MOTIVES MAINTAINED. OR A Reply unto M. Chillingworthes answer to his own motives of his conversion to catholic Religion:  jac. 1. vers. 8. 
A man double of mind is inconstant in all his ways.  

Permissu Superiorum. 1638.    

A Reply unto M. Chillingworthes answer to his own motives, of his conversion to Cath. Religion.  
BE pleased, Christian Reader, to be informed, or to remember, if thou know it already, that M. Chillingworth, the Answerer to Charity maintained, vpon his conversion from Protestancy to catholic Religion, set down diuers good and solid motives, which induced him to that resolution; and after diuers turnings, and returnings, to and from that Religion which for so convincing motives he then embraced, now he hath published an answer to those his own motives: but such an answer as proves him to be neither catholic nor Protestant for his belief. For through all his Answers, Catholiks are impugned, Protestants abandoned, and grounds laid for a new, and wicked Sect, which in this kingdom begins to be known, and spoken of, by the name of socinianism. My intention is briefly, to maintain the Answerers catholic motives, against his own Answers to them. The method, I purpose to hold, shall be natural and clear in itself, and easy for thy comprehension and memory; setting down in order, first, the motive; then his answer to it; and thirdly my Reply. or Confutation of his answer.  

MOTIVE I.  
Because perpetual visible profession, which could never be wanting to the Religion of Christ, nor any part of it, is apparently wanting to Protestant Religion, so far as concerns the Points in contestation.   

answer.  
God hath neither decreed nor foretold, that his true doctrine should de facto, be always visibly professed, without any mixture of falsehood.   

REPLY.  
The direct and pertinent answer to this motive, had been, to maintain, that visible Profession was never wanting to Protestant Religion, so far as concerns the Points in contestation. But forsaking this right way of defence( wherein he may well be excused, no man being bound to perform impossibilities) he flies from the question, and tells us, that it is not necessary, there should be always a Church, visibly professing true doctrine, without any mixture of falsehood. Which is nothing to the purpose, for this argument is still in force: The true Church of Christ must be always visible( whether with, or without mixture of corruptions, we need not consider for the present:) But the Protestant Church, as it is distinct from Ours; hath not been always visible: Therefore, the Protestant Church as it is distinct from Ours, is not the true Church of Christ. The Maior he grants in diuers places of his book, & even in this his answer, vpon condition that we grant a possibility of corruption in the Church, as for the present we are content to do, by way of supposing a falsehood. The Minor is affirmed in the motive, and not denied in his answer, nor can be denied by any man of iudgement, and learning: And so the Conclusion must of necessity follow. But now, if this were a fit place to prove, that the true Church must be infallible, &c not subject to any error in faith, it were easy to do it, if once that be granted, which neither Protestants do, nor any Christian can deny; namely, that Christian faith is infallibly true, and, not only probable. For, seing this very man confesses, that we cannot know Scripture to be the word of God, by Scripture itself, nor by any other means except the Tradition of Gods Church; if she be fallible, our belief of Scripture, and all verities contained therein, cannot be certain, and infallible. We must therfore grant the true Church of Christ to be infallible, if we will maintain Christian faith to be certainly true.   

MOTIVE II.  
Because Luther and his followers separating from the Church of Rome, separated also from all Churches, pure or impure, true or false then being in the world; vpon which ground I conclude, that either Gods promises did fail of performance, if there were then no Church in the world, which held all things necessary, and nothing repugnant to salvation; or else that Luther and his Sectaries, separating from all Churches then in the world, and so from the true, if there were any true, were damnable schismatics.   

answer.  
God hath neither decreed, nor foretold, that there shall be always a company of men free from all error in itself damnable: Neither is it always of necessity schismatical, to separate from the external communion of a Church though wanting nothing necessary. For if this Church supposed to want nothing necessary, require me to profess against my conscience, that I believe some error though never so small and innocent, which I do not believe, & will not allow me her communion but vpon this condition: In this case, the Church, for requiring this condition, is schismatical, and not I for separating from the Church.   

