather die then for the terrors of death itself be brought to deny this truth. And what is this (trow you) but a full and certain demonstrative knowledge, that persuades him to this? But for This Historical Faith, in a mere natural man, or one unregenerate, though he be sufficiently convinced in his Conscience, that the Scripture is the word of God, yet he hath neither so much affiance in it, nor affection to it, as that he willbe content to lose life and all (if need be) for the maintenance of this truth. This full Demonstration he wants.  
But for that Faith which the Apostle speaks of and describes (Heb. 11.1.) which you make to be your Historical Faith, and the evidence of it in regard of the objest, not so clear, as being of things not seen: it is requisite here a little to consider the Apostles words. First, Faith (saith he) is e'lpizomenon upostasis, the substance, or subsistence, or confidence (at the Apostle useth the word 
* 2 Cor. 11.17.  elsewhere) of things hoped for. And as some well expound it, such a Faith, as causeth the things hoped for so to subsist in our hearts, not only in a sure expectation, but also in a degree of possession and fruition, as if they were present with us. And this object, of things hoped for, argues plainly, that this Faith is not your Historical Faith, to believe simply that the Scripture is the word of God: but the true, lively, and Saving Faith, which hath not only for its common object, the Scripture, but for its more proper and peculiar object, Christ, and the Promises of God in him contained in the Scriptures, which are those things hoped for,, here. Whereas your Historical Faith, as that of the Papists (as both Vega and others affirm) looks only to the common object, the Scriptures, but not specially on the Promises therein contained. This (I say) is the proper work, and object that Saving Faith doth chiefly exercise itself upon. Faith is the substance of things hoped for. Secondly, it is pragmaton elegkos, ou blepoménon, the evidence, or Demonstration of things not seen: Which things not seen are also the proper object of Saving Faith, whereof it is the evidence. And those are 
* 2 Cor. 4.18. See also 1 Cor. 2.9. & 1 Pet. 1.8.  eternal things in heaven, as the Apostle showeth: The things which are not seen, are eternal. So Rom. 8.25. If we hope for that which we see not, then do we with patience abide for it. But now your mere Historical Faith, which believes in general, that the Scripture is the word of God, looks no farther, than things that are seen. But for the Faith which is the evidence of things not seen: is the evedence of it, therefore not so clear, because it is of things not seen? Surely had you such an evidence of thos● things not seen, as Faith is, you would not go on thus blindly in speaking of divine things, which (it appears) are 
‡ Psal. 10.5.  far above out of your sight. Is Faith the evidence of things not seen: and therefore not of so clear evidence in regard of the Octject? Nay certainly, being an evidence of things not seen, it argues the quick and piercing clear eye of faith, whereby it so clearly seeth things not seen, as it is a clear evidence of them. As chrysostom upon these words commenteth: poía lèxis, saith he? What a speech or expression is this? elegkos, an evidence? Whereupon he Saith, That faith is a far clearer and surer evidence of things not seen, than the eye is of a visible object before it. And you have here forgotten what you writ but in the next page before, 
† pag. 86.  That belief is firmer, than any knowledge can be. Which it seems you mean, as the Papists do, who to elude certainty of faith, do say, That Faith is certain, ratione objecti, in respect of the Object, the Scripture, but not ratione Subjecti, of the Believer himself. Otherwise how do you say, here, that Faith's evidence is not so clear as being of things not seen? But I conceive the reason to be because you believe no further, than you see. So as what things you do not see with your bodily eye, you have not any such clear evidence of by your faith, as if they were present before your Eyes. Thus you may see, (could you see) what all your Faith comes to. But that faith whereof the Apostle there speaks, and elsewhere, hath an eye, more piercing, than the eye of an Eagle. For by this faith, as by a most clear Perspective, we so see things afar off, eve● in the highest heavens, as if they were present before us. Thus the believing Saints in the Old Testament, by the eye of this same Faith (illustrated by so many examples in the same Chapter) did 
* Heb. 11. 1●.  See the promises afar off, and were persuaded of them, ●nd embraced them. 
‡ v. 27.  By this ●aith Moses forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the King, for he endured, as seeing him that is invisible. And by this Faith, 
‡ joh. 8.56.  Abraham, though afar off, saw Christ's day, and rejoiced. As 
§ Act. 7.56.  Stephen at his stoning, saw jesus Christ standing at the right hand of God. This you will Say, was with the eyes of his body miraculously. 'Tis true. But I will Say again, Stephen with his bodily eyes at that time saw not Christ more certainly, nor more clearly than a true believer by the eye of his faith sees him standing at the right hand of God, as a mighty Saviour, Advocate, Judge, Protector, Avenger of his People, when so used as Stephen was, So as the faith of all true believers being one and the Same, it fully agreeth with that Definition of the Apostle, Faith is the Substance of things hoped for, the Evidence of things not seen: therefore it hath an eye that sees those things not seen more clearly, than I dare say your Lordship's eye seeth, when you look upon the King's Countenance Smiling upon you. For you think you see now clearly the object before you: when indeed you see it not clearly, but through a false glass of your imagination, as apprehending your chief happiness to consist in that Object, the King's favour, which may easily be overclowded. Whereas God saith 
† jer. 17. ●.  Cursed be the man, that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord. For though he may flourish for a time, yet he shallbe like the Heath in the Desert, and shall not see when good cometh.  
Again, this Faith of yours (Say you) is not of such clear evidence in regard of the Subject that sees, it is in enigmate, or dark speaking. We showed but now, how this Historical Faith is different, according to the Subject, in which it is, in the Reprobate, or in the Elect believer. For in the true believer being comprehended under the Saving Faith, it is so much both the more clear and infallible, in believing the Scripture to be the word of God, as wherein all along he finds Christ 
* 2 Cor. 1.20▪  in whom all the Promises (wherewith as so many Sweet Roses, that Garden is set, and strewed, or as so many Stars shining in that Firmament) are yea and Amen to the glory of God the Father. And thus to every true believer the Scripture is the sure word of God, and more especially sure to him in all the Promises of it. Thus David's Faith tells him: 
* Psal. 19.7. & 93.5.  The Testimony of the Lord is sure. Thy Testimonies are very sure. 
‡ Psal.  All his Commandments are sure. So Esay 
‡ Esay. 55.3.  The sure mercies of David. Thus the Apostles were sure: 
§ john 6.69. Act. 13.34.  We believe and are sure, etc. Now are we sure, etc. And Paul, 
† Rom. 4.16.  It is of Faith, by Grace, that the Promise might be sure to all the seed. And Peter, 
* 2 Pet. 1.19.  We have a most sure word of Prophecy. Thus the whole word of God, with the Promises therein, are sure to a true believer, both as being of God, and belonging to all the faithful. As the Apostle Saith, 
‡ Rom. 15.4.  Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. But on the other side, this belief, that the Scripture is the word of God, being in a Reprobate, or wicked man, the stronger it is in a persuasion and conviction, that it is God's word, and so a word of truth, the greater terror it strikes into him, when he considers of those fearful judgements, punishments, and torments of hell therein denounced against all impenitent persons. As 
‡ Act. 24.25.  Felix trembled, when he heard Paul reasoning of judgement to come. And 
§ Act. 26.28.  Agrippa said to Paul, en olígo, somewhat, or almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian: when Paul had said unto him, 
† vers. 27.  Believest thou the Prophets? I know that thou believest. So that a wicked man may be throughly convinced in his Conscience, that the Scripture is the word of God, he may certainly be persuaded of it, and that ho's en horámati, as a thing visibly before him, and he apprehends it as too true. But that place of the Apostle, 
* Scripture perverted by the Prelate▪ as pag. 134.  We see here dì ainìgmatoes, as through a dark Saying, it is not to be applied to this Faith that is in a wicked man. For the Apostle there speaks of true believers. 
‡ 1 Cor. 13.12  We (Saith he) now do see through a glass darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part, but then shall I know, even as also I am known. So as there he speaks of the estate of the godly here, comparatively to their estate of glory hereafter: and that, concerning their knowledge and spiritual vision of God here, and hereafter. Here we do with Moses see but 
‡ Exod. 33.  God's back parts, in comparison to that we shall see, when we shall see him face to face: here we know him at the best but imperfectly: but then we shall know even as we are known, in full perfection. And yet so great and glorious is our knowledge of God in the State of Grace, that the Apostle saith, 
§ 2 Cor. 3.18.  We all with open face beholding as in a glass, the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same Image from glory to glory, even as by the spirit of the Lord. So glorious is the Image of Christ, in every new-Creature, or regenerate man, had men but eyes to see it. But this by the way. On the other side again, as some natural and moral men may have a certain evidence of an Historical Faith thus far, that the Scripture is the word of God, and so he trembleth at it: So others again, and such as think themselves great Clerks and glorious Priests may perhaps see but en skotómati, blindly in a brainsick miorim, or giddiness, so as their head swimming with w●imses, the eyes of their understanding being darkened, or rather blinded with the god of this world, they imagine the world goes round with them, and while they so much dispute of the Authority of the present Church, in clearing a man's understanding to believe the Scripture to be the word of God, the conclusion is, that they can bring never a good Evidence to prove, that themselves have any faith at all.  
You go on, and Say, 
Blasphemy against God in his Providence.  Now God doth not require a full demonstrative knowledge in us, that the Scripture is his word: and therefore in his Providence hath kindled in it no light for that, but he requires our faith of it, and such a certain demonstration, as may fit that. 
* job. 16.3.  When shall vain words have an end, as job Speaks? 
§ job. 19.3.  You have reproached the Scripture these 10 times, and therein blasphemed God, and are not ashamed, as he Speaks in another Case. God doth not require (Say you) a full demonstrative knowledge in us, that the Scripture is his word. No? Doth he not? But he requireth such a faith in us, which hath in it a full demonstration of knowledge. For such is Saving Faith, whereof we formerly Spoke, it is a demonstration of things not seen, it is a plerophoría, a full assurance. Now whereon is this faith grounded? Is it not grounded upon the Scripture? And if this full demonstration of faith be grounded on the Scripture: is there not such a full demonstrative knowledge in the Scripture? For always the Foundation must have a full latitude, and depth, proportionable to bear up the building, which is laid upon it. Faith then being a full demonstration, and the Scripture being the foundation of it, the Scripture then must have in it a full demonstrative knowledge: and if such a full demonstrative knowledge be in the Scripture, God requires in us also such a full demonstrative knowledge, as is suitable to that full demonstration of Faith. As the Apostle saith, 
‡ 2 Tim. 1.12.  I know whom I have believed. And our Saviour joins knowledge and faith together, saying, 
§ I●h. 10. 38·  That ye may know and believe. And so the Apostle, speaking of believers, saith, 
† 1 Tim. 4 3·S  Which believe and know the truth. And that which in other places is attributed to faith, is (joh. 13.3) attributed to knowledge: This is life eternal, that they may know thee, the only true God, and jesus Christ whom ●hou hast sent. And the act of believing is typed out by an act of the eye in seeing, to show, that believing is a seeing and knowing. As Joh. 3.14, 15. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wilderness: even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have eternal life. Where believing in Christ lifted up upon his Cross, hath relation to those in the wilderness, who being stung with the fiery Serpents, looked up upon the brazen Serpent upon the Pole, which Moses by God's appointment lifted up, and looking upon it, they lived. There being then such an affinity, or rather unity, or union between Faith and knowledge, Faith being a certain knowledge of the thing believed, which is the Scripture, and faith being 
* 1 Pet. 1.23.  begotten by the word of God, which is therefore called 
‡ jam. 1.18.  the word of Faith, both because it is the seed of Faith, and the ground wherein it is rooted, and every seed having in it the nature of that which springeth of it: it necessarily followeth, that there is in the Scripture a full demonstrative knowledge, and consequently God requireth in us such a full demonstrative knowledge, as whereby we are fully assured, and know certainly, that the Scripture is the very word of God. And this full demonstrative knowledge is in true Faith, which apprehending and embracing Christ; the believer by the same Faith doth know assuredly, that that Scripture, by the hearing whereof preached he came to believe, is the very word of God. And there is such a necessity of this full demonstrative knowledge to be in every believer, it is both de esse, of the be●ing of a believer, and also the bene esse, of his well-being. That it is of the being of a believer, we have proved out of Scripture, because it is of the very being of Faith. And secondly it is necessary for the well-being of a Christian. A true Christians life is full of affliction, more than other men. For this he hath the greatest need of comfort. Now wherein hath a Christian most solid comfort? Surely in the Scriptures. David, a man of afflictions, can tell us this by his own experience. 
‡ Psal. 119.49, 50.  Remember Lord (Saith he) the word unto thy Servant, wherein thou hast caused me to hope. This is my Comfort in my affliction: for thy word hath quickened me. And v. 52. I remembered thy judgements of old, o Lord, and have comforted myself. And v. 54. Thy Statutes have been my Songs in the house of my pilgrimage. God's word is that which supports Faith in prayer to God in affliction. As v. 76. Let, I pray thee, thy merciful kindness be for my co●fort, according to thy word unto thy Servant. And v. 80. Let my heart be sound in thy Statutes, that I be not ashamed. And v. 92. Except thy Law had been my delights, I should then have perished in my Affliction: And that excellent Psalm, which Aug. so much admires (and not without cause) calling it Magnificum Psalmum (it is his own word) is full of such meditations, and consolations, grounded upon God's word. And the Apostle also showeth this, where he saith, 
* Rom. 15.4.  Whatsoever things are written aforetime, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. Now how could a Christian in affliction comfort himself in the Scriptures, had he not a full demonstrative knowledge by Faith, that the Scripture is God's word, and therefore all his promises therein are most true, and in Christ yea and Amen? I say, a full demonstrative knowledge by Faith, which is ‛ élenkos▪ the demonstration of things not seen, as before. Not that this full demonstrative knowledge in ●aith hath in it the full perfection of Degrees, which is not attained in this life: but it is such a full demonstrative knowledge, such a sure trust and confidence in God according to his word; such a hope in his Promises in Christ, that although his ●aith be sometimes assaulted with temptations of fears, and doubtings arising either from infirmities and corruptions within, or from Satan's suggestions without, yet the believer sticks close, and will not let go his hold, but as job saith, 
‡ job. 13.15.  though God kill him, yet will he trust in him.  
Then then being so, your assertion is very bold and blasphemous, 
Blasphemy.  in saying, God in his Providence hath kindled in the Scripture no light for that, namely full demonstrative knowledge: whereof we have made sufficient demonstration to the contrary. And your own next words will confute you; for you say, 
‡ The Prelate contradicts himself, not understanding whereof he affirmeth.  He requires our faith of it, and such a certain demonstration, as may fit that. Doth he so? And what is that faith: but wherein there is such a certain and demonstrative knowledge, as gives a man full assurance, that the Scripture is the word of God? And this is that faith, which God especially requires in hi● people, as without which they cannot 
§ Rom. 10.10.  believe unto righteousness, and confess unto Salvation. But this is not that faith, with its certain demonstration, which you mean. For (as you add) yours is such a faith, as is begotten of Reason and ordinary Grace (which is ever the burden of your Song) where the soul is morally prepared by the Tradition of the Church. Of which enough before. Neither can your moral faith probably persuaded by your Tradition, ever become to be élegkos, a demonstrative assurance, that Scripture is God's word: So as hereby you overthrew both the being and well-being of a Christian, and leave him stripped of all means and hope of Salvation and consolation by the Scripture.  
L. p. 88 Hooker gives a very sensible Demonstration: It is not the word of God, which doth, or possibly can assure us, that we do well to think it is his word. For if any one Book of Scripture did give testimony to it, yet still the Scripture would require another to give credit unto it. So that unless beside the Scripture there were some thing that might assure, etc. And this he acknowledgeth (saith Buerly) is the Authority of God's Church. Certainly Hooker gives a true and sensible Demonstration.  
P. First, for your Author here alleged, he was (we all know) not only a Creature, but a Champion for your Hierarchy and Ceremonies. And besides that, his Book was guelt in some things, before it could have its passport to travail abroad. However (as you say of Others, so I of him) he was but a private man. And if you take his words to be the Doctrine of the Church of England, you may, seeing the Jesuit doth so approve of it, as also yourself doth. Well, let hooker's words be so, as you allege them: yet give me leave to detect in them a mixture of some absurdity, and some impiety together. As in these words, It is not the word, which doth, or possibly can assure us, that we do well to think it is his word. And so in that sense (which is the only sense a sensible man, and sound Christian can make) 'tis true, that the Scripture neither doth, nor possibly can assure us, that we do well to think only it is his word. For as the Scripture cannot lie, so it cannot assure us, that we do well, when we come short of our duty, as in thinking, (which is but opinion) when we should believe, which is Faith. For the Scripture requires a firm Faith in us, and approveth not of thinking, as sufficient.  
But now for his sensible Demonstration, which is this: That if any one book of Scripture did give testimony to all: yet still the Scripture would require another to give testimony to it; and so we can never come to assurance this way: I answer, The Scripture is a complete body in itself, and every part of it an uniform, and homogeneal member, to the making up of this body. So as the Scripture is to be taken first in the whole lump, or body, as bearing full witness to itself: and every part or Book of Scripture hath a witness in itself, and for itself, and for the rest too, there being such a sweet and full harmony in the whole, and all the parts, God's Spirit speaking and breathing in it (as the Animal Spirits in man's body, moving the whole and every part) and showing, that it is God's word. And we must never in this notion fever the Spirit of God from the Scripture, his own word, which it filleth in every part, as the life-blood doth the veins. So as there is not a Book of Scripture, wherein the Majesty of GOD, and his Wisdom, and Goodness, and Righteousness, and Holiness, do not in some degree more or less shine forth. And Mr Hooker might as well have reasoned thus: It is not the whole frame of man's body, that can persuade us, that we do well to think, that it is a man's body; for though one member by its motion doth bear witness to the rest, that they are parts of man's body, yet still that member wants other members to bear witness unto it, that it is a part of man's body. As if every particular member of man's body by its inherent proper motion, were not a sufficient witness, not only to all the rest of the body, that it is a living and true organical body of man: but also to it self, that it is a true living member of this body. Or as thus: It is not the whole frame of heaven and earth, that can assure us, that we do well to think, that God made all the world: for if any one Creature should give testimony to all the rest, yet still that Creature would require another Creature to give testimony to it, that it is one of God's Creatures: and so we should never come to any pause, to rest our assurance this way, that God created the whole world heaven and earth, and all the Creatures therein. Now what is there besides the Creature, that can assure us of this? What? The Authority of men, or the Tradition of the whole world? No: for 
* Heb. 11.3.  By Faith we come to understand, that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen, were made of things which did not appear. Now whereupon is this Faith grounded? Surely on the word of God, and confirmed abundantly by the whole frame of heaven and earth, and all the Creatures therein, not one of them, but having a stamp of the Creator upon it, to assure us, that it is his Creature. And how do we come to be assured that this word of God is contained in the Scripture? By the Authority of the present Church? Doth Hooker Say so? Had you Said, The Ancient Church: as the Jews, in witnessing for the Old Testament: and the Ancient Apostolic Church, in witnessing for the New: you had said Something. As also, if you had put the Ministry of the Word, for the Authority of your present Church. For (as we said before) the Ministry of the Word is Gods own voice, which commends unto us the Scripture, as the word of God. This is God's own ordinary means to bring men to Faith, and not the Authority and Tradition of I wot not what present Church.  
And now against Mr hooker's sensible Demonstration, as you call it: I will oppose another Demonstration, which is not only sensible, but most true, as proving, that the testimony of Scripture to be the word of God, is in the Scripture itself. First, Paul in the Epistle to the 
(a) Rom. 3.2.  Romans, witnesseth, that unto the jews, or Israeliets under the Old Testament, were committed the Oracles of God: those Oracles were contained in all the several Books of the Old Testament, which the Jews kept entire, and inviolate, without the mixture of Profane Books. And of this Scripture Paul speaketh, and testifieth saying, 
(b) 2 Tim. 3.15, 16.  All Scripture is given by inspiration from God. And Christ himself giveth testimony of the Old Testament, saying to the Jews, 
(c) joh. 5.39.  Search the Scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me. And what those Scriptures were, the Jews knew well enough, for they were deposited with them, and they kept them as their chiefest treasure. And 
(d) 2 Pet. 1.20, 21.  Peter also gives testimony to the Old Testament, saying of it, that Holy men of God spoke, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; speaking of the Scripture expressly in that place, in the former verse. And, 
(e) Act. 10.43.  To Him give all the Prophet's witness. Thus the New Testament gives testimony to the Old, that it is the word of God. And I hope you will not except against this testimony as insufficient. Again, the New Testament gives witness to itself, that it is the word of God. Peter witnesseth of Paul's Epistles, that Paul wrote them according to the wisdom given unto him; that is, the Holy Ghost. And Christ said to Peter, 
(f Luk 22.32  I have prayed for thee, that thy Faith fail not. Yea He 
(g) joh. 16.13.  sent the Holy Ghost to all his Apostles, that should lead them into all truth▪ Ergo what they preached and wrote, was the Truth and word of God. And Christ made all his Apostles his witnesses, who in all their writings beare-witnesse of him, both of 
(h) 1 joh. 1.3.  what they saw and heard; and so their record left in writing is true. See Luk. 1.2. 1 Joh. 1.3. 3 Joh. 12. And none writ the New Testament, but either Evangelists, or Apostles, all endued with the Holy Ghost. And the Wisdom of Christ reserved his beloved Disciple john as the last survivor of all the rest, to write the Book of the Revelation, and to conclude, as the New Testament, so the whole Bible with that Charge. 
(i) Rev. 22.18  If any man add to this Book, or take away from it, etc. as showing, that the whole and entire Scripture was now compiled, and consummate. I might be copious in this point▪ But I will sum, up all this: The New Testament gives testimony to the Old that it is the word of God▪ also to itself, one Book to another, one Apostle to another (who were all witnesses of Christ) Christ and the Holy Ghost to all the Apostles, all their writings being guided by the Spirit of Truth, and giving joint witness unto Christ, and to the truth of the Gospel. Yea and the several parts bear witness to themselves. As 1 Cor. 14.37. If any man think himself to be a Prophet, or Spiritual, let him acknowledge, that the things that I write unto you, are the Commandments of the Lord. And 1 Pet. 5.12. I have written brieflly, exhorting and testifying, that this is the true Grace of God, wherein ye stand. And Joh. 20.31. These things are written, that ye might believe, that jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his Name. So 1 Joh. 1.3, 4. 2 Joh. 5. 3 Joh. 12. And we also ●eare record, and ye know that our record is true.  
And as the New Testament doth every where bear witness both to the Old, and to itself, both in the whole, and every part, even by the Spirit of God, that speaks and breathes in the whole and every part: So the Old Testament, in like manner bears witness both to itself, and to the New Testament, and that by many Types and Prophecies, all which are fulfilled in the New. So as these two Testaments are as ezechiel's Wheels one within another, the New Testament being the Old revealed, and the Old the New veiled. Or they are like the two Cherubims, both looking towards the Mercy-Seat, which is Christ, the Sum of them both▪ the Old looking upon him as he was promised and to come; the New, as he is now exhibited, and come. Thus we have here▪ a full, true, and evident Demonstration, that the whole Scripture gives testimony to itself, that it is the word of God. And yet you Say▪ 
* pag. 88▪  That Truth itself cannot say, that Scripture itself can do it. But you add.  
L. ibid. That Scripture cannot bear witness to itself, nor any one part of it, to another, it is grounded upon Nature: which admits of no created thing to bear witness to itself: and is acknowledged by our Saviour, 
‡ Io●. 5.31▪  If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true, that is, is not of force to be reasonably accepted for truth.  
P. Though the Scripture, 
The Prelate's Ground 〈◊〉 false, if appl●●● to Scripture.  as it is considered in the written Letter, be a Creature, yet the matter of it, the Light, the Truth, the Authority and Evidence of it is merely Divine, as wherein God hath imprinted and expressed his Divine Nature, Counsel, and Will. So as (as is said before) we must never abstract the Scripture from that Spirit of God, which is always in it, and with it, as a clear and sufficient witness of it, and as the very life and Soul of it. Whereas you, with the Papists, take the Scripture for no other, but as a bare Letter, or bark of a Tree, or dead Corpse, without any Divine Spirit in it. But you allege Christ, Saying of himself, If I bear witness of myself, etc. You must know, that Christ here speaks, as the Jews took him for no other▪ as a mere Man. But take him as Christ, God-man in one Person, and is he not a'ut●pistos, worthy of himself to be believed? And what Saith he, when the Pharisees objected unto him, 
* joh. 8.13, 14.  Thou bearest record of thyself, thy record is not true? Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true, Saith he. For is not Gods record true? And again, v. 17. It is written in your Law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself: and the Father that sent me, beareth witness of me. So may the Scripture say, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for the Father speaketh in me, and Christ speaketh in me, and the Holy Ghost speaketh in me, and all these jointly bear witness in me, with me, and to me, that I am the word of God. And in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. And hereunto might I add the many Divine and Admirable works and effects, which the word of God produceth, all which bear witness abundantly, that the Scripture is the word of God. Why, what works, what effects doth it produce? Yea what not? 
‡ Psal. 19  It enlighteneth the eyes: 
‡ Ps. 119.93.  it quickeneth dead Souls: 
§ 2 Cor. 10.  it is that great Engine of battery, that subdueth the world unto Christ. 
Heb. 4.12.  It is the sharp two-edged sword, lively and mighty in operation, etc. 
“ Rom. 1.  it is the mighty power of God to Salvation: 
‘,‘ 2 Cor. 2.15.  it is to all men the sweet savour of God, the savour either of life, unto life, or of death unto death. Lo my Lord, what think you now of this Word? Is it trow ●ou only a dead letter, being of such a Divine and Spiritful efficacy, as no word of man is, or can be? And here might I bring many negative proofs, to show it cannot be the Word of Man. But let this suffice. I will pass on.  
L. p. 89. No man can set a better State of the Question, than Hooker doth, his words are these: The Scripture is the ground of our belief: the Authority of man (that is the name he gives to Tradition) is the Key, which opens the door of entrance into the Knowledge of the Scripture.  
P. We have already answered sufficiently, that the Scripture is both the Garden wherein all the pleasant Flowers, and wholesome Fruits of Paradise are planted, and grow; which are of that beauty, fragancie, sweetness, and relish, as he that beholds them, smells to them, and tastes of them, may easily discern they are not of a terrene or earthly nature (Non vox hominem sonnet) and itself is the Key that lets in those that will, to taste of her Fruits: which I say, when they once taste, they will Say, This is none other, but the Garden and Paradise of God, even the Word of God. This is that 
* Luk. 11.52.  Key of knowledge, for the taking away whereof, Christ denounceth a Woe to the pharisees. And that by this Key is not meant Tradition, is plain, seeing the Pharisees did not take away Tradition, but they exalted it so far, as thereby they made the Word of God of none effect. Is this the Tradition, that you call the Authority of Man, and so highly commend, which the Pharisees used for no other Key, but as a false Key, or picklock to rob the Scripture of their Divine Authority. But if you understand by Tradition here the Delivery of the Scripture from hand to hand to be kept as a Depositum by the Church of God: thus the Scripture is a rich Cabinet full of precious Jewels, together with the Key, or Spring-lock so united unto it, as it is a part of the Cabinet, and so deposited with the Church of God, as by the Ministry and preaching of the Word the Key is turned, and the Cabinet unlocked, the Key being no other, but of Gods own making and appointing; and so the Cabinet thus opened, and man looking into it, his eyes being also opened by the same Key, there he finds that goodly 
‡ Mat. 12.44.46.  Pearl of the Kingdom, and that rich Treasure, which to purchase, he goes and sells all that he hath.  
But suppose now for all this we should either grant your Lordship such a Key, as Prelatical Authority, whereby you assume a power of opening an entrance to men to read the Scriptures: when the Key is once in your hand, what if you should prove so close fisted, and so churlish a Keeper, as not to suffer them to come to read the Scriptures, as you have done in not suffering them to hear them preached on the Lods days at least in the Afternoon's? As also, in so keeping fast under Locke and Key those precious Jewels of the Doctrines of God's Grace (as aforesaid) as the Ministers themselves may not come at them, once to touch them? So as it might prove a dangerous thing, and too suspicious, if you had such a Key of Authority, or the Authority of such a Key put into your hand, men should rather be shut out from the Scriptures, then have the entrance open to go freely to them, when they will. But if you will needs perforce wrest this Key, as the Preaching of God's word, out of the hands, or from between the teeth of Godly Ministers▪ as you have done: we have no remedy, but to complain to the Lord of the Vineyard, and pray him to vindicate his Key out of such Hucksters hands, and to force you to give up your usurped false Keys.  
L. p. 91. Could the Pope and his Clergy put this home upon the w●●ld (as they are gone far in it) that the Tradition of the Present Church is Divine and Infallible: how might they and would they then Lord it over the Faith of Christendom, contrary to S. Peter's Rule; whose Successors certainly in this they are not.  
P. Thus you confess, there is, or may be a Lording of the Clergy over the Faith of Christendom, or Christians, contrary to S. Peter's Rule. But you restrain this to Rome's usurped Infallibility, as if without this she could not Lord it over Christendom. How comes your Lordship then with your Hierarchy to Lord it over the Souls and Consciences of God's people, even over all England, that other world? You disclaim your Church-Authority, and Tradition here to be Divine and Infallible. By what Authority then do you Lord it over all England? Certainly Divine Authority you have none for it. And as you Say of Rome, so I do to you: Certainly you are no successors of the Apostles in this; as both hath been, and shallbe more showed. And because you cite here that place of Peter: what think you of it? Doth it not condemn all kind of Lordship over God's heritage? As Lordship over men's Consciences in captivating them to humane Ordinances, as Ceremonies in God's worship? As Lordship over Ministers, forbidding them to Preach God's word, both how far, and when you please? As Lordship over the very Commandments of God, in dispensing with them, as in the 4 th' and 5 th' Commandment? Or Lordship over men's Souls, as touching their belief, and reading of Scriptures, as the word of God; all which must depend upon a necessity of your present Church-Authority, as without which you tell them it is not fit, that they should either read the Scriptures, or believe them to be the word of God? Now is Rome so far g●n in putting home her Infallibility▪ as thereby to Lord it over the greatest part of Christendom? Then how far are you gone in Lording it over the Souls and Consciences of all the People in England, and Ministers too, in all these particulars formentioned? But to proceed.  
L. p 93. The Lawfully sent Pastors, and Doctors of the Church in all Ages, have had, and shall have continual assistance, but not infallible, at least not Divine and Infallible.  
P. Such therefore as are not Lawful Pastors and Teachers, have not continual Assistance, as all Prelates and Priests, as you call yourselves. But for Lawful Pastors, if they have continual assistance, whence have they it, but from Christ? And how then is it not divine? And if Divine, how, not Infallible? The assistance certainly, for so much as it is, and in those things wherein it is, is no less Infallible, then Divine. For that which is Divine, is Infallible, as was touched before. But because this Assistance Divine is given to every man but in part (for 
* 1 Cor. 13.  we know in part, and we prophesy in part) and to some in one kind, to some in another, both to whom, and when, and how much, and to what special purpose, as it seemeth good to the Divine wisdom, but to all 
‡ 1 Cor. 12.7▪  to profit withal, and 
‡ 2 Cor. 10.8▪ & 13.10.  for edification, as the Apostle speaks: therefore it comes to pass, that even good men, and good Pastors lawfully called, may sometimes run into some errors, both by reason of humane frailties and infirmities, and when they pass the bounds of their peculiar karísmata, or Ministerial Graces bestowed upon in this or that kind, or measure, and do not keep close to the Rule, God's word: Having therefore gifts (saith the Apostle) differing according to the Grace that is given unto us, whether Prophecy, Let us Prophecy according to the proportion of Faith: or he that teacheth, on teaching: or he that exhorteth, on Exhortation. And yet when we have done all that we can, we come far short of what we should do. Yet all God's Elect, both Pastors and People, have Christ's promise so far fulfiled in them, and made good unto them, by continual Divine, and Infallible Assistance, of his Grace, and Spirit dwelling in them, that they are preserved from all those Errors, which might seduce them from Christ, as himself Saith, Math. 24.24.  
L. p. 95. When Command is for Preaching, the Restraint is added, Go, Saith Christ, and teach all Nations. But you may not Preach all things, what you please, but all things, which I have commanded you. The publication is yours, the Doctrine is mine.  
P. How then dare your Lordship be an Instrument of Restraining and Prohibiting any Doctrine of CHRIST, 
The Prelate self-condemned.  which he hath in his Word commanded to be Preached, and Published to his People? How will you answer this be-before that Judge? And why do you suborn your Arminian Faction to preach their Heresies out of your d●psucoi, double minded Articles, while you restrain God's Ministers from preaching the Truth, and Suspend them for so doing?  
L. p. 98. Though Tradition and Scripture do mutually, yet they do not equally confirm the Authority either of other. For 
* The Prelate bel●s the Scripture to credit his false Tradition.  Scripture doth infallibly confirm the Authority of Church Traditions truly so call●d: but Tradition doth but morally and probably confirm the Authority of the Scripture.  
P. Then Surely your Church-Traditions make the Scripture but a poor requital, when for an infallible confirmation of them, 
Scripture little beholden to the Prelate for his Tradition.  they return a Confirmation only moral and probable. Can they not return such as they receive, at least in some degree? But what be those Traditions of the Church truly so called? That inducing Tradition, which of necessity must lead men to believe the Scriptures to be the word of God? But show us where hath the Scripture given you any such Authority, much less infallibly confirmed it? Or how is this a Tradition truly so called? Because you call it so? But 
‡ The Prelate catcht in his own Delemna, or net.  if Scripture have not sufficient Light to prove themselves to be God's word: what Light find you there infallibly to confirm the Authority of your Tradition? And if your Church Tradition do not confirm the Authority of Scripture infallibly: how then? Ergo fallibly, and deceitfully. But probably, you Say. But probability cannot confirm truth. This is a mere Solecism of yours, 
A Solecism of the Prelates.  and any common Aristotelian would hiss it out of the Philosophy Schools. And in a Law-Case, a Probable Testimony is not Legal, it is no Testimony. And will you Say then, that the Scripture hath confirmed to your present Church such an Authority infallibly, to be a confirming Testimony of the Authority of Scripture, which is insufficient and illegal? How much the nearer is Scripture Authority for such a Testimony? Or your probable testimony doth confirm Scripture-Authority to be probable. That's all; and that's nothing, saving that hereby you make the Scripture to be of no Authority at all. For first you Say, The Scripture hath no testimony of its Authority, sufficient in itself: Secondly, that it must first have testimony from the Authority of the present Church: and thirdly, that this testimony is but probable, not infallible. Therefore necessarily it followeth, that it is but at the most probable, if the Scripture have any Authority at all. And this is that Goates-haire, wherewith you have full stuffed almost 30 of your Folio-leaves, as before we have noted. And yet the thread of that 16 th' Section is not yet cut off, or spun out.  
L. p. 100 The jesuit in the Church of Rome, and the precise party in the Reformed Churches agree in this: That the Sermons and Preachings by word of mouth, of the Lawfully sent Pastors, and Doctors of the Church, are able to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith. Nay, are the very word of God. So A. C. expressly. And no less than so have some accounted of their own Factious words (to Say no more) then as the word of God. † (in the margin at this mark) For the freeing of Factious and Silenced Ministers is termed The restoring of God's word to its Liberty. In the Godly Author of the Late News from Ipswitch. p. 5.  
P. That the Sermons and Preachings by word of mouth of the Lawfully sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church, are able to breed in men Divine and Infallible Faith; being according to the Rule and Evidence of Scripture, as true Preaching is: what good Christian makes a doubt, though you deride it? I pray you, (you that are the great Rabbi: and Champion of the present Church of England) What Say you of the Apostles words? How shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a Preacher? And how shall they Preach except they be Sent? So then Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But we shall hear your judgement by and by. As for A. C. (with whom you yoke the precise party in the same sentence) surely were he no Jesuit, nor illegitimate Priest, but either a Sound Christian, or a Lawfully sent Pastor and Doctor of the Church of Christ, the words rightly meant, and understood, are most true. I remember I have read a Story of a Grecian State, I take it of Athens, where when a vicious Senator in Court on a time gave very good Counsel for the Commonweal they approved of the Counsel, but would not have it Registered in his name, 
A. Gelius. Noct. At●icarum.  but caused an honest man to utter the same form of words in Court, and so under his name it was recorded. So I may here, Let a good Christian, or (if you will) one of the precise party you mention, utter these words (and not A. C.) and then the sense willbe good and true. And by your own words we shall convince you of folly by and by. Now for the precise party in the Reformed Churches, do you not mean those, who are most reform in their life and conversation, and most refined from the dross and dregs of all Deformed Churches Superstitions and Idolatries in the pretended worship of God, and from all gross errors in Faith and Doctrine? Surely those you must and do mean, as whom you most deadly hate, and therefore in your wretched malice do couple them with A. C. Of which precise party jesus Christ is the head, that pure and precise Nazarite, and Separatist from all sin and error, with all the Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs. And what do they say? No less (say you) then A. C And what faith A.C.? Expressly, that Sermons, etc. (as before) are the express word of God. And how prove you that this precise party saith no less? Nay you say more, that they account their own Factious words no less (to say no more) then as the word of God. To Say no more? Nay surely, you have said enough, if it be true. But if not true, a great deal too much. Well, true, or not true, 'tis enough you Say it; and so you make this precise party to be ten times worse, than the Jesuit. And so you would have it. For say you, the Jesutie saith, Sermons are the very word of God: but the Precise, That their own factious words are. What? The word of God. No, but, As the word of God. Why, do you call them factious words, because they are As the word of God? Do you not know that true Preachers words should be 
* 1 Pet. 4.11.  ho's log●●●eou; as the Oracles, or word of God, as Peter speaks? such words as become 
‡ T●t. 2▪ 1.  Sound Doctrine? 
‡ v. 8.  Sound Speech, that cannot be condemned (but unjustly, by such as do heterodidaskalein, teach strange Doctrines, and agree not to wholesome words) keeping the 
§ H●pot●posin 'tis 1.13.  Form of Sound words. But you charge here the precise party with factious words. How prove you that? For Simo sat est accusasse, quis innocens erit? If your single Accusation be sufficient, who shallbe Innocent? But you bring your proof è Scriptis, good evidence sure. What's that? † For the freeing of factious and Silenced Ministers, is termed, The restoring of God's word to its Liberty But where do you find these factious words? In the Godly Author of the late News from Ipswich. Well then, here be 2 things obserbable: 1. The Matter: 2. the Author. 1. The Matter charged, The freeing of factious and Silenced Ministers, is termed, The restoring of God's word to its Liberty. And who are these factious and Silenced Ministers? Namely a matter of about an hundred godly and Conscientious Ministers in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Kent, Surrey, and other Sh●res, who were in one Summer, and the most in the Circuit of one Visitation, some silenced, some suspended, some also excommunicated, from Church and Chimney (ab Aris ac Focis, aqua & igni) and with their Wives and Children exposed to beggary, and all calamity? Wherefore? They were factious. Wherein? They would not ob●y and conform to the Orders of their Ordinary. What Orders? For the reading in their several Congregations the Book for Sports on the Lords days: For the setting up of Altars in their Chancels: For the causing of their People (never accustomed to it before) to come up to the Altar, and there receive the Communion, or the Lord's Supper on their knees. For these, and the like, which they refused to do, they are doomed Factious. But the Ministers alleged, these were new Impositions praeter praescriptum Legis, besides the prescript Law or Statute, so as their obedience should have incurred a Praemunire. No matter for that. They are a sort of factious fellows, and ringleaders of Puritan-people (as you apologised in the Star-chamber) and so being once silenced, 'tis too late to talk. Yet these men were all Conformists to the Discipline by Law established, and lived peaceably. How then were they Factious? Why, surely they would not observe Orders. They would (notwithstanding an Order to the Contrary) preach twice every Lord's day: They would open the Catechisme-points, and not content themselves with the bare words of Question and Answer, as it is in the Book: they would hold the people so long with their preaching in the Afternoons, that they had no time left to go to their Laudable Sports▪ nor could the people enjoy their pleasures with a quiet Conscience, the Ministers would so trouble them with pressing the Sanctification of the Sabbath according to the 4th Commandment, and the like. Well then, diligent Preachers they were: and they preached the word of God by expounding and applying it, which we shall hear you by and by to commend, if we may believe your words, when we see your deeds contrary. So as then, in Norfolk, and Suffolk, and Essex, while these godly and painful Ministers preached the word of God, it did as the Apostle saith, 
* 2 Thes. 3.1.  trékein, run, or diarrusai, flow forth like the 
‡ Ezek. 47.12.  waters in the Sanctuary. When Paul was prisoner at Rome, and yet had liberty to preach the word, (for in those days, 
‡ A French Proverb.  Les Diables estroyent encores en Leur Donat: the Devil was but a Grammar Scholar, and had not learned in Machiavels School to be one of Antichrists Statesmen, to shut Ministers up in the Inquisition-house, that they shall never tell Tales more in the Pulpit) he Said, 
§ 2 Tim. 2.9▪  For the which I am a Prisoner in bonds, but the word of God is not bound. So as while God's Ministers, are not restrained from preaching the word of God, but that they freely preach it without impeachment, it may be truly said, The word of God is not bound. But on the contrary, when Godly and painful Ministers are silenced, than it may alike truly be said, The word of God is bound. I will recollect all, and conclude with a Syllogism:  

If the free Preaching of God's word be the liberty of it, and the silencing of God's faithful Ministers be a binding of God's word: then the freeing of such silenced Ministers, is the restoring of God's word to its libetty:  
But the free Preaching of God's word is the liberty of it; and the silencing of God's faithful Ministers.  
Therefore the freeing of silenced Ministers is the restoring of God's word to its liberty.   
The consequence of the Antecedent cannot be denied: and the Minor is the Apostles in that place forealedged, 
2 Tim. 2.9.  so as here is nothing left for you to deny, but the Conclusion. And that's enough for you. Yet might those Ministers have but equal Law, and liberty to plead their Cause against you, they would easily purge themselves from such an aspersion of being Factious, when some of your party would prove to be deep enough plunged at least in a Praemunire (to say no more) were not the Laws asleep, and (in this case) in as much bondage, as the Gospel. I pass from the matter of your Ipswich News, to the Author. And it would be News, to tell us truly, who that might be. But all the tidings you can tell us of him, is by certain marks to describe him unto us. And those are three▪ 1. Is H.B. which (in your Book set out concerning those three foresaid bitter men, 
The Prelates 3 marks of his imagined Author of Ipswich News.  and which you read in the Star-chamber, before all the Court at their Censure) you set in the margin over against those passages which you cite out of Ipswich News. This is one of your marks; although (as I said before, and as I have it by very credible intelligence) he was not the Author of it, and therefore you take, and have set your first mark amiss, for H. B. it was not. And yet this mark falsely set, became the occasion of the setting on of the second mark; and that was an Eare-marke, and that upon both the Ears for failing; and that close to the head, which escaped scarce a hair's breadth, and this upon the Pillory, that some thousands of beholders might be witnesses of it. The third mark I find here in your margin, in this form, † a Crucifix I cannot call it: but it is next unto it, a Cross it is, and very like to Christ's Cross, and as like to that Pillory, wherein H. B. stood, as can be; A fit mark therefore for him, whom you had so marked before. So as, if any inquire of this Author, who it should be, your Book can shape him a ready answer, Ecce signum▪ Loe here a sign of that Pillory on which he suffered. In the last place, you call him here in scorn, and through the nose (as Tertullian speaks in another case of an Heretic) the Godly Author of the late News from Ipswich, and all this he may do by Authority, that sits in Cathedr● derisorum, in the scorners chair, making a mock of all true Religion, Godliness, and honesty. And thus you cease not still to persecute the poor Man every kind of way here, 
* Heb. 11.36▪  by ●ruell mocking, as the Apostle speaks. But he but drinks of the same 
‡ Mar. 10.34 Mat. 27.31.  Cup which his Lord and Master drunk of before him. And all these things you load Christ's Servant withal, shall but make his crown the more glorious. For I hear, he endures that his perpetual close Imprisonment, and Banishment, from Wife, Children, Friends, Country, all; with as great a continued magnanimity, as he did his standing and suffering on the Pillory.  
L. ibid. 
Prelate's words and deeds agreed n●t.  I ever took Sermons (and so do still) to be most necessary expositions and applications of holy Scripture, and a great ordinary means of Saving knowledge. But I cannot think them, or the preachers of them divinely infallible. The Ancient Fathers of the Church preached far beyond any of these of either Faction: and yet no one of them durst think himself infallible, much less, that whatsoever he preached, was the word of God. And it may be observed too, that no men are more apt to say, that all the Fathers were but men, and might err, than they that think their own preachings are infallible.  
P. Here you acknowledge Sermons to be necessary expositions, and applications of holy Scripture, and a great ordinary means of saving knowledge. Do you so? Have you indeed ever taken them to be so? And so still indeed? What still? What, all this while, that you have been, and are a most notorious persecuter of, and rooter out of godly Preachers, whom your late Brother White in Scorn (in his Book of the Sabbath, or rather against the Sabbath) calls Sermonders? And is there a generation, or profession of men above ground, whom you hate, more than these? If you ever took Sermons to be such; why do you continually take the Preachers themselves in your nets, and so devour them? Are Sermons necessary expositions, and applications of Scripture, and that by your own confession? Then the greater your condemnation, that take away this Key of Knowledge. And that they be a great means of Saving knowledge: Then why do you not only suffer the people to 
* Host 4.6▪  perish for want of them, but chase away good Pastors from them? Thus are you not guilty of the blood of so many thousand Souls, and have pronounced the sentence of condemnation against yourself with your own mouth? And thus doth not the nakedness of your notorious and shameless hypocrisy discover itself to all the world, while you profess in words one thing, and in your deeds practise the contrary? But you give the reason yourself▪ because you take Sermons to be such, as you say, therefore you persecute the Preachers of them. Neither yet come you full home to the truth, 
Prelate a notorious persecutor of the true preaching of God's word.  in giving Sermons their due, for all your sugared words; Sermons, I mean, the plain, powerful, and sound preaching of God's word, by explication, and application. You say, they are great means of sound knowledge. You do not say so of Sermons, as of your external worship, The GREAT WITNESS: but, a great means, not The great means, nor the GREAT MEANS put in Capital Letters: 
Rom. 1.16.  much less do you say, as the Apostle, That preaching is the power of God unto Salvation, to every one that believeth. Or as, 1 Cor▪ 1.18. The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness: but to us that are saved, it is the power of God. Or, 
1 Cor. 1.24.  To them that are called, we preach Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God. And yet with you it is but a great means. And well too, that you will vouchsafe to give it so good a word. But it is such a great means, as there is none other ordinary means of saving knowledge whatsoever to be compared with it.  
But you cannot think Sermons divinely infallible. I think not such Sermons as you make. But are not those Sermons, which being a true explication and application of the the word of God, the Scripture, do convert souls to God, do beget faith in the hearers, and make of them new Creatures divinely infallible; can such Sermons be otherwise, then divinely infallible? I do not mean your Court Sermons. And can that preaching which is a great means (as you confess) of saving knowledge, but be divinely infallible? Can that, which brings men to salvation, deceive men? I speak still of true preaching.  
But you put Sermons (which you say are expositions, and application of Scripture, and a great means of saving knowledge) and preachers together, whom you do not think to be infallible, There is some difference, by your leave. For the Sermon may ●e divinely infallible, saving the hearer's souls, and yet the preacher himself be deceived, and put by his purpose in preaching of it. For instance: I remember Augustine tells how on a time preaching upon a text, he did, besides his purpose and intention extravagate from his text, and fell upon the Manichean Heresy, which was nothing to his text, in which extravagant discourse, he notwithstanding, according to his dexterity, ●oundly confuted that Heresy: Well, after the Sermon a Manichean that there had heard him, came to Augustine, and told him, that his Sermon had much wrought upon him, and convinced him of his error, desiring him further to instruct him in the true Faith: Hereat Augustine fell into an admiration, saying to the man, give glory to God, and never thank me for it: for I never intended, when I came into the Pulpit at that time, so much as to touch upon that point. But now I see▪ God merciful hand led me out of my intended course, that I should, going out of mine own way, bring thee into the right way. Thus we see the Sermon may be divinely infallible, when yet the Preacher himself was deceived. Again, the Preacher being a man is subject to error, when yet his Sermon is infallible, being divine, that is, according to God's word, the Scripture, and his life through infirmity may have many errors, when yet his doctrine is upright and sound, being regulated by God's word, and Spirit, which is not wanting to his faithful Servants, in his own Ordinace.  
But (say you) the ancient Fathers of the Church preached beyond any of these, of either Faction: and yet no one of them durst think himself infallible, much less, that whatsoever he preached was the word of God. Here first you show still your teeth, and utter your extreme malice against Christ, in calling his faithful servants, the Ministers of his word, a Faction; and such a Faction, as you yoke with that of the Jesuits. Certainly if godly Ministers (such as you place, in the precise party of the reformed Church) be a Faction, it is under and with their King and Captain Christ, fight, and confederating, against all Antichristian adversaries, the disguised enemies of Christ, and of his word, and true Church, and of all his faithful Ministers, and people, that do sincerely profess his Name. Which your malice being so Diabolical, 
The Prelates Diabolical malice against the true Ministers of Christ.  the Lord reprove you for it, and reward you according both to your 
* jude. jer. 15.19. Esay. 5.20.  words and deeds, who do thus confound, the precious with the vile, the good with the evil, light with darkness, Christ with Belial, true Christians with Antichristians. Certainly there's a woe belongs to you for this. We do utterly reject all Jesuits and Antichristians, as who neither do, nor dare, nor can preach God's word truly, to the begeting of Saving Faith, and Saving Knowledge. For than they must preach against the Pope's Kingdom, and his cursed doctrines, which in the Council of Trent, do both forbid, and accurse all saving doctrines of grace, and burn with fire and faggot the Preachers of them; whom you also most cruelly persecute with all the Engines of cruelty, that malice itself can invent, and a desperate man against all Laws of God and man dare execute.  
For the ancient Fathers of the Church, whose preaching you far prefer, before any of that precise party (as you call it) for as for A. C. and his Faction, we altogether exclude them out of the number of preachers in the reformed Churches: whether ignorance, or malice hath more blinded your judgement in this, I cannot directly say. Ignorance, not only of the Father's preaching, but much more of the preciser party of preachers, in the Reformed Churches, whose Sermons, and writings I suppose you have but a little acquainted yourself withal: but for your malice against these, I dare confidently say, you have no want of that. And seeing you draw me (though against my will) to enter within the lists of such a comparison between those ancients, and our modern reformists, I hold it fit to speak something of it, (though I declined it before, when you gave the like occasion) both to discover the weakness of your judgement herein, and to vindicate the truth itself, in maintaining the just reputation of the truly Reformed Churches. Now no reason can be given▪ why those Ancients (though otherwise of honourable mention) should preach far beyond the best preachers of the Reformed Churches. For they could not have that knowledge, and learning, which so many ages since have produced, together with much experience; all which the truly reformed preachers make use of. Again, do but compare most of the writings and Sermons of those Ancients, with our modern Reformed Divines, and a right judgement will find the odds of your far beyond, to be on the side of the reformed party. In comparison of whom, how poor were those Ancients, both in their expositions and applications of Scripture. Augustine, that excellent light in those times, though in his polemical Tracts, and especially against the Pelagians, and Semi-pellagians, in the vindicating of God's grace, and so in opening all those places of Scripture, concerning those points, he showed an acute dexterity, and sound judgement: yet in his other exercises, or Sermons, and expositions of Scripture, he was not so pregnant. As in his 8 th' Tome, containing his expositions, and Sermons, upon the Psalms, although the Reader shall not repent him of his labour, because he shall meet with many passages of good note, yet he may observe how far wide he is of the scope and meaning of the Psalms, which he handleth all along. He preached indeed every day: as Calvin did at Geneva (besides all his other weighty employments) but what a disparity there is between their expositions, I refer to the judgement of K. james, who commended calvin's Commentaries, above all those of the Ancients. So for the Greek Church (as Aug. for the Latin) that golden mouthed Chrisostome (according to his Name) the best preacher in his time, though many of his expositions were good, yet when he came to his tò u'thikòn, his moral, or application, though in itself it was very good, yet for the most part no way pertinent to his text he handled: but he would sometimes make his use against covetousness, sometimes against pride, or some other sin, or, to exhort to some moral virtue, or other, but (I say) without any coherence to his text, for the most part. And for the most of those Ancients, what was the common Theme of their preaching, but morality, delighting rather to contemplate in a solitary life, then to practise such preaching, as might win souls. How few of them did preach the Doctrine of justification by Faith in Christ. In somuch as Bernard, who lived many hundred years after those ancients, and in those times, wherein he noted Antichrist to be come (which he plainly pointed out to be the Pope) did preach more sound of this doctrine, of justification by Faith only, than all those Fathers had done: if we may judge of their preaching by their writings. They spent themselves more in preaching for good works. Then to set forth the faith in Christ; though some flashes they had here and there. And whether this be not one reason, why you so commend the Father's preaching, because they were so much for good works, and so little for faith, I know not. Whereas the modern Divines of the Reformed Churches are most singular, and excellent in setting forth the Mystery of faith, and that doctrine of justification thereby, therein exalting God's grace, and excluding man's merits (though not negligent in exhorting to good works, as the fruits of faith) Those Doctrines of Grace and faith, being the main substance of the Gospel, and the true practising of jesus Christ, besides which there is no true preaching. Admirable they are also in setting forth the nature of sin, to bring man out of himself, and to plant him into Christ. And in a word, have so set forth the whole body of Divinity, as the Father's writings to theirs, are in comparison, in respect of sound Divinity, but as a barren Field to a fruitful, well planted, and well watered Garden. And great reason there is for this. The Fathers had to deal with some Heretics, as with Arius, whose Mal was Athanasius, and with Pelagius, knocked down by Augustine, and others: but they knew not as yet the Mystery of iniquity: which in these latter times seeking to overtop the Gospel; and, to overthrow the Doctrine, and Kingdom of Christ, hath given occasion, not only of a reformation, in a separation from that Whore of Babylon, but to many Worthies, whom God hath raised up in these last times, to bestir themselves, and to study Christ his Military Discipline, and spiritual warfare, against the Beast, and his Crew, and to be expert in maintaining Christ's Cause, with weapons both offensive, and defensive. So as by this occasion, God's Grace working with it, this last Century hath produced, more excellent, sound, and learned Divines, and famous preachers, than (I may say truly, though not without envy) have been ever since the Apostles times; The Name of our God, and of our Lord jesus Christ, who by this means, hath Triumphed over Antichrist, be praised, and glorified for evermore. These have been and are Christ's 
* The manner of the old Triarian Soldiers fight.  Triarian band fight against Antichrists power, with the sword of the Spirit in their lips, their pike, their pen in their hand, and fight on their knees by Prayer, and have so confounded Antichrist by the dint of their Sword, and Pike, the word of God, that he hath no means left him, but by his legates à latere, to negotiate his cause with Kings and Princes of the earth, to 
‡ Rev. 16.14.  incite them against the precise party, by taking their weapon (God's word, and the preaching thereof) from them, leaving them nothing, but their bare knees to plead their Cause upon, even Prayers▪ and Tears, these which the powers on earth may cause, but never deprive them of And how far you have been a stickler, and instigator in this kind, I appeal to your practices, and to this your Book, sufficient, and competent witnesses against you.  
But to return to your Fathers: (you say, that they, for all their preaching so far beyond others, yet no one of them durst think himself infallible, much less, that whatsoever he preached, was the word of God. 'Tis true, they had been no wise Fathers, but Children rather, yea proud and foolish Men, if they had thought themselves to be infallible, which is proper to God alone▪ But whatsoever they preached out of God's word, that they had good evidence it was according to the Scripture, why should they not, not only think, but be assured, that being the truth, it was infallible, as being the substance of God's word, which they preached? And so all other preachers.  
Lastly, where you say, It may be observed, that no men are more apt to say, that all the Fathers were but men, and might err, than they that think their own preachings were infallible. And what say you, I pray you, of your ancient Fathers? Were they any others but m●n? And might they not err? But you are not perhaps so apt to say, They were but men, and might err. You are willing to entertain, and retain a higher opinion of them, than so. Or at least you are not so apt to say so of them, as they, than whom none are more apt to say, The Fathers were but men, and might err. Sure if there were cause enough, and urgent too so to say, (as when it concerns the glory of God, and the truth itself) he that is aptest to say so, is the most to be commended. And now let us here a little inquire, who these men be, that are so apt to say thus of the ancient Fathers, and for what cause, That they were but men, and might err. Why, who should they be, but the precise party of the reformed Churches, as all the worthy, reverend, pious, religious, learned, and judicious Divines, both beyond the Seas, and on this side, who undertaking to defend the truth of Christ, against Antichrist: and their Adversaries objecting, and pressing so much the authority of the ancient Fathers in such things, wherein they could not be otherwise excused, but that they did a'n●ropopathein, speak as men, who are not in all things infallible: what could they in such a case, answer otherwise, But that those Fathers were but men, and might err? Nor did they speak this out of any disesteem of those Fathers, but when they were (I say) so urged to defend the truth against the Adversaries of it, by the evidence whereof, they were able to make good what they said, that those Fathers were but men, and might err. Now for this, who is more apt, than your Lordship to cast in the dish of this precise party (as you call them) that they should upon just cause speak thus of your ancient Fathers? What would you say then, if all this party should as one Man rise up, and openly profess against you, as a notorious enemy of the truth, and of the Church of God in England, and elsewhere, and of all pious, sincere, and zealous Preachers of the Gospel, and that under the Name of the precise party, which you so yoke with the Jesuits, you do maliciously, not only seek to undermine, but even professedly to invade and oppugn, the whole Kingdom of jesus Christ, as also your practices, and this your Book can witness. And how do you come to know the thoughts of this precise party, so well, that you say, they think their own preachings were infallible? Surely you do but think so. You might therefore judge more charitably. But as I said of those Fathers, so do I of these, what they have a good and sure ground in Scripture for, to preach and teach, they may be sure, and they know it to be the truth, and so infallible. As for those that 
* Psal. 59.12▪  preach of cursing and lies (as David speaks) and suggest slanders, and false reports into the ears of Princes, and Courts against God's Ministers and Preachers: let them think, and be assured too, that what they preach, or print, is not only not infallible, but most malicious, and detestable, both before God and Man; as tending also the blinding, and so to the downfall of such as believe such falsehoods to be infallible.  
L. p 104. When the Fathers say, we are to rely upon Scriptures only, they are never to be understood with exclusion of Tradition, in what causes soever it may be had. Not but that the Scripture is abundantly sufficient, in, and of itself for all things: but because it is deep▪ and may be drawn into different senses, and so mistaken, If any man will presume upon his own strength, and go single without the Church. And citing an excellent sentence out of Vincentius Lynnen●is▪ quum sit perfectus Scripturarum Canon, sibique ad ommia satis superque sufficiat, etc. Forasmuch as that Canon of Scripture is perfect, and superabundantly selfe-sufficient to all things, and if you add this your note upon it in the margin. And if it be sibi ad omnia, then to this, to prove itself, at least, after Tradition hath prepared as to receive it.  
P. A little 
* pag. 101▪  before, you cite also Augustine setting down 4 special notes and marks internal to the Scripture to prove it to be the word of God. As 1. The Miracles. 2. That there is nothing carnal in the Doctrine. 3. That there hath been such performance of it. 4. That by such a Doctrine of humility, the whole world almost hath been converted. And there also to the same purpose Lynnen●is: who placeth the Scripture before Tradition. And here again, That the Scripture is selfe-sufficient to all. What room then for Tradition? Or if Tradition have any place at all, it were good manners for it to come behind, as a Handmaid waiting on her Mistress. But you can salve all with a wet finger, or with one drop out of your pen: If it be sibi ad omnia, that is, selfe-sufficient to all things, then to this, to prove itself, at least after Tradition ●ath prepared us to receive it. This is your own Addition, or Commentary and Gloss of your own Mother wit, which is, as Tertullian saith of the old Roman Senate, which had made a decree, that none should be taken into the number of their Gods, but such as the Senate itself should first think worthy, and approve of: So as Tiberius Caesar under whose Empire Christ suffered, when he had heard much fame of Christ, he moved the Senate, that Christ might be entertained for one of their Gods. But the Senate for the foresaid Reason rejected it, because they first had approved of it. Whereupon Tertullian saith, Ergo nisi homini pla●uerit, Deus non erit Deus. Therefore except it please man, God shall not be God. A fit parallel for this very purpose. The Scripture, by the consent of all the ancient Fathers, is abundantly selfe-sufficient to prove itself to be the word of God: but the present Church hath a Senatus consultum, a Decree, Tradition, which must first give her voice and approbatiton, that the Scripture is the word of God; otherwise in vain are all those Encomiums and Commendations of the Fathers, though never so ancient, affirming, and confirming, the Scriptures self-sufficiency, even beyond all measure. The Tradition of the present Church must first give her voice. Ergo, nisi homini placuerit▪ Scriptura non erit verbum Dei: Therefore except it please man, the Scripture shall not be the word of God. Only herein you go beyond the Roman Senate: for their Decree for the admiting of a God was by the general voice of all the Senators: But yours is here from the sole and single Oracle of the Church of England. The Chair of Canterbury. 'Tis enough that you tell us, with an if, if the Scripture be, Sibi ad omnia, then to this, to prove itself, at least after Tradition hath prepared us to receive it. Otherwise, never talk of Father's Authority, all is in vain, The Scripture cannot be believed to be the word of God, unless The Tradition of the Present Church prepare the way to receive it. And, at least, you say; which is no small diminution of the Scriptures self-sufficiency, which you put with an if, at least. But of this sufficiently.  
But let's hear your Reasons further for your Tradition. The Scripture (Say you) is deep, and may be drawn into different senses▪ and so mistaken, that any man will presume upon his own strength, and go single without the Church. So it seemeth your Articles of Religion are deep, as which not only may be, but are drawn into different senses, and so mistaken, and that by the presumption of one man's strength, going single without the Church. But for the Scripture, though it be deep, yet it affords us both line, and Bucket sufficient to draw water out of those 
* Esay 12.3▪  well● of Salvation, and so to give us a full taste, whereby to relish and resent whose word it is; except the Tradition and Authority of your present Church do cut off our line, and break our Bucket. The Scripture hath both Milk for Babes, and strong Meat for Men. 
2 Pet. 3.  In the Sea both the Elephant may swim (as AUG. and GREG. saith) and the Lamb wade, and when it is by unstable men wrested and drawn into different senses, and so mistaken, yet it remains the same unchangeable truth still, and hath in it sufficient evidence, both to reconcile those differences, and to convince the gainsayer. 'Tis true, Let no man presume upon his own strength; 
* Psal. 25.14.  for the secret of the Lord is with them that fear him. Wha● was the cause then, that you have all along your Book, (as in part hath been showed) so perverted the Scriptures? was it not because you took not with you for your guide, the Tradition of the present Church? And was not this then a prusuming upon your own strength, when you go so solely, and singly to work? But what mean you by going single without the Church? The not consulting the Prelates? Or because the Papists object, as you, The Scriptures are deep and dark: therefore we must in all things take the present Church Tradition in our way, where it may be bad, and be guided by that, as by Ariadnees Thread, through those manifold Meanders of that intricate Labyrinth, the Scripture, as you make it. Or that you mean by Church Tradition, the Authority of the present Church of England, as one with that Church whereof none is; and that this Authority must needs proceed and like a Candle before the Sun at noonday (as before) show us the way to know the Scripture to be the word of God: if we be willing to shut our eyes, and blindfold to be led by the Traditional Authority of this your Church: what know we, but by such Authority you may tell us (putting the ●ible clasped into our hands) All that is cantained within those clasps, is the word of God. This you may be sure of, you have Authority for it, you need go no further. And all your Bibles of your present Church of England, being by express Charge bound with the Apocrypha, so as they are punished that do it not, all the Books forfeited, which may breed an opinion in the people, that those Books also are a part of the word of God: If now one hereupon opening the Bible, and lighting upon either that ridiculous tale of Tobies Dog, or that of the Angel, who tells Tobia●, that he is his kinsman; and of the Smoke of the Fish's Liver that drives away the Devil; or of Razis killing of himself, and commended for it by the writer of the Books of the Maccabees; or that of the same Authors, doubting whether he hath done well, or no, in writing that Story, and the like: he may possibly by this means be brought to think meanly of the Scriptures, and that they are not the word of God, because he finds such things in the Bible (so as it is bound) as are ridiculous, false, vain, impious, and uncertain whether the rest be done, as it should be, etc. And thus by your Apocrypha, delivered into his hand by the Authority and Tradition of your present Church, he is brought to believe, that either the Scriptures of tha● Old and New Testament, are not the word of God, as wherewith those Apocryphal Books are equally bound in all Bible's: or else, that such Tradition of the present Church it little to be regarded, while pretending to lead men to the belief of the Scriptures, to be the word of God, there is no more difference made between them, and the Apocrypha, so full of vain lies and ridiculous tales. And perhaps you may come in also as 
Epistle Dedicatory.  Time, and Pla●e, will permit) with your Verbum Dei non scriptum to boot, the word of God not written, of which you tell us before, agreeing therein with Bellarmine. And at last, when your Tradition, and Authority hath sufficiently prepared the way, you will perhaps bring in your Traditions Apostolic accompanied with the decretals of Gratian, which your Sister Church of Rome equal with the 4 Evangelists. But however, were it for nothing else, but to maintain the credit of your present Church Tradition and Authority in commending to men the Scripture to be the word of God, you might do well to take away your Apocrypha, which your Zeal will have placed in the midst between the two Testaments, not suffering any Bibles to be bound without it, which is, as 
‡ Mr. H. B●.  one saith, as a Blakamore placed between two pure unspotted Virgins. Nor do I think, that your Lordship so placeth your Blackamoor, as Ladies put a black patch upon their Cheek, or Chin, as a foil, to make them seem more fair: so you, to make the Scriptures the more lovely, and desirable, or the better to be known, as things by their contraries, as white by black, or the strait by the crooked, or truth, by error▪ 
Hierom. Epist▪ ad Laetom.  standing near it. And though Hierome (who excludes the Apocrypha out of the Canon of Scripture) saith, they may be read ad morum institutionem non ad confirmationem Fidei, for instruction of manners, and not for confirmation of faith: yet considering both the fooleries, and falsities, and vanities, and commended impieties, and confessed uncertainties in them (as aforesaid) all these things put together, might be (me thinks) of sufficient strength to thrust out that Blackamoor by the head and shoulders from between those two fair and unspotted Virgins.  
