SECT. I

H. T. intitles his ninth Article of Schism and Heresie, and begins thus. No∣thing intrenching more on the Rule of Faith or the Authority of the Church than Schism or Heresie: we shall here briefly shew what they are, and who are justly chargeable therewith. Our Tenet is, that not onely Heresie (which is a wilfull separation from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church) but also Schism (which is a separation from her government) is damnable and sacrilegious, and that most Sectaries are guilty of both.

Answ. I Think Infidelity doth more intrench on the Rule of Faith than Heresie, and Heresie may be where there is no intrenching on the Authority of the Church in this Authour's own sense, as when a man living in communion with the Roman Church, and owning the Pope, or being the Pope himself is an Arian, as Pope Liberius, or a Mono∣thelite Page  221 as Pope Honorius. And for his definition of Heresie, it is in mine ap∣prehension too obscure and imperfect. For it neither shews what is the Catho∣lick Church, the separation from whose Doctrine makes Heresie, nor what Doctrines of it the separation from which makes Heresie, nor what separation in heart or profession, or other act, nor when it is wilfull when not, nor how it may be known to be wilfull. Nor doth this definition agree with their own Tenets, who acquit many from Heresie, who wilfully separate from the Do∣ctrine of the Catholick Church, as they define it, to wit, that which is defined by a general Council approved by a Pope. As for instance, The Popish French Church is acquitted from Heresie, yet they hold a Council to be above the Pope, contrary to the last Lateran Council approved by Pope Leo the tenth. Nor is this definition at all proved by this Authour, but taken as granted, though it may be justly questioned. And for the use of the terms [Heresie] and [Hereticks] in the Ancients it is certain, that many are put in the Cata∣logue of Hereticks by Philastrius, Epiphanius, Augustin, and also by other Writers elder and later, and those opinions termed Heresies, which were not so. The like faults are in the definition of Schism, in not setting down which is the Catholick Church, what is her government, what separation of heart, or out∣ward profession, or other act it is which makes Schism. Nor is this a defini∣tion, which doth agree with their own grants; For the Councils that deposed Popes separated from the government of the Pope, and the French in their pragmatick Sanction, and the Venetians that refused to obey Pope Paul the fifth his Monitory, deny themselves to be Schismaticks. Nor is it shewed how either is damnable or sacrilegious, nor how Protestants are Sectaries, or which Sectaries are guilty of both or either. So that in this Tenet there is nothing but ambiguity and imperfection: yet sith by what follows we may ghess his meaning: let's view his dispute.

SECT. II.

The Argument, saith H. T. All such as are wilfully divided both from the Doctrine and Discipline of the Catholick Church are Schismaticks and Here∣ticks, and consequently in a damnable state. But most Protestants and other Sectaries are wilfully divided both from the Doctrine and Discipline of the Catholick Church. Therefore they are Schismaticks and Hereticks, and con∣sequently in a damnable state. The Major is manifest out of the very notion and definition of Schism and Heresie: The sequel of it proved thus by Scri∣ture, Titus 3. 10. 2 Peter 2. 1. Jude 13. Rom. 16. 17. Matth. 18. 7, 17, 18. 2 Thess. 3. 14.

Answ. 1. BY denying his Definition to be good, and that any of the Texts prove it. 2. By granting the Sequel of them that are truly termed Schismaticks and Hereticks, but not of such as he calls such, to wit, that do wilfully divide from the Doctrine and Discipline of the now Page  222 Roman Church falsly by him called Catholick. There is no need of exa∣mining each Text till they are shewed to prove what is denied.

The Minor, saith he, is proved, because Luther and his fellow Protestants di∣vided themselves from the Communion of all Churches, therefore from the Com∣munion of the Catholick Church, and that as well in Points of Doctrine as matters of Government, as plainly appears by all we have said, and is yet con∣firmed, because when they began their Separation Luther in Germany, Tyndal in England, &c. the Catholick Church was in most quiet possession of her Te∣nets, in perfect peace and unity, her Doctrine and Government being the same they had been, not onely to the time of Gregory the Great (as Protestants con∣fess) but to the very time of the Apostles, as is manifest both by the publick Li∣turgies, Councils, and Records of all Ages, in which no one Doctrine of Faith, or substantial Point of Discipline, then professed by the Roman Catholick Church, and opposed by Protestants, had ever been censured and condemned as heretical or schismatical, but all for the most part actually defined and established against ancient Hereticks, as you have seen in the Councils.