REPLY.  
I haue already demonstrated that the first part of his answer is false, for if the Church be infallible, she is free from all error in faith. Nay it being the common, and as it were, natural conceit, and belief of all Christians, that it is a damnable sin of schism, to forsake the communion of Gods Church; we must of necessity infer, that she is not subject to error,( for if she were, we might lawfully forsake her) and not contratily, say, that it is lawful to forsake her Communion, because she may, and hath fallen into error. And this was one of the reasons, which Charity maintained brought, to prove, that Gods Church is infallible, & consequently, that to disagree from her in Doctrine, was Heresy, and schism to leave her Communion. Thus then, instead of vindicating Protestants from schism, he yields them guilty both of schism, and Heresy, in affirming that they separated from all Churches, true or false, then being in the world. The rest of his answer seems to me a riddle, or an vnconsequent piece of Doctrine. For, suppose a man disagree from Gods Church in Profession of faith, refuse to participate in the same Sacraments, avoid her public service or Liturgy, and disobey her Prelates; it seems, by this mans new divinity, that such a one is still a member of that Church. He might as well persuade the world, that there is no such thing, as hitherto all Christians haue called schism, at least, while a man hath leave to follow his own conscience or discourse; wherein if he be restrained, then the Church, and not he must be accounted schismatical. And why? Because she will not allow such a man her Communion, but vpon condition, that he profess the same faith with her. And how can she do otherwise? Can they be of her faith, and Communion, who haue already opposed her faith, & rejected her Communion, and done as much as in them lies, to make a separation? They then, who separate themselves, do that, which of itself, makes their Communion with the Church to be impossible, though she were silent, and did leave every man to his liberty. For, Profession of the same faith, participation in the same Sacraments, Concurrence at the same public service and worship of God, and Obedience to the same superiors, are conditions necessary of their own nature for unity in Communion, whether they be required by any Church, or no. And therfore, not the Church, for requiring these, but they for putting the contrary conditions are to be accounted schismatical. In the mean time; doth not this man make a daungerous Apology for Precisians, and all sorts of refractory persons, if they be forced to observances, which to their Conscience seem superstitious? For, to use his words, In this case the Church, for requiring this condition, is schismatical, & not they for separating from the Church. Or, if this man be an Arian, and the Church of England should deny him her Communion unless he confessed the B. Trinity, and Deity of Christ our Lord; not he, but the Church of England, must be branded with the Epitheton of schismatical.   

MOTIVE III.  
Because, if any credit may be given to as creditable records as any are extant, the Doctrine of the catholics hath been frequently confirmed; and the opposite doctrine of Protestants, confounded with supernatural, and divine miracles.   

answer.  
If any credit may be given to Records far more creditable thou these, the Doctrine of Protestants, that is, the Bible, hath been confirmed, and the Doctrine of Papists, which is in many points plainly opposite to it, confounded with supernatural, and divine Miracles, which for number and glory outshine Popish pretended Miracles, as much as the sun doth an ignis fatuus; those I mean which were wrought by our saviour Christ and his Apostles. Now this book, by the confession of all sides confirmed by innumerous Miracles, foretells me plainly, that in after ages great signs and wonders shall be wrought in confirmation of false doctrine, and that I am not to believe any doctrine, which seems to my understanding repugnant to the first, though an angel from heaven should teach it; which were certainly as great a Miracle, as any that was ever wrought in attestation of any part of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome: But, that true Doctrine should in all ages haue the testimony of Miracles, that I am no where taught; So that I haue more reason to suspect, and be afraid of pretended miracles, as signs of false Doctrine, then much to regard them as certain arguments of the truth. Besides, setting aside the Bible, and the Tradition for it, there is as good Story for Miracles wrought by those, who lived and died in opposition to the doctrine of the Roman Church( as by S. Cyprian, Colmannus, Columbanus, Aidanus, and others) as there is for those that are pretended to be wrought by the members of that Church. Lastly, it seems to me no strange thing, that God in his Iustice should permit some true Miracles to be wrought, to delude them who haue forged so many, as apparently the Professors of the Roman Doctrine haue; to abuse the world.   

