M. YOur Majesty is pleased to wave all the marks of a true Church, and to make re­course to Scripture.

His Majesty waves not the marks of the true Church, but waves the frequent Roman Church as not true, because she wants those marks. That he hath recourse to Scripture, why should the Marques blame him? it is the witness of God, greater than that of men, 1 John 5. 9.

M. I humbly take leave to aske your Majesty, [Page 2] what Heretique that ever was did not so?

Here the Marques calls his Majesty Heretique by craft, but first is at King, King by your leave, that he might do it with the more civility.

M. How shall the greatest Heretique in the world be confuted or censured, if any man may be permitted to appeal to Scriptures, margin'd with his own Notes, sensed with his own mean­ing, and enlivened with his own private spirit; to what end were those marks so fully both by the Prophets, the Apostles, and our Saviour himself set down, if we make no use of them?

We deny utterly any such Appeal, we say, The Scripture must be margin'd with its own Notes, for what is doubtfull and dark in one place, is elsewhere clearly and evidently explained: Quae ambigue & obscure viden [...]ur dici in qui­busdam lo­cis sacrae Scripturae ab a [...]is quae in allis locis aperta & perspi­cua sunt explican­tur. Basil. qu. [...]scet. Reg. 367. Sensed with its own meaning, from the Scriptures themselves must we receive the sense of Truth. Ex ipsis Scripturis sensum ca­pere veri­tatis opor­tet non sen­sum ex­trinsicùs alienum extraneum deberes quaerere. Cl. Ep. 7. So Clemens the se­cond Bishop of Rome; nay, and more than so, we must not go out of it to a forreign Interpreter: and enlivened with its own Spirit, For the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God: 1 Cor. 2. 11. And therefore cursed, say I, be he that re­moveth the Lords Land-marks.

The M. findes the K. firm and close to Scrip­ture, and seeing him so resolved pretends, in compliance with his Majesty, recourse to that too; yea, and promiseth to lead the K. to his Church through the full body of the Scrip­tures; and it is indeed the best, the nearest way to the Church; yea, and to the M. his Church too, but then he must set on fire all that super­structure of Wood, Hay, and Stubble, which is built, I fear, not upon the true Foundation nei­ther. [Page 3] But before he enters into that way, some Obstacles, some Rubs are to be removed; 'tis fit the Kings way should be made smooth.

M. The first Rub is, [Your Majesty was pleased to urge the Errors of certain Fathers to the prejudice of their Authority] Not so pleased as the Marques was to urge the supposed Blemishes of Luther and Calvin to the prejudice of our Church. No, not pleased at all, for he said, I deplore their In­firmities. 114. But to the prejudice of their Au­thority they are urged, nor could the M. ex­cuse them, but argueth from his Majesties own words [So did the Apostles, but when all were gathered together in Councel, and could send about their Edicts, with these Capital Letters, in the Front, Visum est Spiritui sancto & nobis, then I hope, your Majesty cannot say, that it was possible for them to err. So though the Fa­thers migh err in particulars, yet those particu­lar Errors would be swallowed up in a General Councel.] By the Marques his comparing Gene­ral Councels with that in Acts 15. we may in­fer, that in his sense, These may say, as well as That, Visum est Spiritui sancto & nobis, It seem­ed good to the Holy Ghost and to us. And in­deed it is no more than what Bellarmine and Stapleton said before him, Bellar. l. 2. de Concil. c. 2. and the Doctrine of Infallibility infallibly implies as much. But let the Marques and his party say what they please, Stapleton Relect. contr. 6. q. 3. art. [...]. sure I am, Antiquity never durst think so, much less say it: take one instance for all; That Great and General Councel of Nice, observe what a prudent and wary course she took in setting down her Determinations; in statlng the busi­ness [Page 4] concerning the Celebration of Easter, it being a matter of indifferency, Placuit ut addere­tur visum est, (barely so, not Spiritui sancto & no­bis) ut omnes obtemperarent, We think fit that all obey our Decree: but when she came to that great Confession of Faith, Athanas. now call'd the Nicene Creed, de Synodo Arimin. & S [...]leuc. Ep. you hear no more of Placuit then, but delivereth her self, Credit Catholica Ecclesia, The Catholique Church beleeves. And this was done on purpose, ut ostenderent quae ipsi scripsissent, non sua esse inventa, sed Apostolorum Documenta; to de­clare, That what they had written was not their own Fiction, but the doctrine of the Apostles. This was the wisdom of that eminent Coun­cel. As to the Marques his supposition, that the Fathers particular Errors would be swal­lowed up in a General Councel, I grant it, but certainly the Councel would be little the better for them: it is not the reducing and in­corporating many several Poysons into one Bowl, can alter the venomous quality, or hinder their operation; but it may be said, those Poy­sons may meet with so many benign Correcti­ons, as will in all probability render them in­offensive: true, I grant that too, but then it is not their number will do it, for all that are in­nocent as Doves are not as wise as Serpents, [...]. an ho­nest meaning (saith Nazianzen) keeps no Court of Guard; and Heresies if they cannot predo­minate in power, they will undermine with craft. At that General Councel of Ariminum, branded by his Majesty for heretical, the farr greater number were pious and orthodox men; the Arrian party perceiving they could not out-vote [Page 5] them, resolved (if possible) to out-wit them, and therefore moved in Councel, that, whereas the Nicene Creed had brought in are word [...] signifying, the second Person in the Trinity, to be of the same substance with his Father; which word gave much offence to many, because it was not to be found in the Scriptures, and was very dark and intri­cate in it self; that therefore it should thence forward be forborn, and instead thereof should be inserted, that the Son is like unto his Father in all things, according to the Scriptures. Sozomen▪ Hist. L. 4. c. 18. This sly practice passed not undis­cerned to so me of the quicker sented Bishops, who tooth and nail opposed it; but others (yet well-meaning men too) being perswaded by some (whom the Heretiques had suborned) that the difference was not so considerable, as wor­thy to make an absolute breach in the point, and that in effect there was as much implied in what was added instead of that word; and finding that the Emperour would tire them out, if they did not yield at length, consented to have that word omitted. Thus this Councel erred by Circumvention, and that it erred is enough for us, and against the Marques; for if one erreth, another may, yea all may; and that others have done so too, his Majesty hath instan­ced, which is to the Marqhes his second Rub.

M. Nor is it enough that the Marques replies, Those Councels were called when the Church was un­der Persecution; seeing General Councels they were still (for all that) the five Patriarchs with their subordinate Bishops being present, either in Person or by Proxy.

M. And if we should suppose them to be General [Page 6] and free Councels, Anno 451 yet they could not be erroneous in any particular man's judgement, untill a like General Councel should have concluded the former to be erro­neous.] So that by his Lordships Rule, had not the Councel of Calcedon, nor any other since, condemned Eutyches for an Heretick, we must all have held to this day but one Nature in Christ.

[Wherefore if it should be granted that the Church at any time had determined amiss, yet the Church cannot be said to have erred, be­cause you must not take the particular time for the Catholique Church.] Sure if at that time the Catholique Church did err, no after-act or rectification can make it otherwise; and admit she once erred, it will follow, she may err again, and again; and that her seeming rectification may, whatsoever is pretended, swerve as much from the Truth, as her first Error. [For as in Civil affairs, Regula fi­dei una omnino est sola immo­bilis & ir­reformabi­lis. Hac lege Fidei manente caetera di­sc plinae & conversa­tionis ad­mittunt novitatem correctio­nis▪ Tert. de veland. Virg. the Parlaments alter their Laws upon experience of present inconveniences, so the Councels change their Decrees according to that further knowledge which the holy Writ assures us shall increase in the latter end.] This similitude must infer a power in General Coun­cels to change their Decrees and Canons, as well as Parlaments their former Statutes; and I yield that Power resident in them in matters of outward Polity, and Government in the Church; but that they have a power to decree matters of Faith, which shall binde the Church, needs no other Confutation, than the allowing them a power to change their Decrees. For the Rule of Faith (as Tertullian saith excellently) is one onely, immoveable, and unreformable. This Law [Page 7] of Faith continuing firm, other matters of Discipline and conversation admit the novelty of reformation.

[If I recall mine own words, it is no Error, but the avoidance of an Error.]

The recalling mine own words may be an Error, as well as the avoidance of one; for a man may err in retractation of what he hath said, (as Bellarmine hath done more than once) as well as in saying what he retracts; but in one place there must of necessity be an Error, & light that Error where it may, that Church which so erreth, I shall be loath to trust with matters of Faith. The last Rub in his Lordships way is so inconsiderable, as I shall stride over it, and ac­company him to his Church.

M. First, we hold the Real Presence, you de­ny it; we say, his Body is there; you say, there is nothing but Bread.

Before I come to direct Answer, I shall briefly, and I hope not impertinently, premise. First, it is fit those Opposite Terms of We and You be­ing so considerable, should be further explain'd. What is meant by We is little question'd, the M. certainly intends the Romish Church; what by You he does not clearly resolve us, till p. 159. and there he tells us, in capital letters, 'tis The Church of England; and indeed, writing En­glish to an English King, (not Head, but) a Mem­ber, (though the noblest) of the English Church, it cannot in reason be supposed he should under that word You, point at any other than the Church of England. So then the Church of England is his Lordships You [...] and being so, it is in my opinion a great blemish to his Honours [Page 8] Cause, to charge and accriminate a Church with no less than Heresie, and not with one onely, but many, very many, and not produce any one Book, or one Article, where those He­resies are to be found; but to accuse a Church of Heresies which are no where to be found, (and this he hath done very often) is a blemish to his Honour, as well as to his Cause. What the Mar­ques hath omitted in setting down the Doctrine of our Church, shall be by me supplied, and I will do it with that ingenuous integrity, Art. 28. that I will not suppress any one syllable, which may advantage her Adversaries in the least. And first, to the point of Christ's presence. Thus [The Bo­dy of Christ is given, Art. 94. taken, and eaten in the Supper onely after an heavenly and spiritual manner.] Ob­serve, here's the Body of Christ, so something more than bare bread; Aug. con. then, it is given, taken, and eaten; Max. l. 3. if so, 'tis there sure; and verily and indeed (as the Catechisme hath it, and the Church of Ireland) substantially, wee'll grant that too; so that it had been much more for his Lordships credit, Ser. 13. to have forborn the urging of this Real Presence against us. Cant 2. Non opus erat ut ea contra nos diceret, quae dicimus secum; why should he urge that against us, which we assert with him? Well, but is there no difference between us? Yes, a very great one Rome holds, a Transubstan­tiation, a Conversion of the whole substance of the Elements in the Sacrament into the very body and bloud of Christ, as the Councel of Trent hath it; why did the Marques suppress this Tenet? Durst he not own it? He is then no Papist, for what that Councel hath determined, the Papists do, [Page 9] and must hold. On the other side, our Church saith, Christs body is there given, taken and eaten, onely after an heavenly and spiritual manner. Now you have heard what both sides hold, wee'll give the Marques his Scriptures leave to speak next. [Matth. 20. 26. Take, eat, this is my body. Luke 22. 19. This is my body which is given for you.] I can see Christ's body here indeed, but where's the Conversion, the Transubstantiation the Pa­pists hold? I cannot see that: and though I can see Christ's body there, yet there is something else which should be there, I cannot see; and that is, Do this in remembrance of me, which we conceive is an evident Explanation of the My­stery; this his Lordship thought too hot for him, so that if we stand to his carving, we shall be sure to have that we have least minde to. Now let his Fathers be produced; Ignatius saith, The Eucharist is the flesh of Christ; 2 Ep. ad Smyrn. so say we too, and Ignatius tells you for all that, Ep. ad Philad. it is Bread still, and after Consecration too, both are in­deed most sure, as Saint Hillary saith exceeding well, Figura est dum Panis & Vinum extra videtur, veritas autem dum corpus & sanguis Christi in verita­te interius creditur; It is the figure, whilest the Bread and Wine are beheld outwardly; but the truth it self, when the Body and Bloud are inwardly in truth beleeved. Justin Martyr saith, That after Consecration, the Elements become the body and bloud of Christ, who doubts of it? but speaks not of any Conversion of the substance, nay, saith ex­presly in the same place, that the Deacons distri­bute after consecration the bread and wine, clearly implying, he thought not of any Transubstan­tiation, [Page 10] but that the Elements kept their sub­stance still. Cyprian and Ambrose I confess spake the first of a Change, the other of a Conversi­on of the Elements; but 'tis not of their sub­stance neither, but onely of their use, Sunt quae erant & in aliud commutantur; They are still what they were before, but are changed in quality. Such a Con­version we grant too; we hold the Elements af­ter Consecration differ in use and virtue from common Bread and Wine. Rhemigius speaks not of Conversion, if Christ's body be there, sure his flesh is, and I never read of any other flesh he had, than what he took in the Virgins womb. The difference is not whether Christ's body be here, but how? And if I did not think it time mis-spent, I could destroy this carnal Doctrine by the testimony of twenty several Fathers, who all understand the Presence to be no other, than as a Symbole, Type, figure, representation, signe, image, likeness, and memory of Christ's body crucified upon the Cross; and as for Transubstantiation, they never dreamt of such a word, nor thought of such a thing. I will onely instance in one, and I hope his word may be taken, Gelasius cont. Eutic. de duabus natur. Chr. because a Pope: Non desinit substantia vel natura Panis & Vini; The substance of Bread and Wine is not changed or destroyed. So Ge­lasius.

M. We hold that there is in the Church an infallible Rule for understanding of Scripture, besides the Scripture it self; this you deny.

Our Church hath no where delivered her self expresly in this point, yet I take it to be the Ge­neral Doctrine of Protestants, that there is no [Page 11] other Rule besides Scripture, to understand Scripture, that is infallible. For if Scripture be an infallible Rule, why should we cumber our selves with more than one, unless this one were hard to come by, or easie to be lost. And it seems his Lordship thought Scripture was one infallible Rule, when he said, there is another besides it: and Bellarmine comes in with his Con­venit inter nos & omnes omnino haereticos. Bellarm. l. 1. in praes. In this point we are all generally agreed, Heretiques and all; that the Word of God is the Rule of Faith: l. 1. c. 2. sect. 5. and after he tells you, why it must be so, because a Rule must be certain and known; for if it be not certain, it is no Rule; and if not known, it is no Rule to us: now there is nothing more certain or more known than the Scriptures. Compare the Marques his infalli­ble Rule of Traditions, with this saying of Bel­larmine, and it will appear they have little of a Rule in them. For certainly, what is more un­certain? When the Primitive Church it self, within a hundred years after the Apostolical Times, was split into that great Schism about the Celebration of Easter, which was but a meer Tradition, and was not reconciled till the Councel of Nice. And for being known, no­thing is less, seeing in the very Church of Rome they are not yet agreed which are Apostolical Traditions. Vide Suar. in part. The Scriptures he urgeth, are Rom. 12. 6. And there is a Rule of Faith I grant, and an infallible one too, Thom. but it is not praeter, be­sides; nor extra, without the Scripture, but that mentioned in the Scriptures, Gal. 6. 16. there is a Rule, but a Rule of Doctrine concerning Chri­stian Liberty in the point of Circumcision, no [Page 12] Rule of Faith, Rom. 6. 17. there is neither Rule, nor Faith, but a form of Doctrine delivered to them by the preaching of the Gospel: what he urged out of 2 Cor. 10. 12, 16. is so extremely and grosly impertinent, as sure when he cast his eye upon that place, his Lordship was either entring into, or newly raised from such a nap wherein the Doctor found him.

M. But lest we should mis-understand what this Rule of Faith is, the Marques tells us, [By it, is not meant the holy Scriptures, for that cannot do it, and he gives the Reason, whilest there are unstable men who wrest this way, and that way to their own destruction.] So that Scripture is now with the Marques no infalli­ble Rule at all, Traditions have outed her clear; and the Reason inferreth plainly, that we must not walk abroad at high noon-day without a Torch, because some men notwith­standing the Sun shined clear, have fallen into a Ditch. Of farr more weight I must needs con­fess are his Humane, than Divine Authorities, which yet shall not pass without my Animad­versions. Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 45. speaking of those who succeeded the Apostles, saith, Hi fidem no­stram custodiunt & Scripturas sine periculo expo­nunt; These preserve our Faith, and expound the Scrip­tures, without peril of error. Quemad­modum audivi à quodam Presb. &c. Observe first, 'tis hi, these men, who were so near the Apostles, as they were instructed by those who were contempo­raries with them, as himself says. Then again 'tis exponunt, they do expound, not that they are in­fallible, or cannot expound otherwise; what is this to the infallibility of the Church 1600 [Page 13] years after Christ? Irenaeus is full enough in this point, and point-blank against the Mar­ques, Secund. Scripturas expositio legitima et minime periculosa. ib. c. 63. To expound Scripture decording to Scripture, is the truest way, and least perilous. As for Tertullian, his meaning is thus made out, Ista haere­sis non re­cipit quas­dam Scri­pturas, et si recipit non recipit integras, et si integras diversas Expo. &c. Tert de Praescript. Tantum veritati obstrepit adult. sen­sus quan­tum cor­rupt. eflyl. id. ib. The Heretiques with whom the Church was to dispute, did not receive all Scriptures for Canonical; and those they did receive, intire they did not; or if intire, they feigned strange Interpretations of their own fancies; and a corrupt sense prejudiceth Truth as much as a cor­rupt Text: were they accused for vitiating and falsi­fying the Text, or for introducing absured Expositions, They retorted the same Charge upon their Adversa­ries. In this case of malicious obstinacy, the Church had onely this remedy to provoke them to declare who founded their Churches, for if it appeared they were the Apostles, there was no more to be said, it being in those days Constat omnem do­ctrinam quae cum illis ecclesi­is apostoli­cis matri­cibus fides conspiret, veritati deputandam. ib. con­stat, and evidence enough of Truth, that their Churches were of Apostolical foundation. As for Vincentius having spoke before of the per­fection of Scripture, with a satis superque, that it is all-sufficient and to spare; he supposeth it may be demanded, what need is there then of the Churches sense? to which he answereth, because all men un­derstand it not in one sense and alike, therefore it is necessary (saith he) that the line of interpretation be directed according to the rule of the Catholique and Ec­clesiastical sense. Now what is intended by a Ca­tholique sense is the Question, the Papists will have it to be Tradition unwritten; but we say, it is that which the Universal Church hath al­ways [Page 14] held; for Vincentius explains his Catho­lique to be that, Quod u­bi (que). quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum: c. 3. which always, every where, and of all men hath been believed; and this Rule we willingly admit in points essential, where variety and different senses are inconsistent; but in other points of less concernment, we say with Saint Augustin, Quod ab exercondas mentes fi­delium in Scripturis sanctis obscure ponitur, gratulan­dum est si­multis mo­dis non ta­men insipi­enter expo­natur. If any thing be set down in sacred Scriptures more obscurely, as an exer­cise for the mindes of Believers, it is commend­able if it be interpreted many ways, provided no way absurdly.

