IT is not Reasonable to Adhere to that Church, which Commands us to believe (under pain of damnation) Doctrines which are uncertiane and dubious: But the Church of Rome doth Require such things; pro. In the Creed of Pius 4^th Bulla Pij 4^th Super form. Ju­ram Pro­fess: fid. There are several things Re­quired as Conditions of Communion with that Church, and which their Clergy are bound to swear that they truly Believe, and will constantly defend, and that they will take Care [Page 2] that they be taught to, and Believed by those who are under their Charge, and this also they Acknowledge to be the Catholick faith, without which there is no Salvation: But now many of these things (which they are Bound to hold according to the Letter of the Decree (are Uncertain and Doubtfull, and from their own Principles and Confessions will apear so.

1. I instance in the Artic [...]e that they acknowledge the holy Catholick Aposto­lick Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistrisse of all Churches: But there is no Certainty of the truth of this Article, for it is either meant of the Churches united under the Obedience of the Roman Bishop, or else of the Particular Diocess of Rome: It cannot be meant of the Universal Church which obeyes the Universal Vicar of Christ, as Suarez phraseth it: for all Churches are supposed by them mem­bers of that Universal Church, and the Universal Church to be the Coll­ection of all Churches: Now it is im­proper [Page 3] to call the Universal Church A Mother of all Churches, for all Chur­ches are the same with the Ʋniver­sal Church, and nothing can be cal­led a Mother to it selfe; Again, it cannot be a Mistrisse of all Churches, for it is only a Society of all Churches United together; and Suppose all those Churches throughout the world, of which this Universal Church is made, I aske what is the Mistrisse to all these Churches? either tis the Roman particular Church which I shall shew to be otherwise, or else they must say that all these Churches United are a Mistrisse to all Churches, when yet they suppose no other can be a Church but what is United with these, which is absurd. If they mean the parti­cular Roman Church, then first, that cannot be a Mother of all Churches, which in order of time was founded after some Churches, unlesse wee could say the Mother might be born after the Daughter, but the Roman Church was founded after the Church of Jerusalem, and therefore [Page 4] St. Hierome Com. in Iss. 2. sayes, the Church foun­ded in Jerusalem, begat the Churches of the whole world, Ecclesia in Hie­rusalem fundata totius orbis Ecclesias seminavit, and the Synodical Letter Theo­doret. Ec­cl. Hist. l. 5. 6. 9. from the Council of Constantinople to Damasus and the Western Bishops calls Cyril, the Bishop of Jerusalem, the Mother of all Churches: Again, the Roman Church was founded af­ter the Church of Antioch, where the Disciples were first called Christians. Acts II. 26. Quae prima omnium ausa est proferre Christianum nomen, atque Nascentis Evangelij gloriam praedicare, saith Po­lidor Virgil De In­vent. re­rum l. 4. c. 2. I may ad, after the Church of Britaine, for Suarez Defens. Fidei Ca­thol. l. 1. c. 1. confesseth, it was from the first Ri­sing of the Gospel, and Baronius from some manuscripts in the Vatican af­fixeth it to the 35th year of our Lord, which was near nine years before the founding of the Roman Church; If then the Roman Church was foun­ded after some other Churches, it is then uncertain and doubtful how we can acknowledg it to be the Mo­ther [Page 5] of all Churches, and prosesse this as an Article of Faith without which there is no Salvation.

Secondly, If it be not de fide that the Roman particular Church shall never err in matters of Faith, then it is absurd to make this profession alwaies, that she is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches, for that cannot alwaies be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches, which may cease to be a member of the Catho­lick Church: But even by their own confessions, it is not de fide that the Roman particular Church shall alwaies remain, or alwaies adhere to the true faith: for that Rome shall be the Seat of Antichrist is the opi­nion of many Romanists; and if it be Ribera & Viega in Apoc. 17. the Seat of Antichrist, it is uncertain how it can remain the Mistress of all Churches; again, that it shall not fail, it is only pia & probabilissima opinio Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. pont. c. 4. But not so certain that the contrary can be called Heretical, or manifestly erroneous; yea, there is no promise (if we look on that [Page 6] Church precisely) that it shall never revolt from the Catholick faith, saies Suarez Desens­fid. Cathol. l. 1. 5. 5. Now if it be not de fide that the Roman particular Church shall never err in matters of faith, and that there is no promise to support it from failing, then 'tis absur'd to pro­sess alwaies this Article as necessary to Salvation, That she is the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches.

Thirdly, If the Romanists shall say that the particular Church, taken abstractly from its Bishop may err, but considered as united with its head the Ʋniversal Bishop then it can never err, or fall away, propter Ca­thedram Petri praesidentem, saies Sua­rez Defens. fid. Cathol. &c. l. 1. c. 5. n. 6, 7.; for the Roman Bishop is the Vicar of Christ, and Head of the whole Church, the Father and Teacher of all Christians, to whom in St. Peter was delivered the full power of fee­ding, and governing the universal Church, as the Florentine Council determines: so that whatsoever Church is in Ʋnion with him, by ver­tue of the priviledg derived to him [Page 7] by St. Peter cannot fall into any error, hoc habet quaelibet alia Ecclesia sub ea­dem ratione & Ʋnione spectata, saies Suarez Defens. fid. &c. ibi. n. 6.: But now if the foundation of this Article be doubtful and un­certain, it will follow that this Ar­ticle it self is doubtful and uncertain also. First then, (setting aside the question about St. Peters universal Pastor-ship which contains many perplexities) it is uncertain, whe­ther there be by Divine right a suc­cessor to that universal Pastor-ship, for there is no mention in Scripture of a successor, no Command to ap­point one, and no evident conse­quence that any such was appointed; and if there can be no certain com­mand produced to appoint a succes­sor, nor evident consequence that by divine Command any such was appointed, then it is uncertain whe­ther there be by divine right a succes­sor to that universal Pastor-ship. Secondly, It is uncertain whether those priviledges which our Saviour obtained by his Prayer for St. Peter, [Page 8] are to be extended to his Successor, for either all must be allowed to a Successor, or only some priviledges: if all priviledges, then the Successor of St. Peter can neither err in his own judgment, nor teach any error to others: But this is more then them­selves require, for the former privi­ledg fortasse non descendit ad postelos, perhaps it hath not descended to his successors, saith Bellarmine, l. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 3. and Ca­nus Loc. Com. lib. 6. c. 8. gives the account of Pighius de­fending the Popes (by vertue of this Prayer) being free from personal er­ror: Quamvis in multis locis dicit satis probabiliter de summi Pontificis autoritate, tamen non id spectandum quid dicit, sed quid consentaneum sit ei dicere, though he speaks probably enough in many places of the Popes authority, yet that is not so much to be regarded what he saies, as what is fit for him to say, &c. for he adds in another place, it cannot be de­nied but the Pope may be an Heretick: If only some priviledges were here given to his successor, as infallibility [Page 9] in Doctrine, that he should never teach error, tanquam Pontifex, where­as our Saviour obtained for St. Peter the priviledg of persevering in saving faith, and also infallibility in Do­ctrine: I demand then, where hath our Saviour distinguish't betwixt the priviledges here given to St. Peter and to his Successors? Where is it said what he hath obtained for the one, and what he hath obtained for the other? Where are those words about Teaching, or Teach­ing others? or that a Successor should teach no errors, any more then St. Peter could? to sum up this Argu­ment, there can be no pretence that the priviledges procured for St. Peter belonged to his Successors without our Saviours grant, but 'tis uncer­tain whether there be such a grant; for either all priviledges must be al­lowed to his Successors, which is more then they would have: or there must be some distinction be­twixt those priviledges which he procured for St. Peter, and which [Page 10] he obtained for his successors; but if there be none to be found there, as I have shewn, then it follows that it is uncertain whether the pri­viledges which our Saviour obtained for St. Peter are to be extended to his Successors. Thirdly, granting there be a successor, yet still this Article that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter (I mean in that large sense the Papists take it) is un­certain and doubtful; for there is no Command extant that S. Peter should fix his Seat at Rome, and no Divine Testimony that the Bishop of Rome was appointed his successor; and if there be neither Command that he should be appointed his successor, nor Divine Testimony that he was so appointed, it follows then that this Article, The Bishop of Rome is St. Pe­ter's successor, is uncertain and doubt­ful; if there were a Command, then either it was given before St. Peter would have departed from Rome, or after his return thither again: if before St. Peters going out of Rome [Page 11] he received the command to fix his Seat there then it is not likely that he would have offered to remove thence which (as the stories quoted by Bellarmin l. 1. de Rom. pon [...]. c. 23. say) was a little be­fore his Death: if after his return to Rome he received this Command, how does it appear, yea that he re­ceived such Command either be­fore his offering to depart, or after his return? what Record? what Testimony? what assurance of any such thing? if there were a Testimo­ny that the Bishop of Rome was ap­pointed to be St. Peters successor, then either that Testimony is Divine, or Humane; if it be a Divine Testi­mony let it be produced; if it be on­ly a Humane Testimony, then it makes only a Humane faith, and therefore it can be no Article neces­sary to be believed on pain of Dam­nation, that the Bishop of Rome is St. Peters successor. Again that which is not yet agreed on by the Romish Doctors, whether it be by Divine, or Humane right, cannot be made [Page 12] by them a Fundamental Article of faith: But by what ground the Bi­shop of Rome succeeds to St. Peter, is not yet agreed on by them positively. Some say it is only by Humane right, so Soto Armacanus, and Paludanus, as Suarez de trip. Vir [...]. disp. 10. ss. 3. n. 9. tells us; Some say it is not by Divine right, Sed ex facto & mor­te Petri saies Azorius Inst. mo­ral. part. 2. l. 4. c. 11.: Bellarmine speaks very perplexedly, it is not ex prima institutione quae legitur in E­vangelio Bell. l. 2. de Rom. pont. c. 12. § at. vero § at. quoni­am Sobs. [...]. 1. 4. c. 4. ss. at setun­dum §. re­spondeo ss. accedit.: not from the first insti­tution which is in the Gospel, but then we would find the second insti­tution, It is not (saies he) impro­bable that the Lord plainly Comman­ded Peter, &c. Again peradventure it is not by Divine right, although it pertain to the Catholick faith: Again it is not altogether de fide that the Apostolick Seat cannot be separa­ted from the Roman Church: Again Christ did not plainly Command it, but is said to Command it, because Peter did translate his Seat thither by Gods inspiration: Again it does not appear how Christ Commanded [Page 13] Peter that he should place his Seat, pos. it is not de fide that the See of Rome was established by a Divine and immutable Command: Thus they are perplext where to found this right of succession, and pos. this proposition the Bishop of Rome is St Peters successor must be even in their apprehension doubtful and un­certain: Lastly, those who pretend a Divine right, confess that it is not express'd in Scripture, but only virtually contained in the principles revealed in it, for (saies Suarez Defens. fid. Cathol. &c. l. [...]. c 13. n. 5.) There was a primacy given to Peter, and that primacy was to last in the Church, and this must be a Succession of Persons in the same dignity, now the application of this Institution and dignity to this particular Bishoprick, is sufficiently evidented by plain Tra­dition, and evident use. But this is wholly uncertain; for first, where shall we find this Tradition that St. Peter appointed the Roman Bishop his successor. Secondly, where shall we find that the Bishop of Rome must [Page 14] be his successor because he died Bishop of Rome? for there is no cer­tainty that St. Peter disposed his Ʋni­versal Bishoprick to that See where he died, nor any certainty from the Nature of the thing, that it must fall to that place where he died; nor any certainty that the See which he last held hath any more priviledg on this account, than the See of Antioch where hefirst sate: nor any certainty that the power of naming a succes­sor did not fall to the Apostles who survived him, or to the Universal Church: till these things be certain­ly determined, it remaines still un­certain that the Bishop of Rome is St. Peters successor.

Fourthly, It is uncertain whether this or that particular Bishop of Rome be the true Bishop of Rome, and pro. uncertain whether he be St. Peters successor; and pro. higher still, it is uncertain whether he hath the privi­ledges obtained by our Saviour for St. Peter and his successors; and highest of all, whether the Roman [Page 15] Church, or any other is secured from Error by being subject to him: It is necessary de fide (saies Suarez Di trip. Virtute dis. 10. sect. 5. n. 2.) that this man who is received by the common consent of the Church, as head of it, to which it is bound to obey, is the true Pope and successor of St. Peter: The reason he gives is this, For it will be impossible, otherwise to believe certainly what he defines; the same thing Salmero In Epista­las Pauli in genero part. 3. disp. 2. p. 133. speaks that with same faith with which we believe Je­sus Christ, we also believe Paulus fourth to be the Pope: Non tantum huma­na fide cui possit subesse falsum: But now if this be uncertain then it can­not be de fide, and that it is uncer­tain appears thus. First, there may be Schismes in the Papacy, as hath been often (since the Roman Bisho­prick became rather a Dignity than an Office; one Schisme lasted 50 years Onuph. in Vita Ur­ban. 6.; sometimes three Popes to­gether as Bened. 13. Greg. 12. John 23. all of them pretended themselves to be the true Vicars of Christ, all of them as true Popes created Cardi­nals [Page 16] Platina in Vita Al­lex. 5., and were allowed for Car­dinals by the Council of Constance Onuph. in Vita Greg. 12., and electors of the succeeding Popes, the Cardinals of Greg. 12. and Bene­dict. 13, created Alexander the fifth in the Councils of Pisa; the Cardinals of these Schismatical Popes (of which some had been made Car­dinals after the deposition of these Popes at Pisa) were electors of Martin the fifth; either then they were all true Popes, or none of them, Onuph. ibi. or onely one of them: they were not all true Popes, according to the Romanists, who tell us, there is but one Legitimate successor, the rest are Rebells and Tyrants: if onely one was true Pope, then those Car­dinalls which the Antipopes crea­ted, could not be lawfull Cardinals, nor lawfull Electors of the succeed­ing Popes; nay, nor according to an Ancient constitution could be Popes themselves: and yet Eugenius the 4th was created Cardinal by Greg. 12th whom they confesse was a Schismatical Pope: if none of these [Page 17] were true Popes, then for fifty years it was not necessary de fide to be­lieve this or that man to be true Bishop of Rome; nor was it certain that the Church of Rome was the Mistress of all Churches, because of its conjunction with the successor of St. Peter, since all that time it was uncertain who was the true succes­sor. Secondly, it is uncertain whe­ther there be no secret impediments, which hinder him from being true Pope, as whether the essentials re­quired in the election and consecra­tion of the Pope be rightly per­formed, and pro. it cannot be de fide that this particular person is the true Bishop of Rome. First we can­not be certaine, absolutely that the things required to the Election be performed: I'le instance in two things. First, if the person be Ele­cted by those who have no power to Elect, then the Election is Null, for if they had no power to Elect then they could confer no power nor priviledg on the person whom they [Page 18] do Elect, but 'tis uncertain whether the Election be performed by those who have power to elect; for the right they have is either by divine or humane Law; but it is uncertain that they have a wright, either by divine or humane Law, pro. First, it is uncertain that there is any right by divine Law, for let any man produce any divine Command or allowance; let them produce any proof that the authority of Electing the universal Bishop who shall be en­dowed with the priviledges given to St. Peter, was bestowed on the Cardinals. Secondly, the Election of the Pope was performed anci­ently by the suffrages of Clergy, and people, so Cornelius was chosen ele­ctione Cleri & plebis, saies Ciprian Epist. l. 4. Epis. 2. 1. and Gratian Distinct. 79. c. eje­ctionem. quotes a saying of Anacletus, that God committed the Election bonis Sacerdotibus, & Spi­ritualibus populis, to good Priests and Spiritual people. The like we have from Onuphrius* that the E­lection Annot. in Plat. vita Pelag. 2. of the Roman Bishop, more [Page 19] majorum was a Clero: S. P. Q. R. by the Clergy Senate, and people of Rome. Now then if the Election by the Cardinals was Jure divino then the former way of election was Null, and there was no true Pope till Celestin the second, qui primus sine ullo populi interventu Papa creatus est Onuph. annot. in Plat. vita innocent. 2. who was the first that was crea­ted Pope without the peoples med­ling in the Election. Secondly, it is uncertain that there is any right by humane Law, for then it must pear that a right was conferred on them by the consent of the Univer­sal Church, that they were appoin­ted Proctors for the Universal Church, to choose on their behalf the Universal Pastor; but if none of this appeares, nay, nor certainly that they are the rightfull Electors of the Bishop of Rome barely quà Bi­shop of Rome, then it is not certain that the Pope is truly Elected, and therefore it cannot be de fide that this Clement the 9th is the successor of St. Peter. Secondly, if the Pope [Page 20] be elected for feare or profit, viz. if either the electors are compelled by Violence, or by bribes induced to elect one, if they be either over­awd with power or corrupted with gifts, then the election is null: Pope Nicholas Distinct. 79. c. si­quis pecn­nia, &c. determines, he shall be accounted Apostaticus non apostaticus; and the Councels of Lateran under Iulius second declares that election to be null, and that by that election no power either in things temporall or sperituall shall be allowed to the person elected; but now if he look into the storyes of former elections, and the Mysteries of the Conclave at this day, he'le see, that it is vncer­tain to us whether the Pope be right­ly elected: you may read the election of Formosus the first Largitione Potius quam Virtute Assumitur ad Pontifica­tum Platina in vita for­most. for his gifts rather then Vertue of Steph, the sixth of Sergius the third of Iohn the eleventh raised by the Authority and indeavours of his Mother Marocia, sayes Onuphor­ius Annot. in Plat. in vi­ta John. 11th.; Iohn thirteenth seized on the [Page 21] Popedome by the power of his father Albericus Plat. in John 13^th.: Iohn the eighteenth got the Popedome by the power of Cres­centius whom it was supposed he had bribed Plat. in John 18^th: Silvester the second obtayn­ed Symonically first the Archbishop­rick of Rhemes then of Ravenna, lastly the Popedome, Majore Conatu diabolo adjuvante: Plat. in Sylvest. 2.: Clement the second by the Emperors Compulsion, Damasus the second by plaine force without any Consent of the clergy or people enters on the Popedome yea it even became a Custome, that every Ambitious person might seize on Saint Peters Chayre, as Platina Complains in: vita Clem. 2. & Damas. 2.. What shall I say of Boniface the seventeenth who came in like a fox, and left nothing untried by bribing and cheating that he might obtaine the Popedome? or of Alexander the sixth who was repor­ted to have Attained that dignity by the Ambition, and coveteousness of some corrupt Prelates Onuph. II in vita Al­lex. 6.? and how can we be absolutely certain that this is a true pope, when wee find [Page 22] the Essentialls of a true Election may be wanting? oft times the Electi­ons were not free, either the Elect­ors were over-awed, or their votes bought: and can we believe it is yet better? It is Platina's wish (when he saw how men were prefer'd to the Papacy, not for their piety, but for their gifts) Quem morem utinam ali­quando non retinuissent nostra tempora; but he rather feares unlesse God pre­vented, that the elections would be worse, sed hoc parum est pejora (ni deus caveat) aliquando visuri sumus: although the doores of the Conclave are kept shut, yet enough flyes abroad to shew the factions sidings, and Pollicies within, how the Cardi­nalls are devided by their Interests, and dependencies on Princes; how some are frighted, others corrupted; some out of feare, others out of hatred &c. giving their Ʋotes this way, or that way, and what certainty can wee have this is a true Bishop of Rome, lawful successor to Saint Peter when we see so much ground to sus­pect [Page 23] that the Essentials of a true election are oft times wanting but if any reply, that Gods providence will not permit any to pass for Pope, who is not Pope; and that if the Church doe submit to him as Pope, it is certain that he is Pope, and pro. we may stil believe that it is de fide that this Pope is lawful elected Pope. But this is saying without proving, much confidence with little reason: I therefore add, that there have been those who passed for Bishops of Rome and have been owned not only by their owne partyes, as in a Schisme, but generally have passed for the true Pope, when yet their Elections were null; I say, have been generally owned, their names reck­oned in the catalogue, their decrees allowed, and yet the Essentialls requisite to a right election are ack­nowledged by their owne Historians to be wanting. Instance in Vigilius the first who suborned witnesses aga­inst Silverius, that he would betray the Citty to the Gothes, and having [Page 24] got him deposed, was during the life of Silverius put into the Bishop­rick, and did (as Onuphrius confess­eth) Annot. in Plat. in Vita vigil. 1. Occupare per vim pontificatum Romanum; and yet this man is owned for Pope, without the least appear­ance of any new election after the death of Sylverius, or any approbation and allowance from the clergy, and people by which he might lawfully enjoy that title. Again I instance in Benedict the fifth created Pope in a sedition by the friends and dependents of Iohn the thirteenth against Leo the eighth and yet he is both reckoned in the catalogue of Popes, Onuph. Annot. in vita Be­ned. 5. and the succeeding Popes who assumed that name in reckoning of themselves did allow him to be Pope; so in Iohn eigh­teenth though he came not in by the door, but during the life of Gregory the fifth seized on the Popedome, yet he is reckoned in the Catalogue of Popes which Platina admires Plat. in vita John 18.. When we thus see some owned for Popes who have never been duly elected, [Page 25] and do know how much tirannical compulsion may force an outward compliance, we cannot judge the submission and silence of the Church (as Suarez holds) Can be any cer­tain ground that the election was lawful. The sum of this argument is this, if it be uncertain whether the essentialls of a just and true election be performed, then it is vncertain whether this be a true Pope and ex consequenti it cannot be de fide that this Pope is the true sucessor of Saint Peter. secondly we cannot be certain absolutely that the things essentially required in the consecration of the Pope are duly performed; I do not mean of such things in the consecra­tion which are only required by the cannon; but I speak of those things which they account essential, that there can be no consecration with­out them. first I instance in the quali­fication, of the person to be conse­crated: without baptisme there is no ordination and pro. who have not been baptized cannot be ordain­ed, [Page 26] nor consecrated, and are jure divino uncapable of orders, but we cannot be absolutly certain that this person hath been baptized pro. we cannot be absolutly certain that some thing essential to his consecration is not wanting. Secondly In the intention of the consecrators, for that is essentially necessary in confer­ring of orders by the Councells of Florence Decret. de Sacram. and the council of Trent Sess. de Sacram. Can. 2. requires an intention of doing, that which the Church doth, but it may fall out, that the consecrators have no intention of doing any such things either through negligence, or malice either they may intend to do noth­ing or not to do that which the church doth (i. e.) to consecrate: or they may intend to do this out­ward act in sport or merriment, or if then they cannot be certain that there is either an actuall or virtuall intention in the consecrators, then they cannot be certain absolutly that the essentialls of consecration are duly performed. [Page 27] Thirdly. Without intention in the person to be consecrated, there is no true consecration; so Innocent the third determines C. majore: Extra. de Baptisms.; and Suarez call's it the common opinion of Divines that to the value of a sacrament is re­quired intentio suscipientis; but no man can be absolutly certain, that the Pope either in any moment foregoing or during the act of consecration, did any way intend to receive it; for ti's not the bare outward performing or doing, or receving which are re­quired: but the intending in the mind to do, or receive, and of that inward intention in the mind we cannot be certain. Many more things might be added concerning the consecrators whether they were baptized? whether they were Priests? whether there is no defect in any thing essentially required to their baptisme, or ordination? whether the intention in the consecration was directed to that present person? for that Filliucius Cas. Consc. tract. 1. c. 5. n. 79. requires now in these things since ti's Possible some essential [Page 28] may be wanting, it follows no man can be certain absolutly that this is the true Pope, and if he cannot be so absolutly certain that this is the true Pope: because ti's possible some essential has been wanting, then he cannot own it to be so de fide, nor swear that the Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches because of its Union with him.

