CATHOLIC HISTORY, Collected and gathered out of Scripture, Counsels, Ancient Fathers, and modern Authentic Writers, both Ecclesiastical and Civil; for the satisfaction of such as doubt, and the confirmation of such as believe, the Reformed Church of ENGLAND.  
Occasioned by a Book written by Dr. Thomas Vane, ENTITLED, The Lost sheep returned home.  
By Edward Chisenhale, Esquire.  Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 30. 
Christianus si malus evaserit, pejor fit quam suisset Gentilis.  2 Pet. 2.21. 
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, then after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment given unto them.  
London, Printed by J.C. for Nath-Brooks, at the sign of the Angel in Cornhill. 1653.   

To the Right Reverend, The LEGAL CLERGY OF The Reformed Protestant Church OF ENGLAND.  
The Author Wishes many days of consolation here, and eternal joy in the Holy Ghost.  
THe Israelites lamented after the Lord, when the Ark was removed, and it pitied the children of Zion to see her stones in the dust, and how can any sing a song of the Lord in a strange Land? For my own part, many have been the troubles of my spirit (Right Reverend) for the desolations and miseries that have of late befallen our English Church; and amongst the rest, this has not been, the least affliction of my soul, to see her, like Sennacherib, murdered of her own sons, to see her laid desolate, whilst her enemies cry, There, there, so would we have it.  
When jerusalem was destroyed, she became an habitation unto strangers; and our English Zion being now laid waste, a Babylonish Tower of Rome would fain be built by the Enemy upon our holy Hill.  
But that which most afflicted me, was, to see the sons of our Sion's Tower, being completely furnished out of her spiritual Magazine, and being harnessed, and carrying bows to resist the Darts of Satan, should like the children of Ephraim turn their backs in the day of battle, amongst whom I find Doctor Vane, the Author of a Book entitled, The lost sheep returned home, to be the Ring leader and chief of the Apostate-Tribe; who had no fooner escaped out of our English sheep-fold, but straightway he discovers the Muset thorough which he stole, thinking thereby to decoy the rest of the flock into the Wilderness.  
Now I seeing this injury done unto our English Vineyard, though it was not proper to me to make up the fence did presume to lay these thorns in the breach, whereby I might divert the Flock from straying after novelties, and seeking after strange Pastors, and in the interim blind the Wolves, that they should not discover the breach that is made in our Pale.  
Some I know will condemn me for presuming to treat upon this subject, being a Theme too high for my reach, and too sacred for my calling; and with Socrates will condemn Lysia's Oration, as not being suitable for him that was to pronounce it. If there be any such amongst us, I desire them to take notice, That when the Temple was to be rebuilt, all the people of Israel (without exception) contributed towards the work, Ezra 11.5, 6. The Priests, and Levites, and all the children of Israel, etc. and appointed the Levites to set forward the work, Chap. 3.8. For my part, I do not desire to transgress the bounds of a well-wishing Israelite; I do not with Uzzah think to support the Ark with my own hand, but humbly present to your judicious sense, the sweet smelling flowers which grow in others Gardens; and withal, give your Reverendships a view of the wild Thistles that bear no Figgs; leaving it to your choice to weed out the one, and root up the other, to whom the work more properly belongs. For my part, had I not perceived that the hearts of many of the Romish Faction were hardened through the deceitfulness of that Book, insomuch that many began to triumph over the wounds therein given to our English Church, as if the Protestant Religion were necked in the sparring blows; And had I not been upbraided daily with the clamorous insultings of divers Papists, that our Church wanting grounds of Replies, was the cause of her silence; I had neither given them this occasion to censure me of presumption, or busied myself either for their information, or the Church of England's justification; the one more properly belonging to another's charge, the other needless, in respect the quarrel they have renewed, is but with their own shadow; all that ever they now pretend being heretofore fully answered; the force of Divinity, and weight of Reason, adjudging the Garland to our English Church.  
Nevertheless, those answers being in several pieces, and many not having the several Books, and the Doctor having couched many subject matters in one Volume, I thought it requisite that a Reply were composed in answer to his objections; not the importance of his subject matter, but the ease and convenience of the people to have him answered in one piece, calling upon some to this work.  
And I consulting with myself, and imagining (after so long a time of its not being answered) that the more judicious amongst you might perhaps think it below them to make a reply to that, which had already by others been most fully and plainly refuted, answered) did assume the boldness to recapitulate this ensuing Treatise, which (together with myself) I prostrate at your feet.  
Amphion played ever best, when he heard poor Ithoneus' blow upon his Oaten Pipe; and I could wish these rude Collections of mine might but serve as a Plainsong, whereon your Reverendships might descant.  
I did not intent that these lose pieces thrown into the Gap, should stand for a sufficient Fence for our English Vine-yard; only I was something confident, that they might be serviceable to you, and be made use of in part, as being Materials prepared for your use, wherewith you might firmly repair the Breach which the Doctor has made; which being set by your more Divine hands, might become a growing Rampire against the Wolves and Foxes that would steal into your Vine-yard, to pluck your Grapes, and a standing Bulwark to keep her up, maugre the engines of Hell and Satan.  
I know it is you, to whom the charge of the Plantation is committed, it is you that are the proper Husbandmen, and know best how to fence her clusters; you are the Levites must repair the breaches in our English Tabernacle.  
I beseech you be not offended that I have taken notice of this Gap made in your Fence, but rather let this my boldness find pardon from your goodness, and let this piece be acceptable to you, as coming from one, that in humility and love desires you to have an eye to this breach; and if (when you view the pieces I have thrown into the Gap) you find any that are proper for your Fence, fix it down, and throw the rest by; or if (in your judgements) you think it need no further reparation, yet vouchsafe to confirm it with your holy hand: & sigh this bold action merely proceeded from my earnest affection, and love unfeigned towards my brethren of your household; and to manifest my desire to be folded under your charge, I humbly beg, that you would favourably interpret the the truths, and gently correct the errors of the same; and that against all malicious and injurious encounters of the Enemy, both I and it may find shelter under your wings. In confidence whereof, I remain (upon my knees ask your Fatherly Benediction upon your obedient son in Christ Jesus, and)  
Your Reverendships' most devoted, most humble and faithful Servant  
Edward Chisenhale. From Chisenhale, Febr. 11. 1651.   

Catholic HISTORY.  

CHAP. I. The Jntroduction.  
THe Author of the Book, entitled, A lost Sheep returned home, gins his Book with an INTRODUCTION, which might invite any good Christian to read further, and to fix his Meditations upon the ensuing Discourse, in hopes to meet with excellent matter, suitable to that groundwork which is so fairly laid, to wit, That the means to attain Eternal Life is not otherwise then by Faith, grounded on the Word of God; and not by Discourse founded on the Principles of Reason, nor by Reliance upon Authority humane. And that God revealed all these things to Jesus Christ, and he to his Apostles, Joh. 15.15. to the end that they should deliver them to Mankind, to be received, believed, and obeyed over the whole world, even to the end thereof; bidding them, Mat. 28. Go and teach all Nations; and that they did accordingly teach all Nations, Mark 16.20. And concludes, That the Universal Christian Church was built upon the Apostles, and that nothing is to be believed as matter of Faith besides that which was delivered of them, as S. Paul saith, Eph. 2.20. And are built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief Cornerstone.  
The Doctor (if the Author of that Book) plays the part of a careful builder, to seek out a good Foundation; but they who please to examine his work, will find he proves himself a bungling workman; for he goes on without line or levelly in order to this Foundation, and presently his superstructures find new bottoms: His eyes may be lifted up to the hills, and his purpose might be to have builded upon the Rock; but his mind is presently changed, his Meditations presently become earthly, and his hands are found scratching in the sand: with the Lark he gins to sing and mount up towards Heaven, but his weak quills presently flag; he comes down and builds a nest below upon the Earth.  
In his first leaf he professes the Church built upon the Apostles, and that nothing else is to be believed as matter of Faith, but what was delivered of them; and then presently after he brings in the Traditions of Rome for his ground of all: So that they who please to compare the frontispiece of that work with the inward rooms of the whole building, will find it to be like Julian his picture, which whilst Christians (according to the Roman Law) bowed unto it, they were deluded, he having put false gods in the picture, that they might unwittingly adore those cunningly included Idols. The Frontispiece of that Book invites every Christian Soul to take up its lodging within that Tabernacle, which being further riffled into, it proves a painted Sepulchre. The fairest Apples are not always the soundest at the heart; no more may the ensuing Discourse of that Book be judged by the Introduction: for who pleases to compare that Frontispiece with the matter contained in the following Chapters, must confess, when he meditates upon the Introduction, Here is the chief Cornerstone in Zion, elect and precious; but when, upon the following matter, that there he meets with the crasied pieces of Babylon, the rubbish and trumpery of humane Inventions; here the chief head of the corner, which the Doctor having forsaken, is become a stone of stumbling, a rock of offence: there the rotten principles of man's framing, for want of this Foundation-stone, sink under the vain top ambition has towered upon them.  
The Pharisees made broad their Phylacteries, which S. Jerom, upon Matth. 23. compares to certain women, who carried up and down Parvula Evangelia, thinking by those Spells to be free from danger: and it may be the Doctor thinks the rest of his Book shall escape censure for its Introduction sake, but he must not think to escape by reason thereof; it doth rather increase, then extenuate his condemnation. Seneca witnesseth, that the Heathen reputed it an indignity to the Emperor, that any should Principis Imaginem obscaenis infer, much more should Christians beware how they engrave our Saviour's name upon vain and unsuitable pieces. If Achan have any thing execrable consecrated, his Tent must be searched, and the Babylonish garment with the wedg of gold (though hid in the midst thereof) must be ransacked, and exposed to public defacing or utter demolishing: And must the Doctor think, because he has written upon the Portal IHS, that his new built Babel, standing upon another Basis, and not upon that Cornerstone, shall be free from winds and storms? No: such Paper Buildings must expect that their lofty fames must bury their heads in their sandy bottoms, and serve for no other use then to administer comfort to them that stand upon the Rock, beholding the ruins of Babel.  
The Introduction, as it stands in that Book, serves for an Index, to show from what the Doctor is fallen, from a practic to a speculative Religion, from a Church built upon Christ and his Apostles, to a Synagogue of Statists, who having cast aside the Commandments of God, prefer their own humane Inventions, which merely tend to the vassaling of Princes, and trampling upon all the Churches of God's Saints; who prescribing rules to others, become lawless unruly Masters of all, making the whole World, as it were, an Ass for the triple-crowned Pope to ride on, who would have it thought humility in him to bestride so dull a Beast.  
It likewise speaks the Author a wavering and unsteadfast man; it contains in itself a Contradiction: and as the Doctor now contradicts that Faith he formerly professed, and sets himself against that Church he was christened and educated in; so his Book contradicts the Introduction, and the Introduction contradicts itself, both being the fruits of the spirit of Contradiction.  
In the beginning of the Introduction he says, Peter is Prince of the Apostles; in the latter end he says, The Church is built upon the Apostles generally, Jesus being the chief Cornerstone: and in Chap. 20. he says, It is built upon Peter alone, and his successors.  
From these varieties of his unsettled Opinions results this Conclusion, That Protestants can neither take courage to follow after him, nor Papists gather any assurance (from this experience of his temper) of his non-recoyling.  
I hope his change proceeded not out of hardness of heart, that he for private ends should, against his own judgement, set himself against his Mother Church, but only out of some failings in his Judgement: and therefore I have adventured to lay open the Exhorts of his choice, which if he please to consider seriously, I may win him again to his proper Sheepfold, from whence he is gone astray; how ever I hope I shall, by the blessing of God, hinder others from wandering after him, and shall be a means to make up that gap, which the Doctor hath made in the pale of our Church; which whilst it lay open, administered occasion for some to escape into the Wilderness: Wherefore I will not hold the Reader longer in suspense with a dilatory Introduction, but will briefly show that the Doctor is not gone to the Catholic Church, which is the main thing he persuades, (though it be obscurely wrapped in general terms in his first Chapter,) but that he has forsaken the faith once given to the Saints; he has gone away from the pu●e Fountain of Verity to the puddle of Error; he has forsaken the living water, and chosen the Romish cisterns (digged by men's hands) which hold no water.   

CHAP. II.  
That the Roman Church is not the Catholic Church, either in respect of the Universality of her Doctrine, or any Jurisdiction she can claim from Peter, or by the consent of the Primitive Churches; and that the Pope is not the governing Head of the Catholic Church.  
THe Church is called Catholic in several respects: 1. In respect of places, as being spread universally through the whole world, and is not tied to any place or Kingdom. 2. In respect of Times, because but one Church of all Times; it having ever been from the beginning of the World, and shall continue on Earth till the end thereof; Isai. 59.21. and Matth. 28. the Church of both Testaments being one and the same. 3. In respect of the Collective Body thereof, the Catholic Church being gathered of men of both Testaments, and the Communion of Saints being the union and coherence of all the Saints in Christ their Head; according to that of Paul, Ephes. 1.10. That he might gather together in one all things, both which are in Heaven, and which are in Earth even into Christ; who is and ever shall be King and Head thereof. And generally when we speak of the Catholic Church, this Collective Church is to be understood; which appellation, Catholic, was used by the Apostles before ever Rome was a Church: So that neither in respect of Place, Time, or Catholiqueness, may Rome justly challenge the only Title of Catholic, she being but a particular part or member of this Catholic Church, we the Saints being the Body and Members for our part, Eph. 1.22. But for the better illustration of this Point, I will examine the Doctor's Arguments in particular, concerning Rome's Catholiqueship; and I shall in so doing more plainly disprove her Title thereunto.  
The word Catholic, as it is defined by the Doctor, is not a word of Belief only, but of Communion also: So that, that Church which holds the same Belief with the ancient Church, and yet doth not communicate with her, may not rightly be called Catholic. I shall retort this Argument which he intended against the Protestants, and prove it to be their Justification, and the Church of Rome's own Condemnation.  
Catholic, as I said, in a general sense comprehendeth all the Elect, and is the full Body of Christ that filleth all things in all things, Eph. 4. And when we in our Creed say, We believe in the Holy Catholic Church, it is understood of all the Elect of God, which have been, are, or shall be; of which the Church-Militant on Earth is but part. But because I suppose the Doctor means only of a Church upon Earth, I will therefore insist upon his own definition, and treat of the Church upon Earth, which, as it is universally spread over the Earth by the Apostles, who had equal commission to teach all Nations, no one particular Church can or aught to claim to be the Catholic or Universal Church upon Earth.  
As for the Distinction which the Doctor makes betwixt Doctrine and Discipline, thereby to excuse the unproper stile of Roman Catholic; That is (says he) Catholic in respect of Doctrine, Roman in respect of Discipline: That will no ways strengthen her claim, or clear her incongruous Title: He doth but thereby show the World how distinct her Discipline is from her Doctrine, and thereby give occasion to the world to suspect both: And upon this score may the Presbyterian Church of Geneva be called the Geneva Catholic Church; that is, Geneva for Discipline, Catholic for Doctrine, she professing the Catholic Faith of the holy and blessed Trinity: and yet the Church of Rome, I persuade myself, would think much that such a glorious appellation should be given to such an upstart Youngling, that windegg of a Tumult, 
Geneva Church  which being braddened under a Toad of France, is become a staring Cockatrice, and thinks to centre the World within the compass of his contagious Den, darting poison upon whom he first espies; as experience tells us, how he glancing upon the poor Scot, has given him such a deadly wound, that he will scarce ever recover it; teaching those that have escaped that plague, with the Wesel, each morning to by't on Rue, which, says Avicen, secures her against the toxicating of that venomous Basilisk: I say, if the Church of Rome think much that the Geneva Church should arrogate such a glorious stile, let her never stand upon her own Title, which is equally weak to challenge the same.  
The Doctor proceeds further upon Rome's Ti●le to her Catholiqueship, and gives a further explication of the same.  
Catholic (says the Doctor) imports both the vast extension of Doctrine to Persons and Places, and the union of all these places in communion.  
It cannot be denied but that there were other Churches of ancienter and more reverend setlement than the Church of Rome, as the Churches in the East, as Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, etc. and in aftertimes the Gospel was to be carried before Kings, and to the Gentiles by S. Paul, being by Jesus ordained a Minister and an Apostle of the Gentiles, amongst whom Rome was then a chief City, which as she received the Faith by S. Paul, or S. Peter, cannot properly be called a Mother Church, but as a babe and suckling received the sincere milk of the Word: She was one of the places to which the Doctrine of the Catholic Church of Christ was extended, but no extender of that Doctrine. So that by the Doctors own definition, she cannot properly be called the Catholic Church, she being in her Institution but a private particular Member of the Catholic Church, as England's, or any other Church planted by the Ambassadors of Christ. And if since, by the indulgent favours of her nursing Fathers, the Christian Princes, she has grown to that maturity that she has many Daughter Churches of her own plantation in the dark corners of the old known, and the new discovered parts of the World; yet she cannot by reason thereof assume to herself any more super-intendency over them as their Mother, than Jerusalem, from whence Paul was sent after he had the laying on of hands, or Antioch, from whence it is pretended Peter to have came, may by the same rule challenge over her and hers a Jurisdiction as Mother to her and them.  
And as in respect of extension of Doctrine she may not assume the name of Catholic; so neither can she claim that Title to herself in respect of her Communion with the Primitive Churches, as every point of this ensuing Discourse will evidently show: So that unless the Universality of Power and Jurisdiction she claims from Peter will support this her Title and Dignity, she is altogether at a loss, and must henceforth discontinue her claim to be the only Catholic Church. It rests therefore to examine, That,  
1. It may not be called Catholic in respect of Peter's having been there, 
Rome not Catholique ●n respect of Peter being there.  no more than the Church of Antioch, of which he certainly was Bishop.  
The power of planting the Gospel was given in charge to all the Apostles, Go and teach all Nations: And, as the Doctor hath it in his Introduction, they going forth preached every where: And in the Acts it is said, That the Apostles sent out Peter and John unto Samaria, hearing that they had received the Word, who laid hands on them. If then Peter was subject to their mission, how comes he to give unto Rome any power above other Churches of Apostolical Plantation and by the same mission that Peter was sent out to Samaria, are elsewhere planted? Peter was as well to observe the directions of the rest of the Apostles, as to prescribe any Rules to them or others. It is true, Christ said to Peter, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church. Saint Cyprian says (Cypr. in Tract. simp. Praelat.) This was but to denote the Unity of the Church, in that it was built upon one; for the power of governing and instructing was alike given to all: So that admit it was built upon Peter, as the Doctor argues, fol. 284. yet that gives nothing of superintendency to Rome; for Christ, after his Resurrection, gave power alike to the rest; the naming of him alone in that place was, ut Ecclesia una monstretur, not to take any power or honour from the rest: For should it be granted that the Church was built upon Peter alone, so that none else should plant or govern, than it would follow, that any Church planted by any other of the Apostles, who received neither order nor power from Peter, were not Apostolical; or true Churches of Christ, which S. Augustin, de Doctrina Christiana, lib. 2. cap. 8. plainly affirms to the contrary. 
The Apostles Foundations of ●e Church.  We are built, says S. Paul, Ephes. 2.20. upon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief Cornerstone: by which it appears, that the rest of the Apostles were foundations as well as Peter; and when there was a strife amongst them, who should be greatest amongst them, Mat. 20.26. says Christ, Whosoever shall be greatest, let him be your servant; which is not to be understood, that Christ did thereby reprove pride and haughtiness only, but was against superiority or pre-eminence amongst them: It is true, Christ was not against superiority utterly, for he calls himself their Lord and Master, John 13.10. and their head, but this pre-eminence he did not delegate to any one amongst them, for they were the foundations, he the Cornerstone; they the body; he the Head; they ministers, he their Master; they equal, he their superior.  
The Apostles power to plant the Gospel was equal, 
The Apostles power equal.  and they dispersed themselves for the propagation of the Gospel, not by any order received from Peter, but by the Commission they received from Christ himself. In the eighth chapter of the Acts it is said, that Philip went towards the South and baptised the Eunuch, the Queen of Ethiopia her chief Governor, and to this day the Catholic Faith is professed in Ethiopia, being there preached by the said Eunuch: Nor doth the Pope exercise any jurisdiction there, which he might as well as in any other Countries which received the Faith from some of the Apostles, and not from the Bishop of Rome, if Peter was chief Governor of the Church, and he his successor. Doth not the Scripture plainly affirm, that the Holy Ghost came upon all? Acts 2. and Gal. 2. James, Peter and John gave Paul the right hand of fellowship. When Christ instituted his Supper, he said to them, Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur, hoc facite, etc. He gave to all a like power of administration: And Joh. 20. As my Father sent me, so send I you; he speaks it to all the Disciples, and not to Peter alone, Nolite vocari Rabbi, Mat. 23. unus enim magister est vester, scilicet Jesus, omnes autem vos fratres estis, that is, saith S. Austin, you are all equal: And S. Hierome in his Epistle to Evander, Omnes Episcopi, five Romae, five alibie jusdem sacerdotii atque potestatis, à Christo collationem habuerunt. The Doctor citys Bellarmine's argument, that Christ is the invisible head, but there must be a mysterial and visible head to govern the whole: and therefore when it is said, 1 Cor. 12. that the head cannot say to the feet, I have no need of you, it must not be understood of Christ, for he the eternal Word can say. I have no need, etc.  
The Apostles are called skilful master-builders, 1 Cor. 3. 
Christ the Head of the Church.  but another foundation can no man lay then that which is laid, Jesus Christ: It cannot therefore be understood that Peter was the foundation and rock on which the Church was built. Christ as he is head, it is of the whole Catholic Church, and therefore when Paul (Ephes. 1.) calls him the head, he brings in both men and Angels into the rank of members, men, ver. 4. and Angels, vers. 21. But as touching the particular Churches upon earth, they all are but as so many members of the head, Christ Jesus, and are built upon the Apostles, as the Doctor confesses in his Introduction, who (as I said) are called master-builders, or the heads of those respective Churches, but there was not one of them that was to bear rule over the rest: Peter was primus in ordine, not supremus in potestate, you cannot have twelve without one, but every one is as much one as another, whether in respect of Power or Ordination, as S. Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae agrees, some were ordained Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, for the work of the Ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ, and to every one of the Apostles was grace given, according to the measure of the gift of Christ, by whom he ascended into heaven: but those that were Apostles were aequales inte se, and the Churches founded by them equal, as so many members of the mystical Head Christ Jesus, and as to one was given by the Spirit of God Faith, to another gifts of healing, to another Prophecy, to another interpretation of Tongues, destributing to every one severally by the same spirit, yet this is but to make up one body complete, for the gathering together of the Saints, for verse 27. ye are the body of Christ, and members for your part, so that he that thinks he hath the greatest gift, must not, because he thinks himself the head, say he hath no need of the other members, for all are not Apostles, all are not Prophets: wherefore let the Church of Rome remember what S. Paul said to the Romans chap. 12. that none presume to understand above that which is meet to understand, ●ut that he understand according to sobriety: for as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office, so we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one another's members: wherefore then shall the head say unto the feet, I have need of thee? will the Church of Rome cast off all other Churches, because she supposes her Bishop is Peter's Successor? will she be the Rock and Foundation of the Church, and leave others as built upon the sand? S. John in his Revelations ch. 21. says, the Apostles are counted the twelve Foundations, or twelve stones of the house of God, and will the late Popes allow no other Foundation but Rome? The Apostles are called Builders and Foundations, but none the chief Stone, but Christ, elect and precious, 1 Peter 2. Behold I put in Zion a chief Cornerstone, elect and precious; and he is the Head of the body of the Church, Colos. 1.18.  
Bellarmine being engaged to maintain the Pope's Supremacy, is not ashamed to ascribe the Prophecy of Esay, cited by S. Peter, to be meant of the Pope, which S. Peter himself expounds of Christ. I much wonder that so great a Scholar should commit so great an absurdity, he strains the Scriptures to maintain the Supremacy of Rome, because of Peter being there, expounding Babylon, from whence Peter directs his Epistle, to be meant of Rome; and yet he, against S. Peter's interpretation, will expound the chief Cornerstone, Elect and precious, to be put in Zion, to be the Pope of Rome, and so he makes Rome to be both Zion and Babylon: he will have it Babylon to prove Peter there, and Zion to exclude Christ from being Head of the Church; contrary to S. Peter's own interpretation, and contrary to the interpretation of Cyprian, Bede, and several Fathers upon the 21. of John, who agree that Christ was the Rock, upon which Foundation even Peter himself was built.  
The Papists, when that text of Matthew 16.18. will not serve their turn, for to warrant their pretended title, to lord it over all other Churches, they then fly to the 21. of john to the triple pasce, construing to feed, to signify to govern, and because generally spoke to feed my Sheep, to govern all, not some.  
The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to rule, but to feed, 
An answer to the triple pasce.  and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not Rectors but Pastors; wherefore to me it seems a strange interpretation. But why should I think it strange, it is but like that other interpretation of S. Peter afore mentioned. The grand Doctor and Conclave of Rome have the Keys of the Scripture in their Cabinet, and can by a word of their mouth make the dead letter speak as they please, and like an Italian Padlock open at a private cue of their own invention: they make Scripture like the Fish Popile, which turns itself into the similitude of every object, and they make the leaves of the holy Bible, as it were a pair of Cards, which they can so pack by false gaming, that they can cut Christendom the head, and make the Knave of the Clubs trump when they please.  
I hope Christians in these later times, when as deceivers are come abroad, will be more wise, then to be ensnared by the novel Doctrines of Rone, which she holds forth to the people for her self-interest, and not their good and welfare, and doth quite forsake the Primitive truth, exalting her own Traditional rules above Christ, the Apostles, or the ancient Fathers, as it were to fascinate the people under a colour of Holiness, to become slaves to her new acquired Prerogatives, though inconsistent with her See and function.  
The Fathers severally concur upon this place of the 21. of john, that it was not said to Peter, whereby to exclude the power of governing, and feeding the flock of Christ from the rest of the Apostles, not for any honour, but rather comfort to Peter, or if for honour, not that it was hereby enlarged to Peter above the rest, but that it was restored to Peter, of whom Christ required a threefold confession of love, that with his threefold confession he might blot out his threefold denial.  
Besides, the words are my Sheep, not thy Sheep, as my sheep seek my glory in them, not thine own, my gain, not thine: Ezechiel 34. Woe to the shepherds of Jsrael that feed themselves, not my flock. Christ here demands if he loved him, than he should show that love to them, feed them, not thyself. chrysostom lib. 2. the sacerdot. when Christ said to Peter, feed my sheep, it was to teach Peter and all the rest, how much he loved the Church, not to teach Peter alone, but all the rest, and so S. Austin liber de agone. cap. 3. it was spoken to all, when it was spoken to Peter, dost thou love me? feed my sheep; to him, to put him in mind of his threefold denial; to the rest, to make them mindful of their charge, that the same love they bore to their Master Christ, they should now henceforth extend that love towards his Flock.  
And whereas the Church of Rome doth urge, that Christ gave this power to Peter after his Resurrection, which should therefore carry more efficacy, as coming from immortal Christ. I may answer, that this was the third time he appeared after his resurrection, but after this he gathered them together, and commanded them not to departed from Jerusalem, but to watch for the coming of the Holy Ghost, Acts 1. which when they were together with one accord, it came and sat upon each of them, Acts 2. After this the Lord Jesus appeared to Paul, Acts 9 in a shining fire about him, and he was thereupon converted, and ordained an Apostle and Minister o● the Gentiles: So that admit Peter did receive by the triple pasce a general Jurisdiction (which cannot from thence plainly be evinced) yet Christ did after restrain this power, that it should not extend to the Churches of the Gentiles, Paul only being appointed an Apostle and Minister over them. 
Successor of Peter not equal to Peter.   
I might for Argument sake, grant, that Peter had not only a Primacy, but Supremacy over the rest of the Apostles, and yet it would not at all help the Pope's case, to claim that power over the rest of the Churches: for if Peter had any such power, it was to him as an Apostle, neither was he the survivor of the Apostles, so that this superiority in him as an Apostle, either died with him, or else survived in John, who was an Apostle, and survived Peter: and Christ had promised to be with them unto the end of the world, so that as long as any of them were living, they were to be preferred before any that succeeded the deceased Apostles, in their several Sees and Plantations; in respect that S. Paul reckoning the degrees of orders in the Church, 1 Cor. 12.28. God ordained some in the Church, first Apostles, secondly Prophets, thirdly Teachers, etc.  
Baronius writes that Peter died the 69. year after Christ, and that john the Bishop of Ephesus survived him long. 
Rome uncertain in her succession.  Now if Linus succeeded Peter in the See of Rome, or Anacletus, or Clemens, (of which their own stories differ) I hope they will not deny, that S. John whilst he lived was Superior to Linus or Clemens, otherwise they give the world occasion to laugh at them, to think that the Successors of Peter should be above John, who was an Apostle, that the subordinate should be set above the Superior, the derivative above the Primitive. I wonder that the Papists should think the world so stupid and void of Christianity, that they should prefer one of her pretended Bishops, and if a Bishop there, it was by humane Institution, before John, who was an Apostle by divine right, and called by Jesus Christ the only Son of the living God, and one, on whom the Holy Ghost had vouchsafed to descend and sit upon his head; and therefore certainly was to be preferred before any Linus or Anacletus of humane ordination; and if at any time after Peter, any other was to be preferred before the Bishop of Rome, than her succession from Peter, by which she claimed her Universal Jurisdiction, is quite destroyed.  
Bellarmine lib. 2. de Pontif. cap. 12. and Ca●●tan de Jnstitut. Pontif. cap. 13. to evade, this Argument will have their succession from the fact of Peter, inasmuch as Peter was Bishop there, and not from the Institution of Christ, and so they make their Catholic Church matter of fact, not Faith.  
And the better to colour this their assertion, they stick not to add, that it was by the special appointment of Christ that Peter placed his See at Rome, and died there; and for this they fly to their never failing starting hole, the Magazine of Romish Traditions, and from thence borrow a story, how Christ met Peter as he was flying out of Rome for fear of persecution, and admonished him to return, that he might die at Rome, and that the very print of their feet, as they two talked together, is at this day to be seen without the Gates of Rome.  
The first founder of this story is Linus, a foolish counterfeit writer, as Baronius terms him, and should any Christian give up himself to believe this story, it were to forfeit his faith he hath in S. Peter and the Catholic Church, which believed the profession of Peter to be the Dictates of the Holy Ghost, by which is expressly declared, that the heavens shall contain him till he come, Acts 3.21. Now that he should be so corporeally there, as to leave the print of his feet behind him, is so much against the Scripture, and the tenants of the Primitive Church, as I shall show in the sixteenth chapter, that for my part I dare not admit it into my belief. Yet suppose that Peter was at Rome, and by a Vision was warned to go back to Rome; I know not what this can make for the late Successors of Popes in that See to claim their Universal Jurisdiction, they have no rule by divine Writ nor Revelation, or vision, to confirm it to them any further than by humane consent, as by consent of Counsels, grant of Princes, and by election of Cardinals: therefore whatsoever is of late acquisition, if it be contrary to the rules of Christ given to his Apostles, it is not for other Churches to believe and follow it, nor to give their obedience to it as matter of Faith, for they are built upon Christ the chief Cornerstone, and have Apostolical Foundations, as S. John calls the Doctrine of the Apostles, and if Christ by Vision warned Peter to go to Rome, it cannot be construed, that that Vision shall be a warrant for the succeeding Popes to claim the same Prerogatives Peter had, in that it appeared to Peter, it was to teach him to follow Christ, to lay down his life for the profession of the faith in him, who spared not his own blood for the redemption of mankind, and is from heaven, but these succeeding Bishops are elected by men, claim more than ever Peter had, giving rules of obedience to others, and lording it over God's Heritage, do thereby manifest their calling to be earthly, and not true Successors of Peter. Peter if he planted his See there, it was by Vision from heaven, but the late Bishops of Rome, they consult with flesh and blood, and by sinister means, by strive, contentions, and plottings of aspiring and covetous men, is the Chair continually furnished with a Patron, in so much that a Cicilian Cardinal coming to the Election of a new Pope, and finding such a change from the old way (which was wont to be with supplications to God, for the directions and assistance of his holy Spirit in so great a work, and not by the then present practices, to wit, menaces, promises of rewards, perfas aut nefas to climb the Chair) ad hunc modum, saith he, fiunt Romani Pontifices, and so departed and retired himself from that Scarlet tribe for ever after. And here by the way I beg leave of the Reader to speak a word or two concerning the Cardinals of Rome, though I must confess it be a little digression from the point, but I will be brief, and return to the subject matter of this chapter again.  
I could wish to be satisfied by what Authority Paschalls did create the Parish Priests of Rome Cardinals, 
Of the Order of Cardinals  for it is no spiritual order, as is confessed in sum Sacrament, Rom. Eccles. Sect. 154. Cardidalis non est Sacerdos, nec habet de jure potestatem absolvendi, and it is no honour temporal, because not derived from any King or Prince (from whom all true titles of honour are derived). 'Tis true, Carolus Magnus had then lately endowed the See of Rome, with a Donation of the Exarchate of Ravenna, and the Dukedom of Spoletto, with some other territories which he annexed to the See, for the support of hospitality, and to promote the charity of the succeeding Popes of Rome not giving them thereby any jura regalia, as I shall show anon in the thirteenth Chapter. Neither is there any warrant from Scripture, or other antiquity to warrant these titles, unless like a souter the leather with his teeth, his Holiness will strain Scripture so fare, that he will have that place of 1 Sam. 2. Domini sunt Cardines terrae to be prophetical of their order, or else orrows the phrase from a Carpenter, who is said to incarnate, or mortize, or rivet: and the Pope alluding to this, thinks he has so engeniously strengthened the door of his Palace, by these adventitious props, which (though at first they were but underhand Vicars to the Parish Priests of Rome, insomuch that a Bishop formerly refused to accept the title, because he would not descend from a higher to a lower dignity; yet now (through the iniquity of time, the pride of Popes, and the dullness of Christian Princes) are started up from minor shrubs, to top the pole of Majesty, and instead of Parish Priests, are become Princes Peers, and by Pope Nicholas the second, made sole Electors of the Pope, of which in the fourteenth chapter.  
The first that was elected by their holy honours was Pope Hildebrand, a most troublesome wicked man, of whom you will hear more hereafter; and one, in whom nature seemed to have placed the indelible characters of rebellion against God and man, a fitting son for such a Mother; the first born of this purple Conclave, in whom they perceived their own Image, and that the tree might be known by the fruit, did therefore elect him Pope, who did not afterwards bastard his calling but manifested through the course of his life, from whence he sprung, and lest in time this plantation should degenerate from that sublimity was then challenged by them, they have continually since studied to find out men suitable to their own heart to make Cardinals of, and generally such are chosen into this order, as will not stick to pull down their natural Prince, to advance the designs of their new Master: witness my Countryman Allen, who confessed to the Jesuit. Parsons, that his Holiness had made him Cardinal, intending to send him as his Legate, for the sweeter managing of that great and godly design of the Spanish Armado against England, and that he compiled a book which should have been published for the better drawing on the people of England to join with the Spaniard. The first part whereof was called, A Declaration of the Sentence, the second, an Admonition to the Nobility, wherein he promised their safety and preservation, though it may be doubted he intended to practise the feats of an Allen upon them, which says Purchas in his Pilgrimage, lib. 8. cap. 3. beats other Beads, till they vomit their prey for him to devour, and then dismisses them away with little meat in their bellies, or feathers on their backs, and t●is like he would have used our Noble● no better, had his Bilbo Blades been once brandished on our English plains, and proved successful in that design. He for this his unnatural cruelty and treachery against his own dear Country and liege Lord, was admitted (as Saul amongst the Israelites) chief of the scarlet crew; a godly tribe, & truly worthy of their red Cap and Gown, as thereby denoting to the world their bloody inventions and close practices against all that will not become subservient homages, and vassalize themselves to their impious Lord and Master, to whom I desireto return my present discourse, to disprove his pretended Catholiqueship.  
I have hitherto argued ex Concesso, 
Peter was not Bishop of Rome.  that Peter was not Bishop of Rome, which I desire might be proved. I find that he was appointed over them of the Circumcision, and Paul was to preach unto the Gentiles, he was appointed Bishop of Antioch, and I do not find that he was removed by any order or mission of the rest to translate his See to Rome, nor that he himself had any vision or revelation to warn him thereunto: when he went to Cornelius, being a Gentile, we read that it was upon special revelation, Acts 10. for ordinarily it was not lawful for him to accommodate with the Gentiles, he being consigned over them of the Circumcision, insomuch that Paul withstood him to his face, Galat 2. for accompanying with the Gentiles, which the Doctor confesses in his book cap. 20. to be an error of conversation; wherefore for him to argue that Peter was at Rome, is to charge Peter with more errors, and so it will prove a hard task for the Pope to prove his Church built upon him, to be infallible, unless he can prove mission of the rest of the Apostles, or an especial revelation from God for his so doing.  
The Pope's Parasites must pump for a new tradition, to prove that Peter had another vision for his coming to Rome, as they have already done, to prove his returning back to Rome, when he had intended to have left it, and when that's done, still they are at a non plus; for should they prove that he was there, it doth not thereby follow that he was Bishop there; for if so they charge him again with another condemnable error, as that he should for fear of persecution forsake his Flock, insomuch as his own traditions say, he was flying out of Rome, for fear of the persecution, which was not done like a good Shepherd, if he had a flock in Rome, wherefore should they prove him there, and that he was warned to return, as their traditional story doth purport, yet they cannot from thence conclude that he was Bishop there, his walking thorough all quarters did not make him Bishop in another's Dicesse; James continued Bishop of jerusalem, notwithstanding Peter and the rest were there, nor is it evident, by the Scripture, that he walked thorough the Gentiles quarters: For admit universal power of governing was given to him by the triple pasce, yet yet it was afterwards restrained from the Gentiles, Paul being a chosen Vessel for to carry the Gospel to them, and was ordained an Apostle and Minister to that end, 
Paul appointed over the Gentiles. infra. 63. chap. 8.  so that where it is said that Peter walked through all quarters, that is to be understood, the then known quarters of the East, for at that time Paul was not called, who after his Ordination preached at Damascus and Jerusalem, and after to the people of Rome, and that without let, as it is in the last of the Acts, and he did magnify his office, Rom. 11.13. in that he was appointed over them, Marsilius defensor pacis 2. dict. 16. cap. affirms, that he was Bishop there, and if so, than Peter's coming thither did not nullify his Office, for that it was the direction of the Holy Ghost, Rom. 15.19. that none should build upon another's foundation, that is, they should not be busy Bishops in another's Diocese, so that it will be very hard for the Doctor to prove his Holiness Peter's Successor.  
Linus, who by some, is supposed immediate Successor after Peter in that Diocese, was a Disciple of Paul's, and sent greeting to Timothy from Rome, 2 Tim. 4.21. Peter directing his Epistles from Babylon, makes mention of Silva●us and Marcus, and Paul writing many Epistles from Rome, as the Epistles of the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, the second Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Philemon, never makes mention of Silvanus in any of them; and for Mark, he writes to have him come to Timothy, 2 Tim. 4.11. so that it is probable that Peter wrote not his Epistle from Rome, and that Linus, if he were Bishop there, succeeded Paul, not Peter.  
As for the traditions of Rome, of Peter his being there, and his being Bishop there, they have no ground from Scripture, but rather plain and evident testimonies to the contrary, wherefore as yet they find little faith with many, insomuch that Marsilius, one of their own Writers, suspects the truth thereof: It was (saith he) very strange that Peter should be contemporary there with Paul; for it is plain by Scripture, that he was not there before Paul, in as much as when Paul came thither, they had never received any letters concerning him out of judaea, nor any of the Brethren ever heard of him, Acts 28.21. and certainly he went not along with Paul, insomuch as no mention is made of him in the express of that perilous journey, and the several miraculous occurrences which happened to them that were with Paul; for if he was, certainly S. Luke would have mentioned him, or if he was superintendent over Paul and the rest (as the Papists persuade) sure he would have showed some miracle among those Gentiles, and not have let the people wholly follow Paul, if they had belonged to his charge: wherefore I rather conclude that he was not there, or if he was there, that he never was Bishop there.  
Osius Bishop of Cordubia, one of no small account amongst the 318. Fathers, of the first Council of Nice, in a Council at Sardis did declare, quod non licuit episcopo de Civitate sua ad aliam transire civitatem, unde apparet se avaritia infl●mmari & ambitioni servire ut dominattonem agate, to which all the Fathers answered placet, this was the sense of the Fathers of those days, as may likewise appearby the 1. Council of Nice. 16. Can. & Concil. Antioch. 21.22. Can. and in the Council of Chalcedon 10. Can. Si episcopus confugit ad aliam civitatem ob inanis glo●ie cupiditatem, revocari debet ad suam ecclesiam, & ibi tantummodo ministrare: & Concil. Nicaenum 15. Can si quis episcopus de civitate ad civitatem transeat & se negotia manciparet in irritum ducatur hoc factum & restituatur ecclesiae cui fu●t episcopus,  
This was the profession of the Fathers of those days, who certainly, if Peter had removed his See from Antioch to Rome, would rather for reverence sake to him a chief Apostle, have suspended their opinions, then by promulgating thereof, have thrown this scandal upon him.  
And i● the Doctor would but seriously consider of these reasons and opinions of the ancient Fathers in this point, he would not ascribe universality to the See of Rome upon Peter's score, for by them it appears that Peter ought not to remove his See, and if he did, it was void. And the Doctor confesses fol. 288. he was Bishop of Antioch, and if so, he ought not to remove his See, unless you will make him above Counsels, and that is plain in the 14. of the Acts to the contrary, of which I shall speak at large in the chapter of Counsels: and to say that by any revelation he came thither, & planted his See there, that were to deny the holy Spirit to the general Counsels, who declare the contrary to that Revelation, and so they will make the Church fallible, of which in the eighth chapter. It might be that upon some extraordinary occasion (as Eusebius says) he came thither to withstand Simon Magus; Paul desiring his assistance, he might come to Rome, but without all doubt he was never Bishop there, for it is both against the testimony of Scripture, and the infrence of Counsels.  
Lastly, I conceive that Peter was not Bishop of Rome, though (I confess) I am something induced to believe he might be there, for that the Bishops of Rome vary in their styles, sometimes they style themselves Successors of Peter, & sometimes of Peter and Paul. I myself have seen a Bull of the Popes, dated 1500. wherein his Holiness is styled the Successor of Peter & Paul.  
Thus these grave Fathers of Rome, like the Elders that would have betrayed Susanna, cannot agree in a story, they would despoil other Churches of their Rights and Privileges, and ascribe all Jurisdiction to their own See; but examine them apart, and they cannot agree how and by what means to derive their title thereunto: for who please to examine Platina, Onup rius, Genebrard, Sabellicus, Anastatius, Baronius, and such like Pope Parasites about this point of Succession from Peter, will find them agree like a dog about a bone; & like Aesop's dog, they snatch at he shadow, and let go what they had; they that might universally lord it over all other Churches of the world, will needs give Peter a strange power, and tie that power to themselves, whereas if they could have been content to have acknowledged themselves Successors to Paul, as he having been Bishop there, and being the Apostle of the Gentiles, I persuade myself that no Churches of this Western world, but would give the Bishop of Rome the right hand of fellowship; but sigh the boundless ambition of the Pope carries them beyond all limit of fellowship, it makes others to set their ambitious ends at defiance, and to stand fast to that Christian liberty to which they are called, only to beware they use it not as an occasion to the flesh, but by love to serve one another, Gal. 5.13.  
I have I hope sufficiently proved, that Rome may not challenge to herself any universality in respect of Peter having been there; for that it is not altogether clear and manifest that he was there, or if he was there, that he was Bishop there, or if he was, it makes not much for them to prove any universality to the succeeding Bishops in that See; and if from Peter no universality will arise to them, it rests to examine whether they may claim it by consent of Counsels.  
The first general Council, the Council of Nice, committed of old the charge of the Catholic Church, 
The Counsels against the Universality of Rome.  to three principal Patriarches, Alexandria, Rome and Antioch, and after came in Constantinople, & by the sixth Canon thereof, Egypt, Lybia, etc. were allotted to Alexandria, quia & urbis Romae episcopo parilis mos est. And hereupon Athanasius says, Roma est metropolis Romanae ditionis; Rome was shut within the compass of her own Province, inasmuch as she was made like unto Alexandria: therefore the Government of Alexandria was like unto Rome, which likewise proves the Bishop of Rome provincial, not universal.  
The second general Council, the first Council of Constantinople, the second Can. did appoint, that the Bishops of the East were only to govern the Eastern Churches, saving to Antioch metropolitan Jurisdiction, the Asian Bishops to govern the Asian Churches, Nec non & Ponti episcopi eas quae sunt in Ponto, & Thraciarum quae in Thraciis sunt, gubernent, veruntamen propterea quod urbs ipsa sit junior Roma: By which it appears that Rome's primacy over Constantinople is in respect of the honour done to her City and seat of the precedent Emperors, not in respect of any Jurisdiction she could claim from Peter, which certainly if any such had been, they could not be ignorant of it, nor would either the Fathers of those Counsels have preferred her for temporal respects, if any divine right did lift up her head above her fellows, nor the then Bishops of Rome have suffered themselves to be made equal with Alexandria, if from Peter they had had any right of Universal Jurisdiction, which Marsilius, who was a Roman Catholic, and writ 328. years since, affirms to be the profession of those days; and the Bishops of Rome did style themselves accordingly, Romanae urbis Episcopi, and after Silvester, which was the first Bishop after the persecutions, than they styled themselves Archiepiscopi.  
Nilus de primatu Romanae ecclesiae, says; In respect that certain Countries were allotted to the Bishop of Rome, and certain to the Bishop of Alexandria: those under Alexandria, are no more under the Bishop of Rome, than these under Rome were under the Jurisdiction of Alexandria.  
By these Constitutions of the first Counsels it is plain, that no universality will belong to Rome beyond her own Province; all Churches in themselves, as they are members of the Catholic Church being equal, only for order sake and better Government, the Fathers in those Counsels appointing several Metropolitans, to whom others in point of order and discipline should within their proper Precincts be subordinate; but for Rome to have universal jurisdiction over all, that can never be evinced from those Counsels; and unless She will blot out those ancient records, 
The Church of Rome blots out what makes against her, Infra. cap. 10.  they stand in bar against any Plea she can make for it; wherefore to make good her pretended title, she flies to her index expurgatorius: and as many as she meets with, corrects or blots out what makes against her, as witness S. Austin, who in his book de doctrina Christiana, lib. 2. c. 8. & de civitat. Dei lib. 15. cap. 23. speaking of such Scriptures as are to be taken for Canonical, says, those which the most or greatest part of Christian Churches, amongst the which those Churches be, which deserve to have Apostolic Sees, and to receive Epistles from the Apostles: The Papists blot out these words, Apostolic Sees, and have put in these words, Apostolic See, meaning thereby the See of Rome, and those Churches which deserve to receive Epistles from the same Church of Rome.  
I must confess by such sleights as these, she may in time gain an opinion of Universality, and so wrong posterity; nor is she sparing of any costs to compass those ancient Records, that she may form them anew in her own forge, and make them speak nothing but Universality of Rome: wherefore to prevent the deceive of some by these tricks of hers, I will proceed to lay open some more Records of antiquity and credit which make against her in this point, and which I hope will stand against her false suggestions to the contrary.  
The third general Council, the first of Ephesus, called by Theodosius the younger Anno Christi 431. and the fourth general Council of Chalcedon, gathered by Valentinian and Marcian, Anno Christi 451. confirm the Canons of the former Counsels; and the 28. Can. of the Chalcedon Council, gives equal privilege to new Rome, that is Constantinople, which is afterwards confirmed by the fifth general Council, the second of Constantinople, in the 36. Can. whereby it is evident, that Constantinople had equal privilege with Rome, or any other Provincial.  
This I know will be an offensive History to the Papists, that I should make Constantinople equal with Rome, but sigh it is the Authority of Counsels guides me to it, I may hope the moderate part of them will be satisfied, as for the rest I care not, such as will set all divines Rule aside; to uphold the unlimited unwarwarrantable power of the late Popes; I leave them to their own fancies, hoping the more sober sort of them will hearken to instruction, sigh that which the others would draw them by, to wit, the Authority of Fathers and Counsels, calls them to take notice of this truth, and to a sense of the high injuries and indignities offered to those sacred Decrees, which are made every day speak new language, such as their Fathers never knew, to warrant Rome's new inventions. I desire the Jesuits, if will fully they have not sold themselves to work wickedness with greediness, to hearken to the Fathers of these Councils, as for the seculars, I hope they will not set so highly by them, as to put them in the scale with newfound traditions, or if others do it for them, that they will see fair play, and then blind Justice will point our these more solid, those more vain and airy.  
The Fathers of those times searched with discerning ey● into the Mysteries of the Divine Writ, and yet they could not from thence evince, that Peter had any greater or better power given to him, then to any of the other Apostles; there was no more excellent or shining fiery Tongue sat upon him, than did alight upon the rest, nor did he arrogate at any time, to be transcendent or superintendent over the rest, he was subject to their Massion, he likewise did submit to the Centurion's power he came at his sending, and gave an account of his fact, and that without saving nay, Acts 10.29.  
The Apostles were men full of the Holy Ghost, and to them was given to know the mysteries of Christ, and if by the words, Thou art Peter, in the 16. of Matthew, or by the triple pasce in the 21. of John, Peter had been made universal Bishop, Peter had never been assigned only over the Circumcision, & Paul to the Gentiles, or else it must follow, that Peter did offend God so highly after that he had received Commission that it was afterwards canceled, and the charge of the Gentiles committed to Paul, which is one estoppel to the Successor of Rome, to derive a Jurisdiction from Peter.  
Moreover Peter forbids Superiority in his first Epistle fifth Chapter, he calls himself a fellow-Priest, and in his second Epistle third Chapter, he calls Paul his Brother, and if a fellow Priest, and Paul his Brother, Par in parem non habet potestatem. This likewise destroys his universal Jurisdiction: but I return to search a little further into the Counsels. The sixth general Council the Council of Carthage, in which S. Austin was present, did confirm the Cannons of the former Counsels, 
No appeals to Rome. infra chap. 11.  declaring the powers of the Patriarches to be equal, and the right of appealing to Rome, by such as were condemned by the Arch bishop of their own Province, was declared unnecessary. S. Austin after that (who was Bishop of Hippo) opposing three Bishops of Rome, Zozimus, Boniface, and Celestine, in this so just a cause common to all provincial Sees, as appears by the ensuing report. One Apiarius an African Priest, being excommunicated, and flying to Rome, and being absolved by Zozimus the then Bishop of Rome, Aurelins the Metropolitan of Afrie, with the Council wrote to Celestine, the succeeding Bishop, styling him Dominus Frater, and acquainting him that by the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, ecclesiastic persons are to be committed to the charge of their Metropolitans, appealing to provincials or general Churches, but not to any foreign See: and reproving the absolving of Apiarius, exhorted Celestine, Nè induceret fumosum typum in Ecclesiam Christi quae lucem simplicitatis & humilitatis praefert iis qui Deum diligunt; & did afterwards proceed against Apiarius, enjoining him penance, notwithstanding the Bishop of Rome's former absolving of him; and this was acknowledged & received of all Churches as an Evangelical truth, & acknowledged by the succeeding Bishop of Rome Gregory I. who lived An. Chri. 590. reputing the decrees of these first Counsels equal with the Evangelists, as proceeding from the same holy Spirit of God, & which he had promised to his Church: Se suscipere quatuor prima concilia sicu● sancti Evangelii quatuor libros, & venerari fatetur, and thus did the Church of o me continue in brotherly fellowship with the other Patriarches, not claiming any Jurisdiction over the rest, till Phocas the Emperor's time, which change was occasioned through a wicked murder, and having by that means acquired a superintendency over the other provincials, the succeeding Bishops have since practised Navigation in the Red See, her universal Ark, not knowing how to answer its helm in any clear and pure waters, the brief of which history follows in these few words.  
Mauritius the Emperor having made John of Constantinople universal Patriarch, Gregory the Great, 
John of Constantinople universal Patriarch.  Bishop of Rome, writ against that, and maintained, that whosoever took upon him that stile, was the forerunner of Antichrist, and did in opposition of that stile assume to himself the title of servus servorum: Gregory did not oppose that title in that sense, the Doctor would have us to rake it (folio 293.) to wit, that none should be universal Bishop, thereby excluding others, but to be Bishop of the universal Church, it was in Gregory's opinion lawful; a pitiful shift to excuse the unjust usurpations of Gregory's Successors; by this means he will tie universality to Rome in respect of the place, not as Peter was universal Bishop; and this distinction has destroyed all Bellarmine's Arguments, who would have the Church built upon Peter, and all power of governing given to him, which Gregory, (by the Doctors own distinction confessed) calls Antichristian, so that I would fain know how Rome can be a Universal Church, since no Bishop can be a Universal Bishop: for certainly it was not the Universal See before Peter's coming, and if he was not Universal Bishop, how could he make it a Universal See? I send this riddle back to the Doctor, and desire he will recommend it to the Ignatian tribe, to varnish over with a new paint: For if this must pass for current, that the Bishop of Rome is universal, in respect of his See, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against local Rome, the world knows they maintain a lie, as will appear more at large in the fourteenth chapter of this Book.  
●t is plain to any judgement not aleady forestalled with a preoccupated conceit of Rome's sophistical delusions, that Gregory writ against John of Constantinople his being universal Patriarch, for that it was an injury to Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, etc. that any should take upon them that title, when both by the holy Scriptures, and the judgements and decrees of the reverend Fathers of the holy Church, the powers and Jurisdictions of Patriarches were declared to be alike: The same Gregory when he was by Eulogius Patriarch of Al●xandria styled universal, refused the stile as derogatory to his Brethren, and writing an Epistle to the said Eulogius, he calls that stile new, foolish, perverse, wicked and profane, and whosoever shall arrogate that stile, he does the work of Satan, to whom it was not sufficient to be alike and equal to other Angels, 
Phocas made the By hop of Rome universal.  and did tax John of Constantinople for the same.  
It happened so, that not long after this affront done to Alexandria, Rome, and the other Provinces, that Mauritius was murdered by the means of Phocas, who no sooner had perpetrated so vile and heinous an offence, but his guilty conscience contracted many dark jealousies upon his soul, and presented to his fancy many sad and fearful apprehensions; one amongst the rest, was that Italy would certainly shake off all Faith and Allegiance to such a Monster of mankind, who had justly provoked their dissents to obey him, who had forfeited all their loves and affections, by his bloody violation of the Bonds of Nature and Civility, by this his barbarous assassination of his Liege Lord and Sovereign, and thereupon he casts upon all essays, which way to preserve his Western Territories (the garden of his new acquired Empire) and calling to mind the respect the inhabitants thereof bore to their Metropolitans, and that the affront done to him, by setting the Constantinopolitan above him, was thorn in his side, and had bred in him a grudge towards the then murdered prince Mauritius.  
He to engratiate with the people of those parts, and to engage a pragmatical Orator to blandish his foul murder, did resolve with himself, to make the then Bishop of Rome Universal Bishop, which he accordingly did, by virtue of which Donation, and by their own strengths and policies since, the present Bishop; thereof claim this title and Jurisdiction, which their Predecessors did condemn in another, from which bloody founder they took this Prerogative, and in a full measure of tyranny, and against all divine Right Ecclesiastical, and against the doctrine of that See, whilst any other had that Prerogative, will needs persuade the world that the present Church of Rome, is the only Catholic Church.  
Yet blessed be God, the light of the Gospel having shined in several Nations of this Western world, by the means of S. Paul, who God ordained by his grace hereunto, hath taken such root in many Churches of the same, that they will not admit of this Antichristian usurpation of the Romish See, according to that of S. Paul, Galat. 2.8. He that was mighty by Peter in the Apostleship, over the Circumcision, was also mighty by me towards the Gentiles, but do, and hope still to hold out the truth they have received against any innovation of the Romish See whatsoever, and particularly the Church of England.  
When the first Council of Nice was called, 
England not subject to Rome.  we had a Church planted here, and public profession of the Faith of Christ 120. years before that Council, and had Bishops and Metropolitans of London and York, and although it might tacitly be inferred from the sixth Canon of that Council, that we were within the Jurisdiction of Rome, as being within the West, yet in the second Canon thereof is mention made of many Provinces, and power of Jurisdiction reserved to every Metropolitan, which by the next general Council 2. Can. is further enlarged, Ecclesias in longinquis Gentibus consti●utas gubernari convenijtuxta consuetudinem quae est à patribus observata: By which Canon we may justly claim provincial Jurisdiction to the Church of England, having at that time a Metropolitan of our own, however it is confirmed to us in the Chalcedon Council 19 Can. Episcopos in unaquaque Provincia bis in anno Metrapolitano istius provinciae provinciales Episcopos admonente convenire licet, which was afterwards confirmed and declared in a Council at Antioch, 20. Can. 
Provincial Counsels.  that it was lawful for Metropolitans of Provinces to call Counsels, propter utilitates ecclesiasticas & absolutiones earum rerum quae dubitationem controversiamque recipiunt; and by the said Council of Antioch, the nineth Can. and the Council of Carthage, the seventeenth Can. it is decreed that in every Province there be a Metropolitan, so that had we had none before, we might by these two Canons claim one, but having one, it is confirmed to us to be distinct of ourselves, and for one Metropolitan to govern and call Counsels, without any appeal to Rome, having the authority of Counsels to confirm this unto us: nor is this to arrogate to ourselves any more than what of right belongs to us, and what other Provincials may justly challenge to themselves, and what has beeh practised of old, both by the French, Germans, Spaniards, etc. as shall be showed more at large in the chapter of Counsels.  
If I should argue like the Doctor, 
Possession infra chap. 4.  I must plead possession of this privilege, as he doth for Universality, and say it were jus Gentis, but I dare not in cases of this nature stand to that humane Plea, possession for hold, and prescription for time is no good Plea in cases of Religion, though in civil matters for peace sake, and avoiding contentions, it be admitted in bar of after too busy Inquisitors: for the first may be a claim by intrusion, which is the point in question, and the other antiquity of error, & malus usus est abolendus, let custom yield to truth, is a sound axiom of Divinity. I will not therefore stand so much upon possession of this immunity, as upon the right of that possession, though whilst I prove a possession from these Counsels, I destroy Rome's prescription to Universality, in that these records are above her Donor Phocas, and so annihilate her puisne title.  
It was the Decree of the Council of Carthage, 28. Can. that Priests if they thought themselves aggrieved at the censures of their Diocesans, to appeal to the primate of their own Province, and not to Rome, or any other See over Sees, and if they did, they stood excommunicate from the rest of the Churches in Africa, and shall we, being as free, and having as good right to this privilege, subject ourselves to a foreign See at Rome; sith, we may call a Council of our own, which may upon serious debate judge of things maintained and done by other Churches, and resolve whether to admit of them into their own provincial Churches, without being branded for Heretics and Schismatics; upon which score, the Church of England, did in her full and lawful assembles heretofore, cast off some usurpations of the See of Rome, and did retain what she conceived Apostolical: what she cast off, we offer to the world, to maintain the action by authority of Scripture, Fathers and Counsels, and what we retain, Rome cannot blame; for we being provincial, and having a Metropolitan of our own, and a lawful Succession of Bishops, (as I shall show anon) even from Apostolical Ordination to this day, we might well reform propter utilitates ecclesiasticas & absolu iones controversiae infra provinciam, without either appealing to Rome, or she questioning what we do herein, yet in those things we differ, we would willingly submit them to the sentence of a general Council, might it be free and rightly constituted; of which in the chapter of Counsels; In the mean time we may with confidence affirm, that Rome is not the only Catholic Church: and for the better satisfaction of the Reader of the justness of this our claim, and to acquit us of all presumption in this point, I will crave pardon, though it do not much conduce to the subject matter of this chapter any further, than what is already spoke, to give him a brief relation of the planting of the Christian Faith in this Island of Britain.  
It is recorded by the ancient Writers and preservers of antiquity in this Isle, 
England converted to the Faith.  that the Gospel was planted here, by Joseph of Arimathea, who was sent hither out of France by Philip, who was sent thither by Paul; some affirm it was Philip the Apostle, upon dispersion of the Jews to have come to France; but for my part I rather incline to think it was Philip the Deacon, who was ordained by Paul, Acts 6. and that Paul sent him into France, and that he planted the Gospel here, and it is agreed by all that Joseph of Arimathea was here, and did preach the Gospel to the Britain's, about the year of our Lord 63. and here remained in this land all this time, and died here, and was buried at Glassenbury, and was the first that preached to the Britain's: but whether he was sent of Paul from Rome, or came from Philip out of France, who came thither directly from the East, and not from Rome, (as some suopose,) the histories do not plainly declare, nor is it much material, for whether Philip came from the East, or from Rome, and sent Joseph hither, it is certain Joseph had his Mission from Apostolical order, besides presently after Simon Zelotes was sent out of France hither, as Nicephorus lib. 2. cap. 40. reporteth; and here the Gospel was received and nourished, though not publicly professed, before Lucius time, which was Anno 169. after Christ: for as a City upon a hill cannot be hid, so the Gospel having been preached here, (though but in some obscure corners of the Isle) did so spread by God's blessing upon the labours of them that preached it to the people, that within a short time, the Sunshine thereof arose to such a latitude, that it gave light to the before dark closerts of the King's heart; who thereupon sent to Elutherius Bishop of Rome, two of his best Divines, to entreat assistance from him, who sent some laborers into this harvest, who for the better promulgating of the Faith, and the winning of souls unto Christ, and that all the people of the Isle might be instructed, did divide themselves into several circuits; Lucius and his Nobles appointing three Superintendents, instead of the three Arch-Flamins, who formerly ruled in the time of Paganism, one at London, another at York, another at Carleon in Monmouthshire, the Archbishopric of Carleon was after removed from thence to S. David's, from thence into Normandy: London was in after times by Austin the Monk translated to Canterbury, only York continueth still a Metropolitan. This Austin was sent by Gregory Bishop of Rome hither, and did convert the South Saxons, but the Britain's had before his coming received the Faith, and though expulsed from the body of the Land, into the mountainous part thereof called Wales, by the impetuous fury of the Heathen Saxons, yet they still retained their faith, and had a Monastery of Monks at Bangor in Caernarvanshire, when Austin came to preach unto the Saxons, and this tradition challenges any Christian man his belief, as well as any Romish Tradition whatsoever.  
There doth not from this story any thing at all arise, which may conclude us to be beholden to the See of Rome for our faith, though some say Philip was sent from Rome by Paul; or if they will persuade the world that we received our faith from Rome, I should not much stick to grant it, for it then follows, that if it came from the See of Rome, that Paul was Bishop there, and so they destroy their universality built upon Peter.  
As for the Allegation of those, who say we first received the faith from Eleutherius, it is false, and utterly against the current of all Antiquity, as may appear by Eleutherius himself, who writing to King Lucius an Epistle, says, Ye have received of late, through God's mercy, in the realm of Britain, the Law and Faith of Christ; Ye have with you within the Realm, both the parts of Scriptures, out of that Law; take ye a Law (by God's grace) with the Council of your Realm and by that Law; through God's sufferance, rule ye your Kingdom of Britain, for you be God's Vicar in your Kingdom, etc.  
By this it appears, that this Isle had received the faith before that, and had the Scriptures with them before, and therefore the Papists cannot brag that Rome is the only dispenser of those sacred Oracles, of which in the eighth chapter. We became Christians, much what about that time Rome received the Faith, and who was our first Planter, it is not of necessity to be proved, sigh we claim no Jurisdiction, but what is common to every Provincial See to lay challenge unto: Let Rome, who builds upon Peter, take heed to her succession precisely from him; it shall suffice us, that we received the faith before Eleutherius time, and that we were acknowledged by him to have that faith, and the holy Scriptures in our Isle, before he writ to King Lucius, and can produce a continued succession of Pastors, if not governing Bishops, from afore him: For those two which were sent by Lucius to Eleutherius, were Bishops, 
Infra chap. 4.  as Gildas and others testify, without a precise Catalogue of our first founders, and that in respect the Church of Rome did confess we had the true faith, and the holy Scriptures, which could not otherwise have come, but by the Mission of some of the Apostles, or by some ordained by them to that purpose, of which more at large in the fourth chapter.  
Reverend Bede seems to incline, that we first received our faith from the East, for that our Easter was kept almost a thousand years after Christ, after the manner of the East in the full Moon, what day soever it fell upon, and not on the Sunday, and not after the Roman custom.  
The like doth Petrus Cluniacensis testify of the Scots, that they kept their Easter after the manner of the Greek Church, and not after the Roman, by which they collect, that the first planters of the Faith here came from the East: but I shall not much stand upon that, for it makes nothing for the present point; for whether we received the faith from the East, or from Rome, by the means of Paul, I hope none will affirm, but that we are of Apostolical Plantation, and having a Metropolitan of our own, and being a distinct Province of itself, have right to the provincial Jurisdiction, declared and confirmed by the first Counsels, which makes us so free of ourselves, and independent of Rome, that we may justly deny her to be the universal Church.  
And sigh there is no express and positive proof that our first planter of the Faith was sent immediately from the East, and sigh the inducements to that belief are but bare conjecturalls, I should hold it more proper to admit what is desired from the Church of Rome, that she sent Joseph of A imathea hither, or that he was sent by Philip, who was sent from Paul, and that because Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles, to carry the Gospel unto them, and would the Church of Rome not forsake such a Pastor, to feign one by traditional stories, against that which the Scripture and Primitive Church teached, we should willingly give her the right hand, and honour her as our elder Sister, and in order to the Western plantations from Paul, and I believe the Churches of Germany, France, Denmark, etc. would do the like, not that they prefer Paul before Peter, but because Christ had ordained Paul a Minister over them, and the Scriptures and Counsels forbidden any to intrude upon another's plantation, and especially Peter being reproved for that very thing, he being appointed over them of the Circumcision; and therefore unless Rome will lay claim to Paul for her Bishop, they cannot allow her that primacy of order they hearty wish she were honoured with: but I much fear, whilst the Ignatian tribe are suffered to put in practise the imperious Dictates of the Scarlet Conclave, this will scarcely be embraced, their whole study is to ascribe all pomp and power to the Papal throne, being in hopes to be masters of that Seat  they die, (it being by their new order of electing Popes, not transferrable to any other) and so to enjoy their long studied Dominion, and having by a long expectation so sharpened their appetite, and set it on so keen an edge, they greedily gape after all honour and Sovereignty, and think the world too narrow a Province for them to Lord it in; whereas if primacy of order would serve their turn, none of the Western world would deny it to them; and as the case stands with the Eastern Churches, they, I am persuaded, would not bogle to condescend hereunto; but by no means let her ever hope to have a supremacy of jurisdiction, she may force it, but never by argument evince it; and so according to its first beginning, prosecute to rear up her tower of Universality, with the cement of blood, which whilst she prosecutes, she forges her Keys into a twoedged sword, and when she has done, she like a Heathen Roman destroys herself, by cutting off some of her fellow-members, robbing them of what belongs to their office, and makes them useless pieces of the mystical body Christ Jesus, of which all the Churches upon earth are fellow-members, and though many, yet make but one body, being all baptised into one body, by one Spirit, 1 Cor. 12.12. Let us therefore follow the truth in love, and in all things grow up unto him which is the Head, that is Christ, by whom all the body being complete and knit together, by every joint, for the forniture thereof (according to the effectual power which is in the measure of every part) receiveth increase of the body, unto the edification of itself in love, Ephes. 4.  
The Doctor confesses that Christ is the Head originally, but the Pope is the Head derivatively, for says he, with as much reason may we deny a King to be Head of his Kingdom, because the Scripture saith, God is King over all the earth, as deny the Pope to be Head of the Church, because Christ is so; To which I answer, Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church, that is, comprehensive of all the Elect, 
Pope not Universal Head.  Saints, Angels, and men, of which the particular Churches on earth are but members, and the people, the Saints of God assembled together, to worship God, and call upon him in his Sacraments, make a Church, Christ being their Head, and as they are a people not convened to that purpose, their several Princes and Magistracy is to rule over them (which I judge to be the principal reason of the Law of Sanctuaries.) Now for the Pope to claim an universal headship over them, is either to rob Christ of his office, or to deny Caesar his due; for as Head of the whole Catholic Church he candot be, and to be Head of the Universal Church upon earth, is not consistent with the plantations of the other Apostles, nor was any such universal headship delegated to any one of the Apostles; Christ sent out his Apostles to all Nations, and they ordained spiritual heads and Governors over their several plantations, none being to intrude upon another's foundation, and ever since Christ, there have been superintendents over the several Churches, yet those superintendents were equal amongst themselves, none lording it over another, but only within their distinct territories did equally exercise the authori y of their headship, and every one within his own Province being representative in point of order, of Christ the mystical Head, without ascribing a single universality to any one of them, although by this means there be many headships over the several plantations, yet it doth no more destroy the representative headship of Christ here on earth, than the Spanish, French, etc. acknowledging obedience to their distinct Princes are against Monarchy, because the Turk claims to be Sovereign Lord of the Universe: Wherefore if the Church of Rome will needs have the Catholic Church to be understood only of a Universal Church upon earth, and some one Bishop to be the governing head thereof, I must tell her, that she can lay no just claim hereto, because if Peter had any power above the other Apostles, it doth not appear to succeed to the Bishop of Rome, for that it is not proved Peter to have been Bishop there, and if he was Bishop there, yet there wants a clear and perfect deraigning of succession from him, some affirming Linus, some Clemens, some Anacletus to succeed him, and some Bishops of Rome claiming as Successors to Paul, some to Peter: or if they could perfect their Succession, yet it is not evident that Peter's power did succeed to them, in respect it was Apostolically in him, and either died in him, or survived to john; besides, they cannot agree in the manner how this power of supremacy should be in them; for if they have it as universal Bishops, Gregory declares it, and the Doctor confesses it to be Antichristian; for that hereby they deny others to be Bishops, and so rob them of their divine order, and Ecclesiastic Jurisdiction, granted by consent of Counsels to Metropolitans, to govern within their provincial precincts, without appealing to Rome, and if they will have it in respect of Rome, see how they make Rome the Rock, not Peter, and go against the Symbol of our faith. The Apostles, who composed the Creed (as the Doctor confesses 148.) and professing faith in the Catholic Church, did publish that Creed at Jerusalem, before ever the faith was preached at Rome, and when her Church was invisible, or not in rerum natura, and did not therefore intent Rome for the Catholic Church.  
Wherefore for these reasons, I hope I may, without incurring a censure of presumption, with confidence affirm, that Rome is not the Catholic Church, nor the Pope the universal Head of the Catholic Church, either in respect of any Jurisdiction derived from Peter, or by the consent of Counsels, lawfully deraigning any title thereto.   