L. ibid. It is most reasonable that Theology should be allowed to have some Principles (as well as other Sciences) which she proves not, but presupposes. And the chiefest of these is, That the Scriptures are of Divine Authority.  
P. How? Is the chiefest of these Principles allowed to Theologie, This, 
A true Principle overthrown by a false.  That the Scriptures are of Divine Authority? Do you not forget Tradition now? Do you not reckon that for the first, and so the chiefest, as without which, the other cannot be granted? Or perhaps you do not reckon your Tradition, or Authority of the present Church to be a Principle of Theology. What then? Perhaps, of Muthology, the science of setting forth Fables, Or, of Buttologie, the science, of much babble to no purpose. Or, Argologie, the science of vain, and frivolous talk. Or, Carphologie, a gathering of Chaff, as if you would by the heap of Chaff show us, where the Wheat is. Only, your Tradition is no Principle of Theology, and therefore a heap of chaff wherein there is not one grain of the pure corn.  
But let us come to see what is most reasonable. It is most reasonable (say you) that Theologie should be allowed to have some Principles (as well as other Sciences) which she proves not, but presupposes. And what is Theologie, but the Scripture itself, and the Doctrines therein contained? And however it be with other Sciences, which in comparison of Theologie are but imperfect and beggarly, so as they have need to beg their a'itemata, some Principles to be granted them, as grounds to work upon, as the Mathematics, etc. yet you might have given that honour to Queen Theologie, to which all other Sciences are but handmaids, as to exempt her from being a beggar, yea and of that too, which is her own, and in her own possession, namely, That the Scripture is the word of God. This is one of Theologies prime Principles, which the Scripture doth suo jure vindicare, challenge as her own right, and which no man can take from her. And if Theologie must borrow or beg this principle: Of whom? Of the Tradition of the Church? Beware of that: For then 
* Pro. 22.7.  the Borrower, should be servant to be Lender, as Solomon saith. And to Beg it, were worse. But if Theologie have this principle of her own, and it in the Scriptures possession; what need she go either to beg or borrow it, and that of those, who can neither give, or lend it? And if this be a Principle, that Scripture 〈◊〉 the word of God. What use of your Church Tradition? For Principles are not to be denied. But you denying, that this can be believed, without the Tradition of the present Church do first induce unto it: than you are one of those, that deny Principles. And Contra negantem Principia non est disputandum, we are not to dispute against him that denyeth Principles; but in this case to hold him as an Heretic, 
Tit. 3.10.11.  and to deal with him as the Apostle admonisheth: A man that is an Heretic, after the first and second Admonition reject: knowing, that he that is such, is subverted, and sinneth, being a'utokatákritoes, selfe-condemned.  
L. p. 105. The evidence of supernatural Truths, which Divinity teaches, appears not so manifest, as that of the Natural, though in themselves more sure, and infallible.  
P. Appears not: true indeed to a natural man. Here you speak by experience. But to the spiritual man this evidence appears very clearly; for (as the Apostle saith) The Natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him: Neither can ●e know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual, judgeth all things; as Solomon also saith Evil men understand not judgement: But they that seek the Lord, understand all things.  
L. p. 106. Faith is a mixed Act of the Will, and the understanding, and the Will inclines the understanding to yield full approbation to that, whereof it sees not full proof. Not but that there is full proof of them: But because the main grounds, which prove them, are concealed from our view, and folded up in the unrevealed Council of God, God in Christ, resolving to bring mankind to their last happiness by Faith, and not by Knowledge, That so the weakest among men may have their way to blessedness open.  
P. 'Tis true, that Faith, being the life of the soul, anima animae (as Aug. speaks) doth inform and quicken all the faculties thereof, as the Will, Understanding, Reason, Affections: so as the Will doth no more incline the Understanding to assent (this being the opinion of those Schoolmen, that hold the Will to be the seat of Faith, as others do hold the Understanding) Then the Understanding doth the Will, or Reason the Affections: But Faith being that Grace, which quickeneth the whole soul, and in it all the faculties as aforesaid, it is this Faith Principally that inclineth all the whole soul with all its faculties to yield their unanimous assent unto it. And yet I deny not a mutual reciprocation, and interchangeable cooperation, which is between these faculties, as in the natural man, so in the spiritual man, regenerate by faith. For as in the natural man sometimes the Understanding inclines the Will, sometimes the Will the Understanding, sometimes Reason inclines the Affections, and sometimes the Affections incline Reason, and that oftentimes with great violence to a wrong object: the like working there is among the sanctified faculties of the soul Regenerate, sometimes the Understanding inclining the Will, sometimes the Will the Understanding, and sometimes the Affections incline both; as the Apostle saith (speaking of zeal for God) Whether we be besides ourselves, 
● Cor. 5.13, 14.  it is to God, or whether we be sober, it is for your Cause. For the love of Christ constraineth us. And the affections of the Apostle towards Christ were so strong in him, that they carried his Understanding, Will and Reason along with them with strong hand, when notwithstanding he was told of dangers, yea bonds abiding him at jerusalem, and earnestly desired of his Friends not to go thither: he answered▪ What mean ye to weep, and to break mine heart? For I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at jerusalem for the Name of the Lord jesus. 
Act. 21.13.  And Christ himself was so full of holy Zeal, and strong Affections, as he was carried with a wonderful violence of them, insomuch as they said of him, that he was mad. And his friends one time went to lay hold on him, 
Io●. 10.20. Mar. 3.21.  saying he was besides himself. And many of Christ his Servants, his Ministers, being carried with a strong love of Christ, and zeal for his glory, expressed in their courageous witnessing of the truth against wicked men, the enemies thereof, although their Understanding apprehend the danger, and their Will could be content to live in peace, yet the Affection here carries all along with it, and they willingly follow, because the same Faith guides and carries all along with it, whence it comes to pass, that the affection here to Christ, and to truth being as it were the Leader of the rest, the Understanding, Reason and judgement lest appearing in the sense of the world, men are thereupon so apt and prone to Censure such Ministers of indiscretion. But this may show the inward operation of the faculties of a regenerate soul, how one works upon another reciprocally, and one inclines another, sometimes the superior faculties, the inferior; and sometimes the inferior, the superior, but Faith is the principal agent working in, and inclining all.  
It is not then the Will that always inclines the Understanding, but the Grace of Faith, which infused, doth at once both illuminate, incline, and draw both the Will and Understanding to rest in the saving truth of God apprehended by Faith. This Faith I say doth so illuminate, the whole soul, with all its faculties, as that itself brings meat in the mouth (as ye say) even a full proof in itself of the things believed: so as now not only the affiance of the Will, but the affiance, and certain knowledge of the Understanding do rest themselves in the clear evidence, which Faith itself bringeth with it, which evidence hath the ample and sure Testimony, both of the word of God, and of the Spirit of God, whose work it is. For this saving Faith never goes alone, but is both ushered in, and wrought, and accompanied with the word and Spirit of Christ. For so soon as Faith is conceived in the soul, it unites to Christ, and so it hath communion with Christ, together with his Spirit mimediately; so as both the Will, and the Understanding, and the whole soul, heart and affections, so soon as Faith possesseth them (which Faith is a plerophoria, full assurance of the things believed, and a clear evidence of them, though not seen, as before is showed) there is withal exhibited both in, and with Faith a full sufficient proof of the things believed. 
* Belying of God, and of the Scripture, and bewraying profound ignorance.  How say you then, that the main grounds, which prove them, are concealed from our view, and folded up in the unrevealed Council of God? And what main grounds, I pray you be those? Can you tell? Or do you speak in the Clouds, that you may seem to say something; which you understand not. For certainly this Mystery of Faith is concealed from your understanding, as appeareth by your dark and cloudy words. And is that unrevealed council of God the object of our Faith? Cometh not Faith by hearing of the word of God, wherein God hath revealed his will to us? Or doth the Tradition of your present Church, lead you to believe such senseless speculations? Indeed the Apostle saith, 
‡ Col. 2.3▪  That in Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Hid, that is, laid up, and contained as a Treasure. But not hid from his true Church, and faithfu●l people, as the Apostle saith, 
† 2 Cor. 4.3. ●▪  If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world, hath blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ should shine unto them. And again, 
§ 1 Cor. 2.9▪  Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man the things, which God hath prepared for them that love him: But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit. But where? Search the Scriptures (saith Christ) for in them ye think to have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me; so to this purpose the Apostle speaketh excellently, Ephes▪ 3.4, 5, 6. and 1.9.17, 18, 19 and in many other places. But to you it seems these things are hid, and folded up; and therefore no marvel you know not what you say, nor whereof you affirm: As the Apostle saith of some 
† 1 Tim. 1.5▪ 6.7.  Who were turned aside from Charity out of a pure heart, and a good Conscience, and of Faith unfeigned, unto vain ●angling. Desiring to be teachers of the Law, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. Let therefore the Prophet Esay read you a Lecture, 
* Esay. 29.9▪  Stay yourselves, and wonder: Cry ye out, and cry: They are drunken, but not with wine, They stagger but not with strong drink. For the Lord hath poured on them the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: The Prophets, and your Rulers, the Seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you, as the words of a Book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this I pray thee: And he saith I cannot, for it is sealed: And the Book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this I pray thee: And he saith, I am not learned. Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me: and their fear towards me is taught by the Precepts of men: Therefore behold I will proceed to do a marvelous work amongst this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shallbe hid. Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their council from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say who seeth us: And who knoweth us? surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the Potter's Clay. Lo, my Lord, I hope this word is not folded up: if to you it be, you shall one day both see and feel it more clearly and sensibly fulfilled.  
But you go on. 
* Bold belying and blaspheming Gods Secret Counsels.  God in Christ (say you) resolving to bring Mankind, to their last happiness by Faith, and not by Knowledge. What, by a blind Faith? For by Faith, and not by Knowledge, is all one, as to say, by such a Faith, as is without Knowledge, and so without light in it, and so blind. Whereas the true saving Faith, is a knowing Faith, it is the evidence of things not ●een, it sees him that is invisible; as before is showed. But my Lord, if the main grounds be folded up in the unrevealed counsel of God: I wonder by what revelation you come to know his secret, That God in Christ hath resolved to bring Mankind to their last happiness by Faith, and not by Knowledge; surely God hath no where in Scripture revealed any such resolution of his. And if it be not written, Timeas 〈◊〉 ill●d (as Tertullian forementioned said to Hermogenes the Heretic) Fear that Woe to them▪ that shall add to the Book of Scripture. But if you had leisure to Read the Scripture, it reveals unto us plainly what God in this business hath resolved to do, and how he will bring Mankind to his last happiness; and that is by a seeing, not a blind Faith: by a Faith explicit and clear, not implicit, and folded up: by light, and not by darkness. This is God's way, that he hath chalked out unto us in the Scripture (as before is fully proved of Faith) and therefore we are sure, that God in Christ in his eternal council resolved to bring us this way to heaven, and no other way. And this 
* joh. 14.6.  way is Christ: and Christ is 
‡ joh 1.4.  light: and in this way we must walk as 
‡ Ephes. 5.8.  children of the light, and not as children of darkness. And every true believer, as he becomes a new man, so of a blind man, he becomes a seeing man. For this cause Christ came the 
§ joh. 1.9.  true light, that he might lighten every man that comes to him. For this cause was Paul sent to preach to the Gentiles, 
† Act. 26.18.  To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by Faith that is in me, saith Christ; so that every true Christian in his conversion, of blind, becomes seeing, of darkness becomes light in the Lord, of Satan's bo●dm●n, Gods ser●ant; and by this way only through Faith in Christ, they receive forgiveness of sins here, with sanctification, and hereafter the eternal inheritance. But as for you, my Lord, as you have found out another way, namely, a blind way, 
Prelate's blind Popish way.  not by the way of knowledge, by which yet you pretend to your last happiness: so be assured of this, that the place you are going unto, is just like the way that leads unto it, blind and dark, yea, utter darkness, where the Pit is, into which, both the blind leader, and the blind led shall fall.  
And for your further conviction, or else confusion, and confutation of your folly, and information of your blind Disciples, and confirmation of the truth to all the children of truth: note what Christ himself saith expressly, point blank against you. You say, God in Christ resolved to bring Mankind to their last happiness by Faith, and not by Knowledge. But Christ saith, This is the will of him that sent me (this God hath resolved on) that every one that seeth the Son, and believeth in him, should have eternal life, 
john 6.40.  and I will raise him up at the last day: Mark here; This is the Father's will, his resolution, his revealed council, and purpose. What? That every one that seeth Christ (not with bodily eyes here, but with the eyes of his soul, being illuminated by holy knowledge) and so believeth in him, should have eternal life, and Christ will raise him up in the last day. Here is Man's last happiness, to which God hath revealed t● us in his word, that he hath resolved in his council to bring Mankind by Faith and Knowledge, together, and without separation, as both seeing, and believing. 
Ephes. 4.11.  And this doth the Scripture every where show unto us. Wherefore did God give some Apostles; and some Prophets; and some Evangelists; and some Pastors and Teachers: but for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edefication of the body of Christ: And (Col. 2.2) That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the Mystery of God. What a high and admirable expression is here? And 6.7. this is to be rooted and built up in Christ. Again, on the other side, what's the Cause and source of all wickedness, and infidelity superstition and Idolatry, but ignorance of God, and of his word? As Ephes. 4.17. This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk●, in the vanity of their minds, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart, etc. So, 
1 Pet. 4.3. Host 4.1.  1 Pet. 4.3. and Host 4.1. The Lord hath a controversy with the Inhabittnts of the Land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the Land. And vers. 7. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: Because thou hast rejected knowledge (mark it well my Lord) I will also reject thee, THAT THOU SHALT BE NO PRIEST TO ME. And on the other side again, 
jer. 3.15.  The Lord saith, I will give you Pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge, and understanding; namely, the people whom the Lord is in Covenant with: But it seemeth your Priesthood standeth not with the nature and office of those Prophets, which feed the people of God with knowledge and understanding. You can teach the people a shorter cut to heaven, and more easy for the Priest: for you tell us, God hath resolved to bring Mankind to blessedness another way, then by knowledge. Wherein, how far, you not only dishonour, but blaspheme the truth of God, in Fathering such a foul and abominable lie upon him; for this, I leave you to that judgement, which he hath revealed in his Word.  
But you seem to do all this in charity, That the weakest among men may have their way to blessedness open. A way open? You mean surely the broad way, and you know whither that leads, and how the many such weak ones, as you speak of go in that way. And broad and open your way had need to be, both for the multitude of the travellers therein, and for their blindness, and for the darkness of the way, that so, though both they and their guides be blind, yet the way is so broad, as they cannot possibly go out of it, so long as they do but follow their Nose, which must be their guide, for want of eyes. But it may be you will allege that saying of Augustine, Indocti rapiunt regnum Caelo●um, etc. The unlearned and ignorant take by violence the Kingdom of heaven, where we that be great learned Clerks are shut out. Ergo, the way is open for the weakest▪ and shut against those, that abuse their Learning to God's dishonour, and soul's destruction. But whom doth Augustine there mean, by unlearned▪ Ignorants that had no Faith, nor true Religion in them? Certainly, there's no heaven for such. The 
* 2 Sam. 5.6▪  blind, and lame come not within the fort of Zion. But a true believer may be unlettered, or (as they say) not book learned: yet, not without knowledge. For if he hath faith, he hath a knowledge of God in Christ. And being Christ's, he hath the Spirit of Christ, and this quickens him up ●o diligence in the use of all good means of saving knowledge; as to hear God's word faithfully preached, (for he knows Christ's voice) and frequently read, and conferred upon; and he meditates on it, his mind is much upon it, as yours is of your honours, and favour in Court, how to keep them: and he is still praying for increase of grace, and faith, and knowledge. And my Lord, many a such man I could bring, that cannot a letter on the Book, that for all your seeming Learning, would put you to your Trumpets, if your greatness would but descend so far, as to reason with him of the Scriptures, and of Christ, and so of faith, and the like. For there's all his Learning. And such unlearned ones they be, who go to heaven, yea 
* Mat. 11.12.  take it by violence (as Christ saith) when great Lord Prelates are shut out. As Christ saith to the Pharisees: 
‡ Mat. 21.31.32.  The Publicans and ●arlots go into the Kingdom of God before you, for they believed john's preaching: but ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterwards, that ye might believe him.  
But you go on in your blind way, and say, pag. 109. 
Pag 109. Blaspheming again of God's Counsels.  The way of knowledge was not that, which God thought fittest for man's Salvation. 'Tis true, not such a speculative knowledge, as you speak of: but God thought it fittest to bring men to salvation by a knowing Faith; as before is showed. I will conclude this with the Apostles thunder: 
‡ Gal. 1.8.9.  As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach otherwise, then that is delivered in God's word, let him be accursed. And if the Scripture accurse him, that 
§ Deut. 27.18  leads the blind out of his way, to which curse all the people say Amen: then what curse is due to him, that teacheth the blind such a way, as leads to certain destruction of Soul and Body? Shall not all the people say Amen to this curse?  
L. p. 106. 
Credit of Scripture hanged upon man's opinion of God. See 165.  The Credit of the Scripture depends not upon the subservient inducing Cause, that leads us to the first knowledge of the Author, which leader here is the Church: but upon the Author himself, and the opinion we have of his Sufficiency.  
P. Do you not make the credit of the Scripture to depend upon the Authority of the present Church, when without this subservient inducing Cause you deny the possibility of belief, that the Scripture is the word of God? For you say expressly, pag. 120. When I said, Scriptures were Principles to be supposed, I did not, I could not intend, they were prius cognitae, known before Tradition; Since I confess every where, that Tradition introduces the knowledge of them. But if the credit of the Scripture depends not upon the Church, whereon then? On the Author (Say you) and the opinion we have of his Sufficiency. Here be two things which you couple together: 1. The Author: 2. The opinion we have of his Sufficiency. 1. For the Author, which is God: 'tis true, that God himself is the Author of the Scripture, and so it is the word of God; and God the Author bears witness of the Scripture, that it is his own word▪ And where doth God bear this witness? Is not this his witness in the Scripture itself? Doth not his Spirit speak in it, and tell us, that it is his word? Saith not his Spirit expressly, that 
* 2 Tim. 3.16.  All Scripture is given by Inspiration from God? And doth not the Scripture itself tell us this? Saith it not then of itself, that it is God's word? And so saying, doth it not bear witness to itself, that it is the word of God? And is not the witness thereof true? And if true, doth not the credit of the Scripture depend upon itself, as it is the word of God that speaks in it, that it is the word of God? Or how can you so separate the Author from the Scripture, he speaking in it, but that you must confess the credit of the Scripture to depend upon itself, when you acknowledge it depends upon the Author? For as 
‡ 1 King. 19.12▪ 13.  God was in the Soft and Still voice: so he is in the Scripture, which is the Soft and Still voice of God. And as Elias knew by the soft and still voice, that the Lord was in it: So we know by the Soft and Still voice of God, the Scripture, that God is in it, and therein speaks unto us. And what God therein speaks unto us, the Scripture, which is his voice speaks unto us. So as the Scripture being Gods own voice speaking unto us, what it saith, is of the Same credit, that God himself, the Author and Speaker, is of. And therefore, if the Credit of Scripture depend upon the Author, it depends withal upon it self, because it is Gods own voice.  
But Secondly, you couple here with the Author, the opinion we have of his Sufficience. 
Man's opinion of God's Sufficiency 〈◊〉 ●ain and blind.  So as first, it seems you do not allow the Credit of Scripture to depend simply and Solely upon the Author, but withal upon the opinion we have of his Sufficiency: And what if we fail in our good opinion of the Author's Sufficiency? Whereon will you then hang the Credit of the Scripture? Surely it must depend upon our opinion. That's the dint of your speech. But of ourselves we are altogether ignorant of God's Sufficiency. How then, or whence shall we come to have such an opinion of his Sufficiency, as whereon the Credit of the Scripture may infallibly depend? From the Authority or Tradition of the present Church? Alas your present Church will tell us, that the holy Trinity may be expressed in a Picture, and that God the Father may be pictured like an Old Man, because Christ in Daniel is called the Ancient of days. For thus you pleaded against Mr. Sheruile in the Star-chamber, when you fined him 500 pound to the King, for defacing the Images of the Trinity in his own Church-window, he being a Justice of Peace. If therefore the Almighty and Incomprehensible God may be expressed in an Image, what opinion can we have of his Sufficiency, to be the God of truth, and the Author of the Scripture, as whereon the credit thereof may depend, when we express and represent him by that which is a lie, a mere vanity? For the Scripture calls an Image, a lie, as Esa. 44.20. And, a teacher of lies: Hab. 2.18. And vanity, wind, and confusion: Esa. 41.29. And falsehood, Jer. 10.14. And v. 16. God the portion of jacob is not like them. And an Image made to represent God, is a lie, and falsehood, because it is a false representation of God. For God is a Spirit, Invisible. And, Esa. 40.18. To whom will ye liken God? Or what likeness will ye compare unto him? And the Second Commandment expressly forbids any Image to be made, to represent God by. So as the practice of your present Church in adoring and setting up, and maintaining Images in Churches, and Copes, and the like, whereby you represent God, 
The Prelates blind opinion of God's Sufficiency.  doth teach men a base and false opinion of God, and so of his all-sufficiency. And therefore, Secondly, in Saying We, upon the opinion We have of his Sufficiency, you that are the Setters up, and maintainers of lying Images of God in your Churches, must needs be those We, upon whose opinion of God's Sufficiency must depend the Credit of the Scripture. And what opinion can you have of God's truth, that represent him by a lie, and falsehood? And what opinion can you have of his Sufficiency in being the Author of the Scripture, that hold and affirm his Scripture and word to be an insufficient witness to prove itself the word of God? And what opinion can you have of God's Sufficiency, who do every where by your open practices, and your Shameless blasphemies in fathering your lies upon God in this your Book (as hath been noted but now) proclaim to the world what little fear or dread you have of his Majesty, as if he were not a just God, in punishing wickedness, or in his power insufficient to tame proud Rebels? Thus if by the Tradition of the present Church we cannot come to such a knowledge of God, as to have a right opinion of his Sufficiency: whence shall we have it? Surely all true knowledge of God is to be learned from the Scripture. But that you make to be of no credit, but as it depends upon the Author, and your opinion of his Sufficiency; which what it is, we have taken a Scantling of. And so the conclusion is from these your Premises, that, No credit of Scripture to teach, no true knowledge of God: no right opinion of his Sufficiency, nothing for the Credit of the Scripture to depend upon: and having no credit in and of itself: Ergo, the Scripture is of no Credit at all. This is the very Sum and Sequel of your Speech, and indeed the upshot of those sharp arrows, which you have with all your might and malice let fly at the Credit of Scripture, to give it the death's wound. Yet you add:  
L. p. 111. Scripture, though it give light enough for Faith to believe, yet light enough it gives not, to be a convincing Reason, and proof for Knowledge.  
P. These words are to be expounded by what you have formerly Said. Though it give light enough: that is, though it should or could give ●ight enough. For that it doth not give light enough for Faith to believe, you have plainly told us. As pag. 80. The light which is in Scripture, is not bright enough: it cannot bear sufficient witness to itself. If it cannot, than neither can it give light enough for faith to believe. For sufficient light for Faith to believe, springs from a sufficient light in Scripture, to bear witness to itself. But this (Say you) it hath not: Ergo not the other. Again you Say (pag. 81.) Church-Authority must first light the Candle. Ergo the Scripture hath no light of itself, much less light enough for faith to believe But though it should, though it be granted, that Scripture had light enough for Faith to believe: yet light enough it gives not, to be a convincing Reason and proof for knowledge. As if you said, Neither for Faith: for we have proved before, that faith and knowledge go inseparably together, true faith being a seeing and knowing faith, and not a blind faith. The Scripture teacheth no blind faith. And why should not Scripture give light enough, to be a convincing Reason and proof for knowledge? When it is a sufficient light to 
* H●b. 4.12.  discover unto a man the secret thoughts and intents of his heart, whereof man himself is thoroughly convinced, and thereby in himself condemned of his own Conscience? But this knowledge you cannot away withal. But you can never put out the eyes of your Conscience, though you may for a time fold it, or lull it fast asleep. Much less shall you be able to put out the light of Scripture, which is greater than the light of your Conscience. As Saith the Apostle, 
‡ 1 joh. 3.20.  If our heart, or Conscience condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. If therefore the heart or Conscience, that is in man, be a sufficient witness of all his thoughts 
‡ Rom. 2.15.  good and bad, and layeth them before him, as the Apostle saith: much more is God's word a sufficient witness, and giveth light enough to be a convincing reason and proof for knowledge. And Solomon Saith, 
* Pro. 20.27.  The spirit of man is the Candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly. If such than be man's spirit, the Candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly, that is all the secrets of man's heart: how much more is the Spirit of God in the Scripture, his Word, such a searcher, yea saith the Apostle, 
§ 1 Cor. 10. 2●  The Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God. And these deep things of God he hath revealed unto us by his Spirit. And where but in his word, the Scripture, is the voice of this Spirit of God? And it was the constant sentence of all the Ancient Fathers, whom you would seem so much to adore, which Augustine expresseth in these words; In Scripturu sacris apertè continentur ea omnia, quae necessaria sunt ad S●lutem: In the holy Scriptures are clearly contained all those things, which are necessary to Salvation. Now how should this be true, if the Scripture doth not give light enough, to be a convincing reason and proof for knowledge.  
L. p. 113. To prove the Scripture to be the word of God, first cometh in the Tradition of the Church, the present Church: So 'tis no Heretical or Schismatical belief. Then the testimony of former Ages, etc.  
P. Here at length, you come near the winding up of the long thread of your endless Discourse in this your 16 th' Section, the sum whereof is to prove, that the Scripture is of no selfe-credit and Authority, And first and last, your present Church Tradition must be the Prime hand to lead the bl●nd to this belief, that Scripture is the word of God. For otherwise the belief thereof should be Heretical, or Schismatical, For thus you say; To prove the Scripture to be the word of God, First comes in the Tradition of the Church, the present Church: So 'tis no Heretical or Schismatical belief. Ergo Belief of Scripture to be God's word, comes by any other way, (as by the word of God itself, read and heard, in the preaching of it, and by God's Spirit speaking in it) then wherein the Tradition of the Church, the present Church hath been the Prime leader. This belief is Heretical and schismatical. Ergo this belief in all the Apostles, Martyrs, Ancient Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Ages, who never knew any such Tradition of the present Church, as whereon this belief should depend, for its necessary prime inducement, was Heretical and Schismatical. They constantly held (till Rome and you brought in this your blind guide, to tread down under feet the light of the Scripture and to exalt the Authority of your Antichristian Hierarchy) that the Scripture was of self-Authority and Sufficiency to prove itself to be the word of God and by the hearing of it preached and read, to beget and confirm faith in all believers without any such inducement of Church Tradition as you speak of. And therefore here you pass your sentence of condemnation of this belief in all those forementioned, for Heretical and Schismatical. But how justly may this sentence be retorted upon yourself, and your present Church, as both Heretical and Schismatical. Heretical as in the maintenance of Doctrines of Devils (as afore) of the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian Heresies, under colour of your doubtful Articles of Religion as you have made them by public Edict and Declaration, and flatly forbidding to preach of the Saving Doctrines of Grace, as they are clearly laid down and taught in the Scripture; and in setting up and maintaining of your Altars, whereby the only Altar jesus Christ is denied▪ and in dispensing with the 4 th' Commandment; yea destroying and unmoralizing of it, and so overthrowing the Lords-day-Sabbath, wherein you subvert the whole work of Redemption, with the Resurrection; and the like: thus your present Church is Heretical: as also in this, in holding and stiffly maintaining by you a necessity of your present Church-Tradition, for the inducing of belief of the Scripture to be God's word, as not sufficient, and wanting light of itself to do it, and which otherwise is of no credit at all: Thus I say you are damnably and desperately Heretical. Secondly your present Church is also Schismatical, being a Separation from the true Church of Christ, in your Hierarchy, or Prelacy; which being altogether antichristian hath no communion in that respect with Christ's Church, and therefore is notoriously Schismatical: yea in this also Schismatical, that you account and brand that belief of Scripture to be God's word, for Heretical and Schismatical, which is not first induced by your present Church-Tradition, wherein you are Schismatics from the Faith; and so from the Church of the Apostles, and Ancient Fathers, and succeeding Churches which never held any such Hereticalll opinion, concerning any such insufficiency of the Scriptures, and Authority of the present Church, as you most pertenaciously and perniciously hold: Therefore I Conclude that if the present Church of England, approve of your Book, and hold as you do, it is both Heretical and Schismatical. But you conclude:  
L. p. 115. So then the way lieth thus as far as it appears to me) The Credit of Scripture to be Divine, reduces finally into that which we have touching God himself and in the same order. For as that: So this hath three main Grounds, to which all other are reducible. The First is, the Tradition of the Church: and this leads us to a Reverend persuasion of it. The Second is, light of Nature: and this shows us how necessary such a revealed Learning is, and that no other way it can be had: Nay more, that all proofs brought against any point of faith, neither are nor can be Demonstrations, but Soluble Arguments. 
Most notorious blaspheming against the Holy-Ghost, making him the Author of falsehood.  The Third is, The light of the Text itself: in Conversing wherewith we meet with the Spirit of God inwardly inclining our hearts, and sealing the full Assurance of the sufficiency of all three unto us, And then and not before we are certain that the Scripture is the word of God both by Divine and by Infallible proof. But our Certainty is by Faith and so voluntary, not by Knowledge of such Principles, as in the light of nature can enforce Assent whether we will or no.  
P First here, you make the manner of the way and order of belief of God, and of the Scripture to be one and the same So as belief of Scripture to be God's word must first be induced by the Tradition of the present Church, else it wants credit: so belief of God to be God must be in like manner and order induced; else that's without credit too. This is just, as we applied Tertullia's Speech before concerning the Roman Senate, which would not allow Christ to be admitted and inrowled in the Catalogue of their God's a● Caesar's motion, because, according to a Decree of the Senate, it had not first moved it, as the Prime inducing cause, whereupon Tertullian saith, Ergo nisi homini placuerit, ●eus non erit Deus, Therefore unless it shall please man, GOD shall not be GOD. So by your Doctrine here: God shall not be believed to be God, unless it come in by the door of the present Church's Tradition, as the sole necessary prime inducer of it. How did men believed God to be God, before this new Doctrine of yours came in to lead them the way? was all the world then drowned in a Deluge of Atheism and Infidelity? so it seems, Till this light of your present Church Tradition shined in the world, it was all as tha● 
* Exod. 10.  Egyptian palpable darkness, all men sitting all that time, and not stirring one foot to any degree of belief, that GOD was GOD.  
But come we to your 3 Grounds, wherein you sum up all the Totall of all this tedious Discourse in this Section. The First is, The Tradition of the Church that's ever presupposed, as a Prime principle, having the Precedency before that other Principle, that Scripture is that word of God; as before. Well, what doth this Tradition? It leads us (say you) to a Reverend persuasion of the Scripture. This is a fair inducement. And without this, no Reverend persuasion of the Scripture can be had. Thus the Scripture must be beholden to your Tradition for a Reverend persuasion of it. And who will not have a Reverend persuasion of that, which the most Reverend Father in God commends as LAUD- able? Well, let this suffice for that.  
The Second is the light of Nature. Well; and what office hath that? It shows us how necessary such a revealed learning is, and that no other way it can be had. But your Revealed Learning here is somewhat obscure; we cannot well tell, whether you mean this your Revealed learning of this your present Church-Tradition concerning belief of Scripture; or the Scripture itself. But be it either, or both, all is one, we do not much stand upon it. Let it be the Scripture believed to be God's word, by the first necessary Inducing cause, Tradition; as than which no other way can be had. This is then your Revealed learning, which the light of Nature shows us how necessary it is; How necessary it is, that the belief of Scripture to be the word of God; should be induced by Tradition, because no other way it can be had. Of Nature's light we have spoken before sufficiently. And one no●e more resulteth from your words here. And that is, That forasmuch as nature's light is altogether blind in spiritual things, and can no more judge of the Scriptures, than a blind man of Colours, nor discerneth any more light in the Scriptures, than a blind man doth light in the Sun, when it shineth at noon day▪ and Natures light judging all things according to her carnal sense; and having those things in greatest admiration 
‡ jude 16.  and highest esteem, which have the greatest and most glorious outward lustre, dazzling the eyes of her carnal mindedness: and there being nothing in the world, that carries with it a more glorious and glittering show in the eyes of carnal and natural men, than a Hierarch or Prelate Sitting in his Chair in his Pontificalibus, with all heads bore round about him in the Great Hall of his Princely Palace, and especially when he sits the supreme Judge in all those Causes brought into his Court: and all this glory is accumulated, and highly elevated in the light of Natural men's eyes, not only in respect of all the outward splendour of the Present Church: but because of an Instinct of nature in all men, concerning Religion and Piety, and the Service of God, which is ●ed and nourished with a great pretence and profession of holiness in th●se Right Reverend Fathers whose very bare Titles of most Reverend Fathers, stick a reverence into all such Naturalists hearts, as in children toward their Fathers, and much more to their Gh●stly Father; and which also is highly contented, and pleased with the variety of Ceremonies and Pompous Service, as most suitable and agreeable to nature's fancy, which knows no other Religion, but that which stands in these external things: And seeing this Tradition of the present Church, hath no testimony, ground, nor warrant for it in the Scripture, but is a thing merely usurped by the pride of Man: And seeing none are fitter Judges to pass their sentence, on Traditions side, than such as are blind, as Nature is in all spiritual things, only having a bare name of light, as a Candle going before her, whereby others may take notice of her; Therefore not without great reason do you take the light of Nature for a Second to your Church Tradition, as a fit consort, which will easily speak for you, whatsoever you desire, giving her blind testimony to confirm your blind Cause.  
And you add: Nay more, that all proofs brought against any point of Faith, neither are, nor can be Demonstrations, but Soluble Arguments. To wit, without your Church Tradition, as the Inference showeth. This is a pretty point in Divinity indeed, That the light of Nature is become a judge in points of Faith, whether the Arguments brought against it, be Demonstrative or no▪ But this s●ppery is so fully refelled before, that we need to say no more.  
We come now in the last place to your Third ground Which is the light of the Text itself: in conversing wherewith (you say) we meet with the Spirit of God, inwardly inclining our hearts, and sealing the full assurance of the sufficiency of all three unto us▪ We meet? Who? Surely you never met with this Spirit of God in your conversing with the Text itself: Which if you had, you would not have uttered such things Yet if this Third ground you had put single by itself, as the sole, excluding the former, it were true Divinity: but putting the two former before it, as necessary inducing causes to persuade the Scriptures sufficiency▪ you do thereby utterly overthrow it, as also that Spirit of God breathing in it, and inwardly inclining and persuading the heart to believe. For how come we to meet with the Spirit of God in our conversing with the Text, but because, conversing a ●ight by prayer and humility, we find it breathing and speaking unto us, in his own word and voice? For the Spirit is never separated from his word, as is showed before. Now if God's Spirit breath in the Scripture, and in our reading thereof, with a mind rightly disposed, we find the same speaking effectually unto us to the settling of our faith: is this spirit and word tied to any necessary dependence of any outward things, as without which it can have no operation? Doth not this spirit (as the 
* joh. 3.  wind, to which Christ Compares it) blow where it listeth? Can you by any art or invention cause the wind to blow? Doth not 
‡ Psal. job 35.  God bring it out of his Treasures?  
But your Conclusion is the foulest of all. For you say, this Spirit of God sealeth the full assurance of the sufficiency of all Three unto us. 
Belying and blaspheming the Holy spirit of God.  That is, First of your Church Tradition, as aforesaid. 2dly Of the light of Nature. And ●dly, and in the last place, of the Scripture. But you make the sufficiency of these 3 equal, and alike, Saving that you give your Church Tradition, and the light of Nature, the Precedency of the Scripture And in saying, that God's Spirit sealeth the sufficiency of those two, to wit, Church Tradition, and light of Nature, for the reason aforesaid, which are altogether insufficient, and are a mere lie, and falsehood, and have no ground nor warrant from Scripture: but are contrary thereto, and destroy the credit, authority, and sufficiency thereof. I must tell you that herein you do most impiously blaspheme the spirit of Truth, as if it were the Author, Approver, and ratifier of a lie.  
And you add: And then an not before, we are certain, that the▪ Scripture is the word of God, both by Divine and Infallible proof Here still you shut out from the Scripture all Self Authority, sufficiency▪ and Testimony to prove itself the word of God, not allowing it so much, as you do to Tradition, and the light of Nature; for these say you perform their offices sufficiently: but you have nothing to say for the Scripture, as if that had any thing at all to do, but to wait upon the good pleasure of Lady Tradition, and light of Nature, for their Commendation and approbation, and then, having their good words, this is sufficient, to bring in the Spirits testimony, to seal the sufficiency of all three; the Scriptures sufficiency being this, to be recommended by the other two▪ And then, and not before, we are certain that the Scripture is the word of God, both by Divine, and infallible proof; but not of the Scripture itself in any case.  
But (say you) our certainty is by Faith, and so voluntary, not by knowledge of such Principles, as in the light of Nature can enforce assurance, whether we will or no Why, what certainty can we have, but by Faith in Christ? But what mean you by voluntary? By your freewill? That which Luther calls Servum Arbitrium, servile Will, such as man's natural will is to Spiritual things. And surely this you mean by voluntary. For before you do so highly magnify the light of Nature, as being of such sufficiency, as we need not doubt of your good opinion of the Natural Will of man, having as much liberty in heavenly things, as light. Well; by Faith, and so voluntary, not by knowledge of such Principles, as in the light of Nature can enforce assent, whether we will or no. You spoke of such Principles before, which we answered; as also the forcing of assent. We come now to the close of the 16 th' Section.  
L p. 116. I have said thus much upon this great occasion, because this Argument is so much pressed 
* Notorious and gross hypocrisy, pretending respect to Scripture, when never any jesuit, did more vilify and nullify the Authority and credit of it. Detection of the Hypocrisy.  without due respect to Scripture. And I have proceeded in a synthetical way, to build up the Truth, for the benefit of the Church, and the Satisfaction of all men Christianly disposed. (And a little after) I labour for Edification, and not for Destruction.  
P. When I look back to the premises of this Argument, and now upon the conclusion: I cannot but stand amazed at two things: 1. Your notorious vilifying or rather nullifying the Authority, sufficiency, and Testimonies of the Scripture, to prove itself to be the word of God: and 2dly your egregious hypocrisy, here in the close of all, as if you had done all with due respect to Scripture. And how finely you would seem to put it off from yourself, but laying the blame upon others, as the Jesuits. As if you had taken all this pains to vindicate the Scripture from that Disrespect, which Jesuits ha●e of it, in their pleading for Church-Tradition. And yet do not you tell us before, that you go the same way with the Jesuits in advancing Church-Tradition; only you say, you go not so faare as they. And wherein, I pray you do you come short of them? They say, Scripture Authority, that it is the word of God, depends upon the Authority and Tradition 〈◊〉 of the Church: and you say, Scripture without Church-Tradition of no Credit, Authority, or sufficiency, to prove itself the word of God. Nay you go further: ●or, for all your Tradition, and the light of Nature, going before, yet not one word hath dropped from your pen, that Scripture (I say after all your preceding inducements) is sufficient of itself, to prove itself the word of God, but that still its Authority is precaria, at the good will of Tradition, and Authority of the present Church, whose sufficiency you prefer before the Scripture, in many respects, as hath been showed.  
And you have proceeded in this way (you say) Synthetically. What's that? That is (in the true E●imon of the word) by way of composition, or confederation with the Jesuit, to bring both the Churches to a reconciliation, by your mutual discrediting of the Scripture, as Herod and Pilate could not be made Friends, but in consenting to put Christ to death. And as Pilate gratified Herod, in sending Ch●ist bound unto him whereupon they became Friends: so you here ingratiate yourself with Rome, in sending her this Book (as I suppose it is there before this time) wherein you present her with the Scripture bound in the fetters of Tadition, which puts on your Synthesis or League, in a fair forwardness, the Foundation being already laid. For you say, It is to build up the Truth for the benefit of the Church. We have discovered before what the truth is you speak of through your Book; which is as much to say, as all that, wherein you agree with the Church of Rome as one and the same Church, for the benefit where of you have writ this Discourse to discredit the word of Truth. So as by your building up of Truth, is meant your pulling of it down with that hand, that wrote this Book. And for satisfaction of all men Christianly disposed: that is of a peaceable Disposition, and not perverse, peevish, and refractory, but willing to meet Rome at least in the half way. And (in a word) All your Labour is for Edification, not for Destruction. For Edification? Wherein? By rasing the Foundation of Faith, the Scripture, to build up the Tower of Babel again in England? And not for Destruction, but only of the Puritan Profession, and Religion and the power of Godliness, and the Purity of God's worship, and the sincere Preaching, and Preachers of the word of God, and in a word, in rooting out the precise party, where ever your Arm of flesh can reach them. This being your practice too well known, this must needs be your meaning and sense of these words of the Apostle, 
* 2▪ Cor. 10.8.  For Edification, and not for Destruction Which as you most wickedly pervert and abuse (as you 
‡ 2 Pet. 3.16.  do all other Scriptures)▪ to your false purposes; so in this respect it is a Conclusion not unsuitable to your whole Section, while thus you make the word of God of no Authority by your Traditions. 
Mat. 15.9.  And so here an end of this Section. But not an end of the prosecution of the same subject still: For it follows:  
L. p. 118. You see, neither Hooker, nor I, 
Sect. 18.  nor the Church of England (for aught I know) leave the Scripture alone, to manifest itself by the light, which it hath in itself. No: but when the present Church hath prepared and led the way, like a preparing morning light to Sunshine, than indeed we settle for our Direction, but not upon the first opening of the morning light, but upon the Sun itself.  
P. In the former Section (17.) consisting of one page, the Jesuit objecting your words, The Bishop said, That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed, and needed not to be proved: your Answer is, 
‡ A 〈…〉 or put off.  Did I say it needed no proof at all to a natural man? or to a man newly entering upon the Faith? yea or perhaps to a doubter, or weakling in the Faith? Can you think me so weak? I do but mention this by the way, as taking notice with what a pretty slight you put off your recantation of that speech. But the next passage will clear this more fully. Now this your Comparison of the morning light, let us clearly see how weak and improper it is for your purpose. For what is the morning light, but a beam, or beams of that Sun, which as children of the 
§ Psal. 19.5.  Bridegroom, do usher him out of his Chamber, signifying his near approach? These beams (I say) are of the very same nature of that light, which is in the body of the Sun, and do immediately issue and spring from it, enlightening the Sky, or that part of heaven above the Horizon, which beams or morning light, as the Sun advanceth nearer to his Rising 
† Prov. 4.18.  waxeth clearer and clearer unto the perfect day. But now the Authority of the present Church, which you compare to the morning light, is no such beam 
* Mal. 4.2.  of the Sun of Righteousness shining in the Scripture (as in his Sphere) as that it is of the same nature of the light of the Scripture. For the Scripture light is Divine and Infallible: but of Tradition you say, 
‡ Pag. 90.  I cannot find that the Tradition of the present Church is of Divine and Infallible Authority. Which if you could by all the light in the Sky at noon day, find, you would be no Churl in hiding it from the world or putting it under a bushel. But to hold you to the propriety of your Comparison, which at first blush shows as fair, as the first morning light: you may know, That the Sun makes the beams to shine, and not the beams the Sun: whereas you say, The Authority of the present Church, lights the Candle of Scriptures (which otherwise gives no light) and so makes it to shine. Again 2 2dly, The morning light is an Infallible Index, or immediate foregoing token of the approach of the Sun ri●●ng which it ushereth in: but you dare not say, yea you deny, that the present Church's Testimony or Authority, is infallible for the inducing of belief, that Scripture is the word of God. Thirdly, the morning light, so soon as ever it first peepeth, or dawneth, we say, and that truly, It is day: but an Infiel, or doubting or weak Christian, upon the first hearing of the testimony of the present Church, That the Scriptures are the word of God, is not so infallibly Convinced and persuaded, as therefore to believe it to be true. Fourthly, The morning light is alone a sufficient and infallible sign (as being an immediate effect, an essential quality issuing from the Sun) of its near rising: but you confess, that though your present Church Authority, be the Prime, yet it is not the Sole 
* Gnômon.  Index or finger, to point us out the Scripture to be the word of God; but you join with it sundry other helps, as before you tell us. Thus no way can we find your Comparison proper, or pertinent to your purpose, being as a blind Horse, that halts downright of a●l four. But this by way of application to the right purpose, I conclude out of it: That as the morning light which certainly and infallibly tells us of the approaching of the Sun rising, and which persuades every man, whose eyes are awake, of the truth thereof, is an immediate beam of that Sun, and of the same nature and quality of its native and essential light: So, that which is both Prime and Sole in leading us, Certainly and Infallibly to believe, that the Scripture is the word, yea and working also, and begetting this Faith in us, is the light or beam of the Scripture itself, displayed by the Ministry or Preaching of the Word, which is as the dawning of the day, or the 
‡ 2 Pet. 1.19.  Day Stars first arising in our hearts (as Peter speaks) by means whereof we come actually not only to believe (without any other external Cause) that Scripture is the word of God, but also to know and feel that the Sun of Righteousness hath now begun to shine in our hearts by the beam of his Spirit; the immediate forerunner of his rising unto the perfect Day.  
L. p. 120. A▪ C. Cannot but perceive by that which I have clearly laid down before, that when I said Scriptures were Principles, to be supposed I did not, I could not intend, they were prius cognita, known before Tradition, since I confess every where, that Tradition introduceth the knowledge of them.  
P. I do but name these your words (as before) being but an Inculcation and Confirmation of such things, as I have abundantly Confuted before. Only this I add. That if the Scripture be not before the Tradition or Authority of the present Church: whence hath the present Church this her Authority? and so whence her Testimony the Credit, to be of that absolute necessity to bring men to believe the Scripture to be the word of God? Must you not be forced to come into the same Circle, 
The Prelate in a Circle.  where a little before you found A.C. as to say (which yet you never went about to prove, to prevent the loss of your labour) the Scripture authoriseth Church-Tradition, and Church-Tradition necessarily introduceth belief of Scripture to be the word of God? But if you be in this Circle, there I leave you  
L. p. 121. This Principle then, The Scriptures are the Oracles of God, we cannot say is clear, and fully manifest to all men simply, and in selfe-light, for the reasons before given.  
P. The Reasons we have weighed and found them too light. But to all true believers, in Christ; This Principle, The Scriptures are the Oracles of God, is clear, and fully manifest, and that simply, and in selfe-light; For the reasons and proofs before given, and which all true Christians, and Saints of God Confess.  
L. ibid. Yet we say, After Tradition hath been our Introduction, the Soul that hath but ordinary Grace added to Reason, may discern light sufficient to resolve our Faith, that the Sun is there.  
P. As this so often repeated by you usque ad nauseam, as cram bis cocta, Coleworts twice boiled, and to no other purpose it seemeth, but to fill the empty belly of this your volume, and to make your present Church Authority swell the bigger with its ventosity, is but a repetion of the former: So I shall not need to repeat the Refutation. Only this: Do, or can you discern the Sun in the Scripture, by the light of your divine Candle, your Church Tradition; And hath it not so much shining light, or is it so overclouded or eclipsed with the black letters, as nothing but the Authority of the present Church, must in the first place put to her hand to withdraw the Curtain? Surely the Sun is so glorious in itself, as be it never so much clouded, yet that will show day above our heads if we do but look up.  
L. ibid. Now men may be apt to think out of Reverence that Divinity can have no Science above it. But your own School teacheth me, that it hath: namely, The knowledge of God, and of the blessed in heaven.  
P And truly, my Lord, how ever you account and Reverence Divinity: yet for my part, I do not only most highly reverence it, but conceive and believe the excellency of it to be so transcendent, as I hold there can be no Science above it. For what is Divinity in its native and proper Notion? Divinity in its proper Prime, and most sublime Notion, is the Deity, or Godhead it self: Theiòtes, signifying the Divinity or Deity, the derivation from ●eòs, GOD. This is the Prime Notion of this word Divinity. The second Notion of Divinity, is pan tò gnoston tou Theou, all which may be known of God, which being in God as the light in the Sun, comes to be made known unto us, as by so many beams shining partly (though in Comparison more obscurely) in his works, and partly (and that most clearly) in his word, and most gloriously in Christ the 
* Mal. 4.2.  Sun of Righteousness himself, 
‡ Heb. 1.3.  the brightness of his Glory, and the express Image of his Person, the very light of the Scripture, and so of his Church. And of this Divinity as Christ is the full pattern and perfect platform: so the Essence of the eternal Deity, and the subsistances of the 3 Persons in that one Godhead, together with all the glorious Attributes of God: but also the whole Mystery of Christ the Redeemer, comprehending and expressing whatsoever is necessary for us to know and believe for our Salvation. In which respect the Scripture may be called (and that most proproperly, as by a Title proper to it quarto modo) God's Divinity-Booke and his Church's Divinity-Schoole. So that in the Scripture we have a most perfect and Complete body of Divinity, of all Divinity, of whatsoever holy knowledge of God, and of Christ, and of ourselves, requisite to our Salvation, and the setting forth of the Glory of God. In which respect (unless a man will presume above that which is written) we may truly say, That Divinity being but one and the same, and Science thereof one, and the Rule of this Science but one all comprehended in the Scripture, That Divinity hath no Science above it. Yet your Lordship hath learned in the Jesuits, or Rome's School, (wherein it seems you have been more trained up then in Christ's School) That Divinity hath a Science above it. And what is that super-science, I pray you? The knowledge of God say you) and of the blessed in heaven. If you mean such a knowledge of God, and of the blessed in heaven, as is not revealed in the Scripture, I say, Quae supra nos, quid ad nos? And it is presumption to conceive of any other knowledge of God (fit for us to know) than what is revealed in the Scripture, wherein is declared the whole counsel of God, concerning his Glory, and our everlasting good. And for the knowledge of the blessed in heaven, If you mean of the blessed Angels, we may know as much of them as the Scripture hath made known unto us. But this knowledge is not a Science above Divinity. And if you mean the knowledge of the blessed Saints in heaven; it is the same with that of the Saints on earth, only Differing in Degrees of perfection. Or if you had meant the knowledge that is in God, and in the blessed in heaven, you should so have expressed it, In, and not, Of. But I think you speak of such a speculation, as is above the Sphere of our expression. Only something though it be de non ente, you must say, that we may take notice what a profound Proficient you are in Rome's School in teaching us such a sublime and hyperbolical Science, as is inexpressible in Babylon's language, and therefore the fitter to darken the lustre of that Divinity, which so gloriously shineth, and is so exactly set forth in the Scripture. But you have plentifully showed us, what Reverence you bear to this Divinity.  
L. p 122. (In the margin) I would fain know, why leaning too much upon Tradition, may not misled Christians, as well as it did the jews.  
P. 
* The Prelate self condemned.  And I would fain know why leaning so much upon Tradition of the present Church, as you do, might not be the Cause, that hath lead you so much to undervalue the Scriptures, and may not misled Christians, by teaching them as base an opinion of the whole Scripture, as the Jews have of the New Testament.  
L. p. 123. Even that Scripture of the old Testament was a light, and a shining light too: therefore could not but be sufficient, when Tradition had gone before.  
P. What, told you us but now of misleading the Jews, by leaning too much upon Tradition: and do you go about the same way to misled them (blind as they be) and to make them yet more blind, if possible, That you have gone to misled Christians? Do you tell the Jews now, that the old Testament is sufficient, when Tradition had gone before? So as without Tradition preceding, no sufficiency in the Book. I perceive you will not yet have done with your Tradition as without which nothing is done.  
L. p. 125. Certain it is that by humane Autthority, Consent, and proof, a man may be assured Infallibly, that the Scripture is the word of God, by an acquired habit of Faith: Cui non subest falsum, under which no error nor falsehood is: but he cannot be assured Infallibly by Divine Faith cui subesse non potest falsum, into which no falsehood can come, but a Divine Testimony. (And a little after, If you speak of Assurance only in General, I must then tell you a man may be assured, nay Infallibly assured, by Ecclesiastical and humane proof. Men that never saw Rome, may be sure, and infallibly believe, that such a City there is by Historical and acquired Faith.  
P. Although you use here a School Distinction, Cui non subest falsum, & cui non potest subesse falsum: Of Faith Historical, and Faith Divine: Assurance general, and Assurance particular: yet in truth in the upshot it will appear you speak very Confusedly, as in the Babylonish Dialect or Phrase. For first you attribute Infallibility to your acquired habit of Faith, wherein is no falsehood, which habit of Faith you oppose to Divine Faith, wherein no falsehood can be: whereas Infallibility, in its genuine, or Gramaticall sense importeth impossibility of Error or falsehood. For infallible is that which is not subject unto error, which cannot be deceived. So as you do (under correction) very much mistake in applying your School distinctions, Non subest, & non potest, to Infalliblity. I remember indeed that the Schoolmen apply this Distinction to Faith. Cui non subest, & cui non potest subesse falsum: but never to Infalliblity, for that is always such, Cui non potest subesse falsum, which cannot be deceived. Look a little better in your Schoolmen, and I believe you will find it so, as I say. Secondly, while you would seem to put a Difference between your acquired habit of Faith, which you express and instruct to be Historical and Divine Faith, which you say is only, to believe the Scripture to be the word of God: you do bring both ends together, making your Acquired Faith, and Divine Faith one and the same kind, both Historical. Only Historical Faith may differ respectively to the object, Humane or Divine: For it is an Historical Faith that believes there is such a City as Rome, in which respect it may be called Historical Faith humane: and it is an Historical Faith that believes the Scriptures to be the word of God, in which respect it may be called Historical Faith Divine. Divine I say, respectively to the object; but being in kind the same Historical Faith with the other, whose object is humane. And you tell us before, that ordinary Grace and a moral persuasion, upon the necessary previous Authority and Tradition of the present Church, works this your Divine Faith. All which reacheth no further, but to an Historical Faith▪ call it what you will, acquired, or divine. And your building this your Faith upon the Rise of humane Authority, and moral persuasion (how ever you use the ingredience of ordinary Grace by naming of it) yet you are not able to say whether this Historical Faith, be an habit infused or acquired, though you never so much daub it over with Divine. Only thus you give us occasion to take notice, what an acute School-Divine you are, at least so far as a distinction or two will go, which rather confound then distinguish. But admit you could demonstrate, and make it plain unto us, that your ordinary Grace, what ever it is, and a moral persuasion puts a special difference between your Divine Faith, and Historical: yet to what purpose, will all this prove? May not both these Faiths be found in wicked men, and Reprobates, however distinguished by divine ordinary Grace, and the like? The Schools have a known Distinction much more proper and sensible, and agreeable to the tru●h of Scripture, than those you bring, and so apply For speaking of the Difference between ordinary common Graces, and those peculiar to the Elect, they call the first, Gratia gratis data, Grace freely given, meaning Ministerial Graces, which God freely gives, as well to the wicked as to the godly; he gave as Royal Karísmata, or Graces to Saul, as to David; and Apostolical Graces as well to judas, as to Peter. And this Grace, Thus freely given is grounded on those words of Christ, freely you have received freely give. But that peculiar Grace, which God freely gives too, but only to his Elect, is distinguished from the other, being called Gratia gratum faciens, Grace making us acceptable unto God; according to that of the Apostle 
* Ephes. 1.2.5.6.  According as he hath chosen us in him, etc. having predestinated us, etc. To the praise of the Glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the Beloved. Or that, 
‡ Rom. 3.24.  Being justified freely by his grace, etc. Now ordinary and Common Grace, being freely given of God, to whom he will good or bad, depends not upon humane Authority, as a necessary inducing Cause. Yet you make your present Church Authority, which is but humane, a necessary previous Cause to ordinary Grace, whereby your Historical or Divine Faith (as you call it) is wrought in believing the Scripture to be word of God; and so what ever fair terms you gild this Faith withal, it willbe found no better than either merely humane, or at least common unto the wicked and Reprobate, which for all this your Divine Faith go to hell: and then the difference is not so great between your Historical and Divine Faith (which you keep such a puzzle about) but that a man may without any great hazard wink and choose.  
Ob. But you tell us before, That ordinarily the Scriptures must have Tradition to go before. Therefore, that you place not an absolute necessity in it. Ordinarily? So you once say indeed. But so, as withal it must be absolutely necessary. For you make all other means of this belief to be deficient, without your Church-Tradition leading the way. As for the Scriptures, those have not light sufficient for themselves, and are as a candle that must first be lighted, before it can give light, and that is, by Church Authority. As for the holy Holy Ghost that works not this Faith but by an ordinary Grace, and this Ordinary Grace hath no force at all, unless the present Church's Authority prepare the way. So as this, Ordinarily, of yours, admits of no exception at all, in any case, though never so extraordinary. And thus you exclude that your Divine Faith, as it is a work of ordinary Grace (as you call it) from being any Grace of God at all, except Grace of Canterbury can dub it for a Grace. For all Grace is one of those two kinds, I named even now: either that Grace of God, which makes a man freely accepted in Christ, which your Ordinary Grace by your own Confession doth not: or that common Grace, which is said to be freely given of God to whom he will▪ without the intervention or prevention of any outward means or respect; which your ordinary Graces cannot be: for yourself every where profess, that no ordinary Grace, nor any thing else can work belief, that the Scripture is the word of God, unless your present Church Authority, tanquam Gratia preparans ac praeveniens, as a preparing and preventing Grace, prepare the way. And thus you see to what a Confusion all your School Distinctions are brought. And in truth your School Distinctions for the most part, being weighed in the just balance of the Sanctuary, prove too light, and do corrupt the truth For even that Distinction which I named, of Gratia gratis data, & Gratia gratum faciens, though the terms are good and true: yet as some apply the latter, to wit, Grace making acceptable, it is corrupt. As when by that Grace they understand Faith, Hope, and Charity, which being infused into the soul, a●e the matter (say they) of justification, and of our acceptation with God Now in this sense this member of the Distinction holds not good▪ but is Popish. For Faith only is that Grace, which makes us accepted of God, but this, not as it is a work, or Grace inherent, but as an Instrument apprehending and applying Christ, in whom alone we are through Faith accepted of GOD, who 
* Ephes. 1.6.  make● us accepted in the beloved▪ So as he that will find any good and sound Distinction out of the Schoolmen, he must do as Virgil said of his reading of Ennius, Margaritas è caeno legere, gather pearls out of the mud: and he must look to have them well washed, and polished, and tried by the Scriptures, before he use them to illustrate or confirm any Doctrine of sound Divinity. This by the way.  
L. p. 226. The time was, before this A. miserable rent in the Church of Christ (which I B think no Christian can look upon, but with a bleeding heart) that C you and we were all of one belief. D That belief was tainted in Tract and Corruption of time, very deeply. A division was made: yet so, as E both parties held the Creed, and other Common Principles of belief. Of these, this was one of the greatest, That the Scripture is the word of God. For our belief of all things contained in it, depends upon it. Since F this Division, there hath been nothing done by us▪ to discredit this Principle. Nay we have given it G all honour, and ascribed unto it more sufficiency, even to the containing of all things necessary to Salvation, with satis superque, 
* Blasphemous lie  enough and more then enough, which yourselves have not done, do not. H And for begetting and settling a belief of this Principle, we go the same way with you, and a better besides. The same way with you, because we allow the Tradition of the present Church to be the first inducing motive to embrace this Principle: only we cannot go so far in this way, as you, 
‡ A subtle insinuation.  to make the present Tradition, I always an infallible word, of God unwritten.  
P. Here I Have Alphabetically, as by A, B, C. etc. noted sundry particulars. A That you call the Protestants separating from the Church of Rome, a miserable rent. Why miserable, when Christ Commands it? As Rev. 18.4. as is noted before, and shall yet more in a fit place. So as the Protestants had been in a miserable condition, if this separation, this rent had not been made. B 2dly, And must every Christian heart bleed to see it, because (it seems) yours doth? Surely this hath cost the heartblood of many thousands of God's Saints and Martyrs, shed and spilt by that blood drunken whore. Yet better so to perish, by her temporally here, then to perish with her eternally hereafter; which must have been, had not this miserable rent been made. C 3 3dly, But before this rent (say you) they and we were all of one belief. You may speak, for yourself, if you had lived before the rent was made. We doubt not, but both you would have been of the same Faith with Rome, and would have continued in it, so as for your part there should never have been made such a miserable rent. We know well, both your Faith, and your Charitable and Peaceable disposition for that matter. Yea though that one belief was tainted. That should have broken no square. For you say, D 4 lie, That belief, that (very one belief, whereof you and they then were, before the rent) was tainted, yea very deeply too. But I say still, speak for yourself, and your Confederates only; usurp not the name of all Protestants quorum tu pars minima▪ whereof you were the least part if any at all) that separated from Rome, whereof many, (before they came to be called Protestants, which was upon their protesting against the Whore of Babylon, and for their just and necessary separating from her) dissented from, and disliked, and (so far as the iniquity of the times, and humane frailty, and unavoidable necessity permitted) separated themselves privately at least from many of her most notorious and intolerable en ormites', and not a few in their several ages, wherein they lived, openly protested against her, both by writing and preaching, though it cost them their heartblood for it. You have at hand a Catalogue of them in Catalogus, Testium veritatis, and in the Book of Acts and Monuments, and other Authors, both foreign and domestic, and that of f●esh bleeding memory E 5 lie, You prove your Faith was then one for hol●ing the Creed, and other Common Principles of belief, of which one of the Greatest etc. Indeed before that rent, Rome professed and held the letter and external form of the Creed, but not the sense, faith, life, and substance, as elsewhere you confess of the present Church of Rome. Did you so then, so now? I doubt 'twill prove so, in a great measure. For though you tell us, that your belief of all things contained in the Creed, depends upon this principle, That Scripture is the word of God. (For that is the best sense can be made of your words) yet there be many, even fundamental Doctrines in Scripture which your belief depends not upon, 
A shameful lie.  nor your practices agree unto, as both before is touched, and occasion will be given yet more to speak of. F 6 lie, But since this Division (say you) nothing hath been done by you, to discredit this Principle, That the Scripture is the word of God. No? Nothing? Not, 
* Pag. 80.  when you say, The light which is in Scripture itself, is not bright enough, it cannot bear sufficient witness to itself? Not, when you say, 
‡ pag. 83, 84.  The Scripture is a light, but as a Candle that yields no light, till first it be lighted by Tradition of the present Church? Not, when you say, 
‡ pag. 77.  That Scripture to be the word of God, is not so demonstratively evident à priore, that is, of and by itself primarily, as to enforce assent? Not, when you say, 
§ pag. 86.  Such a full light we do neither say is, nor require to be in Scripture as is in Prime Principles, which carry a natural light with them? Is not this point blank against this Principle, That Scripture is the word of God? Not, when you say, 
* pag 87.  God doth not require a full Demonstrative Knowledge in us, that the Scripture is his word, and therefore in his Providence hath kindled in it no light for that? Not, when you say, That the Scripture cannot bear witness to itself, nor one part of it to another? And yet in all this, and much more, hath nothing been done by you to discredit this Principle, That Scripture is the word of God? Now let the Lord of the Scripture, whose Word it is, and all the Children of Truth be Judge in this matter against you.  