Secondly, I instance in the Article of Trausubstantiation according to the Creed of Pius 4th, they swear that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and sub­stantially the body, and blood, with the Soul, and Deity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and there is a conversion of the whole substance of bread into the body, and of the whole substance of wine into the blood, which Conversion the Ca­tholick Church calls Transubstanti­ation; and in the Council of Trent there is an Anathema pronounced a­gainst those who shall deny that won­derfull, and singular conversion of [Page 29] the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole sub­stance of the wine into the blood, the Species of bread, and wine onely remaining, which Conversion the Catholick Church most fitly calls Transubstantiation: now though ac­cording to the Letter the Decree seems plain, and they will all cry up this wonderfull miracle, this August mistery, yet in the explication of it and of the grounds whereupon they believe it they are perplexed; For,

First, although they pretend to derive this Doctrine from Scripture, yet it is not certain that there is any place of Scripture which necessarily infers this doctrine: so Scotus In 4. lib. sent. dist. 11. q. 3. saies, and how the body of Christ is there, whether by Conversion of some­thing into it, or without Conversion the substance, and accidents of bread remaining, non invenitur in Canone Bibliae saies Gabriel Biel In Cano­ne miss. lect. 40., and not­withstanding that they usually insist on the 6th of St. John and the words of Institution, this is my body, yet [Page 30] others of great note among them, conclude that it is not exprest in Scri­pture, so Canus Loc. Com. l. 3. c. 3. fund. 2. holds, and Caje­tane maintains † the 6th of St. John no way pertains to a Sacramental *In 3. part. q. 80. art. vet. eating; the same is held by Janseni­us Tapperus and others, cited by Sua­rez and first some of them confess, they should not have believed it, unless the Church had declared it to be de fide, for the Church by the spirit of truth did explain those things which were obscure in Scri­pture Canus Loc. Com. l. 3. c. 3. fundam. 2.; but then it would be still in vain to endeavour to prove this con­version from Scripture, because there is no argument from thence which can sufficiently convince: and to ar­gue with us from those Texts, which they think are not sufficiently cogent without their Churches explanation, is altogether impertinent, for we are as uncertain of the infallibility of their Church in explaining those Texts, as we are whether those Do­ctrines be contained there, 'tis first as to us uncertain whether this [Page 31] Doctrine be delivered in Scripture. Secondly, though they affirm that by the words of institution the bread is turned into the body, and the wine into the blood, yet they are perplexed about the meaning of them. First, As whether there be any figure in the words or no? For if they be construed figuratively, then they cannot certainly infer any transub­stantiation; and first sometimes they tell us there is no figure, or trope: yea, there ought to be none in the words of Institution; but then how can the Cup be the New Testa­ment? there the Cup must be put for Wine in the Cup. Again, How can the Cup be the New Testament properly? For a Testament is the Te­stators disposition of his Estate; but the Wine in the Cup, or the thing contained under the species cannot be so in any proper sense. Again, 'tis uncertain how the blood in the Cup can properly be called the New Te­stament in his blood? for the blood is a physical, a Testament is a moral [Page 32] thing: yea 'tis uncertain whether Bellarmin's * Explanation of the L. 1. de Eucharist. c. 11. words be sense; This blood under the species, is the New Testament under his blood: so that 'tis doubtful when they have done all they can, whether they can explain these words without a figure. Secondly, They are perplexed about the meaning of these words, as what is meant by hoc est corpus meum; for if they cannot resolve what is meant by this Pronoun hoc, then they cannot determine what is the full meaning of this Proposition; indeed Bellarmin L. 1. de Euchar. c. 10. tels us, Vera est Catholi­corum sententia, qui volunt illud [Hoc] non demonstrare panem, sed rem con­tentam sub speciebus panis, &c. That the opinion of Catholicks was true, who say, this Pronoun Hoc doth de­monstrate not the Bread, but a thing contained under it; which although it was Bread before, yet it is now the Body of Christ: But he that consults the Romish Writers, will find that Bellarmin only hides their quarrels, and obtrudes his own opinion for a [Page 33] general Doctrine. Johannes de Rha­da Controv. 5. de Sacr. Euchar. Art. 4. acknowledges the perplexity of their Doctors; some say the Pro­noun Hoc demonstrates the species of bread, because the Pronoun must signifie a sensible thing, which exists when the designation is made, and remains when the signification of the word is finished, but there is no­thing in the Sacrament which is sen­sible when the words began to be pronounced, and when they are en­ded besides the accidents, first it must signifie the Accidents. Some say that this Pronoun demonstrates the body of Christ as it is in it self, or intend­ing the body of Christ in Heaven, which when the words are spoken begin to be in the Host Occam quod lib. vet. q. 2.; and so the words signifie, this body is my body. Some say, it designs the substance of bread under those accidents, and so the sense is, The bread passes into the body of Christ; hoc est Bona­vent. q. 1. Art 1. in 2. part. dist. 8. lib. 4., ad hujus verbi prolationem hoc totum transire in cor­pus. Some say, it designs something common to the substance of bread, and [Page 34] the Body of Christ under this reason of being contained under the species, and so the sense should be hoc quod sub his acccidentibus continetur est corpus me­um, that which is contained under these accidents is my body, and this he pretends both Thomas, and Scotus holds. But still the perplexity re­mains, what that is which is contain­ed under these accidents, when they first say Hoc▪ for 'tis not the body till the words are ended. If it were the bread, then the Proposition is true, this bread is my body; and that they will not g [...]ant. Again, the subject of the Proposition must have a distinct sense; when first our Saviour took the bread into his hand, and said this is, there must be some meaning of that part of the Proposition, that Demonstra­tive pronoun [Hoc] must refer to some thing present Bellar. l. 1. de Sacr. Eu­char. c. 11. § h. [...]c expl., and that which is evident to the senses, and not bare­ly apprehended by the imagination; what can that be but only bread? which they confess was existing du­ring the speaking of the words? [Page 35] Thirdly, they are perplexed, whether this Transubstantiation be wrought by the Prayer of Consecration, or the words of Institution: that it was wrought by the Prayer, as well as the words was the opinion of some; that the Consecration was the same with the blessing, and giving of thanks was the opinion of Thomas Durand, Hugo Cardinalis, &c. yet still how this can be is wholly intri­cate and perplexed; for if our Sa­viour Consecrated by blessing, and giving of thanks, then he consecra­ted by Prayer: but that they will not say, for they now conclude he Consecrated by those words, hoc est corpus meum, as it is determined by the Council of Florence Conc. Flor. in Instruct. Armen., that our Saviours words by which he made the Sacrament are the form of it, and that by the virtue of those words the Consecration is wrought, and so it is explained in the Roman Catechisme: We are taught (saies the Catechisme) by the Evangelist's Mathew, and Luke, and by the Apo­stle [Page 36] this is the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist; hoc est corpus meum: well, but still they are perplexed in what sense the Priest uses these words; for some think they are only repeated Historically Salmero tract. 13. tom. 9. Soto Art 5. q. 1. dist. 11.; but they can­not work this change, for so they only shew what was done by our Saviour in the first celebration of the Sacrament; others say, that they are spoken significatively, (i. e.) that the Priest speaking in the per­son of Christ signifies the turning of that bread into the body, so saies the Florentine Council, Sacerdos lo­quens in persona Christi hoc conficit Sacramentum; but this will not a­gree with the Canon of the Mass, where they are repeated Historical­ly, for after the Prayer that God would make that offering to be to us the body, and blood of his Son Jesus Christ, 'tis immediately added in imitation of the Apostles recital of the Story, who, the day before he suffered tooke bread into his holy and venerable hands, and lifting up his eyes unto [Page 37] Heaven to thee his Father, God All­mighty, gave thanks, he blessed, brake, and gave to his Disciples▪ saying, take, eate, all of this, for this is my body: now what connexion can there be betwixt these latter words, and the former? unless they be. joyned as part of the History: or what sense in the former words he brake and gave to his Disciples, saying, take eate all of this? if they break off ab­ruptly the repeating of the Story, and do not add these words, hoc est corpus meum. Thus they are per­plexed on either hand, and first to avoid this intricacy they have divised a new way, that these words should both be taken recita­tivè, and significativè: both as part of the Story, and as the Priests words in the person of Christ by virtue of them turning the bread; but still how can this be, that the same words should be both a repetition of a former Story, and the production of the like effect? how is this in­telligible that the same word with­out [Page 38] any variation should be used for these different purposes? both to relate what was done, and to work the same thing over again: and fur­ther in the Consecration of the blood 'tis added qui pro vohis & pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccato­rum Canon miss. in missali Rom. Pa­ris. 1631., which shall be shed for you, and for many for the remission of sins, now if these words be under­stood significatively, then they are utterly false, as Durand argued, because the body of Christ must suffer no more, nor the blood be shed: thus whether these words shall be taken narratively, or signifi­catively, or joyntly their Doctors can­not agree; and are wholly per­plexed to solve the difficulties, and yet maintain their Ground. Fourthly, they are perplexed whe­ther this conversion be productive or adductive or Conservative; and so Bellarmine acknowledges, that though they agree there is a transubstanti­ation (i. e.) conversion of the bread into the body, and of the wine into [Page 39] the blood for the authority of the Councils and Church; yet in the man­ner of explaining it they differ, for they find so many difficulties in sta­ting the manner of this conversion, that though they maintain the decree in the termes of it yet they are per­plexed to find the sense, (i. e.) they professe to believe transubstantiation but when they come to tell us what they mean by it, they then confesse they believe they know not what. For first, If this conversion be produ­ctive then the body of Christ should be made by these words, hoc est eorpus meum, but that which already hath it's being, cannot by that act­ion receive it's being, for it is suppo­sed to have its being before that acti­on. Again, Every new reall action must have a new reall terme but there can be here no new reall terme, because the terme was praeexisting as Io. de Rhada In 4. lib. sent. Con. 7. Art. 2. Concl. 3. argues; again Albertinus Coroll. tom. 2. Cor. 3. dub. 3. concl. vins. § 13. urges this argument, if the word doth produce the body, then the body of Christ did concurre as an instrument [Page 40] to the production of it selfe: but that is a contradiction, that the body should be made substantially by it self, for then it should be both before and after it self; before it self, for it is presup­posed to that Action by which it should be produced after it self as it is made by that Action, and by this means the same thing would be both effect and cause in the same kind, (i. e.) the body of Christ would be the cause of the Action by which it was produced, and that Action is the causality or man­ner by which the body is produced. This way of Conversion productive they now dislike, though it most a­gree with the Letter of the Canons, for they say, the bread is substan­tially turned into the body of Christ Conc. Rom. sub Nicol. 2. & Greg. 7.: they compare this to the turning of water into Wine, but the Wine was produced in that miracle: they have been used to say, the Priest in the Sacrament creates his Creator; yea Pope Ʋrban in the Roman Council makes this his pre­tence against doing Homage to the [Page 41] Laity for Ecclesiastical honours, be­cause it was nimis execrabile, manus quae in tantam eminentiam excreve­rint ut Deum cuncta creantem suo mi­nisterio creent, &c. because it was a­bominable, that those hands which are advanced to that honour to cre­ate God who created all things should be the Servants of those hands which are daily defiled with obscene infection: this way of production though it was not defined, yet was thus publiquely pleaded by a Pope in Council but is now rejected. Se­condly, If this Conversion be conser­vative, then it will be wholly unin­telligible, for conservation is the continuance of creation, or a conti­nuance of that which already hath its being: either first they meant, that by the words of Consecration was wrought a Conservation of the body of Christ which was in heaven, or a conservation of it under the Sacra­mental species: it cannot be meant that there is wrought a conservation of it under the species unless there [Page 42] had been first an action creandi, for it cannot be thought that a thing is conserved there where it is not supposed first to exist; but according to them, before these words the body did not exist there, so it could not be conser­ved there: nor can it be meant of a conservation of the body in Heaven, for conservation is the continuance of an Action, but here is a new Action, and a new dependence wrought by the force of the words of consecration, as Albertinus argues Tom. 2. Corol. 3. dub. 3. n. 7.. This pretence of conservation hath few maintainers, first let us consider the third way which Bellarmine calls communiorem & tutiorem viam, the more common, and safe way of Thomas, and other grave Divines, I mean adductive con­version, (i. e.) by the words the body of Christ is not made to exist simply, but to exist under those species; that the bread ceases to be under those accidents, and the body begins to be under them: that the body succeeds to exist under those accidents not by having a new sub­stance, [Page 43] but only a new presence: but here they are all together perplexed; for if it succeed here, where the bread was, it must either change place, or be produced, as Thomas instances in fire, if it begin to be in the House, where it was not before, either it must be brought in hither, or be generated here, that it doth not change places is plain, for then it should leave Heaven, when it was adduced un­der the species of bread on Earth: if they say it must be produced here, how can that be? how can it be produced and not have its being produced? or how can it be said that the substance of bread is turned into the substance of the body, when no new substance is made, but only the substance exists in a different ubi? or that one substance passes into another, when the one onely succeeds the other? or how should it be the most perfect manner of Con­version as Bellarmine saies, when there is no change in the Nature of the body but only it is vailed under other [Page 44] accidents? when there is no new substance but only a new presence? yea Rhada saies out of Scotus Part. 4. Cont. 6. Art. 1. Concl. 3., there is no proper change at all? or how can it be most fitly cal'd Transubstantiati­on, yea properly, and conveniently (as the Council of Trent saies) when this conversion of the whole substance of bread into the whole substance of the body is no more then that the one existed where the other did? and the term [ad quem] of this conversion is not any substance but an accidenta­lis modus, a presence where it was not before? There are some other in­ventions, wherewith they labour to solve these perplexities, but what one thinks that he builds, another soon pulls down, and there be so many contrary opinions in stating this conversion, that 'tis easy to see, they could not satisfie others, who are so wholly unsatisfied themselves: Thirdly, there are so many intrica­cies about the species themselves, where they are subjected; what Ʋni­on betwixt the body of Christ and [Page 45] those accidents, whether this body be an Organical body or no? when it ceases to be under the species, if there be no substance of bread what then is broken? what chewed? what digested? what is it which nourishes? what is it which breeds worms, &c? there are so many in­tricacies, that those who stifly main­tain this Doctrine of Transubstanti­ation, know not how to winde them­selves out: I instance in some few things. First, what is it that is broken? either the body or the species: it cannot be the body, for the body cannot be divided into parts; and first, to say that the body is broken, and chewed by the teeth, unless they be understood in a sound sense, in majorem incides hae­resin quam ipse habuit Berengarius, saies the Gloss Gloss. in Can. Be­reng. de Consecr. dist. 2., and yet in these words Berengarius was forced to recant, panem & vinum non solum esse Sacramentum, sed verum corpus, &c. & in veritate manibus Sacerdotum frangi, fidelium dentibus atteri Can. ego Bereng [...] ibi., that [Page 46] the body was in truth held in the Priest hands, broken, and chewed with the teeth: which words saies Serenus Cressy, are far from being justifiable, unless they be under­stood Sacramentally (i. e.) for the outward species, which yet he sees cannot be, for it's said not only is a Sacrament, but the body, &c. and is in truth held in the Priests hand, broken and chewed, and if it be so, then Pope Nicholas and the Council erred which prescribed this recantation, and how will he swallow that? it cannot be the species, for no man can break or chew colour, or savour, or figure, &c. but only some sub­stance. Secondly, what is it that nourishes? it is either the body or the species. First, it cannot be the body; for the body of Christ can­not be turned into our bodies, other­wise Christs body could not be whole, for thousands of men must have part of his body; It is nourish­ment to us (saies Cressy) but not after a Carnall manner; [...]ut how can this [Page 47] be? for if it be not nourishment after a Carnal manner, then it must be after a Spiritual, and how can our bodies be nourished Spiritually? If there be nourishment, there must be something digested, but Christs body is not turned into our bodies by digesti­on, saies he: If there be nourishment, then something must be added to our bodies but Christs body is not added to our bodies: Let him first either shew how bodies can be nourished Spiritually, or confess that he speaks, what he doth not understand. Some first among them say, The body ceases to be under the species when it comes into the belly, others say, while it is in the mouth; others, that while the species remains the body remains; and first while the species are in the belly, the body of Christ is there Lind­wood in Con [...]. prov. de sum. trin. c. al­tiss. p. glutiant., but the Gloss on the Canon non iste de consecrat. distinct. 2. saies, the body doth not come down into the belly, quousque verò pergulam procedat nescio; how far it goeth into the Throat I know not; yet [Page 48] he concludeth, 'tis not digested as other meats are, nor passes into the nourishment of the body, for it is the food of the Soul, and not of the body: Well, can it be the species? Second­ly, that also is uncertain for nouri­shing is the reparation of a sub­stance, not of accidents, and first must be by a substance, and not bare­ly by accidents: in nourishing the food must be transmuted into the body, and how can accidents be so? to salve all this, God must afford some matter, either restore the for­mer matter of bread, or produce some new matter, or which is most miraculous to me, all this must be done without a miracle saies Bellar­mine L. 3. de Euchar. c. 24. resp. ad arg. 6.; for the Naturall Order of things require it, (i. e.) when the dispositions requisite for introducing the form are made, after the previous alteration of the species, then the or­der of things requiring it, God must substitute matter: but what assu­rance hath Bellarmine that all these things shall be as he fancies? that [Page 49] the accidents shall be disposed with­out matter, in which they should be subjected? that when these mate­rial dispositions are perfected God will substitute matter: many such things there are which will trouble him to resolve. All this shews that this is a most perplexed Doctrine, for if the substance of bread be gone, what can nourish? it must either be the body or the species; and yet neither of these can they certainly fix on. Thirdly, what is it that is corrupted? as when worms are generated of the Host, it cannot be the body, for God will not suffer his holy one to see Corruption. If they say the species, neither can that be, for Corruption is properly of sub­stance, neither can the worms be generated of bare accidents, as of colour, figure, or the like, there must be then some new matter crea­ted into which the form of worms must be introduced, and how strange must this be? that men to free themselves from these per­plexities [Page 50] are forced to shelter them­selves under pretence of multitude of miracles of which not one can be perceived by our senses. Durand mentions eleven miracles in Tran­substantiation Rationale div. offic. l. 4. c. 12., and yet there is not the least appearance to our sen­ses that there is one; yea to clear themselves from the perplexities which attend this Doctrine they are forced to fly to more, Thomas Aqui­nas Part. 3. q. 75. art. 8. arg. 3., saies there are plura difficiliora, &c. more difficulties than in the creation. And Scotus In 4. lib. sentent. dist. 11. q. 3. objects to himself, that this one opinion is the occasion of turning all Philosophers, and those that follow Natural rea­son from the faith, for they would think, that there are greater in­conveniencies (supposing there be no substance of bread remaining) than in the article of the Incarnation, & propter haec fidem patere contemp­tui omnium sequentium rationem; this exposes Religion to the con­tempt of all that follow reason: for to believe that which seems so [Page 51] much both against sense and reason, and so little appearance of revelati­on to defend it, is strange to wise, and rational men, who know not how to digest such uncertain, doubt­ful, and absur'd opinions, unless they can bring their faith to believe what they judge impossible. The sum of this second argument to prove the perplexities of the Romish Church in the Doctrines she hath de­fined is taken from the uncertain­ties, intricacies, and perplexities in the Doctrine of Transubstantiati­on.

