A Reply to a Relation, Part 3 (4 of 9)

A Reply to a Relation · Part 3 (4 of 9)

p. 212The Second is the light of Nature. Well; and what office hath that? It shews us how necessary such a revealed learning is, and that no other way it can be had. But your Revealed Learning here is somwhat obscure; we cannot well tell, whether you mean this your Revealed learning of this your present Church-Tradition concerning beliefe of Scripture; or the Scripture it selfe. But be it either, or both, all is one, we doe not much stand upon it. Let it be the Scripture beleeved to be Gods word, by the first necessary Inducing cause, Tradition; as then which no other way can be had. This is then your Revealed learning, which the light of Nature shews us how necessary it is; How necessary it is, that the beliefe of Scripture to be the word of God; should be induced by Tradition, bec…use no other way it can be had. Of Natures light we have spoken before sufficiently. And one no…e more resulteth from your words here. And that is, That forasmuch as natures light is altogether blind in spirituall things, and can no more judge of the Scriptures, then a blind man of Colours, nor discerneth any more light in the Scriptures, then a blind man doth light in the Sun, when it shineth at noon day▪ and Natures light judging all things according to her carnall sense; and having those things in greatest admiration ‡‡Iude 16.Jude 1:16and highest esteem, which have the greatest and most glorious outward luster, dazeling the eyes of her carnall mindednesse: and there being nothing in the world, that carries with it a more glorious and glittering show in the eyes of carnall and naturall men, then a Hierarch or Prelate Sitting p. 213in his Chaire in his Pontificalibus, with all heads bare round about him in the Great Hall of his Princely Palace, and especially when he sits the supreme Judge in all those Causes brought into his Court: and all this glory is accumulated, and highly elevated in the light of Naturall mens eyes, not onelyonly in respect of all the outward splendor of the Present Church: but because of an Instinct of nature in all men, concerning Religion and Piety, and the Service of God, which is …ed and nourished with a great pretence and profession of holinesse in th…se Right Reverent Fathers whose very bare Titles of most Reverend Fathers, stike a reverence into all such Naturalists hearts, as in children toward their Fathers, and much more to their Gh…stly Father; and which also is highly contented, and pleased with the variety of Ceremonies and Pompous Service, as most sutable and agreeable to natures fancy, which knows no other Religion, but that which stands in these externall things: And seeing this Tradition of the present Church, hath no testimony, ground, nor warrant for it in the Scripture, but is a thing meerly usurped by the pride of Man: And seeing none are fitter Judges to passe their sentence, on Traditions side, then such as are blind, as Nature is in all spirituall things, onelyonly having a bare name of light, as a Candle going before her, whereby others may take notice of her; Therfore not without great reason do you take the light of Nature for a Second to your Church Tradition, as a fit consort, which will easily speake for you, whatsoever you desire, giving her blind testimony to confirme your blind Cause.

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

We come now in the last place to your Third ground Which is the light of the Text it selfe: in conversing wherewith (you say) we meet with the Spirit of God, inwardly inclining our hearts, and sealing the full assurance of the sufficiency of all three unto us ▪ We meet? Who? Surely you never met with this Spirit of God in your conversing with the Text it selfe: Which if you had, you would not have uttered such things Yet if this Third ground you had put single by it selfe, as the sole, excluding the former, p. 214it were true Divinity: but puting the two former before it, as necessary inducing causes to perswade the Scriptures sufficiency ▪ you do therby utterly overthrow it, as also that Spirit of God breathing in it, and inwardly inclining and perswading the heart to beleeve. For how come we to meet with the Spirit of God in our conversing with the Text, but because, conversing a …ight by prayer and humility, we find it breathing and speaking unto us, in his own word and voyce? For the Spirit is never seperated from his word, as is shewed before. Now if Gods Spirit breath in the Scripture, and in our reading thereof, with a mind rightly disposed, we find the same speaking effectually unto us to the setling of our faith: is this spirit and word tyed to any necessary dependance of any outward things, as without which it can have no operation? Doth not this spirit (as the **Ioh. 3.John 3wind, to which Christ Compares it) blow where it listeth? Can you by any art or invention cause the wind to blow? Doth not ‡‡Psal. Iob 35.Job 35God bring it out of his Treasures?

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

And you adde: And then an not before, we are certaine, that the▪ Scripture is the word of God, both by Divine and Infallible proofe Here still you shut out from the Scripture all Self Authority, sufficiency ▪ and Testimony to prove it selfe the word of God, not allowing it so much, as you doe to Tradition, and the light of Nature; for these say you perform their offices sufficiently: but you have nothing to say for the Scripture, as if that had any thing at all to doe, but to wait upon the good pleasure of Lady Tradition, and light of Nature, for their Commendation and approbation, and then, having their good words, this is sufficient, to p. 215bring in the Spirits testimony, to seale the sufficiency of all three; the Scriptures sufficiency being this, to be recommended by the other two ▪ And then, and not before, we are certain that the Scripture is the word of God, both by Divine, and infallible proofe; but not of the Scripture it selfe in any case.

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

L p. 116. I have said thus much upon this great occasion, because this Argument is so much pressed **Notorious and grosse hypocrisie, pretending respect to Scripture, when never any Iesuite, did more vilifie and nullifie the Authoritie and credit of it. Detection of the Hipocrisy.without due respect to Scripture. And I have proceeded in a Syntheticall way, to build up the Truth, for the benefit of the Church, and the Satisfaction of all men Christianly disposed. (And a little after) I labour for Edification, and not for Destruction.

P. When I look back to the premises of this Argument, and now upon the conclusion: I cannot but stand amazed at two things: 1. Your notorious vilifying or rather nullifying the Authority, sufficiency, and Testimonys of the Scripture, to prove it selfe to be the word of God: and 2dly your egregious hypocrisie, here in the close of all, as if you had done all with due resp…ct to Scripture. And how finely you would seem to put it off from your selfe, but laying the blame upon others, as the Jesuites. As if you had taken all this paines to vindicate the Scripture from that Disrespect, which Iesuites ha…e of it, in their pleading for Church-Tradition. And yet doe not you tell us before, that you goe the same way with the Iesuites in advancing Church-Tradition; onelyonly you say, you goe not so faare as they. And wherein, I pray you doe you come short of them? They say, Scripture Authority, that it is the word of God, depends upon the Authority and Tradition … of the Church: and you say, Scripture without Church-Tradition of no Credit, Authority, p. 216or sufficiencie, to prove it selfe the word of God. Nay you goe further: …or, for all your Tradition, and the light of Nature, going before, yet not one word hath dropt from your pen, that Scripture (I say after all your preceding inducements) is sufficient of it selfe, to prove it selfe the word of God, but that still its Authority is precaria, at the good will of Tradition, and Authority of the present Church, whose sufficiency you preferre before the Scripture, in many respects, as hath been shewed.

And you hauehave proceeded in this way (you say) Synthetically. What's that? That is (in the true E…imon of the word) by way of composition, or confederation with the Jesuite, to bring both the Churches to a reconciliation, by your mutuall discrediting of the Scripture, as Herod and Pilate could not be made Friends, but in consenting to put Christ to death. And as Pilate gratified Herod, in sending Ch…ist bound unto him whereupon they became Friends: so you here ingratiate your selfe with Rome, in sending her this Book (as I suppose it is there before this time) wherein you present her with the Scripture bound in the fetters of Tadition, which puts on your Synthesis or League, in a faire forwardnesse, the Foundation being already layd. For you say, It is to build up the Truth for the benefit of the Church. We have discovered before what the truth is you speak of through your Book; which is as much to say, as all that, wherein you agree with the Church of Rome as one and the same Church, for the benifit where of you have writ this Discourse to discredit the word of Truth. So as by your building up of Truth, is meant your pulling of it down with that hand, that wrote this Book. And for satisfaction of all men Christianly disposed: that is of a peaceable Disposition, and not perverse, peevish, and refractory, but willing to meet Rome at least in the halfe way. And (in a word) All your Labour is for Edification, not for Destruction. For Edification? Wherin? By rasing the Foundation of Faith, the Scripture, to build up the Tower of Babel againe in England? And not for Destruction, but onelyonly of the Puritan Profession, and Religion and the power of Godlinesse, and the Purity of Gods worship, and the sincere Preaching, and Preachers of the word of God, and in a word, in rooting out the precise party, where ever your Arme of flesh can reach them. This being your practise too well known, this must needs be your meaning and sense of these words of the Apostle, **2▪ Cor. 10.8.2 Cor 10:8For Edification, and not for Destruction Which as you most wickedly pervert and abuse (as you ‡‡2 Pet. 3.16.2 Pet 3:16doe all other Scriptures)▪ to your false purposes; so in this respect it is a Conclusion p. 217not unsutable to your whole Section, while thus you make the word of God of no Authority by your Traditions. Mat. 15.9.Matt 15:9And so here an end of this Section. But not an end of the prosecution of the same subject still: For it follows:

L. p. 118. You see, neither Hooker, nor I, Sect. 18.nor the Church of England (for ought I know) leave the Scripture alone, to manifest it selfe by the light, which it hath in it selfe. No: but when the present Church hath prepared and led the way, like a preparing morning light to Sun-shine, then indeed we settle for our Direction, but not upon the first opening of the morning light, but upon the Sun it selfe.

