I Have just now read over a late Book, entituled, Reason and Authority; I read it with an excess of pleasure, being surprized and amazed to find Reason so baf­fled, and a monstrous Authority advanced against all reason. Non-sense, I perceive, is in fashion; and if I and You have as little sense, and are as imperti­nent as others, I may be a Writer, and You a Reader.

I perceive by that Book, P. 2, & 3. that a certain Man has left our Church without reason: He was advised to take reason, and make the best use of it in the choice of his Religion, and the setling of his life and practice in order to salvation; but he could find no reason to serve him. P. 4, & 5. He narrowly es­caped being an Atheist with reason, and had almost denyed the Being of a God, or at least his Providence, with rea­son; and something that looked like to a demonstration against the immortality of the Soul had so confounded him, that he was up head and ears in the water all soused, and plunged in the doubt, and whether he is yet out of it, we know not.

The Man goes on and considers the grounds of Reli­gion, the Jewish and the Christian; and finds little reason to think that the five Books commonly ascribed to Moses, P. 5. were ever written by him; he finds so many mistakes, and so many errours in the beginning of Genesis, that he gives you to guess his meaning, though he will not speak it, to be, that the Jewish Religion is little else than a for­gery, and that it has but small evidence of a Revelation from God Almighty.

Thus leaving the Jewish Religion, the Man in all haste goes to the Christian, P. 6. and considers the New Testament, as the Book which all Christians in all Ages have owned, to be the Records of the Christian Doctrine: He does not say by whom they were written, but at the reading of the first Chapter of St. Matthew he was hair'd out of his wits; He met with such difficulties, that his reason could not an­swer, if he brought any with him to the reading of it; for it is to be suspected that he used none, because a little reason in such a case as this, would at this time have lead him to have consulted his Authority. For if he, whom this Man calls God's Vicegerent, and the great Elias, that is supposed to solve all doubts, can say no more to this difficulty, than he himself could, he might have kept his Reason still, as bad as it was, and have been con­tent to be ignorant with Reason, as well as under Au­thority.

But, Dear Friend, look about you now; Thus far our Authour, booted, and spurr'd, and whipping on, has gone without reason: just now reason comes in a most unlucky time, I think for no other purpose but to fool the Man, and set him to combate with an Adversary that will certainly be too strong for him; for instead of fighting us, he now attacks Christianity it self, and does all the mischief he can to that Common Faith, which he and we profess: To this end he revives old Controversies, and starts new ones, and makes Schemes of Christian Doctrine, and that to shew to the [Page 3]World that Christianity has as weak a Foundation as the Jewish Religion was declared before to have.

To this end, I suppose, he tells us the three next things. 1. P. 7. That some of the Orthodox did not receive into the Canon of the Scripture, some of the Books that are now in it, P. 7. for near 200 years after the death of our Saviour. 2. That every Christian is not able, by reading of the Scripture, to compose such a Creed as that of Athanasius. 3. P. 7. That there are some obscure Doctrines hard to be understood a­mongst Christians; and here he sets down the Trinity, Consubstantiality, Transubstantiation, Predestination, and Freewill every one of these are altogether impertinent to this Man's purpose; they may be of some use to an A­theist, and serve him that is resolv'd to give a secret wound to Christianity; but they signify nothing to a Ro­man Catholick, or to him that would plead for Authority to determine Controversies in Christianity in opposition to Reason.

For, first, All the Churches in the World are now a­greed about the Books of the New Testament; and when the Orthodox in ancient times concurr'd in the acceptance of the Books that are now in the Canon, they came to this conclusion merely by the reason of the case, without the least interposition of any Authority of Pope, or Coun­cil: the last Book doubted of was the Revelations; and the reasons for receiving of that, Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 27. any man may reade in Eusebius, lib. 7. cap. 27. as he sets them down in the words of Dionysius of Alexandria.

Now I cannot imagine to what purpose this Gentleman puts us in mind of this old Controversie; if he has Au­thority for what he does, it may be something for his own satisfaction; I am sure he has no reason to offer in the case that can be allowed by any man else; for the Church of Rome is as zealous to preserve every one of these Books in their esteem and reverence, as Ours is: I guess [Page 4]that possibly he may be tempted to shew his skill in Con­troversie, and therefore he sets down with an appearance of accuracy, that such Books were not received into the Ca­non by the Orthodox for near 200 years after the death of our Saviour. But here the Man's skill fails him; for it is certain that Irenaeus quotes the Revelations in several pla­ces, Irenaeus, lib. 4. cap. 37. as a Book of like Authority with the rest of the New Testament; and he himself tells us, that he wrote in the time of Eleutherius; and Bellarmine sets him down as a Writer in the Year 180. after our Saviour's birth, and that will lessen the time mentioned of 200. after his death by fifty.

This mistake is not worth the noting, if it did not give us to see how ready some men are to lay aside not onely Reason, but the Sacred Records of the Christian Faith, not considering the true consequences of their own Action; since it is most certain, that if a full Authority be not al­lowed to the Books of the New Testament, there can be no pretence to any, either in Pope or Council, or in any thing that is called Church.

But our Authour goes on to a second thing, and pro­ceeds with more than ordinary caution, and seems as wise as a certain Spanish Don: P. 7. he treads out the ground, mea­sures the length of his Weapon, makes a Speech, and would tempt a man to think he is resolved to fight; but he withdraws safely, and calls in two others to engage; a desire he has to see the Holy Scriptures and Athanasius his Creed to combat one another for his divertisement. Now which of these two he is for, he says not, nor yet seems to guess which would have the better in case of a Contrast: But alass! this man mistakes; those two are Friends; and if there were any difference between that Creed and the Holy Scriptures, Athanasius (if he were now alive) would be the first man to declare against that Creed: it is certain he learnt, and sounded all his Doctrines upon those; no [Page 5]man read them with greater care and attention; no man cites them oftner, or with greater veneration.

Whether our Authour knew this or no, I cannot tell; but after all his preparatory flourishes, he gives no more than this dry insipid request to the Fathers of our Church, that they would not tell him that every Christian, suppose every Baker, Shoemaker, or Cobler, upon a sincere perusal of this Holy Book, would certainly have composed the Creed of Athanasius. Now this is a thing which never was spoken, either by Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, or Parish Clerk. Can any Reverend Bishop be presumed to think, and say, that the great Athanasius had not more wit and reason, more art, more skill in Consequences than every Cobler and Tinker, or than this Man's two Friends, Nailor and Muggleton? it is prodigious to think how men dote, that undertake to write Books against Reason.

But whatever this Man does, or can say, most certain it is, that if Athanasius was the Composer of this Creed, he did it upon a sincere perusal of the Holy Scriptures, by the power of a good Reason, and by the skill which he had in Consequence. As for Authority of Pope or Council he had none for this Composition; this Creed lay in obscu­rity, and was unknown in the Church long after the days of Athanasius; and as it was composed at first, so it was brought into the use of the Church afterwards for some time without any considerable Authority, morely by the private reason of some that were little more than private Men.

Thirdly, In the next place our Authour sets down some matters of Faith, great and necessary Articles, P. 7. as he calls them; and these are the Mystery of the Incarnation, the Doctrines of the Trinity, Consubstantiality, Transubstantia­tion, Predestination and Free-will. These he examined by his Reason, but he does not tell us what account his Rea­son gave of them. It is possible after a sincere perusal of [Page 6]the Holy Scriptures, that he might find great reason to believe the Incarnation of our Lord, and the Doctrine of the Trinity, and by consequence that of Consubstantiality, and something of a Predestination; and it is possible that from thence he found no reason to believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, for herein many other Mens Reasons would agree with His. This he does not tell us, but yet this I will presume in favour to him; that he does not think that the Fathers in the Council of Nice, and those in the after Councils, who fixed the Doctrine of the Tri­nity and Consubstantiality; I say, he does not think, but that they made their Determinations with highest reason; I will presume too that he thinks that the Fathers in the Lateran and Tridentine Councils had reason to determine the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; for though we think that in these two later Councils, the generality acted by false reasons, by prejudice, and by worldly interest; yet we do not doubt but they all, and every one of them, pre­tended to act with reason; for certain it is, that the pri­vate reason of any single man, is a much better guide than the private Spirit of a Quaker, or any other: for a Rea­son may be urged, and is upon information to be correc­ted, but the pretence to the Spirit is not. But if the ma­jority of those Fathers at the Council of Nice were able by Scripture and Reason to establish those Doctrines of the Trinity and Consubstantiality to be Articles of the Christian Faith; I know not why our Authour, since he has the same Scripture and like Reason, might not have done the same. Sure I am, that after this Council, Athanasius plea­ded much in the defence of the truth of these Doctrines, and that not from the Authority of the Council, but from the true sense and meaning of the several Texts; Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 12. the same way of arguing was used in the first Constantinopolitan Council, and so it continued, till Theodosius, by advice of Nectarius, which he received from Sisinnius, took ano­ther method.

After these doughty performances, P. 8. our Authour comes in the next place a little more closely to Scrip­ture, or the sacred Records of Christian Religion; and sets his reason to search, and examine them, and, if pos­sible, to draw from thence a scheme of Christian Doc­trine. But here, it seems, his Reason was jaded, and ty­red out much more than in all the rest of his Disquisitions; perhaps he found not there any thing like to the Doctrines that make up the Apostles Creed: He does not tell this, though he ought to have done it, if he had compared his scheme with it. But he tells us that he disagreed from all Churches, the Church of England in her 39 Articles, P. 8. and all the Catechisms of Catholicks, Calvinists, Lutherans and Socinians: I was pleased that in his opinion the Doctrine of the Church of Rome did no more agree with Scripture than that of the Church of England.

But though I was pleased in this, yet I was not very confident of any advantage from it, because our Authour oft queries, and seems to doubt, whether his Reason does not much differ from other Mens. I know that God Al­mighty has given different Talents to Men; for Heads, and Brains, and Wits, as well as Hearts, are not alike in every Man. I am sure the Ancients, by virtue of plain honest reason, were able to find the Christian Doctrine in the Holy Scriptures; so did St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, St. Hierome, St. Chrysostome, St. Augustin, and the rest. This was a light to their feet, and a lamp to their paths, sufficient to satisfy those good men in matters of Faith; and as this Man speaks, in the great and necessary Ar­ticles.

But though this Man could not find the Christian Doc­trine there, yet it seems that he thought that he found something there that pretty well agreed with the dreams of Ebion and Cerinthus, and with those of his dear Friends, P. 8. Nailor and Muggleton.

The first of these I am much enclined to believe; and if I were as impertinent as He is, perhaps I might give some evidence of the second.

As for Ebion and Cerinthus this Gentleman is too close, and will not give us the least intimation of their Dogm's, wherein his schemes did agree with theirs; yet I think it very probable that he might light upon some of the same thoughts with them, because I find a wonderfull agree­ment between the Followers of those two, and this Gen­tleman; For they had no reverence at all for Scripture, and very small regard to Reason; sometimes they would throw away, Ed. Erasmi Basil. 8vo. 1571. and easily reject a great part of Scripture, Iren. lib. 3. cap. 11. and at other times they would receive all; Iren. lib. 3. cap. 12 pag. 302. but upon this condi­tion, that they might interpret it; they made novel In­ventions to be great and necessary Articles of Faith; Id. lib. 3. cap. 11. p. 288. In tantum processerunt audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim conscriptum est, veritatis Evangelium titulent, in nihilo conveniens Apostolorum Evangeliis; they had a profound veneration for Authority, and entirely sub­mitted themselves to the Doctrines of Ebion and Cerinthus; for they supposed that these men had a secret or mystery derived down by Tradition to them, which alone was able to fix the sense of Scriptures; and therefore whenever an Argument was directed against them out of Scriptures, they still brought it to this Tradition: without this they undervalued and slighted all the Scriptures, and were the Inventers of the chiefest Arguments against them that our Authour and his Friends at this day do use. All this will appear, Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. 2. if we look upon Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. 2. Cum ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non rectè habeant, neque sunt ex Autho­ritate, & quia variè sunt dictae, & quia non possit ex his in­veniri veritas, ab his qui nesciunt Traditionem; non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem: and then far­ther toward the latter end of that Chapter, they chal­lenge [Page 9]something, that speaks the great confidence they had in their way, perhaps as much as the Infallibility of a Guide; se indubitatè, & incontaminatè, & sincerè abscon­ditum scire Mysterium.

The proceedings of those men are so like to the method, of our Authour, that I do not in the least wonder, if he found in his Schemes something very agreeable to their Doctrines. Some mens brains, for all what that learned Spaniard teaches, may be exactly of the same temper, and consequently their wits of the same height. I have heard of a fool, who by thinking the very same thoughts with his Brother, could find him out, when all the wise men in the Town could not do it.

Thus far therefore I will be obliging to our Author, and give him more credit, than I will upon some other oc­casions: I will, though with some reluctancy of reason, believe that whilst he was reading the Scriptures, some thoughts might come into his mind agreeable enough with some of those that Ebion and Cerinthus had.

But after this high civility allowed him, I hope he will not impose upon my Faith so far as to require me to be­lieve that he found any thing in the Holy Scriptures that agreed with the idle whimsies, and mad dreams and blas­phemous prate of his two other friends Nailor and Mug­gleton. This is such an impudence as R. C's aswell as Protestants must abhor; all Popes and Councils that have ever been, with wrath and indignation would have detes­ted any man that should have dared to put so profane and vile a scandal upon those sacred writings. What Anathe­ma's would the Council of Trent have thundred out against Luther, if ever he had wrote or spoken any thing so base as this? It is certain that there is nothing in Scripture that can in the least seem to favour the blasphemies of those two wretches; and I am unwilling to think that there was any thing in our Authour's schemes, that would deserve the punishment which they justly suffered.

It is possible that he might have been of their acquain­tance, and have had very particular respects for their persons, and so he might be over-easie to think that some of his thoughts might be like unto theirs.

This I am willing to guess, because I can with confi­dence presume that he has kept very ill Company, for though his natural temper carries him to speak soft and smooth things, yet in spight of nature he is forced to be rude, and saucy. For why cannot he write a Book with­out pointing his discourse at the breasts of the Right Re­verend Fathers of our Church; why does he treat them with contempt and scorn? why does he presume to daule 'em, to twitch 'em by the Nose, and pull 'em by the Beard, and stand over 'em with Fescue and Ferula; and tell 'em that here they were out, and there they were out, and that here, and there, and at every point he can instruct them? All this comes from want of manners and good converse; Muggleton would have done the same, and so would Nailor, and none but such as they.

For certainly a respect is due to them for their Chara­cter, and a respect is due upon their Personal accompt; they are men of excellent worth, and great learning, prudence, piety and integrity; and so conspicuously emi­nent in all these, that our Authour is not able to match them in any one Countrey, (though he take as large a view of Bishops as he does of Conversions in his 14th. page) through Europe, Asia, Africa and America.

But when Reason, and the Holy Scriptures are to be thrown down, it is no great wonder, if the Bishops of the Church of England fall with them.

I begin to be warm, and you my Friend, may be offen­ded at it; yet allow a little to a just indignation; it may well move a man of a cold complexion to see a pert un­known come up so briskly to the heads of our Reverend Fathers, and Address to them in a formal speech, intima­ting thousands of mistakes, miscarriages and errours in [Page 11]them; and yet in all that speech, the man says nothing but what is old, and dull, and flat insipid stuff; all and every thing in it has been answer'd five hundred times, since the Reformation, and at least twenty within these two years. This looks like perverse stupidity, for men to pretend to be writers, when they do not reade; if our Authour had read the late Books, by this writing he gives plain proof, that his Reason serves as little in drawing up Plea's for Authority, as it did before in making Schemes of Christian Doctrine out of the Scriptures.

All that he says, is this, that he heartily wished that God would have pleased to have left us some unerring Authori­ty and Sovereign Guide, p. 6. and then, that God has not left the World without Government, and given us Laws without lawfull Judges and Interpreters, p. 10. From thence he pre­sumes that there is such a thing, and resolves to go in quest after it; he comes to the Church of England, and demands it there; they deny that they have any such Au­thority. Not content with that, he puts himself to the trouble to prove it, p. 11. he goes to the Church of Rome; they say, they have it, p. 12. and he presently believes them; and after a few rubs removed out of his way, he reviews Bellarmine's marks and signs of a true Catholick Church, and by them endeavours to shew that there is such an unerring Authority, and Sovereign Guide in the Church of Rome.

