Catholick charitie complaining and maintaining, that Rome is uncharitable to sundry eminent parts of the Catholick Church, and especially to Protestants, and is therefore Uncatholick : and so, a Romish book, called Charitie mistaken, though undertaken by a second, is it selfe a mistaking / by F. Rous.

CHAP. XI.

In opposition to the Cavaliers ninth Chap∣ter, containing a vaine Challenge of Protestants, for not daring to declare their Fundamentalls, divided into three Sections.

SECT. I.

Wherein are confuted his Cavills against the Apostles Creed, as not containing all points Fundamentall.

THe title of this Chapter, and the Chapter it selfe are at some discord: For the title saith, That the Protestants neither doe, nor dare declare what are their fundamentall points of Faith: and the Chapter, even in the first words, saith this, It is usuall with many to affirme, that the Apostles Creed containes all fundamentall points of Faith. So it seemes that Protestants doe declare, and doe not declare their fundamentall

points; and the Title beats them for not declaring, and the Chapter beats them for declaring: Thus the Protestants must bee beaten howsoever, not indeed for decla∣ring, or for not declaring, but because they are Protestants. A right marke of facti∣on, which commonly makes an ill constru∣ction of all, even of the good actions of those against whom it is factious. But let us see how hee chastiseth us for our decla∣ring: These men, when they are pressed, grow soone ashamed of that opinion; when they are told, that in the Creed there is no mention made at all, either of the Canon in holy Scri∣pture, or of the number or nature, yea, or so much as the name of Sacraments. But let this Authour consider, whether hee ought not to be ashamed, who thus casting shame on Protestants, casts it also on the Fathers. For, doe the Fathers in their rules of Faith make mention of the Canon of Scripture, or the number, or of the name of the Sacra∣ments? Let him survey them in Irenaeus, Tertullian, &c. and hee shall see, that they doe not. And yet Tertullian saith of the rule of Faith, Nihil ultra scire, est omnia scire. Againe, doe you not thus cast shame on your own fellowes? For do not many of your owne Doctors in their Explicites

(called by your selfe, more fundamentall) leave out the Canon of Scriptures, and the number, yea, the nature and name of Sacraments? If therefore they do say, that it is a mortall sinne, not to know explicitely these important points, which are more fundamentall, then may they bee ashamed to leave their Disciples in mortall sinne, by not naming the a Canon or number of the Sacraments explicitely to be beleeved: And if you cleare them, you shall cleare us also. But withall, give me leave to aske, even in defence of these your fellowes: Doe you thinke that no man can be saved that doth not know the number of Canonical Books, if he beleeve the fundamentall points con∣tained in those Books? Or doe you thinke that one who was baptized in his infancy, not knowing then the vertue and use of the Sacrament of Baptisme, and dying before he come to the knowledge of the use of the Eucharist, may not bee saved by beleeving in Christ, and being regenerate by this faith? Your owne Jesuite b Becanus may stop your mouth, when he saith, That Faith is not so stirred up by the Sacraments, that it

is the effect of them; and that otherwise the Sacraments would not profit children. So till you answer him, doe not require of us to bring in Sacraments as fundamentalls of that faith, which is denied by your owne to be an effect of them. But you are soone weary, and I hope ashamed of this point; and therefore wander to another, not much more of kinne to the point, then the Chap∣ter hath been hitherto to the Title. You say there are great differences between the Protestants and you, about the understand∣ing of the Article of the descent of Christ into Hell, and the other of the holy Ca∣tholick Church, and the Communion of Saints, &c. But what doe you here talk of differences in understanding fundamentals, where the present question is, Whether the Protestants doe acknowledge their funda∣mentalls to bee contained in the Creed? For, if Protestants declare that their fun∣damentals are contained in the Creed, then your Title is gone, which saith, That they do not, nor dare not declare them. And surely it will aske a greater strength, and a farre

bigger volume then Charity mistaken, to prove that Protestants doe not rightly un∣derstand the Articles of the Creed. But secondly, the Authours objection is groun∣ded not onely upon a new, but upon a false supposition, if his fellow Romists may bee Judges: For his supposed proposition is this, That all the Articles in the Creed are Fundamentall. Now this is different from the first proposall of our opinion, That all fundamentall Articles are in the Creed. It is also denied by his owne fellowes: For, though all fundamentall Articles be there, yet they say, that some Articles that are there may not bee fundamentall, or expli∣citely to be known upon losse of salvation; as before hath been shewed out of Vasquez and Azorius: Therefore to stand upon a different understanding of those Articles, which are denied by your owne men to bee Explicites (or doubted) is besides the mat∣ter. But thirdly, Do we differ from you in understanding those points? What is that to the point undertaken in the end of the last Chapter and promised to be shewed in this, That wee differ among our selves in the number of Fundamentalls. You are now gone ••••om our ridiculousnesse, by differing in the number of fundamentalls; and are

come to a ridiculousnesse of your owne, by your differing from us in the false understanding of some Articles of the Creed, which all your owne Prophets doe not account Fundamentals. But you add: It is to little purpose to know or con∣fesse, that the Creede containes all Funda∣mentals, unlesse there were some certaine way to understand them right. This is a∣gaine a ranging from shewing our diffe∣rences among our selves, or that wee have not these Fundamentals: Yet I answer, Wee have a certaine, and the best way of understanding them right; wee have a learned Ministery endued with gifts from on high, which teacheth and preacheth these Fundamentals, and the right mea∣ning of them. And the right meaning thus taught, the Spirit in the hearers doth so discover and certifie the truth of them, that the hearers see the Articles to bee Gods truth and not mans: And accor∣dingly, their faith thus beleeving them, resteth on God as the sole Foundation of their faith; and this teaching of the Ca∣tholick Church wee use, commend, and allow. But that The single Article of the holy Catholick Church should containe the reason of all our faith fundamentally,

seemes to mee an high kinde of Blasphe∣mie. And this blasphemous doctrine, as wee have before shewed, is the very spi∣rit of Popery or Antichrist, which sets up the Pope in Gods place, and makes his beleevers truely Papists or Antichristians. And this great offence and mysterie of iniquitie carryeth Papists by throngs into the Land of darknesse; and into this se∣cret of theirs the soules of the saved may not enter: True it is, that God useth the service of the Ministers, or, if you will, of the Church, in publishing the Articles of faith; but no other Foundation of su∣pernaturall faith there is but God him∣selfe, though speaking by man unto man; the Fundamentality of our faith passeth through man that is the instrument, and resteth wholly upon God. But saith hee, If wee understand it otherwise, the Scrip∣ture it selfe speakes of particular errours, which are damnable in them by whom they are imbraced; and yet they are not at all against any expresse Doctrine of the Creed: As namely, where Saint Paul calls it a Doctrine of Divels to forbid marriage, and meates, &c. I answer, first, That the Authour hereby proves that which wee deny not, and disproves not that which

(hee saith) wee affirme: For the point is not, Whether there bee any damnable errours besides those that are against some expresse doctrine of the Creede: But, Whether there bee in the Creede those fundamentall points, which being truely beleeved, will cause unity with Christ the Head, and unity with his Body the Church. Other errours against other Truths in Scripture not fundamentall, wee acknowledge there are many, and pro∣ceeding from the Divell, the Father of Lyes, and in themselves damnable to such as hold not the true Foundation, Christ Jesus, by beleeving Fundamentals. And it is to bee feared, that such are many of those true Papists, whose foundation is the Pope: But otherwise they may bee ra∣ther a damnable in themselves, then a∣ctually damning to those who by b infir∣mities hold them, and by beleeving fun∣damentals are in Christ Jesus, to whom there is no condemnation. Secondly, not onely Fathers in their Rules of faith,

but the Romists themselves doe not place the lawfulnesse of meates and marriage among their chiefe Heads of Christiani∣tie, or Explicites and Fundamentals, and therefore this Authour doth ill require of us that which hee cannot obtaine of his fellowes. Wherefore, let him first make this objection against them, and when hee hath their Answer, then let him take it for us.

