A replie to a relation, of the conference between William Laude and Mr. Fisher the Jesuite. By a witnesse of Jesus Christ

THE REPLIE TO THE RELATION OF THE CONFERENCE.

L. p. 2. IT is very fit, the People should look to the Iudgement of the Church, before they be too busie with particulars But yet nei∣ther the Scripture, nor any good Autho∣rity denyes them some moderate use of their own understanding and judgement, especially in things familiar and evident, which even ordinary Ca∣pacities may as easily understand, as read. And therefore some par∣ticulars a Christian may judge, without depending.

P. What you meane by Church, you have told us before, namely that, wherein your Church of England, and that of Rome, are one and the same, one Prelaticall and Hierarchicall Church, out of which are excluded all those Reformed Churches,

which neither have, nor acknowledge Prelates to be of divine Institution. We have also made a Say of the difficulties: So as it is no difficulty to divine, what Christians we are like to prove in understanding and judgement in the mystery of Faith and Salvation, when we must be limited to that narrow Scantling of some moderate use of our owne understanding and Iudgement, and that but in things familiar and evident to every ordinary Capacity. O poore Christians, that for Understanding in the Scripture must be at the allowance of Antichristian Lords, who would bring into bondage Gods people, by Chaining them up in Darknesse and Ignorance, and doe with them, as * 1.1 Nahash the Ammonite answered the men of Iabeth Gilead; On this condition will I make a Covenant with you, that I may thrust out all your right eyes, and lay it for a reproach upon all Israel. But the Apostle exhorts Christians, Saying, ‡ 1.2 Be not children in under∣standing; howbeit, in malice be children, but in understanding Té∣leio ginesthe, be perfect. And, ‡ 1.3 Leaving the Principles of the Do∣ctrine of Christ, Let us goe on unto perfection. And, § 1.4 Strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those, who by reason of use have their Senses exercised to discerne both good and evill. But you allow Christians onely some moderate use of their owne un∣derstanding, and that in things familiar and evident, which men of ordinary Capacities may as easily understand, as read. So as what they read, except with the very reading they doe as easily understand it, as they read it, they must not meditate further of it, but in what they presently upon the reading understand not, they must depend upon your Churches judgement. So as you would exclude your Christians from being of those † 1.5 blessed men, of whom David Speakes, which delight in the Law of the Lord, and in his Law to meditate day and night. You would not have them with * 1.6 use to exercise their wits and Senses to discerne 〈◊〉〈◊〉 good and evill. Yea the Apostle useth a word very empha∣ticall, di•• tò exin, by an habituall use, or long custome have their Senses gegumnasm••na, exercised▪ the word properly sig∣nifieth such an exercise, as Wrastlers, or such, as contend for victory, doe use, which is with all their might and strength, being train'd up unto it by long exercise. So as the Scripture doth not onely not forbid, but Commands and exhorts Chri∣stians to all diligence in the Study of the Scriptures, * 1.7 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the aknowledge∣ment of the Mystery of God; as the Apostle speakes. And, * 1.8 Let

the word of God dwell in you richly in all wisedome, teaching and admonishing one another, &c. And the Bereans are Said to be dugenésteroi, more noble, then those of Thesselonica, in that they received the word with all readinesse of mind, and searched the Scrip∣tures dayly, whether those things were so, which Paul taught. Loe ••ere, they examined Pauls Doctrine by the Scriptures: they depended not upon his bare word; and therefore the Holy Ghost markes them forth for men of a more noble spirit. But you would have your Christians to be poore and beggerly in the knowledge of the mystery of Christ, and to be so base-minded, as in all things, which are not obvious to every Ca∣pacity, to depend meerely upon your Church-Authority and Judgement. So as what you meane hereby, except to bring into your Church of England the Iesuiticall blind obedience, cap∣tivating the peoples senses to your Dictates, that they might pinne their Salvation and Faith upon your Priests Sleeve: I cannot imagine. Which will appeare yet more clearely at after.

Againe, these words of yours are in Answere to the Jesuit's words, namely, That it was not for the Lady, or any other unlearned Persons, to take upon them to judge of Particulars, without depending upon the Iudgement of the true Church.* 1.9 To which all your An∣swere in full is, as before. Wherein you easily let the Jesuite slip, and run away with this, that the Church of Rome is that true Church, on whose Iudgement for Particulars all unlearned Per∣sons must depend. But you understand the true Church to be that, wherein you told us before, your Church of England and of Rome, are one and the Same. And so for Rome to be a true Church, you plainly confesse at after. But your words here may stand you in very good Stead, to be a faire Item to all the Readers of your Booke, not to be too busie with the Particulars of it, but first to look to the Iudgement of the Church of England, whose mouth you seem to be in this your whole Discourse. So as I may see my Doom already set down in black and white, that I must be Censured as one too busie, or Allotroepíoskopos, playing the Bishop in anothers Diocese, in our English Translation, a busy body. But I must beare it off with Head and Shoulders. And, as the Proverbe is, Over Shooes, over Bootes. I have already waded through the Fords of your Dedicatory, and now I must launch into the Deep of your Discourse. And there's now no returning. Nor have I put my hand to the Plough to turn up your weeds by the roots, to look backe, or desist, for feare to be censured as one

too busie. Yea all my businesse is about particulars; and namely such, as summed up together in the totall, conclude you to be, though not a profest Invader, yet a most subtile and pragma∣ticall Enginer, and underminer of that Truth of Christ in the Scripture, which yet the Gates of Hell shall never prevaile a∣gainst.

L. p. 4. Bellarmine of very great ability, to make good any truth, which he undertakes for the Church of Rome.

P. What one thing (I pray) which Bellarmine undertakes to make good for the Church of Rome (as the Church of Rome) is a truth? I say, as the Church of Rome. For what he undertakes to make good for the Church of Rome properly, must needs, be some point of Popery, or Popish Doctrine. Otherwise he undertakes not to make it good, as for the Church of Rome. Now the Church of Rome, as it is the Church of Rome, namely the Papall Church, holds not any one Saving Truth. I say againe, it holds not any one Saving Truth. I shall prove this more particularly at after. Yet you seem to intimate here, that either all, or most things so undertaken by him, are truth. But the contrary will appeare; So as what things are in themselves false and erronious, can by no humane ability either of that Champion of Rome Bellarmine, or of the great Champion of the present Church of England, be so made good, as to deserve the name of Truth.

L. ibid. After Bellarmine hath distinguished, ••o expresse his Mea∣ning, in what sence the particular Church of Rome cannot Erre in things which are de Fide, of the Faith: he tells us, this Firmitude, is, because the Sea Apostolicke is fixed there. And this he saith is most true.

P. Your last words here are somewhat darke, whether we should take them for Bellarmines words, he saith; or for your owne assent therein, And this he saith is most true. This Later is the Likelier. And then againe, here is another doubt, whether [And this he saith is very true] it be referred to the whole Sentence going before, and alledged by you; or onely to the Last Clause. If to the whole Sentence, then in Saying, And this he saith is most true; you assent, that Romes infallibility consists in the Firmitude of the Sea Apostolicke fixed there. Which you seem afterwards more expresly to contradict. But if onely to the Last Clause your Speech hath reference, And this he saith is most true: then first, you should have expressed it more Clearely

and punctually, as in some things you doe. But taking it in the best sense, you confesse it is most true, that the Sea Aposto∣licke is fixed there: thus you give occasion of Dispute, about Peters being at Rome, and of his being Bishop of Rome; and if so, whether consequently Rome be yet the Sea Apostolicke. But because your words, here are not Cleare enough, and at after you declare your selfe herein more plainly, what we have to say of this, we will reserve to a fitter place.

L. p. 23. I shall ever be glad, that the Church of England may have farre more able Defendants, then my selfe.

P. Certainly the Church of England her selfe may be glad hereof, to vindicate her Reputation, which you, by this your Defence, have layd flat in the dust. But, May have, seems to import, that now she hath not, at least, now, that Dr. White is dead. Nor hath the Church of England any great cause to glory in either of you both, as Defendants, unlesse by the Church of England you understand that new Start-up Faction of Arminianized, and Iesuited Atheists, whose Standard-beares you have been and are to bring the whole Land backe againe to Rome, and so to make a full League and Confederacie against the true Church of Iesus Christ.

L. p. 29. Things not Fundamentall, yet to some mens Salvation are ne••essary.

P. How prove you this? Seeing what is necessary to some mens Salvation, is necessary to all, and every mans Salvation. And Fundamentalls onely, to wit, Such things as are de Fide, of Faith, are the onely things necessary to every mans Salvation. According to the Athanasius his Creed. Whosoever will be Saved, it is necessary that he hold the Catholicke Faith: which Faith unlesse a man keep whole, and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. For the Catholicke Faith comprehends all Fundamentalls, which to violate in any one particular, over∣throwes the Faith, and cuts a man off from Salvation. But your adding of other things, besides and unto the Fundamen∣talls, as necessary to Some mens Salvation: doth necessarily inferre this Consequence, that there be other things besides Christ, which are necessary to Some mens Salvation: And so you make Christ an insufficient Saviour to some men at least, as to whose Salvation things not Fundamentall are necessary. For things not Fundamentall are extra Christum, out of, or without Christ. Whereas the Scripture Saith of CHRIST, * 1.10 That there is

no Salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given, whereby Dei sothenai emas, we Must be Saved, which words doe plainly evince, that besides Christ, nothing under heaven is necessary to any mans Salvation. But give us some one particular instance of such things, as being not fundamentall, yet are necessary to some mens Salvation. You tell us of certain (I wot not what) Deductions from the Articles of Faith, which you make to be your Not-Fundamentall, and yet neces∣sary to some mens Salvation: but for our better Information you particularize in nothing, neither in the things, nor in the persons, for whose Salvation they are necessary, but leave all in the Cloudes, the fittest man••le to fold••up such foule and blind errours in.

L. p. 31. The Churches Declaration can bind us to peace, and externall obedience, where there is no expresse Letter of Scripture, and Sense agreed upon.

P. By the Latitude of this Sentence, you, or your Church of England may (as you have done) by your Declaration prefixed to your Articles of Religion (as before) bind Ministers not to preach of those Doctrines of Grace, as Election, Predestination, &c. because, though there be expresse Letter of Scripture for them, yet the Sense is so farre from being agreed upon by your pre∣sent Church, as that you Say plainly, they may be taken in two opposite Senses. So as upon this your Churches Declaration of the ambiguities of your Articles, you have stopped all the Ministers mouthes, binding them to peace, and externall obedience. Although I cannot yet conceive, how that Declaration should be the Church of Englands, though published in the Kings Name, and perhaps compiled in the Conclave of Canterbury. And thus also that Order for the Altar of S. GREGORIES, which yet is but Dormant in Cryptis, not published in Print, in which respect it cannot be called the Declartion of the Church, yet must be of force to bind all Ministers to Peace and Obedience; first to Peace, not to speake a word against Altars, for his Eares: and next to Obedience, that if he refuse to have an Altar set up in his Church, himselfe shalbe made a Sacrifice. But why should such an Order thus bind? I must crave pardon for making Question. And the rather, because your Lordship here gives us a Rule or Canon saying, The Churches Declaration can bind us to Peace, and externall, Obedience, where there is no expresse Letter of Scripture, and Sense agreed on. Now though we have expresse Letter of Scripture, pro∣ving Christ to be the onely Altar of Christians (as before is

shewed) yet because this sense is not agreed on by your Lord∣ship, and so by your present Church of England, therefore men must be peaceable, and obedient in that point, and quietly submit to Authority, in the admitting, and the Adoring too (if you will) of Altars in every Church. And so in all other your superstitious Ceremonies, of what force is the expresse Letter of the Scripture, where the Sense of it is not by you and your Church agreed upon? To give an Instance or two more, This is my Body: the Sense of these words is not agreed on between your Church of England, and that of Rome (though you are in Substance both one Church) what then? Ergo Ministers are bound to Peace and Obe∣dience, in not medling to or fro with the manner, How Christ is present in the Sacrament (though your Article of the Lords Supper doth declare it, both affirmatively, and negatively, how it is, and is not) but to content themselves with Really; which is a very peaceable word, about which Rome and you have no great reason to fall at oddes. Againe, for bowing at the nameing of the Name Iesus, although you have no expresse Letter of Scripture for it, (no not Phil. 2.10. where it is Said, En to onó∣mati, In, or (as your Translation hath it) at the name of Iesus every knee should bow; but it is not Said, En to onomazethai tò onoma Iesoun, or Iesous, In the naming of the name Iesus, every knee should bow: So as that place is plainly expounded, and agreed on by other places of Scripture, as Isa. 45.23. and Rom. 14.10. as some of your old English Bibles note those places in the Mar∣gent over against the place; as in that of Isaiah, there is set in in the Margent, Rom. 14.10. and Phil. 2.10. all which three places unanimously shew the universall Subjection of all Crea∣tures in heaven, and earth, and under the earth to Christ in the day of Iudgement) yet because this Sense is not agreed on by the present Church of England, therefore her Declaration in her Canon binds all to Peace and Obedience: to Peace, in not speaking or writing against bowing at the nameing of the name Iesus, nor in preaching to expound the Letter of Scripture (Phil. 2.10.) by the plain sense of other Scriptures, as afore cited: and to Obedi∣ence, by bowing themselves, when they heare that Name to be named. So as your Lordships Rule here is very usefull for ma∣ny things, although you have neither Letter, nor Sense of Scripture for them.

L. p. 32. The power of adding any thing contrary, and detracting any thing necessary, are alike forbidden. No power of the Church can doe this.

P. This Sentence you alledge out of Vincentius, and allow it; So as it is to be accounted your owne Confession, which I suppose you will not deny. Whereupon you with your Church fall under just condemnation, both for adding things contrary, and detracting things necessary. For you adde to the service of God (as you call it) your Altars, and sundry other super∣stition••, which the Scripture excludes and condemnes, and so are contrary: and you detract things necessary, as Preaching of the saving Doctrines of Grace, Preaching on the Lords dayes in the after noon, Preaching Week-day Lectures, and Cathechising by ex∣pounding the Grounds of Religion. Which things are necessary, profitable, and usefull to the people of God, and which God com∣maundeth; as 2 Tim. 3.15.16. and 4.1.2. Gal. 6.6. Let him that is Katekoúmenos, Cathechised in the word, communicate To katekounti, to him that Catechiseth, or instructeth him, in all good things. Thus you and your Church take upon you to do those things which are alike forbidden, and which no power of the Church can doe, though you can.

L. p. 35. Wrangle while you will, you shall never be able to prove that any thing, which is but de modo, a consideration of the man∣ner, of being onely, can possibly be fundamentall in the Faith.

P. Wrangle I will not, but prove, that some things which are, de modo, considered in the manner of being onely, not onely may possibly, but are really, in that very respect, fundamentall in the Faith. So as to deny them, or not to beleeve them, is in it selfe damnable. And hereof I shall give some Instances. 1. Christs body in receiving of the Sacrament, is to be considered in the m••nn••r of its being present to the beleeving Communicant. In so much as to exclude such manners of being present, as doe destroy either the Article of his perpetuall Residence in heaven till his c••ming againe, or the truth of his Naturall Body, doth deny and destroy two Articles of the Faith, 1. touching Christs sitting 〈◊〉〈◊〉 t••e rig•••• hand of God, from whence he shall come to Judge∣m••••••▪ and 2ly. that he was borne of the Virgin Mary, with a true humane body. As the Papists apprehending and belee∣ving Christs naturall body to be locally present in the Eucharist, doe thereby overthrow his perpetuall residence in heaven, * 1.11 till his coming againe: and withall, the truth of his naturall bo∣dy: which being a true naturall body, with all its naturall pro∣perties, cannot be locally or corporally in many places at one and the same time; which yet the corporall presence in the Eucha∣rist doth necessarily import. And if the truth of Christs naturall

body be destroyed (as by the Manichees, and other Hereticks) Christ is wholly evacuated, and shall profit nothing. Besides, this Popish beliefe of Christs corporall Presence in their Eucharist, makes Christs natural body, which hath its dimensions of length, breadth, thicknesse, to be a meere fantasticall and imagina••y body, as being contained within the narrow circle and compasse of a thinne Wafer-cake: and so they destroy Christs body. And so also, in that they beleeve they eat this body of Christ, which is to destroy it: as 1 Cor. 6.13. And this beliefe of Christs corpo∣rall presence as aforesaid, destroyes spirituall communion with Christ, and with the Holy Ghost, and consequently the Article of faith concerning the Communion of Saints. For Christ saith to his Disciples, * 1.12 I tell you the truth, it is expedient for you that I goe away: for if I goe not away, the Comforter will not come unto you: but if I depart, I will send him unto you. So as to beleeve Christ to be corporally present on earth, and that men have by that meanes a corporall communion with him, doth debarre such men from all communion of the Spirit of Christ. And ‡ 1.13 If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, the same is none of his. He hath not Christ, that hath not his Spirit: and he hath not Christs Spirit, that rests in the beliefe of Christs corporall presence on earth, as before. For except I depart (saith Christ) that is, except I be absent from you, as concerning my corporall presence, the Comforter will not come unto you. And thus by a false beliefe of the very manner onely of Christs presence in the Popish Eucharist, Christ the Foundation is overthrowne. And this errour de modo, of the manner of being onely, overthrowing the Foundation, must needs be a Fundamentall errour, if any errour may be said to be Fundamentall.

My Second Instance is about Christs humane Nature,* 1.14 de modo Subsistendi, of its manner of subsisting in the Person of the Son of God. For to beleeve, that it is either after the manner or way of Commixtion, or by adherence, as one thing cleaving to ano∣ther, or Inherence, as an Accident in the Subject, or by Conver∣sion into the divine nature, or by Concomitancie, as Bellarmine saith, Christs divinity and soule is present with his body in the Eucharist by Concomitancie: all these manners doe destroy the personall union of Christs two natures in one person. As those two Here∣ticks, Nestorius and Eutiches, the one condemned in the Councel of Ephesus, the other in the Councel of Chalcedon, the later for holding, that Christ had but one Nature, the humane converted into the Divine Nature: the other, that Christ had two Persons:

both these destroyed Christ the Mediator, who is not a Medi∣ator, unlesse he be both God and Man in one Person Christ. So Bellarmines devise in holding Christs divine nature, and humane soule to be present in and with that body, which they frame un∣to him in the Masse, by way of Concomitancie, as being insepe∣rable companions: destroyes the Sacrifice of Christs Passion, wherein the soule of Christ was in death seperated from his body, untill his Resurrection. Now the Papists say, they offer up Christs body in the Masse, as representing the Sacrifice of his death and Passion. Which how can it be, when they say his soule is by concomitancie with his body offered up; So as all this while there is no representative, or Commemorative, much lesse a propitiatory Sacrifice of Christs death, Seing in that body (as they say) Christs soule is inseperably present? And againe, to say Christs divine nature is present with that body of Conco∣mitancie, this destroyes the Personall union. For Concomitancie is no personall union of the two natures, concomitancie being but an accompanying of each other. Whereas the divine nature of Christ doth not accompany the humane nature, but assumes it: and the humane nature doth not accompany the divine, but sub∣sists in it. Thus it is cleare, that the Consideration of the manner of being onely may possibly prove to be Fundamentall in the Faith.

L. p. 37. All, which pertaines to Supernaturall, Divine, and in∣fallible Christian faith, is not by and by fundamentall in the Faith to all men.

P. You told us * 1.15 before, That things not fundamentall, yet to some mens Salvation are necessary: and here, that all that pertaines to Christian faith is not fundamentall in the faith to all men. It seems you have some peculiar way to heaven, which is not common to all. But take heed, least leaving the common road-way of true Saving Faith, attended with a holy life, you fayle of heaven. ‡ 1.16 I am the way, the Truh, and the Life, saith Christ. And is not Christ this way, Truth, and Life to all that are Saved? Is not he to all such as are called, both Iewes and Greekes, Christ, the Power of God, and the Wisdome of God? But what doe I speake to you of Christ, or what doe you speake of Christian faith, that know not what Christian faith is, otherwise, then as you discerne in it some thing, for which, in whomsoever you find it, you persecute it to the death?

L. p. 39. If new Doctrines be added to the old, the Church may be changed in Lupanar errorum, which I am loth to English.

P. Nay, are you not ashamed to English it? For this you Speake of the Church of Rome: and you have told us, that the Church of England and of Rome are one and the Same Church. And now you Say, If new Doctrines be added to the old, the Church may be changed in Lupanar errorum. And this the Church of Rome hath done, as you elsewhere affirme: She hath added new Do∣ctrines to the old, and such new, as She doth with the old, a•• men doe when they put on a new suit, make the old a Cast suit. But because you are loth to English in Lupanar errorum, for the reverend respect you beare to that Venerable Apostolick Sea, I will doe as much for you, as to English it: If new Doctrines be added to the Old (as the Church of Rome hath done) the Church may be changed into a Stewes of Errours. This Phrase you take out of Vincentius Lyrenensis his Sentence, quoted in the Margent: which is this in English, The Church by adding new Doctrines to the old, becomes a Stewes of impious and beastly Errours, which was before a Sacrary of chast and undefiled verity. Whence I note, how you, not onely smother some of his words, but smooth others, Saying, for, [The Church becomes a Stewes] The Church may be changed. So as herein you falsify the worthy Say∣ing of Vincentius, when you make but a May be, of his, Is made. But let the Conclusion be, If a Church be turned Whore, 'tis good that all should know her to be so in plain English, that they may avoyd her, and (as Salomon saith) * 1.17 remove their way farre from her, and not come neere the dore of her house. And for this Cause have I taken the Paines to be your Transla∣tor.

L. p. 39. Some Decisions, yea and of the Church to••, are made, or may be, (if Stapleton informe us right) without an evident, nay without so much as a probable testimony of holy writ. But Bellarmine falls quite off, and confesses in expresse termes, that nothing can be certaine by certainty of Faith, unlesse it be contained immediately in the word of God, or be deduced out of the word of God by evident consequence. And if nothing can be certain, then certainly no Determi∣nation of the Church it selfe, if that Determination be not grounded upon one of these, either expresse word of God, or evident consequence ••ut of it. (And a little before) Every wrangling Disputer may nei∣ther deny, nor doubtfully dispute, much lesse obstinately oppose the Determinations of the Church, no not when they are (Dogmata de∣posita, Deposed Principles.

P. Now all these Passages weighed together, do clearely and distinctly resolve themselves into these Conclusions:

1. That the Church may decide and determine some things, without any evidence, or so much as a probable Testimony of holy Writ; and herein you consent and jumpe fully with that notorious Pa∣pist, and adversary of the once Church of England, Stapleton, whom the learned Dr. Whitakers publickly confuted in the Divinity Schooles in Cambridge, as his Works can yet testifie. And yet behold now the Church of England hath got a Cham∣pion in the Chaire of Canterbury▪ who pleads for, and applauds that in Stapleton, which Dr. Whitakers, and many other learned Divines in England formerly have refuted. And for further Confirmation hereof, you tax Bellarmine as of untruth, where he confesses, that nothing may be certaine by cert••inty of Faith, unlesse it be contained immediately in the word of God, or be deduced thence by evident consequence. Whereupon you inferre, that if nothing can be certaine, then certainly no Determination of the Church it selfe, wanting expresse word, or evident Consequence out of it. Thus you condemne Bellarmines true Saying (if by the Word of God he understand the Scriptum alone, and not his word unwritten) and approve and preferre Stapletons false and here∣ticall sentence before it. Secondly, That things so decided and determined by the Church, without either evident, or so much as pro∣bable Testimony of holy writ, yet are so de fide, so firmely to be be∣leeved, as every wrangling Disputer may neither deny, nor doubtfully dispute, much lesse obstinately oppose. Consonant hereunto you ••ay at after (pag. 224.) The Determination of a Generall Councel ••••ring, is to stand in force, and to have externall obedience at least yeelded to it, till evidence of Scripture, or a Demonstration to the Con∣trary make the errour appeare, and untill thereupon another Coun∣cel of equall Authority do reverse it: And so also, pag. 226. &c. Where here I mention for clearer proofe of what you say here, but not to anticipate or prevent our fuller Answere, when we come to those places, where we shall supply our brevity here.

L. p. 40. I hope A. C. will not tells us, there's any Tradition extant unwritten, by which particular men may have assurance of their Severall Salvations.

P. But what think you of it? Will you tell us there is no such thing written in the Scripture, That true Beleevers may have assurance of their owne Salvation? But if there be, why doe you forbid Preachers to meddle with it, considering the true and solid comfort which it bringeth to him that hath it? As the 17th Article confesseth, might it be suffered to

speake out, and had you not put a gagge in the mouth of it.

L. p. 43. Mine is, That the beliefe of Scripture to be the word of God, and infallible, is an equall, or rather a preceding prime Prin∣ciple of Faith, w••th, or rather to the whole body of the Creed.

P. How? The Belief of Scripture to be Gods word, and infallible, no more but an equall, or rather a preceding prime Principle of Faith, with, or rather to the whole body of the Creed? This is yours (you say) your Saying. And I beleeve it to be yours. For it is as like to one of your Sayings, as may be. For here you attribute no more credit to the Scriptures, then to the Creed, both equall, onely differing perhaps in point of some precedencie of time, or So, with an, or rather equall, or rather preceding, the difference not great, if any. Thus doe you not equall a Church Tradition with the Divine Scripture? For we have it by Tradition that the Apostles compiled the Creed, and each his Severall Article. And is this or any other Tradition of equall Credit with Scrip∣ture? And is not the Scripture the Rule, whereby the Articles of the Creed are to be interpreted, which are no otherwise to be beleeved, but as they are agreeable to the Scripture? So as (for the Purpose) if you goe no further for the Sense of the Article of Christs Descent into hell, then the very Letter of the Article, you can make no Sense of it, nor give any reason for it. And how then can you give a reason of your Faith in this particular? Except you do beleeve it, because you do beleeve it, and because the words are, He Descended into Hell. But of this more by and by.

L. p. 44. Some Traditions I deny not, &c. to be Apostolicall, but yet not fundamentall in the Faith.

P. You might do well to point out unto us, which be those your Apostolicall Traditions, that we may distinguish them from those Traditions, which Rome calls Apostolicall. Or rather per∣haps you admit of all those as Apostolicall indeed, but yet not Fundamentall. Surely if you can prove them to be truely Apo∣stolicall, namely, that the Apostles delivered them immediately to the Church by word of mouth, why are they not fundamen∣tall in the faith? Why are not all bound to beleeve them, or give as much Credit to them, as to the Articles of your Creed, which you Say are fundamentall in the faith.

L. p. 45. The Church of England taketh the words, He descen∣ded into hell, as they are in the Creed, and beleeves them without further Dispute, and in that Sense, which the ancient Primitive Fa∣thers of the Church agreed in.

P. Here a Question may be moved, 1. In generall, Whether a man taking up a matter upon such trust, as he gives equall beliefe unto it, as to the Scriptures themselves, doe not there∣in Sinne damnably. As making that a fundamentall ground of his Faith, which is not found to be in the Scripture. Secondly, in particular, Whether a man resting in the very Letter of the Arti∣cle, He descended into Hell, beleeving th••reupon, as surely as he beleeves that God is in Heaven, that Christs Soule did locally descend into Hell among the damned there, having no regard at all to what the Scripture Saith of it, whether the Scripture Say any such thing, or no: doe not hereby make way for his owne Descent into Hell? Or thirdly, Whteher you do as verily and firmly beleeve Christs Descent into Hell, as you doe his Ascent into Heaven, Seeing the Scriptures Speakes clearely and expresly of this, but not so of that; and whether you are a•• much bound to beleeve his Descent into Hell, because you find such words in the Creed, as his Ascent into Heaven, because you find it in the Scripture? Now for Answere to all these together, I con∣ceive, that to make any thing of the necessity of Faith to Sal∣vation, besides what is found in the Scripture, is Sinne, and in particular to beleeve, that because it is Said in the Creed, He Descended into Hell, therefore Christ did locally in Soule des∣cend into Hell, the place of the damned, without any proofe from Scripture, is Sin. My reasons are these: 1. Because this opens a gappe to men to beleeve humane Traditions to be of Faith to Salvation, as of equall credit and authority to the Scriptures. Now it cannot be proved, that the Creed it selfe, with its forme and words, and Articles, and Title, called The Apostles Creed, is other, then a humane Tradition, or that the Apo∣stles composed the Creed. Secondly, This argues, as a too high estimation of a thing humane, as if it were autópistos, of selfe-Credit: so a too base estimation, and undervaluing of the holy Scripture, as if they alone were not the Rule of Faith, or not to be relie•• and rested on alone for all matters concerning Christian Faith. So as to give Credit to any thing else besides the Scripture, as of equall Authority with the Scripture, (as you make your Creed to be) and not examining it by the Scripture, is a detracting from the Authority of Scripture, and consequently a denying of the Scripture to be the Sole Rule of Faith. For the Creed, it is either a part of the Scripture, or not a part: if it be not a part of Scripture (as indeed it is not) then all the Articles of Faith in it (being but a small abridgement of Christian Faith, and so, of necessity, and in comparison of Scripture it selfe, very

obscure, and Scanty) are to be proved and illustrated from Scrip∣ture, the Sole Rule of Faith, and Tryall of all Truths. Thirdly, in Particular, to beleeve Christs descent in Soule into hell locally, must stand with some reason, and analogy or proportion of Faith layd downe in the Scripture. For Christ did or suffered no∣thing, but the Scripture shews the Reason, Cause, and End of it. For instance: Isaiah Saith, * 1.18 To us a Child is borne, to us a Son is given. So the Angel to the Shepheards, ‡ 1.19 To you is borne this day a Saviour which is Christ the Lord. This then shews the End of Christs Incarnation, namely for our Salvation. Then for his Death, ‡ 1.20 He was delivered up for our Sins. And, § 1.21 Forasmuch as the Children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himselfe likewise took part of the Same: that through death he might destroy him that had the power of d••ath, that is, the Devil. And deliver them, who through feare of death were all their life time subject to bondage. So for his Resurrection, † 1.22 He rose againe for our Iustification. So for his Ascention, It was that he might * 1.23 send the Holy Ghost, and goe to prepare a place in heaven for all his. So for his Sitting at Gods right hand, ‡ 1.24 There he makes Intercession for his people, rules as King his Church, in preserving, protecting, governing his people, and makeing his and their foes his Footstoole. But for any such thing, as Descent into hell, neither is it found in the Scripture, nor much lesse any reasons given there of it. Indeed Peter Speaking of Christs Re∣surrection, alledgeth Psal. 16. Thou wilt not leave my Soule in Hell: So in the English. In the Hebrew it is commonly taken for the Grave, not for the place of the damned. But will you take Peters exposition of it Speaking by Christs owne Spirit? ‡ 1.25 This (saith he) David Seeing before, Spake of the Resurrection of Christ, that his Soule was not left in Hell, neither his flesh did see Corruption. So then, this place (Psal. 16.) was by the Holy Ghosts owne Interpretation, a Prophecie of Christs Resurrection from the Grave, and not of any Descent into Hell, the place of the damned. For he is not said to rise out of hell, as you say he went downe into Hell, nor to ascend out of Hell, as you beleeve he des∣cended into Hell. Will you have a particular Article of Christs des∣cent into Hell, and shall you not need another Article for his As∣cent out of Hell againe? And the Apostle saith, § 1.26 Christ descen∣ded Eis tà katótera mère tes ges, to the lowest parts of the Earth, which is spoken of his humiliation to the Death, and the Grave: but here is no word of his Descent into any such place as Hell, the place of the damned. But admit your Faith to be true, that Christs Soule descended locally into Hell: I aske, to

what end or purpose? Can you shew any Reason from Scrip∣ture for this? Will you say, his Soule went thither to suffer? Surely that had its * 1.27 Consummatum est upon the Crosse, there it was finished. Will you say, he went to triumph over the Devil in his owne D••nne? That was also done on his ‡ 1.28 Crosse, as on his Triumphall Chariot. And can you give any reason why Christ should descend into hell in regard of us? What▪ that so he might deliver our Soules out of Hell? Surely this also was done in his ‡ 1.29 Death. And againe, if it were necessary that Christs soule should goe locally into hell, to deliver our soules: then also it was necessary for his body to descend into hell, to deliver our bodies from thence. For he came to redeem our bodies, as well as our soules. Or what els can you Say? Certainly what ever you can invent, the Scripture will presently discover the vanity of it. But for my part, I dare beleeve nothing concerning Christ, and my Salvation, but what the Scripture hath revealed. But the Scripture hath revealed no such thing, as the Descent of Christs Soule into Hell locally. But you will then object unto me, Do I not beleeve my Creed, and every Article in it? I answere, I doe. Why then (say you) Doe I not beleeve the Article of Christs Descent into Hell? I say, I doe, being understood, or ex∣pounded according to the Scripture, and the Analogy of Faith therein. How is that? Christ dyed, and in his Passion he suffered the Torments of Hell in his † 1.30 Soule on the Crosse, and in the Garden. But his Descent into Hell is set after his buriall. And doe you not know, that the ancient Heathen used to put Hádes for the state of the dead. So as katelthein eis hadou, is to goe, or to abide in the state of the dead, which Christ did for 3. dayes, and then arose againe and revived. So as the Article shewes the continuance of Christs being dead and buried, till his Resurrection. Againe, you know the Nicene Creed mentions onely Christs buriall, and no Descent into Hell: and Athanasius his Creed, katelthen eis hadou, He Descended into Hell, without speaking a word of his buriall. All which doe confirme what I say, that christ in being buried, remained so long in the State of the d••ad, his soule seperated from his body: and being said to D••scend into Hell, hades signifying also the Grave, thereby is meant his being buried for so long a time, till his rising againe. As it is said in the next Article, The third day ••e rose againe from the dead, that is, from the Grave, where he abode in the state of the dead.

Now I have given you a reason of my Faith: Can you give

one reason of yours, concerning this Article, as you take and beleeve it with your Church of England? Show but one reason, or shadow of a reason out of Scripture. Nay, except you bring every Article of the Creed to the examen or tryall of Scrip∣ture, for the staying and establishing of your Faith, you may run into many monstrous errours. What doe you beleeve con∣cerning Christs death? You beleeve that hee dyed. But for whom? Whether for the Elect onely, in Gods Purpose, Ac∣count, Appointment, Acceptance: or universally for all men, Elect and Reprobate? I tell you, my Lord, if you beleeve that Christ dyed for all men universally, as well for the Reprobate, as the Elect, you destroy both Gods Grace in giving Christ for his people onely, the Elect, and also the merit and eff••icacy of Christs death. The Scripture shewes these things aboundantly. But I mention this onely by the way. Againe, What doe you beleeve concerning the holy Catholicke Church? You beleeve (I dare say) and you doe say it, that * 1.31 the Catholicke Church on earth, consists visibly of all Prelates, and those that are subject unto them, as one intire Body. This is your Faith. But if you examine this by the Scripture, you will find it to be an Errour no lesse soule then false, as hath been shewed. So, doe you not beleeve the Article of the Communion of Saints? You doe. But who are your Saints on earth? You will hardly allow any Saints on earth, till after their death, they be Canonized by his Holi∣nesse at Rome. Nay in plaine termes you persecute both the Saints themselves, and their Communion. Can you indure such as but professe holinesse? And for their Communion, doe you not hunt out and persecute Private Fasting and Prayer among the poore soules of Christ, when publick they can have none, and no other remedy or weapons are left them to defend themselves withall against your bloody Cruelty? So as the truth is, you neither rightly beleeve the Holy Catholicke Church, nor the Communion of Saints; but are a notorious both denye•• and persecuter of both. And therefore we see what a necessity there is, that we should bring the Articles of the Creed to the Standard Rule, the Scripture, both as the surest and safest way, yea and the onely way to preserve our Faith from Errour.

But you object the Fathers for the Sense of this Article of Christs Descent into hell, as you beleeve it. What if they belee∣ved so? Is their example a sufficient Rule for us? We must examine their sense they held of it, by the Scripture. If it be

not according to the Scripture, we reject it. The Fathers might for a time hold an erronious generally received opinion, be∣fore it came to be controverted, and well sifted and examined by Scripture. But they were ever ready to have their faith, and opinions tryed by the Scriptures. All the ancient Fathers were of this mind and spirit. As before * 1.32 Pelagius his time, the Fathers spake too liberally of Mans Free-will: which after, upon his Heresie, they reformed, and by Scripture abundantly confuted the Pelagians, and especially Augustine▪ Ierome, Pros∣per, Fulgentius, Hilarius, and others. And Augustine inticing a Donatist to dispute about that Heresie, Saith unto him, Rati∣one agamus, divinarum Scripturarum authoritate agamus: Let us dispute the matter by Argument, let us be guided by the Authority of the Divine Scriptures. Not what I, and thou Say, but what Christ Saith. And this was the Spirit (I say) and pra∣ctise of all the Fathers in such cases. So as if this Article of of Christs descent into hell had been by occasion of controversie about it well searched into, and examined by the Scripture: no doubt but the Fathers would therein have regulated their Faith according to the truth of Scripture.

But the Church of England (say you) holds and beleeves that Article, as you doe. No marvaile, when you doe. And should you hold otherwise, must it not doe so too. And yet we have but your bare word for it. But you will alledge your Article, That Christ went downe into hell. But we must examine your Article by the Scripture. And it is not the sound of your Article, but the sense, and that it agreeth with Scripture. But we have shewed, that no such thing is in Scripture. And you tell us withall, what Mr. Rogers upon the Articles saith of this; That then (Then I say) in diebus illis, the Church of England was not resolved of this Article: and he was then the Arch-bishop of Canterbury his Chaplein, your Predecessor Richard Bancroft. But now your Lordships bare word is enough to Sway the Bal∣lance, which before stood but in aequilibrio in an even peize, not resolved; but now resolved. But this I can tell you, what ever your Church of England now beleeves, there is (and I hope a good sound Church of Christ) yet in England, that beleeves the Creed, and all the Articles thereof, and this in particular, no otherwise, then they find them agreeable to the Scripture, and the Analogy of Faith. And this is agreeable to that, which once a ‡ 1.33 Prel••te of England said, By the generall conf••ssion of all Anti∣quity, Traditions must he warranted by the Scriptures, or els we must

reject them. And Isidore saith: A Prelate, if he teach or command any thing, besides that which is evidently cammanded in the holy Scriptures, let him be taken for a false witn••ssie to God, and a committer of Sacriledge.

But looking a little further, I find you confessing, That the Church of England hath not determined as yet either way by open De∣claration upon this Article. No, hath she not? How then doe you affirme, and would perswade us, that you beleeve, with the Church of England that Christ descended into hell, without any fur∣ther Dispute? We hope therefore it will not be long, before your Declaration come forth with a Definitive Sentence, deter∣mining the sense of this Article one way or other. And the rather, because in the late Declaration before the Articles, where∣in this Article of Christs going down into hell is particularly set downe for one, they are declared to be of ambiguous sense, and yet men must hold to the letter of the Article. So as by that Declaration we are lesse resolved of the Articles, then be∣fore. A new Declaration therefore we would faine see, which is cleare, Declarative, and Determinative; and therein tell us, whether Christs Soule descended into Hell, the place of the damned, or into Purgatory▪ the Suburbs of hell, and whether Locally, and for what end and purpose (because the Scripture is altogether silent in this whole mystery) and whether you find hell to be in the Center of the Earth, or no, because your Article saith, He went down into hell, &c. But in the mean time, I have for my part ingenuously given you a reason of my Faith touching this Article, which I am so resol∣ved on by the Scripture, that whatsoever Declaration you or your Church of England shall set forth to the contrary, I must crave pardon if it be not of the same faith with you. And thus farre you allow any in the Church of England this liberty, for your words are, * 1.34 Is it not lawfull for any in the Church of England to say, I conceive thus or thus of it, &c? Although you adde

L. p. 51. It is one thing to hold an opinion privately, within him∣selfe, and another thing boldly and publickly to affirme it.

P. I doe, I confesse, boldly and publickly affirme this my faith concerning this Article, which my faith I doe assure my selfe is true, being grounded upon good and cleare evidence of the Scripture, on which my faith is built, and not upon any thing of humane Authority. And in making open confession of this my faith, I doe therin follow the Rule of Scripture, which saith ‡ 1.35 Bretheren, if any of you doe erre from the Truth, and one con∣vert him: Let him know, that he which converteth a Sinner from the

errour of his way, shall save a Soule from death, and shall hide •• multitude of Sinnes. Now what know I, that this Declaration of my Faith with Reasons from the Scripture, may by Gods grace be a meanes to convert, if not your Lordship from your errour, yet others, or may preserve them from falling into it, being dangerously entred into it by such an example, as your selfe And however, if it be lawfull for you boldly and pub∣lickly to affirme such things of beliefe, which are not found to be in Scripture: why may it not be as lawfull for me boldly and publickly to affirme the Contr••ry? But the Scope of your Speech (as I conceive) is, to maintaine your practise in punishing in High Commission, such as expound this Article by and according to the Scripture▪

L p. 53. For that all the Positive Articles of the present Church of England, are grounded upon Scripture, we are content to be judged by the joynt and constant beliefe of the Fathers, which lived within the first foure or five hundred yeares after CHRIST, when the Church was at the best, and by the Councels held within those times, and to submit to them in all those points of Doctrine.

P. But first (as is before noted, as you give accasion) why have you made your Articles to be Dípsucoi, of a double sense. So as in that respect, how can you call them Positive, being so perplexed in themselves? And againe, Whom doe you meane here, by, Wee? I suppose you and your church of England. You are contented to be Judged by Fathers and Councels with∣in the first 500. yeares, whether your Church-Articles be groun∣ded on Scripture or not. Are you contented so indeed? Then you must be contented to undergoe the Censure of departing both from the judgement of the Scriptures, as disavowing them for the onely rule of Faith and Doctrines to be tryed by: and also from the joynt and constant beliefe both of Fathers and Councels within the first 500. yeares. For their joynt, con∣stant, and unanimous beliefe was, that nothing besides the Scripture, is to be Judge in matters of Faith. And if you want leasure to read the Fathers, doe but peruse the learned Dis∣courses and Disputes of the Divines of the Church of Eng∣land before your being a Prelate, as Dr. Carleton of the Church, De Ecclesia, Dr. Whitakers forementioned, Dr. White his way to the true Church, Dr. Bilson, yea and all those that have written of these Controversies, and they will abundantly show this, that it was ever held as a Principle, and therefore

not to be denyed, nor needfull to be proved; and which Dr. Carleton in his said Book proves never to have been altered, till in and by the Councel of Trent, That the Scripture is the sole rule of Faith. But thus you and your Church of England are con∣tented to be one and the Same Church with Rome, in refusing the Scripture as the Sole Iudge of your Doctrines. But will you be judged by the joynt and constant beliefe of Fathers and Councels within the first 500. yeares, whether your Articles about Grace, Ele∣ction, Predestination, &c. bearing (as you Declare) a double and opposite sense, in their Pelagian and Arminian sense be according to the Scriptures, or no: If I name onely Augustine, who was Pelagionorum Malleus, that Hammer to knock down the Pelagians, both the Fathers and Councels within those first 500. yeares did joyntly and constantly professe that which he writ to be the Beliefe of the whole Church, it was so clearely and fully proved out of Scripture. In so much as you may read in the Histories of the Councels, as in Binius, how that some Councels and Bishops of Rome set downe Large Passages in Au∣gustins Tracts against the Pelagians, as the Jugement of the Catholick Church, and the particular Decrees and Acts of such and such councels. If then you will stand to the Judge∣ment of those ancient Fath••rs and Councels, then you must at their Barre hold up that hand, which was a chiefe instrument in drawing up the said Declaration, which hath so enigmatized and darkened the Articles, as they have no other Light left, but a kind of twilight, which inclines rather to the night, then to the day, rather to favour the Pelagian Heresie, then the Orthodox verity. But this being your language all along, that you put not onely your Articles and the Articles of the Creed, but the Mysteries also of the Scriptures to the Iudgement of the Primitive Church, Fathers, Generall Councels, we will Super∣sede from speaking more of it in this place.

Again, where you say, that the Church was then at the best: if you understand it, during the age and time of the Apostles, 'tis most true: but if of the Succeding ages within 500. yeares, we may doubt of it, or rather resolve the contrary: unlesse you meane it comparatively to the ages after that, wherein Anti∣christ and the Mystery of Iniquity began more brightly to shine forth and display themselves in the Roman Sea, both in corruption of doctrine, and of Gods worship, beyond all excesse. For you may know, that within the space of the first 500. yeares, the Church was so overgrown and pestered with the heresie of Arius,

as the world groaned under it, wondering it was become an Arian; as Hierome speakes. Totus ingemuit mundus, miratus se factum esse Arianum. And among many corruptions, and much unsound∣nesse in Doctrine, what multitudes of Superstitious devises, and heathenish Customes, not onely crept but crowded into the service of God? Which Heathenish Rites (as we find in B. Rhenanus his Annotations upon Turtullian) were by the Chri∣stians in a kind of carnall policie admitted, both because many ancient men being converted to Christianity (such as it was) could not easily part with their old Customes: as also that thereby they might draw other of the Gentiles to become Christians. Just such a policie, as our new Doctors, (I meane of your Church of England) have used, in a pretence at least, making us beleeve, that coming as neare as you can to the Papists in their Ceremonies, you shall thereby bring them to the Church. And surely this is the ready way either to bring Papists to your Church, or you to their Church. But (I say) the Church was so pestered with Rites and Ceremonies even in Augustins dayes, that he complained, that Christians were now in a worse case and condition, under the Gospel, then the Iewes were under the Law: for though their yoake was grievous, yet those Leviticall rites were of Gods owne ordaining, and commandement, but Christians (saith he) are brought under an intolerable yoake of Cere∣monies of mens devising and imposing.

But now on the other side, if I should enter into a Compa∣rison between the Reformed Churches since Luther, and those Primitive and ancient Churches as aforesaid, I know it would be very tedious to your Lordship and extremely move your Pa∣tience; especially if I should by many degrees preferre Calvin, Bez••, Zanchius, Iunius, and many hundred more Worthies both for learning and piety, and chiefly for Soundnesse in Doctrine, in the Reformed Churches, beyond the Seaes, yea and not a few, on this side, as Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, all Martyrs, Iewel, Whitakers, Reynolds, Perkins, with infinite more, and all within one Century, before such as those Centuries afore∣sayd produced, whose Names for Envy-sake I forbeare to mention.

Lastly, you say, you are content to submit to them in all those points of Doctrine. If you be, then for Shame cleare away those Cloudes, which the said Declaration hath over-cast your Articles withall, and cast away your Arminian Pelagian sense, and take off your Suspension of them, and let them speak

one single truth, as they formerly did, and as all understood them, according to the Scriptures.

L. p. 62. The Catholicke Church we beleeve in our Creed to be the Society of all Christians.

P. What you beleeve is one thing. But we beleeve the Ca∣tholicke Church of Christ in the Creed to be the number and Society of all the Elect, as the next Article expounds it, The Com∣munion of Saints: but not that Company of all Christians which you name and meane, Christians in name and professi∣on, tag and ragge, pell mell, good and bad, Papists and Pro∣testants, of which the greatest number are no true living members of the true Catholick Church, the mysticall body whereof Christ is the Head, and which by Faith onely we apprehend (for we beleeve the Holy Catholicke Church) but can∣not discerne with our bodily eyes, as we doe a visible Object. This is that * 1.36 Church which Christ loved, for which he gave himselfe, that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, to present it to himselfe a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinckle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. This we beleeve to be the Holy Catholicke Church, and no other. But thus indeed (as you tell us before) you make wider the Gates of the Catholicke Church, then ever Christ made them; or rather indeed you exclude the Ca∣tholicke Church of Gods Elect, and set up a new Catholicke Church, which may be seen, but ought not to be beleeved.

L. p. 66. Agreed on for me also it shalbe, that Gods word may be written, and unwritten.

P. Agreed on? with whom? Even with no lesse, then Bel∣larmine. For in the very next words you give us the reason, why it is agreed upon for you, that Gods word may be written and unwritten. For (Say you) Cardinall Bellarmine tells us truely, that it is not the writing or Printing, that makes Scripture the word of God, but it is the Prime unerring Essentiall Truth, God himselfe uttering and revealing it to his Church, that makes it Verbum Dei, the word of God. Doth Bellarmine say so? And that truely? And to what end, I pray you, doth the Cardinall say so? Is it not to overthrow the Scripture for being the Sole word of God, and to bring in another word of God, which he calls verbum non Scriptum, an unwritten word, that is, a word besides the Scriptures, and equall to the Scriptures, which is Romes unwritten Tradi∣tions. And to this end and purpose Bellarmine using these words, doth he tell you truely, and is this the reason, for which

it is agreed on for you, that Gods word may be written, and unwrit∣ten? Now though it be true, that that which is spoken by God, is his word though it be not written: yet to us there is now no other word of God, but that which is written, that which is contained in the Scriptures. And this word written is that a∣lone, which our Faith is grounded and settled upon. Accor∣ding to that of Iohn: * 1.37 Many other Signes truely did Iesus in the presence of his Disciples, which are not written in this Booke: But these things are written, that ye might beleeve, that Iesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that beleeving, ye might have life through his Name. So as we are not to inquire further, what Christ spake, or did, besides what we find written. But your Lordship tells us before, of certaine Traditions Apostolicall, which it seems are that word of God▪ which may be unwritten. For you say: ‡ 1.38 If the Scripture be a Foundation, to which we are to goe for witnesse, if there ••e doubt about the Faith; and in which we are to find the thing that is to be beleeved, as necessary in the Faith: we never did, nor never will refuse any Tradition that is Vniversall and Apostolicke, for the better exposition of the Scripture. And to this place you re∣ferre that which you say, pag. 58. As for Tradition, I have said enough for that, and as much as A. C. where 'tis truely Apo∣stolicall. From which words, first we observe, that you make but an If, of the Scripture as a Foundation, If the Scripture be a Foundation: and, If in it we are to find the thing that is to be beleeved; as If it were to be found in any thing else. And Se∣condly, how home you come to A C. the Jesuite, in admitting Tradition Apostolicke to expound any doubt about the Faith: and so with Bellarmine you are agreed for a word of God unwritten, as well as written. And you further adde here (pag. 66.) Speaking of the Scriptures: their being written gave them no Authority at all, in regard of themselves. Written or unwritten the Word was the same. But it was written, that it might be the better preserved, and continued with the more integrity to the use of the Church, and the more faithfully in our memories. So you. Now 'tis true, that by the writing of the Scriptur••s Gods word contained therein is pre∣served, continued in integrity, and the more faithfully kept in our m••mories. But is thi•• all? Nay the very writing of them, though it added no Authority to Gods word in regard of it selfe, yet as the Scriptures are to us, Gods word, is of the greater Authority, because written. For we acknowledge no other word of God as t••e Rule and Foundation of our Faith, but what we find written in the holy Scriptures. This is that word of God which is

authenticall, of Authority to his Church; and therefore Autho∣rity to us, because written. So as your unwritten word, wherei•• you agree with Bellarmine, and your Apostolicke Traditions, wher∣in you come home to your A. C. the Jesuite, we receive none of them all as authentick, or to have any thing to doe to ex∣pound the Scripture in any doubt about the Faith. But if you can shew us any Traditions Apostolick, we will by your leave exa∣mine them by the Scriptures, and not the Scriptures by them. You name baptizing of Infants for a Tradition Apostolicke. We doubt not but the Apostles baptized the Infants of beleeving Parents. For the Infants or Children of such are * 1.39 holy, as the Apostle sheweth; And so they belonged to the Covenant. And as the Children of the Jewes in the old Testament were circum∣cised, as pertaining to the Covenant and promise made to Abra∣ham and to his Seed: So Baptisme, succeding in place of Cir∣cumcision, as a Seale of the Same Covenant, belongs to all Chil∣dren of beleeving Christian Parents. As the Apostle saith, ‡ 1.40 Therefore it is of Faith, that it might come by Grace, and the Pro∣mise might be sure to all the Seed, not to that onely which is of the Law, but to that also which is of the Faith of Abrah••m, who is the Father of us all. So as beleeving Christians have the same interest in the Covenant with Abraham, and their Children or Infants have the like priviledge of Baptisme, as the Infants of the an∣cient Israelites had for Circumcision. Therefore the Baptizing of Infants was certainly practised by the Apostles, as well as the baptising of beleeving Parents. So as we doe not baptize In∣fants, because you tell us it is a Tradition Apostolicke, but because it is as clearely and firmely grounded in the Scripture, as the baptizing of beleeving Parents. We exclude therefore whatsoe∣ver Word unwritten, or Traditions Apostolicke (as you call them) as being either partiall or equall Rules of Faith with the Scrip∣tures, as Bellarmine calls them, or as Interpreters and Iudges of the Scripture in doubts about Faith, as you are bold to affirme. We have no word of God, but the Scripture: we acknowledge no Traditions Apostolicke, but what we find they delivered in Scrip∣ture. The Prophets in the old Testament sent Gods people to the Scripture, for information, instruction, resolution in all matters of Faith, and Cases of Conscience. ‡ 1.41 To the Law and to the Testi∣mony (Saith Isaiah) if they Speake not according to this word: it is because there is no light in them. He Saith not, To the Traditions of our Fathers, but, To the Law, and to the Testimony, Gods word writ∣ten. Els, there is no light in men; they are blind guides, that in

matters of Faith lead us any where, but to, and by the Scrip∣tures. And the Prophet Ieremiah: * 1.42 They have rejected the word of the Lord, and what wisedome is in them? All wisdome, without this word of God, is foolishnesse: all knowledge, without this, is ignorance and blindnesse. So our Saviour Christ: ‡ 1.43 Search the Scriptures, for in them ye thinke to find eternall life, and they are they, which testifie of me. So as Christ allowes us no other Te∣stimony of him, and of Faith in him, but the Scriptures. We must erunan, Search them, not the Archives, or Sacraries of blind Traditions though guilded over never so faire with the name of Apostolick, nor of any pretended word of God unwritten. And Christ answereth the Lawyer, when he asked ‡ 1.44 what he should doe, to inherit Eternall life: What is written in the Law? How readest thou? And the Apostle, § 1.45 That none presume above that which is written. And, † 1.46 Whatsoever things were written afore time, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. And Peter: * 1.47 We have a more sure word of Prophecy, (to wit the Scriptures of the old Te∣stament) whereunto ye doe well, that ye take heed. In all which places, and many more, the Scripture is still commended to us, as the onely absolute, sufficient, perfect and compleat Rule of our Faith in all matters, or doubts of Faith touching our Salva∣tion, So as it hath no other interpreter, but it selfe, not any Tradition, not any word unwritten. But of this you will give us occasion to speak more at after.

L. p. 72, 73. Faith is the gift of God, of God alone, and an Infu∣sed habit, in respect whereof the soule is meerely recipient. The Sole Infuser is the Holy Ghost. Till the Spirit of God move the heart of man, he cannot beleeve.

P. I confesse, when first I read these words, I began to muse with my selfe, and to argue thus: What, is my Lord of Canterbury turn'd Orthodox, no Arminian, in the Doctrine of Grace? But looking a little further, and observing both the Authors you alledge (as Stapleton, a great man with you, and other Popish Authors (as is usuall with you throughout your Book) and also considering of what Faith you here Speak, I changed my conceit, and found that you were no Changeling For wher∣as I thought that all this faire ••••ourish of Faith is the gift of God, of God alone, A habit infused, The Holy Ghost the Sole Infuser, The soule meerely recipient, Till Gods Spirit move mans heart, he cannot beleeve: had been meant of that Grace, of Saving and Iustifying Faith, which the Scripture teacheth, and particularly the Apo∣stle,

Ephes. 2.8. By Grace ye are saved through Faith, and not of your selves: it is the Gift of God, &c. I imagined (I say) that as you used the Apostles very words, and the Language of Scrip∣ture, so you had done it in the sense and mind of the Apostle, and of the Scripture, which Speaks so of the Saving and Iusti∣fying Faith. But when I found the contrary, I confesse I blushed at my folly, in having such a conceit of you, having had so much experience both of your usuall perverting of Scriptures, and your corrupt sense throughout your Book, and considering that light and darknesse cannot stand together, and how you h••ve altoge∣ther suppressed the Preaching of the Doctrines of Grace, and finding that all this Faith you Speake of, is nothing els, but that historicall Faith in beleeving the Scriptures to be the word of God, which beliefe is common to the very Reprobates, and De∣vils themselves, who * 1.48 beleeve and tremble Phristou••i, they qui∣ver and Shake, as when mens teeth Chatter in their head in extreme cold. And yet how doe you abuse the Scripture, and your Reader, in giving to this Faith those peculiar Attributes, which are proper and peculiar to the onely Saving Grace of Saving Faith, the Sole Infuser, Giver, and worker whereof is the Holy Ghost? Tell me, how come the Devils to that historicall faith, whereby they beleeve the Scripture to be the very word of God, and all things therein to be most certainly true, and so all those plagues written therein, and threatned against Re∣probates and Devils, shalbe most certainly inflicted, in beliefe whereof they tremble? What, have they this Faith given them of God, and is the Holy Ghost the Sole Infuser of it, or any In∣fuser of it at all? And yet I say, This historicall faith is that which you Speake of here. For you do in that 16th Section, consisting of about 30 leaves in folio, Speake of that Faith alone, which beleeves the Scripture to be the word of God, the onely subject of that long and tedious Discourse, wherein you have spent so much sweat to so small purpose. And the words immediately preceding doe shew this. And your words im∣mediately following are to confirme it, which you alledge out of Stapleton, Saying, The Holy Ghost did not leave the Church in Generall, nor the true members of it in particular without Grace to be∣leeve, what himself had revealed, and made credible. Wherupon you inferre a little after: Till the Spirit of God move the heart of man, he cannot beleeve, be the object never so credible. Thus we see your mind at full, what Faith, what Gift of God, what Grace, this is, which you Say none but the Holy Ghost giveth to his Church▪

namely, not that faith, not that gift of God, not that Grace, not that worke of the Holy Ghost, whereby a man comes to beleeve in Christ, and to be indued with the Grace of Regeneration, and Sanctification, the proper worke and gift of the Holy Ghost, where∣of the Apostle speaketh in the fore-cited place: but such a faith, such a grace, as the * 1.49 Councel of Trent professeth and alow∣eth, and so, that which Stapleton, and all other Pontificials write of, which is common to all wicked men and Repro∣bates, as we have elswhere fully proved.

L. p. 75. The world cannot keep a man from going to weigh the Scripture at the Ballance of Reason, whether it be the word of God, or not. ‡ 1.50 For the word of God, and the Book containing it, refuse not to be weighed by Reason. And, (pag. 76.) For Reason by her own light can discover, how firmely the Principles of Religion are true: but all the light Shee hath, will never be able to find them false.

P. 'Tis ••rue, that mans naturall Reason, being not bridled by grace, is so head-strong, that the world it selfe cannot restrain it within its owne bounds, but will be medling. But yet, though Reason be not excluded from giving her voyce and assent to the Scripture, yet She must know her place, She must come in the Reere of all, and as a hand-maid, not as a Mistresse. Nor is it Reasons office to bring her ballance to weigh the Scriptures, whether it be the word of God, or not; for herein She hath no negative voyce, but onely of assent: So as in this re∣spect; as a Judge, Gods word refuseth to be weighed by Reason: much lesse can it be true, that Reason by her own light can discover, how firmly the Principles of Religion are true. For mans Reason be∣ing but Naturall, and Gods word Supernaturall, there is no propor∣tion between them, and Reason can no more judge of Scripture in this respect, then a blind man can judge of colours. So as Rea∣son must not come in with her ballance and weights, till a man be illuminated by the Scriptures themselves, and by the Spirit of God; and then being convinced of the truth thereof, She gives her full assent, that the Scripture is the word of God. The Apostle saith, ‡ 1.51 The naturall man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned. How say you then, That Reason by her own Light can discover how firmly the Principles of Religion are true? Point blanke against the Apostle. § 1.52 The Lord openeth the heart of Lydia, to attend to the things spoken of Paul. Now if the naturall man by the light of his naturall reason, receiveth not, nor is thereby capable of the things of the

Spirit of God contained in the Scripture, but that they are foolish∣nesse unto him, untill God open the heart, and * 1.53 reveale those things by his Spirit (as the Apostle saith) then Reason cannot judge of Scripture by her owne light. For what is Reasons light in a natu∣rall man? Surely darknesse it selfe, unto Spirit••all things. Ye were once darknesse, saith the Apostle. Darknesse in the very abstract. Mans naturall understanding and Reason darknesse. And therefore as Christ saith, ‡ 1.54 If the light that is in thee be darknesse, how great is that darknesse? And Rom. 8.5. They that are after the flesh, tà tes sarkòs phronousin, doe savour the things of the flesh: but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. Spirituall things are as unsavory to a naturall mans Reason, as wholesome meat is to an aguish palate. They are unto him * 1.55 moría, foolish∣nesse, saith the Apostle. And Rom. 8.6. § 1.56 The wisdome of the flesh is death, “ 1.57 and ekthrà, emnity against God; and it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be. Ye saith Ieremy, † 1.58 Every man is brutish in his own knowledge. Can you then hale the Scripture to the barre of mans naturall Reason, which is brutish, to be judged by it, whether it be Gods word, or no? And David saith, * 1.59 Surely men of low degree, are vanity. Yea, say you, Men of low degree: but not so, men of high degree, of learning and parts. But take all with you: Surely men of low degr••e are vanity, and men of high degree are a lye: to be layd in the ballance, they are altogether lighter then vanity. What, men of low degree, vanity? and men of high de∣gre a lye? Yea Surely, yea altogether lighter then vanity it selfe, being ••ayd in the ballance. But in what ballance? In the uneven ballance, with the false Scales of your naturall Reason? No: but in the § 1.60 Ballance, and with the weights of the Sanctuary your Reason must be weighed. And this ballance of the Sanctuary is the Scripture. If then your Reason must be weighed at the ballance of the Scripture, and there be found too light, yea lighter then va∣nity, yea altogether lighter then vanity, yea, Surely altogether lighter then vanity, yea a very lye: then what weights can your Reason bring, being altogether lighter then vanity it selfe, whereby to weigh the Scriptures? Or how shall Reason, which is a lye, with her unequall Ballance, and false weights weigh verity it selfe?

But if all this will not put you out of conceit of your naturall Reason, as an incomptent Judge of Scripture to be the word of God (which must needs argue the truth of Scripture, that mans Reason is blindnes, darknes, emnity against the truth, brutish, va∣nity, a ly, altogether lighter then vanity it self) give me leave a little

to put you to it. You perswade your selfe that you can by the strength and light of your naturall Reason judge,* 1.61 or weigh the Scripture, whether it be Gods word, and discover how firmely the Principles of Religion are true (for had you been perswaded here∣of by Gods Spirit, you would never have attributed so much to mans Reason; but herein you have consulted altogether with flesh and blood, having no acquaintance certainly with the Spirit of truth, that leads his into all truth.) Now then by the Same Reason, you may discover whether Christ be of God or no; for he is the Summe, Substance, and Scope of the whole Scripture, and so is called * 1.62 The word of God. And Christ Saith, Search the Scriptures, for these testifie of me. Doe you beleeve then that the Scripture is Gods word, and therefore true? Doe you beleeve all things in it to be true? And to be a word of wisdome, surpassing all the wisdome in the world? Doe you beleeve this? And that to obey and follow this word of God, is mans chiefe wisdome, and happinesse? Doth your Reason apprehend this? What say you then to that word of Christ, ‡ 1.63 If any man will come after me, let him deny himselfe, and take up his daily Crosse and follow me? Doth your Reason comprehend this? Is it not durus sermo, a hard Saying, as that to the rich man, Vade, vende omnia, † 1.64 Goe, Sell a••l, and give them to the poore, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come and follow me? But all Gods Saints doe thus. M••ses accounted the R••buk••s of Christ greater riches then the Treasures of Aegypt, and chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, th••n to enjoy the pleasures of Sin for a Season. § 1.65 Paul accounted all his Prerogatives losse, and dung to win Christ. The Apostles forsooke all to follow Christ. You will Say, A few poore 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nets. Nay, Saith Aug. they forsook not onely what they had, but whatsoever they might have in the world. Abraham, when God called him, forsook his native Countrey▪ and all his friends. Do you beleeve these men did wisely in doing this? Doth your Reason apprehend so? Do you thereupon Conclude, that this Scripture is Gods word, because it teacheth such things, as the doing whereof brings a man to true happinesse? Can you then be content to follow Christ upon his Conditions, to forsake all, and take up your Crosse dayly, and follow him? Can your Reason down with his, or your Stomack digest this? Or will you Say, To forsake all, is but matter of Councel, not of Precept? Yes certainly of Precept, in those things especially, the retai∣ning whereof detaines us from Christ, and are a barre to come to him, and so to heaven. Si in Limine Pater jaceat, per calcatum

perge patrem: Saith Ierome:* 1.66 If they old Father lye crosse the threshold to hinder thee from Christ, tread on thy Father to come to Christ. If any thing stand in our affections in compe∣tition with Christ, we must forsake it. * 1.67 He that loveth Father, or Mother, or lands, or honours, more then me (Saith Christ) is not worthy of me. For ‡ 1.68 the amity of the world, is emnity against Christ. Now if things in themselves good and lawfull, being loved above Christ, keep us from Christ, and therefore must be for∣saken: then how much more, such things, as are in themselves evill, unlawfull, unwarrantable, for a man to keep, as being against Gods word, and against Christ, and against a mans salva∣tion? How then can your most refined Reason perswade his Grace of Canterbury to deny himselfe, to abandon all that Grace, to forsake his Hierarchy, as being emnity against Christ, and a Tyranny over his Church, and therewith to account all his Dignities as dung, to cease persecuting of Gods word, Ministers, People, to abandon his counterfet and hypocriticall Devotion in in will-worship, which is a vaine worship of God, and in stead of all these, to take up his Crosse dayly, and to follow Christ in obedi∣ence, in patience, in humility, in meeknesse, in holinesse? Doth your Reason apprehend this to be good, to be the wisest and onely way to come to heaven and happinesse? For this Gods word com∣mandeth. Then either follow this word, as Gods word, or els never looke to perswade the world that your own Reason can with her own light discover how firmly the Principles of Religion are true. No, no, my Lord, away with these vain Speculations, and presumptuous Speeches, which have not one crumb of Salt in them. ‡ 1.69 Will you professe you know God, and in works deny him? Do you beleeve the Scripture to be Gods word, and yet by ac∣counting the preaching of the Crosse foolishnesse, make God a lyer.

But I will conclude with your last Clause: Reason (say you) for all the light she hath, will never be able to find the Principles of Religion false. Nay certainly, although you deny Reason any abi∣lity by her owne light to discover how firmly the Principles of Reli∣gion are true: yet we will not deny unto her blind impotencie a Speciall faculty in finding them to be false: not false in them∣selves, but yet false, in her own apprehension. For is not this one of the main Principles of Religion, to wit, to know Iesus Christ, and him Crucified? This was the Apostles Chiefe Learning, § 1.70 I determined (saith he) to know nothing among you, save Iesus Christ, and him Crucified. But (saith he) † 1.71 The preaching of the

Crosse is to them that perish foolishnesse: but unto us which are Saved, it is the power of God. And who are they that perish? Such as are wise in their owne conceit, and prudent in their own understan∣ding and Reason; as the Apostle saith in the next words: for it is written, I will destroy the wisedome of the wise, and will bring to nought the understanding of the prudent; Such as exalt their own understanding and Reason to such a height, as they presume ther∣with, as with a Ballance, to weigh, whether the Scripture be Gods word, or no; and with the light thereof to discover how firmly the Principles of Religion are true. And when they have said and done all, their actions and practises doe plainly shew, that they reject and despise the Scripture, as being none of Gods word▪ yea they Persecute, oppresse, and seeke all the wayes they can to destroy it, and utterly to quench the light of it. As will yet more clearely appeare by those things that follow.

L. p. 77. Though this Truth, that the Scripture is the word of God, is not so demonstratively evident, à priori, as to enforce assent: yet it is strengthened so abundantly with probable Arguments, both from the light of nature it selfe, and humane Testimony, that he must be very wilfull, and selfe conceited, that shall dare to suspect it. [And more plainly] pag 80.* 1.72 The light which is in Scripture it selfe, is not bright enough, it cannot beare sufficient witnesse to it selfe. The Testimony of the Holy Ghost, that is most infallible, but ordinarily it is not so much as considerable in this Question; which is not, how, or by what meanes we beleeve, but how the Scripture may be proposed as a Credible object, fit for beliefe.

P. We are still in your 16th Sextion, mentioned before, which continueth from p. 59. to 116. wherein are sundry pas∣sages ••o this purpose, whereof the last was one, and the rest we shall touch, as we meet with them. And here I cannot, (though I said I would no more wonder) but admire, that such Speeches should flow down so fast from the Sea of Can∣terbury, which is a mighty Catarrhact or distillation of the eye, drowning the sight, and flowing from such an abundant hu∣mour in the head, as it is like to turne into a Dropsie, possessing and putrifying the whole body, which if not prevented by some remedy from h••aven, must needs prove Epedemically mortall. You are the first Antagonist of Iesuites, that ever utte∣red such things, and you might well have given them leave to utter such base Speeches of the holy Scriptures, as more proper for a Jesuite, then one pretending the Faith of a Protestant.

But the difference is not great, nor matters is much, which of you be the mouth, having all one Spirit, and being all one and the Same Church. So as being the Metropolitan of that Church, which with Rome is one and the Same: you have the greater priviledge to speake in the language of that pregnant Mother▪ who is so * 1.73 full of the names of Blasphemy against the word of God.

Now is not the Scripture so demonstratively evident in it selfe, as to enforce assent? What then shall doe it? Probable Arguments from the light of Nature. But Nature is blind, as we shewed be∣fore of naturall Reason. And againe, how can that which is but probable, confirme that which is truth? For the Scripture is Truth it selfe. As Christ saith, Thy word is Truth. Now there being strictly, no proportion between Probability and Truth: how can the Light of Nature, which you say is but probable, confirme that which is truth. And we shewed also how the Naturall man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, which things are con∣tained in the Scripture. But you adde, Arguments from humane Testimony, confirme the Scriptures to be Gods word. That which is but humane, cannot strengthen that which is Divine. I receive not the Testimony of man, saith Christ.* 1.74 So the Scripture is so farre above humane testimony, that it can receive no strength from it, no more then God can receive strength from the creature, Gods word from mans word. And the Scripture, being Gods written word, is above Mans bare word. As Christ tells the Jewes, who took Christ for a meere Man: If ye beleeve not Moses his writings, how shall you beleeve my words? Thereby implying, That Wri∣tings, the Scripture, are above mans words. Againe, humane testimony in Comparison to Gods word, is but a lye. For * 1.75 every man is a lyer. Moreover, in saying, The Scripture is not evident enough to demonstrate it selfe to be the word of God, and to enforce assent: but being strenthened by Probable Arguments from the light of Nature, and of humane Testimony, 'tis then wilfullnesse and pride to suspect it: Here you set the light of Nature above the word of Grace, probability above Truth, humane Testimony above Divine, Man above GOD. For Christ tells us, that the Scriptures beare witnesse of him: And you Say, the Scriptures are not sufficient witnesses of themselves, and so consequently of Christ, without mans testimony, So as hereby you disable the Scripture, as being an incompetent witnesse of Christ, because not evident enough in themselves without humane Testimony, So as how you can cleare your selfe from blasphemy, I see not. But this is but

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

one degree. For you adde, The light which is in Scripture is not light enough, it cannot beare sufficient witnesse to it selfe. Now you open your mouth a little wider to blaspemy. But we shall have yet more of ths Suffe out of your Wardrobe. Of which I may say this by the way, That you bewray how grosly and palpably blind you are in discerning the Scriptures glorious brightnesse, being like that Woman in Lipsius, who being blind her selfe, blamed the house she was in for being very darke: So you, because you are blind your selfe, the * 1.76 god of this world having blinded your eyes: therefore you blame the holy Scriptures of GOD for being darke, not bright enough to to beare witnesse to it selfe. Why, Surely all light is Sui index, & sui Communicativum, it is a witnesse to it selfe, that it shineth, So as all in the house doe see it; yea though it be but the ‡ 1.77 light of a Candle, as Christ saith. If therefore the Scriptures have not so much light in them, as all may see it to shine forth, then they have no light at all. For if there be any light at all, it will shew it selfe. But this you will not stick to tell us anon, that the Scripture hath no light in it selfe, and therefore no mervaile if here you say, the Light that is in it is not bright enough. And you tell us here also, That the Testimony of the Holy Ghost ordinarily is not so much as considerable in this Question. Why? What is the Question? Is it not how, or by what meanes we beleeve the Scriptures to be the word of GOD? Is not this the Subject Question of this whole 16th Section, and which you handle throughout? And this being so, have you forgotten what you told us before of this beliefe, that the Scripture is the word of GOD? Namely that faith is the gift of God, of God alone; and an infused habit, in respect whereof the Soule is meerely recipient, and that the sole infuser is the Holy Ghost? and Till the Spirit of God move the heart of man, he cannot beleeve? And now doe you come and tell us, The Holy Ghost ordinarily is not so much as conside∣rable in the Question? Yea, but here you tell us, this is not the Question. What then? Namely, how the Scripture may be pro∣posed as a Credible Object, fit for beliefe. And for this you set us downe a rule of Proposall, which must of necessity take its rise from the Tradition, or Authority of the Present Church. Whereof we shall heare more anon. But by your leave, this is not the Question, but the other. For this your manner of Pro∣posall, you put it not as a Question, but as an a'ítema, a Que∣stion begged, not to be argued, and disputed upon, as the nature of a Question is to be, but you doe dogmatízein, obtrude and force upon us a novell opinion of your owne devising,

without proofe of Reason, Argument, or Authority from the Scripture. And therefore we deny your Question, or Position as Heterodox, or a Paradox, contrary to the truth of God word, which is the onely rule of determining all Questions in Divi∣nity about faith, whereof this is not the least, How, or by what meanes a man comes to beleeve the Scripture to be the word of God? Now for the determining herof you would tye us to the one only manner of Proposing the Scripture, as a Credible object fit for be∣liefe: and that is, necessarily to begin at the Tradition or Authority of the present Church, or els there is no dealing with you. But what if we shall propose a better manner and way of propoun∣ding the Scripture as a Credible object fit for beliefe? And this we shall doe, God assisting, overthrowing your false way, and vindicating the onely right and true, safe and sure way, that will certainly lead us to this beliefe, That the Scripture is the word of God.

And for a ground hereof, I lay down the Contradictory of your words for my true Position, which is this, That the light which is in Scripture it selfe, is bright enough, it can and doth of it selfe beware sufficient witnesse to it selfe. For proofe hereof: The Scripture is the witnesse of Christ, as is said before: and a witnesse must be a sufficient and competent witnesse, without all exception; els 'tis rejected. Now the Scripture is without all exception, it is a holy, true, and faithfull witnesse, free from all vice, or defect. It is pure and perfect, so as it needs nothing to be added to it. So Salomon, * 1.78 Every word of God is pure: Adde thou not unto his word, least he reprove thee, and thou be found a lyer. Adde thou not; Ergo it is a most perfect and competent witnesse. Againe, as the Scripture is every way a Competent and suffi∣cient, a perfect and Compleat witnesse, without all exception: So it brings full and cleare Evidence with it for that whereof it is a witnesse. For this, Salomon saith, ‡ 1.79 All the words of my mouth (saith Wisdome) are in righteousnesse, there is nothing fro∣ward or perverse in them: they are all plaine to him that understan∣deth, and right to them that find knowledge. The Scripture is plaine, cleare, and evident. So Peter saith, ‡ 1.80 Ye have a beba••o∣terón tòn prophetikon logon, a most sure word of Prophecie, whereunto you doe well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a darke place. The Scripture then is a most sure witnesse, and it is a light that shineth. The light is not in it, as the fire in the flint: but it a light shining forth, as the light of the Sun. § 1.81 Thy word (saith David) is a Lamp unto my feet, and a Light unto my path.

And, * 1.82 The entrance of thy words giveth light, it giveth understan∣ding unto the Simple. The very first entrance or gate (as the word signifieth) of Gods word, doth illuminate, and give light, it giveth understanding to the Simple, the rude and ignorant; it ‡ 1.83 enlightneth the eyes. Now all this could not be, without a light that shi∣neth, and that clearely too, such as upon the first entrance of it giveth light and understanding to the simple.

But how comes this light of the Scripture to shine forth? I Answere, First of its own proper nature. Let but an unre∣generate Man read the Scriptures,* 1.84 and he shall feele such a Con∣vincing light in them, as he will perceive there is a Divine power in them. But this light of Scripture, by Gods owne ap∣pointment, shines forth more bright, and is more effectuall, when it is preached. Of this the Apostle saith, ‡ 1.85 If all prophecy, (that is, preach the word of God, as in that place) and there come in one that beleeveth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest, and so falling down on his face, he will worship God, and report, that God is in you of a truth. Now whence is all this Conviction, and Confession, but from the power of Gods word preached. So Heb. 4.12. The word of God is quicke and powerfull, and sharper then any two edged Sword,* 1.86 piercing even to the dividing asunder of Soule and Spirit, and of the joynts and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. This, this is that, that dazleth mans clearest reason, convinceth and confoundeth his Conscience, and as a mighty Engine § 1.87 batters down, and layes levell Strong holds, and all high things that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God, bringing into Captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ: as the Apostle speakes. And is Gods word (the Scripture preached in the power and purity of it) a dis∣cerner of the thoughts and intents of mans heart? Then let that man tell me, whether, without any more testimony, this be not the very word of God? And that there is in it▪ Theiónti a di∣vine Spirit, and power, that thus can search into the inmost bowels, and secrets of mans heart? So as, as the Samaritan woman said to her neighbour, Come, and see the man, that hath told me all that ever I did; is not he the Christ? So a naturall man thus convinced and confounded by the power of Gods word, and Secrets of his heart discovered, may he not now truely report, and say Come, and heare that word, which hath discovered unto me all the Secrets of my heart: must not that needs be Gods owne, word▪ So as this Discovery, is it not by that native, operative,

effectuall, and resplendent penetrating lihgt, shining in the Scripture, the beames whereof are displayed in the Ministry of this word of God? what is it then, that enforceth and even extorteth this assent and confession from a naturall man, but the cleare evidence of Gods word preached, that the Scripture is the word of God, which is so preached?

And to bring this a little neerer home, and set it closse against your owne Gate: What Say you my Lord (for I must deale plainly with you, seeing you are so bold with the Scrip∣ture) will you be tryed by this word of God, whether it have not sufficient Light in it selfe, and of it selfe, even to convince your owne heart and Conscience, that the Scripture is the word of God? I say, in, and of it selfe, without all those cir∣cumstances which you put as necessary previous induce∣ments to this beliefe, whereof your Church Authority is ever the Prime. Will you be content but to make tryall of your selfe in this Case? How is that? Why, doe but once come into some obscure, poore Parish Church,* 1.88 where there is a good Zealous, and Orthodox Preacher; and come dis∣guised (as * 1.89 Ahab at the Battell of Ramoth Gilead) in a private manner, not in your Pontificalibus, with your long Satten∣traine carried after you, et magna comitante Caterva, a troope of gallants at your heeles; So as none takes notice of you, much lesse the Preacher: and come your selfe in person, not sending your tà o'ta, your Long Eares, I meane your Scouts and Spies, Informers, Promoters, Priests, or Pursuivants, Delators, and Sycophants; for these will seldome tell you the truth of things: But I say, come your selfe in a private disguise, and so stand muffled up in the Croud, and hearken diligently to the Preacher, first how he doth o'rthotomein tòn lógon, divide his text aright, as it were anatomising and ripping up the bowels of it and then how fitly he grounds his docttrines, or points of Instruction upon his text, and so prosecutes them with proofes of Scripture, and Reasons; and lastly applyes this word in sundry uses to the hearts and Consciences of the hearers, reproving this or that sinne, and pressing it home; And all this while, knowing nothing, that any such Creature, as the Archbishhop of Canterbury is in his Congregation, in the ardor of his holy Zeale, hee lets flye his Darts of sharpe Reproofe, Steeled with Divine Authority of GODS Word, the Scripture, as against Pride, Hy∣pocrisie, hatred of GODS Word, Persecution of

Gods Ministers and People under a colour of piety, and pea••e-making in the Church, and the like, and so drives the nayle to the head, as that the dart▪ pierceth through all your armour of proofe (as the * 1.90 Arrow, shot at adventure, hit Ahab be∣tween the joynts of his Armour) to the the very quick of your Conscience, not onely to the awakening of it, but driving it to a trembling fit, (as Pauls preaching did to ‡ 1.91 Felix) and to be in a cold Sweat, and to wax wanne and pale, (as Belshazzar at the sight of the hand-writing, which is a part of Scripture) what would you imagine of this? Perhaps, that the Minister knew of your being there. But the contrary appeares to your selfe, you did it so secretly, as you knew none could discover it; as you want neither wit nor art to doe such a feate, if you will. Well, you can draw no other Conclusion from that your Con∣viction upon this occasion, but that sure those were the Darts of the Scripture, that wounded you, yea and sounded you, and found you out in the Croud, pulling off the veile of hypocrisie from off the the face of your Conscience, and therewithall so terrifying it, as you are perswaded all the men in the world could not have struck such terrours into your Soule: and ther∣upon you are forced to Conclude, and Confesse, that surely the Scripture must needs be the word of God, having such a mighty power in it, being applyed but by a weake man. As the Apostle saith, ‡ 1.92 We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power might be of God, and not of us. For you could discerne nothing of the Minister himselfe, but that he was a simple plain man, and did but speake, as his text led him, and for which he brought good proofe from the Scripture. Thus if your Lordship should make but such an experiment as this, would you not doe with this your Book (wherein you have, besides many other strange passages all along, as will appeare yet more at large, pronounced so many disgracefull Sentences against the Sufficiencie of the Divine Scripture, to prove it selfe to be the word of God) as those Converts in the Acts did with their Books of Curious Arts, or as you did (though against your will) with that Popish Book of the Bishop of Geneva in Smithfield. But I proceed.

As the Scripture, not onely in and of it selfe, but by the Ministry of it discovereth such a cleare selfe-light, as whereby even naturall men are convinced, and enforced to beleeve and confesse, that Surely the Scripture is the very word of God: so this word, this Scripture is not (as the Papists say, and you say

little better) a dead letter: but as it is the word of God, uttered by his Spirit, by which * 1.93 holy men spake and wrote it: so it car∣ries meat in the mouth (as we say) it never goes alone, but is accompanied with the Spirit of God, which Spake it, giving testimony unto it, that it is the undoubted word of God. For even as the veines in a naturall body doe carry and convey in them the life-blood, and as the Arteries doe containe in them those animal Spirits conveyed from the head to all the members, whereby they are vegetated, and moved: So the Scriptures and every part of them have in them the Spirit, whereby they are quickned, and which is in them, as the light in the body of the Sun, their proper light, wherein they shine forth in such a brightnesse, as is sufficient to convince all men, that they are the word of God, and effectuall in perswading and assuring all the Elect of God of the truth thereof, even to their Salvation. And as the Soule with its faculties, as understanding and Reason, in mans body, doe shew him to be a reasonable creature, Man: So the Spirit of God, breathing and moving in the Scriptures, doe shew them to be the very word of God. For in the Scripture doe shine forth Gods Majesty, Wisdome, Holinesse, Power, Providence, Iustice, Mercy, Truth, Goodnesse, Omniscience, and all his excellent Attributes, so as they all beare testimony unto it, that it is the word of God. So as to seperate these from the Scripture, as they doe, who affirme, that the Scripture is not bright enough to be a sufficient witnesse to it selfe, to the begetting of Beliefe, that it is the word of God:* 1.94 is as if they should abstract and seperate the light from the Sun, and say, it is not sufficient to prove it selfe to be the Sun. For indeed take away the light from the Sun, and then you may say truely, it is not bright enough to shew it selfe to be the Sun. Nay it ceaseth to be the Sun any more, when the light and heat of it is taken away. For the Sun is pherónumos, according to its names in the Hebrew, Shemesh, so called, because by its light it is a Minister or Servant to the world: or some derive it, quasi Sham-esh, ibi ignis, There is fire: or according to ano∣ther name, from its property of calefaction, or heating. But take away its light, and it looseth both its nature, and its name, and serves for no use. So if you take from the Scripture those things in it, which are its life and soule, its native light and ••uster, which can no more be seperated from it, then the light from the Sun (nay the Sun * 1.95 shall come to loose his light, as it once did at the Ecclipsing of the ‡ 1.96 Sun of Righteousnesse in § 1.97 his Passion on the Crosse, but Gods word † 1.98 endureth for ever

in heaven) you quite destroy the nature of the Scripture, and so make it to be no longer the word of God.

I might here inlarge my Discourse upon this excellent Subject, but I shall have further occasion ministred by you to speake something more of it, as I passe along. For you proceed.

L. p. 83. A man is probably led by the Authority of the present Church, as by the First informing, inducing, perswading meanes, to beleeve the Scripture to be the word of God: but when he hath stu∣died, considered, and compared this word with it selfe, and with other writings, with the helpe of ordinary Grace, and a mind morally indu∣ced, and reasonably perswaded by the voyce of the Church: the Scrip∣ture then gives greater and higher Reasons of Credibily to it selfe, then Tradition alone could give.

