AMONG the many Errors of the Church of Rome, there is one especially that puts a ba [...], not only to the Reformation of her self, but of all other Churches which depend upon her; and that is the Doctrine of her Infallibility: If she cannot err, neither she, nor any other Church that follows her conduct, can stand in need of being re­form'd; for where there can be no Error, there can be nothing amiss; and where there can be nothing amiss, there can be no need of Reformation.

'Tis therefore needful to remove this Prejudice, in order to the clearing of the way to the ensuing Discourse.

When the Romanists assert, that their Church is Infallible, and theirs only; we may in reason expect, that they should produce good Proof, that their Church is so highly privileged above all other Churches: This they say they do, and their Proofs they tell us are so convincing, that they may pass for no less than Demon­strations: But, alas, when we come to examine them, we find our selves strangely disappointed; instead of Demonstrations, we meet with nothing that amounts to so much as Probability.

Their pretended Proofs are taken from Scripture, from Reason, and from the Authority of the ancient Church.

I. Those from Scripture are many, but all of them as im­pertinent, as that of their Angelical Doctor, to prove that all men are not equally bound to have an explicite Faith, because 'tis said, Job 1. 14. that the Oxen were plowing, and the Asses were feeding be­sides them. For,

First, They do not prove that any Church now in being is Infallible.

Secondly, Much less that the Church of Rome is.

First, They do not prove, that any Church now in being is In­fallible. I say now in being, because we grant, that there was a time, when even particular Churches were in their Guides In­fallible, viz. while the Apostles liv'd, and took upon them the Government of particular Churches: And many of those Scriptures which the Romanists produce for the Infallibility of their present Church, peculiarly relate to that time, and to those Persons: For instance, these Promises, The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, John 1 [...]. 26. and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now; Howbeit when the Spirit of Truth is come, he shall guide you in­to all Truth, for the shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall Joh. 16. 12, 13. hear, that shall [...]e speak, and he shall shew you things to come.

'Tis plain, that these Promises are to be limited to the Apo­stles, and those Disciples only, who personally convers'd with our Saviour; because they were made to those to whom he him­self had spoken, and to whose remembrance the Holy Ghost was to bring those things he had before told them; to those to whom he had many more things to say, which they were not yet able to bear; to those who had been with Christ from the beginning; to those from whom Christ was now going away, [Page 5] and whom he had before told of his departure; to those to whom the Holy Ghost was to shew things to come; a Privilege which the present Roman Church does not, I think, so much as pretend to

And for those other Scriptures, which extend to succeeding Ages; tho they do for the most part concern the Catholick only, and not any particular Church; yet they neither assert nor promise any such thing as absolute Infallibility.

Let it be supposed, that St. Paul calls the Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth (for these words may as well be connected with, 1 Tim. 3. 1 [...]. and apply'd to that Summary of Christian Doctrine, which fol­lows) must the meaning needs be, that the Church cannot err? May it not justly lay claim to this Title. 1. If it do not actually err, tho it is fallible, and may err? If nothing may be call'd a Pillar that is capable of any defect, St. Peters Church in Rome, will have no Pillar left to support it. Or, 2. If it doth not err in things necessary to Salvation. That may be truly call'd a Pillar, that upholds all that is needful to the being of the House, tho it do not support every little part, but suffers here and there a Tile or a Stone to fall to the ground. Or, 3. If together with all necessary Truths it gives support to some Errors: As we frequently see those Pillars that uphold the Building; together with it, they also support other things, that are laid upon it, and are no better than a nusance and incumbrance to it. And such a Pillar of Truth, the Romanists must be forc'd to grant, the Universal Church hath sometimes been; for has it not for some ages maintain'd those Doctrines, which the present Church of Rome condemns as erro­neous? Tho the truth is, the Church here spoken of, was that in which Timothy was directed how to behave himself; and that was the Church of Ephesus, (or in the largest sense, that of Asia, of Mr. Ryca [...]t's present State of the Greek Church. p. 54. which Ephesus was the Metropolis) and that this Church hath fun­damentally err'd, must needs be granted, there being not one fa­mily of Christians now to be found in Ephesus.

From that Promise of our Saviour, that the gates of Hell shall Matth. 16 18. not prevail against his Church, They can by no means infer Infallibili­ty, till they have first prov'd that the gates of Hell prevail against every society; yea, against every person, that is not infallible: And when that shall be once prov'd, the gates of Hell will be so largely extended, and those who enter in at them so numerous, that 'tis to be fear'd, St. Peter will never more be put to the trouble of opening the gates of Heaven for any man.

'Tis true, Christ hath promised to be with his Church always, e­ven Matt. 28. 20. to the end of the World. But if all those with whom Christ is present, are infallible, then every sincere Christian in the world is so; and then what will become of the Popes Prerogative? When the poorest Mechanick, in case he be but an honest Chri­stian, will be as infallible a Guide of Controversies, as he is now by his Flatterers pretended to be.

And as little to this purpose, is that other Promise of our Sa­viour; Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. For if Christ's being in the midst of Matt. 18. 20. them, does make them infallible; since 'tis sure he will never be worse than his word: 'tis also certain, that if but two or three only shall meet together in his name in London, they will be when so met together, infallible. And if Infallibility may be had at home, and at so cheap a rate, great Fools are they, that will put themselves to the trouble and expence of travelling to Rome for it.

Those other Scriptures produc'd to this purpose; As, Tell it to the Church, and if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be to thee a [...] Matt. 18. 17 Heb. 13. 17. an Heathen and a Publican. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves, &c. are even to a prodigy impertinent: For whosoever from these and such like Texts shall infer, that any per­son or society of persons is infallible, he must also by the same rules of arguing conclude, that every Prince and subordinate Ma­gistrate; yea, that every Parent and Master is so; since the Com­mands of God to Hear and Obey these, are as express and per­emptory, as to hear and obey the other.

Secondly, And as the Scriptures alleg'd, do not prove any Church now in being to be infallible; so much less, that the Church of Rome is. For what proof is this?

Christ promis'd his Apostles that his Spirit should lead them into all Truth; therefore the Church of Rome is infallible: Is not the con­sequence altogether as good; therefore the Church of England is infallible?

Christ hath promis'd, that the gates of Hell shall not prevail a­gainst his Church. And is not this Promise as applicable to the Church of England, as to the Church of Rome?

The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth: So was the Church of Ephesus, when these words were directed to Timothy; and so was every one of the Asian Churches, as long as they [Page 7] continu'd Churches: and so is the Church of England now, and other reformed Churches, in a higher Sense than the Church of Rome (which together with the Truth she still upholds, does also maintain so many Errors, that the pillar and ground of Error, is a Title better becoming her) and so will the universal Church be in all succeeding ages.

Christ hath promis'd to be with his Church to the end of the World. But is this Promise limited to the Church of Rome? May not the Church of England put in as good a claim to it? And may not Christ be in the midst of two or three that are gathered to­gether in his name in England, as well as in Italy?

But as more especially relating to the Church of Rome, they tell us that Christ pray'd for St. Peter, that his Faith might not fail. 'Tis true; Luke 22. 32. but is every man infallible whose Faith fails not? Yea, suppose Christ had pray'd that St. Peter might be infallible; does it thence follow that the Church of Rome is so? Christ promis'd St. Paul, that no man should set on him to hurt him: And it seems as fairly to follow from this Promise made to St. Paul, that the Church of Rome is infallible, as from the Prayer made for St. Peter.

But St. Peter was that Rock Christ meant, when he said, Ʋpon Mattt. 16. 1 [...]. this Rock will I build my Church. That's a question: For St. Chrysostom understood by the Rock, not the Person but the Confession of St. Peter, [...]. In cap. 16. Matt. Hom. 55. and so did St. Cyril of Alexandria, and many more of the Fathers. And if the Pope be infallible, 'tis certain, that by the Rock is meant the Faith or Confession of St. Peter; for so Pope Felix III. hath expounded it Super ista confessione, a­dificabo ec­cles [...]am meam. Epi [...]t. 5. apud Binium, tom. 3. p. 603. Edit. Paris. 1636. But suppose that by this Rock is meant the person of St. Peter; does it follow that the Church of Rome is infallible? Yes, (say they) because the Church of Rome was built upon him: Whether it was or no is much dis­puted; but 'tis out of question that the Church of Antioch was, and that some years before there was a Church at Rome; if there­fore any privilege accrue from thence, the precedency must be gi­ven to Antioch.

But was not St. Paul a Rock, and all the rest of the Apostles, in the same Sense that St. Peter was? If then a Church becomes infallible, by being founded upon a Rock, how comes it to pass▪ that all the other Churches of Apostolical Foundation have err'd?

In brief, when they shall produce one Text of Scripture, that but so much as fairly intimates, that his Holiness of Rome is not as subject to err, as His Grace of Canterbury; that a Lateran [Page 8] Council is more infallible than a Convocation at Westminster, they will produce something, that is not altogether imperti­nent.

II. Let us now consider, whether their Arguments from Reason are more concluding. 'Twill I think be sufficient to examine that alone, which they most frequently insist upon, and make the greatest noise with; for if that shall be found to be of no weight, we may warrantably conclude, that all the rest are lighter than nothing and Vanity.

Now that is taken from the supposed necessity of an infallible living Judge, in order to the Peace of the Church. For though the Scripture (they grant) is a Rule infallible, yet since Contro­versies notwithstanding frequently arise about the Sense of it, by what means shall these be determin'd, and Sects and Heresies either prevented or suppressed, if there be no infallible Interpreter of it?

Which Argument supposes these three things.

• 1. That it is necessary, in order to Peace, that all Contro­versies which arise in the Church should be determined.
• 2. That Controversies cannot be determined without an infalli­ble Judge.
• 3. That such a Judge would certainly give a final Determination to them.

Neither of which Suppositions may be granted. For neither is it necessary to the Peace of the Church, that all manner of Controversies should be decided; and if it were, there may be other means by which they may be as well decided, as by an in­fallible Judge; and in case there were not, yet this Judge would not be so effectual to this purpose, as is supposed.

1. There is no necessity, in order to this end, that all sorts of Controversies should be determin'd; because every difference in opinion, does not necessarily infer the breach of Peace. How frequently do we meet with those who live in Peace together, and yet are in many things different in their Judgments one from another? This the Romanists themselves must of necessity grant; for they boast much of their own Peace and Unity, and yet all the World knows, that there are many Controversies among themselves, that are yet undetermin'd, and are likely so to re­main.

Nor is this true only of particular Persons, but the same is also verified of particular Churches; many of which maintain Peace between themselves, notwithstanding their different Judgments in many matters of smaller moment.

2. When Controversies arise which really distrub the Peace of the Church, is there no way to decide them without recourse to an infallible Judge? If not, then 'tis not enough that there be such a Judge, but 'tis also necessary that he should be clearly known: If there be, then such a Judge is not necessary; for that means cannot be necessary, without which the end may be at­tained.

1. If Controversies which create disturbance to the Church, cannot be determin'd without an infallible Umpire, 'tis also ne­cessary for the determining of them, not only that there be such an Umpire, but that we be assured who he is; for in this case not to be known, and not to be, are in effect the same thing: so that let there be Judges infallible never so many, our Contro­versies will be never the nearer an end, unless we are able to dis­cern who they are. Now I cannot imagine at present, how they can be known, except one of these two ways only; either by being clearly revealed by God in Scripture; or by God's bearing witness to their Infallibility by Signs and Wonders. But God hath neither expresly, nor by evident consequence, declared in Scripture, that he hath any where constituted such a Judge; much less hath he told us who he is, and where we may find him; till therefore they who pretend to it, prove their Infallibility by un­questionable Miracles, let them not expect that we should take them for such. Nor can they in reason blame us for this; since the disagreement in this point, is so great among themselves, that of all other questions, it seems most to stand in need of an infallible Judge to determine it.

2. If Controversies may be decided by other means, then what need of an infallible Judge? That cannot be necessary to an end, without which the end may be obtain'd. And that Controversies may be otherways determin'd is certain, because they have been. How were all the Controversies decided, and the Heresies sup­press'd, which sprang up in the early Age of the Christian Church? Were the Gnosticks, the Valentinians, the Novatians, the Mace­donians, the Donatists, the Arians suppress'd by those who took upon them to be Infallible? No such thing was in those days [Page 10] talked of; the Bishops and Councils that confuted them, did not so much as pretend to any such Privilege. The only means they had recourse to, was the infallible Rule, the Holy Scriptures; this was the Judge to which in all their Questions they appeal'd; and those who are so perverse, as not to be determin'd by it, should Elias come and take the Chair, neither will they be determin'd by his Sentence; for nothing can be objected to render the Scripture ineffectual to this end, but the same may with equal force be ob­jected, against the Definitions of an infallible Judge. And therefore,

3. An infallible Judge, is no such infallible means for the ending of Controversies, as is by the Romanists supposed. For,

1. When there was such a Judge in the Jewish Church, (I mean our Blessed Saviour) Did his Authority put an end to the Disputes between the Pharisees and the Sadduces, and other Sects among them? Yea, did not that Church then fall into the most damnable Error, by rejecting this infallible Teacher? 'Twill be said, the reason of that was, because they did not own his Infalli­bility; Be it so; and may not then any other infallible Guide be rejected? Can it be imagin'd, that any other Person's Infallibility, should ever be attested with more unquestionable Credentials than his was? But,

2. Neither those who have been own'd for Infallible, have been so successful to this purpose among them who have own'd them under this Character. For, 1. The Apostles were thought Infalli­ble, by those Churches which they planted; and yet Errors and Heresies sprang up in them, and they were divided into Parties. And tho St. Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, had endea­vour'd to reduce them to Unity; yet we find by his second Epistle that that had not put an end to their Divisions. Those who know they have a Guide that cannot err, may go astray as much as others, in case they refuse to follow his conduct. 2. The Romanists tell us, that their Church cannot err; and if they do indeed believe what they profess, it will be as effectual for the ending of Diffe­rences among themselves, as if it were indeed Infallible: And yet are there not many Controversies among them? And tho they upbraid us with our Divisions, are not theirs as many? And some of them such as are by the differing Parties reckon'd even Matters of Faith? If then their Infallibility were such a Sovereign Cure of Divisions, how comes it to pass, that no Reconciliation is made [Page 11] between the dissenting Parties among themselves? The truth is, so far is their pretended infallible Judge from lessening, that he encreases their Controversies; for no sooner was he talked of, but instead of deciding those that were already, many were raised, that were never before heard of. And therefore,

3. Such a work of the Holy Spirit upon mens Hearts, as would make them meek, and humble, and charitable, and heavenly minded, sincere Lovers of Truth, desirous to know the will of God, and resolv'd to do it, would be an expedient much more available for the healing of our Divisions, and promoting of Peace, than Infallibility of Judgment. For from whence come Wars and Fightings among us? come they not hence, even from our Lusts? Scarce ever was any Error broach'd, that created disturbance to the Church; but 'tis manifest it took its rise from, and was foster'd and maintain'd, either by the Lust of the Flesh, or the Lust of the Eye, or the Pride of Life: Let but mens fleshly, worldly, and devilish Lusts be once mortified, and our Differences will be com­posed; or if any remain, they will be such, as will be destructive neither of Peace, nor Charity. Should we therefore argue at the same absurd rate that our Adversuries do, might we not as fairly conclude, that God hath made every man Pious and Humble, and a Doer of his Will; as that he hath made one Man, or one Church Infallible?

But now, if that which is supposed by the Romanists were all granted: If it were necessary to the Peace of the Church, that all Controversies should be decided; if they cannot be decided with­out some infallible Umpire; and if it were certain that such an Umpire would give a final determination to them; yet doth it hence follow, that the Church of Rome must be that Umpire? Sup­pose the Church of England were Infallible, might it not be as ser­viceable to these Intents and Purposes?