But being unhappily, as well as im∣pertinently fallen into the mention of these damnable errours, hee saw, that as soone as they were brought in, they looked, at least asquint, on the Church of Rome, and claymed kindred of her: And there∣fore hee thought that there was need of an Apologie to put off this kindred and acquaintance: Which by the way is not to bee understood of the chastity and fasts of the Catholick Church (as Protestants doe most perversely affirme) which knowes that those things are lawfull; but that yet it is most gratefull to God, when his servants for his love deprive themselves of those de∣l••ghts: But of the Heresies of the Mani∣ch••es, as Saint Augustine doth expressely declare, who forbad both marriage and meates, as being abominable and impure

through the institution thereof; which they said was derived from a certaine second ill conditioned god of their owne making. But this, nor all the water in the Sea will wash away all the kindred betweene Romists and these errours: For though Saint Au∣gustine may apply this Prophecie to the Manichees, yet may hee not also apply them to the Montanists, a Tertullian himselfe acknowledging that they have beene taxed out of this very place? And if to the Montanists, why not to those Romists, who, with Durandus, maintaine a curse, and so an impurity of flesh, and cleannesse of b fish: who also forbid marriage to Priests, which this place plainly condemneth? And whereas this Authour talkes of voluntary deprivation, it is certaine, that many (whatsoever this Authour saith) have not deprived them∣selves voluntarily of marriage; but have taken it upon them as a yoke and bur∣den, which neither they nor their Pre∣decessors were able to beare, many sin∣king

under it unto the very pit of Hell. And let them labour with their wits and pennes so much as they can, they will ne∣ver by reason, nor by the lives of their Priests disprove Christs truth, That all men cannot receive it; nor prove their owne c untruth, That all men can receive it: And surely, the Fornications, Adul∣teries, Murders, and pollutions that have issued from this Law of Coelibate, I doubt not, cry aloud to heaven against Rome (as once against d Sodome) for that sore to which it is condemned.

Hee adds further: In like manner Saint Peter saith, That Saint Paul in his Epistles had written certaine things which were hard to bee understood, and which the unlearned and unstable did pervert to their de∣struction: Saint Augustine declares upon this place, that the places misunderstood concerned the doctrine of Iustification, which some misconceived to bee by faith alone, by occasion of what Saint Paul had writ to the Romanes; and of purpose to counter∣mine that errour, hee saith, that Saint James wrote his Epistle, and proved there∣in, that good works were absolutely necessa∣ry to the Act of Iustification. Hereupon wee may observe two things; the one, That an errour in this point alone, is by the judge∣ment of Saint Peter, to worke their destru∣ction who imbrace it. And the other, That the Apostles Creede which speakes no one word thereof, is no good Rule to let us know all the fundamentall points of faith. To this I answer, First, That this Authour goes on still upon a false ground, as if wee said that all errours in faith that may damne men were fundamentall, and ex∣pressely against some Article of the Creede. Whereas, wee have often af∣firmed, That any errour, though not fun∣damentall,

may damne men that by a lively faith hold not rightly the funda∣mentals, and so are without Christ. And it seemes, that these men were not well grounded and founded by fundamentals in Christ Jesus, whom Saint Peter calls unlearned and unstable, and their errour the errour of the wicked; A generation of vipers turne wholesome food into poy∣son, and abuse Scriptures to their owne condemnation.

But secondly, That faith doth not ju∣stifie, but that good workes are absolutely necessarie to the Act of Iustification, is most untrue, and against Saint Augustine himselfe: Untrue; for, a man is justifi∣ed by faith in Christ, and not by his owne merits; which, in your language, are good workes, as divers of your owne Authours e affirme. And a man in the instant of his Justification may dye before he hath had time to do good works, and yet his Justification may be good. And

it is against Saint c Austin even in the same place, whence the former saying of Saint Peter is taken, where you may find that commonly knowne sentence of his, Opera sequuntur justificatum, non praecedunt justifi∣candum; Good works follow justification, and doe not goe before it: So that whiles this Authour observes two things, hee gives more then two scandalls to his Reader. For first, hee chargeth falsly not Saint Austin onely, but Saint Iames with holding this errour, That good workes were absolutely necessary to the act of justification. And then secondly he will make him to say, that the not holding of this errour, is an errour which may worke their destruction that embrace it: Yea thirdly, that the Apostles Creed is no good rule to let us know all the fundamentall points of faith; because it speakes no one word, to teach us that the Cavaliers errour is a fundamentall point of faith.

Lastly, his owne Doctors doe bring into

their Explicites, our faith in Christs d pas∣sion, & resurrection for justification, but not this his Article, That good workes are abso∣lutely necessary to the act of justification. And if they doe not, why doth hee require it of us in our fundamentalls?

SECT. II.

Wherein his Exceptions against the 39. Ar∣ticles of Religion established in this Church are answered.

BUt having quarrelled in vaine with the Creed, to prove the insufficiency of it for fundamentalls, now hee comes to the Articles; where he thus begins: Others say that the Booke of the 39. Articles declares all the fundamentall points of Faith, according to the Doctrine of the Church of England; but this also is most absurdly affirmed: For, as it is true, that they declare in some confu∣sed manner (which yet indeed is extremely

confused) what the Church of England in most things beleeves; so it is true, that they are very carefull, that they bee not too clearly understood. And therefore in many Contro∣versies, whereof that Book speakes, it comes not at all to the main difficulty of the question between them and us, and especially in those of the Church, and Free-will. While the Authour speaks of a confused manner, and which is extremely confused, his words do returne upon himselfe, and his owne dis∣course: For, that he may make his discourse confused, it seemes hee makes use of this doubtfull word Declare. For if wee say, That the Booke of Articles declares our fundamentalls of faith, wee doe not say, it declares all the knots of questions which are between us and the Romists. For it is well knowne there are divers controver∣sies between us and the Romists, which are not of fundamentalls. And neither the Fa∣thers in their rules of Faith, neither Ro∣mists in their Explicites doe declare the knots of questions which may arise even concerning fundamentalls themselves; if the fundamentalls be so expressed, that their true and saving sense may bee received and beleeved by the working of that Spirit, which makes Christs sheep to hear Christs

voice. They that thus beleeve, shall bee saved, though they know not all the knots which cunning and erring men doe make. They that write rules of Faith, Explicites, and Fundamentalls, doe not in the same undertake to write all knots of controver∣sies which concerne them. And the Cava∣lier doth not find them in his owne Do∣ctors among their Explicites: wherefore the answer which he makes for them, let him take for us.

Secondly, for his particulars of the Church, and Free-will: First, for the Church; Doth our Church hold, that the visibility and inerrability of the Church are fundamentalls? And if shee doe not, how can this Authour accuse her for not shew∣ing fundamentalls; because she shewes not those points which she doth not hold to be fundamentall? The h Church is not the foundation of the Church, but she her selfe is built on that onely foundation Christ Jesus. And even your owne men are not agreed about making the Article of the i Church one of the Explicites; or at least agree not in declaring these points of con∣troversies concerning her to be explicitely beleeved.

And for Free-will, I might aske first:

Doth this Authour find in any of his Do∣ctors this knot of Free-will for an Expli∣cite? But secondly, Doth the Councell of Trent it selfe, called of purpose to end controversies, so set downe the knot of this controversie, that your owne Romists are agreed of it among themselves? True it is, that the maine body of the Papacy dotes upon Free-will, according to their Leaders, who, as this Authour well affirmeth, have many (profitable) Doctrines; as that of Merit, Supererogation, &c. depending upon it. But yet there are among them some that hold the efficacy of grace on the will, which the Protestants do teach; and so the Authours confused manner doth now light on the precious Synod of his deare Mother, whose Champion hee is; but not without prevarication: For, while hee condemnes a confused speaking of Free-will, hee is be∣come that sonne of Solomon, who shameth his mother: For she hath taught, and, as he calls it, Declared Free-will, in such a confu∣sed manner, that her owne children cannot agree about her meaning.

And now hee sets downe the words of the tenth Article concerning Free-will, and concludes, That this is true Catholick Do∣ctrine, which we beleeve better then they. A

man would have thought here, that we had been almost friends; but let not the Reader bee mistaken: for the worke of mistaken Charity, is not to make peace, but division. Therefore after a confessed agreement, a disagreement is to bee pickt out; They de∣clare not (saith he) whether or no a man have freedome of will to doe a good worke, or not to doe it, when first hee is inspired and moved to it by God Almighties grace; which we af∣firme, and they deny: which is the onely knot of our question, and the point upon which so many other Catholick Doctrines depend. I desire the Reader to take speciall notice of these words of the Cavalier, That upon the Doctrine of Free-will many Romish Do∣ctrines doe depend: For hence may arise a caution to those that affect this Doctrine of Free-will, since here they see it confessed by the Cavalier, that on this Doctrine many Romish Doctrines doe depend; so it concernes them to beware how they admit this Doctrine, which hath so much Popery in the belly of it.

