Pax vobis, or, Gospel and liberty against ancient and modern papists / by a preacher of the word.

First DIALOGUE.

ISMAEL.

I have read your Preface and Principles, and methinks you drive to e∣stablish a new Religion; for that unlimit∣ed Liberty, which you assert for to be∣lieve or not believe, whatever we please with a safe Conscience, is not allowed by any of our Reformed Congregations; and it were to be wish'd, you should rather stick to some one of the Congregations now Established, than to e∣rect a new one, for we have but too many al∣ready.

Isaac.

The Lord forbid I should think or speak otherwise than as becometh a true Child of the Reformation: If you will oblige me to believe Scripture as interpreted by the Lutheran Church (the like I say of any other Congrega∣tion) and deny the Tenets of all others, what difference betwixt me and a Papist in the Electi∣on of my Religion? For the Papists Religion must be no other, but Scripture as Interpreted by the Pope and Councils; my Religion must be Scripture as interpreted by the Lutheran Church, and no other; my Judgment and Conscience therefore is as much constrained as that of the Papist and our Separation from Popery will come to be but an Exchange of

one Slavery for another; in that, our Judgments and Counsciences were Slaves to the Pope and Councils; in this, we are Slaves to the Luthe∣ran Church: We became a Reformation by shaking off the Yoke of Popery from our Judg∣ments, and leaving them free for to believe Scripture as with the assistance of Gods Spirit, each one best understands it; and if we will continue a Reformation, we must not submit again our Judgments to any other, but retain that blessed Liberty we recovered for to believe the Tenets of any Congregation. I confess this Liberty is not allowed by any one particular Congregation, as you observe; out you must also grant me, That it's allowed and taken by the whole Body of the Reformation, for in this whole Body, as it comprehends Protestants, Lu∣therans, Presbyterians, &c. One Congregation be∣lieves what the other denies, and in any of them a Man may live with a safe Conscience (which you will not deny;) therefore any Man has full Liberty for to believe or deny with a safe Conscience the Tenets of any Congregation: Hence it follows, (and to my Grief I speak it,) that no particular Congregation, be it of Eng∣land, France or Germany, has the true Spirit of the Reformation, in doting so much upon their particular Tenets, as to think they cannot be as well denied, as believed; and in looking up∣on them with so passionate Eyes, as to cen∣sure

check and force others to believe them: You shall see by this discourse, that the true Spirit of the Reformation is not in any one particular Con∣gregation separately taken from the rest; for each particular Congregation constrains as much as it can, all People to believe its own Tenets: Protestancy would have us all to be Protestants, and would root Lutherans out of the World as well as Popery; Lutherans would, if they could, draw all to their own Net; Presbytery esteems it self to be the best of all, and would crush Pro∣testancy if it could: This then is the Spirit of each particular Congregation, a limiting, confin∣ing Spirit to some particular Tenets, with an ex∣clusion of all others; but look on the whole Bo∣dy of our Reformation, as it includes all Reform∣ed Congregations distinct from Popery; there is a Holy extension of Spirit and Liberty for to be either Lutherans, Presbyterians, Protestants, and a∣ny thing but Popery; and whatever any Congre∣gation may say of another, but all unanimously agree that the Spirit of the Lord is in the whole Body of the Reformation; since therefore that in this whole Body, there is a Latitude and Li∣berty for to Profess divers and opposite Tenets, and that each Tenet is believed by one, and de∣nied by others; we must grant that this Holy Liberty for to believe or deny any Tenets we please, is the true Spirit of our Holy Reforma∣tion.

It's not therefore to be wish'd, as you do, that I should stick to any one particular Con∣gregation or Tenet; for such a restriction is meer Popery; and your bemoaning the multi∣plicity of our Congregation, is profane and Po∣pish: No, it's a blessing of the Lord upon our Reformation, for which we shall never suffici∣ently thank him, that we see it divided into so many Godly branches. In the House of my Father, said Christ, there are many mansions, John 14.2.

Ismael.

By your discourse you seem to allow that we may with a safe Conscience change Re∣ligions as often as we please, and be to day a Protestant, to morrow a Lutheran, next day a Presbyterian, and so run over all.

Isaac.

I know you will be startl'd at my an∣swer, For I am not Ignorant that all men ap∣prehended it to be absurd to change and run o∣ver so many Religions; but truth must be de∣clared, though it may seem a scandal to the Jews, and a folly to the Gentiles: Its therefore the Do∣ctrine of the Reformation that we may with a safe Conscience be to day Protestants, to mor∣row Lutherans; in France Hugonots, in Hungary Antitrinitarians, in Poland Socinians; and in Lon∣don of any Religion but Popery.

Ismael.

For shame you foully impose upon the Reformation; there's not any Congregati∣on that teaches such a scandalous and absurd Do∣ctrine.

Isaac.

By your favour, I love the Reforma∣tion as the Apple of my Eye, and will never yield to any in my Zeal for its Honour and Do∣ctrine; I am so far from imposing upon it, that I will evidence your error in denying this to be its Doctrine; and it will appear that whoever will deny it to be very lawful to change Reli∣gions as time and occasion requires, must re∣nounce the best and Fundamental Principles of our Reformation, and must impiously condemn the practice of our first Reformers.

Ismael.

How will you make it out that this Do∣ctrine is grounded upon the the Fundamental Principles of our Reformation; whereas there is not one Congregation of ours, but abhors it?

Isaac.

Sir, you may well perceive by the te∣nor of my discourse, that I am Piously and Cha∣ritably jealous with each particular Congrega∣tion, and that my drift is to shew that each of them, none excepted, swerves from and trans∣gresses against the true Spirit and solid Princi∣ples of the Reformation, as will further appear in this discourse.

It's uncontestedly true that the Rule of Faith of the Reformation is Scripture, as the humble of Heart, assisted with the Spirit of the Lord, un∣derstand it; for Lutherans will never admit their Rule of Faith to be Scripture, as Interpreted by the Church of England, but as Interpreted by themselves; nor will England admit Scripture to

be the Rule of Faith, as it is Interpreted by the Pres∣byterians, but as Interpreted by the Church of Eng∣land: so that the Doctrine of each Congregation is but Scripture, as interpreted by them, and whereas all these Congregations joyntly compose the whole Body of the Reformation, and each Congregation is truly a member of the Reformation the Doctrine of the Reformation comes to be Scripture, as each Congregation, and Person of sound Judgment in the Reformation, (says the Church of England in her 39 Articles) Interprets it. This being an uncon∣trouled truth, what Man of ever so sound Judg∣ment, but may Read to day Scripture, as Inter∣preted by the Lutheran Church, and Judge in his Conscience that Interpretation and Doctrine to be true; consequently he may with a safe Conscience Profess that Religion: Soon after he may meet Calvin's Books, and charm'd with the admirable strength of his reasons and glosses upon Scri∣pture, he may Judge in his Conscience, he is to be preferr'd before Luther, and so may lawfully forsake Lutheranism for Calvinism; then again he hits upon Scripture as Interpreted by the Church of England, whose Doctrine ravishes him with that decency of Ceremonies, that Majesty of her Liturgy, that Harmony of her Hierarchy, he is convinc'd it's better than Calvinism, and embra∣ces it: Then again, he reads the Works of A∣rius, and convinc'd by the energy of his Argu∣ments and Texts of Scripture produced by him,

may alter his Judgment, and become an Arian▪ Wherein can you say does this Man transgres•…•…against the Doctrine or Principles of the Re∣formation? Does he forsake the Reformation, because he forsakes Lutherism for Calvinism? No sure; for Calvinism is as much of the Refor∣mation as the other: Is not Protestancy as much the Doctrine of the Reformation as Presbytery? tho' he changes therefore one for the other, he still holds the Doctrine of the Reformation: Is not the Doctrine of the Reformation Scri∣pture, not as Protestants only or Presbyterians on∣ly interpret it, but as any Congregation, or Man of sound Judgment holds it? It is there∣fore evident that according to the Doctrine and Principles of the Reformation, he may with a safe Conscience change Religions, and be to day of one, to morrow of another, until he runs all over. Point me out any Congregation (the obstinate Papists excepted,) who will dare say, I cannot live with a safe Conscience in any other Congregation but in it self; all other Congregations will laught at it; Why then may not I lawfully forsake any Congregation, and pass to another? And be in England a Protestant, in Germany a Lu∣theran, in Hungary an Antitrinitarian or Socinian.

Ismael.

It's against the grain of Mans reason to believe that we can with a safe Conscience change Religions, as you say; If you be a Pro∣testant, and you Judge it to be the true Religi∣on,

you are bound to stick to it, and never to change it.

Isaac.

If I did discourse with a Papist, I would not wonder he should say it's against the grain of Mans reason to believe it lawful; but I ad∣mire that a Child of the Reformation, be he of what Congregation he will, should be so Igno∣rant of his Principles, as to say a Man cannot change Religions when he pleases: Nor do I un∣dertake to prove against the Papist, that this is lawful but I undertake to prove it lawful against any Reformed Child, or force him to deny the Principles of the Reformation. Is it against rea∣son that a Man may read to day Scripture, and the Lutherans Interpretation upon it, and like it very well; and that he should in this case em∣brace that Religion? Is it against the grain of Mans reason that this same Man should next Year afterwards hit upon Calvin's Works upon Scripture, and after better consideration, think his Doctrine to surpass that of Luther; and could not he then (being obliged to chuse the best,) forsake Lutheranism and stick to Calvinism? And is it against Mans reason that he in following Years may meet other Books of Arians, Socini∣ans, &c. and do the like? Have not we many examples of this in our best and most renowned Reformers? Did not Ochinus that great light (says B. Bale) in whose presence England was happy, reading Scripture, Judge the Refor∣formation

to be better than Popery, and of a Capuchin Fryar became a Reformed, after some Years reading Scripture, he Judged Judaism to be better than the Reformation, and became a Jew: Did not Martin Bucer, one of our first Reformers of England, and Composers of our Li∣turgy, reading Scripture judge Lutheranism to be better than Popery, and of a Dominican Fryar, be∣came a Lutheran? Soon after reading Scripture, he judged Zuinglianism to be better than Luthera∣nism, and became a Zuinglian; not long af∣ter he became a Lutheran again as he Confesses a 1.1 and forsook Lutheranism the second time, and returned again to Zuinglianism, as Sklusser says, (b) Did not Cranmer one of our first Reformers also of England, and Composers of the 39. Articles, a Wise and religious Man profess Po∣pery in Henry the VIII's time, and Compose a Book in defence of Real Presence; then in Ed∣ward the VI's time upon better Consideration he professed Zuinglianism, and writ a Book against Real Presence; then again in Queen Mary's Reign being Sentenc'd to Death, he declared for Po∣pery, but seeing his Recantation would not preserve his Life, he renounced Popery and died a Zuinglian. I could tire your Patience in reading, and Mind in relating the number of our Prime and most renowned, as well first Refor∣mers.

as Learned Doctors, who without any scruple, changed several times their Religions: nor in the Principles of our Reformation ought they to be blamed: For whereas our Rule of Faith is Scripture as with the assistance of Gods Spirit we understand it, who doubts but we may to day Judge sincerely Luther's sense of it to be true, to morrow we may read with more atten∣tion and Judge Arius his sense to be true; next day that of Calvin, and so of the rest: I do not think but that we have in England many Abettors of this Doctrine: Alas! how many Bishops, Deans and rich Parsons do we know, and have we known who were zealous Presbyterians, and declared Ene∣mies of Protestancy in our Gracious Soveraign's Exile; and no sooner was he restored, and had Bishopricks and Ecclesiastical Dignities to be given, but they became stiff Protestants.

Observe the difference betwixt the Papists and us, if of a Papist you become of any other Congregation, the Popish Church Excommuni∣cates you, thou art lookt upon as an Heretick, and Apostate; a stray'd Sheep; they will not admit you to their Communion, or Liturgy; nay, could they well avoid you, they would never admit you to their Company; and why? Because they are fondly perswaded their own is the on∣ly true Religion, and all others to be Syna∣gogues of Satan; and if any of us will become a Papist, he must first abjure his former Profe∣ssion:

But if of a Protestant, you should become a Presbyterian, a Lutheran, Quaker, or of a∣ny other of our Societies, you are never looked upon to be a jot the worse for it; we are not a whit scandalized at such changes, which we daily see; and it is an unspeakable Blessing, with what Accord, Unity and Charity, you may see at our Liturgy and Communion, the Prote∣stant, Presbyterian, Anabaptist, Socinian and Hugonot, all praising the Lord in one Congre∣gation in our Church, none bid out of the Church, none Excommunicated, no previous abjuration required of their former Tenets; and there's nothing more frequent among us than to go to the Protestant Liturgy in the Morning, in the Evening to the Prebyterian, especially if our Interest or Convenience requires it: Can there be a more convincing Proof that we esteem it all alike what Religion and Tenets we profess? Let a Lutheran go to France; Alas! He will never stick to go to the Hugonots meeting and Service; let a Protestant go to Germany, he will go as cheerfully to the Lutheran Church, as in England to the Protestant: Let a Hugonot or Presbyterian go to Hungary, or Poland, he is wel∣come to the Antitrinitarians, and Socinians; and when any of them returns home he will be as before.

Ismael.

But can you prove this Doctrine by the Testimony of any of our Synods? Did a∣ny

teach that we may with a safe Conscience change our Religion as you say?

Isaac.

Yes, I can: The Synod of Charenton in France, held about the Year 1634 expresly says, That for your Salvation it's all alike whether you be a Calvinist, Lutheran, or of any other Congregation of the Reformed; because, says this venerable Synod, they all agree in Fundamental Points, and the Lutherans have nothing of Supersti∣tion or Idolatry in their manner of Divine Worship. Change then as often as you list; be a Luthe∣ran, be a Presbyterian, be an Anabaptist; by the mouth of this Synod you are assured you'll never miss to hit right. And I pray, can any Synod of our times have more Authority in point of Doctrine then Luther our first Reformer, a man extraordinarily raised by God, (says the Synod of Charenton,) and replenisht with his Spirit for to repair the ruins of his Church? He tea∣ches c 1.2 the Elevation of the Sacrament is Idolatry, yet he did practise it, and commanded it should be pra∣ctised in the Church of Wittemberg to spite the Devil Carolstadius: Giving you to understand that for just reasons, you may teach now one Religion, now another. Zuinglius also, whose vertue and learning is known to the World, says, d 1.3 That God inspired him to Preach what Doctrin was suitable to the times; which as it often changes,

you may often change your Doctrin: And con∣sider you if it be not therefore that Christ our Lord says his Yoke is easie, and his burden is light, (that is Religion) because we can withdraw our Necks from it, as time and just reasons requires.

Ismael.

Could you give me any Synod of the Church of England which delivers this Doctrin, you would go near hand to convince me; for, that some particular Doctors should have taught or practised it, does not prove it to be the Do∣ctrine of the Reformation.

Isaac.

And what a greater Authority has a Synod of England, for to prove a Doctrin to be of the Reformation, than a Synod of France which I have produced? Or than Luther and Zuinglius our first Reformers, inspired by God, to teach us the purity of the Gospel? Was it not from Luther and Zuinglius, that England received the Doctrin of the Reformation? And if England be so bold as to say they erred in this, what assu∣rance can we have, but that they erred in the rest? But since nothing will please you but a Sy∣nod of England, you shall have not one, but ma∣ny. Can there be any Synod in England of so great Authority as our wise and prudent Parlia∣ments? Read our Chronicles and you'll find, that in a few Years time, they changed and e∣stablished different Religions by publick Acts of Parliament: In Henry the VIII's Reign they vo∣ted for Popery, and made Acts and Statutes a∣gainst

the Reformation; In Edward the VI's time they banisht Popery and voted for Zuinglianism; In Queen Mary's they pull'd down this, and set up Popery again; In Queen Elizabeth's, they de∣cryed this, and set up not Zuinglianism, but Pro∣testancy; in the midst of her Reign, they po∣lisht this, and added some new perfections to it; In King James and succeeding Kings times Pro∣testancy is of a different stamp from that of Queen Elizabeth's: Hear Dove in his Exhort. to the Eng∣lish Recusants, An. 1603. Pag. 31. Henry the 8. had his Liturgy which was very good: Edward the 6. condemned it, and brought in another composed by Peter Martyr and Bucer: In Elizabeth's time, that was condemned, and another approved; and in the middle of her Reign, her Liturgy was also misliked, and a new one introduced; we are so wanton that no∣thing will content us but Novelties.

Ismael.

Dove does not commend this Doctrin, for he calls that frequent exchange of Religion Wantonness, and Love of Novelty.

Isaac.

It's no great matter what he says of it; my drift is but to convince you that this is the Do∣ctrine, and practice of the best Member of our Reformation; even of England, and if you be convinc'd it's the Doctrine of the Reformation, You cannot deny but that it is good Doctrine. If Dove calls it Wantonness, S. Paul, Ephes. 4.22. Coloss. 3.9. and Rom. 6.6. Commends it, and exhorts us to put off the old Man with its deeds,

(that's Popery with its Ceremonies,) and put on the new Man, (that's the Reformation) where there's neither Greek nor Jew, Circumcision, nor Ʋncircumcision, Barbarian, or Scythian, Bound or Free, but Christ is all, and in all: That's to say; where there's no distinction of Protestants or Presbyterians, Socinians, or Arians; it's all one which Religion you profess.

Ismael.

But is there no Tenet of Religion which we are all indispensably obliged to hold?

Isaac.

Yes there is, and no more but one: We are bound to have Faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and the Saviour of the World. This is the substance of Christian Religion; be an Arian, be a Presbyterian a Socinian or what you please, be also plung'd to your ears in Wickedness of Life, and Manners, so you have Faith in Jesus Christ, Son of God, and Redeemer of the World, and live in Charity, you will be a Member of the true Church, and be saved. Do not imagine this is any new Doctrine invented by me; search the vulgar sort of our Reformed Brethren, you shall get thousands of this Opinion in our Realm; search the Books of our Learned Doctors, you shall find it in them also. Doctor Morton, in his much applauded Book, dedicated to Queen Eli∣zabeth, for which he deserved a Bishoprick, e 1.4 says: The Arian Church is to be esteemed a true Church, because they hold the true substance of Christian Re∣ligion, which is Faith in Jesus Christ, Son of God,

and Redeemer of the World: And again in the same place. Sect. 4. whose Title, is, Hereticks are Members of the Church, he says, Whosoever believes in Jesus Christ, though by Wickedness of Life, or Heresie in Doctrine, they should err in Doctrine, they are still true Members of the Church. Therefore our learned f 1.5 Fox, g 1.6 Doctor Field, and Illiricus, say the Greek Church, notwithstanding their er∣ror in denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, are holy Members of the true Church, because they have Faith in Jesus Christ.

Ismael.

Sure you will not say this Doctrine is of the Reformation or can be safely believed?

Isaac.

I do admire how you can doubt of it, and that it may be believed: For what is the Doctrine of the Reformation but as we have said in our Principles, Scripture as Interpreted by any Man of sound Judgment in the Church? And were not Doctor Morton, Fox, Field, and Illiri∣cus, Men of sound Judgment, eminent Learning and Godliness? If therefore this be Scripture as Interpreted by them, how can you deny it to be the Doctrine of the Reformation?

Ismael.

And what Jesus Christ are we obliged to believe in? For Jesus Christ, as believed by the Arians, Socinians, Luther and Calvin, is far diffe∣rent from Jesus Christ, as commonly believed by the Protestants, and Popish Church; we believe

in Jesus Christ the Son of God, of one and the same substance and nature with the Father; they be¦lieve in a Jesus Christ Son of God, but of a distinct and different nature and substance of the Father.

Isaac.

Pish! That's but a Nicety; believe what you please, and what you understand by Scripture to be true, and have Charity.

Ismael.