III. This pretended Infallibility of the Church of Rome, hath as little support from the Doctrine of the Antient Christian Church, as it hath from Scripture and Reason. Tho the Romanists are wont (among those who will take their word) to boast much of the Authority of the Fathers; yet that they are not able to pro­duce so much as one, who speaks to their purpose, may be rea­sonably concluded from the Performances of Cardinal Bellarmine in this matter Bell. de Rom. Pontif. l. 4. c. 4., all whose Allegations are so impertinent, that the very reading of them may be sufficient to satisfie an impartial [Page 12] person, that nothing can be found in Antiquity that really favours this pretence. Yea, that the Fathers were of a contrary Judg­ment, and thought that the Church of Rome had no such para­mount privilege above other Churches, will afterward appear by plain and undeniable proofs.

If what the Romanists slily suppose, and make great advantage of in this Question, were true, (viz. that the Roman is the Catho­lick Church) it would not do their work. For tho the Catholick Church is infallibly led by the Holy Ghost, into all things necessa­ry to be believ'd and practis'd; yet we have no assurance, either from Scripture or Reason, that she shall not err in other matters. But that the Roman and Catholick are the same, is an opinion, not only condemn'd by the first Council of Nice Can. 6., and (which is more) was wholly a stranger to the first eight gene­ral Councils Novem primis seculis, qui­bus octo universalia concilia ha­bita sunt, nunquam auditum aut lectum, Romanam Ecclesiam aliâ notione aut significatione sump­tam, quam pro singulari & par­ticulari Ecclesia, atque primo membro Ecclesiae universalis. Ri­cher. l. 1. c. 13. p. 754. Colō. 1683., that is, unknown to the Christi­an World for 900 years after Christ: But 'tis more­over as absurd in it self, as to say that the part is e­qual to the whole; that the Church of London is the Church of England. And till they have prov'd the latter, we shall hardly be perswaded to believe the former. In the mean time, let them take it for a favour, that we grant the Church of Rome to be a part of the Catholick Church, it being a part so miserably corrupted.

I thought it needful to premise what hath been said, because when we charge the Church of Rome with Errors, and for proof of that charge, produce many particular Instances; her Advocates think it a sufficient answer to tell us; alas, Sirs, you are grosly mi­staken! as for those Opinions and Practices which you take to be Errors, 'tis your selves only that err in thinking them to be so; for the Church of Rome is so highly privileged, that Christ and his Apo­stles may as soon err as She. Having therefore remov'd this Obstacle out of the way, I now proceed to that which I mainly de­sign, which I shall comprise under these following heads of Discourse.

I. That the Church of Rome, is not only fallible, but hath actually err'd.

II. That her Errors were not slight, and in matters of small moment; but so gross and enormous when the Reformation was set on foot, that there was a necessity of reforming them.

III. That no hope was left, that the Church of Rome, would [Page 13] either reform these Errors in her self; or give consent to the re­formation of them, in any other Church that communicated with her.

IV. That every particular national Church had a right to reform it self without her leave.

V. That this right of the Church of England in particular, was most unquestionable. And therefore as a necessary Conclusion from these Premisses,

VI. That the Church of England was indispensably bound to reform her self, notwithstanding the prohibition of the Church of Rome.

I I. That the Church of Rome, not only may err, but hath actually err'd. This cannot be denied, if those in that Church have err'd, who (as they themselves assert) are the only persons that cannot err: For if their supposed infallible Guides have mistaken their way; how can it otherwise be, but that those who blindly follow them, must go astray too? Now let them place their In­fallibility where they please, either in the Pope, or in a general Council; or in both united, 'tis as certain that they all have err'd, as that both parts of a contradiction cannot be true.

1. For their Popes; 'tis a common thing with them to rescind each others Decrees, and to make Definitions as opposite one to another, as Yea and Nay. Thus Pope Stephen VI. abrogated the De­crees, and null'd the Acts of Formosus I. Platina in vita Steph.. Pope Romanus I. did the like kindness for Stephen Id. in vita Romani.. Pope John X. reprobated the Acts of Stephen, and restor'd those of Formosus Id. in vita Johannis X.. Pope Sergius III. was so great an Abhorrer of Formosus and his Acts, that he compell'd those Priests who had received orders from him to be re-ordain'd; nor would he suffer his dead Body to rest, but commanding it to be taken up, set it in the Pope's Seat, adorn'd with Priestly Robes, and pass'd Sentence upon him, as if he had been alive, and then pulling off the Sacred Vestments, and cutting off the three fin­gers with which he was wont to give his Blessing, commanded it to be thrown into Tiber, as unworthy of humane Burial Id. in vita Sergii. Luit­prand. l. 1 de reb. Imp. & Reg. c. 8.. Pope Nic. I. decreed that it was not fit for Clergy-men to bear Arms Nam cum discreti sint milites seculi à militibus Eccle­si [...]; non convenit militibus Ec­clesiae, militare secule, per quod ad effusionem sanguinis necesse sit pervenire. Gratian. Dist. 50. c. 5.. Pope Ʋrban the II. exhorted the Bishops to fight against the Amalekites, (viz. the Turks) Baron. an. 1095. n. 49., and Pope Boniface VIII. shewed himself to the peo­ple at the Jubilee, in an imperial Habit, and had a naked Sword carried before him.

Nor have they only contradicted one another, but the same Pope hath contradicted himself too. So did Pope Vigilius again and a­gain in the Controversie about the three Chapters Pet. de Marca dissert. de decret. Vi­gilii.. So did Pope Martin V. he confirm'd that Decree of the Council of Constance, which set a general Council above the Pope, and he set the Pope above a Council, in publishing a Bull against Appeals from the Pope to a Council Richer. Hist. Concil. general. l. 2. c. 3. s. 21, 23, 25.. So did Eugenius IV. Paul III. and many more.

Nor have they err'd only in points of small importance, but even in matters of Faith. Pope Liberius consented to the Arian Heresy, as S. Athanasius In epistola ad solitariam vitam agentes, p. 837▪ Par., S. Hilary Haec est perfidia Ariana, Anathema tibi à me dictum, [...]i­beri, & sociis tuis; iterum tibi Anathema, & tertio, praevarica­tor Liberi, Hil. in Prag. col. 426., and S. Jerom In Catalogo vir. illustr., inform us. Pope Honorius defended the Heresy of the Monothelites, and was condemned for a downright Heretick by the Sixth Richer hist. Concil. gene­ral. l. 1. c. 10. s. 23, 24., Seventh Id. l. 1. c. 11. s. 10. and Eighth Id. l. 1. c. 12. s. 21. general Councils. All which Coun­cils were confirmed by Popes: The sixth by Leo II. the seventh by Adrian I. the eighth by Adrian II. So that if the Pope confirming a Council be infallible, 'tis certain that the Pope hath not only err'd, but hath been a Heretick: that is, 'tis certain, that he hath damnably err'd, and that 'tis impossible he should err.

I shall propose two or three questions to the Romanists, the answers to which (one would think) might put an end to this controversie; because whether they be in the affirmative or nega­tive, they must of necessity grant, That either the ancient or mo­dern Popes have err'd. The questions are these. First, Whether Pope Gelasius did not err, when he forbad communica­ting in one kind only as a grand Sacrilege Comperimus antem qui­dam sumptâ tantummodo sacri corporis portione, à calici sacri cruoris abstineant, qui pro­culdubio quoniam nescio quâ su­perstitione docentur obstringi, aut integra Sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur; quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire. Gratian. de consecrat. dist. 2. c. 12.? Second­ly, Whether Pelagius II. and Gregory the Great did not err, when they condemn'd the title of univer­sal Bishop, as prophane and Antichristian Pelagii epist. ad Constan­stantinopol. Synod. Episcopos. Greg. M. lib. 6. Epist. 30.? Third­ly, Whether Pope Martin V. did not err, when he confirm'd the Council of Constance, which deter­min'd that a general Council was the Popes Supe­riour Concil. Constant. sess 4, & 5..

Now what Arts have the Romanists to recon­cile these palpable contradictions? They have a notable invention, by which Statuimus and Ab­rogamus do signifie the same thing, as the Gloss [Page 15] upon Gratian informs us they do Statuimus, i. e. abrogamus. dist 4. cap. Sta­tuimus.. For that the Pope may err, and that he cannot err, may both be true: He may err as a pri­vate Doctor, he cannot err as Pope: Hildebrand may quite fall from the Faith, Gregory the Seventh cannot so much as trip; His Errors (whatsoever they are) are ever personal, never judicial. Much like that distinction in the late times of Rebellion, between the King's personal and politick Capacity, by the help of which, they fought for the King, who fought against Charles Stuart.

But when the Pope determines judicially, does he follow his private judgment, or does he not? If not, he defines against his Conscience; he really believes one thing, and professes to believe another. If he does, then in case it happens that he err personally, he must of necessity err judicially.

But when may the Pope be said to err judicially, if not when he errs in making his Decrees? And so of necessity must one of those Popes do, whose Decrees thwart and oppose each other. If ever the Pope cannot err, 'tis (as Bellarmine asserts) when he teaches the Universal Church, in Matters concerning Faith Summ [...]s Pontifex cum totam Ecclesi­am docet, in his quae ad Fidem pertinent, nullo casu errare po­test. Bell. de Rom. Pontif. l. 4. c. 3., and so did Pope Vigilius, when he publish'd his Definition concerning the three Chapters Baron. an. 553. n. 208., which he himself afterward retracted.

In brief, if the Pope could not sin, we might then be perswaded to grant, that he could not err, since a Holy Heart and Life are the best Dispositions to a right Belief; but since the Popes are such great Strangers to Holiness (as they have commonly been, for a long time) who can imagine, that they, above all other men, should be so intimately acquainted with Truth?

2. That Councils, as general as any that have ever been, have err'd, the Romanists will be forc'd to grant, because there are many such Councils which are by themselves reprobated Bell. [...]e Con­cil. l. 1. c. 6.. 'Tis to no purpose to tell us, that those are such as were never con­firm'd or approv'd by the Pope; for if a General Council, as such, is Infallible, it is so whether the Pope confirm it or not. Besides, the Council hath done its work, and therefore hath err'd or not err'd, before it is confirm'd by him. In case therefore it hath err'd, his Confirmation cannot make it not to have err'd; if it hath not err'd, there is no need of it to that purpose.

But some will say, the Popes Confirmation doth not make the Council not to have err'd, but declare it; and thereby gives assu­rance to all Persons, that it hath not err'd. It seems then, that a General Council may err, or else what need the Pope to declare, [Page 16] that it hath not err'd? But if the Pope himself be not Infallible, how can I be e're the more sure that a Council hath not err'd, be­cause the Pope approves it? And what if the Pope be an Heretick, (as Honorius was) can a Council be thought the moreor less Or­thodox for being confirm'd by him? Should the Council condemn his Heresie, and vindicate the Truth, can it be supposed that he would confirm it?

But that the Popes rejecting or approving, is no certain Argu­ment that a Council hath err'd or not err'd, is certain; because if it were, that which is Truth to day, may be Error to morrow; because the same Council which hath at one time been condemn'd by the Pope, hath at another time been confirm'd by him: For instance, the Fifth General Council, which was first condemn'd, and afterward approved by Pope Vigilius Pet. de Marca Dissert. de Epist. Vi­gilii..

3. That General Councils confirm'd by the Pope, have actually err'd, is no less manifest. For, 1. They have made Decrees, so apparently contradictory to the plain Words and Sense of Holy Scripture, that no impartial Person can any more question it, than he can, whether Theft be forbidden by the Eighth Command­ment. So did the Council of Constance confirm'd by Pope Mar­tin V. and the Council of Trent confirm'd by Pope Pius IV. The former in the Decree for Laicks communicating in one kind only, notwithstanding (as themselves acknowledge) that Christ insti­tuted the Sacrament in both kinds, and deliver'd it in both to his Disciples Concil. Constant. Sess. 13.; The latter in decreeing, that the Divine Service should not be in the vulgar Tongue Concil. Tri­dent. Sess. 22. c. 8., in plain contradiction to what St. Paul prescribes in the fourteenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. 2. General Councils confirm'd by Popes, have made Definitions and Decrees plainly contradictory one to the other. The sixth General Council was confirm'd by Pope Adrian I. the Council of Trent by Pope Pius IV. The for­mer defin'd that Marriage was dissolv'd by Heresie Canon. [...]2.; The latter that it was not Concil. Trident. Sess. 24. Can. 5.. The Council of Constance confirm'd by Pope Martin V. decreed that a General Council was superior to the Pope Sess. 4. & 5., the last Lateran Council condemn'd this Decree Co [...]c [...]l. La­teran. Sess. 11.; 3. A General Council confirm'd by one Pope, hath been con­demn'd by a General Council confirm'd by another: As the Council of Basil confirm'd by Pope Nicolas V. was esteemed a Schismatical and Seditious Conventicle, and reprobated by the last Lateran Council confirm'd by Pope Leo X. Binii notis in Concil. Con­stantiens. B [...]ll. de Concil. Au [...]t. l. 2. c. 17., which at Rome [Page 17] is accounted a General Council. So that unless Errors become Truth, and Contradictions be reconciled when determin'd by a Pope and Council, we may conclude, that not only the Pope himself, but a General Council confirm'd by him hath err'd.

It plainly appears by what hath been said, that those have actu­ally err'd, whom the Church of Rome supposes to be her only in­fallible Guides: From whence it unavoidably follows, that the Church of Rome hath err'd; First, in all those Points, which have been erroneously defin'd by them; Secondly, In supposing them to be Infallible.

I shall not stay to shew, of what use Councils, either General or Provincial, are; how far their Authority extends, and what great Benefit may accrue to the Church by them, tho they be sup­pos'd not to be Infallible: But shall proceed to the next Propo­sition, viz.

II II. That the Errors of the Church of Rome, were not slight, and in matters of small moment; but so gross and enormous, when the Reformation was set on foot, that there was a necessity of reform­ing them. This will be evident,

First, By unquestionable Testimonies.

Secondly, By taking a particular view of the Errors themselves.

First, By Testimonies of unquestionable Authority; of Persons who could neither be mistaken through Ignorance, nor byass'd by Interest or Affection, to represent Matters worse than indeed they were: But who were on the contrary, as well acquainted with the State of the Roman Church, as any Persons in the World; who were promoted to the greatest Honours in it; whose worldly In­terests ingaged them above all other men to maintain its Reputa­tion and Authority; and who not only liv'd, but died in Commu­nion with it. Such were their learned Doctors, their Bishops and Cardinals, their Princes and Emperors, their Popes and General Councils; tho the two last are not to be reckon'd for single Wit­nesses, but for the Voice of their Church; the one being their Church Representative; the other (according to their Divinity) their Church Virtual. Of those many which offer themselves, I shall content my self to produce a few; and those shall be such as were either cotemporary with, or who liv'd within about a hundred years of the Reformation, passing over those who were at a greater distance from it.

John Gerson, the renowned Chancellor of Paris, in a Sermon to the Council of Constance, applies to the modern Church of Rome, these words of the Prophet Ezekiel: Thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and plaiedst the Harlot, because of thy renown; and pour'dst out thy Fornications on every one that pass'd by. And in all thy Abominations, thou hast not remember'd the days of thy youth. Thou hast built thy bro­thel house at every head of the way, and hast made thy beauty to be ab­horr'd. Behold therefore I will deliver thee into the hands of those that hate thee. And after he had told them, what were the sad Symp­toms of approaching Ruine, he advises them to a great and notable Reformation of Manners, as the only means to prevent it John Ger­son Serm. de [...]ign [...] ruin [...] Ecclesiae.. And because, saith he, some may say, that the Church is founded upon a Rock, and therefore in no danger of ruin; He declares more particularly, what were those Enormities, in which the Church­men especially needed to be reform'd, and then exhorts the Coun­cil, either to reform all Estates of the Church in a General Council, or com­mand them to be reform'd in Provincial Synods; that by their Authority the Church might be repaired, and the House of God purg'd from all Ʋnclean­ness, Vices and Errors Declarat. Defect. viror. Ecclesiast..

The same Author earnestly press'd Pope Alexander V. to set himself to reform those Corruptions and Abuses, which (as he says) were the Plague of the Church, and without the removal of which, 'twas in vain to expect Peace Serm. coram Alexand in die Ascens Domini..

