CHAP. I.

I Cannot forbid my self to wonder, Sect. 1 that an Author by some esteemed so irre­fragable, a book which gives such cause of triumph to the Adversary, and ob­tains a Commendam from many Prote­stants, should yet lie open to so many and so plain exceptions, such as, if all advantages were taken, would stretch an Answer into many Volums; for to return our Antagonists words upon him, I protest that not one period can I find that is extraordinary, not one instance but I will undertake to shew, that it is either very impertinent, ushered in with dis­advantages to the truth, or open forgery; or lastly, such as hath frequently received a full and satisfactory answer from others heretofore.

And are we not come to a fine pass, Sect. 2 when such a Pamphlet can be esteemed a demonstration of the Problem? when to transcribe, a Bellarmine should I say? or rather the objection of a Field and Hammond, should be esteemed sufficient proofs of the Popes Supremacy? (as if we had not been able to tran­scribe their Answers) when that which may sufficiently be answered by the meanest Son of the Church of England shall be thought sufficient to load her with the guilt of Schism, to unchurch her, and pronounce the sentence of damnation upon all her members.

And first, Sect. 3 With what truth do you insinuate that the Do­ctors Sermon is of a stile so different from the Court Sermons which the times of our late glorious Soveraign and Martyr did produce? Pag. 3. can you not remember one single instance of a Sermon in those dayes, that hath employed your pens for an Answer? Pag 4. yea with what face can you charge the Doctor with any bitterness, in saying, That his Sermon might be like to meet with men that are apt to confute their opponents with fire and faggot? for are not you the men that have disputed against us with Flame and Gun-powder, with Armies and Navies? are not you the men that murthered so many thousands in cold blood in Ireland? that destroyed the Monks of Bangor for living contrary to the manner of the Roman Church? who can be ignorant of the floods of Chri­stian blood that have been shed by the Roman hands in Savoy, France, Poland, Germany, Bohemia, Ireland, England? of the treacherous conspiracies that have been made by these Popish Emissaries against our Kings, and Queen in England? of the butcheries of Princes, and Nobles committed by them else­where? how truly have they been drunk with the blood of Saints? and would not these blood-thirsty men pretend as high to Loyalty as you now do? was it not the Papal interest (which you jointly manage) that prompted them to the com­mission of such execrable facts? was it not an opinion that we were Hereticks (which you also passionately assert) that emboldned them to these actions? and can you blame his Majesty, or his Parliament, if they endeavour to secure their Protestant Friends and Subjects from such cruel and unrea­sonable men?

Be it acknowledged that Catholick Religion cannot stand justly charged with these crimes, Sect. 4 yet must it be acknowledged also, that many, yea the greater part of Papists, are guilty of a world of blood-shed upon this account; and that you are not such who sojourn with us, but Loyal to his Majesty, what security will you give us? shall it be your Oath of Allegiance to our King? Fr. White against Fisher, p. 571. many Papists refuse it, yea persecute those who hold it lawful to be taken. Shall it be your subscri­ptions to any form acknowledging his due Supremacy? Alas do not we know, that (1.) many amongst you allow of men­tal [Page 3]reservations, and equivocations, an Artifice that will excuse and free you from the most accurate Oath imaginable; and what if you swear that you take your Oath without any men­tal reservation? may you not mean any that you intend to acquaint us with? how can any man be assured that you do not all hold these mental reservations, seeing you may deny the tenent by a mental reservation, and yet hold it? but ad­mit that none of you held this Tenent, yet do not many of you say, That you may break your faith with an Vide Cra­kenth. def. Ecc. Ang. where you have the judgement of Syman­cha, Thom. Aquin. and the Counc. of Con­stance for it. p. 625. See also Dr. Mor­tons Popish posit. and practices for Rebel. Pacenius [...] Epist. mo­nit. Jac. Regis. Tit. B. 2. & 3. Dr Mor­ton. ib. Heretick, and all of you that we are Hereticks? but were this otherwise, Thirdly, Do not many of you hold that if the Pope dissolve the Oath, you are freed from it? as also when he declareth it unjust, which when he pleaseth he may do; hear the ex­cuser of the Powder Plot from the imputation of cruelty (be­cause both seed and root of an evil herb must be destroyed) thus deriding the simplicity of his Majesty in composing and requiring the Oath of Allegiance; He thought (saith he) that no man could any way dissolve, with a safe conscience, the Oath which he had made; but he could not see, that if the Pope dissolve the Oath, all its knots, whether of being faithful to the King, or of admitting no dispensation, are dissolved; yea, I will say a thing more admirable, you know I believe that an unjust Oath, if it be evidently known to be such, or openly declared such, obligeth no man; that the Kings Oath is unjust, is sufficiently declared by the Pastor of the Church himself, you see now that the obligation of it is vanished into smoak; and that the bond which so many wise men thought was made of Iron, is less then straw. Yea further, cannot good Pope Cardinal Ossatus Ep. 87. ad D. de ville-roy. Suarez. adv. sect: Aug. l. 6. c. 4. s. 14 &c. 6. s. 22, 24. Azorius I [...]st. Moral. part. 1. l 8. c. 13. See the Janse­nians my­sterie of iniquity. Abbots Antilogia. Clement the VIII. suggest to You (as he did to the King of France, tied by the bond of a Sacred Oath to the Queen of England) that your Oath is made to an Heretick, but you stand bound (against her and her Succcessors) in another Oath to God, and to the Pope? Fourthly, What is his Majesty the better for your subscripti­ons to his due Supremacy, whereas many of you hold that when the Pope hath deposed him, no obedience is due unto him, yea that then ipso facto he becomes a Tyrant, and may be dealt with as such an one, and consequently be slain by a private man? Suarez defens. fid. Cathol. l. 6. c. 4. Norson ubi supra.

Will you plead your fidelity, Sect. 5 and zeal, in serving and de­fending of our Princes, See p. 7. and even the Religion of the King­dom, in sacrificing your blood and fortunes for his Majesty? 1. With what confidence can this be pleaded by you? when the whole Colledge of your Jesuits in London say, Mr. Baxters Key for Cath. c. 45. That they will rather promote the cutting off of the Kings Majesty, (then hinder it) least they (the Puritans) should make use of his extre­mities to any advantage; nor are we ignorant who it was that hath of late been convicted of rejoycing at that unsavage butchery. 2. For shame do not say you were unanimously so, was it so in Ireland? In two Letters to Arch B. Laud ex­tant in Print in­troduc. p. 102, 112. Vide Bax. ibid. no, Bishop Bedle will assure us his Ma­jesty was with the greatest part of Ireland as to their hearts and consciences King, but at the Popes discretion, and that in Ireland the Pope had another Kingdom far greater in number then his Majesties, and as he had heretofore signified to the Lords Justices and Council (which since is justified by themselves in Print) constantly directed and guided by the order of the new congrega­tion, de propaganda fide, lately erected at Rome. 3. What reason do some of you give why you should be quiet under his Majesties dominions? even this, because you are not able to manage a war against him; In Th. 22. qu. 13. art. 2. non licet eis tol [...]rare talem Re­gem. Bell. l. 5. de Paul. c. 7. s. 3. And again, they are obliged not to suffer him. s. probatur they are bound to deprive him of his dominions. Bull. Pauli. 5. cont. Hen. 8. yea tis meritorious of eternal life, saith Card. Commens. in his letter to Pareus. thus Bannes, The faithful (Papists) in England and Saxony are to be excused that they do not free themselves from the power of Superiors, nor make war against them, because commonly they are not strong enough to manage these wars, and great dangers hang over them: were they then strong enough, not to rebell would be unex­cusable.

But that which without doubt you plead with greatest confidence, Sect. 6 Pag. 4. is, That if all the received Canons of the Church were searched, not one could be found to testifie the shedding of blood simply on the account of Religion. In Answer to this, I shall return you the words of one of your approved General Councils, the fourth at Lateran under Innocent the third, as Binius and others of your own record it, where in the first Chapter they set down their Catholick Faith, two [Page 5]Articles of which are, 1. That no man can be saved out of their universal Church. And 2. That the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Altar are transubstantiate into the body and blood of Christ, the appearances remaining. And in the third Chapter, they say We Excommunicate and Anathema­tise every Heresie extolling it self against this holy Orthodox Catholick Faith, which we have before exponed, condemn­ing all Hereticks, by what names soever they be called. And being condemned, let them be left to the present secular powers, or their Bayliffs, to be punished, the Clergy being first degraded of their orders, and let the goods of such condemned ones be confiscate, if they be Lay-men; but if they be Clergy-men, let them be given to the Churches whence they had their Stipends. And those that are found notable only by suspition, if they do not by congruous purgation demonstrate their innocency; according to the considerations of the suspition, and the quality of the person, let them be smitten with the sword of Anathema, and avoided by all men, till they have given suf­ficient satisfaction; and if they remain a year excommuni­cate, let them then be condemned as Hereticks. And let the secular powers, in what office soever, be admonished, and perswaded, and, if necessary, compelled by Ecclesiastical cen­sure, that as they would be reputed and accounted believers, so for the defence of the faith, they take an Oath publikely, that they will study in good earnest, according to their power, to exterminate all that are by the Church denoted Hereticks from the Countries subject to their Jurisdiction. So that when any one shall be taken into Spiritual, or Temporal power, he shall by his Oath make good this Chapter. But if the Tem­poral Lord being required or admonished by the Church, shall neglect to purge his Countrey of Heretical defile­ment, let him by the Metropolitan and Comprovincial Bi­shops be tyed by the bond of Excommunication. And if he re­fuse to satisfie within a year, let it be signified to the Pope, that he from thenceforth may denounce his Vassals absolved from his fidelity, and may expose his Countrey to be Seised on by Catholiques, who rooting out the Hereticks, may pos­sess it without contradiction, and may keep it in the purity [Page 6]of faith; saving the right of the principal Lord, so be it that he make no hinderance hereabout, and oppose not any impe­diment: and the same Law is to be observed with them that are not principal Lords. And the Catholikes that taking the sign of the Cross shall set themselves to the rooting out of the Hereticks, shall enjoy the same Indulgences and holy priviledges, which were granted to those that go to the re­lief of the Holy Land. Moreover we decree that the Belie­vers, Receivers, Defenders, and favourers of Hereticks, shall be excommunicate, firmly decreeing, that after any such is noted by excommunication, if he refuse to satisfie within a year, he shall from thenceforth be ipso Jure infamous, and may not be admitted into publick offices, or councils, or to the choice of such, nor to bear witness. And he shall be in­testate, and not have power to make a Will, nor come to succession of inheritance. And no man shall be forced to answer him in any cause, but he shall be forced to answer others. And if he be a Judge, his sentence shall be invalid, and no causes shall be brought unto his hearing. If he be an advocate, his Plea shall not be admitted. If a Notary (or Register) the Instruments made by him shall be utterly void, and damned, with the damned Author. And so in other the like cases we command that it be observed: Thus the Council. The Summ of which is, that all the Pope calls Hereticks, must be condemned and destroyed, That all Kings, Princes, or Lords that will not execute his sentence, and root them out; must be dispossessed of their Dominions, and the subjects absolved from fidelity, (whatever Oaths they had taken) and all others that do but favour or receive them, be utterly undone, and exterminated. Now seeing our Author tells us that the determination of a general Council is infallible truth, and we have this with the decernimus & firmiter statu­imus of a general Council, this must be acknowledged to be so. Indeed I confess that some Romanists do affirm that this is not the genuine Decree of the Lateran Council, but only of Pope Innocent foisted in amongst the genuine Decrees; Epist. Mo­nit. ad Jo­hannem Barclaium. But a­gainst this Eudaemo-Johannes asks, if the business were so, Cur in editione hujus Canonis ne Ʋnus quidem reclamavit? cur ne unus quidem ex tot Imperatorum et Regum oratoribus mutire [Page 7]ausus sit? Yea, why is it so generally Extant in all Editions? Co [...]t. Bar­claium. (2.) Bellarmine tells us that it was defined in a general Council at Leyden under Innocent the fourth, in a Roman Synod under Gregory the seventh, Ad quam plurimi Episcopi undi (que) convene­rant omni­bas con­sentienti­bus & lau­dantibus. to which there was a general Conflux of Bishops from every place, who all consented to, and ap­plauded the determination, and by another at Rome under Paschal the second, by one at Colen under Gelasius the se­cond, at Rhemes under Calixtus the second, at Beneventum under Victor the third, at Placentia under Ʋrbane the second, and further that it was the judgement of twenty one prime leading men in Italy, and as many in Spain, fifteen in France, twelve in Germany, England and Scotland seven, (besides many others which unquestionably he had not read) I say he tells us that it was the judgement and definition of all these, that it was in the power of the Pope to Excommunicate Kings and Emperours, and deprive them of their Kingdoms, if they be Hereticks, and must it not thence follow that this (Dominus fac totum) this Lord Paramount may dispose of their Dominions to others, and they obtaining thus a right may invade the King, and exterminate all that do oppose them, all that are Loyal to their Soveraigns? doth it not hence follow that their subjects thence forwards are absolved from their obedience to them, and may make insurrections against them without scruple? and then (not to add their Jesuites Oaths of blind obedience to go whethersoever, and do whatsoever the Pope shall be pleased to require) is it not sufficiently evident that even the Canons of the Church of Rome do allow the effusion of blood upon religious accounts?