M. In matters of Faith, Christ bids us do and observe whatsoever they bid us, who sit in Moses seat, Matth. 23. 2. therefore there is something more to be observed than Scripture.

True, it is to be observed, that his Lordship here takes observing and doing to be matters of Faith, which I never read in Scripture, nor any where else. Aug. cont. Max. l. 3. c. 22. But are we to do whatsoever they bid us who sit in Moses seat? Surely no; if they have any Commission it is not greater than that of Moses was, [...], Chrys. T. 5. de Leg. Nat. and his was after the tenour of the words delivered him in the Mount, Exod. 34. 27. And therefore Christ saith, In vain ye wor­ship me, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men. Mat. 15. 9. [Wil you not as wel believe what you hear Christ say, as what ye hear his Mini­sters write?] Yes sure, and much more; for what Christ says is truth it self, believe it I must; but what his Ministers write is many times erro­neous, and then credat Judaeus Apella, non ego, be­lieve it who will for me. Their Commission is All things which I have commanded you. Hom. 1. part. 2. Hom.

M. We say, the Scriptures are not easie to be [Page 15] understood, you say they are.

Our Church saith, it is full as well of low val­leys, plain ways, and easie for every man to walk in, as also of high hills and mountains, which few men can climb unto. And this the Marques in a manner grants, p. 129. saying, 'tis easie in aliquibus, but not in omnibus locis, in some places, not every where.

M. We say, this Church cannot err, you say, it can.

What his Lordship means by this Church, we might demand, Page 79. had he not told us at first to what Church he would lead his Majesty, and that was the Romish Church, of which our Church makes no bones to say, It hath erred not onely in living, Art. 19. and matters of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith. Here she is I confess somewhat bolder with the Church of Rome than the Mar­ques was with his Majesty. But perhaps the Church of England (for she is not infallible) may err in her censure of the Romish Church, and his Lordship hopes to prove it out of Scri­pture; If you neglect to hear this Church, you shall be a Heathen and a Publican, Matth. 18. 17. This Church in the Marques his sense is the Church of Rome; and I grant it is, but not the Church of Rome onely, for it is as well the English, the French, the Geneva, or any other particular Church: and admit it were onely the Church of Rome, yet the matters wherein that Church is to be obeyed, are not Articles of Faith neither; the very Text tells us, it is onely in points of scandal and breach of unity, in civil matters. His next Scripture is, Ephes. 5. 27. where the [Page 16] Church shall be presented unto Christ a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle. Here is a Church I yield, that cannot err; but it is not the Romish Catholique Church; Salmer. in ep. ad Rom. Part. 2. disp. 1. no, neither Romish, nor Catholique: if his Lordship means the Catho­lique militant Church, for it is a Church that can neither err, nor sin, without spot; and there­fore their own Salmeron says, It must be under­stood of the Triumphant Church; and if his Lord­ship thought otherwise, Aug. de Haeres. Augustine would have told him he was a Pelagian.

M. We say the Church hath been always visi­ble, you deny it.

Our Church saith nothing of this Point; and therefore if I say any thing, it must be ex abundanti dictum, more than Covenants; yet something I will say, and something shall Libe­rius say too, as Salmeron in Luc. Tract. 23. Salmeron quoteth him, replying to Constantius his boast of the multitude of Arrians, Non refert numerum esse magnum, aut par­vum, nam Judaeorum Ecclesia in Babylone constituta ad tres pueros redacta fuit; No matter whether the number be small or great, for the Jewish Church in Babylon was reduced to three. And at this time Liberius was Pope of Rome; and because I am faln upon this time, I would gladly have an answer where the Visibility of the Romish Church was (unless they mean a Visibility of Heresie) when Liberius himself excommunicated Athanasius, and turn'd Arrian? Nay more, and to the very point, where was the Visibility of the Catholique and true Church it self at that time, but onely in that Pillar of Faith Atha. ad solit. vitam agent. [...]p. Athanasius? Orat. 12. I confess Nazianzen says his Church had it [...] most singular to it [Page 17] self, to be preserved from drowning in the Arrian Deluge, but the visible shock and storm of Per­secution, no man stoutly withstood and over­came, but Athanasius onely. His Fathers, Origen in Matth. hom. 30. saith, The Church is full of light, but that light is fulgor veritatis, he himself tells us so, the brightness of Truth, no external splen­dor: what's this to a visible Church? Cyprian, the Church of God encompassed with light, sheds her beams through all the World Cyprian's light is like Origen's, an inward light too, and were it (as the Sun) an outward Light, it would not shine always in every Horizon, and where it doth shine it may sometimes be eclipsed. Chrysost. Hom. 4. in Esay. 6. speaketh of the dura­tion and perpetuity, not of the Visibility of the Church, and saith, It is easier for the Sun's light to be extinguished, than for the Church utterly to be destroy'd; or if you will [...], to dis­appear, so saith Chrysostome, and so say we too: the Church wil be always visible, for an Invisibi­lity we hold not absolutly, but comparatively, it may be reduced to so inconsiderable a number as in regard of the paucity and fewness of the Professors the World will not own it under the notion of a Church. Again, Persecution may so controul the outward Profession of the Go­spel, that nothing belonging to external Go­vernment, Discipline, and Exercise of the Mi­nistery shall be performed otherwise than by stealth, and in a clandestine way. Augustine speakes of the Visibility of the Church in his time, that it was then visible not that it had been before, or should be after him always so vi­sible.

[Page 18] M. We hold the perpetual universality of the Church, and that the Church of Rome is such a Church; you deny it.

Our Church denieth not the Catholique or universal Church, Artic. 8. 'tis an Article of the three Creeds, she holds; That the Romish is such a Church, she doth deny, because 'tis in none of their Creeds; and yet if it be in the Scripture, I dare promise for her, she shall and will believe it. As to that place of Psalm. 2. 8. I will give thee the Heathen for thine Inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy Possession. It is a most clear Prediction of the calling of the Gentiles, and that all the World shall be subdued by the power of the Gospel; so here's an Universality of Christ's Kingdom, but not of the Romish Church. But I confess the mischief is, here is a Tibi dabo, I will give thee, and wheresoever the Church of Rome findes that, she takes all for her own that follows. Let us observe now, Rom. 1. 8. I thank my God, that your Faith is spoken of throughout the whole World. That is, to all the World it is published, that Rome hath embraced the Christian Faith. Is she the Catholique Church because of that? sure, this Text no way enforceth any such Illation; for we are told as much of the Church of Thessalonica, 1 Thess. 1. 8. that their Faith to God-ward is spread abroad in every place; and then we must mend our Creed, and say, I believe the two Catholique Churches, that of Thessalonica, and that of Rome. For his human Authorities, take this note by the way, and they are soon cleared; The Pri­mitive Church held, that consent and unity in [Page 19] Doctrine made all Churches in truth to be One, however distinguished by names; L. 4. c. 2. The Church of Christ is One, saith Cyprian, divided into several Members through the whole World: and this Unity made them al not only One, but Apostolical and Primitive also; De praes [...]r. for Omnes primae, omnes Apostoli­cae, dum unam omnes probant unitatem, saith Tertulli­an, All were Primitive, all Apostolical, whilest all shewed the same Unity: yea, and it made all Churches (though otherwise particular) Catho­lique too. Athanas. Therefore the Church of Alexandria was called the Catholique Church by Arsenius; Apol 2. so Augustine was Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus, Bi­shop of that Church which held the Catholique Faith; and in this sense Rome was anciently stiled the Catholique Church. So it was truly said by Hierome, It is all one to say, the Roman Faith, and the Catholique Faith: but though it was true then, it is not true now; for the Then and Now Roman Church, are two.

M. We hold the Unity of the Church to be necessary in all points of Faith, you deny it.

Our Church is here silent, yet an Unity the Protestants hold too in essential matters of Faith, and hold it so, that if this Unity be a Note of the true Church, they have there much the odds of Rome.

M. We hold that every Minister of the Church (especially the supreme Minister, or Head there­of) should be in a capacity of fungifying his Office in preaching the Gospel, &c. you de­ny it.

How his Lordship makes the Church do Pe­nance, and puts her, head and heels together; [Page 20] for how the supreme Head can properly be a Mi­nister of that Church whereof it is Head, passeth my understanding: what our Church denieth, is this. Art. 23 It is not lawfull for any man to take upon him the Office of publique Preaching or ministring the Sa­craments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully cal­led, and sent to execute the same. And this is all his Lordship's Text urgeth.

M. Nor we onely deny it, saith the Marques, but so as that our Church hath maintained and practised it a long time; for a Woman to be Head, or supreme Moderatrix in the Church, and many have been hanged, drawn, and quartered for not acknowledging of it.

I have read indeed of some such Women as his Lordship speaks of, one in Revel. 17. 1. and by her fine cloaths, vers. 4. she should be a Queen, and as a Queen I am told she sits, chap. 18. vers. 7. I will not say what that Queen is, for fear I procure my self ill will. Martinus Polonus, Marianus Scotus, &c. Another who first made Rome the Mother-church. And another in England called Qu. Mary, who used that Ti­tle of Head of the Church, Statutes of Queen Mary. and no offence ta­ken at it, having been conferr'd upon her Fa­ther by Act of Parlament in the time of Pope­ry; Cambdeni Apparatus ad Hist. but her Sister Elisabeth thought it enough to be called supreme Governess; who were mar­tyr'd for not acknowledging her so, Eliz. idem Hist. neither can I, nor doth his Lordship tell.

I shall say little to his Lordship's points of Absolution and Confession, their practise is ve­ry antient and commendable, and as in other cases, our Church leaves them arbitrary, so in some she injoyns them. For Absolution you [Page 21] may see her form prescribed in the Liturgy in the Visitation of the Sick, for Confession the Rubrick Paragraph 2. before the Commu­nion.

M. We hold men may do Works of Super­erogation, this you deny.

Had not Supererogation (or Superarrogancy rather) been a saucy and malepert Tenet, it might have given, in good manners, the Possi­bility of keeping the Commandments to have been before it; for sure we should in reason be out of Gods debt before we bring him into ours. But we must take it as we finde it, nor am I ashamed to own what our Church holds, viz. Voluntary Works besides, Art. 14. over and above God's Commandments, which they call Works of Superero­gation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impie­ty; and she reasons from Christ, saying plain­ly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable Servants. His Lordship voucheth onely one single Text, and that of the Vow (as he takes it) of single life. But I ob­serve, All hear not that saying, but they to whom it is given; so then it is a gift, & if we return no more than was given, where's the Supererogation? and whereas the Marques tells us it is no Com­mandment, had he consulted with the Greek Grammar, he would have found [...] let him receive it, in the Imperative Mood; and therefore Athanasius calleth it, Apol. ed Constant. Caeleste aeternae virginitatis mandatum, the heavenly command­ment of perpetual virginity. The Fathers were, I grant, much enamored with the vow of con­tinency, as a condition of life more agreeable [Page 22] to the service of God, than the coupled state usually is; but they never thought it a work meritorious, much less able to supererogate at God's hand. If they held any such opinion, the Marques should have told us their words, for the places urged and quoted, demonstrate no such thing.

M. Art. 10. We say, we have free will, you deny it.

Our Church saith, We have no power to do goodworks, pleasant, and acceptable to God, without the Grace of God by Christ, preventing us that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will. So then, we deny not all free will, not a free will to evil, but to good: for the Apostle speaking of us in an unregenerate state, Ephes. 2. v. 5. saith, When we were dead in sin, God hath quickened us together with Christ; so that there is death first, a total disability in us to good; then there is the new birth, quickned with Christ; without this we live, neither the life of faith, nor of works; not of faith, for Whosoever be­lieves is born of God, 1 John 5. 1. not of works, for Whosoever loveth is born of God also, 1 John 4. 7. His Lordship's three Texts oppose not what we say, b Deus ideo iubet ali­qua quae non possu­mus, ut no­verimus quid ab ipso petere d [...]beamus. 1 Cor. 7. 37. The Apostle speaks of a thing in its own nature indifferent, and in such things free will we deny not. Deut. 30. 11. Though Life and Death be there propounded to our choice, yet doth it not follow that the power of chusing Life and Death is our own; and if any say with Pelagius, Non iube­ret Deus quod soiret ab homi­ne non posse fieri. God would not command what he knew we could not per­form; Aug. d. Grat. & l. Arb c. 16. my Answer is, with Augustine, q God com­mands some things more than we can do; to [Page 23] teach us what we are to crave at his hands, Matth. 23. 37. We reade, that the children of Je­rusalem would not be gathered together, which argueth a perversity and freeness of will to dis­obey Christ, to obey him no power at all of our selves. [But there might (saith his Lordship) have been a willingness as well as an unwillingness, else Christ had wept in vain.] True, and there had been a willingness, no doubt, had God will'd their gathering by his secret, and efficacious, as well as by his revealed wil. To his Fathers. A fol­ly it is to deny, they, many of them, exprest themselves somewhat loosly in this point, & ha­ving to deal with those Philosophers who held the fatal necessity of all things, went so far on the other side, in advancing free will, as they were in the ditch of error before they minded it; yea, Austin himself was a while in it, till Pelagius with his Heresie roused him to look up, and discover where he was: Austin being awake, first cals up the Church, who upon serious consi­deration, finding her Doctrine in this particular warped somewhat from the Truth, by the heat of Disputation, sets all those right in two emi­nent Councels; first, of Milevis, where she saith, Dominus non ait sine me diffici­lius pote­siis facere, sed fine me nihil pote­stis facere. Conc. Mi­levit. ca. 3. God saith not, it is harder for you to do without me, John 15. 5. but without me ye can do nothing at all. Then, that of Orange, Divini muneris est quum pe­dis nostres ab iniqui­tate decli­nemus. Conc. A­rausicanum 2d. Anno 444. It is the gift of God, when we turn away our steps from wickedness.

[We hold it possible to keep the Commandments, you hold it impossible] We do not hold it impossible to keep the Commandments, we have kept them all; we hold it is possible, for some of them by some to be lost; for we miss the second out of [Page 24] the first Table, in the Popish Bibles: but as touching observing the Commandments, we hold it impossible, for any man in what state so­ever, to observe any one, much less all, should God be extreme to mark what is done amiss: yet we hold too, that in some sort the whole Law may be fulfilled; and that is, in Saint Au­gustines sense, Omnia mandatae Dei facta esse depu­tantur quando quicquid non fit ig­noscitar. Retract. l. 1. c. 19. All the Commandments are then ac­counted observed, when what is defective in our obedi­ence, is forgiven. The Scripture Luke 1. 6. urged by his Lordship, was produced long since by Pe­lagius, and Augustines Answer shall be mine, Eminenti Justitiae suit Za­charias, qui tamen ne­cessitatem habebat sacrificium primitus pro suis peccatis offerre. Zachary was a man of singular sanctity, yet was it necessary for him to offer sacrifice, first for his own sins, Hebr. 7. 28. So then, if Zachary had sins, he kept not all the Commandments, for sin is but the transgression of the Law. But it is said, 1 John 5. 3. His Commandments are not grievous: nor are they; but are his Commandments there spoken of the Moral Law? assuredly No. Saint John will tell you clearly what they are, chap 3. v. 23. That we should believe on the Name of his Son Jesus Christ, And love one another. Nor can we fulfill these Commandments, but we must first be born of God, v. 1. & chap. 4. 7. So that an un­regenerat person will not be able to set a step forward to that performance; nor can our new birth render us so perfect, as to say, we have not sinned; for that were to make God a Lyar. 1 John 1. 10. The Marques saith, the Fathers are for us. But if they be, why then did he not cite their words, as well as vouch the places; but I fear 'tis otherwise, for I cannot make out, no not by con­jecture, what either Origen, or Cyril, or Hillary [Page 25] hath to his advantage. Hierome indeed saith, In nostra potestate positum ese vel peccare vel non peccare. l. 3. con. Pclag. It is in our power either to sin or not to sin, but it is with this caution, and Salvo pro conditione fragilitatis humanae, as far as human frailty will admit. And how little Hierome is for them, his Commentary upon the Galatians, ch. 3. will inform us, where he saith, Neminem posse exple­re legem & facere cun­cta quae jussa sunt, No man can fulfill the Law, and perform all things which are commanded.

M. We say, Faith cannot justifie without Works; you say, good Works are not absolute­ly necessary to salvation.

Here the Marques slides from the point, and wilfully leaves his old wont of challenging our opposition; for whereas he should have said, You say, Faith alone can justifie; he tells us here, we say, good Works are not absolutely necessa­ry to salvation. Necessary to salvation is one thing, necessary to justification another: sal­vation and justification are different things, one is the cause, the other the effect. We hold good Works are necessary to salvation, but not abso­lutely. The Thief upon the Cross was saved without them; thousands who believe and are prevented by Death before their Faith can shew it self in Works, are saved without them; In­fants dying are saved without them; so they are not absolutely necessary, no not to salvation; but to justification they are not so much as ne­cessary: for as our Church saith, We are justified by faith onely; this will appear, first by consider­ing what things are required to justification, and those are three; Art. 11. first, God's great mercy and grace; Hom. of Justif. 1. secondly, Christ's Justice in satisfying and paying our ransome, and fulfilling the Law for us; [Page 26] lastly, by a true and lively faith in Gods free grace, and Christ's merits. So that good works are clearly outed. Secondly, faith alone justifieth without works, because we are justified by faith before we can do good works, Sequuntur iustifica­tum non precedunt iustifican­dum. Aug. de fid. & op. c. 14. and works are not good till justifying faith makes them so. But though faith alone justifieth without works, yet it can­not be alone and without them, for impossible it is for any man to believe God will be grati­ous to him, and that Christ's righteousness and merits shall be ever imputed to him, who at that instant of believing, doth not seriously and unfainedly resolve to obey, and observe to his uttermost all God's Commandments. The places of Scripture alleadged by the Marques against our Faith alone without Works, are; first, 1 Cor. 13. 2. Though I have all Faith, and have no Charity, I am nothing. There is faith indeed, but no justifying faith, 'tis the faith of miracles, Saint Paul tells us so, chap. 12. v. 9. The faith mention­ed, Luke 17. 8. of removing mountains, and so the Apostle would have told us in this very Text, had not his Lordship, by what faith I know not, removed those mountains, those words out of his way. Secondly, James 2. v. 24. By works a man is justified, and not by faith onely. This I con­fesse is an eminent place, and hath exercised the wits of all Expositors how to reconcile it to that of Saint Paul, Rom. 3. 28. A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law. Many have gone several ways, and some not the right. Lu­ther having beaten his brains about it a good while, at last threw the whole Epistle of Saint James out of the Volume of Canonical Scrip­ture. [Page 27] Hugo Grotius, that great Scholar of the latter Age, hath taken it to task by it self, and hath indeed shewn great Reading, but I confesse as to the elucidation and clearing of the diffi­culty, he makes me no wiser than I was before: and indeed, after all hath been said Aquinas his sense will I think have most voices, that good works justifie, declarative, by declaring our faith be­fore men, not, offective, by making us just before God.