Answ. 1. The Minor speaks of most Protestants, but mentions none but Luther and his fellow Protestants, and Tyndal in England: now it is no good proof against us, that we are Schismaticks, because Luther and his fellow Pro∣testants were so, and Tyndal began Separation in England. It is told them by C•illingworth c. 5. p 1. against Knot, that there may be an unjust Separation begun, and so a Schism in the Leaders, and yet no Schism in the Followers in after Ages; as in a Common-wealth it may be a Sedition and Rebellion to set up ano∣ther Government and Governour in the first Authours, and yet none in the Po∣sterity to continue them, but rather their duty to maintain them in order to the peace and liberty which was unjustly obtained at first. 2. It is denied that Luther or Tyndal divided themselves wilfully, that is, without necessity. It is known in the History of Sleidan, and others, that Luther at first spake ho∣nourably of the Pope, and was willing to have continued in communion with the Roman Church till Leo the tenth did by his Bull condemn his Doctrine, afore he had heard him, and he saw plainly (as the World found by experience) that the Popes and Court of Rome did never by good proofs out of Scripture go about to refute them, but by Excommunications, Fire, and War, (to which Emperours and Kings were stirred up by them) endeavour to root them out. And for Tyndal it is manifest by the Book of Acts and Monuments of the Church written by Mr. Fox in the Reign of Henry the eighth, that Tyndal was persecuted by the Popish Bishops, and his body burnt in Brabant. Now sure were the Protestants never so erroneous, yet the Law of Nature ties them to run away from such cruel Wolves, as in stead of teaching them with love, en∣deavour to destroy them with cruelty. 3. It is most false, that Luther and his Fel∣lows divided themselvs from the communion of all Churches: It is certain, that they actually joyned with the remainder of the Hussites in Bohomia, and the Wal∣denses about the Alpes, who were true Churches of Christ, however the Romanists term them: nor did they ever renounce communion with the Greek. Eastern or Southern Churches, though by reason of distance, and the Power they were under, they could not have actual communion with them. And by their desire of a free Council in Germany not called by the Pope, but the Emperour and Christian Princes, nor of Bishops sworn to the Pope, but of men that were Page  223 equal Judges by whom their Doctrine might be examined, and by their often Colloquies for Reconciliation they plainly shewed, that they tried all means they could with a good conscience to have prevented the breach between them, and the Popish party, who were certainly the cause of the Schism, and truly the Schismaticks (as may be gathered from their own stories, such as Thuanus, Frier Paul's History of the Trent Council. and others, who relate the proceed∣ings of those times) and not the Protestants. 4. It is most false, that they separated from the Catholick Church in point of Doctrine. It is most cer∣tain, that the party from whom the Protestants separated had relinquished the Catholick Doctrine of the Scripture, and Primitive times for five hundred years at least, and had brought in a new upstart Doctrine of Invocation of Saints, worshiping Images, Transubstantiation, half-communion as suffi∣cient, denial of Priest's Marriage, Popes universal Monarchy, Purgatory-fire, Indulgences, Sacrifice of the Mass, Justification by Works, and many more, which were unknown to the first Christians, nor hath the contrary appeared by any thing H. T. hath said before, as the Reader of this Answer may perceive. 5. It is most false, that they separated from the Catholick Church in the point of her Government. The Government of the whole Church by one universal Bishop was never the Government of the Catholick Church. It is manifest by the first general Councils that the Pope of Rome was not acknowledged supe∣riour to other Patriarchs, and the Greek Churches have always resisted his claim of Supremacy, and many, as Nilus Arch-bishop of Thessalonica, Bar∣liam and others have written against it as an unjust claim. 6. It is false, that the Roman Church (falsly by H. T. called Catholick) was in most quiet possession of her Tenets, when Luther began his Separation in Germany, Tyndal in England. It is manifest by Cochlaeus his History of the Hussites, that there were a remnant of them in Bohemia, by Thuanus and Mr. Morland that there was a remnant of the Waldenses in the Valleys of the Alpes, by Mr. Fox that there was a remnant of Lollards or Wictevists in England, who did reject the Roman Doctrine then and since taught, in many, if not all the points, in which Protestants do now oppose it. 7. It is false, that the Roman Church was in perfect peace and unity when Luther and Tyndal began their Separation. For the controversies about the Virgin Marie's immaculate Con∣ception, about the Popes Supremacy above a Council, and sundry other were rather suppressed than composed, as the event shewed, no party relinquishing the holding their Tenets to this day, but each when occasion is offered contending for their way. 8. It is false, that the Doctrines and Government of the Ro∣man Church had been the same from that time Luther and Tyndal began their Separation to the time of Gregory the Great, or that Protestants do confess it. It is most certain to the contrary, that since Gregory the Great his time the Popes universal Episcopacy, the Worship of Images, Transubstantiation, half-Communion in the Eucharist, and many other points were brought into the Roman Church, as Bishop Morton in his Appeal from Brereley's Apology to King James hath proved. 9 It is also most false, that their Doctrine and Govern∣ment were the same 〈◊〉 now they are to the times of the Apostles. The con∣trary is proved out of the Epistle to the Romans, by Bishop Robert Abbot against D•ctor Bishop, and by Bishop Jewel against Harding out of the Fa∣thers. 10. It is false which H. T. saith, It is manifest both by the publick Li∣turgies, Page  224 Councils, and Records of all Ages, no one Doctrine of Faith, or sub∣stantial Point of Doctrine professed then when Luther and Tyndal began their Separation by the Roman Church, and opposed by Protestants had ever been cen∣sured and condemned as heretical or schismatical, but all for the most part actually defined and established against ancient Hereticks, as may be seen in the Councils. The contrary is most manifest, that the Council of Chalcedon and of Car∣thage, in which Augustine was present, opposed the Popes Supremacy as schis∣matical, that the Synod of Frankford opposed the worshiping of Images as heretical, besides many other, as hath been shewed in answer to what H. T. here allegeth.