CHAP. II.

OCcasionally perusing this Author, Sect. 1 and examining his arguments and quotations, I found by a little enquiry that there was scarce one single allegation in his book, that [Page 8]was not either disingenuously forged, or fully and satisfacto­rily answered already by Protestant Divines, and therefore I thought it proper for such a one as I, though I should pro­fess no greater abilities then to write and read, to evince this unto the world, and to make it appear that the greatest Champions of the Roman Church, are able to bring nothing in the defence of their Novelties, but old and bafled argu­ments; such as any man may Answer, who can write and read.

And here I tremble to consider, Sect. 2 that our Author should be so imprudent (to say no worse) to call God to witness upon his soul, Pag. 10.that his purpose was studiously to avoid all cavil­ling distortions, either of Text of Scripture, or the holy Fathers, and much more those falsly called p [...]as fraudes, corruptions of either; And that he would alledge nothing as a proof which for the present he thought could possibly be answered. For let any man read what is answered to his defence of the infallibility of the Church, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Celibacy of Priests, but especially Transubstantiation, and the Popes Supremacy, and if he do not find Scriptures miserably dis­torted, Fathers not only wrested, but corrupted, I will forfeit presently my life. And is it possible that any man should believe him, perswaded that his proofs are unanswerable, who knows that he hath read and so diligently perused the fa­mous Chillingworth, and Reverend Dr. Hammond, out of whom I have transcribed so many satisfactory Answers to his arguments? He that considereth his Discourse upon the Churches practice of Praying in the Latine tongue, will find it altogether unpossible for him to imagine that there is any thing of truth in what he here asserts with such a solemn invocation of Almighty God.

And Thirdly, Sect. 3 Whereas he accuseth the learned Doctor of open Disobedience to his Majesty, Pag. 11. of transgressing his in­junctions to his very face, doth he not cast a slur upon his Majesty, in making him so highly pleased with such notorious disobedience, as to give special command that his Sermon should be Published, and consequently others be encouraged to commit the like enormities to his face?

CHAP. III.

IN this third Chapter, You begin with a bold assertion, Sect. 1 Defen. Eccl. Ang. c. 15. and again c. 18. s. 3. Ecclesia illius tem­poris (ad 600. annos) sola no­stra est; nihil omnino ab ea vel de­cretum vel receptum pro sidei dogmate quod non est nostrum: vide quae sequuntur. Demonst. of the Problem in fine. Defence of the way, c. 43. F. Ap to his third Book. ‘That Bishop Jewel and the Doctor are singular in the matter of challenging the concurrence of Antiquity for themselves, and imputing Novelty to the Catholick Church;’ whereas we persist in Bishop Jewels challenge unanimously, and are rather willing to enlarge it, then contract it. Dr. Crackentborp doth not only tell you, That Bishop Jewels pro­vocation was most just, but reitterates it himself, and adds, that albeit this worthy Prelate (the Chariots of our Israel and the Horsemen thereof) is now in Heaven, yet hath he left behind him in the Camp of the Lord many Valiant men who dare with­out the least fear provoke all your Philistines and Goliahs to the like Battel. Yea further, that he would not be very bold or rash, qui numerum istum plusquam duplicet: which is consonant to that of Mr. Perkins, No Apostle, no holy Father, no sound Ca­tholick, for 1200. years after Christ, did ever hold or profess that Doctrine of all the principles and grounds of Religion, that is now taught by the Church of Rome, and authorized by the Councel of Trent. Dr. White you know riseth up to 800. years, and Dr. Fields Appendix clearly proves that the Latine or West Church in which the Pope Tyrannized, was and continu­ed a true Orthodox and Protestant Church, and that the devi­sers and maintainers of Romish errours and superstitious abuses were only a faction in the same, at the time when Luther, not without the applause of all good men, published his propositions against the prophane abuse of Papal indulgences. Yea Mr. Bax­ter [Page 10]insults over you in this matter, and tells you There was ne­ver such a creature as a Papist known in all the world till 600. Safe Rel. p. 175. years after the birth of Christ; we confidently affirm (saith he elsewhere) and challenge all the Papists in the world to dispute the point with us; P. 118.119.that Popery is a Fardel of new Do­ctrines unknown to the first Churches. And again let any Pa­pist living bring out their cause to the tryal of Antiquity, and let them that are of the most antient Church and Religion car­ry the cause; yea further, he desires no better recreation then to entertain a dispute about it with any Papist that will under­take their cause: I hope you will take up the Cudgels.

To pass over your impertinent Citation of Beza, Sect. 2 Melanc­thon, p. 17. &c. persons that are strangers to us (1.) You maliti­ously accuse our Church for leaving out these words in the Roman office,

Because say You apparently, the Church from the beginning could not be ours: Yea You add We had rather no Prayers at all should be made for the Church, then for that which was from the beginning.

Answ. This is a very uncharitable surmise, and it might as well have been concluded, that because the first Reformers have left out the words immediately ensuing,

That they had rather the English Church should have no Prayers, then that she should pray for the peace and prosperi­ty of the Church Catholick. (2.) The surmise is the more uncharitable in that our first Reformers so solemnly profess they rejected nothing but your innovations and superstitions; and that the Religion they had chosen was everywhere con­formed to the primitive Purity; how unreasonable is it upon such pittiful surmises to conclude that all these Reformers should be such gross and notorious Hypocrites? and should so solemnly profess what was so great a contradiction to the con­victions of their conscience? (3.) Yet had it been purposely left out by them least it should be offensive to some weak people, not able to distinguish betwixt a Reformation, and an [Page 11] Innovation, betwixt the Purgation of a Church from its super­stitions, and the introducing of a new Religion; would it have deserved such Sinister Constructions, or have been blame worthy?

You tell us Bishop Jewel had not the confidence to reckon in his Catalogue, as novelties, the infallibility of the Church, Sect. 3P. 19.in­vocation of Saints, purgatory, prayer for the dead, celibacy of the Clergy, or Sacrifice of the Mass.

Answ. You are still weak in your deductions (to let pass your mistake of the sacrifice of the Mass, which was one of the Novelties he charged you with) may I not in like man­ner argue that M. C. had not the confidence to defend tra­ditions not mentioned in Scripture, as necessary to salvation, and to be embraced with equal authority to the Word of God, nor the Trent Canon of Scripture, because he declined the doing of it?

In your twentieth Chapter You renew the discourse of Antiquity, Sect. 4 P. 309, &c. and when the Doctor had most truly said that you never have shewed that Iota in which we have left the yet un­corrupted or primitive Church or the four first general Councils, you are put into a passion, and call this most palpable and no­torious truth a shameless boast. And then you send us to Simon Vogorius, Ibid. as if we could not send you to twenty Au­thors that have answered, and bafled, what ever he or others of your party can alledge; You send us to your Chapter of the Celibacy of Priests, to view your forgeries there. Pag 3 12 [...] Again You cite such concessions of men (some of which are meer strangers to us) as that no rational man can think you did believe them to be pertinent; for what if Luther saith there was never any one pure Council, but either added something to the faith, or substracted, must we be accountable for all Lu­thers words? (2.) How will you evince that he speaks of such things as are matters of dispute betwixt us? or that we esteem these things to be additions or substractions which he did? and what if D. Whitaker assert that to believe by the testimony of the Church, is the plain Heresie of the Papists, did ever any Protestant say otherwise? do not the Fathers require us to believe them upon the sole authority of Scripture reason, or tradition, handed down from the Apostles? which to be [Page 12]sure the Doctor never dreamt of; but the Carbonaria fides, you so often speak of; and whereas he saith that the Popish ‘Religion is a patcht coverlet of the fathers errours sown to­gether (viz. Origen, Tertullian, &c.)’ See the fragments of old He­resies, out of which he proves Pope [...]y to have risen, and with which to symbolize; To. 2. p. 800. 2 Thes. 3. is it not perfectly ri­diculous hence to conclude that we deserted Antiquity in de­serting these errours? And again, to what end do you cite Dr. Willet speaking of your supposed Antiquity? is that a confession that Antiquity is Yours! then must he confess, that all the Doctrines which you maintain are reall truths, because by you they are supposed to be so; What if he tell us from Scripture, ‘Antichrist began to raign in St. Pauls days, that the Mystery of iniquity did then work?’ did he speak of your Papal Supremacy! then evidently did the Apostle also, for to his sentence he refers; did he not! then is you citation still impertinent; Again, is it not a wonder that you should so confidently tell us that Dr. P. 310. Hammond should contract his challenge to three hundred years; when as he himself hath twice considered this Calumny, P. 142. (1.) in his reply, where he tels us that it was nowhere intimated in that treatise, that we were not ready to stand to the fourth age, but only that the three first ages, and four general Councils, were competent witnesses of the Apostolical Doctrines, and traditions, it being unimagi­nable that any thing should be so per saltum conveyed to us from the Apostles, P. 141.as to leap over those three Centuries next to them without leaving any footstep discernable among them; the like we have in his Schism disarmed: C [...]. S. 4. and yet these things so manifestly disclaimed, must be still objected without the least regard of ingenuity or truth. And when Bishop Laud tells you, [...]. 28. p. 2 [...]7. that we offer to be tryed by all the Antient Councils and Fathers of the Church for four hundred years, and some­what further, doth he not give you scope enough? if you cannot find any of your doctrines, received by the Church of God, as Articles of faith, or necessary to be believed within that time, is it not a shrewd sign, that they were not traditions received from Christ or his Apostles?

At last you tell us that evident truth on your side hath ex­torted a confession from the mouths and pens of a world of the most Learned Writers, [...]. 5.that antiquity declares it self for the Roman Church; and for proof of this, you refer us to the [Page 13] Protestants Apology, the triple cord, with an &c. Pag. 313. at the end of it, and then please your self in this extraordinary advantage, and infer that we are properly condemned by our own consciences. Add to this Dr. James his confu­tation of Romish Superstiti­ons by their own testimo­nies. Dr. Feilds Ap­pendix, &c. De usu pa­trum l. 1. c. 4. Excogitato commento persaepe ne­gamus & comm dum iis sensum affingimus.Answ. 1. Sure you are not such a stranger in England, as to be ignorant, that your Catholick Apology hath been answer­ed by the Reverend Bishop Morton, in folio, and the Anti­quity of our Religion shewed from many thousand Confessi­ons of the Roman Doctors; and must not you then be [...] by your own argument? nay let a man consult your Indices expurgatorii, how many thousand sentences of your own Authors, will he find condemned, and ordered to be expunged, only because the evidence of truth forceth them to speak like Protestants? Yea the Authors of the Belgian Index stick not to confess (as Mr. Dally hath it) That when we oppose unto them in disputation, the errors (as they are pleased to call them) of the Antient Catholicks, they do either extenuate, or excuse them, or very frequently find out some artifice, or invention to deny them, or feign some sense that they may commodiously put upon them; and therefore they will afford the like ingenuity to Bertram (albeit it would not much trouble them were he out of the world) and having expunged some of the most evident places against them, will let him pass thus gelt (as they have done many other writings of antient Catholicks) into the world, that so hereticks may not object that they burn and prohibit Antiquity when it makes against them: Yea to pass over your additions to, detractions from, De usu Pa­trum l. 1. c. 4. Def. Ecc. Ang. c. 13. s. 10. Index Belgicus. yea and prohibitions of the Antient Fathers, of which tho learned Dally, Chrakanthorp, and others afford sufficient in­stances: let us but see a little how one single Index expurga­torius hath dealt with the Indexes of the Fathers in that very point of Justification, in which you would have us confess Antiquity to be our adversary: Out of the Index of St. Austin must be expunged Fides sola justificat; Opera et si non justificent, sunt tamen ad salutem necessaria: out of the Index of St. Chry. sost. Fide sola hominem justificari; salutem esse ex sola gratia, non ex eporibus: out of Hilary's, Fides sola justificat (albeit they be his very words) out of Ambrose, Impius per solam fidem justificatur apud deum? Abraham non ex operibus legis, sed sola fide justificatum vident: out of the Index of St. Jerom, [Page 14]Impium per solam fidem justificat deus; Ʋt Abrahae, ita omnibus qui ex gentibus credunt, sola fides ad justitiam reputatur: out of St. Basils, Hae [...] est perfecta gloriatio apud deum, quando non ob justitiam suam quis se jactat, sed novit quidem seipsum verae justitiae indignum esse, sola autem fide in Christum justifica­tum; with other passages of the like import, which evidently speak the mind (if not the words) of the text it self: what can more clearly evidence that you sufficiently know Anti­quity to be against you, then that you use all means imagin­able to conceal it from us, or make it speak what you know it doth not?

