Rome's Conviction: OR, A DISCOVERY Of the unsoundness of the main Grounds of Rome's Religion, in answer to a book, called The right Religion, evinced by L.B.  
Showing, 

1. That the Romish Church is not the true and only Catholic Church, infallible ground and rule of Faith.  
2. That the main Doctrines of the Romish Church are damnable errors, & therefore to be deserted by such as would be saved.    Nos autem non moveat aut turbet haeretici istius perfidi abrupta dementia, qui cum in tam ingenti dissentionis & schismatis crimine constitutus, & ab Ecclesia seperatus sit sacrilegà temeritate non dubitet in nos sua crimina retorquere. Cum sit enim à seipso nunc factus immundus, sordibus sacrilegis inquinatus, hoc nunc nos esse contendit, etc. Cyprian libel. ad Novat. Heretic. 
By WILLIAM BROWNSWORD, M.A. and Minister of the Gospel at Douglas Chapel in Lancashire.  
London, Printed by J.M. for Luke Fawn, at the sign of the Parrot in Paul's Churchyard. 1654.   

Brownsword's Rome's Conviction.   

Christian Reader.  
COnsidering the multitude of Popish as well as of other corrupt Books dispersed amongst us, the greater activity of the Romish party in oppugning, than of ours in propugning the Truth, the reproaches which the true Reformed Protestant Religion, by reason of the Schisms, Heresies, Blasphemies, Perjuries, Treacheries and other gross enormities of some pretended Professors thereof, lies under: It must needs be a work acceptable to God, and good men, to speak a word in season to roll away the reproach of Zion, to make good her ancient plea against Babylon, and to manifest that we have neither lost nor left our Religion. The which is the pious design of this Author in this answer. As therefore upon perusal of it, we have judged it to be solid as well as seasonable, so we shall pray, and hope that it may be serviceable to the Church of God.  


Richard Hollinworth.  
Edward Gee.     

To the Worshipful, WILLIAM ASHHURST ESQUIRE.  
SIR,  
IF either particular favours exhibited to the Author of any Book, or public zeal for truth in the exhibitant (two of the main grounds of Dedicatory Epistles) may oblige to a Dedication; I know none whom I can so readily look to as yourself, from whom, as the Church of God hath received much good, (especially, whilst the Lord did employ you in a public trust) so myself in particular have shared of your influences. Your actings in public seasoned with wisdom, piety, zeal and fidelity have made you precious in the godlies sight, both in this and our sister Nation. Your seclusion from that trust hath made you less seen, not less virtuous: your influences are not bound up, but contracted, that they might be more forcible where they fall. Our cold Religion hath more of warmth by your presence, Whilst you are an example to some, and an encouragement of others to their duty. Your constancy, zeal for Truth, love to the Ministry, diligence in frequenting Ordinances, besides your Family worship, (and that in these fickle and cold times, wherein Ministry, Ordinances and Duties are every where cried down) do render you a worthy example to frozen souls. Your respect to the Ministers of Christ, (to whom your house is as Obediahs to the Prophets) learned from the example of your religious father, is a great encouragement of them to their duty. Hereof as others, so especially myself have been a witness, and a large partaker, receiving the greater influence by my nearness to you, being for some time of your family, and still owned as your Pastor.  
As a small acknowledgement whereof, I humbly offer these first fruits of my public labours, for under your wing they were sown, quickened and brought to this ripeness. They beg your acceptance and patronage, which if the Author obtain for them, He matters not the blustrings or hatred of Popish adversaries against him. The weakness of the work may receive strength● Cum sapimus patr●●s: years may teach more knowledge: In the interim your favour may much strengthen it, but especially God's blessing, to which I commend both yourself and it, and rest,  
Yours in all Christian duty perpetually obliged, WILLIAM BROWNSWORD.   

To the Orthodox READER.  
AMongst all the Darts that Satan useth for the subversion of the Church there is none more dangerous, nor more used than his Arrow of Division. Hereby apishly imitating God himself, who by dividing their tongues overthrow Babel's Builders, and by an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Sechem destroyed them both. When Satan had endeavoured, but could not hinder the Church's Resurrection in Great Constantine, what hot divisions did he raise within her by Arian Heretics? what contentions did the Church groan under in the time of zealous Luther, when Zion had newly delivered herself from the daughters of Babylon with whom she had dwelled? In our own times since the Church began to ascend to more than ordinary Reformation in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, and that the Reformed Churches were drawing to the nearest union; even in this juncture of time doth this old Serpent practise his ancient policy: This he doth by his agents, amongst whom in these last ages the Romanists (first Heathen, now Christian idolaters) are chief. These have been the usual Fomenters of Protestant differences, using it as a main stratagem to divide us, that so they may overcome us; witness the advice of Cardinal Allen, mentioned by the Cheshire Ministers in their attestation. 
Chesh. attest. p. 34.  And the project of the Spanish Court, attested by Sheldon, sometimes a Popish Priest, 
Sheld. Survey of Miracles of Antichrist, pag. 179, 180.  and conversant in it. His words because considerable, I have at large transcribed, Wheresoever (saith he) and whensoever I have heard (as I have done often) some, no small ones of those countries, and of those Courts, debate upon 88 s overthrow, they ever resolved that Elizabeth living (so they termed that renowned Queen's Reign) there was no such like attempt to be made; but she being dead, then if variety of Competitors (which they hoped for) did bring confusion it would be good fishing; otherwise if there follow a Successor peaceably to the Crown— then they resolved, that all means possible were to be used, that peace— might be concluded, which being made then by the secret endeavours of Priests and religious men (who might be sent hither with more security than before) we must draw, said they; if not wholly, yet to be at least our indirect favourers and friends, some of the Commanders, and those who cannot be won by pretence of religion, must be purchased by gifts and large promises. But above all we must labour to shake hands with some of those to whom the care of the Navy, the Ports, and Seacoasts is committed; that if any such like attempt hereafter be thought upon by the Pope, or his Catholic Majesty, we may find some favourites. This is their grand Project, and whether they are not now acting it, let the Considerate judge; for my own part, I have, and still do look on the Papists as the principal Instruments in our divisions, and there are these five special Considerations move me to it.  
1. The many Popish Errors instilled into, and broached by such as leave the truth, Who that knows Anabaptism, but is acquainted with their Popish Doctrines of , Justification by works, Possibility of keeping the Commandments, etc. It was Mr Love's Observation to his people a little before his troubles, that there were about twenty Popish errors broached by them. Was not the Foundation of that Babel the Anabaptistical party were lately erecting, (if God in mercy to his Church had not broken them in pieces) a popish principle, viz. that Dominion is founded in grace, and therefore they, the Saints, must rule over the wicked, as any that professed the true religion, and had estates, would have been. Is not the Quaker religion a mixture of Popery with other errors, else what means those Tenets, charged upon them by the Ministers of Newcastle: That we are not justified by the righteousness of Christ, 
A book called The perfect Pharisee under Monkish holiness, etc.  which he in his own Person did fulfil without us, but by inherent holiness which Christ within us inables us to perform. 2. That man by his own power may stand perfect, and that men may be perfectly holy in this life. 3. That there is no entrance into Heaven for any not perfectly holy, unless by Purgatory. 4. That every man in the world hath a light within him sufficient to guide him to salvation. 5. That the Scriptures are not a rule for us, nor are the spirits to be tried by Scripture, nor are we to study them or give any sense of them.  
2. The Apologies which have been of late made for Papists and Popery by the Authors of the Beacon quenched, the Catholic Moderator, with many other books pretendedly printed in France, but really in England, as the Beacon on fire undertakes to prove.  
3. The discovery of some Priests and Jesuits, and their secret actings tending to divisions, themselves going under the names of converted Jews, or gifted men, or such as have left Popish Seminaries out of discontent with Popish errors, or Gentlemen that have been travelling and return unto us for their health's sake, or friends to some private Papists, whom they can accompany into the society of such as they have hopes of seducing.  
4. The many wand'ring persons, strangers in the places where they come, without any call or imitation, gathering assemblies, thrusting themselves into the company of honest but simple persons, and dispersing books pretending to, and holding out some Truths, but not without mixture of Popish errors.  
5. The intolerable enmity in the sectaries of our days against those who most earnestly oppose Popery, and according to their Covenant seek the extirpation of it. Nothing hath so much been declaimed against, none so much opposed as the Ministry and Ministers of Christ who have set themselves against these errors.  
Against this evil there is a twofold remedy. 1. Discoveries of true solid and fundamental Doctrines, which hath been excellently done by the reformed Churches in their Harmony of Confessions, by the reverend Assembly of Divines at Westminster in their Confession of Faith and Catechisms, and by many particular Divines in their sums of Divinity. 2. Opposition of the enemies of the Church's peace and unity. In which many have bestowed much labour to good purpose, (some resisting one error, and some another) weakening the power, and stopping the progress of false teachers. Though the former be more excellent, as more familiar and public in its use (every one not being able to wade into Controversy) yet this latter hath its profit, and is also necessary: and therefore the Apostle requires that a Bishop be able by sound Doctrine, both to exhort and convince the gainsayers, Tit. 1.9, 10, 11. and his reason is, For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the Circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not for filthy lucre's sake. Of this nature is this book before thine eyes, composed and set forth upon serious and considerate grounds. The occasion offered hath an influx upon its composure, the seasonableness of it (as the Author conceives) occasions its publishing. The occasion was this; a Popish Gentleman with whom I had some converse having had the loan of a Protestant Author of mine, in requital brought me this Popish Doctor, as worth my reading, expecting (as I conceived) that I should say something to it, which at first I thought to do very briefly and suddenly. But finding the book full of errors, and the study of a reply delightful and suitable to my studies, wherein (by occasion of the place and persons amongst whom God's providence had cast me) I had been most employed, next to my special Ministerial duties, especially, supposing it might be an Antidote both to my own Congregation, and others, against this and such like infectious writings, I proceeded to this answer, which thou now seest; which I conceive very seasonable in these times, being moved hereunto by these reasons.  
1. This is the great Controversy: Popery is the main error which the Church of the New-Testament hath to oppose; It's the mystery of iniquity upheld by the man of sin, The Antichrist.  
2. It's at present least opposed of any other. We abound in controversies amongst ourselves, whilst Papists set by unopposed, taking it (to use the Cheshire Ministers language) as if God had set us together by the ears to make some sportful spectacle for them to behold.  
3. It's most active, (though more prudently, and with less noise managed) then other errors. The man of sin was acting in the Apostles days, much more now, seeing his time is shorter than then it was. Popish books are compiled, translated, printed and dispersed over the Nation; Priests abound, and are active amongst our people both with books and tongues, and make great use of our divisions to persuade to Popery.  
4. It's the judgement of some learned men, that Antichrist shall have a time of prevailing before his death, and if so, the people of God must have a time for their trying, and it cannot be far off. Now when this comes, the question will not be whether we be Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Independent; this and many such like differences, which through meekness of spirit might be easily reconciled, shall then with shame be laid aside, and questions of higher concernment will be put to us; as whether we believe the carnal presence in the Sacrament, the Popes-Headship in the Church, and the Roman Churches Headship over the world: whether we believe the Scriptures, or not rather the Pope to be the rule of faith; whether we allow of , Merit, Justification by works, Prayer to Saints as Mediators, half Communion, which with other errors, this Book of my Adversary endeavours to persuade you to, and that with great hastiness.  
5. The thoughts and study of this Controversy may be a means to divert that heat which fly into o●r faces one against another. We have an enemy that seeks the ruin of us all, and is getting ground of us whilst we are contesting with ourselves. Should we not unite against him? Papists are no despicable adversaries, they are politic in getting, and cruel in their possessing power over us. Should they prevail, they would soon put a period to many of our controversies, to a deal of our fury against Ministers, Ordinances, Truths. I know it will be said, this Controversy is old, and very much is already learnedly written against it, and there needs no more.  
To this I answer, 1. Though the Controversy is old, yet it still continues. We have not yet seen the expected fall of Antichris●. It would favour ill to persuade an Army to leave off a Siege, because much powder and bullets have been shot against it. B●bylon is not yet stormed, and taken, and ruined. 2. I acknowledge, that much hath been learnedly written against it, I reverence the memory of learned Whitakers, Reinolds, Chamier, Cameron, Perkins, Rivet, with many others, with whom Papists may cavil, but shall never confute: My design is not to add perfection to their labours, nor to oppose them mainly with whom they have contested. If I mention Bellarmine, Baily, etc. it's only because they comply with, or descent from my present Adversary: my purpose is only to imitate them who opposed Popery in s●ch as maintained it in their times: I rake not amongst the dead, but meddle with a present writer. If Papists will writ anew against truth, it cannot be unseasonable to write anew for truth. Many errors long since confuted, and laid in the dust, yet rising again are assaulted by later Divines. I had rather say much for truth then too little.  
What I thought necessary to say against this Author, I have spoken avoiding invectives, and needless digress●ons, endeavouring to prevent some charges in thy buying, and some pains in thy reading of it, and some railing from my Adversary if he should reply; I commit thee and this labour to God's Blessing. If thou reap benefit by it, give God the praise, and let the Author have thy prayers, whereby thou shalt oblige to further service,  
Thine and the Church's Servant in the Work of Christ. William Brownsword.   

The Contents of this Book.  

CHapter 1. Of Happiness. Page 13  
Chap. 2. Of the way to Happiness. Page 14  
Chap. 3. Of the diversities of Faiths, Hop●s, and Charities. Page 23  
Chap. 4. Of the Church's Power and Infa●ibilitie in matters of Faith. Page 27  
Chap. 5. O● the possibility of keeping the Commandments. Page 69  
Chap. 6. Of Religion. Page 93  
Chap. 7. Of the Unity of Religion. Page 79  
Chap. 8. Of the Spirit of Spiritists. Page 103  
Chap. 9 Of th● Spiritists rule of Fa●th. Page 113  
Chap. 10. Of the Protestant Church. Page 130 

Shape 1. Page 132  
Shape 2. Page 153  
Shape 3. Page 159  
Shape 4. Page 173  
Shape 5. Page 182    
Chap. 11. Of the Roman Church. Page 231  
Chap. 12. Of certain Objections made against the Roman Church. Page 272 

1. Objection Page 273  
2. Objection Page 299  
3. Objection Page 321  
4. Objection Page 324  
5. ●b ecti●n Page 340  
6. Objection Page 348  
7. Objection Page 363    
The Epilogue. Page 380    


Rome's Conviction; OR A DISCOVERY OF The unsoundness of the main grounds of Rome's Religion.  
WHen I look upon this book, I cannot but remember what that blessed Apostle St. Peter foretold should come to pass— There shall be false Teachers amongst you, who privily shall bring in damnable Heresies,— and many shall follow their pernicious ways, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of; and through covetousness shall they with feigned words make Merchandise of you, etc. 2 Pet. 1. What feigned words this Author useth whereby to bring in his damnable Heresies, and to make Merchandise of souls, besides the book itself, the Epistles, and Epilogue do clearly evince. I shall therefore take a view of them as they lie in my way, and first for the Epistles, one is directed to the Catholics of England, the other to the Reader; whether he intends to exclude his Catholics from reading his Book, because he distinguisheth from the Reader; or that he mainly designs it for the use of others, (it may be the Protestants of England) whilst he only calls for the Patronage of Catholics, let the Reader judge. Certainly there are strong endeavours to enlarge the Pope's Chair by the seduction of English Protestants, as appears by those many books lately printed in London in the behalf of that Seat.  
The former Epistle is divided betwixt murmuration; and adulation: There are sad complaints that truth is grown so loathsome and hateful, t●at whosoever goeth about to tell it endangers displeasure, they despise and malign what ought most of all to be cherished and loved, of whom it is said they preferred darkness before light, Joh. 3. Were it the truth indeed that you speak of, I should join with you in complaining, and rather entitle your language to a serious and sad complaint, than an unjust murmuration: It was once the sad language of the Prophet, That truth is fallen in the streets, yea truth faileth, and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey, Isai. 59.14.15. And through the privy introduction of Heresies amongst us, it hath come to pass that the way of truth is evil spoken of, and the language of the Prophet is in the mouths of thousands of God's Saints: But blessed be God for this good news from Rome, that Popery is grown so loathsome and hateful, that whosoever goeth about to tell it endangers displeasure; and let me tell you, that I hope that God will raise up Governors in this Land, that with other Protestant Princes shall hate the Whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire, Apoc. 17.16. and that as God hath cast it out from being the publicly professed way in this Nation, so he will root it out of the hearts of people in this Land more and more, though yourselves be murmurers, etc. 2 Pet. ●.  
2. Your adulation is most palpable: Catholics are renowned Catholics; the best and greatest conquerors, brave champions, great, glorious, good conquerors, overcoming themselves, and what not? Their sufferings are many, glorious, 
* Such as blessed Saints have passed through.  for the truth, for God, and God with them, in them, and for them, God hath just cause to reward them. But alas how groundless are all these Titles. 1. What great, or how many sufferings have your Catholics undergone in Engl●nd? Have you been burnt at Stakes, or drawn into close inquisitions, and there tortured, racked, murdered? Have your bodies been mangled and cut in pieces? Have you been gathered into Companies, and then burnt? Have your Wives been ravished and ripped up, and their children tossed on Pikes? Have you been whipped to death? Have the chief of you been designed to speedy ruin, as our King and Nobles by you in the Gunpowder Treason? Have foreign Nations been sent for to come and destroy you? yet such usage as this have Protestants had from you. How many Protestants have been murdered by you in the days of Q. Ma●y in this Kingdom? How many thousands have suffered miserable tortures by you in Ireland within these few years? And it's more than probable, the slaughters that have been in these late Wars have proceeded from you, time would fail to tell of foreign murders committed by Catholics: The Duke of Alva boasted that he had slain 36000. Protestants in Belgium only in a very few years: France can give sad instances of very many murders, and yet our English Papists are great sufferers by Protestants, as if Papists might cut our throats lawfully, yet it were unlawful for us, yea grievous persecution to hold their hands. 2. How come your sufferings to be glorious? or how are they for truth? What truth is it you suffer for? Popery is a combination of Heresies, old and new; with the Valentinians and Gnostics you add to holy Scripture a number of Apocryphal Books and Traditions; 
Iren. adv. Haeres. lib. 1. c. 16, 17, 18, 22, 30. & lib. 2. c. 39  you use Extreme Unction, you cry out against Marriage, and abstain from flesh; you worship the Image of Christ, you make Christ's body fantastical, being one thing, and seeming another; with the Ebionites you adore places, you use strange language before the people who cannot understand you; how then can you suffer for truth which you do not hold? but supposing Popery to be the truth, do you suffer for it? Can you name one Papist that is a great sufferer, and that merely for his Religion? It's true, many of you stand sequestered, and some of your estates are set to sale, but this is only upon a civil account, had you lived peaceably out of arms, you had still enjoyed your estates for aught I know, neither are you alone sufferers this way, but have Protestants going along with you, you suffer as evil doers, murderers, busibodies, thiefs; your oppressions and murders of the Parliaments friends whilst you were in power, may put you in mind that you suffer not for Truth or Religion, your sufferings have still been for Treason; such were the sufferings of some of you in Q. Elizabeth's, K. James, and King Charls' Reign, and such is your present suffering, you being the kindlers of those flames that have burnt down the glorious Towers of this Land: The truth is, your Religion is Treason, and as such might well be rooted out from amongst us, but yet you have not met with such strict measure from us; your Doctrines put us in fear of you, left if we bind you not to good behaviour, we may come to lose our lives by you; we know that in the Pope's Books we stand as Heretics, such as are not to be suffered, and that you are the Pope's Slaves ready to execute his Decrees without scruple, you are all Cross-bearers, actors of the Pope's pleasure, whether against Prince or people: It's one of Bellarmine's Positions, 
Bellarm. tract. de Pontif. potestate advers. Guil. Bard. cap. 20. p. 191.  Non licet Christiane tollerare Regem infidelem aut alios pervertintem; and he gives this reason why the first Christians risen not up against their Magistrates, Hoc fuit quia tum Christianis deerant vires temporales: So that if you had power in your hand you would not sit still, and it's your weakness that makes you loyal Subjects, what we do therefore to you is for our own security, your practices and Doctrine put us upon it, your sufferings are just, and that deprives them of glory and merit, yea and of being imitations of the Saints sufferings; neither are you for all your obstinacy so much as Conquerors, much less the best and greatest conquerors, etc. Had the Spanish Armado, or the Gunpowder Treason taken effect, or had the Irish fury gone on without stop, it may be you would have proclaimed yourselves conquerors, Champions, etc. But blessed be God, that those snares were broken and were escaped: I shall conclude with this prayer, that this cry of persecutions which is made by these late Popish writers with one mouth, be not a Trumpet calling up a discontented Party in this and other Nations about us, to execute an Irish fury upon us in England.  

The Epistle to the Reader.  
OF many Religions professed in this Land, several Writers (even of approved integrity, and profound learning) have so clearly demonstrated that there is only one true rule, and that the Roman is it, that I cannot but impute the ungeneral acknowledging of the same to prejudice or impatience of labour; to prejudice in them that have read their works, and yet do not believe accordingly; to impatience of labour in others that will not bestow the pains to turn over great volumes.   
A. 1. I may well retort your words with a little variation, and say, that of several Religions professed in the Christian world, and in special in this Land (if we may justly call the several opinions and ways of worship many Religions) several writers, men of approved integrity and profound learning have most clearly demonstrated, that there is only one ttue, and that not the now Roman, but that which the reformed Churches do hold and maintain is it: So that men's rejecting of it cannot be imputed to any want of truth, evidence of this Religion, but to other causes, amongst which your two shall have the leading in my Catalogue. 1. Prejudice in them that have read our works, yet give no credit to them; nor can it be otherwise with you, whilst your faith is pined upon others sleeves: Let us speak never so much reason, let our assertions be plain Scripture, yet if your Priests affirm it not, you will not believe us, yea many times when you are convinced of the truth of our assertions, you will not believe them because they are ours, as if a truth might be an error because we hold it: When Augustine had affirmed that the Jewish Sacraments, though differing in signs, yet were the same in signification with ours, because the Apostle saith, 
Mald. in Joan. 6.11.60.62.  they did all eat the same spiritual meat, 1 Cor. 10.3. Maldonate answers, that he is persuaded, that if Augustine had lived in these times, he would have thought otherwise, especially perceiving the heretical Calvinists to be of his opinion, and saith further, that he rather approves of his own opinion then of that of Augustine, because this is more contradictious to that of Calvin. How can these men read our books without prejudice, when they will not receive a truth professed by ancient and eminent Fathers, because we hold it? Sure if we have thoughts of convincing these men, we must write for Popery, and then they will become Protestants for fear of joining with us in our opinions, which are dangerous, merely because we hold them.  
2. Impatience of labour, Papists will not set themselves to read our books, or if they read, not to study them; should I go over these parts where I live, I believe I should not find one Papist that doth seriously read our books, nor can tell you truly what we hold, they spend their time in other things, and will not be persuaded to employ themselves this way.  
3. The restraint that is laid upon them that they dare not read them, Pope Pius by his Bull forbade Papists to look into the books of Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, and such like Heretics as he calls them, contrary to the practice of Protestants, who are permitted to read Popish Books; Dr. Reynolds takes notice of this injunction (Reynold. praelec. 3. de lib. Apocr.) and saith, Licet. Pontif. Rom. prudentiam admirari qui suis interdicit ne legant, habeant ve librum aliquem haeresiarcharum istorum quos appellat; (nempe) si Calvinum, Bucerum, Bullingerum, inspicere sinerent; viderent quales Medii sint ipsorum Magisiri: Hic in officinis & Bibliothecis nostris cujus legendi permittuntur haeresiarchae Pontificii, fortasse nimium peccamus in alteram partem. Nay such is the care of these men, that what we hold be not known to their people, that the controversies written by their own men, wherein our Doctrines are discovered, and weakly confuted, are not suffered to walk publicly where the Pope bears sway, its observable what Sir Edvin Sands writes: Those principal Writers who have employed themselves wholly in refuting from point to point the Protestants Doctrine and Arguments are so rare in Italy, as by ordinary enquiry not to be found— the controversies of Bellarmine I sought for in Venice in all places; neither that, nor Gregory of Valenza, nor any of such quality could I ever in any such Shop in Italy set eye on, but instead of them an infinite of mere invectives and declamations; yea further, they are not ashamed to censure some of the Holy Writers, as seemingly at least consenting with us, as the same Author notes, (Europe. Specul. pag. 156.) The Papists (saith he) are very jealous of S. Paul's Epistles, and think them dangerous, so that some of their Jesuits of late in Italy in solemn Sermons, and other of their favourers elsewhere in private communication, commending S. Peter for a worthy Spirit, have censured S. Paul for an  person, who was transported so with his pangs of zeal, and eagerness beyond all compass in sundry his disputes, that there was no great reckoning to be made of his assertions, yea he was dangerous to read, as savouring of Heresy in some places, etc. Certainly Papists are much afraid of books whereby the judgement might be informed, lest their Disciples reading them, should with that Author who was set to confute Calvin by our books, be converted to the truth, while they find our arguments solid, and those accusations of Heresies cast on us by their Rabbis, to be nothing but slander; and therefore most prudently (the children of this world being wiser in their Generation then the children of light) do they confine them to some kind of books, whereby a kind of devotion may be excited in them, but little of sound knowledge attained by them, or rather tying them to Beads instead of books, to dumb Pictures instead of the Gospel, those lively representers of Jesus Christ, and to rail and invectives instead of controversy. When I consider these things, I cannot but pity the common sort of Papists, and withal admire the impudence of their Priests, who while they cry up the people's freedom of will, yet flatly deny them to have any judgement.  
2. I desire to know who these Authors you mention are, and whether they are yet unanswered? I'm sure there are many learned answers extant to the Popish books formerly written, and for the late ones they are not yet grown common, as they come to the knowledge of learned men, I doubt not but they will receive their answers: In the mean time, (though the meanest of that Tribe that desires to be learned) I have attempted to answer your book, to which I now (depending on the assistance of God's Spirit) do address myself.   

CHAP. I. Of Happiness.  
WHen I had considered this Title, and read the Chapter, and compared it with others following, I presently thought of those Locusts that came out of the smoke of the bottomless pit, and of the shape wherein they are represented to us, (Apoc. 9.7.) On their heads were as it were crowns of gold, and they had brest-plates as it were brest-plates of iron, and the sound of their wings was as the sound of charets of many horses running to battle, and they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails, etc. This Chapter is the crown like gold in the head of your Book; one or two of your Chapters following have the faces of men, the countenance of truth, though not without some excrements of the Romish Whore; the rest of your Book is military, and hath a sound of War; and the tail of it, which is your Epilogue, is the tail of a Scorpion, and hath a sting in it wherewith to hurt the simple. I shall therefore pass over this Chapter, which is Christian, to come to that in the others, which is Popish.   

CHAP. II. Of the Way to Happiness.  
SEct. 2. you say, God hath appointed the means to man's natural happiness to be acts of his understanding a●d will; for by them he may seek and find out God, as he is the Author and End of Nature; by these cleave and unite, and so enjoy him: to man's supernatural happiness, to be a Conformity of Faith to the Church, a Conformity of Hope to our Lord's Prayer, and a Conformity of Charity to the Commandments. Reply, 1. Are not the acts of understanding and will means to supernatural happiness? for by them he seeks and finds out God as he is the Author of Grace; by these he cleaves and unites, and so enjoys God his Saviour and Redeemer. When you say, Sect. 3. that by faith a man comes to the knowledge of God as he is the Author and End of Grace, do not you think that faith is an act of the understanding or will? But you were so big-bellyed with the Church, that you traveled to be delivered of it, and therefore not heeding what you have said, you tell us of a Conformity of Faith to the Church. 2. I confound Means of divers natures, viz. those that are proximate, and have an agency or activity in them, as understanding and will; and those that are remote, and do only dispose and help those proximate and active means towards their intended end. The proximate means of natural and supernatural happiness are the same, only those faculties are helped as to natural happiness by the Books of Nature and the Creatures, as to supernatural happiness by the Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament: See Rom. 1.19, 20. 2 Tim. 3.15, 16.17. John 17.3. 3. Your Conformity of Faith to the Church in a Popish sense, is a novel phrase, not used by the first Christians nor the Apostles of Christ in any of their writings; nor did they ever bid men believe as the Church believed (though that was of greater authority than the present Church is,) but still called their faith to the Word of God; contrary to which, if Paul, or any other Apostles, yea or Angels from Heaven, did preach, the people were to reject them; and no doubt if Paul had preached such stuff, as now Popish Sermons are filled with traditions and new decrees ungrounded on God's Word, the Beraeans had rejected him and his praying. It was for want of this Conformity of Faith to the Word of God, that our Saviour upbraids the two Disciples that traveled to Emaus, Luk. 24.25. He saith not, O flow of heart to believe all that the Church believes, (this as I said was no Scripture language, nor known to primitive Christians;) but to believe all that the Prophets have spoken: And that he may lead them to this Conformity of Faith, he expounds not the Decrees and Constitutions of Scribes and Pharisees (who sat in Moses Chair) whereof there were many; but 'tis said, Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself, vers. 27. Sir, I believe you are so dutiful a son to the Church, that had you been in Christ's stead, you would rather have told them of Pope's decretal Epistles then of Prophets, writings of Traditions rather than Scripture, if such things than had had a being. But 4. Why could not you say a Conformity of Faith to the Truth revealed, as well as a Conformity of Faith to the Church revealing the Truth? The Truth revealed, not the Church revealing it, is the Rule of Faith, as I shall show hereafter. 1. You might have done well once for all to have told us what you mean by The Church; for the word is diversely attributed even by those who in general agree that it is only the Roman Church, as you seem by your Epistle to the Reader to understand it.  
2. You urge Scripture to prove your Assertion, viz. three Texts, Mat. 28.19. Luke 10.16. Mat. 16. The two first do not so much as mention the word Church; the last mentions the word, but proves not the thing you bring it for.  
1. Mat. 28. Going, teach ye all Nations. Ans. I wonder in what word the proof lies. I suppose it's not in Going; and I dare say Teaching proves it not; for then every Teacher should be a Rule of Faith: besides, the Apostles were not to teach men to hang their faith upon themselves or others, whether of the Roman or any other Church; but they were commanded to teach men to do whatsoever Christ had commanded, vers. 10. amongst which this was the principal work, to believe on him whom God had sent (Joh. 6.29.) viz. Jesus Christ, to whom they were brought by the Apostles preaching, as living stones to be built upon a foundation.  
2. Luke 10.16. He that heareth you, heareth me. Ans. I suppose this Text is brought to explain the other, which had need of a Commentary to make it speak your language. But, 1. This is spoken primarily and absolutely of the Apostles, who were Christ's mouth in delivering the Scriptures, and therefore infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost, that they could not err in what they delivered to us. That which Moses was to the Jews in delivering the Law, the same were the Apostles to us in delivering the Gospel: So that he that heareth the Apostles, heareth Christ, because it was the word of Christ which they did speak; and this way we hear the Apostles speak yet, whilst w● read or hear the Scriptures which they penned: but what is this to the present Roman Church and her unwritten Traditions? 2. As it's understood of ordinary Ministers in the Church, it can only be understood conditionally; He that heareth you (while your doctrine agreeth with the Word of God) heareth me: so that faith is not a conformity to any Teachers or their doctrine, but so far as their doctrine is agreeable with the Scriptures, which indeed are the Rule both of their preaching and our believing. Consonantly hereunto the Apostle saith, If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ— he is proud— from such withdraw thyself, 1 Tim. 6.3, etc. The Scribes and Pharisees, who were the Church in a Popish sense, were to be heard, but it was whilst they sat in Moses Chair, that is, whilst they preached not their own traditions and fancies, but Moses doctrine. Arias Montanus saith, (Elucid in Mat. 23.) Christ bids them do what the Scribes and Pharisees commanded, Ex praescripto legis, id est ex Cathedrâ Mosis. So Origen, (Origen apud Lyran.) Super Cathedram, etc. icy sermo de me est qui bona d●ceo & contraria gero. 3. The Text speaks not of the Church, for particular Ministers in the Church are not the Church. Now your Rhemists expound it of them in these words, It is all one to despise Christ, 
Rhen. Annot. on the Text.  and to despise his Priests and Ministers in the Catholic Church, to refuse his doctrine and theirs: And indeed it must be understood of those who labour in the Word and Doctrine, not of non-preaching Popes and Prelates.  
3. Mat. 16. you would say, Mat. 18.17. which you read thus, He that heareth not the Church, let him be as an Heathen and a Publican. Not to say any thing of your false quotation or reading (a fault common throughout your Book) Protestants may take notice what great cause we have to put these men into our bosoms, as they expect, whilst they profess we are no better than Heathens or Publicans, though I am sure their usage from us hath showed us Christians. But to the Text: How little it makes for your purpose the Context, words themselves will show: It speaks not of Conformity of Faith to the Church, but of obedience of the offending party to the admonition of the Pastors of the Church. Thus Lyranus, Si non and. Eccles. preceptum praelatos contemnendo. 
Lyr. in loc.  You might as well say, that faith is a conformity to ourselves, because it's said, If he neglect to hear thee, vers. 15. or to two or three witnesses, because it's said, If he neglect to hear them, vers 17. whereby is implied that he ought to hear them: Hence it might well follow, that faith ought rather to be resolved upon a neighbour that is a private man, then upon the Church, because the offended party is first to be heard before the Church: And then Sir, who is guilty of the Private spirit that you anon talk of? Sure yourselves, and not the Protestants.  
In stead of these misapplied Scriptures for you, I shall give you one or two plain Scriptures proving the Word of God to be that whereunto a Christians faith is to be conformable. The Apostle continued witnessing both to small and great, saying, None other things than those w●ich the Prophets and Moses did say should come to pass, Acts 26.22. This was his teaching: And for his own faith you have it, Acts 24.14. This I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call Heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets. I shall put you in mind of what one of your Proselytes writes about this Point: I found that by consent of all Christians, 
Dr Vane, Lost Sheep return, p. 5, 6.  this knowledge of the means to attain to happiness, was not to be gotten by clear and evident sight, nor by humane discourse founded on the principles of Reason, nor by reliance upon Authority merely humane, but Only by Faith Grounded On The Word of GOD, revealing unto men things that were otherwise, only known to his infinite Wisdom,— seeing the Church to the world's end must be built on the Apostles, and Believe Nothing as Matter of Faith beside that which was delivered of them, as St. Paul saith, Ephes. 2.20. Yourself also, when you come to the Point to speak of the Rule of Faith, say, that the Truth of God revealed and expressed to us, is the Rule of Faith, Chap. 9 If Faith be grounded on God's Word, and that this Word of God be the Rule of Faith, How can the Church be it, seeing there is a vast difference betwixt the Truth and the Church, as betwixt a Rule and him that bears it: Can you say properly, that a man that keeps the standard in his house is the standard, or that the post that bears it is it, or that the ship that carries the compass is the compass? Now you only say, that the Church is the Pillar of Truth, i. e. it doth but bear it. If the Church be the Rule of Faith, than I wonder what Rule they have, sure not themselves; and they being men like us, they cannot be without a Rule, no more than they can be Christians, and yet want faith.  
3. You say, By the first Conformity man comes to the knowledge of God as he is the Author and End of Grace; by the second he relies upon his Mercy and Goodness, etc. Ans. 1. You seem to make faith a bare knowledge, distinct from reliance on God's mercy and goodness, whereby you give too little to faith, whose acts are not only to discern God and divine objects, but to rely upon that merciful and good promise of God, whereby he offers himself and divine objects to be received by us: By this receiving is faith expressed, John 1.12. If faith be no more but bare knowledge, than Devils, yea Reprobates may have true faith, yea and may hope in God's mercy, for faith is the foundation of sound hope. Your Vasquez is more ingenious than most of you, for he acknowledgeth that besides a dogmatical or historical faith, 
Vasq. in 1. 2. To. 2. disp. 209. c. 1. & 4.  which he calls Catholic, there is also a peculiar faith, whereby a Christian believes that he is or shall be justified or saved. And this faith is the foundation of that hope you mention, and not much differing from it, only that as hope looks at the thing promised, so faith doth more directly reflect upon the promise, though Vasquez saith the same of faith that you of hope,— Cujus generis est fides qua aliquis credit se a Deo per orationem obtenturum id quod petit, etc. I shall conclude this with the words of learned Rivet; Ineptiunt ergo ne quid gravius dicam qui cum tribuant fideli spem & fiduciam circa electionem gratiam & salut m Propriam fidem tamen negant. 
Rivet. sum. Cont. Tract. 4. q. 16. ss. 6.  But as you cast faith here below itself, so in the next Chapter you set up Charity above itself, making it the soul of faith.   

CHAP. III. Of the Diversities of Faiths, Hopes, and Charities.  
IN this Chapter I shall only take notice of two passages. 1. You say, The means of habitual and actual divine (Faith, Hope and Charity) is the Tradition of the Church. Ans. 1. If by the Tradition of the Church you mean the true and right Exposition of Scripture made by faithful Pastors and Teachers of the Church, as Vincentius Lyrinensis understands it, than I shall easily consent to you; for it is no more than the Apostle himself asserts when he saith, Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, Rom. 10.17. But 2. If you mean the Church's opinions distinct from Scripture or unwritten Verities, as they are called by you, than I affirm that these are not means for your proposed end; the Scripture itself, without your additions, being sufficient to make the man of God perfect in all graces: And this you are not altogether unconvinced of, as appears by your Preachers, who in their Sermons do ground their discourses upon Texts of Scriptures, and I suppose their Sermons are intended to be means of faith, hope, etc.  
2. You say, St Paul— giveth to Charity the preeminence: And not undeservedly; for she is the enlivening Soul of Faith and Hope, etc. both they— being (out of her company) as dead bodies without life or motion, etc. Your assertion is grounded upon two Scriptures, viz. 1 Cor. 13.13. and James 2.26. For the first, I freely subscribe to the preeminence of Charity, but upon the Apostles reason (not yours,) which is the continuance of Charity when Faith and Hope fail: Thus the Apostle is understood by your ordinary Gloss, Primasius, Augustine, and the generality of Expositors: In presenti tria haec, 
Lyran. in 1 Cor. 13.13.  in futuro sola charitas permanebit; Majus est ergo quod semper erit quam quod aliquando cessabit. But you say, It's the Soul of Faith, etc. This I deny: For, 1. Your own Authors do earnestly contend that true faith, yea that faith that justifies, and is joined with hope and charity, 1 Cor. 13.13. may be without charity; charity therefore cannot be the soul of faith; for the enlivening soul cannot be absent from its body, and yet that body remain a true living humane body. 2. The Apostle saith, that faith without works is dead, as the body without the soul; yet you will not say that good works are the soul of faith, whereby it hath life and motion. Your Rhemists assert it, that the Thief on the Cross wanted good works, and thereupon conclude, 
Rhen. Annot. on Luke 23.43.  that Faith, hope, etc. will be sufficient, and good works not required, where for want of time and opportunity they cannot be had. Now can you say, that his faith was without life and motion? It had so much life and motion, that it brought him to Heaven by your own confession. Now if the body move, it hath the soul in it, be its motion never so little, or of so short continuance. 3. Faith is before Charity, and that not only by priority of nature, but of agency or activity: Faith is a leading grace. Men first believe to righteousness, and then make confession to Salvation. Faith first apprehends and lays hold on the mercy and goodness of God in the promise and then for that his goodness and mercy towards us we do love him and keep his Commandments. This is clearly taught by our Saviour, Luke 7.47. as Salmeron, Tolet, Stella, and others, even Papists, acknowledge. Now in Nature the Soul precedes the body in its activity. 4. If charity and good works were the soul of faith, they should be intrinsecal to faith, for the form is not out of the matter, nor the soul out of the body: but so they are not. Hence 'tis that some learned men call charity an external form of faith, and other virtues; and by spirit in the Text they understand the breath, making the sense this, Even as the want of breath argues a dead body, so the want of works a dead faith. Estius ascribes this Exposition to Cajetan, 
Estius in Jam. 2.26.  who as he saith was moved to it by this reason, because works are not the form of faith, but certain concomitant effects; but the soul is the form of the body. Azorius clearly adheres to Cajetan, 
Azor. instit. Moral. lib. 9 c. 3. q. 6.  denying charity to be an  form of faith, or other virtues, because they have their proper fruit, and produce works without charity; only he calls it an  form, which will never prove it to be the soul of them. 
Par. in loc.  Pareus doth well observe for this purpose, that it's not said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not without soul, but without spirit or breath. Bernard speaks most suitably to this Exposition, Sicut corporis vitam, etc. As we know the life of the body by motion, so the life of faith by good works. If this Exposition please not, I shall commend to you that acute one of Mr Perkins; saith he, 
Perkins on Galat. 5.6.  Here is a false composition of the words; Faith that is without works is dead, is true; but to say, Faith is dead without works (as though they gave life to faith) is false. To conclude; Though we deny charity or good works to be the enlivening soul of faith, yet we assert them to be the inseparable concomitants of a true faith: so that as good works cannot be without faith, so neither can faith be without good works. As faith looks towards the promise by believing it, so doth it reflect upon the Will of God by obeying it; these are its two vital acts, that is internal, this is faith's external act, neither of which can a living faith not exercise.   

