The novelty of the modern Romish religion set forth in an answer to three queries propounded by N.G., priest, with a rejoynder to his reply, and a reply to an answer made to three queries propounded unto him : together with animadversions upon some reflexions made by an unknown author ... / written by S.F., M.A. and vicar of Mitton in Craven.

A Brief Note concerning Points of Religion; vvherein it is desired to be knovvn by Nich. Grimshaw Priest,

• First, WHether the Religion professed by the Roman Catholicks, commonly called Papists; be the same Religion in point of Faith, with the Religion brought into England by Saint Augustin the Monk, and Apostle of England many years ago?
• Secondly, Whether the aforesaid Religion brought into England by St. Augustin, was not the same in point of Faith with the Religion professed by the Britains, that were at his coming into Eng∣land, Christian Inhabitants in England?
• Thirdly, Whether the Religion professed by the aforesaid Britains, at Augustin's coming into England, was the same Religion in point of Faith with that professed by the Britains in the Primitive Church of England, when England was first converted to the Christian Faith?

If Answer be made, that there hath been a Change in the aforesaid Points, it is required that the Change be shewed to have been in Points of Faith, and not in Ceremonial only, which would be nothing to purpose.

An Answer unto certain Queries written in a Paper, Entituled, A Brief Note concerning Points of Religion, wherein it is desired to be known, &c.

SIR,

WHile you have been writing of your Queries, you forgot what you promised in the Title, you promised points of Religion; Queries are not Points; indeed the determination on either side, may in some respect be termed such, but while they are un∣determined, and do remain Queries, they are not such.

If you mean by Points of Religion, the De∣termination of the Queries on either side, then I must ask you, what you mean by Points of Religion; whether such Truths as are absolute∣ly necessary to be known, or Truths of an in∣ferior Allay, such as are convenient for some respects to be known?

If you mean Truths of the first sort, there is as little affinity between your Title and your Queries, as there is between me and you, and that is none at all; for none of these Queries are necessary to be known, either in the Affir∣mative or the Negative, with either a general and confused knowledge, or that knowledge which is distinct and particular; for you and I and others may worship God, and so advance his Glory, and come to be saved without it; and I say farther, that if your Queries be made concerning a distinct and particular knowledge, if ever we shall be saved, we shall be saved with∣out it; there is much required to compleat this

Knowledge, than you, or I, or any other can gain by the best Intelligencers we have to in∣form us.

If you mean Truths of the second sort, pray, let me assume the boldness as to ask you, why you are so injurious to the common sort of peo∣ple, as to load their Heads with unnecessary Positions, and to puzzle their Brains with such like Queries? will you imitate the Scribes and Pharisees, to teach for Doctrines (as they did the Commandments of men, so you) the private Conceits of men.

To your Queries in general, I answer, first you take a Journey of three miles about, while a Journey of one would have served better, and brought you sooner home; it would have saved you some pains in Querying, and me in Answering, and been as much, yea more to purpose, if you had, instead of making three Queries, propounded but one; namely this, whether the Religion now professed by the Pa∣pists in England, be the same that was brought into England at its first Conversion, and so the same that was taught by Christ and his Apo∣stles? I do not see any reason for this long Vagary, why you should go about, to know what Religion S. Austin professed, what Re∣ligion the Britains in his time professed, whe∣ther yours agrees to his, his agrees to theirs; if I should grant you so long Succession for your Religion, what advantage could you make of it? if you reason after this manner, to confirm the Truth you pretend for your Re∣ligion, my Father, and my Grandfather, and my great Grandfather, and so onward, until you come to Austin the Monk, and the ancient

Britains were of this Religion, therefore it is true; a Jew or a Turk may reason with the same probability: or if you reason thus, our Religion is as ancient as Austin the Monk, and the ancient Britains, therefore it is true; a Turk may plead as great Antiquity for his Re∣ligion, and a Jew greater for his.

Secondly, In all these Queries I suppose you are on the Affirmative side, and that you con∣ceive us to be on the Negative; pray let me ask you, which in reason should first be pro∣ved; whether ••our Affirmative or ••our Nega∣tive? If your Affirmative should first be pro∣ved, as you must grant, if you have the Rea∣son of a man; why will you deny to put your Shoulders under the Burden, and lay it wholly upon ours: It seems you are somewhat like un∣to the Egyptian Task-masters, you would have us to make Brick, while you would be look∣ing on; you would be putting of Queries un∣to us, while we must be labouring our Brains in proving unto you: Let me propound a rea∣sonable Request, and desire you once to be as forward in practice, as you are in precept; and as ready to prove as you are to quere; and to prove the Affirmative of these Queries, and to set down a substantial proof, such as may be convincing to the non-prejudging Under∣standing; I think I may allow you a longer time to do this, than the Elephant is in bringing forth her young.

To the first Query, my Answer is Negative; we may presume that Austin's Religion was the same which his Master, Pope Gregory professed, and your Religion differs from his in these Par∣ticulars, the Canon of the Scripture, the Suf∣ficiency

of the Scripture, the Reading of the Scripture, the Real Presence, Private Mass, Communion in both kinds, Merit of good Works, Veneration of Images the Pope's Supre∣macy, his Doctrine in these being the same that is maintained by the Church of England, as can be evidenced out of his Writings.

To the Second, my Answer is likewise Ne∣gative; it is probable it was not: my Reasons are these; because those ancient Britains told Austin the Monk, that they had a Bishop of their own▪ to whom they were to submit; therefore they would have nothing to do with the Pope of Rome: Besides, they rejected Au∣stin's Traditions; would they have done so, had their Religion been the same with his? For which, the Monk stirred up the wrath of Ethel∣bert King of Kent, against them, who raised his Forces, and came (Austin being in his Compa∣ny, and destroyed about twelve hundred of them: howsoever this Fact of his may be co∣loured, it was a horrid Fact; but much more wicked would it have been judged to be, had those murdered Britains been of his Religion.

To the Third, my Answer is this; That neither you, nor I can determine positively on either side, unless we do (as he that writ of the World in the Moon, did) take upon us to write of things so far distant from us, that they cannot come within the compass of our Know∣ledge, we having no certain Records to in∣form us what were the Tenets maintained by the▪ Ancient Britains: We have so much Cha∣rity towards them, as to think well of them; and have great reason to believe, that they were far more Religious and Holy than Austin the Italian Monk was.

To your Cautional Conclusion, First, I say, that I have toyled my Brains, and turned the Words every way, to make sence of them, and to reconcile their Contradictions, and yet the work is to do: a Change you say, in the aforesaid points; I find no foresaid points, but Queries; and how to shew a Change in those Queries, unless you would have me to propound them after another manner, and in another shape, I do not apprehend; nor yet to shew a Change in points of Faith, where there are no points of Faith to shew a Change in.

Secondly, you imply your self to be an A∣better of this Position, That a Difference in Religions made by Ceremonies, is to no pur∣pose; what mean you then by those Loads of needless Ceremonies, which are laid upon your Religion, which have made the very Axle-tree to crack; are they used to no purpose? why is the Use of your many needless Ceremonies pressed with such absolute Necessity, that un∣less they be observed, there is no obtaining of eternal Salvation, while the Use of them is to no purpose? it seems that you confess, that while you fall out with us, for rejecting your Holy Water, and your Beads, and your Cros∣sings, and your Unctions, and your Ashes, and your Spittings, and such like Stuff, you fall out with us for things that are used to no pur∣pose: I thank you for this fair acknowledg∣ment of the Truth, though it dropped una∣wares from your Pen, and do promise, when∣soever I meet with an opportunity, to return your Courtesie.

But what will you say, if I can prove that a Difference made in Religion by Ceremonies,

doth alter the Nature of Religion? Certainly this will be to purpose, and no hard Task to undergo; when the Composition of Religion is like unto that Image which Nebuchadnezzar saw in his Dream, part of Gold, part of Sil∣ver, part of Iron, part of Brass, part of Clay; when Religion is made up, part of necessary Truths, part of superstitious Ceremonies, when the Use of Ceremonies (by a strange Meta∣morphosis) is converted into Acts of Religion; when it is maintained, that ex fide they must be used, because without the Use of them, neither God is duly worshipped, nor Religion truly exercised, as it is now in the Church of Rome; this Change by Ceremonies alters Reli∣gion from that Nature it had when it was made up of one sound Mettal, in its original Purity.

And now because you have been propound∣ing of Queries, let me assume liberty to imi∣tate you a little, and to propound as many Queries unto you.

First, Whether God is to have the whole Glory of the work of Man's Salvation?

Secondly, Whether Christ deserves to have the whole Glory of mediating and interceding for Sinners?

Thirdly, Whether it be the safest way for Man to cast himself down unto the lowest dust of Humility, before the footstool of God, and to acknowledge his own worthlesness and un∣worthiness.

If you grant me the Affirmative of these three Queries, as you must do, unless you will bring the Guilt of Blasphemy upon your self, I make no question, but to improve them to be powerful Engines to batter down a great part of the Structure of your Religion.

Mr. Nich. Grimshaw's Letter, sent with his Reply, to the Answer made unto his brief Note concerning point of Religion.

'TIs now above a Year, since I was so happy as to receive your Answer to my Note, con∣cerning points of Religion: Immediately after the receipt of which, I was forced, by importu∣nity of Occasions, to remove into a remote place of the Kingdom, and consequently to depart in Silence against my will; yet this was my comfort, that I hoped to return you a Reply with all speed; but I found the old Proverb truly verified, Man Proposeth, but God Disposeth: For immediately af∣ter my arrival to my Journeys end, it pleased the Divine providence to visit me with a sharp Sick∣ness, which confined me to my Bed and Chamber until the 23. of March; in which time I was not able to look on a Book, much less to set Pen to Paper: But at last, having recovered my former Strength, I make bold to return you these Lines, which (I hope) will be a no less satisfactory Re∣ply to your Answer, than the continuance of my long Sickness, a sufficient Excuse for the long Silence of

Your Servant, N. G.

A Reply unto the Answer, made unto the brief Note concerning points of Religion.

I Perceive, by the tenour of your Discourse, in your large Answer to my Brief Note concerning points of Religion, that you fancy rather to lie in ambush, catching at mens Words, by wilfully mis∣interpreting

their Sense, than to give a clear, po∣sitive and satisfactory Answer to the Question proposed: For the greatest part of your whole sheet of Paper, consists of nothing else but verbal flourishes, intermixt with Erudition and exaspera∣ting Language, with which you beat the Air more than your Adversary: Truly this way is neither Edificative to the Reader, nor Satisfactory to the Opponent. You are not ignorant, that it is the chiefe part of a Polemick, to wave verbal flou∣rishes, and with solid proof (drawn from Reason or Authority) answer the Question proposed; otherwise the greatest part of time and paper, would be spent in fighting only with shadows; and the result would be, parturiunt montes nasci∣tur ridiculus mus, whilst in the mean time the whole substance of the Question would, in a man∣ner, be passed in silence.

Wherefore, to avoid this inconvenience of a verbal Ingagement, which would never have an end, words being subject to as many Interpreta∣tions as men have fancies; I will only Answer those few▪ Paragraphs in your large Discourse which come nighest the Mark, and touch the Question proposed.

The Question proposed was this:

• I. Whether the Religion professed now in England by those you call Papists, be not the same Religion which St. Austin brought into England.
• II. Whether the Religion which St. Austin brought into England, was not the same Religion with that which the Britains professed, when he came into Eng∣land?
• III. Whether the Religion, professed by the Bri∣tains at the same time, was not the same Religion with that which was first planted in our Country?

To which you Answer, first, That seeing I am of the Affirmative part, you wonder much that I did not rather prove, than demand: Which to do (say you) with a substantial proof, such as may be convincing to the non-prejudging understanding, will require in me, a longer time than the Elephant is in bringing forth her Young.

Sir, The reason why I did demand, and not prove, was not any difficulty (as you imagine) that I perceived in so easie an enterprize; it was only to see, whether you would grant or deny. For if you grant; then habeo intentum: For, if our Religion be the same with Austins, his with the Britains, and theirs with that which was first planted in England; it must necessarily follow, that ours is the true Religion. If you deny; then I have the Testimony of many of your learned Protestants against you; which Sir (at least with you) ought to be a substantial and convincing proof to a non-prejudging understanding: For, as your learned Whittaker doth testifie, De Ecclesia Controver. 2. Quest. 5. Cap. 14. Firmum sit necesse est Argumen∣tum illud, quod sumitur ex adversariorum confessione, &c. efficax enim erit adversariorum ipsorum contra ipsos testimonium, &c. & quidem fateor veritatem etiam e suis inimicis testimonium extorquere, &c.

If you will only vouchsafe to peruse the begin∣ning of that learned Book, Entituled, The Prote∣stants Apology for the Roman Church, you shall meet with undeniable Testimonies of our learned. Ad∣versaries, asserting the Affirmative of the afore∣said Question, and consequently must be forced to confess, that I shall not require so long a time to prove the same, as the Elephant is in bring∣ing forth her Young; the thing being already proved.

If perchance you be not furnished with this Book, be pleased only to peruse that learned Treatise, Entituled, The Three Conversions of Eng∣land, and you will meet with substantial proofs to a non-prejudging Understanding, asserting the Affirmative of the aforesaid Question.

Your second Answer unto the Question in par∣ticular, is Negative: And why? Because (say you) we may presume, that Austin's Religion was the same that his master Pope Gregory professed; and his Reli∣gion differs from yours in these particulars, The Canon of the Scripture; The Sufficiency of the Scripture; The Reading of the Scripture; The Real Presence; The Private Mass; Communion in both Kinds; Merit of Good Works; Veneration of Images; The Popes Supremacy; His Doctrine in these, being the same that is Maintained by the Church of England, as can be evidenced out of his Writings. Thus you.

Sir, I remember in your verbal Triumph over my Cautional Conclusion (occasioned by your wil∣ful mistake, sciens & prudens, mis-interpreting my words quite contrary to the sense they were spo∣ken in) you told me, That you returned me many Thanks, for the courtesie which I dropt you at un∣awares; withal promising, That if ever you met with an opportunity, you would return my Cour∣tesie. Now Sir, you have met with an opportu∣nity, and I challenge your promise: For, all the Courtesie that I do require, is, That you would be pleased to shew all these foresaid Points (nay, rather than I should impose too great a task upon you) or any one of them all; pick and choose where you please, evidenced out of St. Gregory's Writings. Mark (I beseech you) your own word, Evidenced, not wrested by your own sinistrous in∣terpretation; be pleased to set down the Saints

own words, or at least cite the place where they are to be found; which to do, will require in you a longer time, than the Elephant is in bringing forth her Young.

