Apology for the Reformed Churches, Preface – Errata

Apology for the Reformed Churches · Preface – Errata

p. 5The Preface.

THe particulars which I intend to premiſe, are chiefly theſe two. 1. What was the occaſion of writing this Apology. 2. What is the occaſion of printing it. The firſt will lead me to ſay ſomewhat of ſchiſme, which is the ſubject of the book: And the ſecond to take notice of a large book, lately publiſhed by the Engliſh Jeſuites, entituled, Infidelity unmasked, &c. I ſhall ſpeak of both with as much brevity as may be; remembring, I am to write a Preface, not a Treatiſe.

I. Of the firſt. Some ſeditious people in France did in the yeare MDCXXXIII, endeavour to raiſe a bloudy perſecution againſt the Proteſtants in that nation; inciting the Magiſtrates to conſtrain them to adorn their houſes on that Feſtival, which is ordinarily called in that nation la Feſte de Dieu, and do other acts of reverence to the Hoſt; or to put them to death, or baniſh the refuſers. Whereupon Monſieur Daillé, conceiving in what eminent danger he and all of his Religion were, wrote this Apologie; which being publickly approved, was preſented by Monſieur Drelincourt, Meſtrezat, himſelf, and many others, deputed by the Proteſtants of France for that purpoſe, unto the King of France and Lords of His Counſel: as containing the Doctrine, and reſolution of all the Proteſtants in that Kingdome. And, through Gods bleſſing, it prevailed with Them, ſo farre, that the ſaid deſtructive counſels were rejected.

And let not any man imagine, That becauſe Adoration of the Hoſt is the chief ſinne mentioned in this Tract (as being indeed one of the chief cauſes of our Separation) therefore Proteſtants have nothing elſe to alledge for themſelves (though one unanſwerable reaſon is enough) and I am perſwaded, that any unprejudiced Reader will think this ſuch.) For he that will but recollect, in what condition the p. 6Church of Rome was, when Princes and People, Clergie and Laity, did firſt deſire of the Pope a Reformation, in faith and manners, ſhall find ¹. That they gave (and ſtill do) to the B. Virgin, and other Saints departed the titles of Mediatour, Redeemer and Saviour, in their publick Liturgies and hymnes. ². That they began their ſermons and other ſolemn duties with Ave-Maries, and rendred not to the B. Virgin onelyonly; but to reliques, pictures, Agnus Dei's (and ſeverall other creatures, animate and inanimate) the worſhip, which is due onelyonly to the Creatour. Briefly, to omit many Doctrines deſtructive to piety, and even civil ſociety, which are warranted by other Councels (as in the Councel of Conſtance Seſſ. 19. ³. That it is lawfull to break promiſe with hereticks) and to inſtance onelyonly in ſome few poſitions, of the laſt Councel, held at Trent, Seſſ, 25. ⁴. The decree for veneration of images is againſt Exod. xx. 5. Lev. xxvi. 1. Eſa. ii. 8, 9. xliv. 13, &c. 1 Cor. x. 7. vi. 9, 10. Rev. xxi. 8. … ⁵. How contrary is their invocation of Saints and Angels, ibid. Seſſ. 27. unto Rom. x. 14. Luc. xi. 1, 2. Matth. iv. 10. Col. ii. 18. Act. x. 25, 26. xiv. 14, 15. Rev. xix. 10. xxii. 89. ⁶. Their Communion in one kind decreed, in the very words of the Canon Seſſ. 13. and 21. Can. 1. & 2. with a non obſtante Chriſti inſtituto, notwithſtanding Chriſts expreſſe decree, how oppoſite to Matth. xxvi. 27. Mark xiv. 23. 1 Cor. x. 3, 4, 16, 17? ⁷. Their Tranſubſtantiation, Seſſ. 13. chap. 9. Can. 2. how contradictory not onelyonly to the Apoſtles Creed, but alſo to 1 Cor. x. 16, 17, 20. xi. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28? Matth. xx. vi. 29. ⁸. In a word (for ſuch citations may be numerous) who ever can reconcile their decree for Service in an unknown tongue ibid. Seſſ. 22. chap. 8. & Can. 9. with any part of all the 1 Cor. xiv; I will not wonder if he think that fornication is not contrary to any law of God, and that forbidding marriage to all the Clergie doth no way oppoſe Heb. xiii. 4. and 1 Tim. iv. 3. Some of which poſitions are touched in the 19^th chap. of this book: and the reſt excellently confuted in Mons^r Daillé's books de poenis; de imaginibus; p. 7but; contra Meliterium; and other Protestant Authours. Who ever, I ſay, recollecteth how theſe and the like Doctrines (which overthrow the fundamentals of Chriſtian Religion) were then, and ſtill are, not onelyonly the private opinions of her Doctours, but the publick decrees of her Councels;

And then laſtly, who ever conſidereth with what rigour and tyranny ſhe threw them who disbelieved them, Firſt out of the Church; and then (if ſhe could) out of the world, meerly for being of the young mans mind whom S^r Tho. More commendeth, and tells a pretty ſtory of [pag. 1438. of his works in Engliſh] whoſe name was Company, becauſe they would not ſinne with their neighbours and be damned for good Fellowſhip. So deſtroying whole Cities and Provinces, and with them in Tacitus, Solitudinem facientes pacem appellavere, Inſomuch as none could communicate with her without approving both her tyranny and doctrines (which was the indeſpenſable condition of her Communion) Who ever, I ſay, conſidereth theſe things will I conceive, never wonder why the Proteſtants departed from Rome, any more than why the Philoſophers did of old, when they were baniſhed; or why he is out of the houſe, who is thruſt out of doors.

But if none of all this could have been truly pleaded, yet the Church of England might have been excuſed from ſchiſm, by him that duly conſidereth, That the Anglican Church had of old, and ſtill may juſtly challenge many priviledges, as well as the Gallican, ſet down by Marc. de Vulſon, Counſellour to the King of France, in his book de la puiſſance du Pape; and by Pythoeus and many others, but moſt largely deſcribed in two vast tomes, written by the appointment of Cardinal Richilieu, when he adviſed the King of France to ſet up a Patriarch in oppoſition to the See of Rome, entituled Preuues des libertez de l' Egliſe Gallicane. Seconde Edition. A Paris. MDCLI. (If our ſeceſſion was ſchiſme, what would that have been?) Both theſe Churches being foreign, by force of the Epheſme Canon (among others) in the caſe of the Arch-Biſhop of Cyprus; p. 8whereby it was Ordered, that the Churches ſhould continue as they were, and not be ſubordinated to any forraign Patriarch. And again, he who conſidereth, That perpetually under the Old Teſtament, and for many ages under the New, Kings and Emperours were acknowledged to have a power of reforming the Church, under their Dominions; That even our Q. Eliſabeth (who is moſt railed at by Romaniſts) claimed no other title, but what Q. Mary & other Romane Catholick Kings and Princes claimed before Her; as may be ſeen in authentick Records; and That, by our Ancient Laws, the Kings of England, (as the Chriſtian Emperours of old) had Supreme juriſdiction, in matters Eccleſiaſticall as well as Civil; and That, by theſe laws, it was death for any man, to publiſh the Popes Bull, without the Kings licenſe; and if any Eccleſiaſticall Court did exceed its juſt limits & juriſdictions, the Kings prohibition was to be obeyed. All which appeareth in Caudries caſe, reported by S^r Edward Coke, in his fifth book, fol. 8. &c. Concerning our ancient Eccleſiaſtical laws, ſee S^r. H. Spelmans Councels. B^p Carltons conſenſus Eccleſiae Cathol. adverſus Tridentinos p. 271. 272. D^r. Hammonds anſwer to the ſix quaeries p. 414. and D. Blondel's Primauté en l' Egliſe. p. 796. And that the Reformation in England was in this particular as regular as poſſibl…; the Clergie deſiring it (in Q. Eliſabeths dayes there were not a hundred Incumbents turned out of their livings, throughout all England) the King, Lords and Commons unanimouſly concurring to it. See a book entituled, An anſwer to that groundleſſe calumny, A Parliamentary Religion, by E. Y. printed at Oxford MDCXLV.

And laſtly; I requeſt thoſe, who are ſo prone to term us Schiſmaticks, to examine, what obligation there lieth upon us to conform any more to Rome then Geneva; and why not to the poore Greek Church, as well as to either, if it have as much truth; or indeed, why not to the Primitive rather than any. Certain I am, that they will never be able to prove out of Antiquity, that if the Biſhop of Rome (or any other Biſhop) require ſubſcription to any errour (eſpecially to any that is p. 9damnable or dangerous) as the condition of their Communion, any man was any longer bound to communicate with them (becauſe then he were bound to communicate in ſinne) or by conſequence to be obedient to them. Whence it will follow, That if the Pope make a new Creed: and put in ſome things that contradict the Apoſtolicall (as he did at Trent: If he will force us to profeſſe and practiſe the contrary to Chriſt's precepts (as in mutilating the Communion; and ſeverall kinds of ſuperſtition, idolatry, and tyranny,) We are not in a Schiſme for not ſubſcribing and obeying, but He for impoſing. And alſo it will follow, that Mons^r. Daillé hath taken a very right method; And that the queſtion of ſchiſme ought to follow, and not go before that of hereſie or errour. For if the Biſhop of Rome be in ſchiſme, we are not then in fault for not remaining under his government, although we had been under it ever ſince the firſt plantation of Chriſtianitie in England (hoc dato, non conceſſo) ſince he now exacteth our aſſent & ſubſcription to a damnable errour, as a part of our Communion. And therefore I cannot but wonder, That the contrary methode being ſo prepoſterous, and againſt both reaſon and the practiſe and opinions of the**Eccleſia non in parietibus conſiſtit, ſed in dogmatum veritate: Eccleſia ibi eſt, ubi ſides vera eſt. Caeterùm ante annos 15 aut 20, parietes omnes hîc Eccleſiatum haeretici poſsidebant. Eccleſia autem illîc erat, ubi fides vera erat. Hieron in Pſal. 133. Nemo mihi dicat, O quid dixit Donatus, aut quid dixit Parm. aut Pontius, aut quilibet eorum? quia nec Catholicis Epiſcopis conſentiendum eſt, ſicubi fortè fallantur ut contra Canonicas Scripturas aliquid ſentiant. Auguſt. de unit. Eccleſ. c. 10. in Edit. Lugdun. Honorati. Anno 1562. Eccleſiam ſuam demonſtrent ſi poſſunt, non in ſermonibus & rumoribus Afrorum, non in Conciliis Epiſcoporum ſuorum, non in literis quorumlibet disputatorum, non in ſignis & prodigiis, fallacibus (quia etiam contra iſta Verbo Domini cauti redditi ſumus) ſed i… praeſcripto Legis, in Prophetarum praedictis, in cantibus Pſalmorum, in ipſius Paſtoris vocibus, in Evangeliſtarum praedicationibus, & laboribus; hoc eſt, in omnibus Canonicis Sanctorum librorum autoritatibus. Eodem lib. c. 16. ejuſdem edit. Ʋtrum ipſi Eccleſiam teneant, non niſi divinarum Scripturarum Canonicis libris oſtendant; quia nec nos propterea dicimus credi oportere, quod in Eccleſia Chriſti ſumus; aut quia ipſam commendavit Optatus, Ambroſius, vel alii innumerabiles noſtrae communionis Epiſcopi; aut quia noſtrorum Collegarum Conciliis praedicata eſt, aut quia per totu orbent tanta mirabilia ſanitatum fiunt, &c. Quaecun que talia in Catholica fiunt, ideò approbantur quia in Catholica fiunt, non ideò manifeſtatur Catholica quia haec in ea fiunt. Ipſe Dominus Ieſus cùm reſurrexiſſet à mortuis, & diſcipulorum oculis corpus ſuum offerret, nè quid tamen fallaciae ſe pati arbitrarentur, magis eos teſtimoniis Legis & Prophetarum, & Pſalmorum confirmandos eſſe …udicavit. ibid. Non audiamus, Haec dico, ſed haec dicit Dominus. Sunt certè libri Dominici quorum Autoritati utrique conſentimus. Ibi quaeramus Eccleſiam, ibi diſcutiamus cauſam noſtram. Eod. l. c. 2. & 3. foreign; &c. foreign. Chryſ. in Act. hom. 33.Ps 133Eccl 10 Fathers, ſhould be ſo much uſed among the Romaniſts: For thereby they do not examine but praeſuppoſe the concluſion. Firſt, they would have us grant, That the Church of Rome is the onelyonly true Church on earth, and then examine whether ſhe ſpeak truth, and whether we did well in ſeparating from her.