I confess you have puzled, but yet not wholly convinced me; were I but perswaded that what you have discoursed, is truly the Doctrin of the Reformation, I would cheerfully embrace it, and I will be better informed by your self, but not tire your Patience: We will meet a∣gain and pursue our Discourse upon this Subject.

Second Dialogue.

ISMAEL.

Reflecting in my Sollitude upon your last Discourse, I find it bottom'd upon a false Principle, for you suppose that whatever Doctrin is of Luther, Calvin, or any of your Learned Doctors, Synods, Parliaments, or Congregati∣ons, is the Doctrin of the Reformation, and may without any more proof or scruple, be believed by any Reformed Child; who but sees this is ridiculous, to fasten the Doctrin and absurd O∣pinions of each particular Doctor, or Congre∣gation upon the whole Body? This is the un∣charitable and unreasonable Art of the Papists who keep a great Coil, with some exorbitant Opinions of Luther and Calvin, and would per∣swade

their Proselites, they are the Tenets of the Reformation; whereas the Reformation dis∣claims those Opinions as much as the Pope does: And they do not poor People observe how many absurd and scandalous Doctrines we meet in their Casuists and Divines, which when we re∣proach them with, they answer, It's not the Do∣ctrin of their Church, but of some particular Doctors; as if we might not with as much Justice as they, answer the same.

Isaac.

Your Reflection is good, and my dis∣course will fall to the ground, if I do not prove that Principle, which will be no hard task: Let us imagine we are here a full Synod of Prote∣stants, Presbyterians, Hugonots, Lutherans, Antitri∣nitarians, Anabaptists, Quakers, and of all and each of our Congregations; our Reformation is not any of these Congregations, with an ex∣clusion of the rest, but all of them joyntly; for whatsoever Congregation would say it self alone is the Reformation, and no other, would be hiss'd at by the rest; and justly, because that our Re∣formation imports two points essentially. First, a Profession of Christianity, according to the Rule of the Word of God, and a Detestation or Abjuration of Popish Errors; and none of these Congregations but does both.

Ismael.

I know some of these, Pharisee-like, de∣spise others, and look upon them not as Reformed, but as putrid Members; but the Lord forbid I

should be so void of Charity; I see no just chal∣enge any can have to the Title of Reformati∣on, which all have not.

Isaac.

Let us ask this Synod by what Rule of Faith does the Reformation walk? What must a Man believe for to be a true Reformed? Prote∣stants will say, that Scripture and Apostolical Tra∣dition; but Protestants say of Papists and Presby∣tarians and Anabaptists say of Protestants, that many humane Inventions are obtruded upon us as Apostolical Traditions: that we have no way, to discern the one from the other, and con∣sequently Tradition, as being an unknown thing unto us, cannot be our Rule; others will say, that Scripture, and the indubitable Consequen∣ces out of it, is our Rule, all will grant this; but then enters the Controversy, if the Conse∣quences of Lutherans be such, and if the Conse∣quences of Presbyterians be indubitable out of Scripture, and each Congregation will say, that their peculiar Tenets are indubitable Consequen∣ces out of Scripture, and the rest must allow it to be true, or deny such a Congregation to be of the Reformation; Others will say that Scripture, and the four first general Councils with the A∣postles, and Athanasius's Creed are our Rule of Faith; but most of the Assembly will no more admit the four first, than the subsequent Coun∣cils, nor Athanasius's Creed, more than that of Trent, nor will the Quakers, Socinians, and others value the Apostles Creed.

But there is none of all the Assembly, who will not admit Scripture, that's the pure written Word of God, to be a sacred and full Rule of Faith, because it's replenished with divine Light, and all heavenly instruction necessary for our Sal∣vation: And such as add, as a part of our Rule of Faith, the Apostles or Athanasius's Creed, or the four first general Councils, they will confess that all they contain, is expressed in Gods writ∣ten Word, and are but a plainer, or more di∣stinct expression or declaration of the Contents of Scripture.

Ismael.

Truly I must grant you this, that I have been often present at several discourses of Protestants with Papists, and never could I hear a Protestant make Councils, Tradition, or any thing else, the Test of their Discourse, but only Scripture; not but that I could hear them say and pretend in their Discourses, that Apostolical Tradition, and the four first Councils were for them against Popery; but still their main strength and ultimate refuge was Scripture; for whenever they harp upon that string of Tradition and Councels, the Papists are visibly too hard for them and then they run to Scripture, than which there is no plus ultra. I have been also often at several discourses betwixt Protestant, Presbyteri∣ans, and our Brethren of other Congregations, I have observed that the Protestant, for to de∣fend his Liturgy, Rights and Ceremonies of

the Church of England, and her Episcopacy a∣gainst the others could never defend himself by Scripture alone, and plac'd his main Strength against them in Tradition, Primitive Councils, and ancient Fathers, all which the other rejected and reproached the Protestant with Popery, for making use of that Weapon; that if they would stick to those Principles as their Rule of Faith, they must admit many Tenets of Popery, which they disavow, that nothing but Scripture is a sufficient Warrant and Rule of Faith: And I find by all I could ever well understand, that's the General apprehension, and belief of all the Reformation, that Scripture abundantly con∣tains all we are obliged to believe; and is our sole and only Rule of Faith; and that our re∣course to Tradition, Councils, Fathers, &c. are but shifts of some of our Doctors, who being Non-plust in their particular Engagements, and Sophistries, patch the incoherency of their dis∣courses with these rags of Popery.

Isaac.

I commend your Ingenuity, but not that heat which transports you to check our Doctors, for their Glosses and particular Doctrines upon Scripture, which, as the Manna relished of all sorts of Victuals, which the Eater fancied, ad∣mits several sences according to the different Spirits, and measure of light that God gives to the Reader, and it is undoubtedly the Spirit of the Reformation to follow what sense of it he

likes best, and not to check others following this or that as they please: Lutherans, Protestants, Pres∣byterians, &c. have all for their Rule of Faith, Scripture, which each of them Interprets in a different Sense; Luther for the Real, [Protestants for the Figurative] Presence; Protestants for Epis∣copacy; Presbyterians against it, and so of others: And tho' each esteems his own sence to be the best, yet none is so bold as to say that others may not be saved in their own Sence of it, or deny them to be true Children of the Refor∣mation; nay, that Venerable Synod of Charen∣ton, as I quoted above, has declared, that the Lutherans, tho' opposite to them in their chief Tenets, are their beloved Brethren, and have nothing Idolatrous or Superstitious in their man∣ner of Divine Worship: The fundamental rea∣son of all this is, that our Rule of Faith, is but Scripture, as each Person of sound Judgment un∣derstands it.

Ismael.

I grant all your Discourse as to this particular; for it's certain, Lutherans will not admit Scripture as Interpreted by Pretestants, but as Interpreted by themselves; and so of each other Congregation.

Isaac.

If you admit our Rule is Scripture, as each understands it; then you must grant that our Doctrine of the Reformation, is whatever Do∣ctrine each Person of sound Judgment under∣stands to be of Scripture; and from this, it ap∣pears

plainly that my Principle whereat you boggl'd is true; That whatever Doctrine is pro∣fessed by any of our Congregations, Synods, Parliaments, Doctors, or particular Doctor of our Reformation is to be truly reputed and e∣steemed the Doctrine of our Reformation; which Principle being true, my discourse of Yester∣day is undeniable, That you may change Religi∣on as often as you please, and remain still a true Reformed Child.

Ismael.

But you have said, that not only the Doctrine of each Congregation and Synod, is the Doctrine of the Reformation: but also whatever any one particular Doctor teaches, and this seems to be very absurd.

Isaac.

It's not so absurd, as it's true; I'll prove by the Principles of our Reformed Church, by the testimonies of our most learned and best Doctors and Reformers, and by reason and ex∣perience, that the Doctrine of any particular Doctor among us, has as much right to be called and esteemed the Doctrine of the Reformation, as Protestancy, Presbytery, or Lutheranism, for what is Lutheranism, but the Judgment of Luther a parti∣cular Doctor against the whole Church of Rome? What is Calvanism, but what Calvin a particular Doctor judged to be the sence of Scripture against that same Church? What is Quakerism, but honest Naylor's Godly and Pious Sentiments upon Scripture? It's undeniably the Principle of

our Reformed Church, that our Rule of Faith is scripture as Interpreted, not only by Synods or Congregations, but by any Person of sound judgment in the Church. No Congregation or Synod is to us a Rule of Faith, because all are •…•…llible; but Gods written Word, as each one understands it; and if we do not like the sence of it delivered by any Council, Synod, or Con∣gregation, we may safely deny it. Therefore our great Calvin, a 1.7 says, and proves with great Energy of Scripture and Reason, that we are not obliged to the Decisions and Doctrine of any Coun∣cil, Synod, or Congregation, if after having examined Scripture, we do find their Interpretation and Sense of it, is conformable to the Word of God. Let Synods and Congregations say what they will, if any particular Doctor thinks his own private Sence of it to be better, he may stick to it against them all, and be a good true Child of the Re∣formation; as Arminius in Holland did withstand the Synods of Dordrecht and Delfe; as Luther and Calvin did against Rome. I will be free, says our unparallel'd Proto-Apostle Luther, b 1.8 I will not submit my self to the Authority of Councils, Church, Doctors, Ʋniversities, or Fathers, but will teach and preach whatever I think to be true. Did ever any Apostle speak with more Courage? And the blessed Man acted with no less; he knew full well the whole stream of Antiquity, Doctors,

Fathers and Councils were against him, as he confesses himself, and did not care a rush for them all: Lay aside, says he, call Arms of Ortho∣dox Antiquity, of Schools of Divinity, Authority of Fathers, Councils, Popes, and Consent of Ages; we receive nothing but Scripture; but so that we must have the Authority of Interpreting it.

Nor was it only Luther and Calvin spoke thus, but all our first blessed Reformers; and why? be∣cause our Rule of Faith is Scripture, not as in∣terpreted by the Church of England, (France will not admit it,) nor as interpreted by the Quakers, (the Anabaptists, and Independants will not hear it) nor as interpreted by Luther, (Calvin rejects it) nor as interprèted by Calvin, (Thorndike and Bram∣hall will not yield to it,) nor will Stillingfleet stand to their Interpretation; nor others to that of Stillingfleet. Finally our Rule of Faith is Scri∣pture, not as interpreted by any, but as each Congregation, Synod, particular Doctor, or Man of sound Judgment Interprets it, and consequent∣ly whatever Doctrine any man of sound Judg∣ment judges to be of Scripture, is to be esteem'd the Doctrine of the Reformation; and you may safely believe it, if you like it, and remain still as truly a Reformed Child, as the proudest Pro∣testant of England.

Ismael.

Can you prove that our Rule of Faith

is Scripture, as any particular Doctor or Person of sound Judgment understands it?

Isaac.

Behold how convincingly: first we have heard Luther, quoted but now, say, We receive nothing but Scripture, but so as that we must have the Authority for to Interpret it: Hear him again; d 1.9 The Governours and Pastors have Pow∣er to teach, but the Sheep must give their Judgment, whether they propose the Voice of Christ, or of Strangers. And again, e 1.10 Christ has taken from the Bishops, Councils, and Pastors, the right of judging of Do∣ctrine; and given it to all Christians in General; and the Rule is Scripture as each one will think fit to interpret it. And consequently to this, we have heard him say above, I will be free and will not submit to Doctors, Councils or Pastors but will teach whatever I think to be true. Barlow, f 1.11 The Apo∣stles have given to each particular, the Right and Power of Interpreting, and Judging by his inward Spi∣rit what is true; it is needless that either Man, or Angel, Pope, or Council, should instruct you, the Spi∣rit working in the Heart and Scripture are to each particular Person most assured Interpreters. Blison, Bishop of Winchester, says the same, g 1.12 The Peo∣ple must be Discerners and Judges of what is Taught. Our Religion has no other Rule of Faith (says our French Reformation by the Mouth of Du Moulin,

h 1.13 Drelincourt, and the Holy Synod of Charenton, but the written Word of God, as interpreted by us. Lastly, says the Church of England. We have no other Rule of Faith, but Scripture as each Person of sound Judgment in the Church understands it, and what is proved by it: And again in the Catholick Doctrine of the Church of England, Pag. 103. Which is but an Exposition of 39 Articles. Our Rule of Faith is but Scripture, as each Person of sound Judgment in the Church understands it: Autho∣rity is given to the Church, and to each Person of sound Judgment in it, to judge in Controversies of Faith, and this is not the the private Judgment of our Church, but also of our Brethren of Foreign Countries.

Ismael.

I confess, not only these, but many other Doctors abet your discourse, and the Ge∣neral Vogue of our Reformation, is for Scri∣pture as each one understands it; but alas! You see well, that we can never settle any Religion, or Church, by such a Rule of Faith.

Isaac.

You can never settle any but this, That every Man may without let or hinderance, believe what be pleases; And why should not this be a good Reli∣gion? If Scripture as each one understands it be not our Rule of Faith; if we must be constrain∣ed to believe Scripture not as we understand it, but as it is understood by this or that Congre∣gation; what difference betwixt us and Papists?

They must believe Scripture as Interpreted by the Pope and Councils; have ever so much light from God, be ever so wise and witty, you must depose your own Judgment, and submit to that of the Pope, Council, and Popish Church: To this pass we are come also; we must believe the Kings Supremacy, Episcopacy, Figurative Presence, tho perhaps we do not Judge by Scripture it to be true Doctrine; we are con∣strained by Penal Laws, and and Acts of Par∣liament to believe them, as Papists by their In∣quisition; and why? Because the Church of England understands by Scripture, it's true; and if you reply you do not Interpret Scripture so, you'll not be heard; you must submit and be∣lieve against your Judgment; and what's this but plain Popish Tyranny over Mens Consci∣ences? Did Luther and Calvin forsake the Pope and Councils, for to submit their Judgments to any other? No, but to follow Scripture as each one of them understood it: And tho' Luther was a Man raised by God, and replenish'd with his Spirit to repair the ruins of the Church, yet Calvin did no more submit to him, than Luther did to the Pope; nor did Zuinglius submit to Cal∣vin, but followed his own sense of Scripture, nor did Oeclampadius submit to Zuinglius; but every one searched the Scripture, believed and taught what they thought to be true and thus we be∣came a Reformation of Popery; If therefore

we will continue a Reformation, and walk by the Spirit of our blessed Reformers; we must not be constrained to believe any Mans sense of Scripture. We must believe whatever we think to be true, and have no other Rule of Faith but Scripture, as each one understands it.

Ismael.

And what then? What do you infer from this discourse?

Isaac.

This consequence, that whereas no true Child of the Reformation, be he of what Con∣gregation he will, can justly deny our Rule of Faith to be Scripture, as any person of sound Judgment Interprets it; it follows unavoidably that the Doctrine of the Reformation is, What∣ever any person of Judgment Interprets to be the true sense of Scripture, and whatever Luther, Calvin, Beza, or any other of sound judgment in the Reformation, since its first rise until this day, taught to be the true sence of Scripture, is to be called and esteemed the Doctrine of the Re∣formation, tho' to this or that Congregation, it may seem to be wicked and scandalous Do∣ctrine.

And now let me answer to an Objection you made against this Principle in our entrance to this discourse: You objected that many Popish Do∣ctors and Casuists, delivered scandalous and base Doctrines, which the Papists will not admit to be the Doctrin of their Church, tho' delivered by popish Doctors; and thence you pretended,

that the particular sentiments of private Doctors of the Reformation are not to be called the Doctrin of our Church. But be pleased to ob∣serve the difference betwixt Popery and our Re∣formation the Rule of, Faith in Popery is Scripture, as Interpreted by the Pope and Council, or their Church; they will admit no other; consequent∣ly no Doctrin is to be called Popery, but what is Judged by the Pope and his Church, or Council, to be the sense of Scripture; and if any Do∣ctor or University holds any sense contrary to theirs, it is to be called the Doctrin of that par∣ticular person and not the Doctrin of the popish Church, because their Rule of Faith is not Scri∣pture, as Interpreted by their Pope and Council. But whereas our Rule of Faith in the Reforma∣tion is Scripture, as each person of sound judg∣ment Interprets it; whatever Doctrin, or Sense, is said by any Man to be of Scripture, is justly to be called the Doctrine of the Reformation: For example, Melancthon, a Man of sound Judg∣men, great Learning, and of an upright Con∣science, Taught Bigamy to be the Doctrine of Scripture; Beza Taught the Lords Supper might be administer'd a in any kind of Victuals, as well as in Bread and Wine: Calvin Taught that Christ despaired on the Cross, and suffer'd the pains of Hell after his Death: Why then, let all the Bishops and Universities of England con∣demn this Doctrine; let all the Synods of France

and Germany decry it, the Doctrine will be still of the Reformation, because it's Scripture as In∣terpreted by Men of sound Judgment.

Ismael.

The heat of your discourse has tired you, and my memory is sufficiently loaden with what you have said; let me digest it in my pri∣vate retirement and we will meet again.

Isaac.

Content, carry with you these three points which I have proved convincingly; First, our Rule of Faith is Scripture, not as Interpreted by this or that, but by any Man of sound Judg∣ment; Secondly, it follows hence that the Do∣ctrine of the Reformation must be, and ought to be called whatever any Man of sound Judg∣ment says is the sense of Scripture: Thirdly, it follows we may change Religions as often as we please.

Third Dialogue.

ISMAEL.

I remember well the summary of your last discourse given me in three points, and I find the second to be absurd and repug∣nant to reason: you'll never perswade it, tho' you pleaded for it with great energy; what if a silly Woman, Cobler, or other Tradesmen, read Scripture, and give their sense of it, that, forsooth, must be called the Doctrine of the Re∣formation? And it shall be lawful for them to

believe it, against the Doctrine of the whole Church.

Isaac.

Do not limit Gods infinite goodness, by measuring his mercies towards his Creatures with your narrow apprehensions: Take notice, he says, he has chosen the weak and contempti∣ble of the World for to confound the strong ones: * 1.14 I confess unto you Father, that you have hid these things from the Wise and Prudent, and hast re∣vealed them to the little ones. And there he choose poor simple Fishermen to his Apostles: I know it's the practice of Papists, and from them your Church of England borrows it, to despise the Mi∣nistery of Women, Tradesmen, and Illiterate people, in Preaching, Teaching, and Interpre∣ting Scripture; but St. Paul tells us, ** 1.15 The Word of God is not bound; That's to say, is not en∣tail'd on the learned, rich, or great ones; the ‖ 1.16 Wind bloweth where it listeth: Our Bishops and Ministers would make a Monopoly of the Word of God, and have themselves to be the only Retailers of it; for to have some plau∣sible Title for to enjoy great Rents, and shear the Flock. But we have seen, as well among the Quakers, as in other Congregations, silly Women and Tradesmen, replenish'd with Gods Spirit, Preach and Expound the great Mysteries of our Religion with as much of

good success and edification of the Auditory, a•…•… any Penny-Book Man in England.

Ismael.

It seems you approve the Ministry o•• Women and silly Tradesmen, for Preaching and Teaching the Flock; and if so, you'll o∣verthrow our Hierarchy of Bishops and Mi∣nisters.

Isaac.

It matters not so much for you to know what I approve or condemn; but to know what the Doctrine of the Reformation is; it's this; That none can Teach, Preach, Administer Sa∣craments, or Exercise, Ecclesiastical Function, if he be not in Holy Orders, Bishop, Minister, or Deacon; for the Church of England Teache•• it, and you may believe it if you please. You may also deny it and say, any Woman or Trades∣man has as much Power for to preach and ad∣minister the Sacraments, as the richest Bishop in England: This also is the Doctrine of the Re∣formation as well as the former, because Qua∣kers, Presbyterians, Brownists, Anabaptists, &c. Be∣lieve and Teach it, and they are Men of as sound Judgments, and as good Reformers as Protestants; nay, the most learned of our Re∣formers, teach and commend the Power of Wo∣men for to exercise Spiritual functions, and Ad∣minister the Sacraments: a 1.17 Saumaise, Peter Mar∣tyr, and b 1.18 Zuinglius, expresly defend the Priest∣hood

as well of Women as of Men: And c 1.19 Luther proves it efficaciously; The first office of a Priest says he, is to Preach; this is common to all, even Women; the the second is to Baptize: which is also common to Women; the third is to Consecrate their Bread and Wine, and this also is common to all as well as to Men: and in the absence of a Priest, a Woman may absolve from Sins as well as the Pope, be∣cause the Words of Christ, Whatever ye shall untye on Earth, shall be untyed in Heaven, were said to all Christians.

