By ANDREW SALL, Doctor in Divinity. Being A Reply to several Books published under the names of J.E. N.N. and J.S. against his Declaration for the Church of England, and against the motives for his Separation from the Roman Church, declared in a Printed Sermon which he Preached in Dublin.

Psal. 27. v. 1.

One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the daies of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to enquire in his Temple.

Printed at the Theater in OXFORD, 1676.


RAD. BATHƲRST Vice-Can. Oxon.
June 23. 1676.

To his EXCELLENCY The most Honorable Arthur Earle of Essex, Viscount Mal­den, Baron Capel of Hadham, Lord Lieutenant, General, and General Governor of his Maje­sties Kingdom of Ireland, Lord Lieutenant of the County of Hertford, and one of the Lords of his Majesties most Honorable Privy Council.


HERE I present to your Excellency a defence of the true primitive and Catholic Apostolic Faith, maintain­ed and professed in the Church of England, a­gainst the assaults of Adversaries, so bold [...]s to present the venem they spit against it, [Page]one of them to a most Illustrious person of the Court of England, another to the generality of the people, and a third to your Excellency, representative of our Gracious Soveraign in Ireland. This last in a mockery, like that of Judas betraying our Saviour with a kiss, while he endeavours to bereave your Excellency of the life of your soul, telling you that *the Church of England, your Mother, is not the Church of Christ, nor any part of it; that no Saint (which is to say, no just man or true servant of God) was ever of it; that you cannot without Blasphemy, alledg Scripture for your Tenets, with other like most insolent opprobries, He stiles himself your Excellencies most humble and faithful servant. He would have your Excellency burn the defenders of your Church, for offering to deny that we are all confessedly Schismatics.

When our Adversaries are so bold and active, it is much our concern, to watch and stand on our guard. I should prove undeserv­ing the Gracious protection and favour, I have from your Excellency, enabling me to appear for truth, if in this Exigency I did desert the defence of it. I will therefore, b [...] Gods Holy assistance, betake me to the arms o [...] [Page]his Holy word, to resist the insulting, and detect the fraud of subtil and violent adversaries of the true Catholic Faith, appearing under the veil of defenders of it; and endeavor to shew with unfaigned, plain and solid proofs, that the Faith we profess in the reformed Church of England (in which many other Illustrious na­tions join with us) is the true primitive Catho­lic Apostolic faith, which our Savior Jesus, and his sacred Apostles taught and established on earth; that our adversaries, branding us with Heresy and Schism, are themselves the prime cause of all the schisms and confusions, which too long have vexed Christianity; and are guil­ty of as many Heresies, as Articles coined by them in after ages, which I hope we shall prove to be opposit both to Canonical Scripture, and to the Doctrin and practice of the Primitive Ca­tholic and Apostolic Church. In which opposi­tion certainly the true nature of Heresy doth consist; however they to their own advantage, would make men believe, that the Popes plea­sure and decrees, must be the rule of all, and nothing Heresy, but what is opposit to them.

His pretended Infallibility, Supremacy, Vice-Godship, and such like big sounding Titles, (but emty, as here will appear) have frighted [Page]a great part of men to becom slaves unto him. The invention of Purgatory, indulgences, re­missions, and other engines of lucre, have in­creased his means to maintain his usurped power. My work will be to shew with plainess of reasons, suitable to the sincerity of my in­tention, and apposit to overthrow their sophi­stry, that the forementioned tenets of the Ro­mish faction, fewel of all the Combustions of Christendom, are not from above conveied by the Holy Ghost, but conceived in the mints of earthly passions: for the wisdom that is from above, is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partia­lity, and without Hypocrisy. Jam. 3.17. Such is not the wisdom taught by the Roman Court, or Church, (if they will have it so called.) It is not pure, but corrupted with ma­ny pernicious errors as will appear in this Trea­tise. It is not peaceable, but contentious; not easy to be intreated, but obstinat against all reasonable overtures of peace, against the con­tinual and ardent desire of all good Christi­ans for a Council truly Occumenical and free, wherein the Roman Bishop and faction, as o­thers, may sit with like freedom and indiffe­rency [Page]to judg, and to be judged, by the [...]ord of God, and rules of Christian sincerity, as practised in those purer ages of primitive Christianity. Nothing will satisfy them, but a blind obedience, and entire submission to their will. Far are they from being full of Mercy: their thoughts are not of peace, but of death and destruction to all their fellow Chri­stians, that will not be of their party.

All this I shall endeavor to demonstrate by a close and serious Examen of the particulars conducing to the discovery thereof, with no o­ther design then the Glory of God, with no prejudice or Passion against the Roman Church, but with a hearty desire of the happi­ness of it; that setting aside all profane policy, it may return to that primitive purity and lu­stre it had, when the Faith of it was praised throughout the whole World, Rom. 1.8. and so join heart and hands with other Christians to the Edification, and thereby to to the Conversion of Infidels, and to the en­crease and splendor of Christianity. This be­ing my real intention, as well as the hearty wishes of all good men in the reformed Churches; sure I am, that my study, and en­deavors to this end, will be protected and [Page]countenanced by your Exellency; Whose happi­ness Eternal, and Temporal, is the hearty and continual Prayer of

Your Excellencies most Devoted Servant, and Chaplain ANDREW SALL.


SAINT John tells us, that all the world lieth in wick­edness. 1 Jo. c. 5. v. 19. that hatred; envy, ma­lice, avarice, and ambition, are the most common [...]actice of men. If so, who can expect a general ap­ [...]ause of his actions, exposed to public view? What [...]eed tho in it self just and commend [...]ble, did ever [...]ease a bitter enemy? What elegancy of speech, what [...]rength of reasons, could ever sound well in the ears of [...]im whose cause they opposed? And if envy reign­ [...]th, could that black passion ever omit to lessen [...]he credit of such as were applauded? But if others [...]retend to be wits, (now called so) it is not for them [...]o let any action pass without a Censure; or without [...]inding in it a flaw, at least of a sinister intention. Men judicious at this rate must not look upon any [...]ction of another, with a right eye. When Vahash the Ammonite reduc'd the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead to ask [...]uarter, he denied to allow it to them, but on condition [...]hat he might thrust out all their right eies, 1 Sam. 11.2. So doth the Devil when possessed of any man (says [...] Peter Blesensis) he pulls out his right eie of Charity [...]nd sincerity, and leaves him the left of envy and malice, inclined only to see or to imagine defects.

Mens imaginations are to actions of others as moulds to mettal. The same mettal powred into a mould of an Angel, will make an Angel, and cast into the mould of Devil, will frame a Devil. And indeed the metal before indifferent, thus ill figured, is re­venged of the Devilish mould, declaring by the [...]hape he got in it, the condition thereof: So ho­nest and indifferent actions, denigrated by a ma [...]ici­ous * [Page]apprehension, do betray the evil temper of th [...] mind, which thus disfigured them. But if Avarice and Ambition, those ravenous & unmerciful passions do contribute their aid to blow the Coals of Hatred Envy, and Malice, what fume will they not raise to blast the reputation of the best and most laudable endeavours?

Wherefore he that putteth himself willingly into the Claws of these Monsters, that seeketh applause where such Passions reign, regards little the quiet of his body, or mind. He cannot enjoy himself, not Christ, which is worse (saies *Simon de Cassia) who buildeth in the hearts of others: not himself, whilst he is a Slave to so many Masters as Heads of men, each one more variable then the wind it self; no [...] Christ, S. Paul affirming, that if he pleased men, he should not be the servant of Christ. Gal. 1.19.

These considerations made me desire earnestly to spend the remnant of my days, retired and unknown, to prepare the better for the long day of Eternity which I resolved when first I entertained a thought of relinquishing the errors of my former Profession, and sticking to the Evangelical Doctrin of the reformed Church. But it seems that Soveraign Providence vi­gilant over all, was pleased to dispose otherwise of me. For being actually ordering my concerns for a voiage to the end aforesaid, it pleased God that a paper con­taining the reasons of my dissatisfaction with the Ro­man Church, by way of soliloquie with God, (that by further Praier and consideration, I might be ascer­tained of his Holy will,) dropped from me, and fell into the hands of some of the Romish Communion, who so incensed my former Friends and relations a­gainst me, by a report that I was already become a Pro­testant Minister, as made them out of a blind Zeal threaten to destroy me, not unlike those who conspi­ring against S. Paul, swore they would not eat nor drink until they killed him. Act. 23.12. Which being made [Page]known to the Lord Arch-Bishop, the Maior, and o­ther English Gentlemen of the City of Cashel, they bestirred themselves so generously to procure my safety, as may resemble that noble proceeding of the Roman Governour Claudius Lysias, in defending S. Paul from the conspiracy of his Brethren against him. They sent by several ways to seek after me, and acquaint me of the danger I was in: they prepared a party to relieve me if any violence should be offered me, and sent an officer of horse with other Gentlemen, by the way they understood I was to come, to bring me with se­curity into the City, and prevail with me to go di­rectly to the Lord Arch-bishops Palace, to be under his Protection, being not secure of my life in my for­mer habitations.

From the place where I had this notice given to me, I wrot immediatly to the Noble man from whose House I [...]me, giving him an account of what happen'd to m [...], and withal assuring him, that tho necessity forced me to go under that protection, I would never de­clare against the Roman Church, whil'st any hope was left of being satisfied in the doubts I had, and deli­vered by writing against several tenets and practises of it; which to one of my temper was not to be per­formed by vulgar cries, or emty pregnancies, but by solld and plain reasons, grounded upon the infallible word of God, such as I humbly conceived those rea­sons to be, which I proposed for Motives of my dis­content with the present practice of the Roman Church. And I desir'd him to declare so much, and communicate my Letter to several persons of Honor, his Relations, and my good Friends, who had much Experience of my Sincerity and Constancy in assert­ing what I conceived to be truth on all occasions, that they giving further notice of it might direct to me any person or persons, that should be thought fit to give me the satisfaction I desired.

Coming to Cashel, I sent the like notice to the Vi­ [...]ar General of the Romish Clergy there, desiring him, [...]hat if any of their Bishops or other Clergy did in­tend [Page]to give me satisfaction to the reasons contai [...] in my paper, which was among them, they wo [...] appoint me a time and place of meeting, and t [...] should find my heart and ears open to truth, be [...] resolved to lose my life, sooner then the true Catho [...] and Apostolic faith, wheresoever I found it to be p [...] and uncorrupted.

I may truly say that neither I did leave any sto­unmoved, nor omitted any care, or labour, I co [...] imagine conducible for quieting my mind, and sett­ing me in my former profession (no Tree after m [...] years growth, and deep rooting in a kind Soile, [...] plucked up with more violence, then I was wroug from my natural inclination, and sensible comfort forsake the Society, and Communion of my for [...] friends and brethren.) Neither did they omit any d [...] gence or industry to hinder my parting from the [...] and to recal me after my separation; of both wh [...] things I will give here a brief and perfect account: the manifestation of truth, and satisfaction of such desire to know it.

The first return I had to my invitation before m [...] ­tioned, to a trial of my reasons of discontent with [...] Romish Communion, was a Letter from the Supe [...] of the Jesuits in Ireland, dated 12. May 1674. of [...] Tenor following

Dear Sir,

Being loath to give credit to the strange rep [...] divulged here of you, I make bold to desire you to me know whether you forsook the Catholic, and do [...] with the Protestant Church: for all your best frie [...] c [...]iesty I, can hardly believe that your wit [...] wisdom should be subject to such inconstancy, un [...] ­perhaps by some Melancholy fit, or some other dise [...] ­per, proceeding from I know not what discontent jealousy conceived against me, or any other of th [...] [Page]you know. If any such thing there be, I humbly beg of you to acquaint me therewith by your Letter com­mended to the post Office in Dundalk, and do engage my word to you, that you shall have all satisfaction imaginable that lieth in my power, and that you shall find me alwaies ready to render you any service that may be expected from

Loving Sir,
Your ever assured JOHN FREE alias S. R.

To this Letter I answered immediatly in terms of no less kindness and sincere amity, that I did and would declare wheresoever he was concerned, that neither he nor any other of his Society did ever give me any discontent, which might be the cause of the Resolution I was upon; that my dissatisfaction was of a higher nature, and that it was a great error to ima­gine that any dislike of particular Persons should work in me an alteration of this kind, it being well known how easily I might remedy any discontents in Ireland, by repairing to the place of my former habitation and emploiments in Spain, and how good a reception I was to expect there even in that season, as to him was well known.

This Letter being miscarried, or not reaching to him (as he signified) before my declaration made at C [...]shel, (after many days retirement, and serious considera­tion of the matter, and no hope appearing of receiv­ing satisfaction to my scruples) he wrot another to me of the 16. of June following, repeting the same expressions of fear, that either he or some of his bre­thren might have given me some discontent, to occa­sion my change, and desiring, if any such did hap­pen, I might give him notice thereof, that I may give you (said he) any satisfaction possible, and that union at [Page]least of Christianity if not of Religion, may remain entire among us. He desired further that I would consider seriously unde & quo, whence and whither I was going, and what great inconveniencies might follow.

To this Letter also I answered immediatly, repet­ing my former assurances given to him, of no injury or discontent received from him, or any of his Soci­ety, as a cause or occasion of my change, and that I did heartily embrace his offer of maintaining union of Christianity among us, if not of Religion, which was my own constant inclination and hearty desire. As for considering unde & quo, whence and whither I went, that I did consider it with Prayer and Study of many years, and the grounds of my resolution thereupon would soon appear in public; and I desired he should prevail with some able men of his Frater­nity to reply to them with that gravity and modesty, which becometh learned and religious men; that on both sides, we might concur with our studies, to the Glory of God, and manifestation of his truth, setting a side all wonted acerbities, which if used would con­firm me, and all men of good judgment, in a dislike of their way and spirit.

Soon after, at my arrival in Dublin, he sent another Letter to me of the 24. of June, with a message by word of mouth, by a Gentleman of my Relation, earnestly craving an opportunity of a privat confe­rence with me, with an offer made by the said Gen­tleman of all favor and assistance, if I did desist even then from proceeding in my resolution, and desired I would signify either in privat, or in public, the rea­sons of my discontent with them. To this I answer­ed, that I conceived some inconveniencies in privat Conferences in that occasion, and expected no quiet of mind by them; that the case being already public, I judged the handling of it in public to be more expe­dient both for the Service of God, and my particular satisfaction, the matter going through a more exact Trial that way; and consequently I did proceed, de­claring in a Sermon preached a few daies after, to a [Page]very great and noble Auditory in Christs Church of Dublin, the reasons of my discontent with the present practice of the Roman Church, in such moderate terms, as may be seen in the same Sermon printed and ex­tant in the hands of many, desiring to be answered with the like moderation, and formal Style, setting a­side satyrical, and scurrilous Libels, to which I was not to afford any either reading or answer. And long it was before I heard of any serious reply made to my proposals, but silly Libels of this latter kind, which the sober sort of their own party thought unworthy to be published, and I thought them to be as little worthy of my regard. In the mean time having taken my dwelling, since my coming to Dublin, in Trinity Colledg near it, and that University being pleased to have me incorporated with it, in the quality of Doctor in Divinity, at the performance of Acts usual to such a degree, I published a Divinity Thesis, directly in­tended for a Justification of my resolution taken, by a strict enquiry and examen of it in a public dispute, and containing to that purpose two conclusions touch­ing the main points of our Controversy, and to which all the rest may be reduced.

The first was, That out of the Roman Church there is a safe way for Salvation.

The Second, that the way of the Church of England, is safer to Salvation then that of the Church of Rome. By the former I intended to justify my constant and continual aversion to that horrid and arrogant posi­tion of the Romanists, that out of their Commu­nion there is no Salvation, the fountain of so many bloody Tragedies, and unchristian animosities, which have bin the disgrace and destruction of the Christian Church these many years. By the Second, I pro­posed to justify the election I made of the Church of England, as the more sure way to Salvation, each one being obliged by the law of that Charity which e­very one ows to himself, to take the way he conceives to be most secure in a matter of so high a conse­quence.

[Page] To these conclusions I invited seriously and ea [...] ­nestly all manner of persons, having obtained free li­cence for them to come and argue, from the Lor [...] Primate our Vice-Chancellor, and from the other Heads of the University concern'd, as may appea [...] by the Letter following, which I wrot with the The [...] enclosed to a certain Learned Doctor of the Romis [...] Communion.

Honoured Doctor,

In pursuance of my earnest desire to discover the truth in the matter of greatest concern, by all th [...] waies I could think expedient for it, I am to defen [...] by public dispute next Thursday in the Chappel [...] this Colledg, the Thesis I send to you enclosed her [...] in performance of my promise; I signified to my Lor [...] Primat, to the Provost of the Colledg, and the Mo­derator of the disputes, my desire, that any learne [...] man of whatsoever condition, might be permitted [...] oppose; and they all granted my request, it being no the custom of the Church, and Ʋniversities of En­gland and Ireland, to keep their people from rea [...] ­ing, and hearing the reasons of their adversaries, a else where you know tis. And as Suarez, Bellar­min, and others, the ablest defenders of the Roma cause, are read here with due regard to their learn­ing, so any learned man will be welcom to our d [...] ­sputes, and in his good behavior will have a sur­warrant of his indemnity for what he shall say a­gainst us by scripture and reason. And where th [...] arswer may seem deficient, he may with confiden [...] go on with contra sic argumentor by that modest a [...] clean way of schools. But if his reply should be so [...] foul words or rudeness, tho I have resolved to pas [...] [Page]over that kind of opposition, I may not assure that the [...]udience here, (which is to be very Illustrious and [...]arned) may beare it. I heartily pray to God, he [...]ay send us all Grace to seek after sincerely, and happily find out, the true way of serving and praising him. And so I rest.

your Sincere Friend to serve you ANDREW SALL.

At this invitation the said Doctor, with some o­thers of the Romish Communion, came to our di­ [...]utes, but for reasons to them best known, they re­solved not to oppose in that public manner; neither did we by their defaults want learned and able op­posers; for several of our own Doctors of Divinity, and Masters of Arts members of this University, well furnished with skill in Controversies and the best ar­guments our adversaries have, did propose them vi­gorously upon the cheif points controverted, reducea­ble to the Heads I proposed for Thesis, and by vote even of the Romish Auditors present, they were not wanting to the duty of able disputants; nor could I understand that any did miss a satisfactory answer to the Arguments used, which were many, and all in the presence of the most Reverend Father in God, James labord Arch-Bishop of Armagh, Primate of all Ireland, our Vice- Chancellor, and of the Right Reverend I [...]thers in God, the Lord Bishop of Kildare, the Lord [...]shop of Ossery, the Lord Bishop of Killalo, and of a very great and flourishing number of learned men [...]th of the Clergy and Gentry.

This tryal being over, my great longing was, for a serious and well considered reply, to my reasons [Page]proposed in print, which by that way might be per­formed, without pretence of fear or want of liberty. Long was I in expectation, when at last came out a shower of Books against me, one upon the back of another. The First that appeared upon the stage, was I. E. a fit person to break the Ice, a rough trot­ter, with a book of a small bulk, and less sence, bear­ing a Thundering title.

A soveraign counterpoison prepared by a faithful hand for the speedy reviviscence of Andrew Sall, a lat [...] Sacrilegious Apostate. The rest of the title page, was bestowed in magnifying the force of that Book, [...] inform the ignorant, to resolve the wavering, and [...] confirm the constant, well principled Roman Catholi [...] Under so magnificent a Title, who would not expec [...] a strong and formal answer to my arguments against the Popes Infallibility, Supremacy, Transubstantiation Purgatory, indulgences, and other tenets of the Ro­man Church, that I took in hand to confute? Bu [...] instead of this, he presented to his Reader two or thre [...] (we may call) common places, dropped from a st [...] ­dent of some Colledg.

1. Of the happiness of the Restoration of the So [...] of man.

2. Of the true essence of the Divine Faith.

3. Of the happiness of Christian Religion.

And thence without the least attempt of applying those Documents (which he so calls) to any pur­pose, he falls abruptly a railing in the rest of his boo [...] at the Church of England, and at those he conceive to concur to my conversion to it, in such a rude am raving stile, as to all judicious men, he seemed to [...] stark mad and unworthy of any regard or answer and that I understand to be the opinion of sober me of his own party. But to my person his term are so Heterogeneous, as may resemble a monste composed of a Syren and a Tiger; extravagantly e [...] ­toiling me above the skies for what I was before, a [...] depressing me under the abysms for what I a [...] at present, now calling me sacrilegious Apostat [...] [Page]and now Dear Andrew, sweet Andrew, and what not.

With what propriety his book may be called a Coun­terpoison I know not, if it be not, that the commenda­tions he bestows upon me in one place, may be an An­tidote against the venem he and his fellow railers spit against me in others. You have bin heretofore (saies he) known and counted a Philosopher, both by words and deeds, you spoke great things, and did likewise practise them, and after p. 27. before you were vir Apostolicus a most resplendent Star in the Firmament of the true Church, a Religious Priest, conferring life of grace on others, called by the hand of God to a most high and Soveraign dignity and Honor, before a chast and Evangelical Missioner, raised from a Sall to be a Paul, a Preacher of the word and penance. Now turned to be Saul persecuting, and warring in a most furious manner, against the heavenly fortress of true faith, become a wretched lying and vile Protestant, plunged in all vices contrary to those for­mer virtues, not to repete more of his dirty terms.

A grave and Honorable prelate reading this strange Contraposition; replied they were beholding to him for giving so good account of what I was before, but needed not his information for what I am now, themselves knowing that better. And this egregious wri­ter, being questioned in a private discourse, with what truth he could say that I was become so deboist, since I came to the reformed Church, living all that time very abstemious, and retired in Trinity Colledg of Dublin, and in a good repute with those that con­versed with me, he answered that he never meant that I should be really guilty of those vices, but in a Me­taphorical sence, That the Church of England being a Harlot, I embraceing the Communion of it, be­came guilty of a spiritual uncleanness, and all those vices he mentions. He cannot deny that I know this to have bin his answer. Wee thought such e­quivocations, and mental windings to be only among the prime Politicians of that party, but when we find them in one so simple as Mr. I. E. his book shews [Page]him to be, the sickness seems to be too far spread a­mong them. Well contented he would be that his proselytes should understand I should be really guilty of the debauchery he speaks of. But if he be brought to a test, he is provided of the reserve aforesaid to come of.

This specimen which I give of the mans Genius, will I presume quit me, in good Judgments of all ob­ligations to further regard of what he saies to me: but I will not discharge my self of the duty of defend­ing the Church of England, against his barbarous in­juries and calumnies, which I will perform God willing in the whole discourse of this Treatise, re­solving the objections of others, and with some re­flexions at the end upon part of his peculiar Extra­vagances, to let the world know, how different the condition of the Church of England is for Piety and learning, from what his malice would make his blind Flock believe of it.

The next book of those published against me that came to my hand, was one intitled the Bleeding Iphi­genia, by way of a Preface to another greater a pre­paring, which soon after appeared under the Title of the Dolefull fall of Andrew Sall &c. both written by a grave and ancient Prelate of my acquaintance in Spain; who in both of them dolefully laments a supposed fall of mine from the Catholic faith into Heresy, and enlarges in magnifying the virtues and learning of the prime Fathers and Doctors of the Church whose company he saies I have forsaken, and cries against the errors and vices of many Heretics which he mentions, drawing their pedegry down from Cain, whose society he saies I have embraced, and concludes conjuring me by all that is Holy and precious on earth, and in Heaven, that when the last visit of God comes upon me, I may be found a true professor of the Holy Roman Catholic Apo­stolic Faith.

The good will and Pious intention of this Prelate I truly love and honor, and accordingly will endea­vor to satisfy him in sober, serious, and sincere terms.

[Page] If it were so indeed as he supposes, that I should have fallen from the Holy Catholic Apostolic Faith, I should be the most unhappy, and worthy to be lamented of all men; but I am certainly perswaded I have rather fastened my self to it, by the change I made, & I hope shall make it appear so to all unbiassed men in the progress of this book. And to his re­quest that I be found a true Professor of the holy Catholic Apostolic faith, I promise him faithfully, it shall be my constant and inflexible resolution to hold that faith to the end of my life, wheresoever it be uncorruptly professed, whether in Rome or Jerusalem, or else where; I know it is not tied to places. And in truth and sincerity of my heart, I say to God in the words of holy David, which I have put for a Motto in the Frontispiece of this work, One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek af­ter, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the daies of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord and to in­quire in his Temple. Psal. 27.4. This desire appeared early in me, having betaken my self in my younger years, to that course of life, which I conceived to be most expedient to come to God, and dwell in his house, by the strict practise of Piety and learning, secluded from the world in a society of great repu­tation for both. And in that course I did persevere, whilst that apprehension lasted: but having disco­vered errors therein opposit to the primitive Catho­lic and Apostolic faith, leading to the house of God, and finding by serious and due considerations, the same true faith to be professed uncorruptly in the reformed Church of England, I did constantly re­solve to embrace it, in prosecution of my foresaid professed design of dwelling in the house of God, I mean in the true Catholic Apostolic Church. And as no human force or industry, could win me to this change, without a strong interiour motion, and full perswasion of being in the right, so all arts and en­deavours by terrors or allurements are vain to recal me, this interior perswasion persisting, which I find [Page]rather confirmed then weakened by all industry hi­therto used to draw me from it, as I hope will ap­pear to the dispassioned reader by the sincerity of my discourses in this Treatise.

The fourth and last book of those published against me that came to my hands, was one of J. S. bearing Title the unerring unerrable Church. Whosoever the said J. S. be, if we measure him by his conceit of himself, his contemt of his adversaries, his boast of his arguments for unanswerable, and the brags of his Friends in his behalf for matchless, certainly he is the Goliah of their Camp, of Gigantic stature among them. I was not a little joied to find a person of so great repute and trust, engaged in answering my arguments. If I find it easy to render void his answers, and to confute his arguments, then may I expect to be at full quiet in my perswasion, and immoveable against all their oppositions, whereof the prudent Reader will be judg after he hath viewed our incounter.

And whereas the main strength of this Combatant lies in his calumnies and impostures, wherewith he besets thick the front or Preface of his Book, I will in this place remove that engine. To lessen the weight of my arguments with a great number of Readers, who rely much upon the credit of the writer, he will, he saies, strip me of those Titles which my public emploiments for many years have given me, and with a kind of power never heard of before, will make, that I should not have bin what really I was, to the knowledg of many thousands of men living. Finding me stiled Professor of controversies, in the Irish Colledg of Salamanca, he saies resolutely, that no Controversies were taught in that Colledg these forty yeares: in which undertaking he has bin so un­lucky, that several persons of Honor in Ireland, who have bin in Spain, and do know the language of it, saw an Instrument in Spanish yet extant in my keep­ing of the Inquisitor General of Spain, giving me Licence for having and keeping prohibited Books upon the account of being professor of Controver­sies [Page]in the aforesaid Colledg after the Tenor fol­lowing.

En la villa de Madrid a 15. de Junio 1652. &c.

En la villa de Madrid a quinze dias del­mes de Junio de mily seiscientios y cinquenta, y dos annos. El Illustrissimo y Reverendissimo Sennor Obispo de Placentia Inquisidor Gene­ral en los Reynos y Sennorios de su Magestad y de su consejo &c. dio Licentia al P. An­dres Salo de la campania de Jesus, Rector del Collegio de Irlandezes de Salamanca, y Lector en el de la catedra de Controversias contra Herejes, paraque por tiempo de un anno, que comience a correr y contarse desde [...], dia de la fecha, pueda tener, y leer libros prohibides para el efecto de escrivir y impri­ [...]ir, y dar ala estampa qual quier libro o tra­tado. y le encargò, que si hallare en algun li­bro antiguo, o moderno, alguna proposition censurable, no comprehendida en el ex purga­torio, compliendo con su obligacion, lo advierta y de cuenta dello asu Sennoria Illustrissima o al consejo por lo que importa al servicio de [Page]dios nuestro Sennor. De lo qual testifico yo e [...] infra escrito secretario de camara de su Sen­noria Illustrissima.

El Ldo Pedro Lopez de Brinnas.

And at the bottom of the leaf on the left hand corner, are written these words, assentada a fol. 138 which is to say, set down page 138. I suppose of the Book where Licences given were enrolled, to preven [...] the using of supposititious ones. Thither I remit Mr. S. if he doubts of the Legality of this Instru­ments. The foresaid Instrument turned to English saith thus.

In the Town of Madrid the 15. day of the month of June 1652. the most Illustrious and Reverend Lord Bishop of Palencia, In­quisitor General in the Kingdoms and Domi­nions of his Majesty and of his Council &c. gave Licence to Father Andrew Sall of the Society of Jesus, Rector of the Irish Colledg of Salamanca, and Reader in it of the Chair of Controversies against Heretics, that for the time of one year, which shall begin to run and be counted from this day of the date hereof, he may keep and read prohibited Books, for the purpose of writing printing or Publishing [Page]any Books or Treatises, and hath charged him, that if he find in any Book ancient or [...]odern, any censurable proposition, not com­prehended in the expurgatory, complying with [...]is duty, he shall advertise and give notice of [...] to his Grace, or to the Council, for the im­portance of it to the service of our Loird God, of which I certify the undernamed Secretary of the Cabinet to his Grace

Licentiat Peter Lopez de Brinnas.

For each one of the three years I was in that Office [...]he like instrument was sent to me, and each of the [...]id years my name enrolled in the matricle or pub­lic Books of that University, for Rector of the said Colledg of it, and Reader of Controversies. Mr. [...]. S. may go thither, and see himself to his shame [...]ound a liar. The like shame he shall meet with, [...]or saying I was never a Reader of Moral Theology in [...]e Roial Colledg of the Society in that University. The Superiors and Lectors of the said Colledg in the [...]ear forementioned, and my Auditors, which were [...] chief part of the Students of Divinity of the Jesuits [...]n that province of Castile, will be on a trial, wit­ [...]esses of the profligat boldness and imposture of I. S. [...]et several Jesuits now living in Ireland, who at that [...]ime were Students of Divinity in the foresaid Col­ledg of Salamanca, and saw me sit with the other Di­ [...]inity Professors examining yearly their sufficiency [...]or promotion, and were examined by me, let them [...] say be put to their oath, and if they will not forfeit [Page]their ears by the law of this land for perjury, they must testify against I.S. and his impostures.

Finding me stiled professor of Divinity in Pa [...] ­plona, Palentia, and Tudela, he saies that there is no [...] nor was at any time Divinity taught in the Col­ledges of Palentia, and Tudela; and he may as we say in some places of Spain, that there is no suc [...] thing as a Lecture of Divinity in Oxford or Cambridg [...] With some he may meet in that part of the world, that could not contradict him; and happily it is [...] with him now where he is. To some of his fami­liars he may perswade his saying; but to expose it t [...] public view by print, shews clearly that passion h [...] blinded him not to see his shame: for certainly it would appear no less insolent in Palentia or Tudela, to sa [...] that there is not, nor was at any time a Lecture [...] Divinity in those Colledges, then if you should s [...] in Oxford or Cambridg so much of those Universitie [...] A numerous Congregation of Priests, and Student of Divinity to be priested, of those two great and fa­mous Cities, and of the Country about, who were my auditors, will cry out against such a blind and bo [...] writer, that has no regard to truth in what he saies.

He allows me the honor of having bin Reader [...] Divinity in the Colledg of Pamplona, which is [...] small wonder, that being one of the most famo [...] and flourishing Colledges the Jesuits have in Spa [...] and consequently to his purpose declared, to rob [...] of that Credit, as he may do with the same grou [...] he did with the rest, that is to say with only his bo [...] assertion or fiction, without any proof alledged. B [...] he do's it to bring upon me a greater discredit, t [...] ­ling his Reader that if they h [...] bin contented w [...] me, I might have continued longer in that emploiment and this we must take upon his credit, tho a co [...] ­vinced bankrupt in truth. But how shall I refu [...] him at this distance from those men, and in the pre­sent difficulty of getting their testimony in my favo [...] I admire and praise Gods providence in putting in [...] my hands abundant evidences to repulse the spite [...] [Page]attemt of this virulent Adversary. I will to his con­ [...]sion produce here two testimonies that may suffice [...]r many; the one of a Prelate, the other of a Prince. [...]he former is of a grave and aged Bishop, then sup­plicating to the Provincial of Castile for my continu­ [...]ce at Pamplona, by a letter of the tenor following.

Admodum Reverendo in Christo Pa­tri Martino de Lesaun Castellanae Provinciae societatis Jesupraeposito provinciali.

Admodum Rdo in Christo pater,

Capiens per ultimum tabellarium rumo­rem de P. Salo brevi inde abituro jussione tua, in mentem venit quod dixit Job, Venit mihi timor quem timebam: vix enim quidpi­am praeter peccatum in Deum meum et cladem Religionis & patriae plus timendum censui [...]t dolendum, quam imperium de ejus mi­gratione. Cur, pater colendissime, scholam [...]ampelonensem Magistro tam claro, populum [...]cclesiaste, Principes & Magnates regni Con­ [...]liario in foro Conscientiae, & me praesulem afflictum & moerentissimum, ac gementem in exilio, spolias unico meo solatio? Quid aliis nostro incommodo bonus esse vis? Sed haud [Page]dubie ibi subditum tuum vivere malis, ub [...] Deo melius famulans proximo poterit magi [...] prodesse? Si ita est, relinque illum Pampelon [...] [...]bi hactenus praeter obsequia societatis occa­sione mutuae inter nos consuetudinis (dum­ibi vixerim) multum profuit patriae su [...] in spiritualibus, ut modo sit literarum collo­quio. Muta igitur obsecro sententiam tuam pr [...] majori bono animarum, & Salum (ut mecum allaborans multis sternat viam salutis) in­dulge paulisper mihi & patriae suae, & spond [...] fore ut te non poeniteat tam sancti consilii. Mul­ta, si expediret omnia pandere, offerre possum, quae monere possent Reverendissimam pater­nitatem tuam manibus & pedibus ire in me­am sententiam. Expectans benignum respon­sum tuum, deosculor sacratas manus

Reverendissimae paternitatis tu [...] Amantissimus in Christo servus Nichol. Episcopus Fernensis.

For such as understand not Latin thus it goes i [...] English.

To the Right Rd Father in Christ Martin de Lezaun Provincial Superior of the Society of Jesus in the Province of Castile.

Right Rd Father in Christ,

Understanding by the last post, that Fa­ther Sall is to remove shortly from that City by your orders, Jobs saying comes to my mind, The thing which I greatly feared is come upon me. For certainly besides my sins against my God, and ruine of my Country and Religion, I could hardly con­ceive any thing more to be feared and griev­ed by me, then the order of his departure. Why, most Reverend Father, will you deprive the Scholes of Pamplona of so famous a Master, the People of a preacher, the Princes and Peers of the Kingdom of a Counsellor in matters of conscience, and me an afflicted sad Prelate groaning in Banishment, of my only comfort? Why will you be good to others at our loss? But doubtless you will have your sub­jects to be, where serving God better, he may be more benefiaial to his brethren: if so, leave [Page]him at Pamplona, where hitherto besides the functions of the society, by occasion of our mutual communication while I lived in that City, he has don much good to his country in their spiritual concernments, as now is don by exchange of Letters. Alter your opinion therefore, I beseech you, for the greater good of souls, and lend Sall for a while to me and to his Country, and I promise you that you shall not repent of so good a resolution. If it were convenient to discover all, I could al­ledg many things which would induce your Reverend Paternity to a free and full consent to my proposal. Expecting your favorable answer I kiss your sacred hands

Your most Reverend paternities most affectioned servant in Christ Nichol. Bishop of Fernes.

The Author of this letter is yet living where Mr. S. may come to him and be certified of the case. And tho he be of my present Antagonists, I know he has so much of truth and honesty in him, as not to deny his writing: for even now he confesses that his opinion of me, and the opinion of all that knew me, was conforming to what that letter represents, whatsoever be come of our present Controversies.

The second testimony I have to be produced here more public and full to this purpose, is that of [Page]the Earl of S. Stephen, General of the Spanish army in Castile, Vice-Roy and Captain General first of the Kingdom of Gallicia, then of Navarr, and last of Peru, a Prince of as great repute for his learning and piety, as for his Government of Kingdoms and arms. Being Vice-Roy of Navarr, and Resident in Pam­plona Metropolis of that Kingdom, all the time I was there teaching Philosophy and Divinity, and being often present at my public functions, as well of moderating disputes in Scholes, as of preaching in Churches, and moreover having bin pleased to ren­der me very familiar with himself, for his direction and consultation in matters belonging to my profes­sion and calling, at last delivered his opinion of me, for teaching, preaching, and behavior, in an Elogy inserted among others of men he honored of his age, and would have to live in the memory of posterity in a book of his works presented by his two Sons to Pope Alexander the 7th intitled horae succisivae Di­daci Benavidii comitis Sti Stephani Proregis Navarrae, &c. and printed at Lyons in France in the year 1660. In the pag. 278. of the said Book he hath this Elogy touching me.

Rdo P. ANDREAESALO Hiberno Societatis Jesu Elogium.
DIgnus Famâ, & familiâ Ignatianâ
Hybernus patriâ, & Vernans literis.
Superasti Haereseos Pelagi, ac
Mortalitatis saevientes
In Religionis tutum
Sinum traductus.
Salo, Sales, Sapientiam
Cognomentum, Verba, Mens,
Patriae calamitatibus, & Calamo notus.
A natalitiis oris, ore cum Nestoreo
Ad Hispanas Scholas accessisti.
Inservisti etiam sacrâ Eloquentiâ rostris.
Et quod mirum,
De Coelesti Patria non Patrio sermone
Sed Hispano elegantissimè
Vere peregrinus sermo à Peregrino!
Ac dum te auribus usurpo,
Quà dissertatorem Scholasticum,
Quà Coeli Oraculorum interpretem,
Hinc me sagatum acuminibus
Hinc me togatum divinis
Legibus instruis.
Quod magis
In tuis literis sine litura
Mores suspicio.
Desinis esse Ibernus, factus Iber:
Desinis esse Iber, IESU assecla
Hoc cautum ut habeas
Te exemplo hamare,
Quem meus amat

I forbear turning these words into English, both for the insufficiency I find in me for keeping their Elegancy in the Translation, and for my unwilling­ness of delivering in words of mine own, Elogies whereof I acknowledg my self most unworthy, and which I could not behold without confusion. The book was sent unto me by the Bishop of Pamplona to be examined before it was printed, as the custom there is, and so bears my censure and approbation of it in the beginning. But the foresaid elogy was then concealed from me, and inserted among the rest, after the Copy went out of my hands: and [Page]truly I was surprized, and is no small confusion finding it in the book after it was printed. But I see Gods great providence fore seeing the present ma­lignant attemt of my adversary upon my credit, was pleased to have this Antidote prepared against his venem.

I hope the judicious Reader will not ascribe to any appetit of vain Glory the exhibiting of the fore­said testimonies, to which the just and necessary de­fence of my credit did force me. And whereas my adversary is so bold as to appeal even to the Pro­testant reader, for justifying his attemt in robbing me of the Titles given to me, with a confessed design of weakning thereby my cause and my arguments with the vulgar, I embrace the same appeal, and de­sire the same reader to judg, whether it be right or reason I should desert his cause, and mine in this exigency. Shall we let their insolent and presum­tious vaunt run unchekt, wherewith they blind the simple, saying that no man of understanding or ho­nesty can leave their Church for the reformed; that both Religion and learning have fixed their tents among them, so as out of their Society neither may be found: that the dullest wits coming to them, are illuminated and refined, and the most sublime, by leaving their Communion, are blinded and stupi­fied.

This robber of titles certainly shall meet with something in his Encounter with me, that will trou­ble him more then those callings of Professor and Rector. Many Professors of Divinity and Rectors of Colledges have I known (without any great pre­sumtion I may say it) who in debates of this kind, could not put their opposers into such streights as I. S is like to find himself in, at the trial of his book, now to be taken in hand. But being he conceives that those callings may add force to my arguments with some readers, I will defend them in spight of his malice, and endeavor to forward the truth of God, by all that is mine by right.

[Page] And if it be true what some of his party, to give more credit to this calumny, do report, saying that the Author of it is a Jesuit of my acquaintance in Spain, if so, I say, his guilt is hainoussy aggravated thereby, as being a formal and willful impostor with certain knowledg of the untruth of what he saies, he having bin a master of a Grammar School in one of those Colledges where I was Professor of Divinity, and where he says Divinity was never taught, and knowing certainly that I had all those emploiments which he denies I should have had; for which cause several of the Romish Clergy and Laity in Ireland, who know the same, have detested the impudence of this man, in denying a thing so publicly known.

I could not but imagin that some person capable himself of so desperate a folly as to take upon him fictitious titles, should be author of this rude calum­ny: for mens apprehensions of others are commonly a testimony of their own temper, as is observed in the beginning of this Preface. And if the said Jesuit be Author of that book and of the calumnies of it, the observation now mentioned is fully verified in him: for to my certain knowledg, this man being sent away from Spain before he was ripe in learning, to magnify his mission with privat friends, gave himself a title, so ridiculously and Chimerically fictitious, that if I did mention it here, it would bring upon him an incurable confusion; not to wound him to deeply, I forbear to unfold the matter fur­ther at present. But I have declared it to a person of quality of his acquaintance with a message to him and his brethren, that if they will not stand to the offer of their Superior above mentioned, of u­nion in Christianity and civill demeanor, nor will accept of my invitation to a trial of our cause by a grave and Scholastic way, becoming Christians and learned men, but must force me out of it by calumnies and slanders, they may possibly find, that it is not want of materials, that keeps me from throwing dirt in their face (as others commonly do [Page]departing from them) but want of inclination to such practises: and when their * great Doctors teach them to raise false testimonies whereby to discredit their adversaries, as this man does, I hope they will allow me to repell with truth, tho bitter, the assaults of malicious enemies.

After the publication of these four Books, now mentioned, the last and great engin applied by my former brethren to recall me, was a large and so­lemn Bull of Pope Clement the 10. now reigning in Rome, signed and Sealed by his Protonotarius Apostolicus, Claudius Agrete, assuring me in terms of full Legality, an intire and absolute Remission of all that is past, and a favorable reception to my former condition and priviledges, if I would return to them. This Bull came into my hands by Dublin post in September last, with a letter about it of few lines in Latin, without subscription, inticeing me to an acceptance of the favor offered, and concluding with admo­nishing me of evil design'd against me, if I did not consent to it; of which designs against me, I have had more notice given to me, then I am willing to publish: I thank God for delivering me hitherto, and I pray that he may correct the ill affected minds that harbor such cruel thoughts.

To the offer made by that Bull of pardon and fa­vour I answer, that I want a more necessary indult from the true supreme Head of the Church our Sa­viour Jesus Christ, for submitting to the present Laws and Commands of the Roman Church, opposit, as I do conceive, to the Commandments of God, the Doctrine of Christ, and the practise of the primi­tive Apostolical Church, as I hope to make appear in the following Treatise to the indifferent Reader, by the help of God.

And finding the above mentioned I. S. more eager in challenging me to answer his Syllogisms, and his [Page]party more confident of them, I hastned my reply to him for the print, but some delaies intervening which gave me way to have the second part (which [...] intended to be of my reply) finished, before this other could be printed, I have resolved to leave his own place to Mr. I. S. which is the last, and be­gin with my reply to N. N. declaring by occasion of his objections, that the faith we profess in the Church of England is that (and no other) which Jesus Christ, and his Apostles taught, and was pro­fessed by the faithful, in the first and better ages of Christianity; that we have in this Church all those titles, and rights which do qualify a Church for truly Catholic, even according to the rules prescribed by the ablest writers of the Romish party, whereby all those loud cries against us for Heretics and Scis­maties appear to be no better then emty bubles, and meer wind, only apt to delude weak and ignorant people; and thence I will proceed to declare how their ordinary stuffe of arguments against us, is bot­tomed constanly upon false suppositions and misre­presentations of our Doctrin and practices, which if well known to the sober and sincere sort of Ro­man Catholics, they would be far otherwise affected then they are towards the Church of England, by the false informations of ignorant or malicious in­structors.

O may the Father of light and the God of truth open the eies of men blinded with earthly passons, that they may see and follow the true way to ever­lasting happiness declared to us by his dear Son Jesus, that his will and glory may be the common aime of all our wishes and writing, and of all our actions; that our Studies and endeavors be not to make the breach among Christians wider, but to reconcile them in Christ, that thus united in him, we be at length happily united among our selves in the profession of true faith in our good Saviour Jesus, to whom with the Father and Holy Ghost, be all Honour and Glory for ever and ever Amen.


Of the First PART.
  • CHAP. I. A Summary account of the Contents of N. N. his two Books, and a Distribution of the points to be handled in relation to them. pag. 1.
  • CHAP. II. That the Church of England is a true Catholic Church, and the Doctrine professed in it, truly Catholic and Apo­stolic. pag. 6.
  • CHAP. III. Suarez his Argument taken from the propriety of the word Catholic applied to prove that the Church of En­gland is truly Catholic. pag. 14.
  • CHAP. IV. The Church of England proved to be Apostolic upon the foundation laid by Suarez to rob it of that calling. pag. 21.
  • CHAA. V. Of the succession and Lawful Ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in the reformed Church of England. pag. 27.
  • CHAP. VI. The Ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in King Edward the Sixth his time, and after, proved to be legal and valid. pap. 41.
  • CHAP. VII. How far the form of Ordination used in the Church of [Page]England, agrees with that of the ancient Church de­clared in the fourth Council of Carthage, and how much the form prescribed by the Roman Pontifical of this time differs from the ancient [...]orm. pag. 49.
  • CHAP. VIII. How far the Church of England do's agree with the Romish, in matter of Ordination, and wherein they do differ, and how absurd the pretention of the Romanists is, that our difference herein with them should annul our orders. pag. 57.
  • CHAP. IX. That the succession of Bishops and Clergy since the Re­formation, is much more sure and unquestionable in the English Church, then in the Romish. pag. 6 [...].
  • CHAP. X. A further cause of Nullity discovered in the Election of Pope Clement the 8th. pag. 75.
  • CHAP. XI. Nullities declared in the Popedom of Paul the 5th. and others following. pag. 81.
  • CHAP. XII. Of the large extent of Christian Religion professed in the Church of England. pag. 89.
  • CHAP. XIII. Of the several large and flourishing Christian Churches in the Eastern Countries not subject to the Pope. pag. 98.
  • CHAP. XIV. Of the Jacobites, Armenians, Maronites, and In­dians. pag. 110.
  • CHAP. XV. A reflection upon the Contents of the three Chapters precceding, and upon the pride and cruelty of the Roma­nists [Page]in despising and condemning all Christian Societies not subject to their Jurisdiction. pag. 116.
  • CHAP. XVI. Inferences from the Doctrine preceeding of this who'e Treatise against the several objections of N. N. pag. 121.
  • CHAP. XVII. The Reformation of the Church of England, vindi­cated from the slanderous aspersions of N. N. and other-Romanists. pag. 130.
  • CHAP. XVIII. A view of N. N. his discourse upon Transubstantia­tion, and upon the affinity of the Roman Church with the Grecian. pag. 132.
  • CHAP. XIX. N. N. His Book intitled the bleeding Iphigenia exa­mined, his abusive language bestowed therein upon per­sons of Honor; and his censure upon the Kings Majesty re­prehended. pag. 140.
  • CHAP. XX. That it is not lawful for subjects to raise arms and to go to war with their fellow subjects without the con­sent of their Prince. The Doctrine of killing men and making war by way of prevention and on pretext of Ra­ligion, confuted. pag. 148.
  • CHAP. XXI. A Conclusion of my discourse with N. N. with a Friendly Admonition to him. pag. 171.
  • CHAP. XXII. A check to I. E. his Scandalous Libel; and a vindication of the Church of England from his false and s [...]anderous report of it. pag. 178.
  • [Page]CHAP. I. AN Anatomy of Mr. I. S. his Genius and drifts appearing in his Dedicatory Epistle to my Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. pag. 1.
  • CHAP. II. A vindication of several Saints and worthy Souls, our Ancestors, from the sentence of Damnation passed upon them by I. S. pag. 6.
  • CHAP. III. Mr. I. S. His cold defence of the Infallibility of his Church examined. pag. 14.
  • CHAP. IV. That Protestants have a greater security for the truth of their Doctrine then Papists have. pag. 19.
  • CHAP. V. Mr. I. S. His prolix Excursion about the Popes Au­thority, requisite to know which is the true Scripture, de­clared to be impertinent, and the state of the question cleared from the confusion he puts upon it. pag. 27.
  • CHAP. VI. Mr. I. S. His defence of the Popes pretended infal­libility from the censure of Blasphemy, declared to be weak and impertinent, his particular opinion censured for he­retical by his own party. pag. 33.
  • [Page]CHAP. VII. Our Adversaries corruption of Scripture detected. pag. 41.
  • CHAP. VIII. Mr. I. S. His horrible Impiety against the Sacred A­postles and malicious impostures upon the Church of En­gland reprehended. pag. 46.
  • CHAP. IX. Our Adversartes pretention to prescription and Mira­cles in favour of the infallibility of their Church rejected: his impostures upon me and upon the Church of England discovered further. pag. 53.
  • CHAP. X. A Check to Mr. I. S. his insolent Thesis prefixed for title to the 8th Chapter of his book, that the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ nor any part of it. That they cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their tenets. And his own argument retorted to prove, that the Roman Church is not the Church of Christ. pag. 59.
  • CHAP. XI. A Refutation of several other engagements of Mr. I. S. in that 8th. Chapter. pag. 66.
  • CHAP. XII. Mr. I. S. His answer to my objections against the Popes in fallibility refuted, his defence of Bellarmin, of the General Council of Constance, and of Costerus, de­clared to be weak and vain. pag. 70.
  • [Page]CHAP. XIII. Our Adversaries foul and greater circle committed, pre­tending to rid his pretention of infallibility from the censure of a circle, his many absurdities and great igno­rance in the pursuit of that attemt, discovered, a better resolution of Faith proposed according to Protestant prin­ciples. pag. 77.
  • CHAP. XIV. A Reflection upon the perverse Doctrine contained in the resolution of Faith proposed to us by Mr. I. S. and the pernicious and most dangerous consequence of it. pag. 85.
  • CHAP. XV. Mr. I. S. his defence of the Popes Supremacy declared to be vain, their pretence to a Monarchical power over all Christians, whether in Spiritual or Temporal, proved to be unjust and Tyranical. pag. 92.
  • CHAP. XVI. How falsly Mr. I. S. affirms the Irish did not suffer by the Popes prohibiting them to subscribe to the Remon­strance of fidelity proposed to them. pag. 100.
  • CHAP. XVII. The complaint of Papists against our King for the Oath of Supremacy he demandeth from his subjects, declared to be unjust. pag. 103.
  • CHAP. XVIII. Our Adversaries essay in favour of Transubstantiation examined, his challenge for solving two Syllogisms answer­ed. pag. 110.
  • CHAP. XIX. Several answers to my arguments against Transubstan­tiation refuted. pag. 118.
  • [Page]CHAP. XX. Ancient Schole men declare Transubstantiation cannot be proved out of Scripture, and that it was not an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council, Mr. I. S. his great boast of finding in my check to their worship of the hoste, a prejudice to the Hierarchy of the Church of England, declared to be void of sense and ground. pag. 126.
  • CHAP. XXI. Mr. I. S. His weak defence of their halfe Communion confuted pag. 135.
  • CHAP. XXII. The Roman worship of Images declared to be sinfull, pag. 142.
  • CHAP. XXIII. Mr. I. S. His defence of the Romish Worship of Images from the guilt of Idolatry confuted, the miserable condi­tion of the vulgar, and unhappy engagement of the learn­ed among Romanists touching the worship of Images disco­vered. pag. 148.
  • CHAP. XXIV. Our Adversaries reply to my exceptions against their invocation of Saints declared to be impertinent. pag. 159.
  • CHAP. XXV. A great stock of Faults and Absurdities discovered in Mr. I. S. his defence of Purgatory. pag. 168.
  • CHAP. XXVI. The Argument for Purgatory taken from the 12th. of S. Matth. v. 32. solved. 173.
  • [Page]CHAP. XXVII. The attemt of our Adversary to make the Doctrine of Purgatory an Article of the Apostles Creed, declared to be vain. pag. 185.
  • CHAP. XXVIII. How weak is the foundation of the grand Engine of In­dulgences in the Roman Church. pag. 188.
  • CHAP. XXIX. The unhappy success of Mr. I. S. his great boast of skill in History, touching the Antiquity of Indulgences, disco­vered. pag 195.
  • CHAP. XXX. Of the strange and absurd terms used in the grants of Indulgences, and the immoderate profuseness wherewith, and slight causes for which they are granted. pag. 199.
  • CHAP. XXXI. The Dismal unhapiness of the Romish People in having their Liturgy in a tongue unknown to them. pag. 212.
  • CHAP. XXXII. The cruelty of the Roman Church in prohibiting the Reading of Scripture to the People, and their common pretence of Sects and Divisions arising among Protestants refuted. pag 216.
  • CHAP. XXXIII. Mr. I. S. His engagement touching the Immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, and the practise of Con­fession, confuted. pag. 219.
  • [Page]CHAP. XXXIV. A Reflection upon the many Fallacies, Impertinencies, Absurdities, and Hallucinations of Mr. I.S. his Book, which may justify a Resolution of not mispending time in re­ [...]urning any further reply to such writings, and a [...]on­clusion of the whole Treatise, exhorting him to a conside­ration of his miserable condition in deceiving himself and others with vanity. pag. 222.


Being A Reply to N. N. his two Books, the one entitled, The Bleeding Iphigenia, the other, The doleful fall of &c. with a reflexion upon I. E. his Libel entit­led, A Soverain counterpoison, &c. and a Vindication of the Church of England from the calumnies of them, and of their Party.

CHAP. I. A summary account of the Contents of N. N. his two Books, and a distribution of the points to be handled in relation to them.

AN useful Proposal being made in the Se­nate of Athens by a person of ill re­pute, those wise Senators accorded the same should be tender'd by another of a clearer fame, that it might carry by his autho­rity more weight, and be the better accepted. The like seems to have bin practis'd with me by my Brethren of the Romish communion. Reasons of discontent with the Church of Eng­land, [Page 2]and great affronts of it being presented to me, by J. E. in his Book or Libel entitled, A Soverain counterpoison, &c. they justly suspecting that I would slight that onset, out of a dislike to the person, because of his rude and passionate ex­pressions, have taken care that the same and other motives of discontent should be propos'd by a­nother of greater repute; an aged, and grave Prelate, renowned for learning and vertue, and one much respected by me. He is pleas'd to give me marks of former acquaintance for know­ing him, but without commission of further dis­covering him to the Reader, then under the cha­racter of N. N.

In the beginning of his Preface, (which came forth in a separate Tractate) he tells me how much he was surpris'd and troubled, seeing a Copy (he receiv'd in Print from London) of my Declaration for the Church of England. This paper indeed (saies he) gave me a great heaviness of heart, for I lov'd the Man dearly, for his ami­able nature and excellent parts, and esteemed him both a pious person and a learned, and so did all that knew him. And after bemoaning my fall (as he calls it) from a little heaven, the state of Religion, wherein (saies he) for a time he shined, like a little Star, in vertue and learning, he declares his anger against me, and purpose of serving me not with the Waters of Shiloah that go softly, but with those of Rezin more tumultuous, to wash me from the stains of Heresie.

And after this, leaving me, he falls abruptly on lamenting the miseries of Ireland, and com­plaining of injuries done to the natives of it, [Page 3]and justifying their proceedings in their late In­surrection, which he will not have to be called Rebellion. In this he spends that Tractate, and then proceeds to the greater Book design'd against me, giving to it this title, The doleful fall of An­drew Sall, Jesuite of the fourth vow, from the Roman Catholic and Apostolic faith, lamented by his con­stant friend, with an open rebuking of his embracing the Confession contained in the 39. Articles of the Church of England.

This Book he begins with a Rhetorical, or Sa­tyrical exclamation against my resolution of em­bracing the said Confession: and proceeds to re­late at large the vertues and learning of Saint Hierom, Saint Augustine, Saint Ambrose, and o­ther holy Doctors of the Church, whose compa­ny he saies I have forsaken: and then makes a large list of Heretics of all ages beginning with Luciser, whom he will have to be the first Here­tic before Mans creation, and so coming down all along by Cain, Lamech, the Giants, Cham, Jannes, and Jambre, with others mentioned in ho­ly writ, to these of the latter times, relating their execrable vices and errors; of all which he will have me to be guilty, and an associate of those Heretics, for embracing the Confession contained in the 39 Articles of the Church of England. He pretends to discuss, and censure some of them, as also some parts of my Declaration, and makes a scandalous Narrative of the English Reformation, and finally concludes with a fervent exhortati­on to me to return to the Roman Church.

[Page 4] By this Scheme I deliver of that Book, the prudent Reader may judge how tedious a labour it were to take notice of every thing contain­ed in it, and how impertinent, I being so far from what he supposes me to be, and from be­ing concerned in the Heresies, and for the Here­tics he mentions. Yet the quality of the person, the sacred tye of friendship which he professes for me, and the good intention I am to believe he had in his writing, and above all the love of truth oblig'd me to undeceive him, and others that may be of his opinion, in the great and gross mistake he is in touching my condition, and that of the Church of England, whose Com­munion I have embrac'd. I will therefore de­clare,

First, That the Religion we profess in the re­formed Church of England, is no other then the true, Primitive, Catholic, and Apostolic Religi­on, taught by our Saviour Jesus Christ, and his Apostles, and practis'd in the first and purer ages by the Primitive Church.

Secondly, That we have nothing to do with the Heresies N. N. attributes to us: and his Brethren practising such calumnies, do manifest it is not the Spirit of God that moves them.

Thirdly, That the professors of the Evange­lical Doctrine in the Reformed Churches are not so few or despicable, nor the Romish facti­on so considerable, as they would make the Ig­norant believe.

[Page 5] Fourthly and lastly, I will refute some sediti­ous Doctrines delivered in his first Book, that is a preface to the second, and will conclude with a check to J. E. his calumnies and barbarous a­buses fastned on the Protestant Church.

CHAP. II. That the Church of England is a true Catholic Church, and that the Doctrine professed in it is tru­ly Catholic and Apostolic.

YOu begin the first Chapter of your Book a­gainst me, N. N. (under this character you will be named,) You begin I say, with a Rheto­rical exclamation in these terms, O Sall, tell us what domincering Spirit of darkness, what black tem­tation hath drawn you out of the house of God? I may justly return for answer an other exclamation better grounded, and say, O N. N. tell us what domineering spirit of blindness, what black presumtion is this, that so generally possesses your faction amidst the light of so learn'd an age, that a person of your years and degree should not know, that in the House of my Heavenly Father there are many Mansions? that it extends further then the quarters of the Roman Pope? that by quit­ting his jurisdiction, I forsake not the whole house of God? But tho you declare to your Reader, that your purpose is not to deal with me Scho­lastically, but Historically, that is to say, (as I find) not by reason, but by railing, and by ca­lumnies, wherewith your usual armories are plentifully stored, and by emty flourishes upon false grounds; I will not engage in like manner [Page 7]with you, but prove Scholastically, that is to say, with formal and solid arguments demonstrate, that in all your cries you beat the air and not me; that all of them are grounded upon a false sup­position; that by forsaking the Romish communi­on I did not forsake the Catholic Church; that the Church of England, whose communion I em­braced, is a very noble and sound member of the Catholic Church, and the Doctrine professed in it, & proposed to the People for the object of their belief, is truly Catholic and Apostolic, free from all Heresie and falshood. And when I have proved so much in a rational and Scholastic style and method, it will appear how vain your attemt is of working on me, by loud cries against Heresies wherein I am not concern'd, as if you were hunting a wild Boar in a forrest to drive him by clamor and shouting into your nets. It is reason that wins me, and whereby I desire to win others, not exclamations and cries of that kind.

I will not repete the just complaints delivered by many learned Writers of the arrogance of your party, of their absurdity and impropriety of terms in pretending that they alone are the Catholic, that is to say the Universal Church, being at the best but a part of it, and the same very corrupt, and not the greater part but the less by very much, as hereafter will appear.

To go through with my engagement of proving by Scholastical exact reasons, that the Church of England is a true Catholic Church, I'le take up the arguments urged against this verity by one of the ablest Schoolmen that ever wrote in favour of [Page 8]your cause, employed by the Pope against our great and learned K. James, I mean Francis Suarez Jesuit; I will I say take up the arguments where­with this famous Schoolman pretends to rob the Church of England of the glorious title of a Ca­tholic Church, and declare by that way of argu­ing which Logicians after Aristotle do call argu­mentum mirabile, that they prove the contrary, and confirm the Church of England in its right to the title of a true Catholic and Apostolic Church. It will indeed appear a singular triumph of truth, that the weakest defender of it should wrest Arms out of the hand of the ablest opposer, and beat him with his own weapons. A trial of this great power of truth, I offer now to the view of the ingenious Reader in my encounter with Suarez on this Subject. I will not pursue all the amplifications and excursions of this voluminous Writer, as not suitable to the brevity and perspi­cuity I intend to follow; yet I will take up the foundations of all his arguments upon this sub­ject, and apply them to my purpose afore­said.

Franciscus Suarez in his volume entituled, de­fensio Fidei Catholicae & Apostolicae adversus An­glicanae sectae errores, in his first Book from the 12. Chapter of it forward, endeavours to prove, that the Church of England is not a Catholic Church, & therefore that the Faith of it is not a Catholic Faith. The first foundation he laies to this pur­pose is this, that these two things Catholic Faith and Catholic Church are so united, as the one may not be found separate from the other, so that no Church may be Catholic wherein the Catholic [Page 9]Faith is not professed, neither may the Catholic Faith be found in any Church that is not Catholic. Thence he proceeds to prove, that the Roman Church is Catholic, because it has a continual suc­cession from the first Church that was so called, and retaineth the same Faith which the primitive Catholic Apostolic Church did profess; for which he cites Tertullian saying, Doctrinam Catholicam esse in Ecclesiâ Romanensi, that in the Roman Church Catholic Doctrine is professed, which is as much (saies Suarez) as if he had said, its a Catholic Church: from all which Suarez concludes n. 13. that the Church of England is not Catholic, be­cause it is not the Roman Church, nor united with it, and there is but one Catholic Church, as we confess in the Creed.

How hard a task Suarez has in proving to com­plete his argument, that in the present Church of Rome that Faith, and no other, is taught which the ancient Church called Catholic did teach, may appear by all my former discourses against their new coin'd Articles never mentioned in the Primitive Church.

But my present work will be to shew, how his argument wherewith he pretends to prove the Roman Church to be the Catholic, doth with more force evince the Church of England to be truly Catholic. And thus I form it to that purpose. In whatsoever Church that Faith is professed which was taught in the ancient Church first cal­led Catholic and Apostolic, that Church is truly Catholic and Apostolic: In the Church of En­gland 1 [Page 10]is professed that Faith, which was taught by the ancient Church first called Catholic and Apostolic; therefore the Church of Eng­land is truly Catholic and Apostolic. If we prove the minor proposition, Suarez cannot in justice deny the consequence. And if he will insist upon his pretention of such a disunion of his Church with that of England that both may not be Catholic, let the second consequence be of his own making, that their Church is no Catho­lic Church: for it is not my intention to make them worse then the Doctors of the Church of England do, who allow them to be members, tho corrupt, of the Catholic Church. The minor pro­position wherein the stress of my argument con­sists, I prove thus; The Faith taught by the ancient Church, first called Catholic and Aposto­lic, is that contained in the three Creeds, that of the Apostles, of N [...]e and Athanasius, profess [...]d and declared in the first four General Councils, of Nice, Ephesus, Constantinople and Chalcedon, re­ceived by the faithful in the four first ages of the Christian Church; All this Faith is professed by the Church of England, as Suarez confesses to have bin declared by King James, and is to be seen in his Majesties Epistle to Cardinal Per­ron written by Isaac Causabon: Therefore that Faith is taught in the Church of England, which was taught by the Primitive Church, first called Catholic and Apostolic; and consequently is a Church truly Catholic and Apostolic, according to the foresaid rule given us by Suarez, and laid for a foundation of his argument to prove the Roman Church to be Catholic. And truly it can­not [Page 11]but appear strange, that any Christian, not blinded with partiality or prejudice, should ima­gine, that the sacred Apostles, intrusted to preach saving Doctrine to all the World, should not have given a sufficient notice of it in the system of Articles they left to us: That those venerable Fathers of the purer ages of Christianity, congre­gated in the four first general Councils, should give us but a diminute account of Catholic and Apostolic belief: that the Popes Infallibility, Su­premacy, and other articles of latter impression in the Roman Church, should be so essential to Christian Faith, as none may be saved without a belief of them.

This argument may be confirmed by the te­stimony of Athanasius related by Suarez in the chapter above mentioned, num. 2. saying, that the collection of Articles contained in his Creed is the Catholic Faith: haec est Fides Catholica, &c. this is the Catholic Faith, which except a Man believe he cannot be saved: but in the Church of England that Faith called Catholic and contain­ed in the Creed of Athanasius is believed and professed, therefore if any Church professing the Catholic Faith is Catholic it self, the Church of England professing this Catholic Faith, is truly Catholic.

The second foundation laid by Suarez in the same chapter n. 6. to prove that his Church is Catholic, is to say, that it did in all times pro­fess the Faith of that Creed, wherein the Church is called Catholic: But the Church of England does and alwaies did profess the Faith of the same Creed; therefore it has the same right to the like calling.

[Page 12] The third foundation laid by Suarez from the 15. num. of the said chapter, is a sign or distin­ctive used by ancient Fathers for to know a Church or Congregation truly Catholic, and to distinguish it from another not Catholic; That whensoever any Sect takes its name from the master or teacher of such a Doctrine, and the fol­lowers of it do call themselves by such a name, neither the Doctrine nor the followers of it are Catholic: For which he alledg'd the testimony of Athanasius, Chrysostom, Lactantius, and O­thers. And the reason or cause of this distinctive is, that every Heresie brings in some novelty a­gainst the ancient Faith, and new things must have new names whereby to be known and di­stinguished from others.

But it is very remarkable how this subtil dis­putant, otherwise very exact and formal in his discourses, pretending to rob the Church of Eng­land of the name of Catholic by the principle now mentioned, comes to confirm the same name upon it, not finding it capable of the foresaid note of a Sect not Catholic. For pretending to name it from Calvin, he finds an obstacle in it, because Calvin do's not approve a chief Do­ctrine of it. Then he passes to call it Henrician from King Henry the Eigth, because from him the Church of England did learn to acknowledg the King for Head or supreme Governour of the Church in his own dominions. Against this also he meets with several obstacles, to which I will add this other very considerable, that this pra­ctice of the Church of England is by many ages more ancient then the time of Henry the Eight, [Page 13]whereas it allows no other Supremacy to our King over the Church, then such as the Godly Kings of Israel, and the Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church did exercise in their re­spective Dominions, as is declared in the 37. Ar­ticle, and in the second Canon of the Church of En­gland. Since Suarez, can not find the name of Lu­theran, Calvinist, Henrician, or any other taken from any particular Author, or teacher, to be agreeable to this Church, it must follow from the above mentioned note of a Catholic Church delivered by him, and taken out of ancient Fa­thers, that it is a Church truly Catholic, that be­ing the only name it self own's. And the Preachers of it, praying for our King, do stile him Defender of the Faith truly Catholic and Apostolic; and King James in his Monitory to the Empe­ror, and other Christian Princes, stiles him­self, Defender of the Faith truly Christian, Catholic and Apostolic, of the ancient and Primitive Church; and we do all pray heartily, that our Kings may never defend any other Faith then this.

CHAP. II. Suarez his argument taken from the propriety of the word Catholic, applied to prove that the Church of England is truly Catholic.