p. 10But I wonder at Cardinal Perron more then at any man, That he (conſidering his vaſt underſtanding,—foreign, and large preamble of two leaves, concerning the benefit and neceſſity of a good definition) ſhould (Repl. lib. 1. c. 8.) define the Church to be a ſocietie of thoſe whom God hath called to ſalvation, by the profeſſion of the TRUE FAITH, ſincere adminiſtration of the Sacraments, and adherence to lawfull Paſtours: and yet that he ſhould both uſe the Romaniſts method, and find fault with them that do not, ibid. c. 4. For if the Church be ſuch a Society; Either every member of that Church is obliged to know, (and therefore to examine) the true Faith, and ſincere adminiſtration of the Sacraments; or he is obliged to make profeſſion of that which he doth not know, and hath not examined. Which is far beneath a rationall man, much more a Chriſtian.

And in truth, this I take to be the firſt particular that ſhould be conſidered. For unleſſe men before they diſpute, will be perſwaded to agree upon the ſtate of the queſtions, and in p. 11what order they ſhould be handled; they muſt needs end their diſcourſe where they ſhould have begun it: as to inſtance in the point in hand; D^r Potter p. 81. proveth that it is lawfull to abſtain from communicating with a Church that impoſeth the profeſſion of her corruptions, as a condition of her communion, Becauſe 'tis lawfull to ſeparate from any other corrupted Societie in the like caſe: as if a Monaſtery ſhould reform it ſelf, and reduce into practiſe ancient good diſcipline, when others would not, &c. or if a ſocietie of men be univerſally infected with ſome diſeaſe, &c. M. Knot in anſwer alters the caſe, very ingenuouſly, to the quite contrary, c. 5. § 31. M. Chillingworth moderates it, to do him a courteſie, c. 5. §. 85. In requitall whereof, M^r. K. firſt blames him for it, and then begs the queſtion; ſaying, That in the queſtion between the Church of Rome and us there is a divine command, not to depart whatever ſhe impoſe. So that till the queſtions be ſtated right, & in due method, that is, till it be examined whether the Church of Rome have corruptions and impoſe them, 'twill never appeare, whether ſhe or we be in the ſchiſme.

And certes, methinks it is not fair, to beg the queſtion ſo oft as he doth, & tell us that we are no Chriſtians, unleſſe we are infallibly certain that the Church is infallible; and yet never pretend to prove it ſo, by any other motives than thoſe of credibility, which at beſt are but probable: and to me they ſeem not ſuch. I proteſt, I have oft wiſht heartily they did, having found ſo many diſcouragements for a ſcholar in late years, that I long ſince concluded him a wiſeman, who ſaid, He that encreaſeth notions, encreaſeth ſorrow, & Much ſtudy is a wearineſſe to the fleſh, Eccleſ. i. 18. xii. 12. concluding that the love of learning and truth (which is the moſt that I pretend to) would not onelyonly be tedious, but ſinfull, if felicitie could be attained full as well without it: which it might, if it were infallibly certain, that the Romane Church is infallible. And ſo while M^r. Knot goes about to prove that reaſon overthroweth Chriſtian Religion; and tells us that it muſt be built onelyonly upon the Authority of the Church, and then p. 12builds that Authoritie onelyonly upon reaſons, and thoſe very weak ones, and no way able to ſupport his ſuperſtructure, he will let all fall, unleſſe the ſame faculty be a pillar under his arm, and a bulruſh under ours. And though he make great uſe of interjections in exclaiming againſt Chillingworth and other Proteſtants in England, for pulling down, he will never deſerve any thanks (in my opinion) of the Chriſtian world, for this building. Which mindeth me of the ſecond particular I intend to ſpeak of, viz.

II. The occaſion of printing this book. I confeſſe, though it were tranſlated ſeveral years ſince, at the urgency of ſome learned friends, whoſe judgement concerning the acutenes of it, I had more reaſon to truſt then mine own: yet I was very unwilling to publiſh it, till now that I am convinced of the ſeaſonableneſſe of it, being certified from Engliſh Seminaries beyond the ſeas, indè Quòd nuper-veteres cōmigravere coloni; and convinced by relations from Newcaſtle, Brecknock, and other places on this ſide the water, That they are very buſie at ſuch harveſt-work here, as Parſons the Engliſh Jeſuite (in his**It is entituled, A memoriall for Reformation; or A Remembrance for them that ſhall live, when Catholick Religion ſhall be reſtored into England. Wherein are directions, in ſo many ſeverall chapters, what he thought beſt to be done, as well in the Court as Countrey, with the King and Counſell, as with the reſt of the Nobility, and Commonalty; Clergy as Laity, when this Nation ſhall be (as he ſaid he was confident it would be) reduced. In ſumme, he would have its Grand-Charter burnt, the manner of holding lands in fee-ſimple, fee-tail, frank almain, Kings ſervice, &c. wholly aboliſhed, the Municipall laws abrogated, and the Inns of Court converted to ſome other uſe: That for Lawyers. Then for Divines: The Colledges in both Ʋniverſities ſhould be wholly in the power of ſix men, who ſhould have all the Lands, Mannors, Lordſhips, Parſonages, &c. and what ever elſe belonged to Church or Cloyſter, reſigned into their hands; allowing to the Biſhops, Parſons, and Vicars, competent ſtipends and penſions to live upon, according as Biſhops-Suffragans, and Mont ſeniors have allowance in other Catholick Countreys. Theſe are Parſons own words: That at the beginning no mans conſcience be preſſed for matters in Religion: then, That publick disputations between Papiſts and Proteſtants, be held in both the Ʋniverſities. That for ſome years it will be more commodious for the publick, and more liberty for the Preachers, to have no appropriation nor obligation to any particular benefice, but Itinera.—Mitto caetera. He that would know more of it, may read the book it ſelf, (for which I heard ſome Romaniſts laſt yeare commend M. Parſons) or (becauſe that is rare) he may peruſe a book of the ſame Parſons, entituled, A Manifeſtation of the folly and bad ſpirit of certain in England, calling themſelves Secular Prieſts: wherein this Memorial is owned by him, and analyſed, and excuſed, from fol. 55. to 63. Or, W. Clark (a Romane Prieſt) his anſwer to the Manifeſtation, entituled, A Reply unto a certain Libell, lately ſet forth by Fa. Parſons: pag. 74. &c. Or Watſons quodlibets, p. 92, 93, 94. together with the Reply to a brief Apologie, and ſeverall other books, which (fifty years agoe) the Prieſts wrote againſt the Jeſuites, and the Jeſuites againſt the Prieſts. Whereby he may (in tranſitu) perceive, that there be as many and as great differences between them, as among Proteſtants. Memorial written at Sevil 1596) and Contzen the Moguntine Jeſ. (in the ſecond book of his Politicks, and 18. chap. and Campanella in his Monarchia Hiſpan.) appointed them; being told by the London Book-ſellers. who are the moſt competent judges quiſque in arte ſua, (Beacon fired p. 6.) that at leaſt thirty thouſand Popiſh books p. 13have been printed there, within theſe three laſt years; and in a book entituled, The Petition of the ſix Counties of South-Wales, and the County of Monmouth to the late Parliament, of whole Pariſhes faln off to Popery, ſince the Miniſters have been caſt out; and yet many men ask, WHAT NEED OF A CLERGY? Alas! I cannot but tremble to ſee how paſſionately they are in love with ruine, and purſue nakedneſſe, vengeance, and deſolation? [foreign Prov. xxix. 18.] In a word, knowing turpius ejicitur, &c. that men are with more eaſe kept within the Church of England, then reduced to it; and ſeeing many daily, who formerly have been the moſt forward to cry, Venient Romani—poſting out of it, and furious for Romane ſuperſtition, falling (as 'tis the cuſtome of the giddy vulgar) from one extreme to another: Eſpecially conſidering that the zeal of the greateſt member of our Paſtours (moſt whereof might far better be ſpent in preſſing and perſwading men to p. 14pious converſations] is altogether laid out in controverſies of a leſſe nature and importance (which, by the way, may be one cauſe of the ſpreading of Popery) I thought this book would now at length prove very ſeaſonable. And if it may pleaſe the Almighty of his goodneſſe, to let it be as ſucceſſefull in ſtopping the increaſe of the Romane Religion in England, at it was in hindring the perſecution of the Proteſtants in France; I ſhall not think one minute of the ſpare-houres, that I employed in tranſlating it, loſt. But if withall, it prove inſtrumentall to the abating of any mans heat for ceremonies and externals, or cauſe him to ſpend it (where it ought) in conſtant devotion to God alone, and unfeigned Chriſtian charitie toward all his brethren, and reuniting the ſhattered pieces of groaning Chriſtendome; and ſo induce any one man to live a Holy life (which queſtionleſſe is or ſhould be the main end of all our preaching, religion, and controverſies) I ſhall really deem it the happieſt time that ever I beſtowed.