And when so eminent Men had not said it, reason and Scripture convinces it; Reason, be∣cause that our Rule of Faith being Scripture as each Person of sound Judgment understands it, many Women undoubtedly are of sound Judg∣ment, and why should not their interpretation of Scripture pass for the Doctrine of the Refor∣mation, as well as that of our Bishops and Ministers? Scripture, because we read, the Sa∣maritan Woman was the first who preached the Messias to the City of Samaria, and Christ com∣manded Mary Magdalen to go to Preach his Re∣surrection to his Disciples; and we know by our Cronicles, that our glorious Queen Eliza∣beth of blessed Memory, did not only govern the state, but was a great Apostoless in Church affairs.

Ismael.

To what purpose then, have we Bi∣shops and Ministers, who enjoy so vast revenues, if any Man or Woman can Preach and Admi∣nister the Sacraments as well as they?

Isaac.

You may believe, Bishops and Mini∣sters are very needful for the Service of the Church; for they being commonly learned wit∣ty Men, and having Wives, they come to in∣struct their Wives so well, that the good Wo∣men come in a short time to be as learned as their Husbands, and as nimble and quick in the Ecclesiastical Ministeries, as they if they were per∣mitted to exercise them; as some Authors of Credit relate unto us, that a Gentleman of Con∣stance, writ to his Friend in a Village, (about three Leagues Distant from that City,) whose Inhabitants were for the most part of our Lutheran Reformation; the good Pastor ex∣horted his Flock to prepare for Easter Commu∣nion, that none should presume to come to the Holy Table, but should first confess and re∣ceive absolution of his sins: Easter Holy days being come, such a multitude flock'd to confessi∣on, that the Pastor could not satisfie the Devo∣tion of so great a croud; he called his Wife to help him, for to hear Confessions, and give Ab∣solutions, in which Ministery the good Lady did Labour with great satisfaction of the Penitents; but neither the Pastor, nor his vertuous Con∣sort being able to dispatch so great a multitude,

he called his Maid Servant, who did work in the Holy Ministery with as much expedition as her Master. But for all this, the Church of Scot∣land, France, and all England (Protestants excep∣ted,) will tell you that Bishops and Ministers are not needful, nay that they are very prejudi∣cious to the Reformation and State; To the Re∣formation, because this Hierarchy with the Bishops Court, Surplices, Corner Caps, and other Trum∣peries, puts the Flock in mind of Popery, where∣of it's a perfect Resemblance; and whilst the Papists see our change from them, comes to be almost no more but to substitute new Priests and Bishops in their own place for to manage more conscienciously the Rents and Revenues which they profanely abused, and that those Rents and Revenues are still in the Hands of an Ecclesia∣stical Hierarchy, they live in Hopes of recove∣ring them some day, when our Bishops and Mi∣nisters will come to be as bad Stewards of them as they were, and that the Flock will be weary of them and call back the Antient Possessors: It's therefore perhaps the Emissaries of the Pope do incessantly blow in our Ears, how ill our Ec∣clesiastical Revenues are bestowed, for to main∣tain Wives and Children, Pomp and Vanity of Bishops and Ministers, no less than in Popery. To the State, they seem to be prejudicious, whereas any but a Bishop or Minister, would think, it would be more advantagious to the

Common-wealth, that the King should have those Revenues for to maintain his Fleet and Army, and ease thereby the Subjects of Subsidies and Taxes, than that a handful of Bishops and Ministers should have them? Specially when o∣thers can Preach and Teach as well as they, for nothing, but the pleasure of being heard.

Ismael.

But do not you see it would be a Sa∣crilege, that the King should deprive the Clergy of their Church Revenues?

Isaac.

And do not you know, that almost all our Congregations do hold our Clergy to be no true Clergy, but as meer Laymen as you or I? they admit no Clergy or Episcopal Character, but Elders chosen by the Congregation. And if they be no true Clergy, they have no right to the Church Revenues, and it's no Sacrilege to deprive them of them. The Popish Clergy in Henry the VIII's time, had visibly a greater right to them, than ours now have. For neither the King himself nor any other did doubt of their Right; and now most of our Congregations do absolutely deny any Right in our Clergy to those Rents, because they are no Clergy. Ye•• none will be so bold, as to accuse Henry the VIII of Sacrilege, for having taken the Church-living from them, for to put them to better use. And why should we dare say, our King would com∣mit any, for depriving our Clergy of those Rents? Believe he can lawfully do it, or believe

he cannot, you'll be still a good Child of the Reformation. Believe what you please.

Ismael.

This is a ticklish point, let's leave it to the consideration of our wise and prudent Par∣liament, and be pleased to answer to my doubt. How can we live in peace and tranquility in Re∣ligion, if our Rule of Faith be Scripture as each one understands it. I remember a discourse start∣ed in the House of Lords, not many Years ago, by his Grace the Duke of Buckingham; he de∣sired to know, what it was to be a Protestant; wherein did Protestancy properly consist? The Bishops, who were present looked one upon ano∣ther, and whether they feared the difficulty of the Question, or that for modesty's sake each ex∣pected to hear another speak first, they stood silent for a while; at last the Ice was broken by one, others followed, but hardly any two agreed; and all that the Duke could gather out of their several answers, was, That our Rule of Faith, was Scripture as each one understood it, and Protestancy nothing but Scripture, as Interpreted by the Parliament and Church of England▪ Whereupon he concluded, We have been these hundred Years very busie for to settle Religion, and for ought I perceive, we are as unsettled n••w as at the beginning: And truly he had great rea∣son, for Religion and Faith is nothing else, but that sense of Scripture, which each person of sound Judgment understands; and as it's impo∣ssible

we should all jump and agree in one sense and meaning of the Text, so it's impossible we shall ever be settled and agree in Religion.

Isaac.

The reason of our unsettlement hither∣to, and at present, is the violent efforts, what by Persecutions, Acts of Parliaments, and other Oppressions: what by Invectives, Intrigues, and Cabals of the Church of Engand, to draw all to be Protestants; of the Presbyterians, to make us deny Episcopacy; and of each other Congrega∣tion to force us to their respective Tenets: And whilst this constraint and severity is used against Mens Consciences, it's in vain to expect peace or settlement in our Reformed Church: But let us follow the Rule of Faith, let each one believe as in his Conscience he best understands Scripture: let us all believe what we please, and be permit∣ted so to do, and we shall without doubt enjoy perfect Peace and Tranquillity: Believe you Figurative Presence, if you will; let the Lutheran believe his Real Presence, if he likes it, and let me believe no Presence at all, if I judge there's none? why will not you permit me to follow that Rule of Faith, which the whole Reforma∣tion, even the Church of England gives me in her 39 Articles, Scripture as each person of sound Judgment understands it? To say, we can never have settlement in Religion, whilst this arbitrary Interpretation of Scripture is permitted, is to speak like a Papist: This the Pope and Papists

said to our first blessed Reformers, and the Popish Church says this day to us, That we ought to submit our judgments to the Church and Coun∣cils; that we ought not to believe what sense we think to be true, but what the Pope and Coun∣cils propose unto us; and if Luther, and our other Reformers did not do ill in following their own Sense and Interpretation of Scripture against all the World, why do you blame me, or any other for following their example.

Ismael.

When you speak of our Reformation and Congregations, I hear you reckon the Ari∣ans, Socinians, and Antitrinitarians, among them; sure you do not believe they, or such like anci∣ent condemned Hereticks, were of the Reforma∣tion; for we Protestants do believe the Mystery of the Trinity against them, and will never own them to be our Brethren.

Isaac.

And do not you believe Episcopacy a∣gainst the Presbyterians, some Canonical Books against the Lutherans, Supremacy against the Quakers, and Infants Baptism against the Ana∣baptists; and yet you own them as your Bre∣thren and Godly Congregations of the Refor∣mation; or if you will deny them, they will also scorn you, and say they are more of the Re∣formation than you are? and why will you not own the Arians, &c. as your Brethren, tho' you believe the Trinity against them? You say they are Old condemn'd Hereticks; and does this Lan∣guage

become a Child of the Reformed Church? By whom were they condemn'd? Was it not by the Popish Church? which also condemns us, and says we are as much Hereticks as they; and as we ought not to be so called, and judge the Pope and Councils Sentence against us, to be bold, uncharitable, and unjust; so we must say of the Arians, Pelagians, and others condemn'd by them. You say Protestants will never own them to be their Brethren; God forbid the Pro∣testant Church should be so uncharitable to their fellow Christians, and so unjust to themselves. B. Morton, (as I cited in my first Dialogue,) as learned a Man as the Church of England bred, says the Arian Church is a true Church, and will say no less of the others: But what need we the Testimony of any, for what reason so convin∣cingly proves; They who walk by one and the same Rule of Faith, are of one and the same Re∣ligion; therefore Lutherans, Protestants, Presby∣terians and Independants, do esteem themselves to be of the same Faith and Religion, because they all have the same Rule, which is Scripture, as each Congregation understands it: Also, not∣withstanding the difference and variety of Con∣gregations in Popery, they hold all but one Faith, as they say; because they have all but one Rule of their Belief, which is their infallible Pope and Church: But it's evident that those which you call Antient condemn'd Hereticks, have one and the

same Rule of Faith with our Reformation; for ours is Scripture, as each person of sound Judg∣ment understands it, without any obligation of holding the Sense of it delivered by Pope, Church, Councils, or any other; therefore our first bles∣sed Reformers did not care what Sense of it the Church or Pope did hold, when they began to Preach the purity of the Gospel, but each of them Interpreted it as he thought sit in the Lord, and so purged the Church of many Errours: This is the very self same Rule of Faith, which Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, and others, peremp∣torily condemned by Rome as Hereticks, did fol∣low and walk by: Each of them Read and In∣terpreted Scripture, Preached and Believed what Sense of it they thought to be true, tho' they knew it was against the Doctrine of the Church, looking on Scripture alone as their Rule of Faith, without any regard of the Pope, Church, Coun∣cils or Fathers: The Church of Rome, proud and impatient of any Opposition, condemned them as Hereticks for not submitting their Judg∣ments to her; for taking Scripture as they un∣derstood it, and not as the Church and Coun∣cils understood it, for their R•••••• of Faith; and if this be a crime, we are as guilty as they; we are equally •…•… ocent or innocent; we are both He∣reticks, or none is; we are therefore concern'd in their Honour, and ought to defend the inte∣grity of their procedure against the common E∣nemy,

which is the Pope. They were Reformers of the Church in their times, as we are in ours; and whereas they have the same Rule of Faith, so they have the same Religion with the Refor∣mation.

Ismael.

Then you will say, Arianism is the Do∣ctrine of the Reformation, and we may law∣fully believe it.

Isaac.

I say, God's Unity in Nature and Tri∣nity in Persons, is the Doctrine of the Refor∣mation, because the Protestant, Lutheran, and Hu∣gonot Church judge by Scripture, it is true; and if you judge also by Scripture, it is the true Do∣ctrine, you may believe it: I say also, if you judge by Scripture, this Mystery is not true, you may safely deny it acccording to the Principles of the Reformation, and be still as good a Mem∣ber of the Reformed Church, as they who be∣lieve it; for whoever believes what he judges by Scripture to be true, is a true Reformed: And, that the denial of the Trinity is as much the Doctrine of the Reformation, as the belief of it; it appears not only because it was the Do∣ctrine of the Arians, who, as I proved, are truly of the Reformed Church; but because it was taught by the greatest Lights of our Church:d 1.20 Calvin says the Text. My Father is greater than I, must be understood of Christ, not only as he is Man, but also as he is God.

And that the Council of Nice did abuse the Text: e 1.21 My Father and I are one, for to prove the Ʋnity of both in Nature; whereas it only signifies their Ʋ∣nity by conformity of Wills. Again he says, Epist. 2. ad Polon. in Tract. Theol. pag. 796. That Prayer, Holy Trinity, one God have mercy of us, is brabarous, and does not please me. And adds, f 1.22 The Son has his own substance distinct from the Father. His Dis∣ciple g 1.23 Danaeus, says, it's a foolish insipid Prayer: And our great Apostle Luther, (who as Fox witnesseth, was the Chariot and Conductor of Israel, and a Man extraordinarily raised and replenish'd with Gods Spirit, to teach the purity of the Gospel,) caused that Prayer to be blot∣ted out of the Litanies, h 1.24 That word Trinity, says he, sounds coldly; my Soul hates that word Humou∣sion, and the Arian did well in not admitting it. Lastly, Ochinus that great Oracle of England, impugns this Mystery with a strong discourse: i 1.25 We are not obliged to believe, says he, more than the Saints of the Ancient Testament, otherwise our con∣dition would be worse than theirs, but they were not obliged to believe this Mystery, therefore we are not obliged. Examin, I pray, the Works of these eminent Doctors, where I quote them; consi∣der if they be not, not only Men of sound judgment, but Men extraordinarily raised by

God, (says the Synod of Charenton;) the Cha∣riots and Conductors of Israel, says Fox: Men to be reverenc'd after Christ, says our Doctor ••owel, and Apostolical Oracles sent to teach us the purity of the Gospel, and conclude, it's an undeniable Verity, that this is the Doctrine of the Reformation, whereas it's Scripture as Inter∣preted by such Men: Oh! But England, France, and Scotland, believe this Mystery; well! And what then? That proves that the Mystery is also the Doctrine of the Reformation, because whatever any Man of sound Judgment thinks to be Scripture, it's the Doctrine; but is England or France alone the whole Reformation? Are not Luther, Calvin, Danaeus, Ochinus as well of the Reformation, and Men of as sound Judg∣ment as they? Since therefore they understand, by Scripture there's no Trinity, it's the Doctrine of the Reformation also that there's none: Be∣lieve it or deny it, which you like best, and you'll be still of the Reformed Church.

Isaac.

By the principle you run upon you say any may Blasphemy is the Doctrin of the Re∣formation, for there's hardly any so execrable, but some Dr. of ours has delivered and taught it.

Ismael.

The Principle I run upon is this, Scripture as each person of sound Judgment in∣terprets it, is our Rule of Faith: Judge you, if that be not a good Principle in our Reformed

Church, whereas this is the Rule of Faith gi∣ven us by the 39 Articles, and generally by all our Doctors, as I proved in my first Dialogue: this being our Rule of Faith and Reformed Do∣ctrine, it's evident, that whatever Doctrine is judged by any person of sound Judgment to be contained in Scripture, is the Doctrine of our Reformation: some persons of sound Judgment say the Real Presence is expressed by Scripture, this therefore is the Doctrine of the Reforma∣tion; others say only Figurative Presence is taught in Scripture, this also is the Doctrine of the Re∣formation; some, understand by Scripture, there is a Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, this there∣fore is the Doctrine of the Reformation: others understand there's no such Mystery, this also is the Doctrine of the Reformation: so that whe∣ther you believe or deny this or any other Te∣net controverted, you'll still hold the Doctrine of the Reformation.

Ismael.

Calvin k 1.26 says, Christ pray'd unadvisedly, the Eve of his passion; that he uttered words where∣of he was afterward sorry: that in his passion he was so troubled of all sides, that overwhelm'd with desparation, he desisted from invoking God, which was to renounce all hopes of Salvation: And says he, l 1.27 if you object it's absurd and scandalous to affirm Christ

despair I answer, This desparation proceeded from him as he was man, not as he was God. And this is not only the Doctrine of Calvin, but of Brentius, m 1.28 Marlotus, n 1.29 Jaco∣bus Minister (quoted by Bilson) and of Beza. Will you say this is the Doctrine of the Refor∣mation, or that we can without scruple believe it? Also Calvin says, o 1.30 That Christ's corporal death was not sufficient for to redeem us, but that after ha∣ving despaired on the Cross, he suffered the death of his Soul; that's to say, that his Soul after his corpo∣ral death, suffered the pains of the damn'd in Hell. And says he in the same place, they are but igno∣rant, doltish, brutish, men, who will deny it. Lu∣ther also teaches the same Doctrine: p 1.31 As he suffered with exceeding pains, the death of the body; so it seems he suffered afterward the death of the Soul in Hell: Epinus q 1.32 a learned Lutheran says, Christ descended into Hell for thee, and suffered not only cor∣poral death, but the death and fire of Hell. Mr. Fulk and Perkins avow this is also the express Doctrine of Illiricus, Latimer and Lossius. Also Luther r 1.33 most impiously affirms, that not the hu∣man Nature of Christ dyed for us, but also his Di∣vine Nature: see Luther's words quoted at large by

Zuinglius, s 1.34 and Hospinian; t 1.35 If you say such scan∣dalous blasphemies may be safely believed, you will render your Christianity suspected; and if you say, that they are the Doctrine of the Re∣formation, or that they may be believed accor∣ding to the Principles of the Refor∣mation, you will make the Reformation, and its Principles to be hated by any good Christian.

Isaac.

If I walk by the Rule of Faith of the Reformation, I'll prove my self a true Refor∣med Child; and if I prove my self to be a Re∣formed Child, my Christianity cannot be justly sus∣pected. What Tenet have you related of all those which you call blasphemies and scandals, but has been judged by those eminent Doctors of our Reformation to be express Scripture, or confor∣mable to Scripture; and since our Rule of Faith is Scripture, as each person of sound Judgment understands it, and since the Doctrine of our Reformation is but whatever any such person of sound Judgment, judges to be expressed in, or proved by Scripture, it's evident that all those Tenets are undeniably the Doctrine of the Refor∣mation: I say then, and will say, without any offence to my Christianity, or blemish to our Reformed Church, that those Tenets are the Doctrin of the Reformation and may be as safe∣ly

believed by any Child of it, as Figurative Pre∣sence, Supremacy, or Two Sacraments: and let not any Bigot pretend to frighten me from this Doctrine by calling it Blasphemy and Impiety; No, it's Scripture, as interpreted by our renowned Reformed Doctors, therefore it's no Blasphemy: Let any man convince me, that our Rule of Faith must not be Scripture, as each person of sound Judgment understands it; and he will convince that this cannot be justly called the Doctrine of the Reformation; but whilst that Principle and Rule of Faith stands unshaken, nothing that is taught by any Person of Judgment to be the Doctrine of Scripture, but it is to be called our Doctrine, and may be safely believed.

You say, that whoever has any Love for Chri∣stianity, will hate the Reformation and its Prin∣ciples, if they give Liberty for to believe such Blasphemies: But, can any Mother be more in∣dulgent to her Child, than the Reformation is to us? such as think those Tenets to be Blas∣phemies, the Reformation gives them leave not to believe them: and if any judges by Scripture, that they are not Blasphemies, but pure Do∣ctrine, as Luther, Calvin, and others did, they have Liberty for to believe them. He who de∣nies them, cannot in Charity check them who believe them, nor can they who believe them, check those who deny them, whereas each follow the Rule of Faith, and believe what they judge

by Scripture to be true. And if you or your Church of England cry out Blasphemy, Blasphemy, against all that you judge to be false, why do not you cry Blasphemy against Presbyterians, Luthe∣rans, and other Congregations, from whom you dissent? And what difference betwixt you and ••he Church of Rome? The folly of this is to call Heresy and Blasphemy all that is not her own Doctrine! And all that your Church of England mislikes, must be Fanaticism, Blaphemy, and Impiety? Must our Rule of Faith be Scri∣pture, as the Church of England understands it, and not otherwise? Presbyterians, and Lutherans, will never allow it: If therefore our Rule of Faith be Scripture, as each Person understands it; any Person of sound Judgment in the Reformation, may without scruple believe what he under∣stands to be the Doctrine of Scripture.