P. In the former Section (17.) consisting of one page, the Jesuite objecting your words, The Bishop said, That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed, and needed not to be proved: your Answere is, ‡‡A … or put off.Did I say it needed no proofe at all to a naturall man? or to a man newly entring upon the Faith? yea or perhaps to a doubter, or weakling in the Faith? Can you think me so weake? I doe but mention this by the way, as taking notice with what a pretty slight you put off your recantation of that speech. But the next passage will cleare this more fully. Now this your Comparison of the morning light, let us clearely see how weake and improper it is for your purpose. For what is the morning light, but a beame, or beames of that Sun, which as children of the §§Psal. 19.5.Ps 19:5Bridegroom, doe usher him out of his Chamber, signifying his neare approach? These beames (I say) are of the very same nature of that light, which is in the body of the Sun, and do immediately issue and spring from it, inlightning the Sky, or that part of heaven above the Horizon, which beames or morning light, as the Sunne advanceth nearer to his Rising ††Prov. 4.18.Prov 4:18waxeth clearer and clearer unto the perfect day. But now the Authority of the present Church, which you compare to the morning light, is no such beame **Mal. 4.2.Mal 4:2of the Sun of Righteousnesse shining in the Scripture (as in his Sphere) as that it is of the same nature of the light of the Scripture. For the Scripture light is Divine and Infallible: but of Tradition you say, ‡‡Pag. 90.I cannot find that the Tradition of the present Church is of Divine and Infallible Authority. Which if you could by all the light in the Sky at noon day, find, you would be no Churle in hiding it from the world or puting it under a bushell. But to hold you to the propriety of your Comparison, which at first blush showes as faire, as the first morning light: you may know, That the Sunne makes the beames to shine, and not the 1beames the Sunne: whereas you say, The Authority of the present Church, lights the Candle of Scriptures (which otherwise gives no p. 218light) and so makes it to shine. Againe 2dly, The morning light is an 2Infallible Index, or immediate foregoing token of the approach of the Sunne ri…ng which it ushereth in: but you dare not say, yea you deny, that the present Churches Testimony or Authority, is infallible for the inducing of beliefe, that Scripture is the word of God. 3Thirdly, the morning light, so soon as ever it first peepeth, or dawneth, we say, and that truly, It is day: but an Infiel, or doubting or weake Christian, upon the first hearing of the testimony of the present Church, That the Scriptures are the word of God, is not so infallibly Convinced and perswaded, as therfore to beleeve it to be 4true. Fourthly, The morning light is alone a sufficient and infallible signe (as being an immediate effect, an essentiall quality issuing from the Sun) of its neare rising: but you confesse, that though your present Church Authority, be the Prime, yet it is not the Sole **Gnômon.Index or finger, to point us out the Scripture to be the word of God; but you joyne with it sundry other helps, as before you tell us. Thus no way can we find your Comparison proper, or pertinent to your purpose, being as a blind Horse, that halts downright of a…l foure. But this by way of application to the right purpose, I conclude out of it: That as the morning light which certainly and infallibly tells us of the approching of the Sun rising, and which perswades every man, whose eyes are awake, of the truth therof, is an immediate beame of that Sun, and of the same nature and quality of its native and essentiall light: So, that which is both Prime and Sole in leading us, Certainly and Infallibly to beleeve, that the Scripture is the word, yea and working also, and begetting this Faith in us, is the light or beame of the Scripture it selfe, displayed by the Ministry or Preaching of the Word, which is as the dawning of the day, or the ‡‡2 Pet. 1.19.2 Pet 1:19Day Stars first arising in our hearts (as Peter speakes) by meanes whereof we come actually not onelyonly to beleeve (without any other externall Cause) that Scripture is the word of God, but also to know and feele that the Sun of Righteousnesse hath now begun to shine in our hearts by the beame of his Spirit; the immediate forerunner of his rising unto the perfect Day.

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

P. I doe but name these your words (as before) being but an Inculcation and Confirmation of such things, as I have abundantly Confuted before. OnelyOnly this I adde. That if the p. 219Scripture be not before the Tradition or Authority of the present Church: whence hath the present Church this her Authority? and so whence her Testimony the Credit, to be of that absolute necessity to bring men to beleeve the Scripture to be the word of God? Must you not be forced to come into the same Circle,The Prelate in a Circle. where a little before you found A.C. as to say (which yet you never went about to prove, to prevent the losse of your labour) the Scripture authoriseth Church-Tradition, and Church-Tradition necessarily introduceth beliefe of Scripture to be the word of God? But if you be in this Circle, there I leave you

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

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

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

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

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

P And truly, my Lord, how ever you account and Reverence Divinity: yet for my part, I do not onelyonly most highly reverence it, but conceive and beleeve the excellencie of it to be p. 220so transcendent, as I hold there can be no Science above it. For what is Divinity in its native and proper Notion? Divinity in its proper Prime, and most sublime Notion, is the Deity, or God-head it selfe: Theiòtes, signifying the Divinity or Deity, the derivation from …eòs, GOD. This is the Prime Notion of this word Divinity. The second Notion of Divinity, is pan tò gnoston tou Theou, all which may be known of God, which being in God as the light in the Sun, comes to be made known unto us, as by so many beames shining partly (though in Comparison more obscurely) in his works, and partly (and that most clearely) in his word, and most gloriously in Christ the **Mal. 4.2.Mal 4:2Sun of Righteousnesse himselfe, ‡‡Heb. 1.3.Heb 1:3the brightnesse of his Glory, and the expresse Image of his Person, the very light of the Scripture, and so of his Church. And of this Divinity as Christ is the full patterne and perfect platforme: so the Essence of the eternall Deity, and the subsistances of the 3 Persons in that one Godhead, together with all the glorious Attributes of God: but also the whole Mystery of Christ the Redeemer, comprehending and expressing whatsoever is necessary for us to know and beleeve for our Salvation. In which respect the Scripture may be called (and that most proproperly, as by a Title proper to it quarto modo) Gods Divinity-Booke and his Churches Divinity-Schoole. So that in the Scripture we have a most perfect and Compleat body of Divinity, of all Divinity, of whatsoever holy knowledge of God, and of Christ, and of our selves, requisite to our Salvation, and the setting forth of the Glory of God. In which respect (unlesse a man will presume above that which is written) we may truly say, That Divinity being but one and the same, and Science therof one, and the Rule of this Science but one all comprehended in the Scripture, That Divinity hath no Science above it. Yet your Lordship hath learned in the Iesuites, or Romes Schoole, (wherein it seems you have been more trained up then in Christs Schoole) That Divinity hath a Science above it. And what is that super-science, I pray you? The knowledge of God say you) and of the blessed in heaven. If you meane such a knowledge of God, and of the blessed in heaven, as is not revealed in the Scripture, I say, Quae supra nos, quid ad nos? And it is presumption to conceive of any other knowledge of God (fit for us to know) then what is revealed in the Scripture, wherein is declared the whole counsell of God, concerning his Glory, and our everlasting good. And for the knowledge of the blessed in heaven, If you meane of the blessed Angels, we may know as much of them as the Scripture hath made known unto us. But this knowledge is p. 221not a Science above Divinity. And if you meane the knowledge of the bless…d Saints in heaven; it is the same with that of the Saints on earth, onelyonly Differing in Degrees of perfection. Or if you had meant the knowledge that is in God, and in the blessed in heaven, you should so have exprest it, In, and not, Of. But I think you speake of such a speculation, as is above the Spheare of our expression. OnelyOnly something though it be de non ente, you must say, that we may take notice what a profound Proficient you are in Romes Schoole in teaching us such a sublime and hyperbolicall Science, as is inexpressible in Babylons language, and therfore the fitter to darken the lustre of that Divinity, which so gloriously shineth, and is so exactly set forth in the Scripture. But you have plentifully shewed us, what Reverence you beare to this Divinity.