In the same Section, Sect. 6 You tell us that the citations and arguments the Doctor useth, Pag 19. have been produced 100 times; whither this be so or no, I am sure the same may be evi­denced of all that you have produced against him.

You go on and say, Sect. 7 That he did well to fix a distinct mea­sure of time after which only whatever doctrines are broached,Pag. 20.ought in his opinion to be esteemed Novelties, viz. The time of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively.

Ans. This is an evident untruth; but yet it was necessary to be told in the Proeme, or else every citation of your book would have been impertinent, nor would you have been able to have found any thing, which could have been nicknamed an Answer to Dr. Pierce. What other ground Mr. C. had to infinuate this palpable untruth, is not imaginable; the Do­ctor upon this account defies this Antagonist, and rejoyces to find that his Sermon cannot be confuted without the Artifice of more falshoods than he hath pages; but surely the Doctor must have somewhat whence this saying of Mr. C. takes its rise, it being not imaginable that even a Papist (though impudent enough to do it) should be so imprudent as to fasten this upon the Doctor without the least shew of evidence. Ans. Assuredly there is nothing in the Doctors Sermon from whence it can tolerably be argued. Indeed the Doctor saith, They ever complain we have left their Church, but never shew us that Iota, as to which we have left the Word of God, or the Apostles, or the yet uncorrupted and Primitive Church, or the four first General Councils; now I [Page 15]hope to say, We have not left the Doctrine of the four first General Councils or deserted them; is not to say, That from after the time of their convention, all novelties must be dated; then could not Socinianisme, Anabaptisme, Presby­terianisme, be esteemed novelties by the Doctor; for he ac­knowledgeth them to have been within the time of these four Councils; nor was our Authour ignorant of this; for speaking of the appeal of Dr. Hammond to the three first Centuries or the four General Councils, he thus paraphraseth it: Pag. 311. Where by submission to the four first General Councils, he means only to the bare decisions of these Councils in matters of faith, not obliging himself also to the authority of those Fathers who flou­rished in the time of these four Councils and sate in them.

He goes on and tells us, Sect. 8 That the Doctor did this (which he never did) not out of a voluntary liberality, Ibid.but because an Act of Parliament obligeth him; wherein it is said, that such persons to whom Queen Elizabeth should give authority to execute any jurisdiction spiritual, should not judge any matter or cause to be Heresie, but only such as heretofore hath been determined to be Heresie by the Authority of Canonical Scriptures, or by the first four General Councils; which Argument runs thus; If no person authorized by Queen Elizabeth to execute any spiri­tual jurisdiction, must adjudge any matters to be Heresie, which were not determined to be so by the first four General Councils, then is Dr. Pierce obliged to fix the times of the Apostles, and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively, as that distinct measure of time, after which Only whatever Dctrines are broached, ought in his opinion to be esteemed novelties: But; verum prius; ergo. Truly Sir, you your self when you wrote it, might think the inference valid, but no man else now can.

He comes next to propound some questions (the shrewdest way of arguing when dexterously managed) And the first brings the Doctor to this great absurdity, to acknowledge, Sect. 9 Pag. 21. with the rest of his fellow-Protestants, that Scripture alone is the rule of Faith.

The second, to acknowledge what we generally do, that no Authority on earth obligeth to internal assent: shrewd con­clusions ushered in with a train of blunt Dilemmas.

Your third Question shall be considered in Answering the twelfth Section of your last Chapter.

Fourthly, He askes What answer the Doctor will make to God for abusing Scripture? Pag. 25.Ans. He will plead not guilty.

But how can that be, object. when he pretends to prove the law­fulness of the English Reformation, ‘because the Doctrines imposed upon them are novelties, and from the beginning it was not so: whereas he should have evinced that it was con­trary, that being the import of our Saviours words?’ reply. Rep. The Doctor will have little cause to fear his doom if no better plea can be brought against him: for (I pray you tell me) doth he not either confront the evidence of Scripture against you (as in the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy, and Tran­substantiation, and Communion in one kind, forbidding Marriage) or the intent of the Apostles, or rather of God himself (as in the restraint of Scripture from the Vulgar) or Thirdly, tell you expresly that you oppose the verdict of Gods Word (as in the matter of Divorces, and Prayers in an unknown tongue.) Secondly, When you confess that the things defined by your Councils are only such as were alwayes matters of faith, Pag. 241.and conveyed to us by the general pra­ctice of the Church, is it not enough to shew our innocency, in not accepting them for such, because ab initio non fuit sic? especially, when (thirdly) you know we hold, that in all matters of faith, 'tis all one with us to be praeter Scripturam, and to be contra; Pag. 25. but you ridiculously add, That he should have cited such Scriptures as these, "S. Peter & his Successors never had, nor ought to have any Supremacy of jurisdiction, &c. Which here I bind my self to do, when you can make it appear that the Doctor was obliged to do so, or that the Scripture anywhere saith, That the Trent Councils definitions are to be received as a rule of Faith, The body of Christ is transub­stantiated, Tis unlawful to give the Scriptures to Lay-men to peruse, The English Church is guilty of formal Schisme, and such like stuff which you pretend to deduce from Scri­pture.

Lastly, Sect. 10 ‘You tell us that the Fathers cry out against inno­vations, Pag. 27. and therefore cannot be thought to have introduced any.’ Answ. Presbyterians cry out of Innovations by Bi­shops, [Page 17]the Greek Church and the reformed condemn the Romanist as an Innovator; the Arrians, the Nicene Fathers; therefore it cannot reasonably be thought that any of these are Innovators by Mr. C.

CHAP. IV.

THE first Novelty, Sect. 1 of which his Church stood charged by the Doctor, is the usurpation of their Pope, from which usurpation he tells him our Church hath separated; Cap. 4. s. 1. but whereas he would make him moreover to assert, ‘That this Authority was never acknowledged in the Church till the time of Boniface; And further, that we have not separated from any Authority, if any were exercised by the former Popes, during the times of the four first General Councils, he deals disingenuously with the Doctor,’ in whom no foot­steps of this assertion can be found, albeit it be a great and evident truth. But whereas he would make him further to affirm of the whole heap of Roman Novelties, That there was no mention of them in the time of the four first General Councils, he doth more grosly and palpably abuse him, only that he might make room for those Citations, which otherwise would have been evidently impertinent, and might seem to fight against the Doctors Sermon, when he is only beating that man of clouts, which himself hath made. Nay Dr. Pierce evidently acknowledgeth, that some of their Heresies may be derived from Origen, Tertullian, &c. So, that our Author (which is a bad omen) stumbles at the threshold, builds his whole Fabrick on a mistake, and confutes only what himself hath fancied, not what the Doctor hath asserted. Well [Page 18]then, that which he hath to do, if he would contradict his assertion, is, to shew, not whither the Popes praeceding chal­lenged a supremacy of jurisdiction, but whither the Roman Bishop was acknowledged of the Church of God, as an uni­versal head; as one who had received from the beginning, a power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church. Now in returning an answer to what is delivered for the proof of this, we shall consider, first, his reasons; secondly, his testi­monies; thirdly, his returns to what the Dr. brought to con­fute this Supremacy.