Now all this is nothing, but a plain begging of the Cause, or a discovery how little he knows in this Contro­versie; for certain it is that the Church of England, and all other Protestant Churches ever since the Reformation, have demanded, and most earnestly required one plain positive proof, that ever God Almighty, or our Blessed Lord did ever appoint any such Sovereign Guide, and un­erring Authority in the Church: But they could never receive any plausible Answer to it; by all the ways whereby a Negative can be proved, they have shewed that [Page 12]there is no such order or appointment in it: Nay lately some Writers have asserted with good reason, that such a thing is not agreeable to the methods that God has us'd in the Government of the World, and that it would not be of any considerable use to the advancement of piety, or any eminent vertue amongst men; and that the pre­tence of it serves onely to support an unreasonable Usur­pation over the Church of Christ. Great Volumes, and strong Arguments remain unanswer'd; and yet at this time of the day, the dull and stale old accompts of it, without any new ornaments or new force are sent abroad without any ground or hope of victory, to vindicate the interests of it.

This deserves a sharper Censure than I will give, but yet I would have our Authour know, that a New Convert to his Old Friends the followers of Ebion and Cerinthus, might have alledged in his behalf all that which our Au­thour here does, and that to as much purpose; he might have said that, he had wished that God had left an uner­ring Authority in his Church; and that God had not left the World without Government, and given us Laws without lawfull Judges and Interpreters; and that therefore he presumed that such an Authority was somewhere to be sound. As for Irenaeus his Church and those in Commu­nion with it, they did not in the least pretend to it; but the followers of Ebion and Cerinthus did fully and loudly challenge it; and therefore his Reverend Fathers, Irenaeus and the rest of the Orthodox Bishops must have him ex­cused; for he will rather put himself under an unerring Authority, than trust to the Guidance of Those, that con­fess themselves to be no more than fallible men.

But to let that pass, P. 13. the next thing we find in our Au­thour is Bellarmine's Notes of a true Church; I suppose, he puts them down to encrease the bulk of his Book: He could not but know that they are of no Authority with us. And, Answers are given out to each of them in their [Page 13]Order: He might have added strength and force to them whilst they are so briskly attacked, but he has no pre­tence to build upon them, or defend himself by them. But besides, he of all men living has the least right to expect any advantage from them, because the chiefest of these Notes are grounded on sayings of the Prophets; and he that has so far depreciated the true value of the Five Books of Moses, p. 6. will hardly persuade another, that he gives any great credit to the writings of the Prophets.

He there gives us an objection against the Pentateuch, P. 6. from the supposed intermedlings of Esdras; but does not well reflect that he derives that objection by several Me­dium's from the Samaritans, who were the first, and are at this day the chiefest Adversaries, and greatest Calumnia­tours of Esdras. Now these very men keep close to the Five Books of Moses, and for this they offer some pre­tences of reason; but our Authour without any reason at all would make advantage by the Prophets, and throw contempt upon Moses, and all this, by virtue of the cre­dit which he seems to give to the objections made against Esdras by the Samaritans. But,

Most certainly in this he acts beyond his skill, and talks without book; for be it what it will, Bellarmine's Notes are of no use to him, and can do him as little service, as that formidable force of Pagans and Turks, and I know not how many Nations, which he brings in to his assis­tance, p. 11. where he himself says he has no Adversary. It is well for him, that that impertinency, and this did not come together into his head at the same time; for if he had thought but as much of the Pagan as he does of the Atheist, and Theist, perhaps his reason might have been as favourable to them, as it was to those others, p. 4. and then if Bellarmine's Notes had come into his way, who knows but that the man might have turn'd Convert again, and wrote another Book of the motives for his re­conciliation to old Paganism? for methinks it is very pro­bable, [Page 14]that our Authour might have found these amongst the Pagans: Ʋniversality and Visibility, Ʋninterrupted continuance, and Succession, till the days of Constantine; lastly, Ʋnity and Ʋniformity: he might have seen there too that which they call a High-Priest and Holy Altar, and a Holy Sacrifice, Miracles, and Religious Colleges, and Abstinence, P. 14. and vowed chastity, and a great many Doctrines Authoritatively imposed, and universally received through­out the World.

I will presume this Gentleman never read either Pausani­as, or Zozimus, or the Epistles of Symmachus; and it is happy for him that he did not. I will venture the little skill that I have, that any impartial Reader shall find better flourishes, sairer turns of the Pen, and more ap­pearance of Argument in that Speech which Symmachus makes to the Emperour Valentinian, Theodosius and Arca­dius in the Name of Rome Pagan, than our Authour gives us here against the Church of England to our Bishops; Now if these little thoughts governed him in the change of one Religion, it is well for him, that he never ingaged in the consideration of the other.

But our Authour has Bellarmine's Notes, and he will make something of them; by virtue of them he says he sound what he was resolved to find before, the true Catho­lick, or one Church, that may be said to be true, in op­position to all others. Now upon this foundation he builds apace; P. 15. 1. That this being one Body, must have one Head upon Earth, and he after our Saviour's Death was St. Peter; and after St. Peter's, his Successours; and they are the Bishops of Rome; and those are every one of them in their several times not only Successours to St. Peter, P. 16. but Christ's Vicegerents. This their Authority he says has been owned by General Councils, and so by the Catholick Church; and they have been in peaceable possessi­on of it for many hundred of years; P. 16, 17. and now they cannot be divested of it neither by themselves, nor by others; neither in whole, nor in part.

All these things he sets down, I suppose, as his own o­pinations and sentiments, and would have his Friends to judge him by them as Orthodox and a true Convert. He is not concerned whether they be true or false; for he knows, or may know, that every one of these pretences has been proved by Dr. Barrow to be gross falsities, and that almost to the evidence of Demonstration; and yet our Authour brings not the least proof for any one of them from any Old Authour.

Indeed he tells us that we have the Succession of Bishops of Rome delivered to us by St. Augustine, and that is true; P. 15. but he was unlucky to put us in mind of that passage, and much more because he never read it himself, for had he seen the 165. Epistle of St. Augustine where that Suc­cession is mentioned, and the very next to it; he might have found in that great Father, a full contradiction to all his thoughts concerning the Scriptures, and concerning Authority, and then perhaps he would have imployed his time to better purposes than in writing this Book.

St. Austine in that Epistle sets down the succession of the Bishops of Rome from St. Peter, and that for no other purpose, but to shew that none of all those Bishops was a Donatist. Augustinus Epist. 165. And that because a Donatist had set down the suc­cession of their Bishops before; not that he thought any one of them, after St. Peter, was a Sovereign Guide, or had unerring authority in him, for he himself presently adds to this, that if any of them had been a Donatist, or worse, yet the Christian Doctrine would not have suffered the least by it. In illum ordinem Episcoporum qui ducitur ab ipso Petro, usque ad Anastasium, qui nunc super eandem Cathedram sedet, etiamsi quisquam traditor per illa tempora subrepsisset, nihil praejudicaret Ecclesiae, & innocentibus Christianis. This I suppose our Authour is not willing to think, because he depends so much upon Authority, and so little upon the Scriptures; but St. Augustine did, because he relyed upon the Scriptures, to teach us that Doctrine [Page 16]which Jesus Christ, and his Apostles had revealed to the World; and therefore in the same Epistle he slights all his o­ther Arguments, and fixes intirely upon the Scriptures, as those alone which could give us a full and solid evidence for the truth of a Christian Doctrine; Augustinus Epist. 165. these are his words. Quan­quam nos, non tam de istis documentis praesumamus, quàm de Scripturis sanctis, and then he cites a Text. But in the next Epistle, and that against the Donatists, after some other veli­tations, and general topicks, whereof Councils was one, as appears by those words, Faciant mille concilia Episcopi, he comes to the holy Scriptures and triumphs in his Ar­guments, and doubts not to defeat his adversaries by the force of them. He begins with words frequent in his writings? Augustinus Epist. 166. In Scripturis didicimus Christum, in Scripturis didicimus Ecclesiam, has Scripturas communiter habemus, quare non in eis, & Christum, & Ecclesiam communiter re­tinemus Then he throws out near twenty Texts one af­ter another, comments in short upon them, and never doubts, but that he and his Adversaries did sufficiently understand them, without the assistance of a Sovereign Guide, or an unerring Authority: if our Authour had con­sidered this, it might have done him good; but because he is pleased to find the Succession of Roman Bishops in St. Augustine, I will shew him (what he seems not to know) two very considerable uses, which that great Fa­ther made of that topick; the First was to conciliate a most profound veneration to the Holy Scriptures; thus therefore he writes, August. contra Faust. Ma­nich. lib. 11. cap. 5. contra Faustum Manichaeum, lib. 11. cap. 5. Distincta est à posteriorum libris, excellentia canonicae Authoritatis veteris, & novi Testamenti, quae Apostolorum confirmata temporibus, per successiones Episcoporum, & pro­pagationes Ecclesiarum, tanquam in sede quâdam sublimiter constituta est, cui serviat omnis fidelis & pius intellectus. A Second use that he made of this consideration of the Suc­cession of Bishops in their Sees, was (in case of a dispute about a Text) to evidence what was the first, and so the [Page 17]true Christian Doctrine. To this end he very frequently in his disputes with the Donatists, requires them to search what was taught in the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, E­phesus, Philippi, Thessalonica, all the Churches that had the honour to receive Apostolical Epistles; Now if all these, having several Successions of Bishops, should agree in any one point, that was controverted, St. Augustine took their consent to be a good Argument, that such a Doctrine was original and true; he sends them indeed to Rome too, but upon no other accompt, and no higher reason, than he does to those other Apostolical Churches: Now I think I may presume in kindness to our Authour to give him one advice, and that is this; to have a care when he refers to St. Augustine, that he knows his mind, and that St. Augustine did write what he cites him for; for I can tell him, that a certain person, who was of his opinion concerning a So­veraign Guide, and unerring Authority to be sound in the Church of Rome, came at length to believe (and that con­sequentially to his opinion) that the decretal Epistles of the Popes, were of the same Authority with, and to be reckoned amongst the Canonical Scriptures; and to con­firm his opinion he cited St. Augustine for it, and this his citation had got into Gratians Decretum; but the last Ro­man-Correctours of Gratian found it to be either gross for­gery, or a gross mistake, and they have done St. Augustine right, and a favour to such Persons as our Authour is, to let them know, that St. Augustine is no great friend to such fond and absurd opinions. You may see Gratiani Decreti prim. part. Distin. 19. Cap. 6. But because it may be some trouble to consult that Authour, I will give you the truth, and the forgery together. St. Augustine in his Book, De Doctrina Christiana, lib. 2. cap. 8. had given us these words. In Canonicis Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quam pluri­um authoritatem sequatur, inter quas sane illae sunt, quae Apo­stolicas sedes habere & Epistolas accipere, meruerunt, &c. Now this was plain and good advice in the examination [Page 18]of Books, that might be alledged to be Canonical Scriptures, to give a preference to the testimony of those Churches that were called Apostolical Seats, and such as had the honour to receive Epistles from the Apostles, as Rome, Corinth, Philippi, &c. But now a transcriber of this, I suppose more knave than fool, changes the words thus. In Canonicis Scripturis Ecclesi­arum Catholicarum quamplurium Divinarum Scripturarum solertissimus indagator autoritatem sequatur, inter quas sane illae sint quas Apostolica sedes habere, & ab ea alii me­ruerunt accipere Epistolas. This speaks quite a different thing, that the Epistles of the Apostolical Seat are to be accounted Canonical Scriptures. This forgery or mistake came abroad, I suppose, at the same time with the coun­terfeit ware of Riculphus; and to this, with the false Epis­tles of the most early Bishops of Rome, were put into Gra­tian; and there it remained as a great Authority in the behalf of the Sacredness and Canonicalness of Papal Epistles, untill the last Correctours were pleased honestly to reject it, and prudently to tell the World that they dare not own such follies or knaveries.

But farther, because our Authour thinks to advantage himself of the Name of St. Augustine, I will acquaint him that this Father had no very extraordinary opinion of Rome, or the Bishops of it; when he was in quest of the true Religion, he left Rome and went to Milan, and sub­mitted himself to the guidance of St. Ambrose, and re­ceived the true Christianity from him. He had all his days the highest reverence for him, and would have yielded to his Authority, when he would not have yielded to the Pope's: Augustinus Epist. 162. He tells us that when Melchiades judged the cause of the Donatists, he was joyned with several other Bishops, in the same Commission by Constantine; Aug. Epist. 163. when he names those two great men, Julius Bishop of Rome, and Athanasius, as orthodox Persons, and defenders of the right faith, he puts Athanasius in the first place: It is he that gives those hard words, Quidam qui nomen habet Falcidii, duce Stultitià, & [Page 19]Civitatis Romanae jactantià, Levitas Sacerdotibus, August. quaes­ti mes ex utro­que mixtim. p. 108. & 109. Edit. Lugdun. An. 1561. & Dia­conos Presbyteris coaequare contendit, he tells us what it was that rais'd his passion; the Deacons of Rome it seems would not yield to the Presbyters of other places; upon that he says, Quia Romanae Ecclesiae ministri sunt, idcirco honorabi­liores putantur, quam apud caeteras Ecclesias, propter mag­nificentiam urbis Romanae, quae caput esse videtur omnium civitatum: Si itaque sic est, hoc debent, & Sacerdotibus suis vindicare. And a little after he gives a fuller accompt of it, Vides quid pariat vana praesumptio, immemores enim elatione mentis, eo quod videant Romanae Ecclesiae se esse mi­nistros, non considerant, quid illis à Deo decretum sit, & quid debeant custodire, sed tollunt haec de memoria assiduae Sta­tiones domesticae, & officialitas; quae per suggestiones malas, seu bonas nunc plurimum potest; aut timentur enim ne malè suggerant, aut emuntur ut praestent.

But because this Book is accompted by several not to be St. Augustine's, though sent abroad by the Monks, and published in his Name.

I will add farther that St. Augustine's thoughts of Rome, and the Bishops of that See, were quite different from our Authour's; for if he thought that the Soveraign Guide, and the unerring Authority had been there; and that God deposited those great supports and securities of the Christi­an Faith in the Succession of the Roman Bishops; then in all likelihood when Rome was taken by the Goths, he would have lamented and mourned, as a Jew formerly would have done at the taking of Jerusalem, and the cap­tivity of the High-Priest.

But alas there was nothing like it, when this news was brought to St. Augustine, all that he said of it was this, Ibi multos fratres non habuimus, non adhuc habemus.

Indeed for this expression he seems to apologize in his next Sermon, but that not as to the truth of his words, Serm 29. de verbis Domi­ni. but as to the spirit of mind in which he spake them; that it was not out of any design to insult over the mise­ries [Page 20]of others. Besides, he that remembers what labour he, and the rest of the African Bishops took, to get the concurrence of the Bishops of Rome, Innocentius and Zosi­mus, to the condemnation of the Pelagian Heresie, may well think, that St. Augustine could have no great reve­rence for them; and if we read Erasmus his Censure upon Innocent's Epistles which are printed with St. Augustine's, we may possibly be tempted to entertain mean thoughts of the Bishop of so great a See.

These are Erasmus his words before the 96^th. Ep. which is Innocents. Innocentius superiori respondet suo more, saevus potius quàm eruditus, & ad damnandum quàm docendum instructior. But I must leave this, and follow our Au­thour. He goes on p. the 18^th. leaping and skipping from one thing to another: He speaks first of Victor, what he did in casting out the Asiaticks, and then what Gregory and others, whom he calls Christ's Vicegerents, did in bringing in converts; and wonders that so many Prose­lytes should be made to so little purpose. Then he fansies he had seen glorious and wonderfull Privileges in the Church of Rome; and knows not how they could be for­feited. After, he falls to his wonted work of whipping our Bishops for telling him that new Doctrines had been brought into the Church, which were not imposed upon the faithfull till the Council of Trent.

Now nothing of all this deserves an answer, because it hath been so often given before. But it may be expected by some.