M. This opinion of yours Saint Augustine saith, l. de fid. & op. c. 14. was an old Heresie.

Augustine mentions it not as an Heresie, but onely saith, that in the Apostles time some mis­understanding that place of Paul, Rom. 5. Where sin abounded, there grace superaboundeth, thought faith onely necessary to salvation, and therefore neglected moral duties, and sanctity of life; and this we call the high way to Hell, as well as Augustine, Hillary in his 7. chapter or canon up­on Matth. hath nothing tending to justification, either solitary without, or associated with works, but can. 8. he is expresly at, Fides sola justi­ficat, Faith alone justifieth. Ambrose saith, Eternal rest belongeth to those who have that faith Quae per dilectionem operatur, which worketh together by charity. So Ambrose, and so say we.

M. We hold good works to be meritorious, you deny it; we have Scripture for it.

Our Church saith, Hom. 1. part of salvat. 1. All the good works that we can do be imperfect, and therefore not able to deserve our justification. His Lordship produceth out of Scripture, Matth. 16. 27. He shall reward every man according to his works. Answer, I confesse our Translation gives it so, but the word in the ori­ginal [Page 28] is not He will reward, but [...], He will render. But though reward be not there, yet Matth. 5. 12. 'tis said, Great is your reward in Hea­ven, and there is reward, and great reward too; and the Marques inferreth that Reward in the end, presupposeth merit in the work: but sure it is no general Rule; for when the Laborers were called, Matth. 20. 8. to receive their [...], or Wages, (for it is the same word both there and here) The Steward gave to him that wrought but one hour a penny, which was [...], the wages for the whole day, was this work of an hour adequate to, or did it earn that wages? Deut coro­nat dona sua non opera no­stra. Again, this Reward is not such to which the Lord is tyed by any precontract, but it proceedeth from his meer grace. Lastly, could the Work merit the Reward? it is but still God crowns his own gifts, T. 3. de Sa­cram. Bapt. l. 1. c. 6. not our works, as Augustine saith. But if it be true what the Apostle saith, That the sufferings of this life (even Martyrdom it self) which remitteth all sins both original and actual, Sic opera­tur iustifi­cationem in Sanctis suis in hu­jus vitae tentatione laboranti­bus, ut ta­men sit quod peten­tibus lar­giter adji­ciat & confitenti­bus cle­menter ignoscat. and which justifieth ex opere operato, by the very act of suffering (if Bellarmine may be believed) are not worthy of the joys which shall be revealed hereafter, what will become of his Lordships merits? He saith, The Fathers were of his opi­nion. But the first Tract. de Apolog. David. wants a Father, it being clearly spurious, Hierome hath nothing to the purpose, and Augustine is so clear of another minde, that the whole chapter is lit­tle else but a confutation of the Doctrine of Me­rits, God saith he, so worketh justification in his Saints, whilest they are cumbered with the temptati­ons of this life, as he hath still somewhat to add to [Page 29] them who ask, and somewhat to remit to those who are penitent.

We hold that faith once had may be lost, if we have not a care to preserve it, you say it can, it cannot.

Our Church hath determined nothing in this point, Art. 34. yet because their sister of Ireland affirm­eth, That a true lively justifying faith is not extin­guished, nor vanisheth away in the regenerate, either finally, or totally. I shall for this time own her Tenet, and consider the validity of his Lord­ships Texts: and first for Luke 8. 13. They on the Rock, are they which when they hear receive the Word with joy, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. Answer, the faith menti­oned there was but a false conception, no li­ving, no justifying faith. But I see the Marques hath left part of the Text behinde him, and left that be lost, as well as faith, I will for this time bring it after him; the words are, And these have no root, evidently implying, the reason why that seed took no better, but was scorched with the heat of persecution, was that it took no root. Now for 1 Tim. 1. 18, 19. Which some having put away, have made shipwrack of their faith.] Answer, the faith there spoken of is not justi­fying faith, nay, so far from it, as it is not so much as the faith of assent, to the general pro­mises of God revealed in his Word; but it is the faith which denoteth the Doctrine of Chri­stianity, in which sense it is frequently used in Scripture, Acts 6. v. 7. Gal. 1. 23. 1 Tim. 3. 8. & 4. v. 1. Jude 3. Such a faith we grant may be lost. The authority his Lordship alleadgeth is Augu­stine, [Page 30] & I must ingenuously confesse, T. 3. de fide l. 13. c. 21. sect. ult. De praedest. & Grat. neither Cha­mier, Perkins, nor any other do, to my seeming come clearly off with him: it is not enough to say as they do, that Augustine speaketh not of solid and perfect Faith and Love, but of imper­fect; this is no Answer but a meer shift; for Saint Augustine saith, that some sons of perditi­on begin to live, yea, and a while do live, and that faithfully, and justly in faith which worketh by love, and afterwards fall away. Huius (Cy­priani) au­thoritati non ten [...]or. Aug. contr. Cresc c. 32. So that here is not onely a beginning to live, but here is a living, and a living faithfully and righteously, and where these are, there is and must be a living and justifying faith. My answer shall be, what he once said of Cypri­an, I am not bound to his authority, Nobis qui vere Chr. insiti su­mus, talis data est gratia, non solum ut possimus si velimus, sed ut ve­limus in Chr. perse­verare. de Corrept. & grat. c. 11. & I am the lesse bound, because I finde Augustine at odds with himself, for he elsewhere saith, They who are once ingrafted in Christ, are indued with grace, not onely to persevere, if they will, but also to will perseverance.

We hold, that God did never inevitably damn any man from all eternity, you say he did.

Was our Church so weak? Is it possible a Church (consisting of as many gallant and emi­nent Divines, as ever any Age afforded) should fall so foully, to assert what never yet to my reading dropt from any private pen? To save and damn are proper to God, as he is supreme Judge of all the World, who is so far from damning any man, from all Eternity, or before he is born, as he actually doth it not when born, till he is dead. Decree, I grant, he did from all E­ternity, to leave a certain number of the comon masse of all mankinde in the state of Damnati­on, [Page 31] being plunged therein by the default of their own free will, and as sole Lord and Master of his own, not to bestow upon them such grace as would infallibly raise them out, and without which they would, in time, unavoid­ably incur, by their own corrupt, and rebelli­ous will, eternal Damnation. The Texts cited are and must be understood of God's revealed, not of his secret will, and without allowing that distinction he must be accounted as weak as we (according to the Romish censure of us) ar­gue him cruel.

We hold that no man ought infallibly to as­sure himself of his salvation, you say he ought.

Our Church is silent in this point too. Zanch. Some, I confesse, Tom. 7. de certa salu­te Eccles. Perk. de praedest. & Gr. there are of prime note amongst the Protestants, hold, that every man is bound to believe himself predestinated; and their main Reason is, because every man in the Church is bound to believe the Gospel; which I take to be very strong against their own opinion, un­lesse the Gospel did tell every man that he is of the number of the predestinated. But it will be said, though this Proposition, Such and such a man is predestinated, is not expresly found in Scripture, yet it may be inferred from thence by unavoidable consequence; as, such, and such a man hath Faith, and Charity, and therefore he assuredly belongeth to God. Most true, but then he cannot be assured that he is predestina­ted, till he hath Faith, and that the true justify­ing faith too; for he may believe there is a God, he may believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God, he may believe all things conteined in [Page 32] them to be true, and yet come short of a justify­ing faith still: nor must he onely have faith, but he must also know that he hath it, or else he must not assure himself of salvation; and cer­tain it is, Faith he may have and not know it, yea, and a living justifying faith too; it may be so weak he cannot feel the Pulse, them motion, the operation of it, and yet the faith may be alive for all that; and though we are command­ded to examine our selves whether we be in the faith or not, yet assuredly many a dear childe of God, notwithstanding all possible search, sobs, and sighs, and howls, and laments, because he find­eth not that faith in himself, which yet in the effects and fruits there, as self-denial, unfained contrition, an hungring and thirsting after the righteousness of his blessed Redeemer, is most evidently visible to all beholders. In this very sad agony, and bleeding distress, Satan is ready enough to suggest to him, that faith he cannot have, but he must be sensible of it, that the chil­dren of God are always assured of their salvati­on; and that the faith which justifieth, is and must be without the least doubting. This is the wo­full consequence of being taught, that all the sons of God ought to be and are assured of their salvation. A far wiser and warier course take they, who with the Church of Ireland hold one­ly thus, Art. 38. that a true believer may be certain by the assurance of faith of his everlasting salvati­on by Christ; implying, first, that every faith­full person hath all-sufficient and enough with­in him in his heart to give him that assurance: and secondly, though in some, the beams of [Page 33] that gladsom light are much darkned, with the fumes of predominant melancholly, and Sa­tan's suggestions co-operating with it, yet in other some, The Spirit of God beareth witness with their own spirit that they are the sons of God, Rom. 8. 15, 16. and giveth them infallible assurance of being heirs of the promise. But to return to the Marques; his Lordship urgeth for Scripture, 1 Cor. 9. 27. and saith, S ^t Paul was not assured but that whilest he preached unto others he himself might become a cast-away] Answer, Saint Paul is his own best Expositor, and certainly if we may believe him, he was not so diffident as the Marques makes him; nay, it appears clearly, he was most assured of obteining the Crown, when he said, I run, but not as uncertainly, there's Paul's assurance. As for his scleragogy, and strictness of life, that he exercised, to declare to the world his conversation was conformable to his doctrine; least otherwise, whilest he preach­ed to others, he might be deemed [...], not a cast-away (as our Translation hath it, very cor­ruptly, I must needs say,) but a counterfeit, not the man he seemed, for that is the true and pro­per signification of the word, and the most na­tural to this place, as all Expositors agree. Next is Rom. [...], Plutarch. Marius. 11. 20. Thou standest in the faith, be not high minded, but fear, least thou also mayst be cut off.] The Apostle here gives the Gentiles a memento of the vicissitude of humane affairs, such an one as Ma­rius gave the L. General Sextilius by his Messen­ger, Go tell thy Master, said he, that thou didst see Ma­rius, (that Marius who had been six times Consul of Rome) sitting in Exile, upon the ruines of Car­chedon,

[Page 34] that once famous City. Seneca. Exemplifying thereby (saith my Author) the misfortune of that City, and his own change. So the Apostle would have the Gentiles take God's casting off the Jews to be a document against their over-much presumpti­on, Stas eo loco unde Troja cecidit, said the Trage­dian, thou stand'st in the very place from whence Troy fell. So the Gentiles were they to whom salvation came, through the fall of the Jews, v. 11. This is an argument against assurance of our temporal, not of our eternal state. Lastly, Phil. 2. 12. Work out your salvation with fear and trem­bling.] Here we are taught to distrust our own worthinesse, and to stand in aw of offending God: nor are we the lesse assured of our salva­tion through this diffidence of our selves, but rather much more. As to the Fathers cited, I cannot discover any thing in them following sute with this Tenet, onely Bernard (who comes very tardy a thousand years after Christ;) and he only upon Septuagesima (for in that upon the Ad­vent, there's not a syllable pertinent to this que­stion) hath indeed these words; Who can say, I am elected? I am predestinated? I am the childe of God? But Bernard speaks of such a certitude and assurance as Reason should demonstrate, and deriveth his inference, from Ecclesiast. 9. 1. Who can know whether he be worthy of love or hate? True it is, know it we cannot, but though we cannot know it, yet we may be­lieve it, and undoubtedly believe it too, and so saith Bernard himself; Propter hoc data sunt signa quaedam & indicia manifesta salutis, ut indubitabile sit eum esse de numero electorum in quo ea signa perman­serint, [Page 35] For this very cause God exhibiteth manifest to­kens of our salvation, that he who hath these signes in him should not doubt of his Election. And again, Quibus certitudinem negat causa solicitudinis, fiduciam praestat gratia consolationis. To make us the more solicitous and carefull, he restraineth the cer­tainty of our salvation; yet to comfort and sup­port us, he affords us confidence.

M. We say that every man hath an Angel Guardian, you say he hath not.

This is a matter so indifferent, as we leave every man to think what he please; the Fathers, Origen especially, held many of them as the Marques holds; whether we are guarded by one peculiar, or many Angels, is not worth the dis­pute, since on all sides we are agreed, that guard­ed we are by them.

M. We say the Angels pray for us, knowing our thoughts and deeds, you deny it.

I deny that Deny; we hold that the Angels pray for the Church in general, and that they know our Deeds, but not our thoughts, and be­cause they do not, we hold it unlawfull to in­vocate or pray to them; nor do the places al­ledged, import any thing to the contrary.

M. We hold it lawfull to pray to them, you not: we have Scripture for it, Gen. 48. 16. The Angel which redeemed Me from all evil, blesse these Lads, &c. Hosea 12. 4. He had power over the Angel, and prevailed, he wept, and made supplication unto them.

In both these places, one and the same Angel is understood, yet no created Angel, but the se­cond Person in the Trinity, so Athanasius; and [Page 36] something more than so too; his Lordship would be loth to hear of: Athan. Nec enim quispiam pre­caretur accipere ab Angelis, Serm. 4. contr. Ari­anos. aut ab ullis rebus creatis; For no man would supplicate the Angels, or any other created nature to receive any thing from them. But Job saith, Have pity on me, O my Friends, Job 19. 21. And Saint Augustine saith, expounding these words, that holy Job addrest himself to the Angels: But under his Lordships favour, Au­gustine goeth no further than videtur, It seemeth he did apply himself to the Angels; so he was not cer­tain, not positive in it. And his Lordship knows videtur, in others many times, but in Aquinas al­ways goes by the worst.

M. We hold, that the Saints deceased know what passeth here on Earth, you say, they know not.

His Lordship might have omitted this, it be­ing to receive the same answer which we gave to his Intercession of Angels. And of Abraham we shall have occasion to speak anon: nor shall I insist upon his Intercession of Saints, it differing nothing from that of Angels.

M. We hold, that we may pray to them, you not, we have Scripture for it, Luk. 16. 24. Father Abra­ham have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, &c.

Ladies, this proof is for you, far fetcht and dear bought; dead and damned in Hell: who would have thought to have taken Dives at his Beads? Nor are the place and person more odd, than the prayer, for it is no Ora pro me, Pray for me, but Miserere mei, Have mercy on me; so Saint Abraham was no ordinary Saint: the Marques would prevent us in what we should say, that [Page 37] this is a Parable, and we say so indeed; but no matter what we say, his Lordship hath ready a grand Inquest of ten Fathers, Theophylact, Ter­tullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Chrysostome, Hie­rome, Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory, Euthymius, and venerable Bede, who give their Verdict, that it was a true History; these are all good men and true; but were they all agreed upon that Ver­dict? Certainly no; Theoph. in loc. nay the very Fore-man (so ill luck had the Marques) hath it not onely [...], this is a Parable, but also not as some, Chrys. de Laz. [...], ridiculously, and senslesly have thought an History of a thing done. Euthym. in loc. Chrysostome calls it [...]. So doth Euthymius, and Ambrose is but at his videtur, Tert. adv. Marc. l. 4. It seemeth to be an History. Tertullian stands mute, Bellar. de Sanct. Be­at. l. 1. c. 4. and onely tells us, He thinks Abra­ham's bosome was not Hell, whether an History, or Parable. But what need we more, when Bellar­mine maintains the historical part onely till Death, and that Theophilact was in the right, when he called it a Parable.

M. But, suppose it a Parable, every Parable is either true in the Persons named, or may be true in some others.

Not every Parable, not this, for Bellarmine tells us that Christ when he descended into Hell went into the Conclave of the Fathers, (where then Abraham was) and preached to the souls there, Et tempore suo corpora etiam rece­pturas. that he now had finished the work of Re­demption, and they must go along with him to Heaven, and that afterward in the proper time they should receive their bodies. Bell. de Chr. Anim. l. 4. c. 13. So that clear it is by him, that Abraham had not now his body, and how he could discourse thus to Dives with­out [Page 38] his Tongue, a member of that body, is to me a miracle. [Job 5. 1. Call now if there be any that will answer thee, and to which of the Saints will thou turn.] Eliphaz bids Job expostulate with, not pray to the Saints, nor are they dead Saints, but living; such as from whom Job might ex­pect an answer. His Lordship's Authorities are, first, Dionysius Areopag. c. 7. but the prayer there is for the dead, not to them. Athanasius is such a piece of forgery, as Cardinal Baronius himself saith, Baron. ad an. 408. S. 19. & 20. It is a great blemish to the Catholique cause to urge such counterfeits. Basil speaketh of devout persons who resorted usually to make their sup­plications to God at the Monuments of Martyrs; not one syllable of praying to the dead. Chry­sostome Hom. 66. is a Bastard. Saint Hieromes Epi­taph upon Saint Paul is no better Saint Maximus, we know not any such Saint, nor Father. Ber­nard is a thousand years after Christ, and we grant Invocation of Saints had got footing in the Church by that time.

M. We hold confirmation necessary, you not.

We hold confirmation as an invocation of grace, to confirm and strengthen us in the per­formance of what we promised in Baptism. But not as necessary by divine Ordinance, nor as a Sacrament, nor that the holy Ghost with the gift of miracles is conferred thereby. His Lord­ships Scriptures are onely Evidences of Fact, what was done; they contein no precept, nor is there any one word of Chrysme, or anointing with oyl, See after Titulo con­firmation. which is the ( sine qua non,) the main in­gredient into Popish confirmation, and though ancient, yet it is not Apostolical by their own confessions.