THe fourth foundation laid by Suarez, in the 14th Chap. of his foresaid Book, to prove that the Church of England is not Catholic, he takes from the propriety & meaning of the word Catholic. He supposes, that according to the ety­mology of the word in Greek, Catholic is the same as Ʋniversal, or Common: which Universality he saies is fourfold in relation to the present pur­pose. First, as to the matter or object of our be­lief, that it be entire, comprehending all points belonging to Christian and saving Faith. Se­condly, that it have an Universal or common reason of belief: which common reason or rule must be Divine truth, or the Word of God, whereby he gives testimony to truth, accord­ing to that expression of Saint Paul 1 Thess. 2.13. When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth the word of God. Thirdly, U­niversality is required in relation to the degrees and orders of persons, according to that descrip­tion of a Church given by Optatus Milevitanus, Lib. 2. contra Parmenianum. Certa membra sua habet Ecclesia, Episcopos, Presbyteros, Diaconos, Ministres, & turbam fidelium, that the Church has [Page 15]its certain members, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Ministers, and a Congregation of the faithful. The fourth and chief universality required for the propriety of the name Catholic is, that a Church to be such be extended over all the parts of the Earth, according to the declaration of the said Optatus, Lib. 2. Contra Donatistas: ubi ergo erit proprietas Catholici nominis, quod sit rationabilis & ubique diffusat; that the propriety of the name Catholic requires it should be a Church rational and diffused over all places.

Suarez endeavours to prove, that all these pro­prieties of Universality belonging to a Catholic Church, are wanting to this of England, that it may be called Catholic. First, as to the material universality or integrity of Articles necessary to a Catholic Faith, he pretends that the Church of England is deficient in several Articles, as he pro­mises to prove elsewhere, but at present singles out as chief that of the Popes Supremacy, which the Church of England denies, and he promises to prove that it belongs to a Catholic Faith. I com­mend Suarez his ingenuity and perspicacity in striking the nail in the head. This indeed is that stumbling stone and Rock of offence, This is the chief and I may say the only cause of that irreconcileable disunion of the Roman Church with us. We know by certain and well au­thorized * records, that Pope Paul the Fourth offe­red Queen Elizabeth to approve of the Refor­mation, if the Queen would acknowledg his Primacy and the Reformation from him; and he being dead his Successor Plus the 4. prosecuted [Page 16]the same, as appears by his letters written the 5 * of * May 1560. and sent by Vincentius Parpalia, offering to confirm the Liturgy of the English Church, if she would acknowledg his Supremacy. This being told by Sir Roger Twisden (as he relates himself) to an Italian Gentleman versed in public affairs, together with the grounds on which he spake it; well, (said the Gentleman) if this were heard in Rome among religious Men, it would never gain credit; but with such as have in their hands the maneggi della corte (the management of the court affairs) it may be held true. And indeed su [...]h as know the spirit of that Court, may easily believe, that if this great point of the Supremacy, the foundation of their power and grandeur were agreed upon, they would easily wink at other dissentions. Whereof we have a pregnant testi­mony from Bellarmin, Lib. 3. de Ecclesia Cap. 20. asserting, that even such as have no interiour Faith, nor any Christian vertue, are to be taken for members of the Catholic Church, provided they do but outwardly profess the Faith of the Roman Church, and subjection to the Pope, tho it be only for some temporal interest. So ready they are in Rome to embrace all sorts of men, provided they acknowledg the Popes Suprema­cy. This being established, all is well; being denyed, the best of Men and soundest Believers in Christ must be damned Heretics by sentence of that Court.

But I shall declare sufficiently in the 15. Chapter of the 2d part of this Treatise, how [Page 17]vain the pretence of Suarez and his party is, to make the Popes Supremacy an article of saving Faith; how unjust and tyrannical an usurpation it is: how far the best Popes in the Primitive Church were from pretending to it, and more from pressing it upon Christians as an article of saving Faith. And indeed it must appear strange to any impartial judgment, that the System of ar­ticles contained in the three Creeds and four first general Councels, which gained the name of Catholic to the Church first called so, should not suffice to make a Church Catholic in all times. Therefore the Church of England professing all those Articles is to be taken for truly Catholic, tho denying the Popes Supremacy, not contained in the foresaid System, nor ever own'd by the Church first called Catholic, as hereafter will be proved.

As to the second sort of Universality, consisting in taking the Word of God for a common reason or rule of belief, how can any pretend the Church of England to be deficient herein, having ever protested that the Word of God contained in Canonical Scripture is the prime and only rule of its belief, while the Roman Church denies to stand to this rule, as unable to make out all the belief it would force upon us. What Suarez pretends, that the Church of England wants a rule infallible for knowing which is true Scrip­ture, and the true meaning of it, which they con­ceive to have themselves in the Popes infallibility, I shall declare in the eighth Chap. of the 2d part of this Treatise how vain it is, we having in u­niversal tradition, and in the Writings of the Holy Fathers, means sufficiently certain for know­ing [Page 18]which is the true Scripture, and which the true meaning of it in points necessary to Salva­tion. As for others less necessary, if there be ob­scurity and diversity of opinions among our Wri­ters, so is there among theirs, nor could their pre­tended Infallibility ever make them agree. Nay among the best and wisest Fathers of the Church there was alwaies a great diversity of opinions in points not fundamental, without breach of Ca­tholic and Christian union.

Now concerning the third kind of union or u­niversality, consisting in a hierarchical order of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, &c. Suarez is much mistaken in saying, that we have them not true and legal. I will declare at large from the fifth Chapter following, that we have all the security they have, of a legal sucession and true ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Its their concern we should not be found deficient herein: for any defect conceived in our hierachy will reflect upon theirs.

Finally touching the fourth manner of Uni­versality, signified by the name Catholic, that a Church or Faith so called should be extended over all the Earth, Suarez exceeds much in denying this property to the Church of England or Faith professed in it, saying it passes not the bounds of Brittish land. To which is contrary that grave and modest testimony of King James, related by Suarez in the same place, chapter xv. n 6. Nos Dei benesicio nec numero, nec dignitate ita sumus contemnendi, qui [...]ono vicinis nostris exemplo praeire possimis: quandoquidem Christiani orbis omniumque in eo ordinum inde à Regibus liberisque Principibus [Page 19]usque ad insimae conditionis homines pars propè media in nostram Religionem consensit. We, by the grace of God, are not so despicable either for number or dignity, that we may not be a good example to our Neighbours: whereas neer the one half of the Christian World, and all orders of People in it from Kings and Soverain Princes to the mean­est sort of persons, have already embraced our Religion. I shall declare hereafter from the XIX. Chapter descending to particulars, that this saying of King James was both true and mo­dest, and that more then the one half of the Chri­stian World agrees with the Church of England in unity of Faith, sufficient to render them Ca­tholic: and that the Church of Rome may cease bragging of her extent, being now come so short of that latitude which made her swell to the con­temt of all other Christian Churches, now far exceeding her in number and lustre of Princes and Kingdoms embracing the Faith professed in them.

Suarez preventing a check to his argument from this discovery in the XVI. Chapter num. 4. of his said Book, premises, that this general extension of the Catholic Church over all the World, is to be understood of extension either by right or by actual possession, and tho the latter be deficient, the former of right cannot want, Christ having commanded that his Go­spel should be preached to all the World. But how can Suarez pretend that this right should belong to the Faith of his Church rather then to that of the Church of England? whereas this latter preacheth only for object of belief the [Page 20]Word of God contained in the Gospel, and in the other Canonical Scriptures, while the Roman preaches articles coined by her self, and never given to the Apostles to be preached, as we shall shew abundantly hereafter, refuting the errors of it.

CHAP. IV. The Church of England proved to be Apostolic upon the foundation laid by Suarez to rob it of that Title.

SƲarez, after having used his best endeavours to deprive the Church of England of her right to the name of Catholic, with so little success as we have seen in the precedent Chapter, he passes in the 17. Chapter of his foresaid Book, to rob it of the name of Apostolic, & so to deprive King James of the title he gives himself of Defender of the Faith truly Catholic and Apostolic.

To prove that the Faith of the Church of En­gland is not Apostolic, he laies this foundation; that two things are requisite to make a Faith or Doctrine Apostolic. The first that it proceed in some manner from the Preaching, words or writings of the Apostles. Secondly, that it be conveyed to us by legal tradition and successi­on. The first is contained in those words of St. Paul, Ephes. 2.19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and forreigners, but fellow Citizens with the Saints & of the houshold of God, & are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. The second requisite is declared by Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. 3. in these words, Traditionem Apostolorum in omni Ecclesia adest perspicere quae vera velint audire, [Page 22]& habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis institu­ti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis & successores eorum usque ad nos. Who are willing to hear truth must look upon the tradition of the Apostles in all Churches, and we can number those that were ordained Bishops by the Apostles and their successours to our own times.

Suarez pretends these two requisites to be wanting in the Church of England to merit the Name of Apostolic. First, saies he, because the Doctrine of it was not preached by the Apostles, neither was it taken out of their Doctrine, or conveyed to us by lawful tradition. Against which position he brings King James protesting himself to believe, admit and reverence the Ca­nonical Scripture, the three Creeds, and the first four General Councils, in which sacred foun­tains he judged the Apostolic Faith to be contain­ed; and Suarez acknowledges that King James spoke herein not only his own sense but the sense and belief of the whole Church of England, which is no small glory to it.

But how can Suarez make out, that the Apostolic Faith and Doctrine is not sufficiently contained in those sacred Fountains of the Scriptures, Creeds and Councils received by the Church of En­gland? See Reader and admire his answer. Tho the Doctrine of the said Books considered in it self (saies he) be Catholic Apostolic Faith (or rather a part of it, for he pretends that all Catho­lic Faith is not contained in those fountains) yet as it is received by sectaries, either it is not Apost­lic, or it may not be certainly taken for such. First, because they cannot be certain whether [Page 23]those Books they receive be Canonical, or the Councils legal. Secondly, that they cannot be certain of the true meaning of the Scriptures Creeds or Councils. So that in conclusion, the Divinity of our Saviour, preached by a Romish Priest is Catholic Apostolic Faith; but not so, when preached by one of the Church of England. I should indeed think this only consequence to be a sufficient confutation of this unhappy subtilty of Suarez: but further to his reason; when effe­ctively we are secured that the Scripture recei­ved by us is truly Canonical and Divine, and our adversaries do allow it, what need is there for quarrelling about the grounds and motives of our security therein? and touching the sense both of Scripture, Creeds & Councils; the * saying of K. James related by Suarez, n. 9. that he does take the Creeds in the same sense which the Fathers and Councels by whom they were made were willing to give to them, well considered, is both pious and prudent. When the words of a Scripture or ar­ticle are capable of different senses, all con­sistent with Christian verity, and none repug­nant to sound Doctrine, it is b [...]t Catholic prety to suspend a firm assent to one, and keep a rea­diness to adhere to what may be the real intenti­on of the sacred writer. For example, that ar­ticle of the Apostles Creed touching our Savi­ours descent into Hell, is capable of different sen­ses in relation to the Hell he descended into. Its a groundless conjecture of Suarez that King [Page 24] James and the Church of England with him should deny a real descent, and say he did suffer the pains of Hell in the garden; as may be seen by the grave discourse of learned Dr. Pearson now Bishop of Chester upon that article. We believe he descended really into Hell, that is to say in­to some place, under the Earth, it may be with­out any absurdity to the Hell of the damned, as declared in the second part of this Treatise, c. 27. But whether it was that Hell or an other subterranean place he descended into, we may with piety and prudence suspend our judg­ment, having no Divine oracle to ground upon the determination of the place.

And Suarez gives us a signal example of this resignation of our intellects to the intention of the Writer, in a matter less sacred then the Ar­ticles of the Creed, I mean the expressions of Popes touching Indulgencies. Finding insuperable difficulties, in giving a congruous sense to terms of that art, which appear non-sense, as those of plena, plenior, plenissima, full, more full, most full. If full or plenary, how can another be more full, &c. He confesses not to under­stand the propriety of these and other expressi­ons used upon that Subject, but will rest upon the judgment of the Church, which knows the meaning of those measures, as will be seen in the 39. Chapter. And certainly all those of his party have need of this kind of resignation to rest upon, if they will have quiet: for there is no ar­ticle of Creed or Council without diversity of Opinions touching the true meaning of it among their Doctors.

[Page 25] But this Author has more to say to us, that the points, wherein we differ from the Roman Church, were never taught by any of the A­postles. For example, saith he, to make the King Supreme Governour of the Church, (this nettles him still) what place of Scripture, what Hi­story do's warrant this Doctrine? What Chri­stian or Godly King did practise such a Supre­macy over the Church? to which I say, that we have a warrant for this subjection to our Princes in the words of St. Paul, Rom. XIII. 1. Let every Soul be subject unto the higher powers, where no distinction is made betwixt the Ecclesa [...]ic and Secular. We have for the same practice the examples of the Godly Kings of [...]srael, and of Christian Emperours in the Primit [...]e Church, as will be declared hereafter Chap. XV. 1. And our Doctrine herein, being built thus on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, appears thereby to be Catholic and Apostolic.

And if any Doctrine of ours be not found grounded upon the same foundation of the A­postles and Prophets, we are all rea [...]y to make that pious confession of our great King James, related by Suarez, Chapter XVII. n. 15. Ego vero id ingenuè spondeo, quoties Religionis quam profiteor ullum caput ostendetur non antiquum, Catholicum, & Apostolicum, sed novitium esse ac recens (in re­bus sc. spectantibus ad sidem) me statim ab eo d [...]s [...]es­surum. I do faithfully promise, that whensoever any point of the Religion I profess shall be found not to be ancient, Catholic and Apostolic, but new and modern (as to things belonging to Faith) I will presently depart from it. This [Page 26]much those of the Roman Church cannot say with sincerity and truth, since several of their tenents are not built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, but are contrary to them, as is declared in the second part of this Treatise. Therefore our Church and the Faith of it, rather then that of Rome, is truly Catholic and Aposto­lic.

CHAP. V. Of the Succession and lawful Ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, in the Reformed Church of England.

NOthing is affirmed more confidently, nothing more blindly believed by most of the Ro­mish party, then the nullity of the Protestant Clergy, that our Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not such effectively, but nominally, or by title, and therefore unable to give Orders they have not, or administer Sacraments depending upon such Orders. This I find by experience to be the greatest stop, many of the more sober and serious of them have, in embracing the Communion of the Church of England. They see cleerly nothing is asserted by it which may be thought Heretical or erroneous. And what it de­nies of superstructures added in latter Ages by the Roman Church, they easily perceive them not to be essential to Salvation. Their main scruple is, whether in this separation of the reformed Chur­ches from the Roman, a lawful succession of Bi­shops and Ministers was retained, and a legal or­dination of them continued: whether they may live and die confidently relying upon the Mini­stery of the reformed Ministers for consecrating, [Page 28]absolving, &c. without recourse to a Romish Priest.

This point I find to be so necessary for setling the minds of many in this wavering age, that I thought convenient to examine it exactly, as far as may consist with the brevity and clearness I aim at in this writing. To relate the reproches and calumnies of Romish Writers against our Ministery were endless and impertinent. The shorter and readiest way will be, to shew the truth and right of our cause by positive undeniable ar­guments touching the lawful succession and due Ordination of our Clergy. This being establish­ed, old stories and slanders will fall of themselves. Who would not think it impertinent in me to take notice of that very rude and ridiculous fable, of the Ordination of Parker and others at the Naggs-head in Cheapside, most vigorously and de­monstratively refuted many years ago by Mr. Mason, and unhappily revived of late by a certain Gentleman to his own great shame and discredit of his cause, being evidently convicted of Im­postures, by the Lord Bishop Bramhal in a sepa­rate Treatise printed upon that Subject? Such base stuff as this, if suitable to ears possessed with fury and blind passion, is unworthy of any menti­on or regard among serious and sober Men.

Now coming to the point, after much read­ing and serious consideration upon the matter, I wish heartily, I could find the succession of lawful Bishops so cleer and not interrupted in the Roman Church, from the Apostles times to the Reformation, as we are able to shew it in ours from the beginning of the Reformation to our [Page 29]own daies. It shall not be my present work to take notice of doubts occurring touching the for­mer. It will suffice for my purpose to demonstrate, that from the beginning of Henry the Eight his reign (when no doubt was of the legality of our Clergy) to this day, there has bin a lawful uninter­rupted succession and due Ordination of Bishops and other Inferiour Clergy in the Churches of England and Ireland. If the testimony of an adver­sary will avail, we have that of * Cudsemius, who came into England the year 1608. to observe the state of our Church, and the order of our Uni­versities. Concerning the state of the Calvinian Sect in England, (saith he) it so standeth, that ei­ther it may endure long or be changed suddainly, or in a trice, in regard of the Catholic order there, in a perpetual line of their Bishops, and the lawful succes­sion of Pastors received from the Church, for the ho­nour whereof we use to call the English Calvinists by a milder term, not Heretics but Schisma­tics.

Bellarmin is peremtory upon the contrary saying of all the Reformed Churches: nostri temporis haeretici neutrum habent, id est nec ordina­tionem nec successionem, the Heretics of our times have neither ordination nor succession.

Whatsoever be said of other reformed Chur­ches, which I leave to speak for themselves upon this point, we have cleer evidences to shew the falsity of the Cardinals assertion as relating to the Reformed Church of England, and the more cri­minal [Page 30]as more wilful calumny of * Bristow, Hard­ing, Sanders, Howlet, Kellison, and other English Romanists, whose malice must be Diabolical, or their ignorance supine and unexcusable, in slande­ring their Country with what they knew, or easi­ly might know to be an untruth, as that stranger Cudsemius with due inquiry came to know.

For evidencing this point, of so great impor­tance, * that it was the cry of Papists to the Pro­testant Clergy in Queen Elizabeths time, and is still the challenge of many among them, if you can justify our calling, we will come to your Church and be of your Religion; I am to premise first as to mat­ter of fact, that in all prudence, I am to rely with more satisfaction upon the public authen­tic records of the Church and state of England, touching the transactions of both, then upon the report of declared bitter Enemies, such as those of the Romish faction are known to be. Where­as it cannot but appear morally impossible, in any impartial judgment, that in so grave, and wise a Nation as England is known to be, the Lords and Officers of Church and State, should conspire and agree in deluding posterity with false records. And on the other side, the Romish party is found guilty, by uncessant experiences of aspersing, without measure or regard of truth, the protestant cause and all defenders of it. Where­of the story of Ordination, at the Nags-head, confidently revived of late by one of a great [Page 31]calling, and confuted to his shame and confusion by the Lord Primate Bramhall, may be a con­spicuous evidence. To which I could add not a few more of my own experience and certain knowledg. They got a great Person to relate in Dublin, that I was struck Dumb at making of my Declaration in the Church of Cashel, and that I fell suddainly Dead soon after, going in the Street. A miracle I suppose is put by this time into the annual letters of Rome and Indies, to terrify o­thers from following my Example. An other Person of like quality was emploied to testi­fie, that after my foresaid Declaration made at Cashel, an extraordinary concourse of People be­ing present at it, I went to a Noble-Mans House where my habitation was formerly, and said Mass in it: whereas I was not out of the Arch-Bishops company from that day, until I came to Dublin with a considerable number of Men and Arms to guard me. And after some Months constant retirement in the Colledg of Dublin, without e­ver lying out of it, or going abroad, but seldom to the Castle, and few houses of the chief Pre­lates and Nobility, an Irish Papist told confi­dently to one of my Lord Chancellors Gentle­men, (who related it to me after) that he saw me few daies before saying Mass at Kilkullen Bridg (where I was not in some years before that time) after my public Sermon of Recanta­tion at Dublin; and the Gentleman asking how that could possibly be so, I being in their sight and company, and never out of Dublin all that time, he took a Book into his hand, and swore by it, that what he said was true. At this very [Page 32]instant it hapned, that I should come out of Christ-Church from Praiers in company of an other Gentleman of the Colledg, and my Lord Chan­cellors Gentleman seeing me, asked of the swear­er whether he did know me if he saw me: he answered, yea; and asking whether I was of those two that went by, he said no. But being told I was one of them, he confessed that he never saw me before. So punctual as this are their reports of us. If they were but seldom, we might take them for mistakes; but seeing them so frequent, and continual, we have too much ground for su­specting a set purpose of imposing upon us, especially their most creditable Doctors, teaching them, that tis lawful to raise false testimonies in defence of their credit, that their opposers may not be believed. The authors of this godly Doctrine, confessors and Preachers to Emperours and Princes, you may see quoted by John Ca­ramuel, Titular Bishop of Misia in Theologia fun­damentali, fundamento 55. n. 1589. This being so, it appears how little credit is due to their testi­monies against our cause and persons.

I premise secondly, that by sacred orders a character indelible is given to the person ordain­ed whether Bishop, Priest or Deacon, that is to say a spiritual sign or ability to certain functi­ons uncapable of being taken away by humane power, or accident. So tis defined in the Coun­cil of Trent. sess. 7. can. 9. Si quis dixerit in tribus sacramentis, Baptismo sc. Confirmatione & Or­dine, non imprimi characterem in anima, hoc est sig­num quoddam spirituale & indelibile, unde ea itera­ri non possunt, anathema esto. If any shall say that [Page 33]in these three Sacraments, Baptism, Confirmation and Order, a character is not left in the Soul, viz. a spiritual and undelible sign (which is the cause they may not be repeted) let him be anathema. It is not my present business to dispute with the Council, upon what account it calls Confirmati­on and Order Sacraments, but to note, that by it is defined, that sacred orders do leave a character indelible, and that they ought not to be reiterated upon the same person. The same Doctrine is de­livered again in the 23. sess. 3. can. of the same Council, adding, that who was once a Priest can never be made a Layman. And in the eighth Council of Toledo cap. 7. and in the Council of Florence under Eugenius the 4th in decre. de unione. Hence follows saies Bellarmine, that no supe­riour power can hinder a Bishop from confirm­ing and ordaining, if he pleases to do it. And Peter Sotus saies, that doubtless no Heresie, excommunication, or even degradation, takes a­way the power of Orders, tho the use of them may be unlawful; so as tho a Heretic, excom­municated or degraded person, sin in giving Or­ders, or administring Sacraments, yet the actions are valid: for where such a character is, saies Bellarmine, God, in force of a Covenant, doth concur to produce a supernatural effect, to wit to give an other Character even Episcopal.


[Page 34] These two premises supposed, for examining the matters of fact, which is the ground and foun­dation of this work, we are to rely upon the public authentic Records of the Church of En­gland, faithfully produced by Mr. Francis Mason, and truly examined at the request of Mr. Fitz Herbert, who seeing a mortal wound given to the Romish calumnies, against the lawful ordinati­on of English Clergy, by this narrative of Mr. Ma­son, desired that those Records related by Mr. Mason should be shown to some learned per­sons of the Romish communion; which was ac­cordingly don by the most Reverend Father in God George Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, who having read this challenge in Fitz. Herberts Book, called to him Mr. Collington, then reputed Archipresbyter, Mr. Laithwait, and Mr. Fair­cloath Jesuits, and Mr. Leagume a secular Priest. All these being brought before the Arch-Bishop the 12. of May 1614. in presence of the Right Reverend Bishops of London, Dunelm, Ely, Bath and Wells, Lincolne, and Rochester, the said Records were given to them to see, feel, read, and turn; and having considered all exactly, they declared that no exception could be taken against that Book in their opinion; and the Arch-Bishop desiring them to signify so much by let­ters to Fitz Herbert, they promised to do it; as Mr. Champney relates the story. And the same Records are at this day, and alwaies to be seen, if men will not be satisfied otherwise then by eye­sight.

Fitz Herbert, Append. n. 13.

[Page 35] The Records produced by Mr. Mason being thus justified, we will take our measures by them to cleer this point. First our adversaries allow us, that the Bishops ruling in England at the begin­ning of Henry the Eighth his Reign, were law­ful Bishops, and legally ordained according to the Canons and rites of the Catholic Church. With Thomas Cranmer Arch-Bishop of Canterbury they begin their quarrel. Against him, the Kings and Clergy of England, Becan insults thus. Legitimè consecrati non estis. A quo enim? an à Rege? at is consecrandi potestatem non habet. An ab Episcopo Cantuariensi, vel aliquo simili? ne id quidem. Nam Thomas Cranmerus, qui sub Hemico 8o Cantua­riensem Episcopatum obtinuit, non fuit consecratus ab ullo Episcopo, sed à solo Rege intrusus & designatus; igitur quotquot ab eo postea consceratisunt, non legiti­me, sed ex praesumtione consecrati sunt. You are not lawfully consecrated: for by whom were you? Whether by the King? but he has not power to consecrate: or by the Bishop of Can­terbury, or some other such? neither that truly: for Thomas Cranmer, who under King Henry the Eighth obtained the Bishopric of Canterbury, was not consecrated by any Bishop, but intruded and designed by the King alone; therefore as many as were afterward consecrated by him, were not consecrated lawfully but by presumtion.

I cannot but note Becan's disingenuity, in delu­ding thus his Reader, as if he would have him be­lieve, that the Kings of England did take upon them, to consecrate Bishops themselve [...], or to thrust into the Government of Churches men not consecrated, contrary to what he knew [Page 36]well, or might easily know to be true, having Popes, Cardinals, Priests and Jesuits to a [...]er­tain him of it, such as were Clement the seventh, Paul the fourth, Cardinal Allen, Parsons, Kelli­son, whose manifold testimonies of Cranmer to have been a true Bishop Mason relates lib. 2. cap. 7. adding for farther evidence this follow­ing testimony of the time, place, and persons or­daining him out of the public Records.

Thomas Cranmerus con­secratus 30. Martij, 1533. 24. Hen. à

  • Joh. Lincolniensi
  • Joh. Exoniensi
  • Hen. Asaphensi

Against all these evidences Henry Fitz Symon [...] takes up the cudgils in defence of Becan's asserti­on, that Cranmer was not consecrated by any Bi­shop but a meer Layman, intruded upon that see of Canterbury by Henry the Eighth his sole will. This he promises to demonstrate, à gravissimorum totius gentis authorum monumentis & consularibus actis, by the testimonies of the most grave Au­thors of the Nation, and public Act of Parlia­ment. Seeing these big words, and knowing upon what subject, I could not but sigh and grieve, remembring how these Rhetoricians do delude poor credulous People with such swelling phra­ses, founding high in the eares of Boies and Wo­men, and of Womanish weak Men: whereas be­ing touched close they are found to be no better than a bubble, floating pompously, and contain­ing nought but wind.

Where he promises the testimonies of the gra­vest Authors of the Nation, in favour of his pre­tension, [Page 37]he only brings one testimony: and of whom? of some impartial writer? No, but of * Sanders, the most passionate and bitter Enemy of the reformed Clergy that could be named. But even his testimony how much to Fitz Simons purpose? he relates these words of him: Henri­cus 8. radix peccati, cum ab Ecclesia & sede Apo­stolica Regnum suum divisisset, decrevit ne quisquam electus in Episcopum bullas Pontificias, vel manda­tum Apostolicum de consecratione requireret, sed re­gium tantum diploma afferret. Henry the E [...]ghth the source of evil, having separated his Kingdom from the Church, and from the See Apostolic, hath decreed, that no Bishop elect should look for Bulls from the Pope for his consecration, but only should bring the Kings Patent. And here Fitz Symons stops fraudulently, pretending his un­skilful Reader should understand by those words, that the King did give the title of Bishops with­out any consecration. But the words following of Sanders do overthrow his purpose, which run thus; Sed Regium tantum diploma afferret, secun­dum quod à tribus Episcopis cum consensu metropo­litae ordinatus, jubebatur lege comitiorum facta ad i­mitationem antiquorum canonum, esse verus Episcopus, nec alio modo ordinatum pro Episcopo agnosci opor­tere, That he should bring the Kings mandat, ac­cording to which the person ordained by three Bi­shops, with the consent of the Metropolitan, was by Act of Parliament, made in imitation of anci­ent Canons, declared to be a true Bishop, and that any person otherwise ordain'd should not be [Page 38]taken for a Bishop. And is this to say that Henry the Eighth should give the title of Bishops to, and intrude upon Churches, Persons without any consecration?

Truly this defence of Becan by Fitz Symons, is like the cause defended, both guilty of fraud and disingenuity, so as we may call it malae causae pejus patrocinium, of a bad cause a worse defence. * Kellison is more ingenious, saying thus: Cranme­rum verè ordinatum non nego, quia ab Episcopis Ca­tholicis munus consecrationis accepit, ita & vixisse eum & mortuum esse verum Episcopum fateor. I do not deny that Cranmer was truly ordained, hav­ing received his ordination from Catholic Bishops: so as I confess he lived and died a true Bishop. Let now the Author of Britonomachy, (I mean Fitz Symons) come and reconcile this piece of Romanomachy. In the mean time, be it con­cluded, that their testimonies against Cranmer are like those of the false witnesses against Christ, which did not agree together. Mark XIV. 56. And let that blessed Martyr, canonized by Christ for such, where he declared blessed them that suffer persecution for justice, as Cranmer did for doing justice to his King and Country, in main­taining their right against the tyrannical usurpa­tions of the Court of Rome, let him I say enjoy in glory the indelible character of Bishop, which all the malice of his adversaries will never be able to take from him. And let their calumny against the Church of England be confounded, wherewith they pretend the ordination of our Clergy to have been vitiated in that of Cranmer.

[Page 39] By this it appears, that all Bishops made in King Henry the Eighth his reign, were true and lawful Bishops, as being consecrated by three Bi­shops, and according to the accustomed rites of the Catholic Church, it being a enacted then, that the Consecrations should be solemnized with all due circumstance, and moreover that the Consecrators should give to the consecrated all benedictions, cere­monies, and things requisit for the same. And if thing essential were abolished or omitted, certain­ly Sanders speaking purposely of this point, would not have concealed it. But he rather saies plainly, b it was King Henry's will, that the cere­mony and solemn unction, should as yet be used in E­piscopal Consecration after the manner of the Church. But the c Statute of Qu. Mary putteth the mat­ter out of all doubt, enacting, that all such Divine service and administration of Sacraments, as were most commonly used in this Realm of England in the last Year of King Henry 8. should be used and fre­quented through the whole Realm of England and all other the Queens Dominions, and no other in any o­ther manner, form, or degree. The makers of this statute were of opinion, that Holy order was a Sacrament, and therefore was administred in Queen Mary's time, as in King Henry's. They will not pretend, that any form essential was omitted in Queen Mary's time, and conse­quently must say the same of Orders given in King Henry's reign.

What Bishops, when, and by whom they were [Page 40]consecrated during King Henry the 8. his time, Mr. Mason relates out of the public Records; as Thomas Cranmer in the Year 1533. as above men­tioned, next after,

Rowland Lee Conse. B. of Lichfield, 14. of Apr. 1534. by

  • Thom. Canterb.
  • John Lincoln.
  • Christ. Sidon.

George Brown Con. Arch-Bish. of Dub. 19. Mar. 1535. by

  • Thom. Canterb.
  • John Roffens.
  • Nichol. Sarum.

And so of the rest, until the year 1545. every one being consecrated by three Bishops, and with the usual ceremonies, and the great penalty of premunire being denounced by Act of * Parlia­ment against any Bishop consecrating or conse­crated otherwise.

CHAP. VI. The ordination of Bishops, Priests and D [...]acons in King Edward the Sixth his time and after, proved to be legal and valid.

THe greatest opposition is against the ordinati­on of our Clergy since the Reformation of the ordinal a or ceremonies of ordination in time of King Edward the sixth of which, Kellison speaks thus; in King Edwards time neither matter nor form of ordination was used, and so none were truly or­dained. Against this rash and slanderous censure of Kellison, I will produce the testimony of Vas­quez and Bellarmine, men of greater credit and knowledg touching the matter and form of or­dination. Vasqu. declares the matter of Episcopal ordination to be only the imposition of hands, and the form those words, receive the [...]oly Ghost, which are said by three Bishops together, & relates Ma­jor, and Armilla for the same opinion, proving it first out of Scripture, 1 Timot. IV. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by Prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. Out of which place b Vasquez thus ar­gues solidly, unde sequitur manifeste eam mannum [Page 42]impositionem esse materiam, ac proinde verba quae si­mul cum eâ proferuntur, esse formam. Nam gratia Sacramentalis in ipsa applicatione materiae & formae, & per ipsam confertur. Whence followeth mani­festly, that such imposition of hands is the mat­ter, and consequently the words pronounced with it the form: for Sacramental grace is conferred in the very application of the matter and form and by it. Then he proceeds to prove by testimonies of Fathers, that three Bishops ought to concur in the Ordination of a Bishop, & that what is not performed by all three, belongs not to the essential matter or forme. But in all the Roman Pontifical, saies he, no other cere­mony is appointed to be performed by three Bi­shops, but only the imposition of hands, there­fore that alone must be the matter, and conse­quently only the words pronounced with it the form of Episcopal Ordination.

That three Bishops are necessary for ordaining a Bishop, (which was a foundation laid by him for the former argument), he proves, first by the the testimony of Pope Anacletus, * affirming that the first Arch-Bishop of Jerusalem, James called the just, Brother of the Lord according to the flesh, was ordained by Peter, James, and John Apostles, giving therein a rule to successors, that a Bishop should not be ordained by less then three Bishops. Anacletus adds, that he learned so much from St. Peter, by whom he was him­self Priested. Secondly, Pope Anicetus delivers [Page 43]the same, adding it was so practiced instituente Domino, by the institution of Christ. Thirdly, he alledges the first Council of Nice, with se­veral other Councils and Fathers to the same purpose.

If you oppose, that the foresaid words, Receïve the Holy Ghost are too general for a form to ordain a Bishop: he answers, that being pronounced by three Bishops laying their hands upon the Per­son ordained, they specify the degree of a Bishop, since thereby they signifie, that they receive him to their own proper order and degree: the conjunction of three Bishops laying their hands upon the person ordained, being only proper to the ordaining of a Bishop, as he proves Disp. 243. c. 6. Thus much a Vasquez touching the matter and form of Episcopal ordination.

b Bellarmine contributes not little to the proof of this verity (tho with less coherence to another Doctrine he supposes, as I will declare after.) For speaking of Sacraments in general, he saies, that all Sacraments of the new Law are compo­sed of visible things as matter, and of words, as form. And c coming to speak of Holy Order, which he supposes to be a Sacrament, he saies that there is no mention in Scripture of any vi­sible sign that may be a matter of it, but only the imposition of hands. Whence it follows, that holy Order being of Divine institution, and declared in Scripture, as he proves well, the essential constitutes of it must be likewise in [Page 44]Scripture. And therefore no other visible sign or matter proportionable for it being in Scripture, it followeth that only the imposition of hands must be the matter of it.

How well this agrees with what Bellarmine in the same place supposes, but proves not, that in the Ordination of a Priest, not only the impo­sition of hands, but also the delivering of the chalice and patin belong to the essential matter, let him consider. He quotes Dominic Soto, and others saying, that the delivering the chalice with Wine, and the patin with Bread, is the only matter, and the words pronounced by the Bi­shop delivering them, is the form of Ordina­tion of the Priest, the words are these, accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium, take power of offering a Sacrifice. Bellarmine proves efficaci­ously, that the imposition of hands is a matter essential to Ordination, but supposes without ex­hibiting any proof of it, that the delivering of the chalice and patin is also a part essential of the matter, saying against Sotus, that not only the delivering of the Instruments, but also the imposition of hands, is a matter essential in the ordination. This I say seems not to agree well with what he said before, that in Scripture no mention was made of any Symbol, that could be taken for a matter of Ordination, but only the imposition of hands. And truly the proof he al­ledges out of Sotus or others, that the words of their Pontifical, accipe potestatem offerendi Sacri­ficium provivis & defunctis, are contained in those others of our Saviour at the last Supper, hoc facite in meam commemorationem, Do this in re­membrance [Page 45]of me, is notoriously weak: gratis dicitur, gratis negatur; as tis said without ground, so it may be denied without regard.

Now as to the form of Ordination * Bellarmine tells us, that all agree in taking for form the words that are pronounced by the minister when he exhibits the sensible signs or matter, he adds, that tho the Scripture doth not mention parti­cular words to be pronounced in each order, yet the ancient Fathers of the Church, Ambrose, Je­rome, and Augustine, do expresly teach, that a forme of words suitable to each Order is re­quired, and was practiced so in the ancient Roman Ordinals, and so is practiced to this day in the Ordinal of the Church of England, which in King Edward the sixth his time was disposed according to the more qualified ancient Ordinals used in the Catholic Church. In the Ordination of Deacons, the Bishop laies his hands severally upon the Head of every one of them, kneeling before him, saying, Take thou authority to execute the office of a Deacon in the Church of God commit­ted unto thee, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, &c. After deli­vering to every one of them the New Testament, he saith, Take thou authority to read the Gospel in the Church of God, and to preach the same, if thou be thereto licensed by the Bishop himself.

In ordaining Priests, the Bishop, with the Priests present, do lay their hands severally upon the Head of every one that receiveth the order of Priesthood, the Receivers kneeling, and the Bi­shop [Page 46]saying, Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands: whose Sins thou do'st forgive, they are forgiven; and whose Sins thou do'st retain, they are retained; and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his holy Sacraments, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

In the consecration of Bishops, the Archbishop and Bishops present, do lay their hands upon the Head of the elected Bishop kneeling before them and the Archbishop, saying,

Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee, by the imposition of our hands, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. And remember that thou stir up the Grace of God which is given thee by this imposition of our hands: for God has not given us the Spirit of fear, but of power, and love and soberness.

The Church of England being thus exact in observing the form and matter essential to holy Orders, it appears how rash and false was Kel­lison, in saying, that in King Edwards time nei­ther matter nor form of Ordination was used. How vain and windy * Fitz Symons his flourish, cum in Sacramento mutatur materia, forma, intentio faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, quae ejus essentiam con­ficiunt, desinit esse Sacramentum, omnium qui ante te vixerunt, tecum vivunt, & post te victuri sunt, or­thodoxe sentientium consensu. When in the Sacra­ment the matter, form, and intention of doing [Page 47]what the Church do's (which make up the es­sence of it) are changed, it ceases to be a Sacra­ment, by the common consent of all Catholics that lived before you, do live with you, and af­ter you shall live. Truly Fitz Symons seem'd to study more how his phrase should be round and sounding, then to furnish it with sense and truth, so as without injury I may say here of him, dat sine mente sonum. Setting aside what belongs to the matter and form; who told Fitz Symons that the Ministers of the Church of England in the administration of Sacraments have not an in­tention to do what the true Church of God do's? And tho their intention were to do expresly what their own Church of England do's and not what the Church of Rome, Bellarmin declares that not to be an alteration annulling the Sacrament: non est opus intendere quod facit Ecclesia Romana, sed quod facit vera Ecclesia quaecunque illa sit, vel quod Christus instituit, vel quod faciunt Christiani; imo si quis intendat facere, quod aliqua Ecclesia particularis & falsa, ut Genevensis, & intendat non facere quod Ecclesia Romana, respondeo etiam id sufficere: nam qui intendit facere quod Ecclesia Genevensis, intendit facere quod Ecclesia universalis: It is not necessary, saies Bellarmin, to have an intention of doing what the Church of Rome do's, but what the true Church which soever that be: nay if he should intend to do what some particular false Church which he thinks to be true, as that of Geneva (saith the Cardinal) even that will suffice: for he that intends to do what the Church of Geneva * [Page 48]do's, intends to do what the Universal Church do's, of which he believes the Church of Geneva to be a member. Then Fitz Symons was mista­ken when he said, that the supposed alteration in the intention of the Ministers did annul the Sacrament by consent of all Catholics, if he will not have Bellarmine to be put out of that number; not to take notice of his extravagancy in making the intention of the Minister, an essential consti­tute of the Sacrament, nor of the dismal confusi­on and discomfort he brings upon his proselytes, by making the effects of Sacraments depending upon the foresaid intention, whereof no Man re­ceiving a Sacrament can have a full certainty: the words of the Minister I can hear and his acti­on I can see, but of his intention I can never be en­tirely assured.

Then if the matter and form of Order necessary and essential be retained in our Church, as we have seen, and no reasonable doubt is left of the inten­tion of our Ministers to do what the Church of England do's (which according to Bellarmin's supposition now mentioned is sufficient,) How comes Fitz Symons to say, that in the matter, and form, and intention of our Ministers, such altera­tion is made as annulls our Sacraments?

CHAP. VII. How far the form of Ordination used in the Church of England, agrees with that of the ancient C [...]rch, declared in t [...]e fourth Council of Carthage, and how much the form prescribed by t [...]e Roman Pontifical of this time, differs from the ancient f [...]rm.

AS in many other points, so in this of Crdina­tion especially, I cannot but admire how bold the Romish Writers are in imposing upon the ignorant, that themselves are the observers of an­tiquity, and the Reformed Churches the contem­ners of it: whereas indeed the main purpose of the Reformation was, to cut off the superstitious innovations of the Romish Church, and sti [...]k to the Christian simplicity and gravity of the Pri­mitive Apostolic Church. This will appear evi­dently by comparing the present form of Ordina­tion used in the Church of England, with the most qualified of ancient formularies established in the fourth Council of Carthage, celebrated by 214. Fathers (whereof St. Augustine was one) in the year 398. Honorius and Arcadius being Empe­rours, of which Council Baronius gives this ho­norable Character, Extitit hujusmodi Carthagi­nense Concilium, veluti Ecclesiasticae promtuarium disciplinae, non quidem recens inventae, sedantiquiori­bus*[Page 50]usu receptae, atque ad pristinam consuetudinem re­vocatae. ‘This Council of Carthage was as it were a treasure of Ecclesiastic Discipline, not newly in­vented, but used by the ancient, and restored to the former custom.’ He adds that this Council was taken as a pattern by the other Churches, both Eastern and Western.

I have perused carefully this Council, and con­ferred it with our form of ordination set down in the Book of Common Praiers, as also with the form of Ordination used in the Roman Church, as contained in their latter Po [...]tifical, published by Autority of Pope Clement the 8. & printed at Rome in the year 1595. Clement com­plains of many errors crept into the former Pon­tificals, and purposes to mend them in this latter according to the rule of ancient integrity: for which purpose, it seems, no better rule could be taken then the foresaid Council of Carthage, for the reasons aforesaid of Baronius.

Now if we shew, that our form of Ordination is more agreeable to that of the Council of Car­thage, then the form prescribed in the Roman Pontifical, we shall prove that we stand for the most warrantable antiquity, and consequently for right in this point. I will not dispute now about those called inferiour Orders in the Roman Church, both because none will pretend them to be essential to Church Discipline, and the duties appropriated to them are performed in both Churches, sometimes by persons constituted in no order, and sometimes by those in sacred Orders. I will therefore only treat of the three sacred or­ders proposed by Suarez, out of Optatus Milevi­tanus, [Page 51]as necessary to the constitution of Ecclesia­stical Hierarchy, to wit Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.

And beginning with Deacons, the said Coun­cil in the fourth chapter hath only these words, Diaconus cum ordinatur, solus Episcopus, qui eum benedicit, manum super caput illius ponat, quia non ad sacerdotium sed ad ministerium consecratur. ‘When a Deacon is ordained, only the Bishop, who bles­seth or ordaineth him, is to lay his hand on his Head, because he is not ordained to Priesthood but to ministery.’ Here we have three things de­clared, the Minister, the matter, the order: the Minister is only the Bishop: the matter or the exteriour sign, is the imposition of hands: the form is not described in particular, but is inclu­ded in the word benedicit: for to bless here is nothing else but to pronounce the words by which the power of this order is conferred to the Person ordained; all which is exactly performed in the Ordinationof Deacons by the Church of England, as we have seen in the Chapter prece­dent.

Now touching the Ordination of Priests, the Council decrees thus, Presbyter cum ordinatur, Episcopo eum benedicente, & manum super caput illi­us tenente, etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manus Episcopi super Caput illius teneant. When a Priest is ordained, the Bishop blessing him and laying his hand on his Head, the Priests present are likewise to lay their hands on his Head together with the Bishops hands. Of this decree likewise the Church of England is as observant, as the Roman is negligent: [Page 52]for in their present Pontifical above mentioned of Clement the Eighth, I see no mention made of what the Council decrees, that the Priests present should lay their hands together with the Bi­shops hands upon the Head of him that is to be Priested, and their practice goes accordingly. But in lieu of this ceremony decreed by the Council of Carthage, I find many others substi­tuted in the foresaid Pontifical of which the Council makes no mention, such as those about the amict, albe, girdle, maniple, stole, cope, candles, crosses, oil, and the like. And which is more remarkable, the Council makes no men­tion of that great and chief ceremony used in the Roman Church and appointed in the aforesaid Pon [...]ifical, and wherein some of their Authors will have the very essence of Priestly ordination to consist, as we have seen above out of Bellar­min, that the Bishop is to deliver to the person to be Priested, after having anointed his hands with holy Oil, the Chalice with wine and water, and the Patin over it with the hoast or wafer, say­ing, Accipe potestatem offerre Sacrificium Deo, mis­sasque celebrare tam pro vivis, quam per defunctis, Receive power to offer sacrifice unto God, and to celebrate Mass for the living and the dead. If this ceremony were so essential, or the power of sacrificing were so inherent to Priestly ordination, as the present Church of Rome will have it to be, certainly that grave and venerable Council of Carthage would not have passed it over with so deep a silence, when it descended to particularize the duties and performances of inferiour Mini­sters not so necessary as those of Priests, as may [Page 53]be seen in the ensuing Chapters of that Council from the fifth chapter forward.

Finally touching the Ordination of Bishops, the aforesaid Council of Carthage has these words, Episcopus cum ordinatur, duo Episcopi ponant & te­neant Evangeliorum Codicem super Caput & cervi­cem ejus, & uno super eum fundente benedictionem, re­liqui omnes Episcopi qui adsunt manibus suis Caput ejus tangant. ‘When a Bishop is ordained, let two Bishops put and hold the Book of the Gospels over his head and neck, and one blessing him, let all the other Bishops that are there present touch his Head with their hands.’ Here three things are required, the giving or placeing of the Book, the imposition of hands, and the bles­sing to be given, whereof the placeing of the Book is no essential part, as * Vasquez declares, and so both Churches deviate somthing from the form mentioned: for if we are to believe Vas­quez, and the Pontifical he quotes, the Book of the Gospel is put upon the shoulders of the Bishop consecrated, not by the Bishops conse­crating, but by one of the Chaplains; and he re­lates out of Pope Clement, that anciently it was performed by the Deacons, who are no Mini­sters of this Order. Neither do I find by Mr. Mason, that the Pontifical he saw, do's contra­dict what Vasquez saies; yet I find it otherwise, in the Roman Pontifical forementioned of Cle­ment the Eighth, to be seen in the Library of Dublin University; where it is ordered, that the Bishop consecrating, together with the Bishops [Page 54]assisting to help him, do place the Book over the neck and the shoulders of the Bishop consecra­ted, without saying any word, one of the Chap­lains of the Bishop elect kneeling behind him, and holding the Book, until it be given to his hands; and then the Bishop consecrating, and the other Bishops assisting him, do touch with both their hands the head of the Bishop elect, saying, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, Receive the Holy Ghost. And in supposition that the mode of placeing the Book is not essential to this Or­dination, certainly the form prescribed by the Church of England in this particular is very de­cent and apposite to the purpose of this acti­on: the Arch-Bishop, or other Bishop consecrat­ing, delivering the Bible to the Bishop conse­crated, saying, give heed unto reading, exhortation and Doctrine, with other wholesome admonitions touching his pastoral duty.

Now touching the essential parts of this ordi­nation, which do consist in the imposition of hands as matter, and the benediction, or words pronounced by the Bishop consecrating, as form, the Church of England is exact in observing the form prescrib'd by the foresaid Council of Car­thage; since it orders, that all the Bishops present should lay their hands upon the Bishop elect, and only the Arch-Bishop or Bishop con­secrating, should bless or pronounce the words of the form, saying, Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee, by the imposition of our hands, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ch [...]st. Here the Roman [Page 55]Pontifical deviates from the foresaid form pre­scribed by the Council of Carthage, ordering, that both the Bishop consecrating and the Bi­shops assisting should pronounce the words of the form, saying, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum.

By this we see, how exact the Church of En­gland is, in observing all the essential and neces­sary parts and ceremonies prescrib'd, by that renowned Council of Carthage, for the ordina­tion of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. As for other ceremonies not essential, the Council of Trent it self declares, that even in the admini­stration of Sacraments (whereof they will have Orders to be a part) they may be altered by the Church, as the condition of matters, times and places may require. Neither is this to be un­derstood of the Church Universal, congregated in a general Council only, but also of each par­ticular Church; whence proceeded the great va­riety of Rites, in things indifferent, amongst the ancient, and even modern Christians of several places and orders, approved by that grave sen­tence of a Gregory the Great, in una fide nihil ossi­cit Sanctae Ecclesiae consuetudo diversa. And as the Roman Church upon this account introdu­ces new rites, why may not that of England a­bolish others, especially such as are found to be superstitious? for which the b Canon law giveth this warrant, Docemur exemplo Ezechiae frangentis ser­pontem aeneum, quae in superstitionem vertuntur, illa si­ne tarditate aliqua, & cum magna autoritate à po­steris destrui posse. ‘We are taught by example [Page 56]of Hezechias, that such things as turn to supersti­tion, may be without delay, and with autority extirpated in after ages.’ As a good husband cuts off, not only rotten, but superfluous branches, that may suck away the sap from the main tree; so any Church that is free and independent (such as this of England is) may cut off superstitious and superfluous rites and ceremonies, which by their multiplicity may distract both the Ministers and Congregation, and take their attention from the main object of their devotion. And certainly who ever considers the vast number of ceremonies used now by the Roman Church and prescrib­ed in their Pontifical, will find it a task not ea­sie for even a good capacity to comprehend and practice them all, and very hard to think of ele­vating the mind withall to praier or meditation.

CHAP. VIII. How far the Church of England do's agree with the Romish in matter of Ordination; wherein they differ; and how absur'd the pretention of Romanists is, that our difference herein with them should an­nul our orders.

AS the Church of England did not think con­venient to follow that of Rome, in all their superfluous ceremonies, especially such of them as are noxious, and opposite to the sincerity of Chri­stian discipline; so it do's not grudg to go along and conform with them, in what they retain of ancient integrity.

In many things we agree with them. First, that only Bishops are to give Orders. Secondly, that none be promoted to Orders without the title of a benefice, or sufficient patrimony (which is far more exactly observed in the English then in the Romish Church.) Thirdly, that the persons to be Ordained be examined as to behaviour and ability. Fourthly, that certain times and daies are appointed for Ordination. Fifthly, that the persons to be ordained, ought to appear in the Church. Sixthly, that they receive their Orders on their knees. Seventhly, that they receive the [Page 58]Communion. All this is commonly observ'd in both Churches (but more exactly and in­dispensibly in the English) as to Orders in ge­neral.

Now as to particular Orders; we agree in the following points, as to Deacons. First, that the Arch-Deacon presents them to the Bishop. Se­condly, that the Bishop enquires of the Arch-Deacon, whether he knows them to be worthy of that Order. Thirdly, that the Bishop admo­nishes the Congregation, that if any person has any thing to say against them, he should declare it. Fourthly, that the Bishop instructs them in the duty they are to perform. Fifthly, that lita­nies are said, and the Bishop exhorts the Con­gregation to pray for the Persons to be ordained, that they may be fit Ministers in that sacred Or­der. Sixthy, that the Bishop gives them the Book of the Gospels, and power to read them in the Church of God. Seventhly, that one of the Deacons newly ordained should read the Gospel. Herein we agree. But we differ from the Roman Church. First, where they add to the litanies the invocation of Saints and Angels. Secondly, where power is given to the Deacons to read the Gospels for the dead. Thirdly, that what is not expresly delivered by the Roman formula­ry, is more clearly expressed by the English. As for example, the Order of Deacons in the for­mer is given by these words, Receive the Holy Ghost for power to resist the Devil and his temtati­ons in the Name of the Lord, which being too ge­neral, and common to all Christians, is made more proper and apposite to the function of Dea­cons, [Page 59]by these other words used in the English ordinal, Receive autority to exercise the work of a Deacon in the Church of God committed to thee, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Fourthly, that we red [...]ce the tedi­ous variety of vestments and ceremonies used in the Roman Church, to a more grave and decent form, and more suitable to Christian simpli­city.

As to the order of Priesthood, agreeing with them in the essential parts of the matter and form, and some indifferent ceremonies, we differ from them. First, that a Priest with them is a­nointed with Oil. Secondly, that power is given him to offer a proper sacrifice, and really pro­pitiatory, as well for the dead as for the living, of all which no mention is made in the aforesaid Council of Carthage. Thirdly, that with them only the Bishop laies his hand on the head of the Priest to be ordained; but with us all the Priests present do lay their hands upon his head together with the Bishops hands, accord­ing to the express order of the Council of Car­thage.

Finally touching the Ordination of Bishops, a­greeing with them in the essential parts of matter and form, belonging to that Order, and in some accidentaly ceremonies, as before declared, we disagree with them in some considerable super­structures. First, that in both Churches a mandate is required for receiving this order; but in the Romish from the Pope, in the English from the King. Secondly, in both Churches an Oath is required, which in the Romish is in favour of the [Page 60]Pope, in the English in favour of the King. Thirdly, in both Churches an examen is pre­mis'd; and tho the Romish pretends to follow the Council of Carthage herein, yet they insert their decretal Epistles and obedience to be per­formed to the Bishop of Rome, whereof no men­tion is made in that Council. Fourthly, they use an heap of vestments and ceremonies, of which neither the Apostles, nor primitive Church ever had notice, which are too tedious to relate, and more to practice. Finally and chiefly they de­mand a new Symbol or Creed, coined in the Council of Trent, to be professed by him that is to be ordained Bishop, containing among other ar­ticles, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Indulgen­ces, obedience to the Pope of Rome, articles never mentioned by the Apostles, nor by the anci­ent Creeds, nor by the Council of Carthage, nor by any of the four first general Councils.

Now Reader consider, how rude and rash are the cries of the vulgar Romish writers and prea­chers against our Orders, as invalid for not con­forming with the whole heap of their ceremo­nies, tho in the substantial and essential parts we agree. For besides the intrinsic falsity of their as­sertion, it brings a manifest ruine and nullity up­on all their own Orders; since both we and they suppose, that inferiour Orders may not be given, but by the Bishops, and Bishops may not be made but by other true and lawful Bishops. Then if the whole bulk of ceremonies & requisites pre­scribed in the present Roman Pontifical (of Clement the 8th above mentioned) be necessary for a valid Ordination of a Bishop, it follows evidently, that [Page 61]there is no lawful Bishop, and consequently no lawful Priest, or Deacon at present in the Church of Rome. This consequence, I prove thus: no Bishop was Ordained after the rites, ceremonies & requisites (above mentioned in the Roman Pontifica) for 300 and more years in the ancient Roman Church; then if the aforesaid stock of ceremonies and requisites be essential to a valid Ordination, no lawful Bishop was made all that while in that Church; & it being necessa­ry, as is supposed before, that Bishops must be made by other lawful Bishops, it follows evi­dently, that all the train of Bishops or Men so called by the Roman Church in after ages, were no true Bishops, and consequently no Priests, or Deacons made by them, were true Priests, or Deacons.

That Bishops were not ordained after the present rites and ceremonies of the Rom [...]n Pontifical for the first 300 and many years after in the Ro­man Church (which is the ground of all this discourse) requires no more proof then to read over the Roman martyrology used to be pub­licly read in their Churches, or the lives of Popes written by Platina, or any other of their Historians, where you shall see, that the present heap of ceremonies, rites and requisites pre­scribed in the said Pontifical, was never intro­duced at once, but successively; several Popes in several times, and ages signalizing their raign with new rites, ceremonies and requis [...]tes, whereof their very different Pontificals published in several ages may be a further evidence. Of [Page 62]whose great disconformity that samous * compiler of ceremonies employ'd by Innocent the 8th gi­veth this remarkable testimony in the preface of his Pontifical, speaking to the said [...]nnocent. Pontificalis libri emendationem (beatissime Pater) tuo jussu aggressus sum, opus sane laboriosum, va­rlum, atque ut multis fortasse gratum, ita & invi­dia plenum. Rei enim vetustate, Ecclesiarvm mul­titudine, temporum & Praelatorum varietate effe­ctum est, ut vix duo aut tres codices inveniantur qui idem tradunt. Eodem modo, quot libri, tot va­rietates; ille deficit, hic superabundat; alius ni­hil omnino de eâ re habet, raro autn unquam con­veniunt. ‘I have taken upon me (most holy F [...]ther) by your command the Reformation of the Pontifical Book, a work indeed labo­rious, various, and as perhaps grateful to ma­ny, so likely to beget envy too: for it came to pass by the antiquity of the Subject, the multitude of Churches, and the diversities of times and Prelates, that scarce two or three Books may be found which may deliver the same thing: as many Books as there are, so many are the differences; one is deficient, a­nother superabundant, another has nothing at all of this subject:’ so that they seldom or never agree.

By this (Reader) you may see how blind the presumtion of Romanists is in pretending our Orders should be null for not conforming with the rites and ceremonies of [Page 63]their present Pontifical, whereas upon that ac­count the ordination of their Bishops and Cler­gy in precedent ages, must have been null, and consequently their present Bishops and Clergy, derived from them and depending upon them, must partake of the same nullity.

CHAP. IX. That the Succession of Bishops and Clergy, since the Reformation, is much more sure and unquestionable in the English Church then in the Romish.

IF Men had a due regard of their own defects, and of the Reformation of them, they would busie themselves less in finding fault with their Neighbours. And if the Ministers and Writers of the Roman Church, did reflect sufficiently upon the lamentable corruptions introduced, and enthroniz'd among themselves, they would be less bold in casting dirt in the face of others, that with more right and ground may cast it in theirs.

I have declared in the precedent Chapters, by rules and principles generally received, that the form of Ordination used in the Church of Eng­lana since the Reformation is legal and valid, as comprehending the essential parts belonging to each order, & that in the ceremonial part we are more exact in observing the rules of antiquity & the primitive Christian Church, then the Romish party. Now it remains to shew, that the succession of our Bishops and Clergy from those of unque­stioned legality before the Reformation, and the due Ordination of them according to the said [Page 65]rules and rites, is more cleer and unquestionable with us then with the Roman Church.

As for the Bishops of England Mr. Mason gi­veth an exact account of their Succession and lawful Ordination, the time and place of it, the persons conscerating them, running upon seve­ral Dioceses, especially that of Canterbury, from the time he published his Book, which was the year 1638. to the time of K. Henry the Eighth when the validity of Ordination was not questi­oned: grounding his narrative upon the authen­tic Records kept in London. And in the same Records may be found the like account of the en­suing ordinations from Mr. Masons time to this day.

The like account may be found in the several Registries of the Churches of Ireland from our daies up to the aforesaid time of Henry the Eighth, and touching the prime Church that of Armagh, I found the ensuing account of the Succession and Ordination of Arch-Bishops in it, from the pre­sent Arch-Bishop, the most Reverend Father in God James Lord Arch-Bishop of Armagh Pri­mate of all Ireland (to the great comfort and be­nefit of it: since the blindest passion can't miss to see in his Grace the Idea, of a most renow­ned and perfect Prelate,) In the hands of his worthy Vicar General and Judge of his Preroga­tive Court the noble and Learned Dudley Lof­tus Doctor in Laws, I found, I say, the account following of his Grace his lineal succession from the Bishops of unquestioned authority in Queen Maries time.

[Page 66] James Margetson, Consecrated the 27. of Ja­nuary, 1660. by John Bramhal Arch-Bishop of Armagh, &c. in the Cathedral Church of St. Patric in Dublin.

John Bramhal, Doctor of Divinity was Con­secrated Bishop of Derry, in the Chappel of the Castle of Dublin, the 26. of May 1634. by James Ʋsher, Arch-Bishop of Armagh, &c.

James Ʋsher, Doctor of Divinity was Conse­crated Bishop of Meath at Droghedah, in the Church of St. Peter Anno 1621. by Christopher Hampton, Arch-Bishop of Armagh, &c.

Christopher Hampton, Doctor of Divinity was Conseciated Bishop of Derry, May the 5. 1613. in the Cathedral Church of St. Patric, by Tho­mas Jones, Arch-Bishop of Dublin, &c.

Thomas Jones, Doctor of Divinity was Conse­crated Bishop of Meath, in the Cathedral Church of St. Patric Dublin the 12. of May, 1584. by Adam Loftus, Lord Arch-Bishop of Dublin, &c.

Adam Loftus, Lord Arch-Bishop of Dublin was Consecrated Arch-Bishop of Armagh in the Church of St. Patric Dublin Anno 1562. by Hugh Curwin Lord Arch-Bishop of Dublin, &c.

Hugh Curwin, Doctor of Laws was Consecra­ted Arch-Bishop of Dublin the 8. of September 1555. being the third of Queen Mary, together with James Turbirwill Bishop of Exeter, and William Glin Bishop of Bargor. Each one of the other Bishops of Ireland, may give the like account of their lawful ordination and lineal suc­cession from the Bishops of unquestioned au­to [...]ity in King Henry the Eighth and Queen [Page 67] Maries time, no exception is known to have bin taken against the legality of any of them, and the Laws being so severe and the penalties of premunire so heavy against any Bishop that would enter otherwise then by the Rites and re­quisites above mentioned and justified, 'tis mo­rally incredible that any would permit any de­fect to intervene in his Consecration that might bring upon him so great a damage.

'Tis not so with the Bishops or Popes of Rome. We have not only conjectures, but cleer evidences by a learned and exact Pen of their own party, that none of the Bishops or Popes who usurped that see from Gregory the 13. was a lawful Bishop or Pope. The treatise pen'd upon this subject in Latin, and dedicated, to King James bore this title, The new Man, or a supplication from an unknown person a Roman Catholic unto James the Monarch of Great Britain, and from him to the Emperour, Kings, and Princes of the Christian World, touch­ing the causes and reasons, that will argue a ne­cessity of a General Council to be forthwith assembled against him that now usurps the Papal chair under the name of Paul the Fifth. This treatise being published by order of so excellent a Prince, as the World knew King James to be, it were a blind insolence to say it should not be real and unfeigned; and a treatise so destructive to the credit and interest of the Roman Court, being not disproved for the space of nine years by any of that party, as reported by Mr. William Cra­shaw translator of the said treatise from La­tin into English, in the year 1622. nor to this day by any that we know, 'tis a cleer argument they [Page 68]wanted means to gainsay the truth of it. I will reduce to a brief sum the heads of his proof as well to matter of fact, as of Law, that the election of Pope Sixtus the fifth succeeding Gre­gory the thirteenth was null and invalid, and con­sequently the Cardinals created by him were no true Cardinals, nor the Popes elected by such Car­dinals true Popes.

For ground of this discourse it is to be suppo­sed, that any simoniacal contract intervening in the election of a Pope, such an election is therefore rendred null and invalid, as is declared in the Bull of Julius the 2d set out against Simonaical electi­ons of the Pope, whose words are as followeth. If it shall hereafter fall out through the Devils ma­lice the Enemy of Mankind, or the ambition or cove­tousness of the Elector, that when we, or any of our Successors, shall by Gods appointment, be removed from the Government of the Church on Earth, the election of the new Pope be made and don either by him that is ch [...]sen, or by any other or more of the Col­ledge of Cardinals, by the Heresie of Simonaical con­tract, giving, promising, or receiving any goods of any kind, or Lands, or Castles, or offices, or benefices, or by making any other promise or obligation, of what kind soever, whether they do it by themselves, or ano­ther, by a few or by many, and whether the election be accomplished by the voices of two parts of the Car­dinals divided in three, or by the uniform, consent or voices of them all, whether it be done by way of as­sumtion, or adoration, yea tho there be no writing made at all.

[Page 69] We determine define and declare.

That not only the election or assumtion so made, shall be from that very moment void, and of none ef­fect, and no power or faculty shall accrew to him thereby thrust in, of any administration, govern­ment or jurisdiction, in matters spiritual or tempo­ral, but also that it shall and may be lawful to any Cardinal present at the said election, to except a­gainst the said intruder, and to call him into question for the crime of Simony, as of a true and undoubted Heresie, that so being an Heretic he may be of all men accountedas no Pope, or Bishop of Rome, &c. Neither shall such simonaical election be any time afterwards made valid by any subsequent inthronization, co­ronation, no not by any adoration made, or obedience or homage don or sworn to him by the Cardinals, no not tho it be don by the whole Colledg, nor by any action that may or can be done, nor by any continuance or course of time. But it shall and may be lawful to all and every Cardinal, yea even those that were pre­sent and consenting to the said Simonaical election or assumtion, not only before but even after any such en­thronization, adoration, homage, or obedience don, and not to them alone, but to the whole Clergy and People of Rome, and to all the subjects of the Ro­man Church, and to all the Lords, Governours, Cap­tains, and Commanders, as well of the City and pa­lace of St. Angelo within the City, as of all other Castles, Towers, and fortresses, and to all Mini­sters and officers whatsoever, to refuse to yield him any honor, homage, or obedience, and to revolt from him so chosen and enthroniz'd, and from all obedience to [Page 70]him, and that safely and lawfully they may hold, esteem and eschew him, and all fellowship with him, as a Magician, Ethnic, Publican, and Arch-heretic, And further we determine, that by the authority hereof it shall and may be lawful to the Cardinals, even those that were present at the Simonaical election, and con­sented not thereunto, and to those that shall after­wards dissent and depart from him, to appoint forthwith a general Council, and to call and summon the same, into such a convenient place as to them shall seem ex­pedient, &c. Thus far the words of Julius his Bull.

Now as to the fact, the said Author tells us a thing known to millions of Men, that when Gre­gory the thirteenth was deceased, and the Cardi­nals assembled in the Conclave for the election of a new Pope, the said [...]ixtus Quintus being then the Cardinal of Montalto, that himself might be chosen, plainly bought of Aloisius the great Car­dinal of Aste, his voice & the voices of all the Car­dinals depending of him, which were known to be far the greater number, and able to carry it with whomsoever they went. And in consideration thereof, he promised him not in a word alone, but by open writing, subscribed and ratified under his own hand, that whereas there was a princi­pal Prelate one Hieronymus Mathaeus, whose pos­sibility was great to be a Cardinal, but then was at no little odds with Cardinal Aloisius, Sixtus or Montalto solemnly promised him that during his reign, he would never make the aforesaid Ma­thaeus Cardinal, if he by his own voice and his complices would make him Pope. Cardinal A­loisius accepted of the condition, and so the Bar­gain [Page 71]was concluded, and accordingly he gave him his voice, and got all his party and faction to do the like, and so Sixtus carried it from all Com­petitors, and was chosen Pope; which was so o­penly known that Aloisius never made bones to say in a public presence, that Pope Sixtus was his Creature and the work of his own hands. This be­ing so, every one may see it is the very case de­clared in the aforesaid Bull of Julius the second against Simonaical elections.

If it be objected that the aforesaid decree of Julius binds not, but where the fact is famous e­viïdent and notorious, it is answered, that the aforesaid fact of Sixtus was made public and no­torious in manner following. Sixtus after his e­lection, violated his Faith, and broke the pro­mise made to the Cardinal of Aste; and contra­ry thereto made Hieronymus Mathaeus Cardinal; which the Cardinal of Aste took so to heart, that for anger and grief he fell deeply sick: but be­fore his death, to recompence the new and ill made Pope as he deserved, he sent the agreement and covenant he had of Sixtus, to Philip the se­cond King of Spain, even the very Original it self, who hereupon in the year 15 [...]9. sent the Duke of Suez to Rome as his Ambassador extra­ordinary, to give Sixtus notice hereof, and to intimate to him the present necessity of a general Council for the declaration of his election to be Simonaical, and to require the Lords, the Car­dinals such as were created by his predecessors, and the other Prelates and Clergy to whom it belongs, to appear in the said Council to be holden in Spain at the City of Sevil in An­dalusia.

[Page 72] And tho this business could not proceed to full effect, for that Sixtus upon this intima­tion made to him, knowing he should be con­demned by his own hand, of meer fear and desperation fell sick and died, (having only that way left to prevent deprivation) yet by this be­ginning his Simonaical covenant and election thereupon ensuing was called into question, or as the Lawyers say drawn into judgment & made notorious. Neither did the King of Spain more then right, for by divine law all Catholics may rise against an Heretical Pope, and a that Law of God is related in the Body of the Canon Law. And in the case of Simonaical election that secu­lar Princes have power to call a Council, is the plain text of Isidore that ancient Father, which is related in the Canon Law.

To proceed therefore; Sixtus, by the vertue of the said constitution of Julius, which is inscrib­ed in the Body of the Canon Law, being a Ma­gician, an Eth-nic, and an Arch-heretic, could not therefore, nor had power in him to create Cardinals, for as much as he was ipso facto de­spoiled and deprived of all jurisdiction, power and faculty spiritual and temporal: and all use and exercise of such jurisdiction spiritual and temporal is by the Law so far forbidden him, that all acts by him don in that kind are absolute nul­lities, as don by him that has no power at all to do them.