SECT. III.

BUt H. T. saith, Fathers for this Point, though there is not one of the Fa∣thers Sayings which he brings that speaks at all to that point of the Pro∣testants being guilty of Schism or Heresie, or that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church, or that her Doctrine and Government have been the same in all Ages, or that in no case there may be dividing from it, or teaching con∣trary to it without Heresie or Schism, yea, it is certain, that Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Austin, thought the clean contrary, Irenaeus opposing Pope Victor his Ex∣communication of the Eastern Bishops for not holding Easter with him, Cy∣prian opposing Pope Stephanus about Rebaptization, Augustine opposing Popes Boniface, Zozimus, and Celestine, about the Appeal of Apiarius. But let's view their Sayings.

The first is thus cited by H. T. In the second Age Irenaeus; God will judge those who make the Schisms in the Church, ambitious men, who have not the honour of God before their eys, but rather embracing their own interests than the unity of the Church, for small and light causes divide the great and glorious body of Christ, &c. for in the end they cannot make any Reformation so im∣portant as the evil of Schism is prejudicious, lib. 4. cap. 62. It is likely H. T. ignorantly put [prejudicious] for [pernicious] or his Authour whence he had it, for it is in Irenaeus, Quanta est Schismatis pernicies. But it appears, 1. That he hath either not read the place, or not considered it, because he puts in [God will judge] whereas it is manifest out of the words following [But he will judge also all those who are out of the truth, that is, without the Church, but he himself is judged of no man] and from chap. 53. and following to be meant of every spiritual Disciple of Christ that had received the Spirit of God, and the Apostolical Doctrine, chap. 52. alluding to Paul's words, 1 Cor. 2. 15. and he alters [the love of God] into [the honour of God before their eys.] 2. That the place makes nothing against Protestants; for it condemns onely them that make Schisms for small and light causes, which was most true of Vi∣ctor then Bishop of Rome, in excommunicating the Asian Bishops for not keeping Easter as he did, reprehended by Irenaeus in his Epistle recited by Eu∣sebius, hist. 1. lib. 5. cap. 24. but is nothing against Protestants, who neither Page  225 make nor continue Schisms, and that Separation which they make, they do it for very great causes. And he saith, No Reformation can be made so important by them who divide upon light causes, as is the mischief of the Schism they make, but this hinders not but that the Protestants Reformation, or correption (which is Irenaeus his word) is so necessary, that it countervails the evil of the Schism consequent. I add, the words of Irenaeus [the spiritual man who is a Disciple of Christ will judge all them who are out of the truth] do justifie the Protestants in judging the Popes and Popish Doctors, and Churches as Schisma∣ticks and Hereticks, who by their Doctrine of Popes Supremacy, Invocation of Saints, humane Satisfactions, inherent Justice justifying, Merit of Condignity, have departed from the Apostolical Faith, and by their cruel tyranny and ha∣tred of Reformation have the most horrible and pernicious Schism that ever was in the Church of God, and the Protestants are warranted thus to judge by the holy Scripture.