Fourth DIALOGUE.

ISMAEL.

You still insist upon that princi∣ple, that our Rule of Faith is Scripture, as each person of sound judgment understands it, and from that principle will follow many absurd consequences destructive of Piety and Reli∣gion.

Isaac.

That Principle is not invented by me, it's of our Holy Reformation; if I did discourse

with a Papist I would prove the principle to be true, and Gods express Word; but since I dis∣course with a Reformed Child, I suppose, I need not spend my time in proving it; This principle then, being an unquestionable truth in our Reformation, no Reformed Child must be so irreverent and bold as to say, that any Doctrine which clearly and unavoidably follows out of it, is Blasphemous or Impious, for that would be to condemn our principle by which we walk: Ex vero non sequitur nisi veram: From a true Principle nothing can follow but true Doctrine. Can you deny but this was the Rule of Faith, and principle of our first blessed Re∣formers, and of the Church of England, menti∣oned in her 39 Articles? If therefore they judg∣ed, and if any other judges by that Rule and Principle, that those Tenets which you call Impious and Blasphemous, to be true Do∣ctrine, they cannot be blamed for believing them.

Ismael.

I confess our first Reformers did speak so, but I say such Errors and Impious Doctrines cannot without Irreverence be called the Do∣ctrine of the Reformation, and cannot without impiety be believed, because our Reformation at present condemns and detests those Blasphemies, for we must grant that our Reformation in its beginning was not in its full perfection of Do∣ctrine, God began it by Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius,

and others: Those great Men had their frail∣ties, they did overlash in some things, and what they said amiss, Gods Heavenly Spirit inspired to the Church from time to time to correct it, and has at length brought our Church to that purity of Doctrine, and fulness of perfection which now it enjoys. Nothing is to be called now the Doctrine of the Reformation, but what is now believed by our Congregations, and none of them believes those execrable Tenets you related.

Isaac.

You wrong the Reformation very much, in saying it had not its full perfection in the be∣ginning, it's rather to be thought, that that polishing and refining of it in ensuing Years with new perfections, and correcting the first draught of it by our first Reformers, has been a corruption of it with some mixture of Popish Errors and Superstitions: For all Religious Con∣gregations and Pretenders to Piety, are at the first beginning in the height of their perfection, and in Progress of Years they decline and decay from their primitive Spirit into errors and cor∣ruption of manners: Religious Congregations are not like Arts and Sciences, which by time and experience receive new perfections; but like Chimnies, which grow daily blacker by con∣tinual smoke and fire: Witness the Jewish Church and Law in its beginning, flourishing and holy, but corrupted in progress of time,

by Traditions of Men and Superstitions of Phari∣sees: Witness also the Law of the Gospel in those happy times of the Apostles, holy and pure, but corrupted after some Years by errors of Popery: If we be to seek for the pure and Or∣thodox Doctrine of the Primitive Church, ought not we to be said by the Apostles, Men raised ex∣traordinarily by God, and replenished with his Spirit to teach us the Gospel? And if we be to seek for the Pure and Orthodox doctrine of the Reformation, ought not we to be sway'd rather by Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, Zuinglius, Beza, and our other first Reformers, than by a few Ministers and Bishops of England, who tho' they be Wise and Pious Men, yet they are not of that stamp as the others. And if our present Congregations presume to correct them, and say they overlash'd in their doctrine; will not the Papists say, if they have been such scandalous Masters, and false Teachers, why did you re∣ceive their Reformation? And as they erred so grosly in such prime Articles of Christianity, why do you fear and suspect they have also erred in the rest? Secondly, the Papists will say, if as they Reformed us, you Reform them, then you must expect and permit that others may reform you, and forsake your Doctrine as you forsake theirs.

Ismael.

I wish you could make out, that the Reformation was in its full. Perfection in its be∣ginning;

had you read some Writers of ours, perhaps you would judge otherwise; a 1.36 Musculus, •…•… learned Lutheran, writes thus; Thus it is with ••s at Present, that if any be desirous to see a great Rab∣ble of Knaves, turbulent Spirits, deceitful Persons, Cozeners, and Debauch'd Men, let him go to a City, where the Gospel is purely Preached, and he shall find them by Multitudes; for it's more manifest than the by light, that never were there more unbridled and ••nruly People among the Turks and Infidels than the Professors of the Reformed Gospel. b 1.37 Luther him∣self says as much; The World grows daily worse and Men are now more covetous, revengeful, and licenti∣ius than they were in Popery. Mr. Stubs c 1.38 says, no less; After my Travels round about all Eng∣land, I found the People in most Parts proud, malici∣ous, ambitious and careless of good Works. Mr. Richard Gefery, in his Sermon at St. Paul's Cross, Printed Anno 1604. I may freely speak what I have plain∣ly seen that in Flanders never was there more Drun∣kenness, in Italy more Wantonness, in Jury more Hypo∣crisie, Turky more Impiety, in Tartary more Ini∣quity, than is practised generally in England, and particularly in London. Certainly our Refor∣mation at present deserves a better Character; never did the Ale-houses and Taverns complain more heavily of want of Trading, which is a

Proof of our Sobriety; the Churches which we see a Building in London, is a good Testimo∣ny of Piety; and we are so far from any smack of Hypocrisie, that you shall not see in all Lon∣don the least appearance of Vertue, so hiddenly it's kept from mortal Eyes, but what you may meet in our honest Quakers.

Isaac.

I confess our Congregations as now they are, are very good both in Doctrine and Man∣ners; but I say also, that the Doctrine and Manners of our Reformation, at its first begin∣ning was as pure, as Holy, and as true as now it is, or ever it will be. Nay, supposing and grant∣ed, their Manners and Doctrine were so cor∣rupt as those Doctors mention; I say that amidst all those Vices, their Life was as Holy, Innocent, Blameless and Pure as yours is now. And that you may be convinc'd of this Truth, know that Calvin expresly teaches. d 1.39 We believe the Sins of the Faithful, (he means of the Reformation) are but venial Sins; not but that they deserve Death, but because there is no damnation for the Children of Grace in asmuch as their Sins are not imputed to them; And again e 1.40 he says, We can assure our selves, we can no more be damn'd for any Sins, then Jesus Christ himself. Luther f 1.41 is of the same Opinion, As nothing but Faith doth Justifie us, so nothing but

incredulity is a Sin. Again, g 1.42 No Sin is so great that it can condemn a Man, such as are damn'd, are damn'd only for their Incredulity Whitaker, h 1.43 No Sin can hurt a Men who has Faith. The same is taught by Wotton, Fulk, Tindal, and Beza. It's therefore the Doctrine of Scripture, as Inter∣preted by these Persons of great and sound Judgment, that Incests, Murthers, Intempe∣rance, or whatever else you call a Sin, (In∣credulity excepted,) either is no Sin at all, or but Venial Sins, which do no harm, nor can∣not damn the children of the Reformation; if therefore our Brethren lived in the beginning of the Reformation, as those Authors relate, they lived according to Scripture, as Interpreted to them by Men of sound Judgment, and this being our rule of Faith and Manners, they did not ill, but very well in following it.

Ismael.

They were men of the Reformation, it's true, who taught these Errors, and dissoluti∣tion of Life and good Manners; insomuch, they swerved from the Spirits Holiness and Purity of the Reformation, and must not be believed nor commended. Look upon the Reformation as now it is, and you will not find any such scanda∣lous Doctrine, or Corruption of manners.

Isaac.

They were not only Men of the Re∣formation, but the greatest Oracles of it, which

you will not match with any of our prese••…••… Congregations, and it's not pardonable in any Reformed Child to say, such Oracles, Extraor∣dinarily raised by God to teach the Purity of the Gospel, should have taught either Errors in Do∣ctrine, or dissolution of Manners. They taugh•• what in their Consciences they understood by Scripture to be true; if you will not be so it revent as to say, that they were Knaves, who spoke and taught against their Consciences and Knowledge. Therefore they taught the Do∣ctrine of the Reformation, purely and truly▪ The Consequence is Evident: For what is the Doctrine of the Reformation, but what wise, learn∣ed Men of sound Judgment think and understand by Scripture to be true? Why is figurative Presence the Doctrine of the Reformation though denied by Lutherans, (who are Reform∣ed also,) but because Wise, Learned Men Judge by Scripture as they understand it, it's the true Doctrine? or can you give me any other Rule of Faith by which we may know what Doctrine is of the Reformation, and what not, but Scripture as each person of sound Judgment understands it? Or what Rule can you give for to know what is good or evil to be done, but Scripture as understood by such Persons? If therefore Luther, Calvin, and the other Doctors I quoted, Judge by Scri∣pture that Doctrine and manner of Life to be true and good, why may not we say it's the Do∣ctrine

of the Reformation? If you or the Church of England or Scotland Judge that Do∣ctrine to be false, and that manner of Life to be a dissolution and corruption of Manners: Why? you are Men of sound Judgment, you understand Scripture so; that will be the Do∣ctrine also of the Reformation, you may believe it: But you must not deny that Luther and Cal∣vin's Doctrine also is of the Reformation, be∣cause they were Men of as sound Judgment as you.

You transgress hainously against Modesty, in saying those sacred Organs of God swerved from the Spirit and Holiness of the Reformation; which having no other Rule of Faith but Scri∣pture, as each Person of sound Judgment un∣derstands it; its Spirit and Holiness consists in framing our Life and Doctrine to that Rule, as our blessed Reformers and Reformation in its beginning did, believing those Tenets, which you call Errours and Blasphemy, and living that Life which you call Dissolution and Corruption of Manners, because they judge by Scripture as they understood it, that Doctrine and manner of Life was True, Innocent and Good; and if you like it as they did, you may believe and live as they did, and be a good Child of the Refor∣mation: Consider I pray all the Works and Do∣ctrine of Luther, (the like I say of our other first Reformers) the three parts of his Doctrine is against Popery, and they say all are Heresies

and Blasphemies; the rest is contrary to the Church of England, and she says, this is also Errors and Blasphemy, so you conspire with the Papists, to destroy the credit of our first and best Reformer and betwixt you both, you unplume him of all his Feathers, and leave him not a bit of good Doctrine.

But I will stand to the Spirit, and Prin∣ciples of the Reformation, and Congregations, as now they are, since that you do so much boast of its Purity and great Perfections; and I will prove that Doctrine and Manner of Life, may be believed and followed Lawfully standing to its Principles: For if the Spirit of the Refor∣mation be at present among us, we must not be forced, as in Popery, to believe against our proper Judgments, what others believe by Scri∣pture to be true and holy, but what each one thinks in his own Conscience to be such; be∣cause even now at present, our Rule of Faith is Scripture as each Person of sound Judgment understands it, and this is the same Rule which Luther and the Reformation in it's beginning had: This Holy Liberty is the best Jewel, the great∣est Perfection, and most glorious Prerogative the Reformation has: If therefore now at pre∣sent any Man judges by Scripture that he can Marry ten Wives at a time; that he can kill his own Son as Abraham intended; that he may commit incest with his own Daughter, as Lot did; that there is no Sin but Incredulity, as Luther be∣lieved;

nor any Mystery of the Trinity of Per∣sons in one Nature, as Calvin believed, with what Justice can the Church of England say a Man does not believe, and live as becometh a Refor∣med Child, or that his Doctrine and Life is scan∣dalous; whereas he lives and believes as he un∣derstands by Scripture, he may or ought to do, which is the Rule of Faith of the Reformation, even of the Church of England? The Church of England says, the Lutheran Doctrin of the Real Presence is not the Doctrin of Scripture; that the Presbyterian Doctrin against Episcopacy, is not the Doctrin of Scripture; that the Anabap∣tist Doctrin against Infants Baptism, is not of Scripture; and yet you permit them all to live in Peace; you Confess they are true Children of the Reformation, though Dissenters from you; why? Because they follow Scripture as they un∣derstand it, and this is our Rule of Faith? And why will not you say, the Belief and Life of that other Man is also of the Reformation, though it may seem absurd to you; since he believes and lives as he Judges by Scripture he may? It follows therefore plainly, that this is the Do∣ctrine of the Reformation.

Ismael.

I confess our rule of Faith in the Re∣formation, is Scripture, as each person of sound Judgment understands it: but you cannot doubt but that it's needful to moderate and curb this Liberty, or it may run too far: for if every

Man be licenced to believe and teach every thing he fancies to be according to Scripture; as there is no Doctrine so execrable but some ignorant Reader may hit upon a Text, which ill understood, may seem to favour it; so there will be none but may be believed, and called the Doctrine of the Reformation: for exam∣ple, Beza i 1.44 teaches, (and says it's also the Do∣ctrine of Calvin, Sumaize and Geneve,) that the Lords Supper may be Lawfully administred in any kind of Victuals as well as in Bread and Wine, in Eggs, Flesh, Fish, &c. Where there is no Bread and Wine, says he, we may duly cele∣brate, if instead of them we use what we usually Eat and Drink. And again in the same place, If there be no water at hand, and that Baptism cannot be with edification deferred I would Baptize in any o∣ther liquor.

Isaac.

And why should not it be lawful to any Reformed to believe this, whereas it's Scripture as interpreted by a Man of so sound a Judgment? but I do not in any wise like that Opinion of yours, and of the Church of England, that it's convenient to limit and curb Men's Judg∣ments, lest they may run too far: this is the policy of Rome, They will not permit an arbi∣trary Interpretation of Scripture, alledging for∣sooth, for Inconveniency, the multitude of ab∣surd Doctrines which the World would swarm

with, if such a liberty were allowed: No, no, far be it from any true reformed Child to mis∣like or blame that all People should interpret Scripture, and believe what they judge by it to be true: and if what they judge to be true▪ should seem to you false and scandalous, do not you believe it, but let them believe it, and they will be of the Reformation, because they follow our rule of Faith.

Ismael.

k 1.45 Luther l 1.46 Melancthon, m 1.47 Musculus, n 1.48 Ochinus, o 1.49 Beza, and others, teach the lawful∣ness of Bigamy or Multiplicity of Wives, and prove it with the example of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: and Ochinus expounding the Text of St. Paul, It behoveth a Bishop to be a Man of one Wife: The Prohibition, says he, is not to be understood so, that a Bishop should have but one Wife at a time, for certainly he may have many; but St. Pauls meaning is, that he ought not to have too many Wives at a time, that's to say, ten or twenty.

Isaac.

And will you deny this to be the Do∣ctrine of the Reformation, whereas it's Scri∣pture as interpreted by Men of so eminent and sound a Judgment?

Ismael.

The Synod of Geneve, p 1.50 and the q 1.51 Ecclesiastical Discipline of France, printed at Saumure, has decreed, that a Wife whose Hus∣band is a long time absent, may have him cal∣led by the publick Cryer, and if within a com∣petent time he does not appear, without any further Enquiry, the Ministers may Licence her to marry any other; or marry her him∣self.

Isaac.

I say all Women may practice this Do∣ctrine without scruple or shame, whereas it's Scripture, as interpreted by that thrice holy Synod; but let Seamen beware how they un∣dertake long Voyages, for fear their Wives may take other Husbands in their Absence.

Ismael.

Luther r 1.52 teaches it's lawful to a Wife, if her Husband does not please her, to call her Man-Servant, or her Neighbour; which Do∣ctrine they say is come to the Ears of our Lon∣don Sisters; and he gives the like Liberty to the Hubands, if their Wives be pettish and hu∣moursom. If the Husband, says he, cannot correct the humoursomness of his Wife, he may imagine she is Dead, and may marry another, because it's not in the Power of a Man to live without a Woman, nor in hers to live without a Man.

Isaac.

This is Scripture as Interpreted by Lu∣ther, and consequently must not be denied to be

the Doctrine of the Reformation; nor can a∣ny of our Reformation be justly punish'd or blam'd for practising it, if he judges by Scri∣pture it be true, (as Luther did) for this is out Rule of Faith. But Luther never gave this Li∣berty, but upon condition, that the Husband or Wife should first make their Complaint be∣fore a Magistrate, for to have a redress of their Injury and discontent; but this condition seems too. Combersome to the Modesty of our Sisters; they do not submit to it, but do themselves Ju∣stice without any address to the Magistrate. I know also, that not only Luther, but s 1.53 Bucer, t 1.54 Melancthon, u 1.55 Ochinus, x 1.56 Musculus and Calvin, y 1.57 do teach that a Man who finds his Wife in Adultery may cast her off by Divorce, and Marry another; and our French Synods have ordered this Doctrine to be put in their Ecclesiasti∣cal Discipline, so that it's the Doctrine of Scripture as interpreted by these Persons of sound Judg∣ment, and consequently of the Reformation: you may therefore believe and practise it; our Si∣sters, particularly our Ministers Wives were much alarm'd at this Doctrine, and say it's a dam∣nable Heresie; believe it as you please.

Ismael.

Does not Luther say it's impossible a z 1.58 young Man of 20 Years can live without a Woman; or a young Maid of 18 Years with∣out a Man; whereby all Parents may believe their Daughters of that Age are defil'd if not preferr'd in due time: sure you will not say, this is the Doctrine of the Reformation.

Isaac.

And who doubts but that it's the Re∣formed Doctrine: Scripture as interpreted by so sound a Judgment; the contrary Doctrine is also of the Reformation, and you may believe it, because our Glorious Queen Elizabeth dyed a Virgin; and it's credibly reported some few fellows of Oxford and Cambridge live conti∣nently.

Ismael.

But what do you think of a Child Christen'd in Popery by a Monk or a Fryar, ought he to be Christen'd again in our Refor∣mation? And what if a Popish Priest, or Fryar, did become of our Reformed Church, can he lawfully Marry, whereas be made a Vow of Chastity?

Isaac.

As to the first Query, it's the Doctrin of the Reformation, declared by many French Synods, and recorded in their Ecclesiastical Dis∣cipline, that he must be Christen'd again, because the first Baptism was Null: it's also the Do∣ctrin of the Reformation, declared by the Church of England, and many Synods of France, that

the first Baptism is sufficient and valid: believe which you please. It's also the Doctrin of the Reformation, that Infants Baptism is not at all needful (nay nor Lawful say the Anabaptists) so says Calvin, a 1.59 Zuinglius, Beza, and many o∣thers; it's likewise the Doctrin of our 39 Ar∣ticles b 1.60, and our holy Synod of London c 1.61, that In∣fants baptism is lawful and needful. Believe which you like best; both are of the Reformation.

As to the second Query, it's the Doctrin of the Reformation that Priests and Fryars are ob∣liged to the vow of Chastity which they made in Popery, and cannot Marry, this is the Doctrin of many of our Brethren, and particu∣larly of d 1.62 Hooker, e 1.63 Marloratus, Budellus and f 1.64 Couel, who say the Papists vows of Poverty, Obe∣dience and Chastity are commendable and ought to be kept. You may also believe this is wicked Doctrin, and that they may take Wives notwith∣standing their vow of Chastity, as well as Bene∣fices notwithstanding their vow of Poverty: believe which you please, both Doctrines are of the Reformation; but the best is to say they can Marry, for if Marriage and Benefices were de∣nied them, no Priest or Fryar would ever em∣brace our Reformed Doctrin: We know our

great Zuinglius himself would not at all preach the Gospel unto the Switzers, until that he pre∣sented a Petition for himself and his Compani∣ons (all Priests and Fryars) extant yet in his 1 Tom. pag. 110. and obtained the contents of it, which was to have Wives. Nor can we doubt this to be the best Doctrin, whereas Lu∣ther, Beza, and almost all our Reformers, were Priests and Fryars, and the first step they gave in the Reformation was to Marry: the Papists and some weak Brethren were much scandalized at Luther's Marriage, and Erasmus his Raillery upon it was much solemnized; Luther yesterday a Monk, to day a Husband, and next day a Father, because that honest Kate Boren, his virtuous Bride, was happily delivered of a lovely Boy eight days after he Married her: But the Ser∣vant of God did not regret the action, which proves that he Judged by Scripture it was very lawful.