CHAP. III.  
That the name Church is proper to England, as well as to Rome.  
THe Doctor is pleased in his fifth and thirteenth chapters, to take notice of several definitions of a Church, which are distinctions of several Sectaries that are in England and elsewhere, but never glanced upon that which is maintained and professed in the Church of England, which belike he omitted, on purpose to make people believe that we had no Church at all properly distinguished by herself apart from those Sectaries, and therefore he fled to Rome to find one, if he have forgotten, I will put him in mind of it.  
The Church of God is a company of men chosen by him to call upon his name, and therefore did the Apostles term it Ecclesia, alluding to the custom of Arkens, to call together the people, to hear the promulgation of any Law, or any public Oration, and not Synagogue, that is an inordinately met assembly, without a lawful calling together, wherefore we say that Ecclesia in the most proper and genuine signification, is Vniversitas fidelium credentium & invocantium nomen Christi: By which interpretation, if we be in the faith of Jesus, and have our solemn assemblies to worship and call upon his name, we may properly be called a Church, and a member of the Catholic Church, which (as I said before) is comprehensive of all the Elect of God, which have been, are, or shall be.  
The Doctor cannot deny but that we maintain the Apostles Creed, (and I may say) so doth not Rome; 
The Church of Rome abuses the Apostles Creed.  we whilst we say we believe the holy Catholic Church, mean thereby the whole Elect of God, as well Saints in heaven, as the Church upon earth, which is the full body of Christ, Ephes. 4. and Rom. 12. but they thereby will have Rome understood, which as I said, was not in being before the Creed was composed; and it seems strange to some, that the Church of Rome should admit of the following Article, to wit, the Communion of Saints, to extend to the Saints in heaven, and will exclude them from the Catholic Church; but the reason's plain, for it stands not with the Majesty of the Pope, for in admitting the first, he loses his headship, we being all members of the Catholic Church, but by the other his honour is not diminished, in respect none are to be reputed Saints, but such as are of his own making.  
But if the Doctor will not admit of our definition, I hope he will not be against our embracing of his, which is this, A Church is a Society of those whom God hath called to salvation by the profession of the true Faith, and sincere administration of the Sacraments, and the adherence to lawful Pastors.  
I wonder what the Doctor means by the society of those that God hath called to salvation by the profession of the true Faith; sure he will not deny, but that those Societies which were gathered by other Apostles were true Churches as well as those which were gathered by Peter: He himself, fol. 192. confesses the true Church visible in Ethiopia, where the Eunuch which Philip baptised, preached the Faith; and it is hard he should deny this to his own mother County which he allows to Ethiopians; especially considering wee (as is believed by some) received the Faith by the same Apostle Philip. But 'tis no great matter, we need not stand to the Doctor's courtesy herein, we have a better warrant than his Concession, Act. 20.28. the flocks whereof the holy Ghost made the Elders overseers is called the Church of G●d, Paul ordained Elders, and committed charge of Flocks unto them, 
A Christian Society makes a Church.  etc. That the distinct Societies of Christians are called Churches, is likewise manifest by several other places of Scripture. 1 Cor. 1. Paul writ to the Church that was at Corinth, and to all that call upon the name of the Lord Jesus, Gal. 1. to the Churches at Galatia, Grace, etc. 1 Thes. to the Church of the Thessalonians; Col. 1.4. salute the brethren which are of Laodicea and Nymphas, and the Church which is in his house: Rev. 1.11. there were seven Churches in Asia, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, etc. In the same manner Rome may be called a Church, if she have a Society of the faithful calling upon the name of Christ Jesus; wherefore Peter writing his Epistle from Babylon, (which the Papists interpret Rome) s●●es, The Church that is at B●bylon elected together with you, saluteth you: that is, the Saints which dwell here and there dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bythinia, the society of the Saints of Babylon saluteth the several societies of the Saints of those parts which were several respective Churches, members of the Catholic Church elected together in Christ Jesus: So that from these places it is evident, that the name of Church is applicable to all Christian Societies, whether they be of Peter's, or any other of the Apostles gathering: For the Apostles had equal commission from Christ for the gathering together of the Saints for the work of the Ministry, and for the edification of the Body of Christ, though in the Church were men of different Gifts, as Apostles, Teachers, Evangelists, etc. yet the Apostles amongst themselves were equal, and their several plantations coordinate and equal, as to any power or Jurisdiction. If then we be in the faith of Jesus, and have Societies of Christian believers in him, we may properly be called a Church, and that especially, because we are of Apostolical plantation, and are not beholding to Rome for that Plantation, as coming from Eleutherius (successor as they pretend to Peter.)  
But if we had our Faith from Rome, it came by the means of Paul, and certainly we had that Faith long before Eleutherius time, as I have already proved in the precedent chapter; wherefore we may properly, both according to our own, and the Doctor's definition of a Church, assume that title to ourselves, we being a Society of Christians calling upon the name of Jesus, which is called a Church, 1 Cor. 1.2. 
Rome a particular Church.  and for Rome, or any other Church to arrogate more then to be a particular member of the Catholic Church whereof Christ is the Head, and Jerusalem which is above, free, and the mother of us all, is Antichristian, and abominable; especially for Rome, that she should style herself the only Catholic Church, when as Ephesus, the See of John, and John the surviving Apostle, in whom alone survived the Apostleship, calls that Church but one of the seven in Asia, Rev. 1. Were John, Peter, or any of the Apostles alive to see to what a lofty pitch ambition has hurried the aspiring Prelates of Rome, they would blush to behold such iniquity, and reprove any that should call Rome the Catholic Church. For alas, 
The Pride of Rome.  how little doth she resemble Christ's Spouse, his Church. Christ's Church was planted in humility, Rome's Church lords it in Sovereignty; Christ's Church had her White vest of Innocency; Rome's Church is clad in her purple of blood and cruelty: how little doth the Scarlet tribe resemble the train of Christ? were Peter, or any of Christ's disciples now at Rome, and should see the Pope, they would rather take him for Pilate, an Officer or Judge of Caesar's, then for Peter a fisherman, and servant of Jesus, and would think his Cardinals to be rather the Ambassadors of Bozra, than the Messengers of the Gospel, and servants of Christ, and should any but assume that Christian boldness to tell them that their Scarlet Robes did cover, and make invisible the Seamlesse coat of Jesus, he were in danger of a Council. To such a height of Majesty are they of late aspired, that they exercise dominion without restraint, little regarding Christ's precept to his Apostles; the Kings of the Gentiles bear Rule, and exercise dominion, Vos autem non sic. And here by the way I will insert a story of Peter, and Simon Magus, 
incertainty of Peter being at Rome.  Aegesippus, lib. 2. de excidio Hierusal. cap. 2. reports that Peter came to Rome to withstand Simon Magus, 44 Christi, (Eusebius says he was crucified 36 Christi: others, that Paul and he together; others, that Paul was crucified a year after, and on the same day: Prudentius, that Paul followed Peter to Rome, from which contradictions not certainty of his being there is to be concluded) but I return to my story. It is said that Simon Magus taking some offence with the Citizens threatened to leave them, and to fly away from them in their sight to fetch down vengeance from Heaven upon them, and the day being appointed, he began to take his flight in mount Capitolinus into the air, and that Peter, by the power of the Lord Jesus brought him down, and broke his bones; which act of Peter's occasioned his persecution, for that Simon Magus was beloved of Cesar; this Story is in the Roman Legends. I could wish the Pope to make this moral use of this story, to wit; to beware how he exalts Rome, above the heavenly Jerusalem; for if he continue to cuff the Heavens with his towering waxed pinions, he must expect the divine majestic rays of the heavenly Sun to melt his proud supporters into nothing, he must not think to exalt himself against God and prosper. Is it not enough for him to be primus Episcoporum ordine, but he will contrary to God's Word be Supremus Potestate, etc. God gives wings to the Ant. that she may destroy herself the sooner, let Rome's Bishop be content with his own Province, for it is a rule, that that State that goes beyond the lists of mediocrity, passes the bounds of safety, all Churches of Europe would honour her as a sister, but 'tis unnatural to love a stepmother: we are all fellow members of Christ, let not Rome therefore despise her sister England. Let us strive together in love, and let the Church that is at Rome, salute the Church that is in England, and let us greet each other with an holy kiss, she must not rob England of her name of a Church, if she think not to bastard herself, for we are all engrafted in the same stock, and baptised into one faith by the spirit of Jesus, & it is not for her to be busy in another's diocese to judge of our matters of discipline or doctrine in that wherein we differ from her any further, then that if she conceive we err, to give admonishment to those of her own Province, they fall not into the like condemnation, she must not upon this score deny the society of Christian believers the name of a church.  
Admit the unfriendly appellations of Schismatics and heretics which they bestow upon us were deserved, 
Haereticus est pars ecclesiae.  because we do not in all points agree and communicate with Rome, yet we must not therefore be denied to be a church, & for this assertion I have the authority of the Council of Trent, I say, which was wholly gathered of men against the reformed churches, and men totally for the Pope's supremacy, yet they did not deny but that Schismatiches and Heretics were in the Catholic Church, and might confer orders, administer and baptise, and the council of florence agrees herewith sum. Sacrament. Rom. Ecclesiae Sect. 136.28. and therefore it is very harsh dealing in the Doctor to deny us this which their own Counsels allow, so that Saint Paul's saying is verified in him, Heb. 12.15. when one falls away from the faith a root of bitterness springs up in him, and that's the reason the Doctor is so harsh against the English Church.  
The name Protestant, 
The name Protestant.  and English Protestant, which the Dr. so much spurns at, doth not at all speak us members cut off from the old stock the Catholic Church, for as the Doctor maintains that the name Roman Catholic is proper and significant language and sense, so may we as well say English Protestant, and with more reason, for we will note by the Doctor's distinction thereby the difference between our discipline & doctrine, only for our particular selv s assert the Catholic faith, thereby to manifest the readiness of us a particular member of the Catholic Church, to give the head thereof our Master Christ, for the word Protestant is comprehensive of Catholic, and is no more but to assert the faith, which faith is Catholic, so that an English Protestant may be said truly to be he that will hold, stick to, and to his power maintain the Catholic faith taught and maintained in the English Church. For the word Protestant, though of a new addition, proves not the Religion new, or profession not agreeable to the Old Faith and profession of the Primitive Churches, but being added with reference to their profession is an evidence of their zeal, and affection to maintain and profess that ancient and Catholic truth. For we do not profess ourselves to have left the Catholic faith once preached and professed at Rome, but that Rome has left of to be a Catholic Church, bringing in strange delusions, and persuading people to believe lies, which especially since her pretence to universality has been much studied, to make her new claims good, whereas we desire only to impugn her late errors, and to protest against them, & to maintain the ancient faith, and though in this we may to some seem to set ourselves against the Church of Rome, to forfeit our interest in the Catholic Church, because as they suppose, we claimed our Religion from her, yet there is nothing less, for we are a Province, and had a Metropolitan of our own, and might call a Council, and reform things amiss by the authority Ecclesiastical without appealing to Rome, nor do we hereby forfeit the title of a Church, But rather justify the same, in respect we differ in nothing, but we would submit it to a free General Council, and though we were heretical in some points, yet having a society of believers in Jesus, and having Apostolical orders amongst us, we still may without offence to any, retain the name and appellation of a Church.   

CHAP. IU.  
Of the right of Collation to Bishoprics and of the Ordination of Bishops, of succession of Pastors, and particularly of the Succession in England, & that the Pope ought not to intermeddle in the appointing of Bishops in England.  
THe Doctor has a great spleen towards our succession of Bishops in our Church, and would fain persuade the world we are not of the Catholic Church for our defect therein: It rests therefore that I clear our Church from that new devised scandal.  
Ecclesia non consistit in hominibus ratione potestatis vel dignitatis Ecclesiasticae vel secularis, quia multi Principes & summi Pontifices inventi sunt, qui à fide apostatasse, propter quod ecclesia consistit in illis personis in quibus est notitia vera & confessio fidei & veritatis.  
Can we not prove one line of succession, it much matters not, for we may notwithstanding lay claim to be of the Catholic Church, and having a society of believers in Christ, do notwithstanding make a Church. If we agree with the Apostles and Fathers of the Primitive Church, it is sufficient, saith Tertullian, to give us the name of Catholic Church, Ecclesia quae licet nullum ex Apostolis authorem suum praeferant, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus Apostolicae reputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae. Though our first planter Joseph of Arimathea, is not certainly known to have come, whether from Rome, from Paul, or from Philip out of France, or immediately from the East, it is no great matter for by the confession of the Church of Rome we had the true faith amongst us before Eleutherius time, and had Pastors then, and since have continued a lawful succession of governing Bishops, 
Succession of Bishops in England.  even to the last late reverend father William of Cant. and whereas the Dr. twits against our succession of Bishops, that we cannot maintain it unless we fetch it from Rnme, I answer that we being a distinct Province, the Bishop of Rome hath no power of Ordination here, for by the Council of Nice, the 22. Can. a Bishop is not to ordain in another's Diocese: Et si quis tale facere tentaverit irrita sit ejus ordinatio, and though we be different of late from Rome, and that it were time we had our order of Episcopacy from thence, yet the late Bishops which were so different from Rome, might ordain others within their own Province though Heretics, for that as I said before Haereticus est pars Ecclesiae. Moreover it is decreed in the Council of florence, that ordo imprimit characterem indelebilem, & therefore children baptised by an heretic, are not to be rebaptised which the Council of Trent hath decreed against the opinion of Cyprian. Nam licet male utuntur potestate ministri sibi tradita, prosint aliis non sibi. Sicut enim per asinam Balaam locutus est Deus, ita per malos ministros Sacramenta praestat. And Sum. Sacr. Rom. eccls. Sect. 136. Episcopi haeretici veros ordines conferent, & vera praestant Sacramenta.  
So that by the rules of the Papists themselves, we, notwithstanding we be heretics or Schismatics, yet having once lawful orders, which gave an indelible character, and in that a power of conferring the same upon others, as long as we remain Christians, and believe in the holy and blessed Trinity, though we differ in other points, yet we remain still members in the Catholic Church, and have a power of conferring orders, and I much wonder the Doctor should be so harsh against our Hierarchy, (unless he sometimes made a bait to fly at a Bishopric, and being canvassed in Peter's net, it stirred up some atra bilis, which since would never be allayed) he is so much incensed against it, that he utterly denies our succession upon the interruption of Roman Bishops in H. 8. and Queen Eliz. time, for my part his allegations against it do not much trouble me, nor I hope will they find entertainment with many, sigh they carry with them no more weight than the bare opinion of himself, he positively affirming upon his own authority, that our ministers are not in legal Orders insomuch that if one of our Priests came to Rome, he must be ordained a new; which if it be true, it is contrary to the decrees of Popish Counsels, and will be a sufficient testimony to the world to convince them of falsehood, and juggling with the world, that they should profess one thing, and practise another, to declare in Counsels, that a Heretic confers true and perfect orders, and yet will not in their practice allow of it: however, for them to affirm us Heretics, is to beg the question, and therefore we may safely within our own province continue a succession of Orders without any approbation of theirs at all: nor is this any more than of right is due to us, as may appear by the 1 Council of Nice, 
Provincial Ordination of Bishops.  4 Can. a Bishop ought to be ordained by the several Bishops of the Province; but if they cannot conviently all meet to this purpose, than three shall serve to perform the ordination, which is also confirmed by the Council of Antioch 19 Can. and the Council of Carthage 13 Can. and it is the opinion of some learned Divines, that in case, of necessity the Ministers may Ordain where Bishops are wanting; for that the Presbytery or Ministry have right to impose hands, and the Keys are said to be Claves ecclesiae, non claves episcoporum seu presbyterorum; 
Infra 43.5 chap.  yet God be blessed England was never put to this straight, we still had a continuing succession of Bishops, notwithstanding the deprivation of the Popish Prelates, and so according to that Canon did ordain in our own Precincts, which as it is of right our due, and belonging to us, so it is likewise practised, and hath been the ancient Custom of other Provinces as well as this; as the Eastern Provinces ordain without the assistance of Rome; and in these Western parts, even in France and Germany, and other places; which right of Ordination being thus by decrees of the General Counsels annexed to distinct Provinces I much wonder, the moderate Papists of France and Germany should suffer themselves to be trampled upon by the Ignatian tribe, sworn Servants to the imperious Pope, who daily exercises strange dominion over them, making no other use of them then the Turk doth of his slaves, to wit, to do his drudgery whilst he himself reaps the fruits of their labours: It argues a cowardly spirit to be afraid to right themselves herein, because some of their Princes have fallen in the attempt, amongst whom the 4th Henries of both Countries were sacrificed to the ambition and rapine of the encroaching Popes: such horrid attempts as these should rather stir up their noble spirits to a just revenge, upon the bloodied conclave, for putting into act such cursed designs, then through the base treachery of an ignoble nature, slavishly to submit themselves to the Antichristian yoke of Rome, when as if they would nobly withstand his unjust intrusions upon them, they might restore to themselves a Church free from such Babylonish bondage, and in some commendable measure imitate the heavenly Jerusalem, which is above free, and the Mother of us all. For though their Consciences be not convinced of Rome's Errors, yet they may, having distinct Provinces within themselves, hold Counsels, ordain Bishops, and perform other ecclesiastical rights and duties without being appointed thereunto from Rome, or being commanded to give an account thither of their proceed therein. The Bishop of Rome being only equal to other Sees in a Pastoral institution, and locked up within certain provincial precincts by decrees of the primitive Counsels; and let them be sure of this, as long as they continue themselves Saints to the Church of Rome, they shall be sure to be fed with stepmother's shives, whereas if they would put their Churches under natural, and proper heads of their own, they might be sure to find more indulgent cherishing, and tender care, whereby they would in the eyes of their husband look more comely, and the French Lilies would more nearly represent Christ his Spouse. But I return to the Doctor.  
The Doctor urges that our succession of Bishops in England was last, for that it was interrupted by the turning out of the old ones in Hen. 8. and Q. Eliz. time, and the temporal Authority preferring others in their room: 
The Civil Magistrate nominate Bishops within his Dominion.  I answer, that of right it belongs to the Civil Magistrate to appoint Bishops within his own Territories and Dominions, especially that in England it hath been an ancient right and privilege of the Magistracy; nor is the Pope himself free from this right of the Civil Magistrate, as I shall show an none.  
It doth not impugn any ecclesiastical privilege grounded upon Divine Authority, to grant this to the Civil Magistrate: For by this, there is no intrusion upon the function, the Bishops are not hereby deprived of their right of ordination; for this doth not awarrant any to step into the Ministry, unless he have Apostolical mission according to Christ's rule, Mat. 28. and Saint Paul's declaration, Rom. 10.15. By which Mission we understand the Imposition of Hands, 
Imposition of Hands.  which is the outward sign of the invisible grace conferred in that holy Order, and which is the means that Christ hath appointed outwardly for the conveying of the holy Ghost, and giving them Spiritual Grace, 1 Tim. 4. and Acts 6. and it is according to Christ's example, Luke 24.50. Christ lifting up his hands blessed them, and according to his precept he commanding Paul to go to Damascus, and it should be told him what he should do, and accordingly he was warned in a Vision, that Ananias should come unto him, and ●ay his hands upon him, and he should receive his sight, Acts the 9 neither did he receive the holy Ghost before this, ver. 17. and this being the outward sign Christ hath appointed, we ought not to admit any into the Ministry without it, for by this they are devoted to us as true Shepherds, coming in at the door, and without it, they should not excercise the Ministry, thereby not assuring us they are no intruders; for we are not to give credit to pretended Revelations, to a Mission by a Vision, or by dictates of any Spirit, in regard Christ hath appointed this way and means for us to know to whom he hath in truth given his Spirit: for as the outward means is nothing worth without the inward Grace; neither ought we to be persuaded they have the inward grace, without the outward means, Christ having shown the way how they must come into this holy Function; if any enter not that way, but climb in another way, he is a thief: Yet this doth not at all contradict the Civil Magistrates recommending any one to supply an empty See, or other Benefice, that being warranted by the example of the Apostles: For Act. 6.3. when they considered that it was not meet to leave the Word of God to serve Tables; 
The people elect Ministers.  they called the multitude, and bade them look out amongst themselves seven men of honest report, which they might appoint to the business; and Acts 14.23. the Elders, that is, the Ministers of the Church were elected by the people, and after ordained by Paul and Barnabas; by which places it is evident, that the election belonged to the Civil Power, to the people where the Civil Magistracy is lodged in them; to the Prince, where he hath the Temporal Sword: so that if we can show jusgentis for this, it is warrant enough, which I purpose not only to make clear for ourselves in England, but likewise that the Emperor hath right of Collation to the See of Rome.  
Whilst the Emperors of Rome were Heathens, 
The Pope appointed  they had no regard to the Church, either to endow it with Revenues, or to take care who ruled, or had the charge of the Ministry: But as soon as Constantine received the Faith, than not only he, but his Successors had especial care towards the Rules thereof; Constantine by an Edict confirming Silvester over the Church, and his Successors after him, he appointing who should succeed Silvester in the See: neither was this unreasonable, for it was fit that the Civil Magistrate should appoint who should succeed in that See, because now they were to receive some certain benefit belonging to this See, by the donation of the Magistrate, and a thing so appropriated being part of his Temporal possessions, as Lord Paramount within his own dominions; and for which they become Homagers to their donor, they not otherwise having any title to temporal possessions. For as Ministers, they are not to take care for the things of this world, Mat. 7. and Christ denied to meddle with the temporal inheritance of the brethren; and the Disciples were commanded not to carry scrip, Luke 22. but having meat and drink, to be therewith content, 1 Tim. 6. Paul did not seek for gain, Acts the 20, neither was he burdensome, 2 Thes. 3. yet notwithstanding, though they ought not to be solicitous after these things, they were to live of the Gospel, 1 Cor. 9 and the labourer is worthy of his hire, Mat. 10. and he that finds the Sheep, must live of the Milk; it is lawful for them to require victum and vestitum; and if through the bounty of any Prince, under whom they reside, they have any thing bestowed upon them, which will amount over, and besides this, it ought to be bestowed in Hospitality: For 1 Tim. 3. Episcopum oportet esse Hospitalem; so that though they are not to seek for any thing more than meat or drink; yet if any more be bestowed on them, it is lawful for them to accept it, provided it be bestowed upon Hospitality. And in all Reason the founder of such overplus ought to have the nomination of the person that must distribute that revenue. Nam cujus est dare ejus est disponere; and for this reason have Princes right of Collation to Episcopal Sees, and other ecclesiastical places so endowed. And for this reason the Emperors had right to Collation to the See of Rome, as appears by Marsilius defensor pacis dict. 2. cap. 21, etc. as is manifest by what here ensues.  
Boniface the third writ an Epistle to Honorius, 
Infra 142.14 chap. & 76, the 10 chapter.  that he would permit him to continue in his Seat at Rome, he having been placed there before by division of the Empire, and Honorius his coming to the West.  
Anno 451. Leo, Bishop of Rome writes a gratulatory Epistle to Marrian for his care to the Church, in relation to his calling the Council of Chalcedon; by which peace was restored into the Church; and as Boniface writ to Honorius, so he entreats, that by the favour of Marrian, he might continue in his See: by which it is evident, that it belonged to the Emperor to appoint the Bishop of Rome. And thus it did continue until Anno 687. 
Constant. Pogonot. infra 141. 14 chap.  that Benedict 2. obtained of Constantine the 4th, that the Bishop of Rome should be created without the confirmation of the Emperor, which continued not long in that state, but was reduced back, and centred again in its own proper sphere; and that not by any compulsive power, but as if the succeeding Pope Adrian had felt some compunction of Spirit for detaining that which of Right belonged to the Civil Magistrate, he did freely, and by consent of a Council at Lateran, give power to Charles the Great to appoint the Bishop of Rome, and to dispose of his See Apostolic, which so remained in him, and his Successors for a long time; and since divers Popes of Rome, by virtue hereof, have been deposed, as Benedict 5th by Otho the first, and Leo placed in his room; and Gelasius deposed by Hen. 5. and several others which came not in, in right of the Emperors, as may appear by the Germane and Italitan Histores; wherefore the pretence of some Pope's Parasite, that Ludovious Pius, successor to Charles the Great, should release this privilege of Collation back again, is vain, and utterly false, as is evident by these transactions of succeeding Ages. The Romans bound themselves to Henry 3d, the Emperor, by Oath not to meddle with the appointing the Emperor, which after, within four years, when the Emperor was absent was violated, the Clergy of Rome choosing Stephen 9th, anno 1057. which being but an usurpation in the Clergy so to do, the Cardinals thought they had as much right as those Clergymen, and therefore upon the Rule, that one Thief may rob another, did by the assistance of Pope Nicholas 2d, and Hildebrand, his Cardinal, Chaplain, take it to themselves: so that whosoever is Pope by their Election, hath no right to the Chair; for that the Title of the Cardinals is surreptitious, and illegal in its Commencement; Et quod ab initio valet in tractu, Temporis non convaliscat. For the Pope being a Spiritual man, ought not to plead possession, when as his claim is by Intrusion; and prescribe he cannot, for that these Records are extant to the contrary, since therefore by primitive right, and by reduction, after a separation thereof, and that made good by Authority of Pope and Council, and after by Oath confirmed, it doth belong to the Emperor of the West, or the King of France, to appoint the Bishop of Rome. Let the present Emperor look to his Right, as he will be served; and let him beware of too long a discontinuance of this privilege: for should the gnawing rusty teeth of time worm-eat, and raze all his Records and Testimonies that prove him a right to this Collation, he shall never repair his loss, when as he may be sure the Vactitan Hill shall be stored with old and new additions to the Bishop of Rome a right to appoint Germany an Emperor.  
And as the Emperor had right to Collate to the See of Rome, so likewise had he the same right to other Metropolitan Sees of Germany, till over looking his Right to Rome, the rest fall from him according to the Rule, Dato uno absurdo mille sequuntur. But I return back to England, and will show what right the Civil Magistrate hath to appoint Bishops in England without consent of the Pope.  
By the Ancient Laws, and Constitutions of this Kingdom, 
The Kings of England appoint Bishops without the Pope.  the King was Patron of all the Bishoprics in the Land: for the Rule is, Patronum faciunt does, edificatio, fundus; they were all donative, and of the King's gift: Per traditionem annuli & Pastoralis baculi, as appears by the Law-books, 7 Edw. 4. Cook 10. Report 73. and Matthew Paris History, fol. 62.  
The King, by Edward the Confessors Laws, cap. 19 is declared to be Vicarius (which was long before acknowledged by Eleutherius, in his Epistle before recited) summus, & persona mixta cum sacerdote Constitutus est, ut Populum dominii, & super omnia ecclesiastica Regat.  
By the Judges of old it was declared, that Papa non potest mutare leges Angliae: none can Found, or Erect a College, Church, Abbey, etc. without the Kings Warrant, Dyer 271. the Privileges of the Church were growing out of the Civil Magistrates power, and therefore by the Articles, Super clerum, made 9 Edw. 2. no suit was to be before the Bishops for any matter whatsoever, but a prohibition lay, and there it is expressed in what cases it shall be allowed.  
16 Edw. 3. Excom. 4. and 2 R. 3.22. Excom. by the Pope is no disability of any suit within this Kingdom; which resolutions are grounded upon the Common Law of this Kingdom; which Common Law is but certain reasonable Customs and usages of the Land refined by the experience of succeeding Ages, and drawn into form by Edward the Confessor, which gathered it out of Divine, natural, and moral principles; and as I said, the ancient reasonable usages of the precedent Ages, and that the King is by ancient Custom Vicarius sumus, and with the advice of his nobles did appoint Bishops, is proved by Eleutherius, who was the first Bishop of Rome that ever had any intercourse concerning Church affairs in this Land, which was only to assist, and further the Ministry, but in no means to take from the King what was his right, or what formerly belonged to him; nor was this Ancient right ever invaded till Beckets business, that I can find: 'tis true, that some strangers were sent hither, and recommended by the Bishop of Rome to be by him preferred to English Benefices, which were out of courtesy accepted, but this did not prove any right of Collation in the Bishop of Rome at all, nor did ever he set up his pretence to that Right, till Hen. 2. time. Which quarrel the advantage of the troubled times did occasion, not the Justice of the Pope's Cause, to spur him to clear his title thereto, he knew well enough that the King had the sole Power, and just Title without him to set up what Bishops he pleased. And whereas it may be objected, that the Bishops of England are eligible; it is true, they are so, but that was by the consent of King John; for before that they were not eligible, but were made eligible by a Roll, 15 Jan. 17. of K. John; but notwithstanding that grant is so restrained, that they cannot be elected without the Kings Writ of Congee Deslier.  
As for the Pope excommunicating the King about Beckets quarrel, 
Tho. Becket.  that doth not prove the Pope's power so to do: For to argue de facto ad jus, brings with it an absurd consequence: it pleased the King to submit to it, not being able to oppose the Factions then stirred up against him. 
Infra 90. 11 chap.  But it cannot from thence be evinced, that the King's voluntary submission out of policy of State, doth make the Pope's claim to excercise that power in another's Province lawful. I have more at large treated of this particular business in the 11 chapter, to which I refer you. But the main business insisted upon by the Papists, is the grand contest between Innocent the third, and King John, about an election of a Bishop of Canterbury, the King electing John Grey, and the Pope Stephen Langton; which Stephen Langton was in right of the Pope, set up against the King's election: Which case, if truly weighed with discretion, and due consideration, it will neither tend much to disparage the King, nor to advantage the Pope in point of claim. The business was briefly thus, as it is recorded by feveral Authors, domestic and foreign. There was a controversy started between the King and the Monks, Saint Augustine's (who against the King's right, & the opinion of Hubert the Archbishop, did withhold the King's Presenter out of possession of the Church of Feversham, insomuch that the King was forced to make use of the posse commitatus, and by force to expulse them from their unjust possession, which was presently reported to his holiness, who never examining the Kings right did conceive a grudge against King John, and as time and opportunity served, did vent his spleen against him, insomuch as he, after the death of Hubert, did upon his own score, and both against the King, & the Monks of Christ Church elect Steph. Langton: A man that was a great friend and familiarly entertained by the French King, who was an utter enemy to King John, and whom the Pope had wrought (to compass a revenge against King John) to prepare a numerous and powerful Army to invade England; and this upon no other Quarrel, but because King John had by force expulsed the said Monks from their unjust detaining possession of the Church of Feversham, pretending that that force which was used for the gaining of the Kings Right, was a violation of the Rights and Privilege of the holy Church: and so did make use of that liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, and not as the Servants of God, 1 Pet. 2.16. 
Stephen Langton.  And the crafty Pope having thus prepared the French King to fly into hostility against King John, he thought he might with more confidence oppose the King in his election of Grey: and did after a time work so with the Monks of Christ Church, that they were induced to adhere to the Pope's Election of Stephen Langton. This Langton saith Matthew Paris was Virum strenuum, a man that could exact of the Clergy, keep in awe the Laiety, and encounter the King and Nobility: he was a man after the Pope's own heart, and therefore such a man must not want a Bishopric. Yet King John did hearty inveigh against his admission, and the rather, because he was so great a Favourite of the French Kings, who then lay at Calais, ready to invade him. The Pope having thus broke the King's head, by bringing these innumerate troubles and dangers upon him: That he might appear to the world to be notwithstanding a Holy Father, and one who minded the peace and welfare of Christian souls, he gives a plaster to the wound he himself had made, and steps in to mediate between the two Kings, who then stood in a mutual posture, of Arms ready to expose the lives of many thousands to the hazard of the Sword in this their quarrel, which quarrel being merely fomented by the Pope, and not proceeding from national interests, (which was unknown to King John:) For the French pretended their Invasion upon the score of Kingship and Conquest) the Pope knew how to take Philip the French King off, because he was merely put on by him upon his blessing, and pardon of sins (and promise of the Kingdom of England, if he could catch it) and upon such promises of reward, and such indulgences, he had poisoned some of the Nobility of England, who thereupon made defection, and seemed to incline to the King of France his side. The Pope I say stepped in as a peacemaker betwixt them, and sunt his Legate Pandulphus to King John, who insinuating unto him the danger he then stood in; and how his Kingdom stood open to a powerful enemy then ready to invade, and was like to be made a prey unto them, for that the King went against his Holiness recommendation of Langton, and had violated the privilege of the holy Church; and for this many of his Subjects were in France with the French King ready to engage against him; and likewise that there were many in the Host, and several of his Nobility which (if it proceeded to a war) would desert him, and therefore his holiness, out of the love and affection he bore to the King, and the tender care of his Christian sons in England, came thither to entreat his Majesty (which word, 
Majesty.  though it was not familiarly applied to our Kings before Hen. 8. time, yet it was an ancient attribute long before King John, as may appear by Bracton, Britton, and other ancient writers) to be reconciled to his Holiness, and he would undertake to divert the French, and restore a general quiet and peace to his Realm of England: The King warily suspecting the danger of foreign, and treachery of Domestic Enemies, and wisely recounting with himself, the grounds he had to suspect the dangers at hand, did for to avoid that mischief, more than out of any fear he then stood in of the French King, agree to serve the time, and did admit of Langton, and taking the Legate to Dover with him, did there sign a Bull of submission, 
The Golden Bull.  by which Bull he acknowledged his Crown to be held of the Pope's Mitre, promising to pay yearly 1000 marks for England and Ireland to his Holiness, and his successors for ever; which promise might have been performed as to that payment, would that yearly stipend have satisfied the Popes, and have been allowed as a free donation, like to the former grants of Iva offa, and Ethelwolf of the yearly Peter-pences. But 'twas not that he looked for. The crafty Pope having thus wrought his ends against King John, got double honour by his enterprise; for by his peace made with King John, he had utterly spoiled the ground of the French King his Quarrel, his Army being raised upon the Score of the Holy Church, which the Pope declaring his peace with K. John, the French King Philip, in great choler, partly for that he was thus deluded, and partly for that he had lost his Navy, which the Ear I of Salisbury had set on fire in the Haven at Calais did retire; he now being out of hopes by this Quarrel, any further to promote his own interest, in respect he found defections at home; not only the English, but his own subjects not being willing to engage in a national quarrel against England: besides, the discords of England by this peace, made with the Pope, being reconciled, all hopes of prevailing against K. John forsook him, and in a discontented mind & rage he retired back to Paris. And thus the Pope at once fooled two Kings; for the Bull of delusion which was thrown at King John did rebound into the face of King Philip; the same Instrument that was made use of to cheat King John out of his right, served likewise to delude King Philip of his vain hopes: which Instrument bringing so much honour and profit to the See of Rome, was afterwards, with great insultation, and triumph, glazed in Gold, and was called the Golden Bull: and Pope Innocent the third, having so good success against these Kings, he procured presently after, in a Gouncell of L●teran, that the Popes should be declared above Kings, as appears in the 14 chapter. This is that Magna Charta by which his Holiness claims a superintendency in England, who please duly to consider, will find that it is a thing of scorn, and mockery to Rome, and of no dishonour or damage to the Crown of England. For King John subscribing that Bull, and making the Kingdom tributary, was against the Law of the Land: For the King cannot dispose of those things that are inherent in the Crown, much less of the Crown itself, & to make it tributary; and this Moor, a great Roman Catholic, confessed, that unless it were by consent of the Nobles. And the Commons of the Land, it could not bind the successors of the King, which is the true Rule of our Law, and agreeable to the ancient Constitutions of our Land: and whereas Steph. Langton was confirmed Bishop, that confirmation, unless it had been by the King's consent, gave him no right to that place; for the consent of the Monks to his election, without a Congee deslier, against the King's consent, who had sole right to collate to the See of Canterbury, in respect that of that time the Bishops were not eligible, did not at all help the matter: for Stephen Langton was admitted, anno 1205. and the Roll for making them eligible, was not till the 17 of King John, which was 12 years after his instalment, so that had it not been that the King consented to it, and did repel his electing of Grey, Langton had been an usurper, notwithstanding the election of the Monks; besides, the Monks could not elect him, nor any other without the Kings Writ of Congee Deslier.  
This Langton (as I have said before) was a man so much qualified, that he could not want his Holiness favour, for he was a second Hildebrand, a mere State incendiary, and knew how to trouble the clear waters, and make them fit for his Holiness to fish for gudgeons. 
P●● Favours, Railors.  And would the Doctor but conspire to plot some mischief against his mother Country, no doubt he might be preferred, as Allen was, to the dignity of a Cardinal. But I hear he is a man of another temper, and therefore I much honour him, and am sorry he hath betaken himself to the company of those, whose respects towards him will grow cold: for as he is a meek and sober man, he is useless to his Holiness, and must never think to find any extraordinary favour or honour from him; for it is a Papal maxim, not to Canonize Innocents' amongst Saints: time hath made the Pope's experienced, and master bvilders of their Spiritual Babel, they are grown Cunning architectors, and know how to fit every piece serviceably in the rearing up of the Babilonish Tower: The Doctor was presently discovered not to be fit for an ignation, of whom it is required to be active stirring, and turbulent: But he would serve for a Carthusian, who spend their time in more confined, and retiredness, Ex quovis ligno non fit mercurius. But this by the way, I return to the Golden Bull. As the installing of Langton had been void, notwithstanding the election, had not the King consented to a new Congee Deflier; so was the donation of that tribute to the Pope void and null, notwithstanding the Golden Bull: 
The Golden Bull.  which Bull, though it received so much honour, as to be entombed in Gold, and laid up for an everlasting Monument of Rome's acquired wealth and dignity. Yet (in my judgement) serves for no other use but to take up a room in the Treasury of their Superstitious Trumperies; and instead of being consecrate to the memory of Pandulphus, and serves to put posterity in mind of his course employment to cheat Princes, and the Pope's wickedness to set him a work about unlawful designs; which when they were at chieved to their desire, became of no validity; and so this sacred Monument, instead of Glory, becomes a lasting Record of their shame and foolery.  
I wonder in what form this Magna Charta was enclosed when it received its Golden-outside; 
The Golden Bull, Anno 1217.  sure it is was made like a Nut, and did thereby Hieroglyphic its short continuance, for it was not long preserved, it proved deaf presently after: For that very year it was Sealed, King John died, and Hen. 3d his son succeeded him who sent Hugh Biggod, a Noble man, and others to the General Council at Lions in France, to require that Bull to be Canceled in respect that it passed not by consent of the Council of the Realm, which the Pope put off for that time under pretence of more weighty affairs, and still keeps the same amongst his other Monumental Trophies; nor did England at any time since seek to have the Nut restored, but waves all interest to it, and freely proclaims, that any who please may crack it, and take the Kernel for their pains.  
By virtue of this grand Charter, the Pope had in conceit under his jurisdiction the Kingdom of England, but it was but in conceit; for he regained no more benefits, or virtual prerogative from thence, than the Turk doth, (who tacitly by his title of being Lord of Europe) styles himself Lord thereof: Hen. 3d never paid any tribute, nor acknowledged it due, nor any of the three succeeding Edwards, and Anno 6. R. 2. all the Kingdom willingly bound themselves by a Law to maintain the Crown of England, against all Papal citation, suspension, excommunications and censures whatsoever, which they judged free, and subject to none save God: The power of Magistracy being innate, not affixed to England.  
The next Argument the Papists make to prove the Pope's Ecclesiastical power in England, 
The King styled Defender of the Faith, by the Pope.  is from Hen. 8. his accepting the style of Defender of the Faith, as an honour proceeding from his Holiness, whereby they would persuade that the King is not to meddle with matters of Faith within his own Realms, unless by deputation or consent of his Holiness; to which I answer.  
I have proved that by the ancient Laws of the Kingdom, the King is superintendent within his own Dominions, as well in cases Ecclesiastical as Civil: in Scripture Kings are called Nursing Fathers of the Church, Isai. 49.23. and this right was in the Crown before ever Hen. 8. had it promulged by the Pope for R. 2. in a Commission granted by him used these words, Nos zelo fides Catholicae cujus sumus & esse volumus defensores in omnibus, etc. wherefore for the Pope to give this stile, it was superfluous; for expressio eorum quae tacite insunt nihil operatur. It doth but argue he is covetous and ambitious; covetous in that he hereby makes himself master of another's Interest, and ambitious in that he would be thought the Author of Prince's dignities.  
As for King Hen. 8. his adding that stile to his other distinguishments of Dignity it did not proceed from any conceit that he could not have styled himself so, had not the Pope saluted him with that courteous appellation: But only in respect it was grown into fashion to add to their temporal Styles, some denotement of their ecclesiastical power, as the Emperor of Ethiopia styles himself the Pillar of Faith, without deriving that dignity from Rome.  
It is true, the French embrace the stile of Christian, and the Spaniard of Catholic King, from Rome; yet I suppose they might without that be so dignified: As for England, it is plain, that her King may without any donation thereof from Rome: for that it is warranted by her ancient Laws; and Eleutherius called Lucius God's Vicar; the King was styled, Persona mixta cum sacerdote; which was many hundred years known before Hen. 8. 
Ante 37. Cap. 4.  and therefore sigh by the ancient Laws of the Land the King is Vicarius summus infra Regnas. He must nominate, or aught to Authorize some by virtue of his power, (all foreign provincial Jurisdiction being locked up by consent of Counsels within its proper provincial precincts) to appoint Bishops; this ancient right being grounded upon God's Word, in that I have proved that the Temporal Magistrate did elect such as should be ordained, and therefore for the Doctor, to deny us to be a Church, because we want succession of Bishops, the new ones being appointed by the Temporal Magistrate, when as they wanted nothing to complete their Order, seems to me strange, and unreasonall.  
If the Doctor, when he denies our succession of Bishops, 
No discontinuance of Succession of Bishops in England.  when Queen Elizabeth turned out the old ones, could prove that the new ones had no Imposition of Hands by Bishops, than his Argument touched us something, though it be not absolute necessary that Bishops ordain Bishops: 
Ante 33.4 chap.  For what if all the Bishops should die so near at one time, that none were left ordained by them, shall not the Presbytery make Bishops? they have right to the Keys, which are called Claves ecclesiae non episcoporum, and they are the remaining Pillars of the Church, and certainly may confer the Order of Bishop upon others, and that the rather, because the Counsels forbidden Bishops of another Province to ordain in a foreign Province; and though it may seem strange to some, that Ministers which are subordinate should ordain Bishops, and so confer Superior Orders; it is not (if rightly examined) contradictory to reason: For in this first ordination of Priests and Deacons; they are infra ordines majores, which orders are called Holy, and Sacramental, and are the Highest Orders, witness Pope Vrban decret didst 60. sum. Sacr. Ro. Eccl. 226. as for the Order of Bishops, it is no more than a Priest as to the Holy and Sacramental Order only; more excellent in respect of the Order of Governing, which is rather of Humane then Divine right: 
Priests ordain Bishops.  for as it is Divine, it is no more than what every Priest hath by the Sacramental order; but as it is Humane, it is transcendent in relation to Discipline; 
Ante 33.4 chap.  and therefore the Presbytery may agree to ordain one over them to govern them in ecclesiastical Rites, as the people may choose a Prince to Govern in civil affairs: Hence it was, that the Apostles sent John to Ephesus, Peter to Antioch, and appointed James over the Churches at Jerusalem: which before such their Consignations were but equal with the other Apostles in every respect; but after that, if any other of the Apostles came where they had the oversight, they were observant of them: Hence was it, that James was prolocutor of the Council at Jerusalem, and not Peter, because James was Bishop there, (I may from thence infer, that if Peter came to Rome for the same reason, he was observant of Paul) and therefore it is conceived, that in case of necessity Priests may ordain Bishops; for that Bishops in relation to their Jurisdiction, are not a Sacramental Order, but only as they are Priests. But if this opinion be by the learned condemned, I shall submit, and yet with confidence affirm, that we may in England claim a Church notwithstanding: For when Queen Elizabeth turned out some Popish Bishops, those that were put into their rooms were ordained by the remaining part of the old Bishops: For all the old Bishops were not turned out then, nor in Hen. 8. his time. For first, in Hen 8. time the controversy was about Supremacy; which question the Insolences of the Pope occasioned, (though I do not justify that Prince for all he did) and being once started, it gave occasion of further scrutiny into the primitive Fathers and Counsels, 
Reformation of England. Infra 55.5 chap.  which did so far persuade the Consciences of the then Clergy, that many of them did adhere to the Prince against the Pope, and by that and other after inquisitions, they found they had primitive right of calling Counsels, and reforming things amiss in their Church without appealing to Rome; and thereupon having the authority of Scriptures, Counsels, and Fathers, they restored to themselves their just rights, and shook off their servile obedience to the See of Rome, which the Pope's continued over them, by keeping them up in ignorance, not allowing them their own judgements and illumination ecclesiastical to understand the plain letter of any thing, be it never so far demonstrated to the easiest capacity without his Holiness interpretation; and having thus shaken off that slavish yoke of Rome, the scales of blind obedience fell from their eyes, and they clearly perceived the Pope's false cunning, and damnable abusings of Scriptures, Fathers, Counsels, and what not, thorough his unjust usurpations of universality, and infallibility, whereby he became a new Legislator of Divine rules of Faith, which had in them too much of gross and fleshly compositions, tending merely to enslave Christendom, and to set up the Pope's triple Crown; for all the people to worship, thereby making them forsake Christ, and his Truth, for the fables and traditions of that abominable Idol.  
And as In Hen. 8. time all the Bishops were not turned out; so neither at the coming of Queen Elizabeth to the Crown, but continued in their Bishoprics, excercising their function, ordaining others as formerly, only the Archbishop of York, the Bishops of Elie, Lincoln, Bath, Worcester, and Excester were outed, and the Bishops of Saint Asaph, Bangor, London and Chester fled; the rest continued, and ordained others: The Queen herself being Enaugurated by Bishop Oglethorp, one of Queen Mary's Bishops, and Bishop of Carlisle; and Parker, the Archbishop was consecrated by the Imposition of Hands of Barlow, Coverdale, and Korey; three of Queen Maries, Bishops, and two suffragan Bishops more, as appears by the act of Consecration: for that our succession was not totally interrupted; or if it had, I hold that succession of Bishops is no inseparable mark of a true Church; for if so, then where was the Church before Christ, for he was not of Aaron's succession, 
Succession no inseparable mark of a true Church.  but after the order of Mesehisedeck; and Peter was designed of Christ, having none to go before him; so that succession is no absolute mark of a true Church.  
And whereas the Doctor objects, that we are beholding to the Romish Bishops, if our succession was not interrupted; I have already proved that we had Sacramental Orders at least, if not governing Bishops before ever Eleutherius sent any Priests into England; 
Ante 24.32 2 & 4 chap.  & our English writers say these two which were sent to Rome by Lucius were Bishops; however, they were in Holy Orders, though I rather incline to think, that none exercised any Episcopal Jurisdictions, till by the Prince Christianity was publicly professed, and being in Orders, did consecrate others; and there were others which had given to them the imposition of Hands; from whom, and not merely from Rome, we claim a succession of Pastors: yet I might admit, we had it from Rome, and though all of the Romish Institution were extinct, yet we continue a succession; for that still we are pars ecclesiae, though Heretics: But that's but their begging of the question, we appeal to the Scriptures, primitive Counsels and Fathers to Judge, who are of us two the schismatics or Heretics; and I submit to the Judicious reader to censure, or condemn us in the points here controverted, whether Rome or we be in the Error.  
Thus briefly I have answered the Doctors condemning of us for want of Succession; and have in some sort proved that the Church of Rome cannot properly be said a true Church in respect of her Succession, 
Ante 9 Rome uncertain in her succession, chap. 2  of which more in the next chapters; for that she is uncertain in it, and many of the Bishops of Rome usurpers in it: so I will now proceed to examine the rest of his marks by which he hath distinguished her Truth, and Catholickship, and shall prove that she may not ascribe to herself the Title of the Catholic Church, for and by reason of any of them.   