P. Here you begin to tell us your manner of proposing the Scripture as a credible object, fit for beliefe. And you place the Au∣thority of the Present Church in the forefront, as a prime leader and inducer to this beliefe. And this you inculcate very often, and Say, pag. 120, I confesse every where, that Tradition introduces the knowledge of them. And pag. 126. you tell the Jesuite, A. C. saying, Herein we goe the same way with you, because we allow the Tradition of the present Church to be the First inducing Motive, &c. So as herein you jumpe with the Jesuite. So then, Authority of the present Church is the Prime. Or as sometimes you call it Tra∣dition, or otherwhiles, The voyce of the Present Church. All comes to one reckoning. Then, to this Leader you muster up a troop of followers; as here, Ordinary Grace, a mind morally induced, and reasonably perswaded; and before: a mans owne Reason, and humane Testimony, morall perswasion, Reason, and Force of the pre∣sent Church, the Holy Ghost, Conferring of the Scripture with it selfe, and other writings. And what then? Then, and not before, the Scripture gives greater and higher Reasons of Credibility to it selfe, then Tradition alone could give. What? No more effect for all this, but a Credibility? I expected you should with such a Troope, under the command of such a Generall, as the Authority, Tradi••ion, and voyce of the present Church have effected that Rockie For•• of mans heart to have yealded to open the Gates of his Infidelity to let in this Beliefe, that Scripture is the word of God. And can you obtaine no more then a Credibility? Alas poore Scripture! Can all Mans witty inventions advance thy credit (which they have taken away) no higher, then to a Credibility? But thus we may see the vanity of Mans wit, when it hath cast away

the truth. This is right, as the Preacher Saith, * 1.99 L••e, this onely have I found, That God made man upright: but they have sought out many inventions. So when men reject the word of the Lord, what wisdome is in them? Then they fall to their inventions, like ‡ 1.100 Mi∣chals stuffing her Image with Goates haire, and laying it in the bed, instead of David. Or a right Embleme hereof we have in our First Parents: when they had disrobed themselves of that plain, simple seamelesse, but glorious robe of their In∣nocencie, having thus lost their uprightnesse, wherein God made them: presently they fall to their inventions; they will supply the want of that robe with a many faire fresh Fig-leaves sowed together without either needle or thread, vainly imagining, that this would cover their shame, when indeed it was a plain signe, they had lost their Glory, and yet could not hide their nakednesse. So when a man hath lost the Truth, he shall loose his wits in his manifold Inventions, before he shalbe able thereby to make up his losse. Thus did the Church of Rome of old, no sooner had they thrust out Gods word, and the preaching of it out of their Temples, but up goe their Images for Lay-mens Books, and in comes crowding a multitude of Ceremonies, the Inven∣tions of man, as if these would make amends, with advantage, instead of the holy Scriptures. Just your practise in the Church of England at this day. And just your like practise here. When you have cast a black veile over the Scriptures native beauty and light, disabling them as sufficient witnesses, to prove themselves the word of God:* 1.101 you invent here a number of things to stop our mouthes, to make us beleeve, that by these you will bring Mans naturall blindnesse to see, and his infidelity to beleeve just nothing at all, that the Scriptures are the word of God. So as you deale with us here, as some Parents doe with their Children, take the piece of gold from them, and please them with a handfull of deafe nuts. Onely, they doe it providently, to pre∣serve the Gold from being lost: but you Popishly, to destroy the Gold, and to set up the painted dresse of your New-nothing. Or you put out the Eyes of the Scripture, and then light your Candle before it: as after you tell us.

But let's a little examine your words. First I note here, what a blind guide you commend to blind men, to lead them to the beliefe of the Scriptures to be the word of God. For what is it? Certainty? No, Probabilty. A man is probably led. But of Probability we have spoken before. And take this with you for a certaine truth: Probability may beget an opinion: but never, a

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

belief. But by whom probably led? By the Authority of the present Church. What present Church? Of the Prelates, or Hierarchy ever. But who gave you Authority, to be a Church? Or Suppose you were the true Church of Christ: who gave you this Autho∣rity to take away from the Scriptures their sufficiencie of guiding men to the faith of them, and to tie men to depend upon the Authority of the present Church, thereby to be induced to beleeve the Scriptures? And what's your present Church? Is it not the Same with that of Rome? And is not this Authority which you arrogate, Romish? And what if your present Church with Rome, shall induce us to beleeve the Apocryphall Bookes to be part of Scripture? Or some word unwritten, which you call Apostolick Traditions, to be equall with the word written, as you agree with Bellarmine in this Distinction of the word written, and unwritten; as before is touched? And what if (as you have given us too much proofe) you should limit us in beleeving the Scripture, what part to beleeve for Canonicall, and what otherwise? For as * 1.102 Hierome saith, The Scripture consists more in the marrow of Sen∣tences, then in the barke of words, more in the Sense then in the Syllables. What say you then to the 4th Commandement, which your present Church denyes to be Morall for a Seventh day Sab∣bath, and thereby overthrow the Sanctification of the Lords day? What say you of the Doctrines of Grace, which you have over∣throwne by your Declaration before your Articles? What of Altars, and the like? If herein you overthrow the Sense of Scripture, doe you not proclaime to the world, that such and such Scriptures are not Canonicall? Or if the words be still holden for Canonicall, yet it must be according to the Sense of your present Church. As Paulus 4. the Pope, in the End of the Councel of Trent, tyes all Priests by oath to interpret the Scriptures no other∣wise, but according to the Sense of the Catholick Church; the Summe whereof is the Decrees and Canons of Trent. Is not thus the whole Scripture made voyd?

But, come on, let men be primely induced by the Authority of the present Church,* 1.103 to wit, of the Prelates or Hierarchy (for no other Church you allow, nor we you to be any other, but of Antichrist) by what Argument (trow you) is it likelyest they will be perswaded, that the Scriptures are the word of God? Will you give me leave to tell you my Opinion? It is this in briefe: When men upon your Authority and Commendation should be brought to read the Scriptures, and therein should find many Prophecies, and among the rest, how there should come

* 1.104 False Proph••ts, being Wolves in Sheeps Clothing: ‡ 1.105 pretending holinesse, but Persecuting Gods Saints; pretending Religion, but oppessing Gods word, pretending to be ‡ 1.106 Christ vic••royes, but § 1.107 tyrannizing over his people; and such as should Apostatise from the Faith, and set up Doctrines of Devils, as in abstinence from certaine Meates, and Marriage at certaine times, and how Christ and his Apostles were humble, and despised the world, being crucified unto it, and how they which were proud, pompous Lords, claiming to be their Successors follow none of their steps, nei∣ther in diligent preaching, nor practise of a holy life, are such Antichrists as the Scripture hath foretold: and how † 1.108 in the last dayes perillous times should come: when men should be Selfe-lovers, covetous, boastors, proud, blasphemers, unholy, without naturall affection, implacable, covenant-breakers, false, accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of them that are good, Traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures, more then lovers of God, Having a forme of God∣linesse, but denying the power thereof; with many other like things; which when they come to compare with the State of the pre∣sent times, and especially of the present Church, and chiefly of the Prelates themselves, and shall find most of these Prophecies fulfilled in these present times, they will certainly hereupon conclude, that these be those last dayes, and perillous times wher∣in these things, so long agoe foretold, doe clearely shew, that certainly the Scriptures are the word of God.

The next thing I note here is, that you Say, a man so probably led, must compare the Scripture with it selfe, and other writings. What other writings, I pray you, shall he compare the Scriptures with? Shall humane writings light him a Candle to shew him the Sun shining at noon day? But thus humane testimony comes in for a Second Inducer. And for all your previous induce∣ment, you must still at last joyne some thing of man with Scripture.

Well, what's the third? Ordinary Grace. And this with the Authority of the present Church may beget in a man an ordinary beliefe, that Scripture is the word of God. As it seemes such or∣dinary Grace brought King * 1.109 Agrippa to beleeve the Prophets to be the word of God: yet for all that he was but almost perswa∣ded to become a Christian. And this Ordinary Grace is (it seems) that Holy Ghost, which you told us of before.

The Fourth is morall inducement. Well, admit this bring him to a morall beliefe or opinion. The Fifth is a reasonable per∣swasion by the voyce of the Church. Well, what the••? After all

this, the Scripture gives greater and higher reasons of Credibility to it selfe, then Tradition alone could give. Here's then the upshot of all (as we noted before) you by these steps advance the Scripture to a Credibility. So as all this while, you have walkt the round, and gone in a Circle, and end just where you began; for you began at Probability, and end in Credibility; whereas the Scriptures were credible at least, that is such as might be belee∣ved; before you taught this new way to come to the beliefe of them. So as this your Conclusion comes to just nothing. On∣ly you seem to attribute some thing to the Scripture, being assisted with those other inducements, wherein it surpasseth your Tradition alone. Which is such a comparison and com∣mendation, as you could not devise the like, to abase the Credit of the Scripture. But to conclude: What a Tedious Dispute you make here with the Jesuite about that, which (when you have done all you can) will never bring a man upon any sure grounds so much as to beleeve, that the Scrip∣ture is the word of God: much lesse to bring him to Saving faith in Christ. But what doe I speake of Saving faith? Alas, that's no worke for your pen. You are for a Scholasticall Dis∣pute here, which is so jejune, and barren, that many Schola∣sticks would hisse it out of their Schooles, much more Di∣vines out of the Divinity Schooles, as indeed nothing pertai∣ning to true Divinity, but to a * 1.110 Spoyling through Philosophy and vaine deceit, as the Apostle Speakes. But the summe of all your inducements (the Prime whereof must necessarily be your present Churches Authority) amounts to this: That men being by a bond of necessity tyed to this your Church as without which he cannot come to beleeve Scripture to be Gods word: and without this beliefe, no faith of Salvation: and your Tradition with all other helps cannot bring a man to that beliefe, when all is done: the Conclusion is, that accor∣ding to your Tradition no man can come to be Saved. So as thus by this your new Doctrines you overturne the Foundation of Faith by the very roots, leaving no footing for faith to stand upon, whereby a man may have any hope of Salvation.

But I shew'd you before, a short and sure way for a man to come to this beliefe, and not onely so farre, as to beleeve the Scrip∣ture to be the word of God, but to beleeve, that he hath his part of Salvation in that word. And this way is, by hearing the word of God preached. For ‡ 1.111 Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. And this faith being the Saving faith in Christ, as it

apprehends all the Promises of God in the Scripture to be true, and to belong to him, so it comprehends the beliefe of Scrip∣ture to be the word of God. And this, this word of God preached and heard, is that voyce of the Church of Christ, or rather Christs owne voyce in the Church, calling men, yea and instru∣mentally causing, Gods Spirit effectually working in and by the word, to beleeve unto righteousnesse, and to confesse to Salvation, whatsoever is written in the Scripture to be most true, as be∣ing the word of God himselfe. And besides this true Christians in all ages, never beleeved and Authority, Tradition, voyce of men simply to be any necessary prime inducement to be∣leeve so much, as the Scriptures to be the word of God.

L. p. 84. That divine light, which the Scripture, no question, hath in it self, is not kindled, till these helps come. Thy word is a Light. So David. A Light? Therefore it is as much a manifestation to it selfe, as to other things, which it shewes, but still, not till the Candle be lighted: not till there hath been a preparing instruction,* 1.112 what light it is, till Tradition of the Church, and Gods grace put to it, have cleared his understanding: So Tradition of the present Church, is the first morall motive to beleeve.

P. These words confirme your former, with a little illustration. A divine Light here you confesse to be in the Scripture. But you meane some dimme Light. At the best, not bright enough, not sufficient to shew it selfe to be the word of God. And here, That Light, whatever it is, is not kindled, till these helps come. 'Tis but a kind of Light potentially in the Scripture, as fire in the flint, which must be struck out with the steele. Nay you compare it but to the light of a Candle; and yet not all that neither: for the Candle must first be lighted. The Scripture then of it selfe is but as a Candle in the box, of 12 in the pound, as you Say ibid. which hath no Light, till it be lighted. And Tradition of your pre∣sent Church must light the Candle. And surely, then may not the Tradition of your present Church put out the light of this Candle again, after you have lighted it? As the Pope crowned the Emperour with his feet, and then struck the Crown off again with his foot, to teach the Emperour, that his Crown was at his Holinesse Devotion to dispose of as he pleased. So may you do with the Scripture, light the Candle, and put it out again.* 1.113 As you have don with the Doctrines of Grace, with the Sabbath, or Lords day, with preaching, and the like. And Thy word is a light: So David. But not, So you. For David Said, Thy word is a lampe

unto my feet, and a light unto my pathes. So say not you. You like not (it seems) such a lampe and light to your wayes. For wayes you leave out, as the Devil did, when he recited that Scripture, Psal. 91.11. He shall keep thee: but he left out, In all thy wayes: as Luk. 4.10. And you could never have the hap hitherto to cite Scripture right. And no marvaile if you be out of your way, when you come to the Scripture, seeing you can find no light in it to give you sufficient direction. But you Adde: A Light? Therefore it is as much a manifestation to it selfe, as to other things. Even just as much as if you had Said, A blind man seeth as much in the darke, as in the day. So 'tis here with the Scripture, for the light you allow it. And what's that? But none still, no light, till the Candle be lighted. 'Tis just so then, as I say. I guest your meaning right. But you adde: Not till there hath been a preparing Instruction, what light it is, till the Tradition of the Church and Gods grace put to it, hath cleared his understanding. How? I am here at a losse, except you helpe me out, and cleare the understanding of your words. For before, you must have the Candle first lighted: and here, you seem to grant some light, when 'tis once discovered to be a preparing instruction what light it is. I pray you my Lord deale plainly with us. Speake out. Hath the Scripture a light in it, or no, before the preparing instruction hath shewed what light it is? For to shew, what light it is, doth necessarily presuppose that there is a Light. And if there be a Light, how is it true, that you Say, Not till it be lighted by Tradition of the Church? Must Tradition doe all, both light the Candle, and also shew what light it is? Or doth Tradition with the same act of lighting the Candle, shew also what light it is? If so, then I begin through this darke lanterne of yours to discerne what light the Scripture hath: namely a borrowed light, lent it by Tradition. For you say, The Candle is not lighted, till Tradition light it. Or if I be out, 'tis for want of Cleare Light from your darke Lanthorne. But here followes a worse perplexity. For from the lighting the Candle of Scrip∣ture by Tradition, you come to the lighting of another Candle, namely the Clearing of the naturall mans understanding by the Tradition of the Church, and Gods grace put to it. 'Twas well you put Gods grace to it. For if the Tradition of your present Church have but Gods grace put to it, it may worke wonders. But stay. Cannot your Churches Tradition or Authority, doe the deed without Gods grace; at least doe its office of the fore-horse, as the necessary prime leader? Or is your Churches Tradition some

jade, that puts all the brunt upon the next horse that follows? Then you should rather give Gods Grace the Precedencie. But now I remember, this Grace of God is but an ordinary Grace, as you told us before, which at the most worketh but an ordinary morall and probable beliefe, that Scripture is the word of God, but not certaine and evident: So as the naturall mans undestan∣ding being but thus farre cleared to have a probable opinion of Scripture to be Gods word, except you can bring him to be∣leeve in Christ, and forsake his sins, his opinion will but ag∣gravate his condemnation so much the more. But what evi∣dence can you shew us, that your Church Tradition is certainly seconded with so much ordinary Grace? For if your Tradition be derogatory from the Credit of the Scripture, you cannot hope for the least degree of ordinary Grace to give it either assistance, or attendance. It behoves you therefore to prove, that this your Authority in this point is from God, is Gods ordinance: and if so, you may then easily perswade us, that Gods grace will accompany his owne Ordinance. But this you will hardly prove. But will Say, Traditions are Traditions, and therefore not to be proved from Scripture: and this Church-Tradition is that, which the Scripture must be proved and tryed by. And so here upon belike it is, that you conclude: So Tradition of the present Church is the first morall motive to beleeve. The Conclusion might serve the turne well enough, if you had but good logicall or rationall Premises to bring it in, better then yet you bring, for the inducing of beliefe, That Scripture is the word of God.

L. ibid. So after Tradition of the present Church hath taught and informed the Soule,* 1.114 the voyce of God is plainly heard in the Scripture it selfe. And then here's double Authority, and both Divine, that confirmes Scripture to be the word of God, Tradition of the Apostles delivering it, and the internall worth and argument in the Scripture, obvious to a Soule prepared by the present Churches Tradition, and Gods Grace.

P. The more you speake, the more we come to Sound the depth of your meaning. You told us before of the present Churches Tradition, and Gods Grace put to it, by which the naturall mans understanding is first cleared. And here Tradition of the pre∣sent Church alone doth the deed: for you say, After Tradition of the present Church hath taught and informed the Soule, then, the voyce of God is plainly heard in the Scripture it selfe. Surely my mind gave me all this while, that although for fashion sake, and for a colour you named the grace of God in the second place after

your Tradition, yet your principall ayme was to advance the Credit of your Church-Authority, as that alone, which does the deed. This, this is it, that cleares the naturall mans understan∣ding; this it, that teacheth and informeth the Soule (Tradition I say of the present Church) before the voyce of God is plainly heard in the Scripture it selfe. As if you had Said, The Tradition of the present Church does all, it openeth the blind eyes of the naturall mans understanding to see, and the deafe eares of his Soule to heare: for after it hath cleared his understanding, and taught and informed the Soule, then the voyce of GOD is plainly heard in the Scripture it selfe.

And besides you tell us here, that after Tradition of your present Church hath taught and informed the Soule, the voyce of GOD is plainly heard in the Scripture. Ergo not till then. Ergo your Tradition opens the eares of the deafe. And then there's double testimony, and both Divine. What? Tradition of the Apostles delivering it. You meane surely, the divine Tradition of your present Church, one of your ob∣struse Apostolick Traditions. Otherwise, what doth the menti∣on of the Apostles Tradition in this place? And thus you ac∣quaint us with the whole Mystery of your new Divinity. New, I call it, because it is contrary to the old. For the old is (which is not yet antiquated) * 1.115 The Commandement of the Lord, (that is the word of God) is pure, inlightening the eyes. And vers. 7. The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the Soule: the testimony of the Lord 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sure, making wise the simple. And Psal. 119.30. (mentioned be∣fore) The entrance of thy words giveth light, it giveth understanding unto the simple. Now who is the blind and simple, but the natu∣rall man, before his Conversion and Regeneration? And what is that, which inlightens his eyes, and cleares his understanding? Gods word. For, The entrance of thy words giveth light, it giveth understanding unto the Simple. The light of Gods word going forth in the Ministry of it, is the first that makes entrance into the Soule. Now doth not your Lordship grant all this? Yes, you cannot but confesse it: but alwayes provided, that it is ever understood, the Tradition of the present Church must prepare the way first: that must first cleare the naturall mans blind eyes of his understanding; that must first teach and informe his Soule, be∣fore Gods word can inlighten his eyes, and give understanding to the Simple. But do you consider what you Say? The Scripture (you must needs confesse, you cannot deny) inlightneth the eyes. Well, but you Say againe, your Tradition must first cleare the

understanding, and light the Candle of Scripture. Now to cleare the understanding, is to open the eyes. How then can Gods word be said to open and enlighten the eyes, when they are cleared before? Or how can it give understanding to the simple, when the Soule is taught and informed before? The Tradition of the present Church prevents all, and saves the word that labour. Unlesse you will say, The Tradition of the present Church is a preparing instruction to the opening of the eyes by the Scripture, as the * 1.116 anoynting of the blind mans eyes with clay went before his washing in the poole of Siloam, whereupon he received his sight. Indeed your Church-Tradition in this Case might well be compared to the daubing of a naturall mans blind eyes with Clay, to confirme him in his blindnesse, that he shall never see, so long as he depends upon the necessity of your present Church-Tradition as a preparing instruction to cleare his understanding, and to teach and informe his soule, as without which he shall never come to have his eyes inlightned by the word of God. So as in very truth this Tradition, Authority, voyce of the present Church, which you every where so plead for, and presse, as a necessary previous inducer,* 1.117 yea clearer of the naturall mans understanding, and teacher and informer of his Soule, before he can plainly heare the voyce of God in the Scripture it selfe, is a Doctrine of Damnable Blasphemy against Christ, and his holy word. For this clearing of the naturall mans understanding, this inlightning of the blind eyes of his mind, this teaching and informing his Soule, is both the proper and prime act of Christ, of his Spirit, and of his word, working together. Of the words inlightning David hath sufficiently informed us before. And Christ sends us to the ‡ 1.118 Scriptures for search (and not to any Church Tradition) as bea∣ring witnesse of Christ, and so directing us to him for eternall life. And Saith Christ, † 1.119 No man can come to me, except the Fa∣ther, which sent me, draw him: and I will rayse him up at the last day. As it is written in the Prophets. And they shall be all taught of God▪ Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh to me. Heard? What? The Tradition of the present Church? No, the preaching of Gods word, which is Gods owne voyce (as we said before) this voyce in the eare, being accompanied with Gods learning and teaching within (as § 1.120 Augustine hereupon well notes) is that, which brings us unto Christ, Thus the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, that she attended to the things which were spoken of Paul. It was not the Tradition of the present Church, but as she was hearing the word, the Lord opened her heart, both to attend, and to beleeve Pauls Doctrin••. And Luke 24.45. Then opened he

their understandings, that they might understand the Scriptures. Away then with your Blasphemous Romish Doctrine of Tradi∣tion of your present Church, from having any thing to doe in this divine businesse, wherein onely God, and Christ, and the Holy Ghost, and the voyce of God in the Ministry of his Word, have the whole and sole worke in opening both the eyes and eares of mans Soule to see and heare the wondrous things of Gods Law contained in the Scriptures. As David Saith, * 1.121 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy Law.

But you adde: And then here's double Authority, and both Di∣vine, that confirmes Scripture to be the word of God, Tradition of the Apostles delivering it, and the internall worth, and argument in the Scripture, obvious to a Soule prepared by the present Churches Tradi∣tion, and Gods Grace. And. Then. Sill: Then, and not before, all goes currant: Worth in Scripture comes in with their dou∣ble Divine Authority. Then, when the Soule is prepared (as be∣fore) with the present Churches Tradition. Els, all the fat is in the fire: Nor Apostles Tradition, Nor worth in Scripture, are worth a rush in this matter. And thus all must depend upon your pre∣sent Churches Tradition Still. But here you bring in againe, Gods Grace, as a Second to your Tradition. But I told you be∣fore, and tell you againe, that your present Churches Tradition hath nothing to doe with Gods Grace, nor with any Grace of God, not with common and ordinary Grace, Gods Grace is a concomitant and Assistant unto his owne Ordinance. But for the Authority and Tradition of the present Church to be a necessary inducer to the beliefe of Scripture, by clearing a naturall mans un∣derstanding, and teaching and informing his Soule is none of Gods ordinance, but an Antichristian Romish presumption, and there∣fore hath no promise of, and so no title to Gods Grace, either to accompany or assist it. When Christ tooke his Farewell of the Apostles, he left his Commission with them for the Ministry of his Word, and Sacraments, and thereupon gave a Promise of his continuall assisting grace to them, and to all his faithfull true Ministers of his Word successively to the end of the world: ‡ 1.122 Goe, Saith he, and teach all nations, baptizing them, &c. teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you: And Loe, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Now 'tis plaine (as is both shewed before, and will yet more) that your present Church being Prelaticall, and Hierarchicall, is a false and Antichristian Church, a Church of Priests of a strange Order, not of Christs institution, nor your Government of Christs

ordinance, and so your Church is of no Auhority: nor doe you faithfully and truely preach the Word, and administer the Sacraments, but with the mixture of your owne Superstiti∣ous devises, nor doe you teach men to observe all things, what∣soever Christ commanded in his word, and hath left written in the Scripture: but on the contrary, you suppresse the preaching of his word, and oppresse his faithfull Ministers, and by publick Autho∣rity assumed, make voyd Christs eternall Law (as before.) So as Gods people have cause to take up that complaint and prayer of David, It is time for thee, Lord, to worke: for they have made voyd thy Law: And therefore, that promise of Christ to his Apostles and true Ministers of the Gospell, pertaines not to you, and so not to any of your usurped Authority, and pretended Tradition of your present Church.

But you proceed: L. p. 85. After the morall perswasion, reason, and force of the present Church, there is ground enough to move any reasonable man, that it is fit he should read the Scripture, and esteeme very reverently and highly of it. And this once done, the Scrip∣ture hath then In, and home Arguments enough, to put a soule that hath but ordinary Grace out of doubt, that the Scripture is the word of God, infallible and Divine.

P. The same man Still. But what if, as with the Church of Rome and the Jesuites your present Church of England doth hold this Paradox, so She should take up Romes practise, and by your Authority forbid all men the reading of the Scriptures, but such onely, as shalbe thought fit to be dispensed withall to read it? We know not what you may doe, if once you can obtain voyces in Convocation (as what may not you doe) to make this your bare assertion, and Antichristian opinion an Irrefragable Canon of the present Church of England, That men ought not to presume to read the Scriptures, till the Authority of the present Church hath made way, and her Tradition cleared their un∣derstanding, and taught and informed their Soules, and thereupon very reverently and highly esteeme of it. For this is the Cleare Summe of your words here: No reading of the Scriptures, no esteeming highly and reverently of it, no In, and home Arguments enough to pu•• a soule out of doubt, that Scripture is the word of God, Infallible and Divine: So as till he be perswaded hereof, 'tis but vaine and frivolous for a man to read the Scriptures: and this perswasion he cannot have, till after the morall perswasion, reason, and force of the present Church. And here I note again, how you put the Tradition of your pre∣sent Church single and alone, forgetting to Second it with

Gods Grace: which doth but confirme what I said before, that Gods Grace, Ordinary Grace, when you doe mention it, it is but when you stumble upon it, and it stands but for a Stale; it is your Tradition, and Authority of the present Church that is all in all. But you proceed.

L. p. 85, 86. Thirdly, you (to wit, A. C.) pretend that we make the Scripture absolutely and fully knowne Lumine suo,* 1.123 by the light and testimony which it hath in, and giveth to it selfe, &c. We doe not Say, that there is such a full light in Scripture, as that every man upon the first sight, must yeeld to it, The Question is onely of such a light in Scripture as is of force to breed Faith, not to make a perfect knowledge.

P. The pretence of A. C. herein, was not without just cause; onely he considered not what the present Church of England now, under your Primacy, doth hold. So as you should or might have shaped your Answere thus: A. C. Distingue tem∣pora: Distinguish the times. Know you not who sits now in the Chaire of Canterbury? True it is, that formerly the Church of England, or rather some private men, all or most of the Divines thereof that have written of this Subject, allthough very learned (I confesse) and of great note, place and ranke in the Church in their time, held and writ so against you: but that was onely their private opini∣on, though all their Bookes were published by Authority. But what's all this to the Church of England now? Now you may heare, and understand by me, who am the voyce of the present Church of Eng∣land, that it is otherwise. And what you doe pretend, I doe thus inter∣pret: We doe not Say, &c. But what doe you not Say? We doe not Say that there is such a full light in Scripture, as that every man upon the first sight must yeeld to it. How? So perhaps not any hath Said. Yet this all our Orthodox Divines before you have said, That there is such a full light in Scripture, as that every man by the thorow and serious reading over of the Scripture, hath sufficient evidence therein to convince him, as to yeeld it to be the very word of God. And if he doe not therupon yeeld, the defect is not in the Scripture, but in himself.* 1.124 But at first sight? This is a miserable shift, and poore put off, to answere fully to the Jesuites pretence, or ra∣ther true assertion. For in this he saith true, that we (to wit, all the Orthodox Divines of the Church of England as aforesaid) do hold the Scripture absolutely and fully to be known lumine suo, by the light and testimony which it hath in, and gives to it self. Only we do not make it so (as you expresse the Jesuite) but we find, know, and beleeve it to be so. But they never said, At first

sight, This is your owne Flam. But what our ••ormer Di∣vines have written hereof, they have with such Arguments confirmed, as not you with all your Divines of note and worth, of which you patch up your present Church of England, are able to Answere, oudè gru, not one word or Syllable.

But come we to the Question as you State it. The Question is (say you) onely of such a light in Scripture, as is of force to breed faith, not to make a perfect knowledge. And what's your resolution of this Question of your own Stating? Do you yeeld thus much, that there is in the Scripture such a light, as is of force to breed faith? Nay, you have already again and again, and I know not how often expresly and flatly denyed, that there is in Scripture so much light, as of it self hath force to breed so much faith, as to beleeve it to be the word of God. And this was all the Question with you but even now. But how comes in this Ne∣gative, Not to make a perfect knowledge? The Question was not all this while, whether the Scripture had so full a light in it, as to make a perfect knowledge. But seeing you took this in, to cast a myst before mens eyes, that they may not so easily discern your * 1.125 jugling trick in answering A.C. and yet keeping your credit, as if you herein maintained no other thing, then what they Di∣vines of the Church of England have held, that which you say the Jesuite pretends: I will answere this too: That all Orthodox Divines do hold (and that according to the Scripture) that there is in it such a full and cleare light, as to make a perfect knowledge. For First, there is a knowledge perfect: and 2ly we have no other Schoolmaster to teach it, but the Scripture: and 3ly this perfect knowledge is re∣quired of Christians: ‡ 1.126 Be not children in understanding (saith the Apostle) but in understanding be men. So the English hath it. But the Originall is tais dè phresì téleio gínesthe. In understanding, or wisdome be ye perfect. So, Heb. 6.1. Wherfore leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, let us be caried on to perfection. That is, to perfection of Knowledge in the mystery of Christ. Now this know∣ledge is no where, but in the Scripture, and so this perfection no way to be attained unto, but by the Scripture, as the onely rule and meanes thereof. So the Apostle to Timothy saith, ‡ 1.127 From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto Salvation through faith which is in Christ Iesus. All Scrip∣ture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for re∣proof, for correction, for instruction in righteousnes, that the man of God may be perfect, thorowly furnished unto all good works. So as Tertulli∣an might well say, Adoro plenitudinem Scripturarum, I adore, or

admire the fullnesse of the Scriptures. It is a Fountaine, yea an Ocean of Knowledge. And if we cannot attaine to that full perfection of Knowledge in this life, which is to be found in the Scripture, it is defectus vasis, non fontis: the defect is in the vessell, mans soule, (For * 1.128 we know but in part, and we prophecy in part, saith the Apostle) and not in the fountaine, the Holy Scripture, which is like Iacobs Well, full of Water, but deep▪ so as every one hath not such a lage vessell, and long line, as can draw forth a full measure of knowldge out of it; yet he may draw for a plenitude or fullnesse of the vessell, according to its quan∣tity, and the ‡ 1.129 proportion of Faith given to every man; yet not so exactly full, by reason of our infirmity, and in-capacity of our vessell, which is partly of a leaking condition, plenus rimarum, as he said, full of cracks, and a great deale we lose in the very drawing of it up, as a bucket doth of water, before it come to the toppe. So as the defect is not in the Well, wherein it was, but now over head and eares (as we Say) under water, and fuller then it could hold: but in the bucket in bringing it up, or containing and retaining of it.

L. p. 87. Faiths evidence is not so cleare, for it is of things not seen (Heb. 11.1.) in regard of the object; and in regard of the subject that sees, it is in ‡ 1.130 enigmate in a glasse, or darke speaking. Now God doth not require a full demonstrative knowledge in us, that the Scrip∣ture is his word: and therefore in his Providence hath kindled in it no light for that, but he requires our faith of it, and such a certaine de∣monstration, as may fit that. And for that he hath left sufficient light in Scripture to Reason, and Grace meeting, when the Soule is morally prepared by the Tradition of the Church.

P. Speaking Still of that Faith, whereby a man beleeves the Scripture to be the word of God, which Faith is Historicall: here you confound it with the Saving justifying Faith, just as the Papists doe. For as † 1.131 they, so you here alledge for your faiths unclean evidence, Heb. 11.1. where the Apostle describes Faith thus: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. By which very description, it is cleare and evident, that he speakes not of that Historicall Faith of Scripture, common to all men: but of the Saving Faith peculiar to Gods Elect; Tit. 1.1. and given to the Saints. Jude 3. which notwithstanding compre∣hends in it, the Historicall Faith of Scripture to be the word of God, and that in a higher degree and measure, then any Repro∣bate can have; even as the Rationall Soule of man being it com∣prehends in it the Sensitive faculty in a more excellent manner,

then it is in the bruit beasts, and the Vegetative faculty in a more excellent manner, then it is in the plants; because as the sensitive and vegetative qualities of the soule of man being comprehen∣ded under the Rationalls, are subjected to the rule and command of Reason, and so doe participate in some kind of the very nature of the Rationall faculty; man being both moving, and see∣ing, and hearing, and smelling, and tasting, and touching, not as a bruit beast, but as a Reasonable creature. So Historicall Faith, being comprehended under the Saving and Justifying Faith in a true beleever, it is in him more excellent, and advanced to a higher pitch of perfection, then it is, or can be, in a naturall man; so as it participates so farre of that plerophoría tes písteoes, that full assurance of Saving Faith, as that it not onely apprehends and beleeves the Scripture to be the word of God, but doth beleeve it so certainly and firmly, and with such an affiance and affecti∣on, as that the Beleever will rather dye then for the terrours of death it selfe be brought to deny this truth. And what is this (trow you) but a full and certaine demonstrative know∣ledge, that perswades him to this? But for This Historicall Faith, in a meere naturall man, or one unregenerate, though he be sufficiently convinced in his Conscience, that the Scripture is the word of God, yet he hath neither so much affiance in it, nor affection to it, as that he wilbe content to loose life and all (if need be) for the maintenance of this truth. This full De∣monstration he wants.

But for that Faith which the Apostle speakes of and de∣scribes (Heb. 11.1.) which you make to be your Historicall Faith, and the evidence of it in regard of the objest, not so cleare, as being of things not seene: it is requisite here a little to consider the Apostles words. First, Faith (saith he) is e'lpizomenon vpo∣stasis, the substance, or subsistence, or confidence (at the Apostle useth the word * 1.132 elswhere) of things hoped for. And as some well expound it, such a Faith, as causeth the things hoped for so to subsist in our hearts, not onely in a sure expectation, but also in a degree of possession and fruition, as if they were pre∣sent with us. And this object, of things hoped for, argues plainly, that this Faith is not your Historicall Faith, to beleeve simply that the Scripture is the word of God: but the true, lively, and Saving Faith, which hath not onely for its common object, the Scripture, but for its more proper and peculiar object, Christ, and the Promises of God in him contained in the Scriptures, which are those things hoped for,, here. Whereas your Histori∣call

Faith, as that of the Papists (as both Vega and others af∣firme) looks onely to the common object, the Scriptures, but not specially on the Promises therein contained. This (I say) is the proper worke, and object that Saving Faith doth chiefly exer∣cise it selfe upon. Faith is the substance of things hoped for. Se∣condly, it is pragmaton elegkos, ou blepoménon, the evidence, or Demonstration of things not seen: Which things not seen are also the proper object of Saving Faith, wherof it is the evidence. And those are * 1.133 eternall things in heaven, as the Apostle shew∣eth: The things which are not seen, are eternall. So Rom. 8.25. If we hope for that which we see not, then doe we with patience abide for it. But now your meere Historicall Faith, which beleeves in generall, that the Scripture is the word of God, looks no farther, then things that are seen. But for the Faith which is the evidence of things not seen: is the evedence of it, therefore not so cleare, because it is of things not seen? Surely had you such an evidence of thos•• things not seen, as Faith is, you would not goe on thus blindly in speaking of divine things, which (it appeares) are ‡ 1.134 farre above out of your sight. Is Faith the evidence of things not seen: and therefore not of so cleare evidence in regard of the Octject? Nay certainly, being an evidence of things not seen, it argues the quick and piercing cleare eye of faith, whereby it so clearely seeth things not seen, as it is a cleare evidence of them. As Chryso∣stome upon these words commenteth: poía lèxis, saith he? What a speech or expression is this? elegkos, an evidence? Whereupon he Saith, That faith is a farre clearer and surer evidence of things not seen, then the eye is of a visible object before it. And you have here forgotten what you writ but in the next page before, † 1.135 That beliefe is firmer, then any knowledge can be. Which it seemes you mean, as the Papists doe, who to elude certainty of faith, doe say, That Faith is certain, ratione objecti, in respect of the Object, the Scripture, but not ratione Sub∣jecti, of the Beleever himselfe. Otherwise how doe you say, here, that Faiths evidence is not so cleare as being of things not seen? But I conceive the reason to be because you beleeve no further, then you see. So as what things you doe not see with your bodily eye, you have not any such cleare evidence of by your faith, as if they were present before your Eyes. Thus you may see, (could you see) what all your Faith comes to. But that faith whereof the Apostle there speakes, and elswhere, hath an eye, more piercing, then the eye of an Eagle. For by this faith, as by a most cleare Perspective, we so see things afarre off, eve••

in the highest heavens, as if they were present before us. Thus the beleeving Saints in the Old Testament, by the eye of this same Faith (illustrated by so many examples in the same Chap∣ter) did * 1.136 See the promises afarre off, and were perswaded of them, ••nd imbraced them. ‡ 1.137 By this ••aith Moses forsook Aegypt, not fearing the wrath of the King, for he indured, as seeing him that is invisible. And by this Faith, ‡ 1.138 Abraham, though afarre off, saw Christs day, and rejoyced. As § 1.139 Stephen at his stoning, saw Iesus Christ stand∣ing at the right hand of God. This you will Say, was with the eyes of his body miraculously. 'Tis true. But I will Say again, Stephen with his bodily eyes at that time saw not Christ more certainly, nor more clearely then a true beleever by the eye of his faith sees him standing at the right hand of God, as a mighty Saviour, Advocate, Judge, Protector, Avenger of his People, when so used as Stephen was, So as the faith of all true beleevers being one and the Same, it fully agreeth with that Difinition of the Apostle, Faith is the Substance of things hoped for, the Evi∣dence of things not seen: therefore it hath an eye that sees those things not seen more clearely, then I dare say your Lordships eye seeth, when you look upon the Kings Countenance Smi∣ling upon you. For you think you see now clearely the object before you: when indeed you see it not clearely, but through a false glasse of your imagination, as apprehending your chiefe happinesse to consist in that Object, the Kings favour, which may easily be overclowded. Whereas God saith † 1.140 Cursed be the man, that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arme, and whose heart departeth from the Lord. For though he may flourish for a time, yet he shalbe like the Heath in the Desert, and shall not see when good cometh.

Againe, this Faith of yours (Say you) is not of such cleare evi∣dence in regard of the Subject that sees, it is in enigmate, or darke speaking. We shewed but now, how this Historicall Faith is different, according to the Subject, in which it is, in the Re∣probate, or in the Elect beleever. For in the true beleever being comprehended under the Saving Faith, it is so much both the more cleare and infallible, in beleeving the Scripture to be the word of God, as wherein all along he finds Christ * 1.141 in whom all the Promises (wherwith as so many Sweet Roses, that Garden is set, and strowed, or as so many Starres shining in that Firmament) are yea and Amen to the glory of God the Father. And thus to every true beleever the Scripture is the sure word of God, and more especially sure to him in all the Promises of it. Thus Davids Faith tells

him: * 1.142 The Testimony of the Lord is sure. Thy Testimonies are ve∣ry sure. ‡ 1.143 All his Commandements are sure. So Esay ‡ 1.144 The sure mer∣cies of David. Thus the Apostles were sure: § 1.145 We beleeve and are sure, &c. Now are we sure, &c. And Paul, † 1.146 It is of Faith, by Grace, that the Promise might be sure to all the seed. And Peter, * 1.147 We have a most sure word of Prophesie. Thus the whole word of God, with the Promises therein, are sure to a true beleever, both as being of God, and belonging to all the faithfull. As the Apo∣stle Saith, ‡ 1.148 Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. But on the other side, this beliefe, that the Scrip∣ture is the word of God, being in a Reprobate, or wicked man, the stronger it is in a perswasion and conviction, that it is Gods word, and so a word of truth, the greater terrour it strikes into him, when he considers of those fearefull judgements, punish∣ments, and torments of hell therein denounced against all im∣penitent persons. As ‡ 1.149 Felix trembled, when he heard Paul reasoning of judgement to come. And § 1.150 Agrippa said to Paul, en olígo, somewhat, or almost thou perswadest me to be a Christian: when Paul had said unto him, † 1.151 Beleevest thou the Prophets? I know that thou beleevest. So that a wicked man may be throwly convinced in his Conscience, that the Scripture is the word of God, he may certainly be perswaded of it, and that hoes en ho∣rámati, as a thing visibly before him, and he apprehends it as too true. But that place of the Apostle, * 1.152 We see here dì ainìg∣matos, as through a darke Saying, it is not to be applyed to this Faith that is in a wicked man. For the Apostle there speakes of true beleevers. ‡ 1.153 We (Saith he) now doe see through a glasse darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part, but then shall I know, even as also I am known. So as there he speakes of the estate of the godly here, comparatively to their estate of glory hereafter: and that, concerning their knowledge and spirituall vision of God here, and hereafter. Here we doe with Moses see but ‡ 1.154 Gods back parts, in comparison to that we shall see, when we shall see him face to face: here we know him at the best but imperfectly: but then we shall know even as we are knowne, in full perfection. And yet so great and glorious is our knowledge of God in the State of Grace, that the Apostle saith, § 1.155 We all with open face beholding as in a glasse, the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same Image from glory to glory, even as by the spirit of the Lord. So glorious is the Image of Christ, in every new-Creature, or regenerate man, had men but eyes to see it. But this by the

way. On the other side againe, as some naturall and morall men may have a certaine evidence of an Historicall Faith thus farre, that the Scripture is the word of God, and so he trembleth at it: So others again, and such as think themselves great Clerks and glorious Priests may perhaps see but en skotómati, blindly in a brainsick miorim, or giddinesse, so as their head swim∣ming with w••imses, the eyes of their understanding being darkened, or rather blinded with the god of this world, they imagine the world goes round with them, and while they so much dis∣pute of the Authority of the present Church, in clearing a mans understanding to beleeve the Scripture to be the word of God, the conclusion is, that they can bring never a good Evidence to prove, that themselves have any faith at all.

You goe on, and Say,* 1.156 Now God doth not require a full demon∣strative knowledge in us, that the Scripture is his word: and therefore in his Providence hath kindled in it no light for that, but he requires our faith of it, and such a certaine demonstration, as may fit that. * 1.157 When shall vaine words have an end, as Iob Speaks? § 1.158 You have reproched the Scripture these 10 times, and therein blasphemed God, and are not ashamed, as he Speaks in another Case. God doth not require (Say you) a full demonstrative knowledge in us, that the Scripture is his word. No? Doth he not? But he requireth such a faith in us, which hath in it a full demonstration of knowledge. For such is Saving Faith, whereof we formerly Spake, it is a demonstration of things not seen, it is a plerophoría, a full assu∣rance. Now whereon is this faith grounded? Is it not groun∣ded upon the Scripture? And if this full demonstration of faith be grounded on the Scripture: is there not such a full demon∣strative knowledge in the Scripture? For alwayes the Founda∣tion must have a full latitude, and depth, proportionable to beare up the building, which is layd upon it. Faith then being a full demonstration, and the Scripture being the foundation of it, the Scripture then must have in it a full demonstrative knowledge: and if such a full demonstrative knowledge be in the Scripture, God requires in us also such a full demonstrative knowledge, as is sutable to that full demonstration of Faith. As the Apostle saith, ‡ 1.159 I know whom I have beleeved. And our Saviour joynes knowledge and faith together, saying, § 1.160 That ye may know and beleeve. And so the Apostle, speaking of beleevers, saith, † 1.161 Which beleeve and know the truth. And that which in other places is attributed to faith, is (Ioh. 13.3) attributed to knowledge: This is life eternall, that they may know thee, the onely true God, and Iesus Christ whom

••hou hast sent. And the act of beleeving is typed out by an act of the eye in seeing, to shew, that beleeving is a seeing and knowing. As Joh. 3.14, 15. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wilder∣nesse: even so must the Sonne of Man be lifted up, that whosoever beleeveth in him, should not perish, but have eternall life. Where be∣leeving in Christ lifted up upon his Crosse, hath relation to those in the wildernesse, who being stung with the fiery Serpents, looked up upon the brazen Serpent upon the Pole, which Moses by Gods ap∣pointment lifted up, and looking upon it, they lived. There being then such an affinity, or rather unity, or union between Faith and knowledge, Faith being a certain knowledge of the thing beleeved, which is the Scripture, and faith being * 1.162 begotten by the word of God, which is therfore call'd ‡ 1.163 the word of Faith, both because it is the seed of Faith, and the ground wherin it is rooted, and every seed having in it the nature of that which springeth of it: it necessarily followeth, that there is in the Scripture a full demon∣strative knowledge, and consequently God requireth in us such a full demonstrative knowledge, as whereby we are fully assured, and know certainly, that the Scripture is the very word of God. And this full demonstrative knowledge is in true Faith, which appre∣hending and imbracing Christ; the beleever by the same Faith doth know assuredly, that that Scripture, by the heareing wherof preached he came to beleeve, is the very word of God. And there is such a necessity of this full demonstrative knowledge to be in every beleever, it is both de esse, of the be••ing of a beleever, and also de bene esse, of his well-beeing. That it is of the beeing of a belee∣ver, we have proved out of Scripture, because it is of the very beeing of Faith. And secondly it is necessary for the well-beeing of a Christian. A true Christians life is full of affliction, more then other men. For this he hath the greatest need of comfort. Now wherein hath a Christian most solid comfort? Surely in the Scriptures. David, a man of afflictions, can tell us this by his own experience. ‡ 1.164 Remember Lord (Saith he) the word unto thy Servant, wherein thou hast caused me to hope. This is my Comfort in my affliction: for thy word hath quickned me. And v. 52. I remembred thy judgements of old, ô Lord, and have comforted my selfe. And v. 54. Thy Statutes have been my Songs in the house of my pilgri∣mage. Gods word is that which supports Faith in prayer to God in affliction. As v. 76. Let, I pray thee, thy mercifull kindnesse be for my co••fort, according to thy word unto thy Servant. And v. 80. Let my heart be sound in thy Statutes, that I be not ashamed. And v. 92. Except thy Law had been my delights, I should then have

perished in my Affliction: And that excellent Psalme, which Aug. so much admires (and not without cause) calling it Mag∣nificum Psalmum (it is his own word) is full of such meditati∣ons, and consolations, grounded upon Gods word. And the Apostle also sheweth this, where he saith, * 1.165 Wha••soever things are written aforetime, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. Now how could a Christian in affliction comfort himselfe in the Scrip∣tures, had he not a full demonstrative knowledge by Faith, that the Scripture is Gods word, and therefore all his promises therein are most true, and in Christ yea and Amen? I say, a full demonstrative knowledge by Faith, which is 'élenkos▪ the demonstration of things not seen, as before. Not that this full demonstrative knowl••dge in ••aith hath in it the full perfection of Degrees, which is not attained in this life: but it is such a full demonstrative knowledge, such a sure trust and confidence in God according to his word; such a hope in his Promises in Christ, that although his ••aith be sometimes assaulted with temptations of feares, and doubtings arising ei∣ther from infirmities and corruptions within, or from Satans suggestions without, yet the beleever sticks closse, and will not let go his hold, but as Iob saith, ‡ 1.166 though God kill him, yet will he trust in him.

Then then being so, your assertion is very bold and blasphemous,* 1.167 in saying, God in his Providence hath kindled in the Scripture no light for that, namely full demonstrative knowledge: wherof we have made sufficient demonstration to the contrary. And your own next words will confute you; for you say, ‡ 1.168 He requires our faith of it, and such a certain demonstration, as may fit that. Doth he so? And what is that faith: but wherin there is such a certain and demonstra∣tive knowledge, as gives a man full assurance, that the Scripture is the word of God? And this is that faith, which God especially r••quireth in hi•• people, as without which they cannot § 1.169 beleeve unto righte∣ousnes, and confesse unto Salvation. But this is not that faith, with its certain demonstration, which you mean. For (as you adde) yours is such a faith, as is begotten of Reason and ordinary Grace (which is ever the burthen of your Song) where the soule is morally pre∣pared by the Tradition of the Church. Of which enough before. Neither can your morall faith probably perswaded by your Tradition, ever become to be élegkos, a demonstrative assurance, that Scripture is Gods word: So as hereby you overthrow both the beeing and well-beeing of a Christian, and leave him stript of all means and hope of Salvation and consolation by the Scripture.

L. p. 88. Hooker gives a very sensible Demonstration: It is not the word of God, which doth, or possibly can assure us, that we doe well to think it is his word. For if any one Book of Scripture did give te∣stimony to it, yet still the Scripture would require another to give credit unto it. So that unlesse beside the Scripture there were some thing that might assure, &c. And this he acknowledgeth (saith Bu∣erly) is the Authority of Gods Church. Certainly Hooker gives a true and sensible Demonstration.

P. First, for your Author here alledged, he was (we all know) not onely a Creature, but a Champion for your Hie∣rarchy and Ceremonies. And besides that, his Book was guelt in some things, before it could have its passeport to travaile abroad. However (as you say of Others, so I of him) he was but a private man. And if you take his words to be the Do∣ctrine of the Church of England, you may, seeing the Jesuite doth so approve of it, as also your selfe doth. Well, let Hoo∣kers words be so, as you alledge them: yet give me leave to detect in them a mixture of some absurdity, and some impiety together. As in these words, It is not the word, which doth, or possibly can assure us, that we doe well to think it is his word. And so in that sense (which is the onely sense a sensible man, and sound Christian can make) 'tis true, that the Scripture neither doth, nor possibly can assure us, that we do well to think onely it is his word. For as the Scripture cannot lye, so it cannot assure us, that we do well, when we come short of our duty, as in thinking, (which is but opinion) when we should beleeve, which is Faith. For the Scripture requires a firme Faith in us, and approveth not of think∣ing, as sufficient.

But now for his sensible Demonstration, which is this: That if any one book of Scripture did give testimony to all: yet still the Scripture would require another to give testimony to it; and so we can never come to assurance this way: I answere, The Scripture is a compleat body in it selfe, and every part of it an uniforme, and homogeneall member, to the making up of this body. So as the Scripture is to be taken first in the whole lumpe, or body, as bearing full witnesse to it selfe: and every part or Book of Scripture hath a witnesse in it selfe, and for it selfe, and for the rest too, there being such a sweet and full harmony in the whole, and all the parts, Gods Spirit speaking and breathing in it (as the Animall Spirits in mans body, moving the whole and every part) and shewing, that it is Gods word. And we must ne∣ver in this notion fever the Spirit of God from the Scripture,

his owne word, which it filleth in every part, as the life-blood doth the veines. So as there is not a Book of Scripture, wherein the Majesty of GOD, and his Wisdome, and Goodnesse, and Righteousnesse, and Holinesse, doe not in some degree more or lesse shine forth. And Mr Hooker might as well have rea∣soned thus: It is not the whole frame of mans body, that can perswade us, that we doe well to thinke, that it is a mans body; for though one member by its motion doth beare witnesse to the rest, that they are parts of mans body, yet still that member wants other members to beare witnesse unto it, that it is a part of mans body. As if every particu∣lar member of mans body by its inherent proper motion, were not a sufficient witnesse, not onely to all the rest of the body, that it is a living and true organicall body of man: but also to it selfe, that it is a true living member of this body. Or as thus: It is not the whole frame of heaven and earth, that can assure us, that we doe well to thinke, that God made all the world: for if any one Creature should give testimony to all the rest, yet still that Creature would require another Creature to give testimony to it, that it is one of Gods Creatures: and so we should never come to any pawse, to rest our assurance this way, that God created the whole world heaven and earth, and all the Creatures therein. Now what is there besides the Creature, that can assure us of this? What? The Authority of men, or the Tradition of the whole world? No: for * 1.170 By Faith we come to understand, that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen, were made of things which did not appeare. Now whereupon is this Faith grounded? Surely on the word of God, and confirmed abundantly by the whole frame of heaven and earth, and all the Creatures therein, not one of them, but having a stampe of the Creator upon it, to assure us, that it is his Creature. And how doe we come to be assured that this word of God is contained in the Scripture? By the Authority of the present Church? Doth Hooker Say so? Had you Said, The Ancient Church: as the Jewes, in wit∣nessing for the Old Testament: and the Ancient Apostolick Church, in witnessing for the New: you had said Somthing. As also, if you had put the Ministry of the Word, for the Authority of your present Church. For (as we said before) the Ministry of the Word is Gods own voyce, which commends unto us the Scripture, as the word of God. This is Gods owne ordinary meanes to bring men to Faith, and not the Authority and Tradition of I wot not what present Church.

And now against Mr Hookers sensible Demonstration, as

you call it: I will oppose another Demonstration, which is not onely sensible, but most true, as proving, that the testimony of Scripture to be the word of God, is in the Scripture it selfe. First, Paul in the Epistle to the (a) 1.171 Romans, witnesseth, that unto the Iewes, or Israeliets under the Old Testament, were commit∣ted the Oracles of God: those Oracles were contained in all the severall Bookes of the Old Testament, which the Jewes kept intire, and inviolate, without the mixture of Profane Books. And of this Scripture Paul speaketh, and testifieth saying, (b) 1.172 All Scripture is given by inspiration from God. And Christ him∣selfe giveth testimony of the Old Testament, saying to the Jewes, (c) 1.173 Search the Scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternall life, and they are they which testifie of me. And what those Scrip∣tures were, the Jewes knew well enough, for they were de∣posited with them, and they kept them as their chiefest trea∣sure. And (d) 1.174 Peter also gives testimony to the Old Testament, saying of it, that Holy men of God spake, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; speaking of the Scripture expresly in that place, in the former verse. And, (e) 1.175 To Him give all the Prophets witnesse. Thus the New Testament gives testimony to the Old, that it is the word of God. And I hope you will not except against this testimony as insufficient. Againe, the New Testament gives witnesse to it selfe, that it is the word of God. Peter witnesseth of Pauls Epistles, that Paul wrote them according to the wisdome given unto him; that is, the Holy Ghost. And Christ said to Peter, (f 1.176 I have prayd for thee, that thy Faith faile not. Yea He (g) 1.177 sent the Holy Ghost to all his Apostles, that should lead them into all truth▪ Ergo what they preached and wrote, was the Truth and word of God. And Christ made all his Apostles his witnesses, who in all their writings beare-witnesse of him, both of (h) 1.178 what they saw and heard; and so their record left in writing is true. See Luk. 1.2. 1 Joh. 1.3. 3 Joh. 12. And none writ the New Testament, but either Euangelists, or Apostles, all indued with the Holy Ghost. And the Wisdome of Christ reserved his beloved Disciple Iohn as the last surviver of all the rest, to write the Book of the Revelation, and to conclude, as the New Testament, so the whole Bible with that Charge. (i) 1.179 If any man adde to this Book, or take away from it, &c. as shew∣ing, that the whole and intire Scripture was now compiled, and con∣summate. I might be copious in this point▪ But I will summe, up all this: The New Testament gives testimony to the Old that it is the word of God▪ also to it selfe, one Book to another,

one Apostle to another (who were all witnesses of Christ) Christ and the Holy Ghost to all the Apostles, all their wri∣tings being guided by the Spirit of Truth, and giving joynt witnesse unto Christ, and to the truth of the Gospell. Yea and the severall parts beare witnes to themselvs. As 1 Cor. 14.37. If any man think himselfe to be a Prophet, or Spirituall, let him acknow∣ledge, that the things that I write unto you, are the Commandements of the Lord. And 1 Pet. 5.12. I have written brieflly, exhorting and testifying, that this is the true Grace of God, wherein ye stand. And Joh. 20.31. These things are written, that ye might beleeve, that Iesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that beleeving ye might have life through his Name. So 1 Joh. 1.3, 4. 2 Joh. 5. 3 Joh. 12. And we also ••eare record, and ye know that our record is true.

And as the New Testament doth every where beare wit∣nesse both to the Old, and to it selfe, both in the whole, and every part, even by the Spirit of God, that speakes and breathes in the whole and every part: So the Old Testament, in like manner beares witnesse both to it selfe, and to the New Te∣stament, and that by many Types and Prophecies, all which are fulfilled in the New. So as these two Testaments are as Ezechiels Wheeles one within another, the New Testament being the Old revealed, and the Old the New veiled. Or they are like the two Cherubims, both looking towards the Mercy-Seat, which is Christ, the Summe of them both▪ the Old looking upon him as he was promised and to come; the New, as he is now exhibited, and come. Thus we have here▪ a full, true, and evident Demonstration, that the whole Scrip∣ture gives testimony to it selfe, that it is the word of God. And yet you Say▪ * 1.180 That Truth it selfe cannot say, that Scripture it selfe can doe it. But you adde.

L. ibid. That Scripture cannot beare witnesse to it selfe, nor any one part of it, to another, it is grounded upon Nature: which admits of no created thing to beare witnesse to it selfe: and is acknowledged by our Saviour, ‡ 1.181 If I beare witnesse of my selfe, my witnesse is not true, that is, is not of force to be reasonably accepted for truth.

P. Though the Scripture,* 1.182 as it is considered in the written Letter, be a Creature, yet the matter of it, the Light, the Truth, the Authority and Evidence of it is meerly Divine, as wherein God hath imprinted and expressed his Divine Nature, Counsell, and Will. So as (as is said before) we must never abstract the Scripture from that Spirit of God, which is alwayes in it, and with it, as a cleare and sufficient witnesse of it, and as

the very life and Soule of it. Whereas you, with the Papists, take the Scripture for no other, but as a bare Letter, or barke of a Tree, or dead Corps, without any Divine Spirit in it. But you aledge Christ, Saying of himselfe, If I beare witnesse of my selfe, &c. You must know, that Christ here speaks, as the Jewes took him for no other▪ as a meere Man. But take him as Christ, God-man in one Person, and is he not a'ut••pistos, worthy of himselfe to be beleeved? And what Saith he, when the Phari∣sees objected unto him, * 1.183 Thou bearest record of thy selfe, thy record is not true? Though I beare record of my selfe, yet my record is true, Saith he. For is not Gods record true? And againe, v. 17. It is written in your Law, that the testim••ny of two men is true. I am one that beare witnesse of my selfe: and the Father that sent me, beareth witnesse of me. So may the Scripture say, Though I beare record of my selfe, yet my record is true: for the Father speaketh in me, and Christ speaketh in me, and the Holy Ghost speaketh in me, and all these joyntly beare witnesse in me, with me, and to me, that I am the word of God. And in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. And hereunto might I adde the many Di∣vine and Admirable works and effects, which the word of God produceth, all which beare witnesse abundantly, that the Scrip∣ture is the word of God. Why, what works, what effects doth it produce? Yea what not? ‡ 1.184 It enlightneth the eyes: ‡ 1.185 it quickeneth dead Soules: § 1.186 it is that great Engine of battery, that subdueth the world unto Christ. * 1.187 It is the sharpe two-edged sword, lively and migh∣ty in operation, &c. “ 1.188 it is the mighty power of God to Salvation: ‘,‘ 1.189 it is to all men the sweet savour of God, the savour either of life, unto life, or of death unto death. Loe my Lord, what think you now of this Word? Is it trow ••ou onely a dead letter, being of such a Divine and Spirit-full efficacie, as no word of man is, or can be? And here might I bring many negative proofes, to shew it cannot be the Word of Man. But let this suffice. I will passe on.

L. p. 89. No man can set a better State of the Question, then Hooker doth, his words are these: The Scripture is the ground of our beliefe: the Authority of man (that is the name he gives to Tradition) is the Key, which opens the doore of entrance into the Knowledge of the Scripture.

P. We have already answered sufficiently, that the Scripture is both the Garden wherein all the pleasant Flowers, and wholesome Fruits of Paradise are planted, and grow; which are of that beauty, fragancie, sweetnesse, and relish, as he that

beholds them, smells to them, and tasts of them, may easily discerne they are not of a terrene or earthly nature (Non vox hominem son••t) and it selfe is the Key that lets in those that will, to tast of her Fruits: which I say, when they once tast, they will Say, This is none other, but the Garden and Paradise of God, even the Word of God. This is that * 1.190 Key of knowledge, for the taking away whereof, Christ denounceth a Woe to the Pha∣rises. And that by this Key is not meant Tradition, is plain, see∣ing the Pharisees did not take away Tradition, but they exalted it so farre, as therby they made the Word of God of none effect. Is this the Tradition, that you call the Authority of Man, and so highly commend, which the Pharisees used for no other Key, but as a false Key, or picklocke to robbe the Scripture of their Divine Authority. But if you understand by Tradition here the Delivery of the Scripture from hand to hand to be kept as a Depositum by the Church of God: thus the Scripture is a rich Cabinet full of precious Jewels, together with the Key, or Spring-lock so united unto it, as it is a part of the Cabinet, and so deposited with the Church of God, as by the Ministry and preaching of the Word the Key is turned, and the Cabinet un∣locked, the Key being no other, but of Gods owne making and appointing; and so the Cabinet thus opened, and man looking into it, his eyes being also opened by the same Key, there he finds that goodly ‡ 1.191 Pearle of the Kingdome, and that rich Treasure, which to purchase, he goes and sells all that he hath.

But suppose now for all this we should either grant your Lordship such a Key, as Prelaticall Authority, whereby you as∣sume a power of opening an entrance to men to read the Scrip∣tures: when the Key is once in your hand, what if you should prove so closse fisted, and so churlish a Keeper, as not to suffer them to come to read the Scriptures, as you have done in not suffering them to heare them preached on the Lods dayes at least in the After-noones? As also, in so keeping fast under Locke and Key those precious Jewels of the Doctrines of Gods Grace (as aforesaid) as the Ministers themselves may not come at them, once to touch them? So as it might prove a dangerous thing, and too suspicious, if you had such a Key of Authority, or the Authority of such a Key put into your hand, men should rather be shut out from the Scriptures, then have the entrance open to goe freely to them, when they will. But if you will needs perforce wrest this Key, as the Preaching of

Gods word, out of the hands, or from between the teeth of Godly Ministers▪ as you have done: we have no remedy, but to complain to the Lord of the Vineyard, and pray him to vindi∣cate his Key out of such Hucksters hands, and to force you to give up your usurped false Keyes.

L. p. 91. Could the Pope and his Clergie put this home upon the w••••ld (as they are gone farre in it) that the Tradition of the Present Church is Divine and Infallible: how might they and would they then Lord it over the Faith of Christendome, contrary to S. Peters Rule; whose Successors certainly in this they are not.

P. Thus you confesse, there is, or may be a Lording of the Clergie over the Faith of Christendome, or Christians, contrary to S. Peters Rule. But you restraine this to Romes usurped Infalli∣bility, as if without this she could not Lord it over Christen∣dome. How comes your Lordship then with your Hierarchy to Lord it over the Soules and Consciences of Gods people, even over all England, that other world? You disclaime your Church-Authority, and Tradition here to be Divine and Infallible. By what Authority then doe you Lord it over all England? Certainly Divine Authority you have none for it. And as you Say of Rome, so I doe to you: Certainly you are no successors of the Apostles in this; as both hath been, and shalbe more shewed. And because you cite here that place of Peter: what think you of it? Doth it not condemn all kind of Lordship over Gods heritage? As Lordship over mens Consciences in captiva∣ting them to humane Ordinances, as Ceremonies in Gods wor∣ship? As Lordship over Ministers, forbidding them to Preach Gods word, both how farre, and when you please? As Lordship over the very Commandements of God, in dispensing with them, as in the 4th and 5th Commandement? Or Lordship over mens Soules, as touching their beliefe, and reading of Scriptures, as the word of God; all which must depend upon a necessity of your present Church-Authority, as without which you tell them it is not fit, that they should either read the Scriptures, or beleeve them to be the word of God? Now is Rome so far g••n in puting home her Infallibi∣lity▪ as therby to Lord it over the greatest part of Christendome? Then how farre are you gone in Lording it over the Soules and Consciences of all the People in England, and Ministers too, in all these particulars formentioned? But to proceed.

L. p 93. The Lawfully sent Pastors, and Doctors of the Church in all Ages, have had, and shall have continuall assistance, but not in∣falli••le, at least not Divine and Infallible.

P. Such therefore as are not Lawfull Pastors and Teachers, have not continuall Assistance, as all Prelates and Priests, as you call yourselves. But for Lawfull Pastors, if they have continuall assistance, whence have they it, but from Christ? And how then is it not ••ivine? And if Divine, how, not Infallible? The assi∣stance certainly, for so much as it is, and in those things wherin it is, is no lesse Infallible, then Divine. For that which is Di∣vine, is Infallible, as was touched before. But because this Assi∣stance Divine is given to every man but in part (for * 1.192 we know in part, and we prophecie in part) and to some in one kind, to some in another, both to whom, and when, and how much, and to what speciall purpose, as it seemeth good to the Divine wisdome, but to all ‡ 1.193 to profit withall, and ‡ 1.194 for edification, as the Apostle speakes: therefore it comes to passe, that even good men, and good Pastors lawfully called, may somtimes run into some errours, both by reason of humane frailties and infirmities, and when they passe the bounds of their peculiar karísmata, or Ministeriall Graces bestowed upon in this or that kind, or measure, and doe not keep closse to the Rule, Gods word: Having therefore gifts (saith the Apostle) differing according to the Grace that is given unto us, whether Prophecie, Let us Prophecie according to the propor∣tion of Faith: or he that teacheth, on teaching: or he that exhorteth, on Exhortation. And yet when we have done all that we can, we come farre short of what we should doe. Yet all Gods Elect, both Pastors and People, have Christs promise so farre fullfilled in them, and made good unto them, by continuall Divine, and Infallible Assistance, of his Grace, and Spirit dwel∣ling in them, that they are preserved from all those Errours, which might seduce them from Christ, as himsefe Saith, Math. 24.24.

L. p. 95. When Command is for Preaching, the Restraint is added, Goe, Saith Christ, and teach all Nations. But you may not Preach all things, what you please, but all things, which I have com∣manded you. The publication is yours, the Doctrine is mine.

P. How then dare your Lordship be an Instrument of Restraining and Prohibiting any Doctrine of CHRIST,* 1.195 which hee hath in his Word commanded to be Preached, and Published to his People? How will you answere this be∣before that Judge? And why do you suborne your Arminian Faction to preach their Heresies out of your d••psucoi, double minded Articles, while you restrain Gods Ministers from preach∣ing the Truth, and Suspend them for so doing?

L. p. 98. Though Tradition and Scripture doe mutually, yet they doe not equally confirme the Authority either of other. For * 1.196 Scrip∣ture doth infa••libly confirme the Authority of Church Traditions truly so call••d: but Tradition doth but morally and probably confirme the Authority of the Scripture.

P. Then Surely your Church-Traditions make the Scripture but a poore requitall, when for an infallible confirmation of them,* 1.197 they returne a Confirmation onely morall and probable. Can they not returne such as they receive, at least in some degree? But what be those Traditions of the Church truly so cal∣led? That inducing Tradition, which of necessity must lead men to beleeve the Scriptures to be the word of God? But shew us where hath the Scripture given you any such Authority, much lesse infallibly confirmed it? Or how is this a Tradition truly so called? Because you call it so? But ‡ 1.198 if Scripture have not sufficient Light to prove themselves to be Gods word: what Light find you there infallibly to confirme the Authority of your Tradition? And if your Church Tradition doe not confirme the Authority of Scripture infallibly: how then? Ergo fallibly, and deceitfully. But probably, you Say. But probability cannot confirme truth. This is a meere Solecisme of yours,* 1.199 and any common Aristo∣telian would hisse it out of the Philosophy Schooles. And in a Law-Case, a Probable Testimony is not Legall, it is no Testimony. And will you Say then, that the Scripture hath confirmed to your present Church such an Authority infallibly, to be a confirming Testimony of the Authority of Scripture, which is insufficient and illegall? How much the neerer is Scripture Authority for such a Testimony? Or your probable testimony doth confirme Scripture-Authority to be probable. That's all; and that's nothing, saving that hereby you make the Scripture to be of no Authority at all. For first you Say, The Scripture hath no testimony of its Authority, sufficient in it selfe: Secondly, that it must first have testimony from the Authority of the present Church: and thirdly, that this testimony is but probable, not infallible. Therefore necessarily it followeth, that it is but at the most probable, if the Scripture have any Au∣thority at all. And this is that Goates-haire, wherewith you have full stuffed almost 30 of your Folio-leaves, as before we have noted. And yet the thread of that 16th Section is not yet cut off, or spun out.

L. p. 100. The Iesuite in the Church of Rome, and the precise party in the Reformed Churches agree in this: That the Sermons and Preachings by word of mouth, of the Lawfully sent Pastors, and Doctors

of the Church, are able to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith. Nay, are the very word of God. So A. C. expresly. And no lesse then so have some accounted of their owne Factious words (to Say no more) then as the word of God. † (in the margent at this marke) For the freeing of Factious and Silenced Ministers is termed The restoring of Gods word to its Liberty. In the Godly Author of the Late Newes from Ipswitch. p. 5.

P. That the Sermons and Preachings by word of mouth of the Lawfully sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church, are able to breed in men Divine and Infallible Faith; being according to the Rule and Evidence of Scripture, as true Preaching is: what good Christian makes a doubt, though you deride it? I pray you, (you that are the great Rabbi: and Champion of the present Church of England) What Say you of the Apostles words? How shall they call on him, in whom they have not beleeved? And how shall they beleeve in him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they heare without a Preacher? And how shall they Preach except they be Sent? So then Faith com∣eth by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But we shall heare your judgement by and by. As for A. C. (with whom you yoak the precise party in the same sentence) surely were he no Je∣suite, nor illegitimate Priest, but either a Sound Christian, or a Lawfully sent Pastor and Doctor of the Church of Christ, the words rightly meant, and understood, are most true. I remember I have read a Story of a Grecian State, I take it of Athens, where when a vitious Senator in Court on a time gave very good Counsell for the Common-Weale they approved of the Counsell, but would not have it Registred in his name,* 1.200 but caused an honest man to utter the same forme of words in Court, and so under his name it was recorded. So I may here, Let a good Christian, or (if you will) one of the precise party you mention, utter these words (and not A. C.) and then the sense wilbe good and true. And by your own words we shall convince you of folly by and by. Now for the precise party in the Reformed Churches, doe you not meane those, who are most reformed in their life and conversation, and most refined from the drosse and dregges of all Deformed Churches Superstitions and Idola∣tries in the pretended worship of God, and from all grosse errours in Faith and Doctrine? Surely those you must and do meane, as whom you most deadly hate, and therefore in your wret∣ched malice do couple them with A. C. Of which precise party Iesus Christ is the head, that pure and precise Nazarite, and Se∣peratist from all sin and errour, with all the Apostles, Prophets,

and Martyrs. And what do they say? No lesse (say you) then A.C And what faith A.C.? Expresly, that Sermons, &c. (as be∣fore) are the expresse word of God. And how prove you that this precise party saith no lesse? Nay you say more, that they account their own Factious words no lesse (to say no more) then as the word of God. To Say no more? Nay surely, you have said enough, if it be true. But if not true, a great deale too much. Well, true, or not true, 'tis enough you Say it; and so you make this precise party to be ten times worse, then the Jesuite. And so you would have it. For say you, the Jesutie saith, Sermons are the very word of God: but the Precise, That their own factious words are. What? The word of God. No, but, As the word of God. Why, do you call them factious words, because they are As the word of God? Doe you not know that true Preachers words should be * 1.201 hoes log•••• ••eou; as the Oracles, or word of God, as Peter speakes? such words as become ‡ 1.202 Sound Doctrine? ‡ 1.203 Sound Speech, that cannot be con∣demned (but unjustly, by such as doe heterodidaskalein, teach strange Doctrines, and agree not to wholsome words) keeping the § 1.204 Forme of Sound words. But you charge here the precise party with factious words. How prove you that? For Si sat est accusasse, quis innocens erit? If your single Accusation be suffici∣ent, who shalbe Innocent? But you bring your proofe è Scrip∣tis, good evidence sure. What's that? † For the freeing of facti∣ous and Silenced Ministers, is termed, The restoring of Gods word to its Liberty But where do you find these factious words? In the Godly Author of the late Newes from Ipswich. Well then, here be 2 things obserbable: 1. The Matter: 2. the Author. 1. The Matter charged, The freeing of factious and Silenced Ministers, is termed, The restoring of Gods word to its Liberty. And who are these factious and Silenced Ministers? Namely a matter of about an hundred godly and Conscientious Ministers in Norfolke, Suffolk, Essex, Kent, Surrey, and other Sh••res, who were in one Summer, and the most in the Circuit of one Visitation, some silenced, some suspen∣ded, some also excommunicated, from Church and Chimney (ab Aris ac Focis, aqua & igni) and with their Wives and Children exposed to beggery, and all calamity? Wherefore? They were factious. Wherein? They would not ob••y and conforme to the Orders of their Ordinary. What Orders? For the reading in their severall Con∣gregations the Book for Sports on the Lords dayes: For the setting up of Altars in their Chancels: For the causing of their People (never accustomed to it before) to come up to the Al∣tar, and there receive the Communion, or the Lords Supper on

their knees. For these, and the like, which they refused to do, they are doomed Factious. But the Ministers aledged, these were new Impositions praeter praescriptum Legis, besides the prescript Law or Statute, so as their obedience should have in∣curred a Premunire. No matter for that. They are a sort of factious fellows, and ringleaders of Puritan-people (as you apologised in the Starre-Chamber) and so being once silenced, 'tis too late to talk. Yet these men were all Conformists to the Discipline by Law established, and lived peaceably. How then were they Fa∣ctious? Why, surely they would not observe Orders. They would (notwithstanding an Order to the Contrary) preach twice every Lords day: They would open the Catechisme-points, and not content themselves with the bare words of Question and Answere, as it is in the Booke: they would hold the people so long with their preaching in the Afternoons, that they had no time left to goe to their Laudable Sports▪ nor could the people enjoy their pleasures with a quiet Conscience, the Ministers would so trouble them with pressing the Sanctification of the Sabbath according to the 4th Commandement, and the like. Well then, diligent Preachers they were: and they preached the word of God by expounding and applying it, which we shall heare you by and by to commend, if we may beleeve your words, when we see your deeds contrary. So as then, in Norfolke, and Suffolke, and Essex, while these godly and painfull Ministers preached the word of God, it did as the Apostle saith, * 1.205 trékein, run, or diar∣rusai, flow forth like the ‡ 1.206 waters in the Sanctuary. When Paul was prisoner at Rome, and yet had liberty to preach the word, (for in those dayes, ‡ 1.207 Les Diables estroyent encores en Leur Donat: the Devil was but a Grammer Scholar, and had not learned in Machiavels Schoole to be one of Antichrists Statesmen, to shut Ministers up in the Inquisition-house, that they shall ne∣ver tell Tales more in the Pulpit) he Said, § 1.208 For the which I am a Prisoner in bonds, but the word of God is not bound. So as while Gods Ministers, are not restrained from preaching the word of God, but that they freely preach it without impeachment, it may be truly said, The word of God is not bound. But on the con∣trary, when Godly and painfull Ministers are silenced, then it may alike truly be sayd, The word of God is bound. I will recol∣lect all, and conclude with a Syllogisme:

• If the free Preaching of Gods word be the liberty of it, and the silencing of Gods faithfull Ministers be a binding of Gods word: then the freeing of such silenced Ministers, is the restoring of Gods word to its libetty:
• ...

• But the free Preaching of Gods word is the liberty of it; and the silencing of Gods faithfull Ministers.
• Therefore the freeing of silenced Ministers is the restoring of Gods word to its liberty.

The consequence of the Antecedent cannot be denyed: and the Minor is the Apostles in that place forealedged,* 1.209 so as here is nothing left for you to deny, but the Conclusion. And that's enough for you. Yet might those Ministers have but eq••all Law, and liberty to plead their Cause against you, they would easily purge themselves from such an aspersion of being Fa∣ctious, when some of your party would prove to be deep enough plunged at least in a Premunire (to say no more) were not the Laws asleep, and (in this case) in as much bondage, as the Gospell. I passe from the matter of your Ipswich Newes, to the Author. And it would be News, to tell us truly, who that might be. But all the tidings you can tell us of him, is by certain marks to describe him unto us. And those are three▪ 1. Is H.B. which (in your Book set out concerning those three foresaid bitter men,* 1.210 and which you read in the Starre-Chamber, before all the Court at their Censure) you set in the margent over against those passages which you cite out of Ipswich News. This is one of your marks; although (as I said before, and as I have it by very credible intelligence) he was not the Author of it, and therfore you take, and have set your first mark amisse, for H. B. it was not. And yet this mark falsly set, became the occasion of the seting on of the second mark; and that was an Eare-marke, and that upon both the Eares for failing; and that closse to the head, which escaped scarce a hayres breadth, and this upon the Pillory, that some thousands of beholders might be witnesses of it. The third mark I find here in your margent, in this form, † a Crucifix I cannot call it: but it is next unto it, a Crosse it is, and very like to Christs Crosse, and as like to that Pillory, wherein H. B. stood, as can be; A fit mark ther∣fore for him, whom you had so marked before. So as, if any inquire of this Author, who it should be, your Book can shape him a ready answere, Ecce signum▪ Loe here a signe of that Pil∣lory on which he suffered. In the last place, you call him here in scorn, and through the nose (as Tertullian speakes in another case of an Hereticke) the Godly Author of the late Newes from Ipswich, and all this he may do by Authority, that sits in Cathe∣dr•• derisorum, in the scorners chaire, making a mock of all true Religion, Godlinesse, and honesty. And thus you cease not still to

persecute the poore Man every kind of way here, * 1.211 by ••ruell mocking, as the Apostle speakes. But he but drinks of the same ‡ 1.212 Cup which his Lord and Master drunk of before him. And all these things you load Christs Servant withall, shall but make his crown the more glorious. For I heare, he indures that his perpetuall closse Imprisonment, and Banishment, from Wife, Children, Friends, Countrey, all; with as great a continued magnanimity, as he did his standing and suffering on the Pillory.

L. ibid.* 1.213 I ever tooke Sermons (and so do still) to be most necessary expositions and applications of holy Scripture, and a great ordinary meanes of Saving knowledge. But I cannot thinke them, or the prea∣chers of them divinely infallible. The Antient Fathers of the Church preached farre beyond any of these of either Faction: and yet no one of them durst thinke himselfe infallible, much lesse, that whatsoever he preached, was the word of God. And it may be observed too, that no men are more apt to say, that all the Fathers were but men, and might erre, then they that think their own preachings are infallible.

P. Here you acknowledge Sermons to be necessary expositi∣ons, and applications of holy Scripture, and a great ordinary meanes of saving knowledge. Doe you so? Have you indeed ever taken them to be so? And so still indeed? What still? What, all this while, that you have been, and are a most notorious per∣secuter of, and rooter out of godly Preachers, whom your late Brother White in Scorne (in his Book of the Sabbath, or rather against the Sabbath) calls Sermonders? And is there a gene∣ration, or profession of men above ground, whom you hate, more then these? If you ever took Sermons to be such; why do you continually take the Preachers themselves in your nets, and so devoure them? Are Sermons necessary expositions, and applications of Scripture, and that by your owne confession? Then the greater your condemnation, that take away this Key of Knowledge. And that they be a great meanes of Saving knowledge: Then why do you not onely suffer the people to * 1.214 perish for want of them, but chase away good Pastors from them? Thus are you not guilty of the blood of so many thou∣sand Soules, and have pronounced the sentence of condemna∣tion against your selfe with your own mouth? And thus doth not the nakednesse of your notorious and shamelesse hipocrisie discover it selfe to all the world, while you professe in words one thing, and in your deeds practise the contrary? But you give the reason your selfe▪ because you take Sermons to be

such, as you say, therefore you persecute the Preachers of them. Neither yet come you full home to the truth,* 1.215 in giving Ser∣mons their due, for all your sugred words; Sermons, I meane, the plain, powerfull, and sound preaching of Gods word, by explica∣tion, and application. You say, they are great meanes of sound know∣ledge. You doe not say so of Sermons, as of your externall wor∣ship, The GREAT WITNESSE: but, a great meanes, not The great meanes, nor the GREAT MEANES put in Capitall Letters:* 1.216 much lesse doe you say, as the Apostle, That preaching is the power of God unto Salvation, to every one that beleeveth. Or as, 1 Cor▪ 1.18. The preaching of the crosse is to them that perish foolishnesse: but to us that are saved, it is the power of God. Or,* 1.217 To them that are called, we preach Christ, the power of God, and the wisdome of God. And yet with you it is but a great meanes. And well too, that you will vouchsafe to give it so good a word. But it is such a great meanes, as there is none other or∣dinary meanes of saving knowledge whatsoever to be compared with it.

But you cannot thinke Sermons divinely infallible. I thinke not such Sermons as you make. But are not those Sermons, which being a true explication and application of the the word of God, the Scripture, doe convert soules to God, doe beget faith in the hearers, and make of them new Creatures divinely infallible; can such Sermons be otherwise, then divinely infallible? I doe not meane your Court Sermons. And can that preaching which is a great meanes (as you confesse) of saving knowledge, but be di∣vinely infallible? Can that, which brings men to salvation, de∣ceive men? I speak still of true preaching.

But you put Sermons (which you say are expositions, and appli∣cation of Scripture, and a great meanes of saving knowledge) and preachers together, whom you doe not think to be infallible, There is some difference, by your leave. For the Sermon may ••e divinely infallible, saving the hearers soules, and yet the prea∣cher himselfe be deceived, and put by his purpose in preaching of it. For instance: I remember Augustine tells how on a time preaching upon a text, he did, besides his purpose and intenti∣on extravagate from his text, and fell upon the Manichean Heresie, which was nothing to his text, in which extravagant discourse, he notwithstanding, according to his dexterity, ••ound∣ly confuted that Heresie: Well, after the Sermon a Maniche∣an that there had heard him, came to Augustine, and told him, that his Sermon had much wrought upon him, and convinced

him of his error, desiring him further to instruct him in the true Faith: Hereat Augustine fell into an admiration, saying to the man, give glory to God, and never thank me for it: for I ne∣ver intended, when I came into the Pulpit at that time, so much as to touch upon that poynt. But now I see▪ Gods merci∣full hand led me out of my intended course, that I should, going out of mine owne way, bring thee into the right way. Thus we see the Sermon may be divinely infallible, when yet the Preacher himselfe was deceived. Againe, the Preacher being a man is subject to error, when yet his Sermon is infallible, being divine, that is, according to Gods word, the Scripture, and his life through infirmity may have many errors, when yet his doctrine is upright and sound, being regulated by Gods word, and Spirit, which is not wanting to his faithfull Servants, in his owne Ordinace.

But (say you) the ancient Fathers of the Church preached beyond any of these, of either Faction: and yet no one of them durst thinke himselfe infallible, much lesse, that whatsoever he preached was the word of God. Here first you shew still your teeth, and utter your ex∣treme malice against Christ, in calling his faithfull servants, the Ministers of his word, a Faction; and such a Faction, as you yoake with that of the Jesuites. Certainly if godly Ministers (such as you place, in the precise party of the reformed Church) be a Facti∣on, it is under and with their King and Captain Christ, fighting, and confederating, against all Antichristian adversaries, the disgui∣sed enemies of Christ, and of his word, and true Church, and of all his faithfull Ministers, and people, that doe sincerely professe his Name. Which your malice being so Diabolicall,* 1.218 the Lord re∣prove you for it, and reward you according both to your * 1.219 words and deeds, who doe thus confound, the precious with the vile, the good with the evill, light with darknesse, Christ with Belial, true Christians with Antichristians. Certainly ther's a woe belongs to you for this. We doe utterly reject all Iesuites and Antichri∣stians, as who neither doe, nor dare, nor can preach Gods word truly, to the begeting of Saving Faith, and Saving Knowledge. For then they must preach against the Popes Kingdome, and his cursed doctrines, which in the Councel of Trent, doe both forbid, and accurse all saving doctrines of grace, and burne with fier and fagot the Preachers of them; whom you also most cruelly persecute with all the Engines of cruelty, that malice it selfe can invent, and a desperate man against all Laws of God and man dare execute.

For the antient Fathers of the Church, whose preaching you farre preferre, before any of that precise party (as you call it) for as for A. C. and his Faction, we altogether exclude them out of the number of preachers in the reformed Churches: whether ig∣norance, or malice hath more blinded your judgement in this, I cannot directly say. Ignorance, not onely of the Fathers preaching, but much more of the preciser party of preachers, in the Reformed Churches, whose Sermons, and writings I suppose you have but a little acquainted your selfe withall: but for your malice against these, I dare confidently say, you have no want of that. And seeing you draw me (though against my will) to enter within the lists of such a comparison between those antients, and our moderne reformists, I hold it fit to speake somthing of it, (though I declined it before, when you gave the like occasion) both to discover the weaknesse of your judgement herein, and to vindi∣cate the truth it selfe, in maintaining the just reputation of the truly Reformed Churches. Now no reason can be given▪ why those Antients (though otherwise of honourable mention) should preach farre beyond the best preachers of the Reformed Chur∣ches. For they could not have that knowledge, and learning, which so many ages since have produced, together with much expe∣rience; all which the truly reformed preachers make use of. Again, doe but compare most of the writings and Sermons of those An∣tients, with our moderne Reformed Divines, and a right judgement will find the oddes of your farre beyond, to be on the side of the reformed party. In comparison of whom, how poore were those Antients, both in their expositions and applications of Scripture. Augustine, that excellent light in those times, though in his Polemicall Tracts, and especially against the Pelagians, and Semi∣pellagians, in the vindicating of Gods grace, and so in opening all those places of Scripture, concerning those points, he shewed an accute dexterity, and sound judgement: yet in his other exercises, or Sermons, and expositions of Scripture, he was not so pregnant. As in his 8th Tome, containing his expositions, and Sermons, upon the Psalmes, although the Reader shall not repent him of his labour, because he shall meet with many passages of good note, yet he may observe how farre wide he is of the scope and meaning of the Psalmes, which he handleth all along. He preached indeed every day: as Calvin did at Geneva (besides all his other weighty imployments) but what a dispa∣rity there is between their expositions, I referre to the judgement of K. Iames, who commended Calvins Commentaries, above all

those of the Ancients. So for the Greek Church (as Aug. for the Latine) that golden mouthed Chrisostome (according to his Name) the best preacher in his time, though many of his expo∣sitions were good, yet when he came to his tò u'thikòn, his morall, or application, though in it selfe it was very good, yet for the most part no way pertinent to his text he handled: but he would sometimes make his use against covetousnesse, somtimes against pride, or some other sinne, or, to exhort to some morall vertue, or other, but (I say) without any coherence to his text, for the most part. And for the most of those Antients, what was the common Theame of their preaching, but morality, de∣lighting rather to contemplate in a solitary life, then to practise such preaching, as might win soules. How few of them did preach the Doctrine of Iustification by Faith in Christ. In somuch as Bernard, who lived many hundred yeares after those ancients, and in those times, wherein he noted Antichrist to be come (which he plainly poynted out to be the Pope) did preach more soundly of this doctrine, of Iustification by Faith onely, then all those Fathers had done: if we may judge of their preaching by their writings. They spent themselves more in preaching for good works. Then to set forth the faith in Christ; though some flashes they had here and there. And whether this be not one reason, why you so commend the Fathers preaching, because they were so much for good works, and so little for faith, I know not. Whereas the moderne Divines of the Reformed Churches are most singular, and excellent in seting forth the Mystery of faith, and that doctrine of Iustification thereby, therein exalting Gods grace, and excluding mans merits (though not negligent in exhorting to good works, as the fruits of faith) Those Doctrines of Grace and faith, being the main substance of the Gospell, and the true practising of Iesus Christ, besides which there is no true preaching. Admirable they are also in seting forth the na∣ture of sinne, to bring man out of himselfe, and to plant him into Christ. And in a word, have so set forth the whole body of Divinity, as the Fathers writings to theirs, are in comparison, in respect of sound Divinity, but as a barren Field to a fruitfull, well planted, and well watered Garden. And great reason there is for this. The Fathers had to deale with some Hereticks, as with Arius, whose Mal was Athanasius, and with Pelagius, knockt down by Augustine, and others: but they knew not as yet the Mistery of iniquity: which in these latter times seeking to overtop the Gospell; and, to overthrow the Doctrine, and

Kingdome of Christ, hath given occasion, not onely of a refor∣mation, in a seperation from that Whore of Babylon, but to many Worthies, whom God hath raysed up in these last times, to be∣stirre themselves, and to study Christ his Military Discipline, and spirituall warfare, against the Beast, and his Crew, and to be expert in maintaining Christs Cause, with weapons both offen∣sive, and defensive. So as by this occasion, Gods Grace working with it, this last Century hath produced, more excellent, sound, and learned Divines, and famous preachers, then (I may say truly, though not without envie) have been ever since the Apostles times; The Name of our God, and of our Lord Iesus Christ, who by this meanes, hath Tryumphed over Antichrist, be praysed, and glorified for evermore. These have been and are Christs * 1.220 Triarian band fighting against Antichrists power, with the sword of the Spirit in their lippes, their pike, their pen in their hand, and fighting on their knees by Prayre, and have so confounded Anti∣christ by the dint of their Sword, and Pike, the word of God, that he hath no meanes left him, but by his legates à latere, to negoti∣ate his cause with Kings and Princes of the earth, to ‡ 1.221 incite them against the precise party, by taking their weapon (Gods word, and the preaching thereof) from them, leaving them nothing, but their bare knees to plead their Cause upon, even Prayers▪ and Teares, these which the powers on earth may cause, but never deprive them of And how farre you have been a stickler, and instigator in this kind, I appeale to your practises, and to this your Book, sufficient, and competent witnesses against you.