Now from this ground thus laid, it followeth by infallible inference, that all the Popes since b [Page 73] Sixtus the fifth were intruders, and not one of them a true Pope. For after his Death Cardinal Montalto his Nephew entring the conclave with forty voices in his faction, by the strength there­of was elected Ʋrbanus the seventh; who living but a few daies, by the same means Gregory the fourteenth was chosen into his place, who con­tinued but ten Months; after whom by the same voices entred Innocentius the ninth who held the Papacy but two Months: at last was chosen Cle­ment the eighth by the same voices; who by the permission of God continued this intrusion and usurpation for thirteen years. Now that none of these were, nor could be true Popes, is thus demonstrated.

Unto the election of all these concurr'd the voices of those Cardinals created by Sixtus the fifth, whereupon it followeth inevitably that all those elections are plain nullities, since by the constitution of Pius the fourth touching the Re­formation of the conclave in the election of Popes, the power of chusing the Pope is granted only to the Colledg of Cardinals, which is to be under­stood of true and lawful Cardinals: but the Car­dinals who made all those elections were no true Cardinals, being made by Sixtus the fifth who was no true Pope, and therefore had no place nor power to make them, therefore the aforesaid e­lections of Popes from Sixtus, being made by no true Cardinals, were no elections, but absolute nullities in the Law to all intents and purposes.

Now that such titular Cardinals as were created by him that is no true Pope are no true Cardinals, and consequently can give no voice, nor make [Page 74]any lawful or good election is evident by continu­al precedents of former times in the Roman Church. Such is the case of Benedict the thir­teenth, who sitting at Avignion created divers Cardinals; but for as much as he was judged no true Pope, but an Anti-Pope, and an usurper, therefore all by him created were no Cardinals, and so were held and reputed till their dying day. And when after the death of Alexander the fifth, he that was called John the 23. in the time of that long and miserable Schism, intruded himself un­lawfully into the Papacy at Bononia, where he then was Legate, and so being Pope created di­vers Cardinals, they were all reputed and judg­ed to be no true Cardinals in the Council of Con­stance; and a new and true Pope was then cho­sen, named Martin the fifth, not by the said Car­dinals (because they had no power) but by the whole Council. From all which and more of this kind that may be produced, it followeth evident­ly, that the Cardinals so called, created by Six­tus the fifth being no true Pope, are no true Car­dinals, and consequently cannot make election of a Pope, and therefore all by them chosen were no Popes but mere intruders and usurpers.

CHAP. X. A further cause of nullity discovered in the election of Pope Clement the Eighth.

BEsides the former cause of no true Cardinals concurring to the election of Clement the 8. it is found to be void in another respect: for two parts of the Cardinals concurred with one consent on another, namely Cardinal San Se­verine (as the aforesaid nameless Roman Catho­lic author relates.) For they called him by name, they took him and lead him to the Chappel of St. Saint Paul, where they performed their cere­mony of adoration to the new elected Pope: that in this place they make him sit in the Popes chair of state, and by public scrutiny they proclaim him Pope: and that this make a full and legal election of a Pope, the text of the law ex­presly teacheth in these words, * He who shall be elected and received by two parts of the Cardinals with uniform consent, let him be held and received of the whole and universal Church as true Pope with­out all question or contradiction. Now by what's above related by our Author, it appears that the Cardinal Saint Severine was chosen by two parts of the [Page 76]Cardinals with full consent, and by them condu­cted, and placed in the Popes seat; therefore he was lawfully chosen Pope, and so ought to have bin accepted; but see, Reader, (and admire the Arts of that Court) how this poor Man was put off.

When this was don, and whilst the rest of the Cardinals that were without were expected (for such is the custom, that when two parts have made election, the third part which consented not, but co [...]ld not hinder, are expected to come to the place where the new elect is ador'd by two parts that chose him, and from whence the election is to be publish'd; that so all being together, the election ma [...] be said to be made by all, without contradiction of any Man while the rest I say, was expected to come in, there came into the Chappel Cardinal Gesualdus and Ssortia (the former whereof was Dean of the Colledg of Car­dinals) and by a crafty and wicked device, di­sturbed the election in truth and in law already made. Gesualdus cries out, my Lord's, let us number the voices, to see if two full parts have consented; whereupon he began to count, not hasting to make an end, but leisurely proceeding with intermissions and delaies, which he did pur­posely to a crafty end, that Cardinal Saint Sfortia might have time also to act his part, which he fail'd not to do: for in that mean time he got two of the Cardinals out of the Chappel who had given their voices, and carried them into another place called Sala Regia; and leaving them there he returned to the rest, and largely laies open to them, the rigour and severity of San Severino [Page 77](for they fear'd his justice, he being a just and upright Man) and hereupon the greater part of them most perfidiously got them out of the Chap­pel, and assembling together with the rest made a new election of Cardinal Aldobrandine, who was called Clement the Eighth; and this is the truth of that business.

Now that the former election of San Severine was good and effectual in law, is a cleer case: for the voices that chose him were for number com­plete and sufficient, when they pronounced him for Pope, and set him in the chair. And as for the ceremonious solemnity used in the elections, that all the Cardinals sitting in their order together with him that is to be chosen, every one in or­der shall say, I such a one chuse such a one to be Pope; and that the Secretary of the Conclave shall take the scrutiny, and write down every ones voice; it is not an essential part of the e­lection, or necessarily, or essentially required to make an election: for the express words of the Text do declare, define and peremtorily pro­nounce him to be Pope instantly, as soon as he is chosen and received by two parts of the Cardi­nals; and he is then by the Law said to be accep­ted and received of the Cardinals, when they take him and convey him to the Chappel afore­named, and make him sit down in the Popes seat; and he is said to be chosen or elected, when the said two parts declare their consent and agree­ment upon him to be Pope. Now all these con­curred in and upon the Cardinal San Severine; & when the election is thus don by public & open denunciation, there needs no Scrutineers to take [Page 78]the voices, as is clear by the law. And this is one way of chusing the Pope, and is called the way of assumtion, whereof mention is made in the foresaid Bull of Julius the second, and by this way which is as sufficient and effectual in law as the other, was Cardinal San Severine chosen; and wanted nothing required by the law to the essence of a true election, but only some formalities, which by the law are not necessary. Nor is it material to say, he wanted inthroniza­tion or ordination, or kissing of his foot, for all these are but effects and consequences of a true e­lection; and are appointed to be don to him that is elected, but do not help forward his ele­ction, and the election is properly held don and perfected before they be performed; as any man may see in the aforesaid Bull of Julius the second.

Neither is the calling together of all the Cardinals necessarily required; for it is expresly commanded in no law, and as for the text of the Canon law, called licet devitanda; it shews the validity of the election, as is soundly proved by Cardinal Jacobatius, who shews, that at least a Council is to be called, to declare whether the election be good or no; and that they may not proceed to the election of another. The electi­on therefore of Clement thus made, is to be held a nullity, as being don by deceit and fraud, ac­cording to the express text of the law laid down in these words, b But if any shall be elected, or­dained,a[Page 79]or inthronized Pope through sedition, pre­sumtion, or any ingeny or trick of wit, contrary to this our sentence and Synodical decree pronounced in open Council; by the autority of God and his Apo­stles Saint Peter and Saint Paul, we pronounce him subject to the great curse, and separated by perpetual Anathema from all Society with Gods Church, together with all his authors, factors, and a­bettors, an Anti-Christ, an intruder and destroyer of Christian Religion, &c.

a And after Cardinal Hostiensis the great Doctor called the Abbot, in his commentaries on the text, expound's the word ingeny to be craft, collusion and deceit, and such like, as was the election of Joh. the 22. that was afterward con­demned in the Council of Basil. For when after the Death of Alexander the fifth, the Cardinals assembled at Bononia, and consulted about the choice of a new Cardinal; Cossa, who then was Legate there, a man potent and warlike, obtained of the Electors by his greatness, that they would commit the whole power of the election to him: which they had no sooner granted him, but he forthwith elected himself. But, for as much as upon examination of the matter in public Council, it was found to be compassed by fraud and deceitful tricks, he was therefore deprived by the Council. From whence it followeth, that Clement could not be taken for a true Pope, both for that he was chosen by such as had no power to chuse, as also [Page 80]that that choice by them made was wrought by fraud and deceit, and to the injury of another lawfully chosen before: and was therefore void, tho it had bin done by such as had bin lawfully enabled to make such an election.

CHAP. XI. Nullities declared in the Popedome of Paul the fifth, and others following.

THe forementioned Roman Catholic author discovereth another egregious fraud and cheat, used in the election of Paul the fifth suc­ceeding Clement the Eighth, wherewith they tur­ned out the Cardinal of Florence lawfully ele­cted, to bring in factiously this Paul before cal­led Cardinal Borg [...]esius. The particulars of that intrigue are to be seen in the first chapter of the said treatise n. 15. besides whi [...]h damnable fraud and the nullity of the Cardinals electing, both rendring the election void; our Author discove­reth another foul cause of nullity in the Pope­dome of Paul the fifth in regard of his notorious Simony. For which it is to be presupposed, that the Pope, as Pope, is not free from the crime of Simony, nor exemted from incurring censures in that case; as Aquinas proves at large, conclu­ding and resolving, that the Pope, as well as any other, may incur the vice, and come within the compass of the crime of Simony, if he takes mo­ny for any spiritual thing. Of the same opinion are all the Divines, that write upon that place of Aquinas. In consequence to which doctrine, the * [Page 82]Council of Basil even for this crime and sin of Simony, called in question, examined, convicted, and condemned Eugenius the fourth then Pope, and deprived him of the Papacy. The words of the Councils decree are these. By this definitive sentence of the great and universal Holy Council, which is here recorded in writing, for all the World to know, and all posterity to take notice of, the Council pronounceth, decreeth, and declareth, Gabriel for­merly called P. Eugenius the 4. to have bin, and so to be a notorious & manifest & contumacious rebel to the warnings and commandments of the universal Church; and that he still persists in the said open rebellion; and doth therefore condemn him for a wilful contemner and violater of the holy ancient Canons, a perturber of the peace and unity of the Church, a notorious scan­dalizer of the universal Church, a perjured, incor­rigible, and Schismatical Simonist, and therefore a forsaker of the Faith, an Heretic, a dilapidator and consumer of the rights and riches of the Church committed to his trust; and hath thereby made himself an unprofitable member, and not only unworthy and unfit for the Papal power, but of all other title, degree, honour or dignity Ecclesiastical. Whom the aforesaid General Council doth by the power of the Holy Ghost, declare and pronounce, to be by the Law deprived of the Papacy and Bishopric of Rome, and by these pre­sents it doth depose, remove, deprive, and throw him out.

Now that the Pope Paul the fifth was guilty of Simony, and deserves to be treated as Eugenius in the Council of Basil; our Author declares in the foresaid treatise chapter the 2. from the se­cond number, by the words following. ‘In the [Page 83]Datary, which is an office at Rome, wherein all matters of benefices and businesses of that kind are expedited, this is the course and custome at this day. It is duly observed, that the benefices belonging to the Popes collation, whether reser­ved to his gift, it falling void in the moneth that belongs to the Papacy, which in regard of their far distance from Rome, or that they are with cure, cannot be given to his Nephew Borghesius, are given to some of the Suitors or competitors, that are of that Country, or next adjoining to it. For they take order, that none be bestowed pre­sently, but ly vacant for a time; that so a whole concourse of competitors may flock together for it: which is not don for any good end, that so they might know the difference of the suitors, and give it to the worthiest, as by the decree of the Council of Trent they are bound to do: but that they may learn which is the richest, and so may know how to make the best bargain. To this end, the time of this competition is appointed at a certain day, whereof public notice is given, that so all the suitors may come, and that the offi­cers of the datary may learn in that time which of all that seek it, are best able to buy out and extinguish the pension that is laid upon that li­ving. For this is the fashion now in use; the Pope chargeth every living in his gift with a pen­sion more or less: ordinarily it amounts to half of the whole value of the benefice; if but a third part, 'tis held easy and favourable; but some­times it extends to two parts of the whole divi­ded into three: which don, he provides by an other ordination, that by present payment of five [Page 84]years profit, the pension shall be exringuished. Now when by this concourse and comparison of competitors, they have found which of them is best able to buy it, on him presently it's conferr'd, & so not the worthiest but the wealthiest carries it: and thus are all the Popes livings bestow'd at Rome. Now he that comes thus to a benefice, by paying down five years pension before hand, buyes it full dear; for he paies for it at the rate of 30. in the 100. over and besides his personal service. For the clearing of this point; Suppose a benefice worth 300 Crowns a year: this is sure to be charged, being so great a Living, with a pension of the largest size, namely some 200; that so one 100 may be left to the Incumbent; he then that comes to it in this manner, pays down a 1000 Crowns for the pension, and an 100 more for writing, and seal of his Bulls, and for expedition; and so all laid together, he buys his living of 300 at the rate of 30. for the hundred, besides his personal service and cure of Souls.’

Moreover whereas in the Council of Trent, certain Simoniacal tricks and devices called re­gressus & expectatives, are flatly forbidden; the Pope, to delude the Councils decree, grants coadjutorships, with assurance of future suc­cession after his Death to whom he is made co­adjutor; but makes them pay one years profit for the expediting and dispatch of their Bulls. Now these coadjutorships are the very same, and tend to the very same end, even to bring in by hook and crook sums of mony: for by these pensions, and buying out of pensions, [Page 85]this Pope has scraped up twenty hundred thou­sand Scutes, all which he has bestowed in buy­ing lands for his Nephew. He bought of Sarelly a goodly large territory called Rignanum, near unto Rome, at the price of 353000 Scutes. The City of Sulmona in the Kingdom of Naples he bought of the King of Spain, and gave for the same the summ of 150000 Scutes.

He purchased those goodly demains, called the four Casalia, within the territories of the City of Rome, which cost no less then 700000 Scutes. In the mountanous Countries belong­ing to the City, which are commonly at six in the hundred, he made a purchase that stood him in 400000 Scutes.

He has built a palace, and called it after his own name the palace of Burghesius; upon the Fabric whereof he has bestowed 300000.

He has so enriched the Cardinal Burghesius his Nephew in private Stock and wealth, that his very moveables are esteemed worth 600000 Scutes.

Good God? what a mighty wealth is here? and I appeal to any that knows the Court of Rome, if this could be got together by any means into the Popes own Coffers and private purse, but only out of that office of the benefi­ces called the Datary. Therefore this one de­monstration is presumtion sufficient enough, to prove his foul and detestable Simony; seeing it is certain, that the whole name and bloud of the Burghesies were but of a mean estate, nay many of them are known to have run out of their livings, and to be little better then bankrupt, when this man got the Popedom.

[Page 86] Hitherto the words of the foresaid Author, who promised to justify all that he had said to be true out of the Authentical Books, Records, and wri­tings extant in Rome: and that out of the Regi­ster of the Popes Bulls it shall appear, to whom each benefice has been given, and with what pension they were charged. Of all which the Spanish Nation can give a large testimony: for ma­ny of them dealing in businesses of benefices at Rome, have transacted them in this manner.

The conclusion of all before said is, that if Si­moniacal contracts do annul the election of a Pope; and the same crime committed after his election, depriveth him of all right to that place, and cal­ling: if all Cardinals made by such unlawful and criminal Popes, were no Cardinals; and Popes made by unlawful Cardinals are no Popes, as is established by the Laws and Canons foremen­tioned; if all those nullities of Simonies, frauds and cheats have intervened in the election of Six­tus and following Popes, as hitherto recorded, and no care has bin taken of repairing those nul­lities, as is manifest, but rather the like practi­ces continued to this day; as is well known to those that are acquainted with that Court; all this being so, it followeth as a forceable conse­quence, that there is not in the See of Rome any true Pope, nor has bin since Gregory the thirteen.

How strange will all the precedent narrative appear to many poor Irish and English Roman Catholics, who are not permitted to know more then their beads, and some small prayer Book, with the litanies of the conception, of Saint Joseph, Sancta Theresa, &c. and a list of great indulgences [Page 87]for very small devotions? But such as know by sight or faithfull relation, the intrigues of Rome (whereof my good friend N. N. who gave me the occasion of this discourse, is one) will easily perceive, that all which is said, is very suitable to the language and practice of that Court.

Now, therefore, let the poor Souls consider by these particulars, what mettal that Roman holiness is, which they so blindly adore. And let their bold and presumtuous instructors for­bear to censure the Ordinations of the Church of England, in which no such dirty practices did ever intervene, when their prime See is defaced and disgraced with such public and peremtory exceptions against the usurpers of it: and let them cease boasting as they do, of a wicked pra­ctice, reordaining such as were ordained in the Church of England, if they chance to pass to their communion, whereas it is not less sacrilegi­ous and unlawful to reordain persons already lawfully ordained, then to rebaptize such as were lawfully baptized, according to Gregory the great his declaration: * Sicut baptizatus semel, iterum baptizari non debet, ita qui consecratus est semel, in eodem iterum ordine consecrari non debet. ‘As those who were baptized before, ought not to be re­baptized again; so he that was once consecra­ted, ought not to be consecrated again in the same order.’ The same was decreed in the Coun­cil of Carthage, ch. 38. and before in the Coun­cil of Capua, as related by the said Coun­cil of Carthage, and by Baronius in the year 139. To transgress the decrees of these grave [Page 88]and an [...]ient Councils, is the boast of Romanists, when they brag of not admitting Priests ordained in the Church of England, to the function of Priesthood with them, if they be not ordained a­gain after their ceremonies. Which point of pre­sumtion and contemt of ancient Canons, the Church of England refuses to learn from the Romish, admitting to the practise of their re­spective orders among us such as have bin or­dained in the Romish Church; tho we have far greater reasons to suspect their ordinations, as disagreeing with ancient Canons, then they have to suspect ours; as we have hitherto largely de­clared.

By all this discourse it appeareth, how ground­less is the scruple of such as refuse to join with the Church of England, for fear that the ordina­tion of its Clergy is not valid; whereas we have all the certainty (and even more) for the vali­dity of our ordination, that the Roman Church hath for hers: & how much Suarez was mistaken in affirming, that the Church of England has not the Ecclesiastic hierarchy composed of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, necessary to the constituti­on of a Catholic Church.

CHAP. XII. Of the large extent of Christian Religion professed in the Church of England.

THe fourth and chief kind of universality pro­posed by Suarez, as necessary to the consti­tution of a Catholic Church, is the extent of it over all the parts of the Earth. This he denies to the Church of England, as not passing (saies he) the Limits of the Brittish Dominions. But if he speaks of the Faith professed in the Church of England (as he ought to do for the present purpose) he was greatly mistaken. Here I will shew, that King James's saying (as Suarez relates) that the one half of the Christian World do join with us in the same Faith, did not exceed the bounds of truth and modesty; and that of three parts of Christians, two do join with us in the profession of the Faith of Christ contained in the Apostles Creed; tho not of all contained in the Creed of Trent, whereby the Roman Church alone is singled from us, and from all other Chri­stian Churches: not unlike Ismael, whose hand was against every one, and every Mans hands a­gainst him. And as the Donatists would confine the Church of God to that corner of Africa they inhabited; so the Romanists would not have it extended further then their jurisdiction; decla­ring [Page 90]for excommunicated and damned, all that join not with them in obedience to their Pope. That they may be ashamed, or weary of their blind presumtion and cruelty, in offering to mangle and deface in this manner the Church of God (if avarice and ambition, the genuine cause of this proceeding, is capable of shame or amendment) I will give to the People blinded by them a view of the multitude of illustrious Nations and Religious Believers in Christ, which they do rashly if not maliciously condemn, and segregate from their communion.

And beginning with Protestants inhabiting Europe, from the remotest parts thereof East­ward, in the Kingdom of Polonia, containing under its dominion Polonia, Lituania, Podolia, Russia the less, Volhinia, Massovia, Livonia, Prussia, all which united in a roundish enclosure are in circuit about 2600 miles, and of no less space then Spain and France laid together. In this so large a Kingdom, the Protestants in great numbers are diffused through all the quarters thereof, having in every Province their public Churches and Congregations, orderly severed and bounded with Dioceses, whence they send some of their chiefest men of worth unto their general Synods, which they have frequently held with great cele­brity, and with such prudence and piety, as may be a happy example to be followed by all Christian Churches; and likely would be follow­ed upon a due consideration, if the insatiable a­varice and boundless ambition of Rome, aspiring desperatly to a monarchical power over all, did not obstruct all the waies, that sincere piety and [Page 91]zeal of Religion can imagine for the peace of Christians.

For as much as there are diverse sorts of these Polonic Protestants, some embracing the Wal­densian or the Bohemic, others the Augustan, and some the Helvetian confession, and so do dif­fer in some outward circumstances of discipline and ceremony; yet knowing well, that a King­dom divided cannot stand, and that the one God, whom all of them worship in Spirit, is the God of peace and concord, they jointly meet at one general Synod: and their first act alwaies, is a religious and solemn profession of their unfeig­ned consent in the substantial points of Christian Faith necessary to Salvation. Thus in general Synods at Lendomire, Cracovia, Petricove, Wood­slave, Torun, they declared upon the Boheme­mic, and Helvetic and Augustan confessions se­verally received amongst them, that they agree in the general heads of Faith, touching the Holy Scripture, the sacred Trinity, the person of the Son of God, God and Man; the providence of God, Sin, free will, the Law, the Gospel, ju­stification by Christ, Faith in his name, Rege­neration, the Catholic Church, and supreme head thereof, Christ; the Sacraments, their num­ber and use, the state of Souls after Death, the Resurrection, and life Eternal.

They decreed, that whereas in the forenamed confessions there is some difference in phrases and forms of Speech concerning Christs presence in his holy Supper, which might breed dissention, all disputations touching the manner of Christs pre­sence should be cut off, seeing all of them do be­lieve [Page 92]the presence it self; and that the Eucharisti­cal Elements are not naked and emty signs, but do truly perform to the Faithful receiver, that which they signify and represent. To prevent fu­ture occasions of violating this sacred consent, they ordained, that no man should be called to the sacred Ministry, without subscription there­unto; and when any person shall be excluded by excommunication from the Congregation of one confession, that he shall not be receiv'd by them of another. Lastly, For as much as they accord in the substantial verity of Christian Doctrine, they profess themselves content to tolerate diversity of ceremonies, according to the diverse practice of their particular Churches, and to remove the least suspicion of rebelling & sedition wherewith their malicious and calumniating adversaries might blemish the Gospel: tho they are subject to many grievous pressures, yet they earnestly exhort one another to follow that worthy and Christian admonition of Lactantius: defendenda Religio est non occidendo, sed moriendo; non sae­vitiâ, sed patientiâ; non scelere, sed side: illa e­nim bonorum, haec malorum sunt.

This is the State of the Professors of the Go­spel in the Elective Monarchy of Polonia; who in the adjoining Countries on the fouth, Transylva­nia and Hungary, are also exceedingly multipli­ed. In the former by the favour of Gabriel Bar­torius Prince of that Region, who not many years since expelled thence all such as are of the Papal faction, in a manner the whole Inhabitants (except some few rotten and p [...]trid limbs of Arrians, Antitrinitarians, Ebionits, Socinians, [Page 93]Anabaptists, who here, as also in Polonia, Litua­nia, and Borussia have some public assembly) are professed Protestants; and in Hungary the great­er part, especially being compared with the Pa­pists.

Thence Westward in the Kingdom of Bohe­mia, consisting of 3200 Parishes and its appurte­nances, the Marquisates of Lusatia, and Mo­ravia, the Dukedom of Silesia (all which joint­ly in circuit contains 770. miles) and in Austria it self, and the Countries of Goritia, Tirolis, Cilia, the principalities of Suevia, Alsatia, Brisgoia, Constance, the most part of the People are Protestants, especially of the nobility; and are in regard of their number so potent, that they are formidable to their malignant opposites. And they are neer of the same number and strength in the neighbour Countries of the Arch-Duke of Gratzden (a branch of the house of Austria) namely in Stiria, Carrabia, Carniola.

But the condition of the Protestants residing among the Cantons of Helvetia, and their con­federates the City of Geneva, the Town of Saint Gall, the Grisons, Vallesians, seven communi­ties under the Bishop of Sedan, is a great deal more happy and settled: in so much, that they are two third parts, having the public and free practise of Religion: for howsoever of the 13. Cantons, only these five Zuric, Scathausen, Glarona, Basil, Abbaticella are entirely Prote­stant; yet these in strength and ampleness of ter­ritory much exceed the other seven; and hence Zuric in all public meetings and embassies, hath the first place, being chief of the five.

[Page 94] Now coming to Germany, the whole Empire consisteth of three orders or states; the Princes Ecclesiastical, the temporal Princes, and the free Cities. Of the Ecclesiastics the Arch-Bishop of Maidenburg and Breame, with the Bishoprics thereunto belonging are under the Protestants, as also the Bishopricks of Verden, Halberstad, Osnaburg and Minden.

The temporal Princes all (none of note ex­cepted) besides the Arch-Duke of Austria, and the Duke of Bavaria, are firmly Protestants. And what the multitudes of Subjects are profes­sing the same Faith with these Princes, we may guess by the ampleness of Dominions under the government of the chief of them, such as are the Prince Elector Palatin, the Duke of Saxony, the Marquess of Brandenburg, the Duke of Wir­tenburg, Landgrave of Hesse, Marquess of Baden, Prince of Anhalt, Dukes of Brunswic, Holst, Lunenburg, Meckleburg, Pomeran, Swyburg. Among whom the Marquess of Brandenburg hath for his Dominion not only the Marquisat it self, containing in circuit about 320 miles, and furni­shed with 50 Cities, and about 60 other walled Towns; but likewise a part of Prussia, the Regi­on of Prignitz, the Dukedom of Crossen, the Seigneuries of Sternberg and Corbus, and lately the three Dukedoms of Cleve, Dulic and Berg, of which the two former have either of them in cir­cuit 130 miles. The free Cities, which were in number 88. before some of them came to the pos­session of the French, Polanders, and Helvetians, are generally Protestants, especially those called the Hans Cities, very rich and powerful, situate [Page 95]in the northern part of Germany, inclusively, between Dantisk eastward, and Hamburg westward. As for Ratisbon, Argentine, Augusta, Spire, Wormes, Francfort upon Main, both Papists and Prote­stants in them make public profession.

Nearer to us are the Provinces of the low Countries, governed by the States General; namely Zutphen, Ʋtrecht, Overissel, Gronnin­ghen, Holland, Zeland, West-Friesland, in which only Protestants have the public and free exer­cise of their Religion. The power and strength of these Provinces is too much known for to need a relation of it. * I find in Mr. Pagit re­lated, that they contain about 210 Cities com­passed with walls and ditches, and 6300 Towns and villages, and more; and that they keep about 30000 Men in continual garrisons.

Now passing from the united Provinces into France, those of the Religion (as they usually stile them) are seized of above 70 Towns having garrisons of Soldiers, governed by Nobles and Gentlemen of the Protestant Religion, they have 800 Ministers retaining pensions out of the pub­lic finance, and are so dispersed through the chief Provinces of the Kingdom, that in the Prin­cipality of Orange, Poiclou almost all the Inhabi­tants, in Gascony half, in Languedoc, Normandy, and other western Provinces a strong party pro­fess the Protestant Religion. Besides the Castles, and Forts that do belong in property unto the Duke of Bullen, the Duke of Rohan, Count of Laval, the Duke of Trimovil, Monsieur Cha­stillion, the Mareschal of Digniers, the Duke of [Page 96] Sully, and others.

Now if to all the forenamed Kingdoms, Prin­cipalities, Dukedoms, States, Cities, aboun­ding with professors of the Reformed Religion, we add the Monarchies of Great Britany, Den­mark, Sweden, wholly in a manner protestants, we shall find them not inferior in number and power to the Romish party; especially if we consider, that the main bulk here of Italy and Spain are by a kind of violence and necessity, ra­ther then out of any free choice and judgment de­tained in their superstition, namely by the jea­lousy, cruelty, and tyrannous vigilancy of the in­quisition, and by their own ignorance; being utterly debarred from all reading of the Holy Scriptures, and of controversial Books, whereby they may come to the knowledg of truth and of their own errors.

If any shall object that the Protestants, in di­vers Countries before mentioned, cannot be re­puted as one body and one Church; by reason of many differences and contentions among them, let him consider, that however many private per­sons living among Protestants, rather then of them, have strained their weak understanding to coin several erroneous tenents, and by them have bred dissentions and animosities: yet these wicked practises are not to be imputed to the whole s [...]cred community of Orthodox Churches, whose harmony and agreement in necessary points of Faith are to be seen and esteemed by their pub­lic confessions of their Faith, which they have divulged unto the whole World by public auto­rity; and in which they do so agree, that there [Page 97]is a most sacred harmony between them in the more substantial points of Christian Religion ne­cessary to Salvation. This is manifest out of the Confessions themselves, which are the Anglican, Scotian, French, Helvetian, Belgic, Polonic, Argentine, Augustane, Saxonic, Wirtembergic, Palatine, Bohemic, or Waldensian. For there is none of the Churches formerly pointed out in diverse places of Europe, which doth not embrace one of those confessions; and all of them do harmoniously conspire in the principal articles of Faith, and which nearest concern our Eternal Salvation; as in the divine essence and divinity of the Everlasting God, the sacred Trinity of the three Glorious Persons, the blessed Incarnation of Christ, the Omnipotent providence of God, the absolute Supreme head of the Church Christ; the infallible veri­ty and full sufficiency of Divine Scriptures for our instruction to life Everlasting, &c. In none of those confessions is to be seen that heap of de­sperate Heresies which my Antagonist N. N. attributes to the Church I have followed, and wherewith Bellarmine, and Becan, and other Romish controvertists do make their volums swell, to fill the minds of their proselytes with hatred and animosity against the Reformed Churches, whilst in them such impious Heresies are most seriously rebuked, and learnedly refu­ted by pen and tongue, from Chairs, and Pul­pits, as I am dayly seeing, to my great com­fort; and no small grief, to consider the disin­genuity of Romanists in fomenting animosities among Christians, by calumniating thus the op­posers of their errors.

CHAP. XIII. Of the several large and flourishing Christian Chur­ches in the Eastern Countries not subject to the Pope.

TO all men truly zealous of the honour of God and of his Son Jesus Christ, it cannot but be comfortable, to see how happily the bles­sed Apostles have complied with the command of our Soveraign Lord and Saviour; * Go and teach all Nations, baptizing in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and how gloriously the Churches planted by them, have persevered in the Faith of our Saviour, in spight of the greatest persecutions, and under the great­est Enemies of the Christian name, such as the Turk is known to be: and yet under his Domi­ons is a numberless number of Christians; of which the Grecians are, for antiquity, num­ber and dignity, the chief. They acknowledg obedience to the Patriarch of Constantinople, under whose jurisdiction are in Asia, the Chri­stians of Natolia, Circassia, Mengrelia, and Russia, as in Europe also the Christians of Grece, Macedon, Epirus, Thrace, Bulgaria, Servia, Bosnia, Walachia, Moldavia, [...]odolia, & Moscovia, together with all the Islands of the Aegean Sea, and others about Grece, as far as [Page 99] Corfu; besides a good part of the large Domini­on of Polonia, and those parts of Dalmatia, and Croatia, that are subject to the Turkish Domini­on: all which Congregations of Christians, sub­ject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, do ex­ceed in number them of the Romish Com­munion; as I find recorded by diligent a Writers, whereof Pagit saies, that Christians make up the two third parts of the Grand Signiors Sub­jects.

All these Churches do deny the Popes Supre­macy: they account the Pope and his Church Schismatical. The Patriarch of Constantinople doth yearly upon the Sunday called Dominica in­vocavit, solemnly excommunicate the Pope and his Clergy for Schismatics. They deny Tran­substantiation; touching which point Cyril Pa­triarch of Constantinople delivereth this excellent confession, as agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England, as opposite to the Romish: In the Eucharist (saith b he) we do confess a true and a real presence of Christ, but such a one, as Faith offereth us, not such as devised Transubstantiation teacheth: for we believe the Faithful to eat Christ's body in the Lords Supper, not sensibly champing it with our teeth, but partaking it with the sense of the soul. For that is not the Body of Christ, which offereth it self to our Eies in the Sacrament; but that which Faith spiritually apprehendeth and offereth to us. Hence ensueth, that if we believe, we eat and participate, if we believe not, we receive no profit by [Page 100]it. Hieremy the Patriarch teacheth a change of bread into the Body of Christ, which he calleth [...] that is a transmutation: which is not sufficient to infer a Transubstantiation, because it may only signify a mystical alteration, which the Patriarch in the same place plainly sheweth; saying, that the mysteries are truly the Body and Blood of Christ, not that these, [...] (saith he) are changed into humane flesh, but we into them; for the better things have ever the preeminence. The words of Cyril and Hieremy in Greek are to be found with Mr. Pagit in his Christiano­graphie Cap. 4.

They deny Purgatory fire: So Nilus Arch-Bishop of Thessalonica: awe have not received by tradition from our teachers, that there is any fire of purgatory, nor any temporal punishment by fire, neither do we know of any such Doctrine, taught in the Eastern Church. b Alphonsus de Castro. It is one of the most known errors of the Grecians and Armenians, that they teach there is no place of Pur­gatory, where Souls after this Life are purged from their corruptions: which they have contracted in their Bodies, before they deserve to be received into the Eternal tabernacles.

They administer the Eucharist in both kinds, of which c C [...]rill the Patriarch: As the institutor speaketh of his Body, so also of his blood: which com­mandment ought not to be rent asunder, or mangled according to humane arbitrement, but the instituti­on delivered to be kept intire.

[Page 101] a They allow married Priests. Hier. Patr. We do permit those Priests that cannot contain, the use of marriage.

They deny the worship of Images. Concern­ing which point b Cyril speaketh: we forbid not the historical use of Pictures (Painting being a fa­mous and commendable Art) we grant to them that will have them, the pictures of Christ and Saints; but their adoration and worship we detest, as forbid­den by the Holy Ghost in holy Scripture; least we should, before we are aware, adore colours instead of our Creatour and Maker.

They acknowledg the sufficiency of Scripture for an entire rule of Faith and of our Salvation Of which c Damascen giveth this testimony, What so­ever is delivered unto us in the Law and in the Pro­phets, by the Apostles and Evangelists, that we receive, acknowledg and reverence, and beside these we require nothing else.

They do not forbid the layty the reading of Scriptures. As the reading of Scripture is forbidden to no Christian Man (saith Cyril the Patriarch) so no Man is to be kept from the reading of it: for the word is near in their mouth and in their hearts. Therefore manifest injury is offered to any Christian Man of what rank or condition soever he be, who is deprived or kept from reading or hearing the Holy Scripture.

They allow no private Masses: as Ch [...]traeus re­lates: No private Masses (saies he) are celebra­ted among the Grecks, without other communi­cants, [Page 102]as their liturgies and faithfull relations te­stif [...].

They have prayer in a known tongue. They use not prayer for Souls to be delivered out of purgatory, nor the extreme unction, nor ele­vating and carrying about the Sacrament, that it may be adored; nor indulgences, nor sale of Masses. Neither is there in their Canon, any mention made of the sacrifice of the Body and blood of Christ for the living and dead, as Chytraeus, Guagnirus and others quoted by a Pa­git do relate. Other differences of less account betwixt the Grecian Church and the Roman, you may see related by b Brerewood and Posse­vin.

Of the same Religion with the Grecians, are the Christians of the vast and mighty Empire of Muscovia and Russia, under their Metropoli­tan the Arch-Bishop of Mosco, nominated and appointed by the Prince, the Emperour of Rus­sia, and upon this nomination consecrated by two or three of his own suffragans.

To these may be added the Christians called Nestorians (for having maintained antiently the errour of Nestorius) spread over a great part of Asia. For besides the Countries of Babylon, As­s [...]ria, Mesopotamia, Parthia, and Media, wherein many of them are found; they are scat­tered far and wide in the East, both northerly to Cathaia, and foutherly to India. So that beyond the river Tigris eastward, there is no [Page 103]other Sect of Christians to be found (as learned Brerewood relates) except only the Portugals, and the Converts made by them in India. The Patriarch of the Nestorians, to whom all those of the East parts acknowledg obedience, hath his seat in the City of Musale, on the River Ti­gris in Mesopotamia, or in the Patriarchal Mo­nastery of Saint Ermes fast by Musale. In which City, tho subject to Mahometans, it is recor­ded, that the Nestorians retain yet 15. Temples, being esteemed about 40 thousand Souls. San­ders relates the great number of suffragan Bi­shops and Metropolitans subject to the Patri­arch of Musale.

Next to these, we may name the Christians of Egypt called Cophti under the Patriarch of Alexandria; to whose jurisdiction belong not only the native Christians of Egypt, but also those about the bay of Arabia, and in the Mount Sinai Eastward; and in Afric, as far as the greater Syrtis westward. To him like­wise are subject the Christians called Habassins spread over the wide Empire of Aethiopia, with their Prince commonly called Prester John. For tho they have a Patriarch of their own, whom they call in their idiome Abuna (our Father) yet are they limited b to chuse one of the jurisdiction of Alexandria, and a Monk of Saint Anthony he must be. Besides the confirmation and consecra­tion of him belongeth to the Patriarch of Alexan­dria, and by him is he sent with Ecclesiastical a [Page 104]charge into Habasia. The conferring of Bisho­pries and other Ecclesiastical benefices (except the Patriarcship) belongeth only to the King. Their Priests and other inferiour Ecclesiastical Ministers, (as also Monks) live by their labour, as having no tithes nor any Ecclesiastical re­venues to maintain them, nor being suffered to crave alms. All which is recorded by Zaga Za­bo an Ethiopian Bishop.

The Christians of Egypt are so constant in the profession of Christianity, that if any of them are by force circumcised by the Turks, he is mark­ed in the forehead or hands with the sign of the Cross, that all Men may know him to be a Chri­stian.

The Patriarch of Alexandria's dwelling, is now neer the Church of Saint Nicholas in Caire, which City is one of the greatest Cities in the World, reputed to be eight and twenty miles in length, and fourteen in breadth (as a Lithgow reporteth) and that of Greeks, Copates, Armenians & others, there are about two hundred thousand Christi­ans in that City of Caire.

b Thomas a Jesu relates a foul mistake in Ba­ronius: who in the end of his sixth to me, tells, that in the time of Pope Clement the 8. an Em­bassage was brought from the Church of Alex­andria, to the Roman Bishop: in which the Patriarch and all the Provinces of Egypt, and o­thers adjoyning, did acknowledg him chief and universal Pastor of the Church; but the matter [Page 105]being more diligently examined, appeared to be a meer ly and fiction of a certain Impostor Bartavis.

How great is the extent of Christianity in Ae­thiopia, may appear by the vast extent of that Empire, which according to Mr. Brerewood his dimension, is equal with Germany, France, Spain, and Italy. Others do report it to be as great as all Europe. aHoratius Malegueius maketh the dominion of the Aethiopian Emperour, larger then any other; excepting the Dominion of the Catholic King.

b Godignus reports, that there are in Aethiopia one hundred and twenty seven Arch-Bishops. c Alvares a Portuguese Priest relates, that in Ma­cham Talacem which is the Church of the Holy Trinity, he saw two hundred mitred Priests together; and sixty four Canopies carried over them. Their Churches are built round, and very rich, with hanging of Cloth of Gold, Vel­vet, and Plate. They have many goodly Mo­nasteries: to the Monasteries of the vision of Je­sus belong about 3000 Monks.

Many were the attacks of Rome upon this flourishing Christianity of Aethiopia; to bring it under the Dominion of the Pope. d The more famous I find recorded, is that of Andreas Ovi­edo, sent thither with the title of Patriarch, in the year 1557. who coming with his letters to the Emperor Claudius, received this answer from him, ‘That he would never yield obedi­ence [Page 106]to the Bishop of Rome: (he gave him leave to teach the Portugals, but forbad him to speak one word to his Abassins touching Religion) and that he would not suffer the Roman yoak to be laid on him or his.’This Emperor Clau­dius dying, Adamas succeeded; who banish'd the said Patriarch Andreas: and this was the issue of the Embassy, as Godignus relates.

Under the Patriarch of Jerusalem a are the Christians inhabiting Palestine, mingled with Turks and others. The Patriarch keeps his re­sidence in Jerusalem, where are now remaining ten Churches of Christians. The Patriarchal Church is the Church of Saint Sepulcher in Jeru­salem, and his house is near unto it. To this Pa­triarch did belong the three Palestines. Tyrius adds two Provinces more, Rubensis & Beriten­sis. He relateth also five Metropolitans to have belonged to this See, and about 101 Bishops. The Armenians, Georgians, Abassins, and other Christians have several Churches in Jerusalem.

Under the Patriarch of Antioch, are the Chri­stians, called Syrians, of the place of their chief habitation; and Melchites, which according to the Syrian Etymology, is as much as to say, Royalists; because their Bishops have followed alwaies in Faith, and in their Councils, the ex­ample and autority of the Emperors of Constan­tinople. They inhabit mingled with Mahume­tans, part of Syria, Beritus, Tripolis, Alepo, and other places in Asia.

b Boterus saith, they are the most numerous [Page 107]sort of Christians in the East. They live under the jurisdiction of the Arch-Bishop of Damas­cus, by the title of Patriarch of Antiochia. For Antiochia it self (where the name of Christians was first heard in the World) lying at present wast, or broken into small villages, the Patri­archall seat was translated thence to Damascus, where are reported to be above a thousand hou­ses of Christians.

For altho the Patriarch of the Maronites and of the Jacobites, whereof the former keepeth resi­dence in Libanus, and the latter in Mesopotomia, entitle themselves Patriarchs of Antiochia, and by the Christians of their own Sects be so acknow­ledged, yet do the Melchites, who retain the ancient Religion of Syria, acknowledg none for Patriarch, but the Arch-Bishop of Damascus, reputing both the other for Schismatics, as ha­ving departed from the obedience and communi­on of the true Patriarch.

And yet beside all these, a fourth there is, of the Popes designation, that usurpeth the title of Patriarch of Antiochia. For ever si [...]ce the La­tines surprized Constantinople (which was about the year 1200) and held the possession of the Eastern Empire about 70 years: all which time the Patriarchs of Constantinople were consecra­ted by the Pope, as also since the holy Land and the Provinces about it were in the hands of the Christian Princes of the West; which began to be about the year 1100, and so continued about 80 years; during which season, the Patriarchs of Anticchia also and of Jerusalem were of the Popes Congregation; ever since then, I sa [...], the [Page 108]Church of Rome hath and doth still create succes­sively, imaginary or titular Patriarchs (with­out jurisdiction) of Constantinople, Antiochia, Jerusalem, and Alexandria: so loath is the Pope to lose the remembrance of any superiority or title, that he hath once compassed.

The Georgians inhabit the Country anciently named Iberia betwixt the Euxine and the Ca­spian Seas. The vulgar opinion is that they got the name of Georgians from their devotion to Saint George, whom they honour for their Pa­tron, and whose image they bear in their mili­tary ensigns. Yet this seems to be a vulgar er­ror, whereas mention was made of the Nation of the Georgians in those parts both by a Mela and Pliny before Saint George was born. Their Religion both in ceremony and substance is that of the Grecians, who yet were never subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, but all their Bi­shops, being 18. do profess obedience to their own Metropolitan, without any higher depen­dance or relation; who yet keepeth residence far off in the monastery of Saint Catherine in the hill of Sinai.

These Christians live separately by themselves without mixture of Mahumetans or Pagans, un­der their own King. They are a very warlike People, valiant in Battail, of great strength and might, with an innumerable multitude of Soul­diers, very terrible to the Sarazens; as it is re­ported by Vitriacus the Cardinal.

[Page 109] Neighbouring with the Georgians are the Mengrelians and Circasians, anciently called Colchi and Zychi, both of the Greek Religion, and subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, as converted by his a Ministers, Cyrillus and Metro­dius, to Christian Religion. The Mengrelians inhabit Colchis, which lieth neer the E [...]xine Sea. The b Circassians Country extendeth it self on the Meotis 500 miles, and within land 200 miles. These Countries bring forth the bravest warri­ors reputed in the East.

CHAP. XIV. Of the Jacobites, Armenians, Maronites and Indians.

THe Jacobites had this name (as Damascen and Nicephorus do relate) of one Jacobus sirnamed Zanzalus of Syria, who living about the year 530, was in his time a mighty enlarger of Eutyches his Sect, touching the unity of na­ture in our Saviour. And his followers are at this day in great numbers known under the name of Jacobites, in Syria, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, Ba­bylon, and Palestine; in which a Regions they are esteemed to make about a hundred and sixty thousand Families: and are besides so far ex­tended, as they are recorded to be spread a­broad in some 40 Kingdoms.

They have a Patriarch of their own, whose Patriarchal Church is in the Monastery of Sa­phran, near the City of Merdin, in the north part of Mesopotamia. These b Jacobites do con­demn Eutyches and his errour, who confoun­ded the two natures of Christ; and they con­fess two natures to be united in Christ, and one personated nature to be made of the two na­tures [Page 111]not personated, without mixture, or con­fusion.

The Armenians for traffic (to which they are exceedingly addicted) are to be found in mul­titudes in most Cities of great trade, especially in those in the Turkish Empire, having more favour among the Turks, then any other Sect of Christians, by a patent granted to that Nation under Mahomets own hand; as some a do report. So as no Nation is more spread abroad in Mer­chandizing then the Armenians, except the Jews; yet the native Regions, where they are found in greater multitude, and their Religion is most supported, are Armenia the greater, named (since the Turks first possession of it) Turcomannia beyond Euphrates, and Cilicia now called Carmania.

The Armenians were anciently of the juris­diction of the Patriarch of Constantinople; but since the time of Photius, they have departed both from the government of that Patriarch, and from the communion of the Grecians, and ever since they acknowledg obedience, without fur­ther or higher dependance, to two Patriarchs of their own, whom they term Catholics, namely the one of the greater Armenia, un­der whose jurisdiction are reputed to be above 150000 Families, besides very many Monaste­ries. b He keepeth his residence at present by the City of Ervan in Persia, being translated at their first reduction to the Popes obedience, [Page 112]thither, by occasion of the late Wars between the Persians and the Turks; his ancient seat having bin Seb [...]stia the Metropolis of Armenia the greater. The other Patriarch of Armenia the less, the fa­milie, of whose jurisdiction are esteemed to be about 20000, anciently kept at Meliteny Me­tropolis of that Province, but now is resident in the City of Sis not far from Tarsus in Cilicia, the middle limit of the jurisdictions of these two Patriarchs being the River Euphrates.

a The Maronites were so named, not of an Heretic called Maron, as some did falsly write, but of a holy Man of that name; since in the book of Councils we find mention of the Mona­steries of Saint Maron. Their main habitation is in the mountain Libanus: which tho it contain in circuit about 700 miles, and is possessed in a manner only by the Maronites, yet of all Sects of Christians they are the least, as being e­steemed not to pass in all 12000 Houses. Their Patriarch, who is wont to be a Monk of St. Antony, having under his jurisdiction eight or nine Bishops, keepeth his residence for the most part in Libanus, in a Monastery of Saint Antony. b He professed obedience of late toge­ther with all the Maronites to the Bishop of Rome, being the only Nation of the East, ex­cept the Indians lately brought to the Romish communion, who acknowledg that obedience. Gregory the 13. did found a Seminary in Rome for the training up the youth of that Nation in the Roman Religion.

[Page 113] The Indian Christians commonly called of St. Thomas, because by his preaching they are sup­posed to have bin converted to Christian Re­ligion, inhabit in the nearer part of India, near to Cape Comori, being esteemed (afore the Por­tugals frequented those parts) about 15000 Fa­milies. Their Archbishop formerly acknowledg­ed obedience to the Patriarch of Masal by the name of the Patriarch of Babylon, as by those Christians of India he is still termed. But the Archbishop revolting from his former Patriarch, submitted himself of late, by the Portugals per­suasion, to the Bishop of Rome, retaining not­withstanding the ancient Religion of his Coun­try, which was also permitted by the Pope: in so much that in a Synod held in Goa, for that purpose, he would not suffer any alteration to be made of their ancientrites or Religion, as * one that lived in those parts at that time hath recor­ded. But that Bishop being dead, his successor in another Synod held by the Arch-Bishop of Goa, at Diamper not far from Maliapur, was in­duced to make profession, together with his suf­fragans and Priests, both of the Roman obedi­ence and Religion.

Here the reader may note, how ready the Roman Court is to wink at any errors in the proselytes they can purchase, provided they acknowledge the Popes Supremacy: that being secured, all is well, the rest will come in with time, as has happened with these Indians. If not, that wise Court will stop where it cannot go fur­ther, [Page 114]and allow what they may not deny. For it is to be considered, that these Indians at their first reduction to the Popes obedience with permission to use their own rites and Re­ligion, being Nestorians, held several Ar­ticles contrary to the Roman Faith. First, That there are two Persons in our Saviour as well as two natures. That the blessed Virgin ought not to be termed Mother of God. That Ne­storius condemned in the third and fourth gene­ral Council, and Diodorus Tarsensis, and The­odorus Mopsuestensis condemned for Nestoria­nism in the fifth, were holy Men: rejecting for their sake the third general Council held at E­phesus, and all other Councils after it, and espe­cially detesting Cyril of Alexandria. Tho. à Jes. de conv. Gen. lib. 7. c. 2.

  • They celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist with leavened Bread.
  • They communicate in both kinds.
  • They use not auricular confession.
  • Nor confirmation.
  • They celebrated the Communion instead of Wine with the juice of Raisons, softned one night in Water, and so pressed forth.
  • They baptized not their Infants, until they were forty daies old.
  • They used not extreme unction.
  • Their Priests were married, and after the Death of their first Wives had the liberty of the second third and oftner Marriage.
  • They had no Images of Saints in their Churches but only the Cross.

[Page 115] Other particular tenets proper to each one of the forementioned societies of Christians in­habiting the East, may be seen with Mr. Brerewood and Mr. Pagit, in their relations of these Churches. In sum, we may say, they a­gree with our reformed Churches of Europe, as well in asserting the fundamentals of Christian Religion as in reproving the novel errors of the Roman Church, and detesting the arrogancy of it, in pretending to a Supremacy over all other Christian Churches, and condemning all that will not submit to their pretension herein.

CHAP. XV. A reflexion upon the contents of the Chapters prece­ding, and upon the pride and cruelty of Romanists, for condemning and despising all Christian societies not subject to their jurisdiction.

CErtainly if those bold and blind Zelots of the Roman Church, who can speak no peaceable word, nor entertain any charitable thought of any man, that is not of their com­munion, did reflect upon the contents of the three Chapters preceeding, and consider how many illustrious Nations, and numerous Socie­ties of Men, do serve God sincerely, both in the Eastern and Western Churches, many under continual persecution and suffering for their Re­ligion; they would abate their pride in despising all, that be not of their way, and moderate their fury, in condemning all to Hell fire, that will not pay subjection to their Pope.

When the Emperor Charles the fifth reduced the City of Ghent from a revolt, one of his Peers counselled him he should rase down to the ground that great City. The generous Empe­ror, to win that Counsellour to milder thoughts, brought him to an eminent place, whence he could view the vast extent and rare beauty of that City; which when he had viewed, and considered, he could not find in his heart to con­tinue [Page 117]in his former severe judgment, of having it ruined. Inhumanly cruel he must be, who con­sidering the number and splendor of Nations and People mentioned in the preceeding Chapters, serving Christ, without dependance upon the Pope of Rome, will have them all damned to Hell.

When Scapula president of Carthage threat­ned the Christians with cruel usage; Tertullian bids him bethink himself, a ‘What wilt thou do, saies he, with so many thousands of Men and Women, of every Sex age and dignity, as will freely offer themselves? what fires, what swords, wilt thou stand in need of? what is Carthage it self like to suffer, if decimated by thee, when every one shall see there his near kindred and neighbours; and shall see there Matrons, and men perhaps of thy own rank and order, and the most principal persons of either the kindred or friends of those who are thy own nearest friends? Spare them for your own sake, if not for ours.’

And in his Apology speaking of the vast sprea­ding of that party; b ‘Tho (saies he) we be men of quite an other way, yet have we filled all places among you, your Cities, Islands, Castles, Corporations, Councils, nay your Armies themselves, your Tribes, Companies, yea the Palace, the Senate and the Courts of Justice. ’Certainly these expressions of Tertullian so ten­der and pressing, could not chuse but work up­on the mind of Scapula, and win him to a mil­der dealing with the Christians. I would desire [Page 118] N. N. and others of the Roman Church, se­vere censurers of their Christian Brethren, to reflect upon the number and quality of those whom they condemn, and endeavour to ruine, by the notices delivered in the three last Chap. preceeding: and consider with how much propri­ety the words of Tertullian may be applied to them. What power will they have need of, to subdue the rest of Christianity, alien from their communion, so far exceeding themselves in number and forces, as above declared? And in case they should subdue them; what fire and sword would suffice to destroy them? And if all should attend their wishes; what heart could endure to see such multitudes of their dear Countrymen, friends and nearest relations pe­rish, whether temporally, by their decrees, tending to the ruine of all Christians, not sub­mitting to their power; or eternally, by the cruel verdict of Eternal damnation, they give against all dissentors?

I know some of them will say, that this severe sentence is not of their making, but delivered by Christ, against all that will not obey his Vi­car upon Earth, the Pope of Rome. And possible it is, that some of the simpler sort may believe it is so. But its long since I knew and proved, that none sufficiently conversant in the prin­ciples of their own Theology, could seriously think it to be so: but that according to their principles, its blasphemy and Heresy, to say without restriction, and in general terms, (as commonly they do) that none may be saved out of the communion of the Roman Church. [Page 119]And my Antagonist I.S. tells us, I did not tres­pass therein against truth of Doctrine, but a­gainst policy or prudence, as he calls it, where­by I put a great stop to the conversion of Pro­testants, if People did think, that out of the Romish Communion any may be saved. So as the prudence demanded from me, was to fa­shion my Doctrine to the increase of the Popes Dominion, be it with truth or untruth; and pronounce sentence of damnation against all Christians, not subject to him, tho I should know no such sentence to be against them in the judgment of God.

I wish my good Brethren of the Roman Church did reflect upon, and acknowledg, the great in­jury they do to themselves, in breeding and fo­menting this unchristian hostility, with the whole Society of Christians separated from their communion, so numerous and illustrious, as we have seen in the preceeding Chapters; imprin­ting hatred towards all, in the hearts of their Children, which forceably must beget a return of hatred, or disaffection and mistrust. How in­commodious its, to create to themselves so many Enemies; how uneasie and disadvantagious, to bereave themselves of the free and amiable so­ciety, of so many noble Nations and brave People, which the apprehension of Heresy makes intractable to them?

What happened to me with a Spanish young Man that came in my company out of Spain into England, makes me more sensible of the misery that Romanists bring upon themselves this way. He was of his own disposition, chearfull and [Page 120]sociable: but as soon as he came among the En­glish People, his heart and countenance fell down, and he appeared sad and melancholic. I in­quiring of him the cause of that alteration; he answered, that he looked upon all those men as Heretics, which made their very sight odious to him, and their company displeasing. The man did not well know, what Heresy was; and much less did he know, whether those Men he saw were Heretics or no. He acknowledged them to be good men, just and civil in their dealing, and adorned with noble gifts of God; yet the prejudice he was in against them, by conceiving them to be Heretics, made their sight and company odious to him. Would not this Man have been more happy in conceiving a better opinion of the People? would it not make him live with more ease and comfort a­mong them? not to mention now that higher Emolument and duty, of maintaining charity towards all Men.

CHAP. XVI. Inferences from the preceeding Doctrine of this whole treatise against the several objections of N. N.

HE that hath not considered the frame I pro­posed to observe in this treatise, and seeth me go through many Chapters of it, debating with Suarez and other Romish writers, with­out any mention of N. N. may think I have neglected, or forgotten him and his Book. But if he will take notice of my purpose made in the beginning, of cutting down by the root the whole Fabric of the said Book; he shall find, I am still upon my intended work. The ground and foundation of all the cries and complaint of N. N. against me, is a supposition, that I have left the Catholic Church and Faith, by withdrawing from the communion of the Ro­man Church, and embracing this of England. In the whole discourse of this Treatise, I have pro­ved, that the Church of England is in all pro­priety Catholic; and the Faith professed in it truly Catholic and Apostolic; and all this by rules and principles taken from the ablest of Romish Writers, for proceeding in this inqui­ry: whereby it remains proved, that all the ex­clamations of N. N. against me, went upon a false supposition, and consequently are vain and groundless.

[Page 122] Hence I infer, first, how vain is his query, and more vain his divining answer, about what drew me out of Gods house. It appears by what is said hitherto, and will be further declared in the rest of this Book; that in my change, I did not leave the house of God, but removed to the best and soundest part of it; that no private spirit, or rash fancy moved me; but a sincere acknowledgment of truth, by the ordinary means God has disposed for us to come by it.

I infer secondly, how groundless and unrea­sonable his pretention is, that I should have quitted the holy Doctors, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerom, and all the ancient Fa­thers and Catholic Doctors. He do's not tell how or wherein I have deserted that noble com­pany; neither indeed were it easy for him to tell it. I live, and do firmly resolve to dy in the same Catholic Church, which they lived and died in; and in the profession of the same Ca­tholic and Apostolic Faith, which they professed. The same, and no other Faith is professed in the Church of England; whose communion I have embraced, as hath bin sufficiently de­monstrated hitherto; and I hope by the merits and grace of our Saviour Jesus, to enjoy the company of those blessed Saints in Heaven, maugreall the censures of Rome.

Neither was I ever closer with those Holy Fa­thers in the Romish Church, then I am now in the English. It is one of the perverse calumnies of our adversaries, to give forth, that there is not due regard had of them here. I see the con­trary. I have observed diligently the waies of [Page 123]the Universities, and method of Study with Learned men in England and Ireland: and I see with them far greater application to the study and reading of holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church, then ever I saw amongst Romanists. Whilst the most learned of these spend their life and forces in speculative notions, only serving Schole debates, learned Protestants employ their time more happily, in the study of the Holy Scriptures, of Fathers, and credible Histo­ries.

I infer thirdly, how rash and injurious is his censure, in saying, that by embracing the con­fession, contained in the 39. Articles of the Church of England, I have made my self parta­ker of all the Heresies, and an associate of all the Heretics, that were from the beginning of the World to this day. Of these he makes a great list, beginning with Lucifer, whom he will have to be the first Heretic before Mans Creation, and from him proceeds to La­mech, the Gyants, all those that entred not into the Ark, but perished in the deluge, who were all Heretics, saies he. Then enters Cham, with the builders of Babels, Esau, Jannes and Jambres, Corah and Dathan, Nadah and A­bihu, all those strange Kings that made war a­gainst the Children of Israel, all the false Pro­phets of Baal. Of all these Heretics, he saies, I am become an associate, by embracing the con­fession contained in the 39 Articles of the Church of England. But is not all this rage without any mixture of reason? Is it not a sufficient confuta­tion [Page 124]of the Man, and a foul confusion to him, to repete this raving speech of his? In what part of the 39 Articles, or of the three Creeds we use in the Church of England, will he find those He­resies he appropriats to us?

But he will come nearer home, and make a long narrative of errors and vices related of Luther, Calvin, Melanchton, and others, who contributed with their writings to the reforma­tion of the Church. To which I say, first, that I have but too much reason not to believe all that they say of their opposers. Secondly, that tho some of those, who concurred to the Refor­mation, should have fallen as men, into some vices or errors; the Reformation it self (which certainly was a work of God) ought not to be undervalued for that. The sacred Colledg of the Apostles, first founders of the Christian Church, had in it one as bad as Judas; shall the whole Colledg of the Apostles, and the Religion founded by them be disesteemed for that? Several of those renowned Fathers, preachers, and de­fenders of the Gospel after the Apostles in the primitive Church, as Origen, Tertullian, &c. through human frailty, were guilty of no few er­rors; shall we therefore despise the work they did, and the healthful part of their Doctrine? If you did tell me of some Doctrine imposed up­on us as an article of belief, and rule of man­ners, that were Heretical, or opposit to the law of God, that were pertinent to work upon me: but this I am certain you will never be able to do; and no less certain am I, that your Church is guilty of such impositions upon its [Page 125]followers; as I shall demonstrate by several in­stances in the second part of this treatise. But to tell me of vices and errors of particular per­sons is both impertinent, and imprudent, I knowing so much how matters go on your side. I appeal to your own knowledg by what you have seen and heard of of the Court of Rome. And if you will conceal your knowledg herein: I re­mit your self, and the Reader, not to Protestant Historians, which happily you may suspect, but to your own most qualified, as Platina, Onuphri­us, and even Baronius. Read in them the acts and lives of several of those your holy Fathers, and infallible oracles of Doctrine, the Popes of Rome; see the transactions of John the thir­teenth about the year 966, or of Sylvester the se­cound, about the year 999. or John the 18. a­bout the year 1003. or Benedict the 9. about the year 1033. or of Gregory the 7. about the year 1080. or Boniface the 8. about the year 1294. or Alexander the 6. and of his outragious Son Cae­sar Borgia, about the year 1294. and you shall find them to be such men, as no Epicurean mon­ster storied out to the World, has outgon them in sensuality, cruelty, tyranny, and all man­ner of vices. And while I have in my memory, and before mine eies unfeigned Histories of this kind; spare heaping fables against some particu­lar persons concurring to the reformation.

But who will not admire the mans disingenui­ty in reproaching me, and the Church of En­gland, with the Tenets, or madness of the Qua­kers, which he relates at the end of the 16 chap­ter of his Book; knowing and confessing in the [Page 126]same place, that they are reproved and punish­ed by this Church; and that the author of them James Naylour was condemned to a perpetual imprisonment, after being whipt publicly, and his tongue bored with a burning iron. May not I, with the same reason, reproach him and his Church, with the horrid impieties of the Jews, Moors, and Atheists, as thick set in Spain and Italy, as Quakers among us? But were that fair dealing, I knowing that such Sects are not approved of, but rather punished in those Coun­tries? Why then for shame, will N. N. tell me, I am become of the society of Quakers, by ad­hearing to the Church of England, he telling at the same time how severely they are punished amongst us? And if I were of his temper, for pleasuring vulgar readers, with stories and rari­ties of this kind, I could with more ground of truth, and therefore more sensibly return upon him a large sum of practices, which to indiffe­rent judgments would appear no better then madness; yet daily used by persons and societies approved and applauded in his Church. But I reserve my time and labour for a more serious and becoming work: in the mean time I remit him to Sir Edwin Sandys his Book, containing a Survey of the Western Church; where he shall see set down, with candor and ingenuity becoming a Gentleman and a Christian, the rites and customs he saw practised in several so­cieties of the Roman Church. He do's not grudg to praise them, where he finds them praise worthy, neither do's he soure his pen in relating their faults. If you will be ingenuous, you will [Page 127]confess he saies nothing but what you know your self to be in practise; and if long custom and passion got by it has not blinded your judg­ment, you shall perceive many of those practi­ces to be as unreasonable and mad, as any of those you relate of the Quakers. And if you will have a more exact and vigorous discussion of this point, go to Dr. Stilling fleet his Book, where he speaks of the fanaticism practiced in the Church of Rome; and you shall find in it confusion enough, and reason to spare objecting to us the follies of Quakers.

And whereas you pretend to fright me with representing to me errors of particular persons of the Protestant Church; if I would resolve to make a return to you of that kind, I could make my Book swell, and the Readers heart tremble, by relating the Heresies, Blasphe­mies, and execrable Doctrines, which I have heard preached, and saw printed by persons of your Church. I will only relate to you, for example, some few propositions of Books that came to my own hands: the one was of a grave preacher, who prepared for the print a large volume of Commentaries upon the Gospel of St. Mark. This book was sent by the Provincial of his order, to be examined by me: and ha­ving read it with attention, I voted against the printing of it, for several faults I specified in my censure, but especially for containing some desperat blasphemous propositions, as this fol­lowing, touching St. John Evangelist. Joannis Excellentia titulo dilecti maxima est: major est quam Redemtoris etiam in deo. Tanta est, quanta [Page 128]esse Deum trinum & unum; imo propter hoc verbum caro factum est.

For the understanding of which mad piece of Rhetoric, it is to be considered, that there are two Sects of Nuns; the one passionatly bent to extol St. John the Evangelist above St. John Baptist; the other preferring, with no less animosity, the Baptist before the Evangelist. Our preacher before mentioned to pleasure the Nuns of the Evangelist, delivers that prodigious Paradox; which in English may be turned thus, exceeding great is the excellency of John, upon the account of being the Beloved. It is greater then that of a Redeemer even in God: it is so great, as to be God in trinity and unity: nay for this cause, the word was made flesh. Go now and compare this piece of Doctrine with any of those you related of the Protestant writers; and if it has not out gon them all, add to it what follows.

Being advertised by the inquisitor general of Spain, at the second time he sent me a licence for reading prohibited Books, that I had not given him account of what censureable propo­sitions I might have lighted upon in my readings, as he had charged me to do, in the instrument of such a Licence, which he had sent me the year before; I sent to him a list of some perverse Doctrines I saw in Books approved, and in much use among themselves (for Protestant Books I could find none to give account of) a­mong which were the three propositions follow­ing prefixed for titles to so many moral discourses of Leander de Murcia in his Commentaries on the book of Esther. The first of which goes thus, [Page 129]Adeo essicax est mortis memoria ad reducendos in meliorem frugem homines, ut non solum ipsi, sed e­tiam Deus op. Max. proposita ante oculos morte in meliora contendat. ‘The memory of Death is so powerful to reduce Men unto a better life; that not only they, but even God Almighty himself laying death before his eies be­comes better. The second runs thus, Etiam dae­mon morte ante oculos constituta contendit in melio­ra; even the Devil looking upon death, mends himself.’ The third proposition is this, Tanta dilectione prosecutus est filius Dei homines, vt pro ipsis quasi insanire videatur. ‘The Son of God his love to men has bin so great, that he seems to be mad for them.’ And if thus it goes, even in Books current and approved among you, what if I did relate the Doctrines of others censured and prohibited by your inquisitions; as you and your party frequently do upbraid our Church, with erroneous Doctrines of particu­lar Men, which we do utterly detest, and our learned Men do vigorously oppose by word and pen, in Pulpits, Books, and Scholes?

CHAP. XVII. The Reformation of the Church of England vindica­ted from the slanderous aspersions of N. N. and other Romanists.

IT is very usual with the Zelots of the Romish Church to make Henry the Eight sole Author of the Reformation of the English Church, load­ing that Prince with bitter invectives and o­dious reports, thereby to render the reforma­tion contemtible, to which N. N. in the 14. chapter of his Book adds a slanderous relation of the lives and behaviour of some Monks and Friers come out of Germany, which he pretends to have bin the authors and contrivers of the 39. Articles of the Church of England. I will not repete the many idle stories he tells of them, more fit to divertise simple persons of his own credulity in a Winter night at the fire, then to work on serious and knowing Men. I have chosen for a more short and solid way, rather to justify our cause, with positive arguments, then to fol­low our adversaries in sifting fopperies.

To this purpose I will lay for foundation of my present discourse, that the whole frame of the Reformation standeth upon two points: whereof the first, and more resented at Rome, is the denying of the Popes supremacy, and the withdrawing of the Church of England from [Page 131]subjection to him. The second is the Reforma­tion of the Liturgy and Doctrine of the said Church from errors and corruptions introduced in it.

As for the first it is clear and evident, that nei­ther Henry the 8. nor Luther, nor Calvin, nor any of those strangers mentioned by N. N. were authors or causers of the freedom of the Church of England from subjection to the Pope of Rome; This freedom being by its own right inherent in it from the beginning of its Christianity, however King Henry his valour and resolution broke off effectually the Tyrannical usurpations of Rome, which long time did oppress the English Church and Nation, notwithstanding their continual re­luctancy, and complaint against those Romish extortions.