CHAP. V.  
That the Church of Rome hath been, and any particular Church may be Invisible.  
THe first marks by which the Doctor hath laboured to prove Rome the true Church, to wit, Universality and Antiquity are already answered in that I have Proved others equal, and some ancienter than the Church of Rome; it now follows, to look a little further after her, whilst she may be found; for shortly she shall be Invisible.  
The Church Visible is a Company professing the Doctrine of the Law, and the Gospel, 
Visibility.  using the Sacraments, according to Christ's Institution, in which company are many unregenerate as Hypothules, as by the Parable of the seed and tares is manifest.  
The Church Invisible, is a company of those only which are elect to Eternal life, of whom it is said, No man shall pluck my sheep out of my hands, Joh. 10.28. & is Universal, or comprehensive of all the Elect, which both now have, & heretofore living, had one Faith. The Church visible is Universal, in respect of the dispersed Companies of those that profess one faith in Christ, which must continue till the end of the world: And the Visible Church is particular in respect of place and habitation, and of diversity of Rites and Ceremonies, as England, Rome, etc. which particular Churches may becoming Invisible; and particularly Rome hath been Invisible in respect of her Assemblies, and is invisible in relation to the true Faith, and Doctrine: for though at present she hath companies of men which assemble to worship God, and serve him in the Sacrament, yet she therein follows not Christ's institution; she is now invisible in respect of Faith and Doctrine, and in respect of Men; she cannot boast of this mark of Visibility, but Tares grow as well as Wheat: and as Rome hath been invisible in these respects, so may any other particular Church be Invisible.  
Elijah complained that he was left alone, 
A particular Church may be Invisible.  and that the Prophets were slain: that complaint of his (saith the Doctor) doth not prove that the true Church may be Invisible: for (saith he) that complaint was uttered with relation to the Kingdom of Israel, only wherein Elijah then was, and not with reference to the Kingdom of Judah, where Elijah was not persecuted by Ahab, and where the Church of God doth flourish.  
This his Argument, in my opinion proves what is objected against the Church of Rome: It is true, it is an Argument that the Church shall not be Universally Invisible; but if by the true Church he mean the Church of Rome, (and I think he would not otherwise be understood) it is no Argument but that it may be Invisible: it is true, at one instant of time the Church shall not be universally invisible; (God having promised his Spirit to be with the Apostles in their teaching of Nations to the world's end;) but yet in any particular place it hath been, and may be Invisible, as he confesses himself; he saith, it was invisible in relation to the Kingdom of Israel; and in Judah they knew not whether to resort, when the Temple itself was defiled; neither was there Place, nor Sacrifice, nor High Priest; the Priest was wicked, the Temple was defiled, 2 King. 19.2. and when the Doctor is charged with its being invisible in Judea, he pleads it invisible in Ethiopia, the Eunuch having received the Faith by Philip: and so by these landscapes he makes intervals of darkness, proving that in particular places it was Invisible; and if so, then may not Rome, being a particular Church, boast of absolute truth, by reason of this mark of Visibility? we do not go about to prove the Church universally invisible, at one instant of time, whilst we say that any particular Church (as Rome) may be Invisible; but that no one particular Church but at some time may be Invisible.  
Time was, when both Rome and we agreed in the same Principles of Religion, conform to the Rules of Scriptures, Counsels, and Fathers: but of later years, Rome being grown above Apostolical Orders, abusing the indulgence of Christian Princes, and other Churches towards her: She hath turned the grace of God into wantonness, converting Premacy into Supremacy, and that Supremacy into Infallibility; and so having acquired that uncontrollable Prerogative, by the dull consent of some lame Princes, and blind servile slavish People, she became the only evangellical cradle, accounting the Scriptures dead Letters, and to receive articulate sense from her dictates, and so for her own advantage pr●s●●ibe Laws and Religion to her blind obedient Prosylites.  
Yet the all disposing power of Heaven, which suffered Rome's Bishop thus by his own Innovations to darken the light of his neighbour Churches, did now and then give him a scourge to let him know he was but a man; and in respect of that frail composition was elementary, and subject to vicissitudes and alterations in his Constitution; and that nothing that was the production of that various body of inconstant humours but was obnoxious to a countermand by its mutable framer, or to be trodden down by others, whose strong bulks cared not for his too curious preparatives; and when a general face of quiet seemed to smile upon the Territories of Rome's Church; and that she flourished in that height, that she thought herself above all opposition, behold a sudden destruction overtook her; and as the mighty Elephant, whose power is able to throw down great and ponderous masses, is tamed at the sight of a Ram, and trembleth at the gruntling of a little Pigg: even so her desolation came from an unsuspected and contemptible hand; insomuch that Rome, in the height of this her glory, and though she was the admired Metropolis of the Western world, and her Temples adorned with the offerings of several Nations. Yet she was not secure, and above the Heathenish suppressions of the runagate Goths, the beggarly Scythians, and the spoiling Arrian, Vandals, that head City of the World not escaping the sacking by Alaricus in Honorius time; nor her Temples free from the rapine of the Genserick in Marcianus time, and her Capitol left unransackt by our Belivins, and proved no Sanctuary against Totilas, and his Northern forces. From these Judgements, if she reflected upon God's Justice, she could not promise to herself security. For if Jerusalem, which was the seat of James, the beloved of the Lord, must not be free from the harrassing of the northern Forces, how could Rome promise Immunity to herself from the like afflictions: I wish she would call to mind these her former occurrences of misfortune; 
Infra 135.14 chap.  and that she would by these examples of God's Justice and indignation towards her, forbear to claim an Universality in respect of her See; for she may by them clearly perceive that she is not the rock against whom the gates of Hell shall not prevail; nor are her Temples so , but the battering shot of the Rummishing Canon can strike a palsy into their lofty heads, and by Divine permission have laid their honours in the dust.  
This was the day of her Visitation, and now sits she in quiet, whilst we groan under the calamities of this mischief; but let her not laugh to see our candle put under a bushels the rudeness of some not respecting the privileges of our Church, for there hath no evil befallen us, that she herself by experience is not subject to: These sad and dreadful visitations of the Lord may tell both them, and us, that we are Churches militant, and must after the pattern, and in imitation of our Head, christ Jesus, suffer her in misery, that we may triumph hereafter in Glory; there is no particular Church but is subject to these tokens of God's Wrath: When under Dioclesian Christians were so wasted thorough persecution, that there were, in the Judgement of many, none left remaining, their Books burnt, th●ir Churches destroyed, and themselves put to death by sundry torments; and Pillars erected in every place, with this blasphemous Inscription, Superstitione Christi ubique delecta. Then did we escape that persecution, when the glory of Rome's Church was much darkened thereby; and now that our Church suffers an eclipse; whilst the same occasion of darkness doth not debar the light from Rome: Let not this be an occasion of rejoicing to her, but rather remember her own former sufferings, he that stands take heed lest he fall: for there hath no tentation taken us, but such as is subject to man, and God is faithful, who will not suffer us to be tempted above that we are able to bear: God for a time may take away the Candle from amongst us, thereby to show we of ourselves are not perfect; but if we trust in him, he can restore our light; he is faithful, and his hand is not shortened so, but that it can help, and he hath power to deliver, Esay 50.2.  
Saint Cyprian complained above 1270 years since, that for the great persecution that was against the Church, they could not meet, as they desired, to execute Discipline, and who will deny that the discipline of the Church is perpetual? but yet at all times it is not to be had, which proves it may be Invisible.  
These vicissitudes and alterations in every place, are incident not only to the Civil, but the Ecclesiastical state: Constantine may set up the Cross in Jerusalem, but that cannot free it from Mahomet's Banner: where Christ to day hath his Church, he sometimes suffers the Devil to morrow to make his Chapel. The Kingdom of Heaven is said to suffer violence, and the societies of men on Earth, must not think to go ; Christ suffers his Saints to be persecuted for the trial of some, and for the utter ruin of others, 1 Pet. 1.7. 2 Pet. 2.9. Christ's Church is the Congregation of Saints, and those Saints are subject to persecution and dissipation; so that in any particular place, or Region, this Society may be broke, and so the Church made there Invisible, which is a truth so plainly demonstrated to us, I wonder the Church of Rome should urge the contrary.  
Rev. 2.5. Christ threatened the Church of Ephesus, that he would remove her Candlestick, unless she amended: the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches of Asia; and Christ threatens the Church of Ephesus, that because of her backsliding he would take her Candlestick away from her, because she had forsaken her first Love: and if her Candlestick were taken away, sure she would be left in darkness, and made Invisible.  
Christ threatens to withdraw his Heavenly Beams from Ephesus, and yet he had promised his Spirit to his Church to the world's end, and that the gates of Hell should not prevail against her, but that she should be Visible in some one place, and not Universally taken from the face of the Earth at the same instant of time: But that the Church might be Invisible in any one place, is evident by this threatening of Ephesus; at which time she was the only Apostolic See, John being the●e, and Peter being dead when John writ the Apocalypse: and if Ephesus be in danger to be made Invisible, I wonder how Rome should arrogate that immunity to herself, that she alone shall not be made Invisible, when as when Christ promised his Spirit to his Church, the Church of Rome was Invisible, and therefore it cannot be in tended that this mark of Visibility, which is to be applied to the whole Church, should only, and merely be prescribed unto the particular Church of Rome, unl●sse her Church be like the Temple of Venus, in which there was a Lantern made of the stone A Beston, whose nature, as Isidore, lib. 15. de Genuus saith, is such, that being once set on fire, no wind nor rain can extinguish it, which made the Heathen people Idolise it: but she must not think so to delude us, we know her Virgin Lamp is sunk in its sockets, and that fuliginous li●●k, composed of adulterate combustibles, which she hath set up in its room, is but a thing of exhalation, the heavenly Sun, from whom she formerly borrowed light, having withdrawn his shining beams from her terrestrial Orb, and so she's left in both internal and external darkness; her understanding being darkened in that, whilst the truth is removed from her, she thinks others see it with her; and that she neither hath been, nor can be invisible; the contrary whereof is plain, by what I have already proved, 
Rome's Church hath been Invisible.  and by this that follows.  
As the Church of Rome hath been, and may be Invisible, in respect of persecution, so hath she been by reason of the vacation of her Head.  
The Doctor in his 22 Chapter, fol. 360. says, the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church, because her Bishop is the Head thereof, and hath been so accounted through all Ages.  
That he hath not been so reputed through all Ages, appears by the testimony of the first Counsels; and if Rome be the Chatholick Church in respect that the Pope is the Head, than it follows, that the Catholic Church hath been Invisible, because of the vacation of that Head, for cessante causâ cessat effectus: The light of the body is the Eye, which is placed in the head; and if the body be without the eye, the whole body, is in darkness. If then this Mark of Visibility be such an incident, and inseparable token of her truth, I would fain know where the Universal Head of the Church was whilst Rome had no Bishop: for either they must confess that the Univensall Church must be in darkness for want of a Head, and so they make God's promise of none effect, if the Church be universally hid, or else they must confess that Rome's Church is but a particular Member of the Church, and that then like the Church of the Israelites, or the Church of Ephesus, she is subject to be made invisible for a time; and that she hath been invisible, may appear by these enfuing proofs.  
Two years together, after Pope Nicholas the fourth, no Pope was chosen, and when after much dissension amongst the Cardinal's, Celestine was chosen, Boniface the 8th murdering him, was made Bishop in his stead; where was the visible Head whilst Benedict the tenth, and Nicholas the second both stand Popes at once? The Clergy, who then had the Election of the Popes, not daring to proceed to a new Election, to cross Benedict, who was very much beloved of the Citizens of Rome, withdrew themselves to Seine, and there elected Gerrardus Bishop of Florence, by the name of Nicholus 2d, who was the only favou●●ite of Hildebrand, whom Hildebrand caused to be made Pope, that he (as than not ripe for the Seat) might under him rule all: for Pope Nicholas was but a dull fellow, though proud, and ambitious of Honour; and be sure, when he saw his own time to out him, that he might succeed in the Chair, and so it happened accordingly: for Hildebrand succeeded Nicholas 2d, two fit to go together, the one bringing in at the Council of Lateran, the new Doctrine of Transubstantiation; the other maintaining the than never heard of sin of the Pope's power to depose Kings.  
Where was the triple Crown; when at once there was 3 Popes, as Innocent 7th, Gregory 12th, and at the Council of Pisa, Alexander 5th chosen. I might add more of this nature, but I will reserve the rest of my arrows to shoot at his other Marks, and shut up this point, and conclude that the Church of Rome, in respect of Persecution, and vacancy of her Bishops, cannot be the only Chatholick Church, and distinguished to be so by any certain Infallible rule of a constant Visibility.   

CHAP. VI  
That the Church of Rome cannot be reputed and taken for a true Church in respect of her Unity in Doctrine, or Sanctity of Life only.  
CHrists Coat was seamlesse, and the Soldiers cast Lots for it; that Coat was to teach the Apostles unity and concord: The Ministers of the old Temple were clad in White, thereby to betoken their Innocency: Let us look upon Rome's present Church, and see if her Pastors be not worse than the Soldiers, in rending in pieces the one, and like Baal's Priests, not having any right to the other. And who please to examine their private practices, how they agree with their public Professions, will find such a disproportion, and dissonancy, that it will be hard to judge whether his Holiness' Decrees as compendiums, and true abstracts of the Cannons of Counsels, or his Pontifical Robe as the Conusance of Peter's successor, then with them less of agreeableness and representation; the one privately thwarting the public edicts of General Counsels, and the other publicly unsuitable and dissonant to a Minister of the Gospel, so that a man cannot at any time judge by his outside what his inside should be, nor prove by his inner closet that ever he was in the public Halls; so that I may return the Doctors saying against Beza, Luther, and others more properly and fitly to the Pope, Vide viram tunica filii tui sit vel non.  
The Church of Rome would fain have us to believe that she is free from the blood of this and that Prince, basely by her practices and instruments assassinated, and barbarously despoiled of their Crowns and Sceptres: and if any question arise about such business, she is ready to disavow all privity to the act, though the scene was studied in her Cardinal's Conclave, and acted abroad by her own emissaries, as who please to peruse the Anatomy of Popish Tyranny, will find precedents enough of this nature; but it makes not much to my present purpose, & I will forbear to trouble the Reader with them, I will proceed to show her discords and variances in point of Doctrine.  
She professes to maintain the Counsels of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Carthage, and the Council of Constant. hath appointed an Oath to be taken by the Pope (at his installing) to that purpose: But how little he performs that Oath, or observes the Rules of those Counsels, let what I have said in the 2d Chapter serve to witness.  
The Church of Rome in this respect, (I mean the Pope enchathedrated) who judicially declaring any thing as Pope is confessed by all to represent the Church may be compared to a Waterman, who looks one way, and rows another.  
She may have some land marks & tokens to steer by, but she quickly lays those observations and wanders into unknown latitudes, one Pope this way, another that, the third another way, etc. and so being meandred upon the waves of several opinions; it is by chance if any of them bottom upon mount Zion.  
What good Christian of Apostolical Faith looks upon Rome as she now is, and hangs not his Harp upon the Willows, and with the children of Israel, by the waters of Babylon sit down and weep to remember Zion: Zion at unity within itself, and Babylon full of strife, envy, 
Papists differ about the Keys.  and debate. Sanders maintains that S. Peter received both temporal and spiritual power by the Keys; not so saith another Jesuit, affirming the power of the Keys to be alia à civili potestate: Baronius affirms that the Pope may positively dispose of Kingdoms.  
Bellarmine not so, but only in ordine ad spiritualia: Cauterenus saith, that this power was given when Christ said to Peter, 
Quaere Ante 2.  Thou art Peter, etc. de sacra Christi lege lib. 3. Bellarmine, de Rom. Pontif. lib. cap. 12. that it was not given until the triple pass: But of this more at large in the 9th chapter, why should any be so lame as to allow to Rome this prerogative, sigh she cannot tell how to revive her Title to it?  
I might instance in many more differences of this nature amongst the Papists themselves, wherein they descent one from another; nor are these differences only betwixt Cardinal and Cardinal, Doctor and Doctor, but the Church of Rome against the Church of Rome, differing from the ancient Fathers, and primitive Church; nay, point-blank contradicting their own modern Contestation of Popish General Counsels, as I shall show in the ninth Chapter; neither are the differences amongst them of small consequence, but in the most concerning points of Religion, as whether the holy Ghost proceed more principally from the Father, or the Son, about meritum congrui, about the thing designed by the word hoc est Corpus, about the conception of the Virgin, and all high matters of Divinity, and are not of any small importance.  
For whereas the Doctor would persuade us, fol. 236. that these are not differences in point of Faith, the Church having not interposed her Decree; and in the mean time, without breach of Unity one Doctor may differ against another in point of Reason, which is but to guide to a conclusive Faith; so by the same reason no Church but is at Unity, for in their Counsels they may conclude points of Faith, and in the intervals of Counsels wrangle about the Reasons of those points; and yet by the Doctor's Logic are at unity, because the reasonings of private men.  
If they hold against their Decrees, why doth she not punish them as Heretics? and if the points be of importance, and the Church doth not interpose her Decree, 
Infra 92.11 chap.  she than suffers those contentions to be amongst her own Saints, and then draws on her a suspicion of a false Church, because she seeks not peace and truth, to preserve the unity of spirit, and bond of peace; for discords are not musical in the heavenly ear; and if she be not afraid to lose a Faction by displeasing them, should she interpose her Decree, or else have some such like worldly end, why doth she suffer those contentions daily to grow, which whilst she doth not rectify it, administers just occasion to others to deny her to be a true Church in respect of her unity, and they have very much reason to induce them thereunto, as I shall show anon in the nineth Chapter.  
I am loath to rifle into this matter, could I otherwise avoid it, 
Sanctity of life no mark of the Church of Rome's truth.  I desire rather to lay open the errors of the Chair, then to tax the persons possessing that Seat, I would reprove the Heresy of Rome, but not the Bishop: I do not malign a Papist, but only Popery. And now that I must go about to lay open the fullness of these men (otherwise the Doctor will take it for granted, that I subscribe to that mark of of Rome's truth, that she hath none but godly and sanctified Pastors) it goes against my nature. If I seem satirical blame the Doctor, who provoked me hereunto by this false position of his, and by an unworthy upbrading of the Crown of England, by his cutting Cross caper's upon the dust of one of our Royal Monarches, whereas he is forbid to speak evil of dignities, Judge 8. the Prophets boldly reproved Princes, 2 Kings 58. but it was to reclaim their Vices, not to traduce their persons, they may be reproved, being alive, when as by that means amendment may be wrought upon them, or else by vexation they will be grieved; 
Against Ruling Princes.  but these ends cannot be in any reproving of a person that is Dead.  
Saint Paul withstood Peter to his face, but backbiting defileth a man's own soul, Eccles. 21.28. yet the Doctor not caring for to follow these Precedents, takes a liberty to himself to rake in the quiet Urn of a deceased Prince, and with insultation to inscribe a new Epitaph.  
Here lies no King, 
The Doctor his injury to Henry 8.  (Kings being called Gods) but such an one as the Poets fain Jupiter, who was transformed into a Beast for the Love of Women; which unworthy act of the Doctors gives me occasion to say of him as Saint Judas saith of false Prophets, As beasts without reason, they speak evil of these things they know not.  
It is reported, that when Silla set one on work to kill Marius; when the Vassal came to put into execution that bloody command, he beheld such Majesty in his face, that his conscience presently was pricked with the horror of the act, his heart failed him, his flesh trembled, and his hand knew not how to manage that black instrument which should have pierced that noble Cask, and let his Royal liquor to the ground.  
And no less Majesty (as our Story's mention) dwelled in the Princely countenance of our noble Henry; so that should the Doctor have appeared before him, as a traducer of his worthy and nobleness with one majestic frown, he would have sent his Satirical spirit to the infernal shades to study invectives.  
Principem populi non maledices was Moses precept, Exod. 22. and Saint Paul appears of that rule, Acts 23.5. and by the 74 Cann. of the Apostles, a severe censure was to be against any that should be called Contumeliosus in Magistratum. So that the Doctors reviling of Hen. 8. is on his part inexcusable: now let me examine whether I may not incur the same censure, by setting forth the Errors of the Roman Bishops, and I conceive, under favour, I may not.  
1. Because I do it not out of any malignity towards their persons, but their Profession of Vice, under the hood of godliness and infallibility.  
2. Because whilst she persuaded others of the truth of her Church, for the mark of sanctity of life, and yet her Bishop, the visible Head of that Church is evil, they hereby draw people into mis-belief: therefore for avoiding of this Error, and for reforming her evil ways, I may without the compass of censure justly reprove her Bishops, whilst I do not personally traduce the men, but reprove the Errors of the Chair: or if I personally touch any one, it is not I, but some one of their own Church that did it:  
3. I shall not speak evil of any lawful Magistrate that ought to bear Rule, and excercise Dominion, nor any to whose right of power I stand naturally obliged to respect and Reverence.  
The Doctor would persuade us that the wickedness of some Popes doth not blemish this Mark, which is strange to me; she will have it a blemish against the reformed Churches, because Luther, Beza, etc. are by Basseck termed with infamous conversations, and shall it be a blemish to private Churches to have ungodly Bishops, and not to Rome? this is unequal dealing.  
The Bishop of Rome is rather a blemish to the Church of Rome, than any other Bishop is to a private Church, if they both be wicked; for the higher a man is lifted in honour and dignity, as he is thereby made more near the similitude of God, who is above all, so he ought to give a testimony of his good works above others, lest he deface that more noble Image by his unworthy acts: besides, the Bishops of Rome have of late declared to be above Counsels, and are in themselves representations of the Catholic Church: wherefore for them to be wicked and dissolute, must needs deface this Mark of sanctity.  
As for the distinction between the Person of the Bishop, 
Infra 70.9 chap.  and his Power, that is, his judicial Seat, and so that he may err as a Man, not as a Bishop, it is a mere juggle, and that which savours of the Tenants of those they call Heretics, the Presbyterians, who divide person from power, 
Infra 130.14 chap.  and it is ridiculous, and a mere evasion to escape this censure: For if a man should affront Clemens, Vrbam, etc. Bishop of Rome it would be construed an injury to the See, and not that personal, of which more in the 9 chap.  
I have a warrant from Saint Hierome, Causa 11. Questio 3. if any believe that man to be holy that is not holy, and join him to the company of God, he doth villainy to Christ, whose members we are; I say I have a warrant by this rule to lay open the Iniquities of the Bishops of Rome, that men may no longer be drawn into the guilt of this injury by exalting hypocrites, believing them to be true Apostolic teachers, which indeed are ravening wolves, not to feed, but to destroy the flock of Christ; wherefore take a view of some of her Bishops of Rome, as I find them described by ancient and modern writers.  
Those Popes which were condemned and censured for their intolerable abuses towards Princes, I reserve for another chapter, take here only a view of those that in other most loud and vile positions were most notoriously wicked.  
Wernerus exclaimeth, that anno 883. Holy men were perished from the earth, and he writ to Martin 2d. So that in his time there was wickedness amongst the pastors of Rome.  
Wallerus Mapes writes of the Roman Clergy, that they study villainy, envy reigneth, and truth is buried amongst them.  
Peter de Alcaco in lib. de reform eccls. notes the luxuriousness, avarice, Idleness, Blasphemies, Magic Arts, and other wickedness of the Bishops of Rome.  
John the 12th. was a Dicer, and a wicked fellow: Gregory the 7th, as Beno the Cardinal testifieth was a Magician, 
Hildebrand Infra 14. chap, 142.  and what stirs and commotions raised he about the elections of his predecessors. Sigebert writes, that he confessed when he felt himself at the point of death that he had raised many stirs by the persuasions of the Devil: it is likewise recorded, that Silvester 2d, Gregory 6th, Benedict. 9th, and Paul the third, and divers others were Magicians. John the 23d was condemned by the Council of Constance for denying the resurrection of the dead, and other points of Atheism. Sixtus the 4th builded the Stews at Rome, (a godly foundation, and well becoming so Holy a Father) Alexander the 6th presently became his successor, and much improved the revenues of that delightful Corporation, he was so bold and shameless in the sin of whoredom, That he openly acknowledged the Pope's Nephews to be his Bastards, as Guichard testifies: and thus I have given you a brief of some wicked Popes of Rome before they were declared above Counsels, 
Wicked heads of the Church.  and now see what those are which are professed by the the late Latteran and Trent Counsels to be above Counsels; and if so, than their wickedness utterly blots out this mark of Sanctity.  
Leo, the which was a blasphemer, insomuch that he was often heard ●ay, Quantas nobis divitias Comparavit ista fabula Christi: 
Luther his Reformation. Ante 22, 44 chap. 2.  In his time (it being high time to shake off such wicked Society) did Luther reform the German Churches, Truth and Falsehood, Christ and Belial are incomparable; either he, or some one else must write against these damnable Doctors, and their diabolical practices, otherwise the Kingdom of Anti-christ would have been universally spread over the face of the Earth; and should none stop the furious course of these Cato demonaick Priests, they would convert Tiber into Barathrum, and plung the whole world into that bottomless Abyss: (mistake me not, I do not approve of all that Luther did, only this, that he being of another distinct province apart from Rome, and having Cure of Souls, and seeing the Errors of Rome, and his Flock addicted to follow after Rome, for the honour and credit her ancient truth drew from the hearts of many, might lawfully admonish, and was bound in Conscience to check Rome of her Errors: now that she flew to so high a pitch of wickedness, and having no hopes of her self-reforming, were she not admonished by some one of her faults, might therefore take upon him, to lay open before her eyes some of her Errors, hoping thereby to reclaim her, or at least to stay his own Flock from wand'ring after her, by laying before them the present practices of Rome, contrary to the ancient Truth: 
Luther's Reformation.  nor was this any more than formerly was practised by the Apostles, and confirmed by Counsels for Provincials to reform: Saint Paul, Peter, James, and Saint John did write to several Churches, and admonish them, and especially Judas says, It was needful to write, to exhort the people of God earnestly to contend for the maintenance of the Faith, which was once given unto the Saints, for that there were certain men crept in which were afore ordained unto this condemnation; ungodly men, which turned the grace of God into wantonness, and deny God the only Lord, and our Lord Jesus Christ.  
And if ever they must contend for the maintenance of the ancient Faith, it was then the time, when such a brutish Leo, who was the head, and reputed Oracle of the Church should belch forth such bold blasphemies, thereby to bring in the doctrine of Devils, and to obtrude upon the Consciences of men a new profession of a Stygian Creed.  
Nor was this Leo the only blasphemer of the God of Heaven, 
Wicked Popes.  of those that possessed the Roman Chair, but to manifest to the world, that these anti-christian aberrations from the Divine rules of Truth, are common (I much fear they are incident) to the Popes of that See. He hath both before him, and after him, Popes after his own heart; Sixtus the 4th, and Alexander the 6th, his Predecessors, the one denying there was a God, Riserat ut vivens caelestia numina Sixtus sic Morceus nullos credidit esse Deos: and the other, saith Sanazar, dissolved both God's Laws, and man's Laws, and believed not that there was a God. And Clement the seventh, and Julius the third, his Successors, the one in heart doubting whether there was a Heaven (though outwardly he taught both that Hell and Purgatory) insomuch, that when he drew towards his end, he said to those that stood about him, that he hoped shortly to be resolved of that he had so long doubted, to wit, whether there was a Heaven or Hell, or no; of whom this was said, Contemptor divum scaelerum vir publicus hostis. The other not inferior to him in this height of wickedness, insomuch that the Papists themselves report divers speeches proceeding from him, which savoured of Atheism.  
I might, if I would, have been very inquisitive, have made a large muster-Role of these wicked Prelates, but I rather weep, then rejoice, that I should meet with any Records of this nature to refute the Doctor in this point of their pretended Sanctity; nor is this their case only, I suspect that in most Churches have been many Ministers bad men, according as our Saviour saith, There must Tares grow up in the Corn till the end of the World. According to the Proverb, Christ cannot have his Church, but the Devil will have his Chapel: Satan is busy to cast his evil seed into the field, and scarce any field so well manured and tilled, having their stony hearts melted, and their clods of flesh mollified with the beams of the Heavenly light, that in some corner thereof hath not this Zizania growing, and sprung up as high as the tops of the Corn, thereby to teach us, that in our best estate and condition we have not whereof to boast. The Angels, which are the Reapers, and the labourers to be sent into the Harvest, will find both Tares and Corn growing in the field, they are called Labourers to gather the Elect, and Reapers to throw the Tares into the fire, but both must grow together till the end of the world, but I hast to an end of this point.  
The Doctor, nor any other must not boast of the Truth of the Church of Rome in this respect; for if they make this an absolute Sign, then in respect their Popes the Head of that Church, and declared it to be above Counsels, have been wicked, it follows that she is not the true Church: I must confess, that where this Mark is to be found, it is demonstrative, of a true Church; it is a persuasive argument, but no positive sign of a true Church: In the twelve Apostles one was a Devil, yet God made him the Instrument to bring to pass our Salvation: the Devil confessed Christ, we must not therefore deny him. So then, as the wicked practices of Pastors is no absolute condemnation of the truths they shall deliver to others; so their uprightness of moral conversation is no positive rule to demonstrate the purity of their Faith. For upon this Rule Christians, Turks, Jews, and Pagans may be all of a true Church, which is absurd to hold; therefore we must not absolutely conclude Rome the true Church upon the score of sanctity of life.   

CHAP. VII.  
That the Church of Rome cannot be reputed and taken for a true Church in respect of Miracles: and of her abuse in maintaining Images in the Church.  
THe Doctor is pleased to argue the truth of Rome's Church from her miracles; and he shows that he has not traveled beyond Seas for nothing: est natura hominum novitatis avida: he has been peeping into her Legendary-stories, that he might be furnished (upon the authority of a traveller) to send news to England. For my own part, I dare not give up myself to such delusions as it is well known the Church of Rome uses towards the people to gain their faith to believe in his Holiness the Pope, as to credit the most (scarce any) of her miracles: and that the rather, for that it has been by experience found out (especially in England) that most of them were feigned, and invented only to cheat the people into a blind obedience; and I persuade myself, if the Doctor had known as much as I do, by the reading of histories in this point (which histories may as well challenge belief as the humane tradions of Rome) he would never have insisted upon this mark: but as it fares with men that are groping in the dark, sometimes to run their heads against posts; so the Doctor having forsaken the light he was in, and as yet being not well acquainted with the wind and stranges mazes that are in the dark cloisters to which he has betaken himself, at unawares he dashes his head against the door of miracles, which makes him recoil with affront: but I'll so much be his friend, that I'll help him to revenge his quarrel; I'll pick the lock, and furnish him out of her stores with miraculous knick-knacks.  
It were to make this book swell with impossible trumperies, 
Miracles.  to report the thousand part of her legendary stories; as that Saint Dennis carried his head in his hand after it was strucken off; and of Saint Clement the first, who being cast into the Sea with a millstone about his neck, the sea forsook the shore three miles, and there was found a Chapel ready built, where his body was bestowed: and many such like stories are to be found in Bozius de Saguius. These fictious wonders, fill the ears, not the hearts of many; therefore the Doctor might have done well to have followed Bozius' example, who finding his grand inventions meet with small belief in these coasts, he runs adrift till he came to Congo, Colachina, and Japonia, and in his return tells of wonders done there, and so gains of some an opinion of belief, who will rather seem, for satisfaction to the reporter, to lead credulous ears to history, then upon an unknown score to censure him of falsity: wherefore he goes on (with their patience) to tell them that in these foreign Indies he did but lay the Gospel upon a woman's breast, and the devil flew from her as if he had been shot out of a gun; he but set up the standard of the cross, and an army of horsemen in glittering armour appeared, whose harness did dazzle the eyes, and whose number struck terror into the hearts of the adverse party. But here in England they could do no such feats.  
It may be that where people give up themselves to believe in them, 
deceivable wonders.  their priests, as having a power from Hildebrand, Gregory the sixth, Silvester, and the old Magician Popes may do strange wonders, (as the Doctor confesses, folio 253. wonders may be done by the power of Antichrist) but certainly such cannot before the eyes of true believers in Christ show any wonders at all. And here I desire to remember a story of a Vestal Nun in Spain which was cried up for miracles, insomuch that when the late King of England King Charles was there, he was over-entreated by the Infanta to go to see her: it was reported to the King, that sometimes she would be lifted up in the air, and be as fresh as a Rose, though she was furrowed with age. The King came with the Infanta to her, but she could not do any one feat before the King (though she could never have shown her miracles in a better time.) The King was of too strong a faith for her spirit to work upon, and therefore could she show none then crede quod habes, & habes. All the answer I can give to the supposed mark of miracles, is, that no good Catholic can well deny to credit them; for if he believe the Church of Rome to be the only Catholic Church, and the Pope the head of the universal Church, and sticks to believe these stories, strives at a gnat and swallows a Camel; let him never leap at blocks, and stumble at straws.  
Yet lest the Doctor should think that I have given up myself to hardness of heart, because I am so hard of belief in this point, I will show him my reasons for it.  
I know many of her miracles are false, and the Church of Rome, hand over head, has recorded the false ones with the true ones; and as the proverb is, We know not how to believe a liar when he speaks truth. The Doctor confesses fol. 253. that all her miracles are not true: and if she have Cataloguised the false ones together with the true ones, we know not how to distinguish them: if I had not the Doctors own confession that some are false, yet I should not seem rash to any indifferent man, in that I tax the Church of Rome of false miracles, for that her teachery and cozenage in this point hath been detected in this particular, it being but held forth to the blind people, that they being struck into admiration of their wonderful power, might with fear and reverence become devotaries to their miraculous instruments, offering freely to those Antique Gods, by which cheat the Clergy obtained no small riches. 
Infra 13. ch. 113.  For proof hereof, be pleased to take a view of her miraculous images here and hereafter in the chapel of Radcaeus.  
There is a marble Image at the Castle of Saint Angelo in Rome, 
Images to delude the people.  which when Gregory came in procession with the painted image of the Virgin Mary which he carried in procession, that marble image bowed itself to the image of the Virgin in the presence of the people, & sung out a loud, Allelujah, & regina caeli letare; and thereupon S. 
Infra 113.13. chap.  Gregory made the prayer Ora pro nobis Deum: allelujah &c. For my part, I believe this; for belike that image was made like to the image of Saint Grimbald in the Abbey of Boxley in Kent, which was fastened to a pillar by a private pin, and a man stood privately behind the pillar, and by plucking out of the pin, it might be lifted up by a boy: which posture they exercised to any that freely offered: and if one came niggardly offering, it was ; by which trick the people were made believe, when the Image would yield to be taken up that their sins was pardoned, by reason of satisfaction made by their offering. There was another Image in the said Abbey, which is more nearly comparative with the marble Image of Saint Angelo, which was made of such curious contrivings, that by certain wires a man standing within it might make it frown, simile, bow, nod the head, etc. by which postures those which came to offer, knew when they had made satisfaction for their sin, by the pleasantness and acceptance of that carved god; or if they were penurious and sparing in their offerings, that nimble contrivance of foolery gave them some denotement of his displeasure; and the priests were ready to interpret heavy judgements to befall them: or by the similes of that image (which only a golden Wyer procured) to assure them of God's mercy towards them; and that God signified that to them by his Saint there standing: by which Cheat they got no little advantage.  
The like cheating and Idolatry was exercised by means of a Rood at Ashhyrst in Kent, and in several other places of this Kingdom of England. By which it is evident, that the use of Images was not, as the Doctor would persuade us, only to put us in mind of the things by them represented, but rather to persuade the people they were the very immediate instruments of God, to signify his will unto us; & did thereby persuade the people into adoration of them. And yet, lest the Doctor's Arguments for their retaining in the Church might seem with some to be unanswerable by me, should I pass this point so slightly and overly, condemning the use of them, because they were abused; and lest I should run into an error with those which upon that score cry down Bishops, which, if as they ought to be, are both a shelter and ornament to the Church; and, in my poor judgement, they may as well deny the Apostleship, because there was a Judas amongst them: I will not therefore, from the abuse of any thing, utterly condemn all use thereof. It rests therefore to examine how far the use of them may be lawful.  
The Science of Painting and Carving is an Art profitable for man's life and is the gift of God. 
Images how far lawful.  It is profitable to the memorial of things done; and to that purpose have the Pictures and Monuments of Noblemen been used through all ages, being a grateful memory of those they represent: And this Art and Curiosity of Workmanship being an adorning and graceful beautifying of any buildings, the Temples in old time were made sumptuous therewith; which by the Heathen Persecutors were, as the Psalmist witnesses, broke down with axes and hammers, by the enemies of the Church. Yet that amongst those curious Pieces there were any representations of the Godhead, it doth not appear; but rather, the contrary: For it is impossible for humane flesh to draw any thing that shall represent God by any corporeal or finite image, who is incorporeal and infinite: Isai. 40.18. To whom shall we liken God? or what similitude shall we set up unto him? It is true, that God of old represented himself in man's shape; but we must not therefore think to make semblances of him: it is lawful for him to do as he pleases; but not for us to make such representations of him as are not commanded. Besides, those visible shapes by which he vouchsafed to appear, had God after a special manner with them, and in them present, to command and hear them to whom he so manifested himself: which cannot be ascribed to men's representations of him, which are against God's order; he forbidding us to turn the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corruptible man, Rom. 1.13. And though some urge, that such semblances serve as laymen's books, to teach them to know Christ; yet that is no excuse for the use of such, sigh God hath ordained his Church to be taught by his Word and Sacraments, and not by these. And whereas the Doctor urges that they serve to stir up men to give honour to the thing signified by the sign; that must be understood of a true sign ordained by him who hath authority to ordain it, and the will of him that is honoured prescribing the honour to be given to the sign: which neither he nor any else, can prove that Christ should be honoured by such signs. And as it is not lawful to make such representations of Him, so neither of any creature, to the end to give worship to the signs, as significations of what they represent: And yet I allow that the curious Draughts and Paintings of Ecclesiastical Stories, and of other Portraitures set forth with art and skill, may be used to adorn our Churches, so that no adoration be given to any such signs. Wisely therefore did the Council of Constantinople called by Constantinus, 
Images are dangerous to the people  in forbidding the use of Images in the Church: and pernicious was the Decree of the second Council of Nice, declaring the contrary, which hereby gives occasion of idolatry to the weak. And there being no ground for them in the Scriptures, but rather against them, it were more safe (although to the more learned they be no occasion of offence) to abolish them, then to retain the use of them in the Church. But I doubt his Holiness will not easily be induced hereunto, in respect they are much instrumental, by Oblations made to them, to increase his book: for he, with the people of Zachan in China, feeds the Idols only with the smoke of the Offering; himself faring deliciously by such libations. And although these golden pieces, which those wooden gods procure him, be the offerings of sins, and sacrificed to Idols; yet, by virtue of his holiness, he can easily wash that iniquity from them, and teach it for a truth, that when once they are laid up in his Holiness Chests, the squalid nature of their inquination is changed; and, by a wonderful metamorphosis, they become pure Peter-pences: and therefore he will not willingly part with such gainful and profitable instruments. They are of double use to him: for they do not only serve for the ends of gain, but likewise to win the people to obedience, by the seeming-miraculous apparitions of them: and therefore by no means must the use of them be laid aside. Though of themselves they are but manimate blocks, yet, as Toys and Rattles please Babies, these delude the ignorant vulgar, striking them into admiration of them; which is none of the least occasions of the Papists being trained up in ignorance. And whilst his Holiness can by their means be enriched, who can blame him for retaining them in the Church of Rome?  
But I return to the other Point concerning Miracles, and will shut up this Chapter, touching both with this advertisement to those that believe the Miracles of Rome's Church, as done by the power of God, Not to give themselves to such delusion. The Doctor confesses, fol. 253. that by the power of Antichrist wonders may be done: and most of Rome's Miracles are known to be Mountebank-jugling; and the Doctor confesses some may not be true; and yet she proclaims all for true Miracles, as proceeding from the Spirit of God. She doth not declare out of her Legends which are true and which are false. But her Legends being filled with several bundles of them, she delivers all for true miracles, and therefore is credit to be given to none of them, as done by the power of the Spirit of God: for did they work by that Spirit, they would not lie in any one of them.   

CHAP. VIII.  
That the Church of Rome is not the true Church, because of her pretended marks of conversion of Kingdoms and Monarches, or because of her not having been separate from any Societies of Christians more ancient than herself.  
IF the church of Rome have converted any Church since her declining the Apostles doctrine, it is no more than what the Arrians did unto the Goths, and so by the Doctors own rule, fol. 256. she hath not whereof to boast: and if other Nations have the Apostles doctrine, the pure and primitive faith, they now differing in material points from Rome, it serves rather to condemn her Apostasy, then to record her charity towards them; in that if she gave them faith, it was but such an one as she herself condemns; or if they have the pure faith, the present Church of Rome, having fallen away from the the faith of those first plants, may not properly be called their mother-Church. But however, I will argue de facto that this mark is not only proper to Rome.  
Conversion of kingdoms may as well be applied to the Church of England, which hath planted the Gospel in several Northern parts of the late discovered world; and although not in so large a measure as the Spaniards Westward, and the Portugals Eastward, yet it manifests that other Churches have a title to that mark, and that Rome must not soley monopolise that to herself. Besides, I do not think that many of the Plantations in the West were by immediate Mission from Rome, but that the Bishops of Spain and Portugal sent Priests thither to Preach Christ unto them; and they, and not the Bishops which his holiness sent to rule and govern the Churches so planted, are, to be called the converters of the Nations and People: and ●bough the Priests so sent by the Spaniards and Portugals, be of the same faith with the Church of Rome, yet they coming from distinct provinces and not from the peculiar See of Rome; and those Bishops having power to ordain those Ministers, and they by the command of their Prince being recommended to his new Plantations, I wonder why Rome should for this brag and vainly arrogate to herself that she is the sole converter of these Nations and Monarches.  
The Spaniard and Portugal had the faith of Christ first preached to them by Saint Paul, who was himself amongst them; and the Church of Rome claims from Peter, who had not commission to carry the light to the Gentiles, and to Kings; For that as I said in the second Chapter, the general commission given to go and teach all Nations, 
Ante 13. 2 Chap.  was afterwards restrained as ●o the Gentiles, Paul being a chosen vessel thereunto ordained by God himself.  
Besides, Spain, as I said before, is a distinct Province from Rome, and has held several counsels without the Bishop of Rome; as the several counsels of Toledo. Cardubia, etc. Wherefore if his priests have planted the Gospel, how comes this to denote the truth of Rome? But so it is, that the Pope has got such a hank upon the Spaniards, that he as Superintendent lords it over all his provincial Sees; and whatsoever is done or acted which may bring glory or honour to the Church, or if any profit may redound from thence, his holiness is ready to patrize the action, not allowing a jot to any Spanish provincials; it not being consistent with his universality and headship, to have a partner or sharer in any his exploits But if any thing amiss or enormous arise in these planted Churches, his holiness then disclaims to own them as his, and declares them to be members of the Spanish Sees: so that it fares with the Spanish Plantation, as once it did to the Temple in Rome, dedicated to Castor and Pollux, which presently after the building obtained a sole name of Castor's Temple: whereupon Bubulus (who was fellow-Conful with C●sar, and did expend more in the public Trophies of the City, and in that contributed more f●●ely to grace the City, than Cesar during his Consulship did, and seeing for all that that Cesar had the name and carried all the honour of those and other actions wherein Bubulus was equally concerned) merrily said, it fared with him as it did with Pollux, who had lost his name in the Temple. And thus may the Spaniard and Portugal say of their Western and Eastern Plantations, that it is with them as with Pollux; they must not so much as be named the planters of the Cospel in those parts, but his holiness alone must be said the sole converter of those kingdoms; as if his painted Sepulchre were not sufficiently notorious, without the varnish of the counterfeit Plaster. And I wonder the Spaniard and Portugals should suffer themselves to be despoiled of these glorious works of their, and thus to suffer the Pope, like Venus transformed waiting-maid, to minks it, and pride himself in this disguise, unless it be that the grave Dons have a design upon the Papacy, and for some private ends forbear at present, but purpose cre long to show a mouse before the counterfeit, that he may discover his false habit, and prove himself not the only Catholic father in respect of his converting of those kingdoms, and thereby at once to manifest the depth of their policy, and the Pope's foolishness and vain glory. 
Rome has separated from the Churches more ancient than herself.  And as the Church of Rome cannot alone be said a true Church, in respect of her converting of Nations, so may she in no sort lay any just claim to that denomination, in respect of the other mark by which she desires to be distinguished, viz. her non-separation from Churches more ancient than herself.  
The Doctor confesses that Jerusalem, Antioch, and other Churches are of more antiquity: But Rome cannot be said to have separated from them, in respect they were of Rome's faith. To which I answer, it were more proper to say that Rome is of their faith, because he confesses her puisnee to them, and they to have the faith, when Rome had not; and they may lay claim to the former mark of conversion, in respect they extended the faith to Rome: and if Rome have converted any, the first foundation coming from the Eastern Churches, Rome ought not to challenge that attribute, which belongs to them in that particular. And as these Churches were more ancient, and had the true faith; it is manifest that Rome's title to this mark, is as improper, as her claim to be sole owner of the other; for that she has made a separation in forsaking the Primitive faith, and public Decrees of the ancient, holy, and Catholic Church on earth, as may appear by every particular point in question in this Troatise, and by some others; of which the Doctor not having started the question, and I not minding to make her gap of separation wider than the Doctor himself has done do forbear to mention them: I do keep myself only to answer those points, upon which the Doctor doth insist.  
It is manifest that Rome has in fundamental points changed her faith, and though as she inclined or declined, she drew these parts (being too much addicted to imitate her, upon a bare score of the antiquity of Rome's having the pure faith) to pin their faith upon her sleeve: yet all other parts of Apostolical Plantations did not forsake their first faith, and turn after the Lateran weathercock. There was a remaining part of the Greeks Church, which the black wings of Mahomatisme and Judaisme had not overspread; and in Aethiopia the light of the Gospel did still continue to shine; neither were all the Indies of Portugal Plantation (and so Rome to be their founder, in that she claims to convert Portugal.) Demetrius' Bishop of Alexandria, sent Pantenus to Preach to the Indies, not long after Christ; 
The East Indies not totally converted by the Potugal.  and when he came thither, he found Saint Matthews Gospel writ in Hebrew, and left there by Saint Bartholomew, which the said P●ntenus brought to Alexandria; by which it appears that some part of the Indies received the faith, not from Rome with the Western Churches. 
Fox. Mar. 48.  Therefore may we not conclude Rome to be the true Church, or else the true Church has been utterly extinguished; nor that because it was not of late any where else, but where she planted therefore she cannot err or the like. We must not with the Doct. upon this score, argue that Rome hath not forsaken her first faith; he himself confesses, fol. 
Ante  192. that the faith was in Aethiopia by the Plantation of Philip: And by this it appears, some part of the Indies retain the faith from the Plantation of Bartholomew; nor can the Church of Rome deny this, in regard that then she makes the Church universally invisible, which is absurd, and contrary to Christ's promise. For in that she in many points maintains contrary to the Apostles Doctrine, contrary to the first counsels, and contrary to her own modern constitutions as shall appear in this next Chapter; she may not properly be said the true Catholic Church, in respect of her non-separation from a society of Christians more ancient than herself.   