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

P. **The Prelate selfe condemned.And I would fain know why leaning so much upon Tradition of the present Church, as you doe, might not be the Cause, that hath lead you so much to undervalue the Scriptures, and may not mislead Christians, by teaching them as base an opinion of the whole Scripture, as the Jewes have of the New Testament.

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

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

L. p. 125. Certaine it is that by humane Autthority, Consent, and proofe, a man may be assured Infallibly, that the Scripture is the word of God, by an acquired habit of Faith: Cui non subest falsum, under which no error nor falshood is: but he cannot be assured Infallib…y by Divine Faith cui subesse non potest falsum, into which no falshood can come, but a Divine Testimony. (And a little after, If you speake of Assurance onelyonly in Generall, I must then tell you a man may be assured, nay Infallibly assured, by Ecclesiasticall and humane proofe. Men p. 222that never saw Rome, may be sure, and infallibly beleeve, that such a City there is by Historicall and acquired Faith.

P. Although you use here a Schoole Distinction, Cui non subest falsum, & cui non potest subesse falsum: Of Faith Historicall, and Faith Divine: Assurance generall, and Assurance particular: yet in truth in the upshot it will appeare you speake very Confusedly, as in the Babylonish Dialect or Phrase. For first you attribute Infallibility to your acquired habit of Faith, wherein is no falshood, which habit of Faith you oppose to Divine Faith, wherein no falshood can be: whereas Infallibility, in its genuine, or Gramaticall sense importeth impossibility of Error or falshood. For infallible is that which is not subject unto error, which cannot be deceived. So as you doe (under correction) very much mistake in applying your Schoole distinctions, Non subest, & non potest, to Infalliblity. I remember indeed that the Schoole-men apply this Distinction to Faith. Cui non subest, & cui non potest subesse falsum: but never to Infalliblity, for that is alwayes such, Cui non potest subesse falsum, which cannot be deceived. Look a little better in your School-men, and I beleeve you will find it so, as I say. Secondly, while you would seem to put a Difference between your acquired habit of Faith, which you expresse and instruct to be Historicall and Divine Faith, which you say is onelyonly, to beleeve the Scripture to be the word of God: you doe bring both ends together, making your Acquired Faith, and Divine Faith one and the same kind, both Historicall. OnelyOnly Historicall Faith may differ respectively to the object, Humane or Divine: For it is an Historicall Faith that beleeves there is such a City as Rome, in which respect it may be called Historicall Faith humane: and it is an Historicall Faith that beleeves the Scriptures to be the word of God, in which respect it may be called Historicall Faith Divine. Divine I say, respectively to the object; but being in kind the same Historicall Faith with the other, whose object is humane. And you tell us before, that ordinary Grace and a morall perswasion, upon the necessary previous Authority and Tradition of the present Church, works this your Divine Faith. All which reacheth no further, but to an Historicall Faith ▪ call it what you will, acquired, or divine. And your building this your Faith upon the Rise of humane Authority, and morall perswasion (how ever you use the ingredience of ordinary Grace by naming of it) yet you are not able to say whether this Historicall Faith, be an habit infused or acquired, though you never so much daube it over with Divine. OnelyOnly thus you give us occasion to take notice, what an p. 223accute School-Divine you are, at least so farre as a distinction or two will goe, which rather confound then distinguish. But admit you could demonstrate, and make it plain unto us, that your ordinary Grace, what ever it is, and a morall perswasion puts a speciall difference between your Divine Faith, and Historicall: yet to what purpose, will all this prove? May not both these Faiths be found in wicked men, and Reprobates, however distinguished by divine ordinary Grace, and the like? The Schooles have a knowne Distinction much more proper and sensible, and agreeable to the tru…h of Scripture, then those you bring, and so apply For speaking of the Difference between ordinary common Graces, and those peculiar to the Elect, they call the first, Gratia gratis data, Grace freely given, meaning Ministeriall Graces, which God freely gives, as well to the wicked as to the godly; he gave as Royall Karísmata, or Graces to Saul, as to David; and Apostolicall Graces as well to Iudas, as to Peter. And this Grace, Thus freely given is grounded on those words of Christ, freely you have received freely give. But that peculiar Grace, which God freely gives too, but onelyonly to his Elect, is distinguished from the other, being called Gratia gratum faciens, Grace makeing us acceptable unto God; according to that of the Apostle **Ephes. 1.2.5.6.Eph 1:2Eph 1:5Eph 1:6According as he hath chosen us in him, &c. haveing predestinated us, &c. To the praise of the Glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the Beloved. Or that, ‡‡Rom. 3.24.Rom 3:24Being justified freely by his grace, &c. Now ordinary and Common Grace, being freely given of God, to whom he will good or bad, depends not upon humane Authority, as a necessary inducing Cause. Yet you make your present Church Authority, which is but humane, a necessary previous Cause to ordinary Grace, whereby your Historicall or Divine Faith (as you call it) is wrought in beleeving the Scripture to be word of God; and so what ever faire termes you guild this Faith withall, it wilbe found no better then either meerely humane, or at least common unto the wicked and Reprobate, which for all this your Divine Faith goe to hell: and then the difference is not so great between your Historicall and Divine Faith (which you keep such a puzzell about) but that a man may without any great hazard winck and chuse.

Ob. But you tell us before, That ordinarily the Scriptures must have Tradition to goe before. Therfore, that you place not an absolute necessity in it. Ordinarily? So you once say indeed. But so, as withall it must be absolutely necessary. For you make all other meanes of this beliefe to be deficient, without your Church-Tradition p. 224leading the way. As for the Scriptures, those have not light sufficient for themselves, and are as a candle that must first be lighted, before it can give light, and that is, by Church Authority. As for the holy Holy Ghost that works not this Faith but by an ordinary Grace, and this Ordinary Grace hath no force at all, unlesse the present Churches Authority prepare the way. So as this, Ordinarily, of yours, admits of no exception at all, in any case, though never so extraordinary. And thus you exclude that your Divine Faith, as it is a worke of ordinary Grace (as you call it) from being any Grace of God at all, except Grace of Canterbury can dubbe it for a Grace. For all Grace is one of those two kinds, I named even now: either that Grace of God, which makes a man freely accepted in Christ, which your Ordinary Grace by your own Confession doth not: or that common Grace, which is said to be freely given of God to whom he will▪ without the intervention or prevention of any outward meanes or respect; which your ordinary Graces cannot be: for your selfe every where professe, that no ordinary Grace, nor any thing else can worke beliefe, that the Scripture is the word of God, unlesse your present Church Authority, tanquam Gratia preparans ac praeveniens, as a preparing and preventing Grace, prepare the way. And thus you see to what a Confusion all your Schoole Distinctions are brought. And in truth your Schoole Distinctions for the most part, being weighed in the just ballance of the Sanctuary, prove too light, and doe corrupt the truth For even that Distinction which I named, of Gratia gratis data, & Gratia gratum faciens, though the termes are good and true: yet as some apply the latter, to wit, Grace making acceptable, it is corrupt. As when by that Grace they understand Faith, Hope, and Charity, which being infused into the soule, a…e the matter (say they) of Iustification, and of our acceptation with God Now in this sense this member of the Distinction holds not good▪ but is Popish. For Faith onelyonly is that Grace, which makes us accepted of God, but this, not as it is a worke, or Grace inherent, but as an Instrument apprehending and applying Christ, in whom alone we are through Faith accepted of GOD, who **Ephes. 1.6.Eph 1:6make… us accepted in the beloved ▪ So as he that will find any good and sound Distinction out of the Schoole-men, he must doe as Virgil said of his reading of Ennius, Margaritas è caeno legere, gather pearles out of the mudde: and he must look to have them well washed, and polished, and tryed by the Scriptures, before he use them to illustrate or confirme any Doctrine of sound Divinity. This by the way.

p. 225L. p. 226. The time was, before this A. miserable rent in the Church of Christ (which I B think no Christian can look upon, but with a bleeding heart) that C you and we were all of one beliefe. D That beliefe was tainted in Tract and Corruption of time, very deeply. A division was made: yet so, as E both parties held the Creed, and other Common Principles of beliefe. Of these, this was one of the greatest, That the Scripture is the word of God. For our beliefe of all things contained in it, depends upon it. Since F this Division, there hath been nothing done by us▪ to discredit this Principle. Nay we have given it G all honour, and ascribed unto it more sufficiency, even to the containing of all things necessary to Salvation, with satis superque, **Blasphemous lyeenough and more then enough, which your selves have not done, doe not. H And for begetting and setling a beliefe of this Principle, we goe the same way with you, and a better besides. The same way with you, because we alow the Tradition of the present Church to be the first inducing motive to imbrace this Principle: onelyonly we cannot goe so farre in this way, as you, ‡‡A subtile insinuation.to make the present Tradition, I alwayes an infallible word, of God unwritten.