Well then to make it appear reasonable, Sect. 2 he tells us, That since General Councils (the only absolute supream Authority Ecclesiastical) either for want of agreement among Princes, Pag. 45.or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Prelates, or their great expences, &c. can very seldom be sum­mond, it would be impossible without an ordinary constant stand­ing supream Authority to prevent Schism, that is, it is impos­sible the Church should subsist. This Argument reduced into Syllogismes sounds thus: That without which the Church cannot subsist, ought in all reason to be granted; But, Without the supream jurisdiction of the Pope, the Church cannot sub­sist. Ergo. The major we pass as evident by its own light; The minor is thus proved; That without which it is impossi­ble to prevent Schisms, is that without which tis impossible the Church should subsist; but this supream jurisdiction of the Pope, is that without which tis impossible to prevent Schisms. To give a satisfactory Answer to this, it will be necessary to premise, that Schism is a rupture of one part from another, and that of the visible Church, as appears, be­cause tis a crime punishable by the Ecclesiastical Magistrate, which it could not be, if it were a secession from the invisi­ble Church only, 2. This Schism may be either of one par­ticular Church from another, or of one member of that par­ticular Church from the same Church; and I hope our Author will not say that to the redressing of this Schism, The Supream Authority of the Pope is necessary, seeing he must necessarily permit this to these Rulers, which he imagins inferiour to him, and therefore must acknowledge them suf­ficient to redress the said miscarriages. 3. The Schism of [Page 19]one particular Church from another, may be either in things necessary to salvation, or in things not necessary, but of lighter moment. Now then to answer to his Major, if he in­tended it of Schisms of the former nature, tis true; for errors in things necessary to salvation destroy the very being of a Church: In this sence therefore we grant the Major, but deny the Minor; If he understand it in the latter sence, we deny the Major, as holding that not every breach upon such slight accounts, or circumstantial businesses, doth dissolve the visible Church, but it may subsist with such a breach, if so be the essentials and vitals of Religion be still preserved, and the Sacraments truly administred; For if the Church of God re­mained at Corinth, when there were divisions, Sects, emula­tions, contentions, quarrels, and the practice of such things which were execrable to the very Heathens, and of such whereof the Apostle expresly saith, We have no such custom, who dares deny them to be the Churches of God, who differ from others only in circumstantials? What would such men have said to the Galatians, who so far adulterated the Gospel of Christ (purely kept and preserved in other Churches) that the Apostle pronounceth concerning them, that they were bewitched; and if they still persisted to joyn Circumcision and the Law together with Christ, they were faln from Grace, Christ would profit them nothing, whom yet the Apostle acknowledgeth to be the Church of God, writing to the Church which is in Galatia. Secondly, Suppose a Supream jurisdiction were necessary to the preventing Schisms, must it needs be the Supremacy of the Pope? why may it not as well be the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Patriarch of Con­stantinople, or one elected by the suffrages of particular Churches? 3. We deny, that the Authority of the Pope is necessary to this end, even to the suppression of lesser Schisms, yea or expedient; for were it so, then either of Schisms arising from breach of charity, or difference of judgement; Not the first; for tis not possible for the Pope, to insuse cha­rity into any party, or to use other means to effect it then rational motives from Scripture, which any other man may do: If it be expedient for difference of judgement, seeing the Schisms that arise from that difference concern himself, it [Page 20]would then, 1. Be expedient, that he should be judge in his own cause; as for instance, Tis doubted whither the Pope of Rome hath any Authority delegated to him from Christ over the Universal Church; whither tis expedient, such an Autho­rity should be admitted; whither the Authority of a Pope should transcend that of a General Council; whither the Religion the present Pope subscribes to, and publickly main­tains, be true; whither the contrary which he persecutes, be false; whither he be infallible, in his sentence and Cathedra; and whither the interpretation of Tues Petrus, and Pasce Oves, be to be sought from his mouth or no. Is it expedient, will the Church of France say, that he should judge in all these Causes? the Church of England, that in any? and doth not reason say so to? and what madness were it for each to hold so stifly the contrary, if we could perswade our selves, that it were thus? or if this were so necessary, that without the ac­knowledgement of such a power and submission to it, it were impossible to prevent Schisms, and the destruction of the Church thereby; is it not wonderful, that in the whole Scripture there should not be any thing directing us to go to the Church of Rome to have these Schisms, which are so de­structive to the Church, prevented? That the Apostle among all his charges to the Church of Corinth, to break off their Schisms, all the means to prevent it, should neglect that without which it was not feasible? that speaking of the damn­able Doctrines that should spring up in the latter time, we should have no Items where the truth was to be kept inviola­ble, and whither to have recourse to avoid them? If a Jesuit had been at St. Pauls elbow, when after the rehearsal of those Doctrines he saith to Timothy, If thou put the Brethren in mind of these things, &c. he would have added [and sendest them to the Pope for Preservatives against them] thou shalt then be a good Minister of Jesus Christ; otherwise no Minister at all, but an Heretick. And when he tells them, that per­verse Teachers should arise, and commends them thereupon to the Word of God, a Jesuit would have told him that this was the way to make them Hereticks, nothing more per­nitious, and that he should commend them to the Pope. Yea (3.) That the Scripture should exhort us on the contra­ry [Page 21]to run to the Law and to the Testimonies, and tell us that if they speak not agreeable thereto, there is no truth in them, when we ought not to meddle with them, especially so, as to judge with the judgement of discretion, what's Truth and Errour, that the Apostle should bid us try the spirits, Yea try all things, and hold fast the Truth, and that directing us to no other touchstone then Scripture, and reason; that sure word by which we are to take heed, is not agreeable to these pre­tentions; for should it be that we may try no other truth, yet assuredly we must try whether the Pope hath the supream authority or no, and so be Judges of our Judge, which sure is dangerous. Yea (4) Is it not wonderful, that St. Paul amidst all the bands of Unity so carefully reckoned up, Eph. 4.4. One Body, one Spirit, one Hope, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God, should forget, one Bishop of Rome, or spiritual Mo­narch, without whose Soverain power, if our Author may be believed, the Church of God cannot subsist? Sure if there had been any such thing, this had been a proper place, where­in to mention it. No, had the Apostle thought of the delega­cy to St. Peter and his Successors, it would not have been to the Law, and to the Testimonies; but to the Popes, Council and his Cardinals? (4.) To multiply no more, the preven­tion of Schisms of the latter sort is not necessary to the subsistence of the Church simpliciter, but to its subsistence in statu meliori. Now thence to infer, that God hath provided an Head to govern the Universal Church, is as Illo­gical, as if because the Church Militant would be in a better Condition, were its members impeccable, to infer that God hath provided some external means to effect it: Or because the making them all of one mind, or enlightning them with the truth, would prevent Schism and Heresie, therefore God should do so, or provide other means beside his word to bring it to pass; To infer, that thence the members of the Church should spontaneously submit to one such single per­sons judgement, so as to have their Conscience guided by his Verdict, is to submit religion to the mercy of a man as fallible as themselves; to slight the judgements of many thousands, that we may rest in One as weak as any of these we neglect, is to endanger even the being of Religion, that we may the [Page 22]better secure its Circumstantials. Undeniable is that of Mr. Chillingworth, He that affirms the Popes infallability, puts himself into his hands to be led by him at his pleasure into all Heresie (especially seeing it is notoriously evident that many of them have been Hereticks, and tis Granted they may be so) and even to hell it self, and cannot with reason say (so long as he is constant to his Grounds) cur ita facis, but must believe white to be black and black to be white; vertue to be vice, nay (which is most Horrible, yet a certain truth) Christ to be Antichrist, and Antichrist to be Christ, if it be possible for the Pope (who hath been known to esteem the Gospel a very fable) so to say. Which I say and maintain, however you daub and disguise it, is indeed to make men Apostate from Christ, to his pretended Vicar but real enemy. Lastly, to submit to him so, as not to bind our Consciences to consent, but our selves not to practice or declare contrary to his determinations, is (1) That which our Author and his party explode as ridi­culous; (2) Tis very Dangerous, seeing by these means the practice of Religion, the worship of Jesus may be exploded in most Churches in Christendome, the witnesses of the truth silenced, and men be hindred from confessing with their mouths the Lord Jesus, which yet is necessary to salvation. Yea (3) Is it not more safe to submit to any particular provincial Council in this matter then to one man, and to a General one (when it may be had) then to that? Sect. 3

Well, Pag 45. But our Author will borrow an argument from the Presbyterians, and it is this, If there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for the prevention of schism, there is (say they) as great a necessity of setting up one Arch-bishop over many Bishops, and one Patriarch over many Arch-bishops, and one Pope over all, unless we will imagine that there is danger of Schism among Presbyters only, and not among Bishops, Arch-bi­shops, &c. which is contrary to reason, truth, history & experience.

Answ. I cannot tell what you would imagine in answer to this stale argument, but I can tell what returns have been made to it, before ere it was managed by the Presbyter. And had they not been like you, at least some of them, in overlooking Answers given to their Arguments, they might have spared all their pains in this particular. (1.) Then, let [Page 23] Ocham tell us, the same form of Government is not alwayes most expedient for the whole and for each part, seeing one may sustain the Hearing, Dispatching and Determining the greater causes and more important matters in one Kingdom, or Country; but no one can so manage the weightiest busi­ness of the whole world; In like sort, though it be expedient (sc. for the preventing of Schism) that there should be one Bishop over some part of the Church, yet there is not the same reason, that there should be one over the whole; Pontificis unius ar­bitrio sub­jicere si­dem totius Ecclesiae expedita via est ad unitatem, adde tamem proclivis ad errorem; nam talem unitatem Turcae, ta­lem Haere­tici talem ipsi, Phile­sophi ha­bere pos­sunt, si ex caetu suo unum ali­quem eli­gant cui caeteri om­nes tenean­tur fidem adhibere; sed sapien­ter de hac re scripsit Archidiac. Bonon. Periculosum esset fidem nostram unius hominis arbitrio committere; quis enim ausit praestare hunc hominem nunquam erraturum? Davenant, de sup. Judice controver­siarum. see­ing no one can dispatch the greater businesses, and manage the weightier matters of the whole Christian world. Be­sides saith he, it would be most dangerous, to assign any particular person as the supream ruler of the whole Church; for if he should fall into Errour or Heresie, all the whole would be in great danger of seduction by him; the members for the most part conforming themselves to the head (especially when they are taught, that he is Infallible.) Out of all that hath been said, we have three Answers. (1.) That the Argument is not good from a Bishop to a Pope; because the one is able to hear and dispatch Causes so as to prevent Schism, which the other is not. (2.) That this Argument will as well prove an Universal Monarch, it be­ing once granted that Monarchy in a particular Province is the best Government for the preventing of Political Schism. (3.) If it were expedient to prevent Schism, yet the danger and mischief of it would be worse then the disease, whereas no such thing can be asserted of a regular Episcopacy. But (2) I answer that in respect of a Diocess, or Parish, there is a particular Authority resting in one, and therefore if this one Minister of a Parish should have Authoritatem [...], all might be fild with Schisms; so also Bishops may abuse their peculiar Authority, and therefore to the prevention of Schism, tis meet they should have an Authority to bound them; But now for a Metropolitan, he hath no jurisdiction over Bishops he can do nothing (out of his own Diocess, in [Page 24]which he is a Bishop) without the concurrence of the Ma­jor part of the Bishops of the province, though he be in order and honour the first; so in like sort, the Patriarch may do nothing without the advice and consent of the Me­tropolitans and Bishops subject to him; seeing therefore these have no power of Jurisdiction, but only a Primacy of Order and Honour, there needs none over them, especially with a power of Jurisdiction, to prevent their Schisms; so then (saith Cham. De Oecum. Pontis. l 9. c. 14. s. 12.) here is a ridiculous comparison of things dislike, ‘as if one should say, Tis convenient, that there should be one Primate over Bishops, but so as to be able to do nothing without their sentence; therefore there ought to to be one over these Primates, endued with full power of jurisdiction.’ (3.) The Fathers, which are for one Bishop over Presbyters, upon the account that Schism might be prevented, yet never resorted to this one Universal Bishop for the same end; but redressed all Schism by calling Synods; neither is there any Unity implyed in the whole Church, or Churches of divers Provinces, which may not be preserved by the multitude of divers Pastors, conspiring and consenting together, as well as by the Unity of one chief Pastour. And in this sort we shall find the Church of God to have stood in perfect Unity in the first and best ages thereof, without find­ing any want of the help of one chief Pastour. Oh but Oecumenical Synods cannot be had alwayes. Answ. Nor is it needful: for the most part Provincal ones will serve the turn; But if the Schism be very dangerous, and betwixt Pro­vince and Province, Apud Cham. ibid. c. 13. s. 10. then will Pope Innocent tell us (not that we must run to him, but) that we wust necessarily have re­course to a Synod, quam quidem donec consequamur, expedit medelam Calamitatis hujus committere voluntati Magni Dei, ac Christi ejus, Domini nostri, who will be sure to provide suffici­ently for his Church. And indeed to what purpose should they go to one man, till it can be proved, and not Begged, that God hath set him over the persons that are to be reconciled? will his Verdict put an end to their Schism, that think him as fallible as themselves? And can we think that God appointed such a Mediator. whom all the world in case of Trial would undoubtedly refuse, till they had evidence of his infallibility, [Page 25]or the Delegacy of his power from Christ, and yet not give us one Iota to perswade us of his will in this matter? What he hath in the third section of the sixth Chapter, are but the presumptuous Dictates of a bold Romanist in despite of truth, as our Answers to the Fathers alledged by him will evidence. Thus having answered his reasons for the supream jurisdiction of the Pope, we come now to consider, what he hath to return upon the Doctor.

And first, Sect. 4 the Doctor (saith he) accuseth it of opposition to the precept of Christ, Mark. 10.42, 43, 44. S. 5. p. 33. They that rule over the Gentiles, exercise Lordship over them: but so shall it not be among you. Now (1.) he will tell us, Pag. 34. that not the af­fecting, but lawful exercising of supremacy of power and ju­risdiction is so far from being an impudent opposition to the precept, that it is established by the Text, for as much as it makes mention of some that are Chief. To this stale argument, it hath been Answered, that to argue from this, Mark 10.44. Whosoever will be chief, that there was one appointed to be chief among the Apostles, is as ridiculous, as from Luk. 9.48. He that is least among you, the same shall be great­est, to argue, that there was some one Apostle of less power and dignity then any of the rest; or from Luk. 22.26. He that is Chief, as he that doth serve, that some of the Apostles waited upon the rest.

2. He tells us, that this is so evident, in the next verse, Ibid.that had the Doctor but rehearsed it, he would have published to his meanest reader his abuse of Scripture. It seems the Doctor is very much to blame: but let us hear the Objection, which Bellarmine will lend him, which is this, that our Saviour gives them his example to confirm his Exhortation, who surely had Authority, yea Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Church; How then are they to imitate Christ? in renouncing their Su­periority? did he himself do so? No. Well then, they are to do it in keeping their humility with that supremacy of Jurisdiction. Answ. This Argument hath been answered several times, by telling Bellarmine, that tis true, in Christ there was su­pream Authority, as well as humility, but the latter only was the thing propounded to their imitation; thence therefore to infer, that this supremacy of power is not inconsistent [Page 26]with that Command of his, is as vain a Fancy, as because he that Commanded them his humility, thought it no roberry to be equal with God; thence to infer, that therefore this humility was not inconsistent with the pride of Lucifer. (2) Christ though he had this power, yet never exercised it upon Earth, but was in the form of a servant, and this he propounds to their imitation.