As to Victor, he says he excommunicated the Bishops of Asia for keeping of Easter, contrary to the Institutions of St. Peter and St. Paul, though tolerated by St. John. Now this is fit to be said by a new Convert, who must venture farther, than any man of skill dare do. For first the matter of fact is doubted, and Valesius the last Editor of Eusebius, (who was all his days a Roman Catholick, thinks that Victor went no farther, than to high words and [Page 21]threatning. And then as to the right of the action, Eusebius. lib. 5 c. 24. Ire­naeus (who wrote to Victor himself about it) fully shews, that it would have been unreasonable, and against all the methods of his Predecessours. But then thirdly, the re­lation of our Authour is altogether groundless, that St. Peter and St. Paul did institute, and St. John onely tolerate. For this is a thing, that Polycrates the President of the Council of the Asiaticks never knew, Victor himself never knew, Irenaeus never knew, Anicetus Bishop of Rome, nor yet St. Polycarp, that contested this point with him, (who too was St. John's own Disciple) never knew. Euseb. lib. 5. c. 24. Certainly our Authour has some Pidgeon, that whispers to him Secrets and Mys­teries, that no man knows. I beg his leave a little to ac­quaint him with the sense of his friend St. Augustine in a like case. The Romans challenged to have a command from St. Peter for keeping the Saturday-Fast; and those of the Eastern Churches quite contrarily asserted, that they were expresly forbidden, and that by St. John, to fast upon that day. A Presbyter of the Church of Rome writes to his friend, and most earnestly exhorts him, to do as they did, and pleads thus. Petrus Apostolorum caput, coeli Janitor, & Ecclesiae fundamentum id ipsum Romanos edo­cuit. Now St. Augustine being consulted in the case, slights all that flaunting Plea of the Romans, allows the allegati­on of the Easterns to be as good as those of the West; and concludes thus, that the Apostles St. Peter and St. John did not vary. If they gave any rule, it was the same every where. And seeing there is a present difference, it must be said, that either the Eastern Church hath varied from the rule of St. John; or else the Roman Church has varied from the rule of St. Peter. Now which of these was the truth St. Augustine knew not: He himself gives his sense in these words. Epistola 86 Casulano. Augustinus Ep. 86. Casu­lano. After the Plea for Rome, E contrario refertur, occidentis potiùs aliqua­loca, in quibus Roma est, non servasse quod Apostoli tradide­runt: [Page 22]orientis verò terras, unde coepit ipsum Evangelium ipsum praedicari, in eo quod ab omnibus simul cum ipso Pe­tro Apostolis traditum est, ne Sabbato jejunetur, sine aliqua varietate mansisse. Upon this he concludes thus, intermina­bilis est ista contentio, generans lites non finiens quaestiones.

Had this great Father known any thing of a Soveraign Guide, and unerring Authority seated at Rome; he could never have doted so far, as to have made this any matter of question. But he knew nothing of that, or of Peter commanding, and John onely tolerating, either in the one or the other case. And I will presume for once, that he knew a great deal more than our Authour does.

But the second skip our Authour takes is to Conversions and here he says he perceives, P. 18. that according to the com­mand, and institution of our Saviour, his Vicegerent did send out his Disciples. Here I want our Authour's Spectacles, for I can perceive nothing; I see no Vicegerent of our Bles­sed Lord: nor do I see any command, that he ever gave to such a Person: nor do I know whether he means the Disciples of the Vicegerent, or the Disciples of our Lord. It is certain our Lord gave a command to the Apostles to teach all Nations; and they and their Successours the Bi­shops, have acted according to that command. And if Gregory Bishop of Rome, or any other have been industri­ous in that work, we heartily thank and commend them.

But yet I wonder, that our Authour has of a sudden, grown so extremely blind, as not to see, that conversions may be made to what is bad, as well as to what is good. Pagans and Mahometans have been industrious to make converts: So have all Hereticks, his friends Ebion and Ce­rinthus, Nailor and Muggleton. Nay this, if he had not despised, and too long laid aside the Holy Scriptures, he might have learn'd without the assistence of his unerring Authority from one saying of our Blessed Lord, Math. 23.15. Wo unto you Scribes and Pharisees, &c.

After this gross piece of ignorance, P. 19. which he is plea­sed to shew to advantage, with flourishes of his pen, com­paring his reason with that of our Reverend Bishops; he may excuse me from telling him how the great Privileges and Prerogatives of the Church of Rome could be forfeited; untill he hath shown me in particular what they were, that he insists upon. For until he has proved, that Rome did really enjoy such Prerogatives, as he challenges on her behalf; I will not undertake to shew, when and how Rome forfeited that which Rome never had. Our Authour may be a Sophister, and how far he is beyond that him­self best knows; and so he may think no farther in this Paragraph, than the old trite Cavil, quod non perdidisti habes. And his friends at Rome will con him but few thanks for that.

And now our Authour begins to whip our Bishops, and wo be to them. He tells them what he had been told, that there were some late Doctrines introduced into the Church, and such as were not imposed upon the faithfull, be­fore the Council of Trent. This he says he could answer by alledging, that the protesting against those Doctrines was in the same time. But this he waves, and chooseth ra­ther to shew, that the Doctrines we oppose were establisht by Councils before. And here he begins with

1. The Pope's Supremacy; P. 20. which he saith was confirmed in the Council of Chalcedon, (one of the first four general Councils owned by Protestants) above 1200 years since, 630 Fathers pre­sent. Quid dignum tanto feret hic promissor hiatu? As for my part I wonder, who either licensed or allowed this Book to be printed. Will any man of skill think to advance a Plea for the Pope's Supremacy from the Council of Chalcedon? It is certain, that nothing was done there that might have any reference to this Point, which was not disclaim­ed by the Legates of the Pope upon the place; and after­wards highly resented by Leo the I. who was then Pope. It is true that Anatolius then Patriarch of Constantinople, [Page 24]carried on a design to advance his Seat; and because he was Bishop of New Rome, would have the next place after the Bishop of the Old; and so would have the Pre-emi­nence of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch. Du Pin de antiaua Eccl. Discip p. 53. In order to this, in the absence of the Pope's Legates, Ana­tolius and his friends, got the 28 Canon of that Council to pass, which gives to the Patriarch of Constantinople [...], that is, as a learned Roman Catholick comments, eadem & aequalia privilegia tribuunt Episcopo novae Romae, ac veteris Romae Episcopo. Now assoon as the Legates of the Pope had heard of this they declared against it, and obtained another Session, wherein they might produce their Plea against the validity of this Canon, both as to the form and matter. But their objections were answered, and the Canon passed against their minds; though Lucen­tius one of the Pope's Legates protested against it, and de­sired that his Protestation might be entred into the Acts of the Council. And when Leo the Great, who was then Pope, heard of this, he declared against it, and wrote a­gainst it, with a great deal of vehemence and indignation, as any one may see, who will consult these Epistles of his, the 56, 57, 58, 63, 66. And Leo could never be brought to confirm that very Canon which our Authour tells us did confirm his Supremacy. Now in this case I will presume that Pope to be a better guide, and to have more Autho­rity than our Authour. This is a blunder, and shews us, that new Converts are not men of the greatest skill, and that some of them have as little knowledge in Councils, as they have in the Scriptures. This man deserves a greater lash than I will give him, for bringing in his Story with that pomp and appearance of skill, telling us that this Council is owned by Protestants, the time of its celebrati­on, the number of Bishops who were in it. And now at last it appears, that whatever we Protestants do, yet the Pope himself will not allow what this man challenges in his behalf.

But perhaps his case is piteous. For more may be requi­red of new Converts, than they are able to perform. He that takes up a Religion by submitting to Authority with­out reason; may easily be confounded, when he seeks to give reasons for what he has done.

For once I will be kind, and make the best Apology for our Authour I can, and I think a good one, and that is this.

He is not the first man of the Church of Rome, who has quoted Councils to little purpose. He follows great Exam­ples, and the chiefest among them.

For thus did Paschasinus, one of the Pope's own Legats in this very Council at Chalcedon, and that too in his op­position against this 28th Canon. After he had declared it was the Pope's pleasure, that nothing should be determin'd there, concerning his Power, or the Power of the other Patriarchs; he alledged in behalf of the Pope's Supremacy, that it was fixed beyond exception or doubt, by the sixth Canon of the great Council at Nice, wherein it was decla­red, that Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum. The Bishops wondered they should know nothing of this, and thereupon required the Canon to be read. Paschasinus pro­duced his Copy, and there those words were: But the Fa­thers not satisfied, called for others, and more attested Co­pies: and in them there was not the least word, intima­ting any such thing. Now this compare of the Copies made Paschasinus blush, and the Fathers of that Council think what sort of men they had to deal with.

A Roman Catholick tells us this Passage in these words, Primò refertur à Paschasino Leonis in Concilia Chalcedo­nensi Legato, Act. 16. quod Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum. At statim Chalcedonenses Patres eundem Cano­nem ex codice suo, sine additione istâ retulerunt. Quaprop­ter consentiunt omnes eruditi, verba haec non esse genuina sed assuta.

Thus too in the Council of Carthage, Du Pin, p. 325. Faustinus, Legate of Zosimus, challenged a right for the Pope to receive Ap­peals, and that by right of a Canon of the Council of Nice. The African Fathers found no such thing in their Copy, brought thence by Caecilianus, one of the Fathers of that Council. Synodi Carth. Acta Edit. à Beveregio, p. 5 [...]9. But because Faustinus insisted upon the skill, knowledge, or infallibility (if you will) of Pope Zosi­mus, and had shewed that the Pope himself, in his Commo­nitory directed to him, and the other Legats, did expresly assert that this was his right, and that according to the determination of the Council of Nice; the African Fathers resolved to send Messengers to the three great Seats, Alex­andria, Antioch, and Constantinople, to get new Copies, one from each of them, attested under the hands of those Pa­triarchs, Epist. ad Coe­lestinum in fi­ne Canonum Carthag. à Be­vereg. Edit. p 675. and compare them with their own and the Ro­man Copy. At the return of the Messengers, it manifestly appeared that their own Copy intirely agreed with every one of the others, and that the Council of Nice had not gi­ven the least advantage to the Bishop of Rome in the case of Appeals.

Thus it seems that Councils are different things in Rome from what they are in other places. A Pope or his Le­gate, can reade that in them, which no man else can. The Popes seem extraordinarily wise in challenging a power to confirm Councils; but they had as good let it alone. For it will doe their business as well, if they fol­low these Examples, to take from them, and add to them what they please. Brietii Anna­les in An. 418. p. 402. Both these things (I know) are ex­cused: and some tell how Paschasinus was led into his mistake: others say it was a mere oversight of Pope Zosi­mus in quoting the Nicene Council instead of the Sardican. To avoid other difficulties; some are willing to allow, that a Pope may be deceived, and that too when he is in­larging his Power over the Church Catholick with all art and subtilty. Nor do I know what Article of Faith or In­fidelity might not be established in the Church by such [Page 27]mistakes and oversights as these. It's well for succeeding Christians, that the Fathers at Carthage and Chalcedon had eyes in their heads, and did use them too; without giving trust to Pope, or Legate, or Roman Copy. For had they been as much mistaken or overseen as others, there are e­nough at this day, that would make advantage of it, and declaim sufficiently against us pleading an oversight in the case. But these Senses of men are evil things, and most mischievous to the Interests of Rome. These tempt men, in spight of all their resolutions, doe they what they can, to misdoubt the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. These shewed of old what was, and what was not in the Council of Nice; and are every day telling tales, opening and dis­closing some fine intrigue or other: so that I cannot but wonder that Rome has not yet taken a full revenge of them. For if they would oblige men to deny, or at least misdoubt their Senses in every thing as well as one; and require the Learned not to see what they do see in Councils and old Records, as well as they require all not to see what they do see in the consecrated Elements; then conver­sions would be easie, and they might soon find an intire submission, from all the World, to all the Supremacy they can wish.

But to let that pass, it is said in the defence of Zosimus, that he was overseen, and he easily might be; For the Ca­non that he quoted was a true Canon, made at Sardica, and not at Nice; and the Council of Sardica, as to Faith, intirely receiving and requiring all that which was conclu­ded at Nice; made onely Canons concerning Discipline: and they were put into the same Book; or upon the same Roll with those of Nice. Which the Pope finding in the Title at the beginning, might easily refer all that followed to it.

This is said. But the Fathers at Carthage did not judge it an oversight; but intrigue, and design: and to with­stand it to the utmost, made the 31st Canon, which or­dains [Page 28]most stoutly and resolutely; that If any hereafter should appeal to a Foreign Power, or Transmarine Judica­tory; he should never be received into Communion by any in Africa. Upon which Canon Zonaras says, [...], the huffing insolence of the Roman Church is here thrown out: and he adds that the reasons in the case, which were good in Africa, are good every-where else.

But besides, Synod. Edit. à Beveregio, p. 675. it appears more evidently, that those Fa­thers took this to be art and contrivance. Because at the end of the Council they sent their new attested Copies to Pope Coclestine, next Successour but one to Zosimus, with a Letter in the name of the Council: and therein they tell him roundly, that they knew their right, and that they would maintain it: that they had received wrong by the intermedling of Faustinus in the name of Zosimus: that the Council of Nice had committed Presbyters and Bishops to the regulation of the Metropolitans; and according to wisedom and justice they had fixed, that all Controversies and Pleas ought to be determined and adjusted in the Pla­ces and Countreys wherein they arose: that the grace of the Spirit is not wanting to the Priests of Christ in every place, whereby they may judge what is right; and in case of errour or aggrievance, there might be an appeal to the next Synod. And as to judgments to be revoked by Foreigners, and a new revision to be made in Places be­yond the Seas; they knew not how it could be well done. For in these Revisions, many necessary Witnesses could not be produced in such distant Places, by reason of sick­ness, weakness, and many casual, but yet reasonable im­pediments. At last they conclude, that all this action, which gave them so much trouble, tended to no good at all; but would bring into the Church of Christ, [...]. Whereupon they hope he will not follow the Example of his Predecessor.

Thus said these great Fathers, and thereby sufficiently intimate, what they thought of the Action of Zosimus.

And we, at this distance, may guess at some farther thoughts of theirs (which they have concealed) by ta­king a short review of the History of those times. Be­cause that will shew us something more than an oversight in this business.

The Council of Nice had done nothing for the aggran­dizing of Rome.

Two and twenty years after, another Council was con­vened at Sardica. The number of Bishops who came thi­ther, (as Athanasius tells us) was an hundred and seventy. At the first meeting there happens to be a breach amongst them. Upon that the greatest part withdraw: some it may be to their own Dioceses; others gathered together to Philippopolis, where they make Canons, and publish them with authority from the Emperour; and that in the name of the Canons of the Sardican Council. These for a time were the onely Sardican Canons that were known in other Countries. And because these favoured Arianism, St. Augustin, and St. Aug. Ep. 163. p 856. Hilary declared highly against the Sardican Council, and the Canons of it. For they knew of no other but these. But whilst the Eastern Bishops were busie at Philippopolis, there remained at Sardica a­bout eighty Bishops, as some guess. Briet. Annales in an. 347. Brietius the Jesuite says not above seventy. These, that they might seem to doe something, agree to make Canons about Discipline: And because there were none left there, but good confi­ding Friends of Pope Julius and Athanasius; Hosius leads, and they all without dispute or hesitancy follow. He says, Notae Bevere­gii in Concil. Sardicense, p. 199. Sardic Concil. Canon. 3. let us doe something to honour the memory of St. Peter: and they all agree to doe what he would have them to doe. Therefore he proposes, and they conclude to give that to the Pope which he never had before, and yet that was not a power of judging and determining in a cause upon an Appeal; but of requiring of a review, or se­cond [Page 30]judgment to be made in the Countries by the same Judges, with the addition of some few others. As soon as these Canons were made, Julius receives them, and tacks them to the end of the Canons of the Nicene Council, where they lay close for seventy years, and were never heard to speak a word in the Western Church for all that time. Nor yet dare they so much as shew their heads in the Eastern Church in any Judicatory to this day. But when Apiarius made his complaints to Zosimus, he was so hardy as to make trial of them; and in the name of the Canons of the Nicene Council, Du Pin, de Antiqua Eccl. Discip. p. 113. he sends them abroad to fight for him. De Marca, lib. 7. cap. 5. Du Pin, pag. 113.

Now in all this Narration from first to last, I see no manner of oversight; but great appearance of prudence, design and craft. It was no oversight for the Friends of Rome at Sardica, to make Canons of Discipline; when all the Eastern Bishops, who might oppose, were out of the way.

It was no oversight in Hosius to preface his Canons in that glozing way of doing honour to the memory of Saint Peter.

It was no oversight in Julius to tack these new Canons (that were to give him and his Successours such new powers) to those of the Council of Nice.

It was no oversight in his Successours, to make no men­tion of these for seventy years.

It was no oversight in Pope Zosimus, when he resolved to make advantage of them; to bring them forth in the name and credit of Nicene Canons. (Thus did Leo the First after him. De Marca, lib. 7. cap. 7. par. 6.) For had he called them Sardican Canons, St. Augustin would have presently said, that they were the Acts of Hereticks, and in the next moment would have thundred against them, as Falsarians and Counterfeits. For those Men who made the Sardican Canons, which he had seen did con­demn [Page 31]both Athanasius and Julius; August. Epist. 163. and then how is it pos­sible to think, that they would ever have given such new and extraordinary powers to Julius? After that, the whole Council would have declared, that whether the Ca­nons were counterfeit or not, yet no Act of any Sardican Council had any more authority in it (after the division of the Fathers) than an Act of one of their Provincial Synods.

Upon the whole therefore, whatever men talk of an oversight in Zosimus, it is certain he did what was fit and necessary to be donein the case. If he would use those Canons to enlarge his power, he must call them Nicene Ca­nons. For those onely could be presumed to have autho­rity sufficient to doe his business. Thus his own next Pre­decessour Innocentius the First says in his Epistle, ad Cle­rum Constantinopolitanum, of the Nicene Canons, that they, and they onely were the Canons, which the Roman Church stood to. Alios quippe Canones Romana non admittit Eccle­sia. Du Pin 113. Sozomen, lib. 8.26. De Marca, lib. 7. cap. 12. par. 1, & 2.