But now to the maine knot of his que∣stion I give this answer, That in untying this knot there is yet left unfolded the chiefe pleat of the knot: For the chiefe fold of this knot is not, Whether the will,

being inspired and moved by God, there bee freedome in it to will, or not to will; but whether the will be not at any time so moved by grace (especially in conversion) that though it may will, or not will; yet it will certainly & infallibly move that way, to which Gods grace enclines it. For indeed the freedome which these men speake for, is a freedome of the will from the grace of God. For they would have the will so free from Gods grace, that grace should not actuate and worke it to will and to doe. For other freedome of the will wee acknow∣ledge, even the most excellent freedome; affirming, that when the will is thus moved by God, it willeth freely that way to which Gods grace moveth it; yea, most freely, because most willingly. For this is the so∣veraignty of power issuing from the highest cause, that it worketh in second causes ac∣cording to their own natures: and therefore it workes in the will of man, by making it most freely willing. Accordingly grace doth so worke in the will, that the will determines it selfe that way to which grace doth incline it. And thus (as it hath been well observed) The feare of overthrowing Free-will is removed, since things are vio∣lently moved by a contrary cause, but never by

their owne: And God being the cause of the will, to say it is moved by God, is to say it is moved by it selfe. And indeed this is the chiefe freedome of the will which wee maintaine, when the will doth freely move, being moved by the highest cause, whose service is perfect freedome: Onely, because the word hath been abused, k we do abstain from that terme, which by this abuse is likely to be mis-understood. But this highest and most excellent freedome wee truly maintaine, even that by which the will is free, when God worketh it freely to will: Yet many Romists complaine, because no other freedome will please them, but that the will may be freed from God, and not be wrought by him to will as he will. But thus doe they mainly fight against Gods glory, and mans safety: For first, great glory is got hereby unto God, that hee can turne the wills that are most averse from him, and make them willingly and gladly to will what he willeth: Even Saul breath∣ing out threatnings and slaughter in his na∣turall will, hee can change into Paul, in his new and spirituall will, ready not onely to be bound, but to dye for the Name of the Lord Iesus. And thus he that glorieth, can only glory in the Lord. Secondly, it gives God

the glory of performing his promises: God hath promised a Seed to the woman, even Christ mysticall, as well as Christ personall; and hee hath promised a Seed to Abraham out of all Nations. Now, by this effectuall power on the wils of men, doth hee performe his promises: Therefore the Psalmist, when hee speakes of Gods establishing Christs Kingdome, saith rightly, The people shall bee willing in the day of thy power: and accordingly, A∣braham, having received the promise of this Seed, is said to beleeve, that what God had promised hee was able to performe: Hee did not beleeve in the wils of men left free from Gods ruling and effectuall grace, that they would performe Gods promise; for indeed so hee might have beene deceived: but hee beleeved in God and his power, that hee would performe this promised Seed; and accordingly the Seed of pro∣mise is borne like Isaac, by the will and power of the Promiser. And in thus be∣leeving it is said, That Abraham gave glory to God. Wherefore, this being A∣brahams faith, and this faith of Abraham giving glory to God, Let men first consi∣der, whether they can bee the Seede of Abraham that have not this faith of A∣braham.

And next, If this faith of A∣braham give glory to God, Let men bee affraid by a different faith, even a faith in mans free will for the performance of Gods promises, to rob God of his glory. Thirdly, it gives God the glory of our prayers; for therefore wee pray unto God that his Kingdome may come, and his will may bee done, because wee beleeve that Gods effectuall grace doth set up his kingdome in our Wils, and cause them to will the Will of God. Therefore we pray to God for this doing of Gods will, which wee could not pray for to God, if God did not produce this effect: for otherwise the Free-will-prayer must run thus; Lord give mee onely such free will, that I may chuse whether I will doe thy will or no; and not, that thy will may bee certainely done. But for the certaine and sure doing of Gods will, they must pray to their owne free wils, which they beleeve doe bring the possibilitie of doing Gods will into effect. But this is many wayes abomina∣ble; One abomination it is to pray to God that I may doe his will, and yet not be∣leeve that God worketh the will and the deed for which I pray. Another, not to pray indeed that Gods will may bee done,

though Christ hath commanded it, but to pray that it may not bee done, as well as bee done. For if I pray onely to God that hee may meerely leave it to my will whether his will shall bee done or not, I doe not pray certainely that his will may bee done, but that it may stand in an even ballance, whether it shall bee done or not: and then it is very possible, yea likely, (as wofull experience hath too often shewed) that his Will will not be done. But how∣soever, sure it is, to God they cannot pray; but (which is another abomination) must pray to their owne wils that Gods will may bee surely done, the certainty of do∣ing Gods will being suspended onely on their owne wils, and not depending on Gods effectuall grace. How much bet∣ter doth our Liturgie imitate this patterne of Christ Jesus, and fulfill his direction? It prayes for the King, That he may alway incline to Gods will, and walke in his way: and for the people, That they may leade a godly, righteous, and sober life; that they may in all things obey Gods blessed will; that they may ever obey his godly motions in righ∣teousnesse and true holinesse; that they may please God both in will and in deede; That his grace may prevent and follow us, and

make us continually to bee given to all good works. And indeed, these prayers, and e∣specially the Lords prayer, being so sound∣ly good that the soules of men cannot but approve and use them, it doth seeme to e∣vince, that those who doe use these pray∣ers, though otherwise they seeme to favour this Romish free will, yet doe not heartily beleeve that free will which crosseth and denyeth these prayers: as on the other side, it would bee a mighty accusation, if they should so beleeve free will, that they could not say the Lords prayer. Lastly, It takes from God the glory of praise and thanks for our obedience; and especially, for our differing from others: for the free-will-men cannot praise God so well as the Pharisee, who yet was not justified; for, they cannot say, Father, I thank thee that I am not like other men; but they must say, Father, I thank thee that I was like other men, and had the same free will and grace which they had; but, That I am not like other men, I thank my owne free will, which, by a different use of the same grace, wherein by thee I was made like other men, hath made mee unlike to them. To conclude, This opinion of free will, as it robs God of his glory, so it robs man

of his safety; for it hangs mans safety upon mans free will: God and his grace doe not keepe man, but mans free will keepes grace, and by grace keepes man; grace dependeth on the will, whether it shall bee kept it selfe, and whether it shall keepe man or lose him: But thus the will, grace, and the man are not safely a kept by the power of God unto salvation. Man is brought back againe into the state of free will which the old Adam had, and lost; but with this disadvantage, that hee hath now a mighty law b in his members, re∣belling against the law of his minde, which the old Adam had not: And now shall man, with all his imperfections issuing from this body of sinne, stand by free will, wherewith Adam in his full perfection fell? Whosoever thinks so, hath need to thinke better of his imperfect selfe, then of perfect Adam: But, for my part, I see great cause to bee affraid of that free will which hath undone him. Againe, Is there no more stabilitie issuing from the second Adam, Christ Jesus, who is God and man, then there would have beene by descent from the first Adam, who was only a man? Doth Regeneration from Christ give no more stabilitie with his seed, then with Ge∣neration

should have beene communica∣ted to us descending from the old Adam, if hee had stood in perfection? Yet of Christ that is said which could never bee spoken of Adam, nor can bee spoken of free will; Hee is that Rock on which the Church being grounded, The gates of Hell cannot prevaile against her: And of the Seed of God given through this second Adam, wee read, It is a remaining Seede, which keepes us from reigning sin. Briefe∣ly, as wee are borne of promise, so God gave to the promised Seed a Land of pro∣mise; and the bringing that Seed unto the Land of promise is sure to this Seede by the effectuall power of God the Promiser, as the promised Seed was surely given by his promise: And accordingly, for the e∣stablishing our hearts, wee doe often heare of the faithfulnesse of God who hath promised. In God therefore is our safety, and not in our owne free will; Hee is our Shepheard, therefore wee doe not feare; his grace keepeth our wils and us, and our wils fundamentally and finally keepe not this grace and us. And thus Gods glory and mans safety are joyned together by Gods powerfull grace; and therefore wee may close up this Point in the words of

Saint Paul, God shall preserve us unto his heavenly Kingdome; to him bee glory for ever, Amen. Yet may wee add this Les∣son as a Corollary from the joynt conside∣ration of Saint Pauls Conversion and Do∣ctrine, That they who have felt most the effectuall power of Gods grace in their conversion from the kingdome of Sathan unto God, will be most earnest in teaching this grace, and in giving glory to God for that effectuall grace by which they have been converted.