Your third Answer to this Question, Whether the Religion of St. Austin was the same with that of the Britains, is also Negative: Your first Reason is this, Because the antient Britains told Austin, that they had a Bishop of their own, to whom they were to submit; therefore they would have nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome.

Sir, the Fountain from whence this Objection Originally sprang, was Galfridus Monumetensis, lib. 11. c. 7. whose words, if they be but duely considered with an impartial Judgment, allow not at all of this your inference; therefore they would have nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome; for his words are these, There was an Abbot of Bangor, named Dynoot, that had a∣bove two thousand Monks under his charge, who answered to Austin (when he required Subjection of the British Bishops, and that they would joyn with him to convert the English Nation) That the Britains owed no Subjection unto him, nor would bestow the labor of Preaching upon their Enemies, seeing the Britains had an Archbishop of their own, and that the Saxons took from them their Country, for which cause they hated them extreamly, nor did esteem their Religion, nor would communicate with them more than with Dogs.

Behold, here is all that is to bee found in this Author to this purpose, which is nothing else (as any impartial Reader may see) but a passio∣nate and cholerick Answer of the Britains, as of men afflicted and exasperated: here is not so much as one word of their having nothing

to do with the Bishop of Rome (as you and they, the Magdeburgians many years before you infer) but only that they acknowledged not the Su∣periority of Austin over the Britains; seeing he was sent only unto the English, and the Au∣thority of their own Archbishop, was not taken away by his coming, for any thing they yet knew, but remained as before: Which Questi∣on of Jurisdiction between two Archbishops falleth out daily, even where the Popes Autho∣rity is most acknowledged, and so any one that hath Eies to Read, and Judgement to un∣derstand what he reads, may clearly see, that it is a vain and malicious inference in you and the Magdeburgians to infer so peremptorily; therefore they would have nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome: for they speak as you see of Austin's Authority, and not of the Bishops of Rome, from whom we read not, that he shewed to them any Authority to place him over their Archbishop; and consequently it is a vaine inference, which both you and the Magdeburgians do make out of the Britains Answer, that for so much as they admitted not of Austins Authority, they would have nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome.

Your second Reason, why St. Austins Reli∣gion was not the same with that of the Bri∣tains, is this; Because (say you) they rejected Austins Traditions.

Sir, I believe the Reason, why you did not set down the Traditions in particular rejected by the Britains, was because you cannot shew any one Article of Faith (which unless you do, your Objection is nothing to purpose) in which they dissented from St. Austin; for all

the difference that was between them, was on∣ly concerning some certain tollerable differen∣ces for that time; as namely, their Dissent from the use of the Roman Church in their Mini∣string of Baptism and keeping of Easter; which latter, as your learned Osiander doth testifie in Epitom. Cent. 2. l. 3. c. 2. was tollerated, in like manner by the Apostles, in regard of the known weakness of some, as for like respect Circum∣cision was by them in like sort tollerated, and Abstinence from blood, and that which was strangled, especially prescribed, Act. 15. 29. all which argue no more differenee in Articles of Faith betwixt the Britains and St. Austin, then the keeping of Easter, &c. argued dif∣ference in Articles of Faith betwixt the Apo∣stles, and their new Converts.

Now that the Britains rejected only the Tra∣ditions of St. Austin in these (for that time) tol∣lerable differences; in the first place venerable Beda, doth testifie, Hist. l. 2. c. 2. where he mentioneth this saying of St. Austin to the Britains, Si in his tribus obtemperare mihi vultis, ut pascha suo tempore celebretis, ut ministe∣rium Baptizandi quo deo renascimur, juxta morem Romanae & Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis, ut genti Anglorum una nobiscum predicetis Verbum domini, cetera quae agitis, quamvis moribus nostris contraria, aequanimiter cuncta tollerabimus: The like is testi∣fied by these following Protestant Writers, Hollinshead. vol. 1. p. 103. Mr. Goodwin in his Catalogue of Bishops. p. 6. and by the Prote∣stant Author of the History of Great Britain, printed Anno. 1606. who l. 3. c. 13. saith here∣of, The Britain-Bishops conformed themselves to the Doctrine and Ceremonies of the Church of

Rome without any difference in any thing, speci∣ally remembred, save only in the Celebration of Easter, &c.

By which their so earnest dissenting, about these only matters of smaller importance, is most plainly signified unto us, their full Agree∣ment in all Articles of Faith: for the Britains who contradicted St. Austin, and that so earnest∣ly, about these so few and small matters, would never have been silent; but much rather have withstood in the other so many and incompa∣rably much greater points, had they in like sort disagreed from him therein: nay, and their Union in Faith is yet farther proved; because the Britain-Bishops as then confessed, that it was the right way of Justice and Righ∣teousness which Austin taught: Tum Britones quidem confitentur intellexisse se, veram esse justitiae viam, quam proedicaret Augustinus: Beda l. 2. c. 2. The which is farther confirmed by your learned writer Mr. Fulke, affirming that Austin did at the last obtaine the aid of the British-Bishops, to the Conversion of the Saxons. Fulke in his confutation of Purgatory: p. 335.

And whereas you peremptorily affirm, that Austin, because the Britains rejected his Tra∣ditions, inflamed the wrath of Ethelbert King of Kent against them, who raised his Forces, and murthered about twelve hundred of them, the Monk himself being in his company, is (to say no worse) a gross mistake; for it was not Ethelbert King of Kent, but Edilfred King of Northumbers that committed this horrid Massacre of the Monks, as Beda doth testify. l. 2. c. 2. in these ensuing words.

It happened afterwards that the most mighty King

of the English men Edilfred gathering a great Army, made a foul slaughter of this unfaithful and naughty people, (to wit) the Monkes of Bangor; for being now ready to give the onset of the fight, when he espied the Priests, which came together to pray for their Souldiers Warring, stand a part from the rest in a sure and safe place, he demanded what they were, and to what end they came thither, &c. The cause of their coming thither, when King Edilfred had understood, he said, If these men cry and call upon their God against us; truly, although they have no Armour, yet they fight against us, &c. therefore he commanded his Souldiers first to assault them, &c. So you see, that it was not for rejecting Austin's Traditions, that these men were slain (as you would fain perswade the Ig∣norant) but for coming to pray for their Army, whereby the Heathen King was mightily exas∣perated, fearing lest their Prayers might obtain of Almighty God the victory against him; your own writers, Speed and Fox acknowledge the same.

Moreover, it is no less gross mistake in you so peremptorily to affirm, that St. Austin him∣self was present at this slaughter. For Fox, your great Writer, doth confess that both Huntington and other Authors affirm, that St. Austin was dead when this slaughter happened; and vene∣rable Beda. l. 2. c. 2. doth testifie the same in these words, The Holy Bishop St. Austin was himself long before taken out of this Life unto the Kingdom of Heaven. True it is Austin did Pro∣phecy (as Beda doth testifie in the same Book and Chapter) that the Britains, because they were refractory, refusing to submit unto his wholsom counsel, and Preach the Word of

God unto English men, should suffer the tempo∣ral punishment of death from the English; which Prophesie was fulfilled in this battle, long after St. Austins death; In this manner (saith Venerable Beda having described the slaughter) was fulfil∣led the Prophesie of the Holy Bishop Austin, who was himself, long before that, taken out of this Life into the Kingdom of Heaven. And thus these un∣gracious and false People, suffered the punishment of temporal Death; because they had refused and despised, the wholesom Counsel of perpetual Life and Salvation offered unto them: Beda. l. 2. c. 2. So you see, that this very slaughter of the Monks, which you unadvisedly brought against us, maketh clearly against you; for they were slain, it is true, but by whom? by Ethelbert King of Kent? no, but by Edilfred King of Northumbers, as your own Writers do tell you: Was it done by the Instigation of St. Austin then present? no, for long before that, he was taken, out of this Life unto the Kingdom of Heaven; but why did Almighty God permit this great slaughter of these Monks? because (saith venerable Beda) they refused and despised the wholesom counsel of perpetual Life and Salva∣tion, offered to them by the Holy Bishop St. Austin; which makes me to say with your learned Whittaker, Fateor veritatem etiam e suis inimicis testimonium extorquere; and withal, leave it to the serious Consideration of the Impartial Reader, whether or no, you have not dealt most Disingeniously, in so peremptorily affirming these two gross Mistakes, quite contrary, not only to your own Authors, but even to vene∣rable Beda himself, a Witness in this point without Exception: For living near the time of

St. Austin, and withal being a Man so eminent, both for Vertue and Learning, that he is known by the name of Venerable; he cannot choose but be a substantial Proof, to convince a Non-prejudg∣ing Understanding, that you were either wilfully or ignorantly mistaken; either whereof argueth no less then an indelible Stain to the Repu∣tation of your calling.

Sir, I do not question, but these specious Pre∣texts of your fallacious Arguments, may easily induce the illitterate Rabble, to believe what you please; for they looking upon you as their Oracle, placed in the Chaire of Moses, to dictate nothing but Verities, acquiesce without further inquiry, to what you say; because (forsooth) ipse dixit: But the learneder sort, which have the least Scantling in the knowledge of Anti∣quity, cannot choose but smile in their Sleeves, to see one of your Profession, so peremptorily affirm two such gross Mistakes; and without bringing any one Authority, either modern or antient, save only your naked Affirmation in your own Cause; which I suppose, you will not presume should be looked upon, as a sub∣stantial Proof, to convince a Non-prejudging Understanding; especially meeting with such un∣deniable Testimony to the contrary, not only of your own Authors, but also of Venerable Beda; the Authority of whom, is of more force, to convince a Non-prejudging Understanding, then any one you can bring to the contrary.

Your fourth Answer to this Question, whe∣ther the Religion professed by the Britains, when Austin came into England, &c. is this: That neither You nor I, can determine certainely on either side, unless we do (as the man did,

that writ of the World in the Moon) take upon us, to write of things of so great Distance from us, as cannot come within the compass of our Cognizance.

Sir, I can scarce perswade my self, the World is so Lunatick in the affairs of Anti∣quity, as you pretend: If you please to peruse the begining of the aforesaid Book, intituled The Protestants Apology for the Roman Ca∣tholick Church; you shall see, that these things came within the Cognizance of the Author thereof; and withal find substantial Proof, for the Affirmative▪ of the said Question, which may convince a Non-prejudging Understanding; and lastly be forced to confess, that to prove the Affirmative of the aforesaid Questions, there is not a longer time required, then the Ele∣phant is in bringing forth her young.

After these your aforesaid Answers, which have not so much as the Shadow of a substan∣tial Proof, to convince a Non-prejudging Un∣derstanding, you propose unto me three Que∣ries; the Affirmative whereof (say you) if granted; you make no question, but to improve them to be powerful Engines, to batter down the greatest part, of the Fabrick of our Religion.

Your first Query is this, Whether God be to have the whole glory of the Work of mans Salva∣tion? To which I answer Affirmatively; but deny the sinistrous Consequence, which you usually hence infer, Therefore no merit of good works; for though there be no Insuffici∣ency in the Actions or passions of Christ the Head; yet his Wisdom, Will and Justice re∣quireth and ordaineth, that his Body and Mem∣bers, should be Fellowes of his Passions, as they

look to be Fellows of his Glory; that so suf∣fering with him and by his Example, they may apply unto themselves and to others, the ge∣neral Medicine of Christs merits and satisfacti∣ons, as it is also effectually applyed unto us by Sacraments; the one sort being no more inju∣rious unto Christs death, nor consequently hind∣ring him of the whole Glory of the work of mans Salvation, then the other; notwithstanding your vain clamours, that would upon the Pre∣tence of Christ passions take away the Value of good Works: if you please to peruse St. Pauls Epistle to the Colossians (c. 1. v. 24.) you may see how the Apostle taught and practised this Doctrine. Neither do I see, what pretence you can have, to affirm, that the Merit of good Works, hindreth God of the whole Glory of the Work of mans Salvation, seeing the said Merit is a pure Gift of God, and no less his than his own; for not only those passions, which Christ suffered in himself, which were ful∣ly ended at his death, and were in themselves abundantly sufficient for the Redemption of the World, and of all sins; but also those, which his body and members suffer, are Christs also, because of him they receive the Condition, Quality, and Force to be meritorious and sa∣tisfactory.

Your second Query is this, Whether Christ deserve to have the whole Glory of mediating and interceding for Sinners? To which I answer also Affirmatively; but withal deny the sinistrous Consequence which you hence infer, Therefore we must not pray to Saints; for it doth no more derogate from Christs whole Glory of media∣ting for sinners, to pray unto Saints in Hea∣ven,

then to pray unto the Faithful upon Earth, (if it do, I pray you shew me the Disparity) and yet our Prayers unto the Faithful upon Earth, doth not at all derogate from Christs whole Glory, &c. Witness the Practise of the Apostle Paul in this very point to the Romans Epist. ad. Rom. c. 15. I beseech you Bre∣thren, for the Lord Jesus Christs sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that you strive together with me in your Prayers to God for Me, &c. These be the words of your own Translation, in the year, 1662.

Your third and last Query is this, Whether it be the safest way for man, to cast himself down to the lowest dust of Humility before the Footstool of God, and to acknowledge his own worthlesness, and unworthiness? To which I Answer Affirma∣tively, as above; and am now in great expecta∣tion, to see you improve these three Queries to be powerful Engines, to batter down the greatest part of the Fabrick of our Religion.

But before you do embroyl your self in this new Engagement, of demolishing the Fabrick of our Religion, I must make bold to entreat these following Favours of you, which in Ho∣nour you are bound to perform.

First, that you would shew me any one of the foresaid Points, evidenced out of St. Gre∣gories works; mark I beseech you, your own word evidenced, not wrested by your own sinis∣trous Interpretation; cite faithfully the Saints Words, or at least the Place, where they are to be found: pick and chuse which of the foresaid Points you please.

Secondly, that you would shew me any one Article of Faith, included in the Traditions of

Austin, rejected by the Britains, in which the Britains dissented from St Austin.

Thirdly, that you would shew me a substantial Proof, which may convince a non-prejudging Understanding, affirming that the foresaid Monkes were not slain by Edilfred the Heathen King of Northumbers, but by Ethelbert the Christian King of Kent, and by the instigation of St Austin be∣ing present, as you peremptorily affirm.

Fourthly, that you would stick to the thing you undertake to prove, until such time as you have sufficiently proved it, without diverting to any other point.