CHAP. IU. Of the Church's Power and Infallibility in matters of Faith.  
IN this Chapter you come to the Church's Infallibility as a main part of Religion, and a leading Article in the Creed, to whom you are so liberal, that you leave little to Christ or his Father. It's the observation of one of your own men, that throughout your Lady's Psalter the Name of God is changed into the Name of our Lady: so the Name of God into the name of Church, and the Attributes of God are predicated of the Church, as here, Infallibility, answering herein the Apostles description of Antichrist. That he opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he is as God, sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 2 Thes. 2.4.  
But to your Chapter. You might have done well (seeing the Church must come in first) to have defined to us what Church it is you speak of, before you tell us of her Infallibility; as, whether it be the Church virtual or representative, or essential: did I know which you meant, I could speedilier answer you; but seeing I do not, I shall show the fallibility of each of them, lest I should happen to miss of you. 1. Then; Infallibility is not a Jewel annexed to your Pope's Crown. Lyra commenting on the words of Christ, Mat. 16.18 The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, 
Lyran. ibid.  A verâ fide subvertendo-scil. saith, Ex quo patet, etc. Whereby it is evident that this Church (which hath this promise) doth not consist in men of ecclesiastical or secular power or dignity, because many Princes and Popes (summi pontifices) and others inferior have been found to apostatise from the Faith; wherefore it consists in those persons in whom is true knowledge, and confession of faith and truth. Some of your Popes have been deposed for Heresy; as Eugenius by the general Council of Basil; 
Concil. Basil Ses. 34. apud Binnium. Hart Answ. to Reynolds, p. 246.  Honorius by the sixth general Council was condemned, and that justly, saith Hart in his Answer to learned Reynolds: Innocentius was little better than an Heretic, who held, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was necessary for children. Nor was he alone in this Heresy, for it continued in the Church 600 years, as Maldonat observes. 
Maldon, in Joan 6. Concil. Trid. ses. 21. Can. 4 ap. Bin.  Now that it was an Heresy, appears by the Curse laid upon it in the Council of Trent. If you say the Pope taught it not; I answer, How then durst the Church believe it, and for so long a time? whereas the faith of the members must be conformable to the belief of the Church's Head: Or why did not the Pope hinder it when he saw it was believed in the Church as a necessary truth? It cannot be imagined how the Pope should be free when the Church was so infected. 2. Infallibility is not the inseparable Privilege of the Church representative, or a General Council; for according to Papists it hath no infallibility in itself, but depends upon the infallibility of the Pope, which I have showed to be a Chimaera. Azorius tells us, 
Azor. iustit. Moral. part. 2. l. 5. c. 12. q. 1.  that it's agreed upon by all Catholics, that a General Council may err in faith and manners, if it be not called and confirmed by the Authority of the Pope of Rome: And he instances in the Council of Ariminum, of 600 Bishops who erred with Arius; The Council of Constantinople, of 300 Bishops who erred with Leo the Emperor. This is the meaning of Lorinus as I conceive, 
Lorin. in Act. 15.7. p. 583. Col. 2.  when he saith, Wise or learned men are to be consulted with, but all the infallibility is in him alone. Now let any Papist show any reason why in a Council the Pope should be infallible, and out of it should be as other men. But Councils called and confirmed by Popes, have with Papists themselves been accounted fallible. The Council of Basil was called by Eugenius, and had the Pope's Legates sitting in it, yet pleased not the Pope by their decree in the second Session, That the Pope ought to be subject to a general Council. This was also the decree of the Council of Constantinople, which notwithstanding was called by John the 24. and confirmed by Martin the 5, two Popes. 3. Infallibility is not subjected in the body of the faithful: for it's a clear truth, which Dr Featly observed, Whatsoever the Romanists say of the infallibility of the Church, they resolve it at last into the Authority of the Church. Indeed if we speak of the universal visible Church as comprehending all Believers in the world, it's not possible that all should err, for then Christ should want a Church: but for particular Churches, it's most evident they are subject unto error; Papists profess it openly of other Churches, and sometimes confess it of the Roman. The Council of Trent decree to reform many things in manners and doctrine in that Church, and there was great need so to do. Cassander ingeniously acknowledgeth a defection from the primitive Church, 
Cassand. Cons. Act. 7. p. 929.  both in regard of integrity of manners and discipline, and also in regard of sincerity of doctrine; and further saith, that this Church hath provoked her Husband multis erroribus & vitiis, with her many errors and vices. From all this it's most infallibly true, that the Roman in none of their Considerations is infallible. I will now come to examine his Arguments.  
Pag. 12. he gins with a supposition, saying, Supposing it for granted, that Christ's knowledge of Gods revealed Truth, and his power to convey the same to belief, raised his preaching and teaching to the full height and perfection of a Rule of Belief to the first Christians; it cannot in reason be denied, he having communicated his said knowledge and power to the Apostles, and in them to the succeeding Churches (as appears by his own words, Joh. 15. Joh. 20.) but she may challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians: whence it follows, that all matters of Belief (as well other Points as Scripture) are to be taken up upon her account and credit; and that whatsoever comes upon any other score, is to be reputed Apocryphal, and no way appertaining to the obligation of Belief. In answer hereunto I will first consider the Supposition, and afterwards the inferences and proofs of them. There are divers things herein questionable, if not simply false. 1. 'Tis said, Christ's preaching and teaching was a Rule of Belief. Ans. If by these acts you understand the materia circa quam, the matter of his preaching, viz. the Scripture or Word of God; then it's true that his teaching was the Rule of Faith, i. e. that which he taught and discovered to them was the Rule of Faith: but if you understand it of his transient preaching, as if by these acts he propounded to them a Rule of Faith (for so your words seem to import,) it's false; for Christ by his preaching did not propound a new Rule of Faith, but did only reveal that rule of Faith which was before laid, and was contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Hence it was, that Christ sent his hearers to the Scriptures, John 5.39. and himself did preach out of the Scriptures, Luk. 24.25.26, 27, 44. etc. Luk. 4.16. and that for this end, as Beda notes, that he might manifest himself to be the same that spoke in the Prophets, 
Beda apud Lyran.  and that he might remove that sacrilegious conceit, that there was one God of the Old, another of the New Testament. Yea further, Thus did the Apostles after him, Act. 26.22. they preached nothing but what was contained in the Law, and Psalms, and Prophets. 2. 'Tis said— was a Rule of Belief to the first Christian●. Ans. And is it not a Rule of Belief unto us who are after-Christians? Had the primitive Christians one Rule of Faith, and we another? If there be one Faith, why not one Rule of Faith to all Christians? why doth the Apostle exhort the Philippians, and in them all Christians to walk by the same rule? In eadem regulâ fidei; Phil. 3.16. 
Gloss. interl.  If there were one rule, doth that blessing, Gal. 6.16. extend only to the Primitive Churches, and not rather to all Christians who were to walk by the same rule that they walked? The teaching of Christ doth not make one rule, and of the Apostles another, but both reflect upon, and explain one and the same rule of Faith. 3. Whereas you say, Christ's knowledge of Gods revealed truth, and his power to convey the same to belief, raised his preaching, etc. Pon might have done well to have explained what knowledge and what power this is you speak of, which is sufficient to qualify a person for propounding a rule of Faith: I conceive its requisite (1.) that this knowledge extend to whatsoever Faith is to belief; for seeing the rule of Faith must be exact, containing neither more nor less than Faith is to belief; hence it will follow, the Propounder of this rule must know what is the adequate object of Faith. This universality of Christ's knowledge is hinted in one of the Texts you mention, viz. Joh. 15. All I have learned of my Father I have made known unto you. Here is first an universal knowledge, and then the proposal of a rule suitable to this knowledge. 2. That this knowledge be most certain and infallible; no teaching can be a rule of belief, but that which is grounded on infallible knowledge: conjectural knowledge may be a ground of opinion, not of Faith: Hence is that expression, Joh. 19.35. He that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. Now this infallibility in the subject knowing ariseth, either 1. from the Divine Nature in the person: Thus the persons in the Trinity are only infallible; and for this cause it is that many learned Papists do deny, that our Faith is resolved into the authority of the Church, and Azorius tells us, that in his time it was the common opinion of your Divines, that Faith was ultimately resolved into God, 
Inter Cathol. tres sunt opiniones, una est asserentium primam rationem in quam fides nostra ultimò resolvitur esse Deum revelantem quae sunt fidei; Deus enim est prima & summa veritas quaé falli ullo modo nec fallere potest, ac ratio credendi debet esse talis ac tanta ut ei falsum subesse non possit. Haec opinio quam sequitur Cajetanus est communi consensu in Theol. Scholis modo recepta. Azor. instit. Moral. parl. 2. l. 5. c. 24. q. 2.  the revealer of the objects of Faith, and that upon this account, because he could neither deceive, nor be deceived, being the prime and chief Verity, and the reason of Faith must be such as cannot deceive; and for this reason he rejects Durand, Scotus, Gabriel, and Almain, for concluding that the authority of the Church is the reason of our belief of the things of Faith. 2. From immediate inspiration of the Spirit. Thus the Apostles were immediately inspired; so that in their delivering of the truth, they could neither fallere nec falli, neither deceive, nor be deceived; this is taught by the Apostles Paul and Peter, 2 Tim. 3.16. 2 Pet. 1.21. The later of whom persuades us, to give heed to the word of God, because the holy penmen of it were inspired by the H. Ghost.  
Again, for power which you leave unexplained, it may be observed, that there is a twofold power in order to this effect belonging to Christ. 1. Authoritative, which is his designation or appointment hereunto; this may be understood by that text you cite, As my Father sent me, etc. 2. Qualitative or dispositive, this is Christ's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other is his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the one is his power, the other his authority. Again, this power is exercised two ways: 1. By discoveries of the truth revealed to him: Thus it's said, All things that I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you, Joh. 15.15. This is his outward teaching. 2. By commanding the heart to believe, and consent to those truths he reveals; this power is spoken of by the Psalmist in Psal. 110. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power. Christ doth command the soul to receive the truth, by stamping upon it a divine authority & Majesty, and withal by his Spirit discovering to the soul this authority and Majesty so stamped upon it: This way doth Christ exercise his power in bringing the soul to close with the Scriptures, as the rule of its belief.  
2. I proceed now to your consequence: He having communicated his said knowledge and power to the Apostles, and in them to the succeeding Churches— but she may challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians. Ans. 1. You tell us of succeeding Churches, but lest you should seem to forget your dear Mother, or give other Church's liberty to claim equal privileges with her; whilst you talk of Churches, you neglect construction, and come in with a She may challenge. 2. 'Tis false, that she may justly challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians, as to the propounding of a rule of belief to them. For 1. There is no need of another rule for them, the rule that Christ propounded being suited to all Christians, and fully sufficient and perfect, as yourself confess: If that Christ's teaching hath the full height and perfection of a rule, i. e. be a complete and perfect rule, what needs another rule? or can this other rule be higher than that which hath its full height? or have greater extent then that which is perfect? the perfection of Christ's rule shows, that nothing can be added to it: If you say it was perfect as for the first Christians, but not for after Christians, I desire to know the ground of this distinction, for I am ignorant of it. 2. The succeeding Church hath not communicated to her the same knowledge and power that Christ had, her knowledge is not universal; there hath been in every Age since your Church's Apostasy, an addition of supposed truths, which the former Age believed not. Your Pius 4. hath added some Articles to the ancient Creeds, as necessary to be believed unto Salvation, which formerly were not so imposed, if once thought of; sure then the Church before the Trent Council, either knew not the whole revealed will of God, and so could not by their preaching lay an exact rule of belief, or you propound a larger object than Faith will well admit. Again, her knowledge is not infallible, as I shown in the beginning of this Chapter, the present Church of Rome hath notoriously swerved from Primitive purity in their late Articles of Pope Pius his Creed: Besides this, it cannot claim either of these means of infallibility which I mentioned before; the same may be said of power, it's not the same with Christ they want both his power and authority, as I have explained them: Indeed if that which the succeeding Churches preach and teach, be the same that Jesus Christ and his Apostles preached and taught, than it is a rule of Faith to us; but thus, it's not the teaching of the Church that makes it a rule, but its identity with the Scriptures, the marrow of Christ's and the Apostles preaching. Thus the assertion is true, otherwise the Churches teaching without respect to Scripture is not a Rule, as I have already showed; and this is my Antagonists meaning, as appears by his next words, All matters of Faith, as well other points as Scripture, are to be taken up upon her account, etc.  
2. Consequence, or rather the first consequence arising from that, is in these words: Whence it follows, 
pag. 13.  that all matters of belief, as well other points as Scripture, are to be taken up upon her account and credit. Ans. 1. If by other points, you understand other points of Faith then are contained in Scripture, you take that for granted which is notoriously false, viz. that there are points of Faith which the Scriptures contain not and consequently that they are imperfect, and insufficient to be a rule of Faith, and this is most false. For 1. Whatsoever was contained in the ancient Creeds, which were rules of Faith to those Christians that used them, that was all contained in Scripture; and more was not imposed as necessary to be believed to Salvation: I deny not but your Trent Creed contains more than Scripture, even many Articles which learned men say cannot be proved but out of unwritten Traditions; but as it contains more than Scripture, so is it much larger than any Creed that was used before it; so that either their Faith was imperfect, having an imperfect foundation, or yours is redundant transgresseing the bounds of a right and ancient rule. 2. The Scriptures testify their own sufficiency, 2 Tim. 3.15, 16. I desire you to consider these two following Texts, Act 26.22. with chap. 20.27. 
Lyran.  He had declared the whole counsel of God so far as concerned Salvation, and yet preached nothing but what the Scriptures did contain.  
Ans. 2. If you mean that we are to believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God, and that other fundamental points besides this [The Scriptures are the word of God] are the truths of God, and to be believed, merely because the Church asserts it; so that the Church's affirmation of them should be the formal cause of our belief of these truths (as I suppose you mean) this I deny: For, 1. The Scriptures contain in themselves arguments that may convince a true Christian, that they are the Word of God: Many notes are given by Protestants, which to you pulling them in pieces, and viewing them singly, seem weak; which conjunctim, or all together, have much strength in them. He that reads the Scriptures with a spiritually enlightened mind, cannot but confess, that never mere man spoke like the Holy Writers, and that flesh and blood revealed not those things to them which they declare, but God only. 2. Upon what account was this truth taken up by the first Christians for the space of three hundred years after Christ? they could not take it up upon the Church's account and credit, for your Authors hold, that its only in the power of Ecumenical Sinods to define which are the Scriptures, and for this time there was no such a Synod called. The first Synod that I find delivering the Canon of Scripture, was that of Laodicea, held about the year 364. Afterwards the third Council of Carthage, both Provincial Sinods only, though afterwards confirmed in a General Council. 3. Upon what account or credit doth your Church take up this truth, that the Scriptures are the Word of God: Sure you are so great an Enemy to Spiritists, that you will not think of extraordinary Revelations, or Enthusiasms; I hardly think that ever the Holy Ghost fell upon your Popes or Councils in fiery Tongues, or that they had either visions or dreams; nor do I think that you will say, that your Church propoundeth the Canon of Scripture, merely upon the supposal of former practice, that former Churches did allow and believe the Scriptures now received are Canonical, for this is only a testimony concerning matter of fact, in which 'tis confessed the Pope may err through wrong informations: There may be spurious Canons foisted into former Councils, like Pope Zozimus Canon of the Nicene Council, whereby he maintained his Supremacy; I therefore suppose that your judgement must be, that your Church assisted by the Spirit, doth from internal notes of Scripture conclude the divine authority thereof. Hence 'tis that Councils proceed by argument and reason, and there is an acknowledgement of the truth before they proceed to definition or Decree. Now if the Church take up Scripture upon this account, that she through the assistance of God's Spirit discerns the notes and marks of God's Word, why may not a Christian by the same assistance discover these notes? and so believe that the Scriptures are God's Word, upon the same account that the Church takes up this belief, though withal he doth, and aught to reverence and highly account of the judgement of the Church, or Pastors of it, as that which hath a Priority, and is an occasion of Christians private judgement, and a confirmation of it; yet as I hinted before, it must not be denied that Christians have a divine light in themselves, being taught of God, Joh. 6.45. which is for the discovery of divine objects, as natural light or reason is for the discovery of natural: This Bellarmine confesseth; saying, 
Bellar. de lumine fid. Conc. 1.  Quemadmodum omnes homines, etc. As all men are endued with a certain natural light, whereby they understand the first principles to be true, without labour, without arguments, nor is there any that demands reasons and arguments when those principles are propounded: So also all Christians enlightened by God with a certain divine and supernatural light, do acknowledge the first principles of our Faith, though difficult, and exceeding reason to be most true. Origen in his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where he proves the Divinity of Scriptures by divers arguments, 
Origen. lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cap. 1.  as Protestants do, hath a notable speech to this purpose; Si quis cum omni judicio, etc. If any one doth judiciously, and with that reverence that is meet consider of the Sacred Writ while he reads, and diligently searcheth into it, most certainly (having his mind and senses affected with some divine inspiration) he acknowledgeth that the word he reads is not the word of men, but of God, and of himself, perceives (ex semetipso sentiet) that these books are written not by humane art, or mortal eloquence, but by the hand of God. Thus I suppose it was with the first Christians, of whom you cannot say that they believed the books of Scripture to be the Word of God, merely because the Apostles and others held them they were so, but upon other account; this overthrows your Position. What I have said of the Scriptures may be said of other points of Faith, that they are not taken up merely or mainly upon the Church's credit, and account, but rather because God hath revealed them in his Word, wherein they are therefore written, that we might have a sure argument for our Faith. But I come to your next inference.  
2 Consequence or Conclusion: Whatsoever comes upon any other score is to be reputed Apocryphal, and no way appertaining to the obligation of faith. Magna Diana Romanorum, Great is your Roman Goddess, but its only with the Shrine-makers of Rome; your conclusion is very high, but notoriously false. For 1. It's not the Church's definition that makes any book Apocryphal, but the want of divine inspiration in those who wrote them; so that whatsoever is not written by the Prophets or Apostles (the Subjects of divine inspiration) that is certainly Apocryphal, whether the Church receive them or not. Hence many of your learned men reject those books as Apocryphal, which the Council of Trent declared to be Canonical; the Apostle saith, All Scripture is by divine inspiration; 
2 Tim. 3.16.  the Scriptures of the Old Testament are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2 Pet. 1.19. read Luke 24.27. 2. It was six hundred years after Christ before any General Council delivers the Canon of Scripture; now will you say, that till that time the books of Scripture were Apocryphal, and no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith. 3. The Spirit of God may work Faith in the Soul while it is reverently reading the Word of God, without the testimony of the Church (the person for the present being ignorant what the Church teacheth of particular points) this is clear by the place of Origen even now mentioned. Lyranus speaks of a teaching of the Spirit, 
Lyran. in 1 Joh. 2.27.  Vbi deficit humana Doctrina. 4. When the Thessalonians received the Apostles Doctrine, not as the word of men, but as the Word of God, 
Greg. Analus fid. lib. 1. c. 15.  was this Doctrine no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith? Your Gregory of Valence confesseth, Multa sunt, etc. There are many points of Christian Doctrine, which of themselves, can procure to themselves credit and authority. Lastly, the Greek Church, with the reformed Churches, receive all the Articles of the Apostles Creed, because consonant to God's Word, not because delivered by your Roman Diana; are those Articles therefore to be reputed Apocryphal, and no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith? Sure you cannot be so impudent as to assert it, though we know Jesuitical impudence is not little.  
For your Scriptures Sect. 2. When I see them reduced to arguments, I shall endeavour to answer them, for the present I understand not what they should prove, and therefore dismiss them without any answer.  
In your third Section you go about to prove the Church's infallibility, as a qualification of her for the delivery of a Rule of Faith, and you urge divers Arguments, which I now come to examine and answer.  
Arg. 1. God hath endowed her with inerrability, whereby to convey the truth safely, and without danger of miscarrying, by arming her proof against all the enemies of truth, against ignorance— error— darkness— weakness. For this you urge divers Texts. In these words, though they seem an intention of but one argument, yet there are these two, viz. 1. If the Church cannot convey truth safely, and without danger of miscarrying, but by the gift of inerrability, than Christ hath endowed her with it: But she cannot convey truth safely, and without danger of miscarrying, but by the gift of inerrability: Ergo, etc. 2. If Christ hath armed his Church against the enemies of truth, viz. ignorance, darkness, error, and weakness, then hath he endowed her with inerrability; but he hath so armed her: Ergo, etc. To these in order.  
Ans. First, to the first I answer: 1. By denying the consequence of the major Proposition, the reason of my denial is this, Christ hath not made the Church the principal, much less the only means of conveying truth safely. Though your Pope, Cardinals, Jesuits, Priests, yea General Councils should err, yet there remains a safe way of conveying truth without miscarrying, that is the Scriptures, 2 Pet. 1.19. Beda paraphrasing upon those words, In a dark place, 
Beda apud Lyran.  hath this note, In hujus saeculi nocte, etc. In the night of this world full of temptations, vices and errors, where there is hardly one to be found without error, against which this light is necessary. So that you see the Scriptures convey the truth safely against temptations, vices, errors, in the judgement of this venerable Author. It may be you will object, that infallibility is necessary for the Church, that she may safely convey these Scriptures wherein the truth is: But I deny this to be true. For 1. It cannot be denied, but God did make use of the Jews to preserve the Scriptures, Rom. 3.2. yet by the leaven of their Doctors, the Pharisees, the Commandments of God were transgressed, Matth. 23.5. Yea, it evidenceth their errability, that they mistook the sense of the Law, and when Christ came, 
Mariana tract. pro edit. vulgát. cap. 7. p. 50.  that they did generally oppose and resist him; and yet I believe the Scriptures, yea I had almost said the very iotas and titles of them were preserved from miscarrying. Your Authors confess of the Hebrew text, that there is no substantial error in it. 2. The Law was by God's providence kept safely a great while in the House of the Lord, unknown to any, till Hilkiah the Highpriest found it in the days of Josiah, 2 King. 22.8. Now you will not ascribe infallibility to the House of the Lord. 3. You acknowledge not the Greek Church to be a true Church, yet the Scriptures have been safely preserved by them, whilst the error of the Chiliasts, and of those who laid a necessity on Infants to receive the Eucharist, remained in the Church, which was for some 100 of years, yet then the Scriptures were preserved from miscarrying. The truth is, God's Providence is chief engaged for the preservation of these books, and that concurring, any means that God useth may suffice, though they were Turks and Heathens that had the keeping of them.  
2. I answer by denying your Minor, and say, the Church may convey the truth without the gift of inerrability bestowed on her, as well as other Church's subject to error have done. Thus we confess that your Roman Church hath preserved the ancient Creeds, the Commandments, and Scriptures, though we deny you to be sound members of the Catholic Church: We admire and adore God's providence, not your inerrability; had not a Divine hand overawed you, I fear the Scriptures would have fared little better than the Fathers have done, whose writings you have notoriously corrupted and falsified, as hath been manifested against you by our learned Writers.  
2. Arg. 2. To your second Argument I answer by distinction, viz. a subject, and particularly the Church, may be armed against ignorance, darkness, error, and weakness, either in regard of hurts, blows, and lesser foils, or in regard of total ruin, or a final overthrow; or if you will, these may be considered either as total, or only partial: It's exemption not only from total and ruining ignorance, darkness, error and weakness, but from inferior degrees hereof, that can prove infallibility in the subject so exempted. So than if the Church be exempted from all degrees of these evils, so as they cannot at all hurt her, than your Argument is good, but this exemption I utterly deny: Christ hath only so far armed his Church, (whilst Militant) against these, that they shall not ruin or destroy her gross ignorance, and obstinate error, the forerunners of ruin cannot happen to the Church, but lesser degrees of these may. This is confessed by your own Authors, of each of these 1. Ignorance. Lombard saith, 
Lomb. l. 4. dist. 18. f.  Deus non semper sequitur ecclesiae judicium, etc. God doth not always concur with the judgement of the Church, which judgeth sometime by stealth and ignorance. 2. Darkness; 
Ccc. Dial. p. 1. lib. 5. cap. 28.  Occam saith, Circa illa, etc. Concerning those things that are not necessary to be believed expressly, it's not necessary that the Church's judgement be always certain. Sure uncertainty of judgement must arise from darkness. 3. Error. Thus Picus saith, Fieri potest, etc. It may be that the Vice-head may be distempered as the natural, 
Franc Picus Theor. 23.  and as this noxious humour, so that may diffuse into the body unsound opinions. 
Stapl. Relect. c. 1. q. 4. Art. 5. Not. 1.  Stapleton confesseth, That perfect holiness in regard of Doctrine is not in all times and places, because great men may not only doubt, but err in some points of Doctrine, and yet the true Church remain with them. 4. Weakness. Thus Turrecrema saith, Quamuìs ecclesia, 
Turrecr. sum. d. Eccles. 2. c. 112.  etc. Although the Church be supported by divine power and authority, yet inasmuch as it is a Congregation of men, something through humane weakness is acted by it which is not divine. Thus it's confessed, that the Church is not totally exempted from these enemies. But because you bring Scripture to patronise your cause, let us see whether it speak for you.  
1. Against Ignorance, you urge Mat. 13. To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven. Ans. 1. I wonder your Rhemists had nothing to say for the Church's infallibility from this Text, all that they conclude from it is this, That to the Apostles, and such as have the guiding and teaching of others, deeper knowledge of God's word and mysteries is given, then to the common people, as also to Christians generally, that which was not given to the obstinate Jews; which makes nothing from a total exemption of them from ignorance, if it did, much more would that place of St. John (1. Ep. 2. cap. 27. where 'tis said, The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, etc.) Prove such an exemption for private Christians, and so lay a foundation for their infallibility, which would derogate from the Honour of his Holiness of Rome. 2. It is most evident, that the Disciples of Christ to whom these words were spoken had ignorance in them, and that of such things as were needful to be known (See Mark 9.31.32. Luk. 9.45. Joh. 12.16.) viz. the Death and Resurrection of Christ, etc.  
2. Against Darkness, you urge Matth. 6. but 'tis Matth. 5.14. You are the light of the world. Ans. 1. If you mean that the Apostles and their Successors are so light, that they have no darkness in them, you are no better than a blasphemer; for it's said of God (and cannot be spoken of any other) God is light, and in him is no darkness at all, 1 J●h. 1.5. 
Aug. in Ps. 10.  2. S. Augustine alluding to this place, compares the Church to the Moon, which you know hath her dark spots, though the Sun to which Christ is sometimes compared, be altogether transparent and bright. 3. They are called a light, not so much in regard of their inward qualification, 
Lyran. in Mat. 5.14.  as of their office, which is to instruct, and direct others in their way, as Gregory, Burgensis, and Cyran●s note. 4. Learned Cameron conceives, that this is spoken of the Apostles as Apostles, which is probable, because our Saviour speak to them, as related to an Apostolical or Universal charge; and thus it proves nothing for your present Church. Lastly, I fear that whilst your men was writing for inerrability, your thoughts were possessed with the Church's visibility, which your Doctors of Rheims would prove from hence. But then why did you not bring in the next words? 
Ro. 17.3.  A City set on a Hill, which would more directly, with a little variation of number, have pointed at your Holy Mother on her sevenheaded Beast.  
3. Against Error and Falsehood you urge Joh. 14. I will send unto you the Spirit of truth, to remain with you for ever: And Isa. 62. Thou shalt no more be called forsaken. To your former I answer, it makes nothing for you, for it's one thing to have the Spirit of Truth, to lead into truth, and another thing to have it making us infallible. I conceive there are few of your Priests or Jesuits, but think themselves to have the Spirit of Truth, yet are not infallible: Nay private Christians may have this Spirit of truth, and by it may be kept from damnable or Soul-ruining error, yet who would say they are infallible. It's a groundless distinction of the Rhemists, to say, That the Spirit for many other causes is given to divers private men, and to all good men to sanctification; but to teach all truth, and to preserve in truth, and from error, he is promised and performed only to the Church, and the chief Governor and General Councils thereof. The contrary to this is affirmed by themselves in another place, 
Joh. 17.17.  saying; Christ prayeth that the Apostles, their Successors, and all that shall be of their belief, may be sanctified in truth, i. e. may have the Spirit of truth, and be freed from error. The Spirit then may be had, and yet inerrability be wanting to a person. To your other Text: It seems to be put in to make up a number of Texts, not of Proofs; I believe you neither considered Text nor Context when you brought it in. I profess, I cannot see the least shadow of proof in it for the Church's infallibility, it being spoken to the Jews in regard of their desolations, and therefore contains a promise of Gods returning with mercy and loving kindness, which was suitable for their comfort in their low condition.  
4. Against Weakness, you urge 1 Tim. 3. She is the Pillar and ground of truth: And Mat. 16. Hell Gates shall not prevail against her. To the former I answer. 1. If any particular Church be here spoken of, it is not the Roman, but the Church of Ephesus, where Timothy governed, which by your own confessions might err. 2. The words may be referred to what follows: It's not said expressly, She is the Pillar, etc. as you abusively read it. Cameron doth refer them to the next verse, and gives divers reasons why they should be so referred, 
Verba ista (Columna etc.) sunt conjungenda cum sequentibus: ratio, 1. Alioqui erit Oratio Apostoli hiulca & suspensa si legamus,— Domus Dei columna, & fundamentum veritatis & sine controversia, etc. est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non coherent ista. 2, Non solet Apostolus novi Argumenti tractionem incho●re à conjunctione. 3. Haec est usitatissima formula inter Judaeos, quum quis profitetur se traditurum praecipua dogmata Religionis, ut illud pronunciat columnam esse & fundamentum veritatis vel sapientiae quod traditurus est: Et solent Apostoli uti phrasibus receptis in ecclesia judaica, sed accommodatis ad rem quam agunt. Cameto.  showing amongst other things, that this was a manner of speech which the Jews did frequently use, when they delivered some main and principal points of Faith. And hereunto the Apostle Paul, who was well versed in the customs of the Jewish Rabbis, being now to deliver the main points of our Faith concerning Jesus Christ might well allude. If we take it thus, it's not the Church, but the truth itself, especially those principal points of Religion mentioned in the next verses. Thus Irenaeus saith, That the Gospel which was preached by the Apostles, was afterwards by the will of God delivered to us in writing, (Fundamentum & columnam fidei nostrae futurum) that it might be a ground and Pillar of our Faith. 3. Supposing it be spoken of the Church, 
Iten. advers. haeres. lib. 3. c. 1. init.  yet this is 1. In regard of the Word of God which is preached and continued in the Church; if God remove his Word from a Church, as from the Churches of Asia, etc. that Church ceaseth to be a Pillar and ground of truth. 2. In regard of true Believeers who are truly the house of the living God, and adhere to the Word of God, others are not, De compage domus, they are not of the House. Augustine hath a notable saying to this purpose, 
Aug. praefat. in Ps. 47.  he tells us the Church consists of Saints, such whose names are written in heaven, steadfast ones, hear (saith he) and acknowledge that this Church in the Apostolical Epistles is called a foundation. 3. In regard of the first Christians and Ministers, not succeeding Churches (unless in such regards as I shall show hereafter) the Apostle speaks in the Present tense. The authority of the Primitive Church is greater than of the present Churches. There is a clear testimony, and much to our present purpose, in your Louvain Doctor Driedo, 
Dried. lib. de dogm. vari●s.  who acknowledges that the Primitive Church was of greater authority in teaching and delivering Doctrines of Faith, than the present Church, because of the Apostles qui ●cclsiae illius columneae, 
Gersom de vita spirituali animae f. 61. R.  who being Pillars of that Church, were eye-witnesses of that which they taught. Thus Gersom (expounding that Speech of Augustine, you much glory in non crederem Evangelio, and I had not believed the Gospel, unless the authority of the Church had compelled me thereto) saith he, taking Church there for the Primitive Congregation of the faithful, who saw and heard Christ, and were his witnesses. Suppose we grant this Church was the Pillar and ground of Truth in your sense, what would your present Apostatised Roman Church gain by hat? Your Prelates are no such Pillars as the Atostles, nor your Church such a foundation of truth as theirs. Lastly, supposing it were meant of the present Churches, particularly of the Roman: It's being called the Pillar and ground of Truth, doth not prove its infallibility: James, Cephas, 
Gal. 2.9.  and John were Pillars, yet who would infer from thence that they were infallible? Gersom is by one called, Constantiensis Concilii columnam, a Pillar of the Council of Constance, yet he was not thought infallible. All that can be proved from these titles is this, that God makes use of the Church (both Pastors and faithful people according to their places) to hold forth and preserve the truth, which is accomplishhd in every particular Church, so long as it continues a true Church of Christ, but this doth not exempt it from ceasing to be a true Church, or from erring. Thus it may truly be said of the Churches of Asia, and of Rome, that while they continued true Churches of Christ, they held forth and preserved God's truth; but neither this, nor those were exempt from erring. Adam in the state of Innocence might have been truly called the Pillar and ground of truth, and goodness, holiness, and righteousness; yet Adam was created with a posse errare, a possibility of erring, as we know by woeful experience.  
Your other text is Matth. 16. I answer. 1. By Church we are to understand true Believers. Augustine expounds this place by Matth. 7.24.25. 
Aug. de unit. eccles. c. 18. See Lyran.  These cannot be finally prevailed against by the Gates of Hell. There will be a number of true Believers, and these visible, let the Devil and his Instruments do what they can. 2. By Hell Gates the Fathers understand persecutions and sins, and will you say that the members of the true Church cannot be persecuted nor tempted to sin, the contrary is undeniable.  
3. It's one thing for Hell Gates to wound us, and cause us to shrink, another thing to overcome us utterly; our weakness lays us open to blows and wounds, such weakness was in Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, who denied or forsook Christ; such weakness was in your Pope Liberius, when he subscribed to the Arian Heresy: Though God doth always strengthen his servants against total Apostasy. 4. Tell me Sir, suppose I had brought this place to prove the certainty of the Saints perseverance? would you have been persuaded that they could not err so much as in the least truth, or fall into the least sin?  
3. Arg. Your third Argument is taken from Christ's promise of his presence, Matth. 28. I am with you alwayos to the end of the world. Ans. 1. This promise is made to all the Apostles and their Successors; 
Pag. 15.  and therefore if it proved infallibility for any, it would be for the Apostles Successors in other Churches as well as Rome, which is not harmonious music to Popish ears. 2. It's made to the Successors of the Apostles, as employed about the ministerial acts of teaching and baptising; and therefore if it proved infallibility, the Pope must part with a privilege you ascribe only to him. 3. What is more promised here then Joh. 14.23. where Christ promiseth his presence, and abode with private Christians, even such as love him, and keep his word, whom you account not unerrable. 4. There are three things contained in this promise, a threefold effect of Christ's presence, with the successes of the Apostles. 1. His special support and assistance for the discharge of their duties. Thus chrysostom saith, Quia magna eis injunxerat, &c because he had laid a great task upon them, to comfort them he saith, 
Chrysost. Hom. 91. in Matth.  [Behold I am with you, etc.] q. d. lest you should complain that your work is difficult, I will be with you, who make all things light. 2. His protection of them, that there shall never cease a Succession of Pastors in the Church to the end of the world, Ephes. 4.11.12.13.14. 3. Ordinary illumination and direction; I say ordinary, to distinguish it from that extraordinary illumination which the Apostles had, and which was suitable for them by whom the Scriptures were written, and the Churches first founded, but is ceased with them; so as Gods Timothy's must give themselves to reading, meditation, etc. which the Apostles were not tied unto: Hereupon your inferences fall to the ground, in that you say, Either Christ was not of power to keep his Church from strayings, or that he wanted fidelity to make good his word. Christ's power is larger than his will or promise, and therefore sufficient to perform what he promised: Nor is there any defect in his fidelity; whatsoever he hath promised, he will perform it to his Church, but he never promised her inerrability, she is not therefore to expect it from him.  
4. Arg. Your fourth Argument is in these words, The certainty Divine Faith requires to be built on, is a further evidence of the Church's infallibility; 
ibid.  for how is it possible Faith can be certain, if the Church that is to ascertain it be uncertain and fallible? The Argument is reducible to this form; That which Divine Faith doth build upon must be certain and infallible (else Faith itself could not be certain) but it's the Church that divine Faith doth build upon, therefore the Church must be certain and infallible. Your major I easily grant, but deny your minor Proposition, which being only questionable, you should have brought some proof for it, as well as for the other, which no man doubts of; but it hath been observed to be the practice of Jesuits; Probare concessa, leviter pertransire dubitata, whom you are pleased to imitate: The reasons of my denial are these. 1. It's the privilege of the Word of God written, or the Scripture to be the ground of Faith. These things are written that ye might believe, 
Joh. 20. ult.  i. e. that your Faith might have a certain foundation, revelations, or traditions, being more uncertain, and easily pretended where they have no existence or being. Compare with this, 2 Pet. 1.18.19 Ye have a more sure word of Prophecy, that is, In quo magis confirmetur auditor; whereby the hearer may be more confirmed. So that the word is more sure, and that to us, inasmuch as we are thereby more confirmed. Hence it is that our Saviour sends his hearers to the Scriptures, that therein they might find what they have to believe, Joh. 5.39. So doth the Prophet, Isa. 8.20. and Abraham in the parable, Luk. 16.29. which your Lyranus comments thus upon, 
Lyran. in Luk. 1 is. 29.  Habent Moysen, etc. they have Moses who taught moral actions, and the Prophets who delivered mysteries of Faith, and these suffice to salvation; therefore it follows, let them hear them. This was the measure of the Apostles preaching and faith, Act. 26.22. 
Act. 17.10.11.  By this the Bereans tried the truth of the Apostles preaching, and for its conformity thereto, 
Annot. of Divines on the Text.  did receive it into their belief, 'tis said; therefore many of them believed, i. e. because of the testimony of the Scriptures: So that we may truly say, that if the Apostles had preached any thing beside, or contrary to Scripture, the Bereans would not have believed their preaching, and the Apostle himself would have justified them herein, Gal. 1.8.9. On which Text Augustine hath this note, Qui praeter— greditur, 
Aug. apud Lyran. in  etc. He that goes beside the rule of Faith, doth not walk in the way, but departs from it— Neither would the Apostle himself have us found our hope on him, but on that truth which he declared: That which was spoken by him was better, than he by whom it was spoken. From whence what can be more clearly inferred then that. 1. The Word of God preached is the rule of Faith: And 2. That faith is not resolved into persons preaching the truth, but into the truth preached by them, contrary to both which is your minor Proposition. 2. Ans. Supposing it true, that the Church must be the ground of Faith; yet I affirm that this is not yours, or any other present Church, but only the Primitive Church, which as I have already showed, is of greater authority than the present Church, which is in a kind grounded upon the Apostolic Church, or that Church which contains the Prophets, Apostles, etc. All succeeding Churches are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, whose testimony, because of their visible converse with God and Christ, becomes efficax ad credendum, effectual for the grounding of Faith. It's observable, that whereas Abraham might have told the rich man, that his Brethren had a present Church to hearken to, yet he only mentions Moses and the Prophets. 2. I affirm, that if your Church be a foundation of Faith, yet this would not be a Divine, but only an humane Faith. And indeed this is the very reason why your Doctors commonly held, that Faith is ultimately resolved upon God himself revealing the truth (as Azorius observes) because Divine Faith must be resolved into a Divine testimony, which the testimony of the Church is not, and they prove it by divers arguments, especially by four, which I have transcribed out of Azorius: And though he do not altogether adhere to their opinion, 
Ratio: 1. Ecclesiae testimonium est quidem divinum sed participatione non per se & sua naturâ: at Dei testimonium est divinum per se & suâ naturâ, & fides divina resolvi debet in testimonium quod sit per se non autem participatione divinum. 2. Quae sunt fidei revelatione Divinâ, non naturae lumine sunt patefacta, at Deus est qui revelat ac pandit res fidei, non ecclesia. 3. In Angelis, Prophetis, Apostolis & caeteris Librorum Cananicorum Scriptoribus fides non resolvebat, in ecclesiae testimonium, sed in Deum per se pro xime revelantem: at fides nostra est ejusdem speciei cujus fui illa. Ergo in eandem rationem credendi reducitur. 4. Quamvis ecclesia sit testis— non tamen Condit aliquem articulum fidei sed declarat & explicat quae sunt fidei, etc. Azor. Instit. Moral. Parl. 2. l. 5. c. 24. q. 2.  but allows something to the Church; yet he acknowledges that it's ex accidenti, by accident, that our Faith is resolved into the Church's authority. Again: 2. Many learned Papists believe and teach, that it's only an humane Faith, whereby we believe, that this, or the other Pope is Peter's Successor, and Christ's Vicar on earth, because it depends on this Proposition, that this, or the other Pope, is orderly and Canonically chosen to the Popedom, which is also objected against General Councils. Now how can we believe a Pope's Decrees for a Divine Faith, when it's only an humane Faith, whereby we believe that he is Pope or Peter's Successor. Becanus clearly resolves, That if any stay in the resolution of the Church, and ascend not to the Scripture his assent, who believes, because of the authority of the Church is not an assent of Theological Faith, but of an other inferior order, viz. that which Scotus calls an acquired Faith, and saith, is only conceived by the Church's testimony, which indeed is nothing else but an human faith, for its such a Faith whereby we believe one, that may both be deceived himself, and may deceive us, although we believe that he will not deceive us. 
Sot. lib. 2. de Nat. & great. c. 7.  Hereupon Sotus acknowledgeth of him that he held the authority of the Church to be only humane; than which, what can be more contradictory to your assertion. 3. Ans. I grant that the testimony of the Church is an external motive to belief, as is also consent of people, conformity of the things believed to natural light, accomplishment of Prophecies, Miracles, Gods Judgements against the Enemies of Truth, etc. The testimony of the woman of Samaria was an external motive to the Samaritans belief, not the formal cause of it; so the preaching of Godly Ministers, is a means whereby men are brought to believe, yet you will not conclude that Faith is built on them, and they infallible: It is the Church by which (as a means) not for which (as the formal ground) we do believe.  
Your fifth Argument is taken from the Church's composure and nature, 
5. Arg. p. 18. 16.  in these words, Look on the Church's composure and nature, and her strength will appear yet more, by reason she is framed, and made up of men, Gen. 22. dispersed and spread over the world, Act. 1. who by this means being of several Nations, Ps. 11. different tempers and interests, Luk. 24. neither could, nor can meet, or conspire to cheat themselves or posterity with a lie. Which may be reduced to this Syllogism; If the Church be composed of men of several Nations, different tempers and interests, then it's infallible; but it is so composed, etc. therefore infallible. A. To your minor I shall only say, that if I were not otherways persuaded to believe it, then by your proofs of it, which are to be sought like a Needle in a Bottle of Hey, I should doubt of the truth of it: Sure you intended your proofs for your Romish Catholics, who you know read not Scripture: But what needs all this ado, this senseless urging of holy Scripture to prove that the Church is composed of men, men of several Nations, different tempers and interests. But leaving this for your brutish admirers to ruminate on, I deny the consequence of your Major Proposition, which is this, That society that is framed, and made up of men dispersed and spread over the world, etc. is infallible. What Schoolboy that knows what infallibility is, would assent to this? Who knows not, that Herod and Pontius Pilate, the Jews and Romans, men of several Nations, of different tempers, and interests, yet conspired in resisting the Gospel, and crucifying of Christ? Are not the Mahometans men of several Nations (yea more than true Christians possess) different tempers and interests, yet damnable erroneous? What do you think of the 72. Interpreters, 
Oyril. Called. 3. pag, 99  who were sent by Eleazar the Priest to Ptolemy, to translate the Hebrew Text into Greek, which they did without any discrepancy, eirher in sense or words, though kept asunder one from another? Do you think they were infallible? The Arian Church was composed of men dispersed over the world, of different tempers and interests, yet most dangerously erroneous: Yet further, when our Saviour suffered some of your Doctors say the Church was only in the blessed Virgin; how would this your argument have proved the Church's infallibility at that time? Your citation of Gen. 22. and Act. 1. and Ps. 11. and Luk. 24. would have been to no purpose. Once more, shall not the Antichristian Church having these qualifications, yet damnably err? 2. Tell me what you understand by different tempers and interests? Is it that some are godly, some wicked, some promoters of Christ's interest, some advancers of the Devils? By your tempers mean you, that some are hot, others cold, and a third sort lukewarm? And by your different interests, that some promote the Pope's interest, others the interest of Councils against the Pope. This is your Church's composure, but proves no infallibility. 3. If the very seeming contradictions in Scripture overthrow the Protestants Argument for its Divine Authority from its consent and harmony (which Vane in his late books labours to prove) Why do not your real differences which Bellarmine declares to the world, 
Vane's Lost Sheep. p. 16.  much more conclude against your infallibility? But you seem to be sensible of the insufficient, of your Argument, and therefore before the end of your Section, you fly to Gods assisting and strengthening of the Church, whereby she becomes infallible. But this I have answered before, and avoid repetitions.   

CHAP. V Of the possibility of keeping the Commandments.  
I Cannot but wonder what your method should be in this book, and how this Chapter should come in next to the former. When you had spoken so much of conformity of faith to the Church, which you account as the first means of supernatural happiness, what rational man but would have thought, but that you should have said something of the conformity of hope to the Lords Prayer; which you laid down as a second means, and not have leapt to the third in such haste. I could almost think that you are secretly proving adoration of that Roman Creature, the Church of Rome; for in your former Chapter you have been freeing her from Error, here you free her from sin; for if any be free from sin, it must be the Roman Church: And your next Chapter is about Religion, or religious worship: But seeing I have begun, I will continue to follow you. In this chapter you wove Penelope's Web; what you say in the first and second Section, you clearly unsay in the third, which will therefore help me in answering your former assertions. You begin with exceeding confidence, wondering that any can make question of the possibility of keeping the Commandments; But the ground of this your confidence is misapplication of Scriptures, as I shall through God's assistance make it appear in my answers to you. You urge Scripture, examples, and arguments: The Scriptures you mainly urge are these, Deut. 30. and Mat. 11.21. 1 Deut. 30. They are not above, but very near us, in our mouths, and in our hearts to do them. It's the Argument of your Donatists, but makes not for you to prove possibility of perfect obedience; that which it proves is, the perspicuity of the Law, as to the Jews knowledge of it. 
Vatab. Annot. in Loc.  That word which you render above, is by Vatablus rendered Hid, non est occultum à te. It's not hidden from thee. As if he should say to them, you have no cause to plead ignorance of the Law, seeing it's not hid from you, but published to you, being in your mouths, i. e. in o'er Levitarum, etc. in the mouths of the Levites, who are of thy people— that thou mayest receive from them those precepts that concern a good l●fe, 
Id. ibid.  and that they may teach them thee without delay. This is more confirmed by his Marginal Note, Praeciditur hic, etc. Here is cut off from the Jews all occasion of pleading their ignorance of the Law. 2. These words do mainly intent the words of Faith (Rom. 10.8.) i. e. the application of Christ's righteousness to us by Faith. Thus Lyranus explains it, saying; 
Lyran.  Ostenditur, etc. Here is showed the facility of that righteousness which is by the Faith of Christ, which the Apostle opposeth to righteousness by the Law, Phil. 3.9. Vatablus is very clear in this point, understanding it of that righteousness which is freely bestowed on Faith; his words at large are these, Si de sola lege, etc. If this were spoken only of the Law, his argument were frivolous, in that the Law of God is nothing easier to be done, by being before our eyes, then if it were far off: Moses therefore in this Chapter, as in the fourth, doth commend unto the people God's special good will (as appears by that place of Paul, Rom. 10 8.) in bringing them under his tutorage, which commendation could not be taken from the naked Law: Nor doth it hinder, that Moses preacheth of ordering their life according to the rule of the Law, for the free righteousness of Faith hath the Spirit of regeneration accompanying it; therefore one is inferred from the other, because the observation of the Law is through the Faith of Christ. This righteousness of Faith is easy in regard of Law righteousness, which was to be done by us, whereas it is rather fulfilled in us by Christ, Rom. 8.3.4. This is further confirmed by the Jews, who unanimously affirm, that this thirtieth Chapter belongs to the Kingdom of the Messiah. 3. If they be spoken of the Commandments, and prove that they may be kept, it remains yet to prove, that this keeping of them is an exact and perfect fulfilling of them, indeed to those that are regenerate, the Commandments are said not to be grievous, 1 Joh. 5. but this is only because they keep in them in such measure, that God is pleased freely to accept and reward them for it. 4. These words are spoken to the people of the Jews in general, even to all, and therefore to each of them, amongst whom there were many unregenerate. Will you say now, that unregenerate and graceless ones can keep the Commandments of God perfectly? 
Concil. Tri. dent. Sess. 6. Can. 18.  This were to oppose your unerring Council of Trent, who limit this possibility to the regenerate only.  
2. Text. Matth. 11.21. 'tis v. 30. My yoke is sweet, my burden light. A. 1. By Yoke many understand the Gospel, not the Law; and by burden, Christ's Discipline. Christ's yoke, saith chrysostom, 
Gloss. ordin. & Chrysost. apud Lyran.  is the Gospel which unites Jews and Gentiles in one Faith. Lyranus and Emanuel so call it, Lex Evangelica. Now this is Faith working by love: This is the work of God that we believe on him whom God hath sent, Joh. 6.29. This is most suitable to the context, for our Saviour is speaking to poor souls, burdened with sin, or the Law's yoke, as your Gloss and Lyra who calls the Law Onus patribus antiquis importabile) speak. Now can we think Christ should send them to the Law again? This were to deliver up a poor oppressed servant to his rigid Master, which the Law forbids. Is it not rather more suitable to Christ's temper to advise them thus, Poor souls, the Law hath terrified you, by exacting of you perfect obedience, or in case of defect subjecting you to the curse: Come therefore to me, believe on me by a true Faith accompanied with love, applying my perfect obedience for the covering of your disobedience; look upon my stripes, see me become a curse for you, and rest upon my promise of application of my obedience to you; this is sweet and profitable, whereas your own righteousness is unprofitable, as to the acquitting of you from subjection to the curse. (See this Phil. 3. init.) And though you meet with a burden of afflictions and sufferings, these are but light, and they work for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. 2. If it should be understood of the Law, it cannot demonstrate a facility of exact and perfect obedience: This is most difficult; so as its hard you say, to name any particular man that attains unto it; but of an inclination of the heart to, and an endeavour of obedience, this is easy to one that comes to Christ, the Apostle shows this in his own experience, saying; To will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not, Rom. 7.18. Which is notably confirmed by S. Augustine, 
Aug. apud Lyran.  Semper bonus vult, etc. A good man hath always a will not to sin; but he never attains to this perfection in this life, that he should not sin. There is a kind of Emphasis in the Apostles word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he did some good, but he did not throughly do it, he was not altogether free from concupiscence, 
Athan. apud. Eund.  as that Father shows. Thus Athanasius propounding the question how the Gospel is lighter than the Law, seeing the Law condemns evil works, and the Gospel concupiscence, he answers; In Lege multa jubentur, etc. In the Law many things are commanded, which the Apostle saith cannot be done; in the Gospel there is required the will— which alone may suffice, and be rewarded. Certainly where Grace is, there is an inclination to good, yea a delight in the Law of God according to the inward man, yet there is no perfection. And hereupon the most godly have their sighs, groans, tears, complaints, for their weakness and miscarriages.  
2. Your examples are many, some of them (say you) out of the Old Testament, others out of the New; to which I say: 1. Those you mention of the Old and New Testament, (viz. No, Ezekias, Josias, Josephat, Asa, Jotham, I b, Simeon, John Baptist, Zecharias, Elizabeth, the B. Virgin) were all of them godly and holy persons, and did keep the Commandments in such measure, that God in his mercy did accept of them. But I deny that any of them did so perfectly fulfil the Law, that they were able to stand the trial of God's exact Justice: And therefore read the lives of the most holy men that the Scripture mentions, and you shall find their blemishes and sins, which are inconsistent with exact and perfect obedience. David is said to be a man after Gods own heart, yet committed two mortal sins (to use your word) Murder and Adultery; No was a just man, but guilty of drunkenness, Gen. 9.21. a sin that excluded from Heaven, 1 Cor. 6.10. Zecharias is taxed with unbelief, Luk. 1.20. It's easy to instance in the rest, but for brevity's sake, I desire you to find your own quotations and peruse them; that which the Scripture asserts of these is, that for the main of their lives they were blameless before men. This is fully propounded by S. Augustine, in answer to your Fathers the Pelagians, whose argument this of yours was: For speaking of Zacharias and Elizabeth how they were blameless, 
Aug. de Grat. Dei Contr. Pelag. & celest l. 1. c. 48.  he hath these words; Dictum est, etc. It's spoken (as it seems to me) of their conversation, which was approved, and commendable in the sight of men, and which none could justly accuse or complain of, etc.  
2. There is one example which you bring in amongst the crowd of Scripture examples, and if it were one of them, it is of Tobias, mentioned Tob. 2. I shall answer this particularly, because fetched out of an Apocryphal book. 1. Therefore I say, in the place you quote, I read nothing of Tobias that can prove your assertion; to argue from one or two particular acts of charity, to an absolute perfection of charity, is no good Logic. But sure Sir you were in love with his name, and thought he was perfectly good, because his name was Tobias, rather than because the second chapter of Tobit saith any thing of it. But what fault had good David made, that he could not have a room in the Old Testament as well as Tobias? I believe he should, but than you could not have told us, that Tobit was a Canonical book of the Old Testament, which now you affirm: So that in this example you kill two Birds with one stone; Ecce duo gladii. I pray Sir who told you that Tobit was a part of the Old Testament: 1. The Jews told you not, for they (and to them were committed the Oracles of God) received it not, but cut it off from the Canon, as Hierome in his Prologue to this Book, 
Hierom. ad Chrom. & Heliod. in Tob. Prologue.  and the Annotator upon him doth also confess. 2. Nor ancient Fathers; Bellarmine observes, that many of the Ancients, as Melito, Epiphanius, Hilarius, Hieronimus, Ruffinus, to whom add Cyril of Jerusalem, in their delivering the Canon of the Old Testament, 
Cyril Catech. 4. p. 99 Stapl. princip. Doctr. Christ. l. 9  do clearly follow the Hebrews. Stapleton also confesseth, that this and other such like books, were accounted by the most ancient Christians, but as doubtful and Apocryphal. 3. Did the Councils affirm it to you: I know Trent did, but she is a Novice, and of no great authority in this point. The Council of Laodicea (confirmed afterwards in a General Council) omits this book, when she delivers the Canon of Scripture. Ans. Divers later writers do refuse this book, as Lyranus, and as I remember, 
Lyran. praefat. ad lib. Tobit.  Sixtus Senensis. For a conclusion of this, I shall tell you, that there were some adjudged Heretics by the General Council of Vienna, amongst whose errors this is the Leader, as mentioned by Caranza, Quod homo in vita praesenti, 
Caranz. Sum. Concil. p. 434.  etc. That man in this present life may attain to such and so great a degree of perfection, that thereby he becomes altogether impeccable. I pray show us the difference betwixt this error, and your supposed truth of possibility of keeping the Law.  
3. Your Arguments now come to be considered of. The 1. is, God's conditional promises to David and his Posterity, could be termed no better than jeers, unless the Commandments were possible. A. I deny your consequence: For 1. God may accept of that which man can perform; though he do not perform what he should: You know Hezekiah's prayer occasioned by a multitude of people that had not cleansed themselves, and came to eat the Passeover; The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek the Lord God of his Fathers, 
2 Cron. 30.18 19.20.  though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary; and the Lord harkened to Hezekiah. Here was a defect in their obedience, and yet God's acceptation and performance of his promise to them, which was the benefit of this Sacrament, as Lyranus tells you: God did fulfil his promise to David and his Posterity, as Solomon acknowledgeth— Who hast kept with thy servant David my Faiher, that thou promisedest him; 
1 King. 8.24.  thou spakest also with thy mouth, and hast fulfilled it with thine hand, as it is this day. Yet you cannot say that David or his Posterity yielded exact obedience to God's Commandments, for they fell into grievous sins, but the main of their lives was holy, and this God was pleased to accept of. The Falls of the Saints do not nullify the Covenant of God, though sometimes they bring God's Rod upon them. 
Ps. 89.28. etc.  I should suppose that yourself hope for an accomplishment of God's promise, yet I hardly think that you dream of yielding exact and perfect obedience to God's Law, before you can obtain the promise. 2. God doth not jeer men by exacting obedience which they cannot yield: For 1. He requires nothing but what they own him. 2. He requires nothing, but what he gave them once power to pay him. 3. He requires nothing but what Jesus Christ is able to pay for them, and God therefore exacts it of them, that they may seek unto him on whom he hath laid help. This is clearly taught, Isai. 55.3.4. I will make an everlasting Covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David, saith God. But Jesus Christ must be given, or else this Covenant cannot be sure. See Rom. 8.3.4. a most plain text for this purpose.  
2. Argument is this. To what purpose is so much persuasion in books and Pulpits to live well, if the Commandments be impossible? Is living well, any other than keeping of the Commandments? It is assuredly as ridiculous, as impious, to term him a good liver, that steals, murders, and commits adultery, etc. A. 1. Those persuasions are regulated by God's command; God commands men to live well, which, as you say, is to keep the Commandments, and Ministers in books and Pulpits persuade men thereto. But to what purpose, say you, are these, if the Commands be impossible? I answer, it is to much purpose: As 1. To show men what they ought to do. It's a noted Speech of that great Antipelagian St. Augustin O homo in praeceptione cognosce etc. O man in the precept know what thou oughtest to have. You persuade many to join themselves to your Roman Church, as the way to salvation, which its impossible for many of them to do, if you consider either God's decree, or their stability. They should deceive if it were possible the very Elect: but its impossible: that's implied. Now if we ask why you persuade such? I know no better reason you could render then this that you show them what (according to your judgement) they ought to do. 2. To beat down pride and conceit of justification by works: whilst we see that there is more owing to God than we can pay. This appears in the Apostles speech. Rom. 7.9. I was alive without the Law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. This the Law is a worker of fear and bondage, and a kill letter. 3. To drive them to Christ and the Grace of God through him. Propterea enim mandatur (saith devout Bernard) Therefore God hath enjoined as to observe his Commandments, 
Bern. in vigil. Nat. dom. Ser. 2.  that seeing our weakness and defects, and that we cannot do what we ought we might fly to the mercy of God. Thus the Law is a Schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, making us ready to hearken to his invitations to lay hold upon his promises: meditate on that text. Math. 11.30. If this end were not in it I know not why it should persuade those in an unregenerate estate to obey the commands, for its impossible they should keep them as all except Pelagians will grant. 2ly. Whereas you say, Is living well any other then keeping of the Commands? I Answer, Living well, and absolute perfect obedience to God's Commands are not convertible. You say of many that they live well, but confess you cannot name one man that perfectly keeps the Commandments. It would be a harsh note if I should tell you that I know not one Papist in England that lives well. Or if some Traveller should affirm that he met not with one man in all Popish Dominions that he could say lived well. You are abundant in mentioning the good lives of Catholics, and their holiness of life is become a note of your Church. Sure you do not mean that Papists absolute keeping of the Commandments is your Note. The truth is, he lives well who for the main of his life endeavours to conform himself to God, sorrowing for his failings and inability to do what God requires, and flies to the mercy of God for the remission of all the miscarriages of his life: he that lives thus, lives well, and if he dies, he dies well. Blamelessness before men sometimes, yea usually denominates a good life. The perfect life wherein is no sin is the life of Angels and Saints in Heaven, where there is perfection of knowledge and grace: This perfection the Apostle Paul aimed at, but confesseth he had not attained, Phil. 3.12.3. Whereas you speak of terming him a good liver that steals, etc. I know not who asserts it, nor to what end you urge it. It's one thing to live directly contrary and another thing to live according to the Law, though it come short of Angelical perfection.  
3. Argument is this, The justness of Laws that inflict severe punishments upon the breakers of the Commandments are n●t at all consistent with the impossibility of keeping them: Necessity is a good and forcible excuse against the strongest charge. Supposing you to speak of humane Laws: I answer, 1. No humane Laws take hold of any for want of exact and perfect obedience: Exact obedience refers to thoughts, which human Laws reach not to, either to reward or punish. 2. They suppose a possibility of outward conformity to them before men: this was in Paul before his conversion, who as touching the righteousness of the Law was blameless, but this was no more but outward conformity, for he wanted grace whereby only your perfection is attainable. 3. What you say of necessity is vain, for 1. There is no necessity of coaction whereby man might be forced to transgress the Law: the will of man is free from this necessity. 2. If there be any necessity to transgress, it's contracted by ourselves through our own fault, and therefore is not a good and forcible excuse against the strongest charge. Do you think when God shall ask natural men at the last day why they did not keep his Commandments, that their necessity will be a good and forceable excuse against God's charge? And yourself cannot deny but that natural men as such are unable to keep God's Commands unless you profess Pelagianism.  
4. Argument, you say, The very light of reason gives testimony to the Commandments possibility, they being all grounded upon reason, and suited to her bent and inclination: the wickedest man alive cannot say that he breaketh any Command without some secret check of conscienco. Answ. 1. What could Pelagius have said more for his error? Doth not your argument prove his opinion? to say the Commandments being grounded on natural reason, it's in the power of nature to keep them, is the grossest Pelagianism. 2. I will grant to you that the commandments are suited to reason as it was in its primitive purity, but not as depraved. The Commandments therefore were not impossible to Adam in whom reason was pure and right, nor should they have been impossible to any of us, if we had stood innocent but now they are impossible to us, because reason in us is depraved, and they are not suited to depraved reason, there are neither fewer nor easier Commandments given to us then to Adam, but the very same. If you say grace supplies reason's defect. I answer, 'tis true that Grace doth reform Nature, but brings it not to its primitive purity: there is no man reacheth to that height of reason that Adam had, and to that consonancy of it to Gods Law. adam's posse non peccare is in no son of man. 3. Whereas you say the wickedest man alive, etc. I question the truth of it, when your Church through the hypocrisy of liars brings in Doctrines of Daemons, forbids to marry and commands to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. Do your conscience check you? Are they not rather seared with an hot iron according to the Apostles prediction? Do wicked men's consciences checks them for every thought of their hearts that is evil. It may be, the commission of the gross external act of theft, or adultery, or murder, and the like is usually atended with some check in most men: but the commandments reach further than to the outward act, to men's thoughts and words, and gestures, and few men will know that these are sins; now there must be science before conscience. 2. Suppose it true, all that it proves is this, that there are some footsteps of reason and conscience in men, which we deny not: but it proves not that reason hath its perfection in them, or that the Law might be kept by them, though its probable that they might break it less than they do. See Rom. 1.18, 19, 20, 21.  
4. Having ended your Arguments, you come in the next place to answer some seeming objections against you.  
1, Object. God only requires man's endeavour: To this you Answer, 1. This is repugnant to Christ's express words, which are not, Math. 19 If thou wilt come to Heaven endeavour to keep, but keep the Commandments. Many a good endeavour, as many a good purpose, burns in Hell. Heaven is the reward of doing not of endeavouring.  
Reply 1. (Not taking notice of the objection which is your own figment) I say God doth require endeavour (which by urging that text, Math. 19 you seem to deny) yea there are as many Commandments of endeavours, as of actual obedience in the New Testament: yea further there are promises and those of Heaven made to endeavours. L●ke 13.24 Strive to enter in at the strait got, etc. Mat. 7.7, 8. Ask and it shall be given you seek and ye shall find, etc.  
Reply 2. Though God do not require only endeavour yet God accepts of endeavour where there cannot be action. God commends & accepts of David's intention of building him an house though he built it not. If a good intention may be accepted instead of action which your Rhemists assert, why not a good endeavour.  
Rep. 3. Endeavour is the utmost that is attaineable in this life according to the judgement of your best School-man Aquinas 
Aquin. 22. q. 24. 7. c.  who shows that that perfection of charity whereby the whole heart of man is continually and actualy carried towards God is our perfection in our Country, but not p●ssible in this life, in which because of human infirmities its impossible always actually to think of God or to love him: but there is another kind of perfection, which is, when a man doth wholly endeavour to devote himself to God and Divine exercises, omitting other things, unless so far as humane necessity doth require, and this is possible in our way, etc. Whence I infer that seeing charity reacheth only thus far that a man should endeavour to devote himself to God, and divine exercises omitting other things so far as he can. It cannot therefore extend to perfect and absolute obedience to Gods will. This endeavour was all that St. Paul attained to Philip 3.11, 12, 13, 14. It's most false and an uncomfortable Doctrine to true souls to say many a good endeavour burns in Hell. For either such endeavours were not real or not seasonable and so not good. But prove that a real a seasonable endeavour burns in Hell.  
2ly. You answer It's equally unnatural to endeavour impossibilities, and to desire things unknown, Who would choose but smile to see one leap and skip as aiming to soàr and fly in the air, knowing it to be possible only for birds that are fitted with wings and feathers for the purpose. Reas. 1. There is a twofold impossibility, 1. Natural or simple impossibility when a thing cannot naturally be done. 2. Moral, when the thing is in its own nature possible; but there are divers intervening obstructions which for the present make it impossible. 2. therefore I answer, things that are simply or naturally impossible are not to be endeavoured; we are not to endeavour to be Gods to make a humane body without the quantity and qualities of such a body, to place one body in two places, or two bodies in one, or as your instanc is to fly in the air as birds (though perhaps art might make this possible.) But if the things have only a moral impossibility, there is no question but they may be endeavoured. And this way only are the Commandments of God impossible to us: they are not contrary but according to right reason, only reason being crazed its unable to be conformed to this rational Law: this is asserted by St. Paul, 
Rom. 8.3.  What the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, etc. The impossibility is not in itself, but in our flesh: that is, our corruptions. It were not unnatural for a poor man that owes a sum of money to endeavour to pay it, though at present he be unable to pay any considerable part of the sum: Nay it were wickedness in him to lay aside endeavour because of present impotency: qui non potest quod debet, debet quod potest. Hereafter we shall be able to do Gods Will, at present we rather endeavour to do it, then actually do it; only here is our comfort we have a gracious father who will accept of his children's endeavours, as if they actually did what he commanded them.  
2. Obj. There are no particular persons can be pointed out of whom you can say, these keep the Commandments.  
Answ. 1. Indeed to point at any particular, that doth keep the Commandments is hard, no man knowing Eccles. 9 whether he be worthy of love or hatred. Reply, You have but worded it all this while, now you come to speak indeed, and now you are rather with then against us: The Commandments (say you) may be kept but its hard to point at any particular, etc. 1. Hereby you tell us that yourself have performed a very hard work, for you have given us divers examples of particular men and women that have kept them. 2. You comply with old Pelagians whose answer you borrow: for when they were bid to instance in any that kept the Commandments they answered that they said not who did but who might keep them: to which Hierom replied Egregii Doctores, etc. Brave Doctors who say that may be done which they cannot show us was ever done. 
Hierom.  You are the posterity of these Brave Doctors, and the same weapons that slew your Fathers will kill you. 3. The text you urge shows only that by outward events none kows whether he have the love or hatred of God, outward events coming alike to all.  
Answ. 2. But that all in general may keep them Christ himself assures it, 1 Tim. 2. Wiling all to be saved. God wills no thing impossible, and he that wills the end, wills the means. Rep.. You ventured very far in your last answer even to the wounding of your cause, and therefore do wisely to come off and apply a plaster to your wound before you make a fresh assault. This assertion is as wicked as the other is vain. Can all in general keep the Commands? Is not faith a branch of the Commandments? Yet the Scripture expressly saith of some that they could not believe. 
John 12.39.  Is it possible for reprobates vessels of wrath to keep the Commandments? Aquinas in that place I lately mentioned shows they cannot? How then can all in general? 2. The Text you urge as the words of Christ himself, 
Aug. Enchir. c. 103.  do not prove any thing but that God would have some of all kinds of men saved, Kings, Private men, Noble, Ignoble, High, Low, Learned, Unlearned, as Augustin truly expounds it. 3. You falsely suppose that perfect personal obedience is the means of salvation. If you had spoken of man under a covenant of works you had said truth, teaching that as God wills man's salvation; so he requires as a necessary means thereunto that man in his own person should perfectly obey God's Commandments: But blessed be God who hath made a New Covenant with us through Jesus Christ who is become The Lord our righteousness. 4. If this perfect obedience be the necessary means of salvation, then it's not only possible that some may keep the Commandments but its certain that all that are saved do keep them, and then it were not such an hard matter to name such as have and do keep them. You that can Canonize Saints, can tell who are saved; your hope having the Keys of Heaven at his girdle can tell who goes in, and consequently who hath kept the Commandments.  
3. Object. Our condition excludes capacity of perfect obedience. Answ. It's in the power of men to love God so far forth as the capacity of their condition reacheth— this is sufficient to denominate, and render the subject it is in perfect. Reply, 1. The former part and indeed the main of your assertion is the same with what Protestants say against you. We say and profess it that so far as the capacity of our condition reacheth, it's in our power to love God, and hence we infer, that we cannot keep the Law perfectly, because we are in an imperfect condition our knowledge is but in part, and our love is no more. Adam could have loved God perfectly, for the capacity of his condition reached it, so shall we do in Heaven, 
Aquin. 12.9.109.  when that which is imperfect shall be done away: But it's not thus with any man at present: regeneration is not perfect, there are seeds of corrouption as Aquinas confesseth. 2. The later part of your assertion is clearly false, That power which is according to the capacity of our condition is not sufficient to denominate or render the subject, it is in perfect or an exact keeper of the Law of God. If a debtor own twenty pound, and hath but five pound, which he pays to his Creditor: doth the payment of this five pound (which is as much as the present capacity of his condition reacheth to) denominate and render him a perfect payer of his debt, I trow not, and pray Sir show the difference betwixt this and your assertion.   

