PAPIST. QUESTION I SEEing this Age is so controver­sall, how shall it be discerned who hath the Truth?

PROTE¦STANT Answer. A By the Scriptures. The writ­ten word of God is the only in­fallible determiner of faith and manners. It hath livine Autho [...]ity, heavenly Majesty, to a right discerner, it maketh spirituall im­press [...]ons on the so [...]l, to it as chief judge on [Page 2] Earth all [...]eals should be made, Is. 8. 20. To the [...]w and the Testimony.

Papists Reply To this Answere, a Papist replyeth, that it is not satisfying; and rendereth five reasons, why the Scipture cannot be the determiner of faith and manners. First, Because the chief and greatest Controversie is about scripture it [...]lf, viz, What [...] scripture, what not? Now if it be the determiner of faith, as you speak, in [...] is the Catalogue of Cano­nical bookes [...]? How may it be proved a­gainst Luth [...] ▪ that St. Iames his Epistle is Canonical [...] against others that Nicode­mus and S. Thomas Gospells are not? Or, if you reject Tobias, Judith, the bookes of Wis­dom, Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees, be­cause the Synagogue of the Jewes did so, why [...]o [...]ou not also deny Christ to be the Messias with them?

Answer. This return is rather an evasion, then solid reply, and is satisfied in the resolu­tion Protest. Duply. of the sixt Question, to which in reason it ought to be referred; yet seing tumul­tuously diverse things are here heaped toge­ther I shall sort and discuss them thus. First, There is no Christian Church which maketh it a Controversie at all, whether scripture be the word of God? so this is not the chiefest and greatest Controvesie: for it is supposed amongst the principles of Christianity, and if [Page 3] the Precognita of other science have, ex terminis, their own notoreiety, (& We should not argument, contra negantes principia, a­gainst them who deny known principles) how can this be denyed to Theology? seing, if we rest not on some principles we must run our selves out of breath, and not know where to sist. Basil Basil on Psal. 115. telleth [...], as in every sci­ence, there be unque [...]able principles, which are beleeved witho [...] [...]rther demon­stration, so in the science of [...] Theology, This is amongst [...], [...] scripture is the word of God, if any [...] this con­troversall, he is an Antiscripturi [...] and Pa­ganish. Secondly, There be no Controver­sie, betwixt us and the Papists, in that where­in we are agreed, but both are agreed that all the bookes which we receive for Canoni­call scripture, are the word of God, Ergo, this is no Controversie. If all the bookes of scripture which we mantaine be the word of God, our Adversaries being judges, then i [...] must determine faith and manners, or else our faith is humane, for Bellarmine Bel. de verbo Dei lib. 1. [...]. 2. sayeth, that Scriptura est regula credendi tutissima & certissima, the written word is a most sure and certaine rule of beleeving. So sayeth Aqui­nas Aqui­nas in Tim. 6.. This is sufficient for confirming the first Answere, and refuting the first Excep­tion [...] Yet, to follow your impertineut digres­sion, [Page 4] from the power of the scripture-bench, to the number of the books. I Answere Se­condly, that the doctrine, concerning the number of the scripture books, or the names of all them who penned these, if comparative­ly considered, that is, if you compare the pre­sent number with that of the Jewish and an­cient Church in p [...]mitive times of Christia­nity, is not expli [...] known and beleeved by all, Fide divin [...] [...] first; but we come to the knowledge of [...]e number, which the primi­tive Church mantained, as we doe to the names and number of other bookes, seing the Catalogue of Canonicall bookes is not set down in scripture. All this we attaine, without the aid of Romish Councills. For the Jewes to whom were committed the ora­cles of God, Rom. 3. 1. 2. whom holy Au­gustin on Ps. 40. calleth Capsarios & libra­rios Christianorum, these who keeped the bookes of the old Testament for Christians, and fulfilled, as he saith, that word in part. The elder shall serve the younger, divide the bookes of the old Testament, according to the letters of their Alphabet into two and twenty, sometimes into foure and twenty, as Eusebius sheweth, yet never added to, nor Lib. 3. cap. 10. altered a book of the Canon; only they would sūme up now and then the book of Ruth with the Judges, the book of the Lamentations [Page 5] with the Prophecies of Jeremy, and at other times againe, reckon them by themselves : So they sometimes made but one book of Sa­muel, one of the Kings, one of the Chronicles, in some editions the whole Minor Prophets were reckoned but one book, by them. As the scription and writting of the bible is, and hath been diverse, yet the doctrine contained therein, is stil the rule under every character: so the Canon of the old Testament finished by the Prophet Malachy, was ever the same in the Jewish Church, what ever way they calculated the number of these bookes. Hie­rom translated the books of the old Testamēt from the Hebrew, and he did admit all the books admitted by us. So did the Greek and Latine Church, neither for ought we can learn from Authors, was there any alteration or add [...]tion till the third Council of Carthage then Can. 47. they recōmended other books as profitable to be read, which are Apo­cryphal. The Canon of the New Testament was finished by Iohn the Evangelist, who out, lived the rest of the Apostles, and the num­ber, we have not disclaimed, In universa ec­clesia Christiana, sayeth Hierom ad Darda­num. And, according to the Councill of Laodi [...]a Can. 59. these books were num­bered is Canonick only, and appointed to be read in all the Churches of Syrla, this Coun­cill [Page 6] was holden Annno Dom. 364.

Although Luther cast at the Epistle of James we receive it. Secondly, Luther by some Learned, is said to have made a retracta­tion of that errour. Thirdly, In his Preface to his works he desireth that men would read his books with some commiseration, and re­member that once he was a Monk. Fourthly, Your own Cajetan said as much against the Epistle of James as Sirtus Senensis telleth us Biblioth. lib. 6. will it therefore follow that ye have no Canon? Fifthly, Stapleton saith, Princ. doct. lib. 9. cap. 14. & in Defens. Ecc. Author: that it is not as yet peremptorily de­fined by your Church, whither ye may adde moe books to the present number? but, we of the reformed Church are agreed in this, that these books of the Old and New Testa­ment number them who wil, were the Canon received, read, and exponed in the Primitive Church, and none can adde to or alter the doctrine therein contained, under the pain of Anathema, Rev. 22. 19. It is an admirable providence that the Jews such enemies to Christianity, keeped these Prophesies of the Scripture uncorrupted. So saith holy Augu­stin lib. de Consensu Evang. cap. 26. yet you deride that, as if the Lord could not keep that holy Canon in the Jews hand which is a witness against them, and testifies of him to [Page 7] their confusion. Jo. 5. 39. so your conse­quence [...]s bad and impertinent.

Answer. Third. Although the numbering, or 3 penning of the Scripture books, (comparative­ly considered) be not simply necessary to be known, or believed, fide Divina. But we come to the knowledge of these as to the number or penner of other books: yet absolut­ly considered, to any discerner the books of Scripture father themselves. Lege in facie [...] Divina, read in the face of them divine approbation, as in the Firmament we may see the singer of GOD, so here See Barron against Turnbul tract. 9. p. 643. we may behold divine Majestie, Heavenly effi­cacie, the consent and harmonie of parts the fulfilling of Prophesies, see August. lib. 6. Confes. cap. 5. Persuasisti mihi non qui cre­derent libros tuos, quos, tanta in omnibus fere gentibus authoritate, fundasti, sed qui non crederent, esse culpandos: nec audiendos esse, si qui forte mihi dicerent, unde scis illos libros unius veri Dei spiritu esse humano generi ad­ministratos? id ipsum maxime credendum erat. The Scripture it self then testifieth whose it is, holy men of GOD did so speak and writ that ye may know the certainty of these things, Luk 1. 4. and believe them, Jo. 19. 35. this is taken from the very Scrip­ture, and not from any distinct Tradition from i [...]. Beside all this, we have miracles [Page 8] [...] [Page 9] [...] [Page 8] wonderful providences sealing this word; the testimonie of adversaries, Jews and Gentiles to the doctrine therein contained, the testi­monie of old and late writters to our whole Canon. And seeing the Lord hath sealed it▪ and it is called his Testament, none should adde to it, or alter any point contained there­in. This is expresly forbidden Deut. 4. 2. 12. 32. Pro. 3. 6. how grosly Papists make void the Testament of the Lord by new da­tives, and in that are like the Pharisees, 4 Matth. 15. 3. 6. shal appear hereafter.

Answer fourth, Although all books The Papists reject some of these Apocri­phal books from the Canon of Scripture, a [...] Esdras, the book of Baruch &c. are not rejected by us u­pon this account only because the Iews did so, but for many other good reasons; for, self-murder is commended in Razis there, con­trar to the 6. Command, &c. The authours crave pardon for that which is spoken amiss, whereby it is acknowledged that they had not the spirit of infallibility; in all ages, exceptions were made against them as is well proved by our Divines, S. Thomas and Nicodemus Gospels have approbation of none, so need no refutation. Now I referre it to any Reader whither this first reason be sufficiently refuted, or if this reflecter un­derstandeth Logick, or himself who thus rea­soneth, The number of Scripture b [...]oks is [Page 9] controverted, therefore that which on all hands betwixt PROTESTANTS and Papists, is acknowledged to be Scripture is not the determiner of faith. Who will not perceive here a mis-stated question and gross non-con­sequence? Yet no greater not that concer­ning the Messias which deserveth no an­swer, being so absurd, and bordering with blasphemie.

The second Reason, Why Scripture cannot Pa. Rea. 2 be the rule of faith, is, because PROTE­STANTS believe many things whereof the Scripture maketh no mention at all, as the keeping holy the Sunday for the Sabbath, or Saturday, the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, the Trinity of Persons in God, that there is one person although two natures in Christ: for the Scripture maketh no more mention of Persons then of Papish-tran substantiation: that Baptism of Hereticks is not to be reiterat, against the Donatists: that Ordination of lawful Ministers should not be reiter [...]t against Marcion: that Baptism and the Lords Supper are Sacraments, which are the very fundamentals of your Religion.

I answer to this, that errour is broodie, for ere it be confessed by some men, they will Pro. An. 1 broach absurd Tenets, and shake foundations which appeareth evidently here. For this man de [...]yeth the Articles of our Creed to be groun­ded [Page 10] on Scripture, which is most abominable to utter. What, is not the Trinity, the Sa­crament of Baptism and the Supper scriptural truths? Let not this be heard in Gath. This giveth the Council of Sess. 7 Can. 1. de Sacr. in gen. Trent the lie, so the au­thor is anathematized by them. Let Papists read such as writ positive Divinity, these points are aboundantly proved by them from Scripture, Catechists will teach them to speak better, and it they be not founded there, why do your own writters prove them thence?

Secondly, The mysterie of the Trinity is di­rectly in Scripture. 1. Io. 5. 7. there are An. 2. three which bear record in Heaven, the Fa­ther, the Word, and the Spirit, these three are one. The Word Person is in Scripture, Heb. 1. 3. we indeed make use of words in the doctrine of the Trinity which are not Scripture words, but all the things are there, otherwise our foundations would soon dis­solve. This is Augustins answer against the Arrians, Contra Max. lib. 3. cap. 5. and Naz. Orat. 5. de Theol. yea your own Bel­larmin lib. 2. de Christo. cap 2. saith, Qua­dam verba sunt utilia ad explicanda mysteria Scripturae, quae licet in Scripturis non habean­tur, eorum tamen aequivalentia & semina ibi habentur. i. e. Some words are necessar for explaining the mysteries of Scripture which though they be not contained in the Scriptures [Page 11] yet their parallels and seeds are contained there. This he proveth by instances, cha. 3. 4. 5 which I need not to translate. So that the Tenets which we mantaine concerning the Trinity and the two Sacraments, being Scrip­ture truths, it is gross to say, we have no Scripture warrand for these & seeing we may make use of words for explaining divine truths any may behold the weakness of this Reply. The name Trinity and Sacrament is not in Scripture; therefore the thing is not there. As for the Sabbath, we once prove from Scrip­ture that Saturday is no Sabbath to us, Col. 2. 16. 17. then from Scripture that one day of seven behoved to be observed by reason of the fourth Command which is Moral. Secondly, That the seventh in number [...] Moral, & the seventh day in order, only ceremonial. Thirdly That the Lords-day by right succeedeth See Palmer & Can­drey a­bout the Sabbath as is here made out. And what day can be more sit then that on which Christ Jesus arose, and put an end to the work of Redemption? Then our Lord came in amongst the midst of his Disciples. Io. 20. 26. which M [...]ldo [...]at on the place confesseth to be some proof to shew that the Lords-day hath its origen from the will of Christ. Acts 20▪ 7. The Disciples con­veened to the worship and the breaking of bread that day, and 1. Cor. 16 they had their collections that day: Hierom contra Vigilan­tium [Page 12] sayeth, that per una [...] Sabbati is under­stood the Lords-day. And Rev. 1. 10. There is express mention of the Lords day, on which place Ribera the Iesuit remarketh that in the Apostles times, the solemnity of the Sabbath was changed to the Lords-day, and consecra­ted by the Lords Resurrection. Esthius on Gal. 4. v. 10. refuteth you fully by saying, Diei Dominicae observationem Apostolicam esse constat ex Scriptura. i. e. It is clear from Scripture that the Apostles observed the Lords day. How then can you say that we have no Scripture for it? Thirdly, That the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son, is clear in Scripture, Io. 14. 16. 17. Ioh. 15. 26. Io. 16. 7. Gal. 4. 6. Fourthly, That there be two Natures in Christ, is clear, Io. 1. 14. The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us. And Augustin who refuteth Rebaptization mantained by Donatists, mak­eth no use of unwritten Traditions, against that errour, but of that Scripture, Eph. 4. 5. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, for he say­eth, re [...]urrantus ad fontem, viz. Scripturas: let us return to the Scriptures which are the fountain; then citeh that text mentioned Tom. 7. lib. 5. cap. 26. and Ordination is expressed in that Tense, which by vertue of the word, excludeth Reiteration. It being a matter of Order if it be once done accord­ing [Page 13] to the rule, 1. Tim. 4. 14. it is enough; neither should this be debated here, for all that we assert is, that all points necessar to salvation are comprehended in Scripture, ei­ther expresly or cosequentially, by general or particular precepts, Perinde sunt ea quae ex Scriptu [...]is Colliguntur, at (que) ea quae scribuntur, saith Nazianzen, Naz. de Theol. orat. 5. i. e. These things which by necessary consequence are deduced from Scrip­ture are of the same force with these which are written in it. Let the Reader judge whither Popery be a safe way, which buildeth our main foundations upon humane testimonie, and derogats so much from the Scriptures of GOD. Yea, ere they will give them their due, rather will they strengthen Anti-Trini­tarians, Arrians, Anti-Sacramentarians, An­ti-Sabbatarians, Donatists and Separatists. The Lord grant repentance to such, who leav­ing the truth have a massed a body of errors.

Thirdly. For that amongst many Versions, Pa. Red. 3 yea and corruptions of Scripture, which all do acknowledge, and each sect imputeth to its ad­versaries, it seemeth very hard to discern au­thentick Scripture, many of the originals being lost, and the extract comming to the hands of very few, and few understand the Hebrew and Greek tongues wherein they are written, and yet, of this first of all we must be understood and assured, if we will not waver in matters of f [...]th.

[Page 14] Answer first, This is a digression to ano­ther Pro. An. 1 question concerning the Version: for I would ask, if there be any right Version at all? this will not be denyed, for the old Latine translation is acknowledged by you, then it is the rule of faith and no humane testimony. What doth this arguing prove against the point? there be some corrupted Versions, Ergo, the Original rightly translated must not determine my faith; some men are evil cloathed, therefore a man should not be well cloathed against the cold; there is no conse­quence there. Further, this objection ma­keth the word of God useles to men. Now, is it like that all should be commanded to go to the Law and Testimony, to, search the Scrip­tures, if they could not be had by any? Yea this Objection spoileth Providence, of its rent of praise which hath appeared so visibly in the preservation of the Scriptures. And we bless his Name for it that we have the Originals in Hebrew and Greek, and so pure a transla­on, that if any will compare them they wil find great faithfulnes and skill in the translators.

But to answer this impertinent Objection An. 2. more fully, we say that the Version is a Com­mentary be way of interpretation, and we make neither the translatiō of the 70. nor of the vulgar Latine authentick; but whē we find errours in either, we go ad judicem incor [...]up­tum [Page 15] hoc est primaevam linguam: to the un­corrupted Judge that is the first language, so much speaketh your Acosta. lib. 2. cap. 10. and in this rightly. But yee Romanists have preferred the vulgar Latine to the Hebrew and Greek, whereas it is a corrupt transla­tion, as some of your own testifie, and corrup­teth the doctrine, witness that one text for many, Gen. 3. 15. Ipsa conteret caput tuum. She shal break thy head, which is contrar to the Hebrew (hu). to the 70 [...]. and put­teth the Virgin Mary for Christ, so overturn­eth a foundation. Pag [...]n. in his Preface to the Hebrew Grammar, saith, Optarem ut o­stenderent mihi Germanam translationem, quae enim p [...]ssim legitur non est Hieronymi incor­rupta translatio. i. e. I wish they would shew me the Genuin translation, for that which is cōmonly received is not Hieroms pure translation, and Sixtus Senensis Bib. lib. 8. sub finem, sayeth, Multa ibi sunt parum accommodate versa. There are many things in it not fitly rendered: so that our Version will be found as good as any. And we are not hindered to run to the fountains in case of doubting, we make use of these streams as helps, and the Version is an humane instrument leading us to the well-head of the Original tongues. Dei verbum non est linguased doctrina: The word of GOD is not the language but the [Page 16] doctrine, saith, Rivet in his Isag. cap. 1. and we need Grammar more then Tradition for understanding thereof.

Reason fourth. Many cannot read Scrip­ture, and more as yet do not understand it, the Pa. Rea. 4 Scripture then or written word cannot be the Rule of Faith to these poor ignorants, but their Churches or Pastors authority. And so it seem­eth the Scripture cannot be the rule of faith to all persons, or in all points, or of any point contained in it self, untill I be first assured of some infallible rule, that this translation I re­ly upon is conform to the original in all points, and this Bible I am reading is the authentick word of God.

Answer First, This maketh nothing a­gainst Pro. An. 1 our assertion, wherein it is only said that the Scripture is the rule of faith to a right dis­cerner, which is granted by the Arguer in the next reason. It is Regula regulativa to all, apt and meet to decide all controversies, if men have ears to hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches: if it be not Regula regulans to some who are ignorant and unstable, Vi­tium ost in Organo, the fault is in the Organ. It is ill argued to say the Sun shineth not, because blind men see it not.

Secondly. They who cannot read the Scrip­tures An. 2. can hear them read, and it is more easie for dark ignorant ones to hear the word [Page 17] read and explained in their own language, then to travel from Scotland to Rome to hear the sentence of the Pope, for they could not understand the language in which it is deli­vered, they cannot travel through their de­cretals and acts. They know not if it be a lawful Pope, who pronounceth the sentence. And by their Confessours here they may be and are deceived.

Thirdly, It is the priviledge and promise An. 3. of God to open the heart, to enlighten the eyes, by the word read and preached, but no where hath the word of man this prerogative. See Is. 32. 3. 4. and Is. 35. 5. 6. 7. 8. These are Gospel prophecies. The Roman Trash may well make seeing men blind, but will never make blind men see the right way.

Fourthly, We do not deny ministeriall An. 4. helps to unlettered people, for such are com­manded, Heb. 13. 7. and 17. provided al­wayes their faith be resolved into the word of God, at least interpretative & virtualiter. What ever means be used, this milk of the Word is the authentick instrument which be­getteth faith, and it must be received not as the word of man, albeit the treasure be in earthen vessels, and the milk in a wooden pape. The difference of assent betwixt the learned and the unlearned is only accidental and modal, the one being more express then [Page 18] the other; we Catechise and instruct the ig­norant, and require them to hear the Church and follow their guides, so far as they follow Christ. 1. Cor. 11. 1. we hold forth co [...]mu­nia fidei motiva, interna [...], inward testimonies, the common motives of faith, reasons and testimonies of old and late, and what ever may help their edification : but we dare not lead them from the Scripture to men, neither will the interpretation of the Scripture permit us to admit of an other de­terminer. And it may be wel enough known by them who understand these languages, that these Greek and Hebrew words do thus signifie as they are translated, without the help of an infallible decree of Pope or Coun­cil thereanent. Without this also, GODS word can discover it self to be from GOD as hath been shewed already.

Reason 5. Reading of the Scripture with the privat spirit, and taking it up as every one Pa. Rea. 5 thinketh, maketh all the controversies in Chri­stendom, daily multiplying both Heresies and sects. Luther no sooner swerved from the Church, and denyed her authority, but as soon he broached this principle, That every man might take the Bible & follow that interpreta­tion which after due diligence used, he thought best, whereupon presētly did spring up an incre­dible number of different sects, Antimon [...]ans, [Page 19] Osiandrians, Majorists, Synergists, &c. Now hear what Luther himself said of Calvins he­resie, Tom. 7. fol. 380. I scarce ever read, saith he, of a more deformed heresie, which presently in the beginning was divided into such variety of sects, as so many Toads, and such disagreement of opinions not one like to another. You see then how the word cannot be the determiner of faith, which all these sects take with you for their rule, yet alone will never agree [...]hem. As for that you say, the scripture hath Divine authority, Heavenly majestie, and maketh Spiritual impressions on the soul, all this I grant, if once a man know or believe it to be the word of GOD.

Answer First, All this is answered to the fourth or fifth question, and should not be Pro. An. 1 brought in here, yet passing the digression and informality, which I hope the Reader cannot impute to me the Defender. I answer to the 5. Reason, the Scriptures in the Primitive Church were published [...]o all, this your own Az [...]i [...]s confesseth, Iust, mor. p. 1. lib: 8. c. 26. [...]he Scriptures in the Primitive Church were to be published throughout all Nations, and therefore made common in the most fa­mou [...] languages. In Hierom and Chrysostoms dayes the ley people were exercised in read­ing the Scriptures. Espencaeus saith, Comment. on Tit. 3. 2. it is manifest by the Apostles [Page 20] doctrine, Col. 3. 16. and by the practise of the Church, that the publies use of reading the scriptures was then permitted to the people. The Council of Nice decreed saith Agrippa, that no Chri [...]tian shoul [...] [...]e with­out a Bible. Augustin alloweth, de Doct. Christi. the use of scriptures to all, for he saith, they are not so hard, but every one by his use making of them may attain to so much knowledge of them as may further him in his salvation. Chrysost. hom. 3. de Lizaro. ex­horts all men and women, yea Tradsmen to get Bibles. Now I pray you to what purpose if they dare not search for the sense of them?

Secondly, It is denyed that when privat Pro. An. 2 men search the Scriptures, this is an act of a privat spirit, It may be pri­vat res­pectupersonae which is publick ration [...] modi & medii & è contra. for such may pray, and have the spirit of grace and supplication poured forth on them, according to the promise, Zach. 12. 10. and none call that a privat spirit, so they may interpret Scripture by Scripture, and have the gift of it. Hear your own Gerson prim [...] part. de ex. doct. Si aliquis non authorizatus sit excellenter in sacra scrip­tura eruditus, plus credendum est ejus asser­tioni quam Papae declarationi. i. e. If any not ordained be well instructed in the holy Scrip­tures, his assertion is more to be believed then the Popes declaration. Secondly, Our Divines distinguish well three sorts of inter­preters, [Page 21] the first is extraordinar and miracu­lous. 1. Cor. 12. 30. The second is ordinar and ministerial. 1. Cor. 14. 32. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets. The third is of privat persons who are comman­ded to [...]ry the spirits, and are commended for so [...]ing. A [...]t. 8. 28. 29. A [...]t. 17. 11. The first kynd of interpretation is gone, the two next are in use as yet, but the one is sub­servient to the other. Thirdly, [...]he different sects that lay claim to Scripture, cannot de­prive us of the priviledge to search it and make use of it. Will any man approve this argument? Meat and drink is abused by some therefore none should eat or drink. If the matter be indifferent and subject to abuse, then we are to restrain our selves of liberty in the use of that in different thing. V [...]tan­dum estlicitū non necess [...]riū propter vicinita­tem illi [...]ti. Aug. de c [...]v. Dei lib. 15. But when it is necessar necessitate precepti & medii, by necessity of precept and mean, who can for­bid the use of a necessar mean? Now it is most necessar to improve the Scriptures by reading, understanding, application, medita­tion, and blessed is he who doth so day and night, sitting or standing. De [...]t. 6. 6. It is ab­surd to say ( [...]lbeit Luther and Calvin did dif­fer in some points) that he fathered the sects of Germany on Calvin, who was as free of [Page 22] Munster malady as the man unborn, and was malleus haereticorum as his learned writtings testifie aboundantly. In that place cited, he speaketh of the swarms of sects, which were indeed monstrous like, at that time, but ne­ver imputed it to the use making of Scrip­ture, for then he would not have understood himself, nor could he blame Calvin for it u­pon that account, seeing it was his own tenet. Now Reader, stay and impartially consider the weaknes and impertinency of these 5 rea­sons, why our faith should not be resolved into the Scriptures and determined by them. For the sume of all is thus concluded. The word of GOD is not wel understood by some, is evil translated by others, and Hereticks and Schismaticks have abused it: therefore, we should not make use of it as the rule of faith and manners. This is a Paralogism and confused rapsodic, but I pass it; for sons of Babel must daub with untempered mortar, and be Babel-like in their way.

Although these 5. Reasons be answered § 1. sufficiently, yet for further satisfaction to the Reader, these two particulars shal be dis­cussed. Question 1. Whose it is to inter­pret Scripture. R. In the first place it be­longeth to the Ministerial Church. Pastors and Officers called of GOD to that employ­ment, are ordinarily better gifted for that [Page 23] work then other men: I say ordinarily, be­cause in some cases it may be otherwise, and the Lord may raise up extraordinary inter­preters, this appeareth from 1. Cor. 14. 29. And the judgement of a pure Church in du­bious cases, should weigh much with privat Christians. Secondly, Privat Christians may read the Scriptures, search for their sense, improve them privatly for edification, and examine what is said by others, for they have the promise to attain, Jer. 31. 34. a precept to improve, 1. Pet. 4. 10. and a pri­viledge to try Acts 17. 11. 1. Cor. 10. 15. this judgement of discretion no man can take from them, Io. 10. 4. Matth. 7. 15. more then the taste from a man. Is not that spirit which dyted the scripure the best in­terprerer of it? But privat men may have that, 1. Cor. 2. 15. This their judgement is not authoritative nor judicial, yet bindeth themselves, and he is a better Christian who followeth, then he who stiffleth it, so speak all Casuists. Chrysost. hom. 13. in act. Apost. reproveth such as professed they would be Christ [...]ans, yet doubted to whom they should adhere [...]; have ye not judgement sayeth he, and have ye not scriptures? Aug. Confes. lib. 13. sub sinem cap. 22. & cap. 23. explaining that place, 1. Cor. 2. 15. sayeth Quisque fi­delis est spiritualis, every beleever is spiri­tual [Page 24] and hath a judgment of discretion. Pi­cus Mirandula Theor. 16. sayeth, If the grea­test part of a Councill conclude against the word of God, Si rusticus, if a rurall man have the Gospel for him, he is most to be beleeved and adhered to. This sheweth that the scrip­ture should be read and searched by such, and privat men having this priviledge, should make use of it in a Gospel way, for edifica­tion, not for destruction.

Question second, How shall Scripture be in­terpreted? Answer first, Not by the Pope, §. 2. for people are commanded to search the Scriptures, before there was a Pope in the world. Iohn 5. 39. therefore, that cannot be a necessar mean. Secondly, Nor can all make use of Generall Councills, seeing these are more hard to be understood then the Scripture. Thirdly, Not by carnall reason. For the naturall man perceiveth not the things of God. 1. Cor. 2. 14. But first by Prayer and Meditation, for the Lord giveth the Spirit to them that ask him, Luke 11. 13. and this mean is practised by experienced beleevers. Ps. 119. 18. Secondly, By a docile cleanly frame of heart. Ps. 25: 9. 10. Matth. 5. 8. Thirdly, By comparing Scripture with scripture, obscure places with these which are clear,; ex Gr. who can interpret Ps. 8. v. 2. so well as the Evangelist, Matth. 21. 16. [Page 25] or the 4. and 5. verses, so as the Apostle to the Heb. 2. 7. 8. or these words Matth. 26. 28 so as the Evangelist Luke 22. 20. with Mat. 26. 29. where after the consecration of the Cup it is called the fruit of the vine. Or that text, Matth. 19. 23. A rich man shal hardly enter into the kingdom of Heaven. so as the interpretation of the Evangelist, Mark. cap. 10. 34. How hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God. Fourth­ly, By the Commentats of ancient and late writters, by the preaching of those who are called of God to that work: with this caution that we try the spirits, whither they be of God or not. 1. Io. 4. 1. Fifthly, For the ex­act interpretation of places, which should be propounded to others for edification, the knowledge of the Original tongues, History, Chronology, Topography, is in measure requi­sit. This is the way by which the ancient Fa­thers expounded Scripture. Chrysost. in Gen. hom. 13. [...] Socra Scriptura cum nos tale quid docere vult, serpsant expo­nit, & auditorem errare non sinit. i. e. The holy Scripture when it will have us to teach any such thing it expounds it self, and suffe­reth not the hearer to erre. Yea a Jesuit A­costa, lib. 3. de Christo revelato. ch. 25. con­fesseth so much, being overcome with the truth. Nihil perinde scripturam mihi aperire [Page 26] videtur, atque ipsa scriptura, itaque diligens attenta frequensque lectio, meditatio, oratio, & collatio scripturarum, summa regula ad intelligendam scripturam mihi semper visa est. i. e. Nothing seemeth to me more useful, for opening up scripture, then scripture it self: therefore the diligent, attentive, and frequent reading of the Scriptures, meditation, prayer, and comparing of them together, hath ever seemed to me the best rule for understanding scripture. Aug. de doct. Christi lib. 2. cap. 9. In his enim quae aperte in scriptura proposi­ta sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia, quae continent fidem, spem, charitatem, moresque vivendi: de quibus libro superiore tractavimus tum vero facta quadam familiaritate, cum ipsa lingua divinarum scripturarum, in ea quae obscura sunt aperienda & discutienda, pergen­dum est▪ ut ad obscuriores locutiones illustran­das, de manifestioribus sūmantur exempla: & quaed [...]m certatum sententiarum testimonia, dubitationem de incertis auferant.

Question seco [...]d, How can the Scripture be judge seeing it is the rule? [...]a. Qu. [...].

Answer fi [...]st, It is a speaking rule, the Spi­rit of God speaketh there. The Acts of Par­liament are both the law and judge of a Pro. An. case, albeit men pronounce the sense of them. So the Church hath the herauldry of this, and hence may pronounce the sentence: but the [Page 27] determination is from the word alone, for humane testimonie can adde no weight to the Divine.

To this it is returned, that the second an­swer Pa. Rea▪ is no better then the first. The Scripture say you is a speaking rule, and may be both rule and judge. But the Acts of Parliament and civil laws be as well speaking laws, in matters of temporal government, as the scrip­ture is in spiritual: and yet parties should ne­ver agree, if the Lords of Council and Session did not expound them, and pronounce sentence from them, not as heraulds, but as judges: albeit they be tyed to conform their sentence both to Acts of Parliament customs, and laws. Even so, scripture is indeed our law book, but the Church is our judge, for this our experience may prove, that there hath been no agreement amongst them, who make any other judge then the Church, as all Sectaries commonly do. Be­side, it would seem to me against our oath of supremacie, not to acknowledge any other judge in matters of controversie then scripture. See­ing there his Majestie is said to be, and we sworn to acknowledge him, supream judge in all cases, as well Civil as Eclesiastick, and I pray God that Preachers and Ministers, to whom only you ascribe the power of herauldry, had not taken on the coat of arms, these years bygon, to publish any other sentence, then that [Page 28] which did proceed from the mouth of that su­pream judge.

Answer first, The Scripture we call a rule, Pro. An. because it maketh the man of GOD perfect, 2. Tim. 3. 16. as a rule doth a line, and the Duply. 1. doctrine therein is termed a judge, Metony­mically, (properly a judge is a person) be­cause it is the voice of a supreame judge, who is our law-giver. This we speak with the Scripture, Io. 12. 48. Io. 7. 51. and Heb. 4. 13. It is the descerner of the thoughts of the heart. Where [...] is given to it. You grant here, that it is our law book, Ergo, Meto­nymically our judge and determiner it must be, for we appeal to the law for judgement. To this the Apostle Paul appealeth, Act. 26. 22. Then there be many cases incident to a Christian in his spiritual exercise, which none on earth can judge. The spiritual one is judged of no mam, 1. Cor. 2. 15. yet this will discern the thoughts of his heart. The divine doctrine now written is the only im­partial infallible determiner, he who heareth not Moses, the Prophets and the Apostles, will not hear one risen from the dead. Conscience is a rule, Rom. 2. 14. a witness, Rom. 2. 15. and a judge, 1. Io. 3. 20. 21. It is to be consi­dered, that there is a difference betwixt hu­mane Courts and this work: the one concer­neth temporals wherein we may be ruled by [Page 29] reason, but here in matters of salvation we must have an infallible rule by revelation; al­beit in humane Courts the rule the witness and the judge are different, for guarding a­gainst corruption to which fallen man is sub­ject▪ yet in foro divino, in the court of GOD one may be witness, judge, rule, accuser, such is the scripture. The Spirit of GOD speaketh there. Is it not the law, the testimony the canon or rule? Gal. 6. 16. is it not a wit­nesser a warner? Ps. 19. 11. doth it not speak to men? Rom. 9. 17. and will it not judge us hereafter? The word which I speak to you will judge you in the last day. Io. 12. 48. if then, why now is it not our judge? Further, the judgement of discretion, is but a discre­tive faculty, no proper bench, and liker a watch then a judge, for it hath no authority over others, the Ministerial authority is sub­ordin [...]t, and more like the office of a steward nor of a proper judge. 2. Cor. 1. 24. Only the written word is the determiner, and the Lord speaking there, is absolute supreame judge, from whom there is no appealing.

Answer second, If the second be as good as the first it is well, for notwithstanding of all Pro. An. 2 your weapon-shews, you yeeld in the end what I said, that we should go to the law and testimony with all our cases, and that the scrip­ture to any believer and right discerner hath [Page 30] divine authority, Heavenly majestie, and mak­eth spiritual impressions on the soul. If it have divine authority is it not judge? was there any more asserted in the first answer? we hold the same similitude; the King is head of Council and Session, the law ratified by King and Parliament is the rule, and the officers of Council and Session are administrators. So our Lord Jesus is the head of his Church, the written Word is the law, and the Mini­sters of the Gospel are administrators, by whom the people are directed and instructed. But if the officers go contrar to the will of the King and his law, the subjects may appeal from their administration to the acts of Par­liament, and hear the Kings pleasure, when subjects wrong their inferiours and neigh­bours. See Ps. 85. 8. Hear what the Lord will say, and who hath ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit sayeth to the Churches.

Answer third, Ministers of the Gospel are called Messengers, Rev. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 23. So Pro. An. 3 were they termed under the law, Mal. 2. 7. and doth not the Greek word [...] oft used for Preacher in the N. T. signify a cry­er or herauld? Why then do you scoff at Scripture? As for your prayer, it seemeth you pray all by the book, and here you are beside it: present or future things are the object of prayer, but that factum should be infectum, [Page 31] to pray that a thing done should be undone, is an unwarrantable petition; what hath been wrong in us heretofore should be regra­ted, what is or hath been right, is the object of praise, but your prayer is unwarrantable and impossible.

Answer fourth, Albeit our Soveraign Lord Pro. An. 4 the Kings Majestie be supream magistrat, ac­cording to the Scripture, 1. Pet. 2. 13. and ex officio a nursing father to the Church, Is. 49. 23. to whom every man civil or Eccle­siastick doth owe subjection, Rom. 13. 1. Yet it will not follow, that the word of GOD is not the supream determiner of all controver­sies in Religion. Whatsoever primitive Fa­thers gave to Constantine the great, Theodo­sius elder and younger, &c. that we give to our Soveraign Lord the King: And▪ there be no Church on earth, which by their confes­sions of faith honour the Magistrat more then we. Yet notwithstanding of this prerogative asserted, and mantained against Papists by our Viz. Bp. Bil­son de Subject. Usher. Dr. Strang. Divines. Our Soveraigne Lord the Kings Majestie will not deny, that the scrip­ture is the determiner of all the Articles of our faith: seeing he mantaineth the 39. Ar­ticles of the Church of England, whereof this is one.

Answer fifth, How cometh it to pass that Pro. An. 5 you own the oath of supremacie? (By [Page 32] calling it ours) seeing the main scop of that oath was, to renounce the Pope his juris­diction in the Kings dominions, you must either have a dispensation for this, that you here subscribe a renunciation of the Popes su­premacie, or else you will be declared apostar at Rome. And no Papist keeping his prin­ciples, can averre that wich is here set down under your hand.

Question third, If the Scripture be judge, why be there so many controversies undecyded? Pa. Qu.

Answer, The perverseness of men is to blame for this. Unstable, unlearned ones wrest the Scripture to their own perdition, Pro. An. 2. Pet. 3. 16. and make difficulties where there be none. As much as containeth the way to salvation is plain in Scripture, so that he who runneth may read and learn.

Reply, In your third answer you please me Pap. Reply. well, and it confirmeth all I have said, but refuteth your former answer to the full. For if the unlearned as well as the unstable wrest the scripture to their own destruction, then Scripture can neither be the determiner of faith nor the judge of controversies to them, and so they must have another, both to instruct the ignorant and settle the unstable; as we must all have some infallible judge to know who wrest the Scripture who not: otherwise we may well agree in the letter, but we will never [Page 33] agree in the sense and meaning thereof. But as much (say you) as containeth the way to salvation is plain, so that he may runne who readeth it. Sir, doth it not belong to salvation that there be three persons in God, one in Christ, that Baptism is a Sacrament, &c. Now, where find you this in Scripture either running or sit­ing? Or if Scripture be so plaine & clear as ye make it, why be there so many Comments on it among your own men and so different? Why is there amongst Protestants 200. expositions u­pon these four words, This is my Body? As Cusa [...]us in his holy court observeth.

Answer first, I am glade that the written Pro. An. 1 word of GOD pleaseth you so, who have all this time spent words to throw all power out of its hand, and hang it at the Popes foot. But you say, it refuteth what was said formerly. This cannot be made good, for still I said it was the rule of faith, to right discerners, and sometime you grant this, as in the latter part of your fifth Reason, whereby indeed you re­fute all you have said, and yeelds the cause fully. Now what contradiction can be here? The scripture is the rule to all right discer­ners, and as many as walk according to this rule peace shal be on them: but men who wrest the word, unlearned, unstable soules, fall into perdi [...]ion for abuse of the word, and destroy themselves; hence proceedeth many controver­sies. [Page 34] Is it not a strange consequence to in­ferre thence, that these unlearned, unstable soules should have another rule and another judge? In the 19. of Luke v. 27. it is said by our Lord, that his enemies who would not have him to reign over them, should be brought forth and slain before him: will it therefore follow, that he should not reign over them? Or that they Jure should have another King? The case is just alike here. It is granted that many have their conscien­ces seared, 1. Tim. 4. 2. are [...] 2. Tim. 3. 8. self-condemned. Tit. 3. 11. under stronge delusions. 2. Thess. 2. 11. Is the Scripture to blame for this? You have many faults to that which you like not. Hear Op­tatus Milevitanus adversus Paliner Dona­tistam. Vos dicitis licet, nos non licet, inter li­cet vestrum, & non licet nostrum, nutant a­nimi populorum. If you seek a judge (saith he) a Pagan cannot do it nor a Jew, they are ene­mies: Christians by their discerning faculty cannot, they being impeded studio partium Then upon earth there can be no judge: shal we go to Heaven for one? Quorsum, cum hic habemus i [...] Evangelio testamentum. i. e. To what purp [...]se seeing we have the Testament here in the Gospel. If there be a contention a­mong brethren, (saith he) quaritur Testa­mentum, the Testament is sought. So we must [Page 35] decide our controversies by the Old and New Testament, etenim praesentia quae modo facitis futura conspexerat Christus. i. e. For Christ did foresee these things as future, which ye make to be now present, and hath he foreseen it, and will he not provide a remedie for it?