But, good Sir, pardon this digression. It has been too long. Our Authour forced me to it by his consident al­ledging the Council of Chalcedon, and the Council of Nice for the Pope's Supremacy. In charity I was bound to pity him, and tell him something which he did not know; and thereby (if possible) to move him to take more care, if ever he writes again. I pitied the World too, to see it in danger to be abused by such impertinencies at this time of day. Onely allow me the favour to acquaint you, that Petrus de Marca, speaking of those Sardican Canons, lib. 7. Petrus de Marca de con­cord. Imper. & Sacerdot.cap. 15. par. 4, & 5. expresly asserts that they were un­known in Africa, and other Provinces till Zosimus his days, and withall he shews how the Africans at last came to sub­mit to them; and that was upon many, and those not commendable reasons; the first of which is this, Cessere tandem ob pertinaciam sedis Apostolicae Pontificum, qui nihil [Page 32]remittere voluerunt ex jure sibi legitimè quaesito in Concilio Generali Occidentis Sardicensi nimirum; praesertim cùm pos­sessioni eorum consensissent Africani Episcopi, qui ad certum tempus morem gesserant defideriis Summorum Pontificum. And the last is from the difficulties which the incursions of the Vandals brought upon them, who being Arians made it necessary for the Churches of Africa at any rate to pur­chase the savour and assistence of the Romans. —incursio Vandalorum, Ariani erant, & in Africa dominabantur, Africanos necessitate adigebat ad arctissimam unionem cum Ec­clesia Romanâ.

It seems then that the Popes after long contests prevailed not by the merits of their Cause, but by their stiffness, or pertinacious insisting upon demands right or wrong; And by making advantages of the necessities of others, when Vandals, and those too Arian Hereticks, had master'd them, and lay hard upon them; for then those Orthodox Christians were forced to yield up their rights to the Popes, before they could obtain necessary reliefs from them. Thus said that wise and learned Roman Catholick. And he him­self in the writing of this gives us cause to believe the truth of this remark, for he then found in his own experi­ence the same stiffness, and pertinacity, and therefore puts in words to please them quite contrary to the design of his Discourse. For he shews plainly that they had no right, and yet was forced to say they had, ex jure legitimè quaesito. He shews that the Sardican Fathers, who made this Canon, after the secessionof the others, could not make up any shew of a general Council, yet says that right was obtained in Concilio generali, Sardicensi nimirum.

Now, Sir, if you can think that the Roman Bishops have proceeded in these methods, I hope you will hereafter less puzzle your self, and your Friends, with your Queries con­cerning the prodigious Power of the Papacy; how it could get up at first by such slender pretences? and how it could hand with such weak props? how men could be so bold [Page 33]as to challenge in behalf of the Roman Bishops so illustrious a Supremacy, so unlimited Authority, so glorious a Vicege­rency, as the Vicariatship of Christ himself must speak? All these will be much easier to you when you have conside­red these two things; first, the mighty effects of a perti­nacious stiffness in demands right or wrong; and secondly, what it is to take all advantages upon the necessities of o­thers, especially at such a time, when those barbarous People, Goths, and Vandals, and Huns, and Saxons, had overrun so many parts of the World.

2. A second point of Controversie between the Church of Rome, and the Church of England, which according to our Authour was determined by ancient Councils, is that about the Apocryphal Books; P. 20. which he says were taken into the Canon of the Old Testament in the Third Council of Carthage, signed by St. Augustine, Baruch onely not named, Canon 47.

Now to this it is sufficient to say, that the Subject is exhausted, and there is nothing left for another Writer to add to it. The Learned Dr. Cosens in his Discourse of the Canon of the Scripture, parag. 82. has said more than e­nough, for the satisfaction of any learned Roman Catholick, as well as Protestant; and if our Authour would pre­sume to reply, it will cost him more pains, than the wri­ting of a dozen such Books as these. But some small re­turn may be expected; He shall therefore have this: That the Canon he quotes out of the Council of Carthage, Canon. 47. a­pud Binnum, & Canon. 27. in Synodico Bevereg. does not provide for the taking of Books into the Canon of Scrip­ture; but for throwing of Books out of the Church. It says at first, that no Books should be read in Churches, but these; and then it says in the close, that they had re­ceived from the Fathers, that these were there to be read. Now our Authour knows, that though we call these Books Apocryphal, yet we reade them in our Churches; and that as much, and more than they do in the Church of Rome; and that all of them, except the two Books of the Macca­bees. [Page 34]Now as to these, Dr. Cosin's Scholast. Hist. p. 112, & 113. they are nt mentioned in any of the Greek Copies of this Canon; nor yet in Cresconius his Collection of the African Canons; and how they came to be inserted, we must remit him to Dionysius Exiguus for his satisfaction.

But if our Authour had any material doubt concerning the Church of England's Doctrine about Canonical, and Apocryphal Books, he would have done well to have con­sidered the sentiments of the Doctours of the Roman Church, before he had concluded against us. Now, I believe, that Cardinal Cajetan, where he endeavours to reconcile the Council of Carthage with Saint Augustine, would have given him reason enough never to have used this objection against the Church of England. He says in­deed against Protestants, but not those of the English Com­munion, in fine Commentariorum ad Hist. V. & N. T. Ne turberis Novitie, si alicubi reperias libros istos inter Canoni­cos supputatos; vel in sacris Conciliis, vel in sacris Doctori­bus; libri isti non sunt Canonici ad confirmanda ea quae sunt fidei, possunt tamen dici Canonici ad aedificationem fidelium, ut pote in Canone Biblii ad hoc recepti & autorati. Cum hâc distinctione discernere poteris scripta Augustini, & scripta in provinciali Synodo Carthaginensi.

Now this agrees well enough with the Doctrine in the Articles, and practice prescribed in the Rubrick, of the Church of England.

And besides, Can. Apostol. 85. this distinction has its foundation in a very venerable Authority, for the Apostolick Canons make a great deal of difference, (and that upon the same ground) between some, and other Books; calling some of these [...], venerable, and holy; but then of the Book, called the Wisedom of Solomon, or the Son of Sirach (and that most certainly is the best of the Apocrypha) say, it is to be learnt by the Young Men, or the Catechumens, for the good rules and instructions that are in it: and for this end it is read in the Church of England.

It is something more, and to be hinted here; Concil. Laod. Can. 60. that the Laodicaean Council expresly requires that no Books be read in the Church but those that we accompt in strict sense Canonical; Can. 60. And in the Canon 59. of that Council it is absolutely forbidden, that any private Hymns or Psalms (that is, such as have been made by private Persons, since the consignation of the Canon of Scripture) should be used in Churches. Now if our Authour knows his Breviary, and allows any Authority to these Councils; He may have more reason to object against the Church of Rome, for having so many private Hymns in their Service, than against the Church of England, for having so few Books in that which is properly called the Canonical Scrip­tures.

This bye-consideration might have given some stop to a man that was not resolved to run too fast from his Church.

3. But he mentions a third Doctrine determined in an­cient Councils against us; P. 20. and that is concerning the unbloudy Sacrifice; now this is for want of matter to give words; it is certain that the Church of England, at the end of the Communion-service, in the last Collect, teaches us to pray to God, that he would accept this our Sacrifice; and our Authour knows that it never owned any Sacrifice, but an unbloudy Sacrifice to be offered there.

I wish our Authour had told us whether the Sacrifice which the Church of Rome pretends to offer, be bloudy or unbloudy.

They tell us ordinarily that there is bloud on the Pat­ten, and bloud in the Cup, bloud with the Body concomi­tanter, for the benefit of the Laity; and bloud in the Cup to the satisfaction of the Priest; I think both these are of­fered up according to their Doctrine, as a Sacrifice propi­tiatory for the dead and the living.

They that believe Transubstantiation, must believe that one part of the Sacrifice is really bloud, and nothing else [Page 36]but bloud; and they may be concern'd to call it a blou­dy Sacrifice, but not at all to call it unbloudy. Pope Ʋrban the Fourth seems to have been of this mind when he instituted the great Feast of the Body of Christ, com­monly called, Festum Corporis Christi: For he did it upon this occasion; that a certain Host being broken by the Priest, either bled, or shed drops of bloud; they say mi­raculously, but how, or whether true or no, we know not. Now this, I presume, may be call'd a bloudy Host or Sacrifice; Brietius, Ann. 1264. in these words tells us the story.

Ʋrbanus quartus ex occasione miraculi de Eucharistia. Briet. Annal. in An. 1264. Ho­stiâ à Sacerdote fractâ reddente sanguinem, Festum Corporis Christi instituit.

The institution of this Feast was to give honour to the Host, and that not as unbloudy, but as bloudy; and it was to insinuate this Doctrine, that all the other Hosts have bloud with them, as well as this; though the bloud does not al­ways appear. But, as they say, then it did; and if so, it came in seasonably to confirm the Doctrine of the Late­ran Council about Transubstantiation; and that which soon follow'd after it, the communicating of the Laity in one Species. So happy was the Church of Rome then, to have a Miracle, or the story of a Miracle to come in at the nick of time, to patronage that which old Councils, and old Fa­thers, and sense, and reason, and all that is in man, must have disclaim'd and oppos'd.

But now, after all this, our Authour is most unlucky, to put us in mind of the true, ancient, Catholick Doc­trine; and to summon up old Councils in the defence of a word, which we accept, and use with submission, and that most properly; we believe the holy Eucharist to be a Sacrifice, and that in plain and strict sense, an unbloudy Sacrifice; and so as the ancient Councils, and Fathers did, we call it. And though the Doctours of the Church of Rome use the same word, yet when they reflect upon the [Page 37]Doctrine of their own Church, they must explain them­selves by a much harder figure, than we use when we in­terpret the words of our Saviour's Institution.

But yet our Authour will have the Councils against us; and he tells us of a Council at Constantinople, which, he says, was a thousand years agoe, and that it seems used these words, and so do we; those old Councils are better Friends to the Protestant Doctrines, than he is aware of; for the Protestants studied them, and learnt of them, and took their rules and measures, in the Reformation, as near as they could, after the holy Scriptures, from them.

Then he cites the ninth Council of the Apostles; now I wish he had told us, whether this was a thousand, or fif­teen hundred, or two thousand years agoe: I thought at first he meant the 15th Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles; But our Authour has declar'd so much against the Scrip­tures, that we can never hope to find his sense there; it is possible he means the ninth of the Apostolick Canons.

And that is as little to his purpose, as the ninth Council of the Apostles: to be sure it speaks nothing against the in­terest of the Church of England, and nothing to the ad­vantage of the Church of Rome.

Thus it is, and will be, as often as men adventure to write Books without skill.

4. P. 20. The fourth point our Authour gives us as determined in Councils, is that of the veneration and worship of Saints Relicks, as also of Martyrs, and holy Images; which, he says, was (according to Apostolical Tradition) established in the second Council of Nice, with the general concurrences of ancient Fathers.

This Council indeed speaks to the point, for which it is al­ledged; but because our Authour is pleas'd to fortify it with concurrences; I'll give him account of some other Councils, that as to time, do almost concur with this; they treat upon the same subject, and determine as resolutely; and when he has ballanced all the concurrences together, per­haps [Page 38]he may find as little pleasure in this allegation, as in all the rest.

The first Council that ever determined any thing about the worship of Images was at Constantinople, Anno 754. See the Acts of the second Nicene Coun­cil in Binnius, p. 621. Col. Edit. Ann. 1618. This called it self the seventh general Council, and so it was esteemed for thirty years after.

This condemned the worship of Images, and declared that it was abominable, that Images were Idols, and the Worshippers of them Idolaters; and that all and every I­mage was to be thrown out of Christian Churches; and they spake as high in this way, as any have done since the Reformation. See Binnius his Collection, as before; and Balsamus and Zonaras on the 7th and 9th Canons of the second Nicene Council. This appears by the Acts and Canons of the second Nicene Council where those Fathers speak a­gainst it.

A little more than thirty years after, another Council was convened at Nice; This cancelled the Acts of the former, and called it self the seventh general Council. This decla­red the worship of Images to be lawfull, but gave no requi­site bounds and measures to it, nor yet taught the expedi­ency of it.

This was done when Irene, an Imperious Woman, in the behalf of her young Son, swayed the Empire. But seven years after this, Charles the Great gets another Council to meet at Francfort; there met three hundred Bishops, who unanimously as much damned the second Council at Nice, as that had damned the former: Walafridus Strabo, & Ado Viennensis, & Regino Prumiensis tell us, that in this Francfort Council; Pseudosynodus Graeca pro adorandis Ima­ginibus habita, & falso septima vocata, ab Episcopis dam­nata est. And Hincmarus Rhemensis tells us: Tempore Ca­roli magni Imperatoris, jussione Apostolicae sedis, generalis Sy­nodus in Francia convocante praefato Imperatore, celebrata est, & secundum Scripturarum tramitem, traditionémque majorum, ipsa Graecorum Synodus destructa & penitus abdi­cata est. And a little after he tells, that by the Autho­rity of this Synod, the veneration of Images was somewhat [Page 39]repressed: But yet Pope Adrian was of another mind, and his Successours, after the death of Charles, Pupparum sua­rum cultum vehementius promoverunt, stirred much to ad­vance this worship; to which he gives a name which I shall not English: insomuch, that Lewis, the Son of Charles, was forced to write sharper against the worship of Images, than his Father had done. Now this is material, and it might in reason have stopt our Authour from laying any great stress upon the second Nicene Council. And all this he knew, or might have known; for Dr. Beveredge, —Notae Beve­regii in Conci­lium Nicenum secundum. in his learned Notes upon that Council, had laid all this before him.

But to add a little more; in the year 825. Ludovicus Pius called another Council at Paris, and this declared as much against the worship of Images, and the second Council at Nice, as that at Francfort had done before. The Acts of this Council lay in obscurity, unknown a great while; but they were printed in the year 1596. and since that time the Friends of the present Church of Rome have no­thing to say against them, and nothing for themselves; but that Jonas Aurelianensis disputed in that Council for Images against Claudius Taurinensis. —Bellarmi­nus de Script. Ecclesiast. An. 820. de Jona. Aurelia­nensi. But yet for all his Arguments, the unanimous determinations of the rest of the Fathers was against them. And besides, this very Jo­nas, though he had something to say against Claudius, yet he said not enough to serve the Interest of the present Church of Rome; For Bellarmine, de scriptoribus Ecclesi­asticis, tells us, that he wrote three Books pro defensione sacrarum Imaginum; But he advises men to reade them with caution; because (he says) that he, and Agabardus, and all the chief Writers of the French Nation in that age, are in one and the same errour; who, though they will allow some worship for Images, yet they deny that any religious worship is to be given to them.

Thus our Authour might have seen, that we have a­gainst them three Councils for one; One in the East be­fore [Page 40]that of Nice, most high and positive against Image­worship: and two in the West: and those not onely de­claring against that Worship, but as positively cassating and annulling the Acts of that second Nicene Council which allowed it; and these two convened by the direction of two great Princes, Charles the Great, and Lewis the Pious, who were the best Friends that ever the Church of Rome had. And with these Councils agree, or very near agree, all the chief Men of skill and learning, who were Writers in that age in the West: And then in the East, it is most certain that the second Nicene Council had no Credit, or Reputation, or Authority a great while after; for all the Historians that write of the Times after the Deposition of Irene the Empress, tell us of three or four Emperours im­mediately succeeding, who fully declar'd against Images, and their worship; threw them out of Churches, and se­verely punished all those that pleaded in defence of them. And nothing is so common amongst them, as severe and bitter complaints against the Persecution of the Icono­clasts.

All this is true matter of fact, and it is enough to de­preciate the credit of the second Nicene Council, and that perhaps with our Authour himself.

But yet, for all this, it may puzzle some others, to find that this second Nicene Council appears in the World, as the seventh General Council; and that in ancient as well as modern Collections; and not onely in the West, but in the East.

The consideration of this is beside my business; but yet it is strange, and surprizing, and would tempt a man to venture at a guess, which perhaps may move others to speak something in the case that is more material.

I have heard of a Proverb, or proverbial saying; that three things joined together will doe wonders; and they are these, A little good luck, and some Art, and a great deal of Face.

Now the second Nicene Council has had on its side all these three most remarkably. First, as to good luck, about the time of this Council, whilst Irene was Empress, there hapned a most prodigious strange Miracle at Berytus in Phoenicia.