P. Here I Have Alphabetically, as by A, B, C. &c. noted sundry particulars. A That you call the Protestants seperating from the Church of Rome, a miserable rent. Why miserable, when Christ Commands it? As Rev. 18.4. as is noted before, and shall yet more in a fit place. So as the Protestants had been in a miserable condition, if this seperation, this rent had not been made. B 2dly, And must every Christian heart bleed to see it, because (it seems) yours doth? Surely this hath cost the heart-blood of many thousands of Gods Saints and Martyrs, shed and spilt by that blood drunken whore. Yet better so to perish, by her temporally here, then to perish with her eternally hereafter; which must have been, had not this miserable rent been made. C 3dly, But before this rent (say you) they and we were all of one beliefe. You may speake, for your selfe, if you had lived before the rent was made. We doubt not, but both you would have been of the same Faith with Rome, and would have continued in it, so as for your part there should never have been made such a miserable rent. We know well, both your Faith, and your Charitable and Peaceable disposition for that matter. Yea though that one beliefe was tainted. That should have broken no square. For you say, D 4ly, That beliefe, that (very one beliefe, whereof you and they then were, before the rent) was tainted, yea very deeply too. But I say still, speake for your selfe, and your Confederates onelyonly; usurpe not the name of all Protestants quorum tu pars p. 226minima ▪ whereof you were the least part if any at all) that seperated from Rome, whereof many, (before they came to be called Protestants, which was upon their protesting against the Whore of Babylon, and for their just and necessary seperating from her) dissented from, and disliked, and (so farre as the iniquity of the times, and humane frailty, and unavoidable necessity permitted) seperated themselves privately at least from many of her most notorious and intolerable en ormites, and not a few in their severall ages, wherein they lived, openly protested against her, both by writing and preaching, though it cost them their heart-blood for it. You have at hand a Catalogue of them in Catalogus, Testium veritatis, and in the Book of Acts and Monuments, and other Authors, both forraigne and domesticke, and that of f…esh bleeding memory E 5ly, You prove your Faith was then one for hol…ing the Creed, and other Cōmon Principles of beliefe, of which one of the Greatest &c. Indeed before that rent, Rome professed and held the letter and externall form of the Creed, but not the sense, faith, life, and substance, as elsewhere you confesse of the present Church of Rome. Did you so then, so now? I doubt 'twill prove so, in a great measure. For though you tell us, that your beliefe of all things contained in the Creed, depends upon this principle, That Scripture is the word of God. (For that is the best sense can be made of your words) yet there be many, even fundamentall Doctrines in Scripture which your beliefe depends not upon,A shamefull lye. nor your practises agree unto, as both before is touched, and occasion will be given yet more to speake of. F 6ly, But since this Division (say you) nothing hath been done by you, to discredit this Principle, That the Scripture is the word of God. No? Nothing? Not, **Pag. 80.when you say, The light which is in Scripture it selfe, is not bright enough, it cannot beare sufficient witnesse to it selfe? Not, when you say, ‡‡pag. 83, 84.The Scripture is a light, but as a Candle that yeelds no light, till first it be lighted by Tradition of the present Church? Not, when you say, ‡‡pag. 77.That Scripture to be the word of God, is not so demonstratively evident à priore, that is, of and by it selfe primarily, as to inforce assent? Not, when you say, §§pag. 86.Such a full light we doe neither say is, nor require to be in Scripture as is in Prime Principles, which carry a naturall light with them? Is not this point blank against this Principle, That Scripture is the word of God? Not, when you say, **pag 87.God doth not require a full Demonstrative Knowledge in us, that the Scripture is his word, and therfore in his Providence hath kindled in it no light for that? Not, when you say, That the Scripture cannot beare witnesse to it selfe, p. 227nor one part of it to another? And yet in all this, and much more, hath nothing been done by you to discredit this Principle, That Scripture is the word of God? Now let the Lord of the Scripture, whose Word it is, and all the Children of Truth be Judge in this matter against you.

G. 7ly, Yet you dare say more, that you have given it all honour, and ascribed unto it more sufficiencie, Blasphemous lye▪(as more then all) even to the containing of all things necessary unto Salvation, with satis superque, enough and more then enough. How? enough, and more then enough? What? A worke of Superarogation? or superarrogancie, rather. Now fie for shame. Will no bounds of Sober Speech contain your lawlesse spirit, but that you must cast it in Gods dish, That you had ascribed to his Word all honour, and more sufficiencie, and more then enough? Had you yet turned Lyrinensis his word in the margent▪ super que , Abundantly, it had been both more agreeable to reason, and not lesse disagreeing with Grammer. Certainly it had become you of all other, to have qualified the construction of Satis superque, better considering what palpable hand and harsh language you have dasht the Credit of Gods most holy Bible withall. Extreames are not good. And your Hypocrisie here is too grosly counterfeited. Just as some Gentlewomans bad face, for want of Art, is daubed so much with laying on of Colours, that it is ridiculous to every beholder. And how say you in the truth of your heart (were there any there) that the Scripture containeth all things, necessary to Salvation, when it doth not containt tha assertion of yours, That the Scripture is not known to be the word of God, but by the Authority and Tradition of the present Church? When yet this, That the Scripture is the word of God, is by your own expresse Confession, one of the greatest Principles of beliefe? H 8ly, For your going the same way with the Jesuites, partly your whole Booke, and partly all your practises doe Satis superque, superabundantly witnesse. OnelyOnly you say, **…. Subtile Insinuation detected … vanity.you cannot goe so farre in that way with them, to make the present Tradition, Alwaies an Infallible word of God unwritten. No, not Alwaies Infallible, I hope. OnelyOnly somtimes perhaps Infallible, when you say the word of God. And if your present Tradition be not alwaies an Infallible word of God unwritten: I pray you is it at any time an unwritten word of God? If it be then at such a time especially (when its Infallibility is in Season) is it not Infallible? For Gods word is alwayes Infallible, be it written, or when he speaks it from heaven. But when shall we se the time, when you will prove your present Tradition to be a word of God p. 228unwritten, or to have any Ground at all in written word of God, the Scripture? But if your present Church Tradition be not alwaies infallible, but that somtimes at least it may deceive us, certainly I conceive our safest course wilbe alwayes to goe immediately and directly the shortest Cut, to the Scripture it selfe, which I am sure, is alwaies Infallible, and will never deceive us, and not at any time to depend upon your present Tradition, which is not alwaies an Infallible word of God unwritten. But me thinks I heare you say, That you make not the present Tradition, An Infallible word of God unwritten. No not absolutely, not Alwaies. We understand English. But if you could prove, This your present Tradition to be but somtimes an infallible word of God unwritten (in the use at least you put it to) it were no great Mastery to conclude it to be (in that case) Alwaies an Infallible word of God unwritten; and so you should by this way of the Jesuites come full home to Rome. But I hope you will more clearely and fully expresse your selfe in this grand point, when (to use your own words before) It shall fit Time and Place. Epistle Dedicatory.In the meane time, if this be not the genuine sense, which I have picked, but not stollen (for the interpretation is Grammaticall, and sensible) out of your words; then I confesse, your meaning is more abstruse and mysticall, then can be gathered from your manner of expression, your words having a tang of that **Gen. 11. Difference between Rome and the Prelate about Tradition.Gen 11confusion of tongues at the building of that old Tower. But the summe of it is, Here is the grand difference, between you and Rome: She makes her Tradition alwayes a word of God unwritten unfallible, you, yours not Alwayes: somtimes therfore; and so it is blasphemy.