Nic. Clemangis, another Parisian Doctor, writ several Books upon this Subject, in which he represents to the World, the de­plorable State of the Roman Church, and the necessity of Re­forming it De Corrup­to Statu Eccle­sia, & de Repa­ra [...] & Ru­in [...] Eccles..

Add to these single Testimonies, the solemn Appeal of the whole University of Paris, from Pope Leo X. to a General Coun­cil, in defence of the Pragmatick Sanction. In which they set forth, how that the Councils of Constance and Basil made many De­crees, especially about the Reformation of the Ecclesiastical State, as well in the Head as in the Members, which in those days espe­cially, seem'd to stand in need of Reformation. And how among other things, the Sacred Council of Basil consider'd, how by the antient Fathers, Sacred Canons and wholsome Decrees were made for the happy Government of the Ecclesiastical State, which as long as they were observ'd, the vigour of Ecclesiastical Discipline continued, Religion, Piety and Cha­rity flourish'd. But after that men through Ambition and Covetousness, began to contemn the Decrees of the Holy Fathers, there follow'd Deformi­ties [Page 19] in the Church, many of which they afterwards enumerate, and then appeal from the Pope to a future General Council Fascic. re­rum expe [...]end. ac sugiend. Richer. Hist. Concil. Gene­ral l. 4. part 2. p. 84.. And 'tis ob­servable, that this Appeal was made in the year 1517. the very same year in which Luther began to preach against the horrible Abuses of Indulgences.

If we pass on to Bishops and Archbishops, tho their Interest in­gag'd them more strongly to oppose it, yet we shall find several even among them, who were so sensible of the necessity of Reformation, that they earnestly call'd for it, and endeavour'd to promote it.

Frederick Archbishop of Salerno, Jerome Archbishop of Brunswick, and Joh. Matth. Gibertus Bishop of Verona, plainly declar'd, that they had a great Sense of the Corruptions of the Church, by the Arti­cles of Reformation, which (together with the rest of the Select Council) they deliver'd to Pope Paul III. Richer. Hi [...]t. Concil. General. l. 4. part 2. p. 136..

In a Book Intitled, Onus Ecclesiae, written by John Suffragan Bi­shop of Saltzburgh, in the year 1519. (that is, but two years after Luther began the Reformation) we have for many Chapters together, a most direful Description of the corrupt State of the Church Onus Ec­clesi [...]. c 19, 20, 21, &c..

In the Council of Trent the Bishop of Conimbria said; For these 150 years the World hath demanded a Reformation in the Head and the Members, and hitherto hath been deceived; that now it was time they should labour in earnest, and not by Dissimulation History of the Council of Trent, l. 6. p. 558.. And Dudithius an Hungarian Bishop, pray'd the Hungarians and Polonians, That for God's sake, and for the Charity every Christian oweth to the Church, they would not abandon so honest, just and profitable a Cause, but that every one would put down in writing, what he thought might be constituted for the Service of God, without any respect of man, not reforming one part, but the whole Body of the Church, in the Head and the Members P. 5 [...]8..

If from Bishops we ascend to Cardinals; tho to their Pride and Luxury, and Pomp and Grandeur, nothing could give a greater blow, than a due Reformation; yet to such a wretched State was the Church reduced, that many of them, did not only acknowledge the necessity of Reforming it, but in some measure contributed their endeavours toward it.

Gaspar Cardinal Contarene, John Peter Cardinal Theatine, James Cardinal Sadolete, and Reginald Pool Cardinal of England, were of the number of the Select Council, that presented the Articles of Re­formation to Pope Paul III. Richer. Hist. Concil. General. l. 4. part 2. p. 156..

The College of Cardinals at the death of Alexander VI. before they entred the Conclave for the Election of a new Pope, took an Oath, that if any of them should be chosen, he should imme­diately before the Publication of his Election, bind himself under pain of Perjury and a Curse, to call a Council within two years for the Reformation of the Church Richer Hist. Concil. General. l. 4. part 1. c. 2., which Oath was taken by Julius II. Id. l. 4. part 1. c. 3. p. 334., who was chosen Pope; and when it appear'd after­ward, that he made no conscience of keeping it (seven years having pass'd without any mention of a Council) in the year 1511. nine Cardinals who had withdrawn themselves from Rome, by reason of his Insolencies, by the assistance of the Emperor Maxi­milian, and Lewis XII. King of France, call'd the Second Pisan Council to that purpose Id.. Petrus de Alliaco Cardinal of Cam­bray, wrote a Book for the Reformation of the Church Fascic. re­rum expetend. a [...] fugiend.; and Ludovicus Cardinal of Arles, who presided in the Council of Basil, zealously endeavoured it. The Cardinals who call'd the first Pisan Council, to extinguish the Schism rais'd by the two Anti-Popes, Benedict XIII. and Gregory XII. vow'd, that they would to the utmost of their power procure, that he that should be chosen Pope, should reform the Church; and that till a due and sufficient Reformation of the universal Church was made, as well in the Head as in the Members, he should not suffer the Council to be dissolv'd Richer. Hist. Concil. General. l. 2. p. 102..

Tho the Testimonies already produc'd are beyond Exception, yet behold greater Witnesses than these; I mean Popes themselves, who above all men in the World abhor'd all Proposals of Re­formation, as that which would throw them down from their usurp'd Dominion, and put a stop to their lawless Tyrannies. To such an Excess were the Romish Corruptions grown, and so evident was the necessity of reforming them, that they were forc'd to confess it, who most desir'd to deny it.

To this purpose Paul III. appointed a select Council of Pre­lates, to collect those Abuses which were most Notorious and Pernicious, and present them to him, that he might correct them Id. l. 4. part 2. p. 136.. Pope Marcellus II. said, that he resolv'd to make a severe and intire Reformation, but died before he could let the World know, whether he intended to be as good as his word Hist. Counc. of Trent. l. 5.. Paul IV. who succeeded him, promised to reform not verbally but really, the Head, Members, Clergy, Laity, Princes and People Hist. Counc. of Trent. l. 5.. Alexander V. as soon as he was chosen [Page 21] by the Pisan Council, promised to set himself to the Work, and to chuse good and learned Men out of every Nation to con­sult with the Cardinals about it Concil. Pi­san. sess. 21. apud Richer.. Pope Adrian VI. was free and ingenuous in confessing the abominable Corruptions of the Church, and especially of the Court of Rome, and profes­sed that he took the Papacy upon him, to the end that he might reform the Universal Church Sleidan Comment. l. 4. Richer Hist. Concil. general. l 4. par. 2. p. 129 Fascic. re [...]um expetend, &c. f. 173..

What Testimony of greater Authority can be desired, than these already mentioned, unless it be the concurrent voice of the Church representative, in a general Council? To which I now proceed.

The first Pisan Council (as it is commonly reckoned, though it was indeed the second) were resolved to reform the Church; which Alexander V. (as was said before) who was chosen by, and presided in that Council, promised to assist them in Concil. Pisan. sess 17. & 21. apud, Richerium; apud Binium, sess. 16, & 20.. The Council of Constance, which followed five Years after, decreed; That the Pope which was then to be chosen, should together with the Council, or those which should be deputed by the several Nations, reform the Church, before the Council should be dissolved; and the matters about which it was thought fit the Reformation should be made, were reduced to eighteen Heads Concil. Constant. sess. 40.. In the Council of Basil, the Pope gave his Legate full power of concluding all such things as appertained to the re­formation of the Ecclesiastical State Concil. Ba­sel. sess. 1. Bin.. And whereas there were six things which that Council resolved mainly to prosecute, two of them were these, 1. That the Church should be reformed in the Head and Members. 2. That the antient Discipline, as much as possible, should be restored Richer. hist. Concil general. l. 3. c. 2.. The second Council at Pisa declared, That the reformation of the Church was most necessary, and passed this Decree upon it: That the Holy Synod would not, nor could dissolve it self, till the Universal Church should be reformed, both in Faith and Manners, as well in the Head as in the Members Sess. 3. apudi Richerium, l. 4. par. 1. p. 430.. Where it is observable, That the Reformation decreed by this Council, as so highly ne­cessary, did extend to Faith, as well as to Manners: And so did also that which was required by many other great Men of the Ro­man Communion, as shall be afterward shewed, when I descend to particulars.

It cannot be expected, that I should ascend higher in the Ec­clesiastical State, since a general Council is the highest Authority [Page 22] of the Church on Earth; by which we see the necessity of a Re­formation is confirmed; and that not by one single Council on­ly, but by four successively; three of which were confirmed by Popes; The first Pisan by Alexander V. the Council of Con­stance by Martin V. the Council of Basil by Nicolas V. and so much of it as concerned the Reformation (and much more) by Eugenius IV. who was deposed by it. If therefore a Ge­neral Council, confirmed by the Pope, cannot err, it is infal­libly certain, and (according to the Principles of the Church of Rome) an Article of Faith, That the Reformation of the Church was necessary.

Should we now pass from the Clergy to the Laity; from Bishops, Cardinals, Popes and Councils, to Secular States, Kings and Emperors, we should find, That they were also highly sensible of the Corruptions and Abuses, Usurpations and Oppressions of the Church of Rome, and many of them zealous and active in their endeavours to reform them.

What great complaints were made, by many of our Kings of England, against the Encroachments of Rome? How often did they petition the Pope for a redress? but finding no relief from thence, Edward the Third, and Richard the Second, did in part right themselves and their Subjects, by the Statutes of Provisoes and Praemunire 27 Edw. 3. c. 1. & 25 Edw. 3. 16 Rich. 2. c. 5. & 13 R. 2. c. 3. See Cook upon these Statutes, Institut. par. 3. c. 56..

Charles VII. King of France, as a Fence to the French Church against the Mischiefs which flowed from the Court of Rome, set up the pragmatick Sanction, which when Pope Pius II. endeavoured to overthrow, he appealed from him to a General Council Richer. Hist. Concil. general. l. 4. par. 1. c. 1. p. 36, 37, &c.. Lewis XI. was indeed decoyed by the Popes fair Promises to revoke that Sanction; but soon after seeing his errour, he commanded it again to be observed Richer. Hist. Concil. general. l. 4. c. 1. s. 13.. After the death of Lewis, the three Estates of the Kingdom, assembled at Tours, besought Charles VIII. who succeeded him, to maintain the Pragmatick in its full strength Id. s. 15.: Which he not only consented to, but resolved to make a further progress in reforming the Church, and to that purpose consulted the College of Divines at Paris Id l. 4. c. 2.. Lewis XII. who follow­ed next, coyned his Money with this Inscription, Perdam [Page 23] Babylonis nomen, I will destroy the name of Babylon Th [...]ani Hist. l. 1 p 11.: by which he plainly declared, what his Judgment then was of Rome.

The zeal of Sigismund the Emperour for the Reformation was abundantly manifest, by his indefatigable pains in procuring the Council of Constance, and assisting in it: By protecting the Coun­cil of Basil against the attempts of Eugenius, and by labouring with other Princes to promote it; but especially by that Re­formation he made in many things himself. Maximilian I. made bitter Complaints of many scandalous Abuses of the Roman Court, and commanded the redress of them under pain of his heavy displeasure Fascic. re­rum expetend. a [...] fugiend. s. 170.. The Emperor Ferdinand proposed to the Council of Trent, by his Embassadors, twenty Points concerning Worship, Manners and Discipline, which he desired might be reformed History of the Coun­cil of Trent, l. 6. p. 513.; and in a Letter to the Pope, and another to his Legates in the Council, earnestly pressed for an effectual Reformation l. 7. p. 682..

The Princes of Germany, at the Diet at Nuremberg, in the Year 1523. in their Answer to Cherogat the Popes Nuncio, in­sisted upon the reforming of Abuses, and correcting of many Errors and Vices, which by long tract of time had taken deep root; for the effecting of which, they demanded a free and ge­neral Council. And those intolerable burdens (as they called them) laid upon them by the Court of Rome, they reduced to an hundred Heads Sleid. com. l. 4. Fascic. rerum expetend. ac fu­giend. History of the Council of Trent▪ l. 1., which they called the Hundred Grievan­ces of the German Nation, and presented them to the Pope, pro­testing that they neither would nor could endure them any longer.

To conclude this Head; to so monstrous a deformed state, was the Western Church degenerated, that the Prince, the Priest, the Clergy, the Laity; Men of all Conditions and of all Nations: Yea, (if the infallible Oracle, Pope Adrian the Sixth, spoke truth) the whole World groaned after a Reformation Richer. l. 4. par. 2. p. 130..

Secondly, The necessity of which will be further evident, by taking a particular view of the Corruptions and Errors themselves, which for methods sake, and to avoid confusion, shall be reduced to four general Heads:

• 1. Corruptions in Doctrine,
• 2. In Worship,
• 3. In Manners,
• 4. In Discipline.

In treating of which it will plainly appear, that their Errors were not small, and of light importance; but so gross, and in matters of such high moment, that there was an absolute necessity of re­forming them.

1. Gross Corruptions in Doctrine. Many Doctrines were imposed as Articles of Faith, which have not the least Foun­dation in Scripture, Reason or Primitive Antiquity; and many others, which are not only Strangers to all these, but contrary to the common sense and Experience of Mankind. I shall instance in some of them.

(1.) The Infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome. We have before seen, that this Doctrine hath no Foundation in Scri­pture (and by consequence can be no Article of Faith): Yea that there is no pretence of Reason, why the Bishop and Church of Rome should be infallible, rather than the Bishop and Church of Constantinople; and all those fine flourishes they are wont to make, of the expediency of this Doctrine, for the ending of Con­troversies, and the safe conducting of Souls to Heaven, may be as well accounted for, by making the Church of England, or any other Church infallible.

That no such Doctrine was owned by the antient Church, we may be assured; both because the Fathers in those many Here­sies, which in their times arose, never betook themselves to this easie and compendious remedy for the suppressing of them, but chose the more tedious and laborious way of confuting them by Scripture, by Reason and Catholick Tradition; and because the Asian and African Bishops, did in some Points so resolutely dis­sent from the Roman Bishop and Church, that they chose rather to break Communion, than to comply with them therein.

Had any such thing in those dayes been believed, would the African, Illyrican and Dalmatian Bishops, have renounced Commu­nion with Vigilius Bishop of Rome, for consenting to the condem­nation of the three Chapters Petrus de Marca disser­tat. de Epist. Vigilii, s. 8.? Would the blessed Polycarpus have dissented from Pope Eleutherius? Irenaeus from Pope Victor? S. Cy­prian from Pope Stephen? Can any Man who is not forsaken of his Reason, imagine, That such Men as these, would have beha­ved themselves so towards the Pope as they did, had they not thought themselves as infallible Judges as he?

But what need I contend for this, when such great men of the Church of Rome, as Nilus Archbishop of Thessalonica, Gerson Chancellor of Paris, Almain, Alphonsus de Castro, yea Pope Adri­an VI. himself teach us, (as even Bellarmine himself acknow­ledges) B [...]ll. de Rom. Pontif. l. 4. c. 2. that the Pope may not only err, but be a Heretick, yea, and teach Heresie too, if he define without a General Coun­cil? And when a General Council says, 'tis certain the Pope may err Concilii Basil. Respons. Synodal. de Au­thorit. Concil. general. supra Pap. Richer. l. 3. c. 2. S. 6.? And what that Council says of the Pope, is experimen­tally verified of a Council confirm'd by the Pope, (as hath been before prov'd).

Nor is this Doctrine to be rejected, meerly because it is noto­riously False; but more especially because of its horrid Conse­quences, as it opens the door to, and gives protection to any other the most palpable Error, both in Doctrine and Practice. For if this be once granted, there is no remedy, but we must believe Darkness to be Light, if the Church of Rome says it is so. Yea, a Thomas Becket, a Garnet, or any other the most execrable Traitor, must be worshipt for a Saint, when the Pope is pleas'd to canonize him.

(2.) Their Doctrine of the Popes sovereign Power over the uni­versal Church: That every Christian under pain of Damnation, is bound to be subject to him; that no Appeals may be made from him; that he alone is the supream Judge over all Persons, in all Causes Ecclesiastical, but that he himself can be judged by no man.