But to return to your Fathers: (you say, that they, for all their preaching so farre beyond others, yet no one of them durst think him∣selfe infallible, much lesse, that whatsoever he preached, was the word of God. 'Tis true, they had been no wise Fathers, but Children rather, yea proud and foolish Men, if they had thought them∣selves to be infallible, which is proper to God alone▪ But what∣soever they preached out of Gods word, that they had good evi∣dence it was according to the Scripture, why should they not, not onely thinke, but be assured, that being the truth, it was infal∣lible, as being the substance of Gods word, which they preached? And so all other preachers.

Lastly, where you say, It may be observed, that no men are more apt to say, that all the Fathers were but men, and might erre, then they that thinke their own preachings were infallible. And what say you, I pray you, of your antient Fathers? Were they any others but m••n? And might they not erre? But you are not perhaps so

apt to say, They were but men, and might erre. You are willing to entertain, and retaine a higher opinion of them, then so. Or at least you are not so apt to say so of them, as they, then whom none are more apt to say, The Fathers were but men, and might erre. Sure if there were cause enough, and urgent too so to say, (as when it concernes the glory of God, and the truth it selfe) he that is aptest to say so, is the most to be commended. And now let us here a little inquire, who these men be, that are so apt to say thus of the ancient Fathers, and for what cause, That they were but men, and might erre. Why, who should they be, but the precise party of the reformed Churches, as all the worthy, reverend, pious, religious, learned, and judicious Divines, both be∣yond the Seas, and on this side, who undertaking to defend the truth of Christ, against Antichrist: and their Adversaries ob∣jecting, and pressing so much the authority of the antient Fa∣thers in such things, wherein they could not be otherwise ex∣cused, but that they did a'n••ropopathein, speake as men, who are not in all things infallible: what could they in such a case, an∣swere otherwise, But that those Fathers were but men, and might erre? Nor did they speake this out of any disesteem of those Fathers, but when they were (I say) so urged to defend the truth against the Adversaries of it, by the evidence whereof, they were able to make good what they sayd, that those Fathers were but men, and might erre. Now for this, who is more apt, then your Lordship to cast in the dish of this precise party (as you call them) that they should upon just cause speake thus of your antient Fathers? What would you say then, if all this party should as one Man rise up, and openly professe against you, as a notorious enemy of the truth, and of the Church of God in England, and elswhere, and of all pious, sincere, and zealous Prea∣chers of the Gospell, and that under the Name of the precise party, which you so yoake with the Jesuites, you doe malici∣ously, not onely seek to undermine, but even professedly to invade and oppugne, the whole Kingdome of Iesus Christ, as also your practises, and this your Book can witnesse. And how doe you come to know the thoughts of this precise party, so well, that you say, they think their own preachings were infallible? Surely you do but think so. You might therfore judge more charitably. But as I said of those Fathers, so do I of these, what they have a good and sure ground in Scripture for, to preach and teach, they may be sure, and they know it to be the truth, and so infallible. As for those that * 1.222 preach of cursing and lyes (as David speaks)

and suggest slanders, and false reports into the eares of Princes, and Courts against Gods Ministers and Preachers: let them thinke, and be assured too, that what they preach, or print, is not onely not infallible, but most malicious, and detestable, both be∣fore God and Man; as tending also the blinding, and so to the downfall of such as beleeve such falshoods to be infallible.

L. p 104. When the Fathers say, we are to rely upon Scriptures onely, they are never to be understood with exclusion of Tradition, in what causes soever it may be had. Not but that the Scripture is abun∣dantly sufficient, in, and of it selfe for all things: but because it is deep▪ and may be drawn into different senses, and so mistaken, If any man will presume upon his own str••ngth, and goe single without the Church. And citing an excellent sentence out of Vincentius Lynnen••is▪ quum sit perfectus Scripturarum Canon, sibique ad ommia satis superque sufficiat, &c. Forasmuch as that Canon of Scripture is perfect, and superabundantly selfe-sufficient to all things, and if you adde this your note upon it in the margent. And if it be sibi ad omnia, then to this, to prove it selfe, at least, after Tradition hath pre∣pared as to receive it.

P. A little * 1.223 before, you cite also Augustine seting downe 4 speciall notes and marks internall to the Scripture to prove it to be the word of God. As 1. The Miracles. 2. That there is nothing carnall in the Doctrine. 3. That there hath been such performance of it. 4. That by such a Doctrine of humility, the whole world almost hath been converted. And there also to the same purpose Lynnen••is: who placeth the Scripture before Tradition. And here againe, That the Scripture is selfe-sufficient to all. What room then for Tradition? Or if Tradition have any place at all, it were good manners for it to come behind, as a Handmayd waiting on her Mistris. But you can salve all with a wet finger, or with one drop out of your pen: If it be sibi ad omnia, that is, selfe-sufficient to all things, then to this, to prove it selfe, at least after Tradition ••ath prepard us to receive it. This is your own Addition, or Comen∣tary and Glosse of your own Mother wit, which is, as Tertul∣lian saith of the old Roman Senate, which had made a decree, that none should be taken into the number of their Gods, but such as the Senate it selfe should first think worthy, and ap∣prove of: So as Tiberius Caesar under whose Empire Christ suffered, when he had heard much fame of Christ, he moved the Senate, that Christ migh be entertained for one of their Gods. But the Senate for the foresaid Reason rejected it, be∣cause they first had approved of it. Whereupon Tertullian saith,

Ergo nisi homini pla••uerit, Deus non erit Deus. Therfore except it please man, God shall not be God. A fit parralell for this very purpose. The Scripture, by the consent of all the antient Fa∣thers, is abundantly selfe-sufficient to prove it selfe to be the word of God: but the present Church hath a Senatus consultum, a Decree, Tradition, which must first give her voyce and approbatiton, that the Scripture is the word of God; otherwise in vaine are all those Encomiums and Commendations of the Fathers, though never so antient, affirming, and confirming, the Scriptures selfe-sufficiencie, even beyond all measure. The Tradition of the pre∣sent Church must first give her voyce. Ergo, nisi homini placue∣rit▪ Scriptura non erit verbum Dei: Therfore except it please man, the Scripture shall not be the word of God. Onely herein you goe beyond the Roman Senate: for their Decree for the ad∣miting of a God was by the generall voyce of all the Sena∣tors: But yours is here from the sole and single Oracle of the Church of England. The Chaire of Canterbury. 'Tis enough that you tell us, with an if, if the Scripture be, Sibi ad omnia, then to this, to prove it selfe, at least after Tradition hath prepared us to receive it. Otherwise, never talke of Fathers Authority, all is in vaine, The Scripture cannot be beleeved to be the word of God, unlesse The Tradition of the Present Church prepare the way to receive it. And, at least, you say; which is no small deminution of the S••riptures selfe-sufficiencie, which you put with an if, at least. But of this sufficiently.

But let's heare your Reasons further for your Tradition. The Scripture (Say you) is deep, and may be drawn into different sences▪ and so mistaken, that any man will presume upon his own strength, and goe single without the Church. So it seemeth your Articles of Re∣ligion are deepe, as which not onely may be, but are drawne into different sences, and so mistaken, and that by the presumption of one mans strength, going single without the Church. But for the Scripture, though it be deep, yet it affords us both line, and Bucket sufficient to draw water out of those * 1.224 well•• of Salvation, and so to give us a full tast, whereby to relish and resent whose word it is; except the Tradition and Authority of your present Church doe cut off our line, and breake our Bucket. The Scrip∣ture hath both Milke for Babes, and strong Meat for Men.* 1.225 In the Sea both the Elephant may swim (as AUG. and GREG. saith) and the Lamb wade, and when it is by unstable men wrested and drawn into different sences, and so mistaken, yet it remaines the same unchangable truth still, and hath in it sufficient evi∣dence,

both to reconcile those differences, and to convince the gainsayer. 'Tis true, Let no man presume upon his owne strength; * 1.226 for the secret of the Lord is with them that feare him. Wha•• was the cause then, that you have all along your Booke, (as in part hath been shewed) so perverted the Scriptures? was it not be∣cause you took not with you for your guide, the Tradition of the present Church? And was not this then a prusuming upon your own strength, when you goe so solely, and singly to worke? But what meane you by going single without the Church? The not consul∣ting the Prelates? Or because the Papists object, as you, The Scriptures are deep and darke: therfore we must in all things take the present Church Tradition in our way, where it may be bad, and be guided by that, as by Ariadnees Thread, through those manyfold Meanders of that intricate Labyrinth, the Scripture, as you make it. Or that you meane by Church Tradition, the Authority of the present Church of England, as one with that Church whereof none is; and that this Authority must needs proceede and like a Candle before the Sun at noon-day (as before) shew us the way to know the Scripture to be the word of God: if we be willing to shut our eyes, and blindfold to be led by the Traditionall Authority of this your Church: what know we, but by such Authority you may tell us (puting the ••ible clas∣ped into our hands) All that is cantained within those claspes, is the word of God. This you may be sure of, you have Authority for it, you need goe no further. And all your Bibles of your present Church of England, being by expresse Charge bound with the Apocrypha, so as they are punished that doe it not, all the Books forfeited, which may breed an opinion in the people, that those Bookes also are a part of the word of God: If now one hereupon opening the Bible, and lighting upon either that ridiculous tale of Tobies Dog, or that of the Angel, who tells Tobia••, that he is his kinsman; and of the Smoke of the Fishes Liver that drives away the Devill; or of Razis killing of him∣selfe, and commended for it by the writer of the Books of the Maccabees; or that of the same Authors, doubting whether he hath done well, or no, in writing that Story, and the like: he may possibly by this meanes be brought to think meanely of the Scriptures, and that they are not the word of God, because he finds such things in the Bible (so as it is bound) as are ridicu∣lous, false, vaine, impious, and uncertaine whether the rest be done, as it should be, &c. And thus by your Apocrypha, delivered in∣to his hand by the Authority and Tradition of your present Church,

he is brought to beleeve, that either the Scriptures of tha•• Old and New Testament, are not the word of God, as wher∣with those Apocryphall Books are equally bound in all Bi∣bles: or else, that such Tradition of the present Church it little to be regarded, while pretending to lead men to the beliefe of the Scriptures, to be the word of God, there is no more difference made between them, and the Apocrypha, so full of vain lyes and ridiculous tales. And perhaps you may come in also as * 1.227 Time, and Pla••e, will permit) with your Verbum Dei non scriptum to boot, the word of God not written, of which you tell us before, agreeing therein with Bellarmine. And at last, when your Tra∣dition, and Authority hath sufficiently prepared the way, you will perhaps bring in your Traditions Apostolicke accompanied with the Decretalls of Gratian, which your Sister Church of Rome equall with the 4 Euangelists. But however, were it for no∣thing else, but to maintaine the credit of your present Church Tradition and Authority in commending to men the Scripture to be the word of God, you might doe well to take away your Apo∣crypha, which your Zeale will have placed in the midst between the two Testaments, not suffering any Bibles to be bound with∣out it, which is, as ‡ 1.228 one saith, as a Blakamore placed between two pure unspotted Virgins. Nor doe I think, that your Lordship so placeth your Blackamore, as Ladyes put a black patch upon their Cheek, or Chin, as a foyle, to make them seem more fayre: so you, to make the Scriptures the more lovely, and desire∣able, or the better to be known, as things by their contraries, as white by blacke, or the straight by the crooked, or truth, by error▪* 1.229 standing near it. And though Hierome (who excludes the Apo∣crypha out of the Canon of Scripture) saith, they may be read ad morum institutionem non ad confirmationem Fidei, for instruction of manners, and not for confirmation of faith: yet considering both the fooleries, and falsities, and vanities, and commended impieties, and confessed uncertainties in them (as aforesayd) all these things put together, might be (me thinks) of sufficient strength to thrust out that Blackamore by the head and shoulders from betweene those two fayre and unspotted Vir∣gins.

L. ibid. It is most reasonable that Theology should be allowed to have some Principles (as well as other Sciences) which she proves not, but presupposes. And the chiefest of these is, That the Scriptures are of Divine Authority.

P. How? Is the chiefest of these Principles allowed to Theologie,

This,* 1.230 That the Scriptures are of Divine Authority? Doe you not forget Tradition now? Doe you not reckon that for the first, and so the chiefest, as without which, the other cannot be granted? Or perhaps you doe not reckon your Tradition, or Authority of the present Church to be a Principle of Theology. What then? Perhaps, of Muthology, the science of setting forth Fables, Or, of Buttologie, the science, of much babble to no purpose. Or, Ar∣gologie, the science of vaine, and frivolous talke. Or, Carphologie, a gathering of Chaffe, as if you would by the heape of Chaffe shew us, where the Wheat is. Onely, your Tradition is no Principle of The∣ologie, and therfore a heape of chaffe wherein there is not one grain of the pure corn.

But let us come to see what is most reasonable. It is most rea∣sonable (say you) that Theologie should be alowed to have some Prin∣••iples (as well as other Sciences) which she proves not, but presupposes. And what is Theologie, but the Scripture it selfe, and the Doctrines therein contained? And however it be with other Sciences, which in comparison of Theologie are but imperfect and beg∣gerly, so as they have need to begge their a'itemata, some Prin∣ciples to be granted them, as grounds to worke upon, as the Mathematicks, &c. yet you might have given that honour to Queen Theologie, to which all other Sciences are but handmaids, as to exempt her from being a begger, yea and of that too, which is her own, and in her own possession, namely, That the Scripture is the word of God. This is one of Theologies prime Prin∣ciples, which the Scripture doth suo jure vindicare, challenge as her own right, and which no man can take from her. And if Theologie must borrow or begge this principle: Of whom? Of the Tradition of the Church? Beware of that: For then * 1.231 the Borrower, should be servant to be Lender, as Solomon saith. And to Begge it, were worse. But if Theologie have this principle of her owne, and it in the Scriptures possession; what need she goe either to begge or borrow it, and that of those, who can nei∣ther give, or lend it? And if this be a Principle, that Scripture 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the word of God. What use of your Church Tradition? For Prin∣ciples are not to be denied. But you denying, that this can be beleeved, without the Tradition of the present Church doe first in∣duce unto it: then you are one of those, that deny Principles. And Contra negantem Principia non est disputandum, we are not to dispute against him that denyeth Principles; but in this case to hold him as an Heretick,* 1.232 and to deale with him as the Apostle admonisheth: A man that is an Hereticke, after the first

and second Admonition reject: knowing, that he that is such, is sub∣verted, and sinneth, being a'utokatákritos, selfe-condemned.

L. p. 105. The evidence of supernaturall Truths, which Divinity teaches, appeares not so manifest, as that of the Naturall, though in themselves more sure, and infallible.

P. Appeares not: true indeed to a naturall man. Here you speake by experience. But to the spirituall man this evidence ap∣peares very clearely; for (as the Apostle saith) The Naturall man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishnesse unto him: Neither can ••e know them, because they are spiritually dis∣cerned. But he that is spirituall, judgeth all things; as Solomon also saith Evill men understand not judgement: But they that seeke the Lord, understand all things.

L. p. 106. Faith is a mixed Act of the Will, and the understan∣ding, and the Will inclines the understanding to yeeld full approba∣tion to that, whereof it sees not full proof. Not but that there is full proofe of them: But because the maine grounds, which prove them, are concealed from our view, and folded up in the unrevealed Councel of God, God in Christ, resolving to bring mankind to their last hap∣pinesse by Faith, and not by Knowledge, That so the weakest among men may have their way to blessednesse open.

P. 'Tis true, that Faith, being the life of the soule, anima animae (as Aug. speaks) doth informe and quicken all the facul∣ties thereof, as the Will, Understanding, Reason, Affections: so as the Will doth no more incline the Vnderstanding to assent (this being the opinion of those Schoolmen, that hold the Will to be the seat of Faith, as others do hold the Vnderstanding) Then the Vnderstanding doth the Will, or Reason the Affections: But Faith being that Grace, which quickneth the whole soule, and in it all the faculties as aforesaid, it is this Faith Principally that inclineth all the whole soule with all its faculties to yeeld their unanimous assent unto it. And yet I deny not a mutuall reciprocation, and interchangeable cooperation, which is be∣tween these faculties, as in the naturall man, so in the spirituall man, regenerate by faith. For as in the naturall man somtimes the Vnderstanding inclines the Will, somtimes the Will the Vn∣derstanding, sometimes Reason inclines the Affections, and som∣times the Affections incline Reason, and that oftentimes with great violence to a wrong object: the like working there is among the sanctified faculties of the soule Regenerate, somtimes the Vnderstanding inclining the Will, somtimes the Will the Vn∣derstanding, and sometimes the Affections incline both; as the

Apostle saith (speaking of zeale for God) Whether we be besides our selves,* 1.233 it is to God, or whether we be sober, it is for your Cause. For the love of Christ constraineth us. And the affections of the Apo∣stle towards Christ were so strong in him, that they carryed his Vnderstanding, Will and Reason along with them with strong hand, when notwithstanding he was told of dangers, yea bonds abi∣ding him at Ierusalem, and earnestly desired of his Friends not to goe thither: he answered▪ What meane ye to weep, and to breake mine heart? For I am ready not to be bound onely, but also to dye at Ierusalem for the Name of the Lord Iesus.* 1.234 And Christ himselfe was so full of holy Zeale, and strong Affections, as he was carryed with a wonderfull violence of them, insomuch as they said of him, that he was madde. And his friends one time went to lay hold on him,* 1.235 saying he was besides himselfe. And many of Christ his Servants, his Ministers, being carryed with a strong love of Christ, and zeale for his glory, expressed in their courragious witnessing of the truth against wicked men, the enemies there∣of, although their Vnderstanding apprehend the danger, and their Will could be content to live in peace, yet the Affection here carries all along with it, and they willingly follow, be∣cause the same Faith guides and carries all along with it, whence it comes to passe, that the affection here to Christ, and to truth being as it were the Leader of the rest, the Vnderstan∣ding, Reason and Iudgement least appearing in the sence of the world, men are thereupon so apt and prone to Censure such Ministers of indiscretion. But this may shew the inward oppe∣ration of the faculties of a regenerate soule, how one works upon another reciprocally, and one inclines another, somtimes the superiour faculties, the inferiour; and somtimes the inferiour, the superiour, but Faith is the principall agent working in, and inclining all.

It is not then the Will that alwayes inclines the Vnderstanding, but the Grace of Faith, which infused, doth at once both illuminate, incline, and draw both the Will and Vnderstanding to rest in the saving truth of God apprehended by Faith. This Faith I say doth so illuminate, the whole soule, with all its faculties, as that it selfe brings meat in the mouth (as ye say) even a full proofe in it selfe of the things beleeved: so as now not onely the affiance of the Will, but the affiance, and certain knowledge of the Vnderstanding doe rest themselves in the cleare evidence, which Faith it selfe bringeth with it, which evidence hath the ample and sure Testimony, both of the word of God, and of the

Spirit of God, whose worke it is. For this saving Faith never goes alone, but is both ushered in, and wrought, and accom∣panied with the word and Spirit of Christ. For so soon as Faith is conceived in the soule, it unites to Christ, and so it hath com∣munion with Christ, together with his Spirit mimediately; so as both the Will, and the Vnderstanding, and the whole soule, heart and affections, so soon as Faith possesseth them (which Faith is a plerophoria, full assurance of the things beleeved, and a cleare evidence of them, though not seen, as before is shewed) there is withall exhibited both in, and with Faith a full sufficient proof of the things beleeved. * 1.236 How say you then, that the maine grounds, which prove them, are concealed from our view, and folded up in the unrevealed Councel of God? And what main grounds, I pray you be those? Can you tell? Or doe you speake in the Clouds, that you may seem to say something; which you un∣derstand not. For certainly this Mystery of Faith is concealed from your understanding, as appeareth by your darke and clow∣dy words. And is that unrevealed councell of God the object of our Faith? Cometh not Faith by hearing of the word of God, wherein God hath revealed his will to us? Or doth the Tradi∣tion of your present Church, lead you to beleeve such sencelesse speculations? Indeed the Apostle saith, ‡ 1.237 That in Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdome and knowledge. Hid, that is, layd up, and contained as a Treasure. But not hid from his true Church, and faithfu••l people, as the Apostle saith, † 1.238 If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world, hath blinded the minds of them that beleeve not, least the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ should shine unto them. And againe, § 1.239 Eye hath not seen, nor eare heard, neither have entred into the heart of man the things, which God hath prepared for them that love him: But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit. But where? Search the Scriptures (saith Christ) for in them ye thinke to have eternall life, and they are they which testifie of me; so to this purpose the Apostle speaketh excellently, Ephes▪ 3.4, 5, 6. and 1.9.17, 18, 19 and in many other places. But to you it seems these things are hid, and folded up; and therfore no mervaile you know not what you say, nor wherof you affirme: As the Apostle saith of some † 1.240 Who were turned aside from Charity out of a pure heart, and a good Conscience, and of Faith unfained, unto vaine ••ang∣ling. Desiring to be teachers of the Law, understanding neither what they say, nor wherof they affirme. Let therfore the Prophet Esay read you a Lecture, * 1.241 Stay your selves, and wonder: Cry ye out,

and cry: They are drunken, but not with wine, They stagger but not with strong drinke. For the Lord hath powred on them the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: The Prophets, and your Rulers, the Seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you, as the words of a Book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this I pray thee: And he saith I cannot, for it is sealed: And the Book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this I pray thee: And he saith, I am not learned. Wherfore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw neere me with their mouth, and with their lippes doe honour me, but have removed their heart farre from me: and their feare towards me is taught by the Precepts of men: Therfore behold I will proceed to doe a mervailous worke amongst this people, even a marvailous work and a wonder: for the wisdome of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shalbe hid. Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their councel from the Lord, and their works are in the darke, and they say who seeth us: And who knoweth us? surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the Potters Clay. Loe, my Lord, I hope this word is not folded up: if to you it be, you shall one day both see and feele it more clearly and sensibly fulfilled.

But you goe on. * 1.242 God in Christ (say you) resolving to bring Mankind, to their last happinesse by Faith, and not by Knowledge. What, by a blind Faith? For by Faith, and not by Knowledge, is all one, as to say, by such a Faith, as is without Knowledge, and so without light in it, and so blind. Wheras the true saving Faith, is a knowing Faith, it is the evidence of things not ••een, it sees him that is invisible; as before is shewed. But my Lord, if the maine grounds be folded up in the unrevealed counsell of God: I wonder by what revelation you come to know his secret, That God in Christ hath resolved to bring Mankind to their last happinesse by Faith, and not by Knowledge; surely God hath no where in Scripture revea∣led any such resolution of his. And if it be not written, Timeas 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ill••d (as Tertullian forementioned said to Hermogenes the Heretick) Feare that Woe to them▪ that shall adde to the Booke of Scripture. But if you had leasure to Read the Scripture, it reveales unto us plainly what God in this businesse hath resolved to do, and how he will bring Mankind to his last happinesse; and that is by a seeing, not a blind Faith: by a Faith explicit and cleare, not implicit, and folded up: by light, and not by darknesse. This is Gods way, that he hath chalked out unto us in the Scripture (as before is fully proved of Faith) and therfore we are sure, that God in Christ in his eternall councell resolved to bring us this way to

heaven, and no other way. And this * 1.243 way is Christ: and Christ is ‡ 1.244 light: and in this way we must walke as ‡ 1.245 children of the light, and not as children of darknesse. And every true beleever, as he be∣comes a new man, so of a blind man, he becomes a seeing man. For this cause Christ came the § 1.246 true light, that he might lighten every man that comes to him. For this cause was Paul sent to preach to the Gentiles, † 1.247 To open their eyes, and to turne them from darknesse to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgivenesse of sinnes, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by Faith that is in me, saith Christ; so that eve∣ry true Christian in his conversion, of blind, becomes seeing, of darknesse becomes light in the Lord, of Satans bo••dm••n, Gods ser••ant; and by this way onely through Faith in Christ, they receive forgivenesse of sinnes here, with sanctification, and here∣after the eternall inheritance. But as for you, my Lord, as you have found out another way, namely, a blind way,* 1.248 not by the way of knowledge, by which yet you pretend to your last happines: so be assured of this, that the place you are going unto, is just like the way that leads unto it, blind and darke, yea, utter dark∣nesse, where the Pit is, into which, both the blind leader, and the blind led shall fall.

And for your further conviction, or else confusion, and confuta∣tion of your folly, and information of your blind Disciples, and confirmation of the truth to all the children of truth: note what Christ himselfe saith expresly, point blanke against you. You say, God in Christ resolved to bring Mankind to their last happinesse by Faith, and not by Knowledge. But Christ saith, This is the will of him that sent me (this God hath resolved on) that every one that seeth the Son, and beleeveth in him, should have eternall life,* 1.249 and I will raise him up at the last day: Marke here; This is the Fathers will, his resolution, his revealed councell, and purpose. What? That every one that seeth Christ (not with bodily eyes here, but with the eyes of his soule, being illuminated by holy knowledge) and so beleeveth in him, should have eternall life, and Christ will raise him up in the last day. Here is Mans last happinesse, to which God hath revealed t•• us in his word, that he hath resolved in his councel to bring Mankind by Faith and Knowledge, together, and without seperati∣on, as both seeing, and beleeving.* 1.250 And this doth the Scripture every where shew unto us. Wherfore did God give some Apo∣stles; and some Prophets; and some Euangelists; and some Pastors and Teachers: but for the perfecting of the Saints, for the worke of the Ministry, for the edefication of the body of Christ: And (Col. 2.2)

That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknow∣ledgement of the Mystery of God. What a high and admirable expression is here? And 6.7. this is to be rooted and built up in Christ. Againe, on the other side, what's the Cause and sourse of all wickednesse, and infidelity superstition and Idolatry, but igno∣rance of God, and of his word? As Ephes. 4.17. This I say ther∣fore, and testifie in the Lord, that ye henceforth walke not as other Gentiles walk••, in the va••ity of their minds, having the understan∣ding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindnesse of their heart, &c. So,* 1.251 1 Pet. 4.3. and Hos. 4.1. The Lord hath a controversie with the Inhabittnts of the Land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the Land. And vers. 7. My people are destroyed for lacke of knowledge: Because thou hast rejected knowledge (mark it well my Lord) I will also reject thee, THAT THOU SHALT BE NO PRIEST TO ME. And on the other side againe,* 1.252 The Lord saith, I will give you Pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge, and understan∣ding; namely, the people whom the Lord is in Covenant with: But it seemeth your Priesthood standeth not with the nature and office of those Prophets, which feed the people of God with know∣ledge and understanding. You can teach the people a shorter cut to heaven, and more easie for the Priest: for you tell us, God hath resolved to bring Mankind to blessednesse another way, then by know∣ledge. Wherin, how farre, you not onely dishonour, but blas∣pheme the truth of God, in Fathering such a foule and abomi∣nable lye upon him; for this, I leave you to that judgement, which he hath revealed in his Word.

But you seem to doe all this in charity, That the weakest a∣mong men may have their way to blessednes open. A way open? You meane surely the broad way, and you know whither that leads, and how the many such weake ones, as you speake of goe in that way. And broad and open your way had need to be, both for the multitude of the travailers therein, and for their blindnesse, and for the darknesse of the way, that so, though both they and their guides be blind, yet the way is so broad, as they cannot possibly goe out of it, so long as they do but follow their Nose, which must be their guide, for want of eyes. But it may be you will alledge that saying of Augustine, Indocti rapiunt regnum Caelo∣••um, &c. The unlearned and ignorant take by violence the Kingdome of heaven, where we that be great learned Clerks

are shut out. Ergo, the way is open for the weakest▪ and shut a∣gainst those, that abuse their Learning to Gods dishonour, and soules destruction. But whom doth Augustine there meane, by unlearned▪ Ignorants that had no Faith, nor true Religion in them? Certainly, ther's no heaven for such. The * 1.253 blind, and lame come not within the fort of Sion. But a true beleever may be unlettered, or (as they say) not book learned: yet, not without knowledge. For if he hath faith, he hath a knowledge of God in Christ. And being Christs, he hath the Spirit of Christ, and this quickens him up ••o diligence in the use of all good meanes of saving knowledge; as to heare Gods word faithfully preached, (for he knows Christs voyce) and frequently read, and conferred upon; and he meditates on it, his mind is much upon it, as yours is of your honours, and favour in Court, how to keep them: and he is still praying for increase of grace, and faith, and knowledge. And my Lord, many a such man I could bring, that cannot a letter on the Booke, that for all your seeming Learning, would put you to your Trumps, if your greatnesse would but descend so farre, as to reason with him of the Scriptures, and of Christ, and so of faith, and the like. For there's all his Learning. And such unlearned ones they be, who goe to heaven, yea * 1.254 take it by violence (as Christ saith) when great Lord Prelates are shut out. As Christ saith to the Pharisees: ‡ 1.255 The Publicans and ••ar∣lots goe into the Kingdome of God before you, for they beleeved Iohns preaching: but ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterwards, that ye might beleeve him.

But you goe on in your blind way, and say, pag. 109.* 1.256 The way of knowledge was not that, which God thought fittest for mans Salva∣tion. 'Tis true, not such a speculative knowledge, as you speak of: but God thought it fittest to bring men to salvation by a knowing Faith; as before is shewed. I will conclude this with the Apo∣stles thunder: ‡ 1.257 As we said before, so say I now againe, if any man preach otherwise, then that is delivered in Gods word, let him be ac∣cursed. And if the Scripture accurse him, that § 1.258 leads the blind out of his way, to which curse all the people say Amen: then what curse is due to him, that teacheth the blind such a way, as leads to certain destruction of Soule and Body? Shall not all the peo∣ple say Amen to this curse?

L. p. 106.* 1.259 The Credit of the Scripture depends not upon the subservient inducing Cause, that leads us to the first knowledge of the Author, which leader here is the Church: but upon the Author himselfe, and the opinion we have of his Sufficiencie.

P. Doe you not make the credit of the Scripture to depend upon the Authority of the present Church, when without this subservient inducing Cause you deny the possibility of beliefe, that the Scripture is the word of God? For you say expresly, pag. 120. When I said, Scriptures were Principles to be supposed, I did not, I could not intend, they were prius cognitae, known before Tradition; Since I confesse every where, that Tradition introduces the knowledge of them. But if the credit of the Scripture depends not upon the Church, wheron then? On the Author (Say you) and the opinion we have of his Sufficiencie. Here be two things which you cou∣ple together: 1. The Author: 2. The opinion we have of his Suf∣ficiencie. 1. For the Author, which is God: 'tis true, that God himselfe is the Author of the Scripture, and so it is the word of God; and God the Author beares witnesse of the Scripture, that it is his owne word▪ And where doth God beare this witnesse? Is not this his witnesse in the Scripture it selfe? Doth not his Spirit speake in it, and tell us, that it is his word? Saith not his Spirit expresly, that * 1.260 All Scripture is given by Inspiration from God? And doth not the Scripture it selfe tell us this? Saith it not then of it selfe, that it is Gods word? And so saying, doth it not beare witnesse to it selfe, that it is the word of God? And is not the wit∣nesse therof true? And if true, doth not the credit of the Scrip∣ture depend upon it selfe, as it is the word of God that speaks in it, that it is the word of God? Or how can you so seperate the Author from the Scripture, he speaking in it, but that you must confesse the credit of the Scripture to depend upon it selfe, when you acknowledge it depends upon the Author? For as ‡ 1.261 God was in the Soft and Still voyce: so he is in the Scripture, which is the Soft and Still voyce of God. And as Elias knew by the soft and stil voyce, that the Lord was in it: So we know by the Soft and Still voyce of God, the Scripture, that God is in it, and therein speakes unto us. And what God therein speakes unto us, the Scripture, which is his voyce speakes unto us. So as the Scripture being Gods own voyce speaking unto us, what it saith, is of the Same credit, that God himselfe, the Author and Speaker, is of. And therfore, if the Credit of Scripture depend upon the Author, it de∣pends withall upon it selfe, because it is Gods own voyce.

But Secondly, you couple here with the Author, the opinion we have of his Sufficience.* 1.262 So as first, it seems you doe not allow the Credit of Scripture to depend simply and Solely upon the Author, but withall upon the opinion we have of his Sufficiencie: And what if we fayle in our good opinion of the Authors Suffi∣ciencie?

Wheron will you then hang the Credit of the Scripture? Surely it must depend upon our opinion. That's the dint of your speech. But of our selves we are altogether ignorant of Gods Sufficiencie. How then, or whence shall we come to have such an opinion of his Sufficiency, as whereon the Credit of the Scrip∣ture may infalliby depend? From the Authority or Tradition of the present Church? Alas your present Church will tell us, that the holy Trinity may be expressed in a Picture, and that God the Father may be pictured like an Old Man, because Christ in Daniel is called the Ancient of dayes. For thus you pleaded a∣gainst Mr. Sheruile in the Starre-Chamber, when you fined him 500. pound to the King, for defacing the Images of the Trinity in his owne Church-window, he being a Justice of Peace. If therefore the Almighty and Incomprehensible God may be expressed in an Image, what opinion can we have of his Suffici∣encie, to be the God of truth, and the Author of the Scripture, as whereon the credit therof may depend, when we expresse and represent him by that which is a lye, a meere vanity? For the Scripture calls an Image, a lye, as Esa. 44.20. And, a teacher of lyes: Hab. 2.18. And vanity, wind, and confusion: Esa. 41.29. And falshood, Jer. 10.14. And v. 16. God the portion of Iacob is not like them. And an Image made to represent God, is a lye, and false∣hood, because it is a false representation of God. For God is a Spirit, Invisible. And, Esa. 40.18. To whom will ye liken God? Or what likenesse will ye compare unto him? And the Second Commande∣ment expresly forbids any Image to be made, to represent God by. So as the practise of your present Church in adoring and seting up, and maintaining Images in Churches, and Copes, and the like, whereby you represent God,* 1.263 doth teach men a base and false opinion of God, and so of his All-Sufficiencie. And ther∣fore, Secondly, in Saying Wee, upon the opinion Wee have of his Sufficiency, you that are the Setters up, and maintainers of lying Images of God in your Churches, must needs be those Wee, upon whose opinion of Gods Sufficiency must depend the Credit of the Scripture. And what opinion can you have of Gods truth, that re∣present him by a lye, and falshood? And what opinion can you have of his Sufficiency in being the Author of the Scripture, that hold and affirme his Scripture and word to be an insufficient wit∣nesse to prove it selfe the word of God? And what opinion can you have of Gods Sufficiency, who doe every where by your open practises, and your Shamelesse blasphemies in fathering your lyes upon God in this your Book (as hath been noted but now)

proclaime to the world what little feare or dread you have of his Majesty, as if he were not a just God, in punishing wicked∣nesse, or in his power insufficient to tame proud Rebells? Thus if by the Tradition of the present Church we cannot come to such a knowledge of God, as to have a right opinion of his Sufficiencie: whence shall we have it? Surely all true knowledge of God is to be learned from the Scripture. But that you make to be of no credit, but as it depends upon the Author, and your opinion of his Sufficiency; which what it is, we have taken a Scantling of. And so the conclusion is from these your Premisses, that, No credit of Scripture to teach, no true knowledge of God: no right opinion of his Sufficiency, nothing for the Credit of the Scripture to depend upon: and having no credit in and of it selfe: Ergo, the Scripture is of no Credit at all. This is the very Summe and Sequele of your Speech, and indeed the upshot of those sharpe arrows, which you have with all your might and malice let fly at the Credit of Scripture, to give it the deaths wound. Yet you adde:

L. p. 111. Scripture, though it give light enough for Faith to beleeve, yet light enough it gives not, to be a convincing Reason, and proofe for Knowledge.

P. These words are to be expounded by what you have formerly Sayd. Though it give light enough: that is, though it should or could give ••ight enough. For that it doth not give light enough for Faith to beleeve, you have plainly told us. As pag. 80. The light which is in Scripture, is not bright enough: it cannot beare sufficient witnesse to it selfe. If it cannot, then neither can it give light enough for faith to beleeve. For sufficient light for Faith to beleeve, springs from a sufficient light in Scripture, to beare witnesse to it selfe. But this (Say you) it hath not: Ergo not the other. Againe you Say (pag. 81.) Church-Authority must first light the Candle. Ergo the Scripture hath no light of it selfe, much lesse light enough for faith to beleeve But though it should, though it be granted, that Scripture had light enough for Faith to beleeve: yet light enough it gives not, to be a convincing Reason and proofe for knowledge. As if you said, Neither for Faith: for we have proved before, that faith and knowledge goe inseperably together, true faith being a seeing and knowing faith, and not a blind faith. The Scripture teacheth no blind faith. And why should not Scripture give light enough, to be a convincing Reason and proofe for knowledge? When it is a sufficient light to * 1.264 discover unto a man the secret thoughts and intents of his heart, wher∣of man himselfe is thorowly convinced, and thereby in him∣selfe

condemned of his own Conscience? But this knowledge you cannot away withall. But you can never put out the eyes of your Conscience, though you may for a time fold it, or lull it fast asleep. Much lesse shall you be able to put out the light of Scripture, which is greater then the light of your Conscience. As Saith the Apostle, ‡ 1.265 If our heart, or Conscience condemnes us, God is greater then our heart, and knoweth all things. If therfore the heart or Conscence, that is in man, be a sufficient witnesse of all his thoughts ‡ 1.266 good and bad, and layeth them before him, as the Apostle saith: much more is Gods word a sufficient witnesse, and giveth light enough to be a convincing reason and proofe for knowledge. And Solomon Saith, * 1.267 The spirit of man is the Candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly. If such then be mans spirit, the Candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly, that is all the secrets of mans heart: how much more is the Spirit of God in the Scripture, his Word, such a searcher, yea saith the Apostle, § 1.268 The Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God. And these deep things of God he hath revealed unto us by his Spirit. And where but in his word, the Scripture, is the voyce of this Spirit of God? And it was the constant sentence of all the Ancient Fathers, whom you would seem so much to adore, which Augustine expresseth in these words; In Scriptu∣ru sacris apertè continentur ea omnia, quae necessaria sunt ad S••lutem: In the holy Scriptures are clearly contained all those things, which are necessary to Salvation. Now how should this be true, if the Scripture doth not give light enough, to be a convincing reason and proofe for knowledge.

L. p. 113. To prove the Scripture to be the word of God, first cometh in the Tradition of the Church, the present Church: So 'tis no Hereticall or Schismaticall beliefe. Then the testimony of former Ages, &c.

P. Here at length, you come neere the winding up of the long thread of your endlesse Discourse in this your 16th Se∣ction, the summe wherof is to prove, that the Scripture is of no selfe-credit and Authority, And first and last, your present Church Tradition must be the Prime hand to lead the bl••nd to this be∣liefe, that Scripture is the word of God. For otherwise the beliefe thereof should be Hereticall, or Schismaticall, For thus you say; To prove the Scripture to be the word of God, First comes in the Tradition of the Church, the present Church: So 'tis no Hereticall or Schismaticall beliefe. Ergo Beliefe of Scripture to be Gods word, comes by any other way, (as by the word of God it selfe, read

and heard, in the preaching of it, and by Gods Spirit speaking in it) then wherein the Tradition of the Church, the present Church hath been the Prime leader. This beliefe is Hereticall and Scisma∣ticall. Ergo this beliefe in all the Apostles, Martyrs, Ancient Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Ages, who never knew any such Tradition of the present Church, as whereon this beliefe should depend, for its necessary prime inducement, was Hereticall and Schismaticall. They constantly held (till Rome and you brought in this your blind guide, to tread down under feet the light of the Scripture and to exalt the Authority of your Antichristian Hierarchy) that the Scripture was of self-Au∣thority and Sufficiency to prove it selfe to be the word of God and by the hearing of it preached and read, to beget and confirme faith in al be∣leevers without any such inducement of Church Tradition as you speake of. And therefore here you passe your sentence of condemnation of this beliefe in all those forementioned, for Hereticall and Schismaticall. But how justly may this sen∣tence be retorted upon your selfe, and your present Church, as both Hereticall and Schismaticall. Hereticall as in the main∣tenance of Doctrines of Devils (as afore) of the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian Heresies, under colour of your doubtfull Arti∣cles of Religion as you have made them by publik Edict and Declaration, and flatly forbidding to preach of the Saving Do∣ctrines of Grace, as they are clearly layd down and taught in the Scripture; and in seting up and maintaining of your Altars, whereby the onely Altar Iesus Christ is denyed▪ and in d••spen∣sing with the 4th Commandement; yea destroying and unmo∣ralizing of it, and so overthrowing the Lords-day-Sabbath, wherein you subvert the whole worke of Redemption, with the Resurrection; and the like: thus your present Church is Here∣ticall: as also in this, in holding and stiffly maintaining by you a necessity of your present Church-Tradition, for the inducing of beliefe of the Scripture to be Gods word, as not sufficient, and wanting light of it selfe to doe it, and which otherwise is of no credit at all: Thus I say you are damnably and desperately He∣reticall. Secondly your present Church is also Schismaticall, being a Seperation from the true Church of Christ, in your Hierarchy, or Prelacy; which being altogether ••ntichristian hath no communion in that respect with Christs Church, and therfore is notoriously Schismaticall: yea in this also Schisma∣ticall, that you account and brand that beliefe of Scripture to be Gods word, for Hereticall and Schismaticall, which is not

first induced by your present Church-Tradition, wherein you are Schismaticks from the Faith; and so from the Church of the Apostles, and Ancient Fathers, and succeding Churches which never held any such Hereticalll opinion, concerning any such insufficiencie of the Scriptures, and Authority of the present Church, as you most pertenaciously and pernitiously hold: Therfore I Conclude that if the present Church of England, approve of your Book, and hold as you doe, it is both Hereti∣call and Schismaticall. But you conclude:

L. p. 115. So then the way lyeth thus as farre as it appeares to me) The Credit of Scripture to be Divine, reduces finally into that which we have touching God himselfe and in the same order. For as that: So this hath three main Grounds, to which all other are reducible. The First is, the Tradition of the Church: and this leads us to a Reverend perswasion of it. The Second is, light of Nature: and this shews us how necessary such a revealed Learning is, and that no other way it can be had: Nay more, that all proofes brought against any point of faith, neither are nor can be Demonstrations, but Soluble Arguments.* 1.269 The Third is, The light of the Text it selfe: in Conversing wherewith we meet with the Spirit of God inwardly inclining our hearts, and sealing the full Assurance of the suffi••iencie of all three unto us, And then and not before we are certain that the Scripture is the word of God both by Divine and by Infallible proofe. But our Certainty is by Faith and so voluntary, not by Knowledge of such Principles, as in the light of nature can enforce Assent whether we will or no.

P First here, you make the manner of the way and order of beliefe of God, and of the Scripture to be one and the same So as beliefe of Scripture to be Gods word must first be induced by the Tradition of the present Church, els it wants credit: so be∣liefe of God to be God must be in like manner and order indu∣ced; els that's without credit too. This is just, as we applyed Tertullians Speech before concerning the Roman Senate, which would not alow Christ to be admitted and inrowled in the Catalogue of their Gods a•• Caesars motion, because, accor∣ding to a Decree of the Senate, it had not first moved it, as the Prime inducing cause, whereupon Tertullian saith, Ergo nisi homini placuerit, ••eus non erit Deus, Therefore unlesse it shall please man, GOD shall not be GOD. So by your Doctrine here: God shall not be beleeved to be God, unlesse it come in by the doore of the present Churches Tradition, as the sole necessary prime inducer of it. How did men beleeved God to be God, before this new Do∣ctrine of yours came in to lead them the way? was all the

world then drowned in a Deluge of Atheisme and Infidelity? so it seems, Till this light of your present Church Tradition shined in the world, it was all as tha•• * 1.270 Aegyptian palpable dark∣nesse, all men sitting all that time, and not stirring one foot to any degree of beliefe, that GOD was GOD.

But come we to your 3 Grounds, wherein you summe up all the Totall of all this tedious Discourse in this Section. The First is, The Tradition of the Church that's ever presuppo∣sed, as a Prime principle, having the Precedencie before that other Principle, that Scripture is that word of God; as before. Well, what doth this Tradition? It leads us (say you) to a Reve∣rend perswasion of the Scripture. This is a faire inducement. And without this, no Reverend perswasion of the Scripture can be had. Thus the Scripture must be beholden to your Tradition for a Reverend perswasion of it. And who will not have a Reverend perswasion of that, which the most Reverend Father in God commends as LAUD-able? Well, let this suffice for that.

The Second is the light of Nature. Well; and what office hath that? It shews us how necessary such a revealed learning is, and that no other way it can be had. But your Revealed Learning here is somwhat obscure; we cannot well tell, whether you mean this your Revealed learning of this your present Church-Tradition con∣cerning beliefe of Scripture; or the Scripture it selfe. But be it either, or both, all is one, we doe not much stand upon it. Let it be the Scripture beleeved to be Gods word, by the first necessary Inducing cause, Tradition; as then which no other way can be had. This is then your Revealed learning, which the light of Nature shews us how necessary it is; How necessary it is, that the beliefe of Scripture to be the word of God; should be induced by Tradition, bec••use no other way it can be had. Of Natures light we have spoken before sufficiently. And one no••e more resulteth from your words here. And that is, That forasmuch as natures light is altogether blind in spirituall things, and can no more judge of the Scriptures, then a blind man of Colours, nor discerneth any more light in the Scriptures, then a blind man doth light in the Sun, when it shineth at noon day▪ and Natures light judging all things according to her carnall sense; and having those things in greatest admiration ‡ 1.271 and highest esteem, which have the grea∣test and most glorious outward luster, dazeling the eyes of her carnall mindednesse: and there being nothing in the world, that carries with it a more glorious and glittering show in the eyes of carnall and naturall men, then a Hierarch or Prelate Sitting

in his Chaire in his Pontificalibus, with all heads bare round about him in the Great Hall of his Princely Palace, and espe∣cially when he sits the supreme Judge in all those Causes brought into his Court: and all this glory is accumulated, and highly elevated in the light of Naturall mens eyes, not onely in respect of all the outward splendor of the Present Church: but because of an Instinct of nature in all men, concerning Religion and Piety, and the Service of God, which is ••ed and nou∣rished with a great pretence and profession of holinesse in th••se Right Reverent Fathers whose very bare Titles of most Reverend Fathers, stike a reverence into all such Naturalists hearts, as in children toward their Fathers, and much more to their Gh••stly Father; and which also is highly contented, and pleased with the variety of Ceremonies and Pompous Service, as most sutable and agreeable to natures fancy, which knows no other Reli∣gion, but that which stands in these externall things: And seeing this Tradition of the present Church, hath no testimony, ground, nor warrant for it in the Scripture, but is a thing meerly usurped by the pride of Man: And seeing none are fitter Judges to passe their sentence, on Traditions side, then such as are blind, as Nature is in all spirituall things, onely having a bare name of light, as a Candle going before her, whereby others may take notice of her; Therfore not without great reason do you take the light of Nature for a Second to your Church Tradi∣tion, as a fit consort, which will easily speake for you, whatso∣ever you desire, giving her blind testimony to confirme your blind Cause.

And you adde: Nay more, that all proofes brought against any point of Faith, neither are, nor can be Demonstrations, but Soluble Ar∣guments. To wit, without your Church Tradition, as the Inference sheweth. This is a pretty point in Divinity indeed, That the light of Nature is become a Iudge in points of Faith, whether the Ar∣guments brought against it, be Demonstrative or no▪ But this s••p∣pery is so fully refelled before, that we need to say no more.

We come now in the last place to your Third ground Which is the light of the Text it selfe: in conversing wherewith (you say) we meet with the Spirit of God, inwardly inclining our hearts, and sealing the full assurance of the sufficiency of all three unto us▪ We meet? Who? Surely you never met with this Spirit of God in your conversing with the Text it selfe: Which if you had, you would not have uttered such things Yet if this Third ground you had put single by it selfe, as the sole, excluding the former,

it were true Divinity: but puting the two former before it, as necessary inducing causes to perswade the Scriptures sufficiency▪ you do therby utterly overthrow it, as also that Spirit of God breathing in it, and inwardly inclining and perswading the heart to beleeve. For how come we to meet with the Spirit of God in our conversing with the Text, but because, conversing a ••ight by prayer and humility, we find it breathing and speaking unto us, in his own word and voyce? For the Spirit is never seperated from his word, as is shewed before. Now if Gods Spirit breath in the Scripture, and in our reading thereof, with a mind rightly disposed, we find the same speaking effectually unto us to the setling of our faith: is this spirit and word tyed to any necessary dependance of any outward things, as without which it can have no operation? Doth not this spirit (as the * 1.272 wind, to which Christ Compares it) blow where it listeth? Can you by any art or inven∣tion cause the wind to blow? Doth not ‡ 1.273 God bring it out of his Treasures?

But your Conclusion is the foulest of all. For you say, this Spirit of God sealeth the full assurance of the sufficiency of all Three unto us.* 1.274 That is, First of your Church Tradition, as aforesaid. 2dly Of the light of Nature. And ••dly, and in the last place, of the Scripture. But you make the sufficiency of these 3 equall, and alike, Saving that you give your Church Tradition, and the light of Nature, the Precedency of the Scripture And in saying, that Gods Spirit sealeth the sufficiency of those two, to wit, Church Tradition, and light of Nature, for the reason aforesaid, which are altoge∣ther insufficient, and are a meere lye, and falshood, and have no ground nor warrant from Scripture: but are contrary thereto, and destroy the credit, authority, and sufficiency thereof. I must tell you that herein you do most impiously blaspheme the spirit of Truth, as if it were the Author, Approver, and ratifier of a lye.

And you adde: And then an not before, we are certaine, that the▪ Scripture is the word of God, both by Divine and Infallible proofe Here still you shut out from the Scripture all Self Authority, sufficiency▪ and Testimony to prove it selfe the word of God, not allowing it so much, as you doe to Tradition, and the light of Nature; for these say you perform their offices sufficiently: but you have nothing to say for the Scripture, as if that had any thing at all to doe, but to wait upon the good pleasure of Lady Tradition, and light of Nature, for their Commendation and appro∣bation, and then, having their good words, this is sufficient, to

bring in the Spirits testimony, to seale the sufficiency of all three; the Scriptures sufficiency being this, to be recommended by the other two▪ And then, and not before, we are certain that the Scripture is the word of God, both by Divine, and infallible proofe; but not of the Scripture it selfe in any case.

But (say you) our certainty is by Faith, and so voluntary, not by knowledge of such Principles, as in the light of Nature can enforce as∣surance, whether we will or no Why, what certainty can we have, but by Faith in Christ? But what mean you by voluntary? By your Free-will? That which Luther calls Servum Arbitrium, servile Will, such as mans naturall will is to Spirituall things. And surely this you mean by voluntary. For before you do so highly magnifie the light of Nature, as being of such sufficiencie, as we need not doubt of your good opinion of the Naturall Will of man, having as much liberty in heavenly things, as light. Well; by Faith, and so voluntary, not by knowledge of such Principles, as in the light of Nature can enforce assent, whether we will or no. You spake of such Principles before, which we answered; as also the forceing of assent. We come now to the close of the 16th Section.

L p. 116. I have said thus much upon this great occasion, because this Argument is so much pressed * 1.275 without due respect to Scripture. And I have proceeded in a Syntheticall way, to build up the Truth, for the benefit of the Church, and the Satisfaction of all men Christi∣anly disposed. (And a little after) I labour for Edification, and not for Destruction.

P. When I look back to the premises of this Argument, and now upon the conclusion: I cannot but stand amazed at two things: 1. Your notorious vilifying or rather nullifying the Authority, sufficiency, and Testimonys of the Scripture, to prove it selfe to be the word of God: and 2dly your egregious hypocrisie, here in the close of all, as if you had done all with due resp••ct to Scripture. And how finely you would seem to put it off from your selfe, but laying the blame upon others, as the Jesuites. As if you had taken all this paines to vindicate the Scripture from that Disrespect, which Iesuites ha••e of it, in their pleading for Church-Tradition. And yet doe not you tell us before, that you goe the same way with the Iesuites in advancing Church-Tradition; onely you say, you goe not so faare as they. And wherein, I pray you doe you come short of them? They say, Scripture Authority, that it is the word of God, depends upon the Authority and Tradition 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Church: and you say, Scripture without Church-Tradition of no Credit, Autho∣rity,

or sufficiencie, to prove it selfe the word of God. Nay you goe further: ••or, for all your Tradition, and the light of Nature, going before, yet not one word hath dropt from your pen, that Scrip∣ture (I say after all your preceding inducements) is sufficient of it selfe, to prove it selfe the word of God, but that still its Authority is precaria, at the good will of Tradition, and Authority of the present Church, whose sufficiency you preferre before the Scripture, in many respects, as hath been shewed.

And you haue proceeded in this way (you say) Synthetically. What's that? That is (in the true E••imon of the word) by way of composition, or confederation with the Jesuite, to bring both the Churches to a reconciliation, by your mutuall dis∣crediting of the Scripture, as Herod and Pilate could not be made Friends, but in consenting to put Christ to death. And as Pilate gratified Herod, in sending Ch••ist bound unto him whereupon they became Friends: so you here ingratiate your selfe with Rome, in sending her this Book (as I suppose it is there before this time) wherein you present her with the Scripture bound in the fetters of Tadition, which puts on your Synthesis or League, in a faire forwardnesse, the Foundation being already layd. For you say, It is to build up the Truth for the benefit of the Church. We have discovered before what the truth is you speak of through your Book; which is as much to say, as all that, wherein you agree with the Church of Rome as one and the same Church, for the benifit where of you have writ this Discourse to dis∣credit the word of Truth. So as by your building up of Truth, is meant your pulling of it down with that hand, that wrote this Book. And for satisfaction of all men Christianly disposed: that is of a peaceable Disposition, and not perverse, peevish, and refractory, but willing to meet Rome at least in the halfe way. And (in a word) All your Labour is for Edification, not for Destruction. For Edifica∣tion? Wherin? By rasing the Foundation of Faith, the Scripture, to build up the Tower of Babel againe in England? And not for Destruction, but onely of the Puritan Profession, and Religion and the power of Godlinesse, and the Purity of Gods worship, and the sincere Preaching, and Preachers of the word of God, and in a word, in rooting out the precise party, where ever your Arme of flesh can reach them. This being your practise too well known, this must needs be your meaning and sense of these words of the Apostle, * 1.276 For Edification, and not for Destruction Which as you most wickedly pervert and abuse (as you ‡ 1.277 doe all other Scrip∣tures)▪ to your false purposes; so in this respect it is a Conclusion

not unsutable to your whole Section, while thus you make the word of God of no Authority by your Traditions.* 1.278 And so here an end of this Section. But not an end of the prosecution of the same subject still: For it follows:

L. p. 118. You see, neither Hooker, nor I,* 1.279 nor the Church of England (for ought I know) leave the Scripture alone, to manifest it selfe by the light, which it hath in it selfe. No: but when the present Church hath prepared and led the way, like a preparing morning light to Sun-shine, then indeed we settle for our Direction, but not upon the first opening of the morning light, but upon the Sun it selfe.

P. In the former Section (17.) consisting of one page, the Jesuite objecting your words, The Bishop said, That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed, and needed not to be proved: your Answere is, ‡ 1.280 Did I say it needed no proofe at all to a naturall man? or to a man newly entring upon the Faith? yea or perhaps to a doubter, or weakling in the Faith? Can you think me so weake? I doe but mention this by the way, as taking notice with what a pretty slight you put off your recantation of that speech. But the next passage will cleare this more fully. Now this your Comparison of the morning light, let us clearely see how weake and improper it is for your purpose. For what is the morning light, but a beame, or beames of that Sun, which as children of the § 1.281 Bridegroom, doe usher him out of his Chamber, signifying his neare approach? These beames (I say) are of the very same nature of that light, which is in the body of the Sun, and do immediately issue and spring from it, inlightning the Sky, or that part of heaven above the Horizon, which beames or morning light, as the Sunne advanceth nearer to his Rising † 1.282 waxeth clearer and clearer unto the perfect day. But now the Authority of the present Church, which you compare to the morning light, is no such beame * 1.283 of the Sun of Righteousnesse shining in the Scripture (as in his Sphere) as that it is of the same nature of the light of the Scripture. For the Scripture light is Divine and Infallible: but of Tradition you say, ‡ 1.284 I cannot find that the Tradition of the present Church is of Divine and Infallible Authority. Which if you could by all the light in the Sky at noon day, find, you would be no Churle in hiding it from the world or puting it under a bu∣shell. But to hold you to the propriety of your Comparison, which at first blush showes as faire, as the first morning light: you may know, That the Sunne makes the beames to shine, and not the [ 1] beames the Sunne: whereas you say, The Authority of the present Church, lights the Candle of Scriptures (which otherwise gives no

light) and so makes it to shine. Againe 2dly, The morning light is an [ 2] Infallible Index, or immediate foregoing token of the approach of the Sunne ri••••ng which it ushereth in: but you dare not say, yea you deny, that the present Churches Testimony or Authority, is infalli∣ble for the inducing of beliefe, that Scripture is the word of God. [ 3] Thirdly, the morning light, so soon as ever it first peepeth, or dawneth, we say, and that truly, It is day: but an Infiel, or doubt∣ing or weake Christian, upon the first hearing of the testimony of the present Church, That the Scriptures are the word of God, is not so infallibly Convinced and perswaded, as therfore to beleeve it to be [ 4] true. Fourthly, The morning light is alone a sufficient and in∣fallible signe (as being an immediate effect, an essentiall quality issuing from the Sun) of its neare rising: but you confesse, that though your present Church Authority, be the Prime, yet it is not the Sole * 1.285 Index or finger, to point us out the Scripture to be the word of God; but you joyne with it sundry other helps, as before you tell us. Thus no way can we find your Com∣parison proper, or pertinent to your purpose, being as a blind Horse, that halts downright of a••l foure. But this by way of appli∣cation to the right purpose, I conclude out of it: That as the morning light which certainly and infallibly tells us of the approching of the Sun rising, and which perswades every man, whose eyes are awake, of the truth therof, is an immediate beame of that Sun, and of the same nature and quality of its native and essentiall light: So, that which is both Prime and Sole in leading us, Certainly and Infallibly to beleeve, that the Scripture is the word, yea and working also, and begetting this Faith in us, is the light or beame of the Scripture it selfe, displayed by the Ministry or Preaching of the Word, which is as the dawning of the day, or the ‡ 1.286 Day Stars first arising in our hearts (as Peter speakes) by meanes whereof we come actually not onely to beleeve (without any other externall Cause) that Scripture is the word of God, but also to know and feele that the Sun of Righteousnesse hath now begun to shine in our hearts by the beame of his Spirit; the immediate forerunner of his rising unto the perfect Day.

L. p. 120. A▪ C. Cannot but perceive by that which I have clear∣ly layd down before, that when I said Scriptures were Principles, to be supposed I did not, I could not intend, they were prius cognita, known before Tradition, since I confesse every where, that Tradition introdu∣ceth the knowledge of them.

P. I doe but name these your words (as before) being but an Inculcation and Confirmation of such things, as I have abundantly Confuted before. Onely this I adde. That if the

Scripture be not before the Tradition or Authority of the present Church: whence hath the present Church this her Authority? and so whence her Testimony the Credit, to be of that absolute necessity to bring men to beleeve the Scripture to be the word of God? Must you not be forced to come into the same Circle,* 1.287 where a little before you found A.C. as to say (which yet you never went about to prove, to prevent the losse of your labour) the Scripture authori∣seth Church-Tradition, and Church-Tradition necessarily introduceth beliefe of Scripture to be the word of God? But if you be in this Circle, there I leave you

L. p. 121. This Principle then, The Scriptures are the Oracles of God, we cannot say is cleare, and fully manifest to all men simply, and in selfe-light, for the reasons before given.

P. The Reasons we have weighed and found them too light. But to all true beleevers, in Christ; This Principle, The Scriptures are the Oracles of God, is cleare, and fully manifest, and that simply, and in selfe-light; For the reasons and proofes before given, and which all true Christians, and Saints of God Confesse.

L. ibid. Yet we say, After Tradition hath been our Introduction, the Soule that hath but ordinary Grace added to Reason, may discerne light sufficient to resolve our Faith, that the Sun is there.

P. As this so often repeated by you usque ad nauseam, as crambe bis cocta, Coleworts twise boyld, and to no other purpose it seemeth, but to fill the empty belly of this your volume, and to make your present Church Authority swell the bigger with its ventosity, is but a repetion of the former: So I shall not need to repeat the Refutation. Onely this: Do, or can you discerne the Sun in the Scripture, by the light of your divine Candle, your Church Tradition; And hath it not so much shining light, or is it so over-clouded or ecclipsed with the black letters, as nothing but the Authority of the present Church, must in the first place put to her hand to withdraw the Curtaine? Surely the Sun is so glorious in it selfe, as be it never so much clouded, yet that will shew day above our heads if we doe but looke up.

L. ibid. Now men may be apt to thinke out of Reverence that Divinity can have no Science above it. But your own Schoole teach∣eth me, that it hath: namely, The knowledge of God, and of the blessed in heaven.

P And truly, my Lord, how ever you account and Reve∣rence Divinity: yet for my part, I do not onely most highly reve∣rence it, but conceive and beleeve the excellencie of it to be

so transcendent, as I hold there can be no Science above it. For what is Divinity in its native and proper Notion? Divinity in its proper Prime, and most sublime Notion, is the Deity, or God-head it selfe: Theiòtes, signifying the Divinity or Deity, the derivation from ••eòs, GOD. This is the Prime Notion of this word Divinity. The second Notion of Divinity, is pan tò gnoston tou Theou, all which may be known of God, which being in God as the light in the Sun, comes to be made known unto us, as by so many beames shining partly (though in Com∣parison more obscurely) in his works, and partly (and that most clearely) in his word, and most gloriously in Christ the * 1.288 Sun of Righteousnesse himselfe, ‡ 1.289 the brightnesse of his Glory, and the ex∣presse Image of his Person, the very light of the Scripture, and so of his Church. And of this Divinity as Christ is the full patterne and perfect platforme: so the Essence of the eternall Deity, and the subsistances of the 3 Persons in that one Godhead, together with all the glorious Attributes of God: but also the whole Mystery of Christ the Redeemer, comprehending and expressing whatsoever is necessary for us to know and beleeve for our Salvation. In which respect the Scripture may be called (and that most pro∣properly, as by a Title proper to it quarto modo) Gods Divinity-Booke and his Churches Divinity-Schoole. So that in the Scripture we have a most perfect and Compleat body of Divinity, of all Divinity, of whatsoever holy knowledge of God, and of Christ, and of our selves, requisite to our Salvation, and the setting forth of the Glory of God. In which respect (unlesse a man will presume above that which is written) we may truly say, That Divinity being but one and the same, and Science therof one, and the Rule of this Science but one all comprehended in the Scripture, That Divinity hath no Science above it. Yet your Lordship hath learned in the Iesu∣ites, or Romes Schoole, (wherein it seems you have been more trained up then in Christs Schoole) That Divinity hath a Science above it. And what is that super-science, I pray you? The know∣ledge of God say you) and of the blessed in heaven. If you meane such a knowledge of God, and of the blessed in heaven, as is not re∣vealed in the Scripture, I say, Quae supra nos, quid ad nos? And it is presumption to conceive of any other knowledge of God (fit for us to know) then what is revealed in the Scripture, wherein is declared the whole counsell of God, concerning his Glory, and our everlasting good. And for the knowledge of the blessed in heaven, If you meane of the blessed Angels, we may know as much of them as the Scripture hath made known unto us. But this knowledge is

not a Science above Divinity. And if you meane the knowledge of the bless••d Saints in heaven; it is the same with that of the Saints on earth, onely Differing in Degrees of perfection. Or if you had meant the knowledge that is in God, and in the blessed in heaven, you should so have exprest it, In, and not, Of. But I think you speake of such a speculation, as is above the Spheare of our expression. Onely something though it be de non ente, you must say, that we may take notice what a profound Proficient you are in Romes Schoole in teaching us such a sublime and hyper∣bolicall Science, as is inexpressible in Babylons language, and ther∣fore the fitter to darken the lustre of that Divinity, which so gloriously shineth, and is so exactly set forth in the Scripture. But you have plentifully shewed us, what Reverence you beare to this Divinity.

L. p 122. (In the margent) I would fain know, why leaning too much upon Tradition, may not mislead Christians, as well as it did the Iews.

P. * 1.290 And I would fain know why leaning so much upon Tradition of the present Church, as you doe, might not be the Cause, that hath lead you so much to undervalue the Scriptures, and may not mislead Chri∣stians, by teaching them as base an opinion of the whole Scrip∣ture, as the Jewes have of the New Testament.

L. p. 123. Even that Scripture of the old Testament was a light, and a shining light too: therfore could not but be sufficient, when Tra∣dition had gone before.

P. What, told you us but now of misleading the Jewes, by leaning too much upon Tradition: and do you goe about the same way to mislead them (blind as they be) and to make them yet more blind, if possible, That you have gone to mislead Christians? Doe you tell the Jewes now, that the old Testa∣ment is sufficient, when Tradition had gone before? So as with∣out Tradition preceding, no sufficiency in the Book. I perceive you will not yet have done with your Tradition as without which nothing is done.

L. p. 125. Certaine it is that by humane Autthority, Consent, and proofe, a man may be assured Infallibly, that the Scripture is the word of God, by an acquired habit of Faith: Cui non subest falsum, under which no error nor falshood is: but he cannot be assured Infallib••y by Divine Faith cui subesse non potest falsum, into which no falshood can come, but a Divine Testimony. (And a little after, If you speake of Assurance onely in Generall, I must then tell you a man may be as∣sured, nay Infallibly assured, by Ecclesiasticall and humane proofe. Men

that never saw Rome, may be sure, and infallibly beleeve, that such a City there is by Historicall and acquired Faith.

P. Although you use here a Schoole Distinction, Cui non subest falsum, & cui non potest subesse falsum: Of Faith Historicall, and Faith Divine: Assurance generall, and Assurance particular: yet in truth in the upshot it will appeare you speake very Con∣fusedly, as in the Babylonish Dialect or Phrase. For first you attri∣bute Infallibility to your acquired habit of Faith, wherein is no fal∣shood, which habit of Faith you oppose to Divine Faith, wherein no falshood can be: whereas Infallibility, in its genuine, or Gramaticall sense importeth impossibility of Error or falshood. For infallible is that which is not subject unto error, which cannot be deceived. So as you doe (under correction) very much mistake in applying your Schoole distinctions, Non subest, & non potest, to Infalliblity. I remember indeed that the Schoole-men apply this Distin∣ction to Faith. Cui non subest, & cui non potest subesse falsum: but never to Infalliblity, for that is alwayes such, Cui non potest sub∣esse falsum, which cannot be deceived. Look a little better in your School-men, and I beleeve you will find it so, as I say. Secondly, while you would seem to put a Difference between your acquired habit of Faith, which you expresse and instruct to be Historicall and Divine Faith, which you say is onely, to beleeve the Scripture to be the word of God: you doe bring both ends together, making your Acquired Faith, and Divine Faith one and the same kind, both Historicall. Onely Historicall Faith may differ respectively to the object, Humane or Divine: For it is an Historicall Faith that beleeves there is such a City as Rome, in which respect it may be called Historicall Faith humane: and it is an Historicall Faith that beleeves the Scriptures to be the word of God, in which respect it may be called Historicall Faith Divine. Divine I say, respectively to the object; but being in kind the same Historicall Faith with the other, whose object is humane. And you tell us before, that ordinary Grace and a morall perswasion, upon the necessary previous Authority and Tradition of the present Church, works this your Divine Faith. All which reacheth no fur∣ther, but to an Historicall Faith▪ call it what you will, acquired, or divine. And your building this your Faith upon the Rise of humane Authority, and morall perswasion (how ever you use the ingredience of ordinary Grace by naming of it) yet you are not able to say whether this Historicall Faith, be an habit infused or acquired, though you never so much daube it over with Di∣vine. Onely thus you give us occasion to take notice, what an

accute School-Divine you are, at least so farre as a distinction or two will goe, which rather confound then distinguish. But admit you could demonstrate, and make it plain unto us, that your ordinary Grace, what ever it is, and a morall perswasion puts a speciall difference between your Divine Faith, and Historicall: yet to what purpose, will all this prove? May not both these Faiths be found in wicked men, and Reprobates, however distingui∣shed by divine ordinary Grace, and the like? The Schooles have a knowne Distinction much more proper and sensible, and agreeable to the tru••h of Scripture, then those you bring, and so apply For speaking of the Difference between ordinary com∣mon Graces, and those peculiar to the Elect, they call the first, Gratia gratis data, Grace freely given, meaning Ministeriall Graces, which God freely gives, as well to the wicked as to the godly; he gave as Royall Karísmata, or Graces to Saul, as to David; and Apostolicall Graces as well to Iudas, as to Peter. And this Grace, Thus freely given is grounded on those words of Christ, freely you have received freely give. But that peculiar Grace, which God freely gives too, but onely to his Elect, is distinguished from the other, being called Gratia gratum faci∣ens, Grace makeing us acceptable unto God; according to that of the Apostle * 1.291 According as he hath chosen us in him, &c. have∣ing predestinated us, &c. To the praise of the Glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the Beloved. Or that, ‡ 1.292 Being justified freely by his grace, &c. Now ordinary and Common Grace, being freely given of God, to whom he will good or bad, depends not upon humane Authority, as a necessary inducing Cause. Yet you make your present Church Authority, which is but humane, a ne∣cessary previous Cause to ordinary Grace, whereby your Histori∣call or Divine Faith (as you call it) is wrought in beleeving the Scripture to be word of God; and so what ever faire termes you guild this Faith withall, it wilbe found no better then either meerely humane, or at least common unto the wicked and Reprobate, which for all this your Divine Faith goe to hell: and then the difference is not so great between your Historicall and Divine Faith (which you keep such a puzzell about) but that a man may without any great hazard winck and chuse.

Ob. But you tell us before, That ordinarily the Scriptures must have Tradition to goe before. Therfore, that you place not an absolute necessity in it. Ordinarily? So you once say indeed. But so, as withall it must be absolutely necessary. For you make all other meanes of this beliefe to be deficient, without your Church-Tradition

leading the way. As for the Scriptures, those have not light sufficient for themselves, and are as a candle that must first be lighted, before it can give light, and that is, by Church Authority. As for the holy Holy Ghost that works not this Faith but by an ordinary Grace, and this Ordinary Grace hath no force at all, unlesse the present Churches Authority prepare the way. So as this, Ordinarily, of yours, admits of no exception at all, in any case, though never so extraordinary. And thus you exclude that your Divine Faith, as it is a worke of ordinary Grace (as you call it) from being any Grace of God at all, except Grace of Canterbury can dubbe it for a Grace. For all Grace is one of those two kinds, I named even now: either that Grace of God, which makes a man freely accepted in Christ, which your Ordinary Grace by your own Confession doth not: or that common Grace, which is said to be freely given of God to whom he will▪ without the intervention or prevention of any outward meanes or respect; which your ordinary Graces cannot be: for your selfe every where professe, that no ordinary Grace, nor any thing else can worke beliefe, that the Scripture is the word of God, unlesse your present Church Authority, tanquam Gra∣tia preparans ac praeveniens, as a preparing and preventing Grace, prepare the way. And thus you see to what a Confusion all your Schoole Distinctions are brought. And in truth your Schoole Distinctions for the most part, being weighed in the just bal∣lance of the Sanctuary, prove too light, and doe corrupt the truth For even that Distinction which I named, of Gratia gratis data, & Gratia gratum faciens, though the termes are good and true: yet as some apply the latter, to wit, Grace making ac∣ceptable, it is corrupt. As when by that Grace they understand Faith, Hope, and Charity, which being infused into the soule, a••e the matter (say they) of Iustification, and of our acceptation with God Now in this sense this member of the Distinction holds not good▪ but is Popish. For Faith onely is that Grace, which makes us accepted of God, but this, not as it is a worke, or Grace inherent, but as an Instrument apprehending and applying Christ, in whom alone we are through Faith accepted of GOD, who * 1.293 make•• us accepted in the beloved▪ So as he that will find any good and sound Distinction out of the Schoole-men, he must doe as Virgil said of his reading of Ennius, Margaritas è caeno legere, gather pearles out of the mudde: and he must look to have them well washed, and polished, and tryed by the Scriptures, be∣fore he use them to illustrate or confirme any Doctrine of sound Divinity. This by the way.

L. p. 226. The time was, before this A. miserable rent in the Church of Christ (which I B think no Christian can look upon, but with a blee∣ding heart) that C you and we were all of one beliefe. D That beliefe was tainted in Tract and Corruption of time, very deeply. A division was made: yet so, as E both parties held the Creed, and other Common Principles of beliefe. Of these, this was one of the greatest, That the Scripture is the word of God. For our beliefe of all things contained in it, depends upon it. Since F this Division, there hath been nothing done by us▪ to discredit this Principle. Nay we have given it G all ho∣nour, and ascribed unto it more sufficiency, even to the containing of all things necessary to Salvation, with satis superque, * 1.294 enough and more then enough, which your selves have not done, doe not. H And for be∣getting and setling a beliefe of this Principle, we goe the same way with you, and a better besides. The same way with you, because we alow the Tradition of the present Church to be the first inducing motive to im∣brace this Principle: onely we cannot goe so farre in this way, as you,‡ 1.295 to make the present Tradition, I alwayes an infallible word, of God un∣written.

P. Here I Have Alphabetically, as by A, B, C. &c. noted sundry particulars. A That you call the Protestants seperating from the Church of Rome, a miserable rent. Why miserable, when Christ Commands it? As Rev. 18.4. as is noted before, and shall yet more in a fit place. So as the Protestants had been in a miserable condition, if this seperation, this rent had not been made. B 2dly, And must every Christian heart bleed to see it, because (it seems) yours doth? Surely this hath cost the heart-blood of many thousands of Gods Saints and Martyrs, shed and spilt by that blood drunken whore. Yet better so to perish, by her temporally here, then to perish with her eternally hereafter; which must have been, had not this miserable rent been made. C 3dly, But before this rent (say you) they and we were all of one beliefe. You may speake, for your selfe, if you had lived before the rent was made. We doubt not, but both you would have been of the same Faith with Rome, and would have continued in it, so as for your part there should never have been made such a mise∣rable rent. We know well, both your Faith, and your Charita∣ble and Peaceable disposition for that matter. Yea though that one beliefe was tainted. That should have broken no square. For you say, D 4ly, That beliefe, that (very one beliefe, whereof you and they then were, before the rent) was tainted, yea very deeply too. But I say still, speake for your selfe, and your Confederates onely; usurpe not the name of all Protestants quorum tu pars

minima▪ whereof you were the least part if any at all) that se∣perated from Rome, whereof many, (before they came to be called Protestants, which was upon their protesting against the Whore of Babylon, and for their just and necessary seperating from her) dissented from, and disliked, and (so farre as the ini∣quity of the times, and humane frailty, and unavoidable neces∣sity permitted) seperated themselves privately at least from many of her most notorious and intolerable en ormites, and not a few in their severall ages, wherein they lived, openly protested against her, both by writing and preaching, though it cost them their heart-blood for it. You have at hand a Catalogue of them in Catalogus, Testium veritatis, and in the Book of Acts and Mo∣numents, and other Authors, both forraigne and domesticke, and that of f••esh bleeding memory E 5ly, You prove your Faith was then one for hol••ing the Creed, and other Cōmon Principles of beliefe, of which one of the Greatest &c. Indeed before that rent, Rome professed and held the letter and externall form of the Creed, but not the sense, faith, life, and substance, as elsewhere you con∣fesse of the present Church of Rome. Did you so then, so now? I doubt 'twill prove so, in a great measure. For though you tell us, that your beliefe of all things contained in the Creed, depends upon this principle, That Scripture is the word of God. (For that is the best sense can be made of your words) yet there be many, even fundamentall Doctrines in Scripture which your beliefe de∣pends not upon,* 1.296 nor your practises agree unto, as both before is touched, and occasion will be given yet more to speake of. F 6ly, But since this Division (say you) nothing hath been done by you, to discredit this Principle, That the Scripture is the word of God. No? Nothing? Not, * 1.297 when you say, The light which is in Scrip∣ture it selfe, is not bright enough, it cannot beare sufficient wit∣nesse to it selfe? Not, when you say, ‡ 1.298 The Scripture is a light, but as a Candle that yeelds no light, till first it be lighted by Tradition of the present Church? Not, when you say, ‡ 1.299 That Scripture to be the word of God, is not so demonstratively evident à priore, that is, of and by it selfe primarily, as to inforce assent? Not, when you say, § 1.300 Such a full light we doe neither say is, nor require to be in Scripture as is in Prime Principles, which carry a naturall light with them? Is not this point blank against this Principle, That Scripture is the word of God? Not, when you say, * 1.301 God doth not require a full Demonstrative Knowledge in us, that the Scripture is his word, and therfore in his Providence hath kindled in it no light for that? Not, when you say, That the Scripture cannot beare witnesse to it selfe,

nor one part of it to another? And yet in all this, and much more, hath nothing been done by you to discredit this Principle, That Scripture is the word of God? Now let the Lord of the Scripture, whose Word it is, and all the Children of Truth be Judge in this matter against you.

G. 7ly, Yet you dare say more, that you have given it all honour, and ascribed unto it more sufficiencie,* 1.302 (as more then all) even to the containing of all things necessary unto Salvation, with satis superque, enough and more then enough. How? enough, and more then enough? What? A worke of Superarogation? or superarrogancie, rather. Now fie for shame. Will no bounds of Sober Speech contain your lawlesse spirit, but that you must cast it in Gods dish, That you had ascribed to his Word all honour, and more sufficiencie, and more then enough? Had you yet turned Lyrinensis his word in the margent▪ super{que}, Abundantly, it had been both more agreeable to reason, and not lesse disagreeing with Grammer. Certainly it had become you of all other, to have qualified the constru∣ction of Satis superque, better considering what palpable hand and harsh language you have dasht the Credit of Gods most holy Bible withall. Extreames are not good. And your Hy∣pocrisie here is too grosly counterfeited. Just as some Gentle∣womans bad face, for want of Art, is daubed so much with laying on of Colours, that it is ridiculous to every beholder. And how say you in the truth of your heart (were there any there) that the Scripture containeth all things, necessary to Salvation, when it doth not containt tha assertion of yours, That the Scripture is not known to be the word of God, but by the Authority and Tradition of the present Church? When yet this, That the Scripture is the word of God, is by your own expresse Confession, one of the greatest Principles of beliefe? H 8ly, For your going the same way with the Jesuites, partly your whole Booke, and partly all your practises doe Satis superque, superabundantly witnesse. Onely you say, * 1.303 you cannot goe so farre in that way with them, to make the present Tradition, Alwaies an Infallible word of God unwritten. No, not Alwaies Infallible, I hope. Onely somtimes perhaps Infallible, when you say the word of God. And if your present Tradition be not alwaies an Infallible word of God unwritten: I pray you is it at any time an unwritten word of God? If it be then at such a time especially (when its Infallibility is in Season) is it not Infallible? For Gods word is alwayes Infallible, be it written, or when he speaks it from heaven. But when shall we se the time, when you will prove your present Tradition to be a word of God

unwritten, or to have any Ground at all in written word of God, the Scripture? But if your present Church Tradition be not alwaies infallible, but that somtimes at least it may deceive us, certainly I conceive our safest course wilbe alwayes to goe immediately and directly the shortest Cut, to the Scripture it selfe, which I am sure, is alwaies Infallible, and will never deceive us, and not at any time to depend upon your present Tradition, which is not alwaies an Infallible word of God unwritten. But me thinks I heare you say, That you make not the present Tradition, An In∣fallible word of God unwritten. No not absolutely, not Alwaies. We understand English. But if you could prove, This your present Tradition to be but somtimes an infallible word of God unwritten (in the use at least you put it to) it were no great Mastery to conclude it to be (in that case) Alwaies an Infallible word of God unwritten; and so you should by this way of the Jesuites come full home to Rome. But I hope you will more clearely and fully expresse your selfe in this grand point, when (to use your own words before) It shall fit Time and Place.* 1.304 In the meane time, if this be not the genuine sense, which I have picked, but not stollen (for the interpretation is Grammaticall, and sensible) out of your words; then I confesse, your meaning is more abstruse and mysticall, then can be gathered from your manner of expression, your words having a tang of that * 1.305 con∣fusion of tongues at the building of that old Tower. But the summe of it is, Here is the grand difference, between you and Rome: She makes her Tradition alwayes a word of God unwrit∣ten unfallible, you, yours not Alwayes: somtimes therfore; and so it is blasphemy.

But at length (pag. 127.) the Lady calls you from the point of Church Tradition, to heare what you will say of the Church of Rome, whether you will Confesse it to be the Right Church. And (saith the Jesuite) the Bishop granted that it was. Now if the Lady were not dead (as elswhere you tell us) I should give her hearty thanks for being an occasion of delivering us out of this Purgatory-lake of your tedious, irksome, and endlesse Discourse of your present Tradition; wherein, otherwise, it is to be feared you lye so long, till you had been drowned in your own puddle, or burnt up with your own hot zeale. But let us heare your Answere to the Jesuites relation of what you granted.

L. p. 128. There is a great deale of difference between The Church, and A Church: and some, between a True Church, and a

Right Church. For the Church may import in our language The onely True Church, and perhaps the root and ground of the Catholick. And this I never did grant of the Roman Church, nor never meane to doe. But A Church can imply no more, then that it is a member of the whole. And this I never did, nor never will deny, if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church I granted also; but not a Right as you imposed upon me, So as, No Right, that is No Orthodox Church at Rome. And yet no newes it is, that I granted the Roman Church to be a true Church. For so much very learned Protestants have acknowledged before me; and the Truth cannot deny it. For that Church which receives the Scripture, as the Rule of Faith, though but as a partiall and imperfect Rule; and both the Sacraments as instru∣mentall Causes, and seales of Grace, though they adde more, and infuse these; yet cannot but be a True Church in Essence. How it is in man∣ners and Doctrine, I would you would lo••ke to it with a single eye.

P. Not Right then, not Orthodox, you hold the Church of Rome to be, That's somthing yet. Yet True, you ever have and will hold her to be, unlesse she absolutely fall away from the Faith. Well. And yet I wot well, you give absolutely falling away from the Faith. So large bounds, as it is to be feared, you will never come to give her for absolutely gone, and fallen away from the Faith, so long as she can have, but one bare thread or ragge of the profession of the Faith of the Creed; nay if she can but say over her Creed, though (as you Confesse elsewhere) she hath quite overthrown the sense of it. And if the sense of it be destroyed, surely the Faith of it also. This will more fully appeare as we goe along. We come to your Reasons why you hold Rome a True Church.

1. For very learned Protestants, which hold with you in this: First, we can set both as learned, and double the number of of Protestants, who will weigh down the Scale against those, that seem to be of your opinion. Secondly, we could out of those very Protestant Authors, whom you mean (though I sup∣pose you seldome read such Authors, and in other things scarce name them Honoris causa) collect more against this opinion, That the Church of Rome is a true Church, then you can for it. As out of Iunius himselfe, for Instance. I mentioned before a la••e Book, intituled, Babel no Bethel, never yet answered by any Jesuite, or other Priest Romish, or English, where the Author hath cleared all, or most of those Protestants, which his Ad∣versaries alledged, and I suppose you meane, from this opinion

of yours. And then also the Author proves by many conclu∣ding Arguments (and in my opinion unanswerable) that the Church of Rome is no true visible Church of Christ, as having lost the very Essence of a true Church. To which Booke I referre your Lordship, could your patience but brook the Authors name, or your Conscience not tremble at the mention of him.