Thirdly, I instance in the Doctrine of Invocation of Saints, the Coun­cil of Trent Sess. 25. de Invoca­tione, &c. commands all who have any cure to teach this, That the Saints reigning with Christ offer up their Prayers for men to God: that it is good and profitable, humbly to in­voke them, and for the benefits to be obtained of God by his Son, who is our only Redeemer, and Saviour, to fly to their Prayers, help, and aid, [Page 52] and it declares, that all those think impiously, who deny that the Saints en­joying Eternal happiness are to be in­voked; or who assert that they do not pray for men; or that it is foolish to supplicate to them, either with the voice, or the mind: Now this Doctrine is so dubious, that it is unreasonable to make it an article of faith. for first though the Saints should pray for us, yet 'tis no necessary inference, first we must pray to them: no more then if a friend at an hundred miles di­stance should every day pray for us, first we must every day say at that distance, ora pro nobis. Se­condly, it is no way certain that it is good, and profitable to fly to their Prayers, help, and aide, for if it be not certain that they know our Pray­ers, it is not certain that it is profi­table to fly to their prayers; now if they know them it must be either that they hear these themselves, or are revealed to them by God, or discover'd to them by the holy An­gels. But first, it is not certain that [Page 53] they themselves can heare them; for though according to Sco [...]us se­perat souls may intuitively see every vocal oration which they might have known if they were joyned to the body, and also mental ora­tions, and may behold the essence, and internal operation of our souls, yet all this must be understood nisi immoderata distantia impediat, Io. de Rhada. Cont. 16. Art. 4. Concl. 1. vnless there be an immoderate di­stance, for no Agent can act but upon a patient duly approximated to it, and an immoderate distance hinders the approximation: first unless the Seperate Soul be in its due distance, it cannot understand these Prayers: and so Biel In Canon Missa Lect. 31. Sayes that they cannot know, that way, either mental or vocal Prayers by rea­son of the immoderate distance: sup­posing (I say) with Scotus, that se­perate Souls may hear those Prayers, which they might have known, when they were joyned to the bo­dy: yet this is not certain how far this distance reaches; and what is [Page 54] the Sphear of their activity; and 'tis far less certain, whether the Saints in Heaven can at that distance hear the many suppliants in several parts of the Earth; and see those secret desires which never discover'd themselves in words. Secondly, it is no way certain that the Prayers of men are discover'd by the Angels to the Saints, for it is not certain, that the Angels can know the thoughts Bellar. lib. 1. de Sanct. Beatit. c. 20.; or if they do, 'tis not certain that they do discover these things to them. 'Tis not certain they do know them, yea its most certain that God only knoweth them 2 Chro. 6. 30., and if they do know them, yet 'tis not certain that they are either bound by Chari­ty, or Office to represent these things to the Saints. Thirdly, the usual way they pitch on is either Gods revelation to the Saints as he revealed things which were future to the Prophets: or else that the Saints see all things in God from the begining of their happiness, which any way pertain to them: and this [Page 55] way Bellarmine calls the more pro­fitable opinion, but neither of these waies is certain. For first, 'tis no way certain that God doth reveal these Prayers to the Saints, which are made to them. And if he should as Bellarmine argues, the Church could not so confidently say to the Saints, Pray for us, as rather, Pray to God that he would reveal these Prayers to them; no man can say, that God is any way bound to reveal these things, or de facto that he doth so, and how then can we be certain that God will reveal these Prayers to them. Secondly, 'tis not certain that they see these things in the word, as in a Corporeal Glass men may see clearly and distinctly what appears, according to Becanus Ma [...]. Contr. l. 1. c. 8. §. 4. his explication. For first, 'tis no way necessary to the Saints happiness, that they should see these things in God, neither from the nature of happiness, because as Scotus and his followers argue, the proper nature of Happiness consists in seeing God, and [Page 56] his Attributes, but the Prayers of Saints are distinct from God, and his Attributes, first 'tis not necessary they should see these, ex ratione beatitudi­nis Rhada Cont. 16. Art. 4. Concl. 3.; nor is it a consequent flow­ing from their happiness, that be­cause they may see in his Essence those things which flow from his Es­sence, first they may see the Pray­ers made by the Creatures: though they may see his works about the Creature, I mean the Idea of his works which is himself, yet it doth not follow, they should see what ever the Creature himself doth: and so Biel tells us that it is no part of their Essential beatitude, nor is it cer­tain that it pertains to their acciden­tal beatitude Biel in Canon Missa Lect. 31.. Secondly, as it is not necessary they should, so it is not certain, that they do see all things in the Glass of the Divine Essence: for either then they see all things simply in that Glass, or only such things as God is pleased to permit them to see; if all things simply, then they must needs know all future con­tingencies, [Page 57] they must know the day, and hour when the Son shall come to judge the world, and yet our Saviour saith, of that hour knoweth no man, no not the Angels, though they alwaies see the face of their Fa­ther who is in Heaven Ma [...]. 18. 10.: If they see such things only as God is plea­sed to discover to them, then we cannot be certain that they know our prayers, unless we are first cer­tain that God will discover them to them: If this Glass they talke of discovers all things tanquam per na­turalem communicationem, then they must see all future contingencies, if the Glass discovers things only tanquam per voluntariam communi­cationem, then they know no more then he is pleased to communicate, and without his revelation we can­not be certain what that is, which he doth communicate: and if we cannot be certain they know our Prayers, we cannot be certain that it is profitable to fly to their Prayers. Thirdly, it is no way certain that [Page 58] they Pray for us, I confess it is not incredible that they Pray for their fellow members; none will deny that their Charity is more ardent in Heaven, then it was on Earth, and the greater their Charity is it will appear in more eminent effects (so far as their conditiou permits) to their Brethren. Thus far we do not question whether they pray for us, I mean in genere Field of the Church l. 3. c. 3.; yea, what if I should add that it is not incredible, but that they pray for their friends and acquaintance? and in general desire the removal of Evils, and the granting those things which are necessary for their Salvation? yea, if I should add further that it is not incredible, but that they pray for them whose Conditions on Earth they remember, even this also some eminent Protestants have thought Andrews Opusc. Posth. Resp. ad c. 20. l. 5. Repl. Card. Perron Montac. adv. Bu­leng. pag. 21.: yet still 'tis no way certain, not cer­tain (I say) that they do pray in par­ticular for their fellow members, or remember in their Prayers all the particular necessities of the faithfull [Page 59] on earth: for if we say we are cer­tain that they do thus particularly pray, the question will return which way? or by what ground are we certainly assured? and it will apear there is no certain ground but only some guesses, and supposed probabilities, and ꝑo. this Do­ctrine must be doubtful, and un­certain.

Fourthly, I instance in the Do­ctrine of Indulgences, the Councel of Trent declares, That since there was a power of bestowing Indulgences gran­ted by Christ to the Church, and the Church from the most ancient times hath used it: The Synod doth teach, that the use of them being very wholsome to Christian people and approved by au­thority of Councils to be retained in the Church: and Anathematizes them who either say they are unprofitable, or deny the Churches power to bestow them. The same also is sworn by their Clergy in the profession of faith made by Pius 4. Indul­gentiarum [Page 60] Potestatem à Christo in Ecclesia relictam esse, illarúmque usum Christiano Populo maxime salutarem esse affirmo. No more was said of this Article by the Council of Trent, whether for hast of ending the Council: or rather for multiplicity of abstruse questions, which must have been determined as the Hi­story of the Council sayes, I cannot judge. The meaning of the article must be gathered from the practice of their Church and opinion of their Doctors: tis certain in the practice of their Church that there are indul­gences granted by the Pope in which he doth absolve à culpa et poena both from fault, and punishment. That for visiting such a Church frequenting such a Station, Saying over at such an Altar so many times Ave Maria or pater noster, they shall have plenam remissionem peccatorum, so it is in the Bul of indulgence for celebrating the year of Jubilee; in the first in­stitution of Jubilees by Boniface the 8th. Platina in vit [...] Bo­nifac. 8. he gave to those who visited [Page 61] the thresholds of the Apostles plenam omnium peccatorum remissionem a full remission of all sins. Leo the 10th gave to those who devoutly repeated this Prayer after the divine Office, (to the holy, and undivided Trinity, the humanity of Christ Crucified, the fruitful integrity of the most blessed Ʋirgin be eternal praise, glory, and honor) Indulgence of all the defects, and faults which in the per­formance of the office were contra­cted by humane frailty. Gavant Thes. Sacr. Rit. in. Fine Libri. Nothing is more common in the Buls for the Crusadoes then pardon for half sins, or for all sins, so in the Crusado, which Ʋrban the 6th publisht against the adherents of Clement there were given to Henry Spenser Bishop of Norwich mirabiles indulgentiae,* by † Hen. Knighton Cron. l. 5 inter scri­pt. Hist. Anglic. Pag. 2671. the authority of which he did ab­solve as well the dead as the living, for whom there was a sufficient con­tribution from all the fault and pu­nishment: and some of his Commissa­ries affirmed, that at their command the Angels descended from Heaven, [Page 62] and took the souls which were in Purgatory, out of their punishment, and instantly carried them to Heaven. In the Crusadoes against the Albigen­ses, Innocent promised to all, who ei­ther died in the way or in battel, on Gods part and by the authority of St. Peter and St. Paul absolution from all the sins contracted in their lives, which they had confest, and for which they had not done penance Rigord. 1 ist. An. 1208 Pag. 207.. Sometimes the indulgence runs for penance injoyned; so for repeating the new office of the Blessed Ʋirgin if they be not obliged to do it, Tius 5 remits 50 days de poenitentiis injun­ctis, as oft as they do it: for repea­ting the office of the dead, for re­peating the 7 penitential psalms, or the Graduals 40 days, and so the In­dulgence runs which Martin the 50 anno 1429 gave for the Celebration of Corpus Christi day to all that were present at the Mattins and Evensong of the feast 200 dayes indulgence, to all that were present at the Prime, the third, the sixth, the ninth, or [Page 63] the Completory of that feast 80 days, to the Priests who said Mass for every Mass 100 days, to those who follow the procession in which the Host is carried 100 days, &c. to indure every year for ever, Const. Prov. Tit de serlis gloss. In Cap. Ex [...]cript. p. Corp. Chri­sti. Sometimes they are Indulgences pro poenitentiis injungendis, for remission of Penance which might be enjoyned, sometimes the words run, Indulgentiam in Domino miserecordi­ter relaxamus: and these Indulgen­ces are some for daies; so every Arch Bishop and Bishop at their first coming to their Cathedrals* grant † Carem. Epsc. l. 1. c. 2. 40 daies: sometimes for one year as at the dedication of a Church, sometimes for 7, sometimes for an 100 years, sometimes for 1000 So the Monastery of St. Sebastian in Cata­cumbis hath Indulgences of 3000 years for all that visit a stone which hath the print of our Saviours foot­steps: by other Popes 7000 years were granted on the feast of the Asoention unto the Calends of August every day 4000 years on St Seba­stians [Page 64] day 3000 years, and 40 days of Indulgence, and all these are doubled in Lent and in the dou­ble festivals. I could reckon up multitudes of large Indulgences, which some bountiful Popes have bestowed, as at Crowland Abby a pardon of 8000 years: so the par­don procured by Thomas Cromwel* † Acts and Monum. in the life of Crom­wel. Pag. 49. for Boston from Julius the second, that all who are of the gylde of our Lady in St. Botolphs Church in Boston who resort to the said Chappel on the Nativity or Assumption of our Lady, giving to the support of the Chappel at every such festival, shall have full remission of all his sins: or if they could not come to that Chappel, yet if they said at their Parrish Church, one Pater noster, and Ave Maria, they should have like remis­sion, and those that came every Fryday to that Chapel should have as much remission, as if they went to the Chappel cal'd Scala Coeli, &c. Or if their Popes are sparing, yet their Priests assure men of greater bounty [Page 65] for saying a prayer which begins O Altissma Crux &c they shall have as many years Indulgence as there is gravel in the sea, or grass on the ground. This is the practice of their Church, by which we may see the meaning of the Article the ex­position of their Doctors reaches not so farr as the practice: for they tell us, Indulgence is the remission of temporal punishment Summa. [...] [...] [...]. P. Indul­gentia., or the re­mission of temporal punishment due by divine Judgment for actual sins, through the application of the super­abundant satisfaction of Christ and the Saints, by him who hath power to dispence it: this Doctrine of In­dulgences leans on 4 things. First, that after the remission of the fault and the eternal punishment, there is yet a temporal punishment due. Secondly, That a righteous man not onely satisfies for himselfe by his own merit, but may apply his own satisfaction to others. Thirdly, That there is a treasure in the Church made up of the superabundant me­rits [Page 66] and satisfaction of Christ, and the Saints. Fourthly, That there is a power in the Church appointed by Christ to dispense this Treasure; or thus as others speak, there are tem­poral punishments left unremitted, though God pardon the eternal, that these punishments must be satis­fied either in this life, or hereafter that the Penances imposed by the Priests are satisfactions for the pu­nishment they should undergo, that a righteous person may by the super­abundance of his own Merit, satis­fy for that which ought to be perfor­med by another, that there is a Trea­sure of those superabundant merits of Christ, and the Saints. Lastly, That there is a power to dispense this Treasure according as it shal seem fit­ting. Many things are necessary for the understanding of this Doctrine, and yet every thing in it perplexed and uncertain: I will instance in seve­ral things.