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

L. p. 128. There is a great deale of difference between The Church, and A Church: and some, between a True Church, and a p. 229Right Church. For the Church may import in our language The onelyonly True Church, and perhaps the root and ground of the Catholick. And this I never did grant of the Roman Church, nor never meane to doe. But A Church can imply no more, then that it is a member of the whole. And this I never did, nor never will deny, if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church I granted also; but not a Right as you imposed upon me, So as, No Right, that is No Orthodox Church at Rome. And yet no newes it is, that I granted the Roman Church to be a true Church. For so much very learned Protestants have acknowledged before me; and the Truth cannot deny it. For that Church which receives the Scripture, as the Rule of Faith, though but as a partiall and imperfect Rule; and both the Sacraments as instrumentall Causes, and seales of Grace, though they adde more, and infuse these; yet cannot but be a True Church in Essence. How it is in manners and Doctrine, I would you would lo…ke to it with a single eye.

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

1. For very learned Protestants, which hold with you in this: First, we can set both as learned, and double the number of of Protestants, who will weigh down the Scale against those, that seem to be of your opinion. Secondly, we could out of those very Protestant Authors, whom you mean (though I suppose you seldome read such Authors, and in other things scarce name them Honoris causa) collect more against this opinion, That the Church of Rome is a true Church, then you can for it. As out of Iunius himselfe, for Instance. I mentioned before a la…e Book, intituled, Babel no Bethel, never yet answered by any Jesuite, or other Priest Romish, or English, where the Author hath cleared all, or most of those Protestants, which his Adversaries alledged, and I suppose you meane, from this opinion p. 230of yours. And then also the Author proves by many concluding Arguments (and in my opinion unanswerable) that the Church of Rome is no true visible Church of Christ, as having lost the very Essence of a true Church. To which Booke I referre your Lordship, could your patience but brook the Authors name, or your Conscience not tremble at the mention of him.

To your Second Reason: First, I deny that the Church of Rome receives the Scriptures as A Rule of Faith For first, The Rule of Faith must be in it selfe simply Divine and Infallible. But such to the Church of Rome the Scripture is not. For she makes the Infallibility and Divine Authority of the Scripture to depend upon the Church, as you do upon Church Tradition, which you confesse to be not simply Divine and Infallible. Ergo Rome receives not the Scripture as A Rule of Faith. Secondly, Rome receives not, holds not The Rule of Faith: Ergo she is not a true Church; As the late Dr Carleton of Chichester in his Book of the Church hath well and learnedly proved: For not to hold the Rule of Faith, is to deny and destroy the Faith, and to fall absolutely away from the Foundation of Faith, and to set up a new and false Faith, upon a new and false Foundation. Nor dare, or doe you say, that Rome receives the Scripture as The Rule of Faith, but onelyonly as A Rule of Faith, to wit, a partiall Rule, as Bellarmine calls it. But if the Scripture be (as it is) The onelyonly Rule of Faith, and ever hath been in all ages so held, till Rome in the Councel of Trent changed this Rule: then not to hold it so, for The Rule, that is, the onelyonly Rule, but onelyonly as a partiall Rule, joyned with other Rules equall to it, as her Traditions, which Bellarmine in his Book de verbo Dei non scripto, calls the word of God unwritten: is to reject the onelyonly Rule, and so to fall absolutely away from the Faith. And you confesse, that the Church of Rome holds the Scripture but as a partiall and imperfect Rule. And is this nothing with you? What is this, but to evacuate and utterly make voyd the Rule, when for a perfect intire and absolute onelyonly Rule, it is made but a partiall, imperfect, and joynt Rule? And when humane Authority is equalled with Divine: Humane Traditions with Divine Scriptures, as an equall Rule of Faith? Nay, and those her Traditions, which she calls her word of God unwritten, are such as teach things directly contrary to the Doctrines of Scripture, as of Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, and the like. Is not this, a'kurosai as Christ saith, to make voyd and of no Authority the Commandements of God by mens Tradition? Yet this p. 231Camel you can easily swallow, you slight this over, as a matter of nothing: as if it were all one thing in a manner to hold the Scripture The Rule of Faith, and A Rule of Faith, namely a part or piece of the Rule: The whole Rule, and a partiall Rule: The onelyonly perfect Rule, and An imperfect Rule. All this breakes no squares with you, but that Rome for all this, holds the Rule of Faith, and therfore you hold her for a true Church of Christ. But yet in so saying, you plainly imply, That if Rome held not the Rule of Faith, she is no true Church of Christ, but is absolutely fallen away from Christ the Foundation. For you give this for a Reason, that Rome is a true Church because she holds the Rule of Faith. Ergo If she hold not the Rule of Faith, she is no true Church of Christ, but is absolutely fallen away from the Faith. Whereupon I argue thus:

That Church, which denyeth the Scripture to be the onelyonly Intire, Absolute, perfect Rule of Faith,Major▪ is fallen absolutely away from Christ, and so ceaseth to be a true Church, that is, to have the very Essence and beeing of a true Church of Christ:

But the Church of Rome denyeth the Scripture to be the onelyonly, Intire, Absolute, Perfect Rule of Faith:Minor.

Ergo the Church of Rome is absoluely fallen away from Christ, and so ceaseth to be a true Church, that is,Conclus… ▪ to have the very Essence and beeing of a true Church of Christ.

The Minor Proposition is confessed by your Lordship, For you say, The Church of Rome holds the Scripture, but as A Rule, a Partiall Rule, an Imperfect Rule. Thus she denyeth the Scripture to be the onelyonly, Intire, Absolute, Perfect Rule of Faith. And for the Major Proposition, you doe by necessary Consequence confesse it also to be true. For you set it down as a Reason, why you hold the Church of Rome to be a true Church, because she holds the Rule of Faith, the Scripture: Implying, that to hold the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith, is one speciall note of A true Church. But now you confesse againe that Rome holds not this Rule, but as a partiall and imperfect Rule. And therefore denying this Rule of Faith, she ceaseth to be a pure Church of Christ, And (which is the more) this the Church of Rome doth ex professo & solemni Decreto, professedly and by solemne Decrees, ratified as irrefragable, and that under Anathema to be received of all. And this is farre more then to doe it by Practise onelyonly. And yet in Practise to destroy, and overthrow, but onelyonly some speciall Doctrines of Scripture, though otherwise the Scripture be professed, and confessed, in this or that particular Church, to be the intire and onelyonly Rule of Faith: is de facto to disclaime the p. 232whole Scripture, and to unmake it the perfect Rule of Faith: and so thereby, such a Church, possessing such and such Errors, as are Fundamentall, that is, against the Foundation, is fallen from Christ: as hath been formerly proved. Now if but any one part of Scripture, in this or that Doctrine of Christ, be overthrown, so as therein it is not made the Rule of Faith; and this overthrowing such Doctrines being once professed and maintained generally, in any one particular Church, makes that Church to cease to be a true Church of Christ, as not holding the Scripture intirely, but professedly overthrowing it in such and such particulars: then how much more the Church of Rome, professing and maintaining gumne kephale, with a whores forehead, that the holy Scripture is not the onelyonly Rule of Faith, intire and perfect, but partiall and imperfect (as your Lordship confesseth) doth thereby proclaime her selfe to all the world, to be fallen away absolutely from Christ, and so ceaseth to be a true Church of God. And denying the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith, she denyeth the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Iesus Christ himselfe being the chiefe corner stone: and so is fallen quite from the Foundation.