To your Second Reason: First, I deny that the Church of Rome receives the Scriptures as A Rule of Faith For first, The Rule of Faith must be in it selfe simply Divine and Infallible. But such to the Church of Rome the Scripture is not. For she makes the Infallibility and Divine Authority of the Scripture to depend upon the Church, as you do upon Church Tradition, which you confesse to be not simply Divine and Infallible. Ergo Rome receives not the Scripture as A Rule of Faith. Secondly, Rome receives not, holds not The Rule of Faith: Ergo she is not a true Church; As the late Dr Carleton of Chichester in his Book of the Church hath well and learnedly proved: For not to hold the Rule of Faith, is to deny and destroy the Faith, and to fall absolutely away from the Foundation of Faith, and to set up a new and false Faith, upon a new and false Foundation. Nor dare, or doe you say, that Rome receives the Scripture as The Rule of Faith, but onely as A Rule of Faith, to wit, a partiall Rule, as Bel∣larmine calls it. But if the Scripture be (as it is) The onely Rule of Faith, and ever hath been in all ages so held, till Rome in the Councel of Trent changed this Rule: then not to hold it so, for The Rule, that is, the onely Rule, but onely as a partiall Rule, joyned with other Rules equall to it, as her Traditions, which Bellar∣mine in his Book de verbo Dei non scripto, calls the word of God unwritten: is to reject the onely Rule, and so to fall absolutely away from the Faith. And you confesse, that the Church of Rome holds the Scripture but as a partiall and imperfect Rule. And is this nothing with you? What is this, but to evacuate and ut∣terly make voyd the Rule, when for a perfect intire and absolute onely Rule, it is made but a partiall, imperfect, and joynt Rule? And when humane Authority is equalled with Divine: Humane Traditions with Divine Scriptures, as an equall Rule of Faith? Nay, and those her Traditions, which she calls her word of God unwritten, are such as teach things directly contrary to the Do∣ctrines of Scripture, as of Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, and the like. Is not this, a'kurosai as Christ saith, to make voyd and of no Authority the Commandements of God by mens Tradition? Yet this

Camel you can easily swallow, you slight this over, as a matter of nothing: as if it were all one thing in a manner to hold the Scripture The Rule of Faith, and A Rule of Faith, namely a part or piece of the Rule: The whole Rule, and a partiall Rule: The onely perfect Rule, and An imperfect Rule. All this breakes no squares with you, but that Rome for all this, holds the Rule of Faith, and therfore you hold her for a true Church of Christ. But yet in so saying, you plainly imply, That if Rome held not the Rule of Faith, she is no true Church of Christ, but is absolutely fallen away from Christ the Foundation. For you give this for a Reason, that Rome is a true Church because she holds the Rule of Faith. Ergo If she hold not the Rule of Faith, she is no true Church of Christ, but is absolutely fallen away from the Faith. Whereupon I argue thus:

• That Church, which denyeth the Scripture to be the onely Intire, Absolute, perfect Rule of Faith,* 1.306 is fallen absolutely away from Christ, and so ceaseth to be a true Church, that is, to have the very Essence and beeing of a true Church of Christ:
• But the Church of Rome denyeth the Scripture to be the onely, Intire, Absolute, Perfect Rule of Faith:* 1.307
• Ergo the Church of Rome is absoluely fallen away from Christ, and so ceaseth to be a true Church, that is,* 1.308 to have the very Essence and beeing of a true Church of Christ.

The Minor Proposition is confessed by your Lordship, For you say, The Church of Rome holds the Scripture, but as A Rule, a Partiall Rule, an Imperfect Rule. Thus she denyeth the Scripture to be the onely, Intire, Absolute, Perfect Rule of Faith. And for the Major Proposition, you doe by necessary Consequence con∣fesse it also to be true. For you set it down as a Reason, why you hold the Church of Rome to be a true Church, because she holds the Rule of Faith, the Scripture: Implying, that to hold the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith, is one speciall note of A true Church. But now you confesse againe that Rome holds not this Rule, but as a partiall and imperfect Rule. And therefore de∣nying this Rule of Faith, she ceaseth to be a pure Church of Christ, And (which is the more) this the Church of Rome doth ex pro∣fesso & solemni Decreto, professedly and by solemne Decrees, rati∣fied as irrefragable, and that under Anathema to be received of all. And this is farre more then to doe it by Practise onely. And yet in Practise to destroy, and overthrow, but onely some spe∣ciall Doctrines of Scripture, though otherwise the Scripture be professed, and confessed, in this or that particular Church, to be the intire and onely Rule of Faith: is de facto to disclaime the

whole Scripture, and to unmake it the perfect Rule of Faith: and so thereby, such a Church, possessing such and such Errors, as are Fundamentall, that is, against the Foundation, is fallen from Christ: as hath been formerly proved. Now if but any one part of Scripture, in this or that Doctrine of Christ, be overthrown, so as therein it is not made the Rule of Faith; and this over∣throwing such Doctrines being once professed and maintained generally, in any one particular Church, makes that Church to cease to be a true Church of Christ, as not holding the Scripture intirely, but professedly overthrowing it in such and such particulars: then how much more the Church of Rome, pro∣fessing and maintaining gumne kephale, with a whores fore∣head, that the holy Scripture is not the onely Rule of Faith, intire and perfect, but partiall and imperfect (as your Lordship confes∣seth) doth thereby proclaime her selfe to all the world, to be fallen away absolutely from Christ, and so ceaseth to be a true Church of God. And denying the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith, she denyeth the Foundation of the Apostles and Pro∣phets, Iesus Christ himselfe being the chiefe corner stone: and so is fallen quite from the Foundation.

Nor onely thus by Addition of another Rule, doth the Church of Rome overthrow the onely Rule of Faith, the Scrip∣tures: but also by denying the selfe Authority of them; as also you doe; and withall, by tying the sense of Scripture to the interpretation of the Church, as also you doe; at least in diffi∣cult places; and by holding and maintaining false Doctrines, against the Scriptures, which overthrow Christ, and wherein they will not be regulated by the Scriptures; as you also doe, in your Altars, and forbidding the Doctrines of Grace to be Preached, and other things: which if the Church of England hold with the Church of Rome, and with you, you and both your Churches are fallen absolutely from Christ, and so cease to be true Churches of God. As also your very Hierarchy makes you to be no true Church of Christ, were there nothing else; as before is sufficiently proved. And if you desire any further proofe, that the Church of Rome is no true Church of Christ; I still referre you to the forementioned Book, Babel no Bethel. And though you supprest the Book, yet ten to one, but one of your Hounds will hunt it out for you.

Next, for the Sacraments: which is your second Reason: you say, The Church of Rome holds both the Sacraments as instrumentall Causes and Seales of Grace, though they adde more, and misuse these:

Ergo she cannot but be a true Church in Essence. For Answere: First, she holds them not absolutely to be Sacraments, but dependent∣ly upon the Priests intention; which you mention elsewhere. And so hath the Councel of Trent defined, of the Sacraments: so Vega: so Bellarmine. Secondly, if she be sure the Priests inten∣tion be not wanting, or going a wool-gathering in his Conse∣secration, then she makes the Sacraments to be, not Instrumen∣tall Causes of Graces, but aitia kúria, Principall and efficient working causes of Grace, ex opere operato, as they barbarously speake, by the immediate vertue of the worke wrought. So the Councel of Trent also. So as they shut out the Holy Ghost from this worke, as the Principall Efficient worker and sealer of Grace. Thirdly, For Baptisme, which you make to be an Infallible Marke of that Church to be Christian, besides their infinite corruptions of the Element of water, (which the Apostle calleth pure water) with their spittle, salt, creame, exor∣cismes, or conjurations of the Devils insultations, and the like, they hang the very beeing, not onely the vertue, of this Sacra∣ment, upon the Priests intention, which intention of the Priest is so uncertaine, as Vega (one of the prime Sticklers in the Coun∣cel of Trent, as aforesaid, in his Booke upon the Councel of Trent, especially the sixt Session, where he treateth of certainty of Faith, in Iustification, Confesseth, that there can be no certainty of Salva∣tion to a man, because he cannot be certain, whether he hath true Baptisme or no; and that in regard of the Priests intention, whereof he cannot be certaine: So as by this their own Do∣ctrine, no one Papist can be sure, that he is a Christian: and so con∣sequently, neither can all the members of that Church seve∣rally, nor conjunctly the whole Body it selfe, be sure whether they, or it be Christian or no▪ and so the Church of Rome, upon this very ground, cannot resolve certainly, whether she be a Church of Christ or no; unlesse your Testimony will help her out at a dead lift. And that not onely in regard of the Priests intention in the Sacrament of Baptisme, but also in their Additi∣onall Sacrament of Orders, one of these more, which they have added to the two. So as for default of the Popes intention in ordering of Prelates, or of the Prelates invention in ordering one another, and in ordering of Priests, and of Priests intention, in Consecrating their Sacrament of Baptisme (as themselves, Vega and others, do argue the case) they are all put to the stagger, whether they have in that Church either Priesthood, or Sacra∣ments. For all hangs upon that weake pin, or haire, of the Priests

intention. So as another of their Primipili, a Standard-bearer▪ of the Dominicans, in the same Councell, Dominicus Soto fore∣mentioned) in his Book de natura & gratia, saith, that, Deus in potestate Sacerdotis posuit Populi salutem, GOD hath put the peoples Salvation in the Priests power. Now all this consi∣dered, and withall, the time, when this was made a Decree, in the Councel of Trent, a matter of 100 yeares agoe, and when it was but new, and the Pope and Prelates, and Priests could not perhaps, of a good while learne their lesson perfectly, and so get a habit of it, but that in all their Consecration of Prelates, and Priests, still intention was to seek, and where it breakes off, as in the Pope and Prelates, in their Consecration of Orders, there followes a meere nullity in succession of the whole Ge∣neration of Priests downwards, and so through that whole body no Priesthood now, no Sacraments: what evidence can the Church of Rome now give us, or what assurance can she have (besides the bare name) That she is still a Christian Church? Onely Vega helps it, aswell as he can, That in reason and Charity men are not to thinke, that the Priest should be so carelesse at the Consecration▪ as not to look to his Intention, upon which the Sal∣vation of all men•• soules dependeth.

Fourthly for the Sacrament of the Eucharist, or of the Altar, as they call it: First this is in the same Predicament with Bap∣tisme, for the Priests intention, which if not present, at the Con∣secration of the Host (as they call it) there is no Transubstanti∣ation, no body of Christ, and so they worship, a wafer instead of Christ, and so by their owne Confession, in that case they com∣mit materiall Idolatry, as a * 1.309 Jesuite confessed in Dispute with Dr Featly. But Secondly, by the very name of Sacrament of the Altar, they destroy the Sacrament that Christ ordained in his last Supper, called therfore ‡ 1.310 the Supper of the Lord. For they have turned it from a Supper, to a sacrifice, yea and that from an Eucharisticall sacrifice (as the Fathers called it) to a Propitiatory sacrifice, for the sins of quick and dead; as is noted be∣fore. And so this Sacrament they have Non sacramented, and made of it a whole burnt sacrifice. Secondly, they have utterly destroyed the materialls, or Element in this their Sacrament, the bread and wine, that no ma•• should so much as dreame, or once take it for the Lords Supper. For a Supper cannot be without bread and drinke: and he••e is neither. And so it is neither Supper nor Sacrament. And thus they have taken away, no•• onely the cup from the people, but the bread also, altogether. So as there

is nothing in their Sacrament but a meere lye, meere imagina∣tions, Phantasmes of Accidents without subject; as we said before. And so enough of this.

And lastly, the Church of Rome having disanulled the Sacra∣ments of Grace, it hath withall disabled them from being seales of Grace. For it is the property of a seale to give a sure and certain Impression, and thereby a Confirmation of the Cove∣nant. But in Popish Sacraments all certainty is taken away, as is shewed; and so having lost the seales, consequently the Co∣venant of Grace it selfe is of no force unto them. And thus, in denying the two Testaments to be the onely rule of Faith, and overthrowing the two Sacraments the seales of Faith; yea having lost and disclaimed the true Saving Faith it selfe: what evidence hath Rome left her to shew and prove, that she is now a true Church of Christ, or hath the Essence of a true Church? Let her shew her evidence. As he said, * 1.311 Let Baal, if he be a god, plead for himselfe. Yet all this is of no Force to your Lordship, but that, like Ixion imbracing a cloud for Iuno (as it is in that Fable) so you imbrace but a cloud, or rather the shadow of a cloud, instead of the once faire Virgin Rome; you must needs have her a true Church still. She onely (say you) misuses the two Sacraments. A small triviall trifle, to speake of. Misusing then, is nothing with you. What say you then to those wicked Princes and Priests of Israel ‡ 1.312 that misused the Lords Prophets? Was this nothing? They so misused them, that they stoned them to death. And so the Church of Rome hath so misused the two Sacraments that they have stoned them them to death, and left not one alive: But they have made amends for it. For (say you) they have added more, even no lesse then five, which are as the five wounds, wherewith the Lord was crucified to death. For those five have eaten out the other two of Christs own ordaining, both expressing his death, the one for ‡ 1.313 ingrafting us into it, the other for growth and strength by it, as our spirituall food. And these five Sacra∣ments fo humane invention, they must have their vertue of con∣ferring Grace ex opere operato, being all, as they use them, a meere evacuating of Christs me its. But time permits not a longer discourse of them. Enough is said for Answer. And for Con∣clusion, the Church of Rome having taken away the Authority of Scripture, and added her own Traditions: and having taken away and misused the Lords Sacraments, and added their own Sacraments: what remaines to that Church but that which the Divine Iohn Concludeth the whole Bible withall? I testifie

unto every man that heareth the words of the Prophecie of this Book: If any man shall adde unto these things, God shall adde unto him the plagues that are written in this Book: And if any man shall take away from the Book of this Prophecie, God shall take away his part out of the Booke of life, and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this Booke. Out of the Holy City, which is the Church of Christ. Here then, in this holy City, is no place for the Church of Rome.

L. p. 131.132▪ The Church of Rome both was, and was not, a right, or Orthodox Church, before Luther made a breach from it. For in the Primitive times of it, it was a most right and Orthodox Church: but upon the immediate times before Luther, or some Ages before that, Rome was a corrupt and tainted Church, farre from being right. And * 1.314 yet both these times before Luther made his breach.

P. The Conclusion then of your speech here is this, That Luther made his breach from the Church of Rome, not onely as it was Corrupt and tainted immediately, or in some Ages before, but also as it was right and Orthodox in her Primitive Times. For you say, And yet both these times before Luther (as well those wherein the Church of Rome, was most right and Orthodox, as those wherein after, before Luther it was corrupt and tainted) made his breach. And thus you make the rent on the Protestant party, to be not onely from the corrupt and tainted Church of Rome, but from the most Right and Orthodox Church of Christ. A pestilent speech, bewraying the speaker to be in the very * 1.315 gall of bitternesse▪ and in the bond of iniquity, and worhty to be abhorred and abandoned of all that beare the name of Protestants. But this agreeth with that which we noted before, how you exclude all the Protestant Reformed Churches, beyond the Seas (where your Prelacie and Hierarchy is not erected, nor my Lord Bishops Chaire allow∣ed) from being any Churches of Christ, or members of the true Catholick Church. For here also in Luthers rent from the Church of Rome) not onely as corrupt and tainted, but as once Right and Orthodox) you include all those Reformed present Chur∣ches, and to exclude them out of the true Church of Christ. But as before we have shewed and proved, and shall yet more upon fit occasion ministred, upon the same cause, for which you exclude all Reformed Protestant Churches beyond the Seas from being Churches of Christ, because they are seperated from the Church of Rome, and from all Prelacy and Hierarchy: we do exclude you, and Rome, with your Prelaticall and Hierar∣chicall Churches, and Government Ecclesiasticall, from being

any true Churches of Iesus Christ. And whereas you say, Rome was once Right and Orthodox; 'tis true that in Pauls time the faith of those Christian Romans was famous throughout the world; and so it might continue pure for a time after: but when once the Prelacie and Hierarchy of Rome, and that but within Romes Diocesse, was erected, it became, Ipso facto, Antichristian: and after when the Bishop of Rome became supream over all Chri∣stendome, then it was the Church of Antichrist, from which it is necessary for all true Christians to make a perpetuall Se∣peration.

L. p. 133. The Roman Church which was once Right, is now become wrong, by imbracing superstition and error.

P. Such is your stile, to touch that delicate Woman tender∣ly, as saying, She is now wrong by imbracing superstition and error. But not by defiling her selfe with abominable Idolatries. This you never once charge her with in all your Book: as we shall see more at after. And onely error, as, humanum est errare: but you never tell her of her Heresies, and Apostacie from Christ, and her Doctrines of Devils. Beware of that. You have therfore put me to the greater paines in dealing plainly both with her and you.

L. ibid. 'Tis too true indeed, that there is a miserable rent in the Church, and I make no question, but the best men do most bem••ane it, nor is he a Christian, that would not have unity, might he have it with Truth.

P. You are often putting your finger into this scarre, or rent. An Argument it paines you, because ubi dolor, ibi digitus. And I am perswaded, the more you put your finger in it, the wider you will make it. And certainly those that are indeed the best men are so farre from bemoaning such a rent, as they rejoyce in it (the cause considered) as in their glory and safety. And such Christians as have the greatest wisdome tempered with their goodnesse, do see such an Impossibility of Reconciliation with Rome, that they account it the greatest folly in the world, once to dreame of such an unity, as is coupled with a condition of Truth, I mean Truth indeed, not such a Truth as you mean there, where nothing but superstition and error, Idolatry and Infidelity, Hypocrisie and Iniquity, Ambition and Avarice, Pompe and Pleasure, are the onely supporters of Peters Infallible (but counterfeit) Chaire. Unlesse you mean (as you must doe) those good men, which are your Confederates in your Idolatrous Altars, and other Superstitions and Idolatries, halting between two opinions.

God and Baal, and have already one foot over Romes threshold•• accounting themselves with your Church of England, one and the same Church with Rome, as two branches of the same tree; as two Sisters of the same venter, ready to salute each other with the kisse of amity and unity, as * 1.316 A••ab did his Brother B••n∣h••da••: then much may be; what should hinder your unity? And for your Truth (as we sayd before) we know very well what it is: Rome will not want for that, which you call Truth.

L. ibid. But I never said, nor thought, that the Protestants made this rent.

P. I pray you do you think, as you speake? But admit it▪ Why should you think so? Or why are you so zealous, in make∣ing such an Apology, which true Protestants indeed will never thank you for. But you are such a Protestant, as I dare say would not have been the first, that should have made the rent; no nor the hindmost neither, so firme you are for peace. But I noted before a necessity of Seperation to be made by the Protestants from Rome, as Christ admonisheth, Rev. 18.4. Come out of her my people, &c.

L. p. 135. He must leave my words to my selfe, and their sense either to me, or to the genuine construction, which an Ingenious Reader, can make of them.

P. 'Twere well, If you would observe the same Law your selfe to others, Then you would not so frequently as you doe ‡ 1.317 make a poore Minister an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought▪ as the Prophet speaks.

L. ibid. The Protestants did not get that name, by protesting against the Church of Rome, but by protesting (and that when nothing else would serve) against her errors and superstitions. Do you but re∣move them from the Church of Rome, and our Protestation is ended, and the Seperation too.

P. Yes, by protesting against the very Church of Rome, got they, and that deservedly the name of Protestants. For were not those errors and superstions you speake of, yea and Antichri∣stianisme, and abominable Idolatries, and universall Apostacie; be∣come the very body and soule of the Religion faith, and practise of that Church? Was not your Dalilah, the Church of Rome, be∣come that Harlot, and Mother of whoredomes, and all abominations, before the Seperation and rent was made? Could they then pro∣test against her corruptions, and not withall against her selfe? Were not all her corruption: so incorporated unto her, as they

were altogether inseperable from her, like the * 1.318 Blackamores skin, or the Leopards spots, which cannot be changed? And do not you confesse, that they protested against her Corruptions, when nothing els would serve, when there was no remedy left, when she was grown incorrigible, So as they might have said, as in the Prophet, ‡ 1.319 we would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed▪ Forsake her and let us goe every one into his own Countrey: for her judgement reacheth unto heaven, and is lifted up even to the Skies. It applyes it selfe. And my Lord, you speake too late, and in vain to A.C. to remove Romes errors and superstition: A C. is not of the Faith, to remove such mountaines. He cannot w••sh the Blackmore white. You must procure such a Generall Councel, as is at least equall to that of Trent, to reverse all those Decrees, whereby all Romes superstitions and errors are so ratified, as England will sooner heare of a Parliament for Reformation, then Rome will indure the thoughts of any more Generall Councels, to question or meddle with her Trent Decrees. Rome is now setled upon her lees, and you shall sooner remove the City of Rome it selfe from her muddy Ti∣ber, then the Church of Rome from her superstitions. Nor is the black skin more conaturall to the Ethiopian, nor spots to the Leopard, then Idolatry, Superstition, Infidelity, Apostacie, and all error is conaturall to the Beast with seaven heads, and ten hornes, as making up both the Complexion and Constitution of that painted Whore. And therefore you might have saved all this labour in vain, in writing such a Volume, out of a hope to worke an unity with Rome, when her superstitions and errors shalbe removed; and that is ad Graecas Calendas, when men sheere their Goates: so in this respect you may safely say, That when Romes errours and Superstitions are removed, our Protestations and Seperation is ended. And so may I.

L p. 136. Protestants doe but protest the sincerity of their Faith against the Doctrinall corruption, which hath invaded the great Sa∣crament of the Eucharist, and other parts of Religion

P. Well were it for you, and your present Church of Eng∣land (as you have lately made it, or would at least make it) if you had such sincerity of Faith to protest against Romes doctri∣nall corruptions, as true Protestants have▪ But why doe you call the Lords supper, The Great Sacrament of the Eucharist? Is it Great, because you give it a Name, not known in Scripture. Or because it is so grandized in the Church of Rome, as it is made like the Great ‡ 1.320 Diana of the Ephesians, whom all the Pontifician world worshipeth? Or it is Great comparatively to Bap∣tisme,

because this is celebrated in the Font at the Church doore, neere the Belfrey, and That upon your high Altar, which you have advanced at the chiefe (as you esteem it) and East end af your Chancels, and of your stately Cathedrals? Or Great, because in your Devotion you bow towards that place, whence (it seems) you look for your help, yea so lowly fall down and worship before it, as before the Lord your maker? Or what is it that your Eucharist is become with you so Great a Sacrament, Because it, or, your selfe is Great with Child of a young new God-Almighty? But however, For my part, I reverence every Ordinance of God, but I dare not make nor esteem them greater, then God hath made them, nor give them other Names and Titles, then God hath given them, least I either seem to be wiser then my Maker, and their Author; or should give more honour to them then is due: this being (as wofull experience hath taught) the ready way to rob God of his honour, to transferre it to the creature, and set it up instead of God. But loth you are, I know, to call the Sacrament * 1.321 the Lords Supper, as the Scripture calls it, least it might call for the ‡ 1.322 Lords Table (as the Scripture also terms it) and so your high Altar should have no more Room in the Church. But doe the true Protestants protest the sincerity of their Faith, onely against the Doctrinall Faith, which hath invaded your Great Sacrament of the Eucharist? Yes, you adde, and other parts of Religion. What be those? That we may know those speciall Doctrinall Corruptions, against which you say Protestants do pro∣test the sincerity of their Faith. For Rome hath many Doctrinall Corruptions against which true Protestants protest, which you do not so much as mention in all your Book, and such too, as do ••••atly overthrow the Foundation Christ. As Iustification by works for one, which we have touched before. Yea and Rome hath many, and those most damnable corruptions, which you are so farre from accounting corruptions, as you make them Essenti∣all parts of Gods worship. I name Altars for one. Of which also before. And these things we Protestants protest the sincerity of our Faith against. But you are none of those Protestants, as not pro∣fessing, much lesse protesting the sincerity of any such Faith.

L▪ p. 138. A right sober man may without the least touch of in∣solence or madnesse, dispute a businesse of Religion with the Roman either Church or Prelate (as all men know Irenaeus did with Victor) so it be with modesty, and for the finding out or confirming of truth free from vanity and purposed opposition against even a particular Church.

P. This passage I cited before in my Preface to your Lord∣ship, yet I here recite it again, because perhaps all wilbe little enough to put you in mind therof: For as I told you before, the Greatnesse of the Cause hath caused my stile and Spirit to mount upon the wings of zeale for my Christ, and for his Church in a higher degree and strain then ordinary. And that for this you Censure me of insolence or madnesse (as I feare it wilbe the best defence you can make for your Cause alwayes excepted the Bill in Starre-Chamber) I have no remedy, but patience, committing the Cause to him that judgeth rightly. And as I have done it for the finding out of the truth, so this hath caused me a great deale of moyle in digging and removing away a masse of earth and rubbedge, which you had cast, to hide this Treasure from us. So as a purposed opposition was not it, that set me upon this Great taske, but yet I oppose you, and purpose to detect your falsities so fairly guilded over with hypocrisie, that you might not impose too much upon your Credulous Rea∣der. You aledge for this purpose the Example of Irenaeus, ar∣guing a Case with Victor Bishop of Rome, which you say all men know. But my Lord, I suppose all men do not know it. And because it is a matter both worthy, and not unnecessary for all men to know it: I will take occasion here to speake somthing of it, as not impertinent also to our present purpose.

Towards the end of the second Century, there was a diffe∣rence between the Asian Church, and the Roman, about the Day of Celebrating the memory of the Lords Resurrection. The contention grew hot (as commonly men are most eagre in pro∣pounding their own devises in matter of Religion) so as, because the Asian Churches would not conforme to Victor Bishop of Rome, he began to fume and to thunder, and threaten them all with Excommunication. Irenaeus, who lived in France, for this reproves Victor, telling him, that he ought not to proceed and deale so with Asian Churches for such differences, as were of things at that time accounted Indifferent. Some, saith he, fast one day before Easter; some, two; some, more; some, * 1.323 40. houres together (whereupon by the way it seems, that those 40. houres were afterwards turned into forty dayes, for your Lent Fast) kaì cudèn élatton pàntes o••uioi eirteneusàn tè, kaì eireneúomen pròs alluious: yet neverthelesse (saith he) all these lived peaceably together, and we also are at peace one with another. Kaì he diaphonìn tes nesteías tèn homónoian tes píst••os sunistesi: And this difference about Fasting commendeth (saith he) the

unity of Faith. And he relates unto him also the examples of sundry of his Predecessors in the Sea of Rome, who neither kept it themselves, nor command of it to others; and yet neverthelesse they that observed it not, were at peace with those that came to them from the neighbour Churches or Congregations, wherein it was observed. Nor were any at any time cast out of the Church about the Manner or Custome. But those Presbyters (saith he) who before you observed it not, * 1.324 sent Commendations or kind salutations and greetings, as tokens of Charity, to those of other neighbouring Churches, who did observe it. And blessed Polycarpus sojourning at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they being at some small oddes between them, yet preserved peace, and did not fall out about this matter. For neither could Anicetus perswade Polycarpus not to observe it, nor did Polycarpus perswade Anicetus to observe it; but each left other to their own Customes. And thus they communicated together; and in the Church or Congregation Anicetus gave the Eucharist to Polycarpus out of a reverent respect, and so they dismissed each other in peace, and in all Churches, but those that observed it, and those that observed it not, had peace one with another. And thus Irenaeus pherònumos tìs, according to his Name, became a Peace-maker to all the Churches. So ‡ 1.325 Eusebius.

Now as these things I here relate by Occasion: so the Con∣sideration that sundry particulars therein may be not unusefull. As 1. That things Indifferent, and of humane Ordinance in matters of Religion, ought not to be imposed upon mens Consciences as necessary to be observed, but in such things Christian Congregations or Churches ought to be left free. Secondly, in variety or difference in opinions, or manners and customes in things Indifferent, Christians may and should keep fast the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, and testifie the unanamity of Faith in the diversity of Factions, nothing being done against Gods word. ‡ 1.326 One man (saith the Apostle) esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be perswaded in his own mind. And v. 13. Let us not judge one another in these things, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling blocke, or an occasion to fall, in his brothers way. And v. 19. Let us follow after the things that make for peace, and things wherewith one may edifie another. So, All meates are in their own nature cleane: but of any think this or that uncleane, to him it is uncleane. And that whole Chapter is of things indifferent (such at least, as those Primitive times in the more tender infancie of the Church admitted and esteemed indifferent) as of Dayes and Meates, wherein mens Consciences were not to be forced. And as con∣cerning

our Christian liberty, we must take heed (saith the Apostle) least by any meanes it become a stumbling block to them that are weak▪ Thus we see what the Christians in the primitive Ages did. Thus did the Bishops of Rome themselves before Victor, whom Irenaeus calls Presbutérous, Presbiters. Thirdly, Victor is reprooved by Irenaeus for breaking this peace among the Christian Churches, and s••eking to bring their Christian liberty ••nto bondage, by forcing them is conforme to his assumed n••w Altar, wherein his Antichristian pride and Tyranny began to sh••w it selfe in attempting what his Predeces∣sors 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not do•• in this kind. Fourthly, Victor being thus reproved, defi••••ed from his violent course, and yeelded to Irenaeus his Allegations, and so gave way for Churches to injoy their liberty with peace.

Now, my Lord, to apply these things: Hereby you may see, how things in their own nature indifferent, ought to be left free, and not to be made burthens and bonds to mens Con∣sciences; that so Christian Liberty and Peace, may be preserved inviolate. You see, how those ancient Bishops or Presbyters of Rome, bound not this liberty, brake not this peace. You see, how Victor presuming to violate both, yet upon the reproofe of Irenaeus (though inferiour to him in place) he yeelded to reason, suffered not pride or passion to predominate, but left to the Churches both their Liberty and Peace. But now for you my Lord, you are not contented onely to impose with rigour upon mens Consciences those Ceremonies which you other∣wise call Indifferent, yet enforce them as necessary as being also by mans Laws Commanded, and such, as in point of In∣differencie might justly be questioned, were they not superstiti∣ous: but also in erecting and imposing, both besides Mans Law, and against Gods Law, other both idolatrous and superstitious devi∣ses (as your stone or woodden Altars, with their Equipage, and service in adorations, and the like) and those borrowed from the Church of Rome her selfe, none (since Victor) infinitely corrup∣ted, and deeply deceived, yea drowned in all Idolatries and Su∣perstitions; which have been of late so violently and universally pressed upon all Churches within your Reach, that what con∣fusions or combustions it may further cause, the Lord knows: But this we are sure of, that as the liberty of Mens Conscien∣ces is hereby generally brought into bondage, and both the outward and inward peace of the Churches violated, and bro∣ken to pieces, while you cry for peace, and cease not to presse your Vniversall Conformity, as if it were the way of quenching the flame, to poure out the Oyle of a meere nominall Peace: so the

Faith of Christ, and the salvation of Christian mens soules is hereby utterly subverted, as formerly is shewed. And of these things you have been sufficiently admonished, and convinced by some Ministers of Christ. But you say, It was too roughly done, not as Irenaeus reproved Victor. Is that all? But consider how truly; And how diseases the more desperate, require the sharper medicines. Yea as the Poet said, Immedicabile vulnus Ense reciden∣dum est, ne pars sincera trahatur. I leave you to English it. But that the reproofe were true, though sharpe, did you as Victor did, who suffered himselfe to be victus, overcome by Irenaeus his reproofe and Allegation? Nay you, though both victus & convictus, vanquished and convinced in your Conscience and knowledge of the truth of all those enormities which you were charged withall, yet you must be Victor, not resting till you had sent away your Reprover with a Censure more bitter, and sharper then the sharp reproofe could be; and yet not de∣sisting from your violent course to enforce an Universall Con∣formity, whereby the whole Land is infected with terrible combustions, and those no lesse further dangerous, then already full of dammage. Such a Peace-maker is your Conformity. Is this the way think you to make you Victor? Soft and faire. For though perhaps you glory in your tyrannicall conquest over the poore Body of your Reprover, yet while your spirit doth (to use the Apostles word to the same purpose) huperni∣kan, become more then Victor (as before is noted) and so his Cause, not foyled but confirmed and crowned in his suffering for it: never think your selfe a Victor. No no, my Lord, never think to be victor, by fighting against Christ; Lay down your violence in pressing your Conformity: fight not against the com∣mon peace, by disturbing the peace of mens Consciences: Lay not siege to Christian liberty in inforcing even things indifferent, and how much lesse such as are both in their nature and use Idolatrous, Superstitious, and directly against the expresse word of God. But that you will, that you must needs set up your Ro∣mish Altars, with your other devices sutable, yet inforce them upon Gods Ministers and People by your terrible commands and threats armed with High-Commission Power, or Princes Edicts. Convince men as much as you can by the strength of your powerfullest perswasive reasons, and draw them by your gentlest motives, but doe not hale and dragge them with the violence of your Archiepiscopall power, and Romish zeale Throw not Godly Ministers out of their Ministry and Means.

and that by Hundreds, with their Wives and Children expo∣sed to all miseries of poverty, and all because they will not, dare not yeeld to your lawlesse Prelaticall Impositions, Innovati∣ons, Usurpations. But if you will needs proceed on in that your violent course against Christ and Christian liberty, and peace of mens Consciences, assure your selfe you shall not pr••sper, you shall not be victor, Christ will confound you with all your Power and Pollicie. And He shalbe both Irenaenus and Victor for his Church, both to Conquer his Enemies, and to restore Peace to his People. And thus much of your example of Ire∣naeus and Victor.

L. p. 141. Well, thus the whole Militant Church is holy, and so we beleeve. And if she erre in the Foundation, that is, in some one, or more Fundamentall points of Faith, * 1.327 then she may be a Church of Christ still, but not Holy, but becomes Hereticall; And most certaine it is, that no Assembly (be it never so Generall) of such Hereticks, is or can be holy.

P. Doe you beleeve the whole Militant Church to be holy? And so doe I. But your whole Militant Church is not the same with that, which I beleeve is holy. For your whole Militant Church whereof you professe to be a member, is, in plain terms, the Antichristian Church, and the Church Malignant, which is a persecuter of the true Militant Church of Christ; as both hath been, and yet will be made more manifest. So as your Militant Church is properly so called, for no other reason, but because it makes Warre against Christ and his Saints, Rev. 12.7. and 13.7. and 16.14. and 17.14. but the true Militant Church of Christ, is so called, because she fights spiritually under Christs banner against Sinne, the World, the Flesh, the Devil, and cruell Per∣secuters, whom ‡ 1.328 she overcomes by the blood of the Lambe, and by the word of her Testimony, not loving her life unto the death. So as your Militant Church is a name which you have usurped, abu∣sed, and perverted; whereas it is to be named according to its nature, The Church Malignant. For further proofe hereof, you say, if she erre in some one, or more Fundamentall points, &c. Which implyes your Militant Church may erre in points Fundamentall. Which cannot possibly be understood of the onely true, holy, Catholicke Militant Church of Iesus Christ. For this whole Militant Church of the Elect cannot, either in whole, or in part, or in the least member of it, erre in any Fundamentall point, so as thereby to bec••me unholy. For this were else to fall from Christ, and from ••he Com••∣munion of Saints, by being seduced by Antichrists and ‡ 1.329 false Pro¦phets,

who shall deceive, if it were possible (but it is not possible) the ver•• Elect. This erring in the Foundation belongs, and extends to all the Reprobates of the world, who are by Antichrist seduced unto their perdition; who * 1.330 because they receive not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved, God shall send them strong Delusions, to b••leeve a lye, yea to beleeve that for truth, which their own ••eared Conscience tells them is a lye. For not to receive the love of the truth, implyes, that they had received the truth unto acknowledge∣ment and conviction, but the love of this truth they imbraced not. But the whole Militant Church of Christ (I say) cannot be so sedu∣ced unto perdition, or to fall from Christ. What is it to fall from Christ? To fall from Christ is to fall from that Faith and love of Christ, which once they professed; that is, from the Faith of the Doctrine of Christ, and from that love, which they professed towards it. And this fa••ling from the Faith of Christ, is when any one Fun∣damentall point of faith is denyed, and persisted in, as we have formerly proved; as in the ‡ 1.331 Resurrection, and § 1.332 Circumcision, and sundry others. I might adde here many other Instances; as the Deniall of all the Doctrines of Grace in Gods Free Election, Redemption, &c. which Grace and Merit of Christ is peculiar to the Elect onely. I will onely adde one more here which I but touched before.* 1.333 He that denyes the Lords day, to be the Sabbath day of Christians, commanded no lesse to Christians in the 4th Com∣mandement, then the seventh, or last day of the week was to the Iewes: he erres in the Foundation, becomes unholy, and falls away from the Faith of Christ. This I demonstrate thus. First, The 4th Com∣mandement is Morall, and so eternall, and unchangeable. And as the eternall sabbatisme is in heaven, belonging to the Church Tryum∣phant, so there is a sabbatisme temporall, pertaining to the Church Militant in this world. This sabbatisme (as the other) is the rest of God. † 1.334 His Rest, saith David. This Sabbatisme in the Church Militant is by God himselfe appointed to be solemnly observed of the whole Congregation on that seventh day of the week, wheron himselfe rested. This Sabbath or rest of God was on the seventh or last day of the week, upon the finishing of the worke of creation. And therfore, for that very cause, God commanded his People in the Old Testament to sanctifie that Sabbath day weekly. This is given as the Reason of its sanctification by the People: The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: For in six d••yes he made heaven and earth, and rested the seventh: Therfore, &c. Remember to sanctifie the Sabbath day, the Lords Sab∣bath day. And note, he saith not, Remember to sanctifie the seventh

or last day of the week: but Remember to sanctifie the Sabbath day. These words are the Morall substance of the Commandement. The rest is an exposition and application of it, the exposition to keep holy that Day for Sabbath, which is the Lords own Sabbath day, wherein himselfe hath rested. Note this well▪ for I will speak much here in few words. Weigh them therfore, number them not. The particular application of the seventh or last day of the week, as wherein God rested from his works of Creation, is commen∣ded and commanded to Gods people under the Old Testament. So as if there had not come in afterwards, a more glorious Sab∣bath, or rest of Gods, as from a more glorious worke of a more glorious Creation: we Christians also should have kept that se∣venth day that the Jewes kept. But that this more glorious day of a more glorious rest of God from a more glorious worke, being come: then the same 4th Commandement commands us Chri∣stians to keep this new Day of Rest, of the Lord our God. So as though the Day be changed, yet the Commandement is the same. It binds us still to sanctifie the Sabbath of the Lord our God.

Secondly, for the application of the 4th Commandement to us Christians. Remember to keep the Sabbath day holy. What Sab∣bath day? Or what day for Sabbath? The Sabbath day of the Lord thy God, wherein himselfe rested. What day is that? The first day of the weeke. This is another seventh day, reckoning the weeke backward. Now on this first day of the week the Lord our God Iesus Christ, after that he had finished the worke of Redemption (being a new Creation, and much more glorious then the for∣mer, in many respects) rose againe from the dead, and so entred into his Rest that morning and moment of his Rising again. He entred then I say into the state of Rest, though not into the place of Rest, till his Ascension. This is sufficient. But the work of Redemption was finished on the Crosse. Not altogether▪ on the Crosse, Christ indured and finished his suffering of the pangs and paines of death, when he said Consummatum est, It is finished: but there remained the bonds of death to be indured, and that was in the grave 3 dayes, to redeem us, aswell our bo∣dies from the grave, as our soules from hell on the Crosse. Now all this being finished, to wit, the whole worke of Redemtion: Christ rising the 3d day, therein rested from his worke. And this being the Sabbath or Rest of the Lord our God, surpassing the for∣mer Rest in glory, and into which rest or sabbatisme all beleeving Christians do enter, and have an Interest (as Heb. 4.3.) it

follows necessarily, that as by Christs example of Resting on that day, as by his Commandement to keep the Sabbath day of the Lord our God, wherein himselfe hath rested, that we Chri∣stians do sanctifie the Lords day, the first day of the week, for our Christian Sabbath day, according to the 4th Commande∣ment. Which if we doe not, as not holding our selves bound by the 4th Commandement: Then all these errors in the fundamen∣talls of faith follow upon it:

As first, by not sanctifying the Lords day for our Christian Sabbath day, we utterly deny, overthrow and destroy the Mo∣rality of the 4th Commandement, which to the Militant Church on earth stands in this, To sanctifie the Sabbath day of the Lord our God. It commands us this, or nothing; and if nothing, it lo∣seth both the Nature and Name of a Commandement. And if you doe acknowledge and beleeve it to be (as it is) one of Gods ten Morall Commandements: then of necessity you must either sanctifie the first day of the week for Sabbath, whereon Christ arose and rested: or else, you must sanctifie that seventh day of the Old Testament, which God rested on from his worke of Cre∣ation, which the Jewes observed. And if you keep the Jewes Sabbath, you must turn Jew, and deny Christ to be come in the flesh. For in * 1.335 Deuteronomy God commands them to keep the Sabbath day, in memory of their Redemption from Aegipt; and so their Sabbath day was turned into a type of another Sabbath or Rest, that was to be brought in upon the accom∣plishment of our spirituall Redemption. Which being now finished, that typicall Sabbath is vanished, being the last Type which was fulfilled by Christ, resting in his Grave on that day, and so utterly abolished in that more glorious Rest of his Re∣surrection. If then you keep the Jewes Sabbath▪ you do with them deny Christ to be come. And if you sanctifie not the first day of the weeke, instead of, and succeding in place of the old Sabbath day: then as you utterly deny and destroy the 4th Commandement, so you deny the worke of Redemption finished on the Crosse and in the Grave: you deny his Resurrection, wherein he rested from that worke: and you deny the very rest of heaven: and you deny the Communion of Saints, both in the Church Militant and Triumphant. First you deny the Ac∣complishment of the worke of Redemption on the Crosse, and in the Redemption it selfe, in denying the Rest of Christ in the day of his Resurrection. For if he then rested not, the worke of Redemption was not finished. And you deny he rested, in deny∣ing

his rest to be the rest of the Lord our God, which the 4th Commandement commands us Christians to keepe weekly on that day; which if we keep not, Christ hath not rested, and so he hath not redeemed us. Secondly, in denying Christs rest, you deny his Resurrection. For if he rested not, he arose not. For the very first moment of his Resurrection began his rest. If then you sanctifie not the Day of his rest for the Christian Sabbath day, you deny as Christs rest, so his Resurrection, and the whole ver∣tue of it, by which we arise from Sinne spiritually, and from the Grave corporally. And cursed is he, that hath not his part in the first Resurrection: for on him the second death, that is, eternall death shall have power: because * 1.336 Blessed and holy is he that hath his part in the first Resurrection: for on him the second death shall have no power. Thirdly, in thus denying Christs rest in his Resurrection▪ while you deny that day to be the holy rest, or Sabbath day of Christians, you deny, as Christs eternall rest in heaven, so that rest, or sabbatisme, which remaines for the people of God. As the ‡ 1.337 A∣postle saith, There remaineth therfore Sabbatismòs, a sabbatisme, or Sabbaticall holy rest for the people of God. Therfore? Wher∣upon is this inferred? Upon the ‡ 1.338 former verse, where he speaks of this very Sabbath, or Rest day of Christians, which is as the first fruits of the eternall sabbatisme. For saith he, If Ie∣sus (Iosua) had given them rest, then would he not afterwards have spoken of another day. Another day? What other day, but that rest day, which our Iesus rested on, and which is our rest day? For when Christ in his Resurrection entred into his rest, he made that day the day of our rest, which gives us an Interest in, and brings us to his eternall rest. For Certainly if we doe not rest with Christ in the Day of his Rest weekly here, according to the Commandement, we shall never rest with him eternally in heaven. He that keeps not this § 1.339 Other Day, which succeeded that under the Law, hath no sabbatisme remaining for him in heaven. Lastly, in denying this Rest-day of Christ to be our Christian Sabbath, to be sanctified according to the Command∣ment, you deny the Communion of Saints in the Church Militant, and consequently in the Church Triumphant. For except there be a Communion of Saints in the Church Militant, which is the seed of the Church Triumphant, what Communion of Saints can be in heaven. For none are Saints there, which were not fi••st Saints here. And what Communion of Saints can be here, but especially in the holy and solemne Assemblies, where they are to Communicate together in Prayer and Thanks-giving, and

hearing of the Word, and receiving of the Sacrament. And how can this be, if there be not a set day for it? And who shall appoint this day▪ but God himselfe? And what Day so fit, as his own Day of Rest, which he hath Commanded to be san∣ctified weekly of us▪ if we be his people, and he the Lord our God, who hath redeemed us in his holy and eternall Law, and in which day we resting, do partake and communicate of his holy and eternall rest, begun here by Christ, and consummate in heaven in that pangúrei, solemne Generall Assembly and Congrega∣tion of the first borne written in heaven, Heb. 12.23. And to conclude) if the ten Commandements belong to us Christians under the Covenant of Grace, then certainly the 4th Com∣mandement, which commands to keep the Sabbath of the Lord our God, which is the Lords day.

Now by this which hath been spoken, you may examine how farre you and your Church of England have erred in the foundation, that is, in this, and other fundamentall points of Faith: at least if those Acts, ••dicts, and Books, that have been published against the aforesaid Doctrines, shalbe avowed for the Doctrines of the Church of England, as they are pressed. And if with Rome you be thus fallen, holy you are not by your own confession; nor onely so, but Hereticall: yea more then that, Infidel. For in the same page you say, If the Church can erre quite from the Foundation,* 1.340 then she is nor Holy, nor Church, but be∣comes an Infidell. Now we have proved, that to erre in one, or more, though not in all fundamentall points of Faith, is to fall quite off from the foundation. But if you thus cease to be holy, how are you the Church of Christ still, as you say? For holinesse is essentiall unto, and so is of the Difinition of the true Church of Christ: I beleeve the Holy Catholicke Church. And so of every par∣ticular Church, if it be a true member of the true Catholicke, it is holy For Eadem est ratio totius & partium: If the whole be holy, so every member and part. But the whole true Church is holy; For 'tis Christs body mysticall, whereof he the Head: he the root, and we the Branches: and * 1.341 if the root be holy, so are the branches, as the Apostle saith. And he saith againe, ‡ 1.342 The Temple of God is holy, which Temple ye are. And (I say) Christ being the Head▪ and the Church h••s body, the spirit of holinesse and sanctification flows down from the Head to all the m••mbers, as the Oyle powred on Aarons head went down to the skirts of his clothing: which was a type of the holy anoynting oyle of Christs spirit powred on him, which he com∣municates to all the members of his misticall body; even as a mans

head communicates of Animal spirits of motion to all the parts of his body, as we touched before. Except with Bellarmine you will have a dead member to be a true member. Indeed a dead member of a dead body, is a true member of that body. And certainly, if a Church cease to be holy, it ceaseth to be a Church of Christ any more•• But I pray you, what should move you to say thus: Though the Church ceaseth to be Holy, yet ceaseth not to be a Church of Christ. You have it not from the Schoole of Divinity; not scarce can you rake it out of the puddle of the Iesuites themselves. But haply you might suspect, that the Church of Rome might be proved to be fallen quite from the Foundation (as hath been already proved before) and therfore your Charity would provide one refuge for it, that though thus she ceaseth to be holy, yet not to be a true Church still. But you may doe well to study this point a little better, how to make it good, How a Church may cease to be Holy, becoming Hereticall, and yet be a Church of Christ still.

L. p. 141.142. Those Errors that are dyed in Graine, cannot consist with holinesse, of which Faith in Christ is the very Foundation. And therfore if we will keep up our Creed, the whole Militant Church must still be holy.

P. This confirmes, what before I concluded of the Church of Rome, as no Church of Chhist, because by your own verdict, not holy. For her Errors, and that in the fundamentall points of Faith, are all dyed in graine, so as they will never change colour, nor looke of another hue. For both they are of no small antiquity, and since their first hatching, they have been by sundry Coun∣cels confirmed, and at last most irrefragably in the Councel of Trent, as hath been shewed. For as those things which you elswhere instance: Worship of Images first erected in the 2d Coun∣cel of Nice, the seventh Generall: Transubstantiation, first Decre∣ed in the Councel of Laterian under Innocent the third and the taking away of the Cup in the Sacrament, first decreed in the Councel of Constance: so the Title of Antichrist, of Vniversall Bishop and Head of the Church, obtained first by Boniface 3. above a thousand yeares agoe: with many or most, or all the Rest of Popery, have been ever since their severall erections upon all occasions more and more ratified (never any corrected) and by generall practice upheld, and against all opposition and conviction stiffly maintained. Are they not dyed in graine then? And if so, you confesse they consist not of holinesse. But (say you) if we will keep up our Creed, the whole Melitant Church must still be Holy. Here you enterfere againe. For notwithstanding all that is said, or (I suppose) can

be said, you will have the Church of Rome to be holy still, as be∣ing a member of the Church Militant, in despight of the Pope. But let her be a member of your Church Militant, is she ther∣fore holy? Say not you, your Church Militant may fall into er∣rors, so as to cease to be holy? And if the Church of Rome hath thus fallen, hath she not for her part, ceased to be holy? But not, if she keep up the Creed. What call you that? To hold the letter of the Creed, and to deny the Faith of it? so we have proved before. She hath lost the Faith of Christ, the foundation of Holinesse: Ergo she hath lost Holinesse. Ergo lost the Essence of a Church: Ergo she is not in the compasse of your Creed, I beleeve the Holy Catholicke Church.

L. p. 142. I say it, and most true it is, That it was ill done if those, who ere they were,* 1.343 that made the seperation.

P. It should be most true, if you doe but say it. Yet we find not all to be most true, you say. How true this is I know not yet▪ Let us here. I remember a little before, you performed a thanklesse office for the Protestants, in making an Apology for them, as not the first in the fault of this seperation. Which I answered. And here you put the fault on those, that made the seperation who ere they were, which might be aswell the Pro∣testants, as the Papists But speake out.

L. p. 145. For my part, I am of the same opinion for the conti∣nuing of the Schisme, that I was for the making of it▪ That is, That it is ill,* 1.344 very ill done of those▪ who ever they be, Papists or Protestants, that give just cause to continue a seperation.

P. Here you speake plain: Papists or Protestants: and why not then Protestants as well as Papists, that did very ill in making the seperation, as they doe ill in continuing of it? But yet your mean∣ing here may possibly be, that as it was ill done of the Roman party to give the first cause of the separation: so it were no lesse ill done to continue the same cause to the continuing of the Schisme. You may doe well to perswade Rome to lay down all her Corruptions, which the Protestants have and doe protest against her, that so, if the Schisme be any long••r continued, it may then appeare to be long of the Prote∣stants. ••ut if Rome be obstinate and incorrigible in her errors, you have no reason to say, it is ill done on the Protestant party to continue the Schisme. But it may be perhaps ill done of the Protestant Church of England notwithstanding, to continue the Schisme, for as it may be well done of you to sowder it againe. And therfore while the case is thus in agitation and Rome maks no more hast to meet you, the multitude of her impedimenta,

bagge, and baggage, and all kind of Trumpery retaining her peace, and which in no sort she will part withall, and so will not stirre a foot over Tiber: what's wanting on her part, you will supply, with all expedition dressing up her sister the Church of England in Romes fashion, unto such a conformity and sym∣phony, as promiseth a making up of the ma••ch with all faults on both sides, sooner perhaps then Rome could hope for.

L. ibid. The Kings and the Church of England had no reason to admit of a publick Dispute with the English Romish Clergy, till they should be able to shew it under the Seale, or Powers of Rome, That that Church will submit to a third, who may be an Indifferent Iudge between us and them; or to such a Generall Councel, as is after menti∣oned.

P. First, the English Romish Clergie are by the Laws of England Traitors, and therfore to be disputed withall at Tiburne. So as if you put them to shew their warrant to dispute with you under Romes seale: they will require of you perhaps to shew them under Englands seale an abrogation of the Laws against them. And you tell us before, that the Church of Eng∣land knows well, that a Parliament cannot be called at all times. Nor will the Powers of Rome permit their Religion to be dispu∣ted on. And whom will you chuse to dispute with them? some peaceable men, that will not be apt to fall out with the Jesu∣ites, your Lordship being Moderator. But you know Rome de∣nyes the Rule of Faith, the Scripture. And Contra negantem Prin∣cipia non est disputandum. Who shall else be the Umpier? Who the Third? Who the Indifferent Iudge? Could both the Chur∣ches joyntly chuse a more Indifferent Iudge, then your selfe? Sure Rome her selfe would nominate you before Bellarmine himselfe if he were living. A Generall Councel indeed of Romish, English, and other Prelates, might do much: so you should be sure to exclude all the Protestant Reformed Churches for wrang∣lers▪ as Franciscus à S. Clara well adviseth. And then if a Generall Councel should reconcile and compose all differences, though never so erroniously, yet the Error must stand, till another Gene∣rall Councel shall reverse it, as you tell us at after. But you adde.

L. p. ibid. and 146. And this is an honest, and I think a full Answer. And without this, all Disputation must end in a clamour; and therfore the more publick the worse, because as the Clamour is the grea∣ter, so perhaps wilbe the Schisme too.

P Nay, my Lord, if you stand upon termes of honesty in∣deed, you should have nominated the Scripture for the onely sufficient and upright Iudge between you. This had been honest in one that professeth but the name onely of a Protestant. But for that you told us enough before, whereby we understand, that this point of honesty is no part of your meaning. But if your Answere were not in this respect honest, I must tell you, neither was it full, but an empty and frivolous Answere. To dispute of Divinity or Religion, where Scripture is not the onely Iudge, is as to judge of gold by the colour, without the touch∣stone. And so he that could shew the best colour for his matter by a false light, should carry it away. And I may say truely, without the Scripture be Iudge, your disputation must needs end in a cla∣mour, where the voyce of God is of no authority. But then also if Scripture should be the Iudge, you might well say, The more pub∣licke the worse. For it is such a light, as would discover all your fallacies; and so raysing a clamour of the publicke Audience, when they should observe such collusion between the English Clergie, and the English Romists, it might breed such a detestation against all Reconciliation with Rome, as would make the rent the wider, and so all your labour should be in vaine. And then you might use the Proverbe, As good never a whit, as never the better.

L. p. 148. That there are errorr in Doctrine, and some of them such, as most manifestly indanger salvation in the Church of Rome, i•• evident to them that will not shut their eyes.

P. To indanger Salvation, is much; and for you to say so much, is much too▪ and you saying so much, we need not make much doubt of the truth of that you say in this Case. And yet in saying so much, you speake not all truth. The truth is (as we have proved, and shall yet further) That Romes Errors in Doctrine are damnable, and cannot consist with salvation; as is evident to those, whose eyes are truly opened.

L. ibid. A. C. himselfe confesses, that error in Doctrine of the Faith, is a just cause of seperation, so just, as that no cause is just but that. Now had I leasure to descend into particulars, or will to make the rent in the Church wider:* 1.345 'tis no hard matter to prove, that the Church of Rome hath erred in the Doctrine of Faith, and dangerously too: And I doubt I shall afterwards descend to particulars, A. C. his importunity forcing me to it.

P. By A. C. his canfession then, the Protestants are able to justifie their seperation abundantly. As for your Lordship, you

are so charitably and peaceably affected, that you are loth upon any termes (though it concerne the salvation of mens soules in such a case to speake the truth home) to make the rent wider, till by your Adversaries importunity (I would say A. C.) you be forced to it. You have too tender a heart to be a Surgion, when for feare, least the opening of the wound make it wider, you suffer it to fester inwardly It were well if you were halfe so tender hearted to the poore Sheepe and Lambs of Gods fold; there you feare not most stoutly to make wide wounds, and make no b••n••s of it. Put true Protestants doe hold, that the wider the rent is made between them and Rome, the better it is. I know this is to you as the widening of a ghastly wound. But it is the truth Yet you put us in some hope to heare what you will say, when you are forced to it. As Cowards will fight most terribly, when they are forced to it Though I hope you will not indanger Rome more, then her errors indanger her own salvation.

L. p. 149. Nor can you say that Israel, from the time of the separation, was not a Church; for there were true Prophets in it, Elias, Elizeus, and others, and thousands, that had not bowed knees to Baal.

P. But I can say (and that upon good evidence) that Israel, the ten Tribes, from the time of their setting up and following the Calves, were no true visible Church of God. For they had no visible signes or markes of a visible Church. Their whole Reli∣gion consisted in the worship of the two Calves: neither had they any Leviticall Priesthood, or Priests of Aarons order: nor went they up three times in the yeare to worship at Ierusalem, accor∣ding the Law (1 King. 12.28, 29, 30, 31, 32, ••3.) Here was not one footstep of a visible true Church of God, but of the Devil indeed, whom they worshiped in the Calves But (say you there were true Prophets in it. True.* 1.346 But that was upon some extra∣ordinary occasion, when they were sent, and prophecied. But for all their Prophecyings, did the King and People abandon their Calves? Yea when Elias had caused Baals Prophets to be slain: or when ‡ 1.347 Iehu slew all the remainder of them, and their worshipers: both he and the People followed the Calves still And besides, they had not true Priests, but those of Ierobo∣ams Order. And if they had no true Priests, will you allow them (for all their Prophets) to be a true Church of God? Doe you not exclude all the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas from being true Churches of God, because (notwithstanding all their Pro∣phets, to wit Preachers and Ministers of God) they have no

Priests, no Prelates, no Priesthood? Would you account or call Rome a true Church, if she had not her Priesthood? Although her Priesthood is of no other Order, then that of Ieroboam, of humane Ordinance, not of Divine Institution: sacrificing Priests, as those were. Now as Ierome saith (as you cite at after) Vbi non est Sa∣cerd••s, non est Ecclesia: Where there is no Priest, there is no Church. Israel had no true Priest, and so no true worship of God. Nor doth Ierome (and so the antient Fathers, when they used the word Sacerdos) thereby meane any such sacrificing Priests; as are at this day in the Church of Rome. For the Fathers held no Transubstantiation, ergo no sacrificing Priests. Whereas your Ro∣mish Priests, have no other Order, but of sacrificing Priests expresly in their Ordination, in these words, Take thou a power to sacrifice the body of Iesus Christ upon the Altar; or to the like effect. And this by the way proveth Rome to be no better a Church of God, then that of the ten Tribes was, when they had their Calves and Priests sutable. And as for those Prophets you speake of, Elias, and Elizeus, were their Prophecies regarded? Nay were they not persecuted, by Ahab and Iez••bel, and their Son Iehoram? Yea and 100 Prophets of the Lord more, whom good Obadiah hid in a Cave, and fed with bread and water, and so preserved them from Iezebels fury? Yea and all the Prophets, whom the Lord sent, were they not persecuted by the State, and Court of Israel? Was not * 1.348 Amos forbid by Amasiah King Ieroboams Court-Priest, to preach at Bethel, saying, Prophecy no more at Bethel: for it is the Kings Chappell▪ and it is the Kings Court? And did not this Court-Priest complaine of the Prophet to King Ieroboam, saying, Amos hath conspired against▪ thee in the midst of the house of Israel: the Land is not able to beare all his words? And it were well if there were no such Priests in Christian Kings Courts, that doe such offices against the Lords Prophets and Preachers, complaining of them to the King, that they are a sort of factious Conspirators against him (such as those whom you have called shallower wa∣ters, as before) and the Land cannot beare all their words, al∣though they speake nothing but truth, which Gods word tea∣cheth, and gives them good warrant for. But this by the way. To return to Israel. Is a people presently a Church, upon the coming of a Prophet, or Minister of God to preach unto them: untill they doe imbrace Gods word, and set up his pure worship amongst them? But those ten Tribes, still minced and contem∣ned Gods word, and persecuted Gods Prophets that were sent unto them, and with a high hand maintained their Calfe-worship▪

the Devils service (though they pretend it was Gods service, as Exod. 32. These are thy Gods ô Israel, that brought thee out of Aegypt) untill there was no remedy, that the Lord gave them up to perpetuall Captivity.

Againe, I cannot but a little wonder, that your Lordship should so grosly forget your selfe, as because of a Prophet, or two to give such a state the stile of a true Church of God. For do you any where allow a true Church, which hath no Priests? And it is cleare, that Israel then had no true Priests, but coun∣terfeit, such as Rome now hath. So in this respect rather I sup∣pose you mean that was then a true Church, because of their Priests, such as they were, Baalish, such as your Babylonish Priests, as good an Argument to prove Rome a true Church.

But you alledge, there were thousands among them, that had not bowed knees to Baal. 'Tis true, God told Elias, when he complained he was left alone, that he had reserved to himselfe 7000. that had not bowed the knee to Baal, nor kissed his mouth. But they were all so hid, that (you see) the Prophet himselfe knew no such thing, till the Lord told him. They made no open profession of the true Religion. And if they had any pri∣vate meetings to pray together, and to read and expound the Law, will your Lordship call that a Church, Though those Assemblies were indeed the true Churches of God. But would not you, if you had been in Amaziah the Priests stead, have cal∣led those private meetings Conventicles, and would have hunted them out with your Pursuivants? And therefore those seven thousand not being of the Kings Religion, nor Communion Eccle∣siasticall with the other many thousands of Israel, and lying hid in Corners here and there, they would not denominate the whole state of the ten Tribes a true visible Church of God, them∣selves living as it were invisible, at least so invisible, as though others took notice of their Persons, where they conversed, yet they saw not their Religion, for themselves durst not openly professe it. So as those seven thousand I cannot more fitly com∣pare, then to those, whom you call a sort of Puritanicall Sepa∣ratists, whom you by your Altar services and other superstiti∣ons drive from your Communion, who will not bow the knee to your Baal, to your God-Altar, nor at your Name Iesus, and ther∣fore you Ferret them out of their holes, because they will not do as their Neighbours do, goe with them like loving Neigh∣bours, and good Fellows to Bethel and Dan, and there make merry, eat, drinke before their God, and rise up to play, as you give

your people leave to doe on their Holy dayes, and on the Lords dayes too. Onely here is the difference, it seemeth that in those dayes of old of the ten Tribes, there were no Pursuivants to hunt out those poore Snakes, that lurked in holes, and would not bow the knee. For then sure Elias should have heard of them, and they should have been served with the same sawce, that the Lords Prophets tasted of. And again, there was in Israel▪ one good Obadiah, that hid an hundred of the Lords Prophets in a Cave from wicked Iezebel, as there was in Iudah a good * 1.349 Ebed∣melech, that spake to the King for the Prophet Ieremiah whom the Princes had put into the muddy Dungion: but where there is an Arch-Prelate, or Arch-Priest, that takes upon him to rule the rost, there is not found one Obadiah, or one Ebedmeleck that dare so much as speake one good word to the King for the Prophets of the Lord, who are most unjustly and most cruelly con∣fi••ed, and that to perpetuall imprisonment and banishment, for no other cause, but faithfully executing their Propheticall office; as before.

But a little after you adde, That Israel is called the People of the Lord: 2 King. 9.6. therfore a Church still. I answere: They might be so called, because they were Abrahams seed according to the flesh, ‡ 1.350 which the Apostle distinguisheth from Abrahams ••eed according to the promise: For all they are not Israel, which are of Israel, neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all Children. Yet they were called the Children of Abraham, and so the people of God. Or secondly, they might still be called Gods people, in regard of the Covenant made with them in Abrahams ••oynes, the externall badge wherof they wore in Circumcision, and a type of the Promise wherof they injoyed in the Promised Land of Canaan, which now they possessed; so as they might retain the name of Gods people in that respect, till they were quite cast out of that profession. Or Thirdly, as Antichrist is said to sit in the Temple of God; that is, in that place, and over those, where was once the Church of God, or over mens Consci∣ences, which of right are the Temple of God; so as Antichrist usurping Gods right, and puting him as it were out of possession, is truly said to sit in the Temple of God, though now turned into the Temple of Antichrist: so the ten Tribes, have been once, with the rest of their brethren, the true Church of God, and now fallen from it, yet they might retain that name still, to be called the Lords people, untill there was no remedy, that they were utterly cast out, and cast off by a Bill of perpetuall Divorce. Even as

the Church of Rome, untill the Councel of Trent, notwithstanding her manyfold corruptions, and abominable Idolatries, yet was gene∣rally taken for, and called a true visible Church of Christ, though in truth in the Generall it was not, but a false Antichristian Hi∣erarchy, and Tyranny over mens Soules and Consciences: yet when (after all admonitions and convictions of her Errors by many of Gods Prophets, who * 1.351 wou••d ••av•• cur•• a Babylon, but she was not cured; nay she was so farre off from cure, and 〈…〉〈…〉 all remedy, or hope of remedy, as in her councel of Trent she hath for ever in perpetuam memoriam ratified and consumed all her damnable errors, and detestable Apostacie, so as all with∣in her Verge must under Anathema be of the same Apostacy with her) she remaines wilfully obdurate and obstinate: not∣withstanding we must give you leave to call Rome still, A true Church of God.

L. p. 153.154. The Councel of M••l••nis, in which S. Augustine was present, condemned the whole Course of Heresie of Pelag••••••, that great and bewitching Heresy, in the yeare ••16. The second Councel at Aur••na, a Provinciall too, handled the great Controversies of Grace, and Free-will, and set the Church right in them in the yeare 444.

P. Call you the Heresie of Pelag••us, That great and bewitching Heresie? So I have heard many say of Tobacco, complaining how they are bewitched with it, when they would same leave it, but have not the power. Is it in this respect, that your Lord∣ship calls that Heresie of Pelagius, That great and bewitching He∣resie? Then it is in this respect, that I never heard of any wil∣lingnesse and desire you have to leave it; yea the contrary whereof you have manifes••ed, and doe dayly, by suppressing the Doctrines of Grace, which are directly contrary to that great be∣witching Heresie. And surely as all Heresie is of a bewitching nature (‡ 1.352 Who hath bewitched you, saith the Apostle? &c.) so this of Pelagius more especially, as advancing Mans Nature above Gods Grace. But had you indeed read the many ‡ 1.353 excellent Polem••call Tracts of the Malleus Pelagianorum, Augustine, it might have been of force (were there but one sparke of true Grace) to have conjured and unwitched this Pelagian spirit. There you might read in Terminis, all those Controversies about Grace discussed, and the Pelagian and Semipelagian Heresie in all o•• them by cleare evidence, and abundant pregnant Testimony from Scripture, confuted: as, That Election and Pred••stinat••on of some to Salvation and Glory, and Reprobation of others is by an 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Decree: That, The Grace of Effectuall Redemption by Christ

pertaines to the Elect onely, which he calls the world of the Elect, distinguishing it from the world of the Reprobate. As also Ambrose, who saith, that in mundo Electorum censetur specialis universitas: In the world of the Elect is reckoned a spirituall universality, as where it is said, Christ redeemed the whole world: that is, saith Augustine the whole world of the Elect. As also, that the * 1.354 Calling of Gods Elect is according to Gods Purpose, and so differing from the common Calling, of which, many are called, but few chosen▪ And that the Elect are Called by an Omnipotent power of Grace working in them: and that they certainly persevere in Grace unto Glory, and never fall away; and, that those who doe fall away, had never any true sanctifying Grace, nor ever were the true Children of God, though we called them such, while they professed the Truth. And all these points (I say) he proveth by such pregnant Testimonies of Scripture, that both Councels and Popes afterwards, that had to doe against the Pelagians, did set down whole large passages ver∣batim out of Augustins works, as you may read in Binius his Councels. And therfore (I say) had you indeed perused well those Tracts, and yet had persisted such a tanter of that Heresie, which Arminius of late hath raked out of hell, which Augustine and the Orthodox Fathers and Councels had remaunded to hell: you for your part (and so others too) might truly call it That Great Bewitching Heresie.

And that the Councel of Aurang, as you say, did set the Church right in those Doctrines of Grace and Free-will, wherein they followed Augustins judgement before them: how have you set the Now Church of England right, of being one Instrument at least (if not the greatest, if not sole) of seting forth such an Edict (no Decree of a Councel, so much as Provinciall) wherein those Articles of Religion concerning the foresaid Points, and Doctrines of Grace (which were set so Right, before you unset them, as the whole Church of England maintained the Orthodox truth of them according to the Scriptures, and so Augustine and the Fathers, and that unanimously, and universally) are made like Ianus with two faces, the one, looking (but frowningly) upon the Orthodox party (who are forbid to preach the Orthodox Doctrines) the other, looking upon your Arminian Favorites, and that with an Amiable aspect, as who may find their opi∣nions in your Articles, and so not onely impunity for preach∣ing them, but Dignities in your Church for but affecting and holding those Opinions, so Great a bewitching Heresie is it. O blind Guides of the Church of England! and thou qui Primas

tenes, the Pilot that steers the stern, if you be capable of any shame, and have not drunk of that Circaean Cup: blush at these things. And dost thou (after all thy notorious practises in suppressing the Preaching of the Doctrines of Grace, and the Printing of Books written in defence of Gods saving Truth, in the Church of England too intollerable to be borne, and which the earth groaneth under, and for which the wrath of heaven is already kindled) now come, thinking to blanch all by telling us a tale of this and that Councel, and of St. Augustine, and of that Great bewitching Pelagian Heresy? Dost thou think the world is such a Baby grown, or the Old Mother Church of England come to that Dotage, as to beleeve, because her Arch-Prelate tells her, such a Provinciall councel wherein S. Augustine was condemned the whole course of the Great bewitching Heresy of Pelagius, and ano∣ther Provinciall set the Church right in those great Controversies of Grace and Free-will; therfore her Arminian Pilot is no Pelagi∣an? Thinkest thou (I say) to bewitch the world with these thy inchantments, which thou workest by the golden cup of thine hypocrisie? Surely heavens patience cannot long brooke these darings, and deep dissemblings, which yet are so grosse, as they are not of a thread fine enough for Hypocrisie to make a veyle of.

L. p. 155. To these two (to wit, Our Princes, and the Clergy) Principally the power and direction for Reformation belongs.

P. You told us * 1.355 before, how the King and the Priest, more then any other, are bound to looke to the Integrity of the Church in Doctrine and Manners, and that in the first place: Here you tell us of Princes and Clergy. This is some inlargement. For Clergy is not one Priest: except one Priest be so great, as that of Rome, or Canterbury, that he is equivalent to the whole Clergy, or is in himselfe the Clergy Collective. And yet suppose your whole Clergy of Priests were assembled in Convocation, what relation have you to the Princes? you doe not meane (I dare say) the Princes assembled in Parliament. Beware of that. No you are content but to obtaine a Congè or License from the King to have your Convocation, and then let you alone for Reformation. The Princes shall not need to trouble them∣selves further. That's your sole worke. But yet this agrees not with your two Patterns, which you set in the Margent (touch∣ed before) to wit of King Ezechiah, 2 Chro 29. and King Iosia, 4. Reg. 23. (though you might as well have cited 2 King. 23. according to our English: but you love the old latine vulgar

better) Now as we noted before, the Kings of Israel in their Re∣formations of Religion did not mate themselves with the Clergy, but together with all the Princes, and chiefe Fathers in Israel (like a Parliament for all the world) commanded the Priests to execute their office according to the expresse Law of God, and they also looked strictly to have it done. And this you confesse else∣where, * 1.356 That those Kings reformed no otherwise, but according to the prescript Rule of Gods Law. Ergo▪ The Priest reformed not, but was himselfe to be reformed by the King, and all according to Gods prescript Law. But now if the Prince and Clergy, or rather (as I said) the Clergy by the Princes leave (which you can no where shew Gods prescript Law for) should be the Principall, or rather sole for Reformation: I pray you what Reformation should we have, or could we expect? The Church of England once thought her selfe to be under Reformation (as you ‡ 1.357 tell us before) although at the best it was but as one calls it (in his Sermon preached in Queen Elizabeths dayes at Pauls Crosse, and published in Print by Authority) a halfe Reformation, be∣cause (as the Author of the Hunting of the Fox saith) the great Fox, the Pope had but his eares cropt, but his whole body remained still in England in the Prelacy; yet this was called a Reformateon, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which the Church of England thought her selfe well separated from Rome, yet this is not that Reformation, that gives you content. And much lesse that Reformation beyond the Seas. Well, what Reformation is it then which you mean here? Surely the same, which you meant before by sincerity and integrity in Doctrine and Manners in the Church, to which I referre the Reader, where he shall find this Reformation clearly expounded. And in summe your Reformation here will differ from the former Refor∣mation of the Church of England in this: that as that was but a halfe Reformation, because it retained the Prelacy, with some of Romes Ceremonies:* 1.358 so this your Reformation shall make that up; in reducing the Church of England to the Integrity and sincerity of the Church of Rome in Doctrine and Manners full and whole. A thing indeed, which can no otherwise but be expe∣cted, so long as the Hierarchy stands in its full ruffe, as it doth now in England. For like will to like, as you know who used the Proverbe to the Colyer. Or as the Philosopher saith, Every thing aspires after its perfection. And the Perfection of the Hierarchy is at Rome, and thence All Hierarchy and Prelacy now adayes hath and had its first Rise and Originall. And ther∣fore no mervaile if Prelates naturally affect their native Coun∣trey

Rome. As the Romane * 1.359 Poet said in his banishment,

Nescio qua natale solum dulcedine cunctos Ducit, & immemores non sinit esse sui.

Some secret sweetnesse in mans native home Draws him to mind it still, where ere become.

L. Ibid. In a corrupt Time, or Place, 'tis as necessary in Religion to deny falshood, as to assert and vindicate truth. Indeed this latter can hardly be well and sufficiently done, but by the former: an affirmative verity being ever included in the negative to a falshood.

P. Then I hope in a corrupt Time and Place, is it not necessary in Religion to deny your falshoods, and to assert and vindicate the Truth, by you so undermined and oppugned? And your own Words here are sufficient to leave your Deeds without ex∣cuse.

L. p. 157. If it be a Cause common to both parties, a third must judge, and that is the Scripture,* 1.360 or if there be jealousie or doubt of the sense of the Scripture, they must either both repaire to the exposition of the Primitive Church, and submit to that, or both call and submit to a Generall Councel.

P. The Scripture? That's honest as I noted before. Yea, and submit to, and rest in that, which you say not. But of the Scripture the onely Judge of all Controversies, we have spo∣ken sufficiently before, and so for matters of jealousie or doubt; and not either to your Primitive Church, or to a Generall Councel. For further Answere we shall have further occa∣sion.

L. p. 171. Pope Urban 2 at the Councel held at Bari in Ap••lia, accounted my Worthy Predecessor S. Augustine, as his own comp••••••e, and said, He was as the Apostolicke, and Patriarch of the other world: so he then turned this Iland.

P. As worthy as your predecessor Anselme was, and though now one of Romes Saints, yet he was against your Priests Marriage. But perhaps therfore the more worthy. And he was so holy, it seems, that he said he never repented him of any thing in all his life, but about the eating of some Fish one time. But if the Pope gave your Worthy Predecessor the Title of Apostolicke, and Patriarch of the other world, of England: why should not the same Title descend to his successors.

And it seems you are not a little affected with it. For you say, A Primate is greater then a Metropolitan; and a Patriarch then a Primate. And none were above Patriarch but Pope. If then you succeed Anselme in his Patriarchate of the other world: you are in the next degree to succeed him, that is Papa totius Orbis. But how ever you glory in these titles: I assure you, for my part, I shall ever preferre a good honest Cobler, that feares God above them all. For he hath an honest calling: you none. And you all are persecuters of them that truly feare God, and so enemies of Christ. And though you would be called Apostolicke: yet to be Metropolitan, Primate, Patriarch, Pope, are all swelling Titles of pride, which the Apostles never knew, and which Christ ex∣presly forbids; as hath been noted, and will be more. As fol∣loweth.

L. p. 175. The calling and Authority of Bishops over the Inferi∣our Clergy, that was a thing of known use, and benefit, for preservation of unity and peace in the Church.

P. For this you cite Hierome. But you omit his other words, where he saith, That your Diocesan Bishops (for of such onely the Question is) were brought in, but, humana praesumptione, non Insti∣tutione Divina, by humane Presumption, not by Divine Institu∣tion, or Gods Ordinance: and this (as men presumed) in Schis∣mata remedia, for a remedy of Schisme. But it proved to be Schisma magnum, the Great Schisme, that made up the body of Antichrist, the Great Rent from Christ, filling up the Mystery of Iniquity, as hath been shewed. And out of Ieromes Sacerdos, Priest, where he saith, No Priest, no Church, you conclude in the * 1.361 Margent, so even with him, No Bishop, no Church. As if to be a Priest, must needs be a Bishop.

And idid. you say, This was to settle in the minds of men from the very Infancy of the Christian Church, as that it had not been to that time contradicted by any. In the very Infancy of the Church? But your Prelacy was but an Infant then, and Innocent in compari∣son to the Giants now. We shewed * 1.362 before how this Mystery wrought even in the Apostles times, which they knockt down: yet still Satan kept it afoot. The use of it hath great Antiquity, but the Apostles condemned it as a meere abuse, and Christ, as Heathenish. And you talke here of use, but you are not able to shew us any Authority from Scripture, either from Apostolik Ordinance and Example. The Apostles in∣deed before Christs Resurrection were blindly ambitious of being chief in Christs Kingdome: and Christ told his two kins∣men

Iames and Iohn, They asked they knew not what: and yet Mark tells us, that Christ asking them, what they reasoned of by the way, they were ashamed to tell him, as being selfe-guilty of pride and ambition: and still when he had but newly told them of his Passion to be at Ierusalem, they not understanding what it meant, were still at it afresh, who should be the chiefe: but after that Christ was risen again, and his holy Spirit was breath∣ed into them, then they were of another mind, they never after contended who should be chiefest, but rather who should be ••umblest, and ho••yest, and most painfull and faithfull in the spiritu∣all Kingdome of Christ, in the execution of their Apostolicall Charge. Which argues plainly, that the Prelacy is a meere carnall thing, a temporall Kingdome (contrary to Christs King∣dome) which carnall men, voyd of Christs Spirit and Grace are blindly ambitious of, calling their Prelacy an Hierarchy, or ho••y Government, or Kingdome, but know not what holinesse, or Christs Kingdome meaneth. And doe we see any men in the world of any ranke whatsoever more Lordly, more proud, more ambitious, more covetous, more profane, more corrupt, then those of the Hi∣erarchy? Take the best of them now in England, the most lear∣ned of them: have they any zeale or courage for the truth, now, when they see Religion and the Faith of Christ turned topsie∣turvie? Doe they not all seeke their own, not that which is Iesus Christs? And when your Chapleins gueld their Works, have they any virility left in them, to maintain the truth of that which they have written? If their Metropolitan doe but speake the word, is it not with them, as in the Comedy of the Parasite, Ait quis? Aio. Negat? Nego. But what say I of those Prelates, that are fallen upon the very Lees and Dregges of the worst, and last times? Alas, in the first Generall Councell of Nece under Constantine, in the Infancy of the Church, as you call it: what hot contentions among the Prelates one against another? What bundels and fardels of complaints brought they into the Councel before Constantine? Enough to set all in a combustion, had not the Emperour the more wisely put all their Bills and mutuall complaints in a combustion, by burn∣ing them in a faire fire before him in the view of all the Coun∣cel. And the maine point of their Contentions was about Precedency, which Bishoprick should be before another. Oh devout and humble Prelates! O holy successors of the Apostles! Are these men like to remedy Schisme in the Church, that are the Authors of them themselvs? How came the great Schisme

of Arius, but by the Prelates, when but * 1.363 one chiefly stood up against him? How got Antichrist to be Caput Vniversale, Uni∣versall Head, or Bishop, but by the dessent of the Bishops, which causing their Appeales to Rome, brought the Roman Bishop to that height? so as the Prelates being worse divided among them∣selves, then the Presbyters had been before them, for remedy of whose Schisme they were by mans prescription erected: gave occasion to the two Bishops of the two Imperiall Cities, Rome and Constantinople to stickle for one Headship over all, to reconcile all. And so the Popedome it selfe, the Throne of the Beast was erected in Schismatis remedium: for the onely Reme∣dy of all Schisme. And it is to be noted how these two Pre∣lates strove for this supremacy, and both under the veile of hu∣mility. Iohn of Constantinople becomes a great Faster; whereup∣on he was styled Iohannes Iejunator, Iohn the Faster. Gregory, then of Rome, though he thundred against Iohns Ambition cal∣ling him that had, or affected that Title, the forerunner of Antichrist, yet seeing Iohn like to prevaile with pretence of holi∣nesse and humility: Gregory stiles himselfe servus servorum Dei. He thought he would not come behind for humility, but in∣deed therein bewraying his pride, when his humility was but in emulation. And we see in Gregories Registrum, in sundry of his Epistles, how low he descends in most base flattery to that Parricide Phocas, and his Empres, to visit the thresholds of Peter and Paul, &c. But what will not Episcopall zeale doe for the Hierarchy? But thus he kept Iohn off: and so made way for his own Prophecy which was, Filius superbiae prope est. The son of pride (that is Antichrist) is neere at hand. And neerer surely, then he was aware. For Gregory deceasing; and Sabianus succee∣ding, and siting but one yeare: Boniface 3. the next successor obtaind this Title of Phocas: and so each confirmed other, the Emperour the Pope in the Throne of Antichrist, which is a Tyranny over mens Soules: and the Pope the Emperours Cruelty in a Tyranny over mens Bodyes. And thus came that Prophecy of the Angel (Revel. 17.18) to be fulfilled, The Woman which thou sawest is that great City, which reigned over the Kings of the Earth. As Rome then did in S. Iohns time. So as according to Gods word, not Constantinople (which was not the Imperiall C••ty, till Constantine so made it) but Rome must be the feat of the Beast, and of the Whore thus described. Thus from Bishops emulation, ambition, contention, one against another, for honour, precedency, and greatnesse in the world, came Antichrist to

mount upon that Beast which had 7 heads and ten hornes. And your selfe * 1.364 confesseth, The difficulty was, to accommodate the Places and Precedencies of Bishops among themselves. And for this you say, The most equall and impartiall way was, that the ‡ 1.365 Honours of the Church, should follow the Honours of the State. So that the greater City, the greater Bishop. And thus Romes Pri∣macy in Order, brought him to his supremacy in Autho∣rity.

Againe, you say, The Calling of Bishops, Whence this Calling? Not from God. And of Aarons Priesthood it was said, No man takes this honour upon him, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron: Heb. 5.4. So all the Apostles had a speciall Calling and Com∣mission from Christ to preach, &c. Paul Called to be an † 1.366 Apo∣s••le of Iesus Christ. He stood upon his Calling, he had a lawfull Calling, wheron his Apostolicke Authority was founded Now you would be accounted Apostolick, and the Apostles successors: but where's your Calling? We find no such Cal∣ling, as of Lord-bishops in the Scripture. Therfore you have no Authority over the inferiour Clergy, not over Gods Ministers, I meane. Either therfore prove your Calling from God, or give us leave to deny your Authority, as being an usurped Tyranny. If you aledge those Bishops so called, Act. 20.28. Phil. 1.1. 1 Tim. 3.1. Tit. 1.7. &c. Prove they were Diocesan Bishops. We prove them by the plain Text to be but Presbyters over the severall Congregations, over which the Holy Ghost made them Episkópous, Bishops, or Overseers, as more fully at after. If you aledge Timothy and Titus for Bishops, that's soon answered, they were onely Euangelists, no Bishops. Those Epi∣graphees in the end of that to 2 Tim. and Tit. they are no part of the Text, but were added long after, at the leas•• 400. years. It behoves you therfore to prove your Calling better, before you so presse and oppresse us with your Authority. But you adde:

L. p. 177. Among these (to wit, Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Bishops) there was effectuall subjection respectively grounded upon Ca∣non, and positive Law in their severall quarters.

P. Here you confesse, that all subjection of Metropolitans to the Patriarchs, and of Bishops to the Metropolitans, was but grounded upon Canon, and Positive Law: Ergo, not upon the Canon of Scripture nor the Law of God. As you confessed openly in High Commission, that no one Apostle had Authority or Iuris∣diction over the Rest, or any of their fellows. so as though you call

your calling Apostolicke, yet your Arch-Bishoprick is not Apo∣stolicke, in exercising Authority and Iurisdiction over all the Bishops in your Province. This you have not from the Scripture: I know not from what Papall Canon. For as for Positive, if you meane the Politick Laws of Princes, you will not take your Autho∣rity from them. And the Judges have declared their judge∣ment in the Kings Edict, that your exercising your Authority, and keeping Courts in your own Names, is now no more a trenching upon the Kings Prerogative, then formerly it hath been. Where the Judges are to be commended for their Discre∣tion. But it is very well. Thus you are loose off from the Po∣sitive Law of the Prince: and we deny you any title either of Authority or Calling over the Ministry: and so you may prove to sit between two stooles; or as he that hath not one string to his bow. But whereas you confesse before, that Bishops have no Juris∣diction one over another, because the Apostles had not: hence it is evident, that those who are true Bishops, to wit, Presby∣ters, have no jurisdiction over one another; and so there is no such Order, or Calling of Lord Bishops, whereby they have Authority over the true Bishops and Pastors of the flocks of Christ. These things are noted sufficiently before: but as Au∣gustine writing against the Pelagians, saith, By these things so often repeated, though the importunity of the Adversary will not be repressed, yet the Truth shalbe the more confirmed, and the Faith of Beleevers the more firmly established.

L. p. 183. The Patriarch of Rome had potentiorem Princi∣palitatem, a more powerfull Principality, then other Churches had. And that the Protestants grant too: and that not onely because the Roman Prelate was Ordine primus, First in Order and Degree, which some one must be, to avoyd confusion: but, &c.

P. What the Protestants grant to have been de facto, is one thing, that such a thing is, or was so and so: but what they grant to have been de Iure, but what Right is another. And this the Reformed Protestants never granted to the Pope, or any Prelate. But there must be some one (say you) to avoyd Confusion: and this according to the honour of the state and Place. And that must needs be the Pope of Rome. But for the purpose, or end, you are farre wide. For instead of avoyding Confusion, this strowed the way to build up Babylon, Confusion it selfe. And your selfe saith as much: * 1.367 This was the very fountaine of Papall Greatnesse, the Pope having his Residence in the Great Impe∣riall City. So as Primacy joynd with Power, and Authority too,

as that of the Pope in Rome, and yours in England, the Pope resi∣ding in the Imperiall City, and you in the Royall Court, What confusion the one hath brought to the Empire it selfe, the world knows, and what the other may bring to the State Roy∣all, the Lord knows, and he in mercy prevent: and if such con∣fusion to States, then what to the true Religion, and the Churches of Christ.