The words of Cyprian de unit. Eccles. in the third Age against the Nova∣tians of the inexpiableness of their crime of Schism, that it could not be pur∣ged by suffering for Christ, nor they be Martyrs, though they died for the Con∣fession of his Name, is too heavy a censure, yet if it were true is nothing against Protestants, who are not guilty of that Schism.

The words of Chrysostom hom. 11. in Ephes. shew how grievous an evil Schism is, but prove not, that they are all Schismaticks, that separate from the Roman Bishop and Church, nor that the Protestants are guilty thereof, or the Romanists free.

The words of Optatus lib. 2. are not to any of the points now in contro∣versie except he mean by the unity of the Episcopal Chair holding communion with the Bishop of Rome, and assert that to be the one Episcopal Chair to which all other are to be subject: which if so meant, the words are not true; if meant as Cyprian meant, that there is one Bishoprick of which each Bishop holds a part intirely, in respect of unity of Doctrine, the speech is good, but not against Protestants, who hold the unity of that Episcopal Chair.

The words of Augustine lib. 4. de Symb. fidei ad Catech. cap. 10. if they were true, yet are they nothing to the purpose, unless it were said, that by the holy Church he meant the Church of Rome, or that he who is found out of the Church of Rome is a stranger from the number of sons, that he hath not God for his Father, nor will have the Church for his Mother, none of which are said by him. It is true, there are these words in Austin's second Exposition on Psalm 21. with us 22. ver. 18. He who hath charity is secure or safe. No man moveth it out of the Catholick Church. But these words are not against Pro∣testants, but against Papists, who move it out of the Catholick Church, and confine it to the Roman, and most uncharitably damn them, who are not of their party, therein following the Donatists, whom Austin there condemns, who confined the Church to the part of Donatus in Africa. And there is an∣other passage in the same Exposition which doth justifie the Protestants and condemn the Papists in the main point of controversie between us, what shall determine controversies between us, they say the Church, when the great con∣trovesie is which is the Church, we say the Scripture, and so doth Augustine in these words. The Testament of our Father (that is, the Scriptures, as the words a little before shew) is come out of any hole, I know not what Thieves would Page  226 take it away, I know not what Persecutours would burn it. Whencesoever it is brought let it be read. Why strivest thou? We are brethren, why do we strive? The Father died not without a Will, he made his Will and so died, he is dead and risen again. So long there is contention about the Inheritance of the Dead untill the Will be publickly produced, and when the Will is brought into the publick all are silent, that the Tables may be opened and recited. The Judge hears within, the Advocates are silent, the Criers make silence, all the People is suspended, that the words of the Dead not perceiving it in the Tomb may be read. He lies without sense in the Monument, and his words are in force, Christ sits in Hea∣ven, and is his Testament contradicted? Open, let us read, we are Brethren, why do we contend? Let our minde be pacified, our Father hath not left us with∣out a Will. He that made the Will lives for ever, hears our voices, acknow∣ledgeth his own. Let us read, why do we contend? Where the Inheritance it self is found, let us hold it. These words were spoken by Austin against Do∣natists, and may rightly be applied to Papists, who are the true canse of all the horrible Schisms and bloodsheds among Christians, because they will not try who hath the Inheritance of the Church by the Scriptures, which are God's Will, but usurp the name of the Catholick Church, as the Donatists did, and under that pretence trample under foot all their Christian Brethren in the World, who have as great and better Portion in the Inheritance of God their Father and of the Church than themselves.

The words of Augustine in his Sermon super gestis Emeriti, are not, that out of the Church an Heretick may have all things but Salvation. For he saith, He may have the Faith, which he would not say of the Heretick, but he speaks it of the Donatists, which whether it be true or no is nothing to Protestants, who are and may be in the true Church of Christ, and have salvation, though they be not in the Roman Church.

The words of Augustine Epist. 48. concerning the Donatists, that they were with other Christians in Baptism, in the Creed, and in the other Sacraments of the Lord, but in the spirit of unity, in the bond of peace, and finally in the Ca∣tholick Church you are not with us; do not at all touch Protestants, who are in the Catholick Church with other Christians, though not with the Roman par∣ty, who are most like the Donatists; and the Protestants hold with Augustine in the same Epistle, that that kinde of Letters (to wit, of Bishops, such as Hi∣lary, Cyprian, &c.) is to be distinguished from the authority of the Canon of the Scripture. For they are not so read as if testimony were brought out of them, that it may not be lawfull to think to the contrary, if perhaps they thought other∣wise than the truth requires.