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

Next, for the Sacraments: which is your second Reason: you say, The Church of Rome holds both the Sacraments as instrumentall Causes and Seales of Grace, though they adde more, and misuse these: p. 233Ergo she cannot but be a true Church in Essence. For Answere: First, she holds them not absolutely to be Sacraments, but dependently upon the Priests intention; which you mention elsewhere. And so hath the Councel of Trent defined, of the Sacraments: so Vega: so Bellarmine. Secondly, if she be sure the Priests intention be not wanting, or going a wool-gathering in his Consesecration, then she makes the Sacraments to be, not Instrumentall Causes of Graces, but aitia kúria, Principall and efficient working causes of Grace, ex opere operato, as they barbarously speake, by the immediate vertue of the worke wrought. So the Councel of Trent also. So as they shut out the Holy Ghost from this worke, as the Principall Efficient worker and sealer of Grace. Thirdly, For Baptisme, which you make to be an Infallible Marke of that Church to be Christian, besides their infinite corruptions of the Element of water, (which the Apostle calleth pure water) with their spittle, salt, creame, exorcismes, or conjurations of the Devils insultations, and the like, they hang the very beeing, not onelyonly the vertue, of this Sacrament, upon the Priests intention, which intention of the Priest is so uncertaine, as Vega (one of the prime Sticklers in the Councel of Trent, as aforesaid, in his Booke upon the Councel of Trent, especially the sixt Session, where he treateth of certainty of Faith, in Iustification, Confesseth, that there can be no certainty of Salvation to a man, because he cannot be certain, whether he hath true Baptisme or no; and that in regard of the Priests intention, whereof he cannot be certaine: So as by this their own Doctrine, no one Papist can be sure, that he is a Christian: and so consequently, neither can all the members of that Church severally, nor conjunctly the whole Body it selfe, be sure whether they, or it be Christian or no▪ and so the Church of Rome, upon this very ground, cannot resolve certainly, whether she be a Church of Christ or no; unlesse your Testimony will help her out at a dead lift. And that not onelyonly in regard of the Priests intention in the Sacrament of Baptisme, but also in their Additionall Sacrament of Orders, one of these more, which they have added to the two. So as for default of the Popes intention in ordering of Prelates, or of the Prelates invention in ordering one another, and in ordering of Priests, and of Priests intention, in Consecrating their Sacrament of Baptisme (as themselves, Vega and others, do argue the case) they are all put to the stagger, whether they have in that Church either Priesthood, or Sacraments. For all hangs upon that weake pin, or haire, of the Priests p. 234intention. So as another of their Primipili, a Standard-bearer▪ of the Dominicans, in the same Councell, Dominicus Soto forementioned) in his Book de natura & gratia, saith, that, Deus in potestate Sacerdotis posuit Populi salutem, GOD hath put the peoples Salvation in the Priests power. Now all this considered, and withall, the time, when this was made a Decree, in the Councel of Trent, a matter of 100 yeares agoe, and when it was but new, and the Pope and Prelates, and Priests could not perhaps, of a good while learne their lesson perfectly, and so get a habit of it, but that in all their Consecration of Prelates, and Priests, still intention was to seek, and where it breakes off, as in the Pope and Prelates, in their Consecration of Orders, there followes a meere nullity in succession of the whole Generation of Priests downwards, and so through that whole body no Priesthood now, no Sacraments: what evidence can the Church of Rome now give us, or what assurance can she have (besides the bare name) That she is still a Christian Church? OnelyOnly Vega helps it, aswell as he can, That in reason and Charity men are not to thinke, that the Priest should be so carelesse at the Consecration▪ as not to look to his Intention, upon which the Salvation of all men… soules dependeth.

Fourthly for the Sacrament of the Eucharist, or of the Altar, as they call it: First this is in the same Predicament with Baptisme, for the Priests intention, which if not present, at the Consecration of the Host (as they call it) there is no Transubstantiation, no body of Christ, and so they worship, a wafer instead of Christ, and so by their owne Confession, in that case they commit materiall Idolatry, as a **Sweet.Jesuite confessed in Dispute with Dr Featly. But Secondly, by the very name of Sacrament of the Altar, they destroy the Sacrament that Christ ordained in his last Supper, called therfore ‡‡1 Cor. 11.20.1 Cor 11:20the Supper of the Lord. For they have turned it from a Supper, to a sacrifice, yea and that from an Eucharisticall sacrifice (as the Fathers called it) to a Propitiatory sacrifice, for the sins of quick and dead; as is noted before. And so this Sacrament they have Non sacramented, and made of it a whole burnt sacrifice. Secondly, they have utterly destroyed the materialls, or Element in this their Sacrament, the bread and wine, that no ma… should so much as dreame, or once take it for the Lords Supper. For a Supper cannot be without bread and drinke: and he…e is neither. And so it is neither Supper nor Sacrament. And thus they have taken away, no… onelyonly the cup from the people, but the bread also, altogether. So as there p. 235is nothing in their Sacrament but a meere lye, meere imaginations, Phantasmes of Accidents without subject; as we said before. And so enough of this.

And lastly, the Church of Rome having disanulled the Sacraments of Grace, it hath withall disabled them from being seales of Grace. For it is the property of a seale to give a sure and certain Impression, and thereby a Confirmation of the Covenant. But in Popish Sacraments all certainty is taken away, as is shewed; and so having lost the seales, consequently the Covenant of Grace it selfe is of no force unto them. And thus, in denying the two Testaments to be the onelyonly rule of Faith, and overthrowing the two Sacraments the seales of Faith; yea having lost and disclaimed the true Saving Faith it selfe: what evidence hath Rome left her to shew and prove, that she is now a true Church of Christ, or hath the Essence of a true Church? Let her shew her evidence. As he said, **Iugd. 6.32▪Let Baal, if he be a god, plead for himselfe. Yet all this is of no Force to your Lordship, but that, like Ixion imbracing a cloud for Iuno (as it is in that Fable) so you imbrace but a cloud, or rather the shadow of a cloud, instead of the once faire Virgin Rome; you must needs have her a true Church still. She onelyonly (say you) misuses the two Sacraments. A small triviall trifle, to speake of. Misusing then, is nothing with you. What say you then to those wicked Princes and Priests of Israel ‡‡2 Chron. 3… ▪ 16.2 Chr 3:16that misused the Lords Prophets? Was this nothing? They so misused them, that they stoned them to death. And so the Church of Rome hath so misused the two Sacraments that they have stoned them them to death, and left not one alive: But they have made amends for it. For (say you) they have added more, even no lesse then five, which are as the five wounds, wherewith the Lord was crucified to death. For those five have eaten out the other two of Christs own ordaining, both expressing his death, the one for ‡‡Rom. … ▪ingrafting us into it, the other for growth and strength by it, as our spirituall food. And these five Sacraments fo humane invention, they must have their vertue of conferring Grace ex opere operato, being all, as they use them, a meere evacuating of Christs me its. But time permits not a longer discourse of them. Enough is said for Answer. And for Conclusion, the Church of Rome having taken away the Authority of Scripture, and added her own Traditions: and having taken away and misused the Lords Sacraments, and added their own Sacraments: what remaines to that Church but that which the Divine Iohn Concludeth the whole Bible withall? I testifie p. 236unto every man that heareth the words of the Prophecie of this Book: If any man shall adde unto these things, God shall adde unto him the plagues that are written in this Book: And if any man shall take away from the Book of this Prophecie, God shall take away his part out of the Booke of life, and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this Booke. Out of the Holy City, which is the Church of Christ. Here then, in this holy City, is no place for the Church of Rome.

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

P. The Conclusion then of your speech here is this, That Luther made his breach from the Church of Rome, not onelyonly as it was Corrupt and tainted immediately, or in some Ages before, but also as it was right and Orthodox in her Primitive Times. For you say, And yet both these times before Luther (as well those wherein the Church of Rome, was most right and Orthodox, as those wherein after, before Luther it was corrupt and tainted) made his breach. And thus you make the rent on the Protestant party, to be not onelyonly from the corrupt and tainted Church of Rome, but from the most Right and Orthodox Church of Christ. A pestilent speech, bewraying the speaker to be in the very Act. 8.23.Acts 8:23gall of bitternesse ▪ and in the bond of iniquity, and worhty to be abhorred and abandoned of all that beare the name of Protestants. But this agreeth with that which we noted before, how you exclude all the Protestant Reformed Churches, beyond the Seas (where your Prelacie and Hierarchy is not erected, nor my Lord Bishops Chaire allowed) from being any Churches of Christ, or members of the true Catholick Church. For here also in Luthers rent from the Church of Rome) not onelyonly as corrupt and tainted, but as once Right and Orthodox) you include all those Reformed present Churches, and to exclude them out of the true Church of Christ. But as before we have shewed and proved, and shall yet more upon fit occasion ministred, upon the same cause, for which you exclude all Reformed Protestant Churches beyond the Seas from being Churches of Christ, because they are seperated from the Church of Rome, and from all Prelacy and Hierarchy: we do exclude you, and Rome, with your Prelaticall and Hierarchicall Churches, and Government Ecclesiasticall, from being p. 237any true Churches of Iesus Christ. And whereas you say, Rome was once Right and Orthodox; 'tis true that in Pauls time the faith of those Christian Romans was famous throughout the world; and so it might continue pure for a time after: but when once the Prelacie and Hierarchy of Rome, and that but within Romes Diocesse, was erected, it became, Ipso facto, Antichristian: and after when the Bishop of Rome became supream over all Christendome, then it was the Church of Antichrist, from which it is necessary for all true Christians to make a perpetuall Seperation.