But hath the Pope then (that pretended successor of the poore Fisherman) such a Principality? This is more then Pri∣macy. Unlesse Primacy be, by your interpretation, Principality. Nay it must needs be so: because, if the Popes Principality be more potent, then other Churches: then surely your Primacy is at least a Principality too, though lesse potent. And who doubts of that. For at your High Commission Board at Dr BASTVVICKS Censure, you did prove most bravely from Scripture it selfe, that you were Princes. What Scripture? You aledged Psal. 45.16. Instead of thy Fathers shalbe thy Children,* 1.368 whom thou mayst make Princes in all the Earth. What conclude you hence? Ergo, Prelates are Princes. We deny your inference, and consequence. How prove you it? I know you will straight appeale to a Ge∣nerall Councel, if we doubt of it. Stay awhile. A Generall Councel is an Assembly of Prelates. And then, They shalbe their own Iudges. That's not faire play. And Bellarmine would have a great stroke there, for he also aledges this place for you, and himselfe too, to prove that the Pope is a Prince, and so all Prelates under him. But by your leave we appeale to the Scriptures them∣selves for Interpretation, as best knowing their own meaning, and ablest to expresse themselves. Now comparing this with other Scriptures, we find, that those Princes there spoken of in all Lands, are understood of all Gods Children, true Beleevers, throughout the whole earth now under the Gospell. For of these the Spirit saith, He (Christ) hath made us Kings,* 1.369 and Priests to God his Father. Now if all true Beleevers be Kings, then also Princes. And in * 1.370 Peter, we are called a royall Priesthood. So Rev. 5.9, 10. Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, and hast made us unto our God Kings and Priests, &c. And Jam. 2.5. Hear∣ken, my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poore of this world, to be rich in Faith, and heires of the Kingdome, which God hath pro∣mised to them that love him? How if heires of the Kingdome, then Princes And Rom. 8.16, 17.* 1.371 The Spirit it selfe beareth witnesse with our spirit, that we are the Children of God. And if Children, then heires, heires of God, and joynt heires with Christ, if s•• be we

suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. And many other places to this purpose. We are the * 1.372 brethren of Christ, the congregation of the first borne. Therfore Princes. And yet poore in this world. But if Prelates be Princes, they are such as Salo∣mon describes, by another Title, being compared to the true Princes, Gods Children. There is (saith he) an evil, which I have seen under the Sun (and he saw it by the eye of Prophecy) as an error, which proceedeth from the Ruler. What is the evil? What that error of Rulers? Namely, Folly is set in great Dignity, and the Rich set in low place: I have seen Servants on Horses, and Princes walking as Servants upon the earth. Now who are these rich, that sit in a low place? The rich in Faith saith Iames. And who are these Princes, that walke as Servants upon the earth? Namely Gods Children, who are true Princes, heires of the Kingdome, that are afflicted and oppressed in the world. And what folly is that, which is set in great dignity? Who more properly then Prelates, which are as those of whom Iames speakes, in rich and gorgeous apparell, who are set in a goodly place, while Gods poore Children sit below on the footstoole. And who those Servants on Horses? Prelates on their footcloth, riding in pompe, while Gods people trudge a foot on the earth. If you say, you are not here meant: because you are no fooles, nor servants. Indeed you are no small fooles. For there are no greater fooles in the world, then such as seem wisest in their own conceit, as Prelates doe. As Salomon saith, ‡ 1.373 Seest thou a man wise in his owne conceit? there is more hope of a foole then of him▪ Now doe not you make your selves the wisest men in the world, as the onely Guides and Oracles of the Church, and that even as you are Prelates? And againe, are there any such fooles, as those, who preferre the riches and honours in the world, before heaven? Or that warre and fight against Christ, and his Kingdome? And doe not you Prelates so? Your own vain profession, and practises proclaime you to be folly it selfe, set in great dignity? And are you not servants, servants of sinne, servants of your own lusts, and other mens, ‡ 1.374 having them in admiration, for advantage? And un∣der colour of humility, as if you were servi servorum, servant of servantes as the proud Pope styles himself, which was § 1.375 Chams curse) doe you not exalt your selves as Domini dominantium, mounted on your rich and prancing Palphrys, while you † 1.376 ride over the heads of the true heaven bred Princes, that goe afoot on the ground? And how came you to be so mounted, but through the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Rulers of the earth. How mounted the Pope, but by the Emperours holding of his stirrup. And when the Pope was ter∣rible

angry with the * 1.377 Emperour, for holding the wrong stir∣rup, did not the Emperour trow you then begin to see his error? But it was now too late. Having given ‡ 1.378 their Kingdome to the Beast, 'tis just with God, they should become his Vasalls, till the time appointed.

But to conclude this your Ordine primus, which you apply to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pope, I cannot more properly and truly parallell or com∣pare it, then to Iudas, the Standard-bearer of that troope, that came to apprehend Christ; for Iudas came to Christ with Hale Master, and kissed him, and with this kisse, as by the signall gi∣ven, betrayed him. And is not your Ordine primus by this very Character known to be Antichrist, while pretending to be Apostolick, and a Successor of the Apostles, he doth the more easily betray Christ in his Word and Members into the hands and bands of men?

Object. But Peter was Ordine primus. What, such as to avoyd confusion? As a head uniting all the members, and governing all the body, as your Ordine primus to avoyd confusion, necessarily imports? Did Peter at any time convent the Apostles? Was he that Ordine primus, that struck the stroke, and gave the Difini∣tive sentences in that first Generall and Apostolicall Councel, Act. 15. Did not Iames determine, and the whole Church assented? And Gal. 2.9. Is not Iames set before Peter:* 1.379 And was ‡ 1.380 not Peter and Iohn sent by the rest of the Apostles to Sama∣ria? When was this necessity then of an Ordine primus, to avoyd confusion? And what confusion is avoyded this day in the Church of England by your being Ordine primus, nay prim-as, both in ho∣nour and Authority and Iurisdiction? Have you not by that your Ordine primus brought a confusion upon Religion? Upon the Doctrinall Articles? Upon the Consciences and Faith of men, not knowing what to beleeve, or what to doe, or how to live in any peace, inward or outward? But you thinke to shift well enough for one, so long as you put an other Ordine primus before (as before is noted) upon whose back you may lay all your burthens. So as if any thing be amisse, or succeed not well, you are not then the Ordine primus.

Lastly, one thing I observe more from your Ordine primus, and that is, the necessity of it, which say you, some one must be. What one soever this is, whether the Patriarch of the greater world, or he of the lesser, or other World, but Rome rather must be she, there's a necessity for this, that one be Ordine primus. What's this? By the necessity of this Ordine primus, is

brought in a necessity of your new Catholicke Militant Church, consisting of the Prelacy, or Hierarchy, which is so one, as one must be Ordine primus, as generall of the whole Army, as the Dragon and his Angels to warre against Michael and his Angels. So as here is an indissoluble and inseparable combination and confederacy of Prelates throughout the world, making up that one Militant or Malignant Church, whereof one must 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the chiefe, to order the battel, that there be no disorder, but that every one keep his ranke, and fight in his station against the true Militant Church of Christ, as was before noted.

L. p. 182. Let Rome reduce it selfe to the observation of Tradi∣tion Apostolicke, to which it held in Irenaeus his time, and I will say as he did, That it will be then necessary for every Church, and for the faithfull every where to agree with it.

P. Let Rome reduce it selfe to the rule of the Scripture in all things, which the faithfull there held in Pauls time, when he was prisoner, yet Preacher in Rome, and then I will say (and wilbe the first that will doe it) I wilbe one of the faithfull, that will agree with it. But for Tradition Apostolicke, I know not what you meane, and therfore I dare not say as you doe. But still you hold with Or∣dine primus, I am sure of it. You hold fast together for your Hierarchy, wherein you place the Pope your Ordine primus. Which while you doe, Whatsoever Tradition Apostolicke Rome shall reduce it selfe to, it wilbe most perillous and pernicious too for any of the faithfull to agree with it. And I am sure the Hierarchy, and our Ordine primus in that, was no Tradition Apo∣stolicke. So for that, ther's no talke of reducing, either for Romes or Canterbury. And could you perswade the world to agree with with the Ordine primus at Rome, then that speech of yours (pag. 182.) would easily take place in these our times, as well as Irenaeus his time. * 1.381 Very great reason was there in Irenaeus his time, that upon any difference arising in the Faith, Omnes undique fideles, all the faithfull, or, if you will, all the Churches round about, should have recourse, that is, resort to Rome, being the Imperiall City, and so a Church of more powerfull Principality, then any other at that time, in those parts of the world. But the meaning of A.C. is, we must so have recourse to Rome, as to submit our faith to hers. And should I grant them their own sense, that all the faithfull every where must agree with Rome (which I may give, but can never grant) yet were not this saying any whit prejudiciall to us now. For first, here's a powerfull Principality ascribed to the Church of Rome▪ so you. Here are many words conningly woven, and packt up together, that to dis∣cover

your full meaning, you had need to un••old your whole pack. Now all round about Rome, is a large compasse; for the whole world lyes round about Rome, it being also (at least there) the Imperiall City, and so a Church of more powerfull Principality, then any other, which might therfore challenge resort of all unto it, as to the onely Oracle for resolving all your faithfull every where in doubts of Faith. Yea and if you should grant too, that all must submit their faith to Rome, you say, it were no whit pre∣judiciall to us now. And should you not grant it, how should it agree with your necessity of having one Ordine primus. For to what purpose should there be one Ordine primus to avoyd confusion, i•• to his Call, Summons and Judgement all your faithfull resort∣ing, they should not rest this their faith in his Determination. Otherwise, how should Confusion be avoyded. For then to what one Ordine primus should they goe? But do you yeeld it, or no? You say, you may give it, but can never grant it. I pray you, whe∣ther shall your affirmative giving, or your negative granting be of more force? Or if you give it, how do you not grant it too? Yea giving is more then granting. If therfore you give it, you doe more then grant it. But suppose you restrain it onely to Irenaeus his time. Had Rome then an Infallible Oracle in the Popes brest? Or was his Iudgement the more infallible, because his Chaire was in the Imperiall City? Or his sentence of the more credit, because his Church had the more powerfull Principality? Then why in all doubtfull cases of Faith should not all the faithfull in Eng∣land resort to the Chaire of Canterbury, as which hath the most powerfull Principality, of all the Prelates in England? Why should not the thresholds of your Palace be as much worne with the footsteps of those that come to your Oracle for resolution in matters of faith: as the Shrine of your Predecessor S. Thomas of Canterbury, with the keyes of his blind votaries? And so much the more in these dayes; as wherein you have put all England to a stand and stagger what to beleeve in point of Faith, conside∣ring that the Articles of Religion, like Meteors hang in suspense in the ayre, no man knowing what to make of them, whether they be white or blacke, or what such Comets portend, untill to that Edict of the Court (that binds up the sense of the Arti∣cles fast asleep, or in a slumber between Hawke and Buzzard, or as a speaking in a dreame) you shall superadde the Definitive Decree of the Chaire of Canterbury, to interpret unto us what they have dreamed all this while. But I suppose, the Board calling you so much away from your Chaire, you are the more

willing, and that in such a case of necessity to send all the faithfull to your Ordine primus at Rome, and to Peters Chaire there (if any such thing be there) which may like Iunoes three footed stoole, resolve all their doubts. And so (as you * 1.382 say to A C.) Rome may thanke you for it. But alwayes provided, tha•• Rome first re∣duce her selfe (as you say) to the Observation of Tradition Apo∣stolicke, and then you will say Latinè, plainly, That it wilbe then necessary for every Church, and for the faithfull every where to agree with it, to have recourse to Rome, and to rest their Faith there, where is the most Powerfull Principality. And thus (as well as I could) I have pickt up your meaning, wherein if I have come short, you must pardon me, and blame your selfe, for your being no more perspicuous in matters of such moment, as about con∣sulting of Oracles, considering, that that of Apollo and Delphos was long agoe put to silence. But to proceed.

L. p. 199. The Bishop of Rome hath no power from Christ, over the whole Church to be Iudge in Controversies: nay out of all doubt, 'tis not the least reason, why de facto he hath so little successe, because de Jure he hath no power given.

P. Not over the whole Church. This seems to imply, that the Bishop of Rome hath a power from Christ to be Iudge in Controversies over all the Churches at least within his own more powerfull Principa∣lity. And consequently, that the Primate of Canterbury hath the like power from Christ to be Judge in Controversies over the whole Church of England. If you have, yet it wilbe some ease to the English, that they have an Oracle so neare home to resolve them in all doubts, so as they need not (as formerly) go trudge to Rome for the matter. But neither to the Pope in his Powerfull Principality, nor to you in your Primacy hath Christ given any power at all to be Judge in Controversies of Faith. And because you have no Calling, nor Commission from Christ, therfore 'tis true you say in this, that the Pope hath no better successe. And I pray you ‡ 1.383 what successe have you had, since you took upon you to sway the Crosier staffe of Canterbury, and to be Judge in Con∣troversies of Faith, making and raysing controversies there, where there was none before, as namely in the Articles of Religion? 'Tis true, you have put many a good Minister to Silence, thrust many a one out of his Cure, and Countrey, levied your way for an universall Conformity to Rome, prevailed much in your Designes that way: but yet have you any great cause to boast of your successe, all things Considered? I say no more. Verbum sapienti: you understand me well enough. And certainly when

you cast up your reckoning, you will find your selfe to be as much behind hand for successe, as you do the Pope. And your Reason is true: because you have no power, no Authority, no Calling, no Commission from Christ, either to possesse such a place, or to execute such an Office. For as the Lord saith in * 1.384 Ieremie (speaking of false Prophets) I sent them not, neither commanded them: therfore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the Lord. So, neither have you reason to thinke, that because you may do what you list in turning things upside down, in seting up your Altars, in suppressing Gods word, in oppressing Gods Ministers, in advancing your Arminian and Popish faction, and you hitherto prosper therein, while there is never a man left, that dare so much as mutter a word against these your practises, so great is your Power, and so terrible your Cruelty, and Ministers so Cow∣ardly, so as by this meanes your Cause and Course seems to prosper, while you can crush any that shall interpose himselfe, or lawfully in his place oppose your violent courses: therfore Christ hath given you this power thus to tyrannise, wherein you doe so prosper. True it is, that Christ hath given way to Satan to rage in these times, because he knows he hath but a short time: and hereby Christ will try and humble his people, that he may doe them good, and be glorified in their deliverance, and in the de∣struction of all such Papall and Antichristian Tyranny.

L. p. 200. The Church being as large as the world,* 1.385 Christ thought it fitter to governe it Aristocratically, by Divers, rather then by One Viceroy. And I beleeve that this is true. For all the time of the first 300. yeares, and somwhat bettter, it was governed Aristocratically, to wit, by the Bishops, &c.

P. Here you give us occasion further to launch into the Deep of this Mystery, that we may sound the bottome of it, and so discerne what ground it floats upon (mudde, or sand, or both) although we have in part discovered it before. Here you say, and you say you beleeve it too (it is an Article of your Creed) that Christ thought it fitter to govern the Church Aristocratically by di∣verse, rather then by one Viceroy. And you give the Reason, The Church being as large as the world. We will first take an Assay of your words, and then of your Reason. For to a vulgar Reader some of your words are somwhat obscure, and some also very finely couched, that every eye cannot at the first discerne the Mystery of them.

And first, for Aristocratically: Aristotle, the famous Philosopher, and no meane statesman, in his Politicks layes down 3 kinds of

Civil Government, taken in the better part: The first is Mo∣narchia, which is a government by One: the second is, Aristocra∣tia, which is a Government of the Best Men: the third is Demo∣cratia, which is a Government Popular, or of the People. Opposite to these three, he sets three sorts of bad Government: the first is Tyranny, which is opposed to Monarchy; Tyranny ruling either without, or contrary to the good Laws established: but a Monar∣chy governing according to the established good Laws of the State, Kingdome, or Common-weale. The second is, Oligarchia, which signifies the Government of a few; and this standing in opposition to Aristocratia (the Government of the best men) it signifieth the Government of a few of the worst men. The third is, Anarchia, that is, no Government at all, when without Law, or Ruler, every one doth that, which seems good in his own eyes (as Jude 17 6. and 21.25.) and this is opposed to Democratia, a Government of the people by good Laws. These things thus plainly layd down, we shall the more clearly proceed in our Point.

Secondly, I note here your word Vice-Roy; which every man knows doth signifie a Vice-King, or one Deputed by the King to governe a Kingdome in his personall absence, whereof there is usually but one in a Kingdome; as the Vice-Roy of the Kingdome of Naples under the King of Spaine; or the Lord Duputy of Ireland under the King thereof. But yet every one doth not perhaps understand, that among diverse Prelates, you make your selfe a Vice-roy. But looking more narrowly into your words, we shall find that sense easily resulting from them. For you say, That Christ thought it fitter to governe his Church by Diverse, then by One Vice-Roy: that is, by Diverse Vice-Roys, rather then by One. All comes to one reckoning. And besides you expresse the word Diverse, and the word One▪ with a Capitall, to note, that both have reference to Vice-Roy. So as it runs Currant both wayes, whether you say, By Diverse, rather then by One Vice-Roy: or, By Diverse Vice-Roys, rather then by One. Thus 'tis plaine e∣nough.

Lastly, a third word here is of some difficulty: that you say, Christ thought it fitter. Now I never took you to be one of Christs Privy Councel, so as to be made Privy to Christs thoughts, and that in these things, which he hath no where ex∣pressed in his word. But this is familiar with you (as before) to tell us Gods thoughts. But shew us where Christ hath expressed any such thought of his in his expresse word, the Scripture. If you cannot (as you cannot) how presume you to say, Christ thought

so. Certainly my Lord Iesus Christ, that * 1.386 one∣ly Potentate, and ‡ 1.387 one∣ly wise King, useth not to entertaine such as you are to be of his Privy Councel, or Cabinet, that dare discover his secrets, nay dare report that of him, which never came into his thought. And if ye be so bold with Christ, others may be warned hereby how farre to trust you with their secrets, and others againe, how farre to be∣leeve your reports of Princes Pleasures, or Purposes, when perhaps 'tis neither so nor so. But my Lord, your Places, and Grace, attended with all the Princely Pompe, suits not with Christs Privy-Councel-Board. He admitted none thither, but a com∣pany of poore simple Fishermen. Those were his ‡ 1.388 Friends, to whom he did communicate and impart his councels and secrets. As § 1.389 Abraham being the † 1.390 Friend of God, God said he would hide nothing from him. No, nor from any of his true-bred seed. ‡̶ 1.391 The secret of the Lord is with them that feare him; and he will shew them his Covenant. They are either strangers in the world, as * 1.392 Daniel in Babylon: or exiles from the world, as ‡ 1.393 Iohn in the Ile of Pathmos; or such as live sub Dio, in the wildernesse, as Iohn Baptist: or dwell in a poore thatcht Cottage, or so, to whom the Lord Iesus Christ reveales his thoughts; and not lightly to those that live deliciously, and are in Kings Cours, and goe in soft clothing, their ‡ 1.394 Traine borne up after them, wherewith they draw the third part of the starres of heaven. As a Cardinall at the Election of a Pope, when there was a solemn Masse sung to call down the Holy Ghost, to set the dissenting Factions of the Cardinalls at one, and it would not be, said, Let us uncover the Roofe, for the Holy Ghost cannot find a way to passe through so many tyles. And my Lord, if you tell us this as a revelation, what Christ thought: we have no more, but your bare word (as in many other things of like nature) so as unlesse (in a matter of such moment as this is) you can shew us the truth hereof by some Miracle for confir∣mation, as the § 1.395 Romish Priests doe for their Transubstantia∣tion, and Purgatory, and such like secrets: you must pardon us, if we doe not give credit to what you so boldly say of Christs thought here.

But from your words come we to the matter, which they im∣port, and which I say we still require proofe of, which will trouble you worse to find, then all the writing of your Book hath done. And seeing you compare your Episcopall Govern∣ment with the Aristocraticall, which is the Government Optima∣tum, of the Best men: prove unto us (to make your comparison good, and that in the prime notion of it) that Prelates are the Best

men in the Church. You are Megístoi indeed, the greatest: but are you Aristoi,* 1.396 the Best. Riches and Honours (saith Cicero) make a man to be Majorem, greater: Meliorem verò quomodo? but how, better? I could never beleeve, that the Papall Miter, could infuse holinesse, or an Archiepiscopall Pall, Grace. Nor could I see any Reason why Prelates should take place in pre∣cedency one of another, according to the greatnesse of their Principality respectively, as if the Pope were ever the more learned, vertuous, religious, holy, because he is Bishop of Rome, or your Lordship because you are Titled His Grace of Canter∣bury. Whereas precedency of persons should goe by their personall worth, and age, and inward indowments, and not by any Prelaticall outward Prerogatives. But this by the way.

But for your Aristocratie: That Prelates are the best men to go∣verne the Church of Christ; will ye be tryed by the thoughts of Christ expressed by the Apostle, which he had heard in the * 1.397 Third heaven, in Christs Privy Chamber? There you shall see plainly, what both your, and our faith may infallibly build up∣on; namely who, or what manner of persons they be, whom Christ thought fit to Govern his Church. You say, Bishops. So say we too. But whether our Bishops be the same with your Bi∣shops (and that not onely for their Function, yours being Di∣ocesan, and ours (such as the Apostle speaks of) Pastors respe∣ctively over their particular Congregations: but for their qualities and conditions, such as are required in true Bishops in∣deed) let us heare the Apostles words. ‡ 1.398 Pistòs ho lógos. Eítis Episkopes o'régetai, kalou e'rgou e'pithumei: This is a faithfull saying: If any man desire the Office of a Bishop he desireth a worthy worke, Orégetay, signifieth an earnest desire, quasi porrectis mani∣bus prehendere & arripere; the Office of a Bishop perhaps you would translate e'piskopè, a Bishoprick: but our English hath turned it right, The office of a Bishop; for 'tis called here, a worthy worke. And therfore it is not one of your Prelaticall Bi∣shopricks, which indeed you doe with both hands both o'rex∣asthai, & epithumesai, reach after with all earnest desire: for you reach after the Lordship, after the Honour, after the Revenues, after the Pleasures, after the Ease, and after the goodly Palaces and Demeanes of your Bishoprick••: in all which you cannot shew k••lòn 'érgon, a worthy worke. And so indeed these words of the Apostle (and elswhere) concerning a Bishop do nothing con∣cerne you: but onely to convince you, that you are none of those Bishops, whom the Scripture so styleth. Well, what be

those speciall qualities, which the Apostle requireth in a true Bishop, set over the Congregation of the Lord? It shall suffice to mention for the present purpose but some of them. As first: He must be Anégkletos, unreprovable, such as cannot be justly accused of any crime. Now none of you come thus cleane to your Bi∣shopricks: for you are, or may be justly accused of having been Pluralists (which is against your Old Canons) Non-Residents, Idle Dreanes, seldome Preaching in their own Cures, but by a poore Stipendary Curate, flattering Court-Preachers, and the like. Nay who is capable, or heire apparent of a Bishopricke, or Prelacie, that hath not two or three ••at livings, with a Prebend or two, and a Deanery, that being thus qualified, having his Purse well lyned (I say not, that he may purchase his Bishop∣ricke) he may be able at least at his In-coming to defray five or six hundred Pounds, or a thousand Markes for Fees, and Feasts, and Gloves at his Consecration? Well, secondly, He must not be Authádas, selfe-willed (so our last Translation renders the word.) And beleeve me this may come neere the proud∣est of your Coats, when you come with your Volumus & Iube∣mus, We will and command, and that without either Law, or Canon? And you must have your will, ther's no remedy for that, else ye will take the pet, or pepper in the nose, and cry out of contempt of Authority. And the word signifieth also one that is arrogant, and proud, a selfe-pleaser. You may take all these senses, if you will. Thirdly, He must not be, Plékges, a strik••r, whe∣ther with his own, or others hands, as delivering over to the secular Power, or Sword, whereby he so strikes, as he sheds the blood of the Innocents. He must be none of that society. Fourthly, he must not be Orgílos, soon Angry, testy, or touchy, such as Na••al, that one might not speake to him, he was so snappish, and curst, Fiftly, he must not be Aiskrokerdès, given to filthy lucre, as in exacting Fees (he or his Officers) of poore Ministers, either extraordinary at their Admissions, or ordinary at Visitations, and a thousand wayes besides Viis & modis sine modo in your Bishops Courts. Sixtly, He must be Philágados, a lover of good men, not a hater and persecuter of them. Seventhly, he must be Díkaies, just, not oppressing Innocents by a faction and confederacy of voyces forepack∣ed in your Courts, before the Cause come to be heard. Eight∣ly, He must be Osios, holy, not one that is an enemy to all true holinesse, and persecutes the very name of it, and suppresse the pra∣ctise and meanes of it, as by crying down the sanctification of the Lords day, and the sincere Preaching of the word of God, and com∣mending

and dispensing with profane sports on that day▪ Ninthly▪ He must be Didáktikos, apt to teach: not onely sufficient and able, for his Scholarship, or one that can make a Sermon, if he will, but he must be diligent in preaching in season and out of season. He must hold fast the faithfull Word, that he may be able by sound Doctrine both to exhort, and to convince the Gainsayers. So farre must he be from abbetting and countenancing false Teachers, and unsound Doctrine, and old damned Heresies, and forbidding to preach sound Doctrine, and punishing those that doe. I might reckon up sundry more qualities, which Christ requireth in those, whom onely he allowes and appoints as fittest to govern and feed his People, as becom••th good Pastors to doe their flocks; as 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. and elsewhere. But because Lord Prelates, or Diocesan Bi∣shops (as I said before) are none of those Bishops here which the Apostle requires to be thus qualified; therfore I have said enough to convince you, that you are none of Christs Bishops, if you do but look your selves in this Glasse. And if you mark it well, these are those, that immediately succeded the Apo∣stles and Euangelists, in the Ministeriall function. As we read, Eph. 4.11. where the Pastors and Teachers are those, who are elswhere called Presbyters and Bishops, such as Paul and Barnabas did * 1.399 Keirotonesi, elect, ordaine, or appoint by imposition of hands Kat' e'kklesían, in every Church, or particular Congregation. A place very remarkable. And these Presbyters, Bishops, Pastors, Teachers, Preachers, Ministers (for all is one and the same Office) as they succeded the Apostles, but with a particular limitation every one to their peculiar charges and Congregations respectively: so while the Apostles lived, they were still next unto them, as we see Act. 15.2.4.6.22, 23. And these are those Elders that rule well, which especially doe Kopian, labour hard in the Ministry of the Word and Doctrine. These are those Aristoi, those Optimates, the best men, by whose Aristocraticall Government, according both to the thought (we may boldly and truly say) and to the expresse word of Christ, the severall Churches, and particular Congregations and flocks of Christ, are governed; and that, not by any their own devised Canons, but by the onely Canon of Scripture, wherein are expressed all those Laws, and Rules, by which all true Ministers of Christ doe regulate themselves, and govern their severall Congregations. For although Christs faithfull and true Ministers are the best men, and therfore are but few in comparison (and ‡ 1.400 who is fit, or sufficient for these things? saith the Apostle) yet Christ left them not to governe his Churches or flocks, as they

should thinke best, but according to his own Laws: as Deputies are to govern the people according to the Kings Laws, and no otherwise. For such is the Government of Aristocratie, it is esta∣blished upon good Laws of the Common-weale; otherwise it should degenerate into the corrupt and bad Government of Oli∣garchia. So as here is no roome for your Diocesan Lord Bi∣shops; for you are none of those Aristoi, Optimates: the best m••n, whom Christ thought fit for the Aristocraticall Government of his Church, sith ye are neither qualified for it, as he requires in his true Bishops, nor will you confine your Prelaticall Government to the Laws of Christ expressed in his word, but will govern by your own Canons and lusts, as usurpers use to doe. And ther∣fore (by the way) no mervaile if you speake so contemptibly and basely of the holy Scripture, seeing in them you can find no ground, either of Precept, or Apostolick Precedent for your Antichristian Hierarchy.

All which considered, doth in the second place give us just cause to doubt at least, or rather to be well assured indeed, that Diocesan Prelates, or Bishops (as you usurpe the Title) are no Vice-Roys under the Great King Iesus Christ: because your Go∣vernment is nothing according to our Great Kings Laws, but according to your own devised Canons, and in nothing, in No∣thing (I say) agreeable to the Laws of Christ in the Scripture, for the right Government of his Church. Nay that Government which Christ hath prescribed in his word, and which is practised in the best Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, you doe utterly and openly condemn, and the Churches themselves, that doe practise the Discipline of Christ and his Apostles, while you de∣ny them to be any Churches of Christ at all.

Againe, Every Kingdome, as it hath but one King over it, so it is capapable of no more, then onely one Vice-Roy▪ so as by that Title, he that is your Ordine Primus, and hath a more Potent Principality, the Pope, had he but a good Title, would carry that honour from you all, if you value the worth and Dig∣nity of that Vice-Royship after the value of your Bishop∣ricks, and not after vertue. Either then you must acknowledge the Pope to be the sole Vice-Roy, which you are loth to doe. (For why should not the Patriarch of the other world be as ca∣pable of that honour, as he) or you must give us leave to find out the onely true Vice-Roy of Christ in his Church, and that is, The Holy Ghost. For when our Great King went into his Cele∣stiall Kingdome, to his Church Tryumphant, leaving his Militant

here on Earth under the Kingdome of Grace, as touching his bo∣dily presence: he sent the Holy Ghost to be his Vice-Roy, or Vice-Gerent, to be perpetually resident in his Kingdome of Grace here, for the Governing of his Church Militant, and that according to the Law of Christ in his written word, leading the People of Christ into all truth, by revealing unto them all the Mysteryes of Christs will contained in the Scripture. As Christ saith, * 1.401 He shall g••orifie Me; for he shall receive of mine, and shew it unto you. And v. 13. When the spirit of Truth is come, whom (v. 7.) I will send unto you, he will guide you into all Truth; for he shall not speake of himselfe, but whatsoever he shall heare, that shall he speake. Loe here then a faithfull Vice-Roy indeed. And will, or dare you deny this Spirit of God to be an All sufficient Vice-Roy, who doth execute Christs Kingly Office in his Church, in all things just so, as Christ himselfe will••th. And therfore except you can prove, that Christ hath many Kingdomes of Grace here on earth, or any more Churches Militant, then one onely, here is no Rome for any such Vice-Roys, as you pretend to be. For here we see it plain, that of Christs one, and onely Kingdome of Grace here on earth, the Holy Ghost is the onely Vice-Roy. And who is fit to be Christs Vice-Roy in his spirituall Kingdome, but the Spirit of God, and of Christ••? Ye are therfore no Vice-Roys, because you are altogether carnall, and your Kingdome is of this world.

And therfore Thirdly, how can you Prelates pretend to be Vice-Roys over Christs Church, whenas (as is noted before) ye are not so much as any members at all of Christs Kingdome. For you are the Members of Antichrists Kingdome, and so you are, or may be Antichrists Vice-Roys over his severall Provinces. 'Tis true you style your selves spirituall, Lords spirituall, and your Courts spirituall, and you are an Hierarchy, as much to say, as a Holy Kingdome, or Government: but it is not spirituall of Christs spirit, but of that spirit that ruleth in the ayre, that gave you all that Authority.‡ 1.402 So as you do with Bellarmine turne those words of Christ to Peter, Pasce oves meas, Feed my Sheep, to Regio more Impera, Rule as a King. And what similitude is there between Christ and you, that you should be his Vice-Roys in his Church-Militant? When he was here in person, he was among his own as a servant, and Minister. He had no sta••ely and Princely Palaces, he kept no such Pontificiall house, nor Court: he governed not his Church by Chancellors, Arch Deacons, Deanes Chapters, Com∣miss••••••••s, Offi••ialls, Pursuivants, Apparitors, and all that Rabble. Christ had no such face of a Kingly Government. So as you have

altogether perverted the Kingdome of Christ, which is altoge∣ther spirituall, and holy, into a meere temporall and carnall King∣dome, wherein therfore you are none of Christ Vice-Roys, but Vi••ious Roys▪ and Tyrannicall Lords. O Antich••istian Generation! O notorious Hypocrites! O proud and blind Guides! How shall you escape the vengeance to come, that dare thus impiously ab••se the Name of our Lord Iesus Christ, and so impose upon the world by your bold usurpations? Vsurpations indeed. You call your selvs Vice-Roys, Apostolicke, Bishops, Spirituall Church, Grace, Holinesse: meere Nominalls, which you have usurped, and patched toge∣ther, to become a veile to cover your deep hypocrisie, and to seem glorious in the eyes of the world, and all to hold up your earthly Kingdome, which consists altogether of earthly things, honours riches, pleasures But blind world, that su••ferest thy selfe to be thus guld and befoold with such glittering stuffe, and to be made a slave to such Lords, and to be cheated of thy salva∣vation by these Antichristian Mountebanks. And yet they pretend and professe, that this their carnall▪ pompous, and Pontificiall King∣dome is Christs spirituall Kingdome here, in the state of Grace. Let them then cleare themselves herein from that damned Heresy of that old Heretick ••erinthus, who lived in S. Iohns time. His Heresy was, That Christs Kingdome, after his Resurrection was earthly, and that now the flesh conversing in Ierusalem was to serve lusts and pleasures. [See Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib 3. cap. 22.* 1.403] Now is not the Prelates Kingdome just that in practise, with Cerinthus his Heresy? If so: As S. Iohn forsook the Bath wherein Cerinthus was, what cause have Christians to fly from that roofe, where such an Antichristian Hierarchy domineereth?

But in the next place, let's consider of your Reason How stands it good, that because Christs Church is as large as the world, therfore he thought it fitter to governe it by Diverse, then by One Vice-Roy? Now we have proved your Hierarchy not to be an Aristo∣crasie, a Government of the Best men, and that by good Laws: see∣ing therfore you must needs be some Government, then it must be an Olegarchie, that is, the Government of a few of the worse men, such as rule by their lusts, and not by any good Laws, either of God, or Man. But now tell me, my Lord, if you argue upon this ground, that because the Militant Church is as large as the world, therfore 'tis fitter it be governed by many Vice Roys, then by one: why may not aswell one Prelate, as the Pope, be sole Vice-Roy over the whole world, as my Lord of Canterbury be a Vice-Roy over all England. For doth not the Pope and you

Governe your Churches by substitutes? Why then may not the Pope Governe the whole by his Curates, as you doe all Eng∣land by your Curates? For all the Ministers in England are but your Curates. And suppose you were one of the Popes Bishops, and so his Creature: what difference would there be between your Governing of your Province under the Pope, as it were his Deputy, and Governing according to Romes Canons and Cu∣stomes, and as you do now in your own Name? And the Pope challenging the whole world for his Diocesse, and you the Province of Canterbury for yours: all the difference is, that he needeth the more Curates, which he may have with a wet finger, and you the fewer. Onely perhaps his Holinesse would now and then fleece your Graces Clergy, as he was wont of old to doe. But in the mean time both the Pope and your Lord∣ship do much mistake the matter, in judgeing, or estimating, and measuring the latitude and extent of Christs Church. For you both measure it according to the extent of your large and Potent Principalities, Patriarchall Countries, Archiepiscopall Provin∣ces, Episcopall Diocesse. But you are farre wide in casting your line. For though Christs Church is said to be dispersed over the whole earth, being confined to no place: yet of all this wide world he hath the least number, and fewest of all, where commonly your Hierar••hy is most predominant. For those that belong to Christ, are a sort of poore Snakes despised in the world, and al∣wayes persecuted and oppressed by your Hierarchy, so as they can hardly find so much as a little corner any where in the world, much lesse in all the Circuit of your Diocesse, or Provinces, where they may hide their heads, or live in any peace. So as of all your full Vintages, and fruitfull Fields, Christ is glad of the refuse of a few gleanings. And so Christs flock (alas!) is so small, and so poore, and his Kingdome on earth so despised, as to set up such Lordly Vice-Roys, as the Prelates over it, the very Fees of your Courts would eat them out. And therfore because Christs sheep are here and there scattered in the world, and many times as sheep without a shepheard, being driven by your Dogges from their own pasture: Christ thought it fitter to place over his small and scattered flocks, poore sheheards, that should feed their severall flocks respectively with the wholesome food of the word of God: and therfore appointed to every particular Congregation a pe∣culiar Pastor of their own, that should alwayes be personally resident with his flocks, keeping his watch over them night and day; and so much the more, in regard of so many Wolves and

Foxes, and wild Beasts, which without continuall watching, would make a prey of them. Neither would Christ permit his shepheards to commit their Flocks to Hirelings, or Stipenda••y Curates, while themselvs should take their pleasure and ease: for * 1.404 the Hireling when he seeth the theef, or wolfe coming, fleeth, because he is an Hireling, neither careth he for the Sheep. Ther∣fore Christ wisely and providently hath appointed to every parti∣cular Congregation or flocke of his, a shepheard of their own, and that ‡ 1.405 after his own heart, to feed them with knowledge and under∣standing. And as the shepheard governes and guides his own flocke: so every faithfull Minister or Pastor is appointed by Christ to be the ‡ 1.406 Governour of his own Congregation, according to the Rule of Christ. So as in this respect, Christ thought it fitter to appoint many Governours in his Church, namely to each Con∣gregation their own Shepheard: rather then a few, such as you speake of, as one over a whole Countrey or Province. Neirther let your Lordship thinke, that every such Congregation, having a faithfull Pastor over it, hath yet need of any your Episcopall In∣spection, or Trienniall Visitations, or your Archdeacons, Annuall Vi∣sitation, wherein you inquire onely whether your owne Cano••s be observed, and if so Omnia bene, All is well, onely the poore Ministers paying their Procuration; the Visitor never inquiring, if the Minister be diligent in preaching to his flocke: but whether he hath kept the Order for not preaching in the After-noons on the Lords day, and the Order for not Preaching such and such Doctrines, and such like: so as commonly your visitation is like that of the Plague, saving that this is from God immediately, and yours, from another sourse. And Ministers and People too could think them∣selves happy, to be freed from your awfull and terrible vi••its, wherein your maine ayme is to root out all good Ministers, for which the omission of one of your Ceremonies is sufficient. So as Christs Congregation (I say) needs not any such Inspection of the Bishops eye over them, which is as l' aeil de beuf, or the weather gall, called the Ox eye,* 1.407 which portends a storme to follow. For Christ hath promised his perpetuall Presence and resi∣dence with his people, and his eye § 1.408 watcheth over them night and day, least any hurt them. As he saith, † 1.409 When two or three are gathe∣red together in my Name, there am I in the midst of them. Loe here an intire, and compleat body of a Church, having Christ as head over them, and his Spirit in them, and his Word before them, and their own shepheard appointed by Christ to feed them. so as here is no place left for your Prelaticall Vice-Roys.

Object. Put you say, No Bishop, no Church: so say I too, but the Apostles Bishop he must be, not your Diocesan Lord Bi∣shop. What order then (say you) wilbe in the Church? A good and decent order in every Congregation, where Christs order, and ordinance takes place, and where mans presumption breaks not this order. And consider here the excellent wisdome, and order of Oeconomy, that Christ hath appointed every Congregation to be governed by. For as that is the most perfect, and compleat form of Civil Government, which is mixed of all the 3 states, as the Monarchiall, Aristocraticall, and Democraticall, when the King governeth by his good Laws, using the best men, as the noble, and most vertuous in the higher places of the Kingdome, and the b••st and dis••reet••st of the common people in the bearing of inferiour offices, such as every one is most fit for; a representation whereof we have in the 3 states in Parliament, the King, the Nobles, and the Commons: so the Lord Iesus Christ hath established this most compleat form of Government in his Church: First, himselfe rules as King over all, Governing by his Spirit: Secondly, he hath set over every particular Congregation such as are Arist••i, the optimates, the best and ablest to be Pastors and Teachers, each of his own flock: And thirdly, he hath added also the Denocraty, or government of the people, appointed to be chosen out of every Congregation the gravest, wisest, sobriest and discreetest, some as * 1.410 Elders, some, as, ‡ 1.411 Deacons, to be helpers to the Minister in matter of Discipline, of Sacramentall Provision, of reliefe of the poore, of visiting the sicke, and of other Church affaires for that Congregation. And these are called by the Apostle Anti∣l••pseis, kubern••seis, which our English ••enders, helps in Govern∣ments. And all this according to the expresse Law of Christ our King, recorded in the Scripture, as being the most perfect pattern of the Government of his Church for every particular Con∣gregation to be regulated and ordered by. So as in truth those Congregations, that are thus governed, are the onely true Churches of Christ, as wherein himselfe, his spirit, his word doe govern both Minister and people: whereas on the other side, all Prelaticall Churches are false, and Antichristian, as wherein not Christ, and his spirit▪ and his word do beare rule, but Antichristian men by the pride of their spirit, and by their Canons doe altogether beare sway, thrusting Christ out of his Throne, despising his word, and puting a yoake of bondage over the necks both of Mini∣sters and people.

To conclude this point: because you are of such a beliefe,

and so confidently tell us, and peremptorily avouch, that Christ thought it fitter to govern his Church by Diverse, then by One Vice-Roy: besides what is already sayd, I will a little more presse, and present before you Christs own words at full; which I doe, to put you out of all such beliefe, or so much as any such conceit, that Christ had ever any such thought. Math. 20. upon occasion of those two (at that time) ambitious bretheren,* 1.412 sent to Christ by their Mother, to be chiefe about him in his Kingdome: Christ first tells them, Ye know not what ye aske. Then calling his Dis∣ciples to him, he saith thus unto them: Ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them, and they that are great, exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but wh••so ever wilbe great among you, let him be your Minister, &c. Which the Euangelist Luke expresseth thus: * 1.413 The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them, and they that exercise Authority upon them, are called Euergétai, Benefactors. But ye shall not be so. Ye? Who? Not the Apostles of Christ, not the Ministers of Christ in succeding ages. Not so? How? Ye shall not exercise Dominion, Lordship, Authority one over another; you shall not be called Be∣nefactors, Patrons, Lords, Gratious Lords, Honourable, your Grace, your Honour, &c. Why so? For such are the Kings of the Gen∣tiles, who exercise Dominion over them, and are called Benefactors. You shall not be as they, in exercising any Authority or Ju∣risdiction one over another. Nor shall ye be called Euerg••t••i, My Good lord, My Benefactor, My Patron, My lords Grace, or My Gratious lord, and the like. Thus under those words Christ cha••g∣eth his Apostles not to affect, not to be ambitious of, not to exercise Superiority or Prelacy, Iurisdiction and Authority one over another, or over Christs Kingdome, his Church and 〈◊〉〈◊〉; as Peter saith, ‡ 1.414 Not as Lords over Gods heritage: where the Apo∣stle useth the same word that Christ his Master used, M•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 katakuriéuontes ton k••úron, not exercising Dominion or 〈…〉〈…〉 Gods Inheritance: or if you will, over his Clergy, though they be not his onely Inheritance, but his people are no 〈…〉〈…〉 unto him, and are kleros, Gods lot. But now for Christs 〈◊〉〈◊〉: do you not think that Christ spake, as he thought, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as he spake? Or can you beleeve any other? And do not his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to his Apostles, in them reach to all his Ministers 〈…〉〈…〉 succeed them in future ages? If you say▪ you are the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 onely successors: why are you then l••rds ov••r Go••s 〈…〉〈…〉 why do you exercise ••u••hority and Dominion over his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and peop••e, as Heathen Kings doe over then people, 〈…〉〈…〉

expresly forbid, to his Apostles, and to all their Successors? But you shew your selves to be none of Christs Disciples, and so none of his Apostles successors: for you obey not Christs word, as the Apostles did.

What do you answere then to Christs words? Or what in∣terpretation can you devise to avoyd them? You will answere perhaps with Bellarmine, that Christ forbad his Apostles to be like the Heathen Princes, in exercising a temporall Government, or Authority one over another. This is indeed all the evasion Bellarmine hath. But how vain! Let's bring it to the Touch. How shall it be tryed? What saith Christ? Humeis dè ouk outos: you shall not be so. Now if you be not so, all is well: you may prove Apostolicall men. But if you prove to be like the Hea∣then Princes in exercising Lordship over the people, under your Government, and in exercising Authority over them: what can you say for your selves why you should not be proclaimed for proud Contemners of Christs word, and for usurping Ty∣rants over his peopl; and so for a rebellious Faction and Confe∣deracy against Christs Kingdome? Let's therfore draw our Pa∣rallell. Those Heathen Powers were called Princes: so you call your selves: they were Kings, and so were Gods Vice-ge∣rents: you call your selves Vice-Roys of Christ: they were called Benefactors, though they never did good: so you are styled, My lords Grace, and when in your Court, you condemn poore inno∣cents, yet they must confesse the justice and favour of your Court: They were called Fathers of their Countrey, so you, Right Reverend Fatheres, Most Reverend Father, your Grace, &c. They were lords: so you, yea you are temporall lords, and so sit in Par∣liament, though styled spirituall: they exercised lordship, domini∣on, Authority over the people, and that with tyranny, and without Law: so do you: And in a word, Is not your Pompe and state, your Power and Greatnesse, your Palaces and Courts, your Traine and Attendants, your Fasces and Lictors, to wit, your Pursuivants and Apparitors, your Kinglike Attire in Purple and Scarlet and fine lynen, soft rayment of silkes and sattens, your Tables overflowing with delicacies of viands and wines in all abundance and variety, and what not, like that of Kings! Thus doe you not beare the Image of the Beast, the Dragon, the Heathen Emperour, who gave power to that other Beast, the Pope, who in himselfe ere∣cted the Image of the first Beast from top to toe, namely the Imperiall state and magnificence being fully expressed and lim∣med out in the Papall, though but in somwhat a lower degree

in your Episcopall Pontificiall state. As Pope Boniface 8. in the first day of his Jubilee came forth pompously arayed in all his Pontificalibus, and the next day in the Imperiall Ropes, with two Swords caried before him. And a lively Image of this is my Lord Bishop, a mixt Creature, partly temporall, and partly spirituall spirituall in name onely, and temporall in his whole out∣ward state, as the Kings and Princes of the Gentiles were, as the Crea••ure called Amphibius, that lives now in the water, and now on the Land, and yet is neither good Fish, nor Flesh.

Now tell us, my Lord, whose Image you beare: Christs, or Caesars? yea in all things you resemble Caesar, but not many one thing the Lord Iesus Christ. I say, not in one thing. Shew any one thing, wherein you instate either Christ, o•• his Apostles after his Resurrection. Indeed you inatate ••he Apostles in their Phil••••••i∣kí••, emulation and contention, which should be the greatest, which Christ condemneth, and utterly forbiddeth in them. But this was in them onely before they knew the Mystery of Christs King∣dome aright They dreamed of a Temporall Kingdome: but after Christs Resurrection, when they had received the Holy Ghost, they were of another mind, no such emulation then who should be the chiefest there, but who should shew greatest love and fidelity to Christ in preaching the Gospell, and building up spirituall Temples to God. But you (I say) imitate them in their carnall estate, wherein that which they blindly imagined, you have erected an Image of, namely a Temporall King∣dome, like that of Heathen Kings and Princes, and other Tem∣porall Lords. Which shews, that you are none of Christs Dis∣ciples (I say) or the Apostles successors, and that you have not Christs Spirit, but are altogether carnall and sensuall, as the * 1.415 Apostle saith. For had you Christs Spirit, you would be truly spirituall, as the Apostles were. But you are ‡ 1.416 s••nsuall, having not the Spirit. And if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, the s••me is none of his. And in that you veile your hypocrisie and all your sensuality, and carnall state which you call your Hierarchy, under the specious termes and Titles of spirituall Holy, Grace, Church, Bishops, Christs Vicars, or Vice-Roys, Apostoli••ke, successors o•• the Apostles wherewith you gull the blind world: this is that very Mystery of Iniquity the Apostle speaks of, which began to work even in his dayes (as we noted before) you being those false Prophets that come in Christs Name, in sheeps clothing,* 1.417 but are in∣wardly ravening Wolves. You may think my language sharpe, but it cannot be too sharpe against such a cursed proud Gene∣ration, as you Prelates are, usurping Tyrants, Rebells against

Christ, Perverters of all truth and faith, corrupters of all true honesty, holinesse, Religion, and the worship of God, who are made to be destroyed with that * 1.418 Beast of Rome, whose Image you beare, and with whom the false Prophets, such as you are, and all those that in you do worship the Image of the Beast, and receive his marks, shall goe into the bottomlesse pit▪ and burning lake.

L. p. 204. Now it (the Church of Rome) must be a Tryumphant Church here, Militant no longer.

P. I hope then, if Rome be here (as she is) a Church Trium∣phant, and no more Militant, but in warring against Christ and his Saints (for ‡ 1.419 she saith in her heart, I sit a Queen, and am no Widow, and shall see no sorrow: And in her Decretalls, she hath made a firme ‡ 1.420 Decree for her perpetuall tranquility and felicity here, in all pleasures, and prosperity, free from all incursions and invasions; which is an estate Tryumphant) there also you, and your Hierarchicall Lady Church of England will not be farre behind your Sister Queen at Rome. For you are both one and the same Church, and one in that especially, which makes you a Church Tryumphant, and that is your Kingly Hierarchy, and Lordly Prelacy: and therfore if that Queen be tryumphant at Rome, your Lordship and your Churches Ladyship must be tryumphant in England, as indeed you are, in all your Ruffe, and Gallantry. And as Rome hath now a long time tryumphed over the poore § 1.421 Saints of God, and Martyrs of Iesus, martyring and massacring them, and garrowsing full cups of their blood even unto drun∣kennesse, and surfet: so your Tryumphant Chariot marcheth after her apace, trampling the Saints under your feet, and try∣umphing over them in shedding their innocent blood, and so glo∣rying in your Bestiall and Diabolicall cruelty in oppressing and tyrannizing over Gods people, and that so fiercely, as if you would outstrippe your Elder Sister in all her bloody barbarisme, and therein exalt your tryumph above hers. For wherein else should the Glory and magnificence of your Prelaticall Princes, and Heroicall Vice-Roys shine forth, but in being mounted on Horsebacke, while the true Princes lacky it by them on the earth? And thus you ride in tryumph, as the Heathen Kings were wont to doe. Oh how you tryumphed, when you looked through one of your Court-windowes, when you passed your tryumphall Censure, to behold those THREE looking through your Pillory-windowes, whose blood you had before (how justly your own Conscience can tell you condemned there to be shed? But the wonder was, that they even the••e, as in their tryumphall Chariot, tryumphed over your Barbarous cruelty. But thus you are a Tryumphant Church too, and in nothing Militant, but

(as is noted before) in your warring against, and persecuting the poore Saints of God. But your tryumph shall end in * 1.422 your shame and confusion, verifying that which shall be fulfilled in your Sister, or Mother Rome, ‡ 1.423 Reward her, even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double, according to her works: in the Cup which she hath filled, fill to her double How much she hath g••••rified her selfe, and lived delicioutsly, so much torment and sorrow g••ve her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a Queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. Therfore shall her plagues come in one day, &c.

L. p. 205. The Kings under the Law, but s••ill according to it, did proceed to necessary R••formations in Church-busin••sses, and ther∣in commanded the very Priests themselves, as appeares in the Acts of ••lesechiah, and Iosiah, 2 Chro. 29.4. and 4 King ••••.2.

P. All this is true you here affirme▪ so as i•• confirmes what we said before of Christian Kings in matters o•• Religion, that they ought to doe nothing, but still according to the Law of God, All, Allways, in All things, not varying in the least Circum∣stance or Ceremony. All this is well. But what makes this for your Priest? What saith your practise? This: Ergo the King giving way to the Priest, or Prelate of Canterbury, he may of his own head appoint and impose what Ceremonies his Romish Devotion thinks fit in the worship of God. This is your usuall Logicke. This your usuall perverting and abusing of Scripture. Well: What more? A little before ‡ 1.424 (ibid.) you tell us, Omnis anima, Every soule, All spirituall men even to the high••st Bishop and in spirituall Causes, so the foundations of Faith and good Manners be not shaken, must be subject to the Higher Pow∣ers. And where they are shaken, there ought to be Prayer and Patience, there ought not to be opposition by force. Now for your highest Bi∣shop and all spirituall men, we have done withall, That all Obedi∣ence is due from all men to Kings and Princes in all things where the foundations of Faith and Good Manners be not shaken, we all acknow∣ledge with you: and where they are shaken, there ought to be Prayer and Patience of every particular and private Christian, without his opposition by force, when he is pressed to doe that which is against Gods word, and his own Conscience. Now here by the way, I pray you resolve me, as in a Case of Conscience, § 1.425 Whether the High-Priest Azariah did transgresse or no, when King Vzziah in the Temple burnt Incense on the Altar, he with fourescore Priests of the Lord, that were valient men, went in after the King, and withstood him▪ saying, It per∣teameth not unto thee, Vzziah, to burn Incense unto the Lord, but to the Priests, &c. Loe, here was a withstanding the King. But I will not presse you for your Judgement: for I find in the next verse Gods own Judgement of the Case: for Vzziah with the

Censer in his hand being incensed, even while he was wroth with the Priests the leprosie even rose up in his forehead before the Priests in the house of the Lord, from beside the Incense-Altar; And Azariah the Chiefe Priest, and all the Priests looked upon him, and behold he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea he himselfe hasted also to goe out because the Lord had smitten him. And Vzziah the King was a Leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a severall house, being a Leper, for he was cut off from the house of the Lord, and Iotham the Kings son was over the Kings house judging the people of the Land. Now to apply this to the present purpose: You make your self as the High-Priest of the Church of England. Now suppose the King of England should doe that, whereby the foundations of Faith and good Manners were shaken: what would your Lordship doe? I aske not what you would doe, in case you should be the Chiefe Agent and Instrument, a Councel∣ler, a Promoter, and a Contriver of such a thing. For then it were a vaine Question. But suppose you had no hand nor head in it at all, and were a man zealous of Gods glory, and truly pious, and found in the faith, and one that knew well what the foundations of Faith and good Manners are, and when they are shaken, and one that respected more the Kings good and Honour, then your own private ends, and more Christs Kingdome, then any Hierarchy, or spirituall-Temporall Principality on Earth, and one that loved more to speake the Truth to Kings, though you were sure of displeasure, then to flatter and speake pleasing things to the ruine of the State and Kingdome, though for the present it pleased: suppose (I say) all this (for even impossibilities may be supposed) then tell me what your selfe (a man of such high Place and Grace in Court, and of so great Power to perswade and disswade) would doe, when you should see the Foundations of Faith and good Manners to be shaken by the King, or supreme Magistrate. For the very Name of shaking the Foundations of Faith and good Manners, is enough to shake a Mans heart, and cause him to abhorre the very thought of it, if he were not either altogether senselesse, and ignorant what the Foundations of Faith and Good Manners do meane: or knowing them, were not either an open▪ or secret enemy unto them For what is such a shaking, but a m••king way for the sodaine precipitation of the state of all things into inevitable Destruction, a dis∣sepating of all humane society, a mingling of heaven and earth together in one Chaos of all Confusion? And therfore, now that we are upon a point of such Moment, as it were the Center, wheron the worlds Globe is pitched, or as the two * 1.426 Pillars in Solomons Temple, I••chin and Boas, stability and strength, Faith and good Man∣ners being the stability and strength of all true Religion, of humane

society, and Civil Politie: it wilbe worth our Inquiry a little, what it is to shake these Foundations, or when these Foundations are shaken. And it is possible, that these Foundations may at this very time be shaken in the Church and state of England, and so threaten, if not hasten Ruine; in somuch as a speedy remedy for prevention, upon the discovery, may be required. You will say, God forbid. What? God forbid, that in such a Case a speedy re∣medy should be used? No, not so, by your leave. Well, what say you then to your Articles of Religion, wherein the Doctrines of Faith of the Church of England, and those of them that are accor∣ding to the expresse Scriptures, as Gods Grace in Election, Prede∣stination, Salvation, &c. are shaken? Are they not shaken, and that terribly too by an Edict, or Declaration, so as they doe at the least nutare, et huc illuc f••luctuare, so reele too and ••ro, like a drunken man, as no sober man knows to which side they will fall? And are not those Doctrines of Gods free and saving Grace in Christ, the foundations of Faith, which are contained in those Articles? Can you deny this? Again, what say you to the Two Tables, wherein are contained the Ten Commandements of Gods Morall Law? Are they not also Foundations? Yea and Founda∣tions both of Faith, and Good Manners? For the Foure Comman∣dements of the First Table concern Faith and Religion: the Six of the Second, Good Manners. So much all confesse, and your selfe too. And you say, * 1.427 Emperours and Kings are Cussodes utriusque Tabulae: They to whom the Custody and preservation of both Tables of the Law, for worship to God, and duty to man, are com∣mited. And That a Booke of the Law was by Gods own command in Moses his time, to be given to the King, Deut. 17.18. So you. Is it so then? What say you then to those two Great Commande∣ments, the Last of the First Table, and the First of the Second? Do they not stand closse together, as those two formentioned Pillars in Solomons Temple, Iachin, and Boaz? Is not holy Obedi∣ence to God in his worship on his own day, as Iachin, the stability of the the Church and Temple of God? And is not Civil subjection to superiours, as Boaz, the strength of the Common-wealth? So as when these two Commandements are shaken, are not two maine Pillars and Foundations of Faith and good Manners shaken, and so the Foundations both of Church and Common-weal••h shaken? What say you to this, ô Great High Priest? Is it true, or no? For I must now put you to it You give just occasion. But you an∣swere nothing, si••ence in this Case is consent, and such as proceeds fr••m guilt of Conscience. And how ever, Res ipsa clamat, The thing it selfe proclaimes it, and cleare evidence proves it. For doth not the Edict for Sports (so often upon fresh occasions

mentioned) declare as much. And doth it not shake the Fourth Commandement, for the sanctification of the Lords Day, the Lords Sabbath-Day? Which Dispensation of such profane and madde sports, can it consist with sanctification, or any holinesse, or common sobriety of a Christian, or with Christian Profession, or with our Baptismall vow to the Contrary? much lesse with the di∣rect and expresse immediate solemn sanctification of that day, commanded in that Fourth Commandement? Is not here then a Foundation of Religion, and so also of Good Manners too, shaken? For what Good Manners doth our May-pole-dances, and Moris∣dances teach us? Nemo saltat sobrius, could the very * 1.428 Heathen say, No man Danceth that is sober. And as an English ‡ 1.429 Author saith, licenced too, but in diebus illis: A Dancer and a mad man different, but in the duration. And to helpe to shake this Founda∣tion yet more, you have licenced ‡ 1.430 Books, that do unmoralize the Fourth Commandement (as before) as antiquated now, and of no force to bind us Christians to the observation of a seventh day, or the Lords day, which we have proved before to be the Rest-day, or the Sabbath day of the Lord our God, Iesus Christ. And did not your Tyranny suppresse all Truth, all your Doctors had been ere now answered to the shame of their Divinity-Profession, and the confusion of their accursed Opinions, and Blasphemies against the holy Truth, and eternall Law of God. Well, here you are charged with shaking this Great Foundation of Faith and Religion. And though my Name be not here to the Bill (which therfore you wilbe ready by another Bill to make a Libell) yet (as I sayd before, I say againe) let the King be but pleased to send forth a Proclamation, commanding the Au∣thor of this Charge to come forth, and avouch it before the High and Honourable Court of Parliament, where he shall have a faire, just, unpartiall and honourable hearing, and where your Lordship shall as well stand at the Barre, as your Accu∣ser: and you shall see your Antagonist dare shew his face. But to prevent the trouble of Calling a Parliament, you will an∣swere, this is none of Your doing▪ 'tis the Kings Edict, and of King Iames before him, and now by the Kings speciall com∣mand republished? Is it so? And therein are the Foundations of Faith and Good Manners shaken? And that not onely in over∣throwing the Morality of the 4th Comm••ndement by Dispensa∣ton of profane sports, but by dispensing with youth to use their lib••rty on that day without controule of their Superiours (as Parents or Masters) who if they shall hinder them the Magi∣strate shall punish them, and so the 5th Commandement, which is a Foundation of Good Manners in all obedience due to Supe∣riours,

is shaken, if not pull'd down to the ground, as the Apren∣tices of London were wont on Shrove-Tuesday to pull down Infamous houses? Is all this so? Why then did you not step in, as good Azariah, and withstand the coming forth of such an Edict, and tell the King, It pertaineth not to Thee, ô King, to set forth such an Edict, to dispense w••th Gods Holy, Morall, Eternall Commandements, whereby the Foundations of Faith and Good Man∣ners are shaken, least thereby shaking the Foundations both of Church and Common-Wealth, you doe, through Gods just wrath, bring your own Kingdome to suddain ruine. But did you at all interpose your selfe? Or did you use Prayer and Patience, rather undergoing the Kings displeasure, then being either Agent or Instrument in the publishing of such an Edict? No such thing. For it was the handsel of your Primacy to publish the Edict, as being the best Office, whereby you could testifie your thankfullnesse for so high a Preferment? For why should you here leave the King alone in so weighty a Cause, when you tell us * 1.431 before, that the King and the Priest, more then any other are bound to looke to the Integrity of the Church in Doctrine and Manners, and that in the first place? And would you now leave the King in the lurch, to doe that, whereby the Foundations of Faith, and Good Manners are shaken, and the Church in Doctrine and Manners corrupted? But you were an Instrument at least, and that at both end•• of the businesse. As for Prayer and Patience, you were willing to leave them to others, that had more need, and could make better use of them: to wit, those poore honest Ministers, who seeing the dan∣ger of their publicke reading of the said Booke in their severall Congregations, so straightly imposed by the Prelates, and th••in•• the Kings Name, wherein they well understood, that the very Foundations of Faith and Good Manners are shaken, so as their reading of it to their people, would make themselves acces••ary to all the mischiefe that might come thereby, as whereby the wrath of God must needs be greatly incensed against the whole Land: did thereupon refuse to read it, committing the Cause to God in Prayer, and arming themselves with resolved Patience to indure all the Censure, and punishment threatned in the Booke, and left to be inflicted by the Bishops. As not long after the Bishops thunderclap of threatning, they feele the thunder∣bolt it selfe, by Suspension, Silencing, Excommunication, Dispossession out of their Benefices, Cures, Houses, Freeholds, Dispersion of Fa∣mily Wife and Children, now exposed to the wide world, and made a Prey to Wolves and Lyons ‡ 1.432 Here is indeed the Pati∣ence and Faith of the Saints. Here is use of their spirituall Armour, Prayer, Patience, Teares, the onely weapons of their warfaire

against such enemies▪ so as if Solomon the Preacher were now alive, he might see his words as truly and fully verified in these times, as ever they were in his, * 1.433 I returned (saith he) and considered all the Oppressions that are done under the Sun, and behold, the teares of such as were oppressed, and they had no Comforter; and on the side of their Oppressors there was power; but those had no Com∣forter. But it is well, that you left the poore soules those wea∣pons, which you could not take from them, but with their lives, Prayer, and Patience. Although how doe you labour to deprive them even of Prayer, when you will not suffer them to pray together, that suffer together in and for the same Cause, but your Beagles hunt them out. And would you not reduce all Prayer, and conjure down the very Spirit of Prayer, by con∣fining it to the prescript letter and form in your Service Book where there is never a Prayer for poore afflicted, and distressed, soules in such a Case, complaining of the Bishops Cruelty, and Tyranny over them.

So as you see, they patiently suffer, they use no opposition by force. And yet what say you to one of your ‡ 1.434 Predecessors, who, when the King would not agree to his Nobles in the cashee∣ring of his Favorites, who were his Privy Councellors to the ruine of his Realme; he being then but Lord Elect of Canter∣bury, took with him his Clergy, and went to the King, and threatned him, if he would not yeeld in the matter, he would Excommunicate him. Neither (I suppose) are you of opinion with once a Brother of Winchester, who in a Book of his, pub∣lished by Authority, and Printed at Oxford, hath these words: ‡ 1.435 If a Prince should goe about to subject his Kingdome to a forraigne Realme, or change the forme of the Common-wealth, from Empery to Tyranny: or neglect the Laws establlished by common consent of Prince and People, to execute his own Pleasure: In these and other Cases, which might be named, If the Nobles and Commons joyne together to defend their ancient and accustomed Liberty, Regiment, and Laws, they may not well be countod Rebells. So he. But this by the way.

But I have somthing more to say about the shaking of the Foundations of Faith and Good Manners; though I mentioned it before, but now upon this occasion. And that is concerning Ceremonies of humane ordinance in Gods worship, which being imposed upon mens Consciences, is not onely a shaking of the Foun••ation of Faith, but an overthrowing of it; for thereby Christ is denyed to be the onely King of his Church. And therfore, as the Kings of Israel did nothing in reforming of Religion and the worship of God, but what was expresly commanded and prescribed in

Gods Law: so Christian Kings and Magistrates ought not to doe any thing, no not to impose any one humane Ceremony or Ordinance in Gods service, besides that which is written in Gods word▪ otherwise the Foundations of Faith is overthrown. Of such moment is the least Ceremony in Gods service, that it is of the substance and Foundation of Faith.

L. p. 210. But 'tis time to return, For A.C. in this Passage hath been very carefull to tell us of a Parliament, and of living Magistrates, and Iudges, besides the Law books. Thirdly therfore, The Church of England (* 1.436 God be thanked) shines happily under a Gratious Prince, and well understands, that a Parliament cannot be called at All times; and that there are visible Iudges besides the Law-books, and one su∣preme (long may he be, and be hap••y) to settle all Temporall Differences (which certainly he might much better perform▪ if his Kingdome were well ridde of A. C. and his Fellows.) And ‡ 1.437 she beleeves too, that our Saviour Christ hath left in his Church besides his Law-books, the Scripture, Visible Magistrates and Iudges, that is, Arch-bishops and Bishops under a Gratious King, to governe both for Truth and Peace, according to the Scripture, and her own Canons and Constitutions, as also those of the Catholicke Church, which Crosse not the Scripture, and the Iust Laws of the Realme. But she doth not beleeve there is any Necessity to have one Pope or Bishop over the whole Christian world, more then to have one Emperour over the whole world.

P. It were time indeed for you to return from your Course, when once there is mention of a Parliament For thriving, If you mean, that your Church of England hath of late dayes well thriven, in her prevailing for the seting up of Images and Altars, for bringing in more Superstitions into your Service; for put∣ing down sincerity, Purity, and power of the true Religion, and of the Preaching of Gods word; for suppressing the Doctrines of Grace forementioned; for hampering the Puritans (as you call them) by puting down, suspending, and silencing of Godly and painfull Prea∣chers, and by crying down both the Doctrine and Practise of the sanctification of the Sabbath, or Lords day, and by smothering in the birth all sound and Orthodox Books against Popery, and other Heresies, not suffering them to be Printed, and by li∣cencing of Popish Books to be Printed and Publ••shed, and the like: and if this be the way of the well thriving of your Church, whomsover you have cause to thanke, yet surely you have small cause to thanke God (whose Name herein you doe abuse and blaspheme; as perhaps your own Conscience may tell you) as if he favoured such practises of yours, because for a time he patiently suffers and winks at them; and that in judge∣ment to a sinfull Land, and for tryall of his own servants and

people, and for a preparative to your certaine ruine, if speedy repentance prevent it not. For God is not mocked with such thanks (though he be mocked) but * 1.438 whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he reape. How then doth it concerne all Christian Magistrates to look to it, least if they suffer Christs Kingdome to be betrayed into the hands of Antichristian Usurpers, by giving way unto them to doe what they list, while themselvs seem to sleep, they provoke God too much. For as Samuel sayd to the People, ‡ 1.439 If ye doe wickedly, you shall perish, both you and your King. For my part, though I will not joyne in Prayer with such a Profane Hy∣pocrite, as you are, and an enemy of Iesus Christ, and his Truth (no more then the Apostle Iohn would be in the same Bath with that Heretick Cerinthus) yet my dayly Prayer is, and shall be, that God would more and more let the King see, how mi∣serably he is abused, and the Peace and safety of his Kingdome distracted, and indangered, both by the late violent practises which have been held in Church-affaires, and now by the pub∣lishing of such a Book as this, so notoriously perillous, or ra∣ther most pernicious, and so much the more in these times of troubles about Religion lately sprung up in the Iland of Great Britaine. Which Book, though it make many faire pretences for Peace, yea Peace and Truth: yet in truth it will prove the greatest troubler of Israel, and the falsest friend to true Truth, that the light hath seen these many yeares. This I speake not by conjecture, much lesse out of malice to the Authors Person, but from the cleare evidence of the word of Prophecy in Scrip∣ture, in such cases.

But how comes your Church of England to be so well seen in State-Mysteries (I pray you) as so well to understand, that a Parliament cannot be called at all times? Or by the Church of England doe you not meane the the Chaire of Catnterbury, as the Church Collective, or representative of England? For you should better understand such State-matters, especially, for the not calling of Parliaments at all times (or suppose it were at Notime, or Nevermas, least perhaps it might prove as a Frost to nippe your thriving, and overforward spring) then your Lordship? For my part, I am no States-man, and so I leave State matters to States-men, who should best understand them. But if your A.C. and his Fellows be such troublesome fellows, why doe you trouble your selves with them, when a good honest Parliament might ease the King and Kingdome ••oo of that trouble, pro∣vided, that good Laws, already enacted, and by the next Parli∣ament (if ever there shalbe any) quickned by a new Law, to put them in better execution, there may be also a good season

to bring forth such Visible Iudges, as without straining the strings either of their Purses, or Consciences, coming clearly to their Benches, and not making them as Banks, but siting Rectè in Curia, they may without feare of any Prepotent Prelate, or Partiality in respect of Persons do Justice.

I passe now from the understanding of your Church of Eng∣land, to her Beliefe, which you also tell us of. She beleeves too.* 1.440 What doth she beleeve? That our Saviour Christ hath left in his Church, besides his Law-books, the Scriptures, visible Magistrates and Iudges, that is, Arch-bishops and Bishops. How? Is this come already to be an Article of the Faith of the Church of England, be∣cause her Great Metropolitan a little before beleeves it? Or be∣cause Ipse dixit, he said, Christ thought it fitter to governe his Church by Divers Vice-roys, then by One? Is there such an Infallibility in your bare word, as for the Church of England to establish her beliefe upon? Certainly this is an Addition to the Articles of the Faith of the Church of England, which in her former dayes she was not acquainted with. Well, for your Arch-bishops, and Bi∣shops we have said (I hope) enough (and perhaps you will say too much) and desire no more to be troubled with them. Yet I see we must, whether we will or no. For first, here againe you doe most impiously, ne dicam, impudenter, ye blasphemously bely the Lord Iesus Christ, as before you have done more then once or twice, and are not yet ashamed, but rather hardned in your Habit, as being reserved to be confounded. Secondly, as be∣fore you would make Christ to be the Author of such Gover∣nours and Vice-Roys, as Arch bishops and Bishops, so here,* 1.441 Besides his Law-Books, the Scripture, he hath (you say) made you visible Magistrates and Iudges. Surely, That is besides the Scripture in∣deed; yea not onely praeter, but contra, not onely besides, but against the expresse Scripture (as is but a little before proved, that Arch-bishops and Bishops (though they have gotten a degene∣rate Beeing, as Mules, in Rerum natura,) yet should have any Beeing at all in the Church of Christ: much lesse that they should be Iudges at all in spirituall matters, being themselves altogether carnall. And For Arch-Bishops it hath not so much as a Name in Scripture, as your Bishops have usurped that Title from Scripture: and you confesse the Apostles were all equall: in what night then grew up this Mushrum? And we have be∣fore given a touch and tryall, what kind of Iudges you would prove, would men but pin their faith on your White sleeve. But except you can bring some better Authority, then your own blasphemous speech, that Christ hath left such visible iud∣ges to his Church: your Church of England will have but a cold

pull of it, when she shalbe put to give a reason of this her be∣liefe, that Christ did so. Or what? Or why? For truth and peace. These words are with you as Mel in ore, verba lactis, honey in the mouth, words of milke: but we can discerne by them Fel in Corde, fraus in factis: Gall in the heart, and fraud in actions. But by what means will you procure us truth and peace? By governing. How, or by what Law, or Rule? According to the Scripture, say you. Stay there, and govern according to that, for that is the onely way (were your Pr••laticall Government according to the Scripture) both to procure and preserve truth and peace But unlesse you can prove (which you never can) by the Scripture, and not by your own single-soled bold affirmation, that Christ hath made you Governours of his Church, you shall never perswade us to beleeve, or hope, that you will ever Govern according to the Scriptures. But yet is this all? Will you be such honest Go∣vernours, as you will not go beyond Christs Law-books, the Scrip∣tures? Nothing lesse. For there follows immediately a dan∣gerous Conjunction Copulative, And. According to the Scrip∣tures, And. And what? I hope you have no other Law-books to adde to Christs Law-books. Have you? Produce them. And her own Canons and Constitutions. Nay then Farewell Christs Law-Books. Christ may put up his * 1.442 Pipes (as it is said) When your Canons and Constitutions come in Place. And then farewell Truth and Peace; your own Canons and Constitutions can make no Room for them. For he that shall hold the truth never so right and firm, and shall transgresse but one of your Canons, what peace? He shalbe put to read the Canon, that is, he shalbe shattered to pie∣ces with your shooting off of your Canon. And he that comes under the command of your Canon, is ipso facto brought under the Babylonian and Antichristian yoak, so as not onely his peace is destroyed, but the truth, power, and verture of Christs death, which hath freed his people from the bondage of all humane ordinance (as hath been shewed) in Gods worship and service, is overthrown. As also your selfe elswhere saith, ‡ 1.443 That Peace and Truth are rent by superstitious de••i••es; from which (I hope) all your Canons and Constitutions are not altogether free. How much lesse can that Church be free from most miserable slavery, that puts her neck under the yoak, and her shoulders under the intollerable bur∣then of your Canons and Constitutions? Nay, I will say more: If you be the visible Magistrates and Iudges of the Church, as the High Priests, and Pharisees were (although the High-Priests office was groun••ed upon Divine Ordinance and Authority)▪ and had Christ himselfe to stand at your Barre to be judged: though you had not (as the Jews said they ‡ 1.444 had) a Law to put him to

death, yet you would find Church-Canons and Constitutions enough, or some new devise, though not to condemn him to be Crucified, yet to Censure him to be Pillorified, and to have his Eares closse cropt, and his blood shed in a great measure, and stript naked, and perpetually Imprisoned and exiled, as being the Arch-enemy of your Hierarchy, Tyranny, Hypo∣crisie, and all Impiety. And all this you would do by vertue of your Canons and Constitutions, which yet were never ratified by any Law of the Land, or Act of Parliament.

But yet seeing you must have your Church-Canons and Con∣stitutions besides Christs Law-Books to govern by: yet the Church of England may think her selfe well appayd, and in some tolerable (though intollerable) case, if she have but her own Canons, such as her selfe hath constituted and assented to. For volenti non fit injuria: If the Church of England be willing to be an Asse to her Prelates, as once she was to the Pope, she may. And so she hath her amends in her own hands. If the yoak of Canons pinch her, she may thank her selfe for putting her neck under. I but this is not all. There be other Canons besides, that are not hers, that she must be governed by. What, more Bonds and Fetters yet for thee, poore Church of England? Yes. As well her own Canons, and Constitutions, as Those also of the Catho∣licke Church. What are those? Alas, your Church of England is an Ignoramus in all such Canons, as you call Catholicke. And your Church Catholike you know, and tell us, doth Compre∣hend that of Rome, and Rome hath innumerable Canons, Cons••itu∣tions, and Decretalls: so as under the Canons of the Catholicke Church, you may bring upon the Church of England all the Canons and Decrees of Trent, all the Popes Decretalls, and the whole body of the Popes Canon Law, so large a field is your Canons and Constitutions of the Catholicke Church. But you qualifie the matter in adding, Which crosse not the Scripture, and the just Laws of the Realme. That's somthing. But who shalbe Judge of that? Alas, we are never the nearer, if you Prelates be the visible Iudges. For then what Canons or Constitutions shall crosse either Scrip∣ture▪ or Positive Law of the Land,* 1.445 which you shall define and de∣termine to be fit for you to govern the Church by? What Laws of the Realme shalbe just, which crosse one of your Canons? Did not in a Cause pleaded in your High-Commission, the Popes Canon aledged by the Advocate on the one party, preponderate a Statute of Edw. 6. alledged by the Advocate of the adverse party▪ so as the Popes Canon carryed the Cause? So as, while you will be the visible Iudges, you will lead us all in a Cir∣cle, and make us so turne round▪ as we should not know

where we are, imagining that all the world went upon wheels.

Yea but there is yet one qualification may help at a pinch. For you say, Archbishops and Bishops under a Gratious Keng to go∣verne, &c. 'Tis true indeed, that under the shadow of a Gracious King to you, you are imboldened to do all you do.

Lastly you say, the Church of England doth not beleeve there is any necessity to have one Pope, or one Bishop over the whole Christian world. And are there not trow you many thousands in the Church of England, which doe not beleeve there is any necess••y of having One Pope, or Arch-Prelate over the whole Church of England, the other world; as before? And I beleeve there is no more ne∣cessity of the one, then of the other, but that they might be well spared, as Christ will one day not spare them. And (as I said be∣fore) the Pope by as good a Title may argue a necessity of his being uneversall Bishop over the whole Christian world, as you can (setting the Law of England aside) for your being Pope over the whole Church of England. And that upon your own Ground: for you say, The Church of England and the Church of Rome is one and the same Church, no doubt of that; and The Church of England may find her selfe, where Romes is now, just there: then if so, that both are one, and the Popes Principality more powerfull, then that of Canterbury: and if there be a nccessity, that Canterbury be over the whole Church of England (which is but a part of the Catholicke) and that for order and unity: why not the like ne∣cessity for the Pope to be supreme over all, for preserving order and unity, seeing your Militant Church is but one▪ and to make many heads, many Vice-Roys, is to divide the body, and Kingdome, and so make rents in it, which you like not of. But to conclude, I beleeve, and with me all true Beleevers, who have their judge∣ments rightly informed, wherever they be in any part of the world, that there is a necessity of duty lying upon all Christian Magistrates, to exterminate and exterpate the whole Hierarchy and Prelacy,* 1.446 as Antichristian enemies of Iesus Christ, and of his Kingdome, yea and the band of Civil States and people, out of the world For so we read, Rev. 17.16, 17. A place worthy to be written in the hearts of all Kings Christian. And it is the duty of all true Christians to rowse up the Spirit of prayer in them, and to stirre up the coals of zeale to flame forth in offring up of pure Incense of fervent Prayer, & especially in these times, wherin Sa∣tan so rageth, and his Instruments grow so malapert and mischie∣vous, that God would hasten the accomplishment of Antichrists Kingdome, that so the Kingdome of Iesus Christ may be exalted and inlarged, and he alone rule and raigne in his Church.

L. p. 212. Somwhat may be done by the Bishop and Governours

of the Church to preserve the unity and certainty of Faith, and to keep the Church from renting, or for uniting it, when it is rent. And this (pag. 198) one Pope cannot doe.

P. Somwhat? Why, you tell us immediately before, that the Pope, or a Bishop may perhaps despense in some cases, with the Decrees of a Generall. And this (I hope) is somwhat more, then somwhat. Or perhaps at least. And we have shewed before, how you Pre∣lates, do either preserve the Church from renting, or when it is rent, make up the breaches of it, namely by an uniting and confedera∣ting against Christ and his true Church, and by labouring tooth and nayle to support and keep safe and sound your Antichristian Hierarchy, which is not truly and properly an unity, but a conspi∣racie against Christ, from whose true Mysticall body you have made the Great and unreconciliable Rent. And therfore you to preserve the unity and certainty of Faith intire, which, even as you are Pre∣lates, you are altogether Apostates from, and enemies unto? Or is the spirit of Infallibility, intayld to the Prelates Chaire? For doth not this necessarily imply either an Infallibility, or at least a greater dexterity, and a more excellent and Divine spirit to be in Prelates, qua Praelati, & Infulati, as they are Mitred Bishops, then in all those, that are no Prelates, when onely by Prelates, though but somwhat, to this purpose, may be done? But we have shewed before what ability or soundnesse of judgement in divine & spiritual matters we may expect to be in Prelates, in com∣parison of others, who are both learned, pious, & judicious Divines.

L. p. 194. To draw all together, to settle Controversies in the Church, there is a visible Iudge and Infallible, but not living, and that is the Scripture, pronouncing by the Church: and there is a visible and living Iudge, and that is a Generall Councel.

P. Here I goe backe a little to fetch in this passage, as fi•• here to usher in a many other Passages scattered here and there in your Book, which is hard to reduce to any order or forme. But we must do as we may. And I shall not wittingly offer violence to any part in the least, though somtimes here and there I am faine to pull them in by the head and shoulders. And here, you doe with the * 1.447 Papists make the Scripture to be but a dead letter; for say you it is not a living Iudge: no nor yet a speaking Iudge; but as it is pronounced by the Church. Wher∣as the Apostle saith of it Zon••o lógos tou Theou. The word of God is living or lively▪ nor onely so, but e'nergès, effectuall; as it is before noted And if you will apply this to the Word preached, that's true too. Although you will not confesse preaching of Gods word to be the Scripture, or yet the word of God. But it must be pronounced by the Church, as the onely mouth of Scripture,

and that must be also in the Churches sense. Of which suffici∣ently before. Yet this you adde to all your other indignities you put upon the Scripture, that you make it a dead Iudge, and so indeed no Iudge at all, as before you plainly tell For if it be blind, as wanting light; and if it be mute or dumb, and needs the Church∣es mouth; and if it be dead, as being not living: Certainly it can be no fit Iudge at all; except ye will admit of a Judge, that is both blind, and dumb, and dead. As three Romans being sent in Am∣bassage, one a Foole, an other a Coward, the third having the Gout, Cato told the Senate, they had sent an Ambassage, that had neither Head, Heart, nor Feet. And such a Judge would you make the Scripture. But 'tis visible you say. So are your dumb, dead, and blind Images in your Churches they are visible, and very conspicuous, when the Scripture oftentimes can nei∣ther be seen nor heard. Now to your Generall Councels.

L. p. 192. And surely what greater or surer Iudgement can we have, where sense of Scripture is doubted, then a Generall Councel, I do not see. And pag. 211. The making of Canons, which must bind all particular Christians, and Churches, cannot be concluded, and establi∣shed, but there (to wit, in a Generall Councel.) P. 224. I said, The Determination of a Generall Councel erring, was to stand in force, and to have externall obedience yeelded to it, till evidence of Scripture▪ or a Demonstration to the Contrary, made the errour appeare; and untill thereupon another Councel of equall Authority did reverse it. And pag. 226. Now suppose a Generall Councel actually erring in some point of Divine Truth, I hope it will not follow, that this Errour must be so grosse as that forthwith it must be known to private men. And doubtlesse, till they know it, obedience must be yeelded▪ Nay when they know (if the Errour be not manifestly against fundamentall verity, in which case a Generall Councel cannot easily erre) I would have A. C. and all wise men consider, whether externall obedience be not even then to be yeelded. And p 227▪ Therfore it may seem very fit and necessary, for the peace of Christendome, that a Generall Councel thus erring, should stand in force, till evidence of Scripture, or a Demonstration make the errour to appeare, as that another Councel of equall Authority reverse it. And ibid. No way must lye open to private men to refuse obedience, till the Councel he heard and weighed. And p. 261. A Councel hath power to order, settle, and define Differences arisen con∣cerning Faith. This power the Councel hath not by an immediate In∣stitution from Christ, but it was prudently taken up in the Church, from the Apostles example, Act 15. And ibid. If the Councel be lawfully Called, and proceed orderly, and conclude according to the Rule, the Scripture, then the D••finitions therof are binding: but not from calling another Councel to reverse or abrogate the former Asts upon just cause.

P. 346. 'Tis true, that a Generall Councel de pace facto, after 'tis ended, and admitted by the whole Church▪ is then Infallible, for it cannot erre in that, which it hath already clearly and truely determined with∣out Errour. After 'tis confirmed, 'tis admitted by the whole Church, then being found true it is also Infallible, that is, it dece••ves no man. And p. 347. For a man upon the pride of his own Iudgement to refuse externall obedience to the Councel, was never lawfull, nor can error stand with any Government. P. 357.358. Christ did just intend to leave an Infallible certainty in his Church, to satisfie either Conten∣tious, or Curious, or presumptuous spirits. And therfore in things not fundamentall, nor necessary, 'tis no matter if Councels erre in one, and another, and a third, the whole Church having power and meanes enough to see▪ that no Councel erre in necessary things, &c. If it erre in things necessary, we can be Infallibly assured by the Scripture, the Creed, the 4. first Councels, and the whole Church, where it erres in one, and not in another. And pag. 360 For one Faith necessary to Salvation, a most infallible certainty we have already in the Scripture, the Creeds, and the 4. first Generall Councels, to which for things ne∣cessary and fundamentall in the Faith, we need no assistance from other Generall Councels. P. 378. I submit my Iudgement with all humility to the Scripture, interpreted by the Primitive Church, and upon new and necessary doubts, to the judgement of a lawfull and free General•• Councel. And, I absolutely make a lawfull and free Generall Councel Iudge of Controversies, by and according to the Scripture. And p. 386. I have expresly declared, that the Scripture▪ interpreted by the Primi∣tive Church, and a lawfull and free Generall Councel, determining ac∣cording to these, is judge of Controversies.

P. Thus in your Commending of Generall Councels, you are very large, that I may not say lavish too. And surely in one re∣spect especially you have great Reason: for your Generall Coun∣cels must consist of Prelates onely: so as in exalting Generall Councels, you magnifie your Prelacie. But I remember a say∣ing of Basill, that in his Observation▪ he never knew any good to come of Generall Councels of Bishops, who when they met in Councel, were more zealous and eagre for their own particular Honours and Dignities, then of the Church of God. And as Bernard saith Totus fervet Ec∣clesiasti••us zelus sola pro Dignitate tuend••: All the zeale of Church∣men is inf••amed altogether for the advancing and upholding of their Dignity. But let us now take a briefe view of your words, which we will collect and reduce to certain summary Heads. First, That Generall Councels are the supreme Iudge of the sense of Scripture, when and where 'tis doubted, p. 192. Secondly,

that the Canons and Decrees of Generall Councels bind all Christians of necessity, p. 211. Thirdly, yea though Generall Councels deter∣mine Errors, yet that requires at least externall obedience. Fourthly, That Generall Councels erring in some points of Divine Truth, yet you hope it will not be so grosse, as to come to the common view: or if it doe, yet obedience must be yeelded, p. 226. onely except the Error be not manifestly against the fundamentall Verities. Fifthly, That a Ge∣nerall Councel hath no power from Christ to be Iudge in Controversies, but the Church prudently tooke it up from the Apostles example, Act. 15. Sixtly, That the Difinitions of Generall Councels bind, being according to the Rule the Scripture: yet that those may be reversed by an after-Councel. Seventhy, A Generall Councel in things clearely and truly determined, cannot erre, but in that is infallible. Eightly, That it is pride not to obey the Councels, Difinitions, yea unlawfull, and not standing with any Government. Ninthly, That Christ intended to leave an Infallible certainty in his Church, but not to satisfie conten∣tions, or curious, or presumptuous spirits. Tenthly, That it is no matter if Generall Councels erre in one, two, three &c. things not fundamen∣tall, nor necessary. Eleventhly, That for necessary Faith to Salvation, we have an Infallible certainty in the Scriptures, Creeds, and 4. first Generall Councels, to which for things necessary we need not the Assi∣stance of any other Generall Councel. Twelfthly, That the Scrip∣ture interpreted by the Primitive Church and Generall Councels, is the Iudge of Controversies, whereunto you professe to submit in all humi∣lity. Thus these 12 Conclusions be as the 12 Articles of your Faith.