CHAP. VI Of Religion.  
1. YOu assert that Religion consists in belief not humane grounded upon reason but relying on the Church's authority and the assistance of the Holy Ghost, 
Religio est virtus perquam homines Deo debitum cultum & reverentiam exhibent. Aquin. 22. q. 81. 1. c. religio est quae cultum & honorem Deo tribuit. Azor, instit. mor. p. 1. l. 3. c. 26. & l. 9 c. 5.  p. 23. Answ. 1. The proper act of Religion is to worship and bring honour to God, with relation to whom only, Religion is defined by your Schoolmen and others: This worship is due to God only, and is that whereby we give up ourselves unto God, as the supreme Lord of all, and do place our hope and that in him, as Azorius defines it. According to this, faith is a part of divine worship, an act of Religion, but relating to God the supreme Lord of all, not to the Church, which is only a servant under him, or if you will, an assembly of his servants, and indeed its reason that faith should refer to God, it being the principal act by which a creature honours God, and therefore is more pressed than any other Evangelical duty, and besides its requisite it have a settled object to rest upon, which is God's authority, for the Churches is not always visible Abraham believed, but his faith relied not upon the Church's authority. The Blessed Virgins faith could not rest upon any authority of the Church, especially at Christ's death, when your men affirm that the Church was in her only: but even then the Word of God, the material object of faith had a visible existence, and the fidelity of God faiths formal object was present with her to lean upon. The Scriptures you urge to prove that faith relies on the Church's authority (viz. Mark 16. John 14.) make nothing for you, the later speaks only of the Disciples instruction by the Spirit of God. The former proves that we must believe the Gospel, the material object of faith, but saith not a word of the Church: it saith not, he that relies upon the Church's authority shall be saved. Whosoever believes the Gospel whether he receive it from the Church or not, shall be saved. I challenge you or any that dotes on the word Church, to give me any Scriptures that teacheth to believe in or on the Church: and think you not the Apostles knew how to speak as well as you.  
2. I have already shown that the Church's authority is but humane in the judgement of learned Papists, and that the Spirits assistance makes her not infallible, nor a guide, or rule of belief. Yourself do in effect confess at least of the present Church, For you say, pag. 16. To be the guide of belief requires further ability and skill, to lay open immediately to belief Gods reveled truth, a prerogative belongs to the Church, and no other; as to whom alone revelation was made. Now this ability is not in the Church she lays not open immediately God's revealed truth, whether hereby you mean that the Church speaks to the heart the seat of faith, or that she doth it not by means of the Scriptures: the Church lays open divine truths by the means of Scripture. Besides the Church is not the subject of revelation which you say is the foundation of this prerogative. Your Logical proceeding in counsels show your want of revelation. Your consciousness hereof makes you say revelation WASPE, made it was, but is not so now.  
3. Your inference hereupon is, 1. Thus, The Religion of sectaries is vain their b lief being grounded on some humane respect, not upon the warrantable authority of the Church. ibid. Answ. There may be belelief gounded neither on the authority of the Church nor on humane respects. Consult Azorius, and he will tell you that there are Cath●liques who ground not their faith on the authority of the Church, and yet ground it not upon humane respects. The Word of God revealed unto us by the light of faith wrought in the soul by the spirit is no humane respect: and this Orthodox Christians build their belief upon. 2. Inference: For them to deserve the name of true Christians, and to be styled of the right Religion, their only way is to levelly at perfection, that takes its rise from an absolute resignation of their wills to the will of God in order to the Church, which is to become spiritually little ones. Matth. 18. Answ. 1. Where do you learn that this grounding our belief upon the authority of the Church is the way yea the only the way to be true Christians and of the right Religion. Are not those Papists who differ from you in this point (and such there are as I have showed) true Christians, and of the right Religion. I am sure they are Papists for the main, and therefore cannot be of a wrong Religion if popery be the right. 2. Who told you that that Text of Matthew was to be so expounded. I have seen divers expositions of the fathers on this Text different from yours; but I find not one that from it doth teach us to ground our faith on the Church, as the only way to true Christianity and the right Religion. 3. It's a good lesson to teach us to submit our wills to the Will of God: but it doth not appear that we should ground our faith upon the Church's authority: the Scriptures are altogether ignorant, and destitute of expressions of such a duty.   

CHAP. VII. Of the unity of Religion.  
IN the beginning of this Chapter you assert that True Religion is One, but presently fall upon the unity of persons in this one Religion, and to the means whereby they come to be united, which means you propound in these words; viz. Experience shows that this unity of Religion is an effect of acknowledging the Church for the rule of belief, it being visible to the eye that all that square their belief to the Church are one in religion; whereas they that take to themselves other rules descent and jar etc. p. 28. Asw. 1. Whether those who acknowledge the Church for the rule of belief, be so one in Religion, as that they neither descent nor jar, I refer it to any man's judgement who hath but ordinary insight into the writers of Popish controversies. I wonder whose experience it is that finds it? Or what all-seeing eye it is that discerns All acknowledgers of the Church's authority to be one in Religion. Have you seen All Papists? If you have, are men's judgements and thoughts visible to the eye? Or did they all writ their judgements, and give you them that your eye might see them? But I shall confute this hereafter. 2. Why do you vary your phrase: for first you say this unity is an effect of acknowledging the Church for the rule of belief. And then as thinking you had miss it you speak of actual squaring men's belief to the Church. There is a great difference betwixt these. A Papist may acknowledge the Church to be the rule of faith, yet through ignorance of what the Church holds or some other cause, he may not square his belief to the Church. Experience tells me that many Papists in these parts acknowledge the Church to be the rule of belief; yet it's hard to find one that doth not in some point or other, differ from the Church: I have found many that in some points descent from her. Soto and Catharinus who were both present at the Trent Council could not agree what was the Councils meaning in the points of Original sin and justification, but wrote one against the other of those subjects. So that though both of them might acknowledge the Church to be the rule of faith, yet they could not both square their belief to the Church, unless she be a maintainer of contrary Doctrines. 4. May not experience carry it as much for the Scriptures, and show that they are the rule of faith, for its most certain that all that square their belief to the Scriptures are one in Religion. Thus the primitive Christians did square their belief to the Scriptures, and were unanimous. It's men's leaving the Scriptures and building upon their own fancies, or building their faith upon changeable, and unstable men that makes dissensions and jarring. The Word of God being always the same, there cannot be dissension where is conformity to it.  
2. You give a reason hereof saying, Of which no other reason can be given, but that the Church is always constant and certain; other rules subject to uncertainty and change. Answ. 1. What mean you when you say that the Church is always constant and certain? is it in regard of existence, I grant it of the Catholic, but deny it of your Roman Church. God had a Church before there was a Roman Church, and when Babylon the great is fallen, there will be the Church still. I know no warrant you have that your Church shall always continue: there is much in Scripture to persuade the contrary. Or, 2. Is it in regard of holding and manifestation of the truth, but this way it hath not been always constant. Time was when it was Arian under Liberius, and the Orthodox grievously persecuted in it: time was when it administered the Lords supper to Children even for 600 years: Time was when the Bible of Cleme●t was commanded under the danger of a curse to be received as only Authentical: now Sixtus his Bible must be so received upon the same danger: Time was when your twelve articles of Pope Pius' creed were not enjoined as necessary to be believed to salvation as now they are. Again, Sometimes it hath happened that the Church could not, would not, or durst not manifest the truth: Where was then its certainty? The question about the efficacy of grace was twice brought to the Apostolic chair (forsooth) and after many years' disputation, in regard of its subtlety it was sent away with the difficulties & in determination wherewith it came thither. Questions it seems must be easy or else your virtual Church cannot certainly determine them What certainty is here, when subtleties can stop the Pope's determinations, Your decrees concerni g the virgin's impeccability in the Council of Trent are dark and of no great certainty. 2. It's f●lse that other rules are subject to uncertainty and change. The Scriptures are more certain and unchangeable than your Church: they are called a more sure word of prophecy to which we do well that we take he●d But that we might think that you reverence Scriptures you say, True it is that Scripture in itsel, that i●, as it is the Word of God dictated b● the Holy-ghost is certain and infallible; but to us, 2 Tim. 3. to wi●, as it is liable to this and to others private interpretation it is as uncertain, and fallible as man, witness the many contrary interpr●tations, etc. Answ. 1. The Scripture is not only certain in itself, but even to us, and therefore the Apostle speaking to private Christians: 2 Pet. 1. saith, We have also a more sure word of Prophecy whereunto ye d well that ye take heed as unto a light, etc. The Scripture oft declares its own plainness and certainty as to us. Prov. 8.9. All the words of my mouth are plain to him that understandeth: they are plain, obvious, 
Vatabl.  and easy to be understood Psal. 19.7. The testimony of the Lord is SURE, making wise the simple. Psalm 1●9. 130. The en rance ●f thy Word giveth li●ht: it giveth understanding un●o the simple. 2. Thou h particular men may mak● wr●ng interpretations of some places, y●t th●s is when they use not that diligence, and those means that they ought to use, as viewing antecedent and subsequent Scriptures, comparing like places, considering what words are figurative what proper reading and pondering the interpretation of the learned, bringing all to the rule of faith, i. e. plain places wherein the articles of faith are clearly propounded, 
Tertul. l. de veland virgin.  or if you will the Apostles Creed, which Tertullian calls the immutable and unalterable rule of faith. And yourselves grant that the virtual Church may err if she use not diligence 3. May not the same you say of Scripture, be. said of your Pope's Decretals, Councils, Canons, etc. may not these have wrong interpretations? No doubt but they may: witness the difference betwixt Soto and Catharinus. Certain it is that the Scriptures in points necessary to salvation, are more clear than your Decrees and Canons. Lastly, I know not what you quote 2 Tim. 3. For, I find nothing for you in that Chapter, but rather against you. Timothy had known the Scriptures from a child, and they are said to be able to make him wise to salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus. Here is study of the Scriptures note of the Church's Canons. Here is faith in Jesus Christ; not in the Church. The Scriptures, as I said, or ignorant of such expressions.   

CHAP. VIII. Of the Spirit of Spiritists.  
WHen I had read this Title and compared it with the Title of your tenth Chapter, I thought Spiritists and Protestants had noted two distinct kinds of persons: But the matter of this and the next Chapter show, that in the language of the beast they are the same. It's strange you bring not in Scripturists, and Christians, they are equally strange to you who glory only in the name CATHOLIC: but why do you use these names. Is it that being Priests you tell the world (though against your minds) that in your contention with us, you are Antispiritists, Antiscripturists, Anti-christians, which is your name given you in Scripture. In your Chapter after a subtle distinction betwixt the spirits virtue which you say is in all, and the effects of it, which are confined within narrow limits, you come to show who they are that have the gracious effects of God's Spirit or his favour in them, in order whereunto you say— To know and disscern who they be, the only way is to see their warrant, and examine their works. If their warrant prove that of miracles, and their works good, doubtless they have the favour of God's Spirit; if otherwise, they are at the best but pretence-makers, and ushers of innovation. Answ. 1. How, or upon what ground you distinguish warrant from works as marks of God's Spirit, I know not, this is a warrant for my belief, that I have the Spirits favourable presence with me, because I have good works which cannot proceed from any other fountain. And hereby Christ and St. Paul (as you say) taught us to try men by, and it stands with reason upon those accounts that you give. Yet, 2. It's false that they that want miracles have not the favour of God's Spirit. Amongst all the marks of a reprobate or enemy to God I do not find want of miracles to be any: nor is the having of miracles a sign of one partaking of the Spirits favour; have all your Catholics the gift of miracles, or have none of them that want it the favour of Gods Spirit? You had need to arm them with a cordial Epistle against this uncomfortable doctrine▪ Nay further Are all your Pope's workers of miracles (if we should suppose their works good) I have read of the miracles of many of your Saints, but I find little of the miracles of Popes. Monks and votaries carry away the bell for miracles, and dare you say your Popes have not the favour of God's Spirit? Lastly Sir, are yourself and companions workers of miracles? If you be, pray what are they? Can you drink poison and not be hurt (why then did not your Monk of Winstead Abby live after his potion?) Can you tread upon scorpions, and they not sting you? Can you speak with strange tongues which you have not learned? Can you raise the dead, make the lame to walk, and the blind to see? I know not that any of you claim a power of doing these. Your pretence of casting out devils is a Jesuitical delusion of poor credulous idiots, as I shall perhaps hereafter show. 3. I suppose your meaning is this, they that hold their doctrine to be true (which truth of Doctrine is an effect of God's Spirit) must prove it by good works and miracles; so as that Doctrine that is not thus confirmed is false Doctrine, as you assert in your next section. But this is also untrue. For, 1. Miracles are not absolutely necessary for confirmation of Doctrine, or of their calling who deliver it. Unless, 1. That which is taught be such as cannot be believed without miracles, in regard of the strangeness and newness of it. Such was that Doctrine or teaching that Jesus the son of Mary was the Messiah promised, that the Jewish ecclesiastical policy should see altered. The ceremonial Law cease and that such and such events should happen in aftertimes, these were our Saviour's and the Apostles Doctrines, and being such as I have showed, they needed confirmation by miracles. 2. Unless those who Preach pretend to extraordinary inspiration and mission: thus the Apostles and Prophets (though not all of them) shown their extraordinary calling by miracles. 3. When the Gospel began to be first planted, and a Gospel Church gathered out of the World, which did not acknowledge the Scriptures for true, and therefore needed conviction some other way. Hence 'tis that miracles were common in the infancy of the Church, but are not so now. Sedulius (upon 1 Cor. 14.22. where 'tis said, 
Sedul▪ apud Lyran.  Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not) hath this note hic ostendit, etc. Whereas it said that signs were given in the behalf of infidels, its manifest that faith increasing, they cease: to which your Rhemists consent saying that the extraordinary gift of Tongues was a miraculous sign in the primitive Church, 
Rhem. on 1 Cor. 14.22.  to be used especially in the Nations of the Heathen for their conversion. Gregory saith What, shall we not beli ve if we do no miracles? These were necessary in the beginning that faith might be cherished with miracles, 
Greg. & Theoph. apud Lyran. in Mark 16.17.  but now faith being confirmed they are not necessary, but it sufficeth that Doctrine be confirmed by the good works of those who preach and publish it as Theophilact speaketh.  
I conceive your conscience checked you for speaking of miracles, and therefore your proofs in the next Section make only for good works, which we grant.  
2ly. From your Doctrine you make this inference— whence it is plain that the Spirit of Spiritists is a false imposture, a mere figment and delusion. Answ. This is nothing but a Jesuitical goundless imputation raised upon three gross lies.  
1.— Inasmuch as its destitute of miracles. Answ. 1. The Doctrines we teach being the Doctrines of our Saviour and his Apostles hath been confirmed by miracles in the primitive times, both in them that taught, and in them also that believed it, Mark 16.17. and this sufficeth to entitle us to miracles to this purpose is that of Chrysostom Si quis dicat, sed non vid●●us haec signa nunc fieri, etc. If any say, but we see not these signs to be done now: 
Chrysost. Tom. 5. de resur. ser. 33. p. 521. c  It may be answered, there is no difference whether they be done now, or were done in time past. Indeed for present miracles as we have them not, so we need them not. Our ministers pretend to no extraordinary inspiration, nor to any Prophetical or Apostollical mission; we make no alteration of the state of the Church from what it was by Christ's institution, nor teach any thing but what we ground upon the Word of God. When you ask us to show miracles, we answer you in the words of your St. B●net when he was urged to raise up a countrymen son. Recedite fratre●, recedite: haec nostra non sunt etc. Go your ways brethren, 
Gaz. in Cassian Collat. 15. c. 2. Aug. apud Gaz. ibid.  go your ways from us, miracles belong not to us, b●t to the holy Ap stles: why do y●u lay burdens upon us which we cannot bear? It's no less than a tempting of God now to attempt them. Notable is the speech of Augustin to this purpose Quando tibi hoc suggerit inimicus, etc. When the enemy suggests this to thee: what a man art thou? What a Christian? Hast thou wrought so much as one miracle? Hast th●u by thy prayers raised up the dead, or r st●red them tha● have been sick of f●a●ers? If thou wert of any worth, th●u wouldst do some miracle. Answer and say, 'tis writ●●n thou sh●lt not tempt the Lord thy God: I will not therefore tempt God, as if I belonged to God if I did a miracle, or did not belong to him if I did it not. This is our answer when you demand of us miracles as evidences of the Spirits favour.  
2. You say, The Spirit in us induceth to ill, it persuading a disloyal de●ection from the Lords prayer, the Commandments and church. This is a most gross and impudent slander: we neither teach nor practise defection from the Lords Prayer, the Commandments, or that faith which the Apostles preached, and the primitive Christians received from them. We reverence and use the Lords Prayer as the most exact and perfect pattern of Prayer. We insert it in our Catechisms, teach it our children, earnestly seek after those blessings it contains, we have honourable and precious thoughts of it, as of whatsoever Jesus Christ delivered to us. We receive the Commandments as the rule of our obedience, the guide of our way, and as the Lord enables us do conform ourselves thereto. The like we say of the Church. We reject no Doctrines that we know to be Apostolical (It's our cleaving to the Apostolical Church which makes us to be hated of Papists.) What Creeds the ancient Churches of Christ have received, we freely own, and believe all things written therein, though we ingeniously profess our dislike and rejection of your late coined articles, as not being received by former Churches: Finally the Spirit that is in us doth not induce us to any ill: we have indeed corruption in us which induceth us to ill, but we pray and strive against it. I dare affirm it (and disprove it if you can) that our reformed Ministry is as holy, if not more than your Priesthood, our people that receive the truth into their hearts walk as closely with God and as free from sin as most of your Catholics: yea its observable that the more free any parts are from popery and papists, the more zealous and religious they are, and more careful sanctifiers of the Lords day. Since it pleased God to set me in the place where I now live which is in the midst of Papists, and popish persons, I have given myself to observe their ways, and I find the best of them notorious profaners of the Lords day, spending it either in drinking, or walking about from house to house, or sporting: and if they have Protestant servants, employing them about their worldly businesses as much as on any other day. But Sir▪ I may say of yourself and such like as Hiero. of some, Q●um bona imitari non queant, etc. 
Hierom.  When they cannot imitate the good is in us (which they can only do they envy us, & in this think themselves very learned that they can detract from us. You cannot imitate, therefore envy; it's one piece of Jesuitical learning to slander. What you bring those names of our Authors in your margin for, I know not I am sure were they alive, they would accuse you of slandering them.  
3. You say This Spirit in us prompteth things contrary and inconsistent each with other. Ans. The Spirit in us is the Spirit of truth, and leads us into truth not universally and infallibly, as if we knew all truth and erred in nothing, for it's not given fully and perfectly, though there be light in us, yet it's not without darkness, if it were we should be Angels rather than men, comprehensors rather than travellers. This spirit keeps us from the destructiveness of error, not from error: yet I say the confessions of the reformed Churches are most harmonious, our Churches teach not things contrary, nor inconsistent each with othea, though particular men in our Churches may descent in some points, as in all Churches.  
3. In your last section you bring in and answer two Arguments form (as I suppose) upon the anvil of your own brain. 1. God is no accepter of persons, his Spirit being free may breathe on whom he pleaseth. To this you answer, This is out of the matter in hand; here being no dispute of God's power, what he may do, but of his will what he doth. Reply When I know whose argument this is, and see the form of it I shall vindicate it from your answer, if I like it: at present I shall shall only desire you to remember your answer when you come to the point of transubstantiation. 2. Arg▪ and Answ. their other ground for inspiration upon the assurance of Conscience, St. Paul and St. Augustine convinced long since of weakness and coufinage. Reply, This argument came out of the same mint with the other: for which of us lay any claim to inspiration? 2. 'Tis true we say that the Spirit bears witness with our spirits that we are the Children of God, and doth not the Apostle say so, Rom. 8.16. Your Rhemists confess that by this testimony the Children of God have an attestation of his favour towards them. 3. Whereas you object the example of St. Paul and Austin, pray tell me, can conscience never tell true because sometimes it erred? there is an erring conscience, is there therefore not rightly informed conscience? You make notable inferences. 4. May not conscience mistake in its judgement about works as to their goodness or badness, nay was it not about works that St. Paul and Augustine's conscience did err; you acknowledge it was the one persecuted the Church, the other the Truth. Why should not the Spirit when by conscience it testifies of itself be regarded, as when it testifies of works? You say conscience can have no greater certainty than the understanding that gave it being, and the understanding often misseth. I grant that the understanding of itself is errable and subject to mistakes, but being guided by the spirit its certain, and so is conscience. The Apostle saith, We know th●t we devil in him and he in us, 
1 John 4.13.  because he hath given us of his Spirit, and we see and do testify etc. Upon which words your Gloss saith, Per hoc, etc. Hereby we prove that he hath given us of his holy Spirit, because we see, that is through the Spirit of inspiration by faith we know, and by the testifying spirit do we witness, etc.   

CHAP. IX. Of the Spiritists rule of Faith.  
YOu begin with a distinction about the rule of faith, which (you say) may be considered in itself, or in r spect of us: In itself, its Gods reveal d truth; in respect of us, it's the same truth expressed to us. Thus far (say you) Catholics and S●iritists agree: their difference i● about the expression.  
Answ. 1. I conceive your distinction is vain (and can hardly believe that Spiritists agree with you thus far) For, 1. I conceive the rule of faith as such cannot be considered but as to us, it being a relative term cannot be considered without relation to believers who are its correlative you might as well tell of a father considered in himself, or in respect of his Child. A father abstract from relation to his child is no father, no more is the Word of God abstract from its respect to believe in a rule of Faith. 2. You are extreme quick and witty in distingishing betwixt God's truth revealed and the same truth expressed. I wonder what's the difference; doth not God when he reveals his truth express it to us, revelation is nothing else but the expressing of some thing formerly unknown. Spiritists say God's truth revealed or expressed to us in Scripture is the rule of Faith and manners to believers.  
2. You say, Their difference is about the expression; These (Spiritists) holding that it is that of their private Spirit, joined to to that of Scripture only, those (Catholics) that it is that of the Ch●rch, Scripture bearing witness to her truth.  
Answ. 1. If Spiritists (for I use your own word) and you agree about the rule of Faith both in itself and in respect of us that it is Gods revealed truth, and the same truth expressed to us: Why then do you entitle your Chapter The Spiritists rule of Faith? as if we had one rule of Faith, and you another: whereas you assert that the difference is not about the rule but the expression of it. You explain the difference thus, Spiritists hold that the rule of Faith is God's revealed truth expressed to them by their private Spirit joined to the expression of Scripture only. Catholics teach that it is God revealed truth expressed by the Church, Scripture bearing wirness to her truth.  
Ans. 1. For your opinion, I say, 1. What mean you by Gods revealed truth? I perceive you understand not the Word of God revealed by the Prophets and Apostles in Scripture, for you seem to blame us for our expression of Scripture only, and accordingly oppose the Scriptures sufficiency in your next section.  
2. How comes it that the Spirit of God hath no place with you in expressing the truth of God? Must your Diana shoulder out the Scripture and the Spirit too? The Spirit is much beholding to you for your opinion. Are you not Antispiritists in this your doctrine, and clearly destitute of the favourable effects of the Spirit of God.  
3. Hath the Scripture no use or employment with you but to come in and bear witness that the Church is true? Doth it not witness for God's truth as much as for your Church's truth? Is it not the testimony of the Lord Jesus? But as the thing Church is the Pillar of Truth, so the word Church is the very Pillar and Prop of Popish Errors, and therefore you use it usque ad nauseam. 4. Are not you like a turning mill-horse, or like the wicked in the Psalms, (Impii nmbulant in circuitu.) You say the Scripture is the Rule of Faith (at least partial) as the Church expresseth, that is expoundeth it, and if you be asked how you know the Church expounds it right, you answer, by the Scripture which bears witness to the Church's truth. The Scriptures bear witness to the Church's truth, and the Church bears witness to the Scriptures truth. But your tenet is so clear with you (though most gross and wicked) that you add no confirmation of it but what ariseth from the opposition of ours as you have delivered it. Therefore, 2. I come to defend ours against you, but first I will lay it down in other terms, 'tis this, we say that the rule of divine belief is the Word of God contained only in Scripture, the means whereby we understand it is principally the Spir t of God which enlightens our minds and e●ab●es us by the use of those means God hath appointed us to use (amongst wh ch we number the consent of learned men in former and in the present age) for the finding out of the Scriptures mea●ing. Now if this be t●e private Spirit you speak of, we acknowledge it and own it, and account what you say against it to be sinful and foolish, as will presently appear. Against us, 1. You affirm that this Spirit is false and spurious. Answ. 1. Is the Spirit of God in private persons false and spurious? Or have they not this Spirit? Take heed of blasphemy, for you are at the brink of it. The Spirit is promised to private Christians as well as to others, and doth testify as truly, though not always so manifestly and fully in them as in public persons convened in Council. I could quote many particular Doctors of your Church preferring their own expositions of Scripture before the expositions of the Church and Fathers; but for brevity to refer to Dr. Mortons' learned Apeal lib. 9 c. 29. I will only say one thing for yourself, that in your expositions of Scripture (so much as it is) especially in your reading of it you follow neither Church, nor Father, nor honest Christian: witness the Scriptures you bring for your impudent assertion, 1. text. 2. Pet. 1. No interpretation of Scripture by private Spirit. Excellently read, you have found private Spirit in express words, yet let me tell you, had you been put to read this Text instead of a Miserere mei before a Judge of Assize, your reading would hardly have saved you from hanging. 2. Text, Math. 18.17. To bel●eve the Church. Admirable! He●e is faith i● the Church in express terms, which none ever saw before. 3. Text, 2 Cor. 10. Where (say you) St. Paul wisheth to captivate the understanding to the obedience of faith. Yet more falsehood! The Rhemists as well as we, and all men that are in their right wit, and have any thing of ingenuity read it to the Obedience of Christ. I wonder you read it not to the obedi-of the Church. And thus you would prove both faith and obedience due to the Church, which in time might have procured you a Cardinalship, 4. Text, Luke 16. None can serve two Masters. This reading is tolerable: I will briefly now answer these Texts. 1. To the first I say the words are these knowing this first that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, and they are spoken of the penmen of Scripture (not of private Interpreters,) who did not use their own wills and counsels, vers. 21. but were inspired by the Holy Ghost. The Rhemists reading shows that it belongs to the Prophets,— Understanding this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is Made by private interpretati n: It's spoken of the Composure, not of the Exposition of Scripture. 2. Your second Text I have formerly answered. 3. Your third Text Chrysostom understands of bringing men from the estate of death and destruction into the estate of life and Salvation, subjecting them to Christ. Your gloss, by All understanding conceives is meant all proud conceited persons who are made subject to the faith of Christ which they had before resisted. 4. Your fourth text shows (if it be any thing to our present purpose) that the Spirit and your Roman Church are two Masters that cannot both be served, and therefore it's not strange you have opposed the Spirit whilst you have stood for your Church's interest. But Sir, know that the Spirit of God and the true Church are not contrary Masters; much less the Spirit of God in private persons, and the same Spirit in public Ministers. The Spirit of God is in the Church and in every particular and real member thereof, revealing himself to each according to the capacity and need of every member.  
2. You affirm concerning the Scriptures that the Scripture is deficient, which you prove by Scripture and by Reason. 1. By Scripture, for Scripture attesteth it in that it refers to the Church. Answ. 1. The Scripture never refers to the Church for the perfecting of it, that so it may become a perfect Rule of Faith, 
Azor. instit moral. part 2. l. 5. c. 24. ad finem.  if it do show me where, for I know not. 2. Your own Authors confess that the Church cannot make an article of faith, how then can she supply the Scriptures deficiency? 2. You attempt to prove it by reason, saying, reason makes it good, because it declares not all points that Christians are bound to believe, which they acknowledge themselves bound to believe. Answ. 1. I could bring many testimonies to prove that Scripture is a rule, yourselves grant it to be a rule, when you call it Canonical, with exclusion of other writings: now it's no rule if it be not perfect, for the rule that faith requires aught to be as full and ample as the duty of faith. 2. The Scripture asserts that whatsoever we are bound to believe as necessary to salvation to be believed, is contained in Scripture: that noted place, 2 Tim. 3.15, 16. makes it evident: the abundant utility shows its sufficiency to instruct any to salvation: that speech of Biel, Quomodo anima hominis, 
In Can. miss. lect. 7. f. 146.  etc. How can the soul of man live the life of Righteousness and Grace, unless it know Gods will, and those things which according to it are just or unjust, to be done, or to be left undone, to be loved or to be hated, to be feared or to be attempted, and what are to be believed, and w●at to be hoped for, with what ever else is necessary to our salvation all which (sola docet sacra Scriptura) the sacred Scripture alone t●acheth. Indeed we grant that all things to be believed are not expressly set down in Scripture, nevertheless what is not expressed may be deduced from that which is expressed, or analogically reduced thereunto. But I come to your instances of points of faith, which Scripture declares not.  
1. Instance concerning Scriptures. You say they declare not that those books of Scripture which are received for Canonical are so indeed; that some are Canonical, other some Apocryphal; that they are determinately these or others.  
●nsw. 1. They do declare that those books which are received for Canonical by Protestants are such, and the Apocryphal books are not such. For, 1. One part of Scriptures gives testimony of another. The New Testament bears witness of those books that go under the name of Moses, the Prophets, and Psalms, again they give testimony to the New Testament. Yea the whole Scripture doth bear witness to itself that it is the Word of God, having those intinsecal notes whereby it may be known: thus it is with the book of the creatures which sets forth the wisdom, power, and goodness of God, and is therefore a witness thereof. Now if it be asked whence it appears that this is a witness? it must be granted that it appears by that order which is in the Creation together with the profitableness and usefulness of all things in their places. The harmony, consent, spiritual profit, etc. of God's Word in Scripture doth evidence that it is God's Word and sacred Scripture. If it were not thus that Scripture gave testimony of itself, how doth the Church itself know Scripture to be Scripture? She cannot plead Enthusiasm, and the humane testimony of Fathers is no sufficient ground for infallibility.  
2ly. All things are written by the Apostles which are necessary to be believed by all men, 
Bellarm. de suffis. script. c. 11.  (these are Bellarmine's words) but to believe the Scriptures to be the Scripture is necessary for all men (say you) therefore it must needs follow that its written by the Apostles that the Scriptures are Scriptures.  
3ly. By way of retortion: I pray Sir how do you know that this or the other is the true Church, for this Bellarmine saith must be certainly known in as much as all opinions depend upon his testimonies. The same way that you say the Church may be known, even by itself, the same way do we know the Scriptures, they give evidence to themselves.  
4th. The exact knowledge of what books are Canonical is not absolutely necessary to be believed. I deny not but the knowledge of God's Word is thus necessary, and this may be where that knowledge is wanting. It cannot rationally be denied that Christians for some hundred years after the Apostles did know the Word of God yet wanted exact knowledge of what books were Canonical, nor was the knowledge of them judged necessary to salvation.  
2. Instance, concerning the Jewish Sabbath: You say The Scripture declare not that the Jews Sabbath ●s to be neglected and laid aside, and the sunday solemnised.  
An w. The Scriptures declare both. The first Col. 2.16, 17. Let no man judge you— in respect of the Sabbath days which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ Azorius saith the precept of the Sabbath, 
Azor. inst. tuor. p. 2. l. 1. c. 1.  if you consider the determinate and set time did belong to the ceremonial Law, and therefore was abolished by the death of Christ. Now the Scriptures are most clear and full for the abolishing of the ceremonies. For the second the Scriptures expressly teach the solemnisation of Sunday. 1 Cor. 16. Apoc. 1. Calling it the Lords day. 
Rhem. amot on Gal. 4.10.  The Rhemists say In the Apoc. c. 1. There is plain mention of the Sunday that is our Lord's day, unto which the Jews Sabbath was altered.  
3. Instance, Concerning the Creed, you say, The Scriptures declare not that the Creed is authentic and truly the Apostles.  
Answ. 1. If you consider the matter of it the Scriptures declare that it is truly authentic and the Apostles: for the articles thereof are Apostolic Doctrine contained in the Scriptures. Every article may be proved by them.  
2ly. If you consider the form or composure of it, that the Apostles made it, each one of them addding an article to it, this is not necessary to be believed being but grounded on humane fallible testimony.  
4. Inst. Concerning things indifferent, you say the Scriptures declare not that its lawful to eat strangled meats and blood.  
Answ. 1. The Scriptures declare that every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving, 1 Tim. 4.4. And that Christians are not to be judged for their eating of any meats, Col. 2.16. So it be not with the offence of our brother who is weak: thus Lyra on that decree of the Apostles concerning strangled meats and blood, saith, Those who were newly converted from Judaisme did abhor these meats, 
Lyran. in Acts 5.20.  and therefore although it was meat that lawfully might be eaten yet for their sakes the Gentiles were commanded to abstain from, as a man is to abstain from that meat which is hateful to his companion; but afterwards the cause ceasing, through the clear discovery of the Gospel, the effect ceased. And this Gospel light he fetcheth from Math. 15. and 1 Tim. 4. both which are Scripture.  
2. It may be questioned whether it be necessary to salvation to believe that things strangled, & blood may be lawful to be eaten. The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, we are not justified by meat. It's weakness to think any meat unlawful, Rom. 14.2. but not heretical, the eating or refusing of meats is of that kind of things, quae dubium est quo animo fiant, not of those, quae non possunt bono animo fi●ri, as Augustine distinguisheth. Thus much for answer to your reason and its confirmation.  
Lastly, In the close of your Chapter you bring an argument to prove that Spiritists do not make the Scriptures a rule of their belief, 'tis this, Were Scripture the rule of their belief, though it contain divers truths, yet those truth's meeting and becoming one in revelation, they woe l all perfectly agree, not only Lutherans amo g themselves, Zuinglians among themselves, Calvenists among themselves, but likewise Lutherans with Zuinlians, etc. It being the property of unity to unite and make one all that conform to the same.  
Answ. 1. You suppose that all they who acknowledge one Rule must perfectly agree amongst themselves which is evidently false: an exact walking according the same rule is not attainable by any society on this side heaven. For 1. All have not the same measure of knowledge whereby they should understand exactly every point in Scripture, many things are Scriptural by consequence which must be found out by argument, and are hardlier understood than other things. Though in some places of Scripture a Lamb may wade, yet in others an Elephant may swim. The Apostle saith, Let us as many as be perfect be thus minded, & if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule etc. Phil. 3.15.16. It's a perfection, an high attainment for Christians to be perfectly one. Yea it's a privilege of another life, 
Rhem. annot. on Phil. 3.15.  where knowledge becomes perfect, Eph. 4.13. with 1 Cor. 13. The Rhemists acknowledge this as the judgement of Saint Paul— acknowledging that in this imperfection of men's science in this life every one cannot be free from all error, or think the same that another thinketh, whereupon may arise difference of understanding, opinion and Judgement in certa n hard matters which God hath not revealed, or the Church determined, and therefore that such diversity is tolerable and agreeable to our humane condition, and the state of the way that we be in. 2. All have not the same measure of grace, and freedom from corruption and passions, which prevail to draw men from a conformity to the same rule. Some are of a cross, and peevish temper, subject to a spirit of contradiction, maintaining errors, lest they should seem to be overcome by others, or not to have been so sound as others are. Passion had a great influx upon the differences of our first reformers: nor are you free from this evil, this Spirit of contradiction. You reject clear expositions of Scripture because we approve of them. When Augustine, comparing the Jewish and Christian Sacraments saith, fuerunt, etc. they were divers in the signs, but alike in the thing signified, grounding his speech upon 1 Cor. 10.3. Maldonate answers— I am persuaded if Augustine had lived in our age he would have thought otherwise, especially perceiving the heretical Calvinists to be of of his opinions. And he further adds, I rather approve my own exposition than that of Augustin, because this is more contradictory to the Calvinists. 
Mald. in Joan. 6.  2. Yourselves acknowledge one Rule the Church, yet cannot truly say that all Papists do perfectly agree. I shall show the contrary hereafter. 3. Though Protestants differ about particular truths, yet they all agree in this, that whatsoever God reveals to them in Scripture they are bound to believe it. Herein Lutherans, Zuinghans', and Calvenists (as you name them) do fully agree. 4. You falsely and ignorantly suggest to your seduced followers, that the Protestant Churches are full of divisions and disagreements Calvenists differing amongst themselves and from Lutherans &c. Sir I pray you read the harmonious confessions of Protestant Churches, and if by them you be not convinced of error, in your next give us some catalogues of those divided and subdivided differences you generally mention, till than we shall suspend our belief of you.  
Your reason in these words, It being the property of unity to unite etc. is a piece of nonsense: If you had mentioned Rule instead of unity, it had been most true, but nothing to purpose. It is the property of a rule to unite and make one all that conform to it. So that to the making up of this unity there must not only be an exact rule, but a perfect conformity to it in them whom it doth concern: which perfect conformity cannot be yielded by any living man to the Word of God, because of ignorance and corruption which remain in the very best of men.  
The conclusion of your Argument needs no answer, the Premises being overthrown. What you say of our doing homage to Luther, Calvin, and Zuinglius' fancy, is simple and false. You know we abhor a blind obedience, and an implicit faith. The books our people read ordinarily, are not Luther, Calvin, or Zuinglius' works, but the sacred Scriptures, by which we examine all writings, even theirs you now mention, if we meet with them. We look upon Luther, Calvin, and Zuinglius as eminent lights in the Church of God, not as Gods. We say not Dominus Deus noster Calvinus, etc. as some of you have said of your Pope. We acknowledge them endued with the Spirit, but not infallibly inspired, as holder's forth of an old light, hid under a Romish bushel, not as introducers of any new one, as reformers, not innovators. We reverence them as pious men now with the Lord, but neither prey to them, nor keep holidays for them: our homage we do is neither to men, nor their fancies, but unto God himself.   

CHAP. X. Of the Protestant Church  
AFter an unconceivable distinction betwixt Protestants and Spiritists, is Lutherans, Zwinglians, Calvinists, in the first words of this Chapter, you tell us That this Chapter pretends to lay open the many shapes Protestants put their Church into, to make her pass for true.  
Answ. 1. The shapes you lay open are not many: 'Tis true you mention five, but there are two distinct ones only to which all the rest may be reduced (viz. lawful Pastors and true Doctrine.  
2ly. The shapes (as you call them) of Protestant's, or the notes of the truth of their Church, as themselves propound them are not many, but very few.  
3ly. You lay not open what Protestants they are that form these several shapes, that so your Reader might examine them himself, and see what they say for themselves, and whether you deal candidly with them in reporting their opinions. Your dishonest dealing with God's Word, makes us suspect you deal no better with men.  
Before I come particularly to the shapes, I shall premise (for the Readers information) that there are ordinarily two only notes whereby Protestants prove their Church true; viz. the pure preaching of God's Word, and the right administration of the Sacraments, to which some few add as a third, the use of right Eclesiastical Discipline. But this man, as if he had known nothing of Protestants judgement, or had no mind to encounter with them in their way, wholly omits the plea of right administration of the Sacraments, and brings the other but in the last place, spending the most of his Chapter about personal succession of Bishops; thinking himself (probably) best able to encounter with us in this point, both because of their bead-roll of Popes, and Papists general conceit that there were no Protestant Pastors in the World before Luther's days, which is also this man's misconceit so far as I know. But I shall do him the favour to reduce his five shapes to the former of our notes, supposing him to say as Stapleton, 
Stap. princ. doc. l. 1. c. 22.  That the preaching of the Gospel is a very clear note of the Catholic Church, so it be done by lawful Ministers. The question than is concerning the lawfulness of our Ministry which is asserted and confirmed according to the divers times in which it hath been questioned and contradicted particularly in the days of Luther, and Queen Elizabeth of blessed memory together with the times preceding them. Notwithstanding I will follow you in your method, viewing the shapes and your answers to them in that order wherein you propound them.  