This Doctrine hath not only been defin'd by Popes themselves, (as well as their Flatterers) and many hundreds of years together put in execution by them; but hath moreover been establish'd by such Councils as are by the Romanists accounted General Concil. Flo­rent. p. 85 [...]. tom. 8. apud Binium Concil. Lateranens. V. Sess. 11.. And yet is not only destitute of all Authority from Scripture, but much may be found in Scripture against it; And not only in Scripture, but 'tis plain from Church History, that the Bishops of Rome, in the early Ages of Christianity, had no Jurisdiction beyond their own Province; that for the first 300 years, there were but two only, viz. Victor and Stephen, that took upon them to censure Persons that were of another Diocess, and that they themselves were severely censured for it by other Bishops; That the eight first General Councils, were all both call'd and confirm'd, not by Popes, but by the Emperors Richer. Hist. Concil. general. l. 1. c. 13. p. 753. Review of the Council of Trent. l. 3. c. 1. & 2.; That the Pope hath been oppos'd in many Councils, and many Synodical Decrees have been pass'd [Page 26] full sore against his will As in the Council of Chalcedon, the second at Constantino­ple, the Coun­cil of Con­stance, of Ba­sil, &c.; That he himself was subject to the Laws of the Church and upon his transgression of them, obnoxi­ous to censure, no less than other Bishops; That no Appeals were allow'd to him by the African Bishops; That by the ancient Canons every Bishop did order the Affairs of his own Diocess, without dependence upon, or Subordination to the Bishop of Rome, and that all Causes were finally to be determin'd by Pro­vincial Councils Concil. Con­stantinopol. 1 Can. 2. Con­cil. Nicaen. 1 Can. 5.. That many Popes have been anathematiz'd by other Bishops, and many judg'd, condemn'd, and depos'd by Synods. All which, and many more things which might be men­tion'd, are plainly inconsistent with this pretended universal Empire of the Pope.

But if nothing could be alleg'd from Scripture, or the Doctrine or Practice of the antient Church to the contrary; yet the in­tolerable Evils which unavoidably flow from it, cannot but ren­der this Doctrine detestable, to all those who have any sincere Love, either to Truth or Goodness. For whereever this Doctrine is receiv'd, a man must think himself in duty bound, to entertain Error, and to reject the Truth; to put Virtue for Vice, and Vice for Virtue, in case the Pope require him so to do. And that the Pope not only may, but for many Ages hath commanded men so to do; the sad experience of the Christian World, is a proof too unanswerable.

(3.) The Doctrine of the Popes Dominion over temporal Princes. That if Kings and Emperors oppose themselves to him, or turn Hereticks, he may depose them, absolve their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance, and give away their Kingdoms to whom­soever he pleases. This exorbitant Power hath been challenged by the Pope for many successive Ages Dictates of Greg. VII. Dictate 9. That all Princes should kiss the Popes Feet. Dictate 12. That the Pope may depose the Em­peror. Dictate 27. That he may absolve the Subjects of wicked Princes from their Allegiance. Binius tom. 7. part 1. p. 362. Richer. l. 1. c. 13.; And when opportunity hath serv'd, hath been frequent­ly put in practice by them. So Gregory VII. ex­communicated the Emperor Henry IV. and gave away his Kingdoms to Rudolphus Duke of Sweden Baron. an. 1080. n. 8. & 12.. Gregory IX. excommunicated the Emperor Frede­rick II. and absolv'd his Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance Bullarium Rom. Tom. 1. p. 89, 90.. Pope Paul III. excommunicated and deposed Henry VIII. King of England, and com­manded all his Subjects, under pain of a Curse, to withdraw their Obedience from him Bullar. Rom. Tom. 1. p. 514.. Pope Pius V. and Gregory XIII. damn'd and depos'd Q. Eli­zabeth, [Page 27] and absolv'd her Subjects from their Allegiance Camdens Elizabeth.. This Doctrine and Practice has been defended by their learned Cardinals Baronius and Perron, by their School-men, Canonists, and by the whole Order of Jesuits. Yea, 'tis no more than what was decreed by divers such Councils, as are generally own'd for lawful Re­presentatives of their Church; As by the third Lateran Council under Pope Alexander III. Cap. 27. Relaxatos au­tem se noverint à debito Fide­litatis, &c.; And by the fourth Lateran Council under Pope Innocent III. Si vero Dominus tem­poralis requisitus & monitus ab Ecclesia, terram suam purgare neglexerit, &c.—Eadem nihilominus lege servata circa eos, qui non habent Dominos principales, c. 3.. And tho some Romanists are now asham'd to own it; yet no less a man than Lessius tells us, that if Kings may not be deposed by the Pope, then of necessity, must the General Council of Lateran have err'd.

But what can be more manifest, than that this Doctrine is con­tradictory to the Holy Scripture? Which tells us in express terms, that the King is supream 1 Epist. Pet. 2. 13., and commands every Soul to be subject to the highest civil Powers Rom. 13. 1.. Nothing can be more re­pugnant to the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers, who taught that the Emperor was the supream Power on Earth, that he was subject to God only, and that all other Persons were put in sub­jection under him Tertull. A­polog. c. 30. & ad Scapu [...]m, c. 2.; that neither Prophet, nor Evangelist, no, nor Apostle (and therefore not S. Peter himself) was exempt from subjection to him S. Chrysost. ad Rom. c. 13. v. 1..

And such as their Doctrine was, such was their Practice; tho their Emperors were Idolaters, and implacable Enemies to the name of Christ, yet they thought it not in the Popes Power, to set them loose from subjection to them; Nor did any Pope in those days pretend to such a Power; And therefore they chose rather to dye, when they had the greatest Provocations to resist; and when the number of the Christians was so great, that they were able, with ease, to have vanquish'd their Enemies Cyprian. ad Demetria­num..

'Tis a Doctrine that is contrary to the Confessions and Practice of the antient Bishops of Rome, who took the Emperor for their Lord and Master, and yielded themselves his most humble and obedient Servants and Subjects. So did Pope Gregory the Great Greg. M. Ep. 2. 62., and before, Pope Gelasius I. Gelasii Ep. 8.; and after him Pope Agatho Epist. ad Con­stantinum Imp. Actione 4. Syn. 6. Vide etiam Richerium Hist▪ Concil. General. l. 1. c. 10 S. [...], 6.. In short, 'tis a Doctrine that involves the highest Impiety against God, the greatest Injustice toward men; that subverts the Foun­dations [Page 28] of Government, and is inconsistent with humane Society; No man can recount the Usurpations and Rapines, the Perjuries and Murders, the Treasons and Rebellions, the Confusions and Desolations it hath caus'd in the World.

(4.) The next Instance shall be, that which was likewise decreed by the Fourth Lateran Council Cap. 1., viz. the monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation: For the belief of which, there is no better ground in Scripture, than that the Church is transubstantiated, or that the Rock in the Wilderness was substantially chang'd into Christ; because the Church is call'd Christ's Body Ephes. 1. 23., and 'tis said, that the Rock which follow'd the Israelites was Christ 1 Corinth. 10. 4.. But because 'tis confess'd by many of their own learned Writers, we may therefore take it for granted, that this Doctrine cannot be prov'd by Scripture: Yea, that it is contrary to it, is manifest; be­cause we find in Scripture, that the Sacramental Elements, after the words of Consecration were pass'd, are call'd the Bread and the Cup, as they were before 1 Corinth. 11. 26, 27, 28.. And if we may believe our Sa­viour, the Wine after it was consecrated, and made the Blood of the New Testament, was no other for substance, than the Fruit of the Vine; for after he had said, This is my Blood, of the New Testa­ment; he adds, But I say unto you, that I will not, henceforth, drink of the Fruit of the Vine, &c. Matth. 26. 29.. That the Fathers for seven hundred years after Christ, believ'd the Elements, after Consecration, to remain the same for substance, is beyond all contradiction prov'd, by many Protestant Writers; particularly in two short Discourses, lately written upon this Subject Letter to Lady T. Dis­course against Transubstantia­tion.. And that the Popes them­selves were of the same Belief in the fifth Century, is evident: For surely, says Pope Gelasius, the Sacraments we receive of the Body and Blood of Christ, are a divine thing, for which we are also by them made Partakers of a divine Nature; and yet the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine does not cease to be Certe Sa­cramenta quae sumimus Corporis & sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod & per tadem divinae efficimur con­sortes naturae: & tamen esse non definit substantia vel natura panis & vini. De duab. nat. in Christo. Bi­blioth. Patr. Tom. 4..

Yea, so far was Transubstantiation, from being the Doctrine of the Primitive Church; that we can meet with nothing like it, till near the end of the eighth Century; and tho as soon as it was started, it was vigorously oppos'd, by the most learned men of that time; yet by the help of the deplorable Ignorance and Su­perstition, [Page 29] of that and the two next succeeding Ages, it was, by slow degrees, nurs'd up, and brought to its full growth; till at length it came to be establish'd for an Article of Faith, in the Lateran Council, under Pope Innocent III. in the year 1215.

Nor is it only destitute of the Authority of Scripture, and the ancient Church; but plainly destructive of our whole Religion, by subverting the main Foundation, upon which it stands. For if that be indeed the Flesh of a Man, which we see, and feel, and taste to be Bread; what assurance can we have, that there ever was any such Man in the World as Jesus of Nazareth? or that he ever wrought one Miracle in it? The cerrainty of which, depends upon the certainty of our Senses; and therefore S. John appeals to them, as the great unquestionable Proofs of the Truth of our Religion 1 Epist. John 1. 1, 2, 3.. We have therefore the same Assurance that Transubstantiation is False, as that the Gospel of Christ is True.

Nor is it more opposite to Sense, than Reason; the belief of it implying ten thousand Contradictions. To which we may add, the horrible Impieties it involves. That the glorified Body of our Saviour, should be contracted to the crum of a Wafer; that he should be perfectly depriv'd of Sense and Reason; that he should not be able to defend himself against the Assaults of the most contemptible Vermin; that he should be swallow'd down whole, and if the Stomach of the Communicant chance to be foul, or over-charg'd with Wine, that he should be vomited up again: Good God! what man, who is not quite forsaken of Religion, Reason and Sense; who is not himself transubstantiated into something below either Man or Beast, can believe these things?

(5.) That the Marriage of Priests is unlawful. This Doctrine the Church of Rome borrow'd from the antient Hereticks; especi­ally from the Manichees, who allow'd Marriage to their Hearers, as the Church of Rome doth to Lay-men; but forbad it to their Elect Hic non du­bito ves esse clamaturos in­vidiamque facturos, castitatem perfectam vos vehementer commendare atqui laudare, non tamen nuptias prohibere; quandoquidem Auditores vestri quorum apud vos secundus est gradus, ducere atque habere non prohibentur uxores. Aug. de moribus Manichaeorum. l. 2. c. 18., as that Church doth to her Priests.

The first Pope we read of that condemned the marriage of Priests, was Siricius, almost four hundred Years after Christ, though he seems by his Epistles (if they are indeed his); rather to dis­swade Priests from it, than peremptorily to forbid it Epist. 1, & 4. apud Bi­nium.. Pope Calixtus II. absolutely forbad Priests Marriage, and in case they were married, commanded them to be separated Presby [...]e­ris, Diaconis, Subdiaconis & Monachis con­cubinas habere, seu Matrimonia contrahere, penitus interdicimus; contracta quoque Matrimonia ab hu­jusmodi personis disjungi. Grat. dist. 27. [...]. 8.. Pope In­nocent III. pronounced such marriages null, and the Council of Trent anathematizes those who say they are valid Sess. 24. Can. 9..

But one would think, that God had sufficiently declared his ap­probation of such Marriages, in that the whole World hath by his appointment been twice peopled by two married Priests; first by Adam, secondly by Noah. And we are sure the Holy Scri­pture tells us, That Marriage is honourable in all Heb. 13. 4.. And pla­ces it among the Qualifications of a Bishop, That he be the Hus­band of one Wife, having faithful Children Tit. 1. 6., which saith S. Chry­sostom, The Apostle prescribed to this end, That he might stop the Mouths of Hereticks, who reproached Marriage; declaring thereby, That Mar­riage is no unclean thing, but so honourable, that a married Man may be exalted to the sacred Throne of a Bishop [...]. Chrysost. Hom. 2. in c. 1. ad Tit..

And well might he think it not unbecoming a Bishop, when our Lord thought it not unbecoming an Apostle, no not the Prince of the Apostles (as the Romanists will have him) for it is without doubt, that S. Peter was married; in that the Scripture makes mention of his Wife's Mother Matt. 8. 14.. And Clemens of Alex­andria tells us, That it was certainly reported, that when he saw his Wife led to death, he rejoiced; and having exhorted and com­forted her, he called her by her name, and bid her remember the Lord Clemens A­lex. Stromat. l. 7 p. 736. Lut. 1629.; and that he was not only married, but begat Chil­dren, the same Clemens in another place affirms Stromat. l. 3 p. 448.. Yea that S. Philip and S. Jude were also married, and had Children, Eusebi­us is witness Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. 3. c. 20, & 31..

In like manner we find, That many of the primitive Bishops were married, so were Chaeremon Bishop of Nilus, S. Spiridion, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Gregory Nyssen, S. Hilary, and many more.

Nor can it be said, that they took Wives while they were Laymen, and after they took upon them the sacred Ministry, were separated from them; since the Canons commonly called the Apostles, did prohibit either Bishop, Priest or Deacon to put away his Wife, upon pretence of Religion [...]. Can. 5.; and if any such shall abstain from Marriage, as in it self abominable, command that he be corrected, or deposed and cast out of the Church Canon. 50.; which Canons, though not made by them whose name they bear, yet they are of greater Antiquity than the first Nicene Council. And when in that Council it was moved, That Bishops and Priests, Deacons and Subdeacons, might not cohabit with their Wives, which they had taken before Ordination; the Motion was presently dashed by the famous Paphnutius, who was him­self a single person Socrat. Ec­clesiast. Hist. l. 1 c. 11.. Yea, a long time after this Council, we meet with many Popes, who were Sons of Bishops and Priests: Pope Theodorus, Silverius and Gelasius I. were the Sons of Bishops; Pope Boniface I. Felix II. and Agapetus I. were the Sons of Priests Grat. dist. 56. c. 2. Platina in vi­tis eorum.. And that we may not think this strange, Gratian himself in­forms us, That the Marriage of Priests was in those days lawful in the Latin Church, as it was at that time when he writ, in the Eastern Church Dist. 56. c. 13..

Nor is this Doctrine to be rejected only as contrary to Scri­pture, and to Primitive and Apostolical Practice, but because of the abominable Fruits produced in the Church of Rome by it. For when their Clergy might not have Wives (which God al­lowed) instead of them they took Whores; which wickedness so far prevailed in that Church, that no less a Man than the Cardinal of Cambray informs us, That many Clergymen were not ashamed publickly and in the face of the World to keep Concubines De reform. Eccles.. And the Gloss upon Grati­an says, That it is commonly said, That a Priest may not be deposed for simple Fornication, because there are few Priests to be found without that fault Communiter autem dicitur, quod pro simplici fornicatione quis deponi non debet, cum pauci sine illo vitio inveniantur, Dist. 81. c. 6. in Gloss.. And therefore Pope Pius II. had great reason to say, That though Priests were by the Western Church forbid to marry for good reason, yet there was stronger reason to restore Marriage to them again Father Pa [...]s History of the Council of T [...]ent, l. 7. p. 680.. This [Page 32] many in the Council of Trent were sensible of, Who alledged the great Scandal given by incontinent Priests, and that there was want of continent persons fit to exercise the Ministry P. 679, 680.. And therefore the Emperor and the Duke of Bavaria required, That the marriage of the Priests might be granted P. 514, & 526.. And the Archbishop of Prague, and the Bishop of five Churches desired that married persons might be promoted to holy Orders. But this request would not be granted, because if the Clergy once come to be married, they will no longer depend on the Pope, but on their Prince P. 680, & 747..

(6.) The Doctrines of the number of the Sacraments; of the Character impressed by them; and of the necessity of the Priests intention, defined by the Roman Church as necessary Points of Faith, are such as cannot be derived from Scripture, or from the Tradition of the Church; as is freely acknowledged by many learned Men of their own Communion.