Fifth DIALOGUE.

ISMAEL.

You know I have been born and bred in our holy Reformation, and a Church of England man; you tell me I may believe this or that, and whatever I please, I would gladly settle once for ever, and resolve what I may, and ought to believe, and not to be every

day carried away with every wind of Doctrin: let me, to that purpose propose unto you, and hear your resolution of some doubts. What do you think, have not we a Church on earth esta∣blisht by Christ, wherein we are to live and serve him, and believe her Doctrin?

Isaac.

I will give you no other instruction nor answer but the pure Doctrin of the Reforma∣tion, which when you have heard, you may determine as you like best, what Religion to em∣brace; but know this, that after you have de∣termin'd with your self to believe this or that, you may with a very safe Conscience alter that resolution next day after, and believe the quite contrary to what you resolve to believe, if up∣on better consideration you think the contrary to be true; this is the liberty of the Holy Re∣formation, as I proved in my first Dialogue.

As to your present doubt I answer, it's the Doctrin of the Reformation, that it was Jesus Christ the Son of God who establisht the Church, you may believe it therefore: It's also the Do∣ctrin of the Reformation, that it was not Jesus Christ the Son of God who establisht the Church: that this is the Doctrin of our Refor∣mation it's apparent, for it's Scripture as Inter∣preted by Ochinus a man of sound Judgment, whom all Italy could not match, says Calvin; In whose presence England was happy, and unhappy in his absence, says B. Bale: Ochinus speaks thus,

a 1.65 Considering how the Church was establisht by Christ and washt with his Blood; and considering again how it was utterly overthrown by Papacy; I concluded that he who establisht it, could not be Christ the Son of God, because he wanted providence; and upon this reflection, he renounced Christ and became a Jew. And no man can say but that he acted and behaved himself like a true Child of the Reformation in so doing, for he followed Scri∣pture as he understood it; and as he was a true Reformed Child in forsaking Popery, because he understood by Scripture, that the Reforma∣tion was better; so since he understood by read∣ing Scripture more, that Judaism was better than the Reformation, he acted like a good Refor∣med, in chusing that which he understood by Scripture to be the best; this is the Reforma∣tions Rule of Faith; do you, if you please, as he did, and you'll be as good a Reformed as he.

And if you chuse to believe that there is a Church establisht on earth by Christ, you must beware never to believe or perswade your self that we are bound to believe her Doctrin, or live in her, if you do not judge by Scripture that she teaches the Doctrin of Christ: This is the most essential point of Popery, an obligation of submit∣ting our judgments to the Church, and believing her Doctrin without any more examining, and in this the Church of England is much like the

Popish Church, which by Acts of Parliaments and other severities would oblige all men to be∣lieve her Doctrin, Rites and Ceremonies: No, God has given us Scripture for our Rule of Faith, as we forsook the Popish Church, be∣cause we discovered by Scripture her many Er∣rours in Doctrin; so we are not bound to be∣lieve the Doctrin of any other Church, but as we find by Scripture her Doctrin is true. Do, and speak as Luther to 1. Edit. Jen. in Re∣solut. I will be free, and will not submit to the Au∣thority of Councils, Popes, Church or Ʋniversity; to the contrary I will confidently teach whatever I Judge to be true; whether it be Catholick Doctrin or Here∣tical; condemned or approved.

Ismael.

Must I not believe that the Doctrin of Jesus Christ, delivered to his Apostles and the Church is true Doctrin?

Isaac.

The Reformation teaches, it is, and you may safely believe it: You may as safely be∣lieve it is not, in the Principles of the Re∣formation; because it teaches that Christ err'd in Doctrin and Manners: Vere Pharisaei erant viri valde boni, says Luther,; b 1.66 and Christus minime debuit eos taxare: and Calvin says, c 1.67 it's a folly to think he was not ignorant in many things; lastly, David Georgius d 1.68 (a Man of God and of a holy life says Osiander) writes, If the Doctrin of Christ

and his Apostles had been true and perfect, the Church which they planted had continued, but now it is ma∣nifest that Antichrist has subverted it, as it's mani∣fest in Papacy: therefore it was false and imperfect. See these words quoted in the History of David George, Printed by the Divines of Basil, at An∣twerp. Anno. 1568 both Doctrines are Scripture as interpreted by Men of sound Judgment; a Child of the Reformation, may believe which he will.

Ismael.

Is it not the Doctrin of the Refor∣mation that the Apostles were infallible in their Doctrin? much more must we believe that Je∣sus Christ was so.

Isaac.

Yes it is; you may believe it: and it's also the Doctrin of the Reformation that they were not infallible, neither in their written or unwritten Doctrin, so many of our most re∣nowned Doctors speak, and whatever any Men of sound Judgment Judge to be true by Scripture, is the Doctrin of the Reformation: Zuinglius, e 1.69 one of the greatest Oracles of our Church says, It's a great ignorance to believe any infallible Authority in the Gospels or Epistles of the Apostles; Beza, not inferiour to Zuinglius, blotted out of St. John the History of the Woman Adulteress, Judging it a fable; Clebitius f 1.70 affirms, that Luke's relation of Christ's passion is not true, because it does not agree with that of Matthew and Mark, and

more credit is to be to two, than to one. g 1.71 Calvin says, Peter consented to, and added to the Schism of the Church, to the overthrow of Christian liberty, and Christ's Grace. h 1.72 Whitaker says, It's evident that after the Descent of the Holy Gospel, the whole Church, even the Apostles, erred; and Peter erred in Doctrin and manners. i 1.73 Luther says Peter lived and taught extra Verbum Dei; and Brentius k 1.74 his Disciple say, that Peter and Barnabas together with the Church of Jerusalem erred after receiving the Holy Ghost. If our Rule of Faith be Scri∣pture as each person of sound Judgment under∣stands it, undoubtedly this must be the Doctrin of the Reformation, and may be believed by a∣ny Reformed, since it's Scripture interpreted by such renowned men.

Ismael.

This is most wicked Doctrin, I'll ne∣ver believe it,

Isaac.

If you think by Scripture it's wicked, do not: follow your Rule of Faith, Scripture as you understand it; but if any other under∣stands by Scripture▪ (as those Authors did) that the Doctrin is good, give him leave to believe it; he'll but follow his Rule of Faith, Scripture as he understands it.

Ismael.

I would gladly know which are the true Canonical Books of Scripture.

Isaac.

The Reformation teaches, and you may believe with the Church of England, that St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, those of James and Jude: the 2. of St. Peter; the 2. and 3. of St. John, are true Canonical Scripture; the Re∣formation also teaches they are not Canonical, because Lutherans deny them; believe which you like best. But if you'll live in peace, and out of all strife with Protestants, Lutherans, and others, who dispute, if this or that be Canoni∣cal Scripture; your readiest and speediest way will be, to say there's no true Canonical Scri∣pture; Scripture is no more to be regarded than other pious Books: if you say this is not the Doctrin of the Reformation, read Hossias de ex∣presse Verbo Dei, & lib. de Har. where he relates this to be the Doctrin of the Swinfeldians, as good Reformers as the best of us: they say, that we are not to regard any Instruction from Man or Book, but Gods immediate inspiration, which speaks secretly to our hearts; for which they al∣ledge those comfortable words of the Prophet, I will hear what my Lord my God speaks in me: for say they, the Book which we call Scripture, is a Creature, and we must not seek for light and instruction from any Creature, but from God the Father of Lights. This is Scripture as in∣terpreted by Men of sound Judgment; any Child of the Reformation may believe it.

Ismael.

I thought to settle my mind in my choice of some Religion, and you go the way to beat me from all, for if you renverse the Au∣thority of Scripture, what warrant shall we have for any Religion? God forbid the Refor∣mation should deny the true Canon, or the in∣fallible truth of Scripture; and let all the world say the contrary, I will constantly aver and be∣lieve it's Gods infallible word.

Isaac.

How can you say I beat you from all Religion, when I directly perswade you to fol∣low the Rule of Faith of our Reformation, Scri∣pture as each person of sound judgment understands it; let this be your Religion, if you will be a true Reformed; whatever you judge in your con∣science to be true, let the Church of England, or France, or any other say and believe what they will, you are to believe but what you judge by Scripture to be true; and this is the Religion of the Reformation.

Ismael.

I would gladly know, if it be lawful to chop or change the Text?

Isaac.

It's the Doctrine of the Reformation that you cannot, because God has forbid to add to, or take away from his word: and therefore we condemn the Papists for their Tradition, ob∣truded upon the Flock as the Word of God: It's also the Doctrine of the Reformation, and the practice of our best Reformers, when the Text does not speak clear enough, that for to

refute Popery and establish our own Doctrine, we may add or diminish a word or two; which is not to change the Word of God, but to make it speak more expresly: as when Luther had a mind to prach Justification by Faith alone, finding the Text said but, Man is justified by Faith, he added the word Alone and made the Text very clear against Popery, which formerly was some∣what obscure: Zuinglius being to teach the Fi∣gurative presence of Christ in the Sacrament, found the Text, This is my Body, to be too pat against his Doctrine and instead of Is, put in This signifi∣eth. The Church of England being to preach the Kings Spiritual Supremacy, could not con∣vince the obstinate Papist by the Original Text, which said 1 Pet. 2. submit your selves unto every humane creature for the Lord's sake, whether it be the King as excelling, or to, &c. But in King Edwards time they altered one word, and made the Text thus, submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man, whether it be to the King, as being the chief head, and the following impressions of the Bible, in the year 1557. and 79. say, To the King as su∣preame. And so the true Doctrine is clearly con∣vinc'd out of Scripture, as also the lawfulness of Priests Marriage; for the Text before the Reformation said 1 Cor. 9. have we not power to lead about a woman sister; and now our Bibles say, have we not power to lead about a Wife being our Sister: hence it's evident according to the

Doctrine and practice of our Reformation, that when you have a mind to establish a Doctrine which you judge to be true, you may change the Text and make it speak to your sense and meaning, provided you judge your sense to be true.

Ismael.

What do you think of Justifying Faith? Does Faith alone justify us?

Isaac.

It's the Doctrine of the Reformation, that without charity it cannot, because St. Paul says 1 Cor. 13. If I have Faith so as to move mountains, and no Charity, I am nothing. It's also the Doctrine of the Reformation, that it is impi∣ous and wicked to say, Faith alone without Charity does not justify; this is Scipture as in∣terpreted by Luther a man of sound judgment: l 1.75 Who say, quoth Luther, that Faith alone though perfect it be, cannot Justify without Charity, say im∣piously and wicked, because Faith alone, without any good works doth justifie. Believe which Doctrine you please, both are of the Reformation.

Ismael.

Luther was insolent in checking the Doctrine of St. Paul.

Isaac.

Probably he did not reflect that it was the Doctrine of the Apostle, and if you will have it to be a Check of St. Paul Luther m 1.76 will answer for himself, Be it, says he, that the Church, Au∣gustine

or other Doctors, also Peter and Paul, nay, and an Angel from Heaven should teach otherwise than as I teach, yet my Doctrine is such, that it set∣eth forth Gods Glory; I know I teach no Humane, but Divine Doctrine.

It's the Doctrine of the Reformation, that Faith alone, without any good Works, and not∣withstanding all Sins you are Guilty of, doth justifie you: This is Scripture, as Interpre∣ted by Luther, who says, nothing can damn you but Incredulity, as nothing but Faith can save you; of Whitaker, Wotton, Fulk, and Beza, whose words I related in our precedent Dialogue which I believe you remember, and I need not re∣peat.

It's also the Doctrine of the Reformation, that good Works are meritorious of Grace and Glo∣ry; n 1.77 Hooker and Harmonia confess. o 1.78 say it's the Doctrine of Scripture; and what any person of sound Judgment judges to be the Doctrine of Scripture, he may believe it, for this is our Rule of Faith. It's likewise the Doctrine generally of all our Church, that good Works are not at all meritorious: Tindall (called by Fox p 1.79, a Man of God, and a constant Martyr) judges this to be so true, that in his Treatise de Mammona iniqui∣tatis, he says, Christ himself did not by all his good

Works merit the Glory: And tho' the Scripture says expresly he did, Calvin q 1.80 affirms, that it's a foolish curiosity to examine, and a rash proposition to say Christ did Merit.

It's the Doctrine of the Reformation, that tho' good Works be not meritorious, nor have not the least Influence in our Justification or Sal∣vation, yet they are absolutely needful for both, in as much as that true Faith cannot be without good Works, because they are the Marks and Signs of a living Faith, by whch alone we are Saved; this is the Judgment of the Church of England expressed in the 11 and 12 Articles of the 39, and of Melancthon in locis Commun. de Bonis operibus, and you may believe it: You may also believe, and it's the Doctrine of the Reformation, that good Works are so far from being needful, that they are prejudicious and hurtful to our Salvation, and the best way to be Saved, is to do no good Work at all; this is Scripture as Interpreted by Illiricus, Flacius, Ams∣dorsius, quoted in Act. Colloq. Aldeburg. pag. 205. and 299. and Luther r 1.81 was so deeply perswad∣ed of this truth, tho that Christ said, If thou wilt enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, keep the Com∣mandment: Luther says, it's an obstacle to our Salvation to keep them: Where it is said, quoth he, that Faith in Christ doth indeed justify us, but that it is necessary also to keep the Commandments,

there Christ is denyed, and Faith abolish'd, because that which is proper to Faith alone is attributed if the Commandments. And again, s 1.82 says he, if Faith be accompanied with good Works, it's no true Faith; that it may justify it must be alone without any good Works. This is Scripture as inter∣preted by such eminent and sound Men; and consequently the Doctrine of the Reformation; and who doubts but that any Doctrine of the Reformation may be believed. Hence forward, when you hear the Preacher exhort you to good Works, you may believe him if you please, and have a Mind to spend your Monys, because he Preaches the Doctrine of the Refor∣mation; or you may laugh at him, and believe not a word he says, because he Preaches a∣gainst the Doctrine of the Reformation.

Ismael.

These are dangerous and scandalous Tenets, destructive of Piety and Christianity; and let Luther and those Authors you quoted, say what they please, the Reformation, nor no ho∣nest Man will ever believe such abominable Do∣ctrine.

Isaac.

I do not say that the Children of the Reformation are obliged to believe them: They may believe as you do, that all are wicked Te∣nets: But if Luther and the others cited, judge in their Conscience these Tenets to be the Do∣ctrine of Scriptures, and if Peter, John or James,

like their Interpretation, I say they may accord∣ing to the Principles of our Reformation believe them, and be as truly Reformed Children as you; for our Rule of Faith is Scripture, as each Person of sound Judgment understands it; and in believing those Tenets, because they judge them to be the Doctrine of Scripture they stick fast to, and follow our Rule of Faith: Why is Figurative Presence and the Kings Supremacy, the Doctrine of the Reformation, tho' denied by Pa∣pists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians; but because the Protestants judg it's the Doctrine of Scripture: If therefore those great Authors I quoted, and any other with them, judge those Tenets to be the Doctrine of Scripture, they can be justly called the Doctrine of the Reformation: Must Protestants be forced against their Judgments to deny real Presence, and Supremacy, because Lutherans say it's wicked Doctrine. And why must Luther, Illiricus, Flaccius, and others be for∣ced to deny those Tenets, tho' Protestants or Pa∣pists judge them to be damnable? Let each one believe what he thinks to be the Doctrine of Scripture, and he will still be a true Reformed Child.

Ismael

Does not our Reformation teach that 'tis possible to all Men, assisted with God's Grace, to keep the Commandments?

Isaac.

This is the Doctrine of the Church of England, and consequently of the Reformation:

It's also the Doctrine of the Reformation deli∣vered out of Scripture, as Interpreted by Luther, Calvin, Willet, and several others, that it's impos∣sible to any man assisted with what Grace soever to keep the Commandments. None has ever yet, says our great Calvin, t 1.83 and God has decreed none shall ever keep the Commandments: Again, u 1.84 The Law and Commandments were given us, to no other end, but that we should be damn'd by them; inas∣much, that it is impossible for Ʋs to do what they command. The same Doctrine is taught by Luther, in several places of his Works, by Willet x 1.85 and by our Brethren the Gomarists of Holland, and many of our French Synods. Believe which you please both Doctrines are of the Reformation.

It's also the Doctrine of Luther and Calvin, that God does not cast men into Hell because their sins deserve it, nor save men because they merit it, but meerly because he will have it for He crowns those who have not deserved it; says Luther, y 1.86 and he punishes those who have not deserved it; 'tis Gods Wrath and Severity to damn the one, 'tis Gods Grace and Mercy to save the other. Calvin also, z 1.87 Men are damn'd for no other cause, but because God will have it so; he is the cause and Author of their Damnation; their Damnation is decreed by God when

when they are in their Mothers Womb, because he will have it so; this is also the belief of our Goma∣rists in Holland, of many French Churches, and of several learned Calvinists; though the Church of England denies this Doctrine, none will dare say it is not the Doctrine of the Reformation, because it is Scripture as Interpreted by such e∣minent men of our Church.

Ismael.

I will never believe such execrable Doctrines, nor will I ever be of any Congrega∣tion which believes them.

Isaac.

I do not advise you to believe them; but to give others leave to believe them, if they think them to be the Doctrine of Scripture; as Luther, Calvin, Willet, Gomarists, and others do: You must not, if you be a true Reformed Child hin∣der any man from believing, nor be displeased with him for believing what he Judges in his Conscience to be the Doctrine of Scripture, for this is our Rule of Faith. Will not you be of the Congregation and Religion of those, who follow Scripture as their Rule of Faith, and Be∣lieve what they Judge in their Conscience to be the Doctrine of Scripture?

Ismael.

Yes I will, and am of such a Congre∣gation, for this is the Rule of Faith of the Re∣formation.

Isaac.

Why then, you must be of the same Congregation with the Gomarists, Luther, Calvin, and the others, who believe those which you call

execrable Doctrines, because they follow Scri∣pture as they understand; and believe those Do∣ctrines, because they Judge them to be of Scri∣ture: You both follow the same Rule, one goes one way, and the other another, and both are of the Reformation. The Church of England un∣derstands by Scripture, that God is not the Author nor cause of Sin, that he does not force us to Sin; who doubts but that this is therefore the Doctrine of the Reformation? But Calvin, Bren∣tius, Beza, and several others understand by Scripture, That God is the cause and Author which forces our Will to Sin; That Man, and the Devil, are but Gods Instruments to commit it: That Murthers, Incests, Blasphemies, &c. are the Works of God, that he makes us commit them: And who doubts but this also is the Doctrine of the Reformation, being Scripture as In∣terpreted, by such eminent and sound Judgment? God, says Calvin, a 1.88 directs, moves, inclines and for∣ces the Will of Man to Sin; insomuch that the pow∣er and efficacy of Working, is wholly in him; Man, nay, and Satan when he impells us, being only Gods Instruments which he uses for to make us Sin. Zuin∣glius, Willet, Beza, teach the same.

Sixth Dialogue.

ISMAEL.

I am weary of hearing such hor∣rid Blasphemies; my Heart trembles to hear you say, that such abominable Tenets may be believed according to our Rule of Faith and Principles of the Reformation: I beseech you let me hear no more of such stuff: I conceive very well that Mens Judgments and Consci∣ences are not to be constrain'd to believe or deny, this or that Tenet, because the Pope, or his Infallible, forsooth, Church, will have it so.

Isaac.

And must they be constrain'd to deny or believe, because the fallible Church of Eng∣land or France will have it so?

Ismael.