CHAP. IX.  
That any particular Church may err, that the Church of Rome is not Infallible, that she hath erred in matters of faith as well as in matters of fact.  
I Know I shall incur the grand displeasure of his Holiness, and his pontificial tribe, and not altogether please the Doctor, in truly laying open some errors of Rome. The one will tell me some truths are censured for treason against the triple crown: the other will say according to the Proverb, Sooth seems not at all times. I fear not the censure of the one, for I shall as much please him, as displease him; if I break his head, I shall make a plaster of his blood; I may displease him in laying open his errors, but I shall be his darling, whilst in so doing I make his Church visible. As for the Doctor, I presume, when he seriously considers how much we are concerned in this point to lay open Rome's errors, he will not altogether condemn me; for should we in silence pass by, and tacitly consent that the church of Rome is infallible in what she maintains, Than it follows we are Heretics because she says so. I have partly cleared ourselves from this aspersion already: it rests now that I prove Rome to have fallen into errors; and if so (according to the Doctor's rule, folio 210.) if (says he) she err in any one point, she cannot be prudentially sure of the least tittle she affirms.  
Mercurius gave the Egyptians laws, 
Je. chall.  received (as he said) of the God Mena; Lycurgus to the Lacedæmonians, from Apollo Velphicus, and Lactantius, lib. 1. cap. 15. divinar. Institut. Minus to the Cretians, from Jupiter; the Lady Pallas directed the Trojans, Caberius the Macedonians, Urania the Carthaginians, Phaunus the Latins Juno the Samnites, Venus the Paphites; and all (as they would make us believe) proceed from some god or goddess. The Turk affirms his Koran to have been received from heaven and the Ephesians de Diana sua cogitatarunt eam à Jove delapsam fore. Even so doth Rome at this present, boast of an infallible Church, which to prove, she must go to some Heathen Deity or other; for as she is a Church militant here upon earth, governed by humane flesh and blood, and but a particular society or Church (and so a member of the Catholic Church comprehensive of all the Elect and Saints of God, which have been, are, or shall be, and whereof Christ Jesus is the mystical head) she is subject to fall into errors; and though she were the See of Peter, and that power which Peter received from Christ, to be remaining with her (which she would feign persuade the world to believe) yet notwithstanding she may err: For still she is but a particular Church, and may err, though the universal Church cannot err, in respect of Christ's Spirit given to her, and his promise that she shall continue in her foundation till the end of the world.  
Saint Peter did err after he had received the Holy Ghost, Act. 10.34. 
Saint Peter did err.  he was of opinion that the Gospel pertained not at all unto the Gentiles, until he was informed by a vision, that he should go to Cornelius; for, saith he, I perceive of a truth that God is no respecter of persons, but in every Nation he that fears him, whether Jew or Gentile, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him; so that there was a time whilst Peter was in error; and Gal. 2.14. he walked not with a right foot according to the light of the Gospel; Paul withstood him to his face, and this was not for any small fault, or error of conversation, as the Doct. would persuade us, for Saint Austin against Saint Jerom, doth Justify the reprehension. Besides, to say it was an error of fact, and not of faith, were to charge Saint Peter with dissimulation either against his conscience or with it: sure he did it not for any worldly respects against his conscience; and if he did it because he thought it was his duty in so doing, to bear with the weakness of the Jews, and to think that a man may dissemble in such a case, than it was matter of faith, whether a man may in eo casu dissimulare, or no; therefore his error was a matter of faith, not of fact only.  
I need no other Argument to clear this, than what the Doctor has himself framed against our proposed difference between fundamentals and not fundamentals in point of error: for saith he, fol. 88 There is no distinction of points of faith, in regard of the object or motive for which we believe; namely the truth of God revealed by his Church, we being equally bound to believe all that is by her proposed to us, whether the matter be great or small.  
Upon this the Doctor's argument I infer, That the Church having proposed before, That the Jews should not eat with the Gentiles, Peter did offend against this injunction which he ought to have believed, as the truth of God; and therefore it was in him an error of faith. Before the vision in the 10. of the Acts, 
Peter was not to preach to the Gentiles.  he was not to communicate to the Gentiles, and would not go to Cornelius before that; and therefore in the 2 of the Acts, when there were men of all Nations, and strangers from Rome, at Jerusalem, and when they every one heard their own language, and therefore mocked the Apostles, saying, They were full of new wine; Peter lifted up his voice and corrected the men of Judea, that was, only them of the circumcision, and did not intermeddle with the Gentiles, they not belonging to his charge; and therefore did Paul reprove him for eating with them.  
Dissoluteness in manners, argues unsoundness in opinion, though it be in things wherein the Church has not interposed her decree: But if she have enjoined a thing to be done, or not done, though it were indifferent in itself; yet her command takes away the indifferency, upon the Doctors own rule; and therefore Peter's offence against the Church's rule, was error of faith.  
Shall Peter the blessed Apostle of Jesus Christ, be taxed of errors, he being here by Saint Paul, and in several other places of Scripture reprehended by our Saviour for his failings before he received the Holy Ghost, showing hereby he was a man; and after he had received the Holy Ghost, doubting to whom the Gospel was to be preached, and offending against the injunctions of the Church, showing hereby he was no God? and shall the wicked Popes of Rome think much to be taxed of their errors, and daily failings? I might easily be reprehended for injustice, should I bury their errors in silence, and publish to the world Saint Peter's failings; wherefore I must lay open their aberrations to the public view. In prosecution whereof. I will not as a private man challenge them of error, but only put them in mind what counsels, the ancient fathers of the Church, and their own latter writers, have given them to understand.  
What is the Pope? 
The Pope may err.  he is no Samuel under the Ephod, no Moses on the Mount, no Aaron with Urim and Thummim, he is no Ark with the Tables of God, the Rod of Aaron, or the golden pot of Manna, that the Papists should put such confidence in him; take a view of him as he is deciphered to us by their own writers: Peter de Alliaco, a Cardinal, in libde reform. Eccl. grants that there were many things amiss in the Roman Church, which had need of reformation both in faith and manners: and Adrian the sixth confesseth, that all the mischiefs in the Church proceeded from the Popes, and promised reformation to the Germans by his Legate Cheregalus. Saint Bernard, in sermone primo in conversione St. Pauli, long since complained of the iniquity of Popes, and of the dissoluteness of Priests and people. The Bishop of Bitonto, preaching in the first session of the council of Trent, acknowledgeth the Apostasy of the Church of Rome, in the chief heads, both of doctrine and of life. chrysostom 30. Hom. in 12 Mat. calls them dry men, which have not the dew of God's Word in their breasts; which he plainly expresses of the Bishops of Rome.  
Nicolas Lyra, who writ three hundred years since, says, Ab Ecclesia Romana jam diu est quod recessit gratia; and Johannes Episcopus Chemensis, one of Rome's Religion, confesses in his book entitled Onus Ecclesiae, chap. 9 Ecce, Roma nunc est vorago & mammon inferni, ubi diabolus totius avaritiae Capitaneus 
Je. ch. 12.  residet. Gerson, a man of great esteem amongst the fathers of the council of Constance, and chancellor of Paris, in prima parte exam. doctr. consid. 2. saith, that the resolution of the Pope alone in things pertaining to faith, doth not tie a man to believe it; and infinite of other precedents of this nature might be produced, all concurring to this point, that the Church of Rome hath and may err. For is this any more but what other Churches have done? as for example, 
Particular Churches have and may err.  the Church of Galatia is said to have erred, not as the Church of Corinth, which erred but in part, some of her Church denying the resurrection, 1 Cor. 15.12. but totally about the matters of justification, Gal. 3.1. O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth? and the Churches of Ephesus, Pergamus, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea, are blamed by Saint John in his Revelation, for their erring from the truth: and this is a truth so manifest, that the Papists themselves cannot deny, only they would excuse the Church of Rome by the subtle sophistry of humane invention, and salve the errors of Rome's Church with distinction; they confess (to their own shame) that Bishops per se may err, which Bellarmine in his book de conc. cap. 2. in fine, Sine dubio singuli Episcopi errare possint, & aliquando errand, & inter se quandoque dissentiunt; so that we may not know which of them to follow: 
How the Pope may crr.  and if this be so, I wonder he should elsewhere contradict himself maintaining the Pope alone infallible: of which contradiction he having been formerly taxed, he was put to his trumps, and played another distinction, that he might err in matter of fact, not of faith: in matter of fact as concerning the condemnation of this or that Bishop, etc. but in matters of faith he cannot judicially err; and thus the learned Cardinal being too busy in this point, Meanders himself into contradictions, without satisfactory conclusions to the principal point, according to that saying of Solomon, Eccl. 12.12. There is no end of making many books.  
The stout maintainers of his Holiness infallibily being thus tripped in their own devices, and forced to wave the quarrel, being overcome with the strength of Reason, drawn from divine examples, and the testimony of many learned Authors; and being thoroughly convinced, yet notwithstanding, out of a self-love, and pertainacy to maintain their pontificial patron, having drawn from their education blind principles of his justification, will not quite desist, but screw their wits to new inventions, to deceive the world; persuading the world, that they are not overcome with dispute, nor his Holiness right to infallibily (though shaken) quite blown up by the root; and therefore they publish to the world, that notwithstanding all gainsaying, the Church of Rome is infallible; with this distinction, that her Bishop per se may err, but not when the Bishops are met together; then they cannot err. To which I answer, If the Bishop of Rome may err per se, than the late counsels of Lateran and Trent, which have declared him above counsels, have thereby consented that the Church of Rome may err; or else if it be to be understood that the Pope of Rome, with his other Bishops of Rome, cannot err, they do hereby make the private Council of Rome above the general Council; which is absurd, and utterly against all principles of reason and divinity; I will therefore proceed to show that Counsels have erred, and therefore, in no respect whatsoever, is the Church of Rome infallible.  
The Pope is declared above Counsels, 
General Counsels have erred in matter of faith.  and yet he is confessed to be fallible per se. And whereas he would force a distinction upon the world, that he may err as a man, not as a Pope judicially; 
Ante, ch. 6.  I have elsewhere answered to that point; it now remains to look upon him in his chair, 
Infra.  with his Court of Cardinals about him, to examine his judical proceed, and try if they be infallible.  
I would fain know in what capacity the Pope claims this infallibility: by the power of succession from Peter, I have proved he cannot claim it; and if he claim it as from the consent of the late counsels, then is this his politic capacity dirivative from thence, and must not exalt itself above the Primitive; or admit that those counsels declared the then present Pope's infallible, for such certain notes of sanctity as was to them discovered, it doth not follow that their successors should be so. But that I may put all scruples out of men's hearts concerning this point, I will prove that those Counsels in themselves were not infallible, and much less any substituted power of judicature which must have its rise from them.  
The council of Carthage decreed rebaptisation of those that were Baptised by Heretics: 
Councils erred in matter of faith.  this Saint Austin after opposed, and the Council of Trent, Sess. 7. can. 4. repealed this, and allowed of such baptism to be sufficient, if done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  
The second council of Nice was diametrically against the council of Constantinople in matters of Images; the one approving, the other condemning the use of them in the Church.  
The counsels of Constantinople, and Basil, decreed the counsels to be above the Pope; and the counsels of Lateran and Trent, decreed the Pope above counsels. 
Fox. 132.  Pope John the tenth called a Council at Ravenna, and sentenced the Acts of Pope Steph. which were in a Synod by him decreed, to be burned.  
The Council of Constantinople took away the cup, which another Council restored; and which decree of the Council of Constantinople, and the now present practice of Rom's Church, in that point, is utterly against the doctrine of Christ, and the practice of the Apostles, and the Primitive Church, as I shall show in the sixteenth Chap. The Council of Nice declared Angels to be circumscriptible; and the souls of men, and that they have bodies, and are visible, and circumscriptible; which is against the rules of our faith; for we believe that God is the Creator of all things, visible and invisible; and if Angels and Spirits be visible, then are there no invisible things (as one argues upon this point.) But I do not much urge this, in regard some hold that spirits may assume visible shapes; nor doth my argument much rely upon this mistake in that Council. I need not rifle much into Counsels, to pick out contradictory Canons, sigh the Councils themselves declare they are not infallible; insomuch that the whole Council prayeth, at the end of every Council, in a set form of prayer, that God would pardon their ignorance, and errors; & quia conscientia remordente, fabescimus, etc. and because our own conscience accusing us we do faint, lest either ignorance hath drawn us into error, and hasty will driven us to decline from thy will and pleasure of heavenly Father, etc. In which it appears, that they confess the frailty of that Assembly, that it may not only err in matter of fact through ignorance, but in faith also, by declining from justice.  
Lame and frivolous therefore are those distinctions, 
Alleged that the contrary decrees of later, are but the explications of former Councils.  by which the Papists would deceive the world, that Councils do but declare and explain the meaning of former Councils, but do never gainsay any by a contrary decree: for the contrary is absolutely proved to you already, in that they are diametrically opposite one to another: and besides, the four first Councils were reputed and taken to be so holy, that Gregor, the Gr. in regist. primo, libr. 24. and Masilius def. pac. dict. 2. fol. 229. affirm they are to be believed sacred tanquam quatuor Evangelia; and if a later council shall decree any thing contrary to them, it shall not be received into the Church. How then can the Church of Rome for shame claim universality to herself, and supreme jurisdiction? the Church of Rome being but equal with Alexandria, and declared to those Councils, sicut Alexandria, as I have proved in the second chapter. But the Church of Rome, by virtue of her new-acquired attributes of universality, infallibility, and supremacy, may declare as she please, and none to question her for it; and she has her champions with Sophistry to make good whatsoever she proposes; and therefore, whereas those first councils were accounted sacred by the ancient Fathers, even as the four Evangelists, and therefore none might add to or diminish from them, notwithstanding Rome may, by her new prerogatives, being declared above Councils, do what she please; and so, upon the matter, all Religion is by her made arbitrary, we having neither Scripture, Fathers, nor Counsels, but must be interpreted by her, after her own fancy; and no other sense to be received of any thing, though never so plain, but what she gives; and whatsoever interpretation she makes, through never so repugnant to the plain text, words, and sense of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers, must not be denied, but understood to be growings, and explanations of the first faith, spun out of the stock or depositum Ecclesiae; with which delusive pretences of her strange contexture, drawn from her own Spider's womb, she entangles the lesser and small flies; but the more solid break the net of her artificial cunning, and leave her in the snare she prepares for others; and hereupon she has in the Council of Milan added a new Symbol of faith to the Nicene Creed, which she calls new rules of faith; which indeed, are new articles of faith, 
Explanations of Councils.  as common under one kind; worshipping images, supremacy, etc. which cannot be as they would have them, understood explanations: for explanations are declarative illustrations of a truth involved in some former article, and not additions of a doctrine newly conceived for truth.  
I allow that out of the depositum Ecclesiae, 
Depositum Ecclesiae.  as the Doctor says, fol. 123. there may be growings in faith and knowledge, and new articles imposed upon the people by representatives in collective or Provincial Counsels, which upon new questions and disputes may resolve (being the proper interpreter and reconciler of differences) and by the authority of Scriptures frame new articles, which before were not thought of, as occasion to that purpose may be administered; and having framed such articles by authority of the Church, may deliver them to be received as matters of faith; by which the people by the approbation of the civil magistrate of the respective jurisdictions are bound. But if those be contrary to what former Councils have resolved, it proves their decrees peccant, as Rome's supremacy by the Laterne and Trent Councils, as against the first Councils of Nice and Constontinople: or, if those new rules, or articles of faith, be not warranted by Scripture, they are not binding to absent provincials: as I shall show in the twelfth Chapter, for it is clear and evident, that the Scripture is above the authority of any Council that ever was since the Apostles Council at Jerusalem; and itself doth, in matters of points necessary, judge itself, 
Infra. 102.112.  as is in that Chapter plainly proved, though all those points were not at first digested into a Symbol of faith. 
Scriptures above Councils.  For if by authority of explanation, the Church represented in ordinary councils shall not be bound by Scripture, so that she shall not frame new rules contrary to the plain letter, of those points of our salvation the Holy Ghost has set down in the Scriptures; we do then submit the whole matter of our salvation unto the power of humane judgements, and so make void the dictates of the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures, at the wills and discretions of mortal men; which though they were Angels sent from heaven, in that case are not to be believed, shall they teach contrary to that the Apostles here delivered: therefore, I say, because all points of salvation may not be methodised into a certain Symbol and rule of faith, the Church as occasion may require, may, out of the treasure of the Scriptures, take new rules; but those rules must not impugn the plain letter of Scripture, which, because such a Council is fallible, must be made the square and rule to judge that Council by. Now because God has promised his Spirit to his Church, and Councils are the representation of Churches; and for that it is more probable, that they shall decree according to the rule of Scripture, which every private man in charity ought to think, and therefore to incline himself to follow the rules she shall prepose, I will show how far a Council is Binding.  
It doth not destroy the Church of Christ universally, to say that a General Council may err; For concerning the true faith of Christ, it is already made known by the preaching of the Apostles to most parts of the known world: which faith God will have in some part of the world, till the dissolution thereof; for, as I have already said, at one instant of time Christ's Church shall not be universally invisible. The Councils of Lateran, 
By the erring of the General Councils, the universal Church doth not err.  Trent, Milan, and Nice, may err from the faith they had formerly received: But this doth not prove a universal falling away; and any other Council that of latter times hath been, cannot assure itself upon the promise of Christ's Spirit, that it is infallible, because not collective of all parts where the faith of Christ is preached; which if it were so collective, it argued infidelity of any private Church to distrust their rules. For in such a condion as they are representive of the universal Church, they have the same Spirit with them the Apostles had; and though but men, yet by virtue of that Spirit became infallible in their judicial decrees of Articles and Rules of faith. But such a Council was never gathered since the Council of Jerusalem; therefore the later Councils being but representive of particular Churches, as those particular Churches may err, so these Councils may err.  
For as much as since the Apostles Councils, 
Who shall tax the Councils of errors.  there was never any Council which was collective of the universal Church, and so had the assurance of Christ's Spirit; It is requisite that every provincial, who by suffragan vote is not represented there, shall examine within his own jurisdiction, how the rules of such Council agree to the Scriptures, which he is already assured are of the Holy Ghost, and in themselves prime verities, and to walk according as God's Spirit shall give him to understand those Scriptures, he being within his own charge and territory, made a dispenser of those sacred oracles: and as for any private man, he is to be guided by the rules of the particular Church of which he is a member, without openly taxing his mother-Church of error.  
I do not infer hereby, that because there has not lately been, 
How provincials are bound by a collective Council.  or because that it is very difficult (if not impossible) to have a general Council collective of all Christian Churches, that therefore every provincial Council has the same efficacy of decreeing, that a General Council, collective of many provinces, hath. For according to the Council of Antioch, 14. Can. and Carthage, 19 Can. I approve of provincials appealing one to another, to decide controversies, and to bring the the neighbour provinces into unity of faith, that they may support one another, by keeping the unity of the Spirit, in the Bond of peace, Ephes. 4. and that it is convenient that such provincicals as are represented in such a Council, should acquiesce in the result of that council so convened; but not to conclude that such councils are infallible for that because they proceed upon humane judgements, not being assured of the Holy Ghost by Christ's promise to his Church, in respect they are not a perfect representation of that Catholic Church: and as the Scripture is to be the guide to any Council, so more especially shall it be a rule to others, by which the absent provincials are to examine the rules of that Council. As for the several provincials and Sees then by suffragan vote represented, I hold it fit for them to acquiesce in the result of such a collective Council; wherefore, for the further illustration of this point, I hold it necessary to add a Chapter of the constitutions of Councils, thereby the better to lay open this point of Rome's errors in her ascribing to her See infallibility.   

CHAP. X.  
Wherefore general Councils are called: of their power, that they are above the Pope; and how they are of later times, by the abuses of the Pope, made of none effect.  
I Look upon a general Council with that respect and reverence, 
The conveniency of Ceneral Councils.  that I account her the Bulwark of Christian Churches, the Tower of defence against the enemies thereof, the hill whereon Christ's City is built, in whose heavenly top ariseth a fountain of unity, which sends forth such irresistible streams, that, with the advantage of that Rise from whence they descend, they beat back any muddy inundations of error which Satan the prince of the air sends down to trouble her channels; and, notwithstanding any rubbish which by his industry shall be cast in their ways to dam and straiten their course, they, (with the supplies they receive from this inexhaustible source) beat down those malicious obstructions; and, in spite of all opposition of evil angels, smoothly glide away unto the pacific sea.  
I look upon her as a bundle of arrows, not easily broke; from whose quiver the particular Churches are completely armed, to resist the fiery darts of Satan. In brief, I honour, respect, love, and in all humility reverence her: and when I consider her in her right constitution, I hold myself obliged in a tye of indispensible obedience to conform and submit to whatsoever rules of faith she shall constitute and appoint: I account her the mother of the particular Churches there represented, betwixt whom there is an harmonious intercourse of reciprocal love and duty; she to acquit her obligations, provides for her daughters their portions, food & raiment, Heavenly Manna, & Christ's seamless coat; and her daughters, to discharge their duty, return her a tribute of honour and obedience. Thus, and no otherwise, do I look upon her.  
These are her just and proper attributes: and who, without regret, can consider that this beauteous Lady, the mistress and mother of us all, should, through adulteries, and her late Apostasies, have dethroned herself from this her so glorious and Celestial estate! she to forsake her husband Christ, and to go a whoring after her own inventions; by which she has contracted such black spots of lepresie upon her ruddy cheeks, that she is no more white and ruddy, the fairest of ten thousand; she is no more the beloved of Christ, and the fairest amongst women: she with the Jews has chosen Barrabas, and cast off her husband Christ; her inner rooms are the chambers of death, into which Solomon enters, and commits fornication with her. She has taken the devil's counsel, and thrown herself from off the Pinnacles of the Temple; and, forsaking the house of the Lord, she has erected a house which is the way unto the Grave; her house tendeth to death, and her paths unto the dead; and for this cause many of her former daughter-Churches are become strangers to their mother's womb, and have withdrawn that tribute of honour and reverence which they formerly ascribed to her, and give it to that Nurse and fostermother, who, with indulgent care, let's her suck from her breasts, the sincere milk of the word, humbly complaining unto the General Council, 
Sal. Song. 5.17.  Oh thou fairest among women, whither is thy wellbeloved gone? whither is thy wellbeloved turned aside, that we may seek him with thee? Return, return, O Shulamite return, that we may behold thee, Solomon's Song. 6.12.  
The unkindness of this our natural mother, 
By whom Counsels are to be called.  charmed my senses into stupefaction, and made me dwell too long upon her, admiring her unnaturalness, of which I could wish I had no ground or proof. But lest my bold assertions against this reverend Lady, might with some find no credit, and with others be accounted the evaporations of a revengeful spirit, I will lay open her digression, and acquit myself from all aspersions of slander.  
The stile of a General Council runs thus: Jussu Imperatoris, fraternitatis nostrae coetus est adventus, as may appear by several records of ancient Councils, and by what follows.  
The Emperor in General Councils of the West, and every prince respectively within his province and dominions, is supreme head of Ecclesiastical affairs, as I have already proved in the fourth Chapter; and has right to collate to Bishops to call Councils, and to reform the Church, etc. I do not mean hereby, that he should determine judicio definitivo to resolve what is sound divinity, & so to impose that upon men for faith which he defines to be so; But the Civil Magistrate may, 
Infra 142.14. chap.  judicio executivo, or by right of jurisdiction; and aught to command the profession of faith determined and decreed by the Church: he is supreme, and has the sword, that he should not bear it in vain; and as the head in the body is reliquorum membrorum imperator, so he is the guide and director of other members, to enjoin Church-officers and others the discharge of their several duties, and to punish their negligence and contempt: and to deny this to him, is to make him no longer a nursing father, but pinching suppressor, at least a coldhearted favourer, of the Church. As then the Civil Magistrate is supreme head and governor, 
Infra 14. chap. 149. & 10. chap 76.  (of which more at large in the 14 Chapter) to him of right it belongs, to call a Council, for the correcting of sin and schism; otherwise to what purpose should there be any Council at all, sigh that nothing there decreed can be put into practice, without the approbation and allowance of the Civil Magistrate, who only has the corrective power, to enjoin obedience to what shall be there decreed? Saint Austin says, that it is the duty of Kings to command, not only in matters pertaining the state of men, but the Religion of God also: and Saint Ambrose, though he was against the Emperor, to allow him power as Judge of Doctrine, by determining points of faith, yet he did not entrench upon his other Civil power, he being to have obedience performed him, as well of the Temporal as Ecclesiastical persons, and to punish the negligence of the Clergy, if they shall make rules of faith, and not themselves observe them; the King or Civil Magistrate being hereunto ordained, to punish the offences and miscarriages of his people, and is therefore said supreme: omnis sub ipso ipse sub●nullo nisi tantum sub Deo; nor is he bound to give an account for his so doing, saving to God alone; by whom he decrees justice; and this Saint Ambrose allows, in his Comment upon the 50 Psalm: Against the O Lord only have I offended. said David. Blind Homer in his Iliads could say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and will not the holy father of Rome, being full of visibility, vouchsafe to reflect thus much upon Kings and Princes? if he will not, it behoves the Temporal powers which have the sword, to look to their charge, and by the examples of David, Hezekiah, and Josiah, to punish wicked Priests, and to let them know, that their power is from God: and let them withal take this caution to themselves, as they have that power from God, God will require an account from them, how they use that power, either through negligence, or wilfully turning the power of justice into unequal tyranny. But this by the way: I return to the subject point in hand.  
That the General Councils of the Western Empire were of Right to be called by the Emperor, 
The Emperor or Civil Magistrate may of right summon a Council. Infra. 10 chap. fol. 76. ante 36.4. chap.  it doth plainly appear by these ensuing precedents. The first Council of Nice was called by the Emperor Constantine, as Marsilius, dict. 2. cap. 21. and Theodosius the Elder, called the first Council of Constantinople. The Ephesine Council was called by Theodosius the younger, at the earnest request of Celestine Bishop of Rome, and cyril Bishop of Alexandria: and the Council of Chalcedon, ex decreto piissimorum imperatorum Valentiniain & Marciani congregatus, as the preface to that Council plainly witnesses; and Marsilius in his 2. dict. 20. cap. who wrote above 320 years since, says, that though the Popes than did call some General Councils, it was not of right, that the Pope with his Cardinals should do so. It is true, that for order sake, and for honour to the City of Rome, her Bishop is precedent in the Council, he being by the Council of Constantinople made prime Bishop, in honour to the City of Rome, and in after times by Phocas was made universal; yet for all that, he never challenged any supremacy of power, as to this point of calling Councils, till long after; only hereby enjoyed a primacy of order, which would it satisfy him, I believe few would gainsay it. But for the power and privilege of summoning a General Council, it still notwithstanding this, remained unquestioned in the Civil Magistrate. And whereas it is alleged by a precedent of Saint Ambrose, that the Bishop had power to convene a Council, and not the Prince; I shall clear that objection, and plainly prove that it makes nothing for the Bishops of Rome's purpose.  
Saint Ambrose denied to dispute with Auxentius the Arrian before Valentinian in the Consistory, 
Saint Ambrose denial to dispute before Valentinian, proves not the power to call Counsels to be in ●he Pope.  and shows his reasons for it: he doth not positively deny, but lays down his reasons why he cannot, venissem imperator, etc. Epist. lib. 5. he had come but for these reasons.  
1. Because the Emperor was a young man, not then in the faith of the Trinity, being brought up an Arrian, and having made a law for the Arrian doctrine: Tolle legem, si vis esse certamen, saith Saint Ambrose.  
2. The conference was to be in a public theatre, amongst a company of Jews and Heretics, where he could expect no other issue, but what the Apostles found when they spoke with divers tongues, to wit, mocks, and scoffs; and there are some places not fit either for actions or arguments: our Saviour could do no miracles in his own Country.  
3. Because there was none there to be judge, but the young Emperor, and other Arrian Heretics; which in matters of faith is not allowed, and therefore Saint Ambrose might not come: for the spirit of the Prophets must be subject to the Prophets, by the Apostles rule, 1 Cor. 14.32.  
Saint Ambrose denied likewise to tolerate a Church for the Arrians in Milan, 
Saint Ambrose against resistance.  that being to set up the kingdom of Antichrist; yet in his oration against the said Auxentius, Epist. 5. he declares against resistance of the Prince; and though not to be obeyed actively in unjust commands, yet not to be resisted in any case; wherefore if the Emperor resolved to have a Church in Milan, he would not resist; For as he could not consent, so he would not resist: for, saith he, preces & lacrymae sunt armae Ecclesiae. 
Inf●a 147.14. chap.  Now what may be gathered from hence, to prove that the Emperor his appointing the public dispute was unlawful, and in that that the Emperor had not right to call a Council? Saint Ambrose lays down his reasons wherefore he could not come, and in that desires excuse: he is not peremptory to deny: for if the law made against Christians might be abrogated, he would have come: wherefore this is a poor shift to prove that the Emperor has no power to call a Council; and indeed, it is an absolute abuse to that deceased holy Father Saint Ambrose, who never meant any ●uch thing; he plainly teaching the contrary, as may appear by his own writing. For when the Synod of Aqnileia (convened by the Emperor's command) broke up, he wrote with the rest of his fellow-brethrens (there assembled) to the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian, Humbly desiring them to make good what they had in that assembly concluded, Ne obtemporantes vestrae tranquillitatis statutes frustra convenisse videamus etc. lest that this meeting, made in obedience to their clemencies command, should be frustrate and to no purpose. So that it is plain he was not against the Emperor his calling of a Council, only could not approve of the manner of the public assembly appointed for dispute against Auxentius: wherefore, for shame, let none urge that, to the injury of that holy father, and to the perverting of truth, whilst they strive to prove thereby, that the right of convening Councils belonged not to Civil Magistrates: for it was practised by the first Councils a hundred years before Saint Ambrose time, and by Saint Ambrose professed, and till of late maintained, as may appear by latter writers, as Gerson, in sermone coram Concil. Constant. prim. part. A General Council may be called, saith he, without express mandate of the Popes.  
The first Council, the Council of Jerusalem, was not called by Saint Peter, or any one of the Apostles; but the text saith, that the Apostles and Elders came together, after Paul and Barnabas had warned them of the dissension, Act. 15. and when Judas and Silas were from thence sent to Antioch, and letters writ by them, those letters were not directed from Peter, But thus: The Apostles and Elders, unto the brethren which are at Antioch, send greeting.  
So that the Pope cannot claim this prerogative jure Apostolico, as deriving it from Peter: and if he have it by the gracious grant of the Emperor, or any humane law, I for my part do not grudge it; nor doth it much matter who be the summoner of it; I shall allow to the Bishop of Rome, sigh he is primus inter Episcopos, to have his privilege, if the Emperor have given it to him: for as he was made primus inter Episcopos in honour of the City of Rome; so let those Bishops appear at his summons, to convene about matters of the Church, which I should think to be fit and convenient so to do, might the Council be free. 
Convenient the Pope call a Council.   
Not that 〈◊〉 are thereunto bound, in relation 〈◊〉 charge or duty lies upon them (for the Pope claiming this privilege from the Emperor, it cannot positively oblige provincials not within his jurisdiction) but for order sake, and for that some one must call it, and the Bishop of Rome may as well be the trumpeter to summon them, as no. Therefore I should think it convenient for them to appear there, might it be free: and for that by order of Council, primacy of order is given to the Bishop of Rome, I hold it fit that he should be precedent of such a Council. But by no means may it be allowed, that by reason of this prerogative granted by the Emperor, other Princes not subject to him, shall not have privilege to summon a provincial Council: within their respective provinces and jurisdictious: and that notwithstanding the Pope may for order sake summon them to a general meeting, yet if he be negligent, and will not call a Council, the several provincials may agree to convene without him: for that is granted to them by ancient Councils; and what they shall so decree, may by the consent of the several Princes (under whom they are) be imposed as rules of faith upon the people, to which their obedience shall positively be required: for it is not much material by whom a collective Council be summoned. I will admit it lawfully assembled, and now proceed to examine its power.  
Gerson, a famous Papist, and Chancellor of the University of Paris, in sermone pro viagio-regis Romanorum direct. 1. prim. parte. A General Council representing the Church, is a rule directed by the Holy Ghost, and given of Christ, that every one of what estate soever, even Papal, must hear and obey the same, or else he must be reputed and taken as an Ethnic or publican. And again in another place, prim. part. de examinat. doctr. consid. 2. the Pope doubtless is subject to Councils, and a Council hath power to depose him, as was done upon John the 12. & Joh. the 23. And the same Author in another place affirmeth, in prim. part. pro viagio regis Romanorum, consider. 2. A General Council may not only induct one to be Pope, but may compel any Pope to departed from the Popedom by way of authority. And though this may seem but one Doctor's opinion, yet it has formerly been the general doctrine of the Church, as may appear by the ancient Counsels, especially that of Constant. which expressly in that point declared the General Council above the Pope; and should it be otherwise, the General Council is useless and vain, if the Pope with his Cardinals should be esteemed and judged above them: I will therefore examine this point.  
As the Pope is not universal Bishop (which title the Doctor disclaims) nor the Church of Rome universal, 
Counsels above the Pope.  as I already proved: so neither may he be said to be above Counsels, which though not representive of the universal Church upon earth, for that all particular Churches and provinces may not be there by suffragans represented; yet for all that, it is a collective Council of distinct provincials; which provincials are not subordinate nor subjugate to the See of Rome. The Pope with his Cardinals (the representative church of that particular society) may not properly or of right be said above that Council, which is there for order sake and unity convened, that those several provinces, of which she is collective, may concur in unity of Doctrine, and conformity of Rules of Faith there decreed; which decrees and Rules, should by the approbation of the Civil Magistrate be put into execution, within those respective provinces, and distinct jurisdictions, without any further allowance or approbation, or controlment of the Pope of Rome, who is thereunto equally obliged with any other provincial; and to assert the contrary, is novelty, and the unjust usurpations of the proud pontifical prelate's of Rome, and those cursed Lordly parasites about him, that thus have flattered the chair into this deceivable mischief, and erroneous novelty; which according to Tertullian's Rule, adversus prax. in princip. Id esse verum quod primum esse, adulterum quod posterius semper adjudicandum est. Wherefore this new doctrine of the Pope's supremacy above Counsels representive of many provinces, must not be received as true and justifiable doctrine; for that it is clearly opposite to the ancient faith of Rome; insomuch that the former Popes of Rome did as Popes did at an Altar, promise to hold the faith taught by the traditions of the first Counsels of Nice and Constantinople, etc. 
Infra 84.  which made Rome's Bishop but equal with other Patriarches: but now contrary to that sacred vow, his holiness will be above Counsels, and utterly destroys the constitutions of those Counsels.  
The Council of Nice hemmed in the See of Rome into certain limits, 
The Pope inferior to Counsels.  wherein being included, she should not break forth: yet such is the restless motions of her troublesome head, the Pope, that he has made corruptions beyond his bound, and like as a violent Tide that has lately overwhelmed some parcel of ground not before made a prey to Neptune's wide swallowing jaws, doth for joy of its new mastery, tumble itself upon its new-acquired Lordship, making new beds of ease, whereon it intends the next high-springing flood shall lay his foamy head: so doth his holiness, having broke down this pale of the Church, which kept her within a known and certain Rule of Faith & manners, insult over the poor captive Lady; & having thus trod her down, which formerly was a rampire to circumscribe his power and jurisdiction, he recommends his lawless precedent to his successors imitation, and proclaims the See of Rome boundless, save only as her will shall please to prescribe unto herself a limited confine.  
And having, Samson-like, thus tore the Lion's whelp of the tribe of Judah, he expects to find a nest of honey in her dead carcase; and from his Papal chair puts forth such riddles that none that ploughs not with his Heifer can declare: which riddles and Roman mysteries, shall any interpret, or put a sense upon them contrary to his will, or displease him in abating any jot of his new-acquired Sovereignty, he sends his Foxes with firebrands to destroy the corn of the field, and to spoil the vineyard which Christ with his own right hand hath planted.  
Is this Pastorlike? is this to follow Paul's rule to the Rom. chap. 11.8. Boast not thyself against the branches: for if thou boast thyself, thou bearest not the Root, but the Root thee? Surely no, This is rather to pull up the tree of life by the roots, because her branches whither; and if other branches sprung of the same stock decay, it may serve to put Rome in mind, that the sap she has rob from others will not long maintain life in her arms, in respect she has thus lopped herself from the bulk of the Church.  
She may for a time flourish like a green Palmtree; but if she do not play the good husband, and inoculate herself again into the old stock, it is more than probable she will shortly become a dotard; wherefore I hearty pray she would no longer exalt herself against that that gave her what she has, I mean a Council that made her equal with the chief Patriarches, and the Princes that gave her honour, lifting her head above her fellows: Let her no longer triumph above measure, knowing this, that whilst she rejoices in her boasting, all such rejoicing is evil.  
Now lest any may censure me for slandering the Church of Rome herein, I will show how she has changed by degrees from her primitive faith in point of her honour and confidence in a General Council, and at length quite destroy it, by claiming to herself to be above it.  
First, Boniface by the edict of Phocas (as you have heard) claimed to be above a Bishop; then in process of time Greg. 7. claimed a power above kings, as shall appear in Chap. 14. after which the wings of the succeeding Popes being chipped by four Counsels, Worms, Papia, Brixis and Mentz, grew again in his successors, that at last they flew above Councils, till the 3 General Councils of Pisa, Constance & Basil did not only displace Popes out of the Popedom, but decreed that Councils were above the Pope. 
Popes displaced by Councils.  The Pisen Counsels did out two, Greg. 12. & Benedict. and placed Alexander 5. and the Council of Constant. deposed John 23. & placed Martin 5 in his stead, and decreed that the Pope himself for ever should be subject to their decrees. The Council of Basil deposed Eugen. 4. & placed Nicholas 5. and declared the Council of Constant. in this point of the Counsels supremacy, to be a matter of faith; so that the late Counsels of Lateran and Trent do not only prove the fallibility of Rome's Church, but that Rome has changed her faith. For such is the ambition and pomp of the possessors of the Roman chair, that they could not rest quiet as long as the edicts of the Counsels of Constant. and Basil were in force; it bred heart-burings and struggle in the breasts of the succeeding Popes, it being an undervaluing to their claimed Imperial dominion, to be Tenants at will of their triple crown; and that a Council should at pleasure put an end to their state and Empire: wherefore, as a current kept back by some forced rampire, if it shall once break down that dam, runs headlong with more force and violence; even so the Pope's having packed the Counsels Laterane and Trent after their own humours, did procure them to remove and batter down that bulwark of Constant. and Basil, which was raised against his crown and dignity; and dismounting those Canons, to proclaim in a loud volley of their own artillery his holiness the Pope not only above Counsels (which was the former dispute) but above Scripture too; and that from henceforth none shall have voices in the General Council, 
An Oath to be enjoined those that sit in Council.  but such as shall first swear obedience to the Pope, and promise to defend his Canon Law; which oath put Bellarmine to hunt about for an evasion, and lib. 1. de council. cap. ult. he would have it understood, that this oath is only intended of obedience to the Pope whilst he is Pope, but not against the deposing of an heretical Pope, which is a mist the Cardinal would throw before the eyes of the people, that a man should not see the gross violation of privileges, and grand abuse offered, and henceforth to be exercised upon the liberty, freedom, and pre-eminence of so sacred and reverend a Lady as a General Council is, and of right aught to be; whenas whosoever knows the Pope's Canons, 
Pope's Canons.  which teach that the Pope cannot err in his judicial decrees of faith and manors, that no Counsels are of force without the Pope's confirmation; that all Counsels confirmed by him are approved by the holy Ghost; That he can excommunicate and depose all Emperors and princet, and many such like strange and horrible positions plainly understands that he is bound by this oath to maintain those Cannons of the Popes, which are in themselves, another powder plot to blow up the General Counsels: For if they were but to obey him whilst he taught and ruled according to God and the holy Canons, none would be averse from it, for by that rule every one might have liberty to examine him, which I believe Bellarmine would not grant: wherefore it was but a mere evasion of the oath for that time, whenas he knew well enough the oath was positive, enjoining obedience to the then known Canons of the Pope, which in themselves are destructive to Counsels, had not the late Lateran and Trent Counsels decreed already his holiness to be above any Council: so that since these decrees of those two Counsels, since this oath to be enjoined to them that shall come to sit in Counsels, and since these Canons made and forced upon the consciences of them that shall be members of that Council; it may no longer be properly called a Council, but rather a conventicle of Pope- Parasites, who came thither forestalled in Judgement, and pre-obliged by oath to maintain the Pope in his present Canonical power; whenas by this means, nothing that shall reflect upon his unjust usurpations can or may there receive a free debate; or if it should, and be there decreed against the Pope, yet he being above that decree, may alter it in his closet at Rome, at pleasure: and till this be rectified, we may all bid farewell to General Counsels; nay, such is their impudence and vain glory, now that they have attained to this pitch of height, that they may teach what they please, no power being to question them, that they stick not boldly to affirm, that the first Counsels of Nice, Constant. etc. had not been of force, had not the Pope been there; and had he not been there, they had erred: For he is the only head, and infallible legislator of rules pertaining to faith, he is the only interpreter of the Scriptures, the Sphynx that can lay one all former decrees, and the holy Writ itself (be it never so plain) to be a riddle, to expound it according to his own sense and best a veil.  
He may call all Bishops of the Christian world to decide and determine controversies in Religion; 
Abuse of General Councils.  but yet (salvo jure) they must decree nothing against what he please to decree in his chair at Rome. For as for himself, he never comes at a General Council; for if he should, the Emperor must sit above him, and that stands not with his princely highness and magnificence: besides, the Eastern Churches do not acknowledge his primacy; and should he come there, it might give an occasion to have that questioned, which the old Fox would not have brought into dispute, because that thereby the unjustness of his claim to others as much transcendent prerogatives, would be laid open to the world.  
The Bishops, as I said, may meet at his beck, fast long, pray long, consult gravely, deliberate maturely, decree soberly, command strictly, and accurse severely: But neither they, nor any other, shall tell what shall be of force: for all shall be as please his holiness, sitting in state in his only-infallible chair at Rome; wherefore a Roman Bishop Melchior Canus, lib. de locis 5. cap. 5. non itaque quod in humanis concessionibus fit, plurimum apud nos sententia prevalet, etc. It is not, saith he, with us, as it is with other humane assemblies, where plurality of voices prevail, for lo here matters are not to be judged by number, but by weight; and the Counsels, saith he, receive their weight from the gravity and sole authority of the Pope: and the Papists of Rheims, upon the 15. of the Acts allege, that the determination of Counsels is needless, because his holiness the Pope alone is infallible; and therefore, say they, they are but called for the contentation of the weak, not for necessity sake; which if this was the Religion of the primitive Church, let their own Counsels, the fathers of the primitive times, and their own consciences (in the presence of God) witness.  
First, 
Councils abused.  they deeree Canons in Counsels, under pain of Anathema, and yet the Pope may withstand them salva conscientia: whereupon their Angelical Doctor Thomas Aquinas, 4. con. pag. 422. touching that Canon of the Ephesine Council, that none under pain of damnation, should frame any other Symbol, or add any other thing to that of the Nicene Council, answers (to excuse the new Symbol set forth in the Milan Council) that that Anathema is only to private men and doth not bind the Pope. Is not this a strange exposition of a learned Doctor? As if the Councils of Nice and Ephesus presumed that private men should make new Articles of Faith, and enjoin them as canons of the Church: or as if they had allowed the Bishop of Rome any Legislative power to frame new Rules without a Council. I blush to see how the Pope's parasites, to help a lame dog over the stile, will bolster up his Holiness in whatsoever he propounds; and shall either receive a cloak to blind its contradictions from former principles and practices, or, if they cannot easily dissemble the grossness of the Tenent, will enforce it upon his Holiness score of infallibility; or else, by virtue of an Index expurgatorius, altar the Rules and Canons of the first Councils, and make them speak new doctrines suitable to the humour and present tenants of the Church of Rome: or if the Pope's genius cannot see far enough to advance the Papal Throne, they will in his name, and by his authority, make Scriptures, 
Infra 12 Chap.  Councils, and Fathers, noses of wax, make the dead Fathers speak things they never thought or uttered, and put new faces upon the old Fathers and Councils. As for example:  
S. 
Fathers & Councils a bused by the Pope's Parasites.  Austin de civitate Dei, lib. 15. cap. 23. speaking of Canonical Scripture, says, Those Scriptures are to be taken for Canonical, which the most part of the Christian churches so take; amongst which those Churches be, that deserve to have Apostolic Sees, and to receive Epistles from the Apostles: the word Sees is turned into See, as I have already alleged. 
Ante Ch. 2   
The sixth canon of the first Council of Nice, which made Rome equal with Alexandria, is corrupted, and fifty false canons are added to the twenty canons of the same Council; and the Jesuits would hereby persuade the world, that his Holiness supremacy, which was shortened by the Fathers of the Nicene Council being alive, is enlarged by his Holiness they being dead; and contrary that Council, his Holiness gives leave to Abbots to consecrate Bishops; which Abbots are not, quatenus Abbots, infra sacros ordines: and, contrary to the fifth canon, he absolveth those that are excommunicated by other Bishops. Contrary to the sixth canon, he invades the Dioceses of other Patriarches. which Eutiches condemned in the Council of Chalcedon. He believeth that Christ hath a body neither solid nor palpable, nor like to ours: (for such is that transubstantiated body he maintains to be in the Sacrament.) He has further abused the Fathers of the Chalcedon Council, who, being alive, said, Let the See of Constantinople be as well advanced as the See of Rome, being the next unto it: which words are filthily corrupted by a negative added to the last words, Let her not be advanced in matters Ecclesiastical as she: let her be the next unto it. So in like manner he hath abused the eight and twentieth canon of the Council of Carthage, speaking how the Churches of Africa should not appeal beyond seas, he has added this clause, Unless it be to the See of Rome.  
I might instance a thousand more of the like nature; but these particulars may serve to give a light unto their dark proceed. Hercules is known by his foot; and by this brief epitome of the Church of Rome's tricks and juggle (for note, Reader, where throughout the Book I name the Pope. I thereby generally understand the Church of Rome) with Fathers and Councils, you may guess what multitudes of errors and wrongs she daily commits, not making conscience to abuse the dead Fathers, (which, were they alive, could not think much at it, because the dictates of the holy Ghost, the Scripture itself, is not free from his abuses in points that contradict his new profitable tenants) and to make the Rules of Counsels stand upon new pantofles which his Holiness has shod them with, to make them tread Papal measures in.  
To this pass are general Counsels come: those of old speak new language, those of later times teach things contrary to the old: nor are these modern Counsels free in their Constitutions; every member thereof must be engaged by Oath to maintain the Pope in his new-usurped privileges: and should they freely debate and decree any thing, yet it is to no purpose, being subject to alteration, controlment, or denial of his Holiness: and therefore since they are brought to this pass, who will give ear to their Edicts, or honour them as a Representative of several Churches united in that body? sigh thus by the practice of the Church of Rome, general Counsels are brought into this servile condition, and made subordito the Pope, it behoves Provincials to reform themselves, and to call Provincial councils to that purpose, and no longer to expect the decision of Controversies from a General Council which is thus made servile to the Pope, to decree to please the people, but in no ways to displease the Pope. Sith then General Councils are brought to this pass, I say, it behoves Provincials, as they tender the purity of doctrine delivered by Christ, and the dictates of the holy Ghost by the mouth of the Apostles to be preserved in the several Churches of Christ, without being perverted to please the humours of men, To cast off these wicked designers of the Church's slavery, and introducers of error and innovation; and to desire the assistance of the holy Spirit of God, to direct them in their own respective Provincial Councils, which they may by the example of the Primitive Churches, and by authority of the first Councils, lawfully convene, without any Rule or Order from the See of Rome for their so doing; and no longer (unless those things may be amended, and that they have sufficient assurance thereof from the See of Rome) to appeal to any General Counsels called by the Pope.   

CHAP. XI.  
That there may be Provincial Councils called, without the Pope's approbation; which councils have power to reform Schisms and Heresies, and may enjoin Rules of Faith, which the people by the consent of the civil Magistrate are bound to obey: and especially that the church of England hath this power.  
THat the metropolitans of distinct Provinces have power to call Councils for reformation of any Schisms, or decision of any Questions or Doubts in Religion, it was the practice of the Primitive Churches: and if the Pope of Rome have any preeminence of Jurisdiction in order to Councils, it was but derived from the power of Counsels, as I have proved before; and therefore the same power giving authority to other Provincials to call Councils, they are not debarred of this privilege by any Order or Decree of the Church of Rome, they not being under her jurisdiction or power (especially those Provincials which were not by Suffragans represented in the late Lateran and Trent-Councils, which gave this supremacy over Councils to the Pope.) And that this was granted to all metropolitans of distinct Provinces, may appear by these ensuing precedents and warrants so to do.  
By the General Councils of Chalcedon, the 19 Canon, it is decreed. Quod oporteat per Provinciales bis in anno Concilia celebrare; and this is likewise agreed by the Council of Antioch, can. 20. and by the first Council of Nice; and by the the 18 Canon of the Council of Antioch, that one Bishop should not meddle in the Diocese of another: and herewith agrees the first Council of Constantinople, Can. 2. 
Provincial Councils, and several Provincials to meet in one, with out the Pope's approbation.  By the Council of Carthage, Can. 19 if any difference arose, it was to be referred to the Metropolitan of the Province, who should call the Bishops of his Province together: and if they could not resolve the doubt, it was to be transmitted to a General Council: and if any party thought himself aggrieved at the Decrees of the Provincial, he was to appeal to the General Council within a year. And by the Council of Antioch, can. 13. if any thing of controversy did arise in any Province, and the Metropolitan could not in his Provincial Synod decide the matter, the Metropolitan might call upon his neighbour-Provinces for assistance in Council (a shame therefore for the Church of Rome to affirm that no Council is of validity without the Pope:) which canon of the Popes to that purpose, is contrary to the practice and doctrine of the Primitive Church, 
Ante Chap. 10.  and therefore to be rejected. By the ninth canon of the Council of Antioch, the Metropolitan of every Province has the Government of that Province assigned to him.  
By all and every of which canons it is plain, that one Bishop should not intermeddle in the Diocese of another, 
Ante Ch. 2  nor one Metropolitan in the Province of another; for that every Metropolitan has the government of his own distinct Province committed to him & that he may call a council within his own Province; and if there the matter in question cannot be determined, may desire the assistance of his neighbour-Provincials; which makes by that means a general Council, by calling in the neighbour-Provincials as the cause shall require: and this is declared by these Councils for to be lawful so to do, without any reservation to the See of Rome, (as if without her Provincial this might not be done) who by the sixth canon of the first Council of Nice, is but equal with Alexandria; and Alexandria, Antioch, Rome and other Provinces, have like privileges reserved to them by the express words of that canon.  
This was the practice of the primitive Churches; 
England equal with Rome.  and when those constitutions were made, and long before, was England a province, and had her Metropolitan, who after King Lucius conversion did publicly exercise the Jurisdiction of a Metropolitan; which was 120 years before that Council of Nice: and by the words of that canon the several Provincials then in being having equal Jurisdiction reserved to them, England may by virtue hereof claim equality with the Church of Rome, the same Authority making them equal in power and jurisdiction: nor had she so much as primacy of Order, till the ensuing Council of Constantinople (can. 2.) gave it her only for honour to the city of Rome, and no other respect. Nor doth it appear that England had any Suffragan in that Council; so that had it not in aftertimes been confirmed by other Councils, England had not been hereunto bound. Which council of Constantinople was not called till 26 years after the council of Nice. So that for the Doctor to allege against us (as he doth positively in his book, fol. 221.) that we cannot call a Council, seems something strange to me, to proceed from a Doctor; for it is an argument that he is ignorant of those canons, or else if he have read them, those copies he has perused are of Rhemish print, and much vary from the Originals. However, I must needs wonder at his harsh censure against his native country, and his quondam-mother-Church, that he should deny her that privilege and jurisdiction which is not due to her alone, but common to all Provincials, which by the authority of Counsels and by the practice of the Primitive, and by the ensamples of later ages, have and do call Provincial Councils within their respective territories and precincts, and do there decree Rules of faith to be observed of all within the Province, as may appear by these ensuing precedents.  
There was a Provincial Council called at Ancyra in Galitia of eighteen Bishops; 
Provincials called of old.  and that other of Neocaesaria, of fourteen Bishops, before any General Council: and after the General Council of Nice, were held several Provincial Councils in the East; as that Council of Grangene, of sixteen Bishops; that of Antioch, of thirty Bishops of several Provinces in the East (in which respect it rather deserves the name of a General Council, than a Provincial Synod.) Likewise the Council of Laodicea, of several Provinces of Asia; 
Councils held without the Bishop of Rome.  and this without the Bishop of Rome: for he was not to govern the Asian churches; but the Bishops of Asia and Alexandria the Churches in Egypt, and the Bishop of Pontus them in Pontus according to the Council of Constant. can. 2. Hereupon likewise the African Province held several Councils under Theodosius the third, without any dependency upon Rome; which upon the authority of the Primitive Churches and Councils hath been continued down to these days, not only in those of the Eastern, Asian and African Provinces, but in other of the Western European Provinces; it being a Right equally due to every Province: and therefore I need not travel so far for Precedents; I might have saved labour, and answered the Doctor with precedents nearer home and have instanced in France those of Arles, Tours, Tholouse, etc. which Genebrard in his Chronicle. lib. 4. anno 814. calls Concilia reformatoria: and in Germany those of Worms, Mentz, Brixia, Frankfort, Noremberg, and Ratisbone. And in Spain those of Toledo; and one of Sardis called by Osius Bishop of Corduba a little afore the Council of Nice. And in England, the Councils of London Winchester, Gloucester: and many and several even to this day, the Pope never intermeddling in any of them, but in most of the  Provincial Councils was opposed, and declared upon several questions started that he ought not to intermeddle, 
Provincial Counsels not to appeal to the Bishop of Rome.  nor any Appeals aught from those Provincials to be made unto him, it being against the privileges of the several Provincials to allow of Appeals to him.  
And as it was their ancient Right, 
Ante Ch. 2.  so was it maintained by the Princes of later times, who like careful nursing fathers would not suffer their Provincial Rights to be invaded by the ambitious and covetous encroaching Popes of Rome. Hereupon, Ludovicus Pius the Emperor did by public Edict prohibit all exactions of the Popes: which Ludovicus perceiving they began to grow proud upon the freedom and donation his predecessor Charles the Great had bestowed upon them, did hereby show unto the world, that the clemency and indulgency of the Imperial Crown should not be an occasion to make other Princes suffer in their Ecclesiastical Rights by the Popes of Rome, under colour of shelter from the Emperor to invade them in their said Ecclesiastical privileges belonging to any Provinces within their proper dominions: and therefore by public Edict did the said Emperor prohibit all exactions of the Pope's Court within his Realm. The like was done in France by Philip the fair, prohibiting all Appeals to Rome, 1246. and that was confirmed by Charles the 5 and 6. punishing some as traitors for appealing. And in the Reign of Charles the 7. was set forth a Decree against the annates, reservations, expectations, and other proceed of the Popes of Rome's pretenced Jurisdiction. And 'twas thought by many that H. 4. would have revived this; which many conceive did given occasion to shorten his days.  
And as these Provincials were free and immune without appealing to the See of Rome, so had England the same privilege and jurisdiction; nor did she ever in any businesses appeal to Rome she being a distinct Province of old, and declared by the Bishop of Rome, Eleutherius, that the King is Vicarius summus infra Regna, might call Councils; and by the ensuing Liberties granted to Provincials by the first Councils, might make Rules of Faith, to which the people by the Prince's consent were bound; and this to be without appealing to the See of Rome: and never before Becket's business, 
Becket's c●se, ante Chap. 4.  of which I have already spoken in the fourth Chapter, did the Pope intermeddle here. Besides, that business of Becket was betwixt the King and his own Clergy, about a Law made at Clerudun, by which Law Ecclesiastical persons were not to be freed by Church-priviledge from murder: and one Brock a Monk after committing a murder, was by contrivance of Becket and others delivered from public Justice; whereupon the variance began, and the Pope excommunicating the King, the King was forced, through necessity of State, at that time to submit: yet nevertheless in the Articles made between the King and Pope Alexander, at that time, it was conditioned amongst other things, that the King should suffer the people of England to appeal to Rome; as appears by the Annals of those days; which is an argument it was not before due to the See of Rome. And indeed, that it was not due, is a truth so manifest, and a right and jurisdiction belonging to every Province so unquestionably, that I will forbear to insist any further upon this particular; and submit to the Reader, whether, upon what I have here fairly laid down, we in England may not call a Council without appealing to the See of Rome. For as for that concession of H. 2. it was afterwards declared void, it being a thing not properly lying within his conusance, compass, or capacity, to grant, being a right inherent in his Provincials: and those bare Articles forced through necessity of State from the King could no ways oblige the successors in the See of Canterbury and York; but that still notwithstanding there may be Provincial Synods in England, for reformation of Schism, or reconcilement of Controversies, as occasion shall require, and that without any allowance or approbation of the Pope of Rome.  
For to argue a claim to the Pope to require Appeals from hence, by reason of the Articles between H. 2. and Pope Alexander, and that the Provinces of Canterbury and York should be thereby bound, is no more reasonable, then if the Emperor should condition with a Bishop of Canterbury that the Bishops of Rome should appeal to them; which I believe his Holiness would not think should bind him or his successor. And for that there was no right to be proved before those Articles, I say the case is equally just; and therefore as the Bishop of Rome for shame must not claim it from this argument of H. 2. so may we in no other respect grant it, but that we, as I said before, may still without his allowance call Provincial Councils for deciding controversies, and correction of Schism and Disorders in our Church.  
I must confess that the Doctor has justly reproved some dissensions and varieties of Opinions amongst us in England. 
Sects in England.  But that excuse he made for the differences which are amongst the Papists, salus up our sore as well as theirs. For as the Doctor (fol. 236.) says, They are but Reasonings of private men, and (the Church not having interposed her Decree) may not be properly said differences of our Church, or distracted contradictions in our Articles of Faith. For should our Church convene a Synod, she would either reconcile the differences, or condemn them as Heretics which descent from her: and after that sentence pronounced, they are no more of our Church, though they may be said to be in our Church, according to that of S. John, 1 Joh. 2.19. Si ex nobis essent, permanserint nobiscum. And let me not appear partial in this point, to pass it over barely thus, without showing the reasons the Church of England doth not reform these differences, sigh before in this Treatise (Chap. 5.) I have taxed the Church of Rome of error of negligence in this particular.  
The Church of Rome at present is in so flourishing a condition, that nothing can stop her (unless the private interest of her Pope hinder her) to reform the differences that are in her own Church. She may convene a Council without any opposition: But such is the distressed condition of the Church of England that on a sudden her ●lilies were overtopped with weeds: the Sectaries which fed upon wild olives, gave thereof unto the giddy multitude, who were presently like cursed children of old Adam tempted to eat that forbidden fruit; and having Liberty promised to be masters and lords of the whole Vintage, they claim bargain with the merchandizers of holy wares, and presently cry down the ancient Husbandmen of the Vineyard. Which strange and unheardof change struck such amazement in the hearts of the people, and caused such struggle in nature, to digest this new-tempered Potion she was to drink, that the whole body of the Land was severed; so that till this fit of her sickness be over, her ancient Husbandmen cannot nay must not enter into the Vineyard to prune and dress her, and to cut off those extravagant branches, which like ill weeds, have thriven fast, and make the whole Plantation seem out of order. Let us therefore pray the Lord of the Vineyard that he would restore her Husbandmen unto her, that he would repair her walls which are trodden down, and make up her hedge, that she may no longer be eaten up; that in stead of these wil●e grapes she may bring forth fruits meet for her Lord and Master: and that he would strengthen their hearts in this day of visitation, and give them patience to undergo the Cross that's laid upon them; and no doubt but in due time he will give her joy for heaviness and turn the hearts of her persecutors, to support with the right hand whom they have buffered with the left.  
This is the Lords doing thus to visit her: and would it please him to say to the destroying Angel. It is enough; would he in mercy turn to his Vineyard, and have pity on her; would he please to restore her beauty, that she might rejoice in her salvation; and and that the world might no longer laugh to see Christ's disciples weep, Joh. 16.20: Then I dare on her behalf promise, she would not be slack to reform the enormities committed against Christ and his Truth. And as in the mean time she may not justly be taxed for negligence herein; so neither hath she heretofore been careless in this point. It is true, according to that of S. Paul. 1 Cor. 11.19. that there must be heresies, that they which are approved might be known: But she was never wanting friendly to admonish, and with motherly reasons to persuade her Christian sons to obedience, as witnesseth the several public Conserences had at Hampton and elsewhere; which was all that of herself she was able to do. 
Bishop's cannot reform without approhation from the Parliament.  She may decree things in her Convocation and Church-assemblies; but they are no binding Rules by the Laws of the Land, without the approbation of the Civil power: and therefore is it ordinarily that the Convocation sits when there is a Parliament, that if there be any new Rules of Faith to be declared, they may receive the approbation and allowance of the Temporal Magistrate, by force whereof they become obligatory to the people.  
As for the Bishops their sitting in Parliament, they do not sit there as Bishops to judge, but as Barons they judge: as Bishops they only advise, left any Moral Law be made repugnant to God's Word; and so likewise the Judges sit in Parliament to advise lest any new Law be made either in itself irregular, or contradictory to the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom: but neither the Bishops as Bishops, or the Judges sit in Parliament as Judges to decree and vote in the legislation of any new Rule.  
Whereas in old Precedents it is said By assent of the King, 
Bishop's si● as Barons, not as Bishops, in Parliament.  by the advice of the Lords spiritual and temporal, etc. it is not hereby to be understood that as Spiritual Lords they judged in the making of the Municipal Law; only they were named before the Temporal Lords, for that they were the greater number, and all Barons or Peers were alike. The Bishops, Abbots, and Priors which had Baronies annexed to them, were far exceeding the number of the Temporal Lords, as may appear by ancient Rolls: there were 27 Abbots, and 2 Priors, which had Baronies annexed to their Spiritualties; by virtue whereof, both they and the Bishops (which likewise had Baronies annexed to their Sees) sat on Parliament in a distinct capacity from the Spiritualty, as to the matter of Judicature.  
Now that they were the greater number, appears by this: The Abbots. Priors, and Bishops, which held by Barony, were fifty; and there were but few Noblemen of the Laity: there were none or few Earls, but of the Blood Royal, 
Noblemen in England.  and therefore to this day they are termed by the King's Writs, Consanguinei nostri: in aftertime they were made more common; insomuch that whereas Alfred had divided the Kingdom into Shires, and committed the Government of every Shire, and appointed a Lieutenant to every Shire to govern it, and to rule and control the outrageous subjects at home, as well as to defend it from foreign enemies, That Officer in aftertimes became a Count, and the country over which he was appointed Governor was called a County; which since was changed, the King taking from the Earl or Count that power, he not liking that this power should remain main in one hereditary, and which had it not immediately from himself. And because the Earl to whom such charge was committed was not so ready to be corrected if he did amiss, and that the administration of justice might immediately proceed from the King himself, it was therefore taken from the Earl, and given to one yearly appointed thereto; who because he did execute that power which the Earl formerly had, is called Vicecomes, quia vicem Commit is suppleat. Mirror. cap. 1. sect. 3. By which it appears, that there were not many Peers of the Laiety.  
And as for any other degrees of Nobility, as Duke, Marquess, 
Nobility in England.  or Viscount, they were but puisne names of titular dignity, and doth not make them Peers or Judges of Parliament, unless they have Baronies annexed to them, as it is resolved by the Law of England, 14 H. 4.7. and therefore in Parliament all Peers votes are equal, without distinction of their titular dignities. For as for the name Duke, there was none in England after the Conquest, before the Black Prince Edward, son of Rich. 2. nor any Marquis before Robert Earl of Oxford was made Marquis of Dublin by R. 2. nor any Viscount before John de bello monte was made Viscount Bellamont, or Beaumond, by H. 6. By which it is manifest, that the Nobility was but few in ancient time; and therefore the Lords Spiritual being the greater number of Peers, are named before the Lords Temporal: not that they either have any superiority in Judicature, or that they sit there as Judges in their Spiritual capacity, as may likewise appear by Roll of Parliament, 18 H. 3. m. 17. The Bishops sitting in a Convocation at Gloucester, were inhibited to meddle of the Temporal state of the King or his Nobles, etc. upon pain of having their Baronies confiscate: for they had distinct capacities: as they are Bishops, they were not to meddle with Temporal affairs, wherefore were they inhibited in that Assembly at Gloucester, which was merely of spiritual men, to proceed in matters temporal: and as they are Barons, and therefore sit in Parliament, they may not there judge of things spiritual, all transactions of that nature being to receive debate in the Convocation of the Clergy. Wherefore it may not be laid to the charge of the Bishops, that they sitting in Parliament did not reform the Schisms in the Church, for that they were not proper Judges thereof as they sat in Parliament, but only when they sat in the Convocation; which Convocation was prevented to be convened according to the old Rules and Customs of this Nation by the popular sort; which than not knowing what they would have, at all adventure cried down Episcopacy; and having pulled down that stately glorious fabric, all that ever the then-busie Reformers could frame out of the timber of the old building, was but to patch and cobble up a Presbyterian cottage and that so weakly jointed and set together, that it was judged by the most of them that it could not stand above three years. A pitiful change!  
It is an evil bird defiles its own nest: and must our English Zion, which was the glory of this Land, and the envy of other Nations, be made a scorn unto her enemies by her own adopted sons? If children live honestly, (says Solomon, Ecclus 22.) they shall put away the shame of their parents: but if they be proud with haughtiness and foolishness, they defile the nobility of their own kindred.  
Wherefore I humbly beg of the chief Governors and Rulers of the people, to reflect upon their mother-Church, and to consider her in her sufferings, to pray for her, and to endeavour her peace: Pray for the peace of Jerusalem; they shall prosper that love her: And to put to their helping hand to lift up her head out of the dust, That she may no longer lie groaning and grovelling under the heavy hands of wild persecutors, but may by the assistance and loving aid of the Judges of the people, be called upon, that she may either clear herself to the condemnation of her opposers, or suffer according to her deserving, by the grave judgement and sentence of the Wise of the Land, and not to be trodden down and censured without a fair trial, (any further than her sufferings with patience witness her faith:) which if they would please to condescend unto, it would certainly conduce to satisfy the consciences of many that doubt, and by the blessing of God would bring peace into the Land: and that according to Solomon's saying, that there might be a Rod and Correction in the Church, whereby the sons obtain wisdom; but the liberty of the children makes the mother ashamed.  
Now the Lord open the hearts, and give bowels of compassion to the Rulers of the people, that by their favours the Church may be again restored to us, so that we may worship God in spirit and truth; and that we having again restored unto us a Jerusalem at unity within itself, we may keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; that we may suck and be satisfied with the brefts of her consolation; that we may milk out, and be delighted with the brightness of her glory; and that by the means of her nursing fathers, it would please God to extend peace on her like a flood, that we may suck, be born upon her sides, and be joyful upon her knees; to the quieting of all differences amongst us, and to the everlasting peace of those that wish well to Zion.  
But I have dwelled too long upon this point: I return to the subject matter of this Chapter.  
You may partly perceive that the Church of England is not altogether to be blamed for the Errors and Divisions in our Land in matters pertaining to Faith and Discipline. I dare be bold on her behalf to assure the Papists she desires a fair debate of all those differences, and would willingly reconcile them, or cast off those that would not hearken to her instructions: and might she by the favour and free leave of the Civil Magistrate convene, and were encouraged to have his assistance in order to put in execution her Decrees (without which▪ whatsoever she resolves is but like a Lateran Junto not obligatory to the Western Princes, nor the people under their jurisdiction) she would not be sparing to lance the wounds of these divisions to the bottom, that, if there were any hopes of amendment, to cause sound and new flesh to grow a gain; or else, finding them irrecoverable by reason some are grown desperately wicked beyond all remedy, to cut off such as withered branches, that they might no longer be a cause to putrify the stock and body of the tree: and when she has done, would not be ashamed of her work, but would recommend it to the public consideration of others; which being by them approved, might be exemplary for their imitation; or if by the Divine Rule of Scripture it was to be faulted, then to be by them rejected, and receive a just condemnation.  
I dare be bold to say, that if any thing should be debated in her Convocation, which might not seem satisfactory to any other sister-Province she would entertain a free debate with her: and if they two could not determine the controversy, so far as might be satisfactory to others, she would agree to submit the debate to a General Council, might but that Council be free in its constitution, and not subservient to one man the Pope; which by the confession of Bellarmin. (lib. de Concil. cap. 21. non potest fieri ut aliquando ad finem controversiarum deveniatur Synodus, nisi detur locus majori parti suffragiorum. 
No Appeal to a General Council whilst the Pope is allowed above that Council.  And in another place, lib. 2. cap. 11. the Concil. Est verum Decretum Concilii quod fit a majore parte) destroys the very being of a General Council; whenas what shall there be concluded by a major part must stand null, unless his Holiness approve thereof, or shall be subject to be altered at his will and pleasure.  
It is reported by Quintus Curtius, fol. 13. that in the City of Gordin in Phrygia was laid up in Jupiter's temple the furniture of King Midas Wagon, knit up in such an intricate knot, that it was extreme difficult to be untied: and the countrymen had a Prophecy, that whosoever should untie it, should be Lord of Asia. Alexander coming thither, and viewing the knot, and doubting if he should not inexplicate it, that it might be reputed as an evidence to those superstitious people of his bad fortune to come, with his sword cut it asunder, by which the Prophecy was expected to be fulfilled: and thereupon those people submitted to him; and, not long after, he became Lord of Asia. And thus the Pope deals with Councils: if any thing of consequence be to receive debate there, he will not abide the canvasing of the Question, and the sober unfolding of the knot and difficulty thereof, but uno flatu resolves the scruple, and with his false key picks the lock of the business; by which means he promises to himself an universal obedience, as the only never-erring Oracle; claiming by this means a sovereignty over Councils, Kings, and Bishops: which all other Churches of Apostolical plantation judge to be an horrible presumption. And till this be rectified, we utterly deny all Appeals to a General Council of the Pope's convening: and as S. Ambrose said to Valentinian, so we say to the Pope; Tolle Legem, si vis esse certamen.   