[Page 39] M. We hold it sufficient to communicate in one kinde, you not.

Our Church saith, Art. 30. The cup of the Lord is not to be deny'd to Lay People. And certainly, if any one of the Elements may be deny'd, it must be the Bread, the cup cannot; for of the Bread it is onely said, Take, eat, this is my body, but of the Cup it is said expresly, Drink ye all of this; im­plying plainly, all are to communicate of it. But if the Marques hath Scripture, by that we will and must be governed. First then, Joh. 6. 15. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever.] True, And ther­fore Biel saith, In toto illo sexto capite Johannis loquitur, Dominus de mandu­catione & bibitione spirituali non carna­li. in can. missa lect. 84. in the sense our Saviour spake it, who told us, v. 63. the words he spake are Spirit and Life, implying they are to be spiritually inter­preted, and how that is, he explain'd himself before, v. 35. He that cometh to me shall never hun­ger, and he that believeth in me shall never thirst. Nor did he speak here of the sacrametal bread, and if he did, the Church of Rome is clearly cast; for, vers. 53. he is express enough, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Bloud; (so there the Cup comes in, it cannot be exclu­ded) you have no life in you. What can the Papists here say, that judgement should not be given against them? Next, the Marques alleadgeth, Acts 2. 42. And they continued in breaking of Bread, and prayer; and tells us, here is no mention of the Cup. I answer, granted; but what if we say, there is no absolute necessity enforceth us to un­derstand these words of the Eucharist, how could the Marques prove it? But if the Papists will take it for a courtesie, we will not stand with them about it. And though the Cup was [Page 40] not there mentioned, yet for ought the Mar­ques could tell, it might be there; for breaking of bread are words large enough to hold it, else Eutychus had but a dry and choking repast. And why may not breaking of bread include the cup, as well as eating comprehendeth drinking? Christ sate down with the Disciples to eat the Passeover, Luke 22. 15. 16. and yet we find a cup there, vers. 17. and the fruit of the vine in it too, vers. 18. and no Communion chalice neither. His last Text is Luke 24, 30, 35. where Christ communicated with his Disciples under one kind, where he tells us that Augustine, Theophylact and Chrysostom expound this place of the blessed Sacrament: well wee'l not quarrel about that neither; but this triumvirate of Fathers had not it seems kond their lesson right, for they should have told us that Christ communicated under one kind onely: Nay, had they told us of any such practise in the Primitive Church, it had been somewhat, but nor they, nor any other, for the first 500 years, I might say 1000 have left us any such thing upon record, and therefore here his Lordship forsakes his old wont of say­ing the Fathers are of this opinion, and stands ingenuously silent; no more then what Bellar­mine did before him, who in this very point, leaveth his old Idem probatur ex Patribus, The same is proved by the Fathers, and fairly giveth them the slip.

M. We hold that Christ offered up unto his Father in the sacrifice of the Masse, is a true and lively sacrifice; this you deny.

[Page 41] Our Church saith, Art. 31. the sacrifices of the Masse are blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits. His Lordship urgeth Malachy 1. 11. In every place incense shall be offered to my name and a pure offering. This could not be meant of the Jewish sacrifices, nor of that real sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse, but of the dayly sacri­fice of the Masse.

Of the 2 former I grant with the Marques it could not be meant, and fear the sacrifice of the Masse cometh in so late, and so many to be served before it, that it will speed as ill as they.

For first there is a sacrifice of Prayer. Irenaeus l. 4. c. 33. Psalm 50. It might be meant of that, Hieronim. in Zach. l. 2. c. 8. and so Irenaeus and Hierome understood it. There is a sacrifice of Praise, the fruit of our lips. Heb. 13. 15. It might be that so Augustine and Cyprian understood it. Aug. c. Pe­til. l. 6. c. 86 Cypr. ad Quir. l. 1. c. 16. There is a sacrifice Eleemosynary, of almes, with which is God well pleased. Heb. 13. 16. It might be that; there is the sacrifice mentioned. Rom. 12. 1. a living sacrifice. It might be that; any of these, or all these it might be. And therefore that great Commemorative sacrifice, of the blessed Eucha­rist, comprehendeth them all in our Church Leiturgy, the 2 and last in the Prayer after the celebration of the Sacrament, Our sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving, we offer our selves, our Souls and bodies to be a living sacrifice, &c. The first and third in the Prayer for Christs Church, we beseech thee to accept our Almes and receive these our Prayers which we offer unto thy Divine Majesty. His other Text is, Luke 22. 19. This [Page 42] is my Body which is given for you; (but [...], what have we here?) not to you, said the Marques; then it seems Christ mocked his Disciples, as the Biscains do the King of Spain, with their bag of Maravides, when he said, Take, Eat, and when they were about to take what they thought they should eat, he said, Soft there, 'tis given for you, not to you. Now to his humane Authorities; and he beginneth from the Apostolical Times, if those Constitutions were of Clemens, which sure his Lordship thought we had more wit than to grant, but be the Author who he will, Omnia omninò sa­crificia de­struenda erant, si viventia per eccisio­nem si in­anima so­lida per combustio­nem, si li­quid a per effusio­nem. Bell. de missa. l. 1. c. 2. what saith he? he calleth it a rea­sonable, unbloudy, and mystical Sacrament. True, but then it is no proper Sacrifice: for it is Bel­larmine's Rule, that all Sacrifices whatsoever must be destroi'd; if they be living, they must be kill'd; if dead, they must be consumed; solid things, as meat, salt, &c. by fire, liquid by powr­ing out, as wine, water, &c. so the Sacrifice of Crist's body, if proper must not be unbloudy. But this supposed Clemens was going on, why did the Marques interrupt him? ('tis too hard to put upon us counterfeit, and clipt money too) for his next words are, which is celebrated by the symboles of the body and bloud in commemoration of his death. We hold with Augustine, the Commu­nion of the Body and Bloud of Christ is a singu­lar and most excellent sacrifice; [...], Chrys. in Act. c. 5. and with Chryso­stome, it is a heavenly, and most reverend sacri­fice; but still it is no true and proper sacrifice.

We say, the Sacrament of Orders confers grace, &c.

The Ordination of Ministers we deny to be a [Page 43] Sacrament, and if it were, we deny also that the opus operatum, Tho. Aqu. c. 2. q. 88. art. 11. & alii quod ego verissi­mum puto, saith Bell. de c [...]ricis L. 1. c. 18. or imposition of hands, confers grace; Man's hand is imposed, but it is God that does the deed; nor doth the Texts urged prove any such thing; for the word is 1 Tim. 4. 14. not [...], Grace, but [...], the gift peculiar to that Function.

We hold, that Priests and other religious persons who have vow'd chastity to God, may not marry afterwards, &c.

This the Papists hold indeed, and [...], somewhat more, viz. That the vow of continence is indispensably annext to sacred Orders. The Marques should not thus niggardly dispense to us the Oracles of his Church. Let any Romish Catho­lique prove this by Canonical Scripture, and then he shall speak to purpose, to better purpose than the Marques; for his first place out of Deut. is meant of a lawfull Vow, and all Vows are not lawfull, not that of Michah, Judg. 17. 3. not that of the 40, in the Acts 23. 12. not this of chastity, it being not in any man's po­wer. Nor is that of 1 Tim. 5. 11, 12. more perti­nent, though his Lordship takes it to be most clear, saying, What can be meant hereby but the vow of obastity? Bell. de Monach. l. 2. c. 24. Yet Bellarmine could have told him, that Faith neither here, nor any where else, nus­quam, signifieth a Vow; a promise it sometimes doth, he confesseth, and so do I, and so is it meant here. For there were in those Times some Women chosen, who might wait upon the ne­cessities of the Poor, and were called Diaconisses; and in order to that service, requisit it was they should be Widows, free from domestique cares [Page 44] and distractions; nor were they onely cho­sen such, but when chosen the Church exact­ed of them, to continue constant in that state, as well they might, if of 60 years before that choice.

We say Christ descended into hell and de­livered thence the Souls of the Fathers, Artic. 3. you de­ny it.

Our Church saith, As Christ died for us and was buried, so also is it to be believed, that he went down into hell, But that there was a goal delivery of the Fathers upon his going thither, or that they were in any Limb of it, she doth not be­lieve, but leaveth every man at liberty to think what he please. And truly I must crave pardon here of the Marques, for my heart will not serve me to go along with him in this particular, Arch Bish. of Cant. against Fisher p. 46 and of that very reverend Prelates mind I am, that it is a kinde of descent into hell to be conversant in the controversies about it. For indeed he that is once in, will not so soon out, for about the manner and place of his descent, Aug. Ep. Hilario. Ep. 89. de Jejunio Sabbati. it is intermina­bilis contentio, generans lites, non finiens quaestiones, an endlesse contention, begetting new strifes, not deciding old questions. For my part, I believe he was buried and descended into hell, nor will I enquire further, ne curiosus in inquirendo, cur, & quomodo, excidam e bonis nobis propositis, as Athana­sius in a not unlike case, Athanas. Orat. unum esse Chri­stum. lest inquiring too nar­rowly into the Why and How, I loose treasures of higher concernment.

M. We hold Purgatory fire, where satisfa­ction shall be made for sins, after death; you de­ny it.

[Page 45] Our Church saith, Artic. 22. The Romish Doctrine con­cerning Purgatory is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God. But his Lordship hath Scripture for it. 1 Cor. 3. 13. and 15. The fire shall trie every mans work of what sort it is, if any mans work shall be burnt he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

I cannot see Purgatory by this fire-light, Nusquam in Scriptu­ra fit men­tio ignis ubi aperte agi­tur de Pur­gatorio. and Bellarmine is at his nusquam again. There is no where mention of fire in the Scripture saith he, where it is plainly meant of Purgatory. And tells us that Augustine and Gregory understood this place of tribulations, and Chrysostome and Theo­phylact, of Hell. Bell. de Purg. [...]. 1. c. 5. But his Lordship saith Augu­stine and Ambrose, Hierome, Gregory, and Ori­gen understood it of Purgatory. For Augustine I confesse he is in many several tales, one of his last tracts, that de Civitate Dei, and one book of that Tract represents him thrice differing from himself, Purgato­rias poenas nullas fu­turas opin [...] ­tur nisi [...] Judicis di [...]. lib. 21. cap. 16. Let not any man think of Purgatory pains to come before the day of Judgement. Go 8 chapters further cap. 24. there he comes in with a constat, it is manifest some are purged before the day of Judgement by temporal pains. But 2 chapters beyond, there be some who think the fire in this place to be meant of a purging fire after this life; I do not contradict it, perhaps it is true. Who can tell what to make of S. Augustine now? yet this we may infallibly conclude, had Purgatory been then an Article of Faith, as the Councel of Trent hath now made it, Sess. 6. c. 30 Augustine would not have come off so staggering, with a forsitan, perhaps it is true.

[Page 46] Ambrose doth not interpret this place at all, for 'tis no Interpretation, that leaves the Text as dubious as before; Poenas ignis pas­surum ut per ignem pu [...]gatus fiat. Amb. in locum, in Psalm 118. all he saith, that he who shall be saved shall endure the punishment of Fire, that he may be purged by it. But whither in this life, or that to come, not a word. But in another Trea­tise, he applieth it clearly to the day of Judge­ment. Hierome speaks of a purging fire, but nei­ther saith where, nor when. All this time Pur­gatory fire was not heard of, and though, I con­fesse about five hundred years after Christ, it be­gan to be kindled, so as one might discern the smoak of it, yet it did not burn out till Saint Gregories time, which was Anno Christi six hun­dred, and ever since then, the Popes have had a special care to keep it from going out, seeing their cake would be very dough without it. But I must retract here; for Origen, who lived about two hundred and thirty, was clear for Purgato­ry, so clear, that he took away Hell it self, and thought the very Devils themselves should be sa­ved at the last day.

Lastly, we hold extreme Unction, to be a Sa­crament, you neither hold it to be a Sacrament, nor practice it as a duty.] The M. did extremely proper, to reserve Extreme Unction for the last, w ^ch 'tis true we hold not to be a Sacrament, for there's to us no precept for it; the Text in James only relateth to those times, whilest that miracu­lous gift of healing lasted; had we the same gift, we should continue the same practice. As to the Fathers, who he said are on his side, they speak clear beside the point. Origen onely of Remissi­on of sins by Repentance, Chrysostome of saving [Page 47] the souls of dying persons by the help not one­ly of doctrinal Admonitions, but of prayers also. The two pieces of Augustine alleadged, are confessed to be Impostures. Beda is short of the Marques his thousand years, it being but nine hundred since his time.

M. Thus most sacred Sir, we have no reason to wave the Scriptures Umpirage, &c.

The Marques here triumphs over-early, the bitterness of Death is past, said one; yet lived few hours after it. And what ever his Lordship was perswaded of his Scripture proofs, sure I am, his Majesty concludes with an Otherwise to his Thus. After this preposterous boast, his Lordship with much ado, scrueth himself into the dis­course of the Authority of the Church, and in­validity of Scripture light, Conside­ration up­on Dr. B. which because I have already in part, and shall more largely else­where insist upon; for this time I shall preter­mit. But the M. is not yet empty, a vent he hath found, and we shall have him now, dregs and all. And perceiving he could not in solidity of Arguments overtake our Church, he now throweth stones at her, Epist. which Balsack saith is but boys play. The two Objections against her are; first, the maintaing a Woman to be Head in the Church, Virg. Aen▪ 11. but this is already answered, with, a ca­pite cane talia, (I will not make up the Verse) let him chant that to his own Church. The other, against our Lay Chancellors excommunicating; To which I answer, Lay Chancellors do not ex­communicate, but some Ministers assistant to them; but the Truth is, as their Authority was too much, so their practise exceeding their Au­thority [Page 48] made our Church obnoxious to such reproach, as his Lordship is pleased to cast upon it, and though this one be a blemish to our Church, yet may she glory that she hath but one.

Now for the Church of Saxony, you shall finde Luther, &c.

The Marques his next Task is to discover and rip up what Luther, Melanchthon Musculus, Calvin, &c. being under the notion of Protest­ants, have been guilty of either in Doctrine, and manners. 'Tis well known, his Authors are not very credible Witnesses, nor are all the points urged, matters of Faith, or Morality, nor are they all so to be understood as represented, nor all represented so faithfully as they ought; but admit them all for such, and in that sense his Lordsh▪ would have them meant, yet what are Lu­ther, Calvin, &c. to us, being not of our Church, or were they of our Church, they are not our Church, which is not to be measured by parti­cular men. De praeser. 'Twas well said by Tertullian, Ex per­sonis probamus fidem an ex fide personas? Doth our faith contract esteem by the persons who profess it: or are not they rather the better thought on for the faith they professe? But then perhaps they will demand after all his Lordship's 45. pages, of elaborate pains of rendring these men thus odious, Quorsum haec? To what purpose did he sweat so much in the matter? Answer, to very good purpose, both against our Church, and a­gainst his Majesty. Against our Church, who had been bold with the Popes of Rome. Against his Majesty, whose Father spake his minde of them also, as freely as our Church. Well, and [Page 49] what hath he gained by it? very little certainly. For what if Luther denied some parts of the Ca­nonical Scripture? Leo. 10. It was but some part, it was not all, as Luthers great and first adversary Pope Leo did, by consequence, though not expresly, to the Cardinal Bembus, Bale Oth [...] Meland [...]r Jo. Ser. 140. saying, (concerning the treasure of indulgences) in a mockery, what a mighty revenue make we of the fable of Christ? Make a fable of Christ, and what becomes of either Testament? What if he, or Calvin, erred concern­ing the Trinity, did not Liberius as I shewed before subscribe to the Arrian Heresy? What if Calvin held with Nestorius two Persons in Christ, did not Pope Honorius hold but one will in him? an heresy full as grosse, and for which he was condemned by the 6 General Councel of Con­stantinople. Act. 11. What need we run into exact paral­leels with them? it is enough we can produce, a Caelestine the 3. Alphon, de Castro de Heres. l. 1. c. 4. teaching that heresy is a suffi­cient cause of Divorce in Matrimony: A John 22. who taught that the Souls of the just did not see: Ockham. l. dierum 23. Adrian. de confirmat. Concil. Constanc. Sess. 11. God before the Resurrection. Another John 23. that denied the Resurrection of the body. And how I pray do the great Clerks of the Romish Interest come off here? very poorly most certain, even just as S. Augustine said, quasi hoc sit respondere posse, quod est tacere non posse, as if to answer and not to say nothing, were all one. For if the evidence be given in so full against their Popes, that find them guilty, they must, and all other shifts fail, then such a Pope did not define e Cathedra, fitting in his in-erring-chair, but ut Doctor peculiaris exposuit obiter opinionem suam, [...] onely delivered his opinion as a private Doctor; which is a [Page 50] plain confession that this rare knack of Infalli­bility, is not by his Holinesse carried alwayes about him. Again, sometimes 't is no heresie what such a Pope thought, because nulla adhuc praecesserat Ecclesiae Definitio, Bell. ibid. c. 14. the Church never de­sired any thing in the Point, so that, be the opinion never so grosse and absurd, never so destructive to the many principles of Faith, never so re­pugnant to the expresse Text of sacred Scri­pture, yet heresie it is not with them till the Church define it. Lastly, some have held erro­neous oppinions, but upon their death-beds have been of another minde, and would have defin'd the Truth, but (see the ill luck of it) the good men have been prevented by death; this is Bellarmines excuse for John 22. Bell. ibid. And yet the Car­dinal's relation out of Villarius of this John's re­tractation, represents his holinesse in no Defini­tive posture, and as far from the thought that he was, as Pope, Summus judex controversiarum in Ecclesia, Supreme Judg of controversies in the Church, which is the main Subject of the Jesuites fourth book de Romano Pontifice. For first, the Pope saith, Existimare se jam probabiliorem esse sententiam eam. He is now of the minde that it is the more probable (mark that, Bell. l. 4. c. 14. de Rom. Pon­tif. he goes no further than probability in his Retractation and Palinody, and probabi­lity is no good foundation for a Decernimus, for a definition) opinion that the Souls of the Saints enjoy the beatifical vision before the day of judgement. And that he did now adhere to that opinion, unlesse the Church (mark that too) to whose definition he would subject most willingly his own judgement, should other­wise [Page 51] determine: sure the Pope was brought as low in minde as body, who did thus pusillani­mously, submittere fasces, and vail to the judge­ment of the Church, or else was certainly per­swaded, that, whatever their Parasites give out, Popes in truth differ little from meaner persons in the point of deciding Theological questions.