Far were those good Christians that inhabited England before the time of Gregory the Great, from giving or owning obedience to the Bishop of Rome; and so when Augustin came hither, about the year 590, and demanded their obedi­ence to the Church of Rome, the Abbot of Bangor returned him answer, * That they were obedient to the Church of God, to the Pope of Rome, and to every godly Christian; to love every one in his de­gree in charity, to help them in word and deed, to be the Children of God: and other obedience then this, they did not know due to him, whom he named to be Pope, nor to be Father of Fathers.

And if Augustin did pretend to such a subje­ction from England to Rome, as the Popes of it now would have, certainly he exceeded his [Page 132]commission for St. Gregory that sent him, ne­ver pretended to that supremacy which his suc­cessors do aspire to, as we shall demonstrate in the 15 chapter of the second part of this trea­tise; and how far he was from pretending England to be of his jurisdiction, may appear by what is related of him, that being told, certain children were de Britannica Insula, he did not know whether the Country were Chri­stian or Pagan.

The sili [...] and voluntary respect and obedi­ence, which the holiness and learning of Gregory and some other good Popes gain'd among the English, gave occasion to others following of less merit, to pretend to a right to such o­bedience, which being perceived by the Kings, they prohibited all appeals to Rome, and the coming of Legats thence, and so much as the receiving of letters without the Kings licence; as may appear by Paschalis the Second his let­ter to Henry the first, expostulating with him about this particular, in these words,

Sedis Apostolicae nuncii vel literae, praeter jussum regiae Majestatis, nullam in potestate tua suscep­tionem aut aditum promerentur, nullus inde clamor, nullum inde judicium ad sedem Apostolicam destinan­tur, &c. This happened in an. 1114. notwithstand­ing the King stood upon his resolution; so as in the year following 1119, sending his Bishops to a Council held by Callixtus the 2. at Rhemes at their departing, he gave them instructions; not to complain of each other, because him­self would right each of them at home: that they * [Page 133]should a salute the Pope from him, hear his pre­cepts, but bring no superfluous devices or inno­vations into his kingdom.

True it is, That several of our Godly Kings did permit appeals should be made to Rome, in matters wherein our own Bishops could not a­gree, and directions to be sought from thence, as from a flourishing and learned Church, not as a superior Judicature. And when the Ro­man Bishops did pretend to any such superio­rity, our Kings did protest against it. So Hen­ry the fifth having demanded of Martin the fourth some particulars, to which his Em­bassadors not finding him ready to assent; they b told him, That they had orders to protest before him, that the King would use his own right in those particulars, as things which he demanded, not out of necessity, but for the honour & respect he was willing to shew to that Sea, that they should make a public protestation thereof before the whole Colledg of Cardinals. And to this purpose are sundry examples remaining on c record; where the King at the Petition of the Commons, for redress of some things amiss belonging to Ecclesiastic cognizance, first chuses to write to the Pope; but on his delay, or failing to give satisfaction, doth either himself by statute re­dress [Page 134]the inconveniency, or command the Arch­bishop to see it don.

For certain it is, by the course of all our Chronicles and histories, that our Kings, toge­ther with the convocation of their Bishops and Clergy, had in themselves absolute and entire power of governing and reforming the Church of this kingdom, without any dependency up­pon any forreign authority. It was never doubted, neither could it be denied upon any warrantable ground, that they had within their own dominions, the same power which Constan­tine had in the Empire, and that our Bishops had the same which St. Peter had in the Church. For which since the Erection of Canterbury in­to an Archbishoprick, the Bishops of that Sea were held, * Quasi alterius orbis Papae, as Ʋrban the Second styled them, and did exercise vi­ces Apostolicas in Anglia; that is, they used the same power within this Island which the a Pope did in other parts. And in our writers the Arch­bishop of Canterbury is frequently called Prin­ceps Episcoporum Angliae,bPontifex summus, cPatria­cha. King Edgar asserted this power to be in himself, and in his Clergy, in his memorable speech made to them, d Ego Constantini, vos Petri gladium habetis in manibus. I bear in my hand the sword of Constantin, and you that of Pe­ter. And therefore as the affairs of most con­cerns in the Church, had their dependance on [Page 135]the Emperor, and the holy men of those times did not doubt to continue to him the style of Pontifex maximus, as e Baronius notes, sine ul­la christianitatis labe. So f King Edgar was solici­to is of the Church of his Kingdom, veluti do­mini sedulus Agricola, & pastorum pastor. And wrote himself the Vicar of Christ, and by his g laws and Canons he made known, that he did not assume those titles in vain.

King h Edward the Confessor a canonized Saint, did declare the same, and practised accord­ingly; The King, saies he, being vicar of the su­pream King, his duty is to govern and defend the earthly Kingdom, and the people of the Lord from injuries, and over all to reverence govern and de­fend his Church. The same was declared and practised by i Ina, whom Baronius styles a most pious King, by k Canutus acknowledged for a most bountiful benefactour of Churches, and of the servants of God. Erga Ecclesias atque Dei servos, benignissimus largitor, as l Fur­bertus Carnotensis relates of him and several other godly Kings of England, whose seve­ral laws touching Ecclesiastic affaires, you may see related by Jorvalens. c. 2. col. 761. c. 5. col. 830. c. 23. col. 921. as also the laws of Em­perors, to the same purpose in the books of m Theodosius and Justinian.

[Page 136] The Emperors did employ their Bishops and Divines, in resolving upon wholsome decrees touching Church affaires, and these decrees they espoused themselves for Laws; so as the trans­gressors of them should be subject to penalties. This same course our Kings have taken as well in former ages as in this latter of the Refor­mation of our Church. Henry the Eighth have­ing those occasions of discontent with Pope Cle­ment the Seventh (which as too much known I omit to relate,) and being urged by the States of the Kingdom to execute at last what long time was desired, and often attemted in Eng­land, viz. to throw off the usurped power and jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over this Kingdom; to proceed with due legality and consideration in so weighty a matter, he wrote to the Universities, and great Monasteries, and Churches of the Kingdom, in the year, 1534. and the eighteenth of May of the same year, to the University of Oxford, requiring them like men of vertue and profound Literature, dili­gently to intreat, examine, and discuss a cer­tain question, viz. An Romanus Episcopus ha­beat majorem aliquam Jurisdictionem sibi collatam in Sacra Scriptura in hoc Regno Angliae, quam a­lius quivis Externus Episcopus. ‘Whether the Bishop of Rome had any greater jurisdiction given to him in holy Scripture over this King­dom of England, then any other foreign Bi­shop;’and to return their opinion in writing under their common Seal, according to the meer and sincere truth of the same. To which after mature deliberation, and examination, they [Page 137]returned answer; That he hath no such juris­diction in this land.

The words of the University of Oxford re­turning their answer to the King upon this subject the 27. of June, of the aforesaid 1534. which I saw in the Records of that University, are as follow, Post susceptam itaque per nos quae­stionem ante dictam, cum omni humilitate, devotio­ne, ac debita reverentia, convocatis undique dictae nostrae Academiae Theologis, habitoque complurium dierum spatio, ac deliberandi tempore satis amplo, quo interim cum omni qua potuimus diligentia, Justitiae Zelo, Religione & conscientia incorrupta, perscrutaremur, tam Sacrae Scripturae libros, quam super cisdem approbatissimos interpretes, & eos quidem saepe & saepius à nobis evolutos & exactis­sime collatos, repetitos & examinatos, deinde & disputationibus solennibus palam & publice ha­bitis, & celebratis, tandem in hanc sententiam unanimiter omnes convenimus, ac concordes fuimus, viz. Romanum Episcopum majorem aliquam ju­risdictionem non habere sibi a Deo collatam in Sa­cra Scriptura in hoc Regno Anglia, quam alium quemvis Externum Episcopum. ‘We therefore, after having taken in hand this question with all humility, devotion and due reverence, the Divines of our University being called toge­ther from all places, and the space of many daies and time enough bein given for deli­berating, whereby with all diligence possible, zeal of Justice, Religion and upright con [...]i­ence, we should search as well the Books of Holy Scripture, as the most approved inter­preters of them, and they being very often [Page 138]turned over by us, and most exactly conferred together, review'd & examin'd; & moreover ha­ving celebrated & held public & solemn dis­putes on this subject, at last we have all unani­mously agreed upon this sentence, viz.’ That the Bishop of Rome hath not any more Jurisdiction given to him by God in holy Scripture, in this King­dom of England, then any other foreign Bishop hath. Having met with this religious and learned de­claration of the University of Oxford, I thought convenient to relate it here, as well for the au­tority the opinion of this great University is apt to give to the matter, as also that it may be to us an argument of the zeal and diligence, where­with the other Scholes, Monasteries, and Chur­ches did proceed to deliver their opinion upon this subject.

And if it be true, what the famous Canonist * Navar saies, (and now is more commonly said and confirmed by Casuists and Canonists) that who do's any thing, following therein the opi­nion of one Doctor of known learning and piety (tho others be of contrary opinion,) is excu­sed, tho happily what he did should not be just in it self; and if the authority of one Doctor of learning and piety can justify a mans proceeding, shall not the opinion of so great a number of men famous for learning and piety, that were then in the Universities, Monasteries and Chur­ches of England, justify the proceedings of [Page 139]King Henry, in freeing his Kingdom from the slavery it was in under the Bishop of Rome?

This indeed was to lay the axe to the root of the Romish usurpations and corruptions in this Land. Their pretended authority in it being found and declared not to be from God, nor groun­ded upon his divine word, but illegally and fraudulently intruded upon the Nation; it fol­loweth that they were all at their own liberty to reform their Church, by a National Synod of their own Prelats and Clergy, under the pro­tection and inspection of their Prince, as in o­ther times was don in this land, & in consequence to this the states of the Kingdom being congrega­ted in * Parliament an. 1533 have declared, that his Majesty, his heirs and successors Kings of this Realm, shall have full power and autority from time to time to visit, repress, redress all such errors, heresies, abuses, &c. which by any manner of spiritual autho­rity or jurisdiction may be lawfully reformed, re­pressed, ordered, redressed, &c. And this was not to assume a new power, but to renew and pub­lish the ancient right of the Kings of this Land.

It is true that Popes in former ages, not finding means to hinder our Princes from exercising this right of their own, would by priviledg continue it unto them. So Pope Nichelas find­ing our Kings to express one part of their office to be Regere populum Domini & Ecclesiam ejus, wrote to Edward the Confessor, Vobis & posteris ves [...]ris regibus Angliae committimus convocationem e­jusdem loci & omnium totius Angliae Ecclesiarum, & vice nostra cum consilio Episcoporum, & Abba­tum [Page 140]constituatis ubique quae justa sunt. ‘We com­mit unto you and your successors Kings of En­gland the government of that place, and of all the Churches of England, that in our name ye may by the Councils of Bishops and Abbots order in all places what will be just.’ The same Pope did allow the like priviledg to the Emperor. * Nicolaus Papa hoc domino meo privilegium, quod ex paterno jure susceperat, praebuit. ‘Said the Empe­rors advocat, Pope Nicholas allowed this pri­viledg to my Master which himself had by his birth-right.’ By the like art, finding the People of England unwilling to acknowledg any Eccle­siastic power besides that of the land, and the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury for supreme of it un­der the King, the Popes have contrived, that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury should exercise that power as from them under the name of Legatus natus, or Legat by his place of the Roman Sea.

This may seem like what they report of the great Cham of Tartary, that after he had dined, he orders to give leave by the sound of a Trum­pet to all the Kings of the World, that they may go to dinner. But the Pope drives further in his grants, that in time, if power should as­sist him, he may force upon them a subjection to him, as if really the Princes did owe their power to him. But the arts of Rome are too much known in England, for the people to be further deluded by them.

And therefore a National Synod, or a Convoca­tion of the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Abbots, and other Clergy of the Kingdom being celebra­ted [Page 141]at London by order of King Henry the sixth, in the sixth year of his reign, being that of our Lord 1552. a summary of Articles was agreed upon, to remove dissentions in Religion, and reform the Church from corruptions that crept into it, so pious and moderate, so well groun­ded upon Divine Scripture, and upon the Do­ctrine and practice of the Primitive Apostolic Church, that Romanists may more easily rail and rant at, then discover any real error in them.

My adversary N. N. after highly inveighing a­gainst these Articles, and boasting to discover Heresies in them, singles out the 22. Article which runs thus, The Roman Doctrine of Purga­tory, Indulgences, veneration and adoration as well of Images as of reliques, as also of the invocation of Saints is absurd and vainly invented, nor is groun­ded upon any authority of Scripture, but is rather re­pugnant to the word of God. Upon which Article, N. N. delivers this heavy censure, that it is false, profane, and Heretical. But in the whole discourse of the second part of this Treatise, I will demonstrate God willing, that it is rather true, Religious, and Catholic; as also I do intend by the help of God, to vindicate the rest of those Articles in a separat Treatise from the cavils of A­lexander White and other Romanists, whereby N. N. will find how much he is mistaken in taking the said Alexander White's Book against the thirty nine Articles for unanswerable, as cer­tainly he is far mistaken in saying resolutely, tho without having any ground for it, that the afore­said White hath bestowed more time and deli­beration in quitting those Articles, then I have [Page 142]don in deserting the communion of the Roman Church. Seven years he saies Mr. White spent in deliberating upon his resolution; but certainly I have spent many more years in deliberating upon mine. How many they were as it is not easie to demonstrate, so it is not material to tell; men may deliberate long and err at last in their resolution. To my reasons alledged for that re­solution which I took I appeal, and do willing­ly expose them to public view and examinati­on, that others as well as I, may judg of the weight of them.

Very foul and slanderous also has bin the mi­stake of our adversary, in saying that the Au­thors of our 39. Articles were only some few obscare men, Priests and Friers run out of Ger­many, and that by them the Church and King­dom of England, was governed in the Refor­mation of their Religion. How false their re­port is, may appear by the public Records and Histories of the Land, and by several Acts of Parliament passed with great deliberation of all the States of the Kingdom upon the settlement of the Reformation, and of those Articles as well in that great Synod or Convocation celebrated under Edward the sixth in the year 1552. above mentioned, as also an other no less fa­mous Synod held at London ten years after, viz. 1562. wherein the said Articles were reviewed, examined, and confirmed.

I have seen among Seldens Books kept in the Bodleian Library of Oxford, an Authentic CO­py of these Articles printed at London in the year 1563, and a scroul of parchment annexed [Page 143]to it with the subscriptions (by their proper hands) of the members of the lower house of Convocation, being all Deans, Arch Deacons, and procurators of Clergy, which I found to be in number 104, besides the Arch-Bishops, and Bishops, sitting in the upper house, whose names came not in my way to see, but I am to suppose they were all the Prelates of the Land, as they used to meet in Convocation. And is this to shuffle up a Reformation, and make Ar­ticles in clandest in manner, without due exa­mination, as our Adversary would make his Reader believe?

CHAP. XVIII. A view of N. N. his discourse upon Transubstan­tiation, and upon the affinity of the Roman Church with the Grecian.

THo N. N. had declared his purpose in the beginning to deal with me not Scholasti­cally, but Historically: yet it seems he would not part with me without disputing upon the point of Transubstantiation. He alledges testi­monies and Fathers, and miracles in favour of it: and pretends it to have bin a Doctrine of more ancient standing then the Lateran Council. To all which I have given a full answer in what I have delivered by my discourse formerly prin­ted, and in what will follow in the second part of this Treatise from the 18. Chapter forward.

Only I will reflect here upon two or three very gross mistakes of N. N. in his present dis­course with me upon the point. The first is touch­ing my belief of this great mystery. He saies re­solutely (without giving any ground for his saying, as indeed he could have none for it) that I do not believe Christ to be really present at all in this Sacrament, why then (saies he) should he dispute with us about the Doctrine of Transubstan­tiation, seeing he flatly denies the body and blood of Christ to be really and substantially present in the Sacrament? But good Sir, where have you seen [Page 145]this flat denial of mine. certainly not in my decla­ration (which seems to be the object of your quarrel) not in the 39. Articles, not in any pub­lic Catechism or system of Doctrine generally received by the Church of England: nay the Catechism approved by autority, and com­mended to the use of all, being inserted into the Common Praier Book, delivers the Doctrine quite opposite. For to the question proposed, touching the inward or invisible part of this Sa­crament, this answer is returned, The Body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lords Supper. And is this to deny flatly, that the Body and blood of Christ is really present in the Sacrament, as you impute to us? When a Jesuite in Ger­many broached the like calumny, in a conserence had with some of the English nobility, waiting upon our King in that Country, in presence of his Majesty and of a Prince Elector in that Em­pire; both his Majesty and the Noble-Men took offence at his Speech, as being a foul Calumny; and therefore desired the Reverend and Learned Doctor Cosin Bishop of Durham, to vindicate the Church of England from that a spersion; as he did abundantly, in a very learned Tract publi­shed under the title of Historia Transubstantiatio­nis Papalis. Wherein he proves by the Articles, public Catechisms, and by the testimonies of se­veral * grave and learned Prelates, that all true Protestants, especially those of the Church of [Page 464] England, do constantly believe and profess, that Christ our Saviour is really and substantially pre­sent in the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist; and his Body and blood really and substantially received in it by the faithful: and accordingly he alledges the learned Bilson B. of Wincl ester, de­claring the belief and Doctrine of the Church of England touching this point in the words follow­ing, Eucharistiam non solum figuram esse Corporis Domini, sed etiam ipsam veritatem, naturam, at­que sul stantiam in se comprehendere. 'That the Eucharist is not only a figure or representation of the Body of our Saviour, but that it compre­hends also the very truth and nature and sub­stance of his body.

The very same Doctrine is contained in the 28. Article of the 39. above mentioned in these words, The Body of Christ is given or taken and eaten in the Supper only after an Heavenly and spi­ritual manner. Here you have a real giving, eat­ing and taking; and consequently a reall pre­sence of the Body of Christ confessed by our Church as well as by yours. Our difference is only, touching the mode of his presence. We say that mode or manner to be spiritual; you pre­tend that it is corporal: with what consequence, or coherence with the rules of common reason, you will never be able to declare; nor how to a­void contradiction, in saying that his flesh and blood is present in the Sacrament after a corpo­ral manner; and with all that none of our cor­poral senses is able to give testimony of such a presence.

Neither will you find it an easier task to de­clare [Page 147]unto us what may be the object of your adoration given to the consecrated bread. If you say it is the person of our Saviour, God and Man, really present, we adore and reverence the same as well as you. If you pretend that your adoration doth extend to more; that must be only the accidents of the Bread and Wine ap­pearing to the senses; which accidents, being in your own confession meer creatures, to give un­to them the worship of Latria, cannot with any colour of reason be excused from a formal Ido­la [...]ry.

The second very gross error, I find in the dis­course of N. N. upon this subject, is, that finding me complain of the Roman Church, for forcing upon Christians a belief of Monstrous miracles, in their Doctrine of Transubstantia­tion; he cries against me in Tragical terms, as if I had reviled Gods wonders, calling mi­racles monstrous, and appeals to the Catholic Reader for a severe sentence against me in these words, Numquid haec est atrox humuncionis insul­tantis Christo & Ecclesiae rabies? pag. 126. And I appeal to any Reader of sense, whether I may not on good ground return on him this o­ther quere, Annon hic est hominis frigide, id est non opportune excandescentis inconditus clamor? p. 136. Is not this cry a fit of zeal unseasonably burni [...]g? To call those miracles they pretend to inter­vene in the consecrated bread Monstrous, he takes it for a contempt of Gods wonders in ge­neral. So if I say, a Man born with 2 Heads and 3 Eies is a Monstrous Man; that must be taken for an affront put upon all humane kind. [Page 148]Sir I reverence Gods wonders, and those many miracles wrought by his powerful hand, and I bless his holy name for all. But those miracles you would have us believe to happen in the con­secration of the Eucharist; as that the substance of the bread vanishes a way, and the accidents of it remain without any substance to rest upon, &c. these I deny to be true miracles, or works of God, but a product of your erring imagina­tion; and if you will persist in calling them mi­racles, certainly they must appear monstrous ones. For the proof whereof, you give your self a very considerable help, by a definition, or description of a miracle, which you produce out of Aquinas, how much to your purpost is not easie to find; but very clearly it serves for my present purpose, of making your pretended miracles in the Eucharist appear most properly monstrous. You tell us that Aquinas saies, * quod nomen miraculi ab admiratione sumitur: Admi­ratio autem consurgit, cum effectus sunt manifesti à causa occulta. ‘That the word miracle comes from admiration: and this admiration doth a­rise, when the effect appears, and the cause is hidden.’ Here we have the common and ordi­nary nature of a miracle described; that a won­derful effect should appear, tho the cause should be hidden. Now it rests to know what is the proper notion of a Monster. Philosophers do give us this definition of it out of Aristotle, monstrum est effectus à recta & solita secundum speciem dis­positione degenerans. ‘A Monster is an effect de­generating from the right and common disposi­tion [Page 149]of things of that kind.’ So that a Man born with two Heads is called monstrous, because he degenerats from the right and common dispositi­on of other men. The Colledg of * Coimbra de­clares this to be Vulgata Monstri desinitio, the vulgar or commonly received definition of a Monster. Now then, if the common and ordi­nary nature of a miracle is, as you tell us out of Aquinas, that the miraculous effect should be manifest and apparent, tho the cause were hidden; then a miracle degenerating from this common course and nature of miracles, so as the effect pretended to be miraculous should not be manifest or known to any, must be according to these rules a monstrous Miracle, deviating and degenerating from the common course of true Miracles. Of this kind are your imagina­ry Miracles of the Eucharist; that the bread and wine should be substantially converted into the flesh and blood of our Saviour corporally present. If this were so indeed, and therefore a real and true Miracle; this miraculous effect would appear to the senses of men, as that true and miraculous conversion of the Water into Wine, at the wedding in Cana of Calilee, did appear to the senses of the Men present there; and thereby appeared to be a true Miracle, and more fit to breed a belief in the beholders; which is the ordinary aim of Divine providence in working Miracles; and which certainly Christ would not have obtained of the persons then present, if he had only told them, that the wa­ter remaining with the same color, tast and [Page 150]smell which it had before, was really converted into Wine, without letting any of their senses bear testimony of such a conversion. Of this lat­ter kind are your imaginary Miracles, which being of your own making, I may without of­fence to God, or prejudice to his true Miracles, call them Monstrous, as degenerating from the common course of true Miracles.

The third mistake that I am to put N. N. in mind of at present, is, concerning his pretenti­on to affinity with the Greek and Ruthenian Church, in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and of other points controverted, with our re­formed Churches; for which he pleases himself, in telling us of a favourable relation to his pur­pose, given by a Muskovite Priest to a French Pre­late that feasted him. But that he may see how wide is his mistake herein, and how far the Grecians and Ruthenians are from joining issue with the Roman Church against us, I remit him to what I have related above upon more solid and authorized grounds in the 13. Chapter of this Treatise.

Neither indeed can I see upon what ground you can pretend to union with the Greek Church in their tenets: if it be not, that several of your greatest Scholemen, such as are a Lombard, bBona­venture,cScotus, dAquinas, and others, do en­deavour [Page 151]to excuse the Grecians in their chief error touching the proceeding of the Holy Ghost only from the Father, and not from the Son; saying that therein they differ from the Roman Church only in the man­ner of speaking, not in the substance of Do­ctrine.

CHAP. XIX. N. N. His Book intitled the bleeding Iphigenia examined, his abusive language bestowed there­in upon persons of Honour, and his censure upon the Kings Majesty reprehended.

THo this Book begins with me, and in the running Title stiles it self a pref [...]ce to the o­ther greater Book designed against me; yet I have so little a share of this preface directed to me, as I hope the discreet Reader will excuse me if I be not so large in discussing it as some may expect. Truly the matter and style of it is of that nature, as made me ambiguous for a time in resolving upon any reply to it. But up­on more consideration I conceived it my duty to make the reflexions following upon it.

After having bestowed some few Pages in be­moaning a supposed fall of mine from the Ca­tholic Faith, he falls suddenly to lament the sufferings of the Irish, and to accuse the supposed authors of it. As to the first I have endeavor­ed to give satisfaction in the whole discourse of this Treatise: if he has true charity for me, he will be glad to find, that I am not in that bad condition he supposed. And if he will be ingenuous, and has not resolved (as 'tis usual with them) to shut his eies against all eviden­ces, that may let him see his errors, or entertain [Page 153]a charitable thought of his Christian Neighbors, he may see cleerly by what I have said hither­to, that by embracing the Communion of the Church of England, I have not forsaken the true Catholic Faith and Church; that I am far from being guilty of the Heresies, or associate of those Heretics he mentions.

Now as to the second, touching the miseries of the Irish, I heartily condole with him there­in, but cannot approve of his manner of plead­ing for them, nor of some Doctrines he lets fall by the way. I think it to be a more Christian duty, and more becoming a good Pastor, to ex­hort people in affliction to a conformity with Gods Holy will, and to an acknowledgment of their sins that drew his anger upon them, with due repentance of them; then to excuse their errors, and thereby to encourage them to provoke divine justice to further severities a­gainst them. The former I have don on all occasions: the second I see you do in the par­ticulars of your Book which I am to examine now.

I will not debate with you touching the matters of fact you handle, who begun, or were more faulty in those unhappy revoluti­ons. I do not envy you the occasion you had of greater knowledg in that part then I, who departed the Country in my younger age two years before those Tragedies begun, and never returned until some years after our Soveraigns happy Restauration. I leave to others better furnished with notices, to examine what you say that way; But I may judg of the style and [Page 154]Doctrinal part of your Book, grounding my judgment (as I hope I shall do) upon good reasons. And first as touching the style, I am probably perswaded, that no sober or wise man even of the party you pretend to favour, will approve of the harsh and contemtuous language wher with you speak of persons of great honor and quality, especially of one of the great Peers of the Realm, an Earle and son to one of the greatest Earles of this Monarchy, Lord Presi­dent of that fair and goodly Province of Mun­ster, so stiled by your self, not to mention his personal talents, apt to make even one of low­er birth noble, and to gain him respect. All these titles & Honorable qualities, could not induce you, to give him once any of those civilities and marks of respect, that are due to persons of his de­gree and quality. And what is yet more in­tolerable, not contented to abuse his person, you extend your contemtuous Language to his whole family, linked by manifold ties of con­sanguinity with the most illustrious families of England and Ireland.

I know that one of the rules of your Roman * Ex­purgatory is, to blot out of all Books any honorary title of wit or vertue given to Heretics (which is to say in their Language to any Christian that is not of their communion) a rule indeed rude enough, [Page 155]but I did not hear yet of any rule given for divesting Earles and Lords of their ordinary titles, (rather the said rules permit it of cour­tesy) if it be not perhaps a branch of that grand power they give to the Pope of deposing Kings, of which N. N. may pretend to par­take so much as may enable him to degrade an Earle. Certainly this practise of speaking with contemt to Peers & Presidents of provinces, may be sooner learned in the Schole of Rome, then in the Schole of Christ, and of his Apostles. When our dear Saviour was brought before the president of Judea, Pilate, and most unjustly sentenced to death by him, he uttered no bitter or contemtuous word against him. When the great Apostle Paul was before Porcius Festus Governour of the same Province, and abused by him, calling his excellent speech madness, Paul answered him in mild and respectful terms, * I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. Could not you likewise speak what you conceive to be truth with soberness, without offending Governors and great men by contemtuous expressions? Doth your calling give you greater right to re­prehend Princes and Governors, then that of Christ and St. Paul did to them?

Thus matters do go in the Schole of Christ, and of his Apostles, but the Roman Schole teaches different Lessons: a very famous one, N. N. professes to have learned there, which is, that he honors the Pope or Bishop of Rome whom [...]e cal [...]s Luminare Majus the greater [Page 156]light, more then the King, whom he stiles Lu­minare minus the meaner light. This he saith to be the practise of his Catholics, which was taught to them by Pope Innocent the Third, de­claring himself to be as much above Emperors and Kings on Earth, as the sun is above the moon in the heavens; of which and of the stout glosses of his Canonists, we shall say more after. a

N. N. seems to pretend to a share in this vast Superiority of the Pope over princes. He be­takes himself to a seat of Judicature, and pro­nounces a severe sentence against our gracious Soveraign, his own natural Prince, That he has not bin just and impartial in the distribu­tion of his favors to his Subjects, applying to his Majesty that old verse, Non erat Rex Jupiter omnibus idem, That he was not the same King to all, That all being guilty in Ireland, (as he supposes for this complaint) he extend­ed his Roial bounty to one party more then to the other. In which supposition N. N. de­livers both the guilt of his judgment, and the defence of our King. If all were guilty, all lost their right to the Roial favours, all forfeit­ed their possessions. Then all was at the will and mercy of his Majesty to confer upon those he thought fit: why will you pretend to de­prive him of his liberty herein? May not his Majesty return upon you those words of the Lord of the Vineyard spoken to the envious La­borers, b Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? is thine eie evil because I am good?

[Page 157] But this is not the only defence his Majesty hath against your rash judgment. It is very manifest, that his Majesty has shewed the bow­els of a loving Father to all his Subjects, as well in Ireland as in all the rest of his Dominions, and did procure by all the means possible to him the comfort and satisfaction of all, as may consist with right and Justice. And to this pur­pose for ordering the affairs of Ireland, he hath erected in Dublin a Court of Claimes, place­ing therein Justices, whom I have heard the Irish themselves commend for men of admira­ble integrity and constancy, in delivering their judgment according to the right without re­gard of persons. Such as could prove their Innocency in this Court, had the benefit of it, who were many; and very many more, who would not go through that trial, had the benefit of the Kings gracious pardon, and Roi­al bounty in restoring them to their Estates and Possessions. I have heard from a person of great Honour and truth, and of great knowledg in the matter, that of the lands, which by rigor of Law were declared to be forfeited to the King, his Majesty has bestowed already more then the one half upon those that lost them. Neither are the streams of his Roial Clemen­cy put to a stop, but ever flowing graces and favours upon deserving persons, on all occasi­ons possible; tho when the pretenders are so numerous, it is impossible to content all, and not easy for standers far off, to judg which of the several pretenders to the same thing, ought to be preferred. Men are apt to speak eagerly, [Page 158]and conceive strongly for their own interest; self love will suggest arguments for that side, and suppress all that favour the contrary. It is for the King, that God has placed on high, to see equally, and accordingly to judg of both sides.

You plead vigorously for the necessity of a supream Judg in spiritual matters, to whose de­cretory judgment all must stand; to resist it, or call it in question, must be taken for a re­bellion in religion, for Heresy or Schism; if such a judg were wanting, say you, there would be no end of controversies in religion. How far your pretention goes that way, and how well grounded, will be seen in the second part of this Book, now to our present purpose briefly. Will not you acknowledg in a proportionable pari­ty, the like necessity of a supream Judg, for civil debates in each Kingdom or State, to whose final judgment the parties must stand? other­wise there will be no end of quarrels, no peace among neighbours. I will not pretend for such a Judg that Soveraign kind of infallibility, abso­lutely incapable of any error, which you do pre­tend for your Ecclesiastic. But such autority as Subjects ought to reverence, and stand to his decretory sentence without further appeal, I can prove out of Gods words, that a King has it in his Dominions, so as without breach of Loialty and transgression of Gods will and command, a Subject may not resist the judgment of his King, nor call it further in question; much less may he pronounce a judgment against it. See all decla­red by the Heavenly Preacher, Ecclesiastes 8.4. [Page 159]in these words, Where the word of a King is, there is power, and who may say unto him what dost thou. Certainly its no act of Loialty to questi­on his actions don with accord and public Lega­lity, as in the case in hand. It is a commenced Rebellion. The first Rebellion of men upon Earth, that of our first Fathers against God in Paradise, whose contriver was the Devil, began with such a question; The hellish Serpent began his conspiracy with Eve, calling in que­stion the Law and Government of their Prince and Master: cur praeceptit vobis Deus, ut non com­ederetis ex omni ligno paradisi? Why hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the Gar­den? Thus did the first Rebellion of man against God begin, questioning his decree. Questions against Laws established by a lawful Prince, thus deriving their Progeny from the Devil, should be for that very reason abhorred by Christians. And the rather, if we consider how destructive they must be to peace and human Society, as overthrowing the very nature and intrinsic Constitution of a Magistracy, ordained principally to decide quarrels, and put an end to debates, by a Legal Sentence, which if not obeied, but exposed to further inquiry and cen­sure of the parties, is fruitless; and debates will be endless.

CHAP. XX. That it is not lawful for Subjects to raise armes, and go to war with their fellow Subjects with­out the consent of their Prince. The Doctrine of killing men, and making War by way of prevention, and on pretext of Religion, con­futed.

FRom the Lesson of censuring and murmur­ing against Roial orders, rebuked in the precedent Chapter, as from a corrupt root, springeth this other very evil branch, that its lawful for Subjects to war with their fellow Subjects without the consent of their Prince, and so we find the one following the other in N. N. his Preface. Neither could we expect less from the antecedent premised. If Subjects will not submit to the Determination of their Prince in their debates, they must appeal to their Swords. And our Antagonist tells us Ma­gisterially, its the common opinion of Divines, that they may do it: for which he quotes in the Margin * Aquinas and Bannes. But Aquinas in the place quoted by him, delivers the quite contrary Doctrine, affirming and proving with strong reasons, that no war is just that is not made by the autority of the Prince, and rela­ting for his opinion these grave words of St. [Page 161] Augustin, Ordo naturalis Mortalium paci accom­modatus hoc poscit, ut suscipiendi belli autoritas atque consilium penes principem sit. That the natural course accommodated to the peace of men re­quires, that the autority and resolution of make­ing a war should belong to the Prince.

I could not but expect that * Bannes a sworn Disciple of Aquinas should be of the same o­pinion: sure he would not deliver for a com­ment upon his Masters Text, the contrary Do­ctrine to it. And so I found it, he delivering upon the present Subject these three conclusi­ons. The First, that it is a mortal sin to make war against any kind of Enemies without the con­sent of the Prince. And he adds this to be the common opinion of all: and it is to be noted, that he speaks even in case the war should be against the Turks. His Second conclusion is, that Soldiers plundering or burning Towns by their own private autority, are obliged to repair the dam­mage they have don. The Third conclusion of Bannes goes thus, such as fight in a war made without the autority of the Prince, are obliged to make a restitution for all the dammages that re­sulted from such a war to their own Republic or Country.

Now if such as make a war even against Turks, (as Bannes saieth and proveth) without the authority of their Prince, do sin mortally, and are obliged to a restitution for all the dam­mages don to friends and foes, those who be­gan that bloody war in Ireland against their fel­low Subjects, what account will they give to God [Page 162]for the destruction of so many thousands of men, women, and children on both sides, the devastation of that sair Land, and the burning and desolation of so many goodly towns and houses? Let the counsellors of that blind and furious war, (no less damnable then the actors,) reflect upon the heavy judgment that hangs over them for it, and let N. N. consider bet­ter what he writes: let him not be so easily wrought upon by hot headed and shallow brain'd informers, to deliver in public as a Doctrine of Divines, what the Divines he names do con­demn and detest, as all men of sense and con­science must needs do. For certainly to say, that Subjects may go to war without the con­sent of their Prince, let who will say it, is a per­serse and seditious Doctrine, destructive to Loialty and public peace, a fierce error often practised in Ireland to the great dammage of it, and which therefore ought to be reprehended sharply, rather then renewed or countenanced by good teachers.

But our Antagonist tells us he speaks of a defensive war, and brings a heap of Testimonies to prove such a war to be lawful, and to declare how far it may extend. But the main point is, what he supposes, without giving a sufficient proof of it, that the Engagement of the party he pleads for, was only defensive. He al­lowes that the Irish were the first aggressors, but this objection, saies he, is easily answered, as thus. It is a common Doctrine of the Divines, that it is lawful to prevent an evil that cannot be otherwise avoided then by preventing it. E. G. I. [Page 163] see you take your Pistol in your hand, cocking it to shoot at me, in that case it is lawful for me to dis­charge my Pistol and kill you, otherwise I should be killed by you, and relates several Testimo­nies of Tannerus, Becanus, and others, to prove such a prevention to be lawful. But to evince that to have bin the case of the Irish at the begin­ing of those tumults, (this being the point where­in the consistence and whole strength of his ar­gument was to appear) it is strange how jejune and weak stuff he brings up. They were boulted up in an Island, saies he, there was no door open for them, but by preventing the Presbyterians bloody design; if this they had not don, there had bin an end of them all. Hore I see words but no sub­stance or ground to build upon a serious con­clusion to his purpose. What bloody designs were those he speaks of? how far discovered? how near at hand to be executed? If he knew it, why does he not declare it, being the very foundation of his defence, and precisely necessary to make his allegations appear pertinent? What Pistols were laied to the breast of those that be­gun in the North, what Canons were charged, what armies were marching against them, so as without killing those that lived peaceably about them, they could not save their own lives? Yet if they were not in such a streight as this, the Testimonies you alledg of Divines are misap­plied by you, and come very short of proving what you pretend, as appears by the example you relate of one cocking his Pistol to shoot at you, and to prevent him you shoot first at him.

[Page 164] I have heard of some report spread among the Irish, of a design of a Massacre upon them, and that this report was represented to the state by some Lords of the Pale about Dublin, who be­ing called to assist at the Council, to consult with them, concerning the state wherein the Kingdom was then, and the safety of it, they answered, that having received advertisement, that a member of the Council had uttered at the Council board some speeches tending to ex­ecute upon those of their religion a general Mas­sacre, they could not wait on their Lordships, but rather must stand upon their guard till they were secured from perills. Thus I find it writ­ten by a credible * Historian of those times, who adds, that to this Letter written by those Lords to the Council of the 7. of December 1641. The state gave answer by Proclamation, with all sa­tisfaction to the Lords, to remove all misun­derstandings, and cleer the member of the Coun­cil aspersed from any such pretended speeches, or any intention thereto, and pray the Lords to attend the board on the 17. day after. But all this it seem was not sufficient to cleer them from their apprehension of danger.

Now if this passed so indeed, to say that a meer apprehension of danger from our Neigh­bour without any certainty of it, is a sufficient warrant to make war against him, if it be a com­munity, or kill him if he be a Particular (as our Antagonist seems to pretend) is a Doctrine of dreadful consequences both to Societies and [Page 165]particular persons? It is but too much experien­ced how rash and heady a thing the apprehensi­on of Men is; how ready are false reports to fly; and if an apprehension or report without certain ground be taken for a sufficient cause to kill a Man, or to wage war, who can have secu­rity of his life, or how long shall peace and qui­et last among us?

In this discourse I do not intend to favour ei­ther of the parties mention'd in that debate hand­led by N. N. I profess not to be a competent judg of those quarrels, I only attend the pernici­ous Doctrines I see assumed to maintain the in­terest of one side, with intention to rebuke the same as universally false and destructive to the public peace and quiet. Neither in truth can I understand which of both parties may fear more prejudice from the Doctrine I am repre­hending. I see complaints and jealousies upon both sides, which of both hath more reason for it, as I am not apt to determine, so I do con­ceive that N. N. (as also any other) may be uncertain to which of the parties he do's prepare ruine, by allowing subjects upon suspicion of danger from their fellow subjects, to go to war with them, without the consent of their Prince. If both do complain and fear, why may not ei­ther party, as well as the other fall upon his fellow subjects, when opportunity will assist him, in conformity with that Doctrine?

Truly I cannot but wonder how any one li­ving under a Prince or state that hath several Kingdoms Provinces or Societies to govern, should dare to publish so pernicious a Doctrine [Page 166]as this I am reprehending. If those of Navar and Arragon, of Sicily and Sardinia, of Brabant and Flanders should renew old quarrels, or stir up new ones, and run to war about them, with­out the consent of their common Prince, how long would the King of Spain be able to keep peace in his Dominions? If his Ministers did take notice of this Doctrine, and the consequen­ces of it, certainly they would have all Books containing it, banished out of their territo­ries.

But all this is sanctified with N. N. by tell­ing us that the war was for Religion: and since the law of God and nature do permit a Man to kill an other that pretends to take away his life; with the same or more reason, he may kill one that means to take away his Religion, which ought to be more precious and dear to him then his life. Good God, whether has the perverse­ness of men arrived, to canonize Murders and the most barbarous cruelties with the sacred name of Religion? This language came not from Heaven. Christ, nor any of his Apostles did ne­ver teach it, the Church instructed by them did not practise it. Lactantius sets before us the maxims and practise of Christians in those times by these noble words, Defendenda Religio est non occidendo sed moriendo, non saevitia sed patientia, non scelere sed fide. Religion is to be defended, not by killing but by dying for it, not by cru­elty but by patience, not by mischief but by Faith. Thus St. Peter and St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles; thus did the brave Theban Le­gion defend their Religion, tho able to defend [Page 167]it with Sword (as is testified by Tertullian) if the Spirit and Doctrine of Christ then steering the Church had permitted it.

A particular person to defend his life, say you, may kill by way of prevention an unjust aggres­sor that pretends to take it from him; to this purpose you quote Divines and Civilians, and from thence) you infer two consequences, the first, that likewise a community or society may war against and destroy another society, from whom it fears the like destruction; the second consequence is, that a private person or a Soci­ety may also by way of prevention set upon and kill another whom he suspects doth intend to take his religion from him. You abuse foully the Doctrine above mentioned of Divines and Civilians by misapplying it; both your conse­quences do not only contain a perverse Do­ctrine against right Divinity and Christian disci­pline, as now declared, but also do trespass a­gainst the rules of Logic. The former because it is not so easie to surprise a whole society largely dispersed, as it is to surprise one particular per­son. Evidences requisit to qualify a prudent fear, such as may justify a preventing onset, may not so easily be found against a society: the threatning words or purpose of one particular or more in a society, giveth not so much assurance of the purpose or intention of the whole society, as the words of a particular may give of his in­tention. Besides the killing of one particular is not so criminal and hainous, nor so much ex­posed to an oppression of innocents, as the kill­ing and destroying of a whole society is: there­fore [Page 168]its no lawful consequence, a particular person may killby way of prevention another that he fear will kill him, ergo, a society or great party may likewise by way of prevention destroy another from whom it fears the like destruction.

Your second consequence above mentioned, that if one to defend his life may kill an other that pretends to take it from him, he may like­wise kill him or them, that intend to take his Religion from him, this consequence also I say, besides the perverse Doctrine it contains, is a faulty piece of Logic: it is not so easy to take his Religion from a man as his corporal life. Your Religion may not be taken from you by a surprise, or when you are a sleep, or against your will, as your corporal life may be. Where­fore the same prevention cannot be necessary or lawful for the preservation of both. Any that hath true Religion in him, due love to God, and a sincere and serious desire of his own happiness, must take the loss of his corporal life for his Re­ligion, to be the greatest gain he can make, it being the greatest security he can have of gain­ing life and glory everlasting for his Soul and body, as our Saviour hath declared. And is it not a desirable exchange to leave a painful short and wretched life, for a glorious blessed and e­verlasting one? Much he hath in him of Earth, and little of Christian Spirit, who would not wish to be dissolved, if he were sure to be after his dissolution with Christ. The only reason that can justifie a fear to dy and part with this mise­rable life, is the uncertainty of what may be our doom in the other, and the hopes of securing a [Page 169]good one by further living: but when a security is given to pass by death to a life everlasting (as Christ gives to such as die for God and his holy Faith) what Christian consideration can justifie a fear to such a death, so far as to kill those that intend to bring us to it?

Truly N. N. I have so much of kindness and true friendship left in me for you, as made me sorry, and not a little troubled to see such per­nicious Doctrines as these, contain'd in your book. I took you for a Man better principled, and if I had perceived any such errors in your conversation at the time of our acquaintance in Spain, I would have refuted them, and shew­ed my dislike to them, as freely as I do now. I am willing to imagine, that non ex tuo haec dicis, that it is not your own deliberate sentiment, but imposed upon you by some of those fiery emis­saries of Rome, who will not stick to go through streams of blood to extend the Popes power, and their own earthly advantages with it, un­der the color of Catholic Faith. But by what is said hitherto, and will be further confirmed in the discourse following, it will easily appear to the unbyassed Reader, that it is no want of true Catholic Faith in the Church of England, nor any true zeal for it in the Roman Court, makes them disturb thus the peace of these Kingdoms, obstinately endeavouring the ruine of them.

And if the Irish be not quite given over to the Spirit of delusion, they will look upon all bloody suggestions of this kind, as proceeding from him that was the first author of rebellion in Heaven, and upon earth, and a Murderer [Page 170]from the beginning a, and they will accordingly re­ject and detest them not only for b conscience (which ought to be the principal motive) but also for wrath, remembring the sad effects of Gods wrath against them in each one of their several rebellions whether for Religion or for any other cause.

CHAP. XXI. A Conclusion of my Discourse with N. N. with a friendly Admonition to him.

SR. if the severe Decree of your Church prohibiting to the common sort the reading of Controversial writings, doth not comprehend you also, I hope you will bestow an attentive reading upon this Book for our old friendships sake, but more for the love of Truth: and if you have not made a firm inflexible resolution of not yielding to any evidences, be they never so clear, that may justify the way I took, or discover the errors of that which you are in, I may expect that by reading this Treatise, you shall find that I am not in that deplorable con­dition by my change which you seem to imagin. That by it I have not forsaken the whole house of God, as you say, but removed to the soundest and safest part of it; that I have not deserted the Society of the holy Fathers of the Church, nor am become an associat of Heretics, having come to a Church where I find as much veneration and study of those Fathers, and as much aver­sion to the Heresies you mention, as ever I saw among you.

And if you read further the second Part now to follow of this same Book, you shall find that I did not forsake the Communion of the Roman [Page 172]Church without grave and urgent reasons for­cing me to it. Those reasons I have laid open in my first Sermon preached at Dublin and printed; great labor and study hath bin emploied in an­swering them: yet if you bring indifference with you to read my reply to that answer, you shall find that my reasons alledged do still remain in their force, and that the errors I refuted are further discovered, and cleared by occasion of the defence made of them. But if you resolve either not to read my Book, or bring to the reading of it a firm purpose of not yielding to any reason that may oppose those sentiments you are prepossest with, then my labor is lost as to you: but I hope not so as to others more rationally disposed. The word of God is a grain of seed, and brings forth its fruit in time diffe­rently according to the different disposition of the subjects it meets with: but especially I hope that my endeavors will avail me with God; in whose presence I write with sincerity what I un­derstand to be conformable to his holy Word & Will, and with a constant desire in all these scrutinies to satisfy my own conscience prin­cipally of the righteousness of the way I took, and to help others also to the knowledg of the same truth.

When St. Paul was brought before King A­grippa, and the Governor of Judaea, Porcius Fe­stus, to give account of himself and his Religion, he gave it so full, that Agrippa said, almost thou perswadest me to be a Christian: To which the great Apostle replied, I would to God that not only thou, but all that hear me were such as I am, except these [Page 173]bonds, Act. XXVI. 29. If you read with indiffe­rency and attention, the account I give of my resolution, and of the Religion I embraced, I am perswaded (whatsoever your outward expres­sion may be) it will work upon your mind a mo­tion like that of Agrippa. And if you ask whe­ther I would have you do what I did in this point, I say freely (as St. Paul did say to Agrip­pa) that I would to God that both you and your brethren did take the like resolution; but that it may be with less difficulty and reluctancy then I had, and with less crosses and dangers for do­ing it.

You tell me I am old; and I have many reasons to believe it by my long continued infirmity of body, but I remember the time, when you cal­led me a young man, and your self an old man: then I being now old, you must be very old; and therefore both of us ought to measure our resolutions and doctrine with the rules of Reli­gion, and the interest of Eternity, rather then with those of earthly policy and temporal Ad­vantages, in which we can have but a little share, and a short enjoyment. How then come you to speak to me of the loss of Friends, and of infamy got by my change? If it hath bin for the best in the presence of God, and I am certainly perswa­ded it was, I have got by it the grace and favor of God, and given joy to his Angels; and this ap­plause is to be preferred before that of the earthly friends you speak of. I am much afraid that the fear of temporal shame and dammages is too strong with you, and many others of your party to keep you from following truth, and [Page 174]from searching after it with due care: I found it to be so in my self (I confess my weakness here­in with sorrow, humbly craving pardon of God for it.) The fear of shame and loss among men, more then any superior consideration, made me struggle along time against the inward callings of God from my former errors, and to use all means possible to silence the cries of conscience; but the more I laboured and studied to allay them, the more force they got; and when I saw clearly by a strict inquiry, that they were indeed from God, I yielded to them, notwithstanding my natural reluctancies, and the heap of shames, crosses, and dangers which I saw in the way, looking upon Jesus the Author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross despising the shame, Heb. XII. 2.

In the life and doctrine of Christ we shall find Lessons of this kind, but never in the dictats of nature. How would you imagine it should be a natural inclination, that a man in his declining Age, should change a state of quiet, honor, and plenty of all things necessary for humane life, in­to another of troubles, crosses, affronts, no cer­tainty of a competent lively-hood, and a certain and continual danger of losing his life. This was my condition at my change of Religion, and I may better declare it to you then to many o­thers. You can remember in what degree of ho­nour, applause and commodity I was where you knew me, plentifully assisted with all things necessary, without any care or trouble in pro­curing them. Of temporal blessings I could de­sire no more. Neither would I at any time, [Page 175]tho I had a choise of fortune given to me.

To this condition I might at that time have returned with some special assurances of good reception, when I came over to the Protestant Church, without any bargain made or promise had of a livelyhood, relying solely upon Di­vine providence, that is never wanting, to such as truly confide in it; and with certain know­ledge that I was to suffer crosses, calumnies, curses, affronts, false testimonies and conspiracies against my life and credit, of all which I found a plen­tiful store as I expected: and you tell me that my change was a work of Nature not of grace, one of your very ill grounded asserti­ons. I pray consult the case with your own natural inclination, and be ingenuous. Do but imagine your self a little while make­ing such a change as I did, and undergo­ing for it the like danger and dammages, (as probably you should, if the case did possibly happen,) certain I am that your nature would represent to you such horrors in the case, that if all the Angels in Heaven did come down furnished with the most divine reasons to per­swade you to it, you would take them all for so many Devills, and their reasons for absolute Madness.

Thus much I can tell you of your own nature: but what grace may work upon you, God the author of it only can tell: and whilst you do not feel this motion upon you so strong as to forsake errors (tho known) upon the hard terms now mentioned, I pray spare your ill grounded severe censures against others, that [Page 176]God moves to undergo those difficulties for the truths sake. Moderate your inconsiderate Zeal, and if you will govern it well, read unpassionately what is written here, and is to follow in this Book, whereby you shall per­ceive how far mistaken you are in many things about your self and others. And whereas you acknowledg your self to be neer the end of this mortal life (as a man of your age must needs be) leave to your Friends and Brethren that Legacy, which your good Saviour Jesus left, and with repeated earnestness commend­ed to his Disciples, saying * Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. Endeavour first to make peace with God by due acknowledg­ment and repentance of your sins and errors, and then endeavour to sow peace in the hearts of your hearers. Make it your business to quench, rather then to blow up the fire of dissentions and animosities: have a real pitty for your poor Country bleeding and groaning under wounds received in barbarous wars and broiles, stirred up by blind fiery Zelots. Pour into those wounds the sweet oil of peace; breed in the people by all the means you may, charity with their Neighbours and Loialty to their Soveraign: thus will they recover those blessings, which the bitter Spirit of hatred, envie, revenge, and ambition hath robbed them off in former times; and thus will you and other inspirers of peace and charity, com­pass that great blessing reserved for peace ma­kers, [Page 177]that they shall be called the Children of Goda. And now the God of peace be with you b whilst I turn my face to a scold, and after to a Sophister, to vindicate truth from the as­saults of both.

CHAP. XXII. A check to I. E. his scandalous Libel, and a vin­dication of the Church of England from his false and slanderous report of it.

ALL that saw I. E. his scolding Libel, agree in saying it deserves no answer: But none will deny it deserves a check. And what check can be so sensible to the Author (if he has any sense in him) as to lay before his eies a piece of his own work? St. Jerom in the beginning of his Book against Jovinian, to render the man ridiculous, produces a parcel of his franne phrases, and cries at them with his wonted sharp eloquence, * Rogo quae surt haec portenta verborum, quod descripti [...]nis dedecus? nonne vel per febrem som­niare eum putes, vel arreptum morbo phrenetico Hippo­cratis vinculis alligandum? Tell me I pray you what monstrous words are those, what shameful contexture of speech? would not you think the man to be dreaming in a fever, or raving in a phrensy fit to be put into the shack­els of Hippocrates? The words of Jovinian re­lated by St. Jerom are indeed ridiculous and absurd; but if we compare them with those of our Libeller, I. E. we shall find this latter to have outdon Jovinian by very great odds. he saies he will vindicate the Roman Church, from [Page 179]the most mysterious and foul aspersions and railings of the ignorant overweaning, and overbiassed sci­olist Sectaries, (not to mention some words there­about worse then ridiculous) he will seasonably controle and give a check to the disingenuity, spite­ful malice, veneme, and brawny-fac'd impudence of that renowned wight, vile Apostate, and professed Enemy to Christ, Andrew Sall, to dash back all his shameless affronts, and thundering balling strains of profound, and wonderful non sense &c. He will not have men to trust the Conduct of such Moun­tebanks, and runnagate vagrant Apostates. If St. Jerome did see this rich piece of Rhetoric, would he not cry out, Rogo quae sunt haec por­tenta verborum, quod descriptionis dedecus? Cer­tainly when the man spoke of shallow Mounte­banks, impostors, and runagate vagrant Apostates, that could bear no fruit, whilst united to the stock, he had his imagination placed upon some of those his running friers, that in their travels of a year or two, will view London, Brussels, Prague, Cracovia, Stockolme, Paris, Maarid, Rome, Flo­rence, Jerusalem, Grand Cair, and more Courts or places of fame if to be found, and will re­turn as wise as they went, but commonly worse, loaden with Fables, and furnished with the most corrupt customes of all the places they ran over. To men of this kind, his description of run­nagate, vagrant, shallow Mountebanks, &c. may seem more sutable then to one who in 26 years for his residency in Spain, never went out of the Province of Castile where he entred first, nor took so much liberty, as to view Madrid, or the famo [...]r Escurial not far from him, when o­thers [Page 180]made long voiages to see them; having spent the aforesaid twenty six years thus, (as is known to many.) Two years, retired to ex­ercise of devotion, seven years in learning Phy­losophy and Divinity, and the 17 remnant in public teaching without intermission; First hu­manity, Poetry, Oratory, History, Cosmogra­phy in the Colledges of Numacia and Villagar­cia; Then Philosophy, Logic, Physic, Meta­physic, &c. in the Colledg of Pamplona; and Divinity, scholastic, Moral, Polemic or Contro­versial in the Colledges of Pamplona, Palencia, Tudela, and Salamanca, joyning with these fun­ctions of continual teaching (which in those parts are exceedingly laborious) the practise of very frequent preaching, together with a constant and eager study of holy scripture, coun­sels, Fathers, and History Ecclesiastic, in which kind of study I had alwaies my chief delight, when duty and employments enjoyned upon me, forced me to the study of those other faculties. And is this to be a vagrant person, that could bear no fruit united to the stock? what fruit would be man have me bear?

But what if we refer him to himself few pa­ges after saying (still excessive) that before I was vir Apostolicus, a most resplendent star in the firmament of the true Church &c. now plunged in all the contrary vices, and cries, * quomodo ob­scuratum est aurum, mutatus est color optimus? how is the Gold become dim, how is the most fine gold changed? Truly I am to return the same question upon him, How came this change, or * [Page 181]how came he to know it? For I feel no other change in me but to the better; to a quiet of con­science, and full satisfaction that I am in the right way of worshipping God. But I find in his own words an answer to all, he saies I was be­fore vir Apostolicus, now Apostata vilis dictus, a vile Apostate, not really, but called so: and by whom? by a party, which I prove by demon­strative reasons (not railing at random as I. E.) that they have apostatized from the true faith and Doctrine of Christ in several points, as evi­denced both in my former discourse printed, and in the second part of this treatise at large: wherefore to be called Apostate by them, is to me the same, as if I were called a Theif or high­way Robber, by one that is such himself, I knowing my self to be an Alien from those pra­ctises; or as if I were called an Infidel by a Turk or Pagan. If I was induced to make a blind vow of blind obedience to the Pope of Rome, and his Ministers, I made a former vow of Religious obedience to God and his holy Laws in my bap­tism: if I find the latter vow made to the Pope not to consist with the complyance of the former made to God, (as I found clearly not to consist) then must I stand to my former vow made to God, and rescind the latter made to the Pope.

If this Libeller were contented to rail at me, his guilt had bin less, but he extends his insolent soul language to the whole Protestant Church, belching out streams against it, I know not which more, of brutish ignorance, or hellish malice, in most notorious calumnies. * You deserted a Church [Page 182](saies he) in which only is Faith, Religion, Priests, Sacrifice, Altars, Sacraments, and real remission not only of originall sin, but also of actual mortal sins, all which is excluded and exploded and quite abo­lished by your Protestant Sect. And all this he ba­bles out boldly without giving one word of rea­son for all or any part of it: but I have proved with clear demonstrative reasons from the be­ginning of this Treatise, that in the Protestant Church we have and do profess the same true Ca­tholic faith and Religion, which Jesus Christ and his Apostles taught, and was professed by the Church first called Catholie: That we have a right Hierarchy, and due ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons; and therefore a due admi­nistration of Sacraments and remission of sins both original by Baptism, and actuall by contri­tion, and also by absolution upon confession, not only allowed, but commended and enjoyned to our people, and practised by many; if neglect­ed by others, its their fault not of our Church; and of the horror some have to this practise, wee may well say your Church to be the cause, by its intolerable tyranny over consciences, as well in the reservation of cases, to be absolved only by Prelates, or by the Pope, as in the difficul­ties daily added touching the mode of Confes­sions, and circumstances to be declared in them, which deters many even from the right use of it, and is thought to be occasion of more loss then gain of souls among you.

He tells me, * that I know in my conscience that the Protestant Sect doth place all happiness, in the [Page 183]pleasures, honours, liberty, and contentments of the body, and obstructs all means and waies to vertue, to Sanctity, Piety, Mortification &c. and doth stifle the fear of a living & dreadful God, and all this like­wise without any proof of it. Was there ever seen a more desperate insolency? false prophet, who dost pretend to dive into the inward of my consci­ence, known only to God and to my self. I will declare to the glory of God, and edification of the Christian people, miserably deluded by such Slaves of fury and lies, what I know in my con­science to be true, That in the Protestant Church I saw more practise of solid vertue, piety, and devotion, and of the fear of God, more apt means used to purchase those vertues (both by the do­ctrine of our Church, and by the ordinances of our state) then ever I saw among the Romanists.

Since my coming to the Protestant Church, my constant habitation has bin in Trinity Colledg of Dublin, where I see more practise of sobriety, devotion, and piety then ever I saw in a Colledg of so many young men on the Romish side. Three times a day they go all to prayers to the chappel at six in the morning, ten at noon, and four in the evening, with admirable reverence and at­tention; their Prayers, most grave and pious for all purposes, and for all sorts of persons, they say kneeling, the Psalmes standing, and the sacred Lectures they hear sitting reverently and bare­headed, with a respect due to the Lessons used by them, sacred indeed as taken out of those bles­sed fountains of Living waters of the old and new Testament, not out of the broaken Cisterns of Romantic Legends, all being read in a voice [Page 184]audible, and language intelligible, and thereby sutable to the edification and instruction of all the people present.

The same order and style I see observed in the Palaces of Princes and Prelates, and in the houses of Gentlemen and godly persons, all the family being called to pray together in the Chappel or other decent room of the house, after the man­ner now declared. When I come to the Royal Castle or palace of Dublin, there I see the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (to whom a judicious French * writer gives the Chief place among all the Viceroyes of Europe) with all his flour­ishing family, and many Nobles attending on his Excellency, break off discourses and business, tho weighty and serious, and answer the found of a Bell calling upon all at set hours to prayers in the Chappel, to which they assist with singular piety and gravity. If I look upon the people flocking to their public Churches on ho­ly daies, the very silence and modesty of their carriage in the streets gives me a Testimony of their inward good disposition: and when they are come to the Church, each one retires to his respective seat, all being decently severed to avoid confusion and disorders. Divine Office is performed in a most grave and decent manner, all fitted to the benefit and spiritual food of souls, so as if any Hymm or Psalm be sung, with more exquisite music, the Chanter or some other of the Quire admonishes the people what Psalm or verse is to be sung, that seeing it in their [Page 185]Books they may be furnished with the sense, that thereby the music may work better on their minds to devotion; so great a care is taken, that in all we pay to God rationabile obsequium a rati­onal service with sense and feeling of what we do.

What if I consider the admirable devotion and reverence wherewith they go to receive the sacred Communion, far greater then ever I saw with Papists, tho pretending to believe some­thing more, (they know not themselves what) about the presence of our Saviour in that Sa­crament, then Protestants do. A spectacle of this kind, certainly grateful to God and to his An­gels, which I saw in Christs Church of Dublin on Resurrection Sunday last year, sticks fast in my memory with joy. The most Reverend the Lord Arch-Bishop of Dublin, Chancellor of Ireland, having performed the Communion of­fice with singular decency and good order, he took himself first reverently the sacred Com­munion and gave it to the Minister of the Altar, then to the Lord Leiutenant, to the Peers and the Roial Council, and to a numerous con­course, all receiving it with singular devotion, having for associates in giving it the most Reve­rend the Arch-Bishop of Armagh Primate of all Ireland, the Right Reverend the Bishop of Meath the chief of the Bishops of Ireland, after the Metropolitans, and three dignitaries of the Church, Doctors in Divinity, to admi­nister the Cup, each one making a Godly brief exhortation to the receiver for a due receiving of it, the Lord Arch-Bishop having read at [Page 186]the Communion Table a grave and pious Ho­mily, exhorting to a right preparation for re­ceiving that venerable Sacrament, as is usually don in all Churches, upon such an occasion.

Go now Mr. I. E. and compare these pra­ctises of piety, and devotion with your number of Ave Marias ran over Beads of stick or glass sitting or walking, and mixing with them se­veral talks to the people about you, with your Mass mumbled over in hast, and the people thronging to have a sight of the Priest; and a touch of the holy water, without understand­ing a word of what is saying. This is your or­dinary course of devotion, and spiritual assistance given to your people (if some particular per­sons will not provide otherwise for themselves) And you speak to me of your deiform intenti­ons of ravishing devotions, &c. I saw much of those devotions among your Extatics, and in them much of delusion, cheat, and vanity, I wish I may never see more of them.

What shall I say of the preaching used in the Protestant Church truly Apostolic and god­ly, all delivering doctrinam sanam & irreprehen­sibilem, sound and blameless doctrine. I may say with truth, that I never saw a Protestant preacher, yet giving a Sermon, that was unde­cent or unbecoming that place: not so with you. There would I see frequently shewers of non­sens madness and blasphemies preached; one to magnify his order will make his Frier a Che­rubin, another to out go him will make his a Se­raphin, and another thinking that but a small purchase will set up his Saint higher then Jesus [Page 187]Christ and the holy Trinity, with other despe­rate essaies, like those I produced above, chap. 26. This lofty style certainly you missed in me when you tell your reader, that tho I was a pro­fessor of Divinity, yet not of any solid intensive learning; a and in all the Doctors of the Pro­testant Church, when you stile them ignorant Sciolists. Good Lord, who knows them and knows you (as any may by your goodly Book) what will he judg of your presumtion?

Finally, will you tell me, what purchase did you expect to make by your defamatory Libel? to get the credit of an eminent Scold? I con­feses you deserve it, and the highest chair ap­pointed for persons of that quality. And as for me you have confirmed me in the esteem of the election I made, and in the acknowledg­ment of the great mercy of God, in drawing me out of a Congregation where the spirit of fury and untruth animating all your Libel is countenanced. If we are to believe you (and shall we?) you had the boldness to present it to a most illustrious person, whom I forbear to name for very reverence, fearing an offence e­ven in mentioning that so durty a piece of Pa­per should be put into such hands. You tell us moreover, that it was published by the appro­bation of your Superiors. If it be so, certainly God has turned the counsel of your Ahitophels into foolishness Let any man that hath not lost his wits judg, whether it be tolerable that men, who profess to be poor and humble, should speak so scornful­ly and contemtuously of so great and illustri­ous [Page 188]a part of Christianity, as we have seen the Protestant Church to be? whether it be prudence in persons complaining that they are persecuted for their Religion, and under the lash of a Protestant Government, to cock and insult upon their masters, with barbarous abusive language, and most gross and manifest calum­nies? Mr. I. E. knows that in two visits he was pleased to bestow on me, after he had honor'd me with his famous Libel, excusing the harsh Language of it, I told him my discontent was not for any injury don to me, but for the pre­judice I conceived such undiscreet writings would bring upon his poor Countrymen and mine of the Romish Communion, of whose wellfare I could not omit to be solicitous, and grieve for the harm they have received often by the means of blind Zelots.

Truly I was much pleased with the know­ledge he seemed to have of my temper very alien from spite or malice, and of the spirit of the Protestant Church, in coming so freely to me after such heavy affronts published by him against both. I do admire and honor the singular patience and Christian modesty of the English Government, in not being to severe as Romanists are (where they can command) in punishing such proceedings, and if Mr. I. E. and his coun­cil were wise, they should rather honour, then abuse this modesty of their Masters.

When I consider the different procedure of the Protestant Church, and of the Romish, with their desertors, I am strongly confirmed in the choise I made. If any person departs from the [Page 189]Protestant Church to the Romish, they neither curse nor rail, nor plot against his life or cre­dit: they onely commiserate his fall, and pray for him, that God may convert him. Herein appears the spirit of Christ, his meekness and charity. But when any comes from the Romish Church to the Protestant, he may be sure to have curses, calumnies, affronts, conspiracies a­gainst his life and repute follow him while he lives. A strong point of policy, apt indeed, to terrify weak minds, that they dare not desert their quarrell; but a policy dictated not by that wisdom that is from above, peaceable, gentle, full of mercy, &c. Jam. 3.17. but from that other called by the same Apostle, earthly sensual, devilish. v. 15. Learned, grave and civil discour­ses about Religion, such as those of Isaac Ca­saubon with Cardinal Peron, and Fronto-Ducaeus, of Peter Wading with Simon Episcopius and the like, I shall alwaies, honor, and willingly en­tertain, but with scoulds I do not love to spend my time. And so I leave you to God Mr. I. E. to direct you, while I enter into Lists with an other pretending to subtilty in reasoning the case with me. Which is to be the second part of this Book.





Being A Survey of Mr. I. S. his Book, En­tituled, The unerring unerreable Church.

CHAP. I. An Anatomy of Mr. I. S. his Genius and drifts, appearing in his dedicatory Epistle to my Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

THE dissections of Anatomy discover imperfections and diseases in the vitals, and other exterior parts of the body, which a fair skin or cunning dress hides from the eies of a common beholder. In like man­ner, a Scholastic examen will lay open the faults and corruptions both in the essential and ornamental parts of a discourse, which upon a tran­sient view appear plausible and commendable. Unto a mind clouded with passion and prejudice, and the favour of an espoused, or the dislikes of an adverse party, the writing of Mr. I. S. [Page 2]may appear without blemish or fault; but an incision being made, the flesh and the skin be­ing cut off, it will be found void of truth in the proposal, of force and form in the argumentati­on, sincerity in the design, and lastly modesty and ingenuity in the style and terms, which are the several requisites that can make a writing in a­ny degree worth the reading.

This kind of Anatomy I will now take in hand, and by no other art then plain incision, shall with truth and perspicuity discover the fallacies and gross errors of the before mentioned Author, who delivers boldly his judgment upon what he do's not understand; or if he were not really ignorant, yet delivers unsincerely, and misrepresents those things of which he treats: all which I shall demonstrate in the following Chapters.

After several attacks made by I. E. N. N. and others upon my small Book, upon my self, and the Church of England, comes up confident­ly to complete the victory Mr. I. S. as Scipio Africanus to the Seige of Numantia, to amend the errors of the preceding warriors. And to appear a Scipio indeed in his present adventure, he promises himself so to beset and straighten us, as to make us burn our selves, as the Nu­mantines did, to prevent their falling into the hands of the Roman Conqueror.

To compass this magnificent design, he pro­poseth to the Earl of Essex Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, my good Lord and Patron, in the dedicatory Epistle of his book to his Excellency, that I should be burned for a crime he calls a [Page 3]Blasphemy, wherein all the learned men of the Church of England are involved with me, viz. to say, that the Roman Church, as now it stands, is not a secure way to Salvation. And the executioner of this severe sentence passed upon us by Mr. I. S. must not be the Inquisi­tor of Rome or Spain, but our own Kings Prime Minister and Lieutenant in the Kingdom of Ireland.