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

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

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

P. You are often putting your finger into this scarre, or rent. An Argument it paines you, because ubi dolor, ibi digitus. And I am perswaded, the more you put your finger in it, the wider you will make it. And certainly those that are indeed the best men are so farre from bemoaning such a rent, as they rejoyce in it (the cause considered) as in their glory and safety. And such Christians as have the greatest wisdome tempered with their goodnesse, do see such an Impossibility of Reconciliation with Rome, that they account it the greatest folly in the world, once to dreame of such an unity, as is coupled with a condition of Truth, I mean Truth indeed, not such a Truth as you mean there, where nothing but superstition and error, Idolatry and Infidelity, Hypocrisie and Iniquity, Ambition and Avarice, Pompe and Pleasure, are the onelyonly supporters of Peters Infallible (but counterfeit) Chaire. Unlesse you mean (as you must doe) those good men, which are your Confederates in your Idolatrous Altars, and other Superstitions and Idolatries, halting between two opinions. p. 238God and Baal, and have already one foot over Romes threshold… accounting themselves with your Church of England, one and the same Church with Rome, as two branches of the same tree; as two Sisters of the same venter, ready to salute each other with the kisse of amity and unity, as **1 King. 20.1 Kgs 20A…ab did his Brother B…nh…da…: then much may be; what should hinder your unity? And for your Truth (as we sayd before) we know very well what it is: Rome will not want for that, which you call Truth.

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

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

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

P. 'Twere well, If you would observe the same Law your selfe to others, Then you would not so frequently as you doe ‡‡Isa. 29.21.Isa 29:21make a poore Minister an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought ▪ as the Prophet speaks.

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

P. Yes, by protesting against the very Church of Rome, got they, and that deservedly the name of Protestants. For were not those errors and superstions you speake of, yea and Antichristianisme, and abominable Idolatries, and universall Apostacie; become the very body and soule of the Religion faith, and practise of that Church? Was not your Dalilah, the Church of Rome, become that Harlot, and Mother of whoredomes, and all abominations, before the Seperation and rent was made? Could they then protest against her corruptions, and not withall against her selfe? Were not all her corruption: so incorporated unto her, as they p. 239were altogether inseperable from her, like the **Ier. 13.23▪Jer 13:23Blackamores skin, or the Leopards spots, which cannot be changed? And do not you confesse, that they protested against her Corruptions, when nothing els would serve, when there was no remedy left, when she was grown incorrigible, So as they might have said, as in the Prophet, ‡‡Ier. 51.9▪Jer 51:9we would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed▪ Forsake her and let us goe every one into his own Countrey: for her judgement reacheth unto heaven, and is lifted up even to the Skies. It applyes it selfe. And my Lord, you speake too late, and in vain to A.C. to remove Romes errors and superstition: A C. is not of the Faith, to remove such mountaines. He cannot w…sh the Blackmore white. You must procure such a Generall Councel, as is at least equall to that of Trent, to reverse all those Decrees, whereby all Romes superstitions and errors are so ratified, as England will sooner heare of a Parliament for Reformation, then Rome will indure the thoughts of any more Generall Councels, to question or meddle with her Trent Decrees. Rome is now setled upon her lees, and you shall sooner remove the City of Rome it selfe from her muddy Tiber, then the Church of Rome from her superstitions. Nor is the black skin more conaturall to the Ethiopian, nor spots to the Leopard, then Idolatry, Superstition, Infidelity, Apostacie, and all error is conaturall to the Beast with seaven heads, and ten hornes, as making up both the Complexion and Constitution of that painted Whore. And therefore you might have saved all this labour in vain, in writing such a Volume, out of a hope to worke an unity with Rome, when her superstitions and errors shalbe removed; and that is ad Graecas Calendas, when men sheere their Goates: so in this respect you may safely say, That when Romes errours and Superstitions are removed, our Protestations and Seperation is ended. And so may I.

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

P. Well were it for you, and your present Church of England (as you have lately made it, or would at least make it) if you had such sincerity of Faith to protest against Romes doctrinall corruptions, as true Protestants have▪ But why doe you call the Lords supper, The Great Sacrament of the Eucharist? Is it Great, because you give it a Name, not known in Scripture. Or because it is so grandized in the Church of Rome, as it is made like the Great ‡‡Act. 19.34.Acts 19:34Diana of the Ephesians, whom all the Pontifician world worshipeth? Or it is Great comparatively to Baptisme, p. 240because this is celebrated in the Font at the Church doore, neere the Belfrey, and That upon your high Altar, which you have advanced at the chiefe (as you esteem it) and East end af your Chancels, and of your stately Cathedrals? Or Great, because in your Devotion you bow towards that place, whence (it seems) you look for your help, yea so lowly fall down and worship before it, as before the Lord your maker? Or what is it that your Eucharist is become with you so Great a Sacrament, Because it, or, your selfe is Great with Child of a young new God-Almighty? But however, For my part, I reverence every Ordinance of God, but I dare not make nor esteem them greater, then God hath made them, nor give them other Names and Titles, then God hath given them, least I either seem to be wiser then my Maker, and their Author; or should give more honour to them then is due: this being (as wofull experience hath taught) the ready way to rob God of his honour, to transferre it to the creature, and set it up instead of God. But loth you are, I know, to call the Sacrament **1 Cor. 11.201 Cor 11:20the Lords Supper, as the Scripture calls it, least it might call for the ‡‡1 Cor. 10.211 Cor 10:21Lords Table (as the Scripture also terms it) and so your high Altar should have no more Room in the Church. But doe the true Protestants protest the sincerity of their Faith, onelyonly against the Doctrinall Faith, which hath invaded your Great Sacrament of the Eucharist? Yes, you adde, and other parts of Religion. What be those? That we may know those speciall Doctrinall Corruptions, against which you say Protestants do protest the sincerity of their Faith. For Rome hath many Doctrinall Corruptions against which true Protestants protest, which you do not so much as mention in all your Book, and such too, as do …atly overthrow the Foundation Christ. As Iustification by works for one, which we have touched before. Yea and Rome hath many, and those most damnable corruptions, which you are so farre from accounting corruptions, as you make them Essentiall parts of Gods worship. I name Altars for one. Of which also before. And these things we Protestants protest the sincerity of our Faith against. But you are none of those Protestants, as not professing, much lesse protesting the sincerity of any such Faith.

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

p. 241P. This passage I cited before in my Preface to your Lordship, yet I here recite it again, because perhaps all wilbe little enough to put you in mind therof: For as I told you before, the Greatnesse of the Cause hath caused my stile and Spirit to mount upon the wings of zeale for my Christ, and for his Church in a higher degree and strain then ordinary. And that for this you Censure me of insolence or madnesse (as I feare it wilbe the best defence you can make for your Cause alwayes excepted the Bill in Starre-Chamber) I have no remedy, but patience, committing the Cause to him that judgeth rightly. And as I have done it for the finding out of the truth, so this hath caused me a great deale of moyle in digging and removing away a masse of earth and rubbedge, which you had cast, to hide this Treasure from us. So as a purposed opposition was not it, that set me upon this Great taske, but yet I oppose you, and purpose to detect your falsities so fairly guilded over with hypocrisie, that you might not impose too much upon your Credulous Reader. You aledge for this purpose the Example of Irenaeus, arguing a Case with Victor Bishop of Rome, which you say all men know. But my Lord, I suppose all men do not know it. And because it is a matter both worthy, and not unnecessary for all men to know it: I will take occasion here to speake somthing of it, as not impertinent also to our present purpose.