REPLY.  
I could in the very beginning stop his course, by telling him with much truth, and profit too, that the miracles which were wrought by our saviour Christ, and his Apostles, did primarily and immediately gain Authority and credit to their Persons, and by consequence only to their Writings, as being penned by them, who's Authority was made most worthy to be credited by miracles. If he ask, to what purpose do I put in this word of Consideration? I answer, that it is done in opposition to a certain vnchristian doctrine of his. For if the Apostles, and the whole Church, notwithstanding those miracles, may be believed to haue erred, as this man teaches 
(a) Pag. 137. n. 21. & pag. 144. n. 31.  they did, the Bible can much less be said to haue been confirmed by those miracles, in such manner as nothing in it can be erroneous; because, as I said, the whole credit of Scripture, is grounded vpon the Authority and Infallibility of the Writers therof. But I need not insist vpon this point; for do not we also receive the Bible? Yea do not all heretics in a manner, pretend to believe it, and their doctrine to be agreeable to it? This plea then is too general, especially, for this occasion. But, says he, This book foretells me plainly, that in after ages great signs and wonders shall be wrought, in confirmation of false Doctrine. What then? Must we believe that no signs and wonders are true, because some are false? Then, we must reject all true Scripture, because diuers false Scriptures haue been forged. Thē may we despise those very miracles, which were wrought in confirmation of the Bible: and so with this his Argument drawn from Scripture, he over throws Scripture itself. Did the Apostles themselves, and apostolical men work no true miracles, after the time wherein Scripture had foretold, that great wonders should be wrought in confirmation of false Doctrine? Neither speaks he to any purpose in these words: That true Doctrine should in all Ages haue the testimony of miracles, that I am no where taught. For the motive only said, that the Doctrine of Catholiks, hath been frequently confirmed, and the opposite doctrine of Protestants confounded with supernatural, and divine Miracles. Now, though it were granted that true Doctrine had not in all Ages the testimony of miracles,( which here I do not examine, as being a thing nothing to the purpose) yet it is very true, that all Doctrines confirmed by miracles are true, and that they are false which haue been confounded by them But he willingly thrust's in matter to divert the question from the true state. As here he does again in the very next words, wherein he alleges the example of some, who lived and dyed in opposition to the Doctrine of the Roman Church( he means, as I conceive, rebaptizing of such as were baptized by heretics; and keeping of Easter at the same time with the Iewes; both which errors haue been condemned by the whole catholic Church,( and not only by the Church of Rome;) and yet, says he, there is as good Story for miracles wrought by them, as there is for those that are pretended to be wrought by the members of our Church. All which is impertinent, unless he can show that they wrought miracles in confirmation of that doctrine, 
God hath appointed miracles as signs of true doctrine. Exod. 4. Matth. 11.5. joan. 15.24. Mar. ult. 17.1. Cor. 12. Hebr. 2.4.  wherein they disagreed from the Roman Church; for example, that S. Cyprian proved by miracle, that rebaptisation of those who had been baptized by heretics, was lawful. This answer is clear, and fit for this occasion and intended brevity: though much more might be said, if I would descend to particulars, concerning the persons whom he allegeth to no purpose at all. His last answer is a desperate one, That it seems to him no strange thing, that God in his Iustice should permit some miracles to be wrought, to delude them who haue forged so many, as apparently the professors of the roman Doctrine haue, to abuse the world. Which doctrine if we receive, we cannot be certain, but that the miracles of our saviour Christ, and his Apostles, were wrought to delude the Iewes, who received so many false Prophets, committed Idolatry; and perpetrated other crimes, for which God in his Iustice might haue permitted them to be deluded by true miracles. He should at least haue reflected that by this means, he contradicts himself, while by impeaching the Authority of miracles, he overthrows Scripture itself, which in this very answer, he says, was confirmed by miracles. And he also contradicts what he affirms in his book( Pag. 144. n. 31.) in these words: It is impossible that the eternal Truth should set his hand and seal( by miracles) to the confirmation of a falsehood. Seing then the professors of our catholic Religion, men known to haue been full of zeal, integrity, contempt of the world, and eminent for all kind of sanctity, haue in every Age frequently, constantly, and manifestly, wrought wondrous things above all created power, whereby God hath been glorified, sinners converted, and Christian Religion propagated; and that many of those admirable signs haue been wrought expressly in confirmation of diuers particular Points of our catholic faith, as may be seen in Bellarmine 
(b) Cap. 14. de not. Eccles.  and in Brerely 
(c) Tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 7. subd. 1.  who out of most credible authors bring pregnant examples of miracles, wrought in confirmation of our Doctrine, concerning Prayer to Saints, relics, the Image of Christ, real presence, sacrifice of Christs body, Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead, the great virtue of the sign of the cross, Holy-water, Lights in the Church, reservation of the Sacrament, Holy chrism, Adoration of the cross, Confession of sins to a Priest, and extreme unction; seing, I say, these things are so evidently true, that they cannot be denied without impudence, and great scandal to Christian Religion, to which the world hath been converted by men of our Church and by means of these miracles, which therfore to question, must needs bring the world back to doubt of Christianity; we must conclude, that his third motive was true and sound; that his answer not only forsakes Protestancy, but vndermines Christian Religion; and lastly, that we Catholiks to our unspeakable comfort, may humbly, yet confidently say with that devout and learned man: 
(d) Rich. de S. Vict. lib. 1 de T●… t. cap 2.  Domine, si error est quod credimus, à te decepti sumus: ista enim in nobis iis sig nis & prodigijs confirmata sunt, quae non nisi à Te fieri po tuerunt. If we believe a falsehood, thou, O Lord, hast deceived us; for the things which we believe haue been confirmed by such signs and wonders, as could not be wrought but by Thee alone.   