First, The value of them, if there can be no certainty by their Do­ctrine [Page 67] that there is any profit by these Indulgences, then we have no reason to professe this to be an arti­cle of faith, but there is no certainty of any benifit by them. For First, If the Indulgences do valere quantum sonat, are as much worth as the words sound, then these In­dulgences should remit the guilt of all sin. For many Indulgences tell us of a remissio omnium peccatorum, of a remission à culpa & poena; and this Article per passiones Sanctorum Indulgentiis Communicatas non pro­priè redimi peccata nostra; that our sins are not properly redeemed by the passions of Saints Communicated by Indulgences, was condemned by Leo 10. and Pius 5. but now that they do not remit any is the common opinion, yea and is certain de fide Suarez Disp. 50. Sect. 1. and Filliucius Cas. Con­scion tract. 8. p [...]. c. 7. n. 3180. attest. Secondly, It is not certain that they remit any punishment, for the eternal is already pardoned and there needs no farther Indul­gence: and as for the temporal pu­nishments [Page 68] which (they say) remains. First, there are many temporal pu­nishments due to the sinner, which are not taken away by the most plenary Indulgence. Suppose God should inflict a disease for the satisfaction of the temporal punishments remaining unpayed, they will then tell us that this Indulgence doth not take away natural punishment which God in­flicts for actual sin, as the Plague which God brought upon the people for Davids sin. Bellar. de Indul­gent. l. 1. c. 7. l. 2. c. 7. Secondly, these Indulgences do not take away the punishment inflicted in foro externo whether Civil or Ecclefiastical, that's also granted by Bellarmine Bellarm. de Indul­gent. ibid, &c. Third­ly, It it is not certain that they take away the punishments which may be injoyned by the ancient Canon [...] for as Cajetan argues, nothing can be taken away by the Indulgence, but what a man was bound to perform but the punishments which are not enjoyned by the Judge no man is bound to perform ꝑo. for the punish­ments in the Canons are only taxed [Page 69] to be enjoyned by the Judge, ꝑo. till they are actually enjoyned no man can be obliged to perform them. Fourthly, It is not certain that they take away all the punishment in­joyned by the Confessor in the Court of Penance, for as Valentia Tract. de Indulg. Punct. 3. saies, the Confessor is bound for the integri­ty of the Sacrament to injoyne, and the P [...]nitent to performe wholsom Penance, and if the Penitent is bound to perform those satisfactions, then the Indulgence doth not take them away. Againe Bellarmine saies, this is the use of the Church that whosoever intend to get any Indulgences, are wont to confess, and perform the sa­tisfactions injoyned, but then to what profit serves the Indulgence, if it frees them only from those satisfacti­ons which they have already fulfil­led? they tell us further, that we cannot be certain that we receive any benefit by the Indulgence, and ꝑo. for greater merit, and security, we should perform the satisfactions injoyned; ob majus meritum & securitatem, [Page 70] neque enim potest quis esse certus de In­dulgentia percepta Filliuc. Cas. Consc. Tract. 8. Part. 3. c. 7. u. 176. and since no man can be certain that he receives any benefit by an Indulgence, ꝑo. no wonder if he must for his own se­curity indeavour to perform the sa­tisfactions imposed, and if he is still bound to endeavour to perform them by himself, then it is not cer­tain, that they take away the punish­ment injoyned. Fifthly, It is not certain that they take away the pu­nishment due by the Judgment of God. Suppose there be a punishment due here, or to be inflicted in Purga­tory hereafter, yet there is no cer­tainty that these Indulgences take away this punishment. For, first, It is uncertain whether the pow­er of the Keyes can extend further, than to take away that punishment, which it might inflict: but the pow­er of the Keyes reaches not to inflict these punishments: Se­condly, It is no way certain whether the Indulgence be valuable further, then according to the worthiness, [Page 71] and devotion of him who receives the Indulgence, and then 'tis no way certain that there is any benefit by the Indulgence: Angelus de Clava­sio Summa. Angelica. P. Indul­gentia. tells us that quoad augmentum Gratiae & Gloriae, they are onely so much worth as is the devotion of him that receives them, and no more: but in respect of the punish­ment which is to be inflicted in Pur­gatory, tantum dimittit quantum so­nat, remitts what it expresses: but how comes the value of the Indul­gence for the gaining an augmenta­tion of Glory, to depend on the worth of the receiver, and not for gaining a freedome from paine? A­gain, the Indulgence requires they should be contrite, and have de­voutly confessed their sins, and with­out this they gain no benefit by the Indulgence; but then what certain­ty whether any benefit come from the Indulgence, or rather that it comes from the Contrition of the Pe­nitent, which also would availe with­out the Indulgence? others ꝑo. go [Page 72] further, and tell us they are never so much worth as is promised, sed aliquid valent modicum, secundum quod mereter fides & devotio, so Bo­naventure saies In 4. Dist. 21. some held. Thus it is no way certain according to themselves, what the real advantage is whether they bring any? and if it be no way certain, then we cannot be bound to profess this as an Article of our Faith, that Indulgences are wholesome and profitable; Indeed I will allow them to be profitable, but 'tis to the Popes purse, not to the Pe­nitents Soul: you may read the ad­vantage which Pope Ʋrban the 6. made by the Indulgence publisht in England 1382. Henry Spenser Bishop of Norwich gathered (saies Henry Knighton Chron. Heary Knighton pag. 2671.) an incredible sum of Gold and Silver and Jewels and Rings and Dishes and Spoons and other Ornaments, specially from Ladies and other women: and that both men and women gave not ac­cording, but even beyond their abi­lities, that their dead friends as well [Page 73] as themselves might receive the be­nefit of absolution from their sins, which none could obtain, unless they contributed according to their E­states.

Secondly, The matter of them, (i. e.) the Superfluous satisfactions of Christ and the Saints, which are re­served in the Treasure of the Church, for (say they) there can be no remissi­on of punishments injoyned for sins, unless there be some recompense made by some who have performed more then was due from them: but if it be un­certain whether there be any such Treasure, then the Doctrine of In­dulgences is uncertain. First, 'Tis not certain that there is any such Treasure of the Saints satisfactions reserved in the Church; First, Because 'tis not certain, that they have suf­fered more then they have deser­ved.

Secondly, Though they should suf­fer more then they have deserved, yet 'tis is not certain, that they do or can suffer more then they are bound [Page 74] in obedience to God. Thirdly, 'Tis not certain, that if they do or suffer only, what they are bound in obe­dience to God, that they can satisfie by that obedience for another, for where they only pay that which is required of them there is nothing superfluous, and ꝑo. nothing to be put into the Treasure. Fourthly, 'Tis not certain, but their sufferings are as much or more rewarded, then is due or can be due to them; and if they are fully rewarded, then they cannot discharge another mans debt: and upon this ground Franc. Mayro­nis, and Angel. de Clavasio deny the satisfactions of the Saints can be put into the Treasure †. * Sum. Angelica. P. Indul­gentia. N. 9:

Secondly, 'Tis not certain that there is any treasure made up of the superfluous satisfactions of Christ, and his Church. For, First, If the Treasure of Christs satisfactions be infinite then it is not certain, that any thing can be added to it, for an infinite cannot be increased, other­wise there should be an infinite grea­ter [Page 75] than an infinite. Secondly, It is not certain, that there is any ad­vantage by those satisfactions of the Saints, for if Christs merit be of an infinite value, then there is nothing that can be procured by the satisfa­ctions of Saints, which hath not been allready procured by Christs merit: nor is there any thing we can gaine by the satisfactions of Saints but we may much more receive it from the infinite merit of Christ. If then we have no certainty, that there is any use of this Treasure, we can then have no certainty that there is any such Treasure. Thirdly, It is no way certain, that there is any such Treasure of the superfluous satis­factions of Christ; because, first, It is not certain, that any thing Christ did, or suffer'd, could be more than he was bound to undergo, as he became our Surety and in obedi­ence to the command of his Father was bound to do, or suffer, what ever his Father required for the full satisfaction of his Justice; and if his [Page 76] satisfactions were in this respect ne­cessary, then they cannot be call'd superfluous. Secondly, Though his satisfaction was infinite, yet it is not certain, that any thing was superflu­ous; because all that a finite person can do or suffer, can never satisfie in­finite Justice. And it is not certain, when the offender deserves the ut­most puishment both here, and here­after which he is capable of under­going, that every work or suffer­ing, (though of an infinite person) can be sufficiently satisfactory to ex­piate that debt. Thirdly, Though his satisfaction was sufficient for more, then it was actually extended to, yet 'tis no more certain, ꝑo. some satisfactions are superfluous, than that the light of the Sun (which would enlighten thousands more, than actually receive benefit by it) is so: or that Gods Omnipotency is super­fluous, because it may create more worlds, than already are. Lastly, This Doctrine contains many per­plexities, and insoluble scruples, as, [Page 77] which are necessary and which satis­factions are superfluous? what part of Christs satisfactions are rewar­ded? and what not? for those which are allready rewarded cannot be put into the common stock; whether the same merit, which merited Glo­ry for himself? or that which meri­ted the pardon of Eternal punish­ment? or that there is some other merit which only merits the remis­sion of Temporal punishment? and how this merit distinguish't from the rest is put into the Treasure? these and many other perplexities are so intervowen in this Doctrine that their wisest Doctors have not yet found out a way to extricate them­selves.

Thirdly, The authority dispen­sing these Indulgences (i. e.) The Council suppose this for granted that there was a power left to the Church of bestowing these Indulgen­ces, and the Church hath from all Antiquity used it: but if these things be uncertain, then we have [Page 78] no reason to own this Doctrine. First, I say there is no Certainty, that Christ left this power to the Church, they tell us, that the Pope onely hath power of bestowing those Indulgences Jure Divino: Bishops and other Prelates Jure humano: that the Pope may grant plenary Indulgences Sum. Angel. c. 1. 10 [...]. n. 5. and over all the world: that his power is founded in these words, what ever thou loosest on earth shall be loosed in Heaven; and on that text feed my Sheep in which is included all acts of Jurisdi­ction, which any way conduce to shut or open the Kingdome of Heaven, and of this sort is remission of punishment by these Indulgences; Filliu [...]. Ca [...]. [...]. [...]ct. 8. [...] 3. n. 62▪ but this is wholy uncertain, and founded rather on meere guesses, than on a rational ground: For,

First, It is not certain that he who can remit the Eternal punish­ment, (as they tell us the Priest doth in the Sacrament of Penance) cannot also remit the Temporal pu­ [...]ishment: because he who can do [Page 79] the greater, regularly) unless there be some restraint) can do the less. Secondly, It is not certain, that the Pope hath any power of gran­ting these Indulgences from those texts, for it's neither exprest in the texts, nor gathered thence by anci­ent Interpreters, nor is it evident by fair consequence.

Secondly, It is not certain, that the Church hath used them from all antiquity, for where will they find the Popes divine right of granting Indulgences. That these Indulgen­ces were remissions of temporal pu­nishment due to God? that by the remission of these punishments here so much was abated as they must in­dure in this life or in Purgatory; that there were Indulgences for 100, or 1000, of yeares? that for repea­ting a Prayer over hallowed Beads visiting such an Altar praying before such an Image! there should be granted an Indulgence toties quoties, either of all, or halfe or third part of their sins? as many Buls of modern [Page 80] Popes speak: and ꝑo. Cajetane Op [...]. 15. c. 1. will tel us that neither the Holy Scripture nor the writings of the ancient Greek and Latin Fathers brought this to our knowledge, but only à 300 annis Scripturae Commendatum est de veteribus patribus, quod Beatus Gregorius Indulgentias Stationum in: stituit: it was Committed to wri­ting about 300 years ago, concern­ing the ancient Fathers, that St. Gre­gory ordained the Indulgences of the Stations: some tell us there are no manifest Testimonies before St. Gregorys time, yet we must believe (though we have no ground for it I warrant you) saies Angelus de Cla­ [...]asio that they were in use before: others confess, there is nothing the Scripture doth less plainly deliver, or the ancient Fathers less mention, so Alphonsus de Castro: that they began when Charity lessned, and sin increased, say others: yea some will not be­lieve, because the use of them seems to be late, and lately found out among the Christians, sales [Page 81] Roffensis Ad Ar [...]. 18. and all he Answers, is this, that there was some use (as they say) among the ancient Ro­mans and that many things are now found out more plainly, out of the Gospels, and other Scriptures than were heretofore: if thus they are not agreed who wrote before the Council, concerning the Antiquity of them, nor are there any evident Testimonies in the Fathers or anci­ent Writers of such use of Indulgen­ces, as they now practice, it is then not certain that the Church hath from all Antiquity used them, and ꝑo. I have no reason to assent to this Doctrine of Indulgences delivered by the Council.

This is my first Argument to dis­swade from reunion with the pre­sent Romish Church, because many of their Doctrines, which they re­quire to be believed as Articles of Faith, are uncertain and doubtfull.

THe second Consideration i [...] drawn from the Ceremonies of the Romish Church: It is unreaso­nable to adhere to that Church which commands us firmly to embrace those for Apostolical rites, which are altogether questionable, and dubi­ous: and those for pious, and good, which it is doubtfull, whether they be not vain, rediculous, and super­stitious: but the Romish Church commands this: ꝑo. In the Creed of Pius 4. it is required, That they should most firmly admit, and embrace the Apostolical, and Ecclesiastical Tradi­tions, and other observations of that Church, and afterwards, that they receive, and admit the approved rites of Catholick (as they call the Roman Church) in the solemn administration of the seven Sacraments: and its decla­red by the Council, that the Church hath used in the Sacrifice of the M [...]s [...] [Page 83] ceremonies as mistical blessings, Lights, [...]neense, Garments, and many other things from Apostolical Discipl [...]ne and Tradition. But many things which they affirm to be Apostolical are at best uncertain, and many things which they require thus firmly to be believed are vain, and foolish, and cannot be excused from all super­stition.

First, It is uncertain, that many of those ceremonies which they use in the Mass are of Apostolical Disci­pline, and Tradition as they pre­tend. First, There is no certainty that their mistical blessings are de­livered down from the Apostles, for though we are bound to receive the creatures with thanksgiving, and by prayer to God they are blessed for that use which he hath appointed, yet it is uncertain whether the A­postles did leave this Tradition, that certain things should be blessed by prayer, and the signe of the Cross to work supernatural effects, as to cure diseases, and drive away Devils, and [Page 84] remit venial sins, which things Bel­larmin L. 2. d [...] [...]ffect. Sa­ [...]ram. c. 31. prop. 3. makes the effect of these benedictions. In the blessing of the wax lights on E [...]ster eve (this must be done by a Deacon, and he must put five grains of hallowed incense into it after the fashion of a Cross) he exhorts all to invoke the mercy of God, that he who vouchsafed to ad­mit into the number of Levites, powring on him the clearness of his light, would inable him to perfect the prayses of that wax light, cerei hujus laudem implere perficiat: and then prayes that this taper may remain constantly to destroy the mist of this night, and being accepted for a sweet smell may be mingled with the Heavenly lights. In the blessing of holy water the Priest exorcizes the fact to be for the health of believers, and to all that take it soundness of soul, and body, and that all wickedness, and cunning of devils may fly from the place where it is sprinkled: and he exorcizes the water to drive away the power of the devil, and to root [Page 85] out the enemy with the apostate An­gels: and again prays, that this crea­ture serving these misteries, may receive the effect of the divine grace to drive away devils and expell di­seases, &c Missal. Rom. in Bened. a­quae.. In the blessing of holy bread, he prays that God would bless it with holy spiritual blessing, that it may be to all that receive it, health of Soul, and Body, and a de­fence against all diseases, and all the snares of the enemies Missal. Rom. in Bened. pa­nis.. So in the blessing of Candles, he prays, that they may receive such blessing by the signe of the Cross, that in what ever places they are lighted, the Princes of darkness may depart, and tremble, and fly away with all his Servants from all those habitations Missal. Rom in Benedict. Cand [...]l.. In the blessing of the Cross, he prays, that God would bless that wood of the Cross, ut sit re­medium salutare generi humano, sit soliditas fidei bonorum operum profe­ctus, & redemptio animarum, &c. That it may be a wholesome remedy for mankind, it may be firmness of faith, increase of good works, re­demption [Page 86] of Souls, and defence a­gainst the cruel darts of the devil Hospin. de Orig. Templ. l. 4. c. 4.. These are mistical blessings which the Romish Church uses, and which they pretend are derived from Apo­stolical Discipline, and Tradition, but it is uncertain, whether ever the Apostles did blesse those Creatures for such supernatural ends? and whether they did leave either com­mand, or example which should warrant the Church in after ages to bless any Creatures for the produ­cing such Effects? if it be certain, then they must produce some text of Scripture, so interpreted by the u­nanimous consent of the Fathers, as the profession of faith by Pius 4. re­quires: or some constant Tradition delivered down through the several ages of the Church: but neither of these can be done; for, Secondly, Their own Authors have affix'd the Institution of these several forms of blessing to the times long after the Apostles, and ꝑo. it cannot be said that the Church hath received them [Page 87] from Apostolical discipline and Tra­dition: the blessing of the Paschal taper is pretended to be the Institu­tion of Zozimus and Theodore the first, who sate anno 640; the form of blessing to be dictated by Am­brose, and that Augustine, and Peter a Monk of Cassino composed others which are out of use, as Durand Rasie­nale Div. Offic. l. 6. c. 80. tells us; but whether the same forme? or any such kind of forme as is now in use? or whether any at all? we can have no certainty from Authors, who lived some hundred years as­ter. Till ꝑo. they can certainly prove, not only that a Paschal taper was used in the Church, but that it was used from the Apostles times, and used for this end with such like form of blessing as is now practiced by the Romanists, I do not see how the Council can declare this to be an article of faith that it came from A­postolical discipline and Tradition: the blessing of holy water was in­troduced (say the most of them) by Alexander the first, so say [Page 88] Durand R [...]ional. l. 4. c. 4, Polydor Virgil De In­vent. Re­rum l. 5. 68., and Pla­tina in the life of Alexander the first, and yet this higher, than we can be certain of it: for there is no certainty of the Epistle ascribed to Alexander, whence they fetch this Institution, nor of the Pontifical as­cribed to Damasus as Reynolds De Lib. Apoc. Pra-lect. 179, 180. shews from the acknowledgment of many of their own authors. The blessing of bread for driving away devils, (if we believe Abdias a fri­volous Author l. 2. Histor. Apost.) is derived from St. Peter, as Gavan­tus Thes. Sacr. Rit. Part. 4. Tit. 19. n. 19. tells us: but what certainty have we of this Tradition, when we have no certainty even by their own confession of the truth, and honesty of this author? and if we believe him, when all antiquity is silent a­bout it, he had need be testis omni exceptione major: besides this, the first blessing which Gavantus could bring was from Gregory's Sacramen­tary, about 600 years after the A­postles times, and ꝑo. still no cer­tainty that it was from Apostolical [Page 89] Tradition: for the blessing of candles, they tell us Sergius appoin­ted a procession with hallowed candles on the feast of the Purificati­on, but supposE the Institution higher, as Baronius In Mar­tirelogi [...]. doth, who fathers it on Eligius, who died anno 665, yet still short enough of the Apostles times: if thus their own authors who pur­posely inquire their Antiquities, as­sign their institution after the Apo­stles daies, then it is not certain, that the Church received them from Apostolical Tradition: unless we can believe that rare exposition which some Gavant Thes. Sacr. Rit. p. 4. Tit. 19. n. 2. give of St. Pauls words to Timothy, 2 Tim. 1. 13. Formam habe sanorum verborum quae à me di­dicisti. Sanorum, (i. e.) quae possunt sanare sensibiles & insensibiles creatu­ras, that the forme of sound words was the forme of blessings for super­natural effects; but such Interpretations, I suppose the soberer Romanists will sooner deride, than believe.