Yea, let us hereunto joyne that memo∣rable a Caution, which may serve for a Load-stone to direct those that sayle in the deepe of this Controversie to the har∣bour of safety where they would bee, That in all doubts and difficulties they incline to that opinion which gives most glory to God: For, as it hath beene well taught, This is the disposition of godly mindes, to attribute nothing to themselves, but all to the grace of God; whence it will come to passe, that though a man should give never so much to the grace of God, and thereby take away some∣what from the power of Nature and free will, hee shall never depart from piety: but when

something is taken from Grace and given to Nature, thence danger may arise.

Hee goes on: So also doe they play at fast and loose, when in the sixth Article of holy Scripture, they enumerate all those Books of the old Testament which they allow to be Ca∣nonicall; wherein, by the way, they are ra∣ther b Iewes then Christians▪ for not admit∣ting the Books of Judith, the Maccabees, and divers others in the Canon. This Authour is still busie in bringing in the number of Canonicall Books for fundamentall; (as before in the Creed) when his owne Ma∣sters put it not among their Explicites and Fundamentals.

But yet, if the number were on all sides taken for a Fundamentall, our Church hath sufficiently expressed her meaning to men whose eyes are single, and not troubled with the fiery humour of uncharitablenesse and contention: For first, for the number of the old, they enumerate (as himselfe confesseth) all the Bookes of the old Te∣stament which they account Canonicall; so then, if the number of Canonicall Books bee a Fundamentall, the Articles have shewed this Fundamentall concerning the old Testament: Yet thus hee is not plea∣sed, but is still angry with the Articles, to

his owne hurt, and runnes against them with a sword, whose point he turns against his owne soule, and the head against our Church: For hee saith, They are rather Iewes then Christians, for not admitting the Bookes of Judith, the Maccabees, &c. But the Authour endangereth himselfe in this point, to be censured as neither good Jew, nor good Christian. For Saint Paul, who was an excellent both Jew and Christian, saith, That whereas great was the prefer∣ment of the Jew, yet herein it stood chiefly, Because that unto them were committed the Oracles of God. So that if that was the chiefe preferment of the Jew under the Law and Old Testament, that the Oracles of God were committed to them; what shall we say of that Christian, that takes this chiefe preferment from them, and scandalizeth them and others for following them, even in that wherein the holy Ghost by Saint Paul giveth them a chiefe prefer∣ment? Againe, if those were the Oracles of God which were committed to the Jewes, and these of Iudith and Maccabees were not committed to them by God as his Oracles, and accordingly not received by them; either these are not Gods Ora∣cles, or Saint Pauls word will bee denied,

that Gods Oracles were committed to the Jewes. So that the Authour hath herein good matter, not for pennance onely, but for true and hearty repentance; for shaming the Jewes and us for following them in that very point, wherein Saint Paul saith, that their preferment or advantage chiefly consisteth. Againe, the Romists themselves hold the Church of the Jewes to have been the true Church in the time of the Law; and the high Priest an unerring head of that Church, as our Authour before hath taught us. Now is it not against these Ro∣mists owne grounds to say, That the Church of the Jewes, when it was uner∣ring, did erre in the number of Canonicall Scriptures, a fundamentall of this Authour, or else an impertinency? Therefore Lorca more warily alloweth a (though in danger to be censured for a Jew) That those Books were anciently given to the Jewes. How∣soever, if the high Priest had not then the infallibility to discerne Canonicall Scrip∣tures, how hath the Pope now that infal∣libility? For our Authour brings in the in∣fallibility of the individuall high Priest, to prove (as it should seem) the present infal∣libility of the Pope; so that the high Priest either had this infallibility, and so the Au∣thour

is put to shame, for shaming the Jews in their discerning and numbering the Canonicall Scriptures; or hee had not this infallibility, and so he is put to confusion, in his proving the Popes infallibility by him that was fallible.

But hee goes on, and talkes of Trifling, and not onely talkes of it, but doth it: They trifle also (saith hee) when they tell us that they understand those onely Bookes both of the Old and New Testament to be Canonicall, of whose authority there was never any doubt in the Church. For they know as well as wee, that the Apocalyps, the Epistle of St. James, Saint Jude, and one of Saint Peters, were not acknowledged, till proofes were made, during the space of three or foure hundred years after Christ our Lord. But if a Romist had writ∣ten the same words which our Articles do, no question he would have found'out some gentle construction, to have made it sound and good; perchance hee would have said, that there was never any generall doubt in the Church, and that the universall Church never doubted them: (For wee know, that the most ancient Fathers recei∣ved them, and used testimonies from them) Or, upon the word, Doubt, there was no just sound, or sufficient doubt of

them, no doubt that was worth the name of a doubt. But indeed, this Article (as it seemes) mainly looking to the Apocry∣phals of the Old Testament, wherein alone stands the doubt, and difference of number between us and Rome; it might hold it sufficient to use such words as concerned that difference, not mentioning or regard∣ing ancient differences in that of the New Testament, wherein between us and Rome is present agreement. But yet more trifling and frivolous is our Authours inference: Th••s•• men have been pleased out of th•••••• great grace to admit them, though the Maccabees must be rejected, because they speak of prayer for the dead. For we, or rather the Scrip∣ture hath shewed before, why the Macca∣bees are not received as Canonicall; be∣cause, contrary to this Authour, but agree∣abe to Saint Paul, they were not commit∣ted to the b Jewes as the Oracles of God. So we c found them left out of the Canon, and doe not thrust them out: But they are Romists that bring in the Maccabees to be Canonicall, to prove prayers for the dead;

because they have no proofe for them in the Canon. If the Canon prove not prayers for the dead, being beneficiall to the Papa∣cie, the Papacie must make Canon, to prove prayers for the dead. For surely, if Apo∣crypha had not been made Canon, there had been no Canon to prove their Apo∣cryphall prayer for the dead.

But now concerning the Bookes of the New Testament, the Authour hath disco∣vered an Elephant in an Atome: Observe, saith hee, what this booke of Articles saith concerning the Canonicall Bookes of the New Testament; it saith onely this: All the bookes of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, wee doe receive, and account them for Canonicall. But why doe they not parti∣cularly enumerate all the bookes which they acknowledge to be of the New Testament, as they had done them of the Old? A strange wonder, and one that deserved observati∣on; and an observation that well deserved a question: but the question scarce deserves an answer; especially seeing the Authour answers himselfe before he makes the que∣stion. For first, who doth not see, that in the bookes of the New Testament, there being no differences between us and the Romists, it was sufficient to say, That those

are received for Canonicall, which are commonly received?

And secondly, this Authour himselfe so farre answers his owne question before he makes it, that hee acknowledgeth, the Page fore-going, That these men have been plea∣sed, out of their great grace, to admit Saint James, Saint Jude, &c. Yet now he takes a deep exception for not naming St. Iames, which is so admitted, that hee himselfe can by name say that we admit him. So it seems wee had no great depth in hiding the name of Saint Iames, which our Authour, as shallow as his pen runs, did so easily find. But I confesse, I am sorry both for him and my selfe: for him, that hee is troubled with working such Cob webs; and for my selfe, that I have the labour of sweeping them away. Yet will hee needs goe on in such in∣dustrious vanities: But abstracting from all these insincerities, wherewith that booke of Articles is full fraught, they doe not so much as say, that the Articles of Doctrine which they deliver are fundamentall, either all, or halfe, or any one thereof, or that they are ne∣cessarily to be beleeved by them, or the con∣trary damnable if it be beleeved by us. But they are glad to walk in a cloud for the reasons which have been already toucht. Our Author

commends the booke of Articles, while he calls the Insincerities of it, These Insinceri∣ties; that is, these which before have been shewed to be invisible, and no Insincerities; Insincerities only in the eye of the Author, which did cast the shape of them on the booke, when he read it.