Towards the end of the second Century, there was a difference between the Asian Church, and the Roman, about the Day of Celebrating the memory of the Lords Resurrection. The contention grew hot (as commonly men are most eagre in propounding their own devises in matter of Religion) so as, because the Asian Churches would not conforme to Victor Bishop of Rome, he began to fume and to thunder, and threaten them all with Excommunication. Irenaeus, who lived in France, for this reproves Victor, telling him, that he ought not to proceed and deale so with Asian Churches for such differences, as were of things at that time accounted Indifferent. Some, saith he, fast one day before Easter; some, two; some, more; some, **Tesparákonta hóras.40. houres together (whereupon by the way it seems, that those 40. houres were afterwards turned into forty dayes, for your Lent Fast) kaì cudèn élatton pàntes o…uioi eirteneusàn tè, kaì eireneúomen pròs alluious: yet neverthelesse (saith he) all these lived peaceably together, and we also are at peace one with another. Kaì he diaphonìn tes nesteías tèn homónoian tes píst…os sunistesi: And this difference about Fasting commendeth (saith he) the p. 242unity of Faith. And he relates unto him also the examples of sundry of his Predecessors in the Sea of Rome, who neither kept it themselves, nor command of it to others; and yet neverthelesse they that observed it not, were at peace with those that came to them from the neighbour Churches or Congregations, wherein it was observed. Nor were any at any time cast out of the Church about the Manner or Custome. But those Presbyters (saith he) who before you observed it not, **Hoi prosou Presbuteros. Fpempon Eukaristían.sent Commendations or kind salutations and greetings, as tokens of Charity, to those of other neighbouring Churches, who did observe it. And blessed Polycarpus sojourning at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they being at some small oddes between them, yet preserved peace, and did not fall out about this matter. For neither could Anicetus perswade Polycarpus not to observe it, nor did Polycarpus perswade Anicetus to observe it; but each left other to their own Customes. And thus they communicated together; and in the Church or Congregation Anicetus gave the Eucharist to Polycarpus out of a reverent respect, and so they dismissed each other in peace, and in all Churches, but those that observed it, and those that observed it not, had peace one with another. And thus Irenaeus pherònumos tìs, according to his Name, became a Peace-maker to all the Churches. So ‡‡Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 26. Et Socr. lib. 5. Eccl. Hist. c. 22.Eusebius.

Now as these things I here relate by Occasion: so the Consideration that sundry particulars therein may be not unusefull. As 1. That things Indifferent, and of humane Ordinance in matters of Religion, ought not to be imposed upon mens Consciences as necessary to be observed, but in such things Christian Congregations or Churches ought to be left free. Secondly, in variety or difference in opinions, or manners and customes in things Indifferent, Christians may and should keep fast the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, and testifie the unanamity of Faith in the diversity of Factions, nothing being done against Gods word. ‡‡Rom. 14.5.Rom 14:5One man (saith the Apostle) esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be perswaded in his own mind. And v. 13. Let us not judge one another in these things, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling blocke, or an occasion to fall, in his brothers way. And v. 19. Let us follow after the things that make for peace, and things wherewith one may edifie another. So, All meates are in their own nature cleane: but of any think this or that uncleane, to him it is uncleane. And that whole Chapter is of things indifferent (such at least, as those Primitive times in the more tender infancie of the Church admitted and esteemed indifferent) as of Dayes and Meates, wherein mens Consciences were not to be forced. And as concerning p. 243our Christian liberty, we must take heed (saith the Apostle) least by any meanes it become a stumbling block to them that are weak ▪ Thus we see what the Christians in the primitive Ages did. Thus did the Bishops of Rome themselves before Victor, whom Irenaeus calls Presbutérous, Presbiters. Thirdly, Victor is reprooved by Irenaeus for breaking this peace among the Christian Churches, and s…eking to bring their Christian liberty …nto bondage, by forcing them is conforme to his assumed n…w Altar, wherein his Antichristian pride and Tyranny began to sh…w it selfe in attempting what his Predecessors … not do… in this kind. Fourthly, Victor being thus reproved, defi…ed from his violent course, and yeelded to Irenaeus his Allegations, and so gave way for Churches to injoy their liberty with peace.

Now, my Lord, to apply these things: Hereby you may see, how things in their own nature indifferent, ought to be left free, and not to be made burthens and bonds to mens Consciences; that so Christian Liberty and Peace, may be preserved inviolate. You see, how those ancient Bishops or Presbyters of Rome, bound not this liberty, brake not this peace. You see, how Victor presuming to violate both, yet upon the reproofe of Irenaeus (though inferiour to him in place) he yeelded to reason, suffered not pride or passion to predominate, but left to the Churches both their Liberty and Peace. But now for you my Lord, you are not contented onelyonly to impose with rigour upon mens Consciences those Ceremonies which you otherwise call Indifferent, yet enforce them as necessary as being also by mans Laws Commanded, and such, as in point of Indifferencie might justly be questioned, were they not superstitious: but also in erecting and imposing, both besides Mans Law, and against Gods Law, other both idolatrous and superstitious devises (as your stone or woodden Altars, with their Equipage, and service in adorations, and the like) and those borrowed from the Church of Rome her selfe, none (since Victor) infinitely corrupted, and deeply deceived, yea drowned in all Idolatries and Superstitions; which have been of late so violently and universally pressed upon all Churches within your Reach, that what confusions or combustions it may further cause, the Lord knows: But this we are sure of, that as the liberty of Mens Consciences is hereby generally brought into bondage, and both the outward and inward peace of the Churches violated, and broken to pieces, while you cry for peace, and cease not to presse your Vniversall Conformity, as if it were the way of quenching the flame, to poure out the Oyle of a meere nominall Peace: so the p. 244Faith of Christ, and the salvation of Christian mens soules is hereby utterly subverted, as formerly is shewed. And of these things you have been sufficiently admonished, and convinced by some Ministers of Christ. But you say, It was too roughly done, not as Irenaeus reproved Victor. Is that all? But consider how truly; And how diseases the more desperate, require the sharper medicines. Yea as the Poet said, Immedicabile vulnus Ense recidendum est, ne pars sincera trahatur. I leave you to English it. But that the reproofe were true, though sharpe, did you as Victor did, who suffered himselfe to be victus, overcome by Irenaeus his reproofe and Allegation? Nay you, though both victus & convictus, vanquished and convinced in your Conscience and knowledge of the truth of all those enormities which you were charged withall, yet you must be Victor, not resting till you had sent away your Reprover with a Censure more bitter, and sharper then the sharp reproofe could be; and yet not desisting from your violent course to enforce an Universall Conformity, whereby the whole Land is infected with terrible combustions, and those no lesse further dangerous, then already full of dammage. Such a Peace-maker is your Conformity. Is this the way think you to make you Victor? Soft and faire. For though perhaps you glory in your tyrannicall conquest over the poore Body of your Reprover, yet while your spirit doth (to use the Apostles word to the same purpose) hupernikan, become more then Victor (as before is noted) and so his Cause, not foyled but confirmed and crowned in his suffering for it: never think your selfe a Victor. No no, my Lord, never think to be victor, by fighting against Christ; Lay down your violence in pressing your Conformity: fight not against the common peace, by disturbing the peace of mens Consciences: Lay not siege to Christian liberty in inforcing even things indifferent, and how much lesse such as are both in their nature and use Idolatrous, Superstitious, and directly against the expresse word of God. But that you will, that you must needs set up your Romish Altars, with your other devices sutable, yet inforce them upon Gods Ministers and People by your terrible commands and threats armed with High-Commission Power, or Princes Edicts. Convince men as much as you can by the strength of your powerfullest perswasive reasons, and draw them by your gentlest motives, but doe not hale and dragge them with the violence of your Archiepiscopall power, and Romish zeale Throw not Godly Ministers out of their Ministry and Means. p. 245and that by Hundreds, with their Wives and Children exposed to all miseries of poverty, and all because they will not, dare not yeeld to your lawlesse Prelaticall Impositions, Innovations, Usurpations. But if you will needs proceed on in that your violent course against Christ and Christian liberty, and peace of mens Consciences, assure your selfe you shall not pr…sper, you shall not be victor, Christ will confound you with all your Power and Pollicie. And He shalbe both Irenaenus and Victor for his Church, both to Conquer his Enemies, and to restore Peace to his People. And thus much of your example of Irenaeus and Victor.