Secondly, It is no way certain that they received the use of lights [Page 90] from Apostolical Tradition: the Church of Rome requires at Mass the candels to be lighted, and though it be midday, yet allows no Cele­bration without it: but now, First, Though the Apostles might use lights at the time of Divine Service, when they were forced to meet in Grotts, and Caves, and darke places, and commonly in the night (caetibus antelucanis) as Pliny observed, to avoid the danger of persecution: yet there is no certainty that we are obliged by that example to light up Candles in the Day, nor any certainty that they left that rule for after Ages. Secondly, though the Church after the times of Persecution did use lights to shew themselves the Successors of pious men, yet it's not certain that this was a necessary but voluntary imita­tion. Thirdly, as for those ancients who pleaded for the Continuance of lights ti's no way certain, that they used them to expel devils or preten­ded any supernatural virtue in them [Page 91] but only as signes of joy, and repre­sentations of Christ, as Durand Rationa­le Div O [...] ­ [...]ic. l. 1. c. 1. tit. S. gives us their mistical signification.

Thirdly, It is no way certain, that they received the use of Incense from Apostolical Tradition; for, First, though Incense might have been used in the Primitive Church either for some mistical signification, as Bellarmine mentions three mi­sterious reasons, or ad tetrum odorem siquis ex multudine in Ecclesià exist te­ret, abigendum; to drive away those Filthy smels which might be occa­sioned by the concourse of people, which is the most likely reason; for the Christians being forced to assem­ble in subterranious Cels, and Caves, they might use incense to prevent the infection, which they might fear from the vapors in dark, and low places: but it is not certain, that they used In­cense on the same reason it is now used by the Romanists, ut omnes languores Cunctaeque insidiae inimici odorem ejus sentientes effugiant, & seperentur à plasmate tuo, &c. That all faintings [Page 92] and treacheries of the devils percei­ving this smel may fly away, and be removed from the workmanship which thou hast redeemed by thy precious blood, and that they may never be hurt by the biting of the ancient Serpent Instit: Baptiz. &c. Se [...]. usum. Sa­tum in hened. in­censi. Though the an­cients might use Incense for sweetning the places of their assemblies, yet it is uncertain, that they used it for devotion to drive away the devils temptations. The Romish Church requires at the Celebration of the Mass the censing of the Altar, and the Gospels which must be done three times, and the Elements which are to be consecrated, drawing the Censer thrice upon the Host and Chalice together in the fashion of a Crosse, and thrice round about them (i. e.) twice from the right hand to the left, and once from the left hand to the right Rubr. General. in offert. Mis­sal. Pii. 5.. after­wards he must cense the Cross and the Altar again, then the Deacon censes the Priest, afterward he censes the Quire and the sub-Deacon, then [Page 93] the censer bearer censes the Deacon, then the Acolites, lastly the People Rubr. Genera [...]. in offert. c. 7. [...]. 10.. And all this is done to drive away devils, saies Innocent l. 2. c. 17. the third in his exposition of the Mass: and Ga­vantus Com. in Rubr. Missae. pa [...]t. 2. tit. 4. n. 4. l. ic. [...]. from him: but by what record? or what ground shall I be certain that the Apostles comman­ded this? or that their Church in conformity to the practice of the A­postles did thus? or Lastly, that the present Roman Church pretends no other virtue, or efficacy in Incense, than was allowed by the ancient Church. Secondly, I have further reason to question the uncertainty of this pretended Tradition, for even several authors of the Roman Communion have affixed a far latter date to the beginning of this Institu­tion: Platina In vitâ Sixti. 1., and Polydor Virgil De In­vent. re­rum. l. 5. c. 10. refer it to Leo the third who was the 98th Bishop of Rome according to Platina.

Fourthly, It is no way certain, that they received the use of Priestly Garments from Apostolical Tradition, [Page 94] though we do not contend whether the Priest may use distinct Garments in the Celebration, for the practice is according to St. Hierome's expres­sions, Religio divina alterum habet habitum in ministerio alternm in usu, vitâque communi, that their habits in their ministration were diffe­rent from those they commonly used: yet we judge these are liberae Institutionis, which are indifferent in themselves, and not absolutely ne­cessary: such things as the Church may injoyne from its own authority in things indifferent, not which it must injoyne from Apostolical command. For, First, We are no way certain that the Apostles practiced or com­manded such things, that either at the first Institution by our Saviour, or at the Celebration of the Sacra­ment by the Apostles they used any such Priestly Garments: and ꝑo. Po­lydor Virgil De In­vent. Re­rum. l▪ 4. c. 7. saies, Hebraica magis quam Apostolica referunt instituta, they more resemble the Jewish than Apostolical Institutions. Secondly, [Page 95] We are not certain, that though God did appoint in the Old Testa­ment such habits for Aaron and his Sons, when they were to minister, the Priests ꝑo. in the New Testament must have such: for all agree, that nothing prescribed in the Mosaical ministration doth bind us Christians, unless where the nature of it is Moral, else we should be obliged to ob­serve all the Rites annd Ceremonys which Moses appointed: and ꝑo. it seems very strange that Bellarmine L. 2. de Mis [...]. c. 14. should say, that the Garments of the Aaronical Priests were Figures, and Types of those Vestments which the Christians use: for to represent and tipify something to be used in the times of the Gospel requires a Di­vine Institution: but it is no way certain that they were so appointed by Divine Institution, ꝑo. we can­not assert that they are Figures and Types of the Priestly Vestments which are now used. Thirdly, If we look on the several habits which be­long to their Clergy, we shall think [Page 96] it very unlikely, that they were de­rived from the Apostles, either if we consider the things required, or the significations they assign to them.

First, As for the things required, there are six things required in the attire of a Priest, but 15 several parts of the attire of a Bishop as Durand Ration. Div. Offic. l. 3. c. 1. [...]it. G. H. reckons them: and though the High Priest among the Jewes had only eight things in his attire, yet the Bishop must have fifteen, because (forsooth) as Durand gives the ac­curate reason, our righteousness must exceed the righteousnes of Scribes, and Pharises. Nay these fifteen are not all, for besides these he wears his Surpliss and his pluviale: now it's very improbable, that the Apostles should require more than Moses did, or that when they imposed such seve­ral habits, that yet neither in the Scripture nor Primitive writers, there appear the least footstep of this injunction. Secondly, If we consi­der the grounds they pretend, and [Page 97] the signification they give them, it will seem altogether improbable that they should be derived from the Apostles. The Sandals (say they) come from the Apostles who used Sandals, Mark, 6 9. But if the Apo­stles example there be a sufficient ar­gument, then they must neither have a Staff in their Journy, nor Mony in their Purse: or if they pretend our Saviours command, Go, teach all nations, which reason Durand Rationale Div. Offic. l. 3. c. 8. tit. A. gives, that will never sute with the grandeur of their Bishops, nor yet with their practice, who do not use to foot it, to Preach in their own Cures. The Miter (saies Baronius Ad an­num. 34. n. 298.) came from the Apostles, and the Bishop with his Miter represents Moses com­ing down from the Mount with the 2 Tables: but if it came from the Apostles, how comes it to have 2 Horns? because (say they) Moses when he came from the Mount was Horned Polyd. Virgil. d [...] Invent. Rer. l. 4. c. 7.; an error which the vul­gar Translation has occasion'd by mis­interpreting a word. For where it [Page 98] should be read his face shone. That translation renders it cornuta erat fa­cies ejus, Exod. 34. 2. and yet here's an Apostolical Tradition pretended to justifie their mistake. But this is not all, why must it be Horned? to note (saies Durand Rationale Div. Of­fic. l. 3. c. 13. tit. C. D.) the 2 Testa­ments: why must the Miter have two stays hanging behind? to note (saies he) the Spirit and the letter. Why must it be made high? to note the eminency of knowledge which must be in a Bishop: the Gloves (saies Durand 161. l. 13. c. 12.) must be put on according to the Tradition of the Apostles, next after the Dalmatica that his left hand may not know what his right hand doth. And why Gloves to cover their hands? because workes must be publick, but the intention secret Gavant. Thes. Sacr. Rit. Part 2 tit. 1. pag. 99.: why must he sometimes put them off and some­times put them on? because good works must sometimes be secret to shun vain glory, sometimes publick to edefy their neighbours. (Saies Du­rand) will ye see more of these five [Page 99] reasons which their Ritualists give concerning Priestly, and Episcopal ha­bits; and you will then think that those who pretend to give a reason of those Ceremonies do only insa­nire cum ratione, and that 'tis very unlike the simplicity of Religion which the Apostles delivered. Fourthly, I add that 'tis so far from being certain, that these Garments came from the Apostles, that their own authors tell us, that at first they said Mass in their usual Garments, so Gavantus Part. 1. tit. 18. out of Walafrid Strabo, and that by degrees the multitude of these habits which are now used, were brought in Gavant. [...]61.. Lastly, 'Tis un­certain whether the authors of the greatest antiquity assert, what they affix to them: for some ascribe this to Clement, that he according to Tradition from St. Peter did institute these holy Vestments, but there is no certainty of this pretended Tra­dition, nor of this pretended Insti­tution: some ascribe it to Anaclet, antiquity enough if it could be pro­ved, [Page 100] (whether he be the same with Cletus, whom some make a Coad ju­tor to St. Peter, or that there were such an one who was immediate suc­cessor to Clement) but we must be first sure of the authority, before we believe the Testimony: Bellarmine D [...] Ro­man. Pon­tif. l. 2. c. 14. durst not call these decretal Epistles undoubted, though he believed them ancient: but there needs no more proof of the spuriousness of this Epistle father'd on Anaclet; than to observe the Barberous expressions in it, and those names it mentions, which were of a later Original Blondel. Ceus. E­pist. Pon­tif. in Ana­clet. E­pist. 1. Thus I have handled the first part of my argument from the Rites, and Ceremonies of the Romish Church, that for many of these things they require us to profess, to be of Apo­stolical Discipline, and Tradition, it is wholly uncertain, whether they be so.

Secondly, It is not certain, whe­ther many Rites and Ceremonies of the Romish Church be not vain, un­profitable, and inexcusable from Su­perstition: [Page 101] I will not instance in the customs of particular Churches, and places. As in the manner of the ob­servations of Innocents day by the Episcopus puerorum in the Church of Salisbury: in the strange custome which Mr. Gregory Opuse. Posth. in his Dis­course de Episc. pu­erorum. produces from the Ritual of Osny Abby of the foot of a Child, which was usually kept in a Chest in the Vestry, and that day was carried about the Church to be adored by the people. In the custom of the Be [...]gick Churches to take up a man on Ascention day, thereby to represent Christs ascenti­on, and send down a Dove in repre­sentation of the descent of the Holy Ghost on Whit-Sunday, as the Anti­quitates Liturgicae tells us Yom [...]. in Sabbate Sancto de Caer. Pas­ch. Duaci. 1065.. I will not instance in such customes, though many may be produced, because the Romanists will grant, the customes of particular Churches may be vain, and superstitious: ꝑo. the Council of Trent doth only require that we should imbrace the Rites of the Ca­tholick Church: and appoints a re­formation [Page 102] of those abuses which might have crept in, as in the number of Candles on Easter eve, some (saies Durand) have 72 Candles, some 24, some 15, some 12, and all these pretend some mistery: now the Council provides against the Super­stitious number of Candles; and al­so by the Bull of Pius 5. prefixed be­fore the Roman Missal, all other Rites and Ceremonies in other Missals (un­less where there is a prescription of 200 years) are abrogated. So that my business is to prove, that there are many Ceremonies universally practi­ced in the Romish Church or allowed in some particular Churches, which are vain, unprofitable, and not un­excusable from superstition.

First, I instance in the many Ce­remonies of blessing the Font, the recital of which is a sufficient evi­dence of their vanity: one Ceremo­ny is the dividing the water after the fashion of a Cross, and that is done that the water may be fruitfull [Page 103] through the holy Spirit, and the un­clean one expel'd Missal. Pii 5. in Be [...]ed. Fontis.: again, he must touch the water with his hand, that by the Invocation of the blessed Trinity the water may be defended, least the divel return Durand. Rationale l. 6. c. 82.: again, he divides the water with his hand, and casts the water towards the foure parts of the World: another Cere­mony is the changing of the Tone, which must be done thrice, after the manner of a prayer he must speak low, then he must raise his voice af­ter the manner of their Prefaces, then he must let fall his voice after the manner of reading the Lessons: but why must the voice be changed thrice? Ʋt in Trinitate omnia fiant saies Gavantus Part. 4. Tit. 10. [...]. 25.: another Ceremo­ny is the breathing on the water three times after the fashion of a Cross, and least that should not do the work, he must blow thrice upon it after the manner of the Greek let­ter [...] to denote the Trinity, that he may joyne the Trinity with the Cross Gavant. 161. n. 26.: but what will this blowing [Page 104] do? they'l tell you (if you believe them) the devil is blown away with a breath and they blow in contempt of him; as if the devil could not withstand a blast: There is another Ceremony the putting the paschal taper into the Font, which must be first a little way and the Priest saies, Descendat in han [...] plenitudinem Fontis Spiritus Sancti virtus, let the virtue of the holy Ghost descend upon the fullness of the Font: but will ye know the reason of this Ceremony, it is to signify the spirits descending with his fullness into the Font, as he descended at the baptisme of our Saviour in likeness of a Dove Gavan­tus 161. [...]. 27.; this taper then must be taken out, to note the effect of baptisme, which raises from sin to glory, then the ta­per must be put lower into the wa­ter, and the Priest raise his voice, the third time the taper must be put to the bottome, and the Priest repeat the prayer (Descendat in hanc, &c.) lowder. I omit the rest of the Ce­remonics, for I need not render the [Page 105] office more ridiculous, by repeating more of the like nature: and if there be so little reason for the institution of them, and such antickness in the performance of them, we have rea­son to judge that it is at the best un­certain, whether they be not vain, and unprofitable.

Secondly, I instance in many Ce­remonies used in Baptisme, I do not condemn every Ceremony in it, for some of them were very anciently used, some may not be unfit to signifie either some duty, or some priviledge: and these are not condemned by us, where they may serve to a decent order, and godly discipline, and may have any aptness to stirre up the mind of man by some notable signi­fication to the remembrance of his duty Book of Common prayer Pref. of Ceremo­nies., and while they are as St. Augustin advices pauc [...] & salubres. I pass by the number of their Cere­monies in Baptism, which Bellarmine saies are 22, and only consider, that many of these either have no ten­dency [Page 106] to excite us by a fit significa­tion, or else are used not only for signification, but extraordinary o­peration: now these things cannot produce by an extraordinary o­peration, unless by the virtue and influx of a superior agent: and where there is no assurance of any assistance from such a superior agent, these Ceremonies must be vain, un­profitable, and superstitious.

First, Some of them have no ten­dency to excite us by a fit significa­tion, I pass by the Ceremony of putting salt into the infants mouth, yet I may wonder whence the Priest hath authority to say, take the salt of wisdome, that God may be pro­pitious to thee unto Eternal life. Or what ground to pray that he who tasts this food of salt may not hunger more, as if it was equall to that Heavenly bread which our Saviour promised, of which whoever eats shall live for ever, John 6. 58. I men­tion the Ceremony of spittle, that the Priest must spit on his left hand, [Page 107] and put the spittle into the eares and nose of the Infant with his right thumb, saying to the right eare, Epphata be thou opened, he must say to the nose for a sweet smell: and to the left eare be thou driven away O devil, for the judgement of God approaches: but why must he say to the eare be thou opened? and why doth he touch the nose with spittle and put his finger into the eares? Durand wants no reason (as he thinks he must touch the nose that it might receive the odor of the knowledge of God, he must touch the eares to hear the commands of God, the fingers put into the eares must represent the words, or gifts of the holy Spirit. He must touch the eares with spittle, to signifie the words proceeding from the mouth of the highest, which enter through the eares, and smel sweet to him: the nostrills must be touched, that they may receive divine virtue, by which they may distinguish a good smel from a bad, and seperate sound [Page 108] Doctrine from Heretical pravity Durand Rational. l. 6. c. 8. lit. R.: if we think these to be far fetched reasons, I wonder how they first in­vented such insignificant, vain Cere­monies. Bellarmine will retort on us our Saviours practice, how he touched the mans tongue, and eares who was deaf and dumb. Mark 7. 32, 33. and cured the blinde mans eyes with clay and spittle, John 9. 6. and yet he could have cured without those Ceremonies: well, but what is this Ceremony to our Saviours practice? what he used in the cu­ring of the deaf and blinde, they use to them who are neither deaf nor blinde: if our Saviour used it in the producing a miraculous effect, is it not ludicrous for them to use it in imitation of him, where they do not pretend to imitate him in working the effect? if then, there's no apt­ness to signifie nor proper reason can be assigned of their Institution, then they are vain and un profi­table.