As the Word Sacrament is ambiguous, so it is sufficiently known, That the Fathers, as they took it in a more strict or large sense, so they either encreased or lessened the number of them: And Cassander hath observed, That we scarce meet with any Man before Peter Lombard, who reduced them to a certain number Cons [...]lt. Cassand. Art. 13.. And that the number Seven hath no colour, either from Scripture, or the antient Church, we may be assured by those goodly Reasons, upon which it was established by the Council of Trent, viz. There are seven Vertues, seven capital Vices, seven Defects, which came by original Sin, seven Planets, and I know not how many sevens more History of the Coun­cil of Trent, l. 2. p. 234, 235., and therefore there are seven Sa­craments, neither more nor less. Risum teneatis?

As to the Character impressed by three of them (viz. Baptism, Confirmation and Order) 'twas so little understood by the Trent Fathers, that they could not agree what it meant, or where to place it. One would have it to be a Quality, another to be a Re­lation; and of those who made it a Quality; some said it was one kind of Quality, others that it was another, some placed it in the Essence of the Soul, some in the Understanding, some in Will, &c. P. 239..

And in case the intention of the Priest be necessary, then as the Bishop of Minori unanswerably argued in that Council, If a Priest having charge of four or five thousand Souls, be an Infidel, but a formal Hypocrite, and in absolving the Penitent, baptizing [Page 33] of Children, and consecrating the Eucharist, have no intention to do what the Church doth, it must be said, that the Children are damned, the Penitent not absolved, and that all remain without the Fruit of the Communion History of the Council of Trent, l. 2. p. 241.. And what an horrible abuse is it, to make such things as these Articles of Faith? and impose them upon all Men, to be believed under peril of Damnati­on.

(7.) The Doctrine of Merits. That the good Works of justified persons be truly meritorious, deserve not only the in­crease of Grace, but eternal Life, yea an increase of Glo­ry Concil. Trident. Sess. 6. Can 32..

Whereas the Scripture tells us, That our goodness extends not to God Psal. 16. 2.; That not only all that we do, But all that we can suffer, is not worthy to be compared with the Glory that shall be revealed Rom. 8. 18.: That when we have done all those things which are commanded us, we are still unprofitable Servants, and have done no more than what was our du­ty Luk. 17. 10. That we can give nothing to God, but what we have first received from him; that we are obliged to him for the good we do, as well as for that we receive; since all our good Works are entirely owing to his Grace, are the free Gifts of his Holy Spirit, who worketh in us both to will and to do Phil. 2. 13..

Yea even Reason it self teaches us, That whatsoever we are, and whatsoever we have, it is all received from him; that we can give nothing to him, that it should be recompenced to us again; that the best Services we can perform are no matter of favour, but a Debt we owe him; and in case they were wholly our own, yet if put in the Ballance with that exceeding and eternal weight of glory, would be infinitely too light.

Though therefore we readily grant, That our good Works, are not only Conditions, but necessary Qualifications by which we are made meet to be partakers of the Inheritance of the Saints in light, and without which we are not so much as capable of enjoying it; though we do not condemn the Word Merit, in that large sense in which it was used by the antient Doctors of the Church, as it signifies a Work that is praise-worthy, and to which God hath promised a Reward, as it denotes a Means ap­pointed by God, in order to the bringing us to Heaven: Yet we can in no wise grant, That any Works of ours, are truly, and in a proper sense meritorious; but whatsoever right is there­by acquired to eternal. Life, it is founded in the gracious Pro­mise [Page 34] of God, who hath declared that he will reward our poor and imperfect services with Glory, Honour and Immortality.

(8.) Though every sin be in its own nature deadly, yet the distinction of sins into Mortal and Venial, is in a sense admitted by Protestants, viz. If by Mortal be meant such a grievous sin, as actually excludes a Man from the favour of God, and puts him into a state of Damnation; as all those do, mentioned 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10. and every other wilful sin. By Veniul, such a lighter sin, for which God in the Gospel Covenant makes al­lowances, and which he will not impute to Condemnation, to those who sincerely endeavour to do whatsoever he commands; as sins of Ignorance and meer Infirmity.

But this distinction as it is commonly explained and applyed by the Romish Doctors, is plainly destructive of a holy Life, and one of the greatest encouragements to Vice. For a Venial Sin in their Divinity, is a Sin, that in its own nature is so light and small, that it cannot deprive a Man of the favour of God; or render him obnoxious to eternal Death P [...]catum aliquod dicitur Veniale ex natura sua, & propria ratione; & est illud, quod ex se, & sua natura, est tam leve & tam minutum, ut non valeat aliquem privare [...]ratia divina, aut facere illum Dei inimicum, aut redde [...]e illum dignum mo [...]te [...]terna. Al­phons. de Castro advers. Haeres. l. 12. fol. 210.. And if you ask them, What Sins in particular these Venial Sins are, scarce any Sin can be named, but some or other of their most approved Casuists, will tell you, It is no more than Venial; even lying and slandering, false witness and Perjury, Theft and Covetousness, Gluttony and Drunken­ness, are placed in the Catalogue of these little harmless Sins. Now let these Venial Sins be ne­ver so numerous, the greatest evils (which accor­ding to their Doctrine) they can expose a Man to, are no more than the temporary pains of Purgatory; and these (they tell us) may be bought off at so cheap a rate, that there is no Man in such unhappy circumstances, but he may purchase his release from them. And what then remains to give check to a Mans sinful ap­petites?

(9.) But for their loosness in Venials, some may think they have made amends by the severity of their Doctrine concerning Mortal Sins. For no Man (as their Church teaches) can obtain the pardon of these, without confession to a Priest, and perfor­ming the Penances he imposes for them. And this Confession must be compleat; not only of the kinds, but of the particular Sins, together with the circumstances which change the kind, [Page 35] that a Penance may be enjoined proportionable to them Con [...]il. Trident. Sess. 14. c. [...] ▪ de P [...] ­nitent. Can. 4. & 7..

But besides that we find no such sort of Confession required by Christ or his Apostles; no, nor used in the Church for more than four hundred Years: But on the contrary, that our blessed Saviour proposes pardon of Sin, how Mortal soever, upon con­dition of sincere Repentance and new Obedience; besides that, the thing it self is unpracticable: For how shall an ignorant Mechanick know, what those circumstances are that change the kind? When perhaps his Confessor is not able to tell him? How shall he know, which Sins are Mortal, and which are Ve­nial? when their most learned Casuists are at no agreement among themselves about them, but that which one says is Mortal, ano­ther says is no more than Venial, and their seraphical Doctor af­firms, That many Sins are believed to be Venial, that are Mortal, and it is a most difficult thing to discern the one from the other Multa enim frequenter ere­duntur esse Venialia, quae Morta­lia sunt, & diffici [...]limum est in talibus discernere. Bonavent. l. 2. dist. 24. par. 2. Dub. 1.. Be­sides, I say, these and many other insuperable pre­judices that lye against it; as the matter is mana­ged in the Church of Rome, it wholly defeats its own design. For what Man will be ashamed to do that, which is done upon course, by the best Men in their Church; the Priest, the Bishop, yea the Pope himself not excepted? And who will be afraid of the most for­midable Sin, when the Penance imposed for it is usually trifling, and next to nothing; so far from giving check, that it is one of the strongest provocations to sin? For what greater encouragement can a Man desire, than to purchase a pardon upon such easie terms?

(10.) I need not shew, that the Doctrine of Purgatory, as taught by the Church of Rome, cannot derive its Pedigree, either from the Scripture, or the primitive Fathers; because it is freely confessed by many of her own Members, that it hath no foun­dation in either of them. Yea a late learned Writer of that Church, hath proved by great variety of Arguments, that it is plainly repugnant to Scripture, to Reason, and to the judgment of the antient Church, and exposed the vanity of those preten­ded Proofs which are commonly brought for it Tho. Aug. ex Al [...]i [...] [...] Saxon. de media Anima [...]um statu..

And yet it is no wonder, that the Romish Clergy so zealously contend for it, that the Council of Trent hath established it, [Page 36] and that Pope Pius IV. hath put it into the Roman Creed Bull. super formam Jura­ment. Confess. Fidei▪, be­cause this is that by which they make spoil of the people, and enrich themselves. This alone hath erected and richly endowed many fair Abbies and Monasteries; this hath founded many Col­leges, Chappels and Chantryes; this hath set up and maintained the gainful Trade of Indulgences and Masses: Let the people be once disabused, and rightly informed in this Point, Masses for the Dead will grow out of fashion, and Indulgences will be despised as nothing worth. For,

(11.) The Doctrine of Indulgences is another new Article of the Roman Creed. This is generally owned by the learned Ro­manists themselves: In particular, Durandus (one of their famous Schoolmen) acknowledges, That little that is certain can be said concerning them, because the Scripture speaks not expresly of them; and the holy Fathers, S. Am­brose, S. Hilary, S. Augustine, and S. Jerom, make no mention of them De Indulgentiis pauca dici pos­sunt per certitudinem, quia nec Scri­ptura expresse de eis loqultur: san­cti etiam, ut Ambrosius, Hil. Aug. Hierom. minime loquuntur de Indul­gentiis. Durand. l. 4. dist. 20. q. 3.. And Cardinal Cajetan grants, That no sacred Scripture, no Au­thority of the antient Doctors, Greek or Latin, hath brought the Original of them to our knowledge De ortu Indulgentiarum, si certitudo haberi posset, veritati indagandae opem ferret: verum quia nulla sacrae Scripturae, nulla priscorum Doctorum, Graecorum aut Latinorum, authoritas scri­pta hanc ad nostram deduxit noti­tiam. Opusc. Tom. 1. Tract. 15. c. 1.. And no wonder, because their Original bears a much later date than either the Sacred Scrip­ture, or the Authority of the antient Doctors; for the learned Romanist before mentioned tells us, That for ought he could find, Indulgences were not thought on, before the Age of the Schoolmen De his Indulgentiis an­te Scholasticorum aetatem, quod sci­am, [...]nspicio nulla. De m [...]dio Ani­marum statu, Demens. 27., That is till twelve hundred Years after Christ; and therefore no mention is made of them by Gratian, or the Master of the Sentences.

It is true, That in the Primitive Church, severe and long Pe­nances were imposed upon scandalous Offenders, the rigour of which, upon weighty Considerations, was sometimes moderated by the Bishop; and this Relaxation was called by the name of Indulgence. But the Popish Indulgences are quite of another nature; for they suppose a Treasure in the Church, made up of the Merits of Christ and the Saints (the Saints must be added to supply the defect of Christ's Merits) which is wholly at the Popes disposal, which therefore he dispenses to others as he thinks fit, to discharge them from those Temporal Punishments to which they are obnoxious, for their Venial Sins, in Purgatory.

Nor are these Indulgences (as the Practice of their Church is) limited to the Souls in Purgatory, and to those Punishments which are due to venial Sins only; but granted to all Persons indifferently who will pay for them; and for all Sins, be they never so enormous.

To such an excess of Abomination, were the Doctrine and Practice of Indulgences grown, about the time of the Reforma­tion; such an intolerable Reproach were they to our Holy Reli­gion, that the more sober Romanists themselves cry'd shame on them Espencaeus in cap. 1. Ep. ad Tit. Onus Ecclesiae c. 15. Eras. l 30. Ep. 57..

(12.) Another Error (and that which is, indeed, the main Foun­dation of many of those already mention'd, and of many more which follow under the next Head), is this, That unwritten Tra­ditions ought to be added to the Holy Scriptures, to supply their defect; and ought to be receiv'd as of equal Authority with them.

Whereas the Scriptures themselves, (which the Romanists ac­knowledge to be an infallible, tho but an imperfect Rule) do fre­quently bear witness of their own Sufficiency, as to all Matters necessary to Salvation Psal. 19. 7. John 20. 31. 2 Tim. 3. 16.: I say, all Matters necessary to Salvation; because we do not assert, that all things belonging to Rites and Ceremonies, and to the external Polity of the Church, are con­tain'd in them, except only in general Rules, by which the parti­cular Determination of them is committed to the Discretion of our Governors; but we affirm, that there is no Article of Faith, or Rule of Life, that is necessary to be believ'd or practis'd, that is not either in express words contain'd in them, or by evident consequence may be deduced from them; so that supposing them to be the Word of God, we need no other Rule in such Matters.

And 'tis certain, that the ancient Fathers were of the same Judg­ment. I shall produce the words of S. Austin only. In those Matters, saith he, which are plainly placed in Scripture, all those things are found, which contain Faith, and the Manners of Holy Living, viz. Hope and Charity In iis quae aperte in Scri­ptura posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem, mo­res (que) vivendi; spem sc. at (que) Cha­ritatem. De doct. Christiana, l. 2. c. 9.. In which words he affirms, not only that all things belonging to Faith and Manners are contained, but that they are plainly contain'd in the Scripture. And in another place the same Father says, If an Angel from Heaven shall preach to you, any thing concerning Christ, or his Church, or concerning any thing which belongs to Faith or Life, besides what you have [Page 38] received in the Writings of the Law and the Gospel, let him be ac­cursed Proinde si­ve de Christo, [...]ive de ejus Eccles [...]s, [...]ive de [...]uacun (que) alia re, quae pertinet ad fidem vita [...] (que) nostram, &c. Aug. con­tra li [...]eras Petil. l. 3. c. 6..

'Tis true, the Fathers in their Contests with Hereticks, do fre­quently press them with the Tradition of the Catholick Church; But then it must be remembered, that the Hereticks, against whom they disputed, were either such as denied the Authority of the whole, or a great part of the Scripture; or such as insisted upon Tradition, and pleaded that in defence of their Errors; that therefore they might beat them at their own Weapons, the Fa­thers confuted them by Tradition too: But they never set up Tradition as another word of God, or sought thereby to establish any thing as an Article of Faith, or a piece of necessary Worship, that they thought was not to be found in the Scripture; As the Church of Rome does, which under pretence of Apostolical Tradi­tion, obtrudes upon the Christian World, as Matters of necessary Belief and Practice, such things as are but of yesterday; such things as are doubtful and uncertain; such as are childish and tri [...]ing; yea, such as are false and impious, plainly contrary to Scripture, and to Primitive Doctrine and Practice.

That I may not be over tedious, I forbear to mention many other Errors in Doctrine, and proceed to the next general Head of Corruptions.

2. The Church of Rome hath not only err'd in Doctrines of Faith, but hath also grosly [...]werv'd from that Rule of Worship which Christ hath given us, and from the Practice of the Primi­tive Church; and set up a Worship of their own invention in direct opposition thereunto. I shall instance in some Parti­culars.

First, In having their publick Worship in an unknown Tongue. This is expresly condemn'd by our Church, as a Practice plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and to the Custom of the Primi­tive Church It is a thing plainly repugnant to the [...]ord of God, and the Custom of the Primitive Church, to have publick Prayers in the Church, or to administer the Sacraments in a Tongue not understood of the People. A [...]t [...]cles of Religion Anno 1562. Art. 24..

That it is plainly repugnant to the Word of God, no man can be ignorant, who knows what is written in the fourteenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in which the Apostle so di­rectly, and with such variety of Arguments, confutes this unrea­sonable Service, that 'tis as easie to make midnight and no [...]nday meet, as to reconcile them one to the other.

Nor is it less contrary to the Custom of the Primitive Church. That in the first Ages of Christianity, every Christian Church had the publick Prayers and Administration of the Sacraments in their own Tongue, I need not prove, by citing the Testimonies of those Persons, who liv'd in those Ages; because the learned men of the Church of Rome, do themselves confess it, which is a Proof more convincing, than a thousand other Witnesses. Out of many which offer themselves, I shall produce a few, whose Authority is beyond exception.