MOTIVE IV.  
Because many points of Protestant doctrine, are the damned opinions of heretics, condemned by the primitive Church.   

answer.  
All those were not heretics which by Philastrius Epiphanius, or S. Austine were put in the Catalogue of heretics.   

REPLY.  
The weakness of this answer shows, that his heart is not with Protestants, nor that it is his intention, to defend them in good earnest. What if all those be not heretics, who by these three authors are put in the Catalogue of heretics? There be diuers besides these who haue made Catalogues of Heresies. And to account any doctrine to be an Heresy, it suffices, that we know it to haue been condemned by the Church, by what means soever we come to that knowledge. If he had meant well to Protestants, he should haue specified the particular Points, wherein they are accused to agree with heretics anciently condemned; and then haue shewed, that they are not such. Or if he could not do this( as indeed it is impossible to be done) he should not haue used this tergiversation in matters of Religion, but either haue plainly confessed the truth, or at least not haue put himself vpon answering that, which he knew could not be answered in the grounds, which Protestants will seem to maintain, namely, Consent with the Ancient Church. But the truth is, he cares not for Antiquity, and therfore with the Socinians would readily grant, that opinions condemned for Heresies by the ancient Church, may be orthodox truths. If any desire to be satisfied, that sundry doctrines of Protestants, are the same with those which haue been condemned by the ancient Church, let him red 
(e) Bellar. cap. 9. do not. Eccles.  Bellarmine and 
(f) Brerely Pract. 1 sect. 8. subd. 2.  other catholic Writers.   

MOTIVE V.  
Because the prophecies of the Old Testament, touching the Conuersion of Kings & Nations to the true Religion of Christ, haue been accomplished in, and by the catholic Roman Religion, and the Professors of it; and not by Protestant Religion, and the professors of it.   

answer.  
Kings and Nations haue been, and may be converted by men of contrary Religions.   