Fifthly, that you would be pleased to desist from wilfully misinterpreting my Words, quite contrary to the sense they were spoken in; diverting there∣by the Reader, from the true state of the questi∣on; as you did in your answer to my note, lea∣ving no more Connection between my Words and my meaning, then there is coherence in, which is my way to London, a poak full of Plumbs. I do not question, but this uncharita∣ble manner of proceeding, may easily induce the illitterate Rabble, which have scarce wit to distinguish right from left, to pass a rash judg∣ment upon your Adversary; but withal will be sufficient witness to a Learned Jury, to make them bring in their verdict against you, according to your desert. I confess this pittiful shift, a∣fords you a starting hole to your impertinent Erudition, verbal Flourishes, rhetorical Excursi∣ons, and such like impertinence; but when you have talked your self weary, the result is vox & preterea nihil; you have onely catched shadows, and aerem verlerans whipt your self more than your Adversary, as incurring hereby

the just Censure of unhandsome dealing.

Sir, Seeing the dispute betwixt me and you, is not as it is among Butter-women at the Market-Cross, that either you or I may have the upper hand therein; but that Naked-Truth may have place: I must make bold to beg one favour more, that you would be pleased to abstain from such reviling and exasperating language, fit rather to be spoken in the confusion of Babel, than by one of your calling, as you unadvisedly vented in your answer to my note; for in troubled waters truth can never be discerned, and as St. Paul saith in his first Epistle to the Corinthians Chapter the Eleventh, If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custome, nor the Church of God.

A Letter sent to N. •• concerning the Reply made unto the Answer of his brief note.

Sir,

HAd not Divine Providence (as you say it dealt with you) appointed me to a great Indisposition of body, you had long since re∣ceived a Rejoynder to your Reply: and now it comes into the World as Ichabod did, being the Issue of an hasty Travail; though I have not yet in∣joyed the date you used in replying (which in Equi∣ty should have been granted) yet some Philistins, that defie the Truths of the everliving God, begin to triumph, as if my pen was struck dumb by yours.

To silence these, that it may not be told in Gath, nor Published in the streets of Askalon, that there is any weakness in the Cause maintain∣ed, or difficulty in the Work to be done by me, it anticipates my recovery, and comes forth be∣fore

my health affords me the liberty and op∣portunity, of taking that serious view of your Reply, and of the Authors to whom you send me, which I desired to bestow vpon them.

By that hasty Perusal I have made, I find your Reply speaking this Truth, spes est rei incertae no∣men; it is so far from being satisfactory to me (as you hoped) that it hath mightily confirmed me in my judgment, against the Cause maintained by you, and made me to fall somewhat, in my good Opinion of your Person; giving me occa∣sion to think, that you are a man that will do and speak any thing, for the advancing of your own Interest; because you bring many heavy Charges against me, for which you have no more reason, than the man had for his Conceit, who thought his Body to be made of glasse, which was only the working of his disturbed Brain.

1. You accuse me of Impertinency; but this is very impertinently done by you, because you have not shewed, how and wherein my answer hath run beyond the limits of your Queries.

2. You charge me with reviling and exaspera∣ting Language; but because you have not (as I am sure you could not do) directed the Reader, to one reviling and exasperating word given by me, it perswades me to believe, that in this you did but imitate the man in the Comedy, who when he met with his Adversary, cryed out against him, O damned Villain, because he had nothing else to say.

3. You inveigh against our common People, terming them an illiterate Rabble, detained by us in Ignorance, on purpose to keep them pos∣sessed with a Prejudice against your Religion; but of all the men in the world, you have least

Reason to object this against us; because while you accuse us, you condemn your selves; you train up your People as Faulkoners doe Hawkes, keeping them constantly Hoodwinked, lest the light of Truth should shine into their understand∣ings.

4. You accuse me of Scolding and Brawling, but whether you or I do bewray most the true Genius of a Scold, let the indifferent Judge deter∣mine; when he finds who is most guilty of rail∣ing Language, of needless Repetitions, of multi∣tudes of words used to no purpose; which are the natural productions of Scolds.

If you be offended at my Similitudes, you dis∣cover your Ignorance of the nature of that kind of Illustration, nulla similitudo currit quatuor pe∣dibus: do but take them in that purpose, for which they are used by me, and do not apply the remaining part to your self any more than I do, and you will find Reason forbidding you to fume at the use of them.

The Cause that I do maintain, scorns the help of such rotten Supports as these, and leaves them to be used by those, who do maintain a Cause, that is like unto a Cripple; who, because he wants the Strength of natural Legs, is glad to creep on any fashion, and to make use of wooden legs to go on.

Truth will stand by its own native strength a∣gainst all Opposition; though the raines of As∣persions do fall, and the floods of false Accusati∣ons do come; yea though the Winds of Persecu∣tions do blow and beat against it; yet (being founded upon the Rock) it will not fall, but accor∣ding to the sentence of those Judges, that were to determine what was strongest, magna est veritas & praevalebit.

A Rejoynder to the Reply made unto the Answer of a Note, entituled a brief Note concerning Points of Religion.

SHould I tell you, that you are fallen out with your brief Note, you would say that I lie in Ambush to catch at your words, by willfully mistaking your meaning; what mean you then by entituling your three Queries now, so as to make them all but one Question, the question (say you) propounded was this, &c. there is reason to suspect some design in it; but I matter not what it is, because I do not fear any disadvan∣tage, to fall unto the Truth by it: but I would have the Reader to consider, how much Credit is to be yeilded to your words, being that you are thus contradictory to your self; if it be not a Con∣tradiction, pray resolve me, how three distinct Queries can be but one Question, and that one Question entituled a breif Note concerning Points of Religion.

And here in the beginning of your Reply, I find the old proverb to be verified, Claudius ac∣cusat Maechum; you are guilty of that, for which you have accused and condemned me. Here are verbal Flourishes and rhetorical Excursions, charging me highly of many misdemeanors com∣mited in my Answer, and promising great things for your self, how exact and pertinent you will be in your following Reply; to dispel (as a light vapour) all that is material in my Answer. Thus while by fair flourishes you raise a mist before the eyes of your Reader, you lurk away without ta∣king notice of a great part of my Answer upon

the pretended ground of Impertinency.

But tell me seriously, is it Impertinent to exa∣mine the nature of your Queries? I told you, that the Determination of them on either side was unnecessary: First for the common People; this I put you in mind of, in the begining of my Answer, therefore I desired to hear of some reason, why you would send out such Queries; you who pretend so much unto Edi∣fication, charging my Answer as ineffectual in relation to this end, should have given some Reason for this, to shield your self from the imputation of loading their heads with unnes∣cessary Positions, and puzling their braines with such like Queries; you should have proved the Determination of them to be edificative, which being not done, your talking of Edification may be deservedly interpreted meer Dissimulation.

Secondly, Unnecessary for your Self, as to the effecting of that end you looked at, in propound∣ing of your Queries; wherefore I demanded earnestly to know, why you would have these three Queries disputed, while the Disputa∣tion of one (namely whither your Religion be the same, that was taught by Christ and his Apostles) would bring us sooner to the Know∣ledge of the Truth: I will tell you once a∣gain, that if you have no better Arguments, to prove your Religion to be true, then such as Jews and Turkes may use for the proof of their Religion, such as Antiquity and Succession; for all your great braggs, yours may be (as theirs is) The meer invention of Man.

But necessary or not, you must have your Queries determined, or else the Truth, preten∣ded to belong unto your Religion, falls unto

the Ground; what is the Reason of this impa∣tient Longing? Sure, it is some great Distem∣per, which you know to be in your Religion, for which you distrust it, as not able to endure the Tryal of the infallible Rule.

And, I find you very scarce of Arguments, to prove your Religion to be true, being that you are so earnest, to have that which is necessary to be known, proved by that Knowledge which is unnecessary; whether your Religion be true or false, is necessary to be known; but whether Austin was of your Religion, or the antient Brittains was of his; or whether the Religion of the antient Brittains, was the same with the pri∣mitive Religion, is not necessary to be known. There are many precious Souls gone to Heaven, that never heard of you, nor Austin, nor the antient Brittains; and yet this is the grand Me∣thod you use, and hence you would draw a con∣vincing Argument, to prove the Truth you claim for your Religion.

Well, because you dote upon this Argument (as much as the Ape doth upon her Issue, though never so deformed) I am content, you should use the Strength of it against me, and let us see how advantagious the Management of it will prove for you. Thus you argue, that Religion which Austin professed is true; but the Religion now professed by the Papists in England, is the same that Austin professed, ergo, &c.

Your Assumption, being one of the things in question, shall not be spoken to now; how you do prove it, will be examined in its proper place. The Juncture of your Queries tells me, that you must prove your Major thus; that the Religion, which the antient Brittains professed in Austins

time, is true; but the Religion of Austin is the same which the antient Brittains in his time professed, ergo &c. your Assumption likewise being another thing in question, shall be passed by until another Opportunity; it is your Major I shall speak to.

It should seem that you are not the man I took you to be; are you not a Roman Catholick? This is a Title you assume unto your self, though there be a Contradiction in the termes; and will you forsake your Colours, and fight under ano∣ther Banner? Have you not forsaken the Roman Church, which sometime you say is the infallible Guide? And do you not fly unto the poor di∣stressed Brittains for help? You must confess your self to be guilty of this Practise, or else you must throw away your Argument. I hope you are not ignorant of this, that the Medium used for a proof, must be more evident than the Thing proved; you must confess then, that the Reli∣gion professed by the Brittains, was more evi∣dently true, then that professed by Austin, or that of the Roman-Church; otherwise why do you draw an Argument thence, to prove Austins Religion to be true? and why an Argument thence, rather than from the Religion of the Ro∣man Church? Pray Sir, let me know, whether you claim a Succession in Religion from the an∣tient Brittains, as well as you are beholding to them for this Argument? It seems to me, that you do acknowledg this Claim; were I assured of it, I could make excellent use of it against you.

The Major Proposition you prove thus; The Religion brought into England by its first Con∣vertors (it being that which was taught by Christ and his Apostles) is true; but the Religion pro∣fessed by the antient Brittans, is the same that

was brought into England by its first Conver∣tors, ergo &c. the Assumption I likewise pass by, until another time of Consideration.

The Major is an undeniable Truth; the Re∣ligion first brought into England, the Religion taught by Christ and his Apostles is true, here we do rest our selves, upon this Rock do we build, and hither by the conduct of your queries do you fly; why did you not use this medium at first, to prevent the unnecessary Travel that you have made? is it not a far more easy work to exa∣mine, whether your Religion be the same, that was taught by Christ and his Apostles; than to examine whither yours be the same with Austins, Austins the same with that of the antient Brit∣tains, the ancient Brittains the same with that taught by Christ and his Apostles? Let us then leave Austin and the antient Brittains, to stand or fall to their own Master, and let us dispute this Question fairly, whether your Religion be the same that was taught by Christ and his Apostles? and if you can convince me of the Truth of the Affirmative, by proving your Religion to be conformable unto the infallible Rule, (where we are to inquire for the Religion taught by Christ and his Apostles) I will be of your Religion; until that be done, I am obliged, by that little knowledge which I have, to re∣main as I am.

Having put you in mind of that part of my Answer, with which you were pleased to deal, as the Levite dealt with the wounded man, only looking upon it, and passing it by, I come now to examine the matter of your Reply.

Reply.

You say the Reason why you did demand and not

Prove, was not any Difficulty that you perceived in so easy an enterprize; it was only to see, whether I would grant or deny: If I Grant, you attain your end; if I Deny, you have the Testimony of many learned Protestants, to prove the Affirmative of the aforesaid Question; besides you have the Proofs used by the Authour of the Three Conversions of Eng∣land.

Rejoynder.

You send me for a Proof of your Affirmative, unto the Author of the Book called the Three Conversions of England, and to the Author of that called The Protestants Apology for the Roman Church: Surely, this is a compendious way of proving, and very cheap too, costing very lit∣tle paines; and do you think that it is substan∣tial enough to prove your Affirmative? because you have sent it to me, as an argument endow∣ed with that great ability, you are bound by the Law of Retaliation, to accept of the like proof from me, as substantial enough to prove my Negative; be pleased then to peruse that learned Treatise, called the Protestants Appeal written by Dr. Moorton, where you will find your Apology for the Roman Church substantially confuted, together with Arguments, taken from your own learned Writers, to confirm my Ne∣gative. Peruse likewise that Treatise, called, The Subversion of the three Conversions written by Dr. Sutcliffe; and you will finde Arguments there for the same purpose. Thus you teach me to argue by your Example, being that my Argu∣ment, is as like unto yours, as one Egg is unto another, there is great reason, that you should suffer it to have as powerful working upon your self, as you expect yours should have upon

me: So there is no need, that I should stand to refute your Affirmative, or to confirm my Negative, the work being done already to my hands.

But what mean you by foresaid Question, for the Proof of the Affirmative of which (you say) you have the Testimony of many learned Protestants? if you mean one of the three Queries singly, then which of them is it? The first or second, or third? you should have ex∣pressed which it is, then had you played your Game above-board; it may be that you can pro∣duce some Protestant Writers, asserting the Affirmative of some one of them; if you would therefore perswade your Reader, to believe that there are Protestant Writers, that do grant the Affirmative of all; this is real Juggling.

If by foresaid Question, you mean all the three Queries; I wonder that you are not a∣shamed to vent such an Expression; can you perswade any one to believe, that a Protestant (while he is a Protestant) will maintain the Affirmative of all the three Queries? that your Religion is the same with Austins, his the same with the antient Britains, theirs the same with that first brought into England; is not this in ef∣fect to say, that your Religion is the same that was taught by Christ and his Apostles? and will any Protestant say this? is not this ipso facto to renounce the Protestants as false, and to acknowledge yours to be true? and will or can any Protestant (while he is a Protestant) do so? surely that Religion hath but a weak Foundation, that needs to be supported with such Stories as these.

And here you deal with me, as the man did who challenged his enemy into the field, but when he came to the place appointed, (for rea∣sons best known to himself) refused to com∣bate, but b••ought two Seconds to maintain his Quarrel, while he stood by as a Judge, to de∣termine concerning the Victory. The Quarrel being begun with you, it is neither valiantly nor reasonably done by you, to send me into the lists, to encounter with your Seconds: have you a Power of imposing such Tasks upon me? and will you say that my Rejoynder is not a suf∣ficient Return unto your Reply, unless I swell it to the Bulk of confuting such large Volumes? be pleased to send me a brief Account of the Arguments used by your Authors (in whom I perceive the strength of your confidence is fix∣ed) and the more to provoke you, I challenge you to the doing of it; and if I do not refute them, I will then acknowledge them to be (such as you say they are) substantial.