Secondly, Let us see those Ceremo­nies [Page 109] which are used not only for sig­nification, but the effecting of some thing: the Child must be Crost seve­ral times, and in several places on his forehead, on his breast and on his right hand, and that not princi­pally for signification, as that they are not ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, but for the effecting some wonderfull thing, as driving out the devil, so in the order for making Catecumens when the Priest signes him on the right hand, he saies, I deli­ver thee the Seal of our Lord Jesus Christ in thy right hand that thou may'st signe thy self, and defend thee from the ene­my, and abide in the Catholick faith, and live for ever: If this will not suf­fice, there is another thing, that the Child must be anointed with Oyle on the brest, and on the shoulder bones with the Oyle of Salvation in our Lord Jesus Christ, that thou may st have Eter­nal Life: and the effect of this Oyle is for purging of his sins, and defence from the devil Durand Rationale l. 6. c. 71. lit. L.. I pass by the white garment which is put on the Infant, [Page 110] Or the burning taper put into his hand, because as they are barely sig­nificative, we leave them among in­different things, which every Church may injoyne, as she judges them usefull for decency, and edification. But there is one rare thing behind, a receit against the falling sickness Inst. Baptiz. & sec. usum Sarum. in fine Bap­t [...]smi., The Priest may say a Gospel over the Child, if he will, which (the Doctors say) is very effectual, and that is out of St. Mark concerning the curing of of the Child, which was sometimes thrown into the fire and sometimes into the water; and the like ground Fitz-Simon gives of the reading of the first of St. John after the ending of the Mass, because many had found it effectual against some diseases, with which they had been afflicted: ꝑo. the Priest to satisfie all mens de­sires used to conclude the Mass with the Gospel. Now I aske what as­surance can we have that those Ce­remonies which themselves invent, have such power to effect these things? what certainty that the first [Page 111] of St. John read, which the people do not understand, is more effectuall than the first of St. John tied about their necks? and whether to ascribe such effects to them, which are above their nature where there is neither divine command, nor promise can be cleared from superstition.

Thirdly, I instance in the blessing of Bells out of the Instit. Baptizandi, &c. secundum usum Sarum: when the metal is running, the Priest put­ting on his Surplis, and Stole the Cross going before him with the Clergy, and people, they sing the Himn Veni Creator: when it is finisht, they sing the Te Deum, and in the end Da Pa­cem, with some versicles: before it is hung, it must be blessed, and con­secrated, and ꝑo. first he prays Inst. Bapt. sec. usum Sa­rum. in Bened. C [...]mpan. Orat. Be­ned. Domi­ne. over the holy water, with which it is sprinckled, Ʋt cum hoc vasculum ad invitandos Ecclesiae Filios praeparatum. in eâ fuerit tinctum, ubicunque hoc sonuerit tintinnabulum, longè recedat virtus inimicorum, &c. that where­ever [Page 112] this Bell sounds, the power of enemies, the shadows of apparitions, the fury of whirlewinds, striking of thunderbolts, calamities of tempests, and every sperit of stormes may be gone: then he must wash it with holy water, hallowed oyle, and salt, and say this Prayer, that God who Commanded by Moses silver Trumpets to be made, which the Levites should sound at the time of Sacrifice, and the people admonisht by their sweetness be prepared to worship thee, &c. Would grant that this vessel prepared for the use of his Church, might be sancti­fied with the holy sperit, that by the sound of it the faithful might be invited to their reward, and when the melody of it sounds in their eares, their devotion may increase, the treacheries of the enemy may be driven away, the sounds of haile­stones, the storme of whirle winds, and the violence of tempests may be moderated, &c. then he must wipe it with a towel, saying the 28th [Page 113] Psalme, after this he must touch it with Chrysme 7 times on the out side and 4 times on the inside, saying O Almighty God who madest Stone walls to fall before the Ark of the Covenant, by the sound of Trumpets, poure out thy blessing on this Bell, that the fiery darts of the enemy, the shaking of Thunder may be driven far off, be­fore the sound of it: and in another prayer, that the enemies army may be affrighted, the people cal'd by it may be comforted in the Lord, and the holy Spirit even as it was delighted with Davids Harpe may descend upon them: then the Bell must be sprinckled with holy water, and the Priest must name it, laying his hands upon it, and so must the Godfathers and God­mothers, who must name it after the Priest, and cover it with Linnen cloaths, and after this benediction the Bell becomes so holy that no man must Tole it, unless he wear a hal­lowed Surplis, saies Gavantus Part. 1. ti [...]. 20. from a Council of Colen. This is their strange way of blessing Bells, which [Page 114] almost needs no other refutation, than bare recital of the manner of it: for what reason of anointing within and without? or if it was no more than in imitation of the Jewes to seperate this for an holy use, yet why 7 times on the outside, and 4 times on the inside, why must this be cen­sed, and so that it may gather up all the smoak? and why must it be na­med in so solemn a manner? what use of Godfathers and Godmothers here, of laying their hands on it, afterwards of covering it with Lin­nen cloathes, which is an imitation of that Ceremony of the white garment they used in Baptism? and why do they pray that their sound may drive away devils, frighten enemies, hinder storms, &c? as by the sound of Trumpets the walls of Jericho fell down: for there was both a com­mand that the Priest should blow the Trumpets, and a promise of extra­ordinary blessing: here is no ground to pretend either command, or promise.

I might Instance in their strange forms of exorcizing persons possessed with devils, the vanity of which is sufficiently described by my Lord Bishop of Downe in his excellent dis­swasive from Popery, for they rather seem like magical Enchant­ments than devout formes of prayer.

I might Instance in their consecra­tions of Chrysme, how it must be brought from the Vestry to the Bishop by 12 Priests representing the 12 Apo­stles; and by other Clergy men signi­fying the Disciples, how after it is blessed it must be saluted by the Bishop and his Priests 5 times with a lowd voice ave Sanctum Chrysma hayle holy Chrisme; and how the Bishop must breath 3 times on it, as Durand Rational. l. 6. c. 74. gives us the forme. I could instance in their strange formes of processions with anticks going before them, as if they intended rather to Create laughter, than stir up Devotion: a custome which Polidor Virgil de Invent. [...]rum. [...]. 6. c. 11. confesses was without [Page 116] doubt received from the heathenish Romans. I could Instance in their acting of the passion, which turns the whole seriousnes of religion into a mimical sport, as Ludovic Vives in Au­gust. de Ci­vit. Dei. l. 8. c. ult. complained: many more of this nature I could reckon up, but these are to many.

The sum of the second argument is this: it is unreasonable to adhere to that Church, which not only pra­ctices such cerimonies which are vain, and ridiculous, and which is at best, uncertain, whether they be not superstitious, but requires all to owne them for good, and wholesome: but the Church of Rome doth so: ꝑo.

MY third Consideration shall be drawn from the absurdities and untruths in several Offices, be­cause there are several things false, many things derogatory from the merits of Christ, and ascribing too much to the Creature.

First, I instance in the prayers they make to the B. Virgin, the Titles they ascribe to her, and the praises they give her. First, In the prayers to her: it is certain that a great part of the devotion of the Roma­nists is employed in the prayers to her: she hath her Fices, she hath her Houres, she hath her Letany, she hath her Rosary, and Gregory 13. Insti­tuted a Mass in honour of the Rosa­ry with Indulgences to them that ce­lebrate it: she hath her Psalter com­posed by Bonaventure, which are onely Davids Psalms deformed, in [Page 118] which the name of Lady is put for Lord, and what he said of God is ascribed to the B. Virgin: she hath 8 Festivals; and least they should faile in the performance of their du­ty to her, there is a peculiar Mass i [...] the Missal of Salisbury, call'd Miss [...] Missale sec. usum Sarum. an. 1555. in Vigil. Pasch. recollectionis festorum B. Mariae. Let us consider the prayers themselves, in which they do not only intreat her to pray for them, or pray that God would grant their requests upon the inter­cession of the B. Virgin, but they desire that by her merits and prayers they may be brought to Heaven Offic. B. [...]irg. ad matutin.. And if you think they do not derogate from the Son who leane on the merits of the Mother, you shall find them equal'd in a prayer of the Mass of the most holy Rosary, where they pray, that God who predestinated Jesus Christ ac­cording to the flesh, and chose the most holy Virgin to be his mother, would grant that through both their merits compleated by the 15 sacred mysteries of the Rosary, we may be so for the present addicted [Page 119] to them, that we may continually perceive in our selves the fruit of them in the glory of an Heavenly life, praesta quaesumus, ut amborum meritis per sacra 15 mysteria Rosarij completis ità in praesenti simus illis addicti, quatenus in coelestis vitae glo­ri [...] fructus eorum jugitur sentiàmus Missal. Rom. in Miss. Ro­sarij Pari [...] 1631.; nay its well if they do not question▪ whether they do not owe more to the Mothers milk, than to the Sons blood, for that was [...] only a Poeti­cal fancy of Carolus Scribanius, but was crept up into a Picture (which they call a Lay mans Book) on a wall in a Church at Bosledue, and there found by the Dutch at the taking of the Town: from interces­sion she is got to commanding, and she that acknowledged in the Mag­nificat the lowliness of his Hand­maid, is importuned to command by the authority of a Mother: and if we consult their Offices there is little can be desired of our Saviour which they do not ask of her, and [...]o. do not only desire her intercessi­on [Page 120] for blessings, but desire from her the blessings themselves: in the Himn Ave Maris stella, which is sung at the feast of the presentation of Mary, they say Solve vincla reis, profer lumen caecis, mala nostra pelle bona cuncta posce, which in the Offic [...] translated into English is something minced,

But at the prime they go higher, Maria Mater gratiae mater misericor­diae, tu nos ab hoste protege & in hor [...] mortis suscipe, which the English of­fice renders,

What tolerable excuse can be given [Page 121] for those words, and generous Mary obtain pardon for us, apply grace unto us and prepare glory for us [...]x curs [...] Hor Beat. Mariae.. Or that prayer in the Sequence Missa. Recoll. fest. M [...]riae in Missal. Sar. 1555. (as they call it) pro nobis obtine genitrix veniam, reatum dilue & dona patriam in arce siderum: procure our pardon, wash away our guilt, and give us heaven? or for that com­mendation of the Soul to the Virgin Office of our Lady in English., O holy Mary my Lady, I recommend my self unto thy blessed trust, and singular custody and into the bosome of thy mercy, this day, and daily, and in the houre of my death, as also my Soul, and body, and I yield unto thee all my hope and consolation, all my distresses, and my miseries, my life, and the end thereof, that by thy most holy merits, and intercessi­on, all my works may be directed, and disposed according to thine, and thy Sons will? if we may place our hope and confidence in the B. Virgin, in all our afflictions, both in life, and death, what could we do more on Christ? or how could they express [Page 122] greater affiance on Christ, than they do here of the Virgin? or in what fuller terms can they resigne [...]p themselves to their Saviour; than they use here to her, when they com­mend themselves to her, that by her merits and intercession all their workes may be directed according to her's, and her sons will? where then the Creature is drawn off from his intire confidence on Christ, and perswaded to leane on a fellow creature, that must be absur'd and impious, but it is so in these pray­ers. [...]o.

Secondly, In the titles they ascribe to her, and the Prayses they give her: I do not speak of those flattering ex­pressions which some superstitious persons have used, as Bernadinus Senensis & Bernardinus de Bustis: of whom the former faies Berna [...]. [...]enens. Serm 61. Art. 1. c. 11.. That the Blessed Virgin did more for God, or at least as much as he did unto all mankind, and for our comfort we may say that in respect of the Blessed Virgin God himself is after a [Page 123] sort more bound to us, than we to him. The other saies Bern. d [...] Bustis Ma­riale part. 6. Serm. 2. memb. 3. that though the Virgin sang, he that is mighty hath done great things to me, yet he du [...]st say, thou hast done grea­ter things to him who is mighty. These I will not charge on them, which may seem rather the extrava­gancies of private fancies, than any allowed expressions, yet if we con­sult their publick Offices, we shall see those things ascribed to her, which are absur'd, and unfit to be ascribed to any Creature: to call her the Star of the Sea which seeming like some title the Poets gave to Venus, may pass by a Poetical licence, but to call her Mother of Mercy, Queen of Heaven, Lady of Angels, Empress of the World Offic. B. Mariae ad Laudes Festo. Pu­rif. Him [...] Ave Regi­na.. These we think are groundless Titles, which [...]avour rather of a luxuriant wit, than any true piety: for though she is blessed among women, yet we do not find her exalted above Angels: though she was full of grace, yet here's no reason to call her mother of [Page 124] grace: though she be exalted into glory, yet why must she be cal'd Queen of Heaven? why do they pray Queen of Angels bring us into the kingdom of Heaven? as it is in the Breviary of York Infra Octa As­sumpt. [...]ar. 6. die Be [...]ed. commun.: why do they sing in the Office of the Virgin on the Purification?

Enough of this is to be had in the Salisbury Missal, as that God hath [...]iss. re­col [...]. Fest. B. Mar. post orati­on. secre­ [...]am. done mercifully with us, since he hath appointed his mother to be our Ad­vocate in Heaven, and in the Sequence sung on the Feast of the Conception, that she is the mother of Orphans, the ease of the oppressed, the help of the weak, and they add omnibus es omnia: now what ground to as­cribe these superlative honours to her? what assurance that these are not unwarrantable Titles? but they go further, and tell us, the rever [...]nce [Page 125] they shew to the mother, is given to the Son, and [...]o. with their whole desires, and voices, they insist on her praises, and say that she in the bearing of her Son did destroy anti­quum diabolicae seditionis Chirogra­phum, the ancient hand writing of de­vilish sedition, and opened the king­dom of Heaven to believers Breviar Ebor. com­mem. B. Mar. Lect. 1.. There is a prayer to the B. Virgin, in which they call her Fountain of mer­cy, Fountain of health and grace, Fountaine of comfort and Indul­gence, Fountain of piety and joy, Fountain of life and pardon Offic. B. Mar. inter orationes.: If they ascribe to her these Titles, then they give to the Creature, what is due to the Creator, God blessed for ever; how can they call her Foun­tain of grace? when it is the honour of Christ, that of his fullness we re­ceive grace for grace Iohn 1. 16.; and in him all fullness dwels Colos. 1. 19.: or how is she the Fountain of life, when 'tis Christs pe­culiar houour to have life in him 1 Iohn 5. 11., and our life is hid in Christ; or how can she be the Fountain of pardon? [Page 126] when through Christ alone we have remission of sins by his blood. Or how can they sing that redundancy of grace is given to the Virgin, whereby all things are fragrant and acceptable to God. O nimia redun­danti [...] gratiae datae Virgini, quâ cun­cta sunt fragrantia, & grata summo numini Him [...]. Aeterni Patris. in Pr [...]s. B. Mar. Paris apud Mag [...]. Goursette. 155 [...]., when 'tis by Christ alone we are made acceptable to the Fa­ther: This is the sum of this first In­stance, that in the Offices of the Virgin there are many prayers unfit to offer to any Creature, and many Titles ascribed to her, which are groundless, absur'd, and derogating from the honour of Christ.

Secondly, I instance in the absur'd expressions which they use to the Cross for they direct their prayers not only to Christ crucified, but (if there be any sense in the expressions) to the material Cross so in the Office of the Cross, they say, O venerable Cross which hast brought Salvation to wretches, with what praises shall Office of the Cr [...]ss at Mat­tins in En­gl [...]sh. [Page 127] I extoll thee? for thou hast prepared unto us the Heavenly life? at the Prime they say, O Admirable lignum, in Coe­lesti curiâ fac nos cantare triumphum. O Admirable wood, cause us to tri­umph in the heavenly Court: now this is absur'd to ascribe that to the Cross, which is onely due to Christ▪ who by his sufferings on the Cross purchased Salvation for us, or to di­rect our prayers and praises to that which was only an inanimate Instru­ment of Christs sufferings: but if these expressions do not seem strange, there is worse behind. At the Feast of the Invention of the Cross they sing Br [...]viar. [...]bor. Fe [...]. Invent. Sancta Crucis., O Crux splendidor cunctis astris, mundo celebris [...]anctior universis, &c. O Cross more glo­rious than all the Stars, famous in the world, holyer than all things, which wast only worthy to bear the price of the world: Salva praesentem ca­tervam laudibus tuis congregatam Br [...]v. Roman. in Festo In­vent. & Exalt. Crucis.. Save this present company assembled for thy prayses: but how the Cross should be holyer than all things, how [Page 128] it could be call'd worthy to bear Christ; I understand not: what ex­cellency was there in that wood, which made it worthy to bear our Saviour? what worthy stock was it chosen from to touch his holy parts? as they sing in the Himn Vixil [...]a Re­gis *: or by what propriety, and † Domini­ca in pas­sione inter Himnos e­ditos Pa­ [...]s. 1552. congruity of speech can they direct their prayers to that material wood to save them, who were met to cele­brate its prayses? much like stuff if not worse r [...]mains behind in that Himn, O Crux ave spes, unica hoc pas­sionis tempore, auge piis justitiam, reis­que dona veniam *: [...]ayle O Cross [...] Breviar. Rom. Fest [...] In­vent. Sanct. Crucis. our onely hope in this passion time, increa [...]e righteousness to the godly, and give pardon to the guilty; but how can they say the wooden Cross is their only hope? how can they beg righteousness and pardon from it? if they tell us these are lofty fan­cies of pious wits, I must still wonder how their Church can allow such roving humors among their serious d [...]votions; or how these expressions [Page 129] which are designed for the praises of of the wooden Cross can by any to­lerable congruity be understood of Christ; or if they be disallowed that yet they should be retained in the Breviaries reformed by Pius 5. ano­ther of these we have in the Breviary of Salisbury, on the Feast of the In­vention of the Cross, Ara Crucis, Lampas lucis, vera salus hominum, no­bis pronum fac patronum quem tulisti Dominum: where they intreat the wooden Cross to make Christ pro­pitious to them. Such kind of pray­ers they have in their private de­votions, as to our Ladies girdle, O veneranda Zona fac nos haeredes vitae Aeternae, & ha [...]c vitam ab interitu conserva, habeamus te vires & auxi­lium, murum & propugnaculum, &c. O blessed girdle make us the inheri­tors of eternal life, keep our present life from destruction, O unspotted girdle of the unspotted Virgin save thine inheritance, be thou our strength and help, our wall and de­fence, our heaven and refuge: such [Page 130] also is the prayer to Veronica or the Picture of our Saviours bloody face on a napkin. Salve vultns Domini imago beata, ex aeterno munere mire decorata lumen funde cordibus ex vi tibi datâ; & à nostris sensibus tolle colligata, &c. here they pray that by the virtue given to that Picture it would infuse light into their hearts: and they conclude, nos deduc ad pro­pria O foelix figura, ad videndum faci­em quae est Christi pura, O happy fi­gure bring us to see the pure face of Christ: but what ground to hope for these blessings from insensible things? or to pray to them for these ends? or what assurance is there that such virtue is imprinted in them? and if there be no ground for such expressions, then they are unwar­rantable and absur'd.