3. Ibid. Whereas he tels us, The Apostles were Church rulers, what inference can he make? For can he think that the Doctor esteemed himself and all our Hierarchy impudent opposers of the letter and sense of this precept? If so, he is more impudent then this opposition; if not, then is that spoken besides the purpose, and without any Contradiction to the Doctor: Well then, What is it, that is forbidden? viz. Pag. 35. (quoth he) The exercising it with such an arrogant pride, as Heathen Princes usually do, Ambitious seeking of Authority, and after a secular manner Lording it over Gods Heritage; Now here he jumps with the Doctor, whose words are: For any Bishop to affect over his Brethren a supremacy of Power, is a most impudent opposition both to the sence and letter of our Sa­viours precepts; Now that the Pope affects this, may be a [...] ­gued in that without any tolerable pretence from Scripture, with manifest opposition to the primitive Fathers, and in­vading the rights of others, he bandies for it, and albeit he knows tis one great occasion of Schism, and of the breach of the Churches peace, yet would he force all upon pain of Damnation to acknowledge it, and excommunicates all, who do not; then which, greater Tyranny and Ambition cannot well be found. But yet there may be an Argument framed out of the text from this, Abalens. in Math. quaest. 83. that the Apostles even to the last contended who should be greatest, which sure they would not have done, if they had thought that Peter by the giving of the Keyes or any other act of Christ was preferred before them. Yea tis wonderful, that when (as our Adversaries say) this contention came before Christ, four several times, he would never intimate to them, that which was so necessary to prevent Schism, that he intended St. Peter for the chief: when those that contended for it so strongly, and especially their Followers, were not [Page 27]likely to afford it him, without some express from Christ.

In answer to the Doctors second Argument from Rev. Sect. 5 21.14. he tells us, P. 71. s. 6. That he will acknowledge all the twelve Apostles to be equally foundations of the Churches building, and that the same Authority that was first given to St. Peter, was afterward given to the rest of the Apostles, that (as St. Cyprian saith) the same that Peter was, the rest of the Apostles likewise were, endowed with an equal participation of Honour and Power. Thus he; but I doubt he will hereafter be more cautious of such liberal concessions; for out of these I argue ad hominem (1.) The same that St. Peter was, the rest of the Apostles likewise were; But St. Peter by the verdict of the Council of Florence was Prince of the Apostles: ergo, The rest of the Apostles were Princes over St. Peter. (2.) St. Peter had a supremacy of power over the whole Church; but the rest of the Apostles had equal power with him, ergo, The rest of the Apostles had a supremacy over the whole Church, and consequently every member beside themselves. Now then, either Christ, who gave them this power, gave them a liberty to exercise it, or forbad them the external administration of it. If the first, then was there no subordination in the exercise of this power, to Peter, unless the same person can be sub and equal too; If the se­cond, then did he give them it perfectly in vain; for Autho­rity can be to no end, but to exercise it on those, over whom tis given; Nay tis a contradiction to say a man hath power over another, when he cannot exercise it de jure, when as power over him supposes a right to exercise Authority: and when will they be able to evince such a prohibition? Yea (3) how have they equal power (not to speak of ho­nour) whereof one may exercise authority over the world, the other may not? by the same reason it may be said that a Presbyter hath equal power with a Bishop. Well, but saith our Author, we must give leave to Scripture and Fathers to interpret themselves; then it follows, Ibid. We grant therefore (as if we Benedictines were Scripture and Fathers) that all the A­postles, and all Bishops their successours, enjoy the whole latitude of Episcopal jurisdiction, for as much as concerns the internal [Page 28]essential qualifications of either; but for the external admini­stration, there may be, and alwayes was acknowledged a subordi­nation, and different latitude in the exercise of the same Autho­rity both among Apostles,Ibid.and Bishops. Answ. He did wisely to add, let him not find fault with this distinction, for tis as ly­able to exception, as any can be. For (1.) What is it that qualifies Peter for the external administration over the rest of the Apostles? See Mr C. Pag. 73. Pag. 71. Is it, that Christ gave him the name of a Rock? surely no; seeing we have it acknowledged, that all the rest of the Apostles were equally foundations of the Church, and consequently equally Rocks; for Peter is there­fore so, because our Saviour tells him he would build his Church upon him, or because he was one, upon which the Church was to be founded. Yea further, among foundation stones there is but one that hath any eminence above other, and that is Christ, the [...], as it is appropriated to him, Eph. 2.20. And so still nothing pertains to St. Peter in the matter of being a Stone, or foundation, which doth not appear equally to belong to the others also. Yea lastly, Peter is not called a Rock, as the Romanists would have him; for seeing upon this Rock the Church was built, and Peter was a member of that Church, it would follow hence, that Peter and all the Popes his Suc­cessours must be built upon themselves; Evident is that of St. Serm. 13. de verbis Domini. Austin, Ʋpon that Rock which thou con­fessedst will I build my Church, that is, upon my self, upon me will I build thee, not me upon thee. And again, in his Retracta­tions, L. 1. C. 21. 'tis not said, Thou art Petra, but thou art Petrus: Pe­tra autem erat Christus,Mr C. p. 73. And what if in the Syriack there be no such difference, seeing in the Greek which is Authen­tick it is observed.quem confessus est Simon. 2. Is it be­cause he is alwaies in the Gospel placed first, and called [...] the first? Alas, 'tis otherwise; for we find Joh. 1.44. The City of Andrew and Peter. Mark 16.7. The Disciples and Peter: and what is it to the purpose, that he is reckoned first in the Evangelists, when almost alwaies he is put last in the Epistles? 1 Cor. 3.22. Chap. 9.5. Or in the midst, as Gal. 2.9. 2. That this ordering of the names of the Apostles, is no ar­gument of their different Authority, is evident from this, that albeit there were some [...], yet are they not placed next to Peter. And then for the [...], it [Page 29]cannot give him this supremacy; for it is afterwards promised to him, you say, Matth. 16. I will give thee the Keys, &c. It being then afterward promised, cannot be supposed to be already possessed by him, when it is said, [...]. 2. We know that all the time of Christs life, John had the dignity of place next Christ; (for he was the Disciple whom he loved, and who lay in his bosom) and therefore Peter had not the superiority. For though the dignity of the place may be without superiority; yet superiority of Jurisdiction is never to be found in any without the [...], or priority of place; yea, it is sufficiently evident, that the Church of God thought as highly of St. John, as of St. Peter, in that they stood upon his example for the celebration of Easter, against Peters. 3. We say, that, notwithstanding his contradiction, Peter is called first, Pag. 73. either because of his zeal and [...] in confessing Christ, or because he was the Apostle first called, or else only as [...] is a numeral; Or if it intimate any priority, 'tis of order, not of superiority; as we have proved.

Nor, 3 Was this power of Administration given him, See Mr. C. pag. 73. because Christ bids him feed his Sheep indefinitely; For sure the other Apostles were commissionated to feed them too; and that they were to do it indefinitely, appears, because they are sent by him to all Nations, not fixt to any part of his flock. Yea I demand, whether, when St. Paul Act. 20. gave com­mandment to the Bishops of Ephesus, to feed the flock, over which Christ had made them overseers, [...], he might not have charged them in these words, feed the sheep of Christ. Whether, seeing he had a Commission to go teach all Nations, common to him with the rest, he might not inde­finitely have constituted Bishops, and given them this charge; or whether he that had this indefinite power of commanding others, were not an indefinite Pastor, and had not a com­mission of feeding Christs Sheep or Lambs, which is all that is affirmed of St. Peter? If therefore, what was given to St. Peter, was likewise conferr'd upon all the rest, how can it be, that hence a supremacy of St. Peter above the rest of the Apostles should be concluded? And, whereas 'tis argued, that St. Peter is constituted Pastor of Christs flock indefinite­ly, and therefore of the Apostles, seeing they are Christs [Page 30]Sheep, may it not with equal reason be concluded, that seeing the Apostles had commission given to teach all Nations, and every creature, they were commissionated teachers of St. Pe­ter, and he ought to be subject to them, as a Disciple to his Teacher? Yea the argument is more forcible, seeing here we have mention made of every creature, whereas St. Peter is not bid to feed all Christs Sheep. De Agon. Christi. c. 30. Add to this the suffrage of St. Austin, Cum dicitur Petro, ad omnes dicitur, Pasce oves meas.

Nor, Mr. C. p. 73. 4. In that he had the power of the Keys assigned to him, it being manifest that the same power was given to the rest of the Apostles, Matth. 18.18. Thus Origen in Matth. Hom. 1. Were the Keys given by Christ to Peter only? no; this is common to them all; for when in the Gospel of St. John, Je­sus said to his Disciples, Receive the Holy Ghost, he constituted them all such as was Peter: to which Testimony may be added Hieron. Ambrose, Cyprian, Hilary, Austin, Theophylact, Leo, Euthym. Bed. Anselm, Hugo, Lyran, and the Council of Colen. All which you may see in the Learned Crackenthorp, de Eccl. Angl. c. 22. s. 6.

Nor, Mr. C. ib. 5. From this, that St. Peter was made the Minister of Circumcision; for so was St. Paul of the Uncircumcision, or the Gentiles, who yet will not be allowed to have this ex­ternal administration. Ibid. And to talk of a dedication of St. Pauls office by St. Peters going to Cornelius a Proselyte, when St. Paul was at Tarsus, is so weak a proof of his supremacy over him, that I will not disparage any Reader so much as to think it needs a confutation: Especially if it be considered, that notwithstanding this St. Lib. 1. de prov. Dei. Hom. 8. de laud. Pauli. Hom. 2. ad Rom. Hem. 18. ad Rom. Hom. 25. in 2. ad Corin. V. de Crak. ubi supra. Chrysostom will tell us, That there was none greater than blessed St. Paul, nay nor equal to him: That he, as another Aaron, was anointed Priest over the whole world: That he was a Pillar of the Church, more firm (not only than Peter, but) than any stone, rock, or iron: To whom the universal dispensation through the whole world was committed. And (which is most observable) that he governed the whole world as one house, or one ship: In which ship (as St. Ambrose tells us) Christ is the foundation, the Father is the Pilot, the Holy Spirit Proram servat, and which the twelve Apostles, as her bank of Oares bring into the Haven. So that [Page 31]here is no peculiar place assigned to St. Peter. Now then these things being so, I argue thus; Either in these places, our Saviour did give St. Peter this external administration, or he did not; if he did, then it follows evidently, that he gave the same power to the Apostles also, seeing what he gave to St. Peter, we have proved he gave to them; if not, then let them tell us, where Christ gave this power to St. Peter, and what more likely arguments can be produced to conclude it. 2. It is manifest, 1. That Christ immediately constituted Apostles, and that they received not their Apostleship from St. Peter; for he saith, have not I chosen you twelve? Joh. 6.70. Joh. 20.21. as my Father sent me, so send I you. 2. It is mani­fest that Christ gave supream jurisdiction to the whole com­pany of Apostles; and this your Bellarmine confesseth, De Pontis. l. 4. c. 23. yea that he gave them all power, whether external or internal; yea he proves it too; 1. Because he saith, as my Father sent me, so send I you, whosesoever sins ye remit, &c. But now (saith he) Christ without all controversie was sent with full and abso­lute power, and therefore his Apostles must be so; and this Exposition or Argument from the place, he backs with the Fathers; and Maldonate with Jansenius say the like. 2. In locum. He proves it hence, that the Apostle St. Paul making mention of the distinct orders of officers in the Church, doth it thus; first Apo­stles, secondarily Teachers, thirdly Prophets, &c. And this he doth, when his design is to shew that some part of the Church hath more abundant honour than the rest; and having done so, puts the question, Are all Apostles? can they all plead to equal power with them? Now had there been one supream over the Apostles, why doth he say in general, first Apostles? when 'tis his design to speak of the degrees which God had placed in the Church: why doth he leave out the chief? Certainly if the Apostles were all first, Chilling.to me it is very probable, that no one was before the other; for by first all men understand, either that which is before all, or that before which is nothing; Now in the former sence, the Apostles could not be all first; for then every one of them must be before every one of the rest; (or if you say, that all the Apostles were before all other Pastors, but St. Peter first of all, then why doth not the Apostle say first St. Peter, then the rest of the Apostles?) and [Page 32]therefore they must be first in the other sence, and therefore no man, and therefore not St. Peter must be before them. Bellar­mine elsewhere saith, that St. Paul speaks not of the Hierarchy of the Church, but of those that were indowed with extra­ordinary gifts, and that therefore he leaves out St. Peter. But, 1. What doth he think of Teachers, were they extra­ordinary persons? 2. If this be the reason, why have we no mention of him Eph. 4.11. where we have Pastors, Evange­lists, Prophets, Apostles, (without any distinction) set over us, till we all come in the unity of faith unto perfect men? 3. He proves it, because they had commission from Christ to go teach all Nations, and out of those whom they taught, to ordain some Pastors whereever they came; which shews they had an universal jurisdiction from Christ, and a power to exercise it: and so much for the second proposition.