But, saith he, They shew not which are fun∣damentall, and which are not: Neither did they ever promise you that they would do so. The fundamentalls are said to be there, but no man said, for ought I know, that there it was shewed which are fundamen∣talls, and which are not. Your selves hold points of importance, which are more fun∣damentall, and to bee explicitely knowne▪ and doth every Romish Councell tell you which are these points, and which are not? And if it doth not, why doe you demand it of our Church in her Synod, more then of your own? Or if you can excuse your own, why doe you quarrell with ours? It was not the intended, much lesse promised busi∣nesse of our Church, there to distinguish fundamentalls from superedifications; but to set downe both fundamentalls, and su∣peredifications. And these being taught to her children, the Spirit of Christ the foun∣dation, will discover the fundamentalls to

his members, and thereby settle them on Christ, and further build them up by the superedifications, according to their ap∣pointed measure. And I have before shewed how our fundamentalls may bee discerned, though I may say somewhat like to that of our Saviour to the Jewes, Why of your selves discern ye not that which is right, and rightly fundamentall? For if you know how to find out these grounds of Christianity, which must bee explicitely knowne, which your selves acknowledge to be more fundamen∣tall, you may easily find out our fundamen∣talls; so that all this is but an empty out-cry, to affright the Reader with noise without reason: thus to call for a designment of fundamentalls, where none was under∣taken, and where in like case your selves do it not; and to quarrell with fundamentalls, which your self and yours do acknowledge. Yet when Romists have agreed of the set number themselves, let them send to us their Catalogue defined by a Synod, and it may be we may deale with them upon ex∣change.

The Cavalier goes on: Master Rogers indeed in the Analysis which hee makes of those nine and thirty Articles, speakes loud enough by way of taxing the Doctrine of the

Church of Rome, as being contrary to that of the Church of England; and hee gives it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 many ill names as his impure spirit can de∣vise; and affirmes, among other things, that many Papists, and namely, the Franciscans, blush not to affirme, that S. Francis is the holy Ghost, and that Christ is the Saviour of men, but one mother Jane is the Saviour of wo∣men: a most execrable aspersion of Postel∣lius the Iesuite; with a great deale of such base trash as this: And yet his Booke is de∣clared to have beene perused, and by the law∣full Authoritie of the Church of England permitted to be publick: But yet even Master Rogers himselfe is not so valiant as to tell us in particular which point of their doctrine is fundamentall to salvation, and which is not. True it is, that Master Rogers doth very clearely and audibly speake against, and condemn divers errours of the Church of Rome, as being not onely contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, but to the Word of God, with which commonly he confronts the errours which hee brings forth to judgement. And a∣mong them hee sheweth some errours of a high nature, which make Saviours of Merits and Masses, and Popish Pardons; yea, which carry the faith of the soule from

God unto man, the Pope and his Councels. And, for ought I see, hee doth not give worse names then the purest and holiest Spirit gives to the Pope, who calleth him, the Man of sinne, and sonne of per∣dition, &c. And the impurity which this Authour at his owne costs, and upon his owne word layes on him, M^r Rogers layes on Rome by proofes and allegations, as in divers places, so particularly in the nine∣teenth Article, Propos. 7. whereof the Ti∣tle is this, That the Church of Rome most shamefully hath erred in life, ceremonies, and matters of faith: But, for that to which this Authours spirit gives the ill name of base trash, it is brought in as the filth of his owne Associates, and testified by other Writers; and therefore the basenesse of it most justly should light on them that are the first Authours of it. Neither is it strange amongst Papists to make creatures to share salvation with our Saviour; the hymnes concerning the milke of the blessed Virgin, the bloud of Thomas, the vertue of the woodden Crosse, singing it aloud in the ears of the world. Filthinesse and basenesse, most abominable, and that deserves to bee

swept out of the Church with detestation, and to bee carried out as the Filthinesse out of the holy Place in the Reformation of He∣zekiah: And why, in an equall judgement, should not Master Rogers his Books much rather be permitted to bee publick for na∣ming such filthinesse with detestation, then Rome allowed to bee Catholick, though using such filthinesse with practicall appro∣bation? Lastly, The want of valour in Master Rogers to tell us which point of our doctrine is fundamentall, and which is not, I thinke is no just accusation; because, for ought I know, hee did not undertake this as his businesse; neither had any Romish Cavalier yet challenged him upon this quarrell.

SECT. III.

Wherein is discovered the vanity of his boa∣sting, That the Protestant Church is un∣likely to define which are the fundamentall differences betwixt them and the Papists, since they scarce dare avow any difference at all.

HEe goes on; Much lesse is there any appearance that ever the Church of

England should doe it; since even now wee have seene, that it dares not, in divers points, so much as declare in publick manner, that it professes the expresse contrary of what wee held: Nay, wee are not likely to see the fun∣damentall points of faith, whereof they talke so loud, to bee avowed by so much as either of the Universities; yea, or yet by any one Col∣ledge or Societie of learned men amongst them. This Authour is exceedingly trou∣bled for want of more division, and com∣plaines there is not opposition enough be∣tweene us and Rome; yet, when wee ex∣presse a contrariety to the Tenents of Rome, then hee cryes out, There is such a crossenesse betweene us, that wee cannot bee one Church: and when wee doe not expresse it, then Wee dare not so much as declare it in publick manner. And now he calls for Fundamentals, as Goliah for Com∣batants, Give mee a man that wee may fight together; and yet a man would thinke, that one trained up in the Schoole of Rome to such an eminence, as to take him to bee her Champion and Cavalier, should so know the first grounds of Christianity, which himselfe calls more fundamentall, that hee should not make it a quarrell against us, that wee doe not teach him: Yet, before

hath beene shewed, how a man that hath not much more skill then himselfe, may ghesse with as much certainty at our funda∣mentals, as at his owne Romish Explicites. But if hee lack work for his Cavalier, and to that end desire plaine points of Contro∣versie, our Church hath evidently declared her judgement against the Papall Supre∣macy, Transubstantiation, Worship of Ima∣ges, Merits, Purgatory, Prayer in an un∣knowne tongue, Sacrifice of the Masse, and divers other points: And I wonder how this Authour got leave either of his judge∣ment or modesty, to say, that shee who da••es in these points to declare her oppo∣sition to the Synagogue of Rome, dare not doe it in others, if shee pleased: For, to omit the other points, shee that dares de∣clare her opposition against the Popes Su∣premacie, hath dared to oppose the very Head and Heart of Popery; and if shee dare oppose the Head, why should shee bee affraid of the Limmes and Branches? But, both in the Head and many Branches, our Church hath declared her judgement; and therein may hee and his fellowes exercise their valour, if they doe so much overflow with it, even to complaining of want of quarrels: And when they have dispatched

these Controversies, and quit themselves in them like Cavaliers, then let them call for more, and find fault with want of diffe∣rences. And now if I would answer a wise man according to his wisdome, I would use his owne words, and make them speak against himselfe and his fellowes; We are not likely to see their Romish Explicites, whereof they talke so loud, avowed by their Universities, Colledges, or Councels, &c. Yea, we are not likely to see the point of wor∣shipping images with Latria; nor the Popes power to depose Kings, determined by any Councell: and yet of these points Papists speak aloud, & for them fill the world with Treasons against God in heaven, and Gods Deputies on earth. And I might, with very little ex∣change, adjoyne his own following words; The reason of their Reservation is plaine: for, if a Councell should bee convinced of errours, their maine Cause would receive a mortall wound. But now, when some particular men defend these errours, they may say as Master Hart did to Master Reynolds, I care not for the judgement of Andradius, or Cajetane, or any other private man, though you could bring an hundred of them. But I am weary of waiting on his words, which either have no weight, or weight to presse himselfe to