Secondly, These unlearned unstable ones, Pro. An. 2 who are to be destroyed, will not hear, un­derstand nor obey his word: then is it like that they will understand the voluminous decrees of the Pope? May they not wrest his sentence and sense more easily then Scripture words? Or dare any say, that humane ordi­nance [...] will sooner compes [...]e, command, or regulat them, then the word of GOD?

Thirdly, We do not deny M [...]nisterial Pro. An▪ 3 helps for instructing and se [...]ling the ignorant and unstable, nor judicial sentences subaltern and subordinat [...]o the law, But that there is an infallible man [...] to whose sentence I must implicitly submi [...] is [...]culous to averie it, and the broaching of that errour hath occasioned more controversies, then were formerly in the Church, so far is it from composing differences. If ye were more in catechising the unlearned, and le [...]s in regal commands, the law of GOD would be both better understood and obeyed.

Fourthly, Albeit some places be hard to Pro. An. 4 be understood by the unlearned, 1. Pet. 3. 16. [Page 36] other places are not so difficult. In the scrip­ture an Elephant may swime, and a Lamb may wade. And the same particulars you a­gain object are clearly holden forth in scrip­ture as is formerly proved, in the vindica­tion of my, answer to your 1. Qu. in answer to Rea. 2. Yea the way to salvation is fair and patent there, and if we perish, our destruction is of our selves, seeing that book is not sealed to us. Commentaries, Church-canons, Ec­clesiastick sentences, are helps and means for edification: but scripture is the authentick instrument, and all the authority is originally from it. And different expositions, accord­ing to the analogy of faith, may be, and will be, so long as there be diversity of gifts. But I ask why ye make use of Commentars, See­ing ye resolve all into the sentence of the Pope? And why do your Commentators dif­fer so amongst themselves? If this hinder not your Ecclesiastick supremacie, why should it be brought to weaken scripture authority? It is hard to find where you are, for sometimes ye would have a judge to authorize scripture to you, sometimes you would have only one for the sense of scripture, then at last, you are for one only to the unlearned and un­stable, such is your instability in this matter, that I wish the word of God may determine you aright in the point.

[Page 37] Question fourth, Were it not better to e­stablish Pa. Qu. 4 a man or an assembly of men judge of Controve [...]sies, seeing the Church is the pillar of truth, 1. Tim 3. 15. a [...]d hath the promise of presence Matth. 28. 20. then th [...] [...] Sect should be laying claim to the Scripture and yet taking sundry wayes.

Answer, The promulgation of the law is Pro. An. not denyed to the pure Gospel Church, truth is mantained and preserved there, as the law was keeped in the Ark, thus it is called the pillar of it. But the Church of Rome is not such being a very strumpet, and making the Kings of the earth drunk with the cup of her fornications. Rev. 17. 2. tha [...] promise of presence is made to the universal Church, but no particular Church such as Rome, can claim the measure or duration of it; who of these can say that they shal last to the end of the world? Albe­it Sects lay claim to Scripture, yet their a­buse cannot take away our lawful use of it.

To this a Papist replyeth, That the question Pap. Reply. is not directly answered by me, whither on man or many should be judge of controversies? To this he saith I dare not answer, because I will not grant the power either to the high Bishop or general council, nevertheless, he findeth this to have been the constant practise of the Church, both in the Old and New Testament establish­ed by the express word of God, and received [Page 38] by the Fathers in all ages: for in the Old Tes­tament, from Deut. 17. from 8. to 13. we read that GOD did command the people in matters of controversie to go to the Priests, Le­vits, and judge, who should be in those days ap­pointed by him for that end, saying, and thou shalt do according to the sense of the law which they shal teach thee, and according to the judgement which they shal tell thee. Re­mark, he saith not according to the sense of the law which thou shalt read, but which they shal teach thee, not taken according to the privat judgement and spirit, but according to the judgmēt which they shal tel thee, where God promiseth out of their mouth judicii veritatē truth and verity in judgement, or as you turn it, sen­tence of judgement. See for this also 2. Chr. 19. 8. where Jehosophat established what was first instituted. Viz. a council of Levits, Priests, and chief fathers of Israel, to judge not on­ly between brethren and brethren, blood and blood, but also betwixt law and cōmandments, statutes and judgements. Not leaving law and commandments to the peoples privat reading, and interpretation, as you do in your rule of faith. In the 11. verse, he concludeth thus, Amaziah is over you in all matters of the Lord; where it is evident that the council and chief Priest is established judge of con­troversie, and not the written Word, as every [Page 39] one readeth and expoundeth. In the New Te­stament again you have this practise clearly set down, Acts. 15. Where Paul and Barna­bas though Apostles themselves, go up to Je­rusalem about the question of circumcising the Gentiles converted to the faith. And there was holden the first council in which this is decided, not out of Scripture, but by the authority of the Council it self. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us, said they, having the assured promise of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, as the Church hath at all time. Wherefore after the Apostles, councils have decided with the same authority, and upon the same infallible ground of the Holy Ghosts assistance promised to the Church. Many controversies are ac­knowledged by Protestants for points of faith, without express passage of Scripture. Marcion teaching that Baptism should be conferred more then once; and Donatists that Baptism conferred by Hereticks should be reiterated, as invalid, are condemned, in the council holden at Rome under Melchiad [...]s Pope in the year 313. now what passage of Scripture I pray you is for this? S [...]bellius putting one person only in the God-head, is c [...]ndemned in the council of Alexandria under Pope Cornelius in the year 319. but scripture maketh no mention of persons, Nestorius putting two per­sons in Christ is condemned in the Generall [Page 40] Council holden at Ephesus under Pope Caele­stin the year 434. Yet neither doth the Scrip­ture speak of th [...]. The Monotheli [...]s giving to Christ one will in two Natures, are condemned in the third general C [...]uncil holden at Con­stantinople under Pope Agathon the year 679. albeit there be no formal scripture for this. So you see it belongeth both in the Old and New Testament, to the high Priest and general Council to decide controversie, either by Scripture if there be any passage clear for that point, or without Scripture, by Apostolick tradition conserved in the Church which scrip­ture it self warranteth. 2. Thess. 2. 15. Hold fast the traditions which ye have learned ei­ther by word or our epistle; but it seemeth you care not who be condemned, or by whom, if you take away all power on earth to condemne your selves. Every Protestant will be condem­ned by none but Scripture, and yet will make none judge of the Canon, Version, and sense of Scripture but himself. All your answer is, that we grant the Promulgation of the law to the pure Gospel Church, but you shew not what is this pure Gospel Church, neither can you in­fallibly prove the purity of the Gospel it self, or that there is a Gospel, or the true sense of the Gospel but by the Catholick Church her authority. Hear Aug. contta Ep. fund. cap. 5. Where he saith, I my self would not have be­lieved [Page 41] the Gospel, were it not that the autho­rity of the Church moved me to it. Now the Catholick Church is, that whose faith is spread through all the world in the Apostle Paul his time, which maketh her to be justlie called the Catholick Roman Church: and whose faith hath been in all ages since Christ, which all the records of the Protestant writters witness of the Roman Church; wherein the succession of Popes, Bishops, Councils, is made conspicuous to all who have written Chronology or Church history in every age, none whereof make men­tion of your Church, or of men professing your tenets before Luther and Calvin, from whom ye dissent in many things.

Answer first, This is a prolix reply, the Pro. Du. 1 substance of which might have been taken up in seven or eight lines. As it is spacious, so it is an impertinent rapsodie, and like a beg­gers cloak clouted here and there with divers parcells without any method or cohesion; It seemeth to have been taken out of some In­dex, and cast in here to fill the page. For the answer was, That the promulgation of the law is not denyed to the pure Gospell-Church, which is not the Roman-Church, for it is im­pure. Is not this a direct answer? You prove, that there hath been a Ministerial-Church in the old and new Testament, which we doe not deny; but this is the point, did they so [Page 42] pronounce sentence, and decide Controver­sies, that all discretive judgement was taken from people? or called they themselves in­fallible, whether they had scripture warrand or not? Or, wil the promise of presence, to the Apostles, Prophets and penners of Scripture, in measure and duration agree to any Church Officers now on Earth? Or, should promises made to the Universal-Church agree to any particular Church such as Rome? Or will promises made to the collective body of the Church agree to the representative? unless these be proved you fight with your own sha­dow. For we are much for the authority of Christs Church, and think that her judgment of old, and late, should sway privat men, un­less they can prove by scripture, or sound rea­son, that she erreth. We are much for the authority of all lawful Councils, and we give them all reverence in regard of the authori­ty of their constitution, but if they depart from the scriptures we owe them not active obedience. Well speaketh our learned Ca­mero, tom. 1. tract. de infallibilitate eccle­siae, So oft as any thing is decreed by a Council, or assembly of men, appointed by lawfull au­tharity in the Church, it should have this weight with us, that rashly, without grave and diligent enquiry after the truth, it should not be rejected by us. And whereas it is alleadged, [Page 43] there will be no effectual way against Con­troversies and divisions in religion, unlesse some one supream and infallible judge be appointed on Earth, in whose [...]udgement and decision, parties controverting should [...]st and acquiesce. It may be well answered in your own Bellarmin his wordes, lib. 2. de Concil. cap. 19. It is no wonder if the Church remaine without any humane remedy, seeing the welfare of it doth not primarily rely upon humane industrie, but upon divine protection; seeing its King is GOD: therefore may and ought the Church to pray unto God, and it is certaine, he will care for the well-fare of it.

Answer second, Albeit I cannot compre­hend the purpose of this laxe discourse, yet Pro. Duply 2 for satisfaction to the Reader, I shal inform him in these 5. particulars. First, what Papists mean by the Church, or whither they under­stand themselves in this? Secondly, Whither Church officers since the dayes of the Apost­les are infallible? Thirdly, What kind of obedience should be tendered to them? Fourthly, What government the Christian Church should have, whither Papal and Mo­narchical, or Aristocratical and Ministerial? Fifthly, How that testimony of Augustia, non credidissem Scripturae &c. is to be under­stood. For the first, by the Church, all the Jesuits, who are the Popes life-guard, under­stand [Page 44] the Pope. So Valentia disk. Theol. tom. 1. disp. 1. qu. 1. Coster Enchir de sum: Pont: Gretser. Colloq. Ratis. Ses. 1. Bell. hanketeth in the point, for once he saith, that the Pope without the Council may determine matters of faith, De Christo. lib. 2. cap. 28. and de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 17. Against this de verbo Dei lib. 3. cap. 3. he saith, the Pope with a Council is the judge of the true sense of Scrip­ture. So speaketh this reflecter. The Sorbonists, Jansenists, and others of the Popish partie understand by the Church, the present Ro­mish officers assisted by the Pope, and stand by the Canons of the Councils of Constance Sess. 4. 5. and Basil. Sess. 2. wherein it was decreed that the Pope should obey the Coun­cil. The Council of Trent according to its manner is ambiguous herein Sess. 4. decr. 2. And saith, that the Church should judge the true sense of Scripture, yet tell us not what they mean by the Church. Now, whatever way it be taken, whither for Pope or Coun­cil, there must be another judge of contro­versies, otherwise the Church wanted a judge 300 years, for there was no such judge then pretending to the infallible supremacie now claimed. Secondly, The Romish Synagogue headed by the Pope cannot be our judge, for they are party partial against whom we have just acception. Thirdly, Is not this a jugling [Page 45] trick, that when controversies occasioned and raised by them, are in the Christian Church, they will have none to be judge but them­selves: so they would be sure of the sentence, and must suspect their own cause. Fourthly, If by the Church they mean the Pope, as now they mantain, it is hard to call him judge of controversies, seeing it is a great controversie whither there should be any Pope at all, and beyond controversie with us that he is an u­surper. Fifthly, According to the Popish tenet, the intention of the Priest is necessar in his ordination, in his Baptism; succession without interruption is necessar; and Simony maketh him no Pope, as Gratian telleth from the Canon law, causa 2. qu. 1. Now if so, he may be a Pagan, for who knoweth the Priests intention who baptized him? He may be a Laick, and yet without ordination upon the same ground; if one be such, it marreth uninterrupted succession, and so ceaseth the Pope. Then by your own writters it is clear, that many Popes entered by Si­mony, as Barronius testifieth, Annal: tom. 9. ad annum. Christi. 912. And Alexander the 6. was notorious that way. This un Popeth all, for it breaketh the chain of succession, and leaveth the Church collective without any judge. It is clear hence, how slipperie the Romish Church is in its foundations: seeing [Page 46] he whom they call the Church may be a Pagan Secondly, As to the second thing proposed, viz. Whither Church officers since the days of the Apostles are infallible▪ The Church whither taken for Pope or Council, or Pope & Council is not infallible. When the Coun­cils condemned hereticks of old, they did it not pro arbitratu & imperio: but judged by the Scriptures which is indeed an infallible rule, but the church taken whither for Pope or Council, or Pope and Council is not infallible. First, If the Jewish-church erred in matter of faith and worship, then may the christian-church erre also. For they had statutes, judgements, and promises : to them were committed the oracles of GOD. Rom. 3. 2. But Aaron and the people erred grosly, Ex 32. So did Uriah the Priest, 2. Kings 16. May not then Popes erre? Seeing Aaron the saint of the Lord was not infallible. Yea, both Priest and Prophet erred in judgement, see Is. 28. 7. on which words Sanctius the Jesuit saith, Priests, Prophets, and people were spiritually drunk. Did not the Church rul­ers while the Levitical Priest-hood lasted, pro­cure the death of Christ? Secondly, Under the Gospel Popes and Councils have erred, Ergo, they are not infallible. Tertullian tell­eth contra Praxetam, that Eleutherius the Pope approved Montanus heresie, and obtru­ded [Page 47] it on the Church as his Irenicum. Your own Barronius telleth ad ann. 302. that Mar­cellus the Pope sacrificed to Idols, Athaud­sius Atha­nasius in epist. ad Solita­riam vitam a­gentes. testifieth, that Liberius the Pope was Arrian. Honorius was condemned in the sixth General Council as a Monothelit, Anastasius the Pope saith Alphonsus, de cast. lib. 5. cap. 25. was Nestorian. Now can Monothelism, Nestorianism, Arrianism, Montaaism and Idolatry, be [...]nherent to a man infallible? Or can a chair make that man who is Arrian Orthodoxe, or him who sacrificeth to Idols unerring, who will be­lieve this?

Councils may erre adversaries being judges, Occam asserteth so much, and Petrus Alliaco Cardinalis qu. vespert. art. 3. for he saith, that this promise, the gates of hell shal not prevail against the Church, is made uni­verso catui fidelium, to the whole number of the faithful, not to the representative Church which may erre. Panor: sup. 1. part. sib. decret. Dicit Ecclesiam quae non potest errare esse totam collectionem fidelium, nam ista est Ec­clesia quae non potest errare, that is, the whole company of believers which cannot erre. Nic. de Clemang. in his disp with the Pari­sians, saith, the promise Matth. 18. as like­wise that Iohn 16. The spirit of truth shal lead you into all truth, belongeth only to spiritual [Page 48] ones, and it were better to be much in fasting and prayer for direction, then to bragge we cannot erre. So then I reason, the Pope may erre, Councils may erre, Ergo, the Pope and Council may erre. The argument will hold here, a divisis ad conjugata. as well as thus, the Magistrat may be diseased, and his coun­cil infected, therefore both Magistrat and Council are subject to sickness. It is a delud­ing evasion, to say, that the Councils confir­med by the Pope cannot erre, for the Jesuits place the infallibility in the Pope, the Parl­sians in the Council, and they are not agreed in this amongst themselves▪ In the sense of the one, a Church Session confirmed by the Pope is as infallible as a Council. And in the sense of the other, a Council confirmed by a privat Bishop is at infallible as if it were con­firmed by the Pope. Thus then we argue, that must have no entity which can find no subject, but Papists cannot agree upon the subject of this infallibility, therefore it is not ens. Further, General Councils have been of this judgement, that the Popes consent is not requisit for making their decrees right. For in the Council of Chalcedon where were conveened 630. fathers in the year 454. where Martianus the Emperour was present, it was contrar to the desire of the Popes Le­gats, appointed, that seeing the seat of Rome [Page 49] had no divine warrand for its supremacie, Constantinople should have alike priviledges with it. This was as full a Council as we read of, and yet all these fathers thought the Popes cōsent not necessary for their statutes: Yea they declared his supremacie not to be Juris Apostolici in the first Council of Con­stantinople which was the second generall Council. The Councills of Constance and Ba­sil, judged the Council to be above the Pope. In the first three generall Councills the Pope did not so much as preside in them, either by himself or by his legats. For in the first, pre­sided Hosius Bishop of Corduba. In the second Necta [...]ius, Bishop of Constantinople. And in the third at Ephesus, Cyril Bishop of Alexan­dria, in which Councills, Controversies were deterrained by the plurality of suffrages, and every one of the fathers there, did subscrive their name to the constitutions and conclu­sions of the Council. The council of Trent again did all Proponentibus legatis, therefore, either it or they were in an errour, so not in­fallible. And indeed it is above dispute that the council of Trent was erronious, and not the council of Chalcedon, in that, which Gre­gory the Great and all ancients so extoll and commend.

This is said not in the least to derogate from lawfull councills which we judge necessary [Page 50] helps, for ordering the effaires of the house of God in diverse exigencies. Yea, we give more to the foure Generall Councills then Papists doe, for they cast both at the se­cond and fourth. But we have another judge and determiner, the Scripture of God. Au­gustin confirmeth this, Nec ego nicaenum, nec tu debes Ariminense, tanquā prajudicatu­rus Aug. contra Maxi. Arrian. Episcop. praeferre consilium; nec ego hujus aucto­ritate, nec tu illius detineris. Scripturarum auctoritatibus, non quorumcunque propriis, sed utrisque communibus testibus, res cum re causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione consentiat. i. e. Neither would I preferre the Nicen, nor ought you as prejudged to preferre the A­rimin council, I am not holden by this, or thou by that, but by the authority of the Scriptures which are witnesses common to all, appropriat to none, let one thing agree with another, cause with cause, reason with reason.

Thirdly, As to the third thing proposed, The Church is not appointed to be obeyed, Pro. An. 3 but in subordination to the law of God; for I know not the Church but by the word, there­fore, I cannot obey it but by it also. Second­ly, Subjects should not judge the law autho­ritatively: If thou judge the law thou art not a doer of it, Iames 4. 11. The word of God is the law, and all churches are subject [Page 51] to it. Thirdly, The Text you cite the 17. of Deut. from the 8. v. to the 13, where the people are commanded to go to the Priests for decision of controversiies, hath this ex­presly in it, v. 11. According to the sentence of the law which he shall teach thee. Cajetan upon the place sayeth, That in the Hebrew it is super o [...] legis, ideo doctrina eorum esset con­formis divinae legi. There doctrine of deci­sion should be warrandable by the law. Glossa ordinaria explaineth the place thus, non dici­tur tibi ut obedias, nisi [...]uxta legens docuerint. i. e. thou art not commanded to obey if they teach not according to the law: Lyra is of the same judgement, si dicant falsum non sunt credendi, if they speak false they are not to be believed: In Mal. 2. 7. The Lord shew­eth that the Priests lips should preserve know­ledge, where he declareth not what was, for they had gone out of the way at that time, but what should be. Ribera saith, the words are not to be read in the present, but in the future tense, and according to Cyril, he is called the Messenger of the Lord, because he should give men of the oracles of God, as he hath received them from the Lord. Also that place Matth. 23. 2. where Church rulers are appointed to be heard when they si [...] in Moses chair. Theophylact expoundeth i [...] quando docent ea quae continentur in lege, [Page 52] when they teach the things contained in the law. O if your Scribes and Pharisees would do so, they might be better heard. That place 2. Chr. 19. 8. 11. concerning Amaziah, who was over them in all matters of the Lord, holdeth only forth this, that Magistra­cy and Ministry are distinct offices. And in the church of Jerusalem, albeit the Apostles were infallible, yet they proceed according to the word, and built their sentence on the Prophets, Acts 15. 14. these places prove, that implicit obedience is not to be given to any Church rulers. And the B [...]reans were commended for searching the Scriptures, when the message was delivered to them. How gross then is Bellarmin, who saith, Bell. lib. 4. de [...]ont. cap. 5. S [...] Papa erraret praecipiendo vita, & prohibendo virtutes, tenetur Ecclesia credere, virtutes esse malas & vitia b [...]n [...]. If the Pope saith he, should cōmend vice, and call it good (which they grant he may do, notwithstanding of his infallibility) then people were bound to o­bey and call vice good. Valentia saith more, that the people are bound without any enquiry, Valent. Tom. 3. disp. 1. & disp. 7. qu. 3. Punct. [...]. to erre with their rulers, and errores corum in tali causa sunt actus Christianae obedientiae, their errours are acts of Christian obedience, Aeternae vitae meritoriae, deserving eternal life. When Papists speak so great absurdi­ties, what will they not do for their interest?

[Page 53] Fourthly, As to the fourth thing propo­sed, Pro. An. 4 the Church of Christ is to be ruled by its officers lawfully called, but the government of it here is not Monarchical but Aristocrati­cal. Under the New Testament the Lord appointed no visible Monarch on earth, to be an officer in his church; for our last appeal in dubious cases is regulated by that well known Scripture Matth. 18. 17. If he will See Bish. Laud. against [...] Fisher. not hear the church, let him be to thee as a publican; Now it is absurd to say, that this should be the sense of it, tell the Pope, for in no language the word Church can signifie a visible Monarch. Secondly, The council of Jerusalem maketh not for this, for not only proceed they upon Scripture grounds, but al­though they were infallible men, yet none of them took the Papal way, and the govern­ment was not Monarchical, It seemed good to the holy Ghost and us. Thirdly, Church power is Ministerial, Matth. 20. 25. 26. 2. Cor. 1. 24. 1. Pet. 5. 3. but Monarchy is Ma­gisterial, therefore it agreeth not with church power. And when Papists reason for the power of the church and mention councils the argument may be thus propounded, church officers, councils, have been appoin­ted to rule and order the affairs of the house of God, Ergo, they may do what they will and who can say unto them what dost thou. [Page 54] I deny the consequence. Ergo, the Pope is one of these officers, it is absolutly refused. And this is summa totalis, of the prolix an­swer to the fourth question, which may be taken away with a word. Ergo, if the word make not for them, the [...] they may betake themselves to their own traditions and rule by them. That is denyed also by us. And sup­pose they should give the Law to their own Vassals, will it therefore follow that they empire it over the whole Christian-church? And seeing all churches are bound to a rule, can any be infallible which have need of a rule? When you make the Pope your church, do ye not build your faith on him? Is this like the foundation, Eph. 2. 20.? What is this but to make your faith humane? And is it not absurd to say that Alexander the si [...]h Pope Iohn, 22. in the cathedra were infal­lible as the Prophets and Apostles in dyting Scripture, they cannot blush who speak so.

Fifthly, As for the fifth particular, viz. That place of Augustin, cont, ep. fund. cap. 5. I would not have believed the Scripture, Pro. An. 5 unless the authority of the church had moved me. Our Divines have answered fully long ago, so it is a threed bare argument: for he speaketh not there concerning the formal reason, why Scripture is believed; but con­cerning the mean and motive, by which in­trants [Page 55] are brought at first to the knowledge of the Scripture, (I mean the consused know­ledge of the Scripture) as when a man deli­vereth a letter he may tell from whom it is, but the faith of it is from the subscription. So here then, by the church, he understand­eth not the church or Pope of Rome, but the Primitive-church of the faithful, which did hear & see Christ and his Apostles. So saith Durand Dur, lib. dist. 24. qu. 1. he had to do with the Manichees, who would make him believe their Gospel. No saith he, the testimony of those who did see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and handle the word of life, is to be preferred to your as­sertion, and this is a motive which made me at first quite Manichism, and close with the Gospel of Christ, so speaketh Melchior Canus lib. 2. de loc. cap. 8. therefore it maketh no­thing for the imperious supremacie of the Pope or Church in matters of faith, fot there is a difference between cōmuma motivafidei, and formalis ratio credendi. See learned and perspicuous Dr. Barron against Turnebul, Tract. 4. & pag. 188. Who hath unanswe­rably demonstrated this truth, and so in­terpreteth these words of Augustin, The testimony of the church is a principle inductive, and a motive to new intrants, to read, hear, and consider the holy Scriptures, and it produceth only an humane faith: [Page 56] the inward testimony of the holy Spirit is the principle effective of divine faith, and the Scriptures themselves are the formal reason and terminative principle, whereinto divine faith is resolved, as a building upon its foundation. Eph. 2. 20. To conclude this answer, We judge that the pure Gospel Church is, and should be the pronouncer of divine sentence from the Scripture; that the authority of Councils should be inrerposed for making men willing and obedient to the divine law: so should the Magistrat concurre in his station for that effect. But the church of Rome is not pure, nor like that which once it was in the Apostle Paul his time, and at no time could she be called the Universal church, far less now. Albeit then her faith was spoken of throughout all the world. Is this a good argument, the faith of the Church of Brittain is mentioned throughout all the reformed churches of Transylvania, Hungaria, Polland, Germany, Bohaemia, Flanders, France, and Helve [...]ia, therefore it is the Universal-church, no, we claim no more but to be a Sister church to these in the confession of faith, according to the Scrip­tures, Alb. Pighius, lib. 6. Eccl. hierarc. cap. 3. and all together make up the Univer­sal-church. And any one of these is preferable to the church at Rome, as it is now corrup­ted and apostatized. Will ye hear Albertus [Page 57] Pighius, Quis unquam per Romanam Ecclesiam intellexit universalem, who ever did by the Roman Church understand the Church universal. Why do ye then speak so, and ambitiously empire it over all the world?

Question fifth, Seeing no Scripture is of Pa. Qu. 5 privat interpretation, 2. Pet. 1. 20. should pri­vat men take upon them to interpret the same?

Answer, The sense of that text is, no scrip­ture Pro. An. is the indytment of a privat spirit, but proceedeth from the holy Ghost, for it fol­loweth, holy men of GOD spake as they were moved by the holie Ghost, and it came not of old by the will of men. Therefore it is no ways to be thought, that privat men should be barred from searching the Scripture seeing Christ Jesus commanded the contrar, Io. 5. 39. This was spoken to a whole multitude of persecu­ting Jews. The word is the sword of the spirit Eph. 6. 17. should any privat man be dis­armed amongst his foes? And blessed is he whither privat or publict, who meditateth in the law of the Lord day and night. Ps. 1.

Reply, In your fifth answer you grant with the Apostle, that no prophecie of the Scrip­ture Pa. Rep. is of any privat interpretation; so should you grant also, that the Scriptures cannot be rightly expounded of every privat spirit, and fancie of the vulgar Reader, but by the same [Page 58] spirit wherewith they were writren which resol­veth in the Church. And I am very confident no learned or wise Protestant will allow any privat man to expound scripture, against the common consent of the whole Catholick Church, wherein they were immediatly before: But you insist, that it is not to be thought that privat m [...]n should be barred from searching the scrip­ture, seeing it is contrar to that text, John 5. 39. where if by searching the Scripture, you mean the reading and interpretation of it, that cannot be the sense of it. For the Apostle Paul saith, 1. Cor. 12. GOD hath set in the Church Prophets, Apostles, Doctors, &c. Then he addeth, are all Apostles, are all Pro­phets, are all Doctors, do all interpret? Then this doth not belong to every man to read and interpret Scripture, but to search the deep meaning and sense thereof from the Doctors of the Church. For the Jews did search the scrip­ture, reading and hearing it read in their Sy­nagogues, and yet did deny Christ to be the Messiah, which scripture doth clearly testifie. Even as Protestants do read Scripture, and in it the real presence, the power to forgive sins granted to men, justification by faith and good works, anointing the sick, virgini­ty preferred to marriage, and yet deny all this: Wherefore as Christ exhorteth the Jews, to do it with greater reflection and attention, not [Page 59] superficially, turning and shuffling it over as Protestants do, so do I exhort them. The word is the sword of the spirit, upon which you inferre, should any privat man be disarmed amongst his soes. So let me tell you that the Apostle calling it a sword, sheweth that it should not be put into a mad mans hand, or in the hand of a fool, i. e. Poor ignorants who as Peter saith, wrest it to their own destruction, and yet this is your consequence, if it should be granted to all privat men. Children and fools get not arms amongst their foes, where­with they might rather wrong themselves then their enemies, but are under the protection of their Paedagogues and attendants. And so the ignorant should not easily handle the sword of the word, being ignorant, and only capable of the letter, but should receive the sense thereof from the Church and her Pastors, that it may be to them an arme of defence. Pro. Duply. 1

Answer first, All this is answered fully in the return of the first question, to which place I referre the Reader, lest I make idle repe­tition : If the rule of right reasoning had been observed, nothing of this ought to have come in formerly, but here in its own pro­per place. I distinguished betwixt privat men and privat interpretations, then, betwixt the extraordinar gift of interpreting and the ordinar. Thirdly, Betwixt the priviledge [Page 60] and the exercise. Privat men have the pri­viledge to search the Scriptures, you say it should be by no other then doctors; if that be true, then the Lord Jesus did not direct the people who heard him, to use prayer and meditation for knowing the Scriptures, but to go to their rulers, Scribes and Pharisees, who did what they could to make the Scrip­tures testifie against him and all his. I ap­peal to the conscience or reason of any, if this exposition on the place can hold water? Or if an indvidual act, such as this, being performed by another is an obedience to a command? If this exposition be good, then when the Lord pronounceth the man blessed, who meditats in the Law day and night; the sense of it must be if his Pastors do it for him it is enough? Who will admit this? But the one is as true as the other.

Secondly, You contradict your self, for once you say that privat men should not in­terpret Pro. An. 2 Scripture, but take it from the mouth of the church: then immediatly you exhort them to do it, not superficially, but with at­tention, and we exhort to no more.

Thirdly, You make all the people who are Pro. An. 3 privat men, mad fools and Children by your cōparison, in whose hand the word of GOD should not be put, then it must be taken from them; and how agreeth this with the [Page 61] former exhortation? What if this were told to the Kings and Queens who are Pop [...]sh? By the testimony of your doctors, ye are all de clared unfit to rule others, for mad men fools & children cānot govern. In effect ye guide thē as such in divine matters, for ye muzle, and blindfold the people, all this passeth under the notion of Paedagogy. But sad is the case of such pupils, [...]f they knew what belonged to their peace. Let ignorants be catechised, and trained in the ways of GOD, this may make them more discerning of the sense and meaning of the word of God. Seneca telleth, Coenant nobiscum quidam quia sunt docti, alii ut sint do [...]li. Some men suppe with us because they are learned, others that they may be learned. The testimonies of the Lord make wise the simple, should they then be deprived of them.

Question sixth, Ye agree not about the Pa. Qu. 6 rule, for some cast at the Epistle of James, others receive it?

Answer, None of the pure reformed do Pro. Qu. so, it was only rejected by some Lutherians in which we do not owne them.

Secondly, The number of Scripture books is not the question, but whither these man­tained by all be the rule of saith? Seeing all men are murable creatures and at their best state vanity: Popes clash with Popes, Councils [Page 62] with Councils, Pulpits with Pulpits, let any judge whither it be safest that the revealed will of God be our rule, or the dictats of self contradicting men?

Reply, You say none of these pure reformed, Pa. Reply. reject the Epistle of James, and you disclaime the Lutherians who do so, and they you; for I am confident they will acknowledge none for pure reformers, who take an Epistle for scrip­ture which they hold to be none. Then you say, the number of Scripture books is not the que­stion, Sir, you move questions as you please, but hear Mr. Hooker one of your most lear­ned Protestants, lib. 1. Eccl. pol. Sect. 14. pag. 36. of these things necessar saith he, the very chief is to know what books we esteem ho­ly, which is impossible for it self to teach. Ap­ply this to your only determiner of faith, in your first answer. And truely I think this should be the first question of all, to the pure reform­ed, according to the pure word of God, as you cal them, which are the books of the pure word of GOD? Now if you answer, these are man­tained by all which you make the rule of faith, how few books of Scripture shal be this rule, if any at all? For there be few or none whereof some have not doubted or flatly denyed. Saint Augustin contra Faustum Manichaeum, and lib. de mor. Eccl. cap. 1. Saith, the Mani­chees did deny Moses and the Prophets, the [Page 63] Jews did deny the New Testament? What books of Scripture are mantained by all? For by that, you make the consent of all judge of canonical Scripture, how then can you disclaim tradition, and say immediatly after men are mutable creatures, and at their best state va­nity? Seeing upon the consent of men ye take up your rule of faith, and number of Scripture books. I know other Protestants alleadge for this, that the books of Scripture like the Sun shew themselves to be such, to him who hath the spirit. But I would ask at such, why the Rev. St. James Epistle, the second of St. Peter, and two of St. John, did not shew themselves to be Scripture to Luther, that spiritual man, and the Protestants very first Apostle in the work of reformation; in the end you say, Let any judge whither it be safest that the re­vealed will of God be your rule and deter­miner, or the dictats of self contradicting creatures? Where you seem to rubbe on Ca­tholicks: But Sir, this toucheth not them at all, for they profess not to believe self-contra­dicting creatures, but the unanimous consent of Councils and fathers, or the Catholick Church, known to be the only Church established by Christ and his Apostles, and by the continued succession of Popes, Bishops, and Pastors, the unity, universality, and gifts of miracles in all ages. &c. Which Christ hath called [Page 64] the ground and pillar of truth. 1. Tim. 3. 15. and against which he assureth us the gates of hell shal not prevail, Math. 16. 18. and which he hath commanded us to hear, other­wise to be holden as heathens and publicans, Math. 18. 17. so you see, that the written word maketh the Church our judge, which we should obey, and that ye who make so much of the written word, do not believe it when ye do not obey her. And here I remarke that Protestant Ministers and preachers deceive the people, in that they ground their faith on the written word only, and Roman Catholicks say they on humane tradition, and their Churches authority, which being composed of men is subject to errour. Whereas the contrar is true, for Roman Catholicks believe nothing which the written word (believing both the tradition of the Church and Apostles) doth not expresly warrand. As for the Church, what is more expresly said then what I have cited, both to prove that we are bound to hear her, Mat. 18. 18. and hold her authority infallible. Math. 16. 18: and the house of God which is the pillar and ground of truth, 1. Tim. 3. 15. Neither doth it avail you to say, this is not said of the Roman Church, which is not the universal Church, but a particular one a strumpet, &c. For we speak not of any par­ticular Church, when we say that the Church [Page 65] is infallible, nor when we say the Roman, the Catholick, do we understand the particular Church, at Rome? But that Church which professeth constantly the Romans faith, spread in saint Pauls time through all the world. As we call yet the Roman Empire that which hath its seat in Vien of Austria. Yea, Prote­stants calling their own the reformed Church, cannot say but we have one Church on earth, which Christ commanded us to hear constantly. And if the reformed Church be the true Church, then she must have taken the place from that church which was deformed, and had fallen into an errour, and so deserved no more to be called the pillar and ground of truth, or to be heard. Moreover, the very pillars of the Protestant Religion, grant all the world to be in an errour before themselves, and so against the express written Word must de­ny the infallibility of any Church whatever. For Calv. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 18. saith, they made all the Kings and People of the earth drunk from the first to the last, and Hospinian epist. 41. saith, Luthers separation was from all the world. White in his defence chap. 37. saith, Popery was a leprosie breeding so universally in the church, that there was no visible compa­ny of men free from it. Jewel in his Sermon on Luke 11. The whole world, Princes, and people were overwhelmed by ignorance, and [Page 66] bound by oath to the Pope; which if it be true that the Church in former ages did erre, the reformed Church may erre, that themselves do not deny. Thence it followeth clearly, that the Protestant Church is not the house of GOD called the pillar and ground of truth, that she is not Christs Church, against which the gates of hell shal not prevail, that none are bound to hear her in matters of faith, being subject to errour. And so Protestants may well desire men to read the Scripture and believe what they found there, but not urge any man to fol­low their doctrine, but in so far as they find it conforme to Scripture, which all Roman Ca­tholicks protest they do not. As for traditions, are we not commanded to hold them in the clear written Word? 2. Thess. 2. 15. Hold the traditions which ye have learned, whither by word or our epistle. Protestants read do­cuments, but documents by word and traditi­ons are the same thing, on which place Chrysost: saith, It is evident that the Apostle did not deliver all things by writ, but many things by word which are worthy of credit as wel as the other. That is Christs word as well as his writ, therefore we call them divine and Apo­stolical traditions, Aug. lib. 5. de Trinit. cap. 23. speaking of rebaptization, The Apostle, saith he, commanded nothing of it, but that custom [...] which is believed to proceed from [Page 67] the Apostle, is opposed against Cyprian, in it, as many things are which the whole Church holdeth, and therefore are believed to be commanded by the Apostles, though not written. A [...]d in the first age, saint Dennis chap. 1. speaking of the Ecclesiastick hierarchy, saith, These our chief captains of Priestly function, did deliver to us the chiefest and supersub­stantial points, partly in written, partly in unwritten institutions. Epiph. Haeres. 61. is of the same minde, we must hold traditions, saith he, for the Scripture h [...]th not all things, and Tertullian de praescrip: grounds his faith on the authority of the Church, and what tra­dition I believe, saith he, I received from the present Church, the present Church from the primitive, that from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ. Here I hope you see you must ei­ther admit traditions as necessar in themselves and infallible in their authority, or else dis­claim both Scripture and Fathers. All that Protestants can say either against the authori­ty of the Church, in general Councils, or Apo­stolick traditions delivered by her, is, that all her decisions and traditions flow from men, and so are not infallible. But I answer, nei­ther were the Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists who penned the Scripture, but men, yet I hope their writtings are not fallible or subject to errour: Because they were inspired directly [Page 68] and assisted by the Spirit of God. The Fa­thers of the Church have to this day that pro­mise verified to them, Math. 28. 20. which was made as well to their successours as to them­selves. As for that some Protestante speak of an invisible Church composed of the Elect, it is but a shift to delude the ignorant, for as it is a Maxime of law, Idem est non esse & non apparere, i. e. it is the same not to be, and not to appear to be in the matter of any pretended right, so in the matter of doctrine, an invisible Church and no Church is the same. For if I cannot see nor know the Elect, as be­ing invisible to the eye of man, so I cannot know that the Church composed of them speak­eth to me, or that this Doctrine I hear of any man is infallible, more then that he is one of the Elect.