SHAPE I.  
Protestant's are a company of Christians under the government of Bishops and Pastors, that have power and authority from Christ, and his Apostles to administer the Sacrament, and preach the Word of God. but such a company is the true Church, therefore Protestants are the true Church. To which you answer, Neither Christ nor the Apostles conferred any power or authority on Protestant Bishops and Pastors, they were dead and gone long before these had any being: to give power and authority requires presence of the giver, etc. Rep. 1. The foundation of it is sandy, it's not universally true that to give power and authority requires the presence of the giver, for it may be otherwise, especially in two cases. 1. If the giver shall deliver some rules or directions for persons receiving power, etc. a person after his death by his will or testament gives power to another to be his executor. A King by his Patten, (though himself be personally absent) gives power and authority to his Commissioners, who therefore acts by the King's authority. Your Popes derive not their power and authority from any but from Peter, every Pope professeth he hath the keys from Peter, that is by Peter's will or testament, or some directions and rules of his, for he is not (I know) always present when the Pope is ordained. 2. If the prime-giver do invest some person present with him, with power to give the same unto others his successors: A King doth invest a Town or Justices of peace to ordain a Constable or some other officer in their circuit. It's the King's power that invests him in his office, and by oath he promiseth fidelity to him, yet the King is not present, but as represented by his ministers. Should I upon this ground infer that neither your present Pope, Cardinals, Priests, Jesuits, no nor present Church hath any of its power from Jesus Christ, or his Apostles, what could you say to it? If you grant it, you prejudice your Church for whatsoever spiritual power is not from Jesus Christ, or his Apostles, is usurped & tyrannical: if you deny it, you cause an earthquake in your argument, shaking yea overthrowing its very foundation that to give power▪ and authority requires presence of the giver. For Christ is not now present with your Pope, etc. as God was present with Moses, Exod. 3. Or Christ with the Apostles, Math. 28. To say they have a mediate presence will not serve your turn, for you require personal presence like that Exod. 3. and Math. 28. where God and Christ did confer power immediately, by themselves, and not by others. To apply this to our purpose, by way of reply to your answer, I say, Protestant Bishops and Pastors have their power and authority from Christ both those ways I mentioned. viz. 1. By deed and testament, Thus Christ by himself and Apostles in Scripture authorise those who are qualified with gifts and abilities for the Ministry to exercise their gifts, which they may do upon some occasions, and in some times, even without a solemn instalment by Bishops and Presbyters, as when God doth cast them amongst a people where the Gospel hath not before come, or where Presbyterial ordination cannot be had in regard of the corruption▪ and wickedness of such as have power to ordain, or where Pastors are few and unable for the service of Christ in his Church. Upon these and such like occasions that respect each one should have to the promoting of Christ's Kingdom puts him (so far as God qualifies him for it) upon the exercise of this duty, provided there be not a contempt, or wilful neglect of that trial of these gifts which Christ hath committed to the Ministers of his Church whom he hath also entrusted with the power ordination of those who are gifted. Thus it may be supposed to have been with Apollo's Acts 18.24, 25, 27. and you read of divers persons preaching whose ordination is not expressly mentioned thus, though we should grant you that our first reformers had no ordinary exernal calling, yet had they their authority from Christ, being by him furnished with inward abilities (which ordination is but a solemn reflection upon, and an acknowledgement of.) You confess that Luther was a man of learning and parts. pag. 47. Surius affirms of Bucer, 
Sur comment. in An. 1526. p. 152. An. 1531. p. 214.  that he was non parum doctus, not meanly learned. The Epitaph, this same Author mentions to be written upon Oecolampadius shows him to be a man of great learning the rest of them were men of good parts, and endued with a Spirit of zeal for God's truth: besides, with those gifts the present necessity did much concur, those who had the key of order neither entering in themselves, nor admitting others into it who sought the advancement of Christ's Kingdom.  
2. By meditation of others who received authority from the prime-giver, thus the Protestant Bishops and Pastors after the Apostles time received their power from the hands of those whom the Apostles had before invested therewith; yea if we speak of the first Protestant Bishops and Pastors they had their authority immediately from the hands of the Apostles. The Waldenses who had Bishops and Pastors amongst them are supposed by some of your side to have continued from the Apostles & upon this account are judged more pernicious to you than any other Sect. But to omit them: 
Rainer. de vit. & morib. Waldens. apud Usher. de aeccles. Christ. success. & stat. p. 151.  The first and ancients Fathers of the Church were Protestants in their Doctrines. You have been often challenged to show that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church for many hundred years after Christ were not Protestants, but Papists maintaining the articles of your Late Creed. It were easy to show that those Doctrines of Protestants that you anathematise as heresies were with the ancient Fathers received truth, thus were communion under both kinds, prayer in a known tongue etc. by your own confessions. It's therefore false that the Apostles were dead and gone long before these had any being. So then, we have power and authority from Christ by meditation of others, succeeding the Apostles. But against this I have said you object thus,  
Object. By this is employed a continuation of succession in the Protestant Bishops and Pastors, ever since Christ and the Apostles; it is not conceivable any other way how power could be transmitted from one hand to another, as is averred,  
Answ. 1. Here is not employed a continuation of succession, etc. if thereby you understand such succession as admits of no interruption, and that in particular Churches. The succession of Pastors in particular Churches may cease through the violence and tyranny of enemies, yet the violence being over, there may be a reestablishments of the Ministry, and that in succession to the former, though the means of the new establishment be only the people's choice, which in some cases is most valued.  
2ly. What if there hath been a continuation of succession in the Protestant Bishops, & c? You answer, They must then be visible, for as much as it was their parts to preach the Word of God, and administer the Sacraments.  
Rep. I grant it, who ever denied that the Pastors of the Church were visible? We hold indeed that sometimes they may lie hid from their enemies, but they are visible to their friends: though they be not seen in the streets of Rome, they are visible in the mountains and woods, etc. when the Church is in the wilderness, her Pastors are not visible in Cities and Courts.  
2. But what if visible: You answer, If visible they may be produced, they ought to be produced: they may, because that power is vain and fictitious that is not reducible to act, Mat. 5. They ought, because Bishops and Pastors in case of controversy are to give an account of their calling, Luke 7. as well to settle the wavering, as to bend and make supple the stiffness of stubborn misbelievers, 1 Pet. 3.  
Rep. 1. They might be visible in their times, yet now not producible. You know what rigour hath been used against Protestant books, you burned Wicklif's works, and have extinguished others▪ You deal with us (as Doctor Featly shows) as if a thief should steal our purse, and make away our money, and then demand of us what is become of our money, if we had any such sums of money in what bag, and where those bags are.  
2. There are of● our Authors who have produced Protestant Bishops and Pastors (i. e. such as have maintained Protestant Doctrine) in every age since the Apostles.  
3. Whereas you say They may, because that power is vain and fictitious that is not reducible to act. Math. 5.  
1. Your reason is a piece of nonsense, and having no relation to what it should prove, the question is about the power of naming them, not the actual naming them, if we had granted the power and denied the act, your Say had made somewhat for you, as when you say the Commandments may be kept, but cannot name one that keeps them, it makes against you.  
2. It's a tautology, your word Reducible denotes power not act; so that it's as if you had said that power to act is vain and fictitious, that is not in power to act.  
3. Your quotation is impertinent so far as I know I have searched Math. 5. and I find not any thing that may make for your purpose and I'm sure your axiom is not there. Sure you mistook Matthew for Aristotle.  
4. It's false, that there is a necessity of producing Protestant Bishops and Pastors, we look more at succession of doctrine than persons, and think this sufficient to denominate us the true Church, for which we have Tertullian's judgement (in that book you even now cite) affirming That those Churches which are able to produce none of the Apostles or Apostolical men for their first planters are notwithstanding Apostolical for consent of faith, and consanguinity of doctrine. When our Authors bring in Catalogues of Protestant Pastors it is to stop the mouths (it may be) of unreasonable men that demand them of us. Your reason to prove this necessity is this, Bishops and Pastors in case of controversy are to give an account of their calling. For, 1. It's one thing for a Pastor to give an account of his calling, and another thing to give an account of his predecessors. If you were a Bishop in some City, and were demanded of the lawfulness of your calling, were the way to give them a beadrol of your predecessors in that City? This would come short of giving satisfaction, for they might be lawful Shepherds, and you who succeed them no better than a ravening wolf.  
2ly. The Text Luke 7. proves nothing for you, if you point at the account our Saviour gives of his calling to John's Messengers, v. 19, 20. You shall find no naming or producing of his predecessors, but of his Doctrine, and works. Go tell John (saith he) what ye have seen and heard. So we, when you demand how we prove ourselves true Pastors, send you to what you hear and see, our Doctrines and works conformable to the Word of God, the Law of Moses, and Gospel of Christ.  
3ly. Few that have a desire after truth, and regard our Doctrine, will waver because of supposed want of succession, and for stubborn misbelievers, the proof of succession will not bend, or make them supple, they that will not believe Moses and the Prophets speaking in Scripture, would not believe though one should rise from the dead, Luke 16.31. But to what purpose bring you the Text, 1 Pet. 3. there is nothing in it for succession in order to the bending of the minds of misbelievers, unless you understand the wives being in subjection to their own husbands (whereby they that obey not the Word, may without the Word be won) to be the wives proving their Episcopal succession. But for the necessity of producing succession, you urge testimonies and reasons, which I shall now in order examine.  
The testimonies are these, viz. of Tertullian, Bidding the Sectaries of his time let him see the beginning of their Church, and unfold the order of their Bishops and Pastors. Likewise Optatus, lib. 2. Contr. Parmen. The Origin of your chair show ye that needs will challenge to yourselves the Holy Church. St. Augustine (de vit. credend. ep. contr. Faust. manich) came not behind these in pressing the necessity of succession and derivation, where he ingeniously acknowledgeth them to be of force to hold and keep him in the bosom of the Church. There keepeth me said that great Saint in the Church, the succession of Priests from the very sitting of St. Peter, to whom our Lord after his resurrection committed the feeding of his sheep even oo this present Bishop.  
Answ. There is no necessity of producing succession. for there may be true Apostolical Churches without personal local succession as I shown out of Tertullian and its confirmed by Azorius who gives these two only reasons why the Church is called Apostolical because it was propagated by the Apostles, 
Azor. inst. moral. p. 2. l. 5. c. 21. 9 4.  and holds their faith and doctrine: the former reason points out the primitive, this latter succeeding Churches though without personal succession.  
2. There may be succession where there is no true Church, as I shall show hearafter.  
3. If the Fathers do demand succession of Bishops or Pastors, it's in order to Doctrine which they account the main yea the foundation of the other; thus doth Tertullian in the words I quoted, and Gregory Nazianzen, who saith that the succession of faith is the true succession: for those that profess the same Doctrine of faith, are partakers of the same Throne. 
Naz. Orat. de Laud Athanas.  So Tertullian and Optatus, the one requiring from Sectaries the beginning of their Church, the other the Origin of their Chair, both which phrases refer to their agreement with the Apostles, not to personal succession. Father's urged succession of Doctrine as necessary, but not the succession of persons. 2. It's of such, as being an inconsiderable party, yet excluded all others from being of the Church of God but themselves, such were the Valentinians opposed by Tertullian, and those whom Optatus speaks of. Thus we might demand of the Romanists and say, The Origin of your Church show ye that needs will challenge to yourselves the Holy Church: When did you begin to be such? When had your Pope his universal power as Emperor of the World, etc. Or, 3. It's of some Churches, not of all. viz.  
1. Of such as had begun with the Apostles, not others which began long after, and therefore could not show such succession.  
2. Of such as were in their times, not of after ages, their demands extend not to us: Present Churches are not so able to show succession, as those were in whose times heretical Bishops had no place in the Church, as Austin shows, for having reckoned up the Roman Bishops from Linus to Anastatius living then, 
Ep. 165.  he concludes, that in the rank of this succession, there was not one Bishop found that was a Donatist, and also whilst there was a short space betwixt the Apostles and them the latest of them living within four hundred years after Christ: in which time there were no expurgatory indices, no ●●opping of their mouths who wrote the truth. The Fathers of the first centuries were few, and not subject to Popish purgations, whereas the case is now otherwise, we are not much short of the 1700 years from Christ, our Authors that might show our succession abused by you. Your argument therefore is not good, succession must now be demanded and produced for so it was in the time of Augustine, Optatus, Tertullian, 1300 years ago. 4. They rather demand the Origin and beginning of Churches than succession of Bishops leaving more to antiquity than to succession.  
2. You argue for the necessity of succession, thus, Derivation of succession is so proper to the true Church that it can not agree to any false, as St Hierom (in Micam. 1.) observeth, assuring heretics to have no such riches as come to men by plain inheritance from their Fathers.  
Answ. This is most untrue: Bellarmine dare not affirm it that its necessarily inferred that where there is succession, there is the Church to whom Mr. Hart consents, 
Hart. confer. c. 7. div. 9  saying, Indeed succession of Bishops in pla●e is no good argument, unless it be joined with succession of Doctrine. The reason is, this derivation of succession may agree to a false Church, ex. gr. to the Church of Constantinople, who reckon from Andrew the Apostle to the Bishop that sitteth now, which Church notwithstanding you account unsound. Stapleton pronounceth of the Greek Churches in general that they can show a personal succession from the very Apostles, yet you account them not true Churches for they are not under your Roman Pope, but against him.  
2. Your testimony of Hierom makes nothing for you. For,  
1. It grants that heretics may have fathers, whose children they are, and what is this but succession?  
2. That which it denies is that they have such riches as come by spiritual inheritance, i. e. divine and wholesome truth, the riches of the Apostles successors. It's a simple conceit to imagine that succession is the riches that men have by inheritance from their fathers; their inheriting of their father's riches is not succession, but succession is the cause of their inheriting, they are but poor children that have only this that they can tell you they proceed from their fathers, and succeed them. Such children are your Popes, they can tell you who was their father, grandfather, and great-grrandfather, and this is their riches; much good may they do them, Whilst Protestant Pastors have true doctrine, the true riches of the Apostles.  
To this Testimony of Hierom you add a reason to prove that derivation of succession is proper to the true Church, saying Its evident in itself; by reason the true Church was planted and established before any false began— therefore must need be a non plus ultra, a stop and bar betwixt whatsoever counterfeit Church and Christ to keep off the like continuation of succession.  
Answ. 1. If it be so evident in itself, why do not all Papists agree with you, but rather oppose you.  
2. Your reason is most ridiculous, 'tis this, The true Church was before any false one, therefore succession is proper to the true Church. If you had been speaking of antiquity, your argument would have had some force in it, but antiquity and succession are different things, constituting two distinct notes of your Church. Antiquity properly points at the beginning of Churches, succession only at the continuation of them. But I think your mind was upon antiquity, for in your fifth Section you purposely handle it; and your meaning here is this that false Churches cannot derive their succession to the first foundation thereof which is Christ, for you say, There must be a stop and bar betwixt whatsoever counterfeit Church and Christ, etc. To which I answer,  
1. Heretical Churches as such cannot derive their succession from Christ, or the Apostles for then they should derive their Heresies also. But, 2. Those Churches that are now, or have lately been Heretical, may yet derive a personal succession from Christ, in as much as at first they were planted and established in the truth by the Apostles; but have since degenerated: Thus it is with the Greek Churches, and your Roman Church, and probably was with the Arians, who though they wanted doctrinal succession, yet might have personal there being Bishops of note who maintained that Heresy. In the former regard its true which you say, that the Arian derivation climbeth no further than Arius, there's a great difference betwixt succession of Doctrines and persons, though you seem to take no notice of it.  
Lastly, you return to the Protestant Church, and whereas it's said, There have been named in several ages the Albigenses, the Apostolici, Wickliff, Hus. You Answer, None of these were Protestants, etc. Rep. 1. Some of these were Protestants, the Albigenses (otherwise called Waldenses) were Protestant's: Parsons, confesseth that they devised and framed out of Scripture the whole platform of the Protestant Gospel. 
Pars. 3. Con. part. 3. Hist. of France Book 1. pag. 15. edit. an. 1595. Id. p. 67.  A French Historian writes thus of them— Who in spite of all the Potentates in Christendom sowed about the year 1100. and even since their Doctrine smally differing from the Protestants at this day; For the further clearing of this, take this extract of their confession of Faith which they delivered to Francis. 1. Of France, about the year 1540 and which they said was taught unto them ever since the year 1200. It contained the Articles of God the Father, Creator of all things: of the Son advocate and Intercessor for mankind; of the Holy Ghost, Comforter and Teacher of the Truth of the Church, which they said to be assembled of all the chosen, having J●sus Christ for Head; of Ministers, of the Magistrate whom they confessed ordained of God to punish Malefactors and defend the good, to whom it sufficeth not only to carry honour, but also to pay Taxes and Imposts without acception of state whatsoever; and that at the example of Christ who did likewise practise it: Of Baptism, which they maintained to be a visible and extenor sign, representing unto us the Regenerati n of the Spirit and Mortification of the Members: Of the Lord's Supper, which they hold for a thanksgiving and commemora ion of the benefit received by Christ: Of Marriage, which they say was not forbidden to any; by how much it was Holy, and ordained o● God: Of good work, wherein they ought to employ themselves continually: ●f Man's tradition, which they ought to shun, protesting in Sums, that the Rule of their Faith was the Old and New Testament, and that they believed all which was contained in the Apostles Creed. This positive Confession I have taken verbatim, out of the French Historian, to which I may add a Negative one out of Aeneas Silvius and others, viz. they held that the Bishop of Rome, was not above other Bishops: That prayers for the dead and Purgatory, were devised by the Priests for their own gain. That the Images of God and Saints were to be defaced; that confirmation and extreme unction were no Sacraments: That it is vain to pray to the Saints in Heaven, since they cannot help us: That auricular confession was a trifling thing: That it was not meritorious to keep set Fasts of the Church, and that such a set number of Canonical hours in praying, was vain? That Oil and Chrism were not to be used in Baptism: That the Church of Rome was not the Holy Church nor Spouse of Christ but Babylon the mother of Abominations. If you desire to see more of them read Calverii Epitome. Historian, page 555. where you have a large Catalogue of them, and now let the reader judge whether they were Protestants or no. But you object two things to prove that they were not Protestants.  
1. They hold not in all points with them. For this you cite divers Authors. But I answer.  
1. I confess the Authors you mention do severally attribute divers errors to them, but these witnesses agree not amongst themselves. Guido Carmelita chargeth them with saying that Mass is to be said once only every year. Aeneas Silvius contrarily saith, that they hold that the Priest may consecrate at any time, and minister to them that require it. The same Guido saith they held that the words of consecration must be no other but the Pater noster seven times said over the bread, but Aeneas Silvius, Antonius, and Luxemburg say the contrary, affirming that they thought it sufficient to speak the Sacramental words only. Prateolus chargeth them with Manicheisme, but Reinerus, the French Historian and others free them from it.  
2. Their confessions show that there is very small difference betwixt them and the Protestants.  
3. Though they should not hold in all points with Protestants, yet they might be Protestants: perfect compliance is not absolutely necessary to constitute a person, a member of the Church. Many of the members of the Church of Rome, Corinth, Galatia, etc. did not agree in all points with those Churches, yet were members of them. The French Papists go under the name of Catholics, yet agree not in all points with the Church of Rome, for they deny the Pope to be above a general Council, and that the Council of Trent was Ecumenical and Lawful. The books of many named Catholics have been censured for unsound speeches, and because they have not held in all points with your Church, yet are Catholics still. The Apostle supposeth that though those who are perfect do walk by the same rule, yet some may be otherwise minded, Phil. 3.15. which the Rhemists in their note on that place clearly grant.  
2. You object that they hold not in all points with themselves.  
Answ. 1. We are beholding to you for your good opinion of Protestants; the arguis this, They that hold not in all points with themselves are not Protestants. The Waldenses hold not in all points with themselves, therefore are not Protestants. The ground of your Major must needs be this, Protestants hold in all points with themselves. We grant and thankfully accept of your Major proposition, together with its foundation, and desire you would remember it when you come to tell us of our divisions.  
2. For your Minor. 1. It's verified of their adversaries, the Authors you mention, as I have particularly showed. 2. There is reason to think they held at least in all main points with themselves. 1. Because of the Testimony of Rainerus who saith they believe rightly concerning God, and all other articles of the Creed. 2. because they were men of good parts, and very pious. 3. Because your assertion of their dissent is only general. When you show the particulars I shall endeavour their vindication.  
2. You answer, (supposing them Protestants) There was a great distance between them and the Apostles, in which they could not be mentioned; forasmuch as they were not begun, or were quite extinct.  
Answ. 1. If you speak of them as Waldenses, that is, particular persons followers of Waldus I grant there was a distance betwixt them and the Apostles. Thus if you consider of your present Pope, it's as true that he is none of Peter's successor— there being a great distance between him and the Apostle Peter, in which he could not be mentioned, forasmuch as he was not then in being. But,  
2. If you speak of them as to their profession of the reformed Religion, not confining your speech to those particular persons, but extending to all that professed the same Religion with them, than there is no distance between them and the Apostles, as I shall show when I come to your fourth Shape.  
3. What you mean by their being quite extinct, I know not, sure you do not take them to be Jewish heretics that were extinct before the Apostles; and let me tell you that after their rise (notwithstanding the fury of Papists) which brought many miseries upon them they could never be extinct, as the French Historian above mentioned shows. But thus much for your first Shape.   

SHAPE II.  
LUther descended from Catholics, Catholics from the Apostles, therefore Protestant's had their Original from the Apostles; they deriving themselves uninterruptedly from Luther. To this you answer,  
Answ. Protestant's derivation from Luther is frivolous and of no weight; Luther wanting Episcopal authority, without which all ordinations are null and frustrate by the confessions of the chief Protestants themselves: See Saravia, Sutcliffe, Bilson, Andrew's, White, Mason, Montague, Hall, and others.  
Rep. 1. Protestant's derivation from Luther is of weight for any thing you do say against it. It's most false that without Episcopal authority all ordinations are null and frustrate. For,  
1. Ordination itself is not of absolute necessity for the constitution of a Pastor. In some cases a man may preach the Word without it. So did Origen whose practice was justified by divers Bishops. Cameron fully asserts this, 

Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 20.  
Cam. Myroth. in Eph. 4.11.   that private men without formal ordination may teach and feed others with the Word of God.  
2. Supposing ordination to be of absolute necessity, yet that it must be done by Episcopal authority (as distinct from Presbyterial) is not absolutely necessary, so as that it should be null and frustrate without it, nor are there any Protestants that I know of that affirms this with you; not those who are named by you Sutcliffe, one of them speaking of our first reformers hath these words— Neither is it material that the first Preachers of the Gospel in these Countries were not Bishops, 
Sutc. review of Kell. Survey. c. 1. p. 5.  and so called as it was in England, for suppose no Bishop would have renounced the heresies of Popery, nor have taught sincerely: should not inferior Ministers teach truth, and Ordain other Teachers after them? Furthermore they wanted nothing of true Bishops but the Name and Title. Finally the right and imposition of hands by such as are called Bishops, is not so necessary but that in a defection of Bishops of a Nation, and in case of other extreme necessity Ministers may lawfully be ordained by other Ministers. And he gives divers reasons for it.  
The rest of them are of the same judgement, to whom we may add Dr. Prideaux, and Dr. Field who shows that not only Protestants, 
Prid. falac. controv. Theol. loc. 4. sec. 3. q. 2. Field of the Ch. book 3. c. 39  but Papists in former times were of opinion that in some cases, and at some times Presbyters may give Orders, and that their ordinations are of force, and he further shows that your Suffragens who are but Presbyters do give Orders. All judicious Protestants have honourable thoughts of the reformed Churches beyond Seas, and of their Ministry though they want Episcopal ordination. See a Book of Master Baxter.  
But you bring us in objecting, Luther received Episcopal power immediately from God. To which you answer.  
Answ. Such a power being extraordinary is always accompanied with that of Miracles, as appeared in Moses, Exod. 3. And the Apostles Act. 2, 14. Luther never wrought Miracle.  
Rep. For any thing I see this might have made another Shape for its independent on this, you lead us, as the Devil our Saviour into the Wilderness to be tempted, but as he evaded the Devils, so we shall do your temptations. We say then. 1. A power received immediately from God is not always accompanied with that of Miracles. The Prophets were called immediately by God, so was John the Baptist, and probably Philip the Deacon, Act. 8.14. and the men of Cyprus and Cyrene, Act. 11 Yet all of these were not invested with power of Miracles. It was so with our Reformers, they did not work Miracles, nor (as you say) did pretend to that gift. Yet had they sufficient testimonies of their calling, as their true Evangelical Doctrine, seconded with the holiness of their lives, and the wonderful success of their Preaching. These did evidence their divine calling.  
You object— Luther's drawing so many after him maugre the Pope, Emperor, and other Potentates, shows only a strange itching in men after novelties. and proneness to libertinage. Arius in a shorter space led away far more.  
Answ. 1. I speak not of his success only, or by itself but as accompanied with truth of Doctrine and an holy life, and this doth evidence a lawfully called Pastor. Thus it was not with Arius or any other heretics who have been erroneous in their Doctrine, and profane in their lives, or else successes, or if they have had success they have but been short lived with it, none of which can be affirmed of Luther or his adherents.  
2. I deny that Arius was more successful than Luther, there is a great disproportion betwixt them herein. For, 1. Arius had not that opposition that Luther had. Arius' opposers were no inquisitors nor cruel Emperors, nor cursing Popes, nor cutthroat Jesuits, but a mild Emperor and some modest Bishops; the weapons wherewith he was assaulted were meek exhortations, persuasions, entreaties, not bulls, curses, racks, tortures, that holy age knew no such Ecclesiastical censures as Luther and his followers were acquainted with. The French Historian gives this account of Protestants persecutions. 
page 38.  The Doctrine of Luther seemed to increase by the greatness of persecutions which might be seen by the hot persecutions in the year 1534. for searches and informations were no sooner made of the prisoners, but they were as speedily burnt quick, tied to a stake, after swinged into the air were let fall into the fire, and so by a pullise pulled up and down until a man might see them all roasted and scorched by a small fire without complaining, not able to speak, by reason that they had taken out their tongue and gagged them.  
2. Arius did not set himself against the vices of an usurping lordly power, which might have procured him hatred and revengeful opposition, but Luther did, whose two vices, as Erasmus told Fredrick, were that he touched the bellies of the Monks, and the Crown of the Pope.  
3. Arius his heresy was not constantly maintained and stuck to; Arius recanted and subscribed the Nicen Creed as did others his followers: but Luther's Doctrine was constantly maintained by himself and followers without any recantation or counterfeit compliance.  
4. Arius his heresy did not seem cross to reason, but rather conformable, but Luther's did cross carnal reason, the ground of Popish heresies. In these regards, Luther might more truly becompared with the Apostles than Arius. And indeed his Doctrine (though you are pleased to slander it as being acceptable and pleasing to the depravedness of Nature, and so contrary to the Apostles Doctrine) is the very same for the substance of it that the Apostles taught, being no way contrary to mortification of wills, religious fasting, chastity and the like. And therefore it was not itching after novelties, and proneness to libertinage, that drew many after him, but a desire of reformation both of Doctrine and Discipline, which were exceeding corrupt in the Romish Church, whereof very many were sensible, and under which they groaned, waiting for freedom, and this is that which a great Papist saith— Neither did Luther in this age come forth alone, 
Alphons. de Castro ado. haeres. epist. nuncup.  but accompanied with a great troop, as with a guard waiting for him as for their Captain and Leader who seemed to have expected him before he came, and upon his coming did cleave unto him.   

SHAPE III.  
Protestant's received their mission from Catholic Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's days and since. You answer,  
Ans. If some did which is to be proved, nay the contrary seems to be proved by Doctor Champney it is evident the greater part did not, and what a Church must that company make of which most are judged fit to preach the Word of God and administer the Sacraments without Authority.  
Repl. 1. We had Protestant Bishops in England before Queen Elizabeth's days eminent oppugners of Popish heresies then in the time of Queen Mary, whom, notwithstanding your fiery rage God preserved making them to survive her bloody reign, by these were others afterways ordained as Bishop Parker who was consecrated by the imposition of hands of Bishop Barloe, Bishop Coverdale, Bishop Scory and two suffragans. So that I know no Protestant that needs to use the shape you impose upon us, nor do I think any doth, but you set up moments and then shoot at them which is a very learned and ingenious prank, But,  
2. Supposing it our Shape. I say to your answer.  
1. Divers Popish Catholics in Queen Mary's days, were Protestants in Queen Elizabeth's, and these might have an hand in Ordinations afterwards.  
2. Though the greater part of our Pastors, received not Mission from popish Bishops yet they might have authority. You beg the question, when you tell us that they are not ordained by popish Bishops, have no authority: We had lawful Bishops, & Pastors in England before your Pope or any of his gowned Factors knew England. But you answer, 2ly. Admit the calling of Protestant Bishops and Pastors were right in all of them, it would not follow that the Protestant Church is true, so long as she advanceth Protestantism contrary to the meaning of the Catholic Bishops, who never impow●red any; but in relation to the setting up and upholding of Catholic Religion.  
Rep. 1. If you admit this, it will follow (according to your principles) that there is personal succession, and consequently a true Church inasmuch as derivati n of succession is so proper to the true Church that it cannot agree to any false as St. Hierom in Nucam. 1. Observeth, Sir you remember the words, they are your own, page 41. but oportet mendacem esse memorem.  
2. True Religion is not to be measured by men's meaning, but by the Word of God. So then if according to God's Word protestantism be the true Religion, it's no great matter what your Catholics Bishops meaning be.  
3. Catholic Bishops ought to ordain men in order to the setting forth of the unsearchable riches of Christ, Eph. 3.8. To preach the Gospel. Col. 1.25. Mark. 16.15. This is contained in the Scriptures. If your Bishops ordain men to preach any thing else, they are abusers of their power, their ordination is impure and unlawful and so far to be frustrated. Thus our Protestant Bishops and Pastors that have been ordained by you retain that which is pure, viz. power to preach the word, and administer the Sacraments, but reject that which is evil in your ordinations; we retain the power which is good and from God, but reject those circumstances of yours which accompany the conveyance of it, and are evil.  
2ly. You say, Communion with the true Church being as necessary a requisite to the making up of a true Church, as union of parts to the completing of a natural body; what colour for truth in the Protestant Church that is at variance with the Catholic of whom she glorieth to have her power, and which she confesseth to be a true Church.  
Repl. 1. I grant that communion with the true Church is necessary, but your inference hereupon is vain. For,  
1. We deny that the Popish Church is the Catholic Church. You appropriate that name to yourselves, but who gives it you? Indeed the Roman Church in her purity before she was infected with the Leeven of Popery was a Catholic Church, 

Euseb. eccls. Hist. l. 4. c. 15. & l. 10. c. 7.  
Socr. schol. l. 2. c. 2.   but so were other Churches called as well as she, with whom you hold no communion now, nor they with you, as the Church of Smyrna, Alexandria, Carthage.  
2. It's not necessary to the constitution of a true Church to have communion with you. The Eastern Churches were as much at variance with you as Protestants are, yet they were true Churches. The African Bishops did oppose divers of your Popes, one after another, telling them they should have nothing to do with the causes of men in their Provinces, nor receive any such to communion, as they did excommunicate, yea Saint Cyprian, and a company of Bishops with him did die out of the communion of the Church of Rome, 
Bell. l. 2. de Conc. c. 5.  for any thing appear to the contrary: yet they were true Bishops and their Churches true Churches. Yea further, supposing Communion had then been necessary, it is not so now, the corruption of your Church being greater than it was in Cyprians time; so that God's command doth take place with us, 1 Tim. 6.3, 5. 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, etc. Apoc. 18.4. and the example of the Apostles, Acts 19.8.9.  
3. Protestants have Communion with the Catholic Church, viz. that Church which hath ever since our Saviour maintained the Doctrine of the Gospel, our fellowship is with the Apostles and primitive Churches, whose Doctrine we receive and profess; yea so far as there is any remainder of true Doctrine amongst you, so far we have communion with you also.  
4. You deliver two palpable Lies, 1. That we glory to have our p were from the Popish Church: We look upon it not as our honour, but as their misery who could not otherwise receive their power, We account it our honour and glory in it, that we are out of your Bethaven, and that we have the ordinances of God within ourselves.  
2. Lie, that we confess you to be a true Church. We deny the Church of Rome to be a sound member of the true and Catholic Church. We say you were once Bethel, now Bethaven. Rome was once a faithful City, but now become an harlot. Her name is given her by God, and acknowledged by us, as belonging to her, Apoc. 17.5. Mystery Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.  
3ly. You answer, Pro estants derivation from Catholics is not proo● for a personal succession of Bishops and Pastors agreeing in all points with Protestant's, which ought to be the scope and aim of that derivation, i● being not required of Protestants to deduce a succession from Christ and h s Apostles of men merely sent, but withal professing the Doctrine maintained in the Church of England.  
Reply, 1. I thought personal succession had been the main with you, it being proper to the true Church only, as Doctrine, you say, is not. But I see now succession of Doctrine is the more principal succession. So unstable are men, maintaining errors.  
2. In derivation of succession it's not necessary that those we derive from, agree in all points with us; If it were, I know where your succession from Peter would be, you not being able to name one Bishop that for above 1000 years after Christ did agree in all points with you Sometimes the Bishops and Pastors of the Church who have the power of ordination may be corrupt, holding some errors which the ordained may be free from, either altogether, or in some measure, or if not when they are ordained, yet afterwards. Now what rational man can question the calling of those who are thus ordained?  
3. We can show a derivation of succession, though not without some interruption of Bishops from Christ and his Apostles professing the main points of the Doctrine of the Church of England. I deny not but there might be differences in lesser points, but these could not nullify our claim to them, nor make that they should not be called Protestants. Your rule therefore is not a very good one that Doctrine being in Nature much like unto number, the least addition or Diminution altering its kind, and grounding a new denomination. But supposing it good and true, we may thence unanswerably infer that your Religion is not the same with the Religion of the Apostles or Primitive Christians, nor yet with those who lived but a little while ago, your Church making frequent additions to former Doctrines.  
4ly. You answer, Protestants could not be mingled amongst Catholics inasmuch as there is no agreement betwixt the Temple of God and Idols, no concord with Christ and Belial. 2 Cor. 6. The Ark of God and Dagon may not stand together 1 King. 5. &c,  
Rep. 1. It's one thing to be amongst wicked men, another thing to approve of them. A good man may be in a corrupt Church in regard of presence, who notwithstanding approves not of it. When Israel was most corrupt and overspread with idolatry yet there were seven thousand that bowed not the knee to Baal. Rom. 11.4. When our Saviour came, the Jewish Church was very corrupt, yet there were some few in it, who groaning under the evils of it waited for the consolation of Israel. The Prophet Isaiah speaks of a remnant that were left in the midst of a corrupt Church. Isay 1.9. Yet none of these did approve of the corruptions but rather mourned for them Ezek. 9.4. If God had not his people in Babylon to what end doth he say, come out of her my people, Apoc. 18.4. God had a people in Babylon a people like corn among chaff, good fish amongst bad ones. These till God gave an opportunity of delivering themselves did dwell with the daughter of Babylon. Zech. 2.7. They had external communion, but wanted inward affection to her, they had no concord nor agreement with her in her grosser errors. But you say It were a strange example if the Church should receive into her company liars and innovators, this would leave a stain upon her reputation, make her sincerity be suspected, h●r Doctrine contemned and despised, but she who is all fair, Cant. 6. without spot or wrinkle, Eph. 5. is free from any such guilt.  
Rep. 1. It's no strange thing that a true Church may have in it those who are erroneous. It was thus with Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Philippi, and the Churches of Asia. Rev. 2.14, 15, 20. There is no Church can claim exemption, The Popish Church hath had those in it whom you call liars and innovators and upon that score have come into your expurgatory judices.  
2. You assert that of the Church of Rome, which never any but Novatus and his followers did attribute to the visible Church, viz. to be all fair, without spot or wrinkle (a privilege belonging to the Church as triumphant or but imperfectly agreeing to the true members only of the visible Church in this World) and herein you show yourself to be none of that society of Christians who generally maintained & professed that their commission and power was to preach and inculcate, that the Church of God militant was not without mixture of bad. p. 81.  
2. You take that for granted (which we constantly deny) that your Romish Synagogue is the true Church and all fair and without spot or wrinkle, etc. and that Protestants are liars and innovators, which you are yet to prove. 3. Yet granting both these for Argument sake, I affirm that maintainers of false Doctrine may be in the Church, without all that danger you talk of while they lie hid, and conceal their opinions, and whilst the Church doth what she can to cast them out of her: These would be a plea for your Church, if the supposition were true: But you urge further thus. Protestants, Bishops and Pastors, if mingled with Catholics, did neither believe nor profess their Doctrine; but only concealed and covered their own, for fear of the formidable rigour of Catholics; and such could neither be true nor make a saving Church▪ Not true because the mission of true Bishops and Pastors, being founded upon persecution and suffering, Mat. 10. Luk. 11.) it is proper to them to fear no Colours, nor make up a saving Church, by reason profession of faith is necessary to Salvation, Rom. 10. Mat. 10. Repl. 1. It must not be granted that Protestant Pastors did merely conceal and cover their own Faith and Doctrine: there was much crying out against errors and disorders in the Pope's Church by many, though not without sufferings. Gersom, for speaking freely against the disorders of the Roman Church, was deprived of his goods and dignities by the Pope, and expulsed the University by the Sorbonists, Laurentius valla, was exiled by the Pope. John of Vesalia a preacher at Worms, was sharply handled by the inquisitors, for opposing indulgences, auricular confession, Pilgrimages, Merit, etc. Berengerius openly declared against Transubstantiation, for which he was not well handled: Read our Martirologies, and it will evidently appear that Protestants did not only not conceal their own Doctrines, but opposed yours. 2. It's not simply unlawful, nor altogether unsuitable to the true saving members of the Church to conceal or hid the truth: Confession is a duty, but the precept binds not ad semper; there are some cases wherein it's not necessary, viz. 1. When we are not brought before authority to be examined about our Faith; but if we be brought before them, our Saviour's precept, Mat. 10; binds us to Confession. 2. When by our profession there is no hopes of doing good, or bringing any advantage to the truth, Hos. 4.4. Mat. 7.6. Thus Protestant's might conceal the truth, when they saw their Confession was not advantageous to the Truth, or the Salvation of those with whom they were, although when brought before authority they did still profess it, and die for it. 3ly. They might be lawful Pastors though they might conceal the truth from their enemies for a time; else what think you of Peter, who did more than conceal, even deny his Religion: Of Liberius, who accepted of Arianism: Certainly, if these were not true Bishops, your Chain of Succession will be a broken piece: Your Priests in England at this day hid their persons, and with them the open confession of their supposed Truth, they preach not openly, they administer not the Sacraments openly, they exercise not their mortal Devils openly, and that for fear of apprehension and punishment, due to such Vagabonds: and yet your ignoramusses depend upon their Benediction, as Spiritual Fathers. 4ly. Your reason is divers ways peccant. 1. It's improper to say, the Mission of true Bishops is founded upon persecutions and sufferingse. 1. Are persecutions the Bases of pastoral Mission, then if persecution cease, the Bishops and Pastors cease to be true Bishops and Pastors, the building cannot stand when the Foundation is fallen: then your Popes or Cardinals etc. are no true Bishops or Pastors, for they live in great pomp and ease, and suffer nothing, unless that by their intemperance they get bodily diseases, which is nothing to Truth. Indeed since (through your freedom from persecutions) your Chalices were of gold, your Priests have been but wooden Images. 2. You mistake the cause of their concealing the Truth, which was not a distracting and a distrustful fear, which looks mainly at torments as you imagine; but their fear was a sober fear. 1. Lest the Church of God should be deprived of them, by reason of their profession of truth at such a time when there was no visible advantage accrueing to it. 2. Lest they should incur the guilt of their own deaths, by unreasonable profession. See Mat. 7.6. Whence Lyranus, infers, 
Lyran. in Mat. 7.6.  that the secrets of Faith are not to be revealed to obstinate unbelievers, because hereby may ensue the derision of the Catholic Faith, and the murder of the Ministers: Our Saviour gives liberty to his Disciples, if they were persecuted in one City, to fly to another, Mat. 10.23. Yet bids them not fear, Ver. 26. Clemens Alexandrinus sets this forth very well, speaking of flying in time of persecution. Swadet fugere, etc. He persuades us to flee, not as if it were evil to suffer persecution, nor that we should fear death; but he would not have us authors, or abettors of evil, either to ourselves, or him that persecutes, or him that kills us; for he warns us that we be cautelous: but he that obeys not, is audacious and rash, and unadvisedly casts himself, upon manifest dangers; now if he that slays a Man of God, sins against God, he also is guilty of this murder who doth not avoid persecution, but through audacity offers himself to be apprehended; for in as much as in him lies, he helps on the wickedness of the persecutor: Otherwise, our Protestant Bishops and Pastors, have as courageously professed the truth and for it undergone with patience and constancy, as great torments from popish hands, as ever any in any age of the world did: So that were you not blinded with rage against Protestants you could not but blush to charge them with fearfulness of professing the truth. For a conclusion of this: I desire you look home to your English Priests, those Hedgehogs, whose appearance is mainly in the night and in darkness, who are so far from a voluntary and open profession of their faith, that I do not know of any one that ever suffered upon this account, viz. the open and public profession of his faith, though they pretend themselves guarded with power of miracles, which might make them more valiant. 5. If yourself were of that stout Spirit you charge us with the want of, what needed you to write Paris for London, or L. B. for your concealed name.  
5ly. You conclude your Answer to this Shape, with an exposition of the parables of the Wheat and Chaff, Mat. 3. and of the Fishes, Mat. 13. to which you say, The comparisons are meant of private men for matter of manners, and not of any mixture of true and false doctrine, Orthodoxal and Heretical Bishops and Pastors together.  
Rep. 1. It's most certain that these comparisons do set forth the mixture which is in the visible Church; which yourself even now contradicted. Yea, 2. These mixtures extends to mixtures of Doctrine and Teachers, as well as of private Christians in manners, the ordinary gloss understands Mat. 13.25. Of the mixture of Heretics with the Elect. Augustin also by Cockle, doth understand Heretics who in this world are mingled with the Orthodox, his words are full against you. 
Aug. Ap.  Nec consequens est ut omnis Hereticus, etc. It follows not that every Heretic, or Schismatique be corporally separated from the Church, for the Church carries many in her, etc. The Apostle tells the elders of Ephesus that of themselves men should arise, speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them, Act. 20.29. and these are within the Church.   

SHAPE IU.  
THe Fourth Shape is this, In all ages since Christ and is Apostles, there have been Protestant Bishops and Pastors; but through the negligence of men, and hard fate of times, their names have miscaryed and perished: And as it is no Argument, many famous Romans and Grecians are not named, therefore never were any such men; so it is no less false a Sequel, Protestant Bishops and Pastors are not mentioned all the way from Christ and the Apostles, therefore they were sometime wanting: To this you answer.  
1. It's not the same of private men, and of Bishops and Pastors; these have Christ● warrant and assurance of visibility, so have not those Mat. 28. Bishops and Pastors are as Aqueducts, and Limbecks, through which the verifying Waters of Christ's holy Doctrines are derived into our ears, and distiled into our Souls; So are not private men: should they be at any time clouded and obscured, Christ would be worse than his word, his Doctrine fall short, and not come home to us.  
Rep. 1. It's the same of private men and Bishops and Pastors in this case: It's a false Sequel (speak of whom you will) to say they are not named, therefore never were. Melchizedec's Parents are not mentioned, therefore he had none, yea thousands of Popish Pastors and Bishops are now unmentionable; for I suppose you cannot reckon up all the Bishops and Pastors that have been in every Country, Town and Village since the Roman Church had its beginning (as you say in the Apostles) yet you would not like the consequence, if I should therefore conclude there were no such Bishops or Pastors in such places. The instance that is given in the Shape will not be nullified by your distinction of public and private persons; for the persons mentioned are public persons, men of Renown and famous, such as Histories sometimes make mention of, and you have no more but History to enable you to count your Bishops.  
2. Your proof is most idle, and fit to procure laughter then an answer; 'tis this, Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world, Mat. 28. therefore all Bishops and Pastors for 1600. and odd years past, may be mentioned and named: Gallant Logic. Prove your consequence Mr Doctor, you say, They have Christ's warrant and assurance for a continuance of visibility, so have not those, Mat. 28.  
Answ. 1. Here is no assurance of a continuance of visibility. Christ is with his Church when she is hid in the Wilderness, the Rehmists acknowledge it: yet at that time she shall be hid, Apoc. 12.6. inhabiting in Mountains and Dens and Caves of the Earth, as Andreas expounds it.  
2. If it assure personal visibility it's not continued, but successive, not of the same persons for ever; but of a succession of persons, who in the several ages wherein they live, shall be visible: The Apostles, nor their successors for 1500 years, are not now visible, 'tis so with our Bishops and Pastors, in their times, wherein they lived, they were visible to their friends at least, though they might hid it from their persecutors. But,  
3. What is this to our naming of those who have professed the Apostles doctrine ever since their time, is this in the promise? or is it a necessary dependent on the Church's visibility in succeeding ages? you cannot for shame say it, lest you condemn yourselves whose Catalogues are of Popes not all inferior Bishops and Pastors, who notwithstanding have as much interest in that promise as any Pope, if not more.  
2. You say, Bishops and Pastors are Aqueducts and Limbecks, if these should be at any time clouded and in obscurity, Christ would be worse than his word, his doctrine fall short, and not come home to us.  
Answ. 1. You shoot very far wide of the mark: we are speaking of the naming of those that we confess had a real existence, and you are proving a necessity of their existence. Are entity and nomination reciprocal, so as while you prove one, you prove the other also?  
2. Doth their being Aqueducts and Limbecks prove that they may all be named? You may as well demand the names of all the pipes or troughs whereby waters have been conveyed to such a place for 1000 or 1600 years; and say this is necessary because they are pipes, etc.  
3. Though all Bishops and Pastors of the Church should be corrupt, and cease to be true Pastors of the Church, as it was in the Jewish Church when our Saviour came, 
Occh. dial. p. 1. l. 5. c. 28.  yet if you will believe your Schoolman Occam, God can prevent his Doctrine from falling short, or not coming home to us, even by raising up Laymen, and illiterate persons for the edification of the Church, grounding it upon, Matth. 3.9.  
3. You say, Visibility is not peculiar to Bishops and Pastors, but necessity of visibility is Private men in this way of visibility being contingently visible.  
Answ. 1. Your distinction is excellent, but I wonder you miss telling us of being visible Archipodialiter and reflexive which would have suited you as well as this of necessary and contingently. Are not private persons necessarily visible as well as public? Doth not visibility agree to corporal substances, and that necessarily? If private persons be but contingently visible, than they are ordinarily invisible and consequently Spirits, unless their visibility be in this, that your great Dons are pleased now and then by chance to look upon them, which they do not ordinarily.  
2. Your instance of whiteness in fowls is simple. For whiteness is not common to all fowls as visibility is to all men. As you say, there are swans therefore white, or there are bishops therefore visible, so may you as truly say they are men and therefore visible, but what is all this to the meaning of Bishops and Pastors though we should grant what you say for visibility?  
4. You say Bishops and Pastors are necessarily visible either determinately or indeterminately. Excellent, yet more fine beyond sea distinctions, but what follows? Ergo, Bishops and Pastors are necessarily visible, and private men but contingently: that is, Bishops and Pastors are necessarily visible, Ergo, Bishops and Pastors are necessarily visible But are not private Christians necessarily visible, either determinately or indeterminately. Indeterminately all, for some are necessary to make a visible Church; determinately so many, without which there could not be a sufficient number to make a true visible Church. I'm sure private Christians are necessarily to the constitution of a visible Church, as well as Bishops and Pastors.  
Lastly, You tell us That its necessary that Bishops and Pastors should be visible after they are dead, for a visibility of them whilst they live would be to no purpose, it not providing the the Church of means to defend a●d make good her right in case of opposition. etc.  
Answ. 1. For men to be visible after death is something accidental and withal strange unless to a popish ear, or a necromancers eye, but supposing charitably, that you mean that their names should be visible. I say, 2. There is no necessity for evidencing a true Church that the names of all preceding Bishops and Pastors thereof should be mentioned. It's sufficient that it be showed that their Doctrine had its rise from Christ, and that the Apostles professed and preached it. Thus we show the truth of our Church against your Antichristian Temple. It's a truth subscribed to by all that the Doctrine which had its rise from Christ, and was professed by the Apostles, had professors of it in all ages, and these must needs be true Pastors, though without exact succession. Yourself formerly did confess that it is required of Protestants to deduce a succession from Christ and his Apostles, not of men merely sent, but withal professing the Doctrine maintained in the Church of England, though now (forgetting what you had before said) you affirm that if Bishops and Pastors be found succeeding each other without intermission its evident they are true and Catholic, but this I have confuted before.  
3. Your reason with its comparisons annexed to it, do not prove your assertion, you say— It not providing the Church of means to defend and make good her right in case of opposition— the question of the Churches right is to be decided not unlike that of two great men laying claim to a principality by virtue of some pretended descent from a certain Prince.  
Answ. 1. It is unlike, if by descent you mean a series of personal succession without interruption. For the Churches right is not decided that way Scribes and Pharisees might have lineal descent from Aaron yet be thiefs and robbers, John 10.8 The Churches planted since the Apostles days could not have this lineal descent from Christ and his Apostles, yea the Churches planted by the Apostles might have their Hiatus. Yet both these later be true Churches of Christ. You seem to grant (pag. 56) that the Bishops and Pastors of some particular Churches cannot be named in a constant succession. How then will you prove the truth of those Churches, for it cannot be proved by this means you plead for.  
2. Supposing them like, yet it's not the un-interruptednesse of succession, for which they lay claim to the principality (for it may have been in the hands of usurpers) but descent, together with the qualifications required in him, who is to inherit, which are found in one, but not in the other: thus it may be said of the Church whose descent from Christ together with her qualifications, viz. investure with true Doctrine and right administration of Sacraments according to the will of Jesus Christ doth entitle her to the inheritance of truth.  
2. Or to a river, whether it hath its offspring from such an hill or mountain, the surest way is to trace the river up to the head.  
Answ. 1. It may be probably known by other means than this, viz. by compareing the water of the mountain with this in the river, by the ascent of the water of the rivers, etc.  
2. Tracing it is not always a sure way; it may be mingled with other waters as have not their rise from that mountain, it may run through a dead sea, and then you may be at a loss whilst you seek an uninterrupted derivation of it from its head. Yet,  
3. I grant that when the head is near, and there is no mixture of impure and different waters, your course is very good, thus the fathers who lived within a few years after Christ, and before heretics came into Bishoprics and Pastoral Churches, did make use of derivation of succession. But the case is otherwise with us, we living many hundreds of years after them, and there having been heretical Bishops in the Church.  
Lastly, You say, The truth of Doctrine is discernible much after the same manner, if it be found to have no way varied, but to have kept its own from Christ and the Apostles, doubtless its Orthodox, if not, most certainly its new and false.  
Answ. 1. The former part is most true, but not the later, that Doctrine is true, which though it have been varied in particular Churches yet at present is the same with the Apostles Doctrine.  
2. Granted is true, what will become of your present Church and its Doctrine which you confess is not the same with Christ's and his Apostles Doctrine, certainly it will follow that your new articles of communion in one Kind, prayer in an unknown tongue etc. are new and false. The rest of your answer is but a piece of railing rhetoric not worthy a reply.   