G. 7 lie, Yet you dare say more, that you have given it all honour, and ascribed unto it more sufficiency, 
Blasphemous lie▪  (as more than all) even to the containing of all things necessary unto Salvation, with satis superque, enough and more then enough. How? enough, and more then enough? What? A work of Superarogation? or superarrogancy, rather. Now fie for shame. Will no bounds of Sober Speech contain your lawless spirit, but that you must cast it in God's dish, That you had ascribed to his Word all honour, and more sufficiency, and more then enough? Had you yet turned Lyrinensis his word in the margin▪ superque, Abundantly, it had been both more agreeable to reason, and not less disagreeing with Grammar. Certainly it had become you of all other, to have qualified the construction of Satis superque, better considering what palpable hand and harsh language you have dashed the Credit of Gods most holy Bible withal. Extremes are not good. And your Hypocrisy here is too grossly counterfeited. Just as some Gentlewoman's bad face, for want of Art, is daubed so much with laying on of Colours, that it is ridiculous to every beholder. And how say you in the truth of your heart (were there any there) that the Scripture containeth all things, necessary to Salvation, when it doth not contain tha assertion of yours, That the Scripture is not known to be the word of God, but by the Authority and Tradition of the present Church? When yet this, That the Scripture is the word of God, is by your own express Confession, one of the greatest Principles of belief? H 8 lie, For your going the same way with the Jesuits, partly your whole Book, and partly all your practices do Satis superque, superabundantly witness. Only you say, 
* 〈◊〉. Subtle Insinuation detected 〈◊〉 vanity.  you cannot go so far in that way with them, to make the present Tradition, Always an Infallible word of God unwritten. No, not Always Infallible, I hope. Only sometimes perhaps Infallible, when you say the word of God. And if your present Tradition be not always an Infallible word of God unwritten: I pray you is it at any time an unwritten word of God? If it be then at such a time especially (when its Infallibility is in Season) is it not Infallible? For God's word is always Infallible, be it written, or when he speaks it from heaven. But when shall we see the time, when you will prove your present Tradition to be a word of God unwritten, or to have any Ground at all in written word of God, the Scripture? But if your present Church Tradition be not always infallible, but that sometimes at least it may deceive us, certainly I conceive our safest course willbe always to go immediately and directly the shortest Cut, to the Scripture itself, which I am sure, is always Infallible, and will never deceive us, and not at any time to depend upon your present Tradition, which is not always an Infallible word of God unwritten. But me thinks I hear you say, That you make not the present Tradition, An Infallible word of God unwritten. No not absolutely, not Always. We understand English. But if you could prove, This your present Tradition to be but sometimes an infallible word of God unwritten (in the use at least you put it to) it were no great Mastery to conclude it to be (in that case) Always an Infallible word of God unwritten; and so you should by this way of the Jesuits come full home to Rome. But I hope you will more clearly and fully express yourself in this grand point, when (to use your own words before) It shall fit Time and Place. 
Epistle Dedicatory.  In the mean time, if this be not the genuine sense, which I have picked, but not stolen (for the interpretation is Grammatical, and sensible) out of your words; then I confess, your meaning is more abstruse and mystical, then can be gathered from your manner of expression, your words having a tang of that 
* Gen. 11. Difference between Rome and the Prelate about Tradition.  confusion of tongues at the building of that old Tower. But the sum of it is, Here is the grand difference, between you and Rome: She makes her Tradition always a word of God unwritten unfallible, you, yours not Always: sometimes therefore; and so it is blasphemy.  
But at length (pag. 127.) the Lady calls you from the point of Church Tradition, to hear what you will say of the Church of Rome, whether you will Confess it to be the Right Church. And (saith the Jesuit) the Bishop granted that it was. Now if the Lady were not dead (as elsewhere you tell us) I should give her hearty thanks for being an occasion of delivering us out of this Purgatory-lake of your tedious, irksome, and endless Discourse of your present Tradition; wherein, otherwise, it is to be feared you lie so long, till you had been drowned in your own puddle, or burned up with your own hot zeal. But let us hear your Answer to the Jesuits relation of what you granted.  
L. p. 128. There is a great deal of difference between The Church, and A Church: and some, between a True Church, and a Right Church. For the Church may import in our language The only True Church, and perhaps the root and ground of the Catholic. And this I never did grant of the Roman Church, nor never mean to do. But A Church can imply no more, then that it is a member of the whole. And this I never did, nor never will deny, if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church I granted also; but not a Right as you imposed upon me, So as, No Right, that is No Orthodox Church at Rome. And yet no news it is, that I granted the Roman Church to be a true Church. For so much very learned Protestants have acknowledged before me; and the Truth cannot deny it. For that Church which receives the Scripture, as the Rule of Faith, though but as a partial and imperfect Rule; and both the Sacraments as instrumental Causes, and seals of Grace, though they add more, and infuse these; yet cannot but be a True Church in Essence. How it is in manners and Doctrine, I would you would lo●ke to it with a single eye.  
P. Not Right then, not Orthodox, you hold the Church of Rome to be, That's something yet. Yet True, you ever have and will hold her to be, unless she absolutely fall away from the Faith. Well. And yet I wot well, you give absolutely falling away from the Faith. So large bounds, as it is to be feared, you will never come to give her for absolutely gone, and fallen away from the Faith, so long as she can have, but one bare thread or rag of the profession of the Faith of the Creed; nay if she can but say over her Creed, though (as you Confess elsewhere) she hath quite overthrown the sense of it. And if the sense of it be destroyed, surely the Faith of it also. This will more fully appear as we go along. We come to your Reasons why you hold Rome a True Church.  
1. For very learned Protestants, which hold with you in this: First, we can set both as learned, and double the number of of Protestants, who will weigh down the Scale against those, that seem to be of your opinion. Secondly, we could out of those very Protestant Authors, whom you mean (though I suppose you seldom read such Authors, and in other things scarce name them Honoris causa) collect more against this opinion, That the Church of Rome is a true Church, than you can for it. As out of junius himself, for Instance. I mentioned before a la●e Book, entitled, Babel no Bethel, never yet answered by any Jesuit, or other Priest Romish, or English, where the Author hath cleared all, or most of those Protestants, which his Adversaries alleged, and I suppose you mean, from this opinion of yours. And then also the Author proves by many concluding Arguments (and in my opinion unanswerable) that the Church of Rome is no true visible Church of Christ, as having lost the very Essence of a true Church. To which Book I refer your Lordship, could your patience but brook the Author's name, or your Conscience not tremble at the mention of him.  
To your Second Reason: First, I deny that the Church of Rome receives the Scriptures as A Rule of Faith For first, The Rule of Faith must be in itself simply Divine and Infallible. But such to the Church of Rome the Scripture is not. For she makes the Infallibility and Divine Authority of the Scripture to depend upon the Church, as you do upon Church Tradition, which you confess to be not simply Divine and Infallible. Ergo Rome receives not the Scripture as A Rule of Faith. Secondly, Rome receives not, holds not The Rule of Faith: Ergo she is not a true Church; As the late Dr Carleton of Chichester in his Book of the Church hath well and learnedly proved: For not to hold the Rule of Faith, is to deny and destroy the Faith, and to fall absolutely away from the Foundation of Faith, and to set up a new and false Faith, upon a new and false Foundation. Nor dare, or do you say, that Rome receives the Scripture as The Rule of Faith, but only as A Rule of Faith, to wit, a partial Rule, as Bellarmine calls it. But if the Scripture be (as it is) The only Rule of Faith, and ever hath been in all ages so held, till Rome in the Council of Trent changed this Rule: than not to hold it so, for The Rule, that is, the only Rule, but only as a partial Rule, joined with other Rules equal to it, as her Traditions, which Bellarmine in his Book de verbo Dei non scripto, calls the word of God unwritten: is to reject the only Rule, and so to fall absolutely away from the Faith. And you confess, that the Church of Rome holds the Scripture but as a partial and imperfect Rule. And is this nothing with you? What is this, but to evacuate and utterly make void the Rule, when for a perfect entire and absolute only Rule, it is made but a partial, imperfect, and joint Rule? And when humane Authority is equalled with Divine: Humane Traditions with Divine Scriptures, as an equal Rule of Faith? Nay, and those her Traditions, which she calls her word of God unwritten, are such as teach things directly contrary to the Doctrines of Scripture, as of Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, and the like. Is not this, a'kurosai as Christ saith, to make void and of no Authority the Commandments of God by men's Tradition? Yet this Camel you can easily swallow, you slight this over, as a matter of nothing: as if it were all one thing in a manner to hold the Scripture The Rule of Faith, and A Rule of Faith, namely a part or piece of the Rule: The whole Rule, and a partial Rule: The only perfect Rule, and An imperfect Rule. All this breaks no squares with you, but that Rome for all this, holds the Rule of Faith, and therefore you hold her for a true Church of Christ. But yet in so saying, you plainly imply, That if Rome held not the Rule of Faith, she is no true Church of Christ, but is absolutely fallen away from Christ the Foundation. For you give this for a Reason, that Rome is a true Church because she holds the Rule of Faith. Ergo If she hold not the Rule of Faith, she is no true Church of Christ, but is absolutely fallen away from the Faith. Whereupon I argue thus:  

That Church, which denyeth the Scripture to be the only Entire, Absolute, perfect Rule of Faith, 
Major▪  is fallen absolutely away from Christ, and so ceaseth to be a true Church, that is, to have the very Essence and being of a true Church of Christ:  
But the Church of Rome denyeth the Scripture to be the only, Entire, Absolute, Perfect Rule of Faith: 
Minor.   
Ergo the Church of Rome is absoluely fallen away from Christ, and so ceaseth to be a true Church, that is, 
Conclus●●●▪  to have the very Essence and being of a true Church of Christ.   
The Minor Proposition is confessed by your Lordship, For you say, The Church of Rome holds the Scripture, but as A Rule, a Partial Rule, an Imperfect Rule. Thus she denyeth the Scripture to be the only, Entire, Absolute, Perfect Rule of Faith. And for the Major Proposition, you do by necessary Consequence confess it also to be true. For you set it down as a Reason, why you hold the Church of Rome to be a true Church, because she holds the Rule of Faith, the Scripture: Implying, that to hold the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith, is one special note of A true Church. But now you confess again that Rome holds not this Rule, but as a partial and imperfect Rule. And therefore denying this Rule of Faith, she ceaseth to be a pure Church of Christ, And (which is the more) this the Church of Rome doth ex professo & solemni Decreto, professedly and by solemn Decrees, ratified as irrefragable, and that under Anathema to be received of all. And this is far more than to do it by Practice only. And yet in Practice to destroy, and overthrow, but only some special Doctrines of Scripture, though otherwise the Scripture be professed, and confessed, in this or that particular Church, to be the entire and only Rule of Faith: is de facto to disclaim the whole Scripture, and to unmake it the perfect Rule of Faith: and so thereby, such a Church, possessing such and such Errors, as are Fundamental, that is, against the Foundation, is fallen from Christ: as hath been formerly proved. Now if but any one part of Scripture, in this or that Doctrine of Christ, be overthrown, so as therein it is not made the Rule of Faith; and this overthrowing such Doctrines being once professed and maintained generally, in any one particular Church, makes that Church to cease to be a true Church of Christ, as not holding the Scripture entirely, but professedly overthrowing it in such and such particulars: then how much more the Church of Rome, professing and maintaining gumne kephale, with a whore's forehead, that the holy Scripture is not the only Rule of Faith, entire and perfect, but partial and imperfect (as your Lordship confesseth) doth thereby proclaim herself to all the world, to be fallen away absolutely from Christ, and so ceaseth to be a true Church of God. And denying the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith, she denyeth the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: and so is fallen quite from the Foundation.  
Nor only thus by Addition of another Rule, doth the Church of Rome overthrow the only Rule of Faith, the Scriptures: but also by denying the self Authority of them; as also you do; and withal, by tying the sense of Scripture to the interpretation of the Church, as also you do; at least in difficult places; and by holding and maintaining false Doctrines, against the Scriptures, which overthrow Christ, and wherein they will not be regulated by the Scriptures; as you also do, in your Altars, and forbidding the Doctrines of Grace to be Preached, and other things: which if the Church of England hold with the Church of Rome, and with you, you and both your Churches are fallen absolutely from Christ, and so cease to be true Churches of God. As also your very Hierarchy makes you to be no true Church of Christ, were there nothing else; as before is sufficiently proved. And if you desire any further proof, that the Church of Rome is no true Church of Christ; I still refer you to the forementioned Book, Babel no Bethel. And though you suppressed the Book, yet ten to one, but one of your Hounds will hunt it out for you.  
Next, for the Sacraments: which is your second Reason: you say, The Church of Rome holds both the Sacraments as instrumental Causes and Seals of Grace, though they add more, and misuse these: Ergo she cannot but be a true Church in Essence. For Answer: First, she holds them not absolutely to be Sacraments, but dependently upon the Priest's intention; which you mention elsewhere. And so hath the Council of Trent defined, of the Sacraments: so Vega: so Bellarmine. Secondly, if she be sure the Priest's intention be not wanting, or going a woolgathering in his Consesecration, than she makes the Sacraments to be, not Instrumental Causes of Graces, but aitia kúria, Principal and efficient working causes of Grace, ex opere operato, as they barbarously speak, by the immediate virtue of the work wrought. So the Council of Trent also. So as they shut out the Holy Ghost from this work, as the Principal Efficient worker and sealer of Grace. Thirdly, For Baptism, which you make to be an Infallible Mark of that Church to be Christian, besides their infinite corruptions of the Element of water, (which the Apostle calleth pure water) with their spittle, salt, cream, exorcisms, or conjurations of the Devils insultations, and the like, they hang the very being, not only the virtue, of this Sacrament, upon the Priest's intention, which intention of the Priest is so uncertain, as Vega (one of the prime Sticklers in the Council of Trent, as aforesaid, in his Book upon the Council of Trent, especially the sixth Session, where he treateth of certainty of Faith, in justification, Confesseth, that there can be no certainty of Salvation to a man, because he cannot be certain, whether he hath true Baptism or no; and that in regard of the Priest's intention, whereof he cannot be certain: So as by this their own Doctrine, no one Papist can be sure, that he is a Christian: and so consequently, neither can all the members of that Church severally, nor conjunctly the whole Body itself, be sure whether they, or it be Christian or no▪ and so the Church of Rome, upon this very ground, cannot resolve certainly, whether she be a Church of Christ or no; unless your Testimony will help her out at a dead lift. And that not only in regard of the Priest's intention in the Sacrament of Baptism, but also in their Additionall Sacrament of Orders, one of these more, which they have added to the two. So as for default of the Pope's intention in ordering of Prelates, or of the Prelate's invention in ordering one another, and in ordering of Priests, and of Priest's intention, in Consecrating their Sacrament of Baptism (as themselves, Vega and others, do argue the case) they are all put to the stagger, whether they have in that Church either Priesthood, or Sacraments. For all hangs upon that weak pin, or hair, of the Priest's intention. So as another of their Primipili, a Standard-bearer▪ of the Dominicans, in the same Council, Dominicus Soto forementioned) in his Book de natura & gratia, saith, that, Deus in potestate Sacerdotis posuit Populi salutem, GOD hath put the people's Salvation in the Priest's power. Now all this considered, and withal, the time, when this was made a Decree, in the Council of Trent, a matter of 100 years ago, and when it was but new, and the Pope and Prelates, and Priests could not perhaps, of a good while learn their lesson perfectly, and so get a habit of it, but that in all their Consecration of Prelates, and Priests, still intention was to seek, and where it breaks off, as in the Pope and Prelates, in their Consecration of Orders, there follows a mere nullity in succession of the whole Generation of Priests downwards, and so through that whole body no Priesthood now, no Sacraments: what evidence can the Church of Rome now give us, or what assurance can she have (besides the bare name) That she is still a Christian Church? Only Vega helps it, aswell as he can, That in reason and Charity men are not to think, that the Priest should be so careless at the Consecration▪ as not to look to his Intention, upon which the Salvation of all men● souls dependeth.  
Fourthly for the Sacrament of the Eucharist, or of the Altar, as they call it: First this is in the same Predicament with Baptism, for the Priest's intention, which if not present, at the Consecration of the Host (as they call it) there is no Transubstantiation, no body of Christ, and so they worship, a wafer instead of Christ, and so by their own Confession, in that case they commit material Idolatry, as a 
* Sweet.  Jesuit confessed in Dispute with Dr Featly. But Secondly, by the very name of Sacrament of the Altar, they destroy the Sacrament that Christ ordained in his last Supper, called therefore 
‡ 1 Cor. 11.20.  the Supper of the Lord. For they have turned it from a Supper, to a sacrifice, yea and that from an Eucharistical sacrifice (as the Fathers called it) to a Propitiatory sacrifice, for the sins of quick and dead; as is noted before. And so this Sacrament they have Non sacramented, and made of it a whole burnt sacrifice. Secondly, they have utterly destroyed the materials, or Element in this their Sacrament, the bread and wine, that no ma● should so much as dream, or once take it for the Lords Supper. For a Supper cannot be without bread and drink: and he●e is neither. And so it is neither Supper nor Sacrament. And thus they have taken away, no● only the cup from the people, but the bread also, altogether. So as there is nothing in their Sacrament but a mere lie, mere imaginations, Phantasms of Accidents without subject; as we said before. And so enough of this.  
And lastly, the Church of Rome having disannulled the Sacraments of Grace, it hath withal disabled them from being seals of Grace. For it is the property of a seal to give a sure and certain Impression, and thereby a Confirmation of the Covenant. But in Popish Sacraments all certainty is taken away, as is showed; and so having lost the seals, consequently the Covenant of Grace itself is of no force unto them. And thus, in denying the two Testaments to be the only rule of Faith, and overthrowing the two Sacraments the seals of Faith; yea having lost and disclaimed the true Saving Faith itself: what evidence hath Rome left her to show and prove, that she is now a true Church of Christ, or hath the Essence of a true Church? Let her show her evidence. As he said, 
* jugd. 6.32▪  Let Baal, if he be a god, plead for himself. Yet all this is of no Force to your Lordship, but that, like Ixion embracing a cloud for juno (as it is in that Fable) so you embrace but a cloud, or rather the shadow of a cloud, instead of the once fair Virgin Rome; you must needs have her a true Church still. She only (say you) misuses the two Sacraments. A small trivial trifle, to speak of. Misusing then, is nothing with you. What say you then to those wicked Princes and Priests of Israel 
‡ 2 Chron. 3●▪ 16.  that misused the Lords Prophets? Was this nothing? They so misused them, that they stoned them to death. And so the Church of Rome hath so misused the two Sacraments that they have stoned them them to death, and left not one alive: But they have made amends for it. For (say you) they have added more, even no less than five, which are as the five wounds, wherewith the Lord was crucified to death. For those five have eaten out the other two of Christ's own ordaining, both expressing his death, the one for 
‡ Rom. ●▪  engrafting us into it, the other for growth and strength by it, as our spiritual food. And these five Sacraments foe humane invention, they must have their virtue of conferring Grace ex opere operato, being all, as they use them, a mere evacuating of Christ's me it's. But time permits not a longer discourse of them. Enough is said for Answer. And for Conclusion, the Church of Rome having taken away the Authority of Scripture, and added her own Traditions: and having taken away and misused the Lords Sacraments, and added their own Sacraments: what remains to that Church but that which the Divine john Concludeth the whole Bible withal? I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the Prophecy of this Book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book: And if any man shall take away from the Book of this Prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of life, and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this Book. Out of the Holy City, which is the Church of Christ. Here then, in this holy City, is no place for the Church of Rome.  
L. p. 131.132▪ The Church of Rome both was, and was not, a right, or Orthodox Church, before Luther made a breach from it. For in the Primitive times of it, it was a most right and Orthodox Church: but upon the immediate times before Luther, or some Ages before that, Rome was a corrupt and tainted Church, far from being right. And 
* A Privy Nip.  yet both these times before Luther made his breach.  
P. The Conclusion then of your speech here is this, That Luther made his breach from the Church of Rome, not only as it was Corrupt and tainted immediately, or in some Ages before, but also as it was right and Orthodox in her Primitive Times. For you say, And yet both these times before Luther (as well those wherein the Church of Rome, was most right and Orthodox, as those wherein after, before Luther it was corrupt and tainted) made his breach. And thus you make the rent on the Protestant party, to be not only from the corrupt and tainted Church of Rome, but from the most Right and Orthodox Church of Christ. A pestilent speech, bewraying the speaker to be in the very 
Act. 8.23.  gall of bitterness▪ and in the bond of iniquity, and worhty to be abhorred and abandoned of all that bear the name of Protestants. But this agreeth with that which we noted before, how you exclude all the Protestant Reform Churches, beyond the Seas (where your Prelacy and Hierarchy is not erected, nor my Lord Bishop's Chair allowed) from being any Churches of Christ, or members of the true Catholic Church. For here also in Luther's rent from the Church of Rome) not only as corrupt and tainted, but as once Right and Orthodox) you include all those Reformed present Churches, and to exclude them out of the true Church of Christ. But as before we have showed and proved, and shall yet more upon fit occasion ministered, upon the same cause, for which you exclude all Reformed Protestant Churches beyond the Seas from being Churches of Christ, because they are separated from the Church of Rome, and from all Prelacy and Hierarchy: we do exclude you, and Rome, with your Prelatical and hierarchical Churches, and Government Ecclesiastical, from being any true Churches of jesus Christ. And whereas you say, Rome was once Right and Orthodox; 'tis true that in Paul's time the faith of those Christian Romans was famous throughout the world; and so it might continue pure for a time after: but when once the Prelacy and Hierarchy of Rome, and that but within Rome's Diocese, was erected, it became, Ipso facto, Antichristian: and after when the Bishop of Rome became supreme over all Christendom, than it was the Church of Antichrist, from which it is necessary for all true Christians to make a perpetual Separation.  
L. p. 133. The Roman Church which was once Right, is now become wrong, by embracing superstition and error.  
P. Such is your stile, to touch that delicate Woman tenderly, as saying, She is now wrong by embracing superstition and error. But not by defiling herself with abominable Idolatries. This you never once charge her with in all your Book: as we shall see more at after. And only error, as, humanum est errare: but you never tell her of her Heresies, and Apostasy from Christ, and her Doctrines of Devils. Beware of that. You have therefore put me to the greater pains in dealing plainly both with her and you.  
L. ibid. 'Tis too true indeed, that there is a miserable rent in the Church, and I make no question, but the best men do most bemoan it, nor is he a Christian, that would not have unity, might he have it with Truth.  
P. You are often putting your finger into this scar, or rend. An Argument it pains you, because ubi dolour, ibi digitus. And I am persuaded, the more you put your finger in it, the wider you will make it. And certainly those that are indeed the best men are so far from bemoaning such a rent, as they rejoice in it (the cause considered) as in their glory and safety. And such Christians as have the greatest wisdom tempered with their goodness, do see such an Impossibility of Reconciliation with Rome, that they account it the greatest folly in the world, once to dream of such an unity, as is coupled with a condition of Truth, I mean Truth indeed, not such a Truth as you mean there, where nothing but superstition and error, Idolatry and Infidelity, Hypocrisy and Iniquity, Ambition and Avarice, Pomp and Pleasure, are the only supporters of Peter's Infallible (but counterfeit) Chair. Unless you mean (as you must do) those good men, which are your Confederates in your Idolatrous Altars, and other Superstitions and Idolatries, halting between two opinions. God and Baal, and have already one foot over Rome's thresholds accounting themselves with your Church of England, one and the same Church with Rome, as two branches of the same tree; as two Sisters of the same venture, ready to salute each other with the kiss of amity and unity, as 
* 1 King. 20.  A●ab did his Brother B●nh●da●: then much may be; what should hinder your unity? And for your Truth (as we said before) we know very well what it is: Rome will not want for that, which you call Truth.  
L. ibid. But I never said, nor thought, that the Protestants made this rent.  
P. I pray you do you think, as you speak? But admit it▪ Why should you think so? Or why are you so zealous, in making such an Apology, which true Protestants indeed will never thank you for. But you are such a Protestant, as I dare say would not have been the first, that should have made the rent; no nor the hindmost neither, so firm you are for peace. But I noted before a necessity of Separation to be made by the Protestants from Rome, as Christ admonisheth, Rev. 18.4. Come out of her my people, etc.  
L. p. 135. He must leave my words to myself, and their sense either to me, or to the genuine construction, which an Ingenious Reader, can make of them.  
P. 'Twere well, If you would observe the same Law yourself to others, Than you would not so frequently as you do 
‡ Isa. 29.21.  make a poor Minister an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought▪ as the Prophet speaks.  
L. ibid. The Protestants did not get that name, by protesting against the Church of Rome, but by protesting (and that when nothing else would serve) against her errors and superstitions. Do you but remove them from the Church of Rome, and our Protestation is ended, and the Separation too.  
P. Yes, by protesting against the very Church of Rome, got they, and that deservedly the name of Protestants. For were not those errors and superstions you speak of, yea and Antichristianisme, and abominable Idolatries, and universal Apostasy; become the very body and soul of the Religion faith, and practise of that Church? Was not your Dalilah, the Church of Rome, become that Harlot, and Mother of whoredoms, and all abominations, before the Separation and rent was made? Could they then protest against her corruptions, and not withal against herself? Were not all her corruption: so incorporated unto her, as they were altogether inseparable from her, like the 
* jer. 13.23▪  Blackamoors skin, or the Leopard's spots, which cannot be changed? And do not you confess, that they protested against her Corruptions, when nothing else would serve, when there was no remedy left, when she was grown incorrigible, So as they might have said, as in the Prophet, 
‡ jer. 51.9▪  we would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed▪ Forsake her and let us go every one into his own Country: for her judgement reacheth unto heaven, and is lifted up even to the Skies. It applies itself. And my Lord, you speak too late, and in vain to A.C. to remove Rome's errors and superstition: A C. is not of the Faith, to remove such mountains. He cannot w●sh the Blackmore white. You must procure such a General Council, as is at least equal to that of Trent, to reverse all those Decrees, whereby all Rome's superstitions and errors are so ratified, as England will sooner hear of a Parliament for Reformation, than Rome will endure the thoughts of any more General Counsels, to question or meddle with her Trent Decrees. Rome is now settled upon her lees, and you shall sooner remove the City of Rome itself from her muddy Tiber, than the Church of Rome from her superstitions. Nor is the black skin more conaturall to the Ethiopian, nor spots to the Leopard, than Idolatry, Superstition, Infidelity, Apostasy, and all error is conaturall to the Beast with seven heads, and ten horns, as making up both the Complexion and Constitution of that painted Whore. And therefore you might have saved all this labour in vain, in writing such a Volume, out of a hope to work an unity with Rome, when her superstitions and errors shallbe removed; and that is ad Graecas Calendas, when men shear their Goats: so in this respect you may safely say, That when Rome's errors and Superstitions are removed, our Protestations and Separation is ended. And so may I.  
L p. 136. Protestants do but protest the sincerity of their Faith against the Doctrinal corruption, which hath invaded the great Sacrament of the Eucharist, and other parts of Religion  
P. Well were it for you, and your present Church of England (as you have lately made it, or would at least make it) if you had such sincerity of Faith to protest against Rome's doctrinal corruptions, as true Protestants have▪ But why do you call the Lords supper, The Great Sacrament of the Eucharist? Is it Great, because you give it a Name, not known in Scripture. Or because it is so grandized in the Church of Rome, as it is made like the Great 
‡ Act. 19.34.  Diana of the Ephesians, whom all the Pontifician world worshippeth? Or it is Great comparatively to Baptism, because this is celebrated in the Font at the Church door, near the Belfry, and That upon your high Altar, which you have advanced at the chief (as you esteem it) and East end of your Chancels, and of your stately Cathedrals? Or Great, because in your Devotion you bow towards that place, whence (it seems) you look for your help, yea so lowly fall down and worship before it, as before the Lord your maker? Or what is it that your Eucharist is become with you so Great a Sacrament, Because it, or, yourself is Great with Child of a young new God-Almighty? But however, For my part, I reverence every Ordinance of God, but I dare not make nor esteem them greater, than God hath made them, nor give them other Names and Titles, than God hath given them, lest I either seem to be wiser than my Maker, and their Author; or should give more honour to them then is due: this being (as woeful experience hath taught) the ready way to rob God of his honour, to transfer it to the creature, and set it up instead of God. But loath you are, I know, to call the Sacrament 
* 1 Cor. 11.20  the Lords Supper, as the Scripture calls it, lest it might call for the 
‡ 1 Cor. 10.21  Lords Table (as the Scripture also terms it) and so your high Altar should have no more Room in the Church. But do the true Protestants protest the sincerity of their Faith, only against the Doctrinal Faith, which hath invaded your Great Sacrament of the Eucharist? Yes, you add, and other parts of Religion. What be those? That we may know those special Doctrinal Corruptions, against which you say Protestants do protest the sincerity of their Faith. For Rome hath many Doctrinal Corruptions against which true Protestants protest, which you do not so much as mention in all your Book, and such too, as do ●●atly overthrow the Foundation Christ. As justification by works for one, which we have touched before. Yea and Rome hath many, and those most damnable corruptions, which you are so far from accounting corruptions, as you make them Essential parts of God's worship. I name Altars for one. Of which also before. And these things we Protestant's protest the sincerity of our Faith against. But you are none of those Protestants, as not professing, much less protesting the sincerity of any such Faith.  
L▪ p. 138. A right sober man may without the least touch of insolence or madness, dispute a business of Religion with the Roman either Church or Prelate (as all men know Irenaeus did with Victor) so it be with modesty, and for the finding out or confirming of truth free from vanity and purposed opposition against even a particular Church.  
P. This passage I cited before in my Preface to your Lordship, yet I here recite it again, because perhaps all willbe little enough to put you in mind thereof: For as I told you before, the Greatness of the Cause hath caused my stile and Spirit to mount upon the wings of zeal for my Christ, and for his Church in a higher degree and strain then ordinary. And that for this you Censure me of insolence or madness (as I fear it willbe the best defence you can make for your Cause always excepted the Bill in Star-chamber) I have no remedy, but patience, committing the Cause to him that judgeth rightly. And as I have done it for the finding out of the truth, so this hath caused me a great deal of moil in digging and removing away a mass of earth and rubbedge, which you had cast, to hide this Treasure from us. So as a purposed opposition was not it, that set me upon this Great task, but yet I oppose you, and purpose to detect your falsities so fairly guilded over with hypocrisy, that you might not impose too much upon your Credulous Reader. You allege for this purpose the Example of Irenaeus, arguing a Case with Victor Bishop of Rome, which you say all men know. But my Lord, I suppose all men do not know it. And because it is a matter both worthy, and not unnecessary for all men to know it: I will take occasion here to speak something of it, as not impertinent also to our present purpose.  
Towards the end of the second Century, there was a difference between the Asian Church, and the Roman, about the Day of Celebrating the memory of the Lords Resurrection. The contention grew hot (as commonly men are most eager in propounding their own devises in matter of Religion) so as, because the Asian Churches would not conform to Victor Bishop of Rome, he began to fume and to thunder, and threaten them all with Excommunication. Irenaeus, who lived in France, for this reproves Victor, telling him, that he ought not to proceed and deal so with Asian Churches for such differences, as were of things at that time accounted Indifferent. Some, saith he, fast one day before Easter; some, two; some, more; some, 
* Tesparákonta hóras.  40. hours together (whereupon by the way it seems, that those 40. hours were afterwards turned into forty days, for your Lent Fast) kaì cudèn élatton pàntes o●uioi eirteneusàn tè, kaì eireneúomen pròs alluious: yet nevertheless (saith he) all these lived peaceably together, and we also are at peace one with another. Kaì he diaphonìn tes nesteías tèn homónoian tes píst●os sunistesi: And this difference about Fasting commendeth (saith he) the unity of Faith. And he relates unto him also the examples of sundry of his Predecessors in the Sea of Rome, who neither kept it themselves, nor command of it to others; and yet nevertheless they that observed it not, were at peace with those that came to them from the neighbour Churches or Congregations, wherein it was observed. Nor were any at any time cast out of the Church about the Manner or Custom. But those Presbyters (saith he) who before you observed it not, 
* Hoi prosou Presbuteros. Fpempon Eukaristían.  sent Commendations or kind salutations and greetings, as tokens of Charity, to those of other neighbouring Churches, who did observe it. And blessed Polycarpus sojourning at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they being at some small odds between them, yet preserved peace, and did not fall out about this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarpus not to observe it, nor did Polycarpus persuade Anicetus to observe it; but each left other to their own Customs. And thus they communicated together; and in the Church or Congregation Anicetus gave the Eucharist to Polycarpus out of a reverend respect, and so they dismissed each other in peace, and in all Churches, but those that observed it, and those that observed it not, had peace one with another. And thus Irenaeus pherònumos tìs, according to his Name, became a Peacemaker to all the Churches. So 
‡ Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 26. Et Socr. lib. 5. Eccl. Hist. c. 22.  Eusebius.  
Now as these things I here relate by Occasion: so the Consideration that sundry particulars therein may be not unuseful. As 1. That things Indifferent, and of humane Ordinance in matters of Religion, ought not to be imposed upon men's Consciences as necessary to be observed, but in such things Christian Congregations or Churches ought to be left free. Secondly, in variety or difference in opinions, or manners and customs in things Indifferent, Christians may and should keep fast the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, and testify the unanamity of Faith in the diversity of Factions, nothing being done against God's word. 
‡ Rom. 14.5.  One man (saith the Apostle) esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be persuaded in his own mind. And v. 13. Let us not judge one another in these things, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother's way. And v. 19 Let us follow after the things that make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. So, All meats are in their own nature clean: but of any think this or that unclean, to him it is unclean. And that whole Chapter is of things indifferent (such at least, as those Primitive times in the more tender infancy of the Church admitted and esteemed indifferent) as of Days and Meats, wherein men's Consciences were not to be forced. And as concerning our Christian liberty, we must take heed (saith the Apostle) lest by any means it become a stumbling block to them that are weak▪ Thus we see what the Christians in the primitive Ages did. Thus did the Bishops of Rome themselves before Victor, whom Irenaeus calls Presbutérous, Presbyters. Thirdly, Victor is reproved by Irenaeus for breaking this peace among the Christian Churches, and s●eking to bring their Christian liberty ●nto bondage, by forcing them is conform to his assumed n●w Altar, wherein his Antichristian pride and Tyranny began to sh●w itself in attempting what his Predecessors 〈◊〉 not do● in this kind. Fourthly, Victor being thus reproved, defi●●ed from his violent course, and yielded to Irenaeus his Allegations, and so gave way for Churches to enjoy their liberty with peace.  
Now, my Lord, to apply these things: Hereby you may see, how things in their own nature indifferent, aught to be left free, and not to be made burdens and bonds to men's Consciences; that so Christian Liberty and Peace, may be preserved inviolate. You see, how those ancient Bishops or Presbyters of Rome, bound not this liberty, broke not this peace. You see, how Victor presuming to violate both, yet upon the reproof of Irenaeus (though inferior to him in place) he yielded to reason, suffered not pride or passion to predominate, but left to the Churches both their Liberty and Peace. But now for you my Lord, you are not contented only to impose with rigour upon men's Consciences those Ceremonies which you otherwise call Indifferent, yet enforce them as necessary as being also by man's Laws Commanded, and such, as in point of Indifferency might justly be questioned, were they not superstitious: but also in erecting and imposing, both besides Man's Law, and against God's Law, other both idolatrous and superstitious devises (as your stone or wooden Altars, with their Equipage, and service in adorations, and the like) and those borrowed from the Church of Rome herself, none (since Victor) infinitely corrupted, and deeply deceived, yea drowned in all Idolatries and Superstitions; which have been of late so violently and universally pressed upon all Churches within your Reach, that what confusions or combustions it may further cause, the Lord knows: But this we are sure of, that as the liberty of men's Consciences is hereby generally brought into bondage, and both the outward and inward peace of the Churches violated, and broken to pieces, while you cry for peace, and cease not to press your Universal Conformity, as if it were the way of quenching the flame, to pour out the Oil of a mere nominal Peace: so the Faith of Christ, and the salvation of Christian men's souls is hereby utterly subverted, as formerly is showed. And of these things you have been sufficiently admonished, and convinced by some Ministers of Christ. But you say, It was too roughly done, not as Irenaeus reproved Victor. Is that all? But consider how truly; And how diseases the more desperate, require the sharper medicines. Yea as the Poet said, Immedicabile vulnus Ense recidendum est, ne pars sincera trahatur. I leave you to English it. But that the reproof were true, though sharp, did you as Victor did, who suffered himself to be victus, overcome by Irenaeus his reproof and Allegation? Nay you, though both victus & convictus, vanquished and convinced in your Conscience and knowledge of the truth of all those enormities which you were charged withal, yet you must be Victor, not resting till you had sent away your Reprover with a Censure more bitter, and sharper than the sharp reproof could be; and yet not desisting from your violent course to enforce an Universal Conformity, whereby the whole Land is infected with terrible combustions, and those no less further dangerous, then already full of damage. Such a Peacemaker is your Conformity. Is this the way think you to make you Victor? Soft and fair. For though perhaps you glory in your tyrannical conquest over the poor Body of your Reprover, yet while your spirit doth (to use the Apostles word to the same purpose) hupernikan, become more than Victor (as before is noted) and so his Cause, not foiled but confirmed and crowned in his suffering for it: never think yourself a Victor. No no, my Lord, never think to be victor, by fight against Christ; Lay down your violence in pressing your Conformity: fight not against the common peace, by disturbing the peace of men's Consciences: Lay not siege to Christian liberty in enforcing even things indifferent, and how much less such as are both in their nature and use Idolatrous, Superstitious, and directly against the express word of God. But that you will, that you must needs set up your Romish Altars, with your other devices suitable, yet enforce them upon God's Ministers and People by your terrible commands and threats armed with High-Commission Power, or Prince's Edicts. Convince men as much as you can by the strength of your powerfullest persuasive reasons, and draw them by your gentlest motives, but do not hale and drag them with the violence of your archiepiscopal power, and Romish zeal Throw not Godly Ministers out of their Ministry and Means. and that by Hundreds, with their Wives and Children exposed to all miseries of poverty, and all because they will not, dare not yield to your lawless Prelatical Impositions, Innovations, Usurpations. But if you will needs proceed on in that your violent course against Christ and Christian liberty, and peace of men's Consciences, assure yourself you shall not prospero, you shall not be victor, Christ will confound you with all your Power and Policy. And He shallbe both Irenaenus and Victor for his Church, both to Conquer his Enemies, and to restore Peace to his People. And thus much of your example of Irenaeus and Victor.  
L. p. 141. Well, thus the whole Militant Church is holy, and so we believe. And if she err in the Foundation, that is, in some one, or more Fundamental points of Faith, 
* A most 〈◊〉 conclusion of an erroneous faith.  than she may be a Church of Christ still, but not Holy, but becomes Heretical; And most certain it is, that no Assembly (be it never so General) of such Heretics, is or can be holy.  
P. Do you believe the whole Militant Church to be holy? And so do I. But your whole Militant Church is not the same with that, which I believe is holy. For your whole Militant Church whereof you profess to be a member, is, in plain terms, the Antichristian Church, and the Church Malignant, which is a persecuter of the true Militant Church of Christ; as both hath been, and yet will be made more manifest. So as your Militant Church is properly so called, for no other reason, but because it makes War against Christ and his Saints, Rev. 12.7. and 13.7. and 16.14. and 17.14. but the true Militant Church of Christ, is so called, because she fights spiritually under Christ's banner against Sin, the World, the Flesh, the Devil, and cruel Persecuters, whom 
‡ Rev. 13.12.  she overcomes by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of her Testimony, not loving her life unto the death. So as your Militant Church is a name which you have usurped, abused, and perverted; whereas it is to be named according to its nature, The Church Malignant. For further proof hereof, you say, if she err in some one, or more Fundamental points, etc. Which implies your Militant Church may err in points Fundamental. Which cannot possibly be understood of the only true, holy, Catholic Militant Church of jesus Christ. For this whole Militant Church of the Elect cannot, either in whole, or in part, or in the least member of it, err in any Fundamental point, so as thereby to bec●me unholy. For this were else to fall from Christ, and from ●he Com●munion of Saints, by being seduced by Antichrists and 
‡ Mat. 24.24.  false Prophets, who shall deceive, if it were possible (but it is not possible) the ver● Elect. This erring in the Foundation belongs, and extends to all the Reprobates of the world, who are by Antichrist seduced unto their perdition; who 
* 2 Thes 2. 1●.11.  because they receive not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved, God shall send them strong Delusions, to believe a lie, yea to believe that for truth, which their own ●eared Conscience tells them is a lie. For not to receive the love of the truth, implies, that they had received the truth unto acknowledgement and conviction, but the love of this truth they embraced not. But the whole Militant Church of Christ (I say) cannot be so seduced unto perdition, or to fall from Christ. What is it to fall from Christ? To fall from Christ is to fall from that Faith and love of Christ, which once they professed; that is, from the Faith of the Doctrine of Christ, and from that love, which they professed towards it. And this fa●ling from the Faith of Christ, is when any one Fundamental point of faith is denied, and persisted in, as we have formerly proved; as in the 
‡ 1 Cor. 15.14  Resurrection, and 
§ Gal. 5.2.4.  Circumcision, and sundry others. I might add here many other Instances; as the Denial of all the Doctrines of Grace in God's Free Election, Redemption, etc. which Grace and Merit of Christ is peculiar to the Elect only. I will only add one more here which I but touched before. 
O● the Lords 〈◊〉- Day.  He that denies the Lords day, to be the Sabbath day of Christians, commanded no less to Christians in the 4th Commandment, than the seventh, or last day of the week was to the jews: he errs in the Foundation, becomes unholy, and falls away from the Faith of Christ. This I demonstrate thus. First, The 4 th' Commandment is Moral, and so eternal, and unchangeable. And as the eternal sabbatisme is in heaven, belonging to the Church Triumphant, so there is a sabbatisme temporal, pertaining to the Church Militant in this world. This sabbatisme (as the other) is the rest of God. 
† Psal. 95.  His Rest, saith David. This Sabbatisme in the Church Militant is by God himself appointed to be solemnly observed of the whole Congregation on that seventh day of the week, whereon himself rested. This Sabbath or rest of God was on the seventh or last day of the week, upon the finishing of the work of creation. And therefore, for that very cause, God commanded his People in the Old Testament to sanctify that Sabbath day weekly. This is given as the Reason of its sanctification by the People: The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: For in six d●yes he made heaven and earth, and rested the seventh: Therefore, etc. Remember to sanctify the Sabbath day, the Lords Sabbath day. And note, he saith not, Remember to sanctify the seventh or last day of the week: but Remember to sanctify the Sabbath day. These words are the Moral substance of the Commandment. The rest is an exposition and application of it, the exposition to keep holy that Day for Sabbath, which is the Lords own Sabbath day, wherein himself hath rested. Note this well▪ for I will speak much here in few words. Weigh them therefore, number them not. The particular application of the seventh or last day of the week, as wherein God rested from his works of Creation, is commended and commanded to God's people under the Old Testament. So as if there had not come in afterwards, a more glorious Sabbath, or rest of Gods, as from a more glorious work of a more glorious Creation: we Christians also should have kept that seventh day that the Jews kept. But that this more glorious day of a more glorious rest of God from a more glorious work, being come: then the same 4 th' Commandment commands us Christians to keep this new Day of Rest, of the Lord our God. So as though the Day be changed, yet the Commandment is the same. It binds us still to sanctify the Sabbath of the Lord our God.  
Secondly, for the application of the 4 th' Commandment to us Christians. Remember to keep the Sabbath day holy. What Sabbath day? Or what day for Sabbath? The Sabbath day of the Lord thy God, wherein himself rested. What day is that? The first day of the week. This is another seventh day, reckoning the week backward. Now on this first day of the week the Lord our God jesus Christ, after that he had finished the work of Redemption (being a new Creation, and much more glorious than the former, in many respects) rose again from the dead, and so entered into his Rest that morning and moment of his Rising again. He entered than I say into the state of Rest, though not into the place of Rest, till his Ascension. This is sufficient. But the work of Redemption was finished on the Crosse. Not altogether▪ on the Cross, Christ endured and finished his suffering of the pangs and pains of death, when he said Consummatum est, It is finished: but there remained the bonds of death to be endured, and that was in the grave 3 days, to redeem us, aswell our bodies from the grave, as our souls from hell on the Crosse. Now all this being finished, to wit, the whole work of redemption: Christ rising the 3 d day, therein rested from his work. And this being the Sabbath or Rest of the Lord our God, surpassing the former Rest in glory, and into which rest or sabbatisme all believing Christians do enter, and have an Interest (as Heb. 4.3.) it follows necessarily, that as by Christ's example of Resting on that day, as by his Commandment to keep the Sabbath day of the Lord our God, wherein himself hath rested, that we Christians do sanctify the Lords day, the first day of the week, for our Christian Sabbath day, according to the 4 th' Commandment. Which if we do not, as not holding ourselves bound by the 4 th' Commandment: Then all these errors in the fundamentals of faith follow upon it:  
As first, by not sanctifying the Lords day for our Christian Sabbath day, we utterly deny, overthrow and destroy the Morality of the 4 th' Commandment, which to the Militant Church on earth stands in this, To sanctify the Sabbath day of the Lord our God. It commands us this, or nothing; and if nothing, it loseth both the Nature and Name of a Commandment. And if you do acknowledge and believe it to be (as it is) one of God's ten Moral Commandments: then of necessity you must either sanctify the first day of the week for Sabbath, whereon Christ arose and rested: or else, you must sanctify that seventh day of the Old Testament, which God rested on from his work of Creation, which the Jews observed. And if you keep the Jews Sabbath, you must turn Jew, and deny Christ to be come in the flesh. For in 
* Deut. 5.12.13.14.15▪  Deuteronomy God commands them to keep the Sabbath day, in memory of their Redemption from Egypt; and so their Sabbath day was turned into a type of another Sabbath or Rest, that was to be brought in upon the accomplishment of our spiritual Redemption. Which being now finished, that typical Sabbath is vanished, being the last Type which was fulfilled by Christ, resting in his Grave on that day, and so utterly abolished in that more glorious Rest of his Resurrection. If then you keep the Jews Sabbath▪ you do with them deny Christ to be come. And if you sanctify not the first day of the week, instead of, and succeeding in place of the old Sabbath day: then as you utterly deny and destroy the 4 th' Commandment, so you deny the work of Redemption finished on the Cross and in the Grave: you deny his Resurrection, wherein he rested from that work: and you deny the very rest of heaven: and you deny the Communion of Saints, both in the Church Militant and Triumphant. First you deny the Accomplishment of the work of Redemption on the Cross, and in the Redemption itself, in denying the Rest of Christ in the day of his Resurrection. For if he than rested not, the work of Redemption was not finished. And you deny he rested, in denying his rest to be the rest of the Lord our God, which the 4 th' Commandment commands us Christians to keep weekly on that day; which if we keep not, Christ hath not rested, and so he hath not redeemed us. Secondly, in denying Christ's rest, you deny his Resurrection. For if he rested not, he arose not. For the very first moment of his Resurrection began his rest. If then you sanctify not the Day of his rest for the Christian Sabbath day, you deny as Christ's rest, so his Resurrection, and the whole virtue of it, by which we arise from Sin spiritually, and from the Grave corporally. And cursed is he, that hath not his part in the first Resurrection: for on him the second death, that is, eternal death shall have power: because 
* Reve. 20.5.  Blessed and holy is he that hath his part in the first Resurrection: for on him the second death shall have no power. Thirdly, in thus denying Christ's rest in his Resurrection▪ while you deny that day to be the holy rest, or Sabbath day of Christians, you deny, as Christ's eternal rest in heaven, so that rest, or sabbatisme, which remains for the people of God. As the 
‡ Heb. 4.9.  Apostle saith, There remaineth therefore Sabbatismòs, a sabbatisme, or sabbatical holy rest for the people of God. Therefore? Whereupon is this inferred? Upon the 
‡ vers. 8.  former verse, where he speaks of this very Sabbath, or Rest day of Christians, which is as the first fruits of the eternal sabbatisme. For saith he, If jesus (josua) had given them rest, than would he not afterwards have spoken of another day. Another day? What other day, but that rest day, which our jesus rested on, and which is our rest day? For when Christ in his Resurrection entered into his rest, he made that day the day of our rest, which gives us an Interest in, and brings us to his eternal rest. For Certainly if we do not rest with Christ in the Day of his Rest weekly here, according to the Commandment, we shall never rest with him eternally in heaven. He that keeps not this 
§ Heb. 4.8.9▪  Other Day, which succeeded that under the Law, hath no sabbatisme remaining for him in heaven. Lastly, in denying this Rest-day of Christ to be our Christian Sabbath, to be sanctified according to the Commandment, you deny the Communion of Saints in the Church Militant, and consequently in the Church Triumphant. For except there be a Communion of Saints in the Church Militant, which is the seed of the Church Triumphant, what Communion of Saints can be in heaven. For none are Saints there, which were not fi●st Saints here. And what Communion of Saints can be here, but especially in the holy and solemn Assemblies, where they are to Communicate together in Prayer and thanksgiving, and hearing of the Word, and receiving of the Sacrament. And how can this be, if there be not a set day for it? And who shall appoint this day▪ but God himself? And what Day so fit, as his own Day of Rest, which he hath Commanded to be sanctified weekly of us▪ if we be his people, and he the Lord our God, who hath redeemed us in his holy and eternal Law, and in which day we resting, do partake and communicate of his holy and eternal rest, begun here by Christ, and consummate in heaven in that pangúrei, solemn General Assembly and Congregation of the first borne written in heaven, Heb. 12.23. And to conclude) if the ten Commandments belong to us Christians under the Covenant of Grace, then certainly the 4 th' Commandment, which commands to keep the Sabbath of the Lord our God, which is the Lords day.  
Now by this which hath been spoken, you may examine how far you and your Church of England have erred in the foundation, that is, in this, and other fundamental points of Faith: at least if those Acts, edicts, and Books, that have been published against the aforesaid Doctrines, shallbe avowed for the Doctrines of the Church of England, as they are pressed. And if with Rome you be thus fallen, holy you are not by your own confession; nor only so, but Heretical: yea more than that, Infidel. For in the same page you say, If the Church can err quite from the Foundation, 
Pag. 141.  than she is nor Holy, nor Church, but becomes an Infidel. Now we have proved, that to err in one, or more, though not in all fundamental points of Faith, is to fall quite off from the foundation. But if you thus cease to be holy, how are you the Church of Christ still, as you say? For holiness is essential unto, and so is of the Definition of the true Church of Christ: I believe the Holy Catholic Church. And so of every particular Church, if it be a true member of the true Catholic, it is holy For Eadem est ratio totius & partium: If the whole be holy, so every member and part. But the whole true Church is holy; For 'tis Christ's body mystical, whereof he the Head: he the root, and we the Branches: and 
* Rom. 11.16.  if the root be holy, so are the branches, as the Apostle saith. And he saith again, 
‡ 1 Cor. 3.17.  The Temple of God is holy, which Temple ye are. And (I say) Christ being the Head▪ and the Church h●s body, the spirit of holiness and sanctification flows down from the Head to all the members, as the Oil poured on Aaron's head went down to the skirts of his clothing: which was a type of the holy anointing oil of Christ's spirit poured on him, which he communicates to all the members of his mystical body; even as a man's head communicates of Animal spirits of motion to all the parts of his body, as we touched before. Except with Bellarmine you will have a dead member to be a true member. Indeed a dead member of a dead body, is a true member of that body. And certainly, if a Church cease to be holy, it ceaseth to be a Church of Christ any more● But I pray you, what should move you to say thus: Though the Church ceaseth to be Holy, yet ceaseth not to be a Church of Christ. You have it not from the School of Divinity; not scarce can you rake it out of the puddle of the Jesuits themselves. But haply you might suspect, that the Church of Rome might be proved to be fallen quite from the Foundation (as hath been already proved before) and therefore your Charity would provide one refuge for it, that though thus she ceaseth to be holy, yet not to be a true Church still. But you may do well to study this point a little better, how to make it good, How a Church may cease to be Holy, becoming Heretical, and yet be a Church of Christ still.  
L. p. 141.142. Those Errors that are died in Grain, cannot consist with holiness, of which Faith in Christ is the very Foundation. And therefore if we will keep up our Creed, the whole Militant Church must still be holy.  
P. This confirms, what before I concluded of the Church of Rome, as no Church of Chhist, because by your own verdict, not holy. For her Errors, and that in the fundamental points of Faith, are all died in grain, so as they will never change colour, nor look of another hue. For both they are of no small antiquity, and since their first hatching, they have been by sundry Counsels confirmed, and at last most irrefragably in the Council of Trent, as hath been showed. For as those things which you elsewhere instance: Worship of Images first erected in the 2 d Council of Nice, the seventh General: Transubstantiation, first Decreed in the Council of Laterian under Innocent the third and the taking away of the Cup in the Sacrament, first decreed in the Council of Constance: so the Title of Antichrist, of Universal Bishop and Head of the Church, obtained first by Boniface 3. above a thousand years ago: with many or most, or all the Rest of Popery, have been ever since their several erections upon all occasions more and more ratified (never any corrected) and by general practice upheld, and against all opposition and conviction stiffly maintained. Are they not died in grain then? And if so, you confess they consist not of holiness. But (say you) if we will keep up our Creed, the whole Melitant Church must still be Holy. Here you enterfere again. For notwithstanding all that is said, or (I suppose) can be said, you will have the Church of Rome to be holy still, as being a member of the Church Militant, in despite of the Pope. But let her be a member of your Church Militant, is she therefore holy? Say not you, your Church Militant may fall into errors, so as to cease to be holy? And if the Church of Rome hath thus fallen, hath she not for her part, ceased to be holy? But not, if she keep up the Creed. What call you that? To hold the letter of the Creed, and to deny the Faith of it? so we have proved before. She hath lost the Faith of Christ, the foundation of Holiness: Ergo she hath lost Holiness. Ergo lost the Essence of a Church: Ergo she is not in the compass of your Creed, I believe the Holy Catholic Church.  
L. p. 142. I say it, and most true it is, That it was ill done if those, who ere they were, 
A peremptory speech.  that made the separation.  
P. It should be most true, if you do but say it. Yet we find not all to be most true, you say. How true this is I know not yet▪ Let us here. I remember a little before, you performed a thankless office for the Protestants, in making an Apology for them, as not the first in the fault of this separation. Which I answered. And here you put the fault on those, that made the separation who ere they were, which might be aswell the Protestants, as the Papists But speak out.  
L. p. 145. For my part, I am of the same opinion for the continuing of the Schism, that I was for the making of it▪ That is, That it is ill, 
Plain dealing.  very ill done of those▪ who ever they be, Papists or Protestants, that give just cause to continue a separation.  
P. Here you speak plain: Papists or Protestants: and why not then Protestants as well as Papists, that did very ill in making the separation, as they do ill in continuing of it? But yet your meaning here may possibly be, that as it was ill done of the Roman party to give the first cause of the separation: so it were no less ill done to continue the same cause to the continuing of the Schism. You may do well to persuade Rome to lay down all her Corruptions, which the Protestants have and do protest against her, that so, if the Schism be any longer continued, it may then appear to be long of the Protestants. ●ut if Rome be obstinate and incorrigible in her errors, you have no reason to say, it is ill done on the Protestant party to continue the Schism. But it may be perhaps ill done of the Protestant Church of England notwithstanding, to continue the Schism, for as it may be well done of you to sowder it again. And therefore while the case is thus in agitation and Rome makes no more haste to meet you, the multitude of her impedimenta, bag, and baggage, and all kind of Trumpery retaining her peace, and which in no sort she will part withal, and so will not stir a foot over Tiber: what's wanting on her part, you will supply, with all expedition dressing up her sister the Church of England in Rome's fashion, unto such a conformity and symphony, as promiseth a making up of the ma●ch with all faults on both sides, sooner perhaps then Rome could hope for.  
L. ibid. The Kings and the Church of England had no reason to admit of a public Dispute with the English Romish Clergy, till they should be able to show it under the Seal, or Powers of Rome, That that Church will submit to a third, who may be an Indifferent judge between us and them; or to such a General Council, as is after mentioned.  
P. First, the English Romish Clergy are by the Laws of England Traitors, and therefore to be disputed withal at Tyburn. So as if you put them to show their warrant to dispute with you under Rome's seal: they will require of you perhaps to show them under England's seal an abrogation of the Laws against them. And you tell us before, that the Church of England knows well, that a Parliament cannot be called at all times. Nor will the Powers of Rome permit their Religion to be disputed on. And whom will you choose to dispute with them? some peaceable men, that will not be apt to fall out with the Jesuits, your Lordship being Moderator. But you know Rome denies the Rule of Faith, the Scripture. And Contra negantem Principia non est disputandum. Who shall else be the Umpire? Who the Third? Who the Indifferent judge? Could both the Churches jointly choose a more Indifferent judge, than yourself? Sure Rome herself would nominate you before Bellarmine himself if he were living. A General Council indeed of Romish, English, and other Prelates, might do much: so you should be sure to exclude all the Protestant Reform Churches for wranglers▪ as Franciscus à S. Clara well adviseth. And then if a General Council should reconcile and compose all differences, though never so erroneously, yet the Error must stand, till another General Council shall reverse it, as you tell us at after. But you add.  
L. p. ibid. and 146. And this is an honest, and I think a full Answer. And without this, all Disputation must end in a clamour; and therefore the more public the worse, because as the Clamour is the greater, so perhaps willbe the Schism too.  
P Nay, my Lord, if you stand upon terms of honesty indeed, you should have nominated the Scripture for the only sufficient and upright judge between you. This had been honest in one that professeth but the name only of a Protestant. But for that you told us enough before, whereby we understand, that this point of honesty is no part of your meaning. But if your Answer were not in this respect honest, I must tell you, neither was it full, but an empty and frivolous Answer. To dispute of Divinity or Religion, where Scripture is not the only judge, is as to judge of gold by the colour, without the touchstone. And so he that could show the best colour for his matter by a false light, should carry it away. And I may say truly, without the Scripture be judge, your disputation must needs end in a clamour, where the voice of God is of no authority. But then also if Scripture should be the judge, you might well say, The more public the worse. For it is such a light, as would discover all your fallacies; and so raising a clamour of the public Audience, when they should observe such collusion between the English Clergy, and the English Romists, it might breed such a detestation against all Reconciliation with Rome, as would make the rend the wider, and so all your labour should be in vain. And then you might use the Proverb, As good never a whit, as never the better.  
L. p. 148. That there are errorr in Doctrine, and some of them such, as most manifestly endanger salvation in the Church of Rome, i● evident to them that will not shut their eyes.  
P. To endanger Salvation, is much; and for you to say so much, is much too▪ and you saying so much, we need not make much doubt of the truth of that you say in this Case. And yet in saying so much, you speak not all truth. The truth is (as we have proved, and shall yet further) That Rome's Errors in Doctrine are damnable, and cannot consist with salvation; as is evident to those, whose eyes are truly opened.  
L. ibid. A. C. himself confesses, that error in Doctrine of the Faith, is a just cause of separation, so just, as that no cause is just but that. Now had I leisure to descend into particulars, or will to make the rent in the Church wider: 
The tenderhearted Prelate 〈◊〉 to make the rent wider.  'tis no hard matter to prove, that the Church of Rome hath erred in the Doctrine of Faith, and dangerously too: And I doubt I shall afterwards descend to particulars, A. C. his importunity forcing me to it.  
P. By A. C. his canfession then, the Protestants are able to justify their separation abundantly. As for your Lordship, you are so charitably and peaceably affected, that you are loath upon any terms (though it concern the salvation of men's souls in such a case to speak the truth home) to make the rent wider, till by your Adversaries importunity (I would say A. C.) you be forced to it. You have too tender a heart to be a Surgeon, when for fear, lest the opening of the wound make it wider, you suffer it to fester inwardly It were well if you were half so tender hearted to the poor Sheep and Lambs of God's fold; there you fear not most stoutly to make wide wounds, and make no b●n●s of it. Put true Protestants do hold, that the wider the rent is made between them and Rome, the better it is. I know this is to you as the widening of a ghastly wound. But it is the truth Yet you put us in some hope to hear what you will say, when you are forced to it. As Cowards will fight most terribly, when they are forced to it Though I hope you will not endanger Rome more, than her errors endanger her own salvation.  
L. p. 149. Nor can you say that Israel, from the time of the separation, was not a Church; for there were true Prophets in it, Elias, Elizeus, and others, and thousands, that had not bowed knees to Baal.  
P. But I can say (and that upon good evidence) that Israel, the ten Tribes, from the time of their setting up and following the Calves, were no true visible Church of God. For they had no visible signs or marks of a visible Church. Their whole Religion consisted in the worship of the two Calves: neither had they any levitical Priesthood, or Priests of Aaron's order: nor went they up three times in the year to worship at jerusalem, according the Law (1 King. 12.28, 29, 30, 31, 32, ●3.) Here was not one footstep of a visible true Church of God, but of the Devil indeed, whom they worshipped in the Calves But (say you there were true Prophets in it. True. 
* 2 Chro. 11▪ 15.  But that was upon some extraordinary occasion, when they were sent, and prophesied. But for all their Prophecying, did the King and People abandon their Calves? Yea when Elias had caused Baal's Prophets to be slain: or when 
‡ 2 King. 1●.  jehu slew all the remainder of them, and their worshippers: both he and the People followed the Calves still And besides, they had not true Priests, but those of jeroboams Order. And if they had no true Priests, will you allow them (for all their Prophets) to be a true Church of God? Do you not exclude all the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas from being true Churches of God, because (notwithstanding all their Prophets, to wit Preachers and Ministers of God) they have no Priests, no Prelates, no Priesthood? Would you account or call Rome a true Church, if she had not her Priesthood? Although her Priesthood is of no other Order, then that of jeroboam, of humane Ordinance, not of Divine Institution: sacrificing Priests, as those were. Now as Jerome saith (as you cite at after) Vbi non est Sacerd●s, non est Ecclesia: Where there is no Priest, there is no Church. Israel had no true Priest, and so no true worship of God. Nor doth Jerome (and so the ancient Fathers, when they used the word Sacerdos) thereby mean any such sacrificing Priests; as are at this day in the Church of Rome. For the Fathers held no Transubstantiation, ergo no sacrificing Priests. Whereas your Romish Priests, have no other Order, but of sacrificing Priests expressly in their Ordination, in these words, Take thou a power to sacrifice the body of jesus Christ upon the Altar; or to the like effect. And this by the way proveth Rome to be no better a Church of God, then that of the ten Tribes was, when they had their Calves and Priests suitable. And as for those Prophets you speak of, Elias, and Elizeus, were their Prophecies regarded? Nay were they not persecuted, by Ahab and Iez●bel, and their Son jehoram? Yea and 100 Prophets of the Lord more, whom good Obadiah hid in a Cave, and fed with bread and water, and so preserved them from jezebels' fury? Yea and all the Prophets, whom the Lord sent, were they not persecuted by the State, and Court of Israel? Was not 
* Amos 7.10, 11, 12, 13.  Amos forbid by Amasiah King jeroboam Court-Priest, to preach at Bethel, saying, Prophecy no more at Bethel: for it is the King's Chapel▪ and it is the King's Court? And did not this Court-Priest complain of the Prophet to King jeroboam, saying, Amos hath conspired against▪ thee in the midst of the house of Israel: the Land is not able to bear all his words? And it were well if there were no such Priests in Christian Kings Courts, that do such offices against the Lords Prophets and Preachers, complaining of them to the King, that they are a sort of factious Conspirators against him (such as those whom you have called shallower waters, as before) and the Land cannot bear all their words, although they speak nothing but truth, which Gods word teacheth, and gives them good warrant for. But this by the way. To return to Israel. Is a people presently a Church, upon the coming of a Prophet, or Minister of God to preach unto them: until they do embrace God's word, and set up his pure worship amongst them? But those ten Tribes, still minced and contemned God's word, and persecuted Gods Prophets that were sent unto them, and with a high hand maintained their Calfe-worship▪ the Devils service (though they pretend it was God's service, as Exod. 32. These are thy Gods o Israel, that brought thee out of Egypt) until there was no remedy, that the Lord gave them up to perpetual Captivity.  
Again, I cannot but a little wonder, that your Lordship should so grossly forget yourself, as because of a Prophet, or two to give such a state the stile of a true Church of God. For do you any where allow a true Church, which hath no Priests? And it is clear, that Israel then had no true Priests, but sergeant, such as Rome now hath. So in this respect rather I suppose you mean that was then a true Church, because of their Priests, such as they were, Baalish, such as your Babylonish Priests, as good an Argument to prove Rome a true Church.  