Answer, I am weary transseribing a num­ber Protest. Duply. of word [...] without weight, that is a com­pleet rapsodie, and no return to the former question: If such digressions were heard in the School, the Writter behoved to be sore censured. The question was, how the Scrip­ture could be the square? Seeing all agree not about the number of the books, some cast at the Epistle of James as the Luthe­rans. And the answer I gave was, that al­though some Lutherans differre from us, a­bout the authority of that epistle: yet we [Page 69] both agree here, that uncontroverted scrip­ture is the determiner. And for the numerick question, it was sufficiently answered in the second answer to the first querie; so we needed not this tau [...]oligie to make the Rea­der nauseat. If I had to do with a Luthe­ran, then I could prove the divine authority of that Epistle, but you do not deny it, there­fore to what purpose should I insist on that subject against you. Mr. Hooker whom you cite, maketh nothing against us as is al­ledged, for that which he sayes, is first, that the light of reason rightly managed, is a re­qu [...]sit mean for the knowledge of scripture books, and what sayeth that against us, see­ing we suppose the Readers of Scripture to be [...]ational men, & that reason in its own line may be helpful to them for understanding scripture. Secondly, Mr. Hooker directly dis­claimeth your traditions, page 86. and af­firmeth, that they who betake themselves to that testimonie as divine, have not the truth, but are in an errour. Thus he condemneth you as erronious, so it had been your ad­vantage, to have spared this tradition: nei­ther was it needful to tell us, that the Ma­nichees denyed Moses, and the Jews the New Testament. We have to do with Papists, who hold all the books of the Old and New Te­stament, which we hold for Canonick. At [Page 70] lest what some others make disputable, as Melchior Canus telleth us, you put it out of dispute, so you are not in bona fide to reason about their number with us, seeing ye que­stion none which we mantaine, albeit we justly call in question Apocryphal writtings, which ye put into the Canon. Is it not safer to regulate our faith by these uncontrover­ted Scriptures, then by the dictats of mu­table self-contradicting Popes? When Church Rulers have been fully corrupted, Believers have continued orthodoxe, as in the time of the Arrian persecution. The Fathers who lived the first 300. year, believed with­out either Pope or General Council as pro­pounders of their faith. For then there was no such pretending to infallible supremacy. They had no infallible testimony from the Church, they acknowledged not her testimo­ny to be such. And for ought I can learn, the [...]e be no testimony of your Church, nor statute enacting her testimony to be infal­lible. If so it is nor according to you de fide, however ye make a great noise amongst people with it. And if all the faith you have, depend upon the testimony of the pre­sent Church, which is your doctrine, your faith is not one with Abrahams faith, for the word of God did beget his faith, but it is the testimony & statute of the Trent Council that [Page 71] begett [...]th yours, and I would gladly hear from you, whither there was universal con­sent there or not? Such clashing and pocket orders, as the author of that history telleth to the world, will not permit you to say, without a blush, that the Council was una­nimous and Gospel-like in their way. There­fore, unless it, be against us, all their otheracts are made up of ambiguous stuffe, like the Delphian responses, this is purposely cōtrived to cover debates with general termes. And if their testimony, make the word of GOD Scripture to me living under Popery, what rule had they for their faith who made these conclusions? Their own testimony could not be the cause of their own belief: if you say that the testimonie of the ancient Church was their rule, then ye go contrar to your own Doctors, who declare that the present Church of Rome is above all former coun­cils, and their authority dependeth on her testimony. See Bell. lib. de Eccl. cap. 10. Valentia Tom. 3. disp. 1. quest. 1. Further that the supream power of judging is not in the Council but in the Pope, that he is a­bove a general Council, that he cannot be subject to it. See Bell. lib. 2. de Concil cap. 17. Valentia tom. 3. disp. 1. Suarez disp. 5. de fide, and your own Vives in his comment on Augustins 20. book de civit. Dei cap. 26. tel­leth [Page 72] us how little ye make of Councils, or of the ancient Church when they militat a­gainst you. Illa demum videntur iis Concilia quo in rem suam faeiunt, reliqua non pluris estimantur quam commenta mulierum in tex­trina aut thermis. i. e. These appear to be Councils to them, which make for them, the rest are no more esteemed by them, then the sables of old women in the weavers shop or sloves. Bris [...]erius writting against Collag: a Jansenist as he is cited by learned Dal­leus See D [...]lleus de usu Patrum, saith, Councils are literae mortuae nisi animentur à praesenti Ecclesia. i. e. They are dead letters if they be not animated by the present Church. This appeareth to be true from experience, for ye agree not with the primitive, either in doctrine, worship, or government. The ancients thought that Images should not be in the Church. See Epiph. epist. ad Iohannem Hierosolymitanum, [...] cum vidissem Imaginem pender [...] in Ecclesia contra authoritatem Scripturae. i. e. When I saw an Image hang in the Church contrar to the authority of Scripture how grieved was I. But the Council of Trent appointed them to be had in houses and Churches, and that debitus honor & reveren­tia Sess. 25. eis impertiatur i. e. Due honor and wor­ship be given to them. The Fathers thought that the Virgin Marie was conceived in sin [Page 73] so saith Ambrose, Augustin, Chrysostom, as Melchior Canus de loc. Theol. lib. 7. telleth. The Council of Trent, Sess. 5. will not con­clude he [...] under Original sin. The Fathers excluded Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesi­asticus, and both the books of the Maccabees, out of the canon of Scripture. So did Hierom in his prologue ad libros Solomonis. Epiph. lib. de Pond. & mens. cap. 2. pag. 162. Gre­gorie Nazianzen. c [...]rm. 3. Athanasius epist. fest. But the Council of Trent anathema­tizeth them, who exclude these books out of the Canon, Sess. 4 Baptism was delayed till Pasch and Pentecost in the primitive Church, it is not so with you. The 4. Council of Car­thage did forbide women to baptize, Canon 100. ye allow it. The Sacrament was ad­ministred in the primitive Church to all pre­sent, and they who did not partake were ap­pointed to remove. Ite missa est, exite fo­ras qui non vultis accipere Sacramentum. i. e. Go, it is closed, go forth ye that will not re­ceive the Sacrament: Now the words are muttered and administred before all. They took with their hand, and the bread was broken of old: Now it is not, for ye make whole wasers, and put them into their mouth. For fourthteen hundred years the Church appointed the Sacrament to be administred by bread and wine to the people, all Chri­stians [Page 74] of whatever judgement, except Papists do so communicat as yet, Petau. de poenit. pub. lib. 2. sheweth that it cannot be deny­ed, nisi ab homine insigniter & supra omnem modum vel impudenti vel imperito: i. e. Ex­cept by a man remarkably and above all measure either impudent, or unskilful, that this was the primitive practise, yet the Coun­cil of Constance hoc non obstante, and the Council of Trent decree the contrar. The pri­mitive Church heard nothing of the Popes universal supremacie, or infallibility, which now by you i [...] made Summa rei. See Cyprian ep. 55. [...] Cornelius Bishop of Rome, and how he stileth him f [...]ater, &c. and he saith, that they were formerly chosen to officiat, Non sine consensu plebis, not without the Popes consent ep. 68. Ipsa plebs habet potestatem &c. Is not this far from your imperious pompous way of Monarchy? how then can you so boldly averre, that ye have the unani­mous consent of Councills and fathers for you, when indeed ye do not regard them so much as we. Hear your own Cornelius, Mus. See D [...]lleus ubi su­pra. ep. Bi [...]ont. in ep. ad Rom. cap 14. Ego ut ingenue f [...]te [...]r, plus uni summo pontisici cre­derem, in his quae fidei misteria tangunt, quam m [...]lle Hieronymis, Augustinis, Gregoriis. Cre­do enim & scio, quod summus Pontifex, in his quae fidei sunt errare non potest, quia auctori­tas [Page 75] determinandi quae ad fidem spectant in Pon­tisice residet. i. e. That I may ingenuously confesse, I would give more credit to one Pope, in t [...]e things which belong to the mi­steries of truth, then to a thousand such as Augustin, Jerom, or Gregory. For I know certainly that the Pope cannot erre in these things that belong to faith, because the au­thority of determining matters of saith resid­eth in the Pope; yet ignorant people are made to believe that Papists have the con­sent and practise of the primitive Church a­long with them, and Melchior Canus, l [...]c. Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. num. 10. Sequi majores nostros per omnia, & in illorum vestigiis pedes nostros figere, ut pueri faciunt per lusum, nihil aliud est quam ingenia nostra d [...]mnare, judicio nos privare nostro & facultate inquirendae ve­ritatis. i. e. to follow our ancestors in all things, and to [...]race their footsteps, and fixe in them as children use to do in play, is no other thing but to condemn our own wit, and to deprive our selves of our own judge­ment, and faculty of searching the truth. Salmeron in cap. 5. epist. ad Rom. disp. 5. asserteth, quo juniores eo perspicaciores sunt doctores, and citeth Exod. 23. follow not the multitude viz. of ancients. This is suffi­cient to prove, that as the Papists are jealous of Scripture, so are they of the Primitive [Page 76] Church her consent. But it is alleadged, that ye have the word of God for your warrand, Matth. 16. 18. Matth. 18. 18. 1. Tim. 3. 15. To this I answere, that the first Text, is meaned of the collective body of the Church, which fall not away; this is clear from the context, for it is the Church builded on that confession mentioned by the Apo­stles : and an house so builded cannot fall, be­cause it is builded on a rock, Matth. 7. 25. Yet it will not follow that there be no drops in it; for particular beleevers cannot totally and finally fall away, but that they are infal­lible who can say? see Iohn 10. 28. and com­yare it with 1. Cor. 13. 9. Iames 3. 2. be­side, your own writters interpret it so, see Melchior Canus lib. 5. de loc. Theol. cap. 5. and Panormitan on the place.

The second Text Mat. 18. is to be under­stood of a particular Church, which you grant is not infallible, so Chrysostom interpreteth the place, and it is further clear from the Con­nexion, for it is the Church, to which ap­peals should be made in prima instantia, this undoubtedly is a particular Church. But admitting that it is meaned of the universal church, your Pope nor your Church is not it.

The third Text 1. Tim. 3. 15. holdeth forth no more then what is granted in the answer to the fourth question, or if you please [Page 77] to take learned Cameron his exposition, who knitteth these words with the 16. verse, you may do well. But what ever be the privi­ledges of the true Gospel Church, which is the Bride of Jesus Christ, Rome hath fore­faulted all these, and is but a leprous part of the universal Church, you grant that the church of Rome is but a particular church. Why plead you then for the whole privi­ledges of the universal Church? Is not this absurd arrogance? Nor doth Calvin, Hospi­nian, Luther or White, speak absolutly as ye alleadge, but assert that the generality for a time was leavened by Popery which is truth. But what then followeth? That the mysterie of iniquity did arise by degrees and over-runne all for the most we grant, so did the Arrian heresie; therefore was not Atha­uasius, and such as adbered to the truth, right in their way? The whole world in the Apostles time did ly in wickedness, 1. Iohn 5. 19. Therefore were they not Sons of truth who endeavoured a Gospel reformation. Your last hold is tradition, and you say, we are commanded to hold them. 2. Thes. 2. 15. for this you cite Aug. Cyprian, St. Dennis, Epiphanius. To this I answer, we are not against Apostolick traditions, nor Church history in matters of fact, We make use of traditions there mentioned: But for your [Page 78] Legends, we deny that they are such and dis­claim them. Have you Sir learned Logick? Why do you argument so, a genere ad spe­ciem affirmative? Is this a good argument, Est annual, ergo est homo, he is a living crea­ture, therefore he is a man? Can this be better, there were traditions delivered to the Church of Thessalonica, ergo, yours are these. Credat Judaeus Appella? Secondly, If there were unwritten traditions, why do you dare to writ these things which the Apostles would not writ? Thirdly, Will that argue the Scripture of imperfection? You may as well argue, the Minister writteth a book the summe of which he hath preached to people, Ergo, his book is imperfect. You have then to prove for your end, that these tra­ditions mentioned, 2. Thess. 2. 15. were about matters of faith. Secondly, If so they be no where written in Scripture. Thirdly, That if they be not written, they be the same which ye deliver to the people, and by what authority ye press and writ them. But to take this text wholly from your mis-interpreta­tion, hear Theodoret, who saith, that the Apostle spake not of diverse doctrines, but of the same diversely delivered. For first he preached to the Thessalonians, and then did writ the sub­stance of it. But as where ever ye find fire in the Scripture ye make it Purgatory, so [Page 79] where ye find tradition, ye make it pari ra­tione yours : Will ye listen to Bell. lib. 4. de verbo Dei cap. 10. and he will put all out of doubt, for he granteth that all in substance were written by the Apostles, which they preached to the people, or were necessar to salvation, Cyprian in his epist. ad Pompeium, admitteth not any traditions, but such as may be perceived to be in the Evangels, in the Epistles or Acts of the holy Apostles. Therefore it is a perfect rule to all discerners say I, and no more was at first asserted. Your Maxime Idem est non esse & non apparere, holdeth in law but not in divinity. For the soul is not visible yet who can deny the being of it. What is more in the Reply I judge not worthy the noticeing, and I am forced to make digression, because of an impertinent return. Is it not strange, that when I called men mutable creatures, and at their best state vanitie, subject to clashing contra­diction, and that the written Word is the only infallible rule for direction: that upon this tradition, universal consent, should be so prolixely commented on without any con­nexion. They who follow this reflecter must resolve to deviat from tho high way.

Question seventh, Your Church which ye Papists Quest. 7 call reformed is but of yesterday, where was it before Luther?

[Page 80] Answer, It is as old in its doctrinals as Prote∣stants Answer. the Scripture, therefore not of yesterday. See what societie from the beginning professed the doctrine mantained there, that was out Church. The Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians, as taught by the Apostle Paul are our Church of old, so it is not new. Secondly, In all ages there have been and are, eminent professours of that doctrine which we mantaine, as is abun­dantly proved by Flaccus Illyricus in his Ca­talogue, Testium veritatis, and learned Dr. Usher in successione Ecclesiae reform: which testimonies no Popish shaveling of what e­ver ordour, yet could answer. Thirdly, where was the church of Rome as now constituted, before the council of Trent? Nay more, was the Popes supremacy and infallibility heard of the 600 year after Christ? Is not all Po­pish faith as such resolved into a lie, viz. the infallibility of the Pope or Council, which though errand untruths are the key of the Popish Religion. Fourthly, All the positives of the reformed Religion, were mantained substantially in the Primitive church, the first 300. years, (I speake not of changeable circumstances, nor integrals, but essentials) and the negatives could not be there, because the controversies were not then started. But ye Papists have amassed a body of humane [Page 81] inventions, & gross errours contrare to scrip­ture, obtruding them under Anathema, to be the established doctrine of the Church. And because we of the reformed Profession will not own these, and call that which is new old, ye excommunicat us as Hereticks.

Reply, In your seventh Answere you say, Papists Reply. your doctrine is as old as scripture, and your Church as the Apostles; and this is common to you with all sectaries to claime the scripture and the Church, in the time of the Apostles. And like to that answer of the common people, we are all come of Adam and Eve. But I shall let you presently see, how contrar your doctrine is to that scripture, and how unlike your Church is to that of the Apostles the first 300 year. In the second part ye pretend that Illyricus and Doctor Usher have sufficiently shewed that there have been eminent men of your Profession in all ages, and that without a Reply of any Popish shaveling of whatever or­dour. But Sir, I am sorrie that you who are a Nazarian and not a shaveling, shoule be so ill versed in books of controversie, as not to have seen so many Catholick writters who de­monstrat clearly, that of all these eminent men before Calvin you pretend to be yours, there is not one, hath holden all the same tenets with you and no more. For it is enough for you, that they dissent from the Church of Rome, [Page 82] and sling at the Popes authority, what ever te­nets they hold in matters of belief, to call them yours. Which hath made Dr. Vane Chaplain to our late King, judiciously compare them to Sampsons foxes, which were all bound together by the tails, although their heads went diverse wayes. So that when you call the Luthereans, Valdenses, Albigenses, Hussites, Catharists, Wicklessians, Graecians, Egyptians yours, you may as well call the Turks and Tartars yours; if we trust all records which speake of their tenets. And as for the Fathers, hear if they were yours in the opinion of the most lear­nea Protestants. Dudithius apud Bezam, ep. 1. If that be true which Papists say, the Fathers with mutual consent are altogether on their side. Pet. Martyr 2. de verbo col. 1539. as long as we stand to Councils and fathers we shal alwayes remain in the same errours. And fully confesseth that Hierom, Ambrose and Augustin, held the invocation of Saints, Chemnitius in ex. concil. trid. art. 3. pag. 100. did not disput but avouch, that most of the Fathers, said the souls of the Martyrs, heard the petition of those that prayed to them, they went to monuments and invocated Martyrs by name. Whitgift in his defence, pag. 473. all the Bishops and writ­ters of the Greek and Latine Church too, (who no doubt were the Fathers) for the most [Page 83] part were spotted with the doctrine of Free­will, Merit, Invocation of Saints. Judge then Sir if they were pure. In the third part you ask, where was the Church of Rome before the council of Trent? I answer you, even where she is now, except in Jappony, India, China, and some parts of America, where by their Christian labours, and by the blessing of GOD she hath been established since. Neither can you instance that she is not constantly the same in all points. Nay more say you, was the Popes infallible universal supremacie heard of the first 600. years. Where it seems you must be very deaf, who hear not the voice of 1200. Fathers speaking only in the four first general Councils. He who holdeth the See of Rome, is chief and head of all Patriarchs saith right, seeing he is the first, as Peter, to whom all power is given over all Christian Princes, and all their people, and who ever contra­dicteth this, is excommunicated. Can. 29. Concil. Nicaeni anno 325. Where 316 Bi­shops were conveened. Secondly, Of 150. Bishops in the first Council of Constantinople, anno 381. Where the Bishop of Constantinople is de­creed to be the chief next the Bishop of Rome. Thirdly, Of 200. Bishops in the first council of Ephesus, anno 431. where in the third action it is defined, that saint Peter was the head and prince of the Apostles, and that the power [Page 84] of binding and loosing is granted to him, who in his successours liveth and exerciseth judge­ment unto this very day. Fourthly, Of 600. Bishops in the Chalcedon council, in the year 451. where in the third action, also Pope Leo is called universal Bishop, Patriarch of old Rome, and sentence is pronounced against Dios­corus in the name of Leo and sunt Peter, to acknowledge Leo Peters successour. The Fa­thers in particular I do not cite, for their cita­tions in this would make a volumn. Only I en­gage that of a 100. there be 90. clear for this. And not one against it. Is not Popish faith resolved into a lie, say you, viz. the in­fallibility of Pope or Council? You should have said Pope and Council, putting t [...]em together as the head, and chief members, which repre­sent the whole body of the Church; As the Parliament doth the whole Kingdome, and then if you doubt of their infallibility, you deny the express words of Scripture, which calleth the Church the ground and pillar of truth, 1. Tim. 3. and which assureth us that the gates of hell shal not prevail against her. Math. 16. 18. Yea, you take away all possible means, to know infalliblie what is true Scripture, what is the true sense thereof, which is to make us doubt of all, and leave us no sufficient ground to believe undoubtedlie any thing. You take away Christs promise to be with the Church to the [Page 85] end of the world, Matth. 28. 20. Yea, you take away an Article out of the Creed (I be­lieve in the holy Catholick Church) and leaving men either to the dead letter of Scrip­ture, which killeth many, or the privat spirit which deceiveth more, or natural reason which can be a motive of faith to none, you cast loose all Religion, every one re [...]ecting or receiving Scripture as he pleaseth. Expounding Scrip­ture as he pleaseth, and following in both no infallible rule or guide, but his own opinion, fancie & imaginatiō. In the fourth part you say that all the positives of the reformed Reli­gion, were mantained in the primitive Church the first 300. years. But if this were true, it would be made good no otherwise, but by the Fathers writtings in the first three ages after Christ. Now if they had all your positive te­nets; why do your learnedest writters openly disclaime them, as I have shewed formerly? Why saith Luther your Apostle, lib. deserv. arbitrio, cap. 2. the authority of the Fathers is not to be reguarded: and in his Coll [...]q. cap. de patribus. In the writtings of Hierom, there is not aword of true faith, of Chryso­stom I make no account, Basil is of no worth, he is wholly a Monk, Cyprian is a weak Di­vine. But I must not insist on this, because you may in some measure deny the greatest parts of controverted points, betwixt you and [Page 86] us to be positive tenets. Albeit there be none of them but justly may be called so. For you not only deny, for example, the real presence, invocation of Saints, use of Images, that a man is justified by faith and works, &c. But ye positively believe, that Christs Body and Blood is not reallie present in the Sa­crament, that to invocat the Saints, is to give Gods worship to creatures, that to make use of Images, is idolatrie, that a man is not justified by faith only. Therefore I in­stance only two upon which all your visible re­formation is grounded. First, That the whole visible Church may erre. Secondly, That we should believe nothing but what is in the written Word. Now I have made it appear, reflecting on your sixt answer, that both these positive tenets are against the express wordes of Scripture and Fathers. How then did the Church in the first 300. years, hold all the po­sitives and what you affirme? As for your negatives, and what you deny, you grant they cannot be there, because the controversies were not then stated. But this is a bold and open calumnie, for not one point is denyed by you, but the Fathers in the first 300. years have clear­l [...]e asserted. And so the controversie betwixt you and us was sufficientlie stated even then. You deny real presence, and transubstantia­tion, but in the second age Justin Martyr, [Page 87] Apol. 2. ad Antonium saies, as Jesus Christ incarnat had flesh and blood for our re­demption, so are we taught, that the Eucha­rist is the flesh and blood of the same Jesus incarnat. And in the third age, Cyprian serm. de coena Domini, saith, the bread which the Lord gave to his Disciples, being changed not in shape, but in nature, by the omnipotencie of the Word is made flesh. Secondlie, Ye deny the sacrifice of the Masse, asserted in the first age by St. Andrew in the book of his passion written by his Disciples, I daily saith he, sacrifice the immaculat Lamb to Almightie GOD, who when he is truelie sacrificed, and his flesh eaten, re­maineth intire and alive. And in the third age by Origen hom. 13. on Exod. Ye think your self guiltie, and worthilie if any part of the consecrated Hoste be lost by your negligence. Thirdlie, Ye deny Purgatory as­serted in the second age by Tertullian lib. de anima cap. 58, seeing we understand Mat­thews prison which the Apostle demonstrats to be places below, and the least farthing is every smal fault delayed to be paied till the resurrection, none will doubt but the soul will recompence something in places below. And in the third Age, It is one thing being cast into prison; not to go out thence till he pay the uttermost farthing, another, present­ly [Page 88] to receive the reward of faith. One thing to be affected with long pains, for sins to be amended, and have all sins purged with suf­fering▪ sayeth Cyprian ep. 52. ad Antonium. Fourthly, ye deny Prayer for the dead, allowed in the first Age by S. Clemens ep. 1. de san­cto Petro, where he saith, Peter there taught to give almes and pray for the dead. And in the same age by Tertul. lib. de cor. militis, we make yearly oblations for the dead. Fifth­ly, ye deny invocation of Saints and Angells, recommended in the secong Age by S. Dennis Eccl. hierarch part. 3. cap. 3. saying, I con­stantly affirm, with the divine scripture, that the prayers of the saints are profitable for us in this life, after this manner, when a man is inflamed with a desire to invocat the saints, and distrusting his own weakness, betakes himself to any saint, beseeching him to be the helper and petitioner to God for him, he shall obtaine by that mean very great assi­stance. And in the third Age, Origen on the Lambent sayeth, Ile begin to fall on my knees and pray to all the saints, to succour me, who dare not ask God, for the exceeding great­ness of my sin. O saints of God I beseech you with tears and weeping to fall down be­fore his mercy seat for me wretch. Sixthly, ye deny the making of the sign of the Cross and Images, but hear S. Dennis lib. 2. Eccl. [Page 89] hierarch. cap. 2. & 5. The sign of the Cross is so much honoured that it is often used both in Baptism and other Sacraments. And in the third Age, Tertul. de cor. mil. cap. 3. In every thing, we sign our forehead with the sign of the Cross, of which practise, tradition is the defender, custome the conserver, and faith the observer. And againe the same Tertul. lib. 2. de pudic. The Image of Christ bearing a Lamb on his shoulder, were graven on chalices, and used in Churches. Seventhly, ye deny Freewill, which in the second Age, Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 72. affirmeth, not only in workes but even in faith, hath Almighty God reserved liberty of will to man, saying, be it done to thee according to thy faith. And in the third Age, S. Cyprian lib. 3. cap. 52. The freedom of believing or not believ­ing is placed in the will. E [...]ghtlie, ye denie merit of workes, but in the second Age, Justin Martyr Ap. 2. boldeth it saying, We think that men who by workes, have shewed them­selves worthy of the will and counsel of God, shall by their merits reign with him. And in the third Age, St. Cyprian sect. de Eleemosyna. If the day of your return shal find us unloaden, swift, and running in the way of good works, our Lord will not fail to reward our merits. Ninthlie, Ye deny the possibility of keeping the Commandments, [Page 90] against Tertul. in the second Age cited by the Centurists, and Origen in the 1. hom 9. on Iob. the baptized saith he, may fulfil the law in all things. Judge now Sir, whither it be not an open calumnie to say, the controver­sies betwixt you and us, were not then star­ted in the first 300. years: The Fathers having taught even then so clearlie our tenets, which nevertheless ye are not ashamed to call new with Dr. Pierce in his Court sermon, but see the two learned answers made to him, which may evidentlie convince you of boldness, ignorance, and errour.

Answer, You are wise by this your reply, Prote∣stants Duply. for you leave the marrow of my answer un­touched, which was this, That our Church in Doctrinals, worship, &c. is as old as Scripture. That you pass with a jeer, and say, that it is the language of all Sectaries. This calumny hath been cast of old upon pure doctrine, Acts 24. and their worship called Haeresie verse 14, I wish that all Sects were such as we are, scriptural in their way. Ye are the greatest Schismaticks I know on earth, departing from the Scriptures, and mocking others who adhere to them. The other assertion is, That this is the voice of common people, who claim descent from Adam and Eve. Is not this true? Are not all na­tions of men made of one blood, Acts 17. 26. [Page 91] It is grace and vertue which maketh the difference, Omnis sanguis concolor. And i [...] we have as much relation to scripture Churches, as multitudes have to Adam and Eve, we are not spurious but of a right ex­tract. Ye probably must be a kind of men like the pre-Adamits, and of another descent. But one cheat is here remarkable, you pro­mise to shew how contrar our doctrine is to scripture, and when you come to answer, then you beginne with Dudithius, and overleap the whole scripture. Your own Rainerius an In­quisitor, giveth this verdict concerning us, that we are said to have been from the begin­ning, and walked by the Scriptures. Secondly, You pass that concerning professours of our doctrine in all Ages, and will not signifie one man who answereth Flaccius or refuteth Usher, but only you averre with Dr. Vane, to whom ye are much beholden in this, that they were not in all things ours. I know few discerning men who agree in all things. If we hold one foundation which Jesus Christ hath laid, that maketh unity and uniformity. All Christian Churches, except Roma­nists, make the Scripture the sole rule of their faith, and to this we accord. Were the Eastern and Western Churches essentially different, because of some discrepances a­bout the time of Easter, &c. For Turkes [Page 92] and Tartars they are without Christ, and you might more pertinently have spared the comparison of them with ancient churches and professours; if your charity were as much in your breasts, as in your books, and your respect real to the Saints in light. Thirdly, That which I said I will mak good, that all the positive fundamentals of our Reli­gion were mantained in the Church the first 400. years. This appeareth from the Creeds, and Confessions of Faith then made, yet ex­tant. Let any read the Apostolick, Nicaene, or Anathasius Creed, the determinations of the Ephesian council written by Cyril of Alex­andria, the Confession of Faith made by the council of Chalcedon, and there they will find exact conformity with the positives of our Religion. Popery addeth to these their own inventions, which we renounce, and this maketh the difference. To make this truth appear the more, I shal name these foundations. The doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, upon which our faith is build­ed. We hold that there is one GOD, & three Persons, that the world was made by GOD; and man the tennant, when the house was made, appointed to bring in his rent. That man was made according to the Image of GOD, in holiness, and righteousness. That he fell from his first state, and turned to the [Page 93] creature by transgression. That sin entered this, and death by sin. That he sinned as a publick person, and involved posteritie under a curse. That GOD so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, who was ve­ry GOD, made flesh in the womb of the blessed Virgin: and dyed for our sins, and af­ter burial, rose again for our righteousne [...]s. So that it is the blood of Jesus Christ only that cleanseth us from all si [...]. And eternal life is the gift of GOD through Jesus Christ our Lord: and when he paid the price then he ascended to Heaven, and the Heaven must contain him as man, [...]ill the day of the restitution of all things. That he i [...] now a [...] the right hand of GOD, advocating and in­ [...]erceeding for as many as the Father gave him, and shal come again and render [...]o eve­ry man according to his works. When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, and sent the Holy Ghost who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who createth saith in us, by which we are justified. Who enlighteneth, convinceth, comforteth, sup­porteth, directeth all the houshold of faith, and teacheth all the children to worship GOD alone, in spirit and in truth, and to call on his Name, through Jesus Christ the only Media tour betwixt GOD and man. Our Lord sent his Apostles, and set them in the [Page 94] Church commanding them to teach and baptize all Nations. To ordain Pastours for edifying the body, whose power and calling it is to preach the Word purely, to admini­strat the Sacraments of Baptism and the Sup­per of the Lord as it was first delivered, to rule their flocks as they that watch for souls, and should stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, to administer discipline according to the word of GOD, and to do every thing commanded there, which may bring men near GOD, and help them forward in their journey to Heaven. That Magistrats should be obeyed in the Lord. Parents honoured, and husband and wife dwel together accor­ding to knowledge, as heirs of the grace of life. That Masters should remember they have a Master in Heaven, and Servants be subject to their Masters for the Lords sake. That the Lord to whom we owe all, should be loved with the whole heart, and have the flower of our affection, and that we love our neighbour as our self. That we should rather suffer, then sin, and glorify GOD in every station wherein he placeth us. This is the summe of the positives which we man­taine, & he who will deny, that all this is con­tained in Scripture, and consented to by the Fathers, hath no understanding either of Scripture or antiquity. The negatives of [Page 95] our Religion are points of Popery denyed by us, and condemned in the Scripture, contrar to all antiquity. Such as these. That the Pope of Rome is supream infallible Monarch of the Christian Church. That he, and these who follow him cannot erre in matters of faith. That he hath preheminence above the scrip­ture, and may dispence with the law of GOD, concerning incest, murder, perjury &c. That he may depose Kings. Their service in an unknown tongue, is contrary to all pure antiquitity, so much is confessed by Thomas Cajetan, and Lyranus writting on 1. Cor. 14. Their praying on beads a late invention, Po­lid, Virgil, lib. 5. invent. cap. 9. Their carrying of the Hoste by a pompous procession is prae­ter veterem morem, saith Cassander consult. art. 22. not according to antiquity: That Christ is bodily present there, and should be worsh [...]pped, and that bread and wine is no longer there after consecration, is not older then the Lateran Council. That the cup should be holden from the People, is of one age with the council of Constance. That the Mass i [...] a proper propitiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of dead and living, was unknown to Peter Lombard, who saith from Augustin lib. 4. disp. [...]. that which is offered, is cal­led a sacrifice, because it is a commemoration and representation of the true sacrifice made [Page 96] on the altar of the Cross, Augustin lib. 20. cap. 21. against Faustus the Manichaean, the flesh and blood of Christ before his comming in­to the world, was promised by the similitude of the leg [...]l sacrifices; in the suffering of Christ [...], his flesh and blood was in the veritie, and antitype it self exhibited; after the as­ [...]tion of Christ, it is celebrated in the Sa­crament of commemoration. That none should communica [...] except such as make a [...]ticulat consession to a Priest, was not known in the ancient▪Church, saith Maldon sum. qu. [...]. art. 11. Where there was only publick confession. That Images should be set up in Churches and worshipped, was abominated till the second council of Nice. The like may be said of Purgatorie, worshipping Saints and Angels, with-holding the Bible from people, &c. So the Romish Religion is new, and ours the good old way, quod primum ve­rum, saith Tertul. lib. 4. contra Marc. cap. 5. It is true that the enemy did sow tares quick­ly in the Church, and the mysterie of iniqui­ty did encrease by degrees; Yet these were not holden to be de side, and made articles of the Christian Creed, under the paine of Anathema, till the council of Trent, then in­deed in stead of reformation, which occa­sioned that convention, the Trent Doctors, o [...] at least the plurality of them gathered [Page 97] the crotchets of some Fathers, the disputable opinions of some School-men, and making a bundle of all together, did obtrude them to be believed by all Christians, under the pain of excommunication. So that the church of Rome as new dogmatized, is no older then the council of Trent, and ours is as old as Scripture, sensed by the purest antiquity. For further clearing, beside all I have said formerly, you may hear this more, how Suarez telleth us, that the council of Florence did at first insinuat, that there were seven Sacraments, but it was no article of faith till the council of Trent, the like may be said of the rest. So Popery is a superstitious super­structure, like an ulcer on the body, which was long in growing, at last did break out, and stain the garments of many in a world. When our Lord Jesus dyed, he left a Testa­men behind him, which being opened, di­recteth all his subjects how to carry. Papists not content with this rule for ordering his le­gac [...]e, upon a pompous design have formed a dative, which they make equal to his Testa­ment, which we disclaim, and honestly ad­here to the first Testament, here is the rule of our Negatives.

It is [...]rasonick bragge, for you to say, That of an 100. Fathers ye have 99. for your tenets, and as untrue that the four first gene­ral [Page 98] Councils were for the Popes universal su­premacie. The Fathers though the mystery of iniquitie was then in the cradle, being ta­ken up with other controversies, did not pur­posely fall on these tares, which scarcely were come to the blade then. For instance, the Fa­thers in the first 300. years whose books are ex­tāt, were Iust. Mar. who did writ 150. year after Christ, an Apology for the vindication of Christians to the Senat of Rome, after another of the samekind to Antonius the Emperor, a Dialogue concerning the verity of Christian Religion, called Tryphon, and some other letters exhor­ting to moral duties, holding forth the Roli­gion of Christians against Jews and Gentiles, but that which is Poperie, the source of con­troversies in the Christian Church was un­known to him. The next is Ironaeus, who li­ved about the year of Christ 178. He did write five books against the heresies of his time, as the Valentinians, Gnosticks, Ophites, the heresie of Simon Magus, Menander, Ba­silides. So Popery is not to be found in them, unless some of these heresies be found in their skirts. The [...]hird is Clemens Alexandrinus, who flourished in the year of Christ 196. who was a Presbyter of Alexandria, the subject he handleth is in three parcels▪ an ex­hortation to the Gentiles to renounce their Idols, a Paedagogy to the Christians, instruct­ing [Page 99] them about their carriage, and his Stro­mara which is a Miscellany work against the followers of Basilides, Gnosticks, &c. Ori­gen lived about the same time, whose writ­tings are so imperfect and vitiated, that we scarce know what to make of them, as Eras­mus witnesseth in his edition. Tertullian did writ about the same time several books, as concerning Patience, the Resurrection, a­gainst the Jews, against Marcion, Hermoge­nes, Praxeas, the defence o [...] Christians a­gainst Idolatry, &c. The Martyr Cyprian who lived anno 258. writteth some eplstles, treatises and sermons about the cases of his time. Lactantius and Arnobius flourished in the beginning of the fourth Centurie, and did writ against the Gentiles, but the Popish trash was unknown to them. So it is not strange albeit the Negarives of our Religion were not handled directly by the Fathers, seeing then the Popish controversies were not started, however the Jesuits do w [...]est some sayings of these Fathers for their own ends, yet an attentive Reader will find that they make not for them, as Scultetus and Dr. Forbes, Dr. Usher, and Dr. Morton have sufficiently proved. In the following ages they had to do with Arrius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutiches, but Popery then was under the hatches, and the decrees of the [Page 100] Trent Council wholly unknown.

Further, controversies betwixt us and Pa­pists, can hardly be decided by the Fathers, for some of them made retractations, others held forth the opinion of others frequently, then what they propose sometime, is esteem­ed by them probable, not certain; and all of them Printed since the Trent council, have been castrated by the Popish Index expur­gatorius. Therefore they cannot be thought the sittest Umpyres in our present debates; neither are they made judges, either by the Popish partie or ours: for they appeal to the Pope, we to the Scriptures, and do make use of them as Commentators, and historians only. Further, the Fathers desire us to look on them, only as such. I shal ci [...]e three testi­monies proving this to the full, One is that of Augustin, in his opist. to Hierom, concerning the interpretation of the 2. chap. to the Gala­tians. When he is pressed with the testi­monie of old authours, Ego didici, hunc honorē deferre tantū Scripturarum libris qui Cano ni ci appellantur, ut nullum eorum authorum in scribendo aliquid errasse, firm [...]t [...]r creda [...], nec arbitror, mi frater, te velle tuos libros sic l [...]gi, tanquam Prophetarum & Apostolorum. i. e. I have learned to give that honour onl [...] to the books of Scripture, which are canonick▪ th [...]t their authours, have not errod. And a little [Page 101] thereafter. I do not think my brother that you would have your books, so read as the books of the Prophets and Apostles.

The second testimony is in his third Epistle to Fortunatus, Nec quorumlibet disputatio­nes, tanquam Scripturas Canonic [...]s, habere debemus, ut non liceat, salva honorisicentia quae iis debetur, aliquid in eorum scriptis impro [...]a­re, si forte aliter senserint, quam veritas ha­bet, talis ego sum in scriptis aliorum, tales volo esse lectores meorum. i. e. We ought not to look on the writtings of men, as the Scriptures of GOD, but may disprove that which is not truth in their books, if they have not set down the truth, such I am in the writings of others, such I desire to be the readers of my own.

The third testimony is that of Hierom, lib. 2. contra Ruffinum, where speaking of Origen and other Fathers, he saith, fier [...] po­test, ut simpliciter [...]rrarint, vel alio sens [...] scrips [...]rint, vel à librariis imperitis eorum scripta paulatim corrupta sunt, vel antequam Arrius natus sit, minus caute loqu [...]ti sint. i. e. It may be they have erred and spoken in another sense, or their books have been corrupted, or before Arrius they have not spoken so warily on the point. If then we hold Fathers in their own room according to their desire, no wrong is done to them.

[Page 102] Fourthly, That none think we disside the Fathers or Councils, it will be found that pure antiquity savoureth us more then Po­pery. This you deny, and cites for you Beza his epist. ad Dudithium, whereby your stu­died endeavour to deceive people, may ap­pear, for Beza there is only answering an objection brought in amongst others by Du­dithius, for resolution, that he might be con­firmed in the faith by him. Wherein Beza doth judiclously give resolution. Will it then follow that Dudithius was of this opi­nion? So deal you with Martyr and Chem­nitius who assert no such thing. It is known both of them were good Antiquaries, and confirm our tenets by several testimonies of Ancients. It is like you have taken these ci­tations from your Index, and not from the Authours. Neither Luther, Calvin, Whit­gift, Fulke, or any reformed Divine hold from Fathers or Councils their due. Yea, we reverence them more then ye do.

You bring the four Councils for the Popes universal supremacie and infallibility. If this be not it which you intend to prove, your answer meereth no [...] mine. This is a negative of our Religion, was it heard of the first 300 years? You say not so. But in the next 300. years was the Popes universal supre­macie or infallibility heard of? This you al­leage, [Page 103] and by providence contradict your self, it is known that in the Council of Nice no mention is made of an universal, far less infallible Pope. You cite the 29. Canon of the Nicaen Council, whereas there were but 22. of them in whole, saith Ruffinus, lib. 1. cap. 6. Their sixth Canon is far from that. If that had been in their Creed they needed no Council, the Pope in Cathedra would have done all. And in the council of Constan­tinople they establish the power of their own Patriarch. Why then say you that he was established there universal infallible Mona [...]ch of the whole Church? Will ye re­member better your connexions? Was he Peters successour according to the council of Ephesus? Then no universal Monarch. He was a Presbyter, an Elder, not a Lord over GODS heritage, see 1. Peter, 5. 3. Thirdly, Expone this, and reconcile it with the Popedom, if you can? Was he Pa­triarch of old Rome? Then no universal head, these two seem to clash, and the coun­cil wordeth it better. But why do you not mention his infallibility in your Reply; It is the koy of Popery, and let you it thus slip out amongst your hands? Not one Father or primitive Council is cited for this. The Council of Chalcedon saith expresly, that the Pope of Rome hath no priviledge from [Page 104] Christ above others; but only because it was the seat of the Roman Empire, Act: 15. you will not then have the four Councils for you, except you coine some new acts as the 29. of Nice. By which also it may appear how groundless, and vain your boasting is of hav­ing 90. Fathers of an 100. for this point. The opposition of the Ancients thereto is clearly demonstrated by learned Morton in his Grand Impostor.