SHAPE V.  
THe fift Shape is this, That Church is true and Catholic which professeth the Apostles Doctrine clearly delivered in Scripture, but the Protestant Church doth so, therefore, etc.  
You answer, 1. True Doctrine is no mark of a true Church, it being often to be seen among schismatics who for want of communion cannot make a true Church.  
Reply, 1. The profession of the Apostles Doctrine delivered in Scripture is a mark of the true Church as not agreeing to any other, which I prove by these arguments drawn from your own assertions.  
1. True Doctrine is the Churches inseparable mate. p. 40. But it could not be her inseparable mate, if it could be separated from her, and brought into society with a schismatical Church.  
2. Christ hath entrusted his Church with truth, and ordained her keeper and preserver of it, and what comes upon any other score, than upon the Church's account and credit is to be reputed Apocryphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of belief. p. 13. Therefore whatsoever Doctrines are out of the true Church are not truths. For that which is believed by men out of the Church comes not upon the Church's account, and therefore with you is Apocryphal.  
3. True Doctrine is Her (the Churches) Doctrine, p. 51. Therefore cannot agree to others.  
4. There is no agreement betwixt the Temple of God and idols, no concord with Christ and Belial. You urge these words to prove that professors of error cannot be in the Church, and it will as strongly prove that professors of truth cannot be out of the Church, where then is your truth agreeing to a schismatical Church.  
5. Doctrine being in nature much like unto number the least addition or diminution altereth its kind and groundeth a new denomination p. 50. Now you cannot name any number of schismatics that did not either add to, or diminish something of the Doctrine which the Apostles taught in Scripture, hence 'tis that both Augustine and Hierom tell us that there is no schism which doth not invent different Doctrines, and new heresies. Separation from a Church cannot but suppose a different judgement in them that separate. The Donatists whom Bellarmine brings in to prove your argument go under the name of heretics, and did indeed hold doctrines different from the Apostles Doctrines.  
To these arguments grounded on your assertions I will add two more.  
1. Papists themselves urge consent of Doctrine with the Doctrine of the Apostles and ancient Church, a note of the true Church, this is Bellarmine's sixth note, but it seems Papists may make that a note of the true Church which Protestants may not.  
2. The Doctrine (say some of you in answer to us) is the form of the true Church; therefore (In infer) it cannot agree to any false one, the form being intrinsical and proper to that which it doth inform, not common to others: as Rationality cannot be predicated of beasts, so neither can Profession of the true Apostolical Doctrine agree to a falls and unsound Church according to your judgements. But you urge two things, viz.  
1. Doctrine is as divers as there are divers seeming Churches: and so not affording any determinate notion draweth in opposition of a mark of truth.  
Answ. 1. The question is not whether doctrine indefinitely be a mark of truth (as you propound it) but whether true Doctrine that is, the doctrine of the Apostles clearly declaclared in the Scriptures, and professed by Christians, be a mark of the true Church, we affirm it is.  
2. Though Doctrine in general be divers, yet true Apostolical Doctrine is not divers, but one and the same: as there is one Lord, one Spirit, one Church; so is there one faith, which the Scripture reveals unto us.  
2. Doctrine supposeth Bishops and Pastors, as the means whereby it is conveyed to us,— therefore it importeth as much to name Bishops and Pastors before, may be given to mention Doctrine as it is necessary, passing from one extreem to another to touch first the middle.  
Answ. 1. But that your memory is weak, you might remember that we have been mentioning Bishops and Pastors and that before we mentioned Doctrine. What else is the subject of the four precedent shapes. 2. If you were acquainted with our judgement, you might find that when we say, True Doctrine is a mark of the true Church, we explain ourselves to mean the preaching of true Doctrine, and this doth suppose Pastors and Teachers. 3. Truth of Doctrine is a more proper note of the Church, and more necessary than Bishops and Pastors. That Doctrine which is consonant to the Apostles Doctrine is always true; but Pastors that succeed them are not always true Pastors, but sometimes Wolves; and therefore if you had not misled us, we would first have begun with Doctrine as the more worthy.  
2. You answer, It is no less untrue that Protestants maintain the Apostles Doctrine delivered in Scriptures, they professing a Doctrine clean contrary and opposite to that which in them is in plain and formal terms expressed.  
Rep. Prove this and you carry the victory, but I know you cannot do it, your instances are insufficient some of them being not in Scripture; others not the Apostles Doctrine, which you were to have proved, not by consequence but expressly in plain and formal terms. Lastly, some Texts are brought in against us with which we fully join. But I will particularly examine your Instances.  
1 Inst. Traditions. 2 Thess. 2. Hold the traditions, whether it be by word or Epistle.  
Answ. 1. It's most evident that the Apostle by Tradition understands whatsoever he had delivered to the Thessalonians either by preaching or writings; (Tradition being then of a larger talon than now it is) and it is no less evident that what the Apostle did preach, was nothing but Scripture, Act. 26.20.22. Especially see Act. 17.1, 2, 3, 13. where you find what Paul preached at Thessalonica, even nothing but the Word of God contained in the Scriptures. 
Annot. on Deutr. 4.2.  Your Dowaists say, unwritten traditions are contained, implied, included, in the Scriptures; such the Apostle preached.  
2. True and Apostolic traditions we willingly embrace, yea, we account them worthy of Anathema who do not receive them. That which Clemnitius saith, is the judgement of Protestants. Apostoli multa tradiderunt unâ voce, etc. The Apostles delivered many things by word of mouth, which their immediate successors received from them, 
Exam. Concil. trident. p. 1. d. trad. p. 68  and delivered to their Disciples: but all these as Irenaeus saith were agreeable to Scripture, and we reject none of them, but whatsoever are agreeable to Scripture, we receive and reverence. So another saith, if Papists will prove their Traditions by the ancient and Apostolic Church, and the universal Church since even till our time we receive them; and this is Apostolical Tradition according to Hierom. for conclusion, I appeal to Medina, 
Medri. l. 6. de sacr. hom. Continent. c. 106.  whether we or not rather Papists be guilty of not holding Apostolical Traditions of 84. Canons (saith he) gathered together by Clemens and the Disciples of the Apostles, the Latin Church scarce observeth 6. or 8.  
2: Inst. Real presence, Joh. 6.51.55, 56, 57 Luk 22.19. Matth. 26.28.  
Ans. This is a Jesuitical slander, for protestants do not deny the Real presence, nor is the Controversy between the Papists and us about it, 
Rivel sum. Contr. Tan. 1. Tract. 3. q. 18. Inst.  we both hold that the body and blood of Christ is truly and really present in the Sacrament, as learned Rivet observes: this is also affirmed by Dr. White in his reply to Fisher, who objecting that Protestants hold not a true or real presence, but only a presence by imagination and conceit, is answered in these words: His most excellent Majesty, and all his orthodoxal people believe real presence. 'tis true, we hold not a gross i. e. (as the same Author explains it;) When the thing signified and presented, is according to the natural substance thereof contained under the shapes of outward signs, and together with them conveyed into the mouth, stomach and bodily parts; but we maintain a true and effectual presence of the body and blood of Christ; so as man receiving the external signs by his natural parts, receiveth also the thing signified and presented by the action of his spiritual faculty, to wit, by an operative faith; and this is most evident by that 6. of John.  
3. Inst. Sacrifice from the rising of the Sun, to the going down, great is my name among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrificing, and there is offered to my Name a clean oblation, Mal. 1.  
Answ. 1. This Text, is in none of the Apostles writings, however being Scripture, I answer:  
2. The sacrifice of the Mass is not in plain and formal terms expressed in it: It's your falls reading that brings in the word sacrificing; Vatablus reads it Incensum offertur Incense is offered. Pagnin and Arias Montanus speak to the same purpose.  
3. It may be more probably understood of persons brought unto Jesus Christ from among the Gentiles, (Rom. 15.16.12.1. Isa. 66.20.) and of their religious services as praise, Psal. 50.13.14. Hebr. 13.15. Prayer, Rev. 8.3. The ordinary gloss understands Thymiama orationum, the incense of Prayers; so doth Paulus, Burgensis, Orationes, etc. The Prayers of innocent and holy persons are acceptable to me in every place. Thus Irenaeus— Hos quoque offerre vult, etc. He will have us to offer our gift at the Altar without ceasing; 
Iren. ado. haers. l. 4. c. 34. ad fin.  Now the Altar is in Heaven, thither our Prayers and offerings are directed. Remigius calls these spiritual sacrifices which succeed the Jews carnal ones, than which what can be more plain against the sasacrifice of the Mass, which is a carnal sacrifice, 1.3. We grant the Eucharist is a sacrifice in those respects that some of the Ancients call it so.  
1. In respect of the prayers and praises which we offer to God in the administration of it. Thus Eusebius saith, Itaque & sacrificamus, 
Euseb. apud Lyran in Mal. 1.  etc. Therefore we sacrifice and offer incense celebrating the memory of that great sacrifice according to the mysteries delivered to us, giving thanks unto God for our Redemption, and offering to him Religious Hymns, and holy Prayers; we Sacrifice therefore to the most high God the Sacrifice of Praise, etc. Hence is the name Eucharist given to the Lords Supper. 2. In respect of Christ's Sacrifice which is there represented, and as it were renewed by the memory of it. 
Cassand. Consult. Act. 24. p. 999.  Thus Christ is said to be crucified before the Galatians eyes, Gal. 3.1. Cassander sets it forth thus, according to the judgement of Antiquity, Non hic novum Sacrificium, etc. Here is no new Sacrifice, but the same which was offered on the Cross, and a mystical commemoration of that Sacrifice which was performed on the Cross, and a representation of Christ's Priesthood and Sacrifice continued in heaven, whereby here is not wrought any new expiation, or remission of sins, but we desire that Sacrifice which was oce offered on the Cross, may become effectual unto us. To this purpose he brings in the testimony of Ambrose or chrysostom saying; In Christo semel, etc. They once offered up a Sacrifice, Christ sufficient for our salvation; Why then do we every day offer? Although we daily offer, it's only in remembrance of Christ's Death. In respect of the natures of Bread and Wine, which were brought by the people, and as it were presented to God. In this regard, so far as I understand him, Irenaeus calls the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice, and he hath divers expressions to this purpose. Lib. 4. c. 33. Christ gave counsel to his Disciples to offer up to God the first fruits of his creatures. If you ask how we are to consider God when we offer to him, he tells us a little after— The Church in the whole world doth offer unto God, who gives us food, the first fruits of his gifts. More fully to this purpose, c. 34. It behoves us to offer unto God the first fruits of his creatures, as Moses saith, thou shalt not appear before the Lord empty; and the reason is God's Dominion over us; in regard whereof the Jews had their Tithe consecrated to God, and we that have obtained greater liberty than they, ought freely to devote what we have to the Lords use, as the poor Widow gave her Mite into the Treasures. Again, in this same Chapter, we ought to be thankful to our Maker, offering unto him of the first fruits of his creatures, and this Oblation the Church only offers to God in a pure manner, offering unto him of his creatures with thanksgiving. Now the Jews they offer not, because their hands are full of blood, and they receive not the word by whom we offer unto God. Mark it, not said whom, but by whom we offer unto God. Now that this Father was ignorant of Transubstantiation, is most evident by what he saith, lib. 5. When therefore the Wine and Bread receive the Word of God, they become the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ, of which our bodily substance is made and increased, which cannot be said of mere species of bread, or Christ's body. Erasmus ingeniously confesseth of him that he saith nothing clearly of Transubstantiation, I have been longer in this Father because you seem to build much upon him.  
4. Inst. Altars: We have an Altar whereof they have no power to eat, who serve the tabernacle. Hebr. 13. Answ. Although many Protestants dislike the name Altar. Yet the thing itself is not disliked by any, whether you understand by this text Christ; as Theodoret [apud Lyran] and the gloss, or that which the Apostle calls the table of the Lord. 1 Cor. 10.21. and which is called by Gregory Nissen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an holy table an Altar inviolable. One and the same thing is an Evangelical Altar and an holy Table.  
5. Inst. Power in Priests to forgive sins; whose sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven them and whole sins ye shall retain they are retained. John 20. Answ. No Protestant's do deny power of forgiveness of sins to the Ministers of Christ. The differenc betwixt you and us is not about the thing itself, whether there be a power in them, but about the quality of it, as whether it be a judiciary or a Ministerial power, whether they properly forgive, or but declare Gods forgivenesses of penitent sinners. We deny them a judiciary, and proper power of forgiveness, which belongs only to God but acknowledge their Ministerial.  
6. Confession, Confess your sins one to another. Jam. 5. And many of them that believed came confessing their Sins. Act. 19 Answ. Protestants acknowledge the usefulness of confession, when a Christian is troubled with the burden of some sin, whether it be made to a Christian friend that is able to advise, comfort, or pray for him, or to a Minister of the Word, but deny the absolute necessity of set confession of all known sins in the ears of a Priest. The Scriptures you urge prove not Popish confession. Not the former, for it bids us confess one to another, i. e. according to the gloss. Coaequalibus, to our equals; but your Priests would be loath to be numbered among the common people as their equals only. Nor the later: for that speaks of some only that came, and of their confession of their Deeds (as the Rhemists) only. And it's very probable, only their sorceries and witchcraft which they manifested their dislike of by the burning of their books whereby they had learned to practise their wicked deeds.  
7. Inst. Justification by works. Do you see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Jam 2. Answ. We own and subscribe to the truth of St James' assertion, yet believe it must not clash with that of Saint Paul, Rom. 3.28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law. They must therefore be reconciled, which they may by saying that faith only doth properly justify us before God, and Works do justify our faith to be a true faith, for as much as true faith is productive of good works: for we abhor those men's conceit, who imagine that faith may suffice a man though he live ill and have no good works. Or, 2. By saying that good works do evidence our justification. Aquinas confesseth that works [in c. 3. ad Gal.] are not the cause that any man is just before God, but they are rather manifestations of Righteousness and Justification. Certainly Abraham was justified in the sight of God, before he offered up his son Isaac, which is the foundation of Saint James' speech. Papists are so much convinced of this that to evade Protestant Doctrine (at least seemingly) they invent a distinction of a first and second justification, from that they exclude all works, and attribute it only to faith, and the other is not properly personal justification.  
8. Inst. Prayer to Saints. The Angel that delivered from all evils blessed the Children Gen. 48. Answ. 1. Here is no mention of Saints much less of prayer to them, not so much as an implicit hint of such a thing for I suppose Jacob was not of the mind of the Grecian Daemon worshippers; who said, it mattered not whether they called the souls of the defunct angels or gods. 2. By Angel is meant Jesus Christ the Angel of the Covenant, Mal. 3.1. who is true God, and he who delivered Jacob out of all his evils: Thus both Jewish and Christian Expositors understand it. 3. I think you mistake this for the latter part of the verse, which Papists urge to prove invocation of Saints: But seeing you do not urge it, I shall not at present answer it.  
9 Inst. Prayer for the dead, It is an holy and wholesome cogitation to pray for the dead, 2 Maccab. 12.  
A. 1. This book is not Apostolical, nor part of the Canon of Scripture: the Hebrews (keepers of the book of the Old Testament.) received it not as is generally confessed; and though some fathers commend this and other books of this nature to be read, yet they commended them only as profitable Treatises, not as Canonical Scriptures, and therefore advise men to read them with discretion and prudence; Christ, though he gives testimony to the Prophets and Psalms, he gives none to these, or in special to this: besides there are divers things in this render it suspected. 1. The Author of this book (supposed to be Josephus) professeth it to be only an abridgement of Jason of Cyrene, c. 2.23. and the Holy Ghost is not used to Epitomise profane Histories. 2. He makes an excuse for himself, and such a one as the holy Writers never used, nor becomes a Divine History, c. 15. 38.  
Answ. 2. The Text you urge may be divers ways oppugned. 1. The words are not rightly translated by you, the Greek is thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A holy and pious cogitation: therefore he made expiation (or satisfaction by sacrifice) for the dead to free them from sin; the words are not to be read without a middle distinction. Vatablus who includes these words, Piam et sanctam cogitationem, in a parenthesis refers them neither to prayer nor sacrifice, but to the resurrection of the dead; saying, it's an holy and pious thought to think that the bodies of them who have deserved well of their Country, should rise again and not perish for ever. 2. Supposing, Sacrificing or Prayer (seeing you will have it so (for the dead were lawful, yet as to these persons it cannot be allowed: For, first they were Idolaters slain for their idolatry, verse 40. Dying (for any thing appears to the contrary) in a mortal sin. 2. They were not in Purgatory the only place from whence Prayers bring souls; for at this time Purgatory had not so much as an imaginary existence. 3. Supposing Prayer for the dead, and holy and wholesome cogitation, and might be proved so from this place, yet how can we be said to maintain a Doctrine clean contrary and opposite to that which the Apostles in plain and formal terms expressed. Though here be expressed the opinion of Judas or Jason of Cyrene, yet neither Judas nor Jason were the Apostles of Christ, nor yet any of the Prophets of God, the last of whom was Malachi. It is evident that you want spiritual proofs for your charitable devotion, else you would not have urged against us those books you know we account Apocryphal, and not bring one syllable of Scripture; you must first prove unto us the Divine authority of the books of Maccabees, and then prove our contrariety to Scriptures in dissenting from them, till than you beg the question.  
10. Inst. Extreme unction. Is any body sick amongst you, let him bring in the Priests of the Church, and pray over him anointing him with oil in the name of our Lord. Jam. 5. Answ. 1. Here are not the plain and formal terms of extreme unction, nor do I think that you read them in any ancient Author; the word Extreme shows your extram abuse of this ordinance as Lorichius (otherwise as much for this supposed Sacrament as any o-any other) clearly demonstrates in these words; Abusus vocbuli est, quod dicitur extrema unctio, etc. It's an abuse of the word to call it extreme unction For it's not a Sacrament of dying men, but of those who are sick, not relateing to their burial, but conducing to their recovery. Whence it was that in the primitive Church, many when they were anointed did recover health. And even at this day many w●uld be healed, if this Sacrament were rightly used. I observe that these Popish Authors who pretend to follow antiquity do avoid this term Extreme calling this supposed Sacrament either sacramentum unctionis aegrotorum as Lorichius; or simply, 
Cass. consult. Art. 22. p. 985.  unctio infirmorum, as Cassander who also shows that its of use for the sick in order to their recovery of bodily health, 2. This text of the Apostle proves not your extreme unction. It speaks of that miraculous anointing which Saint Mark mentions, [Mark 6.13.] and which Bellarmine saith was a sign used in miraculous healing of the diseased, your Rhemists imply that it had a miraculous medicinal virtue to heal diseases which you will hardly say of your extreme oil. Cajetan expressly denies that this text of James, [Cajet. in cap. 5. Jac.] proves extreme unction, and proves it by divers reasons. 1. Saint James saith, not if any man be sick unto death, but absolutely if any man be sick. 2. The proper effect of Saint James unction is recovery of health; If he speaks of remission of sins only conditionally, whereas extreme unction is not given but at the point of death, and directly tends as its form stands, to the remission of sins; besides Saint James requires that many Elders be called to one sick person, both to pray with him, and to anoint him which is far from the ceremony of extreme unction: thus far Cajetan. 3. Saint James' unction is no Sacrament, it neither pretends to the name of Sacrament, nor refers to any express institution of Jesus Christ, (which is the property of Evangelicall Sacraments; but Popish unction assumeth to itself this name, and that in a proper acception against both Scripture and antiquity. Scripture mentioning only Christ's institution of Baptism and the Supper; and antiquity (when it speaks of proper Sacraments) doing no more. Rabanus Maurus, who lived about 800 years ago, acknowledgeth no more but Baptism and the Lords Supper. Hence I conclude that Protestants (though opposite to Popish fopperies) are not contrary to Apostolical Doctrine.  
11. Inst. The Bishop of Rome's supremacy in spiritual matters. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, Feed my sheep. To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt lose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven; whatsoever thou shalt tie on earth shall be tied in Heaven, Matth. 16.  
Answ. 1. Why do you separate the Pope's Spiritual from his Temporal power? for we deny both, and they are alike expressed in Scripture. but 2. The Pope's Supremacy in Spiritual matters is not in plain and formal terms here expressed. for 1. Here is no mention of any Pope or his Supremacy in Spiritual matters; here is mention of Peter, but few of your Popes have had that name. 2. What is commanded and promised to Peter, is commanded and promised to him, not as Bishop of Rome, but as an Apostle, and therefore the same is commanded and promised to other Apostles. The other Apostles are foundations as well as Peter, and I am sure he is not the corner stone. The keys are promised to them as well as to him, John 20.22, 23. the other Apostles are to feed Christ's sheep as well as he; yea, it is the duty of all Pastors, Act. 20.28. 3. What reason can be given why Peter's supremacy should descend upon his Successors at Rome rather than his successors at Antioch. 4. If Peter had any supremacy it was in regard of Apostleship, so as to be the prime Apostle, and have power over the rest: but Apostolic power is not derived by succession upon any. The truth is, Peter had no power over the rest from Christ, for Christ's gift of such a power would have prevented the Apostles contention about supremacy, or would have answered the question, better than those words wherewith Christ did answer. He might easily have said, why do you strive which should be greatest? know you not that I have made Peter your Prince, and have made him Supreme; but Christ thought of no such matter.  
Thus I have showed that Protestants do not profess a Doctrine contrary to the Apostles, and I further add that the Apostles doctrine expressed in Scripture is fully received by them. We believe all that the Apostles have taught so far as God reveals their Doctrine to us. It's therefore a most false slander to say that Protestants refuse some points the Apostles believed, p. 65. We hold the Catholic faith entire and inviolate in Athanasius' sense, we fully believe all the Articles of its Creed. It's true we deny divers points that Papists believe; we dislike the new articles of your late Creed, which Athanasius as well as we received not into his Creed, nor were they believed by the Apostles. But you object (sect. 5.) It is evident they were there being the same ground to assure us thereof, as of Scripture; or any other point they believed; and that without which (under a miracle) there would not be the least knowledge of the Apostles belief, to wit, the Churches constant tradition. Answ. 1. It's most evident that the points Protestants deny were not believed by the Apostles. For, 1. The Scriptures mention them not the writings of the Apostles approve not of communion in one kind, private mass, prayer in an unknown tongue, imagined worship, auricular confession, pardons, indulgences, restraint of people from reading Scripture, or Clergymen from marriage, Pope's infallibility, sumpreamacy of temporal and spiritual power, purgatory, prayer for the dead, or to Saints departed, etc. 2. The ancient Creeds do not mention any of these points, (which they would certainly have done if the Apostles had believed them) much less do they make them necessary articles of faith, 
See Caranz. de council. conc. Nic. p. 51. Syrm. p. 89. Constant. p. 102. Tollet. p. 131. Ephes. p. 151. Calced. p. 181.  Read the Creeds of the Apostles, of the Nicen Fathers, of Syrmium, Constantinople Tolet. Ephesus (which Caranza calls a sum of all Christian Doctrine) of the Romans with divers others, and you shall not find one of your new articles so much as hinted in any of them. 2. The proof of your evident assertion contains divers falsities, as, 1. That the Scripture is known only by Tradition, or humane testimony, whereas it gives testimony to itself as I have before shown. 2. That without the Churches constant tradition there would not be the least knowledge of the Apostles belief. For, 1. God can make the enemies of his Church the publishers, and propagators of his truth. Thus Cajetan notes that by the Apostasy and obstinacy of the Jews we know which are the true books of the old Testament. 2. The Scriptures might be preserved though there should be a general apostasy, and these could testify of the Apostles belief, [2 Reg. 22.8.] as that book found in the days of Josiah testified of Moses' commands and threaten. 3. Christians for a long time had not the Church's Tradition, i. e. the testimony of a general Council informing them what was the Apostles belief, or which were the books of Scripture. 3. Those points of yours I mentioned cannot be evidenced to be the Apostles belief by the Churches constant tradition, you cannot name one Author in every age since the Apostles out of whose writings you can prove that the Apostles maintained those Doctrines which we reject, much less are you able to tell us of any visible Church or national Council that will affirm it: 
Concil. Const. Sess. 13.  The Council of Constance acknowledgeth that Christ administered the Sacrament under both kinds, and that the Primitive Christians did receive it under both kinds. Can we then think that the Apostles thought communion under both kinds unlawful? How then durst he so administer it? Was his practice contrary to his belief? This would be a great wickedness not to be imagined of an Apostle. 4. We approve of the Church's tradition as a witness of what the Apostles believed, but only in subserviency to Scripture which doth principally discover what was the Apostles belief: if your Councils had told us that the Apostles administered not the Sacrament in both kinds, or that they allowed of prayers in an unknown tongue, we would not believe your Councils because the Scripture speaks contrary to them, and it is first to be regarded. But you reply to this, p. 67. As Scripture, so what it contains would be as to belief hid and unknown, but for the Church's information. Answ. This hath been formerly confuted. Scripture gives a firmer and more convincing testimony to itself, than men can give to it. The efficacy of the word in the heart of him that reads and meditates in it is more powerful to persuade him that its the Word of God than a 1000 Fathers or Popes; the same may be said of the truth contained in it. When the error of administering the Sacrament of the Supper was the Doctrine of the Church; I appeal to any man to tell me whether the Scripture would not have manifested what was truth, better than Pope Innocentius or any of his erring nephews: I'm sure the Pope would not have informed what was truth according to Scriptures in that point, and yet there were means of finding out the truth, else all his Proselytes had erred with him which would be dangerous to affirm. It is the Scripture that declares and manifests the Church, and therefore must be more mafest than the Church: But you prove it thus, The knowledge faith requires, must be supernaturally certain, and consequently an effect of the Holy Ghosts peculiar assistance, which is only warranted to the Church, and not to every private reading and reasoning.  
Answ. If you speak of the Holy Ghosts infallible assistance, we grant the Apostles had it and therefore their knowledge was certain, and their writings we ground our faith upon, but this assistance is not now given to any. You plead but for the Holy Ghosts peculiar assistance, how this is warranted not only to the Church, but to private Christians. For first Christ promiseth it to them, Jer. 31.34. and assures them God will give it them if they ask, Luke 11.13. 2. Christ invites them to seek it, Apoc. 3.18. 3. The Apostle affirms that private Christians have it, 1 John 2.27. The pride of Popish Prelates is intolerable, they (forsooth) and none else have the peculiar assistance of God's spirit to enlighten them. Poor Christians must be robbed of their spiritual Pastor, that Popish Priests may be the only teachers. But I think your conscience struck you when you were penning this sentence, and therefore to evade it in stead of saying, Not to provide persons, you say not to every private reading or reasoning which makes as much against your Popes and Priests, as private Christians; if those do ever read and reason in private. I grant that the Spirit is not given to every private person in every reading and reasoning. No more as I said is he given to every, or any Pope in every private reading or reasoning. When the Pope speaks not ex Cathedra, he's as subject to ignorance and error as the poorest Christian and may err by your own confession, and he's not always in his chair: But I dare affirm that private Christians in their serious reading of God's Word joined with Prayer and diligence, may expect the peculiar assistance of God to lead them into the knowledge of God's truth, this is clearly promised Psal. 25.9.12.14. upon our ask of him, James 1.5. If any man want wisdom, Spiritum illuminatorem (saith the gloss) Let him ask it of God, etc. The Psalmist prayeth that God would open his eyes that he may understand wonderful things of God's Law, so should private Christians do: through the want of spirit the Jews though they read the Scriptures they understand them not, the vail is upon their eyes, but it is to be done away in Christ by the Spirit of the Lord. Here is not a word of the Churches taking away this vail. 2. You prove it by S. Paul; S. Paul is plain, Let men esteem us as the Ministers of Christ, and dispensers of God's mysteries, 1 Cor. 4.  
Answ. The words indeed are plain and easy to be understood, but I know not how they make for you; they do not prove that the Apostles had the peculiar assistance of God's Spirit, much less do they prove that private Christians are not capable of it. All that they prove is this, that the Corinthians ought not to contemn or vilify Paul or any, but account of them according to their calling as Christ's servants, and dispensers of divine mysteries 3. You prove it by experience, saying, Experience confirms no less in Separatists, who laying aside the Church, and presuming upon their own readings and reasonings, have vented as many absurd, and extravagant impieties, as they had base and exorbitant passions, p. 68  
A. 1. When men presume upon their readins and raesoning, without having respect to the Spirit of God, it's no wonder if they err; Reason is no sufficient guide in exposition of Scripture. Flesh and blood reveals it not to us, but the Spirit. Hence it is that those Heretics in Judas are noted by their want of the Spirit, and this was the cause of their erring. 2. The Church never put forth any Public Commentary, whereby the sense of Scripture might appear, and therefore the Church's Exposition is a mere Chimaera: Suppose a Christian should desire to acquaint himself with Scripture, as that which (you say) contains part of God's Will, but he dares not venture upon it himself, and therefore desires to be guided by the Church's Exposition, now he knows not where to meet with it; I pray Sir, could you direct him where he might find it? The Fathers do not all of them always agree, and he finds their Expositions often rejected by your learned Doctors, and sometimes they deserve not to be received. Your Doctors of the Church are as different in their Expositions as can be (as that Text of James, some understand it of Extreme Unction, others deny that Extreme Unction can be proved by it) and for your Popes they seldom expound Scripture, and when they do it, their Expositions are oft irrational, (as that of Rom. 8.6. by Lyricus) and seldom obvious. In this case, either the study of Scripture must be quite laid aside, or else there must be some other guide thought of besides the Church, which can be no other than the Spirit of God, by which we are enabled to judge which is the true sense of Scripture. 
Vid. Can. loc. Theol. l. 7. c. 3.  Cajetan seems to approve of this, when he adviseth that no man dislike a new sense of Scripture, because it dissents from Ancient Fathers, for God hath not confined the Exposition of Scripture to their senses, but to Scripture itself. Which way of finding out the sense of Scripture by comparing one place with another, is done by the help of God's Spirit principally, though the advise of Pastors may come secondarily in; as subservient thereunto. 3. Those who have cried up the Church, as some of them vented as absurd and extravagant impieties as any Schismatique: What more absurd and extravagant Exposition can there be, then that of Lyricus on Rom. 8. They that are married cannot please God (as if all the Saints of God who were married cannot please God) or that of Harding, that by Peter's Sword is meant the Pope's Civil Power; or that of the Lawyers, that by Cardines terrae, 1 Sam. 2.8. are figured the Cardinals, by whose Counsel the Church of Rome is governed. (See willet's third Pillar of Popish Doctrine) yea, and such as are grounded upon base and exorbitant passion, as where they reject the Expositions of Fathers merely in opposition to Protestants. See Maldon. in Joan. 9.62. and Bellarm. l. 1. de extr. Vnct. c. 2. init. both which reject a generally received Exposition, because the Protestants entertain it.  
4. The Scripture itself rightly used and judged, gives sufficient information of its own meaning, especially in fundamental points, which are plain and easy to him who useth discretion in searching of it. If it were not thus, to what purpose did holy Writers set Pen to Paper? Yea, and writ not only to Bishops and Pastors, but to private Christians also: It were a vain thing to write so, as that those they wrote to could understand nothing of their meaning; besides, it's more than probable, that the Apostles Preaching was of the same obscurity with their writing. To this you give us this answer, The Apostles did set Pen to Paper for a greater confirmation of the truth, to bear witness to the sincerity and candour of the Churches teaching and preaching, and not for every one to be his own carver and interpreter.  
Repl. 1. Your answer is more for than against us, for who are they that must have the truth confirmed to them, and must have a witness to assure them, that the Teaching and Preaching of the Church is sincere and candid? are they not the People who are commanded to try the Spirits? 1 Joh. 4.1. and are commended for searching the Scriptures, to find whether what the Apostles Preached was the truth? Act. 17.11.12. How can the Scriptures witness to them, that the Pastors of the Church teach truth, if they cannot understand the Witnesses language? or what confirmation can we have of truth, if we must not meddle with that which is the Rule and Touchstone of Truth? The Apostle Peter commends Christians for giving heed to the Scriptures, 2 Ep. 1.19. calling them a light shining in a dark place; whereby he demonstrates their clearness and conspicuity even to private Christians giving heed thereto. 2. Your words make much against yourselves, for they imply: 1. That the truth is more confirmed by Scripture than by the Church, therefore the Church, as to confirmation of truth, is inferior to Scripture. 2. That the Teaching and Preaching of the Church is not to be believed upon that account; but because of its consent with Scripture, it receives its evidence of sincerity and candour from Scripture, both which are certain truths, but not agreeable to your Positions. 3. That the Scriptures are to be translated into those Tongue's People can understand, else they cannot be assured of the truth by them, nor can the Scriptures be a witness to them of the sincerity and candour of the Churches teaching and preaching. Can an idiot know by Aristotle's Greek works, whether Expositors deal sincerely and candidly in their commenting on him, or at his works a greater confirmation of Philosophical truths to such a one, than their Commentaries: If you have any ingenuity, you cannot affirm it. 4. That the Scriptures are the rule of Faith, whereby even the Churches teaching is to be tried. 5. Whereas you say, the Apostles did not set pen to paper— For every one to be his own Carver and interpreter. reply. 1. The Apostles did therefore write that every one might hear, Rev. 2.7.17.29. and give heed thereto, 2 Pet. 1.19. and understand and believe, John 20.31. yea, and might teach them their children, 2 Tim. 3.15. wtih 1.5. and others related to them, Acts 18.24.26. Aquila and Priscilla instruct Apo●●os in the way of the Lord, which was done by interpreting Scripture to him, concerning those points wherewith he was not well acquainted, and yet Burgensis saith of them, that they were simple persons, persons of no great learning nor eminency in the Church, excepting for piety. 2 'Tis true, that the Apostles did not write with an intent that every one should wrest it, as the Apostle saith some did, 2 Pet. 3.16. (which may be applied as well to Clergy men as private Christians) but they intended an application of it to Christians particular use, and that even by themselves privately, and not only publicly. But you urge for this you have said; It was ever held an effect of great improvidence, and occasion of intolerable confusion for the people in any Commonwealth, to have the freedom of construing the Law; therefore wise Lawmakers, to show their care and foresight for the good and weal-public, as they caused their Laws to be written so they appointed certain select persons of integrity and ability to dispense the same: If this be true as it is, etc.  
Resp. 1. It's most false that you say, It was ever held, etc. Tholosanus tells you that Advocates are of little use in Poland, 
Tholos. syntag. juris L. 49. c. 6. Sect. 29, Azor. inst. Moral. part. 3. l. 13. cap. 29. dub. 2.  but every man is admitted to plead his own cause. Himself and other Casuists when they tell who is prohibited from being Advocate, do not exclude private men from pleading their own cause. See Tholos. and Ararius, who are so far from holding it an effect of great improvidence, etc. that they allow it. You find the Apostle Paul pleading for himself, Acts 24.12, 13, 18, 19 and 25. and 10, 11. in both which places the Apostle pleads for himself, and that by Law which he interprets for himself. Now he would never have done this, had he thought it an effect of great improvidence, or an occasion of intolerable confusion as you suggest it. Advocates do not substantially but accidentally intervene in public judicatories, as Zorius speaks. [Sup. cap. 12. init.] Now that which only accidentally intervenes, may sometimes not intervene. 2. The reason you give of Lawmakers appointing certain select persons of integrity and ability, to dispense the Laws, it's an occasion of intellerable confusion, etc. Is not the proper reason of that appointment; but rather the true and main reason is this: All men are not able to understand the meaning and sense of Law, though some may be able; now a good Law maker doth consult the welfare of the meanest subject: If some men should handle their own cause, they would endanger it through their unskilfulness of Law and the subtlety of the adversaries. So that the danger is not so much confusion and disorder, as the prejudice of civil and particular rights, every man not being able to deal with every adversary, nor to understand every case in Law. 3. All that you say makes only against a public pleading in Courts of Judicature, which doth not take away private men's liberty of interpretation absolutely, but as to such times and places; and there is none of us pleads for private men's interpretation of Scripture publicly. 4. You confound construction of Law by right reason, and by corrupt affection; this latter, no man that hath right reason can plead for in the behalf of any people, for indeed that would bring confusion: but the former cannot be denied to any; for the Law is founded upon right reason, and so far as this takes place, the expounding of the Law cannot be prejudicial to any Commonwealth, though it be done by private persons. 2. You infer, If this be true as it is, what an undervaluing must it be of God's wisdom and providence to think in a Commonwealth of his own immediate establishing, as the Church is, he hath left indifferently to all a liberty to make what sense they will of his Law.  
Answ. 1. We allow not that the sense men give of Scripture should be after their own lusts or wills. If any man give a sense contrary to the mind of God, it deserves to be rejected God hath not left to any one man much less indifferently to all, a liberty to make what sense he will of Gods Law. The Pope can no more claim that liberty than the meanest Laic, and therefore you either play the fool or worse, to disprove a liberty which no Protestant in the World pleads for.  
2. Yet I say God hath not left any of his children without means in the use whereof they may attain to know what is the Will of God in his Word. Rom. 12.2. Indeed God hath set certain select persons of integrity and ability to dispense his Law, but this is not opposite to private study and meditation in God's Law, the very principal character of a blessed man. Psal. 1. and 119. and is not study and meditation in God's Law in order to the interpretation of it. The Saints of God have earnestly studied Gods Law. Yet this was never thought to tend to bring the peace and safety of the Church into danger of shipwreck, nor to be the source of jars and garboils of Separatists, as you wickedly suggest. Misapplying and wresting of Scripture may have those effects you speak of: but what is this to the reading and right interpretation of it. Your reason for this your unsavoury speech is (say you) clear, because all men are not apt to understand alike; for being for the most part of different tempers and composures, they have various fancies which of necessity will beget a diversity of understanding Answ. 1. You are Aesop's man qui ex uno ore calidum promise & frigidum, in your fourth Chapter you proved the Church's infallibility by this argument viz. that it was framed up of men of several Nations, different tempers and interests, therefore neither could, nor can meet or conspire to cheat themselves and posterity with a lie, p. 15, 16. But here the same argument proves the Church's fallibility the fruit of diversity of understanding. 2. I say, If Christians were considerable only as men of different tempers and composures, as you represent them, and that their different tempers and composures were the directive causes of understanding: I believe what you say of separatists would be true of all Christians, yea of all men in the World, and there would be nothing but jars and garboils in every place. Yea it may as truly be said of your great Rabbis the only interpreters of Scripture, for are not they of different tempers and composures, and so according to your doctrine have various fancies which of necessity must beget a diversity of understanding. If you answer, that these have the Spirit of God to guide them in understanding, I reply, so have all true Christians as I have already proved. I deny not but there is corruption in the best, and darkness in their understandings, they but see through a glass and that darkly, and therefore may mistake a wrong exposition sometimes for a true one, and thus it is not only with Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin (whose names will survive Rome's obloquy and reproach of them) but with your own Doctors whose expositions are not always the same. But we must believe (if we will) that only schismatical Protestants such as Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin have different understandings and expositions of Scripture for say you they made no less than three contrary and repugnant senses of those plain words, this is my body, this is my blood. p. 70. Answ. 1. You tell us not what these three contrary and repugnant senses are, and I am persuaded they may easily be reduced to two; for though Luther and Zuinglius differed about the sense of the words, yet I find not that Calvin and Zuinglius did, and I rather think they did not, for the opinion that some appropriate to Zuinglius, Bellarmine chargeth upon Calvin in these words, 
Bellarmine saith, the opinion of Calvin, reverâ nihil differt a sententia, Zuinglii de Ludib. lib. 1. c. 1.  Haeresis erat, etc. It was the Heresy of some, that the Eucharist was only a figure of Christ's body, this Heresy doth Calvin teach. 2. If the words be so plain, how comes it that Papists do so much differ in their Expositions of them, every word almost brings variety of Popish senses. If we were to learn what the Pronoun This, (the very first of those pain words) means, we might go unsatisfied away for any resolution we should have from you. One tells us it signifies Nothing; another, The Bread presently to be transubstantiate. A third, an individuum vagum, contained under the forms of Bread. A fourth, the Body of Christ. And now Sir, I dare be bold to say, that there is less agreement amongst Popish Expositors, who yet profess to follow the Church in all their Expositions, then amongst Luther, Zuinglius and Calvin: There being but three, (rather two) Expositions of these words given by Protestants, whereas there is at least four amongst Papists of one of the words.  
For conclusion, you bring us in objecting for ourselves thus: Those selected Persons entrusted with the administering and dispensing of the Laws, utter by mouth what they understand; and they understand no more, than what their private reading and reasoning are able to inform them; so that even this way men would be to seek. To this you answer: 1. Judges have not only their reading and reasoning to inform and direct them, but likewise the practice of former Courts from the very promulgation of the Law, at which time the sense and meaning of the same was declared by the Lawmakers themselves.  
Reply 1. You unlearnedly distinguish betwixt their reading and their knowledge of the practice of former Courts; as if the practice of former Courts were not known by reading, whereas you cannot mention any other means thereof unless you can make out a constant unwritten Tradition from the Lawmakers themselves, which hath been propogated from one to another, and the particular cases of former Courts have been so various and so many, that they require strong memories to retain them. 2. Lawmakers are not able to comprehend all particular cases that may happen, nor do they use to declare the meaning of the Law, unless occasionally in some doubtful cases; for it is supposed, that the Law when delivered, is clear and manifest, at least in the substantials of it. 3. Judges do not always look so far as to the Lawmakers, but to the practice of former Courts grounded upon right reason, which is indeed the foundation of all just and good Laws. 2. You answer with respect to the Church. The Church besides the Letter of Scripture (which she reads assiduously with watching, fasting and prayer for a right and happy understanding thereof) and her own reasoning, hath the help of a better and sure tradition, and the assistance of the Holy Ghost.  
Reply 1. What you mean by the Church here, is hard to guests. I fear your commendations will not well agree to Popes, and the rest of your Ecclesiastical Grandees: their other employments are so great and their affection to Scripture in comparison of humane Traditions so little, and their devotedness to the Expositions of others so absolute, that I cannot believe that they read Scripture assiduously, with watching, fasting, Prayer: and for your common people, they must not take that pains about Scripture if they would: so that you must either give us another definition of Church, than you do, page 73. or acknowledge that the Church doth not read the Letter of Scripture assiduously with watching, etc.  
2. What ever you speak of the Church, may be as truly spoken of particular Christians, they are capable of reading the Scriptures, with the use of fasting, watching, Prayer; they have reason whereby they can discern truth from error, they are also capable of using that which you call a better and surer Tradition, and the assistance of the Spirit is as truly with them, as with those you call Church: And therefore I shall conclude with you, leaving what I have said to the impartial Reader, desiring him to judge by it, whether private Christians, being rational men; yea, men endued with God's Spirit, and thereby capable of understanding the Will of God in the Scriptures, may not according to the ability given them, and in their places seek for, and deliver the sense of Scripture, and whether this be any undervaluing of God's Wisdom and Providence, or do directly tend to absurd and extravagant impieties.    