REPLY.  
We haue no reason to take his bare words without any proof. means he, perhaps, that the goths were converted to Christian Religion by Arians? But, first, this is false, as Bellarmine 
(g) Cap. 12. do not. Eccles.  demonstrates. Secondly, it is impertinent to prove that the conversion of Kings and Nations is not the work of Catholiks alone. For, even they who are pretended to haue been converted by the Arians, were but the lesser part of the goths, most of them having been Catholiks before, and therefore Thirdly this example makes rather for us, in that of all the world converted to Christian Religion, one only poor half example, and that not of Protestants, is so much as pretended to the contrary; which cannot exempt Protestants from that property which Tertullian 
(h) Lib. de prescript. cap. 42.  affirms to be common to novelists: Their employment, saith he, is not to convert Heathens, but to perucrt them who are already converted. And doubtless it must needs seem a very prodigious thing, that heretics should haue so little zeal, or meet with so ill success in converting the world to Christ, if they alone be true Christians; Or that the prophecies of dilating the Church of Christ, should be performed by the endeavours of Catholiks, and yet they be not true Christians: Or finally, that our Doctrine should be false, and yet it alone should haue that power, and efficacy to convert souls, which the holy Scripture ascribes to the Doctrine & Law of God( Psalm. 18.) And might not Pagans, Iewes, and other enemies of Christian Religion, refuse, not without show of good reason, to embrace Christian faith, if they could say with truth, that all they who for many Ages past, and at this present labour to make them Christians, are themselves no true Christians? And who can oblige them to exchange one falsehood for another, which is the best they could hope for, by being converted to us, even though they were persuaded that their own sect were false? What ill success Protestants haue found in their poor endeavours in this kind, may be seen in 
(i) Tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 6. subd. 3.  Brerely; who also cites the words of Beza, that such pilgrimages to remote Countreys, for converting of infidels, are to be left for the locusts, the jesuits, as it pleases him to speak.   

MOTIVE VI.  
Because the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is conformable, and the doctrine of Protestants contrary, to the doctrine of the Fathers of the primitive Church, even by the confession of the Protestants themselves; I mean those Fathers who lived within the compass of the first 600. yeares to whom Protestants themselves do very frequently, and very confidently appeal.   

answer.  
The Doctrine of Papists, is confessed by Papists contrary to the Fathers in many points.   

REPLY.  
In this Anssvere he clearly forsakes Protestants, and yields that, even by their own confession, our Doctrine is conformable, and theirs contrary to the doctrine of those Fathers, who lived within the compass of the first 600. yeares. But that our Doctrine is confessed by us, to be contrary to the Fathers, we utterly deny, and he could not hope that we should believe him affirming the contrary without any proof.   

MOTIVE VII.  
Because the first pretended Reformers had neither extraordinary Commission from God, nor ordinary Mission from the Church to preach Protestant Doctrine.   

answer.  
The Pastours of a Church cannot but haue authority from it, to preach against the abuses of it, whether in Doctrine or practise, if there be any in it. Neither can any Christian want an ordinary Commission from God, to do a necessary work of Charity after a peaceable manner, when there is no body else that can or will do it. In extraordinary cases extraordinary courses are not to be disallowed. If some Christian lay-man should come into a country of Infidels, & had ability to persuade them to Christianity, who would say be might not use it for want of Commission?   