Here that you seem not to be silent, you bring forth impertinently these texts of Scripture formerly explained, Tell the Church, &c. To which I referre the Reader for satisfaction: there be no more priviledge there concerning the Church of Rome, then the Church of SCOTLAND, and not so much as it is how constituted and adulterated. We do believe an universal Church, but it is far from our thoughts that Rome is it. We al­low Ministerial helps for expounding Scrip­ture, but do not renounce the judgement of discretion in Christians. And concer­ning interpretation of Scripture, infallibility of Pope or Council, and the priviledges of the universal Church, enough is formerly mentioned. And these your so often repea­ted cavils are aboundantly refuted, and what you say, you did in your Reply to my sixt Answer, is refuted by me in my Duply thereto [Page 105] For this is Crambe recocta.

Lastly, You cite some Fathers of the first 3. ages against our negatives, and would hold is in hand that they mantained them as Articles of their Creed. But ye cite spu­rious Authours, as Origens, Threni, or Lament: Cyprian de Coena, St. Andrew, St. Dennis &c. some of which your own writters call in que­stion, see Bellurmin de Script. Eccl. pag. 83. & de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 9. Iust [...]n Mar­tyr In his Apology to Anto­nius the Empe­rour. is brought for transubstantiation, which is a manifest untruth: For the words of Iustin Martyr are these, [...] &c. i. e. That sanctified Food, wherewith our blood and flesh by conversion is nourished, i [...] that, which we are taught to be the Body and Blood of Christ. If it be food, wherewith out blood and flesh is nourished, then where i [...] your Transubstantiation? There it is bread in substance, and the Body of Christ in sig­nification and Sacramental relation. If you please, by this you may be convinced of your errour, ignorance, and boldness. It is as untrue that Cyprian said or meaned so, except in a Sacramental sense, for in his 63. epist. he saith, Invenimus Vinum fuisse quod Sangu [...]nem suum dixit. i. e. We find that it was the win [...] which he called his blood, and in his 76. epist. he saith, quando dom [...]nus appel­lat [Page 106] panem, corpus suum, & vinum sanguinem, populum nostrum quem portabut indioat adu­natum. i. e. When our Lord calleth the bread his Body, and the wine his Blood, he signifyeth that we being many are one lump of bread.

As for the proof of the Mass from St. Andrew, I can find no such book, and a­mongst all the Ecclesiastick writters in the first 300. years there was no mention made of him. If he making for your behove could be produced as an Author, it is strange how Bellarm [...]n hath forgotten to name him. So I cannot take this authour off your hand. But this is sure, Eusebius lib. 8. Dem. Evang. in fine calleth the Bread [...] the memorial of his Body, the Image of his Body. Then it is no sa­crifice, nor corporally the Body. And seeing it is really, relatively, and symbolically such, we would not have it now abused by negligence, Origen saith no more hom. 13. on Exod. we say no less.

For Purgatory, you cite Tertullian in the second Age, and Cyprian in the third, nei­ther of which were for it: For Tertull. lib. de Patien. saith, Christum laedimus, cum evocatos quosdam, ab eo quasi miserand [...]s, non aequani­miter accipimus. As if they who are called hence, and be with Christ, were in a pityful [Page 107] state, having obtained their desire, Phil. 1. 23. and Cyprian de immortalitate, saith, Ad refrigerium justi vocantur, ad supplicium in­justi c [...]piuntur, veloc [...]u [...] tutel [...] sidentibus, per­sidis poena. i. e. The just a [...]e called to refresh­ing res [...], the wicked are taken to punishment: safety cometh very swiftly to Believers, and punishment to unbelievers. And Cyprian saith, lib. adversus Demetrianum, Aevi temporalis fine completo ad aeternae, vel mortis vel immor­talitatis hospitia, divdimur. Et ibidem. Quando illin [...] excessum fuerit, nullus jam lo­cus poenitentiae est, nullus satisfactionis [...]ef­fectus, ad mortalitatem sub ipsa morte transi­tur. i. e. When men depart out of this world, there is no place thereafter for repentance, no effect of sati [...]faction, at death men pass over to immortality. It is true, they grant Probatory afflictions, and the siery tryal here. Some of them also deny full fruition to the Elect, till the day of judgement : But for Purgato­ry till the sixth Age it was not known; then Gregory the first mantained it, Dial. lib. 4. cap. 39. Neither can that prison Matth. 5 be understood of Purgatory, as shal be after­wards proved. I shal close this point with Iustin Murtyr resp. ad Orthod quest. pag. 75. [...]. i. e. After the departure of the Soul out of the Body, imme­diatly [Page 108] there is a separation of the just from the unjust: for the souls of the righteous are brought to Paradise, and the souls of the wic­ked are taken to hell.

Then you prove Prayer to the dead, from Clemens epist. 1. de Sancto Petro, and Tertul. de cor. mil. I shal not insist on that Apocry­phal Epistle, but for Tertullian, he and others prayed for a joyful Resurrection to them. And hence are some Panegyricks concerning them, which were rather to profit themselves then the party deceased, as Augustin telleth us in Enchir: ad Laurentium, they were Consolationes vivorum. You offer also to make out by St. Dennis that they in primo primitiva Ecclesia, prayed to Saints and An­gels. As for the first citation, to you who pro­fesse to believe the Scriptures of GOD, and do yet stumble weak ones with thornie que­stions concerning their authority; it will not be unexpedient for me who cannot find such a writter in the second Centurie, (for you cannot mean Dionysius the Areopagit who lived in the 1. Centurie, nor Dionysius A­lexandrinus, who lived in the 3. Centurie.) To enquire I say of you, whither was there such a Saint? And if that be made out whi­ther did he writ any book at all? And if so, if this be the book which you call his▪ I will not take the Popes word for it nor yours, see­ing [Page 109] both Hierom and Bellarmin leave him out of their history. When these questions are answered, I shal prepare an answer for his testimony. But it is more strange that you cite Origen who writting against the Pagan Celsus, in this point of prayer to Saints and Angels, lib. 8. pag. 432. 433. saith expresly, to whom we give the first fruits to him we send our prayers to the great high Priest, Jesus the Son of GOD, who is entered into Heaven. This is like your testimonie from Dudithius, if that be Origen you cite for Origens, Threni, or Liment: to be spu­rious, some judicious do averre, as Eras­mus so Barronius, tom. 2. ad annum. 253. here is a retractation. Your own Salmeron telleth us to more purpose, the reason why in the primitive times there was no invoca­tion of Saints and Angels, Quia occasio da­retur gentibus, put andi sibi exhibitos multos Deos, pro multitudine divorum. disp. 8. i [...] 1. Tom. 2.

As for the sign of the Cross, it is true Tertullian is for it in these places named, and it was in use amongst Christians when they had to do with Pagans, and some who are not of your communion make use of it as yet; o­thers think that seeing the occasion of the first making use of it is removed, it not be­ing commanded in Scripture, and much a­bused [Page 110] by you, that it is more expedient to leave it undone: But, your abuse of it is not approved by Tertullian, so his testimony maketh nothing for you who do so. And for Images, it is an impudencie in you to say, that there were any Images set up in Church­es the first 300. years, what ever draughts might be in dwelling houses, or cups. For proving your shamelesness in this assertion, hear your own Lorinus on 17. Acts on the 15. verse &c. where, wit Vasquez and Durand, he telleth, that all Images were forbidden un­der the Law, and citeth for it Ex. 20. 3. then he sheweth that under the Gospel in the first Centuries there were no Images, for this he citeth Lactantius and Tertullian, Augustin, and Arnobius contra Gentes, who saith that Gentiles, exprobrabant Christianis quod nul­lam Dei formarent picturam, occultabant quod celebant i. e. The Gentiles did upbraid the Christians because they would not make a­ny Image of GOD, they did hide what they worshipped. That Adrian fancying the Christi­ans as Pagans suspected, did build his Temple without any Images. And in Constantius his time, the Christian Chappels were called Tem­pla Adrians. Then he bringeth the decree of the Council of Eliberis, where it was provided that there should be no Images in Church­es. Ne quod colitur & adoratur in parietibus [Page 111] depingatur. i. e. that which is worshipped and adored should not be painted on walls. This council was celebrated in the time of Constantine in the fourth Centurie, and this is the 36. Canon of it. And till the second Council of Nice, which was in the 800. year, Image worship was abommable in the Chri­stian Church. How then can you assert so great and absurd an untruth: Read ancient History and acknowledge your errour. As for Free-will, we do not deny it in some sense [...], and in the Jesuited sense, none of these you cite did mantaine it. Augustin against Julian, and Pelagius opposed that, so do we. This is well proved by Jansenius Yprensis in his defence of Augustins doctrine against the Jesuits. Vincentius Lyrinensis adversus Haereses, lib. 1. cap. 34. proveth that Pelagius was the first inventer of your Free-will, which is Arbitrium servum. As for the merit of works, Just in Marty under­stood not by it meritum condigni, but the obtaining of the end of their faith and la­bours. So Augustin, saith the Apostle Paul, electionis vas meruit nominari, lib. de praed. & gratia, and Cyprian readeth that 1. Tim 1. 13. I obtained mercy, misericordium me­rui. You keep the words which some an­cients used, and we the sense, so ye deceive the People. In your sense they absolutly [Page 112] renounced it. Origen in epist. ad Rom. lib. 4. suith, Vix mihi suadeo, quod possi ullum opus esse a nobis, quod ex debito remuneratio­nem Dei poscat. i. e. I can hardly perswade my self that there can be any work, which of debt deserveth a reward from GOD. Bernard in Cant serm. 67. non est in quo gratia intret, ubi jam meritum occapavit. i. e. Grace hath no place to enter where merit hath occupied the room. Your own Ferus on Matth. chap. 20. S. saith, GOD hath freely promised (he ren­dereth freely) if therefore thou wouldest keep the grace and favour of GOD, make no men­tion of thine own merits. For out of mercy he will give all, yet thou must not be the slower to good workes, yea welshould be more fervent, for doing of them, as becometh us well, who have so bountiful a Lord. Which words the Spanish inquisitors would have expunged.

Lastly, You prove the fulfiling of the law, even as the rest, by Tertallian and Origen, who say nothing but that through Christ, who strengthneth us we can do all things. This is the word of GOD Phil. 4. 13. which we will not disclaim. But the man who can fulfil the Covenant of workes, needeth not a Saviour. Is it like they would hold it in your sense, seeing they disclaime merit, and said with us, In many things we offend all, and when we have done all we are unprofitable [Page 113] servants. Where is perfection then? The saw may be so farre fulfilled as to make us accep­table to GOD through Christ, but not to justifie us. Now let the Reader judge im­partially, whither it was ignorance in me, to say, that the primitive Church knew not Po­pery, and that the negatives of our Religion could not be allowed by them, more then by us. What they say obiter, concerning any thing of that kind, is for us more then for Papists. Papists Quest: 8

Question eight. How prove you the tenets of the Church of Rome to be contrar to Scrip­ture?

Answer, Your doctrine forbidding Laicks, Prote∣stants Answer. (as ye call them) to read and search the word of GOD, is against the command of Christ, Iohn 5. 39. this is written Scripture, which ye contradict by your practice. &c.

Reply, In your eight Answer, you are so Papists Reply. confused in your method, so weak in your cita­tions, and even sometimes so contradicting to your self, that it needeth no other censure. Yet I will reflect briefely on every thing. You ob­ject first our doctrine, forbidding Laicks as we call them, say you, (as if there were no true distinction between Church men and Laicks: i. e. a Minister and a Cobler in Ecclesiastical functions.) To read the Scripture is against the command of Chr [...]st. Where first you ob­ject, as if there were any article of the Cathoilck [Page 114] Church, forbidding them to read Scripture absolutly. She forbiddeth them to read Scrip­ture without leave of their Pastours and Di­rectours, which is easily granted to any judi­cious person, as all the Converts of this Coun­trey know, whereof the greatest part have seen your errours in Scripture, and detasted them. Your citation is weak, and can prove no­thing till it be made out, whither the words be imperatively taken, or rather indicatively. Ye search the Scriptures, so Cyril interpre­teth it lib. 3. in Iohn chap. 4. To whom Beza assenteth, advertisirg that the word should be rather taken in the indicative mood. So that you see I must have some other infallible judge, to tell me in which of these two senses it should be taken, before I build any thing on this place. Thirdly, As Christ in the same chapter prov­eth himself to be the Son of GOD by four testi­monies. First, Of John the Baptist. Secondly, Of his works and miracles. Thirdly, Of his Heavenly Father. Fourthly, Of Scripture. So do we prove by four like testimonies the Roman Church. First, By the authority of the Fathers. Secondly, By miracles in all ages. Thirdly, By the authority of GOD clear­lie saying in all ages, by her unitie, sanctity, in fallibility, This is my Spouse. Fourthly, Of Scriptures, exhorting all to read and hear them, not superficially, turning and shuffling [Page 115] them over as the Jews do to this day, and yet obstinatly deny what they so clearly testifie, but to consider and reflect on the Catholick verities there delivered, as, that Christ was truely the Son of GOD.

Answer, If my Answer be weak it is the more easily refuted. But how can a Scripture Prote∣stants Answer. argument be weak, except it be misapplyed, which you do not alleage here? I had al­most forgotten the reason, which is this, that all Scripture is like Aesops fables to you, unless it be sensed and animated by your Church. Hinc illae lachrymae. Then you say I am confused in the met od. I beginne with the Scripture, then I go to the wo [...]ship, &c. Is there any thing jumbled here? I know no rule tendered by Methodists for sorting Scripture citations, if they be pertiuent­ly cited. And whither you speak truth in [...]a­thering contradictions upon me, it will after­ward appear when I consider your an [...]we [...]s to these 20. texts of Scripture, and compare them with your former Replyes; it putteth me in mind of our Sea fouls, which can flee only above water, and slutter on the land. So you mount up with humane tra­ditions, but can scarcely slutter when you mention Scripture, it is not your Element, this appeareth by your first Reply, and the rest are no better. For once you deny that [Page 116] the people (I said you call them Laicks, not that we deny a distinction betwixt Pastours and people as you would insinuat. But to note your vaine appropriating the name of Clergie, or the Lords heritage, to your Priests, as if the people of GOD were not a part thereof, contrary to 1. Pet. 5. 3. and as if you had a cōmanding power over them. For the arrogancy of your Roman Clergie, Jerome called them Senatum Pharisae [...]um, the Senate of the Pharisees.) I say the people are forbidden to read the Scripture by you. And that some in SCOTLAND of your way are licensed to read them, if this were true, why is it a ground of inquisition abroad to have a Bible by them, and made a ground of per [...]ecution here in the time of reforma­tion, if there be no countermand, why is it held a transgression?

Secondly, The granting of a licence to 2 some, implyeth an inhibition, and ye are wi [...]ty in licensing some few to read it here, and none in Italy or Spain. For there be no hazard to the Popedom here, which might be there, if they were not so muzled. Next you say the w [...]rd Iohn 5. 39. is not in the impe­rative but indicative mood, for that you cite Cyril and Beza. G [...]ving, no [...] granting that it is so, it maketh still against your practise: Fot they searched the Scriptures with his [Page 117] approbation, and our Lord referreth the people to them, as the rule of their direction for knowing him, which ye refuse to do, for ye must have another infallible judge to bear testimonie of him.

Thirdly, You desire people not to shuffle, 3 but search the Scriptures. I am glad to hear you speak so; you yeeld the cause, we seek no more. Blessed be the Lord GOD of truth, Magna est vis veritatis, and blessed is the man who meditate in the Law of GOD day and night. For your application of the place it is selfish, and the similitude halteth on more leggs then one.

The second Scripture is that 1. Cor. 14. Prote­stants 2. Inst. § 2. 14. which forbiddeth your Latine service. If I pray in an unknown tongue, my understanding is unfruitful, &c. How shal one who occupieth the room of the unlearned say amen? verse 16.

Reply, You reply that the word unknown Papists Reply. is not in the Original, but taken in by interpre­ters, neither is if great inconvenient, albeit men pray publickly in an unknown tongue, sithence preaching only is for edification, and information of the judgment, not prayer. I [...] there any scripture forbidding us to pray, ex­cept the understanding of the hearers be in­structed? The high Priest amongst the Jews prayed in the sanctuary, and was seperated from the people, therefore could not instruct [Page 118] their understanding, yet that was their forme of publict worship; And the Apostle in the same chapter, verse 5. To speak with tongues I forbid not, I wish ye did all speak with tongues, and he desireth them to pray that they might interpret. And the Liturgies of the Church are interpreted to the people. This scripture maketh more against your Mini­sters, who with extemporarie prayers, speak non-sense, which hath made one of your own Poets say, fools understand not us, nor wise men you.

Answer, You have need to understand the Greek tongue better, that there be a dif­ference Prote∣stants Answer betwixt [...] and [...] is an unknown tongue, and when the Apostle saith [...], it needed no other word for that comprehendeth barbarous language, as [...] doth the known tongue. Further, he desireth them to pray that they might in­terpret; Ergo, it was an unknown tongue. Varro lib. 6. de lingua latina, when he ci­teth Aristotles book, intituled Absolet names, calleth them Glossae Aristotelis, any may see more of this in that learned Critick Mausa­cius Mau­sacius in Harpo­eratio­nem. pa. 352. If you will read the 7. verse, the equi­valent of it is in the original, for he men­tioneth, speaking in a tongue not understood, and is not that an unknown tongue? Then it is in a tongue to which the unlearned [Page 119] could not say Amen when one blessed o [...] gave thanks. Thus verse 16. and it is the purpose of the Holy Ghost, to refute that un­edifying way at length by sundry arguments. Amongst which this is one, that the under­standing was thereby rendered unfruitful. Therefore, the Apostle resolveth to pray with the spirit and the understanding also, verse 15. You absurdly contradict the Apostle by your practise, and adde in termes, that it is no great inconvenient, albeit the understanding be unfruitful. He saith it is one. You deny it. Whither shal I believe the Apostle Paul or you: I am ashamed of your impudencie herein. How dare you Palam & in [...]s, con­tradict the Scripture? Your ragged reasons subjoyned, Because prayer is not so much for the understanding, as Preaching and Catechi­sing: Is there any scripture say you not to pray, except they instruct the understanding of hearers. I answer, the scripture is for it verse 15. I will pray with the spirit and the understanding also. And if this were not so, Par [...]ats might pray, but we ought to speak because we believe. Your other reason against the Apostle is, That the high Priest amongst the Jews praying in the Sanctuary, was sepa­rated from the people, and did not instruct their understanding, yet that was the forme of their publict worship. Yea in the same chapter [Page 120] verse 5. The Apostle saith, and to speak with tongues he prohibiteth not. I answer, that the high Priest amongst the Jews, when he was with the people prayed in an known tongue, Num. 6. and when he was alone in the most holy place, where he entered but once a year, and that not without blood to typifie Jesus Christ, he spoke also in the vulgar language of the Nation: And was not all their admi­nistrations in Hebrew their mother tongue? How then can you say that any of their wor­ship was in an unknown tongue? As for that you adde of the 13. verse, and verse, 16. it is so dark nonsense, [...]hat to me now ye speak in an unknown tongue, and deserves no answer. He desireth them to speak with tongues, and interpret them to the unlearned for the use of edifying, that all might say Amen. What can be more clear against you?

At last you come off this as formerly, and yeeld the cause, and say, that the liturgie of the Catholick Church is interpreted to every one, and the greatest part of the publick pray­ers translated to the people and set down in their own prayer books. And this place of Scripture maketh not against us, but Mini­sters, who with their extemporarie prayers speak non sense, which hath made one of your own Poets say, fools do not understand us, nor wise men you.

[Page 121] I am glad to hear that this point which was deryed at the Council of Trent, is now granted, and if it be so, why jangled you so much formerly. But I find it is not so, for you are taught to equivocat. And what your greatest part meaneth, is unknown here, it is certain your Masses, Aves, &c. are yet muttered and worded in Latine, ye are a­shamed to owne it, not without re [...]son. For your reflection on our worship we are for reasonable service, and lively work, to a liv­ing GOD, not for none-sense, and would to the Lord your worship were as pure as ours is this day, many souls might be edified thereby.

Thirdly, Invocation of Saints and Angels, is will worship, Col. 2. 23. How can we call Inst. 3. on him in whom we do not believe, Rom. 10. 14. or lay stress of belief on a creature? Be­side they know not what we say. Abraham is ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledgeth us not, Isaiah 63. 16.

To this your return, is, that I wrest the Papists Reply. scripture Col. 3. which spe [...]keth only of the duty of Masters and Servants, and not one word against the worship of Saints or Angels. And that place Rom. 10. 14. is concerning prayer to GOD only, not about prayer to Saints or Angels. Because we will supplicat men on earth in whom we do not believe. And the [Page 122] text Isaiah 63. 16. cited by you is meaned of the knowledge of approbation, as Hierom interpreteth the place. According to which it will rather follow, that t [...]ey did know what passed here below, and disowned a degenerated multitude.

Answer, I confess if I had cited that place which you mention upon this subject, I had not only wrested but martyred Scripture. Prote∣stants Duply. You may believe it never entered into my mind to do so. The place I cited was the 2. chapter of the Coll [...]ssians, verse 23. where worshipping of Angels is termed will worship. And what can you say to that? I would suspect that you purposely have o­mitted this scripture, yet this might as easily be refuted by you, as 1. Cor. 14. For he who said the one, said also the other. The 10. Rom. 14. you labour to interpret thus, that it is meaned of prayer to GOD, not of calling on men or Angels: because we will call on men on earth in whom we do not believe. The words are general, and the interrogative is equiva­lent to a negative. None can call on them in whom they do not believe. You say we call on men on earth. What do we pray to men? The calling here, is a part of religious wor­ship, which cannot be given to the greatest Potentat in the World. Then you tell that the 63 of Isaiah, is meaned of a knowledge of [Page 123] approbation, like that, depart from me I know you not, id. est. I approve you not, so Hierom exp [...]undeth the [...]ext, and acc [...]rding to this exp [...]sition, it w [...]ll rather fol­low that they did know w [...]t passed [...]ere below, and disowned a degenerated [...], I [...]n­swere that exposition of Is. [...]. is contra [...]e to the str [...]o Interpreters. Yet to the con­nexion of the words. For it is a prayer put up to God, and the [...] to be this, Thou O Lord knowest how [...]o helpe us, al­though Abraham knoweth no [...] what is be­come of us. So it is an opposition between divine knowledge, and that of Abraham; Doubtless thou art our father, &c. But sup­posing Hierom [...] interpretation to be true, it will not follow that they knew what was done on earth, but only this, that if Israel were on earth, they were so [...] degenerat­ed that he would not know [...]is posteritie. I'le close this with the testimony of your own Eckius in his Enchir. ch. 15. there is no warrand for invocation of S [...]ints [...]r A [...]gels from the scripture, and that the Apostie [...] ei­ther by word or writ left any thing behind them to be done &c. He might have said more, there be warrand for the contrar.

Fourthly, Your worshipping of Im [...]ges, is Inst. 4 an express breach of the second Command, which forbiddeth any sort of worship to any [Page 124] Image in Heaven or in Earth, Ex. 20. 4. And ye Papists being conscious of your guilt herein, have thievously stoln out the second Command, and divided the tenth into two branches, witness Bellarmins Catechism, and your other writters.

To this you answer, That the division of the Commands is not in scripture, so we cannot know the second or third. How then standing Papists Reply. by scripture your only determiner shal we judge of t [...]is? And if you come to authority or rea­son, I appeal to your self whither it be Idola­trie to worship Images? Seeing all Idolatrie is against the first Command. It being the wor­ship of a creat [...]re in the place of GOD. There­fore Bellarmin and others take what ye call the second Command, for a further explana­tion of the first, and so set down, but the sub­stantial words, Thou shalt have no o [...]her Gods but me. Yet take not the rest out of the Bible, which is there set down at length. But Protestan [...]s take away all the Commandments, saying, it is impossible to keep them. For there is no Command where there is no obligation of keeping, a [...]d Nemo [...]enetur ad impossibile. Then reason m [...]keth for dividing the tenth Commandment in two. For as theft and adul­terie are forbidden by two Commands: so the inward desire of the heart after a mans wife and goods, should likewise in reason be rather [Page 125] forbidden by two Commandments, then Ido­latrie alone by two. But if making of Images, kneeling before them or worshipp [...]ng them, not as Gods, but as things which keep us in mind of GOD, and his Saints, as the seventh ge­neral Council saith, as the holie bo [...]ks; Why did GOD make man to his own Image, and obliedge us to honour him as his Image? Why did he put two Cherubs on the A [...]k before which the Jews kneeled? Why commanded he the Jews to adore the same Ark as his foo [...] ­stool? Psalm 98. Why should everie knee bow at the Name of Jesus? For the word being but a sign of the thing signified, is no better then an Image? And why is the place on which the Name of GOD was written, called the place of holy veneration? Exod. 39. 29. Why do we honour the crown, [...]ob royal scepter, and signs of royal autho [...]itie? Why do we call our knights worship? That is [...] man deserving civil worship, as Saints and holy things do religious. Why do Protestants make their Fathers, Grand-Fathers, and Mist [...]ess-Images to keep their memorie, rather then that of Christ and his Saints? Why in end hate they Christs I­mage, rather then that of Iupiter, or d [...]y false God, which they never challenge in any mans house? Or why leave ye whole the Devils Image commonly painted at St. Michaels foot, when they broke the Image of the Arch-An­gel? [Page 126] Who loves the person loves the Image. Judge then whether Protestants love GOD or the Devil best, their hatred being only a­gainst the Image of GOD and Saints, not a­gainst these of false Gods and Devils.

To this your Rhetorication, for it is no Reply, I answere first, That ye misreckon Prote∣stants Answer. the Commandements, of purpose, that ye may make the second only an appendix of the first, and curtaile it the more easily, be­cause it giveth such check to your supersti­tions worship; but I will prove from scrip­ture, reason, and antiquitie, that the Com­mands should be distinguished, as I said, and t [...]e second is a command alone. First, It is clear from scripture, that there be ten com­mandements Deut 10. 14. Secondly, it is also clear, that the tenth command, Thou shalt not covet, cannot mak up two; because the Apostle Rom. 7. v. 7. maketh it but one [...]. Thirdly, if ye will com­pare Exod. 20. 17. with Deut. 5. 21. this will also appear true, for in Exodus the house is put before the wise. But in Deut. it is said first, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife, and so these cannot be two preceps, other­wise the Pen-m [...] might be challenged of disorder, for not keeping them distinct. Would he have thus jumbled, two different Commands, who can believe it? Fourthly, [Page 127] Ye mistake the meaning of the tenth Com­mandment, for it is not the inward desire of a mans wise by way of adultery, w [...]i [...]her de­liberat or not which is there intended. That is forbidden in the seventh Command. Nor is it the desire of a man his house, or oxe, by way of stealing: that is forbidden in the eight Command, but it is a covering of those by way of propriety, which is equiva­lent to that, Heb. 13. 5. Let your conversa­tion be without covetousness, and be content with that which ye have. Now there being but one act in specie forbidden that last Command should not be parted in two. Fifthly, There be a waste difference betwixt the ultimate object of worship, and the manner of worship, which requireth two commands, and make up the first and second, one where of is, Thou shalt have no other Gods. The other, thou shalt worship the true and living GOD without Images, and this second Command is explained alone by the Pen­man in Deut. 4. 12. which is not usual in Scripture, upon a part of a Command. Sixthly, The ancient Fathers generally so distinguished them, your own Estius ac­knowledgeth on the 3. sent. dist. 36. that Clemens Alexandrinus, lib. 6. strom. distin­guisheth them as we do, and calleth Thou shalt not covet, the tenth precept Athana­sius [Page 128] de Synops. lib. 2. reckoneth them also af­ter this manner, the second Non facies tibi simulacrum. The Authour of the imperfect work on Matthew, commonly said to be Chrysost. hom 49. maketh this the second Command, Thou shalt not make any gra­ven Image, Naziaz. in Carmin. Ambros. on the 6. chapter to the Eph. Philo. on the de­calogue. so Josephus in the 3. bo [...]k of Antiq: are all for our division. So we have reason to divide the precepts thus.

It is clear to any discerner ye take with the breach of the second Command: and Vas­quez granteth no less, lib. 2. de adorat. disp. 4 cap. 4. It is true, sayeth he, our practise of worshiping Images, cannot be reconciled, with the second Command, nor with Deut. 4. 12. but Illa legis Mosaicae prohibitio, fuit juris positivi, & ceremonialis, quae tempore Evangelii, cessare, debet. Atque id quod a­lias jure naturali licitum est, ut imagines de­pingere, & illis ettam uti ad adorationem, in lege Evangelica, locum habere debet. i. e. That prohibition of the M [...]saicall law, was of po­sitive and ceremoniall right, which ought to cease in the time of the Gospel: And that which otherwise were lawfull, by natural right, as to paint Images, and also to make use of them for worship, hath place in the Gospel law also. So ye judge that Command, albeit [Page 129] one of the ten Moral precepts, which Moses calleth ten words, ceremonial, like the eating of Swins flesh. This is short work. Ye re­peal the law because ye will not obey it. Now you say, It is not Idolatrie & that it is set down in your Bible, albeit not in your Catechism. Where I observe a trick, ye permit not the people generally to read the Bible, it is a sealed book to them. But because they read the Catechisms, there must be castrat, lest that Command should make them detest your Idolatrie. You say, It is not Idol [...]trie, seeing ye worship not a false GOD. I return, that according to the number of your Cities are your Gods. By the vulgar practise, ye have a tutelary Saint for your horse, sheep, corn, cattel, &c. Ye pray for Geese to Saint Feriol, for sore beasts to St. Agath [...], for chil­dren to St. Giles, to St. Hubert for dogs, to St. Otilia for the head-ach, to St. Russia for madness, to St. Valentine for the falling-sickness: How then keep ye the first Com­mand? Is not he God in whom I trust, and whom I do worship; as appeareth from Rom. 10. 14. Further, the worshipping of God by Images, is expresly forbidden in the se­cond Command, as the worshiping of a false God, is in the first. And if Aarons calfe, Micah and Jeroboams Images, being wor­shiped, rendered the transgressours Idola­trous, [Page 130] ye are also guilty. For they worshiped the true God, in an Idolatrous, false way. Yea, this was the sin of the Gentiles, when they knew God, thus they changed his Glory. Rom. 1. 21. 23. For this it is that Iohn Mon­ceius, in his book, entituled, Aaron Purga­tus, dedicated to Pope Paul the 5. underta­keth to clear Aaron, Micah, and Jeroboam, from the guilt of Idolatry, because they did nothing but what Papists do. Melchior Ca­nus lib. de traditionibus cap. 3. acknowledg­eth that the worship of Images is condem­ned in scripture. And Cassander consult. 21. confesseth that the adoration of Images was condemned in the Councill of Frankford, as, contrare to scripture. So these two heads of my answer that Image-worship is con­trare to the second Command, and that pre­cept stolne from the rest of your Catechism, is proved and granted. We shall now hear what more you will say, in the defence of your Idolatrie, albeit it being far from the first question and answer, deserveth no answer. It is alleadged we break all the Commandments, because we hold that no faln man can perfectly fulfil them. To this I an­swered formerly, in my return upon the 7. question. But giving and not granting, that this were our errour. Two blacks makes not a whit. None of us ever repealed any of the [Page 131] ten Commandments, or refused obedience to them: only we say, it is not perfect obe­dience, as was required under the Covenant of Works. And this is our regrat, but bles­sed be he who sent our Saviour to help us. As for the Cherubs and the Ark, I referre you to Esthius on Heb. 9. 5. who will tell you that the Images of the Cherubims on the Ark, were placed not to be worshipped, but set there for signs of things to come. And the word Psalm 99. 5. worship at his foo [...]-stool, is not worship it, but before it: for it was a type of the Church in which we wor­ship. And it is clear the people could not worship them, for they were in the Holy of Holies, wh [...]re the people did not enter, nor ever see them. And admit all were true which you alleadge, suppose there were a command for this, yet there is an express command against graven Images. And this rule is our reason of doing or not doing. This is Tertullians answer to some in his days, who framed the same objection, lib. de Idololatria, by his gener [...]l law he forbade any Image to be made: and by his special in­junction, commanded the Cherubims to be set up. (Advert, he saith not, to be worshiped) stay thou till thou get the like warrand, and make no Image against the law for worship, unless he command thee as he did Moses. [Page 132] As for bowing at the Name of Jesus, we in this Church take not these words literally, for there be no knee [...] under the earth to bow; but he was ex [...]l [...]ed, th [...]t all should acknow­ledge hi [...] to be Lord and Christ. And they w [...]o take it oth [...]rwise, will not admit of your consequence; for if it be commanded, it is not an Image nor Will worship. For out pictures of friends, and persons whom we respect, they are like the hangings about our walls. The ornaments of our houses are for­bidden by no law [...]s your Images are. And your bitter expression concerning our love to the Devil, is an unchristian sentence, and non-consequential, for i [...] amounteth to this only, we will not b [...]eak the second Com­mand of the Lo [...]d o [...]t GOD, therefore we love the Devil, Hear O He [...]vens and give ear O Earth! Now Reader, if this dool be no [...] based the f [...]lt i [...] in me, not in the cause. For it is clear as the Sun that the worship of GOD is [...]uch leavened by the Romish way. And albeit there were nothing else to say against them, serious Christians who study holiness, and tender their salva­tion and consolation, must sc [...]mner at their course. Yet for further satisfaction to the Reader, I shal handle here this point more fully, and digest it methodically.

This controversie if it deserve to be called [Page 133] one (seeing it should rather be esteemed the denyal of a principle in Christianity, then a controverred point amongst Christians,) is of great consequence. First, Because Idolatrie, as saith Tertullian lib. de Idololatria, is exi­tium seculi, omne peccatum, the vuine of the generation infected, and a complex of sin: an Idolater is Homicida saith he, he killeth him­self. It was that said Luther, as Melchior Adam [...]s testifieth in his life, which brought the Turk into Christendom. The Jews are reported in time of their captivity, to reflect with sed sighs upon that as the chief ingre­dient in thei [...] cup. Albeit an Idol be nothing in the world, 1. Cor. 8. 4. no [...]hing of that it pretendeth to be, nihil formaliter. Yet the Lord is a gracious GOD, and jealous, and that is a grievous sin which cannot go un­punished long, against which he hath in his word declared indignation, [...] and ser­ved inhibition. Deut. 4. 12. Deut. 5. 8. Deut. 16. 22. 2. Chro. 33. 17. Ps. 97. 7. Ezek. 43. 8. Acts. 17. 22. 23. Rom. 1. 23. 1. ep. Iohn. 5. 21. &c. Secondly, If the Romanists be such, we had reason to leave them. What agreement hath the Temple of GOD with Idols. 2. Cor. 6. 16. we had a fair call to leave her by a voice from Heaven, Rev. 18. 4. as the Christians had to sl [...]e from Jerusalem to Pella. Thirdly, If Idola­trie [Page 134] be in the skirts of Rome, it must be high madness in any who live in the reformed Church, to hanker after and cleave to them. What will ye go to a Pest-house? Idolatrie is a plague, learn to keep a distance, and take the wind of them. For if ye joyn again in affinity. Will not the Lord be angrie? Ezra 9. 14.

In following forth this debate, a method for our better clearing is to be observed. First, What Idolatrie is? And how it differeth from supe [...]stion and will worship. Secondly, Whether there be any difference betwixt an Image terminating religions worship, and an Idol, or if in Scripture [...] and [...] be promiscuously taken. Thirdly, What is the true state of the question, and whither the Papists be guilty of the breach of the first and second Command, according to the definition of Idolatrie.

Idolatrie, is to be defined here by uncon­troverted writters, for if Protestant Divines should only define the case, partiality might be alledged, as if we made a definition, to inferre our own conclusion. Therefore to stopp the mo [...]ths of adversaries in this, I shal define Idolatrie from Scripture, antiqui­tie, Popish writters, the testimony of a Jew and a Pagan, this is fair a [...]d square dealing, against which none can justly make any [Page 135] exception. Idolatrie is religious worship, tendered to that which is not GOD. It is cal­led religious worship, for it is not civil, relating to the fifth Command which is here handled. But that which is comprized in the first and second, consisting in adoration, trusting, prayer, vowes, worship, swearing, dedication of Temples and dayes. When men give that to Images, Saints, Crosses, Reliques, which is due to GOD, that is idolatry, by the mouth of the spirit speak­ing in Scripture, Ex. 20. 5. Thou shalt not bow down thy self to them to serve them. Psam. 97. 7. Confounded be all they who serve gra­ven Images, who boast themselves of Idols, worship him all ye Gods. Psalm 115. 8. They that made them are like them, so is every o [...]e that trusteth in them. Now then, service, bowing, trusting in, or to images is Idolatry, cursed and confounded by the word of GOD. Secordly, Ancients desine it thus, Idolatrie is that Quae DEO fraudem sacit, honorem debitum, DEO denegans, & conferens aliis. So saith Tertullian lib. de idololatria, that is Idolatrie, which p [...]loineth honour from the Lord, and giveth it to others beside him, as adultery giveth conjugal benevolence to others, beside the husband or wife. Idolum saith Isiodorus in suis Origin: lib. 8. cap. 11. Est simulachrum, quod humana effigie factum [Page 136] & consecratum est. That is an Idol which is made like a man, and consecrated for wor­ship. So the exhibition of Religious worship to that is Idolatrie, according to him. Aug. epist. 119. ad Jan. saith, in primo praecepto prohibetur coli aliqua in sigmentis hominum DEI similitudo, quia nulla imago ejus coli debet nisi illa quae hoc est quod ipse, nec pro illo aut cum illo. In the first Command (where he taketh in the second) to us every similitude of GOD is forbidden to be wor­shiped, because nothing should be wo [...]shiped with him, or for him, but He himself alone. Then according to him, worship given to any Image made with hands not being God is Idolatrie. Then it will follow, first, that the Gentiles did not alwayes worship a false GOD, as ye shal afterwards hear. And next, that the Images representing [...]he true God, worshiped by them were Idols. So that wor­ship must be Idolatrie w [...]erever it is. The Adulterie of a Pagan and a Christian are one. So the Idolatrie of the one and the o­ther cannot be diverse, whatever difference may be otherwise amongst them. Gerson sayeth, Varietas imaginum, plurim [...]s ad ido­lolatriam pervertit. Thereby implying that statue worship, as practised by Romanists, was Idolatrie. Josephus a Jew con. Appio. saith, it is abominable to place any Image in [Page 137] the temple of God, and declaimeth against Pilat for intending the like. It is known, how averse the Jewes after the captivitie were, from this way, whatever pollutions for­merly they committed. Religious worship, rendered to Images, was detested by them, and reckoned Idolatrous. Varro a heathen, as he is cited by Aug. lib. 4. de civit: Dei, sayeth, that at Rome in the beginning, fuit purior Dei cultus, sine simulachris, centum septuaginta annis. Then by the twilight of Pagans, the worship is polluted, which is by Images. And in Pagan Rome, it was free of that 170. years. Afterwards they took in Images, and multiplyed their Gods, so were they given up as the Apostle telleth, Rom. 1. 23. By all these it is evident that I­dolatrie is religious worship, given to that which is not GOD.