He allow's me so much wit, as to know that I could not justifie my separation from the Church of Rome, if I did hope to be saved in it, whereas believing I may, to forsake it, were a formal schism: thus much of wit he doth ve­ry injuriously deny to all other learned Prote­stants, saying, that all allow the Roman Church to be a secure way to Salvation, which is to say, they are all confessedly Schismatics.

The inference is but too clear from his Posi­tions, confusedly delivered, if thus ordered, All men that separate from the Roman Church, knowing and allowing it to be a safe way to Salvation, are formally and confessedly Schis­matics; all Learned men of the Church of Eng­land do acknowledg and allow the Church of Rome to be a safe way to Salvation: Therefore all of them are confessedly and formally Schis­matics. This Thesis Mr. I. S. presents to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to win his favor.

To clear the ground of all this discourse, and see how bold and blind was the attemt of Mr. I. S. his charging me with Blasphemy, see the occasion given to him for it, that in the page 226 of my book (according to the first Edi­tion [Page 4]of it at Dublin) rebuking their ordinary vaunt wherewith they delude the simple, say­ing that Protestants do allow Papists may be saved, but Papists do not allow that Protestants may be saved, &c. I delivered these words following, but in neither do they say truth, for no Learned Protestant do's allow the Popish Re­ligion in general and absolutely speaking to be a se­cure way to Salvation, for all do agree in affirm­ing that many of their Tenets and practises are inconsistent with Salvation, tho ignorance may hap­p [...]ly excuse many of the simple sort, but not such as know their error, or with due care and inquiry may know it. On the other side, &c.

This has netled the poor man to rage. Happi­ly he found himself to be of those who know, or with due enquiry may know the damnable errors of the Roman Church. Now I desire the judicious Reader to consider, with what pro­priety of terms Mr. I. S. calls it a Blasphe­my in me, to relate this sentiment of Learn­ed Protestants. Tho I were mistaken, to call such a mistake Blasphemy, is extravagant language.

Three kinds of Blasphemy I find mention­ed by Aquinas and other Schole-men,

1. To appropriate to God something unbe­seeming,

2. To deprive him of a perfection due to him,

3. To attribute to a creature any of Gods properties. To which of these classes will Mr. I. S. reduce my mistake, if it be not so what I relate of learned Protestants? That one of those who sit in the Market-places selling roots, should call it a Blasphemy in another of her trade, [Page 5]to say, that her Turnips came out of Flanders, not being so, may be a cause of laughing; but that one pretending to learning, and a disputant in divinity should ramble at this rate, I confess plainly it seems to me intolerable, and a sad task to dispute with a person of so irregular a style.

But if what I related of learned Protestants be so indeed, which way comes it to be a Blas­phemy to tell truth? Now to know whether it be so, let any that ever heard learned Pro­testants deliver their opinion upon that sub­ject, or did read their writings, tell whether he knew any of them say, that the Popish Reli­gion in general, and absolutely speaking, is a sure way to Salvation, or whether they could say it in consequence to their assertions, ever accusing the Church of Rome of Idolatry, su­perstition, impiety, &c. crimes certainly in­consistent with Salvation, if Ignorance did not excuse, or penitence heal the malady. The Testimony of Learned Chillingworth, well versed in the Doctrine of both parties, may serve for many to this purpose, who relating, that Fran­ciscus à sancta Clara, and the Jesuit his An­tagonist, among other Learned Romanists, do assure that ignorance and repentance may excuse a Protestant from Damnation he dying in his error; adds these words, and this is all the charity which by your own confession also the most favorable Protestants allow to Papists. Here we have witnesses of both sides affirming, that Protestants do not allow Salvation to Papists, [Page 6]if ignorance or repentance will not protect them: how then comes it to be so great a Para­dox in me to tell they say so; a greater Para­dox certainly to say it should be blasphemy to tell it.

CHAP. II. A Vindication of several Saints and worthy souls, our Ancestors, from the sentence of Damnation passed upon them by I. S.

TO render me odious to my Lord Lieu­tenant, to my own kindred, and to all good men, he pretends that I adjudg unto Hell his Excellencies Ancestors, my own Ancestors, St. Bernard, Aquinas, and other ho­ly men. The ground he alledges for fathering this severe sentence upon me, is, that I should say, that in the Popish religion none may be saved, and which is more intolerable, that there is no Salvation in the Catholic Church. All men that know my Principles and Temper in writing and speaking, will admire the impudence of this man, imputing to me such desperate rude Positions; That none may be saved in the Romish, or Popish Religion, I never said with that generality, but with a limitation, leaving a gate to Salvation for innumerable good souls, and for the holy and renowned men he menti­ons, as I shall now declare.

To declare for damned all the adverse parties [Page 7]of Christians without distinction, is a rashness I ever abhorred, and constantly opposed in the Romanists, when I was on their side, and which I would not imitate against my present adver­saries; much less did I, or could I say, that there is no Salvation in the Catholic Church, out of which I expect no Salvation for my self or others.

I have said indeed, and proved with rea­sons which I. S. will never solve, that the Ro­man Church, according to the present profes­sion and practice of it, is not a safe way to Sal­vation, generally and absolutely speaking; that many of the Tenets and Practises of it, are in­consistent with Salvation, in such, as understand­ing the error of them, do continue to embrace them. This I have said, and will maintain at all times, by the help of God, and truth; but how different this is from saying, that in the Roman Church a man may not be saved, and that there is no Salvation in the Catholic Church, any man of common sense may easily conceive; and withall judg, how unpleasing a work it is, to spend precious time in debating with a man of so confused brains and ill digested expressions. Now therefore, the foundation laied for the censure of Damnation passed against those Saints and renowned men not being from me, but from the fancy or fiction of I. S. it remains that he is the Author of that malignant Censure: my work will be to vindicate the persons inju­red from that cruell sentence, by shewing that it is not a consequence of my opinion above men­tioned, own'd and confirm'd by many thousands of Learned and pious men.

[Page 8] The stress of his Argument, and where he hopes to be more successfull is, what concerns Thomas of Aquin. He sayes, that the Sanctuary of ignorance which we allow to others for es­caping Damnation can not avail him, being well versed in Scripture, and an eminent Ma­ster in most Sciences; and so he conceives his Damnation unavoidable in consequence to my forementioned position, and the common sense of all the reformed Churches; and thence pro­ceeds to sound a Triumph as to a manifest victo­ry. But if Mr. I. S. his Logic makes a De­monstration to him of this consequence, it do's not to me, nor will to any ordinary Logician, that understands the terms and state of the Que­stion. If he do's not know how to save Aqui­nas, and several other good learned men of the Roman Church, from damnation, in the opinion of so many thousands of Learn [...]d men of the Reformed Churches, I can and will teach him. I am not of those fiery spirits, reproved by the Royal piety of King James, who affirm, that in the Popish Religion none can be saved, as Mr. I. S. do's falsely and maliciously to his own knowledg impose upon me. I incline with my study and wishes, and more willingly de­liver my opinion for the Salvation then for the Damnation of men, when by the least proba­bility induced thereunto.

And first for Aquinas and other learned men of his time, I thus plead; The errors and foul practices of the Roman Church were not so many then, as now: they increase daily. They have not bin so known, and cleared in the [Page 9]Crucible of public opposition; none dared to check them; and so they kept credit. The im­postures, fallacies and absurdities of Mr. I. S. his book, will not be so well known to his pro­selytes possessed with prejudices, and to others that see it alone, as to indifferent persons, that will conferr it with my exceptions against it; so it is with those erroneous tenets that began to be in use in Aquinas his time, or somewhat before, and were not opposed.

Secondly, for many learned men even of our own time, which seems more difficult, I say in­vincible ignorance may be pleaded. For which I advertise, that invincible Ignorance (according to the common use of Scholes and our pre­sent purpose) is not that which by no means absolutely possible may be avoided, but such as one may not remedy by means obvious to him according to his state and condition In this sense Shepherds and the like in Spain and [...]taly, that want instruction for knowing the Creed or Ten Commandments, are commonly excused upon the account of invincible Ignorance, and the fault laid upon their fathers, masters, or curates. In like manner I say many professors of philoso­phy and divinity in Spain and Italy, may be in­vincibly ignorant of the malice contained in the erroneous Principles they profess, having sucked them in their tender years, as divine veri­ties proceeding from a living reputed Infallible Autority. They never heard them controuled or examined, no books written against them were permitted to come in their sight. They were taught, it was a sin to doubt of the truth of their [Page 10]tenets; ergo those men wanted the ordinary means of instruction, and consequently may have the refuge of invincible Ignorance.

All this I know to be so by my own experi­ence. Having lived in Spain many years, and ha­ving had, for several of them, licence from the Inquisitor general to read all manner of prohi­bited books, the prohibition was so severe, that I could never find one book of a Protestant to read. And even in Ireland, where more liberty may be expected, there is a severe pro­hibition of reading books opposing the Romish te­nets; which appeared particularly touching that small book I published. For offering it to be read by a Romish priest, Vicar General of a fa­mous Church in that kingdom, that he might see I did not without consideration and reason what I did, he desired to be excused from reading it, fearing it would raise in him doubts which he could not solve: and this injunction being so severe upon persons of that degree, must be more indispensable upon the vulgar.

Means of instruction for knowing their er­rors being thus carefully prohibited to them of the Romish Communion in all times and places, we may favorably conceive, that many of them both learned and unlearned may have the excuse of invincible Ignorance, the sin ly­ing upon the Statists, that for temporal ends do debar them from the means of healthful knowledg.

One touch more in favour of the learned. Ve­ry many of them having bestowed the flower of their age in studies of Humanity, Philosophy, [Page 11]and Divinity speculative, are taken up, and of­ten kept all their life time teaching those facul­ties, without ever reflecting upon, or having means to know the errors of their Church in the points controverted. They take them up­on the credit of their instructors, for infallible verities, being continually beaten into their ears, with horror and execration against the opposite doctrine. And how great the power of educa­tion and prejudice is, let the Dominicans and Jesuits testifie. How fierce and eagerly doth each one act and opine for the Schole he was edu­cated in, and against the opposite?

By this it appears how vain the Triumph of I. S. is, as if in my opinion all learned men dy­ing in the communion of the Church of Rome were damned to hell. We have seen that impi­ous sentence to be a product of his fancy, no consequence of any doctrine of mine. More rash and wicked was his attemt in casting the like sentence of Damnation upon those glorious Saints and great Doctors of the Church, St. Au­gustin, St. Jerome, St Chrysostom. What have they to do with his errors, to be damned for them? Strong opposers, no Patrons of them were they; as partly I have already, and after will more fully declare.

It appears likewise by this discourse, how ri­diculous his charge upon me is, of contradiction and speaking against my conscience in calling Thomas Aquinas a Saint. I have declared how that doth consist with, and contradicteth not what I have delivered, touching the unsecuri­ty of Salvation in the Communion of the Roman [Page 12]Church. He pretends to render me guilty in the Tribunal of the English Inquisition for call­ing Aquinas a Saint; but the inquisition of Eng­land is not so rude as that of Rome in denying common civility to men, and the honorary Ti­tles custom do's allow them. He may as well accuse the compilers of the London Gazets for giving to the Pope the title of Holiness, and will have as much thanks for it, as for his present im­peachment of me for calling Aquinas a Saint. We do not take it for a certain proof of holiness to be canonized in the Church of Rome. Ma­ny of their own more learned writers deny it to be unerreable therein. It is not merit only gets that honor there. And tho we know all this to be so, we do not grudg to call those Saints we find by custom to be called so.

And by all that is said hitherto, we may see and wonder how rare the boldness of this man is, to term it Blasphemy in me to relate the common opinion of all learned Protestants, or to consent to it; and to propose to have us all burned for it, by sentence of our own chief Go­vernor: to pretend for this wicked attemt, the Authority of our Soveraign King James of glorious memory, whose Decrees and senti­ments herein I do most willingly obey, and con­sent unto: to impose upon me an opinion I never uttered by word, or writing, nor ever harbor­ed in my thought, that there is no Salvation in the Catholic Church; that her errors are inconsi­stent with Salvation; to clip my words, and force them against my will and well declared meaning to his malicious purposes.

[Page 13] And notwithstanding these enormous exces­ses and absurdities of his speech, his presum­tion is so blind, that he concludes his Dedica­tory Epistle, saying, that tho his Treatise con­tained nothing else but this check he gives to me, it must be grateful to his Excellency. If this address were made to a weak or dull per­son, it were yet criminal enough; but present­ed to so deep a judgment and well known wis­dom as that of my Lord Lieutenant, pardon me sacred laws of modesty, if I say its a very in­solent boldness. But now to our chief case in Debate.

CHAP. III. Mr. S. his cold defence of the Infallibility of his Church examined.

BOTH in my Declaration and in my print­ed Sermon or discourse against the errors of the Roman Church, I signified, that the only anchor left to keep me in the communion of it, after a strong apprehension of its erroneous Te­nets, was the opinion of Infallibility granted to that Church, and the Head of it; But that an­chor being cut off, and a clear discovery made of the fallacy of their pretended Infallibility, I set open my eyes and heart to receive the light which God sent me in his holy Writ, to dis­cover their pernicious errors, and declare for his truth against them.

My adversary, preceiving this to be the hinge all the Fabric go's on, and that if I were perswaded to that Infallibility, I would blind my eyes and follow, without any further dispute, the conduct of such a Guide, goes about to set up the said Infallibility with all his power, and so entitles his book, The unerring unerreable Church. But his way to compass his design is very odd, which is, yielding to my first and main attack upon it, that is the uncertainty of such an Infallibility to assist them, which I prove­ed by the disconformity of their Authors in as­serting [Page 15]it, and the weakness of the grounds they produce for it. But Mr. I. S. in the page 167. gives me leave to believe what I please therein; Its no article of faith, saith he, that the Pope is in­fallible. If he misliked that doctrine, he might have denyed it, and remain a Catholic. A Catholic I may remain, and do, but not of their com­munion, that Prop failing for those structures, which I saw clearly to be ruinous without it.

It is an intolerable cavil to say I should speak of the Pope alone, or of the Roman Diocess, to delude the Reader with impertinent Digressions, as often he doth, I having clearly expressed my meaning to be, that neither the Pope alone, nor in a Council (such as that of Trent,) nor the Congregation under his obedience are infallible. To say the said Congregation should be the Church Universal, (which I allow according to St. Pauls Expression, to be the pillar and ground of truth) is an arrogant begging of a conclu­sion which will never be allow'd to them, all Christian Churches that differ from them, which are far the greater part of Christendom, crying against their blind presumtion in appropriate­ing unto themselves the name of the Catholic Church.

That the Church truly Universal, composed of all believers in Christ, whether diffusive, or representative in a Council truly Oe­cumenicall and free, such as were the first four General Councils, (and such as was not the Councill of Trent) is to have the assistance of the holy Ghost, so that tho it be not properly infallible, yet it shall not err in things funda­mental [Page 16]to mens Salvation, I do piously believe, and of my meaning therein I gave him no oc­casion to doubt.

Therefore if he will speak to the purpose, granting it is not an Article of faith, that the Pope is infallible in the sense I denyed infallibi­lity to him, that is to say, in a Council of those depending upon him, or out of it, it follow's they have no certainty for their Tenets relying upon the Popes Infallibility; which being no article of faith, cannot be certain in it self, nor consequently give certainty to things de­pending upon it. He only allow's Infallibility to the Pope jointly with a general Council. Here­in he gratifies the Jansenists, who may by this plead for indemnity, notwithstanding the defi­nitions of Innocent the Tenth and Alexander the Seventh against them; which being not confirm­ed or autorized by a general Council in con­junction with the Pope, cannot pretend to In­fallibility in Mr. I. S. his opinion, who hereby must incense against himself all the party adverse to the Jansenists, which will prove too hard for him.

But he saies all Catholics do agree in the In­fallibility of the Pope and a generall Council. Therefore Aquinas, Turrecremata and Alphonsus à Castro are in his opinion no Catholics, of whom * Canus relates, that the Church, even Pope and Council together, may err materially in their [Page 17]opinion, as I mentioned in the 30. page of my discourse, which if he did consider and examine, he would not so peremtorily assert, that all Catholics do agree in the Infallibility of Pope and Councel jointly.

Neither indeed do's Mr. S. himself s [...]em to be very strong in the belief of this Infallibility, for in the comfort he gives his brethren on this account, extolling magnificently their happi­ness herein above Protestants, he so orders the matter, that their comfort must not be ground­ed upon the real existence of that Infallibility; but upon a strong apprehension or belief of it, tho not extant. It is a comfort, saies he, to an unacquainted Traveller, to be guided by one whom he firmly believes to be acquainted with the way, tho really your guide were not acquainted with the way; if you c [...]tainly believe that he is, and cannot stray &c. This is such another comfort as the grand Turk gives to his men, that dying in his quarrel they go immediately to Paradise; tho it be not so, its a comfort to think it is. A sad comfort for the unhappy souls lost, but commodious for the Turk, to get by these means people to sight desperately and dye for him.

Thus it is with the Church, or Court of Rome. To believe they are infallible is a satisfaction to the people, and very important for the aut [...]ri­ty and grandeur of that Court; whether it be so indeed, is not material. The understanding of this mystery we are to owe to Mr. S. his in­genuity. Poor man, he has not been well ac­quainted with the intrigues of that Court: they do not love to have arcana imperii, the [Page 18]mysteries of their government discovered. He will certainly fall short of his expected remuneration for his writing; and if a Cap be deputed to him for it, sure I am it will not be that of a Cardinal.

CHAP. IV. That Protestants have a greater security for the truth of their doctrine then Papists have. Mr. I. S. his ridiculous exposition and impious contra­dicting of St. Pauls Text, in favor of Scrip­ture, rebuked.

OUR Adversary triumphs upon the a­foresaid comfort of Papists, in apprehend­ing their Guide to be Infallible, tho he be not so indeed; which comfort he saies the Prote­stants cannot have, being guided by a Church, which they believe is not so well assured of the way but they may err. God forbid Protestants should not have a better warrant for the truth of their Doctrine, then that he gives to Papists. They have the infallible word of God, deli­vering all their doctrine, and clearly containing all that is necessary to Salvation, and a per­fect life, as appears evidently by what I deliver­ed in the discourse which Mr. I. S. go's a­bout to oppose, and will be further evidenced, by shewing how vain and weak the opposition is. They have besides, in the general tradition of the Church, a full and sufficient certainty that the books, commonly received for Canonical, are the true word of God, and therefore are certain of Gods infallible autority, assisting in favor of [Page 20]the verities contained in those books: which kind of certainty tho only morall, touching the existence of Gods revelation in favor of those verities, joined with an absolute and undoubt­ed Certainty, that whatsoever God reveals is infallible verity, makes up all the certainty that a pious and prudent believer ought to ex­pect in matters of divine faith.

Mr. I. S. talks of a kind of certainty re­quisite for Divine faith, which I doubt mu [...]h, whether he, or any of his party, ever had for all those articles they pretend to be of faith. He tells us (and takes it upon credit of his in­structors, without much examination, as often he does in other matters) that for all acts of belief touching revealed truths, an absolute certainty is requisite, clearing the believer from all manner of doubt. If you speak of an ob­jective certainty, relating to the mystery reveal­ed, all true believers have it, being fully assu­red, that God cannot reveal an untruth: but if you speak of a subjective certainty, exclu­ding all manner of doubts as well touching the truth of Divine revelation if extant, as of the ex­istence of it, I do vehemently suspect, that both you and your instructors do speak against your sense and experience, especially touching points controverted, and not explicitly con­tained in Scripture; such as is Transubstanti­ation for example, that mystery which Scotus, Ockam, Cajetan, and others of your ablest Schole men could never find in scripture, nor agreeable to the rules of common reason. I ap­peal to your breast for judging, whether you [Page 21]have touching this point that degree of cer­tainty excluding all manner of doubt, which you pretend to be necessary for all acts of be­lief touching revealed truths.

Mr. I. S. must not expect from me, that I should take notice off, and pursue all the im­pertinencies he runs upon in his book; my intention being only to clear the truth in our main concern, and therefore to follow him as far as I find him speak pertinently to the points I proposed, for discovering their grosser errors, which forced me to a separation from their com­munion.

In the first Chapter of his book, he enlarg­eth upon points we allow, and know upon firmer grounds then his proofs for them, That God is to be adored; That he has revealed himself what manner of worship he requires; That this worship is true religion; That the same is but one; That God hath afforded suf­ficient means to know which is the true saving Religion; That divine faith must be grounded upon an infallible autority, fully assuring us of the truth of its proposals. The controversy is, what authority this is, whether of the Scripture as we believe, or of the Pope and Council, as he pretends.

For a visible Judge to ascertain us of Divine verities, I once argued, that it became Divine wisdom and goodness, to provide us such to de­termine our controversies, which otherwise would be endless. It was replied, that we ought to be wary in censuring Gods wisdom, if this or that seeming to us convenient, were not don [Page 22]in the government of the world. I acknowledg­ed force in the reply, and did further it with an instance, that we may as well say, that it belongeth to the power and goodness of God, not to permit his holy Laws to be transgressed by vile creatures: and as we do not judg it a failure in his goodness to permit sins, so ought we not to waver in the opinion of his good­ness, if he has not appointed us a visible Judg for our direction, having given us the Holy Scriptures, which abound with all light and heavenly doctrine to such as are not willfuly ob­stinate.

Mr. I. S. not accustomed to approve any thing in his opponents, calls this my acknow­ledgment weakness, and to my instance, saies, it becomes the goodness of God to permit sins, and the scandals of Popes, for the exercise of their liberty. But if this stout disputant were as provident as he is confident in running upon engagements, he might hate fores [...]en a ready reply to his objection, that liberty is no less necessary to heresie, then to other sins, being an essential requisite to all moral actions good or bad. Neither is the permission of heresie less conve [...]ien [...], whether for the exercise of liberty, or for other reasons, which made the Apostle say, that there must be here sies among men, 1 Cor. 11.2 [...]. neither doth his pretended infallibility of his Church h [...]nder heresies, and endless contro­versies among them.

But where I prove, that the word of God is a­ble to furnish us with all necessary instruction, out of St Paul, 2 Tim. 3. saying, that holy Scrip­tures [Page 23]are able to make us wise unto Salvation, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works; this is the gloss of our Anta­gonist; But I infer the contrary: whereas Scrip­tures, tho replenished they be with heavenly light, are not sufficient to [...]eclare unto us what we ought to believe, we might waver in our opinion of Gods good [...]ess, if he did not appoint an infallible living Judg to instruct us. Is this to interpret St. Paul, or clearly to oppose and contradict him? St. Paul sayes, that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation, and I. S. saies, that they are not sufficient to declare unto us what we ought to believe; which is clearly to say, that they are not able to make us wise unto Salva­tion: for certainly without due belief we can not be saved. This interpretation is like to a­nother attributed by a Fryar to Lyra, being convinced, that the proposition he denyed was in Scripture, he replied it was true, the Text said so, but Nicolas de Lyra said the contrary. So tis in our case. St. Paul saies that the Scripture is able to make us wise unto Salvation; but Mr. I. S. saies the contrary: which of them ought we to beleive?

I should expect from the subtilty of our Sophister to tax me with giving my conclusi­on for reason of it self: such is the identity in sense of my assertion with S. Pauls Text al­ledged for proof of it. That Holy Scripture is sufficient to instruct us for Salvation and a good life, is what S. Paul saies, and what I say, no more nor less; but it is for slow wits to fetch out of a Text only what is contained in [Page 24]it: Sublime understandings must find in it more then the Author did mean, nay, the con­trary of his words and meaning. It is not for them to submit to that rule of Canonists, that it is not a right way of interpreting a Text to mend it. Mr. S. mends the Text of S. Paul asserting the contrary of it, and from the con­trary assertion by him substituted, he inferrs a contrary consequence to that I inferred from S. Pauls assertion. I inferr thus, Whereas Scrip­ture is sufficient to our full instruction, we ought not to waver in our opinion of Gods good­ness, if he did not appoint an infallible living Judg to direct us. But Mr. S. thinking that a small d [...]scovery, thus resolves; But I infer the contrary, Whereas Scriptures, tho replenisht with heavenly light, are not sufficient to declare un­to us what we ought to believe, we might waver in our Opinion of Gods Goodness, if he did not ap­point an infallible living Judg for to instruct us. I leave the judicious Reader to reflect upon the stock of insolencies heaped up in these lines, to give the he flatly to S. Paul, and pronounce a sentence against the goodness of God, if he did not what Mr. I. S. thinks sit to be don.

But see how our admirable Doctor teacheth S. Paul to mend his error, that where he said Scripture is able to make us wise to Salvation, he did not say it of Scripture alone, but in con­junction with those Auxiliaries, Mr. I. S. is pleased to appoint. As if one to magnifie his strength, did say he could carry two hundred weight, and being on a trial found unable to do it, to verifie his saying, should alledg, that [Page 25]that he did not mean he could carry so much a­lone, but he and a Horse with him. Such quib­bles as these are more becoming Mr. S. then S. Paul; and so he may keep them for himself, and not father them upon the great Apostle.

Further he proceeds to oppose St Paul, say­ing, that when he wrot that Epistle to Timo­thy, the whole Canon of Scripture was not completed; and only the whole Canon, and no part of it, can be sufficient means for our instruction: therefore the Scripture that S. Paul spoke of, cannot be a sufficient means for instructing us to Salvation. Herein our Sophi­ster is twice impious, first, in taxing the great Apostles assertion with untruth: next, that the Oracle of God, delivered to men in each time for their instruction to Salvation, should not be complete and sufficient.

By this it appears well how much a stranger this man is to the common Doctrine of Divines, who affirm, that in the Apostles Creed are con­tained all necessary verities to be believed for Salvation; and in the Ten Comman [...]ments, all duties to be performed of necessity to the same end. And may not the Creed, and Ten Commandments be known without a knowledg of the whole Canon of Scripture? His bold­ness is prodigious, in asserting extravagances, without exhibiting any proof but his bare ipse dixit, Pythagoras-wise.

Finding me say I was not fit for P [...]thagoras his Schole, where ipse dixit was the rule, and men will not give reason for what they teach; he opposes, that if I am to expect reason for [Page 26]what I believe, I am not fit for Christs Schole, nor learning from Scripture, which affords no­thing but a bare ipse dixit. But if the Man had any ingenuity in him, he would spare this Objection, seeing it prevented in the 18. page of my discourse; where I acknowledg with thanksgiving to God, that I never doubt­ed of the Truth of Holy Scriptures, nor of the Creed proposed to us by the Catholic A­postolic Church, and dictated by God Almigh­ty, worthy to be believed without examen; not so Pythagoras, nor the Pope.

CHAP. V. Mr. S. his prolixe excursion about the Popes Authority requisite to know which is the true Scrip­ture, declared to be Impertinent; and the state of the Question cleared from the confusion he puts upon it.

OUR Adversary finding the Popes Infalli­bility to be an expression odious and ri­di [...]ulous to all knowing men, and whereof even the sober part of * Romanists grow ashamed, en­deavours to serve us up the same Dish under another dress, calling it the Autority of the Church Universal. And if therein he did speak properly, or sincerely, he would have less op­position from us. But if you do enquire what he means by Church Universal, he tells you it is the Congregation Subject to the Pope of Rome, excluding all other men, and particularly the Church of England from being any part of that his Universal Church. The said Con­gregation subject to the Pope, whether diffu­sive or representative in a general Council de­pending upon the Pope, and confirmed by him; he pretends to be Infallible. And whatever I alledge against the Infallibility of the Roman [Page 28]Church, he thinks to elude by pretending I speak of the particular Diocese of Rome; a gross misunderstanding, or willful misrepre­sentation of my meaning, for which I never gave any ground in my writing or discourses. He is to know I speak in proper terms, as used among Learned men speaking upon this Sub­ject, taking the Roman Church for the par­ty following the Popes faction wheresoever extant, whether congregated or dispersed, pres­cinding from his Altercations with the rest, or any they have among themselves; for both he and the rest agreeing in making that Infallibi­lity depending ultimately upon the Popes Au­tority, we may well represent their assertion, as opposite to the sentiment of all other Chri­stians under the notion of the Popes infalli­bility. *

The terms and state of the Question being thus cleared, it follows to declare how imper­tinent his prolixe excursion and vain osten­tation is, in telling us the diversity of Opinions that were in different times about Canonical Scripture, and the difficulty of ascertaining us which is the true one. This is an old device of those of his faction, to decline the main controversy in hand, wherein they still betray the weakness of their Cause. They and he should remember, the points controverted are among parties that agree in reverencing the Bible for [Page 29]the infallible Word of God. And if he thinks the part of it received for Canonical, by common consent, will not suffice for ending our Contro­versies, we admit willingly St. Augustins rule for clearing the difficulties touching particular Books, the Authority of the Church, and the Tradition of it, as described by Lirinensis, Quod semper, quod ubique, quod apud omnes. What was in all time, in all places, and by all Christians delivered, that we take for a true Apostolic Tradition, and to it we resolve to stand or fall, as well for discerning Canonical Scripture, as for understanding the true meaning of it.

If Mr. S. did take Church and Tradi [...]ion in the sense that the Holy Fathers did, and the Learned Men of the Church of England do, he would find in us all due reverence to those sacred Fountains of Christian verities. But to call Church Uni­versal the faction adhering to the Pope of Rome, in opposition to the rest of Christians, is a presumtion like that of the Turk, in calling him­self King of Kings, and Emperor of all the World; such as are Vassals to him may revere that calling; others do laugh at it. But we do not find the Turk to have pla [...]'d the sool so far, as to take that his assumed title as granted by o­ther Princes independing upon him, or to alledg it for ground of his pretentions with them. This is Mr. S. his folly, in taking for granted in his de­bates with us, that the Romish faction is the Ca­tholic Universal Church. So great an Intru­der upon disputes, should learn that rule of Dis­putants, Quod gratis dicitur gratis negatur, what is barely said without proof, is sufficiently refuted with a bare denial.

[Page 30] This alone, well considered, will suffice to over­throw man Chapters of Mr. S. his Book. What makes him spend time in telling us of the diffi­culty of finding out which is true Scripture, the rule truly infallible of our belief, when he sees us thus ascertain'd of it? why do's he trouble us with speaking of a Criterion or beam of light pretended by Fanatics, confessing at the same time that to be exploded by Protestants? is it to make his Book swell?

But finding he cannot hide Scripture from us, he will have us to be beholden to the Pope for the true meaning of it: he musters up a store of Arguments objected by Pagans, Arians and Sa­bellians against the Mystery of the Trinity: and would have us leave the points present for an­swering them; let him go to the Fathers that propose the Arguments, they will deliver the an­wier. The Councils truly Oecumenical of the Prmitive Church, and universal Tradition do se­cure us of the right meaning of Scripture, touch­ing those points. Where comes here a need of the Pope and his faction to ascertain us?

He finds a special mystery in the point of Pur­gatory, that either we for diminishing, or they for adding to the Words of God, are in a dam­nable error, deserving to be blotted out of the Book of life, Apoc. xx. 9. The danger is clearly on their side, no mention of Purgatory being in he written Word of God, as shall after appear.

In the fourth Chapter he is very prolixe in tel­ling us the Church is a Body, and must have ac­cordingly a Head and Members subject to it. We allow all, provided Christ be the Head, and [Page 31]all others, both Pastors and flock, Members subject to him, as it was in the Apostles times; each one of them preached Christ, none himself for Head. There is no memory of any pretence in St. Peter over St. Andrew in Achaia, or over St. Thomas in the Indies, or over any other of the A­postles in their respective Provinces, no depen­dance of them upon him.

What he adds of Obedience due from the Flock to the Pastors is right, speaking of each Flock in regard of their ordinary lawful Pastors: right also, that in difficulties emergent of greater moment, a National Synod should be congrega­ted; as that he mentions in the United Provinces in Dordrecht. Right, likewise what the Synod of Delpht resolved, that, tho the former Synod was fallible, there was no obligation of conscience in obeying the decrees of it, as there is in all Sub­jects to obey the orders of a lawful Superior, re­ceived for such. And the Arminians having sub­mitted to that Synod, and acknowledged it to be lawfully congregated, may well be declared obliged to submit to the Decrees of it, so far as not to disturb the public peace by illegal oppo­sitions? But all this comes very short of Mr. S. his purpose, since the Reformed Churches never submitted to the Council of Trent, nor did acknowledg it for a lawful free Oecumenical Council; and how could they think it to be such, when the party accused, the Pope and his Court, was to be the judg and supreme Arbiter of the cause? His resistance to a true lawful free Coun­cil, is the cause of all the combustion and confu­sion we have in Christendom.

[Page 32] He takes for an advantage against Scripture, that I said, the reading of it made me doubt of the truth of those Articles the Roman Church press'd upon my belief, as if it were not able to ascertain me: But I thank God and the light of his holy Word, which made me doubt of what your Party would have me swallow without doubt or examen, and from the doubt brought me to a certainty of your corruptions, and of the truth of the Primitive truly Catholic, and of Apo­stolical Faith professed in the Church of England: such a certainty, as renders my mind quiet and satisfied, that I have the guidance of Gods Word for the belief proposed to me, and conse­quently a sufficient and full assurance of the truth of it.

CHAP. VI. Mr. I. S. his defence of the Popes pretended Infal­libility, from the censure of Blasphemy, declared to be weak and impertinent. His particular opi­nion censured for heretical by his own party.

LOW goes the cause with our Adversary, when he pretends to a milder sentence against their error, in attributing Infallibility to the Pope. He will not have it called Blasphemy; we may rest contented with finding it an error of any de­gree; by that alone the whole structure of their tenets against us falls down: but being mention was made of Blasphemy in their assertion, we will shew how faint a defence Mr. I. S. prepares against that censure. It is a wonder that one so prodigal of the like censure as we have seen him to be, in the first Chapter of this Treatise, tearm­ing it a Blasphemy in me, to say that the Learn­ed men of the Church of England denied the Roman Church, as now it stands, to be a safe way to salvation: and in the eighth Chapter of his Book, saying, that Protestants may not without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their tenets: should take so great a scandal at saying it is a Blasphemy to make the Pope Infallible; espe­cially when the saying is grounded upon princi­ples of their own Authors. But it is no great wonder that Mr. I. S. opposing this censure should not go the right way to it, nor heed the [Page 34]form or force of my Argument, for that is his constant custom.

The Argument was ad hominem, grounded up­on premises taken out of Authors of his own party: the first was, that it is a Blasphemy to at­tribute to a creature any of Gods properties; so Aquinas 1. p. q. 16. art. 3. ad tertiam. The se­cond Premise was, that Infallibility is a proper­ty of God not communicable to any man, so the the same Aquinas, 2a. 2a. q. 13. art. 1. These two Premises being granted, the conclusion is evident, that it is a Blasphemy to attribute Infallibility to the Pope: which conclusion being contained in the two Premises, the truth of it is to stand or fall with Aquinas his Autority. If Mr. I. S. were formal in arguing, his way to answer this Argu­ment were, to examine whether Aquinas deliver­ed the said Premises ascribed to him, and so come directly to my conclusion, that in principles of their own Divines, it is a Blasphemy to make the Pope Infallible.

But what do we mention Aquinas, and formal disputing to Mr. I. S? he do's not seem to be ac­quainted with that kind of reading or dealing: he will not be tyed to their strict rules of rea­soning. Now let us follow him in his own way, and see how he argues being set at liberty. He taxes me with ignorance, for not knowing that God may lend his Attributes to men, and the At­tribute of Infallibility being but passed over in a grace, and lent to the Pope of Rome, it must not be a Blasphemy to ascribe it to him.

First I enquire of this Magisterial man, whe­ther Infallibility be an Attribute of God incom­municable [Page 35]to a mutable man, as Aquinas seems to say? and being so, whether it be not likely it may not be lent to another, as his Omnipotency cannot, both representing an unlimited perfecti­on? for as Omnipotency includes a relation to in­finite effects produceable, so the Infallibility as­cribed to the Pope for determining without er­ror all questions possible to occur about Reli­gion, seems to argue an unlimited perfection, the said questions being endless, the heavenly Preacher declaring, that God having made man upright, he has entangled himself in infinite questions: which the Latin Vulgar Translation delivers thus: Hoc inveni quod fecerit Deus homi­nem rectum; & ipse se infinitis miscuit quaestionibus. And in the 12. Ch. and 12. v. he saith, That of many Books there is no end. The questions deter­minable being thus unlimited, the faculty rela­ting to them for an unerring determination must be likewise unlimited, and consequently of in­finite perfection. Will he allow so much to the Pope? He challenges me often, and defies all my Divinity to answer his Arguments; will he give me leave to challenge once all his Sophistry for a direct and formal solution of this Query? And whilst he finds it,

I enquire, secondly, Whether it be granted and allowed that God has lent his Infallibility to the Pope of Rome, to determine without er­ror all questions possible occurring about Reli­gion? whether I have not denv'd resolutely the said grant to be made; and confuted the foun­dations they pretend for it, to his knowledg? being so, whether it be a proper kind of ar­guing [Page 36]to take for a Principle against us, the Conclusion in debate? whether it be not a dam­nable arrogance, to parallel his Pope with the holy Evangelists and Apostles, which all Chri­stians do acknowledg and reverence for unerring Oracles of God to declare his holy Will to us? whether it be not insolence to say, that our cen­sures upon Romanists for attributing Infallibili­ty to the Pope, should reflect upon the sacred Organs of the Holy Ghost, speaking to us by their mouth, as Mr. I. S. do's most impiously pretend?

And being I signified the censure of Blasphe­my upon their pretence to Infallibility to be of their own Authors, not of my making, as not concerned for aggravating their crime, so much as to shew they are absolutely in an error, I will further declare, how bitter they are in cen­suring one another in this particular. How lit­tle is Mr. I. S. assisted by his brethren for his singular way to escape?

In the Colledg of Clermont at Paris the twelfth day of December, of the year 1661. was defen­ded this Thesis as a Catholic assertion against the heresy of the tenth Age; * We acknowledg Christ to be so the Head of the Church, that du­ring his absence in heaven he hath delegated the [Page 37]government thereof, first to Peter, and then to his Successors: and do's grant unto them the very same Infallibility which himself had, as of­ten as they shall speak è è Cathedra. There is therefore in the Church of Rome an infallible Judg of Controversies of Faith, even without a General Council, as well in questions appertain­ing to right, as in matters of fact. Therefore since the Constitutions of Innocent the X. and A­lexander the VII. we may believe with a divine Faith, that the Book intitled, The Augustin of Jan­senius is heretical, and the five Propositions which are gathered out of it, to be Jansenius's, and, in the sense of Jansenius, condemned.

Here we have a great authorized Colledg of his own, declare against Mr. I. S. that the Pope even out of a General Conncil is Infallible; that he hath the very same Infallibility which Christ himself had: and if he slights the Autho­rity of this Colledg (which may not be safe for him, if he be the man some say pretends to have the honor of being Author of this Book) with more consideration he may find the common opinion of the chief Scholemen of his com­munion to be against him; such as are * Aqui [...]as, Cajetanus, Suarez, Bannez, Valentia, Malderus, Turrianus, Canus, Bellarmin, and many others; whereof Suarez, Bannez and Valentia declare Mr. I.S. his opinion to be heretical, and branded for such in the Bull of Leo the Tenth, condem­ning [Page 38]for an error of Luther this Proposition, Si Papa cum magna parte Ecclesiae sic vel sic sentiret, nec etiam erraret, adhuc non est peccatum, aut hae­resis, contrarium sentire, praesertim in re non neces­sariâ ad salutem; donec fuerit per Concilium Ʋni­versale alterum reprobatum, alterum approbatum: and by Sixtus IV. in a Council of fifty two Do­ctors celebrated at Complutum in the year 1479. Alphonsus Carillo Arch - bishop of Toledo, be­ing President in it against Petrus Oxoniensis; a­mong whose Propositions, condemned for er­roneous, this was the seventh, Ecclesia Ʋrbis Romanae errare potest. Here we have our poor Antagonist his peculiar way of defending the Romish quarrel, declared for heretical by Popes, and the common opinion of Popish Doctors.

Now let us see another party of them cen­sure the foresaid position of the Clermont Col­ledg for a horrid impiety, and a species of Ido­latry: for Idolatry, say they, do's not consist mere­ly in giving to man the name of God, but infinitely more when we attribute to him those qualities which are peculiar to God, and when we render him those honors which are alone due to the Deity. Now this entire submission of our Spirit, and of all our intel­lectuals comprehended in the Act of our Faith, is no other then that adoration which we pay to the prime Verity it self; and therefore whosoever he be that renders it to the word of a man (whatever rank he may hold in the Church) who ever says that he be­lieves with a faith Divine, that which he would not believe, but because a man has affirmed it, do's con­stitute man in the place of God, transfers to the crea­ture that which is alone due to the Creator, and [Page 39]makes (as far as in him lies) a kind of Idol of the Vicar of Jesus Christ. And a little after they de­clare it to be a formal Blasphemy in these words. But were it possible to offer a greater affront to the prime Minister of Jesus Christ, then to conceive they do him honor by a Blasphemy, so injurious to Jesus Christ, that he should suffer them to equal him with his Master, by ascribing to him the same Infallibi­lity which he alone possesses? and that men should render that Supreme Cultus of a Divine Faith to his words, which is only due to the word of God? Thus the party opposite of the Parisian Doctors in their Declaration against the forementioned Thesis of Clermont Colledg, presented to all the Bishops of France, extant in the hands of many both in French and English.

And if their reason exhibited for their censure be considered well, we shall find it to compre­hend Mr. I. S. his opinion, no less then that of the Clermont Jesuits, since both the one and the other do bottom the pretended Infallibility of their Church upon the Popes Autority, whe­ther in a Council, or out of it; and so the reason of the Parisian Divines doth conclude in either case, that it is a Blasphemy injurious to Jesus Christ, to ascribe to the Pope that Infallibility which Christ alone possesses, and that men should render that Supreme Cultus of Divine Faith to the words of the Pope, which is only due to the word of God.

The allegations of our Adversary for obe­dience due to the Church as to Christ, and of promises made of the assistance of the Holy Ghost to the Apostles, and the Church govern­ed [Page 40]by them, will appear very impertinent to his purpose in favor of the Pope and his faction, when we come to examine the Texts alledged, for which I will assign the Chapter following.

In the mean time we may conclude from what is said in this Chapter, That, to ascribe Infal­libility to the Pope, is Blasphemy in the opinion even of Popish Doctors, and Mr. I. S. his pe­cular way of defending that tenet declared for heretical by Doctors of his own party, which was my present undertaking. To which may be added the opinion of Mr. * Thomas White of the same Communion, whose whole Book, cal­led his Tabulae suffragiales, is purposely designed against this doctrine of the Popes personal Infalli­bility, affirming it to be not heretical, but Archi­heretical: and that the propagating of this doctrine is in its kind a most grievous sin: so weary men of Learning and Parts begin to grow of this into­lerable Arrogance of the Roman Church or Court, and of their Flatterers.

CHAP. VII. Our Adversaries corruption of Scripture detected.

OUR Adversary certainly never look'd into the Bible for the Texts he alledges for the Infallibility of his Church, but snatch'd them out of some of his old Controvertists, whose custom is to clip and cut Scripture to their own pretences, without regard of their true meaning. Or if he has seen them with their contexts, he has bin strangely dull, in not perceiving the right sense of them very obvious to any ordinary good un­derstanding; or malicious in misrepresenting the meaning of them. This is especially seen in his Allegation of these words, Joh. XV. 26. When the Paraclete will come, whom I will send from my Father, the spirit of truth, he will give testimony of me, and ye will give testimony. This he will have us take for a certain testimony of the Holy Ghosts assistance promised to his Church. If he did see the half verse immediatly following, which he left out, or his Tutors cut off, he would find, that these words were spoken to the Apo­stles, with circumstances making them impossible to be applied to his Church. The verse restored to its integrity saies thus, And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have bin with me from the begin­ning. What man in his senses would think those words appliable to the Council of Trent? Were [Page 42]the Fathers of that Council with Christ from the the beginning? was the Holy Ghost not yet descended?

He confirms further his opinion out of Acts the XV. 28. where the Council of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, deciding the contro­versy concerning Circumcision, delivers their opinion thus: It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, signifying that the Holy Ghost did as­sist them: and that grounded on the words a­foresaid of our Saviour, Joh. XV. 26. When the Paraclete will come, he shall give testimony of me, and you shall give testimony of me. If that be the ground of the Apostles Phrase, we have seen be­fore to whom that promise was given, whether to the Apostles alone, or the Bishops of Rome to be for ever. We have seen that the Text in its integrity cannot be applied to the latter: But Mr. I. S. of his own autority declares that pro­mise was made by Christ, not only to the Apo­stles, but to the Roman Church for ever.

And to make this latter Text sound somthing like to his purpose, he patches it up with a piece of a verse fetch'd out of Matth. XXVIII. Ʋn­til the consummation of the world. This usual art of theirs, of cutting from the Texts what is a­gainst their purpose, and patching them with other words far fetch'd, that may have a gloss or appearance of their pretention, may be pra­cticed with more safety in conversation, or in a Sermon to a vulgar Auditory, then in a serious debate by print exposed to a strict examen. This is a cheat like that used in Italy, with rotten Ap­ples, to set them out for sound. They cut off the [Page 43]rotten pieces, and glue together the sound frag­ments, to an appearance of a fair Apple; but be­ing handled more close, it falls in pieces and dis­covers the cheat. This abominable Legerdemain is too often seen in their Pulpits, fathering upon the Gospel forsooth most execrable Blas­phemies, extolling their several new Saints (to whom they would gain devotion, and by that de­votion mony to their Coffers) above the Apo­stles, above the Angels, above Christ, and all that is in heaven, to the perpetual scandal of the discreet part of their own flock, and edification of none. All is sanctified with them, by repeting at the end of every desperate discourse, some words of the Gospel, as a burden of the song, tho with no relation in its sense to their purpose. This is the art Mr. I. S. useth with the testimony rela­ted of Acts XV. touching the assistance of the Ho­ly Ghost in the Council at Jerusalem, grounded as he confesses upon the aforesaid Text of John XV. 26. declared to relate only to the Apostles then present; and Mr. I. S. of his own head will have it extended to the Roman Church for ever; and his Interpretation must be taken for Canonical Scripture, by closing it up with this fragment of the twentieth verse of Matthew the XXVIII. Ʋntil the consummation of the world.

The Text he corrupts and cuts off, Matth. XXVIII. contains a promise of Christ to the A­postles and Church founded, and Faith preached by them, that he will assist them for ever, saying, I am with you all the daies, until the consummation of the world. St. Hierom better then Mr. I. S. will tell us the meaning of these words, glossing [Page 44]thus upon them: qui usque ad consummationem se­culi cum discipulis se futurum esse promittit, & illos ostendit semper esse victuros, & se nunquam à creden­tibus recessurum. In these words our Saviour promises to his Disciples life everlasting, and to the Church founded by them, and to all true believers in him, his perpetual assistance. This assistance of Christ to his own true Church, fol­lowing the steps and doctrine of the Apostles, we believe with joy, but cannot approve the Arro­gancy of Mr. I. S. and his brethren, in appro­priating all such promises to their own Faction, and perpetually taking for granted in his De­bates with us, that to be the only Church favour­ed by such gracious promises, being indeed but a very corrupt Member of the Church Univer­sal, to whom these promises were made; a thing which we do not say barely, but prove evi­dently.

Another example of their skill in clipping and corrupting Scripture, he fetches out of the same Store-house, upon the words of John XIV. 16. I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, the spirit of truth, that will abide with you for ever, who will lead you unto all truth. I discovered their abuse of this Text by restoring it to its integrity, which according to their own Bible goes in these words: If ye love me keep my commandments, and I will ask my Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may a­bide with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive. By the first words we see this to be a conditional promise, limited to such as love God and keep his Commandments: by [Page 45]the latter words, worldly and sinful men are ex­presly excluded from receiving that gracious assistance of the Spirit of truth: for which mean­ing of these words I related the Gloss interlineal and ordinary.

This discourse our Adversary opposes thus, that after the former clause, if you love me keep my commandments, there is a punctum, and then follows a distinct verse, and I will ask my Fa­ther, and he will give you another Paraclete, &c. which makes an absolute sense independent from the former. This is indeed a subtilty well be­coming a Sophister; as if a punctum may not be interposed betwixt several clauses of one dis­course tending to the same end; or betwixt pre­mises, and a conclusion deduced from them: as if the copulative particle and did not signify a conjunction of both clauses, and an influence of the one upon the other; as if all that were not cleared by the words I quoted in the Margin of the Gloss interlineal, Mundus, i. e. remanens a­mator mundi, cum quo nunquam est amor Dei; and of the Gloss ordinary, non habent spirituales ocu­los quibus Spiritum Sanctum videant mundi ama­tores. Here we see both Glosses denying the effect of that glorious promise to profane world­lings, and consequently the promise made only to lovers of God, and keepers of his holy Com­mandments. If our Adversary were ingenuous, he would spare his silly subtilties, seeing them obstructed by this stating of the case.

CHAP. VIII. Mr. I. S. his horrible impiety against the sacred A­postles, and malicious imposing on the Church of England reprehended.

ANother grand Argument he has, which he saies resolutely I can never answer, is this, that if the foresaid promise, John XIV. 16. was conditional, as above-mentioned, it follows, we cannot be sure the Gospel is infallible, where­as no Text of Scripture (saies he, pag. 89.) tells us that the Evangelists were in the state of Grace when they wrote the Gospel, nor nothing else gives us assurance of it. My first answer to this so unan­swerable Argument is, that if this man had de­livered this expression in Spain, and were accu­sed to the Inquisition, his body would suffer for it, if his intellect were not reduced to acknow­ledg and repent the horrid impiety of it. And I am certainly perswaded, that there is no Chri­stian that has any sense of piety in him, whether Protestant or Papist, but will cry out with horror against the insolent impiety of this man, in speak­ing so irreverently of those sacred Organs of the Holy Ghost, and blessed Disciples of Christ, confirmed by him in grace, as is the common ap­prehension and expression of Christians, and re­plenished with the Holy Ghost, Act. 2.4. for whose perseverance in grace our Saviour praied [Page 47]so fervently to his heavenly Father, as we see in John the XVII. 11. Holy Father keep through thine own name those thou hast given me. Upon which words Maldonate delivers this Gloss: Non ro­gat Christus ut nunc à peccatis liberentur, sed ut jam liberati in eo statu quo erant conserventur, ne quis ab eâ decedat gratiâ, quam consecutus suo erat be­neficio, quemadmodum Judae contigerat. That our Saviour praied for their perseverance in grace, that none of them should fall from it as Judas did. And will this rash man say, that the praier of our Saviour was not heard, nor his request granted by his heavenly Father, in favor of his beloved Disciples? If he will not be so profli­gately impious, how dares he say, that no Text of Scripture tells us, that the Evangelists were in the state of Grace when they wrote the Gospel, nor nothing else gives us assurance of it? If his Book did con­tain no other crime then this unchristian expres­sion, any true disciple of Christ, and believer of his Gospel, ought to judg the said Book more worth the burning then the reading.

He is not yet contented with the damnable expression fore-mentioned, but must raise his censure against the truth of the Gospel of Christ to a higher degree, p. 89. saying, that not only we are not sure of the Infallibility of the Gospel, but that we are assured it is not infallible; and this hor­rible Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and the Gospel dictated by him, he must father upon the Protestant Church; but upon a ground so much of his own making, that any dispassionate man, and not blind, may see the whole assertion to be his own, and a product of his inclination, which [Page 48]appears here, and in many other places, of de­stroying the foundations of all Christian Belief. The ground he gives for this latter most dam­nable Blasphemy is, That the common doctrine of the Protestant Church is, That it is impossible to keep Gods Commandments; therefore saies he, The Evangelists when they wrote did not keep Gods Commandments, and consequently they could not have the Paraclete to lead them into truth. I never yet heard any Protestant deliver such a desperate proposition as this he fathers upon them, which thus delivered categorically, without further de­claration or limitation, were to say, it were im­possible for any man to be saved; our Saviour often declaring, that the only way to life ever­lasting is to keep Gods Commands. It were also to give the lie to our Redeemer, saying, that his yoke is easy, and his burden light, Mat. XI. 30. and that his Commandments are not grievous, 1 Joh. V. 3. If he knows any Protestant Writer to have de­livered that position in that latitude; why do's not he tell me who he is, and where he saith it, that I may judg accordingly of the Author and of the Doctrine? Must I take it upon his credit, having so many experiences of the untruth of his relations? That he must not expect from me. I suppose he found this doctrine, which he saies to be common in the Protestant Church, where he found me saying, that there is no Salvation in the Catholic Church, as he do's most impudently im­pose upon me in his Dedicatory Epistle to my Lord Lieutenant. This is their ordinary way of be­getting in their Proselytes an abhorrence to their opposers, viz. impostures and calumnies. Of [Page 49]their calumny in this particular learned Le Blane complains, & declares thus in the behalf of Pro­testants, cum Scriptura dicimus & docemus fideles Dei mandata per Christi gratiam servare, &c. Thesi [...]6. & 27. de observant. Leg. We say and teach with the Scripture, that the faithful do keep the Com­mandments of God by the grace of Christ.

Let not our Sophister think to appease my just indignation against him, or to escape the censure I pass upon him of a blasphemous con­temner of the Gospel of Christ, and the sacred Writers of it, the blessed Evangelists, by saying, he do's not assert himself the foresaid affronts he puts on the Gospel and the Evangelists, but that he infers them from positions of the Protestant Church. The whole doctrine and belief of the Protestant Church, is contained in the Canonical Scripture, and in the thirty nine Articles of the Church of England. We are not in that confu­sion and uncertainty, touching the object of our belief, as he and his party are, betwixt so many Articles dayly coined, one overthrowing the other. In what place of Canonical Scripture, or of the foresaid thirty nine Articles, did he find this proposition, which he saies is the common doctrine of the Church of England, That it is impossible to keep Gods Commandments? which being all the ground he shews for this blasphemous As­sertion, that we are assured the Evangelists, when they wrote the Gospel, were not in the love of God and observance of his Commandments, and by that assured the Gospel is not infallible; the said ground, I say, not being to be found in any place of the fore-mentioned Rule and Canon of our Belief: [Page 50]I conclude the Assertion pretended to flow from it, to be of his own invention, and his own sen­timent. Let this therefore be known to be his Tenet and Assertion, to his eternal infamy, That we are sure the Evangelists, when they wrote the Gospel, were not in the state of Grace: that we are sure the Gospel is not infallible. One that is found with a stoln horse, is to be taken for the thief, till he prove that he has received it lawfully from another: We find that execrable Blasphemy in the mouth of I. S. Let him be taken and punish­ed for Author of it (if any just inquisition find him) since he can find no other Author for it.

But all his Sophistry will not afford him even the least colour of excuse, for the former part of his Assertion, for which he will not be beholden to any other, but delivers it for a document of his own, That no Text of Scripture tells us, that the Evangelists were in the state of Grace when they wrote the Gospel, nor any thing else gives us assurance of it. Ask of any boy in Spain or Flanders but meanly catechized, whether he was not taught by his Curate and Parents, that the Apostles, by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them, were confirmed in grace, wherewith we are assured they never lost it after. And in case our Adver­sary should gain by some pictures or medals the votes of the boys in his favor; other Doctors we have which he shall not so easily gain to his side, who affirm that the sacred Apostles, after re­ceiving the Holy Ghost, were so confirmed and strengthned in grace, that no humane power or temtation could make them fail in their fidelity to God. S. Augustin for one thus delivers his [Page 51]opinion, Homil. 9. de Missione Spiritus Sancti. Ante adventum vero Spiritus Sancti sub ipso crucis dominicae tempore, alii ex discipulis effugantur, alii unius Ancillae voce terrentur, & metu corda trepida penetrante dominum suum negare coguntur. Post il­lustrationem vero Spiritus Sancti & Confirmatio­nem, custodiis excruciati, verberibus afflicti, ibant gaudentes, quia digni essent pro Christi nomine con­tumeliam pati. ‘That the Apostles, so frail before, as to run from their Master and deny him, at the instance of a girl, after being confirmed in grace, by receiving the Holy Ghost, were so constant in suffering prisons and scourgings, that they re­joyced for being worthy of suffering for Christ.’ The same doctrine of the Apostles, being con­firmed in grace, by the coming of the Holy Ghost upon them, so as they were by Gods special pro­tection preserved from falling from it all their life, tho otherwise peccable, is delivered by other * Fathers and Scholemen. All this force of testi­monies of Scripture, Fathers, and Divines, being in favor of the sacred Apostles, to have bin con­firmed in grace, and preserved in it all their life, how comes our Adversary to say, we have no assurance of their being in the state of Grace, when they wrote the Gospel? Did they not write it after the Holy Ghost descended upon them? Which shall we admire most, his ignorance, or impiety?

[Page 52] Truly he has given such testimony of both, in this his undertaking, rebuked in this Chapter, that we might very well bid him farewell here, and leave him as unworthy of any further reply. But whereas he may meet with readers so short sighted, as not to take notice of absurdities and guilts even of this size, we will continue yet help­ing [...]hem to find out gross errors and crimes in his writing.

CHAP. IX. Our Adversaries pretention to prescription, and mi­racles in favor of the Infallibility of their Church rejected: his imposing on me, and on the Church of England, discovered further.

OUR Sophister finding but little right by Scripture, or reason, for the pretended In­fallibility of his Church, appeals to the title of Prescription, that they have bin long time in pos­session of this prerogative, and ought not to be disturbed now in the use of it. Here he prepares a defence for thieves and robbers. If they have our goods long time in their possession, we must leave them to such possessors, and not disturb them in the use of them. The Turk is hereby justified in his possession of the holy Land, and other Dominions of Christian Princes he has robbed. The attempt of the said Princes in dis­possessing this Robber, is unjust, according to Mr. I. S. his Logic. In it he could not find this rule of Law, Quae ab initio sunt male constituta, tempore non convalescunt, That what was unlaw­ful in the beginning, grows not by continuance lawful: nor this other, Non debet quis commodum reportare ex crimine, none ought to find an ad­vantage in a guilt for his defence. An unjust u­surper by a continuance of his usurpation, is rendred rather more guilty then excusable. We have shown by evident proofs, that the preten­tion [Page 54]of the Roman Church to Infallibility was, and is still an unjust usurpation, a robbery of a priviledg belonging unto God and his holy Scri­pture, communicated to the Apostles, founders of Christian Religion, and to the Church truly Catholic and Universal, sticking to the Doctrine and Belief which Christ and his Apostles left to us, not to that factious party devoted to the Pope of Rome, which Mr. I. S. would have us take for the only Church, committing in all his discourses a perpetual Solecism against the laws of a Disputant, which is, to take for granted the subject of the Debate, which is constantly de­ny'd to them. But his Logic will not take no­tice of these niceties.

Now therefore to accuse us that we disturb them in the possession of their Infallibility, is like the complaint of a certain Gentleman against a Merchant, calling on him for an old debt. He ranted and swore he was a troublesom compa­nion, for importuning for the payment of a debt of so many years, as if it were but of yesterday; his delay in paying, was an increase of his guilt. The retaining of another mans goods, as well as the taking them away against his will, is robbery. Thus it is in our case: the pretention of the Ro­man Faction to Infallibility, was a robbery from the beginning, an imposing upon man kind, as I have proved; and the continuance of it is an in­crease of their guilt: why will Mr. I. S. make this increase of their guilt an excuse of it? Be­sides, to say, that his Church was in all Ages in peaceable possession of this prerogative of Infal­libility, as he do's, pag. 76. is a wide mistake, and [Page 55]as he asserts it without proof, he must be con­tented with a bare denial for an answer, while we leave him to look after any pertinent testimony of the Fathers of the first three hundred, nay for a thousand years for his purpose; which he shall never find.

In the seventh Chapter of his Book, p. 102. he falls abruptly upon the old armory of mira­cles in favor of his Church. Of this I could not but wonder, having seen him, p. 81. engage his whole Logic against the power of Miracles, for breeding in men a saving divine Faith; for said he, Either they are only probable, or evident; if probable only, they are not proportionable to give us that certainty required for divine Faith, if evi­dent absolutely, they can be no motive of Faith which is of its own nature obscure. In which piece of Lo­gic he gives a clear testimony of his Impiety and Ignorance; Impiety in pretending to weaken that strong foundation of Christian Belief, taken from the glory of Miracles, for which I remit him to what he alledges himself from the foresaid p. 102. Ignorance, in pretending that an ob­scure Conclusion may not be deduced from an evident Premise. To prove notum per ignotius, a Conclusion clear by a Premise or Medium more obscure, is a known fault in arguing; but to prove by an evident Medium a Conclusion obscure, is a fault of arguing never heard of yet before Mr. I. S. his Logic. By this Canon he makes the belief of Martha to be indiscreet, who see­ing the resurrection of her brother, and other Miracles our Saviour wrought, concluded, I be­leive that thou art Christ the son of God. The mi­racle [Page 56]was evident, but the generation of Christ from his heavenly Father, obscure; And who shall declare his generation? Esa. III. 8. Having thus helped him against himself, for rendring Mira­cles a congruous way to find out true Religion, I gladly accept the challenge to a trial of our Re­ligion by them. Our Religion, or the object of our necessary Belief, is only what is contained in the word of God by Canonical Scripture. In favor of this Belief, we have all the Miracles written in the Old and New Testament. Their Religion as opposite to ours, and differing from us, are those Articles in debate, introduced by the Roman Church, Transubstantiation, Purga­tory, Worship of Images, &c. Will he for shame pretend the stock of Romanies produced by them for these Innovations, fit to be compared with the store of glorious Miracles which we have in the behalf of our divine, truly infallible Belief, contained in holy Scripture? While we show his new Belief to be contrary to this divine Faith, confirmed with Miracles of infallible truth, as we do, let him keep to himself his new-coin'd wonders, and remember that God is not contra­ry to himself, in putting his Seal to contrary Laws. And if he must believe some of the won­ders he proposes, let Lessius and others help him to understand what to make of those miracles or wonders which Valerius Maximus, Titus Livius, and other Roman Historians do relate to have bin wrought in favor of their Temples, and hea­thenish Superstitions: and let him not expect from me, that I should bestow time in examining the truth or false-hood of all his impertinent Allegations.

[Page 57] In the same seventh Chapter from p. 126. he fastens on me two notorious calumnies; first, that having left the Roman Church, I fixed upon no other to be of; the second, that I said none may be saved in the Roman Church. The false­hood of the first is seen by my public declaration for the Church of England; the untruth of the other I declared in the second Chapter of this Treatise, whereby all his verbosity upon this sub­ject, appears a fret of his Malice, without any real ground, without shame to tax me often with, and repete with his frivolous exclamations, without shewing where or when I did say, what indeed I never said or wrote, That there is no salvation in the Roman Catholic Religion. With the same confidence, and the like untruth, he re­petes, That it is the constant doctrine of the Church of England, that the Romish Religion is a saving Religion, or a safe way to salvation; which is what we deny them.

Let the Reader reflect upon what I said in the foresaid second Chapter of this Treatise, and see the confusion of this mans brains, in not under­standing or delivering distinctly our sentiments, according to our own expressions; or the cor­ruption of his mind, in deceiving wilfully his Reader, especially that he himself, p. 133. al­ledgeth Doctor Stillingfleet, comparing both Churches, the Romish to a leaky Ship, wherein a man may be saved, but with great danger and difficulties: and the Protestant to a sound Ship, wherein one may be saved without hazard. This is the utmost of courtesy or charity that may be, and is extended to them? Is this to say the Ro­mish [Page 58]Church is a safe way to salsation? Is it safe to venture in a leaky Ship upon a stormy Sea? But what saies he to the streams of learned Au­thors of the Protestant Church, which Dr. Stil­lingfleet relates, and of the very learned Book he wrote himself, proving with irresistible Argu­ments, that the Romish Church in several of her present Tenets and Practices, is guilty of Idola­try? Is Idolatry of those pious opinions which matter not for salvation? And let Mr. I.S. know, that I considered long, and examined throughly the doctrine of the Church of England, before I declared for it, and he may spare his labour of catechizing me in the Tenets of it.

CHAP. X. A check to Mr. I. S. his insolent Thesis prefixed for title to the eighth Chapter of his Book: That the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ, nor any part of it. That they cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their Tenets. And his own Argument retorted to prove, that the Roman Church is not the Church of Christ.

UNder so pregnant and big promising a title as this; That the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ, nor any part of it, that they cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their Tenets, &c. and that in a Book presented to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the Earl of Essex; under so magnificent a title, I say, exposed to the view of so great and judicious a person, who would not expect a very exquisite discourse to go through so stout an undertaking? And, behold Reader, what Mr. I. S. presents to his Excellen­cy for that purpose.

For a Foundation of his discourse, he will have us premise, that Protestants do allow Papists not to err in points Fundamental to Salvation, that our differences with them are about points not Fundamental. He do's not seem to regard or know which be these points call'd Fundamental, or not Fundamental; which is a bad beginning [Page 60]to be clear and exact in the present Engagement. But he is to suppose with Dr. Stillingfleet, Dr. Potter, and other learned Writers of both Churches, * following therein the common opi­nion of Fathers, and Scholemen, that the points Fundamental, or of necessary belief to Salvation, and to the constitution of a true Christian Church, are those contained in the Apostles Creed; which is a system or summary of Articles, which those sacred Founders of Christianity thought fit and sufficient to be proposed to all men, where the Gospel was preached, and necessary to be ex­plicitly believed. So as the Council of Trent calls it Fundamentum firmum & unicum, Sess. 3. not the firm alone, but the only Foundation. Points not Fundamental, or inferior truths, are all other divine Verities contained in the Word of God, whether written in Canonical Scripture, or delivered to us by Apostolical Universal Tradi­tion, implicitly contained in the Creed, where we profess to believe in God, and in the Catholic Church; and explicitly to be believed when we should be ascertained that they are contained in those Oracles of God; called inferior truths, not that they are of less certainty, and objective Infallibility in themselves, then the other called Fundamental; but because the explicit know­ledg of them is not so necessary or obvious to all men, and consequently are more capable of inculpable ignorance of them, and errors about [Page 61]them in many men. And because the Roman Church do's agree with us in the explicit confes­sion of this Creed, it is said not to err in Funda­mental points, tho found guilty of pernicious errors touching other points not Fundamental. And with this Supposition, I am confident my Antagonist will not quarrel, if you take him here, before he sees my reflexions upon his un­wary Argument.

Upon the foresaid Foundation, Mr. I. S. builds this Thesis, That the Protestant Church, as it is condistinct from the Popish Church, is not the Church of Christ, because, saies he, it do's not teach the do­ctrine of Christ, and no Church can be called of Christ further then it teacheth his doctrine.

That Protestancy, or the doctrine of Prote­stants as opposite to the Popish, is not the do­ctrine of Christ, he undertakes to prove with this Syllogism, No fallible doctrine is the doctrine of Christ: but Protestancy is altogether fallible do­ctrine; Therefore Protestancy, as it is properly the doctrine of the Protestant Church, is not the doctrine of Christ. This Syllogism he chalks out to us in a different Character, for remarkable, as indeed it is, and for unanswerable, for it is in Ferio, saies he, pag. 142. The Major Proposition we allow wil­lingly; the Minor, to wit, that Protestancy is alto­gether fallible doctrine, he saies, is manifest by virtue of this other no less remarkable Syllogism, Protestancy, or the doctrine wherein Protestants do differ from Papists, is altogether of points not Fun­damental: but the doctrine of points not Fundamen­tal, or inferior truths, is fallible doctrine: therefore Protestancy is but fallible doctrine, and therefore no doctrine of Christ.

[Page 62] He concludes with these words, I confess in­genuously, I think this Argument cannot be solidly answer'd. If his confession herein be ingenuous indeed, let him take in return this other ingenu­ous confession from me, that I think seriously he is a very weak man. If he be sensible himself of the fallacy and falsehood of his Argument, he is unworthy in beguiling his Reader, and unwise in exposing it to a polemical strict debate: and thinking we should want a solid Answer to so silly a Sophism, not to give it yet a more severe check, haply he has that poor excuse in his favor, that he knows not what he saies.