An Image of our Saviour being wounded by a Jew in the breast gave out, as my Authour says, so much bloud, —Brietii An­nales in An. 765. as being divided, would be sufficient to be kept, and shown in all the Churches of the East and West: This was soon carried abroad; and a little of it, as most sacred and venerable, was reposited in most of the famed Churches: Some of this we find was shown at Mantua; and great noise and talk there was about it; perhaps some were for the Miracle, and some against it: And it is likely that Charles the Great had not faith enough to believe it; for in the year 804. he got Pope Leo the Third to deter­mine the Controversie, whether that bloud came from the Image at Berytus, or no; and at that time he gave his judgment against the Image; but when he added, that the bloud there shown came out of the side of our Saviour, an honest Jesuit dare not credit him.

Brietius says, de hoc viderint eruditi. —Briet. An­nales, An. 804. Now when this bloud was shown in Churches far and near, in the East and West, it could not but conciliate great veneration to sacred Images in the People. For they saw the bloud, and it was shown with a great deal of devotion; and the Priests and Monks told the story no doubt with confidence enough; and it being told in so many places, and so oft, and after the same manner, How the Jew blasphemed our Saviour, and how he scoffed at his sacred Image; and then how impudently he pierced it; and then, how that very bloud came from it; the People could not but believe the story; and believing that they could not but have a high opinion of their Images, and a great readiness to receive the Doctrine and Practice of giving worship to them.

This Miracle happening in Irene's time, or, as Sigebert says, a little before; but yet after the Constantinopolitan Council, that had condemned Image-worship, came in as seasonably to the assistence of Images, and Image-worship­pers, as heart could wish; if it had been contrived with craft, and sleight, it could not have happened in a more convenient time.

This may be said to be good luck; most certainly this Miracle, or story of a Miracle, did great service to the se­cond Nicene Council; it was a most powerfull mover to gain credit and authority for it.

2. But secondly, there was Art used to give credit to this Council; and that much more than it had, or could deserve; and yet not more than it wanted: For seeing that in the West the illustrious names of Charles the Great, and Lewis the Pious, were openly alledged, and every-where known against it. And the name of Irene, after her De­position, would rather have blemished than honoured it. And no Emperour for a good while after her could be named a friend or favourer of it; therefore Justinian was fetched from his grave to ratify it.

Within less than a hundred years after this Council, a no­torious piece of forgery was contrived to cheat them that were not unwilling to be couzened.

Justinian's Novel, wherein he confirmed the first four General Councils, was sent abroad, inlarged with the ad­ditions of three Councils more, whereof this was the last, and it was done for the sake of this.

But now, though this was a very impudent cheat, for Ju­stinian was dead two hundred years before this Council; yet Photius and Balsamon (whether willingly or unwillingly, who knows) were catched with it. See Dr. Beveredge's Notes upon the first Canon of the second Nicene Council; where this trick is discovered, and a broad intimation gi­ven, that many more like unto it might be added.

Now such Arts as these, with success attending them, and so great, as to deceive such men as Photius, and Bal­samon, may easily be thought able enough to support the worst Cause in the World; and we need not wonder to see the second Nicene Council in credit, and authority, since it had such mighty forces, Miracles, and Forgery to fight for it. And both these unaccountably successfull; the one in amazing the Vulgar, and the other in blunde­ring Men of the best skill: All the effect, which I know, that such a Story as this can have upon an indifferent Per­son, and such as hath not totally laid aside his Bible, is to move him to reade twice or thrice that Passage of St. Paul, 2 Thess. 2.9, 10.

3. A third advantage that the second Nicene Council has had, is Face. Now perhaps our Authour may at first be at a little puzzle to find this word here; and willing to spell the meaning of it; but he may soon ease himself of farther thought, if he reflects but on himself, and his own carriage in this Book, towards the Reverend Fathers of our Church; How he heads, and beards them, and talks saucily to them: and seems to triumph in a conquest over them; when he has neither Sense, nor Reason, nor Scripture, nor Council for him. It's well he has Face; for if he had not that, all things else would sail him: to that he must owe all the agreeable effects of this Book, if per­chance he finds any: But yet it must be said, that the same steps our Authour takes, others have trodden before him. For what Petrus de Marca says of the receiving of the Sar­dican Canons, Tom. 2. lib. 7. cap. 15. parag. 5. that it was done Ob pertinaciam sedis Apostolicae Pontificum, qui nihil remittere voluerunt, is likewise true in this case.

The Council was condemned, and all the Acts of it nul­led and cassated, with full authority in two Councils; so far as Image-worship was allowed and approved in it. And then as to the matter of it, the worship of Images; no man has yet taught any considerable good or expediency [Page 44]that can come to Christians by it. The Objections a­gainst it are pressing and strong, a danger, at least, of a great Sin; and that Sin suspected to be Idolatry, and so alledged to be by the Councils at Constantinople, and Paris. All the seeming Answers made to those Objections were retorted, and fully replyed to with briskness and smart­ness by Claudius Taurinensis in Ludovicus Pius his times: And the rejoinder of Jonas Aurelianensis does not satisfy Bellarmine himself. Vide Appendi­cem figur. 1. And nothing has appeared since in the World but the same things over and over again; or a hasty rallying up of the broken and shattered remains of those Ancient Controvertists.

This, I think, is enough to persuade an indifferent Bye­stander, that Face, or Confidence, or Pertinacity has had a great influence in giving that Authority to the Second Nicene Council which is challenged for it at this day.

I beg pardon for this digression; it may seem imperti­nent to some, and not altogether so to others. It may perhaps give occasion to the more Learned to examine more strictly the Authority that is commonly allowed with no very good reason to some other Councils.

I will onely add this one thing, for the consideration of my Countrey-men; that when the Decree of this Coun­cil was first brought into Britain, it gave infinite displea­sure and discontent to our Predecessours, the old Britains: The Learned Dr. Beveregii An­notat. in Ca­nones Concil. Nicen secundi, p. 163. Beveredge gives us this in his Notes upon this Council: Quantâ offensione, quantoque odio Ecclesia no­stra Britannica Decretum praesentis Synodi de adorandis ima­ginibus, tunc temporis, excipiebat, Historici nostri Rogerus Hovedenus, Simeon Dunelmensis, aliique, ubertim tradi­derunt.

5. P. 20. The next thing that our Authour gives us, as deter­mined in Ancient Councils, is that of Communion under one Kind; which, he says, was determined to be sufficient by the Council of Constance: Now here I will dispatch in short by telling this one thing to our Authour; That in [Page 45]my opinion he might as well have told me of a Council of Jews met together to condemn our Saviour, as of a Council of Christians, that have presumed to alter, and change the most sacred Institution of our Lord.

The blessed Sacrament is most venerable, as it came from him; It receives its being, nature, virtue, grace, from his good-will and pleasure, from his institution. Without this institution it is nothing: For there is no reason for Christians to communicate in the Lord's Sup­per; to eat his Body, and to drink his Bloud; but onely this, that it pleased the Lord to give that Rule and Order to them.

Had he pleased, he might have given us the Bread without the Cup, or the Cup without the Bread; and if he had pleased, he might have omitted both. But since he has given the same order for both; Christians are un­der the same obligation, and have the same right to both, as to one; and that all Christians, as well Laity, as Priests, for there is but one order given; and a Council may as well debar the Priests from the Cup, as the Laity; and they may as well null the whole Sacrament, as halve it.

But since our Authour has mentioned the Council of Constance, I will presume to recommend unto him a late ingenious, and discreet Discourse, published by a Person of quality, of the Authority of Councils, and Rule of Faith. He may there find some remarks concerning this Council of Constance, that may doe him more good than all the Councils that ever he read.

6. The next thing our Authour mentions is Purgatory, P. 21. and the Council of Florence, establishing the truth of the Doctrine concerning it. Now as to this enough has been written already, I'll be kind to our Authour, and for his sake say nothing against it. And that because I know not what profit or advantage to himself a New Convert may expect from it: For it is the trade of Indulgences and [Page 46] Masses that keeps up the talk of it; as it is a point of spe­culation, Rome is no more concerned to defend it than we. The Doctrine derives from Heathens, especially the Poets; and it may give fine entertain to Wits, and idle Persons. He that has nothing to doe, may transcribe half a score Legends, which may possibly make our Authour blush, and be wiser than to alledge Councils in defence of Purgatory.

7. P. 21. The last Point which our Authour gives us, is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, which he says was confirmed in the great Council of Lateran; in which near thirteen hun­dred Fathers assisted: and in seven or eight other Councils before that of Trent; and all the controverted Points parti­cularly, and by name, declared by some of your selves, to have been brought into England by Augustine the Monk, a­bove a thousand years since.

Here our Authour is unhappy in every thing he says.

First, He calls the Lateran Council Great; He means General, for that is the name which must guide its Autho­rity, and make it considerable; and so some have called it, but with the meanest appearance of reason that ever was offered; For the Saracens then gave too much busi­ness to the Eastern Bishops, for them to leave their Houses, and their Flocks, to come to Rome to make Speeches in Councils there.

And then secondly, He says there were near thirteen hundred Fathers assisting in this Council; now if he had looked upon Binnius, or Labbè, he would have found not above four hundred Bishops there, and they are the onely Persons that were ever reckoned for Fathers in a Council.

Thirdly, To the end of this he tacks a Story of Augustine the Monk, as if he thought, or would perswade others, that he brought into England the Doctrine of Transubstan­tiation, and the Decree of the Lateran Council for it: Now Transubstantiation, name, and thing, can derive no higher than this Lateran Council; and this Council was [Page 47]not in being for more than six hundred years after the Death of Augustine; Bede tells us, Lib. 2. cap. 5. that he was dead before the year 613. and this Council met not till the year 1215. Thus miserably unhappy is our Au­thour in his impertinent Sallies. But he must hear more of Augustine hereafter. At present our Authour's business is to gain credit and belief to the Doctrine of Transubstan­tiation from the Authority of the fourth Lateran Council, under Innocent the Third. Now to this I answer,

First, That no Lateran Council can be presumed to have any considerable Authority in it; especially not that which is challenged in the behalf of Great, or General Councils: which is a submission of Judgment, and an in­tire resignation of Faith to the Decrees of it.

Secondly, This particular fourth Lateran Council is liable to more Objections than all the rest; and some of them such as are so sharp and pungent to the sense of an English-man, that he can scarce hear them without disgust and hatred; and therefore it may be presumed, that what­ever credit and authority that Council can give to Transub­stantiation abroad, yet it can give little or none to it in England.

I. No Lateran Council can be presumed to have any considerable Authority in it; and that for these reasons.

1. Because these Lateran Councils come too near to the indoctum seculum; that is, to an Age wherein good Lear­ning was hushed asleep; and Ignorance and Darkness had overspread the World. This Romanists, Bellarm. in Chronologia in An. 970. as well as Prote­stants complain of, and tell us, that neither Learned Man, nor Writer, was known to have lived in it. Now before Learning was got up and dressed, Ambition and Interest had done a great deal of business in the World; and when it is known that they have been acting, all Men usually are so suspicious, as not to be over ready to give any great credit.

2. Those Lateran Councils came too thick, for we have five of them in less than one hundred years: Since that under Paschal the Second generally omitted, is certainly a Lateran Council, as Baluzius, in the Edition of Petrus de Marca, has evidently shown, Tom. 2. pag. 431. To these might be added at least three more, and all alike Oecume­nical; for all the distinction that Labbè makes without any reason, is but to salve the credit of the former Col­lectours.

3. The matter of some of them was of no great con­cern; this may be presumed, because the best Copies of their Acts and Canons lay by the walls so long; For they were not well understood, till the curiosity and industry of Baluzius, and some others, lately brought them to light: Petrus de Marca de con­cordia Sacer­dotii, & im­perii, Tom. 2. p. 431, & 435, & 437. this appears by Baluzius in the Book of Petrus de Marca; and by comparing of Binnius his Councils with those of Labbè.

4. Most of them were convened for ill purposes, to ad­vance the Papal Power, and to lessen the rights of Princes: To this end convened, or at least aimed the Councils un­der Paschal II. Callistus II. Alexander III. and that under Innocent III.

But the last is our business, where the Second thing is to be spoken to. I say therefore

II. This Lateran Council, under Innocent III. is liable to so many objections, that no man, especially an English­man, can have any great regard for the Doctrine of Tran­substantiation upon the Authority of it. This will appear if we consider,

1. That the 70 Acts or Canons of this Council were never heard of for full three hundred years after the Coun­cil; and they were first brought to light by Cochlaeus, Luther's Adversary; who, about 20 years after Luther's opposition against the Church of Rome, either found them, or pretended to find them in some German Library, and [Page 49]sent them to Peter Crabb, who printed them in the Year 1537. and annexed them to the rest of the Councils, as if they had been the true Acts of that Lateran Council; for which he had no Authority, but what he received from Cochlaeus.

2. They are so ill put together, that every man who reads them, must misdoubt them. For some of them are in the style of Conciliary Acts, and others speak after the manner of a Narrator, who tells what was done in a Council. Thus speaks the 11th, 33d, 39th, 51st, 61st. In the 11th we find these words; In Lateranensi Concilio piâ fuit institutione provisum. 33. Evectionum & personarum mediocritatem observent in Lateranensi Concilio definitum. 39. De multâ Providentiâ fuit in Lateranensi Concilio prohi­bitum. See the rest, and you will find that these and those words there used, speak plainly that these are not Canons of a Council. Hist. of the Irish Remonst. pag. 66. From these and other Arguments Peter Walsh has well guessed, That the words of Matthew Paris, who says that Innocent proposed 70 capitula to the Fathers of this Council, which to some did seem easie, and to others burthensome, gave occasion to some Collector to put together what he found in the Decretals under the name of Innocentius in Concilio Lateranensi; and give to his Collection the Name of the Acts of the Lateran Council; it is plain that Gregory IX. who put out the Decretals, did allow the same Authority to the Acts of a Pope, and espe­cially his Ʋncle, this Innocent III. as if they had been the Acts of a Council. And his Propositions in the Lateran Council, though never accepted or agreed to by the Council, would have as much Authority as the rest of the Decre­tals have.

III. But then thirdly it is to be observed farther; That whether these reputed Canons were Propositions of Pope Innocent, or real Acts of the Council, yet no great stress can be laid upon them, because all things were then done in [Page 50]extraordinary haste. We cannot at this day learn from any man, that in this Council there was any such thing as deliberation, or consulation; no argument was used, either pro, or con; no reason offered, no objection remo­ved; not a word is mentioned what this, or that, or the other man said; All things past in a huddle, after a quite different manner from what was used by the Apostles in their Council, Acts 15. But more closely to our present business as to Transubstantiation, the Doctrine of which our Authour says was here confirm'd; Briet. Annales in An. 1215. and Brietius says, that the Name of it was here admitted, in eo No­men Transubstantiationis admissum fuit; it is to be ob­served, that if we speak strictly, the very Name of Tran­substantiation is not to be found in all the Council; and there is but one Passage in it that refers either to the Name, or Doctrine. Cabassutius, a Roman Catholick, in his last Collection of Councils found so little of it, that in his Notes upon this Council, he has not one remark upon this Point. Nor yet has Labbè any thing considerable of it, though he takes in the Notes of Binnius, and gives us the Errours of Almaric, which gave occasion to this Doc­trine: yet the truth is, something of it is in this Council, in the first Canon of it: But it comes in so sneakingly, and so unlike to a Conciliary Act determining a Doctrine de fide; that an easie Reader might not observe it, and the more accurate would have no great regard for it. It seems to be slurred upon the World, or design'd to pass like a whisper thorough artificial conveniences, where they that are near shall perceive little of it, but at distance it will be noisie and loud. The words in the first Capitul. are these. Ʋna verò est fidelium universalis Ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur. In qua idem ipse Sacerdos, & Sacrificium Jesus Christus: cujus corpus & sanguis in Sa­cramento Altaris sub speciebus panis & vini veraciter conti­nentur, Transubstantiatis, pane in corpus, & vini in sangui­nem potestate divinâ, ut ad perficiendum mysterium unitatis [Page 51]accipiamus ipsi de suo, quod accepit ipse de nostro. These are the words, and besides these we have nothing that refers to this matter in the whole Council; and all that we have is no more than one barbarous word hooked in by a Pa­renthesis, without any explicite and determinate sense.

Now this is surprizing, and amazing, that Christians should be obliged, and that with peril of damnation, to believe a Doctrine so difficult, and so incredible, as that of Transubstantiation, and that onely by virtue of a word that seems to be slurred upon them; must we for this deny our Senses, and our Reasons, and forget our selves to be Men? must this be accounted Authority sufficient to awe Consciences, and subjugate Faith, and captivate Under­standings? God Almighty never did this, and the Blessed Jesus spake plainly, and fully, whenever he required obe­dience under such severe penalties.

If Transubstantiation be de fide, necessary to be believed in order to Salvation, certainly we ought to have better grounds for it, than the Lateran Council can give. For any indifferent Person would require, in such a case as this, that the Fathers of the Council should have used all application of mind, care, and industry, and hearty hum­ble prayer to God for his direction, before they had de­termin'd such a Point, and laid such a burthen upon Christians; but of this kind there was nothing done there.