Idolatry, Superstition, and Will-worship, may be thus distinguished. Superstition is ac­cording to the Etymolygie of the word, supra statutum, and may be in many cases where there be no worship at all. As when men are afraid of the signs in Heaven, Jer. 10. 1. 2. If they meet such a foot in the morning, if people be affrighted with dreams, vain di­vinations, as the falling of salt, &c. And be charmed from dependance by faith on the word of GOD. That is superstition, [Page 138] which ordinarily prophecieth according to their sentiments, all the fears they imagine. The Papists would willingly take with super­stition, if we make Scripture the sole rule of faith and manners. In this they are not un­like some Witches, who will acknowledge, when pannelled, gross crims, such as adultery drunkenness, swearing, Sabbath breaking, that they may be thought the more ingenuous in denying Witch-chraft. Bell. lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 8. saith no less, Non est tam certum, an imagines DEI, & sanctae Trinitatis, sint fa­ciendae in Ecclesia? It is not so certain, whi­ther the Images of GOD, and the holy Trini­ty should be made in the Church? And he thinketh that worship given to these, to be founded only upon opinion. Therefore he must acknowledge it, at least to be supersti­tion. Will worship is where there is no statute terminating it. As the worshipping of An­gels Col. 2. and they go away from it, with this return, who hath required it at your hands? Thus all Idolatrie is superstition, and Will-worship. For the Apostle Acts 17. calleth the Athenian worship such, and ma­keth use of a general smooth word, to dispose them the more, for hearing; or because, it may be there was no Image there, but an Altar to the unknown God. Yet all super­stition, and will-worship, is not Idolatrie, [Page 139] although all of them are damnable, Ezek. 43. 8. and religious worship should not be ex arbitrio humano sed imperio divino Ter­tull. de Jejunio cap. 13., in vain do they worship me, Matth. 15. 9. saith our Lord, who do so.

There be no difference in scripture betwixt a consecrated Image and an Idol. If an image terminat worship, make it the brazen Serpent, it is an Idol. And that sculptile forbidden in the second Command, the He­brew word signifying it, is Pesel, which is or­dinarily rendered by the 70. [...], Deut. 4. 16. and in the 4. of the Judges the word is twice rendered [...]. The greek word [...] which is a name givē to paga idols Rom. 1 2 3 & the image of the beast Re. 13. 14 is called [...], the worship whereof no Christian can deny to be idolatrie. Image in Latine is, quasi imitago, and [...], is ordinarily tendered simulachrum, imago. Hippocrates Aph. 18. calleth the body of a man without the soul Idolum. The truth of this causeth Lorinus confess, that apud pro­fanos auth [...]res. i. e. Criticks and Humanists, [...] and [...] Aeque late patent, & si latinitate utraque daretur eadem est signifi­catio idoli & iconis. Sed apud Ecclesiasticos. i. e. Popish writters it is not. So now let any reasonable man judge, whither byassed Pa­pists, or learned Criticks, not involved in [Page 140] the controversie, can give the soundest sense of these words? And seeing the Hebrew signifying both is one, if it be safe to haz­ard. Salvation upon a distinction, meerly nominal without a sure ground of Scripture or reason?

[...] and [...] in scripture, and amongst Humanists are promiscuously taken, for the Hebrew word Gnabad, is indifferent­ly taken, and signifieth service: w [...]ich is rendered by the 70. interpreters sometimes by [...], sometimes by [...]. For instance Daniel 6. 20. the speach of the King Darius to Daniel, is thus tendered by the 70. [...] &c. Daniel servant of the living GOD, is the Lord whom thou servest con­stantly, able to deliver thee from the Lyons? In one verse [...] and [...] are ta­ken for one. And it is ordinar in the Old Testament to render the word Gnabad by [...]. Yea more, in it self the word [...] coming from dal, signifieth the most submisse service: so it is absurd to say it belongeth to Saints, and not to GOD, whom we should most humbly serve. And in the New Testament in more then 40. se­veral places, as Pasor proveth fully, these words are synonyma, which I need not here transcribe, seeing the book is common The Ap. Gal. 4. 8. con­demns [...] as given to these which [...] are not GOD, such are all saints Angels & Ima­ges. Ergo.. Now is it not great boldness in men to break [Page 141] the second Command, upon the pretended distinction of [...] and [...].

The state of the question betwixt us and Romanists is this, whither they by their wor­ship break the first and second Command? and so are guilty of Idolatrie, this they de­ny. And we prove by these following argu­ments.

Arg. first, Who ever do give religious worship to that which is not GOD, are guil­ty of Idolatrie, but the Papists do so. Ergo, The major is the definition, already consir­med. The minor is thus proved, they wor­ship religiously Saints, Angels, Crosses, Reliques, Images, bow down to them, build Temples, make Processions, light Tapers, which Hierom calleth insignia Idololatriae, therfore they give to these religious worship. Beside it is not civil worship, Ergo, it is reli­gious, for there is no midle worship betwixt these two. Further the Council of Trent in the decree concerning Reliques, appoin­teth worship to them, opis impetrandae causa. Is not this to trust in them for help? They give to Angels and Saints that which Peter refused from Cornelius, yet his preten­ded successour claimeth it thrice together; once at the door, the second in the midle of the room, and the third when they kiss his foot See St. Amours Iournal.. They give that to Angels which the [Page 142] Angel inhibited Iohn twice to do, Rev. 19. 10. Rev. 22. 8. And say it was refused by the Angel out of modestie: whereas it is seriously forbidden with this reason, worship GOD, which is a sufficient rule, directing us to give religious worship to none but GOD. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy GOD and him only shalt thou serve. The distinction of [...] and [...] serveth for no use here as is above proved. And when they say, that it is not as to GOD; let their Bre­viaries, See Brevia­riam A­bredo­nense [...] Printed at Edin­burgh, 1508. Rosaries, service books, testify the contrar, which giveth them religious adora­tion by prayer, praises, kissing, confidence. And will this satisfie a husband from an a­dulteress, that albeit she committed uncleanness with another, yet it was not with that conjugal affection due to her husband. Now how can such an evasion then, satisfie the conscience of a Papist, or sustain before the Lord Jesus who is the husband of his people? It is clear hence, that by so doing they break the first Command, and have other Gods beside him, whom they make Omniscient, Omnipresent, in whom they trust, from whom they seek aid and help.

Arg. second, They who worship Images with religious worship, and break the second Command, are guilty of Idolatrie, because they worship the work of mens hands. But [Page 143] the Romanists do this, Ergo, &c. In answering this they do not agree amongst themselves, some of them deny the Major, as Vasquez, lib. 2. de ador. disp. 4. cap. 4. for he confi­dently averreth that Illa Mosaicae legis pro­hibitio, meaning the second Command, fuit juris positivi & ceremonialis, quae tempo­re Evangelii cessare debet, he calleth it a ce­remonial precept, which bindeth not us un­der the Gospel. This is short work, he re­pealeth the Law, because he will not obey it. But why may not the first Command be declared ceremonial, upon the same ground, especiallie by Papists, who make the second a part of the first. And if so, Paga­nism may be brought in by Romanists into their cōsistorie, which many fear to be rankly rooted there. He who said, Thou shalt not bow down to a graven Image, said also with the same authority, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me, Et è contra. This man hath few followers. Therefore some deny the mi­nor, as Durand, lib, 3. dist. 9. quest. 2. who asserreth that they do not worship Images, but that which is represented by the Image. So it is relative worship, and the Image is a representative only, and memoriall of the right object. Now this answore is naught, for if that be, why do they nor likewise wor­ship all the creatures, seeing they declare the [Page 144] glory of God, and may be memorials? Se­condly, the Councill of Trent condemneth this gloss, which in its decree de imagini [...]us, sayeth, that debita veneratio iis imper [...]ienda est, i. e. due worship is to be attributed to them, viz, to Images. They according to their manner, do not declare what manner of wor­ship should be imparted. But it is sure they mean not civil worship, therefore it must be religious. Thirdly, it is tendered to the Image it self, in prima instantia, therefore the Image terminateth the worship, and is more then a memoriall. Thirdly, the vulgar can­not distinguish betwixt Versu [...] and Coram, Relative, and absolute worship: therefore to them it must be a snare. How dangerous i [...] it to cast and knit a snare for people, and stumble the weak.

Some distinguish the Minor, as Thomas Bonaventure &c. and say, that the same wor­ship should be given to the Image, which is given to that represented by it, whether it be [...], or [...], and yet say they it is not Idolatrie, because they worship not the timber or mettall, but the Image, in re­gard of its forme or signification. And they worship not the Image of a false God, which they alleadge to be forbidden only in the se­cond Command. So Aquinas part. 3. q. 25. Bonavent. lib. 3. dist. But if this answer hold [Page 145] good, then the Pagans were not Idolaters; For they denyed that they did worship a stock or a stone. Aug. on Ps. 114. bringeth in the Pagan answering thus, Non simula­chruin colo, sed ejus rei signum quam colere debet. And again, Non stipites colimus, sed quae illis regendis praesident numina. We wor­ship no stocks, but the Numen which presideth over the Image. And upon the 97 Ps. Non illud colo quod video, i. e. the timber or stone, sed servio ei quem non video. I serve him whom I see not. Secondly, They who wor­shipped the brazen Serpent, did not worship the piece of brass, but the forme of it. And they thought not that it had innate vertue, yet were guilty of Idolatrie. Thirdly, It is clear from scripture, that some of the Hea­then, especially at first, did worship by the Image the invisible GOD who made all things, Acts 17. 23. him whom ye ignorantly worship do I declare unto you. Yet were I­dolaters. And Rom. 1. 23. They changed the glory of the incorruptible GOD, into an Image made like man. It was the incorrubtile GOD his Image, and withall Idolatry. But fourthly, If only the Image of false Gods worshipped, make Idolatrie, then Israel was not guilty of Idolatrie: But Israel was thus guilty, Ergo, &c. It is image-worship whither of the true or false Gods which is here forbiddē. [Page 146] For it is certain that the Golden-call was intended by them to represent the true GOD. Exod. 32. 5. To morrow is a feast to the Lord, and 2. Chro. 33. 17. They sacri­fized in high places, yet to the Lord their God only. The like may be said of the Calves at Dan and Bethel, Ps. 106. 20. And of Mi­cahs Image. For be confidently sayeth, Now know I that the Lord will bless me, Judges 17. because I have a Levit to be my Priest. They used not Levits, for the worship of false Gods. Further, the speech of Stephen seem­eth to prove it strongly, Acts 7. 40. 41. for speaking of Israels worshiping the Calf, he saith, The Lord for this gave them up to worship the host of Heaven, Now when sin is punished by sin, that sin which is the judicial punishment, useth to be more gross then the antecedent sin, which is the procuring cause; but the worshiping the host of Heaven, is not so gross as the worship of an Oxe: therefore they did worship GOD at first by the repre­sentation of a Calf, yet were Idolaters. This answer then cannot satisfie the conscience or reason of any man. And admit that the image of false Gods is forbidden in the second Command, how dare Papists without war­rand, and contrar to the word, make the Image of the true GOD, which he hath ex­presly forbidden? Deut. 4. 12. Seeing [Page 147] Omnis cultus saith Tertullian, de Jejunio, should be ex imperio divin [...], non ex arbitrio humano. Lastly, We are forbidden to wor­ship the likeness of any thing in the Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath. Now the Lord GOD is in the Heaven above glorious­ly, therefore we should not make his Image, for to what can ye liken him? saith he. Isaiah 40. 18.

Bellarmin de Imag. and Gregorius de Va­lentia, distinguish the Minor another way, and reject the two former answers as ex­tream. For first, they say that they wor­ship Images properly, so they are again [...]t Durand a great Anti-Thomist, who maketh them only memorials. Secondly, They say, that they give them not worship equal to the Pattern, so they renounce Thomas and all his adherents, Valent. lib. 3. disp. 6. saith, it is not sicut DEO, that they worship the Image of the Trinity. Bellarmin saith fur­ther, that it is not Aeque certum an Imagi­nes Trinitatis sint in Templis coll [...]candae, & reperendae. Yet say they, that veneration suitable to them is to be rendered. Which is he ambiguo [...]s phrase of the Council of Trent, like the Delphian oracle. If this answer hold good, then Thomas and all his Clients are guilty of Idolatrie, for they give venera­tion to Images equal with the Pattern, all [Page 148] the Thomists say sicut DEO, so to the Image.

Secondly, Cultus religiosus est accidens hominis, if we speak Physice, now gradual difference in these altereth not the kind of worship. Therefore, according to the rules of Logick, the worship is one with the worship of Thomists; or else they disclaim a maxime, by making the one Idolatrie, the other not.

Thirdly, We are forbidden to bow down to them, therefore the meanest degree of re­ligious worship is forbidden in the second Command. And they who break the least Command, and teach men so, shal be least in the Kingdom of Heaven, Matth. 5. 19. Lastly, the seduced people know nothing of this difference. Yea Bellarmin thinketh it not fit, that in concione [...]oram populo, it should be divulged; and he hath reason to say so, seeing they cannot conceive the groundless distinction betwixt [...] and [...], for their Clergie men will not make it hold water.

Fourthly, Some as Eckius in his Enchir: answers nothing but this to the argument, that it is the tradition of their Church, and Command of their Pope, which they judge themselves obliedged to obey. If this answer be relevant then they were not faulty, who with their traditions, made the word of GOD of none effect, Matth. 15. 6. And Papists [Page 149] are too like the Pharisees in this. Secondly, By that Logick, the Turk may mantain his worship of Mahomet, for his Church and Mufti authorize it. Thirdly, The Pope in his Conclave may bring in the Alcoran the next day, for that may have authority from them contrar to the word of GOD.

Arg. third, If Image-worship be con­demned by all pure antiquity, then this worship is not only a breach of the second Command, but contrar to the custom of all the Churches of Christ. Upon which argu­ment the Apostle layeth stress, 1. Cor. 11. 16. But the first is true, Ergo, &c. The Minor is proved thus. Many of the Ancients, as Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, &c. Were against the art of stat [...]e making, Epiph. in his ep. to John 23. of Jerusalem, abominateth the putting them up in Churches; and saith, it is contrar to scripture that any Image should be in the Church of Christ Now if they wer against the making of them, against the hanging of them in Churches, much more against teligious veneration given to them. Secondly, the council called Eliber: which is as old, if not older then the Council of Nice, made a decree, that no Image should be in the Church, ne forte quod in parietibus pingatur, colatur, least that which is painted be worshipped, and till the second Council of Nice, which was in the 8. [Page 150] Centurie, no such thing as image-worship was approved in the Christian Church. Third­ly, It is an ordinar objection made by Celsus, and all Pagans against Christians as I said before from Lorinus. Ye have Nulla Tem­pla, nulla simulachra, nullas aras, quod coli­tis celatis. To this objection Origen and Arnobius answer, yeelding the matter of fact, and vindicating their way, which they could not have done, if Images had been in use amongst them. Further when Adrian did build a Temple for himself, the Pagans sus­pected that it was for the Christians, because it was sine simulachris, without Images, whence it is clear, that the Image worship cometh nearer Paganism, then Primitive antiquity. See D [...]laeus de Imagin.

Arg. fourth, That which notwithstanding of all distinctions, draweth and driveth peo­ple to Idolatrie, is abominable, but by the concession and confession of some learned Papists, the Romish worship doth involve people into Idolatrie, therefore it is abomi­nable. The Major is proved by reason, that when the people made an Idol of the brazen Serpent, the statue was brocken, and called Nehushtan, although at first it was appoin­ted by GOD. The Minor is thus proved by the testimonies of learned Romanists, as Polyd, Virgil. de invent. lib. 6. cap. 13. [Page 151] Many are now, saith he, become so mad, that they worship the Images of wood and stone, as if the [...] had sense in [...], and put more confi­dence in them then the [...] do in Jesus Christ, or other Saints to whom they are dedicated. Cassander consult. de imag. saith, It is too manifest that the worship of Images hath so prevailed, that Christians seeme to be nothing inferiour to Pagans in adoration of their Idols, they make them with as much vanity, and adore them with as much devotion. From Scripture, reason, antiquity, the confession and concession of adver [...]arie [...], it is sure and clear that Papists commit gross Idola­trie, from which all good Christians should flee and make their escape.

Fifthly, Ye mulitat the Sacrament of the § 5. Inst. Supper, contrar to the institution of Jesus Christ, Matth. 26. 27. by with-holding the Cup from the people: yea contrar to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul which be re­ceived from the Lord, 1. Cor. 11. 25. where all the Communicants for the most were common Professours. And alb [...]i [...] our Lord command this to be done, till he come again without any substantial alteration, yet acri­legiously, hoc non obstante, as saith your Coun­cil of Constance, ye with-hold the C [...]p [...]rom the people, and give them only the Bread.

The answer given to this is as followeth, that Papists Reply. [Page 152] Protestants in denying real Presence, against the express words of Scripture, This is my Body, this is my Blood, which is shed for you, not only mutilat the Sacrament, but take it clear away. You give sufficient occasion to other Haereticks, to say that Christ was no otherwise in the Crib, or the Cross, then ye say that he is in the Sacrament, Scripture not be­ing more clear for the one then the other. So that denying the real presence, ye destroy and ruine in a manner the incarnation, and very ground of Christianity. But Catholicks, nei­ther take it away from any, nor give it muti­lat. Seeing they profess to give Christs glo­rious and living Body, which is not seperat from the Blood, and who so receiveth the one receiveth the other. It was instituted not on­ly for a Sacrament, but for a sacrifice, and so I grant that both kynds is requisit on the Al­tar, but it should nor be given to every one, otherwise the very Disciples of the Apostles, had not known how it should be given. For St. Dennis lib. de Ecclesia, he asserteth the com­munion of Saints under one kind, and St. Cy­prian de Lapsis, affirmeth the same of the sick. Yea, when Christians in the Primitive Church in the time of persecution, did carry it home, they did eat it, but under one kind, as Tertul­lain telleth lib. ad Uxorem. More, Christ himself did give it under one kind, Luke 24. [Page 153] verse 30. as learned Fathers expound. And the Apostles, Acts 2. 42. and Acts 20. 7. who then can challenge a necessity of tak [...]ng both kinds? What St. Paul did then was lawful? But what Christ and his Apostles did was no less, which sheweth that the Church way follow, either of these examples, for good reasons, as she think­eth [...]i [...].

Answer, Your mutilation of the Sacrament is so clear, that I admire how you can deny Prote∣stants Duply. it, did not the Council of Constance establish it, hoc non obstante, i. e. notwithstanding the institution, &c. Your citations for proof are mismarshalled. For first you cite St. Dennis, Cyprian, Tertullian, and then Scripture, which sheweth your respects for the word. But I cannot follow your Method in this. Therefore know, that the place Luke 24. v. 30. maketh nothing for you. You say Fa­thers interpret it so, but tell us not who they are, so their interpretation is no more but your word; but to shew that there be no mention, in that place of the Sacrament. First. There was no cup at all there, at least none is mentioned. How then can you make it a Sacrament, seeing you say to us that both kinds are necessar to a sacrifice, and the Sa­crament of the Supper is such say you. Re­concile your self with your self if you can? Here there was no Sacrifice, Ergo, no Sacra­ment. [Page 154] Secondly, It is sure this was an ordi­nary meal, honoured with Christ his pre­sence. And for proof of this read Jansenius, on these words. There be some saith he, who would take an argument from this place, that it is lawful under one kind to give or receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which opi­nion is neither certain, nor hath it any likly­hood of truth. We are commanded to eat and drink at that table, how we shal make eating, eating and drinking too (saith he) can hard­ly be perceived.

That breaking of bread, Acts. 2. 46. is in­terpreted, to be eating their meat at home, with gladness and singleness of heart. Oecume­nius, Lyra, Cajetan, Carthusian, say, it is only meaned, de communi victu, non de Eucha­ristia. So saith Lorinus also on the text. Ex­istimo, hic de Eucharistia non esse sermonem, sed de victu quotidiano, vel convivio, quod [...] appellant.

So that place Acts 20. Lyra, Carthusia­nus, Cajetanus, make it corporal refection only, for they say, the Disciples did conveen to eat with Paul, before he went away, and this is proved from the 11. v. But grant that place, Acts 20. to be meaned of the Sacra­ment, which is probably mantained by o­thers, it will no more follow, that the A­postle did mutilat it there, then that he [Page 155] preached without Prayer, seeing the one is no more mentioned then the other. Lorinus saith, he could not make use of this text, for Communion sub una specie, against an ad­versary.

Your citation from St. Dennis maketh little for you. For supposing his testimony to be [...]eal, the administration of it to Infants was contrary to the institution, as well as under one kind. We know Infants can drink before they can eat, if any such thing was, it is liker an administration to Infants, then to discerning Christians; It is true that they used to carry home the bread, as you imply from Tertullian and Cyprian, but did alwayes take the cup in praesentia. But to put this out of doubt, see Cassander Consult. 22. Communion under one kind was not in the Church, saith he, till Aquinas his time, anno. 1265. And is it not against your light and reason then, to argue so against the institu­tion of Jesus Christ? Our judgement about the presence of Christ in the Sacrament, will be heard a none, but it will be no ground for you to mutilat divine ordinances, and clip treacherously the King of Saints his coin.

Sixthly, Ye adde to the Sarament of Bap­tism, § 6. Inst. Matthew 3. 11.

Here your Reply is, that there is no com­mand Papists Reply. of Christ against it, and if it be against [Page 156] Christs command, because he hath not com­manded it, then it will follow, that to call Baptism a Sacrament, is against Christs com­mand, for neither hath he commanded this, but by his Church, which also commanded that.

Answer, Here we have consitentem reum, that [...] Christ hath not commanded salt, Prote∣stants Answer. [...], &c. to be added in the administra­tion of the Sacrament. If it were a circum­s [...]ce of the action, the true Gospel Church [...] command the [...]e: But it is a mate­rial point of the work, and by parity of reason, ye may [...]de [...]lt, sp [...]tle, oyle, ho [...]ny or milk, [...]o the Sacrament of the Supper. Neither is it reason to [...]rgue from t [...]e name to the thing. W [...] call it Bapti [...]m with the Scripture. And seeing his implyeth washing with wa­ter, [...] is gr [...] superstition to do this without a warrand, which hath [...]o relation to washing. [...] would have m [...] r [...]semblance with that then salt. The name Sacrament is acknow­ledge I not to be a Scripture word; But what Logick is th [...]? The seals of the Covenant are named Sacraments by the Church, Ergo, we may adde materials to the work with­out a warrand. The practise of the Baptist objected by me seemeth unanswerable, for you fail by it as by a rock, which is not can­did dealing. Yet it is your ordinar manner [Page 157] to pass with silence material arguments.

Seventhly, Ye adde to the Bible humane § 7. Inst. traditions, which ye equalize, and in a sort preferre to it. This is point blank contrar to the Word, Deut. 4. 2. Rev. 22. 18. If any man adde to these things, GOD shal adde to him the plagues written in this book, so ye have [...]o fear a plague in due time.

Reply, These are open calumnies, made Papists Reply. to deceive the people in Pulpits, as I have shewed, reflecting on your sixt answer. And prove againe summarily by this Syllogism, what is expresly contained in Scripture, is not contrar to it: But this is expresly commanded, 2. Thess. 2. 1. Hold fast the traditions which ye have received. Neither are your citations of Deut. or Rev. to any purpose. For when it is said there, If any man shal adde to these things, GOD shal adde to him the plagues written in the book. Of necessity it must be understood of these books only, adding any thing as a part of them, otherwise it will exclude all other Scripture, as well as tradi­tion. But it may be you think the Revelation the last written book of Scripture, and that St. John there did speak of all the Bible. But this is a conceit out of ignorance, seeing Chemnitius your great Gun, sayes, his Gospel was written after the Revelation. And some say so of his Epistles, in the very last of which [Page 158] and last verse, he sayes, I have many things to writ unto you, but not with pen and ink, but I trust to come unto you and speak face to face. But ye would not have believed him speaking face to face, who will believe nothing but that which is written.

Answer, You again defend traditions, by your old argument, A genere ad speciem affir­mative, Prote∣stants Duply. which is none concludent, as I have proved fully already upon the sixth question, to which I referre the Reader. And your answer to the 4. Deut. and Rev. 22. confut­eth your self. For you grant that it is not lawful to adde any thing as a part of these books. Then say I, it is as unlawful to adde traditions as a part of the Bible, and make an entire object of faith with both, which is your doctrine. If the Pirrat was faulty for taking a ship, Alexander was more faulty by taking of Nations. We will put nothing to the Scripture that way. For then we might make a new Bible, and nothing into our Creed, but what was written by the Penne [...]s of it. You make me ignorant of the time when the Revelation was written, and goes about to father that on me, which came not into my mind. How far and wherein we hold traditions, Vide supra, on Quest sixth, I have no delight to make repetitions.

Eightly, Ye mis-regard the Lords-day, and § 8. Inst. [Page 159] celebrate dayes of your own devysing, con­trar to and without any warrand from the Word, see Gal. 4. 10.

You reply that these are calumnies, for we Papists Reply. are taught to keep the Lords-day most reli­giously, and with it the holy dayes of Christs-Birth, Circumsion, adoration by the Kings, presentation in the Temple, the feasts of the Mother of GOD, of the twelve Apostles, of some Martyrs, and other Saints, upon the same ground of Apostolick tradition, and or­dinance of the Church, which the Scripture com­mandeth us to hear & hold fast, & so what we do in this, is neither contrar to Scripture, nor without warrand from the written Word. And your citation may be as well applyed against your observation of dayes of humiliation and thanks-giving. For that place forbiddeth only Heathenish or Jewish days, or dismal days, su­perstitiously keeped on frivolous remarkes. See Hierom on the place, Aug. cont. Argenant. cap. 16. and in his epist. 118. cap. 7. and hear the same Aug. speaking of all our holy dayes in express terms, which Protestants taking away, what St. Aug. saith may creep in, both ungrateful forgetting of Christs my­steries, and unkind oblivion of his Saints.

You call this Argument a Calumnie; but it in too well known how small regard is had Prote∣stants Duply. to the Lords day throughout the Popes Do­minions. [Page 160] And how farre other dayes of hu­mane institution, are by you preferred to them. And for Aug. whom you cite, as the main patron of them, he was so far from approving the trash of his time, brought in by the devices of men, in the worship of God, that in his 119. ep. he sayeth, If they conti­nue, they will become Heathnish and Judaize in many things. So according to Hieroms ex­position on the text, Gal. 4. 10. concerneth you, for some of your stust is Judaicall some Paganish. Polyd. Virgil de invent. lib. 4. in proaemio, sayeth, That a verie world of Jewish and Heathnish ceremonies, pestereth the Lords field. Agrippa de Vanit. cap. 6. sayeth, That Christians now, are more oppressed with ceremonies, then the Jewes were. The Jewish holy dayes were but few in respect of the Romish, for they had but their Passover, Pentecost, feast of Tabernacles, of Trumpets, Reconciliation, New-Moons, Purim, and Dedication, the most of which were of divine institution. These have holy dayes for every Saint, All saints, all soules, for the Cross, Corpus Christi, two daye [...] every week, Lent fast, &c. without any warrand from scripture, or pure antiquitie. For Aug. sayeth, ep. 86. against Urbicus, we are indeed commanded to fast, but I find not the dayes prescribed in the Evangelicall or Apostolicall writtings. [Page 161] The same saith Socrates, that it was left by the Apostles to every mans free choise, lib. 5. cap. 22. and Erasmus on the 11. of Matth. complaineth, that in Hieroms time there were few holy dayes beside the Lords day, but now they were unreasonable and burden­some, because of their multitude. Thus you see neither Hierom, nor Aug. savour your holy dayes, unless it be in yo [...]r Utopian tractate contra Argentinant: for there is non-such among his workes. You might ea­sily perceive that Gal. 4. 10. doth not mi­litate as much against our dayes of humilia­tion or thanksgiving, as your holy dayes, if you wo [...]ld consider. First, We have more regarde to he Lords-day, nor any of these, this we desiderar m [...]inly in you, for as ye preferre humane traditions to the Scripture, so do you these your dayes, to the Sabbath of the Lord. Secondly, Our dayes of humi­liation and thanksgiving, are not nimious for number, nor one rous to the people: but yours are such, that many of your own com­plaine on them, as Polydore Wirgil. in proae­mio, and o [...]hers. And if Aug. complained so of these in his own time, what would he say [...]ow, if he were living? Will ye hear what he saith, Epist. 119. Omnia talia quae sanctarum Scripturarum autho [...]itatibus con­tinentur, nec in Conciliis Episcoporum statuta [Page 162] inveniuntur, nec consuetudine universae Eccle­siae roborata sunt, ita ut vix, aut omnino nun­quam, inven [...]ri possunt causae, quas in eis in­stituendis, homines sequuti sunt; sine ulla du­bitatione resecanda existimo. Then he saith, all such things which stumble the weake, and are detrimental not founded on Scripture, are to be cut off. And again, albeit it cannot be found out, Quomodo contra fidem sint. Yet, ipsam Religionem premunt seruilibus oneribus, ita ut tolerabilior sit conditio Ju­daeorum, because, non humanis praesumptio­nibus ita subjiciuntur. Is he not clearly then against your way? Thirdly, In observing the Sabbath, we regard at that time the work for the day, but in the dayes of fast and thanksgiving, we regarde the day oc­casionally for the worke. Fourthly, We have in observing these, no cognation with Jewish or Pagane times, whereof ye may be im­peached, and cannot plead not guilty.

Ninthly, Ye condemn marriage as carnall § 9. Inst. to some, contrare to the Apostle Heb. 13. 4. and make it a Sacrament to others. So ye confound your self, making it both Sacra­mentall, and Sacrilegious to the elect of God; whereas Enoch walked with God, and begat sons and daughters Gen. 5. 22.

You reply to this, that we Ministers are ad­dicted Papists Reply. to marriage, and therefore should not [Page 163] offend that it is called a Sacrament. Thou that it is so called Eph. 5. and by the Greek Fa­thers who understood their own language. And that ye condemn it not as sacrilegious in any but such as take on the vowes of chastitie, po­vertie, &c. And that it is malice in Ministers to call Vertues, Vices.

Here you contradict your self, for in an­swer to the sixt Question, you denyed that Prote∣stants Duply. 1 the word Sacrament was at all in scripture, which is true, and yet now you alleadge, that it is to be found in the 5. Eph. and marriage is so called. Beside your contradiction, you speak ignorantly, by telling th [...]t the Greek Fathers, who understood their own language, called marriage a sacrament; whereas the word is Latine, and not Greek. If that place of scripture be read by any, it will so [...]n ap­pear, that marriage betwixt man and wo­man is no [...] called a myst [...]rie, but that which is between Christ and his Chur [...]h vers 32. For the marriage of Ministers, I se [...] not why it should be blamed, seeing it is holy in all. Heb. 13. 4. Nor how any should take on the vow of chastitie, who have not the gift from God. The Apostle sayeth, it is good in time of persecution, for the present distress for a man not to be married. 1. Cor. 7. It is Bonum utile, but it is better to marrie then to burne. A chaste life, is commendable in [Page 163] any Christian, and a Caelchs state, may free him of many cares and snares: but to tye all Clergie men to it, whither they have the gift from GOD or not, is a sin. And your encroarchment on the divine ordinance, and appointment of GOD, hath filled your Church with whordoms and adulteries, your Cloysters and Nunries with abominable un­cleanness, and murders of children. It is too well known how the vow of chastity is kept by your Church- [...]en : And if any doubt of it, let them read the late relation of the Ambassadour of Venice, concerning the pre­sent state of the Church at Rome, and he will tell you, that some of the most eminent Cardinals there, will frequently be under Lues Venere [...]. Is it not better to marry then to sin thus? I appeal to your own conscience.

Tenthly, Ye teach for doctrine, the Commandements of men, contrar to scrip­ture, § 10. Inst. for it is reproved Matth. 15. 9. And do dye your worship wholly with there co­lored antick gestures, so that in your worship ye are more like to Monkies, then reason [...]ble men, [...]nd g [...]ddi [...] stage-players, then solid Christian [...], who worship God in spirit and in truth

Reply, This ci [...]ation is often answered. It Papists Reply. is not known of what gestures you speak, as if [...]uer you did see the gestures of worship of the Catholick Church. But one thing is sure, that [Page 164] it is a very childish calumny: Our gestures being so grave that they move men to dec [...]ion and do accompany GODS w [...]rship with decen­cy, Majestie, better then your gaping lik [...] di­stracted men, your affected sighs and howlings. You cite again two words of Scripture, that we should worship in spirit [...] in truth, to condemn reverend and grave gestu [...]es of the body in time of worship, as if men were pure spirits.

I answer, that albeit I have of seen your Prote∣stants Duply. worship, yet I have heard the forme of it from sundry discerning [...]en, who had seen it, and told me how Apishand H [...]onick it is. And it is strange how an [...] ca [...] deny it. See­ing the reacting of the Earth-quake, of the ren [...]ing of the vale of the Temple, of the darkness about the time of the P [...]d [...]on, your crossings, your kissings, your kissings, your whisperings, washings, anointings, spi [...]ings, breathings, fal [...]ings, &c. What are they but many idle observations? Yo [...] i [...]cense on your Altars, your candles wherewith ye burne day-light; do they not savo [...] of Ju­daism and Paganism? And are far more like stage work then sincere worship. And i [...] these be not the commandements of men, why produce ye not Scripture for your war­rand? We are not against reasonable ser­vice, both with the spirit and body, but think that bodily exercise alone, profiteth little, and the marrow of the work, is to worship [Page 165] GOD in Spirit.

Eleventhly, Ye think it lawful to equi­vocat in some cases, to dispence with lawful § 11. Inst. Oaths. But Scripture sayes, It is a snare after vowes to make enquiry, Pro. 20. 25. And that the man shal only inhabit the holy mountain, who speaketh the truth in his heart. Ps. 15. Thus ye Popelings are scarce for moral fellowship, seeing no words can tye you. Doleful experience proveth this: in that your Council of Constance murdered John Huss and Hierom of Prague, contrar to the solemn warrand for security of their lives. And then said by way of poor defence, that faith was not to be keeped to Hereticks.

To this it is replyed thus, In your eleventh Section, you are not ashamed to set down in Papists Reply. writ, that we think it lawful to l [...]e, which no Catholick did ever writ or say. But ye Prote­stants brought in your Religion by lies, as if the whole Church before them had erred in matters of faith, and making poor ignorants believe, that Catholicks do adore stocks or stones, give GODS worship to Saints or An­gels, think to be saved by their own works, without the merits of Christ, that there be no­thing required for remission of sins, but tel them to a Priest, that the Pope giveth pardon for by gone sins and sins to come, all which are open sies. So they continue it by lies and [Page 166] gross calumniesꝭ, which maketh the people though wearied of many alterations and inno­vations in their Religion, yet profess it out­wardly, as if there were none better. As for equivocating, I grant it is a probable sentence, (although no article of our Creed,) that men may equivocat in some cases, but not in an­swer to any just interrogative before a lawful judge. And as for that you say in some cases, we dispence with lawful oaths, it is true, for there be many oaths with which we not only dispeace, but put a tie on men not to keep them, &c. But when oaths are lawfullie made and continue lawful in all circumstances, both for GODS glorie, and the greater spiritual good of the people, we dispence with none. As Vowes of chastity, obedience to the superi­our, and Pastours of the Church. But I hope you will hardly persuade any, that Popelings as you call them, (not regarding Kings, and Queens of that profession, more then if they were bonnet-makers in Dundee,) are searce for moral fellowship, as if no word nor oaths could tie them. There being many old men, yet living who remember, some to have seen, and some to have heard that in the time, the Catholick Religion did flourish in this King­dom mens words were better then their bands now. And that since the reformation, which is but a hundred and three years ago. There [Page 168] hath been more rebellion, falshood, and perju­rie, then in 300. years before. Neither had John Huss nor Hierom of Prague, been in any danger in the Council of Constance, if they had keepe: the conditions, upon which securitie was promised to them. And so faith is on­lie not to be keeped to Hereticks, when they keep not the conditions upon which it is promi­sed: which is common to them with all others, and the Council of Trent hath declared Sess. 15, that to vi [...]lat the least part of publick faith given to Hereticks, is a thing punishable both by the law of GOD and man.

There be here many words and little Prote∣stants Duply. more. You grant that in some cases equi­vocation is taught as a probable durie; but deny that it is lawful to lie. Is not equi­vocation lying? Are they not both contrar to speaking the t [...]uth in the heart? A liar should have a good memorie. Otherwise, I see he will soon contradict himself, as you do here. Well then, ye will pass with equi­vocations, unless it be before a Bench. This is your Topick. Will it not clearly follow, that ye are not for moral fellowship which is extra judicial? So, if, I be to bargain with a Popish person, a Court must be con­veened, and there he will possibly speak truth to a Judge, but otherwise he is taught to dissemble with me. That this is your [Page 169] doctrine, and lies also taught by you, see it fully proved by learned Mr. William Dow­glas, in his late Treatise de Aequivocatione, which you cannot refute nor refuse. Your dispensing with oath [...], you say is, when the oath is unlawful. But I intreat you tell me, if you judge the oath of alledgeance to a lawful King an unlawful oath? For it is clear ye dispence with such, as shall appea [...] afterwards. Or is the marriage betwixt single persons who are not within degrees of affinitie, or consanguinity forbidden by GOD, lawful? It is a [...] true that ye loose such. And was it not a lawful oath that the Emperour gave to John Huss and Hierom of Praguo? Yet the Council of Constance di­pensed with him, and broke to them, as their death did demonstrat. You say they failed in conditions, but do not set down particu­lars. This is an invention of your own, what condition did they fail in, can you tell it? Tutus accessus, & recessus, was promised to them not keeped, few of your writters adhere to this childish evasion, but tell us plainly that the Emperour had no power to do so, and therefore the Council wo [...]ld not stand to it. You may justifie if you wil also, by so [...]e device of this forge, the murther of Count-Edgmount and Horn, contrar to the tennour of their safe conduct, under trust by [Page 170] Duke de Alva. The Council of Trent seeing the odium, this tenet brought on Popery, speak after their manner in general termes, for vindication in time to come. But this n [...]t I hope will catch few fowles, unless there be a particular renunciation of that damnable error which I desire heartily all of you to do. Was there not an act of the Council of Con­stance Sess. 19. saying that the safe conduct was salva justitia? The German Protestants refused to come to the Council of Trent, upon their assurance, because of the tenet at Constāce not clearly renounced. You say, that our Doctrine is carried on with lies, we de­si [...]e not to lie for GOD, nor mis-state any question betwixt you and us. Truth can stand upon one foot, when a lie will need many proppes, like an old house. If we should fraudulently deceive people, how could we expect a blessing, or assistance from the GOD of truth? It is my wish to the Lord that this may be our Motto, which was the Apostles, 2. Cor. 13. 8. But I remarke in your large discourse one notable lie, you say there be old men in SCOTLAND who did live when Popery flourished, and can yet witness what moral honesty was amongst men then: such old men must now be six score years old [...]t least, for you must allow them to be fourteen years, before they could [Page 171] discern the carriage of neighbours and An­cestors in commerce and barganing, and it is 106. years and above, since the Refor­mation. If I knew where such old men lived, I should have some account from them: but you did not wisely tell us that they were here, seeing one of that age is not to be found with us, far less many. Although this be an untruth, yet I find you speaking some truth here, for you call without any [...] ­nution, that work a Reformation, and so in­deed it wa [...], although ye hate to be Reformed.