CHAP. XII.  
That the Scriptures are only infallible rules of faith, and contain all things necessary to salvation: That all people are to read them, because those points are plain and easy: That they themselves witness this truth in those points of salvation: And how the Church of Rome abuses the Scripture.  
SCripture is the only foundation and basis on which our Faith is built, 
Of the force and efficacy of the Scriptures.  according to that of S. Paul to the Ephesians, chap. 2. the faithful are built upon the Apostles and Prophets: it is the sword of the Spirit, Eph. 6. being profitable to instruct, and reprove, and being able to make the man of God perfect.  
Irenaeus in his third book against Heresies, cap. 11. says, The Apostles first preached the Gospel, and afterwards delivered the same to us in Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith. And Origen upon Matth. 25. says, They are to be brought for proof of all Doctrines. Our Saviour by Scripture convinced the devil; teaching us thereby to know what weapons we are to use against all Heresy and Schism. And in the General Councils of old, not the Pope's Decretals, but the Scriptures were laid before the holy Fathers. Est firmamentum & columna Ecclesiae Evangelium. It only is infallible in itself; all other Councils and Traditions may err, saith Tom. lib. 2. contra Donatistos, cap. 3. And though an Angel from heaven teach another doctrine, no faith is to be given thereunto. Tertullian contra Hermogen. pag. 373. I reverence (saith he) the fullness, plenitude, and perfection of Scriptures, as that which shows to me both the Maker and the things which are made. Austin confesseth the authority of Scripture to be above the authority of the Church, in his Epistles contra Manich. tom. 6. cap. 4. The consent of people and nations the authority of the Church, begun by miracles, nourished with hope, increased with charity, established with antiquity, succession of Priests, and the name of Catholic, saith he, are great motives to keep me in the unity of the Church: but above these, he prefers the truth of Scripture; in regard whereof, he promiseth Manicheus to give more credit to his doctrine then to the Church, if he be able to prove it out of Scripture.  
These and many more authorities in this point might be produced, to manifest what credit and reverence the Fathers of the Primitive Church did attribute to the sacred Oracles of God. Now what may we think of those that count them a bare letter, Inky Divinity, a matter of strife, and ground of Heresies? And by the Doctor, fol. 255, the light of the Gospel is termed Ignis fatuus, because not borrowed from Rome's dark lantern. Others affirming, that if any contemn the authority of the Roman Church, that he shall not be able to assure himself of Scripture, any more than of a Robinhood-tale.  
To which I answer: The Council of Laodicea, can. 59 (which Council was held long before ever Rome's Bishop claimed a Supremacy over other Churches) hath declared which shall be taken and accepted for Canonical Scripture, and hath decreed that none else should be read in the Churches besides them: & we according to that Canon, accept and embrace them, and, according to the ancient copies, doth our Clergy retain them in the Church; nor are we altogether beholding to Rome for the Translations. 'Tis true, she hath a glorious Library (as many witness) the only ornament of her Vatican Hill. And in some competent measure is our Oxford replenished with the ancient Manuscripts of the Primitive Fathers and of old approved Translations of the Scriptures, both after the Hebrew, Syriack, 
Rome not the only dispenser of the Scripture.  Chaldee, Greek, and Latin Translations; which the Fathers and the Reverend Governors of the Primitive Churches have permitted to be transmitted to other parts: and in these later days we have been beholding to Rome for some Translations: But she was not the first that sent the Gospel hither, as may appear by Eleutherius his Epistle to Lucius: You have heretofore saith he, received the law and faith of Christ; ye have within your Realm both the parts of Scripture out of which by the counsel of your Realm take a law, and by that law rule your kingdom: for you be God's Vicar within your own kingdom etc. And in this particular, I think Rome as well as we, is beholding to other Churches: why then should she boast that we know not what is Scripture, but that which she has delivered? Had not the Apostles equal authority to teach all nations? Doth not Peter direct his Epistle to the Saints which are dwelling about Cappadocia, Galatia Asia, and Bythinia: and S. James to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: and S. Judas to all which are sanctified and called of God? And S. Paul writes as well to the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, as to the Romans: wherefore how comes it that the Church of Rome should be the only Monopoliser of Scripture? Was not the holy Ghost given to them which Philip, Paul, and Barnabas did ordain, as well as those Peter did ordain? And admit that Peter was Bishop of Rome, had not the rest of the Apostles received the holy Ghost as well as Peter? did it not sit upon each of them like cloven tongues of fire? And why should the Church of Rome boast herself to be only and alone endowed with an only spirit of interpretation? Let none understand more than is meet to understand, was S. Paul's instructions to the Romans: But such is the uncharitableness and presumption of the present Church of Rome, that she accounts herself the only wise interpreter, and no other Church to have the spirit of discerning the Truth, unless she have received that spirit mediately from her. I must needs tell her, that she has no warrant to arrogate this transcendency and superexcellency in this point of wisdom from any divine precept: it is but her own humane institution, (no other Church approving of it) and so it is but the wisdom of this world, which, as S. Paul says, 1 Cor. 1.20, is found foolishness before God; and according to that saying of Solomon, Prov. 12.15. The way of a fool is right in his own eyes.  
The treasure of the holy Writ is no common or ordinary bank, 
That the Scripture contains things necessary to salvation.  but a precious store of eternal happiness: in them is laid up life everlasting, according to that of S. Paul, Rom. 1.16. It is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth to the Jew first, and also to the Greek: and 2 Tim. 3.14. Timothy had known the Scriptures from a child, which were able to make him wise unto salvation: It is profitable to teach, to improve, to correct, to instruct in righteousness, that a man of God may be absolute, being made perfect to all good works. Therefore are we bidden, Joh. 4.39, to search the Scriptures; for in them is eternal life, and they are they which testify of Christ. It is true, All things that Jesus did, are not written, saith S. John: but, saith he, these things are written; that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing ye might have life through his Name, Joh. 20.31. Cyril, lib. 2. upon that place of S. John, saith, Non omnia quae Dominus facit transcripta sunt, sed quae Scriptores tam ad mores quam ad dogmata sufficere putarunt ut recta fide & operibus ad regnum coelorum perveniamus. And Saint Austin likewise says, that all things were not written, but only so much was written as was thought to be sufficient to the salvation of the faithful. And whereas in the 20 of the Acts ver. 27. it is said, I have not spared to show unto you the whole counsel of God; Lyranus and Carthusianus expound it only to be understood of things pertaining to our salvation: which S. Austin lib. de doctr. Christian. 2. & cap. 6. plainly affirms, that all things necessary to our salvation are plainly contained in the written Word. And Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. 1. We know (saith he) the dispensation of our salvation, by whom only the Gospel came to our hands; which Gospel they first preached, but afterwards by God's appointment they delivered the same to us in writing, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith. Wherefore seeing that this is the Magazine of our salvation, let us only repair hither to be spiritually furnished against all temptations of Satan; and let us cast off all other traditions of humane invention, which shall declare any other thing then what is contained in these Evangelical truths.  
Now sigh the ground of our faith is contained in these Scriptures, 
All people to read the Scripture.  and laid open unto us by the blessed authors of these sacred and holy testimonies of our salvation; why should not any one be permitted to read and to peruse these glad tidings of his eternal Redemption from the bondage of sin and Satan? sigh we are not only alured by its worth and efficacy, it being of so high a consequence as the eternal redemption and salvation of our souls, and being profitable to teach, to improve, to instruct in righteousness, 2 Tim. 3. but likewise are commanded to search them, Joh. 5.39 Till I come, (saith Paul to Timothy 1 Tim. 4.13.) give attendance to reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine. And Coloss. 3. the Saints of Colossus are commanded to let the Word dwell in them pleteously in all wisdom, admonishing themselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs. And not only the Saints of Colossus; and Timothy, are enjoined to this diligence; but all in general, by S. John in the place . And Acts 18.24. A certain Jew named Apollo's was great in Scripture, and taught diligently. And Acts 17. the Noblemen at Thessalonica received the Word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so which Paul and Silas taught at Berea; and many of them, and honest women and men, not a few, believed.  
S. Chrysostom, the golden-mouthed Doctor, discourseth at large upon this subject in several places of his Works. I shall show you two or three. In his Proem in the Epistle to the Romans, he saith, If therefore you will read the Scripture with alacrity of mind ye need no other help at all: for Christ's Word is true, Seek and ye shall find, etc. because many of you are charged with wives, children, and domestic affairs, and so cannot wholly addict yourselves to this study, yet be ready to hear what others have gathered; and bestow as much diligence in hearing as you do in scraping worldly goods together: for the cause of your infinite evils is your ignorance in Scripture. So that by his Rule, 1. We need no other help to our salvation. 2. All sorts should study it. 3. Evil manners, dissolute life, and all other mischiefs, proceed of ignorance of the Scriptures, and by not reading of them.  
Again, the same Chrysostom in his 29 Hom. upon Gen. 9 I beseech you (saith he) that you now and then come hither, and attend diligently the reading of the holy Scripture; neither that only when you come hither, sed & domi divina Biblia in manus sumite, & utilitatem in illis positam magno studio suscipite. Again, the same godly and zealous Father in his 9 Hom. upon the Colossians, saith, Harken, all ye that are encumbered with worldly affairs, and have wives and children, how ye are especially commanded to read the Scriptures: Comparate vobis Biblia, animae Pharmaca. If ye will have no other thing; at least provide ye the new Testament, etc. S. Austin de tempore, serm. 55. Nec solum vob is sufficiat quod in Ecclesiis divinas lectiones auditis, sed etiam in domibus vestris, aut ipsi legite, aut alios legentes requirite, & libenter audite. And herewith accords S. Hierome upon the 133 Psalms, affirming, that in his time both Monks, men, and women, did contend which should learn most Scripture without book; & in co putant esse meliores, si plures edicerint. The Council of Laodicea, can. 59 positively decrees, Licet plebeis legere sola sacra volumina veteris & novi Testamenti.  
Thus you see the invitation by way of persuasion, as it is for advantage, it being the means of our salvation, and a charge and command by the Apostles to search those Scriptures, lest we fall into evils and mischiefs, and holy Fathers instructing all to follow those Evangelical precepts: whereby it is not pressed unto us as a thing of conveniency only, but likewise of necessity for every one to perform this duty; every one being concerned to read and learn the Scriptures. How much then is the Church of Rome to be blamed, that debarreth men of this means of salvation? she excommunicating every one that shall read the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue. And so much are the Papists bewitched with the terrors of the Pope's curses and the flattery of his blessings, that they will not read any thing that is opposite to Popery, not having licence so to do; and so they make Ignorance the mother of their devotion, and that contrary to the practice of the Primitive Church, as appears by the Council.  
As touching this Point, 
Who are to judge of the Scriptures.  Who shall be Judge of the Scripture, the Doctor is pleased to accuse our Church of universal error, because of some Protestants that hold strange opinions concerning this matter; and yet he citys but an opinion or two of private Ministers in our Church. So I may justify our Church from the imputations he herein lays to her charge, as he has elsewhere done in the like case. That it is not the opinion and judgement of the Church, but only the conceptions of those private men. Certainly the Doctor could not be ignorant of our Churches Tenent in this particular: and truly this gives me occasion to suspect the Doctor is not the Author of that Book called The Lost Sheep, but it was composed by some one that was less knowing of the Doctrines and Tenants of our Church. However, for satisfaction of others, I will here set down what our Church has prescribed the fide in relation to this point.  
The Church of England teaches, that the Scripture is the only Judge of Traditions, and Rule of salvation; and that it contains all things necessary to salvation: and whatsoever is not contained therein, or may not be proved thereby, is not to be received as an Article of faith, or thought requisite to salvation.  
But she doth not determine that this Scripture shall be interpreted by every man's private fancy: for, 
The things necessary to salvation are plain, and easy to be understood.  to charge her with that, is a known untruth, and contrary to the 6 and 20 Articles of the Church. I confess that we generally maintain that those things which are necessary to salvation are clear and manifest; the whole Scripture being termed a light unto our feet, and a lantern to our steps, Psal. 139. And if it be hid, it is hid unto them that are lost, whom the God of this world hath blinded, ●hat the light of the Gospel of the glory of Jesus Christ should not shine unto them, 2 Cor. 4. For it is plain by the Scripture, that Jesus was the Christ, Acts 18.28. And Joh. 5. The Father hath sent the Son, and his works bear witness of him; and the Scriptures testify of him: God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost the Comforter, his Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, and the coming of the holy Ghost, being so plainly preached and set down, that a man may read them running: and this Word endureth for ever, and this Word is preached unto us, 1 Pet. 1.25. And Joh. 3.16, God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life: and what need we any more? This is eternal life, to know the Father, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent, Joh. 17.3. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. We believe that thou art Christ the Son of the everliving God, and thou hast the words of eeternal life, Joh. 5.68. Hence S. Austin, lib. de doctr. Christianae, cap. 9 did affirm, that all things pertaining to man's salvation are plain and easy to be understood. And chrysostom upon 2 Thessaly. 2. Hom. 3. Omnia plana sunt sunt enx divinis Scriptures, quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt.  
It is not therefore an idle and presumptuous doctrine in the Church of England to maintain this, since we have both authority of Scripture and the Fathers for the same. Nor do we hereby rob the Church of her authority to judge of and determine controversies, and those things that are doubtful in the Scriptures.  
There are some things of Discipline, and pertaining to Manners, in which the Scriptures may be doubtful, or not easy for every capacity to understand: and for those, it is fit the Church should determine them, and having determined them, to impose them by the Prince's authority as Rules of faith upon the people; and so teaches the Church of England, in the twentieth Article. 
Laymen to read Scripture.  But the main things necessary to our salvation, concerning our faith to be grounded upon Jesus the Son of the everliving God, the author and finisher of our faith, those, as I said before, are clear and manifest: and though Angels from heaven should teach any other doctrine, they are to be accursed, Gal. 1. Wherefore sigh this is plain and manifest in Scripture, that Jesus gave himself for our sins; and whosoever believeth in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life; and for that this faith is given by the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 12. Phil. 1.29. 2 Pet. 1.3. and Matth. 16.17. and is the gift of God, and no man hath it of himself (for flesh and blood doth not reveal it) and for that Christ has prescribed the way how and by what means we shall obtain this gift, even by searching the Scriptures, Rom. 10; It must needs be a grievous and intolerable sin in the Church of Rome to debar the people of this means to attain this precious jewel, the salvation of their souls.  
Upon these grounds do we allow the Laiety to read the Scripture; but we do not hereby give them liberty to interpret it according to their will and humour. They may in them find Jesus to be the life everlasting, the Spirit giving them faith; and therefore must not be debarred the means. But they are not allowed in points of difficulties to be their own interpreter, but to repair to the Fathers of the Church to declare the meaning of those Oracles of God, to whom it is given by the power of the holy Ghost to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, Matth. 13.11. For which end, Christ has commended the Scriptures to the Church, that she may discern, keep, and publish them: Christ opened the Scriptures to his disciples Luke 24. and they preached it to all nations. The Apostle Paul, 1 Tim. 3. calls the Truth the fountain of the Church, and the Church the pillar of Truth: as Solomon made his Chariots to have a golden axletree, and pillars of silver; understanding by the axletree (says one) sound doctrine; by the pillars, the faithful teachers of the same. The Scripture is the truth of God, and the Church the house of God; the Scripture the foundation, the Church the pillar: and the foundation is not sustained by the pillar, but the pillar supported of the foundation. Truth makes the Church, not the Church the Truth. We are to observe the Scripture as it were the Candle, the Church as the Candlestick; according as S. Austin upon Gal. 1. says, 
Church how to interpret.  The Scriptures are not true, because the Church says they are the Word of God; but the testimony of the Church is true, because they are the Word of God.  
Now as we ascribe to our Church this privilege of interpretation of difficult and obscure places, 
Scriptures above Counsels, ●nte, Chap. 9  we do not either deprive Rome of her right, or too much extol our own Church. Nor do we hereby make void the Laytie's reading of Scripture. The Laiety may read it, because the main points are easy; and it is the means to obtain faith, as well as by hearing the Church, in those points that are easy; and it is the way enjoined by God to attain faith, as well as by preaching; and he has promised his Spirit to those that seek him earnestly, and with unfeigned lips. And when it shall please God by their reading to give them of his holy Spirit, that Spirit will guide them to come to the Church, to be informed in those things they understand not; or shall the Church understand that through weakness they misunderstand any point in those Scriptures, and she shall reprove them, the same Spirit guiding them into the way of Truth, will lead them to hearken to the dispensers of the sacred Oracles. And if the Church shall deliver any thing which to other Churches may seem strange, and not satisfactory; she, as I said before in the precedent Chapter, will call a Synod; and if there the business receive not an absolute and satisfactory resolution, to submit the business to a General Council rightly constituted, and free in itself. And in the mean time, if our Church offend the Church of Rome, for that she differs from her in any particular; let her make herself capable to reform by a General Council, by taking off the slavery that lies upon it by the Pope's Canonical Law, and we shall submit our Church to the free debate in a perfect Council to decide the points wherein we differ; (otherwise the Church of Rome might seem to have just cause to accuse us▪ for that we cast off the discipline of the Primitive Churches as to that particular:) but in the mean time, upon the former recited texts of Scripture, upon the authority of the Fathers, and the example of former ages, we shall persist to affirm, That the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation, That those points necessary are plain and easy, and That the Laiety may read the Scriptures. And for any blemishes which the Doctor would in this particular have thrown upon our Church, I hope it is but dust thrown against the wind, and is flown back into his own eyes. I wish the Scriptures received no more injury by the Church of Rome, than it doth from our Church: but that is manifest to the contrary, as may appear by that which here next follows.  
The Doctor in his Book, fol. 229. 
Scriptures abused by the Church of Rome.  reckons up a great number of corruptions and errors crept into our Translations, but named not any; only citys one Broughton for his author. I must confess it was wisely put off: for should he have named them, they would have appeared to have been different from the Rhemish Translation, but not dissonant from the ancient Copies; and so he would, in stead of faulting ours, have censured their own Translations. Yet he craftily imagining that those 848 corrupted places should be believed to be so, if he could instance any, he names four in his 22 Chapter.  
1. 
Answer to the mistranslations we are taxwith.  He brings in Beza and Luther's Translations, adding the word only in Rom. 3.28. And this he would have to be an error of our Church. He might as well tax Rome as England for this fault: for the Church of England doth not add that word in her Bibles which are printed by authority, and by direction of the Church enjoined to be read: nor is the word to be found in Fulk and Rheims, those two quarrellers each with other. Wherefore I must needs wonder that the Doctor should be so injurious to us, to bring false accusations against us.  
2. The second place which the Doctor alleadges to be a mistranslation in our Bibles, is 2 Pet. 1.10. Giving diligence (by good works) to make your calling and election sure: He charges us with corruption, for leaving out these words, by good works. This I must confess is different from the Rhemish Translation: but I rather suspect that that Translation is to be faulted, not ours: for Rome, to maintain her doctrine of Merits (by which she cousin's poor silly souls, and to enrich her Clergy, cheats them of what they have) has added these words. And I am the rather induced hereunto, for that I have seen an ancienter Bible than the days of Luther, and it has them not in: and Erasmus his Translation has them not in. So that as the Negroes blame all that's white in others, because nothing to them is more comely than their own tawny black; so the Doctor quarrels against our Translation, because of its innocency, it is not besmeared with Rome's new adulterate alterations, and therefore not in fashion, or to be approved; and upon this score I may say the Doctor was modest that taxed us with no more than four. For he might as well have named the 848. if all must be censured for corruptions wherein we differ from the Rhemish translations. But let the Church of Rome remember Saint Paul's rule to the Corinthians, 2 Epist. 13.5. Prove yourselves whether ye be in the faith. Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 9.27. beat down his body and put it subjection, lest while he preached to others, he himself might be reproved. Wherefore let Rome examine the ancient Copies, and try if she find those words there; and till then, let her forbear to tax us of error, who in this follow antiquity; and so upon the old rule, Id verum est quod prius; id adulterum quod posterius, Tertul. adversus prax. in prim. part.  
3. The third error he taxes us with, is, In putting and for or in the 1 Cor. 11.27. which he himself, to excuse Rome of perverting the Scripture, she being taxed in this very particular, in another place, she putting or for and, and thereby to prove communion in one kind, affirms that et is often rendered or; and if so, it may as well be taken so out of the English as out of any other tongue. But I refer the reader to a fuller answer of this objection in the sixteenth Chapter.  
4. His fourth objection is the 15 verse of the 2 of Saint Peter 1. I will do my diligence you to have often in remembrance after my decease. The English translation reads it thus, I will endeavour that you may be able after my decease to have these things in remembrance. For this we likewise appeal to any translation which was before the second council of Nice: and many of their own translators long after that council did render it post exitum, non post obitum. Peter being to go to his See at Antioch in Syria, writes to the Saints that dwell in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia, that after his departure they should strive to have in memory to make their calling and Election sure; of which in the 12 verse he says, He would not be negligent to put them in remembrance. Now how can this be interpreted, that after his decease he should put them in remembrance, unless he should come again unto them? it must therefore be interpreted of his departing from amongst them to Antioch, and that he would send to them to put them in mind, knowing that his end drew near, when he could not; and therefore, says the text, he would use all diligence to put them in mind. Now how he should put them in mind after his decease, is to expect that Peter shall not rest from his labours, as if he were not dead in the Lord, which is unchristian to think: wherefore I submit this to the learned in the Hebrew tongue, to illustrate this further to weaker capacities, if there be any occasion of scruple in our translation, which for my part I conceive, that, taking that verse with the sense of the former, our translation is more genuine and carries more of integrity then that of Rheims.  
The Bishops of Rome having by the politic practices of their predecessors, and by the unworthy complotings of the Cardinals (who being in hopes to ascend the Papal Throne themselves care not what dominion and Lordship they ascribe unto the Pontifical seat) gained a superiority over Kings and Counsels, controlling the one and ordering the other as they please, did daily consult not only how to preserve what they have (though their possession be utterly unjust) but likewise continually study to enlarge (if possible) this their pomp and dignity. For their ambitious minds not satisfied with these large acquisitions, thinking them but an earthly sovereignty, & too narrow for their large souls to strut in, they would persuade the world that the Pope is an angel or more, and hath Commission from heaven, and is sent from thence to possess the chair, and tanquam à Tripod to deliver new oracles upon earth.  
Thus wisely casting with themselves and reflecting upon the curiosity of some who would be over-scrutinous to examine the points of this Commission by the rule of the holy Writ, at last they concluded upon this result.  
That it must be de fide received that his holiness is the only expositor (and by the same rule of gradation an Evangelist to deliver new Scripture) of the old and new Testaments: 
The Pope abuses the Scriptures.  and having persuaded some and forced others into this opinion, without care for the souls upon earth, without respect of Saints and Angels in Glory, and without all fear of the Almighty God of heaven, he commands the holy writ (which was the dictates of the holy Spirit of God) to be blotted, wrested mangled, and tortured at his will and pleasure, making no more account thereof, then if it were but the Embryo of a Bear, which by the licking of its dam were to receive shape and perfection. And if there be any text which doth impugn this his usurped unlimited power, it must not be suffered to pass the Press before first it be either rubbed over with his holiness index expurgatorius, or else brushed with his Ghostly interpretation. As for example, Josh. 1.18. the people professing an unlimited power to Joshua in all things to obey him, The words (in all things) are expunged in the Rhemish translations: for it stood not with his holiness interest and prerogative to let them be for a precedent. For if the people of God were in all things to be obedient to their Prince, this spoils his holiness claim to command in temporalibus; wherefore it was thought fit to send these words to the index expurgatorius:  
Object. The Doctor in his book, fol. 59 argues the truth of Rome's doctrine, for that she has not corrupted or extinguished the text, that being easier to do then to change her doctrine. To which I answer.  
Resp. The Scriptures which Rome hath she received from other churches; and those Churches from whom Rome received them, sending aswell to other places as to Rome copies of those holy writs, it would much ashame her to alter them, in respect that true original Copies would be produced against her to her condemnation; but the Bishop of Rome being to teach these Scriptures within his own precincts and territories, he as times served, to advantage himself, might and has in many places strained courtesy to wrest the sense, delivering to the people doctrines not warranted by this holy writ: which he might with more confidence do, in respect that no other Bishop was to meddle in his diocese; and he by the favour of Princes being accounted summus pontifex: wherefore reason tells, that his doctrine and traditions are more questionable than his translations of the Scriptures: for he needed not much to alter the Scriptures in respect it matters not what they say, being but dead letters without the spirit of his holiness interpretation. Yet so much did they dote upon the pomp and vainty of this world and upon that lordly height they have aspired to here upon earth, that the devil did bewitch them to alter that text of Joshua, which did directly gainsay such their dominion and power, though by reason of their new pre-eminence they being above counsels, and the only infallible expositors of the divine oracles, they needed not so to have done: or rather thus, that corruption of Joshua was before the late counsels of Lateran and Trent; which made the Pope above counsels; and it behoved them to blot out such words as did impugn their other power of lording it over Kings and Princes: but since these counsels, they may now put them in again. For it is no matter what the Scripture says, for his holiness will give such an exposition as shall not destroy his own interest; and since those counsels, such exposition though it be never so contradictory to the word of God, it must de fide be received. O tempora, O mores!  
Saint Basil saith, they which have been brought up in God's word, will not suffer one syllable of her doctrine to be betrayed: what then shall we think of the fathers of Rome's Church that practice (as time serves) these tricks upon those sacred letters?  
These divine writs the dictates of God's holy Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no marvel if they make bold with the fathers, mis-translating and altering their writings, and crying up their own traditions, making their own molehills mountains, and making the father's like unto Moles, whose nature as Aristotle saith, is never to open her eyes till she be dead; and so they make the fathers, being dead, to witness things they never dreamt on or saw being living, as I have showed in the tenth Chapter. If these divine oracles of God must not escape the venom of their claws; if these must not be delivered to the people without corruption, I know not how we may give faith or credit to her traditions, the vanity of which I will briefly discover in this ensuing Chapter.   

CHAP. XIII.  
That because all things were not written the Church may deliver traditions, such as she derives from the doctrine of the Apostles or ancient fathers. That the Scriptures are to judge of those traditions. That Rome is to be blamed for her traditions because they are against Scripture.  
THe Jews say, That when Moses was with God on the Mount, and received the written law, that he had unwritten law likewise delivered him by word of mouth: for certainly (say they) God stayed not forty days and forty nights on the mount to keep Geese, nor needed he stay so long to interpret the law of the tables; wherefore they conclude that Moses received traditional law, which he taught Joshua, Joshua the elders, the elders the Prophets, the Prophets taught the people. Now because those their traditions were uncertain, the sects of the Pharisees sprung up, and Essenes', obtruding new traditions as simply necessary and a more perfect Rule of Sanctity then that that was writ: whereupon our Saviour in the seventh of Mark reproves them, saying, They worship me in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men; and yet in the 23 of Mat. he hath commanded us, saying, All that they bid you observe, that observe and do; but after their works do not: for they say, and do not.  
These two texts seem to impugn each other: but the fathers of the premitive Church have resolved this knot, and reconciled these texts, by this exposition: that all traditions agreeable and consonant to the holy word, are to be observed; but such traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees as were not agreeable to the holy word of God, were to be rejected.  
We confess that all things which Christ and his Apostles did, 
No traditions but such as are agree able to the word of God, are to be embraced.  were not written, according as is expressed, Joh. 21. vers. ult. And that the Apostles had order to teach the people whatsoever Christ had commanded them: but as we allow this; so by no means must we admit that they taught any thing contrary to what they writ: they had the Holy Ghost, that never-erring Spirit, that did lead them into all truth, and could not at one time write one thing, and after teach another. We allow that they did deliver traditions to the people; but Saint Peter in his 1 Epist. 1.25. tells us it was the word of the Lord that was preached amongst them; for nothing contrary to that was preached and delivered: and that the people were bound to observe all things they did teach by the commandment of God, Mat. 28.20. and therefore Saint Paul enjoins the Thessalonians, 2 Thess. 2.15. to hold fast the traditions they had learned, whether by word or Epistle.  
The old Testament was delivered by the Jews, and confirmed by Christ and his Apostles; and therefore the Church of Rome did embrace that, and reject the other traditional books of the Jews, which were not by Moses written, or by Christ approved of.  
Now we make bold in this to follow her example: if the Church of Rome have any traditions which are not repugnant to the written word we shall not disallow of them; but if they make against that with the Evangelists and the Apostles have delivered to us in writing (which writing we approve in our Judgement as the infallible oracles of God) we by her own example as rejecting those traditions of the Jews which were not consonant to the written law of Moses, or approved of by Christ, and likewise by warrant of Christ not to lean to the traditions of men, and to cast off the commandments of God, desire to be excused for not embracing every tradition the Church of Rome would obtrude upon us: and we persuade ourselves, that sigh she hath rejected the traditions of the Jews, because not warranted by the written word, she cannot be so impartial to deny us the same liberty to reject her traditions upon the same score; and that the rather, because she hath not so good a ground for her traditions, as the Jews had, in respect Moses talked with God face to face, Exod. 33. Besides, the Jews traditions were certain, and reduced into writing by the late Rabbins; and therefore the Church of Rome might better have embraced them, then think that we shall follow hers, which are daily of new invention.  
After the destruction of Jerusalem, and scattering of the Jews, 
Papist traditions uncertain.  one Rabbi Juda Hannasi got leave of Antoninus to assemble the people; and because the books of their old traditions were utterly lost and perished, they then being met, writ all that they could remember, 
The Jews Talmud.  calling it Mischna, that is, Deuteronomy, or a Law reiterated, which was a memorial of their Cabala, or traditional law; which collections of theirs were afterward, Anno Christi 219. by Rabbi Jochanan enlarged, and called the Talmud, which Talmud was after, Anno Christi 500 perfected, and received as a Rule in all cases Ecclesiastical and civil. So that the Jews having thus reduced their traditions into certainty, it were more reasonable for the Church of Rome to embrace them, then to think that we shall hand over head accept of her ever-growing traditional rules, which are not held forth in any certainty to us, but every day upon colour of Church-traditions, she plays an African trick, and brings out new monsters; so that I may say, it is as easy to make a gown for the Moon, as for any man to think he can keep and observe her traditional rules.  
The variety of her strange production in this particular, might serve to cloy the appetite of any that should desire to render himself obedient to her rules: but the vanity of them, and their contrariety to God's word, doth more especially and justly detain every good Christian for being her superstitions proselyte to embrace them, and especially those Christians which are not within her jurisdictions, nor belonging unto his charge; Amongst whom I may rank our English Church, which being of Apostolical foundation, and in power and Church-authority equal with the Church of Rome, and for that the Law of God was as well extended to other Churches, and particularly to her, as to Rome, as I have proved in the second and fourth Chapters, may in that respect as well prescribe traditional law to the Church of Rome, as she should send forth her historical edicts to England.  
Yet lest some may think that if upon this score we cast off her traditions, we do but thereby evade the question of validity and authority of her traditions in themselves, as they are by her held forth unto the world; I will therefore make it evident, that neither those of her own Church and province, nor the Roman Catholics of other Kingdoms, are bound or aught to receive and embrace whatsoever traditions the Church of Rome shall hold forth to them, as being so imposed upon them to be received for matter of faith.  
I have in some measure in the former Chapter treated upon the authority and excellency of Scriptures, wherein I have showed, that she is the ground and foundation of the Church: and if so, than it follows, that whatsoever tradition the Church shall deliver as matter of Doctrine, must either stand upon this groundwork, or else ●t is a paper-building, an airy piece, a black cloud of humane condensing, hurried to and fro by contrary winds, ●ill [the loosly-contracted vapour dash ●t self upon this rock of Christ, and ●●ke smoke vanish into nothing. She ●s the touchstone, must distinguish the gold from the drossy and courser pieces of Rom's treasure; she is the Fan must winnow and purge the floor of the Church's granary from all chaff and light corn, and from those Tares, which being cast into her field by Satan, sprung together with her better grain. And hereupon the good Emperor Constantine (as it is recorded in the Ecclesiastical History lib. 1. cap. 7.) did say, That seeing the Evangelical and Apostolical books, and the Oracles of the Old Testament, do plainly teach us any thing that we ought to know or learn concerning God; whether concerning his Divine Nature, as Saint Luke useth the words, Acts 17.25. Or his attributes and qualities, as Saint Peter applies it, 2 Pet. 1.5. Or his Law and Religion, as the penner of Maccabees takes it, 2 Mac. 4.7. Away therefore with all strife, and seek for the solution of these matters out of the Scriptures, inspired by God himself. And herewith agreeth Bellarmine, Tom. 1. Col. 2. saying That the books of the Prophets and Apostles are the true word of God, and the sure and true rule of our faith. And as I said before in the precedent Chapter, All things necessary to our salvation are contained in the Scriptures. It is true indeed, that in the Scriptures we do not find any mention of Peter being Bishop of Rome or of the Assumption of Mary the mother of Jesus: nor can we find by Scriptures, that Saint Luke was a Painter, or that Nicodemus had so much skill in Appelles' Art, that he drew that exquisite picture of Christ (which Rome has) representing unto us his posture whilst the Jews whipped him. I must confess that for these matters of importance, we must submit to the traditions of Rome. But all things touching God, and the means to attain faith in him, are plentifully therein to be found.  
chrysostom says in his 41 Hom. upon the 22 of Matth. Quicquid queritur ad salutem, totum eam ademptum est in Scriptures; and upon the 95 Psalms, Si quid dicatus absque Scriptura, etc. If any thing be spoken without the Scripture, the cogitation of the Auditors fail; but so soon as the Testimony of God's voice is heard, out of the Scripture, it confirmeth both the word of the speaker, and the mind of the hearer.  
Saint Hierom upon the 9 of Jeremy, Nec parentum ne majorum error sequendus est, sed author it as Scripturarum & Dei docenti imperium. Saint Cyprian who writ almost 1400 years ago, would not yield to Stephanus Bishop of Rome, but reproved him for leaning to tradition and demanded of him by what Scripture he could prove his tradition Cyprian Epist. ad Pompeium, 74. So then, if in his time it was not enough to allege tradition for the proof of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, much less is it lawful to follow the Pope's definitive sentence in matters of faith and doctrine.  
When the Arrians would not admit the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it could not be found in Scripture, Athanasius did not plead tradition for it, but said, Although the express words be not found in the Scripture yet have the Scriptures that meaning and sense in them, as every one that readeth the Scriptures may plainly understand, and therefore by warrant th●eof that word might be maintained.  
Saint Austin de unitat. Eccl. cap. 10. Nemo mihi dicat, quid dixit Donatus, quid dixit Parmenianus quid Paulus, aut quillibet illorum; quid nec catholicis episcopis consentiendum est sicubi forte falluntur ut contra canonicas Dei Scriptures aliquid sentiant.  
Methinks the very word Canonical (which the Church of Rome having approved, 
Canonical Scripture disprove ●raditiods.  what Scriptures shall be Canonical, what not) is sufficient of itself to prove this point: for, signifies a rule, and thereupon those books are called Canonical, because they are the rules of our faith; and consequently whatsoever is not consonant to the Scripture, aught to be rejected as pernicious, and swerving from the rules of our faith. For as whatsoever is not of faith is sin, and as faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, therefore whatsoever is extra Scripturam cum ex fide non sit peccatum est. This was the saying of Basil one of the Church of Rome's Saints, in his Ethics difinit. ult. prope finem. And for my part, I shall not be so harsh with her as this St. was. I should be willing to allow of her traditions, if they do not impugn the Scriptures; and not to be so rigid against her traditional power, as upon Basil's rule, utterly to reject all, if not expressly contained in Scripture. I say for my part, I should allow of such and approve of them, as to be cerdited for the matter of fact; but if she enjoin them as doctrinal and to be rules of faith, than ●ith Cyprian I desire to examine them by this Touchstone of truth, the Scriptures. For if once she propound traditions to be rules of faith then with Hierome Cyprian and Austin I must examine the truth of them by the rule of Scripture, and with Saint chrysostom, in his 13 Hom. upon the 2 Cor. 7. do prey and beseech the Church of Rome to reject what this or that man says, and search the truth out of the Scripture that learning true riches▪ we may follow them, and so attain life everlasting; neither let any Church be wedded with her own traditions, or give herself to believe the traditions of other Churches, unless (saith he) she can bring authority from these truths, to a warrant her doctrine, and not to receive for doctrine the commandments of men: and with Saint Cyprian examine from whence such tradition came, whether it descended from authority of our Lord Jesus Christ or his Gospel; or whether it came from the Mandates of the Apostles, or their Epistles. If so saith he, let such divine and holy tradition be observed; if not, let it be rejected especially any tradition that shall contradict the written verities of God, for such certainly proceed from spirits of error.  
Here is a cloud of witnesses all agreeing in one, that no traditions are to be embraced, that have not warrant from the word of God; so that for the Church of Rome to put her traditions upon the people for rules of faith, upon that score, that it is the power and authority of the Church that awarrants those traditions, is vain, and not binding to the conscience of men, unless she can justify and maintain them warrantable by the word, according to Saint Paul's saying to the Galat. 1.9. Though an Angel from heaven come and teach any other doctrine then what we have preached, let him be accursed. For the Testimony of no Church whatsoever is to be received, if it be contrary to the Scripture; 
Scriptures above the Church. Ante 73. Chapter 9  according to that of Saint Austin upon that text, The Scriptures are not true, because the Church says they are the word of God; but the testimony of the Church is true, because they are the word of God; and should Rome or any other Church teach contrary to the holy Scripture, it is to be rejected, as that which hath nothing of verity in it.  
Now sigh the Scriptures are the only rules of our faith, 
The vanity and falseness of the traditions of the Church of Rome.  and do contain in themselves the necessary points of our faith, what shall we think of the traditions of the Church of Rome, which have no warrant from the holy Scriptures, but many of them being repugnant, and utterly contrary to those Scriptures (which therefore by the rule of Christ himself in the 7 of Matthew, and by the general consent of the fathers of the primitive Church, are to be rejected) yet notwithstanding are by her enjoined (upon her pretended authority of universality and infallibility) to be rules of faith unto others? And lest any should think me injurious to the Church of Rome in this particular, I will give you a small taste (for I delight not to lay open her infirmities, thereby to draw a scandal upon her) of such of her traditions as are not warranted by the holy word of God, only maintained out of self interest, and to warrant her claim of universal power Spiritual and Temporal, by these ensuing examples, and further refer you to the 7 Chapter.  
The Church of Rome, that she might persuade the world of Peter's being Bishop of Rome, by which she would derive all her power, and jurisdictions, doth therefore teach the people this tradition under pain of Anathema That Jesus met Peter as he was, going out of Rome, and the steps of their feet as they two stood talking, have left an impression in the place, which remains to this day. Now let a man examine the Scriptures, and he shall find Saint Peter himself witness against this tradition, in the third of the Act. 21. where he says, That Christ ascended, and the heavens shall contain him till he come; which coming is called his second coming to Judgement, according to the Article of the Apostles Creed: and therefore that he should be bodily there with Peter, so bodily as to leave the impression of his footsteps, is against Saint Peter's own saying, against the whole current of the Scriptures, and against the Apostles Creed. So I refer this to the Reader, whether to believe Saint Peter himself, or his pretended successor, in this point.  
It may be that Peter might see Christ in a vision as Stephen did, Act. 7. but not bodily, for that he is there in heaven, whom the heavens must contain till all things be dissolved.  
Another tradition the church of Rome teaches, How that in the Church of the Friar's minors at Rome, is a picture of the Virgin Mary, drawn by Saint Luke, which Gregory carrying in procession in the time of a Plague, the Plague ceased; and they taught the people that it was by our Lady's means, for the honour done to her Image; and so ascribe that to her, which is due unto the Lord God, he correcting by Judgements, and out of his goodness extending his mercy as seems best to his divine wisdom: and hereby they neglect that duty God has enjoined them, in that they did fly to the Lady Mary for succour in that day of their visitation, whenas God has commanded them to call upon him in the day of trouble, and he will hear them.  
The Papists likewise teach, that in the Church of Sebastian in Rome, an Angel appeared to Saint Gregory as he was saying Mass at the Altar of Saint Sebastian, and said to him these words, In this place there is true remission of all sins, brightness and light everlasting, joy and gladness without end. And this favours of Atheism, to affirm, that on earth there can be light everlasting, as if the world should never have an end, which is contrary to Scripture, for that they plainly affirm an utter dissolution of all things 2 Pet. 3. And Saint Matthew witnesses, How that at the end of the world, the Sun shall be turned into darkness, and the Moon and the Stars shall lose their light, the Stars shall fall from Heaven, and the powers of the Heavens shall be shaken. They likewise teach, that in the Church of Calixius, is the Altar whereon Saint Peter said Mass; which is not probable in respect he never mentions it in Scripture; nor Saint Luke, that ever he used any such thing; besides, the sacrifice of the Altar is against the Scripture, as may appear in the sixteenth Chapter.  
The Church of Rome likewise teaches, that in the Church of Saint john's the Lateran in Rome, is a Chapel called the Sacrists, wherein is remission of all sins, both à poena & culpa; and that not far from the same Chapel is an ascent of thirty two steps, which were the same Christ went up when he went before Pilate, and were brought from Jerusalem thither; and that whosoever ascends those steps, for every step he hath a hundred years of pardon: which is contrary to the Scriptures. Matth. 1.21. It is Jesus that must save his people from their sins; and the whole Scriptures witness, that by his stripes we are healed; it is his blood, that is shed for many, for the remission of their 〈◊〉, It is the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world, Joh. 1.29. Neither is there salvation in any other. Act. 4.12. and through his name all that believe shall receive remission of sins, Act. 10.43. he being for that end sent into the world, 1 Tim. 1.29. which gave himself for our sins, that he might redeem us out of this present evil wo●ld, Gal. 1. and is a reconciliation for our 〈◊〉, 1 Joh. 4. without which we are not cleansed, his blood only being our remission. Hebr. 9 Wherefore how abominable is this Romish tradition, which is for no other end, but to cousin people out of their money, who for the pardon to be received by going up those steps, must liberally dis●urse to his holiness use, who more thinks upon that private advantage, then Christianlike considers how by ●hat tradition he makes the death of Christ in vain.  
With many such like traditional stories, doth the Church of Rome delude her blind votaries, which I blush to repeat, and will rather send the Reader to her own Legends, where he shall find great store of these Papal knocks, then that I should be the author to discover these her fopperies; which I rather wish were not at all, then to her shame to be remembered. For my part I honour Rome as the metropolis of Europe, and her Church, as being at first of Apostolical faith and doctrine; and do hearty wish that these late gross absurdities I find repeated of her, were not true; that so we might embrace her as one sister, and might together serve the true and everliving God, who is a Spirit, and will be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth; and that we might together keep the unity of Spirit in the bond of Peace: for GOD is not the Author of confusion but of Peace, as we see in all the Churches of the Saints.  
Thus Reader I have briefly run through most part of the Doctor's book: and though I have not observed the very same method the Doctor has followed, yet many of his Chapters being to one and the same purpose (as who please to peruse his book, will find it true) I have couched an answer to most material parts thereof in what I have formerly writ: and now I am come to his twentieth Chapter, which is concerning the Pope's headship.  
Now for that I have given answer to this in the second Chapter, in relation to his universality, it may be thought by some needless to treat any further thereof in relation to his spiritual jurisdiction; and for that the Doctor hath not at all treated of his Temporal power, it may be others be thought extravagant in me, to add a Chapter concerning that particular: Yet, because that the Pope is bolstered up in this point, by virtue of his Spiritual headship, by many who extend it generally, as well over temporalties, as spiritualties; And for that the Doctor having formerly treated of Rome's Catholickship, and of her universality, and of her being the only Catholic Church, yet notwithstanding adds this twenteth Chapter of the Pope's headship: and for that, as I said, this headship is by same extended unto Temporalties; I crave pardon to add this ensuing Chapter, and that the rather, because I will therein give a brief account of the state of the Popes, and of the means and ways by which they have grown to the present height of jurisdiction they now exercise, as well over other Churches, as over Princes; and in that respect, it may serve for an answer to the Doctors twentieth additional Chapter, without incurring a just censure of an absolute digression from the subject matter of the Doctor's discourse.   