But you allege, there were thousands among them, that had not bowed knees to Baal. 'Tis true, God told Elias, when he complained he was left alone, that he had reserved to himself 7000. that had not bowed the knee to Baal, nor kissed his mouth. But they were all so hid, that (you see) the Prophet himself knew no such thing, till the Lord told him. They made no open profession of the true Religion. And if they had any private meetings to pray together, and to read and expound the Law, will your Lordship call that a Church, Though those Assemblies were indeed the true Churches of God. But would not you, if you had been in Amaziah the Priest's stead, have called those private meetings Conventicles, and would have hunted them out with your Pursuivants? And therefore those seven thousand not being of the King's Religion, nor Communion Ecclesiastical with the other many thousands of Israel, and lying hid in Corners here and there, they would not denominate the whole state of the ten Tribes a true visible Church of God, themselves living as it were invisible, at least so invisible, as though others took notice of their Persons, where they conversed, yet they saw not their Religion, for themselves durst not openly profess it. So as those seven thousand I cannot more fitly compare, then to those, whom you call a sort of Puritanical Separatists, whom you by your Altar services and other superstitions drive from your Communion, who will not bow the knee to your Baal, to your God-Altar, nor at your Name jesus, and therefore you Ferret them out of their holes, because they will not do as their Neighbours do, go with them like loving Neighbours, and good Fellows to Bethel and Dan, and there make merry, eat, drink before their God, and rise up to play, as you give your people leave to do on their Holy days, and on the Lords days too. Only here is the difference, it seemeth that in those days of old of the ten Tribes, there were no Pursuivants to hunt out those poor Snakes, that lurked in holes, and would not bow the knee. For than sure Elias should have heard of them, and they should have been served with the same sauce, that the Lords Prophets tasted of. And again, there was in Israel▪ one good Obadiah, that hid an hundred of the Lords Prophets in a Cave from wicked jezebel, as there was in judah a good 
* jer. 38.  Ebedmelech, that spoke to the King for the Prophet jeremiah whom the Princes had put into the muddy Dungeon: but where there is an Arch-Prelate, or Archpriest, that takes upon him to rule the roast, there is not found one Obadiah, or one Ebedmeleck that dare so much as speak one good word to the King for the Prophets of the Lord, who are most unjustly and most cruelly confi●ed, and that to perpetual imprisonment and banishment, for no other cause, but faithfully executing their Prophetical office; as before.  
But a little after you add, That Israel is called the People of the Lord: 2 King. 9.6. therefore a Church still. I answer: They might be so called, because they were Abraham's seed according to the flesh, 
‡ Rom. 9.6.17.  which the Apostle distinguisheth from Abraham's ●eed according to the promise: For all they are not Israel, which are of Israel, neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all Children. Yet they were called the Children of Abraham, and so the people of God. Or secondly, they might still be called God's people, in regard of the Covenant made with them in Abrahams ●oynes, the external badge whereof they wore in Circumcision, and a type of the Promise whereof they enjoyed in the Promised Land of Canaan, which now they possessed; so as they might retain the name of God's people in that respect, till they were quite cast out of that profession. Or Thirdly, as Antichrist is said to sit in the Temple of God; that is, in that place, and over those, where was once the Church of God, or over men's Consciences, which of right are the Temple of God; so as Antichrist usurping Gods right, and putting him as it were out of possession, is truly said to sit in the Temple of God, though now turned into the Temple of Antichrist: so the ten Tribes, have been once, with the rest of their brethren, the true Church of God, and now fallen from it, yet they might retain that name still, to be called the Lords people, until there was no remedy, that they were utterly cast out, and cast off by a Bill of perpetual Divorce. Even as the Church of Rome, until the Council of Trent, notwithstanding her manifold corruptions, and abominable Idolatries, yet was generally taken for, and called a true visible Church of Christ, though in truth in the General it was not, but a false Antichristian Hierarchy, and Tyranny over men's Souls and Consciences: yet when (after all admonitions and convictions of her Errors by many of God's Prophets, who 
* jer. 51. ●▪  wou●d ●av● cur● a Babylon, but she was not cured; nay she was so far off from cure, and 〈…〉 all remedy, or hope of remedy, as in her council of Trent she hath for ever in perpetuam memoriam ratified and consumed all her damnable errors, and detestable Apostasy, so as all within her Verge must under Anathema be of the same Apostasy with her) she remains wilfully obdurate and obstinate: notwithstanding we must give you leave to call Rome still, A true Church of God.  
L. p. 153.154. The Council of M●l●nis, in which S. Augustine was present, condemned the whole Course of Heresy of Pelagian, that great and bewitching Heresy, in the yeare ●16. The second Council at Aur●na, a Provincial too, handled the great Controversies of Grace, and freewill, and set the Church right in them in the year 444.  
P. Call you the Heresy of Pelag●us, That great and bewitching Heresy? So I have heard many say of Tobacco, complaining how they are bewitched with it, when they would same leave it, but have not the power. Is it in this respect, that your Lordship calls that Heresy of Pelagius, That great and bewitching Heresy? Then it is in this respect, that I never heard of any willingness and desire you have to leave it; yea the contrary whereof you have manifested, and do daily, by suppressing the Doctrines of Grace, which are directly contrary to that great bewitching Heresy. And surely as all Heresy is of a bewitching nature (
‡ Gal. 3.1.  Who hath bewitched you, saith the Apostle? etc.) so this of Pelagius more especially, as advancing Man's Nature above God's Grace. But had you indeed read the many 
‡ As, De 〈…〉.  excellent Polem●call Tracts of the Malleus Pelagianorum, Augustine, it might have been of force (were there but one spark of true Grace) to have conjured and unwitched this Pelagian spirit. There you might read in Terminis, all those Controversies about Grace discussed, and the Pelagian and Semipelagian Heresy in all o● them by clear evidence, and abundant pregnant Testimony from Scripture, confuted: as, That Election and Predestination of some to Salvation and Glory, and Reprobation of others is by an 〈◊〉 Decree: That, The Grace of Effectual Redemption by Christ pertains to the Elect only, which he calls the world of the Elect, distinguishing it from the world of the Reprobate. As also Ambrose, who saith, that in mundo Electorum censetur specialis universitas: In the world of the Elect is reckoned a spiritual universality, as where it is said, Christ redeemed the whole world: that is, saith Augustine the whole world of the Elect. As also, that the 
* Rom. 8.28.  Calling of God's Elect is according to God's Purpose, and so differing from the common Calling, of which, many are called, but few choose▪ And that the Elect are Called by an Omnipotent power of Grace working in them: and that they certainly persevere in Grace unto Glory, and never fall away; and, that those who do fall away, had never any true sanctifying Grace, nor ever were the true Children of God, though we called them such, while they professed the Truth. And all these points (I say) he proveth by such pregnant Testimonies of Scripture, that both Counsels and Popes afterwards, that had to do against the Pelagians, did set down whole large passages verbatim out of Augustins' works, as you may read in Binius his Counsels. And therefore (I say) had you indeed perused well those Tracts, and yet had persisted such a tanter of that Heresy, which Arminius of late hath raked out of hell, which Augustine and the Orthodox Fathers and Counsels had remaunded to hell: you for your part (and so others too) might truly call it That Great Bewitching Heresy.  
And that the Council of Aurang, as you say, did set the Church right in those Doctrines of Grace and freewill, wherein they followed Augustins' judgement before them: how have you set the Now Church of England right, of being one Instrument at least (if not the greatest, if not sole) of setting forth such an Edict (no Decree of a Council, so much as Provincial) wherein those Articles of Religion concerning the foresaid Points, and Doctrines of Grace (which were set so Right, before you unset them, as the whole Church of England maintained the Orthodox truth of them according to the Scriptures, and so Augustine and the Fathers, and that unanimously, and universally) are made like janus with two faces, the one, looking (but frowningly) upon the Orthodox party (who are forbid to preach the Orthodox Doctrines) the other, looking upon your Arminian Favourites, and that with an Amiable aspect, as who may find their opinions in your Articles, and so not only impunity for preaching them, but Dignities in your Church for but affecting and holding those Opinions, so Great a bewitching Heresy is it. O blind Guides of the Church of England! and thou qui Primas tenes, the Pilot that steers the stern, if you be capable of any shame, and have not drunk of that Circaean Cup: blush at these things. And dost thou (after all thy notorious practices in suppressing the Preaching of the Doctrines of Grace, and the Printing of Books written in defence of Gods saving Truth, in the Church of England too intolerable to be borne, and which the earth groaneth under, and for which the wrath of heaven is already kindled) now come, thinking to blanche all by telling us a tale of this and that Council, and of St. Augustine, and of that Great bewitching Pelagian Heresy? Dost thou think the world is such a Baby grown, or the Old Mother Church of England come to that Dotage, as to believe, because her Arch-Prelate tells her, such a Provincial council wherein S. Augustine was condemned the whole course of the Great bewitching Heresy of Pelagius, and another Provincial set the Church right in those great Controversies of Grace and freewill; therefore her Arminian Pilot is no Pelagian? Thinkest thou (I say) to bewitch the world with these thy enchantments, which thou workest by the golden cup of thine hypocrisy? Surely heavens patience cannot long brook these dare, and deep dissemble, which yet are so gross, as they are not of a thread fine enough for Hypocrisy to make a veil of.  
L. p. 155. To these two (to wit, Our Princes, and the Clergy) Principally the power and direction for Reformation belongs.  
P. You told us 
* Epistle Dedicatory.  before, how the King and the Priest, more than any other, are bound to look to the Integrity of the Church in Doctrine and Manners, and that in the first place: Here you tell us of Princes and Clergy. This is some enlargement. For Clergy is not one Priest: except one Priest be so great, as that of Rome, or Canterbury, that he is equivalent to the whole Clergy, or is in himself the Clergy Collective. And yet suppose your whole Clergy of Priests were assembled in Convocation, what relation have you to the Princes? you do not mean (I dare say) the Princes assembled in Parliament. Beware of that. No you are content but to obtain a Congè or Licence from the King to have your Convocation, and then let you alone for Reformation. The Princes shall not need to trouble themselves further. That's your sole work. But yet this agrees not with your two Patterns, which you set in the Margin (touched before) to wit of King Ezechiah, 2 Chro 29. and King josia, 4. Reg. 23. (though you might as well have cited 2 King. 23. according to our English: but you love the old latin vulgar better) Now as we noted before, the Kings of Israel in their Reformations of Religion did not mate themselves with the Clergy, but together with all the Princes, and chief Fathers in Israel (like a Parliament for all the world) commanded the Priests to execute their office according to the express Law of God, and they also looked strictly to have it done. And this you confess elsewhere, 
* Pag. 205.  That those Kings reform no otherwise, but according to the prescript Rule of Gods Law. Ergo▪ The Priest reform not, but was himself to be reform by the King, and all according to God's prescript Law. But now if the Prince and Clergy, or rather (as I said) the Clergy by the Prince's leave (which you can no where show God's prescript Law for) should be the Principal, or rather sole for Reformation: I pray you what Reformation should we have, or could we expect? The Church of England once thought herself to be under Reformation (as you 
‡ Epistle Dedicatory.  tell us before) although at the best it was but as one calls it (in his Sermon preached in Queen Elizabeth's days at Paul's Cross, and published in Print by Authority) a half Reformation, because (as the Author of the Hunting of the Fox saith) the great Fox, the Pope had but his ears cropped, but his whole body remained still in England in the Prelacy; yet this was called a Reformateon, 〈◊〉 which the Church of England thought herself well separated from Rome, yet this is not that Reformation, that gives you content. And much less that Reformation beyond the Seas. Well, what Reformation is it then which you mean here? Surely the same, which you meant before by sincerity and integrity in Doctrine and Manners in the Church, to which I refer the Reader, where he shall find this Reformation clearly expounded. And in sum your Reformation here will differ from the former Reformation of the Church of England in this: that as that was but a half Reformation, because it retained the Prelacy, with some of Rome's Ceremonies: 
England's half Reformation now made a whole Deformation.  so this your Reformation shall make that up; in reducing the Church of England to the Integrity and sincerity of the Church of Rome in Doctrine and Manners full and whole. A thing indeed, which can no otherwise but be expected, so long as the Hierarchy stands in its full ruff, as it doth now in England. For like will to like, as you know who used the Proverb to the Colyer. Or as the Philosopher saith, Every thing aspires after its perfection. And the Perfection of the Hierarchy is at Rome, and thence All Hierarchy and Prelacy now adays hath and had its first Rise and Original. And therefore no marvel if Prelates naturally affect their native Country Rome. As the Roman 
* Ovid.  Poet said in his banishment, 

Nescio qua natale solum dulcedine cunctos  
Ducit, & immemores non sinit esse sui.   

Some secret sweetness in man's native home  
Draws him to mind it still, where ere become.    
L. Ibid. In a corrupt Time, or Place, 'tis as necessary in Religion to deny falsehood, as to assert and vindicate truth. Indeed this latter can hardly be well and sufficiently done, but by the former: an affirmative verity being ever included in the negative to a falsehood.  
P. Then I hope in a corrupt Time and Place, is it not necessary in Religion to deny your falsehoods, and to assert and vindicate the Truth, by you so undermined and oppugned? And your own Words here are sufficient to leave your Deeds without excuse.  
L. p. 157. If it be a Cause common to both parties, a third must judge, and that is the Scripture, 
Thus still no● the Scripture must be judge.  or if there be jealousy or doubt of the sense of the Scripture, they must either both repair to the exposition of the Primitive Church, and submit to that, or both call and submit to a General Council.  
P. The Scripture? That's honest as I noted before. Yea, and submit to, and rest in that, which you say not. But of the Scripture the only Judge of all Controversies, we have spoken sufficiently before, and so for matters of jealousy or doubt; and not either to your Primitive Church, or to a General Council. For further Answer we shall have further occasion.  
L. p. 171. Pope Urban 2 at the Council held at Bari in Ap●lia, accounted my Worthy Predecessor S. Augustine, as his own comp●●●e, and said, He was as the Apostolic, and Patriarch of the other world: so he then turned this Island.  
P. As worthy as your predecessor Anselm was, and though now one of Rome's Saints, yet he was against your Priest's Marriage. But perhaps therefore the more worthy. And he was so holy, it seems, that he said he never repented him of any thing in all his life, but about the eating of some Fish one time. But if the Pope gave your Worthy Predecessor the Title of Apostolic, and Patriarch of the other world, of England: why should not the same Title descend to his successors. And it seems you are not a little affected with it. For you say, A Primate is greater than a Metropolitan; and a Patriarch then a Primate. And none were above Patriarch but Pope. If then you succeed Anselm in his Patriarchate of the other world: you are in the next degree to succeed him, that is Papa totius Orbis. But how ever you glory in these titles: I assure you, for my part, I shall ever prefer a good honest Cobbler, that fears God above them all. For he hath an honest calling: you none. And you all are persecuters of them that truly fear God, and so enemies of Christ. And though you would be called Apostolic: yet to be Metropolitan, Primate, Patriarch, Pope, are all swelling Titles of pride, which the Apostles never knew, and which Christ expressly forbids; as hath been noted, and will be more. As followeth.  
L. p. 175. The calling and Authority of Bishops over the Inferior Clergy, that was a thing of known use, and benefit, for preservation of unity and peace in the Church.  
P. For this you cite Hierome. But you omit his other words, where he saith, That your Diocesan Bishops (for of such only the Question is) were brought in, but, humana praesumptione, non Institutione Divina, by humane Presumption, not by Divine Institution, or God's Ordinance: and this (as men presumed) in Schismata remedia, for a remedy of Schism. But it proved to be Schisma magnum, the Great Schism, that made up the body of Antichrist, the Great Rent from Christ, filling up the Mystery of Iniquity, as hath been showed. And out of Ieromes Sacerdos, Priest, where he saith, No Priest, no Church, you conclude in the 
Pag. 176.  Margin, so even with him, No Bishop, no Church. As if to be a Priest, must needs be a Bishop.  
And idid. you say, This was to settle in the minds of men from the very Infancy of the Christian Church, as that it had not been to that time contradicted by any. In the very Infancy of the Church? But your Prelacy was but an Infant then, and Innocent in comparison to the Giants now. We showed 
* Epistle Dedicatory.  before how this Mystery wrought even in the Apostles times, which they knocked down: yet still Satan kept it afoot. The use of it hath great Antiquity, but the Apostles condemned it as a mere abuse, and Christ, as Heathenish. And you talk here of use, but you are not able to show us any Authority from Scripture, either from Apostolic Ordinance and Example. The Apostles indeed before Christ's Resurrection were blindly ambitious of being chief in Christ's Kingdom: and Christ told his two kinsmen james and john, They asked they knew not what: and yet Mark tells us, that Christ ask them, what they reasoned of by the way, they were ashamed to tell him, as being self-guilty of pride and ambition: and still when he had but newly told them of his Passion to be at jerusalem, they not understanding what it meant, were still at it afresh, who should be the chief: but after that Christ was risen again, and his holy Spirit was breathed into them, than they were of another mind, they never after contended who should be chiefest, but rather who should be ●umblest, and holiest, and most painful and faithful in the spiritual Kingdom of Christ, in the execution of their Apostolical Charge. Which argues plainly, that the Prelacy is a mere carnal thing, a temporal Kingdom (contrary to Christ's Kingdom) which carnal men, void of Christ's Spirit and Grace are blindly ambitious of, calling their Prelacy an Hierarchy, or ho●y Government, or Kingdom, but know not what holiness, or Christ's Kingdom meaneth. And do we see any men in the world of any rank whatsoever more Lordly, more proud, more ambitious, more covetous, more profane, more corrupt, than those of the Hierarchy? Take the best of them now in England, the most learned of them: have they any zeal or courage for the truth, now, when they see Religion and the Faith of Christ turned topsie-turvie? Do they not all seek their own, not that which is jesus Christ's? And when your Chapleins geld their Works, have they any virility left in them, to maintain the truth of that which they have written? If their Metropolitan do but speak the word, is it not with them, as in the Comedy of the Parasite, Ait quis? Aio. Negat? Nego. But what say I of those Prelates, that are fallen upon the very Lees and dregs of the worst, and last times? Alas, in the first General Council of Niece under Constantine, in the Infancy of the Church, as you call it: what hot contentions among the Prelates one against another? What bundles and fardels of complaints brought they into the Council before Constantine? Enough to set all in a combustion, had not the Emperor the more wisely put all their Bills and mutual complaints in a combustion, by burning them in a fair fire before him in the view of all the Council. And the main point of their Contentions was about Precedency, which Bishopric should be before another. Oh devout and humble Prelates! O holy successors of the Apostles! Are these men like to remedy Schism in the Church, that are the Authors of them themselves? How came the great Schism of Arius, but by the Prelates, when but 
* Athanasius.  one chiefly stood up against him? How got Antichrist to be Caput Vniversale, Universal Head, or Bishop, but by the dessent of the Bishops, which causing their Appeals to Rome, brought the Roman Bishop to that height? so as the Prelates being worse divided among themselves, than the Presbyters had been before them, for remedy of whose Schism they were by man's prescription erected: gave occasion to the two Bishops of the two Imperial Cities, Rome and Constantinople to stickle for one Headship over all, to reconcile all. And so the Popedom itself, the Throne of the Beast was erected in Schismatis remedium: for the only Remedy of all Schism. And it is to be noted how these two Prelates strove for this supremacy, and both under the veil of humility. john of Constantinople becomes a great Faster; whereupon he was styled johannes jejunator, john the Faster. Gregory, then of Rome, though he thundered against john's Ambition calling him that had, or affected that Title, the forerunner of Antichrist, yet seeing john like to prevail with pretence of holiness and humility: Gregory styles himself servus servorum Dei. He thought he would not come behind for humility, but indeed therein bewraying his pride, when his humility was but in emulation. And we see in Gregory's Registrum, in sundry of his Epistles, how low he descends in most base flattery to that Parricide Phocas, and his Empress, to visit the thresholds of Peter and Paul, etc. But what will not Episcopal zeal do for the Hierarchy? But thus he kept john off: and so made way for his own Prophecy which was, Filius superbiae prope est. The son of pride (that is Antichrist) is near at hand. And nearer surely, than he was aware. For Gregory deceasing; and Sabianus succeeding, and sitting but one year: Boniface 3. the next successor obtained this Title of Phocas: and so each confirmed other, the Emperor the Pope in the Throne of Antichrist, which is a Tyranny over men's Souls: and the Pope the Emperor's Cruelty in a Tyranny over men's Bodies. And thus came that Prophecy of the Angel (Revel. 17.18) to be fulfilled, The Woman which thou sawest is that great City, which reigned over the Kings of the Earth. As Rome then did in S. john's time. So as according to God's word, not Constantinople (which was not the Imperial C●ty, till Constantine so made it) but Rome must be the feat of the Beast, and of the Whore thus described. Thus from Bishop's emulation, ambition, contention, one against another, for honour, precedency, and greatness in the world, came Antichrist to mount upon that Beast which had 7 heads and ten horns. And yourself 
* Pag. 176.  confesseth, The difficulty was, to accommodate the Places and Precedencies of Bishops among themselves. And for this you say, The most equal and impartial way was, that the 
‡ H●w comes than Canterbury to have the 〈…〉 Y●●ke ra●●●r than 〈…〉 there Constantine was 〈◊〉. And the the old Prop●e●● is, York● shallbe.  Honours of the Church, should follow the Honours of the State. So that the greater City, the greater Bishop. And thus Rome's Primacy in Order, brought him to his supremacy in Authority.  
Again, you say, The Calling of Bishops, Whence this Calling? Not from God. And of Aaron's Priesthood it was said, No man takes this honour upon him, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron: Heb. 5.4. So all the Apostles had a special Calling and Commission from Christ to preach, etc. Paul Called to be an 
† Rom. 1.1. 1 Cor. 1.1. 2. Cor. 1.1. etc.  Apostle of jesus Christ. He stood upon his Calling, he had a lawful Calling, whereon his Apostolic Authority was founded Now you would be accounted Apostolic, and the Apostles successors: but where's your Calling? We find no such Calling, as of Lord-bishops in the Scripture. Therefore you have no Authority over the inferior Clergy, not over God's Ministers, I mean. Either therefore prove your Calling from God, or give us leave to deny your Authority, as being an usurped Tyranny. If you allege those Bishops so called, Act. 20.28. Phil. 1.1. 1 Tim. 3.1. Tit. 1.7. etc. Prove they were Diocesan Bishops. We prove them by the plain Text to be but Presbyters over the several Congregations, over which the Holy Ghost made them Episkópous, Bishops, or Overseers, as more fully at after. If you allege Timothy and Titus for Bishops, that's soon answered, they were only Evangelists, no Bishops. Those Epigraphees in the end of that to 2 Tim. and Tit. they are no part of the Text, but were added long after, at the leas● 400. years. It behoves you therefore to prove your Calling better, before you so press and oppress us with your Authority. But you add:  
L. p. 177. Among these (to wit, Patriarches, Metropolitans, Bishops) there was effectual subjection respectively grounded upon Canon, and positive Law in their several quarters.  
P. Here you confess, that all subjection of Metropolitans to the Patriarches, and of Bishops to the Metropolitans, was but grounded upon Canon, and Positive Law: Ergo, not upon the Canon of Scripture nor the Law of God. As you confessed openly in High Commission, that no one Apostle had Authority or jurisdiction over the Rest, or any of their fellows. so as though you call your calling Apostolic, yet your Archbishopric is not Apostolic, in exercising Authority and jurisdiction over all the Bishops in your Province. This you have not from the Scripture: I know not from what Papal Canon. For as for Positive, if you mean the Politic Laws of Princes, you will not take your Authority from them. And the Judges have declared their judgement in the King's Edict, that your exercising your Authority, and keeping Courts in your own Names, is now no more a trenching upon the King's Prerogative, then formerly it hath been. Where the Judges are to be commended for their Discretion. But it is very well. Thus you are lose off from the Positive Law of the Prince: and we deny you any title either of Authority or Calling over the Ministry: and so you may prove to sit between two stools; or as he that hath not one string to his bow. But whereas you confess before, that Bishops have no Jurisdiction one over another, because the Apostles had not: hence it is evident, that those who are true Bishops, to wit, Presbyters, have no jurisdiction over one another; and so there is no such Order, or Calling of Lord Bishops, whereby they have Authority over the true Bishops and Pastors of the flocks of Christ. These things are noted sufficiently before: but as Augustine writing against the Pelagians, saith, By these things so often repeated, though the importunity of the Adversary will not be repressed, yet the Truth shallbe the more confirmed, and the Faith of Believers the more firmly established.  
L. p. 183. The Patriarch of Rome had potentiorem Principalitatem, a more powerful Principality, than other Churches had. And that the Protestants grant too: and that not only because the Roman Prelate was Ordine primus, First in Order and Degree, which some one must be, to avoid confusion: but, etc.  
P. What the Protestants grant to have been de facto, is one thing, that such a thing is, or was so and so: but what they grant to have been de jure, but what Right is another. And this the Reformed Protestants never granted to the Pope, or any Prelate. But there must be some one (say you) to avoid Confusion: and this according to the honour of the state and Place. And that must needs be the Pope of Rome. But for the purpose, or end, you are far wide. For instead of avoiding Confusion, this strewed the way to build up Babylon, Confusion itself. And yourself saith as much: 
* Pag. 176.  This was the very fountain of Papal Greatness, the Pope having his Residence in the Great Imperial City. So as Primacy joined with Power, and Authority too, as that of the Pope in Rome, and yours in England, the Pope residing in the Imperial City, and you in the Royal Court, What confusion the one hath brought to the Empire itself, the world knows, and what the other may bring to the State Royal, the Lord knows, and he in mercy prevent: and if such confusion to States, than what to the true Religion, and the Churches of Christ.  
But hath the Pope then (that pretended successor of the poor Fisherman) such a Principality? This is more than Primacy. Unless Primacy be, by your interpretation, Principality. Nay it must needs be so: because, if the Pope's Principality be more potent, than other Churches: then surely your Primacy is at least a Principality too, though less potent. And who doubts of that. For at your High Commission Board at Dr BASTWICKS Censure, you did prove most bravely from Scripture itself, that you were Princes. What Scripture? You alleged Psal. 45.16. Instead of thy Fathers shallbe thy Children, 
Psal. 45.16.  whom thou mayst make Princes in all the Earth. What conclude you hence? Ergo, Prelates are Princes. We deny your inference, and consequence. How prove you it? I know you will strait appeal to a General Council, if we doubt of it. Stay awhile. A General Council is an Assembly of Prelates. And then, They shallbe their own judges. That's not fair play. And Bellarmine would have a great stroke there, for he also aledges this place for you, and himself too, to prove that the Pope is a Prince, and so all Prelates under him. But by your leave we appeal to the Scriptures themselves for Interpretation, as best knowing their own meaning, and ablest to express themselves. Now comparing this with other Scriptures, we find, that those Princes there spoken of in all Lands, are understood of all God's Children, true Believers, throughout the whole earth now under the Gospel. For of these the Spirit saith, He (Christ) hath made us Kings, 
Rev. 1.6.  and Priests to God his Father. Now if all true Believers be Kings, than also Princes. And in 
* 1 Pet. 2.9 Rev. 5.9, 10. jam. 2.5.  Peter, we are called a royal Priesthood. So Rev. 5.9, 10. Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, and hast made us unto our God Kings and Priests, etc. And Jam. 2.5. Harken, my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poor of this world, to be rich in Faith, and heirs of the Kingdom, which God hath promised to them that love him? How if heirs of the Kingdom, than Princes And Rom. 8.16, 17. 
Rom. 8.16, 17▪  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the Children of God. And if Children, than heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ, if s● be we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. And many other places to this purpose. We are the 
* Rom. 8.29. Heb. 2.11.  brethren of Christ, the congregation of the first borne. Therefore Princes. And yet poor in this world. But if Prelates be Princes, they are such as Solomon describes, by another Title, being compared to the true Princes, Gods Children. There is (saith he) an evil, which I have seen under the Sun (and he saw it by the eye of Prophecy) as an error, which proceedeth from the Ruler. What is the evil? What that error of Rulers? Namely, Folly is set in great Dignity, and the Rich set in low place: I have seen Servants on Horses, and Princes walking as Servants upon the earth. Now who are these rich, that sit in a low place? The rich in Faith saith james. And who are these Princes, that walk as Servants upon the earth? Namely God's Children, who are true Princes, heirs of the Kingdom, that are afflicted and oppressed in the world. And what folly is that, which is set in great dignity? Who more properly than Prelates, which are as those of whom james speaks, in rich and gorgeous apparel, who are set in a goodly place, while Gods poor Children sit below on the footstool. And who those Servants on Horses? Prelates on their foot-cloth, riding in pomp, while God's people trudge a foot on the earth. If you say, you are not here meant: because you are no fools, nor servants. Indeed you are no small fools. For there are no greater fools in the world, than such as seem wisest in their own conceit, as Prelates do. As Solomon saith, 
‡ Pro. 26.12.  Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool then of him▪ Now do not you make yourselves the wisest men in the world, as the only Guides and Oracles of the Church, and that even as you are Prelates? And again, are there any such fools, as those, who prefer the riches and honours in the world, before heaven? Or that war and fight against Christ, and his Kingdom? And do not you Prelates so? Your own vain profession, and practices proclaim you to be folly it self, set in great dignity? And are you not servants, servants of sin, servants of your own lusts, and other men's, 
‡ jude. 16.  having them in admiration, for advantage? And under colour of humility, as if you were servi servorum, servant of servantes as the proud Pope styles himself, which was 
§ Gen. 9  Cham's curse) do you not exalt yourselves as Domini dominantium, mounted on your rich and prancing Palphrys, while you 
† Psa●. 66.12.  ride over the heads of the true heaven bred Princes, that go afoot on the ground? And how came you to be so mounted, but through the 〈◊〉 of Rulers of the earth. How mounted the Pope, but by the Emperor's holding of his stirrup. And when the Pope was terrible angry with the 
* Frederick.  Emperor, for holding the wrong stirrup, did not the Emperor trow you then begin to see his error? But it was now too late. Having given 
‡ Revel. 17.  their Kingdom to the Beast, 'tis just with God, they should become his vasals, till the time appointed.  
But to conclude this your Ordine primus, which you apply to 〈◊〉 Pope, I cannot more properly and truly parallel or compare it, then to judas, the Standard-bearer of that troop, that came to apprehend Christ; for judas came to Christ with Hale Master, and kissed him, and with this kiss, as by the signal given, betrayed him. And is not your Ordine primus by this very Character known to be Antichrist, while pretending to be Apostolic, and a Successor of the Apostles, he doth the more easily betray Christ in his Word and Members into the hands and bands of men?  
Object. But Peter was Ordine primus. What, such as to avoid confusion? As a head uniting all the members, and governing all the body, as your Ordine primus to avoid confusion, necessarily imports? Did Peter at any time convent the Apostles? Was he that Ordine primus, that struck the stroke, and gave the Difinitive sentences in that first General and Apostolical Council, Act. 15. Did not james determine, and the whole Church assented? And Gal. 2.9. Is not james set before Peter: 
Act. 15. Gal. 2. ●.  And was 
‡ Act. 8.1. ●▪  not Peter and john sent by the rest of the Apostles to Samaria? When was this necessity then of an Ordine primus, to avoid confusion? And what confusion is avoided this day in the Church of England by your being Ordine primus, nay prim-as, both in honour and Authority and jurisdiction? Have you not by that your Ordine primus brought a confusion upon Religion? Upon the Doctrinal Articles? Upon the Consciences and Faith of men, not knowing what to believe, or what to do, or how to live in any peace, inward or outward? But you think to shift well enough for one, so long as you put an other Ordine primus before (as before is noted) upon whose back you may lay all your burdens. So as if any thing be amiss, or succeed not well, you are not then the Ordine primus.  
Lastly, one thing I observe more from your Ordine primus, and that is, the necessity of it, which say you, some one must be. What one soever this is, whether the Patriarch of the greater world, or he of the lesser, or other World, but Rome rather must be she, there's a necessity for this, that one be Ordine primus. What's this? By the necessity of this Ordine primus, is brought in a necessity of your new Catholic Militant Church, consisting of the Prelacy, or Hierarchy, which is so one, as one must be Ordine primus, as general of the whole Army, as the Dragon and his Angels to war against Michael and his Angels. So as here is an indissoluble and inseparable combination and confederacy of Prelates throughout the world, making up that one Militant or Malignant Church, whereof one must 〈◊〉 the chief, to order the battle, that there be no disorder, but that every one keep his rank, and fight in his station against the true Militant Church of Christ, as was before noted.  
L. p. 182. Let Rome reduce itself to the observation of Tradition Apostolic, to which it held in Irenaeus his time, and I will say as he did, That it will be then necessary for every Church, and for the faithful every where to agree with it.  
P. Let Rome reduce itself to the rule of the Scripture in all things, which the faithful there held in Paul's time, when he was prisoner, yet Preacher in Rome, and then I will say (and willbe the first that will do it) I willbe one of the faithful, that will agree with it. But for Tradition Apostolic, I know not what you mean, and therefore I dare not say as you do. But still you hold with Ordine primus, I am sure of it. You hold fast together for your Hierarchy, wherein you place the Pope your Ordine primus. Which while you do, Whatsoever Tradition Apostolic Rome shall reduce itself to, it willbe most perilous and pernicious too for any of the faithful to agree with it. And I am sure the Hierarchy, and our Ordine primus in that, was no Tradition Apostolic. So for that, there's no talk of reducing, either for Rome's or Canterbury. And could you persuade the world to agree with with the Ordine primus at Rome, than that speech of yours (pag. 182.) would easily take place in these our times, as well as Irenaeus his time. 
* pag. 182.  Very great reason was there in Irenaeus his time, that upon any difference arising in the Faith, Omnes undique fideles, all the faithful, or, if you will, all the Churches round about, should have recourse, that is, resort to Rome, being the Imperial City, and so a Church of more powerful Principality, than any other at that time, in those parts of the world. But the meaning of A.C. is, we must so have recourse to Rome, as to submit our faith to hers. And should I grant them their own sense, that all the faithful every where must agree with Rome (which I may give, but can never grant) yet were not this saying any whit prejudicial to us now. For first, here's a powerful Principality ascribed to the Church of Rome▪ so you. Here are many words cunningly woven, and packed up together, that to discover your full meaning, you had need to un●old your whole pack. Now all round about Rome, is a large compass; for the whole world lies round about Rome, it being also (at least there) the Imperial City, and so a Church of more powerful Principality, than any other, which might therefore challenge resort of all unto it, as to the only Oracle for resolving all your faithful every where in doubts of Faith. Yea and if you should grant too, that all must submit their faith to Rome, you say, it were no whit prejudicial to us now. And should you not grant it, how should it agree with your necessity of having one Ordine primus. For to what purpose should there be one Ordine primus to avoid confusion, i● to his Call, Summons and Judgement all your faithful resorting, they should not rest this their faith in his Determination. Otherwise, how should Confusion be avoided. For then to what one Ordine primus should they go? But do you yield it, or no? You say, you may give it, but can never grant it. I pray you, whether shall your affirmative giving, or your negative granting be of more force? Or if you give it, how do you not grant it too? Yea giving is more than granting. If therefore you give it, you do more than grant it. But suppose you restrain it only to Irenaeus his time. Had Rome then an Infallible Oracle in the Pope's breast? Or was his judgement the more infallible, because his Chair was in the Imperial City? Or his sentence of the more credit, because his Church had the more powerful Principality? Then why in all doubtful cases of Faith should not all the faithful in England resort to the Chair of Canterbury, as which hath the most powerful Principality, of all the Prelates in England? Why should not the thresholds of your Palace be as much worn with the footsteps of those that come to your Oracle for resolution in matters of faith: as the Shrine of your Predecessor S. Thomas of Canterbury, with the keys of his blind votaries? And so much the more in these days; as wherein you have put all England to a stand and stagger what to believe in point of Faith, considering that the Articles of Religion, like Meteors hang in suspense in the air, no man knowing what to make of them, whether they be white or black, or what such Comets portend, until to that Edict of the Court (that binds up the sense of the Articles fast asleep, or in a slumber between Hawk and Buzzard, or as a speaking in a dream) you shall superadde the Definitive Decree of the Chair of Canterbury, to interpret unto us what they have dreamt all this while. But I suppose, the Board calling you so much away from your Chair, you are the more willing, and that in such a case of necessity to send all the faithful to your Ordine primus at Rome, and to Peter's Chair there (if any such thing be there) which may like juno's three footed stool, resolve all their doubts. And so (as you 
* idid.  say to A C.) Rome may thank you for it. But always provided, tha● Rome first reduce herself (as you say) to the Observation of Tradition Apostolic, and then you will say Latinè, plainly, That it willbe then necessary for every Church, and for the faithful every where to agree with it, to have recourse to Rome, and to rest their Faith there, where is the most Powerful Principality. And thus (as well as I could) I have picked up your meaning, wherein if I have come short, you must pardon me, and blame yourself, for your being no more perspicuous in matters of such moment, as about consulting of Oracles, considering, that that of Apollo and Delphos was long ago put to silence. But to proceed.  
L. p. 199. The Bishop of Rome hath no power from Christ, over the whole Church to be judge in Controversies: nay out of all doubt, 'tis not the least reason, why de facto he hath so little success, because de Jure he hath no power given.  
P. Not over the whole Church. This seems to imply, that the Bishop of Rome hath a power from Christ to be judge in Controversies over all the Churches at least within his own more powerful Principality. And consequently, that the Primate of Canterbury hath the like power from Christ to be Judge in Controversies over the whole Church of England. If you have, yet it willbe some ease to the English, that they have an Oracle so near home to resolve them in all doubts, so as they need not (as formerly) go trudge to Rome for the matter. But neither to the Pope in his Powerful Principality, nor to you in your Primacy hath Christ given any power at all to be Judge in Controversies of Faith. And because you have no Calling, nor Commission from Christ, therefore 'tis true you say in this, that the Pope hath no better success. And I pray you 
‡ Selfe-condemned.  what success have you had, since you took upon you to sway the Crosier staff of Canterbury, and to be Judge in Controversies of Faith, making and raising controversies there, where there was none before, as namely in the Articles of Religion? 'Tis true, you have put many a good Minister to Silence, thrust many a one out of his Cure, and Country, levied your way for an universal Conformity to Rome, prevailed much in your Designs that way: but yet have you any great cause to boast of your success, all things Considered? I say no more. Verbum sapienti: you understand me well enough. And certainly when you cast up your reckoning, you will find yourself to be as much behind hand for success, as you do the Pope. And your Reason is true: because you have no power, no Authority, no Calling, no Commission from Christ, either to possess such a place, or to execute such an Office. For as the Lord saith in 
* jer. 23.32.  jeremy (speaking of false Prophets) I sent them not, neither commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the Lord. So, neither have you reason to think, that because you may do what you list in turning things upside down, in setting up your Altars, in suppressing God's word, in oppressing Gods Ministers, in advancing your Arminian and Popish faction, and you hitherto prosper therein, while there is never a man left, that dare so much as mutter a word against these your practices, so great is your Power, and so terrible your Cruelty, and Ministers so Cowardly, so as by this means your Cause and Course seems to prosper, while you can crush any that shall interpose himself, or lawfully in his place oppose your violent courses: therefore Christ hath given you this power thus to tyrannize, wherein you do so prosper. True it is, that Christ hath given way to Satan to rage in these times, because he knows he hath but a short time: and hereby Christ will try and humble his people, that he may do them good, and be glorified in their deliverance, and in the destruction of all such Papal and Antichristian Tyranny.  
L. p. 200. The Church being as large as the world, 
Blasphemy against Christ as being Author of the Antichristian Hierarchy.  Christ thought it fitter to govern it Aristocratically, by Divers, rather than by One Viceroy. And I believe that this is true. For all the time of the first 300. years, and somewhat better, it was governed Aristocratically, to wit, by the Bishops, etc.  
P. Here you give us occasion further to launch into the Deep of this Mystery, that we may sound the bottom of it, and so discern what ground it floats upon (mud, or sand, or both) although we have in part discovered it before. Here you say, and you say you believe it too (it is an Article of your Creed) that Christ thought it fitter to govern the Church Aristocratically by divers, rather than by one Viceroy. And you give the Reason, The Church being as large as the world. We will first take an Assay of your words, and then of your Reason. For to a vulgar Reader some of your words are somewhat obscure, and some also very finely couched, that every eye cannot at the first discern the Mystery of them.  
And first, for Aristocratically: Aristotle, the famous Philosopher, and no mean statesman, in his Politics lays down 3 kinds of Civil Government, taken in the better part: The first is Monarchia, which is a government by One: the second is, Aristocratia, which is a Government of the Best Men: the third is Democratia, which is a Government Popular, or of the People. Opposite to these three, he sets three sorts of bad Government: the first is Tyranny, which is opposed to Monarchy; Tyranny ruling either without, or contrary to the good Laws established: but a Monarchy governing according to the established good Laws of the State, Kingdom, or Commonweal. The second is, Oligarchia, which signifies the Government of a few; and this standing in opposition to Aristocratia (the Government of the best men) it signifieth the Government of a few of the worst men. The third is, Anarchia, that is, no Government at all, when without Law, or Ruler, every one doth that, which seems good in his own eyes (as Judas 17 6. and 21.25.) and this is opposed to Democratia, a Government of the people by good Laws. These things thus plainly laid down, we shall the more clearly proceed in our Point.  
Secondly, I note here your word Viceroy; which every man knows doth signify a Vice-King, or one Deputed by the King to govern a Kingdom in his personal absence, whereof there is usually but one in a Kingdom; as the Viceroy of the Kingdom of Naples under the King of Spain; or the Lord Duputy of Ireland under the King thereof. But yet every one doth not perhaps understand, that among divers Prelates, you make yourself a Viceroy. But looking more narrowly into your words, we shall find that sense easily resulting from them. For you say, That Christ thought it fitter to govern his Church by Divers, then by One Viceroy: that is, by Divers Vice-Roys, rather than by One. All comes to one reckoning. And besides you express the word Divers, and the word One▪ with a Capital, to note, that both have reference to Viceroy. So as it runs Currant both ways, whether you say, By Divers, rather than by One Viceroy: or, By Divers Vice-Roys, rather than by One. Thus 'tis plain enough.  
Lastly, a third word here is of some difficulty: that you say, Christ thought it fitter. Now I never took you to be one of Christ's Privy Council, so as to be made Privy to Christ's thoughts, and that in these things, which he hath no where expressed in his word. But this is familiar with you (as before) to tell us Gods thoughts. But show us where Christ hath expressed any such thought of his in his express word, the Scripture. If you cannot (as you cannot) how presume you to say, Christ thought so. Certainly my Lord jesus Christ, that 
* 1 Tim 6.15.  only Potentate, and 
‡ Rom. 16.27.  only wise King, useth not to entertain such as you are to be of his Privy Council, or Cabinet, that dare discover his secrets, nay dare report that of him, which never came into his thought. And if ye be so bold with Christ, others may be warned hereby how far to trust you with their secrets, and others again, how far to believe your reports of Prince's Pleasures, or Purposes, when perhaps 'tis neither so nor so. But my Lord, your Places, and Grace, attended with all the Princely Pomp, suits not with Christ's Privy-Councel-Board. He admitted none thither, but a company of poor simple Fishermen. Those were his 
‡ joh. 15.14, 15.  Friends, to whom he did communicate and impart his counsels and secrets. As 
§ Gen. 18.17.  Abraham being the 
† jam. 2.23.  Friend of God, God said he would hide nothing from him. No, nor from any of his truebred seed. 
‡̶ Psal. 25.14.  The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and he will show them his Covenant. They are either strangers in the world, as 
* Dan.  Daniel in Babylon: or exiles from the world, as 
‡ Rev. 1.  john in the I'll of Pathmos; or such as live sub Dio, in the wilderness, as john Baptist: or dwell in a poor thatched Cottage, or so, to whom the Lord jesus Christ reveals his thoughts; and not lightly to those that live deliciously, and are in King's Cours, and go in soft clothing, their 
‡ Rev. 12.4.  Train borne up after them, wherewith they draw the third part of the stars of heaven. As a Cardinal at the Election of a Pope, when there was a solemn Mass sung to call down the Holy Ghost, to set the dissenting Factions of the Cardinals at one, and it would not be, said, Let us uncover the Roof, for the Holy Ghost cannot find a way to pass through so many tiles. And my Lord, if you tell us this as a revelation, what Christ thought: we have no more, but your bare word (as in many other things of like nature) so as unless (in a matter of such moment as this is) you can show us the truth hereof by some Miracle for confirmation, as the 
§ 2 Th●ss 2.  Romish Priests do for their Transubstantiation, and Purgatory, and such like secrets: you must pardon us, if we do not give credit to what you so boldly say of Christ's thought here.  
But from your words come we to the matter, which they import, and which I say we still require proof of, which will trouble you worse to find, than all the writing of your Book hath done. And seeing you compare your Episcopal Government with the Aristocratical, which is the Government Optimatum, of the Best men: prove unto us (to make your comparison good, and that in the prime notion of it) that Prelates are the Best men in the Church. You are Megístoi indeed, the greatest: but are you Aristoi, 
Cicer. Offic.  the Best. Riches and Honours (saith Cicero) make a man to be Majorem, greater: Meliorem verò quomodo? but how, better? I could never believe, that the Papal Mitre, could infuse holiness, or an archiepiscopal Pall, Grace. Nor could I see any Reason why Prelates should take place in precedency one of another, according to the greatness of their Principality respectively, as if the Pope were ever the more learned, virtuous, religious, holy, because he is Bishop of Rome, or your Lordship because you are Titled His Grace of Canterbury. Whereas precedency of persons should go by their personal worth, and age, and inward endowments, and not by any Prelatical outward Prerogatives. But this by the way.  
But for your aristocraty: That Prelates are the best men to govern the Church of Christ; will ye be tried by the thoughts of Christ expressed by the Apostle, which he had heard in the 
* 2 Cor.  Third heaven, in Christ's Privy Chamber? There you shall see plainly, what both your, and our faith may infallibly build upon; namely who, or what manner of persons they be, whom Christ thought fit to Govern his Church. You say, Bishops. So say we too. But whether our Bishops be the same with your Bishops (and that not only for their Function, yours being Diocesan, and ours (such as the Apostle speaks of) Pastors respectively over their particular Congregations: but for their qualities and conditions, such as are required in true Bishops indeed) let us hear the Apostles words. 
‡ 1 Tim. 3.1, etc.  Pistòs ho lógos. Eítis Episkopes o'régetai, kalou e'rgou e'pithumei: This is a faithful saying: If any man desire the Office of a Bishop he desireth a worthy work, Orégetay, signifieth an earnest desire, quasi porrectis manibus prehendere & arripere; the Office of a Bishop perhaps you would translate e'piskopè, a Bishopric: but our English hath turned it right, The office of a Bishop; for 'tis called here, a worthy work. And therefore it is not one of your Prelatical Bishoprics, which indeed you do with both hands both o'rexasthai, & epithumesai, reach after with all earnest desire: for you reach after the Lordship, after the Honour, after the Revenues, after the Pleasures, after the Ease, and after the goodly Palaces and Demeanes of your Bishoprick●: in all which you cannot show k●lòn ' érgon, a worthy work. And so indeed these words of the Apostle (and elsewhere) concerning a Bishop do nothing concern you: but only to convince you, that you are none of those Bishops, whom the Scripture so styleth. Well, what be those special qualities, which the Apostle requireth in a true Bishop, set over the Congregation of the Lord? It shall suffice to mention for the present purpose but some of them. As first: He must be Anégkletoes, unreprovable, such as cannot be justly accused of any crime. Now none of you come thus clean to your Bishoprics: for you are, or may be justly accused of having been Pluralists (which is against your Old Canons) non-resident, Idle Dreanes, seldom Preaching in their own Cures, but by a poor Stipendiary Curate, flattering Court-Preachers, and the like. Nay who is capable, or heir apparent of a Bishopric, or Prelacy, that hath not two or three ●at livings, with a Prebend or two, and a Deanery, that being thus qualified, having his Purse well lined (I say not, that he may purchase his Bishopric) he may be able at least at his Incoming to defray five or six hundred Pounds, or a thousand Marks for Fees, and Feasts, and Gloves at his Consecration? Well, secondly, He must not be Authádas, self-willed (so our last Translation renders the word.) And believe me this may come near the proudest of your Coats, when you come with your Volumus & jubemus, We will and command, and that without either Law, or Canon? And you must have your will, there's no remedy for that, else ye will take the pet, or pepper in the nose, and cry out of contempt of Authority. And the word signifieth also one that is arrogant, and proud, a selfe-pleaser. You may take all these senses, if you will. Thirdly, He must not be, Plékges, a striker, whether with his own, or others hands, as delivering over to the secular Power, or Sword, whereby he so strikes, as he sheds the blood of the Innocents'. He must be none of that society. Fourthly, he must not be Orgílos, soon Angry, testy, or touchy, such as Na●al, that one might not speak to him, he was so snappish, and cursed, Fiftly, he must not be Aiskrokerdès, given to filthy lucre, as in exacting Fees (he or his Officers) of poor Ministers, either extraordinary at their Admissions, or ordinary at Visitations, and a thousand ways besides Viis & modis sine modo in your Bishop's Courts. Sixtly, He must be Philágadoes, a lover of good men, not a hater and persecuter of them. Seventhly, he must be Díkaies, just, not oppressing Innocents' by a faction and confederacy of voices forepacked in your Courts, before the Cause come to be heard. Eightly, He must be Osios', holy, not one that is an enemy to all true holiness, and persecutes the very name of it, and suppress the practice and means of it, as by crying down the sanctification of the Lords day, and the sincere Preaching of the word of God, and commending and dispensing with profane sports on that day▪ Ninthly▪ He must be Didáktikos, apt to teach: not only sufficient and able, for his Scholarship, or one that can make a Sermon, if he will, but he must be diligent in preaching in season and out of season. He must hold fast the faithful Word, that he may be able by sound Doctrine both to exhort, and to convince the Gainsayers. So far must he be from abetting and countenancing false Teachers, and unsound Doctrine, and old damned Heresies, and forbidding to preach sound Doctrine, and punishing those that do. I might reckon up sundry more qualities, which Christ requireth in those, whom only he allows and appoints as fittest to govern and feed his People, as becometh good Pastors to do their flocks; as 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. and elsewhere. But because Lord Prelates, or Diocesan Bishops (as I said before) are none of those Bishops here which the Apostle requires to be thus qualified; therefore I have said enough to convince you, that you are none of Christ's Bishops, if you do but look yourselves in this Glass. And if you mark it well, these are those, that immediately succeeded the Apostles and Evangelists, in the Ministerial function. As we read, Eph. 4.11. where the Pastors and Teachers are those, who are elsewhere called Presbyters and Bishops, such as Paul and Barnabas did 
* Act. 14.23.  Keirotonesi, elect, ordain, or appoint by imposition of hands Kat' e'kklesían, in every Church, or particular Congregation. A place very remarkable. And these Presbyters, Bishops, Pastors, Teachers, Preachers, Ministers (for all is one and the same Office) as they succeeded the Apostles, but with a particular limitation every one to their peculiar charges and Congregations respectively: so while the Apostles lived, they were still next unto them, as we see Act. 15.2.4.6.22, 23. And these are those Elders that rule well, which especially do Kopian, labour hard in the Ministry of the Word and Doctrine. These are those Aristoi, those Optimates, the best men, by whose Aristocratical Government, according both to the thought (we may boldly and truly say) and to the express word of Christ, the several Churches, and particular Congregations and flocks of Christ, are governed; and that, not by any their own devised Canons, but by the only Canon of Scripture, wherein are expressed all those Laws, and Rules, by which all true Ministers of Christ do regulate themselves, and govern their several Congregations. For although Christ's faithful and true Ministers are the best men, and therefore are but few in comparison (and 
‡ 2 Cor. 2.16.  who is fit, or sufficient for these things? saith the Apostle) yet Christ left them not to govern his Churches or flocks, as they should think best, but according to his own Laws: as Deputies are to govern the people according to the King's Laws, and no otherwise. For such is the Government of aristocraty, it is established upon good Laws of the Commonweal; otherwise it should degenerate into the corrupt and bad Government of Oligarchia. So as here is no room for your Diocesan Lord Bishops; for you are none of those Aristoi, Optimates: the best m●n, whom Christ thought fit for the Aristocratical Government of his Church, sith ye are neither qualified for it, as he requires in his true Bishops, nor will you confine your Prelatical Government to the Laws of Christ expressed in his word, but will govern by your own Canons and lusts, as usurpers use to do. And therefore (by the way) no marvel if you speak so contemptibly and basely of the holy Scripture, seeing in them you can find no ground, either of Precept, or Apostolic Precedent for your Antichristian Hierarchy.  
All which considered, doth in the second place give us just cause to doubt at least, or rather to be well assured indeed, that Diocesan Prelates, or Bishops (as you usurp the Title) are no Vice-Roys under the Great King jesus Christ: because your Government is nothing according to our Great Kings Laws, but according to your own devised Canons, and in nothing, in Nothing (I say) agreeable to the Laws of Christ in the Scripture, for the right Government of his Church. Nay that Government which Christ hath prescribed in his word, and which is practised in the best Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, you do utterly and openly condemn, and the Churches themselves, that do practise the Discipline of Christ and his Apostles, while you deny them to be any Churches of Christ at all.  
Again, Every Kingdom, as it hath but one King over it, so it is capapable of no more, then only one Viceroy▪ so as by that Title, he that is your Ordine Primus, and hath a more Potent Principality, the Pope, had he but a good Title, would carry that honour from you all, if you value the worth and Dignity of that Vice-Royship after the value of your Bishoprics, and not after virtue. Either then you must acknowledge the Pope to be the sole Viceroy, which you are loath to do. (For why should not the Patriarch of the other world be as capable of that honour, as he) or you must give us leave to find out the only true Viceroy of Christ in his Church, and that is, The Holy Ghost. For when our Great King went into his Celestial Kingdom, to his Church Triumphant, leaving his Militant here on Earth under the Kingdom of Grace, as touching his bodily presence: he sent the Holy Ghost to be his Viceroy, or Vicegerent, to be perpetually resident in his Kingdom of Grace here, for the Governing of his Church Militant, and that according to the Law of Christ in his written word, leading the People of Christ into all truth, by revealing unto them all the mysteries of Christ's will contained in the Scripture. As Christ saith, 
* joh. 16.14.  He shall glorify Me; for he shall receive of mine, and show it unto you. And v. 13. When the spirit of Truth is come, whom (v. 7.) I will send unto you, he will guide you into all Truth; for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak. Lo here then a faithful Viceroy indeed. And will, or dare you deny this Spirit of God to be an All sufficient Viceroy, who doth execute Christ's Kingly Office in his Church, in all things just so, as Christ himself will'th. And therefore except you can prove, that Christ hath many Kingdoms of Grace here on earth, or any more Churches Militant, than one only, here is no Rome for any such Vice-Roys, as you pretend to be. For here we see it plain, that of Christ's one, and only Kingdom of Grace here on earth, the Holy Ghost is the only Viceroy. And who is fit to be Christ's Viceroy in his spiritual Kingdom, but the Spirit of God, and of Christ●? Ye are therefore no Vice-Roys, because you are altogether carnal, and your Kingdom is of this world.  
And therefore Thirdly, how can you Prelates pretend to be Vice-Roys over Christ's Church, whenas (as is noted before) ye are not so much as any members at all of Christ's Kingdom. For you are the Members of Antichrists Kingdom, and so you are, or may be Antichrists Vice-Roys over his several Provinces. 'Tis true you style yourselves spiritual, Lords spiritual, and your Courts spiritual, and you are an Hierarchy, as much to say, as a Holy Kingdom, or Government: but it is not spiritual of Christ's spirit, but of that spirit that ruleth in the air, that gave you all that Authority. 
‡ Eph. 2.2.  So as you do with Bellarmine turn those words of Christ to Peter, Pasce oves meas, Feed my Sheep, to Regio more Impera, Rule as a King. And what similitude is there between Christ and you, that you should be his Vice-Roys in his Church-Militant? When he was here in person, he was among his own as a servant, and Minister. He had no sta●ely and Princely Palaces, he kept no such Pontificial house, nor Court: he governed not his Church by Chancellors, Arch Deacons, Deans Chapters, Commissaries, Offi●ialls, Pursuivants, Apparitors, and all that Rabble. Christ had no such face of a Kingly Government. So as you have altogether perverted the Kingdom of Christ, which is altogether spiritual, and holy, into a mere temporal and carnal Kingdom, wherein therefore you are none of Christ Vice-Roys, but Vi●ious Roys▪ and Tyrannical Lords. O Antichristian Generation! O notorious Hypocrites! O proud and blind Guides! How shall you escape the vengeance to come, that dare thus impiously ab●se the Name of our Lord jesus Christ, and so impose upon the world by your bold usurpations? Usurpations indeed. You call your selus Vice-Roys, Apostolic, Bishops, Spiritual Church, Grace, Holiness: mere Nominals, which you have usurped, and patched together, to become a veil to cover your deep hypocrisy, and to seem glorious in the eyes of the world, and all to hold up your earthly Kingdom, which consists altogether of earthly things, honours riches, pleasures But blind world, that sufferest thyself to be thus gulled and befoold with such glittering stuff, and to be made a slave to such Lords, and to be cheated of thy salvavation by these Antichristian Mountebanks. And yet they pretend and profess, that this their carnal▪ pompous, and Pontificial Kingdom is Christ's spiritual Kingdom here, in the state of Grace. Let them then clear themselves herein from that damned Heresy of that old Heretic ●erinthus, who lived in S. john's time. His Heresy was, That Christ's Kingdom, after his Resurrection was earthly, and that now the flesh conversing in jerusalem was to serve lusts and pleasures. [See Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib 3. cap. 22. 
Metà 〈…〉. ] Now is not the Prelate's Kingdom just that in practice, with Cerinthus his Heresy? If so: As S. john forsook the Bath wherein Cerinthus was, what cause have Christians to fly from that roof, where such an Antichristian Hierarchy domineereth?  
But in the next place, let's consider of your Reason How stands it good, that because Christ's Church is as large as the world, therefore he thought it fitter to govern it by Divers, then by One Viceroy? Now we have proved your Hierarchy not to be an Aristocracy, a Government of the Best men, and that by good Laws: seeing therefore you must needs be some Government, than it must be an Olegarchie, that is, the Government of a few of the worse men, such as rule by their lusts, and not by any good Laws, either of God, or Man. But now tell me, my Lord, if you argue upon this ground, that because the Militant Church is as large as the world, therefore 'tis fitter it be governed by many Vice Roys, then by one: why may not aswell one Prelate, as the Pope, be sole Viceroy over the whole world, as my Lord of Canterbury be a Viceroy over all England. For doth not the Pope and you Govern your Churches by substitutes? Why then may not the Pope Govern the whole by his Curates, as you do all England by your Curates? For all the Ministers in England are but your Curates. And suppose you were one of the Pope's Bishops, and so his Creature: what difference would there be between your Governing of your Province under the Pope, as it were his Deputy, and Governing according to Rome's Canons and Customs, and as you do now in your own Name? And the Pope challenging the whole world for his Diocese, and you the Province of Canterbury for yours: all the difference is, that he needeth the more Curates, which he may have with a wet finger, and you the fewer. Only perhaps his Holiness would now and then fleece your Grace's Clergy, as he was wont of old to do. But in the mean time both the Pope and your Lordship do much mistake the matter, in judging, or estimating, and measuring the latitude and extent of Christ's Church. For you both measure it according to the extent of your large and Potent Principalities, patriarchal Countries, archiepiscopal Provinces, Episcopal Diocese. But you are far wide in casting your line. For though Christ's Church is said to be dispersed over the whole earth, being confined to no place: yet of all this wide world he hath the least number, and fewest of all, where commonly your Hierarchy is most predominant. For those that belong to Christ, are a sort of poor Snakes despised in the world, and always persecuted and oppressed by your Hierarchy, so as they can hardly find so much as a little corner any where in the world, much less in all the Circuit of your Diocese, or Provinces, where they may hide their heads, or live in any peace. So as of all your full Vintages, and fruitful Fields, Christ is glad of the refuse of a few glean. And so Christ's flock (alas!) is so small, and so poor, and his Kingdom on earth so despised, as to set up such Lordly Vice-Roys, as the Prelates over it, the very Fees of your Courts would eat them out. And therefore because Christ's sheep are here and there scattered in the world, and many times as sheep without a shepherd, being driven by your Dogs from their own pasture: Christ thought it fitter to place over his small and scattered flocks, poor sheheards, that should feed their several flocks respectively with the wholesome food of the word of God: and therefore appointed to every particular Congregation a peculiar Pastor of their own, that should always be personally resident with his flocks, keeping his watch over them night and day; and so much the more, in regard of so many Wolves and Foxes, and wild Beasts, which without continual watching, would make a prey of them. Neither would Christ permit his shepherds to commit their Flocks to Hirelings, or Stipendiary Curates, while themselves should take their pleasure and ease: for 
* joh. 10.10▪ 12.  the Hireling when he seeth the thief, or wolf coming, fleeth, because he is an Hireling, neither careth he for the Sheep. Therefore Christ wisely and providently hath appointed to every particular Congregation or flock of his, a shepherd of their own, and that 
‡ jer. 3.15.  after his own heart, to feed them with knowledge and understanding. And as the shepherd governs and guides his own flock: so every faithful Minister or Pastor is appointed by Christ to be the 
‡ 1 Pet. 5.2.  Governor of his own Congregation, according to the Rule of Christ. So as in this respect, Christ thought it fitter to appoint many Governors in his Church, namely to each Congregation their own Shepherd: rather than a few, such as you speak of, as one over a whole Country or Province. Neirther let your Lordship think, that every such Congregation, having a faithful Pastor over it, hath yet need of any your Episcopal Inspection, or Triennial Visitations, or your Archdeacon's, Annual Visitation, wherein you inquire only whether your own Cano●s be observed, and if so Omnia bene, All is well, only the poor Ministers paying their Procuration; the Visitor never enquiring, if the Minister be diligent in preaching to his flock: but whether he hath kept the Order for not preaching in the After-noons on the Lord's day, and the Order for not Preaching such and such Doctrines, and such like: so as commonly your visitation is like that of the Plague, saving that this is from God immediately, and yours, from another source. And Ministers and People too could think themselves happy, to be freed from your awful and terrible visits, wherein your main aim is to root out all good Ministers, for which the omission of one of your Ceremonies is sufficient. So as Christ's Congregation (I say) needs not any such Inspection of the Bishop's eye over them, which is as l' aeil de beuf, or the weather gall, called the Ox eye, 
L' aeil de beuf.  which portends a storm to follow. For Christ hath promised his perpetual Presence and residence with his people, and his eye 
§ Esa. 27.3.  watcheth over them night and day, lest any hurt them. As he saith, 
† Mat. 18.20▪  When two or three are gathered together in my Name, there am I in the midst of them. Lo here an entire, and complete body of a Church, having Christ as head over them, and his Spirit in them, and his Word before them, and their own shepherd appointed by Christ to feed them. so as here is no place left for your Prelatical Vice-Roys.  
Object. Put you say, No Bishop, no Church: so say I too, but the Apostles Bishop he must be, not your Diocesan Lord Bishop. What order then (say you) willbe in the Church? A good and decent order in every Congregation, where Christ's order, and ordinance takes place, and where man's presumption breaks not this order. And consider here the excellent wisdom, and order of Oeconomy, that Christ hath appointed every Congregation to be governed by. For as that is the most perfect, and complete form of Civil Government, which is mixed of all the 3 states, as the monarchial, Aristocratical, and democratical, when the King governeth by his good Laws, using the best men, as the noble, and most virtuous in the higher places of the Kingdom, and the b●st and dis●reet●st of the common people in the bearing of inferior offices, such as every one is most fit for; a representation whereof we have in the 3 states in Parliament, the King, the Nobles, and the Commons: so the Lord jesus Christ hath established this most complete form of Government in his Church: First, himself rules as King over all, Governing by his Spirit: Secondly, he hath set over every particular Congregation such as are Arist●i, the optimates, the best and ablest to be Pastors and Teachers, each of his own flock: And thirdly, he hath added also the Denocraty, or government of the people, appointed to be chosen out of every Congregation the gravest, wisest, sobriest and discreetest, some as 
* 1 Tim. 5.17.  Elders, some, as, 
‡ 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1.  Deacons, to be helpers to the Minister in matter of Discipline, of Sacramental Provision, of relief of the poor, of visiting the sick, and of other Church affairs for that Congregation. And these are called by the Apostle Antil●pseis, kubern●seis, which our English ●enders, helps in Governments. And all this according to the express Law of Christ our King, recorded in the Scripture, as being the most perfect pattern of the Government of his Church for every particular Congregation to be regulated and ordered by. So as in truth those Congregations, that are thus governed, are the only true Churches of Christ, as wherein himself, his spirit, his word do govern both Minister and people: whereas on the other side, all Prelatical Churches are false, and Antichristian, as wherein not Christ, and his spirit▪ and his word do bear rule, but Antichristian men by the pride of their spirit, and by their Canons do altogether bear sway, thrusting Christ out of his Throne, despising his word, and putting a yoke of bondage over the necks both of Ministers and people.  