Twelfthly, Ye teach a practice that law­ful § 12. Inst. Magistrats may be deposed by the Pope. Ye will canonize the kille [...] of such, contrar to the Apostle, Rom. 13. 1. 1. Pet. 2. 13, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, and submit to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake. If your Pope had his will, there would be no Kings, at lest none reformed: And Kings have not reason to be content, that there be a Pope, nor yet indulge tr [...]fi­queing Papists, seeing it is certain that none holding their tenets, can be a loyal subject to a Protestant King, & scarcely to any other. Papist Reply.

Reply, In your twelfth Sect: you make us teach, that lawful Magistrats may be de­posed by the Pope, and that we canonize such. Where citing Rom. 13. and 1. Pet. 2. you sight with your own shaddow, and make up te­nets [Page 172] contrar to Scripture, which Catholick detest and abhorre. But this is proper to Here­sie, and particularly yours, to cause rebellin from lawful Princes and Magistrats, as it did every where, even in its first beginning wit­ness the revolting of the Princes of Germany, against the Emperour. The bloody warre of the subjects in France 20. years against their King. Holland against Spain to this day, the Suitzers amongst themselves. SCOTLAND first against Queen Mary, and then our late gracious King. Nevertheless, Ministers are so bold as to speak this, who can neither be subject to Kings, Magistrats, nor Bishops, if they oppose their whimsyes in the least. E­very one of them taking greater power to him­self, then Catholicks gives to St. Peter.

Duply, Any one may here perceive a Prote∣stants Answer. studied shift, by way of recrimination. Be­cause ye date not declare your selves herein. And do you indeed detest the Doctrine of the whole Canonists, the whole Jesuits, that the Pope may depose a lawful King? If it be so, I am glade you renounce this point of Poperie. But because you say, I fight with my own shaddow herein, to shew how igno­rant and impudent you are in this denyal. Let any read either the bull of Gregory the seventh against Henry the fourth the Empe­ror, or of Sixtus the 5 against Henry the third [Page 173] King of France, or of Pius the fifth against Elizabeth Queen of England; and there ye will find this tennor, Nos in supremo ju­stitia throne collocati, supremam in omnes Reges & Principes Terrae universae, cunctos­que populos, gentes, & Nationes, non huma­na sed divina institutione obtinentes nobis tra­ditam potestatem, declaramus, praecipimus, jubem [...]s, &c. Viz. That none of their sub­jects should owne o [...] acknowledge them. For your better information in this particular, know that the power of the Pope in this par­ticular, is one way explained by the Cano­nists, and another way by the Jesuits. For the Canonists say, that the Pope hath jura omnia caelestis & terrestris imperii sibi à Deo concessa. The Jesuits that Pontifex ut Pon­tifex, non habet directe ullum temporalem po­testat [...]m, sed solum spiritualem, tamen in­directe, ratione spiritualis, habet potestatem quandam, ea [...]que summam, disponendi de temporalibus rebus omnium Christianorum. See more of this in Dr. Barclay, de potestate Papae in Principes Christianos. They hold it beyond doubt, that in ordine ad spiritualia, which is a broad charter, the Pope may depose any King, and loose their subjects from all allegiance to him, cum subest causa rationalis Anno 1654. When it was Printed at Naples, by authority, that the Pope should not exercise juris­diction civil in the terri­tories of Spain, without the Kings leave, this was condemned at Rome by Innocent the tenth.. Secondly, They hold that Bishops may om­nem [Page 174] mover [...] lap [...]dem, and that is a broad word, ne de­gant sub Haeretico Principe, Baron: anno 438. Sect. 89. Thirdly, When the know­ledge of the fault is evident Subjects may lawfully, if they have sufficient strength exeem themselves from subjection to their Prince. Bani [...]s on Thomas quastion. 12. and that ante judicis sententiam declarato­riam.

Lastly, Privat persons may kill an Here­tical King, after sentence is given against him Suarez defens. fidei Cathol. lib. 6. cap. 4. only their tenderness appeareth in this, that the King be not constrained wittingly or willinglie, to be the cause of his own death, the sense is thi [...], if you can poyson him by his gloves, garment or saddle, you may do it. But by meat or drink you may not, for then he taketh his own poyson. So John Ma­riana de Reg. instit. lib. 1. cap. 7. Is it not then true, that by principles of doctrine, no Papist adhering to the Pope can be a loyal subject to the King? As for our Reformations ye look on all such with an evil eye. But our doctrine in the reformed Church, con­cerning the Magistrat is such, that no Christi­ans on earth give him more then we do. Witness [Page 175] out Confession of Faith, to which we will adhere while we live, what ever the scrip­ture and pure antiquitie giveth to Kings, that we willingly tender for conscience sake. All sound Protestants do abhorre and detest the murther of our late Soveraign Lord the King, and we in this Nation did protest and de­clare against it, for which our Commissioners were committed close prisoners, and sent with a guard to the border. As for the Re­formation abroad, I desire that famous Mr. Baxter his Key for Catholicks, and disswasive from Popery, may be read by you, who hath written so well on this point, that I hope all men satissiable may be satisfied with his reasons, which I need not here transcribe. See also the testimonie of the Ministers at London against that horride murther, to which testimonie we do still adhere and then adbered. But Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione, &c. See Bilson of Sub­jection, page 382. Doth not your great Cardinal Allen, write an Apologie, for Stanles treason against Queen Elizabeth. Doth not Bellarmin shew lib. 5. de Pontif. cap. 8. in how many respects Kings may be deposed by their subjects? Did not Pope Sixtus the fifth, make an Oration at Rome, in commen­dation of the Friar who murthered, Henry the third King of France? Was not Tyrones treason commenced, and commended by [Page 176] your Party, who then did take on the co [...] of Armes, and sound the trumpet of rebel­lion. When the Popes Bull roared in England against Queen Elizabeth, how many trea­sons were hatched and evil humours bred in the people?

Thirteenthly, Ye say, we are justified partlie by faith, partlie by workes, but the § 13. Inst. Scripture saith, that we are justified by faith without the works of the law, and that the man is justified to whom the Lord imputeth faith without workes, Rom. 4. 6. and that we are saved by grace through faith, not of workes lest any man should boast. Neither can any good workes be wrought by us, till we be justified and sanctified, how can an evil tree bring forth good fruit? Nor can we understand any good work which the law doth not require, seeing it was tendered un­der the Covenant of grace. Beside, our best worksare leavened with many imperfections and debt for the present, so these cannot ab­solve us for bygones, or the time to come: And whereas the Apostle James chapter 2. speaketh of Justification by workes, his pur­pose there is onlie to declare what justifieth faith. Now justifying faith must be a lively working faith, and if it be dead it availeth not, and if he hint at personal justification, which verse 29. implyeth, it is before men; [Page 177] and that before the Tribunal of GOD, there all must say, Enter not into judgement with thy servant, for in thy sight no flesh liv­ing [...]n be justified, Psalm 143. 2. And the Church must confess, that all her righteous­ness is ragged and as a menstruous cloath.

Reply, In your thirteenth Section, you de­nying Papists Reply. that we are justified by faith and works, do both contradict scripture and your self. It in the Epistle of St. James, chap. 2. verse 20. 24. You see then how by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. No wonder after this ye contradict your self, when you grant that faith is justifying, or made justified by works. For what is it to say that works justi­fy faith? But that faith without works is not justifying. And so that faith justifyeth not all, or no other way then as it is decompanied with good workes as two conjunct causes. For as the Philosopher saith, causa causae est causa causati. But what needeth any reasoning, if this place be not clear to a Minister, what it clear to ignorants in all the scripture? Where­fore ye had done better to reject the Epistle of James with Luther, then to acknowledge it for scripture & to deny that we are justified by faith and works, the two parts of Christian dutie being belief and life. Yet to shew that the place of St. James is not to be taken ac­cording to the letter, you cite three passag [...] [Page 178] excluding workes of the written law from justi­fying, but not excluding workes of grace and the Gospel. The first whereof expoundeth the rest, and St. Augustin them all, de fide & operib. cap. 14. saying, St. Paul speaketh of the workes of Abraham, in so much as they proceed from the law, excluding the spirit and grace of Christ. Then you say, neither can any good work be wrought by us, till we are justified, for how can an evil tree bring forth good fruit? To which Question, I answer with our Saviour in the Gospel, asking how a good tree can bring forth evil fruit: as David committing adulterie. For if you understood the one, you may easilie understand the other. Which if you do not go to the school and learn the distinction betwixt simpliciter and secun­dum quid, betwixt good and evil simplie and in part. For as there be few so good, but they do some evil: so there be few so bad, but they do some good, being assisted by GODS actual grace, albeit they want sanctifying grace. Yea, very good actions may be done with some little imperfection; which maketh the Prophet com­pare our righteousness to a menstruous cloath.

Duply, You are like to your self all along in this reflection, for I cannot call it a re­turn, Prote∣stants Duply. seeing you have a flourish of fectless words, for catching women and children: but do not touch the arguments proposed, [Page 179] for justification by faith without the workes of the law. My first argument was this. That the Apostle Paul saith, we are justified by faith without the workes of law, therefore not by them. You say, he meaneth not of workes of grace. What then? Of sinful workes be­fore Coversion? And is it indeed like, that sinful workes can be called by the Apostle worke [...] of the law, seeing these are trans­gressions of the law? Or that the justitiaries amongst the Romans in the dayes of the A­postle, were so gross as to assert, that sinful workes justifie a man which condemn him. Secondly, you say, that justification by faith contradicteth scripture, James 2. 24. which place I explained and reconciled with the 4. of the Romanes, and all you say to that is, that I contradict my self. I said workes justi­fie faith, for my faith is known by my works to my self and others. But that will nor say, that workes and faith justifie the man. So I clash not with my self here. And for your Maxime, causa causae est causa causati. If I understand this, you contradict your self in the application of it; for faith being the cause of workes and justifying the man, workes are the effect of justificat [...]on, not the cause of it. Hence the Apostle James saith, shew me thy faith by thy workes, O man! For it cannot be showen without workes. v. 18. [Page 180] Albeit we say that faith alone justifieth, yet that Fides sola in approhendendo, non est so­litaria.

My next argument was, that a man must be justified before he can work well, therefore workes are not the cause of justification. I hope you will not say, that the effect is an­tecedent to its cause, if you have read Ra­mus Logick. And that a man must be justi­fied before he can work well, I prove thus. He must be sanctified, Ergo, &c. a corrupt tret cannot bring forth good fruit, Matth. 7. 18. Ere you have not something to say to this, you close with Pelagius for a defence, and speak non-sense. For you say, that you an­swer with our Saviour, by a distinction of that which is simply such, and secundum quid. In what part of the Gospel is this Logick to be found? For it is clear from the verse above cited, that our Saviour denyeth simply the thing, so he granteth it not secundum quid. Some good acts you say, may be done by evil men, being assisted by actual grace. I would know if actual grace can be in exercise, where habitual grace is not at all? then if men ha­bitually evil, in an unconverted state, can do any thing well? That something materially good may be done by them, as well as sin may be committed by the regenerated, I doubt not: but that they can do ought upon [Page 181] a good principle, for a good end, by a good morive, I deny it simply. Now if they be not such they cannot justifie a m [...]n. For nullum agens potest agere, extra Sphar [...]m suae activitatis. Till he be sanctified he can­not be be such, till he be justified he cannot be sanctified. Workes justifie no more the man, then the fruit maketh the tree good.

My third Reason you leave untouched, which was this, that the present time requi­reth all our work, Ergo, it cannot justifie us for bygones or the future, What is now de­bituns, cannot pay my bygone debt, nor free me for the time to come. And you grant all I have said in the fourth, that our best workes are unperfect, and so cannot hold water be­fore the Tribunal of GOD. I am glade to hear you grant so much, for then where will workes of supererogation and merit appear.

For further clearing of our Doctrine of Justification, take notice, the Papists and we thus differ. First, They say there is a two fold justification, one, whereby a m [...]n unjust is made just; for attaining this, there must be previous dispositions by the acts of faith, fear, hope, love, whch fit the man for his justification, some of them terme this, Me­ritum congrui, others say, t [...]at this is the free gift of GOD not deserved by workes. The second Justification, is, that whereby [...] [Page 182] man being just is made more just: this they say is merited by their workes, and proceed­eth à DEO & arbitrio simul, both from free will and GOD. So Molina. Here they con­found justification and sanctification; And by this way we are not compleetly justified till we die, ere the work of sanctification be perfected fully, we must be Saints in light. Secondly, That free gift of grace, is parted betwixt GOD and free-will, if this Doctrine hold. For Bellarmin saith, we co-operat with GOD in justification it self, and the beginning of faith. So by it that emphatick place, Rom. 8. 34. cannot be interpreted aright, it is GOD who justifieth. If man had no part nor hand in the Creation, how can he have it in the first Conversion, seeing that is a new Creation? Thirdly, They make the formal cause of justification, inherent righ­teousness, which is ragged by their own con­fession, as appeareth from this reflecter. Then it is no fit covering for our nakedness, for it self needeth a covering. Can it satisfie divine justice, being so imperfect? Augu­stin telleth the contrar, on Psalm 42. Who­soever liveth here, albeit he live righteously, if that righteousness be strictly judged, wo to h [...]m. Fourthly, It is not safe nor comfor­table for ourselves. That same Father telleth us again, de bono perseverantiae, cap. 6. [...]e [Page 183] live more safely when we attribute all to God wholly, then when we commit our selves partly to GOD, partly to our selves. Now this in­herent righteousness, as put on in the se­cond justification, is the bir [...]h of merits and free-will say all Papists, then positively and mostly thy own. The merits of Christ are a far off cause, causa formalis immediata, is thy own righteousness; the consideration of this made Bellarmin confess, de justif. lib. 5. cap. 7. tutissimum est in sola DEI miseri­cordia conquiescere: It is safest to repose on the mercy of GOD, not on thy own righteous­ness. A dying Christian seriou [...] about salva­tion, will indeed find it safest and surest. We again mantain that a converted man is un­der previous law work of conviction, contri­tion, humiliation, and the fallow ground of the heart is thus prepared, and broken up by the plowing of the Word: but a man may come this length and go no further, the dis­positions have not alwayes a necessar con­nexion with that new birth. Nor is the seed of faith still sown in such as are under the spirit of bondage. He who [...]asteth of these powers may fall away. There be a relative difference between these acts in the Elect and others. Secondly, When faith the free gift of GOD, Phil. 1. 29. is sown into the hea [...]t and planted there, as it is native to [Page 184] the child to seek the breasts, so it leaueth and leadeth the man in its first motion, to the righteousness of Jesus a Mediator, who is The Lord our righteousness, Jer. 23. 6. and he maketh mention of his righteousness, e­ven of his only. The Lord hath so appoin­ted it, he is made of GOD to us righteousness, 1. Cor. 130. faith apprehendeth that, as the ship-broken man doth a plank, whereby he commeth to land; by that we are justified before GOD. Inherent graces cannot sa­tisfie the justice of GOD, nor make per­fect obedience to the law, nor pay the pe­nalty which it requireth. But Mediatory righteousness can do all this. So the causes of justification are these, the final cause is the glory of GOD and mans salvation. The ef­ficient, the favour, mercy, and good will of GOD. The meritorious, the obedience of Jesus Christ. The formal, the imputed righ­teousness of that blessed Mediator. The in­strumental cause or condition, (as some word it) is faith, Rom. 3. 24. 25. so we are justified by faith alone, as Abraham was be­fore GOD, and this giveth glory to GOD, Rom. 4. dethroneth the boasting of men, and is the sure safe scripture way. Now when we say that faith alone justifieth, by laying hold on his righteousnes, and applying it, we still hold that faith which justifieth to be [Page 185] pregnant with good workes, such as love, heart-cleansing, new obedience, patience zeal, and other fruits of the spirit. This ad­versaries deny not to us. Bellarmin doth us this much right, for he acknowledgeth that we hold good workes to be necessar to the justified, Non necessitate efficientiae sed pra­sentiae. So they justifie our faith to ourselves and others: but faith justifieth the man, and workes have no place in that act. We do not deny that good workes have room, and are necessarie for working out of our sal­vation, they are via reg [...], but in the point of Justification they are excluded. Our justification is the Lords act of gracious ab­solution tendred to us through Christ. When we receive the sentence, faith the hand of the soul layeth only hold of it. And it is not said in Scripture, love in his blood, or patience, or real in it, but faith in his blood, by which we are justified, cloathed, and covered. Re­mission and righteousness commeth in this way. This animateth all our graces, and we hold justification and salvation of free grace, Ephes. 2. 8. 9.

Fourteenthly, You set up free will in faln man, almost as it was under the Covenant of § 14. Iust. workes in the state of innocencie; and do attribute Election partly to that Idol. More that without Christ we may merit congruously [Page 186] and naturally dispose our souls for grace. But the Scripture saith, Rom. 11. 6. E­lection is meerly of grace, and if by grace, then it is no more of workes, otherwise grace were no more grace, but if it be of workes, then it is no more grace: otherwise workes were no more workes. Nay, We cannot of our selves as of our selves think a good thought. 2. Cor. 3. 5. and without Christ, we can do nothing. Iohn 15. 5. being by na­ture children of wrath dead in sins and tres­passes.

Ye say we set up free will in faln man, as it was in the state of Innocencie: whe [...]eas we Papist Reply. put great distinction betwixt free will in these two states, as you may see in our School Di­vines; yet Christ by his grace, hath so set it up, that with the same grace a man may choose to do good and refuse to do evil. Both Scripture and Fathers are clear for this. Scripture, Deut. 30. 19. I have set before you life and death blessing and cursing, therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live. And 1. Cor. 7. 37. He who hath determined in his heart, not having necessitie, but having power of his own will to keep his Virgin. Is not here free will asserted, necessitie clearly excluded? How then can you call it an Idol? or, if a man have not free will, wherefore sorv­eth preaching, and exhortation, to perswade [Page 187] a man to that which is not in his power? Pro­testants say, there is no good action in the power of a man: Why then do they perswade Roman-Cath [...]licks to turn Protestant, seeing Conversion being a most holy and good work, is nor in our power or free-will? Or how could it stand with GODS wisdom to command men what they could not do? Or with his justice to condemn them eternally, who had not free-will to obey his Commandements? Hear St. Aug. lib. de Fide contra Manich. chap. 10. Who will not cry out it is a foolish thing to command him who hath not freedom to o­bey what is commanded? And it is an in­jurie to condemn him who hath no power to fulfil them. And again, lib. de Gr. & lib. Arbit: cap. 2. GOD hath revealed to us in Scripture that in man is free-will, because GODS Commands would not perfect man unless he had free-will to do them. Gregory hom. 12. on Numb. O Israel what doth the Lord thy GOD require of thee? Let them be ashamed of these words, who deny free-will in man. How should GOD require of man, unless man had in his power what to offer to GOD requiring? Doth he not here speak to you, and clearly against you? Now whereas you cite Rom. 11. 6. Election is meerly of grace, you put in the word (meerly) which is not in Scripture: And whereas it is [Page 188] said, if it be of grace then it is no more of workes, that is meaned of natural workes, without grace, or workes of the law. As an­swer these Doctors, whose sentence you here impungue: for without grace, you say well with the Apostle, we cannot think a good thought, and without Christ we can do nothing, John 15. 5. Wherefore it is another calumny, when you make us say that without Christ, we may merit congruously, which we hold for Pe­lagian and Semi-Pelagian Heresie.

Duply, You reason for Free-will upon Prote∣stants Duply. Pelagian grounds, as Jansenius, Ipr. who was Popish, hath aboundantly proved in his learned work. If you would read and consider him he would satisfie and refute you. But seeing you gift us with him, and so with Augustin, for in these be is totus Augustinus. I shal only say this by way of position. First, The natural man hath no freedom for spi­ritual good, as before the fall, because he is the servant of sin. Hear Aug. contra du [...] epist. Pelagian. Liberta [...] illa quae fuit in Pa­radiso, periit per peccatum. Propter quod na­tura humana Divina indiget gratia, dice [...]te Domino si vos filius liberaverit vere liberi e­ritis. He granteth a freedom for evil, but of our selves, as of our selves, we cannot think a good thought, we say the same with Scripture and Antiquitie. Secondly, We [Page 189] hold that in some moral acts a man hath freedom, whither by a new gift, or as the re­mainder of the first, I shal not disput, E. G. He may elocat his Virgin to be warried, or not, according to the text cited by you 1. Cor. 7. 37. this we do not deny. Thirdly, Com­mands, threatnings, exhortations, are means appointed by GOD, to make us who are nil­ling willing to do good, yet so, that it is he who worketh in us both to will and to do, Phil. 2. 13. Who worketh all our workes in us, Is. 26. 1 [...]. So the place you cite Deut. [...]0. 19. maketh nothing against us; for as Augustin saith, jubet & javat, and the Elect get grace [...]o obey, these who are approven, will thus be made manifest, so it is not in vain for us to exhort Papists to be converted, for wisdom wi [...]lbe justified of her own children. And did not our Lord upon this account exhort the obstinat Jews to reformation. Yet your at­gument from exhortations is against him, and his way, asmuch as against us. We have a vvill, moral faculties of willing and nilling, and are not stocks. Augustin throughout meaneth no more, and admit that Origen be of your mind, Scripture saith the contrar. If election be of grace without workes, is it not clear that it is of meer grace? For these two are opposit here. You say you do not re­fuse that, not set up free-will in man as be­fore [Page 190] the fall, and appeal to your School-men for my information. I answer you make use of the word (grace) as Pelagius did ad fran­gendam invidiam, but indeed Adam had no more power over his will, then ye give to lost man, which I prove thus: Adam could plead for no more but the posse by his c [...]ea­tion, and the velle if he pleased to choose or refuse obedience. But all your J [...]suits give this to man after the fall, that positis omnibus requisitis ad agendum, (which doth take in the decree, the concourse and grace it self, in the sense of all your Dominicans at lest, who impugne this description,) yet potest a­gere vel non agere, therefore he hath as much now as before the fall, according to your Divinity. Albeit you condemn Pelagius yet ye are wholly his here. See I beseech you Jansenius on this subject. Yea ye make your self differ from another contrar to the Apostle, 1. Cor. 4. 7. For two having equal grace objective and subjective, it is the will which casteth the ballance, and maketh it efficacious in one, not in another. This is the doctrine of School-men. So ye have your will to thank, your will to invocat for any good. And what more said the Semi-Peld­gians or Messalians then the Mass-men do here averre? Your Council of Trent saith the will potest dissentire si velit, your school-men [Page 191] whom you desire me to consult in this matter are of the same tenets. The council, saith Sess. 6. chap. 5. that one is converted and mother remaineth in his infidelity, the cause is in their will, in that one entertaineth the other rejecteth the grace of GOD. Mo­lina disp. 12. to hold this, saith he, is a matter of faith. Eckius in his Enchir, saith, that the beginning of our Salvation we have from Gods mercy, but it is in our power to yeeld to tha [...] divine inspiration or not. Aquinas contra Genres lib. 3. saith, it is in the power of free-will to hinder or not hinder the receiving of divine grace. Molina again telleth that the persaverance of men in good, dependeth upon their own co-operation with grace. By grace they mean no more but a moral suasion ex­ternally offered, or an objective inclination of the will, but no effectual determination at all. So indeed at the command of the will, grace is either useful or not, permitted to enter in or shut out of doors. Who perceiv­eth not this doctrine to be derogatory to the honor of GOD and power of free grace? Therefore we say with Augustin in his Ench. cap, 32. DEUS nolentem praevenit ut vel [...], volentem sequitur ne frustra velit. The Lord by his grace maketh nilling men willing, and willing men are assisted by the same, lest they runne in vain. The will of man (saith he, who [Page 192] was the hammer of Pelagianism) is libera quia liberata. Its free because its freed. See Aug. de side ad Petrum Diaconum, cap. 32. Firmissime tene & nullatenus dubites posse quidem hominem, quem nec ignorantia lite­rarum, nec aliqua prohibet imbecillitas, vel adversitas, verba sanctae Logis & Euangelii sive legere, sive ex ore cujusdam praed [...]cator [...]s audire sed ut quod audit percipiat etiam corde & mandata DEI facere velit, nemo potest, nisi quem DEUS gratia sua praevenerit, data di­vinitus bona voluntate atque virtute. i. e. Hold thou it most firmly, and no wayes doubt, that a man whom neither ignorance of good letters, nor any infirmity or adversity doth hinder, hath power both to read the words of the holy Law and Gospel, and to hear them from the mouth of the Preacher, but to take up and receive in his heart what he heareth, and to be willing to do the Commandments of GOD, no man is able but he whom GOD hath preveened by his grace, having given to him good will and vertue. Aug. lib. 1. contra duas epist. [...]el, cap. 19. Christus non dicit, nemo potest venire ad filium nist Pater duxe­rit, ut ill [...]c aliquo modo intelligamus praece­dere voluntatem, sed dicit (traxerit) quis autem trahitur si jam volebat, & tamen nem [...] venit nisi velit, trahitur ergo miris m [...]dis, ut velit, ab illo qui nevit in ipsis hominum cordibus [Page 193] operari non ut homines, quod sier [...] non potest, uolentes credant, sed ut volentes ex nolenti­bus fi [...]nt. i. e. Christ doth not say, no man can come to the Son except the Father lead him, that then in some measure we should think the will of man to preceed, but he saith, (except the father draw him) but who is drawn who before was willing, and no man comes except he be willing, therefore man is drawn in a wonderful manner, that he is willing, even by him who knoweth to work in the verie hearts of men inwardly, not that men (which is impossible) should believe not willing, but that of men nilling they should become willing. Moreover, we have need of grace to keep grace and continue in it. Hierom ad C [...]esiphontem hath an excel­lent saying, non fussicit mihi, saith he, quod semel donaverit gratiam nisi semper donave­rit. i. e. I will not be satisfied to get the first grace, unless I get a constant tack of it. How cōtrar is this to the doctrine of Jesuits the Re [...]der may consider, who indeed give more to the will of man, then to the grace of GOD. If Tertullian be judge, this will be found in them a heresie, for adversus hae­reses, he saith, true faith dictareth this in defending the true GOD, and whatsoever in his, we make it only his : for he will be co­partner with none in these workes: as with­out [Page 194] him we can do nothing, so it is he who worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleasure. For further knowledge of Jansenius tenets I will here set them down. The Jan­senists, Dominicans, Augustines, and most of the Gallican Church, do follow the doctrine of Augustin, about free grace, and mantain these five prop [...]si [...]ions.

First, Al [...]qua DEI praecepta, hominibus 1 justis volentibus, & conantibus secundum praesentes qu [...] habent vires, sunt impossibi­lia, deest quoque iis gratia, qua possibilia siant. So they say, that the gracious cannot fulsil the whole law, but have need of a Sa­viour.

Secondly, Interiori gratiae, in statu naturae 2 lapsa, nunquam resistitur. Men may resist ex­ternal means, but esticacious grace is pre­valent.

Thirdly, Ad merendum & demorendum 3 in statu natura lapsae, non requiritur in ho­mine libertas a necessitate, sed sufficit liber­tas à coactione. The Lord may draw a man freely to his duty, yet necessarily.

Fourthly, Semi-Pelagiani admittebant 4 praevenientis gratia interioris necessitatem ad singulo [...] actus, etiam ad initium fidei; & in hoc erant haeretici, quod vellent eam gra­tiam talem esse, cui posset voluntas humana resistere, vel obtemperare. By this all the [Page 195] Jesuits are heretical, who defend the victo­rie of the will over free grace.

F [...]fthly, Semi-Pelagianorum error est di­cere 5 Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse, aut sanguinem fudisse.

These Propositions were judged and con­demned at Rome by Pope Innocent the tenth. Albeit he professed himself not to be versed in these matters, being no Divine but a Ca­nonist. Non sum Theolo­gus, said the Rabbj. sed Ca­nonista. The Ambassadours from the Gal­lican Churches reasoned most earnestly for them, and held forth clearly that this was the [...]enet of Augustin, and all Catholick Doctors except the Jesuits. Yet notwithstan­ding, anno 1653. the Bull came forth against the efficacy of grace, and all the followers of Augustin, the tenour whereof followeth.

Primam, Praedictarum propositionum aliqua DEI praecepta hominibus just is vo­lentibus, conantibus secundum praesentes qua [...] habent vires, sunt impossibi [...]i [...]; deest quoqueillis gratia qua possib [...]l [...] si [...]nt, teme­rariam impiam blasphemam anathemate damnatam, Haereticam declaramus, & ut talem damnamus.

Secundam, Interiori gratiae in statu natu­rae [...]apsa nunquam resistitur, Haereticam declaramus, & ut talem damnamus.

Tertiam, Ad merendum & demerendum, in statu [...]aturae lapsae non requiritur in homi­ne [Page 196] libertas à necessitate, sed libertas à co-actione sufficit: Haereticam declaramus, & ut talem damnamus.

Quartam, Semi-Pelagiani admittebant, praevenientis gratiae interioris necessitatem, ad singulos actus, etiam ad initium fidei, & in hoc erant haeretici quod vellent eam gra­tiam talem esse, cui posset voluntas humana resistere, vel obtemperare, falsam, & haereti­cam declaramus, & ut talem damnamus.

Quintam, Semi-Pelagianum est, dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum fuisse, & sanguinem fudisse, fal­sam, temerariam, scandalosam, & intel­lectam eo sensu, ut Christus pro salute dun­taxat praedestinatorum mortuus sit, impiam, blasphemam, contumeliosam, Divinae pietati derogantem, haereticam declaramus & ut ta­lem damnamus.

Hence it appeareth that the present Pa­pal Church, is contrar to the Doctrine of Augustin, &c. is a condemner of all the Dominicans, Jansenists, Sorbonists, and of the Doctrine of free and efficacious grace, making the will umpire in all these mat­ters, and owneth the tenets of the Moli­nists only. And that since the Council of Trent it is not what it was formerly: therefore erronious then or now, so not infallible. When the Bull was proclaimed, the Commissioners [Page 197] from the Gallican Churches determined a­mongst themselves, that if they were requi­red to subscribe the Popes sentence, they would rather suffer then subscribe it, except in their own sense. i. e. Excepting and se­curing the grace of Jesus Christ, effectual by it self, necessar to all actions of piety. And by this it appeareth that they could not judge him infallible in Cathedra. And beside ma­ny at Rome and in Flanders cryed down the decree, and spoke often of the necessitie of a Council seeing the doctrine of free grace was impeached, and Pelagianism brought into the Church of Rome. It must be evi­dent therefore, that Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism being the main ingredience in the doctrinals of Rome, concerning grace, they do frustrate the grace of GOD, Gal. 2. 21. and give the victory over it to the will of man in all cases. How gracious a Papist keeping these principles can be, let the Reader judge, and how numerous their Party is, it is easily known.

At the same time the Pope condemned a book called the Houres, Printed at Paris, and commended by the French Divines, because efficacious grace was there mentio­ned; and the second Command was tran­slated thus, Ye shal not make an Idol, or gra­ven Image to adore them. When one of the [Page 198] Commissioners from the Gallican Churches did complain upon the sentence of the Pope, against a book so generally approved in France. Mr. Albizzi the Popes Secretary said, that the translation was one with that of Geneva, and what ever Schollars might conceive of it, the People would readily mistake it, and not fall down before the I­mages. One of the Commissioners answe­red, that this Doctrine would be also valid against the translation of Scripture, for the second Command behoved to be thus tran­slated, he answered, that the Pope was not obliedged to hear Parties, and answere rea­sons, and the Gospel we [...]e not the Gospel, if the Pope did not approve it. This is high-lan­guage, yet the Court strain at Rome. Yea, the operation of grace is heresie, if he call it so. See more of this in the Journal of St. de Amour, concerning the five Propositions, who with other Commissioners from the Gallican Churches relate this.

Fifthteent [...]ly, You lay too much stress on the work wrought, as Satisfactory 15 Inst. Pennance, Extream Unction, the telling over of Prayers, the outward receit of Sacraments, Bodily Auster [...]ties, &c. And put these in stead of Regeneration, so necessar for each Christian, and of inward duties which have the promise chiefly, terming all such pha­natick, [Page 199] whereas Scripture saith, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot see God. Iohn 3, 3. And, except ye be conve [...]ted and become as little children, ye canno [...] enter into the kingdom of Heaven, Matth, 18 3. and bodily exercise profiteth little, 1. Tim. 4. 8. Duties rightly done are well worth their own room, but to turn us back under the Gospel to the Covenant of workes, i [...] a fascination, and making voide of the grace of GOD, Gal. 2. 21. Gal. 3. 2 and this errour leadeth you to condemn In­fants unbaptized for the want of that work wrought, whereas the promise is to us and to our children. Act. 2. 39. and we have all freely, not by merit.

Reply, You calumniat us here again, Papist Reply. saying, that we put bodily austerities in the place of Regeneration, wherein you contradict your self, granting that we hold Baptismal Regeneration absolutly necessar: so that a man cannot be s [...]ved without it, according to the clear words of St. John 3. 5. How then can you say that we hold bodily austeri­ties in stead of Regeneration? How can Mi­nister [...] be so carnal or sensual, as to speak, a­gainst bodily austerities. Which Christ com­ing into this world, did cho [...]se, saith the de­vout St. Bernard, concluding that either li­centious men in a world are deceived, who [Page 200] choose them not, or else Christ. Serm. de na­tiv. But as for the work wrought, it seem­eth you understand it not, when you adscribe it to the telling over of Prayers, for it hath no place but in the Sacraments: which of them selves work grace, either in these that cannot work, or put a stop, as Infants or others. And when you say, the promise is made to us and to our children, Acts 2. 39. Either you must acknowledge your self a Jew, and to be of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, or else with the Apostle and Catholick Church. In the same place, say, We are made the children of Abraham by Baptism and Rege­ration, as verse 24. and 41. proves.

Duply, That which I said ye grant viz. the receit of Baptism, ex opere operato, to Prote∣stants Duply. Regenerat, but with a restriction to Infants. By which evasion it seemeth ye under­stand nor well your own teners, for the Council of Trent Sess. 7. Can. 7. & 8. speak­eth otherwise, they anathematize them who deny, that Sacramenta novae legis conferunt gratiam ex opere operato semper & omnibus non aliquando, & aliquibus. So they speak of all the Sacraments of the New Testa­ment and not only of Baptism: and if they limited it to Infants, it could not be omni­bus but aliquibus only. And Bellarmin who understood Popery leaveth you alone here, [Page 201] for lib. 1. cap. 12. de Sacram. Bapt. he saith, Baptism ex opere operato confert gratiam, qua vere & formaliter justificatur homo. Then he is not speaking of Children. If it be so all Baptized are Regenerated imme­diatly, even your Indians, whom ye drive by d [...]oves to the font-stone, and turning from Heathnism is true Conversion. Yea, all baptized are saved and none of them damned, this is indeed an easy way to Hea­ven. That place John 3. is not chiefly mean­ed of Baptism, otherwise all unbaptized persons should be damned, which is not true, and they who say so are cruel to Infants. And wherein I pray you do I contradict my self here? Seeing your external Regeneration is not that Scripture one meaned, John 3. and Matth. 18. and 2. Cor. 5. 17. If all such be new creatures, we have none in the visible Church, come to years, but con­verts, new creatures, regenerated ones born again; and can you say so, without a blush? I mean by the seed of Abraham, the heirs of promise, with the Apostle Gal. 3. 29. What you challenge in this I do not understand, and I doubt if you understand your self: for the blessing of Abraham belongeth to us Gentiles as well as to the Jews. Bodily au­sterities for mortifying sensual corruption I did approve, if they be put in their own [Page 202] place. So you fight with your own shaddow here, We are for fasting, humble-walking, and all the acts of Scripture-self-denyal, we hold commanded duties for mortification, such as fastings, &c. to be very useful for holding the body in subjection, and for subduing sensualitie. Secondly, we deny not but the Lord will in fatherly wrath chasten his children here for their sins, as he did Israel in the wilderness, Moses, David, Iehoshaphat & many moe, according to that Amos 3. 2. Thirdly, this chastisement, whi­ther voluntar or not, is not satisfaction to divine justice, nor proper penaltie of the law, because the satisfaction of Iesus Christ is compleatly perfect, but it could not be so if any satisfaction were laid on us, see Dal­laeus Dallaeus de satis­factione. who hath a learned Treatise concern­ing this truth. Fourthly, If we cannot satis­fie, we merit nothing that is good at the hands of GOD, but must say with Bernard on Cant. Serm. 61. Misericordia tua, merita nostra Domine; thy mercy O Lord is our me­rit [...]. Salvation, deliverance, Heaven, happi­ness, and all our well-fare is of the Lord. We get these, gratis. The Papists may be a­shamed to tell the world of congruous merits before Conversion, of commutative justice, betwixt GOD and man by the dignity of their workes after conversion, and their re­fusing [Page 203] to have Heaven gratis. Andradius the interpreter of the Council of Trent, Or­thod. explic. lib. 6. saith, The reward of the just is not freely given, but Heaven is set to the sale for our workes. T [...]pperus saith in Explic. art. Lovan. tom. 2. art. 9. GOD forbid that the just should expect eternal life as the poor man doth his almes, it is our con­quest, our triumph, and the prize due to our labours. Valentia tom. 3. disp. 7. telleth, that the workes of the faithful, are satisfacto­ry for the punishment of sin. Bellarmin bring­eth forth a new evasion, de just if. lib. 5. cap. 10. saying, that Christ merited, that we should merit. So that the merit of our workes is from his merits; this is plaister to daub with. For where do we read in Scripture that phrase? He hath suffered for us that we should be holy in all manner of Conversation, and serve him in righteous­ness and holiness, but no where that we should merit eternal life, the gift is wholly from him, so it is written, Rom. 6. 23. Secondly, This is petitio principii, for the question betwixt Papists and us, is, whither we are unprofitable servants when we have done all? So speak we with Scripture, they say we are meritorious men. Thirdly, Suarez saith, Tom. 1. in Thomam disp. 4. another thing, that good workes are in themselves and [Page 204] of their own nature meritorious, therefore not such, because of Christ his merits. Other­wise saith he, we could not be said to merit. We say, this is the way to clipe the satis­faction of Christ Jesus, & the value of the price payed for us. What good workes we do are mixed with imperfections, and are too few, alas, if the Lord accept of them, and reward these workes with temporal or spiritual bles­sings, it is not for the merit of the work, but of free grace and mercy, and for the merits of Christ meerly. So we may be freely re­warded; see Matth. 5. 46. Luk. 6. 32. where the word [...] and [...] are pro­miscuously taken. We cannot make amends to GOD nor satisfie his justice, but his pro­mise is sure, not according to our merits, but his own mercy: so we must inherit e­ternal life, this is Aug. doctrine on Ps. 88. and Chrysost. on Col. 2. Your satisfactions and merits are contrar to Scripture, pure antiquity, dishonourable to Jesus Christ, and prejudicial to souls. Now you see this re­flection might have been well spared, for it is no reply at all to what I said.

Sixteenthly, Ye foster loosness and pro­phainess § 16. Inst. by telling tales about Purgatory, the use of prayer and sacrifices for the dead. But the Scripture saith Heb. 9. 27. after death cometh judgement, which must be [Page 205] understood immediatly, otherwise it might be said after birth cometh judgement, and in the grave there is neither work nor in­vention; neither is there any place ap­pointed for people after their removal hence, save Heaven or hell.