CHAP. XI. Of the Roman Church.  
BY the word ROMAN (say you) are not only comprised the inhabitants of that particular territory of Rome, but likewise all Christians in the World that acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for their chief Pastor appointed by Christ to govern his flock. Answ. 1. It may well be doubted what acknowledgement you mean, whether an acknowledgement de facto, or de jure only. If you mean by Roman Church are only comprised those who do actually acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for their chief Pastor, you overthrew its universality, It is not then Catholic, for only a part of the West makes this acknowledgement. The Eastern Church wholly and a great part of the Western do disclaim his supremacy, and worship not the image of the beast, nor receive his name in their foreheads. Yea if you consult antiquity you shall find that there never was an actual acknowledgement of the Pope as chief Pastor, by all Christian Churches. There were other Patriarches besides him who had their several distinct limits, 
Azor. inst. mor. p. 2. l. 3. c. 35. q. 5.  viz. the Patriarches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Some of whose limits were no less than the Roman Patriarches, and whose power did extend to the constituting, ordaining and confirming Bishops, Archbishops and other Ecclesiastical officers (as your Azorius testifies) yea so independent was the power of each of them upon other, that none of them was to meddle in another's Patriarchat as its proved out of the Council of Constantinople (Can 2.) by the learned Scultetus who also clearly explains the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice to this purpose, 
Scult. Synlag. medul. Theol. Patr. p. 418.  and answers the objections that Papists make against it. All that Azorius gives to the Pope is this, Inter Patriarchas, etc. Amongst the Patriarches the Pope of Rome was chief, to whom as Patriarch, the Western Provinces and many Lands in the mediterranean sea towards the West, were subject. Here is priority of Order, but no supreamacy of power over the other patriarchs, the Bishop of Rome had power over all the Cities and places about Rome (as the Nicen Creed hath it) but not over his fellow Patriarches or their Cities, etc. His power was provincial, not ecumenical. 2. If you mean that by Roman are comprised those who ought to acknowledge the Pope for their chief Pastor, it will remain to be resolved who those are, whether some particular part of the Christian World or the whole. The former you cannot grant but overthrow universality, and set Roman against Catholic, which you are use to conjoin in their predication of the Church: The later we cannot admit till you can effect an impossibility in proving that in the language of the Ancients, the Catholic Church was couched under the word Roman It is evident that a particular Church is sometimes by the Ancients dignified with a general and common attribute, and are called Catholic Churches; but I never read that the universal Church is couched under a particular appellation as a proper predicate thereof, I say, A proper predicate. For I acknowledge that the Church in Scripture is called Zion, and Jerusalem; but these are only figurative expressions of it: it is never called the Church of Zion, or the Church of Jerusalem, though it might rather be called so then the Church of Rome, or the Roman Church: the Scripture never takes notice of Rome when it speaks of the Catholic Church except as an enemy. 2. Notwithstanding, I shall suppose that you mean of them that actually submit to the Pope, and thus you distinguish the Roman Church from all schismatical companies of Christians whether Protestants or others. This company (say you) together with the said Bishop compose and make up the true Catholic Church. Answer, 1. The truth of this will appear by your arguments which you bring for the proof of it: The arguments are these which I shall consider of in the order I find them propounded.  
1. Argument, That company of Christians, compose and make up the true Catholic Church, to which the definition of the true Catholic Church doth agree; but the definition of the true Catholic Church doth agree to the above mentioned company, therefore they compose and make up the true Catholic Church, p. 72. 73. Answ. If you speak of an exact and perfect definition, wherein the definition is adequate to the thing defined, agreeing fully to it, and not to any thing else: I subscribe to your major proposition, but deny the minor. For proof whereof you give us a definition, and then apply it to your Church: that is, first you suit your definition to the Roman Church, and then you bring your Roman Church to the definition. The definition is, The true Catholic Church is a society of men linked together in the profession of one Faith, in the use o● the same Sacrament, and under the government of Bishops and Pastors lawfully sent, that are able to show their personal and doctrinal succession from Christ and his Apostles, without the least interruption.  
Answ. 1. It might rationally be expected from you, that when you bring a definition upon the truth, whereof the validity of your argument depends, you should have fetched it from some Fathers or other approved Authors and not out of your own brain. It's not suitable for the seller to make himself a measure, and then confine the buyer thereunto, or for a subject to frame a definition of Law, and according to that proceed against his neighbour as a breaker of the Law. If it could be thus, what man could not lay a foundation for suits, yea and carry away another's right by his new definition. I challenge you or any other to show me this definition of the Catholic Church in any of the Ancients or later Fathers, either Greek or Latin, till which time I might justly defer an answer. The former part I confess is warrantable, but, desinit in piscem mulier formosa Supernè. But you seem to say you prove it in every part of it by Scripture. I shall therefore first examine whether it be in Scripture, and then whether it (such as it is) be a pliable to the Roman Church. 1. Say you A society of men; and he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, others Pastors and Doctors. A most necessary part of the definition, you did well not to commit the poof of the Church's manhood, because none denies it. 2. Linked together under the government of Bishops and Pastors lawfully sent, Eph. 4. Heb. 5. Rom. 10.4. this we grant. 3. That are able to show, etc. The mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of mountains, and all Nations shall flow unto it. Is. 2. He hath placed his Tabernacle in the Sun, Psal. 118. Sir, you are now gotten to Rome, and the Scripture leaves you: what sober man that reads these Texts, would infer that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church are able to show, etc. but it sticks in your teeth, and therefore you stop at show. And truly I may well apply to you the words of the Psalmist, (Ps. 39.6.) with a little variation, surely you walk in a vain show, surely you are disquieted in vain, you heap up Scriptures, and know not how to apply them. The Scriptures you urge are not applicable to any thing you say, Isa. 2. Prove the amplitude of the Church under the Gospel by the access of the Gentiles, by reason of whom also it shall be more glorious then formerly: But what is this to the showing of personal or doctrinal succession of the Church's Bishops? Sure you do not understand by the Mountain of the House of the Lord, only the Bishops of the Church, and by its being confirmed in the top of the mountains, that all the Bishops of the Church shall be personally visible. Herein you would surpass the very worst of doting Rabbins. 2. In quoting Psal, 118. you commit two errors, one personal, quoting Psal. 118. for 19 The other vulgar reading after the Latin, He hath placed his tabernacle in the Sun, which is a most false reading, as ingenious Papists confess. Vatablus reads it thus, Soli posuit tabernaculum in ipsis, He hath placed a tabernacle in them, (i. e. the Heavens) for the Sun: that is as he notes, Domicilium circumscripsit in coelis, etc. He hath made an house for it in the Heavens, that there as in an high Theatre is might be better seen. Lyranus tells us, In Hebraeo, etc. In the Hebrew, and in Hieroms translation according to the Hebrew it is thus: He hath placed for them a tabernacle for the Sun. Now do you think that either Vatablus, Lyr●, Hierom or the Hebrews would infer that, because the Sun is in the Heavens, etc. it's able to show its own, or Bishops personal succession? I wonder you are not ashamed to reject the Hebrew, and Hierom and produce a false translation to so little purpose as you do: for suppose in both these Texts it were proved that the Church had a show or were manifest, yet it makes not for a successive visibility of an hierarchical Church. Yea they clearly prove that the Church may be sometimes hid, for the clouds may both make the mountains invisible, and obscure the lustre of the Sun as common experience testifieth. 3. Their Personal and Doctrinal succession; He gave some Doctors and Pastors, etc. until we all meet in the unity of Faith, Eph. 4 Indeed here is proved that there shall be Pastors in the Church till the end of the world: God will still raise up some to preach his truth, though there may be interruptions in particular Churches, nor doth Matth. 28. prove a non interruption of succession of Bishops, but only a non interruption of Christ's presence. But suppose, Isa. 2. & Psal. 19 Prove a visibility; and Eph. 4. Prove a succession; and Matth. 28. Prove a non interruption: Yet to say therefore, the Church must be able to show a succession without interruption, is fallacia compositionis. And now let any man judge whether your definition be spiritual or no.  
2. This definition is not a right definition according to the rules of Logic it's not adaequata definito, not fitted to the Catholic Church: For, first, it may agree to a particular Church as well as to the Catholic, as is evident to any that examines it: And secondly, it doth not agree to the Catholic, i. e. The universal Church. For first, Bishops and Pastors do not show succession as Governors of the Catholic Church, but as Bishops and Pastors in particular Churches. The Popes show their succession as Bishops of Rome. The Patriarch of Constantinople, shows his succession as Patriarch of that place: thus the Bishops of England show their succession in the Church of England. He that shows a personal succession of government over the Catholic Church must produce not a Pstoral, or Episcopal, but Apostolical succession, which Papists themselves lay no claim to. 2. There are no such Bishops and Pastors, as can show a personal and doctrinal succession without the least interruption. 3. This definition comprehends not Popes and Bishops, who are parts of it: The Catholic Church as visible and distinct from particular Congregations is more truly defined by Lorichius, in these words, Sensus unitatis ecclesiae est, etc. The sense of the article of one Church, is to believe that all the Congregations of the faithful are one Church, and that is the Spouse of Christ and Mother of all Christians. And he fully and expressly meets with yourself, and such like flatteries of the Roman Church, who monopolise the word Catholic to be:— Non tamen ejus sedis, etc. Yet let not the governors of the Roman Church extol themselves, as if that Church only & (as they speak) exclusively were the Catholic Church, and that it behoved us presently without trial of it to approve of whatsoever comes from that See: and that for all Doctrines and pontifical constitutions nothing should be brought but an ipse dixit. If we attribute this to that See, we shall expose the Catholic Church to all errors. And the Church of Rome cannot have any more pestilent enemies, than those flatterers, who do make her not only the chief, but the only Church, and extolling her above the Word and Catholic sense of Scripture, above all the Catholic Fathers, yea above the Church triumphant, and consequently above the spirit of God, do make of her I know not what Idol. This root of Parasites are overthrown by that of Hierom, The world is greater than a city. So that it is evident the Roman being but particular cannot be the Catholic Church. But supposing your definition good, I come to examine whether it can rightly be applied to the Roman Church, in the several particulars of it, as you say it may.  
1. You say Its a society of men, this agreeth to the said company, for in that company is to be seen Jerusalem descended from above, Apoc. 4. A goodly Hierarchy, or heavenly order and subordination of sub-Deacon to Deacon, of Deacon to Priest, of Priest to Bishop, of Bishop to chief Bishop or Pope, (who is subordinate to none but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an exalter of himself above all that is called God, 2. Thes. 2.) and of the Laity to all.  
Answ. 1. I know not whether to pity or laugh at you, seeing you will needs be so exact as to prove that Rome is a society of men, I wonder you do not go more directly to work. It's not a direct proof to say in the Church of Rome there are subdeacons, Deacons, Priests, Bishops, chief Bishop, a goodly Hierarchy or chief heavenly order; therefore the Church of Rome is a society of men; for you would persuade us that the pattern of your Hierarchy was brought by Dyonisius from heaven, and that amongst the Angels there is a goodly Hierarchy or heavenly order, so that we cannot tell by your argument whether the Church of Rome be a society of men or Angels. Why might you not as well argue thus, In Rome there are common whores that bring in great revenues to his Holiness, there are or have been devils incarnate conjurers, Magicians, Simoniacs, Whoremasters: therefore the Church of Rome is a society of men: I am sure it's as good an argument as yours, to prove your Church's manhood. What assurance have we that your heavenly orders are all men; for the Porrphyry chair is only for the Pope, and I have not heard of any other chairs of humanity for inferior orders. But you urge further these degrees are so masterlike set, that they do not hinder and trouble, but as great and less strings musically tuned, make and preserve the melodious harmony of peace and concord: Ergo the Church of Rome is a society of men: Who that reads these arguments can forbear laughter. I am sure they are neither musically tuned, nor do they make melodious harmony; by this argument you might prove your fiddle strings to be a society of men, but I grant your assertion to be true without your reasons. 2. The second part is— Linked together. This agreeth to the said company, for in that company there is no diversity of belief, but one as Monarch swayeth in Europe, Asia, Africa and America; where one and the same belief is embraced for one and the same motive, God's revelation proposed by the Church.  
Answ. 1. If to be linked together be the main thing applied to your Church in this second part, it may agree to Heathens and Jews as well as Romans. If the faith wherein they are linked together with the use of the same Sacraments (which you seem to forget) this may also agree with the Greek and Eastern Churches or to the Protestants, who (as is evident by their confessions of their Faith) do as nearly agree as any Churches subjected to the Roman.  
2. What you say of the same belief, that it's received upon the Church's account, I have before confuted it, and for further answer to it, refer you to Lorichius in my last quotation of him. Lastly, your talk of your monarchial sway, etc. is but a Popish brag, or if real, 'tis an usurpation, for which you cannot plead Law nor ancient possession, as Aronius will inform you if you consult him about the Pope's dominions.  
3. The third part is lawfully sent. This agrees to the said company, for in that company no man clarifieth himself, but one receiveth power from another, the sub-Deacon, Deacon and Priest from the Bishop, the Bishop from the chief Bishop or Pope.  
Answ. 1. I hope you will not make the whole company of Popish Catholics Preachers, though no man can infer any thing else from your words; for you say, To be lawfully sent agrees to the said company, which company you define to be under the government of Bishops and Pastors, p. 73. 2. Supposing you meant it of Bishops, etc. yet there receiving of power one for another, the sub-Deacon Deacon and Priests from the Bishops the Bishops from the Pope doth not prove that the Bishops and Pastors are lawfully sent, unless it were made manifest both that the power of sending were in the Bishops and Pope, and that they used it lawfully; the latter of which especially will be difficult for you to prov, considering that your Priests, etc. are ordained not to an Evangelicall employment, as preaching the Gospel, and administering the seals of the Covenant of grace, but rather to offer sacrifice and such as the Gospel knows not.  
4. The fourth part is able to show, etc. This agreeth to the said company; for in that company an exact succession of power and doctrine is faithfully and with clearness deduced, Writers of several ages and nations having put forth and published to the view of the w●rld authentic Schemes and Catalogues of Popes, Bishops and Pastors, succeeding each other from Christ and the Apostles, and from time to time laid open their doctrine.  
Answ. 1. Personal succession (as I have showed) is no mark of a true Church, its agreeable to other Churches: and this is the succession which your Authors do principally, if not only demonstrate. 2. It's observable that there is no personal succession of Bishops and Pastors (to whom you join subdeacons, and Deacons) distinct from the Pope mentioned in any of your authors that I have met with, though particular Churches, as Spain, France, etc. have had Apostolical institution as well as Rome, and it's your task to prove not only that the Pope, but Bishops and Pastors of the Church have a personal succession from the Apostles. But 2. Rome is not now able to show a personal and doctrinal succession from Christ and his Apostles, though I grant that in the time of the first Fathers of the Church she was able, as were also the Churches of Smyrna, Ephesus of Asia, the Churches in Germany, in Spain, in France; 
Iren. adv. haeres. l. 1. c. 3.  in the East Countries in Egypt, in Lybia, in the middle of the world as Irenaeus reckons them; but she is now unable unable to show either succession of persons or doctrine: as I shall demonstrate by these following particulars:  
1. As to personal succession, though she have a bead-roll of names of Popes, yet 1. She cannot affirm that none of her Popes came in by Simony. Nay the contrary is evident by the testimony of Platina,, the Pope's Library keeper: 
Platin. in Bened. 4. et ser. 30.  Now I find her constitutions, the one made by Julius, the second made Anno 1505. which nullifies such Pope's Election, declaring him to be no Pope, and that no one ought to account him Pope, and further that without any further declararation, he be devested of all his dignities, and that it be lawful for any one to refuse obedience to his commands: and the other constitution declares him excommunicate as Antichrist and an invader and destroyer of Christianity. See both of these in Azorius' Morals: 
Azo. instuor p. 2. l. 4. c. 5.  The like decree was made by Nicholas. 2. In the Lateran Council mentioned by Caranza, wherein such a one is declared to be a thief, and one that may be thrust out of the Chair by any one that hath power. 2. She cannot affirm that none of her Popes have come in by force and fraud: Nay it's evident that many of her Popes came in this way. I shall only give you the testimony of Caranza, for many of them: he tells us that Christopher, 1. And Boniface, 7. got the Popedom (malis artibus) by fraud and cousinage, others of them have come in by force. Damasus the third got the Popedom by force with out the Clergy or people's consent. Sylvester the third (saith he) was no true Pope but thrust in by popular tumult, Clement, 2. was created Pope by the compulsion of Henery the Third, john 13. took himself the Popedom through the assistance of his Father: Leo, the 8. was ordained by the Clergy; but Otho, the Emperor forced them to it after he had ejected Boniface, Saint john 18. did usurp the Chair, whilst Gregory the fifth lived; So common was this way of coming to the Popedom that the Author tells us, that course became so common, that any ambitious person would usurp the Chair: Baronius acknowledgeth that men were thrust into Peter's Seat by their potent Harlots, false Popes, etc. Now that Decree of Pope Nicholas the second, [An. 912.] meets with such as these for able entry, nullifies the Pope's right according to the former constitutions, and makes him Antichrist. 3. She is not able to affirm that all her Popes have been free from heresy. I have showed the contrary; yet the constitution of Julius, takes hold of Heretics as of simoniacal Popes. 4. She cannot show that all her Popes have been Males before the Porphyry Chair, there was no trial of the Pope's humanity: and that was occasioned by an Harlot, gotten into the Popeal Seat: Yet it's asserted and that truly, that a woman is not capable of pontifical power and dignity. 5. She cannot show the order of her Popes: It's not known where to place Clemens, and for Boniface 6. Caranza, saith its a great controversy amongst writers, at what time he sat in Peter's Chair. Now this is inconsistent with the evident demonstration of Popeish succession. 6. She cannot say but there have been great Chasma's wherein there have been no Popes. There have been Vacancies not only for Months but years, through the contentions of Cardinals or some other cause. 7. She cannot deny but there have been many Popes at the same time, and each had their parties joining with them. Caranza confesseth that about the time of Alexander the Third there was a Schism in the Church for almost twenty years: There was three others at the same time with him, viz. John 24. Benedict, 4. Greg. 12 all three deposed by the Council of Constance. This may suffice to allay the popish brag of personal succession, and therefore I come to the next particular, viz. Doctrinal succession.  
2. Then as to Doctrinal succession. Rome, is not able to show Doctrinal succession from Christ and his Apostles. There are two things concern her to prove as to this. 1. That her present Doctrine is the same that the Apostles taught. 2. That she hath held this in every age since the Apostles until now: both which are too difficult for Popish heads. Let any man read but the Articles of Faith, in that Epistle of Paul to the Romans, and there will appear a vast difference betwixt the Apostle and them: he taught justification by faith without the deeds of the Law, Rom. 3.20.28. impossibility of perfect personal obedience, c. 8. 3. 3. 9 and 7. 14. 15. That concupiscence is a sin in the regenerate, c. 7. 7. 8. that sufferings of Saints are not meritorious, c. 8. 18. That Prayer is only to be made to the object of Faith which is God, c. 10. 4. That the Roman Church may err and be broken off, as the Jews are, c. 11. 10. 21. 22. That every Roman ought to be subject to the civil Magistrate, rendering honour, tribute, etc. c. 13. 1. That the Scriptures are written for our learning, c. 15. 4. Lastly, that Religion consists not in difference of meats and drink, c. 14. 17. nor of days ' Verse 5. 6. Again; let Papists show us so much as one Father, that believed, and propounded the late Articles of Pius' Creed as necessary to be believed in every age, and then we shall believe succession of Doctrine: till than we shall suspend our faith or belief of it,  
5. Your last part is without the least interruption, etc. this is manifestly overthrown by what I have already said, and therefore I shall refer it to the judgement of Christians as sufficient to overthrow this first Argument.  
2. Argument. That company composeth, and maketh up the truth Catholic Church, which doth acknowledge and embrace a power generally claimed, and a Doctrine generally professed by the Apostles and Christians ever since; when any opposition was first made; but the said Company acknowledgeth and embraceth a power generally claimed, and a Doctrine generally professed by the Apostles and Christians ever since, when any opposition was first made; therefore that Company composeth and maketh up the true Catholic Church. Answ. 1. To your Major, 1. It's obscure and doubtful, what you mean by Power as distinct from the profession of Doctrine. In your next words you call it Apostolical power, which may extend to jurisdiction as well as to Order, to Government as well as Doctrine; but in the confirmation of your assumption, you only (though frequently) express it by a power to preach and inculcate the truth, which is no more than profession of true Doctrine against errors: and thus it must be understood if the Argument be good. 2. Your  overthrow the truth of this proposition. 1. In saying, Apostolical power and doctrine [where Communion is not wanting] are sure evidences of the true Catholic Church, whereby you declare then your enumeration, of particulars in the proposition is unsufficient, and may be where the true Church is not, viz. where communion is wanting, and this is more necessary with you than any thing you express. 2. Whereas in the former Chapter we asserted the profession of true doctrine to be a mark of the true Church, you vehemently opposed it as an error; how comes it then to be a truth in this Chapter? Is it a truth or no truth, a Popish truth and a Protestant error. 3. These marks (or rather this mark) may agree to particular Churches, and have rather agreed to any particular Church than the now Roman. Yea, they may agree to particular Christians of other Churches; as to chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople, Athanasus Bishop of Alexandria; Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem, whom you mention and were distinct Patriarches from the Bishop or Patriarch of Rome: yea every private Christian hath a power from Christ to embrace true Doctrine, and to make profession of it, and to contend earnestly for it against all false doctrine.  
Answ. 2. To your minor I deny it to be true, your proof of I shall mainly examine. The second Proposition (say you) I clear by instances in and from the Apostles down to Luther, Zuinglius and Calvin; and those of such points as Catholics and Protestants mainly differ in. Parturiunt montes, etc. Who would not here expect some great matter from this Doctor? yet who ever examines his instances shall find nothing but a heap of lies and fopperies. For my discovery hereof, I shall show particularly what this man undertakes, and how he swerves from his undertaking. 1. He undertakes things. 1. To produce a Catalogue of such points wherein Catholics and Protestants mainly differ. So that to bring instances of such doctrines as Protestants disclaim as well as Papists is to lie grossly, and to befool the Reader. 2. To produce the generality or universal company of Christians, as appears by those words [Christians generally maintained] so often repeated in the following instances. 3. To produce this company professing, etc. when any opposition was first made; whereby is implied that when the Protestant supposed errors did arise in several ages, these Authors and Counsels did then arise and oppose them. 4. To bring in the testimony of Roman Catholics: for he proves that the Roman Church is Catholic, because of their constant opposition of Heresies in all ages since Christ.  
2. The frothiness of his undertaking appears in his swerving from it which comes not to be delivered. 1. As for his instance of such points, etc. who that read his Profession but would expect a Catalogue of Protestant errors from the Apostles down to Calvin? but behold, a Catalogue of such Doctrines as Protestants and Papists comply in the opposition of: Here are fifteen instances, of which the six first, together with the eighth, tenth, eleaventh and twelfth (as he delivers it) fourteen and part of the fifteenth we utterly disclaim as none of the doctrine of the Protestant Churches, but a dead bastard which the whore of Rome hath laid at our side, instead of our own living child, which this author hath carefully hid from the eyes of his followers, making show only of h●s own deformed bastard. But lest I should seem to affirm rather than prove: Our disowning of them, I shall take a little liberty to demonstrate what is the judgement of the Protestant Churches in those points that this Author mentions as errors: only first I will advertise the reader of a juggling feat of this Romish artist, 'tis this, when he brings in Fathers or Counsels in opposition to some errors, he turns them from opposing those erors to assert some doctrines, not directly contrary to those errors, but rather to the true doctrine of Protestants: as S. 2. in opposition to S. Magus opening Heaven to Faith unaccompanied with good works; he brings in the Apostles and Austin, asserting that good works are Absolutely necessary to salvation: Sect. 3. in opposition to Eunomius, attributing Justification to a simple act of faith, he brings in Irenaeus and Austin, affirming that Faith alone doth not justify: Sect. 4. Whereas Florinus blasphemed God to be the Author of sin, he brings in Tertullian, Origen, and the Trent Council, asserting that God doth no more but permit, as if God could do no more about sin but he must be the Author of it: Having premised this I come to his instances.  
1. Instance, Simon Magus took upon him to open Heaven, to Faith unaccompanied with good works. Ans. Is this the doctrine of Protestants, or do they open Heaven, to Faith accompanied with good works? Do not all Protestants require that the Faith which justifies be an active or operative Faith, and proclaim other Faith dead: read concerning the necessity of works, the English Confession: Non tamen dicimus, etc. Yet we say not that men may live dissolutely, as if it were sufficient for a Christian only to be dipped and to believe, and nothing else expected from him; true Faith is living and cannot be idle: Read the Articles of the Church of England especially, Act. 12. Albeit that good works which are the fruits of Faith and follow after Justification cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith, etc. Again Act. 17. They which are predestinated— they walk religiously in good works, etc. To all this, the reverend Assembly of Divines consent, saying, Good works are the fruit and evidences of a true and lively Faith— that believers are created thereto, that having their fruit in holiness they may have the end, 
Confess. of Faith, c. 16. Sect. 2.  eternal life. If you say Protestants hold they are not absolutely necessary. I answer, this was not the error of Simon Magus, nor is the contrary opinion the professed Doctrine of the Church of Rome, as appears to any that reads the Council of Trent, Session 6. or of her children: see the Rhemists on Lu. 23.43  
2. Inst. Eunomius attributed to a simple act of faith, virtue and efficacy to cleanse and wash a-away whatsoever ordure and spots of sins. 
Tolet. in c. 3. ad Rom.  This is no Protestant doctrine, We fully consent to the speech of the Jesuit Tolet. Advertendum est, etc. Note that faith hath not of itself any efficacy as it is an act of ours for remission and reconciliation, but all its virtue doth proceed from its object Christ, whose virtue and merit God hath ordained to apply to the sinner for his Justification through faith in him. Suitable to this expression of the reverend assembly in their larger Catechism: Faith (say they) justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of these other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruit of it; nor as if the grace of Faith or [any Act thereof] were imputed to him for his Justification, but only as it is an instrument by which he applieth and receiveth Christ and his righteousness. But Eunomius' error was rather that attributed to Simon Magus than this (as appeareth by Augustine) and as such also opposed by us. [Aug. de haeres. c. 55.  
3. Inst. Florinus blasphemed God to be the Author of sin. Answ. Protestant Churches abhor this doctrine as much as Papists. In the Harmony of Confessions: the Confession of Saxony, the Augustin Confession do disown it, and the latter Confession of the Switeers expressly condemns Florinus and Blastus, and all that make God the Author of sin: to which I will add our late Confession of Faith— The Providence of God extendeth itself, even to the first fall, and all other sins— yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only fr●m the creature, and not from God, who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the Author or approver of sin.  
4. Inst. Origen robbed and spoilt Adam in his fall, and in him all his posterity of that precious Gem the natural Image of God, Freewill.  
Answ. No Protestant's (I met with) deny natural freedom of will to fallen man, i. e. a liberty to natural, civil and moral actions. Yea, as to evil man is most free, though as to supernatural good he is unable his condition is such after the fall of Adam that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to faith and calling upon God. 
Harmon. confess. Sect. 4. Mr. Baxt. Everlast. rest. part. 3. c. 2. Sect. 14. Marg.  See the Doctrine of  in fallen man, excellently set forth in the Later Helvetick Confession, and others; M. Baxter observes that Austin himself and all the Fathers and all Divines acknowledge, Liberum arbitrium,  or choice who yet plead most for a necessity of grace.  
5. Inst. Proclus left the regenerate all foul and conspurcate with sin. Answ. Protestants in acknowledging regeneration and sanctification, do withal confess, that those who are regenerate are not as they were before regeneration, as to sin and its defilements, according to that of the Apostle such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are Sanctified; but ye are justified. Protestants receive Baptism as a Sign and Seal of their spiritual cleansing by the Holy Ghost: we bless God for our Renovation. And doth not all this free us from this error. 'Tis true our confessions of Faith assert that our Sanctification is but imperfect, that there are Relics of corruptions in us as there was in Saint Paul (Rom. 7.) yet we never say that the Regenerate are all foul and conspurcate with sin, there is that in them which is truly good, and which God accepts of, and freely rewards, See Harmony of Confessions, Sect. 9  
6. Inst. Novatus constituted a Church of mere just. Answ. Protestants if guilty of the error of Proclus, then are free from this of Novatus; or if they be guilty of this of Novatus, then are they free from that of Proclus. There errors cannot agree to the same persons: 2. How contrary this error is to our judgement is visible, both by the actual composure of our Churches, wherein are good and bad tares and Wheat. And also by our doctrine: the English Divines in their confession of faith acknowledge, that the purest Churches under Heaven, 
Confess. ch. 25. ss. 4.  are subject both to mixture, and error, 
Mat. 13.24.47.  which they prove by the Parable of the Wheat and Tears, in one Field, and of the good Fish and bad in one Net.  
7. Inst. Jovinianus leveled sins by making them all equally grievous. Answ. 1. Protestants do not equalise sins. The Assembly of Divines in their larger Catechism affirm that All Transgressions of the Law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravatiens are more heinous in the sight of God than others. The latter confession of Aelvetia doth expressly deliver this doctrine, and condemns by name Pelagius Jovinianus, and the Stoics, for making all sins equally grievous.  
8. Inst. Pelagius did endeavour to stop the course of Original sin in Infants. and thereupon bereft Baptism of its due necessity. Answ. The Protestants are so full in acknowledgement of Original sin in their confessions, Catechisms, Systems of Divinity, and Commentaries on Scripture, and so harmonious in their administration of Baptism to Infants (which is a clear evidence of their belief of Original sin) that I wonder with what face this man could bring in Pelagianism in this point, as a Doctrine wherein Papists, and we mainly differ.  
9, Inst. Berengarius grew to that height of, wickedness as to out Christ of the Sacrament. Answ. This (as you express it) Protestant's detest who unanimously hold (and always did so) that Christ is really present in the Sacrament. The truth is Berengarius was no Heretic in this point; he lived in that age when the irrational and Antiscriptural doctrine of Transubstantiation began to be broached. This new error he opposed, affirming that Christ was not bodily present, as the Transubstantiators taught; but in a spiritual manner, as Protestants now teach, and will maintain it against you.  
10. Inst. Zenaius' despised Images as worthless. Answ. Protestants acknowledge that Images have their use, and consequently a worth in them: They may be used privately for Ornament; yea and publicly too as Historical remembrances of persons (provided that the Images of the Trinity be not made) and this was all the use they had amongst primitive Christians, as Cassander fully shows saying, Certum est initio, etc. It's most certain that in the beginning of the Gospel times, for a good while Leven in the time of Agustin, a little after) there was no use of Images amongst Christians, especially in Churches as appears by Clemens and Arnobius; but afterwards they were admitted into the Church as Historical expressions of things done; or as lively Images of Holymen. And thus far I know no Protestant Church; or rational Christian that can disallow them: 'Tis true, we abhor the worship of them, and complain of Papists, as Irenaeus of old did of the Gnostics for their worship of them; But this will not prove that we despise Images as worthless.  
11. Inst. Calvin drew compulsion upon humane actions. Answ. 1. If this were true, yet its false that this is a point wherein Catholics and Protestants mainly differ; for it would but be the judgement of one particular man. but, 2. Calvin is wronged by you; for he fully frees the will from all Coaction. See Instit. Lib. 2 cap. 2. S. 7.  
Thus I have showed his first defect, his non-production of such points wherein Catholic and Protestants mainly differ. And truly I should think the man either a mere stranger to us, or void of reason in attributing such points as these to us. But he doth but tread in the steps of his forefathers. The Catholic Apologist objects against us these Heresies, but is most satisfyingly answered by Doctor Morton in his Catholic appeal. They are also objected by Spalatensis in that simple Book called his second Manifesto, Sect. 8. with whom others are not ashamed to join. But these Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies, such whole consciences are seared with an hot iron, [Tit. 1.12. 1. Tim 4.2,] and speaks lies in hypocrisy. But let us try him yet further.  
2. His second failing is, that he doth not produce the generality of Christians as opposers of his errors. In some of his instances there is one only Author mentioned, as Sect. 9 In others only two, as Sect. 3. or to make up a number, he adds the late packed conventicle of Trent, as Sect. 4. where you have Tertullian, who goes for a Monothelite with Eusebius, Origen, who is in this Author's Catalogue of Heretics, spoiling mankind of freewill, and the Trent Council, who in the judgement of the French Papists was not lawful ecumenical Council. Do you think its a good Argument to say, Augustine or Tertullian, Origen and the Council of Trent opposed such a doctrine; therefore Christians generally opposed it. Origen (you say) spoiled man of . The Council of Trent robbed general Counsels of their dignity and supremacy above Popes: did therefore all Christians, or Christians generally spoil man of freewill, or oppose the supremacy of general Counsels; seeing you are at Paris, you may ask the French Papists, whether they consented to the Council of Trent, and I hope you will not deny them to be Christians, their King being Rex Christianissimus, the most Christian King in your Calendar. Yea, secondly, he doth produce the names of Christians, but he brings them not asserting his Doctrines, or opposing the contrary: in his Catalogues he offends two ways. First, by false, secondly, by general quotations. 1. His quotations are many of them most false; as for instance, 'tis false that S. Paul, 1 Cor. 6.13. James 2. John 1. ep. 3. or S. Austin de Grat. & lib. Arbitr. c. 7. do assert an absolute necessity of good works, as he saith, Sect. 2. If they assert an absolute necessity, how dare your Rhemists say that in some Cases they are not necessary, or why do they use this limitation when they speaks of good works? 
Supra, Rhem. on Rev. 20.12. Margt.  such as do no good works, if they have age and time to do them are not found in the Book of Life. Sure this is inconsistent with absolute necessity: again, whereas you bring Irenaeus and Augustine asserting that faith did dispose and help, but alone that she was too feeble and weak to justify a sinner, It's most false that either Irenaeus and Augustine in the places cited, say any such thing: the like falsity is in other Sections as S. 8. Hierom. in chap. 7. Matth. Sect. 10. August. lib. 9 Confess. c. 7. Concil. Laodic. Can. 35. Sect. 13. Synod, Francoford. Sect. 14. Irenaeus lib. 4. adv. haeres. c. 34. S. Aug. l. 17. de Civit. Dei, c. 17. lib. 20. Confess. lib. 10. cap. 3. Sect. 16. Aug. lib. 9 Confess. c. 13. these may suffice to show his forgery. 2. His quotations are many of them very general, and to be sought like a needle in a bottle of hay: as for instance, Sect. 7. he citys S. Gregory in his Epistles: (now S. Gregory hath 12. books of Epistles, and each book hath many Epistles.) S. Bede Comment in Cantic. Sect. 10. S. Cyprian, lib. 4. (but of what Quaerat lector) Sect. 13. Concil. Roman. Sect. 14. Lugdun. Council. where also he citys Cypprians 19 ep. lib. 1. whereas he hath but 12 Epistles in that book (this I forgot to mention amongst his false quotations) Gaudent in Exod. All this shows that this Author did rather study names of Christians, then to produce their doctrine for the opposing his errors, which should have been his main work.  
3 His third failing is, He doth not produce Christians professing truth, when first any opposition was made, as he promised, thereby implying that as these errors were broached in every age, so in those ages Christians then living did oppose them in their rise, and these Christians he should produce; but I find no such methodical proceed in him: the error with its Author is mentioned, and its opposers lived sometimes many years after it, as Augustine is opposing Simon Magus, yet lived almost 400 years after him. The Council of Trent oppose Florinus, yet were near 1300 years after him. Sometimes the error was broached many years after its opposers lived. As against Luther he introduceth Cyprian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Augustine, Hierom, Gregory Nyssen, Cyril of Alex. Cyril of Hierus. Concil. Nicen. & Omnia Concilia vetera, i. e. all the Counsels that were a thousand years before Luther. So against Calvin he brings Ignatius, Dionysius, who lived 1400 and odd years before him. Thus preposterous is he, though to speak truth, it's not much material when they are mentioned, unless the citation of them were to better purpose than that for which this Author brings them.  
4. His fourth failing is, His Catalogue is not altogether of Roman Catholics, such as were under the Government of Roman Bishops and Pastors. Eusebius tells us, 
Euseb. Chronogr. An. 195. p. 573.  that At Ephesus many of the Bishops of Asia met, touching the deliberation of the Feast of Easter: where Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus was chief-In the foresaid six Synods, (v● of Rome, Cesaria, Pontus, France, Ostroena, and Ephesus) held, An. 195. the Bishop of Rome had no more authority than the other Bishops: He, in his City, and they in theirs were cheief. Now divers of these he mentions were Bishops of Asia; and therefore cannot be brought in as Roman Catholics were they now living; they would clearly disclaim the Pope's usurpation, yea, and reprehend him sharply, as Irenaeus did, for challenging authority over the Eastern Churches.  
This shall suffice for his answer to his objected errors, desiring the Reader to peruse that Elaborate Work of Doctor Morton, called The Catholic Appeal, especially in that part which is against objected heresies, where this Authors quotations are many of them answered. My answer being already too large for these short wound times, and I having much more to say to him before I have done, I wholly wave the discussion of them: Only I will take notice of his last words, which are indeed the very last words of a dying Argument. This proo● (saith he) will gather strength by observing that the above named Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, etc. But few days or months before their opposition, held as the rest of Christians did, in al● points with the said Company; and that neither they, nor any of them have left to posterity the least mention of any number of men in being before their opposition, with whom to join and side to make good the same, etc.  
Ans. 1. How this strengthens your proof, I see not: Should the Jews have objected against our Saviour's, and the Apostles Converts, that their Jewish Doctrine was generally received, and preached; yea, and that these Converts, (as Paul, etc.) but a few days or months before their opposition held as other Jews did, Would this think you make for them that they were the true Church? The Gentiles the greatest part of the World professed against Christ, and his truth, and those who were called out of them to receive the truth, did but a little before comply with the Gentiles against Christ: Must this therefore strengthen the Gentiles cause against the truth? It may be, yourself, and others who have apostalized from the true religion, but a few months before your opposition, held as the rest of true Orthodox Christians did, yet this will not (even in your conceit) advance your cause.  
2. It's questionable whether Luther, Zuinglius, and Calvin, did hold with you in all points, and that but a few days or months before their public opposition of you. The Speech of Alphonsus à Castro seems to import the contrary, when he tells us, that a great company seemed to wait for Luther, and joined with him as soon as he appeared; I cannot think but that Luther was against the sale of indulgencies, longer than a few weeks or months before his opposition.  
3. It's a gross lie, that there is not left the least mention of any number of men in being, before their opposition, with whom to join and side. I have fully shown the contrary to this, and therefore (remitting the Reader to what I have formerly said) I come to his next Argument.  
Arg. 3. That Company composeth and maketh up the Catholic Church, which is acknowledged even by their adversaries, to be Apostolical; but the above mentioned Company is acknowledged even by their adversaries, to be Apostolical: therefore that Company composeth and maketh up the Catholic Church. The first Proposition (say you) is evident, forasmuch as Apostolical in a right and genuine sense, signifieth to believe, as the Apostles believed, which is to be Catholic.  
Arg. 1. It seems now that profession of Apostolical Doctrine is a convincing argument to prove a Company to be the Catholic Church. But Sir, why did you not approve of this argument when we brought it for the Protestant Church? Or how could you without blushing tell us, That true Doctrine (which is none other then Apostolical doctrine, they being reciprocal) is no mark of a true Church, it being often found among Schismatics, who for want of Communion cannot make a true Church, pag. 60. If Protestants can prove they believe those doctrines the Apostles believed, will you acknowledge them the true Apostolical and Catholic Church? We desire no more, but that leaving humane constitutions and traditions, you would examine our Doctrines by Scripture, the true Epitome of Apostolical Doctrines, and if we consent not hereunto proclaim us Heretics.  
2. Your Explication of the word Apostolical is good, and it evidently shows that Personal Succession is inferior to Doctrinal in denominating a Church Apostolical and Catholic, and that the Protestants supposed want of Personal uninterrupted Succession is no hindrance to their being the Catholic Church. All which doth extremely weaken your former doctrines.  
3. I deny your Minor Proposition, and come to examine your proof of it. You say, It appears no less clear in several Protestant Writers, who expressly account that the Apostles first planted the Christian Faith in England; that the same was retained by Bishops and Pastors, from the first Plantati n to S. Austin; that in substance it differed not from that which S. Austin brought in; that S. Austin was sent by Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome to convert the Saxons in England to the Roman Faith; that the Roman Church in Gregory t●e Greats time, was the same it is at this present, etc. All which you reduce to this Syllogism; S. Augustine's Church and Doctrine were Apostolical; S. Augustine's Church & Doctrine were the same with the now Roman: therefore the Roman Church and Doctrine are Apostolical.  
I answer, 1. By S. Augustine's Church, I suppose you mean the Roman Church in S. Augustine's time, as when you say, The Roman Church in Gregory the Great's ●ime, was the same it is at this present. Hereupon I particularly answer: Gregory 1. To your Major, [That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the time of Austin and Gregory, was the same with the Doctrine of the Apostles.] 1. The Apostle tells us, That even in his time the mystery of iniquity did begin to work; and succeeding Ages discover its progress. Most Ages did contribute some materials towards Rome's Temple, though the nearer to the Apostles were more opposite, and so more sparing in their contributions to it. Hence it was that in the first five hundred years there is little to be found tending to Popery; and that which is, is rather in notions and terms, than propositions; as in most ancient Fathers we read the words, Altar, Sacrifice, Merit, etc. yet it will never be proved that they used them for that which Papists now will have them to signify: In the next age there was a greater decay of purity than before, ignorance did much aboudd, & superstition attendant on it, In this age did Gregory & Austin live; the former being surnamed, 
Rainold. praelect. de lib. Ap c. tom. 1. prael. 39 p. 365 Sixt. Senen. bill. Stae. l. 5. Au. 137 F. Hier. Porter in the life of S. Gregory, p. 266. Chronic. Carion. lib. 4. p. 552  The Great, & indeed he was great, as learned Rainolds observe●, in comparison of those who succeeded him, & some of them who were before him: yet was he short of apostolical purity, being guilty of superstition and error in divers points, as the adjudging of children unbaptised to the torments of Hell: extending God's promise of Salvation even to Reprobates, making Gods decree mutable, and praying for such as are already damned; as in the Case of Trojan. Carrion in his Chronicles attributes to him divers errors, as Invocation of Saints, and dedication of Temples to them; a wrong persuasion of Monkish profession, Works of Supererrogation, Satisfactions, Vows, Virginity; an opinion of sacrificing Christ's body and blood for the dead, whereunto he was moved by the report of Apparitions: And besides all these, he is noted as superstitious in imposition of Ceremonies, and those some of them Jewish, which are not fit to be imposed on the Church of Christ: And as Gregory was guilty, so its probable his Monk Austin was not free, 
In the life of Austin, p. 511, 512  and therefore when he came amongst the Britain's, who had the Gospel, and many Bishops and learned men amongst them, he was rejected by them: for which Hierom Porter calls them Schismatics, maintaining errors, yea that held many things repugnant to the unity of the Catholic Church: Therefore we may at least probably suppose them Orthodox, being opposite to those innovations the Bishop of R●●●e by his Apostles would have brought upon them.  
2 To your minor, Saint Austin's Church and doctrine were the same with the now Roman or the Roman Church in Gregory the Great's time, was the same it is at thi● present.  
I answer, could you prove this, it would make much for you: but hic labor h●c opus est, this is too difficult a work for you, and therefore you pass it off with a reference of us to a company of quotations to no purpose. There is no Protestant Writer that I meet with, that affirms Augustine's Church and Doctrine were the same with the now Roman. Perkins in his Exposition of the Creed, as I can understand him) doth not, but rather saith the contrary▪ for speaking of the present Church of Rome, he saith, They hold justification by works of grace; they maintain a daily sacrifice of the b die of Christ in the Mass, for the sins of quick and dead; they worship images, etc. Thus than it appears that the old Church of Rome is changed, and is now at this day of a Sp●use of Christ become an Harlot, and therefore no more a Church of Christ indeed, than the carcase of a dead man that wears a living man's garment, is a living man, though he look never so like him. This same is the very judgement of all Protestants I meet with, and is most fully and clearly demonstrated by the learned Doctor Morton, in his above mentioned appeal, where he largely shows what was the judgement of Saint Gregory in those main points of controversy betwixt Protestants and Papists, and how far Rome at present is from that faith which Saint Gregory taught, and all this he doth by the testimonies of the most learned Papists. Your mention of all the English Chronicles, is but a Popish vaunt; be pleased in your next to mention the places where they affirm your doctrine to be the same with Saint Gregory's and their words: till than I suspend all further answer to this Argument which as it is the last, it is the weakest and most, evidently false in its propositions, as I doubt not it will appear to the judicious Reader.   

CHAP. XII. Of certain Objections made against the Roman Church answered.  
YOu begin your Chapter with a sad complaint of enemies of the Roman Church in these words, The enemies of the Roman Church have not shown more pride in contemning her power, than malice in raising false and slanderous reports against her good name— therefore I will endeavour in this Chapter to clear her fame mainly clouded and shot at by the ensuing objections. Answ. When you charge the Objectors with slander you seem to be ignorant of the nature and definition of slander. There cannot be slander where there is no lying accusation, or a charging of such things upon others, whereof they are not guilty: And this your Aquinas will tell you is true. Now can you say that the Objectours charge you with that whereof you are not guilty. If their accusation be false, why do you not disown the things they charge you with but rather defend them? You affirm that Christ's Body may be in divers places at once, that the Mass with Altars, images and relics are to be adored, that Saints and Angels are Mediators, etc. If it be true, why do you charge the Objectors with slander in the reporting of them. But let us examine the Answers to the Objections.  

1 Objection.  
THe first objection is, The Church of Rome teacheth Christ's body to be present in many places at once, which implieth contradiction.  
Answ. 1. The measure of God's power is his will, and his will is above the reach of our capacity: therefore no wonder if God oftentimes doth that we cannot dive into the understanding of.  
I reply, 1. If you speak of God's absolute Power, it's not measured by his Will. God is able to do more than he hath done or will do. Of this absolute power John the Baptist speaks, Math. 3.9. God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Thus we grant he is able to make more works, and of a piece of bread to raise up an humane body, he can turn one thing into another of a different kind. This Power as it's not measured by God's Will, so it's not the foundation or reason of our faith, whereby we believe the existence of any thing: But 2 If you speak of God's executive power which is the power measured by his Will, whereof you speak, than we affirm this presence is impossible to God, because contrary to his will, as I shall show even now. 3 Whereas you say Gods Will is above our capacity, etc. [Rom. 11.34. Deutr. 29.29.] I answer, Gods Will comes under a twofold Consideration, it's either secret or revealed: that part of his will which is secret as it concerns not our knowledge, so neither doth it call for our faith or obedience, but his revealed will is for us to know and obey. If then you speak of God's secret will, you show yourself presumptuous, intruding into such things as you ought not: but if only of his revealed, than you imply that this Politopie is expressed and revealed unto us. Now this I utterly deny, for evidence whereof I shall premise that there are two volumes of Gods will whereby it's fully expressed unto us, viz. Reason and Scripture, by the former its expressed more imperfectly and darkly, by the latter most fully and clearly: The former is subordinate to the latter, and the latter is perfective of the former: Whatsoever else testifies of God's Will, it's in subordination to these, and is to be tried by them: Nor are we to account any man's dictate to be Gods will, that doth not agree with one or both of these: I shall therefore show the dissonancy of your Doctrine, 1. to Reason, than 2. to Scripture.  
1. It's contrary to Reason, 
Aquin. Suppl. 3. part. q. 83 Art. 3. ad 4m.  that one body should be present in many places at once, without the destruction of that body: Aquinas saith, Vnum corpus, etc. One body cannot be at once locally in two places, no not by a miracle; and he gives this reason, because to be in many places at once is repugnant to the very nature of an Individuum, which is to be divided in itself: for it would follow, that it should be in a distinct posture: whence it follows, that for the same body to be locally at once in divers places includes contradictiion, as for a man to want reason, & to have reason. A body in many places is no longer one, but many bodies.  
To this you answer, (Sect. 1.) As for the implicancy, some labour to convince this mystery of, there is none at all; for though a body cannot be locally in two places at once, by reason of local extension which confines it to one: yet this extension being removed as is possible to the Omnipotent Power, it is as easy for a body to be in several places at once, as for the Deity to be in three Persons at once; or for the soul to be in the head, the middle, the feet at once.  
Reply 1. You suppose a body separable from Extension, which is as much as to suppose a man without reason; 
Aquin. 3. part q. 76 Art. 4.  for it's granted as a certain truth by Aquinas, and others, that a body cannot be without quantity; and thereupon Aquinas codcludes, that the body of Christ in the Eucharist hath its whole dimensive Quantity; whence I infer that it must needs have its extension: the reason is, because Extension is the formal reason of Quantity, 
Ruvio Com. in Arist. Dial. c. 6. de quant. q. 1. Supra Aug. ep. 57 & contra, Faustum, l. 20. c. 11.  and this is not an Entitative, but a Quantitative Extension, as Ruvio proves by many Arguments. Now if a thing cannot be conceived without its essence, but by implicancy of contradiction, as Aquinas grants, then cannot Quantity be conceived as wanting Extension, and consequently bodies that have Quantity, cannot without implicancy of contradiction want Extension. Augustine doth clearly assert what I say in divers places.  
2. Your similitudes make not for you, not the first; for, 1. The Deity is not in three Persons, as a body in three places: The divine Persons are every of them, every where, immense and infinite, not in several places. 2. God is in one place only, though this one be comprehensive of all places, 
Schribl. Metaph. l. 2. c. 3. Tit. 12 Art. 2. p. 2.  as Schribler doth wittily manifest it from Isai. 66.1. Those that are disjoined and distant places with us, are with God contiguous, and make but one place. 3. If by your Similitude you prove the Deity in many places, it will not hence follow that a body may be so to.  
2. Nor the second, the soul in the head, middle, & feet at once, is not in many, 
Aquin. fum. part 1. q. 76. Art. 8. c. & q. 52. art. 2. Zabarel l. departit. animae. c. 5  but one place Whether you consider it as having respect primarily to the whole body, (as Aquinas conceives, and expresseth it) and that as one place, or to the heart, as Zabarel. In saying, that its in the head, middle, and feet, you confess that it's in one place; for here is no distance which should make many places.  
2 You answer, If it be true Philosophy teacheth, that a consequence from being to may be is valid and good, Experience demonstrates that God hath power to make Christ's body really present in several places at once: forasmuch as at the self same time he was so present with his Father in Heaven, he appeared and discoursed with Saint Paul on earth, Acts 9.4.5.  
Reply 1. That Philosophical thesis of yours is not true, unless in ordinary events, or with reference to God's absolute power. The will of God may put a Bar to it. God did appear on Mount Sinai delivering a Church Model: Here is a Being, yet considering Gods Will, its impossible that he should do so again. Satan did tempt Christ, Christ was made under the Law, crucified, dead, buried, yet who would infer that these things are now possible. Amongst the errors of your master of the Sentences noted by the Parisians, this is one (Quod Deus semper potest quicquid aliquando potuit, 
Ad fin. Lombard. sent. Edit. Paris. Ann. 1537. p. 594.  that God always can do that which sometimes he hath done. Sure these Gentlemen did not take that for truth which your Philosophy teacheth you, though truly I think your master's speeches may be justified, for he saith that the power of God is the same always, but that he cannot always do that which sometimes he could do, which seems contrary to your Philosophical axiom.  
2. Granting it true, yet your inference proves not true, and I half think yourself were convinced hereof; 
Fateamur ergo Deum semper posse quicquid, semel potuit, i. e. habere omnem illam potentiam quam semel habuit, & illius omnis rei potentiam cujus semel habuit, sed non semper posse facere omne illud quod aliquando potuit facere etc. Lomb. l. 1. dist. 44.  for your expressions are not so plain for Christ's presence on Ea●●h, as in Heaven. You mention Christ's apparition and disccourse with the Apostle on Earth, but neither one nor both of these prove his corporal presence here one earth. He appeared to Stephen, yet remained in Heaven only, Act. 7.55. He discoursed with Peter, Acts 10.13, 14. yet was not corporally with him on Earth. And for the Text you mention, it proves not any thing for you, if you will believe the interlineans he will tell you the contrary: I am Jesus; that is saith he, 
Gloss. interl. & Lyran. in Act. 9  I am God speaking from Heaven, whom thou thoughtest to be dead; and he gives this reason of Paul's astonishment, That he thought not Jesus to be in Heaven, wherein Lyranus concurs with him. As the light shined from Heaven, its most probable the voice did also come from thence, as Lyranus confesseth the voice did, which Peter in the next Chapter is said to hear.  
3 Granting that Christ was corporally present with Paul, how do you prove that he was also corporally present in Heaven, why might he not ex aliqua dispensatione, leave Heaven for a time.  
4 If we should grant he was both in heaven and earth at this time it would not follow therefore Christ may be; much less, must be continually present in his body on the earth: I have showed how inconsequential this is in the first part of my answer.  
Thirdly, you answer, Even in nature there is a resemblance and light of this mystery, one and the same water is in the fountain river and lake at once: one and the same voice in thousands of ears at once: one and the same face in sundry looking glasses at once.  
Reply, These instances resemble not this Popish mystery. 1 Not the first: For 1 if you make the Fountain, River and Lake, three distinct places, then it's not one and the same water; for you cannot say that the water of the Fountain is the water of the Lake, etc. That water that is hic & nunc, is not other where. 2 If you conceive them continuately the water running with a continued stream from the fountain into the channel, and diffusing itself from the channel to the Lake, than all the water in these three partial continents is but one numerical body, and the three continents are but parts of the same place. 2 Nor the second: for first, voice or sound is no body. Secondly it is a question whether it be one and the same voice that comes to thousands of ears at once or a multiplied voice or sound: 
Magyr. Physiol. l. 6. c. 8. Com. ad finem.  see Magyrus where the contrary is asserted upon this very ground. Thirdly, the place of sound or its proper subject is the Air, not men's ears. 3 Nor yet the third, for there is not one body really in two places, no more than if one man were pictured in several frames, neither of which bears any resemblance of this Philosophy of real bodies.  
Fourthly, you answer, Should we believe only that which we understand, there would not be any belief in us of mysteries of faith; they being all above the reach of humane capacity.  
Reply 1. If knowledge or understanding were not necessary to faith, why hath faith the name of knowledge given it in Scripture, Isai. 53.11. and John 17.3. If faith be an assent as Papists tell us, than faith doth necessarily require knowledge, for we must know what is truth if we believe that it is so. I confess there are some things which in some respects are not fully conceivable, but for those, we have an express Word of God informing us of them, which is the ground of our faith, but this we have not for a carnal presence in many places, and therefore cannot command our belief of it.  
Fifthly, by way of answer you introduce an objection against the Polytopie of Christ's body, but is directly against bodily presence in any place: It is taken from the strange irreverencies and absurdities which would ensue thereof, as to be subject to the eating and tearing in piecs of d●gs, cats, mice, and to the abuse of wicked me and miscreants: to which you answer, He that is of power to render a body really present in several places at once, without doubt is able to defend and keep the same from all outrages, as God is pleased to do in this mystery by removing local extension, and by consequence possibility, by means whereof dogs, cats and mice can only tear and destroy the accidents of bread and wine.  
Reply, first the foundation is already overthrown: Secondly I believe you are not persuaded that God's power is employed about Christ's body to keep it from irreverences, if you were, why is it that you dare not give the Cup to the people? is not God able to prevent drops of the blood from sticking to the people's beards, or falling to the ground? Why do you make an invisible body to prevent the faithfull's loathing, and the profane's scorning of the Ordinance? is not God able to keep the faithful from loathing flesh and blood visibly and really appearing such, as well as intellectually represented to their understandings? if God's power must support one absurdity, why may it not another? 3 Though you speak irrationally of tearing the species of bread and wine yet others of your fraternity speak plainly of the body of Christ. Among the penitential Canons in the end of the old editions of the Roman Decree, (Can. 39) are these words, Quando mu● corrodit aut comedit Corpus Christi, etc. i. e. When a mouse gnaweth or eateth the body of Christ, etc. he saith, not the species of bread and wine, but the very body of Christ. And in the new Mass book 'tis said, 
De defect. circa Missam occurrent. c. 3. Sect. 7.  Si Hostia Consecrata, etc. If the consecrated Host vanish away by some accident, as if it be carried away with the wind or by some miracle, or eaten up by some beast and cannot be found, then let another be consecrated. I suppose your Host or Sacrifice is not the mere species of bread and wine, but the body of Christ: Now this Host it seems may be blown away with the wind or be eaten of beasts: sure you take calm weather, and tie up your beasts when you go in Procession. [Ib. c. 10. Sect. 14.] What should I speak of your vomiting, and against licking up the vomited Host, or in case of loathing, putting it up for a relic; such stuff is fit for such beasts as return to their vomit, or lie wallowing in the mire.  
2. You answer to the Objection, Wicked men and miscreants offer violence to the same, but not hurt or annoy the Body of Christ, no more than he were of force to wrong the Godhead that surprised with a raging fit, should strike at the air with an intention to do him mischief.  
Reply Every thing you say adds to the miracle: Christ hath a body to be eaten, that yet is not seen, nor tasted, nor passable; yea is like unto God, or a Spirit, that cannot be hit or wounded; What could Eutiches have said more? Doth not this prove that Christ's body is no real body, but only imaginary and fantastical; or if real, yet it's not (according to your doctrine) really present. Will it follow that because God, or another spiritual Substance is impassable by humane force, therefore a true natural body is so to? It must be Popish Logic that will make this a good Consequence.  
3. You answer, Admit these pretended inconveniences should follow (that the body of Christ should be eaten and torn in pieces of dogs, bats, mice, etc.) I do not conceive there could be inferred any other than a continuation of that ardent love of Christ which he shown to man, when he estranged himself from his Eternal Father, to bear with patience, and mildness, hunger, cold, whip, spittings, thorns, and last of all the bitter and disgraceful death of the Cross.  
Reply 1. This ardent Love of Christ to man, cannot be from hence inferred, All sufferings of Christ are not the effects of his ardent Love: What Love of Christ is manifested in wicked men's crucifying to themselves afresh the Son of God, 
Heb. 6.6. & 10.29.  and putting him to an open shame; or in their treading under foot the Son of God, and accounting the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing, and doing despite to the Spirit of grace: What Love of Christ is manifested when his body is torn in pieces of dogs, cats, m●ce, or blown away with the wind, or spewed out of some drunken Priest's mouth, and licked up again. It's a most evident truth that those sufferings of Christ only are the expressions of his love, which do tend to man's redemption and salvation, and without which these could not be attained. Of this kind were the sufferings of Christ by the Jews and Romans in the time of his incarnation. Hence are those expressions, The Love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, 
Rom. 5.5, 6, 7, 8 Gal. 3.13, 14 Isai. 53.4. etc. — for when we were yet without strength in due time Christ died for the ungodly— God commendeth his love to us in that when we were yet sinners Christ died for us— Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a curse for us that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles. Surely he hath born our griefs, & carried our sorrows— He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. All which refer to this state of humiliation, from which we have long since passed. I would have L. B. or any Papist to show me what benefit we have by these sufferings, or how they tend to our redemption and salvation. When dogs, cats, mice eat and tore in pieces Christ's body, or a weak stomached Priest spews up the body of Christ into some filthy place, are we advantaged hereby, or can we glory in these sufferings in this Cross of Christ? 2. There may be other things inferred, as 1. That the Priest that either through negligence suffers Christ's body to be torn in pieces of dogs, cats, mice, or that willingly deliver it to wicked men and miscreants, is a Judas, a betrayer of Christ: and you may know him by his sop dipped in the wine, which none of the people partake of. 2. That the Jews and heathenish Romans were more merciful to Christ, than the present Priests and Pharisees of Rome Antichristian: Those delivered him into the hands of men, these give him into the mouths of dogs, cats, mice; Those preserved him whole not breaking a bone of him, these tore him in pieces by wild beasts: Those gave him an honourable interment, (He made his grave with the rich) these buried him in the bellies of beasts, or cast him into the draught.  
2. I come to show the contrariety of this Doctrine to Scripture, 1. Some Scriptures affirm that Christ is in Heaven, and must be contained there till the restitution of all things, Acts 3.21. That the Apostle, Heb. 9.24. gives the reason of it. He is entered into Heaven it ●elf, now to appear in the presence of God for us: which is the work of the High Priest within the veil: and Primasius to this purpose saith, Introire autem jesum, etc. We say that Jesus is entered into Heaven according to his Manhood; 
Primas. apud Lyr. in Heb. 9.12.  for as God he is every where. Again, Joh. 16.28. I come forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again I leave the world, and go to the Father. If you ask how he left the world; the Interlineary truly tells you he did it Corporali discessione non gubernati●ne presentiae: By a removal of his body, etc. He speaks of his local removing, not of his lying hid in the world. Indeed ver. 16. he speaks of his invisibility, A little while, and ye shall not see me; but the reason was not, because he would go up and down, hid under the forms and species of bread and wine, but because he went to the Father as Theophilact from the Text doth truly) note. Yea, further we find the Scripture expressly denying his presence on earth, and that by a weighty reason, Heb. 8.4. If he were on earth, he should not be a Priest, is he could not perform all the rites of his Priesthood. For some of them require his presence in the Holy of Holies, and there he could not be, if he were on earth; this is clearly the Apostles Argument: Christ could not be in the state of humiliation and exaltation at one and the same time: if he be in that state, he is not in that too. 2. We find the Scriptures expressly denying that Christ's corporal presence is in divers places at once, Matth. 28.6. He is not here, for he is risen, which were no reason if your Doctrine were good, for he might be there and risen too. To conclude, there is not any part of God's Word which gives the least countenance or encouragement to this Popish absurdity.  
You answer, The Word of God is plain and express for the presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, and consequently in many places at once.  
Reply. You truly infer that if Christ's body be really present in the Sacrament, it must needs be in many places at once: but this presence is not plainly and expressly delivered in Scripture. The word, This is my body which you mention do neither plainly nor expressly deliver it: There are two things oppose your exposition of those words.  
1 The judgement of Fathers, 
Tertul. lib. 4. contr. Marc. c. 40. & L. 3. c. 19 Theod. Dial. 1. 2. Aug. c. 12. contr. Adimant & Ep. 23. ad Bonif. Concil. Carth. 3. Can. 24. Bellarm. l. 3. de Eucharist. cap. 23. Vasq. in 3. part. Thom. disp. 180. t. 5. Cajet. in 3. Thom. q. 75.  Schoolmen and others: Tertullian, Theodoret and Augustine, understand the words figuratively. The third Council of Carthage saith, that here is in the Sacraments no more offered to God than bread and wine mingled with water, etc. Scotus affirms Non exstare, etc. That there is not any place of Scripture so express that without the Church's Declaration it can evidently compel us to admit Transubstantiation: And this saith Bellarmine, is not altogether improbable: Yea, Vasques further tells us, that Scotus affirmed, That the truth of these words of Consecration may be retained, although the substance of bread and wine should remain in the Eucharist: and blames certain professors of Divinity that side with him, and in special, Cardinal de Alliaio, for affirming that this way is possible, and neither contrary to reason nor the authority of Scriptures; yea its easier to be understood, and more rational than any other, of this judgement is also Cajetan.  
2. Reason, which teacheth first that neither one desperate can predicate of another, (i. e. as you express it when two distinct things of different kinds are affirmed of each other, which you say cannot be true) nor one thing of itself in the same consideration or respect, and whereas you say that the body of Christ out of the Sacrament before the words began is affirmed to be in the Sacrament after they are ended. This is not plainly or expressly delivered in the words of Christ; for he must either have said, That which was my body before the Sacrament, is now my body in the Sacrament, or this was my body before the Sacrament. In saying, This and is, he informs us that he speaks of the Subject in its present capacity, and therefore some by This understand Bread, which is most agreeable to the context. Christ took bread and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to his Disciples, saying, Take eat, This is my body. That which Christ took, blessed brake and gave to them was Bread, 1 Cor. 10.16. Now this is predicated improperly of Christ's body. Thus Christ is called a Door John 10.7. a Rock, 1 Cor. 10.4. Circumcision is called the Covenant, Gen. 17.10. The Sacramental Cup is called the New Testament in Christ's blood, Luk. 22.20. I pray satisfy me what may be the reason why bread should become the body of Christ to us, and that the Pascall Lamb or Manna should be so to the Jews: for Christ is called the Passover of Manna; yea in these Sacraments Christ was truly and savingly received by them: they did eat the same spiritual meat with us, and drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank of the Rock that followed them: And that Rock was Christ. What can be more express than these last words, yet Papists will not here allow of Transubstantiation. 2. That Bodies are the object of Sense, yea and that the Senses cannot be deceived in judging of them, whilst the Organ is rightly disposed; the medium is convenient, the distance equal, the Senses of more than one concur in judging and that the fantasies be not hurt. But here if the words be taken properly, is a body which is not the object of Sense, though the senses be rightly disposed, the medium convenient, the distance equal, etc. If you say it may be done by a miracle; I answer, first amongst the miracles of the Primitive Church this was never numbered by them or any others that I have read, though its a greater miracle, if a miracle, than any others that are mentioned. 2. In those miracles recorded in Scripture which were wrought by transmutation, there was no deceiving of the Sense. When Moses rod was turned into a Serpent, as it was a true Serpent, so the Senses did truly discern a Serpent. When the waters were turned into blood, the blood had the last colour, effect of blood slaying the fish in it. When by our Saviour the waters were turned into wine; as it was true wine so it had sensible qualities, as the last smell, etc. of wine. It was the practice of the Sorcerers of Egypt to cause an appearance when there was no real existence: It's the practice of Papists to urge a bodily existence without the least appearance, like their forefathers the Valentinians, whom Irenaeus chargeth with saying of Christ, Aliud erat, aliud videbatur; when some affirmed in the Sacrament, there was no true fraction, but only in appearance Lorichius answers out of Ambrose, Nihil falsum putandum in Sacramento veritatis etc. We must not think of any falsehood in this true Sacrament, in the enchantments of Magicians the eyes are deceived that that seems to be which is not, but it's otherwise in the Sacrament of Truth. [Gerrhard. Lorich. Instit. Cathol. de sacr. Eucharist. pag. 72. 2.]  
To this I may add, that the material parts of Sacraments must be sensible objects, such were the Sacraments of the Jews, and such without controversy is Baptism, where the material part is water which the Senses see, feel, etc. Therefore it must be so in the Eucharist; (for there can no reason of a difference be given.) You cannot say that the material parts of it are bread and wine, for you teach that in the Sacrament there is neither bread nor wine, (though there was before Consecration) and the body of Christ cannot be it; for it's not a sensible object being neither seen nor felt, nor tasted; and accidental forms are distinct from matter. Aquinas delivers this Conclusion, Cum naturale sit homini, etc. Whereas its natural for man to attain to the knowledge of intelligible objects by those which are sensible; A Sacrament which signifies spiritual and intelligible good aught to be a sensible thing: which how you will find it in your Sacrament I know not. 3. That humane flesh is not to be eaten: But if these words [This is my Body] be taken properly, than Christ's flesh should be carnally eaten, which is doctrine for Cannibals, not for Christians. Saint Augustine upon this very ground understands those words, John 6.53. Except ye eat the flesh, etc. figuratively, and delivers this general rule, 
Aug. de doctr. Christ. l. 5. c. 16  Si aut facinus vel flagitium, etc. If the Scripture seem to command that which is heinous and wicked, it's a figurative speech; and instances in those words in S. John. Papists give this reason of the invisibility of Christ's body in this Sacrament because man abhors to eat humane flesh, in the proper shape. But what difference between one man seeing the shape of humane flesh, and another's hearing of such a thing to be humane flesh though he see it not. It's the thing itself, not the form or shape of it that is abominable, a piece of humane flesh might be brought into such a form as it could not by the eye be distinguished from other flesh, yet tell a man its humane flesh and he shall loathe it upon that very report: Though your seduced followers do not see flesh in thr Sacrament, yet you tell and persuade them that the Host is humane flesh with its blood in it; so that I must needs say they have either weak faith or strong stomaches. To conclude, Let me know to what end is this eating of Christ's body, for it's not turned into the substance of our body whereby it should nourish the body, for then our bodies should consist of Christ which were a blasphemous assertion; and for the soul it's not nourished by carnal meat as flesh and blood: spirits do not eat or drink, nor are they capable of nutrition; there is no Spiritual advantage comes by it: Besides, when our Saviour had been speaking so fully of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, to prevent their carnal conceits of this spiritual Doctrine, he addi this wholesome and seasonable doctrine; that for his body it was to ascend up into Heaven where he was before, and therefore his words were to be understood not carnally but Spiritually. The words that I speak are Spirit, John 6.63. You answer, that these words do not run counter to your said truth, in as much as these words were uttered to the Capernaits in answer to their question of Christ's Power, and not of the signification of his words.  
Reply 1. I desire to know your ground for this Exposition I cannot find that it is the Churches, and I thought you an enemy to the private spirit. 2. It's most evident that these words are uttered for explication of the words precedent: for having told them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood if they had life by him; they question what he may mean by eating his flesh and drinking his blood and they seem to answer their own question by a carnal conceit, which was (as the Rhemists observe) They imagined that he would kill himself, and cut and mangle his flesh into parts, and so give it them raw or roast to be eaten among them, which could not be meant saith Augustine, for that had contained an heinous and barbarous fact, etc. He tells them therefore they must understand his words spiritually of our abiding in him and he in us according to Augustine. 
Tract. 27. in Joan. tom. 9 Lyra. in text.  Lyranus speaks very well to this purpose: Spiritus, etc. They are Spirit, as if he should say the words I have spoken have a Spiritual sense, and so they vivifie— they have a Spiritual understanding— the flesh of Christ is eaten in this Sacrament in a spiritual manner.  
Your pleas for this opinion are vain: 1. You say, The question was not, what says he, that they knew would be trifling and ridiculous, Christ having immediately before confirmed the signification of his first words, This is my Body, By other latter, Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you; and they both heard and understood the language he spoke in.  
Reply 1. Pray where are those first words, This is my Body? You shut your eyes, and laid aside your honesty, when you brought them in as spoken by Christ before his supposed answer. But suppose them there, tell us next how those latter words do confirm the signification of them? 2. When you tell us, they knew what he said, and both heard and understood the language he spoke in, you will show yourself a notorious trifler. Will it follow that because they knew his words, & heard & understood his language, that therefore they understood his meaning? I trow not. Those that read the hard of places of Paul's Epistles did both hear & understand the language he spoke in, yet knew not his meaning, and therefore wrested them to their own perdition. The Jews both heard and understood the language Christ delivered his parables in, yet it was not given them to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. Nicodemus understood Christ's language, but not his meaning about regeneration. You cannot deny but the Laity may both hear and understand the language whereinto the Scriptures are translated, yet their private Spirit must not think of understanding the Scriptures meaning. Thus though these Capernaits might and did understand his language, yet they did remain ignorant of their true meaning, as all prudent Expositors confess, and your Rhemists expressly affirm saying, Their gross and carnal conceiving of his words of his flesh, and the manner of eating the same was unprofitable, which is plain by the sentence following, where he warneth t●em that his words be spiri & life, of high mystical meaning, and not vulgarly and grossly to be taken, as they took them. 2. You add, Therefore except you will say, that Christ answered not to the purpose, his scope and aim must be to declare his power; to the ●nd to convince the Capernaits that he was full able to perform what he said.  
Reply 1. If you will have it the aim of Christ to declare his power to perform what he said, and that directly in answer to the Caper●aits question, you must grant that Christ did declare his ability to give them his body cut & mangled into pieces, for so they understand the eating of his flesh, and thereupon grounded their question. How can this man give us his flesh cut and mangled into pieces? for the effecting of this, they expected a proof of his power, if you will have it so. Now this yourself will grant impossible, being contrary to the will of God, the measure of his power: therefore you must confess that Christ spoke not to the purpose, (as you object against us.) Or grant, as the truth is, that they understood not Christ's meaning, and therefore that he answered concerning the manner of their eating, not his power of giving his flesh, etc. 2. We do not find how Christ declares any power in these words. You answer, He doth it effectually and home, by saying my words are spirit, A Spirit having strength and virtue to do more than all bodies put together can either do or conceive.  
Reply A goodly Argument, and fit for your children that are content with stones in stead of bread. Christ is a Spirit, is he therefore able to give his flesh to be eaten? then all Spirits have the same power. But Sir, why cannot a man, a body give his flesh to be eaten carnally; I see no difficulty in it, nor need of any spiritual power to effect it, if there be but Popish, or other Cannibals that will eat it. 2. How can the words of Christ be called a Spirit in your sense? for you take not spirit for breath, but properly. Are words living and intelligent beings, as Spirits are? But I suppose this acquaint Exposition was hammered out of your own brain, and though it agrees neither with Fathers, nor your elder brethren; yet because it opposeth the wicked Calvinists, you like it well. And indeed so do I, both because it shows you to be a most ingenious, learned, acute, and reverend Expositor, and also discovers the goodness of your cause that needs such Expositions.   