The M. his next remove, is from the Protestants Doctrine, to their divisions in Doctrine, & denied it cannot, it must not be. But divisions there are: this sad, bleeding Church of England is a most la­mentable, a most deplorable demonstration of it. And what if there be divisions amongst us, are they alwayes the marks of the false Church, and unity the note of the True? His Lordship will scarce be able to prove that. De praescr. Haer. Tertullian did I am certain think otherwise, Schismata apud haereti­cos fere non sunt, Hereticks saith he seldom differ, they agree too well. But why should his Lordship urge our differences so against us? Are the Pro­testants only guilty of these dissentions? Did not Paul and Barnabas grow into such a paroxisme and cholerique fit as they parted upon it? Acts 15. 39. Did not Paul and Peter strive about a thing indifferent? Gal. 2. 11. Were not Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, and Pope Victor at defiance? Did not Chrysostome and Epipharius proclaim [...], implacable War each against nother? And is the Church of Rome so unison, so all of a piece, as to afford no jarres? The happier she sure, and happier now than of old, when she had as good, as prudent Governours as now, and I think a little better. Rom. 16. 17. And though S ^t. Paul had charge of her as a Gentile Church, yet could he [Page 48] not look so narrowly into her, but some there were who caused dissentions in her contrary to the Doctrine he had delivered. But if such har­mony there be at Rome, how cometh it then to passe that in that great Article of the Romish-Ca­tholique Faith, about the Popes-Infallibility, Bel­larmine himself undertaketh Durandus and Adrian, for accriminating Gregory the First of errour? How cometh it then to passe that he taketh Pa­normitan and Gerson to task, for saying that a private man furnished with better Authority of Scripture is to be preferred for his opinion be­fore the Pope? How cometh it then to passe, that he censureth Nilus, Gerson, Almain, Alphon­sus de Castro, and Pope Adrian the sixth, for teach­ing that a Pope may be an heritique? And to be short, how cometh it then to passe that in his vast volume of controversies, there is very rare­ly any one, wherein the Cardinal hath not to do with some one or other of his own party; as dissenting from his own Thesis and Position; B. Halls peace of Rome. so that a grave Author hath cull'd out no lesse then 303 oppositions amongst the Marquis his un-jarring Catholiques? And he that knoweth nothing of the quarrel between the Jesuits and Seminary Priests may see enough in Watson the Seminary, who is so liberal a libeller, so full of gall and bitternesse, as me thinks I hear the Jesuit expostulating with him, as Absalon did with Hushai; 2 Sam. 16. 17. Is this thy kindnesse to thy Friend? Nor are they onely the smaller Bells in the Ro­mish Church that ring thus awake; the great ones, the Popes themselves interfere; witnesse the dif­ference about the Translation of the Bible, be­tween [Page 53] Sixtus the fifth, and Clement the eighth; and that so great an one, as all the Wits of Rome will never be able to make them Friends again. James his Bellum Papale. So that if his Lordship takes these to be no jarrs, his ear is not (I think) very musical. And because the Marques voucheth for the Ca­tholiques no jarrs; Relations p. 189 Sir Edwin Sands: True it is, he saith, the Catholiques have a readier way to reconcile their Enmities, and to decide their Differences, having the Pope as a common Fa­ther, Adviser, and Conductor to them all; whereas the Protestants, being not united un­der one Prince, nor Patriarch, are as severed and scattered Troops, Page 179 &c. His Lordship might have remembred, that but ten pages before, Sir Edwin saith, speaking of France, The Ca­tholiques are here divided into as different Opi­nions, and in as principal matters of their Re­ligion, (as they esteem them) as the Protestants, in any place that ever I heard of. By which it is evident both that the Catholiques have jarrs, and no small jarrs neither.

From Divisions the Marques dislodgeth, and proceeds next to the bad Lives of Protestants. I confesse by the little I have searched, I see a great deal of false play in his Lordships Instan­ces, to lay all open were time mis-spent: I will neither admit all his Accusations for true, nor affirm them all false; enough I conceive, it is for us in this particular to say, The best is, the Triple Crown it self is able to match them, and over-match them too, chuse what vice, what sin you please: for it hath afforded conjurating Popes, who have made private Contracts with [...] [Page 48] [...] [Page 53] [Page 54] the Devil; Alexander the sixth, Paul the third, Sylvester the second, Benedict the ninth, John the thirteenth, Gregory the seventh; for it hath af­forded an idolatrous Pope, as Macellinus; for it hath afforded incestuous Popes, as Paul the third, Alexander the sixth, and John the thirteenth; for it hath afforded bloudy and truculent Popes, as Boniface the seventh, Paschal the second, Ʋrban the sixth; And lastly, it hath afforded Whore­masters an innumerable Crue▪ so that Bellarmine himself is so hard put to it, to salve the matter, of the dissolutenesse of Popes, as he hath nothing else to say, De Rom. but Quot numerari possunt qui rectissime credunt, Pont. l. 4. c. 14. & tamen perditissime vivunt; How many may be reckoned up who are of sound belief, yet of wretched lives.

His Lordship having as he conceives given sufficient caveat what it is to rely upon such mens judgements, as Luther, Calvin, Beza, &c. Next takes notice of an Objection his Majesty made, That the Church of Rome hath fallen from her first Love, and old Principles, and un­dertakes to prove an Identity, and samenesse of Doctrine in the now Church of Rome, and in the Primitive Church during Saint Augustine's time; for which Father's worth, he produceth the great esteem he hath amongst Protestants themselves: and indeed he deserves all the good can be said of him, being of all the Fathers the chiefest Florist, fullest of Elegancy, and there­fore most delightfull; Aug. de Haeres. ad Quod vult Deum. and also the most judici­ous and solid, and therefore most edifying: but yet for all that, Saint Augustine himself had his Re [...]ctations, and he calls it himself a necessary [Page 55] work. In this Parallel and comparing both Churches together, the Marques spends many pages, which I shall answer in as few lines. And first, I might demand, were his Lordship living, as David did of the Widow of Tekoah, 2 Sam. 14. 19. Is not the hand of Joab (or Cardinal Peron) with thee in all this? Could he, or durst he deny it? Undoubt­edly no, there being no other difference than be­tween French and English, and the Reply of a Cardinal, to the Father; of a Marques, to the Son. But as the Cardinal saved the Marques a great deal of labor in penning his eighteenth Chapter of his Reply to King James; Andrews Opusc. post­huma. so a very reverend and learned Bishop hath saved me as much, in already answering that eighteenth Chapter of the Cardinal's Reply; and he hath done it so full, so home, that never as yet durst any Jesuit, or other of the Romish perswasion, take him to task for it: to that excellent Piece I shall transmit the Reader, with this onely cautionary hint, that what the Bishop page 7. citeth out of Saint Augustine de Civit. Dei l. 17. c. 20. is no where to be found in that Tome or Tract, but is in his sixth Tome contra Faust. Ma­nich. l. 20. c. 21. and instead of Post Adventum in the Bishops, reade Post Ascensum, for so it is, and so it must be, I wonder much that his own Ma­nuscript (he being so diligently precise) should have it so, and that the Error should escape also those judicious and exact Supervi­sors, who published those posthume Works.

After all these borrowed, or rather stollen Comparisons, the Marques makes no doubt but his Majesties judgement will tell him, that [the [Page 56] Church of Rome hath not changed her countenance, nor the Papists fled from their Colours, but that they do antiquum obtinere.] True indeed, the Romish Ca­tholiques do still antiquum obtinere, keep their old wont, the old wont of the ancient Hereticks, and what that was Tertullian can inform us; Adjectio­nibus, by foisting in (as, Tertul. de praescript. This is my body which is given for you, not to you) & detractionibus, by lopping and laming (as leaving out, Do this in remembrance of me) Scripturas ad dispositionem instituti intervertere, wresting the Scriptures to serve their own turns. This is all the Antiquity his Majesties judgement could tell him of in the Romish Church, where differing from ours. Nor is it enough his Lord­ship proves (as he would perswade us) the Ro­mish Antiquity, but he will also shew the Pro­testants theirs in the condemned heresies of the anci­ent Church; as for Example, the Protestants hold that the Church may err, this they had from the Dona­tists.] But I would gladly know from whence the Marques had his Information concerning this opinion of the Donatists? he quoteth Augu­stine for it, I confesse, and with a passion as if eve­ry where you might finde it in him, where he undertaketh Donatus; but sure it is, his Lordships every where will come to no where; for the opini­on of Donatus was clearly this; that all Church­es but his own were erroneous, his own onely infallible, and out of which hold he did, that none could be saved; which I conceive is the very Tenet of the Romish Catholiques, and so the Do­natists and they are nearest ally'd.

Protestants deny unwritten Tradit ions this they had from the Arrians.

[Page 57] I deny that Deny, Traditions we hold, and grant in Ceremonies and matters not funda­mental, Baldwin. in Optatum l. 5. and we oppose to the Romish party their own comparison of Traditions to a nuncupa­tive will, which cannot, by the Rule of our Law, convey a free-hold and Estate in Fee. So it is with Traditions in Divinity, they cannot constitute any Articles of Faith, or impose any thing of the necessity of salvation, for which re­course must be had to the written Word, and to that only. Though Arrius is branded for an Here­tick, yet neither Augustine nor Epiphanius, so far as I am able to understand them, have discovered any such Heresie in him as a Recusant to un­written Traditions.

Protestants teach that Priests may marry, this they had from Vigilantius.

This is Heresie now adays, but ab initio non fu­it sic, 1 Tim. 3. 2. 'twas not so in Saint Paul's opinion, who appointed a Bishop should be the Husband of one Wife; 'twas not so in Tertullian's opinion, who was a married Presbyter; 'twas not so in the opinion of those Bishops Athanasius Epist. ad Dracent. Episc. fu­gient. speaks of, who were married; nor so in our Island Gild. Epist. for near six hundred years.

Protestants deny Prayer for the Dead, this they had from Aerius.

Aerius was not condemned for an Heretique, by Saint Augustine, for denying Prayer for the Dead; Aug. de Haer. 53. he onely saith, that Aerius fell into Arrius his Heresie, Propria quoque dogmata addidisse nonnul­la, dicens orare pro mortuis non oportere; and added some private opinions of his own, saying, that we ought not to pray for the Dead. So Augustine; and Dogmata, opinions are not Heresies.

[Page 58] Protestants deny Invocation of Saints, this they had from Vigilantius, for which he is con­demned by Saint Hierome.

To deny Invocation of Saints was no Here­sie in Hieromes time, De Civit. for Augustine his Contem­porary, saith, Dei l. 22. c. 10. that the Martyrs whose names are ce­lebrated at the Altar, non tamen a sacerdote invocan­tur, are not yet invocated by the Priest.

Protestants deny Reverence to Images, this they had from Xenias.

'Tis well known, Worshiping of Images came first into the Church by the second Coun­cel of Nice; Irenaeus l. 1. c. 24. and as well known, that that Councel was condemned by the Councel of Frankford. August. And the Fathers ancienter far than both, Haeres. 7. enroll the Gnosticks and Garpocratians a­amongst Heretiques, Epiph. in Haer. 27. for adoring of Images; and if it be Heresie to adore them, it is certainly none to deny them Adoration.

Protestants deny the Real presence, this they had from the Capernaites.

The Capernaites were no more Heretiques than the Disciples themselves of Christ; for as one said, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? John 6. 52. So the other, This is an hard saying, who can hear it? v. 60.

Protestants deny Confession of sins to a Priest, so did the Novatian Heretiques, and the Montanists.

Protestants deny not Confession Auricular; Luther, who saith, it is not necessary, nor to be exacted, Luther de Com. pop. yet withall saith, it is utilis & non con­temnenda, Profitable and not to be slighted. Opusc. Bucer commends it, Anglican. and saith, It is the duty of Ministers [Page 59] to exhort rich persons to it. Our Church in some cases injoyns it. Nor did Novatus deny it; his Error was, that they who in Times of persecu­tion fell away to Idolatry, and delivered up the sacred Scriptures to be burnt; should never be admitted to communicate with the faithfull in the Congregation, Cypr. de Lapsis. not excluding them from all hope of mercy with God, but from Communi­on with the Church, that the strictnesse of this Discipline, might strike into men the terror of Apostatizing. And the Catholique Church her self went but one degree, but one step further in her Indulgence beyond Novatus; for whereas he in Reconciliation, thought once was too much, she her self thought but once enough, and this was done as Augustine said, Ne medicina vilis minus utilis esset aegrotis. Lest the cheapness of the medicine should hinder the cure. Epist. 54. Nor did Montanus (though too rigid in this particular) deny it wholly, for his Excommunication was but ad omne pene de­lictum, for almost every offence, and almost is a word of qualification, of abatement.

Protestants say, we are justified by faith one­ly, this they had from the Pseudo-Apostles.

Our Justification by faith onely we had from Saint Paul, Rom. 3. 28. and we hope he was no Counterfeit, no false Apostle. The false Apostles Saint Augustine speaks of, were they who held, that justifying Faith might be severed from, and without works; such an Opinion the Church of Rome maintains to this day, and Protestants un­dertake the Papists for it.

Lastly, as I have shewed your Majesty, that your Church as it stands in opposition to ours, [Page 60] is but a Congeries of so many Heresies; so you shall finde our Doctrine amongst your own Doctors.

At last the Marques is come to his Lastly; and if his So here, proves no better than his for­mer As, his Lordships shews will be but So So; And first, he begins with the Greek Church, who he saith holds Invocation of Saints, Adora­tion of Images, Transubstantiation, Communi­on in one kinde; but his Lordship is clearly out in the last, for they communicat under both kindes, though received at once [...], The Bread sopt in the Wine, as Christophorus Angelus, a Native of that place, assures us. And for Worshiping of Images, he is half out there too, for though they worship Images yet in their Churches they will not endure them, as the Pa­pists do. In many points it cannot be deny'd, they have confederacy with the Church of Rome, they have their Errors, Cap. de In­colis terrae sancta. and are censured for them by us, and so they are by Bocardus a Monk, with a Faxit Deus, &c. God grant there be no Fopperies crept into our Church (meaning the Romish) also. His Lordship did toto coelo errare, was Heaven wide when he reckon'd the Greek Church amongst our Doctors, though true it is, they hold indeed with us in the weightiest, with the Papists in the most points. And to little better purpose was it, that he urgeth against us Luther, the Hus­sites, Wickliff, and the Waldenses; we own them not for our predecessors, they had their Errors, the Rancidity of Rome was not wholly out of them, nor could it be expected otherwise. For Illumination is not in Divinity, as in Philoso­phy, an instantaneous action; we blesse God for [Page 61] the light they had, though umbrageous and clouded, yet was it such as discovered the na­kednesse and shame of the Church of Rome. And since the Marques hath begun to us, we will requite him, with shewing the Romanists our Tenets amongst their own Doctors; whom they do, and always account undoubted Catho­liques; and because he begins with Transub­stantiation, we will follow him in his own Or­der.

And first, Transub­stantia­tion. take notice when this opinion be­gan to be an Article of Faith, and for that hear Scotus: Transubstantiation was not a point of Faith, Scot. in 4. till the Lateran Councel. And Tonstal: Of the manner how Christs body is in the Bread, Sent. d. 11. it were better to leave every man to his own opi­nion, Tonstal. de Euch. l. 1. as it was free before the Lateran Councel. This Councel was celebrated, De Euch. l. 3. c. 20. as Bellarmine holds, Anno 1215. And yet her decision hath not pas­sed very currant neither. For Scotus saith, it doth not seem to be deduced out of Scripture, that the substance of the Bread is not in the Eucharist. Scot. ib. in 4. q. 6. art. 2. in Sent. 4. d. 11. q. 1. Petrus de Alliaco: That the substance of the Bread ceaseth to be, there is not evidently imply'd out of Scripture. Durandus: Tis rashnesse to affirm the body of Christ cannot be in the Sacrament, but by conversion of the Bread into it. Cajetan: There appeareth not in the Gospel any coercive Argument that these words, in Them. 3. q. 75. art. 1. This is my Body, are to be understood properly. Walfridus Strabo: After the celebration of the passe-over, c. 16. Christ delivered the Sacrament of his body and bloud, in the Substance of bread and wine. Ferus in Matth. 26. Ferus: Since certain it is the body of Christ is there, what [Page 62] need we dispute whether the Bread remaineth in Substance or not.

The Glosse of the Canon Law: De Con­secr. dist. 2 The Bread is called Christs body improperly, meaning that it signifieth Christs body.

Against the Infallibility of the Church, Infalli­bility. that is, (as the Marques confest to his Majesty, p. 79.) of the Church of Rome, Disput. theolog. tom. 3. disp. 1. pag. 24. cont. Haer. l. 1. c 4. that is, (as Valentia saith) the Bishop of Rome, Alphonsus de Castro. Every man may err in Faith, yea, though he be the Pope himself. Gerson, The Pope as well as an infe­riour Bishop is obnoxious to erre in Faith. Ca­tharinus, Nothing hindereth, but the Pope may err in Faith, Tract. An liceat ap­pellare a Papa in causis fi­dei. though some Novellists are so im­pudent to hold the contrary against the com­mon sence of all antiquity. Adrian the sixth, a Pope himself affirmeth it for certain, That a Pope may erre in asserting heresy by his Decree, and that many Popes have been heretiques. Catharin. Comment. in Gal. 2. Bannes, It was the general opinion of all the ancient, both Popes and School-men, till Pighius; and since him of the more sober Doctors, Adr. de Confirm. art. 3. ad finem. Bannes. in 2. 2. q. 1. art. 10. lib. 57. as Ca­jetan, Turrecremata, Victoria, Soto, Canus, and others; that the Pope of Rome may become an heretique.