3. Hence it follows, that they could not be limited in this power by St. Peter; for Par in parem non habet potestatem. Now to restrain anothers power as to its exercise, is evidently to exercise power over him; And hence it follows, that they had equal power of Administration with St. Peter. And in­deed, that St. Peter should have authority over all the Apo­stles, and yet not exercise one act of it upon them, and that they should shew to him no sign of subjection, methinks is as strange, as that a King of England for 24 years should exer­cise no act of regality, nor receive any one acknowledgement of it; as strange methinks it is, that you so many ages after should know this so certainly, as you pretend to, and yet the Apostles (after these words were spoken in their hearing, by vertue whereof St. Peter is pretended to have been made their head) should still be so ignorant of it, as to question which of them should be the greatest; yet more strange, that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them St. Peter was the man; No less a wonder was it, that St. Paul so far should forget St. Peter and himself, as that 1. Mentioning him often, he should do it without any title of honour, yea further, that speaking of himself in particular, and perhaps comparing himself with St. Peter rather than any other, he should say in plain terms, I am in nothing behind the very chiefest of the Apostles. How is it, that the other [Page 33]Apostles fall foul upon St. Peter for going in unto the Gen­tiles, Act. 11.23. so that he is compelld to defend himself by that special revelation made unto him? How is it that he passed not the Decretorial sentence in the Synod? Acts 15. did he transfer his power to St. James?

4. See Mr. C. p. 71. The distinction of Archbishop Whitgift serves him not at all; for he saith only this, that Quoad ministerium, viz. as to Preaching, Administring the Sacraments, Absolving and Remitting, and such things, which are done by Pastors, (and carrying not Jurisdiction in them, but Ministry or Service) they are equal, but Quoad Politiam, as to Government, they are unequal; and what is this to the purpose? Mr. C. p. 72. Nor doth his example of my Lord of Canterbury help out the matter; For, 1. His grace hath no power of Jurisdiction over a Bishop, as Dr. Feild, and Dr. Hammond will tell him. 2. If he be said to have it, 'twere ridiculous to say that the Bishops of single Diocesses are of equal Authority, Jurisdiction, or Power with him, seeing he hath Power over them, which Par in parem non habet.

To the two Testimonies of St. Cyprian and St. Jerome, we have no other Answer then what in general is given to these Scriptures: Whereas, 1. The words of St. Cyprian afford not the least ground of this evasion; nay the words seem un­consistent with it; for having told us that Christ had given the Keys to St. Peter, bid him seed his sheep, told him that what he bound, should be so, and that upon him he would build his Church, he presently adds, That he did this, Pari con­sertio prae­diti houoris & potesta­tis, sed ex­ordium ab uaitate proficisci­tur.albeit he had given to the rest of the Apostles parem potestatem, and so in­tended not any superiority in him above the rest, but only to shew the necessity of unity. And then for St. Jerome, he doth not only say, that the Bishop at Rome and Eugubium are of the same merit, but infers it hence that all are Successors of the Apostles; and that one City, though Rome it self, is not be objected against the custom of other parts of the world; but for the defence of this citation I refer you to the Learned Dr. Feild. p. 548.

In the second Chapter of St. Sect. 6 Pauls Epistle to the Galathi­ans, we have many things which are inconsistent with the Supremacy of St. Peter contended for. And, 1. Whereas [Page 34]he mentions James, Cephas, and John, and calls them [...]; may it not plausibly be argued from the order of the names that St. Paul esteemed not St. Peter Superiour to the rest, because he mentions him in the middle? for if this be a suffi­cient evidence of his Supremacy, that the Evangelists put him in the front of the Apostles, why should it not be as good a plea against it, that the Apostle St. Paul, when speaking of the chiefest Apostles, should not do so? 2. Why doth he mention them all as [...] and put no difference betwixt them, if indeed St. Peter were Superiour to them? especial­ly if it be considered that he elsewhere calls them (if we may believe St. Chrysostome, Theophylact, Oecum. Aquinas, Hugo, Salmero, Justinian, Cornelius a Lapide, and others) [...], putting no difference at all betwixt them. And that, 3. This being evidently his scope to shew that there was no reason to reject his doctrine touching the no necessity of circumcision, because these [...] were pl [...]ased to admit of it, (and indeed that he was not inferior to these Apostles, whose Authority they urged against him) had St. Peter been con­stituted in such a degree of Supremacy over the Apostles, how had it concerned his design to have told us (not thus in general these [...], but in particular) that even St. Peter the chief of the Apostles had given him the right hand of fellowship? and therefore his neglecting of this is a shrewd argument against this Supremacy; and perswades me to believe with the Doctor, that St. James and St. John were St. Peters Peers. Again, ver. 7. the Apostle tells us, that even these Pillars saw it evident, that the Gospel of the uncir­cumcision was committed to him, as the Gospel of the circumci­sion was to St. Peter, and that hereupon it was agreed, that St. Paul with his companions should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the Jews, or circumcision. Now, 1. By whom was the Gospel of uncircumcision committed to St. Paul? was it not by Christ? by him that wrought effectually in them both, ver. 8. Now then, if Christ committed to St. Paul the uncircumcision, to St. Peter the circumcision, is it not evi­dent that he esteemed not St. Paul inferior to him? did ever any body hear that his Majesty divided the Government equally betwixt his Vice-Roy in Ireland or Scotland, & the in­ferior [Page 35]Governors under him? yea committed the greater part of the Government to the inferior; especially if it be considered that St. Paul tells us, 2. The uncircumcision was committed to him, sicut Petro circumcisio, In locum. Ibid. whence the Fathers usually infer his equality with St. Peter: St. Am­brose saith he had primacy over the Gentiles parimodo, [...]. id. in ch. 1. ad. Gal. in like manner as St. Peter over the Jews: St. Chrysost. That he show­ed himself [...] of equal honour with the best and chiefest of the Apostles, and that he was equal to St. Peter; and Oecume­nius cryes out, See how he makes himself equal to St. Peter: to whom you may add St. Austin in c. 1. ep. ad Gal. 3. Was it ever heard, that a Prince should consent to the division of his Province betwixt himself and his inferior? yea afford him the largest portion in this division, as here St. Peter doth; yea, why was no special power exercised in this case by the Prince of the Apostles, if he were such, but the matter in­differently determined by all three?

3. 'Tis further argued, that if St. Peter had been Prince of the Apostles, St. Paul would not have had the confidence to resist him to the very face: Bellarmine will tell us, that an inferior may rebuke a superior.

Answ. But let it be considered that this rebuke was pub­lick, and a resistance of him, ( [...]) that he charges him of not walking uprightly, not agreeably to the truth of the Go­spel, but doing things for which he deserved to be rebuked by him, and all this without the least shew of reverence, and submission, without any artificial preface, begging the pardon, or deprecating the anger and displeasure of his Superior, which seems sufficiently to argue that he did not thus esteem him. When St. Paul had rounded the High Priest, and told him that God would smite him for judging and condemning him to be smitten contrary to the Law, how presently doth he correct himself upon information given that he spake to the High Priest? and when he takes up St. Peter in this man­ner, might he not as truly have said, I wist not that he was the High Priest, the Prince of the Apostles? Mr C. p. 75. l. 2. de Bapt. cont. Dona­tum. Now all the an­swer which is returned to this objection, is, that St. Austin saith, The Superior was reproved of the Inferior: Now here let it be considered, 1. That this will do him little service, [Page 36]unless he will be pleased to grant that the inter pretation of one single Father, or two at the most, is a sufficient evidence and ground of receiving such a sense of any Paragraph of the Word of God; which I am confident he dareth not assert. 2. I Answer, that what he rendreth Inferiors, is in St. Austin posteriores, such as were made Apostles after him; now the same Austin informeth us that ejus honorem implet clarificatio Domini, Ʋbi supra c. 1. cp. ad Gal.si quid habebat ordo temporis minus; and as for his first citation, That St. Peter being reprehended did not answer that the Supremacy belonged to him, and therefore he would not be reprehended by a novice, and one that was posterior: I answer, That he hath gelded the place and made it look otherwise then indeed it doth; Ib. l. 2. de Bapt. for the words of St. Austin are Nec Pe­trus sevindicavit, aut arroganter aliquid aut insolenter assump­sit ut diceret se primatum tenere, Peter did not arrogantly and insolently take upon himself to say that the Primacy belonged to him; which shews that to have challenged such a Primacy would have been insolence and arrogance in St. Peter, accord­ing to the judgement of St. Austin.

The Doctor goes on to argue thus, Sect. 7 If the Pope be head of the Catholick Church, Mr C. p. 78. s. 15.then when there is no Pope at all (which is very often) the Catholick Church must have no head. Now here having told us that never did old Hereticks make use of such an argument to invalidate the Popes authority, which is very true, because they were elder brothers to it: He fur­ther answers, That for all this Papacy is immortal, and in some sense it may be said, Mr C. p. 78. that Popes dye not, because their Jurisdiction remains in the body of Electors: And secondly, When an Ecclesiastical Superior dies, there remains by Christs ordination a vis generativa in the Church to constitute another in his place. I answer, There may be a vacancy not only by death, but Heresie, Paganisme, things incident to Popes, as may be seen in Mr. Pag. 22, 23, 24. Baxters Key for Catholicks, and yet the power doth not devolve it self upon the Electors; and if it doth, what if they also prove Hereticks? as 'tis sure they may, and ten to one but they did in the time of Liberius, when none were suffered to be in publick places but such as were Arrians; then sure he must grant a vacarcy: Again, when antiently the people were Electors, did the power de­volve [Page 37]it self upon them? in a word, either the Pope is an essential head, or an accidental; if the last, then may the Church subsist without him, and the being of a Pope is not necessary to the being of a Church, seeing accidents potest abesse sine subjecti interitu, the contrary to which you above assert, and thence conclude the necessity of a Pope; If the first, then 1. May the Church be unholy, because an essential part of the Church may be so, unless you will have the con­fidence to assert that all the Popes that have been or shall be, must necessarily be holy. Then 2. must the Pope be head when a general Council is convened, and consequently be superiour to that, seeing an essential head can never cease to be so: And 3. He that doth not acknowledge the Pope, can be no member of the Church, as not being united to this visible essential head, and so God must necessarily damn all those righteous souls that live not in communion with him, both in all the reformed Churches, and all the other parts of the world; a thing so contrary to the goodness of God, that none but Papists can believe it; and a thousand such absurdities, as you may see them reckoned up if you please in Mr. Baxters Key for Catholicks, Part the second.

The Doctors second inference was, Sect. 8 That when there were many Popes, there would be many Heads, and so the Church would become a Monster. To this he Answereth ‘That as when after the death of the King, Mr. C. p. 79. s. 16. several pretenders to the Crown appear, there is still by right but one Legitimate Suc­cessor, and all the rest are Tyrants; (yea and their adhe­rents rebels) so likewise when such a Schism hapneth, he that is Legitimately elected is the right head, all the rest are Schismaticks.’

Rep. And so must their Adherents also; so then in the time of the Schism from Ʋrban the sixth, to Martin the fifth, which lasted forty years: The Schism betwixt Alexander the third and four Schismaticks which lasted seventeen years; the Schism betwixt Benedict the ninth, and five others; all those that were not with the right Popes, were Scismaticks, and con­sequently cut off from the Church of Christ; so that for forty years together haply half the Roman Church was unchurched; for seventeen year haply four parts were cut off from the body [Page 38]of Christ: In the time of Benedict the ninth, five parts at least must be absciended: If the Pope be an essential head of the Church, (as they must necessarily hold) it necessa­rily follows, that all the poor Christians, even in America, must be unchurched, if they side with no Pope; and damned, if with the Schismatick; albeit it sometimes hapneth, that the most conscientious men cannot tell whom they should ac­knowledge as Legitimate: how can any man that believes God to be infinite in goodness, be tempted to imagine that he will damn all those that after their diligence in this search, mistake the true Pope, and so become Schismaticks? or can any sober man think, that this is sufficient to unchurch them who walk in love to God, and endeavour to their utmost to glorifie his name, and to make them presently be rejected by him, and if they dye thus, perish everlastingly?