To see whether my Answer be solid, let us exa­mine how solid his Argument is. The stress of it lies in his latter Syllogism, whose major Propo­sition is, That Protestancy, or the doctrine wherein Protestants do differ from Papists, is altogether of Points not Fundamental. This we allow him to take for granted. Let us proceed to the Minor, But the doctrine of Points not Fundamental, or in­ferior Truths, saies he, is fallible doctrine. Stop here Sir, and if Justice were don to you, a per­petual stop should be put to your tongue, for blasphemons, from speaking any more. It is a formal Blasphemy, and a horrid one to say, that the doctrine of Points not Fundamental, or in­ferior Truths in general is fallible doctrine. It is to say, that the Word of God is fallible. Re­member what is premis'd a little before, and supposed by your self in many places of your present discourse, that the Points called not Fun­damental, are all those other divine Verities con­tained in the Word of God, whether written in [Page 63]Canonical Scripture, or deliver'd to us by Apo­stolical Tradition, besides the Points contained in the Creed; of equal objective certainty and truth with the other Points. They are of a size, as you speak, all being the Word of God, tho not in the same degree of necessity to be expli­citly believed by all men. Therefore to say that the doctrine of Points not Fundamental is fal­lible, is to say, that the Word of God is fallible, which, without Controversy, is a formal Blasphe­my. Poor Logician, is this your Argument in Ferio, for which you thought a solid Answer could not be found? For a Syllogism in Feri [...] to be conclu­ding, the Premises must be allowed; and will you have us allow your Premises, when one of them is found to be a formal Blasphemy?

But it seems this horrible Blasphemy did not fall from him unawares; it was with delibera­tion. He goes to prove it, and see how. The Church can err, and is fallible in Points not Fun­damental, therefore these Points are fallible. This is another goodly piece of Logic, which proves that Points Fundamental are likewise fal­lible. Men can err, and have erred in Points Fundamental, therefore these also are fallible in your Dialect. This is not to distinguish Subje­ctive fallibility, from the Objective; to pass the imperfections of the faculty upon the object. Mr. I. S. looks upon the Sun with squint, or dim eies, therefore the Sun is dim or squint. The Pope can err, and is fallible in declaring the Word of God, therefore the Word of God is fallible. Your brethren of Clermont Colledg, who defended in their Theses, mentioned chap. 6. [Page 64]that the Pope hath the same Infallibility which Christ had, may think that consequence legal, The Pope is fallible about the Word of God, therefore the Word of God is fallible, because the Pope hath the very same Infallibility which Christ the very Word of God hath. But we that a low no such Equality of truth to men, cannot take fallibility in the Word of God, for a conse­quence of mans fallibility about it.

From the foresaid Position, you proceed to the second grand Thesis prefixed to your Cha­pter, That Protestants cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their Tenets. This is sure a rare shew of your wit, a product of your own inven­tion never heard of before. I confess to have ne­ver heard the like: and thus you go to prove it. Protestancy, or the points wherein Protestants do differ from Papists, is but a parcel of fallible doctrine, but no fallible doctrine can without Blasphemy be sought for in Scripture; therefore Protestants cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their Tenets. Make of the Major what you please for the present: what desperate Proposition is that of the Minor, That no fallible doctrine may without Blasphemy be sought for in Scri­pture? By this all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, all Divines that alledg Scripture for their several opinions, which they do not pre­tend to be infallible, nor more then probable opinions, are guilty of Blasphemy in your esteem.

But that this so much solemnized Argument may not be altogether useless, I will retort it upon your self with more force and less cavil; proving by it, that your Church is not the Church of [Page 65]Christ. And thus I argue for it in your own terms. No Church is any further the Church of Christ, then as it teacheth the doctrine of Christ; but the Roman Church, as condistinct from the Reformed Protestant Church, or in as much as it differs from it, doth not teach the doctrine of Christ; therefore the Roman Church as condi­stinct from the Reformed Protestant Church, is not the Church of Christ. The Minor Proposi­tion, That the Roman Church, as condistinct from the Protestant Church, doth not teach the do­ctrine of Christ, I prove thus: The doctrine which the Roman Church, as condistinct from the Pro­testant, and opposite to it doth teach, is, Popes Infallibility, and Supremacy over all the Christian Church, Transubstantiation, Worship of Images, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, Indulgences, half Communion, Liturgy in an unknown tongue, prohibiting the people to read holy Scripture, &c. all which I have declared in my former dis­course, not to be the doctrine of Christ, but all contrary to it, and in this present Treatise will more fully declare the same: Therefore the Ro­man Church as condistinct from the Protestant, and opposite to it, doth not teach the doctrine of Christ, and consequently is not the Church of Christ.

CHAP. XI. A Refutation of several other Attemts of Mr. I. S. in that eighth Chapter.

YOU are prolix in pretending that Prote­stants have not unity of Faith with Papists. God forbid they should agree in all with them: spare bragging that they claim kindred with you. It is a great piece of courtesy and charity in Protestants to admit kindred with you, or allow you to be a part, tho infected and corrupted, of the Catholic Church: a courtesy, I say, in some thing like that of Bellarmin, in admitting even the most scandalously wicked of men, E­picures in manners, and Atheists in belief to the Communion of his Church, provided they do but exteriourly own the Romish Religion, and Obedience to the Pope, tho but for temporal ends. His kindness to his Lord the Pope, and zeal for his grandeur, makes him extend thus his courtesy. Our love to our Lord Christ makes us admit kindred with you, and to take you for Members of the Church Universal, in as much as you confess with us, tho but verbally, the chief Articles of his doctrine contained in the Creed.

You proceed to exhort Protestants to an exa­men of their Belief, whether they be in the right. I wish your party did comply so well herein with their duty, or were permitted to do it, as Pro­testants do, and are allowed. Here they inquire, [Page 67]dispute, and read carefully Books for and against their Tenets. They are permitted to do it, and encouraged in it by their Instructors. You will not allow your people to read, dispute, or doubt at all of your Tenets.

You say Protestants are obliged in conscience to doubt of their Religion: while you tell your own people, they are obliged in conscience not to doubt of theirs. How came your Church by this Prerogative? because 'tis unerring, and uner­rable, as the Title of your Book saies, but the Book do's not prove, as we are shewing. Why are Protestants oblig'd to doubt of their Reli­gion? because it is new, say you. This was the Argument of Pagans, to stop the preaching of the Gospel; more improperly, and with less ground used by you. Our Religion is the An­cient, and yours the New, as we prove. Where was our Religion, say you, before Luther? A question which for one too old should be cast away. We answer, where yours never was; in the Word of God, and in the true Records of Primitive Christianity.

You conclude your heterogeneous Chapter, and your first part of your Book, with mention­ing the Treatise or Paper I penned some years a­go, in favor of the Salvation of Protestants a­gainst your vulgar Teachers, damning all to hell for Heretics, without reserve or distinction. You say the doctrine I delivered was true; but it was indiscretion to declare it in Ireland, whither I was sent to convert Protestants. The case was with Papists, who concerned for the Salvation of their Relations and Friends of the Protestant [Page 68]Communion, enquired, whether such believing sincerely they were in the right, never convinced of the contrary, and living religiously in the fear of God, and in the observation of his Command­ments, might be saved. I answered they might, and were not Heretics, but Members of the Catholic Church, a dignity received in their Ba­ptism, and not to be lost otherwise, then by for­mal Heresy or Infidelity, whereof they were not guilty by the foresaid Supposition. You say all is true, but 'tis not discretion to declare truth it self, when there is no obligation of declaring it. Well, but was there not an obligation upon me, when question'd to answer according to truth? No, say you, for if the Inquirers were Papists, they needed not to be instructed in that truth; 'tis no Fun­damental Truth. If Protestants; they were not ob­lig'd to know it for the same reason, and that the an­swer was an encouragement to them to remain as they were. A pretty subtilty. We have decla­red before, how touching Points not Fundamen­tal, there may be pernicious errors. Such is that opposite to the Truth we now speak of: an error subversive of Christian charity, and public peace; a seed of those Animosities, Rebellion, and Com­bustions which made this Land unhappy. And ought not a sincere Instructor, and faithful Mini­ster of the Word of God, to oppose this er­ror? No, say you, because it was to encourage Protestants to remain as they were, and not to come under the Popes Obedience. There is the ground of your dislike of me.

Thus indeed stood the case: and this was one of my chief reasons to be dissatisfied of your [Page 69]way, That the rule of my doctrine among you must not be truth, but the interest of the Bishop of Rome, and the increase of his Dominion, whe­ther by right or wrong. This point of policy or discretion, as you call it, I refused openly to learn from you, chusing rather to be of the Children of Light, tho with less prudence in your opinion, then of the Children of this World, by that eleva­ted point of prudence you would teach me, of prostituting truth and honesty to the Popes plea­sure and interest.

CHAP. VII. Mr. I. S. his Answers to my Objections, against the Popes Infallibility refuted: his defence of Bellar­min, of the Council of Constance, and of Coste­rus, declared to be weak and vain.

OUR Adversary fore-seeing what small as­sistance he could have from Scripture and reason to maintain his Tenets, emploies his main forces in setting up their ordinary great engine of the Popes Infallibility: and having bestowed the far greater part of his Book upon that subject, turns to it again, beginning the second part of his said Book with reflexions upon some of my Ar­guments against their pretention: and wanting, it seems, materials to bring his Book to the inten­ded bulk, repotes much of what he said before: wherein I will not imitate him by repeting my re­plies, my desire being to abbreviate, as far as may consist with a full satisfaction to all his Obje­ctions.

He pretends to cast a mist over the case, turn­ing the usual term of Popes Infallibility, to In­fallibility of the Church, and by Church he means fraudulently not the Church Universal truly Ca­tholic and Apostolic, (to which I allow all the priviledges and assistances of the Holy Ghost pro­mised to it in Scripture, tho he signifies that he doubts of my meaning herein) but his own par­ticular Church; I do not mean the Diocess of [Page 71] Rome (as he do's wilfully impose upon me, hap­pily to gain time, or draw us from the point) but the Congregation subject to the Pope whereso­ever extant. Defenders of a bad cause do love such confusion and obscurities, as Foxes holes, and thickets; but we must keep him to the Light, and to the ordinary use of terms, taking for Popes Infallibility the same which he, or any of his Communion attributes to their Church depen­ding upon the Pope, as is declared above in the beginning of the fifth Chapter.

I said I admired that Bellarmin should make it an Argument of the Popes Infallibility, that the high Priest did bear in his Breast-plate two Hebrew words, signifying Doctrine and Truth. I questioned whether he believed all those high Priests, even Caiphas condemning Christ, to be infallible in their judgments. Mr. I. S. to re­lieve Bellarmin, endeavors to autorize the Af­firmative, and to that of Caiphas sa [...]es nothing, and so gives us leave to think that he held him also infallible, according to that rule, qui tacet consentire videtur. By which we have this further notice of Mr. I. S. his singular doctrine, that he finds Caiphas infallible in his judgment passed a­gainst the life of our Saviour, and taxes me with ignorance for not knowing so much.

I accused them of making the Pope Arbiter and supreme Judg over Gods Laws. So Bel­larmin, lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 5. sticketh not to say, That if the Pope did command Vices, and prohi­bit Virtues, the Church would be obliged to believe Vice to be good, and Virtue bad. And the Council of Constance commanded the Decrees of Popes to be [Page 72]preferr'd before the Institutions of Christ, since having confessed that our Saviour did ordain the Communion under both kinds to the Laity, and that the Apostles did practice it, they command it should be given for the future but in one kind, alledging for reason, that the precedent Popes and Church did practice it so. Which is to ex­tol the Decrees of Popes, above them of Christ. As, if the Laws of England were not to be under­stood or practiced in Ireland, but according to the will and declaration of the King of France, certainly the King of France would be deemed of more power in Ireland, then the King of Eng­land, and the People more his subjects.

To that of Bellarmin you say, he spoke of Vices and Virtues when there is a doubt of their being such; for example, if there should arise a doubt of Usury's being a Vice, and in that case the Pope should command Usury to be practiced, we should be obliged to practice Usury. Here­in Sir you allow us all that we pretended, and you confess what we condemned in Bellarmin. I could alledg many Texts of Scripture, supposing and affirming Usury to be a Vice. But you spare me that labour, presupposing, that Ʋsury of it self is a Vice of its nature bad, (Per se malum,) and that you all know it to be such; and not­withstanding that knowledg, and Gods declara­tion in Scripture, you say if the Pope should command Usury to be practiced, we should be obliged to practice it. And so it is indeed with you both in Usury and other Vices. We know all that Rebellion is a sin, and soodious to God, that in Scripture it is compared to Witchcraft [Page 73]and Idolatry, 1 Sam. xv. 23. But if the Pope should command you to rebel against your King for Religions sake (forsooth,) then would you be obliged to rebel against him; because (say you, with Bellarmin) in dubious Cases the Church is obliged to obey the Pope. Men are apt to doubt of their duties, and the Devil is ready to stir such doubts in them. Thus he wrought the first Rebellion in Paradise, Cur praecepit vobis Deus, &c. Why hath God said ye shall not eat of eve­ry tree of the Garden? And if the Pope comes out declaring, that it is lawful and religious to rebel, you must practice accordingly: tho Scri­pture and reason makes you know, that Rebel­lion is an heinous vice. This is the great power of the Pope you teach, to metamorphose vice in­to virtues, and virtues to vices. It is a common boast of your stout Bigots to say, that if the Pope did prohibit them to say the Lords Praier, Our Father, &c. they would not say it, tho Christ did order them to pray so.

To that of the Council of Constarce, you say, it is false, that they alledged no other reason for prohibiting the Cup to the Laity, then the De­crees of precedent Popes. You affirm, they al­ledged also for reason, the example of Christ and his Apostles, who gave it in one kind: whereby it appears you did not read the Council. Read the thirteenth Session of it, where this matter is handled, and there you shall find no montion of Christ and his Apostles, to have given the Sa­crament in one kind; but the contrary is suppo­sed, as appears by these words of the Decree, Quod licet in Primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacra­mentum [Page 74]reciperetur à fidelibus sub utraque specie, postea à conficientibus sub utraque, & à Laicis tan­tummodo sub specie panis suscipiatur. ‘That tho the Sacrament of Communion in the Primitive Church was received by the faithful under both kinds, for the future it is to be received by the Priests consecrating under both kinds, and by the Laity only under the Species of Bread.’ It is therefore from your self you say, that Christ and the Apostles did administer it to the Laity under one kind, and the Council do's not pretend to know so much, only alledges the custom formerly introduced, saying, Ʋnde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia & Sanctis patri­bus rationabiliter introducta & diutissime observata sit, habenda est pro lege. ‘That this custom be­ing reasonably introduced, and long time ob­served by the Church and holy Fathers, it is to be taken for a Law.’ Here you see no mention made of Christ or the Apostles to have don so, as you say. Upon what ground, you do not tell us; you will have it taken upon your credit.

By saying that I may flatter the Lord Lieute­nant of Ireland, by telling him, he hath more power in this Kingdom then the King his Master, in whose place and name he acts, because I accused you of giving more power to the Pope then to God, by these priviledges of giving to divine Law what sense he pleases, and overthrowing the Ordinances of Christ to set up his own; by this your expression, I say, you are twice criminal in a hainous degree. First, for imagining it should be a way to flatter my Lord Lieutenant of Ire­land, to say, he had more power in Ireland then [Page 75]the Kings Majesty, which he could not hear with­out horror and indignation. Secondly, for the falsehood of your supposition to frame your pa­rity. When or where did the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland say, that notwithstanding the King of England did ordain this, or that, for the Govern­ment of Ireland, himself would order the contrary; as your pretended Vicar of Christ said in the Council of Constance now mention'd, that notwithstanding Christ did order the Com­munion to be given in both kinds to the Laity, he did order himself the contrary? And all this senseless and groundless extravagancy you run upon, only to find occasion of talking to us of a halter, after your wonted grave and modest s [...]le. But being convinced of a false accusation, you deserve, by the law of retaliation, the punishment due to the crime you do so falsly impose upon us. Certainly that of the ducking-stool will appear in all good judgments both due and necessary to so foul a mouth.

Another Example. I produced of your extol­ling Papal Laws above the Divine, in the case of Costerus, saying, Its a greater sin in a Priest to mar­ry, then to keep a Concubine, the former being but a transgression of a Papal Law, the second of a Divine. You answer, p. 173. that tho it be but a Papal Law, that Priests should vow chastity, yet the vow being made, it is a trangression of Divine Law to violate it. Consult your Casuists Sir, and you shall find them all say, that a vow made in any matter opposite to Gods orders, is null or invalid. There is an order of God inti­mated by St. Paul to the unmarried, that if they [Page 76]cannot contain, let them marry, 1 Cor 7.9. Pos­sible it is, that a Priest should find by experience, that he cannot contain. This you will not de­ny. Then the vow appears to be null, because by it was promised a thing contrary to that order of God intimated by St. Paul: and consequent­ly the obligation of it ceaseth; only the Popes Law prohibiting Priests to marry urgeth. To it is opposite that other intimated to the unmarri­ed: if they cannot contain, let them marry. Which of these Laws or Orders must be observed? If you say the Popes Law, as Costerus do's; then follows the Conclusion, that you prefer the Popes Laws to those of God. You may ex­claim at this; but you see the Premises contain­ing in them the Conclusion, is inbred undenied doctrine among you.

CHAP. XIII. Our Adversary his foul and greater Circle commit­ted, pretending to rid his claim to infallibility from the censure of a Circle. His many absurdi­ties, and great ignorance in the pursuit of this at­tempt discovered. A better resolution of Faith proposed according to Protestant Principles.

I accused our Adversaries of a Circle commit­ted in their pretence to Infallibility, because they prove it by Scripture, and the Infallibility of Scripture they prove by the infallibility of their Church, which is to go still round in a Circle. Mr. I. S. to wind himself out of this Circle, presents to us a resolution of his Faith, containing in it a greater Circle, or many Circles together. Having premised some trivial notions to ching the obscurity of Faith, and evidence of credibility required to the assent of it, he falls on extolling the power and aptness of Miracles to beget such credibility, reducing all to the ad­vantage of the Roman Church, authorized with Miracles, as he pretends: and from page 180. he enters into his resolution of Faith thus. ‘You ask why I beleive the Trinity? I answer be­cause God hath revealed it. You ask why I believe that God revealed it? I answer, because the Church by which God speaks tells us so. You ask why I beleive that God speaks by the Church? I must not answer because the Scripture says it; neither must I answer, that I beleive God to speak by the Church, because she works Mi­racles.’

[Page 78] Here I am to doubt whether this be the same man that spoke to us a little before, p. 177. and more at large, p. 102. extolling the force of Miracles to beget an evidence of Credibility in the proposer of divine Verities; or another of his Auxiliaries, that came in his place to carry on the work, without regard to what the former said. But whoever he be, let us see how he disputes against Miracles: If the Miracles be absolutely evident, says he, they can be no motive of Faith, which is of its own nature obscure: and if they be but morally evi­dent Miracles, they can not be the motive, because the motive of Faith must be infallible. How blind is the attemt of this Man against Miracles? how destructive of his own purpose? How absurd and ridiculous his argument against Miracles, I have declared above in Chap. 9. whither I remitt the Reader. Now let us see this mysterious work of our Adversary go on. Having excluded Mi­racles from ascertaining us of the credibility of the Church proposing doctrines to us, he tells us how we must answer that question, Why I be­leive that God speaks by the Church: and it must be thus, because the Church, by which God speaks, says that God speaks by her, and I am obliged to be­leive be speaks by her, because he doth credit her with so many Miracles, and supernatural marks, which makes it evidently credible, that he doth speak by her. If it be the same Man that wrote the whole page, it cannot but appear a wonder, that having em­ployed his skill a few lines before, in weakning the force of Miracles to ground the infallibility of the Church on, he should now take up the same Miracles for his ultimate reason of beleiving in the [Page 79]Church. As a nice Man, who throwing away the paring of his apple, and checking his compa­nion for eating his without paring, fell immediatly after upon eating the paring he threw away.

To cast a patch upon this foul breach of cohe­rence in reasoning, our Adversary shuffles in a distinction betwixt the motive of our act of Faith, and the motive of our obligation of beleiving, which indeed is nothing else at the present then Culicem excoriare, to flay a flea, after much ado to do nothing. The present question immediatly proposed is, why am I to beleive that God speaks by the Church? the only reason he gives for be­leiving in the Church, is Miracles. What needs that distinction of motive to my beleif, and mo­tive to my acknowledgment of obligation to be­leive? the same reason that makes me beleive, intimates to me my obligation of beleiving. The primitive Christians who heard the Apostles preach, and saw their Miracles, knew nothing of these distinctions. Seing those Servants of God confirm their doctrine with Miracles, they beleived God spake by them, and for the same reason or motive thought themselves obliged to beleive them. If we have the same Faith that the primitive Christians of Jerusalem and Antioch had, as Mr. I. S. says, p. 183. why shall not we go the same way to beleive as they did?

But our Adversary is upon a design of impo­sing upon us a Faith which the Apostles did not teach, which he discovers clearly (tho hap­pily not so much to his own knowledg) p. 184. in those remarkable words: The cheif and last mo­tive, whereupon our Faith must rest, is the Word of [Page 80]God speaking to us by the Church. The Church, I say, by which God actually in this present Age speaks unto us; for we do not beleive because God did speak in the first, second or third Age by the Church, &c. Here you see, Reader, a plain Confession of the great guilt of the Roman Church, de­serving the most severe resentment of all true Christians, that glorious, truly Catholic, A­postolic and holy Church of the primitive Ages excluded from the office of being Mistress of our beleif, and the Church of this corrupt Age, go­verned by the most corrupt Court in the World (if we are to beleive them that are best acquaint­ed with it) that of Rome, substituted in her place: And as this is proposed by our Adver­sary without any proof, so it ought to be re­jected by all true Christians with indignation.

Only I will reflect upon the inconsequence of the Man, and how farr he is from his pur­pose of ridding himself from a Circle in resolv­ing his Faith. All that great Labyrinth he works from p. 176. to p. 184. in order to declare his procedure to each act of Faith, and able to puzzle the best understanding, will certainly be requisite in his opinion to proceed to this last act of Faith, which he will have to be the guide of all others, that the Roman Church of this Age is infallible in teaching what we ought to beleive. This being, as he says, an act of divine Faith, I mean, that the Pope with a Generall Council, such as that of Trent, is infallible in proposing matters of Faith, how shall he go a­bout to resolve his Faith upon this particular point? Certainly thus, according to his former [Page 81]discourse: I beleive that the present Church go­verned by the Pope of Rome in the Councill of Trent is infallible, and God speaks by her, because the Church by which God speaks, says, that God speaks by her, and I am obliged to beleive that God speaks by her, because he credits her by so many Miracles, and supernaturall marks, which makes it evidently credible that he doth speak by her. These are Mr. I. S. his own words, and his Confes­sion of Faith set down in the 181. page of his Book. And while the Reader reckons how many Circles he committs here, endeavouring to rid himself of one, I ask of him where be those Miracles wrought by the Fathers of the Coun­cill of Trent, and the Popes moderating in it, to breed in me an evidence of credibility that God spake by their mouth, as the Christians of Jerusalem and Antioch saw the Apostles work for believing that God spake by them; being he says I must take the objects of Faith upon credit of the present Church, and that credit must be grounded upon Miracles and super­naturall marks appearing for it? Will he have us prefer his forg'd Miracles in favour of his new­coin'd-Faith, to those wrought by the Apostles in confirmation of the Faith preached by them? Turn, Reader, to what I said to this purpose in the 9. Chapter of this Treatise.

The more I consider this resolution of Mr. I. S. his Faith, the less I find in it of resolution, and the more Circles and obscurities. Now I enquire of him further, why doth he exclude the Church of the first, second, and third Age from the office of declaring Gods will and word to us? [Page 82]He answers, because the declarations of that an­cient Church are known to us onely by tradition, and tradition, says he, is not the motive, but the Rule of our belief. All this he must say of the Council of Trent, or the Church represented in it of this Age; that alone, and not the Pope out of it, must be in his doctrine our infallible Teacher. Now further, Is not the doctrin of the Council of Trent proposed to us as a Rule of our Faith of equal value and autority with the written word of God, both proceeding from the Holy Ghost? they say it is: Is not more­over that doctrine known to us only by tradi­tion? certainly it is. I have no notice of it, nor can I have but by relation of others, and they of no more credit with me, but rather of far less, then those Venerable Writers that relate to us the doctrine of the primitive Church. Are there not Controversies dayly, and endless about the sense and meaning of the Councill of Trent, as well as about the more ancient Councils? witness the dismall broyls betwixt Jesuists, Jansenists, and Dominicans. Where is now Mr. I. S. his living infallible Judg? The Councill of Trent, and the Popes governing it, are dead and gon. The Pope now living, or any Councill he can congregate, less than a ge­neral one, is not an infallible Judg. Who then will ascertain him? will he have a generall Coun­cill congregated for the resolution of his Faith in every doubt that comes into his head?

How shall we be sure that Pope Innocent and Alexander did not err in their definition of the great debate with the Jansenists? Their definition [Page 83]not being in a general Council cannot be to us a warrant of security in Mr. I. S. his opinion. The Jansenists will triumph at this: and will that please them at Rome, and Paris? while Mr. I. S. agrees with them upon this particular, I ask further. Tho a General Council were con­gregated now to that effect, such as that of Trent, to ascertain us of the Articles defined against Jansenius, how shall I be sure that God speaks by such a Council, or the Church represented in it? thus in Mr. I. S. his dialect: because the Church by which God speaks says that God speaks by her, because he doth credit her by so many Miracles and supernatural marks, which makes it evidently credible, that he doth speak by her. Well, and where be those Miracles and supernatural marks assisting this Council present, to ascertain us that God speaks by it? are you sure to find them at hand when the Council is joined? likely you are upon the experience of coining Miracles, when occasion requires it.

By this, Reader, you may see how little Mr. I. S. hath don, after so much ado, to resolve his Faith without a Circle. How rash his assu­rance was, that Protestants will never resolve theirs without such a fault, I will now shew briefly. The Faith of Protestants is that contain'd in Canonical Scripture, as he often supposes; my Faith touching each point of those contained in Scripture, I resolve thus. I believe the Son of God was made Man, because I find it written in the holy Scripture. I believe what is written in the holy Scripture, because it is the infallible Word of God. And I believe it is the Word of [Page 84]God because the Apostles preaching it did con­firm it with such Miracles and Wonders as only God could work. And finally that the Apostles did deliver the Doctrine contained in Scripture, and did confirm it with Miracles, I beleive in force of universal tradition, according to that celebrated notion of it, delivered by Vincentius Lyrinensis, quod ubique, quod semper, quod apud omnes est creditum; what was alwaies, in all places, and by all Christians received and believed, is to be taken for Universal and Apostolical Tra­dition. This common consent of Christians making up universal Tradition we have in what is unanimously delivered by the ancient Fathers, and declared in the first general Councils of those more holy and sincere primitive times. Thither I go to take up my belief, as to streams immediatly proceeding from the Fountain of Grace, with more pleasure and satisfaction, then to the muddy Waters of doctrine delivered by the Church of Rome of this corrupt Age, past through so many hands defiled with ambition, avarice, and other earthly passions repugnant to sincerity: of which we have too much assu­rance.

CHAP. XIV. A Reflection upon the perverse Doctrine contained in the resolution of Faith proposed to us by Mr. I. S. and the pernicious and most dangerous con­sequences of it.

IT is a Providence of God, and the great force of truth, that our Adversaries should forget themselves sometimes, and discover their wicked intentions, covered under sacred pretexts. All their Novelties they frequently set forth un­der the venerable cloak of Antiquity. It is a glory of humility, says S. Bernard, that Pride should wear a cloak of it, to be in esteem: Gloriosa res humilitas qua se vestire solet Superbia ne evilescat; and so it is a glory of Antiquity that Novellers should pretend credit to their inventions, by casting on them a color of Antiquity. It is very frequent with the Romanists to use this strata­gem, to cloak their new Decrees with the vene­rable name of ancient Canons, to call their Church, ancient Church, tho composed of No­velties, where it opposes the Reformed. Mr. I. S. hath bin pleased to unmask his Church herein to us, declaring that the ultimate ground, and motive of their belief, and their Proselytes, must not be the Testimony of that sacred primitive Church govern'd by Christ himself, and his blessed A­postles; but the Testimony of the present Church of Rome, infected with the corruptions which the [Page 86]World knows, and both friends and foes do see and cry against with universal scan [...]al.

Besides the perversness of this Doctrine, ob­vious to every one that will not blind himself wilfully, taking from our sig [...]t and view the sweet and comfortable face of primitive Chri­stianity, and willing us only to attend the foul and abominable practices of the Roman Court, calling it self Church, and even the Catholic, Universal, and only Church, to the offence and scandal of all sincere and knowing Men; Besides the perversity of this Doctrine, the dangerous consequences of it are much to be considered; for preventing the growth of this destructive Seed.

First, it followeth hence that as there is no end of Disputes and Controversies among Men (nor any is like to be,) so there will be no end of coining new Articles of Faith, all tending to the encrease of power and splendor of the Pope and his Court, tho at the expences of distur­bance, and destructions to Men, Cities, Pro­vinces and Kingdoms, as often happen'd. This to be their aim, under the pretence of exalting and propagating the Faith of Christ, appears by the next attemt of Mr. I. S. in favor of the Popes supremacy, to be examined in the Chapter next following.

Having established the Pope, and his present Church (as he conceives) in the possession of infallible Judges in matters of Faith, the next point he takes in hand to establish, as the chiefest of his concern, is the Popes supremacy, and ab­solute power over all Christians, directly forfooth [Page 87]spirituals, but effectively in their temporal con­cerns; as many powerful Princes, Kingdoms and provinces have experienced to their woe. These two great Prerogatives of absolute power over all Christians, and of infallibility in his De­crees, such as none may oppose or mutter against, being established in the Pope, what security can people or Princes have of their Liberties or Pos­sessions, if liable to be censured Heretics, if they do not receive and submit to any thing the Pope will be pleased to decree and declare for an article of Faith, and being thus censured, to have their Liberties and Lands seiz'd upon, and taken from them, by any that will have force to do it?

Next we are to consider the dangerous con­sequences of this Doctrine in the daily extent of the Popes power and autority, by his Emissa­ries and flatterers. Hitherto they were contented to assert his infallibility in matters of Right, now of late they extend it to matters of Fact, as ap­pears in the famous Thesis of the Parisian Jesuits, declared above in the ninth Chapter. And tho another party opposed that assertion of theirs, as mentioned in the place aforesaid, all men know how litle success any may expect to have in the Roman Judicature, against such as will engage in exalting and extending the power and authority of the Pope, and so the Jesuits have not only ob­tained a censure of heresy and blasphemy, &c. agaist the Doctrine of Cornelius Jansenius, where the debate was in matter of right, but another arising touching the fact; whether Jansenius did indeed deliver such a Doctrine. They obtained [Page 88]wise from the succeeding Pope Alexander the 7th a Bull and Decree no less peremtory, touch­ing the fact, declaring the said Propositions censured by his Predecessor to be really contain'd in Jansenius his Book, and, (which is more won­derful he should know) in the sense intended by Jansenius. The foresaid sworn defenders and exalters of the Popes autority have defended publicly, that we are to believe with divine Faith, the said declaration of the Popes against Jansenius, as well in matter of right as fact, to be infallible, by these notable words, Fide divi­nâ credi potest librum cui titulus Augustinus Janse­nii esse haereticum, & quinque Propositiones ex eo decerptas esse Jansenii, & in sensu Jansenii dam­natas: that the Book intitled the Augustin of Jansenius is heretical, and the five Propositions which are gathered out of it, are Jansenius's, and in the sense of Jansenius condemned. And there is no reason but we may expect a command of believing the Popes infallibility in this latter kind in matter of fact, as formerly intimated in mat­ters of right.

And if this be established, that the Pope is infal­lible also in matters of fact: and if he be pleased to declare that any of us in particular is an heretic, or hath delivered an heretical Proposition, Woe be to him so declared a heretic by the Pope. All Christians, subject to the Pope, must take him for an heretic, and proceed against him accord­ingly with all those severities inflicted by Canons against Heretics. Mr. I. S. accuses me to the Lord Licutenant of Ireland that I should have said, that there is no salvation in the Catholic hurch: [Page 89]a proposition, in my own opinion, heretical and blasphemous taken in its proper literal and right sense (not to take notice of some crooked impro­per sense, which Mr. I. S. may pretend, and may render my discourse obscure.) This testimony so evidently false he imposes upon me, my Book being extant in the hands of many hundred men, and my self living to declare the false-hood of it yet his confidence is such, that having no evidence, nor as much as attemted, to prove the truth of his accusation, he will have my Lord Lieutenant to proceed to the utmost severity against me, commanding me to be burned for blasphemous. Ill may he expect from his Excellency so unjust and rash a judgment: but how far he may speed in Rome with the same accusation, tho false, I may not know. Of their integrity, proceeding to judgement without hearing the parties, I can have no assurance. If they declare me for Author of the Proposition imposed upon me by Mr. I. S. That in the Catholic Church there is no salvation, and consequently guilty of heresy and blasphemy, and all must take their declaration therein for infallible, according to that increase of infalli­bility in matters of fact ascribed of late to the Pope by his prime Favorites: what mischief may not I expect from all those who think it a spe­cial service of God to destroy Hereties?

But my particular concern is not of so great a force to declare the enormity or danger of this consequence. He accuses the whole Church of Protestants of heresy and blasphemy in a high degree, saying its their common doctrine, that it is impossible to keep Gods Commandments: [Page 90]which proposition in its literal full sense is cer­tainly heretical and blasphemous, for deroga­tory of Gods justice and goodness, and diame­trically opposite to the doctrine of Christ, as I have declared in the 8th Chapter; where also I have shewed how falsely such a doctrine is im­posed upon the whole Church of England. But if our Adversary gets a definition of the Pope that we are in effect guilty of that error, in what condition shall we stand with our neighbors? our innocency in the case will not availe. What if Mr. I. S. or other like him, would accuse some great Christian Prince of heresy, tho with as little truth as we have seen his accusation of me, and of the Church of England, now mentioned to have proceeded? But if the malice of neigh­bors, hunting after the Lands of such a Prince, and of his Subjects disposed to rebell against him, should join to accuse him of heretical pra­vity, and the Pope thereby should proceed to deliver his infallible judgment, touching such a Prince, to be an heretic in effect, in what mise­rable condition must that Prince be for credit and interest, to be taken by all men for an un­doubted heretic? his Subjects absolved from their Allegiance to him, and his Lands exposed to the prey of any stronger hand autorized by the Pope, according to the procedure of that Court, whereof many dismal Tragedies are to be seen in the Chronicles of England, Germany, Navarre, and other Kingdoms of Europe.

To establish this power in the Pope of Rome, so destructive to the peace and safety of Chri­stian people and Princes, being the aim of Mr. [Page 91]I. S. his tedious and intricate discourses, in favor of his pretended unerring, unerrable Church, and that declared by himself, he may expect the time, when all Christian people are perfectly blind and mad, to have his doctrine received. And now having seen how unsuccessful he hath bin in setting up the grand Engine of the Popes infallibility, or infallibility of the Church go­verned by the Pope (by which name of either he pleaseth to term it) to put us to silence as to further debates, as truly he had need, accordingly he appears ill furnished to enter into them. We will now proceed to see how ill armed he is to encounter upon the particular points I proposed for motive of my discontent with the Roman Church.

CHAP. XV. Mr. I. S. his defense of the Popes Supremacy de­clared to be vain. Their pretence to a Monar­chical power over all Christians, whether in Spi­ritual or Temporal, proved to be unjust and ty­rannical.

OUR Adversary will have us take for an Article of Faith, the Supreme power of the Pope over all Christians in Spiritual affairs. Whether he hath the like supreme power over Princes in temporal concerns, he leaves to our discretion to believe what we please, the case being disputable. And indeed it is a courtesy in Mr. I. S. to permit us this liberty even touching temporal affairs, and beyond commission from the Court of Rome, as may appear by what we are to say in this Chapter.

But what he allows him of Supremacy in Spi­ritual government over all other Bishops, and over all Christians, is certainly more then his right; more then Christ gave him, and more then S. Peter had, whose Successor the Pope pre­tends to be. He will never find any mention in History Ecclesiastic, of any claim S. Peter should pretend to have of power over S. James in Jeru­salem; S. Andrew in Achaia over Thomas in the Indies, or over any other of the Apostles in their respective Provinces, no dependance of them [Page 93]upon him. None of those more worthy first Bishops of Rome (for five hundred years) did ever pretend to any such Supremacy, if we are to believe one of the best of them, St. Gregory the Great, in his many Epistles written against the Ambition of John Patriarch of Constantinople, pretending to such a calling of Universal Bi­shop.

Neither did he therein act for himself as he do's formally protest, to obviate the malice of those who would cast that aspersion upon his pro­ceeding herein, a In damnando generalitatis nomi­ne, saies he, nostrum specialiter aliquid non amamus. Neither indeed, could the reasons he alledges a­gainst the Ambition of John of Constantinople, con­sist with a pretention to such a Prerogative, in fa­vor of his own See, namely, b that it is to rob Christ of his priviledg of being Head of the Uni­versal Church; that if the whole Church were subject to, and depending upon one man, he fal­ling into Heresie, all the Church would fall with him.

How foul an Aspersion Papists do cast upon this good Pope Gregory the Great, saying, he would claim to himself the calling he reprehen­ded in John of Constantinople, may appear by these words of his foresaid Epistle 36. written to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, and to Atha­nasius [Page 94]Bishop of Antioch, saying, a ‘The name of Universal Bishop, was by the holy Council of Chalcedon offered only to the Bishop of the See Apostolic, in which, by Gods providence I do serve, but none of my Predecessors did consent to use this profane calling. For if one Patriarch or Bishop be called Universal, the name of a Bishop is taken from the rest. But far be this, far be it from the mind of a Chri­stian, that any should assume to himself any thing, which may seem to diminish in the least the honor of his brethren.’ How can this con­sist with saying, that Gregory did claim to him [...]elf that calling which he reprehended in John of Con­stantinople, since he declares that his Predeces­sors did refuse that calling, and alledges reasons which prove that none ought to admit it.

The same St. Gregory is the first Author I find to have accused of Anti-Christianism, the pre­tention of the Pope to Supremacy over all Chri­stians, in the person of the foresaid John Patriarch of Constantinople; of whose ambitious preten­tion to the like Supremacy, he writes thus to the Empress Constantina: b ‘And what may we un­derstand by this kind of pride, but that the time of Anti-Christ is near? since he imi­tates [Page 95]him who despising the social joy of Angels, did endevor to rise up to the top of singulari­ty, saying, I will ascend into Heaven, I will exalt my Throne above the Stars of God: I will sit also upon the Mount of the Congrega­tion in the sides of the North, I will ascend a­bove the height of the Clouds, I will be like the most high.’ This singularity of the Bishops of Rome, in despising a fair and brotherly socie­ty with other Bishops, and pretending a Supre­macy over all, and an Equality with God in se­veral of his priviledges, gave occasion to such, as in after Ages called them Anti-christs.

Certainly this Ambition of being head of the Universal Church, a priviledg granted in Scripture only to Christ, the boldness of pre­ferring his own laws to the Laws of Christ, where­of we gave several instances, have great affinity with the qualities of Anti-christ described in Scripture. And St. Gregory his prediction, that the usurpation of this Supremacy would be a ca­lamity to the Church, is found to be too true. All the Combustions and dismal Contentions that afflicted this Kingdom for a whole Age, did proceed from the Popes pretention to Su­premacy. It is not the intrinsic quality of spe­culative doctrines of Faith controverted, it is not the alterations of Ceremonies or Language in divine Service did minister fuel to this fatal fire; all these things would be easily agreed upon, if we did allow but Supremacy to the Pope, or he did quit his pretention to it. Of this we have certainty by what Sir Roger Twisden affirms out of warrantable Histories and Relations, that Pope [Page 96] Paulus IV. finding his fierceness could not a­vail with Queen Elizabeth, offered a to let things stand as they were, the Queen acknowledging his Primacy, and the Reformation from him. It is not the loss of Souls, but the loss of Peter-pence, and command did trouble him, and made him and his Successors bring so much trouble on us all.

His Successor Pius IV. continued the same proffer to the Queen, by Letters written the fifth of May 1560. and sent by Vincentius Parpa­lia: and gave assurance of it to a noble Man of England, that he would comply with her request to the utmost of his power, provided she would allow his Primacy: In ejus gratiam, quaecunque possim praeterea facturus, dum illa ad nostram Ec­clesiam se recipiat, & debitum mihi primatus titu­lum mihireddat. And surely he that can dispense with the Laws of God, and alter them, as we saw the Popes do, may better dispense with, and al­ter what other Popes did decree against the Re­formation. Priests may marry, the people may drink consecrated Wine at Communion, they may pray in English, &c. if they did but allow his Primacy, and with it his pence to the Pope. Here lies Petra scandali, the stumbling block, and lapis offensionis. Ambition and Avarice cloak­ed with Religion did profane the Church, and put the World in confusion. See the Fact here alledged, and proof of it in b Sir Roger Twisden his historical Vindication of the Church of England, chap. IX. Where he adds, that himself relating this passage to an Italian Gentleman vers'd in [Page 97]public Affairs, had this reply from him, If this were heard in Rome among religious men, it would never gain credit: but with such as have in their hands the Maneggi della Corte, the management of Affairs, it may be held true. Such as understand the mystery of the Roman Court do know, that Ambition and Interest is the primum mobile and Soul that animates all their motions. So true we find Gregory his prediction to be, that the usurpation of this Supremacy would be a cala­mity to the Church.

I am to take notice here of another reason St. Gregory gives, why the former good Bishops of Rome his Predecessors would not accept of this proud calling, * Nullus eorum unquam hoc singu­laritatis vocabulum assumpsit, nec uti consensit, ne dum privatum aliquid daretur uni, honore debito Sacer do­tes privarentur Ʋniversi. No one of the ancient Bishops of Rome (for six hundred years) took upon him the calling of Supreme or Universal Bishop, nor permitted it should be given to them, least the singularity given to one, should deprive the Clergy of due honor. And this indeed was the consequence of the Popes immoderate Am­bition in this kind. To it we may attribute the too much contemt fallen upon the Clergy in ge­neral in this corrupt Age. The extravagant boundless ambition of the Bishops of Rome, mak's men fearful to allow even decent and due Auto­rity to the Clergy; least they should improve it to the prejudice of Christian people and Princes, as now we shall see some Popes did.

[Page 98] This proud calling, which St. Gregory called Blasphemous and Anti-christian, his Successor Boni­face the Third, took upon himself, b [...] the assi­stance of the Emperor Phocas, who being offen­ded with Ciriac Patriarch of Constantinople, for sheltering from his fury the Empress Corstantina relict of Maurice, and the immunit of his Church which they made their Sa [...]ctuar, trans­ferred upon Boniface the Title of Universal Bi­shop (Baron. an. 606.) which dignity and cal [...]ing the following Popes did advance so far, that [...]n­nocent the Third compares the Papal Dignity and Regal to the Sun and Moon; so that the Papal Dignity do's exceed the Regal on earth, as much as the Sun exceedeth the Moon in the Heavens. a And least you may not understand how much the Pope is made greater then Kings by this comparison, The Gloss furnishes you with this singular Declaration of it, saying, b That since the Earth is seven times greater then the Moon, and the Sun eight times greater then the Earth, it must needs follow, that the Popes power is forty seven times greater then that of Kings.’ I leave the ingenious Reader to consider the heap of ab­surdities contained in this Gloss, as suitable to that Text of it; the trespasses against Latine, A­rithmetic and Astronony contained in it, and much more against truth; for the Regal Dignity [Page 99]being Solo Deo minor (as * Tertullian saith) it cannot be a Moon to any other Sun.

But all this (saies Mr. I. S.) is to be under­stood of a Spiritual power; that's the pretext, but that Spiritual power must be assisted by the Temporal; and where the word will not do, the sword must follow. So the same Innocent the Third declared in the third Lateran Council, and acted accordingly with King John of England, as other Popes did with several Emperors and Kings, mentioned in the 45. page of my dis­course, devesting them of their Kingdoms and Dominions, and absolving their Subjects from their Allegiance to them.

Mr. I. S. saies the Lateran Council did not assume the power of deposing Princes, but find­ing it a probable Opinion among Divines, grounded their Fact upon that Opinion, and issued their Decree of that Punishment against such Princes. In a good condition the World stands, if 'tis to be governed by such Councils. If any Opinion found proba­ble among Divines, may be a sufficient ground to a conciliary Definition or Decree: what desperate Definitions and Decrees may we not expect from their Councils, when we see so many desperate Opinions come forth daily among their Divines, and all taken for probable, if countenanced by one Author, or two reputed to be Learned?

CHAP. XVI. How falsly Mr. I. S. affirms that the Irish did not suffer by the Popes prohibiting to subscribe to the Remonstrance of Fidelity proposed to them.

I Bemoaned the misery of the Irish, prohibited severely by the Pope, to subscribe a Remon­strance of Fidelity proposed to them, where­in they were to disclaim the Popes power of de­posing Kings, tho they should suffer never so many penalties and suspicions for it. This Mr. I. S. calls a Fiction with his Ordinary confidence, not regarding to be openly convicted of un­truth. Whether the Irish did not undergo sus­picions and disfavors for refusing to subscribe to the said Remonstrance, let themselves tell. Whether such as subscribed were not persecu­ted by the Pope and his Emissaries, with censures and manifold vexations, let two copious Vo­lumes published upon the subject declare, the one in Latin by Richard Caron, the other in English by Peter Walsh, largely relating, and learnedly refuting the unjust procedure of the Pope and his Emissaries upon this subject. I re­ceived my self from Cardinal Rospigliosi, then In­ternuncius in Brussels, a Copy of Cardinal Francis Barberini his Letter to him, intimating the Popes will and command, that the Irish should not sub­scribe to the said Remonstrance, and the censure of the Theological Faculty of Lovain, declaring [Page 101]the said Remonstrance to be repugnant to the truth of Catholic Religion; and therefore unlawful and abominable, such as no man may subscribe to without Sacriledg. And being question'd what part of the Remonstrance merited so grave a Censure, they answered, it was * the denial of a power in the Pope, of making war by himself, or by others, a­gainst our King, for usurping the Primacy due to the Pope, and retaining unjustly the Lands of the Bri­tish Church. In which case, say they, it may not be lawful for Catholics to oppose the Pope making war, or favor the King usurping the Popes rights. Thus the warlike Theologians of Flanders do beat to arms, and denounce war against opposers of their Church, which according to the rules of Maho­met must be defended with the sword, when words will not do. And must not all this admi­nister an occasion of Jealousie to our King? All will not make Mr. I.S. beleive, that the practices of the Pope and his Emissaries herein did occa­sion any sufferings to the Irish.

Its remarkable what the foresaid Author re­lates, that Cardinal Francis Barbarini being que­stioned by one of his acquaintance, why the En­glish and Irish Papists may not disclaim that do­ctrine of King deposing power in the Pope, as the French do; he answered, it is not the fashion with the French to consult them of Rome in such cases. But the Irish and English consulting them, were to expect they would resolve in Rome what was more agreeable to their pretended right. I [Page 102]like of the Cardinals noble dealing in delivering the truth of the matter; but whether it be a no­ble proceeding of them in Rome, to aggravate the miseries of the English and Irish suffering for their sake, let Ovid tell,

At Lupus & turpes instant morientibus Ʋrsae,
Et quaecunque minor nobilitate fer a est.

That it is for Bears and Wolves, and such like ignoble Brutes, to insult over those that are down, and kill the dying. It behooves men to be stiff with the Pope: for if they stoop, he'l throw them quite down.

CHAP. XVII. The complaint of Papists against our King, for the Oath of Supremacy he demandeth from his Sub­jects, declared to be unjust.

Mr. I. S. sleighting that of the Remon­strance, would have me condole the suf­ferances of the Irish, for not taking the Oath of Supremacy to the King of England as Head of the Church, which he saies to be a cruelty against Souls, to demand from them. I do condole hear­tily the sufferings of the Irish for that, I mean their folly and blindness, in suffering themselves to be deluded by the Arts of Rome, believing re­bellion to be Religion; and Catholic Piety, to pass the Obedience due to their natural Prince by Gods command to a forreigner, that has no other right over them, then what by craft and cruelty he hath usurped, as is declared in the Chapter preceding.

All this will be made clear to such as will con­sider, that our Princes pretend not to any other Supremacy or power over their Subjects, then such as the godly Kings of Israel had in their time over the Jews, and the Christian Empe­rors in the Primitive Church over their respe­ctive Subjects; as is declared in the thirty se­venth Article, and seventh Canon of the Church of England, and as indeed our Princes do exe­cute, [Page 104]practising even less power in Church Af­fairs, then the Kings of Israel, and Christian Em­perors did. Do but read the second of Kings, commonly called the fourth, in the 23. Chapter, and see how forward the godly King Josiah was in reforming the Church, both Clergy and Laity, reading himself to them the Book of the Cove­nant, deposing unworthy Priests, and substituting lawful ones. The same you may see practiced by Hezekias in the second Book of Chronicles, chap. XXIX. and the Text approving his pro­ceeding in all this particular; saying, He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, accor­ding to all his Father had don. If you do but con­fer the proceeding of these two good Kings re­lated in the fore-mentioned places, with the be­havior of our Princes in the several Convoca­tions of their Clergy and people for the Refor­mation of the Church in these Kingdoms; you shall find them not to have taken so much of the work upon them in their own persons, as those Kings of Israel did; but commended to Prelates and Divines the Examination of Points belonging to Religion, and Government of the Church, holding themselves the sword and stern of Government to keep peace at home, and de­fend them from forreign Enemies.

Neither did our Savior diminish, but rather confirm this supreme power of Princes over their Subjects. We have his will herein intimated to us by St. Paul, Rom. XIII. 1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher Powers: where by higher Powers, St. Augustin and the other Ancient Fa­thers do understand the secular power of Princes, [Page 105]and the context it self is clear enough for that interpretation, as Salmeron confesses: a Patres Veteres, & praecipuè Augustinus Ep. 54. Apostolum interpretantur de potestate seculari tantum loqui, quod & ipse textus subindicat. And that to this power, not only Seculars, but all sorts of Ecclesiastical persons are subject, S. Chrysostom b declares: Omnibus ista imperantur, & Sacerdotibus & Mo­nachis, &c. This is a command said upon all Men, whether they be Priests or Monks, whether A­postles, Evangelists, or Prophets, or whoever they be: and S. Bernard c considers well that the very words of the text do declare so much: If every Soul be subject unto the higher power, says he, (writing to an Arch-Bishop) yours also must be likewise subject. Who hath exemted you from the general Rule? &c.

Neither is it less certain by the practice of the Church, both old and Christian, and by the au­tority of Fathers, that it belongeth to Princes to protect and have an eye over their people in matters of Religion; to procure the integrity and reformation of it, when decayed. As for the old Law, the cases proposed above of Hezekiah and Josiah do assure us, that this hath bin the practice of the best Kings of those times. And if you consult the acts of Constantine the great, of Arcadius and Honorius, of Theodosius the elder, Justinian, Charles the great, and others the best of Christian Emperors, and greatest supporters [Page 106]of the Churches honor; you shall find them in­tervening frequently, and moderating the greatest consultation touching Religion, and the good conduct of Church affairs.

It was a wonder to S. Augustin, that any should doubt it should be the duty of an Emperor or Prince to do so. a An forte de Religione fas non est dicat Imperator, vel quos miserit Imperator? What, doth it not belong to the Emperor, or to him he employs, to deliver his opinion touching Religion? and elsewhere he says, that to be the chief care and charge of the Emperor, of which he is to give account to God; b ad Imperatoris cu­ram de quâ rationem Deo redditurus est, res illa maximè pertinebat.

All this being so, that it is the duty of our Princes to govern all the states and affairs of this Kingdom, and the dut [...] of Subjects to obey them in all, and that for conscience, as S. Paul declareth, Rom. 13.5. That you must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake: how can I omit to condole the misery of my Country-men, and others so deluded by the arts of Rome, as to take it for a breach of Con­science, what S. Paul declares to be a duty of Conscience; I mean an acknowledgment of their Princes Supreme Authority over all his Subjects, and their obligation of obeying him accordingly? Especially when I see what S. Bernard saw and lamented, that it is not the welfare of Souls, nor the zeal of their Salvation, makes the Court of Rome to put this horror into the hearts of Men against their dutyful obedience and subjection to [Page 107]their Princes: Non quod valdè Romani curant quo fine res terminetur, sed quia valdè diligunt munera, sequuntur retributiones, not that the Ministers of Rome do regard much the end or purpose of Con­troversies raised, so they obtain their own end of encreasing their own interest and power. I wish with all my heart, with S. Bernard, that these corruptions of Rome were not so public and known to all the World. * Ʋtinam nobis relinque­rent Moderni Noae, unde à nobis possint aliquatenus operiri: nunc vero cernente Orbe, mundi fabulam soli tacebimus? I wish these modern Noahs did leave unto us some possibility of covering their shame, but all the World beholding it, shall we alone conceal it?

This being so, consider Mr. I. S. how blind is your zeal, or great your malice, in saying it should be a cruelty in our Princes to demand from their subjects an acknowledgment of his supreme power over them; and in them a blasphemy to ac­knowledg it. And to make us believe it is so, you produce the autority of Calvin. When I alledg Vasquez or Suarez his doctrine to you, if it be not to your liking, you tell me, they have bin mistaken as well as I: so much I say to you at present of Calvin, that, if he be of your mind in this particular, he is mistaken, and in a foul error as well as you. Calvin and Lu­ther have no more autority in the Church of England, then Suarez and Vasquez among you, and I observe you are as singularly impertinent, as unreasonable, wheresoever you speak to me of Luther and Calvin: it is not their writings, [Page 108]which I never saw, brought me to the Church of England, nor conserves me in it: The Scri­pture, Fathers, and the History of the Church did work both upon me. Of them you are to speak to me, as I do to you.

Many a thousand poor simple Souls in these Kingdoms, misled by the Pope, and his busy Emissaries, do cry against the Oath of Supremacy, without knowing, or examining what it means, or what is their Princes meaning in demanding it: crying up the Popes Supremacy, much like those 200. seduced by Absalon to follow him out of Jerusalem, to rebel against the King his Father, when they thought they did service to the King. And with Absalon went two hundred men out of Jerusalem that were called: and they went in their simplicity, and they knew not any thing. 2. Sam. 15.11. So it is with many seduced by the art and activity of Rome, to den [...] due submission to their lawful Prince, and give it to a Forreign usurper; under pretext of following a pretended Vicar of God, to rebel against God; S. Paul declaring that whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the Or­dinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. A conclusion he doth very legally infer from a verity he had immediatly before premised, That the powers that be are or­dained of God. Rom. 13.1.2. We are to believe in Charity that many have the excuse of those 200. seduced by Absalon: That they went in their simplicity, and they knew not any thing. But the corruptions and impostures of Rome being so universally known, even in S. Bernards time (as declared above) and much more now, we may [Page 109]fear justly that too many do err with knowledg, or for want of due inquiry: and so resisting law­ful power, they may receive to themselves damna­tion. Of which latter sort Mr. I. S. may seriously fear himself to be one, if he be so conversant in the doctrine of both Churches, Protestant and Popish, and in that of primitive Christianity, as he pretends to be. This I commend to his mature consideration, while I pursue him in his engagement about Transubstantiation.

CHAP. XVIII. Our Adversarys Essay in favour of Transubstan­tiation examined. His Challenge for solving two Syllogisms answered.

MR. I. S. I do generally find you unexact, and much unlike a Scholar in your Argu­ments, but more when you boast most, and stand in defiances. Now you defy all my Divinity to answer two Syllogisms, you would have us be­lieve to be of your own invention. But a piece of my Logic will make both appear Paralogisms unworthy of any answer, no formal Syllogisms. The first grounded upon Luke. 22.19. Eat, this is my Body which is given for you, runs thus; He gave to them what he gave for them; But what he gave for them, was not a sigure, but his real and true Body; therefore what he gave to them was not a figure, but his real and true body. In this Syllo­gism nothing is new but the form you give it, and that guilty of several vices against the rules of Logic. I say nothing is new in your argument, nor any sense or force added to it, by passing the case from Christ giving the last Supper, to Christ suffering upon the Cross. All your Syllogism may be formed in the former case as in the latter, thus; What Christ gave to his Disciples at the last Supper was the same Body they saw speaking to them, and giving them the bread; The body they saw speaking to them, and giving them [Page 111]the Supper was a real body not a figurative; Ergo. Tho you had all the eies of Argus, you will never discover any sense or force in your new invented Syllogism, that is not in this so trivial and often answered.

But being you conceive some excellency in the form of our Syllogism, I will let you see some perfections of it. First its guilty of that gross vice in arguing Petitio principii, or a beg­ging of the question. In your major proposition you take for granted that which is constantly deny'd to you, that he gave to them really, and not only figuratively, his flesh which he gave for them. If you will not take it so, but indeterminatly, touching the mode of giving his Body to them, whether real or figurative; then you fall into another no less notorious vice in arguing, called muta­tio suppositi, to change the Supposition. In the major proposition our Saviors Body supposes in­determinatly with you, prescinding from the mode. In the Minor it supposes determinatly, affixing it to a real or corporal mode. Hence appears a third vice in your Syllogism of arguing in four terms: taking up in the Minor a term which was not in the Major, to wit, the mode of giving his Body corporally: and thence you proceed to join or identify in the conclusion terms which you did not shew identified in any medium, neglecting herein that prime rule of reasoning, Quae sunt eadem uni tertio sunt eadem in­ter se. To argue right and according to this rule, and without the Vices now discovered in your Syllogism, you should have formed it thus: He gave to them what he gave for them, both [Page 112]in mode and substance; what he gave for them was his Body not figurative, but real; There­fore he gave it to them really.

Thus your Argument would carry the shape of a legal Syllogism, and your next work was to be the proving of the major proposition; That Christ gave to the Disciples what he gave for them, both in mode and substance; that which you will never be able to do. You say the text makes no distinction betwixt what he gave to them, and what he gave for them. But mens eies did. They saw given for them upon the Cross a real organic human body; such they did not see given to them at the Supper. You say further, not only falsely but blasphemously, that if we say what he gave to them was but figurative, we must say also that what he gave for them was only figurative, and so fetch from Hell again the heresy of Marcion, that what suffered for us was but a fantastical body. You are too ready in fetching heresies from Hell, and de­stroying the foundations of Christianity upon very light or no occasion given to you for it. But we are not so ready to believe you, or let your raw inferences run without a check. S. John that saw our Saviour upon the Cross, the same person he knew so well, how could he ima­gin it was a Phantasm, and not a real Body? to Hell you must go for men that would abuse their senses so. And thence certainly came your Paradox of imposing upon our senses, and play­ing the Marcion under other terms, pretending its but a Phantasm of bread, not a real one, what our senses do assure us to be true bread [Page 113]in the Eucharist. And by this overthrowing the main Pillar of Christian Belief grounded upon the glory of Miracles proposed to us by the te­stimony of our senses: and being taught to mis­believe them, a Gate is open for new Marcio­nists, to say, the resurrection of Lazarus, and o­ther wonders our Saviour and his Apostles wrought in confirmation of their doctrine, were but Phantasms, praestigiae sensuum, some Art of Legerdemain deluding our senses.

Finally, by this your Illustration of your Syl­logism, you render it a formal Paralogism, accor­ding to Aristotle his notion of this kind of spu­rious Syllogism; which is, (saies he, 1. top. c. 1.) When you assume for eviaent what is false and im­possible. And you assume for as clear and evi­dent, that Christ was corporally present in the bread he gave at the last Supper, as it was clear and evident to the beholders of both, that he was corporally upon the Cross. I have proved with Arguments, which you did not yet, nor ever will solve, this your assumtion to be both false and impossible. And while you do not, let it be concluded that your Syllogism you magni­fie so much, is a meer Paralogism.

But for such as may not so readily dive into this Logical scrutiny of your Sophistic Syllogism, or Paralogism, and to undeceive your self so much wedded to your ill digested conceptions, I will let you see the fallacy and weakness of your Argument in another of the very same form, grounded upon words of our Saviour also, Joh. XV. 1. I am the true Vine; upon which words you may argue thus. Christ by his own decla­ration [Page 114]is a true Vine; but a true Vine is neither God nor man: therefore Christ by his own declaration is neither God nor man. This Syl­logism hath the very same form which yours hath, and is grounded upon as Canonical Scri­pture as yours is: no defect can be imagined in it, which appears not in yours. If you do not think it concluding, expect not to have us believe yours to be concluding; and brag not so much of your Syllogisms for unanswerable, until you answer this.

The second Syllogism you pray to be an­swer'd, is upon those words of the Jews, Joh. VI. 52. How can this Man give us his flesh to eat? An Argument I proposed my self more clearly in fewer words, and answered very clearly in the pag. 63. of my discourse, which if you did con­sider with ingenuity, you might have spared us the labor of seeing your work about it. But the force lies in the form you give it, which is this, A damnal le Ʋnbeleiver is he who denies a truth sufficiently proposed to him to be revealed by God: the Jews in this occasion were damnable Ʋnbeleivers, and what they denied was a fleshly eating of his real body, as the Papists beleive it. Thus you, p. 189. of your Book.

In this Syllogism I could reckon up as many vices as I did in your former: but I am tired, and may fear to tire my Reader with often mince­ing your raw Arguments; to condemn it in the judgment of any good Logician is sufficient to shew it. Surely it has nothing of a formal S [...]llo­gism, but that it seems to consist of three propo­sitions. And at this rate you may make a horse of [Page 115]a stool, because both have four feet. But even herein I do your Syllogism favor, in allowing, it should seem to consist of three Propositions, for in truth it hath four, & in them four terms, one of its notorious vices. That which takes place of a mi­nor hath two Propositions in it; The Jews in this occasion were damnable Ʋnbeleivers, and what they denied was a fleshly eating of his real Body, as Pa­pists do beleive it. Where we see two distinct Propositions; the second abruptly intruded with­out any connexion or affinity with the medium placed in the major. And thence you pass to your third, or rather fourth Proposition, bearing by Ergo or therefore, the mark of a Conclusion, but no more. For a Conclusion, indeed ought to be a verity contained in the Premises; in nei­ther of your Premises is your Conclusion con­tained, nor in both. What only seemeth to have some affinity with the Conclusion, is that second part of your Minor, That what the Jews deny'd, was a Fleshly eating of his real Body, as the Papists do believe: but tho this be so, its far from fetch­ing in the Conclusion, That Christ did sufficient­ly propose unto them a fleshly eating of his real Body; as Papists do believe it. For tho they deny'd a fleshly eating, it was not that only what they denied. They denied also a Spiritual eating: they denied a Fleshly eating, but impertinently to the proposal of Christ. They denied what was not demanded of them, by a mistake of his mean­ing, which our Saviour corrected immediately, by saying, Joh. VI. 63. The words he spoke to them were Spirit and Life.

You alledg that I acknowledged the Jews to [Page 116]have understood Christ of a Corporal and Flesh­ly eating, as Papists do. But you conceal frau­dulently, how I said, and proved that they mis­understood him, and Christ did tax them with a mis-understanding, as now mention'd. Where is now in all this, any even probable ground for your Conclusion, which you pretend to have found out clearly in the foresaid place of St. John; that Christ in that occasion did sufficiently propose to them a Fleshly eating of his real Bo­dy, as Papists do believe it; that only in deny­ing such eating, they were damnable Unbelievers? You affirm decretorially, without giving any reason for it, that the words of our Saviour, The Flesh profiteth nothing, its the Spirit that quickeneth, &c. was not a check to the Jews, for under­standing him of a Fleshly eating; but to us for judging of this Mystery by the senses of the Flesh, and by natural reason. Sir, we are ready by the help of divine Grace, to captivate our sea­ses and reason to the Obedience of Faith in God, wheresoever we find him declare his Will to us, without any further examen. But such captivity of our understanding we do upon good grounds deny to your Decrees, as undue to them. In what the Church of England believes, touching the holy Eucharist, there is a large compass for divine Faith to be exercised. Its no work of na­ture by sense or reason, to understand or believe so strange an Union, tho Spiritual (as the Gospel tells us, and we believe) 'twixt Christ and the faithful Receiver of this Sacrament; such streams of divine Grace, such feeding of Souls to life everlasting. To this we willingly pay a captivity [Page 117]of our understanding, because we find it clearly declared in the Word of God, tho never surpas­sing so much the reach of our natural Understan­ding. From niceties touching the mode we do religiously abstain, being God was not pleased to declare it: according to that grave and reli­gious expression of King James, Quod legit Ec­clesia Anglicana, pie credit; quod non legit pari pie­tate non inquirit. What the Church of England reads, that it doth piously believe; what it doth not read, with equal Piety omits to pry into.

CHAP. XIX. Several Answers to my Arguments, against Tran­substantiation refuted.

TO all my Reasons touching the absurdity of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and the repugnance of it with all humane reason, Mr. I. S. gives an easie Answer, that in matters of Faith we must renounce Reason. He should first prove that this is a point of Faith, a doctrine con­tained in the Word of God. His endeavors for it we have seen and declared to be vain in the precedent Chapter; then it being an Article of their making, he may not expect from us more subjection of our Intellects, then his re [...]son will gain; and he confessing Reason do's not assist him, I take it for a confession that he is cast in the suit.

I urged, that there was no necessity of forcing men to believe so hard a doctrine, neither for the effect of the Sacrament, nor for the verification of our Saviours words in the Institution of it. Mr. I. S. confesses the first, but denies the second upon a very trivial, and no less weak Argument, which I will shew, rather proves against him then for him. He saies, that allowing the word Body is equivocal, and indifferent to be taken for a real or figurative Body; yet put in a Pro­position, its determined to signifie that of which only the Predicate can be verified; but only of [Page 119]Christ's real Body, can it be verified that it was given for us: therefore this Proposition, [This is my Body which is given for you] is to be under­stood of Christ's real Body. Here we have one Proposition made of two, and the Predicate of the former made the Subject of the latter, to frame a designed fallacy. The former Proposition, which is the proper Subject of our debate, is this, Hoc est Corpus meum, this is my Bod. The Subject of this Proposition, is the Bread Christ had in his hands, and gave his Disciples to eat. The Predi­cate is our Saviours Body; and the question is how to understand the words of the Predicate, so as they may be agreeable to the Subject. The words of the Predicate are indifferent to be ta­ken for a real or figurative Body, and to be de­termined according to the quality of the Subject; that so the Identity of both, requisite for a true Proposition, may be seen, according to the rule a­bove mentioned by Mr. I.S. all which proves that the word Body is to be taken rather in a figura­tive sense then in a real; otherwise it could not be agreeable to the Subject, which was Bread real and visible, and called such before and after Con­secration, both by Christ and St. Paul.

Now take notice Reader, of the egregious fal­lacy of our Adversary. The foresaid complex Proposition he assumes to work upon, [This is my Body which is given for you,] is composed of two Propositions, the one is hat now declared, relating to what Christ had in his hand, [This is my Body.] The other relating to Christ's Body of which, as subject of the second Proposition, another Predicate is affirmed, that it was given [Page 120]for us upon the Cross, [which was given for you.] Mr. I. S. to do his own work, confounds these two Propositions, and makes the Predicate of the former Proposition a Subject to the latter: and instead of fitting the said Predicate of the for­mer Proposition to the Subject of it (as he should do, being to speak to the purpose) he talks of fit­ting it to the Predicate of the second Proposition, about which is no question; for none doubts whether it was the real Body of Christ that was given for us upon the Cross. I allow you the be­nefit of the same rule alledged for the second Proposition, [Christs Body was given for us,] that the indifferency of the word Body, which is the Subject, may be determined by the quality of the Predicate, and so taken for a real Body, because 'twas a real Body wch was given for us upon the Cross. Why will not you allow us the benefit of the same rule for the former Proposition, [This is my Body,] which is the proper Subject of this Debate, that the indifferency of the word Body in the Predicate be determined by the quality of the Subject, which was the Bread Christ had in his hand, and of which, with more propriety and less violence may be affirmed, that its a figura­tive Body of Christ, then his living Body?