Against Merits and Supererogation. Merits. Sacra­ment. tit. 7. ch. 7. Wal­densis, He is the best Catholique, who confesseth, that simply no man meriteth the Kingdom of heaven; Comment. in Math. c. 20. but obtaineth it of Gods free grave. Fe­rus, If thou desirest to keep in Gods favour, make no mention of thine own Merits. Duran­dus, If God give any reward to our good deeds, 2 Dist 27. q 2. it is not because he is a debter to our works, but [Page 63] out of his own bounty. 1. Dist. 17. q. 1. art. 2. Ariminensis, No work performed by man is condignely meritorious of eternal life, Pigh. con­trov. 2. L. 1. d. no nor of any temporal reward. Pighius, We are made righteous not by our own righteousnesse, but by the righteousnesse of God in Christ. Gratia & lib. Arb. c. 3. This is that Pighius who Bellarmine saith was miserably seduced by reading Calvins works. Bell. Te­s [...]am. ult. But who was it seduced the Cardinal himself to pray that God would admit of him amongst the Elect, not a priser of his Merit, but a dispenser of pardon and forgivenesse?

Against Invocation of Saints, Invoca­tion of Saints. Halensis our Country-man, God alone is simply to be prayed to, the Saints are rather assistants in the behalf of those who pray, Dist. 4. q. 26. then fit to be prayed to. Bannes, That Saints are to be prayed to, art. 3: 2. 2. q. 1. art. 50. in 3. Thom. q. 52. dist. 42. in 2. Ti­moth. 2. dist. 8. and images to be worshipped, is neither expresly nor by impli­cation taught in Scripture. Suarez, That in the Old Testament any one did directly pray to the Saints departed, either to help them, or pray for them, we no where read. Salmeron Invoca­tion of Saints is not mentioned in the New Te­stament, and it may administer occasion to the Gentiles of worshipping many Gods. Rational. l. 4. c. 39. Durandus, Adoration must be bestowed onely upon God, not upon the Angels, lest we fall into the sin of Idolatry.

Against Communion halfed. Com­munion, halfed. Halensis, whole Christ is not conteined in either kind Sacramen­tally, but his flesh under the species of bread, and his bloud under the species of wine. Dist. 4. q. 4. Lori­chius, 'Tis heresy and execrable blasphemy of Bastard-Catholiques, Memb. [...]. De Missa. who say, that Christ spake onely to the Apostles, saying, Drink ye all of [Page 64] this, De legit. usu Euch. c. 10. when both these words, Eat and Drink were spoken to the whole Church. Valentia: Communion under one kind began to be gene­rally received a little before the Councel of con­stance. Apud Gratian. de Conse­crat. Pope Gelasius: We find that one part of the Sacrament cannot be received without the other, Dist. 2. without committing great Sacri­ledge.

Against the Sacrifice of the Masse. Sacrifice of the Masse. The Ma­ster of the sentences: It is demanded, if what the Priest consecrateth be properly a Sacrifice? to this it may be briefly replied that what is of­fered by the Priest is called a Sacrifice, L. 4. dist. 12. because it is a Memorial and representation of the ture Sa­crifice made once upon the Crosse.

Against the seven Sacraments. 7. Sacra­ments. Cardinal Bes­sarion: Baptisme and the Lords Supper are the onely Sacrament delivered evidently in the Go­spels. De Sacr. Euch. in 4. Sent. d [...]st. 23. q 1. art. 4. Matri­mony. Thomas Aquinas, The form of Baptisme and the Eucharist are extant in the Scriptures, but not the form of other Sacraments.

Matrimony is not to speak properly a Sacra­ment. Durandus: There want not some Catho­liques, who grant that Matrimony is no Sacra­ment of the new Law, L 4. dist. 26. q. 3. de sacr. Matrim. l. 1. c. 5. Bellarmine.

Penance, Penance. is divided amongst the Papists, into Confession, absolution and satisfaction. But Confession is denied to be any part of this Sa­crament by Scotus, in 4. dist. 14. Major & Gabriel, and absolu­tion is denied by Dominicus a Soto, in 4. dist. 14. and Bellarmine himself saith, that inward contrition is suffi­cient to save us without either absolution or Confession. de Poen. l. 1. c. 19.

[Page 65] The Sacrament of confirmation, Confir­mation. as it is a Sa­crament, was neither instituted by Christ nor his Apostles, Halensis. The Apostles delivered neither the matter nor form of this Sacrament, p. 4. q. 24. Art. 2. but onely confirm'd some without the Ministe­ry of a Sacrament, 4. dist. 7. Bonaventute. Of the form of this Sacrament we read nothing in Scripture: if we resort to tradition, in 3 Thom. we shall find a great deal of variety amongst the Fathers Sudres.

There are but two places urged from Scri­pture for extream unction, Extream Ʋnition. Marc. 6. vers. 13. is the first, where it is said, that the Apostles anointed with oyl, many that were sick and healed them. de Extrem. Ʋunct. l. 1. c. 2. But Bellarmine denieth that uncti­on to be Sacramental, because saith he the Apo­stles were not yet made Priests. The other is James 5. 14. cited by the Marques, and Cajetan saith, in locum. neither from the words nor from the ef­fect can it be gathered, that the Apostle speaks thereof the Sacramental union.

Against Purgatory. Purgat [...] ry [...] ther. Roffensis, Purgatory can­not be proved by Scripture: and amongst the antients there is none at all, or very rawly any mention of Purgatory, and the Greek Church denieth it to this day. Otho Fris. That there is any such place of Purgatory in hell, wherein they, who are to be saved must be purified by an ex­piatory fire, some (but not all) assert.

By this time, I hope, I have made good my promise; for, I think, the Romish Catholiques nor can, nor will deny, but all these are their own Doctors, and all this our Doctrine.

Finally: If neither prescription of 1600 years possession, and continuance of our Churches [Page 66] Doctrine, nor our evidence out of the Word of God, nor the Fathers witnessing to that evi­dence, nor the decrees of Councels, nor your own acknowledgements, be sufficient to mollify and turn your Royal heart, there is no more means left for truth or me, but I must leave it to God, in whose hand are the hearts of Kings.

This Finally contradicts his Lordships late lastly, and it is a formidable, a terrible conclu­sion, a conclusion able to make the stoutest Pro­testant reel; did we not know that these are but words of course, and meer set forms of Osten­tation: what is indeed more feasable then to be foyl'd when he who is our enemy, [...], is become all he can desire, [...]. accuser, witnesse, Judge? But shall his Lordship carry away this conclusion [...] without controul? No sure, admit they could prescribe for 1600 years, must prescription prescribe and out Truth? But can they pre­scribe for 1600 years in any one point where in they differ from us? Can they in many for 1000? can they in some for 600? their grand Novelty of Transubstantiation will tell them no; and it is well known, the slender possession their errours have had, hath not been so quiet, so peaceable, so undisturbed, but that Truth hath made her constant and continual claim. As for their evidence out of the word of God, Oration [...] esse ad san­ctos facien­das, venerandas esse eorum imagines, memoriasque eorundem in Ecclesia ce­lebrandas solemniter, sacramenta ordinis & confirmationis non esse iteran­da, neque expresse neque implicate, sacrae literae docent, Bannes in 2. 2. q. 1. art. 10. p. 170. can. loc. com. l. 3. c. 3. sundam. 3. out of the word of God it is, I confesse, but it [Page 67] would do much better in it; And in it they have so little as their greatest Clerks acknowledge, that prayer to the Saints, worshipping of their Images, celebrating their festivals, the not iterating of the Sa­craments of Orders and confirmation, are taught in Scripture, neither expresly, nor by implication. So Bannes, from whom Canus differeth onely in su­peradding the Sacrifice of the Encharist. As for the Fathers and Councels witnessing to that evi­dence, such as the Scripture evidence is for the Papists, such is their witnessing to that evidence, just so and no more, which more explicitely is, just none at all. For I challange them to pro­duce any one Father of the first 500 years, who held and maintained any one point of Doctrine as the Councel of Trent now holds, where dif­fering from us; of Doctrine I say, for in cere­monies they may I grant find many presidents in antiquity conformable to theirs. As for our own acknowledgements, sure his Lordship did not in good earnest and seriously think we Re­puted and own'd Luther, the Hussites, the Wal­denses for Ours; no, we always constantly urge them as Romish Catholiques, though in some particulars they oppugned her Doctrine. Thus his Lordships specious and flashy conclusion is reduced to a meer nothing. And his Majesty was at this brunt in no great danger of becoming the Marques his convert.

THe Doctor's Invective against Sacri­ledge shall create him no trouble from me, I desire not to meddle with Imper­tinencies. [Since your Majesty was pleased to discharge the Watch which I had set before the Door of my Lips] The Watch before the Door of your Lips was, it seems, of your own set­ting, and because so, 'tis like his Majesty thought fit to discharge it; not desiring to leave them without a Guard, but hoping they might be relieved with that which the Prophet David call'd to God for, Psalm 141. v. 3.

I shall make bold to put your Majesty in minde of holding my Lord to the Demand, which your Majesty once made unto his Lord­ship, concerning the true Church; for if once that Question were throughly determined, all Con­troversies, not onely between your Majesty and his Lordship, but also all Controversies that [Page 69] ever were, would soon be decided, at a short race end] And is there no way, no means to end Controversies, but by that which this fifteen hundred years and upward, hath been disputed what it is, and where to finde it? Did God pro­vide so ill for us, as to leave us in suspense con­cerning the main points of Faith, untill that Church, which is yet in the clouds, shall define what is the true sense of that Scripture, which must guide us to eternal happinesse. And if after 15 hundred years debate this Church were but in view, some comfort it were to us; but clear it is (and a miserable case) she is as far off, for ought we know, as ever; for we are not agreed upon those marks and tokens by which she must be known. Our Church (the Church of Eng­land) holds the purity of Doctrine preached agreeable to God's Word, De not is Eccles. l. 4. c. 3. and Sacraments ad­ministred according to Christ's Ordinance, to be the notes of it. The papists hold they know not how many; Bellarmine reckons fifteen, but at last reduceth them to four, (according to the most usual and received Opinion amongst them) Unity, Holinesse, Universality, Succession; as they are in the Nicene Creed; but yet he comes reeling off too, giving them no more than an Evidence of Credibility; so that if a man will believe them he may, Evidenti­am credi­bilitatis ib. and may not if he will: and if we were agreed upon the true marks, yet should we not be agreed upon the true Church; for suppose the four mentioned before and ur­ged by the Church of Rome be they, yet we say, they are more visible in our Church, than in that of Rome. There are not amongst us, three [Page 70] hundred and three differences in points of Re­ligion, B. Halls peace of Rome. as hath been demonstrated in the Church of Rome, and therefore ours the greater Unity. For Holinesse, that is a grace keeps home, and stirs little abroad, yet if we may judge of it by its fruits, the papists cannot shew us more wic­ked members of our Church, than we can them Heads of theirs; so the thing Holinesse is ours, let the Title be theirs. For Universality, Rome (wherein she differeth from us) cannot prove her Assertions from the testimony of the primitive Church, in some points for a thousand years, not in any for five hundred after Christ; so we are the more Catholique. Lastly, for Succession of Doctrine (which is the best Succession) we derive ours from all the Apostles; Rome onely from Peter, derives onely a Succession of Chairs; and yet it is not infallibly certain that ever Pe­ter was at Rome, much lesse Bishop there; and therefore our Succession the best too; so that as the case now stands between us, we are not like to agree in haste.

Doctor, I wish you could set us through; and truly I must needs say, in my opinion you have made a fair offer at deciding this Controversie, when you said, Page 79 The true Church must be a So­ciety of Men, though I can go no further with you, for that, That Society of Men are to be su­preme Judge of Scripture, and Controversies Theological will not down with me, nor I be­lieve with many more. For let that Society of Men be a General Councel, which is a supposi­tion of as much advantage to you as you can desire, because it represents the Catholique [Page 71] Church; and it is but a supposition too, for though there have been before the Empire was split, General Councels in former times; yet as the case stands now, it seemeth to wise men an incredible thing, that ever such a Councel shall be again: and Religion would be in a most sad condition, were all controversies to stay for de­cision till then. Conc. Eph. Besides Doctor, it hath befallen some General Councels, that there hath been shamefull packing and fore-stalling of Suffrages and Voices before they met; and when met, many have been frighted and minaced to vote clean contrary to their own sense; and such Councels are but ill to be trusted with Questi­ons of Faith, in my poor opinion. But suppose your Councel met, and assembled, and with all the fairest carriage and freedom you can desire, they are but weak, finite, and erring men still, their Canons are no Articles of Faith, their De­crees no infallible Rules. Not so in the primi­tive Church, I am assured, by the confession of both sides. Augustine being to dispute with Ma­ximinus, his first demand was, Dic mihi fidem, Re­hearse to me thy faith, the subtle Heretique (sup­posing Augustine would urge the Nicene Creed against him) reply'd, I believe as the Councel of Ariminum believes; but finding after that Augu­stine would not take this for an Answer, says further, I did not plead the Councel of Ariminum to excuse my opinion, but to shew the Authority of the Fathers; who, according to Scripture, delivered to us a Confession of Faith, which they had out of the Scri­pture. Augustine perceiving Maximinus let go the Councel of Ariminum, was resolved to stand as [Page 72] little upon the Councel of Nice, but closed with him thus, Neither ought I to produce the Councel of Nice against thee, nor thou that of Ariminum against me; I am not bound to the authority of this, nor thou of that; let us in our conflict urge the authority of scripture witness indifferent to both, and not peculiar to either. See here the Orthodox and Heretique, both compromise to abide the order of Scripture, and both wave the Authority and Judgement of two General Councels; which certainly they would not have done, had they reputed them in­fallible, and a Judge not infallible shall rule no Faith of mine. But the Doctor tells us page 79. [His Society of Men must be such as can say, [It seemed good unto us and to the holy Ghost] Now Doctor, you speak to the point indeed, that Society of Men, that Church would I fain see; but are you well advised what you say? If yea, then it must seem good to the holy Ghost because so to us, whereas the first form if he ever promised to be there with infalli­ble assistance, I dare take his word for it; but had it to the holy Ghost first, and then to us. But assign the holy Ghost what place ye please, if he be there, 't is all I look for, and I will not take yours, unless you shew me that promise, which hitherto you have not done. But we will not part so neither, admit for once you finde the Church you so hunt for, and a spirit of infallibility directing her in that Councel, must and will all Controversies pre­sently cease? Certainly no such matter; for may not perverse spirits wrest to their own destructi­on, what the holy Ghost shall declare in a Ge­neral Councel, as well as what he hath deliver­ed [Page 73] in the sacred Scripture? Did not the Nestorians vouch for their Heresie the Authority of the Councel of Nice, as General a Councel, and as much endowed with the holy Ghost, as ever any (since that of Hierusalem) was, or I believe shall be. Nor do I speak onely of what the ma­lice of Satan sowing Tares, and man's crooked & untoward will (a soil proper for them) may produce; for the holy Ghost speaks in a man­ner, signanter, and expresly, there must be, not­withstanding such assistance, Controversies still. For if there must be Heresies, there will be without controversie, Controversies still; and that Heresies must be, the holy Ghost tells us, 1 Cor. 11. 19. So that the revenue and product of all I have said is this, That the true Church hath not the supreme Judicature over Questions of Faith; and if she had, yet Controversies would and must still continue; and all this I hope I have not onely said but proved.

I confesse ingeniously (sure he meant inge­nuously, for there was no great wit in his confes­sion) that there is not a thing that I ever under­stood lesse, than that Assertion of the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies, though in some sort I must and will acknowledge it.

The Doctor was here going a step beyond the Papists themselves, who all hold the Scri­ptures to be an infallible Rule; but resum'd himself, and modifieth his speech with an ac­knowledgement of it to be so in some sense; but in what, he thought us not worthy to know. Nor, since he is so reserved, will we much in­quire; because, when known, it can extend little to our satisfaction. But though we must [Page 74] not know in what sense it is sole Judge, yet in what it is not he tells us; and that is,

Not as it is a Book consisting of papers, words and letters; for as we commonly say in matters of civil Differences, The Law shall be Judge between us, we do not meane that every man shall run unto the Law-books, or that any Lawyer himself shall search his Law-cases, and thereupon possesse himself of the thing in que­stion, without a legal Triall by lawfull Judges constituted to that same purpose.

How the Doctor thinks he hath nickt it, and yet I fear he is so far from hitting the White, as he hath mist the But. For first, the Compari­son is extremely wide. Things ad extra, and what are without us, may be stated and determined by civil Judicatories; but Faith is a thing mixt of the understanding and the will, over which none can claim Jurisdiction. Man may adjudge away my Land, my Faith he cannot, and there­fore I must say with the Poet,

Hane animam concede mihi, Virg. Aen. 11. tua eaetera sunto.

Secondly, in civil Differences, will the Doctor say that the Judges decide the Question, or the Law? For if the Judgement be given according to the Law, then the Law is the Judge I take it; and if contrary to Law, or not according to it, he who so determineth, is not a Judge, but an Ar­bitrator. Our Law judgeth no man, Joh. 7. 51. &c. saith Nico­demus: there the Law was the Judge. And though with us in England, the Law is a kinde of Craft or Mystery, full of Quirks and Intrica­cies; yet in other places, as in Denmark, Onely the Parties at variance plead their own Cause, and [Page 75] then a Man stands up and reades the Law, and there's an end; for the very Law-book is the onely Judge; saith my royal Author, Ki. James his Speech in Star­chamber, 1616. and adds, Happy were all Kingdoms if they could be so. Lastly, where the Do­ctor saith, [It is not our meaning that every man shall run unto the Law-books] We will, though not yield it, yet suppose it so in other Differences, but in Divinity it is clearly other­wise, for there is an expresse Command given by Christ himself, not to the Pharisees onely, but ge­nerally to all, Search the Scriptures; and it were a meer mockery in our Saviour, to bid us Reade the Scriptures, Suet. in Caligula. if they were like Caligula's Laws, written in so smal an hand that we cannot reade them, or in so obscure words as we cannot without the help of the Church, in matters of Salvation, understand them.

In like manner saving knowledge and divine Truths are the Portion that all God's Children lay fast claim to, yet they must not be their own Carvers, though it be their own meat that is before them, whilest they have a Mother at the Table.