Their great Aquinas grants, That it was madness in the Primi­tive Church, to speak in a Tongue not understood; because they were rude in Ecclesiastical Rites, and did not know those things that were done, un­less they were expounded: But now, saith he, that all are instructed, tho all things are spoken in the Latin Tongue, they know what is done in the Church Aq [...]in. Comment. in 1. ad Corinth. c. 14. Sect. 5.. Cardinal Bellarmine grants, That in the Primitive times, because the Christians were few, all sang together in the Church, and answer'd in the divine Offices; but afterward the People encreasing, it was left to the Clergy alone to perform Prayers and Praises in the Church Bell. de [...]erb [...] [...]ei. [...]. c. 16.. Mr. Harding to this Exception of the Protestants, S. Paul requires that the People give assent to the Priest by answering to his Prayers made in the Congregation, returns this answer: Verily in the Primitive Church this was necessary, when the Faith was a learning; and therefore the Prayers were made then in a common Tongue, known to the People, for cause of their further instruction, who being of late con­verted to the Faith, and of Painims made Christians, had need in all things to be taught, &c. And again, Whereas S. Paul seemeth to dis­allow praying with [ [...] strange] Tongue in the common Assembly; because of want of edifying, and to esteem the utterance of five words or Sentences with understanding of his meaning, that the rest may be instructed thereby, more than ten thousand words in a strange and unknown Tongue; all this is to be referned to the State of that time, which is much unlike the State of the Church we be now in: They needed instruction, we be not ignorant, of the chief P [...]ints of Religion: They were to be taught in all things; we come not to Church specially and chiefly to be taught at the Service, but [Page 40] to pray, and to be taught by preaching: Their Prayer was not available for lack of Faith, and therefore was it to be made in the vulgar Tongue for encrease of Faith; our Faith will stand us in better stead, if we give our selves to devout Prayer Artic. 3. Divis. 28, & 30.. Thus we see he grants, that the publick Prayers were in the Apostolical times in the vulgar Tongue, and that 'twas necessary they should be; but nothing can be more false and absurd than the reason he gives, why 'twas ne­cessary then, and not now. Add to these the infallible Testi­mony of Pope Gregory VII. who tho he would not permit the Celebration of Divine Offices in the Sclavonian Tongue; yet confess'd that the Primitive Church had them in the vulgar Language History of the Council of Trent. l. 6. p. 578..

So that by the Confession of the Romanists themselves, the Church of England has in this Point no further departed from the Church of Rome, than the Church of Rome hath from the ancient Church. If they can instance in any Church in the World, that for above five hundred years after Christ, worship'd God in a Lan­guage that the People did not understand, we will yield the Cause.

And may it not justly be matter of amazement, that for the serving of some poor worldly ends, the Church of Rome should introduce a Practice, that renders the Worship of God useless and insignificant? That destroys not only the end of Prayer, but is in­consistent with the nature of it? That is so absurd and unrea­sonable, that S. Paul thought they deserv'd to be reckon'd Mad-men, who in such sort pray to God 1 Cor. 14. 21..

So evident is this; that many great men of the Church of Rome, acknowledge it would be better to have the publick Offices in the vulgar Tongue. So Cardinal Cajetan confesses, That accor­ding to the Doctrine of S. Paul, 'tis more for the edification of the Church, that the publick Prayers should be said in a Tongue common to the Clergy and People, than in Latin Ex hac Pauli doctrina ha­betur, quod melius est ad edisi­cationem Ecclesiae, orationes pub­licas, quae audiente populo di­cuntur, dici lingua communi Cle­ricis & Populo, quam dici latine. Comment. in c. 14. Ep. 1. ad Corintle.. And Mr. Harding says, I grant they (viz. the People) cannot say Amen, to the Blessing or Thanksgiving of the Priest, so well as if they understood the Latin Tongue perfectly Artic. 3. Divis. 29.. And Father Paul thought the Latin Service a great Corruption and Abuse; as we may see in his History of the Council of Trent l. 6.. In which he also tells us, That in the Roman Pontifical, there remaineth yet a Form of the Ordination of Readers in the [Page 41] Church, in which it is said, that they must study to read distinctly and plainly, that the People may understand Ibid.. To conclude this; upon these and such like Considerations, The Emperor at the Council of Trent requir'd, That Divine Service might be so said, that it might be under­stood both by him that said it, and by him that heard it History of the Council of Trent. p. 513..

(2.) Another Corruption is the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass. The Church of England doth not quarrel at the name of Sacrifice; she not only grants, but asserts, that the Eucharist is a commemorative and representative Sacrifice. And this was the meaning of the ancient Fathers, who frequently call it a Remem­brance or Commemoration, a Resemblance or Representation of the Sacrifice which Christ once offer'd upon the Cross Euseb. De­monst. Evang. l. r. c. 10. [...]. Chrysost. Hom. 17. in Epist. ad Heb.. And this is as much as Cassander seems to mean by it Cassand Consult. Art. [...] 24. de Sacrificio Corp. & sang. Christi..

But this will not satisfie the present Church of Rome; but Christ (as they will have it) is truly and properly sacrificed; that is, according to their own notion of a Sacrifice, Christ is truly and properly put to death, as oft as the Priest says Mass. For in a true Sacrifice (as Bellarmine tells us De Missa. l. 1. c. 2. &c. 27.) the thing sacrificed, must be destroy'd; and if it be a thing that hath Life, it must be kill'd: And so inde [...]d many of the Romanists roundly assert, that Christ every day is by the Mass-Priest.

Which besides, that it is contrary to the Doctrine of the anci­ent Church, and to the words of the Apostle, who tells us, That Jesus Christ offer'd not himself often, as the High Priest enter'd into the Holy place every year with the Blood of others; for then must he often have suffer'd from the Foundation of the World. But now once in the end of the World, hath he appear'd to put away sin by the Sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed to men once to dye, but after this the Judgment; so Christ was once offer'd to bear the sins of many Heb. 9. 25, 26, 27, 28.. And again: That after Christ had offer'd one Sacrifice for ever, he sate down on the right hand of God. And that by one Offering, he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified Heb. 10. 10, 12, 14.. And whereas the Apostle argues the per­fection of Christ's Sacrifice, above those of the Law, because those were offer'd year by year, but the Sacrifice of Christ's Body was offer'd once for all; If Christ be dayly sacrific'd in the Mass, the Sacrifice of Christ must be much more defective, than those [Page 42] of the Law: for one Sacrifice of Expiation for the whole Con­gregation of Israel, was thought sufficient for the whole year; Whereas the Sacrifice of Christ's Body is repeated every day: Yea, for one single Person he may be sacrificed a thousand times over, and this Sacrifice so often repeated, and a thousand times more, may perhaps be of so little Virtue, as not to procure the re­lease of that one poor Soul out of Purgatory.

Consider further, that this is inconsistent with the end they assign of Sacrifice, which is to testifie our subjection to God; which cannot be done by offering up God himself in Sacrifice; for what we offer in Sacrifice, we are not subject to, but have the disposal of, and dominion over it.

Besides all this, 'tis a piece of Worship more absurd and impious, than was ever practis'd by the most barbarous Heathen; they indeed sometimes offer'd their Sons and Daughters in Sacrifice, but we never read that they were so sottish, as to make a Sacri­fice of their God. And therefore our Church hath deservedly condemn'd the Sacrifices of Masses, as blasphemous Fables, and dangerous Deceits Articles of Religion, anno 1562. A [...]t. 31..

(3.) The solitary Mass, in which the Priest alone, who Conse­crates, Communicates, can no way be reconciled, either with the Doctrine and Institution of Christ, who when he had broken the Bread, gave it to his Disciples, and said, take ye, eat ye; and com­manded his Disciples to do as he had done: Or, with the words of S. Paul to the Corinthians, who supposes them to meet together to eat the Lord's Body, and commands them to stay one for ano­ther 1 Cor. 11. 31.. And from this meeting, the Sacrament was call'd by the Ancients, Synaxis, the Collection or gathering together of the Faithful; as it is by us still call'd the Communion.

Furthermore, 'tis inconsistent with the nature and intendment of the Sacrament; which is a Feast of Love, and design'd to unite us more closely together in brotherly Love one to another, by representing to us, by our eating together at the same Table, and partaking of one and the same Loaf, that we all belong to one Fa­mily, and are Children of one Father.

'Tis contrary to the Practice of the Apostles and first Christians; who were wont to assemble on the first day of the week to break Bread Act. 20. 7.. And that it was unknown to the Christian Church for many Ages, is freely confess'd by the Romanists themselves: Even Bellarmine grants, that we no where expresly read, that the [Page 43] Sacrifice was offered by the Ancients, without some one or more communicating besides the Priest Bell. de Missa. l. 2. c. 9.; tho 'tis true, he says, we may, by many conjectures, collect that it was: but how weak his Conjectures are, will be evident to any man who will be at the pains to read them. Harding confesses, that in the Primitive Church, the People receiv'd every day with the Priest; and that private Mass came in afterward by the negligence and indevotion of the People Article 1. Divis. 7.. Cassander questions, whether solitary Mass came not first into use after the days of Gregory the Great, (that is more than six hundred years after Christ) and shews, how at its first rise, it was disallow'd and condemn'd, not only by parti­cular Persons, but by some Councils Cassand. Consult. de So­lit. Missis.. 'Tis plain, that it was not in use in the Church of Rome in ancient times, and that it can­not be reconcil'd with the Roman Office as it now stands, in which the Priest prays and gives thanks, not only for himself, but for the Communicants. And what a mockery is it, for the Priest to say, The Lord be with you, lift up your hearts, and let us give Thanks to the Lord God, when he hath not so much as one that partakes with him? And therefore the Church of England hath, upon good grounds, abolish'd it, and ordain'd, that there shall be no Celebra­tion of the Lords Supper, except there be a convenient number to communicate Rubrick af­ter the Commu­nion..

(4.) Another instance of gross Corruption in Worship, is the half Communion. That Christ instituted and administer'd the Eucharist under both kinds, and that it was likewise so admini­ster'd by the Primitive Church, I need not prove, because it is expresly granted by the Council of Constance, which sacrilegiously forbad the Cup to the Laity. For tho, saith the Council, Christ instituted and administer'd to his Disciples, this venerable Sacrament un­der both kinds of Bread and Wine; and although, in the Primitive Church, it was receiv'd by the Faithful under both kinds; yet notwithstanding, for the avoiding of some Dangers and Scandals, this Custom is, upon reason­able grounds, introduc'd, that it be received by Lay people under the kind of Bread only: And then commands, that no Priest shall administer it in both kinds to any Lay-man under pain of Excommuni­cation Concil. Const. Sess. 13..

It may be presum'd, that the Scandals were great, and the Rea­sons weighty, that mov'd the Council to make a Decree in plain defiance to Christ's Institution: I shall therefore mention them, and leave them to the judgment of the Reader. John Gerson, [Page 44] who was himself present at the Council, in a Treatise which he writ in defence of that Decree, hath told us they were these. 1. The danger of spilling the Wine. 2. The danger in carrying it from place to place. 3. In defiling the Vessels (which ought to be kept as Sacred things) by being touch'd and handled by Lay-men. 4. In the long Beards of the Lay-men. 5. In keeping the consecrated Wine for the use of the Sick; because Vinegar may be generated in the Vessel, and so the Blood of Christ would cease to be there, and pure Vinegar would be administer'd for the Blood of Christ; (tho by the way, if the consecrated Wine be transubstantiated, it seems strange, that it should degenerate into Vinegar.) Besides, in Summer, Flies may be generated, and sometimes it may putrefie and become loathsome, and some might loath to drink it, because many others had drank of it before. 6. Wine would be chargeable, especially in such places where it is scarce. There would be, moreover, danger of freezing in Winter; and there would be further danger, in giving occasions many ways to the People to believe that which is false; As that Lay-men, as to the receiving of the Sacrament, are of equal Dignity with Priests Gerson. Tract. contra haeres. de Com­mun. sub utra (que) specie.. These were the frightful Dangers, and horrible Scandals, which they supposed might arise from permitting the Cup to the Laity. And is it not strange, that such Reasons as these, should move the Council to depart from Christ's Institu­tion? especially when confirm'd with that emphatical command, drink ye all of it Mat. 26. 27; and when that command had been inviolably observ'd, not only by the Primitive, but by the whole Church, both Greek and Latin, Eastern and Western, for twelve hundred years after Christ? For Cardinal Bona grants, that the whole Church, both Lay and Clergy, for about one thousand two hun­dred years, received in both kinds, even in the Church of Rome it self De Rebus Liturgicis, l. 2. c. 18. p. 491.. And Gregory de Valentia (tho a Jesuit) tells us, that the Custom of communicating in one kind, began to be generally re­ceived, even in the Latin Church, not long before the Council of Constance Coepit autem ea con­suetudo in Ec­clesia Latina esse generalis non multo ante tempore Concilii Constan [...]iensis; in quo tandem pro lege ab omnibus eam consuetudinem esse habendam, decretum est. Greg. de Valent. de legitimo usu Eucha­rist. c. 10., which began in the year 1414.

And that this Innovation might be remov'd, and the whole Sa­crament administer'd according to Christ's Institution, was earnestly desired, not only by Protestants, but by many Popish Princes and Churches, as is manifest by their requests to that purpose, made [Page 45] to the Pope and the Council of Trent. The French Embassador besought the Pope, in the name of the King, the Church, and Prelates of France, that he would grant the Communion of the Cup to the People History of the Council of Trent. l. 5. p. 4 [...]9.. The Duke of Bavaria, at the Council of Trent, demanded, by his Embassador, the Administration of the Eucharist under both kinds; and that not for the Sectaries sake, to reduce them; but to retain those who as yet continued in Com­munion with them. The Bavarian was seconded by the Em­perors Embassadors, who represented to the Council, that not only the Kingdom of Bohemia would never be satisfied without the Cup; but that there were Catholicks in Hungaria, Austria, Mo­ravia, Silesia, Carinthia, Carniola, Stiria, Bavaria, Suevia, and other parts of Germany, who desired the Cup with great Zeal; that therefore his Majesty demanded it, not for the Hereticks, but for the Catholicks only P. 528, 529..

Tho these already mentioned are Corruptions, which loudly called for a Reformation; yet behold greater Abominations than these; As,

(5.) The giving Divine Worship to the consecrated Bread in the Eucharist. This the Church of England hath declared to be abominable Idolatry The Sacra­mental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural Substances, and therefore may not be adored; for that were Idolatry to be abhor'd of all faithful Christians. Rubrick after the Communion..

And that it can be no less, is granted by many learned men of the Church of Rome, in case the Bread and Wine, after Consecration, be not really changed into the natural Body and Blood of Christ, but remain the very same for substance, that they were before. And that there is no substantial Change wrought in them, we are fully assured by Sense, by Reason, by Scripture, and by the Authority of the ancient Church; and if these are not suffi­cient Grounds of assurance, we can be assured of nothing; but for ought we know, even we our selves, and all that is in the World, may be nothing but Phantasm and Delusion.

But suppose, that upon due Consecration of the Elements, such an incredible Change were wrought; yet no man can be sure that it is indeed wrought, and by consequence that he is not guilty of foul Idolatry. The reason is evident, because upon the Principles of the Church of Rome, the Consecration depends upon such a [Page 46] number of Uncertainties, that no man can ever be certain that it is duly made. For if he be not a true Priest that Consecrates; if he do not pronounce the words of Consecration, and pronounce them aright; if he do not intend to consecrate, but to abuse the People, then no Consecration follows, and consequently no sub­stantial change is effected. And if the Roman Doctrine be true, is it possible for the People, or for the Priest himself to know, that he is a true Priest? For no man can be so, who is not baptiz'd by a Priest, whose intention was right in baptizing him; and or­dained by a Bishop who intended to do what the Church does: And who can tell, whether the Priest that baptiz'd him, or the Bishop that ordain'd him, had a right Intention? And can any man tell, besides the Priest himself that consecrates, whether he pro­nounces the words of Consecration, or pronounces them as he ought, when the words are utter'd with so low a voice, that none can hear what he says? And none certainly but himself, and the Searcher of Hearts can tell, whether the Priest, when he pretends to consecrate, may not intend to mock the People. Now in these cases no Consecration follows, but the Bread remains Bread still, and a Wafer only is worship'd instead of Christ.