I leave it now to the Judicious Reader to de∣termine, whether you have performed that enter∣prize (which you account so easy,) of proving the Affirmative of your Queries with substanti∣al Arguments, such as may be convincing to the Non-prejudging Understanding; truly this cannot be done by sending me to Authors, who produce some Testimonies, speaking no∣thing to your purpose, and who use some ar∣guments, as lame in their Propositions, as the Cause is, which they endeavour to strengthen; if I do wrong your Authors by this imputation, I hope you will vindicate them, by displaying their arguments to be viewed in their great∣est strength.

If you would prove the Affirmative of your Queries thus exactly, you should first set down all the points of Faith, that do belong unto your Religion; and then prove that Austin brought all, and no more into England; and then prove that all, and no more, were maintained by the antient Britains; and then that all, and no more were preached by the first Convertors of England: to do all this (without which there can be no substantial Proof made for your Af∣firmative) you may take a longer time then the Elephant is in bringing forth her young; I believe you may as the Areopagites did with their hard Causes, put it off ad longissimum diem.

2. You Reply to my Answer made in parti∣cular to the first Query; and here you begin to boast, as if my expression had given you an Ad∣vantage to improve to my utter Overthrow; you challenge me (with a great measure of Con∣fidence in the impossibility of the work) to produce the Testimony of Gregory, to witness evidently his Doctrine, in any one of the par∣ticulars mentioned, to be the same that is main∣tained by the Church of England; for thus you say.

Reply.

Be pleased to shew all these foresaid points, nay rather then I should impose too great a task on you, or any one of them all, pick and choose where you please; evidenced out of Gregory's writings, mark beseech you your own word, (evidenced) not wrested by your sinistrous interpretation; be pleased to set down the Saints own words, or at the least, cite the place where they are to be found, which to do will require in you, a longer time then the Elephant is in bringing forth her young.

Rejoynder▪

Ante victoriam noli cantare triumphum, let not him that girdeth on his Harness, boast as he that puts it off; I can with ease perform your imposed task. In relation to the Cannon of the Scripture, Gregory expresseth himself thus, Non inordinate agimus, si ex libris licet non cano∣nicis, sed tamen ad Edificationem ecclesiae editi•• testimonium proferamus; he speaks of the Book of Machabees, and can you have a plainer Testi∣mony than this, Greg. mor. l. 19. c. 13. art. 6. here is no need of wresting his words, mark (I beseech you) they are evident for me. Hence your Canus expresseth himself after this man∣ner, Machabeorum libros ab ecclesia recipi Grego∣rio licuit aliquando disputare, it is plain by the Doctrine of Gregory, that the Book of Macha∣bees did not belong unto the Canon of Scripture, Can. loc. theol. l. 2. c. 11. whether doth this Doctrine agree to that of your Church, which denounceth an Anathema to all that will not re∣ceive the Book of Machabees for canonical•• Scrip∣ture, Con. Trid. Sess. 4. or to that of the Church of England, which excludes it from the Canon.

By producing this one Testimony out of Gregory, it being as evident as the Sun, I sup∣pose your enjoyned Task is sufficiently perfor∣med; but because I did undertake to produce his Testimony, for every one of these mentioned particulars, I will bound my Actions according to my▪ own undertaking, not to your imposition.

Concerning the Sufficiency of the Scripture, Gregory hath these words, in hac volumine, om∣nia quae erudiunt, cuncta quae edificant, Scripta con∣tinentur, in this Book (saith he, speaking of the Holy Scriptures) are contained all things that

are necessary for Instruction and Edification. Greg. in Ezek. hom. l. 1. hom. 9.

For the reading of the Holy Scripture, you find him instructing Theodorus, a Phisician and Lay person thus; The Holy Scripture is an Epistle sent from God unto his Creature, I pray thee there∣fore study them, and dayly meditate on the words of thy Creator. Greg. l. 4. Epist. 40.

Of the real Presence you have him venting this expression, Pensemus quale sit hoc sacrificium, quod pro absolutione nostra Passionem filii semper imitatur; Let us consider what kind of Sacrifice this is, that doth imitate the passion of the Son of God for our Absolution; Greg. dial. l. 4. c. 58. He tearms the Lords Supper a Sacrifice, but how is it a Sacri∣fice? by way of Imitation, because it is an imi∣tation of his Passion.

Against the private Masse you find him or∣daining thus, Cumque in eadem Ecclesia missarum solennia celebrarentur, atque ex more Diaconus cla∣maret si quis non communicet, det locum; When Mass is celebrated in the Church, and the Deacon according to the custom cryes out, if any one will not Communicate, Let him depart; Greg. dial. l. 2. c. 13. You see the People by his Command, were not to be idle Spectators, to behold the gestures of the Priest, while he only received the Sacrament, but they that were prepared, were to Communicate with him, and the rest were to depart.

For the Communion in both kinds, you have him speaking after this manner, You have lear∣ned what the blood of the Lamb is by drinking, not by hearing; Greg. de cons. dist. 2. It seems then there was Drinking used in the Administration of the Sacrament; if you will believe the Cen∣turists

(whom your Apologist hath brought forth as witnesses in your own cause) they will tell you, this is the opinion they entertained concerning him, in relation to this particular, de caena do∣mini recte docet Gregorius, the Doctrine that Gre∣gory delivered concerning the Lords Supper is true, Cent. 6. de Greg. I have the testimony of your Apologist on my side for this, he tells you that Austin brought into England with his other Uten∣sils, Chalices and Pots; for what use think you, did he bring them? Your Suares will determine this; In the former days (sayes he) when the Sacra∣ment was administred in both kinds, besides the Priests Cups, there were others to be imployed only for the use of the People, Tom. 3. disp. 81.

Against the Merit of good Works you have him speaking thus, I grow unto Eternal Life, not by the Merit of my Works, but by the pardon of my Sins, presuming to obtain that only by the mercy of God, which I do not hope for by my own de∣sert, Greg. in Job. & in Psal.

Against the Worship of Images, you may read what he said to Serenus, Bishop of Massilia, Though you did well in forbidding the Adoration of them, yet it was inconsiderate Zeal in you, to break down those Historial Pictures, which are set up only for the instruction of the ignorrnt, not for Adoration, Greg. l. 9. Epist. 109. Agrippa speaks this concerning him, It is certain that Gregory allowed not the Worship of Images, Agrip. de van. c. 70.

What an Enemy he was unto the Popes Su∣premacy, your self will confess, (unless you have steeled your Forehead to maintain an Opinion, contrary to his own express Testimony in many

places of his Writings) he calls the Title of Ʋniversal Bishop a Title of Novelty, Error, Im∣piety, Blasphemy, the universal Poyson of the Church, contrary to the Antient Cannons, to St. Peter, to the Holy Gospel, and God himself, Greg. l. 4. Epist. 32. & 37. & 39. Pronouncing any one, that shall presume to challenge it, to be the Forerunner of Antichrist; whereupon Cardinal Cusanus saith of him, by the Doctrine of Gregory, no Bishop, except he will be like unto Lucifer in presumption, may bear such Rule, as to make all other Bishops subject unto him.

Now give judgment uprightly, speaking, as you are obliged, by convincing Reason (once ac∣cording to the truth of the Thing, and not ac∣cording to the groundless affection you bear un∣to your own Cause) and tell me whether the Doctrine of Gregory in these particulars, be the same with the Doctrine of the Church of England? the matter is so plain, that unless you wilfully shut your eyes against the light, you cannot de∣ny it; go then and divide between Pope Gre∣gory, and his Legat Austin, by saying that they were different in Religion, or else confess in∣genuously, that your Religion is not the same, that was brought by Austin into England.

Notwithstanding all your great brags of An∣tiquity, the Religion now professed by you, wants so much of the date of Austins, that it is no older than the Counsel of Trent, and to make good what I say, I shall lay down these follow∣ing positions.

The first is made by Veroon (one of your great Champions) mustering all his Forces for the maintenance of your Religion; he tells you in his Rule of Faith, that that Doctrine is an Arti∣cle

of faith, which hath Divine Revelation, and the Churches Proposition, either by her general prac∣tice, or by the definition of a general Councel; These two Requisites he makes the formal cause of an Article of Faith.

The second is this, the Additions of Doctrines for Articles of Faith, which were not Articles of Faith before, unto the Religion formerly pro∣fessed, doth alter Religion really from what it was. Articles of Faith are the essential parts of Religion, and the addition of more Essentials to a compound, alters the Compound: What is it which changeth Religion from its primi∣tive Constitution? it must be either Additions or Substractions, either of which being made, the necessary Result is, a real Change in Religi∣on.

The third is this, by the Council of Trent there were many Doctrines propounded and defined to •• Articles of Faith, which were not Articles of Fait•• before; which is proved, because they were not propounded for such by the Church, either by her general Practise, or by the definition of a general Council: that they were not generally practised for such before is clear enough; be∣cause they were defined to be such by the Coun∣sel of Trent. For the Definition of a general Councel is to correct the want of general Prac∣tise, otherwise that definition is unnecessa∣ry. If a Doctrine be received by the universal Church for an Article of Faith, what need is there of a general Council to define it to be an Article of Faith? And that they were not de∣fined before, is as clear; for if they were de∣fined before, where was the Infallibility of your Head the Pope? Was it not an Errour in him

to summon a Council, to perform an unnecessa∣ry work, to do that which was done before? and if they were defined before, shew me to what Council or Councils, the Council of Trent agrees in all its Definitions: From all this it necessarily follows, that the body of Religion, compacted by the Council of Trent, is not the same that was professed before.

Whether this Discourse be rational and con∣cluding, I submit to the determination of better Judgments; and how you will avoid the force of it, I desire to know; for I profess my self to be a Learner, and would fain be undeceived in any Opinion maintained by me, that can be proved to be contrary to the Truth: You cry out upon us to shew, where our Religion was before Luther, as if it was a Child of his begetting, and never saw the light before he brought it into the world: But we have grea∣ter reason to call upon you, and demand where your Religion was before the Council of Trent; untill I be convinced by stronger Arguments, than I have found yet in any of your Writers; I will maintain this to be a Truth, that the Religion professed by you, looks no farther towards An∣tiquity, than unto the late little Council of Trent.

In the third place, you reply unto the Answer made unto the second Query; and here (I be∣lieve) you conceit your main strength to lye; because you have taken such pains in penning a long Discourse, charging me with a vain and malicious Inference, together with two grosse and shameful Mistakes: And indeed if the Charge was deserved, there would be some mat∣ter of boasting for you; but when I have spo∣ken

in my own Defence, I shall desire the Judi∣cious Reader to determine, at whose door the grosse mistakes deserve most to be laid, whe∣ther at mine or yours?

The vain and malicious Inference, with which you charge me is, for concluding from the words of Galfridus Monumetensis, that the anti∣ent Brittains would have nothing to do with the Bi∣shop of Rome; but if you were required to prove, that I made this Inference from his words, you would find but a feeble Argument for it, unless you can prove, that you know every thing that is done by me, or that there is no other Authour that speaketh to my purpose: But let this pass, and let us reason a little concerning the force of his words, in what they may freely intimate unto us, without any stress laid upon them; and I doubt not but to make it plain to your own understanding, that you had no reason to say, that the deduction made from his words is vain and malicious.

Reply.

You say, he reports the Brittains returning this Answer unto Austin (when he required subjection from them) That they owed no subjection unto him, because they had an Archbishop of their own, to whom they were to subject themselves.

Rejoynder.

Let me ask you, whether Austin had a Com∣mission to require Subjection from them or not? if you say, he had not, you make him a strange kind of Apostle; while he should have been dili∣gent in employing his utmost endeavours for the Conversion of Pagans, you report him to be exercising of Pride and Ambition, in requiring subjection from them, from whom he was not authorised to require any such thing.

If you say that he had a Commission, and did not shew it; (as indeed there is somewhat in your words to this purpose, you say that you do not read, that he shewed any Commission un∣to them,) but this is but a weak Argument to prove that he did not shew it) then you make him guilty of Indiscretion and Uncharitableness in his carriage towards the Brittaines. Think you that it was any part of Discretion and Chari∣ty in Austin, to conceal that which would have sheilded him, from the Imputation of Pride and Ambition, and would have helped to compose the difference between them; if the Brittains acknow∣ledged that to be true, which you say is a Maxime, to wit, that every Christian should be subject to the Bishop of Rome?

Now choose whether you will brand your Apostle of England (as you stile him) with Pride and Ambition, by saying he had no Commissi∣on? or with Indiscretion and Uncharitableness, by saying he did not shew it? or will grant, that he did shew it? I suppose this last mentio∣ned, will be the object of your Choice, rather than you will acknowledge him to be guilty of so great failing as is mentioned, in managing the Trust committed unto him by his Master; and tell me whether it be a vain and malicious Infer∣ence, to conclude from the words of Galfridus Monumetensis, that the Brittains returned this An∣swer unto Austin, that they would have nothing to to do with the Bishop of Rome; if they denyed to yeild Subjection unto Austin, authorized by the Pope, and knowing him to be authorized to re∣quire Subjection from them; this is not only to reject Austin, but also the Bishop of Rome, and to have nothing to do with them both.

But yet I have not done with you as to this matter: You say, that for any thing the Brittains did know, Austin was sent only to the English: sure you would have the Brittain-Bishops to be meer Ideots: Did they not know that he requi∣red subjection from them? And do you think that they would not (as the Scribes and Pharisees demanded of our Saviour) enquire of him, by what authority he did those things, and who gave him that Authority?

Beda tells us, that Pope Gregory gave him authority to require Subjection from them; Bed. Hist. l. 1. c. 27. And no doubt, had they not known this, that he was sent to them, by one grea∣ter than himself for this end; they would not have spent time in disputing Jurisdictions with him; but soon have told him, that he was a proud and pragmattical Fellow, for attempting to domineer over all, and to subject all unto him∣self, upon his first footing in England: there∣fore if they dispute Jurisdictions with him, it was (without question) in relation to Pope Gre∣gory, and their own Archbishop, and so their answer was not (as you say) as of men inflamed with Choller for the Injury done by the Saxons; (and pray consider, what justice would have been acted, in being angry with one man for another mans fault) but as of men preferring their own Archbishop, before Pope Gregory, asserting no dependance upon, and owing no Sub∣jection unto him; but owning their own Archbi∣shop as his Superiour in relation unto them: wherefore, I say, if I had no other Testimony to produce, but that of Galfrides Monumetensis, it is sufficient to discharge me from the guilt of a vain and malicious Inference, and to

prove, that the antient Britains told Austin, that they would have nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome.