REPLY.  
here he is so far from defending Protestants, that he directly opposes their 23. Article, which saith: It is not lawful for any man to take vpon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments, in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work, by men who haue public Authority given them in the Congregation, to call and sand Minislers into the Lords vineyard. But by this mans doctrine, every private Christian, even by being a Christian, must haue an ordinary commission from God himself( which therfore, no Church, Prelate, or Authority can oppose) to teach and preach if need require; because, as he declares himself in his book, 
(k) Pag. 359.  It is one of the greatest works of Charity, to persuade men out of a false, into a true way of eternal happiness. According to which reason of his, not only a Christian, but every man whatsoever, hath commission from God to teach, preach, and do other such necessary works of Charity. But certainly this Doctrine tends only to the overthrow of all Order, Obedience, and subordination in the Church of God, that Socinian liberty of Iudgment, may be enjoyed with all freedom. And it puts into the mouth of unquiet people an answer, whensoever they are questioned for preaching their novelties, if once they be persuaded in conscience that they are truths. Neither can any such proceeding be a necessary work of Charity, as he pretends: but rather, even from hence, we are to infer, that Gods Church is not subject to error in points of Doctrine. For if she were, then every private person, might publicly oppose, and preach against her Doctrine, and forsake her Communion. From which true ground of the Churches Infallibility, we deny his supposition, and avouch. That no Prelate, or private person can pretend any Authority, to preach against her Doctrine; neither does she intend to give them any such authority. He says, indeed, that in extraordinary cases extraordinary courses are not to be disallowed. But if every Christian haue, as he teaches, an ordinary commission from God, to do such a work, how is it an extraordinary course? Or if it be extraordinary, it must be proved by miracles, which ought to accompany extraordinary calling, even in the opinion of chiefest Protestants, as may be seen in Brerely 
(l) Tract. 2 cap. 2. sect. 3. subd. 2. . Our saviour Christ says of himself, 
(m) joan. 15.24.  If I had not done among them works that no other man hath, done, they should not haue sin: and yet Scripture did abundantly witness, that he was the true messiah. Neither did he oppose any doctrine received by the whole Church of the Iewes; and that Church was not to last always. But this man speaks of a case, wherein the whole Church of Christ must be opposed, and her Doctrine condemned; even that Church which hath a promise of perpetuity, from Christ her Lord and spouse. Which considerations require, that whosoever pretends an extraordinary calling to oppose her, ought to prove it by evident miracles. And even Luther is forced to say( how directly against himself, & his adherents I leave others to consider,) 
(n) In loc. Commun. clas. 4.  God never sent any, who was not either called by men, or declared by miracles, no not the son of God himself. This man in the mean time does very unworthily, in comparing the converting of infidels by private exhortation, with preaching against Christian Churches, where Religion is settled, and Bishops( who by divine Institution are appointed to govern Gods Church) ordained. In which case, to say that every Christian hath Commission from God, to preach in opposition to such superiors, is to fasten a contradiction on the Ordinations, or Commissions of God himself. And, even Infidels are not to be converted by private persons, without due subordination, and either express, or interpretatiue leave from the lawful Prelates of Gods Church, but never with opposition, and disobedience to them.   

MOTIVE VIII.  
Because Luther to preach against the mass( which contains the most material points now in controversy) was persuaded by Reasons suggested to him by the divell himself, disputing with him. So himself professeth in his book de Missa priuata: that all men might take heed of following him, who professeth himself to follow the divell.   

answer.  
Luthers conference with the divell might be for ought I know, nothing but a melancholy dream. If it were real, the divell might persuade Luther from the mass, hoping by doing so, to keep him constant to it: Or that others would make his dissuasion from it an Argument for it( as we see Papists do) and be afraid of following Luther, as confessing himself to haue been persuaded by the divell.   

REPLY.  
That Luthers conference with the divell, was no dream is demonstratively proved by 
(*) Conolus. sect. 7.8.9.10.  Brerely. And though it had been but a dream, yet this eight motive is very strong; because Luther conceiving it to be a real Apparition, followed that which according to his conscience proceeded from the divell; and so, his action must, by reason of such his conscience( whether true, or erroneous) be sinful, and diabolical. Nor could the holy Ghost move to that action which the party himself believed to proceed from a bad spirit, and yet did not abstain from it. In his second evasion that the divell did but dissemblingly dissuade Luther from the mass, hoping by doing so to keep him and others constant to it, he imitates his Brethren, or rather progenitors, the Arians; of whom glorious S. Ambrose writes 
(o) Serm. 93. de Innent. sorp. S S. Gernasij & Protasij.  thus: Dicunt damones martyribus, venistis perdere nos: Ariani dicunt, non sunt daemonum vera tormentae, said ficta & composita ludibria. The divels say to the Martyrs, you are come to destroy us: The Arians say, they are not true torments which the divels suffer, but feigned and compacted deceits. Thus also, when the divels were forced to fly from julian the Apostate, who frighted with the sight of them blessed himself with the holy sign of the cross, a Magician  told him, that the divels sled, not out of fear to the cross as they seemed to do, but in detestation of his signing himself with the sign of the cross 
(p) Theod lib. 3. c. 3.  But if men may thus be more crafty then the divell, in vain shall we persuade any man hereafter, to fly from that towards which the divell tempts him. For, it may be believed, that the divell tempts him to it dissemblingly, to the end he may fly from it: and for the same reason, in vain haue spiritual men given Rules for discerning, whether or no, the motions which we feel in our souls, proceed from a bad spirit. It seems this man is resolved to spare neither God, nor the divell. He  told us before 
(q) Auswere to the third motive.  that miracles, which are works proper to God alone, may be intended by him to an End contrary to that, for which they seem to be wrought: here, he charges the divell to pretend one thing, and intend another in his persuasions, or temptations. I wish that himself be free from believing, that men also, may dissemble, even in matters of faith. But because it were a sin, either to bely the divell, or deny him his due; it must be acknowledged, that he spoke as he meant, and meant to persuade Luther, and others by his means, to reject and impugn the mass: and none ought to be blamed for saying, that the divell vpon this ground had a chief hand in drawing Germany to lutheranism, from the ancient catholic faith, which they had embraced, by the preaching of S. Boniface, and other apostolical holy men.   