No, I do not say they must, have Pa∣tience, and hear me speak a while: I say that Scripture must be our Rule of Faith, and not any Pope, or Church, or Congregation; and that we are not to be forced by any to believe, but what we understand to be true by Scripture; and that if we Judge by Scripture, any Doctrine to be false, and contrary to Gods Word, we must not be forced to believe it: But we must not abuse this Liberty; That we should have Liberty for to believe or deny Suprema∣cy, Figurative Presence, Communion in one or

both Kinds, and such other inferiour Truths controverted among Christians; and that each Congregation may in such Articles, believe as it understands by Scripture to be true, may pass, and it's practised in our Reformed Churches; But that we should run so far, as to have Liber∣ty by our Rule of Faith to believe or deny the Fundamental and Chief Articles of Christianity, as the Trinity, Incarnation, Divinity of Christ, amp;c. That Liberty ought not to be given: Our Re∣formation very wisely and piously permits the Lutherans to believe one thing, the Presbyterians another, the Protestants another, and so of the rest: And all are true Reformed Children, because each of them believes as they Judge by Scripture to be true: But the Reformation has never given, nor never will give Liberty to interpret Scripture against the fundamental Ar∣ticle of Christianity: We must be moderate, and keep our rambling Fancies within Compass, and if any should judge and interpret Scripture in favour of any scandalous and abominable Tenets against Christianity and good Manners, he must be checked and not commended. This Moderation the Church of England uses, and will never permit to the contrary.

Isaac.

I perceive a great deal of Popish Blood to run in your Veins, and that if you and your Church of England, were in Power at the be∣ginning of our Reformation, we should never have

had a Luther, Calvin, Beza, or such other no∣ble and renowned Reformers. By what I gather from your discourse, I do not see the breadth of an Inch's difference betwixt the Church of Rome, and you and your Church of England, for the Church of Rome will not stick to grant, that Gods Word alone is her Rule of Faith, but so that none must believe any sense of it, but as she believes it, nor Interpret any Text, but receive her Interpretation of it. The Church of Eng∣land has Scripture for her Rule of Faith, and gives us Liberty for to Interpret, Understand, and Believe some Text of it, as each one thinks best; and so permits Presbyterians to deny Epis∣copacy, Lutherans to deny Figurative Presence, &c. and confesses they are all her Brethren of the Reformation, but she will give no Liberty at all for to Interpret other Texts, but all must un∣derstand them as she does, or all must Hereticks and damn'd Men? No, that Text My Father, and I are one, must be Interpreted to signifie the Uni∣ty In Nature of the Father and Son, as the Church of England believes, none must Interpret it o∣therwise: So that the difference betwixt the Popish Church and that of England, is, the first gives us no Liberty at all, the second gives us some Liberty, the first robs us of all; the se∣cond but the one half. The Rule of Faith in Popery is Scripture as Interpreted by the Pope and Councils; the Rule of Faith in England; as to

some Articles is Scripture as Interpreted by the Church of England; and as to other Articles, Scri∣pture as each person of sound Judgment un∣derstands it, And thus Protestants are but half Papists, and half Reformed, and both these ingredients will never make a good com∣pound.

Let any unbyass'd and impartial Man Judge if the Church of England proceeds justly in this: For if our Rule of Faith be Scripture, as each Person of sound Judgment understands it, as she mentions in her 39. Articles; and as the whole Reformation believes, if we are not to be constrained, to believe any Church, Council, or Mans sense of Scripture, if we do not Judge by the Word of God it's true, by what Autho∣rity, Rule or Reason, can the Church of Eng∣land give me Liberty to understand and believe some Texts as I please, and deny me Liberty for to understand and believe others, as I Judge by Scri∣pture they ought to be understood? I pray ob∣serve well this Discourse; here are Luther, Calvin, Beza, Zuinglius, and our other first Reformers; they Interpret some Texts against the Doctrine of Rome, and others against the Doctrine of the Church of England. They are praised for the first, and esteemed Apostolical Reformers, be∣cause without any regard of what the Church of Rome said, they freely taught and believed what they Judged by Scripture to be true; why

must not they be praised and esteemed true Re∣formers also, for not regarding what the Church of England or any other says, but teach the im∣possibility of Gods Commandments, the suffi∣ciency of Faith alone, and all those other Te∣nets which you so much mislike, since they Judge by Scripture that to be the true Doctrine? Are they bound to submit their Judgments to the Church of England, more than to that of Rome?

Ismael.

But in those Tenets they do not only contradict the Church of England, but all Christian Churches and Congregations; for all will say those are wicked and scandalous. Do∣ctrines.

Isaac.

And if they Judge by Scripture that those Tenets are not such, but found and good Doctrine, may not they believe them, tho' all the World and ten Worlds did gainsay them? Is not Scripture our Rule of Faith, and are we to regard what any Church or all Churches say, further than we find by Scripture that they say well? But being these Tenets, which you call horrid Blasphemies displease you, I'll change my discourse; and because I see you are Popishly inclin'd, I will shew you how by the Principles of our Reformation, you can be as good a Papist as the Pope; one Principle, excepted, wherein you must dissent from the Church of Rome, if you intend to remain a true Reformed Child.

Ismael.

You promise too much, and more than I desire to know, I don't desire to have any Communication with the Pope; I know by the Writings of our Authors what kind of Beast he is.

Isaac.

By your favour, you may believe the Popes are Worthy, Honest, and Godly Men: many Doctors of our Reformation, and our Travellers to the Court of Rome give this Testi∣mony of them. You may also believe, that Popes and Cardinals are Knaves and Atheists, who look on Scripture as a Romance, and deny the Incarnation of Christ, for Calvin says l 1.89 so, and would never have said it, if it had not been true: But beware not to speak so in Rome, or they'll lodge you where Honest Taylor the Quaker was; nor in Spain, or they'll stop your Mouth with an Inquisition faggot.

Ismael.

I care not what the Pope or Cardinals are; but I would gladly know, what Religion and Congregation you are of, for whereas you are my immediate Instructer, it behoves me to know what Religion you have.

Isaac.

As to my Religion, I doubt not but that my Readers will be divided in their Judg∣ments of me; if a Papist reads me, he'll swear I am an Atheist; but I hope he will not pre∣tend to be infallible as his Pope: if a Protestant, he'll say I am a Papist, and that my drift is to cast

dirt upon his Church; the honest Quaker will say, I am a profane man; others perhaps will say, I am of no Religion, but a Despiser of all; and our Congregations are so uncharitable that likely none will accept of me, because I say all Religions are very good: a sad thing that a man must be hated for speaking well of his Neighbours, and that each one must have all the World to be naught but himself: This then is my Religion, To suffer Persecution for Justice and Truth; to render good for evil, to bless those who curse me, and speak well of all Con∣gregations, whilst they speak all evil against me: reflect well upon what I discoursed hither∣to, and you will find, I am as great a Lover of the Reformation as they who may think me it's Enemy: and read my following discourse, and you will find I love Popery as well as the Reformation: The Spirit of God makes no ex∣ceptions of Persons.

Ismael.

You promised to prove by the princi∣ples of the Reformation, that we may believe all the Tenets of Popery, and remain still of the Reformation: how can this be?

Isaac.

You remember I excepted one Princi∣ple of Popery, wherein you must necessarily dissent from them: and if you deny this one Principle, you may believe all their other Te∣nets as well as the Pope, and be as good a Child of the Reformation as Luther.

Ismael.

What Principle is this, which you seem to make the only destinctive sign of a Reform∣ed, from a Papist?

Isaac.

Listen a while: a Papist is not a Papist because he believes Purgatory, Transubstantia∣tion, Indulgences, and the rest of Popish Te∣nets, but because he believes them upon the Te∣stimony of the Pope and Church, because they assure him they are revealed Truths: If a Pa∣pist did say, I believe these Tenets, because I my self do judge by Scripture, that they are reveal∣ed, and not because the Pope and Church say they are, he would be no Papist. The Papist believes the Mystery of the Trinity, the Incar∣nation and Passion of Christ, the Protestant be∣lieves the same Mysteries, yet the one is a Pa∣pist and no Protestant, the other is a Protestant and no Papist. And why? because the Papist believes them upon the Testimony of the Pope and Church; the Protestant believes them upon the Testimony of Gods written Word. Believe then whatever you please of Popery, provided you believe it; because you judge by Scripture it's true, and not because the Pope or the Church says it; you'll never be a Papist but a perfect Reformed.

Ismael.

If this discourse be solid, you may hedge in all the Articles of Popery into our Re∣formation.

Isaac.

If you peruse the works of our Refor∣med Doctors, you'll hardly find any Article of Popery, but has been judged by many, or some of our best Reformed Doctors, to be the true Doctrine of Scripture; and whereas any Do∣ctrin which any Person of sound Judgment un∣derstands by Scripture to be the true, may be justly called the Doctrin of the Reformation; it follows that hardly is there any Article of Po∣pery, for which we see so many persecutions a∣gainst Subjects, and such troubles in our Parlia∣ments, but is truly the Doctrin of the Reforma∣tion.

Ismael.

Shew me some Examples of this.

Isaac.

The Veneration of Relicks and Saints dead Bones, is generally believed by us to be meer Popery and Superstition, therefore we made no store of Luther and Calvins Bones, tho we know them to be as great Saints as any in the Popish Church: but Veneration of Relicks and Saints Bones, is the Doctrin of our Reformation; for whatever is set down and commended by our Common-Prayer-Book, must be undoubtedly esteemed our Reformed Doctrin and Practice, and our Common-Prayer-Book, aprinted since our Kings happy Restauration, in it's Kalendar sets down a day to the Translation of S. Edward King of Saxons Body in the month of June, and dedicates another to the Translation of the Bo∣dies of St. Martin and Swithin, in the month of July.

The Veneration and use of the sign of the Cross, is flat Popery in the Judgment of all our Congregations; yet any Reformed Child may laudably and piously use it; whereas our Com∣mon-Prayer Book in the Administration of Bap∣tism, Commands the Minister to use it, saying, We sign him with the sign of the Cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed, to confess the Faith of Christ crucified, and Manfully to fight under his Bannar against Sin, the World and the Devil. And in our Kalender, printed since his Majesties Re∣stauration, it's called the Holy Cross.

Our Congregations generally believe, it's Po∣pery to keep Holy-days (except the Sabbath day) and Saints days; to fast in Lent, Vigils commanded, Ember-days, and Fridays; and all this is recommended to us in our Common-Payer Book, and the Minister is commanded, in the Administration of the Lords Supper, to pub∣lish the Holy-days of the week, and exhort us to Fast; and surely, he is not commanded to teach, or exhort us to any thing, but to the Do∣ctrin of the Reformation: it's true, the Students of our Colledges of Oxford and Cambridge, are much troubled with scruples in this point: these Pauperes de Lugduno, are compelled to fast all Fridays throughout the year; and it's not hun∣ger that makes them complain, but tenderness of Conscience, because they fear it's Popery.

It's a Popish errour, we say to believe that Pennance, or our penal works of Fasting, Alms∣deeds, or corporal Austerities, can avail and help for the remission of our sins, and satisfying Gods Justice: No, we say, penal works serve for no∣thing, all is done by Repentance; that's to say, by sorrow of heart for having offended God. This is the Doctrin of Danaeus, Willit, Junius and Calvin, who says, Francis, Dominick, Bernard, Antony, and the rest of Popish Monks and Fryers, are in Hell for their Austerities and penal works for all that, you may very well believe; and it's the Doctrin of the Reformation, that Pen∣nance and penal works, do avail for the remission of our sin, and are very profitable to the Soul; for, our Common-Prayer Book in the Commination against sinners, says thus, In the Pri∣mitive Church, there was a Godly Discipline, that at the beginning of Lent, such as were notorious sinners, were put to open Pennance, and punish'd in this World, that their Souls may be saved in the day of the Lord. And our Common-Prayer Books wishes that this Discipline were restored again; and surely it does not wish that Popery were re∣stored; therefore it's no Popery to say that Pen∣nance, or Penal works, do satisfie for our sins in this World, and avail to save us in the other.

Ismael.

I know many of our Congregation mislike much our Common-Prayer Book, for these Popish-Tenets; but what do you say of the

grand errours of Popery? can a man be a true Child of the Reformation, and yet believe the Popes Supremacy? deny the Kings Supremacy; be∣lieve Transubstantiation and Communion in one kind; are these Tenets the Doctrin of the Reforma∣tion, or consistent with its principles?

Isaac.

The Kings Supremacy is undoubtedly the Doctrin of the Reformation, because it's judged by the Church of England to be of Scri∣pture, yet not only the Quakers, Presbyterians, A∣nabaptists, and other Congregations, judge it's not of Scripture, but as erroneous a Tenet as that of the Popes Supremacy; Calvin 6. Amos, says, They were unadvised people and Blasphemers, who rai∣sed King Henry the VII. so far as to call him the head of the Church; but also that no Civil Magi∣strate can be the head of any particular Church, is the Doctrin of the Centuriators, cent. sept. pag. 11. of Cartwright, Viretus, Kemnitius, and many others; who doubts then but that in the prin∣ciples and Doctrin of the Reformation, you may deny the Kings Supremacy, tho' the Church of England believes it. The Popes Supremacy is the Doctrin of Popery, who doubts it? but it's also the Doctrin of the Reformation, for many of our Eminent Doctors have judged it to be the Doctrine of Scripture, as Whitgift a 1.90 who cites Calvin and Musculus for this opinion; but it's needful we relate some of their

express words, I do not deny, says Luther, b 1.91 but the Bishop of Rome, is, has been, and ought to be first of all; I believe, he is above all other Bishops, it's not lawful to deny his Supremacy: Melancthon c 1.92 says no less, that the Bishop of Rome is above all the Church, that it is his office to go∣vern, to Judge in controversies, to watch over the Priests, to keep all Nations in conformity and unity of Doctrin: Somaisius, d 1.93 The Pope of Rome has been without controversie the first Metropolitan in Italy, and not only in Italy, nor only in the West, but in all the World, the other Metropolitans have been chief in their respective districts, but the Pope of Rome has been Metropolitan and Primate, not only of some particular Diocess, but of all, Grotius e 1.94 has expresly the same Doctrin, and proves this Su∣premacy belongs to the Pope de Jure Divino. I pray consider if these Doctors be not men of sound Judgment, and of eminent learning and credit in our Reformation, and if our Doctrin be Scripture as such men understand it, consi∣der, I say, with what Justice can this Doctrin be called Popery more than Reformed Doctrin.

As for Transubstantiation, it contains two dif∣ficulties; first, if the Body of Christ be really in the Sacrament; and this real presence, the

Lutherans defend to be the Doctrin of Scripture, as well as the Papists, why then should it be cal∣led Popish, more than Reformed Doctrin? The second is, if the substance of Bread be in the Sacrament together with Christ's Body: Luthe∣rans say it is, Papists say it is not, but that there is a Transubstantiation, or change of the whole substance of Bread, into the Body of Christ; but hear what Luther f 1.95 says of this that we call Po∣pish Doctrin; I give all Persons liberty to believe in this point, what they please, without hazard of their Salvation, either that the Bread is in the Sacrament of the Altar, or that it is not? would Luther have given this liberty if Transubstantiation had not been the Doctrin of the Reformation as well as any other? Calvin also and Beza h 1.96 affirm, that Luthers Doctrin of the co-existence of Christ's. Body and the Bread, is more absurd than the Popish Doctrin of the existence of the Body a∣lone; if therefore we be true Reformed, and safely believe the Doctrin of Luther, which is the most absurd; much more will we be of the Reformation, by believing that of the Papists which is less.

Communion in one kind, is the Doctrin of the Reformation, no less than Communion in both; for besides that Luther says, i 1.97 They Sin notg 1.98

against Christ who use one kind only, seeing Christ has not commanded to use both; and again, k 1.99 though it were an excellent thing to use both kinds in the Sacrament; and Christ has commanded nothing in this as necessary, yet it were better to follow peace and unity, than to contest about the kinds, but also Melancthon l 1.100 who in the opinion of Luther sur∣passes all the Fathers of the Church, expresly teaches the same Doctrin: and the Church of England Statute I. Edward VI. command, That the Sacrament be commonly administr'd in both kinds, if necessity does not require otherwise; mark, he says, but commonly, and that for some necessity it may be received in one; lastly, the sufficiency of one kind in the Sacrament, is plainly set down by our Reformed Church of France, in her Ec∣clesiastical Discipline, printed at Saumur, Chap. 12. Art. 7. The Minister must give the Bread in the Supper to them, who cannot drink the Cup, provided it be not for contempt. And the reason is because there are many who cannot endure the taste of Wine; wherefore it often happens among them, that some persons, do take the Bread alone; and truly if some of our Ministers in England, do not give better Wine than they are accustom∣ed, who very irreverently serve that Holy Ta∣ble with naughty trash, it's much to be feared,

that our flock will also petition to be dispenc'd with in the Cup; because there are some of so delicate Palats, that they cannot endure the taste of bad Wine. Now, you may admire the injustice of the Papists in Condemning our Re∣formed Doctrin and Doctors as Hereticks, whereas those Tenets are believed by many of us, as well as by them; and the groundless se∣verity of our Congregations in exclaiming against that Doctrin; it being the Doctrin of the Re∣formation, whereas so many eminent men of our own, judge it to be of Scripture.

Ismael.

Whereas I see people persecuted by the Church of England for these Tenets, I can hardly be perswaded they are the Doctrin of the Reformation: at our next meeting we will persue this discourse, the Bell rings for Morning Prayers, A Dieu.

Seventh DIALOGUE.

ISAAC.

You come from Church, as I guess by the Common-Prayer Book I see in your hand, I pray let me see the Kalender of it, if it be a la mode nouvelle, which was made by the Church of England, since his Majesties Restau∣ration.

Ismael.

Why? have you met any thing in it, which shocks you?

Isaac.

Shock me? No Doctrin or practice of any Congregation, or man of sound Judgment of our Church can shock me; you know, I plead for liberty to believe and practise as each one judges by Scripture to be true and good. But I observe in your Kalender, you have a day consecrated to St. Ann in the Month of July; I would gladly know, what Ann this is, which the Church of England honours so much?

Ismael.

It's Ann the Mother of the Virgin Mary.

Isaac.

It's possible? I thought it was Ann Bo∣lein the Mother of our Virgin Elizabeth: I am sure the Church of England, is more obliged to Her, than to the other: but as you have put here the Mother of the Virgin Mary, why did not you put in also Elizabeth Mother of the great Baptist; and the Angel Gabriel, as well as Mi∣chael?

Ismael,

I know not indeed.

Isaac.

Nor do I know, if it be not, because that Elizabeth and Gabriel made the Popish Ave Maria, as Scripture relates; but can you tell, as the Church of England put in your Kalender, St. George, St. Andrew and St. David Patrons of Eng∣land, Scotland and Wales; why did not she put in St. Patrick Patron of Ireland?

Ismael.

I can't tell, What may be the reason, think you?

Isaac.

I know not, if it be not that he forfeit∣ed his place for his Purgatory; for tho the o∣thers were as deep in Popery as he, (if we be∣lieve the Papists) but the Parliament pass'd an Act of Indemnity for England, Scotland and Wales, after the Kings return to his Kingdoms; and thereby the sin of Popery was forgiven to their Patrons, and no Act of Indemnity was past for Ireland, whereby Patrick is still guilty; if it be not, that the Seven Champions of Christendom tell us St. Patrick was St. George his Footman, and it was not thought good manners, to put him in the same rank with his Master.

Ismael.

For shame, if not for pitty, forbear. I cannot endure to fully Sacred things with pro∣fane Ralleries; the Kalender is a holy instituti∣on of the Church, and ought to be reverenc'd.

Isaac.

And so is Episcopacy, Surplices, Bells, Or∣gans, and Corner Caps; yet I hope you will give Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Quakers, &c. leave to laugh at them, and be still as good Children of the Reformation as you: if you esteem them to be Sacred and Holy, reverence and honour them, I commend you for it, if others Judge otherwise let them follow their humour; each one as he fancies, says the Fellow kissing his Com; this is the holy Liberty of the Reformation, Scripture as each one understands it.