But I have other Testimonies to produce; be pleased to search Antiqui. Brittain. in Augustin. page 46. and you will find these words, cum Archiepiscopum suum haberent, cui deberent & vel∣lent parere, externo verè Episcopo minimè subjectos fere; is not this plain enough for my purpose? They said they would not be subject to any forraign Bishop; Is not this to say that they would not be subject to the Bishop of Rome, for sure he was a forreign Bishop? your own Baronius terms the Brittain-Bishops Schismaticks for this very reason, because they divided from the Church of Rome, and so did not yield subjection unto the Pope. Bar. com. ad ann. 604. num. 65.

To the second Reason which I used to prove, that the Religion of the antient Brittains, was not the same with Austins, which was this, because they rejected Austins Traditions, you reply thus.

Reply.

You Believe the Reason, why I did not set down in particular the Traditions rejected by the Brittains, was, because I could not shew any one Article of Faith (which unless I do, my objection is nothing to pur∣pose) in which they dissented from Austin.

Rejoynder.

I perceive you are very credulous, especially where the matter to be believed, hath any ten∣dency to your advantage; otherwise you would not believe this conclusion to be true, that thing is impossible to be done, which is not actually done; but whatsoever this work, of shewing Articles of Faith wherein they differed, be possible or impossible, it was not so necessary (as you say it was) for me to do it; a general

Proof being sufficient to confirm what I said; and (I am sure) as strong as any Argument used by you to prove the contrary; if you had weigh∣ed your own Performance in the ballance, you would have found Reason forbidding you, to object this against me; least you should teach me to retort and say, That I believe the reason why you did not shew me any one Article of Faith wherein they agreed, was because you could not; for neither you nor your Author to whom you sent me, hath done any thing like unto this work, and yet this should have been done by you: yea, if you would have proved your Affir∣mative with an argument any thing like unto substantial, you should have proved in particu∣lar, that they agreed in all the Articles of their Faith.

I am of opinion, that it is as possible for me, to shew some Article of Faith wherein they dif∣fered, as it is for you to shew Articles of Faith wherein they agreed; Histories being equally silent in both: Only it must be necessarily con∣cluded that, because they were all Christians, they agreed in some Principles of Christianity: and on the contrary, because they were disa∣greeing Christians, why might it not be strong∣ly presumed, that they dissented in others? and why might not my Argument, be able to prove this presumption? but you have rejected it as weak (though, as will appear, you have no reason for it) by which you have obliged your self to produce a stronger on your side; and whether yours be such, I come now to Examine.

Reply.

To prove that they did not differ in any one Article of Faith, first you say, all the Difference

that was between them, was only concerning certain tollerable Differences for that time, as namely their Dissent from the use of the Roman Church, in their ministring of Baptism and keeping of Easter,

Rejoynder.

Was this all the difference that was between them? did you not tell me even now, that they differed in Point of Jurisdiction? you charge me with gross mistakes; let me desire you to recon∣cile your expressions, to free your self from the charge of Contradiction; for if you do not here contradict, what you said before, I know not what I say.

Reply.

That this was all the difference that was be∣tween them; you bring Beda to testify saying, si in his tribus obtemper are mihi vultis, & tum Brito∣nes confitentur se intellexisse, &c.

Rejoynder.

Do not you by your Assertion contradict this Testimony? what is the meaning of those words, caetera quae agitis, quamvis moribus nostris contraria aequanimiter cuncta tollerabimus; if Beda's relation be true, and I do understand the Latin he writes, they differed in many particulars, besides those mentioned by you: and what is implyed in his other words (tum Britones confitentur se in∣tellexisse &c.) it should seem that they differed about the way of Justice; otherwise how could Beda use this expression? and to differ (as you say) about things that are tollerable, is this to differ a∣bout the way of Justice? I hope you will not say, that the observation of unnecessary Testimonies, is the way of Justice.

The Author of the History of great Britain, whom you produce for a Testimony on your side

(as you quote him) speaks not for you, but against you; he says the Brittain-Bishops conformed them∣selves to the Doctrine and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, without any difference in any thing specially remembred, save only in the Feast of Easter, and Administration of the Sacrament of Baptisme; what means this limitation of special remembrance? doth it not strongly import, that there were other differences between them, that were not remem∣bred and specially remembred; that is (as re∣membrance is to be understood) fell not into open Debate between them at that time?

Hollinsheads Words you have not mentioned, therefore all that I say to him is this, that if he speak no more on your side, then Beda or the Author of the History of Great Brittain, you have as little reason to quote him, as you had to quote them, that is none at all.

As to Goodwin in his Catalogue of Bishops; I have searched his sixth page, whither you di∣rect me, and do find there, no such thing as you speak of; but in the 43. Page you will find him speaking directly against you. And because you have quoted him as a Witness for your self, his Testimony should be of good account with you; his words are these, but their Answer to him was short and peremptory, that they might not submit them∣selves to him, having an Arch-Bishop of their own. That the Doctrine and Discipline of their Church, they had received from the Apostles of Christ, nei∣ther would they change the same, for any mans plea∣sure whatsoever.

And whereas you say, that Mr. Fulke affirms, that Austin did at the last obtain the Aid of the Brittish Bishops to the Conversion of the Saxons; if you think this to be a Testimony on your side,

you are very much mistaken; for the words do but prove expresly, that they agreed to work together for the Conversion of Pagans, which Consent was not any hinderance, but there might be differences, and great ones too, between them concerning other matters; but if you should strain the words to make them imply, that there was not any difference between them, when they joyned together to carry on that good work, yet this was not any impediment to hinder differen∣ces between them before.

Reply.

Secondly, you say; That by their earnest dissenting about these only smaller matters, is most plainly sig∣nified their full agreement in all Articles of Faith; for the Brittains that contradicted him in these smal∣ler matters, would not have been silent, but much more have opposed him in matters of greater Concernment.

Rejoynder.

You go on still upon that ground, which you have not yet proved to be true, nay, some of the Testimonies produced by you, have proved it to be false; namely, that they dissented only about those matters of smaller Importance, and that the Brittains opposed him only in those matters. I tell you once again from your Author Beda, that they differed in many more and greater mat∣ters; search the second Chapter of the second Book of Beda, and you will find him reporting, that Austin told them, that they did many things, con∣trary to the Practise of the Catholick Church, and that he prayed unto God, that by a Miracle he would be pleased to shew, which was the true way unto the Kingdom of Heaven: it seemed they differed a∣bout this way, otherwise why would he make this Prayer? And he tells you in the latter end,

that they opposed him in all that he said, and sure he said somewhat more unto them, than what concerned those tollerable Differences you speak of; otherwise how could Beda, with any shew of Truth, conclude his second Chapter thus, ut eti∣am temporalis interitus ultionem sentirent perfidi, quod oblata sibi perpetuae salutis concilia spreverant, were your tollerable Differences the Councils of Ever∣lasting Salvation?

This Argument you borrowed of your Apolo∣gist, and he borrowed it from the Author of the three Conversions; and if by earnest dissenting, you mean an open Debating and Disputing, where it is as true as it is false, that they dissented only about those smaller matters; I wonder that you and your Authors should expose such a tottering Argument as this to the view of the Reader, without supporting it with some Reason, to keep it from falling to the ground. It is as if you should reason concerning Michaiah and Ze∣dekiah (of whom you may read in the 18 ch. of the 2 Book of Chronicles) and say they openly dissented only concerning the event of Ahabs go∣ing to Ramoth-Gilead, therefore they agreed in all weightier matters; for Michaiah that opposed Ze∣dekiah in this smaller matter of Importance, would never have been silent, but much more have op∣posed him in a greater matter; but this is to con∣clude both against Reason and Experience; for the one was a true Prophet, and servant to the God of Heaven, the other a false Prophet & Wor∣shipper of Baal. You and I were in open & actual Debate, concerning only the Determination of the three Queries propounded by you, which (in my judgment) is a matter of small Conse∣quence. I assure you the Determination of them

on either side, is not any Article of my Faith; and if it be an Article of yours, I must say, that your Creed is larger than that set forth by Pius the fourth; and yet this open and actual Debate, is no sufficient Argument to prove, that you and I do agree concerning all greater mat∣ters; for you know that we do not.

Having set forth your Argument to be view∣ed in its strength, the Reader may judg now, whether yours or mine hath more in it, to esta∣blish the Conclusion: notwithstanding all that you have yet said, it may be justly determined, that my Argument taken from the rejection of Austins Traditions (which you have so much scorned) is of so great force, that the best re∣sistance you have made against it, is only to say, that it was used to no purpose; for this you have not yet proved; and to let you see more of the strength of it, I shall add this; if the Traditi∣ons, that were received by the Brittains, did con∣cern only the tollerable Differences you speak of; was it piously and charitably done of Austin, to threaten them for this Rejection? And could he justly prophecy of their Ruine for it? Did the rejecting of those small matters, deserve so great Revenge at the hands of the Almighty? You must cast an everlasting blot in the face of the Italian Monk, or else you must acknowledge that they opposed him in greater matters; for which (you must say) they deserved to be thus retributed: and farther I say, if Austins Tradi∣tions agreed to the Doctrine of those Romish Bishops, which were in the time of Laurentius (Austins immediate Successor) they were so dis∣tastful, that Bishop Dagamus denied all Commu∣nion with the maintainers of them, and refused

to eat Bread in the same Inn where they did Lodg. Bed. Hist. l. 2. c. 4. sure this carriage of Da∣gamus proves, that there were greater differen∣ces between them, than those few tollerable ones you have spoken of.

And now I cannot but take notice of that re∣markable Limitation which you do apply unto your tollerable Differences, you say for that time tollerable; will you be pleased to tell me, whe∣ther those differences, if happening before, or at any time since, must have the contrary Epithite given unto them, and be said to be intollerable? Can matters of Indifferency by revolution of time change their Natures & become matters of Necessi∣ty? Can Circumstances be made Articles of Faith? The Church of Rome is fruitful in bringing forth such and more strange Mutations; but they who prize that benefit of Christian Liberty, which Christ hath purchased for them, will not by own∣ing any such Change, bring themselves again in∣to Bondage: It is true, the command of the Church, doth oblige unto the observance of Cir∣cumstances, tending to Decency and Order; but she doth not enjoyn the use of them, otherwise than they are, that is, not as necessary, but in∣different; and bears with tender Consciences that scruple to use them, untill better Informa∣tion doth remove the Scruple, and convinceth them of the Conveniency there is, that they should be used.

To manage your Cause against me with grea∣ter Applause, you accuse me in the next place of two grosse mistakes. First, in reporting that Austin for the rejection of his Traditions, stir∣red up the wrath of Ethelbert King of Kent, against the Brittains: to make good your Charge

you bring Beda for a Witness, whose words (as you set them down) are these.

Reply.

It happened, that the mighty King of the English∣men Edilfred gathered a great Army, and made a foul slaughter of this unfaithful and naughty Peo∣ple, to wit, the Monks of Bangor; for being now ready to give the onset of the Fight, when he espied the Priests (which came together to pray unto God for their Souldiers Warring) stand a part from the rest in a safe and sure place, he demanded who they were, and to what end they came thither, &c. the cause of their coming thither when King Edilfred had under∣stood, he said, if these men cry and call upon their God against us, truly though they have no Armour, yet they fight against us, therefore he commanded his Souldiers first to assault them. Beda. l. 2. c. 2.

Rejoynder.

Your Author speaks very contemptibly of the Monkes of Bangor, terming them an unfaithful and naughty People; therefore if you think that he speaks Truth, it is strange to me, that you are so earnest in claiming kindred with their Religion; and from his words you conclude, that the Cause of their slaughter, was not the rejection of Austins Traditions, but their meet∣ing together to pray for the good success of their Army, and that it was not Ethelbert King of Kent, but Edilfred King of Northumbres that made this slaughter.

While you are accusing me of a gross Mi∣stake, you attract the same guilt unto your self, by forcing your Witness to speak what he never intended, and by which you make him to contradict himself; he saies (as you pre∣tend) that the Monks were slain for coming to∣gether

to pray for the good success of their Army; suppose he doth say so, doth he mean that this was the only Cause? no, he cannot mean so; for you confess in the next Paragraph, that he he tells of another Cause, to wit, their Refracto∣rinesse in not submitting to the wholsome Council of Austin, and refusing to Joyn with him in Preach∣ing to the English; by which the Prophesy pre∣tended to be made by Austin was fulfilled: Beda reportes him, and (I believe) you accoun•• him a Prophet; and pray tell me how he could prophecy, that they should suffer death by the English men for this cause, if this was not a Cause of their slaughter? And how will you keep his words from clashing, if you will have him to say, that the only cause was their coming toge∣ther to pray for the success of their Army?

The Testimony of your own Witness, should be a full satisfaction unto you, his words are so plain to prove, that there was another Cause of their Slaughter, besides that mentioned by you; but least you should not suffer his words to have this Influence over you, I shall prove by convin∣cing Reason that there was another Cause. You will acknowledg that there was a cause of Edilfreds gathering together of an Army, and of his marching against the Brittains; which could not be the Monkes coming together to pray for the success of their Army; for he had mustered his Forces, and marched against them, before they came together to pray: It was then some∣thing else that was that Cause, and that very cause was the Cause of their Slaughter; for sure he did not march against them, with an Inten∣tion to sport with them, but to fight with them; and notwithstanding any thing you have yet said

to the contrary, (yea, doth not Beda say as much) that the cause was the refusing of Austins Coun∣sel, the rejecting of Austins Traditions.

Let me commend one Memento unto you (it may do you a pleasure, if you will observe it whensoever you shall have occasion to write of the like subject) which is this: Where there are many different voluntary Agents, working subordinatly for the producing of an Effect, there may be different Ends aimed at in that Producti∣on; whence I conclude, though you could num∣ber as many final Causes of the slaughter of the Monks, as there were Hands acting in that Tra∣gedy, yet this would not be any argument to prove, that Austin having an hand in it (as I have said) did not look at this end, (to wit) the execution of Revenge for the affront he received from them by the Rejection of his Traditi∣ons.