Reply, The telling of men that after their Papist Reply. sins are forgiven, they must suffer for the tem­poral pain due to them, is not a way to foster loosness, but rather to terrifie all who believe from offending GOD in the least, seeing all such must be chastised, either by GOD pu­nishing, or man doing pennance, and that vo­luntary, either here, or in Purgatory hereaf­ter, according to the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. 15. If any ones work burn, he shal suffer loss, but he shal be saved, yet so as by fi [...]e, which place Augustin citing on Ps. 37. saith, and because it is said, he shal be saved, that fire is contemned, yet that fire shal be more grievous then whatever a man can suffer in this life. Purge me O Lord and make me such a one as shal not need that mending fire, &c. Now doth St. Paul or Aug. here tell tales? Or can that mending fire by which a man is saved, be more grievous then what he can suffer here? Or can it make a man loose to pray with Aug. thus? But it may be he was doting here, as when he said Mass for his Mothers soul, as we read in his [Page 206] Confessions, committing both sacriledge and Idolatrie, (as commonly Protestants say) to please an old w [...]fe after her death. You adde that Scripture saith, after death cometh judgement, and in the grave there be neither work nor invention. What maketh this a­gainst Purgatory? Do Catholicks deny that we are justified at the very moment of death before they go to Purgatory? Or that they work in the grave. But how is it true say you, there is no place mentioned in Scripture save Heaven o [...] hell, to which the godly and wicked do go? Albeit all go to one of these places, yet is there not a prison mentioned, from which a man shal not go till he hath pay­ed the uttermost farthing, Matth. 5. 25. which the Fathers expounded to be Purgatory. viz. Hierom on this chapter, St. Cyp. ep. 52. Tertull. lib. de anima. and doth not St. Paul above cited, speak of another fire then that of hell?

Duply, You have Rhetorications in de­fence Prote∣stants Duply. of Purgatory, which I pass, and touch reason or testimonie produced by you. You mention two texts of Scripture, the one is Matth. 5. 25. where we are commanded to agree with our adversarie quickly, &c. this place proveth no Purgatory prison. For first, It is allegorick, and so cannot be argumen­tative, on a controverted point. All that [Page 207] is here intended, is, that brethren should dwel together in love, and forgive other their trespasses against them, as is clear from the context. Secondly, If it were meaned of Purgatory, it would make the Lord their adversarie, they behoved to be delivered up to the Devil, for he is the Jaylor of the pri­son: Now it is strange divinity to say that the Lord is an adversary, and the Devil a Jaylor, to the man whose sins are forgiven him. Thirdly, If this prison be Purgatory, then there is commutative justice betwixt GOD and man, for such here pay the uttermost farthing. And who can say to the Lord, forgive me, have mercy upon me, and yet be of this judgement, that he can pay all his debt by that mending fire, and not owe any thing to free gracious pardon?

Fourthly, It maketh punishment to purge away punishment, which is Repugnantia in adjecto. For you grant that the filth and blot of sin is removed here. Your own Jansenius interpreteth it not of Purgatory, Concor. in locum. The other Scripture is 1. Cor. 3. We shal be saved yet so as by fire, that is not meaned of purgatorie fire, but of pro­batorie fire in this life, not hereafter. Let any man read the chapter, and he will see this the purpose of the Holy Ghost, to shew what was doctrinally or practically erroneous [Page 208] should be put to the firie tryall, when judg­ment should begin at the house of God, as the Apostle Peter speaketh, 1. Pet. 4. 17. your own Pererius interpreteth not this place 1. Cor. 3. of purgatorie.

You say Ancients interpret these Scrip­tures, so namely Augustin, Tertullian, Hie­rom, Cyprian. I would first enquire at you, how you can cite the Commentars of any privat men on Scripture? Seeing you averre before confidently, that the sensing of Scrip­ture and interpretation thereof belongeth to the Church of Rome, and to no privat persons, Augustin, Cyprian, &c. were not the Church of Rome, but privat Doctours. Yea, they were never members of this Church as it is now constituted, being great strangers to supream infallibility and universal Monarchy engros­sed in the person of the Pope. They lived in, Africk the one at Hippo, the other at Car­thage, and were Bishops there. Tertullian was a Presbyter, and forced to leave Rome for the aspersions cast upon him, by some envyous Doctors there; which was the first thing tempted him to Montanism, as it is told in his life; he was formerly free of it. When you interpret Scripture, you are bound to bring one of the Popes decretals, or a Canon authorised by him for the meaning of a text, otherwise you are incon­sistent [Page 209] with your own opinion. But that which now you bring from these ancients, is as I conceive fully satisfied and explained in the eight Duply, to wh [...]ch I referre the Reader. You bring back hither and thi­ther with your impertinencies. All you have to do here if you would keep rule, is to an­swer Scripture arguments, seeing these ta­ken from antiquitie have been debated for­merly in their own room. Yet to tell Au­gustines mind about the sense of the 1. Cor. 3. it is not so as you cite it, he thinketh the text hard and difficult, but doth not build Purgatory on it, he is in that at a stand what to say, and will not define the interpretation, but modestly thus, Non ideo confirmo, quo­niam non refello, Aug. de Civit. DEI. lib. 21. cap. 24. Tertullian is so far from it, that he saith lib. de patientia. Christum laedi­mus, &c. We wrong Jesus Christ, if we shal say, that these who have their sins forgiven, are in a state to be pitied. But in Purgatory if the suffering be so great, they are to be pitied. Cyprian de mortalitate, is of the same mind, all who are in Christ, when they go hence reign with Christ. Ejus est mortem timere qui ad Christum nolit ire: Let him fear death who will not go to Christ. You say, these in Purgatoty are in Christ, then saith Cyprian, they go to Christ not to Purgatory, [Page 210] Justin Martyr saith, [...] immediatly af­ter death the souls of the righteous go to Pa­radise, and of the unrighteous to hell, resp. ad Orthod, quast. VVhen you would have them then holding Purgatory, you bring them under contradiction, and are bound to reconcile them with themselves; for any such clashings you may thank your Index Expurgatorius. The Fathers indeed speak of probatory mending fire here, of loca re­frigerii before the Resurrection, of Fluvius igneus after it, this is the opinion of some. Hence ariseth your citations, but for Pur­gatory they knew it not. It is the Blood of Jesus Christ which taketh away the guilt and filth of sin▪ Now that this erroneous opinion maketh men loose, reason proveth it. For men who believe that they may live loosely here, and yet go to heaven, are tempted to prophainness, ipso facto, whatever be preten­ded to the contrar; especially when it is told them withall, that some Soul-Masses for a little money may be had to free them quick­ly thence. And our experience in this land maketh it out also, because many loose li­vers hanker after Poperie, and hate to be re­formed. You answere just nothing to the 9. Heb. for if judgement cometh immediat­ly after death, where is Purgatorie then? That judgement is not temporane but eter­nall, [Page 211] it is one with Eccl. 11. 9. And I would gladly know, if this Tenet can hold with that scripture Rev. 14. 13. They who die in the Lord rest from their labours. And if so they are not punished henceforth. This purgato­ry fire of your own kindling, maketh a hot kitchin to the Pope, but purgeth no soul at all. For Purgatory was no [...] decreed to be de side, till the Councill of Lateran, under Inno­cent the 3. the Florentine under Eugentus the 4. and the Tridentine under Pius the 4. so it is not old. Many of the Fathers suppo­sed that the saints received not full reward till the resurrection. Aug. though dubious about it else where, yet in one place, De verbis Apostoli, serm. 18. sayeth, There be two places, there is not a third, we are igno­rant of a third (meaning Purgatorie,) yea we find in scripture that there is none such. In the Greek Fathers there is no mention of it saith Roffensis. And whereas it is objected, that Augustin said Masse for his mother Mo­nica. He sayeth only, that seeing she prayed so frequently for him, he was bound to send his best wishes after her, if they could avail. But speaketh very doubtfully of the matter in his book de civit. DEI. Beside the An­cients prayed for these whom they thought to be in Abrahams bosom, for a joyful Re­surrection and full fruition to them. The [Page 212] prayers of the Romanists are for men in mi­serie, prisons, in a place next to hell. So the one and other differ much. But the matter is, that your gold groweth here, it is your livelyhood, your Mexico, this maketh you so contend for it.

Seventeenthly, Ye commit murther and § 17 Inst. allow it contrar to the sixt Command, witnes the Massacre at Paris, commended by the popish Oratour Muretus, whose book is Printed by authority?

Reply, The testimonie of a privat Oratour, doth not make the articles of our faith. And Papists Reply. if this fact was done by privat Animosities, neither Religion nor reason can allow it. Nor do any Catholicks approve it, except they who think it was done by the Kings authority, to punish rebellious subjects whom he could not otherwise crub.

Duply, This Oration of Muretus where­in he commendeth the Massacre, is licensed, Prote∣stants Duply. and Printed by authority, so it is not the meer testimonie of a privat Oratour, but publickly allowed. And whereas you say, that no Catholicks approve it, except these who think it was done by the Kings authori­ty. I answer, the fact was, clearly murther, a breach of the sixth Command, and admit the French King who then was young had consented to it, will that justifie the breach [Page 213] of a divine precept? How can that consist with Acts 4. 19. I am bound actively to o­bey my Superiours in the Lord, ad aras, re­ligion, reason, craves no more. Your own Thuanus hath not this poor evasion for justi [...]ying this murther, but calleth it a bloody barbarous fact to murther men living peaceably. And that universal flux of blood which flowed so aboundantly from all the passages of that young King at his death, proclaimeth more lowdly to the world the unlawfulness of it, nor all the Rhetorick of Muretus can wipe off. For as an excel­lent Poet saith on that subject,

Eighteenthly, Ye call your selves the U­niversal Church, which was never attribu­ted § 18. Inst. to the Church of Rome in the Apostle Paul his time; notwithstanding that then their faith was spoken of through all the world Rom. 1. 8. Beside ye are but a particular Church at best, not so numerous as we and the Greek Church are, with whom we joyn in one Confession, except about the manner of the Processiō of the Holy Ghost As witnesseth [Page 214] their Confession set forth in the name of the Greek Church, by Cyrillus Patriarch of Cōstanti­nople, and printed Anno 1633. which booke can easily be produced. Whereas ye bragge of Unity, ye are great Schismaticks, renting the universall Church, and taking the tittle from them to your selves. Ye are miserably di­vided within, as appeareth from the strong factions of the Councill of Trent, and these hot skirmishes amongst Jesu [...]ts Dominicans, and Jansenists lasting to this day. Moreover, the scripture calleth Rome, B [...]bylon, the scarlet whore, according to your own Inter­preters upon Rev. 17. 18. which Babylon is to be destroyed.

Reply, You accuse us for calling our selves the Universal Church, and yet would willing­ly Papists Reply. take that title to your selves, if the com­mon pract [...]se in all Ages, to your shame and discre [...]it did not oppose it. None acknow­ledging your Church under this title, but all gener [...]lly ours. But I have heretofore told you why the Roman Church is called the Ca­tholick, as being the Mother Church con­stantly since the Apostles times, which hath a power of head-ship and jurisdiction over all the rest, holding communion with her through out the world. Then you say, we are but a particular Church, not so numerous as ye and the Grecians, with whom ye joyn in one [Page 215] Confession of Faith, except about the man­ner of the procession of the Holy Ghost. Which it seemeth you hold but as a trissle, al­though it maketh no distinction betwixt the second and the third Person of the Trinity: for where there is no Procession and relative opposition in the Trinitie, there is no distinction say Divines after Iohn Damascene, yet not­withstanding, ye joine with this in the confes­sion of faith, albeit they plainly disclaim them, in the censure of the Orientall Church, where chap. 7. 12. 13. 21. they hold Transubstan­tiation, seven Sacraments, an unbloody sa­crifice, prayers to the saints, and for the dead, whatever you alleadge of that confession of faith printed only in the last year. But how­ever, this sheweth the Protestants weaknes, and wavering faith, that they claim the Grecians and Lutherians, albeit both do openly dis­claim them. Neither do you prove better our division amongst our selves, seing all the par­ties in the Council of Trent, subscrived the Canons thereof, nor doth the hot skirmishes betwixt Jesuits and Dominicans in school questions, hinder their Unity in all the tenets of the Catholick Church, both being willing to subscribe them with their blood, as amongst Jesuits many do to this day. As for Janse­nists we altogether disowne them, and to make you more numerous, if ye please, are well con­tent [Page 216] that in many things you call them yours. I am content also Rome be called the scarlet whore, Rev. 17. 18. viz. Rome under Pagan Empe [...]ours. But was not the Church of Rome then in her greatest integrity and virginity, under the Apostle [...] St. Peter and Paul, who praising, her faith as spoken of through the world, both declare her Universality, and speak of her preheminence.

Duply, I had reason to challenge your u­surpation Prote∣stants Duply. of the Catholick title, for your own Pighius Eccl. hierarch. lib. 6. cap. 3. saith, Quis unquam per Romanam Ecclesiam, in­tellexis universalem? He thinketh it absurd and repugnant, and so it is. As for the Gre­cians I can presently produce their Confes­sion, See it set down after the Preface. Printed not the last year, but 30. years ago and upward, wherein they disclaim seven Sacraments, the unbloody service of the Masse, prayers to Saints, or for the Dead, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, &c. And Dr. Rivet in his 3. Tom. pag. 1257. set­teth down at length, how the Jesuits by mo­ney and moyen of the French Ambassadour, accused the same Cyrillus of treason before the grand Segniour, and said, that he favour­ed the King of great BRITTAIN : by which accusation he was for a time thrust out of charge, and forced to flee anno 1627. but afterwards by the good providence of GOD [Page 217] restored, the Greek Church would owne no other Patriarch during his absence, and how sore he was persecuted thereafter, see Horn­beck in his Summa Contro. As for the Jan­senists you gift us with them, calling them ours. So Augustin and the Dominicans are ours also in this, so your unity and universa­lity [...]s not so much as you pretend. You grant also that the scarlet whore, Rev. 17. and Babylon is Rome, but under the Heathen Emperour, and not as it is now under the Pope. Your own Ribera refuteth you fully in this, for he saith So saith Sixtus Senensis, and Ba­ronius, also. that it must be meaned of Apostat Rome in the time of Antichrist, be­cause she is called an adulteress, the mother of harlots, but there can be no adultery, where Marriage was not once. Secondly, The people of GOD are required to leave her lest they partake of her plagues. But they were never incorporated with Pagan Rome as Christians, for they had no com­munion with Pagan Idols, Ergo, if your Church be the Mother of Fornications, and less numerous then these who hold the Scrip­ture for the rule, in no sense can ye be cal­led the Catholick Church.

Ninthteenthly, Ye make the Pope Christs § 19. Inst. Vic [...]r on Earth, Peters successour, the head of the Church, an infallible man, a Demi-God. Whereas all the Apostles were equal [Page 218] in power and dignity, Matth. 20. 26. And Cyprian lib. 3. de unitate Ecclesiae, saith, hoc idem Petrus quod reliqui Apostoli, pare [...] consortio, & dignitate. Peter was one with the rest of the Apostles in dignity and fel­lowship. Ambros. de Sp. S. lib. 2. cap. ult. Nec Paulus est inferior Petro. see August. ad Hieron epist. 97. and Hierom ad E­vagr. and Cyprian epist. ad Quintum (71.) Prophets and Apostles were not infallible except in penning the Scripture. Did not Moses speak unadvisedly Psalm. 106. 33. the Prophet Elisha professeth that the case of the Shunamit was hid from him, 2. Kings 4. 27. Nathan gave forth a verdict to day, and made a retractation to morrow, 2. Sam. 7. Peter controuled the Heavenly vi­sion, and knew not what to do Acts 10. 17. And shal your sinful Popes then be infallible, who will believe it? Is it not then lamen­table, that ye resolve your faith into humane testimony, yea, into that which is a very lie, the Popes infallibility? Were it not saf­er to make Scripture your ground, then to build upon this sandie foundation, and so ri­ver your selves incurably into errour?

Reply, You runne out upon the Popes titles, till in the end you make him a Demi-God, Papist Reply. imputing this as that by way of calum­ny to us. Whereas all the Apostles were [Page 219] equal in power and dignity, say you, Matth. 20. 26. Where (brist only forbiddeth spiri­tual Superiours, to exercise that power with pride and tyrrany, as did the Princes of the Gentiles, but with humility and meekness as himself did. Yet he there expresseth a greater and a lesser, a superiour and inferiour amongst them, as he saith more clearly in Luke 22. 26. he that is amongst you greatest, let him be as the lesser, and he who is chief as he who would serve them. You cite Cyprian, saying, the Apostles were equal in dignity, but suppresing the following words, that Christ disposed the order of unity; beginning with Peter, whom in his epist, ad Julianum, he calleth, both head and root of his Church. All that followeth is, that Moses spoke un­advisedly, the Propher Elisha was ignorant of some things, the Prophet Nathan made a retractation, and St. Peter controuled the Heavenly vision. To shew the Prophets and Apostles were not infallible, save in penning the Scripture, and so that the Pope is not such. This is but a vain rapsodie, to colour your own unsetled belief and contradiction in doc­trine, but nothing against us. For sup­pose they had erred in these things that concerned not their doctrine, all that you can inferre by comparison is, that the Pope may erre in the like. But as in penning the word of [Page 220] GOD they were infallible, were they not also in preaching of it? Or is not the high Bishop in all Councils as in the representative Church, infallible in subscribing, approving, and con­firming her decrees? If the same decrees of the Council be infallible. So that when you de­ny the Pope as head, with the Bishops in gene­ral Councils as chief men to be infallible, you deny the infallibility of the Church, which I have sufficiently shewed, reflecting on your sixth Answer.

Duply, You labour to prove imparity a­mongst Prote∣stants Duply. the Apostles from Luke 22. 26. and would have us to believe that the Papal Mo­narchy is there; which is like the consequence of Mr. Vaux in his Catechism, proving I­mage worship from the second Command. For it is clear from verse 30. that albeit Kingly government was in the state, yet it should not be so in the Church. And that tyrranie is not the only thing forbidden here, ap­peareth from this, that somewhat is inter­dicted to Church-men, which is granted to others, but tyrrany is licensed to none. Com­pare Matth. 20. 25. with Luke 22. 25. [...] in the one place is expressed by [...] in the other. Then it is not only inhibited here. Beside, the 20. Matth. which you call unclear is most clear, he that will be greatest, seeking to exalt himself, shal [Page 221] be least, for he shal be abased. And be who is called greatest in Luke 22. is opposed to the youngest, the word is [...] in the verse▪ So by this opposition, the greatest, is the eldest or the greatest in gifts, who should be humble, self-denyed Ministers, as if they were not so priviledged. See 1. Peter 5. 3. To the place of Cyprian cited, ye answer no­thing. Only you alleage that I suppress what followeth, & in stead of the citation you take your self to another place ad Julianum, where he ca [...]leth Peter first in order, and this we do not deny. But what will that make for his visible Monarchy? For sure I am, dic Ec­clesiae, Matth. 18. will resure that to the world [...] end. This is confirmed by Cyprians own practise, for saith he, Cyprian epist. 6. ad Clerum de cura Paup. Ab initio Episco­patus mei, nihil statui agere, sine consensis cle­ri & plebis. See Cyprian epist. 52. al Anto­nium, and there you will perceive that your Pope is not like Cornelius of whom he spea­keth, for he was chosen Clericorum omnium testimonio, & plebis qui adfuit suffragio. The faithful Martyr was much for peace, unity, and order, and being infested with the No­vatians he saith, inde sunt nata schismata, quod sacerdoti DEI non obtemperatur, and telleth that by way of regrate: But when he writteth to Cornelius he calleth him frater [Page 222] and no more. Where then was your Pope­dom? But ye equal your Pope to the Pro­phets and Apostles who penned the Scrip­ture, which is an odious comparison not worthy of an answer. But forgetting your self you say, the Pope in the Council, then it is not the Pope alone, of whose Monarchy we are here speaking, and ridiculously you subjoyn if the Council be infallible, what language is this? The Pope is infallible in subscribing the decree of a counsel if the Coun­cil be infallible, I say neither of them is in­fallible, so your faith is resolved into a lie. You would seem to hang the Popes infallibi­litie on the sentence of a council; if it be so, the Pope sealing their decrees is infallible accidentally, and relatively not in himself, Others hang the infallibility of the Council on the Pope, so a fallible council may conse­quently be infallible, and if he ratifie the sentence of a Session, it is all one with an Oecumenick-council. All these crotche [...]s are the pillars of your faith, which are worm-eaten proppes, to which I have spoken for­merly in answer to your mentioned re­flection.

20. Ye make Christ as many Bodies a [...] their be administrations of the Sup­per, § 20 Inst. by that your Transubstantiation. Whereas Scripture giveth him but one natural Body, [Page 223] which the Heaven must contain till the re­stitution of all things Act. 3. 21. And we believe in our Creed that he ascended to Heaven, from thence he will come to judge quick and dead. Ye break not the Bread contrar to the Scripture, 1. Cor. 10. 16. Yea, ye deny that Bread is there after the conse­cration, contrar both to sense and reason. And whereas Christ entered within the Vail, not that he should offer himself often. An unbloody sacrifice, expiatory of sin under the Gospel, is contrar to Scripture, Heb. 9. 22. Heb. 9. 25. And by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Heb. 10. 14. Ye make as many bodily offerings of Jesus Christ, both for dead and living, as there be Masses.

Reply, You have many false accusations Papists Reply. as formerly, but no witness or warrand. It is to be altogether ignorant of our terms, to say, that we give Jesus Christ as many Bodies as there be administrations of the Sacra­ment of the Supper. For, as we teach one and the same Body, is given in every one of our ad­ministrations. So we believe that he ascended to Heaven, that the Heaven containeth him, and from thence he shal come to judge the quick and the dead. But we believe also, that he is really present in the Sacrament, in as many places as it is given in. Which you nor [Page 224] any man else cannot shew to imply contradicti­on, and yet ye delude the people, as if there were an impossibilitie in this? When you say we break not the bread, it seemeth you know not how either the bread is broken or given. If we for greater decencie, prepare the bread in a just greatness, for one man before it be gi­ven, so did ye of old cutting it in pieces, albeit now ye break and bite about. What you say in end, of his once offering himself, in a bloody way on the Cross, it is true, but if you understand it in an unbloodie manner, & on the Altar, it is false. Otherwise Christ should not be a Priest for ever after the order of Mel­chisedeck, Psalm. 110. Sir, for all these pas­sages of Scripture which you have cited in thi [...] your eight Answer, which you see make nothing either against us or for you, look to the Touch-stone of the reformed Gospel, and you will see the Scripture altogether ours.

Duply, You pass over all the scriptures, Prote∣stants Duply. which I have cited against Christs corporall presence, or bodily offering, with a strong denyall, calling it a calumnie. Sir, is this right reasoning think you? Sure I am, if whole Christ be corporally present in every sacrament, then when it is administred at Rome, Millan, &c. there be as many bodies there as sacraments. And by this tenet, doe not the words of consecration make Christ [Page 225] on the altar, as wel as by the holy Ghost he was cōceived in the womb of the Virgin? And doth nor his corporall presence take away his ascension, sitting at the right hand of God and his return? because he is bodily already here. He is a Priest for ever, by the infinit vertue of his once offering, which needeth not be repeated, as the Apostle reasoneth well, seeing it is not imperfect, but only ap­plyed by faith, and this is all our salvation. As for the distinction of a bloody, and un­bloody offering, it is a device like the rest of your humane inventions. Shew me scripture for i [...] if you can? This you are bound to do at the least, seeing now we are on scripture arguments, and I brought scripture to the contrar. You call it real presence only, I am for real presence, spiritualities are realities. Your tenet, if you understand it, is corporal presence. See Bell. de Ench. lib. 1. c. 2. & 5. the body of Christ is in the sacrament, with the whole magnitude thereof, and that same bo­dy which is in heaven is on the altar, either then he must have many bodies, or els one body having magnitude and dimensions, must be in many places at once, in heaven and earth both, which is impossible, seeing it implyeth contradiction. Theodoret. dial. 2. against the Eutichian heresie, telleth us, that the sacramentall signes change nor their na­ture, [Page 226] but remaine in their own substance and shape. It is said, Iohn 6. 56. He who eateth my flesh shall live by me. And ye interpret this place of sacramentall eating, ergo, all who take the sacrament shall live according to your glosse. Although Christ had a spiri­tual body after his resurrection, yet he had a true body, because he said to his disciples feel, and see, saith Aug. ad Dardanum ep. 57. Now then he hath true dimensions, and when he appeared to the Apostle Paul going to Damascus, Aquinas thinketh, that for the time he left heaven, Summa q. 57. And when he came in amongst the Disciples, the doors being shut, Theodoret saith, that they made passage for him as their Creator. And the ancient Hierom speaketh with the scrip­ture, that the Angel removed the stone from the grave. Although his risen body be glori­fied, yet it is a real body, and they who are for transubstantiation make it phantastick, without any warrand from the word. For Bellarmin acknowledgeth in the forecited place, that this tenet of corporall presence cannot be clearly proven from scripture, and lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 19. Tollitur verborum Domini obscuritas, per patrum consensum. And Andradius de caena Domini, Licet transubstantiatio ex scriptura probari nequ [...]t tamen fu­ror est non credere ecclesiae hac in [...]e. And Sco­tus [Page 227] lib. 4 dist. 11. uō extat ullus locus scripturae cogens nos admitte e transubstantiationem si­ne ecclesiae declaratione. And addeth that an­te Lateran concilium, non fuit d [...]gma fidei. Further, this taketh away the sutableness be­twixt the sign and thing signified. If tran­substantiation be, the bread and wine nou­rish not the body. How can accidents now­rish the body? How can they be without a subject? How Capernaitan like? can repro­bats ear the body of Christ? You referre me to the Touchstone, I wish rather you had touched pertinently scripture or reason in your answers, then that you should shift sa­tisfaction to the Reader with a reference to a book, which possibly he cannot find, I have seen that alreadie, and an answere to [...]r prin­ted twelve years ago by Dr. Guild who is now at his rest, and his answer is yet unan­swered, if you have time it may be worth the while to peruse it for your conviction. Now I beseech you to lay aside interest, prejudice, passion, and weigh again these twenty scrip­ture-arguments, it may please the Lord to discover how Antiscriptural your way is, who knowes what the Lord may do by weak in­struments, when his word and truth is on their side.

Question ninth, But seeing we mantaine Papists quest. 9 the Apostles Creed, why did ye separat from us?

[Page 228] Answer first, The Apostles creed, com­monly Prote∣stants Ans. 1 so called, is a notable confession, to which we owe all respect, and do make con­stant use of it. Yet your own Lessius de ve­ra fide, in his appendix page 17. sayeth, that symbolum Apostolicum is not sufficient test for knowing a pure Church. Ye know Soci­nians will say it, who are scarce Christians. It mentioneth nothing to be believed con­cerning the fall of man, the worke of con­version, the two sacraments which are seal­ing Ordinances. So it is the whole scripture, which tryeth best Christians and Churches. We did separate because of Idolatrous su­perstitious worship, by setting up Imagerie, which the Lord hateth, Deut. 16. 22.

Secondly, We separat only from these Ans. 2. errours, and cleave to the Scriptures and primitive, pure antiquity.

Thirdly, We were persecuted, fugati fu­imus Ans. 3. non fug [...]mus, what fire, faggot, bell, book, and candle could do, that we endu­red before we break off.

Fourthly, when the light of the Gospel Ans. 4. broke up we had a clear call for separation, Rev. 18. 4.

Reply, In your ninth Answer you say you did cleave to Scripture and pure antiquitie, Papists Reply. and only left our errours. You had said better, that you had left Scripture and pure antiqui­tie, by so doing. For whosoever seperateth [Page 229] from the true Church, which Scripture com­mandith us to hear, leaveth it. But ye were persecuted, this I grant of your first Apostats, Luther for sacriledge in marrying a Nunne vowed to GOD. Calvin for Sodomy burnt on the shoulder, Knox for incest. And so are all knaves, persecuted by laws. Should they then turne out-laws and rebels.

Duply, In stead of refuting our Refor­mation, Prote∣stants Duply. and the reasons of our separation from Rome, you fal on raising without any reason. For Luther, Calvin, and Knox were excellent men of GOD, as their lives and writtings testifie. But if your Popes were such, Platina hath done them wrong. You may say as safely, I am brunt on the shoul­der and have committed incest, there be no more warrand for the one then for the other. And for lawful marriage, I see not what di­vices of men could deny that to any called to it, seeing the Lord granteth the liberty. Stapleton a virulent adversary, yet in this more for the truth then you are, in his pre­face ad autidota Evangelica, speaketh thus of Calvin, Est interpres Scripturae diligens ele­gans & suavis, & Comentarii ejus perutiles sunt. He is far from calling him a knave. Florimond Raymond, de nat. haeres. lib. 7. cap. 10. speaketh thus, Fatendum est Calvi­nuns fuisse ingenio admirando acuto & [Page 230] promptissimo in imaginationibus suis, in con­ceptionibus suis exornatissimo, &c. And for his vindication from these calumnies which you injuriously fixe upon him, read your own Papyrius M [...]ssonius, Elog. par. 2. pag. 431. where his life is set down, and Bolse­cus refuted who was the authour of these lies. If faithful Historians can have any trust with you, these three worthies whom you labour to blot, were as faithful holy Ministers of the Gospel, as lived in the Church for many hundred years formerly. Your own writ­ters blame your Popes and Clergie men, but they were either Apostats or constant ad­versaries who blot Luther and Calvin. It is told by your own that Pope Sixtus the fourth licenced the Cardinal of St. Lucie and his familie to use freely that sin not to be nam­ed, in the three hot moneths of the year. And Johannes a C [...]sa Arch Bishop of Beneventum legat to Pope Julius the third, set forth a book in commendation of Sodomy, there is more warrand for this report then for the Incest of Knox, or Sodomy of Calvin. Yet who will delight to [...]ake in such pudles, chaste eares, should abhore such speaches. Michael the Arch-Angel brought not in time of dispute, a railing accusation against the De­vil; but you spare not to accuse the brethren who are now dead in the Lord, falsely. Is this [Page 231] the right way to promove the truth? Absit. But lies being your refuge, I leave you to the GOD of truth for answer, and shal only take notice that you leave all the four grounds of our seperation from Rome, un­repealed and intire. So by your silence it appeareth we had reason to leave you, for ye Papists hate to be reformed. This your own Espen­caeus re­grateth on chap. 1. to Titus.

Question 10. What call had your Refor­mers Papists qu. 10 to go about such a worke?

Answer, They were Ministers lawfully ordained, the Bishops of England and Doc­tors Prote∣stants Answer. of Germany &c. For Calvin he was thrust forth by Farrel and Virer, and ordained by laying on of the hands of the Presbytry, ac­cording to the rule, 1. Tim. 4. 14. So was our Knox, Wishhart, Willock. &c. They were like Scribes fitted for the kingdom of God, and furnished with things new and old. And being Officers in an army where they did clearly see the captain of salvation in­jured, did lift up their voices like trumpets and shew the people their transgressions, which was the duty of their office according to their oath.

Reply, Ye take your first Ministerial or­dination Papists Reply. from the Bishops of England, Doctors of Germany, and hands of the Presbytry, where by Bishops if you understand Catholick Bishops remaining such, you must understand, they [Page 232] neither could, nor would give any power, to preach against the Catholick Church. No Bi­shop having power to destruction, but to edifi­cation of the Church. As also you must un­derstand, the Catholick Church was yet in her integrity, having lawful Bishops, whom ye should have constantly followed. If Bishops turned Protestants. I ask from whom had they their power, but from the Catholick Church, which no doubt had suspended them in the ex­ercise of their Episcopal function, for their disobedience and separation from her. As for the Doctors of Germany, they might well make Luther a Doctor, but not a lawful Pa­stor or new Apostle, nor could there be a Pres­bytrie of pure reformed Ministers to conse­crat Calvin, he being the first Reformer him­self. For by the word Presbyter, ye under­stand an Elder in the New Testament, and so by the word Presbytrie you must understand a convention of Elders in the Session, which is the first place indeed for a Sodomist, called for setting him on a pillar, rather t [...]en in the Pulpit. But true it is ye had no ordination in the beginning, but every one did preach at his own hand, pretending the goodness of their doctrine, did give them sufficient power and call, as all other Sectaries do commonly in the beginning. Prote∣stants Duply.

Duply, There was a necessity of, Refor­mation [Page 233] pleaded for, by many under the Pa­pall tyrrannie. This was denyed, and school questions made articles of faith, which cau­sed some officers of the house first write a­gainst them, and preach down such prophane errours, as Indulgencies, &c. Now I ask, if the case and exigence be such, whether might not a Popish pastor, by vertue of his ordina­tion, judge himself bound in duty to decrie the sins of the time, and endeavour reforma­tion a [...] Savanorola did? especially seeing e­very ordained man is a pastor of the Catho­lick Church, this is power for edification not for destruction. Admit the Bishops of Eng­land did continue Papall, it was their duty to purifie the worship, throw down Idols &c if they were Reformed, then the more fit were they for reforming others. When Athana­sius separated from the Arrians ceased he to be a Bishop, or was he holden to be silent in his apology to the Emperour, he pleadeth for the contrare. Had not the Doctors of Germany power to preach against Indulgen­cies, and were they not Presbyters also? You bewray your ignorance concerning Calvin, he was not the first reformer, Farrel, Viret, and others were before him, who thrust him out into the worke of the Lord. You have as little skill of Presbytry by taking a Session for it. But it seemeth your mistake hath [Page 234] been studied to vent your malice against Calvin. If ye were as free of superstition and Idolatrie as he was of Sodomy, the offerings of the Lord would not be so injured, nor his Name polluted.

Question eleventh, Ye want uninterrup­ted succession, which the primitive Church Papists qu. 11 claimed still, as appeareth from Aug. contra Cresconium l [...]b. 2. cap. 3. and ep. 48. This was one of the weapons whereby they did b [...]at the Donatists?

Answer, The ground of separation of the Donatists, was the personall vices of men, Prote∣stants Answer not the doctrine professed in the Church. For in that they agreed with the universall Church, as is clear from the above mentio­ned ep. Now we did not separat from Rome, because their Popes (whom they take for a patron) have been Atheists, Hereticks, de­nyers of the soules immortalitie, Whore mon­gers &c. as their own writters confess, in the lives of Silvester 2. Alexander 6. Iohn 22. and many moe, but because ye apostatized from the Apostles doctrine and corrupted the worship miserably, so these testimonies concern not us.

Secondly; If interrupted succession make void the Ministry, ye Papists have none at Ans. 2. all. For ye often had Anti-Popes, and the Councill at Pisa deposed two Popes at once, [Page 235] as Hereticks departing from the faith. The Councill of Constance deposed Iohn 23. for denying the immortality of the soul and the resurrection. Behold then your succession, and the infallibility of your Popes. Eugenius the fourth, was deposed by the Council of Basil; and all the following Popes were his successours, albeit the Council judged Faelix the fifth to be Pope. Yea further, this place hath vaiked for many years together, so that a line of immediat successours cannot be drawn by your selves.

Thirdly, We have a lawful Ministry, as Ans. 3. powerful as the world affordeth, honoured by the blessing of the Lord by begetting souls to himself, and many can from their expe­rience say, that it hath been the power of GOD to their salvation; how then can you challenge our Ministry? Is not this near of kine to that old Anti-Christian question pro­poned to our Master, by what authority dost thou these things? And if personal succes­sion had such weight as you say, the Priest­hood under the law had been at a great loss. For the line of it was interrupted oftner then once before the coming of Christ, yet he com­mendeth submission and obedience to them so long as they did sit in Moses chair, and no further, Matth. 23. 1. So that in Mini­sters it is the Doctrine and not the Genea­logy [Page 236] of persons that is so much regarded.

Reply, In your eleventh Answer, you grant personal vices are not a sufficient ground Papists Reply. of sepa [...]ation from the Church, and say that Protestants did only separat themselves from the worship miserablie polluted, and because the Roman Church had Apostatized from the Apostolick Doctrine. But Sir, let me ask you, when the Catholick Roman Church (which before your Reformation at least was a true Church) Apostatized? And who was a competent judge to declare her Apostacie, and give you leave to separat? Was [...]t Scrip­ture, as according to your first rule you must say? Then I ask if two or three under pre­tence of a Reformation, may adhere to what they think to be in Scripture, against the judgement of the whole Church at that time? Which [...]ssuredly all must grant who teach that the true Church may erre; and so give the same libertie to all Sectaries, which they take so boldly to themselves. But albeit you say, your separation was not from our personal vy­ces, yet you impute in the by going heresie, denying of the souls immortalitie, whore­dom to two or three of our Popes, Silvester the second, Alexander the sixth, John the twenty two. How justly we shal presently see. But however this were true, it could no more wrong the Popes authority in his Canonical [Page 237] decrees, then Davids adultery, or Solomons Idolatrie in penning Scripture. Neither is it a great wonder that amongst 240. Popes, there have been two or three evil. Since even amongst twelve Apostles there was one Judas. Nor do Catholicks canonize all their Popes although for these three whom ye name wick­ed, they have 33. most famous Martyrs and Saints. What ever they teach as privat doctors, as it m [...]keth no law in the Church, so it can­not derogat in the least to their decision, and doctrine as Popes. But to answer for these three, what Martinus Polemius, and the Mag­deburgh say against Silvester the second as a Magician, is known by all the learned to be meer fables, imputed to him for his eminent knowledge and learning in the Mathematicks, which made the ninth Age wherein he lived to call him a Magician, because of its gross ignorance. Alexander the sixth is also blam­ed for lewdness, by no impartial writter. And what Calvin saith lib. 4. instir. against John 22. is known to be errour and lies speaking of him as Pope, whatever was his opinion as a privat Doctor, of the soul before the day of judgement, which he disclaimed to be his at his death, professing and protesting that he had never any belief but that of the Catholick Church, saith John Williams lib. 11. hist. cap. 19. But Hereticks speak of Popes as [Page 238] Rebels of Kings, discontented subjects of Mi­nisters of state, and criminals of their lawful judges, which no wise man will much regard, Then to shew that we have not an uninterrup­ted succession, you speak first of Anti-Popes, as if they did interrupt the succession of Popes more then Usurpers the succession of Kings, Secondly, Of Popes deposed by Councils, but you cannot, instance that any lawful Pope was deposed by any general Council what ever, Thirdly, You say the See of Rome hath vaik­ed for many years. To which I answer, as Kings die not, so neither Popes, as it doth not interrupt the succession of Elective Kings, that after the death of one there be long debate be­fore the Election of another, the royal power then residing in the Electours, so neither inter­rupteth it the succession of Popes and their Election. You speak nothing of your own suc­cession, because ye have none. You bragge much of a powerful Ministrie, but shews no call you had to the Ministrie from GOD, nor his Church, so we had good reason to challenge it, albeit you call this an Anti-Christian que­stion, to ask at new upstarts who pretend to re­forme the Church, who gave you a call? be­cause the Jews had such a question to Christ. But Christ John 15. 24. saith, if he had not shewed himself to be the Son of GOD by his words and works which none else could do, no [Page 239] man had been obliedged to belive him. Yet ye will have us to believe you, are lawful Mini­sters, without succession or a call, and that Luther and Calvin were extraordinarily seal­ed for Reformation, without the least sign, mark, or miracle, shewing that they were sent for that end? So that in Ministers you conclude it is the Doctrine more then the Ge­nealogie of persons, which is so much regar­ded. As if preaching of true doctrine were sufficiant to make a man a Minister without any ordination or call; the Scripture expres­seth another thing saying, how shal they preach except they be sent. And as to seek true suc­cesssion of Bishops and Pastours in the Church from the Apostles and their successours, were to seek their Genealogy and Birth. Such an­swers are made to deceive the ignorants, and to let any rational man know, ye have no law­ful successsion at all, however, ye intrude your selves into the Ministrie upon pretence of doctrine, as all phan [...]ticks and sectaries do.