2. I aske (seeing you acknowledge it contrary to his providence, not to have provided against Shism (what expedient God hath provided in this case? Mr. C. tells us a General Council cureth all. P. 80.Rep. But who shall call it when tis asserted that the power is peculiarly the Popes? and con­sequently when we know not who is Pope, we know not who is to convocate the Synod. 2. How difficult is it to assemble them? 3. Who shall have place there, seeing one part of the Church must necessarily be Schismatical, and consequently have no right to Vote in General Councils? Mr. C. p. 80. s. 17.

3. The Doctor saith, if the Pope should prove an Heretick, the Church would deserve to be bereaved of her head; Sect. 9 to which he Answes, that in this case the Pope ceaseth to be (not only on head, but) member of the Church, and the See present­ly becomes vacant, to which we have sufficiently replyed above.

Now for a conclusion of this business, Sect. 10 let any man consider what probability there is that such an headship should be so necessary to the very being of the Church, and the continu­ation of its Unity, and yet our blessed Saviour (so desirous of his Church her welfare, so well acquainted with the dif­ficulty that we find of yielding subjection unto others, and foreseeing all the schisms that were like to happen about this matter) should be wholly silent in so great a point, not [Page 39]giving us either the name or titles of this head, nor the seat of his Empire (to prevent the claim of others) nor ap­pointing him his work, nor directing him how to do it (al­beit inferiour Bishops have their instructions very clearly given them) when he hath the greatest work in the world to do, and such as surpasseth the strength of many thou­sands, never giving him any advice and direction for the determining of his very many occurring difficulties, (albe­it St. Paul sends instructions unto Timothy to direct him, 1 Tim. 3.14, 15. how he should behave himself in a particular Church until his coming) nor giving us any notice of his power, nor telling us of his prerogative, nor what officers he shall ap­point under him, and how, nor acquainting us with our du­ty to obey him, never telling us of the succession of this So­veraign, in whom it shall reside, of any successour of St. Pe­ter, rather then St. Paul? I say that not a word of this should be mentioned by Christ, or his Apostles, even when there was so great occasion, and so many opportunities, when Peter was among them, when there was striving for supremacy, when the Churches were lamentably contend­ing about the preheminence of their teachers, and some were for one, some for another, some for Cephas himself, when so many Heresies arose and hazarded the Churches, as among the Corinthians, Galathians, and others there did, yea when an Epistle was written to the Romans themselves, that in that Epistle there should be no instructions touching this head; when Ignatius was so vehement for the rendring of obedience to the Bishops constituted over us by God, that he should not have one intimation of the obedience due unto the Pope; yea that Clemens Romanus (though Bishop of Rome) should write so earnestly to the Corinthians for the avoid­ing of Schism to obey their own Bishops, and not adde one syllable in behalf of his own authority: these are things so hard to be believed by one that believeth the wisdome and love of Christ, his Apostles, and the zeale of these Primi­tive Fathers against Schisme, that I should sooner perswade my self of the truth of Mahomets fables, then of this pre­tension.

CHAP. V.

THus having encountred our Authors reasons (in which he doth not usually abound) we come now to a con­sideration of those authorities in which he is more copi­ous. Sect. 1 And here I might without the least disparagement unto our cause, pass over all the Authorities his sixth Chapter doth produce, it being little better then one great Petitio principii, made by many Popes, and reiterated by Mr. Cressy, who loves to beg the thing in question ra­ther then evince it. His work was to evidence from the un­doubted records of Antiquity, that the Popes Supremacy over the world was a thing acknowledged ab initio, by the Universal Church; instead of doing this, our Author puts us off with the pretences of some Popes, derided, and contemned by their fellow Patriarchs, and branded with the names of Pride and Tyranny. Pope Leo is mentioned to advance the number; but seeing he is not pleased to produce his words, Spalat. l. 4. c. 4. Dr. Field on the Church, l. 5. Satli­vius, &c. Mr. C. p. 31. Hesye. apud Phot [...] ­pro [...]. p. 125. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 1. we refer him to those in the Margent, that have both produced and answered them to our hand, only noting that to receive his authority from St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, which is the utmost that he pretends to from these three citations, will be no tolerable proof of universal jurisdiction in the Pope, till it can be made evi­dent, 1. That to be called Princeps Apostolorum gives authority to St. Peter over his fellow Apostles, and the whole world; and to be called [...], and Bishop of the Apostles, can give no such authority to St. James and his Successors. 2. That to be Princeps Aposto­lorum, doth infer not only a Primacy of order, which we grant, but also of dignity which we deny. And 3. That [Page 41]St. Peters authority was necessarily conferred upon his suc­cessors at Rome in the same latitude as it was delegated to him; if our Author can produce no better testimonies out of St. Gregory, Protestants will have no further cause to com­plain against him, as he saith they do.

But alas this is the least of our Authors excellencies to be impertinent; Sect. 2 he hath the faculty of quoting spurious Authors too, as will be seen throughout. In Decrex Ep. p. 645. And such is that second Epistle of Pelagius, as you may see evinced by the Learned Blondel.

St. Sect. 3 Gregory is brought upon the stage to [...]plead for that Ti­tle which he so passionately condemnes in his fellow Patri­arch: And he tells us, Mr. C. p. 48. indic. Ep. 3. The See Apostolick is preferred before all Churches.

Answ. True we acknowledge, with the Council of Chalce­don, that being the Emperours Seat, it had a Primacy of or­der confered upon it; but how will he be able to conclude a Primacy of jurisdiction from this testimony?

His second citation as it is frivolous, and already answered, Ibid. so is it false and not to be found but in some Ʋtopian Edi­tion.

A third is very unsutable to his protestation, P. 10. Sect. 6. Ibid. L. 5. Indic. 14. Ep. 24. Dr. Ham. 3. defence c. 5. s. 9. Nu. 42. For whereas the words of the Epistle tell us, that Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged the Supremacy of the See of Rome, he knowing that there was no such Eusebius contemporary to St. Gregory, and consequently the Epistle must needs be spurious, as Protestants do generally thence conclude, claps in John Bishop of Constantinople; L. 2. indic. 10. Ep 37, Ibid. a very palpable deceit.

His next quotations will afford us, as he reads it, this, that if any of the four Patriarchs had committed such an act (as the person he complains of did) such disobedience would not have passed without great scandal: whereas the Latine runs tanta contumacia; and who knows not, that stubbornness is a disease incident to equals, L. 7. ind. 2. Ep. 64. though disobedience be proper to inferiours? Another of his testimonies speaks thus, When any fault is found in any Bishop, I know no Bishop that is not subject to the See of Rome: but in the Latine tis, subjectus sit, may [Page 42]not be subject to the See of Rome, viz. may not be subject, if the Emperour refer the cause to his decision, C. 5. S. 9. which here was evidently the case; and if the Pope himself had been found faulty, he might have thus been subjected to the Patriarch of Constantinople, L. 5. indic. 14. Ep. 24. as the Reverend Dr. Hammond proves in his third defence where you have this citation shamefully expo­sed: that which brings up the rear is this, that in a cause of John the Priest against John of Constantinople, he according to the Canons had recourse to the See Apostelick, Ibid.and that the cause was determined by his sentence.

Now to this the same Doctor Answers, That here was no appeal from an inferiour to a superiour, but only a desire of help from the Bishop of Rome, who accordingly writes to John of Constantinople, tells him what was to be done in this mat­ter, according to the rules of justice; accordingly the Patriarch though he dislikes the interposing of the Pope, yet it seems he doth justice to the injured person,Pope Leo pretended the Nicene Canons in the Coun­cil of Chal­cedon, and P. Julias in the matter of Athanasius.and this is the defining of the cause here spoken of; And where he talks of the Canons of the Church, the Doctor calls it a pretence of Ca­nons, a device which sometimes Popes made use of. Thus Zezimus pretended the Canons of the Nicene Council for the subjecting the Africans unto him, but was found a falsi­fier, as you may see in the learned Chamier; and what won­der, if his successors were in this his followers?

2. What if there were such Canons as allowed appeals, to this end that the Bishop of Rome might admonish the Pa­triarch, De Occ. Pon. l. 13. C. 7. S. 6. See our proofs from popes. what his duty was, and intercede in the Priests be­half? might not this be done without an universal Pastorship? but I refer you to the Learned Doctor in the Section cited.

Indeed the words of Pope Gelasius sound higher; for they pretend, that The See of the blessed Apostle St. Peter has a power to loose whatsoever things shall be bound by the sen­tences of any Bishops whatsoever, Sect. 4Mr. C. p. 50.as being the Church which has a right to judge every other Church, neither is it permitted to any one to censure its judgement, seeing the Canons have or­dained, that appeals should be made to it from every part of the world: but then the Epistle comes from the Vatican, ex vetusto codice Vaticano, saith Binius; and what false ware he [Page 43]hath brought us thence, who can be ignorant? this Epistle, I am sure, smels rank of forgery. Sutlivius calls it an impu­dent fiction and makes it evident.

1. Because it saith that Dioscorus Alexandrinus was con­demned by the authority of the See Apostolick, Act. 1. et 2. whereas the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon shew, that he was con­demned and deposed by the Fathers of that Council, L. 2. c. 18. which Evagrius also witnesseth, to which he might have added, that the same Epistle tells us the Council of Chalcedon was called by the Authority of the Roman See, Act. 1. when as the very Synod tells us that they were called by the Decree of the Emperours Valentinian and Martian.

2. (Saith he) the Epistle tells another lye, L. 4. C. in saying that Peter of Alexandria was condemned by the Apostolick See, whereas this Peter was Athanasius his Successor, and as Socrates saith, Vir valde pius & eximius, and consequent­ly such a one as no honest man would offer to con­demn.

And thus we have considered the pretences of their Popes for this Supremacy; See. 5. let us see what we can deduce from them against it, and

1. Pope Julius, Dr. Ham. 3. def. c. 2. s. 4. who was willing enough not only to defend, but take advantage to exalt his power, doth yet in his Epistle written upon the occasion of his interposing to absolve Athanasius, Ep. Jul. p. 741, 753. defend the right of his act by an anti­ent custome especially, and by the Canon of Nice (which yet tis plain would not justifie it) and not by pretence of any Divine Authority, or in any such Dialect that could in­timate his pretension, that from St. Peter this belonged unto him, which sure he would have done, and thereby have si­lenced all Catholick opposers, if thus it had then been be­lieved by them, or even by himself to have belonged to him.

2. So in that African Council where St. Austin was pre­sent, and the Popes pretensions were disputed, and his power in their Churches denyed, he made no such challenge from Christs donation to St. Peter, but from the Canons of Nice, which yet were so far from justifying his pretensions [Page 44](no such Canon being found upon examination) that if he could have thought that other pleadable, he would cer­tainly have discerned cause to make use of it.

Adde to this, 3. That other instance of Pope Leo in the great cause of the [...], in the Council of Chalcedon, of which anon; where note

1. That the Pope interprets the injury done in that Council to have been a breach against the Nicene Canons and dispo­sitions of Ecclesiastical affairs without mention of any others.

2. That through the Epistles written on that occasion, he deduceth not his Primacy from St. Peter.

3. That he takes no notice of any injury done to himself in that Council, but only to the Bishop of Alexandria, Antioch, and other Metropolitans.

4. That the deducing the dignity of the Roman See from the greatness of that imperial City, which was more then pretended by that Council, was never so much as quarrelled at by the Popes Legates in that controversie; which sure is a competent prejudice to the deducing it from St. Peter.

Adde 4. That solemn prohibition of Gregory to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, Ep. ex. reg. l. 7. indic. 1. c. 30. enjoyning him not to call him universal Father, that being derogatory to his bre­thren, &c. a manifold testimony that this did not in his opinion belong to him, by the law of Christ; for then

1. According to Christs own rule (You call me Lord and Master, Joh. 13.13.and you do well, for so I am) he had done well in giving him this title.

2. It could not have been derogatory to his bre­thren.

3. Reason could not have required the contrary as he saith it did.

4. He could not have averted it with an absit recedant, without even fighting against God, much less could he have spoken those things of it which we have mentioned elsewhere.