CHAP. XIV.  
That the Pope hath no power to depose any Prince, although an Heretic. That Bishops are not equal with Kings; and that the ancient practice of Rome's church was against this, neither claiming the same in Spiritual or Temporal capacities.  
THe Pope of Rome claims to be Peter's successor, and by virtue thereof to be Christ's Vice-general, universal father of the Church, the only dispenser of Apostolic Benedictions, and supreme head of the Catholic Church, these are the titles and appellations, by which he desires to be distinguished, that by these it may be known he is dignified above all the Clergy upon earth.  
I have in the second Chapter given some satisfaction concerning the unjustness of this his claim; yet I might admit him what he here desires to be thought to be, and notwithstanding prove that that power of jurisdiction will not extend to a warrant his busy intermeddling in temporal affairs much less be a sufficient warrant for his dethroning of any Prince or Potentate, or disobliging his people and subjects from their obedience and duty to such civil Magistracy, as is set over those people to rule and govern them. In prosecution of this matter, I will first treat of the power of Kings and Bishops in general, then examine the Pope's power in particular.  
King's are called sons of the most high, 
Of the prerogative of Kings.  2 Sam. 7.14. Gods on earth, Psal. 82.6. All people are to obey them in all they command, Josh. 1.28. They have their Commission from Almight God: by me Kings reign, Prov. 8.15. and Rom. 13. Their wrath is as the roaring of a Lion Prov. 19.12. And if they transgress, none is to question them, Psal. 51.4. Lyranus upon this Psalm says, David had sinned against God alone; as a Judge to punish him: for being a King, he had no superior to punish him, and yet he had sinned against Vriah, causing him to be murdered: but as to be punished, he cries out unto the Lord, Against thee only have I done this evil. And herewith agree. Saint Ambrose de Apolog. David. cap. 10. pag. 386. and Hugo Cardinalis upon that Psalm. King's shall bear rule and exercise dominion, Luk. 22. He is the Minister of God to take vengeance on them that do evil. The whole Scripture magnifies the majesty power and dominion of Kings; which it witnesses to be given to those absolute Monarches and Kings mentioned in Scripture, even by God himself, that power which they had being of God, Rom. 13. And none should say unto them, What dost thou?  
As for Priests, it is plain by the Scripture that those under the Law were to offer sacrifice for the sins of the people, 
Of the Office of Bishops.  1 Chron. 9.2. Heb. 9.6. & 5.1. God's Covenant with them was of life & peace, and that their lips should preserve knowledge, Malach. 2.4. And the Priests under the Gospel are a holy Priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. 2.5. they are commanded to pray for all men, 1 Tim. 2. For Kings and all that be in authority: and Peter the prime Apostle was commanded to follow Christ, who left him an example of suffering and obedience; which S. Peter himself witnesss to the world, 1 Pet. 2.21. For hereunto are ye called: for Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an ensample that ye should follow his steps. From all which places of Scripture may be deduced these conclusions.  
King's are representatives of God the Father; to them is given all power and dominion to rule and command: Priests are the lively Images of Christ, to whom he has left his precept of humility, to be obedient and serve. To Kings is left authority to punish evil doers; to Priests, to pray for all men, even their own oppressors; not to recompense evil for evil, Rom. 12.17. King's are to use the material sword for vengeance; Priests the spiritual sword the Word to make supplication for all Saints, Eph. 6.18. King's are not to be rebuked; Priests are to suffer with patience. King's sit in God's throne; Priests serve at his Altar. King's are Angels of God, 2 Sam. 14.20. Priests are the Ambassadors of Christ, beseeching us in Christ's stead to be reconciled unto God.  
Yet Kings, though they be thus exalted and superintendent over all, they have an especial charge to respect the Priests, and hearken unto them, Num. 27.21. And it is the duty of Priests to reverence them, 2 Chro. 13. Priests pay their tribute of obedience, and duty; but Kings are to recompense it with respect and love. The power of the Priest over the people ceased, when Saul was King; and yet Saul was to hearken to Samuel. The Majesty of the one must not despise the humility of the other: the King, as I said, is the Minister of Justice, the Priests the Messengers of Mercy. These two must not clash against each other, but with Princely David, aught with harmonious concurrence of spirit to sing of mercy and judgement; mercy and truth to meet together, righteousness and peace to kiss each other. For as there is a Noli me tangere for the one. Touch not mine anointed; so there is a precept of preservation for the other, Do my prophets no harm. There is a general tye laid upon all, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; wherein the Ministers of the Gospel are included: and likewise there is a rule of obedience prescribed to all, Heb. 13. Obey them that have the oversight of you, for that they watch for your souls, etc. wherein Princes are not exempted. Which shows, that Princes are to hearken to their word and doctrine, and to be courteous to them, and not to grieve the holy Spirit of God. Eph. 4. and they are to be obedient to Princes, for that they bear not the sword in vain. So that these two seem to have a mutual dependency each on other: the Priest must exhort with sound doctrine, to which obedience must be given upon pain of damnation; and the King may enjoin the practice of that or any other rule of faith agreeable to the word of God, which the Bishop likewise upon the same pain is bound to observe: only here is the difference; in point of variance betwixt King and Priest, the King is above the Priest to execute Judgement, the Priest being bound to obey not to rule; which is no confusion of the Ecclesiastical estate, they being hereunto ordained to suffer for Christ's sake, when it shall please God, for their sins, or the sins of the people, to set an ungodly man to be ruler over them; Against whom should they out of the dictates of humane reason exalt themselves, for that they fleshlily conceive that otherwise the Church of Christ will be utterly destroyed, it argues their infidelity of Christ's promise to his Church, which shall never be universally invisible: and he having enjoined unto them obedience, they must submit unto that rule, and rely upon God's providence to his Church, who can (contrary to humane reason) make the blood of the Martyrs the seed of the Church: Wherefore Saint Paul and Saint Peter have left these commendations to the Saints of the several Churches, To suffer is the fruit of the Spirit, Gal. 5. and blessed are ye if ye suffer for well doing: and Saint Peter. 1. Pet. 3.14. Blessed are ye if ye suffer for righteousness sake. Wherefore, saith he. 1 Pet. 4.19. Let them that suffer according to the will of God, commit their souls to him as unto a faithful Creator: and you hereby, saith Saint Paul, 2 Cor. 2. make proof of your being in Christ, if ye be obedient in all things; knowing this, That if ye suffer, ye shall reign, 2 Tim. 2.12. This was the practice and precepts of the Apostles: and that the Pope is bound hereunto, I shall make it evident by the examples both of the old and new Testaments, and likewise by the ancient and modern practices of all Christian states.  
The Jesuits, 
Bishops not above Kings.  those stiff maintainers of the Pope's prerogative, have endeavoured to beguile the world with their subtle sophistry, that they might by any means set up his holiness above all powers on earth; and therefore they would persuade that Churchmen are as far above Kings, as the soul is above the body; and that Kings should be subject to them, in respect their power is from the people, the Bishop's power is from God: and if Churchmen obey Princes, it is out of discretion, for order sake, not out of necessity of obedience. To which I answer.  
That the people desired a King, 'tis true, and they had one given them; but his power is from above, and he was by appointment of God anointed, 1 Sam. 9 and after that the people had submitted themselves to the King, they could not cast him off. Samuel told them by way of premonition, that he should rule over them, commanding their sons, servants, fields, sheep etc. and you shall cry out in that day, as thinking yourselves oppressed but the Lord will not hear you, 1 Sam. 8. For his power once vested, it is from above by which he holds it: he is Vnctus Dei; and the Bishop of Rome may in this respect as well as he be said to derive his power from men, for that he is chosen by his Cardinals, and formerly was nominated by the Emperors, as I have showed you in the fourth Chapter: so that the Kings deriving their power from the people, as in reference to their particular exercising of the Kingly power, doth not prove their power from the people; their power is from God, though the people desire this or that prince to be over them: and therefore as their power is from God, it is at feast equal with the Bishop in side to the derivation of the power; and if it were no more but so, the Bishop cannot be above Kingship: for par in par●m non habet potestatem.  
Now that I may further illustrate the truth of this point, I will borrow that Objection; and prove by that Reason of Kings having their power from the people, that the Pope hath no power to dethrone them.  
That Monarchy and Civil Magistracy have their rise from consent of People, is a truth most clear and manifest. It is true, that Kingship was anciently upon the earth. Nimrod, the son of Cush, the son of Ham, the son of Noah, was King of Babel, Gen. 10. and the Egyptians had a Pharaoh over them, six hundred years before Saul. Whereupon, some have from hence conceived Kings to be Jure Divino: which Assertion of theirs admits of this distinction: they may be said Jure Divino, as in reference to their power, because, By God King's reign; they are the Generals which go in and out before the people; and it being the Lord of hosts which gives victory in the day of battle, their power is from God. But they are Jure Humano, in reference to their Institution, the People only having a power of choice, whether such a particular man shall be set over them, so rule them, and to go in and out before them.  
Nor is it any thing but reason, 
King's derive their power from the people.  that the People had this power from the beginning. For as the King was to have command over their persons, sons, and servants; so it was nothing but right, that the people should approve and allow, or disallow of the particular man, that should have that particular power over them. Hence was it that Saul, though anointed of Samuel by special appointment of God, yet by that consignement he was not absolute King, but was preordained to be Governor over the inheritance. For that anointing of Samuel did not give him power to exercise his kingly Office, till Samuel assembled the people in Mizpeh, 1 Sam. 10. and by consent of the Tribes was the lot cast, which fell upon the Tribe of Benjamin: and vers. 24. All the people shouted, and said, God save the King.  
So likewise David was anointed by Samuel, 1 Sam. 16. yet after Saul's death, he was not King, till the men of Judah came and anointed him over Judah, 2 Sam. 2. And though David swore unto Bathsheba that Solomon her son should succeed him; yet it was the people came and confirmed it, saying, God save king Solomon, 1 King. 1. And Rehoboam his son succeeded him; but it is plain, he was not king by descent, but by the people's making him so: for, says the text, 1 King. 12.1. All Israel were come to Shechem to make him king.  
It was not by inherent right, that the sons commonly succeeded the fathers in the Regal Throne, as may appear by that, and the example of Joash; who being son and heir of Ahaziah, 2 King. 11. yet was he made king by the people; they crowned him, and clapped their hands, saying, God save the king.  
And as these Kings. so the Roman Emperors, and indeed, all other kings derive their power of governing from the people, not from any Birthright; not as Heirs succeeding in right of Blood, but only receiving their power from the choice and consent of the people; which people would commonly make choice of such heirs, and crown them kings; with Solomon accounting their land blessed, when their king was the son of nobles, Eccles 10.17. For sigh they were resolved to have kingly Government over them, (which Kingly Government is by some naked nations not clothed with wholesome Laws and Privileges, but prostitute to the daily various imperious dictates of humane will, without known Rules to govern by, approved of as most good and convenient. And some there be, which, though made trim and comely by king's favours, legal Liveries given by good and bounteous Princes, as heirboons to them and their posterity, could wish a Royal Master to go in and out before them, in defence of such hereditary freedom; concurring with the other in opinion, That Monarchy is the best and safest Government, for avoiding of factions in the Commonwealth, and preserving a mu●●al confidence and alacrity betwixt the Magistracy and the People; for that the king is but one, and trusted by them, and consented unto to govern: whereas oftentimes in Democratical States, the major part sways, and perhaps disposes of particular interests, when the party concerned, neither ever heard of, or trusted any particular man of that major part, nor had any vote to elect any one of the same qualification of that major part. Besides, as the king is but one, he is sooner persuaded to Justice, and moved to Mercy, than a multitude) they might as well make choice of such heirs, as of any other; and that the rather; because they had formerly prayed, and in faith were persuaded that God would give righteousness to the king's son. And when he is installed in the Throne, notwithstanding he succeed his father, yet he may not properly be said a king by descent, but made so by the consent of the People.  
Now sigh the title and power of Governing is given, by consenting to have such power over them, I will consider how far the king, and how far the people, are bound each to other.  
First, for the People: I conceive, that sigh this power of the King 〈◊〉 derived from the stipulation of the People, the People on their parts, as they expect to have the King to govern them with regardfulness, stand firmly bound to observe their Covenant made with the King. Wherefore, if they submitted themselves under Absolute Kings, as the kings of Judah, or the Emperors of Rome, etc. those kings were to take their sons, and appoint them to their chariots, etc. and shall command their servants young men, etc. and when they cry, the Lord will not hear them, for that they have covenanted for him so to do; they being thereof advertised before, 1 Sam. 8. and that Covenant is not to be canceled, without the Prince his allowance.  
Plutarch records, how that Lysander and Dionysius (two Heathens) had an Apophthegm, That children were to be mocked with toys, and men with oaths. But I hope Christians will hearken to the holy Ghost, which both by the mouth of Moses and S. Paul commands them to perform their promises, as in the sight of the Lord. Moses, in Numb. 30.3. commands that he that makes a promise should not break it, but do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth: for it is (saith one) Vinculum animae; according to that of S. Paul, Gal. 3.15. Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it is confirmed, no man doth abrogate it, or adds any thing thereto. Wherefore the people having by stipulation put themselves under that Government, and that Government over them being Absolute, they may nor so much as say unto that absolute king, What dost thou? but are (as Joshua says, Chap. 1.27.) to obey him in all that he commands.  
Again, 
Kings bound.  As by that stipulation the People are bound to submit to the will of that Absolute Monarch; so on the other side, if between the King and the People (when the King is appointed over them by their crowning, and acclamations of Vive le Roy) it be conditioned and agreed, that such a king shall be over them, yet nevertheless subject to such and such qualifications; the king is bound to perform those unto them; for it's his Covenant, and the people are only bound by the pledge of their faith to obey him upon those terms, and not else. And therefore if such a king on his part break his conditions with such a people, they may (having power to convene a Diet or Parliament, the commencement and determination of such Assembly not depending upon the will of the Prince) depose such a king, and proceed to a new election: and this I conceive (with submission to better judgements) is not against any texts of Scripture; for that obedience generally enjoined to kings in Scripture, is meant of absolute Kings, to whom the people having submitted themselves, could upon no terms disclaim their subjection to them: however every one stands bound, for conscience sake, to any qualified Monarch, indispensably, according to the condition of his stipulation, to be obedient to him.  
As the power of Kings is merely from this stipulation with the People who put themselves in subjection to such a man's government; 
None bound to obey, only such as promise to obey.  so this mutual personal Contract, as it shall not extend to the heirs of the king, so neither to the heir of the party promising.  
That it doth not extend to the heir of the king, is manifest, because of the personal confidence of the peopole in such an one, to go in and out before them and to be over them; and likewise because of their personal promise only to that king: which promise, if it had extended to the heir, the people needed not to have met at Shechem to make Rehoboam son of Solomon king. And in all countries and kingdoms the people meet and crown their new king, for that he personally is to govern them, and they personally submit to him: which obedience, had it grown from the faith pledged to the old king, it had been needless to have had a meeting to make a new king▪ I must confess, that quilibet potest renunciare juri per se introducto; the people may make a Covenant to be obedient to such a King and his heir; and his heir, by virtue of that Covenant, shall be over them: and according to the connditions of that stipulation, both such heir as king and such people engaged as subjects, are indispensably bound. But yet such stipulation to obey the heir of the king, doth not bind the heir of the party promising; for that, as I said before, the power of governing the people is derived from their voluntary subjection to be under that Government; which subjection is personal and bins no further than the party promising.  
It is true, that such were the conditions of the kings of Israel and Judah, that by the promise of the people their sons and servants were bound; that being foretold them by Samuel; and so they condescending unto it, it becomes, de modo concessionis, due and to be obeyed. And thus it was with the Jews under the Roman Emperors; in which respect, all the Land of Jewry was bound, it being taxed under Augustus Cesar. Luk. 2. and this being generally proclaimed and known, and the sons and servants not gainsaying it, they (as it were represented by their parents and masters) are likewise bound to this obedience, though not personally promising the same. But generally in all other Countries, the Covenant between the king and the people is so personal that it is only restrained to the parties so promising, and no further. For were the son to obey by reason of his father's promise, it were needless to have the fealty of the succeeding generations. And therefore was it, that in England there was a view of Frankpledge, where every man of twelve years of age shall take the Oath of Allegaince: and it is declared that every one (21 E. 3.12.) ought to be attendant to some view of Frankpledge or other, to take an Oath to be true and faithful to the King. Which was a very politic constitution: for, should any difference after arise between the king and people concerning his misgovernment, none should judge thereof, but such as stood bound by Oath to obey the king according to the Laws; whereby the king might be confident the people would not wrongfully tax the king lest they should pull Perjury upon themselves; and the king was likewise hereby to take heed, that he did govern according to that Law, lest the succeeding generations would not subject themselves to have him over them and for that without their voluntary and personal consents, they were not thereunto bound.  
As for the term of Natural Allegiance, 
Natural Allegiance considered.  it is in respect of a man's being born of parents which have right and privilege in the Laws of the Nation and Country of which they are, for that they are thereby naturalised, endenized, and made free, to receive protection from those Laws. For those Laws proceeding from the people of such Nation or Country, and being by king and people confirmed to posterity, they are only proper to the natural people of such Nation or Country; which Laws are to be a guide to such people: and for that they are annexed in point of protection to the offspring of such people, such offspring is said a● natural subject, as having birthright to those Laws which are to protect and govern them. For as they are only to receive correction from the Rule of that Law, they may more properly be said local subjects then natural; every stranger being with them, in that respect, during residence in such Nation or Country, equally obnoxious to them: and therefore being only born of natural parents of that Country, they are said natural subjects to that Law. 
Natural Allegiance.  For as to the personal subjection of any man to be governed by such a king of that Country, he is not by naturality absolutely concluded under that power before a personal engagement; only it is a persuasive motive to make him subject himself to such a king or power, but no positive tye; the obligation that thereby accrues to king and people, only arising upon the mutual stipulation, personally conditioned and agreed upon by king and people.  
Sith than it is plain, that kings are by the people instituted into their Regal power, whether absolute (and so upon no terms to be questioned by the people engaged, God only being to punish such for their misgovernment, by raising some strange power to scourge them when and as he pleases) or qualified; and so to govern according to the Articles of Stipulation. The Pope upon no terms is to intermeddle to depose them: for after they are once invested in this power over the people, whether Absolute or Conditional, yet whilst they are so over the people, and to go in and out before the people, their power is from God, by whom they reign, and therefore not to be questioned by his Holiness, who is neither the party without which they were not set up, nor yet having any authority above their power.  
And should any Prince or Potentate once acquire this Regal power from the alacrity and free consent of people, and afterwards submit that right to the Pope's will; I dare affirm he betrays the people's interest to a stranger, and is utterly injurious to his own Crown; for that he being once invested in the Regal Throne, is by God's power and authority to go in and out before the people: and having this power under so heavenly a Master, he must not become tenant at will to the Pope, who is below him as to question his Power and Government.  
And whereas Bellarmine, de Pontif. l. 1. cap. 7. would exalt Bishops above Kings, for that they administer Sacraments, etc. and Kings only administer Justice in Civil matters; that doth not subject Kingship to Episcopacy: for the credit of the Bishop's actions must serve the glory of God, not the Bishop only; the spiritual work is of God, the bodily service is of the Minister. Now the honour that is to be given him, is in respect of his Officiating, not his Person: and in his respect, every man in his own Trade or Calling may be said excellent before the King. The Bishop is a better Bishop than the King, but the King is a more excellent man then the Bishop. The honour due to the King is in respect of his person: Who shall lift his hand against the Lords anointed, and be guiltless? 1 Sam. 26.9. His person is sacred, and above the reach of Violence: his hand bears the Sword, and the obedience thereunto is annexed to his person. But the honour and respect to be given to the Bishops, is in respect of their Ministerial function: as they are men they are subject; and as they are Ministers, or successors to the Apostles, which Office let it in itself be more noble and to be honoured for Bellarmine's reason, yet if they rightly dispense the sacred Oracles of Truth, they must by that not only teach others, but convince themselves that they are to obey the Civil Magistracy; not out of conveniency, for order sake; but out of necessity, for conscience sake.  
Christ ordained both Powers: Bishops to rule the Church, Acts 20. and Kings to rule the men, and to guide and dispose Temporal affairs: though, both have Government annexed to them, yet that of Kings is in his own right; that of Bishops, in Christ's stead to persuade to rules of Faith and Discipline, not to compel: the power of the one is Absolute; of the other, but Effective: the one may compel, the other only persuade.  
Whereupon chrysostom upon Rom. 13. The weapons of Bishops are spiritual, those of King's material: Bishops are to admonish, reprove, and exhort; Kings are to restrain the disobedient, by loss of life, limbs, estate, or liberty: the King is to be conversant about holy things, not in the administering and execution thereof, as was Vzziah, but in appointing and ordering them, as was Hezekiah; and is to overlook the Bishops in their exercising the spiritual Function. He is to make Laws, and he is to see the execution of those Laws; and therefore he is to look into the conversation of the Bishops, that they walk according to those Laws, otherwise to punish them.  
But if the King be given over to hardness of heart, and will not hearken to the voice of his Priests, calling unto him in truth and sincerity; yet, where he is an absolute Prince, he is not to be called to an account by them, or the people who have submitted themselves to be governed by him; but, in such a case, Preces & lachrymae sunt arma Ecclesiae, according as S. Ambrose witnesses, in his Orat. contr. Auxent. l. 5. And this was the practice of the Priests under the Law, and according to Christ's own practice whilst he was upon the earth, and according to the precepts he left to his Apostles for them to walk by, and according to the Rules of those Apostles prescribed to others as examples for their imitation, and according to the ancient practice of the Primitive Church. So that for the Pope upon any pretence to dethrone Kings, is not warrantable, but utterly against all truth recommended unto us by these faithful witnesses.  
Christ Jesus our Saviour, the only Son of the everliving God, King of heaven, and Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek, being both King, Priest and Prophet, denied all Kingship in this world, Joh. 1●. 36. He was by the Jews called Jesus of Nazareth king of the jews, partly in scorn, partly to justify their putting him to death, pretending he wronged Cesar; and hereunto forging false witnesses, Luk. 23. did give him that title. But Christ in this was innocent; he never wronged Cesar, but commanded his Tribute, and those things that belonged to Caesar's to be given to Cesar, Matth. 22.  
Shall Christ Jesus, a Priest, a King and a Prophet, give tribute to Cesar, and will not the Bishop of Rome allow it? Shall the Jews be so tender of Caesar's right, (though an Heathen and but the second over them, and that by Conquest) that they would not spare Christ himself, upon pretence that he should call himself King; and will not his Holiness vouchsafe that Christian Kings and Princes may enjoy their Rights and Prerogatives?  
He may plead for his excuse herein, the Heathens Apophthegm, Si jus violandum est, certe regnandi causa violandum est; and by that Rule, adorn his own Temples (if his triple Turban be not weight enough) with all the Crowns upon earth: But I am sure he cannot plead any Christian practice or precedent, either out of the Old or New Testament, to warrant his action. He must not think that that late invention of the Jesuits, forged upon the Anvil of their own brain, to please their master his Holiness, (to wit, That after a King is excommunicated, he ceases to be a King, and no subjects own obedience to such an heretical Prince) will be a sufficient excuse for his dethroning any such an one.  
Aquinas, 
Papists Objections for the Pope's power to dethrone.  and a Council of Lateran, have adhered to this distinction, and did, to justify their opinion, cite for an evidence and proof the example of Hildebrand against H. 4.  
To which I answer:  
De facto ad jus non valet consequentia. Aquinas was 1200 years after Christ, and was the Pope's vassal and overtaken with the errors of his time: and he did not allege any warrant from the Scripture for this his opinion, and therefore, being a thing of novelty, upon the Papists own rules, is to be rejected.  
As for the Council of Lateran, 
Council of Lateran, called 1215 which set Popes above Kings.  it was called at the beck of Innocent the third, he being at that time at odds with the Emperor Otho, with John King of England, with Peter King of Arragon, the Earl of Tholouse, and divers others: and at that time, this Juncto, consisting of eight hundred Covent-Friars, and their Vicars▪ (who ought not to have sat there) to please their great master, overcame four hundred Bishops, not with strength of Reason, but Voices; where he likewise was with his Court to over-awe them. And therefore when any thing of Papal interest is to be passed by Council, this place is ever pitched upon, as most convenient, for that his Holiness is at hand either with fair means to allure, or with threats to force the opposers to condescend to his desires. Hence was it, that in a Council here, anno 1056, Pope Nicolas the second was not afraid to broach the doctrine of Transubstantiation: And here Pope Innocent the third did ratify that doctrine. And here first was hatched that other tenant of the Pope's Supremacy over Counsels. Wherefore, this being a Laterane-Decree ●it ought to be of the less credit: and that the rather, because the thing in question was the Pope's own paricular case, (who being at that present in open defiance against those Princes) it was for flattery to the Pope, and for necessity of State (thereby to divert many from joining with those Princes against his Holiness) who, if the differences amongst them were not appeased, were like to sit too heavy upon his Holiness skirts; declared that his Holiness was above kings. And for this they instance the precedent of Hildebrand's excommunicating H. 4. and his successor Paschalis deposing him.  
Now these things considered, I leave it to the Reader, whether to give credit to that Council, or the Council of Mentz, which deposed all the Clergy which joined with Hildebrand, it being an unwarrantable act in Hildebrand to oppose the Emperor, and was by Sigebert called Novellum Schisma; and Sigebert wrote above five hundred years since, and therefore, according to the Papists rules, that which is later, is less to be credited in those points wherein it differs from the ancient profession. And sigh there is no warrant from Scripture for the decree of this Council, or the opinion of Aquinas, I hope there is no judicious Christian but will adhere to that of Mentz, and not in his judgement approve of the Lateran Council, which was of more puisne time, and strave in all things to please the Pope: and that the rather, because Otho Frisigensis, lib. 6. cap. 35. and Vincentius, and divers others concurred with Sigebert, and the Council of Mentz, in this opinion; whose resolutions in this point are grounded on God's Word, but the Decree of Lateran on man's will, and therefore none may submit his judgement to be deluded with the erroneous and unwarranted decrees thereof.  
The Jesuits therefore thinking this too weak a prop to support so weighty a Potentate as they would fain make his Holiness to be, 
Objections out of the Old Testament answered.  wave their confidence in this, and flee to their last refuge, to wrest and abuse the Scriptures, under pretence of Ecclesiastic power of interpretation; and therefore they cite some precedents out of the Old Testament, which they misapply, and would fain have them misunderstood. As for example: They would prove by the examples of Saul, Jeroboam, Joash, Athaliah, and Ahab, being put from their kingdom by the High-Priests, to be a warrant for the Pope's dethroning of what Prince he pleaseth to account wicked. Whenas those precedents rightly understood, make nothing for the Pope's pretended power herein, but rather against him.  
As for Saul, he was not cast out by Samuel; Samuel only denounced Gods will, (which was to him revealed, how that Saul should be cast from his kingdom) and he did therefore by divine appointment anoint David in his steed. But notwithstanding it appears by the Scripture, that although Saul stood excommunicate, as being rejected of God, yet he continued still king, and both David and the Israelites did obey him, David calling him his Lord, and Anointed 1 Sam. 24.7. God forbidden (saith he) that I should lay hands upon him: for who shall smite the Lords anointed, and be guiltless? 1 Sam. 26.9 And the like was of Jeroboam: the Priest did not impose the punishment, only denounce the judgement that was to come upon him, by way of Prophecy. And whereas Azariah was shut from men, being a leper, and his son Jotham set up to rule in his stead; this doth not prove that Excommunication (which the Jesuits would persuade to be the figure of the spiritual leper) doth ipso facto dethrone a King: Azariah continued King till his death: he was called King in the 22 year of his Reign, which was the last year of his Reign, 2 Kin. 15. So that Jotham was not King, but Vicegerent, during his father's leprosy; and then, his father dying, he claimed an absolute power in his own right, not by virtue of his father's seclusion. And whereas Athaliah was deprived of her kingdom by Jehoiada the Priest, that was by virtue of Joash whom the Priest preserved in the Temple, he being the right heir, and Athaliah an Usurper, and murderer of old Azariahs' children, only Joash escaped her bloody treachery; and after that, the people did adhere to make Joash their king, and did promise to put themselves under his Government: whereupon, the high-Priest did command Athaliah the usurper to be put from the throne, for that Joash was both heir in blood, and had the general approbation of the people. 2 King. 11. They clapped their hands, and said, God save the king. And for Elijahs withstanding King Ahab, it was because of his Baalitish Prophets, whom by a miracle he demonstrated to Ahab to be the cause of the famine and the drought, which he shown by prayer for rain: and Ahab being herewith convinced, gave consent that the Baalitesh Priests should be delivered up; which, by consent of the people, by a public Decree were put to death by Elijahs hands.  
But none of these examples do prove that Priests have a right to depose Kings; though the contrary may be proved that King's deposed Priests, as Saul slew Abimelech for taking part with David, Joash commanded Jehoiadahs' sons to be put to death, and Solomon displaced Abiathar the high-Priest from his primacy and dignity, for following Adonijahs faction. The Scripture recites nineteen Kings of Israel, and fourteen of Judah, who broke the Covenant made with the Lord, and followed strange gods, and drove the people to apostasy; yet was not one of them deposed by a Priest or a Prophet; for they knew that they ●eld their authority from God, not from them; and therefore, with David all agreed to subscribe, Who can lay his hand upon the Lords anointed and be guiltless?  
Now as there can be no proof produced from the Old Testament, so much less from the New; but positively and plainly to the contrary, Christ himself commanding tribute to Caesar; and Rom. 13. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers: and 1 Tim. 2. Let prayers and supplications be made for princes: and 1 Pet. 2. Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake whether to the king as supreme or unto governor's scent by him. Again, Christ said to his Apostles, The kings of the Gentiles bear rule, and exercise dominion: Vos autem non sic. Luke 22.25. There must be no strive amongst them, who should be the greatest; which Christ manifesteth, by setting a child amongst them, Matth. 18. By all which texts of Scripture it is plain, that Ministers of the Gospel, and successors of the Apostles, are to submit to, pray for, but not oppose kings; neither are they to look after worldly power and lordship, Christ himself denying to meddle with the dividing of the land betwixt the two brethren Luke 12. For this was praeter his business he came about.  
Now if the Pope would be thought to be Peter's successor, let him follow Peter's precept; and let him imitate Christ, who commanded Peter to follow him: let him do his Master's business. Let him never think to entangle himself with the temporal affairs of this world, let him never think of disposing of earthly Crowns, but seed his flock, and instruct them in the ways of godliness, that they may with meekness, temperance, patience, and snffering, attain to a crown of glory, being strengthened through the might of Christ his glorious power, unto all patience and long suffering with joyfulness, Col. 1.11. For such is the will of God, that by well doing they may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men, 1 Pet. 2.15. Let him not think to turn Peter's keys into Hercules' club; and when a Prince will not hearken to him, he may dethrone him: for he hath no warrant for his so doing: And the power of the keys given to Peter, did not extend to this; nor may the Pope claim any such privilege by virtue thereof.  
When Christ said to Peter, 
The power of the keys doth not warrant the Pope's deposing of Kings.  Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven, He did not thereby give him power to pull down kings, for that after he enjoined Caesar's tribute, and Peter himself after submitted, and taught rules of obedience. Nor was this power given to Peter alone, of binding and losing, but to the rest of the Apostles also: John, James, Bartholomew, etc. had the like power, as I have showed in the second Chapter. And admit Kings be so included under the power of the Keys, yet that doth not prove any power in the Priest to dethrone him, only to denounce God's judgements against his sin, and to admonish him, and to pray for him; but he must not meddle with his Temporal Regiment, nor so far extend his Ecclesiastical power, as to disengage Subjects from their Allegiance to such a Prince: for that is against the practice of the Apostles, and against the precepts of Christ. And certainly, if the Apostles or Peter had had any such power by virtue of the Keys, they would never have suffered it to have been depressed, without giving testimony to the world of the injury done unto them: Peter, if he suffered at Rome, and Paul, whom all stories agree to have suffered under Domitius Nero never so much as denouncing him Ethnic, or uncapable to rule because a persecutor of Christ's Saints: nay, they were so far from this, that they commanded others for conscience sake to obey Heathen Princes, and that because of their power which is from God; which power, as I have partly showed was beyond their compass to take from them.  
The Jesuits being beaten from this hold of the Keys, they betake themselves to the triple Pasce which after Christ's resurrection was said unto Peter, Joh. 21. and would fain deduce this power from thence; and so persuade the world, that the Shepherd's Crook is the Arms of all other Sees not of Rome; the Bishop thereof being no ordinary Pastor, but one that is known by more Able bearing; viz. Mars, a Papal Mitre ensigned with a triple Crown and a Cross. Pater, Sol; which in my opinion stands for no good denotement of Episcopal dignity, in respect it doth not sympathise with the Successor of Peter; and therefore serves rather to denote him sprung of another tribe. But this by the way.  
They would fain persuade the world, 
The triple Pasce doth not extend to depose Kings.  that this power was given to Peter by virtue of the triple Pasce; and by his being Bishop of Rome, is devolved upon the Pope: which I have already touched, in the second Chapter, That nothing doth belong to Rome, any more than anyother See Apostolic, by any power thereby given. I will only, for better illustration of the present point add this, viz. That Peter and Paul both submitted unto Domitius Nero, a cruel Heathen and persecutor; neither did they thunder out any Excommunication against him, thereby denouncing him uncapable to rule; which if they had thought to have been so, certainly they would not have concealed it at their sufferings, when they saw they must die, and all hopes of their natural lives debarred from them.  
If Peter suffered at Rome, he left no such Testimony behind him, nor Paul neither; so that for the Pope to aspire to this prerogative upon Peter's score, is an injury to that blessed Apostle, he having received rules from his Master Christ to the contrary, of which both he, and the rest of the Apostles were faithful witnesses in their sufferings.  
The Papists beaten from all Scripture, there being neither from thence, nor any practice Apostolical, the least warrant for this their presumptuous claim, they then begin to strive with flesh & blood; and forsaking the rules of Christ, and the exmples of Peter and the rest of the Apostles, notwithstanding they would have Peter to be the Rock of the Catholic Church, they quit the harbour adjoining to that Rock, and rove themselves upon the billows of strange contests: And as when the Fish Meron perceiving a storm, lays hold upon a chance pimple stone, & thinks to save itself from the tossing of the waves by sticking to that, whenas both it and its stone are tumbled to and fro at the will of the sea; so these men think by a newfound invention of their own, to make good this their bold assertion against all opposition; whenas any reasonable Christian may easily refute the same; and if with reason they will not be driven off it, dash their brains against Peter's Rock. Wherefore they blush not to affirm that God was not provident enough to his Church if he should leave her without a head to rule and govern her, and as a widow to be despoiled by any Heather or persecuting Prince; and therefore of necessity the Pope must have this power: they are the principal wards in S. Peter's Keys to depose Princes, and excite subjects to oppose them, if occasion be; otherwise the Church should want the Pope her Head, that Pillar to support, and that Eye to direct her; as Cardinal Allen in his Apology observes. 
Allen for deposing of Princes.   
This Doctrine of Allen is gross and Heathenish, tending to Blasphemy and infidelity: infidelity in God's promise, he having promised his Spirit to his Church to the end of the world, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it: she shall not be totally extirpated from off the earth till Shilo come, though she may be invisible in this or that Country as I have showed in the fifth Chapter; and therefore Christ bids his Apostles suffer for righteousness sake: for Sanguis martyrum shall be semen Ecclesiae. Wherefore for Allen to affirm that the Pope must have this power or the Church will be lost, argues his distrust in God's promise to his Church.  
And it likewise savours of Blasphemy to tie God's providence to the Papal Chair, and so denying him a power or will to remove the Candlestick from Rome. and to give it to another. Providence (as Aquinas defines it, Aquinas summa contr. Gentiles) is said to be invisible, and remain in God's secret council, Nondum rebus impressa: for after it appears, and shows itself in effects sensible, than it is called Fate, not Providence. Now for him to tax God of improvidence, unless the Pope should have this visible power of deposing Kings, is neither Scholar nor Divine like; he might as a Soothsayer of Egypt, experimentally, upon the coincidence of the effect of some inspection or Heathenish observation; as that when the black Eagle shall preach upon Laterane Steeple, the top of Saint Angelo shall be lifted up, as was at the time of Otho 3. and Gregory the 5. etc. Or have foretold that it was the Fate of Rome, that if any Prince withstood the Pope, he should be deposed, as was in Henry 4. and Gregory 7. days; but not to conclude this upon God's Providence, which no man by the reach of humane reason is able to pry into: it is more transcendent than the consult of flesh and blood can apprehend. Saint Paul cries out, How unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out! who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who was his Counsellor? Rom. 11.34. And will Allen take upon him to circumscribe God's Providence? To know the secrets of man's heart, is God's attribute: but such is the gross impiety of this blasphemous man, that rather than the Pope should want excuse to depose Kings, he will take upon him to know God's heart, and prove this prerogative by God's Providence; whereby he runs himself upon these absurdities.  
He doth hereby spoil the honour and credit of the glorious Martyrs, by accusing them of error or ignorance: of error, for tamely suffering, whenas they should have resisted; of ignorance, if they suffered, because they knew not the will of God herein. And he doth likewise give God the lie: for if it was God's providence to his Church to resist, in case Religion be opposed by the Prince, sure he would not have bid Peter go back into Rome (as the Papists pretend) nor would he have prescribed the forementioned rules of obedience, which are diametrically opposite to Allens pretended known Providence.  
It is not the revealed will of God, that the Crosier should resist the Sceptre, and the Mitre the Crown; none of the Fathers of Rome's Church ever practised or published that Doctrine before Hildebrands days: and if it was God's Providence first known to Allen, than Allen proves the Church of Rome to have been invisible for 1074 years after Christ; and hereupon he has quite spoilt the Doctor; for by this means, he has hoodwinked his marks of Rome's truth, to wit, Antiquity, Universality, Unity in Doctrine, etc.  
But my Cardinal thinks to salve up this error by another trick, and that almost as gross as this; only this reflects upon the Divinity, that upon the Apostles personally. He takes upon him to make known to us what was the secret opinion of Peter and Paul, etc. which have suffered for Religion, to wit that they suffered because they wanted power to resist; not that it was the will of God they should do so; and so he makes the blessed Apostles and holy Martyr's dissemblers, speaking one thing, and thinking another. For, saith he, as soon as a Prince gins to appear heretical ipso facto, though Excommunication be not denounced, he shall be put from his Kingdom: for as Fame, so Heresy gathers strength by going forward. Which Axiom of his is verified in this, for that since he wrote▪ Bellarmine ploughs with his heifer, and persuades the same Doctrine. So that hereby S. Paul is accused of dissimulation, That he should bid the Romans obey for fashion-sake to please the times: and so he makes the blessed Apostle an object of scorn, not pity; That he should be a , and yet play his cards so badly, that he could not humour Domitius Nero better. Is it likely that the Apostles would have commanded others to pray for them, if they would have taken their blood if they could? Unless these Cardinals would have them like the Presbyters of England who prayed for King Charles, whilst their Armies kept him in prison; or like Charles the fifth, who commanded prayers to be made for Clement the seventh his deliverance, and suffered his own Bands to confine him. Is it likely S. Peter preaching the Word, would bid them submit, which Word he said should endure for ever, 1 Pet. 1.25. even that Word which was preached amongst them, if he knew that it was lawful for them to resist if they had power? This were to ascribe want of faith to Peter, that God would never deliver his Church out of the hands of Persecutors, but suffer her to be always under Tyrants; or else that Peter taught one thing, and thought another. And why should both Peter and Paul press this duty of obedience and submission and that not for wrath, but for conscience sake, were it lawful to resist? This affertion of the Cardinal is therefore gross and impious. It is plain by the Scripture, that this duty of submission to the Civil power was a precept enjoined by God, not proceeding from any fear, (the production of a base nature.) And whenas Paul and Peter did practise and recommend this duty to others, it was to give a testimony of their faith in Jesus; who, as he had laid down his life for them (who wanted no power to have withstood the Jews: he might have commanded legions of Angels to have come and rescued him out of their hands) in obedience to the will of the Father: so they, as obedient sons of Christ Jesus, whom he had in his blood adopted, would, according to his precepts and example, lay down their lives for the testimony of the Gospel. Solomon forbade that any should curse the King secretly in his conscience: which sure he never would have done, if it had been lawful (having power) to cast him off. Saint Judas calls them filthy dreamers that speak evil of Government, and despise such as be in Authority: I wonder what he would think of those two Cardinals (were he alive) who would have the Pope drive Kings out of their Kingdoms if he can.  
There are some Roman Catholics, who being with Agrippa half persuaded to be Christians, and being touched in Conscience, decline these gross absudities of Allen and Bellarmine, as being pernicious, and tending to the injury of Christ and his Apostles, and the holy Scripture (and in that, injurious to the holy Ghost, Scripture being nothing else but the dictates of that holy Spirit.) But yet for all that, they are so bewitched to the Roman Faith, out of a blind conceit of its Antiquity, and therefore of its truth, that they will not leave her, but strive to justify her in all things, and to excuse this point, for that it is a point controverted by some of their own Church, and not yet decreed by any public Council (nor ever must it be decided, may the Pope choose.) Besides, should it be referred to a Council, there is no credit to be given to the result of that Council, for that none must sit there, but such as first must swear to maintain the Pope in the very point to be controverted; and so it would be coram non judice: or if it should be decreed against his holiness, yet by the prerogatives Spiritual of his late Lateran and Trent-assemblies, he might notwithstanding repeal that Decree, or choose to obey it, for that he is by them declared to be above Counsels. And till this be rectified, this error can receive no reformation from a Council, nor can any satisfaction from thence redound to clear the scruples of any man's conscience in this particular. In the mean time. Popery is like the Religion of the Pharisees: Counsels declare one thing de fide, the Pope is found contrary de facto; so that as our Saviour said of the Pharisees, Matth. 23.3. so say I of these Roman Catholics. All that such a Council should so decree, observe and keep; but after their works do not: for they say and do not.  
The last shift that the Jesuits have to maintain this point of Papal prerogative, is, 
The Pope 〈◊〉 a temporal Prince.  that the Pope is more than the Apostles, having acquired a Principality on earth; and so by Jus belli, he may pull down one Prince and set up another; for, say they, the Apostles had no charge, but only to preach the Gospel; but his holiness the Pope has other fish to fry, than what Saint Peter left him; he is a temporal Prince, he wears a triple Crown, he disposes of Kingdoms, Crowns, Emperors, Grants Dispensations, sends Indulgences receives Appeals, answers Ambassadors, takes Homages, releases Oaths, dissolves Leagues, interposes in the Election of Princes, has an Emperor to hold his stirrup, bring up his first dish, a King to serve him at Dinner, and many a glorious matter more, which Saint Peter never dreamt on; so that for him to depose Kings, he being more than ever Peter was, is no such a strange thing. To which I answer.  
'Tis strange so great a Potentate should be thrust up into so little a Corner of the Earth, as the Territories of the Papacy are, and yet that his Jurisdiction over other Princes should be of such vast latitude: I persuade myself that as our Saviour said, a Prophet is nothing worth in his own Country; so the Pope's power is made more glorious afar off, than it is in Italy taken to be: whence it is that he is bearded and confronted by his neighbouring petty Princes and puisne States; and it is an observation, that his thundering excommunions are forceless, where they meet with resistance: so that this his greatness is caused through the debased Spirits of other Princes, that suffer him to tyrannize over them; not that he has any right or due so to do, whether in relation to any temporal title, or in reference to any Spiritual claim. It remains therefore to examine how he can derive any right of title, to make other Crowns as it were Homagers, and holden of his holiness, and that he has an Universal power to dispose of them.  
Baronius and others affirm this power to be inherent in the Pope, 
The Popepower to depose Kings, is in ordine ad spiritualia  and absolutely in him as he is Pope: But Card. Bellarmin says it is in ordine ad spiritualia; for, saith he, although he be not the Lord of all temporalties directly, and as Pope hath absolute power to dethorne Kings, yet saith he, it is in him indirectly; that is, in order to the Spiritualties, he being universal head of the Catholic Church.  
Bellarmine, by this distinction has quite overthrown the Pope's direct Authority: for the Pope is no otherwise spiritual Vicar, but as he is Pope; and if he cannot as Pope dethrone Kings, he cannot do it as Universal Vicar.  
That this power is not in ordine ad spiritualia, of right belonging to the Priest, I have already proved, in the fourth Chapter and by what follows, 
Ante ch. 4.  where I have proved that Kings are vicarii summum infra regna. And I may further add these examples out of the Scripture. 
Infra ch. 14  The Israelites obeyed Nebuchadonosor, Pharaoh, and Cyrus in matters of Spiritual services. Moses and Aaron did offer Sacrifice unto the Lord by the King's appointment. Moses was their spiritual Governor, yet in the fifth of Exodus, he desired of Pharaoh that he as well as the people might have leave to go and offer Sacrifice. It was the duty of the Priest so to do, it was their Office, and yet they asked the King leave, that they might at such a time do it. 
King's have spiritual power.  The commandment of Cyrus was in a cause merely Ecclesiastical, to wit, the building of the Lords House, and the transporting thither the Consecrate Vessels; and the Priests and Levites at his appointment went, and without that, refused it. Ezra 1. I might produce many examples more to prove that the power of spiritual things belongs to the King, as to govern and command the Priests. But sigh the Papists differ among themselves and cannot agree how the power over Kings should be in the Pope, whether directly or indirectly; others affirming that he hath it not at all as Pope, I will try whether he can claim it as Prince.  
Franciscus a Victoria, de potest. Eccl. relect. 1. sect. 6. saith, that many absurd things have been affirmed by the Pope's Parasites, to please him: Dederunt dominium papae cum ipsi essent pauperes; amongst which of his flattered attributes, this is the chief, to depose Kings and translate Kingdoms. I will now, for better satisfaction to the Reader that this is an unjust practice, both in the Pope's exercising the power, and in his Jesuits, which bolster him up in so doing, describe their several rise and steps of advancement towards that present Lordly state they now stand in; whereby it may plainly appear, that as it is already made manifest, that by any divine rule he cannot claim this privilege, no more may he by virtue of any civil title arising either out of lawfulness of Custom or property by Donation. And being a Spiritual man, it is improper in him to plead Usage, if at first not lawful, as I have already said, in the fourth Chapter.  
The first means which gave an advantage to the Popes to lay hold of any Temporal dominion or rule, 
The History of the Pope.  was the removing of Constantine from Rome to Constantinople; which gave an occasion to the Popes to lord it over the people of Rome in the absence of the Emperor, for that then there was none appointed above them: and they, in the absence of the Prince, drew the eyes of the people upon them; and that the rather, because Constantine and his successors gave great respect and honour to the Bishop of Rome, in honour to that City which formerly was the seat of the Empire. And even as the Moon gives no shine as long as the Sun is visible in the same Horizon; but he being removed thence she becomes a glorious Lamp, and sovereign Lady over the lesser Stars: so the Pope's borrowing their light from the Emperor, were nothing illustrious before his face; but he having withdrawn the rays of his presence from the Italian clime, the Pope became the only admired Lord and Governor over the common people, during the residence of the Emperors at Constantinople, and did still steal by degrees into an opinion of greatness amongst the people of Rome. And although Theodosius, (anno 399.) divided the Empire to his two sons, Arcadius and Honorius; yet the Western Empire stood not long, but like a branch slipped off the main bulk, began presently to whither, wanting that sap and nutriment it formerly received from its old root, whilst it continued entire, and unseparate from the same; so that in less than fourscore years, the Western Empire proved Occidental; and setting in Augustulus for above three hundred years bade goodnight to the world.  
This obscurity and privation of the lustre of the Imperial Diadem, gave again opportunity to the Bishops of Rome to grope about in the dark for Rome's forsaken Sword and Sceptre; and making strict and diligent search, at last they found out some splinters of the late Emperor's Staff of Majesty, which Staff was shattered into many pieces; and having none to own it, they became a prey to any that could lay hold first.  
In this scattering of the Eagles Princely plumes, all people strove to gather up those noble Ensigns, that they might be the honourable ornaments of their own stock and families: And in this general striving to share those imperial portions, it happened so, that the busy and stirring Visigoths laid hold of part of the Empire in Spain, The Abtenes in Guien and Gascoigne, The French in the rest 〈◊〉 France. And in this general happacappa, the Vandals in afric, the Saxons in Britain, and the Herule● in Italy, shared the rest amongst them.  
A bundle of Arrows is not easily broken; but take one by one and any child may snap it in pieces. Even so whilst the Empire stood united, the Pope was afraid to attempt any thing against it; but now that such divisions were run upon it, first making the Eagle (Monsterlike) with two heads; after that, her left side being plucked bare, whilst her left eye was shut and her feathers scattered thorough all the Western parts; his Holiness in these divisions assumes the confidence to claim a portion.  
But the sweet thoughts of enjoying such a Princely dowry had no sooner kindled in his ambitious heart, but behold, a storm arose in the North, which did not only prevent his further acquisitions of those Imperial relics, but did quite extinguish the sparks of those glowing embers, which he thought (if not by force prevented) to have grown to such a flame, that they should have been the light of the Western world.  
The Heavens not smiling upon such lofty designs, (much unsuitable for one that claims to be Peter's successor) permitted the Goths and Vandals to come down in vengeance upon his proud head, and by their subduing sword, to teach him that Maxim of Divinity which he perhaps had forgot, i. e. that Man purposes, but God disposes. They let the proud Prelate see, that he that yesterday promised an Empire to himself, to day can find no Sanctuary even in his holy Temples, to be safe from the fury of a conquering enemy.  
Totiles with his Armies, an. 536. forced Rome to become a prey to his Soldiery; plundering her houses despoiling her Temple's demolishing her Walls, and prosternating her lofty Spires, the glorious ornaments of her towering head, even to the ground. Which current of Heathenish Tyranny it pleased God, 
Ante, ch. 5.  not long after, to divert by the means of Bellisares and Narses, two worthy Captains sent thither by Justinian the Emperor: who did subdue the Goths and Vandals, and restored Italy to its proper Master, the Emperor of Constantinople.  
And the Western flowers of the Empire being thus returned to grow and flourish in their Royal bed of Majesty, the Bishops of Rome were thereby reduced to their first principles, and thought themselves happy if they might enjoy the Mitre. Their thoughts were no longer fixed upon a Crown: nay, the Bishop of Rome was so far from bearding with Majesty, that he was content to be subservient to the Governor of Rome appointed by the Exarch of Ravenna; Justinian at that time setting a Goveruour over Italy, who kept his residence at Ravenna, and appointed the subordinate Officers in the remoter parts of the Italian territories.  
Thus it continued but seventeen years: for Narses being upbraided by Sophia, Justin's wife (whose noble spirit could not brook any affront, especially from them from whom he had very well deserved) began to check the course of his proceed; and having driven out the Goths and Vandals, and having gained the hearts of the people of the Country, he was as much through love, as by force master thereof, and therefore thought he could prescribe nothing to the people which they would deny. Whereupon, not fearing the displeasure of an ungrateful Master, he lets him know, that as he had won Italy from the Emperor's enemies, he had equal power to dispose of it to a stranger, as to his Master. And being enraged towards the Emperor for suffering his late affront put upon him, (whereby he became accessary to the injury, for that in him only it lay to redress the wrong) he sent for the Lombard's, and made them, under their king Alboinus, anno 568, master thereof.  
The Lombard's continued masters of Italy above two hundred years: 
Lombard's  during which time, the Bishops of Rome being hopeless of any respects from them, did withdraw all endeavours tending that way, and did wholly apply themselves to the Emperors of Constantinople; and the succeeding Bishops (as if the Chair were infectious, and made the owner's ambitious, and seekers after worldly honour and preferment, more than regardful for the souls of their Flock over which they are made Overseers) did bend all their endeavours to please the Emperor, that being gracious with him, they might (by his favour) lord it over the rest of the Patriarches.  
And whereas formerly, 
Phocas, ante ch. 2.  by Decree of a General Council, they were made equal with Alexandria, they now procured of Phocas, anno 607. to be made Universal Head of the Church: which Boniface procured (as I have already showed in the second Chapter) for favouring Phocas his murdering of Mauritius the Emperor. A good and godly foundation for their Universality.  
From this foundation of their Headship, they not long after raise another superstructure, (which being a chip of that block, and having that example of Phocas, the succeeding Pope thought the Emperor of Constantinople could not blame it.) Pope Zachary being sent unto by Pepin of France, to know whether he might depose his Master Childerick, the Pope (good man) never made scruple of conscience at it: for he knew that Pepin was his good friend, and was an able Statesman, and knew how to settle his affairs, both for his own security and advantage, and so might be in a condition to do courtesies for the Pope; who, upon consideration hereof, did assoil both him and the rest of the subjects of France from their promised Allegiance to Childerick, and by that means was Pepin settled in the Throne of France.  
During these transactions and affairs in the West, the Empire in the East was got into a declining condition; the Saracens encroaching upon them, and having brought them to that straight, that Caliph Zulciman besieged Constantinople.  
The crafty Pope's seeing the glory of the Eastern, Empire to look pale and wan, and perceiving that the Lombard's began to gather more strength and heart by the depressions of the Imperial power, thought it was in vain for them any longer to flatter the Emperor of Constantinople, and that because if he was not able to redress the injuries done unto him by the Saracens, much less to be assistant to the Pope if he stood in need: wherefore they withdrew their addresses of humility and respect from the Eastern to the Western clime; and Italian-like, will not bestow a cake upon him, that has not one in the oven to requite it. The Pope of Rome, upon these important considerations, quite leaves off the Emperor of Constantinople, and insinuates altogether with the French King, he being one that was endeared to the See of Rome for the late courtesy done him; and withal being powerful, might stand by the Pope in his necessities; which accordingly fell out. For it happened that the Lombard's seeing the declining of their great enemy the Emperor, they began to enlarge their Dominions in Italy. They took Ravenna from the Empire, being the seat of their Exarch, and besieged Rome: whereupon, Pope Stephen the second made suit to Pepin King of France to march to their relief; who coming with a numerous and powerful army against Astulphus King of the Lombard's, besieged him in Pavia, and constrained him to yield to his mercy; who, in this his straight and necessity, yielded up the Exarchate of Ravenna and Peutopolis.  
This being thus accomplished, 
Pepin made the Pope Governor of Italy.  Pepin gave up the Government of Italy into the Pope's hands, as a requital of Zachary's favour formerly showed to him; by whose favour only he was grown to be so powerful: (for the people of France would never have obeyed him, had not the holy Father of Rome persuaded them of the legality thereof.) So now Pepin was mindful of this great courtesy, and makes good the Proverb, Manus manum fricat.  
These employments and great Authorities which the Pope had thus acquired (though the only ship of this advancement was that unconscionable persuading the people of France contrary to their Faith and Allegiance pledged, to depose Childeric) made him proud, and puffed him up, so that he began to insult over the people; who not liking of such tyrannous proceed (especially from a Ghostly father) and knowing that he was but a Deputy, and had not right inherent in himself to govern and command them, did therefore expel Leo the third from Rome: who appealing to his Patron Charles King of France, 
Charles the Great made Patron by Adrian predecessor to Leo. Ante ch. 4.  wrought so much with that King, that he came to Rome, and appeased the matter of difference and pacified the people and restored Leo: by which action, he did not only please the people, but the Pope likewise. Wherefore the people having a long time conspired to shake off their obedience to the Eastern Empire, and now that opportunity was offered them, by reason that that Empire was much decayed; and for that at that present there was but a woman to govern them (Irene being the Empress) they did with one consent proclaim Charles Emperor of Rome giving him the title of Cesar and Augustus: and he was crowned by Pope Leo, anno 801.  
Charles the Great, son of Pepin, being thus by the consent of the Romans climbed up into the Imperial Chair began to reflect upon the justice and right of his possession. Wherefore, as Blandus and Platina (too Popish Writers) affirm, he fearing to have too many irons in the fire, and not altogether relying upon the People's choice and consent to have him Emperor, for that it might not be lawful for many of them so to do, in respect they stood already bound by stipulation made with the Empress, not to cast off their Allegiance from her (which Covenant could not lawfully be dissolved, without consent of parties, or that Irene had forfeited her interest to their obedience) did therefore make his peace with Irene the Empress, and Nicephorus her successor; that by their consents and approbations he might rule in the western Empire: which was by them confented unto. And thus it continued in the blood of Charles, till the year 920. when Henricus Auceps was chosen Emperor by the Saxons and Francones; 
Henricus Auceps.  which continued in his blood by way of succession, till the Empire was made Elective: and Henricus Claudus, 1002. was by virtue thereof elected Emperor.  
Now I submit to the Readers whether any thing from hence may be evinced to prove any right in the Pope to dispose of the Empire. First it is evident, that the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperors, and were but equal with them of Alexandria. And though they were in aftertimes made Universal Head, yet still they remained subject to the Emperor, having nothing to do with the disposing thereof. And when Pepin was made King of France, it was not by the donation of the Pope, but by the people of France; only the Pope declared his opinion concerning the lawfulness of their casting off Childeric. And when the Popes were by Pepin made Governors of Italy, it was but as substitutes to Pepin, and not in their own right. And for Charles the Great being made Emperor it was the People of Rome that did it: it may be that the Pope was instrumental to persuade the people thereunto; but that which made him Emperor, was the salutation of the People, Salve Cesar, etc. Besides Charles the Great procured the consents of the Empress and her Successor, to confirm him in his Regiment: which is a manifest proof that no right of donation was at all in the Pope, as Sigebert and others testify concerning this very point, That the Pope never took upon him an absolute right solely to dispose of the Empire, but as instrumental to the People, to inaugurate and crown him, after the People had consented to have him over them. 
I crowning of the Emperors.  And the Pope's crowning of the Emperors, doth not prove any right at all in him to be disposer of that Crown, any more than the Bishops of Canterbury their inaugurating the Kings of England, doth prove a right in them to dispose of that Crown: for this was the Office of the Priests, as may appear by the examples of Samuel, who anointed Saul; and Zadok, who anointed Solomon; and Jehoiadah, who anointed and crowned Joash. Which act of theirs was done as they were Priests, not as they had any Temporal right to dispose of those Kingships.  
'Tis true, 
Emperor elective.  that Gregory the fifth being near kinsman to Otho the third, did by his favour and consent procure that the Empire should be Elective, the Emperors thereof to be chosen by seven Electors; the Archbishops of Mentz, Triers, and Collen, the King of Boheme, the Duke of Saxony, the Marquis of Brandenburg, and the Count Palatine of Rhine. This Constitution was enacted, an●o 994. and was done by the approbation of the Emperor; the Pope not so much as having any right at all appointed to him to give a voice in the Election.  
And I wonder how they can pretend any title to dispose thereof: for, by reason of their spiritual Function they cannot; and by colour of any Temporal right, they may not. And although the Council of Laterane● he●d under Innocent the third, did declare them to be above Kings; yet the succeeding Popes did not rely upon that Edict, as being too little to be given to their Pontifical Seat in regard it was declared conditionally, i. e. in case any King became Ethnic; and therefore Boniface the eighth did make a Law himself, more full, and of ampler power: for, says Appendix Puldensis, Constitutionem fecerat, in qua se dominum spiritualem & temporalem in universo mundo asserebat. And if from this Edict this Regal power must be ascribed to them, it is strange and unreasonable.  
Shall the Pope, by a Decree of his own making, rob others of their right? I am sure there is no right in such a Constitution. To transfer a property in any thing, requires the consent of the owners; otherwise it is Robbery, not a lawful Contract. And yet because this is done by his Holiness, who cannot err (as his flatterers tell him) it must be construed against all Principles and Rules of Law and Nature, to be a lawful Constitution, and binding unto Kings. Which if they be so tame, as to suffer themselves to be fettered with this Paper-gin, when the heirs of their bodies may not succeed them, they will find but few to pity them.  
This is the Pope's Royal Charter, by which he entitles himself to this Celestial power: and this is the chief and principal Canon of the Popes Law. This is that which every one must swear to maintain, before he be admitted into the General Council; and whose blind obedience is to be pitied as much, as the Pope's presumptuous ruling by this counterfeit Record, is to be lamented. And I much wonder the Christian Princes will suffer the Pope, upon such groundless and unjust terms, to be Lord Paramount over them, whenas the warrant by which he claims this power, is merely void in itself, for that it wants their concurrence. Nor is it credited as authentic as many of the Roman Bishops and Popes, practising the contrary, have been honest witnesses.  
Pliny says, It is the nobleness of the Eagle, to leave part of her prey for other birds. Whence it is, that other birds of prey still follow after the Eagle, to feed upon her scraps. But if the Crow presume to come too near the Eagle, she lets her feel her talons; and, in stead of being fed, the Crow becomes a prey herself. And will the German Eagle suffer himself to be out-towred and cuffed with an Italian Rook? It argues a degenerating spirit from the true Eagle, to suffer it; and gives occasion to the world to suspect, that he is that bird the Eagle throws out of her nest, and not one of those which the Eagle (ciscovering Majestic rays in their eyes) n●urishes up, and carries on her wings, above the common region here below.  
The ancient Bishops of Rome never tasted of this sour grape; and I wonder how the later Popes came to set their teeth on edge. Resist not evil, was Christ's precept, Matth. 5.39. But the Pope is so far from this Rule, that he will not do good to them that have been benefactors to him. King's have been kind nursing fathers to the Church of Rome; and will she be so unnatural, to cast them off, now that by their indulgence she is grown to a riper state? Kings granted he● precedency above her sister-Churches, Kings have endowed her above them and in necessity have relieved her Popes: and will the Pope now, like the Wolf in the Fable, devour the Crane that took the bone out of her throat? Will the arrogant Hop, having overtopped the Pole by which it grew, think to bear up its weak head above its first supporter? Sure these are practices which do little become a Spiritual Father, an Universal Head of Christ's Church; who, by how much his head is lifted on high, should be more given to good works, to piety, to humility, to charity, and to patience; and that the rather, because on such an one, in so eminent a place, all eyes are fixed, and should there find examples of Godliness, which might be as a heavenly light to guide them unto their Lord and Master Christ Jesus.  
But I should wrong Rome's Church, should I for some men's faults condemn all. All are not Tares, that grow in that field. In these last days, Satan is more busy to throw in his seed, because his time is short. But heretofore, she had Bishops which never laid claim to these unjust demands. Wherefore that I may make the present Pope ashamed of this his unjust claim, I will produce the godly practices of his predecessors, to his own condemnation.  
Notwithstanding all the shifts and tricks the Jesuits use, 
The ancient Bishops of Rome, & modern Popes, have obeyed the Emperor. Ante ch. 10 and cham 4.  to maintain this strange power they ascribe unto his Holiness, they fall short to give satisfaction to any reasonable man, that hath not given himself up to a stupid sense, to believe all they say be it right or wrong. And who please to reflect upon the practices of former Ages, will find this to be a mere Innovation and encroachment upon the Temporal power.  
Melciades, Bishop of Rome, acknowledged Constantine the Great to be Supreme, even in things Spiritual. The same Constantine called a Council at Aralatensis, excluding Melciades out of it. Where was then his Supremacy, either in Spiritual or Temporal affairs? Did not Damasus, Siritius, and Anastasius, acknowledge Theodosius the elder their Supreme Lord, and submitted unto him, whenas Flavianus was accused before the Emperor for intruding into the See of Antioch? who was by the Emperor freed against their wills, as Theodor witnesses, Lib. 5. cap. 23.  
Innocent the first obeyed Arcadius when he bid him call a Council for the examination of Chrysostom's cause.  
Gregory the Great being commanded to publish a Law made by Mauritius, desired to be excused, and shown his reasons against it; but those not prevailing, he submitted, and did publish the Law, as appears by his Epist. 61. lib. 2. cap. 100 
S. Ambrose ante ch. 10   
S. Ambrose being commanded by Valentinian to allot a Church in Milan for the Arrians, his answer was, He would not willingly; but being compelled, he had learned not to resist. And this is by some much pressed, How that he did utterly withstand it, How that he did excommunicate Theodosius the elder, and made him do Penance. For my part, I do not credit the story: for it is not likely that there was any such ruffling betwixt them, whenas it appears by the testimony of all Writers, that whenas Theodosius had freed the Empire from all troubles, he retired himself to Mallain, where S. Ambrose was Bishop; and leaving off the charge of the Empire to his two sons, Arcadius and Honorius, he died in peace at Milan. And certainly if there had been any such clashing betwixt them, he would have made choice of some other place for his retirement. Besides it doth not stand with S. Ambrose doctrine: for he affirms, Preces & lachrymae sunt arma Ecclesiae. He never taught, that it was lawful to take vengeance upon the Supreme Magistrate; as his Epist. contr. Auxentius doth witness. He freeth Kings from all Laws made by man, as appears in his book Apolog. David. cap. 10. pag. 386. Rex nullis legibus tenetur humanis, homini non peccavit David, cui non tenetur abnoxius. Now if he should inflict Penance upon the Emperor, it was against this doctrine: and so the Papists wrong S. Ambrose, in fathering a practice upon him which was contrary to his profession. Wherefore I suspect this tradition of the Church of Rome in this point, that S. Ambrose should make Theodosius the Emperor do penance. It may be he enjoined Penance to Theodosius after he was become a private man, during his retirement at Milan, and after he had left off the Regiment of the Empire to his sons: but that is no warrant for the Pope to do the like to the Emperor or any other King; for that if he did so, it was a punishment inflicted, not upon the Emperor, but upon Theodosius, being a private man. And as this makes nothing for the Pope in this particular point, so may he not arrogate this by reason of his Universality granted by Phocas, for that his predecessors never claimed, or was it allowed or intended by the Emperor, that he should have this power by virtue thereof, as may be proved by these examples.  
Pope Agatho, who when Constantine Pogonot the Emperor called a Council, 
Consiant. Pogonot, ante.  writ that he had sent his fellow-servants to his most excellent Lord, according to the most holy Decree of his Princely Majesty, and the duty he owed him. After that, Leo the fourth shown to the Emperor Ludovicus the second, that if he had not dealt justly with them over whom he was placed, whatsoever was amiss, he would amend, at the discretion of his Excellency. And some other Precedents of this nature I have showed, in the fourth and tenth Chapters.  
Thus you see in all Ages, 
Ante ch. 10 and ch. 4.  the Popes acknowledged themselves obedient and subject to the Emperors, till that firebrand of dissension, 
Haldebrand, ante.  Hildebrand, or Gregory the seventh, opposed Henry the fourth; which by the Fathers of those days was called Novellum Schisma. Neither did it pass unpunished, he being afterwards thrust from the Popedom, and himself confessing at his death the unjustness of his proceed, as I have formerly touched in the sixth Chapter. And as Hildebrand escaped not the divine hand of Vengeance, so did none after him attempt the like, but it was punished either in themselves, or their immediate successor.  
Pope Innocent the third did excommunicate Frederic the second: but the Bishops of Germany denied to obey the Bull; insomuch that one Eberhardus Archbishop of Saltzburg did condemn that proceeding of Pope Innocent against Frederic, and likewise disapproved of what his Predecessor Pope Celestine the fourth had done to Henry the sixth, uncle to Frederic; basely and unworthily crowning him with his foot: and what Pope Alexander the third most insolently and antichristianly did to Frederic the first, treading upon his neck: and calls them worse than if Luther or Calvin had been to have spoken their epithets in a full Council: all agreed to withstand the Pope in those his unjust proceed.  