To conclude this point: because you are of such a belief, and so confidently tell us, and peremptorily avouch, that Christ thought it fitter to govern his Church by Divers, then by One Viceroy: besides what is already said, I will a little more press, and present before you Christ's own words at full; which I do, to put you out of all such belief, or so much as any such conceit, that Christ had ever any such thought. Math. 20. upon occasion of those two (at that time) ambitious brethren, 
Math. 20.  sent to Christ by their Mother, to be chief about him in his Kingdom: Christ first tells them, Ye know not what ye ask. Then calling his Disciples to him, he saith thus unto them: Ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them, and they that are great, exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whoso ever willbe great among you, let him be your Minister, etc. Which the Evangelist Luke expresseth thus: 
* Luke 22.25▪  The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them, and they that exercise Authority upon them, are called Euergétai, Benefactors. But ye shall not be so. Ye? Who? Not the Apostles of Christ, not the Ministers of Christ in succeeding ages. Not so? How? Ye shall not exercise Dominion, Lordship, Authority one over another; you shall not be called Benefactors, Patrons, Lords, Gracious Lords, Honourable, your Grace, your Honour, etc. Why so? For such are the Kings of the Gentiles, who exercise Dominion over them, and are called Benefactors. You shall not be as they, in exercising any Authority or Jurisdiction one over another. Nor shall ye be called Euerg●t●i, My Good lord, My Benefactor, My Patron, My lords Grace, or My Gracious lord, and the like. Thus under those words Christ changes his Apostles not to affect, not to be ambitious of, not to exercise Superiority or Prelacy, jurisdiction and Authority one over another, or over Christ's Kingdom, his Church and 〈◊〉; as Peter saith, 
‡ 1 P●t. 5▪  Not as Lords over God's heritage: where the Apostle useth the same word that Christ his Master used, M● 〈◊〉 katakuriéuontes ton k●úron, not exercising Dominion or 〈…〉 Gods Inheritance: or if you will, over his Clergy, though they be not his only Inheritance, but his people are no 〈…〉 unto him, and are kleroes, God's lot. But now for Christ's 〈◊〉: do you not think that Christ spoke, as he thought, and 〈◊〉 as he spoke? Or can you believe any other? And do not his 〈◊〉 to his Apostles, in them reach to all his Ministers 〈…〉 succeed them in future ages? If you say▪ you are the 〈◊〉 only successors: why are you then l●rds ov●r Go●s 〈…〉 why do you exercise authority and Dominion over his 〈◊〉 and people, as Heathen Kings do over then people, 〈…〉 expressly forbid, to his Apostles, and to all their Successors? But you show yourselves to be none of Christ's Disciples, and so none of his Apostles successors: for you obey not Christ's word, as the Apostles did.  
What do you answer then to Christ's words? Or what interpretation can you devise to avoid them? You will answer perhaps with Bellarmine, that Christ forbade his Apostles to be like the Heathen Princes, in exercising a temporal Government, or Authority one over another. This is indeed all the evasion Bellarmine hath. But how vain! Let's bring it to the Touch. How shall it be tried? What saith Christ? Humeis dè ouk outos: you shall not be so. Now if you be not so, all is well: you may prove Apostolical men. But if you prove to be like the Heathen Princes in exercising Lordship over the people, under your Government, and in exercising Authority over them: what can you say for yourselves why you should not be proclaimed for proud Contemners of Christ's word, and for usurping Tyrants over his peopl; and so for a rebellious Faction and Confederacy against Christ's Kingdom? Let's therefore draw our Parallel. Those Heathen Powers were called Princes: so you call yourselves: they were Kings, and so were Gods Vice-gerents: you call yourselves Vice-Roys of Christ: they were called Benefactors, though they never did good: so you are styled, My lords Grace, and when in your Court, you condemn poor innocents', yet they must confess the justice and favour of your Court: They were called Fathers of their Country, so you, Right Reverend Fathers, Most Reverend Father, your Grace, etc. They were lords: so you, yea you are temporal lords, and so sit in Parliament, though styled spiritual: they exercised lordship, dominion, Authority over the people, and that with tyranny, and without Law: so do you: And in a word, Is not your Pomp and state, your Power and Greatness, your Palaces and Courts, your Train and Attendants, your Fasces and Lictors, to wit, your Pursuivants and Apparitors, your Kinglike Attire in Purple and Scarlet and fine linen, soft raiment of silks and satins, your Tables overflowing with delicacies of viands and wines in all abundance and variety, and what not, like that of Kings! Thus do you not bear the Image of the Beast, the Dragon, the Heathen Emperor, who gave power to that other Beast, the Pope, who in himself erected the Image of the first Beast from top to toe, namely the Imperial state and magnificence being fully expressed and limmed out in the Papal, though but in somewhat a lower degree in your Episcopal Pontificial state. As Pope Boniface 8. in the first day of his Jubilee came forth pompously arrayed in all his Pontificalibus, and the next day in the Imperial Ropes, with two Swords carried before him. And a lively Image of this is my Lord Bishop, a mixed Creature, partly temporal, and partly spiritual spiritual in name only, and temporal in his whole outward state, as the Kings and Princes of the Gentiles were, as the Creature called Amphibius, that lives now in the water, and now on the Land, and yet is neither good Fish, nor Flesh.  
Now tell us, my Lord, whose Image you bear: Christ's, or Caesar's? yea in all things you resemble Caesar, but not many one thing the Lord jesus Christ. I say, not in one thing. Show any one thing, wherein you instate either Christ, o● his Apostles after his Resurrection. Indeed you inatate ●he Apostles in their Phil●●●ikí●, emulation and contention, which should be the greatest, which Christ condemneth, and utterly forbiddeth in them. But this was in them only before they knew the Mystery of Christ's Kingdom aright They dreamt of a Temporal Kingdom: but after Christ's Resurrection, when they had received the Holy Ghost, they were of another mind, no such emulation then who should be the chiefest there, but who should show greatest love and fidelity to Christ in preaching the Gospel, and building up spiritual Temples to God. But you (I say) imitate them in their carnal estate, wherein that which they blindly imagined, you have erected an Image of, namely a Temporal Kingdom, like that of Heathen Kings and Princes, and other Temporal Lords. Which shows, that you are none of Christ's Disciples (I say) or the Apostles successors, and that you have not Christ's Spirit, but are altogether carnal and sensual, as the 
* jude 1●.  Apostle saith. For had you Christ's Spirit, you would be truly spiritual, as the Apostles were. But you are 
‡ jude 19  sensual, having not the Spirit. And if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, the s●me is none of his. And in that you veil your hypocrisy and all your sensuality, and carnal state which you call your Hierarchy, under the specious terms and Titles of spiritual Holy, Grace, Church, Bishops, Christ's Vicars, or Vice-Roys, Apostolic, successors o● the Apostles wherewith you gull the blind world: this is that very Mystery of Iniquity the Apostle speaks of, which began to work even in his days (as we noted before) you being those false Prophets that come in Christ's Name, in sheep's clothing, 
Mat. 24. & 7. 1●.  but are inwardly ravening Wolves. You may think my language sharp, but it cannot be too sharp against such a cursed proud Generation, as you Prelates are, usurping Tyrants, Rebels against Christ, Perverters of all truth and faith, corrupters of all true honesty, holiness, Religion, and the worship of God, who are made to be destroyed with that 
* Rev. 19.19, 20.  Beast of Rome, whose Image you bear, and with whom the false Prophets, such as you are, and all those that in you do worship the Image of the Beast, and receive his marks, shall go into the bottomless pit▪ and burning lake.  
L. p. 204. Now it (the Church of Rome) must be a Triumphant Church here, Militant no longer.  
P. I hope then, if Rome be here (as she is) a Church Triumphant, and no more Militant, but in warring against Christ and his Saints (for 
‡ Rev. 18.7.  she saith in her heart, I sit a Queen, and am no Widow, and shall see no sorrow: And in her decretals, she hath made a firm 
‡ Vt sedeat, sedendo quiescat in Tabernaculis pacis, etc. As Rev. 18.7. Sedeo Regina.  Decree for her perpetual tranquillity and felicity here, in all pleasures, and prosperity, free from all incursions and invasions; which is an estate Triumphant) there also you, and your hierarchical Lady Church of England will not be far behind your Sister Queen at Rome. For you are both one and the same Church, and one in that especially, which makes you a Church Triumphant, and that is your Kingly Hierarchy, and Lordly Prelacy: and therefore if that Queen be triumphant at Rome, your Lordship and your Church's Ladyship must be triumphant in England, as indeed you are, in all your Ruff, and Gallantry. And as Rome hath now a long time triumphed over the poor 
§ Rev. 17.  Saints of God, and Martyrs of jesus, martyring and massacring them, and garrowsing full cups of their blood even unto drunkenness, and surfeit: so your Triumphant Chariot marcheth after her apace, trampling the Saints under your feet, and triumphing over them in shedding their innocent blood, and so glorying in your Bestial and Diabolical cruelty in oppressing and tyrannising over God's people, and that so fiercely, as if you would outstrip your Elder Sister in all her bloody barbarism, and therein exalt your triumph above hers. For wherein else should the Glory and magnificence of your Prelatical Princes, and Heroical Vice-Roys shine forth, but in being mounted on Horseback, while the true Prince's lackey it by them on the earth? And thus you ride in triumph, as the Heathen Kings were wont to do. Oh how you triumphed, when you looked through one of your Court-windowes, when you passed your triumphal Censure, to behold those THREE looking through your Pillory-windowes, whose blood you had before (how justly your own Conscience can tell you condemned there to be shed? But the wonder was, that they even the●e, as in their triumphal Chariot, triumphed over your Barbarous cruelty. But thus you are a Triumphant Church too, and in nothing Militant, but (as is noted before) in your warring against, and persecuting the poor Saints of God. But your triumph shall end in 
* Phil. 3.19.  your shame and confusion, verifying that which shall be fulfilled in your Sister, or Mother Rome, 
‡ Rev. 18.6, 7, 8, etc.  Reward her, even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double, according to her works: in the Cup which she hath filled, fill to her double How much she hath glorified herself, and lived delicioutsly, so much torment and sorrow g●ve her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a Queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, etc.  
L. p. 205. The Kings under the Law, but s●ill according to it, did proceed to necessary R●formations in Church-busin●sses, and therein commanded the very Priests themselves, as appears in the Acts of ●lesechiah, and josiah, 2 Chro. 29.4. and 4 King ●●. 2.  
P. All this is true you here affirm▪ so as i● confirms what we said before of Christian Kings in matters o● Religion, that they ought to do nothing, but still according to the Law of God, All, Always, in All things, not varying in the least Circumstance or Ceremony. All this is well. But what makes this for your Priest? What saith your practice? This: Ergo the King giving way to the Priest, or Prelate of Canterbury, he may of his own head appoint and impose what Ceremonies his Romish Devotion thinks fit in the worship of God. This is your usual Logic. This your usual perverting and abusing of Scripture. Well: What more? A little before 
‡ Pag. 205.  (ibid.) you tell us, Omnis anima, Every soul, All spiritual men even to the high●st Bishop and in spiritual Causes, so the foundations of Faith and good Manners be not shaken, must be subject to the Higher Powers. And where they are shaken, there ought to be Prayer and Patience, there ought not to be opposition by force. Now for your highest Bishop and all spiritual men, we have done withal, That all Obedience is due from all men to Kings and Princes in all things where the foundations of Faith and Good Manners be not shaken, we all acknowledge with you: and where they are shaken, there ought to be Prayer and Patience of every particular and private Christian, without his opposition by force, when he is pressed to do that which is against God's word, and his own Conscience. Now here by the way, I pray you resolve me, as in a Case of Conscience, 
§ 2 Chro. 26.16, 17, 18.  Whether the Highpriest Azariah did transgress or no, when King Vzziah in the Temple burned Incense on the Altar, he with fourscore Priests of the Lord, that were valiant men, went in after the King, and withstood him▪ saying, It perteameth not unto thee, Vzziah, to burn Incense unto the Lord, but to the Priests, etc. Lo, here was a withstanding the King. But I will not press you for your Judgement: for I find in the next verse Gods own Judgement of the Case: for Vzziah with the Censer in his hand being incensed, even while he was wroth with the Priests the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the Priests in the house of the Lord, from beside the Incense-Altar; And Azariah the Chief Priest, and all the Priests looked upon him, and behold he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea he himself hasted also to go out because the Lord had smitten him. And Vzziah the King was a Leper unto the day of his death, and dwelled in a several house, being a Leper, for he was cut off from the house of the Lord, and jotham the King's son was over the King's house judging the people of the Land. Now to apply this to the present purpose: You make yourself as the Highpriest of the Church of England. Now suppose the King of England should do that, whereby the foundations of Faith and good Manners were shaken: what would your Lordship do? I ask not what you would do, in case you should be the Chief Agent and Instrument, a Counsellor, a Promoter, and a Contriver of such a thing. For than it were a vain Question. But suppose you had no hand nor head in it at all, and were a man zealous of God's glory, and truly pious, and found in the faith, and one that knew well what the foundations of Faith and good Manners are, and when they are shaken, and one that respected more the King's good and Honour, than your own private ends, and more Christ's Kingdom, than any Hierarchy, or spirituall-Temporall Principality on Earth, and one that loved more to speak the Truth to Kings, though you were sure of displeasure, then to flatter and speak pleasing things to the ruin of the State and Kingdom, though for the present it pleased: suppose (I say) all this (for even impossibilities may be supposed) then tell me what yourself (a man of such high Place and Grace in Court, and of so great Power to persuade and dissuade) would do, when you should see the Foundations of Faith and good Manners to be shaken by the King, or supreme Magistrate. For the very Name of shaking the Foundations of Faith and good Manners, is enough to shake a Man's heart, and cause him to abhor the very thought of it, if he were not either altogether senseless, and ignorant what the Foundations of Faith and Good Manners do mean: or knowing them, were not either an open▪ or secret enemy unto them For what is such a shaking, but a m●king way for the sudden precipitation of the state of all things into inevitable Destruction, a dissepating of all humane society, a mingling of heaven and earth together in one Chaos of all Confusion? And therefore, now that we are upon a point of such Moment, as it were the Centre, whereon the world's Globe is pitched, or as the two 
* 1 King. 7. 21·  Pillars in Solomon's Temple, I●chin and Boas, stability and strength, Faith and good Manners being the stability and strength of all true Religion, of humane society, and Civil Polity: it willbe worth our Inquiry a little, what it is to shake these Foundations, or when these Foundations are shaken. And it is possible, that these Foundations may at this very time be shaken in the Church and state of England, and so threaten, if not hasten Ruin; in somuch as a speedy remedy for prevention, upon the discovery, may be required. You will say, God forbid. What? God forbid, that in such a Case a speedy remedy should be used? No, not so, by your leave. Well, what say you then to your Articles of Religion, wherein the Doctrines of Faith of the Church of England, and those of them that are according to the express Scriptures, as God's Grace in Election, Predestination, Salvation, etc. are shaken? Are they not shaken, and that terribly too by an Edict, or Declaration, so as they do at the least nutare, et huc illuc f●luctuare, so reel too and ●ro, like a drunken man, as no sober man knows to which side they will fall? And are not those Doctrines of Gods free and saving Grace in Christ, the foundations of Faith, which are contained in those Articles? Can you deny this? Again, what say you to the Two Tables, wherein are contained the Ten Commandments of Gods Moral Law? Are they not also Foundations? Yea and Foundations both of Faith, and Good Manners? For the Four Commandments of the First Table concern Faith and Religion: the Six of the Second, Good Manners. So much all confess, and yourself too. And you say, 
* pag. 205. ●●▪  Emperors and Kings are Cussodes utriusque Tabulae: They to whom the Custody and preservation of both Tables of the Law, for worship to God, and duty to man, are committed. And That a Book of the Law was by Gods own command in Moses his time, to be given to the King, Deut. 17.18. So you. Is it so then? What say you then to those two Great Commandments, the Last of the First Table, and the First of the Second? Do they not stand close together, as those two formentioned Pillars in Solomon's Temple, jachin, and Boaz? Is not holy Obedience to God in his worship on his own day, as jachin, the stability of the the Church and Temple of God? And is not Civil subjection to superiors, as Boaz, the strength of the Commonwealth? So as when these two Commandments are shaken, are not two main Pillars and Foundations of Faith and good Manners shaken, and so the Foundations both of Church and Commonwealth shaken? What say you to this, o Great High Priest? Is it true, or no? For I must now put you to it You give just occasion. But you answer nothing, silence in this Case is consent, and such as proceeds fr●m guilt of Conscience. And how ever, Res ipsa clamat, The thing itself proclaims it, and clear evidence proves it. For doth not the Edict for Sports (so often upon fresh occasions mentioned) declare as much. And doth it not shake the Fourth Commandment, for the sanctification of the Lords Day, the Lords Sabbath-Day? Which Dispensation of such profane and mad sports, can it consist with sanctification, or any holiness, or common sobriety of a Christian, or with Christian Profession, or with our Baptismal vow to the Contrary? much less with the direct and express immediate solemn sanctification of that day, commanded in that Fourth Commandment? Is not here then a Foundation of Religion, and so also of Good Manners too, shaken? For what Good Manners doth our May-pole-dances, and Moris-dances teach us? Nemo saltat sobrius, could the very 
* Cicero.  Heathen say, No man Danceth that is sober. And as an English 
‡ Wit's Commonwealth.  Author saith, licenced too, but in diebus illis: A Dancer and a mad man different, but in the duration. And to help to shake this Foundation yet more, you have licenced 
‡ Dr. White of the Sabbath. Dr. Primrose. Dr. Heylin. Dr. Pocklinglon.  Books, that do unmoralize the Fourth Commandment (as before) as antiquated now, and of no force to bind us Christians to the observation of a seventh day, or the Lord's day, which we have proved before to be the Rest-day, or the Sabbath day of the Lord our God, jesus Christ. And did not your Tyranny suppress all Truth, all your Doctors had been ere now answered to the shame of their Divinity-Profession, and the confusion of their accursed Opinions, and Blasphemies against the holy Truth, and eternal Law of God. Well, here you are charged with shaking this Great Foundation of Faith and Religion. And though my Name be not here to the Bill (which therefore you willbe ready by another Bill to make a Libel) yet (as I said before, I say again) let the King be but pleased to send forth a Proclamation, commanding the Author of this Charge to come forth, and avouch it before the High and Honourable Court of Parliament, where he shall have a fair, just, unpartial and honourable hearing, and where your Lordship shall as well stand at the Bar, as your Accuser: and you shall see your Antagonist dare show his face. But to prevent the trouble of Calling a Parliament, you will answer, this is none of Your doing▪ 'tis the King's Edict, and of King james before him, and now by the King's special command republished? Is it so? And therein are the Foundations of Faith and Good Manners shaken? And that not only in overthrowing the Morality of the 4 th' Commandment by Dispensaton of profane sports, but by dispensing with youth to use their liberty on that day without control of their Superiors (as Parents or Masters) who if they shall hinder them the Magistrate shall punish them, and so the 5 th' Commandment, which is a Foundation of Good Manners in all obedience due to Superiors, is shaken, if not pulled down to the ground, as the Aprentices of London were wont on Shrove-Tuesday to pull down Infamous houses? Is all this so? Why then did you not step in, as good Azariah, and withstand the coming forth of such an Edict, and tell the King, It pertaineth not to Thee, o King, to set forth such an Edict, to dispense w●th Gods Holy, Moral, Eternal Commandments, whereby the Foundations of Faith and Good Manners are shaken, lest thereby shaking the Foundations both of Church and Commonwealth, you do, through God's just wrath, bring your own Kingdom to sudden ruin. But did you at all interpose yourself? Or did you use Prayer and Patience, rather undergoing the King's displeasure, then being either Agent or Instrument in the publishing of such an Edict? No such thing. For it was the handsel of your Primacy to publish the Edict, as being the best Office, whereby you could testify your thankfulness for so high a Preferment? For why should you here leave the King alone in so weighty a Cause, when you tell us 
* Epist. Dedicatory.  before, that the King and the Priest, more than any other are bound to look to the Integrity of the Church in Doctrine and Manners, and that in the first place? And would you now leave the King in the lurch, to do that, whereby the Foundations of Faith, and Good Manners are shaken, and the Church in Doctrine and Manners corrupted? But you were an Instrument at least, and that at both end● of the business. As for Prayer and Patience, you were willing to leave them to others, that had more need, and could make better use of them: to wit, those poor honest Ministers, who seeing the danger of their public reading of the said Book in their several Congregations, so straightly imposed by the Prelates, and th●in● the King's Name, wherein they well understood, that the very Foundations of Faith and Good Manners are shaken, so as their reading of it to their people, would make themselves accessary to all the mischief that might come thereby, as whereby the wrath of God must needs be greatly incensed against the whole Land: did thereupon refuse to read it, committing the Cause to God in Prayer, and arming themselves with resolved Patience to endure all the Censure, and punishment threatened in the Book, and left to be inflicted by the Bishops. As not long after the Bishop's thunderclap of threatening, they feel the thunderbolt itself, by Suspension, Silencing, Excommunication, Dispossession out of their Benefices, Cures, Houses, Freeholds, Dispersion of Family Wife and Children, now exposed to the wide world, and made a Prey to Wolves and Lions 
‡ Rev. 13.10▪  Here is indeed the Patience and Faith of the Saints. Here is use of their spiritual Armour, Prayer, Patience, Tears, the only weapons of their warfaire against such enemies▪ so as if Solomon the Preacher were now alive, he might see his words as truly and fully verified in these times, as ever they were in his, 
* Eccl. 4.1.  I returned (saith he) and considered all the Oppressions that are done under the Sun, and behold, the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no Comforter; and on the side of their Oppressors there was power; but those had no Comforter. But it is well, that you left the poor souls those weapons, which you could not take from them, but with their lives, Prayer, and Patience. Although how do you labour to deprive them even of Prayer, when you will not suffer them to pray together, that suffer together in and for the same Cause, but your Beagles hunt them out. And would you not reduce all Prayer, and conjure down the very Spirit of Prayer, by confining it to the prescript letter and form in your Service Book where there is never a Prayer for poor afflicted, and distressed, souls in such a Case, complaining of the Bishop's Cruelty, and Tyranny over them.  
So as you see, they patiently suffer, they use no opposition by force. And yet what say you to one of your 
‡ S. Edmund. Elect of Cant.  Predecessors, who, when the King would not agree to his Nobles in the cashiering of his Favourites, who were his Privy Councillors to the ruin of his Realm; he being then but Lord Elect of Canterbury, took with him his Clergy, and went to the King, and threatened him, if he would not yield in the matter, he would Excommunicate him. Neither (I suppose) are you of opinion with once a Brother of Winchester, who in a Book of his, published by Authority, and Printed at Oxford, hath these words: 
‡ Dr Bilson of Christian subjections, and Antichristian Rebellion. Part 3. pag. 52●. Printed 1585.  If a Prince should go about to subject his Kingdom to a foreign Realm, or change the form of the Commonwealth, from Empery to Tyranny: or neglect the Laws establlished by common consent of Prince and People, to execute his own Pleasure: In these and other Cases, which might be named, If the Nobles and Commons join together to defend their ancient and accustomed Liberty, Regiment, and Laws, they may not well be countod Rebels. So he. But this by the way.  
But I have something more to say about the shaking of the Foundations of Faith and Good Manners; though I mentioned it before, but now upon this occasion. And that is concerning Ceremonies of humane ordinance in God's worship, which being imposed upon men's Consciences, is not only a shaking of the Foundation of Faith, but an overthrowing of it; for thereby Christ is denied to be the only King of his Church. And therefore, as the Kings of Israel did nothing in reforming of Religion and the worship of God, but what was expressly commanded and prescribed in God's Law: so Christian Kings and Magistrates ought not to do any thing, no not to impose any one humane Ceremony or Ordinance in God's service, besides that which is written in God's word▪ otherwise the Foundations of Faith is overthrown. Of such moment is the least Ceremony in God's service, that it is of the substance and Foundation of Faith.  
L. p. 210. But 'tis time to return, For A.C. in this Passage hath been very careful to tell us of a Parliament, and of living Magistrates, and judges, besides the Law books. Thirdly therefore, The Church of England (
* The Prelate here blasphemeth God's Name, as if a favourer of his Prelatical practices.  God be thanked) shines happily under a Gracious Prince, and well understands, that a Parliament cannot be called at All times; and that there are visible judges besides the Law-books, and one supreme (long may he be, and be hap●y) to settle all Temporal Differences (which certainly he might much better perform▪ if his Kingdom were well rid of A. C. and his Fellows.) And 
‡ 
A blasphemous 〈◊〉 ●f Faith.  
Prelate's Canon's equaled with Scripture for governing th● Church▪   she believes too, that our Saviour Christ hath left in his Church besides his Law-books, the Scripture, Visible Magistrates and judges, that is, Archbishops and Bishops under a Gracious King, to govern both for Truth and Peace, according to the Scripture, and her own Canons and Constitutions, as also those of the Catholic Church, which Cross not the Scripture, and the Just Laws of the Realm. But she doth not believe there is any Necessity to have one Pope or Bishop over the whole Christian world, more than to have one Emperor over the whole world.  
P. It were time indeed for you to return from your Course, when once there is mention of a Parliament For thriving, If you mean, that your Church of England hath of late days well thriven, in her prevailing for the setting up of Images and Altars, for bringing in more Superstitions into your Service; for putting down sincerity, Purity, and power of the true Religion, and of the Preaching of God's word; for suppressing the Doctrines of Grace forementioned; for hampering the Puritans (as you call them) by putting down, suspending, and silencing of Godly and painful Preachers, and by crying down both the Doctrine and Practice of the sanctification of the Sabbath, or Lords day, and by smothering in the birth all sound and Orthodox Books against Popery, and other Heresies, not suffering them to be Printed, and by licensing of Popish Books to be Printed and Published, and the like: and if this be the way of the well thriving of your Church, whomsover you have cause to thank, yet surely you have small cause to thank God (whose Name herein you do abuse and blaspheme; as perhaps your own Conscience may tell you) as if he favoured such practices of yours, because for a time he patiently suffers and winks at them; and that in judgement to a sinful Land, and for trial of his own servants and people, and for a preparative to your certain ruin, if speedy repentance prevent it not. For God is not mocked with such thanks (though he be mocked) but 
* Gal. 6.7.  whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he reap. How then doth it concern all Christian Magistrates to look to it, lest if they suffer Christ's Kingdom to be betrayed into the hands of Antichristian Usurpers, by giving way unto them to do what they list, while themselves seem to sleep, they provoke God too much. For as Samuel said to the People, 
‡ 1 Sam. 12.25  If ye do wickedly, you shall perish, both you and your King. For my part, though I will not join in Prayer with such a Profane Hypocrite, as you are, and an enemy of jesus Christ, and his Truth (no more than the Apostle john would be in the same Bath with that Heretic Cerinthus) yet my daily Prayer is, and shall be, that God would more and more let the King see, how miserably he is abused, and the Peace and safety of his Kingdom distracted, and endangered, both by the late violent practices which have been held in Church-affaires, and now by the publishing of such a Book as this, so notoriously perilous, or rather most pernicious, and so much the more in these times of troubles about Religion lately sprung up in the Island of Great Britain. Which Book, though it make many fair pretences for Peace, yea Peace and Truth: yet in truth it will prove the greatest troubler of Israel, and the falsest friend to true Truth, that the light hath seen these many years. This I speak not by conjecture, much less out of malice to the Author's Person, but from the clear evidence of the word of Prophecy in Scripture, in such cases.  
But how comes your Church of England to be so well seen in State-Mysteries (I pray you) as so well to understand, that a Parliament cannot be called at all times? Or by the Church of England do you not mean the the Chair of Catnterbury, as the Church Collective, or representative of England? For you should better understand such State-matters, especially, for the not calling of Parliaments at all times (or suppose it were at Notime, or Nevermas, lest perhaps it might prove as a Frost to nip your thriving, and overforward spring) than your Lordship? For my part, I am no Statesman, and so I leave State matters to Statesmen, who should best understand them. But if your A.C. and his Fellows be such troublesome fellows, why do you trouble yourselves with them, when a good honest Parliament might ease the King and Kingdom ●oo of that trouble, provided, that good Laws, already enacted, and by the next Parliament (if ever there shallbe any) quickened by a new Law, to put them in better execution, there may be also a good season to bring forth such Visible judges, as without straining the strings either of their Purses, or Consciences, coming clearly to their Benches, and not making them as Banks, but sitting Rectè in Curia, they may without fear of any Prepotent Prelate, or Partiality in respect of Persons do Justice.  
I pass now from the understanding of your Church of England, to her Belief, which you also tell us of. She believes too. 
A blaspemous Article of faith.  What doth she believe? That our Saviour Christ hath left in his Church, besides his Law-books, the Scriptures, visible Magistrates and judges, that is, Archbishops and Bishops. How? Is this come already to be an Article of the Faith of the Church of England, because her Great Metropolitan a little before believes it? Or because Ipse dixit, he said, Christ thought it fitter to govern his Church by Divers Viceroys, then by One? Is there such an Infallibility in your bare word, as for the Church of England to establish her belief upon? Certainly this is an Addition to the Articles of the Faith of the Church of England, which in her former days she was not acquainted with. Well, for your Archbishops, and Bishops we have said (I hope) enough (and perhaps you will say too much) and desire no more to be troubled with them. Yet I see we must, whether we will or no. For first, here again you do most impiously, ne dicam, impudenter, ye blasphemously belly the Lord jesus Christ, as before you have done more than once or twice, and are not yet ashamed, but rather hardened in your Habit, as being reserved to be confounded. Secondly, as before you would make Christ to be the Author of such Governors and Vice-Roys, as Arch bishops and Bishops, so here, 
Prelate's ●●sphemy.  Besides his Law-Books, the Scripture, he hath (you say) made you visible Magistrates and judges. Surely, That is besides the Scripture indeed; yea not only praeter, but contra, not only besides, but against the express Scripture (as is but a little before proved, that Archbishops and Bishops (though they have gotten a degenerate Being, as Mules, in Rerum natura,) yet should have any Being at all in the Church of Christ: much less that they should be judges at all in spiritual matters, being themselves altogether carnal. And For Arch-Bishops it hath not so much as a Name in Scripture, as your Bishops have usurped that Title from Scripture: and you confess the Apostles were all equal: in what night then grew up this Mushrum? And we have before given a touch and trial, what kind of judges you would prove, would men but pin their faith on your White sleeve. But except you can bring some better Authority, than your own blasphemous speech, that Christ hath left such visible judges to his Church: your Church of England will have but a cold pull of it, when she shallbe put to give a reason of this her belief, that Christ did so. Or what? Or why? For truth and peace. These words are with you as Mel in ore, verba lactis, honey in the mouth, words of milk: but we can discern by them Fel in Cord, fraus in factis: Gall in the heart, and fraud in actions. But by what means will you procure us truth and peace? By governing. How, or by what Law, or Rule? According to the Scripture, say you. Stay there, and govern according to that, for that is the only way (were your Prelatical Government according to the Scripture) both to procure and preserve truth and peace But unless you can prove (which you never can) by the Scripture, and not by your own singlesoled bold affirmation, that Christ hath made you Governors of his Church, you shall never persuade us to believe, or hope, that you will ever Govern according to the Scriptures. But yet is this all? Will you be such honest Governors, as you will not go beyond Christ's Law-books, the Scriptures? Nothing less. For there follows immediately a dangerous Conjunction Copulative, And. According to the Scriptures, And. And what? I hope you have no other Law-books to add to Christ's Law-books. Have you? Produce them. And her own Canons and Constitutions. Nay then Farewell Christ's Law-Books. Christ may put up his 
* Mat. 11.17.  Pipes (as it is said) When your Canons and Constitutions come in Place. And then farewell Truth and Peace; your own Canons and Constitutions can make no Room for them. For he that shall hold the truth never so right and firm, and shall transgress but one of your Canons, what peace? He shallbe put to read the Canon, that is, he shallbe shattered to pieces with your shooting off of your Canon. And he that comes under the command of your Canon, is ipso facto brought under the Babylonian and Antichristian yoke, so as not only his peace is destroyed, but the truth, power, and virtue of Christ's death, which hath freed his people from the bondage of all humane ordinance (as hath been showed) in God's worship and service, is overthrown. As also yourself elsewhere saith, 
‡ Pag. 274.  That Peace and Truth are rend by superstitious de●i●es; from which (I hope) all your Canons and Constitutions are not altogether free. How much less can that Church be free from most miserable slavery, that puts her neck under the yoke, and her shoulders under the intolerable burden of your Canons and Constitutions? Nay, I will say more: If you be the visible Magistrates and judges of the Church, as the High Priests, and Pharisees were (although the High-Priests office was grounded upon Divine Ordinance and Authority)▪ and had Christ himself to stand at your Bar to be judged: though you had not (as the Jews said they 
‡ I●h 19·7.  had) a Law to put him to death, yet you would find Church-Canons and Constitutions enough, or some new devise, though not to condemn him to be Crucified, yet to Censure him to be Pillorified, and to have his Ears close cropped, and his blood shed in a great measure, and stripped naked, and perpetually Imprisoned and exiled, as being the Arch-enemy of your Hierarchy, Tyranny, Hypocrisy, and all Impiety. And all this you would do by virtue of your Canons and Constitutions, which yet were never ratified by any Law of the Land, or Act of Parliament.  
But yet seeing you must have your Church-Canons and Constitutions besides Christ's Law-Books to govern by: yet the Church of England may think herself well appayd, and in some tolerable (though intolerable) case, if she have but her own Canons, such as herself hath constituted and assented to. For volenti non fit injuria: If the Church of England be willing to be an Ass to her Prelates, as once she was to the Pope, she may. And so she hath her amends in her own hands. If the yoke of Canons pinch her, she may thank herself for putting her neck under. I but this is not all. There be other Canons besides, that are not hers, that she must be governed by. What, more Bonds and Fetters yet for thee, poor Church of England? Yes. As well her own Canons, and Constitutions, as Those also of the Catholic Church. What are those? Alas, your Church of England is an Ignoramus in all such Canons, as you call Catholic. And your Church Catholic you know, and tell us, doth Comprehend that of Rome, and Rome hath innumerable Canons, Constitutions, and decretals: so as under the Canons of the Catholic Church, you may bring upon the Church of England all the Canons and Decrees of Trent, all the Pope's decretals, and the whole body of the Pope's Canon Law, so large a field is your Canons and Constitutions of the Catholic Church. But you qualify the matter in adding, Which cross not the Scripture, and the just Laws of the Realm. That's something. But who shallbe Judge of that? Alas, we are never the nearer, if you Prelates be the visible judges. For than what Canons or Constitutions shall cross either Scripture▪ or Positive Law of the Land, 
A 〈…〉, if Prelates be judges▪  which you shall define and determine to be fit for you to govern the Church by? What Laws of the Realm shallbe just, which cross one of your Canons? Did not in a Cause pleaded in your High-Commission, the Pope's Canon alleged by the Advocate on the one party, preponderate a Statute of Edw. 6. alleged by the Advocate of the adverse party▪ so as the Pope's Canon carried the Cause? So as, while you will be the visible judges, you will lead us all in a Circle, and make us so turn round▪ as we should not know where we are, imagining that all the world went upon wheels.  
Yea but there is yet one qualification may help at a pinch. For you say, Archbishops and Bishops under a Gracious Keng to govern, etc. 'Tis true indeed, that under the shadow of a Gracious King to you, you are emboldened to do all you do.  
Lastly you say, the Church of England doth not believe there is any necessity to have one Pope, or one Bishop over the whole Christian world. And are there not trow you many thousands in the Church of England, which do not believe there is any necess●y of having One Pope, or Arch-Prelate over the whole Church of England, the other world; as before? And I believe there is no more necessity of the one, then of the other, but that they might be well spared, as Christ will one day not spare them. And (as I said before) the Pope by as good a Title may argue a necessity of his being uneversall Bishop over the whole Christian world, as you can (setting the Law of England aside) for your being Pope over the whole Church of England. And that upon your own Ground: for you say, The Church of England and the Church of Rome is one and the same Church, no doubt of that; and The Church of England may find herself, where Rome's is now, just there: then if so, that both are one, and the Pope's Principality more powerful, then that of Canterbury: and if there be a nccessity, that Canterbury be over the whole Church of England (which is but a part of the Catholic) and that for order and unity: why not the like necessity for the Pope to be supreme over all, for preserving order and unity, seeing your Militant Church is but one▪ and to make many heads, many Vice-Roys, is to divide the body, and Kingdom, and so make rents in it, which you like not of. But to conclude, I believe, and with me all true Believers, who have their judgements rightly informed, wherever they be in any part of the world, that there is a necessity of duty lying upon all Christian Magistrates, to exterminate and exterpate the whole Hierarchy and Prelacy, 
A spiritual duty necessary to all Christian Magistrates.  as Antichristian enemies of jesus Christ, and of his Kingdom, yea and the band of Civil States and people, out of the world For so we read, Rev. 17.16, 17. A place worthy to be written in the hearts of all Kings Christian. And it is the duty of all true Christians to rouse up the Spirit of prayer in them, and to stir up the coals of zeal to flame forth in offering up of pure Incense of fervent Prayer, & especially in these times, wherein Satan so rageth, and his Instruments grow so malapert and mischievous, that God would hasten the accomplishment of Antichrists Kingdom, that so the Kingdom of jesus Christ may be exalted and enlarged, and he alone rule and reign in his Church.  
L. p. 212. Somewhat may be done by the Bishop and Governors of the Church to preserve the unity and certainty of Faith, and to keep the Church from renting, or for uniting it, when it is rend. And this (pag. 198) one Pope cannot do.  
P. Somewhat? Why, you tell us immediately before, that the Pope, or a Bishop may perhaps despense in some cases, with the Decrees of a General. And this (I hope) is somewhat more, than somewhat. Or perhaps at least. And we have showed before, how you Prelates, do either preserve the Church from renting, or when it is rend, make up the breaches of it, namely by an uniting and confederating against Christ and his true Church, and by labouring tooth and nail to support and keep safe and sound your Antichristian Hierarchy, which is not truly and properly an unity, but a conspiracy against Christ, from whose true Mystical body you have made the Great and unreconcilable Rent. And therefore you to preserve the unity and certainty of Faith entire, which, even as you are Prelates, you are altogether Apostates from, and enemies unto? Or is the spirit of Infallibility, entailed to the Prelate's Chair? For doth not this necessarily imply either an Infallibility, or at least a greater dexterity, and a more excellent and Divine spirit to be in Prelates, qua Praelati, & Infulati, as they are Mitred Bishops, then in all those, that are no Prelates, when only by Prelates, though but somewhat, to this purpose, may be done? But we have showed before what ability or soundness of judgement in divine & spiritual matters we may expect to be in Prelates, in comparison of others, who are both learned, pious, & judicious Divines.  
L. p. 194. To draw all together, to settle Controversies in the Church, there is a visible judge and Infallible, but not living, and that is the Scripture, pronouncing by the Church: and there is a visible and living judge, and that is a General Council.  
P. Here I go back a little to fetch in this passage, as fi● here to usher in a many other Passages scattered here and there in your Book, which is hard to reduce to any order or form. But we must do as we may. And I shall not wittingly offer violence to any part in the least, though sometimes here and there I am feign to pull them in by the head and shoulders. And here, you do with the 
* As Hes●us, Pignius e● alis.  Papists make the Scripture to be but a dead letter; for say you it is not a living judge: no nor yet a speaking judge; but as it is pronounced by the Church. Whereas the Apostle saith of it Zon●o lógoes tou Theou. The word of God is living or lively▪ nor only so, but e'nergès, effectual; as it is before noted And if you will apply this to the Word preached, that's true too. Although you will not confess preaching of God's word to be the Scripture, or yet the word of God. But it must be pronounced by the Church, as the only mouth of Scripture, and that must be also in the Church's sense. Of which sufficiently before. Yet this you add to all your other indignities you put upon the Scripture, that you make it a dead judge, and so indeed no judge at all, as before you plainly tell For if it be blind, as wanting light; and if it be mute or dumb, and needs the Church's mouth; and if it be dead, as being not living: Certainly it can be no fit judge at all; except ye will admit of a Judge, that is both blind, and dumb, and dead. As three Romans being sent in Ambassage, one a Fool, an other a Coward, the third having the Gout, Cato told the Senate, they had sent an Ambassage, that had neither Head, Heart, nor Feet. And such a Judge would you make the Scripture. But 'tis visible you say. So are your dumb, dead, and blind Images in your Churches they are visible, and very conspicuous, when the Scripture oftentimes can neither be seen nor heard. Now to your General Counsels.  
L. p. 192. And surely what greater or surer judgement can we have, where sense of Scripture is doubted, than a General Council, I do not see. And pag. 211. The making of Canons, which must bind all particular Christians, and Churches, cannot be concluded, and established, but there (to wit, in a General Council.) P. 224. I said, The Determination of a General Council erring, was to stand in force, and to have external obedience yielded to it, till evidence of Scripture▪ or a Demonstration to the Contrary, made the error appear; and until thereupon another Council of equal Authority did reverse it. And pag. 226. Now suppose a General Council actually erring in some point of Divine Truth, I hope it will not follow, that this Error must be so gross as that forthwith it must be known to private men. And doubtless, till they know it, obedience must be yielded▪ Nay when they know (if the Error be not manifestly against fundamental verity, in which case a General Council cannot easily err) I would have A. C. and all wise men consider, whether external obedience be not even then to be yielded. And p 227▪ Therefore it may seem very fit and necessary, for the peace of Christendom, that a General Council thus erring, should stand in force, till evidence of Scripture, or a Demonstration make the error to appear, as that another Council of equal Authority reverse it. And ibid. No way must lie open to private men to refuse obedience, till the Council he heard and weighed. And p. 261. A Council hath power to order, settle, and define Differences arisen concerning Faith. This power the Council hath not by an immediate Institution from Christ, but it was prudently taken up in the Church, from the Apostles example, Act 15. And ibid. If the Council be lawfully Called, and proceed orderly, and conclude according to the Rule, the Scripture, than the D●finitions thereof are binding: but not from calling another Council to reverse or abrogate the former acts upon just cause. P. 346. 'Tis true, that a General Council de pace facto, after 'tis ended, and admitted by the whole Church▪ is then Infallible, for it cannot err in that, which it hath already clearly and truly determined without Error. After 'tis confirmed, 'tis admitted by the whole Church, then being found true it is also Infallible, that is, it deceives no man. And p. 347. For a man upon the pride of his own judgement to refuse external obedience to the Council, was never lawful, nor can error stand with any Government. P. 357.358. Christ did just intend to leave an Infallible certainty in his Church, to satisfy either Contentious, or Curious, or presumptuous spirits. And therefore in things not fundamental, nor necessary, 'tis no matter if Counsels err in one, and another, and a third, the whole Church having power and means enough to see▪ that no Council err in necessary things, etc. If it err in things necessary, we can be Infallibly assured by the Scripture, the Creed, the 4. first Counsels, and the whole Church, where it errs in one, and not in another. And pag. 360 For one Faith necessary to Salvation, a most infallible certainty we have already in the Scripture, the Creeds, and the 4. first General Counsels, to which for things necessary and fundamental in the Faith, we need no assistance from other General Counsels. P. 378. I submit my judgement with all humility to the Scripture, interpreted by the Primitive Church, and upon new and necessary doubts, to the judgement of a lawful and free General● Council. And, I absolutely make a lawful and free General Council judge of Controversies, by and according to the Scripture. And p. 386. I have expressly declared, that the Scripture▪ interpreted by the Primitive Church, and a lawful and free General Council, determining according to these, is judge of Controversies.  
P. Thus in your Commending of General Counsels, you are very large, that I may not say lavish too. And surely in one respect especially you have great Reason: for your General Counsels must consist of Prelates only: so as in exalting General Counsels, you magnify your Prelacy. But I remember a saying of Basill, that in his Observation▪ he never knew any good to come of General Counsels of Bishops, who when they met in Council, were more zealous and eager for their own particular Honours and Dignities, then of the Church of God. And as Bernard saith Totus fervet Ecclesiasti●us zelus sola pro Dignitate tuend●: All the zeal of Churchmen is inflamed altogether for the advancing and upholding of their Dignity. But let us now take a brief view of your words, which we will collect and reduce to certain summary Heads. First, That General Counsels are the supreme judge of the sense of Scripture, when and where 'tis doubted, p. 192. Secondly, that the Canons and Decrees of General Counsels bind all Christians of necessity, p. 211. Thirdly, yea though General Counsels determine Errors, yet that requires at least external obedience. Fourthly, That General Counsels erring in some points of Divine Truth, yet you hope it will not be so gross, as to come to the common view: or if it do, yet obedience must be yielded, p. 226. only except the Error be not manifestly against the fundamental Verities. Fifthly, That a General Council hath no power from Christ to be judge in Controversies, but the Church prudently took it up from the Apostles example, Act. 15. Sixtly, That the Difinitions of General Counsels bind, being according to the Rule the Scripture: yet that those may be reversed by an after-Councel. Seventhy, A General Council in things clearly and truly determined, cannot err, but in that is infallible. Eightly, That it is pride not to obey the Counsels, Difinitions, yea unlawful, and not standing with any Government. Ninthly, That Christ intended to leave an Infallible certainty in his Church, but not to satisfy contentions, or curious, or presumptuous spirits. Tenthly, That it is no matter if General Counsels err in one, two, three etc. things not fundamental, nor necessary. Eleventhly, That for necessary Faith to Salvation, we have an Infallible certainty in the Scriptures, Creeds, and 4. first General Counsels, to which for things necessary we need not the Assistance of any other General Council. Twelfthly, That the Scripture interpreted by the Primitive Church and General Counsels, is the judge of Controversies, whereunto you profess to submit in all humility. Thus these 12 Conclusions be as the 12 Articles of your Faith.  
But now let's a little examine what Truth or Force there is in all these. I confess some of them are somewhat coincident, and like Brooks fall one into another, but all have their Confluence into your General Council, as one main Ocean. But we will take a say of each, as they run along.  
For the first, and so the rest, which have any general concurrence with it, I deny, that a General Council is a sufficient, and competent judge of Controversies in matters of Faith. My Reasons are these. First, Because General Counsels consisting of Prelates, and more especially in these latter times, are so much the unabler to judge of the sense of Scripture, where 'tis deep, or doubtful. As Nicolaus de Clemangus in his Tract De Concilus Generalibus, discourseth very largely and pregnantly of this very Circumstance, showing, that Prelates are none of those, to whom God doth reveal the mysteries of his will in his Word, which are altogether spiritual, but Prelates are carnal, proud, ambitious, covetous, minding the things of the world. His whole Discourse is worth the Reading. And 
* See Aeneas Sylvi●s of the Council of Bas●●, who was after Pope Pius 2. See also Book of Martyrs.  Arelatensis Archbishop of Arles in France, in the Council of Basil, said that they had no zeal, nor love, nor knowledge of the Truth, but every one would be of his King's Religion, and was ready to say as his King would have him; and that the poor Priests were those, by whom the Truth was upholden. And (not to go far from home) If a General Council were assembled of such Prelates as you are, who have no savour of, and less favour to the Truth, having bewrayed in this your Book (besides your usual practices) how contrary your spirit is to Christ's spirit and wisdom: Certainly (as much as in you were) you would bring utter confusion upon the world, in setting up and establishing your Babilonish Faith and Religion. And I have noted before, how the poor in spirit, such as fear the Lord, are those 
‡ Mat. 24.28.  Eagles Christ speaks of, whose eyes are sharpest to pierce into the Mysteries of the Scriptures, as having Gods holy Spirit to guide them into all Truth. Hear what the wiseman saith, 
‡ Pro. 28.11.  The rich man is wise in his own conceit: but the poor that hath understanding searcheth him out. I leave it to your Application. And Christ 
§ Luk. 10.21.  rejoicing in Spirit, saith, I thank thee o Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so Father; for it seemed good in thy sight. Again, Prelates, especially such as yourself, are taken up with State-matters, and all of them generally with their worldly affairs, and great Revenues, so as they have little leisure so much as to think of Divine matters, or to care for the state of men's souls, or to seek to advance Christ's Kingdom, as being 
† Ephes. 2.12▪  a'pellotriomenoi tes politeías tou Israèl (as the Apostle speaks) Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel. Yea even those, that have good learning and judgement in Divinity, which they had before they were Prelates, after they come once to be Prelates, they are so choked with the world, and so overawed with the servile fear of man, that they dare do nothing for the Truth, especially in a time wherein it is openly opposed and oppressed, but are willing to sleep in a whole skin, and to let Religion and Faith sink, or swim, so they may enjoy their Lordships, and fill their Coffers. Again, suppose a General Council of Prelates were called (for the purpose) to judge and determine of the Controversy about the Calling of Prelates, whether it be jure divino, by Divine Authority, or no (as it was in Question and agitation in the Council of Trent) would not such a Council trow you be Partial in their own Cause, and Define with one voice, That Prelates are an Order, and of a Calling Jure divino, and that Christ thought it fittest to govern his Church by such visible judges and Viceroys. Or, if the Controversy were, whether the Church always collective in the Prelates, have power to ordain Ceremonies in God's service, to the Obedience and conformity whereof all men's Consciences are bound; by which Imposition God's people come to lose that liberty, which Christ hath purchased for them, and Christ should lose his Royal sovereignty as King in his Church (as before is showed) it is not easy to Divine, what the Definition of such a Council would be? Or is there any Question to be made, but that without any more ado, they would Order, Determine, Define, and Conclude, that Prelates the Church Collective, have power to ordain what Ceremonies they please in the worship and service of God, which shall bind all men's Consciences, to the necessary obedience, and observation thereof? Would they herein have any respect to Christian liberty, or Christ's Prerogative? Would they not with the Scribes, and Pharisees and High Priests in their Council, condemn Christ, for his Title of King of the jews.  
And because you are so much for a General Council, as judge in Controversies, What say you to the first General Council of Nice, wherein there were above 300 Prelates (as I remember) Had they not all consented to the making of a Decree for the establishing of a 
* 1 Tim. 4.1.  Doctrine of Devils, to wit, forbidding Marriage to all Ecclesiastical Persons, had not one man Paphnutius, and he an unmarried man too, stood up, and withstood such a Decree, showing by many Reasons and Arguments from Scripture and otherwise, how wicked and cruel such a Decree were. So early began the Mystery of Iniquity to bud forth, and that in the most Ancients, and in the very Prime or first General Council, wherein these Fathers, the Prelates were so piously zealous (though ignorantly) to lay the foundation of a general Aposticie from the Faith, in establishing such a Doctrine of Devils, as the Apostle calls it; of which suffciently before. Yet by your Doctrine, If that General Council of so many Prelates had determined it, and ratified it by Decree, all Priests than were bound to obedience, until another General Council, equal to that, should reverse it; which should have been long enough, when every Age grew successively worse than other. And thus in the very first, and best General Council (after the Apostles) a Doctrine of Devils should have been ratified, and therein an Apostasy from the Faith, and all men must have yielded obedience, at least external (enough to keep all your Priests from Marriage) and so all Prelates and Priests should so quickly have proved a Generation of Apostates from the Faith.  
Again, if you have a General Council, you must not (according to the Council of Friar Franciscus à S. Clara) admit of any Puritans, or the precise Party of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, no not such as you call Puritan Bishops. For you see what one wise and honest man did in preventing so wicked a Decree of a whole General Council of many Prelates. And assure yourself, were there but a few sound Puritans admitted to your General Council, and might have free liberty to speak, you would not be able to resist the evidence of Truth, which they should bring in, as Arelatensis told the Prelates in the Council of Basil, concerning the poor inferior Priests. But if you shall exclude the Puritans▪ and so all Reformed Non Prelatical Churches, out of your Prelatical Council General, how should it be a General Council? But I cry you mercy, Puritan Reformed Churches are already by you doomed for no members of your Catholic Church, whereof and wherein yours and Rome's Church are one and the same, and therefore as Heathen, they ought to be shut out for Wranglers, as they were from the Council of Trent.  
Another Reason against a General Council, being judge in Controversies is, because all sound and Orthodox Divines, both Ancient and Modern, both Foreign and Domestic in the Church of England formerly, with all the Orthodox Fathers in this point, have held, professed, and believed, That the holy Scripture is the sole sufficient judge in all Controversies of Faith. And for proof hereof, What say you to Dr Whitakers Lectures against Bellarmine and Stapleton in this Point? Or how do or can you answer any of his Arguments drawn from clear Scriptures, and Testimonies from the Ancient Fathers. But it seems you have not been acquainted with him, as not once mentioning him in all this. For that were besides your Purpose. But you will except against him, as a Puritan, which is a sufficient confutation with one puff of your mouth. And so you do all honest, sound, learned, Religious, Orthodox Divines whatsoever, whom particularly to allege here, would but make your stomach rise, and so I pass on to the rest.  
Secondly and Thirdly, and again, and again, I deny, that the Decrees of General Counsels, 
2.3.  bind any true Christians Faith and Conscience, so much as to outward obedience to any one Ceremony; as before. Yea though your Council Decree according to the Scripture, yet jure proprio, and absolutely of its own Authority it binds not the Conscience. That's proper and peculiar to the Scripture alone immediately, the only binding Rule of Faith and Conscience. How much less doth a Council bind in a matter of error in a point of Faith? This is such an abominable point of Divinity, as never any Arch-Prelate of Canterbury since the Reformation and (I presume) before, ever uttered. Divinity, say I, yea Divinity Diabolical, and monstrous Impiety, and Antichristian Tyranny, to be hissed out by all that bear but the bare name of Christians. And this Answereth also to the Fourth, 
4.  which is as full of ridiculous absurdity, as of impious folly. You hope (forsooth) that a Counsels errors will not be so great as all men shall discern them. That may well be, when many thousands take no notice at all of any such Council Decrees. And how many men have not the eyes to discern even the grossest errors? How many in the Church of England do discern the grossness and danger of your setting up of your Altars in all the Churches of England, as namely, that it is a denying of Christ the only Altar, And the bringing in of the Popish Priesthood, and sacrifice? But what if you could in a Provincial Council of Canterbury make a Decree for setting up, and worshipping of Altars, as you do, and that all men did see the grossness of it? Would the sight of it exempt them from at least external obedience, being once defined in that your Synod? And so of a General Council, for universal obedience. No, the knowledge of the grossness of the error will not serve their turns, to excuse them from obedience. For you tell us, We must notwithstanding yield obedience. If so, surely it were the safest way than for men to close their eyes, that they may not see at all, and so yield blind obedience to your Decrees, pinning their souls (as I said) to the Prelates Innocent white sleeve, to be led blindfold to hell, then seeing and knowing, to sin against their Conscience, in yielding obedience. But how ever, seeing, or not seeing, hang, or be damned, the Decree of a General Council, even in point of error in the Truth, yea though men know it to be against God's word, must be universally obeyed, till evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration to the contrary made the error appear, and until thereupon another General Council equal to that, did reverse it. Which may be long enough, before all these things concur. What? Must the Decree of the seventh General Council, the second of Nice, for the worship of Images bind all men to Obedience, till another General Council equal to that, upon Demonstration to the contrary, shall reverse it? Or must the Decree of the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent 3. for Transubstantiation, be believed and obeyed by all men, at least in external obedience, to worship the Altar and Host till another Council equal unto that shall reverse it? Or must the Decree of the General Council of Constance▪ for the taking away of the Cup in the Sacrament from the People, bind all to obedience, till another Council equal unto that shall reverse it? Or lastly, shall the Decrees of the Council of Trent (which calls itself a General Council) ratifying the worship of Images, Transubstantiation, and the taking away of the Cup, wi●ing the People's nose of it, besides all those other damnable and damning errors against the clear Truth and Faith of Christ, bind all to obedience till another Council equal to that shall reverse it? Then certainly all Papists, by your sentence, are bound to be damned. Nay, are not you and your Church of England bound to obey all those Decrees of Former General Counsels, as that of the second of Nice, for worship of Images, not yet reversed by a General Council equal to that, though by a Council at Frankford called by Carolus Magnus, Emperor of the West, that wicked Decree was condemned. But the Decrees of this Council are smothered, and kept in hugger mugger, as being outfaced by such a prevailing generality of unblishing Images, and so have lost their place among the Records of the Counsels. And besides, that Council at Frankford was not for generallty equal to that of Nice under that wicked Empress Irene. Which being so, and so, that Decree of Nice not yet reversed, why (say I) do not you observe your own Rule in obeying that Decree, in worshipping of Images? Or why at least (though you here write something against them to some small purpose, as coming near to Idolatry) do you not yield external obedience, in doing corporal Reverence to those Images you have set up, only reserving your internal worship, and keeping your Faith to yourself? But to satisfy us for that, you have over or upon your Altar in your own Chapel at Lambeth sufficient Images and Crucifixes, which, when you do honour and homage to your Altar, cannot but participate of it. And again the Council of Constance being a General Council, and the Decree thereof for the Cup being not yet reversed by another Council equal to that: And seeing your Church of England is one and the same with the Catholic Church when it was represented in that Council: why do you not press your Doctrine unto Practice in your Church of England, telling them that they are all bound to the obedience of that Decree of the Council of Constance, for the taking away of the Cup in the Sacrament, at least they are bound to external obedience, not to drink of that Cup till another Council equal to that, shall reverse that Decree, which hath not yet been; but on the contrary the General Council of Basill since that hath ratified that Decree of Constance, notwithstanding all the Bohemians supplications and demonstrations to the contrary? But you will say, you have here in your Book made a demonstration both against worship of Images, and the taking away of the Cup. But this will not free you from external obedience to the Decrees of the said Counsels, till another Council thereupon equal to those shall reverse them. Therefore by your own Doctrine you have put upon yourself and Church a necessity of external obedience to the said Decrees, from which because you cannot otherwise be exempted, how doth it concern you, and your Church of England too (if indeed you desire to be freed from the obedience of those Decrees) to use all means for the expediting, and speedy calling of a General Council, to reverse the said Decrees? And so much the rather now, when you have made such Demonstrations against those said Decrees, as being against Truth, which therefore you cannot obey, without offering manifest violence to your Conscience. And if your Protestants of the Church of England shall allege, that these Errors, Heresies, Idolatries, Sacrileges, have been cried down by one unanimous voice of all Protestants, and in particular, by the established Doctrines of the Church of England, yet your Doctrine tells them still, that being never yet reversed by a General Council equal to those wherein they were Decreed; and seeing that the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas are no true Churches, for fault of Prelates; And the Doctrines of the Church of England are declared to be doubtful: therefore your Doctrine stands in force still, that external obedience at least must be yielded of all. Otherwise, it cannot stand with any Government, as you tell us here. But how stands it with Faith, with Conscience, with Scripture, with the Apostle, that a man is bound knowingly to obey an Error in the Faith? For the Apostle saith, 
* Rom. 14.23.  whatsoever is not of Faith is sin, that is, whatsoever a man doth against his Conscience, is sin. So as you hereby teach men directly to sin against their Consciences, and all to uphold the Credit of your Prelatical Government and Decrees. Thus the Church of England may see what an Oracle she hath got in the Chair of Canterbury.  
To the fifth, A General Council hath not power from Christ immediately to be judge in Controversies. immediately? No nor mediately neither, nor any way at all. For it is denied, that your General Council of Prelates are lawful, seeing all the members of the Council are neither visible judges, nor Vice-Roys, appointed and allowed by Christ to Govern his Church, as hath been proved▪ Now if all the members of your General● Council be of no Authority Divine, than neither your General Council itself, with all the Decrees of it. For there is ●he same reason of the whole, and of all the Parts. Christ then will not have his truth to receive Testimony, much less subject his word to the Judgement of those, who are usurping Tyrants, and enemies of his word, and especially since Antichrist hath prevailed, 
* Mat. 3.12.  Christ would not receive testimony from the Devils that they knew him. No more doth he allow 
‡ 2 Cor. 11.13  any of Satan's Ministers, false Apostles, to be judges in Controversies of Faith. And you confess, A General Council hath no power from Christ Immediately (at least) to be judge in Controversies.  
Whence then hath your General Counsels this power? Th● Church (say you) prudently took it up from the example of the Apostles, Acts 15. Prudently took it up? Nay surely rather, you craftily stole it. You took it up where it was not laid down, for you to take up, and so to abuse. But you have Prudently, that is Politicly and presumptuously taken up, that is, usurped that power which was never given you, nor yet by any Apostolic Legacy left unto you, seeing you are neither their h●ires, nor successors, nor Executors, nor Administrators, nor Assigns of the Apostles, but (in one word for all) mere Usurpers. Yea though by the Name of Church we should understand (which you do not) the true Church of Christ successively after the Apostles in all Ages; yet she hath learned another gates Prudence, then to take up such an example from the Apostles, as is neither warrantable for her to do, nor imitable▪ For the Apostles, a● they had their Immediate Calling from Christ, so by him they were immediately inspired with the Holy Ghost, so as then judgement in all matters of Faith was infallible. But the succeeding believers had not the like fullness and abundant measure of the Spirit, as to make them competent and sufficient Judges in matters of Faith, on whose judgement men might infallibly rest their faith, and settle their Conscience. Yea it pleased the wisdom of Christ to give that fullness of his Spirit to his Apostles, that being thereby led into all Truth, they might, not only preach that truth to that present age, wherein they lived, but also leave the same truth written to all succeeding Ages of the Church of Christ, to be guided and directed by that Truth in the Scripture, as the sole competent, and every way sufficient and complete judge in all controversies and matters of faith whatsoever. Again, that particular Example of the Apostles (Acts 15.) was an A per se. It was a particular Act proper only to that present occasion, and not to be stretched to aftertimes, when the Church should be settled. For that very determination of the Apostles, was but proskairos, for that very season, to compose some Differences arising between the jews and Gentiles, newly converted to Christianity. And the Apostle james lays this for the ground of the Determination or Decree; 
* Acts. 15.20.21.  Moses (saith he) of old time hath in every City those that preach him, being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day. Here is the occasion of this Assembly, the mixture of the jews living amongst the Gentiles. And though the Gentiles converted were free from Jewish ordinances, yet the jews being offended at it, and not yet strong enough in the faith, and pressing the Gentile Christians with Circumcision; hereupon the Assembly met, and by the special and immediate assistance and guidance of the Spirit of God, determined what was fittest to be done for the present necessity. And the determination was, that those Christian Gentiles should abstain from Blood, and strangled, and Idoll-offerings, and Fornications. And this Decree lasted no longer, than the present occasion required. Though to abstain from Idoll-offering and from Fornication (so frequent among the Gentiles) is perpetual, according to God's Moral Law: but abstinence from Blood, and strangled was a Ceremonial Law▪ and so was not to outlast that time, of the jews tenderness. For otherwise all the levitical Ceremonies were abrogated in Christ's death. And yet for that time and occasion, these abstinences were called Necessary things, that is, only in regard of the occasion; though to abstanain from Idol offerings, and from Fornication we are for ever and to all necessary. But now this example ought not to be drawn into a Rule, no not to the true Church of God, and to the Ministers of his word, or to any humane power, to impose what Ceremonies they please upon the Consciences of God's people. This did not the Apostles. What they did here, was by the Holy Ghosts direction, and for the occasion aforesaid. And such an evidence can no General Council of Prelates show us.  
And in a word, you that have so prudently taken up that Power for General Counsels to be judges in Controversies of Faith from the example of that Council of the Apostles, Acts 15. do you truly conform to the pattern of that Assembly? You must understand that that Assembly, or Council consisted not of the Apostles alone, but also of the 
* Act. 15.6.  Elders, the Presbyters; nor only so, but also of the 
‡ ve. 22, 23▪ 25.  Brethren, the believers, who were also members of that Assembly, and who with the Apostles and Elders are mentioned in the Epistle, as whose joint Assent was to the Decree. Here was then a Complete Pattern of a General Council, when the Ministers and Brethren, the people are the joint body of the Council. For otherwise, how is it a General Council, if it consist of the Ministers alone? So as that's a true definition of a General Conucel, which consists Generally of the Ministers and People together. But you have prudently left out of your General Counsels, not only the People of God, but also his true Ministers, the Presbyters; these you shut out, not only from your Council, but also from your Catholic Church, as not members of it; as they are not indeed. So as your General Synod or Council, may truly be called (how prudently soever you have taken it up) as that second Council of Ephesus was, lustrikè▪ a stolen Council. Thus though you Prelates would be thought to be the Apostles successors, and propose their example here, yet in nothing do you follow them, no not in that, which you say you have here prudently taken up from their example: But your prudence is no other▪ but to make the Apostles states for your tyranny while you Challenge the office of being the sole judges in Controversies of Faith▪ and of the Scriptures too, which not even the Apostles themselves did ever take upon them, though they had the Spirit of Christ, which you have not.  
To the Sixth, it is answered in the former. For Difinitions of your General Counsels, though they be for the matter according to Scripture, yet do they not bind, as the Counsels Difinitions▪ God's word in and of itself only bindeth, as is said before. Nor do your General Counsels bind, for the manner and form, which is ever false, seeing they are not such Counsels, as the Scripture alloweth And again, neither do they bind, because they are always fallible, because never Infallible (by your own confession) and they are often erroneous, as you also confess. And therefore as when false, they bind not, so neither when true, are men bound to believe them, as he that is accustomed to lie, is ever suspected, although he sometimes tell truth.  