Ismael.

Let us return to our last discourse; how is it possible, that those Tenets of Popery,

•…•…ould be the Doctrin of the Reformation, where∣•••• we see the Church of England so severely per∣••••ecute the Professors of them?

Isaac.

Do you think a Doctrin is not of the Reformation, because it's denyed by the Church of England? or because she persecutes the Pro∣••essors of it? do not they persecute all Non-confor∣••ists, as well as Popery? persecution is no proof of a Doctrin to be bad; it's but the effect of a blind zeal armed with power: for to know cer∣••ainly if a Doctrin be of the Reformation, you must try it by our Test or Rule of Faith, which is the written Word of God, and whatever any man of sound Judgment, of a sincere and hum∣ble heart judges to be contained in Scripture, or ••n indubitable consequence out of it; that man, may believe that Doctrin, let all others Judge of it as they list, and by so believing will be a true Child of the Reformation; wherefore since that the Church of France, that of England in Edward the VI's time, Luther, Melancthon, Grotius, and the other Authors I quoted, do Judge Tran∣substantiation, Popes Supremacy, and Commu∣nion in one kind to be the Doctrin of Scripture; we must call it the Doctrin of the Reforma∣tion; and if you judge as they did, you may believe the Doctrin and be still of the Refor∣mation, as well as they.

Ismael.

Can you shew me any other Tenet of Popery, which you can call the Doctrin of the Reformation.

Isaac.

Alas! you can hardly shew me any Tenet of Popery, but what is it's Doctrin; what Doctrin more Popish than that of Con∣fession and Absolution from sins? yet it's as tru∣ly the Doctrin of the Reformation, as figura∣tive Presence: for not only a 1.101 Lobechius, b 1.102 Altamerus, c 1.103 Sacerius, and d 1.104 Melancthon says, it's a Sacrament: but the Church of England in our Common-Prayer Book, declares that Priests have not only the power of declaring their sins to be forgiven to the Penitents, but also the pow∣er of forgiving them; and sets down the form of Absolution, which the Minister is to use, Our Lord Jesus Christ, who left power to the Church to absolve all sinners which truly repent, of his mercy forgive thee and thine offences; and I by his Authority committed unto me, do absolve thee from all thy sins; The Minister of the Diocess of of Lincoln in their Survey of the Book of Common Prayers, checkt this Doctrine as Popery and pe∣titioned to have it blotted out; but could not prevail; whereby we are given to understand, it's the Doctrine of the Reformation.

It's Popery, we say to call extream Uuction, Confirmation, and Holy Order of Priest-hood, Sacraments: and who can justly deny all this to

be the Doctrine of the Re-formation? for Calvin e 1.105 says, I confess, the Disciples of Christ did use Ex∣••ream Ʋnction as a Sacrament; I am not, says he, of the opinion of those, who judge it was only a Me∣••••cine for corporal diseases: Calvin f 1.106 also, and with him our Common Prayer Book and all our Divines say, a Sacrament is nothing else, but a Visible sign of the invisible Grace we receive by ••t; and they say with g 1.107 Pouel, h 1.108 Hooker and o∣thers, that this definition fits exactly Confir∣mation, wherefore the Ministers of the Diocess of Lincoln checkt the Common Prayer Book, for giving the Definition of a Sacrament to Confirmation. i 1.109 Melancthon, k 1.110 Bilsom, l 1.111 Hooker and m 1.112 Calvin expresly teach, that the Order of Priesthood, is a Sacrament. And when men of so eminent Judgment of our Reformation teach this to be the Doctrine of Scripture, who doubts but that it is of the Reformation.

Ismael.

By this, you destroy the Doctrine of the Reformation of two Sacraments only.

Is.

Destroy it? God forbid: Because the Church of England says, there are but two Sacraments, I say it's the Doctrin of the Reformation, there are but two, and because so many eminent Men judge by Scripture there are more, I say it's the

Doctrin of the Reformation there are more▪ that's to say six, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucha∣rist, Pennance, Extream Unction and Holy Or∣der: and very likely our Bishops and Ministers▪ for their Wives sake, will not stick to grant that Matrimony also is a Sacrament.

Ismael.

But can you say, that Prayers to Saints and Images, Prayer for the dead, and Purgato∣ry, are not meer Popery, and in no wise the the Doctrine of Reformation?

Isaac.

Without doubt, those Tenets are Popery but all the World knows, the Lutherans use Images in their Churches and pray before them; and the Holy Synod of Charenton has declared, as was said in our first Dialogue, that the Lutherans have nothing of Superstition or Idolatry in their manner of Divine Worship; this is also the Doctrine n 1.113 of Jacobus, Andreas, o 1.114 Brachmanus, p 1.115 Kemnitius, Luther and Brentius quoted by Be∣za, q 1.116 and why should not a Doctrine, Judged by such eminent Men to be of Scripture, be called the Doctrin of the Reformation? Pray∣ers for the dead and Purgatory is Popery con∣fessedly; but alas! it is taught expresly by Ʋr∣bans, Regius, r 1.117 Bucer, s 1.118 Zuinglius, t 1.119 Melancthon,

u 1.120 Luther, x 1.121 the Common-Prayer Book in King Edward's time Printed 1549. and many others of our Learned Doctors, and what can you call more properly the Doctrine of the Reformation, than what such Men teach to be the Doctrine of Scripture? And though our Brethren, Qua∣kers, Anabaptists, Presbyterians and Protestants Judge Prayers to Angels and Saints to be no∣thing else but Popery: yet our Common-Pray∣er Book has the same Collect or Prayer to An∣gels in St. Michael's day, that the Popish Mass Book has, and desires that the Angels may succour and defend us on earth; and Prayers to, and Inter∣cession of Saints is taught by Luther, y Bilneus and Latimer quoted by Fox, z 1.122 and conse∣quently it's the Doctrine of the Reformation.

Ismael.

If all these Popish Articles may be safely believed by the Reformation, and be the Do∣ctrine of our Reformed Church, as well as of Popery; what difference then betwixt us and Popery; or why are we call'd a Reforma∣tion of Popery, or why did we separate from them?

Isaac.

I have told you already, that our dif∣ference from Popery, is not, because we must deny what they believe, for we believe as well as they the Unity and Trinity of God, the Incarnation of his Son, &c. but in this, that

the Papists believe, because the Pope and Church says, this is true revealed Doctrine, but we be∣lieve not because any Church, Pope, or Doctor says so, but because we our selves judge by Scri∣pture it is so; for if a Papist did say, I do not believe this is a revealed Truth, because the Pope and Church says it is, but because I find by Scripture it is; he would be no Papist; believe then whatever Doctrine you will, either Popery, Judaism, Pro∣testancy, Arianism, or what else you please, provided you judge by Scripture it is true, and that you believe it, not because this or that Church, Congregations or Doctors believe it, but because your self judges it to be true, you'l be a true Child of the Reformation: And this is the reason why we are called a Reformation and why we separated from them, because they would have us take for our Rule of Faith Scripture as interpreted by them, and believe not what we judge to be the Doctrine of Scripture, but what they judge; and this is also the Reason why Presbyterians are jealous with the Church of Eng∣land; why Anabaptis••s forsake Presbyterians; why these are forsaken by Quakers, because each one would have the World judge as they do, and persecute and trouble one another, which is quite against the Spirit of the Reformation, for where∣as our Rule of Faith is no Church, Congregation, or Man, but Scripture as each one understands it; it follows that by our principles every one must

he permitted to believe whatever he pleases, and by so doing, he will be a true Child of the Reformation.

Ismael.

The Church of England, nor any of our Congregations, will never believe any of those Popist Tenets.

Isaac.

The time may come that they may believe them all, and be still as good Re∣formers as now they are? For if the Pope and his Church should to morrow deny and excom∣municate those Tenets, which now they so stead∣fastly believe, (and I hope they will some day,) then it would be a pious and virtuous action in all Reformed Children, to believe them all, as much as now they deny them: And let us pre∣tend what other reasons we please, but it's very certain that the strongest reason we can have to deny those Articles, is because the Pope and his Church believes them, and consequently, if the Popish Church would but deny them, we might and ought to believe them, you will think this a Paradox; but listen to our Apostolical and Divine Luther: a 1.123 If a general Council, says he, did permit Priests to Marry, it would be a singular marke of Piety, and sign of Godliness, in that case to take Concubines, rather than to Marry in confor∣mity to the Decree of the Council, I would in that case command Priests not to Marry under pain of dam∣nation.

And again he says, b 1.124 If the Council should Decree Communion in both kinds; in contempt of the Council, I would take one only or none. See these words of Luther, quoted by our learned Hospini∣an, c 1.125 and Jewel, d 1.126 and see it's not only my Do∣ctrine but of great Luther, that in case the Pope and Council deny all the Tenets they now be∣lieve; we may, and it will be a pious godly action to believe them, and make as many Acts of Parliament for them, as now we have a∣gainst them. But what's the matter? Methinks you become pale, something troubles you, speak, what is it?

Ismael.

It's the horror I conceive against your discourse, my countenance cannot be in a calm, when my mind is in such a storm and confusion: pursue no more, you said enough that I should curse the day I have ever seen you, or heard that which you call Holy Liberty, which is but a pro∣stitution of Consciences a prophanation of all that is sacred, and an open gap to all impiety in Doctrine and Manners: But I hope the Lord has given me that profound respect and attach to our Holy Reformation, that I shall not be beaten from it by all your Engines, able to in∣spire a contempt and hatred of it to any weak Brother, for who would live a moment in it, if

such impious Tenets, such scandalous and blas∣phemous Doctrines were of it, or were unavoidable sequels out of its Principles: No, no the principles of the Reformed Church are sound and Orthodox, and no Doctrine can fol∣low from them, but what's pure and true.

Isaac.

Let me tell you I have as tender a love for the Reformation as you: And I will main∣tain the Holy Liberty I assert, cannot justly be called a prostitution of Consciences; for, you dare not deny but this is an Orthodox and sound principle, that our Rule of Faith is Scripture as each person of sound Judgment understands it; that it is lawful for each person of sound Judg∣ment to read it, to give his Judgment of the true sense of it, and to believe and hold that sense of it, which he thinks in his Conscience to be true; is there any prostitution of Consciences in this Doctrin? Or is it not the Doctrin of our Reformation?

Ismael.

All this is true, the prostitution of Con∣sciences lyes not there, but in the scandalous and blasphemous Tenets, which you pretend that follow out of the Rule of Faith.

Isaac.

But you wrong the Reformation in calling such Tenets blasphemies and scandals: For since our Rule of Faith is Scripture, as each Person of sound Judgment understands it; if this Rule of Faith be good and sound, if it be Religious and Holy, any Doctrin that is conformable to this

Rule, must be good, sound, religious and ho∣ly; this being our Rule of Faith and Manners, it's clearer than day light, that all and each o∣ther Tenet which I rehearsed in all my former discourses, are conformable to our Rule of Faith; for our Rule is Scripture as each Man of sound Judgment understands it. Our Doctrin therefore must be, what any Person of sound Judgment under∣stands to be the Doctrin of Scripture: This is an evident sequel out of that Principle, and whereas there is not one Tenet of all those which I re∣hearsed, whether they concern Doctrin or Man∣ners; but was Judged by the Doctors, which I cited for it, to be the Doctrine of Scripture; it follows unavoidably, that there is not one Tenet of them but is the Doctrin of the Reformation: Therefore you must be forced to either of these two; either to say that our Rule of Faith, by which such Doctrines are warranted, is naught, wicked and scandalous, and leads to a prostitu∣tion of Consciences and Manners; or that all those Tenets, are good, sound, pious, and no pro∣stitution or corruption of our Consciences: For, pick and chuse out the Doctrin which you think to be the most wicked and scandalous of all those I rehearsed; you cannot deny, but that it was taught by the Author I quoted for it and Judged by him, to be the Doctrin of Scripture. And if no Doctor hitherto had believed it, you or I, or some other Person of sound Judgment, may

Judge it to be the Doctrine of Scripture; Either of both, then you must be constrained to grant. Or that the Doctrin of the Reformation, is not what each person of sound Judgment understands to be the Doctrin and Sense of Scripture, which is as much as to say, that our Rule of Faith must not be Scripture as we understand it, but that we must believe against our own Judgment and Conscience, what others say is the Doctrin and Sense of Scripture: Or you must grant that all and each of those Tenets I rehearsed, is the Doctrin of the Reformation, tho you, or this or that Man may Judge them to be blas∣phemies and scandals.

Ismael.

I confess our Rule of Faith in the Re∣formation is Scripture as each person under∣stands it; for all our reformed Churches, with the Church of England, in her 39 Articles, do give us this Rule of Faith. I confess conse∣quently out of this Principle, that we must not believe what Doctrin or Sense of Scripture others Judge to be true and Orthodox, if we do not our selves Judge it to be such, for we must not be forced to believe, against our Judgments: Lastly, I confess we may safely believe, what∣soever Doctrins we seriously Judge to be the Doctrin of Scripture, but provided, that such a Tenet or Doctrin be not plainly against Scripture, and be not plain and down-right im∣piety and blasphemy.

Isaac.

And in case you, or the Church of Eng∣land, Rome, France, or Germany, Judge a Do∣ctrin to be blasphemous and against Scripture, and Luther, or Calvin, or I, or another, Judge it is good Doctrin and conformable to Scripture, to which Judgment must I stand? Must I be∣lieve yours against my Conscience and Know∣ledge? Or must not I believe my own? Is it not the Principle and Practice of our Refor∣mation, that I must believe what I judge in my Conscience to be Scripture, and not what others judge, if they judge the Contrary? When Lu∣ther began the Reformation, did not almost all Christians and the whole Church believe Pur∣gatory and Prayers to Saints to be the Doctrine of Scripture? And did not he very commen∣dably deny it against them all, because he judg∣ed by Scripture it was not? Will a Presbyte∣rian believe Episcopacy, because the Church of England says it's the Doctrine of Scripture? No, but deny it because himself judges it is not.

Ismael.

It's true, each one may Lawfully be∣lieve what himself judges to be the Doctrine of Scripture, provided he be a Godly, well inten∣tioned Man, humble and meek in Spirit: pro∣vided secondly that what he understands to be the Sence and Doctrine of Scripture, be not ab∣surd and impious in the Judgment of all the rest of the Faithful: For let a Man be ever so learn∣ed

and Godly; if he gives an Interpretation of Scripture which is denied by all the Church, he must not be followed.

Isaac.

Your first Proviso is very good, and I hope you will meet no Doctor of all those I quoted for those Tenets, which you call Blas∣phemies, who was not a learned, Godly, hum∣ble, and well intentioned Man, who will be so bold as to deny it of Luther, Calvin, Beza Zuin∣glius, &c.? Your second Proviso is not Just, and in it you overthrow the whole Reformation; and our Rule of Faith; for this being as you granted; Scripture as each person of sound Judg∣ment understands it; whatever Interpretation or Sense any man of sound Judgment understands to be of Scripture, he may safely and piously be∣lieve it, tho' all the rest of the World should judge it to be impious and blasphemous, other∣wise our Rule of Faith, must not be Scrip••ure as we understand it, but as it is understood by others: And whereas no Tenet of all those I rehearsed, but was judged to be the Sense and Doctrin of Scripture, by some of Those emi∣nent Doctors I quoted, it follows they might have safely believed them; and if you or I Judge as they did, we may also believe as they did, and be still of the Reformation.

Ismael.

It's wicked and pernicious to say any particular person may believe his own private Sense and Interpretation of Scripture, if it be

Judged by all others to be naught; and there∣fore the Church of England prudently and wise∣ly puts a stop and Bridle to the extravagant and rambling imaginations of particular persons; they must conform themselves, and believe but what the Church Judges may be safely believed.

Isaac.

Pray, Sir, since when is it commendable to constrain Mens Judgments to believe, not what each one thinks best, but what the Church thinks may be safely believed, was this Commendable in the beginning of our Reformation, when our Bles∣sed Reformers began to teach their private Judg∣ments against the Church then establish'd? If it was, then the Church of Rome is to be com∣mended, for persecuting and excommunicating our first Reformers; and this was not, nor is not commendable in the Church of Rome, why is it commendable in the Church of Eng∣land? This is a piece of Popery, whereof the Church of England is guilty, and for which all our Congregations are jealous of her: Be it known to you, our other Congregations, Lu∣therans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, &c. are as truly and Godly Children of the Reformation as the Church of England; and they will not submit to that Popish Tyranny, nor suffer any curb to their Judgments, but will have our Rule of Faith to be but Scripture, and each one to un∣derstand, and believe it, as he thinks best in the Lord.

Ismael.

I confess other Congregations will ad∣mit no such Curb, nor Bridle to their Judgments, but follow Scripture as they understand it; but the Church of England has a reverent regard for the Sense and Interpretation of it given by Primitive Ages, Fathers and Councils, and that we prefer before the private Interpretations of particular Persons.

Isaac.

And just so saith the Popish Church to Luther and our blessed Reformers, and if that had been well done, we should have had nei∣ther Protestancy nor any other Reformation: But you confess at least, that the Rule of Faith in all other Congregations, is but Scripture, as each person understands it, and each person may con∣sequently believe his own Sence of it, and deny the Sence of any other if he does not like it: Then you must confess, that in all other Con∣gregations, except the Church of England, any Reformed Child may believe any Sense and Do∣ctrine which any person of sound Judgment judges to be Scripture, if himself likes it, though all the rest of the World may think it naught; and whereas you cannot deny, but that all and each doctor quoted by me for those Tenets, which you call Blasphemies, were sound and a∣ble Judgments; you must confess that it is a ne∣cessary Sequel out of their Rule of Faith, that in all other Congregations they may piously and safely believe all those Tenets, and be still true Children of the Reformation.

Ismael.

I confess, if they speak coherently and stand to their Principles, they may believe them safely; but as I hate those Blasphemous Tenets, Labbor and detest also that Principle and Rule of Faith of other Congregations, from which such Tenets are unavoidable Sequels.

Isaac.

Good Ismael, you forget what you have hitherto all along avowed, and you are quite astray from the Doctrin of the Reformation. You have often granted me, that our Rule of Faith is Scripture, not as this or that Congregation, Doctor, or Church, but as each person of sound Judgment understands it; and now you tell me you hate and detest that Rule, because that out of it, there follow strange and Blasphemous Te∣nets? You say, the Sence and Interpretation of the primitive Ages, Church and Fathers must be preferred before the Interpretation of any private person, or Congregation, and what think you of our whole Reformation, and parti∣cularly of our 39 Articles of the Church of Eng∣land, which allow no other Rule of Faith, but Scripture as each Person of sound Judgment under∣stands it? What say you of Luther, Calvin, Beza, and the rest of our first Reformers, who preferred their own private Sence and Interpretation of Scripture, before that of the whole Church? What say you to the Presbyterians, who prefer their own Sense and Interpretation of the Bible, before that of the Church of England? What

say you of all the Congregations of the Refor∣med Church, each one of which, holds its Sense and Doctrin of Scripture, different from all the rest? I grant, there ought to be a respect for the Judgment and Interpretation of the Text, given by the Primitive Church and Fathers; but if a Doctor, or Man of sound Judgment, replenisht with Gods Spirit, reads Scripture with an humble Heart, and pure Intention, and Judges by it, that Bigamy is lawful; that there is no Mystery of three Persons in one Divine Nature; that Christ despaired on the Cross, &c. Tho these Doctrines be quite against the Judgments of Fathers, Church, and Councils, he may be∣lieve them, and be still a true Reformed Child, because he follows our Rule of Faith; if he must deny these Articles, because others decry them; then he must go against his own Judg∣ment and Conscience, for to conform himself to them, and his Rule of Faith must not be Scri∣pture as each Man of sound Judgment under∣stands it; but as the primitive Ages, Church, and Councils understand it; and this is Popery.