It is no Argument of ill nurture for Chil­dren, who are adult and grown to full stature, and past the danger of cutting their own fin­gers, sometimes to be their own Carvers, though their Mother be at the Table. But how commeth it to passe, that the Doctor here pla­ceth our Mother the Church, in no obscure place neither, but in the Carvers place, at the Tables end, where she should be visible enough; and yet say afterward, he would fain finde out this Church? And if at the Table she be, the more [Page 76] hard-hearted is she sure, Fratees a Beyo. Ame­ric. part. 6. or Attali­ba, as Ben­za de Nov. Orb. l. 3. c. 3. for truly Doctor, I must say, (as Powhaton did to the Jesuit, or Attali­ba an Indian Prince too, to Frier Vincent) she hath carved me nothing, no, nor any man else for these fifteen hundred years; and 'tis an hard case, that Children should cry, and pine, and sterve, and die eternally, for want of this Food everlasting, which is before them, and all be­cause their Mother will not carve them, and themselves they must not. 'Tis time then for God to take away, and I heartily pray he may not take away, and deprive this Church of that blessed Food, for such wicked Tenets as this.

They must not slight all Orders, Constituti­ons, Appeals, and Rules of Faith.

Most true, the Churches Orders are not to be slighted, nor yet to be obeyed without further disquisition and scrutiny: the Apostle spake as to wise men, 1 Cor. 10. 15. yet left them to judge what he said, so may the Church determine what she please, and if not agreeable to my sense, endeavour I will to inform my self better; and if after after all my study, I cannot subdue my Reason to hers, yet to her Orders my outward conformity I will, provided she makes no Rules of Faith, and obtrudeth nothing destructive to saving principles, things above her sphere.

Saving knowledge and divine Truths must not be wrested from the Scripture by private hands.

This is that we desire, let them there remain, fit it is, that in what every man hath equal pro­priety, he also should to it have equal accesse; and most unfit, that the means of eternal liveli­hood should be monopolized.

[Page 77] Doct. There is nothing more absurd to my understanding, than that the thing contested (which is the true meaning of the Scriptures) should be Judge of the Contestation.

Nor to mine, Cum de rebus Dei erit sermo, conceda­mus cogni­tionem sui, Deo dictis­que eius pia vene­ratione fa­mulemur. that any one should tell us what God meaneth better than he doth himself; or that the Church, a thing subordinate to Scri­pture, and not to be known, or discovered but by Scripture, should tell us the minde of the Scripture, better than it doth it self.

Doct. No way inferior to that absurdity which would follow would be this, if we should leave the deciding of the sense of the words of the Law to the pre-occupated understanding of one of the Advocates. Idoneus enim sibi testis est, qui nisi per se cognitus non est. Hi­lar. de Tri­nit. li. 1. Neither is this all the Absur­dity that doth arise upon this supposition; for if you grant this to one, you must grant it to any one, and to every one; if there were but two, how will you reconcile them both? If you grant that this Judicature must be in many; there are many manies, which of those manies will you have? Decide but this, and you satis­fie all.

Decide you it Doctor, whence it concerns, for your Church must be one of those manies, and yet I believe you will not satisfie all, not those I am perswaded, whose suffrage is for the Scripture against all manies whatsoever.

If you make the Scripture the Judge of Con­troversies, you make the Reader Judge of the Scripture.

Not so Doctor, no Judge; yet a more com­petent Judge, to himself, than any other, or all the World can be; seeing Knowledge and Un­derstanding [Page 78] cannot be produced and perfected in any man, any other way, than by his own Reason.

If I make the dead Letter my Judge, I am the greatest Idolater in the World.

A great Idolater you should then be I grant, but not the greatest in the World; for you wor­ship then but what you see, and something real­ly existing; but to worship such a thing as hath not yet been, nor can be divin'd when it shall be, as your Church is, certainly must be the greater Idolatry of the two.

Doct. It will tell me no more than it told the Indian Emperor Powhaton, who asking the Je­suit how he knew all that to be true which he had told him, and the Jesuit answering him, that God's Word did tell him so; the Emperor asked him where it was? He shewed him his Bi­ble; the Emperor after he had held it in his hands a pretty while, answered, it tells me no­thing. But you will say, you can reade, and so you will finde the meaning out of the signifi­cant Character, and when you have done, as you apprehend it, so it must be, and so the Scri­pture is nothing else but your meaning.

Not so Doctor, but so it must be to me, be it to the Doctor what he please; nor perhaps shall it be always so to me, as I now apprehend it; for I am no infallible Judge to my self; rectifie I may, and will, upon better reason, what I formerly mis-apprehended upon worse.

Wherefore necessity requireth an external Judge for Determination of Differences besides the Scriptures.

[Page 79] If an external Judge besides Scriptures be ne­cessary, then necessary also it is, that that Judge be first infallible; for else better it were the Dis­sentions continued, than the Error be stated, and put into possession, as may well be feared in an erring Judge. Secondly, that that Judges au­thority be allow'd of for infallible by general consent; for else all will not abide her arrest and doom. Lastly, that that Judge be always ready and forth coming upon all emergent Dif­ferences to still them; never out of the way, ne­ver to seek; for else the Differences will the more increase and fructifie, by staying the lon­ger for judicial sentence and decision. Now be­cause for these fifteen hundred years, controver­sies have been, and no such Judge as yet disco­vered in rerum natura to quiet them, we may safely conclude from the no Judge, a no necessi­ty, or accuse God for improvidence and neglect in leaving us destitute all this time of so necessa­ry a Requisite.

Doct. And we can have no better recourses to any than to such as the Scripture it self calls up­on us to hear, which is the Church, which Church would be found out.

The Scripture calls upon us to hear the Church, but is this to hear, to obey her Glosse and Interpre­tation of the Scripture, to give up, and resign our judgements to her sense? Calvin, Beza, Gro­tius, all Expositors, the Context it self will tell you no; it is to submit to her censure in point of satisfaction for mutual offence, whereby she is scandalized: so that, Doctor, you must before you finde the Church you so look for, finde [Page 80] some other Text to warrant her Authority, or she is like to be no external Judge, whom all must obey in matters of Faith.

Here the Doctor takes breath, and gives his most Excellent Majesty leave to speak; who, like himself, most judiciously catechiseth the Doctor in the all-sufficiency of Scripture, after which the Doctor rejoyns.

All that your Majesty hath said concerning the scriptures sufficiency is true, provided that those Scriptures be duly handled, for as the Law is sufficient to determine right, and keep all in peace and quietnesse, yet the execution of that sufficienciency cannot be performed without Courts and Judges.

The Doctor holds his own Comparison still: Well Doctor, we have a Court too, Forum con­scientiae, the Court of every mans conscience, and a Judge also of that Court; if you demand Who? 'Tis every mans self, and therefore they who controul that Court, are by the voice of truth it self [...] condemned of them­selves. Titus 3. 11

For as Hierome tells us, who was no great Friend to Popes or Bishops. If there be not ad­mitted in the Church the Authority of one emi­nent and peerlesse Power above others, there will be as many Schismes in the Church as Priests.

Doctor, you are out, let me put you in; the Questions we speak of, are of Heresie, not of Schisme, that relates to dogmatical points of Faith, this to outward Rites. Ceremonies are the Garments of Religion, not the Body; and [Page 81] Cloath are for Ornament, yet not for that only, they are also to keep the Body warm; a Religi­on naked without Ceremonies will have but little outward warmth, but a frozen zeal (if I may so say) and too many Cloaths are as bad and cumbersome on the other side. Fit it is the Church should appoint her self, what and how many she will wear; for leave it at liberty, there will indeed be Schismes as many as Hierome speaks of.

Wherefore I would fain finde out that which the Scripture bids me hear, Audi Ecclesiam, &c.

The Doctor is again at his Hear the Church, Matth. 18. and I again must tell him that place is onely applyable to Ecclesiastical discipline. But that the Church may the better be heard, the Doctor tells us from Saint Paul, that she is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth: from Ezekiel, that God will place his sanctification in the midst of her for ever: from Esay, that the Lord will never forsake her: from our Saviour, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her, and that he will be al­ways with her unto the end of the world. All this we grant, and yet deny all that the Doctor would from these Texts infer; for first, it is e­vident, not any one of all these is to be un­derstood, or hath any reference to a Represen­tative Church, or General Councel, but to the Universal Catholique Church. Secondly, if a General Councel were intended by them, yet there is not any grant of an infallible spirit to direct that Councel, and without the spirit of infallibility, men will be (and no more than need) very cautelous of yielding plenary obe­dience to her Decrees.

[Page 82] Doct. For although the Psalmist tells us that the word of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes, yet the same Prophet said to God, en­lighten mine eyes that I may see the marvels of thy Law, &c. The Doctor labours here to prove the obscurity of the Scriptures; and that they are so in some places I never heard and man yet deny, Sp. San­ctus ita Scripturas Sanctas modifica­vit, ut locis apertiori­bus fami occurreret, obscuriori­bus fasti­dia deter­geret. de Doct. but that they are so in all, the Doct. him­self dares not, cannot deny. The truth is as Au­gustine said Excellently, The holy Ghost hath so modified and tempered the Scriptures, that there are clear places to satisfie the hunger, and darker to procure the appetite of the Soul, and if [...], whatsoever is necessary for us to believe is there clear and manifest, we are well enough. [But the Doct. saith, no man hath ever yet defin'd what are necessary and what not, what points are funda­mental and what not. Christ. l. 2. c. 6.] Hath no man defin'd what is necessary, what is fundamental? Yes Doctor, Chrysost. in 2. Thes. Hom. 3. Learned Hooker tells you it is the Do­ctrine which the Prophets and Apostles professe; the late Reverend Arch-Bishop tells you, Discourse of Just. p. 503. the Ar­ticles of the Creed which is but the summary of that Doctrine are such, and so is the belief of the Scriptures to be the word of God and infallible. Against Fisher. p. 42. [...]. 10. [Necessary to salvation is one thing, and neces­sary to knowledge as an improvement of our Faith is another thing. Nescire velle quae magister maximus docere non vult erudi­ta est in­scitia, Sca­lig. Gnom.] True Doctor, there are different things; but quid refert, what matter is it what is necessary to that knowledge, which is not necessary to salvation. Tis a learned ignorance not to know, that which our great Master will not teach us. Tis fides tua, said Tertullian, thy Faith, not the curiosity of being skilfull in the Scriptures hath saved [Page 83] thee: cedat curiositas Fidei, cedat gloria saluti, Let curiosity give place to Faith, vanity and osten­tation to Salvation. [For the first, if a man keeps the Commandments and believes all the Articles of the Creed, he may be saved though he never read a word of Scripture.] May he be saved Doctor? I hope it is more then possi­ble, then may be; he shall undoubtedly be saved: and so he shall if he believes all the Scri­pture, though he never read a word of it. But why Doctor do you distinguish between the Ar­ticles of the Creed and the Scriptures? are not those Articles the word of God, as well as the Scripture? I take it they are. First, as framed by the Apostles themselves, men Divinely inspired as all the Fathers agree. Secondly, because they containe the pith and marrow of the Scri­ptures, all the Doctrine necessary to salvation being there abbreviated. [He who means to walk by the rules of Gods word must lay hold upon the means that God hath ordained, where­by he may attain to the true understanding of them; for as S ^t. Paul saith, God hath placed in the Church Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Doctors, to the end we should be no more little children, blown about with every wind of Doctrine.] Were I disposed to quarrel, I could tell you Doctor Bayly, or Doctor Stapleton, (chuse you which) that your Text is out of date, and that the Prophets and Evangelists there mentioned were extraordinary, and proper one­ly to those times; and the Presbyterian party will tell you as much of the Apostles; so that there will be onely left Pastors and Doctors, [Page 84] (which with S ^t. Augustine. I conceive to be both one) of perpetual use in the Church, Aug. Ep. 59. Pau­lino. for the work of the Ministery, part of which work, I freely grant, is the interpretation of the Scri­ptures. Again, I might expostulate as the Apo­stle doth 1. Cor. 12. 30. do all interpret? have all Pastors that gift? And admit they have, have they all that assistance of the Holy Ghost in an infallible guidance, which those Pastors of the Apostolical times had? Nay, is that infallible assistance now afforded to any one of all the Pastors in the world? If yea, let us know the man, so qualified: if not, then what remedy but we may be still blown about with every puff of Doctrine, and what will then become of your external Judge, besides Scripture. [Though it be true, the Scripture is a river through which a Lamb may wade and an Elephant may swim, yet the meaning of that place is not that the child of God may wade through the Scripture without directions, help or Judges, but that the meanest capacity may find so much of comfort and heavenly knowledge there easily to be ob­tained, that he may easily wade through to his e­ternal Salvation.] If the meanest capacity, may wade through the Scriptures to his eternal Sal­vation, they are mad men will seek to go there­in beyond their depth: what can God give us, or we desire more, than the Salvation of our Souls? Luke 12. 31. Seek the Kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added to you; the most abstruse mysteries of Art and Nature shall there become obvious to us, the most transcendent speculations of all sciences shall there be revealed, the most intri­cate [Page 85] and perplexed subtilities of School Divi­nity shall there be resolved; Quid est, quod ibi nesciant ubi scien­tem omniae sciunt? Greg. Dia­log. l. 4. c. 33. 'tis therefore a pre­posterous curiosity, to hunt with so laborious disquisition for that here, which will come so cheap and easie to us there. [Wherefore with pardon craved for my presumption in holding your Majesty in so tedious a discourse, as also for my boldnesse in obtruding my opinion, which is except (as incomparable Hooker in his Ecclesiastical polity hath well observed) the Churches Authority be required therein, as ne­cessary hereunto, we shall be so far from agree­ing upon the true meaning of the Scripture, that the outward letter sealed with the inward wit­nesse of the Spirit, (being all Hereticks have quoted Scripture, and pretended spirit will not be a warrant sufficient for any private man to judge so much as the Scripture to be Scripture, or the Gospel to be the Gospel of Christ.) The Doctor is now entered into a weighty point, and not more weighty then intricate, viz. how we are ascertained that the Scriptures are the word of God. The Doctor with the Church of Rome, derives that assurance from the Testimo­ny and tradition of the Church, and her Testi­mony is indeed of all, sufficient to render us so assured, if she be so infallible and in-erring as they pretend; for our Faith, in this particular, cannot be guided by any thing beneath infal­lible. This question being so considerable, and of such concernment, it will not I hope be thought amisse, if I spend a little the more time about it. Therefore for elucidation, and illu­stration therof, I say, That the Scriptures are the [Page 86] word of God is a proposition, which must de­pend upon the evidence either of knowledge, or Faith. If of knowledge then it must be eli­cited, and extracted from the principles of na­tural reason. But all the reason in the world will never be able to demonstrate, either that the Scriptures are the word of God, or that they are not. Mistake me not, I do not exclude rea­son, as a guide, nor place it so in the line of in­cidence, as if it stood neuter, or indifferently inclined to both the affirmative and negative; no, I hold vastly otherwayes; Arguments she hath many, and ponderous to perswade that the Scriptures are of Divine inspiration; that they are not so, to diswade she hath and can frame none. But yet those Arguments are but solu­ble, no Demonstrations; for in Demonstrations the understanding is so clearly convinced by reason, that it can possibly incline no other way then one, Scalig. de Emend. Temp. Ea est vera Demonstratio quae cogit, non quae persuadet: and if reason were able to demon­strate the Scriptures to be the word of God, then all men who have reason, would assent presently without more ado, to her dictates, and consequently the whole world would become Christian, so that impossible it is for us to know that the Scriptures are the word of God, and if know it we cannot, Articuli Fidei sunt indemon­strabiles. Posnamen­ses in Sco­tum. l 1. dist 1. q 1. art. 5. it resteth onely that we must thereof be assured by Faith, and Faith will assure us of it as infallibly to the full, though not so evidently (in regard the principles there­of are indemonstrable) as reason can; well then, Faith it is which teacheth us infallibly that the Scriptures are Divine and sacred, but how that [Page 87] Faith is produced and wrought in us, is next in­quirable. The Doctor tels us out of Hooker, (that the Authority of the Church produceth it, and unlesse that be required, the inward witnesse of the spirit will not be a warrant sufficient for any private man to Judge so much as the Scri­pture to be Scripture, or the Gospel to be the Gospel of Christ.) But the Doctor hath here most shamefully abused that judicious worthy, who hath in his whole 5. books of Ecclesiasti­cal Polity no such words, and which is more, no such thing. If I bely the Doctor, let the shame lie upon me, Hooker hath thrice, and no oftener occasion in those books to declare himself in this point, l. 2. sect. 4. whose very words are these. [1. Ʋn­lesse besides Scripture there were something which might assure us that we do well, we could not think we do well, no not in being assured that Scripture is a sa­cred and holy rule of well doing.]