But if the rules of your Logic must be so ex­travagant as to demand, that when a discrepancy appears betwixt the Predicate and Subject of a Proposition supposed to be true, its the Subject must be altered or fashioned to a conformity with the Predicate, not the Predicate to conform with the Subject: what will you make of these two Propositions of our Saviour, I am the true [Page 121]Vine, Joh. XV. 1. I am the bread of life, Joh. VI. 48. In which two Propositions a great discrepancy appears betwixt the Predicate and Subject. The person of Christ speaking, is the Subject in both Propositions, Wine and Bread the Predicate. Will you have the person of Christ to be altered and converted to a Vine, and to Bread, to verifie those Propositions; I hope you will not be so blasphemous. And why? Because Christ was seen to be a Man, not a Vine, or Bread: and so was the Bread in his hands seen and felt to be true Bread, no humane Body.

I objected, that the Council of Trent, Sess. 13. Can. 2. accursing such as affirm Bread and Wine to remain in the Eucharist after Consecration, doth oppose St. Paul, calling the consecrated Ele­ment Bread. You say he called it Bread, not be­cause it was such then, but because it was Bread before; as in Scripture we read, The blind do see, the lame do walk: not that they were blind and lame when they did see and walk, but because they were such before. I answer, that in these latter cases an Ampliation of the term was neces­sary, because the senses did assure that those men were not then blind or lame; but not so in St. Pauls case; the senses did see and feel what he called Bread, to be such indeed.

I produced several clear and express testimo­nies of the most ancient and renowned Fathers of the Church, delivering our doctrine, that the Elements in the Eucharist do not change their na­ture, but are Types and Symbols of the Body of Christ abiding still in their proper substance. To all which Mr. I. S. answers, that the Eucharist [Page 122]is indeed a Type and Representation of Christ's Body, but Christ himself is there both represent­ing and represented: as a King that would act a part in a Tragedy of his own Victories, he would be the thing represented, and the repre­sentation. Truly I wonder how this old Simile kept credit so long time among Romish Cate­chists, but more that it should be brought to a serious dispute. I wonder they should not ap­prehend a great indecency in the parity; if a Tragedy were made of the late Seige of Mae­stricht, wherein the King of France was in per­son active; would not a judicious man think it unbecoming the majesty of so great a Prince, to go himself about all the Cities of the Country, acting a part in such a Tragedy, to represent his own Chivalry? Why will not they think it inde­cent, that the King of Glory, Christ, should act personally and corporally in all corners of the World, where the Eucharist is celebrated, being able to do all intended by it in a more intelligible way, and with more decency.

But all this while our Adversary slips the main Point intended by the testimony of the Fathers, that the Elements of Bread and Wine remain in their own nature unchanged after Consecration; whereby they seem to lie under the curse of the Council of Trent now mentioned. To which testi­monies I will add another out of Dionysius Syrus, writing upon the first Chapter of S. John. v. 14. and the word was made Flesh. His words tran­slated by a most * learned and honorable person out of the Syriac Language into English, are these.

Object. The Heretics demand how was the word made Flesh, being not changed?

Sol. Even as he appeared to the Prophets in Similitudes without being changed, & as he was before he was made, so was he when he was made, without change. And as the Amianton or Salamander is united with the fire, without being changed; as the Bread is made the Body of Christ, and the waters of Baptism are made Spi­ritual, without being changed from their nature: so the word was made Flesh, without being changed from what it was as God; that is to say, he took Flesh without being changed.

From the same hand I had notice that the E­thiopic Liturgy printed at Rome, dn. Dom. 1548. useth these words in the Celebration of the Sa­crament, This Bread is my Body; which deter­mination of the Particle hoc, to Bread, disfavor­ing the doctrine of Transubstantion, the Transla­tor of the Liturgy plai'd the falsary in translating that passage, by the words, Hoc est Corpus meum.

To all these and the like Testimonies, Mr. I.S. saies, they are not so clearly for us, but that Bel­larmin, and others of his side do find waies to give them another sense, and therefore we need­ed an infallible living Judg to determine the sense of the Fathers, as well as of Scripture; and that Judg being to be the Bishop of Rome, he may be sure of a favorable sentence, if the cause be devolved thither.

But what if we find a Pope clearly delivering our Opinion twelve hundred years ago, and say­ing, The Sacramental Elements after Consecra­tion, do not cease to be the substance and nature of [Page 124]Bread and Wine; as we have found Pope Gela­sius do, whose words I related, pag. 56. of my sormer Discourse? Will he find a way to decline such a sentence? Were the Popes Infallible in that time? Certain I am, they did not pretend to be so. But Mr. I.S. answers, that Bellarmin saies, that Gelasius was no Pope but a Monk. Bellarmi [...] do's cast a thick cloud upon History to prove so much, or at least to render the matter obscure; and so do's Baronius. But this latter fearing not to carry on that design, or (as he saies, to) war with more gallantry and contemt of his Adver­saries, will afford them the Arms they pretend, and allow Gelasius the Pope should be Author of those words: And what then? Why Gelasius, by the words substance of Bread and Wine, did mean the Accidents or Species of Bread and Wine, which do remain, and are to us the means of knowing the substance; and may not be called properly Accidents in this Case, because there is no substance left for them to rest upon, as the nature and common notion of an Accident do's require. And having deliver'd this most strange and never heard of complica­tion of contradictory expressions, to make of Ac­cidents a substance, and with all, no substance of Bread to remain; he sounds lowdly a triumph over his Adversaries, that he has whipt them like boys with their own arms; and altho it be allowed gratis, that the foresaid testimony should be of Pope Gelasius, yet it serves nothing to their purpose. I could enlarge more upon the Absur­dities of Baronius his discourse upon that sub­ject, and the injury he do's to Gelasius in father­ing upon him so ridiculous a paradox: but I [Page 125]think sufficient for the present to let the Reader see how solid and serious, I should say how chil­dish and ridiculous even great Men appear, when engaged in a bad cause. I am apt to think that some will hardly believe so great a Man as Car­dinal Baronius should deliver so eminent nonsense as we have now related. Read him in his fifth Tome of his Annals, An. Dom. 406. Gelasii Papae, an. 5. from the first number to the twentieth.

And conclude Reader from this passage, what little hopes we may have of peace, and end of Controversy among Christians, by allowing the Pope to be infallible, when the most clear and plain words of a Pope are subject to an Inter­pretation of them so cross, and diametrically opposite to the meaning of them according to common use. As to understand Scripture, a Popes Declaration is pretended to be necessary; so to understand each Pope his Declaration, an­other infallible Judg is to be look'd after with­out end.

CHAP. XX. Ancient School-men declare Transubstantiation can­not be proved out of Scripture, and that it was not an Article of Faith before the Lateran Coun­cil. Mr. I. S. his great boast of finding in my Check to their worship of the Host, a prejudice to the Hierarchy of the Church of England, de­clared to be void of sense and ground.

MR. I. S. with his usual confidence says it is most false what I imputed to Scotus, Ocham, Cajetan, and other School-men, that the do­ctrine of Transubstantiation is not contained in the Canon of Scripture, nor was an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council. He allows Cajetan was of that opinion, and was censored for it; he erred therein, says he, and what then? but he denies resolutely that Scotus should be of such an opinion. Then Bellarmin did him an in­jur in relating the contrary of him in these words, ‘One thing, says he, Scotus adds, which is not to be approved, that before the Lateran Coun­cil, Transustantiation was no Article of Faith.’ And a little before, he tells us, that Scotus said there is no place in Scripture that proves clearly Transubstantiation to be admitted, if the autho­rity of the Church did not intervene: where Bellarmin adds Scotus his saying not to be im­probable; for tho the Scripture himself alledged may seem clear to the purpose, yet even that * [Page 127]may be doubted; whereas most learned and a­cute Men, such as Scotus chiefly was, did hold the contrary. These are the express words of Bellarmin, lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 23. Here you have Bellarmin declaring clearly against Mr. I. S. that Scotus said that Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council, and that both Scotus and other most learned and acute men were of opinion that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not clearly contained in Scripture.

And truly, tho I had not seen Scotus his writing upon the point, I am apt to believe that Mr. I. S. should be mistaken rather then Bellarmin, but I have read over Scotus his discourse upon this subject, not only in the printed Editions, but in the ancient MS. kept in Merton Coll. in Oxon. whereof he was a Fellow, with no small admiration and compassion, to see so noble and excellent a wit forced to opine or seem to opine against his proper sentiment, as he doth protest himself to do, to comply with Pope Innocent and the Lateran Council. Having stated the que­stion of Transubstantiation, related the opinion of Aquinas and others for it, and confuted most vigorously their arguments out of Scripture and reason for it, as not convincing; at last yields to the opinion of Innocent in these words, Teneo igi­tur istam opinionem ibi positam ab Innocentio, quod substantia panis non maneat, sed quod transubstan­tiatur in Corpus Christi, non propter rationes praedi­ctas, quia non cogunt. For which opinion to say something, being forced to follow it, he alledges two conveniences. The first, that if the substance [Page 128]of bread did remain under the Accidents of it, a man taking the Body and Blood of our Savior under such Accidents would not be fasting; and so may not celebrate twice in one day: which is against that Canon de consecrat. distinct. primâ in nocte. The second conveniency is, that the Church prays, as appears in the Canon of the Mass, the bread and wine may be made the Body and Blood of our Savior Jesus Christ, but prays not for a thing impossible, therefore it is to be said that the substance of bread ceases to be there, and is converted into the Body of Christ.

Whoever knew the subtilty and exactness of Scotus his reasoning, may easily perceive that he spoke against his own sentiment when he alledged such weak Arguments, as those two now men­tioned; and so, not to forfeit the credit of his subtilty, turns to protest with his accustomed ingenuity, that he followed this opinion only for the Authority of the Church, concluding thus: & hoc principaliter teneo propter Authoritatem Ec­clesiae, &c. and the same his Scholiasts declares of him upon the foresaid words, saying, Tenet Doctor tertiam sententiam, nempè panem converti in Corpus Christi, quia sic Ecclesia tenet. * Vid. Scot. in 4. dist. 10. q. 3. Scotus holds the bread to be converted into the Body of Christ, because the Church declared it so in the Lateran Council, not for any Authority of Scripture or reason which could move him to it. The same I may easily prove of other learned Schoolmen. By this you may see Mr. I. S. his rashness in saying I did most falsely impose upon Scotus what both Bellarmin [Page 129]and himself declares to be his proper opinion.

Of the same opinion with Scotus was Duran­dus, in 4. Sent. dist. 11. q. 1. sect. propter 3. where he declares, that the opinion affirming the sub­stance of Bread to remain after Consecration, was more convenient to obviate difficulties, rendring the Mystery more hard to be believed, but that the contrary is to be held for the decla­ration of the Church. Cajetan said, that only the said declaration could make the words of our Saviour alledged for Transubstantiation, appear convincing to that purpose. And Suarez tells us, his saying was commanded by Pope Pius the V. to be expunged.

An old Copy of Ocham I found in Dublin Library, was more fortunate in escaping their blurs. In his 5th quodlibet q. 30. he relates three opinions touching the Bread in the Eucharist. The first saying, that the Bread which was be­fore, is the Body of Christ after Consecration; of which opinion he delivers this censure, Prima est irrationalis, that it is an unreasonable opinion. The second opinion, saies he, is, that the substance of Bread and Wine ceases to be, and only the Accidents do remain, and under them begins to be the Body of Christ: Of this opinion he saies, Est communis opinio, quam ten [...]o propter determina­tionem Ecclcsiae, & non prop [...]r aliam rationem. ‘That to this opinion he consems for the decla­ration of the Church, in favor of it, and not for any reason assisting it.’ The third opinion rela­ted by him is, that the substance of Bread and Wine remains after Consecration; and of this he saies, Tertia opinio esset multum rationabilis, nisi [Page 130]esset determinatio Ecclesiae in contrarium. ‘That this opinion were very rational, if the deter­mination of the Church were not contrary to it.’ So that it is not any reason, nor any ground they saw for it in Scripture, made these and many o­ther very Learned men consent to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, but only a blind Obedience to Innocents Decree in the Lateran Council. Bellarmin wishes we should all have this submis­sion to the Autority of the Church; and I wish with all my heart, that both we and he, and his party, and all Christians, should have due sub­mission to the Church truly Catholic, Primitive and Apostolic, declaring to us the Word of God by Canonical Scripture, and Universal Tradi­tion; in which Fountains of Truth neither Tran­substantiation will be found, nor any of their Er­rors which I pointed out for motives of my for­saking their Communion.

Neither is I. S. more fortunate in his attemt of putting a terror upon me, as if I had shock'd the Hierarchy of the Church of England, by say­ing its rashness to give divine Adoration to a Wafer, wherein they cannot be sure Christ to be Present; this depending according to their own Principles, upon the Priests intention to Con­secrate, his due Ordination, and of the Bishop that gave him Orders, his intention and due Or­dination, and so upward of endless requisites impossible to be certainly known. And what has all this to do with shocking the Hierarchy of the the Church of England? When I saw the man begin with so great a clap, and sound­ing already a triumph, I expected the story [Page 131]of the Nags-head, or some other of their old Engines against the Legality of the Protestant Clergy should come down: but all he brings is that we do also allow some things to be essen­tially requisite for the validity of a Sacrament, the defect of which nullifies the Sacrament. As for Baptism, water is requisite, and the form of words, I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. The Minister may vitiate this form, and utter somewhat in lieu of it, or omit some words of it, or add some other that would destroy the form. The same may happen in the Ordination of a Minister or Bishop, and there is no certainty that no error of these should have happen'd in any one of the whole train of our Ordainers, and if it was want­ing in any, all the Ordinations derived from him are null. Therefore we can have no Assurance of our Hierarchy.

I leave the Judicious Reader to see what sin­gular exploit this man hath done herein against the Church of England? his reasons alledged of doubting the Legality of its Ministers, doth prove so much for rendring doubtful the Legality of the Roman Clergy, by his own confession: but much more for what I am to add: first, that we do not make the effects of Sacraments to depend so much upon the intention and quality of the Ministers, as Papists do. We entertain a better opinion of Gods goodness, that he will not have pious Souls lose the fruit of their sincere Endeavors; and will supply to that effect the defect of the Mi­nister: secondly, that their practice of mutter­ing the words in a Language unknown to the [Page 132]People, and in a voice not audible, (especially in the consecration of the Eucharist) is more sub­ject to errors and fraud then the way of our Church, where the Minister is to pronounce loudly and intelligibly the words of the form.

But chiefly touching the subject of our pre­sent discourse (from which our Adversary seems willing to divert) I mean the use and Adora­tion of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, who run more hazard the Papists or we? In case a defect should happen touching the consecration we en­joy the fruit of a spiritual Communion, and are not at the loss that Papists are in the like case, who make the main fruit depend upon the real and corporal presence of Christ in the host. We run no danger of Idolatry, material or formal, giving the worship of Divinity to a thing that is not God; as Papists do, giving that kind of worship to any host reputed to be duly conse­crated, which if it happens not to be so indeed, their act of worship is at least a material Idola­try in their own confession: and to expose them­selves to a known danger of committing such kind of Idolatry cannot chuse but be criminal, as it is generally reputed to be a sin for one to expose himself to a danger of committing a sin. The parity of one honoring his Father, not know­ing certainly him to be his true Father, is imper­tinent and undecent. A bad opinion he must have of his Mother, who doubts his reputed Father to be such in truth. But what if he were in a ma­terial error, it is not a sin, but a duty to pay respect unto him that adopts or owns him for a Son.

[Page 133] I will conclude this matter with letting Mr. I. S. see his rashness, in pretending I was rash in saying its intolerable boldness in some of his fellows to say, there is the same reason for the a­doration of the host, as for adoring Christs Di­vinity. And he pretends I should seem thereby not to understand their doctrine. Sir, I am not to en­ter with you in comparison which of us under­stands better the Doctrine of both Churches: what I see evidently is, that either you do igno­rantly misunderstand, or maliciously misrepre­sent the state of the Question; that wanting an answer to my Arguments in their proper terms, you may fashion them so, as your impertinent Discourses may seem to strike at something, which is properly hostem tibi fingere quem ferias, to create your self an Adversary, such as you may triumph over, that is, not to fit your answer to my Arguments, but my Arguments to that you will have us take for an answer; being what you have to say. This is very usual with you, as in many occasions I have declared from the begin­ning of this Discourse, and will further declare in others to the end of it, but in the present you appear notoriously guilty of this foul play.

I do neither ignore or doubt, that if your do­ctrine of Christs personal presence in the conse­crated host were true, there is as much reason to adore such an host, as to adore Christ him­self; both being the same thing in such a supposi­tion. This is the Mystery you pretend I should not understand, but this is not the state of the Question with me. What I did, and do again, call intolerable boldness, is to say, that (the matter [Page 134]standing, as now it doth, doubtful and contro­verted) there is as much reason for adoring the host consecrated, as there is for adoring Christ his person: since for adoring Christ we have several express commands laid upon us in Scri­pture, which I related out of Heb. 1.6. Philip. 2.10. Jo. 5.23. but no intimation given of ado­ring Christ in the Sacramental bread, supposing him corporally present there.

But if you go to the object of both worships, Christ living in the World, and your host con­secrated: to say that there is as much ground for believing your doctrine of Divinity existent in the latter as in the former, I said, and say still, its intolerable boldness, and a great injury to Chri­stian Religion, to make those two things of e­qual certainty, whereof I was contented to make Bellarmin * Judg; who being to prove the Divi­nity of Christ, goes through six Classes of Ar­guments out of Scripture with uncontroulable strength: but being to prove Transubstantiation out of Scripture, his only Argument is out of those words of Matth. 28. Take, eat, this is my Body. Which place how unable it is in the opinion of the gravest School-men, and of Bellar­min himself, to make clear the doctrine of Tran­substantiation, we have seen from the beginning of this Chapter. Is it not therefore intolerable boldness to say, there is as much reason to assert that Christ is in the host really and corporally, as there is for saying that Christ is God?

CHAP. XXI. Mr. I. S. his weak defence of their half Communion confuted.

HE will have the Precept of Communion run parallel with that of Baptism, where­with I am well contented. Both are commanded by Christ: Baptism thus, If one be not born again by the Water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, Joh. VI. 53. And the Communion thus, If ye do not eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you shall not have life in you. The essential requisites of Baptism are water and a set form of words. In this no alteration may consist with the validity of the Sacrament: not so of the mode or circumstances, whether it be with immersion or sprinkling. Herein alterations may be, and were admitted by the Church. Even so in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the essence of it consists in eating the Flesh, and drinking the Blood of our Saviour. This may not be altered, but the mode or circum­stances, whether it be kneeling or standing, whe­ther in leavened or unleavened Bread, whether white or red Wine; touching these Accidents there may be alterations without prejudice to the substance of the Sacrament, but not touching the essential parts of Flesh and Blood: in this much we agree on both sides.

[Page 136] Now what are we to understand by Flesh, what by Blood our Saviour did not leave obscure, so as we may err in so weighty a matter, wherein the life of our Souls doth consist, but made it clear and visible to us. He took Bread in his hands, and of it, he said, this is my Body; he took likewise Wine in his hand, saying, this is my Blood. The way therefore to take his Body and Blood, is to take consecrated Bread and Wine in re­membrance of him. This is the way Christ did establish the taking of this blessed Sacrament, this the Apostles and Primitive Church did pra­ctice, and this way all true Christians ought to walk.

Mr. I. S. censures it as a pusillanimity in me to be surprized at that famous non obstante of the Council of Constance, that notwithstanding Christ did institute this Sacrament in both kinds, and in the Primitive Church they administred it so, yet the Council thought convenient to ordain the contrary: I should have a strong stomach to swallow without chawing or examining what our Lord God the Pope orders, as the Glossist calls him. He is Vice-god upon earth, as all of them stile him, and of such priviledg that the commands of God must oblige no further then he pleases. If he tells us that virtue is vice, and vice virtue, we are to believe him. Yet Mr. I.S. will reason the case with us. He might have spa­red that labor, for I declared it was sufficient to my purpose to know they will pretend reason for inverting Christs Institutions. But how well beseeming the gravity of a Council, are the rea­sons he alledges, grounded upon principles of [Page 137]nigardliness & nicety. To spare expences of wine, and hinder the inconveniency of clean people to drink out of the same Cup with the unclean. Is there not so much plenty of Wine now in the World, as was in the Primitive Church, and the Communion less frequent? Were not clean peo­ple then in the World? Shall a groundless fear of annoying the body over-weigh a certain dan­ger of losing the Soul. Christ having declared, that if we do not eat his Flesh and drink his Blood, we shall not have life in us. Is it fair that such fri­volous reasons as these should suffice for a Pope to alter the Institutions of Christ, and no reason, be it ever so evident, should excuse opposing a Popes Decree?

But Mr. I. S. tells us, that in these words of our Saviour, Joh. VI. If ye do not eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you shall not have life in you. The Particle [and] must be taken disjunctively for [or,] not cop [...]latively. So as the command must be understood of eating his Flesh, or drinking his Blood; because in the Hebrew Language, wherein our Saviour spake, the Particle and is capable of such a sense. Bel­larmin and Suarez said so. I see they did, and thereby I see that a bad cause will make i [...]s Pa­trons run to narrow shifts. At this rate you may pretend to comply with the precept of loving God and your Neighbor, by loving either, tho you do not love both. And so of the precept of honoring your Father and Mother, that you ob­serve i [...] by honoring one, tho you deny that duty to the other: because the Particle and in those Precepts, is capable of a disjunctive sense, and may be construed or.

[Page 138] Moreover, this Argument would prove more then the Council, or Bellarmin, or Suarez him­self would have. That there is no command of drinking the Blood of our Saviour. So the Coun­cil, and Romish Writers, commonly do pretend, that Christs living Body being corporally pre­sent in the consecrated Bread, and a living Body containing Flesh and Blood, by taking the Bread we take both Flesh & Blood. But the supposition of this Argument, that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament, being pretended, & even proved clearly in our Opinion to be false, its in vain to perswade us with an Argument upon that Prin­ciple. Besides, tho that Supposition were true, its not easie to understand how, by swallowing an Animal consisting of flesh and blood, without separating both, one may be said properly to drink blood. All these Absurdities may be excused by following literally the words and and practice of our Saviour, administring the Sacrament as he did in both kinds.

Here I am to admire again the good heart and confidence of Mr. I. S. in telling us that we have a positive example of Christ himself, that once gave the Communion in the Accidents of Bread alone to his Disciples, in the way towards Emaus, pag. 217. How come you to be so posi­tive in affirming that of Christ with his Disciples in Emaus, should have bin a Communion rather then a common Supper Suarez in 3. p. Dis. 71. Sec. 1. saies, the Opinion of many Learned Au­thors denying it to have bin a Communion, seems to him more probable. And Maldonate supposes many good writers to be of the same Opinion. [Page 139]But besides, tho it were a Communion, what is your ground for saying he should not have gi­ven the Cup in it? That only Bread is mention­ed; that the Disciples told he was known of them in breaking of Bread. But it is very frequent in Scripture to express a Dinner or Supper, where both meat and drink is taken, by this term of eating Bread, and the Disciples might have found sufficient signs of knowing Christ by his way of breaking the Bread, without mentioning more of his actions.

Furthermore, Suarez in 3. p. Dis. 42. Sec. 1. declares it to be the Opinion of all Divines, and his own, that the Species of Bread and Wine are the Essential Constitutes of this Sacrament, Dico 30 Species consecratas esse Eucharistiae Sacramentum, seu ad ejus constitutionem intrinsece & essentialiter pertinere. That the consecrated Species do belong essentially to the Constitution of this Sacrament. How then could he give the Sacrament without the Species of Bread and Wine, if they be essen­tial Constitutes of it. But Suarez, say you in his Disp. 71. saies, that the whole Essence of the Sa­crament consists in either kind; and therein (say I) contradicts his former doctrine, as also that of Gelasius * quoted by himself, Quidam sumt a corporis Christi portione à Calice sacri cruoris absti­nent, qui proculdubio aut integra Sacramenta susci­piant, aut ab integris arceantur, quia divisio unius ejusdemque Mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio prove­nire non potest. ‘Some taking the Body of Christ, do abstain from the Cup of his sacred Blood, [Page 140]who truly should either take all the Sacra­ment, or leave all; since being but one Mystery, it may not be divided without great Sacriledg.’ They pretend this should be un­derstood of Priests only, that they should take the Communion under both kinds; but without shewing any sufficient ground for it. We have no notice of Priests taking it under one kind, to whom Gelasius his declaration should be direct­ed, and our Saviour did provide in this Sacra­ment a Spiritual food, not only for Priests, but for all the faithful, and his words, which are the ground of our Assertion, did extend to all.

Mr. I. S. pretends that my Argument against Transubstantiation, [That neither for the effects of of the Sacraments, neither for verifying the words of the Institution, such a conversion of substances should be necessary,] comes pertinently to his pur­pose here. That the Communion under both kinds is not needful, either for the effects of the Sacrament, or for verifying the words of Christ in the Institution of it. But the Difference is wide, first as to the effects, Mr. I. S. himself confesses, pag. 201. that Christ might, were he pleased, have given us the effects of the Sacra­ments with a figurative presence only. Second­ly, as to the tenour of our Saviours words in the Institution of it, many of their own more learn­ed and exact Scholemen do affirm, that the said words do not convince for Transubstantiation, in force of their proper sense, as we have seen in the precedent Chapter. And * Bellarmin con­sesses, [Page 141]saying, it was the sentiment of most learn­ed and acute Men. Both these things are want­ing for making the like Argument serve our Ad­versary: for we have proved hitherto, that nei­ther for the effect of the Sacrament, nor for ve­rifying the words of our Saviour in the Institu­tion of it, the half Communion may suffice. Cer­tainly he hath no such confession from us to his purpose, as we have from him, and from his bre­thren to ours.

CHAP. XXII. The Roman Worship of Images, declared to be sin­full.

Mr. I. S. is very tedious, and no less imper­tinent, in telling us its not a sin to make Images absolutely, because God made man to his own Image, and Protestants do make Images of the King and Queen, &c. but he might spare this labour, I having declared that it is not only lawful, but commendable to make Images, and good use of them to several purposes. The sin is to adore and worship them, that being directly opposite to Gods Commandment set down in the twentieth Chapter of Exodus, in these words, Thou shalt not make to thee any graven Image, &c. thou shalt not bow down thy self to them; of which sin the Roman Church is guilty, by ordering ho­nor and reverence to be given to Images. In what degree, Azorius with several others of their Di­vines, do tells us, saying, the same honor is to be given to them which is due to the Prototype, and consequently the honor of Latria to the Image of God and Christ, the honor of Dulia to the Images of other Saints. So Azorius saies, (and not I, as Mr. I. S. falsifies) in these words, Constans est Theologorum sententia Imaginem codem honore & cultu honorari & coli, quo colitur id cujus est Imago. ‘It is the constant opinion of Divines, [Page 143]that the Image is to be honored and worship­ed, in the same manner as the thing where­of it is an Image.’ Mr. I. S. saies resolute­ly, Azorius has no such words: but if he did read attentively, the place I quoted of Azorius, Tom. 1. Inst. Moral. lib. 9. c. 6. §. Tota haec contro­versia, he would find those formal words in him, and others immediatly following, wherein he at­tributes the same opinion to the Council of Trent, Sessione 25. in decret. Fdei de sacris Imaginibus, and to the seventh Synod.

Vasquez lib. 2. de Adoratione, disp. 6. cap. 2. gives this further Account of the mode of wor­shipping Images in the Roman Church, Catho­lica veritas est Imaginibus deferendam esse adoratio­nem, h. e. signa servitutis & submissionis, amplexu, luminaribus, oblatione suffituum, capitis nudatione, &c. ‘That it is a Catholic verity, that worship is to be given to Images, that is to say, expres­sions of Service and Submission, by embraces, light burning, offering of Incense, uncovering the head.’ Azorius quotes for the same opinion, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Alensis, Cajetan, and seve­ral other ancient and modern Schole-men. Mr. I. S. will not have us believe all these Doctors in this their Declaration, touching the Romish worship of Images. But who are you good Mr. I. S. Quidam nescio quis, nec puto nomen habet, one I know not who, and as I see nameless, that we must believe you, rather then so many famous Doctors now mentioned.

Give to your worship of Images what name you please, to worship them at all, is a formal transgression of the divine Precept above men­tioned, [Page 144]and therefore a grievous fin. You would fain prove out of Scripture that God ordered Images to be adored, which is to pretend that God should contradict himself, and so it appears in the ill success of your attempt upon finding your doctrine in Scripture. Your first discovery in Scripture is, that God commanded the Brazen Serpent to be put up to be adored, say you. Gods command touching that matter is set down, Numb. XXIV. 8. in these words, Make thee a fie­ry Serpent, and set it upon a Pole, and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it shall live. Here is no mention of adoring that Serpent: you say that looking upon it, was to be with inward reverence and veneration, where­in adoration or worship doth properly consist. Then when we look upon a Church with reve­rence, as being the house of God, we adore it, the same when we look upon the Bible, when a du­tiful child looks reverently upon his Father, all is adored.

Likely the Israelites in time came to be of your opinion, and to adore the Serpent: but how well was that taken at their hands, you may see in the second of Kings XVIII. 4. That the god­ly King Ezechias, brake in pieces the brazen Ser­pent that Moses had made, for unto those daies the Children of Israel did burn Ineense to it. While they only looked upon it, according to Gods Or­dinance, it was beneficial to them, but when their devotion grew to a worship, it provoked Gods Indignation declared in that action of Ezechias, which the sacred Writer approves in these words, And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord.

[Page 145] Your second discovery is, Josue VII. 6. where only we find that Josue, together with the Elders of Israel, fell upon their faces before the Ark, and praied to God; and that you take for an adora­tion of the Ark. So whensoever you pray before an Altar or a Bible, you adore the Altar and the Bible. The third Instance, to which you say Pro­testants will never answer, is, that the Lords Supper is a representation of Christs Passion, and a figure of his Body, and is religiously worship­ed by them, if they do what St. Paul requires, 1 Cor. XI. 28. And what do's St. Paul require in that place? This, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup. That Protestants should never answer this Argu­ment is no wonder, what answer can be where no question is: and questionless there is no sign, or the least insinuation of Adoration to be paid un­to the Communion Bread in the place you quote. It is a work of your fancy, no discovery of common sense, to imagine worship given by Gods Ordinance to the Serpent, to the Ark, or to the Communion Bread, in the places you re­late. You are to give me leave to tell you, that your Argument is so frivolous, as requires no more serious answer, then to put you in mind of a Spanish Proverb, Quien Vaccas ha perdido cen­cerrosse le antexan, who has lost his Oxen, Bells do ring in his cars. His vehement desire of find­ing his Oxen, makes him think every noise of a bough, or leaf of a tree stirred be the wind, to be the sound of the Bells his Oxen bare: so your strong fancy for Image-worship, makes you con­ceive it, even where no shape nor sound of it ap­pears.

[Page 146] You confess Images were little used in the Primitive Church, nay, were absolutely prohibi­ted in the Council of Eliberis; but that was, say you, to avoid the scandal of Pagans, and the re­lapse of those converted from Paganism. And are there not Pagans yet in the world? Is not a con­version of them still procured? What conse­quence is it to decry their adoration of stocks and stones, and when they come to your Churches to see you perform to Images all those acts of worship which they used to their Idols, by genu­flexion, thurification, &c. To speak to them of your distinction of terminative and relative wor­ship will be insignificant; as in it self its vain, for the reasen I proposed, pag. 70. of my former discourse, to which you give no answer.

I alledged Nicephorus, saying, It is an absurd thing to make Images of the Trinity; and yet they do it in the Roman Church. You say, that what Nicephorus and others do hold absurd, is to paint Images of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as they are in their proper substance and nature. Nor do the Catholics use it as you falsly criminate them, say you to me: but herein certainly you do most falsly criminate me in saying, I should impose such a thing upon them. Where have I said that Papists do paint the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as they are in their proper substarce and nature? Or how could any man in his senses conceive Images of that kind could be drawn with material colors? To attemt the drawing of any shape of them, is what Nicephorus called absurd, and * Damascen madness and impiety, [Page 147] Insiplentiae summae est & impictatis sigurare quod est divinum. Of this madness, Cajetan more inge­nuous then you, confesses your Church to be guilty; who after having said, that in the old Law, certainly Images of God were prohibited, and for the same reason were reprehended as un­lawful by several Doctors among Christians, since in both occasions they may engender in men a false conception of Gods nature; yet he concludes in these words, In oppositum autem est usus Ecclesiae, admittens Trinitatis Imagines, repre­sentantes non solum silium incarnatum sed Patrem & Spiritum Sanctum. ‘That contrary to the said reasons & autority of Damascen, the Church uses to admit Images of the Trinity, representing not only the Son Incarnate, but also the Father and Holy Ghost.’ To which I add of my know­ledg, that they use not only a Picture of the Tri­nity as you describe, in the forms of an old Man, our Saviour, and a Dove; but in the form of one Man with three heads, or three faces in one head, both undecent and horrible to look upon. And thus much for the matter of fact of your painting the Holy Trinity. Now I will pass to to see how able you are to defend your practice herein, from the guilt of Idolatry.

CHAP. XXIII. Mr. I. S. his defence of the Romish Worship of I­mages from the guilt of Idolatry confuted. The miserable condition of the Vulgar, and unhappy exgagement of the Learned among Romanists, touching the Worship of Images discovered.

YOU pretend, tho it be Idolatry, to adore an Image as a God, yet not so, to adore God in an Image. To which, I say first, that very ma­ny of your best Authors, such as are Alensis, Al­bert, Bonaventure, Abulensis, Soto, and others rela­ted and followed by Vascuez, in 3. p. disp. 104. c. 2. do affirm, that God, did not only forbid in the second Commandment that which was un­lawful by the Law of Nature, as the worship of an image for God, but the worshiping the true God by any Similitude.

You will not be engaged in defending the co­herence of their doctrine herein, with saying, that the same Precept of not adoring God by an Image, should not oblige Christians; neither in­deed is it easie to find the coherence of it. Cer­tainly you will never find that God did dispense in the foresaid Law with Christians: neither can any reason be imagined why such a practice should be lawful in one time, and not in ano­ther? Why Jews should be further from Idola­try then Christians? This to have bin the sin of the Jews in the worship of the golden Calf, [Page 149]which was so offensive to God, I mean, that they did adore it as an Image of God, and not believing it was a real God, is most apparent by the words of the Context, These be thy Gods, Oh Israel, which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt, Exod. XXXII. 4. Who can believe that men not altoge­ther destitute of common sense, would seriously judg that Images made before themselves of their own gold, should be a real God? In what sense or reason could they say it was he that brought them out of the Land of Egypt, which was don long before that Calf was made? If you say that Aaron declared that Calf to be a God, saying, These are thy Gods, or, this is thy God, as you have in the ninth of Nehemiah, the plural being taken for the singular in the former place by a He­braism: I answer, it was a tropical Expression, as you are wont to say, where Images are of the A­postles, This is St. Peter, and this is St. Paul, meaning the Images of St. Peter, or St. Paul. And as you say, in your Processions of holy Friday, of the Cross you bear in your hand, and raise up to be adored by the people, bowing upon their knees, Ecce lignum crucis in quo salus mundi pepen­dit, Behold the timber of the Cross upon which was fixed the Saviour of the world. Surely you are not so senseless as to think these words should be verified in a literal sense, of the Cross you bear in your hand, but rather in a tropical, relating to the Cross whereon our Saviour was really fixed. In the like sense you are to conceive Aaron did speak of the golden Calf, (if you will not make him quite senseless) when he said, This is thy God, oh Israel, which brought thee out of the [Page 150]Land of Egypt, which is to say, This is a Type or Image of thy God who brought thee out of the Land of Egypt: and under that notion the people did adore it. And all this while I hope you will not pretend to absolve them from the guilt of I­dolatry, for which they were so severely punish­ed by God; as we read in the 32. ch. of Ex [...]dus. Therefore Idolatry is not only to adore an Image as God, but also to adore God in an Image.

If we will give credit to Pagans, touching their belief, they will tell us, they were never so blind as to think the Statues they adored were Gods, Nemo unquam tam fatuus fuit, saies Cicero, qui saxum & lapidem Jovem esse credidit. None ever was so void of sense as to say that a stone should be Jupiter. Neither could such a belief consist with what is generally supposed by them, that their Gods are in heaven. So the Inhabitants of Lystra, when they saw Paul and Barnabas heal one that was a Creeple from his birth, said, The Gods are come down to us in the likeness of men, Act. XIV. 11. And if even Pagans thought it a stu­pidity unbecoming men of common sense, to con­ceive a stock or stone to be a God, less ought we to imagine, that the Israelites with so much ad­vantage of instruction should be so brutish. Their guilt therefore was not to believe the gol­den Calf was a God, but to attempt the worship­ing of God by an Image, which is your guilt.

You conclude that to worship the Image of Christ and his Saints, cannot be called Idolatry. For an Idol (say you) is a representation of a Deity that has no being, but Christ and his Saints [...]ave a being, &c. If you speak of the subject of [Page 151]Idolatrous worship tending to something created, it is true that it looks upon a Deity that hath no being. But if you believe S. Paul, the real object of their worship was the true God which he preached, Whom you ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. Acts 17.23. and notwithstanding he rebuked them for Idolaters; therefore Idolatry is not only a worship dedicated to false Gods, but also a worship of the true God by a way prohibited.

But how will this your discourse reach to save from Idolatry the worship given to Images of Saints, that have in them no Divinity real or ap­prehended? Is it because they have a being op­posite to a Chimera or nothing? then the ado­rers of Mars and Apollo in their Statues, (and so of other Idols) were no Idolaters. Those Sta­tues or Idols were representations of men (whe­ther living or dead, is not material) not Chime­rical, but such as had a real being. Read the origin of Idolatry described in the 14. Chapter of Wisdom from the 12. verse: you shall find it begun by making Images of men absent or dead to honor their memory. Besides your supposi­tion is clear contrary to what Gods Command­ment against the worship of Images supposes, Th [...]u shalt not make unto the any graven Image, or any lik [...]ness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or that is in the Earth beneath, &c. Exod. 20.4. Images of things are prohibited to be worship­ped, and of things really being in the Heaven or upon Earth.

But as you hope to be saved, will you lay a­side prejudices and subtilties a while, and speak [Page 152]once sincerely: what it it that makes you so eager for the worship of Images? is it any di­vine precept that moves or forces to it? we ne­ver heard you talk of any such precept, and there is at least a very probable assurance of a precept of God extant, prohibiting under terrible pe­nalty such a worship. There is moreover a cer­tain danger of occasioning, in the ruder sort, a downright gross Idolatry, by an absolute direct worship of the Images you set up to be wor­shipped, without those distinctions and precisions wherewith you pretend to justify your practice. Of which Ludovicus Vives gives this testimony; * Divos divasque non alitèr venerantur quam Deum ipsum, nec video in multis quod discrimen sit inter eo­rum opinionem de Sanctis, & id quod Gentiles pu tabant de Diis suis. They worship holy Men and Women no otherwise then God himself; nei­ther do I see in many things wherein their o­pinion touching Saints differs from that of Pa­gans, concerning their Gods. Polydor Virgil speaks to the same purpose in these words, Multi su [...]t saltem rudiores qui ligneas, saxeas, marmoreas, aeneas, item in parietibus pictas Ima­gines colunt, non ut figuras, sed perinde quasi ipsae sensum aliquem habeant, quique eis magis fidunt quam Christo ipsi, aut aliis Divis quibus dicati fuerunt. In the Church of Rome there are many who worship Images of stocks, stones, brass, or painted on Walls, not as figures, but even as if they had some sense in them, and who put more trust in them then in Christ himself, or in the Saints to whom they are dedicated.

This being so, what prudence can it be to ex­pose your own Salvation and the Salvation of o­thers unto a certain danger, by practicing a wor­ship at least very probably prohibited by God under pain of damnation? This is the unhappy condition you are in, and our great advantage of you in our debates, that if you are in an error, as very probably you seem to be, you are liable to damnation: not so we, tho you should be in the right; for on our part there is no trans­gression of any divine precept, & consequently no fear of damnation in not worshipping an Image. In the same case you are in your worship of the Eucharist. If Christ be not there after the man­ner you pretend, you are damnable Idolaters, as many of your own Authors do, and any that is rational must needs, confess. But on what­soever side the truth be in that controversy, our practice is free from danger of sinning by not paying the worship of Latria to the Eucharist, whereas no precept of God forces us to give it such worship. This with the like advantages, which we have of you in all other points con­troverted, made me chuse the way of the Church of England as surer to salvation then yours.

What profit do you expect by the worship of Images? I understand what profit may be in the use of devout Images (if separated from the worship) that they may be a Book to the ruder sort, for raising their minds unto heavenly things. But this benefit is not so great, nor the hope of getting Heaven this way so warrantable: as the danger of losing it by unlawful worship, as im­minent. While the use of Images was harmless [Page 154]and beneficial, it was justly retained. It were insolence in a member of any Church or Con­gregation, to oppose a custom or use introduced in it, while indifferent and not opposite to a higher Law. But if that use did run to an abuse and transgression of Gods Commandments, then it is to be reformed or rejected. This is what happen'd in the case of the brazen Serpent, as before related. And this is the case of the Re­formed Churches with Images. While and where pious and innocent use was made of them, they permitted them, and so they do yet. But when they saw the abuse of unlawful worship given to them, they removed them from the eies of the Vulgar, apt to commit those abuses in places of worship.

Now we have seen how far this kind of abuse hath grown with your people both Learned and Vulgar. As for the latter, reflect upon what we have related out of Vives and Polydor. Add to it the testimony of George Cassander, a man re­nowned for his calm and even temper as well as for his learning, and who by both might have contributed to the peace and unity of Christian Churches, if the unflexible pride of the Court of Rome would suffer any limit to be put to its Ambition. Of the worship of Images he speaks thus, Manifestius est quam ut multis verbis ex­plicari d [...]be [...]t, Imaginum & Simulachrorum cultum multum invaluisse, & affectioni seu potius supersti­tioni populi plus satis indultum esse, ita ut ad sum­mam adorationem quae vel à Paganis suis Simulachris exhiberi consuevit, &c. ‘It is more clear then needs * [Page 155]many words to declare it, that the worship of Images and Statues is gon too far, and too much liberty given to the devotion or rather superstition of the people, so as it came to the very height of worship, which even Pagans do give to their Idols.’

And truly it is a deplorable thing what Hie­rom L Lamas a, as an eye-witness of it relates to have happened among the people of Asturias, Cantabria, and Gallicia, no small Provinces of Spain, viz. that they were so addicted to their worm ea [...]en and deformed Images, that when the Bishops commanded new and handsomer I­mages to be set up in their rooms, the poor people cried for their old; would not look up to their new, as if they did not represent the same thing; or really, as we may probably guess of their blindness, that they did conceive some peculiar numen or divine virtue to dwell in those old stumps of their former acquaintance, which the do not expect to find in those new and neater Images. And thus goes the matter with the vul­gar sort of the people.

But in my opinion it goes even far worse with the more learned of you. And certainly such were Aquinas, Alexander Alensis, Bonaventure, Alber­tus [...]agaus, C [...]jetan, Capreolus, and others quo­ted by b A [...]orius, where he says it to be the opi­nion received by the common consent of Divines, Tha [...] the Ima [...]e of Christ is to be adored with the [Page 156]worship of Latria, even the very same where­with Christ himself is to be worshipped. And so respectively of the Images of other Saints, that they are to be worshipped with the same kind of worship that is due to the Prototype. Neither in­deed do they say herein more then the Council of Trent doth teach them to say. For, in the De­cree above mentioned touching the worship of Images, it gives such a reason of it, as declares the said worship to be measured by the quality of the Prototype. Quoniam honos qui iis exhibe­tur refertur ad prototypa, quae illae repraesentant; ità ut per Imagines, quas osculamur & coram qui­bus caput aperimus, & procumbimus, Christum a­doremus, & sanctos, quorum illae similitudinem gerunt, veneremur. The honor which we give to Images, says the Council, is related to the Prototypes, which they do represent; so as that by the Images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our head, and bow down, we adore Christ, and worship the Saints, whose likeness they bear. Whence follows what the forementioned Di­vines said, That the worship of Images being to be measured by the Quality of their Prototypes, the worship of Latria is due to the Image of Christ; that being the worship which is due to himself. And by your denial of this to be the doctrine of your Church Mr. I. S. you will more easily perswade us that you begin to grow asham'd of your doctrine, as well you may, then that you understand the Tenets of the Roman Church better then Azorius did, or those other Divines of greatest eminency among you, by him quoted.

This being so, consider the miserable condi­tion of your doctrine, how well you can desend it from the infamous note of Idolatry. If you be­lieve the best Interpreters touching the proper signification of the word Idolum, you shall find them say it signifies no more then Imago. So that an Image adored or worshipped is in propriety of speech an Idol worshipped; and consequently a worship of Latria given to an Image, or Id [...]l, (for they are the same) is in all propriety of speech Idololatria. Therefore according to the do­ctrine of the Council of Trent, and your Divines forementioned, by the worship of Latria given by you to the Image of Christ you commit for­mal Idolatry. I wish with all my heart you did not, and that no Argument of mine nor of any other could prove you guilty of this horrid crime.

By this you see how the Council of Trent, and the most eminent of your Schole-men do coun­tenance the stupid error of the vulgar among [...]ou, & even exceed it. It is plain they deliver in formal terms what I am certain would be a horror to the meaner Capacities, if these did apprehend the sinful absurdity of it. And your pretensi [...]n to more prudence in not terming your worship La­tria doth not heal the wound, nor so much as cover it from any clear sighted-eies. The real guilt consists in worshipping Images against the Ordinance of God; give that worship what name you please.

If I do say your people do pray to Images of wood or stone, and therein do practice that great folly, of which the Wise man accuses the Ido­later, that he is not ashamed to speak to that which [Page 158]hath no life. For health he calls upon that which is weak, for life prays to that which is dead. Wisdom. 13.17. if I do say moreover that your Church teacheth them to do so: certainly you will say it is a great calumny. But then tell me, I pray, whose words are these you speak to the Cross in the procession of good Friday?

O Crux! ave spes unica,
Hoc Passionis tempore,
Auge piis justitiam,
Reisque dona veniam.

Hail ô Cross! our only hope, in this time of Passion, give increase of grace to the godly, and pardon to sin­ners. If you tell me these are the words of the Church (which you will not deny) but spoken to Christ, not to the Cross, Azorius gainsays you; for he declares that by those words the Church speaks to the Cross, Ecclesia cum Cru­cem veneratur & colit, eam salutat & alloquitur cum ait, O Crux ave, &c. The Church (says he) adoring the Cross salutes it, and speaks to it, saying, Hail ô Cross, &c. And is not this to speak to that which hath no life? &c. Thus your people do, and which is worse, thus your Church teaches them to do. And thus we see your Church and People do what all Idolaters do to their Idols.

CHAP. XXIV. Our Adversaries reply to my exceptions against their Invocation of Saints, declared to be impertinent.

Mr. I.S. is so exact a Disputant, that he takes it for a sufficient answer to my Arguments, if he do's but mention the subject of them, and say somthing of what his notes or stock of knowledg do's afford him, without taking the trouble of examining, whether what he saies be to the pur­pose of my Arguments or no. This is usual with him, but very conspicuous in the present case of their Invocation of Saints. I begun accusing their excesses in calling the Virgin Mary their life and hope, their Redeemeress and Saviouress. This I said to be contrary to St. Peters declaration, That there is no salvation in any other besides Jesus Christ, and that there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved, Act. IV. 12. To this Mr. I. S. saies, it proves we must not ask the Saints on earth to pray for us, which is to prove too much. I hope Mr. I. S. himself will not be so desperate as to call his Colleague, whose praiers he desires, his Life and Hope, his Saviour and Redeemer. But how comes it to prove we must not desire at all the praiers of Saints upon earth?

Two excesses of Papists in their Invocation of Saints I took in hand to reprehend. To speak of all, the brevity which my business then did con­fine [Page 160]me to, would not permit. The one is to call the Virgin Mary Saviouress, &c. the other, to dedicate more Churches, and address more prai­ers to Saints then to Christ. Both which excesses I convinc'd of error by those passages of Scripture, which declare Christ our Lord to be our only Saviour, and that he is more willing and able to help us then any other Saint, and that he invites us to come to himself for remedy of all our needs. Your way to answer this, were either to purge your Church of those excesses, or to prove that the Scriptures which I alledged did not e­vince those practices of yours to be excesses. You do neither, but in lieu thereof, you speak only of desiring the praiers of Saints who live yet upon earth: whereby you alter the state and terms of the question. I spoke of praying to Saints who are no more on earth, and fitted my Texts to the Confutation of that practice. You speak of desiring those who are not yet departed this life, to pray for us: which are far different things. And so we find the latter practiced in the Gospel, but not the former. But you must say somthing, and tho not to the purpose, it must be called an Answer.

I related some desperate expressions of your Preachers over-valuing Saints. And you, con­fessing they were mad, in so much, fall into ex­clamations against me for leaving the Roman Church, because I saw some mad men in it. And thence you fall to your wonted immodest raille­ries, without regarding how far you go from truth and the purpose. Where did you find me say, that for the madness of those Friers only, I [Page 161]forsook the Roman Church? Did not I al­ledg many other very grave causes of my reso­lution therein? Did I say this was a cause at all for me to leave that Church? I only reflected upon it as on very bad Fruit that declares the corruption of the Tree. And in case it should be in some measure a cause, how come you to imagine or think to perswade others it should be the only cause? A thief that was hanged for steal­ing a purse, wherein were twenty pounds and six pence, because you heard in the process of his cause mention made of six pence, were it inge­nuous or just to exclaim at the Judges, as if they did condemn a man to be hanged for stealing six pence?

I confess, your disingenuity herein is hateful to me; but if you think it should not be so, pray then answer me to these two Questions: If a Villain did come by night and cut down a score or two of those fair Trees that grace the Walks of the Roial Park of St. James in Westminster, would you think it too much severity that such a Villain should be whipt about the streets for so great an Insolence? But if after this check he should run about the City and Country with a little branch of one of those Trees in his hand, exclaiming against the cruelty of the Judges, as if they had order'd him to be whipt about the streets of London for cutting that little branch on­ly; would not you think him worthy to be whipt again for his notorious calumny? Behold your case: I express'd many grievous faults of the Roman Church which occasioned my with­drawing from her, Idolatry, Superstition, cruelty [Page 162]in the conduct of Souls, impiety in preferring her own laws to those of God: rashness, and even madness in her worship and Invocation of Saints: and among others, related the frantic expressions of a Friar in extolling his Saint, as one of the Branches proceeding from that vitiated Tree. Of this Branch you lay hold, and cry that I have left the Communion of the Roman Church only, because I saw in it a mad Friar. Give me leave to tell you, that this kind of arguing deserves no better than whipping in the Scholes.

And having answered my Arguments upon this Subject, say you, and having given no An­swer to them, say I, as now I have shewn: you provoke me to a trial of your Scholastic skill, touching the knowledg that Saints in heaven have of our affairs here, and how far they are concerned for them; a thing whereof even your ablest Schole-men could never yet give a clear account. Whoever shall please to read their Writings on this Subject, will see a Theater of confusion. The most that ever could be cleared of what they alledg, and you can pick out of them, is that God can, and somtimes did reveal unto Saints in heaven some earthly concerns: but that all the Saints in heaven should know all our thoughts, and all our particular concerns, could never be said upon any probable ground, much less with certain [...]. And yet a certain knowledg of it were requisite to save your pra­ctice from the note of blindness and solly, in ha­ving such frequent recourse to them by mental and vocal praiers for all your particular concerns. I say moreover, that tho you were certain they [Page 163]did see all our peculiar concerns, and were wil­ling to be concerned for us; yet you fall very short of giving a formal answer to my exception, taken against your more frequent recourse to them, then to Christ for Intercession, and dedi­cating more Temples to their names, then to the name of God and Christ. How can this consist with our Christian acknowledgment of Christ to be our only Mediator and Advocate? And if you deny so much to him, I hope you will not doubt he is at least our chief Mediator and Advocate: & being so, how come you to have less recourse un­to him then to inferior Saints? which was that I charg'd upon your practice. To which you gave no answer, because you saw no rational or Christian answer could be given: and so finding it an easier work to fall upon your accustomed scurrilous Sarcasms, you returned them for an­swer.

Only to that of building more Churches, and offering praiers and devotions to your supposed Saints, then unto Christ, because you would seem to say somthing, tho nothing indeed to the purpose, You say at last, that the honor you give to the Saints, you give it to God in them, or to them for God. But who can understand this to be a good way to please God? If an earthly King would have the Prince his Son and Heir, to be Solicitor General to him in favor of his Subjects, and that all Roial graces and favors should pass unto them by the hands of his Son; Can any man rationally imagine it would be plea­sing to such a King, that his Subjects neglecting their Applications to the Prince, should make [Page 164]all, or the most frequent to inferior Servants of the Court? Apply this example, and if you do not see by it the unreasonableness of that practice of yours, I think we may conclude that passion and prejudice has blinded you so far as not to see the light of noon-day.

Add to all this that many of your supposed Saints possibly may not be Saints indeed, but wretched Souls damned in Hell. Whereof your own Histories do afford no few instances, and the possibility of the Case is evident: for most of your Saints were Canonized or called Saints by Vulgar opinion; not by that more exact scrutiny, which in latter Ages was ordained to prevent the Invocation of Impostors and Cheats for Saints through Vulgar error. It is manifest that such wicked men are solicitous, and not seldom successful in getting the credit of Saints with the Vulgar. That's the business of hypocrites; when true Saints make it theirs to hide their virtues, and please only the eies of God.

And even now, after so many solemnities and scrutinies ordained to proceed to a Canonization, the matter still remains uncertain. Many of your learned Schole-men deny the Pope to be infal­lible therein. He may be mis-informed, and why not? May not Cheats intervene, and Bribes work in such Informations as in others? A Town or Society that will be engaged to get one of their Members Canonized for Saint, and there­by obtain considerable Emoluments of credit and interest to their body, may possibly use those in­direct means which other solicitations of men tending to the like purchase are capable of.

[Page 165] All this being so, how can you defend at least from blindness and imprudence, your practice of more frequent recourse to your supposed Saints, then to the supreme undoubted Saint of Saints Jesus Christ? Not to treat at present how much this doctrine of the Invocation of Saints is in it self injurious to God, by giving that wor­ship to Creatures which belongs only to himself; as may appear by all those places of Scripture which appropriate our Invocation to God only, in regard of his incommunicable Attributes of Omniscience, infinite goodness, and power: nor how dishonorable it is to Christ, both in regard of his infinite merit, and office of Mediator.

And finally, the silence of such a practice in the first and better Ages of the Church, so as Cardinal Perron confesses, that in the Authors who lived nearer the Apostles times, in the three first Centuries no foot-steps can be found of the In­vocation of Saints: this silence, I say, is a suffi­cient Argument of the unlawfulness of this pra­ctice, & how unsuitable it is to the spirit of the A­postles. Origen is not only silent of such a practice, but directly protests against it in several places, assirming that Praiers and Supplications are to be directed only to God by Jesus Christ. For being inquired by Celsus, what opinion Christians had of Angels; he answers, That tho the Scripture somtime calls them Gods, it is not with inten­tion that we ought to worship them, For all [...]rai­ers and Supplications, saies he, and Intercession and Thanksgiving are to be sent up to the Lord of all by the high Priest, who is above all Angels, being the living word of God. And reflecting often upon the [Page 166]unreasonableness of making addresses to Angels, by reason of the little knowledg we have of their condition; he adds, That even such a knowledg, if we were furnished with it, * would not permit us to presume to pray unto any other but God the Lord of of all, who is abundantly sufficient for all by our Sa­viour the Son of God. And after he declares how Angels and Saints may assist us, and pray for us to God if we be in the favor of God, and do en­deavor to please him, We must endeavor to please God only, saies he, who is over all, and pray that he may be propitious to us, procuring his good will with piety and all kind of virtue. And reflecting upon Celsus his proposal of worshipping Demons or Angels, he addeth these remarkable words, But if he will yet have us to procure the good will of any other after him, that is God over all, let him consider that as when the body is moved, the motion of the sha­dow doth follow it; so in like manner, having God fa­vorable to us, who is over all, it followeth that we shall have all his friends, both Angels, and Souls, and Spirits favorable to us; for they have a sympa­thy with them that are thought worthy to find favor with God ....... so as we may be bold to say, that when men, who with a resolution propose to themselves the best things, do pray unto God, many thousands of the sacred powers pray together with them uncalled upon. Here and in other such Testimonies of Origen, and others of his time, we find mention of Angels and Saints, to pray for men, and to help them by Gods appointment, but we find no mention at all of such a thing as an Invocation of them. [Page 167]He saies they pray together with us, when we pray to God himself, and that not because we prai'd first to them to pray with us, but uncalled upon. Here we have the Spirit of that Church truly Catholic and Apostolic declared to us, that we are to make our Addresses of Praiers and Invocations to God alone, and thereby win the assistance and praiers of heavenly Spirits in our favor. For as all the world shall fight with him a­gainst the unwise sinners, so all the Court of Hea­ven will assist their King in favoring his Saints and Servants.

CHAP. XXV. A great stock of Faults and Absurdities discovered in Mr. I. S. his defence of Purgatory.

SIR, as you shew your special study to be to soure your Pen with all manner of sawci­ness, even without occasion given to you, and starting often from the point and purpose for to pleasure your self in the Sea of bitterness: so it is my no small care (and certainly a harder task then to answer your Arguments) to refrain my Pen from pouring upon you continual showers of heavy Censures, whether reflecting upon your boldness, in asserting manifest untruths; or upon your rudeness or malice, in mis-un­derstanding or mis-representing the state and terms of the Question in every point of my Discourse you pretend to answer; or shun­ning shamefully or childishly the point and pur­pose, and proposing another of your own instead of answering, as Schole-boies do with riddles or hard questions, as they call them, when they want an answer to one of them, they return for answer another of that kind of Questions. Of all these faults I could easily convince you guilty in every point you handled from the beginning of your Book to the end: I have abstained from doing it in formal reflexions (tho in my replies faced with your Proposals, the discreet [Page 169]Reader may easily see your foresaid faults really contained) out of my aversion to offensive ex­pressions, and because I fear to offend my friends and Patrons on this side, as you hope to please yours by bitter Language. But when you tell palpable untruths, shall I desert the defence of truth not to make you a liar? when you clearly abandon the question proposed, and misrepresent the case, or misunderstand it, shall I desist in my serious and close enquiry of the truth, not to dis­cover your ignorance and weakness? So much complacency you are not to expect from me; and by shewing you are guilty of all these faults in your reply to my discourse upon the point of Purgatory, you will perceive I have bin in­dulgent to you, in not enlarging upon a formal discovery of them in all the points hitherto treat­ed upon among us. Now to the proof of so much.

I begun my Discourse upon the point of Pur­gatory, with the method and order that exact Disputants are wont to observe in handling se­riously any subject; First examining what we are to understand under the notion of Purga­tory. Seeondly whether such a thing be really extant. As to the first, I told how I did not find the more learned Men of the Roman Church so confident as the Vulgar, in taking for Purgatory a determinate place in the bowels of the Earth, with those frightful qualities their Legends do specify; being contented to conclude from some places of Scripture by conjecture, that after this life there must be some place to expiate sins, with­out determining whether that place be over, or [Page 170]under, or in the Earth, or whether the pain be heat, or cold, or darkness, or tempest, &c. This you call raillery; but it is not my humor to rally in so serious matters: they are the terms where­with the more grave and modest Writers of your own party do express the matter. And such is the unhappiness of your engagement, that hardly your doctrine can be mentioned in terms that may not make it ridiculous. All this you say is to no purpose, for the question is not where Purgatory is, or what is the condition of People there, but whether there be any such thing as Purgatory? I would fain know what purpose is that you say this Discourse is not pertinent to? I am confident it is the purpose of fitting my que­stions to your answers, when you want answers fitting my questions. You saw your shame disco­vered in deluding the vulgar with Romantic No­tions, for which your learned Men could not discover any serious or solid ground; and not finding your self with stock to answer that charge, you must put it off, and say, it is not to the purpose. You are much a stranger to Disputes and Books, if you do not know that there are questions touching the essence, quality and situa­tion of Purgatory, as well as touching the exi­stence of it. You never knew what is good Logic, and in it an orderly procedure to a de­monstration, if you did not learn that the Que­stion, Quid sit, ought to precede in some mea­sure the Question, An sit. That to know whether a thing be existent, we must have a knowledg of the quality of such a thing, at least as far as the understanding of the word, and some [Page 171]knowledg of the thing signified by it. If you send one to the Market to know whether a Camel be there, you must prepare him with some notion of the thing, whereby he may distin­guish it from a Cow, or a Goat; otherwise how can he bring you a report of the existence of a Camel in that place. It may happen to him, as to the other Country-man, who hearing a re­port in his Village of a Monkey which the Bishop of the neighboring City had, and desirous to see it, having met with an Ass coming out of the Bi­shops house, he cryed out to his companions they should behold the Bishops Monkey. If he had bin informed before what the word Monkey did signify, he would not have faln into this ridiculous error. To prevent such mistakes, good Scholars do premise some notion of the Question quid sit, what is the thing they look for, before they en­ter into the Question An sit, whether such a thing be extant.

To this purpose I premised a brief discourse touching the quality and notion of Purgatory, and thence proceeded immediatly to examin the grounds exhibited by the Roman Church for the existence of it: But Mr. I. S. not finding him­self furnished to encounter me this way, takes another, telling us what is of Faith, and what is not touching Purgatory, and then proposes a stock of Arguments in favor of it, which he will have us take for his own, tho very trivial; and falls a quarrelling with other Protestants, I know not what, without any mention or regard in the mean time of answering my Arguments, according to the foresaid rule of young School-boys, to [Page 172]propose one question for answer to another.

But finding the Arguments he produces to be weak for his purpose, he tells us that tho the te­stimony be and others do alledge in favor of Purgatory be not convincing, yet their doctrine must stand, because they are many years in pos­session of it, and so must hold while we do not beat them out of it by positive proofs, and thence expostulates with me that in all my discourse touching Purgatory, I bring no text of Scri­pture that says there is no such thing.

Sure there is no man of common sense that understands the English Tongue, now so enriched with Latin and Schole-terms passed into common discourses, but will perceive the strange hallu­emation of this man in his expression now pro­posed. It is not for Doctors and Masters in U­niversities alone, among Englishmen to under­stand the propriety of these terms, affirmative and negative, and the different duties of him that stands upon the negative, and of the other that stands upon the affirmative in a debate, that it is the latter ought to produce positive proofs of what he affirms, and his Adversary complies with shewing that such proofs are not convincing. To understand this much, I say, I need not appeal to great Doctors, any man of common understanding may be a competent judg in it. What kind of people then, did Mr. I. S. pre­tend to perswade, that I did not comply with the duties of a formal Disputant in refuting the assertors of Purgatory, by shewing the Testimo­nies produced by them were not convincing? My purpose was not to prove the existence of [Page 173]any thing, but the non-existence of a thing which they call Purgatory. To pretend that a non-exi­stence of a thing must be proved by positive ar­guments, is to pretend that a non-entity or no­thing should be painted with colors.

He tells us we are Actors, and they defen­dants in this Controversy, that it is our part to exhibit proofs. But herein he doth not tell truth. For they are Actors and Imposers upon us of Articles to which they will force our be­lief. It is their duty to prove that such an Ar­ticle is contained in the Word of God. And while they do not, we are in possession of our liberty, of which they pretend to rob us, by forcing upon us the belief of Purgatory. He tells us they are a long time in possession of this doctrine. Be it so, may not a possessor be questioned about the title and right of his possession, and dispos­sessed if his titles be not found justified? This is the case betwixt us and them. We pretend their titles for imposing upon men the belief of Pur­gatory to be invalid and fictitious, they must shew the contrary or forfeit their possession.

The case thus standing, you are not to expect Mr. I. S. to put me off by stratagems of Schole-Boys, in returning for answer impertinent que­stions; I must keep you to the point, for I de­sire in earnest to find out the truth. The point is, whether the Testimonies of Scripture alledged by your Church, for asserting Purgatory, be convincing? I said the chief place alledged by it of the old Testament is the case of Judas Mac­cabeus, sending money to Jerusalem that Sacri­fices should be made for his Soldiers defunct. [Page 174]Herein you say I am mistaken, you have other Testimonies more convincing of your own dis­covery. But will you dare to prefer your own judgment to the judgment of your Church, which in her Anniversary Mass for the dead, of all Testimonies of the old Testament, makes choice of the foresaid place of Judas Maccabeus, proposing it for Epistle to be read to the People in that Mass? Will you have us say that your Church made choice of that text beyond others to be read in the Anniversary Mass of Souls, be­cause in it is made mention of a weighty sum of money to be given for the dead, and with offerings of this kind your Clergy is much pleased, and so do strike on that string too much in their Funeral Sermons, exhorting to mony offerings for the dead, to the no small offence and heavy censure of such of your People as dare speak their sense. By what I see of your temper, I am sure you would say so if you were in my place and case. And while you make your atonement with your Church for undervaluing her judgment in the preference of that text, forbear at last tergiversations, and stand to a trial of the pertinency of the said text reputed for chief to prove the Existence of Purgatory.

I said that tho the Book, relating the foresaid case, were Canonical, and of certain Autority (which is not allowed) yet it was no conclud­ing argument to prove the Existence of Purga­tory, since Praiers for the Dead may be made, and were made to different purposes, then that of drawing them out of Purgatory; and if that be so, it is not a good consequence, [Page 175] Judas Maccabeus ordered Praiers to be made for his Soldiers defunct; therefore it was to draw them out of Purgatory. That Prayers may be made for the dead to a different purpose, then to draw them out of Purgatory, I proved first out of a doctrine received among Romish Do­ctors, that God being present to all the spaces of Eternity, may see now and listen to Praiers that will be made in any Age after, and fore-seeing that godly persons shall pray in the future for the assistance of his Grace to one dying now, may yield it accordingly. If this go well, said I, prai­ers may be commendable and very important for the dead, tho no Purgatory were in nature, being conducent to a greater emolument of dying pe­nitently, and thereby escaping the everlasting fire of Hell.

I have added, that if the case related of Mac­cabeus be true, it is more likely the praiers made for the slain, should have proceeded in the man­ner aforesaid, then for bringing them out of Pur­gatory, since in the same place is related that those men were found to have committed a mor­tal sin, (which is not pretended to be pardoned in Purgatory) under the Coats of every one that was slain, saith the Text, Maccab. XII. 42. They found things consecrated to the Idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden to the Jews by the Law. And the following Context declares that sin to have bin hainous, for as much as it drew upon them Gods vengeance, saying, that every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain.

Mr. I. S. is pleased to approve of that sub­tilty of Schole-men, alledged for ground of this [Page 176]reply, that Praiers in the future may avail Souls dying before, to obtain a good death; the only thing I did suspect may not meet with general applause, and which indeed, if certain and ac­cordingly apprehended and believed by men, would make Praiers for the dead to appear more useful and important then ever the doctrine of Purgatory could make them yet appear to se­rious judgments.

But my good Antagonist allowing the same doctrine to be very good, tells me it is not to the purpose. None is more apt to call one a thief, then he that is a thief himself; and none so ready to say his opponent speaks not to the purpose, as one that never speaks to the purpose himself. Of this latter sort, I dare make good Mr. I. S. to be in all his encounters upon my discourse, if it were worth my while; in the mean time I ap­peal to the Reader of common sense, to judg be­twixt him and me at present, which of us both doth speak to the purpose, he in saying that my discourse now related, is not to the purpose of proving the case of Judas Maccabeus, do's not evince the existence of Purgatory; or I, in or­dering thus my Argument to that purpose. The Praiers supposed to be made by the Maccabees might have bin, and probably were made to a dif­ferent purpose, then that of drawing the Souls of their defunct from Purgatory, therefore the case of such Praiers to have bin made, doth not evince the existence of Purgatory. The Antece­dent of this Argument, as also the proof and de­claration of it is allowed and commended by my Adversary. To enlarge upon declaring the lega­lity [Page 177]of the consequence, is to mistrust the under­standing of the discreet Reader, and to mis­spend my time, which I do not resolve to do.