Ismael.

Prethee, Friend Isaac, let's give over: All that your discourse drives at, by what I can perceive, is either to beat me from the Reforma∣tion, by shewing me the absurdity of its Rule of Faith; or oblige me to believe scandalous and blasphemous Tenets, necessary sequels out of that Rule: I am a Child of the Reforma∣tion, and never will be otherwise.

Isaac.

The Lord, who is the Searcher of Hearts knows, you mis-conster my intentions: How can you say I intend to beat you from the Reformation? do not I insist and perswade you to stick fast to its Rule of Faith, and acknow∣ledge no other but Scripture, as you understand it? How can you say, I oblige you to believe false and scandalous Tenets? To the contrary, I advise you not to believe them, if you judge by Scripture they are false and scandalous: What my discourse drives at, that you should not censure, blame or call any Doctrin blas∣phemous, scandalous, false, or heretical, (Po∣pery excepted,) for, though you Judge by Scri∣pture it is not true; another will Judge it to be the true Sense and Doctrin of the Text; and if he does, he may with a safe Conscience be∣lieve it, and ought not to be blamed by you or any other for believing it; if you do not like that Doctrin, do not believe it; but let the o∣ther believe as he Judges by Scripture he may, and let every Tub stand on its own bottom.

Ismael.

Once more I beseech you give over; I will not discourse any more with you.

Isaac,

Nay, Dear Ismael, I see you are trou∣bled, and I will not leave you in that perplexity: Be pleased to listen to three points I will propose unto you, and you'll not miss to find satisfaction in either of them.

Ismael.

Let's hear them.

Isaac.

Will you believe Scripture, as it is In∣terpreted, and in that sense which, the Church, Councils, and Fathers propound unto you?

Ismael.

I will not be obliged to that, for I may Judge by Scripture that Sence and Inter∣pretation of it, to be false and erroneous, and I will not be obliged to believe any thing a∣gainst my Judgment and Conscience; that is Popery.

Isaac.

That's well, in so much you follow the footstepts of Luther, Calvin, and our first Refor∣mers, who would not believe what the Church believed in their time, nor regarded what the Papists alledged out of the Councils and Fa∣thers against them, because they held themselves obliged to believe Scripture as they understood it, and not as it was understood by others: Will you then believe Scripture in that sense and interpretation which your self judges to be true, though the Church, Councils, and all other Congregations judge it to be false and erroneous, and give the like liberty to all others.

Ismael.

That's dangerous; for it would fol∣low that any man might believe without check or blame, the greatest blasphemies, imagina∣ble, if he Judges them to be the sense of the Text.

Isaac.

Why then, since that the first does not please you, for fear of constraining your

Judgment Papist-like, and the second displea∣ses you, for the scope it gives for to believe any thing, or nothing; your best way is to lay Scripture aside, whereas Christ has forgot, or neglected to appoint us some assured means for to know what sense of it he would have us believe.

Ismael.

And what Religion shall I profess if I lay Scripture aside?

Isaac.

The same which you have by Scri∣pture; that's to say, whatever you Judge to be the true Worship of God: be sure to pro∣fess a reverence for Scripture and seem to be∣lieve it's the Word of God, least you may scandalize weak Brethren; pretend always that your sentiments are grounded upon the Text, but betwixt you and God believe whatever you think to be true, worship God as you Judge he is to be worshipp'd, and thats the way to live in peace: Do you think but that those Noble Spirits which they call the Wits of England, have a good Religion? In publick they speak reverently of the Bible, but we know what they have, and do declare in their private discourses, that it is but a Ro∣mance, or meer fiction: Do you think but that there was a Religion in England before it saw Gregory' Emissarys, Austin and his Monks? What need therefore of a Bible for to have Religion? were not the Swinfeldians a religious Congre∣gation,

and of the Reformation too, yet they cared not for Scripture, but grounded their be∣lief upon Gods inspiration and inward speech to the heart?

Ismael.

If I were not well acquainted with you, and had not very convincing proofs, and sig∣nal Testimonies of your Piety, solid Religiosity, and Chistianity, I would Judge you by this last piece of your discourse, to be an impious Atheist or Pagan: and I wonder that so good a Christi∣an, as I know you to be, should speak so irre∣verently of the Bible, and so much in com∣mendation of Paganism as you do: There was indeed a Religion in England before they knew what Scripture was; but that Religion was Pa∣ganism, which Austin and his Companions hap∣pily banisht from our Land.

Isaac.

Happily? do you call an exchange of Paganism for Popery (introduced by Au∣stin) a Happiness? is it nor generally belie∣ved in our Reformation, and most strongly proved of late, by that incomparable Wit and Pen-man, Doctor Stillingfleet, that Popery has as much of Idolatry as Paganism: our Land therefore had in Paganism as good a Religion as it received by Austin in Popery: Does not this our noble Champion, and most of the Scribes of the Church of England teach, That Popery is a saving Religion, that we may be saved in the Church of Rome? if Popery (notwithstanding it

be Idolatry as they say) be a saving Religion, how can they deny but that Paganism is also a saving Religion, what need had our Fore-fathers therefore to abandon Paganism? why was it not left in the Land?

Ismael.

Whatever may be said of Popery, it cannot be denyed, but that Christianity is better than Paganism: the expulsion therefore of Paga∣nism by Austin, was a Happiness, because by it Christianity was introduced, and establisht in our Kingdom.

Isaac.

Alas, Ismael! if England had been as well informed of the merit of Paganism, when first Christianity was preached, it had never exchan∣ged the one for the other.

Ismael.

What, not Paganism,, which adored a Multitude of Gods, for Christianity which a∣dores but one? Not Paganism, which adored Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, &c. who were Devils and Evil Spirits; or wicked Men, who caused themselves to be adored, for Christianity, which adores the only true, immortal and eternal Deity?

Isaac.

You speak with the Vulgar sort, and be∣lieve, as you have been instructed by your Ancestors: I confess, the Apostles, and Ancient Doctors of Christianity do teach, that the Gods of the Gentiles were Devils or Evil Spi∣rits; I confess also, all the Christian World since the first preaching of the Gospel, was so

perswaded, grounded upon Scripture, which in several places says, the Gods of the Gentiles were De∣vils, grounded upon the Doctrine of the Apostles, and their Successors the Fathers of the Church, and the World being perswaded by the Apo∣stles, by the Doctors, Fathers, and Preachers of Christianity, that the Gods which the Pagans adored were but Devils, which by Soceries, and marvellous works deceived Mankind, and made themselves to be adored as Gods, all men were ashamed to adore but Devils, forsook Paganism and embraced Christianity. And all was but a meer Policy of Popery, to cast so much dirt and calumny upon Paganism, and make its Gods but Devils for to introduce and establish Christianity; Doctor Stillingfleet in his Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome, pag. 40. and 41. says plainly, That the Pagans are charged with more than they were guilty of; pag. 7. says that Jupiter adored by the Pagans; was so far from being an Arch-devil, in the opinion of St. Paul, that he was the true God, Blessed for evermore: that the Pagans adored but one Supream and Omnipotent God which they called Jupiter, and which they did believe to be neither a Devil, nor a Man, but a true, and the first and chiefest of the Gods; and that the rest of the Gods, which they adored, they looked upon them as up∣on Inferiour Deities, and gave them no other adoration, but such as the Papists give to their Saints.

If therefore the Pagans adored the true God under the name of Jupiter, and the other Gods but as inferior Deities, as the Papists do their Saints; was it not unjustly done by the Anci∣ent Fathers and Teachers of Christianity to have imposed upon the World, and made us believe the Pagans adored but Devils and Evil Spirits? Have not the Pagans Right and Justice on their side, for to plead before our Wise and Religious Parliament, that Paganism may be restored, or at least tolera∣ted, and Jupiter, with the rest of the Gods may be adored, as formerly they were? first because Paganism is no more Idolatry than Popery, as Doctor Stillingfleet, Master Burnet, and other Reformed writers prove con∣vincingly; secondly, because that Paganism having been banish'd out of our Land upon the false Information of our first Teachers, that it was an Adoration of Devils, or Evil Spirits, and wicked debaucht men, who by counterfeited Wonders, and Cheats, gained the peoples Adoration; since that Doctor Stilling∣fleet, Mr. Burnet, and other Reformed Wri∣ters, will make it out, that the Pagans adored no Devils, but One true, Omnipotent, supreme God, blessed for evermore, which they called Jupiter, and the rest of the Gods as inferior Deities, as Papists do their Saints, and will prove that the Pagans were charged by the first

D. Doctors of Christianity, and by all our An∣cestors, with more than they were guilty of, why should not Paganism be restored again to the Land, and heard to speak for its self, and Dr. Stillingfleet and his zealous companions be licenc'd to plead for them, and for holy Jupiter, so foully mis-represented by Antiquity, as to be believed an Arch-Devil, whom Dr. Stillingfleet will prove to have been, a true God blessed for ever more?

Ismael.

The more I discourse with you, the more I am perplexed in mind I bid you adue, and do confess I carry with me from your discourse a dislike of what I have been hitherto, an unsettlement in my perswasi∣on, and a compassion of the poor Pagans, so unjustly banish'd from our Nation, if what Do∣ctor Stillingfleet says, be true, he is a learned, Religious, and diligent searcher into Scripture; the Ancient D. Drs. and Fathers of the Church reading Scripture, judged and taught, that Jupiter was a Devil, as well as the rest of the Gods which the Gentiles adored; Dr. Stilling∣fleet and other Reformed D. Drs. reading Scri∣pture, Judge he was no Devil, but the the true God blessed for ever more; any Child of the Reformation may believe either of both, and put Jupiter into our Litanies, as well as JESUS Christ, and offer Sacrifice to him as formerly our Ancestors did; for whatever any man of

sound Judgment judges to be the Doctrine of Scripture, may be safely believed, and is the Doctrine of the Reformation: As for my part I see our Wise Parliament sits now upon a new settlement of Government and Religion, and I will not resolve upon any Religion, until I see what it concludes. If Dr. Stillingfleet be so zealous as to put in a good word for Pa∣ganism before that Religious Assembly, he may find Abbetors, and as the Parliament cherishes Dr. Oates for the extirpation of Popery, so it may cherish Dr. Stillingfleet for the introduction of Paganism, and the erecting of Temples and Altars for holy Jupiter his true and evermore blessed God; and if he be successful in this undertaking, as for exchanging Presbytery for Protestancy, he was promoted to the Deanery of St. Paul, so by changing Christianity for Paganism, he may ex∣pect to be his Holy Jupiters High Priest, in London Capitol, and reign with him everlastingly in the other life, in case he believes there is another.

FINIS.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Epist. ad Noremb. & in Comment. in Jo. 6. & 16. Matt. Theol. Calvin. l. 2. fol. 70.
• c 1.2

  In parva Confes. Germ. fol. 55. & in Colloq. fol. 110.
• d 1.3

  To. 2. fol. 202.
• e 1.4

  The Kingdom of Isra. pag. 9.
• f 1.5

  Acts & mon. pag. 36. lib. 3. c. 5.
• g 1.6

  Catal. estium. pag. 976. & 978.
• a 1.7

  L. 4. Instit. c. 9.
• b 1.8

  To. 1. E. lit Jen. Resolut.
• d 1.9

  In Colloq. mensal. fol. 118.
• e 1.10

  To. 2. Wittem. fol. 374, 375.
• f 1.11

  In Defens. Art. Reliq. Protest. Pag. 199.
• g 1.12

  In his true differ. par. 2. pag. 353.
• h 1.13

  Bouclier de la Foy.
• * 1.14

  Matt. 12.
• ** 1.15

  2 Tim. 2.
• ‖ 1.16

  Jo. 4.
• a 1.17

  In lib. ad Corin. c 11.
• b 1.18

  In Explan. Art. 17.
• c 1.19

  To. 2. de minist. Eccles. instit. fol. 369. & lib. de Cap. Babyl. c. de Ordin. & lib. de abroganda Missa.
• d 1.20

  In Harm. in Matth. c. 26. vers. 64. & in admonad. Po∣••…••…. in Tract. Theolog. pag. 794.
• e 1.21

  Comment. super Joan. c. 10.
• f 1.22

  In Act. Seiueti pag. 87.
• g 1.23

  l. con. Cenebrat.
• h 1.24

  In Postil. Major. in ennarat. E∣vang. Domin. Trinit.
• i 1.25

  Lib. 2. Dial. 2.
• k 1.26

  Harm. in Evang. Mat. c. 26. vers. 39. and c. 27. vers. 46. & lib. 2. Instit. c. 16. sect. 10. & 11.
• l 1.27

  In Luk. par. 2. hom. 65. and in Joan. hom. 54.
• m 1.28

  In March. c. 16.
• n 1.29

  Recogn. pag. 376.
• o 1.30

  Lib. 2. Inst. c. 16. fact. 10. and seq.
• p 1.31

  To. 3 Wettemp. in sp. 16.
• q 1.32

  In Ps. 16.
• r 1.33

  In Confes. majori de Coena Dni.
• s 1.34

  To. 2. in respon. ad Confes. Luth. fol. 458.
• t 1.35

  In Histor. Sacram. par. 2. fol. 75.
• a 1.36

  Dom. 1. Adventus, & liber. de Proph. Christi.
• b 1.37

  In Postil. super Evangel. Dom. 1. Advent. & Dom. 26. post Trinit.
• c 1.38

  Motives to good Works in the Epist. Dedic.
• d 1.39

  Lib. 3. Inst. c. 4. Sect. 28.
• e 1.40

  Lib. 4. c. 7. Sect. 2.
• f 1.41

  In locis commun. classe. 5.27.
• g 1.42

  To. 2. Wittem. de capr. Babyl. fol. 74.
• h 1.43

  De Eccl. cont. Bellarm conf. 2. quaest. 5.
• i 1.44

  Epist. 2.2. & 25.
• k 1.45

  To. 5. Wittem. serm. de Matrim. & in 1. ad Corin. 7
• l 1.46

  Consil. Theol. par. 1 pag. 648. & 134.
• m 1.47

  In Epist. Pau ad Phil. & in 2. ad Tim. 3.
• n 1.48

  lib 2. Dial. 21.
• o 1.49

  Lib de Repud. & Divort. pag. 223.
• p 1.50

  Canon. Generales Genuen. 1560.
• q 1.51

  Chap. 13. art 31.
• r 1.52

  To. 5. Wittem. serm. de Matrim.
• s 1.53

  To. 5. Wittemb. serm. de Matrim.
• t 1.54

  In Scriptis Anglic. de Reg. Chr. l. 2. c. 26. & in Matth. c. 19.
• u 1.55

  In Consil. Theol. par. 1. pag. 648. s. & 134.
• x 1.56

  Dial. 200. & 204. in Epist. S. Paul. ad Tim. 3.
• y 1.57

  l. 4. Inst. c. 19. sect. 37. Discip. Eccl. c. 13.
• z 1.58

  Serm. de Murim.
• a 1.59

  Lib. 4. Inst. c. 15. sect. 20. & 21.
• b 1.60

  Act. 27.
• c 1.61

  Can. 29.
• d 1.62

  Lib. 2. Eccles. Polit. pag. 103.
• e 1.63

  In Tim. c. 50.
• f 1.64

  In defens. Hookeri art. 8.
• a 1.65

  In Praefat. Dialog.
• b 1.66

  Serm. de 50. Artic. in summa summarum.
• c 1.67

  In Harm. super Luc. c. 2.
• d 1.68

  Epitom. Cent. 16. par. 2.
• e 1.69

  Tom. 2. cont. Catabapt. fol. 10,
• f 1.70

  Victoria verit. arg: 5▪
• g 1.71

  In cap. 2. ad Gal.
• h 1.72

  de Eccles. cont. Bellarm. cont. 2. c. 4.
• i 1.73

  To. 5. Wettem. an. 1554. in Epist. ad Gal. c. 1.
• k 1.74

  In Apol. Cof. c. de Concil.
• l 1.75

  In cap. 2. ad Gal. & serm. Aug. Pag. 204.
• m 1.76

  In Epist. ad Gal. c. 1. & 2. & Tom. 5. Wittemb. an. 1554. fol. 29.
• n 1.77

  Lib. 5. de Eccl. Polit. sect. 72.
• o 1.78

  pag. 495. & 273.
• p 1.79

  Acts and Mon. pag. 514.
• q 1.80

  Lib. 2. Inst. c. 17. sect. 6.
• r 1.81

  In comment in cap. 2. ad Gal.
• s 1.82

  To. 1. Proposit. 3.
• t 1.83

  Lib. 2. Instit c. 7.5.
• u 1.84

  Harm. Evang. in Luc. c. 10, verse 26.
• x 1.85

  In Synop. Papismi pag. 564.
• y 1.86

  Lib. de servo. Arbit. cont. Erasm.
• z 1.87

  Lib. 3. Instit. c. 21. sect. 5. & 7. &c. 22. sect. 11. & cap. 13.1.
• a 1.88

  Lib. 2. Inst. c. 4. sect. 3. & lib. 1. c. 18. sect. 2. & lib. 3. c. 23. sect 4. Lo. 1. de deprovid. c. 6. in Synops. pag. 563. In manifest. stratag. Papist.
• l 1.89

  4. Inst. c. 7. Sect. 27.
• a 1.90

  In Defens. &c. pag. 373.70. & 395.
• b 1.91

  In Respons. tredecem. Propos.
• c 1.92

  In Epist. ad Card. Belay Episc. Pariens.
• d 1.93

  In Tract. Euchar. ad. p. Sarmunm.
• e 1.94

  In Annot. super Novum Testam. cap. 10. Matth. & sa∣pe alibi.
• f 1.95

  To. 1. Edit. Jonah. l. de cap. Babyl.
• h 1.96

  Lib. de caena Domini.
• i 1.97

  Lib▪ de cap. Babyl. c. de Euchar.
• g 1.98

  Almonit. 2. ad. Westph. defens. Oxthod. fit.
• k 1.99

  Epist. ad Bahemos in declarat. Euch. & in serm. de Euch.
• l 1.100

  In Concil. Theol. ad March. Elect. de usu utrius∣que speciei pag. 141.
• a 1.101

  In Disput. Theol. pag. 301.
• b 1.102

  In Concilliat. loc. Scrip. loco. 191.
• c 1.103

  In locis Commun. To. 1. de Potest Eccl.
• d 1.104

  In Apol. Conses. Aug. art. 13. & lib. pag. 234.
• e 1.105

  In p. 5. Epist. Jac. v. 4.
• f 1.106

  Lib. 4. Inst. c. 14. sect. 5.
• g 1.107

  In modest. Examin.
• h 1.108

  In Eccl. Polit. l. 5. sect. 66.
• i 1.109

  In locis Commun. tit. de Numero. Sacram.
• k 1.110

  In perpet. Regem. pag. 109.
• l 1.111

  In Eccl. Polit. lib. 5. sect. 77.
• m 1.112

  Lib. 4. Inst. c. 29.
• n 1.113

  Epit. Colloq. Montisbel.
• o 1.114

  In Centaur. Exercit. Theol. pag. 270.
• p 1.115

  Exampar. 4.
• q 1.116

  In respond. ad acta Colloq. Mon∣tisbel. par. 2. in Prefas.
• r 1.117

  In locis Commun. c. 18. & 19.
• s 1.118

  Inscrip. Angl. pag. 450.
• t 1.119

  To 1. in Eupian. A••t. 90. & Ar••. 60.
• u 1.120

  In Apolog. Confess Aug.
• x 1.121

  To 1. Wittem. in resol. de Indul. concl. 15. Epist. ad Spalat.
• z 1.122

  Acts & Mon. pag. 462. & 312.
• a 1.123

  To. Germ. fol. 214.
• b 1.124

  De formula Missa & To. 3. Germ.
• c 1.125

  In Histor. S••. part. 2. fol. 13.
• d 1.126

  In replis ad Hardingum.