Objection 2.  
The second Objection (say you) The Roman Church committeth idolatry in her adoration at Mass, bowing to the Name of Jesus, Altars, Images, and Relics. You answer 1. By the Commandment, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven thing, nor adore it, Exod. 20. is neither forbidden the Art of Engraving, Carving, Printing, Painting, Casting, Sowing, embroidering; nor yet all manner of religious honour to be given to creatures.  
Reply 1. The Art of Engraving, etc. is certainly lawful, yet the exercise of it hath its limitations; which I conceive may be reduced to these two heads.  
1. That nothing be engraven, etc. but what ought to be engraven, etc. whereby is forbidden the engraving, carving, painting any lascivious pictures tending to excite lust, but especially as to our purpose painting, engraving, and carving any images of the divine Persons; thus Moses tells the Jews, Ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude, only ye heard a voice,— Take ye therefore good heed unto your selves (for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spoke unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire) lest ye corrupt yourselves, 
Deut. 4.14, 15, 16.  and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male and female etc. For this reason Eusebius refused to send Constantia the Image of Christ, 
Euseb. Eccles. l. 7. c. 17.  and imputes the Erection of Christ's Image to an heathenish Custom, saying, It is not any marvel at all that they which of the Gentiles were cured by our Saviour made and set up such things,— for the men of old of an Heathenish custom were wont to honour after this manner such as they counted Saviour's: Lorichius doth excellently set forth this, 
Ger. Lorich. instit. Cathol. in precept. fol. 95.  Est praeterea abusus imaginum, etc. There is (saith he) besides an abuse of Images, in that we presume to express the sacred Trinity, which is truly a most pestilent heresy; for what can be more contrary to the Holy Trinity, then to paint the Father like a crooked old man, the Son in the form of a young man, and the Holy Ghost like a flying fowl? What can Idiots learn from such a book? truly nothing but error and heresy: This is the first.  
2. That nothing be engraven, carved, or painted for this end, that it may be an object of adoration or worship. Thus Moses saith, Ye shall make you no idol, nor graven image— to bow down unto it. Hence its observable, that though we read that Images used many years ago, yet Cassander tells us they were used as Historical remembrances, which use is not sinful, they were not objects for a religious and devout eye to be fixed upon, nor did they challenge any religious prostration or honour, yea the giving of Religious honour to them, whether under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is expressly forbidden in the Scriptures, as Exod. 20.5.23.33. but of this more even now. In the interim I come to examine your proofs.  
1. You say, In the Old Testament where this Commandment is enjoined the use of those several acts was held lawful and religious honour exhibited, etc.  
Reply 1. The former part of your assertion is manifestly true, the later is evidently false, and your proofs altogether unsatisfactory. 1. Say you, Religious honour was exhibited to the fiery bush by Moses, Exod. 25. Reply, the Text which you misquote (it being Exod. 3.) proves no religious honour to be given to the bush, nor indeed any kind of honour. Those things that might carry any show of such a thing to you (if you consulted the Text before you urged it which I much question) are these ver. 2. He looked, v. 3. Moses said I will now turn aside to see this great sight, v. 4. He said to God, Here am I, v. 5. He is bid to put off his shoes, verse 6. He hide his face: excepting these I know nothing in this Chapter can be urged for honour to the bush, and which of these make for it, I cannot tell: but 2. If it was honoured, it was neither Mass nor Altar, nor Image, nor Relic. If it have resemblance to any of them it is to Image. But this it hath not as Lyranus observes in these words, Erat populus Israel ad Idolatriam pronus, etc. [Lyran. in loc.] The Israelites were prone to idolatry, and therefore God appeared in the flame which cannot be figured by any image, and in the bush— because in such things there could no image be made, etc.  
2. To the Oracle of the high Priests, 3 King. 27. Reply, This book hath but 22. Chapters, where then shall we find your 27. but I remember not any words of Scripture, either in that or any other book that seems to express the high Priests religious honour to the Oracle and therefore shall stay for your correction.  
3. To the Ark of David, Exod. 3. Levit. 26. Psal. 131. Reply, your two former proofs are mistakes, neither of these books mentioning David at all. Your third Text hath these words, We will go into his Tabernacles, we will worship at his footstool: some Papists read the latter words thus, Adoremus scabellum pedum ejus, i.e. we will worship his footstool: whom I suppose you follow, and there upon ground David's worship of the Ark. But I appeal from the private to the public spirit, from the translation of L. B. to the vulgar Translation of the Romish Church, which is Adorabimus in loco, ubi steterunt pedes ejus, we will worship the place where God's feet do stand, (which may be meant of the Tabernacle, as Psalm 26.8. Lord, I have loved the habitation of thine house, and the place where thine honour dwells) not said, we will worship the place: for God is the object of worship, as Euthymius well shows; In these words saith he, is foretold how the Temple should again be erected, and how they should go into it, and there worship God as before. [Euthym. apud Lyran.]  
2. You say, God himself justified them therein, by striking Uzziah with Leprosy, and Oza with death, for not forbearing to meddle with holy and sacred things without authority, 2 Paralip. 26 2 King. 6.  
Reply 1. What you say is most true but nothing to purpose: Vzziahs' sin was that He burned incense upon the Altar of incense, and so usurped the Priest's Office, v. 16.18. not that he did not bow to the altar, which you should prove. If Vzziah had crept to it upon his knees and kissed it, and acknowledged Divin●●● in it; this would not have mitigated his guilt, nor have prevented his Leprosy. [Joseph. lib. 7. An iq. cap. 4.] The sin of Oza or Vzzah is diversely conceived of; Josephus conceives it was because being no Priest, he yet presumed to meddle with the Ark, which is also Augustine's opinion: others think he was punished not so much for this as some former sin, because it often happens that lesser faults do bring on punishments of former sins: now this other sin of Vzziah is mentioned by Procopius in these words; Alterius delictum huc poenas, etc. He is punished for another sin, for whereas God commanded that the Priests should carry the Ark upon their shoulders, he illegally carried it in a cart, and therefore David when he fetched it from the house of Obed-Edom, carried it not in a cart as before, but on men's shoulders, in humeris v. 13. ne percuerent sicut Oza, as the ordinary gloss. Now what makes all or any of this for you? here is not a syllable for adoration of Mass, Altars, Images, Reliqus, nor indeed for any religious adoration of any thing.  
Thirdly, you say by way of conclusion, so that all this Commandment forbids, is to make graven things to the end to honour them with divine honour, that is, to make gods of them as the Pagans did.  
Reply 1. Your premises have been already confuted; and therefore this conclusion if it had direct dependence on them, as it hath not would fall with them. Yourself in saying, the Commands forbids not all religious honour, implies that some manner of religious honour is forbidden, and if so then not only Divine; for you clearly distinguish betwixt religious honour and divine. [Page 103.] 2. I shall add (to what I have already said, and in opposition to what you say) that Religious honour is forbid by this Commandment religious and divine honour being the very same: see Azor. Instat. Moral. part. 1. l. c, 10.9.2. For the clearing of this, let us see what religion, and what religious worship is, religion (saith the Orator) is that which is contained in the pious worship of the Gods: Augustine notably expresseth it. Si cultus tantummodo dicatur, etc. 
Aug. de Civit. Dei. L. 10. c. 1. Aquin. 22ae. q. 81. Art. 1. c. & add 4. & Art. 4.  If it be only called worship, it agrees not to God only. But religion signifies more distinctly not any, but only the worship of God. Thus Religion is defined with your Schoolmen by its relation to God. Religion (saith Aquinas,) is a virtue whereby men give due worship and reverence to God: yea, by it special honour is given to God. And those according to him are religious persons, Who devote their whole lives to God's worship: whence it is clear that he makes no difference betwixt religious and Divine worship. Again, Grotius defining religious worship, 
H. Grot. de relig. Chr. L. 4. p. 191. & page 195.  saith, Cultus religiosus, etc. Religious worship is nothing else but an attestation of that chief goodness which thou acknowledgest in him thou worshippest. Now in God only there is Summa bonitas, he only being the Summum bonum. Of this religious worship the same Author further speaks, telling us what are its chief acts, viz. Prayers which (saith he) cannot be used, unless foolishly, but to intelligent natures: Now Images, Reliqus, Altars, the Name Jesus are not intelligent natures. To this I will add, That there are two main grounds of religious worship. 1 Infinite excellency apprehended under the notion of the Prime Principle, 
Manifestum est quod dominium convenit Deo secundum propriam & singularen quandam rationem, quia scil. ipse omnia fecit: & quia summum in omnibus rebus obtinet principatum. Et ideo specialis ratio servitutis ei debetur, et talis servitus nomine Latriae designatur apud Graecos: Et ideo ad religionem proprie pertinet. Et paulo post. Quia tamen specialis honour, debetur Deo tanquam primo omnium principio: etiam specialis ratio cultus ei debetur, quae Graeco nomine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vocatur Aquin. supr. August. tract. 23. Joan.  or first Original. This is fully expressed by Aquinas, who affirms, that in regard of God's supreme dominion founded upon his being the first Original and cause of all things, therefore a special kind of service is due to him; which service properly belongs to Religion, and is sometimes called Latria, and sometime Eusebia, which together will make up your phrase Religious worship. 2 Infinite excellency apprehended under the notion of the chief good, or the fountain of happiness. Thus Augustine; Haec est religio Christiana, etc. This is the Christian Religion, that nothing be worshipped but One God, because none makes the soul happy but one God. Religious worship therefore is proper to God, the prime principle and last good; and therefore the giving of it to any but God is forbidden in this Commandment as Idolatry.  
Reply 3. It's not certain that the Pagans did make gods of their graven things, or if some did, many others did not. Dionysius Carthusiensis, saith, Quidam Gentilium, etc. [Dionys. Comment. in Rom. 1.] Some of the Pagans did worship the very Images, but others did only worship the things represented by the Images. The Apostle professeth that the Gentiles knew God, only they changed his Glory into an Image made like unto corruptible man, etc. which you also do whilst you change Gods unexpressible glory into the Image of an old man, and the glory of the Holy Ghost into the image of a fowl, and Christ of a young man, and thus worship them: or if they gave them divine honour; do not some of you plead, 
Aquin. 3. q. 25. Art. 3. & 4. & Càssand. consult. de imag. p. 979. Act. 17.23.  that the cross of Christ and his Image should have the same honour: I am sure Cassander blames Aquinas for this opinion. But to return, the wiser sort of Pagans acknowledged One only God, yea the generality of them acknowledged one only Supreme, whom either they called Jove, as some think from Jehovah, or the unknown God. Who was the same that the Apostle Paul preached at Athens; and although they had others whom they worshipped, yet these were rather Daemons than dii middle natures between the immortal Gods and mortal men, employed by them for carrying mortals prayers to God, and Gods rewards to men, and their acknowledgement of these was only that their perfections and excellencies were participated and relative to the Supreme God or some other. 
Athanas. orat. contra Gentes. Arnob. l. 6. advers. Gentes.  Read to this purpose that learned piece of Mr. Mede, called the Apostasy of the later times. Yea further when the Christians did object against Pagans their idol worship, they still pleaded their respect to the gods whom their idols did represent.  
But I come to examine your vindication of Rome from idolatry in those above mentioned particulars, viz. Mass, etc.  
1 Mass. You say, Her adoration at Mass being not meant nor directed to the accidents of bread and wine, nor to the figures of Host and Chalice next to sight (for in these she doth not acknowledge to be the perfections of Exellencies belonging to God) but to the Person of Christ, hid and covered under the said accidents and figures.  
Reply 1. You grant that the Worship you call divine is used at the Mass, only you plead that it's not directed to the accidents of bread and and wine, etc. but to the Person of Christ, etc. Bellarm. l. 4. de Euchar. c. 29. You may with this plea give Divine Worship to Images, Altars, Relics; yea the Pagans might have this plea, yet were idolatrous.  
2. You differ from your Schoolmen, yea, and Church too. Bellarmine says, That Christ per se & proprie, is to be worshipped with the adoration of Latria, and that this adoration belongeth to the signs or symbols of bread and wine in as much as they are apprehended as one with Christ, whom they contain. Conformably hereunto the Council of Trent saith, There remains no doubt but that all Christ's faithful people give the Worship of Latria, which is due to the true God, to the Sacrament in their adoration, because they believe God is present in it. So that either your Church is idolatrous, or yourself not sufficiently religious: Besides, in your Sacramental language you speak of a Transubstantiation of the bread not into Christ's Person, but his Body. So that its the Body of Christ you worship, for this is under the accidents of figures. Now the perfections and exellencies belonging to God, which might command from us Latria, are no more in Christ's body, then in the accidents of bread and wine, there being an infinite distance between the exellencies and perfections of the Deity, and Christ's humanity. This is not Primum rerum principium, as that is.  
3. This Adoration is without any precept or example in Scripture, where the Sacrament is fully expressed.  
4. Papists use it without doubting, as whether the bread be rightly consecrated, and so whether the Body of Christ be present or no in the Sacrament. Hence that Lesson of Pope Arian 6. teaching to say, Adoro te si tu es Christus. I adore thee if thou be Christ. That there ought to be a condition, is the judgement of Gabriel, Biel, Thomas, Bonaventure, Alexander, 
Azor. instit. moral. p. 1. l. 9 c. 9 q. 10  Albertus, Richardus, and seems to be the common opinion of all Divines, saith Azorius. Which condition makes Images, Relics, Altars, yea the heathenish idols, the Subjects of Latria; there is not any thing in the world but may partake of divine worship with it as well as the Mass. But its sin to adore that which we know not whether it be adorable or no.  
2. The Name of Jesus, Altars, Pictures, Relics. You say, She alloweth indeed of religious honour to the Name of Jesus, to Altars, Pictures, Relics, relating to God, Christ, and his Saints.  
Reply 1. The Heathens, as I have showed, did give no more to their-images, then that you call religious honour. 2. The Worship of Images when it was in relation to Christ and Saints hath been branded with heresy. The Carpocrations are cal-called Heretics by S. Augustine for worshipping of Jesus and Paul. 
Aug. de haeres. c. 7. Dan. in cap. 6. Aug. de haeres. Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. c. 3 Cyril. Catech. Myttag. 1a. pag. 513. 1 Tim. 4.1. Euseb. Eccles. Histor. lib, 4. c. 15.  Danaeus observes it to have been one of the Gnostics heresies. Eusebius observes out of Justin. Martyr. that Simon Magus and his followers put in ure against the pestilent superstition of pictures, from which they seemed once to be free: As Cyril of Jerusalem calls prayers candles, etc. made for the honour of Images, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the worship of the Devil, which Saint Paul expresseth by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Doctrines of Daemons. 3. All that the ancient Christians ascribed to Saints, was love, not religious worship. When the Christians of the Church of Smyrna were denied the body of Polycarpus upon his account, lest they should leave Christ to worship him; they answer for themselves that their enemies were ignorant: That we (say they) can never forsake Christ which died for the Salvation of the whole world, and that we can worship none other: for we worship Christ as the Son of God, the Martyrs we love at Disciples and followers of the Lord, and that worthily for the invincible good will they bear to their King and Master whose Companions and Disciples we desire to be. In the same place they say, We gathered his bones more precious than pearls, and better than tried gold, and buried them in the place that was fit for the purpose. They were neither worshippers of Saints, much less of their images, nor reservers of their relics: All they desired was that they might bury his body, which being denied them, they buried what they could get, his bones.  
You urge, To find fault with this were to blame Justice for giving to every thing its due in acknowledging the truth: It being most true and undoubted, that the Name of Jesus, Altars, Pictures, and Relics, bear relation to God, Christ, and his Saints, as Persons in Dignities and Preeminencies to the same.  
Ans. 1. The Question is not whether every thing ought to have its due, but whether religious honour be due to these things, that we grant; But deny this: their mere relation (besides which you mention nothing else) cannot prove it. All things in the world have relation to God, Christ, and the Saints; yea, some things have a special relation, which yet you do not worship. Emmanuel is as venerable a name as Jesus, so is the name Christ: Temples have special relation to God as well as Altars; Dead pictures have not so much relation to Christ, or God, and their living Images, true Christians; Relics of Saints have no more relation to them then their works, or virtues; yet Papists give not religious worship to these. You must therefore give us some other characters whereby to know what things are adorable, or what religion to God, Christ, or Saint, will purchase from us this honour, that we may know how and when, and to whom to give it. 2. Though it were true that Images and Relics did bear such relation to Christ and Saints as might procure this worship for them, yet its doubtful whether the images you give us be the true Images of Christ. You know the Painter pictured Peter ruddy upon supposal that if Peter were now at Rome he would blush to see his Successors, etc. May. not Christ be miss in the painting as well as Peter? for I hope your Painters are not infallible. May not the Image you affirm to be the Image of Christ, be the image of some thief, or wicked person? yea of Judas; and so whilst we bow to Christ, we kiss Judas. I read of a Case not altogether unlike this, mentioned by Cassander: 'tis this.  
Saint Martin once going to a place in his Diocese famous for the Monument of a Martyr, 
Cass. de vener. reliq. pag. 973. Haback. 2.18. Isai. 44.10.  he found it was the Monument of a wicked thief. The Prophets truly tell us, that the graven image and the molten image is a teacher of lies, and is profitable for nothing: The same may be said of Relics, its questionable whether they be true: The most of them seem counterfeit, and such are complained against by moderate and more ingenious Papists. Cassander doth very much complain of them in these words, There are many that make merchandise of relics whether true or false: so that they are carried about by Jugglers and the vilest fellows, like the heathenish mysteries of Isis, and they are commended to the vulgar with many lies, Cassand. ibid. Erasmus is more full, What saith he, would Hierom have said in these days to see every where set forth in ostentation the Virgin Mary's milk, and so many pieces of the Cross of Christ, which if they should be gathered together, would overload a ship: Here they show S. Francis his Coal, there the Virgine's Petticoat; One where S. Anne's Comb, in another place Joseph's Breeches; and (which is a thing uncertain) the foreskin of Christ which they adore more religiously than Christ himself, Erasm. in Mat. 33. p. 80. Supr. I will conclude this with the words of Cassander, Whereas there are but very few true relics in these parts, and many of thos● that are showed may be suspected; and their frequenting and worshipping doth conduce little to p●ety, but much either to superstition, or gain: It were a much wiser course that there were no Ostentation of relics, but that the people might be provoked to worship the true relics of the Saints, that is to imitate those examples of piety and virtue which are extant in theirs or others writings of them.  
In the last place you bring in two Objections against adoration at Mass, and answer them.  
1. To urge against the lawfulness of adoration at Mass from the interposition of creatures would prove too much; viz. That Christ were not adorable in Churches, in the fields, nay at all, by reason of an interposition of walls, the Heavens or Christ's Body betwixt the adorers and his sacred Person:  
Reply 1. Your last Interposition is a conceit fit for a Transubstantiator.  
2. No Protestant doth urge against the lawfulness of adoration, the mere interposition of creatures, but the interposition of them as the object of worship: This we conceive forbidden in the first Commandment, which saith, Thou shalt have no other Gods before my face: There may be Images, Walls, Heavens, Sun, Moon, or Stars, before us, when we worship God, yet this makes us not idolaters, whilst our religious service is not directed to these, as you direct yours to such like objects, which makes you idolaters.  
Object. 2. It will be opposed Christ is not capable of adoration in the Sacrament, he not appearing there like himself with Glory and Majesty.  
You answer, Christ is adorable where and howsoever he is pleased to be; else the three Kings and Mary Magdalen, and the Apostles were reprovable for doing him homage, not in a●sumptuous Palace, and enthroned under a rich Cloth of State, but in a poor stable, a dusty manger, having for a Canopy, a rack of hay, not gloriously attired, and accompanied with Nobles, but in swaddling clothes, betwixt an Ox and an Ass; not like a Prince, but a mechanic, Gardiner, a Carpenter, Rep. 1. Omitting your rash traditions of the three Kings, and Christ lying betwixt an Ox and an Ass, as not worthy an answer. I say, 1. No Protestant makes the Objection you impose upon them: We all grant that he is graciously and gloriously present in the Eucharist, as he is in Baptism, and the Word which is the Sceptre of his Kingdom, yea and that in these he is adorable, and to be worshipped in the Eucharist, though not as if he were contained under the Species of bread and wine: or in that space that the bread and wine were in before transubstantiation. 2. It's false he that Christ is adorable by external set Worship where and howsoever he is pleased to be, lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 30. Bellarmine saith, Apostoli non poterant, etc. The Apostles could not always worship Christ upon their knees, and especially in the Supper when it was necessary for them to sit down with him. Now this is that worship you plead for: Besides Christ as God being present in every place and thing, it must follow by your doctrine that Christ is to be adored in every thing, as the Sun, Moon, Stars, Beasts, Plants, Stones, Stocks, etc. which is the ready way to Heathenish idolatry: The truth is, Christ is not corporally present in the the Supper, and therefore his Body is not there adorable. 3. When you say, The three Kings did him homage. 1. How do you prove that this was religious, and not civil worship? If the Disciples when they had been long with Christ did dream of a temporal Kingdom, why might not these strangers take him for a temporal ●ing, and so give him civil Worship? That which makes this probable is, that they inquire Where is he that is born King of the Jews? And that He●od and that part of Jerusalem that favoured him, (for so Lyra undestands the words, All Jerusalem) were troubled when they heard of him; 
Lyran.  the reason whereof was, because Herod was a stranger, and feared he should lose his Kingdom; and certainly that honour he pretended himself would give, would have been only a shadow of civil honour. Yea last, If I would stand upon words as you do upon your Latria, & Doulia, I might tell you that the words do not import religious any more, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  then civil worship. But 2. Granting it was religious, (which I find to be the more common opinion,) this makes not for your adoration at Mass. For 1. It was manifest in itself and to them, that Christ was personally and locally present with them. 2. They did worship God in Christ. 
Aug. Ser. de Epiph.  Tres Magi, etc. The three wise men (saith Augustine) in one journey come to worship God, in one Christ, (who is the way) the undivided Trinity was by them adorable: They worshipped him so acknowledging God, whom they understood to be made man. 
Lyran.  And Lyranus testifies, that they would not have exhibited so much reverence to him, unless they had known him to be more then man. Now you cannot say, That that you worship in the Sacrament, viz. Christ's body into which the bread is transubstantiated, is, Aliquid supra hominem, Something more than man. It's the Body of Christ with the accidents of bread and wine that you worship, not his Divinity which you know no Protestant doth refuse to worship. 3. They did not worship the dusty manger, as you do the Altar, (whereon you say Christ's body is) nor the rack of hay, nor the swaddling clothes, nor the Ox or Ass, all which you say were about him. 4. When you say, Marry Magdalen, and the Apostles did homage to Christ in a poor stable, as a Mechanic, a Gardener, a Carpenter. You are much mistaken, or have better tradition than I can meet with, I do not find that either Marry Magdalen, or the Apostles saw Christ in the manger, or did homage to him like a Mechanic, etc. Indeed Christ was once taken for a Gardener by a mistake, but whilst that mistake lasted, no religious adoration could be yielded him without idolatry. 5. Whereas you say, The poorness and meanness of the manner Christ appears in— renders him much more adorable; for Exaltation is humilities reward, etc.  
Reply. If this were true Christ should have been more adorable while on earth, than now he is in Heaven, which is contrary to Scripture, even in that place you by and by mention, Phil. 1. God first exalts him, and gives him a Name above every name, and then comes in the worship of all creatures expressed by bowing at the Name of Jesus, which is not meant of the Name Jesus, and a bowing at the sound of it, but it is an honouring of Christ by an acknowledgement of his Supreme Lordship and Dominion, as both the ordinary Gloss, 
Rhem. on Phil. 2.9. & Heb. 2.9.  and Lyranus expounds it. But to return, Papists affirm that Christ merited glory and honour by his humiliation; Now this glory was that which is signified by having the knee bowed to him. It must therefore needs be, that Christ had not so much glory in his humiliation as afterwards; then he was only meriting, but afterwards he was possessing what was formerly merited. Christ had not those excellencies in his poor and mean estate that he had in his rich estate: For this reason Saints are not so worshipful with you whilst they live as after this life, they are not canonised, nor prayed unto till your exaltation. If means render a person more adorable, I am sure S. Peter deserved much more honour than the present Popes, he being poor and mean, and they Lords of the world above Kings, Emperors, and all that is called God or worshipped. To conclude, if it be means that specially renders a person adorable, how could you square adoration according to perfections and excellencies, (page 101. etc.) and not rather according to the want of these.   

2. Objection.  
THe third Objection is, The Roman-Church challengeth power to forgive sins, which belongeth only to God.  
Answer, All power is naturally and originally in God, as Lord paramount of all creatures, but not incommunicable: for as he hath bestowed the power of governing Kingdoms and Commonwealths on Kings and Magistrates, Prov. 8.15. Rom. 13.1. So the power of remitting sins on the Apostles and their successors: yet men having these powers by way of gift and participation may not be said to govern or to forgive sins, but as God's substitutes and delegates, suitably to the condition of their inferiority and subjection.  
Reply 1. God's power as to some of its acts is incommunicable. His power of Creation is naturally in him, and incommunicable to any creature, so is his damning and saving power, whereby he makes one a vessel of wrath, another of mercy; of this nature is his power of remitting sin. It is God that justifies, and it was a serious question (though wrongly applied) of the Scribes, Who can forgive sins but God only, [Mark 2.7.] others cannot do it, and therefore Bed doth hereby prove Christ's divinity, saith he Solus D●us remittit peccata, etc. [Bed, apud Lyran ib] i.e. God only remits sins, and the Son of man hath power of remiting sin; therefore God and the Son of man are the same; thus the Son of man by his divinity doth remit sins but by his humanity he is enabled to die for sinners. For the clearing of this, I observe that remission of sins may be considered two ways, viz. 1. As it is a judicial act, and denotes formal pardon. Thus it belongs to the supreme Lord against whom the crimes are directly committed, and his absolution is only satisfactory to the offender, as Soto on Rom. 8.33. very well shows. 2. As it is a Declaration of that act already passed by the supreme Lord. As in human Courts, the judicial act or formal absolution belongs to the Judge, but the declaration of this is in the crier. 'Tis thus in the Church, The Church is the crier, but God the Judge; his act is an act of power and authority, whereby Pardon is formally obtained, but so is not theirs. This is confessed by the most noted Schoolmen, Lombard is clear for it. Ita operatur sacerdos Evangelicus, etc. [Lomb. lib. 4. dist. 18. F.] The Evangelicall Priest (saith he) doth so act and judge in the absolving from sin as the legal Priest did on them that had the Leprosy. Now its evident that the Priest did not make them clean, but only upon Gods cleansing of them declared them to be clean, nor is this the judgement of him only, but of many other Schoolmen, and Lombard proves it from Hierom and Ambrose. Now if the Church of Rome not content with the act of declaring sin pardoned, do in a pharasaical pride (as Lombard speaks) claim to itself a judicial power (which Ambrose calls jus, potestatis) then it's certainly true that the Roman Church claims a power that belongs only to God: But it's certainly true that this Church claims a power; the Trent Council is clear and full for it, [Concil. Tried, sess. 14. cap. 6. & Can. 9 ap. Binnium.] So that she Anathematizeth whosoever shall say, that is no judicial act, but only an office of pronouncing and declaring that sins are pardoned to the penitent sinner. This is that we charge upon your Church as an heretical opinion.  
What you say in answer to our Objection, I know not whether it be in vindication of your Church, or in mere opposition to us, you have so darkly folded up your opinion that I know not what it is. You say, The successors of the Apostles have power to forgive sins, as God's substitutes and delegates, suitably to the condition of their inferiority and subjection. You should have told us what this suitable power is: for the power your Church claims is not a suitable power for her even in the judgement of your Schoolmen. And if you deny her that, you confess with us that she claims a power that belongs only to God. Your allusion is nothing unless you can prove that as God hath bestowed power of governing on Kings, so hath he given the Apostles and their successors the power of formal remission.   

4. Objection.  
THe fourth Objection is, The Roman Church derogateth from Christ's Mediatorship, making it common to Saints and Angels.  
Answ. 1. Things that are like have eftsoons the same denomination; so Kings and Judges are called Gods for some resemblance betwixt God's power and theirs. Psal. 81.1.6. The Roman Church then observing in the intercession of Saints and Angels, a certain likeness to the mediation of Christ; they being both expressions of charitable and good desires for others, may not unfitly call them alike by the name of mediation.  
Reply, 1. That things that are like have sometime the same denomination, none will question but the ground of this is not always likeness or resemblance, as you seem to assert: different things altogether unlike, may have the same denomination whilst those that have some likeness cannot, The children of God who have his Image, and are partaker of the divine nature are not to be called Gods, though Magistrates are, Psal. 82. There are two reasons or grounds whereupon the names of God or Christ may be given to creatures. 1. Relation the persons stand in unto God and Christ, thus Judges are called Gods, and Moses is said to be a God to Pharaoh, Exod. 7.1. because Judges and Moses stood in God's stead, were his Viceroys, his Ambassadors. 2. Divine authority seconding the relation, I have said ye are Gods, and all of you the children of the most High, etc. Psal. 82.6.105, 15. God saith of his children Touch not my Christ's. Now according as God gives these names to creatures, so may we, provided that we give them 1. Only to those to whom he gives them. 2. That we give them not to any as properly belonging to them, but only as metaphorical expressions. 3. Nor ordinarily but upon special and extraordinary occasions and with allusions to Gods own words. Against these the men of Lystra offended when they called Paul and Barnabas Gods. Act. 14.1. It's not lawful for us to give the Title of God to Magistrates ordinarily in our speaking to them, nor to say to others ye are Jehovah, or Christ, or the Evangelicall Priest or Mediator for the reasons now implied. The Apostle expressly saith, There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 1 Tim. 2.5.2. If likeness ground a denomination yet it remains doubtful what likeness doth it. There is nothing in the world but hath some kind of likeness to God, yet you may not call every thing God: though it may be this was the manner of the Heathens deifying of every creature till it came to herbs. 3. The likeness betwixt the intercession of Saints and Angels (supposing these to interceded though you prove it not) and mediation of Christ is so little, that it cannot be thought a sufficient ground for this denomination. What ever you can say of the intercession of Saints and Angels in Heaven, may be said of the Prayers of every Christian that supplicates God for others, and what man would say that every Christian is a Mediator? For the clearing of this I shall show what Christ's mediation is. 
Est. come. in 1. Tim. 2.5.  Estius saith, Mediator Dei, & hominum, etc. A Mediator between God and man is he who comes to God immediately, and by his own merit reconciles God to man, and procures for man all saving benefits. And though afterwards opposing Protestants, he attributes this to others yet it's very sparingly; saith he, Catholics do not transfer the office of Mediator now explained and proper only to Christ to any others, but only doth acknowledge some others to be mediators in an imperfect manner, that is, our intercessors to God, such as all those are who commend our salvation to God by their prayers. [ibid.] Here is nothing attributed to Saints and Angels, which is not as truly applicable to any living Christian, to whom you use not to give the name of Mediator. 
Aquin. 3. q. 26. Ar. 1. 2 m.  Aquinas moreover proves out of Augustine, that Angels cannot rightly be called Mediators betwixt God and men, because they partake not of the qualities of both extremes: the same reason is of force against the Mediety of mere men. But you say the likeness is in this, that Christ's mediation, and Saints intercession, they are both expressions of charitable and good desires for others. Whereby first you falsely imply that Christ doth mediate or intercede for us by Petitions or desires, 
Dyonis. Carthus. ad Rom. c. 8. v. 33.  which is contrary to the judgement of divers Catholics, who say, Christ doth not interceded with words but by commisseration and presentation of the nature he assumed, and the cursed death he suffered in his Father's presence. Secondly, Though it be granted that Christ doth also in Heaven require a performance of God's promise to his Elect, for whom he hath offered up himself a Sacrifice, and Saints also desire the same thing, yet it will not follow, that they may therefore have the name of Mediators, because Mediator doth imply not only a charitable act, but an Office: and every charitable act doth not entitle a person to the name of an Officer, who by virtue of his. Office performs the like act. A private man may give his friend council, and plead for him with such as do oppose him: Yet you will not say this man is a Counsellor or a Lawyer. A private man, yea a woman may instruct another in the mysteries of salvation, and pray for them; yea, (and if Papists speak truth) may in some cases administer a Sacrament, yet you would be angry if we should call these private persons amongst you Priests, or should bring them intra ordinem praedicationum, within your Order of Preachers: How if it be thus with men's Titles, how much more with Gods and Christ's?  
2. You answer, But she is so far hereby from intending the least prejudice to Christ's mediation, either in confounding or equalling the same with that of Saints and Angels, that she puts as wide a difference betwixt them as can be betwixt two things of different appellations: acknowledging in Christ's Mediation a worth or right whereto the thing desired is of Justice due; in the Mediation of Saints & Angels only a virtue of moving God's goodness and mercy to grant their desires.  
Reply 1. If she put as wide a difference betwixt them as can be betwixt two things of different appellations, How could you plead their likeness, and upon it ground the identity of appellations? to be like, and yet altogether unlike are opposites, and one of them false. 2. He doth not put so wide a difference betwixt them as you speak of: you state it thus, She acknowledgeth in Christ's Mediation a worth or right whereunto the thing desired is of justice due, in the Mediation of Saint & Angels, only avertue of moving God's goodness & mercy to grant their desires.  
Reply 1. What virtue this is, may be questioned, It's probable its a meriting virtue, and this hath respect to God's justice, and indeed differs not from that worth you ascribe to Christ. It's ordinary with you to fly to the merits of Saints as well as to their prayers. Your Biel saith, You invocate Saints as Mediators for whose merits God bestows those benefits on us which we are not worthy ourselves to receive. And further he saith, 
In Can. missae. Lect. 30.  We ought to fly to them, and reverently to entreat them, that we may be saved by their merits and prayers. Bellarmine is not behind him, for he affirms, That as to the words, its lawful for us to pray. Saint Peter give me this, or tother, whilst we understand it, give it us by thy prayers and merits. 
Cass. Consultd. d. merit. & interc. p. 970. Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. cap. 32. cap. 6. ap. Bin.  Cassander complains of some who choose the Saints to be their Guardians, and trust more to their merits and intercession, then to the merits of Christ. All which is noway contrary to the Trent Council which establisheth merits of Saints, nor to yourself, who in the end of this Section derive this virtue of moving God from the Saints purity and sanctity. To which others add their sufferings, as when in your old Portess Christ is entreated by the wounds of Thomas to lose your sins. But you say, The Saints move God's goodness, but Christ looks to God's justice. I answer, Merits, whether of Christ or any other, refer to God's justice, according to that of the Apostle, Rom. 4.4. Now to the Mercenary man is the reward not reckoned of grace, but debt. 2. Whatever this virtue be, yet you place them equally near unto God, as Christ is: they are not Mediatores ad Mediatorem, but ad Deum: they move God's goodness, and indeed so doth Christ. How long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, etc. saith Christ to his Father, Zech. 1.12. So that however you pretend a vast difference, its evident you make little, if any at all.  
3. You answer— Which sigh it is not held injurious to Christ's Mediation to allow of as good in the prayers of sinners, hated and abominated by God for their crimes and iniquities, much less ought it to be esteemed a wrong to attribute it to the intercession and prayers of Saints and Angels, whose purity and sanctity renders them gracious and pleasing in the sight of God.  
Reply 1. Your answer contains a piece of bad Divinity. For, 1. If by sinners [hated & abominated by God for their crimes and iniquities] you mean the regenerate, then are you a step further in heresy than Proclus, for he as you told us, left the regenerate all foul and conspurcate with sin, and you make the objects of God's hatred and abomination. Or 2. If you mean the unregenerate, than its most false that they have a virtue of moving God's goodness and mercy, etc. God heareth not sinners; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doth his will him heareth he, John 9.31. The sacrifices of the wick●d are an abomination to the Lord; but the prayer of the upright is his delight, Prov. 15.8. Jam. 5.16. The Scripture asserts the only prevalency of the righteous men's prayers. 2. It's a wrong to Christ to attribute this virtue to such men; for if they can do it, Christ's intercession becomes needless, or sinfulness being that which brings in the necessity of a Mediator.  
4. You propound and answer three Objections, which you suppose may be made against you.  
Obj. 1. It will be opposed (say you) in the vast distance that is betwixt Heaven and Earth, Saints and Angels, cannot hear.  
Reply. Blessed souls in their state of Separation have, as Angels (Luke 15.) an hearing quite other from that of souls immersed and plunged in flesh and blood: These hear by means of corporal Organs, which limited within a certain distance, cannot receive impression out of the same: Those hear with their understandings, which are by so much the more open and quick of apprehension, by how much the less their dependence is on matter: The Saints then being freed of all corporal clogs may hear at any distanc.  
Ans. 1. The Knowledge of blessed Souls in their state of Separation (though different from that of souls housed in bodies of clay, yet) is inferior to that of Angels, (as Aquinas shows) because the nature of the soul is inferior to the Angelical nature. Souls have a common and confused knowledge, 
Aquin. part 1. q. 8, 9 Art. 3.  as he calls it, but Angels have an exact and more perfect knowledge. 2. The freedom that blessed souls have from corporal clogs doth not invest them with the particular knowledge of things done here upon earth. This is also asserted by Aquinas, Ibid. Art. 8. c. who for confirmation of it, brings in Saint Gregory and Augustine, the former of them seeming to prove it from the distance of habitation of spirits from that of bodies; the latter by Scripture, viz. Isai. 63. And the gloss upon it, and by his mothers not visiting him, and by the promise made to good Josiah, 2 King. 22.3. The Motion of Angels from place to place, makes it at least probable that their knowledge is not alike when they are absent, as when they are present with us. I confess that Aquinas saith, their motion from place to place is in order to operation, not knowledge, Ibid. q. 55. Art. 2. ad 3m. But however they are here as Executioners of God's pleasure in works of judgement or mercy, yet it may seem that they also go about to see the carriages, works, and deal of men, whereof they are said to make report, Zech. 1.10, 11. Nor is this for information of God, as if he knew not what men did, but rather that the Angels beholding by themselves men's actions, may justify God in his punishments of the wicked, and rewarding of his people; or may acquaint the Saints therewith, who being not messengers, as Angels, have their constant abode in the presence of God. This seems to be Augustine's conceit (if the book be his) for he lays down two means whereby the Saints may know what hath been done on earth, 
Lib. de Cura pro Morl. apud Lyarn. in Is. 63.16.  viz. the relation of those who die and so come to them, or else the relation of Angels who are present with us in our actions. Now if Angels know not humane, affairs alike when absent, as when they are present; what ground have we to think that blessed souls have this privilege. 4. It's false that souls in their state of separation have an hearing or understanding quite other from that of souls immerced and plunged in flesh and blood. For (excepting the want of the Ministry of senses) the soul hath the same manner of understanding in its separate estate that it hath whilst in the body, though more accurate and less laborious; and the reason is clear, because understanding follows the nature or essence of the soul, which in both estates is one and the same; did the soul understand by species whilst in the body? 
p. 1. q. 83. Art. 6.  so it doth still as Aquinas holds. Did the soul understand by discourse? So it doth still, not only understanding one thing after another, but one thing by another.  
2. Object. You say it will be opposed; Be it Saints can hear at what distance soever; yet this not possible, unless Objects be proposed: and what capacity in Prayers sent so fare off as to reach to Heaven.  
Reply, Catholics boast not of any such virtue in their prayers, but they believe (as is confessed by all) that God is every where— and that he is the chief and principal Cause of all effects, and so of man's prayers. Now it being the property of every cause to relate to its effects, and so to represent the same, as looking glasses do faces and other opposed objects: The Saints (whose happiness consists in a clear vision of God) must needs see and behold (amongst other effects of his goodness and mercy) the Petitions of those who become humble suitors to them.  
Answ. 1. They that grant that Saints can hear at any distance are not very wise to object the distance betwixt earth and heaven, and I am persuaded none doth so: but you traveled to set forth your late invented and unconceivable Looking-glass which like Randolphs' Pedlar you will not fall to vent amongst other Popish trumperies: and indeed you show yourself a peddling Scholar in bringing it in, implicitly denying what you had expressly asserted a little before, for you told us that Saints could hear at any distance; but now as if your conscience had checked you for that, you tell us that its God in whose presence they are that reveals it to them. But secondly, how do you prove that God is the Author or Cause of prayers to Saints? He did never so much as command them, nor the Prophets or Apostles in Scripture give us one example of them: Till you prove it a Christian duty, you cannot entitle God to it as the Cause of it, any more than to sin which you say he doth only suffer and permit, p. 79. God doth not allow any to give his glory to another, much less doth he concur in assisting him therein. Thirdly, its false, that its the property of every Cause to relate to its effects, and so to represent the same, as Looking-glasses do faces and other opposed objects. If this were true, then when you see a workman you should in him see all his works, and so one man should be a Looking-glass to another, which would make good store of Looking-glasses and strange ones too. 'tis true, some causes do represent their effects, so there are effects that represent their Causes, and that more like glasses representation of the face or other objects. So that you might as well prove that every effect doth represent its Cause and every thing in it, and consequently that the creature doth fully represent the divine Essence: and yet the Scripture tells us that none can see God and live. 2. It's untrue that in seeing the divine Essence, you see all its effects. 
Aquin. 1. part. 7.12. Art. 8. per tot, & cajet. ibid.  Aquinas demonstrates the contrary by the example of the Angels, who see the divine Essence, yet are ignorant of future contingencies and the thoughts of the hearts: and he further shows that it's not necessary that he that sees a glass, should see all things in the glass, unless he perfectly comprehend the glass in his sight. Now there is no creature that doth perfectly comprehend God. Cyril excellently sets this forth of the Angels speaking of God, 
Cyril. Hieros'. Catech. 7. p. 169.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Whose face the Angels do perpetually see in heaven; but they see every one according to the measure of his own degree, but the sublime splendour of the fatherly vision, its lawful only for the Son and the Holy Ghost to behold. Do you think that the Saints see in God the thoughts of men's hearts (yet many prayers are no more but the inward groans of the heart) if you say they do, then according to Aquinas they arrogate that which is proper to God, if not, than they see not all the efects in God, and you have not given us any distinction of effects visible or not visible.  
3. Object. You say it will be opposed, If Saints and Angels have not men's prayers before God proposeth them he knoweth them beforehand: whence may be inferred that their intercession is needless.  
Answ. 1. God's foresight of men's prayers makes not the intercession of Saints and Angels any way unprofitable and fruitless; inasmuch as the effect intended thereby is not to better God's understanding, but to obtain from his blessed Will, mercy and compassion, etc.  
Reply, 1. The Objection doth not refer to God's foresight merely which may be from all eternity; (He foreseeing all things before they were) but to God's actual receiving of them from us, and so proposing them to the Saints. Now I assert that this doth make the intercession of Saints and Angels unprofitable, yea no intercession: For first, according to Papists, the reason why we look for an Intercessor is this, we dare not come to God immediately: hence is that Courtlike instance and frequently urged of a subject, who not daring to come into the presence of the King, immediately presents his Petitions to some of his Courtiers, and by him to the King. But here forgetting your instance, you first present your Petitions to the King, making him your Letter carrier to his Courtiers; and this say you for this end that his Courtiers may move his goodness, which how rational it is, let the simplest of your Synagogue judge. 2. According to your Rhemists the property of a Mediator or Intercessor, is to offer up our Prayers to God. Now he that offers up any thing to another, doth not immediately receive his offering from him to whom he offers, but from him for whom he offers: To say Saints receive Prayers from God that they may offer them to God, is very harsh and unscriptural language.  
Reply 2. If our Prayers go immediately to God, and then to Saints, and they immediately obtain from God's blessed Will mercy and compassion from us. What room hath Christ for his intercession, or how are Saints Mediatores ad Mediatorem? It's difficult to set up Saints as Intercessors, and not to nullify the intercession of Christ Jesus. But you urge, Princes have often notice of subjects imprisonment and condemnation, yet seldom give reprives of inlargements, but at the entreaty of some friend or favourite.  
Reply 1 Princes do not usually receive and deliver Petitions directed to their Favourites, that thereby their favourites may move them to compassion. 2. Prince's often give reprieves or inlargements at the entreaty of the imprisoned or condemned. 3. The Apostle tells us clearly who is that favourite, that receiving our Petitions doth procure reprieves or enlargements for guilty sinners, viz. Jesus Christ the righteous. 1 John 2.1.  
2. You answer, Men are wished, yea warranted to pray for one another, (1 Tim. 2.) notwithstanding, God hath the foresight of their wants and necessities.  
Reply 1. For shame do not thus fight with your own shadow, what Protestant doubts of God's foresight of Prayers? or who asserts that Prayers are for the bettering of God's understanding? 2. When men pray one for another they have not the sight of your supercelestial Utopian looking-glass, but being by their friends acquainted with their wants, they are entreated to join with them in seeking God's mercy through Jesus Christ. 3. You answer, David's adultery and guilt of blood were in the sight of God unpardoned, till after a low humiliation, and an hearty acknowledgement of his fault 1 King. 12. Reply. This being nothing to purpose shall pass unanswered, till you can make it appear more material.   