The chief book that is now extolled by our Romaniſts is one lately ſet forth by M^r Edward Knot, alias Nich. Smith, whoſe true name is Matthew Wilſon, born at Pegsworth neare Morpeth in Northumberland; who was for ſeverall years Profeſſor of Divinity at the Engliſh Colledge in Rome; then Vice-Provinciall; and that he might finiſh this his laſt book the better, was made Provinciall of all Engliſh Jeſuits; all which I am informed by ſome of his own Countrey-men and Society. The book is entituled▪ Infidelity unmasked, or the Confutation of M^r Chillingworth, &c. Wherewith if any wavering Proteſtant chance to be ſhaken in his belief (whereof though the Romaniſts generally boaſt much, I ſee no danger becauſe I have, aſter much enquiry, not heard of two in England that have had the patience to read it over, 'Tis ſo full of monſtrous**p. 52. § 18. p.337. § 75. p. 354. l. 20. p. 495. l. 31. p. 648. l. ult. p. 728. l. ult. &c. p. 808. l. 20. pag. 812. lin. 16. But I delight not camerinam movere, ſince (to ſay nothing of Mr. P. du Moulin and other Proteſtant collections, which I think not ſo conſiderable in this kind) the Romaniſts have written ſo much againſt one another, in ſeverall languages, to this purpoſe, that my ſoul oft bleedeth in ſecret to foreſee, That if they proceed thus, The reducing (if not this, yet) the next age to the good old Chriſtianity (wherein as Epiphan. witneſſeth foreign & foreign divided the world into hereticall and Orthodox Profeſſours) or even to morall honeſty (while gain ſhall be counted godlineſſe, and è contra) will be found a matter of farre more difficulty and miracle, than at the firſt plantation, as Aphoriſmes ou Sommaire de la doctrine des Jeſuites par lesquels le vray Chriſtianiſme eſt corrompu 1610. Mercure Jeſuite 1631. Myſteria Jeſuitarum. 1633. Theologie morale des Jeſuites extraict fidellement de leurs liures Contre la Morale Chriſtienne. which laſt the Sorbon Doctours publiſht. They and the Lovain have publiſht ſeverall other Common-places or catalogues of Jeſuiticall opinions, ſhewing that they teach a large number of opinions, which open a wide door to treachery, revenge, covetouſneſſe, debauchedneſſe, &c. And 'tis likely the Jeſuits who are ſeldome behind-hand when they are able, have done as much for them. Mean while, I pray, God preſerve Chriſtianity! tenents and impertinencies) I ſhall intreat (for p. 15his ſatisfaction) to read likewiſe over M^r Chillingworth's book, againſt which it was writ; and he ſhall find M^r Chillingworth's a ſufficient anſwer to it, if he pleaſe to compare Section with Section, from the beginning to the end of each. For he will perceive, That the moſt weighty arguments of M^r. Chillingworth (as all the Anſwer to the Directions of N. N. that is, M^r Knot, wherein Maſter Chill. drew up, and proved, an high charge of Atheiſme and Socinianiſme, againſt M^r Knot and his party, and cleared himſelf; and ſo many places as it would be tedious to ſpecifie) are paſſed by as the ſick man, in the high way, was by the Jew without notice taken: And the reſt ſo jejunely handled, and ſo farre from a complete anſwer (though 'tis ſufficiently known, That M^r K. being in ſuch high place, and dividing part of the task among many of his Inferiours, and making uſe of thoſe three folio's writ by M^r G. H. againſt M^r Chill. [which D^r Hammond mentioneth in his unanſwerable Defence of the L^d Falkland] and other the like helps had all the humane advantages that could be had) ſo little touched, that methinks he may well unchriſten his book p. 16a little more, and recall that foreign, The confutation of M^r Chillingworths book, reſerving onelyonly the reſt, Infidelity unmasked. And that in relation to himſelf.

I ſhall give M^r K. a large catalogue of his omiſſions, when he ſhall think fit to anſwer M^r Chillingworths Preface, to the Authour of charity maintained; or (becauſe that would perhaps be too long a trouble) when he ſhall anſwer onelyonly the laſt page of M^r Chillingworths book (which in juſtice ſhould have been done 19 years ſince) containing … eleven diſcourſes of D^r Potter, which were never yet …ched; although M^r Chill. concludeth his firſt part in theſe words; Now at laſt, when you are admoniſhed of it, that my Reply may be perfect, I would entreat you to take them into your conſideration: promiſing the ſecond part of his Reply, when M^r K. ſhould deſire it, but it ſeems he had enough of the firſt, which made him deſire to ſmother the ſecond.

In the interim, I cannot but mind M^r Knot of one § containing two pages ('tis the 96^th of the 5^th c. of M. Chill.) which he paſſeth over as ordinary Commentatours do over hard places, ſaying not a word to it. Which I am minded of by Mons^r Milletiere's Rhetorick, concerning the inconſiſtency of Proteſtant Religion with civil government. And I do the more earneſtly beſeech him to anſwer it, becauſe I ſee he ſalls ſometimes into the ſame ſtrain, and becauſe I bear a great love to the perſons of ſome in the Romane Communion, and have been many years troubled with an**That which one or two, or ſome few Romane Catholick Doctours ſay is lawfull, may (in the judgement of Papiſts) be done, without mortall ſinne. [the major is M. Knots, Charity maintained c. 4. ſect. 25. as alſo Valentia's, Vaſquez, Leſsius, Enriquez, Sa. Cellot de Hiſt. l. 8. c. 16. p. 714.] But not onelyonly one, but many Rom. Cath. Doctours ſay, 'Tis lawfull to murder or depoſe a Supreme Magiſtrate, that is guilty of hereſie, or ſuſpected of it. Cavete Principes conclaſioneni. argument, which the learned D^r Jer. Taylor brings p. 50, & 51. of his ſermon on the Gunpowder-Treaſon (having in my ſmall peruſall of Popiſh writers, met with many confirmations, both of major and minor propoſition; p. 17which I ſhall produce, when need requires: but I think it doth not now, becauſe I muſt be ſhort; and the D^r hath ſaid enough in that excellent ſermon. Which ſeemeth to me to contain a very ſufficient anſwer to a book lately written by a Romaniſt, entituled, The Chriſtian Moderatour.

Beſides, that I am most credibly informed, by a Perſon of great quality and integrity (who ſaw both the ſubſcriptions and excommunication) That thoſe many Engliſh Recuſants, whom he mentioneth p. 17, and 37. were all excommunicated for ſubſcribing thoſe three moderate negative propoſitions, which are there ſet down as the Doctrine of the Engliſh Rom. Catholiques, concerning the Popes power over the Supreme Magiſtrate.

I was ever a great enemy to rancour in diſpute, and am of that Viſcounts mind, who thought, That there ought to be no more bitterneſſe in a treatiſe of Controverſie then in a Love-letter. And therefore though I never ſaw M^r Chillingworth (whom I find commended by M^r **Is it not a ſhame that learned men ſhould blame this [opinion concerning reaſon] in Maſter Chillingworth, Doctour Hammond, &c. and thereby advance Socinianiſme, and ruine Chriſtianity. Saints reſt. Praef. to the 2. part. p. 18. & ſaepe alibi. —foreign foreignBaxter and other eminent Divines; and commended by his Adverſaries for a devout and rationall man) yet I cannot but be moved with pitty and grief to ſee, how M^r Knot (who beſpattereth Caſaubon, and ſeverall other very learned men) inſulteth over M^r Chillingworth now being dead: who would not come near him to diſpute while he was alive, though M^r Chillingworth at ſundry times and by ſeverall wayes entreated and ſolicited, nay preſſed and importuned him to it, before the printing of this ſolio. (See The Anſwer to the direction to N. N. § 4. and afterwards, as I am told by them that knew him) which he ſurvived ſeven years. How after ſeventeen years studying to lay this Hector in the dust, M^r Knot ſets ſorth a book, wherein (to ſpeak first of the manner of his diſcourſe) the chief p. 18thing be doth, is to ſcare his Reader with mormforeigns (fortiter calumniando Antagoniſtam, ut aliquid haereat, as his policy was in Tacitus) chiefly beſpattering him (and that almoſt in every page) with odious imputations of ſuch opinions, whereof he cannot point us out one in all his volumne, concerning which he (who best knew his own belief, and is long ſince gone to anſwer for it, good or bad) ſaid, more than once, as in his Anſwer to the directions to N. N. § 28. Whoſoever teacheth or holdeth them LET HIM BE ANATHEMA! In which volumne, though M^r Knot declaim oft against reaſon, and ſay, That to it the myſteries of Chriſtian Religion ſeem impoſſible. c. xiii. § 27. p. 808. pro 812. yet he thinks it fitting to charge his Adverſary with the ſayings not onelyonly of S^t Auguſtine, B^•. Andrews, Hooker, Grotius, Calvin, Beza, and the like learned men, who yet confeſſed themſelves men; but alſo of Luther, Socinus, Crellius, Volkelius, Bonaventure, Halenſis, Dionyſ. Areopagita, and I know not what other rabble; as if poor Chillingworth were bound to defend all whoſoever, that wrote before him: Whereas all the world knows, That he who would not believe the Romane Church (whereof he had been a member) upon her own bare word, would as little believe any particular member of that, or any other Society upon theirs; and that he diſclaimed not her pretended Infallibility (which was her worst fault, as making all the rest, how damnable ſoever, incurable) that he might affix it upon another, or the next man he met; though never ſo learned, or pious. And if M^r. K. will think it unjust, That he ſhould be put to maintain the writings of all Papists, or even of thoſe few, of his own late Order; his citing ſo much the opinions of Protestants out of our Adverſary Brerely, is no argument, but of his own unreaſonableneſſe.