The French and Spaniards oppose the Pope.  Nor were the Germans sole opposers of his Holiness in this point, as may appear by the practices both of the French and Spaniard.  
The French, as I have formerly expressed in the eleventh Chapter. And anno 1600. the whole body of the Sorbonne, and the University of Paris, did condemn this tenant as Schismatical and pernicious. And the Spaniards, his dearly beloved Catholic darlings, did in a Council at Toledo oppose his Holiness in this point, as may appear by the six Counsels of Toledo, can. 18. Testamus coram Deo & omni ordine angelorum, etc. We protest before God and his angels, that no man ought to intent or enterprise the destruction of the King: they having formerly by the fourth Council of Toledo and can. 75. established an Oath of Allegiance indispensable; which was done, anno 633. and was revived by the sixth Council, and since observed and kept even to this day; the Pope having no right or usage to dispose of that Crown. 
England not under the Pope.   
And as of right this is due to other Princes especially may England claim this immunity, she having had Kings to govern her, before ever there were Bishops of Rome. Nor can Rome lay any title to dispose of her Crown, she having still continued a succession of Princes, without any appointment by the Pope, and having an ancient Law to establish them in her Throne, without any appealing to his Holiness. And should any, under pretence of Religion (as Allen did) go about to betray the Magistracy of his native Country into the hands of a foreign power, he becomes a sinner against the God of Nature, rebelling against his own native Country, to which he stands inseparably engaged to reverence, obey, and love: and such his Treason is not any jot extenuated, for that it has the cloak of Religion; for no man must do evil that good may come thereon, unless he think with the A theist, that in nomine Domini gins all mischief. Wherefore, how Allen would answer his Treason before the court of Heaven (he being naturally bound to his King and Country, and not, against that tye, to confederate with strangers to make it a prey, as he confessed to persons he did, Quod lib. S. Art. 7. page 247.) let God and his Truth witness. Alas, it was not the Pope's Bull could excuse that: the Pope cannot dispense with inseparable duties, especially when the interest of Kings is concerned: he has no Commission (but one of the Pope's forging) to dethrone Kings, or to disengage Subjects from their stipulation of obedience: 
Peter's authority.  He, as he pretends to be Peter's successor, is to use the Spiritual sword, the Word: he is to make intercessions and prayers: he is not in that capacity to use the material Sword. Peter had command to put up his sword; he might not use it, though in defence of Christ his Master: his office was to persuade, not to compel: his commission was to feed, not to kill; to obey, not to rule. Christ commanded his Apostles to wash one another's feet: Peter was not to tread upon King's necks, nor was any to kiss his toe. Peter would not suffer Cornelius to fall down at his feet and worship him, but took him up, and said, Stand up, for even I myself am a man. And now that the Pope should cause all these things to be done, under pretence of power derived from him, seems to me a mere Solcecism, and a knot so inexplicable, that let the whole tribe of Ignatius Loyala study till their brains resolve to jelly, they shall never produce a convincing reason for it. And it is an arrant shame for Princes, in the mean time, thus to be trodden by Rome's Crows; which, like Aesop's Chough, being made fine with others feathers, moveat Cornicula risum. It is brave pastime for the Grand Signior, to see his Holiness with borrowed feathers mount above the Eagle; whilst other Princes, like little birds, only stare with wonder to behold such a monstrous Owl abroad at noonday, neither offering to beat her back to her Ivy-bush, nor to take from her their own proper plumes: by which means, they make the Pope an object of admiration and glory; themselves, of scorn and misery. And whilst they suffer him to trample upon any one particular Prince, they consent to their own ruins; whenas they ought to make it their own case in general: and every one ought to consider it as a wound in his own side in particular; which whilst it is suffered, and not remedied, it grows to gangrene the very body of Kingship, and all Temporal Magistracy. Be wise therefore, O ye kings; and learn ye that be judges of the earth.   

CHAP. XV.  
That Christ is spiritually eaten and drunken by the faithful and worthy Receiver. That Christ's calling the bread and wine his flesh and blood, was a figurative speech. That the outward elements are not changed: and That the doctrine of Transubstantiation is utterly against the truth of the Catholic faith.  
THe Doctor in his One and twentieth Chapter, fol. 323. calls the Protestants startling at the Romish doctrine concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, a Prodigy of Opinions: And he musters up several Tenants concerning the same; which being various in themselves, and contradictory each to other, I wonder he should offer them against any particular Church, especially the Church of England, (against whom I suppose his darts are by this intended, for that elsewhere (fol. 259.) he speaking of Protestants, offers grounds of converting to them again: which must needs be intended to the Church of England, (from whence he is gone) which he in this particular goes about to tax her of Error. Wherefore I made bold to recapitulate these ensuing Truths professed by her, and which she assumes to maintain against the Errors and Innovations of Rome, touching this Sacrament: wherein my desire is, rather to clear her from all malicious dirt by Satan's instruments thrown upon her, then that I should by this means lay open the failings of the Doctor, or his ingratitude to his Mother-Church.  
The Church of England doth maintain, That Christ's body is given, received, and eaten, after an heavenly and spiritual, not after a carnal and corporal manner; and doth utterly disallow of the new doctrine of Rome's Transubstantiation: not condemning it as new, in respect of the Word; but as it is a doctrine and practice in itself varying from what Christ, his Apostles or the Primitive Churches taught; and contrary to what the Church of Rome has formerly maintained; for that it is a mere novelty, through the corruption of later times; and by covetous and ambitious Popes, for self-interest, obtruded upon the people; making them believe a real transubstantiated presence by the Priest's consecration, and by him offered up for the sins of the people: that so the people giving money to the Clergy, they may buy Masses and Sacrifices for their sins, and for the sins of others, as well quick as dead. Against which impious practice, and vain assertions, I will, for the satisfying of some doubting, and others deluded in opinion, offer these professions of the English Church to their serious consideration.  
The Church of England teacheth, 
1. Christ is spiritually eaten.  That Christ is not in the bread and wine, but only to such as worthily eat & drink them: That as Christ is a spiritual meat, so he is spiritually eaten and digested with the spiritual part of us, by faith. And for this her doctrine, she has warrant from Christ himself, who speaking of the bread of life which came down from heaven, and the bread which he would give them, which was his flesh, Joh. 6.51. the Jews and many of his disciples were offended, saying, How can he give us his flesh to eat, and his blood to drink? Christ perceiving their murmuring, (that they should not remain in ignorance) explains it to them, saying, What if you see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the Spirit that giveth life, and flesh availeth nothing. The words which I speak unto you, are spirit and life. Which is a manifest clearing how the flesh is to be eaten, and how the blood to be drunk; that is, after a spiritual manner: and so Abraham, and many others, did eat him many years before he was born of the Virgin, according as S. Paul witnesses, 1 Cor. 10. They did eat the same spiritual meat, and drank the same spiritual drink, that is to say, Christ.  
For, to eat that meat, and drink that drink, is to have Christ dwelling in us, 
The wicked do not eat the body.  and we in Christ: which must needs be understood of worthy receivers and not of the ungodly, in whom Christ cannot be said to dwell: it must needs be understood of one that truly believing, feeds upon Christ in his heart; and the wicked unbelieving sinner, he receiveth only the bread and wine, not discerning the Lords body. Saint Paul witnesseth this truth, 1 Cor. 11. He that eateth of this bread, and drinketh of this cup, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ. He saith not, He that eateth and drinketh the body and blood: for none but a worthy receiver doth that.  
Nor doth this doctrine deny any to receive unworthily, as the Doctor (fol. 328.) would persuade us; because (saith he) such only receive bread and wine, and not the Lords body. But it rather serveth to condemn their errors, who would persuade that the wicked receive very Christ; and so none should be guilty, because whoso verily eateth his flesh, and drinketh his blood, hath everlasting life. Therefore the Church of England is careful to avoid this error, and maintains, according to Christ his explanation, that Christ is only spiritually given, received, and eaten; and that those only that believe in Christ, eat him, and live by him; and that every one eating that bread according to Christ's institution and Ordinance, is assured, by Christ's own promise and testament, that he is a member of his body, and receives the benefit of his passion: and likewise be that drinks of that cup according to Christ's institution, is certified that he is made partaker of Christ his legacy, his blood, which was shed for remission of sins. Whereas the unworthy receiver coming to this divine Ordinance without due reverence and a lively faith, eateth and drinketh his own damnation; for that he receiveth that bread and that wine unworthily, which ought with faith to have been received, believing that as that bread and wine nourish the outward man, so Christ is thereby conveyed, to the nourishment of the inner man; and so Christ is in him, and he in Christ. And by thus receiving, is the saying of Christ (in Joh. 6. My flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink) to be understood: for none but the faithful are partakers of this heavenly banquet. Christ is the bread of life: he that eateth that bread, shall live for ever; which must be by faith in the Son of God. Gal. 2. It must needs be understood of a mystical, and not a real eating; that even as the bread and wine which we receive, is turned into our flesh and blood, and is so joined and mixed together with our flesh and blood, that they be made one body together: so be all faithful Christians spiritually turned into the body of Christ, and be so joined unto Christ, and also together amongst themselves, that they do but make one mystical body of Christ, as S. Paul, 1 Cor. 10. We be one bread and one body, as many as be partakers of one bread and one cup. The wicked are not partakers of this banquet, but only the members of Christ: therefore none verily eat the flesh and drink the blood, but the believers. It is not like the eating of Manna: both good and bad eaten that; saith our Saviour, Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead: but he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever; which must be by faith, and in heart believing unto this salvation. And herewith agree the Fathers of the Primitive Churches.  
Origen, who writ about two hundred years after Christ, upon the text of Matth. 15. The Word was made flesh, and very meat, which whoso eateth, shall live for ever; says, that no evil man can eat thereof: for it is only eaten by faith. And herewith agrees S. Cyprian, in Serm. de Coena Dominic. saying, Our eating and drinking is a certain hunger and desire to dwell in him; and that none do eat of this Lamb, but such as be true Israelites; which hunger is termed of the soul, as David was an hungry, Psal. 41. My soul hath thirsted after God, which is the well of life. For the soul feeling nothing but the horror of death, and the terror of God's justice, sin, by the Laws impeachment, having drawn that direful sentence upon her; in her pensive meditations of her just demerits, betakes herself to this spiritual refreshment of comfort and solace, being hereunto invited with the sweet appellation of blessed, if she hunger and thirst after righteousness; and a cheerful promise of comforts, that she shall be satisfied, Matth. 5.  
Which spiritual hunger and thirst, as it is not perceived of a carnal man, but only of such as inwardly desire this refreshment, and ease from the deep throws of their sad condition: so is it not given to any, but such as spiritually long and seek after it. God feedeth the hungry; but the rich those that stand upon their own integrity, he sends empty away. It is no carnal banquet, that flesh and blood can thirst after: Have ye no houses to eat and drink in? 1 Cor. 11. It is not eating an ordinary Supper, to satisfy the greedy appetite of a natural man; but, as Christ said to his disciples, Joh. 4.32. I have other meat to eat, which ye know not. The disciples themselves, as carnal men, knew not of this spiritual food; and therefore Christ minding to draw them from their gross fleshly principles, and to convince them that there is spiritual food, as well as that which the mouth and throat take and swallow, plainly says unto them, Is any dry? let him come to me, Joh. 7. for he is meat, he is drink, which whosoever by faith spiritually eat and drink, live for ever.  
Athanasius, de peccat. in Spir. sanct says, Christ made mention of his ascension, to pluck men from corporal fancy, and thereby to persuade them that his flesh was spiritual food: the things which he spoke, were spirit and life. It must needs therefore be understood of spiritual eating and spiritual drinking his flesh and blood; which heretics & unbelievers could not do, as S. Hierome upon Hos. 8. witnesses. And S. Ambrose, de benedict Patr. cap. 9 says, Jesus is the bread which is the meat of the Saints; and he that taketh this bread, dieth not a sinner's death: for this bread is remission of sins. And S. Austin, in his 26 Tract upon John; Bread and wine which nourisheth the body, a man may eat and drink, and nevertheless die; but the very body and blood no man eateth, but hath everlasting life.  
And in another place, in sententiis ex Prosp. decerpt. cap. 339. He that agreeth not with Christ, doth neither eat his flesh, nor drink his blood, although (to the condemnation of himself for his presumption) he every day receive the Sacrament of so high a nature. Judas did eat the bread, saith he, in his 59 Tract, but not the bread that was the Lord. Christ is only spiritually in the bread and wine, to such as by a lively faith receive him. As for the wicked they receive but the mere bread and wine, abusing the Ordinance.  
From these Authorities may clearly be evinced, that the Church of England doth maintain in this point as the ancient Fathers taught, concerning this Sacrament. Nor can any otherwise understand of this holy mystery: for if Christ be corporally in the bread and wine, than the wicked receiving him, receive his body, and not his Spirit: for, Rom. 8. as he that hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his; so he that hath Christ in him, believeth, because he is justified. And if his Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead, dwell in you; he that raised Christ from death, shall give life to your mortal bodies, for his Spirits sake that dwelleth in you. So that no wicked man hath the Spirit of Christ in him: and to maintain that he hath him corporally, and not spiritually, is to divide his Humanity from his Divinity; which blasphemy the Catholic Church abhors.  
Now the Church of England doth not thus divide the Natures, but holds that both his Body and Spirit is by faith received; but not that the body is corporally in the bread; the bread and wine being but the elementary parts, signifying the spiritual substance: and that God worketh this faith inwardly in our hearts, 
3. The bread and wine are but figures of the body and blood.  by his holy Spirit, and outwardly confirmeth the same to our ears, by the Word; and to our senses, by the eating and drinking the Sacramental bread and wine in his holy Supper: Which eating and drinking is a spiritual feeding, requiring no real presence of Christ, but only in Spirit, grace, and effectual operation. And that when Christ said, Hoc est corpus meum, it was but figuratively spoken; it being bread which he broke and gave, as a type, for a remembrance how his body was crucified for us. And let none wonder at this her tenant, to say that Christ spoke in figures, when he did institute this Sacrament: for it is the nature of a Sacrament to be figures and types, signifying mystical grace thereby received. Hence it was that the Philistims, when the Ark came into the army of the Israelites, said that God was come into the army, 1 King. 4. And God himself at that time, by the mouth of his Prophets, said, that from that time that he had brought the children of Israel out of Egypt, he dwelled not in houses, but that he was carried about in tents and tabernacles, 1 King. 7. which was a figurative speech, he speaking that thing of himself, which was to be understood of the Ark. Which phrase of speaking, Christ himself often used; as in Mat. 13.11, 17. The field is the world, The enemy the devil, etc. Joh. 16. I am the vine, you are the branches. Joh. 4. I have meat to eat, which you know not. And Joh. 10. I am the door, Matth. 12. He that doth my Father's will, is my brother and sister, etc. These, and many more, Christ spoke in Parables, Tropes, and Figures; but chief, when he said, 
Hoc est corpus a figurative speech.  This cup is the new Testament in my blood; the word my, taken for the thing in the cup. Neither is the cup nor the wine Christ's Testament, but a sign and figure of his Testament. And admit that by the word cup neither the cup nor wine is meant but the blood; yet it is a figure of the Testament of Christ, which was to be sealed with his blood. For his blood is not the Testament, but the thing that confirms the new Testament. This is so evident a place to disprove the tenants of Rome's Church in this particular, that her champions are forced to their last refuge of abusing Scripture; and therefore they render that text thus: This blood is a new Testament in my blood: which translation I submit to the judicious Reader, whether it be not more strange than any figurative speech.  
Christ saith, we must be baptised with the holy Ghost: this is a figurative speech. So likewise, Except a man be born again, etc. that was a figurative speech, intending thereby spiritual regeneration. S. Paul saith, that in Baptism we clothe us with Christ, and be buried with him Rom. 6. which are figurative speeches of our newness of life, and mortification of sin. The Paschal Lamb without spot, signified Christ; the effusion of that blood, signified Christ's passion; and the sprinkling of the posts with blood, whereby the firstborn escaped death, is a type of those which at the last day shall be saved, being sprinkled with the blood of Jesus. As in the Old Testament, Exod. 12. God said. This is the Lords ; which was not the Lords Passeover, but a figure representing the Lords passing by: so Christ in the New Testament says of the bread and wine, This is my body, This is my blood; which is not so in substance, but in signification.  
A figure hath the name of a thing that is signified thereby; as we say a man's image is called a man; the figure of a tree, a tree, or the like. So we say, Let us go to S. Peter of Milan, to S. James in Compestella, etc. not meaning thereby the things themselves, but understanding by the things representive, the things represented. Even so the bread and wine, though Christ call them his body and blood, yet they are not verily so, but the elementary parts and outward signs of the invisible grace, his flesh and blood thereby signified.  
Nor is this a strange interpretation, but according to Christ's own figurative speech, saying, Luk. 22. I have much desired to eat this  with you. Which words none can deny to be figurative. God himself used that figurative speech; and Jesus, the only Son of that Father, to ssure us of his unity with the Godhead breathes out the same Spirit to his Apostles; This is my , This is my body, This is my blood As the shedding of that Lamb's blood was a token of the shedding of Christ's blood then to come, and forasmuch as the Sacraments of the Old Testament ceased and ended in Christ; lest we should, through corruption and depravity, forget the accomplishment of those Types, and not take heed to print in our memories the benefits we receive by Christ: Therefore Christ at his last Supper, when he took leave of his disciples, being shortly to departed out of the world, according to the will of the Father, did make a new Will. He did make a new Will and Testament, wherein he bequeathed clear remission of sins; which he sealed next day with his blood; and instituted this holy Sacrament in remembrance thereof; and ordained the same in bread and wine, saying This is my body; This cup is my blood, which is shed for remission of sins. Do this in remembrance of me. And Saint Paul says, 1 Cor. 11. As often as we eat this bread, and drink this cup, we show the Lords death till he come. Therefore, when we come to be made partakers of this heavenly food, we should seriously call to mind the wonderful sufferings, great goodness, and marvellous kindness of Christ, he offering himself for our redemption; and, by a lively faith apply the merits of his Passion to our souls: and so we verily receive Christ, he to be in us, and we in him.  
The Scriptures do sufficiently set forth this truth, That when Christ said, Hoc est corpus, it was a figurative speech: and the Church of England holds forth this truth, against all adversaries and opposers thereof. And that in this she may not seem arrogant, to assume a self-interpretation of the Scriptures, to maintain this her assertion, I will bring in some ancient Fathers to bear witness for her.  
Saint Augustine, 
How to interpret Scrip ure.  de doctrina Christiana, lib. 3. advising us how to interpret Scripture, bids us beware how we take literally any thing that is spoken figuratively, and figuratively any thing that is spoken literally. And he therefore gives this Rule in way of caution: If the thing (saith he) that is spoken, be to the furtherance of Charity, than it is a proper speech, and no figure; as when it commands any good, or forbids any evil act, than it is no figure: but if it command any evil thing, or forbidden that that is good, than it is a figurative speech. Now this saying of Christ, Except ye eat my flesh, and drink my blood, ye have no life in you, seems to enjoin a heinous and vicked thing; and therefore, upon S. Austin's rule, it is a figurative speech. But I will not only conclude it upon that general rule to be so; But I will likewise, for better clearing this truth, ●t down the express opinions of the Fathers in this point. 
The ancient Fathers agree that it was a figurative speech.   
Irenaeus contr. Valent. lib. 4. c. 32. ●aith, Christ confessed bread, which is creature to be his body, and the cup to be his blood. And in cap. 57 he ●●ith, that Christ taking bread of the ●ame sort that ours is of confessed that ●t was his body. It was (saith he) ma●erial bread, and therefore a figurative speech.  
Cyprian ad Magn. lib. 1. Epist. 6. Christ called bread made of many corns, and wine pressed out of many grapes, his body and blood.  
Cyril in Johan. lib. 4. cap. 14. Christ gave to his disciples pieces of bread, saying, Take, eat; this is my body.  
And herewith agree Austin de Trinit. lib. 3. cap. 4. Theodoret. dialog. 1. all concurring, that when Christ took bread and wine, and spoke these words, This is my body. This is my blood, that it was bread and wine which he gave, and not any other substance.  
And Origen in Levit. Hom. 7. declareth the eating and drinking of Christ's flesh and blood to be figurative: therefore, saith he, understand them as spiritual, not as carnal men.  
Tertul. contra Martion, lib. 1. calls bread broken by Christ, a figure of his body, and wine his blood; because, saith he, in the Old Testament bread and wine were figures of his body and blood.  
And chrysostom upon Psal. 22. saith, that Christ ordained the Table of his holy Supper for this purpose, that in that Sacrament he should show unto us bread and wine for a similitude of his body and blood. So that all agree, it is a figurative speech.  
S. Ambrose, upon 1 Cor. 11. saith, that in eating and drinking the bread and wine, we do signify the flesh and blood which he offered for us. And the Old Testament (saith he) was instituted in blood, because that blood was a witness of God's benefits; in signification and figure whereof, we take the mystical cup of his blood, for the tuition of our body and soul: he and many more concurring in judgement in this point, that the Sacramental bread and wine are not corporally and really the natural substance of the flesh and blood of Christ, but that they are similitudes significations, figures and s●gnes of his body and blood and therefore be called and have the name of his flesh and blood, and were but indeed tokens thereof, and meant of a spiritual grace; as Christ witnesses, The words which he spoke were spirit and life, Joh. 6. It was bread which he took; it was wine which he gave, saying, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, till I drink it with you in my Father's kingdom. They were the elementary parts of the Sacrament, signifying the spiritual substance of his body and blood. And when he took the bread, and the cup, and said, This is my body, this is my blood; it is manifest, by what I have already spoken, that that saying was a figurative speech.  
To maintain that it was very flesh and very blood Christ gave to his disciples, 
Bread and wide are the outward elements of the invisible grace.  doth utterly destroy the nature of a Sacrament, both according to the Tenants of the Church of Rome, and all other Churches, concerning the nature of a Sacrament.  
The Church of England holds, that the bread and wine are but the outward visible signs of the inward spiritual grace.  
And herewith agrees S. Austin, in his definition of a Sacrament, lib. 2. the doctr. Christian. Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum sensibile, sanctificans nos.  
S. Tho. part. 3. quaest. 60. art. 3. says, Tria significantur: primum, causa effectiva nostrae sanctificationis, scilicet, Passionem Christi: Hoc facite in mei commemorationem, 1 Cor. 11. secundum, causam formalem, nostrae sanctificationis; scil. gratiam: tertium, cansam finalem, quae est gloria. Whereupon, the Church hath this heavenly Song: Oh sacred banquet, in which Christ is received, and the memory of his Passion recollected; by which our minds are filled with grace, receiving a blessed pledge of future glory!  
Hugo de Sancta Victoria part. 1. cap. 1. Sacramentum è materiale elementum foris sensibus praepositum, ex similitudine representans, ex institutione significans, ex sanctificatione continens, aliquam invisibilem & spiritualem gratiam.  
And herewith agreeth S. Austin, saying, Sacramentum signum est, quod praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus facit quicquid in cognitionem venire.  
The Council of florence treating upon the Sacrament of Confirmation, have resolved that all Sacraments must consist of matter and form: there must be an outward sign, to signify the inward grace. Wherefore I wonder that the Papists can for shame deny that the matter of bread and wine should remain in the Eucharist: for, by this means they deny it to be a Sacrament, destroying the end of Christ's holy institution; which was, That it should be had in remembrance of him. And they generally gainsay the public profession of their Church, by the contradictory practices in private and particular Masses and Altar-Sacrifices. And they likewise go against Christ, who says, This bread is my body: He did not say. This is no bread, but my body. And certainly, if Christ would have had us to think the substance of the elements were changed, he would not have called them bread, and the fruit of the vine. Nay, he would not, when he explained the words of giving his flesh to eat, and his blood to drink, have said, his words were spirit and life. And S. Paul therefore to witness this truth with the Church of England, says, The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? He thereby explaining Christ's saying, Hoc est corpus meum, to be meant of a spiritual eating, and of a communion of his body we being hereby made one with Christ; he dwelling in us, and we in him.  
Besides, when Christ bade them drink all of the Cup, it was wine he bade them drink: for the words of consecration follow. And therefore, if the Apostles drank any thing else, they did not fulfil the precept; or else Christ commanded them to drink that that was not there; which were impious to imagine. And as for the bread, it is called bread after consecration: for S. Paul calls bread the communion of Christ's body; which must needs be understood of bread consecrate, otherwise it is not the communion of his body. So that it is evident, that the elements of bread and wine remain in the Sacrament, and are not materially changed. And this the Monks which administered to King John of England, and to Henry the seventh the Emperor, knew well enough: which Princes, the better to further the holy designs of the Pope, were dispatched hence out of this world by the poisoned elements of the Eucharist; which elements Christ ordained Sacramentally to be received, for our nourishment; thereby signifying our communion with Christ, by the bread and wine, made of many ears and many grapes; and our growing up by faith in Jesus: even as those elements turn into our flesh and blood by natural digestion, so Christ is spiritually conveyed unto our souls, which are fed by his flesh and blood, which every faithful and worthy receiver is, by the receiving of this Sacrament, made partaker of.  
The Doctor would persuade us, fol. 327. that if, by denying the bodily presence, we mean only not with accidents of his body, as quantity, figure, and the like; and that Christ is ●ot so bodily in the Sacrament, but spiritually; Then we agree with the Catholics. But then in the same leaf ●e would again persuade us that Christ cannot be really there unless his body be there; and that it must be as well corporally as spiritually there, or else we deny Christ's being there.  
To which I answer, 
The error of Transubstantiation.  We by maintaining a spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood, do not divide the spirit from the body, as the Church of Rome doth, by maintaining a bodily presence; because, according to their doctrine, the wicked receive the body, and not the Spirit, as I have already proved: we by taking the bread and wine, which tend to the nourishment of our outward bodies, the thing signified by them, to wit, Christ Jesus, is hereby conveyed unto us, to be the food of our souls, and becomes spirit and life to us; he living in us, and we in him: and this is only to the worthy receiver, who by faith feeds upon him, and lays hold of the benefits of his Passion: The ungodly, they only receive the bread & wine, not discerning the Lords body. And if the Church of Rome mean that his body is significantly there present, than they agree with us: but if really in the bread, than we do not concur in opinion with them, for the reasons afore in pair rehearsed, and for other reasons hereafter following.  
I might instance many particular reasons against this Romish error of Transubstantiation; as that,  
1. Nothing was broken, eaten, drunken, and chawed, but the accidents of the body, (because they deny the bread and wine to be the visible elements) which is against Reason, and all authority: or else if they will have a body there, That it is without accidents; and so they must either make accidents without substances, or substances without accidents.  
2. When the bread mouldeth, and turneth into worms; or the wine soureth, or turneth into vinegar; it is the bread mouldeth, and the wine that soureth: Christ is the same yesterday, to day, and for ever: Therefore are the bread and wine substantially there: and if they were but accidents, than no body could be made thereof, as worms, or material vinegar.  
3. Let a dog, or cat, etc. eat of that bread, and he is nourished thereby: which could not be, if the substance remained not.  
4. The Scripture calleth them bread and wine, after consecration; which are names of substance, not of accidents; which if substance remained not, it were a mere illusion of our senses; and so we with the Jews make Christ a Juggler, making things appear to our outward senses, which are not.  
5. The Sacrament had a beginning, and hath an end put to it: it is to be received in remembrance of Christ's death, till he come, and then to cease. Wherefore there can be no real transubstantiated presence of Christ: for he is from eternity to eternity.  
6. If there be a transubstantiated body of Christ, then is Christ every day new made; and as many Wafers, as many Christ's: which is impossible for his substantial body to be in several places either in the several Wafers or the several places of consecration at one and the same instant of time.  
7. This doctrine doth impugn the consent of the ancient Catholic Church, which de fide professeth and believeth Christ to be made of the nature and substance of his blessed mother, and therefore not every day to be made anew of the substance of bread and wine: for if it were so, than the same body that was crucified, is not eaten; or else, that body which was crucified, was made of bread and wine: which is flat blasphemy against the holy Ghost, by whose operation Christ was made and born of the flesh of his mother, and suffered upon the Cross for the salvation of all believers. Which Christ is no otherwise joined to the elements in this Sacrament, but Sacramentally, as the holy Ghost in Baptism is joined to the water; not that the holy Spirit is made of the substance of the water, or the water turned into the holy Ghost.  
8. It is against the express Scripture, and Symbol of Faith grounded upon that Scripture; which teaches that Christ, concerning his body and humane nature, is in heaven. We believe that he was conceived of the holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead & buried; that he descended into hell; the third day he risen again from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father; from whence he shall come to judge both quick and dead. Christ said to his disciples, I leave the world, Joh. 16. and Mat. 26. Ye shall ever have poor folks with you, but me ye shall not have always. Mark 16. He was taken up into heaven, and sits at the right hand of his Father, Col. 1.3. Heb. 8. and Heb. 10. He sits continually at the right hand of God. And Saint Peter, Act. 3. faith, that the heavens shall contain him until the time that all things shall be restored. And Christ himself gave warning of this error aforehand, in Matth. 24. saying, The time will come, when there shall be many deceivers in the world, which shall say, Here is Christ, and there is Christ, but believe them not.  
Thus the whole current of the Scripture makes against this Romish error of Transubstantiation.  
And because the Papists may not object against us, that it is a novel interpretation, or our misunderstanding of Scripture in this point; I will make it manifest, that the Primitive Church never taught this doctrine of Transubstantiation, but were utterly against it, as may appear by the testimony of these ancient Fathers.  
Origen upon Matthew, Tract. 33. 
The Fathers against Transubstantiation.  saith, Christ hath two natures, God and Man: as God, he is with us always, unto the end of the world; as man, he is not: He is gone hence and absent in his Humanity, but is always present in his Divinity.  
S. Austin, in his Epist. 55. ad Dardanium: Christ, as concerning his Manhood, is now there, from whence he shall come to judge both quick and dead: and as he ascended, so shall he come, in the selfsame form and substance to the which he gave immortality, but thereby did not change the nature. Now, saith he, after this form, we must not say that he is everywhere: for we must take heed, saith he, that we do not so establish his Divinity, that we take away the verity of his body.  
Cyril upon S. John, lib. 6. cap. 14. Christ took away from hence the presence of his body; but, in the majesty of his Godhead, he is everywhere: he, according to his promise, is with his disciples, even unto the end of the world.  
S. Ambrose upon Luke, lib. 10. cap. 24. We must not seek Christ upon earth, but in heaven, where he sits at the right hand of God.  
And S. Gregory in Hom. Pasch. saith, Christ is not here in the presence of his flesh; and yet, as he is God, he is absent nowhere by the presence of his majesty; all unanimously and Apostolic being of one consent in this, that Christ, as touching his humanity, is only in heaven, at the right hand of God. And particularly, these Father's following are absolutely against this very point of Transubstantiation.  
Justinus, 
The Fathers against Transubstantiation.  an ancient Writer, and holy Martyr, who wrote about an hundred years after Christ, in his second Apology, saith, that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are not to be taken as other meats and drinks be; they being purposely ordained to give thanks to God in, and therefore be called Eucharistia, and be called the body and blood of Christ; and yet the same meat and drink be changed into our flesh and blood, and nourish our bodies. By which it is plain, that the substance of the elements remain, because, saith he, they are changed into flesh and blood, and nourish our bodies.  
Irenaeus contr. Valent. lib. 1. c. 4. who wrote about 150 years after Christ, and was a disciple of Polycarpus, who was a disciple of John the Evangelist, says, The bread wherein we give thanks to God, hath two things in it; one earthly, another heavenly: by the heavenly, understanding the sanctification which cometh by the invocation of the name of God; and by the earthly, the substance of bread which doth nourish our bodies.  
Shortly after Irenaeus, was Origen, about 200 years after Christ, who affirms, in Matth. cap. 15. that the material bread remains, whose matter availeth nothing but goeth down into the belly, and is voided downward: but the Word spoke upon the bread, is it that availeth.  
Eusebius Emissaenus, who wrote about 300 years after Christ, de consecrat. didst 2. says, that outwardly was nothing changed; all the change was inwardly. As man made new in Baptism, doth visibly remain in the same measure receiving a new inward, without making any change in the outward man, not seen, not felt, but believed: so likewise, when thou dost go up to the altar, to receive the spiritual meat in thy faith, look upon the body and blood of Christ, and feed upon him with thy inward man. By which it is plain, that it is only a spiritual change by faith, not an outward and corporal change.  
Epiphanius contra Haereses, lib. 3. tom. 2. The bread, saith he, is meat; but the virtue that is in it, giveth life.  
chrysostom, who wrote about 420 years after Christ, ad Caesarium Monachum: The bread, saith he, before it is consecrate, is called bread; but after it is consecrate, it is delivered from the name of bread, and exalted to the name of the Lords body, although the nature of the bread doth still remain.  
S. Austin, who lived about the same time, in Sermone ad Infants: That which you see on the Altar, is the bread; and the cup which your eyes show you, is the wine: but faith showeth you that that bread is the body, and that cup the blood of Christ.  
Gelasius Bishop of Rome, contra Eutichem & Nestorium, proving the Godhead and Humanity of Christ, he enforceth it with two reasons; the one drawn from the example of Man, who, being but one, is made of two parts, and hath two natures, the Body, and the Soul: the other drawn from the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ; which, saith he, is a godly thing, and yet the nature of the bread and wine do not cease to be there still.  
This was the opinion of the Fathers of those days; and thus, 
Transubstantiation is a new doctrine.  and no otherwise, held the Church of Rome, for a thousand years after Christ; there being never so much as question made about this point, for a thousand years complete; (the time of Satan's being let at large, Apoc. 20.) at which time, by reason of some pretended miracles, this doctrine was by the private opinion of some men set abroach: which being once published, (it being the nature of evil weeds to spread and grow fast, if once they get rooting in any garden) it presently got abettors and champions to justify it against all opposers; some out of curiosity of Wit striving to blind Truth with subtle reasons; others, out of dulness of apprehension, (God having withdrawn his Spirit from them) were given up to this delusion: so that in 60 years, this new bantling wanted not foster-fathers' to nourish it up to a greater and fuller growth.  
A mongst the rest, one Paschasius was one that first publicly maintained it; and after him, the Popes inclined to this opinion; insomuch that Berengarius a Frenchman, and  of Anjou, opposing this Heresy, was himself censured of, that he urged against the then Pope of Rome; and was the first that ever was questioned for maintaining against this doctrine of Transubstantiation: and the Pope adhering to the adverse party, which was for Transubstantiation, Berengarius was forced to recant, the Council of Vorcellense, held 1051. swaying against him: which opinion of his he again resumed, and did recognize the Truth again, after that the then-Pope was dead; which when Pope Nicolas 2. heard of, he sent his busy agent, and Cardinal-Chaplain, Hildebrand, into France, to bring Berengerius under coram nobis: who being sore troubled and molested, and seeing by the faction of the Pope and Hildebrand, that the current was against him, through the treachery of a base timorous nature, he suffered his noble parts, his intellects, to be clouded with the mists of the times error, and tamely did recant his former tenants, and did therefore take an Oath never to oppose that doctrine of his Holiliness in this point of Transubstantiation. And thus this doctrine began. And although Pope Nicolas did avouch this doctrine in a Council at Lateran, held anno 1059. 
Ante, chap. 14.  and there framed the term of Transubstantiation; yet, notwithstanding this pretty Papal babe of Heresy was Christened and put forth to nurse, yet nevertheless it grew not to be free, and to bear rule, till 1215. when Pope Innocent the third manumitted the stripling, and, by another Lateran-Councel, did decree this doctrine as a point of Catholic Faith, enjoining all to the obedience thereof upon pain of Hetesie.  
Johannes Scotus, who was called Duns, lib. 4. writing of this matter, saith, that the words of the Scripture might be expounded more easily and plainly, without Transubstantiation: but it pleased the Church to choose this sense which is more hard, being moved thereunto, most chief, because that of the Sacraments men ought to hold as the holy Church of Rome doth hold.  
Which kind of blind obedience, 
Blind obedience.  makes the Popish Religion in no better condition than the State of Athens was whilst it was governed by the arbitrary power of a standing Legislative Council, which daily gave new Laws unto the people; so that the people could not, by any known Rule, say their clothes were their own; all the Law by which they derived any property being under an arbitrary power; insomuch that as they were not secure by walking after any known Law, so neither was it safe for them to rely upon such new Laws as the Council itself proposed; the Council altering every day her own Laws, as time administered occasion for self-advantage: so that Athens was in a miserable condition, during this slavery of her Legislative power, not dissolvable by any Authority; the people not having liberty to dissolve it, and to call, as occasion shall require, a Council to redress grievances, and not otherwise to continue, but to be dissolved, that so in the intervals they might know what Law stood good and unalterable amongst them.  
Even so stands the Religion of the Papists: Now that the Pope is declared above Counsels, and that he may continually prescribe Rules of Faith, by virtue thereof, their Religion is a mere nose of wax, alterable at his will and pleasure; who has a faithful tribe of Ignations, which will blandish his new doctrines, and make the people believe they are but growings in faith, whenas they are diametrically opposite to the Catholic Faith of the Primitive Church: but if it stand for conveniency or advantage to the Pope and his creatures, it must be believed as a matter of faith, and that upon pain of damnation; as witness this novel point, and some others which are of later times crept into that Church.  
And when any thing of Papal will and interest must be held forth to the other Churches, then is the Lateran at Rome pitched upon, 
Ante, chap. 14.  as I have formerly said, as the only convenient place to have the matter debated, it being there likely to receive the least opposition, by reason his Holiness is at hand, to take notice of his enemies, and to punish them; and to flatter and promote such as stand for his Papal pleasure.  
In this Council of Lateran, 
The Council of Lateran, chap. 17.  likewise, was hatched that other Cockatrice, that strange brazenfaced and staring opinion of deposing Kings; from which root of bitterness springs many tart branches of dangerous and poysonful Errors; the nauseating juice of whose sour grapes being given to some other Churches to drink, it hath intoxicated them, making their Vertigious heads turn after the Lateran Weathercock, and, in their brainsick fit, conceit that her high-reared Spire is the only supporter of the heavenly Pole: whilst the sober and discreet Christian knows, that her proud top being exalted to that height, is but so much the nearer the pattern of Babel's Tower.  
And whilst they think she is dignified before others, her head being lifted above them; others know she hath not whereof to boast, unless in this, That she has the upper room in Satan 's airy principality; which how much the higher she is lifted, she is but thereby rendered more subject to be muffled with the black contractions of the Devil's Cimmerian clouds of Errors. And though the top thereof be forged out of that material Sword (as is by the Romish Legends maintained) which cut off Saint John Baptist's head, it should not therefore arrogate to be the only decolling instrument of Principality and Temporal power. But I return to the subject matter of this Chapter.  
That I may the further lay open the errors of the Church of Rome in this particular, 
Miracles the cause of Transubstantiation.  and that the Papists shall not have whereof to boast, in that I said they were induced by Miracles to maintain this doctrine, should I pass those Miracles by in silence; I will let the Reader know what they were.  
It is reported that a Bishop of Canterbury, about the time of this change, did show unto some, for their conversion, the Host turned into flesh, and blood in outward appearance dropping into the Chalice; and that thereupon they believed Transubstantiation.  
Another is reported by Paschasius of one Plegildus a Priest of Almain, who did see and handle visibly the shape of a child upon the Altar; and after it turned into bread, and he was to receive it.  
Another is reported of a Jew-boy, who coming into the Church with another boy which was a Christian, he saw upon the Altar a little child torn in pieces, and afterwards by portions distributed: which he reporting was condemned to be burned; but was after rescued from the flame by the Christians.  
These Miracles were the only arguments used against Berengarius, and the convincing persuasions of the facile consciences of those days: which how it stands with the doctrine of Christ. Joh. 6.63. the practice of the Apostles, the profession of the Primitive times, and the faith and doctrine of the ancient Fathers, let any judge. S. Paul says, 1 Cor. 11. That which he had received of the Lord Jesus, that he delivered; That as often as they did eat the bread, and drink the cup, they shown the Lords death till he came. Saint Paul calls it bread, and the Evangelist wine, and that after consecration: and the Fathers of the Church taught that doctrine with them: and Christ himself calls them bread, and fruit of the vine; and S. Paul, The communion of the body. And this being the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, though an Angel from heaven should come and teach any other doctrine, let him be accursed, Gal. 1.  
Wherefore, these miraculous apparitions were no ground for Rome to change her faith in this point. If these stories be true, they ought to be considered as extraordinary apparitions, like the light from heaven which shone about S. Paul. These external miraculous apparitions, were but to persuade the consciences of Infidels and Heathens to turn to the faith of Christ, and to be persuaded of the truth of that Sacrament; and not to make the true and already-grounded Christians to change the nature of their faith, which is the ground of things hoped for, and the evidence of things which are not seen, Heb. 11.1. This was to persuade the misbelieving Jew of Christ, and of the truth of this blessed Sacrament, whereby he was to be made partaker of the benefits of his precious death and passion; not to teach the Christian any new doctrine concerning the same. These miracles should rather confirm him in his faith received, that it was a spiritual banquet; in respect that after the apparition (as the story runs) at the receiving, that which was received was become bread again; and not to ensnare him into this novel error which was contrary to Christ's doctrine, the Apostles preaching, and the practice of the Primitive Church.  
But I will no longer insist upon this point. I submit to any good Christian, whether it be safer to follow Christ's explanation of this mystery to be spiritual, (with which S. Paul and the ancient Fathers do concur) then to humour the times, and to be observant to the late Popes; which, about the time of this change, were grown great, and since have, by cunning practices, enlarged that power; insomuch that now they are declared above Counsels; and whatsoever they propound, must the fide be received, upon the score of their infallibility, be it never so contrary to the truth of God's Word. And they by this doctrine receiving advantage by their Altar-Sacrifices, will not easily be induced to renounce the error thereof: and though never so palpably against the Truth of God, yet the Jesuits will maintain it for their Master's advantage; this doctrine tending more to his avail, than any good to the souls of his flock. Wherefore, the Church of England having a right to reform errors in her own Province, has chosen to cast off this blind tenant of the Pope and his Parasites: and she having the warrant of Christ, the rules of the Apostles, the practice of the Primitive Church, and the consent of the ancient Fathers, for her doctrine in this point, hath therefore made choice with them, in unity of Spirit, firmly to hold and maintain that Christ in his humanity is not really and corporally in the Sacrament, but figuratively in the outward elements being thereby signified; and is spiritually eaten and drunken of the worthy receiver.   