And what though Beda say, that it was by the command of Edilfred King of Northumbers, that the Monkes were slain? Doth he say that he only was guilty of the Slaughter, and that Ethelbert was not there? He layes no such Re∣striction upon that Action; therefore it is a wonder to me, how you can make that antece∣dent to bring forth that consequence; this is a strange kind of reasoning to say, Beda makes mention of Edilfred, but says nothing of Ethelbert; therefore Edilfred was the only man that was guilty, and Ethelbert was not there; how much time must I allow you to spend, in seek∣ing for an Argument able to prove this Conse∣quence to be true? Suppose that you and I were travelling towards London together, and it should be reported by one that met with us,

that I was travelling that way, but no mention made of your Society; would this be an Argu∣ment to prove, that you was not journeying with me? If you expect Historians alwayes to write the whole Truth, you expect that from them which they do not perform; it is known by experience, that as they are sometimes redundant, speaking more than Truth, so they are often∣times defective, relating not the whole Truth; therefore notwithstanding any thing expressed by your Witness, Ethelbert King of Kent might be with Edilfred King of Northumbers, and Austin with them both, marching against the Brittains, and present at the slaughter of the Monkes, and so they all might have their hands imbrued in the Innocent Blood of that Murdered Peo∣ple.

Now to prove that (as I said in my Answer) Austin upon the Rejection of his Traditions, did stir up the Wrath of Ethelbert King of Kent against them; and to prove, that though Beda say, that Edilfred was the Murderer of the Monks, Ethelbert was likewise guilty of that Horrid Fact, I have witness to produce as credible as your extolled Beda.

Amandus Xierxiensis a Frier Minorite tells us, Antiqu. Brittan. pa. 48. when the Brittains were Ca∣tholicks, the Saxons were Gentiles; for the Conver∣sion of whom, blessed Gregory sent Austin and Meli∣tus, who Converted the Saxons; but when Austin, would have brought the Bishops and Abbots of the Brittains by Apostolick Authority, to receive him as Legate, and Preach with him to the English, discord was moved, and so War was raised between the Kings of the Brittains and of the Saxons, who (now being Converted) would have subdued the Brittains unto Austin.

Galfridus Monumetensis tells you (l. 4. c. 12.) that Dynoot (a man marvellously well learned) by divers Arguments made it appear, when Austin required the Bishops to be subject unto him, that the Brittains ow∣ed him no Subjection, therefore. Ethelbert King of Kent (as soon as he saw them refuse to yield obedience unto Austin, and despise his Preaching) stirred up Edilfred and other Princes of the Saxons, to ga∣ther a great Army, and go to Bangor, to destroy Dynoot and his Clergy; who taking the City, com∣manded the Swords of his men to be turned first up∣on the Monkes.

Thomas Le Gray in his History tells you, That Austin being refused of the Bishops, and others the learned of the Brittains, made such complaint thereof to Ethelbert King of Kent, that forthwith he levied his Power, and marched against them, and slew them in a most cruel manner, having no more regard of Mercy, than a Wolfe hath to∣wards a Sheep.

It is Recorded also in an English Chronicle, that when Austin came and told Ethelbert, that the Brittains would not obey him, that the King was Wroth, and sent to Edilfred King of North∣umbers, to come to help to distress the Brittains of Wales; and Austin the Arch-Bishop of Canter∣bury met with them at Leicester; the King of Leicester was called at that time Brocvale; he being afraid of the two Kings fled out of the Land and never came again; and the two Kings seiz∣ed all his Lands, and parted them between them∣selves; afterwards they went towards Wales: The Brittains hearing of them, sent men in their shirts unto them and barefoot to ask Mercy; but they were so cruel, that they had no pity on them.

Besides these Authorities, I would have you to consider and weigh well the words of Beda, he says, that Austin foretold the Brittains in a threat∣ning manner, that because they would not accept of Peace with their Brethren, they should have War with their Enemies; and if they would not Preach the doctrine of Life unto the English, they should suf∣fer at their hands the revenge of Death: Was this a Prophesy or not? a Prophesy it could not be, for this was a method of prophecying, never used by any true Prophet: Our Saviour, when he pro∣phecyed of the destruction of Jerusalem, did not deliver his Prophecy in an ireful and threatning manner, but wept over it: And when the Lord commanded his Prophets, to go and Prophecy against the Children of Israel for their sins, we read, that many of them were loath to go at first, and all of them, when they did go and Prophecy, did deliver their Message, not in an ireful man∣ner; but rather mourning for, and lamenting the Condition of the People. And how could it be a Prophecy, when (as you say) all the difference that was between Austin and the Brittains, was con∣cerning some tollerable Matters? Could he Prophecy destruction unto them for that which deserved no such Retribution? Any one that hath so much understanding, as to judge of the meaning of the words, will find them importing, that Austin had hatched a design of procuring their Destruction, (and what he purposed he might easily foretell) for the execution of which, he stirred up against them the Wrath of his new Convert Ethelbert King of Kent.

Reply.

The other gr••sse mistake with which you charge me is; for affirming that Austin was present at the

slaughter of the Monks, which (you say) is impossi∣ble to be true, because Fox confesseth that Hunting∣ton and others affirm, that Austin was dead before, and venerable Beda doth likewise testify the same.

Rejoynder.

What though Fox doth make that acknow∣ledgment, is this an Argument to prove, that it was so? I have quoted some Authorities that affirm him to be alive then, is not this as strong an Ar∣gument to prove, that it was so? As for those words (quamvis ipso jam multo ante tempore ad cae∣lestia regna sublato) pretended to be Beda's words; it hath been often disputed whether they were really his or not, and as often proved that they were none of his; but foisted into his Book to save the credit of the Italian Monk; for in the old Chronicle written by Beda in the Saxon Tongue, there is no such Relation as this to be found, as Arch-Bishop Parker, a famous Antiquary, doth manifest in his book, de antiqui. Brittan c. 18.

It is the will of divine Providence that you should speak Truth, while you are acting with your whole might to conceal it; for your own Expression furnisheth me, with a demonstrative Argument to prove, that he was alive then: You produce Dr. Fulke testifying, that he did obtain at length the aid of the Brittains in Preaching to the Saxons, whose Testimony you cannot de∣ny, because you have produced him as a Witness for your self in this matter: let me ask you then, whether it was before or after the slaughter of the Monks, that he obtained this Aid? Before it could not be; for had it been before, how could Austin threaten the revenge of Death to fall up∣on them, because they would not Preach the way of Life unto the Saxons? It must then be after

the slaughter of the Monks, when the Brittains had been sufficiently beaten to it; Austin then was alive after the slaughter of the Monks, for sure you will not say, that (when he was dead) he with the Brittains Preached for the Conversi∣on of the Saxons.

To convince you more of the Certainty of this Truth (that Austin was alive at the time of the slaughter of the Monks) be pleased to take notice of the Chronicle of some remarkable passages re∣lating to those times. In the year 596. Austi•• arrived in England Pol. virg. 4. l. In the year 604▪ he Consecrated Mell••tus Bishop of London, and Justus Bishop of Rochester, Beda l. 2. c. 3. In the year 605. the Wars were maintained against the Brittains, and the Monks slain at Bangor, as is found in the Saxon Chronicle of Peterborough. I•• the year 608. Austin dyed as Matheus Westmona∣steriensis says, but as Pol. Vir. Affirms, l. 4. he dy∣ed in the year 610. By this it appears plainly to him that hath but half an eye, that Austin was alive a long time after the slaughter of the Monks.

If yet your Will be not sufficiently wrough•• upon, to receive this for a Truth, do but repai•• unto the defence of the Apology of the Church of England, written by the learned and reverend Bi∣shop of Sarum pag. 439. where you will find the copy of a Charter, granted by Ethelbert King of Kent to the Abby of St. Peter of Canterbury▪ and witnessed by Austin in the year 605. which is the year wherein the Monks were slain at Ban∣gor, which surely will carry you out of the com∣pass of all Doubts; and, if you be not setled in a resolution to oppose the Truth, will per∣swade you to beleive, that Austin was alive at the forementioned time.

Now where are the gross Mistakes, with which you charge me, are they not vanished into no∣thing? And the guilt of Mistaking, lyes at your own doores, for bringing a Charge against me, for which you had no other Reason, but your own vain Imagination.

And the Mistakes being vanished, that de∣tractive Deduction you make from them, re∣bounds strongly against your self, to use your own expression, they that have the least scant∣ling in the knowledg of Antiquity, cannot but laugh at your Confidence in building where you have not ground to lay a Foundation, and will take notice how fruitfully disposed you are, in bringing forth meer Fictions.

Reply.

To my Answer to the third Query you reply thus: I can scarcely believe, that the world is so Lunatick in the affairs of Antiquity, for if you will take the paines to peruse the beginning of the foresaid book, entituled, the Protestants Apology for the Roman Church, you will see that these things came within the Cognizance of the Author thereof, and withal find substantial proof for the Affirmative of the said Question, which may convince a non prejudging Understanding.

Rejoynder.

I answered for my self, taking you with me by the right hand of Fellowship, saying that neither you nor I was able to determine this Query cer∣tainly on either side, and shewed a Reason for it: You reply that you believe the world is not so lunatick in the affairs of Antiquity; but had you replied to purpose, instead of sending me to your Author to seek for Arguments; you would have produced Arguments to void the

force of my Reason; which being not done, it stands firm against you, and will stand against all Opposition; being there are no Records to inform us, what were the particular Tenets maintained by the ancient Brittains; neither you, nor I, nor any Man in the World, is able to make a certain Determination on either side.

But what mean you by the World; if you mean the World, taken Divisim, that is every par∣ticular person in the World, I have cause to suspect you of Lunacy, for employing your Faith after this manner: Do you think, that every particular Per∣son in the world, is able to make a certain Determination of this Query? if so, I expect to hear of some proof for it; for the proof you have here produced, is too scant to bear any proportion to that Latitude; if you could prove, that the Author, to whom you send me, was able to do this, it would be but a pitiful Ar∣gument to prove, that every particular Person in the World, was able to do so too.

If by the World you understand some little Parcel of the World, and do take your Author to be that parcel, you bring the World into a very little Compass; and yet you have not pro∣ved this World to be able to make that deter∣mination: If any such Ability was in him, he hath hid his Light under a Bushel, and kept it from the sight both of me and you; you have not menti∣oned any of his Arguments, which is an argu∣ment to prove, that you did not see any; and I have searched his Book, and do think my self to be as quick-sighted as you are, yet I cannot find any; no, not any thing in all his Book like unto an Argument to prove, that the Religion of the antient Britains, was the same with the Religion of the primitive Church of England.

But while you stickle thus peremptorily for a Determination of this Query in the Affirmative, you do not consider, how you are working to the great discredit of the Italian Monk; for if the antient Britains did conform in every particular to the primitive Pattern, how can he be freed from the guilt of heinous Presumption, in presaging Destruction unto a People, that were more pure in their Profession, than both Austin and Pope Gregory; as if he had the Arrows of Gods Wrath at his own dispose, to shoot against a People when he pleased; and was it not high Injustice in him to presage Destruction unto a People, that for their Profession, according to your tenet of Merit, were so far from deserving to be retributed with Destruction, that they deserved to be crowned with happiness.

Here you make an end of your Reply, and such as your beginning was, such is your ending; I find you here likewise guilty of Tergiversation; you have turned your back upon the Answer made unto your cautional Conclusion; which I must make bold to bring into your remembrance, un∣til you refute it with some stronger Arguments, than to say it was Impertinent, and that your meaning was mistaken.

I told you by your Caution, included in your Conclusion, you intimated your self to be a•• Abettor of this Position, that a difference made between Religions by Ceremonies, is to no purp••s••, therefore I desired to know to what purpose you used your multitudes of strange and ridicu••ous Ceremonies; if you replyed, that Ceremonies are to no purpose, as to the making of a real Dif∣ference; I told you that when the Composition of Religion is made, part of necessary Truth••,

part of superstitious Ceremonies: when the use of Ceremonies is converted into Acts of Religion: when it is maintained, that de fide they must be used, because without the use of them, neither God is duely Worshipped, nor Religion truly exercised: This change by Ceremonies alters Reli∣gion really from its primitive Constitution; and I desired to know what you can say in the behalf of your Religion, to prove that it is not such a Composition.

It is easy to make Replyes, when Liberty is taken of speaking to some particulars only, such as have least strength in them to make Resistance, and of passing by all the rest upon feigned pre∣tensions; but you must not think, that Truth will be trodden down, and Error supported by such pittiful shifts as these; our Religion (I hope) as yet hath lost no part of its Lustre and Beauty, by my management of the present Controversy; and what your Religion hath gained to cover its Deformity by your handling of the business, let the indifferent Reader judge. Without doubt you sent your Queries abroad with a purpose to improve them to this end; but let the Reader search your Reply, as strictly for your advan∣tage, as Diogenes sought for an honest man, and let him say whether there be any thing to be found like unto an Argument, having the least tendency unto this.

The greatest part of your Discourse is framed, concerning the Cause of Austins Rejection made by the Britains, and Edilfreds murdering of the Monkes, and Austins Decease before the acting of that Murder; and if all that ye have said concerning these things, had been as true, as it is false; what Arguments could you patch together

out of it, for the maintaining of your Religion; if you have no better a Store-house elsewhere, (as I have cause to believe you have not) I do not wonder, that you keep a Vail over the faces of your People, to hinder them from looking into the Holy Scriptures; if they had Liberty to use those eyes to see, and understandings to judge, which God hath bestowed upon them, they would soon discover the vanity of your erroneous Reli∣gion.

A Reply unto the Answer made by N. G. unto the three Queries propounded unto him.

HAving ended your Reply to the Answer made unto your Queries, you proceed to Answer the Queries propounded unto you, and to the first you answer affirmatively, Confessing that God is to have the whole Glory of the work of mans Sal∣vation; but (you say) you deny the sinistrous conse∣quence that is hence inferred, therefore no•••• Merit of good Works.

Reply.

The Deduction you make is not answerable in latitude to the strength of the Antecedent; for it concludes more against you, it throws down not only the Merit of good Works, but also many other groundless Positions maintained by you: But because you have made mention only of this opinion, I will not here shew the utmost bounds of its Strength, but will confine my self to this task, to examine the device you use to make these two consistent; good Works to have merit in them, and God to have the whole glory of the work of mans Salvation.

Answer.

You say, Though there be no Insufficiency in the actions or passions of Christ the head, yet his Wis∣dom Will and Justice requireth and ordaineth, that his body and members should be fellows of his pas∣sions, as they look to be fellows of his Glory; that so suffering with him and by his Example, they may apply to themselves and to others, the general medi∣cine of Christs Merits and Satisfactions, as it is also effectually applyed unto us by Sacraments; the one sort being no more injurious to Christs death, nor consequently hindring him of the whole Glory of the Work of Mans Salvation, then the other: Not∣withstanding your vain Clamours, that under pre∣tence of Christs passions, take away the value of Good Works; if you please to peruse St. Pauls Epistle to the Colossians C. 1. V. 24. You may see how the Apostle taught and practised this Doctrine.