I ſhall not take notice of half his impertinencies: not how he grants, what M^r Chill. affirmed, concerning ſome mens believing contradictions p. 803. lin. 5. There is no doubt, ſaith he, but that men may believe things, which in themſelves are contradictions. & p. 810. l. 18. 'Tis p. 19needleſſe to be proved, it being a thing which no man denyeth. And yet, how in attempting to ſhew, that Maſter Chillingworth's reaſons do not prove it, he ſpends from p. 802. to 815. To take notice of all ſuch peccadilloes would be very tedious to Thee and me. OnelyOnly becauſe I have mentioned his citing Brerely ſo oft (and not onelyonly M^r K. but most of the other Engliſh Advocates for the Church of Rome are very faulty therein) give me leave to adde a little, in that particular.

M^r Chill. c. 5. § 91. anſwering M^r Knots alledging the confeſſion of Proteſtants concerning the Antiquity of ſome Doctrines in the Church of Rome, ſets down twenty Doctrines of that Church, and entreateh M^r K. to inform him what confeſſion of Protestants he hath for them, viz. Communion in one kind, Lati…e Service, Indulgences, the Popes power in temporalities over Princes, picturing the Trinity, worſhipping of pictures, and of the B. Virgin, her immaculate conception, infallibility of the Pope or Church, auricular Confeſſion, &c. And that as ſome Protestants confeſſe the Antiquity, but alwayes poſtnate to Apoſtolick, of ſome Romane points; ſo there want not Papists, who acknowledge as freely the novelty of many of them, and the Antiquity of ours. To which, all that M^r K. anſwereth is p. 867. as followeth. 1. Some of theſe things are not matters of faith: and ſome other points are even ridiculous. 2. We deny that any Cath. approved. Authour, acknowledgeth the novelty of any of our Doctrines, or the antiquity of yours; except ſuch were ancient hereſies. How truly ſpoken the first is, the Reader may judge; if he have read the Canons of the Councel of Trent, Luc. Wadding's foreign or Hiſtory of the Immaculate conception printed at Lovain 1624. or any few Romane authours: How true the ſecond, if he'l vouchſafe to examine the places I have cited p. 6. or theſe which follow.

Though there are ſome Proteſtants who confeſſe the Antiquity (though not Primitive, which is the onelyonly Antiquity they hold obliging) of ſome few Romane Doctrines; ſo there are not a few Doctours & Writers of their own Communion, who acknowledge, p. 20as liberally, the novelty of very many others: as, 1 that Tranſubſtantiation was not named, much leſſe made an Article of faith, before the Laterane Councel (Bellarm. de Sacram. l. 2. c. 25.) 2 That for the firſt MCC years, the Holy Cup was adminiſtred to the Laity: (Lindan. Panopl. l. 4. part. 2. c. 56. § Hunc igitur. Caſſander ſaepe. Albaſpinaeus Obſerv. Sacr. l. 1. c. 4. And your friend Petavius in his Treatiſe againſt Arnault, (de la frequent. Communion.) ſaith, None but an extreme ignorant, or impudent fellow can deny it. 3. That they beleeved the ſacrifice of the Euchariſt to be but the IMAGE or COMMEMORATION of our Saviours ſacrifice on the Croſſe: (Lombard. Sent. l. 4. c. 12. & Aqu. 3. p. qu. 83. art. 1. incorp.) 4. That the Primitive Chriſtians celebrated not the Euchariſt as the Romane Church doth now: (Durand. ration. div. offic. lib. 4. c. 1. Rupertus Abbas Tuit. Divin. Offic. l. 2. c. 21.) [he that readeth Juſtin Martyr in his Apology, largely deſcribing the cuſtome of the Primitives in his dayes, may think he ſpeaks of the Proteſtants now.] 5. That Divine Service was celebrated for many ages in a tongue underſtood by the people: (Nic. de Lyr. in 1. ad Cor. 14. Caſſander in Liturg. c. 28. Alphonſ. à Caſtro de juſta pun. haeret. l. 3. c. 6.) where, deſending this differing from the Primitive Church, he ſaith, That he who ſhould now conform to THEM, would be accounted not onelyonly an impious man, but an Infidel. 6. That the Fathers exhorted the people to read the Scriptures: (Azor. mor. l. 8. c. 26. part. 1. § reſpondeo.) 7. That they generally condemned the worſhip of Images for fear of Idolatry: (Polyd. Virg. de invent. rerum, l. 6. c. 13.) In which treatiſe, that learned Italian oft ingemiouſly acknowledgeth the novelty of moſt of their cuſtomes in the Church of Rome, except ſuch as came from Jews or Pagans. As (lib. 5. c. 4.) where he ſaith, 8 God and the Primitive Church permitted marriage to Prieſts, and Pope Siricius (who lived at the end of the fourth century) was the firſt that forbad it; whoſe laws to that purpoſe, p. 21though they came out very thick, were little heeded till the eleventh Age. See Gloſſ. decret. diſt. 84. c. 3. and P. Pius II. in his 130. Epiſt. againſt the Bohemians and Taborites; where he oppoſeth the Modern Church to the Primitive. 9. That MCCCC. years after Chriſt, many learned Romaniſts denied the Popes judgement to be infallible. (Gerſon. Almain. Alphonſus. Adrian. PP. apud Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2. § Secunda opinio.) 10. Or his authority to be above that of a generall Councel: (Camaracenſis. Gerſon. Almain. Cuſan. Panormitan. Abulenſis apud Bell. de Conc. l. 2. c. 14. initio.) 11. That the Maſſe was not inſtituted by Chriſt and the Apoſtles (who at the conſecration uſed onelyonly the Lords Prayer) but DC years after them by Gregory I. Platin. in vit. Sixti I. & Gregor. I. Gregor. Epiſt. l. 7. c. 63. p. 664. edit. Pariſ. 1571. And all the world knows how lately, and through how pleaſant a trick, the Gregorian Miſſall came in uſe, in ſtead of the Ambroſian; becauſe being laid upon S. Peters Altar, it was torn in peices in the night. The ſtory may be read at large in Durand's Rational. divin. offic. l. 5. c. 2. § 5. p. 212. And with what a deal of violence and difficultie, this Gregorian Miſſall was brought into Spain, may be ſeen in Rod. Ximenes his Hiſtory of Spain, l. 6. c. 26. Caſſand. Praef. de Ord. Rom. 12. That Purgatory was very little, or not at all, mentioned among the Ancients; a thing unknown to Antiquity; and received into the Church but lately. Epiſc. Fiſher. Aſſert. Lutherane conſutat. Artic. XVIII. 13. That, after PƲRGATORY, came in INDƲLGENCES. Idem ibid. Durand. Antoninus apud Bellarm. and, That the Jubilee was inſtituted MCCC yeares after Chriſt, by that good man P. Boniface, who (their Hiſtorians ſay) came in like a fox, raigned like a lion, and died like a dog. See a treatiſe of Indulgences; writ by Weſſelus, al. Baſil Groningenſis. and another of the Jubilee by Santarel the Jeſuite. 14. Laſtly, (for ſuch citations would be endleſſe, as I might mind you, who it was that Nicephorus Caliſthus p. 22ſaith, brought Prayer to Saints into the publick Liturgy, &c. According as M. Knot anſwers or approves of theſe, I will give him more, which I have in readineſſe.) Alphonſus à Caſtro in his Treatiſe, de juſta punit. Haeretic. l. 2. c. 22. ſpeaking of divers ceremonies, which the Church of Rome uſeth in the conſecration of Temples, Altars, Chalices, habits, ornaments, ſaith, NONE of theſe things were inſtituted by Jeſus Chriſt, but in after-times, by little and little, inſtituted by the Church.

Yet give me leave to adde one thing more; That 'tis cleare to me, None of the Ancient Chriſtians believed the Church of Rome to be a Guide, or Judge of all Controverſies in Chriſtianity: wherein M^r. K. may do very well to ſatisfie me, or [as his friends do] blame them, for this reaſon among many, Becauſe in Epiphanius, S. Auguſtine, and others their Catalogues of Hereticks, none are branded for denying this which they all did. And if it had been believed at all (eſpecially as it is generally now, viz. to be the original of all other hereſies, it had been farre more rationall to have put in this; and left out all the reſt; then to have dealt with poſterity as we ſee they have. That Tertullian, Vincentius Lirinenſis, and ſeverall others ſhould give us rules to know Hereticks by, and forget this, the main and cleareſt. And, which is ſtranger yet, that not onelyonly Optatus (l. 5. contra Parmen. mihi p. 130.) after a long diſcourſe againſt the Donatiſt, about the unlawfulneſſe of rebaptization [Inter licet veſtrûm & non licet noſtrûm, nutant & remigant animae populorum: Well, what muſt be done in this caſe? Quaerendi ſunt judices. Who ſhall they be? Si Chriſtiani—Si Paganus—Si Judaeus— inconveniences on every ſide] ſhould conclude, Ergò in terris hac de re nullum poterit reperiri judicium, de coelo quaerendus eſt Judex.—Habemꝰ in Evangelio Teſtamentum. And S. Auguſt. to the ſame purpoſe (in Pſal. xxi. èxpoſition. 2. Tabulae aperiantur, legantur verba mortui. That, I ſay, not onelyonly Optatus that learned Biſhop, and other Ancients ſhould be ſo much in thoſe early dayes miſtaken (for certainly your Church was not p. 23then in heaven) but S. Paul alſo writing a very long epiſtle to the Romanes, and ſetting down therein arguments againſt ſeverall hereſies ſhould conclude with quiſque ſuo ſenſu abundet [if I may believe your Bible] Rom. xiv. 5. & oportet eſſe haereſes; and not mention a word of any infallible remedy, or Judge at Rome: which news would have been worth all the reſt of the Epiſtle.

And again, That not onelyonly all the Fathers of the firſt CCC yeares, ſhould paſſe over this opinion of the Romane Churches great Authority in ſilence (the believing or disbelieving which alone, with the Romaniſts now, denominates every man a Catholick or an Heretick) but that the Hiſtorians alſo of thoſe dayes ſhould ſay nothing of it, if ſhe had any ſuch thing, ſeemeth no more probable to me, then that any learned man hereafter will write the Chronicle of England, for theſe twelve years laſt, and never mention the Lords Fairfax or Cromwell.