And if any say, these cases are rare. Let a Bishop of the Church of Rome answer Bishop of Minori. History of the Council of Trent. l. 2. p. 241.. Would to God (says he) they were so, and that in this corrupt Age, we had not cause to doubt they were many. But suppose they are very few, or but only one: Let there be a knave Priest who faineth, and hath not an intention to administer the true Baptism to a Child, who after being a grown man, is created Bishop of a great City, and liveth many years in that charge, so that he hath ordained a great part of the Priests: it must be said, that he being not baptiz'd, is not ordain'd, nor they ordained who are promoted by him. So that in that great City, there will be neither Eucharist, nor Confession, because they cannot be without the Sacrament of order, nor order without a true Bishop, neither can he re­ceive order who is not baptized. Behold millions of Nullities of Sacra­ments, by the malice of one Minister, in one Act only. So many uncer­tainties does Consecration depend upon in the Church of Rome, that it may seem highly probable, that not one Sacrament in an hundred is duly consecrated, and by consequence, not one Person in an hundred that worships the Host, but in so doing, according to their own Doctrine, he gives that worship to Bread, that is due to God only.

It will not save them harmless, nor so much as excuse them, to say that they verily believe it not to be Bread, but the very Son of God; since if they do so, their mistake must be grosly wilful; there being no such exact likeness between Christ and a bit of Bread, that any Man can mistake the one for the other, who is not resolved so to do.

(6.) To make a Picture of God, is forbidden by God himself in the Holy Scripture. Take ye therefore good heed to your selves, saith God to the Jews, (for ye saw no manner of similitude in the day the Lord spake to you in Horeb, out of the midst of the Fire) lest ye cor­rupt your selves, and make you a graven Image, &c. D [...]ut 4. 15, 16..

'Tis repugnant to the very nature of God, who is a Spirit, and can no more be represented by a bodily shape, than a Thought can. It is an intolerable reproach to, and infinitely dero­gates from his peerless perfections. It was judged an absurd and a wicked thing, by the antient Christians, as Cassander confesses, and quotes S. Augustin for the proof of it Cassand. Consu [...]t. Art. 2 [...]. We believe, saith that Father, speaking of Christ, that he sits at the right Hand of God the Father; and yet it is not to be thought, that God the Father is circumscribed by a humane shape; that those that think of him should con­ceive, that he hath either a right-side or a left; or for that the Father is said to sit, is it to be supposed, that it is done with bended Knees, lest we fall into that Sacrilege, for which the Apostle abhorrs those, who chan­ged the Glory of the incorruptible God, into the likeness of corruptible Man? For such an Image of God it is unlawful for a Christian to place in the Temple; much more detestable, to place it in his Heart Aug. de Fide & Sym­bolo. c. 7.. Which Words plainly shew, what the Judgment of Chri­stians in this matter was, four hundred Years after Christ.

It was condemned by the wiser sort of Heathens, as a thing altogether unsuitable to the Divine Nature. Yea, that very Council which decreed that the Image of Christ, and the Saints should be worshipped, thought it not only unlawful, but absurd and impossible to make an Image of that Being which is Spi­ritual, Invisible and Incomprehensible Concil. Ni­caen. 2. Actione 4 & Actione 7. in Epist. Syno­dica ad Con­stantinum & Iren.. And Durandus, one of their learned Schoolmen says; It is a foolish thing to make Images to represent God l. 3. dist. 9. q. 2..

And yet the practice of the Church of Rome, not only now, but many Years before the Reformation, was to picture God the Father, and the adorable Trinity; and so generally hath this pra­ctice obtained, that Bellarmine makes that an Argument to prove [Page 48] the lawfulness of it Bell. de Imagin. l. 2. c. 9.. For now, saith he, such kind of Images are almost every where received, and it is not credible, That the Church would universally tolerate that which is unlawful. He says they are almost every where received, and that the Church did universally tolerate them; but in that he says, they are now received, he plain­ly grants, that they were antiently rejected.

(7.) Another gross Corruption in the Worship of Rome, which rendred the Reformation necessary, was the Worship of Images. This also the Church of England hath condemned as Idolatrous▪ and proved it to be so, by the Authority of Gods Holy Word, and by the Testimonies of the antient Fathers Homily a­gainst the peril of Idolatry..

I shall not mention the many Scriptures in which God prohi­bits, and expresses his abhorrency of this sort of Worship, and dreadfully threatens those who practise it; for that would be to transcribe a great part of the Bible. Whosoever can reconcile it with the second Commandment, he need not doubt, but he may make Perjury, and Murther, and Theft, and false Witnessing to become Vertues: Which is indeed no more than the Church of Rome does: For to break Faith with Hereticks, to rob and false­ly accuse them, yea and to murther them too, are in their Divi­nity great Virtues and necessary Duties.

So far were the Primitive Christians from worshipping of Ima­ges, that many of the most learned of them, thought it was a sin so much as to make them; and others who did not scruple the making them, yet thought it unlawful to have them in Churches, though for no other use than Ornament: And when some in the fourth Century, thought they might be permitted in Churches, they notwithstanding abhorred the thoughts of gi­ving any manner of Worship to them: All which are so fully proved by learned Men of our own Church Bishop Tay­lor, Dr. Stil­lingfleet, &c., that I forbear to insist upon them: Though it is a matter that needs not proof, because it is confessed by Cassander, That the antient Christians had a great abhorrency for all Veneration of Images Cassand. Consult. Art. 21.

It is certain the Pope himself was an enemy to Image-Worship for six hundred Years after Christ; for Gregory the Great, to a certain Recluse, who desired the Image of Christ, expresly an­swered, That Images were not to be worshipped. And in his Epistle to Serenus Bishop of Marseilles, though he blame him for breaking the Images in pieces, yet he praises him, for that he would not suffer them to be worship'd; he thought they might [Page 49] be of use for the instruction of the Ignorant, but would not en­dure that they should be adored. For it is one thing, saith he, to adore a Picture, another thing to learn by the History of the Picture, what is to be adored; If any Man will make Images, do not forbid him; but by all means avoid the worshipping of them l 9. Epist. 9.

But after that they were once brought into Churches, Men came by little and little to worship them; till at length it was established for a Law in the second Council of Nice, that they were to be set up in Churches, to the end that they might be worshipped; and that with true and proper Worship; and all those were anathemized who durst say the contrary; which Decree was confirmed by the fourth Council at Constantinople, and afterwards by the Council of Trent.

And though the Worship decreed by that Council, was of an inferior nature, yet in process of time, it was advanced by the Church of Rome to that supreme Worship which is proper to God himself. For before Luther's time the approved Doctrine of that Church was, That the very same Worship was to be given to the Image, that was to be given to the person represented by it; and therefore to the Images of God and of Christ, the Worship of Latria, that is, That Worship which belongs to God over all blessed for ever. And such as their Doctrine was, such was their Practice; insomuch that Cassander complains, That their Worship of Images, and their vanity in making and adorning them, was nothing inferior to that of the Heathens Consult. Cassand. Art. 21. de Imagin. & Simulachris.. We may add, If there was any difference between Heathen and Christian Rome, it seems to be this; that the latter hath outdone the former, in this piece of Idolatry. Add to this,

(8.) Their solemn Prayers to Saints departed, and that not to in­tercede for them, but to bestow upon them those Temporal and Spiritual Blessings they stand in need of; which was the practice of the Church of Rome, and made a part both of their private and publick Devotions, long before the Reformation.

Now were it so good and profitable to invoke the Saints, as the Council of Trent teaches; it is strange that so great a Lover of Mankind as S. Paul, when he so frequently commands us to pray, and hath left so many directions concerning Prayer, should whol­ly forget to teach us this Lesson. Can it be supposed a Worship so pleasing to God, when God hath not given us the least intima­tion [Page 50] in his Word that it is so? For that it hath no foundation in Scripture, we may be assured, when so great a Man of the Church of Rome, as Cardinal P [...]rron acknowledges that neither Precept, nor Example, is there to be found for it; and when other learned Doctors of that Church, not only confess the same, but also give us several Reasons, why no mention is made of it either in the Old or New Testament.

But this is not all. There is not only nothing in Scripture for it, but much against it: For we are there frequently taught, to offer up our Prayers to God alone; through that one Mediator be­tween God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus.

And had the Fathers been of opinion, that Saints might be in­voked; could they have thought the Invocation of Christ, a good Argument to prove his Divinity? Would they have accused the Arians of Idolatry for worshipping him, because they supposed him to be no more than a Creature? Could they be so sottish as to deride the Heathens for worshipping dead men, had they them­selves worshipped such? And would not the Heathens have re­torted their Sarcasms? When Heathens and Jews both, so often reproached the Christians, for worshipping one that was crucified; had they worshipped not only him, but his Apostles and Disciples too, would they not much more have reproached them for that? But what need of Arguments to prove it, when the Fathers them­selves plainly tell us, that they made their Prayers to God alone Clemens Alexand. Stro­mat. l. 7. p. 721. Paris. Edit. 1629. Tertull. Apol. c. 30. Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. 8. c. 27.?

'Tis unreasonable to say, that the Fathers speak of supream Wor­ship only which the Romanists themselves reserve to God, while they allow an inferior Worship to others: Because they were not aware of any such difference of Worship: All religious Worship, was in their account, such as was due to God alone. The distinctions of worship into supream and subordinate, abso­lute and relative, terminative and transient, as they have no foundation in Scripture, so the Christians of the first Ages were ignorant of, they having no such different objects of Reli­gious Worship, to which these different Degrees were to be suited.

And forasmuch as the Romanists themselves, make sacrifice proper to God; it seems very absurd to make Prayer common to him with others. For Sacrifices were not only accompanied with vocal Prayers and Thanksgivings; but were themselves real Prayers and Praises; they being sacred Rites by which they offered [Page 51] up their Petitions and Thanks to God, as their very names Euctical and Eucharistical teach us. And when Prayer and Sacrifice are considered apart, and compared the one with the other, God sets the higher value upon Prayer, and desires that rather than Sa­crifice Psalm 50.. If therefore, Sacrifice be a Worship peculiar to God, it follows à fortiori, that Prayer must be so too:

As will be further evident from the very nature of the thing; because Prayer is an acknowledgment of those Excellencies in the Person pray'd to, and a payment of those Duties to him, which are the sole Prerogative of God. For what are the incommunica­ble Perfections of God himself? If not to be present in all places, to know the Secrets of our Hearts, and to be able to supply the wants of all those that call upon him? And all these must be sup­posed to be in him, to whom Prayers are addressed by all Persons, from all distant places of the World. And what Homage can be more proper to him, who is infinite Power, Wisdom, and Good­ness, than to submit our selves to him? To hope and trust in him, and to cast all our care upon him? And all these Duties we pay to that Being, to whom we make our Prayers. And therefore the Church of England had great reason to charge them with Ido­latry, who put up their Prayers to Saints; because, in so doing, they give that Worship to the Creature, which is due to God alone Homily a­gainst peril of Idolatry..

(9.) I might largely insist upon the Worship which the Church of Rome gives to the Reliques of Saints, which is more absurd, than that which they give to the Saints themselves.

By their Reliques, they understand not only their dead Bodies, and all the parts of them (their Nails and Hair not excepted) but all those things that any way appertained to them: Yea, what­soever they touched, and whatsoever touched them, by virtue of that Touch, it becomes Sacred. Upon which account, no things are had in greater Honor with them, than those by which our Blessed Lord was put to shame. The Thorns that gored him, the Nails that pierced him, the Cross he was nailed to, because they touched his Sacred Body, divine Honour must be given to them, as the great Oracle of their Church hath determined (and by consequence to the Judas that betray'd him). Tho with this difference, that not only to the true Cross, on which our Saviour hung; but to the Image of it Divine Worship is to be paid; but not to the Images of the Nails and Spear, [Page 52] but only to those very Nails, and that very Spear that pierced him Crux Chri­sti, in qua Chri­stus crucifixus est, tum propter repraesentationem, tum etiam propter membrorum Christi contactum Latria adoranda est: Crucis vero effigies in alia quavis materia, priori tantum ratione Latria adoranda est. Quantum ad rationem contactus membrorum Christi, adoramus non solum Crucem, sed omnia quae sunt Christi. Aquin. pars 3. quaest. 25. Art. 4..

And which is yet more monstrous; tho 'tis certain, that these pretended Reliques, if not all, yet are most of them counterfeit, (unless that which is but one, can be a multitude) because the same is pretended to be shewed in many places; yet the same worship is given to the false, that is given to the true Reliques; and so the Body of a Malefactor, is sometimes worshipped, for that of a Saint; and the Bones of a Beast, for those of a Martyr. But suppose they are true, are they not goodly objects of Wor­ship? Garlick and Onions (the Egyptians Deities) may justly be accounted Gods right worshipful, when compared with Thorns, and Nails and Chips, and many other of the Romish Gods. So ridiculous are the Follies and Impieties, that are often practised in this Relique-worship, that nothing equal was ever found among the most sottish Heathen.

I shall therefore spare the pains of shewing that it is condemn'd by Scripture, by Reason, and that nothing like it was practised by the Primitive Christians, for more than three hundred years; and shall only tell you what censure, a learned and famous man of their own Church hath passed upon this sort of worship. It is ma­nifest (saith he) that in later times, too much hath been attributed to the Memories and Reliques of Saints, so that even by such good men as have a pious Zeal, the Summ as it were of Religion, is thought to consist in getting of Reliques, and adorning them with Gold and Jewels, and in building sumptuous Temples and Memories for the Martyrs; and also by wicked men, a false trust is placed in the needless worship of Reliques—And out of covetousness (saith he) false Reliques are forg'd, and feigned Mi­racles are published, by which Miracles, the Superstition of the People is nourished, that they are rather transported into admiration of the Mira­cles, than provoked to the imitation of the Saints, or the amendment of Life. But sometimes by the Craft and Illusion of the Devil, abusing mans super­stitious Conceits by Dreams and Visions, new Reliques were revealed, and by his operation Miracles seemed to be wrought—Also very many are found, who make merchandize of the Reliques of Saints, whether true or [Page 53] false; so that almost every where, they are carried about by Pedlers and the vilest of men, and with many Lyes are recommended to the ignorant Vulgar. But since at this day, when every where all places seem to be full of the Reliques of Saints; it is to be feared, that if Bishops and Princes would take that pains which they ought, in searching out and judging of true Reliques, great and detestable Cheats would be discovered. And after some other things of the like import, he concludes: Since therefore the true and known Reliques of the Saints, especially in these Provinces, are very few, and many of those which are shown, may be justly suspected; and since the frequenting and Veneration of them, does not serve Piety much, but very much serves Superstition and Gain; it seems much more adviseable, that no Reliques should be shewn; and that the People should be provoked to worship the true Reliques of the Saints; that is, to imitate the Examples of their Piety and Virtues, which are extant either in their own Writings, or in the Writings of others concerning them Consult. Cassand. Art. 20. p. 973.. To con­clude this Head, we reverence the Memories of the Saints, espe­cially of the ancient Martyrs; and should we meet with any un­questionable Remains of their Bodies, we should pay more than ordinary respect to them: We bless God for their exemplary Lives and triumphant Deaths, but we dare not worship them, and make them our Gods. I proceed now to the next general Head of Corruptions.

3. Corruption of Manners, which at the time of the Reforma­tion, and long before, was grown to that excess, that the great men of the Church of Rome before cited, who called for a Reforma­tion, thought it especially necessary in regard of Manners. And some of them did not stick to publish to the World, that either the ruin of the Church, or some dismal Plagues were near ap­proaching, unless prevented by a speedy Reformation in their Mo­rals. This was the main design of Gerson's Treatise concerning the Signs of the Ruin of the Church. And I am bold to say, says the Cardinal of Cambray, in the Preface to his Book of the Reforma­tion of the Church, That altho they are great Evils which we see, yet unless the Church be speedily reformed, we shall in a short time see in­comparably greater; after those horrid thunders we have already heard, we shall presently hear others that are more horrible. And the Suffragan Bishop of Saltzburg, having described the Vices of the Roman Court, he concludes; 'Tis vehemently to be presumed, and cautiously to be feared, that the Ruine of the Latin Church, as to its Ecclesiastical Dignity is near Onus Ec­clesiae, c. 19. fol. 36..

