your laft Paper (and the thing in it felf is manifeft) that there are feveral Proteftant Churches, that are not true Churches. Now let us apply the words of your Answer to any of them; for Example, the Socinians, Quakers, &c. who hold with us the Unity and other Attributes of God, the Birth, Paf fion, Death, and Refurrection of Chrift, &c. Now, fuppofe thefe falfe Churches were urg'd with this Argument of the Perpetuity of the true Church, thus they might take up your words, and defend themselves in the fame manner that you do: Our Doctrines have defcended to us from the Apofiles, through a continued Succeffion of Oriental and Occidental Churches to the time of our Reformation; only with this difference, that, firft, they were deliver'd pure to us, but afterwards mix'd with many Errours, which we feparated from the pure and pri mitive Doctrines; and thefe Doctrines, I mean the pofitive Doctrines which you hold with us, you cannot, you dare not deny to be pure and primitive. Behold your whole Answer in Substance, which you fay has been made 150 Years ago, and never yet confuted. And yet it clearly confutes and deftroys it felf, as being a Defence for all the Hereticks, that ever went out of the Church, and confequently a falfe one; for no Truth can give Teftimony to Falfhood. Therefore you are defir'd to exhibit fome other Answer in your defence, except you will be content to ftay under the fame roof with thofe, whom you confefs to be falfe Churches.

I have, Sir, many other, as I think, juft and important Exceptations against this your Answer: As, 1ft, By what Rule you fo affuredly know, that thofe Doctrines alone which you have retain'd, are requifite to the Conftitution of a Church, wherein Salvation may be had, and that no other Points are

neceffary

neceffary to be believed? 2dly, How can you escape the cenfure of an intolerable Prefumption for a few Reformers at the beginning, and those not fingular or eminent in Virtue or Learning, to pretend to understand the fenfe of Scriptures and Antiquity, and to know the universal Traditions of the Church, better than all the Eaftern and Western Churches, that is, better than the univerfal Church, at leaft at the beginning of your Reformation, as you your felves must confefs, and in oppofition to the whole World, to dare to feparate as Drofs and Chaff whatever Articles you thought fit to miflike? 3dly, Suppofing the Errors you pretend to spy, were truly fo, how can you defend that they were not fo grievous, as to deftroy the very Being of a true Church? Thefe and other Exceptions I could juftly make against your Defence: But partly because it would draw me too far, partly because I think what I have already faid to be fufficient, and partly because we fhall have occafion to speak of fome of 'em in your other Paper, which you promife; I think it convenient neither to trouble you nor my felf with any more at present.

As to your Requeft, in which you defire me to make good the defcent of Tranfubftantiation and the Pope's Supremacy through the firft five Centu→ ries; if it had been moderate and feafonable, I would willingly have comply'd with it. But fince you defire me to make good the first against three Books of Albertinus De Eucharifta Sacramento, and the fecond against Lambert, Launoy, and Dr. Barrow, and others; I hope you will not take it ill, if I defire to beexcus'd from anfwering in one Paper fo many Volumes of two Subjects fo different, efpecially being nothing (but a hinderance) to our prefent Controverfy. I rather remit you to Gualterus

and

and Coccius, who (if I remember well, for I have no Library by me) both of 'em deduce Proofs of both thofe Verities through all the Centuries. Tho' it may not be amifs to advertise you by the by, that we are not oblig'd to maintain the Pope's Supremacy, in your terms, over the Univerfal Church, collectively taken. For though it be much the more common, nay, almost general Opinion amongst our Divines,