IV. I add farther, that as there appears but little ground for any man to believe Transubstantiation by virtue of the Lateran Council, so there is much less for an English-man to receive either that, or any other Doctrine in the Name, and by the Authority of it. An English-man can scarce think of it without wrath and indignation: For this was called in the Year 1215. about two years after the great mortification of our King John by this Pope Innocent III. one of the great reasons for it was to shew to the World the Pope's Victory, and England's Slavery. From thence it [Page 52]was that he wrote his Letter to tell the Barons, In additioni­bus ad Conci­lium Lateran. quartum in Editione Lab­beanâ. Annales Mo­nast. Burton. Edit. Oxon. pag. 263. that En­gland was his, and the King his Vassal. Here it was that he expanded his Plumes, and shewed his pride and his glory; Here he made known to the World that Pandulphus did not go beyond commission, when he told King John that he ought to obey his Lord the Pope, tam in terrenis quàm in spiritualibus, as well in earthly matter as in spiritual; nor yet acted beyond commission, when he stressed this unhappy Prince so far, that he was forced to resign up his Kingdoms to the Pope; and could not be resetled in his Rights, till he had submitted to become tributary, Vassal and Liege-man to this Pope, and his Successours, and untill he had taken that slavish base Oath, Annales Mo­nast. Burton. p. 270. which was framed in the same words wherewith Vassals and Villains were wont to bind themselves to their proper Lords; which may be seen with many other strange Clauses contained in it, in the Annals of Burton Monastery, p. 270. Oxford Edition.

That all these things were done by command, appears by the Acts or Propositions of Pope Innocent in this Late­ran Council.

Here he breathes in the Spirit of a Conquerour, and speaks as Universal Monarch of the World; he gives and takes away at pleasure, and makes Laws for the keeping, or forfeiting Estates. He tells what Princes shall be depo­sed, and when, and how far their Subjects shall be free to make head against them; Vide Addit. ad Concil. La­teran. quar­tum in Edit. Labb. and upon occasion not onely to depose, but to kill them. There he actually determined of the Rights to the Empire in the Cause depending be­tween Otho and Frederick; and there he gave away the E­state, Lands and Possessions of Raimundus Count of Tholouz to Simon Mountford.

And as he dealt with Princes, so he did with private Persons; for there be adjudged the Estates of all Persons to be liable to forfeiture, and confiscation, upon such faults committed; and not onely theirs, but those of their Abet­tors, Harbourers, or Receivers of them; as appears not [Page 53]onely in the Council, but in the Decretals, lib. 5. tit. 7. cap. 13. All this he did, and it will be no wonder that he did all this, if we consider how much his mind was elevated by his victory over King John; and to what a degree of pride and haughtiness he was grown; indeed it was so much, that no words can express it, except his own: In Bibliotheca Cottoniana sub Effigie Cleopatrae, E. 1. And whoever consults that remar­kable Rescript of his to King John, and his Heirs, wherein he sets down his Title to England, in perpetuam rei memoriam; may see a sufficient foundation to ex­pect all the rest of those Actions which insued after­wards.

This may be said of him, that he was so far just, that he was not partial to any, but he treated all alike; for as he trampled upon Princes, and Laity; so he most tyran­nically, and insolently treated the Clergy too. For in the Year 1216. as we see in the Chronicle de Mailros, Chronica de Mailros, p. 194. Edit. Oxon. pag. 194. Oxford Edition; we have a strange complaint of the Religious against him, that he went beyond all Rule and Order, Law and Canon. Inauditam & inusita­tam Dominus Papa Legato concesserat autoritatem, faciendi videlicet, ut ita dicam, quicquid animo ipsius sederet; in Clero, & Populo per Angliam, Scotiam, & Wales, consti­tuto, transponendi & deponendi, & alios ponendi, suspen­dendi, & excommunicandi, & absolvendi, Episcopos & Ab­bates, & alios Ecclesiarum Praelatos, & Clericos. This I presume made Matthew Paris give him that Character, f. 245. as a thing well known by the experience of Prince and People; Noverat Rex, & multiplici didicerat experi­entiâ, quòd Papa super omnes mortales ambitiosus erat, & su­perbus, pecuniaeque sititor insatiabilis, & ad omnia scelera pro praemiis datis, vel promissis cereus & proclivis.

Now such a Man, as this is, wants a great deal of ad­vantage, which another in his place might have had, in order to the giving credit or authority to his Actions: And if a Council under him be intirely inslaved to him, [Page 54]and so much at his dispose, that it does not ap pear to po­sterity that any one man in it, did upon the place speak a word either for or against the presumed Acts of it; and if yet it be at least probable, that all those Acts were not Conciliarily past, but mere Propositions of the Pope: him­self; without any consent, approbation, or regular deter­mination of the Council, I think no man living can look upon himself as concluded by them, or under an obligation from them.

But an English-man must have an inward reluctancy and abhorrence to see his Faith increased, and his Creed inlar­ged; and himself put into a new danger of being adjudged a Heretick, by a sleight and trick of that Man, who with intolerable pride and insolence trampled upon the Crown and Dignity of a King of England; and as soon as he had done that, with an unheard-of confidence challenges to make Laws about Kingdoms, Estates, and Patrimonies, wherein he subjects them to forfeiture and confiscation up­on the accompt of Heresie. And at the same time he slurs in a word to a pretended Canon, that requires a Doctrine to be believed against all sense and reason, and such as will indanger all men that are willing to act rationally, and discreetly, according to their best wits that God hath given them, to be adjudged and condemned for Hereticks. This certainly must appear hard to English-men to have their Estates brought into such perils and hazards, espe­cially since they learn from one of their own Countrey, Mat. Paris, who was a Monk, and so bound to great re­gards for a Pope; and wrote in the Year 1254. that this Innocent was not onely intolerably ambitious, but infi­nitely covetous, and so may be presumed really to design and aim at forfeitures, and not near so much to regard the clearing and setling the Christian Faith, as to make a gin and a trap to catch People, and seise upon their E­states under the name of Hereticks: He that observes how sneakingly that Word comes into the first Capitulum of the [Page 55]reputed Lateran Council, may easily persuade himself of the likelihood of some of these thoughts. And if any one shall rub up his memory, and add to these the fineness, and great management of Rome, when they made the Canons of the Sardican Council to pass in the World under the name of the Nicene; And in opposition to a plain ma­nifest discovery of the Errour, yet to this day to bear up so high, as to challenge some great Authority unto them; whereas in their own nature they can deserve but very lit­tle, being made by the broken remains of a Council, when the greatest numbers were gone, and none remained, but the fast Friends and Dependants upon Rome: And to this let him add the Remarks that Father Paul gives upon the first Act of the Council of Trent, wherein those words, Proponentibus Legatis, were so closely couched, and so su­pinely passed, that few heard them, and fewer apprehen­ded the consequences of them, yet all the insuing Deter­minations of that Council were intirely guided and gover­ned, by the fatal Powers of them.

He that thinks of these, and many other such like things, may apprehend, that there is such a thing as art and sleight in the World: and if he does that, he will not be over forward to give any extraordinary Authority to such a Lateran Council, intirely governed by such a Man, as Pope Innocent III. especially in such a Doctrine, which it self durst scarcely speak out, but imposeth upon you in it, by giving you onely one Word, and that a barbarous one, in all the presumed Acts of it. And that comes in, as it were, by surprize, and most amazing, without any deli­beration, or consultation; but you have it there, before you in the reading of it can be aware; and perhaps too before the Fathers, who were convened in that Council, themselves could be.

These Considerations I think sufficient to persuade any man to think himself under no great obligation to believe Transubstantiation by virtue of the Authority of this Council, [Page 56]and I presume it will least of all affect the Faith of an English-man.

I shall onely add one thing more concerning this Late­ran Council, which some perhaps may think worthy of a remark; and that is this:

This Lateran Council was not onely famous for new Doctrine, Addit. ad Concil. Later. quartum, Edit. Labb. but new Doctours. For here we find not onely Transubstantiation, but St. Dominick. He was at this Coun­cil; And he and that Doctrine were in one and the same condition there, in a like obscurity; something perhaps, but not much taken notice of; but he and that went on from thence to be most conspicuous and remarkable: They for some time after gave the great noise and talk to the World; whereever Transubstantiation came, the Fa­thers of the Inquisition, who were the Order of Domini­cans, soon followed after; and those Persons that were not subdued under the power of that Doctrine, were suffi­ciently awed by the Terrour of these Fathers. For where­as the Senses of Men were obstinate and refractary against their espoused Doctrine; those Men made use of one Sense to oppose all the rest; for by Rods, and Scourges, and Burnings, they so affected the Sense of feeling, that this in a most compendious way stilled and silenced all the o­thers. Thus Transubstantiation grew great; And he that would argue for it from the Authority of the Lateran Council, does but trifle; it is, and must, and can be no otherwise prevalent, than by the Authority of these Do­minican Fathers.

The Order of these was confirmed the year after this Lateran Council, and that by Innocent III. Thus effectually did this Pope doe his business, when he made a new Doc­trine, and a new Law, he provided a new Order of Men, and a new Office to promote it; and it is no wonder if by so doing he brought a new face of Christianity into the World: Briet. Annales in An. 1216. This Monsieur Briet says in his Annals in his re­mark upon the Order of Dominicans and the Franciscans, [Page 57]An. 1216. Aliam Christianitati faciem induxit. And I ea­sily believe him, that the Christianity which began to ap­pear, and was most visible in the World soon after this Lateran Council, was as different from the Primitive Chri­stianity, as St. Dominick was distant in time from St. Pe­ter; or as his Rules were different from those in St. Peter's Epistles.

Now I have done with our Authour's Allegations from Councils. And here according to fashion I might be tempted to talk a little of victory, and tell my Reader what I think I have done. But here I am stopped, for our Authour has possest himself of this Post: He has given us in the next Paragraph, p. 21. such a Jargon of words that are designed to speak a victory, but most certainly shew an intolerable vanity, that I cannot imitate him.

For after he had reflected upon his doughty performan­ces; How he had found the Pope's Supremacy in the Coun­cil of Chalcedon: and the Books called Apocrypha, put in­to a higher rank than we place them, as he thought by the Council of Carthage; And the unbloudy Sacrifice decreed by the ninth Council of the Apostles; And the adoration of Images established in the second Council at Nice, with the general concurrences of Ancient Fathers; And Transubstan­tiation owned and confirmed by 1300 Fathers in the great Lateran Council; and he might as well have said 13000, and all to like purpose; whilst never a man amongst them spake one word, either to prove, or disprove, or approve that, or any other Doctrine in the Council, as far as it appears. And after that he had remarked, that all these Doctrines, and I presume he means the Lateran Council too, were brought into England by Augustine the Monk, which Coun­cil was not in being till more than six hundred years were past after the death of Augustine.

When, I say, our Authour had seen that he had done all this, he smiled, and cockt his Beaver, and admired his Atchievements, and then forthwith speaks his glories in [Page 58]these words, which I will set down here in perpetuam rei memoriam, that all such Conquerors, as he is, may never want words wherein to express their glories, or their fol­lies: Thus he says.

Indeed, P. 21.Fathers, when I had diligently examin'd this truth, and found it most evident; beyond the possibility of any just, or reasonable contradiction; I was much scandaliz'd at the disingenuity of your Writers; who whilst they accuse others of fallacy, imposture, and impudence, dare advance so great, and demonstrable a falshood in matter of fact, that nothing but ignorance can excuse them; so they expose them­selves to the greatest censure of rashness and indiscretion, as uncharitable, and unjust to those whom they call their Ene­mies, as also unsafe, and abusing the credulity of their Friends.

I admired to see these words in this place, and am yet puzzled to think, what could just now inspire him with all this puffiness; He knew that he had never read one of these Councils; and that he had transcribed from others, without skill, or care: and he could not but know that some of his Allegations are most trite, and common, and answer'd most sully, and largely, by numberless numbers. Why then does he seem here thus to admire his Acts, and put down such an extravagant rant? I cannot but think that the spirit of his old Friends, Nailor and Muggleton, came in to his assistence at the Writing of this. Perhaps it is a Flower borrowed from some of that sort of Persons, to adorn and imbellish a Book. It is here, I am sure, out of its place; altogether groundless, and senseless; and gives us one Argument more of the mighty powers of Face; and what great expectances there are from it; I do much believe that our Authour may hope for more suc­cess from that one Paragraph, than from all his Allegations out of Councils.

Our Authour in the next Paragraph tells us he designs to be brief, and therefore laying aside other Controver­sies, he will insist onely upon two, and they are these.

I. P. 22. The Authority and Infallibility of the Roman Catho­lick Church.

II. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

The First of these I shall consider, and leave the Second to others, who both have, and will give full satisfaction, in that Point, if he were but capable of receiving it. And I presume I have given him more than he can answer in the Reflexions upon the Lateran Council.

I. The Authority and Infallibility of the Roman Catho­lick Church: P. 21. This he undertakes to consider how far it may bear, and appear reasonable to an impartial Reader. These words are not worth the notice, but that they tempt out a little suspicion; that they are here set for a reserve, in case of opposition; for if it be said, as most truly it may, that there is not one plain proof, either of the supreme Authority, or Infallibility of the Roman Church in all this Discourse; Our Authour may reply that he never under­took to give it: All that he engaged for was appearances, P. 23. and that he has performed, by using the words oft; tumbling and tossing them as Hay-makers do their mown Grass; one while Authority is uppermost, and soon after Infallibility; Authority must lead in Infallibility, and In­fallibility must vindicate Authority; but where either of these is to be found, the Man neither proves, nor knows; and plainly says, that he is not concerned, whether there be any such thing as Infallibility or no: p. 24. he says; Were there no Infallibility (as I believe there is) I would still submit my Reason, and regulate my Conscience, P. 24.accor­ding to the Decrees of the supreme, lawfull Ecclesiastical Au­thority; This is my belief, pray blame me not. All this is nothing else but appearances; for neither is the Church of England, nor the Church of Rome concerned in his belief, [Page 60]or his fancy, or his opinion, for these may be wise, or may be foolish; may be well, or may be ill grounded. But yet it is admirable to see what great command he has over his Reason and his Conscience, that he can make them turn which way he pleases; and if he does but suppose a Supreme lawfull Authority to be in Ebion, or Cerinthus, Nailor, or Muggleton, or the Church of Rome; He can be a Convert to any of them, to day to this, and to morrow to the quite contrary; and that with as much reason, and as good consci­ence, to the one, as to the other: For which way soever he turns, he may still say, this is my belief, pray blame me not.

His last Conversion was to the Church of Rome, and he intimates that he changed upon this belief, that there was a Supreme lawfull Ecclesiastical Authority to be found there: but he has not the least reason to prove it; though it must be confest that he has some appearances; which I will impartially consider in their order.

1. He gives us some Citations from Protestants, Pag. 22, 23. from Luther one, and from Melancthon another, (whom he calls the Phoenix of Learning; a fine word, I wonder from whence he borrowed it) another from Somaisius, or Salmasius; Another he would give from Grotius; but what it is, he has forgot, he thinks it is somewhere in his Anno­tations upon the New Testament. And then, to make weight, he throws in the Names of Jacob Cartwright, Huss, and Beza. P. 23. And from hence he argues in these words; These eminent Protestants were men of great learning; and they had searcht, and understood Scripture, and History, and if my judgment concurs with theirs in this point (as I profess it doth) then have I found that lawfull Supreme Authority.

Now these are dangerous words from the mouth of a new Convert; it is well for him that he is not now in Spain; for if he should make such a declaration there, That his judgment concurs with the judgment of Luther, Melancthon, Huss, and Beza, in the Point of the Pope's [Page 61]Supremacy, or the Supremacy of the Church of Rome; he might perhaps be in danger of the Inquisition. All the World knows the judgment of those men in this point; and if he were before the Fathers of the Inquisition, they would not be put off with a small Citation found they know not where; and perhaps inserted by they know not whom: He had done much better to have mistrusted his Copy, than to depend upon such an Allegation.

Sure I am, that if he made any use of those mens judg­ments, or laid any great stress upon the words, which he cites under their Names, in his search or presumed disco­very of a Supreme Authority of the Church of Rome; he used both his Reason and his Conscience very hardly.

It is certain that Luther did speak variously of the Pope's Power; sometimes higher and sometimes lower, as appears to any one that reads either his Works, or Cassander's Ci­tations from him: And as to Melancthon the Phoenix of Learning, I am not concerned to search what he wrote to the Cardinal Belay. And it may be, I am civil in doing it. He was a Wit that once charged it as an incivility upon his Acquaintance, that he should take so much pains to prove him a Lyar. It is certain that Melancthon in his Loci Communes, where he treats professedly upon this Sub­ject, declares fully and roundly against all this that is ci­ted from him: And therefore I presume that his judgment does not concur with Melancthon's; for if it does, he is no new Convert; for he has found nothing that can call for a submission of Reason, and Conscience: nothing like to that Authority and Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church, which a new Convert is bound to defend.