the ground. But a swelling, yet most empty vanity, is that saying which our Au∣thour imagineth to bee great with reason; I have heard some Catholicks affirme (and that, to my thinking, with great reason) that they would hold it to bee no ill work for them, if the pretended Colledge of Chelsey, or any other, were founded by Protestants, expresly for writing Books of Controversie by common consent. For, as I said before, Our Church by common consent hath declared her judgement in divers points of Controver∣sie already named, and the Romists have here worke enough to confute, if they can, what hath beene established by common consent, Hic Rhodus, Hic saltus. This they have assayed hitherto with shame and losse; and though they lose by the quarrels they have already undertaken, yet they are not ashamed to call for more quarrels, that is, for more losse. Besides, this vanity may bee turned against themselves: For, why should not we also demand, That the Pope and his Councell should establish a Col∣ledge at Rome, or Rhemes, which should write Controversies by a Pseudo-Catholcik consent? which when they have done, then let them call for a Colledge from us. I wish this Au∣thour

would try to speake something a∣gainst us, wherein hee might not speake against himselfe. But our Cavalier is now like a Ship drawing neere to the Harbour, and his water is still shallower and shal∣lower: yet hath he descryed one Doctor, of whom, if hee doe not make prize, all his Adventures are lost: But what if wee disclaime the Doctor, as Master Hart did Andradius and Cajetane? then is our Au∣thour put to silence, for want of a Colledge writing with common consent: Yet saving to our selves these and the like exceptions, Let us see what hee saith; and first, take notice of the Preface, which, like a Beadle, doth usher and make way for the Doctor; On the other side, at times they make eager Invectives against us for declaring so many, yea, and all the Doctrines of our Church to bee fundamentall; so farre forth as that who∣soever refuses obstinately to beleeve any of of them, doth forfeit the salvation of his soule. And in the strength of this zeale of theirs, Doctor Dunne, in a Sermon made before his Majesty at his first happy comming to this Crown, doth bitterly exclaime against the Catholick Roman Church, as making every toy to bee fundamentall: And can

you blame our Writers or Preachers to reprove you, that you will damne so many soules for toyes, yea, for errours? For herein they have God for their patterne, and your patterne is that which God re∣proved in Ionah. For we, with the Father of Mercie, would save many thousand soules, who by faith in Christ the foun∣dation are united unto God, and by re∣pentance and regeneration doe strive and endeavour to obey him. But you, imitating the fault of Ionah, for the Popes honour and supremacy, will have many thousands of such beleeving and penitent soules to be damned (who know not the right hand from the left, in many of your frivolous Doctrines) if the Pope doe affirme it: For example; If a man beleeve all the Truths in the Bible, and all those which are in the Romish Decrees, and withall lives justly, soberly, and godly; yet beleeves not, that it is unlawfull for Gossips to marry, this man must bee damned. And how may not Preachers then say to the Romists, Now walke yee not charitably, when through your vanities the brother must perish, for whom Christ died? Christ would have saved him as a foundation of salvation; but the

new and supposititious foundation, the Pope, damneth him whom Christ would save. But the best is, hee who by a funda∣mentall faith is built upon Christ the true foundation, can never be damned by unbe∣leeving any Article of faith created and coined by the Pope, a counterfeit founda∣tion.

And here, while the Authour doth quar∣rell with the poornesses of the Doctour, not being able to maintaine a combate with his rich••s; it seemes hee doth it with a greater poornesse: For what a poore quarrelling is it with the Doctour for saying, That Papists will not let Protestants to bee saved, though they beleeve the same Creed, except they will beleeve the same Mathematicks, and govern themselves by the same Kalendar: when thi•• Authour knowes his meaning, and ex∣pressed it himselfe in the words nearly preceding, That the Romane Church makes ••oyes fundamentalls? And might not the Pharisees thus have taken a poore excepti∣on at our Saviour for saying, that they strained Gnats, whereas they strained not Gnats, but payed the tythe of Mint and Cummin? Besides, he doth not say, that it is really so done; but premising this: When

every thing must be called Foundation, wee shall never know where to stop, where to consist. If we should beleeve their Sacrificium incruentum, their unbloudy sacrifice in the Masse; if we did not beleeve their Sacrificium cruentum too, that there was a power in that Church to sacrifice the bloud of Kings, wee should be said to be defective in a fundamen∣tall Article. If we should admit their Me∣taphysickes, their transcendent Transubstan∣tiation, and admit their Chimiques, their Purgatory fires, and their Mythologie and Poetry, their apparitions of soules and spirits; they would bind us to their Mathematicks too, and they would not let us be saved, except we would reforme our Almanackes to their ten daies, and reforme our clockes to their foure and twenty houres; for who can tell when there is an end of Articles of faith, in an ar∣bitrary and occasionall Religion? So the Doctour only shewes how such an unlimi∣ted making of fundamentalls, may goe on in a perpetuall procession, it having already made things not so profitable as Clocks and Kalendars, Articles of faith, and points fun∣damentall: Witnesse the Service in an un∣knowne tongue, the Lords Supper without wine, &c. But the Cavalier fights in earnest

with this supposition, and tells us, that Ro∣mists doe rather governe themselves with the lesse perfect Kalendar, which now is used in this place: Yea, hee gives a morall of this their deed; letting the world see thereby how willingly we can accommodate to them in all things, which belong not meerly to Religion. The controversie of Kalendars, I leave to the Critickes of time, to bee decided and rectified in their emendatione Temporum. But the argument of accommodation, ta∣ken from our Almanackes, is retorted by a greater argument remembred in our Al∣manackes: For, when in them wee see the Papists Treason on the fifth of November, wee are thereby put in mind, that Papists doe not accommodate to Protestants in all things that belong not meerly to Religion. For it is not meerly a matter of Religion for a King to sit in Parliament; and yet the Papists would have accommodated him, by blowing him up with powder, thus sitting in Parliament.

But the Cavalier having thus spoken to ill effect, to amend the matter, brings not forth the Doctours words, but his saying to this effect: But that the Reader may be his owne guide, and the Doctour the speaker of

his owne effect, and the Cavaliers faire carriage may more plainly appeare, I will here confront the Doctours words with the Cavaliers. The Doctours words are these: Call not superedifications, foundations; nor call not the furniture of the house, foundati∣ons; call not ceremoniall and rituall things, essentiall parts of Religion, and of the worship of God, otherwise then as they imply disobe∣dience: for obedience to lawfull authority is alwaies an essentiall part of Religion. The Cavalier thus repeats him, That difference in beliefe in points which are not very im∣portant, is not to prejudice a mans salvation, unlesse by not beleeving them hee commit a disobedience withall. For, saith he, obedience indeed is of the essence of Religion. I thinke that the Cavalier, seeing his face in this glasse, finds that it lookes red with blushing at the mis-reporting of the Doctour. The Doctour speakes of ceremonies, the Cava∣lier reports him speaking of differences in beliefe: The Doctour speakes of ceremo∣nies commanded by lawfull authority; the Cavalier of points of faith, commanded by the unlawfull authority of the Pope. But if it please him to remember what hath been already told him, That the Church, much

lesse the a Pope, hath an Inerrability in points of small importance; and where she hath no Inerrability, she hath no authority. Again, in respect of the different capacities of the hearers, all are not capable of every little point and subtlety of faith: and I thinke no Pope hath power to command his disciples to beleeve that, which their capacity is not able to understand. But lawfull Rites or Ceremonies, not being points of faith, but of action; and being easie to bee understood, the obedience to lawfull authority in them may more con∣cerne the essence of Religion, then obedi∣ence to the Pope in those small points of faith, wherein the Pope hath no unerring power, and no authority to make a lawfull

command; for the people doe not sinfully disobey, where the Pope hath no lawfull authority to command.

The Author having thus lost his premis∣ses and proofes, yet goes on to a conclusion, which cannot but be lost in the losse of his premisses; so that his concluding inferen∣ces, This shall serve for discharge both of what they object against our unity in faith, and of what they alledge in the behalfe of theirs: And, I conceive, that I have suffici∣ently secured these two maine grounds, upon which this whole discourse is turned, are but commendations of a false conception, and of a discourse, which is turned upon grounds over-turned: For neither is his first ground sufficiently secured, That there is but one true Faith, and one true Religion and Church, out of which there is no salvation; the word Out being understood in the sense of the Authour, that is, That if a man be out of the faith professed in the Church in the least haire, part, or degree, that there can bee to him no salvation. Nor more se∣cured is his second ground, That Catholicks and Protestants cannot possibly be accounted of that one Religion, Church, and Faith. For, as it may be true that Protestants and all Catholickes doe not agree in every small

title and mite of faith; yet it is most true, that true Catholickes and Protestants are so entirely of one saving Faith and Religi∣on, that they are also of one Church. And from these Catholickes, I desire not to exclude all of the Romane Diocesse: But indeed Papists, whose humane faith is grounded on the Pope, as their foundation, being ready to beleeve Idolatry, Treason, or whatsoever the Pope shall decree for a matter of faith, these I know not how to account members with us of that true Church, whereof Christ is the Head. They are not so truly Christians of Christ, as Papists of the Pope.