But shall we see how my subtile Adversary go's about to prove I did not speak to the pur­pose in my former discourse? For allow, saies he, those Praiers made for the slain, might have had that effect in this passage, &c. a penitent death; yet still returns the conclusion pretended by Bel­larmin, that the passage proves it was the belief and practice of the people of God, and praised by Scripture to pray for the expiation of the sins of the dead. Good Sir, this is to draw breath a little, but not to escape a deadly blow given to your cause in this occasion. I take up your own words and make them serve my purpose thus; Tho that passage proves it was the belief and practice of the people of God, and praised by Scripture to pray for the expiation of sins of the the dead, yet still returns my Conclusion, that those Praiers might have bin made for the ex­piations of sins committed by the dead in life, and to be pardoned at their death; not of sins re­maining after their death, and bringing them to Purgatory, which was Bellarmins purpose and yours.

The Texts he alledges out of St. Dennis and Isidorus for praying for the dead, are capable of the same construction I gave to the praiers of the Maccabees. This Answer he might have ex­pected from me if he were in charity, with more ground then the other, he supposes rashly I should give, that the Ancient Fathers erred. I did not learn in the Church of England to respect them [Page 178]less. I see here far greater reading and regard of them then I saw among you. I know no Gehinus, or others of those you mention, that ascribes to them more errors then Aquinas, Scotus, Suarez, Mal­donate, and other your greatest Schole-men and Scripturians: they alledg them frequently for contradictory opinions; and the one side must be in an error. You betray too much of a vulgar temper, in admiring it should be said, that any of the Ancient Fathers hath erred. They confess themselves to have don it: it was far from their modesty and sincerity to deny it.

CHAP. XXVI. The Argument for Purgatory taken from the 12th of S. Matth. v. 32. solved.

THE chief testimony out of the New Testa­ment, alledged in favor of Purgatory, is that of Matth. XII. 32. where our Saviour saith, that a sin against the Holy Ghost shall not be par­doned in this world, nor in the world to come, there­fore, say they, some sins are pardoned in the other world. I denied the consequence, because out of a Negative a Positive do's not follow, as out of this Premise, Joseph knew not his wife until she had brought forth her first born son. This conse­quence follows not in opinion of good Christians, therefore he knew her after. Mr. I. S. answers, this consequence follows according to the letter of the Text: but the Autority of the Church ob­ligeth to believe it was not so; that's to say, the Church declares against the Text. If you were not tied to this other engagement, you would deem such a saying to be a dis-respect to your Church: but hard undertaking puts people to hard shifts.

Bellarmin was contented to infer the existence of Purgatory out of the foresaid Text of St. Matthew according to the Laws of Prudence, tho not according to the rules of Logic. But Mr. [Page 180] I. S. as more stout, will pretend it to be evident according to rules of Faith and Logic. The Text goes thus, He that will speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him, but he that will speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the future: out of which words he argues thus, The Text denies to a blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, what it grants to a blasphemy against the Son of Man, but what it denies to the former is remission in this life and the other; therefore what it grants to the latter, is remission in this life and the other. I answer, that the major Proposition is false, for more is denied to the sin against the Holy Ghost, then allowed to the sin against the Son of Man: for to the former is expresly denied pardon rela­ting to both worlds, and to the latter pardon is promised only indeterminate, and so may be ve­rified with pardoning in one life, tho not in the other. And tho Major and Minor were true, the Consequence do's not follow, according to rules of Logic, which declare, that where all the Pre­mises are particulars (such are those of that Syl­logism) the Conclusion is not convincent, as in this Syllogism, A man speaketh, Peter is a man, therefore Peter speaketh.

Mr. I. S. produces another Argument upon the same Text of a strange contexture. Its evi­dent, saies he, out of this Text, that as blasphe­my against the Spirit is unpardonable, so all o­ther sins are pardonable; but a blasphemy against the Spirit is unpardonable in this world, and in the future: therefore other sins are pardonable in both. The Major of this Syllogism is false; [Page 181]first, since it will have an adequate parit [...] in both cases relating to the places of pardon, for which there is no ground in the Text, as declared a­bove, touching the Major of the former Syllo­gism. Secondly, for saying that all other sins are pardonable, for which neither is there any ground in the Text; since from a particular Premise an Universal Conclusion may not be de­duced: from saying, that a sin against the Holy Ghost is not pardonable, it follows not by any rule of Faith or Logic, that all other sins are par­donable: for tho that occasion did require to speak only of a sin against the Holy Ghost, pos­sible it is, that another sin may likewise be unpar­donable: And I can depose, that I saw defended in a famous public Dispute, wherein I had a share my self, that a sin essentially unpardonable is possible, and that distinct from a sin against the Holy Ghost.

But to make the matter clearer by an exam­ple, I will let you see the frame and force of your Syllogism in another of the same Contexture, thus; As the King punisheth Rebels, so he fa­voreth his loial Subjects: he denies to every Re­bel places of trust and honor in all his Domi­nions; therefore he allows to every loial Subject places of trust and honor in all his Domimons. If you do not think this consequence to be legal, give us leave to think the same of your former consequence, for they are both of the same frame. But while you do not shew your doctrine of Pur­gatory to be built upon firmer grounds then such subtilties as these; think not to force it up­on us, nor that for being possessors of it many [Page 182]years, as you say, we will judg you therefore to be bonae fidei possessores, or that you possess it with a good conscience.

And whereas the fore-mentioned Text, Matth. XII. 32. is in so great repute with you for the present purpose, that you say with Bellarmin, its the only Text wherewith St. Bernard did prove Purgatory. I will declare further by a special doctrine of a great Father of the Church, how in­consequent is the existence of Purgatory to the verity of that Text. The good reception you gave to a subtilty of Schole men, I produced for sol [...]ing your Argument out of the Book of Maccabees, in the Chapter precedent, doth en­courage me to hope you may give the like rece­ption to another subtilty of a learned and ancient Father of the Church, for answering this other Argument out of Matth. XII. In the 9th Cha­pter of the Book of Joshua, we find that the In­habitants of Gibeon hearing of victorious Joshua his approach, and the rigor he used with the con­quered places near them, came into him as if they had bin Embassadors sent from forreign Countries to sollicit his amity: they came in old cloathes, with clouted shoes upon their feet, their bread mouldy, and wine bottles old and rent, as if all did signifie the tediousness of the journy which they under-went; and by this meens ob­tained from Joshua and the Princes of Israel, a promise of safety and freedom. But after three daies march the Israelites found those Gibeonites that seigned to have come from a forreign Coun­try to be Inhabitants of that Land they were in, complained to Josua of the fraud put upon them: [Page 183]but he, not to infringe the oath he made, would not consent to destroy them, but punished their cheat with a note of infamy, ordaining they should be hewers of wood, and drawers of wa­ter to all the Congregation. Upon which pas­sage Origin delivers this Gloss, that Joshua being a type of our Saviour Christ, and Palestine the promised Land, a Symbol of Heavenly bliss: to let people live in that Land with a note of infa­my, signifies that some may enter with some ble­mish into the joies of Heaven. His words are remarkable, as followeth, * In domo patris mei mansiones multae sunt, Joh. XIV. 2. & multae diffe­rentiae eorum quae ad salutem veniunt, unde & Ga­baunitas arbitror portiunculam quandam corum esse qui salvandi sunt, sed non sine nota alicujus infa­miae. ‘In my Fathers house are many mansions, Joh. XIV. 2. many are the differences of them that come to be saved; wherefore I conceive the Gibeonites to be a parcel of those who are to be saved, but not without some note of in­famy.’ And a little after he added these words, Sunt enim in Ecclesiâ credentes quidam & acquies­centes divinis praeceptis, erga servos Dei officiosi & religiosi, & ad ornatum Ecclesiae vel ministorii sa­tis promti, sed in conversatione propriâ impuri, ob­scoeni & vitiis involuti, nec omnino deponentes vete­rem hominem cum actibus suis: Istis crgo Christus Jesus salutem concedit, sed quandam infamiae notam non evadunt. ‘There are in the Church some be­lievers and honorers of his Servants, and ready to contribute towards the decency of his Ser­vice [Page 184]in the Church: but in their private life im­pure and liable to vices, not putting off alto­gether the old man with his works. To these therefore Christ Jesus allows Salvation, but they shun not a certain note of infamy.’ Accor­ding to this doctrine of Origen, some may depart this life in state of Salvation, and be received in Heavenly bliss, tho with some blemishes of smal­ler guilt, not inconsistent with Gods amity, but occasioning a decrease in their degree of Glory; and therefore capable of a pardon of such ble­mishes or imperfections even in Heaven; if so, your Text mentioning a pardon of sins in the o­ther life doth not evince the existence of Purga­tory.

If you say that Origen has erred herein, as I conceive you will, then first think it not a scandal to say that some one or other of the ancient Fa­thers should err. Secondly, acknowledg therein a fault of your Church, in making choice of the foresaid words of Origen for Gloss ordinary of the above-mentioned passage of Joshua with the Gibeonites, and conclude from all, that this subtil­ty which clearly solveth your strongest Argu­ment for Purgatory out of the New Testament, is no invention of mine; but a doctrine of a ve­ry learned Father of the ancient Church appro­ved and received by yours modern with so pub­lic a qualification, as to take it for an ordinary Gloss upon the fore-mention'd passage of Scri­pture.

CHAP. XXVII. The attemt of our Adversary to make the doctrine of Purgatory an Article of the Apostles Creed, de­clared to be vain.

Mr. I. S. makes sure account he found Pur­gatory in the Apostles Creed, where it is said, He descended into Hell. And what if you are told those words were not in the Apostles Creed from the beginning, and that the first time and place they were used in it, was in the Church of Aquilcia some four hundred years after Christ; that they are not expressed in those Creeds which were made by the Councils, as larger Interpre­tations of the Apostles Creed; not in the Nicene or Constantinopolitan, not in that of Ephesus or Chalcedon, not in those confessions made at Sar­dica, Antioch, Seleucia, Syrmium: not in the Creed expounded by St. Austin, de fide & Symbolo. And * R [...]ffinus saies, that in his time it was neither in the Roman or Oriental Creeds. Sciendum sanè est, quod in Ecclesiae Romanae Symbolo non habetur ad­ditum descendit ad inferna: sed neque in Orientis Ecclesiis habetur hic sermo. It is certain, saith he, that the Article of the descent into Hell was not in the Roman, or any of the Oriental Creeds. It is not mentioned in several Confessions of Faith delivered by particular persons. Not in that of [Page 186] Eusebius Caesariensis presented to the Council of Nice, nor in that of Marcellus Bishop of An­cyra delivered to Pope Julius, nor in that of Aca­tius Bishop of Caesarea, delivered to the Senate of Seleucia, nor in others, mentioned by the learned Bishop of Chester Dr. Pearson, in that his grave and judicious exposition of the Creed writing upon the fifth Article of it. I am per­swaded this will appear strange unto you, and tho sufficient to weaken the force of your Ar­gument grounded upon the foresaid words of the Creed, my Answer will not rely upon it. I allow the said words to belong to the Catho­lic Creed long time received in the Church, and embraced by that of England.

But I deny your inference from those words of the Creed in favor of your doctrine of Purgato­ry to be pertinent. He descended into Hell: I be­lieve he did. But not into the Hell of the dam­ned, say you, for all Christians abhor the Blasphemy of Calvin, that saies Christs Soul suffered the pains of the damned. What then? therefore he descen­ded into Purgatory. I am sure the more learned and pious men of your Communion will abhor this consequence. I never heard any of them say that descent of Christ should have bin to Purgatory. First, because under the notion of Hell they never understood Purgatory. Second­ly, if you mean he should descend thither suffer­ing the pains of that place, its no less blasphe­mous then that you call Blasphemy in Calvin; for if we believe your Authors, the pains of Pur­gatory are the same with those of Hell, and in­flicted by the same Ministers of divine Justice, [Page 187]that punish the damned souls in hell. If you say he descended thither triumphant and glorious with­out suffering the pains of that place, to purposes of divine Providence not manifested to us; you may say without any Blasphemy, he descended the same manner into the Hell of the damned triumphant and victorious, without prejudice to his glory and honor, as the Divinity of Christ is there still without prejudice to his glory: why may not his Soul be there for a short time with the same immunity, and to the same purpose of triumphing over Hell and his Enemies? And the words of the Creed being capable of this Ex­position more literal and obvious, what need is there of your new Invention of Purgatory un­known to Primitive Christianity, for the right understanding of that Article of our Creed?

CHAP. XXVIII. How weak is the foundation of the grand Engine of Indulgences in the Roman Church.

WHEN first I came to examin the grounds of the doctrine of Indulgence used in the Roman Church, I confess I was astonished to see how little ground they could shew in the Fountains of divine Faith for this mystery of the Romish belief, of so great noise and so much use among them. I thought it a strong nega­tive argument against such a dectrine, not to be contained in the Word of God; that two so great Champions of the Roman Church, Cajetan and Suarez, both emploied by public authority to defend this doctrine, should not meet with any convincing testimony of it in divine Scripture, as both do confess plainly. Both do examine the two chief Testimonies alledged for this doctrine: the first out of John 20.23. Whose soever sins you remitt, they are remitted to them. The second out of Matth. 18.18. Whatsoever you shall bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. And both do acknowledg them not to convince the doctrine of Indulgences as now practised in the Roman Church. Cajetan, tom. 1. opusc. tract. 8. q. 4. says the foresaid testimonies are without doubt to be understood of a remission to be given [Page 189]by way of Sacraments, not of the remission of pains in the other life, as the Pope doth pra­ctice in the giving of Indulgences, and finally gives for the only reason the Authority of the Church, and of Pope Leo, then governing, which he tells us must suffice, tho no other reason should appear, by these remarkable words, Absque ha­sitatione aliquâ etiamsi nulla adesset ratio fatendum est dicti Thesauri dispensationem non solùm per Sa­cramenta, quoad merita Christi, sed aliter quam per Sacramenta, qnoad merita Christi & Sancto­rum commissam esse Praelatis Ecclesiae, & praecipuè Papae, & hoc tanto magis fatendum est quanto per Leonem decimum determinatum est. ‘We are to believe without staggering (tho no reason ap­pear for it) that the dispensing of the Treasure of the Church not only by way of Sacraments as to the merits of Christ, but otherwise then by Sacraments, as to the merits of Christs and the Saints, is committed to the Prelates of the Church, and especially to the Pope. And this is so much the more to be confessed, because it is so determined by Leo X.’ A very special reason to convince Luther, and the rest of the World, that do not believe the Pope to be In­fallible.

Suarez, tom. 4. in 3. partem. disp. 49. sect. 1. delivers his opinion of the foresaid Testimonies of Scripture to be insufficient to prove the do­ctrine of Indulgences. Of that of Joh. 20. he says the same that Cajetan, above mentioned. Of the other touching the power of binding and loosing, Matth. 18.18. he says the literal sense of those words to be the power of binding by Laws and [Page 190]Censures, and of absolving from Censures and dispensing in Laws. And finally in the number 17. of the same Section, he concludes, there is no place in the Gospel whence the giving of this power may be concluded, if it be not, Joh. 21.16. where our Savior said to S. Peter, feed my Sheep, in which words Suarez doth pretend the power Universal, and Supremacy over all the Church to have bin given to S. Peter, and under that Universalïty the power of Indulgences to have bin given to him. But as S. Peter did never receive such an Universal power over the Church, as the Bishops of Rome do now usurp, so did he never pretend it, nor ever troubled Thomas in India, or Andrew in Achaia, or James in Je­rusalem, or any other of his Fellow-Apostles, and Bishops, in their respective Provinces, about a power over them or a dependance of them upon him, all and ea [...]h one of them complying faith­fully with their Ministry, without incroaching one upon the other, nor staining the repute of Christian holiness with the profane spirit of Am­bition, which in Rome did grow to the confu­sion and distraction of Christendom.

But tho such a Supremacy would have bin granted to the Pope, and to the succeeding Bi­shops of Rome, farr must Suarez go for a con­sequence of the doctrine of Indulgences to be in­ferred from such a grant. If the power of dis­pensing those immense Treasures of the merits of Christ and all Saints was given to S. Peter in those words of our Savior, commending to him the feeding of his Sheep, how came he, and the other succeeding Bishops of Rome for so many [Page 191]Ages, to neglect the use of this power to the be­nefit of Souls, and great advantage of the Roman Church, as now is practised?

Suarez did easily perceive the weakness of his argument from this testimony, and so betook himself in the second Section following to the common refuge of the use and autority of the Church. That there is such a use, says he, is not denied; we see it: that it is not an abuse but a lawful use is proved, first, by the authority of the Council of Trent last Session, where is added that this use hath bin approved by the au­tority of sacred Councils, for which purpose are wont to be related, the Council of Nice, Can. 11. of Carthage, 4.75. of Neooaesarea, ch. 3. of Laodicea, Can 1.2. but in these Coun­cils, says Suarez, we only find that it was lawful for Bishops to remit some of the public Penitences enjoined by Canons for divers crimes: but that such a remission should be extended to a pardon of penalties due in the Tribunal of God, may not be inferred from those Councils.

Another main argument for the Antiquity of Indulgences they fet [...]h out of 2. Cor. 2.10. where S. Paul remits a part of the penalty due to an in­cestuous Person whom he had formerly punished, saving: To whom you forgave any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgive an [...] thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the p [...]rson of Christ.

From these latter words, in the person of Christ, they pretend to infer that the practice of In­dulgences now used in the Roman Church had its beginning from Christ, and that S. Paul did practise it in the occalion now mentioned by au­tority [Page 192]received from Christ. This Argument Sua­rez proposes in the above mentioned second Se­ction, num. 3. but from the following fourth Number to the 11. he doth most vigorously prove the inefficaciousness of that argument. That the remission given by S. Paul to that incestuous man, did only relate to an exterior penalty due by course or Canon of Ecclesiastical Government, not to penalties of the other life depending from Divine Justice, that the words in the person of Christ only proves it to be an act of Jurisdiction, or power received from Christ, which may be sufficiently verified by a remission of an exterior temporal penalty due by the common course of Ecclesiastical human power: and finally concludes that there is no warrantable history or testimony extant, by which it may be convinced, that the practise of Indulgences now used in the Roman Church was known before the times of Gregory the great, of whom he says is reported, that he gave a Plena [...]y Indulgence: tho even of this, says Suarez, I find no written History, but a public re­port in Rome, and other places.

And finally, what Suarez says with resolu­tion, is only that this practise is now in use in the Church, so as they are reputed heretics who reprehend such a custome, and it is impossible that the Universal Church should err herein; for it were, says he, an intolerable moral error in practise. If the Universal Church, indeed, did practise now, and always from the beginning and in all places this custom, according to the rules of Apostolic lawful Tradition delivered by Ly­rinensis and S. Augustin, l. 4. de Baptismo, cap. 24. [Page 193]we would look upon this argument as of force. But Suarez himself doth acknowledg and con­fess, that this practise is neither so ancient nor Universal. And therefore it may not be taken for Apostolic tradition, but ranked among the modern Institutions of the present Romish Church, to stand or fall with the autority of it; which we have sufficiently proved not to be infallible. And by this (Reader) you may see, how rashly Mr. I. S. says I did most falsly aver, that Suarez is not so certain, whether the power of absolving given to the Church did extend to the profuse grant of Indulgences practised at present by the Roman Church. Let the Learned Reader reflect upon Suarez his discourse upon this subject in the place forementioned, and he shall find how farr he is from any certainty that this doctrine is grounded upon Scripture and pri­mitive Antiquity, but shall find that he only believes it, as Scotus did that of Transubstantia­tion, Non propter rationes quae non cogunt, not in force of arguments alledged for it, which are not convincing, but for the autority of his Church.

And mark, Reader, that so great men as Cajetan and Suarez, being employed by public autority in defending this doctrine, after be­stowing all their Learning, and no small labor in procuring to establish it, we find them con­fess they have nothing to say seriously for it, but what the Collier for his Faith, viz. that he believed as the Church believes. And here also they mistake the true notion of the Church and autority of it; a mistake, in truth, more tole­rable [Page 194]in a Collier, then in men of the Learning and repute of Cajetan and Suarez. But such is the condition of their cause, that it could not be defended better; and such was their enga­gement, that they must defend it by right or wrong. I conceive my Antagonist complaining that I have neglected him in this Chapter, and I confess freely I delight more in dealing with people of that Learning and ingenuity I see in Cajetan and Suarez, then with Mr. I. S. but being we are debtors to all, I will give a turn to him also upon this subject, and it will be in the next Chapter.

CHAP. XXIX. The unhappy success of Mr. I. S. his great boast of skill in History, touching the Antiquity of Indul­gences discovered.

IN the 90th page of my former Discourse, speaking of the Antiquity of Indulgences, I mentioned, that the first notice I had of the grants of them, after the manner now used, is that of Gregory the VII. given to those of his party who would fight against the Emperor Henry III. (by error of the Printer IV.) in the year 1084. which Baronius relates from his Peniten­tiary, in which was promised remission of all their sins, to such as would venture their lives in that holy War, for which I quoted Baronius his Annals upon the foresaid year 1084. num. 15. Here Mr. I. S. enters in triumph, and declares, that if I have no more skill in Divinity, or moral Theology, then I seem to have in History, I am but a fresh-water Scholar: as for Controversie, saies he, my Treatise shews well what I know of it. Be it so Sir, let me have truth on my side, as I hope will appear by this Treatise, and make you much of your skill: in the mean while let us examine, how much it is in the present point of History wherein you pretend to be most Ma­gisterial. First, you mistake most absurdly the state of the Question, as is usual with you, and [Page 196]where I speak of Indulgences given by Gregory the Seventh, to those of his party who would fight a­gainst the Emperor Henry the Third, you report such Indulgences to be given by the said Gregory to Henry, to encourage him and the Christians to war against the Saracens. Whoever did read the History of that Gregory, and his fierce persecu­tion of the said Emperor to the end of his life, even as his own Historians, Platina and Baronius more biassed to him, do report; will more easily believe, that Gregory should favor the Turk a­gainst Henry, then uphold Henry against any Adversary. If ever you had any tincture of the History of Pope Hildebrand or Gregory the Se­venth, how could you fall into so ridiculous an equivocation, as to conceive him granting Indul­gences in favor of the Emperor Henry III. If you did read my Discourse speaking expresly of an Indulgence granted to those that would fight a­gain the Emperor, how come you to pervert the narrative so absurdly, as if I should have spoken of an Indulgence given in favor of that Empe­ror.

You say that the Indulgence I speak of, nor any other to any such purpose, was not granted by Gregory the Seventh, but by Ʋrban the Second. Read the place I quoted of Baronius upon the year 1084. numb. 15, there you shall find Gre­gory the Seventh employing Anselm Bishop of Luca, to publish Indulgences for all those that would fight in his quarrel against the Emperor Henry the Third. And continuing your strange equivocations you speak of Indulgences given by Ʋrban the Second to the same Henry the [Page 197]Third, but it was not to him he gave them, but to Alexius Emperor of Constantinople, as Baronius relates at the year 1095. numb. 3. You speak of Indulgences granted by Leo the Third, anno 847. but it was not Leo the Third, but Leo the Fourth that reigned then, and when Suarez finds not him, nor any other, giving Indulgences of so an­cient date, sure I am, you never found them upon any warrantable account.

To one notice of Indulgences I will help you out of Baronius, preceding that I mentioned of Gregory the Seventh, given to them that would fight against the Emperor Henry the Third, in the same year 1084. which I allow you to take for the genuine origin of your present practice of Indulgences, given by profane Cardinals Crea­tures of Pope, Guibert called Clement the Third Competitor of Gregory the Seventh; of which kind of Cardinals Baronius in the foresaid year, numb. 9. giveth this account, Erant enim cives Romani Ʋxorati, sive Concubinarii, barbati & Mitrati, peregrinis oratoribus, praecipue vero multitu­dini rusticanae Longobardorum mentientes, asseren­tes se Cardinales Presbyteros esse, quique oblationi­bus receptis Indulgentiam & remissionem omnium peccatorum usu nefari [...] impudenter praestabant: hi & occasione custodiendae Ecclesiae consurgentes intem­pestae noctis silentio intra & citra candem Ecclesiam impunè homicidia, rapinas, varia stupra & diversa latrocinia exercebant. ‘There were, saies he, Ro­man Citizens, either married or retaining Con­cubines, shaven and wearing Mitres, imposing upon forreign Embassadors, but especially up­on the rude multitude of Longobards, that they [Page 198]were Presbyter Cardinals, and who receiving offerings did impudently bestow Indulgences and remission of all sins: these under pretext of defending the Church, rising in the deep si­lence of the night, did commit within and about the Church, without hindrance, horrible murders, robberies, and diverse sorts of whore­doms and luxuries.’ Who were better Popes or better men, Guibert and his Cardinals, or Hil­debrand and his, as I do not know, so I will not dispute: but conclude, that such Indulgences as these were given in Rome, by relation of their own hired Historian; and let the Reader see how unhappy Mr. I. S. has bin in his pretended triumph over me touching this point of History.

CHAP. XXX. Of the strange and absurd terms used in the grants of Indulgences, and the immoderate profuseness wherewith, and slight causes for which they are granted.

TRuly if we do consider the absurd language used in the trade of Indulgences, and the vast boundless profuseness in the grant of them for very slight causes, of all which their most learned Defenders do confess not to be able to give a rational account, we may with some grounds suspect, that some such Lay-cardinals mentioned in the precedent Chapter out of Ba­ronius, granting Indulgences in Rome, should have bin the Authors and Inventors of the present practice of Indulgences, and terms of it used in the Roman Church.

First they divide Indulgences into total and partial. A total Indulgence is a full remission of all the temporal pains due to the mans sins commit­ted. A partial Indulgence is a remission of a part of the penalties, according to the will of the person granting it. A total Indulgence is sub­divided again into plena, plenior & plenissima, a plenary or full, more full, and most full. Here the wits of the Learned are strained to find sense in these words, how one Indulgence that is ple­nary can be capable of these degrees of increase in regard of the same person. If by any plenary [Page 200]Indulgence, he has a total remission of all the penalties due to his sins, how can he have a more total or full remission of them? Suarez, disp. 1. De effectu Indulgent. Sect. 4. finding no ground for these degrees, would fain give some sense to them by a parity of the Virgin Mary, full of grace by the coming of the Angel, more full by the coming of her Son, and most full in her death: but finding himself weary of such bare conjectures, resolves that according to the pre­sent state there is no substantial difference, as to the effect in those gradations of plenary Indul­gences, whatsoever was the meaning of those terms with the first Authors of them, whereof at present there is no clear knowledg, and relates Sotus saying, that Preachers of Indulgences have introduced those gradations by way of exag­geration.

Partial Indulgences are likewise subdivided in­to quadragena, septena, carena, and the like. Qua­dragena they call an Indulgence of forty daies, septena, of seven years, carena, composed of both the former, containing seven years and forty daies. And now enters a very perplex difficulty that turns the brains of their ablest Divines, what to understand by these years and daies of remission, whether so many years and daies of the pains of Purgatory to be remitted, as Vi­guerius did conceive, or so much time of pe­nance enjoined by Canons for sins: and tho this latter be the more received and common opinion, and approved by Suarez in the place now men­tioned, yet he finds so many difficulties for a con­gruous sense of so many thousand years allowed [Page 201]by Indulgences, so little consistence in reasons alledged by several Authors, that he resolves, its a matter obscure and unknown to us, and that we must rest upon the judgment of the Church which knows the meaning of those measures, con­cluding thus, Breviter vero assero, de re nobis incer­tà Authores hos disputare, Ecclesiam vero uti illa mensurâ quae sibi nota est. I say briefly, that these Authors do quarrel about a thing unknown to us, and that the Church uses herein that measure which is known to it self, remitting those pains of Purgatory, which may be proportionable to the penalties of this life enjoined by Canons; and so leaves us as wise as we were before, for under­standing what sense so many thousands of years can have, whether relating to the pains of Pur­gatory, or to penalties enjoined by Canons. But this Language is used and received in the Roman Church, and therefore we must stand to it, let it mean what it will, be it sense or non­sense; and that's all the account that Suarez can give us of it after the trial of his own wit, and examining the discourses of others, being to speak in earnest.

Now to the cause of giving Indulgences, Mr. I. S. gives us occasion to say somthing, since he boasts, that Indulgences are not granted so slightly as Protestant Ministers would make their flock believe. Its true that Cajetan teaches, Opusc. de Indulgent. cap. 8. that great Indulgences ought not to be given for small causes, and that there ought to be a proportion betwixt the qua­lity of the Indulgence, and the work performed to obtain it. But how can this consist with what [Page 202] Cajetan tells there? that a plenary Indulgence is given to every one that stands in the Yard of St. Peters Church, when the Pope gives his blessing to the people there on Easter day. Here he recurs to a mystery, that tho to stand in that place be of its own nature of no great consideration, yet relating to the purpose of representing the Mem­bers of the Church united under one head, its of great weight, and proportioned to the Indulgence received. But what mystery shall we find to render decent that famous Indulgence granted by Innocent III. to all such as would marry public Harlots? as Spondanus relates in the year 1198.

Who would not think that so many loud and learned cries made against the abuses of Indul­gences in the Roman Church for more then a hundred years, and the scandal and contemt of them grown among the sober and judi­cious men even of their own party, would not be a means to moderate at least the bound­less profuseness of those grants, feeding conti­nually the hopes of sinners for a remission of all their crimes, and encouraging them to persevere in their wicked waies? But that's the unhappi­ness of that Church, and the dismal symptom of a disease being mortal, that it grows worse with remedies, and hates a cure. Setting aside num­berless instances of their most absurd prodigalities in this kind, whereof many Books are replenish'd, I will only set down here a Copy of Indulgences granted by the present Pope Clement the Tenth, upon the occasion of Canon zing certain new Saints of late, in which you may see a full Idea of the Romish corruptions in this kind.

Formula Indulgentiarum cum quibus S. D. N. Clemens Papa X. Coronas, Rosaria, Cruces, sacrasque Imagines, & numismata Medallias vulgo nuncupata benedicir, per occasionem Ca­nonizationis SS. Confessorum Cajetani, Fran­cisci Borgiae, Philippi Benitii, Ludovici Bertran­di, & Sanctae Rosae Virginis Peruanae.

QƲicunque saltem semel in hebdomada Coronam Domini, vel Beatissimae Virginis, aut Rosa­rium, ejusve tertiam partem, aut Officium divinum vel parvum Beatissimae Virginis, vel defunctorum, vel septem Psalmos poenitentiales, vel graduales re­citare, aut detentos in carcere visitare, aut pauperi­bus subvenire, aut saltem horae quadrante mentali orationi vacare consueverit, si confessus Sacerdoti ab Ordinario approbato sanctissimum Eucharistiae Sa­cramentum sumserit in quolibet ex diebus infra scriptis, piasque ad Deum preces fuderit pro haere­sium extirpatione, fideique Catholicae propagatione, aliisque sanctae Ecclesiae necessitatibus, plenariam suorum peccatorum Indulgentiam corsequetur: ni­mirum die Festo Nativitatis Domini nostri Jesu Christi, Circumcisionis, Epiphaniae, Resurrectionis, Ascensionis, Pentecostes, Sanctissimae Trinitatis, Corporis Christi, & die Conceptionis, Nativitatis, Praesentationis, Visitationis, Annunciationis, Purifi­cationis, & Assumtionis beatissimae Virginis, tum Nativitatis Sancti Johannis Baptistae, Sanctorum modo Canonizatorum, omnium Sanctorum, dedicatio­nis propriae Ecclesiae & ejusdem Patroni vel tituli.

Quisquis in vigilia cujuslibet istorum sanctorum jejunaverit, & confessus in ipsius Festo Sanctissimum [Page 204]Eucharistiae Sacramentum sumserit, oraveritque Deum, ut supra dictum est, toties Indulgentiam ple­nariam consequetur. Quicunque Missam celebra­rit, vel confessus, & sacrâ Communione refectus in­terfuerit Missae ad Altare, in quo Imago aut corpus aut reliquiae cujuslibet praedictorum quinque Sancto­rum asservantur, pieque Deum oraverint, at dictum est, die uno quem voluerit cujuslibet Mensis plena­riam Indulgentiam lucretur.

Quisquis vero poenitens peccata commissa emen­dare firmiter proposuerit, & eadem die visitaverit septem Ecclesias quaslibet, & ubi tot Ecclesiae non reperiuntur, quotquot ibi sint, & si unica tantum Ec­clesia sit in loco, omnia ipsius altaria, & pro haeresium extirpatione, &c. pie Deum oraverit semel in anno, fruatur Indulgentiis concessis septem urbis Ecclesias visitantibus.

Quicunque devotè cogitaverit de aliquo sanctis­simae passionis D. N. Jesu Christi mysterio, & in e­jusdem passionis honorem septies terram deosculatus fuerit eo die, lucretur Indulgentias concessas ascen­dentibus Romae per scalam sanctam; hoc autem se­mel in singulis annis.

Quisquis praedictorum quinque sanctorum imita­tione vel peccata sua vere detestabitur, cum firme proposito non peccandi de cetero, vel actum aliquem virtutis exercebit, toties lucretur Indulgentiam septem annorum & totidem quadragena.

Quisquis leget aliquod libri caput de vitâ corun­dem Sanctorum, aut invisitet eorum altare, vel ima­ginem venerabitur, & eraverit pro felici statu Sancta matris Ecclesiae peccatorumque conver sione, singulis vicibus percipiet Indulgentiam ce tum dierum.

Eandem pariter consequatur qui aliquid pauperi­bus [Page 205]tribuet, vel eosdem instruet, aut por alios instrui curabit in iis quae pertinent ad fidem bonosque mo­res.

Quisquis in Sanctissimae Eucharistiae cultu vel Beatissimae Virginis se exercebit, meditans illius my­sterii dignitatem, quantaque ex eo ad nos beneficia manant, aut commiserans ejusdem Beatae Virginis dolores, quibus in passione & morte filii affecta fuit, vel alia qualibet ratione Sanctissimum Sacramentum venerabitur, & pro necessitatibus Ecclesiae orabit; to­ties Indulgentiam centum dierum consequatur.

Quilibet in urbe commorans, vel ab ea ultra vi­ginti milliaria non absens, si legitimè impeditus non interfuerit Benedictioni qua Romanus Pontifex in Festo Paschatis, & Ascensionis solemniter benedicere consuevit; confessus autem Sacrosancta Communione reficiatur, & pias ad Deum preces pro haeresium ex­tirpatione, &c. fuderit, Indulgentiis fruatur quibus praesentes fruuntur; eadem vero si adimpleverint longius ab urbe distantes, easdem Indulgentias etiam­si legitime non impediti consequantur.

Omnes supradictae Indulgentiae fidelibus defunctis applicari possunt per modum suffragii.

Pro iisdem percipiendis satis est privatim habere apud se aliquam coronam vel crucem, &c. cum prae­dictis Indulgentiis à Sanctitate suâ benedictam, & quae superius praescripta sint adimplere, licet illa etiam alio nomine impleri forte debuerint.

Quisquis in articulo mortis se totum Deo commen­dans praedictos Sanctos vel ex iis unum invocar it, ore, si potuerit, sin minus saltem corde, confessus sacraque Communione refectus si potuerit, alioquia saltem contritus, plenariam omnium peccatorum In­dulgentiam consequetur.

[Page 206] In distribuendis hujusmodi Coronis, Crucibus, earumque usu, sanctissimus servari jubet decretum. Fel. record. Alexandri VII. editum sub die sexto Februarii. 1657, nimirùm ut Coronae, Cruces, Ro­saria, Numismata, quae vulgo Medalliae nuncupan­tun, & sacrae Imagines cum praefatis Indulgentiis benedictae non transeant personam ilionum quibus à sanctitate suâ concessae sunt, aut quibus ab his pri­mâ vice distribuentur, neque commodari aut preca­rio dari possunt, alioquin Indulgentiis jam concessis, & aliquatre ex praedictis deperdita, pro ea subrogari altera nullo modo potest quacunque concessione, aut privilegio in contrarium non obstante, Prohibet Sanctitas sua hanc Indul­gentiam imprimi extra Ʋrbem.


Thus Englished.

A Form of Indulgences, wherewith our holy Father Pope Clement X. did bless Crowns, Rosaries, Crosses, sacred Images and Medals, by occasion of Canonizing the holy Confesso [...]s, Cajetan, Fran­cis Borgia, Philippus Benitius, Lewis Ber­trand, and Sancta Rosa, a Peruvian Virgin.

Whosoever shall accustom, at least once a week, to say the Crown of our Lord, or of the Blessed Virgin, or her Rosary, or the third part [Page 207]of it, or the Divine Office, or the little Office of the Blessed Virgin, or of the Dead, or the seven Penitential Psalms, or the Gradual Psalms, or to visit Prisoners, or relieve the Poor, or spend at least a quarter of an hour in mental praier; if he confesses to a Priest approved by the Or­dinary, and receive the holy Communion in any of the daies below mentioned, and shall pray to God for extirpation of Heresies, the Propagation of Catholic Faith, and for other ne­cessities of the Roman Church, shall obtain a Plenary Indulgence of all his sins; viz. in the day of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, his Circumcision, [...]piphany, Resurrection, and Ascension, the day of Pentecost, holy Trinity, and Corpus Christi; and the day of the Conce­ption, Nativity, Presentation, Visitation, An­nunciation, Purification and Assumtion of the blessed Virgin; the day of the Nativity of S. John Baptist, of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, of the five Saints now canonized, of all Saints, of the Dedication of his proper Church, and of the Patron or Title of it.

Whosoever shall confess and receive in the Vigil of any of the foresaid Saints, and shall pray to God as aforesaid, shall obtain Plenary Indul­gence as often as he doth it.

Whosoever shall say Mass, or having con­fessed and received, shall hear Mass at an Altar, in which the Image, or Body, or Relique of any of the foresaid five Saints are kept, and shall pray to God, as aforesaid, in any one day which he pleases of every Moneth, gains a Plenary Indulgence.

[Page 208] Whosoever, being truly penitent, will pro­pose firmly to forsake his sins committed, and in the same day will visit any seven Churches, or, where so many Churches are not to be found, shall visit those that be; and if there be but one Church in the place, shall visit all the Altars of it, and pray to God for the extirpation of He­resies once a year, shall enjoy the Indulgences allowed to such as visit the seven Churches at Rome.

Whosoever shall think devoutly of any My­stery of the Passion of our Saviour, and in honor of the said Passion shall kiss seven times the ground, will in that day obtain the Indulgences allowed to such as go up the holy Stairs in Rome; but this once in every year.

Whosoever in imitation of the foresaid five Saints, either shall truly detest his sins with a firm purpose of sinning no more, or shall exer­cise some act of Virtue, shall so many times ob­tain an Indulgence of seven years, and so many quadragena's or forty daies Indulgence.

Whosoever shall read any Chapter of the life of the said Saints, or shall visit their Altar, or worship their Image, and pray for the happy state of our holy Mother the Church, and for the Conversion of sinners, shall at every time obtain Indulgence of 100. daies.

The same Indulgence shall any obtain who will give an [...] Alms to the Poor, or shall instruct them by himself or by another in things belong­ing to Faith and good manners.

Whosoever shall exercise himself in the wor­ship of the holy Eucharist, or of the blessed [Page 209]Virgin, meditating upon the dignity of that my­stery, and the benefits redounding from it to us, or commiserating the griefs of the said blessed Virgin wherewith she was possessed at the Passion and Death of her Son, or in any other manner shall reverence the blessed Sacrament, and pray for the necessity of the Church, shall obtain In­dulgence of 100 daies as often as he doth it.

Any dwelling in Rome, or not distant from it above twenty miles, if he hath a lawful impe­diment not to be present at the solemn blessing, which the Roman Pope is wont to give in the Festivity of Easter and Ascension, but shall con­fess and receive, and pray for the extirpation of Heresies, &c. shall enjoy the Indulgences which the people present will enjoy; but such as are further distant from Rome, shall enjoy the same Indulgences performing the said duties, tho they have no lawful impediment for absence.

All the Indulgences aforesaid may be applied to the faithful deceased by way of Suffrages.

For to gain the said Indulgences it is enough to have privately with you any Crown or Cross, &c. blessed by his Holliness with the foresaid In­dulgences, and to fulfill the duties before men­tioned, even tho happily you may be obliged to perform them upon another account.

Whosoever in the point of death commend­ing himself to God, shall invoke the foresaid Saints, or any of them with his mouth, if he can, having confessed and received the Commu­nion, if he may; otherwise having at least con­trition, shall obtain a plenary Indulgence of all his sins.

[Page 210] In the distribution of the said Crowns, Crosses, &c. and in the use of them, his Holiness com­mands to observe the Decree of Alexander VII. issued the 6. day of February 1657. viz. that Crowns, Crosses, Rosaries, Medals, and sacred Images blessed with the foresaid Indulgences, may not pass the persons of those to whom his Ho­liness gave them, or such as from them received those things the first time, and that they may not be lent or be bestowed; otherwise to lose the Indulgences: and any of them being lost, no other may be subrogated for it by any means, notwithstanding any allowance or priviledg to the contrary.

His Holiness prohibits this form of Indul­gences to be printed out of Rome.


I leave the judicious Reader to gloss upon this grant and the profuseness of it, whether it be a rare or difficult thing to gain a plenary Indul­gence where grants of this kind are frequent. They will tell us it will promote Piety to have such encouragement to Penitence praiers and deeds of Charity. But let them consider whether it may not rather be an occasion of continuing in vices, and a wicked life, if by a verbal Con­fession and an imperfect kind of contrition, or displeasure with sins for penalties following them, [Page 211]apt to be conceived by the most wicked livers, a security is given of remission of all sins, tho never so grievous and repeated, and of the eter­nal pains due to them: and likewise all the tem­poral penalties following them, are remitted by a plenary Indulgence, so easy to be obtained as we have seen. Who will not perceive that encou­ragement is given hereby to persevere in vices, whatsoever other purposes they may have who grant them? And if this be well considered, Mr. I. S. will cease to admire, that Protestant Doctors should accuse the Roman Church of facilitating by these means the way to sinning.

CHAP. XXXI. The dismal unhappiness of the Romish people in having their Liturgy in a Tongue unknown to them.

EX ore tuo te judico serve nequam, thus begins Mr. I. S. his answer to my discourse upon this subject, wherein I lamented the misery of the Romish People, in having their Liturgy in a tongue unknown to them; and thus also shall my reply to him begin, which certainly will be to put the Saddle on the right Horse. What is it Sr that I have said which may be a judgment against my self in this case? That the purpose of nature by speaking is to communicate the sense of him that speaks to the hearer, which cannot be obtained if the hearer perceives not the mean­ing of the words he speaks. This say you proves against my self; for in the Liturgy or public Service of the Church we speak to God, and not to the Congregation, and God can understand us, tho we do not our selves. But stay Sr, is not the Liturgy, or public Service of the Church as well with you, as with us, composed of an exchange of speech betwixt God and his People, they speaking to him in Praiers and Thanksgi­vings, he speaking to them by the Lessons of sacred Scripture, by the Epistles, Gospels and Psalms? Is it not necessary for both these pur­poses, [Page 213]that the People should understand what they say to God by Prayer, and what he says to them by Exhortation? And for the first, wherein you think your pretension to be obtained, for praying, I say; is not Praier a rational and volun­tary Elevation of the mind, helped by the ex­pressions and sense of the Praier read or said? Is not this elevation of the mind mainly advanced by understanding the word of the Praier read or said? whoever heard a Psalm sung with solemn Music, may well tell how different a feeling and elevation of mind he hath when he sees or knows the words sung and the meaning of them, then when he hears the same Psalm without under­standing the words or sense of them.

Your comparison of a Polander presenting a Petition in English to the King of England, which himself doth not understand, doth ag­gravate your crime, and publish the misery of the People abused by you. Would not that Polander wish to know the English tongue for acting in his own cause, and to be sure he was not abused by a Notary, who possibly might have framed a Petition for him to the King for hanging his Father or Mother for Traitors. If the King did understand the Polish Language as well as the English, were it not a madness in the said Polander to have his Petition penn'd in a Tongue he doth not understand with the foresaid disadvantages, being able to do it in his own Tongue with the contrary advantages? What madness then is it in your People to frame their Praiers in a Tongue unknown to them, to speak like Parrots, without feeling or knowing [Page 214]what they say, and exposed to the danger of being abused by a knave, teaching them, or reading before them blasphemous words, in which they are to join with him b [...] their Amen? And in case the Praier be good that is read be­fore them, what proportion can it have with elevating the minds of the People to a conjun­ction in sense with the Minister, if they do not understand what he says? And thus ill it go's with you, even for the act of praying in your Liturgy, which you allow to be an elevation of the mind to God. Even in this point I have your own judgement against you, and so may re­turn your text upon you, saying, Ex ore tuo te judico serve nequam.

But what of the second part of the Liturgy above mentioned, containing a speech of God to the People by the Epistles, Gospels, Psalms, and other sacred Lectures directed to the Spi­ritual direction and food of their Souls? can this end be compassed without sense and feel­ing in the People of what is said to them? You confess that S. Paul 1. Cor. 14. prohibits preach­ing to the People in a Tongue unknown to them: and are not those sacred Lectures a kind of preaching, exhortation, and instruction of the People, and the best that can be, as pro­ceeding immediatly from God himself? Then you act against the Apostles order, by your own confession, proposing such exhortations to the People in a Tongue unknown to them, and so your text returns upon you here in full mea­sure, Ex ore tuo te judico serve nequam. It is a discredit to a cause so clear to make more delay [Page 215]upon it: but let the World cry against the ty­ranny you use this way with Souls in depriving them of their Spiritual food. What you say of submitting your judgment herein to the Church, is idle and absurd, when our present business is to rebuke the abuses and corruptions of your Church, the causes of our dislike of it.

CHAP. XXXXII. The cruelty of the Roman Church in prohibiting the reading of Scripture to the people, and their com­mon pretence of Sects and Divisions arising among Protestants refuted.

FRom the page 101. of my former Discourse, I declared the cruelty used with the faithful people in prohibiting them the reading of Scri­pture, which is the food of their Souls; how contrary that is to the doctrine of Scripture it self, often inviting us to the reading of it, and to the doctrine and practice of the Fathers, and people of the Primitive Church.

To all which Mr. I. S. replies, that the fruit we have in the Protestant Church of permitting the people to read the Bible, is the variety of Sects sprung from the reading of it. But this you may tell better to others, then to me that know now matters go on both sides, and am certain that there are more divisions in several Socie­ties of your Communion both in Doctrine and in Ceremonies, then in the Protestant Church. He that knows the differences of opinions betwixt Jesuists and Dominicans, each one condemning the other of heresie, and doctrines destructive of good life, and of the merits of Christ, and the great difference in Rites and Ceremonies used among them, will clearly see they differ more in [Page 217]all the one from the other, then the Orthodox Protestants do from any other Congregation of Christians in the Reformed Church. Their diffe­rences are not in matters so fundamental and ne­cessary to Salvation and a good Life, as those of the dissenting Romish Societies. Their censures of one another are not so heavy; yea the very sta­ting of their Questions on both sides do declare so much; both supposing, they are touching things indifferent; the Dissenters or Non-conformists, pretending that the points in Debate, being only Ceremonial and indifferent, not essential to Sal­vation or good life, ought not to be forced upon them: The Orthodox alledging that very thing to render Dissenters criminal, that the things or­dered being of their own nature indifferent, and not opposite to Gods Law, there is a necessity up­on them of obeying lawful Autority ordering such matters.

So much we may say in relation to Rites and Ceremonies, that there is not near so great a di­versity in them used by Orthodox Protestants, and other Congregations dissenting; as there is in the Ceremonies and Rites used in Colledges of Jesuites, and Convents of Dominicans, Car­melites, Franciscans, Carthusians, and other ve­ry many Societies differing both in Habit, Diet, Rites and Ceremonies one from the other. All these differences both of Doctrine and Rites the Pope can wink at, provided they agree in pay­ing obedience to him, and advancing his quarrel. The great Union required by the Church of Eng­land makes meaner dissentions appear more sen­sible, and greater would the Dissentions and Er­rors [Page 218]be, if the light of holy Scriptures were re­moved; for St. Hierome saith, that infinite evils do arise from ignorance of Scripture: from hence, saith he, most part of Heresies have come; and so they are of their own nature, and well used not a cause of Dissentions and Errors, but a cure of them. And therefore the Roman Church being resolved not to be cured of her corruptions, decreed the Scriptures to be removed from the eies of the people; as appears by the Council of Bishops mentioned by Dr. Stillingfleet, and by other grave Writers, of whose Autority you doubt. And what need we the Autority of that Council for a thing that we see with our eies, and ordered by the Council of Trent, by Pius IV. Clement the VIII. and Alexander the VII. in the places alledged in the page 100. of my former Discourse.

CHAP. XXXIII. Mr. I S. his Engagement, touching the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and the practice of Confession confuted.

FOR instance of the cruelty of the Romish Church, in pressing upon the belief of the faith­ful things uncertain and repugnant to their judgment, I made a brief mention of the opi­nion about the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary; how they make people swear to defend it, and debar from offices and preferment such as will not take such oaths. And Mr. I. S. must enter into a formal dispute upon the point. The testimony of S. Paul (saying, Rom. v. that all men sinned in Adam, and consequently the Vir­gin Mary with the rest) he values nothing. It is a general rule, saies he, capable of exception; but gives us no testimony to prove the Virgin was excepted from that rule. He admits that Christ was Universal Redeemer, and died for all men, but thinks it not a consequence that the Virgin should have bin redeemed, or drawn, but only preserved from sin, and so the consequence of St. Paul was not legal, saying, 2 Cor. v. 14. If one died for all, then were all dead; or if if it be legal, sure the Virgin was dead by Original sin as the rest, or else all were not dead.

You say it is not unlawful in a community to [Page 220]require certain conditions from such as will be members of it, and so may require of them en­gagement to defend the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. To demand conditions not including a disturbance of conscience, nor occa­sioning dissimilations may be lawful; not so to re­quire conditions contrary to a mans conscience and judgment, which was our case. You say the Oath of Supremacy, in opinion of Papists, is an heresie, why then is it required from me? I an­swer, it is only folly or malice can make it appear such, as I have declared in the 18. Chapter, and the Law is not to be regulated by such passions.

I gave likewise a short touch to the cruelty used with consciences in the practice of Conses­sion, as well in the manner of its exercise, as the frequent reservation of cases. And here Mr. I.S. must enter again into the deep of the dispute, whether Confession ought to be admitted, which was not the case; in as much as the Church of England doth not only admit, but commend and enjoin the practice of Confession in necessary oc­casions, tho not the unnecessary and pernicious superstructures of the Roman Church, touching the mode prescribed, and the reservation of cases, occasioning lamentable perplexities, and despe­rate melancholies of Souls, whereof I could de­clare miserable instances, if certain due conside­rations did not make me supersede enlarging up­on this kind of matter.

Only I will reflect upon a new addition of ri­go [...] brought in by Mr. I. S. of which he will have St. Augustin to be Author, that the quality of the sin, the place, time, continuance, and diversity of [Page 221]persons must be specified. This makes me doubt and wonder what kind of person my Antagonist is, whether ever he was bred among learned men of the Roman Church, or did read their Books; for certainly any of them that has but the least tincture of moral Theology, will think strange of this paradox, That the place and time of sins are to be declared, as also the diversity of per­sons, being of the same kind or species. But of these kind of lapses Mr. I. S. his Theology makes no scruple; if [...]e were better acquainted with the practice of Doctors in the Roman Church, he would not fetch up doctrines of Fathers op­posite to the present practice of that Church. If he did but sit certain hours of the day from St. Lukes to May-day, or thereabouts, in the Halls of Divinity of the Colledges of Palentia and Tudela, where he saies no Divinity was ever taught, he would learn, that it is not the duty of a Penitent to specifie in his Confession the time, place and diversity of persons, wherein and wherewith his sins were committed; and they would tell him, that if St. Augustin said the con­trary, it was one of his errors, and a doctrine now out of date. But Mr. I. S. is of a stronger stomach, can swallow by the gross, and cares not so much for chawing or mincing distinctions of doctrines.

CHAP. XXXIV. A reflection upon the many falsities, impertinences, absurdities, and hallucinations of Mr. I. S. his Book, which may justifie a resolution of not mis­spending time in returning any further reply to such writings: and a conclusion of the whole Treatise, exhorting him to a consideration of his miserable condition in deceiving himself and others with va­nity.

Mr. I. S. concludes his Book as he began, and did proceed in it, pouring out a shower of falsities, non sense, impertinences, and hallu­cinations, of which I will give some testimonies here, whereby the Reader may see, with how much reason I may resolve not to spend precious time in further answering to, or taking notice of such faulty writings. The very first words of his Dedicatory Epistle to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, contains a heap of the said faults and falsities. He calls his Book A Vindication of both Churches, which a viper has endeavoured to bite, &c. he may better call it an affront of both Churches: of the Protestant, for the rude inju­ries offer'd to her, of the Popish for having no better defense of her cause to exhibit. With what truth or propriety can he say, that I endea­vor'd to bite both Churches? As for the Pro­testant, I gave sufficient testimony of my endea­vors to make the world know, that in her is pro­fessed [Page 223]the true Primitive, Catholic, Apostolic Faith, and therefore is the surest way to Salva­tion; and as for the Roman Church, from which I received the belief of a Christian, if the matter be well considered, I will make good I have not bin a Viper, but a dutiful and truly loving Child, and more dutiful and true then Mr. I. S. If a Mother infected with a pestilent canker had two sons, of which the one knowing the remedy would apply it, tho with reluctancy and displea­sure of the infected Mother; and the other not to displease his Mother, would feed the sickness with lenitives or soothing, pleasing the Mother, but feastering her wound, and hastening her ruine; which of both do you think were the more truly dutiful and loving Child? Certainly the former, who would apply a healing hand to the Mother tho against her will. This is the difference be­twixt you and me. I saw that Mother (at whose breast I did suck the belief of a Christian, and therefore cannot chuse but revere and love her as a Mother) sicken of a pestilent canker, I tri­ed to apply some beginnings of a remedy, and finding her impatient of cure, while in her reach, I betook me to a distance whence I might apply the cure, letting her know, that her Innocations proceeding from Ambition and A [...]a [...]ice, are cause of her Pestilent disease, that renders her odious to God and men. She should return therefore to her former innocency and holiness, practiced by St. Peter and his Successors for many Ages, which rendred them glorious and venerable to all the world, when their study was not to make Princes of Nephews and Nieces; and of Peasants, He­roes; [Page 224]pretending to that end to make all man­kind tributary to their power and riches; but to purchase heaven for themselves and for others, with a contemt of the earth.

Soon after he saies I should have taught, That there is no Salvation in the Catholic Church, with­out telling where or when I did deliver such a doct [...]ine (as indeed he could not do,) I profes­sing every day my belief in the Catholic Church, and protesting I do, and will live and die in it. If by Catholic Church he means, only the Popish or Roman, its a foul abuse of terms, especially speaking to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or to any other of sense in a polemic dis­course; and even speaking of the Roman or Po­pish Church, it is another great piece of untruth, to say, I should have taught that none may be saved in it, as may appear by the second Chapter of this Treatise. Its another wilful or rude mi­stake whereinto he falls very often, that by Ro­man Church I should understand the Diocess of Rome, of which I never took any notice or regard in my discourse, which was of the Roman Church, as opposi [...]e to the Reformed, and so containing the whole congregation of men subject to the Pope of Rome; and it is to me a wonder, that this great pretender to skill in Controversies, should not know before now, that to be the meaning of the Roman Church in Controversies of this kind.

What shall I say of his pitiful spite and envy in his Preface to the Reader, pretending to rob me of those titles my Emploiments gave me so public and known (as appears in the Preface of [Page 225]of this Treatise) without shame to be convinced of palpable untruths? What of his rashness and rudeness in fixing for a Thesis or Title to the eighth Chapter of his Book, That the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ, nor any part of it; that they cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scri­pture for their Tenets? Of his prosane policy, in accusing me of indiscretion in delivering what I knew to be truth, touching the Salvation of Pro­testants when I was on the Romish side, as men­tioned in the fourteenth Chapter? What of his blasphemous impiety, in saying, that no Text of Scripture tells us, that the Evangelists were in the state of Grace when they wrote the Gospel, nor nothing else gives us assurance of it? Nay further against the Gospel it self he pronounceth this horrible Blasphemy, That not only we are unsure of the In­fallibility of the Gospel, but that we are assured it is not infallible. And this hellish conception of his own he must father upon the Protestant Church, saying, its the common doctrine of it, that it is impossible to keep Gods Commandments: the falsehood of which mali [...]ious imposture I have declared above in the 8th Chapter of this Trea­tise. What of his boldness in challenging me and all Protestants to answer his ridiculous and silly Sophisms, with undertakings that they shall ne­ver be answered, as appears in the eighteenth Chapter touching Transubstantiation, and in the twenty sixt touching Purgatory, in denying that Scotus, Ocham, and other Schole-men, should de [...]lare Transubstantiation not to be proved out of Scripture, as above declared, chap. 20. As a so in denying that Costerus should say it is the [Page 226]common opinion of Romish Divines, that the Image of God and Christ is to be adored by the worship of Latria, as above mentioned, Ch. 23.

What of his terrible Hallucination in matter of History touching Indulgences declared in Chapt. 29. appearing in every word ridiculously mistaken, when he pretends to be most magiste­rial in correcting mistakes of his Adversary? And carrying on constantly to the end this spirit of Untruth, Hallucination, and Impropriety of terms, he concludes his Book with telling me, I know in my conscience the Church of Rome is not guilty of the errors I attribute to her for cause of my separation from her. How came you Sr to know the interior state of my conscience? You tell me I know the Popes Supremacy in temporal affairs over Princes was no article of Faith, but a Schole question. That the Popes in­fallibility was but an opinion of some Divines. As to the Popes Supremacy I have declared a­bove c. 25. what little comfort is left to Princes by that distinction of the Popes Supremacy in spirituals from that of his power in temporals, whereas he backs his spiritual power with a tem­poral to the ruin and deposing of all Princes and Emperors that resist him. The only case of furious Hildebrand with the Emperor Henry the 3d, as related by his own most friendly Historians, even Baronius, is apt to strike a horror into any hu­man heart, and a terror into Princes and people, if the unspeakable arrogance of the Roman Court should not be bridled.

As for the Popes Infallibility, I have declared above in the 3d Chapter how impertinent your [Page 227]distinction of Pope alone from Pope and his Council together, is, to escape the force of my Arguments in the present Controversy. How falsly you say I should speak only of the Infal­libility of the Pope alone, my Arguments pro­ving he is fallible still, whether alone, or in a Council depending upon him, as that of Trent. You tell me I left the Roman Church, because I saw the Bible prohibited in it to the People, and the Liturgy performed in an un­known Language. But tho that is a great crime of the Roman Church (as I have declared in the precedent Chapter) it was not the only cause; others several grievous I produced more imme­diatly touching my own concern and daily pra­ctise, wherein I could not continue with quiet or safety of Conscience.

You tell me I forsook a Church honored with many Saints, for the Protestant Church, whereof there was never yet any Saint. If this be true, S. Peter and S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles were no Saints, for I am certainly perswaded they were of the Church that I am of: their Doctrine and their Faith and no other being taught in it. But you speak with the vulgar of Protestants as condistinct from Roman Catho­lics. Well, and how come you to know that none of them was ever a Saint? Were you in the hearts of all, or did you sit in the Tribunal of God, to know what degree of grace they had in his Soveraign inscrutable judgement? What is rashness if this be not? But you have titular Saints who have purchased that calling by pu­blic authority, as Dukes, Earls, and Knights [Page 228]do purchase theirs: of such we have none. Then you speak of titular Saints, not of real ones, and upon this account you may not expect to win me from the Protestant Church to yours. I hear of some Sectaries about us, I know not where, who style all of their Congregation Saints; to this degree of Sanctity your Church did not aspire yet: then, if I am to remove to a Church of more titular Saints, to these Sectaries I am to go, not to you. But you speak of Saints that come to Heaven, and thither none may come but under the conduct of the Roman Pope; he hath the keys of Heaven, and none may go thither without his leave. I heard of some Popes that were kept out themselves from entring thi­ther, and I have great reason to believe it was so, and to fear that I following their conduct may have the like repulse. It is one of your damnable errors, and not the least cause of my discontent with you, to say that none may be saved without paying obedience to the Pope of Rome, a spark of Hell-fire, which kindled and conserves the miserable combustions and distractions of Christendom, the bloody Massacre of so many thousands of Men, and the desolation of so many noble Kingdoms and Provinces; a mon­strous Paradox cut out to the measure of the un­measurable Ambition of the Roman Pope and his Court, to force all the World with the fright of everlasting fire, adding to it the power of the Sword where he can, to resign up their obe­dience, and contribute their wealth and liberties to the support of that power and grandeur, the greatest that ever was entertained in the fancy [Page 229]of man, if men were so mad as to yield to the proposals of the Pope and his Emissaries.

To diminish the heat of this hellish Ambition, the Seminary of the miseries of Christendom, I have contributed with my endeavors, even while I was among you, using only the armor of principles learned in your own Scholes, and declaring that the practise of the Emissary Sy­cophants of the Roman Court is contrary, not only to the intrinsic rules of Christian doctrine, but to the very professed tenets of the Romish Church; I do not say of the Romish Court, for tho both corrupt, they have their different waies, and to conform with the tenets of the Roman Church was not thought sufficient in me, if I did not also fashion my doctrine to the interest of the Roman Court, and to the extension of the grandeur of it; which is the want of policy or prudence Mr. I. S. accused me of, as before men­tioned.

I will continue now with more liberty and resolution the same endeavors, of letting the World know how false and pernicious this do­ctrine is; how great the disingenuity of Romish Emissaries in publishing and preaching it to the People, contrary to truth and their own know­ledg, to win Proselytes by frights to the Romish faction; but it shall be in the Schole language and style, to make it more universal, not in the Vulgar, to shun dealing with quiblers and cavil­lers, such as I find you to be, Mr. I. S. What you are in your person, I know not certainly, but your style and mode of discourse fashioned to a vulgar humor, with a total neglect of what [Page 230]learned and serious men may think of it, makes me conceive you may be one of those Preachers I saw in Pulpits, with a dead mans skull in their hand, or the picture of a Devil, or a damned Soul surrounded with flames, and girded with Snakes and Toads, moving the Vulgar with tragic cries and antic gestures to sighs and sobs, and knocking of their breasts; while those of more sense and discretion did exercise their patience, and bite their lips to refrain laughing at showers of non-sense powred down with confidence. He that will reflect seriously upon the passages of your discourse, I pointed at in this Chapter, and many others of the like sort to be seen in your Book, will see I do you no injury in this Cha­racter I give of your writing, resolving to take no notice of any I shall see for the future of this kind, being desirous to make better use of the time God is pleased to lend me, then to spend it in shifting such trifles.

Here I will add one argument more of this mans weakness and peevish temper, that find­ing me refuting briefly a reply of Becan to an argument I was urging, and not understanding the drift of my argument, or wanting an answer, he only says that he knows not why I mentioned Becan, if it be not to let men know that I am acquainted with the Books of great Divines. Such as are acquainted with Scholes and Books of Divinity, do know for what kind of Dïvines the Summary Theology of Becan was made, for such as have not time or other requisits to go deeper. Truly when I take points of Divinity in hand to resolve upon them, I am not wont [Page 231]rest upon the Memorandums of Becan. I allow Mr. I. S. the glory of being more conversant in this Writer. And indeed I find them svmbolize in one thing, which is to put off pressing argu­ments of their Adversaries with a flout or sarcasm, fitted more to a vulgar applause than to the satis­faction of solid understandings. This I observed sometimes in Becan (which made me regard him less) but very often in Mr. J. S.

Another proof of the mans truth and talent, is to say that all the arguments contained in my discourse are found in Bellarmin, as also the an­swers of them, with which I ought to have bin contented without giving him the trouble of an­swering me. Say you so Sr? then the answers you return to me, either are of Bellarmin, or of your own making: if of Bellarmin, your cause is desperate, when your ablest Champion could produce no better defence of it: if of your own making, you have betrayed your trust in build­ing the credit of your cause upon so weak a ground, and not producing the soundest reasons that were for it in an occasion of so great expe­ctation: for certainly he must be very blind, that will not see by what is said in this Treatise, that your answers are very weak, impertinent, and often ridiculous.

But of all this you have an excuse in the con­dition of your cause. The greatest wits are too weak to support it. Look upon Scotus in 4. dist. 10. q. 3. shivering the arguments of Aquinas and others in favor of Transubstantiation, and you will see wit and learning triumph in his dis­courses. Look upon the same Scotus engaged [Page 232]in defending Transubstantiation, to comply with the Lateran Council against his own fentiments, as he confesses, and you will find him ridiculous, as may appear by what I related of him above, chap. 23. How strong and formal is Suarez in de­fence of Christian verities against Infidels, how faint and wavering in the defence of Purgatory, Indulgences, &c. as seen above, chap. 31. Its a complaint grown very common among your party against Bellarmin, that the Arguments he objects against the Romish Tenets, are stronger then his Answers to them: and certain I am, it was not for want of wit or will in him to ad­vance the Roman interest, it was the condition of the Cause.

You brag of Austerities used by some orders of the Roman Church. If this be a rule of per­fection, Pagans there be that exceed you in it, afflicting their bodies with desperate Austerities even to the destruction of soul and body toge­ther. It is one of your calumnies to say Prote­stants should condem fasting and corporal affli­ctions discreetly used and without Hypocrisy, to curb the lust of the flesh; such they do commend, and many do practice, tho with less ostentation then is used among you.

You tell me that the Precepts of the Roman Church, without Controvers do oblige me, and that by every omission of a Holy-day Mass, &c. I commit a hainous sin. Oh great Divine! I have demonstrated with reasons, in my own judgment at least, evidently convincing, that I can not ful­fil the Precepts of the Roman Church without infringing the Divine, that in many things they [Page 233]are opposite. Which of them shall I prefer? Is it not so, that we ought to obey God rather then men? Act. v. 29. You speak of vows I made: but if all was grounded upon a blind obedience to the Pope of Rome, including a dis-obedience to the Laws of God, whereof I am now certainly per­swaded, and delivered reasons of it, which after sundry oppositions and streight scrutinies remain still in the same force with me, by the common vote of Divines such vows are null, and I am to­tally free from obligation of complying with them.

And finally, whereas you conclude with Ex­hortations to me of returning to your Commu­nion, I will requite you with an Admonition better grounded, of considering the mise­rable condition you are in, dazled with the splendor of the Roman Grandeur, and baited with the strong allurements of it, deceiving the world with colours of Sanctity, when Ambition and Avarice is the primum mobile, and the Soul that animates all your motions. Many simple Souls are not aware of the profane secular drifts of this great Engine of Religion set up by cun­ning Italians, to make all the world contribute to their Lust and Pride, hooking in with slight, more then those more honest anci [...]nt Romans could win with the sword. But you and your like, that pretend to learning and knowledg, are in a worse condition, and we have but too much ground to suspect you are wilfully in an error, and therefore guilty of deceiving the world, and being complices of the destruction and miseries of Christendom, being your self the most decei­ved, [Page 234]when your work is to deceive others. This is a matter of greater scruple and consequence, then that you intimate to me of an obligation to hear Mass on every Holy-day. I commend it therefore to your serious consideration, and to fear and think upon seriously that wo declared against corrupt Teachers, by the Prophet Eze­kiel XXXIV. 2. &c. Wo be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves. Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? .... with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them; and they were scattered because there is no shepherd.... Therefore, Oh ye shepherds, hear the words of the Lord, thus saith the Lord God, Be­hold I am against the shepherds, and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock, &c.

O how may we fear this will be the end of your Pride and Cruelty! that pretending to have all, you may lose all; and while you pretend to domineer over all the faithful, you may be trampled under the feet of Infidels. If you con­tinue to set God against you it will be so, he will cause you cease from feeding the flock, and re­quire at your hands the decay of it.

This is our fear: but our earnest desire and hearty praier to God is, that he may be graci­ously pleased to clear your minds from the cloud of earthly passions, which possessed of the will, do blind the understanding; that he may raise your hearts to a real inquiry of Gods honor and service, and inspire into your leaders thoughts of peace with your Christian Brethren, and not a further affliction to his holy Church.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.