But because our Authour, in desence of the Authority and Infallibility of the Roman Church, has given such Cita­tions from Protestants, I'll indeavour to requite him by one from a very good Roman Catholick; and that is Cas­sander. He in his Book, de Officio pii hominis, speaks to this purpose; That there are some, who because they see yet [Page 62]remaining amongst them not a few things, that have descen­ded down from Antiquity, or the first Christians, will keep up the present state of the Church just as it is; though it be corrupt, and foully stained by abuses, that have crept in by little and little. Nor will they suffer any thing to be alter'd, though it may be done agreeable enough to the Decrees or Canons of the Ancients.—Pontificem verò Romanum, quem Papam dicimus, tant um non Deum faciunt: ejusque Autoritatem non modò supra totam Ecclesiam, sed supra ip­sam Scripturam Divinam ef­ferunt, & sententiam ejus Di­vinis Oraculis parem, imo in­fallibilem fidei regulam con­stituunt: hos non video cur minus Pseudocatholicos & Pa­pistas appellare possis.The Roman Bishop, whom we call Pope, they make little less than God. They set up his Authority not onely over the whole Church, but over the holy Scrip­ture it self; and make his determination equal to the Divine Oracles, and no less than an in­fallible rule of faith. I see no cause but that you may give to these the name of false Catho­licks and Papists.

Thus said that good man concerning the Sticklers for Roman Authority, and Infallibility; and that in a time when he contended most earnestly to bring in peace, and good temper amongst Christians; and had endeavoured passionately to persuade men to lay aside ill Language, and odious Names, such as one Party threw at another; all which he says were cast up out of Hell: such as these; Papists, Antichristians, Ministers of Satan; and on the o­ther side, Hereticks, Schismaticks, Apostates. Though he heartily wish'd these Names out of the World, yet he could be content that two or three of them were always ready to be thrown in the teeth of such Persons as our Authour would seem to be.

This remark I give to shew our Authour that I do not set down the Sayings and Opinions of others, without considering first what weight and stress is to be laid upon them.

For I must consess that it is to me a scandal and matter of offence to find this Set of Authorities, which our Authour uses, in the same order, and in the same words, in ano­ther late Book intitled Pax vobis; this seems to speak that [Page 63]the Authours of both these transcribed, and never considered what force was in their Citations. Is this fair dealing with a Man's own Conscience, or with his Readers? when he is weighing of Religions, and offering motives of Reconci­liation, either to himself, or to others, to act thus su­pinely? This is worse than to take a journey to Edinburgh upon the next Hackney, and never consider whether he be a Jade or no. A journey to Heaven is long, to be sure of greatest importance; He that takes up a new Religion to carry him thither, had need use eyes, and ears, and heart, and head too; St. Paul had reason when he advised us to work out our Salvation with fear and trembling; but all men will not doe this: they are in too much haste.

They that take satisfaction without reason, and in spite of reason change their Religion, cannot act with that cau­tion which the great Apostle requires.

If I am not much out in my guess (which I must leave to the Reader's judgment, when he has compared this Set of Citations with those in Pax vobis, Pag. 70, 71.) we have here one of the most wretched Pleas that ever was used by a Writer. It is not more than this. I have met with some sayings of Men, whom I care not for; when or where, or to what end they were spoken, I never con­sidered; nor yet whether upon second thoughts they did not retract them; my judgment concurs with them, there­fore I have found that lawfull Supreme Authority I searched for; and where this Authority is, there is Infallibility.

That is the first Motive to persuade that the Roman Ca­tholick Church has Supreme Authority over all, and Infal­libility in the exercise of it.

He should now proceed to a second.

But instead of that we have, Pag. 24, 25, 26, 27. a discourse upon a new Subject; so far is our Authour from making these Doctrines to appear reasonable, that for so long together he'll e'en let them shift for themselves: his present business is to talk, and talk he will of Separation, [Page 64]or how the Church of Rome can be said to have separated either from her self, or from the Catholick Church, ei­ther whole, or part; and where that whole or part re­mained from whence the Church of Rome separated? and then again where she remained, and where she may be found; and here he is urgent and importunate, and will have an answer, and that from the Bishops themselves; for he comes up closely to the beards of them, and tells them, In good faith, Fathers, my Salvation is highly con­cern'd in this question, and I must be satisfied. He prevents them from giving such and such answers, and swaggers it bravely out in these words. I'll sooner suffer my self to be knockt down with a true Protestant Flayl, than with such a Protestant Answer; and at last he adds, from this reasona­ble and important request, you shall never beat me whilst I live.

The Man grows warm, and it is well for some, that they are out of his way; who knows what he may doe?

The occasion of all this noise and clamour he gives us, in the 24th Page, in these words; You had often told me, that She (the Church of Rome) had fallen from her primi­tive purity, and separated her self from the one holy Catho­lick and Apostolick Church. Answer to Protestant Queries, p. 10. declared also to be Antichristian; and the true Church latent and invisible, by that famous Napper to King James, Brocard, Fulk, Sebast. Francus, Hospinian, and many others.

Now what is all this to the Bishops of the Church of England? must they answer for every thing that has been said by Fulk, and Brocard, and Napper, or as you call him, that famous Napper? I pray how famous is he? has any of the Bishops of England cited him these forty years? does any of this Church reade him, or depend upon him? if your studies have been upon such Authours, the Church of Rome have no great prize of you; and these Motives, as bad as they are, were good enough to make you a Convert.

But yet there remains one Expression cited out of a lit­tle Book, which it may be few of the Bishops of England ever saw; but yet they must give an accompt of it, and all the consequences he can gather from it; for he says, p. 26. his Salvation is highly concerned in it; And it is a reasonable and important request.

And must the Bishops of England be accomptable for every little writing, which they know nothing of? would the Bishops of Rome think it fair, that all the impertinen­ces of our Authour should be charged upon them? cer­tainly no.

But he argues, that if the Church of Rome was once a pure and uncorrupted Church, she remains so still, for she can neither separate from her self, nor from the Catholick Church.

Now if this Argument be good, he himself is bound to answer for all the consequences that can come from a pre­sumed separation, either from it self, or from the Catho­lick Church; for we have oft proved, and are always ready to prove that the Church of Rome is not the same, as to purity and incorruption, which it was. It is changed, it is altered, multitudes of Innovations have overspread it, and great numbers of Errours by little and little (as Cas­sander says) have crept in, and prevailed over it.

But yet for all that, we own and assert that there is a Church of Rome, as well as a Church of Jerusalem, Alexan­dria, and Antioch, and that, though this, as well as they have erred, not onely in their living, and manner of Ceremo­nies, but also in matters of Faith. So speaks the Church of England in her 19th Article. And if she be a Church, she must be a Member of the Catholick Church, for every part must be contained in the whole.

None of us doubt but that the Church of Rome receives all the Canonical Scriptures, that we do, and has the same Creed, and the same Sacraments that we have: And so she must be a Church. But yet she is corrupt, and foully [Page 66]stained, by the many additions that have been made to her Faith, to her Sacraments, to her Worship, to her Go­vernment, and to her primitive rule of Faith; and all this in virtue of an usurped Authority, and vainly pretended In­fallibility.

All these things we charge upon Rome, and we think the Charge high enough; and if our Authour could have distinguished betwixt Errour and Schism, he might have spared all his impertinent Queries concerning Sepa­ration from her self, or Separation from the Catholick Church; and where that Catholick Church is to be found; for all this is but trifling in an over eager pursuit of Con­sequences from a possible sense of a word. If Rome has thus erred, she may be said to have left, and gone from, or be separated from that first, holy, Catholick and Apo­stolick Church, without the making of an open Schism, or Schismatical Separation. For seeing particular Chur­ches are called Catholick, as the Catholick Church in Smyr­na, Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 15. and the Catholick Church of A­lexandria upon the accompt of their continuance in the true Faith with the rest of the Church of God, or from their coherence with that Church, which was properly and originally called so; upon which accompt Clemens Alex­andrinus, Stro. 7. joins those two words together, [...], the Ancient and Catholick Church. So far then as any Church now in being shall de­part from the Doctrine of that Ancient Catholick Church, and profess great and many Errours, and broach new Doctrines unknown to the Primitive Churches, and lay mighty stresses upon them, so as to make them necessary for Communion here, and to Salvation hereafter: Such a Church may be said to depart or separate it self, from that ancient, one, holy, Catholick, and Apostolick Church.

And now our Authour may have that satisfaction, which he says he must have, and I agree with him that his Sal­vation is highly concerned in it. He would know where [Page 67]that Catholick Church, from which she (Rome) separated, remained, and where she may be found; I am sorry he knows it not, but he may easily be taught that she was, and is in Heaven.

There are all the glorious Company of the Apostles, the goodly fellowship of the Prophets, the noble Army of Mar­tyrs; There are all the Servants and Saints of Jesus Christ, who have lived and died in the true faith of him; and thither all the faithfull Members of the true, holy Catho­lick Church now living, hope by the grace of Jesus Christ, in the methods of the Gospel, by keeping close to the Faith that was once delivered to the Saints, in their due times to come, and be received into that most happy and everlasting Communion. This is my opinion, and for once I will pray our Authour not to blame me for it.

I know he may bring against me Supreme lawfull Au­thority, in the name of Pope John XXII. who really de­signed, and heartily indeavoured to make the contrary Doctrine to pass for an Article of Faith; and if he had li­ved a little longer, would have declared ex Cathedra, that the Souls of the Saints do not come to bliss and happiness untill the general Resurrection. I beseech him not to meddle with this; but if he does, I'll promise to defend my Opinion from Scripture, and Fathers, and Councils, and doubt not by my little Reason sufficiently to repell him and his Authority too.

But if he can think with me, that the Members of the first Churches, the holy Apostles and blessed Servants of our Lord, are in bliss and happiness, and is willing to find them, and be with them; He ought then to think again of the change of his Religion, and of this accompt that he has given of the Motives to it; for if he seriously reflects upon his own Salvation, and is heartily concerned for it, he will be ashamed, and repent of all his rude and un­seemly treatment of the Reverend Fathers of this Church. It is not huffing and braving that speaks a religious Mind; [Page 68]it is not saying, In good faith, Fathers, my Salvation is con­cerned in it, that speaks a pious and hearty sense of that great blessing of God. He that with humility and reve­rence studies the mind and good pleasure of his Savi­our, cannot rant; where he is ignorant, despise his bet­ters; trample upon those whom he calls Reverend Fathers: Such actions may be agreeable to a Man that has no sense of Salvation. He that has thrown off one Religion, and forgot to take up another; He that can easily say, and so good night to Christianity, may doe this: But a Convert to any Sect or Party of Christians (or such as are willing to be reputed Christians) should not doe it. Because such actions speak a Man to be proud and ambitious, and de­signing upon this World, and something worse than I am willing to say.

I must stop, onely in requital for some Texts of Scrip­ture, which, p. 25. he advises us to consider: I request him to reade these. Rev. 2.5. Remember from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and doe the first works. Eph. 4.14. That we henceforth be no more Children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of Doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. 2 Cor. 2.17. We are not as many, which corrupt the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the fight of God speak we in Christ. Our Authour goes on, p. 27. But I must not follow him in all his Impertinencies, P. 27. I shall speak of Augustine the Monk afterwards. And shall at present onely teach him one thing, which he there says he does not understand. And that he gives us in these words. How you should rise a pure Church after you had been buried so many hundred years in a corrupt Church, I do not easily understand.

Thus he says, but yet certainly he may understand it; for the same way that I advise him to take, that he may become a good man, was taken by our Predecessours, and by virtue of that proceeding they ceased to be a corrupt [Page 69]Church, and became a pure one; and that was by re­membring from whence they were fallen, and by repen­tance, and by reformation; they saw the Errours which Rome had taught, and proudly imposed; they were sorry to have been so long abused; they withdrew themselves from slavery, and knockt off the chains and fetters, that an unjust Power had laid upon them; they studied and learnt their true Rites and Liberties, their duties to God, and to their Saviour, and to their Prince; and when they knew these, they practised them. And so they did their first works; that which Christ and his Apostles taught, and so became a pure Church.

This was then done, but such an answer as this will not satisfy our Authour; for he inquires in the next Paragraph by what Authority this could be done, and would not have us to pretend to derive Authority from the Church of Rome, when she was in her purity and perfection.

Now this is wonderfully wise, to inquire by what Au­thority we presume to obey God, to amend our ways, to throw off Errours, to follow Truth.

Let him be assured, that we shall not pretend to have derived Authority from Rome, neither in her corrup­tion, nor in her purity to doe this. And our Authour in the next Paragraph owns that we need not, in case the one be an Errour, and the other be a Truth. But he adds, we are now seeking for that Authority which shall declare this Truth, and set forth this Errour.

Now this is honestly said, that he is seeking for that Au­thority. I am sure he has made no discovery of it as yet. He undertook, pag. 21, 22. to shew that and the Infalli­bility of the Church of Rome; and has talkt out eight Pa­ges, and has not given us the least Argument for either of them, now, he says, he is seeking for it; and he may seek all his days at this rate; for he seeks, just as one did for the Hare, in the top of the Steeple.

If there were any such Authority and Infallibility as he pretends, it must be as apparent, and as visible, as the Church it self, there would need no long seeking for it.

He must be blind, or fool, or mad, that did not see it, or know it.

I rather think that our Authour is seeking for Argu­ments to prove it; and in this he is unhappy, for he finds none.

But Pag. 28, 29, 30. he endeavours for one, and that is to this purpose; that there are Errours and Heresies in the World. He tells us of Socinians, of Luther, and Calvin, and Beza, and I know not how many more of late days. And from thence, P. 30. p. 30. he talks in these words; Fathers, if these instances be not sufficient to require a Supreme Judge to determine the right Faith, and silence the wrong, then, and then, and I know not what; but at last, then pray excuse me, if my reason, and piety, and the reverent notion which I have of a Just God, and a mercifull Saviour, totally force my Judgment, and Conscience to dissent from you in this par­ticular.

Now this is no Argument, that there is such an Au­thority in the Church, (either Eastern or Western, Roman or Graecian) but a wheedling Discourse to persuade weak Persons, that there may be such an one; because in our Authour's Opinion it would be fit or requisite, or proper for God Almighty, in this method to direct the interests of his Church. And to bring People on to this belief, here is an audacious and presumptuous intimation, that God would neither be wise, nor good, in case he did it not.

Here we beg our Authour's pardon; we will believe God to be wise, and good, and mercifull, whether he sets up such an Authority or no: He knows what is fit, and requisite, and proper, much better than such pert confi­dent men. He permits sins great, and most enormous in the World, though he could as easily give a stop to them as to Errours and Heresies.

There are Errours amongst Protestants, and there are Er­rours amongst Romanists; and if the Temporal Authority did not doe more than the Spiritual, they themselves would complain of many more, than now they do.

There are Errours and Heresies of late days, and there were so from the first beginnings of Christianity, in all times and places; St. Paul tells of some in his days, and Ignatius of others, and Irenaeus of others, and those most gross, and vile, and filthy.

Now if God had made provision of the pretended Au­thority and Infallibility to give stop to them; it were most improbable, if not impossible that ever these should have been.

Their existence therefore is plain argument and demon­stration, that there are no such powerfull means set up, and appoionted by God, to prevent, hinder, stop, or si­lence them. He has done enough against them, as he has done against all sins; it is presumption not to acquiesce in his Wisedom, or to challenge that he must doe that which we cannot prove that he has done.

But our Authour leaves this, and says he must proceed, P. 30. p. 30. and that he does, yet not to evidence the Authority and Infallibility of the Roman Church by better Arguments; but to plead the interest of it, in general, from the per­formances of Augustine the Monk.

This is an Argument that pleases him; he had been nibling at it three times before, p. 18. p. 21. p. 27. There he intimates that this Augustine first taught the English Nation Christianity; and that he taught them those very Doctrines as Christian Truths which we at this day oppose: He says, p. 21. That all the Controverted Points, particularly, and by name, were declared by some of your selves to have been brought into England by Augustine the Monk above a thou­sand years since.

I suppose he means that his Friend the famous Napper, or some of his Apocalyptical Acquaintance, had declared this. But [Page 72]after all, he comes to treat more closely upon this Argument, pag. 30, 31, 32. I shall consider what he says, and then give a full accompt of the whole matter. But, before I begin, I must complain, (for it is a grief) that I have an Adversary so weak, and yet so consident.

For those two learned Men, their Mr. Cressey, and our Reverend Dean of St. Paul's have accurately considered and weighed all the particulars of this Dispute, and made the best advantages of it. But the man knows nothing of their Writings. Pope Gregory he names, and Bede he names, but gives us not any ground to think that ever he has read over Bede's History, or consulted Pope Gregory's Epistles; and both these ought to have been well studied by a Wri­ter upon this Subject, if he had due regard for Truth, or his own Credit.