Duply, Here is multum scribere, and a rabble of ragged discourse to smal purpose, Prote∣stants Duply. passing from Succession, which was the que­stion, to a call which was formerly answe­red. In the first part how poorly plaister you over the crimes of your three Popes, by giv­ing Calvin, and the Magdeburgenses, and the ages wherein they lived the lie. And is this [Page 240] all your vindication of them? That it may appear this covering to be too narrow, for so foule faults, not only have Calvin and the Magdeburgenses said so : but Platina, B [...]r [...] ­nius, Sigonius &c. Are these also lyars? These are not authors like Bolsecus the Apostate, but such as ye will not deny to be credible witnesses, Silvester the 2. lived in the ele­venth Centurie, and not in the ninth as ye mi­stake. Once he was called Gerbert, and stu­died the Mathematicks saith Onuphrius, then turned a consulter with the Devil saith Pla­tina, for instance this is brought, that he en­quired curiously how long he would enjoy the Papacy? And the response he received, was till he laid Masse in Jerusalem. Within four years thereafter, he was saying Masse in the corner of the Ro [...]d-Church which is cal­led Jerusalem, and asking how the Chap­pel was called, it was answered by some Je­rusalem: Then he knew that his death was near, and becoming to be sad, he confessed his sins before many witnesses, whom he ex­horted to bewarre of ambition and com­merce with the Devil. Some say that he de­sired his body to be cutted, and layd on a cart, &c. This his tragedie is recorded also by Polid. Virg. de invent. rerum. lib. 5. Nauclerus vol. 2. gener. 34. If these be your Mathe­ticks I will learne none of them. So it is sure [Page 241] by testimony of your own, that Silvester was a Magician.

Next ye say that John 23. your Pope is wronged by Calvin, for saying that he deny­ed the immortality of the soul, and ye al­leadg [...] what ever was his opinion as a privat Doctor, of the soul before the day of judge­ment yet that he recanted his errour, and died in the faith of the Church. If Calvin wronge him, Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. wrong­eth him also for he saith the Cardinals re­sisted him in this gross tenet; and doth dis­put whither it was heresie, seeing it was not defyned in a Council. Nauclerus saith that many Divines hold this Pope to be an here­tick. And his successor Benedict did publick­ly condemne him and it. Erasmus in his pre­face to the 5. book of Irenaeus, saith, that he laboured to propagat this heresie in France, and being challenged, was compelled to re­cant, which he did coldly saith Nauclerus. Had [...]o [...] Calvin then reason to say, that this Pope was heretical? Otherwise why was he put to recantation?

Thirldy, Ye say that Alexander the 6. was blamed by no impartial writter. Was not Guic [...]ardine Guice. lib. 1. impartial? What think ye of Phil. de Comin. Phil. de Bello. Neap. was he partial also? They give us this relation that he came by bribes to the chair. And when Charles the 8. intended [Page 242] warre against the Turke, the Pope adverti­sed Bajazet, and promised for a sūme of mo­ney to make a stop to the expedition, which the Turke undertook to pay. Was not this a holy Father? Further, Onuphrius telleth that he was much given to whoredom, and did beget four sons and two daughters, whom he avouched. His familie was stained with incest. So that a Poet in these times did write this Epitaphe on his daughter;

Hoc jacet in tumulo, Lucretia nomine, sed re

Thais, Alexandri filia, nupta, [...]urus.

His death was tragical, for having pre­pared a bottel of poysoned wine, for some whom he invited to dinner, was poysoned therewith by the ignorance of his Cup-bearer, and fell into the ditch which he prepared for others; his candle was thus put out, and he left an unsavoury snuffe behinde him, as his Epitaphe witnesseth, written by Ia. San­nazarius, who when he hath mentioned his many faults (into which pudle I love not to raike) shutteth up all with this,

Then you reflect upon the society of the A­postles, where there was one Judas. But when [Page 243] he fell did he not cease to be an Apostle, and fall from his Ministrie? But your Popes con­tinued such till their death infallible; and they erred as men, but not as Popes. This could not be said of Iudas though once an Apostle. They are liker to Iudas then any of the rest of the Apostles. But to make such a head of Christs Church upon Earth is a strange paradox. O but ye say, David and Solomon fell, yet were pen­men of holy Scripture. Ans. They penned no Scripture while in that state. I hold the Negative you are bound to prove the Affir­mative, but will never do it. Their repen­tance was more then ordinar, witness Psal, 51. and the book of Ecclesiastes. O if your Popes had a grain weight of their repentance, soon would we hear other language from them and you. Then you say, that Hereticks speak evil of your Popes, as criminal persons do of a judge. Was Platina a criminal per­son or heretick, and yet he marketh eminent vice [...] in more then 33. Popes. Read him and resent your expressions, or refute him as ye do Calvin with a broad lie and no more. You put us to it to tell the time when Rome became Idolatrous and vitious in the wor­ship, &c. Which was the ground of our se­paration. This belongeth to the former que­stion. Yet to this I say with reverend and learned Bishop Usher, Rome was not built in [Page 244] a day, nor the great dung-hill of errors which now we see raised in it in an age, therefore it is a vain demand.

Secondly; There be a difference betwixt open Heresies which oppose the foundation, Prote∣stants Duply. 2 and Apostacie which the Spirit hath evident­ly foretold, should be brought in by these who speak lies in hypocrisie. 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. The impiety of the one is notorious, the o­ther mysterious as the Apostle re [...]eth it, 2. Thess. 2. 7. they who watched against the one, might sleep while the seeds of the other were in sowing, or peradventure might have a finger in bringing in this Trojan-horse under the name of devotion.

Thirdly, Albeit we cannot [...]ell day & place, when and where errours did at first beginne, yet that will not make errour truth. The Dup. 3. S [...]ddueces taught their was no Resurrection, nor Angels, can any man tell under what High Priest this errour was broached? Shal it be a truth for that? So ye have damnable errours, but when the first seed was [...]owne of these t [...]res, probably men sleeped, and an ad­versary hath done it. Your Anti-Popes made an interruption of succession and possession, otherwise their work was non ens. If so, then where is your uninterrupte I succession? And if it be nor such, you speak nothing to the point. You say, I cannot instance that any [Page 245] lawful Pope was deposed by a Council. I hold no Pope lawful, and your School-men say, the Council cannot depose a Pope, so it is an unlawful sentence. But seeing it appear­eth you are of the contrar mind, I produced the instance of Eugenius the fourth, depo­sed by the Council of Basil, and all the Popes were his successours, albeit the council judged Falix the 5. to be Pope. But after your man­ner, you pass with silence, what you have not mind for. You say vacancy for many years maketh no interruption, because the Pope is like an elective King, and the power in the interim continueth in the Electours. This is loose language, for once ye make the Popes like the Kings of the Nations against Matth. 20. 25. then ye make no inter-Reg­num, but seat the power in the Electours. If so, the power is not of GOD but of man, contrar to Scripture, Iohn 19. 11. Rom. 13. all that Electours have is the application. And if it be theirs originally, then they may depose a Pope by the Conclave. For ejusdem est author are & exauthorare. That saying the King dieth not, is meaned of hereditary Kings. The Pope is not such, and you will not say it. For Elective Kings, the Kingdom by his death wanteth a King, as a Burgh doth a Provost. If then the seat of the Pope vaiked so long the Church was headless for many [Page 246] years. How make you out then the line of uninterrupted succession? You come over again upon the call of our Reformers, to which I answered formerly, that o [...]r Ministers are called of GOD, is proved by the success which some of them had in converting, con­firming, convincing souls, see Ier. 23. 32. they who runne unsent profit not at all, but they have edified many and turned them from darkness to light. We say not that the call of Luther and Calvin was immediat, and wholly extraordinar. But admit it were so, it needed not miracles; for the Baptist wrought no miracles, yet was called extraordina­rily. What our Lord Jesus and the Apostles did that way, are ours for use, and aggrava­teth the sin of those who will not believe Gospel truths. The place cited by you I [...]. 15. implyeth no more, yet it is well known that Luther, Calvin, Knox, Wishart, Welsh, Davidson, were more then ordinar men, and had the spirit of prophecie in some measure. But we will not lay weight on these things, seeing we have a more sure word of prophe­cie, to which we are bound to take heed. And this doth warrand us to purge out the old leaven with both out hands, that we may become a new lump. And no more is design­ed by our Reformation.

To conclude this then, Our first Refor­mers [Page 247] had as lawful ordination, as the Ro­man Kirk could give them. And this is a strong argument ad hominem. Secondly, The power which that ordination gave them, you say was to edification, we are perswaded they made use of that in a Scripture way, and edified more in one year then ye did in ma­ny. If any man called to the work of the Gospel oppose the errours of many, can that strengthen Sectaries? Did not Paphnutius oppose a whole Council, and was commen­ded for it, because he walked according to the rule, and had Scripture on his side? Did not Athanasius oppose the whole world, almost turned Arrian, and who ever blamed him for so doing? The case is the same, these called men adhered to the divine commission and opposed the errours of Popery. Their praise therefore must be in all the Churches of Christ.

Question twelfth. Ye are so broken amongst Papists Quest. your selves, that ye look not like the primitive Christians, who had one heart and way?

Answere first, Our breaches are our bur­den before the Lord, and a stroak upon us, for Prote∣stants Ans. 1 the abuse of that great Gospell-light, under which we have long lived, but not for com­ing out of Babylon.

Secondly, Ye Papists are more divided, Ans. 2. for we all agree in doctrine and essentials, but [Page 248] ye skirmish about that so frequently, that if the [...]udgment of the Roman Church be the sentence of your Church, it is hard to know what people shall doe, tyed to beleeve as your Church doth. For sometime the Councill is put above the Pope, sometime the Pope a­bove the Councill. The pragmatick sanction of France is allowed and subscrived by many, cryed down by others. Some will have a di­vine predetermination on the will, others on­ly morall swasion. Some are for mediat con­course of the first cause with the second, o­thers for immediat. If Unity be a convertible note of the Church, ye are none.

Thirdly, Perfect Unity in all things, is not to be expected here, so long as we know but Ans. 3. in part. 1. Cor. 13. 9. If whereto we have at­tained we walk by the same rule, the Lord will reveal more to us in due time. Phil. 3. 16. If any should have said that the Church of Corinth was not true because of some divi­sions, or that therfore these of Corinth should return with the foolish Galatians to the co­venant of workes, it had been a Solecism in reason, yet no greater then this, to alleadge that some differences make us no Church.

Reply, In your 12. Answer, you grant your breaches amongst your selves, as your burthen for the abuse of pure Gospel light. How can Papists Reply. ye all agree in Doctrine, except in so far as [Page 249] the abuse of the Gospel, which is (to say true) all the unity ye have. Neither is it wonder ye do nor agree, seeing ye do not acknowledge the high Bishop successour to St. Peter, who as Hierom saith, was chosen for this amongst the twelve, that a head being constitute, the occa­sion of Schism might be taken away. Secondly, You pretend that Catholick Romans are more divided then ye, because sometime the Council is put above the Pope, sometime the Pope above the Council. But find you this as an article of the Catholick Church? What ever hath been the opinion of sacred men, yea of Fathers and Councils thereanent, yet they were never con­firmed nor owned by the Church for an Oecu­menick decree. And suppose both sentences were decided, it is easily answered, that the Pope is approved to be above a Council not approved by himself, and a Council approved by a Pope is above a Pope alone, wherein there is no disagreement or contradiction. As for the pragniatick Sanction, as it hath no reference to matters of faith, so it maketh nothing for your purpose, no more then praedetermination, seeing all Catholicks who hold it, think it tak­eth not away free-will. But then you say, per­fect unity in all things is not to be expected here. So ye shew your selves conscious enough of your own divisions: and if you understand it in matters of faith, it is a blasphemy against [Page 250] Gods word, which saith that there be but one GOD, one Faith, one Baptism. If one faith, then no division of faith, without which no u­nity can consist. So judge you if it be not on­ly a solecism in reason as you speak; but also in belief to joyn with the Grecians in Confes­sion of Faith, albeit they deny the procession of the Holy Ghost which ye believe, or with the Lutherians, who hold the real presence of Christs body in the Sacrament, which ye flatly deny.

Duply, You grant that the Pope accord­ing to Hierom was first chosen, that the oc­casion Prote∣stants Duply. of Schism might be taken away. Then it is clear that the Pope is not Dominicae di­spositionis, and that Hierom nor the Fathers did ever dream of his Monarchical Empire, as Casaubon ad Barronii Annales, proveth well Exercit. 15. A Prolocutor is the most they give to the Apostle Peter, they call him [...] aut [...], this will not make a Pope, so by adhereing to Hierom, you destroy the Pope. And not only was he of this opinion, but your own Medina telleth us, de sacrorum hominum origini: that Am­brose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Sedulius, Primasius, mantained the same. And it is clear that Augustin in quaest. Veteris & Novi Testament, quaest. 101. homologa [...]h all this. I'le help you further herein, to shew that I am no adversary to [Page 251] truth. Gregory the Pope prophecied, that whoso counted himself universal Bishop was Anti-Christ. And writting to John Patriarch of Constantinople, epist. 38. lib. 4 who did usurpe that tittle, he calleth him Rex super­biae. Which title Boniface did take on after­wards, by Phocas means who killed his Ma­ster Mauritius, and fulfilled the prophecie of Gregorie. Neither John Patriarch of Constan­tinople, nor Boniface excluded other Bishops, as Esthius laboureth by this reply to make evasion. For both in the Eastern and West­ern Churches at that time there were Bi­shops whom they acknowledged such. But he is universal Bishop according to Gregorie, who layeth claim to the universal supremacy and extolleth himself above all, as the Pope now doth in the Church at Rome. I shal shut up this answer, with that famous consi­deration of Bernard to Pope Eugenius the 4. which words Antonius de Dominis Arch Bi­shop of Spalato, citteth for refutation of the Popes supremacie, Politia Ecclesiast. lib. 5. cap. 2. the words are these, Hoc quod habuit Petrus hoc dedit, solicitudinem quippe super Ecclesias, Dominationem nunquam, audi ip­sum, non Dominantes inquit in clerum, 1. Peter 5. 3. Et ne dictum sola humilitate, non ettam veritate videatur, vox Domini est in E­vangelio. Reges Gentium Dominantur vos [Page 252] non lic. I ergo [...]u inquit & aude tibi usurpa­re Apostolicus Dominatum aut Dominant Apostolatum, plane ab alterutro prohiberis. This was written in the 12. Centurie, and is a full testimonie, proving that Bernard thought not Papal jurisdiction of divine appoint­ment. Now sir, did you nor palpablie con­tradict your self here, when formerly you e­qualized your Pope to Prophets, Apostles, and made your universal High-Bishop jure Divino, by saying that the evil of Schism occasioned his election at first; if so, it is juris humani at best, and thus you agree with Hierom.

Secondly, You would father a contradi­ction on me, because I regrate our rents, pro­ceeding from the evil use of Gospell-light, as if we held not one confession of faith. A child may conceive, that the abuse of Gospel-light, supposeth the light, but it is evil used practically, and this maketh our breaches in other things. It is beyond controversie, that the nationall stroaks under which we groan▪ have chiefly proceeded from the evil use of the Gospell. Light hath come amongst us, but we have walked in darkness. Will it therefore follow that we are not one dogma­tically in the orthodox confession of faith. Where is this consequence founded? Nei­ther doth the Popedome cure rents, but ra­ther [Page 253] make them. Experience proveth this cure to be the fomenter of the disease. For since his usurpation, moe controversies have been started in the Christian Church then for­merly were heard. And if this wer the cure, it is admirable, that whē the case was in Corinth there is no mention of that [...].

Thirdly, You deny that it hath been the sentence, or deeree oecumenical that the Councill was above the Pope. Was it not expresly defined by the Councill of Basil, and doth not the 15 Act of the Councill of Chal­cedon say that the Roman Church hath no pri­viledge above others from Christ. But the reason why at any time they had it, was be­cause it was the seat of the Roman Empire, and that the Bishop of Constantinople hath e­quall priviledges with the Pope. Doe not all your Sorbonists preferre the councill to the Pope? and all your Jesuits the Pope to the Councill? Where is your Unitie then? for as Bellarmin saith, In hoc consistit summa rei, viz. [...]n the Popes infallible universall supre­macie, without which there is no salvation to be [...]ad. Also ye make it a fundamental ar­ticle of your Creed, which is more then the opinion of privat Doctours. And the very truth is, it is the foundtion and key-stone of Popery. Quo sublato omnia corruunt, as he saith there in his Preface to the Treatise, de [Page 254] summe Pontisice. De qua re agitur cum de pri­matu Pontisicis agitur? Breviter respondeo, de summa rei, id enim quaeritur, debe [...]tne Eccle­sia duitius consistere, an vero dissolvi & con­cidere. Then ye betake your self to this hold, that the Pope is above a Council not ap­proved by himself, and the Council approveed by him above the Pope. But as I said be­fore, this giveth no more to a Council then to a Session, for if the Pope approve that, it is above his own single approbation, in re­gard of the additamēt to it. The only question is when they differ, whose sentence is to be preferred? And about this ye differ much amongst your selves, consequently in funda­mentals, for this is caput rei.

Fourthly, You quarrel with us for saying that perfect unity in all things is not to be expected here. And yet it is express Scrip­ture, 1. Cor. 13. 9. Phil. 3. 15. founded upon experience. How then call you it blas­phemie? Unitas in fundamentalibus, libertas in supra fundamētalibus & charitas in omnibus, is a saying much commended by many; and did we blaspheme by uttering this golden sentence? We are in charity with the Lu­theran and Greek Church because they hold the same rule with us, viz, the Scripture. The Reformed Churches have a body of Confessions, in which they have Concord, and [Page 255] we in this Church have one Catechism, and one Confession of Faith, in which we all a­gree. But to think that because of some other differences, we are not for one GOD, one Faith, one Baptism, it is absurd to speak so.

Question thirteenth, May there not as yet Papists qu. 13 be an accommodation and union betwixt you and us?

Answer, Will ye be like the Church at Rome, to which the Apostle Paul did w [...]ite Prote∣stants Ans. 1 his Epistle, we will presently accord with a­ny prosessing that faith, and not destroying it, by contradicting consequences and practi­ces. But ye are no more like that Church of Rome, except in name, then a strumpet is like to a Virgin. The Epistle to the Romans is now against the Romans, witness, the point of Justification, and subjection to the higher powers.

Secondly, Will ye take the Scripture for the only rule of faith, worship and manners? We differ from none such. But ye regard 2 not the Scripture so much as your own tra­ditions. For ye fainzie that it is imperfect, obscure, & must have an authoritie from your word, otherwise that it is not to be believed.

Thirdly, Those who have intended that work, have lost their labour and thanks at all 3 hands; as Cassander, Antonius de Dominis, Barnesius, Forbesius. What agreemēt can the [Page 256] Temple of God have with Idols: 2. Cor. [...]. 14.

Reply, In your 13. Section, you answer to a Papists Reply. Question which no Catholick would have made, if ye understand by an accommodation betwixt you and us, such as are in Scottish Trysts. We granting something to you, and ye something to us. For as to gain the whole world, a man should not lose his own soul, so▪ neither can be quyt one article of his faith, without which it is impossible to please God. But your way be­ing better, asking only two conditions to make this so much desired agreement. The first is, if ye will be like that Church of Rome, to which the Apostle Paul did write his Epistle: And the second is, that we will take scripture for a rule. We most willingly grant you both, not taking scripture as every bungler who wresteth it, but according to the exposition of the Church and the unanimous consent of the fathers. Ap­point the meeting where ye please on these terms. He challenge no moe calumnies on this Question, seeing now we are in terms of agree­ment, having sufficiently confuted them before.

Duply, You say no Catholick would have moved the question. Are ye n [...] for unitie in the Lord amongst all Christians: where is Prote∣stants Duply. 1 your charitie now: I remember you said once nothing here was mentioned by me, but what was mentioned by others, but now you graunt this hath nor come to your ears for­merly, [Page 257] this is strange. Have you not seen Grotius and de Sancta Clara? who move the same wheel. At first you seem to be against all accommodation, asmuch as against all re­formation. You cannot quite on article, not unum jot a saith Bellarmin, otherwise your Church might be declared fallible : therefore such as hanker after reconciliation with you, unless they mind to come up your length, will prove fools in the end, and lose all their la­bour. Yet on a sudden you forget your self, accepting of these terms offered, but in re­petition you embezle them unfaithfully.

For first, will ye be like that Church, to which the Apostle Paul did writ in point of justification by faith, and subjection to the Ma­gistrat? These two you leave out, being conscious that ye are contrar to divine di­rection in both these. And how cometh it to pass, that when the Apostle chap. 16. sa­luteth so many Saints at Rome, he omit­teth the Pope? If he was then head of the Church, and maketh no mention of his su­premacie, nor of their subjectiō to him, which is summa rei, one of your fundamentals, see­ing chap. 13. he ordained them for conscience sake to be subject to Nero. The world may see that the Apostle Paul hath been no Papist.

Secondly, When you propound the second condition, it is propounded lame, barely, [Page 258] you say, that ye hold the Scripture for a rule [...] but I said for the only rule of faith, worship, and manners. Hold that, then ye renounce traditians in matters of faith, for the law of the Lord is perfect, Ps. 19. The Popes infal­libility, and unive [...]sal supremacie; your latine worship, communion under one kind, prayers to Saints, and for the dead, Purgatory, all which are clearly confuted by Scripture. So if ye do not adhere to these conditions, the meeting will be to smal purpose where ever it be appointed. Justin Martyr Expos. recta fidei, saith. Amongst the children of the Church, matters divine must not be ordered and direct­ed according to mens reason and thoughts, but our speach and interpretation of them, should be sitted to the sense and will of the Spirit of GOD. Basil in Exercit. de Fide. It is a ma­nifest defection from the faith, and a clear evi­dence of pride, either to reject any of these things which the Scripture contain, or to bring in (as a point of faith) any thing which is not written in the word; and he citeth that of our blessed Lord, Iohn 10. 5. My sheep hear my voice, a stranger they will not hear but flee from him. Hilar. lib. 1. de Trinit. when we speak of divine matters let us give to GOD the knowledge of himself, and let us with all veneration follow his sayings, for he is a me [...]t witness to himself, who is not known but by [Page 259] himself,) Aug. lib. 6. Conf. cap. 5. (Thou hast persw [...]ded me O GOD, that not these men who believe these books which thou in all Ages hast founded upon thy authority, are to be blam­ed, but such as believe them not, neither are they to be heard.) If any perchance should say to me, whence knowest thou these books, to have been ministred to man-kind by the Spirit of the one and most true GOD, even that very same thing was mostly to be belie­ved. Aug. lib. 2. de Baptismo. contra Dona­tist as, (Let us not bring false ballance [...] where­in we may weigh what we will, and as we will, according to our own arbitriment, saying, this is heavy, that is light, but let us bring the divine ballance out of the holy Scriptures, as the Lords treasurie, and let us weigh in it what is more heavy and weighty. Yea, let us not weigh only, but also acknowledge scriptu­val truths to be weighed and determined alrea­die by the Lord. Si Scriptura habeat contro­versiam ex eadem Scriptura, adhibitis ejus testibus termin [...]tur. Aug. de doctr. Chr. lib. 3. cap. 28. Papists Quest. 14

Question fourteenth, We are still gai [...]ing Proselyts from you, but few turne off from us, and become members of your Church?

Answere, Your pelf and policie is greater Prote∣stants Ans. 1 then ours, hereby simple soules are ensnared.

Secondly, Ye give indulgencies for loose­ness, [Page 260] this catcheth prophaine ones who love to live at random, but without some such car­nall design or prejudice, we hear not that any turn off from us.

Thirdly, Have not sundrie left Rome in 3 the integrity of their heart, and closed with naked persecuted truth in our Church, as the Marques of Galeacia. Mr. Smeton, &c. yea, sundry have gone to Rome & been converted, by taking a distaste at their worship and way.

Fourthly, Our run awayes, runagads, have to mourn before the Lord for their Aposta­cie, 4 seeing they cannot deny, that the Ordi­nances in our Church have been by the Lords blessing instrumental to beget children to God. This they must graunt, unless they will say, that all the reformed Church is un­converted, which they have no confidence to averre. Now how gross is it to spit in the face of her who did bear and foster them, which I wish the Lord may lay to the con­sciences of such revolters. But not to insist further, I desire you in the fear of God to pause and consider well, whether you are go­ing to heaven or hell? and by what rule you walk? If the will of man, or the revealed will of God, have the power of your consciences? or whether it be safer, to take the scriptures way, in which the Prophets and Apostles walked to heaven, or the way of your own [Page 261] traditions and vaine inventions? He who walketh according to the scripture rule, peace and mercy shall be upon him, and upon the Israell of God.

Reply, In your last answer you say, our Papists Reply. pelf and policie is greater then yours, both which I grant, but glories in neither. Yet if Ministers augmentations hold on, they will shortly equal our pelf, but not our Christian policit, in employing it so well; our glorious and goodly edifices of Churches, Hospitals, Mo­nasteries, dispersing and distributing their rents to pious uses. But the thrusting down of Chur­ches, Hospitals, Monasteries, dispersing and dissipating their rents, testifie your want of policy, blind avarice & mad passion. Secondly, You say, we give indulgencies for looseness, as if in Catholick times, there had been greater looseness then since the Reformation. Whereas the keeping of Lent, and Fasting dayes were abolished, Pennance and satisfaction for sin taken away, Celibacie in Church men thought a crime, Laicks allowed after divorcement to marry, all good works thought impossible, the Commandments thought impossible to be keep­ed, and that men sin of necessity in their best actions, which, as it excuseth all wickedness and sin; so it giveth way to all looseness and pro­phainness. Thirdly, You say, many quit Rome in the integrity of their heart, such as the [Page 262] Marquess of Galeacia, and closed on their pe­ril with naked truth in your Church. To which I answer, that all Hereticks and Schismaticks have quit Rome not in the integritie of their heart, but in the blindness of their mind, and that with their own peril, eternal damnation, closing with a very naked faith and Religion, not well cloathed with the least colour of truth, but not with naked faith or belief, which Ca­tholicks confidently and constantly assert, what ever you say to the contrar. And it is no where else to be found, for they know there is but one faith, and one GOD, and one true Church. Consequentlie united in the same faith, in all which points as she was established by Christ and his Apostles, hath continued since their time visible in her Pastours and People in all Ages, holy and incorrupted in her Doctrine, religious in her Sacraments and ceremonies, powerful and glorious in her wonders and mi­racles, conversion of Infidels, in the which the holy Fathers have lived, and all true Mar­tyrs have died. Which only all new upstarts and Sects do persecute and oppose, as Protestants at this day, under the pretence of Reformation, and upon the same ground of wresting Scrip­ture, against the common consent of the Church and Fathers with them. For as all divisions in Christianity have been from the Roman Ca­tholick Church, so all have turned both their [Page 263] armes and pennes chiefly against her, but in vain, she is builded on a rock, against which the gates of hell shal not prevail against her. And so, who return from you to her, are nei­ther run-awayes nor run-agads, as you call them, but like the forlorn child, or lost sheep return'd. Whose example undoubtedly many more would follow, if they would consider, Faith without unity amongst Protestants, a Church without a Head, a Body without u­nited Members, a Law without a Judge, a Temple without an Altar, Religion without Sacrifice, Divine service without Religious ceremonies, Sacraments which do not san­ctifie, Doctrine without infallibility, Belief without a ground, Preachers without a call, Commandments impossible to be keeped, Exhortation to what is not in our power, Reprobation without workes, Reward with­out Merits, Sin punished where there is no Free-will, Scripture received or rejected u­pon the catalogue of the Jewes, GODS word patched up by men, Reformation without authority, New-lights against old received ve [...]i [...]ins, the Privat-spirit against the whole Church, single mens opinions against the unanimous consent of the Fathers, in a word, wavering Pastours, unsetled Government, unstable Faith. In the post-script there be a parallel patched about our Reformations, which [Page 264] being composed of the gall of bitterness, with­out verity or reason, deserveth no answer, but that which Hezekiah commanded. Is. 36. 21.

Duply, You graunt that ye are rich and politick, this is true, there is much prophain Prote∣stants Duply. 1 policie, where Jesuited equivocation is man­tained. But tell me if this be like the Godly sinceritie, and Gospell simplicitie, which was the old Apostolick way, and ground of their rejoicing. 2. Cor. 1. 12. If ye exceed us in sumptuous buildings (which politickly you mistake for the policie mentioned by me) though your pelf be greater then ours, we want not Hospitalls, Bridges, Temples, accor­ding to our abilitie. But what is that to the doctrine which is according to Godliness? The Turks exceed you as farre that way as ye doe us. And the Temple of Diana at Ephe­sus exceeded you and them also.

Secondly, You deny that Poperie foste­reth prophanness, but it is too apparent, and Duply. 2. how can it be otherwise? If indulgencies bought and sold like an horse in a market, tend not ex natura operis, in it self, to make men loose and prophane, let any sober man judge. For thus may they reason, shall I quite my lusts for a little money, I know what will do the bussines, and put me in favour with God. Why should I pluck out my right eye and cut off my right hand, when a little time [Page 265] in pu [...]gatorie will do the turne, and a soule­masse, which I can have for the Legacie of a summe of money will free me thence. But we with the scripture, forbid men to deceive themselves, for they who do such things shall not it herit the kingdom of heaven. So with us, nothing less will satisfie then Gospell re­pentance, and the least ground of hope is not granted to those hereafter, who turne not a­way hore from their iniquities. How can this be denyed, seeing your latest Casuists, such as Escobar, Busenbaius and Diana the Sicilian, have purposly devised latitudes for rendring prophane men secure about Duells, Sodomy, and other acts of uncleanness, which would make chaste ears to [...]ingle. And that men who in hainously are not bound to repent imediatly, as it is fully proved by Reverend & Learned Mr. MENZIES in his Papismus Lucifugus pag. 158. to 169. And when it is defended, that minus probabile, may be chosen although it have no ground in scripture, con­trar to more probable grounds, and the stream of Doctors, doth not this open a door to make the may of Christianity broad? whereas the scripture calleth it strait and narrow. Thus ye gaine proselites. And it is observable that man [...] loose livers in the land, who are adver­sarie [...] to the power and puritie of Religion, & hate to be reformed, do encline to Popery. [Page 266] And to me it is not minus probabile, that it is only upon this account. We are not against fasting, chastity, mortification. Nor do we say, that men sin not willingly, or that good workes are impossible, yea we hold them ne­cessar to salvation. Only we deny that faln man can be justified by the workes of the law, otherwise we needed not a Saviour not a Gospell-remedy. It is your ordinar way to mistate questions and then intend a skirmish which is easie work; this is a sinfull and shallow evasion.

Thirdly, You fall out with bauling expres­sions, which rational men cannot value much 3 and sco [...]fe at these worthies, who did take their lives in their hands, and closed with persecuted truth, neither for gaine nor for honor, but for conscience sake. Was not this a commendable duty? If self denyall be not a chief ingredient in Christian performances I know not the Gospell. You assert that it was blindness not integrity. I averse, it was integrity and not blindness; Who art thou that judgest another mans servant? remember thou shalt be judged. You talk much concerning the authority and unity which is amongst you but some who were at Rome, and have come not long ago from you to us againe, tell, what sort of integritie, puritie and chastitie is a­mongst you. So it is no wonder albeit many [Page 267] tongues and penn [...] be employed to pull down that whorish Babell, which ye call Zion.

Fourthly, You imply that none can be sa­ved 4 but such as are subject to the Pope. Therefore our run-awayes must nor be apo­stats with you; for they are Prodigals re­turned, and lost sheep found. When I pray you went they from you to us? Were they not baptized in our Church, and partakers of all ordinances with us till of late? Then I pose you and them again, whither ye damn all who are not Popish, and judge them un­converted? If they be Hereticks, in your sense this must follow. Yet you have nor the confidence to speak it directly. And sure I am, Scripture requireth not subjection to the Pope, as an article of the Creed. If without this [...] man cannot be saved, albeit he believe, and live like the Gospel, the Apostle Paul was no chosen Vessel, which is contrar to Scripture; there was no Pope in his dayes, nor long after that. Your Church hath been visible by bell, book, and candle, fire, fag­got, pomp, policie. Your Pastours are more for the fleece then the flock. Ye are superstitiou [...] by addition, substractiō, multiplication, without any warrand. Your Ceremonies are partly Paganish, partly Jewish, and for the most Schismatick, so not religious nor vene­rable. Your miracles & wōders are such, that [Page 268] it is good for you to have them wrought in America, and told in Europe. Like are ye to him who cometh with lies and wonder [...], 2. Thess. 2. 9. Your conscience can witness what Leger-demain is in these. And it is our way to try miracles by the Scripture. I wish In­fidels were converted to the Christian faith, and not to a faction. By the Scripture, no [...] by fopperies and military Compulsators. Stephen, the Apostles, and some primitive Fathers were Martyrs, but they died not in the Romish Faith as it is now mantained. And how can your Church be called Catho­lick, which is a particular one, wherein be many dissenters? It is not strange to us al­beit ye indulge them who runne away, and Apostatize from us, but it is strange why they have done so, and what hath sascinated them to burst all bonds and swallow on a sud­den the whole bulk of Popery. It requireth an Ostrich stomach to digest such iron. Where in did Gospel-truths, Gospel-worship, or their mother and nurse weary them, testifie against her if they can?

Fifthly, You say, we have Faith without u­nity, then you grant us faith, and our unity 5 in fundamentals is more then your own. A Church without a head. We acknowledge no Pope head of our Church, Christ is our head, and the visible Government of the Church [Page 269] is Aristocratical, not Monarchical, the mysti­cal Members of his Body are united in him; so we are not a body without united members. Neither want we a Judge in controversal matters. It is known that many points of Christianity cannot be judged by r [...]en, be­cause the Kingdom of Grace is within us, and consisteth not in meat or drink but righ­teousness, peace, and joy in the holy Ghost, Rom. 14. 17. Who will say that the hidden man in the heart, can be cognosced by any external living judge on earth? The spiritual man [...]udgeth all things, but he himself is judg­ed of no man, 1. Cor. 2. 15. The written word is the rule of this and other such cases. For other matters we have Councils, and Church Rule [...]s appointed by the supream Judge, who are bound to discern according to Scripture, and all are appointed to obey them in the Lord; so, we have not a Law without a Judge. The golden Altur is our Altar, we have sa­crifices of Prayer and Praises, and one living sacrifice is better then many carcases, that is reasonable service, Rom. 12. 1. Then we have order and decencie, and such positives as set forth the worship in a Gospel way, with­out p [...]mpous observation therefore we lack not an Altar, Sacrifices, and Ceremonies in such manner as Gospel-work under the New Testament requireth. Our Sacraments are [Page 270] instruments to seal and sanctifie, our rule is infallible, for it is Scripture; the grounds of our faith are such as will not make us asham­ed, for we have his revealed will and word for it. Therefore it is a calumny to say, we have Sacraments which do not sanctifie, Doctrine without infallibility, and Belief with­out a ground. If our Preachers had runne unsent, the Lord had not sealed their Mini­strie with such success, Ier. 23. 32. It may be spoken without vanity, to the praise of free-grace, that there be many real, sincere, serious, solid Christians in BRITTAIN. Blessed be the Lord, we go not without our Cō ­verts who can speak with any adversary in the gate. And they will and do bless our Ministry upon the brink of eternity, which hath been the power of GOD to their Salvation. So our Ministry is not without a call; we say not that any divine command is in it self impossible to be keeped, but that fallen man through his own fault is imperfect in obedience, and without Christ can do nothing. Iohn 15, 5. If you say more speak it out, for it will be plain Pelagianism. Exhorrations and com­munications are means to make us willing and obedient. It is not in our power to think a good thought as of our selves, dare you de­ny this? Why then fall you fondly on us speaking with the Scripture? Luke 17. 10. By grace we are saved freely, through faith [Page 271] and eternal life is the gift of GOD, the re­ward is a free remuneration, and may be without our merits; we grant free-will in Augustins sense, and Jansenius proveth that this is, true liberty, by arguments which were never yet answered. But we do disclaim Je­suitical indifferencie, because it taketh away divire providence, the power of grace; and sette [...]h up anti-providences from the will of man. Because we sin willingly, who can deny that we are punished justly? Neither take we the Scripture Catalogue from the Iewes: but make use of reason, testimonies from old Writters, universal consent, to be a porch for e [...]trie to the knowledge of the numerick controversie, and how can you say so of our Catalogue, seeing we mantain no book to be Scripture, but such as ye allow. And are ye not helped by the Jewes herein as wel as we? Only we lay that the authority of the Scrip­ture, dependeth not on humane testimonie, as upon its principal foundation, nor yet u­pon unwritten tradition: because divine faith must be begotten by a divine testimonie. And we believe the Scriptures authority and truth side l [...]ina, because the Lord hath spoken it. In this true faith must be finally resolved, else it is not divine. It is a calumny to say, we patch the Word, seeing we make Scripture the only rule of our faith. There be none in the [Page 272] Christian Church, who adde such patches to the word of GOD as ye. Our Reformation had authority both from Heaven and men on earth. The Lawes of the Land can restifie this, which are yet in vigor for it and against you. And there may be new light in time of darkness, which was formerly dimmed or put out, which light is the good old light, pro­ceeding from the Father of lights. If ye con­demned this, the world should have still con­tinued Arrian, when it was over-clouded with it: and all Reformation even the Scrip­ture one is unlawful, see you not your ab­surdity here? Yea, it was prophesied, Dan. 12. 4. that in the latter times knowledge should encrease, and light also be extended; but light without verity deserveth not the name. Privat men have the liberty of dis­cerning allowed to them, Acts 17. 11. 1. Io. 4. 1. Yea, such may have publict spirits and be called to publict employments. But what you mean by this I conceive not. For the Gospel worship which we mantain hath the consent of all the Scriptures, Churches, and primitive Fathers, as is formerly proved to the full: We wish the hearts of all our Pastors may be established by grace, that they may be subjected to him who hath the govern­ment on his shoulder, and by their faith working by love, glorifie the chief Shepheard [Page 273] of the stock. We will not recriminat ralling for railing, but it were easie to shew, Ye have a Church composed state-wayes, Your policie devou [...]eth all p [...]ty; Your superstitious vowes against marra [...]ge all chasti­ty; Your impeaching of the Scriptures, all divine verity; Your blind allegiance to the Pope, all loyalty; Your superstitious buskings, all puritie; Your worship in an unknown tongue, all fervencie; Your addition to the one Sacrament, and mutitation of the other, all sincerity; Your universal infallible supremacie, all primitive antiquity.

It is not long since this Reply came to my hand, at the first view whereof, I intended to take in and discuss arguments proposed by Dr. Vane, in that Pamphlet entituled The lost sheep found. And these contained in another of the same kind, cal­led Presbytries tryall. And to survey the other two entituled, The Touchstone, and F [...]at lux. But find­ing the substance of all these in this reflecter, and that he hath little of his own, but maketh malt for the most of their barley; by answering this, all the foure are macerially answered, which a discerning Reader will find to be true. Now to close, I obtest all who read this Vindication of the reformed Religion, to consider the cause serious­ly without partialitie, pride, passion, prejudice. Remember that, Iames 2. 1. Have not the faith of our Lord Iesus with respect of persons, And the spi­rit of truth lead you into all truth: The spirit of errour and lies be rebuked and resisted by the [Page 274] Lord: That a pure offering may be offered to Him, from the rising of the Sun to the going down thereof.