MOTIVE IX.  
Because the Protestant cause is now, and hath been from the beginning, maintained with gross falsifications, and calumnies, whereof their prime Controuersy-writers, are notoriously, & in a high degree guilty.   

answer.  
Iliacosintra muros peccatur, & extra. Papists are more guilty of this fault then Protestams. even this very author in this very Pamphlet hath not so many leaves, as falsifications and calumnies.   

REPLY.  
We may for our part, be content to let him leave Protestant Writers with the imputation of falsifiers, and calumniatours as he does. But we can give him no commission, to speak against us, more then he can prove, or hath any shadow of truth. It is strange that the director could possiblily utter so many falsifications in citing so very few authors, which, if I mistake not, are about six in all. And I am well assured, that he citeth not any one of those authors, without having first both seen, and pondered the places. And till he prove at least one of those many falsifications, he must not take it ill, if I do not believe him. nevertheless, there is a main difference between Catholiks and Protestants in this particular, though our Writers were granted by us to be as guilty of this crime, as by him our Aduersaries are. For we do not rely, either vpon our own understanding, or on the iudgment, and fidelity of any private person. But, Protestants, not believing any Infallible public living judge of controversy, must depend very much, on the fidelity of their prime controversy Writers, whom this man affirms, to be notorionsly, & in a high degree guilty of gross falsifications and calumnies.   

MOTIVE X.  
Because by denying all human authority, either of Pope or councils, or Church, to determine controuersiers of faith, they haue abolished all possible means of suppressing Heresy, or restoring unity to the Church.   

answer.  
Let all men believe the Scripture, and that only, and endeavour to believe it in the true sense, and require no more of others; and they shall find this not only a better, but the only means to suppress heresy, & restore unity. For he that believes the Scripture sincerely, and endeavours to believe it in the true sense, cannot possibly be an heretic. And if no more then this were required of any man, to make him capable of the Churches Communion; then all men so qualified, though they were different in opinion, yet notwithstanding any such difference, must be of necessity one in Communion.   

REPLY.  
The sum of his answer, is this: Let a man believe the Scripture, and for the interpretation of it, be guided by himself alone, and then there can be no Heresy, but all must be of one Communion. A paradox sufficiently confuted, only by being recited. Such a Church of Socinians, will indeed abound with unity, or rather singularity, of every man a part by himself: but it can never hope to enjoy union, or Communion of one with another.  
Thus, I hope, the Reader clearly perceaues, that, as I said in the beginning, Protestants are forsaken in this mans Answers, and grounds laid to introduce a new vnchristian Sect. But yet notwithstanding his contrary intentions, men who haue a feeling care of their own souls, will see, both the force of his motives, and that the Infallibility of Gods Church, & the necessity of a living Guide in the way to heaven, manifestly appears, by his very Answers and Example, which demonstrate, that whosoever relies not on such a rock, must be inconstant in all his ways.   
FINIS.