Reply.

You must mean, that the Will and Wisdom and Justice of Christ, requireth passions in his Members, to merit the application of the mer∣rits of Christ; otherwise your whole discourse is impertinent, to the thing you undertook to speak of; for you undertook to speak of Merit; and it seems you would have me to receive for a Truth, upon your own bare Word, all that you do say; for you have not shewed, where this Wisdom and Will of Christ is revealed, and what Law there is for this act of Justice; no, nor discovered the least hint of Reason to prove it.

You quote the Apostle to the Colossions. C. 1. V. 24. but I wonder that you are not ashamed of the Impertinency of the Quotation; let his words be set upon the tenter hooks, yet they cannot be extended to include this sense in them; here is not

any thing of Merits in them, or of the Applica∣tion of the Merits of Christ, or of meriting that Application, or that the Will and Wisdom and Justice of Christ requires passions for this end.

The Apostle tells the Colossions, that He suffe∣red for them, but his meaning is this; to encou∣rage them to suffer by his Example, and to confirm the Truth of that Doctrine he delive∣red unto them: and he sayes likewise that by his sufferings he filled up that which was behind of the afflictions of Christ in his flesh; from which ex∣pression is to be gathered, that there is a cer∣tain measure of sufferings, which the Members of Christ are appointed to undergo, to which the malice of Hell cannot add to make it more, and the Apostle had his measure determined for him, to the filling up of which, the sufferings he here speaks of, conduced.

He termes them the afflictions of Christ, because they were laid upon him for Christs sake, and by them he was made conformable unto Christ, and because there is such a near relation between Christ and his Members, that what is done unto them, he accounts as done unto himself. And he sayes moreover, that the filling up of this Mea∣sure, was for the sake of Christs Church, that by his Courage and Constancy in suffering, he might draw some unto the Truth, and so increase the Church according to that saying, Sanguis Mar∣tyrum est semen Ecclesiae: and to confirm others in the Truth, and so as a Instrument to help to establish the Church; This (without doubt) is the meaning of the Apostle; and if you will believe Lyranus and Anselmus, you will take the word in this sense; so that here is nothing to prove that strange Doctrine which you deliver; here is

nothing but your bare Affirmation for it, therefore I might justly send it away with a bare Negatur, until you find an opportunity to produce some better Arguments; Yet I shall bestow some Animadver∣sions on it.

First, You cast an intollerable Slander upon us, while you say upon pretence of Christ's Pas∣sions, we take away the value of Good Works. No Sir, we do not maintain any Opinion detracto∣ry from that price, we are warranted to set up∣on them; we maintain them for necessary uses; they will be the Rule of Proportion, according to which, we shall have our Reward meted unto us, for the Lord will reward every one accor∣ding to his Works. We must have good Works to testify the truth of our Faith; for Faith with∣out Works is dead. We must be full of good Works, to witness our Thankfulness unto God for benefits received: if we have not this Wit∣ness to produce, upon examination we shall be found an ungrateful People; and we must be fruitful in bringing forth of good Works, to give a good Example to our Brethren; for in this sence we are our Brethrens Keepers: But we will not maintain with you, that we must have good Works to merit by them at the hands of God.

Secondly, You confound Actions and Passions; you speak here of the Passions of the Members of Christ, notwithstanding you have undertaken to speak of good Works; though they be really different, and sometimes you speak of them as such; yet here you make them one and the same thing: Indeed it is a point of Policy, necessa∣ry to be observed by the Abettors of Errours, to be mutable and moveable, to change, and to

pass from one thing to another; that when they are hunted from one Refuge, they may have a∣nother Hole to creep into; and when one Card fails of winning the Game, they may have ano∣ther ready to Play.

Thirdly, You have, with your own hands, pulled down that ruinous Fabrick, which your Intention was to support. For first you say, There Is no Insufficiency in the Actions and Passions of Christ. Hence it necessarily follows, That there is no Merit in the passions or actions of the Members of Christ: If Christ's Merits be sufficient, there is no need of any other Merit; and if there be no need of any other Merit, then there is no other Merit: If you deny the truth of this Consequence; you had best provide a substantial Argument ready to prove, that Christ requires that of his Members which is needless; for this proof will be required from you.

2. You say, That the Justice of Christ re∣quires Passions in his Members; therefore it ne∣cessarily follows, that there is not any Merit in the Passions of his Members: Justice, when it acts, looks at Man's desert; therefore, if it re∣quire Passions in them, those Passions must be laid upon them, upon the ground of their De∣sert. And sure you will confess, that Sufferings are evil in themselves; it is then for some Evil of Sin acted by them, that the Evil of Sufferings is laid upon them; and pray let me hear of a substantial Argument to prove, that Suffering for Sin doth merit the application of the Me∣rits of Christ: This would be good News for the Wicked in this World; yea, for the Dam∣ned in Hell.

Fourthly, Your Expressions are cloudy, there∣fore

you are desired to come out of the dark. And First tell me what you mean by Fellows of Christ's Sufferings: The Prophet Isaiah Prophe∣sying of the Suffering condition of Christ in the World, delivers himself after this manner, in chap. 53. ver. 23, & 24. He hath no Form nor Comeliness, and when we shall see him, there is no Beauty that we should desire him; he is despised, and rejected of Men, a Man of Sorrows, and ac∣quainted with Grief; and answerable to this Pro∣phesy his condition was: If you mean, that all his Members are to be in the like Suffering Con∣dition, while they are in the World; tell me how this can consist with that which (you say) is one Mark of the Church, to wit, outward Prosperity, Lustre, and Beauty.

Secondly, Tell me what you mean, when you say, That the Members of Christ are to suffer, that they may apply to themselves, and to others, the general Medicine of Christ's Merits and Satis∣factions, as it is effectually applyed unto us by Sa∣craments; do you mean, that there is Merit in the Ʋse of the Sacraments? This must be your meaning, or else you do not make your Com∣parata to agree to do you Service: And being that the holy Spirit works in the Use of the Sacraments, for the Application of the Merits of Christ, by making a tender of them, and by begetting of Faith to receive them; Do you mean, that the holy Spirit works, after the same manner, in the Passions of the Members of Christ? If you mean all this, where are your Arguments to prove all this to be true? I cannot discover here, so much as the shadow of an Argument; and until you produce some Proofs to confirm all this to be true, the Argument drawn from

your Similitude, to prove that the Merit which (you say) is in Passions, doth not hinder Christ of any part of the Glory of Man's Salvation, is so weak in its Loyns, that it is not able to bring forth your Conclusion.

Thus you argue, The Merit of Passions doth no more hinder Christ of any part of the Glo∣ry of Man's Salvation, than the Use of the Sa∣craments; but the Use of the Sacraments doth not hinder Christ of any part of the Glory of Man's Salvation, Ergo, &c. Your Major is a most false Assertion: In relation to the hinde∣rance of Christ's Glory, there is not the same working, or reason for working in both the things you speak of: The Sacraments are no hinderance to Christ's Glory, because there is not any Merit in the use of them; for the use of them is a Duty, and our Saviour tells you, (Luke chap. 17. ver. 10.) that there is not any Merit in the Performance of a Duty. Besides, they are outward Means instituted by Christ, for this very end, The Application of the Merits of Christ, and so the whole Glory of the Work of Grace, that is wrought in the use of them, redounds un∣to him; but you maintaining Passions to Merit the application of the Merits of Christ, and these being no Means appointed by Christ, for the working of this end, do hinder Christ of the Glory due unto him: If you say they be Means, be pleased to shew me the Institution of Christ for it.

Truly Sir, howsoever you judge of the matter, to say, that Passions do Merit the application of the Merits of Christ, is to say, that the Redemp∣tion wrought by Christ is not free; and to say,

that there is any Merit but in Christ, is to say, that the Merit of Christ is not sufficient; both which are so great an hinderance to his Glory, that they are perfect Blasphemy.

And moreover, though the means that are in∣stituted by Christ, are no hinderance to his Glo∣ry; yet the means that are made by the inven∣tion, and device of Man, are an Hinderance in an high measure; for they speak a distrust in his Wisdome, as if he was not wise enough to prescribe an effectual Method, for the applica∣tion of that Remedy, which is provided to Cure Man's Disease; and they exalt Man's Wisdome above its reach. He was so foolish, as to De∣stroy himself; but he was not so wise, as to find out a way for his Recovery: It is God that bestows Salvation freely upon Man; and it is He that fits him with a Capacity to receive Sal∣vation; which Work, he performs after that manner which he hath appointed, and revealed in his Word; not after that manner, which vain Man doth invent, by the working of his foolish Imagination.

Fifthly, You maintain two gross Absurdities here, one of them is mentioned already, and part of its absurd nature shewed, and more of it will be shewed now: First, that Passions do Merit the application of the Merits of Christ: the Apostle Paul teacheth you other Doctrine, (Romans c. 8. v. 18.) That the sufferings of this life, are not worthy to be compared unto the glory which shall be revealed in us. If they be not wor∣thy to be compared unto that Glory, they are not worthy of the Receipt of it; and if they be not worthy to receive it, they do not merit

the Application of those Merits, which purcha∣sed that glory.

Reason it self will convince you of this, that Passions cannot be meritorious of the applicati∣on of the Merits of Christ; no, nor so much as a disposed Capacity to receive them; for if they be either way for the application of the Merits of Christ, they must be previous (at least in order of nature) unto that Application; but this they cannot be, for there can be no suffer∣ing as a member of Christ before man be made actually a member of Christ, (if he suffer be∣fore, (he suffers but as a natural man) and man can∣not be actually a member of Christ, before this application be made; for it is the Application of the merits of Christ, that makes him actually a member of Christ; therefore this Application must needs be before those Passions, and then how can they be for the application of the merits of Christ, either by way of merit to deserve them, or of Capacity to receive them: Say not now, that after the Application is made, Passions do merit a continuance of the Application; for upon the grounds that it is first made, upon the same it is continued, and that is only the love and mercy of God unto poor miserable man.

Your second great Absurdity is, that the mem∣mers of Christ by Passions, do not merit only for them∣selves, but also for others: Where did you take up this Doctrine? I am sure you did not find it in the Trent-Creed; therefore this being an Article of your Faith, I question now, whe∣ther the Religion you do profess, be as old as the Council of Trent?

Is there so much redundancy of vertue in the passions of a member of Christ, that besides what is necessary for himself, he hath some to spare for others; are you wiser than the five wise Vir∣gins, of whom we read in the Gospel, they told the foolish, that they had no Oyl to spare to lend them? And dare you thus contradict the Holy Spirit, who tells you, that the Lord will reward every one according to his work? Math. 16. 27. And that every one must bear his own Burden. Gal. 6. 5. And that the Righteousness of the Righteo•• shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself, Ezek. 18. 20.

I would fain know, who these others are, to whom the Passions of a member of Christ will be thus profitable; they cannot be the members of Christ; for you say, that the Will and Wis∣dom, and Justice of Christ, requires that they should have Passions of their own, for the appli∣cation of the merits of Christ unto themselves; and these others cannot be such as are not Mem∣bers of Christ; sure you will not say, that the servants of Satan have the Merits of Christ ap∣plyed unto them; it must remain therefore, that these others are some Ideas, that are subsisting no where, but in your own Imagination.

The Apostle tells you, that Heresy is like un∣to a Gangreen; take heed that you be not infect∣ed with this Disease, your extolling of Actions and Passions above your Warrant, hath multi∣plyed into many dangerous Opinions, and take heed that it eat not up all Faith; for if it once grow to that Malignity, it is not your own Pas∣sions or Actions, nor the Passions or Actions of other men, that will procure the application of

the Merits of Christ unto your soul.

After you have spent some breath in speak∣ing of Passions, you convert your speech unto Actions, and then presently you return to pas∣sions again. It seemes that you are somwhat like unto Noahs Dove, hardly finding any rest for the soles of your Feet; you are doubtful where you should fix your Opinion of Merit with greatest certainty, and there is great rea∣son for this; for I am perswaded, that if this Query were propounded to you, Whether passions or actions have more of Merit in them? there is so little in either, that to determine this, you would require as long a time as the man took, that undertook to teach an Asse to speak.

Answer.

Thus you express your self; neither do I see what pretence you can have to affirm, That the Merit of good Works hindreth God of the whole glory of the work of mans Salvation, seeing the said Merit is the pure gift of God, and no less his than his own; for not only those passions which Christ suffered in himself, which were fully ended at his Death, and were abundantly sufficient for the Redemp∣tion of the World, and of all Sins: But also those which his body and members suffer are Christs also, because of him they receive the Condition, Quality, and Force, to be Meritorious.

Reply.

Here are some expressions liable to Exception, while you say, That the passions of Christ are a∣bundantly

sufficient for the Redemption of the world, and of all sins; what Interpretation can you make of the latter words, as they are used in Coherence with the former? they cannot be explicatory of the former, because the former are more plain; and if you will have them to sig∣nify somwhat that is not in the former, when you write again, be pleased to inform me, what it is: The world is Redeemed from Sin; but how the world can be said to be Redeemed, and all sin too, I do not well understand.

Nor do I apprehend to what purpose you have penned this Discourse, telling me, That not only those Passions, which Christ sufferd in himself, which were fully ended at his Death, &c. I have looked upon the Words with as much favor as you can de∣sire, to improve them to your Advantage, and yet they fail in my eyes of attaining that end. They relate unto these Words, and no less his, than his own: Do you mean that the Merit which he gives unto Good Works, is no less his, than the Merit of his personal Actions and Passions? If you mean this (as I suppose you do) for as much as I can perceive, there is no more Coherence between these Words and the following, than there is between the Poak full of Plumbs, and your Way to London, of which you tell me: If you can prove that I do wrong your Words, by imputing this unto them; I must say (what you do often say) that I have Mistaken your meaning.

But howsoever it be, you maintain here two False Positions:

1. That Christ gives Merit unto the Passions of his Members.

2. That because of this Merit which he gives unto those Passions, they are his Passions: The one is the ground of the other; and if the Foun∣dation be sandy, the Superstructure must fall.

And that it is so, and that both these Posi∣tions fall together, I shall prove, in answering that Argument, which you do here use to prove, That the Merit, which you pretend to be in Good Works, doth not hinder God of any part of the glory of Man's Salvation.

Thus you Argue, That which God gives, is no hindrance to his Glory: But God gives the Merit that is in Good Works, Ergo, &c.