SECT. IV.

It follows in H. T. Objections solved. Object. We separated onely from the Church of Rome's errours. Answ. Yea, from her Catholick and Apostolical Doctrines. She doth not erre in Faith, as hath been proved. I answer there∣fore with St. Augustine to the Donatists; I object to you the crime of Schism, which you will deny, and I will presently prove, because you do not communicate with all Nations, cont. Petil. Add, no nor with any Nation before Luther.

Page  227 I Reply, that we separate from any other than the Church of Rome's errours, and sins, is said, but not proved, and that she, that is, the Bishop of Rome and his party do not erre in Faith is not proved, but impudently said against plain evidence of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers, and I reply by retorting Augustine's words. I object to you the crime of Schism, which you will deny, and I will presently prove, because you do not communicate with all Nations, particu¦larly you English Recusant Papists H. T. and the rest are manifest Schisma∣ticks, for you separate from the Catholick Church in that you do not communicate with the Protestant Church of Christ in England. It is false, that those who held the same truth with Protestants under other names, held no communion with any Nation before Luther: For as far as they could, and ought, they held communion with a. called on the Name of the Lord Jesus in France, Bohemia, England, and elsewhere, under the names of Waldenses, Hussites, Picards, Wiclevists, Lollards, and such like.

H. T. adds. Object. We refused onely the Church of Rome's Innovations and Superstitions. Answ. You slander. Her Discipline and Doctrines were the same then that they have been in all precedent Ages. Did the Church perish (saith St. Augustine to the Donatists, or did she not? If she did, what Church brought forth the Donatists? (or the Protestants?) If she did not, what mad∣ness moved you to separate your selves from her, on pretence of avoiding the com∣munion of bad men? lib. 1. cont. Gaudent. cap 7. And again, We are certain no man can justly separate himself from the communion of all Nations (yet Mar∣tin Luther and Mr. Tyndal did it) Epist. 48. And in another place, All Se∣paration made before the drawing of the Net on the shore (at the Day of Judge∣ment) is damnable and the Sacrilege of Schism, which surpasseth all other crimes, lib. 2. cont. Epist. Parmen.

I reply, it is a Scolds trick to say we slander, and not to prove it. We prove out of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, that the Roman Church then held Justi∣fication by Faith without Works, that every Soul even Popes were to be subject to Princes, that the Scriptures are to be the Rule of Faith, that the Church of Rome might fail, that the Roman church is but a particular Church, that it is evil to judge Christians for not observing difference of Meats and Days, that it is Idolatry to do, as Papists now do, worshiping the Creature with such Wor∣ship as belongs to the Creatour, that we are not to invocate Saints in whom we believe not, with sundry more, in which the present Roman church hath swe•ved from the primitive. We prove out of Gregory the Great himself, that the Doctrine and Discipline of the Roman church is not the same now as it was in all precedent Ages, for he rejected the Title of Universal Bishop now usurped by the Pope, and disavowed the Worship of Images, with other things now received at Rome, and before him Pope Gelasius termed the denying the Cup to the Lay-people sacrilegious. Augustine himself hath taught us to ac∣count his words below Scripture-canon: yet his speeches touch not us, who do Page  226 not separate our selves from the church of Christ on pretence of avoiding com∣munion of bad men, but from the Papacy on full proof that the communion of the Popish church is imposed on conditions of acknowledging such Errours, and practising such Idolatry as are damnable. We do not say, that the church perished, but that it was continued in a remnant of persecuted Saints. We need not allege any Church for our Mother, but the Jerusalem which is abov•, which is the Mother of us all, Gal. 4. 26. I judge it no better than an inconsi∣derate speech to say, any visible church is the Mother of Christians, it is in my apprehension all one as to say, the church is the Mother of the church, Christians or believers being all one with the church, and therefore count such speeches, whoever Father or Prelate he be that useth them, no better than ridicu∣lous non-sense, and much more to call Bishops our Fathers in Christ, and yet to term them the Church also and our Mother. Nor need we allege a Church that brought us forth, it is sufficient we can prove our Faith to be according to the Gospel, and allege that we have been begotten by it, which way soever it be. Were not the •berians a church of Christians who were converted by • captive Maid when there was no church there before, and the Indians by •ru∣mentius without a Church to bring them forth? May not a man have Faith and Salvation in a Wilderness where he knows of no church? Neither did Luther nor Tyndal separate themselves from all Nations, but were expelled and pe•secuted by the devilish Popes and Popish Clergy of Rome, when they en∣deavoured to restore the purity of the Gospel to the Germans, English, and other Nations. If Augustine meant simply, that all Separation made before the Day of Judgement is damnable, he wrote that which is not true, it being contrary to Paul's practise, Acts 18. 9. God's command, 2 Cor. 6. 17. 2 Tim. 3 5. 2 Thess. 3. 8. Revel. 18. 4. He himself acknowledgeth lib. 2. cont Epist. P•rmen. cap. 21. A man is not to associate with others when he cannot have so∣ciety with them but by doing evil with them. But if he meant it of such Sepa∣ration as the Donatists made (as it is likely he doth) it toucheth not us, who separate not from the Romanists, because some evil men are tolerated, but be∣cause Errour, Idolatry, and other evils are urged on us by them, and such is their tyranny, that without yielding to them there is no communion, but in stead thereof Banishment or Burning.