Thirdly, I instance in their most sa­cred office of the mass, this them­selves confess was anciently corrup­ted, and many things crept in (ei­ther through the fault of times or [Page 131] mens negligence or wickednes) were far from the dignity of such a Sacrifice: Cone. Tri­dent. Ses. 22. Decr. de o [...]s. & evit. in Cel [...]b. Miss. and ꝑo. the council re­quired such things to be taken away, which either Covetousnes or irreve­rence, or superstition had brought in: accordingly the Missal was corre­cted by Pius the 5^th and after another review publisht by Clement the 8^th which is the Authentick Missal at this day, now in this I observe many things absurd, vain, or untrue I mention not the multitude of cere­monies which clog the service dis­tract the Priests thoughts, and reduce the simplicity of Christianity to the Jewish Paedagogy: as in the fre­quent Crossing themselves, in the very canon of the Masse the Priest is enjoyned to make 25 Crosses at several times, besides the signing himself with the Patten from the forehead to the Brest, and with part of the host he must make the signe of the Crosse thrice on the Chalice: as litle reason can be given for the Pax which must be given only to [Page 132] Magisttrates and noble persons Carem. Epis [...]op l. 1. c 24., or to be most eminent as Gavantus saies Part. 2. [...]it. 10., unless it were no matter to have Peace with the Poor, provided they could have it with the rich, a [...]d so for the Preists murmuring the words of Consecration, and when he places the Chalice on the Corporal for his saying with a low voice, as oft as ye do this do it in remembrace of me, and in the Close of the Lords Prayer speaking low, Amen: of these things they give so little reason that we may, with greater, judg them the fruit only of ignorance and super­stition: I shall speake only of the Prayers themselves. First, After the Of­fertory, when the Priest offers the wafer which he must afterward con­secrate, he saies, Suscipe sancte pater hanc immaculatam hostiam, quam offe­ro tibi deo vivo pro innumerabilibus peccat is & offensionibus meis Missal Rom. Pa­ris 1631 Ordo. Missae, receive Holy Father this immaculate host, which I thy unworthy servant offer to thee the true and living God for my innumerable sins, offences and [Page 133] negligences, &c. now I ask what they mean by this immaculate host which they offer for sin? either they mean the wafer, or the real body of Christ: they cannot mean this latter for the body is not under the species till after consecration, and the consecration (they say) is not till these words (hoc est enim corpus meum) be pro­nounced, and ꝑo. they cannot now offer the body, if they mean the wafer, then they offer to God bread for their sins, which themselves will confess is absurd. Secondly, There is a Prayer which begins Suscipe San­cta Trinitas, &c. And in this the Priest saies, he offers this oblation for the memory of our Saviours Passi­on, Resurrection and Assention, and in the honour of the Blessed Virgin, St. John Baptist, and the Holy Apo­stles Peter and Paul that it may profit them for their Honour, and us for our Sa [...]vation: now of what doth the Prayer mean? take it either of the Elements or of Christs body yet I understand not how they can offer [Page 134] for the Saints honour; how they can intreat God to receive Christs body in honour of his Saints; how an immediate act of adoration to God can be said to be profitable for their Saints honour; or if it may be pro­fitable to increase their glory, how it can stand with their own tenents, that it is impious to pray for a Mar­tyr, when yet they pray for St. Peter and Paul, ut iis proficiat ad honorem, but of this more afterwards. Third­ly, After the Consecration it is said, we offer unto thy excellent majesty of thy own gifts, a pure Host, a ho­ly Host, the holy bread of Eternal life, and the Cup of Eternal Salvati­on, super quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris, upon which things vouchsafe to look with a propitious and serene countenance, &c. Now this is absur'd, that we should pray that God would look propitiously on his own Son in whom he is all­waies well pleased: or that God would accept this Sacrifice of Christ, when it is that sweet smelling Sacri­fice [Page 135] which God allwaies doth accept. Indeed Bellarmine gives us an excuse for the harshness of these words, and faies, the offering in respect of the thing offered, and of Christ the principal offerer, alwaies pleases God, yet in respect of the minister or people who offer with him it may not please God, and ꝑo. they pray that God would look propitiously on this gift as it is offered by them: but this evasion will not serve, for they tell us, that the value of this Sacrifice is not ex opere operantis, from the condition or worth of the minister, but ex opere operato from the nature of the thing it self, be­cause it is done as the Law re­quires Bell. l. 2. c. 4. de Missa. [...] [...] [...] s [...]cundo., and ꝑo. it pleases God though he who offer it do not please him § terti­um est.; so that since the value of the Sacrifice is wholly from the thing that is offered, ꝑo. as it is offered by us or not, offered by us doth no way alter the acceptableness of it to God, but still the prayer must remain ab­sur'd, for they pray that God would [Page 136] look propitiously on the body and blood of Christ, and accept them, when God allwaies doth accept them, and can never be displeased with them. Fourthly, There is a fourth prayer, which begins supplices rogamus, &c. There they pray, that God would command these things to be carried by his holy Angels unto the high Altar in the sight of his Di­vine Majesty, &c. Now what are these things? if they say, the pray­ers of the faithfull; that cannot be meant, for this prayer is to the thing spoken of in the former prayer, and that was the body and blood of Christ, the holy bread of Eternal life, and the Cup of everlasting Sal­vation; if they say that they are the body and blood of Christ (as it is plain from the words that they are) then these have been long since in Heaven, and Christ lives there to make intercession for us, how then can they be carried up into Heaven? and ꝑo. he fixes another sense l. 2. de Missa. c. 24. Sect. respond [...]., that those expressions must be understood [Page 137] spiritually, and signifie only this, that the Angels by their prayers com­mend our obedience to God; but still he forgets, that the things here in the prayer are not our obedience, and service, but the body and blood of Christ: that there is no mention of our obedience and service in that prayer, but both this and the former prayer are connected with those words, we offer to thee a pure Host, an holy Host, an undefi­led Host, the holy bread of Eternal life, and the Cup of everlasting Sal­vation: for they subjoyne in the next words, upon which things vouch­safe to look propitiously, &c. and then follows this prayer, we humbly beseech thee, command these things to be car­ried, &c. it must then be meant of his body and blood; but how un­reasonable is it to desire the Angels may commend the Sacrifice of Christ with their prayers? or that their prayers should assist to render the Sacrifice of Christ acceptable? as if any thing should add any worth to [Page 138] Christs Sacrifice: but if this will not remove the incongruities of this ex­pression, Durand Rational. Div. Offic. l. 4. c. 44. [...]it. E. tells us, tantae profunditatis sunt haec verba, ut intel­lectus humanus vix ea sufficiat pene­trare: These are such profound ex­pressions that humane understand­ing can hardly pierce into them: well said, a good excuse for non­sense; to call it a profound expressi­on, or to condemn the weakness of our understandings when 'tis the absurdity of their words: these are fine things to please them, who are wont to admire every thing in the Romish Church; like those Courtiers which cry up the Princes stammer­ing for a grace in his speech: a strange thing, that those expressions must pass for most Divine, which have least reason, and sense.

Thus I have instanced in several absurdities, untruths and impieties in the Offices of the Romish Church, which justifie my third argument, That it is unreasonable to be obli­ged to believe that to be the purest [Page 139] Church whose publique Offices are very corrupt, but the Offices of the Romish Church are so, ꝑo.

MY fourth Consideration shall be drawn from the Irreconcile­able opposition of their prayers to their publique Doctrine: very many prayers which are contrary to their present Innovations are expunged, and many prayers yet retained can­not be reconciled with their pre­sent Doctrine, ꝑo. we have no rea­son to adhere to the present Romish Church.

First, Many prayers which were contrary to their present innovations are expunged, this is not only our complaint, but of one that lived, and died in the Roman communion Johannes Marsillius Defesadis Gio. Mar­silio. Della 4. prop. con­tra i [...] Card [...] Bellarmi­no [...] [...]aies, it is a thing known by all, that in the [Page 140] books of Councels, of Canons, and of the Doctors, yea in the Breviaries and Missals those places, are expun­ged, which speak in favour of the Laity, that they might see if they could establish from Antiquity, the opinion of the Popes illimited power in temporals; so that he who compares the Books Printed in 1530 and 1550, and those at present (i) at the time of the interdict of Venice, will won­der that we have found after such a vintage any gleanings in defence of our Prince: and ꝑo. first I will give you his Instance in the prayer con­cerning St. Peter in the commemora­tion of St. Paul June 30. where it was anciently said, qui B. Petro animas, ligandi & solvendi pontificium dedisti, this he saies, he saw in Breviaries which had been written above 200 yeares, and which had been printed about an hundred, and yet the Refor­mers of the Roman breviary have left out the word [animas]: will you see Bellarmines answer? in his reply to Marsillius he saies forsi la divina pro­videntia [Page 141] ha inspirato li reformatori, &c. Perhaps the Divine Providence hath inspired the reformers to take it away? but why must it be taken away; because (as Marsilius states the case) the Pope, designing the advancement of his Power that he might Challinge as St Peters successor a power in temporals, saw that this restriction was no way consistent with his design; for if the binding and loosing be properly of Souls, it must be a meerly Spiritual Power, and so no way consistent with that supereminent power in temporals, which the Pope and his Courtiers claimed: a good reason then to take this away, and a fine excuse to ju­stifie it: Gods providence must in­spire these reformers such an inspira­tion indeed as the Trent Fathers had, when if we believe the Proverb, the Holy Ghost came from Rome in a cloke­bag: Secondly, I will give that In­stance which the Arch Bishop of Spalato De. Rep. Eccles. [...] c. 5. n. 164. had observed in Bertram's book, when Bertram would prove [Page 142] that the bread and wine are figura­tively the body and blood of Christ, and though they are call'd the body and blood of Christ, yet there are such things said of them which are Cele­brated by the Church in a mistery, as cannot be said according to that manner they are known to exist, and ꝑo. they must be understood to be the body and blood of Christ in a figure, he proves this by two prayers in the Missal, which were said after the Com­munion, the first is, Pignus aeternae vitae capientes humiliter imploramus, ut quod imagine contingimus Sacramenti mani­festâ participatione sumamus: taking the pledg of eternal life we humbly beseech, that what we touch in the I­mage of the Sacrament we may also re­ceive by manifest participation: from hence Bertram gather'd, that a pledge, and an Image only signifying the things which they belong to, but not manifestly shewing them, ꝑo. that which is now made in the Sacrament is different from that which shall be afterwards manifested, ꝑo. that which [Page 143] the Church Celebrates is the body and blood of Christ, but yet as a pledge, as an Image, and when there is no more pledge or Image the truth it self, (i. e) the body of Christ will apear: now this Prayer is not to be found in the Missal saies Sspalato. Another he men­tions, Per ficiant in nobis Domine quae­sumus, tua Sacramenta quod continent, ut quae nunc specie geramus rei veritate capiamus: let thy Sacraments O Lord effects in us what they contain, that what we now hold in shew, we may receive in truth; from this he argues, there being a difference betwixt spe­cies and veritas (i. e) betwixt what is in shew, and what is according to it's true nature ꝑo. that body & blood of Christ which is here held by the Church differs from that which shall be glorified in the resurrection: this prayer is clipt saies Spalato, & instead of specie they read spe, (yet since that is opposed to truth in this place, it shews that we do not receive that which is truly the body of Christ according to its proper nature) and so it was read [Page 144] in their reformed Missals, in Antiqui­tates Liturgicae Sabbato 4. tempo­tum per Balthas. Beller. 1605., printed at Doway 1605. which the author saies he took à capite ad calcem out of the Roman Misal, the prayer runs, ut quae nunc spe geramus, &c. but I wave this latter, for the word [specie] is now re­stored in the Paris edition of the Missal 1631. Many more alterations in their Offices might be produced, which will evidence the innovations in the Doctrine of their Church, and which (I hope) will be effected by by some industrious person, who hath the opportunity of variety of choice Missals and Breviaries, and their other books of devotion, whereby to discover those alterati­ons of their present from their anci­ent Offices.

Secondly, I will rather instance in those passages yet retained, and are not reconcileable with the grounds of their present Doctrine: As, First, I instance in the private Masses, when the Priest communicates alone; for many are bound by the Statutes [Page 145] of their foundation as the Chantry Priests to say Mass for the Souls of their founders, many persons for af­fection, some by agreement (and the highest ordinary rate in these Countries, saies Fitz-Simon Of the Mass 1 book 2 part 12 chapt., is a shil­ling) say a Mass, and ꝑo. whether there be any to Communicate or no, yea though but one to answer the Priest, and sometime none Gavant. part. 2. tit. 2. n. 1., yet he saies Mass: and the Council of Trent though it wishes all who stand by would not only communicate by spi­ritual affection, but Sacramental participation of the Eucharist, yet it doth not condemn those Masses, in which the Priest communicates a­lone, but approves them, and com­mends them: now the prayers and rules of the Mass are no way recon­cileable with this Doctrine, and practice: for, First, If there be none to communicate, how can the Priest use this exhortation which is in the Ordo Missae after the prayer suscipe Sancta Trinitas? Orate fra­tres ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium [Page 146] fit acceptabile, &c. pray bretheren that my Sacrifice and yours may be acceptable: this exhortation (saies the Rubrick) must be said by the Priest with his voice toward the people; and his Tone a little raised, and in their private Mass all this is done, though there be none present: the exhor­tation supposes some communicating or at least some present, why must he say Brethren, if he supposes there needs be none, or at least but one? why should he raise his voice, when he can expect none to answer, un­less the stones say Amen? why must he turne to the people if it suppose a Mass where there are none, or but one present? Lastly, why must he say my Sacrifice and yours, if it did not suppose some joyning in the sa­crifice? Secondly, I instance in that exhortation, lift up your hearts with the response, habemus ad dominum: if we lift them up to the Lord, &c. so the Priest saies dominus vobiscum, the Lord be with you, the answer is, and with thy Spirit, now if in [Page 147] the framing this Office, it were not supposed that others were present to whom the Priest might direct the exhortation, and that they should return the answer it had been foolish to have appointed the use of these words: for its altogether vain, and rediculous to say, lift up your hearts when there is none to hear him, or to say, let us pray, when he prayes by himself, or the Lord be with you, when he speaks to the bare walls. Thirdly, I instance in the commemo­ratio pro vivis, where the Priest de­sires God to remember all those that stand by, whose faith and devotion are known to thee, for whom we offer, or who offer to thee this Sacrifice of praise, &c. Now this expression supposes there must be some that stand by, or else the Priest should be bound ri­diculously to pray for them that stand by, when there are none at all. Fourthly, I instance in the pray­er Supplices te rogamus, &c. there he prayes that as many of us as receive the body and blood of thy Son from [Page 148] this participation of the Altar may be filled with all Heavenly Benedictions and Grace: here the Prayer supposes some receiving, or if there be none to receive with the Priest, how can he say that as many of us as receive, &c? Bellarmin l. 2 de Missa. c. 10. resp. ad object. 10. thinks to solve this scruple by telling us, that these words are used for those who communicate at present, and if there be none then it must refer to those who are absent, who communicate elsewhere: but this will not serve, for the Prayer refers to those who communicate here and not elsewhere: for else how can it say as many of us? and as many as receive from this parti­cipation of the Altar? for the words [this participation] ex hac altaris participatione, restrain it to those who are now to receive. Lastly, I instance in the prayer after the Priest hath received, quod ore sumpsimus, &c. what we have O Lord taken with our mouthes, let us allso re­ceive with a pure mind, &c. Now how can they say this, unless they [Page 149] suppose some receiving? for if they only Communicate spiritually, as the Council of Trent saies, assisting with their prayers, then they can­not be said to receive it with their mouthes, besides he desires that what they have received with their mouthes, they may receive with a pure minde. And ꝑo. this receiving doth suppose that former receiving: so that we may from hence judge this to have been the Primitive instituti­on, that some should Communicate with the Priest, and that as Walafrid Strabo saies, it was only a lawfull Mass, in which there was the Priest, those that answer, and those who offer, and communicate; sicut ipsa compositio precum evidenti ratione demonstrat, as the frame of the prayers (saies he) evidently shews: and I add (as I have now instanced) that the expressions yet retained are contrary to their present Practice, and Doctrine.