But still I inferre, that when the Authour hath his two grounds granted, That if Pro∣testants and Papists bee not of that one Church wherein is salvation; yet Papists are uncharitable for damning Protestants who are of that Church wherein is salva∣tion; so that neither are his grounds suffi∣ciently secured, neither if they were, are Papists secured sufficiently from uncharita∣blenesse. But after his pretended sufficient securing of his grounds (either by way of supererogation, or because hee was not se∣cure of his securing) hee yet brings in more proofe, that we are of two Religions: And

now for the finall proofe of this last point, according even to their practice as well as ours; Let my Reader but look upon the body of their Lawes made against us, and especially upon the Preambles thereof, wherein they plentifully shew how hatefull an opinion they have of our Church; Let him looke upon the severall Acts of State which have is∣sued from my Lords of the Councell: Let him look upon the Proclamations which have beene made and published from time to time: Let him looke upon the large Commissions which have beene granted to Pursuivants, whereby that scumme of the world hath beene, and is enabled both to ransome and ransack us at their pleasure. Surely, thus farre there is little said, but that many of the late Traytours against the French King may take up for a proofe that they were not of one Religion with that King, because against them there issued Acts of State, Proclamations, Messengers or Pur∣suivants (though all of them perchance were not the scumme of the Countrey) to apprehend and ransack them. But hee goes farther; Let him looke upon those speeches which have beene uttered in both Houses of Parliament, not onely against Professours, but even the Profession it selfe

of our Religion; and how his most excel∣lent Majestie hath beene importuned by their petitions to add more weight to our miseries: for thus it will easily bee scene, how false, how rotten, how superstitious, how idolatrous, how detestable, how damnable, and even destructive of all truth and good∣nesse they professe themselves to esteeme our Religion: And in fine, that wee carry such a marke of the Beast in our foreheads, as must needs, in their opinion, shut up the gates of heaven against us, and set open the gates of hell to devoure and swallow us up: So that, certainly, wee are no more of one Church with them in their opinion, then they are of one with us in ours. Here indeed hee hath many good Epithites of Popery, rotten, superstitious, idolatrous, &c. but I finde one great one wanting, and that is trayterous; for this Epithite had a great share in the Parliamentary Complaints and Accusations of Popery. But, to answer his many words in few, (because they were answered in that which last preceded) wee deny not, but that which wee call Popery, and Papists call their Religion (that is, a beleeeving in the Pope, and obeying of him comman∣ding Idolatry, Treason, Rebellion, and

whatsoever else hee shall please to decree for a point of faith) is a rotten, supersti∣tious, idolatrous, and traiterous Religion; And of this it is truely said in the prayers of the fifth of November, This their Re∣ligion is Rebellion, their faith is faction, their practice murdering of soules and bo∣dies. But yet wee charitably hope, that there are some, though two few, who have not so bowed the knees of their soules to this Baal of Rome, that they sub∣mit their soules and faiths to him in all his idolatrous and trayterous Doctrines, De∣crees, and Commands; but being rather in Rome then of Rome, are Christs and not the Popes; and therefore will heare Christs voice, and not the Popes, when the Popes voice is the voice of a stranger, and an enemy to Christ.

Notes

• a

  See before Romish Au∣thours al∣ledged, who say, that twelve or fourteen Arti∣cles (whereof these of the Canon and Sacraments are none) doe suffice to be explicitely be∣leeved; and divers Romish Authours al∣ledged by Lorca, that differ in the number of the Canonicall Books.
• b

  Si finis Sa∣cramentorum esset excitare fidem, Baptis∣mus non pro∣desset infantibus; sed iis ••otius qui p••aesentis sunt-. Itō, illi dicunt, Sacra∣menta ideo instituta esse, ut excitent fidem; ex quo sequitur effectum il∣lorum esse fidem, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ja•••• re••uta••i—. Becan. Manu••••. c. 11. n. 3••.31. & seq.
• And Vasquez brings in di∣vers great Doctors, that distinguish between the mysteries of Faith, with∣out the know∣ledge of which a man cannot be saved; and Baptisme, and other Sacra∣ments.

  Ex his tamen Doctoribus, Alexander, Bo∣naventura, Ga∣briel & Adria∣nus loquuti solùm viden∣tur de igno∣rantia Fidei circa mysteria, sine quibus salus non contingit ali∣cui; caeteri verò de igno∣rantia cujus∣cunque prae∣cepta divi∣ni positivi, quale est Baptismi— Cum praedictis Doctoribus concordat Cor∣duba; quod attinet ad fidem mysteriorum, quae ad salutem necessaria sunt, non tamen in eo quod spectat ad praecepta positiva Dei, qualis est Baptismi, & aliorum Sacramentorum. Vasquez m. 1.2. Disp. 120. cap. 1.
• a

  It is a Ro∣mish distincti∣on, Reatus simplex, & re∣dundans in personam.
• b

  Sequitur, illum solum amittere f••∣dem, qui peccat contra fidem sciens & prudens; errans voluntariè, aut dubitans. Ille tamen qui peccat ignorantià, quamvis crassa, & cul∣pabili culpâ mortali, sicut non est haereticus, sic etiam nec fidem per∣dit; ut satis clarè S. Thomas Articulo illo tertio (q. 5.) docuit illis ver∣bis: si enim non p••••tinaciter dissentit, non est haereticus, sed solum er∣rans. Lorca in 22. Sect. 1. Disp. 33.
• a

  Semel in totum macel∣lum in Apo∣stolo admissà detestatione eorum, qui si∣cut nubere prohibent, ita jubeant à ci∣bis abstinere à Deo condi∣tis; & ideo nos esse jam tunc praenotatos in novissimis temporibus abscedentes à fide, &c. Tert. de Iejun. adver. Psychios,
• b

  How shall a spectator be∣leeve that flesh is not thought un∣cleane, when he seeth a Fast to exclude it, and yet to admit all delicate and incendiary fishes, conserves and wines? Licet liberè saepius vinum. Navar. Man. cap. 21. n. 13. In more positum est, ut in diebus jejuniorum piscibus, leguminibus, fructi∣bus, & vino similiter utamur; & omnes communi consensu testantur, id quod solum in potum, non in ••ibum sumitur, cujusmodi vinum etiam est, jejunium minimè relaxare. Azor. lib. 7. cap. 10.
• c

  Est verum, omnes qui vo∣lunt posse con∣tinere. B••llar••. de Mona••bis cap. 31. Yet we read in the History of Trent, lib. 7. many reasons were given for Priests marriage, whereof one wa••, Want of continent persons fit to exercise the Ministery. And the chiefe reason of forbidding it, is there expressed; It would turne the Priests affections to their Families, from the Popes Hierarchie.
• d

  Sodomitium scelus ex Coelibatus rigore eas radices in Clero Romano defigit, ut Petrus Damianus eremum petere coactus, librum conscribat cui Titulus, Gomorrhaeus, in quo omnes ejus species edisserit▪ quales tum a pud eos bacchabantur, eum∣que L••oni n••no inscribit, cujus adversus tanti mali diluviem opem im∣plorat. P••ess. M••st. Iniquit. ad annum 1060. In the yeere 1563. Procla∣mation was made within the Province of Sivil, that whosoever knew or heard of any Monks or religious persons that had abused Auricular Con∣fession to abominable acts with Matrons and Maidens, they should come in within 30. dayes, laying great penalties on the refusers. Presently there came in such a number of women, only inhabitants within the City of Sivil, that twenty Notaries, and as many Inquisitors would not have sufficed to take the complaints. Wherefore the Inquisitors gave 30. daies more. The Monks, Friers, and Priests go up and downe very melancholy; and as great a plague was feared as the persecution which was then hot against the Lutherans. But the Inquisitors fearing to bring their spiritu∣alty into hatred and obl••quy, and especially to discredit their Auricular Confession, contrary to all mens expectations, made a stay therein, though the Court was orderly seised. Discov. of the Spanish Inquisition.
• e