The Title of his Book in Latin, is Thefaurus Catholicus, Col. 1600, of which Dr. Thomas James writes thus in his Myftery of the Indices Expurgatorii. Laftly, You bring in multitudes of Writers, which have, and do daily w tnefs (as you fay) the Truth on your fide, to prove your Unity, Univerfality, and Confent. Whom would it not amaze to fee fuch a cloud of Witneffes and torrent of Writers, as Coccius, the great Book-mafter doth produce in every Question? But ferting afide the baftardy of the false, and corruption of the true, your Indices Expurgatorii, your Catalogue of Books forbidden, your fee, fee in every Page, which is but a Bug-bear to fray Children withal, you fhall fee how naked and deftitute you are of true Fathers, learned Schoolmen, or modern Writers; and that your Coccius (a Writer fo much efteem'd by your younger Divines) was very much to blame to leave his Religion upon pretence of Authorities (as Laurence Trivius reports in his Preface to his firft Tome) abounding on your fide, and fcarcely to be found in any Number on ours, as you teach Men to fay. Accordingly, Doctor James hath fhew'd almost in every Page of his baftardy of the false Fathers, how Coccius urges the Authority of fpurious Fathers to prove the Popish Doctrines; particularly under the fpurious Treatife of Linus Pope of Rome, Jodocus Coccius (faith he) the great Treasurer of fuch fabulous, erroneous, and counterfeit Stuff, urges the Authority of this Book in his firft Tome for Apparitions ofthe Dead, and in Tome II. for Peter's Supremacy. Thus much I thought fit to obferve of my Adverfary's Coccius. And also to add, that it was anfwer ed in Latin by Mr. William Perkins, whose Answer was published after his Death in MDCIV. and dedicated to King James I. by Dr Sam. Ward. And I refer my Adverfary to this Answer. The Title of it is, Guilielmi Perkinfii, problema de Romana fidei ementito Catholicismo.

yet

yet it is not de fide. Now, either you thought this was de fide with us, or that it was not. If you thought it was not, it feems incongruous in you to oblige me to defend it: If you thought it was, it was no less improper for you to call thofe Authors that writ against it, our Authors.

And now, Sir, fince you fay the Controversy is only betwixt you and me, and has no regard to the Perfon for whofe fake it was begun, in the Name of God take all the leifure and conveniency you can defire. For it was purely upon that Perfon's account and my own departure out of Town, that I was willing to bring the fooner this Debate to fome iffue. I have much compaffion for your Infirmities, and am very fenfible of the trouble it is to you to write fo much without help, by my own experience; and therefore I do not defire you should make yourself uneafy in the leaft, upon that account.

I must confefs, that your refolution of retaining my Papers in memory of me, and because you may have occafion to produce 'em, as you fay, a little furprizes me. I would not have you to think, Sir, that I was any way fond of entring into this Engagement, or that I was induc'd to undertake this bufinefs without fome entreaty, and affurance that I fhould have to do with a Man of Honour, as I doubt not but I have. Therefore I do not believe that you will do any thing, which may render this Affair of greater Noife than is convenient for our Circumstances. This is what was affur'd me before I began, and this is what I expect from a Person of your Character.

You defire me hereafter to write with more perSpicuity and propriety of Expreffion; which request of yours is too reasonable to be deny'd, if the meannels of my Talents, which I willingly acknowledge, P would

would let me comply with it. But really, Sir, I cannot in all the Dictionary find a word that expreffes my meaning, better than the word perish; nor am I fo acute as to fpy out any ambiguity in these words the Church of Chrift, having learn'd out of one of the Creeds that there is but one Church: And these and fuch like are the terms, in which you want perfpicuity and propriety of Expreffion. Let our Papers decide this matter betwixt us. And now, Sir, with the like freedom, give me leave to tell you what I could defire in you; it, that having your Eyes open, you would be pleas'd to make ufe of 'em, and fee; and, 2dly, that you would be pleas'd to enter into the Matter in debate, and not languish about Questions and Strifes of Words: For you know very well, that of aboye a Sheet and a half which you have writ at twice, there is not above ten lines of an Answer.

As to your last Advice, I leave it to you to confider, whether it had not been as decent to have given it by your example, as in writing; and whether it had not been more modeft aud just to have given your Advice in fuch Terms as thefe: Let us both hereafter write with more Gravity, and in a more modeft Stile, &c. You may be pleas'd to call to memory, that when I had not yet writ above three lines in a Query, without any Offence given, you thought it modeft to tell me, that I talk'd like one that did not underftand Controverfy, like a new Convert, like a Novice (that is, like a Fool) all in one Breath. Tho', I confefs, I have writ with lefs Temper than either my Inclination or Principles exacted from me, purely left a good Caufe fhould be over-born by fuch big words as you made use of; yet in all my Papers you will not read fuch words, as thofe of yours. However, for the future (fince

you