For the Seventh, it is as ridiculous, as some of its fellows▪ For you say, That in things truly determined by the Council, being done, In that, it cannot err. Which being understood in the most perfect sense of the words, is as if a man should say, He that tells the truth, being told, therein he cannot lie. But yet things may be said to be truly determined, which yet being so determined, may be said to be erroneous. For a thing may be said to be truly Determined, quoad externam formam & modum determinandi; when the external form and manner of the Determination is observed: And yet quoad materiam ipsam determinata▪ in regard of the matte● and thing itself determined, it may be false and erroneous. As those 
* 1 King. 22.  400. Prophets in the case of Ahab, did truly consent with one unanimous voice; but yet it was a lie, which they truly consented in. So a thief may be said to be a true man, in respect of the substance of a man, or truly to live, because he liveth, yet he is a thief, and lives a lewd life. So your General Council may observe all its accustomed forms and manners of Determining matters by voices, and the like, yea and also may do it according to the letter of Scripture, as they take, and interpret it, and yet the thing so determined may be erroneous; because they mistook and misinterpreted the Scripture. So as neither in this speech of yours is there a truth. Or do you mean, being rightly after your manner done, hath it some virtue ex opere operato, not to err? Or do you mean, That so being once done, for the manner, it must not for the matter be questioned, but then, right or wrong, must be obeyed as truth? And again, your expression is very improper, to say, of a thing already done, and past, It cannot err. Non posse, or possibility is properly of a thing not yet done, So as you should have said, A General Council in the things so and so done, hath not erred, nor cannot err. But who shall reduce your words to reason, or free them from being ridiculous? For, Perlectum admissi, risum ●eneatis amici? Can any refrain laughter that reads your words? Or from saying, They are as a fool's coat made up of sundry pieces and sundry colours For thus they are framed; 1. 'Tis true, that a General Council de post facto, after 'tis edded, and admitted by the whole Church, is then Infallible. 2. The reason, For, it cannot err in that▪ which it hath clearly and truly determined without error. 3. After 'tis confirmed, 'tis admitted by the whole Church. 4. Then being found true, it is also Infallible▪ that is, it deceives no man. Is not here Mira verborum complexio, as the Orator saith, A ridiculous babbling? Or as the Poet saith, is not this Humano Capiti Cervicem sungere equinam? to paint a man's head standing upon a Horse's neck? Would ever any man have spoken thus, that had not first bid adieu ●o common Sense, Reason, Judgement? And if the Reader require a larger Commentary, let him but read the words over again.  
To the Eighth I answer, It is not in itself pride, not to obey Counsels, Difinitions; and much less, when a man knows them to be erroneous. Nor is it against any Just and Godly Government▪ but only against that which is Papal, Antichristian, Tyrannical. And is it not high and Antichristian pride, to impose Difinitions of General Counsels of Prelates, yea even when they are erroneous, and known apparently to be so, yet to be as Gods own holy Commandments necessarily obeyed of all? This is the highest and most Diabolical Tyranny in the world, thus to bring into bondage the faith, soul and conscience of men to a necessary subjection to error and falsehood. Yea, thus not to obey, you call it also unlawful. Unlawful? By what Law? Or what Law either of God, or of any lawful Authority of Man, or of Civil state, is here broken? Are men's lufts a Law? Or are your Prelatical Counsels any true General Counsels? General they may be, in respect of Prelates, but General they are not in respect of the true Catholic Church of Christ, the Body whereof is not represented in your General Counsels: as is showed before. No nor is your General Council General, in respect of the Catholic Church, whereof you call yourself the representative body. For the lay-people are not admitted into your Council, nor any to represent them: therefore it is not General: therefore not to obey the difinitions of it, is it unlawful? And suppose the Council were lawful, are the Decrees thereof to be obeyed, when erroneous.  
To the Ninth: That Christ intended not to leave an Infallible certainty in his Church, to satisfy either contentious, or curious, or presumptuous spirits. Here is one thing expressed, and another employed: the thing expressed is negative, Christ intended not, etc. the thing employed is affirmative: That Christ intended to leave an Infallible certainty in his Church. And suitable hereunto are your precedent words; There is, there can be no necessity of an infallible certainty in the whole Catholic Church, and much less in a General Council, of things not absolutely necessary in themselves, Which words imply this Affirmative, That there is a necessity of an infallible certainty in the whole Catholic Church of things absolutely necessary in themselves So as here also, it is all one, as if you had said thus: Christ intended to leave an infallible certainty in hi● Church, but not to satisfy either contentious, or curious, or presumptuous spirits. Oney you do still in such things of this nature, prudently avoid the plainer and least deceitful way of expressing yourself▪ Now what Christ intended, he certainly performs and makes good. But to that your Imaginary Catholic Church Prelatical, I deny, that Christ ever intended to leave an infallible certainty. For to such he never made any such promise. And therefore you cannot say, and say truly, That Christ intended that. For you are no part of his true Church, as having no calling from Christ, as before is proved. And you yourself confess in many places of your Book, that the Authority of your Church is not Divinely infallible: And for instance, you make your present Church Authority, in inducing belief of Scripture to be God's word, to have a prim● place in things absolutely necessary in themselves; and yet you confess, that this Authority is not Divine and infallible. So here is a Contradiction, which I leave with you to reconcile. Again, you tell us before, that our Saviour Christ hath left in his Church besides his Law-books, the Scripture, visible judges, to wit, Arch-Bishops and Bishops. And of such are made your General Counsels, Ergo, of necessity Christ must intend to leave unto you an Infallible Certainty in judging Controversies of Faith. For the Scripture you deny to be a complete and sufficient judge in doubtful cases; and that in such cases the visible judges, the Prelates in a General Council are to determine. Now if you have not certain infallibility of Judgement, in what case is the Church? Then it may be said, as 
* Bellarmine.  Bellarmine and other Jesui●es say, Christ hath provided very ill for his Church, if he had not left a visible judge, and withal a certain infallibility unto him, to determine controversies of Faith. This he speaks of the Pope; and upon the very same ground, that you do for all Prelates in a General Council. And the ground is, that you and they both deny the Scripture to be sole judge in Controversies of Faith. Well then, what say you? Do you confess this, that you have this Infallible certainty? If you say you have it not (as you do) and yet you will be the true Church of Christ, than you belly Christ, both here, saying He intended to leave it: and before, in saying, He hath left you to be visible judges: For had he intended to leave such an Infallibility certain to such a Church, as you speak of, and to leave such to be visible judges, as are Archbishops and Bishops: then certainly he would have given you such an Infallible certainty, as whereby you should have been qualified and furnished, to be sufficient and competent judges, whose Judgement should be such in matters of Faith, as men might secretly and safely rely, and rest their Faith upon. For otherwise if you have not this Infallibility, but that sometimes at least, and that in weighty Controversies you might err in Judgement, than men should have no more ground whereon to settle their Faith, than the Dove in the Deluge had to set her foot upon, you have so covered the Scripture as with a Deluge of Criminations, as to be no sufficient Judge in Controversies of Faith. And you confess (ibid.) That a General Council (which is an Universal Assembly of Prelates, and Grand Bench of visible judges) is not of infallible credit, but that they may err, yea and possibly manifestly too against fundamental verity, as pag. 226. So as if the Scripture be, though Infallible, yet not living, but a dead judge, that cannot speak, or pronounce the sentence: And if the Prelates, the visible living judges, have not infallible certainty, nor a General Council infallible credit in their Decrees; you leave the Church in a most perplexed case. Whither shall she go in all her doubts? To what Judge or Oracle for resolution? To the Scriptures? That's dead, and cannot say, Mum· To a General Council of Prelates? That's of no certain credit; their Judgement is not infallible; yea not in fundamental Truths. Alas, poor Church, what wilt thou do? What wilt thou do? Why, surely, believe none of all these false Prophets, no not all of them together, when assembled in a General Council, for they may and will miserably deceive and seduce you, if you trust to their Judgement. Whither then? To the Scripture. But it is dead, say they. They are false Prophets, and blind guides: believe them not: follow them not. 
* Io● 5.39.  Search the Scriptures, as Christ bids you. 
‡ Esa. 8.20.  To the Law, and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to this word; it is because there is no light in them. Art thou not Christ's Spouse? Then hear Christ's voice, the Scripture. Say with the Spouse in the Canticles: 
‡ Cant. 1.7.  Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou causest thy flocks to rest at noon: For why should I be as one that turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions? To whom Christ, her beloved Spouse, answereth, 
§ vers. 8.  If thou know not, O thou fairest among women, go thy way to the footsteps of the Flock, and feed thy Kids besides the shepherd's Tents. Here the true Church, Christ's Spouse, in her perplexities, and doubts, wherein she is like to lose herself, goes to Christ, to her shepherd, and asks of him, where he feedeth, where he causeth his Flocks to rest at 
† Psal. 91.1. Mat. 6.21.  Noon, where his Congregations may find a shady layre, rest, and refreshing from the meridian heat of Persecutions; or her Faith find rest in doubtful cases of Faith, or Conscience. For why (says she) should I be as one, that turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions? Why should I be uncertain and unsettled in depending upon the guidance and conduct of false shepherds, such as pretend to be as thy fellow-shepheards, that sit as God in the Temple of God, showing themselves to be God, equal to thee in power and Regal Authority over thy Kingdom and Church, making what Laws they please, in binding our Consciences and that even to their erroneous Decrees? To whom Christ Answereth, If thou know not (O thou fairest among women, although despised by men) go thy way forth by the footsteps of the Flock, to the green 
* Psal 23.1, 2.  Pastures, and the waters of comfort; the Scriptures where my flock doth ordinarily find pasture. (
‡ Mat. 4.4.  For man liveth not by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God) there thou shalt find the true Pasture, by the footsteps of the flock, by the continual treading of my sheep, which know no other pasture but this; For here my sheep hear my voice, even here by the shepherd's Tents my Ministers whom I have set over the flocks, 
‡ jer. 3.15.  to feed them with understanding and knowledge; 
§ Isay. 55.1, 2, 3.  Here, be those waters for every one that thirsteth, here is the milk and wine that's to be had without money: Harken diligently unto me; incline thine Ear, and come unto me, and thy soul shall live: search the Scriptures for in them is eternal life, and they are they that testify of me. These are the only 
† Psal. 119.-  light which I have left to be a lamp for thy feet, and a light for thy steps. These are the only 
* Lógiatheo●. 1 Pet. 4.11.  Oracles of God, which shall clearly resolve thee in all thy perplexed doubts: These are my only faithful witnesses, which I have left to witness the truth, and to establish thy heart in the faith, in me, 
‡̶ 2 Tim. 6.3.  if any man teach otherwise, and consenteth not to the wholesome words of Scripture, which are mine 
* Heb. 4.12.  own l●vely voice, and which contain all things pertaining to faith and godliness, he is puffed up and knoweth nothing, he is a false Prophet, a false shepherd, a blind Guide, a seducer, an Antichrist. Thus Christ speaketh to his Spouse in the Scripture, his own voice, the only true, living and infallible judge▪ And to this Judge, Christ's voice in the Scripture, the true Spouse of Christ in all Ages hath still resorted, and therein been resolved in her doubts, and comforted in her distress. For 
‡ Mat▪ 11.19.  here is that wisdom which is justified of all her Children. And 
‡ Rom. 15.4.  whatsoever is therein written is written for our learning, that we through patience, and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. Nothing can comfort us in our calamities, nothing can confirm and establish our faith and hope in all our perplexed doubtings, but this. Before we showed, how all the Fathers with one voice took this sanctuary, came to this judge, made this the only Rule, to determine all doubts and disputes by: so Augustine, so Tertullian: so the incertain Author upon Mat. 24. in chrysostom saith, that in the times of Antichrist (even in these our Times) one cannot know the true Church but by the Scripture, because Antichrist with his wicked Clergy, make such a fair show and pretence, that they are the Catholic Church, just as your Lordship doth. Therefore let all true Christians in these perilous times of Antichrist, and Antichristian Prelates (which cry down the Scriptures as an insufficient judge in Controversies of faith, and cry up their own usurped Authority as the supreme judge of the Scripture, at least in all doubtful cases, though they confess their Judgement not to be of Infallible Credit) fly to the 
* Mat. 24.  Mountains, and to the 
‡ Ad Fontes the common voice of the Primitive Fathers.  Fountains, the Scriptures, the lively voice of Christ, they, they only will resolve us, and settle our faith in all doubts and difficulties, and will discover unto us the true Church of Christ, from all false, pretended, counterfeit, Antichristian, Prelatical, hierarchical Churches and Synagogues.  
Now seeing, though you arrogate, but are not able to prove, that Christ hath left your Catholic Church an Infallible certainty, which yet you confess to be uncertain: give us leave (though we touched this before) now again upon a fresh occasion to vindicate the Truth of Christ, that he not only intended, but indeed hath left unto his true Church an infallible certainty of his Spirit, which by the rule of his word doth guide his Elect into all truth in all ages successively unto the end of the world. When he took his long Farewell of his Apostles and Disciples as concerning his bodily presence with them upon earth: he left them this Promise yet to comfort them concerning his perpetual spiritual presence with them, saying, 
‡ Mat. 28.20.  Lo I am with you always unto the end of the world, To the end of the world, Ergo with all those that are his true Disciples unto the end of the world. So as wheresoever Christ's Churches and Congregations be, there his Spirit is. This 
§ joh. 16.13.  Spirit leads his into all Truth, into all necessary and saving Truth infallibly, and most certainly. This is that 
† 1 joh. 2. 2●.  Anointing of which before. He that hath not this Spirit of 
‡̶ Rom. 8.9.  Christ, this Spirit of truth, is none of his. And he that hath it, is preserved from the seducements of false Prophets, which come in Christ's Name, and shall deceive many, but not the Elect; for that's not possible. Every true believer cannot, will not willingly err in any point of faith, and truth necessary to Salvation. I say, not wittingly. For many of God's dear Children do that ignorantly, whereby Christ is denied, as in yielding obedience to man's devices in God's worship, and that through custom, whereas if they were roused, and put to it, and asked if they believed not that Christ is the only King of his Church, and Lord over the Conscience; oh, they believe and acknowledge none other King. Ask them again, whether they believe that any man may exercise this Authority over them; oh, they renounce all such lords. Ask them again, why they subject their Consciences, souls and bodies to the will and lust of man in will-worship, forbidden by the Apostle: o, they answer, they never knew that before: and now that they know it, they repent of it, and from henceforth they renounce it, and resolve to lose rather life and all, than they will do so any longer. Thus even a good Christian, through ignorance may for a time in a dangerous error; but so soon as he is convinced of it, he will not for all the world continue in it. So he that hath true saving faith in Christ, resting on Christ's merits alone for his justification, he neither will nor can be brought to believe, that he must be justified by his works. For this is against the very nature of saving faith, which rests only on Christ, renouncing all other respects. So that 'tis impossible, that any true member of Christ, should by any error be so seduced, as to be separated from Christ, for he is 
* 1 Pet. 1.5.  preserved by the spirit of Grace, by the power of God through faith unto salvation. So that, as the whole body of the Church of Christ, so every particular member of this body, hath the certain and infallible seal of the Spirit of Truth given him of Christ, according to his promise, purpose, and intention, for all truth absolutely necessary to salvation, having both his Spirit and word to guide them into all truth.  
Finally, 'tis very true (being taken in a true sense) that Christ never intended to leave an infallible certainty in his Church, to satisfy either contentious, or curious, or presumptuous spirits. And if not presumptuous spirits, certainly not such spirits, as usurp a Prelatical and Lordly Authority, and to sit as visible judges of Scripture in General Counsels▪ imposing upon all men a servile yoke of obedience to their Decrees, whether right or wrong, true or false. Nay to such presumptuous spirits God hath given eyes not to see, and hath made their hearts fat, not to understand the truth, not to see the light, that shineth in his word, and therefore they say it is dark, and speak disgracefully of it. So as the presumptuous is properly yours. As for the contentious, and curious, these are they that contend for the truth against your undermining and oppugning of it, and are curious ●o search and sound the bottom of that Mystery of Iniquity, which is cunningly, yet grossly enough folded up in the voluminous leaves of this your Book. So as for these so contentious and curious, Christ did intend to leave an Infallible certainty in his Church to satisfy them, and to assure them of the Truth, so as not all the opposition and contradiction in the world can beat them from it.  
To the Tenth, you make no matter of it, if General Counsels err, in one, or a second, or a third; so it be not in things necessary. In other cases it makes no matter, if they err. And what matter is it then, if there be none of your General Council at all. For you confess that they may possibly (though not easily) err in things necessary, and in fundamental points of Faith; 
Pag. 226.  and yet obedience must be given. If then it be no matter if in other things they err, on●e, twice, thrice, yea or if you will in a hundred things: take all these together, and the world should be free from many dangers, if it were rid of General Counsels altogether. But in the mean time, you make no matter of it, if in so erring, they load the world with an intolerable burden of errors, which all men must bow their necks under, till another General Council do free them: and perhaps in stead of freeing them, may lay as much more load upon them. Truly, my Lord, if you had not a liberty to talk with your pen what you please, and a strong opinion also, that whatsoever you write or speak, must needs be of every body highly applauded, as if all you write were Oracles: you would never have suffered such foul blots to have dropped from your pen. But 'tis no matter. If you err in this, and that, and another, etc. aswell as your General Counsels; so as we knowing them may not in obeying, or assenting err with you.  
To the Eleventh you say, for necessary faith to salvation, we have the Scriptures, Creeds, 4 first General Counsels. So then, being furnished of necessaries, what need we any more? I think the Apostles rule for temporal things, may hold well in spiritual, he saith, 
* 1 Tim. 6.8.  having food and raiment, let us therewith be content: So Having all things necessary for faith to salvation, let us use these well and b● content, not affecting to be loaden with a multitudo of humane devises, which Prelatical Counsels, Courts, and Canons put upon us. And are General Counsels so Cheap, as that you should keep such a do, having no Necessaries to trouble them withal But it seems you have some other necessaries, besides those of faith, that will require a General Council. For you tell us (pag 211.) The settling of the Divisions of Christendom (as the reconciling of England with Rome) the making of Canons, which must bind a●l particular Christians and Churches, cannot be concluded 〈…〉, but there, to wit, in a General Council. Why but there? For the Church of England you may do what you please; only you desire perhaps a General Council, to conclude for Altars, and other utensils, and so ease your shoulders of the envy, and crime of Innovation, but for that also you have a sufficient put off, as is showed before. But the reconciliation and settling of the Divisions of Christendom will conclude all. But still the Scripture with you, is not alone sufficient for necessary faith to salvation, without the Creed, and (at least) the 4 first General Counsels: Why, was the Scripture, before there were any either Creeds, or Counsels? And was not the Scripture then alone sufficient for all things necessary to salvation? The Creeds and Counsels are not to be added to the Scripture, as if without them it were not an absolute and complete Rule. As for the Creeds, they were for the sum and substance of them extracted from Scripture, and must still be reduced to Scripture for their true sense and interpretation, as before. And for the Decrees of the 4 General Counsels, we approve of them, no further, than the Scripture warrants them. And therefore though  
Twelfthly, you humbly submit to the Scripture, as it is interpreted by the Primitive Church and General Counsels, and not else: yet we submit our faith only to the Scripture, as it is interpreted by itself, and by the spirit of Christ speaking and breathing in it, which by the Scripture interprets the Scripture unto us; as Augustine doth well observe in his Second Book de Doctrina Christiana. And herein you show your faith not to be Divine, but humane, as which you submit not merely to the Scripture, but unto the judgement of men, as they shall interpret the same unto you. And so I leave you to your faith, wherein you declare yourself to be quite from the true Catholic Church of Christ, whose Faith is built upon the only foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, jesus Christ being the Chief corner stone, without any depending upon humane testimony and Authority. And so here an end of your General Counsels.  
But yet one thing remains unresolved on your part, for you have told us that General Counsels may err even in fundamental truths: but whether at any time they do actually so err, you resolve us not. Nay in some places you make it so ambiguous, whether they can err, or no, that we know not what to make of it, fish or flesh. For (pag. 223.) you propound the Question, saying, whether a General Council may err, or not, is a Question of great consequence in the Church of Christ. To say it cannot err, leaves the Church not only without remedy against an error once determined, but also without sense that it may need a remedy, and so without care to seek it, which is the mystery of the Church of Rome at this day. To say it 
* See a little before fol. ●● Bellarmine.  can err, seems to expose the members of the Church to an uncertainty, and wavering in the Faith, to make unquiet spirits not only to disrespect former Counsels of the Church, but also to slight and contemn whatsoever it may now determine, into which error some opposes of the Church of Rome have fallen. Thus you. Now this Question of so great consequence, and that in utramque partem, on both sides, pro & con: you seem in your last words here to resolve and determine, as if to say it can err, were an error, into which some opposers of the Church of Rome have fallen. Now the Church of Rome hath had many opposes, many Protestant, Learned and Judicicious Divines of former times in the Church of England, who have clearly proved, that General Counsels can err: as we have showed before. Now then do you prove they erred in so saying? Or (which is all one) how do you prove, that a General Council cannot err? For if it be an error, to hold they can err; 'tis no error in you, to hold they cannot err. Thus I find you fast upon the hooks, get off, and quit yourself as well as you can. But pag. 239 you distinguish; which in sum is, That all those Popish Authors alleged by Bellarmine for General Counsels not erring, either speak of the Church (including the Apostles) as all of them do: and then all grant the voice of the Church is God's voice, and infallible; Or also they are General, unlimited, and appliable to private Assemblies, as well as General Counsels, which none grant to be infallible, but some mad Enthusiasts. Or else they are limited, not simply into all truth, but all necessary to salvation. In which I shall easily grant a General Council cannot err, suffering itself to be led by this spirit of Truth in the Scripture, and not taking upon it to load both the Scripture and the spirit, Thus there. Now here I would ask the most perspications and Judicious Reader, that reads these lines, and ponders them well'-what certain conclusions or resolutions he can pick, or deduce out of your words, either for Infallibility, or not. First: That all grant, The voice of the Church is God's voice, divine and infallible, if you speak of the Church including the apostles. Whence your conclusion should be this: That General Counsels, being the Church representative, are infallible, their voice is God's voice, divine and infallible, understanding the Church, whereof they are the Representative▪ to include the apostles. Ergo by virtue of the Apostles understood to be included in the Church, whereof Gen. Counsels are the Representative, their voice is God's voice, divine and infallible, and so can not err in any age unto the end of the world, still understanding that in the name of the Church the Apostles are included; can any rationable man, or reasonable creature make hereof any other conclusion? Secondly, In all truth necessary to salvation, you easily grant a General Council cannot err, suffering itself to be led by the spirit of Truth in the Scripture. This is just as Arminius said in answer to that place in 
* 1 Io●. 3.9. Arminius Examen.  john, for the certain Perseverance of God's Saints: Whosoever is borne of God, doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is borne of God. Now how doth that Heretic avoid so clear a Testimony and evidence? That is, saith he, so long as the seed of God remaineth in him; but it may depart. But the Apostle gives this as a reason, why the Saints cannot fall away, Because seed of God abideth in them, being Regenerate. Ergo it ever abideth in them: and therefore they cannot fall away. And as he, so you here; A General Council is infallible, while it suffers itself to be led by the spirit of Truth in the Scripture. As if you said, A General Council, while it doth not err, it doth not err, but in that i● infalliblepunc; as you told us before: But what if a General Council do not suffer itself to be led by the spirit of Truth in the Scripture? That is, what if a General Council have not this spirit of Truth in it, to keep it, that it suffer itself to be led by the spirit of Truth in the Scripture? What is your Resolution here? you leave us still upon uncertainties concerning General Counsels infallibility. And you seem to grant, that a General Council may take upon it to lead both the Scripture and the spirit. O miserable perplexities of a man, whose spirit itcheth to speak something which he dare not. But tell us ingeniously and plainly (if there be any ingenuity in you) Hath a General Council this spirit of Truth in the Scripture always, to make it Infallible in all necessary Truths, or not? That's the point. But this you do not, dare not grant. Yet thus much you are bold to say, 
‡ Pag. 230.  That the Assistance of the Holy Ghost is without Error. That's no Question; and 
‡ A comparison fa●se and blasphemous.  as little there is, that a Council hath it. How? Is there as little Question to be made, that a Council of Prelates hath the Assistance of the Holy Ghost, as, That the Assistance of the Holy Ghost is without error? No more Question? I Question, whether a General Council have the Assistance of the Holy Ghost; will you therefore as well question, whether the Assistance of the Holy Ghost is without error? Nay I am so far from making question, that I am confident, and that upon clear evidence, that your General Counsels of later times especially under Antichrist, neither have had, ●or have been capable of the Assistance of the Holy Ghost to preserve them from error. For they have been still assembled against Christ, and his Truth, and the true Church and Children of God, and either for the decreeing of wicked errors in in Faith, or confirming of them, and establishing of the throne of the Beast, and power of Antichrists Kingdom against jesus Christ. Nor were it a hard matter to demonstrate this by many instanecs, which for the present I omit. In the mean time, How prove you here your, As little Question? Or how come you to name This spirit of Truth in the Scripture? What, after all that you have said before of the Scripture, that it is not bright enough, that it hath no light, till it be lighted by the Authority of the present Church, and the like; come you now to confess, that The spirit of Truth is in the Scripture? Told you us not a while ago, That the Scripture is no living judge? What, not living, when the spirit of Truth breathes in it? Is not the spirit in the Scripture, living? And is not a judge a living judge, when, and while his spirit is in him? What, nothing but absurd and senseless contradictions with you? Nothing but Babilonish language? But thus we may see into what gulfs of perplexities they plunge themselves, that presume and undertake to exalt their high imaginations against the Truth of God. And you say again, 
* Ibid.  A General Council hath not this Assistance (to Infallibility) but as it keeps to the whole Church and Spouse of Christ, whose it is to hear his word, and determine by it. As it keeps close? Why? is it not your Catholic Churches Representative? How can it then, but keep close, being of the same Body, and spirit, with your Church? Secondly, speaking here of the whole Church, the Spouse of Christ, you do equivocate, applying that to a false Church, which is univocè, univocally proper and peculiar to the mystical body of Christ. For your whole is Prelatical, that of the Hierarchy, and none other, which we have before proved, to be the Synagogue of Antichrist, which heareth not Christ's voice, but as your Church is pleased to interpret it, and to give it Authority. And that which you say of your General Councils, may be truly said of any particular Assembly, two, or three, met in Christ's name, which doth not err, being led by the spirit of Truth, in the Scripture, Christ himself (according to his Promise) being in the midst of them. No nor yet any particular single Believer erreth, being so led, So as you speak to no purpose, when you say, A General Council cannot err, in that wherein it hath already determined according to the Scripture; the vanity whereof we showed before. But the conclusion is, you still leave the the Infallibility of your General Council unresolved, upon yea and nay, sometimes affirming, sometimes denying; except your negative be according to that Rule in Logic, That one Negative is of more Force, than a thousand Affirmatives.  
L. p. 213. Sect. 27. My Answer was, That the Council of Trent was not only not legal in the necessary conditions to be observed in a General Council, but also that it was no General Council.  
P. Though this be true, you say, yet the Council of Trent was so legal, according to Rome's own Law, that it wanted no conditions observable, to make it in that behalf, not only a legal, but a General Council too. And secondly, so General for the Roman Catholic Church of Rome, that all the Decrees thereof do bind all Papists to a necessary obedience, and conformity unto them, and that under Anathema. And your Rule is, That a General Counsels Decrees and Canons bind all Christians: and a Provincial Counsels Decrees bind all of that Province. And therefore I hope you will grant, that the Papal Council of Trent is of force to bind all Papists, who acknowledge and accept the Pope for their Head, or Primate. So as though it were not a General Council in the largest sense, yet it was a General Council for the Roman Catholic Church, which (say they) is the only Catholic Church. And with which (say you) the Church of England is one and the same. Now this I do here touch by the way, as whereof I shall have occasion to make some use anon, though perhaps your thus Arguing against the generality of Trents Counsels, is one of those Passages, which you think may be an ingredience of the salve of your Reputation. But this (I say) by the way.  
L. p. 227. It may seem very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendom, that a General Council thus Erring should stand in force, till evidence of Scripture, or, etc.  
P. This passage I cited before upon occasion, among sundry other of like nature; and now I repeat it only for this, to show how your zeal for Peace made you forget Truth. For still you are telling us of Peace and Truth, or, Truth and Peace. But here your Peace stands single, without Truth. What Peace, without Truth? For you say, It may seem very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendom that a General Council erring should stand in force. What, will you force a Peace against Truth, by an Authorised error? O blush for shame.  
L. p. 254. Suppose they Key of Doctrine be to let in Truth, and shut out error, and suppose the Key, rightly used, infallible in this: yet this infallibility is primely in the Church, in whose person (not strictly in his own) S. Peter received the Keys.  
P. Suppose? Do you make it but a supposit on that the key of Doctrine, is to let in Truth, and shut out Error? So it seems with you, when you use that Key of your Doctrine to shut out Truth, and let in error; as both, your Practices, and writings do show. But what is this Key of Doctrine? Is it not the sincere Preaching of God's word? And then this Key is rightly used, and here is the use thereof Infallible But (say you) this Infallibility is primely in the Church. How? Can we get no other language from you? Still, all Primely in the Church? Certainly not at all in your Antichristian Church, where the spirit of error reigneth, and where the whole bunch of Keys hangeth at the Prelate's g●r●le. As Pope Paschall 2. when he road in Pomp, had his seven Keys hanging at his girdle, the Chief whereof was to open and shut Paradise to whom he pleased. But we say still▪ that this infallibility is primely in the Scripture, and not in the Church, not in Christ's own Church. For the Scripture contains that infallible Truth, which the Ministerial key, Christ's own ordinance and voice openeth to the Church, or Congregation of God's people. And this Ministerial key Christ committed to Peter, not simply as sustaining the person of the whole Church, but chiefly and properly as he was an Apostle and Minister of Christ to preach the Gospel; in which respect also he might represent the person of all faithful Ministers of the Gospel rightly and truly called to the Function, to whom Christ did in Peter, as afterward he did 
* I●hn 2●.  in all the Apostles, commit and entrust the key of knowledge of the Doctrine of Christ, to be used and employed to that end▪ to the end of the world. Whereas by saying, Peter represented the Person of the Church, you must mean, that the Church is wholly contained in the Ministers; For you usually call your Clergy the Church, as if you had no Church but that; whereas the Congregation or society of all the Faithful is the Church of God, as is showed before. So as in no respect did Peter receive the Keys in the person of your Priest and Prelatical Church.  
L. p 258. Where 'tis said, That Christ makes to himself a Church without spot or wrinkle, Eph. 5. That is not underst●●d of the Church Militant, but of the Church Triumphant. And to maintain the contrary is a brand of the spreading Heresy of Pelagianisme.  
P. That speech of the Apostle includes as well the tru● Church Militant, as the Triumphant▪ both which contain, and consist of all the Elect only. And these Elect, that in the Church Militant live by Faith, though they have 
* Rom. 7.20.  enoikou●an kì 
‡ Heb. 12.1.  euperístton a●mratían, as the Apostle saith, sin dwelling in them, and easily besetting them, yet they are in God's sight, through Faith in Christ's blood, that 
‡ Zach. 13.1.  fountain set open for Israel, washed from all the spot● of sin, being in Christ's 
§ 1 Cor. 1.30.  imputed Righteousness and holiness presented, and accepted in God's sight, as most pure, without spot or wrinkle. As the the Apostle john saith, 
† 1 joh. 1 7.  The blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin. And Christ saith to his Spouse his Church Militant, 
‡̶ Cant. 4.7.  Thou art all fair, my Love, there is no spot in thee. Concerning that place, which you cite out of Augustine, where he saith, The whole Church prayeth, forgive us our debts. 'Tis true, speaking there of the visible Church, quae in toto terrarum orbe clamat ad deum, which over all the earth cries to God. And if he mean it of the Elect only, which are the only true Spouse of Christ in all the world, their praying, forgive us our debts, hinders not, nor interrupteth their perpetual purity in God's sight notwithstanding. For we may be, and are, through faith in Christ, accepted for pure in God's eyes, when in our own eyes, through sin, and manifold corruptions still dwelling, but not reigning in us, we are impure. And therefore we pray, forgive us our debts, because we have daily failings and infirmities, whereof our Consciences accuse us, and the confession of them with deprecation is a means to have that stain, and guilt, cleaving to our Conscience and corrupt nature wiped off, Faith still renewing the application of Christ's merits as a Balm to heal our wounds, and to assure us that our sins are blotted out in his blood. For as john saith, 
1 Io●. 1.9.  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Now as for the Pelagians, One of their errors was, in Arrogating purity to their own sect, and that they had no Original sin, but that they were Justi by a self-righteousness, calling those of their own sect Justi, Righteous, as Augustine tells us. But where you name the spreading Heresy of the Pelagians: I know none to whom that is more beholden then to him, (your self I mean) who hath given it a footing and rooting too in the Articles of the Doctrines of the Church of England, and under whom it hath shot forth its branches both in height and breadth, that it dare both overtop, and overdrop the Truth without control.  
But I had almost forgot one thing, and that is this: you allow not Purity in your Church Militant in this life. If therefore there be not a full purgation of the Church and her Children here in this world, where will you have her purged? Purged she must be, and that thoroughly, that she be without spot or wrinkle, before she come into heaven. For in thither no unclean thing entereth. Me thinks than I smell here the smoke of some Purgatory fire, after this life, which must purge away all the relics of sins spots. And upon this very ground, that you go on, it is, that the Papists have very prudently, as in a case of necessity, devised their Purgatory to cleanse all after this life, seeing here (they say) there is no Perfection of Purity. But perhaps you thought not of this consequence, when you writ those words, That the Church Militant is not without spot or wrinkle. But so, how will you avoid the consequence of Purgatory. So as while you pretend to avoid the Pelagian Rock, you fall into the Roman fiery▪ Phlegetom, or Purgatory-Gulfe. According to the old Proverb, Incidit in Scyllam dum vu●t vitare Char●●●in. But you seem afterwards, not to allow of Purgatory, telling some stories of it, but bringing not one Argument from Scripture against it, as, That the blood of Christ doth cleanse a true believer from all sin in this life, and the like. But hereof in its place. Again, In saying, That Christ doth not make the Church Militant in this life, to be without spot or wrinkle; 
 you do 〈◊〉 overthrow that Article of Faith, I believe the holy Catholic Church. Now doth not the holy Catholic Church 〈…〉 Church Militant? Is not the Church Militant 〈…〉 if holy, is it not then without spot or wrinkle? 〈…〉 But this is no Article of your Faith: because your Catholic Church is not thus holy, without spot or wrinkle.  
L. p. 275. In and by the Council of Trent, the Pope 〈…〉 of Saints, and Adoration of Images, to the 〈…〉 of Christianity, and as great hazard of the weak.  
P. What, no more but so? First, In the Council ●f 〈…〉 the Pope teach no more, but these two? And these two he could teach long before the Council of Trent. There they had the P●p● confirmation, but not their Christendom. But you tell us not ● word in all your Book of the Pope's teaching of 〈…〉 man's works and merits: and of his Anathematising of 〈…〉 by Faith only, which the Scripture teacheth. Nor a 〈…〉 teaching the Mass to be a Propitiatory sacrifice for 〈…〉 quick and dead: Nor, how he teacheth a New order of sacri●●●cing Priests. Nor, That Original sin, is no sin, saying, 
* Council. Trid. Sess. 4.  Although the Apostle define it to be sin yet the holy Council (of Trent) decreeth it not to have the nature of sin. And all these, and many more such, the Pope teacheth in the Council of Trent. Secondly, Are Invocation of Saints, and Adoration of Images, no more but a great hazard to the weak? Are they not so also to the strong, while they make the strongest to stoop to them▪ and therefore so much the more hazardous? Except you mean, that to the strong they are damnable, not only dangerous. But is plain Idolatry in both these, both adoration of Images, and Invocation of Saints, only hazardous to the weak? Is not Idolatry damnable? Nay is it not damnation to Idolaters? Doth it not shut them out of heaven? For 
‡ 1 Cor. 6.9.  no Idolaters shall inherit the Kingdom of God. Know ye it not, saith the Apostle.  
But Thirdly, you say, These are a great scandal of Christianity. No more? Why, sure they are the very badges and proper marks of the whore of Babylon, and the Doctrines of Antichristianity. For they are spiritual whoredom. And as for true Christianity, it so abhors them, and that whore that uses them, that it is not easily scandalised with them, as you are, that would so fain be reconciled to Rome, For what communion hath the Temple of God with Idols? Or Christ with belial? Or true Christianity with Antichristianity?  
L. p ibid. Transubstantiation taken properly, cannot stand with the ground of Christian Religion.  
P. Why, is there some other taking of Transustantiation, then properly? Is there a Transubstantiation improperly taken? show it us▪ I pray you. Is not Transubstantiation▪ Transubstantiation? To 〈◊〉, a C●anging of one substance into another? As the changing of the substance of 
 water into the substance of wine: which Christ truly did miraculously? As the changing of 
§  waters into blood, which Moses did miraculously? As the changing of the brea● into Christ's body, and of the wine into Christ's blood, which the Papists falsely teach, and believe, as if done miraculously, when no Miracle at all doth appear? Or they say it is done, by virtue of pronouncing the words of Consecration, Hoc est corpus meum, 
† M●t. 2●.  This is my body: whereas the Text plainly showeth, that these were not the words of Consecration (as also some Schoolmen confess) for Christ had Consecrated before in his blessing, or giving of thanks▪ after which, and after he had broken the bread, giving it to his Disciples, he uttered these words, This is my body. But what is your Transubstantiation improperly taken? Indeed some of the Ancient Fathers speaking of the Sacramental Elements after Consecration, being then set apart from common use, called it a Mutation, saying, that the Elements were changed into another Nature; but withal they express their meaning to be, not the changing of their substance, but of their use, from being common bread and wine to become Sacramental, or Sacred. But for Transubstantiation, they never so much as dreamt of any such kind of Metamorphosis▪ or Metousíosis, or monstrous Paradox, as Transubstantiation. But this your Distinction of properly and improperly, may perhaps prove useful for to make a Reconciliation with Rom● in this matter, and so to remove this mégakásma, so as both you and the Church of Rome may hold Transubstantiation only with this difference, or rather verbal distinction, Rome holding it properly, and you improperly.  
L. ibid. As for communion in one kind, Christ's Institution to clear against that.  
P. And is not Christ's institution as clear against Transubstantiation, upon which you immediately add this? And first even natural Reason, or the blind light of Nature is against it. For the Heathen man can tell you, 
* 〈…〉 D●●rum.  who is so mad or vain, as to believe or imagine that to be God, which he eateth? Although (saith he) we call Bread by the name of the Goddess Ceres, and Win● by the name of Bacchus, etc. Again, to believe Transubstantiation is against those very words of institution, This is my body, For these words are an usual Sacramental Phrase, or manner of speech, which the Scripture useth in all the Sacraments both of the old Testament, and of the new, As in all of them to call the outword visible signs by the name of the thing signified, As Circumsition was called the Covenant, Gen. 17.10. though but a sign of it vers. 11. 
Gen. 1●. 1●. ●●  And a seal of it also Rom. 4.11. so the eating of the Paschall Lamb it was a 
‡ Ex●▪ 12 1●.  memorial or commemorative sign and 
‡ 2●  sacrifice of the Passover, and yet it is called the 
§ 11. 2●  Passover So Baptism succeeding Circumcision, though it be a visible sign and Sacrament of the washing of Christ's blood to remission of sins: And so as Circumcision, a sign, and seal of the Covenant▪ yet it is called 
† Tit. 3 5.  regeneration▪ being but a sign of it. And so also the Lords supper, the Elements therein bread and wine Consecrated, being signs to remember, and seals by Faith to apply Christ's death, the one is called his body, the other his blood. And thus Christ's institution is as clear against Transubstantiation, as it is against communion in one kind. Thirdly, Transubstantiation is against the Article of our Faith of Christ's incarnation of the Virgin, and of his sitting at God's right hand, 
* Act. 3 21.  whom the heavens must receive till his coming again. And so against our Faith of his coming again, as before, seeing Transubstantiation makes him Corporally present every day. And as for communion in one kind though it be commonly so called, yet both improperly and untruly, For it is not communion so much as in one kind, Transubstantiation being admitted, as Papists believe it, for they destroy the very substance of the Element of bread, by their Transubstantiation, and how then is it a communion in one kind? They have left nothing of the bread, but the bare Accidents. And Accidents we know do not constituere speciem, do not constitute any species or kind of things. Nay according to the Rule of Philosophy, the Papists have, by taking away the substance of bread, not left so much as the Accidents of Bread, but in a meeer Phantasm, or Apparition For Philosophy and Logic teacheth, that Accidentis Esse est mess, The Being of an Accident i● its immediate In-beeing in its proper subject. Now the substance of bread is the proper subject of the Accidents of bread, which are no longer the Accidents of Bread, than they inhere in the bread; so as the Bread being destroyed, the Accidents are destroyed. And if (as they say) the substance of Bread is vanished in Transubstantiation: then certainly the Accidents. And less proper is it, that accidents proper to bread, should have their inherence in humane flesh, as they say, Christ's flesh is under the accidents of bread; as if it were coloured over with the accidents of bread, which yet cannot subsist, but in some body, yea and in their natural and proper body, which is bread. Again, whereas you say Transubstantiation was never heard of, till the Council of Lateran: 'tis true, that ●s was never decreed to be believed and publicly received as a Doctrine of the Church of Rome, till in the Council of Lateran under Innocent 3, as before is touched: But it was 
‡  hatched before, and was privately crope into the bosom of many men's belief, and there fostered as a tender Chick, before it came to get spurs, and so to be made a Cock of the Game in that Council. So also Communion under one Kind (as you call it secundum Apparentiam) grew into use in sundry places, through negligence of the Priest, or otherwise, before it came to be Decreed in the Council of Constance to be of necessity universally received.  
L. p. 277. For Adoration of Images, the modern Church of Rome is too like to Paganism in the Practice of it.  
P. The Modern, say you? Nay the Church of Rome hath been an Old stickler for Images, ever since her S. Gregory first set them up in Churches to become Laymens' Books. Wherein in process of time the Laity was so well read, and grew such profound Proficients, that those dumb Masters had taught them to put no difference at all between the Images, and the Saints themselves, whom they represented. For the Images were laid so thick on with beautiful and lively colours, as the eyes of the simple Beholders being dazzled therewith, were not able to penetrate or pierce through them, to discern the Saints themselves, who were far enough off. Whereupon the Images grew prouder and prouder, as taking all the honour done to themselves, like the Ass that bore the Image of the god ●s●s●, he imagined that the people adored him. So as becoming every day more gay than other, and to follow the fashions, even the clergy also began to fall in love with them, and so to do●e upon them, as they not only adored them (and that as devoutly, as you do your Altars, and that which hangs over them) but writ Books in commendation of them, and found out a Mystery, which the Heathen never knew, nor acknowledged (the 
‡ A● 〈◊〉 and 〈…〉 say.  learned of them at least) That Images were to be adored with the same honour, that was due to the Saints they represented, as the Image of Christ▪ and the Crucifix, and the Cross, with La●ria which is divine worship, due to Christ, and to God (as they distinguish) the Images of the Saints with Doulia, such a worship, as they have devised for the Saints, and (if you knew all) no way inferior to divine worship: and the Image of the Virgin Mary with a certain worship, which they call Huperdoulia, which is proper (say they) to the Virgin Mary; a worship (I will warrant you, if it were well examined) above that worship, which they give to God himself. And all these worships they give to the very Images themselves respectively. Nor are they any small ●ools that teach these things, as no less than Aquinas among the Schoolmen, and Bonaventure (both Saints for this their meri●) and Bellarmin● among the Jesuits, besides many more of such learned R●bbi●s. In so much, as their golden Legends, and other Author's report, that the said S. Thomas coming into a Church, in Naples, a goodly Cruifix saluted him, saying, My good friend Thomas, th●u hast written well of me: what recompense d●st thou desire▪ He answered the Crucifix, None but yourself. Now perhaps i● was of good massy Gold, or Silver. But this by the way. Thus we see those simple A. B. C. Books (and scarce that) which a● first were only for simple Laics, became in time Books to teach those that were of the highest form in their Schools, even their Angelical and Seraphical Doctors. And thus even in them came Augustins' words to be verified, which he then spoke of the Heathen: Qu●s intuetur simulacrum, etc. Who beholdeth an Image that is not so affected with it, as to believe that to be God which he seeth, and adoreth? And again▪ Plus valeat ●imulacr● ad incurvandum in foelicem animam, quod oculos habent, etc. quam ad corrigendum▪ quod ●on vident, etc. Images are of more force to crook an unhappy soul, that they have eyes, and ears, and mouth, and nose, and hands, and feet: then to correct it, that they see not, hear not, speak not, smell not, handle not, walk not. As David saith, 
* Psal. 115.  They that make them, are like unto them, and so are all they that put their trust in them, that is, that adore them. The Makers and worshippers, learned and unlearned, are even as blockish, as the senseless Images themselves, as the Prophet Esay also saith, 
Esa. 44.19.  chap. 44.19.  
Besides, had not Rome a finger at least (if not a whole hand) in that Decree of the 7 th' General Council of the 2. of Nice, for worship of Images, though then they went not so far as Divine worship in words at least, until the worship itself do prove it. And how many good and Godly Emperors were most grievously vexed and troubled from time to time by the Bishops of Rome, for causing the Idolatrous Images in Churches to be broken down, and cast out.  
But what more? Modern Rome is too like to Paganism in the practice of Image-worship. Too like? Nay doth she not far outstrip the Heathen in this her Idolatry? Da veniam verbo: pardon the word, Idolatry; as being too gross a word to brand the Church of Rome withal in all your Book, and therefore I suppose more gross, than your tender Ears can well brook to hear to be laid to Rome's Charge, or cast in her dish, as being too bitter a sauce, and able to put the good motion of Reconciliation quite out of taste. And (it seems) it is Religion with you to call Image-worship Idolatry, or an Image and Idol, because that second Council of Nice made a Decree; Qui sacras Imagines Idola vocant Anathema: They that call the sacred images Idols, let them be Anathema: or such as allege against them sentences of Scripture, against Idols; let them be Anathema. So loath are you to come under that cursed Counsels Anathema. But a spade is a spade. And if Modern Rome outstrip old Heathen Rome ●n the Idolatry of Image-worship: and if the Heathen were Idolaters: then let Rome pass for an Idolatress. But the old Heathen, though they adored the Images, yet when it was objected to them, their usual answer was, that they worshipped not the Image itself, but that which it represented; as Lactantius, and Augus●ine, and others report of them. But your Modern Rome teacheth and professeth (not only practiseth) that she gives the same honour to the Image, which is due to that, which it representeth, and that the honour or worship of Chris● is terminated in his Image, or Crucifix, or Cross, and doth not pass, through it, or beyond it; that is, reacheth not to Christ, but is wholly intercepted and preoccupated by the Image. So Atheistically impudent is that Who●● grown in her Idolatry of Images, that ●he surpasseth all the Heathen that ever were. But you cite a saying of Cassender, That in this present case of the Adoration of Images, the Church of Rome came full home to the superstition of the Heathen. Full home: that's somewhat more like yet, then too like. But it seems you have Cassander's ancient Copy, which hath not passed through the fire of Rome's Index Expurgatorius, which would never have suffered such an Heresy as this to escape a Deleatur. And you know (I suppose) that Cassander's works are marked out in their Indices to be purged of all such stuff, as this is. Then, after sundry other passages out of Romish Authors, bewraying their gr●sse Idolatry, but teaching it only, none I hope doth practise it tho: say you; wherein you show, that you have as good a hope of the learned Teachers of Idolatry, as hereafter you show charity to their simple Disciples for their salvation (notwithstanding) after all this (I say) you infer:  
L. p. 280. These and their like, have given so great a scandals among us, to some Ignorant, though I presume well meaning men, that they are afraid to testify their duty to God even in his own house, by any outward gesture at all. In so much, that these very Ceremonies, which by the judgement of godly and learned men, have now long continued in the practice of this Church, suffer hard measure, for the Romish superstition sake. But I will conclude this point with a saying of Beatus Rhenanus: Who could endure the People, says he, rushing into the Church, like swine into a sty? Doubtless Ceremonies do not hurt to the People, but profit them, so there be a mean kept, and that By be not put for the Main, that is, so we place not the Principal part of our Piety in them.  
P. Concerning These, to wit, Images, as also Ceremonies, we have spoken something before, what more is requisite for this Passage, we shall briefly add. And first, If Images in Churches so scandalous, why are you so curious and zealous for the setting of them up, and the garnishing of them? Is it because Afternoon-Sermons on the Lords days being put down, so as the people having little employment for their Ears, they may instead thereof have such goodly objects for their Eyes to gaze upon (Populo ut placerent) and so by such Books learn, that they may aswell go to their Maypole, and spend their time in beholding a Morice-dance, as gaze upon such dumb shows. But if they be scandalous, you know who said, 
* Math. 18. 7·  Woe to that man, by whom th● scandal cometh. But to whom are they scandalous? Alas, it is but to some ignorant (say you) though perhaps well meaning men. And for such, it matters not much, if they stumble at those blocks. But perhaps that ignorant, but well meaning man, who takes offenee at your Images, and for that, and other your Idolatrous Romish superstitions about your Altars, abhors communion with you (perhaps, say I? Surely this is one sign of a true Child of God, and of a well-meaning, and no ignorant Christian) is one of God almighty's fools, as you, and the world call and account them. And then hear what Christ saith again, 
‡ Math. 18.6.  Who so shall offend one of these little ones, which believe in me, it were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the Sea. What think you of this, as small account as you make of those your ignorant well meaning men, who are scandalised by your many Romish superstitions? And the least true believer in Christ, however you take him for an Ignoramus, yet he knows more of Christ, than you do: and if you have more literal knowledge, the greater is your sin, in both giving scandal to such, and punishing of them, for not sinning against their Conscience so scandalised.  
But are only ignorant well-meaning men offended with your Popish or Romish Images, and ragged Relics of superstition and Idolatry, wherewith your Churches are pestered, and the pure worship of God corrupted, so as they are afraid to testify their duty to God in that place, which you call his house? Certainly, if they be such, as are indeed ignorant of Christ, and have not the power of Religion, and the Spirit of Christ in them, but such Protestants at large, as look to be saved by their well-meaning: these are least of all afraid to testify such duty, as you do, as taking your superstition for the best part of their Religion (aswell as you do) being brought up in no other School, but yours. But such as are offended, wherefore are they afraid? Of doing their duty to God in his house? What, call you that Gods-house, which you make the Tiring-house of all your superstitious guises, and the stage or Theatre of your pompous service (wherein you please yourselves, and not God) and that his Temple, wherein you erect an Altar to the Devil? Do you startle at it? I say, To the Devil. For is not that the Devil's Altar, whereon our only True Altar jesus Christ is crucified afresh, denied, and destroyed? And is not all superstitious, and will-worship, and that Altar-worship, a sacrifice offered to the Devil on your Altar? Doth not the Apostle say, 
* 1 Cor. 10.20  that the things, which the Gentiles sacrificed, they sacrificed to Devils, and not to God? Why, they meant it to God, they erected their Altars to God, and not to the Devil. 
‡ Act. 17.23▪  Agnosto ●eo: To the unknown God, was that Altar in Athens dedicated. How then was it to the Devil? Because it was a strange worship, which God never commanded; The Altar was strange, and so the service too. And even so is your Altar, and Altar-worship and service: though you pretend it, and intent it to God, and to Christ; yet because therein you do with 
‡ Num. 16▪  Corah and his company offer strange fire, and strange incense, such as he hath not commanded, and such, as whereby Christ jesus is denied, and renounced: it is no better, than the service of the Devil. In the Law we read, that all 
§ Num. 30.9▪  strange Incense of man's devising, was straight forbidden to be offered to the Lord. Yea whosoever 
† Num. 30 38.  made any composition of Incense like unto that, which the Lord commanded, was to die the death. For the breach of which Law in this point, besides that of Corah and his Company, we have a terrible example in 
‡̶ Leu. 10.1, 2▪  Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, who took either of them Censers, and put fire therein, and put Incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not: And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. And it is noted also of them, that 
* Num. 3.4.  they had no Children, so as their Name and Memory perished with them. Now Incense signified 
‡ Rev. 5.8. & 8.3.  Prayer and the service of God, which if it be not that which the Lord hath expressly commanded, it is death to him that offereth it, or deviseth it. So as your Altars, and Altar-service being such, as the Lord hath not commanded, but forbidden and condemned, being 
‡ Esa. 29.13.  taught by the Precept of men, and are a denying of jesus Christ (as before is proved) your sin therein is so much greater, then that of the Heathen; for they offered upon a strange Altar to the unknown God: but you with your Eyes open at noonday do presume to set up Altars of wood and stone of your own devising, and thereon offer the strange Incense of your Prayers and service, thinking them to be the more effectual, and more acceptable to God, because they are offered up upon your Altar. For which your high presumption what can you expect but terrible 
* Heb. 10.26, 27.  Judgements, and fiery indignation, which shall destroy the adversaries? such as (the Apostle there saith) sin willingly (Ekousíos) that is, wittingly and willingly, after they have received the knowledge of the truth, for whom there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin.  
And yet for all this, do you call such ignorant, though perhaps well-meaning men, that refuse to communicate with you in your Romish superstitious Idolatrous Altars and service. I tell you, who ever they be that do so, they are out of all question the dear Children of God. And are they not warned by the Apostle to beware of all such 
‡ 1 Cor. 10.21  will worship? Ye cannot drink (saith he) the cup of the Lord, and the cup of Devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table, and the Table of Devils. If then your Altars, and Altar-service be a worship done to the Devil, because it is of man's presumption in devising and imposing it, whereby Christ, and his true worship is overthrown: call you such service a duty to God? No, God abhors it, as he did the Altars of Bethel, set up for the Calves, as he did Aaron's Calf, though they said, These are thy Gods o Israel, which brought thee out of Egypt. Even as you say, Christ, God almighty's seat is there, the Mercy-seat there, the Sanctum Sanctorum there (as in your Printed allowed Books) Christ, that redeemed Israel out of Egypt, there. No surely, as those by their false representations, and Altars, worshipped the Devils: so do you; as before is showed. Ye have no shift for it. So as when truly Religious Christians see you set up and use all your Popish Superstitions in that place, which you call God's house: so your Altars, Images, Adorations, Praying towards the East▪ where your Altar standeth, and a Crucifix over it, and round about guarded with your Images: have they not cause to be afraid even to step over your Church-threshold? And may I not here justly and rightly apply to your now Church of England's Altars and Images, that which the Prophet Hosea doth to revolted Israel●? 
‡ Host 10.11.  Israel is an empty vine, he brought forth fruit unto himself (to wit his own Devises in Religion) according to the multitude of his fruit, he hath increased the Altars, according to the goodness of his land, they have made goodly Images. Their heart is divided: now shall they be found faulty, he shall break down their Altars: he shall spoil their Images.  
Ye● by this means, your hoisting up your Altars and Images, well-minded Christians come now to be afraid of your old Ceremonies allowed by statute. They now begin to find they smell rank of Romish superstition, and to appear to be links of the same Chain, now made up with your Altars, and other Superstitions, whereby they see themselves bound, and carried captive back to Babylon and Egypt again. Whereas till your New came in, their stomach did (though with much difficulty) digest the Old. But now it is with many Christians, as with Man, who seeing a bare hand, and foot, and habit of one that is a notorious thief, yet till they come to see his face clearly, cannot by those judge whose parts and members they be, whether an honest man's, or a knaves: so the Church of England, having formerly seen but a hand (as in signing with the Sign of the Cross) and a leg, or foot (as kneeling at the Sacrament) and a habit (as a Surplice) and all these 3 being called by 
* Hooker in his Eccles. Politi●.  some of note, The three innocent Ceremonies: she generally took them to belong to some honest Matron: but now Popery beginning to put off her mask, and to show her face more clearly than before, as in hoisting up of Altars in all Churches, setting up of Images in many, and repairing of some old, as in Paul's, and other cathedrals, and Chapels, Adorations before, towards, and to them, Publication of Popish Pamphlets in English by Authority, oppression of God's word and Ministers, open and allowed Profanation of the Lords day; open and most terrible Persecution of God's witnesses testifying against such notorious Innovations, and the like: And now, that the Church of England openly professeth and proclaimeth to the world by you in this your Book (if indeed she have made you her mouth)▪ that she and the Church of Rome are one and the same Church, no doubt of that: Now (I say) men, and even the most ignorant (unless they be stone-blind) begin to see, 
The Old Ceremonies suspecte●▪  that all those Ceremonies formerly so pressed by the Prelates, whereby they held the poor people's noses to the grindstone, and yoked their perhaps tender Consciences, were but the hand, leg, foot, habit of the whore of Babylon, who durst never have showed her impudent face so boldly in these days, where the Gospel hath been so long professed, and the beams thereof (till now with such 
‡ Rev. 9  mists out of the bottomless pit, darkened) had shinned forth so bright: had not your Old Ceremonies ushered her in; so as now, as those 
‡ 1 King 20.  Syrians with halters about their necks, when Ahab said of Benhadad, He is my brother, catcht the word presently out of his mouth, replying, Thy brother Benhadad: so the Church of Rome, being styled by you a 
§ In your f●rmer Nameless Boo●●.  sister of England, and you being in all things suited Sister-like in Rome's Rites and Relics, dare and doth quickly catch the word out of your mouth, Thy sister (if not, Thy mother) Rome; so as the Proverb may come to be in all other things verified, Like Mother, like Daughter, if you may prove the Father.  
Again, One thing I cannot well pass over, which seems to me very ridiculous, where you say, that by the judgement of godly and learned men, those former Ceremonies have continued in the practice of this Church. Now who knoweth not, that these Ceremonies have so continued even by the judgement of profane and ignorant men. And what needs then the judgement of godly and learned men for the matter, as to testify this? Except you mean by the judgement of godly and learned men, that godly and learned men have had most cause to know it, by undergoing the severe judgement of Censure of suspension and silencing, and other vexations, only for not conforming to the practice of your Old Ceremonies, as many do now, for not conforming to your New. Or else you so shuffle these words in, and so pack them together, that when they meet with a Reader, that weighs your words more by the sound, then by the sense (or rather want of sense) he may run away with this apprehension, as if godly and learned men had in their judgement approved of those Ceremonies; whereas few godly and learned, but rather wished them all long ago at Rome again, from whence they came.  
But to come to your Conclusion out of Rhenanus, which by putting it down with approbation, you make to be your own: Doubtless Ceremonies do not hurt the people, but profit them. Doubtless? How prove you that? Nay doubtless, we have already proved, that both they do hurt, and no way profit the people; they are good for nothing, for no body, unless for you Prelates, to uphold and exercise your Tyranny over God's people, and to bring Fees into your Courts. And Beatus Rhenanus spoke according to the Time, and Place, and Church he lived in; although he was a moderate man, and saw more, than he durst speak of. And the same Rhenanus (as was before touched) in his Annotations upon T●rtullian, and I take it in that Book, out which you cite this sentence (De Corona Militis) observes, how sundry Heathen Ceremonies crope into the Church, by occasion of many old men newly converted to Christianity, whom it was hard to wain from their old Heathenish fashions, which therefore were thought fit to be admitted, as not hurting, but profiting those old Heathen new Christians. But godly and learned men (as I said before) could tell you what infinite damage your tyrannical pressing of your Ceremonies upon men's Consciences hath brought to the Gospel, and so to the souls of men, by depriving them of so many worthy Ministers, only for Nonconformity. But this is one special end, for which you so press your Ceremonies, to suppress Godly and learned Preachers, and so the sincere Preaching of the word of God, that the people being brought up in ignorance and profaneness, might be the less sensible of bearing the yoke of your Antichristian Tyranny over them. But as for your Carnal Ceremonies, which the Apostle saith are good for nothing, 
* Col. 2.23▪  pròs plesmonen, in comparison of satisfying the flesh, the carnal pride of will-worshipers: we have spoken sufficiently before.  
But Rhenanus adds a qualification: so there be a mean kept. I think you might have done well to have omitted this, till you had been better acquainted with this mean; of which before. And the Author might have expressed this Mean a little more fully, thus: So there be either no Ceremonies at all, or if any, those very few, and those few not pressed, with rigour, or necessity upon men's Consciences, but left free to every one to use them, or not, according to the Christian liberty, which Christ hath purchased for them, as is said before. Whereas you are not satisfied with a few Ceremonies, nor with the Old, but you must have New added, with a Tota quot, and all of them you press so hard upon the Conscience, as you wring blood. And this is all the Mean you keep.  
Lastly, So the By be not put for the Main: that is (say you) so we place not the principal part of our Piety in them. And do not you so? For you put your Altar, and all the solemn Service, and Ceremonies of Devotions and Adorations attending upon it, even all your humane Inventions and Will worship, for the very Main of all your Religion. Do you not? I know you willingly confess it. And what's the By, but Gods-word, and the sincere Preaching thereof, which you put By, and by setting up your Altar-service, do thrust out of the Church by the head and shoulders, as is noted before? And I say, The Main, the All and some of all your Religion, is your Altar: On this your Goddess, all your other Devotions and Ceremonies, as so many Handmaids give their devout attendance. Your face prayeth towards your Altar: your body boweth towards your Altar: your second solemn service (as the secundae Mensae) for your daintier Cates, must be served up upon your Altar, which the main Body of the Church must not taste of: your Third service (which is instead of the Preachers concluding prayer & blessing after his halfe-houres Sermon) must be served by your Priest at your Altar, when with his blessing he dismisses the people with an Ite, Missa est; And all the while of your solemn Second and Third service your Serving men in their Liveries, or Rich Copes, stand and give their Attendance about your Altar: your Crucifixes and Images, like the Cherubims, have their aspect and respect upon your Altar: All must come and offer at your Altar, while for joy your Organs merrily play. Thus as the Romish Altar-service (as Bellarmine tells us) is the main substance of all their Religion: just so is yours. That's the Main But What's the By then? Namely all the entrails or Inwards of external Devotion and worship, these are the appurtinances, these are the By. What are those Inwards? The Inwards of True external worship, are Faith, Fear of God, Love of God, Zeal of God's Glory, sincerity of heart in spirit and Truth. Now these with you are altogether the By; for these you have laid quite By, as before.  
L. p. 280. F. (Fisher reports) After this, we all rising, the Lady asked the Bishop whether she might be saved in the Roman Faith? He answered she might. L. What? Not one Answer perfectly related? My Answer to this was General, for the ignorant, that could not discern the errors of that Church, so they held the foundation, and conformed themselves to a Religious life. Pag. 285. We have not so learned Christ, as to deny salvation to some ignorant silly souls, whose humble peaceable obedience makes them safe among any part of men, that profess the foundation Christ. And pag. 288. some Protestants there be, which do as stiffly and as churlishly deny (All Papists) salvation, as they do us. And 283. In this 
* False Charity of the Prelate  Our Charity is not mistaken: and if it be mistaken Charity is better, than none at all.  
P. From all these words together, we observe this one Main, That silly ignorant Papists, living and dying in the Romish Faith, may be saved; with these conditions: 1. If they discern not the error of that Church: 2. So they profess the foundation Christ: 3. So they conform to a Religious life, in an humble and peaceable obedience. The second Main I observe is, That we ought not to deny to such in that case salvation And that upon these Reasons, 1. Because we have not so learned Christ. 2. Because it is stiffness and Churlishness in Protestants, to deny all Papists salvation. 3. That in granting them salvation, it is true Charity not mistaken. 4. That if Charity herein be mistaken, 'tis better than none at all. Of all these brefly.  
First then I Answer: That the Roman Faith being Infidelity itself, 'tis impossible, that any living and dying in that faith, can be saved. And we have before proved it to be flat Infidelity, and Apostasy. Nor will it excuse any Ignorant, that he discerneth not this Infidelity, and Apostasy. For ignorance, though it excuse à Tanto (as the Schoolmen speak) from the muchness of sin, yet not à Toto, from the Main of sin. A man that is blind, and knows not the danger of the way he walks in, doth as well fall into the pit, as he that seeing, runs headlong into it? The Heathen knew not, that they lived and died in Idolatry and Infidelity: yet they were damned for all their ignorance. Secondly, for their Professing the foundation Christ: Is Profession sufficient? Many (saith the Apostle) 
* Tit. 1.16.  profess Christ, that in works do deny him, being abominable, disobedient, and unto ●very work Reprobate. Is it enough then to profess all that is in the Creed (did ignorant silly Papists know what their Latin-Creed meaneth) and yet want faith? Again, they profess, as they are taught. How is that? They are taught this one Main Principle, That they must be saved not by Faith only, but by their good Works, whereby they must merit their Salvation. Now this all Papists, learned and unlerned, profess. This (unless they cease to be Papist) they live and die in; and so they are necessarily and certainly damned. For to add any thing to Faith in justification, is damnation; as before it showed. And saith the Prophet, 
‡ Io●. 2.8.  They that observe lying vanities, forsake their own mercy. But, Thirdly, you say, They may be saved, so they conform to a Religious life. Now what is the Religious life of a Papist, and especially of a silly ignorant Papist? Namely, to go to Shrief, or Confession to the Priest, his Ghostly Father, as often as may be (as the Fernall Glory, published by your Chapleins licence, teacheth) or at the least once a year against Easter: to keep his Lent-fast strictly, so as upon pain of damnation, or grievous penance, not to eat an egg all that time, and so observe all othor Fasting-days in the year, together with all Holidays: to say over their Beads every day in repeating their Pater Noster, Ave Mary, Creed, and ten Commandments, ●f either they be so learned, or devout: to go to their daily Mass and Matins, where it is their safety to understand never a word, nor to say Amen to the Priest, but by the sound of his voice: which they understand no more, than the chattering of a Magpie: to call upon such a Saint, his special Mediator, and say a Pater Noster, and Ave Mary before such an Image, and especially of their Lady: and a thousand such like observations, wherein a Popish Religious life consisteth. And so this is the Religious life of your ignorant silly Papist, wherein living and dying, he may be saved, if he may believe your Doctrine. But to this you add, An humble and peaceable obedience. To What? Or to whom? As to the Priests Ghostly Discipline, when he enjoins sore penance, as whipping-cheare in Lent, or the like. Or if you mean peaceable obedience to the Civil Magistrate, as in England: that must be according to their Ghostly Father's direction and limitation: they must not take the Oath of Supremacy, nor in some cases, the Oath of Allegiance, when it makes for the Catholic Cause. And though to satisfy the Law, and save his purse, he come once a month to Church, and hear your service: yet Sermon he must not hear, especially if the Preacher be puritannical, for that might turn him quite from his Popery. And thus such, partly by their peaceable civil life, and partly by their humble Popish Religious life, so living and dying may be saved.  