Once more saith H. T. Object. We did but separate from the particular Church of Rome. Therefore not from the whole Church. Answ. I told you it the Question of the Churches universality in what sense the Church of Rome i• universal or Catholick, and in what sense she is particular, take it in which accepti∣on you will your Consequence is false, for whosoever separates from an acknow∣ledged true Member of the Catholick Church (and such the Church of Rome then was in her particular) he consequently separates from the whole, and is an Heretick or Schismatick.

I reply, neither as it is taken for the congregation of Rome or Italy, nor as it notes a collection of all the Churches holding communion with the See of Rome is the Roman Church rightly termed the Catholick Church: the non-sense and falshood thereof is shewed before Art. 5. Sect. 8. Nor is it true that he that separates from the Catholick Roman Church, in either sense is an Here∣tick or Schismatick. And to his proof I say, 1. That many Protestants de∣ny the Roman Church a true Member of the Catholick Church when Luther Page  227 separated, but call it an Antichristian and malignant Church; and they that acknowledge it a true Church, in respect of the truth of being, yet not of Do∣ctrine, and they that say it had the truth of being, say it not of the predomi∣nant part, but of the latent, conceiving it was with them as it was with Israel in the days of Elijah, that they did not own those Errours and evils which were practised in them, or avouched by them, though living among them, or if they did yield to them, or some of them, they had pardon, as doing it in igno∣rance, retaining the old Creed of the Apostles: And they attribute the truth of it to the few fundamental Articles which they held, who were in it, though very unsoundly by reason of the errours and corruptions mixed with them, which made the Church among the Romanists as a leprous man unfit for converse and communion, with whom though they might continue for a time in expectation of their repentance, yet they might say to Rome being found u•c•rable, as the Jews to Babylon, Jer. 51. 9. We would have healed Ba∣bylon, but she is not healed: forsake her, and let us go every one into his own countrey: for her Judgement reacheth unto the Heaven, and is lifted up unto the Skies. 2. That it is not universally true, that he who separates from an ac∣knowledged true Member of the Catholick Church separtes from the whole there may be a Separation partial not total, privative not positive, out of prejudice and passion, in heat not in heart, as between Paul and Barnabas, Acts 15. 39. Chrysostome and Epiphanius, temporary not perpetual, in prudence though not out of absolute necessity, necessary not voluntary, just and not rash, without revolt from the Faith, or persecution of those from whom it is made. In many of these sorts there may be a Separation which may be from an acknowledged true Member of the Catholick Church, and yet no Separation from the whole. And therefore this Position of H. T. will not be yielded him without better proof and demonstration, that the Separation from the Church of Rome which Protestants have made cannot stand with union with the Catholick Church in Doctrine and Discipline. Which sure he hath not yet proved, nor is it likely he ever will: but as the fashion of these Scriblers is, sing over again and again their Cuckoes Song of the Catholick Roman Church, and that Protestants are Hereticks and Sectaries, with other Popish gibberish, though the folly and frivolousness thereof hath been a thousand times demonstrated.

I have thus at last examined these nine Articles, being moved thereto out of hope to do some souls good by recovering them out of the snare in which they are held by Satan and Romish Emissaries. If they shut their eys against the light, their judgement will be of themselves. I shall add prayer for them, that God would open their eys, and, if time, health, and other concurrences suit with my aims, discover the vanity of the rest of H. T. his Manual. In the mean time, not as some Romanists blasphemously Praise be to the Virgin Mother, in the end of their Writings, but as Paul concluded his Epistle to the Romans so do I, To God onely wise be glory through JESUS CHRIST for ever. Amen.