But now let's a little examine what Truth or Force there is in all these. I confesse some of them are somwhat coincident, and like Brookes fall one into another, but all have their Con∣fluence into your Generall Councel, as one maine Ocean. But we will take a say of each, as they run along.

For the first, and so the rest, which have any generall con∣currence with it, I deny, that a Generall Councel is a sufficient, and competent Iudge of Controversies in matters of Faith. My Reasons are these. First, Because Generall Councels consisting of Prelates, and more especially in these latter times, are so much the unabler to judge of the sense of Scripture, where 'tis deep, or doubtfull. As Nicolaus de Clemangus in his Tract De Concilus Generalibus, discourseth very largely and pregnantly of this very Circumstance, shewing, that Prelates are none of those, to whom God doth reveale the mysteries of his will in his Word, which are altogether spirituall, but Prelates are carnall, proud, ambitious, covetous, minding the things of the world.

His whole Discourse is worth the Reading. And * 1.448 Arelatensis Arch-Bishop of Arles in France, in the Councel of Basil, said that they had no zeale, nor love, nor knowledge of the Truth, but every one would be of his Kings Religion, and was ready to say as his King would have him; and that the poore Priests were those, by whom the Truth was upholden. And (not to goe farre from home) If a Generall Councel were assembl••d of such Prelates as you are, who have no savour of, and lesse favour to the Truth, having bewrayd in this your Book (besides your usuall practises) how contrary your spirit is to Christs spirit and wisdome: Certainly (asmuch as in you were) you would bring utter confusion upon the world, in seting up and establishing your Babilonish Faith and Religion. And I have noted before, how the poore in spirit, such as feare the Lord, are those ‡ 1.449 Eagles Christ speaks of, whose eyes are sharpest to pierce into the Mysteries of the Scriptures, as having Gods holy Spirit to guide them into all Truth. Heare what the wiseman saith, ‡ 1.450 The rich man is wise in his own conceit: but the poore that hath understand∣ing searcheth him out. I leave it to your Application. And Christ § 1.451 rejoycing in Spirit, saith, I thanke thee ô Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so Father; for it seemed good in thy sight. Againe, Prelates, especially such as your selfe, are taken up with State-matters, and all of them generally with their worldly affaires, and great Revenues, so as they have little leasure so much as to thinke of Divine matters, or to care for the state of mens soules, or to seek to advance Christs Kingdome, as being † 1.452 a'pellotriomenoi tes politeías tou Israèl (as the Apostle speakes) Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel. Yea even those, that have good learning and judgement in Di∣vinity, which they had before they were Prelates, after they come once to be Prelates, they are so choked with the world, and so over-awed with the servile feare of man, that they dare doe nothing for the Truth, especially in a time wherein it is openly opposed and oppressed, but are willing to sleep in a whole skin, and to let Religion and Faith sinke, or swimme, so they may injoy their Lordships, and fill their Coffers. Againe, suppose a Generall Councel of Prelates were called (for the purpose) to judge and determine of the Controvesie about the Calling of Prelates, whether it be Iure divino, by Divine Au∣thority, or no (as it was in Question and agitation in the Coun∣cel of Trent) would not such a Councel trow you be Partiall in their own Cause, and Define with one voyce, That Prelates

are an Order, and of a Calling Jure divino, and that Christ thought it fittest to governe his Church by such visible Iudges and Vice-roys. Or, if the Controversie were, whether the Church alwayes colle∣ctive in the Prelates, have power to ordaine Ceremonies in Gods service, to the Obedience and conformity whereof all mens Consciences are bound; by which Imposition Gods people come to loose that liberty, which Christ hath purchased for them, and Christ should lose his Royall soveraignty as King in his Church (as before is shewed) it is not easie to Divine, what the Difinition of such a Councel would be? Or is there any Question to be made, but that without any more adoe, they would Order, Determine, Define, and Conclude, that Prelates the Church Collective, have power to ordaine what Ce∣remonies they please in the worship and service of God, which shall bind all mens Consciences, to the necessary obedience, and ob∣servation therof? Would they herein have any respect to Chri∣stian liberty, or Christs Prerogative? Would they not with the Scribes, and Pharisees and High Priests in their Councel, con∣demn Christ, for his Title of King of the Iews.

And because you are so much for a Generall Councel, as Iudge in Controversies, What say you to the first Generall Councel of Nice, wherein there were above 300 Prelates (as I remember) Had they not all consented to the making of a Decree for the establishing of a * 1.453 Doctrine of Devils, to wit, forbidding Marriage to all Ecclesiasticall Persons, had not one man Paphnutius, and he an unmarried man too, stood up, and withstood such a Decree, shewing by many Reasons and Arguments from Scripture and otherwise, how wicked and cruel such a Decree were. So early began the Mystery of Iniquity to bud forth, and that in the most Ancients, and in the very Prime or first Generall Councel, wherein these Fathers, the Prelates were so piously zealous (though ignorantly) to lay the foundation of a generall Apo∣sticie from the Faith, in establishing such a Doctrine of Devils, as the Apostle calls it; of which suffciently before. Yet by your Doctrine, If that Generall Councel of so many Prelates had determined it, and ratified it by Decree, all Priests then were bound to obedience, untill another Generall Councell, equall to that, should reverse it; which should have been long enough, when every Age grew successively worse then other. And thus in the very first, and best Generall Councel (after the Apostles) a Doctrine of Devils should have been ratified, and therein an Apostacie from the Faith, and all men must have yeelded obe∣dience, at least externall (enough to keep all your Priests from

Marriage) and so all Prelates and Priests should so quickly have proved a Generation of Apostates from the Faith.

Againe, if you have a Generall Councel, you must not (ac∣cording to the Councel of Frier Franciscus à S. Clara) admit of any Puritans, or the precise Party of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, no not such as you call Puritan Bishops. For you see what one wise and honest man did in preventing so wicked a Decree of a whole Generall Councell of many Prelates. And assure your selfe, were there but a few sound Puritans admitted to your Generall Councel, and might have free liberty to speake, you would not be able to resist the evidence of Truth, which they should bring in, as Arelatensis told the Prelates in the Councel of Basil, concerning the poore inferiour Priests. But if you shall exclude the Puritans▪ and so all Reformed Non Pre∣laticall Churches, out of your Prelaticall Councel Generall, how should it be a Generall Councel? But I cry you mercy, Puritan Reformed Churches are already by you doomed for no members of your Catholicke Church, whereof and wherein yours and Romes Church are one and the same, and therfore as Heathen, they ought to be shut out for Wranglers, as they were from the Councel of Trent.

Another Reason against a Generall Councel, being Iudge in Controversies is, because all sound and Orthodox Divines, both Ancient and Moderne, both Forraigne and Domesticke in the Church of England formerly, with all the Orthodox Fathers in this point, have held, professed, and beleeved, That the holy Scripture is the sole sufficient Iudge in all Controversies of Faith. And for proofe hereof, What say you to Dr Whitakers Lectures against Bellarmine and Stapleton in this Point? Or how do or can you answere any of his Arguments drawn from cleare Scriptures, and Testimonies from the Ancient Fathers. But it seems you have not been acquainted with him, as not once mentioning him in all this. For that were besides your Purpose. But you will except against him, as a Puritan, which is a sufficient confutati∣on with one puffe of your mouth. And so you doe all honest, sound, learned, Religious, Orthodox Divines whatsoever, whom particularly to alledge here, would but make your stomacke rise, and so I passe on to the rest.

Secondly and Thirdly, and againe, and againe, I deny, that the Decrees of Generall Councels,* 1.454 bind any true Christians Faith and Conscience, so much as to outward obedience to any one Ce∣remony; as before. Yea though your Councel Decree according to

the Scripture, yet jure proprio, and absolutely of its own Autho∣rity it binds not the Conscience. That's proper and peculiar to the Scripture alone immediatly, the onely binding Rule of Faith and Conscience. How much lesse doth a Councel bind in a mat∣ter of error in a point of Faith? This is such an abominable point of Divinity, as never any Arch-Prelate of Canterbury since the Reformation and (I presume) before, ever uttered. Divinity, say I, yea Divinity Diabolicall, and monstrous Impiety, and Anti∣christian Tyranny, to be hissed out by all that beare but the bare name of Christians. And this Answereth also to the Fourth,* 1.455 which is as full of ridiculous absurdity, as of impious folly. You hope (forsooth) that a Councels errors will not be so great as all men shall discerne them. That may well be, when many thousands take no notice at all of any such Councel Decrees. And how many men have not the eyes to discern even the grossest errors? How many in the Church of England doe discerne the grossenes and danger of your seting up of your Altars in all the Churches of England, as namely, that it is a denying of Christ the onely Altar, And the bringing in of the Popish Priesthood, and sacri∣fice? But what if you could in a Provinciall Councel of Canterbury make a Decree for seting up, and worshiping of Altars, as you doe, and that all men did see the grossnes of it? Would the sight of it exempt them from at least externall obedience, being once defined in that your Synod? And so of a Generall Councel, for universall obedience. No, the knowledge of the grossnes of the error will not serve their turnes, to excuse them from obedience. For you tell us, We must notwithstanding yeild obedience. If so, surely it were the safest way then for men to close their eyes, that they may not see at all, and so yeeld blind obedience to your De∣crees, pinning their soules (as I said) to the Prelates Innocent white sleeve, to be led blindfold to hell, then seeing and knowing, to sin against their Conscience, in yeelding obedience. But how ever, seeing, or not seeing, hang, or be damned, the Decree of a Generall Councel, even in point of error in the Truth, yea though men know it to be against Gods word, must be universally obeyed, till evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration to the contrary made the error appeare, and untill thereupon another Generall Councel equall to that, did reverse it. Which may be long enough, before all these things concurre. What? Must the Decree of the seventh Ge∣nerall Councel, the second of Nice, for the worship of Images bind all men to Obedience, till another Generall Councell equall to that, upon Demonstration to the contrary, shall reverse it? Or must the

Decree of the Councel of Lateran under Pope Innocent 3. for Tran∣substantiation, be beleeved and obeyed by all men, at least in externall obedience, to worship the Altar and Hoast till another Councell equall unto that shall reverse it? Or must the Decree of the Generall Coun∣cel of Constance▪ for the taking away of the Cup in the Sacrament from the People, bind all to obedience, till another Councel equall unto that shall reverse it? Or lastly, shall the Decrees of the Councel of Trent (which calls it selfe a Generall Councel) ratifying the worship of Images, Transubstantiation, and the taking away of the Cup, wi••ing the Peoples nose of it, besides all those other damnable and damning errors against the cleare Truth and Faith of Christ, bind all to obedience till another Councell equall to that shall reverse it? Then certainly all Papists, by your sentence, are bound to be damned. Nay, are not you and your Church of England bound to obey all those De∣crees of Former Generall Councels, as that of the second of Nice, for worship of Images, not yet reversed by a Generall Councel equall to that, though by a Councel at Frankford called by Caro∣lus Magnus, Emperour of the West, that wicked Decree was condemned. But the Decrees of this Councel are smothered, and kept in hugger mugger, as being outfaced by such a pre∣vailing generallity of unblishing Images, and so have lost their place among the Records of the Councels. And besides, that Councel at Frankford was not for generallty equall to that of Nice under that wicked Empresse Irene. Which being so, and so, that Decree of Nice not yet reversed, why (say I) doe not you obserue your own Rule in obeying that Decree, in wor∣shiping of Images? Or why at least (though you here write somthing against them to some small purpose, as coming neare to Idolatry) doe you not yeeld externall obedience, in doing corporall Reverence to those Images you have set up, onely reserving your internall worship, and keeping your Faith to your selfe? But to satisfie us for that, you have over or upon your Altar in your own Chappel at Lambeth sufficient Images and Crucifixes, which, when you doe honour and homage to your Altar, can∣••ot but participate of it. And againe the Councel of Constance being a Generall Councel, and the Decree therof for the Cup being not yet reversed by another Councel equall to that: And seeing your Church of England is one and the same with the Catholick Church when it was represented in that Coun∣cel: why doe you not presse your Doctrine unto Practise in your Church of England, telling them that they are all bound to the obedience of that Decree of the Councel of Constance,

for the taking away of the Cup in the Sacrament, at least they are bound to externall obedience, not to drinke of that Cup till another Councel equall to that, shall reverse that Decree, which hath not yet been; but on the contrary the Generall Councel of Basill since that hath ratified that Decree of Con∣stance, notwithstanding all the Bohemians supplications and demonstrations to the contrary? But you will say, you have here in your Book made a demonstration both against wor∣ship of Images, and the taking away of the Cup. But this will not free you from externall obedience to the Decrees of the said Councels, till another Councel thereupon equall to those shall reverse them. Therefore by your own Doctrine you have put upon your selfe and Church a necessity of externall obedience to the said Decrees, from which because you cannot otherwise be exempted, how doth it concerne you, and your Church of England too (if indeed you desire to be freed from the obedi∣ence of those Decrees) to use all meanes for the expediting, and speedy calling of a Generall Councel, to reverse the said Decrees? And so much the rather now, when you have made such Demonstrations against those said Decrees, as being against Truth, which therfore you cannot obey, without offe∣ring manifest violence to your Conscience. And if your Pro∣testants of the Church of England shall aledge, that these Er∣rours, Heresies, Idolatries, Sacriledges, have been cryed down by one unanimous voyce of all Protestants, and in particuler, by the established Doctrines of the Church of England, yet your Doctrine tells them still, that being never yet reversed by a Gene∣rall Councel equall to those wherein they were Decreed; and seeing that the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas are no true Churches, for fault of Prelates; And the Doctrines of the Church of England are declared to be doubtfull: therfore your Doctrine stands in force still, that externall obedience at least must be yeelded of all. Otherwise, it cannot stand with any Government, as you tell us here. But how stands it with Faith, with Conscience, with Scripture, with the Apostle, that a man is bound knowingly to obey an Errour in the Faith? For the Apostle saith, * 1.456 whatsoever is not of Faith is sinne, that is, whatsoever a man doth against his Conscience, is sinne. So as you hereby teach men directly to sinne against their Consciences, and all to uphold the Credit of your Prelaticall Government and Decrees. Thus the Church of England may see what an Oracle she hath got in the Chaire of Canterbury.

To the Fift, A Generall Councell hath not power from Christ

immediately to be Iudge in Controversies. Imediately? No nor mediately neither, nor any way at all. For it is denyed, that your Generall Councel of Prelates are lawfull, seeing all the members of the Councel are neither visible Iudges, nor Vice-Roys, appoin∣ted and allowed by Christ to Governe his Church, as hath been proved▪ Now if all the members of your General•• Councel be of no Authority Divine, then neither your Generall Councel it selfe, with all the Decrees of it. For there is ••he same reason of the whole, and of all the Parts. Christ then will not have his truth to receive Testimony, much lesse subject his word to the Judgement of those, who are usurping Tyrants, and enemies of his word, and especially since Antichrist hath prevailed, * 1.457 Christ would not receive testimony from the Devils that they knew him. No more doth he allow ‡ 1.458 any of Sathans Ministers, false Apostles, to be Iudges in Controversies of Faith. And you con∣fesse, A Generall Councel hath no power from Christ Immediately (at least) to be Iudge in Controversies.

Whence then hath your Generall Councels this power? Th•• Church (say you) prudently tooke it up from the example of the Apo∣stles, Acts 15. Prudently tooke it up? Nay surely rather, you craf∣tily stole it. You took it up where it was not layd down, for you to take up, and so to abuse. But you have Prudently, that is Po∣litickly and presumptuously taken up, that is, usurped that power which was never given you, nor yet by any Apostolicke Legacy left unto you, seeing you are neither their h••ires, nor successors, nor Executors, nor Administrators, nor Assignes of the Apostles, but (in one word for all) meere Usurpers. Yea though by the Name of Church we should understand (which you doe not) the true Church of Christ successively after the Apostles in all Ages; yet she hath learned another gates Prudence, then to take up such an example from the Apostles, as is neither war∣rantable for her to doe, nor imitable▪ For the Apostles, a•• they had their Immediate Calling from Christ, so by him they were immediately inspired with the Holy Ghost, so as then judgement in all matters of Faith was infallible. But the succeeding beleevers had not the like fullnesse and abundant measure of the Spirit, as to make them competent and sufficient Judges in matters of Faith, on whose judgement men might infallibly rest their faith, and settle their Conscience. Yea it pleased the wisdome of Christ to give that fullnes of his Spirit to his Apostles, that being thereby led into all Truth, they might, not onely preach that truth to that present age, wherein they lived, but also leave the same truth

written to all succeeding Ages of the Church of Christ, to be guided and directed by that Truth in the Scripture, as the sole competent, and every way sufficient and compleat Iudge in all con∣troversies and matters of faith whatsoever. Againe, that parti∣cular Example of the Apostles (Acts 15.) was an A per se. It was a particular Act proper onely to that present occasion, and not to be stretched to aftertimes, when the Church should be settled. For that very determination of the Apostles, was but proskairos, for that very season, to compose some Differences ari∣sing between the Iews and Gentiles, newly converted to Christianity. And the Apostle Iames layes this for the ground of the Deter∣mination or Decree; * 1.459 Moses (saith he) of old time hath in every City those that preach him, being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day. Here is the occasion of this Assembly, the mixture of the Iews living amongst the Gentiles. And though the Gentiles con∣verted were free from Jewish ordinances, yet the Iews being offended at it, and not yet strong enough in the faith, and pres∣sing the Gentile Christians with Circumcision; hereupon the As∣sembly met, and by the speciall and immediate assistance and guidance of the Spirit of God, determined what was fittest to be done for the present necessity. And the determination was, that those Christian Gentiles should abstaine from Blood, and strangled, and Idoll-offerings, and Fornications. And this Decree lasted no longer, then the present occasion required. Though to abstaine from Idoll-offering and from Fornication (so frequent among the Gentiles) is perpetuall, according to Gods Morall Law: but abstinence from Blood, and strangled was a Ceremoniall Law▪ and so was not to outlast that time, of the Iews tendernesse. For otherwise all the Leviticall Ceremonies were abrogated in Christs death. And yet for that time and occasion, these abstinen∣ces were called Necessary things, that is, onely in regard of the occasion; though to abstanain from Idoll offerings, and from For∣nication we are for ever and to all necessary. But now this ex∣ample ought not to be drawn into a Rule, no not to the true Church of God, and to the Ministers of his word, or to any hu∣mane power, to impose what Ceremonies they please upon the Consciences of Gods people. This did not the Apostles. What they did here, was by the Holy Ghosts direction, and for the occasion aforesaid. And such an evidence can no Gene∣rall Councell of Prelates shew us.

And in a word, you that have so prudently taken up that Power for Generall Councels to be Iudges in Controversies of Faith from

the example of that Councel of the Apostles, Acts 15. doe you truly conforme to the pattern of that Assembly? You must understand that that Assembly, or Councel consisted not of the Apostles alone, but also of the * 1.460 Elders, the Presbyters; nor onely so, but also of the ‡ 1.461 Brethren, the beleevers, who were also members of that Assembly, and who with the Apostles and Elders are mentioned in the Epistle, as whose joynt Assent was to the Decree. Here was then a Compleat Pattern of a Generall Coun∣cel, when the Ministers and Brethren, the people are the joynt body of the Councel. For otherwise, how is it a Generall Councel, if it consist of the Ministers alone? So as that's a true difinition of a Generall Conucel, which consists Generally of the Ministers and People together. But you have prudently left out of your Generall Councels, not onely the People of God, but also his true Ministers, the Presbyters; these you shut out, not onely from your Councel, but also from your Catholicke Church, as not members of it; as they are not indeed. So as your Generall Synod or Councel, may truly be called (how prudently soever you have taken it up) as that second Councel of Ephesus was, lustrikè▪ a stollen Councel. Thus though you Prelates would be thought to be the Apostles suc∣cessors, and propose their example here, yet in nothing do you follow them, no not in that, which you say you have here pru∣dently taken up from their example: But your prudence is no other▪ but to make the Apostles states for your tyranny while you Chal∣lenge the office of being the sole Iudges in Controversies of Faith▪ and of the Scriptures too, which not even the Apostles themselves did ever take upon them, though they had the Spirit of Christ, which you have not.

To the Sixth, it is answered in the former. For Difinitions of your Generall Councels, though they be for the matter according to Scripture, yet doe they not bind, as the Councels Difinitions▪ Gods word in and of it selfe onely bindeth, as is said before. Nor doe your Generall Councels bind, for the manner and forme, which is ever false, seeing they are not such Councels, as the Scripture alloweth And againe, neither doe they bind, because they are alwayes fallible, because never Infallible (by your own confession) and they are often erronious, as you also confesse. And therfore as when false, they bind not, so neither when true, are men bound to beleeve them, as he that is accustomed to lye, is ever suspected, although he somtimes tell truth.

For the Seventh, it is as ridiculous, as some of its fellows▪ For you say, That in things truly determined by the Councel, being

done, In that, it cannot erre. Which being understood in the most perfect sense of the words, is as if a man should say, He that tells the truth, being told, therein he cannot lye. But yet things may be said to be truly determined, which yet being so determined, may be said to be erronious. For a thing may be said to be truly Determi∣ned, quoad externam formam & modum determinandi; when the externall forme and manner of the Determination is observed: And yet quoad materiam ipsam determinata▪ in regard of the matte•• and thing it selfe determined, it may be false and erronious. As those * 1.462 400. Prophets in the case of Ahab, did truly consent with one unanimous voyce; but yet it was a lye, which they truly con∣sented in. So a thiefe may be said to be a true man, in respect of the substance of a man, or truly to live, because he liveth, yet he is a thiefe, and lives a lewd life. So your Generall Councel may ob∣serve all its accustomed forms and manners of Determining matters by voyces, and the like, yea and also may do it accor∣ding to the letter of Scripture, as they take, and interpret it, and yet the thing so determined may be erronious; because they mis∣took and misinterpreted the Scripture. So as neither in this speech of yours is there a truth. Or doe you meane, being rightly after your manner done, hath it some vertue ex opere operato, not to erre? Or do you mean, That so being once done, for the manner, it must not for the matter be questioned, but then, right or wrong, must be obeyed as truth? And againe, your expression is very improper, to say, of a thing already done, and past, It cannot erre. Non posse, or possibility is properly of a thing not yet done, So as you should have said, A Generall Councel in the things so and so done, hath not erred, nor cannot erre. But who shall reduce your words to reason, or free them from being ridiculous? For, Perlectum admissi, risum ••eneatis amici? Can any refrain laughter that reads your words? Or from saying, They are as a fooles coat made up of sundry pieces and sundry colours For thus they are framed; 1. 'Tis true, that a Generall Councel de post facto, after 'tis edded, and admitted by the whole Church, is then Infallible. 2. The reason, For, it can∣not erre in that▪ which it hath clearly and truly determined without errour. 3. After 'tis confirmed, 'tis admitted by the whole Church. 4. Then being found true, it is also Infallible▪ that is, it deceives no man. Is not here Mira verborum complexio, as the Orator saith, A ridiculous babling? Or as the Poet saith, is not this Humano Capiti Cervicem sungere equinam? to paint a mans head standing upon a Horses neck? Would ever any man have spoken thus, that had not first bid adieu ••o common Sense, Reason, Judge∣ment?

And if the Reader require a larger Commentary, let him but read the words over againe.

To the Eighth I answere, It is not in it selfe pride, not to obey Councels, Difinitions; and much lesse, when a man knows them to be erronious. Nor is it against any Iust and Godly Government▪ but onely against that which is Papall, Antichristian, Tyrannicall. And is it not high and Antichristian pride, to impose Difinitions of Ge∣nerall Councels of Prelates, yea even when they are erronious, and known apparently to be so, yet to be as Gods own holy Comman∣dements necessarily obeyed of all? This is the highest and most Di∣abolicall Tyranny in the world, thus to bring into bondage the faith, soule and conscience of men to a necessary subjection to errour and falshood. Yea, thus not to obey, you call it also unlaw∣full. Unlawfull? By what Law? Or what Law either of God, or of any lawfull Authority of Man, or of Civil state, is here broken? Are mens lufts a Law? Or are your Prelaticall Councels any true Generall Councels? Generall they may be, in respect of Prelates, but Generall they are not in respect of the true Catho∣licke Church of Christ, the Body whereof is not represented in your Generall Councels: as is shewed before. No nor is your Generall Councel Generall, in respect of the Catholicke Church, whereof you call your selfe the representative body. For the lay-people are not admitted into your Councel, nor any to represent them: therfore it is not Generall: therfore not to obey the difinitions of it, is it unlawfull? And suppose the Councel were lawfull, are the Decrees therof to be obeyed, when erro∣nious.

To the Ninth: That Christ intended not to leave an Infallible certainty in his Church, to satisfie either contentious, or curious, or pre∣sumptuous spirits. Here is one thing expressed, and another im∣plyed: the thing expressed is negative, Christ intended not, &c. the thing implyed is affirmative: That Christ intended to leave an Infallible certainty in his Church. And sutable hereunto are your precedent words; There is, there can be no necessity of an infallible certainty in the whole Catholicke Church, and much lesse in a Generall Councel, of things not absolutely necessary in themselves, Which words imply this Affirmative, That there is a necessity of an infallible certainty in the whole Catholicke Church of things absolutely necessary in themselves So as here also, it is all one, as if you had said thus: Christ intended to leave an infallible certainty in hi•• Church, but not to satisfie either contentious, or curious, or presumptuous spirits. Oney you doe still in such things of this na••ure, prudently avoyd

the plainer and least deceitfull way of expressing your selfe▪ Now what Christ intended, he certainly performs and makes good. But to that your Imaginary Catholicke Church Prelaticall, I deny, that Christ ever intended to leave an infallible certainty. For to such he never made any such promise. And therfore you cannot say, and say truly, That Christ intended that. For you are no part of his true Church, as having no calling from Christ, as before is proved. And you your selfe confesse in many places of your Booke, that the Authority of your Church is not Divinely infallible: And for instance, you make your present Church Autho∣rity, in inducing beliefe of Scripture to be Gods word, to have a prim•• place in things absolutely necessary in themselves; and yet you con∣fesse, that this Authority is not Divine and infallible. So here is a Contradiction, which I leave with you to reconcile. Againe, you tell us before, that our Saviour Christ hath left in his Church besides his Law-books, the Scripture, visible Iudges, to wit, Arch-Bi∣shops and Bishops. And of such are made your Generall Councels, Ergo, of necessity Christ must intend to leave unto you an Infal∣lible Certainty in judging Controversies of Faith. For the Scripture you deny to be a compleat and sufficient Iudge in doubtfull cases; and that in such cases the visible Iudges, the Prelates in a Generall Councel are to determine. Now if you have not certain infallibi∣lity of Judgement, in what case is the Church? Then it may be said, as * 1.463 Bellarmine and other Jesui••es say, Christ hath provided very ill for his Church, if he had not left a visible Iudge, and withall a certaine infallibility unto him, to determine controversies of Faith. This he speakes of the Pope; and upon the very same ground, that you doe for all Prelates in a Generall Councel. And the ground is, that you and they both deny the Scripture to be sole Iudge in Controversies of Faith. Well then, what say you? Doe you confesse this, that you have this Infallible certainty? If you say you have it not (as you do) and yet you will be the true Church of Christ, then you bely Christ, both here, saying He intended to leave it: and before, in saying, He hath left you to be visible Iudges: For had he intended to leave such an Infallibility certain to such a Church, as you speake of, and to leave such to be visible Iudges, as are Archbishops and Bishops: then certainly he would have given you such an Infallible certainty, as wherby you should have been qualified and furnished, to be sufficient and competent Iudges, whose Judgement should be such in matters of Faith, as men might secretly and safely rely, and rest their Faith upon. For otherwise if you have not this Infallibility, but that som∣times

at least, and that in weighty Controversies you might erre in Judgement, then men should have no more ground whereon to settle their Faith, then the Dove in the Deluge had to set her foot upon, you have so covered the Scripture as with a Deluge of Criminations, as to be no sufficient Judge in Controversies of Faith. And you confesse (ibid) That a Gene∣rall Councel (which is an Universall Assembly of Prelates, and Grand Bench of visible Iudges) is not of infallible credit, but that they may erre, yea and possibly manifestly too against fundamentall verity, as pag. 226. So as if the Scripture be, though Infal••ible, yet not living, but a dead Iudge, that cannot speake, or pronounce the sentence: And if the Prelates, the visible living Iudges, have not infallible certainty, nor a Generall Councel infallible credit in their Decrees; you leave the Church in a most perplexed case. Whi∣ther shall she goe in all her doubts? To what Judge or Oracle for resolution? To the Scriptures? That's dead, and cannot say, Mum· To a Generall Councel of Prelates? That's of no cer∣tain credit; their Judgement is not infallible; yea not in funda∣mentall Truths. Alas, poore Church, what wilt thou doe? What wilt thou doe? Why, surely, beleeve none of all these false Prophets, no not all of them together, when assembled in a Generall Councel, for they may and will miserably deceive and seduce you, if you trust to their Judgement. Whither then? To the Scripture. But it is dead, say they. They are false Prophets, and blind guides: beleeve them not: follow them not. * 1.464 Search the Scriptures, as Christ bids you. ‡ 1.465 To the Law, and to the Testimony, if they speake not according to this word; it is because there is no light in them. Art thou not Christs Spouse? Then heare Christs voyce, the Scripture. Say with the Spouse in the Canticles: ‡ 1.466 Tell me, O thou whom my soule loveth, where thou feedest, where thou causest thy flocks to rest at noone: For why should I be as one that turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions? To whom Christ, her beloved Spouse, answereth, § 1.467 If thou know not, O thou fairest among women, goe thy way to the footsteps of the Flocke, and feed thy Kiddes besides the shepheards Tents. Here the true Church, Christs Spouse, in her perplexities, and doubts, wherein she is like to loose her selfe, goes to Christ, to her shepheard, and asks of him, where he feedeth, where he causeth his Flocks to rest at † 1.468 Noon, where his Congregations may find a shady layre, rest, and refreshing from the meridian heat of Persecutions; or her Faith find rest in doubt∣full cases of Faith, or Conscience. For why (saies she) should I be as one, that turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions? Why

should I be uncertain and unsettled in depending upon the guidan•••• and conduct of false shepheards, such as pretend to be as thy fellow-shepheards, that sit as God in the Temple of God, shewing themselves to be God, equall to thee in power and Regall Authority over thy King∣dome and Church, making what Laws they please, in binding our Consciences and that even to their erronious Decrees? To whom Christ Answereth, If thou know not (O thou fairest among women, although despised by men) goe thy way forth by the footsteps of the Flocke, to the green * 1.469 Pastures, and the waters of comfort; the Scrip∣tures where my flocke doth ordinarily find pasture. (‡ 1.470 For man liveth not by bread onely, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God) there thou shalt find the true Pasture, by the footsteps of the flocke, by the continuall treading of my sheep, which know no other pasture but this; For here my sheep heare my voyce, even here by the shepheards Tents my Ministers whom I have set over the flocks, ‡ 1.471 to feed them with understanding and knowledge; § 1.472 Here, be those wa∣ters for every one that thirsteth, here is the milke and wine that's to be had without money: Hearken diligently unto me; incline thine Eare, and come unto me, and thy soule shall live: search the Scriptures for in them is eternall life, and they are they that testifie of me. These are the onely † 1.473 light which I have left to be a lampe for thy feet, and a light for thy steps. These are the onely * 1.474 Oracles of God, which shall clearly resolve thee in all thy perplexed doubts: These are my onely faithfull witnesses, which I have left to witnesse the truth, and to establish thy heart in the faith, in me, ‡̶ 1.475 if any man teach otherwise, and consenteth not to the wholsome words of Scripture, which are mine * 1.476 own l••vely voyce, and which containe all things pertaining to faith and godlinesse, he is puft up and knoweth nothing, he is a false Prophet, a false shep∣heard, a blind Guide, a seducer, an Antichrist. Thus Christ speaketh to his Spouse in the Scripture, his owne voyce, the onely true, living and infallible Iudge▪ And to this Judge, Christs voyce in the Scripture, the true Spouse of Christ in all Ages hath still resor∣ted, and therein been resolved in her doubts, and comforted in her distresse. For ‡ 1.477 here is that wisdome which is justified of all her Children. And ‡ 1.478 whatsoever is therein written is written for our lear∣ning, that we through patience, and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. Nothing can comfort us in our calamities, nothing can confirm and establish our faith and hope in all our perplexed doubtings, but this. Before we shewed, how all the Fathers with one voyce took this sanctuary, came to this Iudge, made this the onely Rule, to determine all doubts and disputes by: so Augustine, so Tertullian: so the incertain Author upon Mat. 24.

in Chrysostome saith, that in the times of Antichrist (even in these our Times) one cannot know the true Church but by the Scripture, because Antichrist with his wicked Clergy, make such a faire shew and pretence, that they are the Catholicke Church, just as your Lordship doth. Therfore let all true Christians in these perillous times of Anti∣christ, and Antichristian Prelates (which cry down the Scriptures as an insufficient Iudge in Controversies of faith, and cry up their own usurped Authority as the supreme Iudge of the Scripture, at least in all doubtfull cases, though they confesse their Judgement not to be of Infallible Credit) fly to the * 1.479 Mountaines, and to the ‡ 1.480 Foun∣taines, the Scriptures, the lively voyce of Christ, they, they onely will resolve us, and settle our faith in all doubts and difficulties, and will discover unto us the true Church of Christ, from all false, pretended, counterfeit, Antichristian, Prelaticall, Hierarchicall Churches and Synagogues.

Now seeing, though you arrogate, but are not able to prove, that Christ hath left your Catholicke Church an Infallible certainty, which yet you confesse to be uncertaine: give us leave (though we touched this before) now againe upon a fresh occasion to vin∣dicate the Truth of Christ, that he not onely intended, but in∣deed hath left unto his true Church an infallible certainty of his Spirit, which by the rule of his word doth guide his Elect into all truth in all ages successively unto the end of the world. When he took his long Farewell of his Apostles and Disciples as concerning his bodily presence with them upon earth: he left them this Promise yet to comfort them concerning his perpetuall spirituall presence with them, saying, ‡ 1.481 Lo I am with you alwayes unto the end of the world, To the end of the world, Ergo with all those that are his true Disciples unto the end of the world. So as where∣soever Christs Churches and Congregations be, there his Spirt is. This § 1.482 Spirit leads his into all Truth, into all necessary and saving Truth infallibly, and most certainly. This is that † 1.483 Anoynting of which before. He that hath not this Spirit of ‡̶ 1.484 Christ, this Spirit of truth, is none of his. And he that hath it, is preserved from the seduce∣ments of false Prophets, which come in Christs Name, and shall deceive many, but not the Elect; for that's not possible. Every true beleever cannot, will not willingly erre in any point of faith, and truth necessary to Salvation. I say, not wittingly. For many of Gods deare Children doe that ignorantly, whereby Christ is denyed, as in yeelding obedience to mans devices in Gods worship, and that through custome, wheras if they were rowsed, and put to it, and asked if they beleeved not that Christ is the onely King of

his Church, and Lord over the Conscience; oh, they beleeve and acknowledge none other King. Aske them againe, whe∣ther they beleeve that any man may exercise this Authority over them; oh, they renounce all such lords. Aske them a∣gaine, why they subject their Consciences, soules and bodies to the will and lust of man in will-worship, forbidden by the Apostle: ô, they answere, they never knew that before: and now that they know it, they repent of it, and from henceforth they renounce it, and resolve to loose rather life and all, then they will doe so any longer. Thus even a good Christian, through ignorance may for a time in a dangerous errour; but so soon as he is convinced of it, he will not for all the world con∣tinue in it. So he that hath true saving faith in Christ, resting on Christs merits alone for his justification, he neither will nor can be brought to beleeve, that he must be justified by his works. For this is against the very nature of saving faith, which rests onely on Christ, renouncing all other respects. So that 'tis im∣possible, that any true member of Christ, should by any errour be so seduced, as to be seperated from Christ, for he is * 1.485 preser∣ved by the spirit of Grace, by the power of God through faith unto sal∣vation. So that, as the whole body of the Church of Christ, so every particular member of this body, hath the certaine and infallible seale of the Spirit of Truth given him of Christ, ac∣cording to his promise, purpose, and intention, for all truth abso∣lutely necessary to salvation, having both his Spirit and word to guide them into all truth.

Finally, 'tis very true (being taken in a true sence) that Christ never intended to leave an infallible certainty in his Church, to satisfie either contentious, or curious, or presumptuous spirits. And if not pre∣sumptuous spirits, certainly not such spirits, as usurpe a Prelaticall and Lordly Authority, and to sit as visible Iudges of Scripture in Ge∣nerall Councels▪ imposing upon all men a servile yoake of obedi∣ence to their Decrees, whether right or wrong, true or false. Nay to such presumptuous spirits God hath given eyes not to see, and hath made their hearts fat, not to understand the truth, not to see the light, that shineth in his word, and therfore they say it is darke, and speake disgracefully of it. So as the presumptuous is properly yours. As for the contentious, and curious, these are they that contend for the truth against your undermining and oppug∣ning of it, and are curious ••o search and sound the bottome of that Mystery of Iniquity, which is cunningly, yet grosly enough folded up in the voluminous leaves of this your Booke. So as

for these so contentious and curious, Christ did intend to leave an In∣fallible certainty in his Church to satisfie them, and to assure them of the Truth, so as not all the opposition and contradiction in the world can beate them from it.

To the Tenth, you make no matter of it, if Generall C••uncels erre, in one, or a second, or a third; so it be not in things necessary. In other cases it makes no matter, if they erre. And what matter is it then, if there be none of your Generall Councel at all. For you con∣fesse that they may possibly (though not easily) erre in things necessary, and in fundamentall points of Faith;* 1.486 and yet obedience must be given. If then it be no matter if in other things they erre, on••e, twice, thrice, yea or if you will in a hundred things: take all these together, and the world should be free from many dangers, if it were rid of Generall Councels altogether. But in the meane time, you make no matter of it, if in so erring, they load the world with an intollerable burthen of errours, which all men must bow their necks under, till another Generall Councel doe free them: and perhaps in stead of freeing them, may lay as much more load upon them. Truly, my Lord, if you had not a liberty to talk with your pen what you please, and a strong opinion also, that whatsoever you write or speake, must needs be of every body highly applauded, as if all you write were Oracles: you would never have suffered such foule blots to have dropped from your pen. But 'tis no matter. If you erre in this, and that, and ano∣ther, &c. aswell as your Generall Councels; so as we knowing them may not in obeying, or assenting erre with you.

To the Eleventh you say, for necessary faith to salvation, we have the Scriptures, Creeds, 4 first Generall Councels. So then, be∣ing furnisht of necessaries, what need we any more? I think the Apostles rule for temporall things, may hold well in spirituall, he saith, * 1.487 having food and rayment, let us therewith be content: So Having all things necessary for faith to salvation, let us use these well and b•• content, not affecting to be loaden with a multitudo of humane devises, which Prelaticall Councels, Courts, and Canons put upon us. And are Generall Councels so Cheape, as that you should keep such a doe, having no Necessaries to trouble them withall But it seems you have some other necessaries, besides those of faith, that will require a Generall Councel. For you tell us (pag 211.) The setling of the Divisions of Christendome (as the reconciling of England with Rome) the making of Canons, which must bind a••l par∣ticular Christians and Churches, cannot be concluded 〈…〉〈…〉, but there, to wit, in a Generall Councel. Why but there? For the

Church of England you may doe what you please; onely you desire perhaps a Generall Councel, to conclude for Altars, and other utensils, and so ease your shoulders of the envy, and crime of Innovation, but for that also you have a sufficient put off, as is shewed before. But the reconciliation and setling of the Divisions of Christendome will conclude all. But still the Scripture with you, is not alone sufficient for necessary faith to salvation, without the Creed, and (at least) the 4 first Generall Councels: Why, was the Scripture, before there were any either Creeds, or Councels? And was not the Scripture then alone sufficient for all things necessary to salvation? The Creeds and Councels are not to be added to the Scripture, as if without them it were not an absolute and com∣pleat Rule. As for the Creeds, they were for the summe and substance of them extracted from Scripture, and must still be reduced to Scripture for their true sense and interpretation, as before. And for the Decrees of the 4 Generall Councels, we ap∣prove of them, no further, then the Scripture warrants them. And therfore though

Twelfthly, you humbly submit to the Scripture, as it is interpreted by the Primitive Church and Generall Councels, and not els: yet we submit our faith onely to the Scripture, as it is interpreted by it selfe, and by the spirit of Christ speaking and breathing in it, which by the Scripture interprets the Scripture unto us; as Augustine doth well observe in his Second Book de Doctrina Christiana. And herein you shew your faith not to be Divine, but humane, as which you submit not meerly to the Scripture, but unto the Iudgment of men, as they shall interpret the same unto you. And so I leave you to your faith, wherein you declare your selfe to be quite from the true Catholicke Church of Christ, whose Faith is built upon the onely foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Iesus Christ being the Chiefe corner stone, without any depending upon humane testimony and Authority. And so here an end of your Generall Councels.

But yet one thing remains unresolved on your part, for you have told us that Generall Councels may erre even in fundamentall truths: but whether at any time they doe actually so erre, you resolve us not. Nay in some places you make it so ambiguous, whether they can erre, or no, that we know not what to make of it, fish or flesh. For (pag. 223.) you propound the Question, saying, whether a Generall Councel may erre, or not, is a Question of great consequence in the Church of Christ. To say it cannot erre, leaves the Church not onely without remedy against an errour once determined,

but also without sense that it may need a remedy, and so without care to seeke it, which is the mystery of the Church of Rome at this day. To say it * 1.488 can erre, seems to expose the members of the Church to an uncertainty, and wavering in the Faith, to make unquiet spirits not onely to disrespect former Councels of the Church, but also to slight and contemn whatsoever it may now determine, into which errour some opposes of the Church of Rome have fallen. Thus you. Now this Question of so great consequence, and that in utramque partem, on both sides, pro & con: you seem in your last words here to re∣solve and determine, as if to say it can erre, were an errour, into which some opposers of the Church of Rome have fallen. Now the Church of Rome hath had many opposes, many Protestant, Learned and Judicicious Divines of former times in the Church of England, who have clearly proved, that Generall Councels can erre: as we have shewed before. Now then do you prove they erred in so saying? Or (which is all one) how do you prove, that a Generall Councel cannot erre? For if it be an errour, to hold they can erre; 'tis no errour in you, to hold they cannot erre. Thus I find you fast upon the hooks, get off, and quit your selfe as well as you can. But pag. 239 you distinguish; which in summe is, That all those Popish Authors alledged by Bel∣larmine for Generall Councels not erring, either speake of the Church (including the Apostles) as all of them doe: and then all grant the voyce of the Church is Gods voyce, and infallible; Or also they are Generall, unlimited, and appliable to private Assemblies, as well as Generall Councels, which none grant to be infallible, but some madde Enthusi∣asts. Or else they are limited, not simply into all truth, but all necessary to salvation. In which I shall easily grant a Generall Councel cannot erre, suffering it selfe to be led by this spirit of Truth in the Scripture, and not taking upon it to load both the Scripture and the spirit, Thus there. Now here I would aske the most perspications and Ju∣dicious Reader, that reads these lines, and ponders them well'-what certain conclusions or resolutions he can picke, or de∣duce out of your words, either for Infallibility, or not. First: That all grant, The voyce of the Church is Gods voyce, divine and infallible, if you speake of the Church including the Apostels. Whence your conclusion should be this: That Generall Coun∣cels, being the Church representative, are infallible, their voyce is Gods voyce, divine and infallible, understanding the Church, whereof they are the Representative▪ to include the Apostels. Ergo by vertue of the Apostles understood to be included in the Church, wherof Gen. Councels are the Representative, their voyce is Gods voyce, divine

and infallible, and so can not erre in any age unto the end of the world, still understanding that in the name of the Church the Apo∣stles are included; can any rationable man, or reasonable crea∣ture make hereof any other conclusion? Secondly, In all truth necessary to salvation, you easily grant a Generall Councel cannot erre, suffering it selfe to be led by the spirit of Truth in the Scripture. This is just as Arminius said in answere to that place in * 1.489 Iohn, for the certaine Perseverance of Gods Saints: Whosoever is borne of God, doth not commit sinne; for his seed remaineth in him; and he can∣not sinne, because he is borne of God. Now how doth that Heretick avoyd so cleare a Testimony and evidence? That is, saith he, so long as the seed of God remaineth in him; but it may depart. But the Apostle gives this as a reason, why the Saints cannot fall away, Because seed of God abideth in them, being Regenerate. Ergo it ever abideth in them: and therfore they cannot fall away. And as he, so you here; A Generall Councel is infallible, while it suffers it selfe to be led by the spirit of Truth in the Scripture. As if you said, A Ge∣nerall Councel, while it doth not erre, it doth not erre, but in that i•• infalliblepunc; as you told us before: But what if a Generall Councel doe not suffer it selfe to be led by the spirit of Truth in the Scripture? That is, what if a Generall Councel have not this spirit of Truth in it, to keep it, that it suffer it selfe to be led by the spirit of Truth in the Scripture? What is your Resolution here? you leave us still upon uncertainties concerning Generall Councels infallibility. And you seem to grant, that a Generall Councel may take upon it to lead both the Scripture and the spirit. O miserable perplexities of a man, whose spirit itcheth to speak somthing which he dare not. But tell us ingeniously and plain∣ly (if there be any ingenuity in you) Hath a Generall Councel this spirit of Truth in the Scripture alwaies, to make it Infal∣lible in all necessary Truths, or not? That's the point. But this you doe not, dare not grant. Yet thus much you are bold to say, ‡ 1.490 That the Assistance of the Holy Ghost is without Errour. That's no Question; and ‡ 1.491 as little there is, that a Councel hath it. How? Is there as little Question to be made, that a Councel of Prelates hath the Assistance of the Holy Ghost, as, That the Assistance of the Holy Ghost is without errour? No more Question? I Question, whether a Generall Councel have the Assi∣stance of the Holy Ghost; will you therfore as well question, whether the Assistance of the Holy Ghost is without errour? Nay I am so farre from making question, that I am confident, and that upon cleare evidence, that your Generall Councels of

later times especially under Antichrist, neither have had, ••or have beene capable of the Assistance of the Holy Ghost to preserve them from errour. For they have been still assembled against Christ, and his Truth, and the true Church and Chil∣dren of God, and either for the decreeing of wicked errours in in Faith, or confirming of them, and establishing of the throne of the Beast, and power of Antichrists Kingdome against Iesus Christ. Nor were it a hard matter to demonstrate this by many instanecs, which for the present I omit. In the meane time, How prove you here your, As little Question? Or how come you to name This spirit of Truth in the Scripture? What, after all that you have said before of the Scripture, that it is not bright enough, that it hath no light, till it be lighted by the Authority of the present Church, and the like; come you now to confesse, that The spirit of Truth is in the Scripture? Told you us not a while agoe, That the Scripture is no living Iudge? What, not living, when the spirit of Truth breaths in it? Is not the spirit in the Scripture, living? And is not a Iudge a living Iudge, when, and while his spirit is in him? What, nothing but absurd and sencelesse contradictions with you? Nothing but Babilonish language? But thus we may see into what gulfes of perplexities they plunge themselves, that presume and undertake to exalt their high imaginations a∣gainst the Truth of God. And you say againe, * 1.492 A Generall Coun∣cel hath not this Assistance (to Infallibility) but as it keeps to the whole Church and Spouse of Christ, whose it is to heare his word, and determine by it. As it keeps closse? Why? is it not your Catho∣licke Churches Representative? How can it then, but keep closse, being of the same Body, and spirit, with your Church? Secondly, speaking here of the whole Church, the Spouse of Christ, you doe equivocate, applying that to a false Church, which is univocè, univocally proper and peculiar to the misticall body of Christ. For your whole is Prela••icall, that of the Hierarchy, and none other, which we have before proved, to be the Sy∣nagogue of Antichrist, which heareth not Christs voyce, but as your Church is pleased to interpret it, and to give it Authority. And that which you say of your Generall Counc••ls, may be truly said of any particular Assembly, two, or three, met in Christs name, which doth not erre, being led by the spirit of Truth, in the Scripture, Christ himselfe (according to his Promise) being in the midst of them. No nor yet any particular single Beleever erreth, being so led, So as you speake to no purpose, when you say, A Generall Councel cannot erre, in that wherin it

hath already determined according to the Scripture; the vanity wher∣of we shewed before. But the conclusion is, you still leave the the Infallibility of your Generall Councel unresolved, upon yea and nay, sometimes affirming, somtimes denying; except your negative be according to that Rule in Logicke, That one Nega∣tive is of more Force, then a thousand Affirmatives.

L. p. 213. Sect. 27. My Answere was, That the Councel of Trent was not onely not legall in the necessary conditions to be observed in a Generall Councel, but also that it was no Generall Councel.

P. Though this be true, you say, yet the Councel of Trent was so legall, according to Romes own Law, that it wanted no conditions observable, to make it in that behalfe, not onely a legall, but a Generall Councel too. And secondly, so Generall for the Romane Catholicke Church of Rome, that all the Decrees thereof doe bind all Papists to a necessary obedience, and con∣formity unto them, and that under Anathema. And your Rule is, That a Generall Councells Decrees and Canons bind all Christians: and a Provinciall Councels Decrees bind all of that Province. And therfore I hope you will grant, that the Papall Councel of Trent is of force to bind all Papists, who acknowledge and accept the Pope for their Head, or Primate. So as though it were not a Generall Councel in the largest sense, yet it was a Generall Councel for the Roman Catholicke Church, which (say they) is the onely Catholicke Church. And with which (say you) the Church of England is one and the same. Now this I doe here touch by the way, as whereof I shall have occasion to make some use anon, though perhaps your thus Arguing against the generallity of Trents Councels, is one of those Passages, which you think may be an ingredience of the salve of your Reputation. But this (I say) by the way.

L. p. 227. It may seem very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendome, that a Generall Councel thus Erring should stand in force, till evidence of Scripture, or, &c.

P. This passage I cited before upon occasion, among sun∣dry other of like nature; and now I repeat it onely for this, to shew how your zeale for Peace made you forget Truth. For still you are telling us of Peace and Truth, or, Truth and Peace. But here your Peace stands single, without Truth. What Peace, without Truth? For you say, It may seem very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendome that a Generall Councell erring should stand in force. What, will you force a Peace against Truth, by an Au∣thorised errour? O blush for shame.

L. p. 254. Suppose they Key of Doctine be to let in Truth, and shut out errour, and suppose the Key, rightly used, infallible in this: yet this infallibility is prime••y in the Church, in whose person (not strictly in his own) S. Peter received the Keys.

P. Suppose? Do you make it but a supposit on that the key of Doctrine, is to let in Truth, and shut out Errour? So it seems with you, when you use that Key of your Doctrine to shut out Truth, and let in errour; as both, your Practises, and writings do shew. But what is this Key of Doctrine? Is it not the sincere Preaching of Gods word? And then this Key is rightly used, and here is the use therof Infallible But (say you) this Infallibility is primely in the Church. How? Can we get no other language from you? Still, all Primely in the Church? Certainly not at all in your Antichristian Church, where the spirit of errour raigneth, and where the whole bunch of Keys hangeth at the Prelates g••r••le. As Pope Paschall 2. when he rode in Pompe, had his seven Keys hanging at his girdle, the Chiefe wherof was to open and shut Paradise to whom he pleased. But we say still▪ that this infallibility is primely in the Scripture, and not in the Church, not in Christs own Church. For the Scripture containes that infallible Truth, which the Ministeriall key, Christs own ordinance and voyce openeth to the Church, or Congregation of Gods people. And this Ministeriall key Christ committed to Peter, not simply as sustaining the person of the whole Church, but chiefly and properly as he was an Apostle and Minister of Christ to preach the Gospel; in which respect also he might represent the person of all faithfull Ministers of the G••spel right∣ly and truly called to the Function, to whom Christ did in Peter, as afterward he did * 1.493 in all the Apostles, commit and entrust the key of knowledge of the Doctrine of Christ, to be used and imployed to that end▪ to the end of the world. Whereas by saying, Peter represented the Person of the Church, you must meane, that the Church is wholly contained in the Ministers; For you usually call your Clergy the Church, as if you had no Church but that; whereas the Congregation or society of all the Faithfull is the Church of God, as is shewed before. So as in no respect did Peter receive the Keys in the person of your Priest and Prelaticall Church.

L. p 258. Where 'tis said, That Christ makes to himselfe a Church without spot or wrinckle, Eph. 5. That is not underst••••d of the Church Militant, but of the Church Tryumphant. And to maintain the contrary is a brand of the spreading Heresie of Pelagianisme.

P. That speech of the Apostle includes as well the tru•• Church Militant, as the Tryumphant▪ both which containe, and consist of all the El••ct onely. And these Elect, that in the Church Militant live by Faith, though they have * 1.494 enoikou••an kì ‡ 1.495 euperístton a••mratían, as the Apostle saith, sinne dwelling in them, and easily besetting them, yet they are in Gods sight, through Faith in Christs blood, that ‡ 1.496 fountaine set open for Israel, washed from all the spot•• of sinne, being in Christs § 1.497 imputed Righteous∣nesse and holynesse presented, and accepted in Gods sight, as most pure, without spot or wrinkle. As the the Apostle Iohn saith, † 1.498 The blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sinne. And Christ saith to his Spouse his Church Militant, ‡̶ 1.499 Thou art all faire, my Love, there is no spot in thee. Concerning that place, which you cite out of Augustine, where he saith, The whole Church prayeth, forgive us our debts. 'Tis true, speaking there of the visible Church, quae in toto terrarum orbe clamat ad deum, which over all the earth crys to God. And if he meane it of the Elect onely, which are the onely true Spouse of Christ in all the world, their praying, for∣give us our debts, hinders not, nor interrupteth their perpetuall purity in Gods sight notwithstanding. For we may be, and are, through faith in Christ, accepted for pure in Gods eyes, when in our own eyes, through sin, and manifold corruptions still dwel∣ling, but not raigning in us, we are impure. And therfore we pray, forgive us our debts, because we have dayly failings and in∣firmities, whereof our Consciences accuse us, and the con∣fession of them with deprecation is a meanes to have that stain, and guilt, cleaving to our Conscience and corrupt nature wi∣ped off, Faith still renewing the application of Christs merits as a Balme to heale our wounds, and to assure us that our sinnes are blotted out in his blood. For as Iohn saith, * 1.500 If we confesse our sinnes, he is faithfull and just to forgive us our sinnes, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousnes. Now as for the Pelagians, One of their errours was, in Arrogating purity to their own sect, and that they had no Originall sinne, but that they were Justi by a selfe-Righteousnesse, calling those of their own sect Justi, Righteous, as Augustine tells us. But where you name the spreading Heresie of the Pelagians: I know none to whom that is more beholden then to him, (your selfe I meane) who hath given it a footing and rooting too in the Articles of the Doctrines of the Church of England, and under whom it hath shot forth its branches both in height and breadth, that it dare both overtop, and overdrop the Truth without controule.

But I had almost forgot one thing, and that is this: you al∣low not Purity in your Church Militant in this life. If therfore there be not a full purgation of the Church and her Children here in this world, where will you have her purged? Purged she must be, and that thorowly, that she be without spot or wrinkle, before she come into heaven. For in thither no unclean thing ent••eth. Me thinks then I smell here the smoke of some Pur∣gatory fire, after this life, which must purge away all the re∣liques of sins spots. And upon this very ground, that you goe on, it is, that the Papists have very prudently, as in a case of necessity, devised their Purgatory to cleanse all after this life, seeing here (they say) there is no Perfection of Purity. But per∣haps you thought not of this consequence, when you writ those words, That the Church Militant is not without spot or wrinkle. But so, how will you avoyd the consequence of Purgatory. So as while you pretend to avoyd the Pelagian Rocke, you fall into the Roman fiery▪ Phlegetom, or Purgatory-Gulfe. Ac∣cording to the old Proverbe, Incidit in Scyllam dum vu••t vitare Char••••••in. But you seem afterwards, not to allow of Purgatory, telling some stories of it, but bringing not one Argument from Scripture against it, as, That the blood of Christ doth cleanse a true beleever from all sinne in this life, and the like. But hereof in its place. Againe, In saying, That Christ doth not make the Church Militant in this life, to be without spot or wrinkle;* 1.501 you doe 〈◊〉〈◊〉 overthrow that Article of Faith, I beleeve the holy Catholicke Church. Now doth not the holy Catholicke Church 〈…〉〈…〉 Church Militant? Is not the Church Militant 〈…〉〈…〉 if holy, is it not then without spot or wrinkle? 〈…〉〈…〉 But this is no Article of your Faith: because your Catholicke Church is not thus holy, without spot or wrinkle.

L. p. 275. In and by the Councel of Trent, the Pope 〈…〉〈…〉 of Saints, and Adoration of Images, to the 〈…〉〈…〉 of Christianity, and as great hazzard of the weake.

P. What, no more but so? First, In the Councel ••f 〈…〉〈…〉 the Pope teach no more, but these two? And these two he could teach long before the Councel of Trent. There they had the P••p•• confirmation, but not their Christendome. But you tell us not •• word in all your Booke of the Popes teaching of 〈…〉〈…〉 mans works and merits: and of his Anathematizing of 〈…〉〈…〉 by Faith onely, which the Scripture teacheth. Nor a 〈…〉〈…〉 teaching the Masse to be a Propitiatory sacrifice for 〈…〉〈…〉 quicke and dead: Nor, how he teacheth a New order of sacri••••••cing

Priests. Nor, That Originall sinne, is no sinne, saying, * 1.502 Al∣though the Apostle define it to be sinne yet the holy Councel (of Trent) decreeth it not to have the nature of sinne. And all these, and many more such, the Pope teacheth in the Councel of Trent. Se∣condly, Are Invocation of Saints, and Adoration of Images, no more but a great hazzard to the weake? Are they not so also to the strong, while they make the strongest to stoope to them▪ and ther∣fore so much the more hazardous? Except you meane, that to the strong they are damnable, not onely dangerous. But is plaine Idolatry in both these, both adoration of Images, and Invoca••i••n of Saints, onely hazardous to the weake? Is not Idolatry damnable? Nay is it not damnation to Idolaters? Doth it not shut them out of heaven? For ‡ 1.503 no Idolaters shall inherit the Kingdome of God. Know ye it not, saith the Apostle.

But Thirdly, you say, These are a great scandall of Christianity. No more? Why, sure they are the very badges and proper markes of the whore of Babylon, and the Doctrines of Antichristianity. For they are spirituall whoredome. And as for true Christianity, it so abhorres them, and that whore that uses them, that it is not easily scandalized with them, as you are, that would so faine be ••econci••ed to Rome, For what communion hath the Temple of God with Idolls? Or Christ with Beliall? Or true Christianity with Anti∣christianity?

L. p ibid. Transubstantiation taken properly, cannot stand with the ground of Christan Religion.

P. Why, is there some other taking of Transustantiation, then properly? Is there a Transubstantiation improperly taken? shew it us▪ I pray you. Is not Transubstantiation▪ Transubstantiation? To 〈◊〉〈◊〉, a C••anging of one substance into another? As the changing of the substance of * 1.504 water into the substance of wine: which Christ truly did miraculously? As the changing of § 1.505 waters in∣to blood, which Moses did miraculous••y? As the changing of the brea•• into Christs body, and of the wine into Christs blood, which the Papists falsly teach, and beleeve, as if done mira∣culously, when no Miracle at all doth appeare? Or they say it is done, by verture of pronouncing the words of Consecration, Hoc est corpus meum, † 1.506 This is my body: whereas the Text plainly sheweth, that these were not the words of Consecration (as also some Schoolmen confesse) for Christ had Consecrated before in his blessing, or giving of thanks▪ after which, and after he had broken the bread, giving it to his Disciples, he uttered these words, This is my body. But what is your Transubstantiation im∣properly

taken? Indeed some of the Ancient Fathers speaking of the Sacramentall Elements after Consecration, being then set apart from common use, called it a Mutation, saying, that the Elements were changed into another Nature; but withall they expresse their meaning to be, not the changing of their sub∣stance, but of their use, from being common bread and wine to become Sacramentall, or Sacred. But for Transubstantiation, they never so much as dreamed of any such kind of Metamor∣phosis▪ or Metousíosis, or monstrous Paradox, as Transubstantia∣tion. But this your Distinction of properly and improperly, may perhaps prove usefull for to make a Reconciliation with Rom•• in this matter, and so to remove this mégakásma, so as both you and the Church of Rome may hold Transubstantiation onely with this difference, or rather verball distinction, Rome holding it properly, and you improperly.

L. ibid. As for communion in one kind, Christs Institution to cleare against that.

P. And is not Christs institution as cleare against Tr••nsubstan∣tiation, upon which you immediately adde this? And first even naturall Reason, or the blind light of Nature is against it. For the Heathen man can tell you, * 1.507 who is so madde or vaine, as to beleeve or imagine that to be God, which he eateth? Although (saith he) we call Bread by the name of the Goddesse Ceres, and Win•• by the name of Bacchus, &c. Againe, to beleeve Transubstantiation is against those very words of institution, This is my body, For these words are an usuall Sacramentall Phrase, or manner of speech, which the Scripture useth in all the Sacraments both of the old Testament, and of the new, As in all of them to call the outword visible signes by the name of the thing signified, As Circumsition was called the Covenant, Gen. 17.10. though but a signe of it vers. 11.* 1.508 And a seale of it also Rom. 4.11. so the eating of the Paschall Lambe it was a ‡ 1.509 memoriall or com∣memorative signe and ‡ 1.510 sacrifice of the Passover, and yet it is called the § 1.511 Passover So Baptisme succeeding Circumcision, though it be a visible signe and Sacrament of the washing of Christs bloud to remission of sinnes: And so as Circumcision, a signe, and seale of the Covenant▪ yet it is called † 1.512 r••generation▪ be••ng but a signe of it. And so also the Lords supper, the Elements the••ein bread and wine Consecrated, being signes to remember, and seales by Faith to apply Christs death, the one is called his body, the other his blood. And thus Christs institution is as cleare against Transubstantiation, as it is against communion in one kind. Thirdly,

Transubstantiation is against the Article of our Faith of Christs in∣carnation of the Virgin, and of his sitting at Gods right hand, * 1.513 whom the heavens must receive till his coming againe. And so against our Faith of his coming againe, as before, seeing Transubstantiation makes him Corporally present every day. And as for commu∣nion in one kind though it be commonly so called, yet both improperly and untruly, For it is not communion so much as in one kind, Transubstantiation being admitted, as Papists beleeve it, for they destroy the very substance of the Element of bread, by their Transubstantiation, and how then is it a communion in one kind? They have left nothing of the bread, but the bare Acci∣dents. And Accidents we know do not constituere speciem, do not constitute any species or kind of things. Nay according to the Rule of Philosophy, the Papists have, by taking away the sub∣stance of bread, not left so much as the Accidents of Bread, but in a meeer Phantasme, or Apparition For Philosophy and Logicke teacheth, that Accidentis Esse est messe, The Beeing of an Acci∣dent i•• its immediate In-beeing in its proper subject. Now the substance of bread is the proper subject of the Accidents of bread, which are no longer the Accidents of Bread, then they inhere in the bread; so as the Bread being destroyed, the Accidents are de∣stroyed. And if (as they say) the substance of Bread is vanished in Transubstantiation: then certainly the Accidents. And lesse proper is it, that accidents proper to bread, should have their inherence in humane flesh, as they say, Christs flesh is under the accidents of bread; as if it were coloured over with the accidents of bread, which yet cannot subsist, but in some body, yea and in their naturall and proper body, which is bread. Againe, wher∣as you say Transubstantiation was never heard of, till the Councel of Lateran: 'tis true, that ••s was never decreed to be beleeved and pub∣li••kly received as a Doctrine of the Church of Rome, till in the Councel of Lateran under Innocent 3, as before is touched: But it was ‡ 1.514 hatched before, and was privately crope into the bosome of many mens beliefe, and there fostered as a tender Chicke, be∣fore it came to get spurres, and so to be made a Cocke of the Game in that Councel. So also Communion under one Kind (as you call it secundum Apparentiam) grew into use in sundry places, through ••egligence of the Priest, or otherwise, before it came to be Decreed in the Councel of Constance to be of necessity univer∣sally received.

L. p. 277. For Adoration of Images, the modern Church of Rome is too lik•• to Paganisme in the Practise of it.

P. The Moderne, say you? Nay the Church of Rome hath been an Old stickler for Images, ever since her S. Gregory first set them up in Churches to become Laymens Books. Wherein in processe of time the Laity was so well read, and grew such profound Proficients, that those dumb Masters had taught them to put no difference at all between the Images, and the Saints themselves, whom they represented. For the Images were layd so thick on with beautifull and lively colours, as the eyes of the simple Beholders being dazled therewi••h, were not able to penetrate or pierce through them, to discern the Saints them∣selves, who were farre enough off. Whereupon the Images grew prouder and prouder, as taking all the honour done to themselves, like the Asse that bore the Image of the god ••s••s••, he imagined that the people adored him. So as becoming e∣very day more gay then other, and to follow the fashions, even the clergy also began to fall in love with them, and so to do••e upon them, as they not onely adored them (and that as de∣voutly, as you do your Altars, and that which hangs over them) but writ Books in commendation of them, and found out a Mistery, which the Heathen never knew, nor acknowledged (the ‡ 1.515 learned of them at least) That Images were to be adored with the same honour, that was due to the Saints they represented, as the Image of Christ▪ and the Crucifix, and the Crosse, with La••ria which is divine worship, due to Christ, and to God (as they distin∣guish) the Images of the Saints with Doulia, such a worship, as they have devised for the Saints, and (if you knew all) no way inferi∣our to divine worship: and the Image of the Virgin Mary with a certain worship, which they call Huperdoulia, which is proper (say they) to the Virgin Mary; a worship (I will warrant you, if it were well examined) above that worship, which they give to God himselfe. And all these worships they give to the very Images themselves respectively. Nor are they any small ••ools that teach these things, as no lesse then Aquinas among the School-men, and Bonaventure (both Saints for this their meri••) and Bellarmin•• among the Jesuites, besides many more of such l••arned R••bbi••s. In so much, as their golden Legends, and other Authors re∣port, that the said S. Thomas coming into a Church, in Naples, a goodly Cruifix saluted him, saying, My good friend Thomas, th••u hast written well of me: what recompense d••st thou desire▪ He an∣swered the Crucifix, None but your selfe. Now p••rhaps i•• was of good massy Gold, or Silver. But this by the way. Thus we see those simple A. B. C. Books (and scarce that) which a••

first were onely for simple Laicks, became in time Books to teach those that were of the highest forme in their Schooles, even their Angelicall and Seraphicall Doctors. And thus even in them came Augustins words to be verified, which he then spake of the Heathen: Qu••s intuetur simulacrum, &c. Who behol∣deth an Image that is not so affected with it, as to beleeve that to be God which he seeth, and adoreth? And againe▪ Plus valeat ••imulacr•• ad incurvandum in foelicem animam, quod oculos habent, &c. quàm ad corrigendum▪ quod ••on vident, &c. Images are of more force to crooke an unhappy soule, that they have eyes, and eares, and mouth, and nose, and hands, and feet: then to correct it, that they see not, heare not, speak not, smell not, handle not, walke not. As David saith, * 1.516 They that make them, are like unto them, and so are all they that put their trust in them, that is, that adore them. The Makers and worshipers, learned and unlearned, are even as block∣ish, as the senselesse Images themselves, as the Prophet Esay also saith,* 1.517 chap. 44.19.

Besides, had not Rome a finger at least (if not a whole hand) in that Decree of the 7th Generall Councel of the 2. of Nice, for worship of Images, though then they went not so farre as Divine worship in words at least, untill the worship it selfe do prove it. And how many good and Godly Emperours were most grie∣vously vexed and troubled from time to time by the Bishops of Rome, for causing the Idolatrous Images in Churches to be broken down, and cast out.

But what more? Moderne Rome is too like to Paganisme in the practise of Image-worship. Too like? Nay doth she not farre outstrip the Heathen in this her Idolatry? Da veniam verbo: par∣don the word, Idolatry; as being too grosse a word to brand the Church of Rome withall in all your Booke, and therfore I sup∣pose more grosse, then your tender Eares can well brooke to heare to be layd to Romes Charge, or cast in her dish, as being too bitter a sauce, and able to put the good motion of Reconciliation quite out of taste. And (it seems) it is Religion with you to call Image-worship Idolatry, or an Image and Idol, because that second Councel of Nice made a Decree; Qui sacras Imagines Idola vocant Anathema: They that call the sacred ••mages Idols, let them be Anathema: or such as alledge against them sen∣tences of Scripture, against Idols; let them be Anathema. So loth are you to come under that cursed Councels Anathema. But a spade is a spade. And if Modern Rome outstrip old Heathen Rome ••n the Idolatry of Image-worship: and if the Heathen were Ido∣laters:

then let Rome passe for an Idolatresse. But the old Hea∣then, though they adored the Images, yet when it was objected to them, their usuall answere was, that they worshiped not the Image it selfe, but that which it represented; as Lactantius, and Au∣gus••ine, and others report of them. But your Moderne Rome teacheth and professeth (not onely practiseth) that she gives the same honour to the Image, which is due to that, which it repre∣senteth, and that the honour or worship of Chris•• is terminated in his Image, or Crucifix, or Crosse, and doth not passe, through it, or beyond it; that is, reacheth not to Christ, but is wholly intercepted and preoccu∣pated by the Image. So Atheistically impudent is that Who•••• grown in her Idolatry of Images, that ••he surpasseth all the Heathen that ever were. But you cite a saying of Cassender, That in this present case of the Adoration of Images, the Church of Rome came full home to the superstition of the Heathen. Full home: that's somwhat more like yet, then too like. But it seems you have Cassanders an∣cient Copy, which hath not passed through the fire of Romes Index Expurgatorius, which would never have suffered such an Heresy as this to escape a Deleatur. And you know (I sup∣pose) that Cassanders works are marked out in their Indices to be purged of all such stuffe, as this is. Then, after sundry other passages out of Romish Authors, bewraying their gr••sse Ido∣latry, but teaching it onely, none I hope doth practise it tho: say you; wherein you shew, that you have as good a hope of the learned Teachers of Idolatry, as hereafter you shew charity to their simple Disciples for their salvation (notwithstanding) after all this (I say) you inferre:

L. p. 280. These and their like, have given so great a scandal•• among us, to some Ignorant, though I presume well meaning men, that they are affraid to testifie their duty to God even in his own house, by any outward gesture at all. In so much, that these very Ceremonies, which by the Iudgement of godly and learned men, have now long continued in the practise of this Church, suffer hard measure, for the Romish superstition sake. But I will conclude this point with a saying of Beatus Rhenanus: Who could indure the People, sayes he, rushing into the Church, like swine into a sty? Doubtlesse Ceremonies do not hurt to the People, but profit them, so there be a meane kept, and that By be not put for the Maine, that is, so we place not the Principall part of our Piety in them.

P. Concerning These, to wit, Images, as also Ceremonies, we have spoken somthing before, what more is requisite for this Passage, we shall briefly adde. And first, If Images in Churches

so scandalous, why are you so curious and zealous for the setting of them up, and the garnishing of them? Is it because Afternoon-Sermons on the Lords dayes being put down, so as the people having little imployment for their Eares, they may instead thereof have such goodly objects for their Eyes to gaze upon (Populo ut placerent) and so by such Books learne, that they may aswell goe to their May-pole, and spend their time in behold∣ing a Morice-dance, as gaze upon such dumb shews. But if they be scandalous, you know who sayd, * 1.518 Wo to that man, by whom th•• scandall cometh. But to whom are they scandalous? Alas, it is but to some ignorant (say you) though perhaps well meaning men. And for such, it matters not much, if they stumble at those blocks. But perhaps that ignorant, but well meaning man, who takes offenee at your Images, and for that, and other your Idola∣trous Romish superstitions about your Altars, abhorres communi∣on with you (perhaps, say I? Surely this is one signe of a true Child of God, and of a well-meaning, and no ignorant Christian) is one of God Allmighties fooles, as you, and the world call and ac∣count them. And then heare what Christ saith againe, ‡ 1.519 Who so shall offend one of these little ones, which beleeve in me, it were better for him, that a milstone were hanged about his necke, and that he were drowned in the depth of the Sea. What thinke you of this, as small account as you make of those your ignorant well meaning men, who are scandalised by your many Romish superstitions? And the least true beleever in Christ, however you take him for an Ig∣noramus, yet he knows more of Christ, then you doe: and if you have more litterall knowledge, the greater is your sinne, in both giving scandall to such, and punishing of them, for not sinning against their Conscience so scandalized.

But are onely ignorant well-meaning men offended with your Popish or Romish Images, and ragged Reliques of superstition and Idolatry, wherwith your Churches are pestered, and the pure worship of God corrupted, so as they are affraid to testifie their duty to God in that place, which you call his house? Certainly, if they be such, as are indeed ignorant of Christ, and have not the power of Religion, and the Spirit of Christ in them, but such Protestants at large, as look to be saved by their well-meaning: these are least of all affrayd to testifie such duty, as you doe, as taking your super∣stition for the best part of their Religion (aswell as you doe) be∣ing brought up in no other Schoole, but yours. But such as are offended, wherfore are they affrayd? Of doing their duty to God in his house? What, call you that Gods-house, which you

make the Tyring-house of all your superstitious guises, and the stage or Theater of your pompous service (wherein you please your selves, and not God) and that his Temple, wherein you erect an Altar to the Devil? Doe you startle at it? I say, To the Devil. For is not that the Devils Altar, whereon our onely True Altar Iesus Christ is crucified afresh, denyed, and destroyed? And is not all superstitious, and will-worship, and that Altar-worship, a sacrifice offered to the Devil on your Altar? Doth not the Apostle say, * 1.520 that the things, which the Gentiles sacrificed, they sacrificed to De∣vils, and not to God? Why, they meant it to God, they erected their Altars to God, and not to the Devil. ‡ 1.521 Agnosto ••eo: To the unknown God, was that Altar in Athens dedicated. How then was it to the Devil? Because it was a strange worship, which God never commanded; The Altar was strange, and so the service too. And even so is your Altar, and Altar-worship and service: though you pretend it, and intend it to God, and to Christ; yet because therein you doe with ‡ 1.522 Corah and his company offer strange fire, and strange incense, such as he hath not commanded, and such, as whereby Christ Iesus is denyed, and renounced: it is no better, then the service of the Devil. In the Law we read, that all § 1.523 strange Incense of mans devising, was straitly forbidden to be offered to the Lord. Yea whosoever † 1.524 made any composition of Incense like unto that, which the Lord commanded, was to dye the death. For the breach of which Law in this point, besides that of Corah and his Com∣pany, we have a terrible example in ‡̶ 1.525 Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, who tooke either of them Censers, and put fire therein, and put Incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not: And there went out fire from the Lord, and de∣voured them, and they dyed before the Lord. And it is noted also of them, that * 1.526 they had no Children, so as their Name and Memo∣ry perished with them. Now Incense signified ‡ 1.527 Prayer and the service of God, which if it be not that which the Lord hath ex∣presly commanded, it is death to him that offereth it, or deviseth it. So as your Altars, and Altar-service being such, as the Lord hath not commanded, but forbidden and condemned, being ‡ 1.528 taught by the Precept of men, and are a denying of Iesus Christ (as before is pro∣ved) your sinne therein is so much greater, then that of the Heathen; for they offered upon a strange Altar to the unknown God: but you with your Eyes open at noon-day doe presume to set up Altars of wood and stone of your own devising, and ther∣on offer the strange Incense of your Prayers and service, thinking them to be the more effectuall, and more acceptable to God, be∣cause

they are offered up upon your Altar. For which your high presumption what can you expect but terrible * 1.529 Judge∣ments, and fiery indignation, which shall destroy the adversaries? such as (the Apostle there saith) sin willingly (Ekousíos) that is, wittingly and willingly, after they have received the knowledge of the truth, for whom there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin.

And yet for all this, doe you call such ignorant, though per∣haps well-meaning men, that refuse to communicate with you in your Romish superstitious Idolatrous Altars and service. I tell you, who ever they be that doe so, they are out of all question the deare Children of God. And are they not warned by the Apostle to beware of all such ‡ 1.530 will worship? Ye cannot drinke (saith he) the cup of the Lord, and the cup of Devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table, and the Table of Devils. If then your Altars, and Altar-service be a worship done to the Devil, because it is of mans pre∣sumption in devising and imposing it, whereby Christ, and his true worship is overthrown: call you such service a duty to God? No, God abhorres it, as he did the Altars of Bethel, set up for the Calves, as he did Aarons Calfe, though they said, These are thy Gods ô Israel, which brought thee out of Aegypt. Even as you say, Christ, God Allmighties seat is there, the Mercy-seat there, the San∣ctum Sanctorum there (as in your Printed allowed Books) Christ, that redeemed Israel out of Aegipt, there. No surely, as those by their false representations, and Altars, worshiped the Devils: so doe you; as before is shewed. Ye have no shift for it. So as when truly Religious Christians see you set up and use all your Popish Superstitions in that place, which you call Gods house: so your Altars, Images, Adorations, Praying towards the East▪ where your Altar standeth, and a Crucifix over it, and round about guarded with your Images: have they not cause to be affraid even to step over your Church-threshold? And may I not here justly and rightly apply to your now Church of Englands Altars and Images, that which the Prophet Hosea doth to revolted Israel••? ‡ 1.531 Israel is an empty vine, he brought forth fruit unto himselfe (to wit his own Devises in Religion) according to the multitude of his fruit, he hath increased the Altars, according to the goodnesse of his land, they have made goodly Images. Their heart is divided: now shall they be found faulty, he shall breake down their Altars: he shall spoyle their Images.

Ye•• by this meanes, your hoysing up your Altars and Images, well-minded Christians come now to be affraid of your old Cere∣monies allowed by statute. They now begin to find they smell

ranke of Romish superstition, and to appeare to be links of the same Chaine, now made up with your Altars, and other Super∣stitions, whereby they see themselves bound, and carryed cap∣tive backe to Babylon and Aegipt againe. Wheras till your New came in, their stomack did (though with much difficulty) digest the Old. But now it is with many Christians, as with Man, who seeing a bare hand, and foot, and habit of one that is a noto∣rious thiefe, yet till they come to see his face clearly, cannot by those judge whose parts and members they be, whether an honest mans, or a knaves: so the Church of England, having for∣merly seen but a hand (as in signing with the Signe of the Crosse) and a legge, or foot (as kneeling at the Sacrament) and a habit (as a Surplice) and all these 3 being called by * 1.532 some of note, The three innocent Ceremonies: she generally took them to belong to some honest Matron: but now Popery beginning to put off her maske, and to shew her face more clearly then be∣fore, as in hoysing up of Altars in all Churches, setting up of Images in many, and repayring of some old, as in Pauls, and other Cathedralls, and Chappels, Adorations before, towards, and to them, Publication of Popish Pamphlets in English by Autho∣rity, oppression of Gods word and Ministers, open and allowed Profanation of the Lords day; open and most terrible Persecu∣tion of Gods witnesses testifying against such notorious Innova∣tions, and the like: And now, that the Church of England openly professeth and proclaimeth to the world by you in this your Booke (if indeed she have made you her mouth)▪ that she and the Church of Rome are one and the same Church, no doubt of that: Now (I say) men, and even the most ignorant (unlesse they be stone-blind) begin to see,* 1.533 that all those Ceremonies for∣merly so pressed by the Prelates, whereby they held the poore peoples noses to the grindstone, and yoaked their perhaps ten∣der Consciences, were but the hand, legge, foot, habit of the whore of Babylon, who durst never have shewed her impudent face so boldly in these dayes, where the Gospell hath been so long professed, and the beames thereof (till now with such ‡ 1.534 mysts out of the bottomlesse pit, darkened) had shinned forth so bright: had not your Old Ceremonies ushered her in; so as now, as those ‡ 1.535 Syrians with halters about their necks, when Ahab said of Benhadad, He is my brother, catcht the word presently out of his mouth, replying, Thy brother Benhadad: so the Church of Rome, being styled by you a § 1.536 sister of England, and you being in all things suited Sister-like in Romes Rites and Reliques, dare and

doth quickly catch the word out of your mouth, Thy sister (if not, Thy mother) Rome; so as the Proverb may come to be in all other things verified, Like Mother, like Daughter, if you may prove the Father.

Again, One thing I cannot well passe over, which seems to me very ridiculous, where you say, that by the judgement of godly and learned men, those former Ceremonies have continued in the practise of this Church. Now who knoweth not, that these Ceremonies have so continued even by the judgement of pro∣fane and ignorant men. And what needs then the judgement of godly and learned men for the matter, as to testifie this? Except you meane by the judgement of godly and learned men, that godly and learned men have had most cause to know it, by undergoing the severe judgement of Censure of suspension and silencing, and other vexations, onely for not conforming to the practise of your Old Ceremonies, as many doe now, for not conforming to your New. Or els you so shuffle these words in, and so packe them together, that when they meet with a Reader, that weighs your words more by the sound, then by the sense (or rather want of sense) he may run away with this apprehension, as if godly and learned men had in their judgement approved of those Ceremonies; whereas few godly and learned, but rather wished them all long agoe at Rome again, from whence they came.

But to come to your Conclusion out of Rhenanus, which by puting it down with approbation, you make to be your own: Doubtlesse Ceremonies doe not hurt the people, but profit them. Doubt∣lesse? How prove you that? Nay doubtlesse, we have already proved, that both they doe hurt, and no way profit the people; they are good for nothing, for no body, unlesse for you Prelates, to uphold and exercise your Tyranny over Gods people, and to bring Fees into your Courts. And Beatus Rhenanus spake accor∣ding to the Time, and Place, and Church he lived in; although he was a moderate man, and saw more, then he durst speake of. And the same Rhenanus (as was before touched) in his Anno∣tations upon T••rtullian, and I take it in that Book, out which you cite this sentence (De Corona Militis) observes, how sundry Heathen Ceremonies crope into the Church, by occasion of many old men newly converted to Christianity, whom it was hard to waine from their old Heathenish fashions, which therfore were thought fit to be admitted, as not hurting, but profiting those old Heathen new Christians. But godly and lear∣ned men (as I said before) could tell you what infinite dammage

your tyrannicall pressing of your Ceremonies upon mens Con∣sciences hath brought to the Gospell, and so to the soules of men, by depriving them of so many worthy Ministers, onely for Non-conformity. But this is one speciall end, for which you so presse your Ceremonies, to suppresse Godly and learned Preach∣ers, and so the sincere Preaching of the word of God, that the people being brought up in ignorance and profanesse, might be the lesse sensible of bearing the yoake of your Antichristian Tyranny over them. But as for your Carnall Ceremonies, which the A∣postle saith are good for nothing, * 1.537 pròs plesmonen, in compari∣son of satisfying the flesh, the carnall pride of will-worshipers: we have spoken sufficiently before.

But Rhenanus addes a qualification: so there be a meane kept. I think you might have done well to have omitted this, till you had been better acquainted with this meane; of which be∣fore. And the Author might have expressed this Meane a lit∣tle more fully, thus: So there be either no Ceremonies at all, or if any, those very few, and those few not pressed, with rigor, or necessity upon mens Consciences, but left free to every one to use them, or not, accor∣ding to the Christian liberty, which Christ hath purchased for them, as is said before. Whereas you are not satisfied with a few Cere∣monies, nor with the Old, but you must have New added, with a Tot quot, and all of them you presse so hard upon the Con∣science, as you wring blood. And this is all the Meane you keep.

Lastly, So the By be not put for the Maine: that is (say you) so we place not the principall part of our Piety in them. And doe not you so? For you put your Altar, and all the solemn Service, and Ce∣remonies of Devotions and Adorations attending upon it, even all your humane Inuentions and Will worship, for the very Maine of all your Religion. Do you not? I know you willingly confesse it. And what's the By, but Gods-word, and the sincere Preaching thereof, which you put By, and by seting up your Altar-service, do thrust out of the Church by the head and shoulders, as is noted before? And I say, The Maine, the All and some of all your Religion, is your Altar: On this your Goddesse, all your o∣ther Devotions and Ceremonies, as so many Hand-mayds give their devout attendance. Your face prayeth towards your Altar: your body boweth towards your Altar: your second solemn service (as the secundae Mensae) for your daintier Cates, must be served up upon your Altar, which the maine Body of the Church must not tast of: your Third service (which is instead of the Preachers

concluding prayer & blessing after his halfe-houres Sermon) must be served by your Priest at your Altar, when with his blessing he dismisses the people with an Ite, Missa est; And all the while of your solemn Second and Third service your Serving men in their Liveries, or Rich Copes, stand and give their Attendance about your Altar: your Crucifixes and Images, like the Cherubims, have their aspect and respect upon your Altar: All must come and offer at your Altar, while for joy your Organs merrily play. Thus as the Romish Altar-service (as Bellarmine tells us) is the maine substance of all their Religion: just so is yours. That's the Maine But What's the By then? Namely all the Intralls or Inwards of externall Devotion and worship, these are the appurti∣nances, these are the By. What are those Inwards? The Inwards of True Externall worship, are Faith, Feare of God, Love of God, Zeale of Gods Glory, sincerity of heart in spirit and Truth. Now these with you are altogether the By; for these you have layd quite By, as before.

L. p. 280. F. (Fisher reports) After this, we all rising, the Lady asked the Bishop whether she might be saved in the Romain Faith? He answered she might. L. What? Not one Answere perfectly related? My Answere to this was Generall, for the ignorant, that could not discerne the errours of that Church, so they held the foundation, and conformed themselves to a Religious life. Pag. 285. We have not so learned Christ, as to deny salvation to some ignorant silly soules, whose humble peaceable obedience makes them safe among any part of men, that professe the foundation Christ. And pag. 288. some Protestants there be, which doe as stiffly and as churlishly deny (All Papists) salvation, as they doe us. And 283. In this * 1.538 Our Charity is not mistaken: and if it be mistaken Charity is better, then none at all.