And therefore to such silly Ignorants, we must not deny salvation. Why so? For first, We have not so learned Christ, say you. We? What we? We, to wit, you, and your present Church of England. And surely you had not need to deny salvation to that Church, with which you and your Church is one and the same Church, lest otherwise you might leave yourselves as little hope of salvation, as others do them. But this is a piece of your learning of Christ, it seems, to believe, that a silly ignorant Papist, that knows not the right hand from the left, that is drowned in Ignorance, blindness, superstition, Idolatry, Infidelity, and as a drowned man knows it not, may securely wrap himself in the shroud or mantle of his silly ignorance, and so go to heaven. Thus have you learned Christ. But We, We (I say) that renounce all communion with the Whore of Babylon, and with all her Abominations, 
* Ephes. 4.21.  have not so learned Christ (as having heard him, and been taught by him, as the truth is in jesus) as to believe there is salvation to be hoped for of any, but such as walk according to Christ's rule, and live and die in his Faith. And what's Christ's rule? Even that which follows in the same place, vers. 22, To put off, and renounce the former conversation of the Old Man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, walking (v. 18.) in the vanity of our minds, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through ignorance (as the Gentiles) because of the blindness of their heart, who being past feeling, have given themselves to all ●●s●viousnesse, to work all uncleanness with greediness: Whereupon the Apostle adds: But have not so learned Christ, so, as to think to be saved in a Heathenish life drowned in ignorance: (from which you cannot distinguish the life of an ignorant Papist, except that it is infinitely more stupid and fuller of gross ignorance, and all abominations, than the Heathen were; and saving that Papists profess the name of Christians) We have not (I say) so learned Christ. What is then the learning of Christ? To put off the Old Man, and that ye be (saith the Apostle) renewed in the spirit of your mind, putting on the New man▪ which after God is created in Righteousness, and true Holiness. This is the learning of Christ. So as without this learning, neither any silly ignorant Papist, nor the most pregnant, acute, learned Arch-Prelate can be saved. We must have both the Righteousness of justification by Faith imputed, and of Sanctification of the spirit of Christ inherent, and shining forth in a holy life and conversation. It is not a Pope-holynesse in keeping of a Lent, fast, or worshipping of an Altar, and such like counterfeit holiness of man's devising. This you learn not of Christ. For Christ saith, 
* Mat. 15. ●▪  In vain they worship me, teaching for Doctrines the Commadements of men, or humane Traditions. This holiness saves not, but shuts men out of the Kingdom of Heaven.  
But secondly, You call it stiffness, 
Protestant's Churlishness, better than the Prelate's Charity.  and churlishness in Protestants to deny all Papists salvation. We shall by and by see your Charity to Papists, which is so extreme great, as we need not wonder at your malice against those some Protestants you speak it. Is it stiffness to avouch the truth? And if they do bebaiousthai (as the 
‡ Tit. 3.8▪  Apostle exhorteth Titus) constantly affirm, what not only is truth, but also necessary to be spoken, as being a matter of such moment and consequence, as concerns the savation of souls, by denying salvation, to whom it belongeth not, and when men are seduced in a false persuasion thereof: call you this churlishness? Certainly this churlishness in so denying, is better than your charity in affirming a falsehood. Nay what will you say, if this, which you call churlishness, be found to be true Charity? when your Charity will be found to be deadly hatred against the soul of that silly ignorant Papist? For true Charity ever consists with verity: else it is no Charity, but vanity. Now those Protestants, which deny salvation to all Papists living and dying in the Roman faith, do it upon sound and solid grounds, even upon clear evidence of Scripture. For the Roman Faith is not the true Christian Faith; as we have proved. And without the true Christian Faith, no salvation. And that one Doctrine of Justification by works (were there no more) which all Papists profess and hold, is alone sufficient to shut out all Papists, living and dying therein, from salvation. This being so clear, should Protestants grant notwithstanding a possibility of salvation to any Papist, living and dying in that Romish faith, they should utter a manifest untruth and falsehood, and so should bewray themselves to be notoriously uncharitable. How? First to Protestant Professors: 2. to Papists. To Protestant Professors, causing the weak at least to waver in their faith, and make them the apt to be seduced by Romish Priests and Jesuits, who prevail not a little with vulgar Protestants, and that by this very Argument which you hold, That Protestants (yea the Primate of Canterbury) grant a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church. Whereas we (say the Jesuits) deny salvation to be had in the Protestant Church. Although I hope they will not extend this to the Church of England, which you say is one and the same Church with that, of which Rome is. Again secondly, Protestants in not affirming this truth, Than it is impossible for any Papist, living and dying in the Roman faith, to be saved, should be very uncharitable to the Papists themselves. For seeing them running on in a way, which is full of false ground, and deep pits, covered over with green leaves, and the end whereof is certain and unavoidable destruction: should they not cry out unto them, to abandon that way, and by all means and speed to get them out of it, they were very uncharitable. And the Scripture calls this hatred of our Brother. As Levit. 19.17. Thou shalt not hate thy broth●r in thy heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke him, and not suffer sin upon him. And for ignorant Papists, we are not to cast off all hope of them, but erranti comiter monstrare viam, show those wanderers the right way, instructing them with meekness, proving 
* 2 Tim. 2.25, 26.  if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledgement of the truth, And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the Devil, being taken captive of him at his will.  
Ob. But for Protestants to have no better an opinion of Papists, and of their Religion, would (as you tell us before) make the rent wider, which you are loath to do. The rent is too wide, so to be sowed up with the rotten thread of your Charity. Nay such your Charity keeps Papists the further off from the true Protestant Religion, when they may be provided of salvation nearer home, and that so easily too. But however, the truth must be spoken, 
Aug. de Praedest. et Gratia▪  as you ●old us before. As Augustine saith in the point of Predestination, at the Preaching whereof some in his days (as too many in ours) taking offence, he answereth, Numideo tacenda est veritas, etc. Is the Truth therefore to be concealed, because some unjustly are offended with it to their damnation: and not rather to be spoken, that he which is able to receive it, may receive it to his salvation? And here the Papists take offence at Protestants, for speaking the truth, it is not scandalum datum, but acceptum, not an offence given, but taken. And though some take offence, yet others weighing by reason, may thereby through God's grace forsake their error, and embrace the truth. If they will not, we have freed our own souls, and Truth is Truth still. We must keep our distance, and not (because they will not come to us) go the half way at least to draw them to us; as before. As the Lord saith to his Prophet concerning revolted Israel, 
* jer. 15.19.  Let them return unto thee, but return not thou unto them. And if thou take forth the Precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth. We must not mingle and confound the precious and pure gold with the base dross, not truth with error, not light with darkness.  
Yet for your part, you say Thirdly, Not to deny Papists salvation, living and dying Papists, to wit, in the Roman Faith, is not mistaken Charity; and if it be, mistaken Charity is better than none at all. But first, we have showed, that this is no Charity at all, but an erroneous opinion, arising from a spirit destitute of the Truth, and too much in love with the Romish whore. And Secondly, such mistaken Charity is worse than no Charity at all in this kind. It were better, if ye had no such Charity. For your Charity towards your silly ignorant Papists, in persuading them, that they are safe enough in any society of men, and there is salvation for them living and dying in the Roman Faith, is a nuzzling of them in their ignorance; and (like the Ape's Charity to her young one) a strangling of them with too much hugging, and betrays you to be of the spirit of those false Prophets, that 
‡ Eze. 13.22.  strengthen the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life▪ that 
‡ v 11.  daub with untempered mortar, that 
§ Esa. 5.20.  call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness (and woe to such) that say, 
† jer. 6.14▪  peace, peace, when there is no Peace.  
Ob. But you will say, shall we shut out silly ignorant Papists from God's mercy. Nay you yourself shut them out from God's mercy, while you shut them up in their blindness, and so from the means of God's mercy. For means of mercy they have none in their Popish Religion, and blind faith, and therein you lull them fast asleep, while you tell them, so long as they are ignorant of the Errors of Popery, they are safe among any part of men▪ Thus you shut them out from God's mercy (as much as in you is) when we by showing them the truth, and their error, would lead them to God's mercy. Nor do we deny, but God may in the riches of his Grace and mercy prevent and overtake a silly Papist, in causing him to embrace Christ by Faith, even when he lies on his death bed, and truly believing in Christ, and so dying, he is undoubtedly saved. But dying thus a true Believer, he dies not in the Roman faith, but in the saving faith of Christ, which the Roman faith is not. So as thus dying within the Verge of the Roman Church, yet he dies no member of the Roman Church, but of the true mystical body of Christ. And this Charity we have towards silly Papists, praying that God would show them mercy, in delivering them from under Antichrists yoke, to take Christ's yoke upon them, and bring them out of darkness into his marvellous light. To proceed.  
L. p. 294, 295. Io. Frith saith, Of the presence of Christ's natural body in the Sacrament, 
Fox. Martyr. Tom. 2. pag. 943. Lond. 1597.  that neither side ought to make it an Article of Faith, but leave it indifferent. And B. Ridley, we confess all one thing to be in the Sacrament▪ only we differ in modo, in th● manner of Being.  
P, And of this of Ridley you say (ibid.) 'Tis well if some Protestants except not against it. For this difference de Modo, of the manner of the Presence of Christ's natural Body in the Sacrament, we have spoken before at large. And was this Difference, trow you so small that cost both Ridley, and Cranmer, and Frith their lives? For you cite them all 3 in one Page, calling them the learned of those zealous in Queen Mary's days. Martyrs you do not call them: beware of that. So as times kàrin for honour sake you mention them not. So you cite Calvin a little before, whom in the High Commission you honoured with the Title of Rascal. And these Martyrs are they, whom one of your Divines of note and worth (Dr. Heylin) in a Book licenced by your Chaplein styles with the Honourable Title of Schismatical Heretics. But to let this pass for currant with you: The sum of your whole passage touching this point, from pag. 292. to 296. is to persuade us to acknowledge a real presence of Christ's natural body in the Sacrament, only differing from the Papists quoad moaum, as touching the manner of presence. Now I confess this is a very pretty and ready way to lead to your Reconciliation. But let me tell you, even words, and names, and verbal expressions are of no small force many times, to lead men into great errors, although at first they meant no harm, that used them. For instance. The Primitive Fathers, when they began to call the Lords Table an Altar: they little dreamt what an Altar it would prove afterwards, as whereon to offer up in sacrifice Christ's natural body▪ So when they called Ministers Priests, they imagined not, that those Priests would prove afterwards such sacrificing Priests, as now are in the Church of Rome. And when they called the Lords supper a sacrifice, which they meant to be Eucharistical, of thanksgiving, they never suspected, that this would become afterwards a corporal sacrifice of Christ's very body and b●ood. And yet these very Names so taken up, gave occasion afterwards of setting up the greatest Idol that ever was in the world, as we see at this day. So dangerous is it to express Divine matters by any other Name, than what the Scripture hath given them. Seeing then that in Scripture we find no such words as Real Presence of Christ's natural body in the Sacrament: it is not safe for Christians to take them up. And so much the more, because we see by experience the mischiefs, that this real presence (so called and so understood, as the Papists do) hath done in the Church of God. How many Martyrs hath it made? How much innocent blood hath it spilt? So as it hath gotten (and that deservedly) a very bad Name. And it is the Name, or Word, whereby the Romanists express their Great Idol in the Mass. And David saith, 
* Psal. 16.4.  Their Drink offerings of Blood will I not offer, nor take up their Names into my lips. So as Christians ought not to use the Names of Idols, invented by man, to express Divine things of Scripture by. Yea K. Hezechiah, when the Brazen Serpent (which God himself had 
‡ Num. 21.9▪  commanded to be made for the present occasion in the Wilderness; though he commanded it not to be kept for a Monument) began to be abused unto 
‡ 2 Kin. 18. 4●▪  Idolatry, he broke it to pieces. And so in this case, though these words The Real Presence, may bear a good sense: yet being, and that of long time abused to the setting up and upholding of most gross Idolatry: we are to stamp it to powder, and never use it more. And we have as little reason to be persuaded hereto by your Lordship as by any. For as this word, Real presence, is very suspicious, in itself, and much more in regard of the Papists abusing of it: so it wants not suspicion, that you so commend it unto us. First, in regard of the whole matter of your Book, which generally complyes with Popery: Secondly, in regard of the main scope of your Book, which is to bring on a Reconciliation with Rome. And Thirdly, and more especially, in regard of some speeches, which have now and then dropped from you in public Court, where speaking of Altars-placing, you said, you would have none to sit above God-Allmighty; which must needs imply (as before is noted) that either your Altar is your God Almighty; or else God Almighty hath a local presence and residence there upon your Altar. And so Fourthly, your eager zeal, in promoting of Altars, makes us much to suspect your Real Presence, as fearing all will not be well, when once we have taken up, and let down this Real presence of God Allmighty into our bellies. And so also, Fiftly, your Priests (by that Name) do increase the suspicion. And Sixtly, because you tell us before of a Transubstantiation, taken properly, and improperly. And Seventhly, Because you tell us by and by, that Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Forbearance of the Cup, are but Disputed and Improbable Opinions. Lastly, it is used to Idolatry: and so to be broken in pieces, as the Brazen Serpent was. And therefore for all these Reasons, we desire not to be troubled with your Real presence, but leave it to the Papists, or to you, to restore it where you had it, or if you like it so well to use it, let it be to yourself, or Chapel at Lambeth, trouble not the Church of England with it any more, which desireth not more matter for a new Book of Martyrs.  
Now to come to the Martyrs. First for joh. Friths words, Not to make it an Article of Faith, but leave it Indifferent. First, However the words sound, we must weigh them by the sense. And the best Commentary of his words, is his death, which he suffered even therefore, because he made it an Article of his faith to believe, that Christ was not Really Present in the Sacrament, as the Papists do hold; and therefore on the contrary, he held it as an Article of his faith, That Christ was only virtually and spiritually present to the Faith of the Receiver, according to the true meaning of those Sacramental words, This is my body; as a little before we showed.  
Secondly, to take Friths words in your sense, doth overthrow a Christians faith, as touching the Sacrament, wherein the believer receives and applies by faith the merits of Christ's death to the comforting, nourishing, and strengthening of his soul. And a man is bound to believe aright concerning the Sacrament, and to put a main difference between truth and errors therein. And is it not an Article of Faith to believe Christ's body not to be corporally present in the Sacrament, seeing he saith, 
* Mat. 26.11▪  Me have you not always. 
‡ joh. 16.7.  It is expedient for you that I go away: 
‡ Rom. 8.34.  who sits at God's right hand: 
§ Act. 3.21.  whom the heavens must receive, till his coming again? And lastly, admit his words may be stretched to the full breadth of your sense (which is erroneous) we must measure all men's words by the Rule of Scripture in divin, matters. If they descent, or come short, or go over, or besides consider men are men. But I say, we cannot conceive that those words of john Frith could have any other sense, then that which was sound and good, considering (as I said before) he died for that very difference in Faith touching Christ's presence in the Sacrament▪  
Now for Dr Ridley, saying we differed in Modo, in the manner: 'Tis true. And the manner is the whole matter of difference. Papists say, Christ's natural Body is present: we that the merit and virtue of his Body broken upon the Cross, and the merit and virtue of his Blood, shed upon the Cross, is present to the believing soul in the Sacrament. I may express it by this similitude, of the Sun, and the beams. The body of the Sun is in heaven, in its sphere locally, and circumscriptively, but the Beams are on the earth. And when the Sun beams shine into our house, we say, here's the Sun, though it be the beams, not the body of the Sun. And so the Scripture saith of the Sacrament, This is my Body, because with the bread the faithful Communicant receives the beams of Christ's Body crucified into his soul, his merits, but not the Body itself. But the Papists say as much, as, The very body of the Sun is in their house, when it shineth. But enough of this here, having spoken sufficiently of it before. Yet for a conclusion: If your Lordship hold it to be a matter so indifferent, about the manner of Christ's naturall-bodyes presence in the Sacrament, which you put upon the Martyrs, if you were put to it as they were; would you be of their mind, and resolution, rather to lose Canterbury, life and 〈◊〉, then believe as the Church of Rome believes of the real presence. But I leave you to the Resolution.  
L. p. 297. Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Forbearance of the Cup in the Sacrament, are disputed and improbable Opinions: yet so imposed▪ as this may be enough for us to leave Rome, though the Old Prophet forsook not Israel. 3 Reg. 13. (And a little after) And therefore in this present case, there's peril, and great peril of damnable both Schism and Heresy, and other sin, by living and dying in the Roman faith▪ tainted with so many superstitions, as at this day it is, and their Tyranny to boot.  
P. I told you, I feared some such thing, when you commended last unto us the indifferency of admitting of Terms of Real Presence. For now I perceive your Real presence even in Transubstantiation itself, is but an improbable and disputed opinion, as also Purgatory, and the Forbearance of the Cup. And by Disputed, I suppose you mean Disputable, such as either hath been disputed, or may be disputed again▪ so as these things are matters of dispute, and improbable. And sometimes a thing that is improbable, may prove true. For Improbabile is not always falsum. It may seem improbable to us, and yet be true in itself. But for Transubstantiation: is that which is clearly against Faith, against Reason, against the nature of Christ's Body natural, against the nature of the Sacrament, but an improbable opinion? And for Purgatory: Is that which is against Faith, and overthrows the infinite virtue, merit, and efficacy of the blood of Christ, but an improbable opinion? And is that, which you confess to be against the express institution of our Saviour Christ (as the taking away of the Cup in the Sacrament) but an improbable opinion? And do you so favourably call that, but a Forbearance, which is a most notorious and shameless Sacrilege?  
And then secondly, All this (say you) may be enough for us to leave Rome. May be: Much may be: but Is not, I hope. And so long, well enough. And though Actu it be, yet not affectu. But you might have said, All this, and much more besides, if not only disputable and improbable things, but abominable and damnable. But this is enough, were there no more. Yet (say you) the old Prophet forsook not Israel. What then? Ergo the Protestants, though they might have had cause enough to leave Rome, yet should have done rather as the old Prophet did, not to have made a separation from Rome. Ergo they were not so kind, as the old Prophet. But the old Prophet might continue in Israel upon better terms, than the Protestants could have done in Rome. For Israel had no Inquisition, as Rome hath. And you confess that men might live in Israel, and enjoy the liberty of their Conscience, seeing there was no Law made to restrain them from going to the one Altar at jerusalem, or to constrain them to sacrifice in the high places. And yet that's more, than I believe can well be proved. For those 7000. that had not bowed to Baal did hide themselves, as not daring to profess and avow their Religion and Faith towards God, as before. So as it seems there was no open toleration in Israel for any to go up to jerusalem. And it can hardly be thought, that jeroboam being a great Politician, should give toleration to his subjects to go up to jerusalem to worship, lest they should fall back to juda again, for prevention whereof the two Calves were set up, to keep the people at home. The like policy used the High Priests, Scribes and Pharisees to suppress those that should confess Christ, in making a Decree to 
* joh. 9.22.34▪  excommunicate them, and so in putting Christ to death, lest his Kingdom should put down theirs. And I hope your Hierarchy wants not the like policy, for the rooting out of Puritans, the true Professors and People of Christ's Kingdom, being Christ's Kingdom and yours cannot consist together.  
But you conclude, somewhat dangerously, when you say, Therefore in the present case there's peril, great peril of damnable both Schism, and Heresy, and other sins, by living and dying in the Roman faith, tainted with so many superstitions, as at this day it is, and their Tyranny to boot. This conclusion you apply, not to the silly ignorant Papists (for you leave them secure, and out of danger, as afore) but to the knowing men of Rome, having showed them, that though the silly ignorants may perhaps through the thick fog and Egyptian Mist of their palpable ignorance steal, or stumble into heaven: yet for the learned, as A.C. and his fellows, 'tis danger, yea great danger to live and die (and that knowingly) in the Roman faith. But me thinks neither here do you buckle yourself to such a serious business as this is, so as to pull these wilful men out of their puddle, wherein they wittingly stick so fast. You do not with the spirit of zeal, which jude requires in good Ministers, saying, 
‡ jude 23.  some save with fear, a●prázontes, snatching or plucking them out of the fire, hating even the garment spotted with the flesh. Nor do you with Peter's zeal tell these men, 
‡ Act. 2.40.  save yourselves from this crooked and wicked Generation; such as the Scribes and Pharisees, and High-Priests were. But you only tell them, there's danger, great danger. Of what? Of no less than Heresy and Schism, and other sin too, living and dying in the Roman faith. Nay if there be but peril, though great peril, these pregnant Wits have ways and wiles enough to avoid all such perils; and that by the clean strength of their Art of equivocation, wherein they are become the most expert Masters in the world. Except they have forgotten it, it is so long ago since our Judges were wont to put them shrewdly to it, as to confess whether they were Priests or no; which confession then was as good, as to be hanged. And you say elsewhere, 
§ See before.  such can make a short cut to heaven, when they lie a dying, saying, They renounce all their own merits (whither their many bad, or their few Good merits, is not known) and rely only upon Christ's merits for salvation. As your good Brother Stephen Gardiner did at his death (as before But when they die in so good a mood, though they may seem (as Gardiner seemed) to die in the faith, yet in charity they do not, while they leave not the same gap open for the people, by which themselves get through, concealing justification by Faith from the silly vulgar. In which desperate case had not your Lordship's charity put in to help at a dead lift, to teach them a blind way to heaven, which scarce any Jesuits, before you, ever knew: What had become of them? But (alas!) As you delude those silly ignorants, by telling them such a way leads to heaven, which will carry them strait to hell: so on the other side you do but dally with A. C. and his fellows, in telling them they are in peril only, when they are in the very precipice of perdition. But if you intended to be their Ghostly Father indeed, you should have told them plainly, Their Religion is Idolatry, Heresy, Schism, Apostasy, Antichristianisme, Infidelity, and all manner of In●quity, and Impiety, so as to live and die therein is inevitable damnation to all Papists whatsoever, but double damnation to those that know it. For as Christ saith, 
* Luk. 12. ●7. 48.  That servant, which knew his Lords will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will shallbe beaten with many stripes: But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shallbe beaten with few stripes But what should a man speak to 
‡ Psa. 58.4.5.  the deaf Adder▪ that stops her ear, and will not hearken to the voice of Charmers, charming never so wisely? I will follow my Lord's Council, 
‡ Mat. 15.14.  Let them alone, They be blind leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind they shall both fall into the pit. And as he saith to the Pharisees, 
§ Mat. 23.32.  Fill ye up the measure of your Fathers. But how come you to say, there's danger of Schism, living and dying in the Roman faith. What? Can a man be a Schismatic▪ being a Romanist? Then is not the Church of Rome herself a Schismatic? And so the Church of England all one Church. And so your Catholic Church, of which you and Rome are, all Schismatics? Look to it.  
But I may not leap over that, which you have stumbled upon, namely, Rome's Tyranny to boot. And it were well, if such Tyranny were confined to Rome; saving that all Tyranny is such, as it will not be confined to any place, within any bounds. You say, that the Church of England, and that of Rome, are one and the same Church. Certainly then, this One Church (what ever you pretend of the Catholic Church) is of such a constitution, as whose very foundation is Tyranny, because hierarchical. As Pope Hadoian▪ 4. an English man, lying extreme sick, said, That there was no life more wicked, than the Popes, whose Popedom was founded in blood, and is maintained with blood, wherein he is Romulus his successor, who in laying the first foundation of Rome, slew his brother Remus. And wherein doth the Tyranny of your Popedom in the Church of England come short of the Popes, saving that he hath a more powerful Principality, than you have. Have not you in your hand, like that Roman jupiter, (the Pope) your thunderbolt of Excommunication, to blast and cast out of the Church whom you please, or those who do not please you? Do not the Censures of your High Commission (like the Pope's Court of Inquisition) extend to the spoiling of good Ministers and Christians of all liberty and livelihood? You will say, You use no 
* Pag. 298.  faggots, as Rome doth. 'Tis true: 'tis not yet come to that. But whe●'s the default? You only want a Law. But in the mean time, you want not your devises, armed both with your own power, and borrowed of others, to afflict men worse, then with death, as before is showed in the forenamed examples. And therefore from all such Tyranny both English, and Romish, the Lord deliver us.  
L. p. 299. I do indeed for my part (leaving other men free to their own judgement) acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church. But so, as that which I grant to Romanists, is not as they are Romanists, but as they are Christians, that is, as they believe the Creed, and hold the Foundation Christ himself, not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church.  
P. Now you speak a little more plain, then before. But how do you leave other men free to their own judgement, when for not being of your judgement in this point, you censure them of stiffness, and churlishness, and want of Charity. And yet you yourself say, that there is no possibility of Salvation for Romanists as they are Romanists. So as your judgement is, That Romanists, as, they are Romanists, have no possibility of Salvation. Ergo no Papist, as a Papist, living and dying in the faith and Religion of Popery, can possibly be saved. And just so say those Protestants whom you Censure for stiff, churlish, and uncharitable. Only you qualify it with this Condition, If they wittingly and knowingly associate themselves to the gross Superstition, of the Romish Church, so as still you save harmless your silly ignorant Papists, that know nothing at all, whether they do and believe right, or wrong. And you distinguish, That, as Romanists, they cannot be saved, but as Christians, believing the Creed, and holding the foundation Christ. But we told you before, that your silly ignorant Papists do not so much as understand or know the very letter of the Creed, how much less believe it? If they can mumble over their Creed as many a blind Priest doth his M●sse, 'tis in a strange tongue, and they say it for one of their blind and superstitious Prayers, as they do their Ave Marie. So, that way, what hope, or possibility can they have of salvation? And for holding the foundation Christ: to that we have before sufficiently proved the Contrary. But say you they are Christians. So you say, they are Romanists too. As one telling the Emperor Sigismond of julianus the Cardinal, speaking something in his Commendation: he answered, Tamen Romanus est: yet he is a Romanist. And this Romanist is like the Coloquintida in the 
* 2 Kin. 4.40.  pot of pottage, of which the young Prophets said to Elizeus, there's death in the pot. Or like the 
‡ Eccl. 10.1.  fly in the Apothecary's box of ointment, it mars and corrupts the whole ointment. And a man may say of your Roman Christians, or Christian Romanist (which you will) as one said of a wicked Prelate, who was also a Temporal Prince (as you be) when he gloryed of his greatness, as being both a Prelate, and a Prince, or Earl: What shalbecome of the Bishop, when the Earl is in hell? So what shall become of your Romanist, as a Christian, when your Christian as a Romanist, is in hell?  
L. p. ibid. I am willing to hope, there are many among them, which k●ep within the Church, and yet wish the Superstitions abolished, which they know, and which pray to God to forgive their errors in what they know not, and which hold the foundation firm, and live accordingly, and would have all things amended, that are amiss, were it in their power. And to such I dare not deny a possibility of Salvation, for that which is Christ's in them, though they hazard themselves extremely, by keeping so close to that, which is Superstition, and in the case of Images comes too near to Idolatry.  
P. Your Hope and Charity may be much, but in this can do but little. But 'tis possible, that some may keep within the Confines of that Church-Dominions, and more powerful Principality, and yet not be of that Church: as those seven thousand in Israel forementioned. Of such (if any such there be) we may well hope of their salvation: although they cannot live in those places, where Popery bears sway, but with much danger to their bodies and estates, and some to their souls too. As I persuade myself, for all your diligent Inquisition and hunting with your Hounds, Beagles, and Prosecutions, or (if you will persecutions in your High Commission, and other spiritual Co●ts, there are many poor honest souls in England, that truly fear God, and abhor your superstitions, and oppressions, but in regard of their bodies and estates cannot be but in daily danger of falling into your Lion's den, if but once detected. But for others, who are sensible of your Tyrannical yoke, and groan under the burdens of your superstitions and Ceremonies, yet have not the heart, and courage of the spirit of Christ to withdraw their necks, but endure all your bondage, so they may enjoy the fleshpots of Egypt: however they may wish to be free, yet you know the Proverb, Wishers and Woulders. And so of those in the Church of Rome: some Errors some may see, and be sensible of them, and wish them removed: but in the mean time, will they, nill they, they must undergo them, and that even against their Conscience; so as me thinks, this should somewhat abate and snibbe your willingness to hope of any possibility of salvation for such, as against their Conscience, and for worldly respects, live in known error. Nor can he possibly avoid it, so long as he lives in and of that Church. For as Solomon saith, 
* Prov. 6.27, 28, 29.  Can a man take fire in his bosom, and not be burnt? Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burnt? so who so toucheth a whorish woman, shall not be innocent. Now he that lives in and of the Romish Church, lives in the whore's bosom, and is a 
‡ 1 Cor. 6.16.  member of the whore. And perhaps many a one feeling how hot the bosom is, wisheth he were out of it; but hath not the Power, being (as Solomon saith) plunged into a deep pit. 
‡ Pro. 22.14.  The mouth of a strange Woman is a deep pit: he that is abhorred of the Lord, shall fall therein. And once in, 'tis hard getting out. Nor all a man's wishing will do it. But (say you) he prays to God to forgive him his Errors, that he knows not. What then? Is he the nearer salvation, when he still lives in the error that he knows, and only wisheth to be amended? And doth not many a man live in a known sin as whoredom, or drunkenness, or the like, and being convinced of the foulness of it, and the many evils it brings upon him, wishes he could leave it, and prays God to forgive him, and yet lives in it still? Is he ever the near to mercy? Nay he is the further off, as being habituated and hardened in his sin, known sin, wherein he lives unpenitently. Whereas Solomon saith, 
§ Pro. 28.13.  He that confesseth, and forsaketh his sins, shall have mercy: But he that hideth his sins shall not prosper. And you here bring some Papist in, confessing the errors which he knows not, as praying God to forgive them: but never a word of his confessing and praying God to forgive those errors which he knows▪ and wherein he lives. So here is a hiding of his known errors. But it were too gross to bring him in, confessing, and deprecating God for his known errors, wherein he still liveth, and though he wish them amended in the Church of Rome, yet amends them not himself, nor do you tell us, that he doth so much, as wish them amended in himself, and therefore you prudently forbear the mention of any such thing, as his praying to have his known errors forgiven. For that should put a man into a desperate case, shuting him out of all hope and possibility of salvation, to mock God to his face▪ in praying to have those Errors and sins forgiven him, in which against his Conscience he both liveth, and resolveth no other (though he wisheth) but to die.  
But yet (say you such hold the foundation Christ. How? As they that held him fast, when they crucified him. For such as live in known sin, and error, they (as the Apostle saith) saith crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. Such holding of Christ, is not to hold him as a foundation, but to overthrow the foundation. For Christ died, not to hold to deliver us from the punishment of sin, but from the guilt and dominion of sin, by working in us Faith and Repentance. So as to profess Christ, and to want these, yea to live in known sin and error, only with a faint wishing of amendment, is not to hold the foundation Christ, but to make him a false foundation, as if he were a Saviour of such, as so live in known sin and error, as they resolve no other, but to live and die in it. And we have proved before, that Rome's Religion quite overthrows the foundation Christ: so as none, living and dying in the Faith of that Church can be saved, and the more he knows it, and yet lives in it, the greater is his damnation, though he wish never so much to have the error amended.  
But you say, Christ hath a part in them. I answer with the Apostle, 
‡ Heb. 6.6.  The Foundation of God stands sure, and hath this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his: and▪ let every one, that nameth the name of Christ, depart from iniquity. Lo, here be two things joined together, which must not be parted: 1. The Lord knoweth who are his: here's Gods foundation, laid in his Eternal Counsel and Purpose, according to that of the Apostle, O'ùs proégno, Whom he foreknew (not foresaw) he preaestinated to be conformed to the Image of his Son▪ etc. Here's God's foundation, that stands sure, and hath this seal, The Lord knoweth who are his. Now they that are Christ's, do so hold this foundation, as that they are firmly built upon it; which is properly to hold the Foundation. For if a house stand not upon the foundation, how can it be said to hold the foundation? Now how come we to know, whether a man do thus truly hold the foundation Christ or no? Why, if he be built upon this Foundation. And what is it to be built upon this Foundation? The Apostle tells us (which is the second part of this seal, that settles us upon this Foundation) And, let every one, that nameth the name of Christ, depart from iniquity. Now to name the Name of Christ, is not to profess Christ, as nominal Christians, as Papists do. To apply this then to your hopeful Papist, or Christian Romanist: He names the name of Christ, he professeth Christ. Thus say you) he holds the Foundation Christ. No say I: No, saith the Apostle. For being a Roman-Christian, he professeth, he practiseth, he liveth in the Religion and faith of Rome, to wit, Popery; and this Popery is iniquity, yea the very Mystery of Iniquity, and the Religion of the Whore of Babylon, whose golden Cup of Christian Profession 
* Revel. 17.  is full of abominations, and spiritual fornications. This being iniquity, he that holds the foundation Christ, must depart from it: Or else, for all his naming the Name of Christ, he holds not the foundation of God; nor doth God know or acknowledge that man to be one of his, he is not 
‡ Revel. 7. ●. 4.6 &  sealed. And therefore your hope of such, that are thus purblind, seeing their error, but not departing from it, is as vain, as your charity towards those, that are stone-blind. And you add: Hold the Foundation, and live accordingly. That is, have the bare name of a Christian, and live and die a Papist; which to do, you must needs confess, cannot stand with the possibility of Salvation. And than what becomes of your hope? For how can holding the foundation, and living accordingly stand with the profession and practice, Faith and Religion of Popery? And know ye not, 
‡ Mat. 7.21.  That not every one that saith, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven, but he (saith Christ) that Doth the will of my Father, which is in heaven. And what is that will? That every one that nameth the Name of Christ, depart from Iniquity. What Iniquity? All Iniquity. But what is iniquity? All iniquity is either moral, or spiritual. Moral iniquity is all that, which is a breach of any of the Commandments of the second Table, as murder, Adultery, theft, false-witness, covetousness, lust, disobedience to Parents, and lawful Governors in lawful things, and the like. Spiritual iniquity, is such▪ as is against the Commandments of the first Table, as Infidelity, hatred of the Truth, Idolatry, as in the worship of Images, will-worship, superstition in God's worship, taking of God's name in vain, in professing Christ, and obeying Antichrist, profanation of the Lords Sabbath day, etc. Now all such iniquity, both moral, and spiritual, even all such 
* Ephes. 6.12.  spiritual wickednesses in high places a true Christian must not only wrestle against, but depart and flee from. Otherwise, though he shall say to Christ in that day, 
‡ Mat. 7.22. Lu. 13.26, 27.  Lord Lord, H●ve we not prophesied in thy Name, and in thy Name have cast out Devils, and in thy Name have done many wonderful works (as perhaps the Mountebank Friars and Priests will say of their 
‡ 2 Thes. 2  lying wonders, the marks of Antichrist) (Loe here, all in Christ's name, no less) yet Christ will profess unto them, I never knew you, depart from me, ye workers of iniquity. Thus Christ professeth, he knows not those, that only profess him. So as, whatever Papists may boast of, or pretend, and profess, that they are Catholics, that they are Christians, that they hold the Creed, and live a Religious life, as their Ghostly Fathers teach them (as we noted before) yet living and dying Papists, Christ shall certainly say unto them all, aswell the stark blind, as the purblind, and aswell both these as the knowing men of Rome, Depart from me, all ye workers of Iniquity, ye Idolaters, ye Infidels, ye Antichristians, ye Hypocrites, ye blind and ignorant: I never knew you.  
And you add, They hazard themselves extremely, by keeping so close to that, which is superstition, and in the case of Images, comes too near to Idolatry. Thus I perceive you will not raise up your voice one note higher, then to superstition, or at the most, too ●eare Idolatry. Not Idolatry outright, only bordering close upon it, too near it God wot, as Purgatory is too near hell, only a Wainscot between, and how soon burnt down, and long ere now, with so hot a fire on both sides, so as 'tis to be more than feared, Purgatory and Hell, by this time, are become both one, and so while your too near Borderers upon Idolatry, your worshippers of Images, might hope to find some cold comfort, when they should be in their hot Purgatory, that by the virtue of a few Masses, they may quickly be dispatched thence, they find now such a confusion and mixture of Hell and Purgatory, that they cannot find the way out. And so near Idolatry is your case of Images, that it is not possible for the subtlest Schoolman to distinguish between them, such is their not only contiguity, but continuity, the Scripture calling an Image an Idol: cídolon, being in the Grammatical and common construction an Image, and in the Ecclesiastical use of the Word, any Image or Representation which men have devised to set up for a Religious use, as in or by it to worship God or Saint. And we have showed before, that if the Heathen in the worship of their Images were Idolaters: then how much more the Papists, which both in their Doctrine and Practice do far outstrip the Heathen. Nor in the case of Images alone, are Papists most gross and desperate Idolaters, but also in the worship of their breaden God, and in their worship of Angels, and Invocation of Saints, making them so many Gods, as also the Cross itself, which they both invocate, and worship with Latria, which they call divine worship; as before.  
L. p. 302. Worth once misled, is of all other the greatest misleader.  
P. And who of more worth in the account of some in the world, than your Lordship. If then this worth be misled (as your Charity and Hope of misled Papists) it becomes of all other the greatest misleader. For this worth is become the greatest misleader both of Papists and Protestants, both of the Church of Rome, and of the Church of England. And that the greatest too. And I am persuaded, the Church of England, since it professed the Gospel, never had such a monstrous and Bayeyard-like bold misleader, as this Great worth of Canterbury hath proved to be, or will certainly prove in effect, if it find as blind Disciples to deal witthall, as itself is a Master. Although it is much hoped, that if any Man hath conceived such an high Opinion of your worth, as to account you for the most Profound Divine, the most Pregnant Politician, and the most potent Champion of the Church of England, the very Reading of this your Book, with a corrected judgement, will either convert him from this error, or at least prevent, that this error of your Doctorship shall not Commence, or Proceed to the degree of Heresy  
L. p. 303. 'Tis safest to believe the Article of Christ's Descent into hell, as both the Churches of England, and of Rome, do agree upon, that is, That he descended into the place of the damned. And this is the truth.  
P. Surely, if this be the truth, that Christ descended locally into hell, the place of the damned, it were safest to believe it, whether you and Rome consent in the belief of it▪ or no. But because you believe, as the Church of Rome believes, will you thereupon conclude, This is the truth? Certainly we have the more cause to suspect that truth for a falsehood, wherein you and Rome do both agree. But how true your belief with Rome is, and how true this Truth, we have before sufficiently discovered. But will this hold for a good Rule, that in what you and Rome agree it is safest to believe it? You agree in Altars, Priests, Sacrifice, all manner of will-worship, Antichristianisme, and many things more forespecified: Ergo is't safest to believe these things? Or for whom safest? safest for all those, that affect, to be of your Church Triumphant here, and would not come under your persecution. But how agrees this with that which you add (ibid.) that Rome will not endure this, that Christ descended into the place of the damned, but only in Limbum Patrum, a Region in the upper part of Hell Ergo rather than fail, if Rome will not believe as you do, That Christ descended into the place of the damned, you will believe as she believes, that he descended in Limbum Patrum. For agree you must: and that's the safest belief.  
L. p. 307. I myself have heard some Jesuits confess, that in the Liturgy of the Church of England, there's no positive error.  
P. 'Tis a sign than your Liturgy agrees pretty well with the Romish Messal, as is noted by the way before. For surely such a Testimony from a Jesuits mouth, gives us the more cause of suspicion, that all is not so well in your Liturgy, as it should be. As Diogenes said, when the people applauded him: he began to suspect himself, that he had committed some absurdity, or other, saying, Wherein have I miscarried myself, that this people doth so commend me?  
L. p. 318. Though Dr. White, late Bishop of Ely, was more able to answer for himself, yet since he is now dead, and is thus drawn into this Discourse, I shall, as well as I can, do him the right, which his learning and pains for the Church deserved. And I grant as well as he, that there must be some one Church or other, continually visible.  
P. First, for Dr. White, he being now dead (which he was long before) I will say no more, but this: For his deserving pains for the Church (the Church of England you mean, as now it stands, the same Church with that of Rome, and of the same Faith with her; and of which Faith he also declared himself to be, when he told a Minister, that the Difference between the Church of Rome and of England in the Doctrines of the sixth Session of Trent, and by name, of Grace and Justification was little or nothing) how great it was, his Works extant can witness; as namely his Approbation prefixed to your now Brother of Chichester; his Appeal to Caesar, wherein is maintained the whole Body of your Arminian Heresy, together in all, or most of the grossest points of Popery, as worship of Images at least with Doulia, and the like, and assaying to prove the Pope not to be Antichrist, as if he would solemn è coelo tollere: also Dr. Whites Book of the Sabbath, to prove no Sabbath to Christians, and the fourth Commandment not to be Moral, for the keeping of one day in the week, as the Lords Day: allowing also of vain sports, and profane pastimes on that Day: and commending of praying towards the East, where your Altar is placed, and such like stuff: in all which he so well deserved of your Church of England, as he scarce had his fellow; only if he were now living again, he would yield the Bucklers to your Lordship as the bravest Champion of the now Church of England that hath risen up in this latter Age, or yet succeeding times may hope to produce.  
But let us now hear the right, which your Lordship does him, and which his pains for the Church deserved. But first▪ let me tell you, you forget here to give him his Title of Lord Bishop, which you indeed gave him in the very first page of your Book. But now his Lordship is dead let not Lord and Bishop be separated in any case, no not by death itself. For indeed Lord-Bishop is a peculiar Title, differencing you from all true Bishops indeed, as the Scripture commendeth for the only Bishops, as is showed before: yet I know not how it is come to pass, that in the best Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, the Pastors are never called Bishops. I suppose it is, because as Kings of old were styled Tyranni, and that in melior●m partem, until degenerating into Lawless Tyrants indeed, good Kings would thereupon never after be called Tiranni, but Kings: so the Reformed Churches, seeing how the name of Bishop gr●w to be odious, the Office and Calling of it being changed 〈◊〉 that of a Parochial Pastor into a Diocesan Lordship, and so 〈◊〉▪ have for this cause laid aside the Name of Bishop, though otherwise the Name is good, as it pertains to the true 〈◊〉 and Presbyters over particular Congregations, as is before showed: so as the Reformed Churches do herein as the Ancient Romans did, who when their Kings turned Tyrants, the l●st whereof was Tarqvinius surnamed Superius, for his extreme 〈◊〉▪ they for ever banished both the name of Kings, and 〈◊〉 out of their Commonweal. But let us see, how you recompense the omission of this Lordly Title in this place, to such a well deserving man. You add: And I grant, as well as he, that there 〈◊〉 be some one Church or other continually visible. A● well a● he. This than may seem to be some recompense, by way of honour, and 〈◊〉 some doing of him Right (for indeed his main reward he had in his life time: and what he hath now I cannot tell) that the Lords Grace of Canterbury is pleased to Grace the late Lord Bishop of Eli, by being of the same opinion with him. Well: what's the Opinion? That there must be some one Church or other continually visible; That some one Church or other hath still been visible, I shall not grudge you. But take my meaning withal. Some false Church or other hath been (though why must be, I see no reason; saving that there 
* 1 Cor. 11.19  must be Heresies even among the Churches of God) continually visible, ever since the Apostles times. And the Church of Rome for Instance hath boar the bell away: which degenerating into an Antichristian Church, hath been still visible, though not always in one and the same place, but most. What at Rome, and sometimes at Aninion in France▪ (for where the Pope's Court is, there is the Church in its glorious conspicuity) yet sometime without a Head, sometime with two Heads, sometime with three Heads, that a man might say, The Porter of Heaven-gates had three Heads, as the Poets feigned Cerberus the Porter of Hell to have had. But for the true Church of God, that may sometimes be hid. For first (as we showed before) there was no true Church visible among the revolted Ten Tribes. Secondly, not in 
‡ 2 Chron 28.  Ahaz his time, when he shut up the Temple▪ and and served Idols in every Corner of jerusalem; and then where was the Church visible the while, when the whole public service and worship of God was suppressed, the Temple being shut up. Again, also in joah his time was the like, as ye may read, 2 Chro. 24.17. to 22, etc. Lastly, when the Temple was burnt, and all the people of God dispersed Captives in Babylon, where they could 
‡ Psalm. 137.  not sing one song of Zion: Where was then the visible Church the while? But you will say, They might have Synagogues in Babylon. But you cannot prove it. And the Prophet Esay saith, That 
§ Esa. 42.22.  they were hid in Prisons: As many of Christ's dear servants are at this day in your Church of England. And what say you for that 30 day's Interdiction, that no man should make any suit, to God or man during that space. Where was then the Church visible But that was but for 30 days. But you and Dr. White are for a continual visibility. And it seems you herein jump with the Jesuits, who stand upon a continual visibility every day, alleging that of Christ 
† Mat. 28 20.  And lo I am with you pa●as tàs e m●meras, which our English turns, Always, but they, 
* Vulgar Latin, 〈◊〉 Di●r.  All the days, to wit, everyday Which they do, to puzzle Protestants in showing their visible succession every day without fail, since Christ's time. But you will say perhaps Daniel was found praying in those days. But he was but one single Man, and so not Ecclesiâ, a Church or Congregation. And if he prayed with his Family, it was but in his private house, and you will hardly allow that for a visible Church, but rather call it a private Conventicle. And if with this Family, than (if at least you had but sent your Pursuivants) not only Daniel, but (according to the King's strict Decree) his whole Family should have been cast with him into the Lion's den. So during the Egyptian servitude, what conspicuity of a Church in Israel? Now and then perhaps, in some godly Families, there might be two or three assembled. Yet this private still, visible you will not call it. For you will not allow Churches in private Families, though they 
* Rom. 16.5.  were in the Apostles time. And such Churches (so visible, as two or three are visible when you see them, but the world takes no notice of them as Churches) Christ never fails to have in the world. And these Congregations in private Families, being driven from your public Idolatrous Superstition in your Churches, are so hid many times, that your bloodhounds cannot trace them, or hunt them out. But as for such a Conspicuous, Glorious, Visibility of succession of such Prelatical Heads of hierarchical Churches, though such may be always in some Country or other resplendent, eminent, and apparent, yet Christ's poor Church the while may be, and commonly is hid, as little stars, especially where such great 
‡ Mat. 13.6.21▪  Luminaria as your Lordships spread out your hot and fiery beams. As the Woman, the Church (as before; which here we recapitulate, to encounter two such Giants) when she fled from the Dragon, and his flood of persecution into the Wilderness, who saw her then and there? And when the whole world was turned Arian, where was the true Church visible? And so since Antichrist came to his Xenith, or Vereticall point, to his Meridian brightness, how hath Christ's Church been hid in corners, as among the Merindolians, Cabriers, Waldensis, and others, who were still persecuted by that Beast, and his Crew. As Solomon saith, 
‡ Pro. 28.28.  When the wicked rise, men hide themselves. And so we may truly say, When Prelates rise, and bear sway, and grow most resplendent and predominant in their Potent Principalities: then God's people hide themselves. And the Apostle saith of the believers, in the Old Testament, in times of persecution, or captivity, or of the Maccabees. They wandered about in sheepskins, and Goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, and tormented, of whom the world was not worthy: they wandered in Deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth And who were all those trow you, but the true Church of God? And how was then the Church of God visible, but that one might see another. But such you will not allow to be visible Churches: 1. because you cannot see them: 2. because you do not allow to be Churches visible, no more than you do the Reformed Churches in Geneva, and among the Cannon's, and those mountains, where you cannot see them; which is their safety, as not to feel you. And where was the visibility of God's true Church in England, in Queen Mary's days, in the midst of the black tempest of persecution, where you could not discern one true Professor and Protestant, but by the light of that fire, which was by the Prelates kindled to burn them for Martyrs? Or if you, or your Beagles had hunted among the Woods, perhaps ye might have found half a dozen poor souls under some Tree shading them from the present heat of persecution, where they did solace their souls with having among them some few leaves of St. Paul's Epistles, which they read to strentghen and arm them against their turn came. Call you this a visible Church? But you will say, The Church of England was then visible and conspicuous in the Bishops, and the public Congregations throughout the Churches of the land, where Divine service, or Mass, was sung or said every day. Then was the Church visible in 
* Bonner.  Edmund of London, and 
‡ Gardener.  Stephen of Winchestr, and other their Associates, who were as Zealous Champions for the Church of England then, as you are now. So as that Church then (as now) was no less sensible, then visible, when sitting most conspicuous in their Courts they condemned Christ's true Church for an Heretic, delivering it over to the secular power for a burnt sacrifice. And was not this that Church then, of which you tell us, when you say, Our Church was just there then, where Rome's is n●w? So as we need make no doubt, but your now conspicuous Church of England was one and the same with that in Mary●s days; only that Church by virtue of a Law, burned the Saints of God: and you without Law bury them quick You a●e all for a conspicuous visibility of a Prelatical or hierarchical Church. But Christ's true Church as before) is otherwise: which hath for the Bishop of her soul, 
‡ 1 Pet. 2.25.  the Lord jesus Christ, who is no Non Resident Bishop, but perpetually resident and present with all his Congregations. Yea 
§ Mat. 15.20.  where but two or three are assembled in his Name, there is He in the midst of them. He saith not In a Cathedral, or other Church; but indefinitely, Wheresoever: as in a Chamber, in a private room, 
* Act. 1. ●3.  as the Apostles were for fear of the High Priests. During which time, where was the conspicuous visibility of the true Church, until the day of Penticost came, when there was a new Church collective of 
‡ Act. 2.  all nations under heaven? Again, Christ saith not, Where there is a multitude: but, Where two or three: nor assembled, in a Prelate's name as members of a Prelatical Church, but, In may Name saith Christ) in the faith of me, according to my word: then and there am I in the midst of them, to rule and protect, as King, to teach as Prophet, as Priest to present their persons and sacrifices to my Father. These, these are those Churches or Congregations, which you scorn and scoff at, and which you persecute and punish as malefactor's for so assembling, as where Christ is present among them: which plainly betrays yourselves to be the false Church, which you say must be continually visible  
L. p. 320. A Church may hold the Fundamental point literally, and as long as it stays there, be without control, and yet err grossly, dangerously, nay damnably in the exposition of it. And this is the Church of Rome's case. For most true it is, it hath in all Ages maintained the Faith unchanged in the expression of the Articles themselves: but it hath in the exposition both of Creeds and Counsels quite changed and lost both the sense and meaning of some of them. So the Faith is in many things changed both for life, and belief, and yet seems the same. Now that which deceives the world is, that because the bark is the same, men think this old decayed tree is as sound, as it was at first, and not weather-beaten in any age. But when they can make me believe, that painting is true beauty. I'll believe too, that Rome is not only sound, but beautiful.  
P. First here I must note the perplexed and confused frame of your first sentence. You say, A Church may hold th● fundamental point literally, and as long as it stays there, be without control, and yet err grossly, dangerously, nay damnably in the exposition of it. As much as if you had said, That a Church may hold the fundamental point literally, and err grossly, dangerously, nay damnably in the exposition of it, and yet be without Control. As for, As long as it stays there, namely in holding the fundamental point literally▪ how is it without control, when notwithstanding the holding of the letter, it err grossly, dangerously, nay damnably in the exposition of it? For you join and jumble all together, the holding of the letter, and the overthrowing of the sense, and yet want control. And what's the letter, where the sense is lost? What's the bark, when the pith and marrow is gone? As Jerome saith, God's word standeth, non in verborum cortice, sed in medulla sententiarum: not in the bark of words, but in the pith of the sense. Well: And this is Rome's case, say you. How? Most true it is (say you) that it hath in all ages maintained the faith unchanged in the expression of the Articles themselves: but it hath in the exposition both of Creeds and Counsels, quite changed and lost the sense, and meaning of some of them. So the faith is in many things changed both for life and belief, and yet seems the same. Here again do you not most pitifully enterfere? Faith is lost in the exposition, and yet kept in the expression of the Articles. Have not you lost sense in this expression, except you can recover it by a better exposition? For you separate the expression from the exposition. So you leave the Articles as a dead carcase, without a soul. For there is no faith kept in the expression of the letter, without the true exposition of the sense. And if the sense be lost, the faith is lost. And what expression of faith do you call that, which is abstracted from the sense? But Rome hath lost the sense but of some of them. Of which? And whether of Creeds or Counsels? For here you shuffle both together too, as making Counsels of equal Authority with the Creeds. I did not think before this (nor yet) that Counsels Decrees are to be taken as Creeds. Only I might have learned of you before, That Counsels Decrees, though they be erroneous, must bind all to obedience: and then sure, they are little inferior to Creeds: saving that those may be reversed by another General Council, but these not.  
But however, Rome is the same bark of a Church still. Ergo a true Church still. Why, the Bark is not the Tree: no more than a Sheepskin is a Sheep No, nor yet hath Rome so much as the bark of the true Church of Christ left. Look upon her outward hue and habit: and there we shall find nothing, but the habitements of the 
* Revel. 17.3, 4, 5, 6.  great Whore, and the Ensigns of Antichrist with his Church Malignant, warring against the true Spouse, and Church of Christ. And both these we find in that one Chapter, where the Woman is set out to the life Her Habilements: She fits upon a scarlet coloured Beast, full of Names of Blasphemy, having seven Heads and Ten Horns, and she is arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold, and precious stone, and Pearl, having a golden Cup in her hand, full of abominations, and filthiness of her fornications: with a Label on her forehead to know her the Better, a Name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and abominations of the Earth: and she is drunken with the blood of the Saints. And a little after we see her Ensigns set up, and those be her ten Horns, the power of Kings, which she instigateth to 
* ver. 14.17.  make war with the Lamb, and those on his side, the Called, and Chosen, and Faithful. Now the Whore's habit is not the habit of Christ's Spouse. This is not the bark of the weatherbeaten Tree of God's Church▪ whose outward beauty is 
‡ Cant. 1.5, 6.  black, but inwardly is 
‡ Esay. 6.13.  glorious, outwardly blasted as an 
§ Dan▪ 4.11▪ 12 etc. jude. 12.  Oak, but the holy seed is the substance thereof. And if by black you understand the bare name of a Church, and profession of Christianity: That she hath changed too, as the Snake doth her skin slipping off the old, and taking on a new. For she is not content to be called Christ's holy Church, but the Roman Catholic Church. Whereas Christ's Church is not denominated from any place. And as she is the Roman Church, so the Papal Church, being denominated from the Pope as her Head. Ergo none of Christ's Church; for this acknowledgeth none for her Head, but Christ alone, who is the root of this Vine, and Olive Tree, that ministers sap and fatness unto it. If therefore Rome be any Tree at all, she is such, as is in Daniel, the Emblem of the Old Babylonian Tyranny and so a Type of Rome's Babylonish usurped Power: § That Tree stretched out its boughs over the whole Earth, under whose shadow all the Beasts must have their sanctuary, as Rome applieth, that of the Psalm 8.6, 7. And is this Tree (say you) but weather-beaten? Or but in some things unsound? When it hath lost not only the bark, but the pith of Christ's Church; being all rotten within? Being such a Tree, as jude describes, déndron phthinoporinòn akarpon, dìs apothanòn, a corrupt Tree without fruit, twice dead, and to be hewed down, plucked up by the roots, and cast into the fire. So as Rome is altogether naught, Intus & incute, Pith and Bark, Root and Branch, Fruit and Leaf. Only a painted Tree, by which painting (as you say) she deceives the world, and your Lordship too, while you would be glad to take her with all faults, and be reconciled to her, takeing her painting for true beauty, or at the least on her outside more beauty, then painting, and in her inside more soundesse, than corruption. For you say, In some things only, both for life, and belief corrupted.  
L. p. 321. Dr. White said only, that some Errors of the Church were fundamental reductive, that is, if they which embrace them, did pertinaciously adhere to them, having sufficient means of Information. And again expressly, That none were damnable, so long as they were not held against Conscience.  
P. Thus we come to know Dr. Whites judgement, and therein yours also. But against you both, as erroneous in this point, I allege the Scripture. What saith Christ of the Pharisees. 
* Mat. 15.14.  Let them alone, They are blind leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, they both fall into the ditch. So you may see here (if ye be not blind) that blindness is damnable. But you will say, This was obstinate blindness, fight against the light, 'Tis true, that the blindness of the Pharisees was obstinate, against the clear light, and their own Consciences: but the blind people whom they led, were simply blind, out of mere ignorance, and so not against their Conscience: and yet both the leader and the led, fall into the ditch of damnation He that drinks deadly poison ignorantly perisheth, as he that wittingly drinks it. The poison is in itself mortal to all that drink it, with what mind soever they do it. And such is the poison of sin and error. Only he that errs of ignorance, is more easily recovered, than one that is obstinate in his error: and both, living and dying in the same error, as of infidelity, and the like (which all Popery is) both are tormented in hell, but the obstinate more than the other: yet God is just in punishing both. So as all error is damnable in all, but in some more, in some less. And it is of the same righteous judgement of God to deny to the ignorant means, and to others the right use of the means, by withholding his grace: and accordingly he is just in punishing all with a due proportion. And so there's a difference between simple Papists living in the midst of the Egyptian darkness, where there is no light, nor means of knowledge, and simple Papists living in Goshen, where the light shineth where the Gospel is preached, and do close their eyes wilfully, so as they obstinately refuse to see or hear▪ The sin of these certainly is much more damnable, then of the other, who have no means at all▪ Again, Errors that are in their own nature damnable, are damnable in whomsoever they be, only in some more, in some less, but we cannot say, they are to some damnable, and to others not damnable. All sin in its own nature is damnable, and brings damnation with it to every Mother's son: is it then damnable to some, and not to others? 
‡ Rom. 5.12.  Did not death come upon all men, in as much as all men had sinned? And is not Error whether in life, or belief, whether in the ignorant, or men of knowledge, sin? Thus you and Dr. White mazzle ignorants in sin. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the pit. But enough of this.  
L. p. 32●. I would feign so any one point maintained by the Church of England, that can be proved to depart from the Foundation.  
P. Would you see it again? We have proved it before, and that abundantly, that you maintain not one, but sundry points, wherein you depart from the foundation. Look before, and you shall see how you depart from the Foundation in your Tyrannical Hierarchy or Prelacy, in your Altars, in overthrowing the Doctrines of Grace, in destroying the Doctrine and Practice of the 4 th' Commandment in sanctifying the Lords day, in forbidding Meats and Marriage at certain times, which the Apostle calls directly and expressly a departing from the Faith, and Doctrines of Devils. Look back, and see.  
L. p. ibid. There is a latitude in the faith, especially in reference to different men's salvation. To set bounds to this, and strictly to define it for particular men. Just thus far you must believe in every particular, or incur damnation, is no work for my pen.  
P. For the ground of this your speech, you quote Bellarmine in the Margin. I thought you raked it out of some puddle, seeing the Fountain itself, the Scripture, affords you no such corrupt stuff. Nay more than that, you express yourself in far worse terms, than Bellarmine doth For Bellarmine's words, which you quote, are these, Multa sunt de fide, quae non sunt absolutè necessaria and salutem: There be many things of Faith▪ which are not absolutely necessary to salvation. But you bring it down to every man's salvation, as if some things of faith were more absolutely necessary for some men's salvation, then for others. I pass by Bellarmine, and insist upon your own words, leaving him to clear himself, There is (say you) a latitude of faith, especially in reference to different men's Salvation O● saving and justifying faith, you must mean, no question: For what faith is necessary for every man's salvation, but the saving faith, which comprehends in it whatsoever faith is requisite and necessary to salvation, as the belief of Scripture to be the word of God▪ as is showed before. And this saving faith is the faith of all them, that are 
* Heb. ●. ●4▪  heirs of salvation, to wit, of all God's 
‡ Tit. 1.1.  Elect, and all the 
‡ jude 3.  Saints. But it seems with Father Bellarmine you have an Implicit faith for your ignorants, and an Explicit for you that are great Clerks: or the letter of the Creed for those, and the sense for these. But I handled this also before. Only you propound a Paradox, which is no work for your pen; wherein you are the wiser not to take upon you to read or expound such riddles, had you been so wise, as not to have propounded ●. And yet it is the work of every good Minister of Chr●●t to teach the people what to believe, and to exhort them to grow in Grace▪ and knowledge, and Faith, and so 
* Col. 2.7. Phil. 1.9. Act. 20. 2 Tim. 2. 2 Pet. 1. Heb. 6.1. etc.  declare unto them the whole Counsel of God, and to keep nothing back, and to build men up in knowledge more and more unto perfection. As the Preacher saith 
‡ Eccles. 12.9.10.11.  Because the Preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge, yea he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in Order many Proverbs, The Preacher sought to find out acceptable words▪ and that which was written, was upright, even words of truth. The words of the wise are a● Goads and Nails fastened by the Masters of Assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. But this is not a pattern for you to follow, neither by your tongue, nor pen. You have other employment for them. But though we cannot set a bound to faith, in respect of perfection of degrees, yet we ought to teach the people all the parts of saving faith and knowledge, striving unto perfection. And besides it is the duty of every good Minister of Christ, to limit and set bounds to all the negatives of faith, in discovering all manner of sins and errors, which are all contrary, and enemies to faith and salvation. For which end, they must open all the ten Commandments, as Christ did Mat. 5. and all other points of saving Doctrine, in the Scriptures. Now though you have not the skill or will to set bounds how far men shall believe: yet you want no will, nor power to inhibit and restrain Preachers, showing them how little a way they must go in teaching the people, and so consequently how little a way the people must go in believing and saving knowledge: as in restraining and forbidding to preach the Doctrines of Grace (as before) forbidding Lectures, and especially all Sermon● on the Lord's day afternoon, forbidding long Preaching at any time, forbidding expounding of the Catethisme, as many of your Prelates do, and the like. Thus you can finely set men bounds how little thy shall believe, or know of God to their salvation. That's a work, if not for your pen, or hand, yet for your head, and not unlikely of your hand and pen too.  
L. p. 327. The Romanists dare not believe, but as the Roman Church believes. And the Roman Church at this day doth not believe the Scripture, and the Creeds in the sense, in the which the ancient Primitive Church received them.  
P Dare they not? How then say you there is possibility of salvation in the Roman Church for any, when it condemneth and accurseth saving faith and justification thereby, with other saving truths? For if the Papists dare not believe, but as their Church believes, than they are bound to good behaviour, they dare not believe to their salvation. And if they dare not believe to their salvation, than they cannot be saved. And if they cannot be saved, what possibility of salvation for them, living and dying in that faith? And here, Why do you no● say in the sense of the Scriptures themselves, and not of the Primitive Church? But you do not like the Scripture sense, except the Church interpret it. You allow not Scriptures to speak for, or testify for themselves. You are the same man still. And as we said before, you do wisely in that, to stop the mouth of Scripture, as Ahab did Michaiahs', for it never speaks good of you, but evil always.  
L. p. 232. I will acknowledge every fundamental point of faith, as provable out of the Canon, as we account it, as if the Apocryphal were added unto it.  
P. As if Apocryphalls were any divine proof at all of the fundamental points of faith in Scripture, or ought any way in that respect to be so much as named with the Scripture. Apocryphalls (saith Jerome) may be read for instruction of manners, but not for confirmation of faith, as before.  
L. p. 336. I have lived, and shall (God-willing) die in that faith of Christ, as it was professed in the ancient Primitive Church and as it is professed in the present Church of England.  