5. Objection.  
THe fifth Objection is, The Roman Church entertaineth divisions and contrariety in Religion: The Dominicans maintaining a Physical predetermination, the Jesuits a Moral: those that the Virgin Mary was conceived in Original sin; these that she was prevented by Grace and conceived in the same. And if this be not enough to infer contrariety in Religion, several Counsels have contradicted each other.  
Answ. 1. Not every difference, but a difference in point of Faith makes division and contrariety in Religion: The Dominicans and Jesuits only quarrel about Opinions; it being not matter of belief that God's Predestination is Physical or Moral, or that the blessed Virgin was conceived in Original sin or grace: These are mere School niceties, and not at all destructive to that Unity which Catholics so much reverence in Religion.  
Reply 1. You deal deceitfully with your followers and us, in making your many divisions to seem few, and your great ones small. Are the differences in the Roman Church only two, viz. about Predetermination, and the Virgin Mary. Whosoever reads Azorius' Morals, but especially Bellarmine's Controversies, shall find scarce one point of divinity wherein there is not difference amongst Papists. Some have numbered 300. different Opinions of Papists out of Bellarmine's Controversies, and those about Points controverted between them and us. Now if the differences between them and us be about Points of Faith as it seems they are, else we could not be accounted Heretical) and not mere Opinions: their is no question but theirs are of the same nature, there being no Opinion of the Church but hath some one or more Papists joining with us in opposing it. 2. You might have done well to have informed us what are Points of Faith, and what Opinions, for these Points you mention seem to be points of Faith. For first, those things that constitute a point of Faith with you agree to them? As first its authority from the Word of God which you branch into Scriptrre and Tradition. Hence it was that some Jesuits of Ratisbone asserted it to be an Article of Faith; That Toby's dog wagged his tail: and yourself say, page 65. All points of Faith being equally founded on God's Revelation are fundamental and substantial; which Revelation is by the Word or Tradition. Now I conceive you will at least urge Tradition for God's Predetermination and the Virgins impeccable or sinless Conception. 2. The determination of your Church in some Council or by some Pope. 
Extrao. Commun l. 3. tit. 12. c. 2. apud Azor. part 2. lib. 1. c. 21. & Been Tom. 4. p. 743.  Now it's most evident that Sixtus the Fourth, did decree them Heretics, who affirmed the Virgin Mary to be conceived in sin, 
Concil. Trin. sess. 5. Concil. Basil. sess. 36. apud Bin.  though I deny not but he also disallowed the preaching of her purity: because of the too great zeal in the Preachers of it. Upon this decree of Sixtus The Council of Trent (having declared the universality of Original sin in regard of persons) doth make a formal exception of the Virgin Mary: But before either that Pope or Council, The Council of Basil is most clear for it, decreeing it to be A pious Doctrine and agreeable to Ecclesiastical worship, the Catholic Faith, right reason, and the Holy Scriptures, and that it shall not be lawful for any one to preach or teach any thing contrary to it, nor is the other point of lesser concernment than this. 2. Those that hold the opinions of the Dominicans are by you counted Heretics: for the former opinion they are judged to make God the Author of sin with Florinus, or being a force upon the will with Origen; for these are the inferences you raise from our Doctrine of Predetermination: nor are you more charitable to us in regard of the other opinion of the Virgin's Conception. See the above mentioned Constitutions of Sixtus the Fourth, where he brands the Dominicans with Heresy: now Heresy is a rejection not of a mere opinion, but of a point of Faith. 3. If they be only School niceties, why do your Priests so much instill at least the latter of them into simple people's ears as a matter of Faith? why do they enjoin the observation of an holy day for her immaculate Conception? Why do they endanger Christ's honour by making his mother equal with him in impeccability, and that by a School nicety, which if such, might be well rejected?  
Secondly, you Answer, [It is as untrue, that general and approved Counsels have contradicted one another in matters of Faith, or ecumenical Decrees: they have indeed talked and discoursed contrary, yea later Counsels have altered and changed Laws and Constitutions of Government made and established by former, but this only proves that Counsels admit a liberty and freedom to debate matters of Religion, and that what was once good and convenient may prove afterwards (circumstances varying) bad and inconvenient, which no way prejudiceth belief.]  
Reply 1. You speak something fearfully as if you were afraid to lie, yet would not prejudice your Church by acknowledging the truth. You say, They have talked and discoursed contrary, and that because They hav● freedom to debate matters of Religion, yet they do not contradict one another in matters of Faith. Here is strange stuff, yet may well serve a credulous Papist. But tell me if the determinations of former Counsels be unalterable as to Religion, as it must be if they be infallible: How come later Counsels to have a liberty to debate those matters which have formerly been determined or to discourse and talk contrary to them? Is it because former Decrees are obscure, or later Counsels ignorant? or that these later Counsels meet one●y to see who is the best disputant amongst them. Nay rather according to truth, is it not in order to the disquisition of truth, and to a Decree contrary to former Decrees, if they be found faulty, this seems granted by a Council, which saith, That the Church doth propound divers, 
Concil. Senen. apud Bin. To. 4. part 2. pag. 150.  and sometimes contrary decrees. It cannot be only in order to ratification of the former decree, for the former Counsels infallibility is sufficient for that. Or if the succeeding Counsels ratification were useful, it ought to be given without talking, and discoursing contrary, merely upon the former debate and establishment. So then their talk is either vain jangling to no purpose, or it tends to alteration, and amendment of that which hath been formerly decreed: according to Augustine's speech (mentioned by you) That often the precedent general Counsels are mended by the following. But you say, They have altered and changed Laws and constitutions of Governments made and established by former: and a little after, Counsels admit a liberty to debate matters of religion, and that what was once go●d and convenient may prove afterwards circumstances varying, bad and inconvenient.  
Reply 1. If by Constitutions of Government you understand Government itself, this will not agree with what you said against Calvin, That Christians generally maintained and professed that the Government of the Church was unalterable by any mortal. But if you mean only such rules as concern the Execution of Government, I say the alterations made by Counsels, have not been only of these, nor does Augustin intent such things, as will appear to any that considers the place you cite for it, a Book of his against the Donatists, in which his main drift is to prove against them that Baptism was but to be administered once. Now whereas the Donatists objected that Cyprian and the Bishops of afric, in a Council did determine the lawfulness of rebaptisation. Augustine answers, That the Scriptures cannot be doubted of, but the writings of Bishops may be reprehended by others more prudent, yea Provincial Counsels must give way to General, and the former general Counsels themselves may be amended by the latter. 2. It's most evident that the Alterations of succeeding Counsels have been about matters of faith. I suppose these are matters of faith. 1. The Pope's Supremacy, his universal Headship and Lordship over other Patriarcks and Counsels. Bellarmine calls this one main pillar of Catholic Religion, and one of the chief Heads of your faith, for this you urge Counsels: yet there are many Counsels contradict this, as Concil. Carthag. 3. Can. 26. Concil. Nic. 1. Can. 6. Concil. Constantin. 3. Can. 36. & Concil. Basil. Sess. 2. Where it is decreed that the Pope ought to be obedient to the Council, which decree hath been freely embraced and maintained by the French Papists against the Trentists. 2. Communion under one kind is decreed by your latest Counsels: yet Cassander tells us that Communion in both kinds was by our Lord's institution Apostolical tradition, public and perpetual custom of all times, and further was confirmed by the Decrees of Popes and Counsels. 3. Worship of Images is established by later Counsels, yet the Council of Eliberis, Can. 36 and the seventh General Council of Constantinople did fully decree against them. Three points of religion are always good and convenient, and cannot become bad and inconvenient by any circumstances, as you suggest. To say fundamentals cannot become bad, but accidentals may, were to set up that which you have been endeavouring to throw down, pag. 64. viz. the distinction of Fundamentals and Accidentals: all points being with you equally fundamental, and substantial. But granting that matters of religion may be altered so as the contrary to that was formerly taught and believed, may now, nay must be approved, this must necessarily make contrariety & division, and this will take of the objected slander.   

6. Objection.  
THe sixth Objection is, The Roman Church is injurious to Christ's merits approving of humane merits.  
Ans. Reason and experience show a diversity of Agents; that as some are necessitated, as beasts, othersome are free, as men, and therefore capable of merit and demerit, whereby they are differenced from beasts, which are uncapable of either; the assertion of humane merits is no other wrong to Christ, than the affirming of a plain and clear truth can be wrong to him.  
Reply 1. The Objection doth not speak of merits in general, or in order to temporal rewards from men, and therefore your answer thus far, (and the body of it reacheth little or no further) is to no purpose. But 2. It's questionable whether a creatures capacity of merit or demerit do absolutely depend upon freedom of will. Seneca saith that the service of cruel Elephants is merited by their meat. Certainly according to the use of the words with ancient writers it may agree to beasts, & from them you fetch your prooffs for it. Aquinas (though he denies them to have freedom of will) affirms that they act quodam judicio, by a kind of judgement. By this judgement they know what we would have them do, & do it; & thereby may, for any thing appears to the contrary, deserve some thing proportionable to their work. And although, as you say, they are necessitated, yet this necessity is not without a kind of judgement, whereby a beast doth act sometimes rather willingly then by coaction. 3. Though you sometimes ascribe the power of meriting to Grace, yet it appears that the main ground is , which is here laid at lest as a foundation of your answer, so that the grace of God doth but come in the second place, and herein you are not alone, but have other Papists joining with you. But I come to examine your answers to the Objections you make for us.  
Obj. 1. It will (say you) be opposed, men are capable of merit and demerit in order to temporal, but not to Eternal rewards.  
Reply. As God hath enabled men to deserve temporal, so eternal rewards.  
Ans. 1. If you speak of rewards as proceeding from God, man can never truly deserve eternal, nor so much as temporal rewards, though one man may deserve these at the hands of another. 2. It will not follow that Because men can merit temporal rewards at the hands of men, therefore they may merit eternal rewards from God. For 1. Humane rewards are finite, and may be proportioned by our work; and where there is proportion there may be merit. But because there is no proportion between our works and an eternal reward; there can be no merit. Therefore the Apostle doth very well express the immeritoriousness of that which is the top of Christian works, viz. Martyrdom Rom. 8.18. 
Dionys. Carthus. in Rom. 8.18. and Gloss. Ordin.  The sufferings of this present life are not worthy, or meritorious, etc. Non sunt digni ad vitam Eternam promerendam. The reason whereof is rendered by Theodoret. 
Theod. & Haymo, apud Lyran.  Superant certamina coronae, The Crowns surpass the conflicts, the rewards are not proportioned to the labours; for the labour is little, but the gain hoped for is great; and therefore the Apostle doth not call those things we expect Wages, but Glory. So Haymo, Si quilibet hominum, etc. If any man could fulfil all the Commandments of the old and new Testament, and could undergo all kinds of torments— he should by no means be worthy of the future glory of the Elect. Why? because those are temporal, this is eternal, Job 35.7. 1 Cor. 4.7. 2. Man may be profited by us, and may have that from us which is none of his, but this cannot be said of God: He is not profited by our righteousness, nor can he receive any thing from us but what is his own. But how ●ay it be proved that God hath enabled men to deserve eternal rewards? You answer— It is apparent in Scripture learning, Heaven a Crown of Justice, a Reward, a Goal, 2 Tim. 4. Matth. 5 1 Cor. 9 which necessarily impose merits, as their Correlatives, bare actions void of desert, being looked on only as by way of gifts.  
Reply 1. Your Argument is divers ways peccant. For 1. Your consequence is not good, Heaven is called a Crown of Justice, a Reward, a Goal, therefore God hath enabled men to merit Eternal rewards Heaven may be so called with relation to Christ's merits, not ours. Primasius calls it a Crown of Righteousness, with relation to the righteousness of justification which is in Christ: yea further, it may be so called without any necessary supposal of merit A Crown of justice is no more but a crown coming to us in a righteous and just manner, and thus it may come without our merits: As mercy makes us Kings, so it gives us Crowns: And what rational man can doubt but that rewards may be free? Lyranus brings in chrysostom thus commenting upon the Text in Timothy, Si fides gratia est, etc. If Faith be Grace, and Eternal life the reward of Faith, it may seem that God gives Eternal life to the believer as a due debtowing to him; not because he hath merited it by faith, but because faith is grace, and life eternal is grace, he gives it there of grace. Heaven as it refers to Christ's actions and passions is a truly merited reward, an effect flowing from its proper cause; but as it refers to ours, its only as an end relating to its means wherein it's attained, or as an improper effect of that which hath only a negative causality, or is Causa sine qua non. And this is no more than what Cassander observes. 
Cassand. Hymn. Eccles. p. 262, 263  The more searching and religious Schoolmen, to say, conformably to that of Bernard. 
Bernard. & Durand. ap. Cass. ep. 19 p. 110.  That those things which we call merits are the way to the Kingdom, but not the cause of Reigning. Yea further he expressly saith, That men's merits are not such as that life eternal is of justice due unto them, or that God should wrong men if he gave it not. And Durand affirms that God is not our debtor nor obliged of justice to us, because of our good habits or acts which he hath given us; and that to thinks or say the contrary, is rashness and blasphemy. Yet this is the faith and doctrine of the generality of Papists, and vehemently asserted by the Rhemists in these words: It is most clear to all not blinded with pride and contention that good works be meritorious, and the very cause of Salvation, so far that God should be unjust if he rendered not Heaven for the same, Rhem. on Heb. 6.10. But they have their sentence from Durand, to which I leave them. 2. The Confirmation of your Argument is most evidently false, viz. that bare Actions void of desert be looked only as by way of gifts: For actions may be looked on without any meritoriousness, yet be no free gifts, but due debts or duties: such are the actions of God's children; filial duties they own to God their Father, as you grant in the next Section. Now these they are bound to perform, though there were no Heaven to reward them, or Hell to punish them.  
2. You reply to the Objections, It were indeed no less than blasphemy to go about to equal in worth other merits with Christ; but the Roman Church offereth not any such thing, whilst she believeth Christ's merits to be of infinite value, others only of finite: Christ's merits to have their desert and worth from no other; others to hold dependence f●r b th' of them.  
Ans. 1. Supposing that inequality you speak of be truly asserted. It's blaspemy still to make God a debtor to man, and to assert that God is bound to give us Heaven, and were unjust if he did not. It's the taking upon you that power which belongs solely to Christ in every degree of it that makes you blasphemers, you acknowledge that Christ is the only Mediator of reconciliation. Now I durst appeal to rational men whether it would not be blasphemy for a man to say he were a Mediator of reconciliation, and a Redeemer of himself from the Curse, though withal he should say, he did not equal in worth his own price with Christ's, but did believe that Christ's price was of infinite value, his but of finite, Christ had its desert from no other, but his had dependence on Christ. It is the undertaking to be a purchaser with money and price, when God calls us to buy without money and without price, Isai. 55.1. If Simon Magus will think to buy the gift of God with money, the Apostle may presage the ruin of him, and may conclude that he is in the gall of bitterness, and bond of iniquity, Acts 8.19, 20. The new Covenant is a Covenant of grace, the benefits of it depend not on man's merits, but God's free grace, which according to the Apostle is exclusive of merits. If by grace, than it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace, etc. Rom. 8.4.11.6. Ferus 
Ferus in Cap. 20. Mat. ver. 1.  therefore gives a good direction, Quod si aliquando, etc. If at any time thou hearest a promise of reward, how that it is no otherwise due but by divine promise: God hath freely promised, & he freely gives; if therefore thou wouldst preserve the grace and favour of God, make no mention of thy merits. To deny the glory of our salvation to God's grace, and to give it to our works, is indeed to give that to ourselves which is due to God, and is nothing less than blaspheming against God.  
2. Popish merits are very little lower than Christ's, nay in many particulars they are made equal to them. see little more can be ascribed to Christ's merits, than the Rhemists give to man's in their notes on 2 Tim. 4.8. This place (say they) convinceth for the Catholics, that all good works done by God's grace after the first justification be truly and properly meritorious, and fully worthy of everlasting life: and that thereupon heaven is the due and just stipend, crown or recompense, which God by his Justice oweth to the persons so working by his grace: for he rendereth and repayeth Heaven as a just Judge, and not only as a merciful giver, and the Crown which he payeth is not only of mercy, or favour or grace, but also of Justice. What can be said more for the value of Christ's merits than this, that they are truly and properly meritorious, and fully worthy of everlasting life. What is it more to be of an infinite value? And whereas you further say that man's merits have dependence on another for their desert and worth. It's most evident that in the beginning of your answer, you lay the groundwork of merit and demerit upon freewill, as doth also Pererius and Aquinas, 
Perer. in Rom. 6. Aquin. 22 ae. q. 104 Art. 1. ad 3m.  who saith, A work is rendered virtuous, laudable and meritorious, especially, because it proceeds from the will, and therefore although obedience be a debt, yet proceeding from a ready will 'tis meritorious.  
Thirdly, you reply, Rather the Roman Church by asserting other merits, and withal acknowledging their desert and worth to flow from Christ's merits, attributed more to Christ's merits than they do who deny other merits: for hereby are yielded to Christ's actions a capacity of meriting themselves, and a communicability of the same to to other actions, which are two perfections; and to acknowledge two perfections in a thing is undoubtedly to give more to that thing, than to acknowledge only one.  
Answ. 1. It's falls that they attribute more to Christ who acknowledge man's merits though they affirm them to flow from Christ's; it's a greater glory oftentimes to be a solitary than a joint agent. God's glory was greater for that he created the world by himself, than if Angels had joined with him in it, though in their actings they must have had the Divine influence and concurrence. Christ's glory was greater in being the only Redeemer than if men and Angels had concurred to the work; therefore Christ glories in these words, I have trodden the winepress alone, and of the people there was none with me;— Mine own arms brought salvation! Isai. 63.5. Solus Samson, etc. Samson alone having lost his hair, is exposed to the Philistims, neither Angel, nor Archangel, nor any heavenly Spirit, nor any man, either Jew or Gentile, He alone fights, he alone overcomes, Jerom. apud Lyr. Nor secondly, is it any truer that these are two perfections in Christ: for those are not a subject's perfections which cannot truly be attributed to that subject. It's not an attributing of two perfections to God to say, that he and Angels through his assistance made the world, or a giving of two perfections to Christ, to say that he redeemed not only men, but Devils, though the Patrons of the Devil's redemption might have urged it as well as you do communicability of merits: they may plead that the larger the redemption is, the greater is the glory of the Redeemer, and that therefore they attribute more to Christ than others, who say he only redeemed mankind. We must not build upon our own imaginations and fancies. First prove that Christ hath communicated meritoriousness to men's actions, and that this is one of his real perfections, and then we shall conclude, that to acknowledge two perfections to Christ is to give more than to acknowledge one only. In the interim, this may dissuade us from believing you, because Christ hath fully merited whatsoever is obtainable by a Christian, either here or hereafter. He hath purchased eternal redemption for us; what need then of our purchasing that which is already fully paid for? I will conclude with the speech of learned Rivet; Meritum est personalis actio, etc. i. e. Merit is the personal action of the Son of God incommunicable to any of his members in regard of meriting, which consists in the infinite virtue of the person meriting, answerable to the excellent weight of glory. Whereas therefore no simple creature is capable of this infinite virtue: it will follow that Christ alone, is the singular solitary and immediate cause of merit, who hath therefore fully satisfied and merited whatsoever is necessary to us for salvation, [Rivet. sum contra. tract. 4. 9 17. Sect. 6.]  
Object. 2. It will be opposed, all Actions besides Christ's are duties, and duties are inconsistent with merit.  
Reply, They are so without Covenant and acceptance; so is obedience in a child, a servant, a subject due to his Father, his Master, his Prince: Nevertheless, as a Father, a Master, a Prince, making a compact to gratify some particular act of his Child, his Servant, his Subject innobles the same, and entitles it to what was promised; even so by the means of God's Covenant, (1 Tim. 4. Rom. 26. Hebr. 6.) That he will reward certain actions of men (though otherwise due) and accept the same as worthy, they become meritorious, and their reward due upon this account.  
Answ. 1. It's Good sport to see what tuging there is amongst Papists about the ground of our actions meritoriousnes, or whence it proceeds, whether from  as Aquinas, 
Aquin. supr. Dionys. in Rom. 8.18.  or from the Spirit the Fountain of good Actions, as Dionysius, Carthusiensis, or from the habit of Charity, as Azorius and Cajetan, or from Divine Covenant, as Scotus and some ancient Schoolmen, or from the work itself, as Soto: Or lastly, from the work itself together with the Divine compact, as Bellarmine. 
Bellarm. de Justif. c. 5. lib. 17.  This Author, though first he mentioned , yet he comes off to Covenant or compact, 
Concil. Senon. decret. 16. de fide apud Bennium.  and seems to lay all upon this, and hereby as Vasquez acknowledgeth overthrows merit and condignity, which he hath been pleading for, and indeed upon this account one of their Counsels doth deny Condignity in these words— Facietque tandem omnis misericordia, etc. At length mercy shall make way for every one according to the merit of their works, not by absolute condignity, (for the sufferings of this life are not condign to future glory) but rather by the free and liberal promise of God, etc. Now if the promise of God be the foundation of our receiving Heaven, and this promise be free, then how can it be that because of this promise our works should be meritorious, But leaving these boasters of unity to their hot disputes.  
I answer, secondly, God's Covenant doth not make our Actions cease to be duties, for than it should nullify the Law of God which doth enjoin acts of obedience, as duties. But we must not set God's Covenant and his Law at variance, as if contrary one to the other. The truth is, God's free Covenant wherein for the sake of Jesus Christ he promiseth to believers salvation, is an exciter of us unto obedience, causing us to yield more freely and willingly than otherwise we should: this is the Tenor of the Gospel, Luke 1, 68 etc. Tit. 2, 11. etc. Here is first the purchase of Redemption, salvation, deliverance from the power of Satan; and hereby an Obligation to duty. A father promiseth a child that he will make to him such lands freely, this promise doth excite the child to do for his father what he commands him, and to study in all things to please him, whose love to him he is sensible of by the promise. This the Apostle shows, when he saith, We lov● him because he loved us first, Exod. 20. And indeed the moral Law runs thus, I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, therefore thou shalt have none other gods before me. Thus God said to Abraham, I am the Almighty God, walk before me and be thou perfect.  
But because it may be thought that obedience is meritorious because God promiseth life upon it: I further answer, this will not follow. For first, Obedience, such as the Law requires is not attainable by us since the fall: and therefore the promise may refer to our obedience in the person of Christ, whose obedience becomes ours whilst we apply ourselves to him by Faith. Or secondly, if it refer to our personal obedience, it doth respect our obedience only as a disposition wrought by him in the Subject, upon whom he will bestow life, not as a proper cause of life. As if a father should say, If his child please him, be hopeful and take good ways, he will give him the inheritance: this promise doth not suppose that the child's pleasing of his father, or being hopeful, and taking good ways is the proper cause of his receiving the inheritance, but it's his father's good will that gives it him thus disposed and qualified: thus it was with the Israelites; God promiseth them Canaan, only requires that they should perform their duty to him as their God and Father. Now should any one say, that this promise made their obedience meritorious of Canaan, the Scripture would contradict him, which expressly saith, Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these Nations, the Lord thy God doth drive them out before thee, and that he may perform the word which the Lord swore unto thy Fathers, etc. Deut. 9.5.  
Thirdly, God doth no where promise to accept of men's works as worthy of heaven, or to give them a reward, because their works are worthy or condignly meritorious; or as your Rhemists speak Fully worthy of everlasting life. For if this were so, there would be no room for grace, for that which is fully worthy of somewhat hath an equality with the thing which is therefore due to it, whether there be promise or no.  
The Texts you urge prove, that God will give heaven to men in the way of godliness, patiented continuance in well doing, etc. But they cannot prove that godliness or well doing are the proper cause of our enjoying heaven, (the reward being hundred fold more than what we do) your instances are short of proof for it; for if that Act required of a servant or subject be a part of that obedience which is owing to a Master or Prince, and for it the Master or Prince is pleased to promise a great reward with which the work bears no proportion; this act cannot be said to be condignly meritorious of that reward, no not by the promise; but the Master or Prince is willing to bestow something on him, and takes this occasion for it, or gives it him in this way.  
You conclude with saying, Saint Paul deemed it no presumption, to challenge at the hands of God a Crown of Justice for his good fight, well running, and constant keeping of the Faith, 2. Tim. 4.  
Answ. 1. Supposing this true, sure you will not make it a pattern for Catholics, to whom you deny S. Paul's knowledge of their estates and good works.  
2. It's false that S. Paul doth challenge at God's hands a Crown of Justice For his good fight, if your For be Propter, i, e. notes a proper efficient cause. This excellent Preacher of Freegrace and salvation thereby unto others, will not preach merits to himself, and that at the point of death, when the soul lays hold upon that which is the surest stay; and this according to Bellarmine is the alone mercy of God.   

7. Objection.  
THe seventh Objection is, The Roman Church giveth the Communion under one kind contrary to Christ's institution.  
Answ. There is a great deal of difference betwixt Christ's Institutions and his Commandments; ●hese requiring both belief and observance, those only belief.  
Reply 1. What may be the foundation of your distinction betwixt Institutions and Commandments I understand not. Institutions so far as I am acquainted either with the signification of the word, or its use, are precepts whereby men are instructed and taught what is their duty, and thus they require both belief and observance. When Justinian wrote books of Institutions, I suppose he did not intent points for faith only or principally, but rules of practice, yet he titles his Book Institutiones Juris, being ignorant sure of your invented distinction. When the Council of Constance tells us of Christ's Institution and Administration of the Sacrament under both kinds; Pray Sir, what do they mean by Institution as distinct from Administration? If it be no more than Example as you express even now, than those worthy Synodists tautologize in mentioning Administration and Institution both: Christ's Administration being the example or pattern of our Administration.  
2. Supposing Institution to be no more but example, yet it will thus require more than belief, even observance; as Cyprian shows when he saith, Si qu●s de Antecessoribus nostris, etc. If any of our Predecessors, either ignorantly or simply, hath not observed and held this which the Lord by his example and authority hath taught us to do, his simplicity might be pardoned, etc. Christ by his example doth teach us to believe His Action is our Instruction; Augustine therefore observes that examples in Scripture (not sinful, or of extraordinary and personal actions) serve for exposition of precepts, yea and contain precepts virtually in them; nor is this any more than what rational men on both sides acknowledge, that, that which hath been inviolably observed from the beginning of the Church, must be supposed to be a divine precept. Now the Council of Constance acknowledgeth our Saviors Administration of the Sacrament in both kinds, & the primitive Christians receiving it according to his Administration, what reason then have we to doubt of divine precept?  
2. You further say, Although Christ's actions be good examples for us to imitate, yet as such, they impose not obligation upon imitation. Christ fasted forty days and as many nights, went into the desert to be tempted, forbore marriage, etc. are all bound to do the like? none will say it.  
Reply 1. If Christ's actions be examples for us to imitate, yea good examples, then are we obliged to imitate them: the reason is clear, because the goodness of them as to our imitation, doth arise from their conformity to the divine and Royal Law whereunto we are absolutely bound: Nay further, we are obliged by them as such to imitation. The Holiness, Mercy, and Love of Christ are often urged as obliging us to those acts of holiness, mercy, and love, Luke 3.36. John 13.15. 1 Pet. 1.15. God's holiness as therein he is an example to us doth oblige us to be holy; yea the very examples of the Saints command our imitation, there is a general precept pressing this. Finally Brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, i● there be any ver●ue, and if there be any raise, think on these things. And it follows, Those things which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me do, etc. Philip. 3.11.4.8, 9  
2. The Actions of Christ which you mention concern not this place; for you spoke of such Actions of Christ as you said were good examples for us to imitate, but these actions are not of that nature. None ever said that all Christ's actions are examples, or command imitation: Some Actions of his belong to him as Mediator, and are so Christ's, that they are incommunicable to others, of this nature is his paying a price to justice, reconciling the world, subservient whereunto was his fasting forty days, and his temptation in the desert; his forbearing of marriage may thus far oblige, that if God bestow on us the gift of forbearance, we do forbear, that thereby we may more undistractedly go about the service of God we are employed about. But now for this Action of administering the Sacrament, it was not his personal action, he did it as a Minister, and the Apostles his Ministers according to his example did so administer it, as he had done before them.  
3. A Doctor, now yours, 
Dr. Bane, lost sheep, c. 22.  having apostatised from the truth once received and professed by him, gives us two requisits to make an institution obligatory, both of them fetched from Jesuit Fishers Answer to King James his questions. 1. That the end of the institution be necessary, and that it be necessary for every particular person to endeavour the attaining thereof. 2. That if every particular person be bound to endeavour to attain the end of an institution, that also the w●ole thing instituted be necessary for the attaining of that end. According to these rules, (supposing them true) the institution of the Supper under both kinds is obligatory. For 1. The end of its institution is that they that partake, of it may remember, and show forth the death of Christ, as is evident both by the Evangelists, and Apostles. Now this and is necessary, being both expressly commanded. and also being a special means for strengthening our faith. Yea further, It's necessary for every particular Christian to endeavour the attaining hereof. The Apostle Paul writes to the Saints and private Christians in Corinth, and in them to all Christians, and gives this precept, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread; and drink of that cup, 1 Cor. 11.28. And he further tells them, That as oft as they did so, they did show forth the Lords death: that is, they did according to their duty attain to the end of the Sacrament. 2. The whole or both kinds are necessary for the obtaining of that end; because, 1. Otherwise the passion of Christ is represented. Aquinas 
Aquin. 3. q. 76. Art. 2. ad 1 m.  saith of the whole, Valet ad representandam, etc. It avails for the representation of the passion of Christ in which the blood was separated, and apart from the body; therefore in the form of consecration of the blood, there is mention of its effusion. It's a great mistake of Papists that they look at Christ in the Sacrament, not as suffering and shedding his blood, but under another consideration, whereas the end of the Sacrament is to show forth the Lords death. 2. Because otherwise whole Christ should not be received, but his body only without his blood, and consequently should have imperfect instead of perfect nourishment. It's granted by Popish Schoolmen, that although whole Christ be under the form of bread, and whole Christ under the form of wine; 
Aquin. Supr.  yet Ex vi Sacramenti, etc. i. e. by the power of the Sacrament the body of Christ only is under the species of bread, and his blood only under the species of wine. Petrus de Palude is full in this, saith he, There aught to be a twofold matter of this Sacrament, viz. the matter of meat and drink, because the effect of the Sacrament ought to be representd perfectly and in a manner agreeable to nature; because Sacraments work that which they figure: but the effect of this Sacrament is the perfect nourishment of the soul, therefore the matter representing aught to be by perfect refection of the body, which is not but by meat and drink. See more to this purpose in Cassand. de Sacr. Com. sulutraque specie, p. 1034. etc. 4. The primitive Christians, yea and all succeeding Christians for above a thousand years after Christ, did practise according to Christ's institution and example. The first that rejected the Cup were the Manichees against whom Pope Gelasius made a Decree that they should either communicate in both kinds, or in neither: yea Christ's institution was the ground of the first Christian's practice, as Cassander shows, and with him Bonaventure, 
Cass. de Sacr. Com. etc. p. 1019, 1020, 1021. Bon. apud Cass. ibid.  who saith the reason of both kinds is dispositively from nature, but completively from divine institution, which hath ordained these two signs to signify one perfect refection. The Eastern Churches have both kinds to this day, and that upon this ground. Sure then these Christians did more reverence Christ's institution, than the Pope's followers do, and looked upon it not as a bare example that may be rejected, but as a divine precept whereby thy conceived themselves obliged to duty.  
3. You say, Wher●fore th● Roman Church believing Christ's institution of the Sacrament to have been under both kinds, giveth to it its full due.  
Reply 1. I wonder that you who are sometimes so generous as that you will give, God more than you own him, or otherwhile so strict with him that he shall not have a mite more than his due. But 2. How can you say you give the Sacrament its full due when you take away one of those signs which Christ hath ordained to be used in it? I believe, if you took away the bread, and gave the people only the cup (which crochet may come into the head of some Pope for any thing I know) you would say you gave Christ's institution its full due; but if you give it its full due when you leave only one kind, what do you think they did who used both, did they supererogate, or were they superstitious? Surely either you give too little, or they too much to Christ's institution. 3. How silly is it to say, You believe Christ did institute it under both kinds? the Devils believe it, so many Turks, Pagans, Jews, yet give not Christ's institution its full due. They look upon Christ's actions, as of a private man eating and drinking with his Disciples, but no way obligatory to them or others, and you give it no more. Lastly I appeal to any rational man, whether Christ's institution of the Sacrament under both kinds, may not probably require from us a conformity of practice, withal considering the practice of the Church of God in her purest times, and the good, or no apparent prejudice that can come to us by it. It's evident that an Antichristian Spirit in Rome puts her on to thwart Christ's institutions; that so she may set up her own inventions. Christ instituted Baptism in one only Element of water, and as if that were defective, the Roman Church hath added salt, spi●●le, etc. He institutes his Supper in two Elements of bread and wine: and as if these were too many, she restrains the people to the use of one only. So that probably had Christ instituted bread only, you would have added the cup, that the institution might have something of your Lord God's the Pope.  
4. You say, For the Communion under one kind, there being no Commandment forbidding the same, it is rashness in an high degree, and want of charity to condemn her as sacriledgious for so doing.  
Reply 1. Whether it be rashness in us to condemn Rome of Sacrilege, or in Rome to deprive Christian people of the Cup, let any judge who doth but consider the fathers of this sacrilege, the Manichees, & the rise of it, Non ex constitutione aliqua, 
Cassand. supr. p. 1035.  etc. Not by any constitution in any approved Primitive Council, but only by custom, which is oft times the patron, of much wickedness. 2. If it be rashness to condemn Rome as sacrilegious etc. one of your Popes was guilty of this high degree of rashness with us, who expressly decrees that this division of one and the same mystery could not he made Sine grandi Sacrilegio, without heinous Sacrilege. 3. It is no rashness to condemn her of sacrilege; for the Cup is an holy thing having divine Institution, Apostolical and primitive Administration. It must therefore needs follow that the taking away of this can be no less than Sacrilege, 
Aquin. 22 ae. q. 99 Art. 3.  nay according to Aquinas its the highest kind of Sacrilege. But it's strange to see what little ●●gard divine Institution, or Apostolical practice hath with Papals ● though sometimes they accuse us of novelty, and cry up themselves as the only followers of divine Institutions, Apostolical traditions, and primitive practice, we must be branded with heresy for disceding from them; yet here they are in another strain, and because we use the Cup according to Christ's Institution, and primitive practice, we are still heretics, and cursed to hell by the Tridentine Conventicle. To say there is no express command for the Cup, therefore it cannot be sacrilege to take it away, is false; for it may be sacrilege to take away an holy thing, though there be no express command for the thing. You say there is no command for the people to use the Cup. Now if this be so, I am confident you cannot show me an express command for the people's eating the bread, which you seem to grant, in saying, that in the primitive times, the people sometimes received the cup, not the bread, which they durst not have done, if there had been an express command for receiving the bread. Now I pray resolve us whether it would be sacrilege to take away from the people both bread and wine. If it be not sacrilegious, than it is evident your people stand at the Pope's mercy for their partaking at all of the Sacrament, and for any thing I see he may take it quite from them. If it be sacrilegious, then it's as evident, that sacrilege depends not absolutely on a particular command, and that its truly sacrilegious to take away the cup from them. 4. There is a Command for both, Let a man examine himselfelf, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, 1 Cor. 11.28. v. 25. from whence Dionysius Carthusiensis infers, that in the Primitive Church the Sacrament was administered under both kinds. This do ye as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me: i. e. as Dionysius expounds it, take this cup and drink of it: So 'tis said, He took the Cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it— And they all drank of it. Mat. 26.27.  
You answer, These words indeed, Do th●s in commemoration of me, Drink ye all of this, imply a Commandment, but concerning only Priests, to whom as the pour of making, so the Obligation of taking under both kinds is peculiar and proper— The Reason is, because hereby (as the words clearly bear) he chief a●mes at a remembrance of his death and passion, which including a separation of his soul from his body, and of his blood from his flesh, cannot be so lively and so fully represented under one kind.  
Reply 1. Do the words only imply a command? are they not as express and full a command as can be? 2. How may it appear that it concerns only Priests, that the Obligation of taking under both kinds is peculiar and proper to them? there are divers reasons to the contrary.  
1. If it concerned only Priests, than the people could not be able to produce any precept of Christ for their receiving at all, because with this is joined the command of eating the bread, and to these all precepts of this nature are reducible.  
2. Christ (you say) in the words doth chief aim at a remembrance of his death and passion, which cannot be so lively and so fully represented under one kind. But the people are able to remember Christ's death and passion as well as the Priests, yea and are as much obliged thereto in regard of their particular interest in the benefits of Christ represented in the Sacrament, and particularly by the Cup. Which benefits are the ground of our receiving of this Element, as appears by the Evangelist, Drink ye all of this: for this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sin. [Supr.] It cannot be denied but the reason of this Precept doth as much concern the people as the Priests; the precept therefore must also concern them.  
3. There were no Priests present with Christ at his Institution; for according to Papals none were present but the twelve Apostles. Now they were not Massing Priests; for first its the common opinion amongst you, that the order of Priesthood was not actually conferred till after Christ's resurrection when he sent them, and breathed on them. Joh. 20. He could not therefore give a command to Priests, when there were no Priests with him. 2. The twelve Apostles according to the Popish Schoolmen and others, did represent Bishops, not ordinary Priests, who (as Aquinas several times affirms) were the successors of the seventy Disciples. 4. If none were with Christ but the twelve (which is questionable) it is most evident that they did represent believers, and that the command concerned them. Cassander shows this out of divers ancient Authors, viz. Paschasius, Rathertus, chrysostom, Theophylactus, Cyprian, Origen and Augustine, [Cass. de sacr. Com. sub utraque spec. p. 1019.] And certainly, if it were not thus, the Apostle did in vain urge the Institution and Precept of Christ to the Saints or private Christians in Corinth, and that in order to their practice, they might have told him that it concerned himself and such as he, but not them. You bolster up yourselves much by your word Make, [to whom as the power of making, etc.] hereby endeavouring to persuade us that Christ speaks to sacrificers about sacrificing, & hereby shut out the people from the cup. But without any reason, for if it could prove any thing, it should seem rather to appropriate the use of the bread to the Priests, than the Cup, seeing they have Christened it an incruent sacrifice; the wine after consecration being real and true blood. But I wonder, seeing our critical adversaries are so full of this word, that the hot headed Rhemists did not translate it— Make this, if it were for nothing but to oppose the Heretical Calvinisti, that render the Greek Do this. Sure they were convinced, that this conceit was but worthy of private observation, and therefore creeps in with the note only: but further its observable that S. Matthew and S. Mark say only, Take, eat, This is my body, drink you all of it— He gave it to them, and they all drank of it. S. Luke saith, Do this, not mentioning taking, or eating or drinking of it. S. Paul unites them in one saying, Take, Eat,— This do in remembrance of me. So that to do this is to take and eat the bread, and drink the wine according to Christ's Institution, which doth principally concern the people. And this Dyonisius, Carthusiensis doth propound as probable. And its further observable, that whereas S. Luke only of all the Evangelists doth use the words, Do this; he only useth it with reference to the bread (which belongs (say you) to the people) not to the Cup which is the sacrificers portion.  
The precept which you mention out of S. John [Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, etc.] which you say extends to the Laity, I shall not much build upon, because I conceive it's not spoken of the Sacramental eating and drinking. This only I shall gather from it, that Christ is perfect nourishment, and that as his flesh is meat, so his blood is drink both necessary for our nourishment; and that therefore as we have the Bread in the Sacrament to assure us of nourishment by his Body; so we ought to have the Cup to assure us of an interest in his blood: bread itself being neither naturally, nor Ex Instituto any representation of blood: [Cass. supr.] And certainly from hence divers of the Fathers did conclude, the use of the Cup necessary for the people. See Origen and Augustine, cited by Cassander to this purpose.  
Lastly, you say, For Confirmation look up into the Primitive times, even of the Apostles and Christ, Act. 2.42.46. and you will find by their promiscuous Communion, sometimes under one kind, sometimes under another, and sometimes under both, that they never understood of any Commandment of Communicating under both kinds.  
Reply 1. The Council of Constance acknowledgeth, that as Christ did Institute and Administer it under both kinds, so the Primitive Christians did use it. 2. What reason can be given why in other Sacraments Jewish and Christians the material part should be determined and appointed, and that in this it should be left to the discretion of a Pope. 3. If it was such a matter of indifferency in the Primitive times whether Christians did communicate in either or both kinds, How comes it now to be a matter of necessity, so as Christians may not Communicate under both kinds. But 4. I challenge you to name one ancient and approved Author, who asserts that the Primitive Christians did communicate in wine only, or in bread only, which will be as hard for you to do as for the Artotyritae, to prove that they communicated in bread and cheese. 5. The Text you urge proves not your assertion. For first, there is no mention of their communicating in wine only, which is one part of your assertion.  
2. Breaking of Bread doth not infer their Sacramental receiving of Bread only. It's a noted Hebrew phrase, and is as much as giving or eating of meat of what kind soever, as Lament. 4.4. Isai 58.7. Sanctius upon the Text, you mention saith, Omnis cibus, etc. All kind of meat in Scripture language is called Bread. But beside, how will it be proved to be meant of the Lords Supper. Lyranus understands it of ordinary eating, so do chrysostom and Oecumenius: and why may it not be understood of their Love-feasts, which were means of preserving Charity amongst Christians; or of the distribution of meat out of the common stock for the relief of poor Christians according to the custom of those times related by Sanctius. And thus it very well answers the Hebrew phrase, Isa. 58. where you read of breaking bread to the hungry.  
Lastly, supposing it to be understood of the Lords Supper, it must give way to a Sonecdoche, the Bread being put for both Elements: else the Apostles did either not communicate with them, which is against the Text, or if they did, they were sacrilegious in Communicating in one kind only; there being as you say a Command for them to Communicate in both. 2. Else it was no Sacrament Commemorative of Christ's death, because this cannot be lively and fully set forth under one kind, as yourself have acknowledge. It must therefore either not be meant of the Sacrament, or if it be, Bread must be taken for both Elements, and either of these doth destroy the inferences you raise from the Text. To conclude, Look you into the Primitive times of the Apostles and Christ, and see if you find Communion under one kind an Article of Faith as now it is, and if you find it not, as I am sure you cannot, cease that loud cry of the antiquity of your Faith, wherewith you fill the ears and puzzle the heads of illiterate and credulous persons.    

The Epilogue.  
I have done with the book: The Epilogue only remains shuft up with feigned and flattering words to deceive the simple Reader, containing more Rhetoric than Logic, more of words than reason, and therefore not worthy any particular inquisition and confutation: yet in imitation of it I shall address myself to the Reader by way of advice against the delusiv charms of this Siren: Desiring thee to consider his assertions and my answers to them, and weigh them by Scripture and reason, and what thou findest according to these receive and . I would not with this Author persuade thee to a groundless credulity, that thou shouldest receive a way without trying it, whilst he cries out— It behoves you to effect it with speed; and not stand reasoning h●w this? why the other, replies beget delays, and delays are seldom out of the ill company of danger. 
Epilogue. pag. 124.  Himself delivers better Doctrine, and safer for thee when he tells thee, That Christianity is not against reason, and he is to be reputed silly and light that hasteneth upon a truth, Ecclus 19 however proposed without examination of its credibility and consistence with nature which must be the work of reason, nay more, 
Page 25.  that belief is beholding to reason, even for discerning and finding out her guide the true Church: which sentences I leave this Doctor to reconcile.  
Be not of those silly and light ones. The Apostle bids us prove all things, and hold fast that which is good. That which is suddenly believed, is as easily rejected, as before received. Deliberations are means of setledness. Art thou out of the way of truth, return and live? Angel's will rejoice over thee, though not in expectation of the reparation of their ruins, (as this Author speaks) they being happy, and from the beginning above the verge of a ruinous estate. Seek the way to Zion, peace is within her walls, and prosperity within her palaces. Hast thou received the truth, hold it fast, contend earnestly for it, sell it not. Let not the Images of Babylon, the images of men portrayed upon the walls, portrayed with vermilion, girded with girdles upon their loins, exceeding in died attire upon their heads, etc. allure thee that thou shouldest commit Adultery with them, and that the Babylonians should come into thy bed of love, and defile thee with their whoredoms, and thy mind be alienated from the true Church where the word of God is purely preached, and the Sacraments rightly administered, where is purity without pomp, divine verities without humane traditions, religious worship without superstition. Finally where Christ Jesus is exalted in his Person, Natures, Offices, and the Elect called, edified, comforted, and out of which ordinarily there is no Salvation. These are the Badges of the Reformed Churches in which thou mayest ride safely, till at last thou be set on shore in that Country where thou shalt find an eternal and exceeding weight of glory, (the free reward of thy constancy) prepared for thee, and shalt for ever sing praises to God, and to the Lamb that sits upon the Throne, whom thou hast served.   
FINIS.   

Reader, thou art desired to mend these Erratas with thy Pen; there are some other literal faults escaped, which thou mayest discern in reading, and so receive no prejudice.  
PAge 6. l. 21. r. Christianis, p. 10. l. 12. r. Cuivis, p. 12. l. 1. r. Gospels, p. 14. l. 22. r. you, p. 16. l. 21. fo. 1. r. 5. p. 19 l. 28. r. praelati, p. 31. l. 5. for Church r. Pope. p. 33. l. 26. r. not. p. 52. l. 23. for men r. Pen, p. 59 l. 27. r. Successors, p. 65. l. 4. r. by, p. 70. l. 19 r. Dowaists, p. 76. l. 22. r. as if, p. 81. l. 22. r. mendata, & 24. r. us, p. 92. l. 1. for hope, r. Pope, p. 103. l. 1. r. are, p. 105. l. 30. r. be, p. 122. l. 24. r. its l testimony, p. 130. l. 2. r. i e. p. 133. l. 7. r. 1 trow, p. 153. .27. r. mediation, p. 136. l. 28. r. mediation, 137. l. 18. r. valid, p. 144. l. 12. r. leaning, p. 170. l. 12. r. exorcise, p. 178. l. 10. r. naming, 185. l. 18. r. way, p. 189. l. 2. r. gross carnal presence, p. 215. l. 8. r. private, 217. l. 25. r. Rom. 8.8. by Syricius, p. 221. l. 1. are, p. 222. l. 19 r. Azorius, l. 30. r. Azorius, p. 236. l. 1. r. omit, p. 237. l. 16. r. in them, p. 239. l. 24. r. to yourselves, p. 253. l. 22. r. unaccompanied, p. 259. l. 24. r. seven, p. 275. l. 20. r. individed, p. 286. l. 9 r. he hath, p. 291. l. 1. r. should not, p. 292. l. 1. & 5. r. taste, p. 310. l. 23. r. not without, p. 312. l. 1. r. again, p. 317. l. 15. deal, he, p. 321. l. 2. & 7. r. meanness, p. 329. l. 11. r. she, p. 343. l. 10. r. bring, p. 347. l. 12. for three, r. thirdly, p. 351. l. 2. r. terming, l. 4. r. suppose.