P. From all these words together, we observe this one Maine, That silly ignorant Papists, living and dying in the Romish Faith, may be saved; with these conditions: 1. If they discerne not the errour of that Church: 2. So they profes the foundation Christ: 3. So they conforme to a Religious life, in an humble and peaceable obedience. The second Maine I observe is, That we ought not to deny to such in that case salvation And that upon these Reasons, 1. Because we have not so learned Christ. 2. Because it is stiffnesse and Chur∣lishnesse in Protestants, to deny all Papists salvation. 3. That in granting them salvation, it is true Charity not mistaken. 4. That if Charity herein be mistaken, 'tis better then none at all. Of all these brefly.

First then I Answere: That the Roman Faith being Infidelity it selfe, 'tis impossible, that any living and dying in that faith, can be saved. And we have before proved it to be flat Infidelity, and Apostacy. Nor will it excuse any Ignorant, that he discer∣neth not this Infidelity, and Apostacy. For ignorance, though it excuse à Tanto (as the Schoolmen speake) from the muchness•• of sinne, yet not à Toto, from the Maine of sinne. A man that is blind, and knows not the danger of the way he walkes in, doth as well fall into the pit, as he that seeing, runs headlong into it? The Heathen knew not, that they lived and dyed in Idolatry and Infidelity: yet they were damned for all their ignorance. Se∣condly, for their Professing the foundation Christ: Is Profession sufficient? Many (sayth the Apostle) * 1.539 professe Christ, that in works doe deny him, being abominable, disobedient, and unto ••very worke Reprobate. Is it enough then to professe all that is in the Creed (did ignorant silly Papists know what their Latin-Creed mea∣neth) and yet want faith? Againe, they professe, as they are taught. How is that? They are taught this one Maine Prin∣ciple, That they must be saved not by Faith onely, but by their good Works, whereby they must merit their Salvation. Now this all Pa∣pists, learned and unlerned, professe. This (unlesse they cease to be Papist) they live and dye in; and so they are necessarily and certainly damned. For to adde any thing to Faith in Iustification, is damnation; as before it shewed. And saith the Prophet, ‡ 1.540 They that observe lying vanities, forsake their own mercy. But, Thirdly, you say, They may be saved, so they conforme to a Religious life. Now what is the Religious life of a Papist, and especially of a silly ignorant Papist? Namely, to goe to Shrief, or Confession to the Priest, his Ghostly Father, as often as may be (as the Fernall Glory, published by your Chapleins licence, teacheth) or at the least once a yeare against Easter: to keep his Lent-fast strictly, so as upon paine of damnation, or greivous penance, not to eat an egge all that time, and so observe all othor Fasting-dayes in the yeare, together with all Holydayes: to say over their Beads every day in repeating their Pater Noster, Ave Mary, Creed, and ten Commandements, ••f either they be so learned, or devout: to goe to their dayly Masse and Mattens, where it is their safety to understand never a word, nor to say Amen to the Priest, but by the sound of his voyce: which they understand no more, then the chattering of a Magpy: to call upon such a Saint, his speciall Mediator, and say a Pater Noster, and Ave Mary before such an Image, and especially of their Lady: and a thousand such like observations, wherein a Popish Religious life consisteth. And

so this is the Religious life of your ignorant silly Papist, wherin living and dying, he may be saved, if he may beleeve your Doctrine. But to this you adde, An humble and peaceable obedience. To What? Or to whom? As to the Priests Ghostly Discipline, when he injoynes sore penance, as whipping-cheare in Lent, or the like. Or if you meane peaceable obedience to the Civil Magi∣strate, as in England: that must be according to their Ghostly Fathers direction and limitation: they must not take the Oath of Supremacy, nor in some cases, the Oath of Allegiance, when it makes for the Catholick Cause. And though to satisfie the Law, and save his purse, he come once a moneth to Church, and heare your service: yet Sermon he must not heare, especially if the Preacher be Puritannicall, for that might turn him quite from his Popery. And thus such, partly by their peaceable civill life, and partly by their humble Popish Religious life, so living and dying may be saved.

And therfore to such silly Ignorants, we must not deny salva∣tion. Why so? For first, We have not so learned Christ, say you. Wee? What wee? Wee, to wit, you, and your present Church of England. And surely you had not need to deny salvation to that Church, with which you and your Church is one and the same Church, least otherwise you might leave your selves as little hope of salvation, as others doe them. But this is a piece of your learning of Christ, it seems, to beleeve, that a silly ignorant Pa∣pist, that knows not the right hand from the left, that is drowned in Ignorance, blindnesse, superstition, Idolatry, Infidelity, and as a drow∣ned man knows it not, may securely wrappe himselfe in the shrowd or mantle of his silly ignorance, and so goe to heaven. Thus have you learned Christ. But Wee, Wee (I say) that re∣nounce all communion with the Whore of Babylon, and with all her Abominations, * 1.541 have not so learned Christ (as having heard him, and been taught by him, as the truth is in Iesus) as to beleeve there is salvation to be hoped for of any, but such as walke according to Christs rule, and live and dye in his Faith. And what's Christs rule? Even that which follows in the same place, vers. 22, To put off, and renounce the former conversation of the Old Man, which is cor∣rupt according to the deceitfull lusts, wa••king (v. 18.) in the vanity of our minds, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through ignorance (as the Gentiles) because of the blindnesse of their heart, who being past feeling, have given themselves to all ••••s••viousnesse, to worke all uncleannes with greedinesse: Wher∣upon the Apostle addes: But have not so learned Christ, so, as to

thinke to be saved in a Heathenish life drowned in ignorance: (from which you cannot distinguish the life of an ignorant Papist, except that it is infinitely more stupid and fuller of grosse ig∣norance, and all abominations, then the Heathen were; and saving that Papists professe the name of Christians) We have not (I say) so learned Christ. What is then the learning of Christ? To put off the Old Man, and that ye be (saith the Apostle) renewed in the spirit of your mind, putting on the New man▪ which after God is crea∣ted in Righteousnesse, and true Holinesse. This is the learning of Christ. So as without this learning, neither any silly ignorant Pa∣pist, nor the most pregnant, acute, learned Arch-Prelate can be saved. We must have both the Righteousnesse of justification by Faith imputed, and of Sanctification of the spirit of Christ inherent, and shining forth in a holy life and conversation. It is not a Pope-holynesse in keeping of a Lent, fast, or worshiping of an Altar, and such like counterfeit holines of mans devising. This you learne not of Christ. For Christ saith, * 1.542 In vaine they worship me, teaching for Doctrines the Commadements of men, or humane Tra∣ditions. This holinesse saves not, but shuts men out of the King∣dome of Heaven.

But secondly, You call it stifnesse,* 1.543 and churlishnesse in Prote∣stants to deny all Papists salvation. We shall by and by see your Charity to Papists, which is so extreame great, as we need not wonder at your malice against those some Protestants you speake it. Is it stifnesse to avouch the truth? And if they do bebaiousthai (as the ‡ 1.544 Apostle exhorteth Titus) constantly affirme, what not onely is truth, but also necessary to be spoken, as being a matter of such moment and consequence, as concernes the savation of soules, by denying salvation, to whom it belongeth not, and when men are seduced in a false perswasion therof: call you this chur∣lishnesse? Certainly this churlishnesse in so denying, is better then your charity in affirming a falshood. Nay what will you say, if this, which you call churlishnesse, be found to be true Charity? when your Charity will be found to be deadly hatred against the soule of that silly ignorant Papist? For true Charity ever consists with verity: els it is no Charity, but vanity. Now those Protestants, which deny salvation to all Papists living and dying in the Roman faith, doe it upon sound and solid grounds, even upon cleare evidence of Scripture. For the Roman Faith is not the true Christian Faith; as we have proved. And with∣out the true Christian Faith, no salvation. And that one Do∣ctrine of Justification by works (were there no more) which all

Papists professe and hold, is alone sufficient to shut out all Pa∣pists, living and dying therein, from salvation. This being so cleare, should Protestants grant notwithstanding a possibility of salvation to any Papist, living and dying in that Romish faith, they should utter a manifest untruth and falshood, and so should bewray themselves to be notoriously uncharitable. How? First to Protestant Professors: 2. to Papists. To Protestant Professors, causing the weake at least to waver in their faith, and make them the apter to be seduced by Romish Priests and Jesuites, who prevaile not a little with vulgar Protestants, and that by this very Argument which you hold, That Protestants (yea the Primate of Canterbury) grant a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church. Whereas we (say the Jesuites) deny salvation to be had in the Protestant Church. Although I hope they will not extend this to the Church of England, which you say is one and the same Church with that, of which Rome is. Againe secondly, Protestants in not affirming this truth, Then it is impossible for any Papist, living and dying in the Roman faith, to be saved, should be very uncharitable to the Papists themselves. For seeing them running on in a way, which is full of false ground, and deep pits, covered over with green leaves, and the end whereof is certaine and unavoydable destruction: should they not cry out unto them, to abandon that way, and by all meanes and speed to get them out of it, they were very uncharitable. And the Scrip∣ture calls this hatred of our Brother. As Levit. 19.17. Thou shalt not hate thy broth••r in thy heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke him, and not suffer sin upon him. And for ignorant Papists, we are not to cast off all hope of them, but erranti comiter monstrare viam, shew those wanderers the right way, instructing them with meeknesse, proving * 1.545 if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledgement of the truth, And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the Devil, being taken captive of him at his will.

Ob. But for Protestants to have no better an opinion of Pa∣pists, and of their Religion, would (as you tell us before) make the rent wider, which you are loth to doe. The rent is too wide, so to be sowed up with the rotten thread of your Charity. Nay such your Charity keeps Papists the further off from the true Protestant Religion, when they may be provided of salvation nea∣rer home, and that so easily too. But however, the truth must be spoken,* 1.546 as you ••old us before. As Augustine saith in the point of Predestination, at the Preaching whereof some in his dayes (as

too many in ours) taking offence, he answereth, Numideo ta∣cenda est veritas, &c. Is the Truth therfore to be concealed, because some unjustly are offended with it to their damnation: and not rather to be spoken, that he which is able to receive it, may receive it to his salvation? And here the Papists take offence at Protestants, for speaking the truth, it is not scandalum datum, but acceptum, not an offence given, but taken. And though some take offence, yet others weighing by reason, may thereby through Gods grace forsake their errour, and imbrace the truth. If they will not, we have freed our own soules, and Truth is Truth still. We must keep our distance, and not (because they will not come to us) goe the halfe way at least to draw them to us; as before. As the Lord saith to his Prophet concerning revolted Israel, * 1.547 Let them return unto thee, but return not thou unto them. And if thou take forth the Precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth. We must not mingle and confound the precious and pure gold with the base drosse, not truth with errour, not light with darknesse.

Yet for your part, you say Thirdly, Not to deny Papists salva∣tion, living and dying Papists, to wit, in the Roman Faith, is not mista∣ken Charity; and if it be, mistaken Charity is better then none at all. But first, we have shewed, that this is no Charity at all, but an erronious opinion, arising from a spirit destitute of the Truth, and too much in love with the Romish whore. And Secondly, such mistaken Charity is worse then no Charity at all in this kind. It were better, if ye had no such Charity. For your Chari∣ty towards your silly ignorant Papists, in perswading them, that they are safe enough in any society of men, and there is salvation for them living and dying in the Roman Faith, is a nuzzling of them in their ignorance; and (like the Apes Charity to her young one) a strangling of them with too much hugging, and bewrayes you to be of the spirit of those false Prophets, that ‡ 1.548 strengthen the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life▪ that ‡ 1.549 dawbe with untempered morter, that § 1.550 call evil good, and good evil: that put darknesse for light, and light for darknesse (and wo to such) that say, † 1.551 peace, peace, when there is no Peace.

Ob. But you will say, shall we shut out silly ignorant Papists from Gods mercy. Nay you your selfe shut them out from Gods mercy, while you shut them up in their blindnesse, and so from the meanes of Gods mercy. For meanes of mercy they have none in their Popish Religion, and blind faith, and therein you lull them fast asleep, while you tell them, so long as they are igno∣rant

of the Errours of Popery, they are safe among any part of men▪ Thus you shut them out from Gods mercy (as much as in you is) when we by shewing them the truth, and their errour, would lead them to Gods mercy. Nor doe we deny, but God may in the riches of his Grace and mercy prevent and overtake a silly Papist, in causing him to imbrace Christ by Faith, even when he lyes on his death bed, and truly beleeving in Christ, and so dying, he is undoubtedly saved. But dying thus a true Beleever, he dyes not in the Roman faith, but in the saving faith of Christ, which the Roman faith is not. So as thus dying within the Verge of the Roman Church, yet he dyes no member of the Roman Church, but of the true misticall body of Christ. And this Charity we have towards silly Papists, praying that God would shew them mercy, in delivering them from under Antichrists yoake, to take Christs yoake upon them, and bring them out of darknesse in∣to his marvellous light. To proceed.

L. p. 294, 295. Io. Frith saith, Of the presense of Christs na∣turall body in the Sacrament,* 1.552 that neither side ought to make it an Article of Faith, but leave it indifferent. And B. Ridley, we confesse all one thing to be in the Sacrament▪ onely we differ in modo, in th•• manner of Beeing.

P, And of this of Ridley you say (ibid.) 'Tis well if some Pro∣testants except not against it. For this difference de Modo, of the manner of the Presence of Christs naturall Body in the Sacrament, we have spoken before at large. And was this Difference, trow you so small that cost both Ridley, and Cranmer, and Frith their lives? For you cite them all 3 in one Page, calling them the learned of those zealous in Queen Maries dayes. Martyrs you do not call them: beware of that. So as times kàrin for honour sake you mention them not. So you cite Calvin a little before, whom in the High Commission you honoured with the Title of Rascall. And these Martyrs are they, whom one of your Divines of note and worth (Dr. Heylin) in a Booke licensed by your Chaplein stiles with the Honourable Title of Schismati∣call Hereticks. But to let this passe for currant with you: The summe of your whole passage touching this point, from pag. 292. to 296. is to perswade us to acknowledge a reall presence of Christs naturall body in the Sacrament, onely differing from the Papists quoad moaum, as touching the manner of presence. Now I confesse this is a very pretty and ready way to lead to your Reconciliation. But let me tell you, even words, and names, and verball expressions are of no small force many times, to

lead men into great errours, although at first they meant no harme, that used them. For instance. The Primitive Fathers, when they began to call the Lords Table an Altar: they little dreamed what an Altar it would prove afterwards, as wheron to offer up in sacrifice Christs naturall body▪ So when they called Ministers Priests, they imagined not, that those Priests would prove afterwards such sacrificing Priests, as now are in the Church of Rome. And when they called the Lords supper a sa∣crifice, which they meant to be Eucharisticall, of thanksgiving, they never suspected, that this would become afterwards a corporall sacrifice of Christs very body and b••ood. And yet these very Names so taken up, gave occasion afterwards of setting up the greatest Idol that ever was in the world, as we see at this day. So dangerous is it to expresse Divine matters by any other Name, then what the Scripture hath given them. Seeing then that in Scripture we find no such words as Reall Presence of Christs naturall body in the Sacrament: it is not safe for Christi∣ans to take them up. And so much the more, because we see by experience the mischiefes, that this reall presence (so called and so understood, as the Papists doe) hath done in the Church of God. How many Martyrs hath it made? How much inno∣cent blood hath it spilt? So as it hath gotten (and that deser∣vedly) a very bad Name. And it is the Name, or Word, wher∣by the Romanists expresse their Great Idol in the Masse. And David saith, * 1.553 Their Drinke offerings of Blood will I not offer, nor take up their Names into my lips. So as Christians ought not to use the Names of Idols, invented by man, to expresse Divine things of Scripture by. Yea K. Hezechiah, when the Brazen Ser∣pent (which God himselfe had ‡ 1.554 commanded to be made for the present occasion in the Wildernesse; though he comman∣ded it not to be kept for a Monument) began to be abused un∣to ‡ 1.555 Idolatry, he brake it to pieces. And so in this case, though these words The Reall Presence, may beare a good sense: yet be∣ing, and that of long time abused to the setting up and uphold∣ing of most grosse Idolatry: we are to stamp it to powder, and never use it more. And we have as little reason to be perswa∣ded hereto by your Lordship as by any. For as this word, Re∣all presence, is very suspicious, in it selfe, and much more in regard of the Papists abusing of it: so it wants not suspicion, that you so commend it unto us. First, in regard of the whole matter of your Book, which generally complyes with Popery: Secondly, in regard of the main scope of your Booke, which is

to bring on a Reconciliation with Rome. And Thirdly, and more especially, in regard of some speeches, which have now and then dropped from you in publick Court, where speaking of Altars-placing, you said, you would have none to sit above God-Allmighty; which must needs imply (as before is noted) that either your Altar is your God Allmighty; or els God Allmighty hath a locall presence and residence there upon your Altar. And so Fourthly, your eager zeale, in promoting of Altars, makes us much to suspect your Reall Presence, as fearing all will not be well, when once we have taken up, and let down this Reall presence of God Allmighty into our bellies. And so also, Fiftly, your Priests (by that Name) doe increase the suspition. And Sixtly, because you tell us before of a Transubstantiation, taken properly, and improperly. And Seventhly, Because you tell us by and by, that Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Forbearance of the Cup, are but Disputed and Improbable Opinions. Lastly, it is used to Idolatry: and so to be broken in pieces, as the Brazen Serpent was. And therfore for all these Reasons, we desire not to be troubled with your Reall presence, but leave it to the Pa∣pists, or to you, to restore it where you had it, or if you like it so well to use it, let it be to your selfe, or Chappell at Lam∣beth, trouble not the Church of England with it any more, which desireth not more matter for a new Booke of Mar∣tyrs.

Now to come to the Martyrs. First for Ioh. Friths words, Not to make it an Article of Faith, but leave it Indifferent. First, However the words sound, we must weigh them by the sense. And the best Commentary of his words, is his death, which he suffered even therfore, because he made it an Article of his faith to beleeve, that Christ was not Really Present in the Sacrament, as the Papists do hold; and therfore on the contrary, he held it as an Article of his faith, That Christ was onely vertually and spiri∣tually present to the Faith of the Receiver, according to the true meaning of those Sacramentall words, This is my body; as a little before we shewed.

Secondly, to take Friths words in your sense, doth over∣throw a Christians faith, as touching the Sacrament, wherein the beleever receives and applyes by faith the merits of Christs death to the comforting, nourishing, and strengthning of his soule. And a man is bound to beleeve aright concerning the Sa∣crament, and to put a maine difference between truth and erro•••• therein. And is it not an Article of Faith to beleeve Christs body

not to be corporally present in the Sacrament, seeing he saith, * 1.556 Me have you not alwayes. ‡ 1.557 It is expedient for you that I goe away: ‡ 1.558 who sits at Gods right hand: § 1.559 whom the heavens must receive, till his coming againe? And lastly, admit his words may be stret∣ched to the full bredth of your sense (which is erronious) wee must measure all mens words by the Rule of Scripture in divin, matters. If they dissent, or come short, or goe over, or besides consider men are men. But I say, we cannot conceive that those words of Iohn Frith could have any other sense, then that which was sound and good, considering (as I said before) he dyed for that very difference in Faith touching Christs presence in the Sacrament▪

Now for Dr Ridley, saying we differed in Modo, in the man∣ner: 'Tis true. And the manner is the whole matter of difference. Papists say, Christs naturall Body is present: we that the merit and vertue of his Body broken upon the Crosse, and the merit and vertue of his Blood, shed upon the Crosse, is present to the beleeving soule in the Sacrament. I may expresse it by this similitude, of the Sun, and the beames. The body of the Sun is in heaven, in its spheare locally, and circumscriptively, but the Beames are on the earth. And when the Sun beames shine into our house, we say, here's the Sun, though it be the beames, not the body of the Sun. And so the Scripture saith of the Sacrament, This is my Body, because with the bread the faithfull Communicant receives the beames of Christs Body crucified into his soule, his merits, but not the Body it selfe. But the Papists say as much, as, The very body of the Sun is in their house, when it shineth. But enough of this here, having spoken sufficiently of it before. Yet for a con∣clusion: If your Lordship hold it to be a matter so indifferent, about the manner of Christs naturall-bodyes presence in the Sacrament, which you put upon the Martyrs, if you were put to it as they were; would you be of their mind, and resolution, rather to loose Canterbury, life and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, then beleeve as the Church of Rome beleeves of the reall presence. But I leave you to the Re∣solution.

L. p. 297. Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Forbearance of the Cup in the Sacrament, are disputed and improbable Opinions: yet so impo∣sed▪ as this may be enough for us to leave Rome, though the Old Prophet forsooke not Israel. 3 Reg. 13. (And a little after) And therfore in this present case, ther's perill, and great perill of damnable both Schisme and Heresie, and other sin, by living and dying in the Roman faith▪ tain∣ted with so many superstitions, as at this day it is, and their Tyranny to boot.

P. I told you, I feared some such thing, when you com∣mended last unto us the indifferencie of admitting of Termes of Reall Presence. For now I perceive your Reall presence even in Transubstantiation it selfe, is but an improbable and disputed opini∣on, as also Purgatory, and the Forbearance of the Cup. And by Dis∣puted, I suppose you meane Disputable, such as either hath been disputed, or may be disputed againe▪ so as these things are matters of dispute, and improbable. And somtimes a thing that is improba∣ble, may prove true. For Improbabile is not alwayes falsum. It may seem improbable to us, and yet be true in it selfe. But for Transubstantiation: is that which is clearly against Faith, against Reason, against the nature of Christs Body naturall, against the na∣ture of the Sacrament, but an improbable opinion? And for Purga∣tory: Is that which is against Faith, and overthrows the infinit vertue, merit, and efficacie of the blood of Christ, but an improbable opinion? And is that, which you confesse to be against the expresse in∣stitution of our Saviour Christ (as the taking away of the Cup in the Sacrament) but an improbable opinion? And doe you so favourably call that, but a Forbearance, which is a most notorious and shamelesse Sacriledge?

And then secondly, All this (say you) may be enough for us to leave Rome. May be: Much may be: but Is not, I hope. And so long, well enough. And though Actu it be, yet not affectu. But you might have said, All this, and much more besides, if not onely disputable and improbable things, but abominable and damnable. But this is enough, were there no more. Yet (say you) the old Prophet forsook not Israel. What then? Ergo the Pro∣testants, though they might have had cause enough to leave Rome, yet should have done rather as the old Prophet did, not to have made a separation from Rome. Ergo they were not so kind, as the old Prophet. But the old Prophet might continue in Israel upon better terms, then the Protestants could have done in Rome. For Israel had no Inquisition, as Rome hath. And you confesse that men might live in Israel, and injoy the liberty of their Conscience, seeing there was no Law made to restrain them from going to the one Altar at Ierusalem, or to constrain them to sacrifice in the high places. And yet that's more, then I beleeve can well be proved. For those 7000. that had not bowed to Baal did hide themselves, as not daring to professe and avow their Religion and Faith towards God, as before. So as it seems there was no open to∣leration in Israel for any to goe up to Ierusalem. And it can hardly be thought, that Ieroboam being a great Politician,

should give toleration to his subjects to goe up to Ierusalem to worship, least they should fall back to Iuda againe, for preven∣tion whereof the two Calves were set up, to keep the people at home. The like policie used the High Priests, Scribes and Pharisees to suppresse those that should confesse Christ, in ma∣king a Decree to * 1.560 excommunicate them, and so in puting Christ to death, least his Kingdome should put down theirs. And I hope your Hierarchy wants not the like policie, for the rooting out of Puritans, the true Professors and People of Christs Kingdome, be∣ing Christs Kingdome and yours cannot consist together.

But you conclude, somwhat dangerously, when you say, Therfore in the present case ther's perill, great perill of damnable both Schisme, and Heresie, and other sins, by living and dying in the Roman faith, tainted with so many superstitions, as at this day it is, and their Tyranny to boot. This conclusion you apply, not to the silly ig∣norant Papists (for you leave them secure, and out of danger, as afore) but to the knowing men of Rome, having shewed them, that though the silly ignorants may perhaps through the thick fogge and Aegyptian Myst of their palpable ignorance steale, or stumble into heaven: yet for the learned, as A.C. and his fel∣lowes, 'tis danger, yea great danger to live and dye (and that knowingly) in the Roman faith. But me thinks neither here do you buckle your selfe to such a serious businesse as this is, so as to pull these wilfull men out of their puddle, wherein they wittingly stick so fast. You doe not with the spirit of zeale, which Iude requires in good Ministers, saying, ‡ 1.561 some save with feare, a••prázontes, snatching or plucking them out of the fire, hating even the garment spotted with the flesh. Nor doe you with Peters zeale tell these men, ‡ 1.562 save your selves from this crooked and wicked Generation; such as the Scribes and Pharisees, and High-Priests were. But you onely tell them, Ther's danger, great danger. Of what? Of no lesse then Heresie and Schisme, and other sinne too, living and dying in the Roman faith. Nay if there be but perill, though great perill, these pregnant Wits have wayes and wiles enough to avoyd all such perills; and that by the cleane strength of their Art of equivocation, wherein they are become the most expert Masters in the world. Except they have forgotten it, it is so long agoe since our Judges were wont to put them shrewdly to it, as to confesse whether they were Priests or no; which confession then was as good, as to be hangd. And you say elsewhere, § 1.563 such can make a short cut to heaven, when they lye a dying, saying, They renounce all their own merits (whither their

many bad, or their few Good merits, is not known) and rely onely upon Christs merits for salvation. As your good Brother Stephen Gardiner did at his death (as before But when they dye in so good a mood, though they may seem (as Gardiner seemed) to dye in the faith, yet in charity they do not, while they leave not the same gappe open for the people, by which themselves get through, concealing Iustification by Faith from the silly vulgar. In which desperate case had not your Lordships charity put in to helpe at a dead lift, to teach them a blind way to heaven, which scarce any Jesuites, before you, ever knew: What had become of them? But (alas!) As you delude those silly igno∣rants, by telling them such a way leads to heaven, which will carry them straight to hell: so on the other side you doe but dally with A. C. and his fellows, in telling them they are in perill onely, when they are in the very precipice of perdition. But if you intended to be their Ghostly Father indeed, you should have told them plainly, Their Religion is Idolatry, Heresie, Schisme, Apostacie, Antichristianisme, Infidelity, and all manner of In••quity, and Impiety, so as to live and dye therein is inevitable damnation to all Papists whatsoever, but double damnation to those that know it. For as Christ saith, * 1.564 That servant, which knew his Lords will, and prepared not himselfe, neither did according to his will shalbe beaten with many stripes: But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shalbe beaten with few stripes But what should a man speake to ‡ 1.565 the deafe Adder▪ that stoppes her eare, and will not hearken to the voyce of Charmers, charming never so wisely? I will follow my Lords Councel, ‡ 1.566 Let them alone, They be blind leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind they shall both fall into the pit. And as he saith to the Pharisees, § 1.567 Fill ye up the measure of your Fathers. But how come you to say, Ther's danger of Schisme, living and dying in the Roman faith. What? Can a man be a Schismaticke▪ being a Romanist? Then is not the Church of Rome her selfe a Schismatick? And so the Church of England all one Church. And so your Catholicke Church, of which you and Rome are, all Schismaticks? Look to it.

But I may not leap over that, which you have stumbled upon, namely, Romes Tyranny to boot. And it were well, if such Tyranny were confined to Rome; saving that all Tyranny is such, as it will not be confined to any place, within any bounds. You say, that the Church of England, and that of Rome, are one and the same Church. Certainly then, this One Church (what ever you pretend of the Catholick Church) is of such a constitution, as

whose very foundation is Tyranny, because Hierarchicall. As Pope Hadoian ▪4. an English man, lying extreme sick, said, That there was no life more wicked, then the Popes, whose Popedome was founded in blood, and is maintained with blood, wherein he is Romulus his successor, who in laying the first foundation of Rome, slew his brother Remus. And wherein doth the Tyranny of your Popedome in the Church of England come short of the Popes, saving that he hath a more powerfull Principality, then you have. Have not you in your hand, like that Roman Iupiter, (the Pope) your thunderbol•• of Excommunication, to blast and cast out of the Church whom you please, or those who do not please you? Do not the Cen∣sures of your High Commission (like the Popes Court of Inquisit••••n) extend to the spoyling of good Ministers and Christians of all liberty and livelyhood? You will say, You use no * 1.568 fagots, as Rome doth. 'Tis true: 'tis not yet come to that. But whe••'s the default? You onely want a Law. But in the mean time, you want not your devises, armed both with your own power, and borrowed of others, to afflict men worse, then with death, as before is shewed in the forenamed examples. And therfore from all such Tyranny both English, and Romish, the Lord de∣liver us.

L. p. 299. I do indeed for my part (leaving other men free to their own judgement) acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church. But so, as that which I grant to Romanists, is not as they are Romanists, but as they are Christians, that is, as they beleeve the Creed, and hold the Foundation Christ himselfe, not as they associate them∣selves wittingly and knowingly to the grosse superstitions of the Romish Church.

P. Now you speake a little more plaine, then before. But how do you leave other men free to their own judgement, when for not being of your judgement in this point, you cens••re them of stiffenesse, and churlishnesse, and want of Charity. And yet you your selfe say, that there is no possibility of Salvation for Romanists as they are Romanists. So as your judgement is, That Romanists, as, they are Romanists, have no possibility of Salvation. Ergo no Papist, as a Papist, living and dying in the faith and Religion of Popery, can possibly be saved. And just so say those Protestants whom you Censure for stiffe, churlish, and uncharitable. Onely you qualifie it with this Condition, If they wittingly and knowingly associate themselves to the grosse Superstition, of the Romish Church, so as still you save harmlesse your silly ignorant Papists, that know nothing at all, whether they doe and beleeve right, or wrong. And you

distinguish, That, as Romanists, they cannot be saved, but as Christi∣ans, beleeving the Creed, and holding the foundation Christ. But we told you before, that your silly ignorant Papists do not so much as understand or know the very letter of the Creed, how much lesse beleeve it? If they can mumble over their Creed as many a blind Priest doth his M••sse, 'tis in a strange tongue, and they say it for one of their blind and superstitious Prayers, as they doe their Ave Marie. So, that way, what hope, or possibility can they have of salv••tion? And for holding the foundation Christ: to that we have before sufficiently proved the Contrary. But say you they are Christians. So you say, they are Romanists too. As one telling the Emperour Sigismund of Iulianus the Cardi∣nal, speaking somthing in his Commendation: he answered, Tamen Romanus est: yet he is a Romanist. And this Romanist is like the Colloquintida in the * 1.569 pot of pottage, of which the young Prophets said to Elizeus, Ther's death in the pot. Or like the ‡ 1.570 flye in the Apothecaries box of oyntment, it marres and corrupts the whole oyntment. And a man may say of your Roman Chri∣stians, or Christian Romanist (which you will) as one said of a wicked Prelate, who was also a Temporall Prince (as you be) when he gloryed of his greatnesse, as being both a Prelate, and a Prince, or Earle: What shalbecome of the Bishop, when the Earle is in hell? So what shal become of your Romanist, as a Christian, when your Christian as a Romanist, is in hell?

L. p. ibid I am willing to hope, there are many among them, which k••ep within the Church, and yet wish the Superstitions aboli∣shed, which they know, and which pray to God to forgive their errours in what they know not, and which hold the foundation firme, and live accordingly, and would have all things amended, that are amisse, were it in their power. And to such I dare not deny a possibility of Salvation, for that which is Christs in them, though they hazzard themselves ex∣tremely, by keeping so closse to that, which is Superstition, and in the case of Images comes too neare to Idolatry.

P. Your Hope and Charity may be much, but in this can doe but little. But 'tis possible, that some may keep within the Con∣fines of that Church-Dominions, and more powerfull Princi∣pality, and yet not be of that Church: as those seven thousand in Israel forementioned. Of such (if any such there be) we may well hope of their salvation: although they cannot live in those places, where Popery beares sway, but with much danger to their bodies and estates, and some to their soules too. As I per∣swade my selfe, for all your diligent Inquisition and hunting with

your Hounds, Beagles, and Prosecutions, or (if you will per∣secutions in your High Commission, and other spirituall Co••ts, there are many poore honest soules in England, that truly feare God, and abhorre your superstitions, and oppressions, but in regard of their bodies and estates cannot be but in dayly danger of fal∣ling into your Lyons denne, if but once detected. But for o∣thers, who are sensible of your Tyrannicall yoake, and groane under the burthens of your superstitions and Ceremonies, yet have not the heart, and courage of the spirit of Christ to with-draw their necks, but indure all your bondage, so they may injoy the fleshpots of Aegipt: however they may wish to be free, yet you know the Proverbe, Wishers and Woulders. And so of those in the Church of Rome: some Errours some may see, and be sensible of them, and wish them removed: but in the mean time, will they, nill they, they must undergoe them, and that even against their Conscience; so as me thinks, this should somwhat abate and snibbe your willingnesse to hope of any possibility of salvation for such, as against their Conscience, and for worldly respects, live in known errour. Nor can he possibly avoyd it, so long as he lives in and of that Church. For as Solomon saith, * 1.571 Can a man take fire in his bosome, and not be burnt? Can one goe upon hot coales, and his feet not be burnt? so who so toucheth a whorish woman, shall not be innocent. Now he that lives in and of the Romish Church, lives in the whores bosome, and is a ‡ 1.572 member of the whore. And perhaps many a one feeling how hot the bosome is, wisheth he were out of it; but hath not the Power, being (as Solomon saith) plunged into a deep pit. ‡ 1.573 The mouth of a strange Woman is a deep pit: he that is abhorred of the Lord, shall fall therin. And once in, 'tis hard getting out. Nor all a mans wishing will doe it. But (say you) he prayes to God to forgive him his Errours, that he knows not. What then? Is he the nearer salvation, when he still lives in the errour that he knows, and onely wisheth to be amended? And doth not many a man live in a known sinne as whoredome, or drunken∣nesse, or the like, and being convinced of the foulenesse of it, and the many evils it brings upon him, wishes he could leave it, and prayes God to forgive him, and yet lives in it still? Is he ever the neare to mercy? Nay he is the further off, as being habitua∣ted and hardened in his sin, known sin, wherein he lives unpe∣nitently. Wheras Solomon saith, § 1.574 He that confesseth, and forsaketh his sins, shall have mercy: But he that hideth his sins shall not prosper. And you here bring some Papist in, confessing the errours which he knows not, as praying God to forgive them: but never a word of

his confessing and praying God to forgive those errours which he knows▪ and wherein he lives. So here is a hiding of his known errours. But it were too grosse to bring him in, confessing, and deprecating God for his known errours, wherein he still liveth, and though he wish them amended in the Church of Rome, yet amends them not himselfe, nor doe you tell us, that he doth so much, as wish them amended in himselfe, and therfore you prudently for∣beare the mention of any such thing, as his praying to have his known errours forgiven. For that should put a man into a despe∣rate case, shuting him out of all hope and possibility of salvation, to mock God to his face▪ in praying to have those Errours and sins forgiven him, in which against his Conscience he both liveth, and resolveth no other (though he wisheth) but to dye.

But yet (say you such hold the foundation Christ. How? As they that held him fast, when they crucified him. For such as live in known sin, and errour, they (as the Apostle saith) * cru∣cifie to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. Such holding of Christ, is not to hold him as a foundation, but to overthrow the foundation. For Christ dyed, not to hold to deli∣ver us from the punishment of sin, but from the guilt and domi∣nion of sin, by working in us Faith and Repentance. So as to pro∣fesse Christ, and to want these, yea to live in known sin and er∣rour, onely with a faint wishing of amendment, is not to hold the foundation Christ, but to make him a false foundation, as if he were a Saviour of such, as so live in known sin and errour, as they resolve no other, but to live and dye in it. And we have proved before, that Romes Religion quite overthrows the foundation Christ: so as none, living and dying in the Faith of that Church can be saved, and the more he knows it, and yet lives in it, the greater is his damnation, though he wish never so much to have the errour amended.

But you say, Christ hath a part in them. I answere with the Apostle, ‡ 1.575 The Foundation of God stands sure, and hath this seale, The Lord knoweth them that are his: and▪ let every one, that nameth the name of Christ, depart from iniquity. Loe, here be two things joyned together, which must not be parted: 1. The Lord know∣eth who are his: here's Gods foundation, layd in his Eternall Coun∣sell and Purpose, according to that of the Apostle, O'ùs proégno, Whom he foreknew (not foresaw) he preaestinated to be conformed to the Image of his Son▪ &c. Here's Gods foundation, that stands sure, and hath this seale, The Lord knoweth who are his. Now they that are Christs, do so hold this foundation, as that they are firmly built

upon it; which is properly to hold the Foundation. For if a house stand not upon the foundation, how can it be said to hold the foundation? Now how come we to know, whether a man doe thus truly hold the foundation Christ or no? Why, if he be built upon this Foundation. And what is it to be built upon this Founda∣tion? The Apostle tells us (which is the second part of this seale, that settles us upon this Foundation) And, let every one, that nameth the name of Christ, depart from iniquity. Now to name the Name of Christ, is not to professe Christ, as nominall Christians, as Papists doe. To apply this then to your hopefull Papist, or Christian Romanist: He names the name of Christ, he professeth Christ. Thus say you) he holds the Foundation Christ. No say I: No, saith the Apostle. For being a Roman-Christian, he professeth, he practiseth, he liveth in the Religion and faith of Rome, to wit, Popery; and this Pop••ry is iniquity, yea the very Mystery of Iniquity, and the Religion of the Whore of Babylon, whose golden Cup of Christian Profession * 1.576 is full of abominations, and spirituall fornica∣tions. This being iniquity, he that holds the foundation Christ, must depart from it: Or els, for all his naming the Name of Christ, he holds not the foundation of God; nor doth God know or acknowledge that man to be one of his, he is not ‡ 1.577 sealed. And therfore your hope of such, that are thus purblind, seeing their errour, but not departing from it, is as vaine, as your charity to∣wards those, that are stone-blind. And you adde: Hold the Foundation, and live accordingly. That is, have the bare name of a Christian, and live and dye a Papist; which to doe, you must needs confesse, cannot stand with the possibility of Salvation. And then what becomes of your hope? For how can holding the foundation, and living accordingly stand with the profession and practise, Faith and Religion of Popery? And know ye not, ‡ 1.578 That not every one that saith, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdome of heaven, but he (saith Christ) that Doth the will of my Father, which is in heaven. And what is that will? That every one that nameth the Name of Christ, depart from Iniquity. What Iniquity? All Ini∣quity. But what is iniquity? All iniquity is either morall, or spiri∣tuall. Morall iniquity is all that, which is a breach of any of the Commandements of the second Table, as murther, Adultery, theft, falsewitnesse, covetousnesse, lust, dis••bedience to Parents, and lawfull Governours in lawfull things, and the like. Spirituall ini∣quity, is such▪ as is against the Commandements of the first Table, as Infidelity, hatred of the Truth, Idolatry, as in the worship of Images, will-worship, superstition in Gods worship, taking of Gods

name in vaine, in professing Christ, and obeying Antichrist, profanation of the Lords Sabbath day, &c. Now all such iniquity, both morall, and spirituall, even all such * 1.579 spirituall wickednesses in high places a true Christian must not onely wrestle against, but depart and flee from. Otherwise, though he shall say to Christ in that day, ‡ 1.580 Lord Lord, H••ve we not prophecied in thy Name, and in thy Name have cast out Devils, and in thy Name have done many wonderfull works (as perhaps the Mountebank Friers and Priests will say of their ‡ 1.581 lying wonders, the marks of Antichrist) (Loe here, all in Christs name, no lesse) yet Christ will professe unto them, I never knew you, depart from me, ye workers of iniquity. Thus Christ professeth, he knows not those, that onely professe him. So as, whatever Papists may boast of, or pretend, and professe, that they are Catholicks, that they are Christians, that they hold the Creed, and live a Religious life, as their Ghostly Fathers teach them (as we noted before) yet living and dying Papists, Christ shall certainly say unto them all, aswell the starke blind, as the purblind, and aswell both these as the knowing men of Rome, Depart from me, all ye workers of Iniquity, ye Idolaters, ye In∣fidels, ye Antichristians, ye Hypocrites, ye blind and ignorant: I ne∣ver knew you.

And you adde, They hazzard themselves extremely, by keeping so closse to that, which is superstition, and in the case of Images, comes too neare to Idolatry. Thus I perceive you will not rayse up your voyce one note higher, then to superstition, or at the most, too ••eare Idolatry. Not Idolatry outright, onely bordering closse up∣on it, too neare it God wote, as Purgatory is too neare hell, onely a Wainscot between, and how soon burnt down, and long ere now, with so hot a fire on both sides, so as 'tis to be more then feared, Purgatory and Hell, by this time, are become both one, and so while your too neare Borderers upon Idolatry, your worshipers of Images, might hope to find some cold comfort, when they should be in their hot Purgatory, that by the vertue of a few Masses, they may quickly be dispatched thence, they find now such a confusion and mixture of Hell and Purgatory, that they cannot find the way out. And so neare Idolatry is your case of Images, that it is not possible for the subtilest School∣man to distinguish between them, such is their not onely con∣tiguity, but continuity, the Scripture calling an Image an Idol: cídolon, being in the Grammaticall and common construction an Image, and in the Ecclesiasticall use of the Word, any Image or Representation which men have devised to set up for a Reli∣gious

use, as in or by it to worship God or Saint. And we have shewed before, that if the Heathen in the worship of ther Images were Idolaters: then how much more the Papists, which both in their Doctrine and Practise do farre outstrippe the Heathen. Nor in the case of Images alone, are Papists most grosse and desperate Idolaters, but also in the worship of their breaden God, and in their worship of Angels, and Invocation of Saints, making them so many Gods, as also the Crosse it selfe, which they both invocate, and worship with Latria, which they call divine worship; as before.

L. p. 302. Worth once mislead, is of all other the greatest mis∣leader.

P. And who of more worth in the account of some in the world, then your Lordship. If then this worth be misled (as your Charity and Hope of misled Papists) it becomes of all other the greatest misleader. For this worth is become the greatest misleader both of Papists and Protestants, both of the Church of Rome, and of the Church of England. And that the greatest too. And I am perswaded, the Church of England, since it professed the Gospell, never had such a monstrous and Bayeyard-like bold misleader, as this Great worth of Canterbury hath proved to be, or will certainly proove in effect, if it find as blind Disciples to deale witthall, as it selfe is a Master. Although it is much hoped, that if any Man hath conceived such an high Opinion of your worth, as to account you for the most Profound Divine, the most Pregnant Politician, and the most potent Champion of the Church of England, the very Reading of this your Book, with a corrected judgement, will either convert him from this errour, or at least prevent, that this errour of your Doctorship shall not Commence, or Proceed to the degree of Heresie

L. p. 303. 'Tis safest to beleeue the Article of Christs Descent into hell, as both the Churches of England, and of Rome, do agree upon, that is, That he descended into the place of the damned. And this is the truth.

P. Surely, if this be the truth, that Christ descended locally into hell, the place of the damned, it were safest to beleeve it, whe∣ther you and Rome consent in the beliefe of it▪ or no. But be∣cause you beleeve, as the Church of Rome beleeves, will you thereupon conclude, This is the truth? Certainly we have the more cause to suspect that truth for a falshood, wherein you and Rome doe both agree. But how true your beliefe with Rome is, and how true this Truth, we have before sufficiently discovered.

But will this hold for a good Rule, that in what you and Rome agree it is safest to beleeve it? You agree in Altars, Priests, Sa∣crifice, all manner of wil-worship, Antichristianisme, and many things more forespecified: Ergo is't safest to beleeve these things? Or for whom safest? safest for all those, that affect, to be of your Church Tryumphant here, and would not come under your persecution. But how agrees this with that which you adde (ibid.) that Rome will not indure this, that Christ des∣cended into the place of the damned, but onely in Limbum Patrum, a Region in the upper part of Hell Ergo rather then faile, if Rome will not beleeve as you doe, That Christ discended into the place of the damned, you will beleeve as she beleeves, that he d••scen∣ded in Limbum Patrum. For agree you must: and that's the safest beliefe.

L. p. 307. I my selfe have heard some Iesuites confesse, that in the Liturgie of the Church of England, ther's no positive errour.

P. 'Tis a signe then your Liturgie agrees pretty well with the Romish Messal, as is noted by the way before. For surely such a Testimony from a Jesuites mouth, gives us the more cause of suspicion, that all is not so well in your Liturgie, as it should be. As Diogenes sayd, when the people applauded him: he began to suspect himselfe, that he had committed some absur∣dity, or other, saying, Wherein have I miscarryed my selfe, that this people doth so commend me?

L. p. 318. Though Dr. White, late Bishop of Ely, was more able to answere for himselfe, yet since he is now dead, and is thus drawn into this Discourse, I shall, as well as I can, doe him the right, which his learning and paines for the Church deserved. And I grant as well as he, that there must be some one Church or other, continually vi∣sible.

P. First, for Dr. White, he being now dead (which he was long before) I will say no more, but this: For his deserving pains for the Church (the Church of England you meane, as now it stands, the same Church with that of Rome, and of the same Faith with her; and of which Faith he also declared himselfe to be, when he told a Minister, that the Difference between the Church of Rome and of England in the Doctrines of the sixt Session of Trent, and by name, of Grace and Justification was little or nothing) how great it was, his Works extant can witnesse; as namely his Approbation prefixed to your now Bro∣ther of Chichester; his Appeale to Caesar, wherein is maintained the whole Body of your Arminian Heresie, together in all, or

most of the grossest points of Popery, as worship of Images at least with Doulia, and the like, and assaying to prove the Pope not to be Antichrist, as if he would solem è coelo tollere: also Dr. Whites Book of the Sabbath, to prove no Sabbath to Christians, and the fourth Commandement not to be Morall, for the keeping of one day in the weeke, as the Lords Day: allowing also of vaine sports, and pro∣fane pastimes on that Day: and commending of praying towards the East, where your Altar is placed, and such like stuffe: in all which he so well deserved of your Church of England, as he scarce had his fellow; onely if he were now living againe, he would yeeld the Bucklers to your Lordship as the bravest Champion of the now Chuch of England that hath risen up in this latter Age, or yet succeeding times may hope to produce.

But let us now heare the right, which your Lordship does him, and which his paines for the Church deserved. But first▪ let me tell you, you forget here to give him his Title of Lord Bi∣shop, which you indeed gave him in the very first page of your Booke. But now his Lordship is dead let not Lord and Bishop be separated in any case, no not by death it selfe. For indeed Lord-Bishop is a peculiar Title, differencing you from all true Bishops indeed, as the Scripture commendeth for the onely Bishops, as is shewed before: yet I know not how it is come to passe, that in the best Reformed Churches beyound the Seas, the Pastors are never called Bishops. I suppose it is, because as Kings of old were stiled Tyranni, and that in melior••m partem, untill degenerating into Lawlesse Tyrants indeed, good Kings would thereupon never after be called Tiranni, but Kings: so the Reformed Churches, seeing how the name of Bishop gr••w to be odious, the Office and Calling of it being changed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that of a Parochiall Pastor into a Diocesan Lordship, and so 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ have for this cause layd aside the Name of Bishop, though otherwise the Name is good, as it pertaines to the true 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Presbyters over particular Congregations, as is before sh••w∣ed: so as the Reformed Churches doe herein as the Ancient Ro∣mans did, who when their Kings turned Tyrants, the l••st whe••∣of was Tarquinius surnamed Super••us, for his extreme 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ they for ever banished both the name of Kings, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 out of their Commonweale. But let us see, how you recompense the omission of this Lordly Title in this place, to such a well deserving man. You adde: And I grant, as well as he, that there 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be some one Church or other continually visible. A•• well a•• he. This then may seem to be some recompense, by way of honour, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉

some doing of him Right (for indeed his main reward he had in his life time: and what he hath now I cannot tell) that the Lords Grace of Canterbury is pleased to Grace the late Lord Bi∣shop of Eli, by being of the same opinion with him. Well: what's the Opinion? That there must be some one Church or other continually visible; That some one Church or other hath still been visible, I shall not grudge you. But take my meaning withall. Some false Church or other hath been (though why must be, I see no reason; saving that there * 1.582 must be Heresies even among the Churches of God) continually visible, ever since the Apostles times. And the Church of Rome for Instance hath bore the bell away: which degenerating into an Antichristian Church, hath been still visible, though not alwayes in one and the same place, but most. What at Rome, and somtimes at Aninion in France▪ (for where the Popes Court is, there is the Church in its glori∣ous conspicuity) yet somtime without a Head, somtime with two Heads, somtime with three Heads, that a man might say, The Porter of Heaven-gates had three Heads, as the Poets fained Cer∣berus the Porter of Hell to have had. But for the true Church of God, that may somtimes be hid. For first (as we shewed before) there was no true Church visible among the revolted Ten Tribes. Se∣condly, not in ‡ 1.583 Ahaz his time, when he shut up the Temple▪ and and served Idols in every Corner of Ierusalem; and then where was the Church visible the while, when the whole publick service and worship of God was suppressed, the Temple being shut up. Againe, also in Ioah his time was the like, as ye may reade, 2 Chro. 24.17. to 22, &c. Lastly, when the Temple was burnt, and all the people of God dispersed Captives in Babylon, where they could ‡ 1.584 not sing one song of Sion: Where was then the vi∣sible Church the while? But you will say, They might have Syna∣gogues in Babylon. But you cannot prove it. And the Prophet Esay saith, That § 1.585 they were hid in Prisons: As many of Christs deare servants are at this day in your Church of England. And what say you for that 30 dayes Interdiction, that no man should make any suit, to God or man during that space. Where was then the Church visible But that was but for 30 dayes. But you and Dr. White are for a continuall visibility. And it seems you herein jumpe with the Jesuites, who stand upon a continuall visibility every day, alledging that of Christ † 1.586 And loe I am with you pa••as tàs e m••meras, which our English turnes, Allwayes, but they, * 1.587 All the dayes, to wit, everyday Which they doe, to puzzle Protestants in shewing their visible succession every day without

fayle, since Christs time. But you will say perhaps Daniel was found praying in those dayes. But he was but one single Man, and so not Ecclesiâ, a Church or Congregation. And if he prayed with his Family, it was but in his private house, and you will hardly allow that for a visible Church, but rather call it a private Conventicle. And if with this Family, then (if at least you had but sent your Pursuivants) not onely Daniel, but (accor∣ding to the Kings strict Decree) his whole Family should have been cast with him into the Lyons denne. So during the Ae∣gyptian servitude, what conspicuity of a Church in Israel? Now and then perhaps, in some godly Families, there might be two or three assembled. Yet this private still, visible you will not call it. For you will not allow Churches in private Fami∣lies, though they * 1.588 were in the Apostles time. And such Churches (so visible, as two or three are visible when you see them, but the world takes no notice of them as Churches) Christ never fayles to have in the world. And these Congre∣gations in private Families, being driven from your publick Idolatrous Superstition in your Churches, are so hid many times, that your blood-hounds cannot trace them, or hunt them out. But as for such a Conspicuous, Glorious, Visibility of succession of such Prelaticall Heads of Hierarchicall Churches, though such may be alwayes in some Countrey or other resplendent, emi∣nent, and apparent, yet Christs poore Church the while may be, and commonly is hid, as little starres, especially where such great ‡ 1.589 Luminaria as your Lordships spread out your hot and fiery beames. As the Woman, the Church (as before; which here we recapitulate, to incounter two such Giants) when she fled from the Dragon, and his flood of persecution into the Wildernesse, who saw her then and there? And when the whole world was turned Arian, where was the true Church visible? And so since Antichrist came to his Xenith, or Vereticall point, to his Meridi∣an brightnesse, how hath Christs Church been hid in corners, as among the Merindolians, Cabriers, Waldensis, and others, who were still persecuted by that Beast, and his Crew. As Solomon saith, ‡ 1.590 When the wicked rise, men hide themselves. And so we may truly say, When Prelates rise, and beare sway, and grow most resplendent and predominant in their Potent Principalities: then Gods people hide themselves. And the Apostle saith of the belee∣vers, in the Old Testament, in times of persecution, or captivity, or of the Maccabees. They wandred about in sheep-skins, and Goat-skins, being destitute, afflicted, and tormented, of whom the world was

not worthey: they wandred in Deserts, and in mountains, and in dennes and caves of the earth And who were all those trow you, but the true Church of God? And how was then the Church of God visible, but that one might see another. But such you will not allow to be visible Churches: 1. because you cannot see them: 2. because you do not allow to be Churches visible, no more then you do the Reformed Churches in Geneva, and among the Can••o••s, and those mountains, where you cannot see them; which is their safety, as not to feele you. And where was the visibility of Gods true Church in England, in Queen Maries dayes, in the midst of the black tempest of persecution, where you could not discerne one true Professour and Protestant, but by the light of that fire, which was by the Prelates kindled to burn them for Martyrs? Or if you, or your Beagles had hunted among the Woods, perhaps ye might have found halfe a dozen poore soules under some Tree shading them from the present heat of persecution, where they did solace their soules with having a∣mong them some few leaves of St. Pauls Epistles, which they read to strentghen and arme them against their ••urne came. Call you this a visible Church? But you will say, The Church of England was then visible and conspicuous in the Bishops, and the pub∣lick Congregations throughout the Churches of the land, where Divine service, or Masse, was sung or sayd every day. Then was the Church visible in * 1.591 Edmund of London, and ‡ 1.592 Stephen of Winchestr, and other their Associates, who were as Zealous Champions for the Church of England then, as you are now. So as that Church then (as now) was no lesse sensible, then visible, when sitting most conspicuous in their Courts they condemned Christs true Church for an Hereti••ke, delivering it over to the seculer power for a burnt sacrifice. And was not this that Church then, of which you tell us, when you say, Our Church was just there then, where Romes is n••w? So as we need make no doubt, but your now con∣spicuous Church of England was one and the same with that in Mary••s dayes; onely that Church by vertue of a Law, burned the Saints of God: and you without Law bury them quick You a••e all for a conspicuous visibility of a Prelaticall or Hierarchicall Church. But Christs true Church as before) is otherwise: which hath for the Bishop of her soule,‡ 1.593 the Lord Iesus Christ, who is no Non Resident Bishop, but perpetually resident and present with all his Congregations. Yea § 1.594 where but two or three are ass••m••led in his Name, there is He in the midst of them. He saith not In a Cathedrall, or other Church; but indefinitely, Where∣soever:

as in a Chamber, in a private room, * 1.595 as the Apostles were for feare of the High Priests. During which time, where was the conspicuous visibility of the true Church, untill the day of Penticost came, when there was a new Church coll••ctive of ‡ 1.596 all nations under heaven? Againe, Christ saith not, Where there is a multitude: but, Where two or three: nor assembled, in a Prel••t••s name as members of a Prelaticall Church, but, In may Name saith Christ) in the faith of me, according to my word: then and there am I in the midst of them, to rule and protect, as King, to teach as Prophet, as Priest to present their persons and sacrifices to my Fa∣ther. These, these are those Churches or Congregations, which you scorne and scoffe at, and which you persecute and punish as ••alefactors for so assembling, as where Christ is present among them: which plainly bewrayes your selves to be the false Church, which you say must be continually visible

L. p. 320. A Church may hold the Fundamentall point literally, and as long as it stay••s there, be without controwle, and yet erre grosly, dangerously, nay damnably in the exposition of it. And this is the Church of Romes case. For most true it is, it hath in all Ages maintained the Faith unchanged in the expression of the Articles thems••lves: but it hath in the exposition both of Creeds and Councels quite changed and lost both the sense and meaning of some of them. So the Faith is in many things changed both for life, and beliefe, and yet seems the same. Now that which deceives the world is, that because the barke is the same, men thinke this old decayed tree is as sound, as it was at first, and not wether-beaten in any age. But when they can make me beleeve, that painting is true beauty. Ile beleeve too, that Rome is not onely sound, but beautifull.

P. First here I must note the perplexed and confused frame of your first sentence. You say, A Church may hold th•• fundamen∣tall point literally, and as long as it stayes there, be without controwle, and yet erre grosly, dangerously, nay damnably in the exposition of it. As much as if you had sayd, That a Church may hold the funda∣mentall point literally, and erre grosly, dangerously, nay damnably in the exposition of it, and yet be without Controwle. As for, As long as it stayes there, namely in holding the fundamentall point literall••▪ how is it without controwle, when notwithstanding the holding of the letter, it erre grosly, dangerously, nay damnably in the exposition of it? For you joyne and jumble all together, the holding of the letter, and the overthrowing of the sense, and yet want controwle. And what's the letter, where the sense is lost? What's the barke, when the pith and marrow is gone? As I••rome saith, Gods word

standeth, non in verborum cortice, sed in medulla sententiarum: not in the barke of words, but in the pith of the sense. Well: And this is Romes case, say you. How? Most true it is (say you) that it hath in all ages maintained the faith unchanged in the expression of the Articles themselves: but it hath in the exposition both of Creeds and Councels, quite changed and lost the sense, and meaning of some of them. So the faith is in many things changed both for life and beliefe, and yet seems the same. Here againe do you not most pittifully enterfere? Faith is lost in the exposition, and yet kept in the expres∣sion of the Articles. Have not you lost sense in this expression, ex∣cept you can recover it by a better exposition? For you separate the expression from the exposition. So you leave the Articles as a dead carcase, without a soule. For there is no faith kept in the expression of the letter, without the true exposition of the sense. And if the sense be lost, the faith is lost. And what expression of faith doe you call that, which is abstracted from the sence? But Rome hath lost the sense but of some of them. Of which? And whether of Creeds or Councels? For here you shuffle both to∣gether too, as making Councels of equall Authority with the Creeds. I did not thinke before this (nor yet) that Councels Decrees are to be taken as Creeds. Onely I might have learned of you before, That Councels Decrees, though they be erronious, must bind all to obe∣dience: and then sure, they are little inferiour to Creeds: saving that those may be reversed by another Generall Councel, but these not.

But however, Rome is the same barke of a Church still. Ergo a true Church still. Why, the Barke is not the Tree: no more then a Sheep-skin is a Sheep No, nor yet hath Rome so much as the barke of the true Church of Christ left. Looke upon her outward hew and habit: and there we shall find nothing, but the habite∣ments of the * 1.597 great Whore, and the Ensignes of Antichrist with his Church Malignant, warring against the true Spouse, and Church of Christ. And both these we find in that one Chap∣ter, where the Woman is set out to the life Her Habilements: She fits upon a scarlet coloured Beast, full of Names of Blasphemy, having seven Heads and Ten Hornes, and she is arayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold, and precious stone, and Pearle, having a golden Cup in her hand, full of abominations, and filthinesse of her fornications: with a Label on her forehead to know her the Better, a Name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and abominations of the Earth: and she is drunken with the blood of the Saints. And a little after we see her Ensignes set up, and those be her ten Hornes, the power of Kings, which she insti∣gateth

to * 1.598 make warre with the Lamb, and those on his side, the Called, and Chosen, and Faithfull. Now the Whores habit is not the habit of Christs Spouse. This is not the barke of the weather-beaten Tree of Gods Church▪ whose outward beauty is ‡ 1.599 black, but inward∣ly is ‡ 1.600 glorious, outwardly blasted as an § 1.601 Oake, but the holy seed is the substance thereof. And if by black you understand the bare name of a Church, and profession of Christianity: That she hath changed too, as the Snake doth her skin slipping off the old, and taking on a new. For she is not content to be called Christs holy Church, but the Roman Catholicke Church. Whereas Christs Church is not denominated from any place. And as she is the Roman Church, so the Papall Church, being denomina∣ted from the Pope as her Head. Ergo none of Christs Church; for this acknowledgeth none for her Head, but Christ alone, who is the root of this Vine, and Olive Tree, that ministers sap and fatnesse unto it. If therfore Rome be any Tree at all, she is such, as is in Daniel, the Embleme of the Old Babylonian Ty∣ranny and so a Type of Romes Babylonish usurped Power: § That Tree stretched out its boughs over the whole Earth, under whose shadow all the Beasts must have their sanctuary, as Rome applyeth, that of the Psalme 8.6, 7. And is this Tree (say you) but wether-beaten? Or but in some things unsound? When it hath lost not onely the barke, but the pith of Christs Church; be∣ing all rotten within? Being such a Tree, as Iude describes, déndron phthinoporinòn akarpon, dìs apothanòn, a corrupt Tree with∣out fruit, twice dead, and to be hewed down, plucked up by the roots, and cast into the fire. So as Rome is altogether naught, Intus & incute, Pith and Barke, Root and Branch, Fruit and Leafe. Onely a painted Tree, by which painting (as you say) she de∣ceives the world, and your Lordship too, while you would be glad to take her with all faults, and be reconciled to her, take∣ing her painting for true beauty, or at the least on her outside more beauty, then painting, and in her inside more soundesse, then corruption. For you say, In some things onely, both for life, and beliefe corrupted.

L. p. 321. Dr. White sayd onely, that some Errours of the Church were fundamentall reductive, that is, if they which imbrace them, did pertinaciously adhere to them, having sufficient meanes of Information. And againe expresly, That none were damnable, so long as they were not held against Conscience.

P. Thus we come to know Dr. Whites judgement, and therein yours also. But against you both, as erronious in this

point, I alledge the Scripture. What saith Christ of the Phari∣sees. * 1.602 Let them alone, They are blind leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, they both fall into the ditch. So you may see here (if ye be not blind) that blindnesse is damnable. But you will say, This was obstinate blindnesse, fighting against the light, 'Tis true, that the blindnesse of the Pharisees was obstinate, against the cleare light, and their own Consciences: but the blind people whom they led, were simply blind, out of meere ignorance, and so not against their Conscience: and yet both the leader and the led, fall into the ditch of damnation He that drinks deadly poyson ignorantly perisheth, as he that wittingly drinks it. The poyson is in it selfe mortall to all that drinke it, with what mind soever they doe it. And such is the poyson of sin and errour. Onely he that erres of ignorance, is more easily recovered, then one that is obstinate in his errour: and both, living and dying in the same errour, as of infidelity, and the like (which all Popery is) both are tormented in hell, but the obsti∣nate more then the other: yet God is just in punishing both. So as all errour is damnable in all, but in some more, in some lesse. And it is of the same righteous judgement of God to deny to the ignorant means, and to others the right use of the means, by withholding his grace: and accordingly he is just in punish∣ing all with a due proportion. And so ther's a difference be∣tween simple Papists living in the midst of the Aegyptian dark∣nesse, where there is no light, nor meanes of knowledge, and simple Papists living in Goshen, where the light shineth where the Gospell is preached, and doe close their eyes wilfully, so as they obstinately refuse to see or heare▪ The sin of these cer∣tainly is much more damnable, then of the other, who have no meanes at all▪ Againe, Errours that are in their own nature damnable, are damnable in whomsoever they be, onely in some more, in some lesse, but we cannot say, they are to some damnable, and to others not damnable. All sinne in its owne nature is damnable, and brings damnation with it to every Mothers son: is it then damnable to some, and not to others? ‡ 1.603 Did not death come upon all men, in asmuch as all men had sinned? And is not Errour whether in life, or beliefe, whether in the ignorant, or men of knowledge, sinne? Thus you and Dr. White mazzle ignorants in sinne. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the pit. But enough of this.

L. p. 32••. I would faine soe any one point maintained by the Church of England, that can be proved to depart from the Foundation.

P. Would you see it againe? We have proved it before, and that abundantly, that you maintain not one, but sundry points, wherein you depart from the foundation. Look before, and you shall see how you depart from the Foundation in your Tyrannicall Hierarchy or Prelacie, in your Altars, in overthrowing the Doctrines of Grace, in destroying the Doctrine and Practise of the 4th Commandement in sanctifying the Lords day, in forbidding Meates and Marriage at certaine times, which the Apostle calls directly and expresly a departing from the Faith, and Doctrines of Devils. Look backe, and see.

L. p. ibid. There is a latitude in the faith, especially in reference to different mens salvation. To set bounds to this, and strictly to de∣fine it for particular men. Iust thus farre you must beleeve in every particular, or incurre damnation, is no worke for my pen.

P. For the ground of this your speech, you quote Bellarmine in the Margent. I thought you raked it out of some puddle, seeing the Fou••taine it selfe, the Scripture, affords you no such corrupt stuffe. Nay more then that, you expresse your selfe in farre worse termes, then Bellarmine doth For Bellarmines words, which you quote, are these, Multa sunt de fide, quae non sunt ab∣solutè necessaria and salutem: There be many things of Faith▪ which are not absolutely necessary to salvation. But you bring it down to every mans salvation, as if some things of faith were more absolutely necessary for some mens salvation, then for others. I passe by Bellarmine, and insist upon your own words, leaving him to cleare himselfe, There is (say you) a latitude of faith, especially in reference to different mens Salvation O•• saving and justifying faith, you must meane, no question: For what faith is necessary for every mans salvation, but the saving faith, which com∣prehends in it whatsoever faith is requisite and necessary to salvation, as the beliefe of Scripture to be the word of God▪ as is shewed before. And this saving faith is the faith of all them, that are * 1.604 heires of salvation, to wit, of all Gods ‡ 1.605 Elect, and all the ‡ 1.606 Saints. But it seems with Father Bellarmine you have an Im∣plicit faith for your ignorants, and an Explicit for you that are great Clerks: or the letter of the Creed for those, and the sense for these. But I handled this also before. Onely you propound a Paradox, which is no worke for your pen; wherein you are the wiser not to take upon you to read or expound such rid∣dles, had you been so wise, as not to have propounded ••. And yet it is the worke of every good Minister of Chr••••t to teach the people what to beleeve, and to exhort them to grow in Grace▪ and

knowledge, and Faith, and so * 1.607 declare unto them the whole Coun••el of God, and to keep nothing backe, and to build men up in knowledge more and more unto perfection. As the Preacher saith ‡ 1.608 Be∣cause the Preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge, yea he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in Order many Proverbs, The Preacher sought to find out acceptable words▪ and that which was writ∣ten, was upright, even words of truth. The words of the wise are a•• Goads and Nayles fastened by the Masters of Assemblies, which are given from one shepheard. But this is not a patterne for you to follow, neither by your tongue, nor pen. You have other im∣ployment for them. But though we cannot set a bound to faith, in respect of perfection of degrees, yet we ought to teach the people all the parts of saving faith and knowledge, striving unto perfection. And besides it is the duty of every good Minister of Christ, to limit and set bounds to all the negatives of faith, in discovering all manner of sins and errours, which are all contra∣ry, and enemies to faith and salvation. For which end, they must open all the ten Commandements, as Christ did Mat. 5. and all other points of saving Doctrine, in the Scriptures. Now though you have not the skill or will to set bounds how farre men shall beleeve: yet you want no will, nor power to inhibit and restraine Preachers, shewing them how little a way they must goe in teaching the people, and so consequently how lit∣tle a way the people must goe in beleeving and saving knowledge: as in restraining and forbidding to preach the Doctrines of Grace (as before) forbidding Lectures, and especially all Sermon•• on the Lords day afternoon, forbidding long Preaching at any time, forbidding expounding of the Catethisme, as many of your Prelates doe, and the like. Thus you can finely set men bounds how little thy shall beleeve, or know of God to their salvation. That's a worke, if not for your pen, or hand, yet for your head, and not unlikely of your hand and pen too.

L. p. 327. The Romanists dare not beleeve, but as the Roman Church beleeves. And the Roman Church at this day doth not beleeve the Scripture, and the Creeds in the sense, in the which the ancient Primitive Church received them.

P Dare they not? How then say you there is possibility of salvation in the Roman Church for any, when it condemneth and accurseth saving faith and justification thereby, with other saving truths? For if the Papists dare not beleeve, but as their Church beleeves, then they are bound to good behaviour, they dare not beleeve to their salvation. And if they dare not beleeve to

their salvation, then they cannot be saved. And if they cannot be saved, what possibility of salvation for them, living and dying in that faith? And here, Why do you no•• say in the sense of the Scriptures themselves, and not of the Primitive Church? But you doe not like the Scripture sense, except the Church in∣terpret it. You allow not Scriptures to speake for, or testifie for themselves. You are the same man still. And as we sayd be∣fore, you doe wisely in that, to stoppe the mouth of Scripture, as Ahab did Michaiahs, for it never speaks good of you, but evil alwayes.

L. p. 232. I will acknowledge every fundamentall point of faith, as proveable out of the Canon, as we account it, as if the Apochryphall were added unto it.

P. As if Apocryphalls were any divine proofe at all of the fundamentall points of faith in Scripture, or ought any way in that respect to be so much as named with the Scripture. Apocryphalls (saith Ierome) may be read for instruction of manners, but not for confir∣mation of faith, as before.

L. p. 336. I have lived, and shall (God-willing) dye in that faith of Christ, as it was professed in the ancient Primitive Church and as it is professed in the present Church of England.

P. As you handle the matter, ther's a vast difference be∣tween the faith of Christ professed in the ancient Primitive Church, and that which is now professed in the present Church of England. For the Ancient Primitive Church, taken properly and strictly, as somtime in your Booke (as before) you put it, was that wherein the Apostles lived. Now will ye be tryed by the Ancient Primitive Church of the Apostles held and pro∣fessed? What say you my Lord, for your faith in this case? Will you put your faith and Religion to the tryall of the most intire and upright J••ry, the Twelve Apostles? Certainly if you decline this tryall, 'tis a shrewd suspicion that the faith of yours, wherein you are so resolute to live and dye, is not right. Therfore for shame of the world, you must at least pro∣fesse or pretend, that you wilbe tryed by the the Faith and Re∣ligion which the Apostles and the true Church of God in their time (as being the most Pure, Prime, Ancient Primitive Church) held and professed. First then: That Primitive Church neither held nor professed, nor practised any Hierarchicall government [ 1] of Prelates or Bishops, but have c••ndemned it in their writings, the Scriptures of the New Testament. And yet I▪ are say, you resolve to live and dye Primate of Canterbury, and Metropolitan of all Eng∣land.

[ 2] Secondly, The Apostles, and the ancient Primitive Church in their Age and time, had no Altars, but onely the Lord Iesus Christ, Heb. 13.10. (as it is formerly proved) but you and your Church of England both set up and worship Al∣tars, and ••each the people both by your Books and practise to do so too, and force Ministers to erect Altars, or force them out of their Churches. And this Faith and Religion also I dare say you resolve to live and dye in. Thirdly, The Apostles, and the anci∣ci••nt [ 3] Primiti••e Church in their time celebrated and sanctified every Lords day in holy duties onely, and in preaching as well in the * 1.609 after∣noon, as in the f••••enoon, never forbidding, but still exhorting to preach in season and out of season, giving no liberty to vaine and profane sports and Pastimes either upon that day, or any other day, but admo∣nishing Christians to abhore them as ‡ 1.610 Heathenish: and is this the faith and practise of the present Church of England at this day, wherein you resolve to live and dye? Fourthly, The Apostles and ancient Primitive Church in their dayes taught, held, and professed all [ 4] chose excellent saving Doctrines of Election, Predestination, Redemp∣tion of the Elect, their Effectuall vocation and conversation by Gods saving and Omnipotent Grace, their assurance of Salvation by Faith, and their certaine perseverance in Grace unto Glory; and none of these Doctrines were forbid to Ministers to be preached; but they were commanded of God to declare the whole Councel of God to his people. Is this your faith and practise of the Church of England, wherein you resolve to live and dye? Fiftly, The Apostles and the ancient Primitive Church in their dayes, taught, professed, and [ 5] practised that Discipline, which was according to Christ, forbidding all w••ll-worship, and imposition of humane Ordinances, as snares upon mens Consciences, whereby that Christian liberty is overthrowne, which Christ purchased for his people with his own blood. Is this the Faith, which you and the present Church of England professeth and practiseth, and wherein you resolve to live and dye? Sixtly, The [ 6] Apostles and the ancient Primitive Church in their time condemned the forbidding of Marriage and of Meates, as a Doctrine of Devils, taught by seducing sp••ri••s, and a departing from the faith of Christ Is this that faith and Religion, which you and the present Church of England hold, professe, and practise, and wherein you resolve to live and dye? O ye Prelates, O thou Church of England, blush, and be ashamed of that Faith, Profession and Practise of yours, so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 contrary to that Faith which the holy Apostles taught, and that pure and Primitive Church in their times imbraced, and professed: and be not so desperately bent, as being so

clearly convinced of these thy foule practises, to professe and vow notwithstanding to live and dye in them: least herein, your condition prove (as it must doe) infinitly more desperate and damnable, then that of the Jesuites themselves, whose know∣ledge (by your own confession) of their wicked and damnable F••••ours, with their obstinate persisting in them, and res••sting the truth, yea even the Holy Ghosts Testimony therein, leaves them, as without excuse, so without all hope of salvation, as to whom nothing remaines (as the Apostle upon the like occasi∣on, saith) but * 1.611 a fearefull expectation of Iudgement, and of fiery in∣dignation, which shall devour the Adversaries.

L. p. 338. Yea, but he saith againe, That I acknowledge there is but one Saving Faith, and that the Lady might be saved in the Roman Faith, which was all the Iesuite tooke upon his soule. Why but i•• this be all, I will confesse it againe. The first, that there is but one Faith, I confesse with St. Paul, Eph. 4. And the other, That the Lady might be saved in the Roman faith or Church I confesse with that Charity which St. Paul teacheth me, namely, to leave all men, especi∣ally the weaker sex and sort, which hold the foundation, to stand or fall to their own Master, Rom. 14.4. And this is no mistaken Charity.

P. This you confesse, that as there is but one saving faith, so this faith is in the Church of Rome,* 1.612 as in and by which the Lady may be saved. And of this one faith with the Church of Rome, you and your Church of England are, if you hope to be saved with Rome by her saving faith. This is the All and summe of your Confession. Now we have clearly proved before, that the faith of the Church of Rome, is not that one saving faith of Gods Saints and Elect, which the Scripture every where speaks of. For first Romes faith is in its kind and nature (and that by their own confession) a dead faith: but the saving faith is a ‡ 1.613 living faith. [ 1] Secondly, they confesse, that with their faith they may goe to hell, as they say of their Fid••les Fornicarii, Adulteri, &c. therfore [ 2] Romes faith is no saving faith: for the saving faith is so called, be∣cause it effectually, perfectly and certainly saveth all those that have it, as Christ saith, Joh. 5.24. Thirdly, The Romish ••aith, is a doubting, wavering, uncertaine faith, or ra••her opinion•• and wan [ 3] hope, as the Councel of Trent defineth, accu••sing certain••y of beleeving: whereas the saving faith is a certain•• assurance, and cleare ‡ 1.614 evidence, a plerophoria as Heb 10.22. Rom. 4.21.•• a full assurance or perswasi••n in the truth of beleeving, though not in fullnesse of degrees of perfection in all, and at all times, the ope∣ration

of it being many times hindered by corruptions, and infirmities of the flesh, and manifold temptations. Fourthly, [ 4] Romes faith, is, and may be without hope and charity: but true saving faith is never without hope and charity; for it is the sure * 1.615 foundation of things hoped for, and it ‡ 1.616 worketh by Love. Fifty, The Roman faith is not the Iustifying faith, for the ‡ 1.617 Councel of Trent saith, Faith justifieth not, till Hope and Charity come to it, [ 5] and then all 3 together, and that as inherent Graces, and works in us, do justifie: whereas true saving faith is therfore called the Iustifying faith, because it is that onely Grace, whereby as an Instrument applying Christ and his righteousnesse, and not as works in us, the beleeving sinner is justified, Rom. 3.28. so as though this saving justifying faith be never without hope and charity, no more then fire is without light and heat: yet hope and charity have no hand at all with faith in justification; so as not even faith it selfe as it is a Grace inherent, with hope and charity, doth justifie, but onely as it is considered as a hand or instrument applying Christ, as before. But the Roman Faith (as the Councel of Trent confesseth) justifieth not as an instru∣ment or hand applying Christ, whereby his Righteousnesse is of God imputed to the beleever (which Imputation the Councel in plain termes accurseth) but onely as a Grace and worke in∣herent [ 6] with hope and charity. Sixtly, saving faith is not onely a justifying faith, whereby we stand righteous in Gods sight, having Christs Righteousnesse imputed: but also a sanctifying faith, as Act. 26.18. called therfore a holy Faith, Jude 20. as wherby a man is regenerate, borne againe, made a member of Christ, and partaker of his Spirit, and lives and dyes in holinesse: but the Roman Faith doth not sanctifie; for they confesse, that wick∣ed, ungodly, and profane persons may have it▪ and goe to hell with it, as before. Lastly, saving and justifying faith is a spirituall [ 7] worke and gift of Grace, wrought in the soule by the spirit of God, and it is his sole worke, without the concurrence or mans Will, which is not free, untill Grace hath given it both life and freedome: but the Roman Faith is confessed by them in the Councel of Trent, not to be a meere worke of Grace, nor at all of sanctifying and saving Grace, in the first act of beleeving: but after the Will of man is but a little stirred and moved by a certaine Grace, which they call the first Grace, which they confesse not to be the saving and sanctifying Grace, then there∣upon they have the merit of Congruity to receive the second Grace, whereby hope and charity come to be added to faith. And this is

the expresse Doctrine of Trent. The Conclusion then is, That neither the Lady, nor any Papist living and dying in the Ro∣man Faith, nor your selfe, nor any in the Church of England, that hold and professe no other Faith, then the Roman Faith, can possibly be saved, living and dying in that Faith and though you tell us againe with great confidence, as a most cer∣taine Truth, that it is no mistaken Charity to grant a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of sal∣vation to a Papist living and dying in the Roman Faith: yet we have so discovered this your Charity before, as I Hope your Charity wilbe no more so mistaken. Onely here I must tell you withall, that as you either wilfully, or most ignorantly and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 rather, mistake that one saving faith of the Apostle: so doe you also that Charity, which you say he teacheth you. Doth the Apostle teach you such a Charity, as teacheth you to beleeve and affirme that, which is contrary to the cleare Truth of the Scripture? is it your Charity to attribute a saving faith to the Church of Rome, which without all Charity accurseth the onely true faith, and the truly faithfull of Iesus Christ, which professe that onely saving faith? Whereas you must know, that Charity, which the Apostle there teacheth (Rom. 14.4. alledged by you) is in judgeing Charitably of your Brethren, in the use of things in∣different▪ For there the Apostle speaks of eating, or not eating: of observing a day, or not observing: whereupon he inferreth, Who art thou, that judgest anothers servant. To his own Master he standeth or falleth; so as in such cases Christians must judge Charitably, and not rashly censure others, that do not as them∣selves doe, in things simply indifferent. This is then the Cha∣rity, which there the Apostle teacheth. But have you learned this Charity of the Apostle? You tell us, This Charity the Apostle teacheth me. The Apostle teacheth you true Charity: but it doth not thereupon follow, that you have learned that Charity of the Apostle. Doe you deale so with your Brethren in the use of things indifferent, as not to judge them this way, or that way▪ in the using, or not using of them? Doe you leave them to their own Master Christ▪ to stand or fall? Nay do you not cause them necessarily to fall by the stumbling blocks of your Ceremonies, which you say, are things indifferent, and yet you impose such a necessity upon the observation of them, as they altogether cease to be indifferent, and become a y••ake of bon∣dage to the People of God? And if they be so strong that they will not thus fall down to your Ceremonies, no more then the 3 Children would to the Kings Image: what then? What

Charity use you then towards them? Doe you leave them to their own Master to stand or fall? Not such thing. But you take upon you to be ther Master and Lord, and to be their Judge, and to Judge them, while sitting in your High Commission Chaire, you convent them, censure them, as by Susp••nding, Silen∣cing, Depriving, Degrading, Dispossessing, or Fining, Imprisoning, undoing of their wives and children, and without all hope of remedy, or mercy from you, till they shall acknowledge the Justice, yea and perhaps the Clemencie of your Court in deal∣ling so mercifully with them. This, This is that Charity which you have learned, and which you dayly put in practise, so as in this kind, never any was more zealously and fervently Chari∣table, then your selfe. But this Charity you never learned of the Apostles, nor did he▪ or Christ, or any of the Apostles ever teach you any such Charity. No sure, This wisdome, This Charity of yours (as Iames speakes) cometh not from above, but is Earthly, sen∣suall▪ and Divelih. If you have no other Charity but this, the Lord deliver us from your Charity. And so I leave you to your mistaken Charity. Onely for Conclusion hereof: Immediately before you tell us, you will dye, as you live in that faith professed in the Church of Engdand. Here you say, Rome holds the same faith: Ergo as you live so you will dye in the Roman faith▪ And secondly, Ergo The Faith of the Church of England and of Rome is one and the same Faith: as before you tell us they are one and the same Church: and at after (as pag. 3••7) they are of one and the same Religion, not different. Thus you have made a fine Confusion: and this you meane to make your finall Conclusion. Such is your Faith: such your Religion: such your Charity: all mistaken. The foul∣est, and fearefullest mistaken, that ever any man was overtaken with.

L. p. 339. The truth is you doe hold new Devises of your own, which the Primitive Church was never acquainted with. And some of those so farre from being conformable, as that they are * 1.618 little lesse, then contradictory to Scripture.

P. And is it not as true, that in holding new devises, which the the Primitive Church (of which we spake but now) was never acquainted with, you may shake hands with Rome and her Jesuites? who may therfore retort upon you that of the Poet,

Parcius ista viris tamen objicienda memento, Novimus et qui te:

Be sparing such things to us to object: Who know the like do on your selfe reflect.

And we have shewed before, how both Romes new devises, and yours (for they are all one and the same) are not onely (as you still mince the matter) little lesse then contradictory to Scripture: but doe directly overthrow the cleare and evident truth 〈…〉〈…〉, and that also even in fundamentalls. And what say you to Romes new-old devise of worshiping Images (to instance in no more, though I might in many, yea in all Romes Popish Doctrines, as Popish; as before) is it but little lesse then contradictory to Scrip∣ture? Doth not the Scripture say, Thou shalt not worship any gra∣ven Image? And what saith Rome, I pray you? Or if you, or she, for modesty sake will not tell us; or if she dare not say in plain and expresse termes, and in form of a Precept, Thou shalt wor∣ship Images: yet aske her whorish practises, and her pretty de∣vises, wherewith she allures her children to the adoration of them, and that even to dotage, as by promising them pre••ty lakons, and new-nothings, as pardon of sins for so many yeares for praying so many Avies and Pater nosters before such a 〈◊〉〈◊〉, or Image: is not this Equipollent to a Commandement? yea their very setting up, and ad••ring these their ga•• Gods in their Churches, the place of worship, is it not an inviting and silent whispering in the Peoples eares, worship and fall down before these sacred Images and Reliques, giving them the same honour, that you give to the Saints, which they represent, as divine honour to the Crosse, and Crucifix, as they teach, as we have shewed. Is not here a full and home contradiction to the Scripture?* 1.619 For Contradi∣ction is not onely in an expresse Negative, but in an impi•••••• Negation, when such and such a Doctrine doth necessarily imply a contradiction to the Scripture. And in this kind all the Doctrines of Popery (whereof we have given sundry Instances before) are direct contradictions to the truth of the Scriptures.

L. p. 340. It doth not follow, since the Councel of Trent hath added a new Creed, that this Roman faith is now the Catholick▪* 1.620 For it hath added extravea, things without the foundation, disputable, if not false Conclusions to the Faith. So that now a man may beleeve the whole and intire Catholicke faith, even as St. Athanasi•••• requires, and yet justy refuse for Dr••sse, a great part of that, which is now the Roman faith.

P. Is it so then? Hath the Councel of Trent added a new Creed, and so Roman faith is not now the Catholicke, but to be refused as drosse, extraveous, false, without the foundation? How then doth this agree with that faith, which even now you confessed; that the Church of Rome had and hath the saving Faith, that One

Faith of the Apostles, as whereby a Papist, living and dying in that Faith, may be saved? And if Rome hath added a new Creed, how holds she still that one Faith?* 1.621 And do not you beleeve Romes new Creed? For what is this Creed? That the Roman faith is now the Catholicke. How is this then a new Creed, That Romes faith is now the Catholicke? For (say you) it hath added extravious things, with∣out the foundation, Disputable, if not false conclusions to the Faith. Is this all? Par••urient M••ntes. I expected here some monstrous evidence against the Church of Rome, when you began to tell us she had brought forth a new Creed. But this your Rumor will not be taken for a Creed, without some sounder proofe, then we see you yet bring, for all your faire florish. For what's this new Creed? Alas, a poore Cento patcht up of certaine extravious things. What? without the Foundation. Good enough yet, so long as n•• Canon against the Foundation, or a mine of Powder to blow up the foundation. Onely without the foundation? Alas, that's not worth the talking of. If the new Creed be of things onely without the foundation, you may leave them out of your Creed, as things not necessary to be beleeved, or at least, not to be belee∣ved of all Christians, alike; as you teach us before, and Bellarmine too, that All things de fide are not necessary to be beleeved of all men, or are not necessary to salvation. And perhaps Bellarmine means Romes new Creed you speak of, which though the Coun∣cel of Trent hath made it to be de fide, yet it is not necessary for every man to beleeve it, or not absolutely necessary for every mans sal∣vation. But what more? 2. Disputable. As you sayd before; Disputed Qu••stions. Disputed, and Disputable still: Ergo what can you make o•• such a Creed at the worst, but some disputable mat∣ter, not yet sufficiently discussed, though determined in the Councel of Trent, and sit perhaps to be reserved to be deter∣mined upon some clearer demonstrations in your next Gene∣rall Councel, whose Decrees then, true or false, shall be received as your Creed. And (as we said before) things Disputable may yet prove to be truth, being throughly scanned: and thus Romes ne•••• Creed may prove as Credible, as you call it disputable. But any more yet? yes: if not false conclusions. If? Which receiving a faire interpretation from your mouth, may be all one, as if you had said, N••t false Conclusions, because as yet Disputable. And while things are but disputable, and in dispute, they are as yet no false Conclusions. For the Premisses of the Argument must goe before the Conclusion. But yet your Conclusion is somwhat 〈◊〉〈◊〉. For you say, A man may beleeve the whole and intire Ca∣tholick

faith, and yet justly refuse for drosse a great part of that, which is now the Roman faith. What? Drosse? And, Ius••ly refu••e as Drosse? What, are you that man, that may doe thus▪ And will you doe thus? Nay, you for your part have bound your hands from taking any thing as drosse, which Rome hath put in her new Creed. For those things, even the worst of them, you say are disputable. Therfore not yet concluded and determined for Drosse. And if you shall now take those things for drosse, which with you are but disputable, how can you justly doe it: For if mettall be in dispute among the r••siners, it is not presently doomed for drosse, being yet in their best judgements but dispu∣table: the Test must first try it, whether it be drosse or not. And so it is the Test▪ or the Testaments of Christ, that must try all false mettals, shine they never so gold like, and discover and condemne them for Drosse. And surely my Lord your single judgement (through never so singular) will never be taken by any, as solid enough to preponderate the Decrees of a whole Councel, as Trent, to conclude those Decrees to be Drosse, both after you have called them but disputable, and after Rome hath Decreed them for her new Creed. But you goe no further yet, then Posse: a man may take them, &c. And you may in time come actually to take those disputables for no Drosse, but good Cur∣rant Coine, not onely passing for Currant in Rome, but also in England, as holding the same Creed, and being one Church. So as a little more Allay then Ordininary shall not disable the cur∣rantnesse of it. And what is there in all Romes new Creed of Trent, which you say is of things Disputable, which is any worse drosse, but rather as good silver, as those her Altars and o••her superstitions, which you have borrowed of her? Which were they but soundly disputed, would prove drosse indeed, as for∣merly also is proved.