P. As you handle the matter, there's a vast difference between the faith of Christ professed in the ancient Primitive Church, and that which is now professed in the present Church of England. For the Ancient Primitive Church, taken properly and strictly, as sometime in your Book (as before) you put it, was that wherein the Apostles lived. Now will ye be tried by the Ancient Primitive Church of the Apostles held and professed? What say you my Lord, for your faith in this case? Will you put your faith and Religion to the trial of the most entire and upright J●ry, the Twelve Apostles? Certainly if you decline this trial, 'tis a shrewd suspicion that the faith of yours, wherein you are so resolute to live and die, is not right. Therefore for shame of the world, you must at least profess or pretend, that you willbe tried by the the Faith and Religion which the Apostles and the true Church of God in their time (as being the most Pure, Prime, Ancient Primitive Church) held and professed. First then: That Primitive Church neither held nor professed, nor practised any hierarchical government of Prelates or Bishops, but have condemned it in their writings, the Scriptures of the New Testament. And yet I▪ are say, you resolve to live and die Primate of Canterbury, and Metropolitan of all England. Secondly, The Apostles, and the ancient Primitive Church in their Age and time, had no Altars, but only the Lord jesus Christ, Heb. 13.10. (as it is formerly proved) but you and your Church of England both set up and worship Altars, and ●each the people both by your Books and practise to do so too, and force Ministers to erect Altars, or force them out of their Churches. And this Faith and Religion also I dare say you resolve to live and die in. Thirdly, The Apostles, and the ancici●nt Primiti●e Church in their time celebrated and sanctified every Lord's day in holy duties only, and in preaching as well in the 
* Cor. 16 1. joh. ●0. 19, 26. Act. 20. ●. Rev 1.10.  afternoon, as in the forenoon, never forbidding, but still exhorting to preach in season and out of season, giving no liberty to vain and profane sports and Pastimes either upon that day, or any other day, but admonishing Christians to abhor them as 
‡ Gal. 5.21. ● Pet. 4.3. Ro. 13.13, 14.  Heathenish: and is this the faith and practise of the present Church of England at this day, wherein you resolve to live and die? Fourthly, The Apostles and ancient Primitive Church in their days taught, held, and professed all chose excellent saving Doctrines of Election, Predestination, Redemption of the Elect, their Effectual vocation and conversation by Gods saving and Omnipotent Grace, their assurance of Salvation by Faith, and their certain perseverance in Grace unto Glory; and none of these Doctrines were forbid to Ministers to be preached; but they were commanded of God to declare the whole Council of God to his people. Is this your faith and practise of the Church of England, wherein you resolve to live and die? Fiftly, The Apostles and the ancient Primitive Church in their days, taught, professed, and practised that Discipline, which was according to Christ, forbidding all will-worship, and imposition of humane Ordinances, as snares upon men's Consciences, whereby that Christian liberty is overthrown, which Christ purchased for his people with his own blood. Is this the Faith, which you and the present Church of England professeth and practiseth, and wherein you resolve to live and die? Sixtly, The Apostles and the ancient Primitive Church in their time condemned the forbidding of Marriage and of Meats, as a Doctrine of Devils, taught by seducing spirit's, and a departing from the faith of Christ Is this that faith and Religion, which you and the present Church of England hold, profess, and practise, and wherein you resolve to live and die? O ye Prelates, O thou Church of England, blush, and be ashamed of that Faith, Profession and Practice of yours, so 〈◊〉 contrary to that Faith which the holy Apostles taught, and that pure and Primitive Church in their times embraced, and professed: and be not so desperately bend, as being so clearly convinced of these thy foul practices, to profess and vow notwithstanding to live and die in them: lest herein, your condition prove (as it must do) infinitely more desperate and damnable, then that of the Jesuits themselves, whose knowledge (by your own confession) of their wicked and damnable Favours, with their obstinate persisting in them, and res●sting the truth, yea even the Holy Ghosts Testimony therein, leaves them, as without excuse, so without all hope of salvation, as to whom nothing remains (as the Apostle upon the like occasion, saith) but 
* H●b. 〈…〉. H●●. 6.4, 5, ●▪ 8.  a fearful expectation of judgement, and of fiery indignation, which shall devour the Adversaries.  
L. p. 338. Yea, but he saith again, That I acknowledge there is but one Saving Faith, and that the Lady might be saved in the Roman Faith, which was all the jesuit took upon his soul. Why but i● this be all, I will confess it again. The first, that there is but one Faith, I confess with St. Paul, Eph. 4. And the other, That the Lady might be saved in the Roman faith or Church I confess with that Charity which St. Paul teacheth me, namely, to leave all men, especially the weaker sex and sort, which hold the foundation, to stand or fall to their own Master, Rom. 14.4. And this is no mistaken Charity.  
P. This you confess, that as there is but one saving faith, so this faith is in the Church of Rome, 
The saving faith not in the Church of Rome  as in and by which the Lady may be saved. And of this one faith with the Church of Rome, you and your Church of England are, if you hope to be saved with Rome by her saving faith. This is the All and sum of your Confession. Now we have clearly proved before, that the faith of the Church of Rome, is not that one saving faith of God's Saints and Elect, which the Scripture every where speaks of. For first Rome's faith is in its kind and nature (and that by their own confession) a dead faith: but the saving faith is a 
‡ Gal. 2▪ 20▪  living faith. Secondly, they confess, that with their faith they may go to hell, as they say of their Fiddles Fornicarii, Adulteri, etc. therefore Rome's faith is no saving faith: for the saving faith is so called, because it effectually, perfectly and certainly saveth all those that have it, as Christ saith, Joh. 5.24. Thirdly, The Romish ●aith, is a doubting, wavering, uncertain faith, or ra●her opinions and wan hope, as the Council of Trent defineth, accursing certain●y of believing: whereas the saving faith is a certain assurance, and clear 
‡ Heb. 11▪ ●▪  evidence, a plerophoria as Heb 10.22. Rom. 4. 21.● a full assurance or persuasion in the truth of believing, though not in fullness of degrees of perfection in all, and at all times, the operation of it being many times hindered by corruptions, and infirmities of the flesh, and manifold temptations. Fourthly, Rome's faith, is, and may be without hope and charity: but true saving faith is never without hope and charity; for it is the sure 
* Heb 11.1.  foundation of things hoped for, and it 
‡ Gal 6.  worketh by Love. Fifty, The Roman faith is not the justifying faith, for the 
‡ Sess. 6.  Council of Trent saith, Faith justifieth not, till Hope and Charity come to it, and then all 3 together, and that as inherent Graces, and works in us, do justify: whereas true saving faith is therefore called the justifying faith, because it is that only Grace, whereby as an Instrument applying Christ and his righteousness, and not as works in us, the believing sinner is justified, Rom. 3.28. so as though this saving justifying faith be never without hope and charity, no more than fire is without light and heat: yet hope and charity have no hand at all with faith in justification; so as not even faith itself as it is a Grace inherent, with hope and charity, doth justify, but only as it is considered as a hand or instrument applying Christ, as before. But the Roman Faith (as the Council of Trent confesseth) justifieth not as an instrument or hand applying Christ, whereby his Righteousness is of God imputed to the believer (which Imputation the Council in plain terms accurseth) but only as a Grace and work inherent with hope and charity. Sixtly, saving faith is not only a justifying faith, whereby we stand righteous in God's sight, having Christ's Righteousness imputed: but also a sanctifying faith, as Act. 26.18. called therefore a holy Faith, Judas 20. as whereby a man is regenerate, borne again, made a member of Christ, and partaker of his Spirit, and lives and dies in holiness: but the Roman Faith doth not sanctify; for they confess, that wicked, ungodly, and profane persons may have it▪ and go to hell with it, as before. Lastly, saving and justifying faith is a spiritual work and gift of Grace, wrought in the soul by the spirit of God, and it is his sole work, without the concurrence or man's Will, which is not free, until Grace hath given it both life and freedom: but the Roman Faith is confessed by them in the Council of Trent, not to be a mere work of Grace, nor at all of sanctifying and saving Grace, in the first act of believing: but after the Will of man is but a little stirred and moved by a certain Grace, which they call the first Grace, which they confess not to be the saving and sanctifying Grace, than thereupon they have the merit of Congruity to receive the second Grace, whereby hope and charity come to be added to faith. And this is the express Doctrine of Trent. The Conclusion than is, That neither the Lady, nor any Papist living and dying in the Roman Faith, nor yourself, nor any in the Church of England, that hold and profess no other Faith, than the Roman Faith, can possibly be saved, living and dying in that Faith and though you tell us again with great confidence, as a most certain Truth, that it is no mistaken Charity to grant a 〈◊〉 of salvation to a Papist living and dying in the Roman Faith: yet we have so discovered this your Charity before, as I Hope your Charity willbe no more so mistaken. Only here I must tell you withal, that as you either wilfully, or most ignorantly and 〈◊〉 rather, mistake that one saving faith of the Apostle: so do you also that Charity, which you say he teacheth you. Doth the Apostle teach you such a Charity, as teacheth you to believe and affirm that, which is contrary to the clear Truth of the Scripture? is it your Charity to attribute a saving faith to the Church of Rome, which without all Charity accurseth the only true faith, and the truly faithful of jesus Christ, which profess that only saving faith? Whereas you must know, that Charity, which the Apostle there teacheth (Rom. 14.4. alleged by you) is in judging Charitably of your Brethren, in the use of things indifferent▪ For there the Apostle speaks of eating, or not eating: of observing a day, or not observing: whereupon he inferreth, Who art thou, that judgest another's servant. To his own Master he standeth or falleth; so as in such cases Christians must judge Charitably, and not rashly censure others, that do not as themselves do, in things simply indifferent. This is then the Charity, which there the Apostle teacheth. But have you learned this Charity of the Apostle? You tell us, This Charity the Apostle teacheth me. The Apostle teacheth you true Charity: but it doth not thereupon follow, that you have learned that Charity of the Apostle. Do you deal so with your Brethren in the use of things indifferent, as not to judge them this way, or that way▪ in the using, or not using of them? Do you leave them to their own Master Christ▪ to stand or fall? Nay do you not cause them necessarily to fall by the stumbling blocks of your Ceremonies, which you say, are things indifferent, and yet you impose such a necessity upon the observation of them, as they altogether cease to be indifferent, and become a y●ake of bondage to the People of God? And if they be so strong that they will not thus fall down to your Ceremonies, no more than the 3 Children would to the King's Image: what then? What Charity use you then towards them? Do you leave them to their own Master to stand or fall? Not such thing. But you take upon you to be their Master and Lord, and to be their Judge, and to Judge them, while sitting in your High Commission Chair, you convent them, censure them, as by Suspending, Silencing, Depriving, Degrading, Dispossessing, or Fining, Imprisoning, undoing of their wives and children, and without all hope of remedy, or mercy from you, till they shall acknowledge the Justice, yea and perhaps the Clemency of your Court in dealing so mercifully with them. This, This is that Charity which you have learned, and which you daily put in practice, so as in this kind, never any was more zealously and fervently Charitable, than yourself. But this Charity you never learned of the Apostles, nor did he▪ or Christ, or any of the Apostles ever teach you any such Charity. No sure, This wisdom, This Charity of yours (as james speaks) cometh not from above, but is Earthly, sensual▪ and Divelih. If you have no other Charity but this, the Lord deliver us from your Charity. And so I leave you to your mistaken Charity. Only for Conclusion hereof: Immediately before you tell us, you will die, as you live in that faith professed in the Church of Engdand. Here you say, Rome holds the same faith: Ergo as you live so you will die in the Roman faith▪ And secondly, Ergo The Faith of the Church of England and of Rome is one and the same Faith: as before you tell us they are one and the same Church: and at after (as pag. 3●7) they are of one and the same Religion, not different. Thus you have made a fine Confusion: and this you mean to make your final Conclusion. Such is your Faith: such your Religion: such your Charity: all mistaken. The foulest, and fearfullest mistaken, that ever any man was overtaken with.  
L. p. 339. The truth is you do hold new Devises of your own, which the Primitive Church was never acquainted with. And some of those so far from being conformable, as that they are 
* Halting and 〈◊〉.  little less, than contradictory to Scripture.  
P. And is it not as true, that in holding new devises, which the the Primitive Church (of which we spoke but now) was never acquainted with, you may shake hands with Rome and her Jesuits? who may therefore retort upon you that of the Poet, 
Parcius ista viris tamen objicienda memento,  
Novimus et qui te:  
Be sparing such things to us to object:  
Who know the like do on yourself reflect.  And we have showed before, how both Rome's new devises, and yours (for they are all one and the same) are not only (as you still mince the matter) little less than contradictory to Scripture: but do directly overthrow the clear and evident truth 〈…〉, and that also even in fundamentals. And what say you to Rome's new-old devise of worshipping Images (to instance in no more, though I might in many, yea in all Rome's Popish Doctrines, as Popish; as before) is it but little less than contradictory to Scripture? Doth not the Scripture say, Thou shalt not worship any graven Image? And what saith Rome, I pray you? Or if you, or she, for modesty sake will not tell us; or if she dare not say in plain and express terms, and in form of a Precept, Thou shalt worship Images: yet ask her whorish practices, and her pretty devises, wherewith she allures her children to the adoration of them, and that even to dotage, as by promising them pre●ty lakons, and new-nothings, as pardon of sins for so many years for praying so many Avies and Pater nosters before such a 〈◊〉, or Image: is not this Equipollent to a Commandment? yea their very setting up, and adoring these their ga● Gods in their Churches, the place of worship, is it not an inviting and silent whispering in the People's ears, worship and fall down before these sacred Images and Relics, giving them the same honour, that you give to the Saints, which they represent, as divine honour to the Cross, and Crucifix, as they teach, as we have showed. Is not here a full and home contradiction to the Scripture? 
* Contradiction what it is.  For Contradiction is not only in an express Negative, but in an impi●●● Negation, when such and such a Doctrine doth necessarily imply a contradiction to the Scripture. And in this kind all the Doctrines of Popery (whereof we have given sundry Instances before) are direct contradictions to the truth of the Scriptures.  
L. p. 340. It doth not follow, since the Council of Trent hath added a new Creed, that this Roman faith is now the Catholic▪ 
Halting again.  For it hath added extravea, things without the foundation, disputable, if not false Conclusions to the Faith. So that now a man may believe the whole and entire Catholic faith, even as St. Athanasi●● requires, and yet justy refuse for Dr●sse, a great part of that, which is now the Roman faith.  
P. Is it so then? Hath the Council of Trent added a new Creed, and so Roman faith is not now the Catholic, but to be refused as dross, extraveous, false, without the foundation? How then doth this agree with that faith, which even now you confessed; that the Church of Rome had and hath the saving Faith, that One Faith of the Apostles, as whereby a Papist, living and dying in that Faith, may be saved? And if Rome hath added a new Creed, how holds she still that one Faith? 
Prelate's Contradiction.  And do not you believe Rome's new Creed? For what is this Creed? That the Roman faith is now the Catholic. How is this then a new Creed, That Rome's faith is now the Catholic? For (say you) it hath added extravious things, without the foundation, Disputable, if not false conclusions to the Faith. Is this all? Par●urient M●ntes. I expected here some monstrous evidence against the Church of Rome, when you began to tell us she had brought forth a new Creed. But this your Rumour will not be taken for a Creed, without some sounder proof, than we see you yet bring, for all your fair flourish. For what's this new Creed? Alas, a poor Cento patched up of certain extravious things. What? without the Foundation. Good enough yet, so long as n● Canon against the Foundation, or a mine of Powder to blow up the foundation. Only without the foundation? Alas, that's not worth the talking of. If the new Creed be of things only without the foundation, you may leave them out of your Creed, as things not necessary to be believed, or at least, not to be believed of all Christians, alike; as you teach us before, and Bellarmine too, that All things de fide are not necessary to be believed of all men, or are not necessary to salvation. And perhaps Bellarmine means Rome's new Creed you speak of, which though the Council of Trent hath made it to be de fide, yet it is not necessary for every man to believe it, or not absolutely necessary for every man's salvation. But what more? 2. Disputable. As you said before; Disputed Qu●stions. Disputed, and Disputable still: Ergo what can you make o● such a Creed at the worst, but some disputable matter, not yet sufficiently discussed, though determined in the Council of Trent, and sit perhaps to be reserved to be determined upon some clearer demonstrations in your next General Council, whose Decrees then, true or false, shall be received as your Creed. And (as we said before) things Disputable may yet prove to be truth, being throughly scanned: and thus Rome's ne●● Creed may prove as Credible, as you call it disputable. But any more yet? yes: if not false conclusions. If? Which receiving a fair interpretation from your mouth, may be all one, as if you had said, N●t false Conclusions, because as yet Disputable. And while things are but disputable, and in dispute, they are as yet no false Conclusions. For the Premises of the Argument must go before the Conclusion. But yet your Conclusion is somewhat 〈◊〉. For you say, A man may believe the whole and entire Catholic faith, and yet justly refuse for dross a great part of that, which is now the Roman faith. What? Dross? And, justly refu●e as Dross? What, are you that man, that may do thus▪ And will you do thus? Nay, you for your part have bound your hands from taking any thing as dross, which Rome hath put in her new Creed. For those things, even the worst of them, you say are disputable. Therefore not yet concluded and determined for Dross. And if you shall now take those things for dross, which with you are but disputable, how can you justly do it: For if mettle be in dispute among the r●siners, it is not presently doomed for dross, being yet in their best judgements but disputable: the Test must first try it, whether it be dross or not. And so it is the Test▪ or the Testaments of Christ, that must try all false metals, shine they never so gold like, and discover and condemn them for Dross. And surely my Lord your single judgement (through never so singular) will never be taken by any, as solid enough to preponderate the Decrees of a whole Council, as Trent, to conclude those Decrees to be Dross, both after you have called them but disputable, and after Rome hath Decreed them for her new Creed. But you go no further yet, then Posse: a man may take them, etc. And you may in time come actually to take those disputables for no Dross, but good Currant Coin, not only passing for Currant in Rome, but also in England, as holding the same Creed, and being one Church. So as a little more Alloy then Ordininary shall not disable the currantness of it. And what is there in all Rome's new Creed of Trent, which you say is of things Disputable, which is any worse dross, but rather as good silver, as those her Altars and o●her superstitions, which you have borrowed of her? Which were they but sound disputed, would prove dross indeed, as formerly also is proved.  
Again, here you confine the whole and entire Catholic faith to Athanasius his Creed You might have at least taken in the other two Creeds to boot: and yet not all of them together will make up the adequate Rule of the whole and entire Catholic faith. For the Catholic faiths full latitude, whole and entire, cannot be measured, but by the line and Rule of Scripture alone, The only 
* R●m. 6▪ 1●▪  túpos did●kus as the Apostle ca●ls 〈◊〉 the Matrix or Mold, wherein faith must be cast 〈◊〉) to receive its perfect form▪ which is not, cann●● be whole, and entire, but as it is according to the whole and 〈◊〉 Scripture conformed And you add:  

Popish faith infi●ility, by the Prelate's confession.  L. p. 3●2. No man can properly be said to believe the whole Creed, that believes not the whole sense, as well as the letter of it, and as entirely.  
P. Now you told us before, that Rome hath lost the sense of the Creed, at least in some things: whence I conclude, upon your own words, that Rome holds not, believes not the whole Creed, and consequently she hath lost and overthrown the whole Creed. For overthrowing the sense of any one Article, she overthrows the whole; as before. And in a word, the Church of Rome overthrows the whole Creed, in overthrowing the first word of it, Credo, I believe: which gives denomination, life, and being to the whole. And a main flaw in the foundation, overthrows the whole building. And that Rome doth this, is clear: for, as she hath made a new Creed all of dross: so she hath coined a new sense to the Credo of the old Creed. For she doth not believe the Creed with a saving, justifying, lively faith (as is showed before) but hath canceled and accursed it in her Council of Trent. And so though she hold Credo Deum, believing that there is a God, as even the Heathen do (for quae gens tam barbara, 
Ci● de Natu●a Deorum.  etc. what nation so barbarous, that believes not there is a God; as the heathen Roman Orator said) yet she doth not hold any other Creed of God. For she holds not simply and absolutely (no more than you) Credo Deo, believing God speaking in the Scripture, but dependently upon the Authority and Interpretation of the Church. And least of all doth she hold Credo in Deum, which is the justifying and saving Faith, as Augustine, Bernard, and others of the more Ancients distinguish and define. 
Augu●t. Bernard.  For as Bernard saith, Credere in Deum, est credendo diligere, credendo in eum ire, & ei uniri, etc. To believe in God is by believing to love God, by believing to go into him, and to be united unto him. Now this faith Rome's is not: for (as is showed before out o● the Council of Trent) their faith is without love▪ and doth not go into God, but with which going to hell, they are separate from God for evermore. So as the Article or Decree of Trent having destroyed the old Credo in Deum, she must have some new Credo, or else none at all. And you do ibid. rightly interpret the word V●g●ès, which Athanasius expresseth the ●ustif●i●g faith of the Creed by, namely sound and entire: so as if it be not a sound and entire faith, such as the Scripture commends, and is proper to all true Believers, the Elect, a 〈…〉 is to no purpose. And a little after you say:  
〈…〉 This is true Divinity that he which hopes for salvation, 〈…〉 wholeCreed, and in the right sense too (if he be able to 〈…〉 it.)  
P. Till this If, hemmed in with a Parenthesis, I was half in hope you had assented to my former speech, That the Church of Rome in not holding the right sense of the Creed, overthrows the wh●le. But your Parenthesis so hedgeth in your silly ignorant, that it is a sanctuary to secure their ignorance from R●m●s damnation; so as though they have no hope of salvation, yet they are in no fear of Rome's damnation, as being not able to believe the whole Creed, because not able to comprehend the right sense of it within the narrow circumference of their shallow brainpan. But behold close by another hedge:  
L. p. 343. To hold the Creed inviolate, is not (as I take it● the holding of the true sense, but not to offer violence, or a forced se●se and meaning upon the Creed, which every man doth not, that yet believes it not a true sense. For not to believe the true sense of the Creed, is one thing: but 'tis quite another, to force a wrong sense upon it.  
P. Thus still the Lady, and all silly ignorant Papists, if ever by their blindness they shall happen to stumble upon salvation, trusting to the mere simplicity of their ignorance, living and dying in the Roman faith, not knowing what it is, nor able to believe any one Article of the Creed in a right sense: may thank you, for thus encouraging them upon this hope of possibility of an impossible salvation. And the case stands thus: The Church of Rome in her Council of Trent hath put a forced sense upon the Creed, and so hath made a violation of the faith: This forced sense Rome's Clergy in the Catechism of Trent forceth and presseth upon their blind people to believe: Now tell me, What difference is there between the forcing of a false sense upon the Creed, which the Council of Trent hath done, and all Rome's Clergy conveys the false sense (if any at all) as ●ank poison into the minds of their Blindling, so far as they are capable of any error (being capable of nothing else) and the voluntary receiving and embracing of that false sense, and that not only in believing it, but so obstinately adhering to it, as they will not, they dare not (as you before confess believe otherwise, though the truth be tendered unto him: which is the general condition of all ignorant Papists. And being in this case, what way now can you find out for them, which may bring these misbelievers; or rather no-beleever, to salvation. What hope can you give them, that have no faith? And what faith can they have, that cannot bel●eve, that cannot, may not, dare not, have no means, to comprehend the r●ght sense of the Creed, but the forced sense that Rome puts upon it and them?  
L. p. 349. As for Origen, I think, he was the first founder of Purgatory  
P. This here of Purgatory bordering so near your last Passage of your misbelieving Papists, gives me occasion to imagine how necessary it were for you to be the first Inventor of some other place in hell, like unto that Limbus Infantum, where provision may be made to entertain your silly Infant-Papists, that are not able to give any one reason of that hope of salvation, which you force upon them, and which you have been the first inventor of. That as Popish Infants dying without Baptism, go to their Limbus, where they are sensible neither of joy, nor pain: so your silly ignorants, having no sense of any true faith and knowledge of God, or of themselves here, when they die, they may go to such a like place or Limbus, where they may neither enjoy bliss, nor suffer pain. But a word of Purgatory in the mean time. For the first Founder of it, in my poor reading I find the Heathen 
* Plato in Timaeo.  Plato. For he tells us, as of 3 sorts of men in this world, some very good, and some stark nought, and some indifferent: so he fits 3 places for these 3 sorts after this life: 1▪ Elysium, the Elysian fields, meaning thereby a place of pleasure, as, Paradise, into which went those immediately, who were very good: 2. Hell, whither the very worst went: 3. a middle place, or lake, into which the moderate or indifferent men were cast after death, and after a certain time there, as a year, or two, or more, as they were less or more good or bad, being well purged, were cast forth again, Whence they went into the Elysian fields. And Virgil also, a heathen Roman Poet, did afterwards take and borrow this from Plato, expressing it in his Aeneads. And so from these two might Origen borrow his Purgatory, and the Church of Rome from them all three, might out of this lake of Plato, or Pluto if you will, borrow so much Bitumen, or Pitchy matter, and so casting into it the stone Asbestos, which being once kindled, is not quenched again, it became the hot-burning lake of Purgatory, as namely for the purging of Indifferent men, such as are neither hot nor cold: neither Believers, nor Infidels: neither Christians, nor Heathen: neither good fish, nor flesh: Indifferent between Papists and Protestants: half for Christ, and half or rather All for Belial: Reconcilers of light and darkness: of Truth and Error: or (as the Papists say) such as had only venial sins, not throughly purged with holy-water in this life, and therefore must be purged with fire, what water could not do, until after a Venal Mass chanted for their souls, they should be delivered, and so pass the Pikes into the Elysian Fields. And this is both Authority and Antiquity sufficient for your Purgatory, though you bestow much sweat in this hot Stove, and in pursuing this Ignis fatuus, yet haply it may purge you● Reputation of that venial opinion, which men have of you.  
L. p. 375. Rome, but with all other particular Churches, and no more than other patriarchal Churches, was and is radix existentiae, the root of the Church's existence And, The uni●ersall Nature and Being of the Church, hath no actual existence in all her particulars. And this I say for her existence only, not the purity or form of her existence, which is not here considered.  
P. These words confirm what you have said before of your Catholic Church, consisting of particular patriarchal, Prelatical, or hierarchical Churches throughout the world, all of them visible, and conspicuous; in these it existeth as in the root: this existence may be without the consideration of purity, as a Church may be a true Church of Christ, and yet not be holy. Having then answered these things before, it is sufficient for this. And this still confirms what I have said of Christ's true and only holy Catholic Church, which is a matter of faith in the Creed. This true and only holy Catholic Militant Church of Christ hath for its prime Radix, or Root Christ, in whom it existetth, subsisteth, and hath its being. Then it is diffused into all the members of Christ's mystical body, all the Elect, over the world, or in any corner thereof, to the end of the world, and hath no existence at all in the Hierarchy, or Prelacy, or in any one visible Church, or particular place, or Country, but it lies hid, as the sap in the root, in all the Persons of the Elect only, and the substance and 
* Col. 3.  life thereof is hid with Christ in God, the 
‡ Rom. 11.  Prime root. And the existence of this Catholic Church cannot be considered possibly, without Purity, and Holiness▪ for it exists no where, but in purity and holiness: so as every person is holy, in whom it existeth: And so much for this.  
L. p. 370, 371. But if she be not the Catholic, nor the root of the Catholic Church, yet Apostolic I hope she is▪ Indeed Apostolic she is, as being the sea of one, and he a Prime Apostle. But then not Apostolic, as the Church is called in the Creed, from the Apostles, no nor the only Apostolic. Visible, I may not deny, God hath hitherto preserved her, but for a better end doubtless then they turn it to.  
The Church of Rome indeed Apostolic? Why so? As being the sea of one, and he a prime Apostle That was Peter you mean sure. He was a Prime Apostle, though not the Prime. 〈◊〉 sometimes james is placed before him, Gal. 2.9. And Paul was no whit inferior to those 3. james, Peter, and john, who were Pillars, and seemed to be somewhat. And in this respect may you not possibly mean Paul, rather than Peter: for Paul (we are sure) was in Rome, and there preached, though in prison. But we read no where in Scripture, that Peter was at Rome, much less that he sat there Bishop of Rome, and so fixed his Chair there. If therefore you mean Peter, and pitch upon him (though the Popes are fain to use sometimes two strings to their bow, and to challenge their succession both from Peter and Paul, and some stories speak both of Peter and Paul, as Bishops there.) I say if you pitch upon Peter, how do you prove that Peter was at Rome: and if at Rome, whether Bishop there: and if a Bishop there, why consequently must that Sea be still Apostolic, 
O'uk e'en te Kathédra ea proedria, all' e'en to●s e'rgois. Herodian. lib. 1.  seeing non sedes, sed fides, not the seat, but the Faith makes Apostolic. But there be many reasons and arguments from Scripture, some that Peter was not at Rome, others, and those more demonstrative, that he was never Bishop of Rome, as Pontifex, or Prelate, such a Bishop as you mean. I have seen a Book Printed in English by Authority, which proveth that Peter was never at Rome. And this he doth by computing and comparing the times and other Circumstances in the Acts, and Paul's Epistles with those Histories, which say he was there, and Bishop there, which stories neither agree with the Scripture, nor with themselves, nor with other Histories profane. And if Peter were at Rome, how cometh it, that Paul being there, doth not in all his Epistles make mention of him? Was Peter either so obscure, as Paul should not know him to be at Rome? Or so proud of his new Prelacy, as not to acknowledge his fellow Apostle, now a Prisoner? Or what was it, that Paul doth not so much as mention him? Because Peter, being for the Circumcision, 
Allotrioepiskopein. 1. Pet. 4.15.  should a'llotrtoepiskopoin, take Paul's Bishopric over his head, who was for the Uncircumcision, whereof Rome was the Metopolis? Or had Peter with Demas forsaken Paul; embracing this present world in a Lordly Bishopric? But let it be given you, that Peter was at Rome, and Lord Bishop of Rome: what then? Ergo is the Church of Rome indeed Apostolic? Did Peter leave his Apostolic Bishopric by an Intayle ●o all his successors in Rome? Are ●hey Apostolic, when they are become Apostates from the faith? Alas, alas: your words utter your spirit, but no truth Only one thing you deliver, as doubtless, where you say, Visible I may not deny, God hath hitherto preserved her, but for a better end doubtless, than they turn it to: Visible: Ergo the Pope is Peter's successor: Ergo the sea of Rome is indeed Apostolic: Ergo a true Church of Christ. For visible it is. 
Revel. 17.  It is indeed that visible and conspicuous City on its seven tops or hills (whereon it stood in john's time and now that Woman, that sits and rides mounted on her sevenheaded, ten-horned Beast. Visible with a witness, otherwise all her pomp would lose the Grace, if it wanted spectators, as her Scarlet, and Purple, and Pearl, and Precious stones, metà polles phantasías, with her great pomp. Visible no question, and so visible, and sensible too, as otherwise we could not know her to be the Great Whore. Thus she was showed first to john in a visible representation, by which we also come to know her to be the same Woman, when we do but look upon her. Well, visible we all grant her to be. What more? God hath hitherto preserved her. That's true too. For even the wickedest men upon earth, and the most Tyrannical states, that they are for a time, yea and a long time too preserved in life, and do prosper also they owe it to God. But to what end are the wicked preserved? Their final 
* 2 Pet. 2.9. Phillip 3.19.  end is destruction, to which they are reserved, as Peter speaks, and Paul too. Cain and his Posterity (whose Family was a type of Antichrists succession) continued and were preserved, and grew great, for almost two thousand years, till at last the Flood swept them all away. But of Rome you have better hopes, doubtless. 
Gen. 6.  For you say God hath preserved her for a better end doubtless, than they have turned it to. Now doubtless I will show you what that better is, for which God hath hitherto preserved that Woman, which hath been made drunk with the blood of the Saints. 
‡ 2 Thes 2.8▪  Whom (saith the Apostle) the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming And Rev. 14.8. Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great City, because she made all Nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. And Rev. 18. read the whole Chapter of Rome's ruin. Yea and all that partake with Rome, shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, etc. Rev. 14 9▪ 10. What the Scripture hath spoken of Rome's fall, would fill a Volume. And is not this the best end, that God is pleased to preserve her for, when he shallbe glorified in executing his justice and judgements upon her for all her abominations, and for all the blood of his Saints which she hath shed? And in her confusion God will magnify and exalt the Honour, and Kingdom of jesus Christ, which tha● Woman and her Crew had oppressed, and the Saints shall triumph over her. Yea, saith the Lord, 
* Rev. 18.20.  Rejoice over her thou heaven, and the holy Apostles and Prophets; for God hath avenged you on her. And Chap. 19.1, 2. I heard (saith john) a great voice of much people in heaven (that is, in the true Church of Christ) saying, Alleluja, salvation, and Glory, and Honour, and Power unto the Lord our God: For true and righteous are his judgements, for he hath judged the great Whore, which did corrupt the Earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. Behold here for what a glorious end, the Lord hath preserved that Great Whore. But it seemeth you do not mean to make one of that Company, either to sing Alleluja, or to say Amen, when the Lord shallbe magnified in that day. For you hope doubtless for better, than all this. And so I am persuaded you have the like hopes, that God hath preserved and prospered you thus long for no less, then to be after scores of years in a flourishing estate here, Canonised for a Saint in heaven, for all the blood of the Saints, both of their souls and bodies, which you have shed. Wherein you may have as much hope for yourself, as for old Mother Rome, and all one. But I leave you to the Righteous Judge, who knows how and when to glorify himself, as well upon the wicked his enemies, by destruction, as in his own Saints and servants by deliverance. 
‡ Rev. 14.12.  Here is the Patience of the Saints.  
L. p. 375. Truly I say the same thing with him. Neither may a Protestant, that is resolved in Conscience that the profession of the true faith is in the Church of England go to the Romish Church, there and in that manner to serve and worship God.  
P. Thus you jump with the Jesuit in this, that, as he saith, 'Tis not lawful for one affected, as the Lady was, that is, for one that is resolved of the truth of the Roman Church, to go to the Church of England, there and in that manner to serve and worship God: so, etc. Why, will you let the Jesuit run away with it so? Do you not know that the Law of England enjoins all Papists under penalty to come to your Church? Now doth the Law enjoin that, which in itself is unlawful for a man to do, that is otherwise resolved in Conscience? Nor is this Law repealed, though (as before) it be a sleep, and grown justly in the sheath. Now reconcile these two. And what say you then in the Case of Conscience touching your Ceremonies? There be some Ceremonies▪ which the Law prescribes to be observed in your Church. Now a poor soul is not in Conscience persuaded, that he ought to conform to such Ceremonies of necessity imposed, as being against Christian ●●●erty, and Christ's Prerogative royal, in being sole King over his Church, ruling in the Conscience of his People. Well you say, in this case such a man is bound against his Conscience to observe such Ceremonies? And if he be not bound, why do you so severely and terribly punish him, for not daring to do that, which is against his Conscience? Whereas the Papist, otherwise resolved in Conscience, you hold not bound to come to your English Church. And so of your Protestant, for going to the Romish Church, being against his Conscience. Will you not allow to the Conscience of the first as good Law, as you do to the two last? Again, you allow a greater and larger liberty of Conscience to your Protestant to go to the Romish Church, than the Jesuit doth to his Romanist, to come to your English Church. For he allows not his Romanist to come to your English Church, that is resolved in Conscience of the truth of the Roman Church, that it is a true Church, and that the truth is there: whereas you do not allow your Protestant to go to the Romish Church, that is only resolved in Conscience, that the profession of the truth is in the Church of England Now there is great difference between the truth, and the profession of the truth. So as he that is resoled in Conscience, that the truth is only professed in the Church of England, and is not withal resolved, that the truth itself is in the Church of England, may with more liberty go to the Romish Church, than the Romanist may come to yours, that is resolved of the truth of and in the Romish Church. So as herein also the Jesuit hath the advantage of you. Again, if the Jesuit did mean, by the truth of the Roman Church the profession of the truth in that Church, he therein comes no whit behind you. For the Church of Rome as well makes a false profession of the truth, as your Prelatical Church of England doth. Again, you make it no great matter of difference in this case between your Protestant and the Romanist, whither this or that go to each others Church, so his Conscience put not a bar. As you tell us a little after, That the Church of Rome, and the Protestants, do not set up a different Religion▪ Of which in its place. And here also you put no difference, but that the Romanist doth as well serve and worship God, after his Roman manner in his Idolatrous Mass, as your Protestant doth after your English manner. And perhaps the difference will not be found so great between you, but that you will well enough agree, when you have cast up your reckoning. But now, what if one of your simple Protestants, be not resolved in Conscience of the profession of the truth in the Church of England, more than of that in the Church of Rome? Is it not then lawful for him to go to the Romish Mass? With ●ou it seems so, so his Conscience hinder him not. And what Conscience hath your ignorant Protestant to hinder him in this case? Nay, I will say more: What knowing Protestant have you at this day in the present Church of England, since the publishing of your Declaration before the 39▪ Articles (which makes some of the principal of them to bear a double and contrary sense) that is, or can be resolved in his Conscience, that either the true faith, or so much as the Profession of the true faith, is in the Church of England? For those Articles, which contain the Doctrine of your Church, you confess to be ambiguous, and doubtful, and do not resolve either way, but leave your Church in suspense: how then can any Protestant of the Church of England be resolved in Conscience, that the Profession of the true faith is in the Church of England, when neither yourself seems to be resolved, or at least you do not resolve your Church concerning your Articles what to believe? Which being so, may you not fairly hence conclude, that it is lawful for any Protestant of the Church of Engdaud to go to the Romish Church, there and in that manner to serve and worship God until he shallbe resolved in his Conscience, that the profession of the true faith is in the Church of England: which resolution is not like to be, till your Lordship hath resolved them, which is the true and orthodox sense of your Articles, and that by a public ed●ct athenticke, and every way equal to the former; as in the case of General Counsels, when the errors of one must be obeyed, till another, equal to that, shall reverse it. As before. But in the mean time, unless you make the more haste with your Edict for Resolution, your whole Church of England is now at liberty to go to Mass and so to turn Romanist, as having nothing to restrain them (were there but Masses enough to entertain them, as no doubt there be Priests enough for the purpose, had they but Churches (so long as their Conscience is not resolved of the profession of the true faith in the Church of England. And so the Broad Gates are set upon for the Consummation of your so much wished and plotted Reconcliation with the Church of Rome. And you add:  
L. p 376. Nor do the Church of Rome, and the Protestants set u● a different Religion (f●r th● Christian Religion is the same to both) but they differ in the same Religion: and the difference is in certain gr●ss● corruptions, to the very endangering of salvation, which each side s●y●s the other is guilty of.  
P. By Protestants here, 'tis plain enough you mean those of the Church of England, not those of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, I am sure of it. For they utterly renounce the Romish Religion and Faith as Antichristian, which you avow for Christian, the same with yours. But they differ (say you) in the same Religion. How? They do not set up a different Religion, and yet they differ in the same Religion? I understand not this Babylonish language. But wherein then do they differ in the same, and undiffering Religion? In some certain gross corruptions, say you. But in some, not in all gross corruptions, which are indifferent, and common to you both. And what gross corruptions are common to both, those shall not be put in the reckoning of corruptions at all, each covering other with the mantle of Charity. Yea such as you both agree in, are the very substance of your Religion. And the whole substance of the Romish, yea of all Christian Religion (saith Bellarmine) is the Mass. This than must be That same undiffering Christian Religion, which you both set up. And herein how much do you dister? Have you not both your Altars, the main substance, on the service whereof all the rest attend, as your Priests, Sacrifice, Images, Crucifixes, Adorations, Organs, curious music, and many other devises for your pompous service, your Liturgy differing more in the language, then in the matter and form? But you will say you differ in Transustantiation. Yet you are willing to have a real Presence confessed▪ and professed with you, as is noted before. But you say, the difference is in certain gross corruptions endangering salvation. On which side? Each side (say you) charges other. I have heard two butter women scold, and each laid to other grievous things, and the one said, Thou play'dst the whore, and the other said, Thou play'dst the whore. Which of these (trow you) was the honester Woman? She haply that had less played the whore, than the other, which perhaps was not for want of will, but opportunity. You and Rome charge each other with gross corruptions, which yet, are one and the same in both. Doth not thus the shame of both the more appear? Your gross corruptions on both sides can agree well enough, if you can be quiet. Yea and that to the endangering of Salvation too. For have you not (to be silent in the rest) both your Altars, which are alone sufficient to sacrifice upon all your faith and salvation, and so to leave you neither faith nor salvation in Christ, as whom also you sacrifice thereon, together with your faith and salvation? For we showed before, that your Altars do overthrow and deny jesus Christ the only Altar of true believers▪ If then you both do agree in the grossest corruptions, as those whereby your salvation is not only endangered, but destroyed, which is the main of your Religion wherein you differ not: what need there be any odds between you for the rest? Both sides complain of each other, both have their corruptions, and gross ones too, such as overthrow salvation. Then let your conscious ingenuity confess to each other, and your conscientious Charity 
* Det veniam ille facile, cui ven●a opus. Senec.  pardon each other. And so let the world be troubled no more with your Differences, but be good friends, and agree as sisters.  
L. p. ibid. It may appear by all the former Discourses, to any Indifferent Reader, that Religion, as it is professed in the Church of England, is nearest of any Church now in Being to the Primitive Church. Therefore not a Religion known to be false. And thus I both do, and can prove, were not the deafness of the Asp upon the ears of seduced Christians in all humane and divided Parties whatsoever.  
P. You do wisely to put it to the judgement of the indifferent Reader, who unless he be a most indifferent man between your Church of England, and that of Rome, and so undifferent from you both in judgement and affection, to whom this which you say shall appear to be true. For no such thing can appear to any Reader, that is not so affected, as to believe your bare word, so soon as ever it sounds in his ear, or whose eyes do not look through the false glass of your Perspective. Indeed you have proved to all men sufficiently both by this your Discourse, and by your Practices, that you and Rome do not set up a different Religion. We all believe it. And consequently we believe, that herein you come full as near to the Primitive Church as Rome doth, always excepted Rome's lineal Pedigree from Peter; and you know you are a Degree once removed. And how near you both come to the Primitive Church of the Apostles especially, the primest and purest, we have before showed sufficiently. And if you come nearest, who (I pray you) are furthest off? Surely the most pious, the most religious, the most zealous, the most painful and faithful preachers of the Gospel, the greatest contemners of the world, the most humble and meek, the most patient in suffering persecution for the truth, the most pure and precise in their life and conversation, the most exact conformist to the only Rule of Faith and true Religion, the word of God; such as are not ambitious, covetous, carnal, and worldly minded, envious, malicious, cruel, haters and persecuters of God's word, of his Ministers and people: Such, such (I say) must be furthest off from the Doctrine and practice of the Apostles, and of the most pure and Primitive Church in their time, if you the Prelates and Churches of England and Rome come the nearest unto them.  
L. p. 377. But is there no superstition in Adoration of Images? None, in Invocation of Saints? 
Se Pag. 27●.  None in Adoration of the Sacrament?  
P. Yes: and gross Heathenish Idolatry too, yea and infidelity to boot; though you would mince it never so small into a matter of superstition only. And may not I say to you: But is there no superstition, yea no Idolatry, in your Adoration of Altars? (yea and worse than that of the Papis●s: for they worship their God, you the Altar.) None, in your Adoration of the Name JESUS? None, in bowing before your Crucifixes over your Altars? No inducement at least to Idolatry in your goodly Images erected in your Churches? No 〈◊〉 smell of Popish superstition and Idolatry in your Adorations in the presence of such Im●ge●? The 
* Sinag●g● 〈◊〉.  jews would not ●o much as stoop to tie the latchet of their shoe in the place, where an Image was, lest their bowing might seem to be to the Image. And who knoweth, with what mind you do your humble and lowly Devotion before such sacred Relics? And (to sum up all together) is there no superstition, yea no Idolatry in all that will-worship of yours, and of the Church of Rome, attended with so many Rites and Ceremonies of man's invention? For what is all Will-worship, but Idolatry, yea and the highest kind of Idolatry? As Vincentius saith: 
‡ V●ncent. 〈…〉 Haer.  What are strange Gods, but strange errors, for that Heretics reverence their Opinions no less, than the Gentiles do their Gods? And 
‡ Aug. De 〈…〉. C. 83.  Augustine saith: It is the vilest and 〈◊〉 kind of Idolatry, when m●n worship their own fancies, observing that for a Religion, which their erroneous and swelling minds imagine. Thus we see (
§ Dr Bilst●n.  as a learned Divine of the Church of England, and of great Eminency said) that a corrupt and vicious Religion (such as Popery is, and such as you have made yours of the Church of England, 
Will worship 〈…〉 of 〈◊〉.  not a different Religion▪ 〈◊〉 an inward and ghostly worship of Idols, which (saith he) Prince ought not to 〈◊〉 at, or tolerate, seeing no man, and therefore no Prince can 〈◊〉 two Masters. For (saith he) if God be truth, they which presume to worship him with lies (as in contrary faith must needs come to pass) serve now not God, but the Devil, a liar himself, and the father of 〈◊〉, whose service no Christian Prince may so much as 〈◊〉▪ so he▪ Thus our Divines of the Church of England in former ages shall 〈◊〉 up as witnesses to condemn you in the day of Judgement, who teach and maintain things contrary to that truth, which they delivered.  
L. p. 378. What not prove any superstition, any error at Rome, but by pride, and that intolerable. Truly I would to God A.C. saw my heart, and all the pride that lodgeth in it.  
P. This you speak to A.C. as to a Jesuit, or some Friar, or some Priest. All is one: such a one being a Ghostly Father, you may safely sub sigillo Conf●ssionis, or sub stola, under the seal of Confession, or under the Friar's frock, under the Rose (as we say) open the windows of your Breast, and let him look in, and view all the Rooms, and corners of your heart, to see what pride hath taken up her lodging there; and so the world shallbe never a whi● the wiser for it. But you need not to wish any such thing. The pride of your heart cannot so easily be hid, as that you need wish, with Momus, if there were a glass window in your Breast, for men to look in and see it, much less a subtle prying Jesuit. Alas, though the glaring light of it blind your own eyes, that you cannot see it yourself: yet any other, that is but purblind, may through the Glass, or spectacles of this your Book see the monstrous multiformious shape of it, had they not seen it before expressed in the Capital Characters of your most insolent, and all daring practices. And that you yet see it not, there is not a more infallible argument or sign of a more monstrous proud heart, which is ever self blinded But look to it. What saith 
* jer. 17.10.11.  jeremy? The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the Lord search the heart, and try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doing  
L. p. 379. I hope God hath given the Lady mercy.  
P. Namely, that same Lady, who formerly had been either brought unto, or confirmed in that Romish Religion, by that which you resolved her in, namely, That she might be saved, living and dying in the Roman faith and Religion; wherein it seems, as she lived, so she died. Now truly my Lord, If God did give her mercy, it is little God hamercy to you. But what ground have you for this your hope? Even as much, as for giving her hope, that she might be saved, living and dying in the Roman faith. Is it so easy trow you to send such a Lady to heaven securely wrapped in the Mantle-lap of her silly ignorance? But what if she be now in hell? Are not you guilty of her damnation, by muzzling her in her blind ignorance, as wherein only you taught her to place the hope of her salvation? But you told her of some danger But you did not possess her with such a fear of the danger (as both there was cause, and you should have done) as you puffed her up with the hope of safety, and that in the only confidence of her silly ignorance; so as her vain hope overcame just fear. And if now by this means she be in hell (as you set her in the ready high way) look you to it; Paries cum proximus ard●t, Tunc tua res ●gitur: if she by your leading be fallen into the pit, what is like to befall you the leader when, the blind, leading the blind, both fall into the pit? But if God hath had mercy on her, it was not since her death, by delivering her out of Purgatory, i● she died a Papist: but before her death, by delivering her from her Popery, worse than any Purgatory, causing her to renounce and repent of that, and to believe in his mercy, and Christ's merit only for salvation, without which faith of Christ ●here is no hope of mercy And we showed before, that this faith of Christ is not the Roman faith, but quite opposite unto it.  
L. p. ●88. But 'tis time to end, especially for me, that have so many things of weight lying upon me, and disabling me from these Polemic ●isccurses; besides the burden of sixty five years complete, which draw on a pace to the period set by the Prophet David, Psal. ●0. and to the Time, that I must go, and give God and Christ an account of the Talon committed to my Charge; in which God, for Christ jesus sake, be merciful to me, who knows, that however in many weaknesses, yet I have with a faithful and single heart (bound to 〈◊〉 free Grace for it) laboured the meeting the blessed meeting of Truth and Peace in his Church, and which God in his own good time, will (I hope) effect. To him be all Honour and Praise for ever. Amen.  
P. How fitly doth this your Conclusion suit with, and succeed that, which was last mentioned, as matter for your more serious and sad meditation, and which I cannot but tremble 〈◊〉! And well weighing also the words of this your Conclusion with all that you have written in this your Book, and with all your Practices in your life (all so uniform, and suitable) I am surprised with great astonishment. The reasons hereof will further appear in the more particular animadversions upon your words asunder. And because we use to take most special notice of a man's last words: give me l●ave to take a full and particular view of yours here, as being, though not the last words of a dying man, yet the final Conclusion of this your Book, which so soon as I have read over, it passeth away tanquam Fabula as the Prophet speaks of a man's life 
* ●al. 90▪ 9  as a ta●● th● is told. And as we look, tha● however you have dealt in your Book, yet in the close of all you should deal candidly, ingeniously, and cordially, and not double with God, and the world, and with your own Conscience: yet for my part, as the Spirit of sincerity and truth (without flattery, or respect of Persons, where the truth is wronged) hath rnd doth run through all the veins of this my Reply to your Relation: so I shall by God's grace close all with the same spirit, not sparing you to the last, where still you give just cause. And the truth cannot better, nor more seasonably be spoken home, then as to a dying man, who though he have been never so notorious an hypocrite▪ and desperate man in the Course of his life, yet when he lies upon his deathbed, and utters some words, which seem to savour of some sensibleness of his Condition, then, if ever, there may be some hope of working upon him (as when the iron is hot) by putting home unto him, and laying before him his former life, that so at the last, though late (as the Thief on the Cross) he may through God's mercy be brought to repentance, and so to salvation. Although examples of such penitents indeed and in truth, be very rare. For as one observeth, 
* August.  One Thief was saved on the Cross, that none should d●spaire: and but one, that none should presume. ●or the saying too ordinarily proves true, Qualis vita, finis it●: As a man lives, so he dies. And Paenitentia sera, rarò vera: Late Repentance is seldom true. And the Prophet gives the reason of it: 
‡ jer. 13.23.  Can the Ethiopian change his hue or skin? Or the Leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good: that are accustomed to do evil. For as one ●aith, Consuetudo peccandi, tollit sensum pecca●i: Custom of sinning, takes away the sense of sin And where there is no● sense of sin, there can be no Repentance for sin. And therefore commonly, when a man that hath lived wickedly, and hath been used to lying and dissembling all his life, comes to ●ay on his death bed, or at the last gasp, Lord have mercy upon me: however we may not judge him, leaving him to his Judge, yet this is no sufficient argument to persuade us, that this is 〈◊〉 Repentance. For lightly when such men, promising and vowing, it God restore them, to reform their life, do recover: they 
‡ 2 Pet 2 22.  ●●turn ●s the Scripture speaks) with the dog to his vomit, and with 〈…〉 that is washed, to her wallowing in the mire. According to that 〈◊〉 or Apology: 
〈◊〉 Daemon, Monachus tunc esse volebat:  
〈◊〉 Daemon: nec tamen est Monachus.  Which 〈…〉 thus: 
〈…〉 was 〈◊〉, the De●il a Monk would be:  
〈…〉 was well: the ●evil a Monk was he.  But I must not do you wrong in applying of these things to you: or that I have any hope of doing good upon you even now at last, in the close of all: seeing you give me no encouragement of hope at all this way. For in all this your Close, not a word expressing the least sorrow for your most enormous iniquities, but on the contrary you justify them, and glory in them. Wherein you show the pride of your heart to be out of measure desperate, and not to be named with the pride of that Pharisee. For though he gloryed in himself, yet he gloryed not in his evil, but in those things that were in themselves good and commendable, and for which he gave God thanks, as the Author of them: but here I find a proud Prelate vaunting in his impiety, and in all his wicked practices, the aim whereof is, to reconcile the Church of England, and that of the Whore of Babylon together, and all under a fair pretence of the meeting of Truth and Peace. And not content herwith, he must needs make God, and his free Grace the Author of all this Mystery of Iniquity, and deep hypocrisy, which here he veileth under the name of a single heart.  
But stay before I begin, is there no hope of doing good upon you? It is not impossible, but that the greatness of your zeal for this Peace, hath been so strong in you, as whereby you have been persuaded, whatsoever you either have done, or yet can further do, for the effecting thereof (be it by throwing down of God's word, casting out his Ministers, chase away G●ds people, howting out all power of holiness out of the Land, and so removing all such impediments, as you thought stood in your way, and that per ●as, aut nefas, by right or wrong all wa●, and is well, yea very well done. Haply the lovely and amiable name of an Imaginary Truth, and deceitful Peace, and counter●et Church: and the strength of your belief, that Rome was yet a true Church, and so true, that England and she were and are one and the same Church, no doubt of that, did so wholly possess you, that ●o bring England and Rome together again, you thought even 〈◊〉 of the Truth itself to be true piety, and the 〈◊〉 of the peace of all to be an establishment of unity, and confusion of light with darkness to a perfect Reconciliation. Yet this I must say wi●hall, as Christ said, 
* M●t. 23.  If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! And if in all that you have done for the advancing of this your main Project, you have not wilfully 〈◊〉 against the ●ight of your Conscience, and so gone on in that 〈◊〉 course with a high hand: certainly it seems to me a 〈…〉 highest admiration, and so much the more, 〈…〉 have long lived in the midst of such a clear 〈…〉▪ as no Age since the Apostles hath seen a greater; though now of late it hath suffered (and that since your elevation especially) no small Eclipse. But if my words shall have no better effect with you, then only to convince you, and discover your damnable Hypocrisy, jam liberavi animam meam, I have now freed mine own soul. And now to your words.  
'Tis time for me (say you) to end. And I say (as I said before) it had been (in my judgement) much better for you, if you had never begun this work. But 'tis well, that at length (as job speaks) 
* job. 16.3.  vain words have an end. Though it be not for this reason, that you make an end. But you allege those many things of weight lying upon you. What, what weighty things hath this mighty Apostolical Man lying upon him? Such as the Apostle had, 
‡ 2 Cor. 11.28.  The care of all the Churches? That you pretend too, while you would so fain have Altars up in all the Churches in England. But the Apostle adds there: Who is weak, and I not weak? Who is offended and I burn not? Can you say so? You can say, Who is offended at my Ceremonies, and I burn not with zeal against that man, till I have consumed? But why do I name the Apostle? Your many things of weight lying upon your shoulders: are State-matters, high and deep State-mysteries, the burden of a vast Island, heavier than Aetna itself. What, such, so weighty, so many things lie upon your weak shoulders? Enough to press you down as low as hell. What do not you profess to be a Priest? a Clergy man? And is not the Charge of that one Profession, being rightly executed (had you ever felt the weight of it) a burden heavy enough to break your back, (which as one said) the shoulders of Angels would tremble under? And the Apostle speaking of a Ministers office, saith, 
‡ Onus Aetnâ 〈◊〉. Proverbu●m.  No man that warreth, entangleth himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him, 
§ 2 T●m. 2 4.  who hath chosen him to be a soldier. But it seemeth you are none of those, whom Christ hath chosen to be his soldier, except he chose you for such a purpose, as he did but one man of the twelve. For you are one that warreth, and as judas, the Captain of the rout against Christ in his Ministers and members. But you entangle yourself with the affairs of this life. And by this means you have the more power to war against Christ's Kingdom. So as Ieromes speech may take place here: Negotia●orem Clericum, & ex inope divitem, ex ignobile gloriosum, tanquam quandam pestem ●uge: 
Hier●n. ad 〈◊〉.  A negotiating or Polypragmaticall Clerk, or Clergy man, and who of poor bcomes rich, of base vainglorious, fly from him, as from a kind of Plague. But who hath compelled you to take the burden of so many and great things upon you? What did the Pillars of the State shake and tremble, and threaten a fall, and thereupon 〈…〉 in, and put under your shoulder to stay it up? As the Pope at the Council of Lateran dreamt, that the Lateran shook and was ready to fall, but that Dominicus came in the nick, and upheld it; whereupon the next day the Pope made Domi●i●us the Father of his Order. And so well may you prove a supporter of the Pope's Lateran, but how a supporter of Civil States, I know not, nor meddle with, but negatively, showing a disparity and incongruity between your Profession, and that, sa●ing that you are rather a Civilian, than a Divine, as having proceeded Doctor, not in Divinity, but of the Civil Law. But suppose you had been compelled to it. 
* Io● 6.15▪  Christ would not be made King, when they would have forced him. For 
‡ joh. 18.36.  his Kingdom was not of this world. But yours is. And your shoulders are able to bear two such intolerable burdens, as never any man in the world could bear one of them well, and as he should do Well, I will say no more but this, 
‡ Luk 12.48▪  To whom much is committed, of him shall much be required.  
But you add also another reason, why 'tis time for you to end: as bearing now the burden of 65. years complete. A great age, and yet I suppose you feel it not to be a burden. If you do, then as the Poet saith, 

§ Ho●at▪  Solve senescentem maturè sanus equum, ne  
Peccet ad erremum ridendus, & ilia ducat.  And you say, it draws on apace to the Period set by the Ppophet David, Psal 90. You mistake the Penman: for it was Moses. But to let that pass, as a common mistake: and as a Law, which it seems you have imposed yourself, and observed throughout your Book, not to cite any Scripture without perverting of it. Doth your Lordship hope to reach the period of threescore and ten? Alas, should you live out but one Lustrum of five years more, what would become of (I say not, the Civil state, but) the poor Church of God yet in England? But our comfort is, The Lord jesus Christ is both against you, and above you. In the mean time were it not safer for you, to think of a shorter period of your life least promising to yourself, and sleeping in the security of so many years more, you should be suddenly taken napping, as that rich man in the Gospel, to whom it was said, 
† Luk 12 20▪  Thou fool this night shall they take away 〈◊〉 soul from thee. And besides, you are 
‡̶ Psal. 73. 1●.  ●et in a slippery place, 〈◊〉 you may fall into sudden destruction, as in a moment; as the Prophet saith. So as there is less confidence to be put in that, then in your Age. And therefore bethink yourself how sudden the time may be, that you must go, and give account (as you say) to God and Christ of the Talon committed to your Charge, which you cannot so easily answer before that Judge, as you could do in the Star-chamber. And remember what you said to the Jesuit (pag. 316.) Our reckoning willbe heavier, if we thus misled on either side, then theirs that follow us? But I see I must look to myself, for you are secure? And are not you full out as secure, as the Jesuit? But in that, you pray that God for Christ's sake would be merciful to yo u. But is that enough to wipe off all old scores, to say, God be merciful to me? When the Course of a man's life hath been a very Enmity and Rebellion against Christ: when he hath spent the Talon of his Strength and Wit, Means, and Friends to the dishonour of God, in oppressing Christ's word, persecuting his Ministers and People, profaning and polluting the service of God with humane Ordinances, and will-worship, forcing men's Consciences to conformity, and the like: do you think to salve all with a Lord have mercy upon me? Nay, you seem to be in good earnest, when you say, and pray, if God for Christ's sake would be merciful unto you. But wherein, or for what, should God for Christ's sake be merciful unto you? Which of your sins, your scarlet sins, your Episcopal sins, do you confess to God, and (because public) unto the world, that truly repenting of them, God for Christ's sake may be merciful to you? Do you confess and repent of your persecuting of God's Ministers and People, for their Conscience sake? Nay you are so far from this, that you say, God forbid (not, God forgive) that I should persuade to persecution in any kind, or practise it in the least. So as you in all this persecute none; no, not you; nor yet persuade others to it; nor dissuade, neither. And yet you still continue a persecutor, as accounting it not a sin, but a virtue, not vicious, but rather meritorious, to root out the Puritans. And what say you to your more than Barbarous shedding of the Innocent Blood of God's servants, and Christ's witnesses, mangling their Bodies, and breaking them in pieces, causelessly separating Man and Wife, to satisfy your wicked malice, and so to murder them with your intolerable oppressions? Do you crave mercy of God for this? Or is your guilty Conscience still seared, and stupefied? Is your heart still hardened? Do you need no mercy for such cruel shedding of Innocent blood? David 
* Psalm. 51.  confessed his bloodshed, and found mercy. But you continue your cruelty still in cold blood. What? Do you think, that because God's people are as sheep appointed for the slaughter, and you the chief Butcher, therefore you sin not, in devouring and spoiling so many good Ministers with their Families and Flocks? O stupid Conscience! O desperate soul! And so still desperately you go on, in justifying yourself in all that you have done, and calling God to be witness too: saying, Who knows, that however in many weaknesses, yet I have with a faithful and single heart (
‡ Blaspemy of the Prelate against God's 〈◊〉 Grace, as if that had been the Author of all his wicked Practices.  bound to his free Grace for it) laboured the meeting, the blessed meeting of Truth and Peace in his Church. O shameless hypocrisy! O blasphemous wretch! Doth God know? Is God the Author of all thy impiety, iniquity, cruelty▪ craft, hypocrisy and dissimulation, of thy faithless and false heart, in thy plotting to bring thy false Truth, and thy turbulent Peace with the Whore of Babylon, that notorious enemy of Christ and his true Spouse his Church, to a meeting, to a blessed, yea to a cursed meeting?  
O GOD, thou searcher of all hearts, behold this blaspemous Wretch, calling thee for a witness of his notorious and perfidious false heart, and ascribing it to thy free Grace, as the moving and helping cause of all his impious practices. O Lord, Be not merciful to any wicked Transgressor, that dare thus desperately take thy sacred Name in vain, and make thy Grace, the father of his graceless actions Seest thou not, o thou Allseeing, and All-revenging GOD, how this man hath been a prime Instrument of oppressing thy Word? of forbidding it to be preached (therein denying and destroying the Doctrine of thy free Grace, which here he hypocritically nameth) of persecuting thy faithful Ministers and People even to root them out? Of proclaiming Libertinism in the public profanation of thy Sabbaths, and violation of thy holy Commandment? Of setting up Idolatrous Altars, to the denying of the Lord jesus Christ, our only Altar, whereon our Persons and sacrifices offered up unto thee, are accepted of Thee? Of bringing into thy worship sundry supers●tious Idolatrous Rites and Ceremonies, in Adoration of Altars, Names, praying towards the East? Of setting up Images and Crucifixes those Idols in the public place of Worship? Of putting down preaching of thy holy Word upon thy holy Sabbaths especially in the Afternoons, when there is most need, and people should be aptest, and best at leisure generally to hear? Of enlarging and making heavier the yoke of Bondage and Tyranny upon the necks of thy People, in increasing of more Ceremonies, to the intolerable vexation of thy Children, and incrochment and usurpation upon Christ's Kingdom, and royal sovereignty, as sole King over his Church, and Lord of the Consciences of his people? Yea 
* Psal. 10.  surely thou hast▪ seen all these things; for thou beholdest mischief and spite, even to requite it with thy hand: and therefore the poor committeth himself unto thee: For thou art the helper of the fatherless. Therefore, arise o Lord; o God, Lift up thine hand, forget not the humble. Wherefore doth the wicked contemn thee, o God: He hath said in his heart, Thou wilt not require it. But Lord, break thou the arm of the wicked, and the evil man; seek out his wickedness, till thou find none. For wherefore should the Heathen say, where is their God? 
Psal. 79.10.  O let our God be known among the Heathen in our fight, by the revenging of the blood of th● servants, which is shed And let the sighing of the Prisoners come before thee: according to the greateesses of thy power preserve thou those, that are appointed to die. And render unto our Neighbours sevenfold into their bosom their reproach, wherewith they have reproached thee o Lord. So we thy People and Sheep of thy pastture will give thee thanks for ever: we will show forth thy praise to all Generations.  
Now, to return to you again and so rid my hands of you. All that you have done, is (you say) for the blessed meeting of Truth and Peace. This is the upshot of all, England's Reconciliation with Rome. So as when these two are reconciled (as I doubt they are already, while you hold us in expectation, until you expect but time (the Contract being already made) for Confirmation) when this is come to pass, than willbe a blessed meeting, a mercy meeting For it is a meeting of Truth and Peace. Indeed when Truth and Peace, in the true sense, do meet, 'tis a blessed meeting indeed. But what Truth? What Peace? The Truth is, When this Peace is once Consummate, that it comes to be openly avowed and professed (for which we must not look for a General Council, that's but a flourish, and a Blind, while you are undermining the Bulwark of our Truth, and the beauty of our Peace) then (as when Herod and Pilate were made friends) you shall see (which is already in execution) open persecution of all true Piety, and Purity, and perturbation of all true Peace, and that not only in the Churches of God, but in Civil states and Kingdoms, when for the maintenance of this Peace, Princes shallbe set against their People, and People are forced to stand for the liberty of their Consciences against Prelatical Antichristian Tyranny. For what is Rome's Truth, but Treachery? And what is Rome's Peace, but Perturbation, perplexity, confusion, Babylon, even to all those, that confederate with her? Ye● your hope is, that God in 〈◊〉 good time 〈…〉 meeting. God will certainly effect, and bring to 〈…〉 Council and Purpose, in his good time for the good of all his People, and the confusion of all his enemies, and theirs. And one of his Counsels and Purposes he hath declared to be (which shall certainly, and I trust very shortly come to pass, and in due 〈…〉) the destruction of the Whore of Babylon, together withal 〈◊〉, that are linked in a league with her, and that under a pretence ●f the blessed meeting of your Truth and Peace. And then 
* Rev 19.1, 2 ve●s. ●.  sha●b● 〈◊〉 that great voy●a of much People in heaven (to wit, in the Church's of Christ) saying, Alleluja: salvation, and Glory, and 〈…〉 Power unto the Lord our God; for true and righteous are his ●udgements, for he hath judged the Great W●ore, which did corrupt the Earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. Amen. ALLELUJA.  
Pántote Dóxa Theo. June, 26. 1639.  
FINIS.