1. First, he says, If you tell me a Story of the Abbat of Bangor; I answer, that the particular ground of it is evi­dently false and forged. Now Bede is the man that tells us a Story of the Abbat of Bangor, and the numbers of Monks in that Abbey. Bede, l. 2. c. 2. And the Story, as it lies in Bede, gives all the advantage to Protestants that they can wish, lib. 2. cap. 2. And if there be something added to that Story from an Ancient Record found and published by Sir Henry Spelman; the skill and integrity of that excel­lent Person would persuade an indifferent man not pre­sently to damn it for a forgery; for he was not likely, ei­ther to contrive one, or to be cheated with one. But be this what it will, the Story that Bede gives is sufficient for our uses, and that, I hope, he will not say is false or forged.

2. P. 30. He says, that the Britains received the Christian Faith in the Apostles days; but being persecuted by Romans, Picts and Saxons, Religion fled to the Mountains, and bordering parts of Wales, at the same time the Church of Rome was no less afflicted by the Heathen Emperours. This is gross igno­rance to talk of Saxons persecuting the Britains, and Re­ligion [Page 73]flying into Wales in the time of the Heathen Empe­rours. Did the Man never hear of the name of Constantine, and of the names of those glorious Christian Emperours that succeeded him in the East and West for more than two hundred years before the flying into Wales? I hope he will not call them persecuting Heathen Emperours, who brought the Empire into the Church.

The famous Council at Nice was celebrated in the Year 325. and the coming of the Saxons under Hengist into Bri­tain was not till the Year 450, and it was near a hundred years after that, before the Britains were dispossessed of the rest of their Countrey, and forc'd to secure themselves a­mongst the Mountains of Wales.

This our Authour might easily have known, if he had read Bede, but he knew it not; therefore he adds, No wonder if in these days and circumstances there was but little correspondence between Rome and Wales.

This now is worse and worse; what! a little corres­pondence between Rome and Britain, when Constantius was in Britain, and Constantine, and Theodosius, and Max­imus, and the most of the chief Roman Commanders, in their distinct times. What! little correspondence between them; though three of the British Bishops were at the Council of Arles; and as many very probably at Nice; and as many certainly at the Council of Ariminum; and of Sardica. Did this Man never hear of the names of Pe­lagius, and Coelestius; or of Palladius, and Patricius, and hundreds of others who came from Rome to Britain, or went from Britain to Rome in all this long tract of time?

I would be willing to think that I mistake a little, ra­ther than judge that he mistakes so grosly.

But he will not allow it, for he will have all the World to see how ignorant he is: He adds to this these words; But when the Church (brought from her subterraneous refu­ges, and set upon a Hill) began to enlarge her self, P. 31. and pro­pagate the Gospel, Gregory the Great sent Augustine the [Page 74]Monk into England to see how matters went there in this long interval of silence.

Certainly he does think that Gregory the Great was the first Roman Bishop that ever saw good days; and that all his Predecessours were under the persecuting Heathen Em­perours; for now he says that the Church was brought from her subterraneous refuges, and now she was set upon the Hill, and now began to enlarge her self. I wonder where he learnt this, I hope it was from his Friend the famous Nap­per. What is become of two and thirty Bishops of Rome, so many there were between Sylvester (who is said to have baptized the Emperour Constantine) and this Gregory the Great, did they all sleep? did they doe nothing for the Church, that she must be said now to inlarge her self? There was near three hundred years past from Constantine's possession of the Empire, to this mission of Augustine the Monk; and was the Church all that time in subterraneous refuges?

Where were these subterraneous refuges, from whence the Church came? and where was the Hill, upon which the Church was set, in this Gregory's days? I know that John of Constantinople was then most ambitious, and in­deavoured to mount up his Seat to higher power and dig­nity, than that of Rome it self. He challenged all the proud Titles that the Popes afterwards usurpt; and de­signed to set his Church upon the Hill. But Gregory the First wrote against him, and charged him with pride and arrogancy; and said plainly, that whatever Bishop (whe­ther Roman or Constantinopolitan) should assume those Ti­tles, he would be Antichristian, or at least the Forerunner of Antichrist. It is certain that Gregory the Great was con­tent to keep things as he found them; he did not set the Church upon a Hill, or inlarge its power. The Romanists can scarce pardon him for the great submission and defe­rence which he yielded to the Emperour, and the large ex­pressions which he used in his Contest against John of Con­stantinople; [Page 75]for the Protestants strongly argue from them against the pretences of the Popes themselves.

But our Authour adds, that Gregory sent Augustine the Monk into England to see how matters went here in this long interval of silence.

He seems to think that Augustine came as a Spy, or to make a discovery of an unknown Land; but in this he is like himself, still mistaken.

For Gregory knew how matters went here; He knew that Bertha, Queen to King Ethelbert, was a Christian; and that Luidhardus, Bishop of Senlis, was her Chaplain; and that he performed to her, and her Attendants, all Christian Offices in the Church of St. Martin's, Bede, lib. 1. cap. 26. near Can­terbury, which was formerly built by the Romans.

And Gregory himself says in a Letter, which he sent by this Augustine to the King of France, and was delivered by him in his passage hither, That the English Nation were desirous to become Christians. His words are these;

Pervenit ad nos, Greg. Epist. lib. 5. Ep. 58. Anglorum gentem ad fidem Christianam desideranter velle converti, sed Sacerdotes vestros è vicino negligere, & desideria eorum cessare suâ adhortatione suc­cendere. Ob hoc igitur Augustinum Servum Dei praesen­tium portitorem, cujus zelus & studium benè nobis est cogni­tum, cum aliis servis Dei praevidimus illuc dirigendum. Qui­bus etiam injunximus, ut aliquos secum è vicino debeant Pres­byteros ducere, cum quibus eorum possint mentes agnoscere, & voluntatem admonitione suâ, quantum Deus donaverit adju­vare; and to the same purpose he writes in the next E­pistle.

If our Authour had seen this, Greg. Ep. 59. he would not have said that Gregory sent Augustine to see how matters went here in this long interval of silence.

But he goes on, and tells us, that the Britains knew him not (that is Augustine) untill he had confirmed his Commis­sion by Miracles.

Now what had he to doe with them, or they with him? his Commission was to convert the Saxons, or the English from their Paganism to Christianity, as Gregory says in the forementioned Epistle, Bede, lib. 1. cap. 23. and Bede in these words. Misit Servum Dei Augustinum, & alios complures praedicare Ver­bum Dei genti Anglorum. Bede calls him Anglorum Apo­stolus, to them he was sent, to them he came; and he had more work to doe amongst them than he was able to perform: The Britains were not in the least concerned in his Commission; for they were Christians, and very good Christians, according to our Authour's accompt. For he tells us, that the great Errours, which Augustine found among them, were chiefly two; Their Asiatick Errour, concerning the keeping of Easter; and dissent from the Roman Church in the administring of Baptism.

As to the first of these, their Asiatick Errour, about kee­ping of Easter: The Britains observed the Rule which they had received with their Christianity; and they re­ceived that, as our Authour says, in the days of the Apo­stles. The Asiaticks received the same Rule, and the fa­mous Martyr Polycarp defended it stoutly as an Apostoli­cal Tradition; a whole Council under Polycrates, in the Year 197. declared it to be the Rule of St. John, taught and practised by him. Upon this accompt, if we suppose it an Errour, it can be no great one. For there is no Tra­ditional Doctrine (either in Rome, or any other Church) which solely stands upon the credit of Tradition, and has no support from Scripture, that can be better evidenced to come from an Apostle, and with the first Christianity, than this Tradition which the Britains, Scots, Asiaticks, Greeks, alledged in very early times to have received in one and the same way. For if this be so great an Errour, though it be so well attested, and so strongly urged to be an Apostolical Tradition; what security can we have for the truth of any other Tradition whatsoever?

The great St. Augustine shews us in his Epistle Casulano, S. August. Ep. 86. that the name of St. Peter can give no more Authority to a Tradition, than the name of St. John; nor has any Tra­dition more grounds of credit, because it comes to us by the way of Rome, than if it came by the way of Ephesus; the Ea­stern Church is as creditable a Conveyancer of Tradition, as the Western. Therefore if the Britains must be accused of any great errour for following of this Tradition, the Ro­man Church must be highly condemned for requiring the observance of so many things, by virtue of Tradition, when they have not the least appearance of such Argu­ments, as the Britains had, to prove their Traditions Apo­stolical. The Britains kept close to their first Rule, ne­ver in the least varied from it. The Roman Church oft changed and altered; and that before this Augustine the Monk's days, as the Learned Dean of St. Paul's has accu­rately shown in his Discourse against Mr. Cressey. And when those of the Roman Communion argued against the Asiaticks, and Britains, they could not disprove the Tra­dition, or shew that this practice was an Innovation; but they alledged Reasons, and external Arguments, to shew the inconveniency of it, from the mischiefs that might come by such a compliance with the Jews. Thus the Ta­bles were changed, Romanists were for Reason against Tra­dition; and so they ever will be, when it is for their In­terest.

2. The second Errour charged upon the Britains, is dissent from the Church of Rome in the administring of Bap­tism. Now this, I suppose, is put in to make weight in the Accusation: for though Bede has those words, yet he tells not wherein their practice differ'd from the Romans, nor yet wherein they were to be blamed; and has not one word in all his History besides, wherein he blames either the Britains, or the Irish, whom he calls (in the language of those times) Scots, for any errour in the administration of Baptism. He says, lib. 2. cap. 4. of the Scots that they [Page 78]had the same ways and methods that the Britains had, Bede, lib. 2. cap. 4. similem vitam ac professionem egisse; and there having been, according to Bede, several Disputes between the Romanists, and the Scots, in lesser matters; had this been their fault, this would have been charged too upon them.

Our Authour adds, P. 31. Although in some other matters they differ'd from the Church of Rome, yet Augustine promised to tolerate them, provided they would rectify these, which the British Bishops consented to.

This is the worst Passage in all our Authour's Book: for it is manifestly false, point-blank against Bede's words, who expresly says, that they would not consent; and then in the manner of citing the Passage, there is that shuffling and juggle, that plainly shews he designed fals­hood. Bede, lib. 2. cap. 2. The words in Bede are these; Si in tribus his mihi obtemperare vultis, ut Pascha suo tempore celebretis, ut mi­nisterium Baptizandi, quo Deo renascimur, juxta morem Ro­manae sanctae Ecclesiae, & Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis; ut genti Anglorum una nobiscum praedicetis verbum Domini, caetera quae agitis, quamvis moribus nostris contraria aequani­miter cuncta tolerabimus. At illi nihil horum se facturos, ne­que illum pro Archiepiscopo habituros esse respondebant. There cannot be a more plain denial than this. How then comes our Authour to say that they consented; The truth is, he seems resolved to say it, true, or false, and there­fore he leaves the last words, wherein Bede declares the Britains dissent; Bede, lib. 2. cap. 2. P. 31. and adds to them these. Cum. Britones confitentur intellexisse se veram esse viam justitiae, quam prae­dicaret Augustinus; Bede, lib. 2. cap. 2. And from thence would infer, that the Britains did consent. But these words belong to another matter; they are part of Bede's Narration of the first meeting that Augustine had with the Britains; then it seems Augustine did a Miracle, and the Britains had a great sense of it, and did confess that Augu­stine's way was the right way: But yet for all this stound, and hasty words, they immediately recollected themselves, [Page 79]and in the next moment tell him, as Bede says; Bede, lib. 2. cap. 2. Non se posse, absque suorum consensu, ac licentiâ, priscis abdicare moribus. That without the leave and consent of their own Clergy and Laity, or a Synod, (which was upon it forthwith called) they could not depart from their ancient Customs.

Thus we see that the Britains who confessed, as our Au­thour says, yet would not consent, till they had the Opi­nion, and Judgment of a Synod: and when Augustine pro­posed his Matters to the Synod, they flatly denied either to receive his Doctrine, or himself as their Archbishop. So then it is plainly false, that the Britains consented. But yet our Authour puts down that Confession first in English, and after another quite different discourse he puts it down in Latine; and that on purpose to prove a consent. Now this must be designed to cheat, and couzen some; I hope he meant it for the Roman Catholicks; I do not fear that any Protestant can be gulled by such a sleight.

But from this Discourse our Authour observes that it may be inferred that Augustine, and the Britains agreed in Substantials: this may be allowed, if he means onely those things which are necessarily to be held by every one that is a Member of the true, Catholick, Apostolick Church. They agreed in the same Saviour, in the same Scriptures, in the same Creeds, and in all the Doctrine that was maintained and declared in the first four General Councils.

But this will not suffice, for our Authour imagines that they agreed in all the Doctrines which the Church of Rome at this day indeavours to impose upon others. In order to this, pag. 32. he discourses: After all this, can we be­lieve that the Britains, who earnestly contradicted Augustine in these smaller matters, and were so tenacious of their own Customs, would have silently received so many, and incompa­rably greater points of Faith, had they in like manner disa­greed from him therein? credat Judaeus Apella.

Here our Authour is much to be blamed, because he will not permit us to give him civil Language; he does not onely betray his ignorance, but what is much worse; in this Paragraph he challenges to have skill in Bede, and Bede is the man that contradicts him in every thing he says. For Bede tells us, that the Britains neither received greater points of Faith, nor lesser, from Augustine the Monk, nor his Companions. But for more than one hun­dred years after Augustine's arrival, they esteemed all his teachings to be vain, and trifling, and little better than Paganism. He concluded his History in the Year 725. as appears, lib. 5. cap. 24. and he himself tells us in his Epi­tome, that Augustine came into England in the Year 597.

Yet he says, Lib. 2. cap. 20. Cum usque hodiè moris sit Britonum, Fidem Religionémque Anglorum pro nihilo habere; neque in aliquo eis magis communicare, quàm Paganis. That the Britains, ac­cording to their usual way, had no esteem at all for the Faith and Religion of the English; and that they would no more communicate with them, than with the Pagans.

And Bede does not onely say that the Britains had so mean an opinion of the Romans, Lib. 2. cap. 4. and their Disciples; but likewise that the Scots (or Irish) had the same. For where he gives us part of the Letter that Laurentius, Mel­litus, and Justus sent to the Scots; He says, that when they had tried the Britains, they thought the Scots might be better. Cognoscentes Brittones, Scottos meliores putavi­mus, but yet they found both alike. For Dagamus their Bishop would neither eat at the same Table, nor in the same House with them. Dagamus Episcopus ad nos veniens non solùm cibum nobiscum, sed nec in eodem Hospitio, quo ves­cebamur, sumere voluit.

In the same page he says that Laurentius, and the rest, wrote to the Britains too; Sed quantum haec agendo profe­cerit adhuc praesentia tempora declarant. That is, that the present opposition, which the Britains made against the Romanists in Bede's days, sufficiently sheweth that Lau­rentius [Page 81]his Letter had no effect upon them: and that is the same thing which we had before, usque hodie, that from Augustine the Monk down to Bede's days, the Britains had no regard for the Romans teaching of Faith, or Religion, so far as it differ'd from their own.

From these two Passages Henry of Huntingdon made the remark which he has, lib. 3. Hist. Nec Britannos, Henr. Hun­tingd. Hist. lib. 3. nec Scotos velle communicare cum Anglis, & eorum Episcopo san­cto Augustino, magis quam Paganis.

This is sufficient to shew our Authour's presumption in alledging Bede to patronize his vain Opinations concerning the Britains; if we give credit to him, the Britains did not receive, either so many, or so great points of Faith from Augustine the Monk; for they received none at all. And therefore his Consequence which he draws from thence, is like his Premisses, good for nought. That is this; That the Doctrines (these two Points excepted, their Asiatick Errour, and the difference about Baptism) which Augustine taught the Saxons, had been delivered to the Bri­tains from the Apostles.

For seeing we have an acknowledged difference in these two Points in Augustin's days, and other differences (as I shall shew) brake out afterwards, and we find no manner of agreement between Augustine and the Britains; and no communication between his Followers and them for an hundred years after, but an extreme aversion and abhor­rence of them, and their ways; he can no more argue for the truth of Augustine's Doctrines from the consent of the Britains, than he may for the truth of all the Doctrines which the present Church of Rome teaches, from the con­sent of the present Church of England; we oppose them, and so did they; we, and they too, reject their Novelties, their unjust Usurpations, their unreasonable Impositions; And though the terms of Communion which they would lay upon us, are much harder than those which Augustine offered to the Britains, yet we thank God our charity [Page 82]continues towards them; we call them Christians, and treat them as Christians, (which the old Britains would not do) and with meekness and humility we endeavour to shew them their Errours.

This is enough to the Case of Augustine, and of Bede's Relation of it. And enough to the First Part of this Au­thour.