Againe, here you confine the whole and intire Catholicke faith to Athanasius his Creed You might have at least taken in the other two Creeds to boot: and yet not all of them together will make up the adequate Rule of the whole and intire Ca∣tholicke faith. For the Catholicke faiths full latitude, whole and intire, cannot be measured, but by the line and Rule of Scri••∣ture alone, The onely * 1.622 túpos did••kus as the Apostle ca••ls 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Matrix or Mold, wherein faith must be cast 〈◊〉〈◊〉) to receive its perfect forme▪ which is not, cann•••• be whole, and intire, but as it is according to the whole and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Scrip∣ture conformed And you adde:

* 1.623L. p. 3••2. No man can properly be said to beleeve the whole Creed, that beleeves not the whole sense, as well as the letter of it, and as intirely.

P. Now you told us before, that Rome hath lost the sense of the Creed, at least in some things: whence I conclude, upon your own words, that Rome holds not, beleeves not the whole Creed, and consequently she hath lost and overthrown the whole Creed. For overthrowing the sense of any one Articl••, she overthrows the whole; as before. And in a word, the Church of Rome overthrows the whole Creed, in overthrowing the first word of it, Credo, I beleeve: which gives denomination, life, and beeing to the whole. And a maine flaw in the foundation, overthrows the whole building. And that Rome doth this, is cleare: for, as she hath made a new Creed all of drosse: so she hath coyned a new sense to the Credo of the old Creed. For she doth not beleeve the Creed with a saving, justifying, lively faith (as is shewed before) but hath cancelled and accursed it in her Councel of Trent. And so though she hold Credo Deum, beleeving that there is a God, as even the Heathen doe (for quae gens tam barbara,* 1.624 &c. what nation so barbarous, that beleeves not there is a God; as the heathen Ro∣man Orator sayd) yet she doth not hold any other Creed of God. For she holds not simply and absolutely (no more then you) Credo Deo, beleeving God speaking in the Scripture, but depen∣dently upon the Authority and Interpretation of the Church. And least of all doth she hold Credo in Deum, which is the justifying and saving Faith, as Augustine, Bernard, and others of the more An∣cients distinguish and define.* 1.625 For as Bernard saith, Credere in Deum, est credendo diligere, credendo in eum ire, & ei uniri, &c. To beleeve in God is by beleeving to love God, by beleeving to goe into him, and to be united unto him. Now this faith Romes is not: for (as is shewed before out o•• the Councel of Trent) their faith is without love▪ and doth not goe into God, but with which going to hell, they are separate from God for evermore. So as the Ar∣ticle or Decree of Trent having destroyed the old Credo in De∣um, she must have some new Credo, or els none at all. And you doe ibid. rightly interpret the word V••g••ès, which Athanasius ex∣presseth the ••ustif••i••g faith of the Creed by, namely sound and intire: so as if it be not a sound and intire faith, such as the Scrip∣ture commends, and is proper to all true Beleevers, the Elect, a 〈…〉〈…〉 is to no purpose. And a little after you say:

〈…〉〈…〉 This is true Divinity that he which hopes for salvation, 〈…〉〈…〉 whole Creed, and in the right sense too (if he be able to 〈…〉〈…〉 it.)

P. Till this If, hem'd in with a Parenthesis, I was halfe in hope you had assented to my former speech, That the Church of Rome in not holding the right sense of the Creed, overthr••ws the wh••le. But your Parenthesis so hedgeth in your silly ignorant, that it is a sanctuary to secure their ignorance from R••m••s dam∣nation; so as though they have no hope of salvation, yet they are in no feare of Romes damnation, as being not able to beleeve the whole Creed, because not able to comprehend the right sense of it within the narrow circumference of their shallow brainpan. But behold closse by another hedge:

L. p. 343. To hold the Creed inviolate, is not (as I take it•• the holding of the true sense, but not to offer violence, or a forced se••se and meaning upon the Creed, which every man doth not, that yet beleeves it not a true sense. For not to beleeve the true sense of the Creed, is one thing: but 'tis quite another, to force a wrong sense upon it.

P. Thus still the Lady, and all silly ignorant Papists, if ever by their blindnesse they shall happen to stumble upon salvati∣on, trusting to the meere simplicity of their ignorance, living and dying in the Roman faith, not knowing what it is, nor able to beleeve any one Article of the Creed in a right sense: may thank you, for thus incouraging them upon this hope of possibility of an impossible salvation. And the case stands thus: The Church of Rome in her Councel of Trent hath put a forced sense upon the Creed, and so hath made a violation of the faith: This for∣ced sense Romes Clergie in the Catechisme of Trent forceth and presseth upon their blind people to beleeve: Now tell me, What difference is there between the forcing of a false sense upon the Creed, which the Councel of Trent hath done, and all Romes Clergy conveys the false sense (if any at all) as ••ank poy∣son into the minds of their Blindlings, so farre as they are capable of any errour (being capable of nothing els) and the voluntary receiving and imbracing of that false sense, and that not onely in beleeving it, but so obstinately adhereing to it, as they will not, they dare not (as you befo••e confesse beleeve otherwise, though the truth be tendered unto him: which is the generall condition of all ignorant Papists. And being in this case, what way now can you find out for them, which may bring these misbeleevers; or rather no-beleever, to salvation. What hope can you give them, that have no faith? And what faith can they have, that cannot bel••eve, that cannot, may not, dare not, have no meanes, to comprehend the r••ght sence of the Creed, but the forced sense that Rome puts upon it and them?

L. p. 349. As for Origen, I thinke, he was the first founder of Purgatory

P. This here of Purgatory bordering so neere your last Pas∣sage of your misbeleeving Papists, gives me occasion to ima∣gine how necessary it were for you to be the first Inventer of some other place in hell, like unto that Limbus Infantum, where provision may be made to intertaine your silly Infant-Papists, that are not able to give any one reason of that hope of salvati∣on, which you force upon them, and which you have been the first inventer of. That as Popish Infants dying without Baptisme, goe to their Limbus, where they are sensible neither of joy, nor paine: so your silly ignorants, having no sense of any true faith and knowledge of God, or of themselves here, when they dye, they may goe to such a like place or Limbus, where they may neither injoy blisse, nor suffer paine. But a word of Purgatory in the mean time. For the first Founder of it, in my poore reading I find the Heathen * 1.626 Plato. For he tells us, as of 3 sorts of men in this world, some very good, and some starke nought, and some indiffe∣rent: so he fits 3 places for these 3 sorts after this life: 1▪ Elysium, the Elysian fields, meaning thereby a place of pleasure, as, Paradise, into which went those immediately, who were very good: 2. Hell, whither the very worst went: 3. a middle place, or lake, into which the moderate or indifferent men were cast after death, and after a certaine time there, as a yeare, or two, or more, as they were lesse or more good or bad, being well purged, were cast forth againe, Whence they went into the Elysian fields. And Virgil also, a heathen Roman Poet, did afterwards take and borrow this from Plato, expressing it in his Aeneads. And so from these two might Origen borrow his Purgatory, and the Church of Rome from them all three, might out of this lake of Plato, or Pluto if you will, borrow so much Bitumen, or Pitchy matter, and so casting into it the stone Asbestos, which being once kindled, is not quenched againe, it became the hot-burning lake of Purgatory, as namely for the purging of Indifferent men, such as are neither hot nor cold: neither Beleevers, nor Infidels: neither Christians, nor Heathen: neither good fish, nor flesh: Indifferent between Papists and Protestants: halfe for Christ, and halfe or rather All for Belial: Reconcilers of light and darknesse: of Truth and Er∣rour: or (as the Papists say) such as had onely veniall sinnes, not throughly purged with holy-water in this life, and therfore must be purged with fire, what water could not doe, untill after a Venal Masse chanted for their soules, they should be delive∣red,

and so passe the Pikes into the El••sian Fields. And this is both Authority and Antiquity sufficient for your Purgatory, though you bestow much sweat in this hot Stove, and in pur∣suing this Ignis fatuus, yet haply it may purge you•• Reputation of that venial opinion, which men have of you.

L. p. 375. Rome, but with all other particular Churches, and no more then other Patriarchall Churches, was and is radix existentiae, the root of the Churches existence And, The uni••ersall Nature and Beeing of the Church, hath no actuall ••xistence in all her particulars. And this I say for her existence onely, not the purity or forme of her existence, which is not here considered.

P. These words confirm what you have said before of your Catholicke Church, consisting of particular Patriarchall, Prelaticall, or Hierarchicall Churches throughout the world, all of them visible, and conspicuous; in these it existeth as in the root: this existence may be without the consideration of purity, as a Church may be a true Church of Christ, and yet not be holy. Having then answered these things before, it is sufficient for this. And this still confirmes what I have said of Christs true and onely holy Catholick Church, which is a matter of faith in the Creed. This true and onely holy Catholick Militant Church of Christ hath for its prime Radix, or Root Christ, in whom it existetth, subsisteth, and hath its beeing. Then it is diffused into all the members of Christs mysticall body, all the Elect, over the world, or in any cor∣ner thereof, to the end of the world, and hath no existence at all in the Hierarchy, or Prelacie, or in any one visible Church, or particular place, or Countrey, but it lyes hid, as the sappe in the root, in all the Persons of the Elect onely, and the substance and * 1.627 life thereof is hid with Christ in God, the ‡ 1.628 Prime root. And the existence of this Catholicke Church cannot be considered possibly, without Purity, and Holinesse▪ for it exists no where, but in purity and holynesse: so as every person is holy, in whom it exi∣steth: And so much for this.

L. p. 370, 371. But if she be not the Catholicke, nor the root of the Catholicke Church, yet Apostolick I hope she is▪ Indeed Apostolicke she is, as being the sea of one, and he a Prime Apostle. But then not Apostolicke, as the Church is called in the Creed, from the Apostles, no nor the onely Apostolicke. Visible, I may not deny, God hath hitherto preserved her, but for a better end doubtlesse then they turne it to.

The Church of Rome indeed Apostolicke? Why so? As being the sea of one, and he a prime Apostle That was Peter you mean sure. He was a Prime Apostle, though not the Prime. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 som∣times

Iames is placed before him, Gal. 2.9. And Paul was no whit inferiour to those 3. Iames, Peter, and Iohn, who were Pillars, and seemed to be somwhat. And in this respect may you not possibly meane Paul, rather then Peter: for Paul (we are sure) was in Rome, and there preached, though in prison. But we read no where in Scripture, that Peter was at Rome, much lesse that he sate there Bishop of Rome, and so fixed his Chaire there. If therfore you mean Peter, and pitch upon him (though the Popes are faine to use somtimes two strings to their bow, and to challenge their succession both from Peter and Paul, and some stories speake both of Peter and Paul, as Bishops there.) I say if you pitch upon Peter, how doe you prove that Peter was at Rome: and if at Rome, whether Bishop there: and if a Bishop there, why consequently must that Sea be still Apo∣stolicke,* 1.629 seeing non sedes, sed fides, not the seat, but the Faith makes Apostolicke. But there be many reasons and arguments from Scripture, some that Peter was not at Rome, others, and those more demonstrative, that he was never Bishop of Rome, as Pontifex, or Prelate, such a Bishop as you meane. I have seen a Booke Printed in English by Authority, which proveth that Peter was never at Rome. And this he doth by computing and comparing the times and other Circumstances in the Acts, and Pauls Epistles with those Histories, which say he was there, and Bishop there, which stories neither agree with the Scripture, nor with themselves, nor with other Histories pro∣fane. And if Peter were at Rome, how cometh it, that Paul being there, doth not in all his Epistles make mention of him? Was Peter either so obscure, as Paul should not know him to be at Rome? Or so proud of his new Prelacie, as not to acknow∣ledge his fellow Apostle, now a Prisoner? Or what was it, that Paul doth not so much as mention him? Because Peter, being for the Circumcision,* 1.630 should a'llotrtoepiskopoin, take Pauls Bishoprick over his head, who was for the Uncircumcision, whereof Rome was the Metopolis? Or had Peter with Demas forsaken Paul; imbracing this present world in a Lordly Bi∣shopricke? But let it be given you, that Peter was at Rome, and Lord Bishop of Rome: what then? Ergo is the Church of Rome indeed Apostolicke? Did Peter leave his Apostolick Bishopricke by an Intayle ••o all his successors in Rome? Are ••hey Apostolicke, when they are become Apostates from the faith? Alas, alas: your words utter your spirit, but no truth Onely one thing you deliver, as doubtlesse, where you say, Visible I may not deny, God

hath hitherto preserved her, but for a better end doubtlesse, then they turne it to: Visible: Ergo the Pope is Peters successor: Ergo the sea of Rome is indeed Apostolicke: Ergo a true Church of Christ. For visible it is.* 1.631 It is indeed that visible and conspicuous City on its seven tops or hils (whereon it stood in Iohns time and now that Woman, that sits and rides mounted on her seven-headed, ten-horned Beast. Visible with a witnesse, otherwise all her pompe would loose the Grace, if it wanted spectators, as her Scarlet, and Purple, and Pearle, and Precious stones, metà polles phanta∣sías, with her great pompe. Visible no question, and so visible, and sensible too, as otherwise we could not know her to be the Great Whore. Thus she was shewed first to Iohn in a visi∣ble representation, by which we also come to know her to be the same Woman, when we doe but looke upon her. Well, visible we all grant her to be. What more? God hath hitherto preserved her. That's true too. For even the wickedest men upon earth, and the most Tyrannicall states, that they are for a time, yea and a long time too preserved in life, and doe prosper also they owe it to God. But to what end are the wicked preserved? Their finall * 1.632 end is destruction, to which they are r••served, as Peter speaks, and Paul too. Cain and his Posterity (whose Family was a type of Antichrists succession) continued and were preserved, and grew great, for almost two thousand yeares, till at last the Flood swept them all away. But of Rome you have better hopes, doubtlesse.* 1.633 For you say God hath preserved her for a better end doubt∣lesse, then they have turned it to. Now doubtlesse I will shew you what that better is, for which God hath hitherto preserved that Wo∣man, which hath been made drunke with the blood of the Saints. ‡ 1.634 Whom (saith the Apostle) the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightnesse of his coming And Rev. 14.8. Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great City, because she made all Nations drinke of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. And Rev. 18. read the whole Chap••er of Romes ruine. Yea and all that partake with Rome, shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God, &c. Rev. 14 9▪ 10. What the Scripture hath spoken of Romes fall, would fill a Volume. And is not this the best end, that God is pleased to preserve her for, when he shalbe glorified in executing his justice and judgements upon her for all her abo∣minations, and for all the blood of his Saints which she hath shed? And in her confusion God will magnifie and exalt the Honour, and Kingdome of Iesus Christ, which tha•• Woman and her Crew had oppressed, and the Saints shall tryumph over her. Yea,

saith the Lord, * 1.635 Rejoyce over her thou heaven, and the holy Apostles and Prophets; for God hath avenged you on her. And Chap. 19.1, 2. I heard (saith Iohn) a great voyce of much people in heaven (that is, in the true Church of Christ) saying, Alleluja, salvation, and Glory, and Honour, and Power unto the Lord our God: For true and righteous are his Iudgements, for he hath judged the great Whore, which did corrupt the Earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. Behold here for what a glorious end, the Lord hath preserved that Great Whore. But it seemeth you do not mean to make one of that Company, either to sing Alleluja, or to say Amen, when the Lord shalbe magnified in that day. For you hope doubtlesse for better, then all this. And so I am per∣swaded you have the like hopes, that God hath preserved and prospered you thus long for no lesse, then to be after scores of yeares in a flourishing estate here, Canonized for a Saint in heaven, for all the blood of the Saints, both of their soules and bo∣dies, which you have shed. Wherein you may have as much hope for your selfe, as for old Mother Rome, and all one. But I leave you to the Righteous Judge, who knows how and when to glorify himselfe, as well upon the wicked his enemies, by destru∣ction, as in his own Saints and servants by deliverance. ‡ 1.636 Here is the Patience of the Saints.

L. p. 375. Truly I say the same thing with him. Neither may a Protestant, that is resolved in Conscience that the profession of the true faith is in the Church of England goe to the Romish Church, there and in that manner to serve and worship God.

P. Thus you jumpe with the Jesuite in this, that, as he saith, 'Tis not lawfull for one affected, as the Lady was, that is, for one that is resolved of the truth of the Roman Church, to goe to the Church of England, there and in that manner to serve and worship God: so, &c. Why, will you let the Jesuite run away with it so? Do you not know that the Law of England injoynes all Papists under penalty to come to your Church? Now doth the Law injoyne that, which in it selfe is unlawfull for a man to doe, that is otherwise resolved in Conscience? Nor is this Law repeald, though (as before) it be a ••leep, and grown justly in the sheath. Now reconcile these two. And what say you then in the Case of Conscience touching your Ceremonies? There be some Cere∣monies▪ which the Law prescribes to be observed in your Church. Now a poore soule is not in Conscience perswaded, that he ought to conforme to such Ceremonies of necessity imposed, as being ag••inst Christian ••••••erty, and Christs Prerogative royall, in being

sole King over his Church, ruling in the Conscience of his People. Well you say, in this case such a man is bound against his Conscience to observe such Ceremonies? And if he be not bound, why doe you so severely and terribly punish him, for not daring to doe that, which is against his Conscience? Wheras the Papist, otherwise resolved in Conscience, you hold not bound to come to your English Church. And so of your Protestant, for going to the Romish Church, being against his Conscience. Will you not allow to the Conscience of the first as good Law, as you doe to the two last? Againe, you allow a greater and larger liberty of Conscience to your Protestant to go to the Romish Church, then the Jesuite doth to his Romanist, to come to your English Church. For he allows not his Romanist to come to your English Church, that is resolved in Conscience of the truth of the Roman Church, that it is a true Church, and that the truth is there: whereas you doe not allow your Protestant to goe to the Ro∣mish Church, that is onely resolved in Conscience, that the pro∣fession of the truth is in the Church of England Now there is great difference between the truth, and the profession of the truth. So as he that is resoled in Conscience, that the truth is onely profes∣sed in the Church of England, and is not withall resolved, that the truth it selfe is in the Church of England, may with more liberty goe to the Romish Church, then the Romanist may come to yours, that is resolved of the truth of and in the Romish Church. So as herein also the Jesuite hath the advantage of you. Againe, if the Jesuite did meane, by the truth of the Roman Church the profession of the truth in that Church, he therein comes no whit behind you. For the Church of Rome as well makes a false profession of the truth, as your Prelaticall Church of England doth. Againe, you make it no great matter of difference in this case between your Protestant and the Romanist, whither this or that goe to each others Church, so his Conscience put not a barre. As you tell us a little after, That the Church of Rome, and the Pro∣testants, do not set up a different Religion▪ Of which in its place. And here also you put no difference, but that the Romanist doth as well serve and worship God, after his Roman manner in his Ido∣latrous Masse, as your Protestant doth after your English manner. And perhaps the difference will not be found so great between you, but that you will well enough agree, when you have cast up your reckoning. But now, what if one of your simple Pro∣testants, be not resolved in Conscience of the profession of the truth in the Church of England, more then of that in the Church of Rome? Is

it not then lawfull for him to goe to the Romish Masse? With ••ou it seems so, so his Conscience hinder him not. And what Conscience hath your ignorant Protestant to hinder him in this case? Nay, I will say more: What knowing Protestant have you at this day in the present Church of England, since the publishing of your Declaration before the 39▪ Articles (which makes some of the principall of them to beare a double and contrary sense) that is, or can be resolved in his Conscience, that either the true faith, or so much as the Profession of the true faith, is in the Church of England? For those Articles, which containe the Doctrine of your Church, you confesse to be ambiguous, and doubtfull, and doe not resolve either way, but leave your Church in suspense: how then can any Protestant of the Church of England be resolved in Conscience, that the Profession of the true faith is in the Church of England, when neither your selfe seems to be resolved, or at least you doe not resolve your Church concerning your Articles what to beleeve? Which being so, may you not fairely hence conclude, that it is lawfull for any Protestant of the Church of Engdaud to goe to the Romish Church, there and in that manner to serve and worship God untill he shalbe resolved in his Conscience, that the profession of the true faith is in the Church of England: which re∣solution is not like to be, till your Lordship hath resolved them, which is the true and orthodox sense of your Articles, and that by a publicke ed••ct athenticke, and every way equall to the former; as in the case of Generall Councels, when the errours of one must be obeyed, till another, equall to that, shall reverse it. As before. But in the meane time, unlesse you make the more hast with your Edict for Resolution, your whole Church of England is now at liberty to goe to Masse and so to turne Romanist, as having no∣thing to restrain them (were there but Masses enough to in∣tertaine them, as no doubt there be Priests enough for the purpose, had they but Churches (so long as their Conscience is not resolved of the profession of the true faith in the Church of Eng∣land. And so the Broad Gates are set upon for the Consummation of your so much wished and plotted Reconcliation with the Church of Rome. And you adde:

L. p 376. Nor do the Church of Rome, and the Protestants set u•• a different Religion (f••r th•• Christian Religion is the same to both) but they differ in the same Religion: and the difference is in certaine gr••ss•• corruptions, to the very indangering of salvation, which each side s••y••s the other is guilty of.

P. By Protestants here, 'tis plain enough you mean those of

the Church of England, not those of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, I am sure of it. For they utterly renounce the Romish Religion and Faith as Antichristian, which you avow for Christian, the same with yours. But they differ (say you) in the same Religion. How? They do not set up a different Religion, and yet they differ in the same Religion? I understand not this Babylonish language. But wherein then doe they differ in the same, and undiffering Religion? In some certaine grosse corrupti∣ons, say you. But in some, not in all grosse corruptions, which are indifferent, and common to you both. And what grosse corrup∣tions are common to both, those shall not be put in the recko∣ning of corruptions at all, each covering other with the mantle of Charity. Yea such as you both agree in, are the very substance of your Religion. And the whole substance of the Romish, yea of all Christian Religion (saith Bellarmine) is the Masse. This then must be That same undiffering Christian Religion, which you both set up. And herein how much doe you dister? Have you not both your Altars, the main substance, on the service whereof all the rest attend, as your Priests, Sacrifice, Images, Crucifixes, Adora∣tions, Organs, curious musicke, and many other devises for your pompous service, your Liturgie differing more in the language, then in the matter and forme? But you will say you differ in Transustantiation. Yet you are willing to have a reall Presence confessed▪ and professed with you, as is noted before. But you say, the difference is in certaine grosse corruptions indangering sal∣vation. On which side? Each side (say you) charges other. I have heard two butter women scold, and each layd to other grievous things, and the one said, Thou playdst the whore, and the other sayd, Thou playdst the whore. Which of these (trow you) was the honester Woman? She haply that had lesse playd the whore, then the other, which perhaps was not for want of will, but opportunity. You and Rome charge each other with grosse corrup∣tions, which yet, are one and the same in both. Doth not thus the shame of both the more appeare? Your grosse corruptions on both sides can agree well enough, if you can be quiet. Yea and that to the indangering of Salvation too. For have you not (to be si∣lent in the rest) both your Altars, which are alone sufficient to sa∣crifice upon all your faith and salvation, and so to leave you neither faith nor salvation in Christ, as whom also you sacrifice thereon, together with your faith and salvation? For we shewed before, that your Altars doe overthrow and deny Iesus Christ the onely Altar of true beleevers▪ If then you both doe agree in the grossest

corruptions, as those whereby your salvation is not onely indan∣gered, but destroyed, which is the maine of your Religion wher∣in you differ not: what need there be any oddes between you for the rest? Both sides complain of each other, both have their corruptions, and grosse ones too, such as overthrow salvation. Then let your conscious ingenuity confesse to each other, and your conscientious Charity * 1.637 pardon each other. And so let the world be troubled no more with your Differences, but be good friends, and agree as sisters.

L. p. ibid. It may appeare by all the former Discourses, to any Indifferent Reader, that Religion, as it is professed in the Church of England, is nearest of any Church now in Beeing to the Primitive Church. Therfore not a Religion known to be false. And thus I both doe, and can prove, were not the deafnesse of the Aspe upon the eares of seduced Christians in all humane and divided Parties whatsoe∣ver.

P. You doe wisely to put it to the judgement of the indif∣ferent Reader, who unlesse he be a most indifferent man between your Church of England, and that of Rome, and so undifferent from you both in judgement and affection, to whom this which you say shall appeare to be true. For no such thing can appeare to any Reader, that is not so affected, as to beleeve your bare word, so soon as ever it sounds in his eare, or whose eyes doe not looke through the false glasse of your Perspective. Indeed you have proved to all men sufficiently both by this your Dis∣course, and by your Practises, that you and Rome do not set up a different Religion. We all beleeve it. And consequently we be∣leeve, that herein you come full as neare to the Primitive Church as Rome doth, alwayes excepted Romes lineall Pedegree from Pe∣ter; and you know you are a Degree once removed. And how neare you both come to the Primitive Church of the Apostles es∣pecially, the primest and purest, we have before shewed suffici∣ently. And if you come nearest, who (I pray you) are furthest off? Surely the most pious, the most religious, the most zealous, the most painfull and faithfull preachers of the Gospel, the greatest con∣temners of the world, the most humble and meeke, the most patient in suffering persecution for the truth, the most pure and precise in their life and conversation, the most exact conformist to the onely Rule of Faith and true Religion, the word of God; such as are not ambitious, covetous, carnall, and worldly minded, envious, malicious, cruel, haters and persecuters of Gods word, of his Ministers and people: Such, such (I say) must be furthest off from the Doctrine and practise

of the Apostles, and of the most pure and Primitive Church in their time, if you the Prelates and Churches of England and Rome come the nearest unto them.

L. p. 377. But is there no superstition in Adoration of Images? None, in Invocation of Saints?* 1.638 None in Adoration of the Sacra∣ment?

P. Yes: and grosse Heathenish Idolatry too, yea and infidelity to boote; though you would mince it never so small into a mat∣ter of superstition onely. And may not I say to you: But is there no superstition, yea no Idol••try, in your Adoration of Altars? (yea and worse then that of the Papis••s: for they worship their God, you the Altar.) None, in your Adoration of the Name IESVS? None, in bowing before your Crucifixes over your Altars? No induce∣ment at least to Idolatry in your goodly Images erected in your Chur∣ches? No 〈◊〉〈◊〉 smell of Popish superstition and Idolatry in y••ur Ado∣rations in the presence of such Im••ge••? The * 1.639 Iewes would not ••o much as stoop to tye the latchet of their shooe in the place, where an Image was, least their bowing might seem to be to the Image. And who knoweth, with what mind you do your humble and low∣ly D••votion before such sacred Reliques? And (to summe up all together) is there no superstion, yea no Idolatry in all that will-worship of yours, and of the Church of Rome, attended with so many Rites and Ceremonies of mans invention? For what is all Will-worship, but Idolatry, yea and the highest kind of Idolatry? As Vincentius saith: ‡ 1.640 What are strange Gods, but strange errours, for that Hereticks reverence their Opinions no lesse, then the Gentiles doe their Gods? And ‡ 1.641 Augustine saith: It is the vilest and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 kind of Idolatry, when m••n worship their own fancies, observing that for a Religion, which their erronious and swelling minds imagine. Thus we see (§ 1.642 as a learned Divine of the Church of England, and of great Eminencie said) that a corrupt and vicious Religion (such as Popery is, and such as you have made yours of the Church of England,* 1.643 not a different Religion▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 an inward and ghostly worship of Idols, which (saith he) Prince ought not to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at, or tolerate, seeing no man, and therfore no Prince can 〈◊〉〈◊〉 two Masters. For (saith he) if God be truth, they which presume to wor∣ship him with lyes (as in contrary faith must needs come to passe) serve now not God, but the Devil, a lyer himselfe, and the fa••her of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, whose service no Christian Prince may so much as 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ so he▪ Thus our Divines of the Church of England in former ages shall 〈◊〉〈◊〉 up as witnesses to condemn you in the day of Judgement, who teach and maintain things contrary to that truth, which they delivered.

L. p. 378. What not prove any superstition, any errour at Rome, but by pride, and that intolerable. Truly I would to God A.C. saw my heart, and all the pride that lodgeth in it.

P. This you speake to A.C. as to a Jesuite, or some Frier, or some Priest. All is one: such a one being a Ghostly Father, you may safely sub sigillo Conf••ssionis, or sub stola, under the seale of Confession, or under the Friers frocke, under the Rose (as we say) open the windows of your Brest, and let him look in, and view all the Roomes, and corners of your heart, to see what pride hath taken up her lodging there; and so the world shalbe never a whi•• the wiser for it. But you need not to wish any such thing. The pride of your heart cannot so easily be hid, as that you need wish, with Momus, if there were a glasse window in your Brest, for men to look in and see it, much lesse a subtile prying Jesuite. Alas, though the glaring light of it blind your own eyes, that you cannot see it your selfe: yet any other, that is but purblind, may through the Glasse, or spectacles of this your Book see the monstrous multiformious shape of it, had they not seen it before expressed in the Capitall Characters of your most insolent, and all daring practises. And that you yet see it not, there is not a more infallible argument or signe of a more monstrous proud heart, which is ever selfe blinded But look to it. What saith * 1.644 Ieremie? The heart is deceitfull above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the Lord search the heart, and try the reynes, even to give every man according to his wayes, and according to the fruit of his doing••s

L. p. 379. I hope God hath given the Lady mercy.

P. Namely, that same Lady, who formerly had been either brought unto, or confirmed in that Romish Religion, by that which you resolved her in, namely, That she might be saved, living and dying in the Roman faith and Religion; wherein it seems, as she lived, so she dyed. Now truly my Lord, If God did give her mercy, it is little God hamercy to you. But what ground have you for this your hope? Even as much, as for giving her hope, that she might be saved, living and dying in the Roman faith. Is it so easie trow you to send such a Lady to heaven securely wrap∣ped in the Mantle-lap of her silly ignorance? But what if she be now in hell? Are not you guilty of her damnation, by muz∣zling her in her blind ignorance, as wherein onely you taught her to place the hope of her salvation? But you told her of some danger But you did not possesse her with such a feare of the danger (as both there was cause, and you should have done)

as you puffed her up with the hope of safety, and that in the onely confidence of her silly ignorance; so as her vain hope over∣came just feare. And if now by this meanes she be in hell (as you set her in the ready high way) look you to it; Paries cum proximus ard••t, Tunc tua res ••gitur: if she by your leading be fallen into the pit, what is like to befall you the leader when, the blind, leading the blind, both fall into the pit? But if God hath had mercy on her, it was not since her death, by delivering her out of Purgatory, i•• she dyed a Papist: but before her death, by delivering her from her Popery, worse then any Purgatory, causing her to re∣nounce and repent of that, and to beleeve in his mercy, and Christs merit onely for salv••tion, without which faith of Christ ••here is no hope of mercy And we shewed before, that this faith of Christ is not the Roman faith, but quite opposit unto it.

L. p. ••88. But 'tis time to end, especially for me, that have so many things of weight lying upon me, and disabling me from these Polem••ck ••isccurses; besides the burthen of sixty five yeares compleat, which draw on a pace to the period set by the Prophet David, Psal. ••0. and to the Time, that I must goe, and give God and Christ an account of the Talent committed to my Charge; in which God, for Christ Iesus sake, be mercifull to me, who knows, that however in many weaknesses, yet I have with a faithfull and single heart (bound to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 free Grace for it) laboured the meeting the blessed meeting of Truth and Peace in his Church, and which God in his own good time, will (I hope) effect. To him be all Honour and Prayse for ever. Amen.

P. How fitly doth this your Conclusion suit with, and suc∣ceed that, which was last mentioned, as matter for your more serious and sad meditation, and which I cannot but tremble 〈◊〉〈◊〉! And well weighing also the words of this your Conclusion with all that you have written in this your Booke, and with all your Practises in your life (all so uniforme, and sutable) I am surprized with great astonishment. The reasons hereof will further appeare in the more particular animadversions upon your words asunder. And because we use to take most speciall notice of a mans last words: give me l••ave to take a full and particular view of yours here, as being, though not the last words of a dying man, yet the finall Conclusion of this your Booke, which so soon as I have read over, it passeth away tan∣quam Fabula as the Prophet speaks of a mans life * 1.645 as a ta•••• th•• is told. And as we looke, tha•• however you have dealt in your Book, yet in the close of all you should deale candidly, inge∣niously, and cordially, and not dubble with God, and the world, and

with your own Conscience: yet for my part, as the Spirit of sin∣cerity and truth (without flattery, or respect of Persons, where the truth is wronged) hath rnd doth run through all the veines of this my Reply to your Relation: so I shall by Gods grace close all with the same spirit, not sparing you to the last, where still you give just cause. And the truth cannot better, nor more sea∣sonably be spoken home, then as to a dying man, who though he have been never so notorious an hypocrite▪ and desperate man in the Course of his life, yet when he lyes upon his death-bed, and utters some words, which seem to savour of some sensi∣blenesse of his Condition, then, if ever, there may be some hope of working upon him (as when the yron is hot) by put∣ting home unto him, and laying before him his former life, that so at the last, though late (as the Thiefe on the Crosse) he may through Gods mercy be brought to repentance, and so to salvation. Although examples of such penitents indeed and in truth, be very rare. For as one observeth, * 1.646 One Thiefe was saved on the Crosse, that none should d••spaire: and but one, that none should presume. ••or the saying too ordinarily proves true, Qualis vita, finis it••: As a man lives, so he dyes. And Paenitentia sera, rarò vera: Late Repentance is seldome true. And the Prophet gives the reason of it: ‡ 1.647 Can the Ethiopian change his hew or skin? Or the Leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good: that are accustomed to doe evil. For as one ••aith, Consuetudo peccandi, tollit sensum pec∣ca••i: Custome of sinning, takes away the sense of sin And where there is no•• sense of sin, there can be no Repentance for sin. And ther∣fore commonly, when a man that hath lived wickedly, and hath been used to lying and dissembling all his life, comes to ••ay on his death bed, or at the last gaspe, Lord have mercy upon me: however we may not judge him, leaving him to his Judge, yet this is no sufficient argument to perswade us, that this is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Repentance. For lightly when such men, promising and vowing, it God restore them, to reforme their life, do recover: they ‡ 1.648 ••••turn ••s the Scripture speaks) with the dog to his vomit, and with 〈…〉〈…〉 that is washed, to her wallowing in the mire. According to that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or Apologie:

〈◊〉〈◊〉 Daemon, Monachus tunc esse volebat: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Daemon: nec tamen est Monachus.

Which 〈…〉〈…〉 thus:

〈…〉〈…〉 was 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the De••il a Monke would be: 〈…〉〈…〉 was well: the ••evil a Monke was he.

But I must not doe you wrong in applying of these things to

you: or that I have any hope of doing good upon you even now at last, in the close of all: seeing you give me no incouragement of hope at all this way. For in all this your Closse, not a word expressing the least sorrow for your most enormious iniquites, but on the contrary you justifie them, and glory in them. Wherein you shew the pride of your heart to be out of measure desperate, and not to be named with the pride of that Pharisee. For though he gloryed in himselfe, yet he gloryed not in his evil, but in those things that were in themselves good and commendable, and for which he gave God thanks, as the Author of them: but here I find a proud Prelate vaunting in his impiety, and in all his wicked practises, the ayme whereof is, to reconcile the Church of England, and that of the Whore of Babylon together, and all under a faire pretence of the meeting of Truth and Peace. And not content herwith, he must needs make God, and his free Grace the Author of all this Mystery of Iniquity, and deep hypocrisie, which here he veileth under the name of a single heart.

But stay before I begin, is there no hope of doing good up∣on you? It is not impossible, but that the greatnesse of your zeale for this Peace, hath been so strong in you, as whereby you have been perswaded, whatsoever you either have done, or yet can further doe, for the effecting thereof (be it by throwing down of Gods word, casting out his Ministers, chasing away G••ds people, howting out all power of holynesse out of the Land, and so removing all such impediments, as you thought stood in your way, and that per ••as, aut nefas, by right or wrong all wa••, and is well, yea very well done. Haply the lovely and amiable name of an Imaginary Truth, and deceitfull Peace, and counter••et C••urch: and the strength of your beliefe, that Rome was yet a true Church, and so true, that England and she were and are one and the same Church, no doubt of that, did so wholly possesse you, that ••o bring England and Rome together againe, you thought even 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Truth it selfe to be true piety, and the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the peace of all to be an establishment of unity, and confusion of light with dark∣nesse to a perfect Reconciliation. Yet this I must say wi••hall, as Christ said, * 1.649 If the light that is in thee be darknesse, how great is that darknesse! And if in all that you have done for the advancing of this your maine Project, you have not wilfully 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against the ••ight of your Conscience, and so gone on in that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 course with a high hand: certainly it seems to me a 〈…〉〈…〉 highest admiration, and so much the more, 〈…〉〈…〉 have long lived in the midst of such a cleare 〈…〉〈…〉▪

as no Age since the Apostles hath seen a greater; though now of late it hath suffered (and that since your elevation especially) no smal Eclipse. But if my words shall have no better effect with you, then onely to convince you, and discover your dam∣nable Hypocrisie, jam liberaui animam meam, I have now freed mine own soule. And now to your words.

'Tis time for me (say you) to end. And I say (as I sayd before) it had been (in my judgement) much better for you, if you had never begun this worke. But 'tis well, that at length (as Iob speaks) * 1.650 vaine words have an end. Though it be not for this reason, that you make an end. But you alledge those many things of weight lying upon you. What, what weighty things hath this mighty Apostolicall Man lying upon him? Such as the Apo∣stle had, ‡ 1.651 The care of all the Churches? That you pretend too, while you would so faine have Altars up in all the Churches in England. But the Apostle addes there: Who is weake, and I not weake? Who is offended and I burn not? Can you say so? You can say, Who is offended at my Cerimonies, and I burn not with zeale against that man, till I have consumed? But why do I name the Apostle? Your many things of weight lying upon your shoulders: are State-matters, high and deep State-mysteries, the burthen of a vast Iland, heavier then Etna it selfe. What, such, so weighty, so many things lye upon your weake shoulders? Enough to presse you down as low as hell. What doe not you professe to be a Priest? a Clergy man? And is not the Charge of that one Pro∣fession, being rightly executed (had you ever felt the weight of it) a burthen heavy enough to breake your backe, (which as one said) the shoulders of Angels would tremble under? And the Apostle speaking of a Ministers office, saith, ‡ 1.652 No man that warreth, intangleth himselfe with the affaires of this life, that he may please him,§ 1.653 who hath chosen him to be a souldier. But it seemeth you are none of those, whom Christ hath chosen to be his souldier, except he chose you for such a purpose, as he did but one man of the twelve. For you are one that warreth, and as Iudas, the Captain of the rout against Christ in his Ministers and members. But you intangle your selfe with the affaires of this life. And by this means you have the more power to warre against Christs Kingdome. So as Ieromes speech may take place here: Negoti∣a••orem Clericum, & ex inope divitem, ex ignobile gloriosum, tan∣quam quandam pestem ••uge:* 1.654 A negotiating or Polypragmaticall Clerke, or Clergy man, and who of poore bcomes rich, of base vain-glorious, fly from him, as from a kind of Plague.

But who hath compelled you to take the burthen of so many and great things upon you? What did the Pillars of the State shake and tremble, and threaten a fall, and therupon 〈…〉〈…〉 in, and put under your shoulder to stay it up? As the Pope at the Councel of Lateran dreamed, that the Lateran shooke and was ready to fall, but that Dominicus came in the nicke, and upheld it; wherupon the next day the Pope made Domi••i••us the Father of his Order. And so well may you prove a supporter of the Popes Lateran, but how a supporter of Civil States, I know not, nor meddle with, but negatively, shewing a dispa∣rity and incongruity between your Profession, and that, sa••ing that you are rather a Civilian, then a Divine, as having pro∣ceeded Doctor, not in Divinity, but of the Civil Law. But suppose you had been compell'd to it. * 1.655 Christ would not be made King, when they would have forced him. For ‡ 1.656 his King∣dome was not of this world. But yours is. And your shoulders are able to beare two such intolerable burthens, as never any man in the world could beare one of them well, and as he should doe Well, I will say no more but this, ‡ 1.657 To whom much is committed, of him shall much be required.

But you adde also another reason, why 'tis time for you to end: as bearing now the burthen of 65. yeares compleat. A great age, and yet I suppose you feele it not to be a burthen. If you doe, then as the Poet saith,

§ 1.658 Solve senescentem maturè sanus equum, ne Peccet ad erremum ridendus, & ilia ducat.

And you say, it draws on apace to the Period set by the Ppophet Da∣vid, Psal 90. You mistake the Pen-man: for it was Moses. But to let that passe, as a common mistake: and as a Law, which it seems you have imposed your selfe, and observed throughout your Book, not to cite any Scripture without per∣verting of it. Doth your Lordship hope to reach the period of three-score and ten? Alas, should you live out but one Lu∣strum of five yea••es more, what would become of (I say not, the Civil state, but) the poore Church of God yet in England? But our comfort is, The Lord Iesus Christ is both against you, and above you. In the meane time were it not safer for you, to think of a shorter period of your life least promising to yourselfe, and sleeping in the security of so many yeares more, you should be suddainly taken napping, as that rich man in the Gospell, to whom it was said, † 1.659 Thou foole this night shall they take away 〈◊〉〈◊〉 soule from thee. And besides, you are ‡̶ 1.660 ••et in a slippery place, 〈◊〉〈◊〉

you may fall into suddain destruction, as in a moment; as the Prophet saith. So as there is lesse confidence to be put in that, then in your Age. And therfore bethinke your selfe how suddain the time may be, that you must goe, and give account (as you say) to God and Christ of the Talent committed to your Charge, which you cannot so easily answere before that Judge, as you could doe in the Starre-Chamber. And remember what you said to the Jesu∣ite (pag. 316.) Our reckoning wilbe heavier, if we thus mislead on either side, then theirs that follow us? But I see I must looke to my selfe, for you are secure? And are not you full out as secure, as the Jesuite? But in that, you pray that God for Christs sake would be mercifull to yo u. But is that enough to wipe off all old scores, to say, God be mercifull to me? When the Course of a mans life hath been a very Enmity and Rebellion against Christ: when he hath spent the Talent of his Strength and Wit, Meanes, and Friends to the dishonour of God, in oppressing Christs word, persecuting his Ministers and People, profaning and pol∣luting the service of God with humane Ordinances, and will-wor∣ship, forcing mens Consciences to conformity, and the like: doe you think to salve all with a Lord have mercy upon me? Nay, you seem to be in good earnest, when you say, and pray, if God for Christs sake would be mercifull unto you. But wherein, or for what, should God for Christs sake be mercifull unto you? Which of your sins, your scarlet sins, your Episcopall sins, doe you confesse to God, and (because publick) unto the world, that truly repenting of them, God for Christs sake may be mer∣cifull to you? Doe you confesse and repent of your persecuting of Gods Ministers and People, for their Conscience sake? Nay you are so farre from this, that you say, God forbid (not, God forgive) that I should perswade to persecution in any kind, or practise it in the least. So as you in all this persecute none; no, not you; nor yet perswade others to it; nor disswade, neither. And yet you still continue a persecutor, as accounting it not a sin, but a vertue, not vicious, but rather meritorious, to root out the Puritans. And what say you to your more then Barbarous shedding of the Innocent Blood of Gods servants, and Christs witnesses, mangling their Bodies, and breaking them in pieces, causelesly separating Man and Wife, to satisfie your wicked malice, and so to murther them with your intollerable oppressions? Doe you crave mercy of God for this? Or is your guilty Conscience still seared, and stupified? Is your heart still hardened? Do you need no mercy for such cruell shedding of Innocent blood? David

* 1.661 confessed his blood-shed, and found mercy. But you continue your cruelty still in cold blood. What? Do you think, that be∣cause Gods people are as sheep appointed for the slaughter, and you the chiefe Butcher, therfore you sin not, in devouring and spoyling so many good Ministers with their Families and Flocks? O stupid Conscience! O desperate soule! And so still desperately you goe on, in justifying your selfe in all that you have done, and calling God to be witnesse too: saying, Who knows, that how∣ever in many weaknesses, yet I have with a faithfull and single heart (‡ 1.662 bound to his free Grace for it) laboured the meeting, the blessed meeting of Truth and Peace in his Church. O shamelesse hypocri∣sie! O blasphemous wretch! Doth God know? Is God the Author of all thy impiety, iniquity, cruelty▪ craft, hypocrisie and dissimulati∣on, of thy faithlesse and false heart, in thy plotting to bring thy false Truth, and thy turbulent Peace with the Whore of Babylon, that notorious enemy of Christ and his true Spouse his Church, to a meeting, to a blessed, yea to a cursed meeting?

O GOD, thou searcher of all hearts, behold this blaspemous Wretch, calling thee for a witnesse of his notorious and perfi∣dious false heart, and ascribing it to thy free Grace, as the moving and helping cause of all his impious practises. O Lord, Be not mercifull to any wicked Transgressor, that dare thus desperately take thy sacred Name in vaine, and make thy Grace, the father of his gracelesse actions Seest thou not, ô thou All-seeing, and All-revenging GOD, how this man hath been a prime Instrument of oppressing thy Word? of forbidding it to be preached (therein denying and de∣stroying the Doctrine of thy free Grace, which here he hypocritically nameth) of persecuting thy faithfull Ministers and People even to root them out? Of proclaming Libertinisme in the publicke profanation of thy Sabbaths, and violation of thy holy Commandement? Of setting up Idolatrous Altars, to the denying of the Lord Iesus Christ, our onely Altar, whereon our Persons and sacrifices offered up unto thee, are accepted of Thee? Of bringing into thy worship sundry supers••tious Idolatrous Rites and Ceremonies, in Adoration of Altars, Names, pray∣ing towards the East? Of setting up Images and Crucifixes those Idols in the publick place of Worship? Of putting down preaching of thy holy Word upon thy holy Sabbaths especially in the Afternoones, when there is most need, and people should be aptest, and best at leasure generally to heare? Of inlarging and making heavier the yoake of Bondage and Tyranny upon the necks of thy People, in increasing of more Ceremonies, to the intollerable vexation of thy Children, and

incrochment and usurpation upon Christs Kingdome, and royall sove∣rainty, as sole King over his Church, and Lord of the Consciences of his people? Yea * 1.663 surely thou hast▪ seen all these things; for thou be∣holdest mischiefe and spight, even to requite it with thy hand: and therfore the poore committeth himselfe unto thee: For thou art the helper of the fatherlesse. Therfore, arise ô Lord; ô God, Lift up thine hand, forget not the humble. Wherfore doth the wicked contemn thee, ô God: He hath said in his heart, Thou wilt not require it. But Lord, break thou the arme of the wicked, and the evil man; seek out his wickednesse, till thou find none. For wherfore should the Heathen say, where is their God?* 1.664 O let our God be known among the Heathen in our fight, by the revenging of the blood of th•• servants, which is shed And let the sighing of the Prisoners come before thee: according to the greateesse of thy power preserve thou those, that are appointed to dye. And render unto our Neighbours sevenfold into their bosome their reproach, wherewith they have reproched thee ô Lord. So we thy People and Sheep of thy pastture will give thee thanks for ever: we will shew forth thy praise to all Generations.

Now, to return to you againe and so ridde my hands of you. All that you have done, is (you say) for the blessed meeting of Truth and Peace. This is the upshot of all, Englands Reconcilia∣tion with Rome. So as when these two are reconciled (as I doubt they are already, while you hold us in expectation, untill you expect but time (the Contract being already made) for Con∣firmation) when this is come to passe, then wilbe a blessed mee∣ting, a mercy meeting For it is a meeting of Truth and Peace. Indeed when Truth and Peace, in the true sense, do meet, 'tis a blessed meeting indeed. But what Truth? What Peace? The Truth is, When this Peace is once Consummate, that it comes to be openly avowed and professed (for which we must not looke for a Generall Councel, that's but a flourish, and a Blind, while you are undermining the Bulwarke of our Truth, and the beauty of our Peace) then (as when Herod and Pilate were made friends) you shall see (which is already in execution) open persecution of all true Piety, and Purity, and perturbation of all true Peace, and that not onely in the Churches of God, but in Civil states and Kingdomes, when for the maintenance of this Peace, Princes shalbe set against their People, and People are forced to stand for the liberty of their Consciences against Prelaticall Antichristian Tyranny. For what is Romes Truth, but Trechery? And what is Romes Peace, but Perturbation, per∣plexity,

confusion, Babylon, even to all those, that confederate with her? Ye•• your hope is, that God in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 good time 〈…〉〈…〉 meeting. God will certainly effect, and bring to 〈…〉〈…〉 Coun∣cel and Purpose, in his good time for the good of all his People, and the confusion of all his enemies, and theirs. And one of his Coun∣cels and Purposes he hath declared to be (which shall certain∣ly, and I trust very shortly come to passe, and in due 〈…〉〈…〉) the destruction of the Whore of Babylon, together withall 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that are linkt in a league with her, and that under a pretence ••f the blessed meeting of your Truth and Peace. And then * 1.665 sha••b•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that great voy••a of much People in heaven (to wit, in the Chu••ches of Christ) saying, Alleluja: salvation, and Glory, and 〈…〉〈…〉 Power unto the Lord our God; for true and righteous are his ••udge∣ments, for he hath judged the Great W••ore, which did corrup•• the Eearth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. Amen. ALLELUJA.

Pántote Dóxa Theo.

June, 26. 1639.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  1 Sam. 11.2.
• ‡ 1.2

  1 Co••. 14.20
• ‡ 1.3

  Heb. 6.1.
• § 1.4

  Heb. 5▪14.
• † 1.5

  Psal. 1.1, 2·
• * 1.6

  He••. 5.14.
• * 1.7

  C••l.. 2.2.
• * 1.8

  Col. 3.16.
• * 1.9

  The Prelate yeelds the Iesu∣ite this, that the Church of R••me is a true Church▪ on whose Iudge∣ment people must depend.
• * 1.10

  Act. 4.12.
• * 1.11

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.12

  Iohn 16.7▪
• ‡ 1.13

  Rom. 8.9.
• * 1.14

  Synodi Chalce∣donensis ••le¦pistis: Asmu∣kutos: Akori∣stoes, Adiairé∣toes, Atr••p∣toes▪
• * 1.15

  See pag. 94. ••••fore.
• ‡ 1.16

  Iohn 14.6.
• * 1.17

  Pro. 5.8.
• * 1.18

  Isa. 9.6.
• ‡ 1.19

  Luke 2.11▪
• ‡ 1.20

  Rom. 4.25▪
• § 1.21

  Heb. 2.14, 15.
• † 1.22

  Rom. 4.
• * 1.23

  Ioh. 16.7.
• ‡ 1.24

  Ephes. 4.8. Ioh. 14.2. Rom. 8.34. Psal. 2.6. Act. 7.56. Heb. 1.13.
• ‡ 1.25

  Act. 2.29, 30, 31, 32.
• § 1.26

  Eph. 4 9▪
• * 1.27

  Ioh. 19.30. Psal. 18.5.
• ‡ 1.28

  Col. 2.15.
• ‡ 1.29

  Heb. 2.14, 15.
• † 1.30

  Psal. 18.5. Math. 26.38, 3••. & 27.46.
• * 1.31

  L. p. 62. com∣pared with other places. See p. 109.
• * 1.32

  Nondum ••ato Pelagio, securius loque∣••••ntur P••t••••s. Aug. Epist. 103
• ‡ 1.33

  Dr. Bilson.
• * 1.34

  p. 45.46.
• ‡ 1.35

  Iam. 5.1••.20.
• * 1.36

  Ehes. 5.25, 26.
• * 1.37

  Ioh. 20.30, 31.
• ‡ 1.38

  pag 52.53.
• * 1.39

  1 Cor. 7.14.
• ‡ 1.40

  Rom. 4.16.
• ‡ 1.41

  Isa. 8.20.
• * 1.42

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 8.9.
• ‡ 1.43

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 5.39.
• ‡ 1.44

  Luke 10.25.26.
• § 1.45

  1 Cor. 4.6.
• † 1.46

  Rom. 15.4.
• * 1.47

  2 Pet. 1.19.
• * 1.48

  Iam. 2.1••.
• * 1.49

  Co••••il. Trid. Sess. 6.
• ‡ 1.50

  Abasing of the Scripture, in subjecting it to natural Reason.
• ‡ 1.51

  1 Cor. 2.14.
• § 1.52

  Act. 16.14.
• * 1.53

  1 Cor. 2.
• ‡ 1.54

  Math. 6.23.
• * 1.55

  1 Cor 2.14.
• § 1.56

  Rom. 8.6.
• “ 1.57

  v. 7.
• † 1.58

  Ier. 10.
• * 1.59

  Psal. 62.9.
• § 1.60

  Exod. 30.••3
• * 1.61

  Pr••lates Reason put to its tryall.
• * 1.62

  Rev. 19 13.
• ‡ 1.63

  Luke 9.22.
• † 1.64

  Luk 18.21.
• § 1.65

  Ps••l. 8.8.
• * 1.66

  Hieronimus Epist.
• * 1.67

  Math. ••••.3••.
• ‡ 1.68

  Iam. 4.4.
• ‡ 1.69

  Tit. 1.16.
• § 1.70

  1 Cor. 2.2.
• † 1.71

  1 Cor. 1.18.
• * 1.72

  Prelates blas∣p••••my against 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Scripture.
• * 1.73

  Rev. 17.3
• * 1.74

  Ioh.
• * 1.75

  Rom. 3.4▪
• * 1.76

  2 Cor. 4.4.
• ‡ 1.77

  Math. 5.15.
• * 1.78

  Pro. 30.5, 6▪
• ‡ 1.79

  Pro. 8.8, 9.
• ‡ 1.80

  2 Pet. 1.19.
• § 1.81

  Psal. 119.105.
• * 1.82

  Psal. 19.8.
• ‡ 1.83

  Ps. 119.130
• * 1.84

  Scripture con∣vincing a natu∣rall man.
• ‡ 1.85

  1 Cor. 14.24, 25.
• * 1.86

  Heb. 4.12.
• § 1.87

  2 Cor. 10.4, 5.
• * 1.88

  A motion.
• * 1.89

  1 King. 22▪
• * 1.90

  1 King. 22.
• ‡ 1.91

  Act. 24.25.
• ‡ 1.92

  2 Cor. 4.7.
• * 1.93

  2 Pet. 1.21.
• * 1.94

  Comparison.
• * 1.95

  Mat. 24.29▪
• ‡ 1.96

  Mal. 4.2.
• § 1.97

  Mat. 27.45.
• † 1.98

  Ps. 119.89.
• * 1.99

  Eccles. 7.29▪
• ‡ 1.100

  1 Sam. 19.13.
• * 1.101

  Magno 〈◊〉〈◊〉 magnas nuga••▪
• * 1.102

  Adversus Lu∣ciferian••s.
• * 1.103

  The onely way how men may know the Scrip∣ture to be Gods word as the Pre∣late teacheth.
• * 1.104

  Math. 24.
• ‡ 1.105

  Revel. 13.
• ‡ 1.106

  Math. 24.
• § 1.107

  Col. 2.••8.
• † 1.108

  2 Tim. 3.13 2, 3, 4, 5.
• * 1.109

  Act 26.28▪
• * 1.110

  Col. 2.8.
• ‡ 1.111

  Rom. 10.
• * 1.112

  Prelates Blas∣pheming of Scripture all along, and ex∣alting his Pre∣sent Churches Authority above it.
• * 1.113

  Prelate lighting the Scripture▪ and puting out the Candle.
• * 1.114

  More and more Blasphemy of the Prelate, ascribing that to his Tradition, which is onely proper to the word and Spirit of Christ.
• * 1.115

  Psal. 19·8.
• * 1.116

  Iohn 9▪
• * 1.117

  A Doctrine of damnable Blas∣phemy.
• ‡ 1.118

  Ioh. 5.39.
• † 1.119

  Ioh. 6.44▪ 45
• § 1.120

  August. in Io∣han▪ & alibi. Act. 16.14.
• * 1.121

  Ps. 119.18.
• ‡ 1.122

  Mat. 28.19, 20.
• * 1.123

  A subtile and sly evasion of the Prelate from the Iesuite, who objecteth truly.
• * 1.124

  A miserable Shift.
• * 1.125

  A pretty jug∣ling tricke of Legerdemain.
• ‡ 1.126

  1 Cor. 14 20.
• ‡ 1.127

  2 Tim. 3.15, 16.
• * 1.128

  1 Cor. 13.
• ‡ 1.129

  Rom. 12.6.
• ‡ 1.130

  Prelate per∣verts the sense of Scripture, conf••••••ding the Regenerate with the Vnregene∣rate, and Saints Faith with Hi∣storicall.
• † 1.131

  Andreas Ve∣ga. Bellarmine, and others.
• * 1.132

  2 Cor. 11.17.
• * 1.133

  2 Cor. 4.18. See also 1 Cor. 2.9. & 1 Pet. 1.8.
• ‡ 1.134

  Psal. 10.5.
• † 1.135

  pag. 86.
• * 1.136

  Heb. 11.1••.
• ‡ 1.137

  v. 27.
• ‡ 1.138

  Ioh. 8.56.
• § 1.139

  Act. 7.56.
• † 1.140

  Ier. 17.••.
• * 1.141

  2 Cor. 1.20▪
• * 1.142

  Psal. 19.7. & 93.5.
• ‡ 1.143

  Psal.
• ‡ 1.144

  Esay. 55.3.
• § 1.145

  Iohn 6.69. Act. 13.34.
• † 1.146

  Rom. 4.16.
• * 1.147

  2 Pet. 1.19.
• ‡ 1.148

  Rom. 15.4.
• ‡ 1.149

  Act. 24.25.
• § 1.150

  Act. 26.28.
• † 1.151

  vers. 27.
• * 1.152

  Scripture per∣verted by the Prelate▪ as pag. 134.
• ‡ 1.153

  1 Cor. 13.12
• ‡ 1.154

  Exod. 33.
• § 1.155

  2 Cor. 3.18.
• * 1.156

  Blasphemy a∣gainst God in his Providence.
• * 1.157

  Iob. 16.3.
• § 1.158

  Iob. 19.3.
• ‡ 1.159

  2 Tim. 1.12.
• § 1.160

  I••h. 10.38·
• † 1.161

  1 Tim. 4 3·
• * 1.162

  1 Pet. 1.23.
• ‡ 1.163

  Iam. 1.18.
• ‡ 1.164

  Psal. 119.49, 50.
• * 1.165

  Rom. 15.4.
• ‡ 1.166

  Iob. 13.15.
• * 1.167

  Blasphemy.
• ‡ 1.168

  The Prel••te contradicts him∣selfe, not under∣standing wher∣of he ••ffirmeth.
• § 1.169

  Rom. 10.10.
• * 1.170

  Heb. 11.3.
• (a) 1.171

  Rom. 3.2.
• (b) 1.172

  2 Tim. 3.15, 16.
• (c) 1.173

  Ioh. 5.39.
• (d) 1.174

  2 Pet. 1.20, 21.
• (e) 1.175

  Act. 10.43.
• (f 1.176

  Luk 22.32
• (g) 1.177

  Ioh. 16.13.
• (h) 1.178

  1 Ioh. 1.3.
• (i) 1.179

  Rev. 22.18
• * 1.180

  pag. 88▪
• ‡ 1.181

  Io••. 5.31▪
• * 1.182

  The Prel••t••s Ground 〈◊〉〈◊〉 false, if appl•••••• to S••ripture.
• * 1.183

  Ioh. 8.13, 14.
• ‡ 1.184

  Psal. 19.
• ‡ 1.185

  Ps. 119.93.
• § 1.186

  2 Cor. 10.
• * 1.187

  Heb. 4.12.
• “ 1.188

  Rom. 1.
• ‘,‘ 1.189

  2 Cor. 2.15.
• * 1.190

  Luk. 11.52.
• ‡ 1.191

  Mat. 12.44.46.
• * 1.192

  1 Cor. 13.
• ‡ 1.193

  1 Cor. 12.7▪
• ‡ 1.194

  2 Cor. 10.8▪ & 13.10.
• * 1.195

  The Prelate self-condemned.
• * 1.196

  The Prelate bel••s the Scrip∣ture to credit his false Tradition.
• * 1.197

  Scripture little beholden to the Prelate for his Tradition.
• ‡ 1.198

  The Prelate catcht in his own Delemna, or net.
• * 1.199

  A Solecisme of the Prelates.
• * 1.200

  A. Gelius. Noct. At••icarum.
• * 1.201

  1 Pet. 4.11.
• ‡ 1.202

  T••t. 2▪ 1.
• ‡ 1.203

  v. 8.
• § 1.204

  H••pot••po∣sin Tit 1.13.
• * 1.205

  2 Thes. 3.1.
• ‡ 1.206

  Ezek. 47.12.
• ‡ 1.207

  A French Proverbe.
• § 1.208

  2 Tim. 2.9▪
• * 1.209

  2 Tim. 2.9.
• * 1.210

  The Prelates 3 marks of his imagined Au∣thor of Ipswich Newes.
• * 1.211

  Heb. 11.36▪
• ‡ 1.212

  Mar. 10.34▪ Mat. 27.31.
• * 1.213

  Prelates words and deeds agre•• n••t.
• * 1.214

  Hos. 4.6▪
• * 1.215

  Prelate a noto∣rious persecut••r of the true prea∣ching of Gods word.
• * 1.216

  Rom. 1.16.
• * 1.217

  1 Cor. 1.24.
• * 1.218

  The Prelates Diabolicall ma∣lice against the true Ministers of Christ.
• * 1.219

  Iude. Ier. 15.19. Esay. 5.20.
• * 1.220

  The manner of the old Tria∣rian Souldiers fighting.
• ‡ 1.221

  Rev. 16.14.
• * 1.222

  Psal. 59.12▪
• * 1.223

  pag. 101▪
• * 1.224

  Esay 12.3▪
• * 1.225

  2 Pet. 3.
• * 1.226

  Psal. 25.14.
• * 1.227

  Epistle Dedic••∣tory.
• ‡ 1.228

  Mr. H. B••.
• * 1.229

  Hierom. Epist▪ ad Laetom.
• * 1.230

  A true Princi∣ple overthrown by a false.
• * 1.231

  Pro. 22.7.
• * 1.232

  Tit. 3.10.11.
• * 1.233

  •• Cor. 5.13, 14.
• * 1.234

  Act. 21.13.
• * 1.235

  Io••. 10.20. Mar. 3.21.
• * 1.236

  Belying of God, and of the Scripture, and bewraying pro∣found ignorance.
• ‡ 1.237

  Col. 2.3▪
• † 1.238

  2 Cor. 4.3.••▪
• § 1.239

  1 Cor. 2.9▪
• † 1.240

  1 Tim. 1.5▪ 6.7.
• * 1.241

  Esay. 29.9▪
• * 1.242

  Bold belying and blaspheming Gods Secret Counsels.
• * 1.243

  Ioh. 14.6.
• ‡ 1.244

  Ioh 1.4.
• ‡ 1.245

  Ephes. 5.8.
• § 1.246

  Ioh. 1.9.
• † 1.247

  Act. 26.18.
• * 1.248

  Prelates blind Popish way.
• * 1.249

  Iohn 6.40.
• * 1.250

  Ephes. 4.11.
• * 1.251

  1 Pet. 4.3. Hos. 4.1.
• * 1.252

  Ier. 3.15.
• * 1.253

  2 Sam. 5.6▪
• * 1.254

  Mat. 11.12.
• ‡ 1.255

  Mat. 21.31.32.
• * 1.256

  Pag 109. Blasphe••••••g againe of Gods Counsells.
• ‡ 1.257

  Gal. 1.8.9.
• § 1.258

  Deut. 27.18
• * 1.259

  Credit of Scrip∣ture hang'd upon mans opinion of God. See 165.
• * 1.260

  2 Tim. 3.16.
• ‡ 1.261

  1 King. 19.12▪ 13.
• * 1.262

  Mans opinion of Gods Suffi••iency 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••ain and blind.
• * 1.263

  The Prelates blind opinion of Gods Sufficien∣cie.
• * 1.264

  H••b. 4.12.
• ‡ 1.265

  1 Ioh. 3.20.
• ‡ 1.266

  Rom. 2.15.
• * 1.267

  Pro. 20.27.
• § 1.268

  1 Cor. 10.2••
• * 1.269

  Most notorious bl••spheming a∣gainst the Holy-Ghost, making him the Author of falshood.
• * 1.270

  Exod. 10.
• ‡ 1.271

  Iude 16.
• * 1.272

  Ioh. 3.
• ‡ 1.273

  Psal. Iob 35.
• * 1.274

  Belying and blaspheming the Holy spirit of God.
• * 1.275

  Notorious and grosse hypocrisie, pretending re∣spect to Scrip∣ture, when ne∣ver any Iesuite, did more vilifie and nullifie the Authoritie and credit of it. Detection of the Hipocrisy.
• * 1.276

  2▪ Cor. 10.8.
• ‡ 1.277

  2 Pet. 3.16.
• * 1.278

  Mat. 15.9.
• * 1.279

  Sect. 18.
• ‡ 1.280

  A 〈…〉〈…〉 or put off.
• § 1.281

  Psal. 19.5.
• † 1.282

  Prov. 4.18.
• * 1.283

  Mal. 4.2.
• ‡ 1.284

  Pag. 90.
• * 1.285

  Gnômon.
• ‡ 1.286

  2 Pet. 1.19.
• * 1.287

  The Prelate in a Circle.
• * 1.288

  Mal. 4.2.
• ‡ 1.289

  Heb. 1.3.
• * 1.290

  The Prelate selfe condemned.
• * 1.291

  Ephes. 1.2.5.6.
• ‡ 1.292

  Rom. 3.24.
• * 1.293

  Ephes. 1.6.
• * 1.294

  Blasphemous lye
• ‡ 1.295

  A subtile in∣sinuation.
• * 1.296

  A shamefull lye.
• * 1.297

  Pag. 80.
• ‡ 1.298

  pag. 83, 84.
• ‡ 1.299

  pag. 77.
• § 1.300

  pag. 86.
• * 1.301

  pag 87.
• * 1.302

  Blasphemous lye▪
• * 1.303

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. Subtile Insinu∣ation detected 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vanity.
• * 1.304

  Epistle Dedica∣tory.
• * 1.305

  Gen. 11. Difference be∣tween Rome and the Prelate a∣bout Tradition.
• * 1.306

  Major▪
• * 1.307

  Minor.
• * 1.308

  Conclus••••••▪
• * 1.309

  Sweet.
• ‡ 1.310

  1 Cor. 11.20.
• * 1.311

  Iugd. 6.32▪
• ‡ 1.312

  2 Chron. 3••▪ 16.
• ‡ 1.313

  Rom. ••▪
• * 1.314

  A Privy Nippe.
• * 1.315

  Act. 8.23.
• * 1.316

  1 King. 20.
• ‡ 1.317

  Isa. 29.21.
• * 1.318

  Ier. 13.23▪
• ‡ 1.319

  Ier. 51.9▪
• ‡ 1.320

  Act. 19.34.
• * 1.321

  1 Cor. 11.20
• ‡ 1.322

  1 Cor. 10.21
• * 1.323

  Tespará∣konta hóras.
• * 1.324

  Hoi prosou Presbuteros. Fpempon Eukaristían.
• ‡ 1.325

  Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 26. Et Socr. lib. 5. Eccl. Hist. c. 22.
• ‡ 1.326

  Rom. 14.5.
• * 1.327

  A most 〈◊〉〈◊〉 conclusi••n of an erronious fai••h.
• ‡ 1.328

  Rev. 13.12.
• ‡ 1.329

  Mat. 24.24.
• * 1.330

  2 Thes 2.1••.11.
• ‡ 1.331

  1 Cor. 15.14
• § 1.332

  Gal. 5.2.4.
• * 1.333

  O•• the Lords 〈◊〉〈◊〉-Day.
• † 1.334

  Psal. 95.
• * 1.335

  Deut. 5.12.13.14.15▪
• * 1.336

  Reve. 20.5.
• ‡ 1.337

  Heb. 4.9.
• ‡ 1.338

  vers. 8.
• § 1.339

  Heb. 4.8.9▪
• * 1.340

  Pag. 141.
• * 1.341

  Rom. 11.16.
• ‡ 1.342

  1 Cor. 3.17.
• * 1.343

  A peremptory speech.
• * 1.344

  Plain dealing.
• * 1.345

  The tender-hearted Prelate 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to make the rent wider.
• * 1.346

  2 Chro. 11▪ 15.
• ‡ 1.347

  2 King. 1••.
• * 1.348

  Amos 7.10, 11, 12, 13.
• * 1.349

  Ier. 38.
• ‡ 1.350

  Rom. 9.6.17.
• * 1.351

  Ier. 51.••▪
• ‡ 1.352

  Gal. 3.1.
• ‡ 1.353

  As, De 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.354

  Rom. 8.28.
• * 1.355

  Epistle Dedi∣catory.
• * 1.356

  Pag. 205.
• ‡ 1.357

  Epistle Dedi∣catory.
• * 1.358

  Englands halfe Reformation now made a whole Defor∣mation.
• * 1.359

  Ovid.
• * 1.360

  Thus still no•• the Scripture must be Iudge.
• * 1.361

  Pag. 176.
• * 1.362

  Epistle Dedi∣catory.
• * 1.363

  Athanasius.
• * 1.364

  Pag. 176.
• ‡ 1.365

  H••w comes then Canterbury to have the 〈…〉〈…〉 Y••••ke ra••••••r then 〈…〉〈…〉 there Con∣stantine was 〈◊〉〈◊〉. And the the old Prop••e•••• is, York•• shalbe.
• † 1.366

  Rom. 1.1. 1 Cor. 1.1. 2. Cor. 1.1. &c.
• * 1.367

  Pag. 176.
• * 1.368

  Psal. 45.16.
• * 1.369

  Rev. 1.6.
• * 1.370

  1 Pet. 2.9▪ Rev. 5.9, 10. Iam. 2.5.
• * 1.371

  Rom. 8.16, 17▪
• * 1.372

  Rom. 8.29. Heb. 2.11.
• ‡ 1.373

  Pro. 26.12.
• ‡ 1.374

  Iude. 16.
• § 1.375

  Gen. 9.
• † 1.376

  Psa••. 66.12.
• * 1.377

  Fredericke.
• ‡ 1.378

  Revel. 17.
• * 1.379

  Act. 15. Gal. 2.••.
• ‡ 1.380

  Act. 8.1.••▪
• * 1.381

  pag. 182.
• * 1.382

  idid.
• ‡ 1.383

  Selfe-condem∣ned.
• * 1.384

  Ier. 23.32.
• * 1.385

  Blasphemy a∣gainst Christ as being Author of the Antichristi∣an Hierarchy.
• * 1.386

  1 Tim 6.15.
• ‡ 1.387

  Rom. 16.27.
• ‡ 1.388

  Ioh. 15.14, 15.
• § 1.389

  Gen. 18.17.
• † 1.390

  Iam. 2.23.
• ‡̶ 1.391

  Psal. 25.14.
• * 1.392

  Dan.
• ‡ 1.393

  Rev. 1.
• ‡ 1.394

  Rev. 12.4.
• § 1.395

  2 Th••ss 2.
• * 1.396

  Cicer. Offic.
• * 1.397

  2 Cor.
• ‡ 1.398

  1 Tim. 3.1, &c.
• * 1.399

  Act. 14.23.
• ‡ 1.400

  2 Cor. 2.16.
• * 1.401

  Ioh. 16.14.
• ‡ 1.402

  Eph. 2.2.
• * 1.403

  Metà 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.404

  Ioh. 10.10▪ 12.
• ‡ 1.405

  Ier. 3.15.
• ‡ 1.406

  1 Pet. 5.2.
• * 1.407

  L' aeil de beuf.
• § 1.408

  Esa. 27.3.
• † 1.409

  Mat. 18.20▪
• * 1.410

  1 Tim. 5.17.
• ‡ 1.411

  1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1.
• * 1.412

  Math. 20.
• * 1.413

  Luke 22.25▪
• ‡ 1.414

  1 P••t. 5▪
• * 1.415

  Iude 1••.
• ‡ 1.416

  Iude 19.
• * 1.417

  Mat. 24. & 7.1••.
• * 1.418

  Rev. 19.19, 20.
• ‡ 1.419

  Rev. 18.7.
• ‡ 1.420

  Vt sedeat, se∣dendo quiescat in Tabernaculis pacis, &c. As Rev. 18.7. Sedeo Regina.
• § 1.421

  Rev. 17.
• * 1.422

  Phil. 3.19.
• ‡ 1.423

  Rev. 18.6, 7, 8, &c.
• ‡ 1.424

  Pag. 205.
• § 1.425

  2 Chro. 26.16, 17, 18.
• * 1.426

  1 King. 7.21·
• * 1.427

  pag. 205.••••▪
• * 1.428

  Cicero.
• ‡ 1.429

  Wits Com∣mon-wealth.
• ‡ 1.430

  Dr. White of the Sabbath. Dr. Primrose. Dr. Heylin. Dr. Pocklinglon.
• * 1.431

  Epist. Dedi∣catory.
• ‡ 1.432

  Rev. 13.10▪
• * 1.433

  Eccl. 4.1.
• ‡ 1.434

  S. Edmund. Elect of Cant.
• ‡ 1.435

  Dr Bilson of Christian sub∣jections, and Antichristian Rebellion. Part 3. pag. 52••. Printed 1585.
• * 1.436

  The Prelate here blasphemeth Gods Name, as if a favourer of his Prelaticall practises.
• ‡ 1.437

  A blasphe∣mous 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••f Faith.

  Prelates C••nons equaled with Scripture for governing th•• Church▪
• * 1.438

  Gal. 6.7.
• ‡ 1.439

  1 Sam. 12.25
• * 1.440

  A blaspemous Article of faith.
• * 1.441

  Prelates ••••sphe∣my.
• * 1.442

  Mat. 11.17.
• ‡ 1.443

  Pag. 274.
• ‡ 1.444

  I••h 19·7.
• * 1.445

  A 〈…〉〈…〉, if Pre∣lates be Iudges▪
• * 1.446

  A spirituall duty necessary to all Christian Ma∣gistrates.
• * 1.447

  As Hes••us, Pignius e•• alis.
• * 1.448

  See Aeneas Sylvi••s of the Councel of Ba∣s••••, who was af∣ter Pope Pius 2. See also Book of Martyrs.
• ‡ 1.449

  Mat. 24.28.
• ‡ 1.450

  Pro. 28.11.
• § 1.451

  Luk. 10.21.
• † 1.452

  Ephes. 2.12▪
• * 1.453

  1 Tim. 4.1.
• * 1.454

  2.3.
• * 1.455

  4.
• * 1.456

  Rom. 14.23.
• * 1.457

  Mat. 3.12.
• ‡ 1.458

  2 Cor. 11.13
• * 1.459

  Acts. 15.20.21.
• * 1.460

  Act. 15.6.
• ‡ 1.461

  ve. 22, 23▪ 25.
• * 1.462

  1 King. 22.
• * 1.463

  Bellarmine.
• * 1.464

  Io•• 5.39.
• ‡ 1.465

  Esa. 8.20.
• ‡ 1.466

  Cant. 1.7.
• § 1.467

  vers. 8.
• † 1.468

  Psal. 91.1. Mat. 6.21.
• * 1.469

  Psal 23.1, 2.
• ‡ 1.470

  Mat. 4.4.
• ‡ 1.471

  Ier. 3.15.
• § 1.472

  Isay. 55.1, 2, 3.
• † 1.473

  Psal. 119.-
• * 1.474

  Lógiathe¦o••. 1 Pet. 4.11.
• ‡̶ 1.475

  2 Tim. 6.3.
• * 1.476

  Heb. 4.12.
• ‡ 1.477

  Mat▪ 11.19.
• ‡ 1.478

  Rom. 15.4.
• * 1.479

  Mat. 24.
• ‡ 1.480

  Ad Fontes the common voyce of the Pri∣mitive Fathers.
• ‡ 1.481

  Mat. 28.20.
• § 1.482

  Ioh. 16.13.
• † 1.483

  1 Ioh. 2.2••.
• ‡̶ 1.484

  Rom. 8.9.
• * 1.485

  1 Pet. 1.5.
• * 1.486

  Pag. 226.
• * 1.487

  1 Tim. 6.8.
• * 1.488

  See a little before fol. •••• Bellarmine.
• * 1.489

  1 Io••. 3.9. Arminius Exa∣men.
• ‡ 1.490

  Pag. 230.
• ‡ 1.491

  A compari∣son fa••se and bl••sphemous.
• * 1.492

  Ibid.
• * 1.493

  I••hn 2••.
• * 1.494

  Rom. 7.20.
• ‡ 1.495

  Heb. 12.1.
• ‡ 1.496

  Zach. 13.1.
• § 1.497

  1 Cor. 1.30.
• † 1.498

  1 Ioh. 1 7.
• ‡̶ 1.499

  Cant. 4.7.
• * 1.500

  1 Io••. 1.9.
• * 1.501

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.502

  Council. Trid. Sess. 4.
• ‡ 1.503

  1 Cor. 6.9.
• * 1.504

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• § 1.505

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• † 1.506

  M••t. 2••.
• * 1.507

  〈…〉〈…〉 D••••rum.
• * 1.508

  Gen. 1••.1••.••••
• ‡ 1.509

  Ex••▪ 12 1••.
• ‡ 1.510

  2••
• § 1.511

  11.2••
• † 1.512

  Tit. 3 5.
• * 1.513

  Act. 3 21.
• ‡ 1.514

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• ‡ 1.515

  A•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈…〉〈…〉 say.
• * 1.516

  Psal. 115.
• * 1.517

  Esa. 44.19.
• * 1.518

  Math. 18.7·
• ‡ 1.519

  Math. 18.6.
• * 1.520

  1 Cor. 10.20
• ‡ 1.521

  Act. 17.23▪
• ‡ 1.522

  Num. 16▪
• § 1.523

  Num. 30.9▪
• † 1.524

  Num. 30 38.
• ‡̶ 1.525

  Lev. 10.1, 2▪
• * 1.526

  Num. 3.4.
• ‡ 1.527

  Rev. 5.8. & 8.3.
• ‡ 1.528

  Esa. 29.13.
• * 1.529

  Heb. 10.26, 27.
• ‡ 1.530

  1 Cor. 10.21
• ‡ 1.531

  Hos. 10.11.
• * 1.532

  Hooker in his Eccles. Politi••.
• * 1.533

  The Old Cere∣monies suspecte••▪
• ‡ 1.534

  Rev. 9.
• ‡ 1.535

  1 King 20.
• § 1.536

  In your f••r∣mer Namel••ss•• Boo••••.
• * 1.537

  Col. 2.23▪
• * 1.538

  False Chari∣ty of the Prelate
• * 1.539

  Tit. 1.16.
• ‡ 1.540

  Io••. 2.8.
• * 1.541

  Ephes. 4.21.
• * 1.542

  Mat. 15.••▪
• * 1.543

  Protestants Churlishnesse, better then the Prelates Cha∣rity.
• ‡ 1.544

  Tit. 3.8▪
• * 1.545

  2 Tim. 2.25, 26.
• * 1.546

  Aug. de Prae∣dest. et Gratia▪
• * 1.547

  Ier. 15.19.
• ‡ 1.548

  Eze. 13.22.
• ‡ 1.549

  v 11.
• § 1.550

  Esa. 5.20.
• † 1.551

  Ier. 6.14▪
• * 1.552

  Fox. Martyr. Tom. 2. pag. 943. Lond. 1597.
• * 1.553

  Psal. 16.4.
• ‡ 1.554

  Num. 21.9▪
• ‡ 1.555

  2 Kin. 18.4••▪
• * 1.556

  Mat. 26.11▪
• ‡ 1.557

  Ioh. 16.7.
• ‡ 1.558

  Rom. 8.34.
• § 1.559

  Act. 3.21.
• * 1.560

  Ioh. 9.22.34▪
• ‡ 1.561

  Iude 23.
• ‡ 1.562

  Act. 2.40.
• § 1.563

  See before.
• * 1.564

  Luk. 12.••7.48.
• ‡ 1.565

  Psa. 58.4.5.
• ‡ 1.566

  Mat. 15.14.
• § 1.567

  Mat. 23.32.
• * 1.568

  Pag. 298.
• * 1.569

  2 Kin. 4.40.
• ‡ 1.570

  Eccl. 10.1.
• * 1.571

  Prov. 6.27, 28, 29.
• ‡ 1.572

  1 Cor. 6.16.
• ‡ 1.573

  Pro. 22.14.
• § 1.574

  Pro. 28.13.
• ‡ 1.575

  Heb. 6.6.
• * 1.576

  Revel. 17.
• ‡ 1.577

  Revel. 7.••.4.6 &
• ‡ 1.578

  Mat. 7.21.
• * 1.579

  Ephes. 6.12.
• ‡ 1.580

  Mat. 7.22. Lu. 13.26, 27.
• ‡ 1.581

  2 Thes. 2
• * 1.582

  1 Cor. 11.19
• ‡ 1.583

  2 Chron 28.
• ‡ 1.584

  Psalm. 137.
• § 1.585

  Esa. 42.22.
• † 1.586

  Mat. 28 20.
• * 1.587

  Vulgar Latin, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Di••r.
• * 1.588

  Rom. 16.5.
• ‡ 1.589

  Mat. 13.6.21▪
• ‡ 1.590

  Pro. 28.28.
• * 1.591

  Bonner.
• ‡ 1.592

  Gardener.
• ‡ 1.593

  1 Pet. 2.25.
• § 1.594

  Mat. 15.20.
• * 1.595

  Act. 1.••3.
• ‡ 1.596

  Act. 2.
• * 1.597

  Revel. 17.3, 4, 5, 6.
• * 1.598

  ver. 14.17.
• ‡ 1.599

  Cant. 1.5, 6.
• ‡ 1.600

  Esay. 6.13.
• § 1.601

  Dan▪ 4.11▪ 12 &c. Iude. 12.
• * 1.602

  Mat. 15.14.
• ‡ 1.603

  Rom. 5.12.
• * 1.604

  Heb. ••.••4▪
• ‡ 1.605

  Tit. 1.1.
• ‡ 1.606

  Iude 3.
• * 1.607

  Col. 2.7. Phil. 1.9. Act. 20. 2 Tim. 2. 2 Pet. 1. Heb. 6.1. &c.
• ‡ 1.608

  Eccles. 12.9.10.11.
• * 1.609

  Cor. 16 1. Ioh. ••0.19, 26. Act. 20.••. Rev 1.10.
• ‡ 1.610

  Gal. 5.21. •• Pet. 4.3. Ro. 13.13, 14.
• * 1.611

  H••b. 〈…〉〈…〉. H••••. 6.4, 5, ••▪ 8.
• * 1.612

  The saving faith not in the Church of Rome
• ‡ 1.613

  Gal. 2▪20▪
• ‡ 1.614

  Heb. 11▪••▪
• * 1.615

  Heb 11.1.
• ‡ 1.616

  Gal 6.
• ‡ 1.617

  Sess. 6.
• * 1.618

  Halting and 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.619

  Contradiction what it is.
• * 1.620

  Halting againe.
• * 1.621

  Prelates Contra∣diction.
• * 1.622

  R••m. 6▪1••▪
• * 1.623

  Popish faith in∣fi••ility, by the Prelates con∣fession.
• * 1.624

  Ci•• de Natu••a Deorum.
• * 1.625

  Augu••t. Bernard.
• * 1.626

  Plato in Timaeo.
• * 1.627

  Col. 3.
• ‡ 1.628

  Rom. 11.
• * 1.629

  O'uk e'n te Kathédra ea proedria, all' e'n to••s e'r∣gois. Herodian. lib. 1.
• * 1.630

  Allotrioepis∣kopein. 1. Pet. 4.15.
• * 1.631

  Revel. 17.
• * 1.632

  2 Pet. 2.9. Phil 3.19.
• * 1.633

  Gen. 6.
• ‡ 1.634

  2 Thes 2.8▪
• * 1.635

  Rev. 18.20.
• ‡ 1.636

  Rev. 14.12.
• * 1.637

  Det veniam ille facile, cui ven••a opus. Senec.
• * 1.638

  Se Pag. 27••.
• * 1.639

  Sinag••g•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• ‡ 1.640

  V••ncent. 〈…〉〈…〉 Haer.
• ‡ 1.641

  Aug. De 〈…〉〈…〉. C. 83.
• § 1.642

  Dr Bilst••n.
• * 1.643

  Will worship 〈…〉〈…〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.644

  Ier. 17.10.11.
• * 1.645

  ••al. 90▪9.
• * 1.646

  August.
• ‡ 1.647

  Ier. 13.23.
• ‡ 1.648

  2 Pet 2 22.
• * 1.649

  M••t. 23.
• * 1.650

  Iob. 16.3.
• ‡ 1.651

  2 Cor. 11.28.
• ‡ 1.652

  Onus Aetnâ 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Pro∣verbu••m.
• § 1.653

  2 T••m. 2 4.
• * 1.654

  Hier••n. ad 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.655

  Io•• 6.15▪
• ‡ 1.656

  Ioh. 18.36.
• ‡ 1.657

  Luk 12.48▪
• § 1.658

  Ho••at▪
• † 1.659

  Luk 12 20▪
• ‡̶ 1.660

  Psal. 73.1••.
• * 1.661

  Psalm. 51.
• ‡ 1.662

  Blaspemy of the Prelate a∣gainst Gods 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Grace, as if that had been the Author of all his wicked Pract••∣ses.
• * 1.663

  Psal. 10.
• * 1.664

  Psal. 79.10.
• * 1.665

  Rev 19.1, 2 ve••s. ••.