Secondly, I instance in the Do­ctrine of merit, in this indeed I can­not [Page 150] see much difference betwixt the moderate Romanists and us, as Spa­lato De Rep. Eccles. l. [...]. c. 7. u. 8. and Forbes Consid. Modest a. l. 5. c. 4. observe, for they will tell us, that they account good works meritorious, not for the value, and worth of the work it self: but from Gods acceptation, promise, and appointment, and so Cassander Consult. ad Art. 6. de operibus bonis. saies, that the Schoolmen and other Ecclesi­asticks did not differ from this opi­nion, for they placed the force of the merit of their righteousness, in Gods free acceptation, and liberal promise, and that their righteous­ness what ever it was, was Gods gift, and due by right of service to him, &c. yet if we consult the Jesuits, and rigid writers among the Roma­nists, they will tell us, that our works do merit from the dignity of the work: so Bellarmine saies De Iu­stif. l. 5. c. 16., that it is com­munis & verissima Theologorum sen­tentia, that there is a meritum de con­digno, that there is a strict equallity betwixt the worth of the work it self, and the reward: and from Vasquez In 1 se­cundae. Tom. 2. Q. 114. Disp. 214. [...] 5. we have this assertion that good works [Page 151] of just persons are of themselves with­out any covenant or acception worthy of the reward of Eternal life, and have an equall value of condignity to the attaining Eternall glory. This opi­nion they think is backt by the Council which Anathematizes Conc. Tri­dent. Sess. 6. Can. 32. them, who deny that good works done by the grace of God, and merit of Christ, do truly deserve increase of grace and Eternall glory: and the interest of this opinion hath so far prevailed, that whereas in the ordo baptizandi cum modo visitandi, &c. Printed at Venice 1575, there was this question proposed to the dying man, Credis non propriis meritis, sed passionis Do­mini nostri Jesu Christi virtute & merito ad gloriam pervenire? dost thou believe that thou shalt come to glory not by thy own merits, but by the virtue and merit of Jesus Christs passion? and this was also proposed to him, dost thou believe that Jesus Christ died for our Salva­tion, and that none can be saved by his own merits, or by any other [Page 152] means, but by the merits of his passion? both these are commanded to be expunged by the Index expur­gatorius of Card. Quiroga Index. Expurg. per Card. Quirog. Madrit. 1584. & recus. Ha­noviae. 1611. 1584. and also by that of Cardinal Sando­val. 1612. This expression is also ex­punged out of Erasmus Annotations, in the first Chapter of St. Luke on these words they shall call me blessed; Then Gods name is glorified when nothing is ascribed to our own merits, but the whole to Gods mer­cy: this Doctrine of merit though disliked by the moderate sort, and hardly owned where they converse with Protestants is yet stifly maintain­ed as the common opinion in those Countries which are intirely Popish, seems to be countenanced by the de­cree of the Council, and more fully by those who have been imployed in purging Heretical books, yet not­withstanding all this, the prayers which may be found in the Offices are no way reconcileable with it; for though in their disputes with men, they pretend the merit of their [Page 153] works, yet in their Prayers to God they fly to his sole mercy: so they sing In dedi [...]. Sancti Mich. Archang. ad vespe­ras in Hi [...]. [...]ib [...] Christe. mundo corde, corpore Paradiso redde tuo nos solâ clementiâ: bring us by thy alone mercy to thy Paradise with clean heart, and body: and in the Prayer which begins nobis qu [...] ­que, in the Canon of the Mass, they beg, that God would bring them into the society of Saints, non aesti­mator meriti, sed veniae largitor, not esteeming their merits, but pardon­ing their offences: if there could be any exact merit, which from its own dignity deserves glory, why do they then fly to his sole mercy? and if the whole be not ascribed to Gods mercy, but mans merits, why do they beg that God would not weigh their merits but pardon their offences?

Thirdly, I instance in the Doctrine of Purgatory, with their Prayers for the dead, the Doctrine of the Ro­manists is, that the Souls in Purgatory are helped by the Suffrages of the Faith­full [Page 154] Conc. Trident. Sess. 25., for after Death those Souls which have not been throughly purged, in this life are carried into a place of torment, where they are detained till hey are throughly purged, † S. C. An­swer to Dr. Pierce. c. 10. Sect. 12. and then are carried into Hea­ven: and ꝑo. they pray for those that God will forgive their sins and asswage their sufferings*, &c. for those who are very good they give thanks, but for those who are in this middle estate they pray for pardon and Mercy, and that not only on the day of their Buriall, but also also the on third, on the seventh, on the thirtieth, and on the anniversary of their death they say Mass for their Souls, and by this hope to rid them quickly out of Purgatory: now the Prayers they use are irreconciliable with this Doctrine. For First, there are Prayers for those whom they believe to be in Heaven, even for the greatest Saints: this S. C. Answer to Dr. Pierce c. 10 Sect. 10. Con­fesses was anciently so, but then they were not such Prayers as were Made for the imperfect (i) for remi­sion [Page 155] of sins refreshment, &c. but for accession of glory to Saints already glorified, but there is more than so: for they use the same request for those, who (they say) are in Pur­gatory, and for those we all believe to be in glory: they pray for all that rest in Christ, that God would give them a place of refreshment, light, and peace Commem. pro. de­funct. in Can. Mis­sa.; now if the Saints rest in Christ then they are included in this Prayer, and they beg for the Saints who are glorified refreshment and peace, which is the request, (S. C. Saies) that is to be made for imperfect Christians. And wee find such a prayer, that God by whose mercy the Soul's of the faithfull rest, would grant to all thy servants here and every where resting in Christ, pardon of sin, that being absolved from all guilt, they may rest with † In cratio­nibus pro his qui in Caemit. re­quiese. thee for ever*: and there was a prayer for St. Leo, ut per haec placa­tionis officia illum beata retributio comitetur In festo Sancti Le­onis ora­tio secreta., that by these offices of atonement a blessed retribution may accompany him: what do these [Page 156] words signefie? not an increase of glory, but simply that he may have glory, not an addition of happines but simply that a blessed reward may accompany him: and how can the Sacrifice they offer here be un­derstood to be a thanksgiven for Leo, (as it must be for those who are very good) when it's call'd an office of atonement Secondly, there are no prayers in their publique offices for deliverance from Purgatory that they may be quickly eased of their paines, and delivered from torments, and if there be no prayer for speedy ease of those pains, and quick riddance from them, then their prayers are not suitable to their Doctrine. The Prayers are either First to prevent falling into puni­shment; so in the office of buriall, they Pray that God would receive the soul returning to him, and cloath it with an Heavenly Garment, and wash it with the holy fountain of eternal life: and in the next Prayer, they Pray in offic. Sepult. O atio: suscipe domine. that God would receive the [...]oul of his servant, which he [Page 157] hath called from the prison of the body, and free it from the Princes of darknes, and the places of punish­ments, that being delivered from the bond of his sins he may obtain the blessing of eternal rest, and light: and this Antiphona is sung, when the body is caried to the Church Offic. sepult An­tiph. sub­venite. help O ye Saints, meet him O ye Angils of the Lord receiving his Soule, and offering it in the sight of the highest: let Christ receive thee who cal'd thee, and carry thee into Abrahams bosome: and so in the prayer, O God to whom all things do live, &c. they in­treat that God would command the Soul of his Servant to be received by the hands of his holy Angels, and to be carried into the bosome of the Pa­triarchs: and in the prayer fac quae­sumus, &c. that he may not receive any recompence of his actions in pu­nishments, who hath in his desires kept thy will: I'le instance in one prayer more: Deus origo pietatis, &c. where they desire, that the Soul may indure no treacheries of the devil meeting him, that God would [Page 158] free him from the infernall Gulfe, and deliver him from the cruel bur­nings of a hot Hell, placing it in the pleasure of Paradise: Let it not feel O mercifull Father the heat of the flames, the anguish of punishments, or the horror of darkness, but being pre­vented by thy bounty may obtain to escape the Judgment of revenge. Now these prayers are not reconcileable with their grounds, for 'tis their Do­ctrine, that those who dye in an im­perfect state must necessarily go to that place of purgation; but now in those prayers, they desire that God would receive the Soul when it comes out of the body, and free it from the Prince of darkness, and places of punishments, and that it may not feel the heat of the flames, but being prevented by Gods boun­ty may escape the Judgment of re­venge. They pretend in their Do­ctrine, that by their prayers they free the Souls from the punishments they feel, for they necessarily must indure punishment, but the prayers [Page 159] themselves speak of preventing the falling into punishment. And ꝑo. these prayers cannot be re­conciled with their Doctrine. Secondly, there are Prayers, which suppose the soule as yet in it's passage, and ꝑo. they desire, that it may not fall into punishment, but God would place it in the land of rest and light. After the departure of the soul out of the body they pray, that God would receive the soul returning to him: let Michael the Angel of the testament be present with him and vouchsafe by the hands of thy holy Angel to place him in the bosome of thy Pa­triarch Abraham, that being freed from the Prince of darkness, and places of punishments, no man may be Con­founded with the errors of his nativity or ignorance, &c. Now though this may seem sutable, when the soul is newly gone out of the body, with those, that think there is some space of time betwixt the Souls departure, and its receiving its particular doome: but without such a conceit, [Page 160] how can they pray at the burial Offic. se­pult. Orat. Te Domine, &c., that God would give his servant, whom he cal'd out of the whirlepool of this world a place of refreshment, and light, that he may pass by the gates of Hell, and the punishments of darkness, &c. If at the burial they pray that it may pass by the gates of Hell, then the Soul is still in its pas­sage: and further they pray, that he may remain in the mansion of the Saints, and his spirit may receive no hurt: but if his spirit was in purgato­ry, then it would receive hurt: ꝑo. by this prayer I understand, it is yet in a capacity to receive no hurt, and ꝑo. the Soul must yet be in its passage: and so it is plain from the Absolution, where he saies, the Lord Jesu Christ absolve thee from all the bond of thy sins, and I pray thou mayest be absolved before the Tribunal of Jesus Christ; this supposes, that the Soul is yet in its passage to this Tribunal, or why should he pray for this absoluti­on before the Tribunal, if he hath al­ready received the sentence of that [Page 161] Tribunal? there is another prayer, that God would receive the Soul of his Ser­vant freed from Corporal bonds into the peace of his Saints, that being Tran­slated into the Region of the living, it may escape the place of punishment, and the fire of Hell: all this supposes that the Soul hath not yet its doome, but is now in its passage: and ꝑo. when the body is carrying to the grave, they desire, that the Angels would meet him, and re­ceive his Soul, and lead him into Para­dise, and the Martyrs receive him into their assembly; and when the body is laid in the grave, still they pray, that the Soul being prevented with the gift of thy bounty, it may obain to escape the Judgment of revenge In Oratic­ne Deu [...] Origo pie­tatis, &c.. Nor do they end here, but they use such expressions on the Trental and Anniversary, as in the Offertory, in Anniversario defuncto­rum: free them from the mouth of the Lyon, let not Hell swallow them up, let not them fall into the dark place, but let the standard bearer St. Michael bring them into the holy Light, &c. and the prayers in the commendatio animarum which [Page 162] suppose the Soul even then in its pas­sage are used at the Trental and Anni­versary: Offic. se­pult sec. usum. Sa­rum. in ru­brica. pag. 103. but why should those words which commend it in its passage be u­sed at these times, if they did not sup­pose the Soul yet in its way? thus these prayers contradict their received grounds of Purgatory, and prayer for the dead, for if the prayers they use, still suppose them in this passage, and not come into torment, then they must contradict their usual Doctrine, which concludes them presently in torment, and that by those prayers they may be speedily delivered from the torment they are in. Thirdly, There are other prayers which desire that the Soul may be freed from Eternal punishments, that Hell may not swallow them up, and they may not fall into the place of darkness Missa. [...] in die ob [...] ­ [...]s Offer­t [...]r.; and in the first prayer at that Mass they pray for the Soul of thy Servant whom thou hast commanded this day to depart out of this world, that thou wilt not deliver him into the hand of the enemy, nor forget it finally, &c. and be­cause he hoped and believed in thee, [Page 163] that he may not sustain the pains of Hell, but possess joyes everlasting. This prayer anciently run that he might not sustain paenas aeternas, but now this is altered in poenas inferni, yet still if they take the word Hell, for Purgatory, then they pray that God would not suffer it to come into Purgatory, which is con­trary to their own Doctrine, that eve­ry man not throughly purged in this life, must be purged in Purgatory. If they understand it of the Hell of the damned, and of eternal punishments, as there is a Prayer to be used at the fu­neral of a Cardinal, that by the assi­stance of Gods grace he may obtaine to escape the Judgment of everlasting revenge C [...]. r [...]m. F [...]l. Rom. l. 1. sect. 15. c. 1. f [...]l. 1 [...] 2., if they understand it thus, then I aske, whether they suppose those persons for whom they pray are very wicked, or indifferently good: if they be very wicked, then it would be absurd to pray for their deliverance from everlasting damnation; for it is certain (saies Bellarmine l. 2. de purgatori [...]. c. 18.) that the Prayers do not profit the damned, for they can not be helped: if they be indifferently good, such as dye in a [Page 164] state of grace though with some veni­al sins, then why do they pray that he might not fall into Hell? for this is al­ready certain: or that God would not forget them finally, but command them to be received by the holy Angells, and brought into the Country of Paradise; for it is certain, God cannot forget them finally, but the longest duration of Purgatory is only till the resurrection: or why do they pray that they may not sustain the pains of Hell, but possess joyes everlasting, and that they may escape E­ternal [...] revenge? if their only design was to free the Soul from the torments of Purgatory, why is there nothing of [...]ase in Purgatory? nothing of quick riddance from thence? (as they pre­tend from the apparitions of Souls which have been in Purgatory, and [...]aid they were freed by the Masses and prayers of the living) yea further, there is one prayer, which refers the pardon of sin to the resurrection: in the prayer which begins, Te Domine Sancte, &c. Offic. so­p [...]lt. sec. usum Sa­ [...]um. they pray, Let his Spirit receive no hurt, but when the great day of the resurrection comes, vouchsafe to raise him with the [Page 165] Saints and blot out all his offences and sins even unto the last farthing: now if by the prayers of the living they can procure pardon, then there would not be a farthing to be blotted out at the resurrection: and so this prayer would be useless All this while we meet with no prayer to put an end to their tor­ments, to free them quickly from the pains they are now in: they'le tell us indeed, they pray for refreshment and pardon of sins, and where must they be for whom they pray thus, except in Purgatory? but this doth not follow; for, First, There are ancient prayers ex­tant, in which they prayed even to give rest to them, whom they believed al­ready to be in rest: and therefore this doth not suppose them in Purgatory: so in St. James Liturgy (as it is cal'd) he prayes for all from Abel the just untill this present day, that God would give them rest in the kingdom of heaven: and so in Alcuinus Offic. per Ferias. Col. 228. Oper. Edit. Paris 1917., he prayes for the spirits of thy servants, and handmaids which thou hast called to thee from the beginning of the world, that thou wouldest vouchsafe to give them a [Page 166] lightsome place, a place of refresh­ment and ease. Secondly, I gather that they were not in Purgatory, from that commemoration of the dead, which S. C. mentions, for those who are gone before us with the signe of faith, and repose in the sleep of peace, and rest in Christ re­freshment, light and peace; for the Ro­manists suppose the torments to be greater, than the greatest torments of this life; now how do they repose in the sleep of peace, when they indure both a punishment of loss in the want of the sight of God, and a punishment of sense? how do they rest in Christ, when they are perhaps in far greater torments than they in this life? whereas Those who dye in the Lord rest from their labours Rev. 14. 13.. Thirdly, Though the prayer runs, that God would absolve him from his sins, yet still there is no necessity, that there should be a Purgatory; for those prayers may suppose as you see many do, the Soul yet to be in suspence, and in its passage to Gods tribunal, and that they use the commendatio ani­mae at the buriall, or Trentall which [Page 167] they did, when the Soul just went out of the body, so that these prayers ra­ther signifie a prevention of punish­ment, than any mitigation or ending of it: or again these prayers may refer to the resurrection, for it is not said, ab­solve him from the bond of his sins, that he may be presently released from Pur­gatory, but that in the glory of the resur­rection being raised among the Saints, he may breath again: and so we have such a prayer in the Pontifical, which begins, Deus cui omnia vivunt, &c. that God would command the Soul of his Ser­vant to be received by the holy Angels, and carried into the bosome of Abraham his friend and be raised at the last day: and what ever faults by the deceit of the devil be incur'd, thou of thy pitty and mercy wash away by forgiving them. Here is a prayer for pardon, but then 'tis at the resurrection, and thus though there are prayers for pardon, yet still they are no way reconcileable with their Doctrine. Thus I have finished the considerations which at present I intend and (perhaps if occasion offer it self (may add more: my conclusion is a [Page 168] request to those who begin to entertain such fair opinions of the Romish Church, that they would not exchange their Religion, before they consider, what they shall gain by the bargain: I see many who did not much minde to understand the duties of their own re­ligion, much less to practice them, are easily drawn over to the Romish party, and when they live like Atheists, at least to seem some body, they pretend to be Papists: I envy them not such Proselites, who add nothing to the re­pute of any side, but only number: nor do [...]e loose any thing by such Renega­do's whose practice disgraced their profession: the Church is purer when the dregs are purged out: Rome had at first wanted men to inhabite it if Ro­mulus had not opened an Asylum, and modern Rome would not be so much replenished, if there were not a San­ctuary to shelter such converts: 'tis hardly any matter what religion men profess if their practice be not answer­able, and [...] though they glory in their multitudes, yet many who seem to be of their religion, would prove (if they [Page 169] were [...]i [...]ted) of none at all. There are others well meaning persons, who (as in Charity I must judge) are moved ei­ther through affection to peace, or love to truth (as they think) to incline to the Romish Church: these I do not con­demn for their love to peace: 'Tis a noble design in imitation of the good Samaritan to poure Oyle and Wine into the Churches wounds and recon­cile brethren who are at od's: and God [...]orbid but we should meet them for peaces sake so far as we can with­out prejudice to piety and truth: but what benefit can we expect by our concessions? when they pretend (what ever we can judge from Scripture, rea­son or Antiquity) they cannot erre: yea the least concession that they have er­red or can erre, oreturns their foundation, destroies the Infallibi­lity of their Church. What hopes to reclaim them to moderation, when those who mediate for peace are looked on as enemies? Eras­mus, Modrevius and Cassander are in their account damnati authores and if they be not high flow'n Papists they [Page 170] account them (though they die in the communion of their Church) but only close Heriticks. I do not condemn those who are inquisitive after truth, and ready to imbrace that which is attended with sutable motives. To these [...] I offer these considerations, whether 'tis fit to adhere to that Church which requires all to believe those Doctrines, as necessary to salva­tion which are uncertain, and dubious? to imbrace those for Apostolical Tradi­tions which are not such? to receive those Ecclesiastical rites for wholsome and good, of which many are vain and foolish, and cannot be excused from Superstition? Let them consider, whe­ther it be fit to adhere to that Church, whose sacred Offices contain many un­truths and impieties? and Lastly, whose very prayers do in many things contra­dict their avowed Doctrine? he that can swallow down such considerations and turn Romanist, has (as I may judg) bidden adiew to his reason, as well as Religion.

Soli Deo Gloria.