Having ſaid thus much in generall concerning the manner of M. Knots diſputes, and his unfitting Topicks, wherein he miſtaketh Antiquity for Truth, & citations out of Proteſtants (oft falſified) for infallible concluſions: and beſeeching M. Knot, if he ſhall vouchſafe an anſwer to this paper, not to skip over theſe two laſt leaves, but to give me ſome reaſon, Why any Chriſtian is BOUND to believe ſuch poſitions as are confeſſedly novell? And if he will ſay, that all (which he cannot with modeſty; or that any, which he cannot with truth) of the forenamed Romane Doctours, ſpeak that which is not true; that he would conſider how he puts into my mouth, what to anſwer to much that he alledgeth out of Proteſtant Doctours againſt Mr. Chillingworth: I come now to take a ſhort view of his particular diſcourſes, and begin at his Preface.

Pref. p. 4. and 5. After he hath given his Readers ſome admonitions how to read his book [I wiſh that he pretending to anſwer the whole, had printed M. Chill's with it, that we might the more readily have compared them] and told them, that one half of CHARITY MAINTAINED p. 24is yet unanſwered [he who readeth Mr. Chill's book, or but the laſt lines of it, ſees the reaſon of that] he profeſſeth, That he will not meddle with Mr. Chill's anſwer to the direct. to N. N. (very ingenuouſly ſpoken!) but why? becauſe it is confuted by a book entituled, THE JƲDGEMENT OF AN ƲNIVERSITY-MAN CONCERNING Mr. CHILLINGWORTHS PAMPHLET: 'twas a pretty little Pamphlet! but whether that Judgement of an Univerſity-man, which I never met with any man whoſoever that ſaw (unleſſe ſuch to whom I have ſhew'd it) be a reall anſwer to any page of Mr. Chill's book, any more then Chaucers tales are, I deſire any unprejudiced man to determine. OnelyOnly I muſt take notice (as I paſſe) that Mr Knot doth very well, to obſerve ſo ſoon that precept, which Tully gives his Oratour (and Ulyſſes in Ovid, againſt Ajax, practiſeth) to skip over the hardeſt arguments. What 'tis in an Oratour I'le not ſay; but I am ſure, it is no great ſigne of a good Diſputant.

The next thing he telleth us is [§. 10. and 11. and ſo to the end af the Preface] how the very title of Mr. Chill's book may be conſuted out of Mr. Chill's own words: for which he citeth p. 21. mihi lin. 3. from whence M. Knot concludeth, That millions of Proteſtants erre damnably; and that Mr. Chill. affirmeth, That the Proteſtant Religion is no ſafe way to ſalvation. I anſwer: I confide, (to uſe Mr. Knots words) that every indifferent Reader will find this to be clearly falſe: For firſt, he ſpeaketh no more of Proteſtants than Papiſts, but equally of both. Secondly, he ſaith not categorically they do erre, but it is to be feared they (both Proteſtants and Papiſts) do. Thirdly, he ſaith not abſolutely neither, but on ſuppoſition, IF any Proteſtant or Papiſt be held in any errour by any ſinne of their will, then ſuch errour is as the cauſe of it, ſinfull and damnable. And this none that I know, unleſſe himſelf, will or can deny. It being a truth ſufficiently manifeſt; and aſſerted by his great Maſters, P. Lombard, and T. Aquinas, and the greateſt ſtream of Schole-men and Caſuiſts. And to tell Mr. Knot my mind freely, I am clearly of Mr. Chill's p. 25opinion, viz. That Proteſtant Religion is a ſafe way to ſalvation, and yet that many Proteſtants go to hell: That there are millions of Proteſtants, who think, not to be a Papiſt, is enough not to be damned: and millions of Papiſts who think not to be a Proteſtant, is enough to oblige Almighty God, and merit heaven. And I take both parties to be extreme blame-worthy for deeming ſo; and Mr. Knot muſt give me leave to wonder, if any rationall man ſhall blame me for ſaying ſo, without giving his reaſons.

Now we come to M^r Knots very large Introduction, where § 2. p. 38. he layeth down this propoſition to be proved, Chriſtian Religion is abſolutely and infallibly true. And ſo he ſpends you above fifteen ſheets in pretending to prove it, and the Neceſſity of Grace; and the firſt of theſe by the laſt. And if M^r Chill. neither denied the neceſſity of Grace, nor the infallibility of Chriſtian Religion, I deſire the Reader to conſider whether he have not fifteen ſheets together of impertinencies. And that M^r Chill. denyed neither of theſe, will clearly enough appear to any that are not willing to be deceived, if they can ſpare leiſure to read over M^r Chillingworth's pamphlet (as M^r Knots friend calls it) or but conſult thoſe very paſſages from which M^r K. taketh the occaſion of theſe long diſcourſes, and which he citeth out of Maſter Chillingworths ſixth Chapter; where his 3^d § begins thus, I do HEARTILY acknowledge, and believe the Articles of our Faith to be in themſelves Truths, as certain and INFALLIBLE as the very common principles of GEOMETRY and MATHEMATICKS. But as if M^r K. (notwithſtanding the Metaphyſicks he boaſteth ſo much of) knew not the difference between certitudo objecti & ſubjecti, he ſeeketh advantage from what followeth immediately, viz. But That there is required of us a knowledge of them, and an adherence to them, of SENSE or SCIENCE; That ſuch a certainty is required of us UNDER PAIN OF DAMNATION: So that NO man CAN HOPE to be in a ſtate of ſalvation but he p. 26that finds in himſelf ſuch a degree of faith, ſuch a ſtrength of adherence; This I have already demonſtrated to be a great errour, and of dangerous and pernicious conſequence. And becauſe I am more and more confirmed in my perſwaſion, I will here confirm it with reaſons, &c. p. 311. From which paſſage whether any juſt advantage can be taken, (eſpecially for a digreſſion of ſo many ſheets) let every unpaſſionate Reader judge.

Chap. 1. § 2. p. 38. He layes down this propoſition to be proved, Chriſtian faith is abſolutely and infallibly true: by Chriſtian faith he explains (two lines after his propoſition.) himſelf to mean, the true Religion. Now 1. This is the ſame vein of Sophiſtry which I noted even now, and runnes through the whole book, when he ſpeaks of infallibility. The queſtion being not at all de certitudine objecti but ſubjecti; not whether divine truths be abſolutely infallible, (this none doubteth, who admits a God, in the true notion) but whether we are infallibly certain, That theſe or thoſe poſitions are Divine truths. 2. Maſter Chill. tells us in the ninth § of his Concluſion, that the end of his book was to confirm the truth of the divine & infallible Religion of Jeſus Chriſt. 3. M^r K. takes notice of it, and citeth that very paſſage, and ſuch others. [c. 1. § 39. p. 66.] So that to make a great noiſe againſt M^r Chill. and to endeavour to prove againſt him, what he believeth and granteth (nay what he knoweth, and confeſſeth he grants; as M^r K. doth here, and oft elſewhere) is ſuch a piece of Jeſuitical induſtry and civility, as Proteſtants never learnt. 4. He tells us, that in the proof of this propoſition, he maintaineth the cauſe of All Chriſtians, and of all men and mankind. 'Tis a comfort to meet with ſuch a charitable perſon. But if he have all Chriſtians, nay all men, all mankind, of his perſwaſion (and ſaith ſo himſelf) who are his adverſaries? If all men, all mankind be for the infallibility of all faith, then ſure M^r Chill. is ſo too (for though I never ſaw or knew him, otherwiſe then by his printed book, I ever took him for a man; and I p. 27believe M^r K. who hath reaſon to know him better then I, hath found him ſo:) And if all be not of Maſter Knots mind, then nothing can be concluded hence, but that he was in a paſſion, when he wrote this book: & ſo may be the better excuſed for declaming againſt reaſon. But 5. Had M^r K. read Sextus Empericus, and been acquainted with the Pyrrhonians, he might have found many (and they no fools, but famous Philoſophers) who were not for his abſolute infallibility.

And I wiſh Mr. Knot may never be one of them. I hope be is, and will continue, a Chriſtian. OnelyOnly give me leave to tell him, That if nothing elſe could be ſaid for the truth of our Chriſtian Religion, but what is in his Infidelitie unmasked, and Vanninus his Amphitheatrum, heu! actum eſſet de Palladio. Since (not to trouble you with tranſcribing his poſitions, which I cited pag. 14.) having told us, That it is neceſſary that ſupernaturall knowledge ſhould be moſt certain and infallible; and, That a man is as happy without any belief of Chriſtian Religion, as without one that is infallible, he ſaith, p. 52. That 'tis impoſſible Chriſtian Religion can retain the higheſt degree of probability, if it have no greater perfection then it receiveth from the ſole probable arguments of credibility. And then (throughout the whole book) he hath not one argument which pretends to reach higher than to a probability (I wiſh any of them would reach ſo high) for the infallibility of the Church or living Judge (upon which he endeavours to build all the reſt) unleſſe you will grant (which indeed he contendeth hard for) Concluſionem non ſemper ſequi deteriorem partem, That the concluſion may ſometimes be ſtronger than the premiſes. And indeed it concerns him, to deſire it ſhould be granted: for the premiſes which he bringeth, cannot poſſibly be any juſt foundation of his confident concluſions.

But let us come to his proofs: p. 2. §. 2. he goes about to prove, Chriſtian faith is infallible, and exempt from all poſſibility of errour, or falſhood. His end is, as I ſaid before, p. 28that he may prove the Romane Faith and Church infallible: His medium is this, FAITH is the gift of God, and the prime veritie cannot inſpire a falſhood. This I confeſſe is an argument to prove the infallibility of the Church, which I never met or heard of before. And I doubt it will prove more then he would have it, viz. That Proteſtants (ſince they have faith, as Mr. Knot in Cha. Ma. par. 1. c. 1. §. 3, 4. granteth they have [unleſſe he'l ſay, a man may be ſaved without it, contrary to Hebr. xi. 6.] and Dr. Smith, Biſhop of Calcedon, ſaith expreſly in print, Proteſtantibus credentibus, &c. they neither want FAITH, nor a CHƲRCH, nor SALVATION) are infallible, as well as Romane-Catholicks. And then Romane Catholicks cannot be infallible, unleſſe infallible men may contradictions another.