What that something is besides Scripture, Hooker mentions not, and if the Doctor say he means the Church, I demand of him to prove it, for sure I am Hooker doth not so much as name the word Church in all that Section. [2. ibid sect. 7. The Scripture is the ground of our belief, yet the Authority of man is the key which opens the door of enterance into the knowledge of the Scripture.] Hooker saith not here that the Authority of man createth in us the belief that the Scriptures are Divine, but onely that it is the key to the in­terpretation of the Scriptures: and you may note withall, that it is the Authority of but man, not of God speaking infallibly by man. Lastly, l. 3. sect. 8. ( The first outward motive leading men so to [Page 88] esteem of the Scriptures is, the Authority of Gods Church. For when we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of Scripture, we Judge it even an impudent thing, for any man bred and brought up in the Church, to be of a contrary mind without cause.] Ob­serve here that the Authority of Gods Church is with Hooker, the first outward (so no inward, nor the onely outward) motive. 2. That it is an outward motive too, but onely to us who are born and bred up in the Church, Sola est Authoritas quae com­movet stul­tos ut ad sapientiam festinent. and to such I grant the Authority of the Church is a very great motive, for nothing brings fools and ignorant persons to knowledge and wisdom a sooner and gainer way then the Authority of wise-men; but must Faith acquiess, and set up its rest in the Authority of the Church? Augustin de util. assured­ly no. Cred. c. 16. The Church may, it is possible, ten thou­sand General Councels may, (saith Hooker) be de­ceived, and Authoritate decipi miserum est, Hooker. l. 2 c 7. 'tis a la­mentable thing to erre with Authority, August. ubi supra. sed certe mise­rius non moveri, but to be obstinate against it, and of a contrary mind, as Hooker saith, without cause, is more lamentable. But though to the members of the Church, the Authority of the Church be a vehement and strong motive, yet to Pagans and Infidels who will own no such thing as a Church, it is no motive at all; if they question the Scriptures Divinity studious either of cavil, or to be converted they must be refuted, or in­vited by arguments drawn from reason, where­in they intercommune with us; and to speak truth, reason will carry them a very great way on towards, even to the very brink of Faith; reason will tell them that the Soul is immortal, [Page 89] that it is not onely capable, but desirous of hap­pinesse, that that felicity of the Soul cannot consist in either riches, honour Beauty, strength, learning or any earthly thing, they being all too narrow for it and too short-lived, but in the beatifical vision and contemplation of its Crea­tor, who is onely able to fill it, and in whose pre­sence is the fulness of joy for evermore. It will tell them, Aug. in Joh. Tra 2. Animae causa om­nis relig. that though God is their last home, vide­ant quo eant they may see whither they should go, non habent qua eant, yet how to come there is beyond the ken of Reason; and that though Religion be the way to him, Aug. d. Ʋt. Cred. c. 7. yet dim-sighted reason will never be able to find that way, till God himself re­veals it; Euseb. l. 9. c. 7. for Author de Deo est ipse Deus, God himself is, and must be the Authour of that which brings us to him: and it were inconsi­stent with the Providence of the All-wise God, to withhold from man that means, without which impossible it is for man to attain that end for which he was created. Therefore Augu­stine chargeth it hence upon the Pagan Gods as a grosse neglect, in not instructing of their wor­shippers in the way and means to happinesse. To the care of the solicitous Gods, Pertinebat ad consul­tores Deos, vitae bonae preceptae non occul­tare populis cultoribus suis, sed clara prae­dicatione praebere per Vates etiam convenire atque arguere peccantes palam, minari poenas male agentibus, premia recte agentibus polliceri. Augustin. d. Civit. Dei l. 2. c. 4. saith he, it did be­long not to conceal from their worshippers the rudi­ments of living well, but to teach them by clear pu­blication, also to convent and reprove offenders; by their Prophets to threaten open punishment to those who do ill, and to promise reward to those who live well. Reason therefore will thus teach them the necessity of some conveyance from God of his [Page 90] revealed will, and that necessity will also infer the actual being of such a Revelation, consi­dering that Deus non deficit in necessariis, God is not wanting in affording what is necessary. This ne­cessity and being of Divine revelation once al­lowed, reason will make it further credible that the Scriptures now received and entertained a­mongst us Christians as the word of God, are indeed and in truth, that revealed will of God.

For first they have no rival, there is none other stands in competition with them, the Gods of the Ethnicks gave their worshippers none.

Secondly, if there were any other, yet none must compare with them, they having many Prerogatives above all other. These Preroga­tives are.

First Antiquity, Primam Instrumen­tis istis au­thoritatem summa an­tiquitas vendieat. the Doctrine of them being far ancienter then all other Religions in the world, and almost as ancient as time it self, had it but begun with Moses, it had carried the priority and antecedency of time from all other, Tertull. by the confession of the heathens them­selves, as Josephus proveth: but it was before him. Nam unde Noe, Apoleget. cap 19. &c. For how was Noah found righte­ous, but by the preceding Justice of the Law of na­ture? How was Abraham reputed the friend of God, Contra Appionem So also Tacitus & others vide An­not. Hug. Grotii in de veritat. Christ. Felig. l. 1. unde Noe Justus in­ventus si non illum naturalis legis Justitia precedehat? unde Abraham amicus Dei deputatus? si non de aquitate legis naturalis, unde Melchisedech sacerdos Dei summi nuncupatus, si non ante Leviticae legis sacerdotium Le­vit. fuerunt, qui facrificia deo offerebunt? Tertul. advers. Judaeo [...]. but by the equity of the same Law? How was Mel­chisedeck called the Priest of the most high God, if be­fore the Priest-hood settled by the Levetical Law, there [Page 91] were not Priests to offer Sacrifice? Nay, it was be­fore the Floud, even in Paradise it self, there was the doctrine of saving Truth first institu­ted; which afterward was not renewed, but en­larged; was not changed, but perfected.

Secondly, the Spirituality of the doctrine, as God is a Spirit, and must be worshipped in spirit and truth, so is the fabrique, frame, and contrivance of the Scriptures conformable to him; 'tis not a doctrine of sensuality and dissolutenesse, not a doctrine of self-ends and by-respects, not a do­ctrine of worldly pomp and state, not a do­ctrine of wicked principles and discipline, but a doctrine of sobriety, and of self-denial, and of humility, and of virtue; a doctrine tend­ing onely to God, and what is in order to him, which sequestreth the soul from all earthly ima­ginations and cogitations, and fixeth them one­ly upon God.

Thirdly, [...]. Chrysost. Hom. in Gen. 18. the perfection of them, the excel­lent symmetry of parts, there is nothing lame, nothing idle, nothing impertinent in them, they were not written by chance, and at all ad­venture; there's not a syllable, not a tittle, but hath a masse of treasure comprehended and contrived in them.

Fourthly, the excellency of the mode, stile, and form of expression descending to the mean­est, transcending the highest capacities; where God one whiles insinuates himself into the con­science in the language of a familiar Friend, Quasi a­micus fa­miliaris ad cor loquitur. Aug. Ep. Volutiano. 3. [Page 92] another while reclaims it with the indignation of an incensed Judge, where Elegancy is with­out levity and affectation, plainnesse without irksonesse, and satiety, wherein the most curi­ous spirits may be exercised, the most ignorant instructed.

Fifthly, Ne dubites credere quod vi­deamus fi­eri. Tert. adv. Jud. the truth of them, in the accomplish­ment of what was there prophesied (and we may confidently believe what we see performed) as Cyrus his very Name & principal atchievements, fore­told by Esay; the end of the Siege of Jerusalem, by Jeremiah; the translation of the Assyrian Empire to the Medes and Persians, by Daniel; but most especially the coming of our Saviour Christ the true Messias at the very time designed of seventy Weeks, by Daniel 9. 24. The calling of the Gen­tiles by Esay, c. 60. The rejection and dispersion of the Jews by Zechariah, 12. 13. Lastly, the de­struction of the second Temple by Daniel, c. 9. And our Saviour Christ, Luke 19. 43.

Sixthly, the miraculous preservation of the Books themselves; first, against the injuries of neglect, as the Law found in the rubbish of the Temple, 2 Kings 22. after the wretched neg­lect thereof in the time of Manasseth. Secondly, against the injuries of alteration, Josephus contra Ap­pi [...]. D. 1. [...], &c. For in the Flux of so many Ages no man durst either add, diminish or change any part of them; for which end Esdras, Gamaliel, Eleazar, and others contrived that ex­cellent Treasure of the Masoreth, to denote the diversity of Readings in the Hebrew Text. Lastly, against the injuries of persecution, as in the time of Dioclesian, who commanded all the [Page 93] Bibles he could discover to be burnt, They who delivered them up being call'd Traditores, Tom. 7. Trai­tors, a word frequent in Saint Augustine against the Donatists, the main quarrell being between the Church and them, about the non-reception of those Apostates into the Congregation.

Seventhly, [...]. the thrift and propagation of the Gospel, in spite of all opposition and persecu­tion: By how many Tyrants was the Church afflicted, yet never conquered and destroyed? The Romans often pruned and lopt its Professors off, and still the more they increased, Chrysost. saith Dion, himself an Heathen. It may be here objected, Hom. 4. in Esay 6. that Dion speaketh of the Jews; true, I grant it, and as true it must be granted, [...]. that Dion tells us, also [...]. This appellation is given to others also, though of different Nations, who adhere to the same principles of institution; and what those are he tells us, viz. [...], They zealously worship a certain one God, will not endure Images in their Temples, Dion. Hist. L. observe the Sabbath: and such were the Christi­ans as well as the Jews: nor must Dion be under­stood in this place to imply any so properly as the Christians, who like the House of David, at that time waxed strenger and stronger, whereas the not Christianizing Jews like that of Saul, 2 Sam. 3. 1 waxed weaker and weaker. And that by so inconsidera­ble, so despicable means, against so implacable, so powerfull Opposites, Victi vi­ctoribus leges dede­runt, teneo. Senec. & Mart. Christianity should so triumph, so mightily prevail, as that the con­quered should command, subdue, and at length give Laws to the Conquerors, till almost the [Page 94] whole World became her Convert, Reason can­not conclude lesse than non haec sine numine— This must be the Lord's doing, that by the foolishness of this Word preached, 2 Tim. 3. 15. so many millions have been converted, Acts 12. 22. and made wise unto salvation. The voice, the Word of God it must be, and not of man.

Lastly, the failing and defection of other Re­ligions about the time of our Saviours Incarna­tion, the Heathen gods durst not abide his com­ing, but forsook their stations, abandon'd their Temples, and left their Oracles speechlesse, as Tully, Tull. de Divin. l. 2. Juv Sat. 3 Juvenal, and others assure us: and Porphy­ry, that sworn Enemy to Christianity confesseth, that since Jesus came to be worshipped, their gods have stood them in little stead. The Jewish Religion, which gloried so much in formality and external splendor, was deplum'd and stript of all in a few years. The Ʋrim and Thummim, those pretious stones of the high Priests pecto­ral or breast-plate, whose sparkling lustre (an index of God's atonement, and sure presage of Victory) even dazled the eys of all Beholders, about a hundred years before Christ's Birth, Joseph. lost their wonted radiancy and brightnesse, Antiq. Jud. l 3. c. 9. and be­came ever after totally dusky and obscure; evi­dently presignifying that the glory of the cere­monial Law was bidding the World good night. To the fail of these Oracles succeeded the fail of the sacred Priesthood, soon after by Herod alien'd and conferr'd in an arbitrary way on whom he pleased, without regard had either to Law or Line. The Priesthood thus pro­phan'd, what remain'd but the complement and last act of desolation, the destruction of the [Page 95] Temple, which delay'd not after Christ's Passi­on, above fourty years, ever since which time the Jews have had neither true Priests, nor true Sa­crifices, nor true places of Worship, nor a true home.

All these are motives and inductions from Reason to make it credible that the Scriptures are the Word of God, but not all these, nor the Testimony of the Christian Church it self, is able to create faith in us, Aug. contr. Manich. c. 14. which must be ipso Deo intrinsecus mentem nostram firmante & illuminante; God himself inlightning and strengthning our inward mind, Eph. 2. 9. for Faith is the gift of God, and be the ob­ject never so credible, believe we cannot, till God's Spirit worketh Faith in us. For the final resolution, termination, and rest of our Faith must be upon God alone, and by him alone wrought in us. That the Authority of the Church should be the sine qua non, so absolutely necessary, as that the inward witnesse of God's Spirit cannot warrant us that the Scriptures are divine without her testimony, needs no further confutation than the History of the Evangelists and Acts, where we reade of thousands con­verted to Christianity, who never entred at that door. In short, to contract my discourse within a straighter compasse, Faith being an Habit in­fused, and every Habit requiring some prece­ding dispositions and degrees to it, Faith must have hers also to make the thing credible, be­fore it be actually believed: of these motives and preparatory dispositions the Tradition of the Church is I grant to us Christians the first and most prevalent: but the Church is not here­in [Page 96] in unsociable, it is not her testimony alone will make it credible that the Scriptures are divine; other deductions and inferences framed by light of Reason, must, and usually do co-operate in working the minde to that perswasion. Contra Ep. Fund. c. 5. And by this time that famous place in S. Augustin is easi­ly resolved, which the Marques urged against his Maj. pag. 157. and Englished with more advantage to his cause, than conformity to the minde of that Father. Evangelio non crede­rem, nisi me Ecclesiae authoritas commove­ret. I should not believe the Gospel it self unless I were moved by the Authority of the Church, so the Marques. But Saint Augustine, Nisi commoverit, unlesse the Churches Authority together with other inducements did move me to it, clearly implying she could not move alone.

Having dwelt thus long and unavoidably up­on this point, lest the Doctor should think he hath quite lost me, 'tis high time to apply my self to him again.

This Church being found out, and her Au­thority allowed of, all controversies would soon be decided.

You say true indeed Doctor, her Authority being allowed of, but then it must be allowed of for divine, and who will so allow it amongst us Protestants? And how can it be proved she hath any such Authority, you will send us back, I know, to Audi Ecclesiam. But there will be a controversie what is the genuine interpretation of that place, whether hearing implieth an ab­solute or limited submission; and who shall de­cide that controversie? You'll say, the Church, I say, no, she must not, for 'tis her own case, and she must not be [...], witnesse in [Page 97] her own cause, that our Saviour held incompo­tent in himself, John 5. 31. If I bear witness of my self my witness is not true. But the Doct. tells us ['Tis one Article of our Creed, I believe the holy Catholique Church] That's true too, but 'tis Credo sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam, I believe there is an holy Ca­tholique Church, not I believe in the holy Catho­lique Church.

As the Lion wants neither strength, nor cou­rage, nor power, nor weapons to seise upon his prey, yet he wants a nose to finde it out, where­fore by natural instinct he takes to his assistance the little Jack-call, a quick-sented beast, who runs before the Lion, and having found out the prey, in his Language gives the Lion notice of it: now to apply this to our purpose, Christ crucified is the main substance of the Go­spel, &c.

The Doctor is here fallen upon a comparison wherewith he is much taken, I confesse I am not so well read to tell whence he had it, nor of so easie belief to credit the Fable; nor is it essential or to the purpose, whether a Fable or a Story, since rhe main design lies in the Moral and Ap­plication; wherein the Doctor hath rendred himself so impertinently tedious, and so intri­cately perplexed, that (to use his own words) I must confess ingenuously (yet under his highest cor­rection) there is not a thing that I ever understood less than the Doctor in this particular; of whom I may say in part, as Socrates did of Heraclitus, [...], He requires Delian Diver, and no less than Apollo to wade him through. I wish I could say also the other part, [...], [Page 98] What I understand is ex­cellent, Diogenes Laert. So­crat. and so is, I am perswaded, what I understand not: his scope and meaning being so darkly di­spensed, I shall adventure to bolt out by con­jecture, and make his application in what I can follow sute with his Comparison. The Lion is, as I apprehend him, Man's Soul; the Prey, Christ crucified; the place where this Prey is to be found, the holy Scriptures; the quick-sented beast, the Jack-call, the Church; these put into frame, & set together, seem to exhibit and repre­sent, that though the Scriptures contain Christ the food of our souls; yet cannot our souls finde out that Food, till the Church (like a Setter) makes her paint, & directs us where it is. But Do­ctor, we say & you shall never be able by Reason and Scripture evidence (though by words you may) to gain-say it, that our Souls are not so dull sented, nor Christ so obscurely tendred to us in the Scriptures, as that the simplest and most ignorant soul which humbly and devoutly seeketh him, can possibly misse him; and if found, he cannot be till the Church cry So ho, and shew him to us, we are but in an ill plight, seeing we have need of a quick-sented Jack-call to di­rect us to that Church, which you Doctor would so fain finde out. But will you see the artifice of this devised Plot, the cunning of this contrived similitude? Behold it here.

There is a quick sented Assistant called Eccle­sia, or Church, which is derived from a Verb which signifies to call, which must be the Jack-call, to which this powerfull Seeker after this Prey must joyn it self, or else it will never be able to finde it out.

[Page 99] Here's the depth of the design laid open, the Doctor, hapning by chance upon the Fable of the Lion and Jack-call, thought it would serve his purpose most happily, because the Jack-call was to be resembled by the word Church, which he conceived was derived from a Verb signifying to call; but here the Doctor is miserably, shamefully, even to ridiculousnesse grosly out; for Ecclesia is derived from [...], which doth not signifie to call, but to cull, separate, chuse, appropriate, and set apart, to elect. And where­as he saith, Saint Paul confirms the use of this Etymology, writing to the Corinthians, and else­where, he must be hinted, that the word is con­stantly there one and the same [...], called, not [...], elected, or called forth; calling is one thing, Election another; calling is in time, Election from all Eternity; all that are called, are not elected; nor are all that are elected, cal­led; for children dying infants are many elect­ed, but not any called. But perhaps the Doctor will say the word Church or Ecclesia compre­hendeth, in a large notion, not onely the Elect, but all that are called to the external profession of Christianity. I answer, true, but 'tis still de­rived from [...], and that Church is a chosen, a peculiar people selected from the masse of all mankinde.

When dissention arose between Paul and Bar­nabas concerning Circumcision, their disputa­tions could effect nothing but heat, till the Apo­stles and Elders met together, and determined the matter.

Good Doctor, if it be not too much trouble [Page 100] to you, I pray revise the Text again, for I fear you are much out of the story, and wide in two points; First, in affirming Paul and Barnabas to differ in the doctrine of Circumcision, who were [...], thought taught, and defended one and the same Truth, as is evident, Acts 15. 2. Secondly, in affirming their dissention to be be­fore the Councel of Jerusalem, whereas 'tis clearly directly said to be after it, Acts 15. 39. A Question there was I grant about Circumcisi­on, before that Councel, but not between Paul and Barnabas, but between them and some who came from Judea: again, a dissention there was, a Paroxisme between Paul and Barnabas, but it was after that Councel.

There must be a society of men who can say, Bene visum fuit nobis & Spiritui sancto; or else matters of that nature will never be determined, which society is there called the Church, which Church we are to finde.

That your external Judge is a society of men, you tell us here; but there are many societies of men; there is a society of men after the Geneva Model, there is a society of men according to the Romish perswasion, there is a society of men assembled in a General Council, not subordi­nate to the Pope, which of these societies is it you mean? If none of all these, explain your self; why should you be thus reserved, like a sullen Cow that will not give down her Milk? Come, impart, communicate your notion free­ly to us; if you say it is a society that can say, Bene visum fuit nobis & Spiritui sancto, you are not explicite, not yet clear enough; for the Holy [Page 101] Ghost may be so assistant to a society, as that form mentioned ( Acts 15.) may be assumed by it (though none hath as yet presumed so far) & yet notwithstanding, the definitions of that society may be not absolutely infallible. But Doct. I ob­serve an Elegancy in your form, singularly, and peculiarly, your own, you have reform'd the visiun est or placuit, used by other Interpreters, in­to bene visum, the mystery of which diversity, I would gladly learn I nor is this all, but by what warrant I know not; I finde nobis take place of Spiritui sancto, whereas the Apostles rendred them counter-changed, and put the holy Ghost in the upper hand. But it is time to make an end; no more but this; you say still, this Church you are to finde; and because if findable, your good for­tune may be to finde it, in case you do, let me advise you to proclaim your [...]; for assure your self, it will be treasure trouve, and then it belongs either to the King or State, and then Concealment may create your Trouble.