CHAP. XVI. Against Communion in one kind.  
That the Church of Rome's withholding the Cup from the Laity is a novelty, against Christ's precept, and the ancient practice of the Church. That the Sacrifice upon the Altar is superstitious: and, The authority of the Church no excuse to change the administration of the Lords Supper into one kind.  
THe Church of Rome having thus gained a general consent (though at first forced upon many, by the power and domineering of the Popes) to her doctrine of Transubstantiation; she stuck not long in this station, but, partly to make good what she had introduced into the Church, and partly to show to the world the divine Legislative power of her Head, she soared a pitch higher: & whereas before this she but maintained an opinion (which but to some weak capacities did convince, all not being satisfied with the sincerity of her doctrine) concerning the nature and quality of this Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which Christ himself instituted, and by his last Will and Testament left it as a Legacy to his faithful servants; her Popes now take upon them (after their former opinion was confirmed by Council, and generally received and believed as an Article of Faith) to dispense with that Sacrament of Christ Jesus, and have in stead thereof instituted one of their own making; administering in one kind, and denying the Cup to the Lay-people: which is a novel trick of Papal invention, and never practised in the Churches upon earth, till they forced it upon some over which the Popes did without control rule at will and pleasure.  
Christ Jesus did institute this Sacrament in both kinds. Paul enjoins both; the whole Church did administer in both; and the Fathers teach, that as well the wine, as the bread, is to be received; and did think wine so necessary, that it could not be administered in water, much less in the cake alone, in which there is no liquid element to represent the shedding of Christ's blood; for which end it was ordained.  
Cyprian, who wrote 260 years after Christ, in his 3 Epist. ad Cecilium, lib. 2. Forasmuch (saith he) as Christ said, I am the true vine, and the Cup is his blood; it cannot be thought that his blood is in the cup, if wine be not in the cup, whereby the blood is signified unto us.  
Chrysost. in Matth. cap. 26. Hom. 83. Christ used wine as well before his Resurrection, as after.  
S. Hierome in Sophon. cap. 3. doth witness that in his time the Priest did administer the Eucharist, and divide the blood unto the people.  
In the Canon of Pope Gelasius, and in the Pope's Decrees the Consecrat▪ a strict Injunction is laid, that all receive in both kinds, for that the dividing of that Sacrament is sacrilege.  
I need not instance in this any more particulars, in respect that none can deny but that anciently it was in both kinds administered. I will therefore examine the reasons the Church of Rome gives for her alteration from this ancient way, and for administering in one kind; and in so doing, I shall plainly lay open her errors in this point.  
The Council of Constance held 1414. 
Council of Constance.  Ses. 13. decreed Quod nullus Presbyter, sub conditione excommunicationis, communicet populo sub utroque specie Panis & Vini. Which notwithstanding, the Council of Basil did after restore to the people again, Anno 1431. So that in this new doctrine of hers, Rome has met with much controversy even in herself. Gelasius the Pope decreeing it to be sacrilegious to omit either kind; by which it is evident, that the Church of Rome has erred the fide: For Gelasius taught that judicially as Pope, and the Council of Constance was approved by Pope John 23. and this Council of Basil by Eugenius the 4. Which proceed wound the infallibility of the Church of Rome, and spoils her unity; one Pope being against another, and one Council against another: To decide which strive, the late Prerogative Royal of the Pope's being above Counsels was therefore decreed; which notwithstanding by that means the Church of Rome is made infallible, yet it spoils her of her marks of antiquity and constant visibility, and therefore absolutely spoils her for being taken to be the only Catholic Church; for if so, than the Catholic Church was once utterly extinguished from off the earth; which is against God's promise, and impious to imagine.  
The Pope being thus grown above Counsels, he now (as he pleases) declares this Council void, the other to be of force; and by virtue of this his Prerogative, he has approved the Council of Constance, and yet but in part, for he only takes as much out of that Council as makes for his turn; he only confirms their Decree prohibiting the Cup to the Laity; but their other Decree of the power of Counsels to be above the Pope, that's abominable; and his Holiness commands that Decree to, be believed to be Heretical. By this is to be noted, that the Popish Religion is a nose of wax, as pleaseth his Holiness to set it forth: it must be received upon the score of his infallibility: though it be never so destructive to former Christian principles, to the ruin of Counsels, and overthrowing of the true ancient Catholic Faith; yet such is the condition of the Pope, that his will can guide him into no tenant, (though never so contrary to truth) but his faithful Papal servants the Jesuits will dawb over his rotten Doctrine with the smooth plasters of humane reason, and think with subtle Sophistry to beguile the simple; the deluding of whom, doth not in their uneven hands counterpoise the pleasing of their Master the Pope; and therefore did they strive to varnish over this new point of Communion in one kind, with some counterfeit Paint: Will you please to take a view thereof, and I hope I shall so far convince their reasons, that the case will merely stand upon the Pope's will; and if so, I presume none will be so irreverent to their Master Christ, to forsake his institution, and to adhere to the Pope's institution, lest they may be said with the Jews to reject Christ, and choose Barrabas.  
The Doctor would persuade that it was no precept to receive in both kinds; but only being of institution, and not precept, the Church has power to alter it as occasion may serve.  
To which I answer: 
2. It was christs precept to receive in both kinds.  It was enjoined us by way of command, to receive in both kinds: for Christ, in the 6 of John, v. 53▪ says, Except ye eat the flesh, 〈◊〉 ●rink the blood of the Son of man, ye have no life in you: Christ took the Bread and said, Take, eat: And also he took the Cup and said, Drink ye all of it, Matth. 26. This is an absolute precept as well for the Cup as the Bread; and Saint Paul delivered it so to the Corinthians, according as he had received of the Lord; he likewise enjoining it to them as a precept probet seipsum, let a man examine himself, let him eat, let him drink; the Commandment extending to the one as well as to the other; which Commandment is drawn from the example of Christ's precept, who himself gave the Cup as well as the Bread, and bade them drink as well as eat, the one being the outward element to signify his flesh, the other his blood; and Christ having said, Unless ye eat the flesh, and drink the blood, ye have no life in you; it follows of necessity, and in obedience to the precept, that both be given, that both be received. Wherefore the Doctor might well have spared his twit against the Protestants▪ who do not by that place of John▪ ●●derstand bare faith, as he saith, without the outward elements, fol. 340. but they do thereby understand the holy Sacrament of Christ's body and blood; which by the receiving of those outward elements, (according to Christ's institution and the operation of faith) is conveyed to the spiritual nourishment of the soul. Such weak objections as these against the Protestants, gives occasion to the world to suspect the Doctor did not understand the Protestant Religion, and that his going to the Romish Church, proceeded of ignorance; and if so, he is less to be blamed for choosing Rome for his Mother Church; for unless she reform, he may (according to such humour) be shadowed under her wing, and spend the rest of his days in blind obedience, and make his own ignorance mother of his devotion.  
The Doctor would persuade that these words import no precept, because in respect Christ intended to enjoin no more but the substance, to wit, really to receive his body and blood; which (says he, fol. 341.) may be done under one kind.  
'Tis a strange presumption to argue this against the express words of Christ and Saint Paul. Do this, drink of this: Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood &c: Which certainly they would never have practised according to these words, had it been needless to receive the Cup as well as the Bread, whenas they are thereby made all to drink into one Spirit, 1 Cor. 12.13.  
Plutarch reports that Pericles had such skill in wrestling, that though he received a fall, he would persuade the standers by and the wrestler that cast him, that he himself was the Conqueror: and such art doth the Doctor use in denying this to be a precept; and yet beside the overthrows that Christ and Saint Paul have given him, he has crossed legs with himself, and given himself the fall. So fol. 338. he says, the Priests receive in both kinds, because they offer a sacrifice upon the Cross, which (says he) is not perfect without that: and if that be not a perfect sacrifice of Christ that suffered without the Cup, I desire to know how it came to pass to be a perfect Transubstantion of perfect Christ in the Cake, only to the people, and not to the Priest; unless he will confess the people receive nor the same body the Priest doth offer, I for my part know not how this should be, and desire to be better informed herein, otherwise to persist to maintain the Cup to be necessarily given to the people.  
We do not (when we receive his flesh by the Bread, and his blood by the Wine) receive dead Christ (as the Doctor would infer, fol. 342.) because we separate the blood from the flesh: for this were to tax Christ of giving, and the Apostles of receiving dead Christ, which is gross and impious: Besides, he himself has answered himself as to that objection, fol. 338. for (saith he) the Priest receiving under both, doth not receive two Sacraments, because the Sacrament is essentially and entirely contained under either kind; and being received both at once, they make but one refection, signifying one thing, and producing one effect; no more (saith he) then 6 or 7 dishes of meat make but one dinner. Now as the Priest doth not divide the flesh and blood, and receive two Sacraments, no more do we; and if the Doctor would have advisedly considered with himself, when he taxed us in this, he might easily have perceived that he did through our sides wound Christ and his Apostles, nay the Church of Rome itself, for that she administered, and her people received in both kinds, and after the same manner; and unless he can show stronger reasons than these for her change, the Church of England desires her not to censure too severely of her, for not conforming with her; for that she is not easily induced to forsake the practice of Christ and his Apostles, and for that the Sacrament is to be administered in remembrance of Christ, she conceives we ought not to forget the manner of Christ's institution, were there no precept for it; but especially sigh we are enjoined so to do, we desire to drink the blood, and to eat the flesh, that we may have eternal life thereby.  
We must drink his blood, 
Eating and drinking.  as well as eat his flesh; and although as the Doctor affirms, (admitting Transubstantiation) we may be said to drink that that is drinkable, and eat that that is eatable, yet we are to remember the end for which we are commanded to drink that blood, which is, in remembrance that Christ's blood was shed; This Cup is my blood in the new Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins, Matth. 26.28. And Saint Paul witnessing, that it was Christ's will it should be drunk in remembrance thereof, 1 Cor. 11. which cannot be properly signified in the Cake, there being no outward Element to represent the shedding of Christr blood, and precious price of our redemption, and for which end this Sacrament was ordained. Besides, Christ calls himself the Vine as well as the Bread, and we hereby become Branches, lively, growing, and budding upon our everliving Root Christ Jesus; whose holy institution whilst we follow, and reject any other rule of humane institution, we may truly say, We bear not the Root, but the Root beareth us, Rom. 11.18.  
The Doctor, 
3. And taken for or by the Doctor's construction.  to avoid the precept of Christ in relation to the Cup takes upon him to construe and for or, Joh. 6.53. Except ye eat the flesh, and drink the blood, (he reads it, or drink the blood) ye have no life in you: And this he would have done, for avoiding of contradiction; because that in the same Chapter, eternal life is promised to them that eat only.  
To which I answer: The Bread is not Sacramentally so often in Scripture mentioned alone, as it is with the Cup jointly; wherefore if avoiding contradiction be the reason, then must we not admit or for and in that of John and 1 Cor. 11.27. For if so, than we contradict 1 Cor. 10. Our Fathers did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink, (Saint Cyprian, lib. 2. Epist. 3. says this was prefigured by the bread and wine which Melchizedek gave to Abraham, Gen. 14.) and likewise that text of the 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat and drink etc. And we further do hereby contradict all the Evangelists, who witness with one consent, that Christ took the Bread, and also (or after the same manner) he took the Cup; we must not say that he took the Bread or the Cup: for so we destroy the Sacrament, as being of incertainty, and having no certain ground either for its institution, or the precept for the administering thereof. Wherefore for the Doctor here to construe and, or, is to multiply contradictions, and so his reason is become invalid, in respect that the general scope of the Scripture is, that this Sacrament is to be administered under both kinds; therefore it is more safe to construe those few places where Sacramental Bread alone is mentioned without the Cup, to be understood of the whole Sacrament, rather than in many places to wrest and into or: For the mentioning of Bread only, doth not exclude the Cup negatively, but rather (according to Cyprians speech) by the naming of part of the action, the whole is to be understood; and herewith agreeth Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 10.17. And we that are many, are one bread, and one body, because we are all partakers of one bread. We must not think, that because here Saint Paul names bread only, that therefore the Corinthians did not communicate in the cup; for that is against the precedent verse, where he says, The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Besides, in the ensuing Chapter he enjoins both to be received, and that to the people; so that where the breaking of Sacramental bread is only mentioned, we are not thereby to exclude the cup; for the Hebrew phrase is (under the breaking of bread) to signify the whole feast; as in the Prophet Esay, Frangere esurientis panem, is as well to give drink as bread.  
Besides, should we admit of any other construction, as that when bread is mentioned alone, thereby to understand communion in one kind, we should in that change Saint Luke in Act. 2. to teach contrary to the practice of Christ, and the rest of the Apostles, which did both receive and deliver to the people under both kinds; which were an impious and presumptuous charge. Wherefore let the Church of Rome for shame confess her errors herein, and let her not longer wrest, mangle, and misconstrue Scripture contrary to Christ's rules herein, contrary to the sense of the Primitive Church, and contrary to the judgement and practice of the ancient Fathers, and her own ancient Bishops; and that but for self-interest, to maintain a new doctrine of her own framing, taken up upon a light score, and never heard of or believed in the Church for a thousand years after Christ; and let her confess the truth with us herein, by which means she shall neither alter the sense, nor wrest any particular word, to maintain her doctrine herein: and if she will not for unity sake, and for communion with us, yet for avoiding an absurdity against her own principles, let her never construe that place of Luke to signify an entire Sacrament; for than she makes the whole Sacrament only breaking of bread, and destroys Transubstantiation.  
As for the Doctor, if he be not herewith satisfied, but that he will persist notwithstanding, that it must be understood of communion in one kind; and furthermore, to maintain that opinion, will here construe and for or, I must tell him, that he has hereby wiped off one error which he elsewhere, fol. 337. taxed our Translators with, 1 Cor. 11.27. which if it be mis-translated, it makes nothing for communion in one kind; but whether we receive the one or the other, that we should take heed to receive with due reverence so Heavenly a banquet: and it doth further illustrate to us, that though we receive the bread worthily, yet if we receive the cup unworthily, we are guilty of the body and blood; which is an argument (and indeed an absolute proof) that they both make but a perfect Sacrament of the body and blood; therefore I incline to think with the Doctor, that it is a corruption in our printed Bibles, rendering and for or; I find it various from the old copies: and I will not presume upon the Doctor's rule to justify it: however, it is something excusable, for that in the very same Chapter, 26, 28, and 29. verses, eating the bread, and drinking the cup is expressed, and not eating the bread, or drinking the cup; which upon the Doctor's rule (for avoiding contradiction) should be construed or: but whether it be taken or, or and, yet notwithstanding it makes nothing for the Popish communion in one kind.  
The Doctor lays down for the Priests receiving in both kinds, 
Of the sacrifice offered upon the Altar by the Priest.  because he offers up a sacrifice; I will therefore a little consider of that: I hope I shall give satisfaction to any reasonable soul, that the Priest and the people offer up one and the same sacrifice; and if so, then by the Doctor's rule, they are to receive in both kinds; because (saith he) Christ's sacrifice upon the Cross is not perfectly represented but by both kinds, as it was prefigured in Melchizedek's sacrifice of bread and wine.  
For the better explaining of this point, it is to be understood, that there are two kinds of sacrifices; one is a perpetual sacrifice, pacifying God's wrath, whereby mercy and forgiveness of sins is obtained; which is only the death of Christ, prefigured by the sacrifices under the Law. The other is a sacrifice of laud and thanksgiving, which doth not reconcile us unto God, but is offered up of such as be already reconciled unto him, by faith in him, which is the reconciliation for our sins, even Christ Jesus. By the first, Christ offered us unto the Father; by the second, we offer ourselves and all that we have unto him and his Father; according as David says, Psal. 50. A sacrifice to God, is a contrite heart: and Hebr. 13. Always we offer up to God a sacrifice of laud and praise by Jesus Christ: and Saint Peter saith of all people, that they are A holy Priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.  
The Papists object that saying of Saint Paul. Heb. 9 Every Highpriest is ordained to offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins, To prove thereby their sacrifice of the Altar offered up in their Mass; which who please to read, may plainly discover, that that saying is meant of the Priests under the Law, who did offer Bullocks and Goats for the sins of the people; and therefore in the old Testament such sacrifices are sometimes called Propitiatory sacrifices, being indeed but shadows and types of Christ's sacrifice which was to come, which was the true and perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole world: wherefore in the very same Chapter S. Paul saith, it were impossible our sins should be taken away by the blood of Oxen and Goats, verse 1●. By his own blood entered he once into the Holy place, and obtained Eternal Redemption for us.  
Christ was such an Highpriest, that he once offering himself, by once effusion of his blood, did cleanse the sins of all that believe; he took unto himself, not only their sins which many years before were dead, and put their trust in him; but likewise the sins of those that (until his coming again) should believe in his Gospel; so that we look for no other Priest or sacrifice to take away our sins, but only his sacrifice made once for all. If he should have made any oblation for sin more than once, he should have died more than once; but he hath made a full and plenary oblation for sin by his death; by the will of God are we sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once made, Heb. 10.10. For with once offering, hath he consecrated for ever them that are sanctified. If Christ then have taken upon him the burden of our sins, and become a reconciliation not only for our sins, but the sins of the whole world; if he himself have made a full oblation for our sins, by the offering of his body once made how shall the Popish Priests be excused, who presume daily to persuade the people they offer in their Mass a Propitiatory sacrifice, and the same that was offered by Christ himself upon the Cross? Which if it be so, then may we say of them, that they crucify again the Lord of life; whereas the Scripture tells us plainly, he was not to be offered often, as the Highpriest offered every year, but only once did put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, Heb. 9.26. For as a man must once die, so Christ was once offered, to take away sins for many; and to them that look for him, shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation; for, Heb. 10. Every Priest appeareth daily ministering, and offereth ofttimes one manner of offering, which can never take away sins; but Christ (after he had offered one sacrifice for sins) for ever sitteth at the right hand of God.  
It is a rule in Logic, Dato uno absurdo, mille sequuntur; the Papists deduce this Doctrine from their other errors of Transubstantiation, and so they proceed from iniquity to iniquity: they hereby, when they have made the people believe their transubstantiated god, that now they may as well rob God of his office, and their Priest may make a Propitiatory sacrifice upon the Altar for the sins of the people, which S. Paul saith was only proper to Christ himself; He himself entered into the holy place by his own blood: It was the office of himself, to offer himself the satisfactory oblation for our sins by the will of the Father, he being the Highpriest of good things to come, having an everlasting Priesthood, being holy, harmless, separate from sin, made higher than the heavens, which needed not daily to offer up sacrifice, as the other Highpriest did, first for his own sins, and then for the peoples; for that did he once, when he offered himself up once for all.  
Moreover, when the Popish Priests take upon them to offer up satisfactory sacrifice at their Altar, it must either be understood such a sacrifice as the Priest under the Law offered, which were but typical of the Messiah, and so they become Jews, denying Christ to be already come, or else if they think they offer Christ upon the Altar for quick and dead, and make the same oblation which Christ made upon the Cross, they do hereby either deny the sufficiency of Christ's oblation, as if his offering once for all, did not satisfy without their daily offering and crucify again the Lord of life; or else, if that sacrifice of Christ was sufficient, they must needs confess that this of theirs is vain and needless, being added to the sacrifice which is already sufficient and perfect; or if this of theirs be requisite, they make the death of Christ of none effect, or in vain, because this their offering is satisfactory for the sins of the people.  
This doctrine is very well known to have sprung up of lucre, the Priests by this doctrine finding a means to sell Masses for the quick, and promising, for and in consideration of such and such Legacies, to say so many Masses for the dead, whereby they should be released from pains in Purgatory; and finding the sweet benefit that doth arise by this doctrine to the Priests and to his Holiness, by this doctrine and the other of Indulgences, they bend all their wits, and wholly apply themselves to darken the truth, with the mists of subrile sophistry and fleshly interpretations of the word, to gain grateful and liberal Proselytes to this their new doctrine.  
I do not deny that this Sacrament is by some Fathers called a sacrifice; it is so properly called: but it must not be therefore understood to be a sacrifice for sin, only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; or else it is called a sacrifice, to put us in mind of the sacrifice which Christ himself hath made, and so is significantly a sacrifice, as the bread is called his body, and the cup his blood: And herewith agreeth Saint Austin in his 33. Eplstle to Boniface, and in his book de civitate Dei, lib. 10. cap. 5. That (saith he) which men call a sacrifice is a figure and representation of the true sacrifice. And Magist. Sentent. lib. 4. distic. 12. That which is offered and consecrated of the Priest, is called a sacrifice, because it is the memory or representation of the true sacrifice of Christ, and that holy oblation made in the Altar of the Cross. And chrysostom upon the Hebr. That which we offer, is but in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice: he himself in his own Person made a sacrifice for our sins upon the Cross, by whose wounds all our diseases are healed, all our sins pardoned, and so did never any man or creature but he; the benefit whereof, is in no man's power to give unto another, every man must receive it at Christ's hands, himself, by his own faith and belief: we are made one body, as many as are partakers of one bread. If then this be a representation of Christ's sacrifice, which sacrifice (by the Doctors own confession) is not perfect without the cup, then must the people either receive both kinds, or else they do not sufficiently commemorate Christ's sacrifice, which they ought to do, in respect the Priest doth not, nor can offer up a Propitiatory sacrifice for the Reason's aforesaid.  
As this Sacrament has the name of a sacrifice, it is to be understood significantly of Christ's sacrifice; or else as it is in itself a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving: if it be significantly a sacrifice, the people ought to be partakers of it as it is a perfect sacrifice in both kinds: and if it be a sacrifice of praise and laud unto the Lord, than the people (as well as the Priest) are required to, and concerned in that service, as it is made manifest in the ensuing Chapter: The humble confession of all penitent hearts, their acknowledging of Christ's benefits, their thanksgiving for the same, their faith and consolation in Christ, their humble submission to his will, is a sacrifice of laud and praise acceptable unto God, no less than the sacrifice of the Priest.  
Christ did not ordain this Sacrament, that any one might receive it for another; but that every one for himself is to be made partaker of this mystery of his salvation: For, as one may not be baptised for another (for the Godfathers answering for the child, say he hath faith, because he hath the Sacrament of faith by the outward element of water; which as it self cleanseth, so the child thereby is born again of water and of the Spirit to newness of life; 
Baptism.  the infant spiritually receiving regeneration by the outward element of the water, according to the effectual working of the holy Spirit, unto newness of life; the infant being thereby made a member of Christ, by faith in Jesus given unto him in that Sacrament of Baptism. So may not one receive this holy Sacrament for another: Let every man be baptised, Act. 2. here is spiritual regeneration to every man by himself. And Mat. 26. Christ said to the multitude, Take, and eat, and drink ye all of this: and here is spiritual growth and living in Christ every man by himself; and by this means, we that are many branches, become one Vine, being baptised into one Spirit, and all made to drink into one Spirit, 1 Cor. 12.13.  
Whereas the Doctor urges, that those words, Drink ye all of this, were spoken to the Apostles, and that therefore the cup is not to be given to the people; He might as well conclude they shall not have the bread, because Christ gave that to his Apostles: whereas all Divines agree, that what was spoken to them, was thereby meant of the whole Church upon earth, which are all the Saints of God upon earth & of particular Churches, whensoever assembled into a Society: which is manifest by S. Paul, who delivered to the Corinthians that which he had received formerly of the Lord Jesus, to wit, both the bread and the cup; enjoining every one to examine himself, and so let him eat, and so let him drink. By which it is plain, that it was to be delivered to the people in both kinds. And if one kind had been sufficiently significant of Christ's flesh and blood offered by himself upon the Cross for our redemption, sure Christ would never have added the cup as part of that Sacrament, thereby to signify his blood, if already it had been sufficiently signified in the bread. Wherefore, unless the Papists will charge Christ to be superfluous in his institution of this Sacrament, they must allow the cup unto the people, as well as bread; and both as well as one.  
Lastly, the Doctor would justify the change of the Church of Rome in this particular, upon the authority of the Church given by Christ to his Apostles so to do. And for this he urges S. Austin, who was dead five hundred and fifty years before ever this doctrine of Rome was heard of.  
S. Austin stood much for the significancy of the bread and wine, that this Sacrifice was but a representation of Christ's Sacrifice; and that which you see on the Altar (or Table) is the bread; and the cup which your eyes show you, is the wine: but, saith he, faith showeth that that bread is the body, and that cup is the blood of Jesus Christ. It was the practice of the Church in his time, to administer in both kinds: he, when he lived, taught the necessity of wine, against those that mingled water: and so did Cyprian, and others: and now that they are dead, the Doctor will have them teach another doctrine. S. Austin might say, that Christ left authority to his Apostles to make such appointments in what order this Sacrament should be received; as, whether sitting, kneeling, how often, or the like; but not that they should institute a new Sacrament: Christ gave both Elements, Saint Paul delivered both, according as he had received, and it was to be done in remembrance of Christ, and they were commanded to be imitators of him, Ephes. 5.1. Christ left this as a Legacy to his Church, and he made the Apostles Executors of this his last Will and Testament; which they were to discharge, by dispensing that Legacy to Christ's faithful Saints and People. Wherefore for them to withhold part of the thing bequeathed, to wit, the participation of the cup: which is by S. Paul called The Communion of his blood, is to forfeit that trust Christ has reposed in them, and to forget his precept he enjoined them, commanding to teach all Nations whatsoever he had commanded them.  
We are bound to hold fast the traditions we have learned. If then the Scripture tell us, that Christ with his Apostles did communicate in both kinds, and Saint Paul administering to the Corinthians, said, Traditi vobis quod accepi a Domini. how comes the Church of Rome to forsake this tradition which Christ himself taught and practised, and the Primitive Church for a thousand years held for faith? if it ought to be reduced to one kind, how came it to pass to be let alone so long? and by what Authority doth Rome claim this power? sigh the ancient Fathers and the Primitive Church, did not only use to administer to the people in both kinds, but maintained and defended the necessity of Bread and Wine, the outward elements of this Sacrament; as may appear by the Testimony of the  Fathers; and particularly it was the profession of the Church of Rome, as Gelasius Bishop thereof witnesseth.  
Shall but the Church of Rome prescribe any new rule of faith or manmers, and shall any disobey, he is straightways anathematised for casting off the Tradition of the Church: and the Catholic Church upon earth communicated in both k nds; and shall the late Popes of Rome alter this and escape the censures? Were there nothing for it but the bare usage of the Primitive Churches, it were enough to convince the Church of Rome; but whenas there is Christ's precept and institution for it, how doth the Church of Rome justly incur the condemnation of the Pharisees teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, and laying aside the commandments, of God, follow their own traditions? Mark 7. But such was the transcendent wickedness of the Church of Rome in these days, that scarce any Apostolic Rule but has suffered some alteration by his Holiness, and his Legislative conclave of Cardinals; who being soared to a height above Counsels, Princes, and all other Powers on earth, stick not to wrestle against these commandments of the God of Heaven; witness their additions to the Baptism, as if the Baptism wherewith Christ was Baptised▪ were not sufficient, without the Romish spittle and salt; and as if this Sacrament of Bread and Wine were superfluous as to the cup, the Church of Rome administers in one kind, as if nothing were perfect and to be received in the Catholic Church, but what his Holiness please to teach and allow. And their reasons are so weak they offer for such their alterations, that any one may plainly discern it is Will, not Reason, brings her into such changes. Who but knows that Christ as he was man, and the Apostles likewise, were obnoxious to the same inconveniences of spilling the Wine (as the Doctor alleges) or part sticking upon their beards, as the people of these days are? But they knowing that it was Christ's order to separate the cup from the bread, and give it to be divided amongst them, (thereby denoting to them how his blood should be separated from his flesh) and by Christ left as a pattern for them to follow, and to have continuance till his coming again, they, by eating the bread, and drinking the cup, show the Lords death till he come; and for that the same was to be continued in remembrance thereof; and they being commanded likewise hereunto, Drink ye all of this: Let a man examine himself, and let him eat, and let him drink; They would not (and we dare not) admit of Rome's alteration, but desire of God to hold fast this truth we have received, and that it would please him to confirm us herein, that we may be blameless in the day of the Lord Jesus; praying that all other Churches, as in this, so in all other points of faith and doctrine, may be of one consent, and firmly united together in one mind and one judgement; that we may all proceed in one Rule, and walk together as followers of Christ and his Apostles, having them for an ensample to us, that we may with one mind and one mouth praise God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.   

CHAP. XVII.  
That the liturgy and private Prayers, ought not to be in an unknown Language, which the Congregation doth not understand.  
WHereas Saint Paul in the 1 Cor. 14. is against giving of thanks, or praying without understanding, because the hearer is not edified, nor can say Amen to he knows not what; the Doctor (to help the lame Dog over the style and to clear his new stepmother the Church of Rome, from the errors which other Churches lay to her charge, for that she restrains her Prayers and her Lyturgy universally to the Latin tongue) would needs have us to understand that S. Paul doth not hereby impugn the liturgy of the Church of Rome, which (says he) was for the service and praise of God, and he to whom it is directed, understands any tongue: but it is meant (says he) of Church-meetings, which were only for instruction and edification of the Auditors, and not at all to be understood to gainsay the liturgy of Rome's Church.  
To which I answer,  
1. S. Paul's meaning is as well meant of the one, as of the other: for vers. 26. When ye come (says he) together, according as every one hath a tongue, or hath interpretation, let it be done to edifying. By which it is plain; that both praises and prayers, Psalms as well as doctrine, aught to be with understanding. For, vers. 28. If any man hath an unknown tongue, let him keep silence in the Church, and speak to himself and to God. That man that hath the spirit of Tongues, may speak to God and himself; but he must be silent to others, unless they can understand him: for how shall they say Amen to they know not what?  
God requires from us the heart: Give me thine heart. David desired to praise the Lord in soul and spirit: Praise the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me praise his holy Name. We must not think that a little lip-labour, to say Amen to we know not what, can be acceptable unto God. 1 Sam. 1. Hannah prayed in her heart to the Lord. Not every one that saith, Lord, Lord, shall be saved, Matth. 7. God doth not require lip-service: he condemned the Scribes and Pharisees, who drew near unto him with their lips, but their hearts were far off, Matth. 15. We are commanded to serve God with all our heart and soul, Josh. 24. We must sing and make melody to the Lord in our hearts, Ephes. 5. We must approve that which is pleasing to the Lord, vers. 10. God is King of all the earth: sing ye praises therefore with understanding. By all which and many more places of Scripture, it is plain, that the service of the Congregation it must be with the heart, that is, with the understanding. We must not think that God is well pleased with the people's devotion that proceeds not from the heart. I will, for the better satisfaction of those that seem to be satisfied with the Doctor's exposition of S. Paul, offer these reasons to his consideration, against those he has propounded, to justify the Roman liturgy universally.  
Platina writes, 
La●ne service first set up.  that the first Latin Service that ever was at Constantinople, was anno 687. whenas the sixth Council, there held was assembled: for, before that, it was never had in the Latin, but in the Greek or Hebrew Tongue. But now was the Pope grown to be universal, by the late donation of Phocas, for countenancing his murder of Mauritius: and it did not stand with his new-acquired honour and dignity, that the Language of any other Church should be preferred before that of Rome; and therefore at a General Council (the representative of the several Churches) must the Language of the Roman See be preferred before any other. For as the Pope was universal Head, he must needs have an Universal Tongue, otherwise his Universality were dumb. And this was the true ground of composing the Latin liturgy; and not (as the Doctor would persuade us because it was the most general Tongue: for whenas this was consented unto by many other Bishops, to please the Lordly Pope, the Emperor's great favourite, it gave occasion for the spreading of that Language, because the Service began to be in many places in it; not that it was so copious or known a Tongue before. Nor doth the reason the Doctor brings, justify, but rather condemn the Latin liturgy: for, saith he, the liturgy of the Eastern Churches was used in Greek, though all the Eastern parts spoke not that Language; therefore why may not Rome prescribe a liturgy in Latin to the Western Churches? To which I answer: It was thought fit, by the Fathers of the Primitive Church, to have one uniform liturgy in all the Churches upon earth; and ●o that end, did those then-visible Churches use the Greek Tongue: Why has the Church of Rome set up another form? By this, the Doctor contradicts her Antiquity, and the other mark, that she should never have separated from a Society more ancient than herself; or else den●es her Universality, in that she is but to prescribe a Latin liturgy to the Western Churcbes: and so he makes those marks by which he would have her distinguished to be a true Church, to become Brands and Stigmatizing of her errors, and falling from the Primitive Church.  
3. Another reason the Doctor enforces, is this; that there are many words in people's Languages, which are hard to be understood; and therefore they may as well have all in Latin, for that the common people do not understand every word they speak.  
This seems to me a very strange Argument: whilst he thus strives to clear this point, he doth more condemn it, or obscure the truth; for this is ignotum per ignotius, because the common people do not understand all the words of their Language, therefore they shall understand none at all; he may perchance persuade some fool that is blind of the one eye, to put out the other, to make them both alike: but he must bring stronger reasons, and prove himself a better Scholar▪ else it will be hard for him to turn our English into Latin, and make the liturgy of other Churches to speak the Roman tongue.  
When Vitalianus decreed the Latin service, Greek was more generally known then the Latin; insomuch that in several parts of Italy, the Latin was not spoken; as in Calabria the Greek was spoken, in Itruria the Tuscan, in Apulia the Mesapian tongue, the Latin being only the proper language of the territories of Latium, in which Rome is situate: neither was any thing general wrote but in the Greek tongue: so that if it was convenient to have the liturgy in one tongue universally, the alteration from the Greek into Latin was at first unlawful, in respect of the narrowness of the language in those days; it being done only out of ostentation, and for the glory of the Roman See, to make others receive the Latin liturgy, after she had surreptitiously acquired the title of Universality.  
4. Whereas the Doctor alleges, If the liturgy should be in distinct proper languages of several people, whether could the Church of Rome understand the errors therein, nor they be sure there were none in it? This argues Rome's intolerable arrogancy, as if none could be Christians, which had not received the faith from her; whenas the Apostles were sent to all Nations, and preached the Gospel in their own languages; and having received the faith by Apostolical plantation, it is equally just with them, to correct Rome, as she to correct them; both being herein bound to the Discipline of a general Council, sending thither some one or other, which shall in some general language there, make known their case. Besides, this argument of the Doctors has given Rome a most deadly blow: for if Rome be the only Catholic Church, and her Bishop have all Apostolical power devolved upon her own head, certainly she is either enabled to teach all Nations, or else it will follow, that those people which have not yet received the faith, must still remain in darkness, because Rome wants the gift of interpretation of tongues, and knows not how to make them understand the Gospel of Jesus: and for that faith comes by hearing, not by dumb shows, unless Rome be able to make such people understand service and prayer, they will think her Priests are mad. It is not his praising God with an understanding heart that can edify them: though the Priest should praise the Lord upon the Harp, they will but think as the Negroes did when they first heard Bagpipes, that they were living creatures, and ascribe Deity to them; and so instead of preaching Jesus, or offering praise to him, they would make the people commit Idolatry, if the Priest knew not how to persuade them of their errors, much less to make them sensible of the Church of Rome's prescribed rules; and so by this means the Doctor has confessed the people to want Brains correspondent to his universal head.  
And whereas the Doctor alleges, 
The difference of languages.  that all Languages are not of equal extent, and therefore incongruities would arise; Besides (says he) the inconvenience of having it in Latin, is but in part, and that to the ignorant: I conceive these reasons make rather against it, than otherwise.  
It is true, all Languages are not of the same latitude; in some Languages one word comprehending several word in another language; God has given to every Nation several gifts of tongues. Reason taught men to reduce out of confused and indictinct sounds articulate syllables and peculiar words, to signify their own meaning; and time and Art hath perfected those beginnings: so that now every Nation abounds in its own language, the languages of the Nations being at first made different, according to the different imaginations of several people, at the first composing of such languages; but yet nothing that is imaginable, but they have, or can give a name whereby to represent to their senses the nature of the thing: or if they already have a name for any thing, and do not know the reason of that denomination, yet they rest satisfied with the articulate sound of the words which brings, unto their mind the thing intended and meant. Now because of those several Nations and people, which at first invented several different languages, (insomuch that in the language of one Country, one word may comprehend a parephrasis of another) that therefore such a Country's language is too short, it must not be imagined: For though to strangers it seem imperfect, yet amongst themselves, it is sufficiently to describe the thing intended; wherefore I should think, that (understanding the Doctor's objection) it were fit that every Nation had a liturgy in its own proper language: it perchance may seem to some to breed incongruities, but indeed it doth not; it denotes the difference of languages in respect of latitude or extent, but it retains a royal and concuring sense and understanding of the thing presented to their fancy; without which, the people must for ever remain in darkness, and locked up in ignorance; which was not Gods will: he commanded his Apostles to teach all Nations, and sent them especially to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Matth. 10. God is light, and Jesus is the tender dayspring from on high, which hath visited us; to give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death, and to guide our feet in the way of peace: Wherefore for Rome to take away this light, to let this inconvenience, (as the Doctor says to be upon the ignorant) is not to discharge the office of Peter and Paul, who were sent out to bring into light them that sit in darkness, Matth. 4. To them that sat in darkness, is light risen up. Jesus came into the world a light, says S. John, John 12.46. that whosoever believeth in him, should not abide in darkness. Whether Jew's or Gentiles, we are one sheep under one Shepherd, Christ Jesus. John 10.16. Wherefore for the Doctor (to extenuate this error of Rome) to say, that the inconvenience is only to the ignorant, is to me a strange Divinity; for, The whole have no need of a Physician, but the sick, Matth. 9 Christ having sent his Apostles to preach him, that is, light unto them that sit in darkness, and to bring them unto this marvellous light: So that it is the principal part of the Priest's duty, to propagate the Gospel to them that yet remain in darkness, and not to keep them in ignorance, and seclude them from this light by clouding their Intellects with a Veil of dark language: a Candle ought not to be set under a Bushel; let your light shine before men, that others seeing, may glorify God which is in heaven: give then to the several people their liturgy in their own tongue, that they may understandingly, and with a contrite heart, offer up their sacrifice of Prayer and praise, which is a reasonable sacrifice, and acceptable service to God; for if a people ignorant of the Latin, must have their liturgy in that tongue, these inconveniences and absurdities do from thence arise:  
1. If the praise and service of God said by the Minister, (who knows what he saith) be sufficiently acceptable unto God: it is to no purpose for the people (which understand it not) to come to hear it; which to assert, were Diabolical, in respect that God has commanded all to draw near unto him, whether Jew or Gentile; as many as believe in Jesus, shall be saved. Who being consecrate, is made the Author of salvation unto all them that obey him, Heb. 5. There is no difference between the Jew and the Grecian; he that is Lord of all, is rich unto all that call upon him, Rom. 10. And Saint Peter tells us, that In every Nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, shall be saved, Acts 10. Come unto me all ye that are heavy laden, and I will ease you, Matth. 12. Call upon me in trouble, and I will hear you, Psal. 17.6. He is nigh unto all them that call upon him faithfully, Psal. 145.18. And more especially is he to be found in his house, the house of Prayer, of them that seek him: Where two or three are gathered together in my Name, there am I in the midst of them▪ Matth. 18.  
Now as all are enjoined to this duty, so is it requisite that they perform it with due reverence; knowing to whom they speak, and not with rash lips, nor ignorantly; for the word must be in thy heart, as well as thy mouth, Rom. 10.8. The men of Athens worshipped an unknown God, but Saint Paul rebuketh them Acts 11. Be ye not strangers from the life of God, through ignorance, (was S. Paul's rule to the Ephesians) but understand what the will of the Lord is. So that as all people are commanded to serve and praise God, so must they do it in heart and mind, and with understanding; wherefore it is not sufficient only for the Priest to understand when he prays or praiseth God, but the people likewise must concur in the understanding of the present service: If it be sufficient for the Priest alone to know and understand the prayer and praises offered to God, then need not the people come; or if the coming of the people be necessary, then must they understand what the Priest prays or saith: For if a man pray Pater noster, etc. as the Doctor says, fol. 339. and may not measure his thoughts Mathematically with his words, it is no more than if a Parat were taught it; his understanding is without fruit: in a Rational soul, the heart is to declare to the tongue, otherwise, whilst he speaks, he either babbles like a Bruit, without understanding, (A good man out of the good treasure, bringeth forth good; an evil man, out of the evil treasure of his heart, bringeth forth evil: For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks; Luk. 6.) or otherwise, if there be no concurrence between the heart and the mouth, he speaks with feigned lips, not uttering what he thinks. It is not sufficient for a man to suppose it is the Lords prayer, because he has heard so, and that he knows the Lord's prayer in English, or that his thoughts go along with the Latin: For suppose he should be saying Da nobis panem quotidianum, and he was supposing he was praying for the Kingdom to come, how shall God answer such a prayer?  
2. The Doctor (whilst he goes about to set up the Church of Rome above her fellows, and to magnify her liturgy, he) doth indeed destroy Christ's Church, by excluding the people who are Members of the Church, and make a Church, as I have showed in the third Chapter. For it is not the practice at Rome only in Quires, and in Collegiate Chapels, which are only for societies of such as understand that tongue, this were tolerable; but it extends to all Congregations, excluding the people, which is abominable: For, the Church of Rome, though she be Head, she cannot say unto the Members, I have no need of you: We all make but one body in Christ, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, bond or free: We are all by one Spirit baptised into one body and have been all made to drink into one Spirit, 1 Cor. 12. So then, if the society of the Saints do make the Church, it is fit that this society serve and praise the Lord in heart and spirit, for as God is a spirit, so he will be worsh pped in spirit and in truth. Wherefore, to say, that it is sufficient for the Priest to understand, because he alone offers the sacrifice of praise; that is to destroy the Church, by excluding the Saints from this duty: and therefore, that they may do this with heart and spirit, it is requisite for the people to have this liturgy in a tongue they understand, that they may praise the Lord with all their heart, according as the liturgy enjoins then, bidding them lift up their heart unto the Lord. And I much wonder, that these words escaped razing, when Vitellianus about the year 666. (the number of the Beast) did command▪ that the service in all Churches should be in Latin; but Nihil simul est inventum & perfectum: and now that it remains still, having escaped the Index expurgatorius, it stands to the condemnation of the Church of Rome, to show from what she is fallen; from truth, to error; from Apostolic practice, to let all things be done to edifying 1 Thes. 5.11. to follow her own inventions, hood-winking the people in ignorance, that she may the better tyrannize over them. For whereas the Doctor would persuade us, fol. 329. that Peter and Paul used a liturgy in one of the learned languages, which could not be known to all; he must prove that, before it be to be believed: It may be they used amongst themselves one constant language in their service, which might not be understood by others, by chance bystanders; but when they preached or prayed with others, in a public Assembly, we do not find but that the people understood them in their own language.  
3. Our prayer and praise ought to be in faith, Whatsoever ye ask, if ye believe, ye shall receive it, Matth. 21.22. We must come unto the Father in the Sons Name, and he will hear us; ask, and he will do it, John 14.14. By faith in Jesus, we have boldness and entrance with confidence, Eph. 3.12. So that Whatsoever we desire when we pray, believe that we shall have it, and it shall be done unto us Mark 11.24. But without faith it is impossible to please God: For He that cometh to God, must believe that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him, Heb. 11. And without faith, our prayer turns into sin; for, Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin, Rom. 14.23. So then, for any society to come to Divine service in a Tonge they do not understand, their prayer and praise cannot be of faith, in respect they know not what they ask; their Priest is their mouth, and they cannot in heart go along with him, because they understand not what he says; and their saying Amen to they know not what, cannot be acceptable unto God; according as S. Paul writes to the Romans, Rom. 10.14. How shall we call on him in whom we have not believed? and how shall we believe in him, of whom we have not heard? We must believe in him, and by him, and by him offer the sacrifice of praise to God; we must draw near unto him with a pure heart, in the assurance of faith, Heh. 10.22. This was the Doctrine of the Apostles, and this was the practice of the Primitive Churches.  
Theodoret, lib. 5. de Graec. affect. curate. pag. 521. telleth us, that in his time (which was about 440 years after Christ) the Scriptures were translated into all manner of languages, and that they were not only understood of Doctors and Masters of the Church, but of Lay-people and common Artificers; Hebraici libri non modo in Graecum Idioma conversi sunt, sed in Romanam, Aegyptam, Persicam, Judicam, Armenicam, & Scyithicam linguam; semelque ut dicam in omnes linguas quibus ad hunc diem nationes utuntur. It was then the practice, that every Nation should have the Scriptures in their own Tongue; (which Bellarmine unawares confessed, 
Bellarm. Chap. 106.  Tom. 1. col. 191. lib. 4. de verb. Dei Script. cap 11.) But such is the pride and vainglory of the Popes of Rome, that they will not admit this in these latter days; for since the Bishop of Rome grew up to be the Universal head, all Churches must receive anew the Scriptures in their own Tongue; and not only so, but their Liturgies too; burning such Scriptures as the people understand in their own vulgar Tongue, and excommunicating all persons of the Laity, (be they neve● so well learned) that shall reason of matters of faith, or dispute of his power; commanding Latin Service, and Latin Homilies to the vulgar; and though they cannot understand it. yet he has Decreed it shall be so, 6 Decret. lib. 5. cap. quicunque. By which means he thinks to gain an opinion of being the only Planter of those Churches; whenas indeed, he is but a busy intruder upon the Apostolical foundations of others: and in this his Holiness has a further reach, for by this means, he pleads Authority to rule over them, producing this in evidence against them, (should they oppose him) that Conqueror-like, he has given them a Law in the proper language of Rome. And if any questions should arise concerning any points taught in those Translations, he likewise did (by this means) obtain the privilege to be the Interpreter; it being more proper to Rome to unfold the sense of that language, than to any other place. And thus and for those ends, did the Popes of Rome obtrude the Latin Liturgies upon several Churches, which, how it agrees with the Law Divine, for the work of the Ministry, for the gathering of the Saints, and for the edification of the body of Christ, till we all meet together in the unity of the faith, and knowledge of the Son of God, let the holy Spirit of that God, and the Angels of the several Church's witness.   

CHAP. XVIII. The Conclusion.  
Wherein the Reformation of England is justified, notwithstanding the Objections of Rome against it; and that the Pope was the cause of the Protestant Churches their separations from the Church of Rome.  
I Have briefly touched most of those points which the Doctor hath urged against the Protestants; wherein (I conceive) the Church of England doth differ from the Church of Rome: and for that it is not my desire to make the breaches wider, but (if possible) to reconcile them into one, and to make up the gap of separation betwixt them, I now hasten to a conclusion. Yet let not any one censure me, as if I were weary of my enterprise, because to some particular Chapters I have not given particular answers: for I conceive, that the scope of their matter is sufficiently refuted in this discourse; and those Chapters not concerning any points of controversy betwixt us, any further than I have already answered, I did therefore forbear to multiply words against the Doctor, but hastened to the conclusion.  
The Doctor in his 22. and 23. Chapters, doth flutter with the Lapwing, and makes most bustle, when he is furthest off the Nest: He had formerly cast his sting, and there (in conclusion) ends with buzzing and noise only; he rolls up himself in Rhetoric, and with the Seriphian Frogs (of which Pliny writes, lib. 8. cap. 85.) he is clamorous in invectives; he, (like an untamed Colt) having leapt the Pale, which kept him in a safe and fitting Pasture, ranges up and down the miry paths, throwing up dirt behind him: till at length (having run himself out of breath) he becomes tame, and is content to take scraps at the Jesuits hands: he feeds upon the Orts of Parsons, Saunders, and such like Renegadoes; he has turned away his face from England's Zion, in whose true mirror of divinity, he might have seen the image of Christ himself, and his own face beauteous, as a Son of that Church; but now having turned aside, he has forgot what manner of man he was, or what before he had beheld by the help of the reflections; and now he altogether contemplates upon a false gloss, which doth present unto him deceiving objects: on the one hand is the Church of England, presented to him black and ugly, being transformed by the false Veil they (and such like) have put upon her; for which they are (with all indulgence) cherished and encouraged by his Holiness, according to the saying of Solomon, Prov. 26.22. The words of a Tale-bearer are as flatter, and they go down into his belly. But on the other hand, the Church of Rome is set out. with all the Art imaginable; so that any who will give up himself unto the speculative Religion of Popery, is cheated into an opinion of Rome's beauty and comeliness, and into a ●a●●en and de●●●tation of the Protestant Religion, because of her spots and defor●mity▪ whereas, if any please to seaken them both, he shall find, that England's Church (which is thus presented to him, is black but comely; and, like the curtains of Solomon, is set all with precious Stones and Jewels on her inner side, Cant. 1.4. I am black, but comely; as the curtains of Solomon. And if he please to make inquisition into the Church of Rome, he will find, that she has only a glorious outside, she is a painted Jezebel, that cares not to venture through a Sea of blood, to take possession of her Neighbours Vineyards, causing the Prophets of the Lord to be slain, 1 Kin. 18. She is Harpy-like, with a fair face, and a foul heart; and in that fair face (were but the Ignatian paint taken off) would riveled brows, and wan-worn cheeks appear. How much therefore is the Doctor's case to be lamented, who hath joined himself to the Heathen, to open his mouth that he may praise the power of the Idols, and to magnify a fleshly King for ever, Esth. 5.10.  
Hence is it, that in his second and third Chapters, taking for granted that Rome is the only Catholic Church, and her Bishop Peter's Successor, and absolute and sole possessioner of all Apostolical Power and Jurisdiction; he doth hereupon conclude, that the Protestant Churches are heretical Conventicles, and that they know not the Scriptures, without the Tradition of Rome; nor can disperse and teach them without Commission from thence.  
Now for that it is my desire, not to multiply words, I will forbear any particular answer to these Assertions; and refer the Reader to my second Chapter, where his Holiness Universality is fully refuted.  
And as touching that Assertion of his, concerning the Scriptures, my 2.8.11. and 12. Chapters are sufficient answers: where first I have proved equal Commission; then, that the Scriptures are to judge the truth of themselves, Traditions, and Counsels; and that other Churches had the Scriptures, and not from Rome; that the Provincials of Apostolical plantation, have equal power, having the same Spirit to guide them, as by the outward means the visible sign of the invisible grace given in the Sacrament of order, is in Christian charity to be presumed; and therefore may as well judge of those points of Scripture, which admit of explanation, as the Church of Rome.  
And the many arguments used by the Doctor in those Chapters, are not only grounded upon false suppositions, but in themselves are injurious, wrongfully accusing the Church of England, laying opinions to her charge concerning the ways and means to understand the meaning of those Scriptures, which she doth not profess as Doctrinal.  
And then in the 22. Chapter, he would disprove our ground of separation from Rome; as to this, I have in part touched in the 2.4. and 6. Chapters: and in the 11. Chapter I have proved aright in Provincials to reform Schisms and Heresies: And whereas he says we ought not to have separated from Rome, hecase (saith he) we pretending the truth of our opinions, aught to have demonstrated them to the world, whereby to have reform Rome, and not to have separated ourselves: To this I answer.  
The first occasion of the separation, was about the difference of the Pope's Supremacy; and he having in a high way got the upper hand of many Churches, which were vassallized under his power, and the Counsels being so abused, and made invalid by the late Lateran Prerogative; it was to no purpose to offer the difference to a general Council, which must either act for, or not against his Holiness; having no power to decree any thing against his Holiness, as I have proved in the tenth Chapter. This gave occasion to other Provinces, (which could get opportunity) to back the right and privilege proper to their own Sees, to cast off any further appealing, either thither or to Rome. And they knowing this to be an usurpation in Popes, it gave them occasion to suspect the truth of many other of her Doctrines; and betaking themselves to the holy word of God delivered to them, and approved through all ages for the verities of God himself; and searching into the Primitive Churches, and practices of the ancient Fathers, they found Rome to have changed her faith, as those particulars I have already treated on make mention.  
Vincentius adversus Hereticos says, that Doctrine is to be accounted Catholic, quod semper & ab omnibus credendum est; and if this must be the rule, then are neither we Heretics, nor Rome Catholic: Rome cannot be said Catholic, in respect the faith of Christ was at other places professed, when it was not at all at Rome; nor may we be by her called Heretics, because she has changed.  
The Doctor (upon Saint Austin's rule, fol. 120.) says, that Doctrines without known beginnings, are not to be disputed against; but those Doctrines of Rome, of which I have treated, I have fairly proved them to be innovations; and therefore by that we are not to be censured for opposing them.  
And whereas the Doctor says that Rome must either be the true Church, or else there is none, he hereby proves himself to be in darkness: he has confessed it in Aethiopia without her planting, and in several other places, I have proved it to have been planted, and not from Rome; wherefore it is not necessarily to be concluded (upon the score of her only dispensing the Gospel) that she is the visible Church: if the Gospel be hid, it is hid to those that are lost; the lost s●eep's gone to Rome to idolise the pontifical Pope, whom the God of this world hath blinded, that the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, which is the Image of God, should not shine unto him; for (saith Saint Paul) We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus our Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus sake: Which is neither the Jesuits Doctrine, (who teach nothing but the infallibility of his Holiness) nor the Pope's profession, who would every where be a Master, but no servant to the Saints and people of God. We therefore, because of his change from this Doctrine, and because of his intolerable pride and usurpations, and as the other Churches shake him off, but do not change from the Primitive faith taught by the Apostles, and forms maintained by the Church of Rome itself.  
And though we lay long under Rome's innovation, yet this is no Argument for the Doctor to urge against us, that we should not at all reform; Christ has withdrawn his Spirit for a time from several Churches, as I have proved in the 5. Chapter. Magna est veritas, & praevalebit: Truth is stronger than all the power of man, as I have proved by Zerubbabel, 1 Esdr. 4. And though the Pope (with the inventions and polices of his Cardinal conclave) had so warded the several Churches of the West, that he thought them absolutely mastered, and under his command, to be servants to do his drudgery; he did (as we say) reckon without his Host, he did consult with flesh and blood, whilst a Divine hand mastered his humane polices, and their works of darkness were brought into light, when least suspected to have them laid open to the world.  
And though the persons (the outward Instruments of this separation and change from Rome's errors) were not in all things approvable, touching Moral conversation; yet this doth not absolutely disprove the truth of their Doctrine, as I have proved in the 6. Chapter. Bellarmin accounted Pope Sixtus an Heretic; and the Jesuits hold, Hominem non Christianum posse Romanum esse Pontificem, quodlib: 4, art. 2. pag. 100 And it is unequal dealing, to censure others of that, of which they themselves will not be condemned. God made use of Balaam's Ass to open the eyes of Balaam; and Luther (I crave pardon for the comparison) retorting upon his Master the Pope, who smote him and his Princes with Rome's Thunderbolts, was a means to open the eyes of the English Clergy, who saw the Angel of the Lord standing in the way; and I hope none can blame them for harkening to his voice: we do not in all things approve of Luther, Calvin, Beza, etc. In those things wherein we do not differ from Rome, she cannot blame us; and in those things wherein we differ, we can prove, that not any one point, but was for 600. years after Christ by the Church of Rome itself professed; and since has (by the pride and arrogancy of wicked and aspiring Popes) by little and little been forsaken, and by her deserted: so that who please impartially to consider of what I have in this Treatise fairly laid down, may plainly perceive, that it is Rome, not England, has forsaken the Primitive truth; and whilst the Doctor, or any other shall strive against the truth of England's Church, they do but wound their own soul; by backbiting her, they bring a staff to their own head; all the injury and mischief they frame against her, falls down on their own Pates; they themselves are caught in the Net, which they have privily laid for others; all the Arguments and strength of Reason they bring against her in this point, being but so many domestic witnesses to their own condemnation. I need not study reproofs for Rome's Apostasy: it is sufficient that I have proved her to have changed her faith; and by that means I have returned all the Doctors ingenious upbraid against the Church of England, upon the Church of Rome's own score; so that I will declaim no longer upon this Theme; I will deliver the rest with sighs and groans (the prolocutors of an o'refraight heart,) and in anguish of spirit, weep out the rest of this sad Scene; and hanging my Harp (with David) upon the Willows, I will forbear to run any more divisions upon these discourses: hearty beseeching the Almighty God, to reconcile us into one faith, by the Spirit of his Son Jesus; and shall from my very soul pray,  
That it would please God to open the heart of the Roman Clergy, to see their own errors; and that he would in mercy turn unto them, and turn them unto him, and would graciously cause them to remember from whence they are fallen, and to do their first works: and likewise, that it would please him, to put courage and strength into the hearts and hands of Christian Princes and Ministers, that they might thereby be emboldened (by the operations and effectual workings of his holy Spirit) to reprove the present Bishops of Rome of the errors of their ways; knowing this, that if a man rebuke a wise man, he will love him; Give admonishment to the wise, and he will be wiser, Prov. 9 and plainly to let him know how the Church of Christ suffers violence, under his Tyrannical persecution, whilst he sits above her Counsels, and exercises a Legislative power over her heavenly treasure, her Scriptures, left to her by the Apostles, and over her Apostolical traditions, moulding them into new forms, for to promote thereby the interest of the Papal Chair: and likewise to let him know, that Counsels were the only means to keep the several Churches in unity; and that these being invalid by the late usurpations of the Popes, all our discords do arise from thence; and that till this be freely and satisfactorily abandoned, there is no hopes of uniting the neighbouring Churches with her; and that in the mean time, the Pope himself is the occasion of the separations made: and though it be necessary that offences come, that there be Heresies amongst you, (as Saint Paul saith, 1 Cor. 11.) that they which are approved may be known; yet for that the Pope is the cause of these divisions and offences, by reason of those his unjust proceed towards the several Christian Churches, that he might expect the woe denounced by the Evangelist, Matth. 7. It must needs be that offences shall come, but woe be to that man by whom the offence cometh; and that therefore he would no longer tempt God, by his wilful persisting in his new-taken-up errors; but that he would (as his Predecessors the Ancient Bishops of Rome have done before him) cast himself upon a general Council, utterly renouncing his late Trent and Laterane-Prerogatives, and the injunction of obedience to his Papal Canon-Law; without which there is no hope of reconciling our differences; and by whieh means (by the blessing of God) the multitude of Believers may be of one heart, and one soul, Act. 4. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, they shall prosper that love her.  
Now that we may all with one mind, and one mouth praise God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, (Rom. 15.6.) that there may be no dissensions amongst us, but that we may be knit together in one mind, and one judgement, (1 Cor. 1.10.) that we may proceed in one Rule, that we may mind one thing, and have the Apostles for our ensample, Phil. 3. that as Christ's coat was seamless, as his Legacy was Peace, so we may all be clothed with Righteousness, and keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, Eph. 4. Grant▪ O Lord, for thy only Son our Saviour Christ his sake, Amen.  
Glory in the Highest to God, on on Earth Peace to men of good will   
FINIS.   

The Printer to the Reader.  
THe injury done to this work through my many misprisions, (occasioned by the difficult and uncouth Character of the Author's hand, whose remote abode admitted of no intercourse to instruct me therein, nor had I any in Town acquainted therewith to perfect my reading thereof) makes me (as I have already by the intercession of a friend begged the Author's pardon, so) now by myself gentle Reader) humbly to implore yours. I must confess in some places I was forced to guests at the Author's meaning, I not being able to read many of his words, by which means I have distorted his style, and obscured his ingenious fancies, sometimes by inserting some Linsy-wolsie lines of my contexture, in this far purer Volume, otherwhiles, by omitting whole sentences of the Authors: yet these variations of mine from the Original, not admitting of correction (as the Author certifies) without ravelling the whole piece, and (to use his own phrase) picking out those knotty ends of mine. The Stationer having made a large progress in the work, before the Author knew thereof, hath prevailed with him to let it pass with its present imperfections, both he and I engageing to rectify all such mistakes in the next Edition: It now remains to crave your friendly acceptance hereof, and with the help of these noted Erraats, to make a candid construction of the mistaken places.   

Errata.  
Page. 5. line 23. read fanes. p. 23. l. 29. polipus. p. 24. l. 12. Rome. p. 26. l. 26. deal only. p. 30. l. 6. shall contain Christ till he come. p. 31. l. 17. are. p. 32. l. 24. Paschalis. p. 33. l. 15. fourteenth. p. 34. l. 14. fourth. p. 36. l. 2. birds. l. 20. Homagers. l. 21. imperious. p. 38. l. 12. their. p. 40. l. 14. with Timothy. p. 43. l. 17. ninth. p. 44. l. 24. they that they might. p. 46. l. 29. veruntamen Episcopus Constantinopolitanus habeat honoris primatum post Romanum, propteria quod, etc. p. 48. l. 14. appointed. p. 63. l. 10. seas. p. 65. l. 20. his. p. 71. l. 26. and. p. 25. cannot do it. p. 76. l. 2. and although difference. p. 90 l. 5. not. l. 6. thereby note the difference. l. 12. to give obedience to the head. p. 91. l. 16. by setting. p. 93. l. 1. qui. l. 15. Ecclesiae quae licet, etc. p. 94. l. 15. true. p. 99 l. 18. rites. l. 29. sons. p. 100 l. 15. lost. p. 102. denoted. p. 104. l. 18. the thing. p. 106. l. 16. the, and Marcian. l. 12. Boniface the first. l. 18. 453. p. 108. l. 1. Pope Parasites. l. 10. the appointing the Pope. l. 29. quod ab in●ito non valet, in tractu temporis non convalescat. p. 109. l. 24. Vatican. l. 26. new additions to prove the Bishop. p. 112. Vicarius summus. p. 114. present. p. 119. l. 24. for by this peace. p. 121 l. 1. clasped. l. 11. in England which who please. p. 123. l. 26. Ignatian. p. 124. l. 1. and. l. 23. and. p. 126. received. p. 127. nos zelo fidei, etc. p. 130. l. 13. their. l. 16. are by some called holy. p. 134. l. 25. so. p. 135. l. 24. and there were others in orders which, etc. p. 137. hypocrites, p. 139. l. 20. did. p. 140. l. 20. he pleads it visible in Aethiopia. p. 141. l. 21. Tame. l. 24. Oracle. l. 28. Proselytes. p. 143. l. 12. and l. 15. the. l. 17. Belinus. p. 149. Geminis. p. 151. l. 21. stood. p. 155. l. 6. have. l. 20. vide utrum, etc. p. 150. l. 14. looks. p. 157. l. 1. Con●arenus. l. 7. pasce. l. 9 tame. l. 24. constitutions. p. 160. l. 2. failings, and in the marg. read thus: Against railing at Princes. p. 172. l. 6. worth. l. 11. principi. l. 13. approves. p. 173. l. 5. she hereby draws. l. 26. he. l. 29. Bolseck. p. 175. l. 26. of the Bishops. l. 6. Vrbane. p. 176. l. 18. aliaco. p. 177. l. 21. Guiciardine. p. 178. strange mazes. p. 179. l. 3. Bozius de signis. l. 15. lewd. p. 181. these stories, he strains at a Gnat. l. 9 he leaps o'er blocks. p. 182. Chapter of traditions. p. 113. l. 29. smiles. p. 184. l. 23. so slightly over. p. 188. l. 9 Bank. l. 10. Zactan. p. 161. l. 8. Plantations. p. 193. l. 15. patronise. p. 194. l. 1. bibulus. l. 23. of this counterfeit. l. 26. theirs. p. 196. l. 26. those points wherein we differ upon, which, etc. p. 200. Delphicus, and minos, and Faunus, and fuisse. p. 202. l. 24. Gentiles. p. 203. l. 23. communicate with the Gentiles: p. 206. Cheregatus. p. 213. Tabescimus. l. 12. Oh. p. 215. l. 24. communion, and though. p. 216. and. l. 13. rules. l. 26. is. p. 214. l. 26. into which Rome's Solomon enters. p. 233. statutis, and videamur. p. 234. have this privilege. p. 237. l. 5. Constance. p. 239. l. 2. did. l. 17. irruptious. p. 241. l. 3. and cause. p. 242. l. 2. destroys, and Constance. p. 246. l. 24. that can lay open all. l. 26. and expound. p. 249. an excuse. p. 251. l. 2. contrary to that Council. l. 11. with Euliches. p. 254. l. 14. these. p. 267. l. 22. error and negligence. p. 282. l. 1. are the only infallible. p. 283. l. 13. Austin Tom. 6. contra Donatistas', cap. 3. p. 287. l. 19 immediately. p. 294. l. 15. as appears by that Council. p. 297. l. 12. suit. p. 307. l. 18. Greek. p. 312. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 313. l. 19 our ancient Fathers. p. 319. her. p. 316. l. 18. which. p. 321. l. 3. Theodoret. p. 322. totum jam, and dicatur. l. 29. & Dei docentis imperium. p. 324. l. 2. Scriptures. l. 8. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omitted. l. 21. one of the Church's Saints. p. 327. l. 14. but not bodily on earth. p. 333. l. 2. knacks. l. 12. our. p. 335. Vicar-General. l. 14. equal with the Bishop in order to the derivation. p. 348. hair-loomes. p. 353. pro se. p. 373. l. 11. my. p. 374. l. 22. pater. p. 376 moron. p. 377. l. 24. till Shilo come again. p. 378. l. 24. perch. p. 383. l. 26. thought. p. 388. l. 18. summi. l. 26. Aaron. p. 393. l. 20. to claim an eigne portion. p. 394. Totilas, and Belli●arius. p. 399. l. 24. of. p. 401. l. 2. step. p. 403. l. 18. Empire. p. 410. are latum, and miltiades. p. 415. l. 21. agreeing. p. 416. l. 9 testamur. p. 417. l. 24. Parsons. p. 442. passio Christi, and causa formalis, and gratia, and causa finalis. p. 457. vercella. and l. 15. intualects. p. 461. Cimmerian. p. 470. l. 10. utraque. p. 482. ●surienti. and l. 10. charge. p. 497. tradidi. p. 499. l. 13. in these latter days. p. 504. l. 29. their. p. 508. l. 26. neither. p. 510. l. 17. Pope. p. 512. l. 5. sufficient. and l. 7. notwithstanding, and l. 15. real. p. 521. l. 28. Aegyptiam, and A●m●ni●m, and Indicam. p. 522 l. 13. in the Roman. p. 526. l. 9 sheep. l. 29. formerly.