By the word ſaith in this argument, Mr. Knot meaneth either the object of faith, or the act of ſaith. If he mean the object of faith (the word of God revealed in the Goſpel) he abuſeth himſelf, and us; for no Chriſtian ever denied it. If he mean the act of faith (as he muſt, if he ſay any thing againſt his Adverſary, or to the purpoſe) then by this diſcourſe not onelyonly the Pope, but every Biſhop, every Prieſt, nay, Thou and I, and every Chriſtian man and woman in the world, who hath infuſed ſaith, and that gift of God, are as infallible as the Church of Rome. And yet on this ſandy argument Mr. Knot at the firſt entrance, layes the foundation of all his Book; and chooſeth rather to build the infallibility of Chriſtian Religion hereon, than (with his companions) upon the infallibilitie of the Church.

In reading Mr. Knot's book I ſtood amazed, to heare him ſay ſo oft, that he had already proved the infallibilitie of his Church; and ſearching from Chapter to Chapter, I found no other argument, beſide what I mentioned p. 10. concerning the infallibilitie of faith (to which I conceive I have ſaid enough) but the notes of credibility, p. 428. viz. Miracles, ſanctitie, ſufferings, victory over enemies, converſion of Nations, [wealthy, he might have ſaid.]

p. 29Concerning which I come now to ſpeak ſomewhat briefly. 1. For Miracles; Chriſt and the Apoſtles bid us to take heed of them; and ſo we have the evidence of their true miracles then, to keep us from all falſe ones now; and we are bid to examine the miracles by the doctrine, not the doctrine by the miracles. And theaaChryſoſt. in 1. ad Cor. c. 2. hom. 6. & ad Coloſſ. c. 2. in Matt. hom. 49. Gregor. in Evang. hom. 29. Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 22. c. 8. & de vera religione c. 25. Juſtin. qu. & resp. Orthod. qu. 5. Tertull. adverſ. Marc. l. 3. c. 3. Opus imperf. in Matth. hom. 49. Theodor. in Deut. qu. 12. Auguſt. de unitat. Eccl. c. 16. de civit. Dei. l. 22. c. 8.Col 2Sir 16 Fathers confeſſe as much, That miracles are not now neceſſary, nor profitable▪ nor marks of the true Religion. bbAuguſt. in Joan. tract. 13. Hieron. in Epiſt. ad Gal. c. 3. Tertull. de praeſcr. c. 44.Gal 3That the Ancient hereticks pretended to miracles, as much or more then the Orthodox. And we know that the ccBaron. Annal. tom. 2. an. 139. ſect. 4. Sueton. in vita Vesp. c. 7. Tacit. hiſt. l. 4. annal. l. 2. Plutarch. in vit. Fu. Camilli. Val. Max. l. 1. c. 8.Heathens talked much of theirs; and that manyddBellarm. de Eccl. milit. l. 4. c, 15. Card. Cajetan. apud Catharinum Annot. l. 4. p. 273. & 274. Stella in Luc. xi. Ferus in Matth. praef. l. 2. Gregor. I. in Evang. hom. 29. Lyra in Dan. 14. Biel in Can. Miſſae lect. 49. Baron. Annal, anno 1027. Acoſta de temp. noviſs. l. 2. c. 19. & l. 3. c. 3. Salmeron de falſis ſignis, disp. 3.Luke 11 Romane Doctors acknowledge all this.

But it is ſtrange, (iſ the Church of Rome have any miracles,) and be (as ſhe pretends) deſirous of our ſalvation, and not afraid to convert us; that ſhe ſhould never ſhew them among Proteſtants, where they may abide the touch; unleſſe our preſence be a charm, and diſable her Prieſts from doing wonders: Very ſtrange, that moſt of her miracles ſhould be done in ſecret; (when otherwiſe, they are oft ſo notorious cheats, that the Magiſtrate takes notice of them, and puniſheth them) whereas Chriſt and the Apoſtles did theirs in the face of the Sunne, and before all Iſrael; before enemies as well as friends; before hereticks and infidels as well as Orthodox, that they might do good. And that where ſhe doth ſhew them (as in France, Italy, and Spain) p. 30they ſhould not, if they be true, convince the Atheiſts▪ who more abound in thoſe, than in any other Countreys. Marſennus told us long ſince comm. in Gen. that there were in his dayes fifty thouſand Atheiſts in that one city of Paris. Colerus [l. de immort. anim.] tells what ſtore there be in Italy. And for the Spaniards; I need but mind the Reader of their converting the Indies, by depopulating them, and barbarouſly ſlaying millions: auferre, trucidare, Imperium, [Religionem] vocant, as Galgac. in Tacit. vitâ Agric. c. 20. inſomuch that the poor Natives thought Chriſtians the moſt cruel and wicked people in the world, and called them Guacci, that is, beaſts that live upon prey; and Viracochie, that is, the ſcum of the ſea; and pointing at a piece of gold, were wont to ſay, Behold the Chriſtians God. Such were the ſanctified lives of thoſe that boaſted of converting Nations! Concerning which, ſee a book entituled, Spaniſh cruelties, written by Barthol. de las Cafas, a Biſhop, and Dominican Frier, and tranſlated into French, Italian, &c. printed in Latine at Frankfurt, with pictures, Alſo Benzo's hiſtoria novi orbis, and other Relations of the Indies. Which mindeth me of the 2^d Note,

2. Sanctitie of life. This argument varieth with the climate; and in moſt places proveth rather againſt Romaniſts, than for them. 'Tis not long, ſince Clemangis, Eſpencaeus, Alvarez, Petrarch, Pelagius, Dantes, Baronius, and the Cardinals delegated by P. Paul III. and many of the Romane Doctors complained, That all the miſeries and civil warres in Chriſtendome, came from the ill lives of their Monaſtical and Clergy-men; ſince Bellarmine ſent great numbers of Popes to hell together; and are they now come to be the onelyonly Saints on earth? 'Tis confeſſed, That diſcipline (wherein even thoſe Hereticks, whom Mr. Knot calls Infidels, by the confeſſion of their moſt dreadfull Adverſaries, go beyond Romaniſts) dangers, and ſuch externals, make great alterations on ſome mens lives. And in England there cannot be many monſtrous wicked men of that Religion (yet ſome there are) becauſe not many men, in compariſon with Proteſtants. But what kind of people the p. 31plurality of them be in other Nations, all the world knows. And Salmeron [in epiſt. Pauli. de falſis ſignis Eccl. diſp. 3.] Coſterus [Enchirid. controverſ. c. 2. p. 101.] à Coſta [de tempor. noviſs. l. 2. c. 20.] are ſo ingenuous, as to confeſſe expreſly, That a life apparently good and honeſt, is not proper to any one Sect, but common to JEWS, TURKS, and HERETICKS. And Card. Perron confeſſeth it tacitely; while in his letter to his Ʋnkle, he mentioneth not the good lives of any Catholicks. And S. Chryſoſt. [in Matth. iii. hom. 4.] is as plain and large to my purpoſe, as any of them. It is too plain, that arguing from the pretended holineſſe of mens lives, to the goodneſſe of their cauſe, or opinion, is a Paralogiſme, which hath advanced Arianiſme, Pelagianiſme, and other hereſies of old, Mahumetaniſme, Familiſme, and Anabaptiſme of late: And unleſſe God of His infinite Mercy prevent, may ruine Chriſtendome now. His other Notes are ſo far from arguments, that I am a little aſhamed to ſay any thing to them.

The 3^d is SUFFERINGS. And do not Proteſtants ſuffer more in moſt other parts of Chriſtendome, by the State, or the Inquiſition, (where ſome, as our worthy Confeſſour M^r Moll, have been and are kept in a cloſe priſon or dungeon for above twenty years meerly for Religion) or by both? So that thoſe arguments which their Chriſtian Moderatour brings, ſuppoſing them rationall in themſelves, cannot be ſuch coming from a Romaniſt, unleſs, Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri nèfeceris, be an unreaſonable Law; & not Nature's. Nay, do not the Socinians, Anabaptiſts, Arians, Atheiſts, ſuffer too; and burn rather then turn? witneſſe Servetus, John of Leiden, Hacket, Vanninus, Fontanier, Ket, Leggat, Theophile, Gentilis, and many others.

4. Victory over all ſorts of enemies. This makes more for Turciſm then Popery, for the Alcaron, then the Conc. of Trent.

5. CONVERSION OF INFIDELS. I would fain know what he means by Infidels (for he cannot but know, that thouſands have been converted by Proteſtants) whether all of every nation? or how many converts are required p. 32to make up this note? and whether ſo many, in every age? 'Tis certain, that multitudes of Infidels have been converted to Mahumetaniſme; and more Chriſtians of late years to Judaiſme and Turciſme, then Turks or Jews to Chriſtianity or Popery. And to ſee what manner, of Chriſtians the Romaniſts make in both the Indies, you need read no other books then their own letters, their own Biſhop, de las Caſas book, or Benzo's, cited p. 30. To turn a rich fruitfull land into a deſolate wilderneſſe, is in the new Romane language converſion. In a word, who ever ſhall pleaſe to examine theſe notes (which are M^r Knot's laſt argument, and other mens firſt, chief, and ordinary, for the infallibility of the Church) or any other that he or his Society can bring ſhall find that they offend againſt thoſe properties, which Bellarmine, Salmeron, and other Romane Controvertiſts require in all Notes; as That they ſhould be verae, manifeſtae, propriae, non communes, inſeparabiles, &c. It being the moſt undoubted note of a diſtinguiſhing Note, Alteri non quadrare.

Indeed his marks ſeem to me ſo weak arguments, that I cannot find how any man can be convinced by them, unleſſe through the Authority of the propounder: ſo that if a man yields upon them, it muſt be out of civility, or fear of gainſaying. But when men are reſolved upon a Concluſion, impertinencies are eaſily fancied to be as ſtrong demonſtrations, as any in Euclide. The Pythagorians being bred up in poſitions concerning numbers, fancied them the principles even of Naturall bodies. Every rack in the clouds is a Regiment in a young ſouldiers eye, and the leaſt ſcratch in the wall a babie in the childs: all chymnes ſound their Whittington. I wiſh the beſt of M^r Knots arguments were as concluding as the worſt of Mons^r Drelincourts 100 againſt Tranſubſtantiation.

I heartily wiſh (as I ſaid before) for an infallible Judge, and ſhall come with as much prejudice againſt my own perſwaſion (for as yet I ſee no hope of any in this world) to hear M^r Knots argument, as he can deſire, in p. 33any Reader. But I would be loth to run in a circle, and miſtake a wiſh that ſome perſon were infallible for a proof that he is. And therefore, if M^r K. ſhall think this paper deſerves any anſwer, beſides an foreign (which I ever expected in this Controverſie) I ſhall beſeech him, that before he tell us again that he hath proved the Church of Rome infallible, He would be pleaſed to reſolve theſe following queſtions: which I think muſt neceſſarily precede the examination of that, which he in moſt leaves taketh for granted.