Your Major Proposition you have left naked, without any proof; Yet in my conceit, it is so weak, that it stands very much in need of this support: The thing that is given by God, ad∣mits of a two-fold Consideration: It may be considered as given by God, or as imployed by. Man. And as imployed by Man, you must grant that it may be an hindrance to God's Glory; unless you will say, That man cannot Mis-im∣ploy it, which, I hope, you will not do. God gives Meat, and Drink, and Riches to the Sons of Men, and yet you know that these things are Abused sometimes unto his Dishonour.

So I may say of that Merit, which you pretend to be in good Works; if I should grant, that there is Merit in them, and that this Merit is given by God; yet if you should mis-imploy this, by trusting in it for the Salvation of your Souls, (whereas your whole confidence is to be placed in the Merits of Christ, which are the fruit of his personal Actions and Passions) that Merit

pretended by you to be in good Works, would be an hinderance to his Glory.

Your Assumption is this, that God gives Mer∣it unto good Works: Being that you say so, (though such a Novice as I am, is not fit to give advice to such a Gamaliel as you are, yet) vouchsafe to be perswaded by me this once: Undeceive that poor people, over whom you have undertaken a Charge; tell them that all Merit belongs unto Christ; for you say, that the merit which is in good works in his Gift: tell them that the best of the Sons of men have not any merit of their own, neither for them∣selves, nor for others; for this is a necessary Consequence of that which you say; that the Merit of good Works is Christs Gift, and Christs Merit: by this means you may be more instru∣mental for the health of their souls, than as yet (I fear) you have been: I am of this opinion, that many poor souls have been deceived, in their hope of Salvation, by your maintaining of the Merit of good Works: for being igno∣ant of that Curiosity, which you have conceived in your breast, and expressed here, and so not skilful enough to distinguish between their own Ability and Gift, but ascribing that to them∣selves for their works, which (you say) is Gods Gift; while they thought to fly into Heaven, by the Wings of their own Merit, (it being unfit, and unable for that service) fell down to the Chambers of Death.

But I must not suffer your Assumption to pass thus; you left it as naked as your Major, though it stands in need of help, as much as any pro∣position

that you have made; for it is a most false Assertion, God gives not merit unto good Works; no, nor to the passions of the mem∣bers of Christ; the glory of meriting be∣longs only unto Christ; he humbled himself for it, he suffered for it, he dyed for it; and what he gained at so dear a rate, and is due unto him upon that account, will not be given unto another; you have a plain testimony for this in the Prophet Isaiah, I am the Lord, (sayes God) that is my Name; my Memorial will I not give unto another, nor my Praise unto graven Ima∣ges, Isa. ch. 24. ver. 8. His Glory he will not give unto another. What other? Neither to Saints, nor to Angels, nor to Actions, nor to Passions, nor any thing else: The Apostle Paul preacheth this Doctrine, he tells you that be∣cause of the Humiliation, Sufferings and Death of Christ, There is a Name given unto him above every Name; Phil. chap. 2. ver. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. How then can the name of Merit be ascribed unto Actions and Passions as well as unto him, and as much as unto him? for pray consider, whither (while you say that Passions do merit the application of the merits of Christ) you do not ascribe as great a name of merit unto pas∣sions, as you do give unto him; I am sure, to merit the benefits of the Merits of Christ, is to merit all that Christ hath merited for us: And consider well likewise, whether any Actions or Passions of men be capable to receive this.

Because you have so little to say for Merit, and by that device which you use for the ma••n¦taining of that opinion, you are compelled to

confess, that the head of that Stream is Mer∣cy; for you say that God gives merit unto good Works, and to Passions, (that gift must be who∣ly out of Mercy, without any previous Merit); methinks you should be easily perswaded to leave talking of Merit, and to cry up Grace, Grace, Mercy, Mercy, only; this is via tuta, the safe way; for it is mercy only that is the saving help of miserable sinners.

Answer.

To the second you answer likewise Affirmatively; but withall you say, you deny the sinistrous Con∣sequence hence inferred, therefore we must not pray unto Saints; for (say you) it doth no more derogate from Christs whole glory of mediating for Sinners, to pray unto Saints in Heaven, than to pray unto Saints upon Earth: if it do, pray shew me the Disparity; and yet your prayers un∣to the faithful upon Earth, doth not at all dero∣gate from Christs whole glory; witness the practise of St. Paul in this point, Rom. chap. 15.

Reply.

Here is a wonderful position maintained by you; to wit, that Saints on Earth are invocated and prayed unto: Is not prayer an act of religious Worship; and is that Worship performed unto any Mortal? It is true, there is a course of civil Entreaty sometimes used to gain from mor∣tals the Object that is desired; so Kings and Princes, and other great persons are petitioned;

and so the Apostle Paul doth request the Romans: (it is not an act of religious Worship that he performes, but an act of civil entreaty) but that the incense of prayer is offered up unto any mortal, is a thing that I never heard of before.

That you should pray unto them, rather than to dumb Pictures and Statues, there is great reason; because they resemble the Creator and Saviour of the World, more than any Picture or Statue made by an Artificer: but if you do practice this, you are the first that I heard of, using this Practice; and I must tell you, that your praying to Saints upon Earth, and your praying to Saints in Heaven, are both dishono∣rable to the Saviour of the World; for you as∣cribe unto them that worship which is due only unto God: God is styled, the God that hears Prayer, therefore to him ought all flesh for to go, Psal. 65. ver. 2. And though you do not pray unto them directly for Grace or Glory, but only for the benefit of their mediation; yet you make them to share in that Glory, which is wholly due unto Christ; for he is the only Medi∣ator between God and Man, 1 Tim. chap. 12. ver. 5. And besides, you maintaining this needful to be done, do detract from the sufficiency of the Mediation of Christ; if his mediation be sufficient for a Sinner, the Mediation of Saints is needless; but if theirs be needful, then is not his sufficient.

That we are commanded to desire the Prayers of the Faithful upon Earth, I grant; but this desire is not expressed by an Act of Religious

Worship, such as Prayer is; but by an act of civil Request; which civil Request cannot be made to the Saints in Heaven; because we (wanting the liberty and conveniency of a nere Converse) have not an opportunity for it; they are in pa∣triâ, we in viâ; they are in Heaven, we on the Earth; we do injoy that Communion and Society with the Saints upon Earth, which we have not with the Saints in Heaven: Your own Schoolmen are uncertain, how they do hear Prayers, therefore they are not certain, that they do hear them; nay, they may be certain, that they do not hear them; for they are ignorant of the affaires of the World: Abraham (sayes the Prophet) is ignorant of us, and Israel doth not acknowledge us, Isa. chap. 63. ver. 16.

It is a wonder to me, that you dare be so bold, as to maintain this Assertion (having not the least shadow of Proof for it); where is there an Injunction, or President for it? Search the Book of God, from the Alpha of Genesis, to the Omega of the Revelations; yet you will not find the least Iota to this purpose.

Much there is to be found against it; God bids you to call upon Him, and Christ bids you to come unto Him; and Christ hath taught you when you pray, not to say, Sancte Petre ora pro nobis, or Sancte Paule ora pro nobis, &c. but to say, Pater noster, qui es in Caelis, &c. Psal. 50. ver. 15. Mat. c. 11. v. 28. And sure you will not say, That Saints are to be believed in; you do not find this to be an Article of Faith in the Apostles Creed; and then the Apostle asks, How can you call upon him, in whom you

have not believed? Rom. c. 10. v. 14. But if th〈…〉〈…〉 was nothing else to be said against it, this would be a sufficient Confutation: God is not like unto an earthly 〈◊〉〈◊〉, who doth not know the Grievance of his Subject, before he be informed; nor will afford Relief, before he be entreated; to whom, Access cannot be ob∣tained, but by the use of Door-keepers, and the Mediation of Servants and Favourites. God seeks us, before we seek unto him; and calls upon us, before we call unto him; and is more willing to give, than we to ask; and more rea∣dy to hear us, than we are to pray unto him: And the reason why we do pray unto him, is not to instruct him in the knowledge of our Wants; but to obey his Command, and to own him for our Helper, and to express our desire to receive Help from him.

Because you maintain this Assertion, that The Saints in Heaven are to be prayed unto, I shall make bold to propound some Questions to you.

First, Whether they are moved to intercede by a feigned Prayer, as well as by that which pro∣ceeds out of unfeigned Lips? If not, How can they distinguish between them? Can they (as God doth) search the Heart and the Reins?

Secondly, Whether all are to be prayed un∣to? If not, Why to some, and not to the rest? If they be, Whether in general, or in particu∣lar, by name? If but in general, Why do you pray unto some in particular? If in particular, Whether you know the number, and names of all? And, Whether to pray to some by name, and not to the rest after the same manner, be

〈◊〉〈◊〉 to have respect of persons?

Thirdly, Whether all have an equal Preva∣lency in interceding? If not, but differently proportioned, according to their different mea∣sure of (as you say) Merits; Whether it be not the wisest practice to pray unto them, that have the greatest Prevalency? And that you may not be deceived in the use of this Practice, What mark of Distinction have you to know them by?

Fourthly, Whether the Mediation of Christ be not more prevalent, than the Intercession of all? If it be, we being assured, that Christ sits at the Right Hand of God, making Interces∣sion for his own People, whether it be not need∣less upon this ground, to pray unto them?

I could propound many more, but these shall suffice: When you Write again, I hope you will say somewhat tending to a Resolution of them, because this is very necessary for the better un∣derstanding, and practising of this your Arti∣cle of Faith.

To the Third Query ••our Answer is also Af∣firmative, but you do not make mention of any (as you speak) sinistrous Deduction from it; nor shall I shew here, what Conclusions may be drawn thence, to be level'd against your Religi∣on: my Task being to Reply, I shall speak no more, than you give me occasion to say; but shall let that work alone, until Providence fit me with another opportunity.

But here I must take Notice of your Expres∣sions, how fully (as I do conceive) they do re∣veal your mind: You say, That you are great

in expectation to see me improve these Que∣ries, to the demolishing of your Religion; and yet you think to place a Remora in my way, by imposing a Task, and prescribing of Rules, which (you say) I am bound in Honour to ob∣serve. Thus you deal with me as King Saul dealt with David, upon condition of bringing an hundred Fore-skins of the Philistins, promi∣sing his Daughter to Wife: but though he pre∣tended this outwardly, he intended no such thing; but that the condition should be a per∣fect hinderance to his Promise.

How my Strength will deal with your Task, and your Rules, I cannot fore-tell; but howe∣ver it prove, I will attempt an Encounter with them:

To the First, I have, out of Gregories Writ∣ings, not sinistrously interpreted, but plainly quoted, proved that his Doctrine agrees with the Doctrine of the Church of England, in all the forementioned Particulars.

To the Second, When you do shew me a particular Article of Faith, wherein they a∣greed, and prove that Agreement by express, and good Authority; I shall shew you particu∣lar Articles of Faith, wherein they differed; until then, it will be judged by any indifferent Arbitrator, sufficient to tell you from your Au∣thor Beda, That they differed about the way of Justice, the way to Heaven; and so great were there differences, that Austin Judged them worthy of Death.

To the Third, When I say, that the Monks were not slain by Edilfred King of Northum∣bers,

I will produce a substantial proof for it; I have proved, that they were slain by Ethel∣bert King of Kent, and that by the instigation of Augustin the Monk, who was present at the Slaughter: My Affirmation, that they were slain by Ethelbert, doth no more exclude Edilfred, than Beda's Affirmation, that Edilfred was the Murtherer, doth exclude Ethelbert from having an hand in the Slaughter; and that this may sink into your Understanding for a truth, Con∣sider whether there may not be many co-ordi∣nate Agents, working together for the produ∣cing of an Effect; and whether the Production may not be truly ascribed to one of them, not mentioning the rest; His Majesties Fleet was out, under the conduct of the Prince, and the Duke, and should I say, that the Hollanders were beaten by the Prince, not mentioning the Duke; or by the Duke, not mentioning the Prince, I should speak nothing but truth.

To the Fourth, This sufficient proof may be considered divers ways, in relation to yours, or my own, or the Readers Judgement, in relati∣on to yours: If I must stick until the Proof be sufficient, perhaps I may stick until the last day; if you be resolved to shut your Eyes a∣gainst the Truth, I know no body bound to stick in proving until you open them; what I have undertaken to prove, to my own, and (I hope) to the indifferent Readers Judgement, is sufficiently proved; and what I shall do hereaf∣ter (I hope) will proceed from me in the like Strength.

To the Fifth, If you will not (as the Heathen Oracles heretofore did) deliver your self in a doubtful Manner, but will speak your mind plain∣ly; there will be no cause to fear a Misinterpreta∣tion; but however, if I do wrest your words to a wrong sence, I hope you are able enough to tell me in particular, wherein I am Guilty; which (if you do it) will oblige me to a re∣turn of thanks, for dealing fairly with me: I would not have you to deal with me again, as you have done already in your Reply; where∣in you accuse my answer of this Guilt in ge∣neral; but you shew nothing in particular to prove the Accusation.

Thus (I conceive) your Remora is removed, and now I am at liberty to improve the Que∣ries, to the demolishing of your Religion; yet there is one way left to prevent this Exercise, which is your returning to my Rejoynder, and rejoyning to this Reply: which if you do (be∣cause I would not have too great a weight to lye upon my weak shoulders at once) I shall em∣ploy my self wholly in defence of what I have written; but if (after some time of expectation) I find you unwilling to grapple any farther, (Providence permitting and assisting me) I shall (according to the Tallent bestowed upon me) en∣deavour to demonstrate, that many Tenents of your Religion are injurious to the Glory of God, who is the Author of Mans Salvation; and to the Glory of Christ, who is mans Mediatour and In∣tercessor; and that they exalt man far above his height, who is so worthless, and unworthy, that the best plea that he can make for himself before

the Tribunal of God, is to say (with the de∣jected Publican) God be merciful unto me a Sinner!

And now I protest to the World my Inno∣cency, as to that Charge you brought against me in your Reply, accusing me for giving re∣viling, and exasperating Language; that I have not either in my Answer, or in this Rejoyn∣der, or Reply, given the least word sounding to that purpose: Wherefore (when you Write again) if your Will be disposed to renew your Charge (my strain of Writing being (though low, yet as I conceive, still the same) you are required to mention the particular word, where∣in I have transgressed the rules of Civility and Modesty; and if I do not clear my self, be∣fore the Face of any indifferent Judge, let me and my Cause bear the Blame, and the shame of it for Ever.