Nor shall we think it strange that considering men apprehended such dreadful Evils were approaching, if we consider that this deplo­rable corruption of manners was

• (1.) Universal, in all States and Degrees of Men.
• (2.) And more especially in the Clergy.
• (3.) And most especially in the Pope and Cardinals.

(1.) There was a general corruption of manners, both in the Ci­vil and Ecclesiastical State. The Cardinal but now mention'd, ha­ving recited the sad complaints S. Bernard made of the corrupt State of the Church in his time, he further adds: If these things were spoken by blessed Bernard, they may now much more be said; because since his time, the Church hath proceeded from bad to worse; and in the whole State as well Spiritual as Secular, Vertue be­ing abandon'd, it hath fallen into the shame and filthiness of Vice Fascic. re­rum expetend. ac fugiend. fol. 203.. And supposing all States and Orders to be corrupted, he after­wards proceeds to shew, what he thought were the best expedients, both for the Reformation of the Church in general, and of the head and the several subordinate Members in particular. Nicolas de Cle­mangis tells us: That wicked Persons did so much abound in all profes­sions of men, that scarce one among a thousand was to be found, who did sincerely live answerable to their Profession; and if there was any one that was honest, chast and frugal, and did not follow this lewd kind of life, he was made a laughing stock to others, and was presently call'd, either an insolent and singular madman; or an Hypocrite Sed tan­ta est improbo­rum in singulis professionibus exuberantia, ut vix inter mille unus reperiatur, qui id quod sua Professio ex­igit, sinceriter f [...]ciat. Quin­etiam si simplex aliquis, si castus & frugalis in Collegio aliquo vel convent [...] latam & lubrican perditorum vitam non sectetur, fabula ridicula caeteris efficitur, insolens (que) & singularis insa [...]s aut hypocrita continuo appella­tur, &c. Nic. de Clemang. de corrupto Statu Eccles. c. 25.. The description of the corrupt manners, of all orders of Men, both in Church and State, which we find in the book before cited Onus Ecclesiae., is so black and tragical, that it can hardly be read without horrour: and that Book was pub­lish'd about the beginning of the Reformation. And the Cardi­nal of Lorrain forty years after in his Speech to the Council of Trent, attributes all the dismal calamities which had befallen the Kingdom of France, to corruption of Manners, as one principal cause of them Hist. of the Counc. of Trent. l. 7..

(2.) And no wonder that all flesh had corrupted their ways, when the lives of the Clergy, which should have been the Salt of the World, were themselves more corrupt and unsavory, than those [Page 55] of the Laity. Cardinal Julian in his Epistle to Pope Eugenius IV. tells him, That the People were above measure incens'd against the Ec­clesiastical State, by the dissolute lives of the Clergy, for which, saith he, 'tis greatly to be fear'd, unless they mend their Manners, lest the Lay­men, after the example of the Hussites, fall foul upon the whole Clergy. And in truth this deformity administers great boldness to the Bohemians, and gives a fair colour to their errours, who especially inveigh against the filthiness of the Clergy Incitabat me huc venire de­formitas & dissolutio Cleri Ale­maniae ex qua laici supra modum irritantur adversus statum Eccle­si [...]sticum, propter quod valde timendum est, nisi sise eme [...]dent, ne laici, more Hussitarum, in to­tum irruant Clerum, &c. Richer. Hist. Concil. general. l. 3. c. 2. p. 322, 323.. The German Bishop before quoted, in the words of Ca­tharine of Sienna, gives this character of the com­mon Clergy, at the beginning of the Reformation: The Modern and unhappy Clergy addict themselves to temporal things, being destitute of Divine light; they love themselves, neglect the love of God, and their Neighbour; they are worse than wordly Men, whom they destroy together with themselves. They are addicted to Pleasures and infa­mous Practices, and neglect the Salvation of the Souls of Christ's faithful Peo­ple. By the lives of such wicked Clergymen, the seculars come to be disobedient and irreverent towards the Church; they are seduced by blind Guides, who, Oh shame! are ignorant Idiots, Proud, Covetous, Hypocrites, Simo­niacal, Luxurious, Envious, slow to good Works, prone to Evil, &c. Where at this day can be found that Continence in Gesture, Diet, apparel, and Laughter, that becomes the Clergy? At Banquets, Taverns, Plays and Theaters, they are more frequently found, than in places dedicated to God. How hugely pernicious to the Ʋniversal Church, the Scurrility, Ignorance, Fornication, Simony, and other crimes are, with which almost the whole Clergy is infected, there is no man doubts Onus Ec­cles. c. 21. S. 1.. Much more may be found of the like import, in the following part of the Chapter. And Nicolas de Clmeangis, who was himself an Arch-Dea­con in the Church of Rome, represents the Clergy of that Church, as the dregs and scum of mankind, as persons who for the gene­rality abandon'd themselves to the most loathsom vices, as may be seen in the Margin Jam illud, obsecro, quale est, quod ple­ris (que) in Dioecesibus, Rectores Parochiarum ex certo & conducto cum s [...]is Praelatis pretio, passim & pub­lice Concubinas tenent? De corrupto Statu Ecclesiae, c. 15. Si quis bodie desi [...]iosus est, si quis à labore abhorrers, si quis in otio luxuriari volens, ad sacerdotium convolat, quo adepto, statim se caeteris sacerdotibus voluptatum sectatoribus adjungit, qui magis secundum Epicurum quam Christum viventes, & ca [...]onulas sedulo frequentantes, potando, commessando, p [...]ansitando, convivando, cum tesseris & pila ludendo, temp [...]ra tota consu [...]unt. Crapulati vero & in [...]briati pugnant, clamant, tumu [...]tuantur, nomen Dei & sanctorum s [...]orum polutissimis labi [...]s execrantur, si [...] (que) tandem comp [...] ­siti ex meretricum suarum amplexibus, ad Divinum [...]tare veniunt. c. 16..

Nor were the inferiour Clergy alone, chargeable with these foul immoralities; but the Prelates were as bad, or worse than the Curates. The Bishops (says the foremention'd Author) serve Onus Ecclesia, c. 20. S. 3. their own Tables instead of the Altar; they are unwise in Divine things, while they love the wisdom of the World; they are more employ'd in the Offices of the Exchequer, than in the Works of Christ; they adorn their Bodies with Gold, they defile their Souls with Impurity; they account it a shame to employ themselves in spiritual matters, and their Glory is to meddle with those things that are scurrilous. Hence 'tis said by Catharine of Sienna; they as men that are blinded, reckon that to be their Honour, that is truly their shame; contrary to the Canons, they keep about themselves, Pimps, Bawds, Flatterers, Buffoons; such as give themselves wholly to Vanity, instead of men that are Learned, and of good report. And a lit­tle after: The Bishops neglect due Hospitality, by neglecting the Poor of Christ, by making themselves fat, by feeding Dogs and other Beasts, §. 9. and so one Beast feeds another; as if they chose to be of the number of those, against whom the Lord will pronounce that just sentence, I was poor and ye received me not, therefore depart from me ye cursed in­to everlasting fire. There are few Bishops who are not covetous, they take by violence other mens Goods, and wastfully spend the Goods of the Church; they bestow the revenues of the Church, not to pious uses, but upon their Kindred, upon Stage-players, Flatterers, Huntsmen, Whores, and such like Persons; they rather make provision for the wickedness of Men, than for the necessities of Nature, &c.

This was the complaint of a Popish Bishop in the year 1519. And that the matter was not much mended with the Romish Clergy more than forty years after, appears by the speech of the Duke of Bavaria's Embassadour to the Council of Trent; In which he tells the Council, that the cause of the evils that were risen among them, was the bad life of the Clergy, whose wickedness was so great, that he could not relate it, without offending the chast ears of the Auditory Hist of the Counc of Trent, l. 6. p. 527..

Tho' it may seem strange that the Clergy, who by their very Calling are oblig'd to exemplary Purity and Holiness, should be so monstrously vicious, yet the wonder will be the less, if we con­sider,

(3.) That the vicious lives of the Popes and Cardinals were indeed the main source of that deluge of wickedness, in which the inferiour Clergy was immersed. We can desire no better proof of this than the confession of Pope Adrian VI. in his instructions [Page 57] to his Legate for the Diet at Nuremberg in the year 1522. Thou shalt promise, says he, that we will use our utmost endeavours, first that this Court may be reform'd, from whence perhaps all this evil hath proceeded; that as from thence the corruption flow'd to all inferiours, so from thence the health and reformation of all may proceed Sleidan. Comment. l. 4. History of the Council of Trent, l. 1. Richer. Hist. Concil. general. l. 4. part 2. p. 129.. This was a rare confession from a Pope, but no more than what the ne­cessity of the thing extorted from him.

For the Cardinals were by degrees arriv'd to such an excess of Pride and Luxury, as was odious and intolerable to all but them­selves, and those whose vices were supported by them. If a man would make an image of Pride (says Clemangis,) he can no way do it more to the life, than by representing a Cardinal to the eyes of the Beholders Jam vero Cardinalium qui Pap [...] assident spiritus, verba tumentia, gestus tam insolentes, ut si Artifex quisque vellet su­perbiae simulachrum effingere, nulla congruentius ratione id fa­cere posset, quam Cardinalis effi­giem oculis intuentium objectando. De corrupto Statu Eccles. c. 10.. They trampled upon Bishops who were their Betters, nor would they vouchsafe so much as to salute them, when they fell prostrate upon the ground to worship them; which is more than any King ever assumed Nec pro quocunque Prae­lato etiam prono adorante eos in terra ponerent manum ad capel­lum, ut salutarent eum: quod nun­quam aliquis Rex aut Princeps fecit, neque hodie permitteret. Responsio Apologet. Gallicanae Nationis de Annat. non sol­vend. apud Richer. l. 2. c. 3.. One of them­selves (more modest than the rest) when he re­turned home laden with the Spoils of Germany, being asked in Consistory, what the Barbarians (so they called the Germans) thought of Rome, which was so kind as to send them those choice Wares of Indulgences, answered; That the whole World complained of the Pride and Luxury of the Cardi­nals Totum orbem conqueri de luxu fastuque Cardinalium. Fascic. Rerum expetend. ac fu­giend. fol. 203.. And can any man think there was not just cause for this complaint, who will but con­sider, what vast Revenues were spent upon their Lusts? For not two or three, or ten or twenty Benefices would suffice; but a hundred or two hundred, yea some­times four or five hundred or more, were usurp'd by one Cardinal; and those not of the poorer sort, but the fattest and richest of all. And well had it been, says our Author, for the inferior Clergy, had they been content with that prodigious number, but the great mischief was, that nothing would satisfie them, but how great a num­ber soever they had, they still more vehemently coveted more Non qui­dem duo vel tria, decem vel viginti, sed centena & ducentena, & interdum us (que) ad quadringenta vel quingenta aut am­plius. Nec parva & tenuia, sed omnium pinguissima & optima, quibus si contenti essent, postquam ad sum­mam illam numerosam perventum est, nec ultra quaererent▪ prospere cum pauperibus Clericis, qui reliquias ea­rum expectant, ageretur: Sed quantumcunq [...] ad numerum aut summam venerint, ad [...]mptiorem festinant, & assidue festinant, & ardentius festinant. De Cor. Statu Eccles. c. 11..

Nor shall we think it strange, to hear of such Cardinals, when we consider what manner of men the Popes themselves common­ly were. We need not look back to foregoing Ages, in which their own Historians tell us, they were Monsters and Prodigies H [...]c monstra, haec Por­tenta. Plat. in vita Benedicti IV.; Such tragical Examples, and so de­void of all Piety, as neither to regard the Person they su­stained, nor the place they were in Non possum non multum mirari, unde tragica haec Ponti­ficum fluxerint exempla, quam dira pietatis oblivio eorum mentes irrepserit, ut neque personae quam sustinebant ratio ab his ulla ha­beretur, neque loci quem tenebant. Sabellic. Ennead. 9. l. 1.; that about fifty Popes together, did utterly degenerate from the Virtue of their Ancestors Hoc vero uno infelix quod per annos fere 150. Pontifices cir­citer quinquaginta à virtute Ma­jorum prorsus defecerint. Gene­brard. Chronograph. l. 4.. But passing over these, let us only consider what the Popes were, about the time of the Reformation, when the World was now grown weary of the burden of Vice, and groan'd to be delivered from it; when (if ever) their worldly Interest ingaged them to put on the shew, how much soever they abhorred the Reality, of Virtue.

When after the death of Innocent VIII. Lionel Bishop of Con­cordia, in an Oration to the Cardinals, pressed them with the most rowsing Arguments, to chuse a good man, whose Life was with­out Scandal Raynald, an. 1492.. What was the effect? Alexander VI. was chosen, a man (if he may be so called) who was the Reproach of humane Nature; who before he was chosen Pope, was a Prodigy of Lust and other Vices; and continued so to the last, when by the just Judgment of God, he was poisoned by a mistake, in drinking that Cup himself, which he had prepared to dispatch others Quos gemi­tus Christiano­rum, vita prodigiosa & spurcissima gesta Alexand. VI. abundantius & ita quidem excivit, &c. Richer. l. 4. part 1. c. 2. S. 1. Cum Alexand. VI. PP. anno 1503. Veneno quod aliis paraverat, de improviso extinctus. Id. S. 3..

Pius III. liv'd not long enough to let the World know what he would prove, for he died within six and twenty days after his Ele­ction.

Julius II. who succeeded him, his Crimes (as Lewis XII. King of France tells us) were notorious, and such as scan­daliz'd the whole Church Vide Edict. Reg. Gall. pro Convocat. Concil. Pisani.. 'Tis certain, he filled Italy with Rapines, War and Blood; to which he was so addicted, that contrary to the Laws of Nations, he commanded the Procurator of the Duke of Savoy to be tortured, because he endeavoured to perswade him [Page 59] to Peace Richer. Hist. Conc. general. l. 4. par. 1. p. 151.. So monstrous were his Acts, that Richerius says, he must be wholly made of Steel, who can read them without horror —Nisi ob gesta Julii obstupueris, totus, quidem eris ferreus. p. 150. Sup. l..

Pope Leo X. (in whose time the Reformation began), was a civil debonair Gentleman; but so little concerned for Religion, that he cared not to know what it meant History of the Council of Trent, l. 1.. When he admitted Dis­courses of that nature, it was for diversion sake, and to make him­self sport. His Soul, he thought, was no longer-liv'd than his Body, and therefore he gave himself up to sensual Gratifications; and 'twas indeed but reason, that he who supposed he should die like a Beast, should live like an Epicure.

Adrian VI. promised fair, but God alone knows, in case he had liv'd, whether his performances would have answered his Promises.

Clem [...]nt VII. as he got the Popedom by Simony History of the Council of Trent, l. 1., so he ad­minister'd it by as ill Arts as he got it: His prime Virtue was Dissimulation; he made no conscience of his Word or Oath, but brake his Covenants as oft as he made them.

Paul III. and Julius III. who followed next, the Characters given of them by many of the Romish Writers, are so foul and loath­some, that if I had the face to write them, no modest man could read them without blushing.

4. I should now proceed to the last general Head of Cor­ruptions, viz. Corruptions in Discipline. But because that is so large a Subject, that 'tis better to say nothing, than a little con­cerning it; and because this Discourse is already swell'd beyond the bounds prescrib'd; and because what hath been said upon the foregoing Heads, is more than enough to evince the necessity of Reformation: I shall therefore refer the Reader, for satisfaction in this Matter, to the History of the Council of Trent, written by Father Paul; the Review of the Council of Trent; Mr. Gerson's Sermon before Pope Alexander V. and his Declarat. Defect. viror. Ecclesiast. Clemangis's Tracts de Corrupto Statu Eccles. and de Reparat. & Ruina Eccles. the hundred Grievances of the German Nation; Espencaeus's Comment on the first Chapter of the Epistle to Titus; the Appeal of the University of Paris from Pope Leo X. [Page 60] the Articles of Reformation proposed by the select Council to Pope Paul III. The twenty Points of Reformation proposed by the Emperors Ambassadors to the Council of Trent, and the four and thirty proposed by the Ambassadors of the King of France. Richerius his History of General Councils, &c.