I. Whether there be any infallible Judge on earth? II. Whether any Church be that Judge? and not rather ſome one of thoſe ten things which Mr. Chill. nameth, and bringeth Scripture for, chap. 3. §. 8? III. Whether the Romane Church be that Church? IV. If it be, in what capacity? whether the Infallibility be 1. in the head (the Pope) as the Jeſuites generally, and many Canoniſts affirm; or 2. in the body of the Church as Panormitanus, Occam, Waldenſis, Antoninus, Clemangis, Cuſanus and others hold, and give their reaſons. And then whether in the whole body diffuſive, or in the collective in a Councel? And if a Councel be infallible, then whether it be ſo onelyonly with the Popes confirmation, or without it? And which way ſoever they ſay, I enquire further V. How we ſhall certainly know who muſt be members of it, 1. Clergy and Laicks, or 2. onelyonly Clergy? And if ſo, whether 1. onelyonly Biſhops (as commonly they ſay) or 2. Presbyters too and Deacons, or Chorepiſcopi at leaſt? for we find all theſe uſually ſubſcribing. VI. Or (let the Councel be as they would have it) how ſhall I be ſure they are infallible? For 1. Are they ſo abſolutely infallible, as that they cannot determine falſly in rebus fidei, do what they will? Or 2. Are they infallible onelyonly if they uſe all thoſe good means, which God hath given them, to find truth; that is, if they read, ſtudie, diſpute, ſearch records, pray, and lay aſide all paſſions, private ends, and intereſts? VII. How ſhall I know when they determine aright? what is required to a Synodicall Conſtitution? Muſt all concurre in the Vote, or will p. 34the major part ſerve the turn? VIII. What makes a Councel Generall? Muſt all the Biſhops in the Chriſtian world be called? IX. And when they are called muſt they all come, elſe is it no General Councel? X. Who muſt call the Generall Councel, the Pope, or Chriſtian Kings and Emperours? and how ſhall I be aſſured which of them muſt? XI. How farre are their determinations infallible? whether in matters of fact as well as faith? And XII. If in matters of faith onelyonly: then whether in fundamentals onelyonly (as many Catholicks ſaid of old, and D^r Holden the Sorboniſt at preſent) or in ſuperſtructures too, as others believe? And then XIII. How ſhall I infallibly know which points are fundamental, which not? XIV. But admit all this were determined, and our infallible Judge were a General Councel with the Pope, yet in a time of ſchiſme when there be two or three Popes at once [as there were Clement III, & Greg. VII. Gelaſius II, and Greg. VIII. Celeſtin II, and Honorius II. Anacletus II, and Innocent II. Victor IV, and Alex. III. Clement VII, and Urbane VI. Eugenius IV, and Felix V. Gautier the Jeſuite will help you to a larger catalogue] and theſe warring one against another; as when there were two triple-crowns, one at Rome, the other at Avignon; the Italians for the firſt, the French for the latter: the Court and the Cardinals, bulls and indulgences at both places. And thus were there ſaith John le Maire, **de la difference entre les Schiſmes, & les Conciles. 3. part.many Popes at once, one againſt another, for 40 years together: ſo that the learnedſt Clergy-men alive knew not which was S^t Peters true ſucceſſour: and thus ſaith reaſon may there be again. Then I ask, how I ſhall know which is the infallible judge? And if M^r. K. give us in anſwer that generall rule which he ſets down p. 369. When de facto any Pope defines ſome truth to be a matter of faith, we are ſure even by his doing ſo that he is true Pope. Then I'le reply, (to omit the circle he runs in) that there may be not onelyonly two but twenty true Popes together, for twenty p. 35men may define twenty ſeverall poſitions at the ſame time, and all true: and yet all theſe men may be foulely miſtaken another time; and if ſo, I deſire to know whether all theſe will be true Popes? Or by what rule a Romaniſt may tell when a truth is defined and when not? ſince Sixtus V. defined one Bible to be true Anno 1590. and Clemens VIII another, two years after; and each of them prohibited and condemned all but his own: and theſe two Bibles contain many contradictions each to other [See D^r James of the contrariety of the vulgar Latine Bibles] and certainly contradictory propoſitions cannot both be Goſpel. And if not, then either one of theſe two was not ſuch really (whence inconveniences enough will follow) or they were both true Popes; and ſo both their definitions true: and ſo no true Papiſt hath any true Bible. XV. But ſuppoſe there be no ſchiſme, and all agreed on the Pope, and a General Councel met; How ſhall I be ſure that he who is reputed Pope, is ſo indeed? ſeeing (by their own principles) Simonie makes him none; [See the Bull of P. Julius II. ſuper Simoniaca Papae electione. Si contigerit, &c. and Specul. in tit. de diſpenſ. § juxta. verſ. 2. and Majolus de irregularitate l. 5. c. 47. p. 433.] and that he was not Simoniacal, it is impoſſible for me to know. The election of Sixrus V. was notoriouſly Simoniacal; For Cardinal d' Eſté whom he bribed and promiſed to obey, and defend against an oppoſite faction, &c. Sent all theſe obligations ſubſcribed by Sixt. V. his own hand to Philip then King of Spain. Who in the year MDLXXXIX ſent to Rome to bid the Cardinals, who had been elected before Sixt. V. came to the See, to come to a Councel at Sevil in Spain, where the original writing was produced, and the crime was evidently proved. And if ſo, all the Cardinals which were made by this Sixtus were in reality no Cardinals, and then all the Popes which have been made by thoſe Cardinals ſince, [as Montaltus (Sixtus his Nephew) Urban VII. Gregory XIV. Innocent. IX. Clement. VIII. and Innocent. X. that now is,] have been really no Popes. See a book entituled Supplicatio ad Imperatorem, Reges, &c. p. 36written at Rome by one that calls himſelf NOVUS HOMO, and dedicated to K. James Anno MDCXII. But teſtimony enough of ſuch doings may be ſeen in the letters of Card. d' Oſſat, and the tranſactions of Card. de Joyeuſe ſet down by Card. Pervon. Heul ſedes Apoſtolica (orbis olim gloria) nunc, proh dolor! efficeris officina Simonis. Damian. epiſt. ad Firminum. Baronius T. 11. 1033. XVI. But admit the Pope were certainly known to be ſuch, and that neither he nor any of his predeceſſours came in by Simony; yet how ſhall I know whether thoſe Biſhops, who (with him) make up a Councel, are Biſhops indeed? For if they be no Biſhops, then it is no Councel. And that they are true Biſhops, it is for ever impoſſible for any Papiſt certainly to know. For if he that did ordain them did not intend it, when he gave Orders, (and whether he did or no, God onelyonly knows) then, by their own principles, they are no Biſhops; and by conſequence no Councel. XVII. But further how ſhall I know that the Pope and Biſhops ſo met (at Trent for example) are Chriſtians? For if not, then ſure they are no legitimate Councel, or Church repreſentative: And that they are Chriſtians, 'tis impoſſible for any Catholick to know, with any infallible certainty. For if they be not baptized, then I am ſure with them they are no Chriſtians; and if the Prieſt that baptized them, did not intend to do it, then (by the Canon of the Trent Councel) they are not baptized. Now what the Prieſt intended, when he adminiſtred that Sacrament, 'tis impoſſible that any (ſave God who knows the heart) ſhould certainly know (without immediate revelation, which they pretend not to) and conſequently, 'tis impoſſible that any of them ſhould certainly know, That ever there was a Pope, or a Biſhop, or a Prieſt ſince our Saviours dayes: nay impoſſible that They ſhould know whether there he now one Chriſtian in their Church, and therefore much leſſe that there is or hath been a lawfull Councel. XVIII. But admit all theſe doubts were clearly ſolved, and a Councel (in their own ſenſe lawfull) ſitting and determining matters in Controverſie; yet how ſhall we know p. 37certainly (with that abſolute certainty M^r Knot ſpeaks of) that theſe are their determinations? (ſpecially ſince the Greek Church above two hundred years ſince accuſed the Romane for foiſting a Canon into the Nicene Councels in behalf of the Popes being Head of the Univerſal Church, which could never be found in the authentick copies, though the African Biſhops ſent to Conſtantinople, Alexandria, & Antioch to ſearch for them. Codex. Can. Eccleſ. Afr. Juſtel. p. 39, 40.) We were not in the Councel, nor ever ſaw any of the men that made the Canons, we muſt rely on the honeſty of the Amanuenſis, or of thoſe other perſons that conveigh them to us, and thoſe are (certainly) not infallible: and we know there are ſuch things as Indices expurgatorii, foyſting in, and blotting out of Manuſcripts. XIX. But admit all this cleared, yet (when I have indeed the genuine Canons, and am ſure of it) how ſhall I be aſſured of the true meaning of them? for M^r K. tells us, that we cannot, without His Churches determination, know what faith or repentance (or any word elſe in the Scripture) meaneth; though I ſuppoſe the Apoſtles intended as well as he or I to be underſtood; and though he tell us That the Scriptures are as perfect a rule as a writing can be. I am fallible, and may miſtake; and in his opinion ſo may any man but the Pope, or a Councel. This is no vain ſuppoſition, for we know that Vega and Soto (two famous and learned men in the Councel of Trent) write and defend contradictory opinions, yet each thinketh the Canon of the Councel to determine on his ſide. Now of neceſſity one of them muſt mistake the doctrine of the Councel (unleſſe you'l ſay the Councel determined contradictions, and then the Councel is not infallible it ſelf) and if either of them miſtook the Councel, then it was not an infallible guide to him. Now if learned men, who were members of the Councel, (ſuch as diſputed much in it) could not infallibly know the meaning of it, how can I who am neither? XX. Lastly, (not to trouble M. Knot with any more queries then are neceſſary) what neceſſity of an infallible Judge at all? The Christian p. 38world had no ſuch Judge ſor CCCXXIV years (for the Nicene Councel was the firſt General) and if They vnderſtood Scripture, and were ſaved then, when they had no ſuch thing, why may not We now? And if they were not ſaved, the Church of Rome muſt blot out many hundreds and thouſands of Saints & Martyrs out of her Martyrology.