  Pighius, Contarenus, Colonienses, Ferus, &c. And the very Councell of Trent saith, That Justification is free, and not merited by faith or workes. Nihil eorum quae Justificationem praecedunt, sive fides, si∣ve opera, gratiam promeretur. Concil. Trident. Sess. 6. Cap. 7. And therefore Becanus, Sequitur ipsa Justificatio, id est, acquisitio, seu in∣fusio justitiae inhaerentis. Cujus justitiae duplex est effectus formalis; Alter expulsio, seu remissio peccatorum: Alter sanctificatio & renova∣tio interioris hominis; uterque, respectu nostri, gratuitas. And he cited this Chapter of Trent. Bec. Manu. lib. 1. cap. 16.
• c

  Cum ergo dicit Aposto∣lus arbitrari se justificari▪ hominem per fidem sine ope∣ribus Legis; non hoc agit ut praeceptâ ac professâ fide, opera ju∣stitiae con∣temnantur: sed ut sciat se quisque per fidem posse justificari, etiamsi Legis opera non praecesserint; sequuntur enim justifica∣tum, non prae∣cedunt justifi∣candum: unde in prae∣senti opere non opus est latiùs dispu∣tare, praeser∣tim, quia mo∣dò de hac quaestione prolixum librum edidi, qui inscribitur de litera & spiritu. August. de fide & operibus, cap. 14. Per ipsam (Gratiam) quippe justificatur gra∣tis, id est, nullis suorum operum praecedentibus meritis; alioquin gra∣tia jam non est gratia, quandoquidem ideo datur, non quia bona opera fecimus; sed ut ea facere valeamus. August. de spiritu & litera, cap. 10.
• d

  Quem com∣missio pecca∣torum diabolo subdidit, re∣miflio pecca∣••orum per sanguinem Christi data à diabolo eruit, ut sic justi••iâ vinceretur diabolus, non po••entiâ. Sed quâ justitiâ? Jesu Christi: Et quomodo victus est eâ? Quia in ea nihil dignum morte in∣veniens, occidit eum tamen. Et utique justum est, ut debitores quos te∣neba••, liberi dimittantur, in eum CREDENTES, quem sine ullo debito occidit. Lombard. (ex Aug.) lib. 3. dist. 20.
• h

  Sciendum est quod Ec∣clesiam crede∣re, non tamen in Ecclesiam credere debea∣mus, quia Ec∣clesia non Deus, sed do∣mus Dei est. August. de tem∣pore, s••••m. 181.
• i

  Acknow∣ledged before by Vasqu••z, and by those who hol•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fourteen Arti∣cles to suffice for Explicite faith.
• Hist. Trent. lib. 2.
• k

  Vocabulum ambiguum in altero sensum verum & bo∣num, in altero falsum & per∣niciosum. Bel∣lar. lib. 4. de lib. ••rb. cap. 6. ex Calvin. Instit. lib. 2. cap. 2.
• Act 9.1, 6. & 21.13.
• Rev. 12.17. Gal. 3.16, 28.29.
• Psal. 110.2, 3. Psal. 2.8.
• Rom. 4.21.
• Rom. 9.7, 8.
• Rom. 4.11, 34.
• Collect of Christ his Circumcisi∣on. First Sun∣day in Lent.
• First Sunday after Trini••y.
• 17. Sunday.
• Q••idam non credendo cre∣dunt. Tertul.
• a

  Natura h••••∣mana etiam si in illa integri∣tate in qua est condi••a per∣maneret nullo modo scipsam▪ Creatore suo non adjuvan∣te, servaret. Concil. Ar. Ca. 19. 1 Pet. 1.5▪
• b

  Rom. 7.23▪
• Mat. 16.
• Joh. 3.9.
• 1 Cor. 1.9. 1 Cor. 10.13. 1 Thes. 5.14. 2 Thes. 3.3. Heb. 10.23.
• a

  Cass. Art. 18. ex Bonavent. Hoc piarum mentium est, ut nil sibi tribuant, sed totum gra••iae Dei; unde, quantum cun∣que aliquis det gratiae Dei, à pietate non recedet, etiam∣si multa tribu∣endo gratiae Dei, aliquid subtrahat p••∣testati Natu∣rae, vel li••e••i arb••t 〈◊〉〈◊〉: cù•• verò aliquid gratiae Dei subtrahitur, & Natu••ae t••ibuitu•• quòd gra•••••••• est, ibi potest periculum intervenire.
• b

  Then was a Saint of Rome & a Cardinall rather Jewes then Christi∣ans, by the Ca∣valiers cen∣sure; for thus saith Lorca, Gravior Con∣troversia est de his li••ris, quos à Canone ••e∣jiciunt, non so∣lum hae••etici recentiores, sed etiam san∣ctus Antonius & Caj••tanus. Tract. de loc. Cathol. lib. 1. Disp. 3. Mem. 3. ubi de libris Tobiae, Iudith, Eccl••siastici, Sapientiae, & Maccabaeorum disputat.
• Rom 3 1, 2.
• a

  Nec tamen concedendum est, hos libros antiquae Sy∣nagogae, ante adventum C••risti igno∣r•••• ••uisse, & ex••ra Cano∣nem•• quoniam ••••••l••sia ab e••s pr•• Ap••stoli∣••is 〈…〉〈…〉.
• b

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Scri∣ptu••am quae app••llatur Maccab••••••∣rum, ••udaei non h••bent sicut Legem, & Prophetas, & Psalmos, &c. 〈…〉〈…〉. Epi••••. Gau••en••. l. 2. ca. 23.
• c

  Non oportet li∣bros qui sunt extra Can••nem l••gere, nisi solo•• Canonicos Novi & Vete∣ris Testamenti. Q••••e a••tem opo••••••at legi, & in authoritatem recipi haec sunt, Gen••sis, 〈…〉〈…〉. A•• Macca••••••o••um lib••i in ho•• Catalogo nus∣quam legu••tur. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. L••odicen. in s••xta Sy••odo confirma••um.
• 2 Thess. 2.
• Tu per Thomae s••nguinem, &c. La•• Matris misce••e volo cum sanguine Nat••. Ave sa∣lus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 s••∣cul••, Arbor 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Item, In Cruce Christi ponimus spem salutis; Cantat enim Ec∣cl••••••••, O C••u••, a••e spes u••ica, &c. Aquia. 3. ••••ast. 25. Art. 4.
• 2 Chro. 29.5.
• Reynolds and Harts confe∣rence, Chap. 2. dist. 2.
• a

  It were good that the Cavalier would answer his own great Masters, Drie∣do, Castro, and Vasquez, who say, that a Law-maker cannot at his pleasure by his command, make a sinne veniall or mortall. Materiae quae praecipitur gravitas & utilitas tantae consideratio∣nis est, ut non pendeat ex voluntate Legislatoris ad mortalem, aut venialem culpam obligare, posito semel praecepto, sed ex ipsa majore gravitate & levitate respectu finis, cujus gratia praecipitur culpa venialis, aut mortalis judicanda sit. Vasquez ••••. 12. Disp. 158. cap. 4. And it seemes it is not for the Popes honour to command points of small importance: For Thomas Aquinas saith of the Pope, Ad quem majores & difficiliores Ecclesiae quaestiones referun∣••ur. 22. quaest. 1. A. 10. So it seemes this Eagle should not take Flies. But the Councell of Ephesus, Decrevit sancta haec Synodus alteram sidem; Nemini licere proferre, aut scribere, aut componere praeter ••am quae de••inita fuit à sanctis Patribus apud Nicaeam urbem in Spi∣ritu sancto congregatis. And A••hanasius gives a reason for it: Nam fides quae mihi à Patribus, secundùm sacras Scripturas, & Confessioni∣bus confirmata est, satis mihi idonea ••••ticaxque videbatur ad omnem im∣p••••tatem emovendam, & pi••tatem ejus, quae in Christo est, fidei 〈…〉〈…〉 A••hanas. ad Epict. epist. Corinth.