Till theſe twenty queſtions be inſallibly reſolved, it ſeems to me impoſſible that any man ſhould have any infallible knowledge of the Church of Romes Infallibility. And I am the more confirmed in the neceſſity of a plain reſolution to this laſt querie, becauſe (though M. Knot be ſometimes hot and poſitive, in grounding all Chriſtian Religion upon the infallibility of the Church) I find (beſide what I ſaid p. 22.) Chriſt and the Apoſtles intimating the contrary, Joh. v. 39. Act. iv. 19. xviii. 11. 2. Theſſ. v. 21. 1. Joh. iv. 1. Rev. ii. 2. But to paſſe by ſuch places of Scripture (becauſe I know that they who make**Belgic. Expurgat. pag. 12. profeſſion of deviſing ſhifts, will find euaſions for them) and to omit the poſitions of many Romane Doctours of leſſe note, who are as high for the non-neceſſity of an infallible guide, as any Proteſtant can wiſh; I ſhall onelyonly hint at Lactantius his large Chapter to this purpoſe, lib. 2. de orig. error. c. 7. beginning thus, Quare oportet in ea re in qua vitae ratio verſatur, ſibi quemque confidere, ſuóque judicio, ac propriis ſenſibus niti ad inveſtigandam & perpendendam veritatem; quàm credentem alienis erroribus decipi, tanquam ipſum rationis expertem. Dedit omnibus Deus pro virili portione ſapientiam, &c. and rather inſiſt upon a couple of moſt eminent Cardinals, Baronius and Lugo. Both theſe give their opinions very plainly on our ſide, and (which I value more) their reaſons and examples. The former hath ſpent to our purpoſe a whole Appendix, which he prefixed before the ſecond tome of his Annals, printed at Rome, MDLXXXVIII. where (appealing to every particular Proteſtant's judgement, concerning the truth of his cauſe, and not once mentioning the infallibility of the Church) he goes on thus, Ingens ſanè vis humanae p. 39inſidet rationi, &c. Great is the power of humane reaſon if it be left unſettered and free in all things. And therefore our Anceſtors placing great confidence in the force of truth, where they contended with obſtinate hereticks, when they declined and deſpiſed all judgement of the Church, were ſo indulgent as not to refuſe to try the judgement even of Infidels, and expect their determination. Such men being Judges, the Jews▪ [Joſeph. Antiq. l. 13. c. 6.] had the victory over the Samaritans. And an heathen Philoſopher being by conſent choſen for an Arbitrator, to whoſe judgement they were to ſtand, Origen [dialog.] overcame five moſt wicked hereticks. And Archelaus [Epiphan. haereſ. 66.] a Biſhop in Meſopotamia, did conſute Manes, a moſt deſperate Archheretick, before certain Heathens who were by conſent choſen Judges, &c. The latter (though a Jeſuite & a Spaniard) plainly aſſerteth this non-neceſſity: tom. de virtut. fidei diſ. 1. §. 12. n. 247. &c. And making it good by foure inſtances: 1. THE BELIEF OF THE INFALLIBILITY IT SELF: which muſt be received from ſome other motive than it ſelf, or its own teſtimony; and conſequently (ſaith he) all other doctrines of Chriſtianity may be believed upon the ſame inducements; & not meerly upon the infallibility of the Church. 2. CHILDREN, or OLD PEOPLE; who are newly converted to the faith, do not believe the Infallibilitie, before they embrace other Articles: for they believe Articles in order as they are propounded, & this is commonly one of the laſt. 3. RUSTICKS AND COMMON PEOPLE, at this day in Spain, Italy, and other Catholick Countreys: who commonly reſolve their faith no further than their Pariſh-Prieſt, or ſome other learned, or holy man at the moſt. 4. He aſſerteth num. 252. That IN THE LAVV OF NATURE, moſt believed onelyonly upon the Authority of their Parents, without any Church-propounding. And alſo after the law was written moſt believed Moſes & the Prophets, before their prophecies were received and propounded by the Church for the ſanctity p. 40of their lives, &c. And this diſcourſe wa… written by ſpeciall order from the late Pope Urban, and dedicated to the preſent Pope Innocent X.

And now, my patient Reader, to draw to a concluſion as my ſpare-leaves do (for I have unawares detained thee, very much longer then I intended, when I firſt ſet pen to paper for this Preface; which was after the following Engliſh Apologie was fully printed; and that is one reaſon of its immethodicalneſs.) If I have writ any thing impertinent!, I hope that my brother THE UNIVERSITY-MAN (Mr. Knots friend) will help to excuſe me: if any thing that ſavoureth of paſſion (which I ſhall be very ſorry for, as ſoon as it ſhall be diſcovered to me) that Mr. Knot will be my Advocate (each of them being commonly conceived ſufficiently guilty of one or both of theſe faults) and hereafter I may do as much for them.

And further to encourage M^r K. to do ſomewhat for me; I do here aſſure him, That if he ſhall vouchſaſe punctually to anſwer theſe xx queſtions (which ſeem to me very neceſſary to be plainly determined, before he can aſſure any man of the Infallibility of the Romane Church, on which foundation he layeth ſo huge a ſtructure) and withall to refute that one argument which I mentioned pag. 18. out of Dr. Jer. Taylors nervous diſcourſe: & then▪ prove that the Church of Rome is infallible by any one infallible argument (for he hath told us that nothing leſſe can do it) I will be his Proſelyte.

Ʋntill which time foreign unleſſe (which I think far the more probable, and therefore ſhall daily pray for it) Mr. Knot will be ſo ingenuous as S. Auguſtine was, to retract his errours in his later dayes, and come over to the good Old, Catholick, & Apoſtolick Faith, leaving Romane ſuperſtructures. For I begin to deſpair (with that Milevitan Biſhop) of ever ſeeing, while I am upon earth, any infallible, living Judge in matters of ſaith; and to believe, I muſt, (as the Jews ſpeak) expect the coming of Elias for that purpoſe: having long obſerved, by Mr. Knot's ſeven books in this Controverſie, that

Cauſe patrocinio non bona pejor erit.

p. 41To the Preface p. 8. l. 29. adde, That there were Chriſtians in Britain, before Auguſtine the Monk came over is plain out of Euſebius, Theodoret, Arnobius, Tertullian, Gildas, Bromton: and I ſuppoſe no man that is not a meer ſtranger to Antiquity will deny. That thoſe Chriſtians had no dependance upon Rome will appear to any who readeth the ancient Hiſtories of Rome or England. Platina ſaith that Antherus the 20^th Pope ſate eleven years, and made onelyonly one Biſhop. In a word, from the death of S^t Peter till the entrance of Marcellus (which was CCC and old yeares) there were not two hundred Biſhops made in all by all the Popes of Rome. One in a yeare was a rare matter. He ſaith not a ſyllable of the erecting any Arch-Biſhoprick, or Patriarchate all that time: Not a word of forreign Biſhops travelling or ſending to Rome to beg Priviledges and Confirmations, or to take an oath of fidelity and obedience. But to come cloſer home and to the purpoſe; The ſtory of the ſeaven Britiſh Biſhops, and many other very learned men (but eſpecially the Monks of Bangor) is very remarkable; and may be read at large in the hiſtory of Bede, ſet forth by our learned M^r Whelock from p. 110. to 119. wh…re it is ſaid, that theſe Monks of Bangor were divided into ſeven parts (ſee alſo Bromton's Chronicle p. 780.) the leaſt whereof conſiſted of three hundred; and That they told Auguſtine plainly that they would not relinquiſh their ancient cuſtomes, without the conſent and leave of their Countrymen. And when Auguſtine had made a long ſpeech to perſwade them to be ſubject to the Pope of Rome, Dinooth their Abbot anſwered him briefly in theſe words. Bid iſpis, &c. [S^r H. Spelmans Councels p. 108.] Be it known unto you and without doubt that we are all and every one of us obedient and ſubjects to the Church of God and Pope of Rome, and to every godly Chriſtian: to love every one in his degree with perfect charity, and to help every one of them by word and deed to be the children of God. And other obedience then this I do not know due to p. 42him whom you call the Pope, or that he hath right to challenge or to require to be the Father of Fathers. This obedience we are ready to give and to pay to him and to every Chriſtian continually. Beſides we are under the government of the Biſhop of Kaerleon upon Vske, who is to overſee us under God, to make us keep the ſpirituall way. Would you know what became of theſe Monks hereupon? Epiſcopi Abbates & Doctores contra morem Eccleſiae [Romanae] viventes à Rege Ethelfrido vaſtante gentem Britonum ad nihilum redacti ſunt, cum tribus millibus Monachorum monaſterii de Bangor; qui in campum bellatorum adducti ſunt ut Regi adverſa imprecarent. Hi omnes, ut fertur, de labore manuum ſuarum vivebant, &c. Thus far Gervaſius printed by M^r Bee, p. 1632. [See the ſixteen immunities p. 1386.] And S^r H. Spelman citeth out of the ancient Annals of Gisburn theſe words p. 26. Till the time of K. Hen. 1. the Biſhops of S. Davids were there conſecrated by their own Welſh Suffragans, VVITHOUT MAKING ANY PROFESSION OF SUBJECTION TO ANY OTHER CHURCH. Not to inſiſt upon the tranſlating the Pall into little Britain; he that would reade more to this purpoſe may peruſe RR. Armach his diſcourſes of the Religion anciently profeſſed by the Iriſh and Brittiſh, chap. 8, 9, 10. & de primordiis Eccleſ. Britan. the eight firſt chapters.

ERRATA.

In the Preface p. 6. l. 3. which by conſequence over p. 7. l. 17. indiſpenſable. p. 9. l. 14. be in ſchiſme or hereſie. p. 10. l. 20. foreign. p. 14. l. 34. intreat him (for p. 16. l. 35. Cellot de Hierarchia. p. 17. l. 9. the Chriſtian Moderatour mentioneth. p. 18. l. 15. Beza, Luther. ibid. l. 17. dele Luther. p. 31. l. 30. dele John of Leiden. p. 32. l. 30. chymes.

In the Apologie p. 22. l. 27. not to S. Paul. p. 26. l. 11. unbeſeeming at the leaſt. p. 62. l. 23. dele not. p. 40. l. 13. nature, among unintellectual beings. p. 73. l. 13. Rimmon. In. p. 83. l. 5, & 7, ate p 87. l. 3. in a ſlight. ibid. l. 24. alone? p. 88. l. 28. his conſcience.