Add fifthly, The clear confession and manifest declaration of Pope Agatho (in his letters sent to the Emperour concern­ing a General Council) that his Primacy did extend only to the Bishops of the West and not to the East, [...]. Act. 4. p. 45. to 2. Con. And again p 47. he excuseth himself for sending so late. 1. [...]: ergo, beyond the Ocean then it was not. 2. Because he hoped that Theodorus his fellow Bishop, and Archbishop of the Great Island of Brittain with others there living would joyn with him; the words run thus, [...], a clear evidence, 1. That the Patriarchate of Rome even in Agathos time extended no far­ther than the Ocean, and so not to Brittain. And, 2. That Brittain was not numbred by him amongst the [...] the multitude of those who were under the inspection of the Pope, or belonged to his Patriarchate. which is a suffici­ent evidence that at that time the Bishops of Rome had no such universal Primacy.

CHAP. VI.

IN the seventh Chapter Mr. C. Sect. 1 confirms the supremacy of the Pope by a Law of the Emperour Valentinian, which [Page 46]runs thus, That whatever had been or should be established by the See Apostolick, Mr. C. p 54. Novel. Theo. of. Tit. 24.should have the force of a Law to the Bishops of France, and all others, and that secundum veterem consue­tudinem; Yea further he adds, That this Supremacy of the See Apostolick has been established both by the merit of St. Peter, who is the Prince of Episcopal society, and by the dignity of the City, and by the Sacred Authority of a Synod.

Ans. 1. All this falls short of an universal Jurisdiction, which Valentinian being only Emperour of the West, could not be imagined to confer upon the Pope, nor can his Edict be supposed to reach those Bishops which came not within the compass of his Empire.

2. Consider who was it that made this Edict; Valentinian a young Emperour, and as yet sub potestate matris; yea saith the great Salmasius, De prima­tu Papae, c. 17. it was procured a Principe intertissimo, imbelli, desidiaque ac luxurie perditissimo. And further, against whom was it framed? even against pious and learned St. Hilary, a man acquainted I presume with the antient customes of the Church, as well as this young Emperour or his instructer Pope Leo.

3. This Law was got from him by the suggestion and false dealing of the Pope, and that manifestly ambitious of and yawning after this Supremacy: and hence it is that the Edict saith, Hilary (as we have found by the faithful relation of that venerable man the Pope of Rome) vindicates his unjust ordina­tion of Bishops used only out of temerity, not consulting Pontifi­cem Romanae Ecclesiae; which is sufficient evidence (saith Salmasius) that this Edict was put forth by the arts and sug­gestions of the Roman Pontifex; as also he gathers from another clause, viz. Sola mansueti praesulis humanitas per­mittit Hilarium adhuc Episcopum nominari, words that smell rank of a Pope, and are exactly parallel to what Leo writes in his Epistle to the Bishops of the Province of Vienna; that as for St. Hilary, suae civitatis sacerdotium pro sedis Apostolicae pietate perceptio nostra servaverit.

4. (Saith he) he restrains the authority of the Pope, and will have it only acknowledged, Si quid a quopiam contra ve­terem consuetudinem tentaeretur; and in the beginning of his Edict ne quid praeter authoritatem sedis Romanae illicitum prae­sumptio [Page 47]adtentare nitatur, and therefore the Pope hath no­thing to do, when all things are done rightly, and according to ancient custom, so that this Edict sends us only to look what that was.

5. He sums up all and concludes that this Edict should not seem to have much authority, if it be considered that it was suggested by a false relation, (viz. that St. Hilary did against right and the antient customs, in ordaining Bishops without consulting the Pope, which is very false) that this relation was made by him whose interest it was to say so, and who was manifestly ambitious to Lord it over Gods Heritage, that this Edict was made, St. Hilary not being heard to plead for himself; that it was extorted from a young Prince and igno­rant of these things.

And lastly, That this Edict had very little or no authority in following times; for divers Councils (a thing which con­tains the height of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and which Leo for bad to Hilary) were called without the authority of the Pope, in divers parts and Cities of France, to define weighty matters of Faith and Discipline; thus we find it in Synodis, Agathensi prima, Epaunensi, Aureliensibus aliquot, Turonensi, Matisconensi, Avernensi, and many more, all affirming that they came together, Solo deo authore ac moderatore, and by the permission, or command of the Emperour, whither he were Gothus Burgundus, vel Francus; and thus I hope Mr. C. hath little cause to brag of the weight this testimony carries with it, especially seeing were it all as true as Gospel, yet doth it not reach to a jus divinum, and so is mutable.

As for the decrees of Pope Zosimus, Innocent, and Siricius, Mr. C. p. 56. so trivial and impertinent, that he dares not transcribe them, I refer him to the answers of Dr. Field, Sutlivius, Pag. 527. cont. Bellar. l. 2. de Sum­mo Pontif. Turon. 11. Can. 20. and Chamier, made to them long ago. Nor will I trouble my self with what the Council of Toledo held An. Dom. 633. or that of Tours 570. seeing these Councils concern only France, or Spain; and moreover this last saith only this, That it would be a piece of arrogance or presumption for a Priest (who by Mr. Cr. was made a Bishop) to contradict the determination of the Apostles See; Can. 4. and the first speaking of the use of trine immersion, tells us how that Leander Bishop [Page 48]of Spain desired the advice of Pope Gregory, who answers that in such matters as these it was indifferent what custom they observed; yet to avoid any symbolizing with Hereticks; one simple immersion might be more convenient: this now is called his Precept, and this for the reason assigned by the Pope, they agree to follow: but yet that the Popes decrees were received as Laws in France or Spain, neither do these citations prove, nor hath the assertion in it any thing of truth.

The great St. Sect. 2 Basil with whom he next assaults us, will do him little service; Ep. 52. Mr. C. p. 57. for his words are only these; It seems con­venient to us to write to the Bishop of Rome, to consider our affairs, [...], and give his advice, or acquaint us with his mind, and sentence (not interpose the judgement of his decree, as Mr. C. hath rendred it) and because tis difficult to send any thence by a common Synodical decree, that he using his own Authority (which in the other case he could not have) should chuse men fit to under go the trouble of the journey, The Greek runs thus, [...]. Pag. 534.and also able by their meekness and dexterity (not by power delegated from the Pope) to correct the perverse and thwarting spirits amongst us, fitly tempering and dispensing their words, and having all things with them that were done at? Ariminum, to the rescinding of what was there done, or rather that so what was there done by force and violence may be rescinded. And had not Dr. Field cause to say, ‘That the alledging of this testi­mony sheweth they have very little conscience that alledge it? for these are the circumstances of Basils Epistle, whereof let the Reader judge. Basil writing to Athanasius, adviseth him that the only way to settle things put out of order in the Eastern Churches by the Arrians, was the procuring of the consent of the Western Bishops, if it were possible to entreat them to interpose themselves; for that undoubtedly the Rulers would greatly regard, and much reverence the credit of their multitude; and people everywhere would follow them without gainsaying; but seeing this which was rather to be desired would not in likelyhood easily be ob­tained, he wisheth that the Bishop of Rome might be in­duced to send some of good discretion, and moderation, who by gentle admonitions might pacifie the minds of men, [Page 49]and might have all things in readiness that concerned the Arimine Council; so that this Epistle makes very much against their opinion, that alledge it; for he preferreth and rather wisheth a (particular) Council, than this interposi­tion of the Pope alone, if there had been any hope of a Council; besides, those whom the Pope was to send were not to proceed judicially and authoritatively, but by in­treaty and gentle admonitions to pacifie the minds o [...] men; and therefore here is nothing of visiting the Easte [...]n Churches and voiding the acts of the Council of Ariminum by way of setence.’

The Argument taken from the Ecclesiastical Canon, Sect. 3 Mr C. p. 57, 58. viz that no decrees should be established in the Church withou [...] (not the assent as he would have it, but) the opinion and the advice of the Bishop of Rome, upon which ground the new confession of the Council of Nice, was argued of nutl [...]y, which he confirms from Socrates, Hist. Eccles l. 2. ca [...] 5. Athanas. Apol. sec. Sozom. Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 9. Va­lentinian, &c is fully answered by the Author of the re­view of the Trent Council, Pag 155. who tells him that all that can be proved hence, is, ‘That a General Council cannot be holden, unless they (viz. the Popes) be called to it, and this (saith he) appears from the application which Pope Julius makes of it, when he complains that he was not called to the Coun­cil of Antioch, where Athanasius was condemned, charging them for that with the breach of that Canon; Lib. 2 [...] 13. Julius (saith Socrates) in his letters to the Bishops of the Council of Antioch, tells them they had offended against the Canons of the Church, in that they called him not to the Council; for as much as the Ecclesiastical Canon forbids the making of any decrces in the Church, without the opinion and advice of the Bishop of Rome: And Sozomen saith, Lib. 3. c. 9. that Julius writ to the Bishops which were assembled at Antioch, accusing them for seeking after novelties, contrary to the faith and belief of the Nicene Council, and contrary to the Laws of the Church, for not calling him to the Council; forasmuch as by vertue of a Law made in behalf of the dignity of Priests, all decrees, viz. made in a General Council are invalid, which are enacted without the opinion and advice [Page 50]of the Pope of Rome; and of this, Pope Julius had reason to complain, considering that a Council cannot be termed General, nor any decrees and Canons made to bind the whole Church Catholick, unless all those which ought to be present, especially the Patriarchs, be lawfully called there­unto. Ib s. 5. Secondly, He tells us, this was no special priviledge of the Bishop of Rome, but a right common to him with all other Patriarchs, who ought of necessity to be summoned to all General Councils; and this is the reason, why the second Council of Constantinople is not accounted properly General, because all the Patriarchs were not there; how­ever saith Balsamon, In Com. ad Synod. Constant. 1. ad finem. the Synod of Constantinople be no General Council, because the other Patriarchs were not there, yet it is greater than all other Synods; and the Arch­bishop of that See was stiled, Universal Patriarch: For this cause also Nestorius when he was summoned to appear at the Council of Ephesus, S. 6 Socrat. l. 7. c. 33. answered, that he would so, as soon as John the Patriarch of Antioch was come thither; and this was the reason why the Patriarch of Antioch was so highly offended with Cyril, (who would not vouchsafe to stay for him) that being come after the sentence of deposition against Nestorius, he banded with his own Bishops against Cyril, S. 7 and excommunicated him. And the eighth General Council after the arrival of the Patriarch of Alexandria's Deputy, who came somewhat tardy, gave thanks to God at his coming, because he supplyed what was wanting to a General Council, and made it most compleat. Nay they were not only called to General Councils, but the custom was, for honours sake, to wait for them certain dayes when they did not come at the day appointed: So at the Coun­cil of Ephesus, they stayed sixteen dayes after the time was expired for the Patriarch of Antioch. And the eighth General Council having expected the Popes Legates for certain dayes, Id. s. 10. and seeing they came not, took this ensuing resolution; Considering the deputies for the See of old Rome have been a long time expected, and that it is against all reason to wait for them any longer, we hold it an unbe­seeming thing to slight and endanger the tottering Church of our Saviour Christ by such delayes:’ and thus much for that Argument.

He comes now to add a few examples more, viz. Sect. 4 ‘When some Eastern Councils had deposed Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria, Paul Bishop of Constantinople, P 58. s. 8. L 3 c. 7. Non sinesa­dissima labe & lapsu cum à Julio restitutum dicit Soza­menus. Cra­kenth. def. Ecc. Ang. c. 22. s. 69. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 4.Marcellus Pri­mate of Ancyra, and Asclepas Bishop of Gaza; the Bishop of Rome (saith Sozomen) to whom for the dignity of his Throne the care of All things doth pertain, restored to every one of them their own Church; and he adds further, that he commanded them, who had deposed them, to appear on a day appointed at Rome, to give an ac­count of their judgement, threatning that he would not leave them unpunished, if they would not cease from innovating; all this he did (saith Theodoret) not by usurp­ing, but [...] according to the Law of the Church. Now to this we answer, Lib. 4. c. 4. s. 10. in the words of the same Author, who replies to Bellarmin, that he takes out of Sozomen what makes against him: For, 1. He doth not any way speak of appealing from the Council to the Pope, for that was not then in use. He saith indeed, that Atha­nasius and some other Bishops being deprived of their Sees, and persecuted by the Arrian Bishops, which were in the East, fled to Rome, as to an Haven of refuge, that the Pope having heard their Confessions according with the Nicene Creed, received them into Communion, restored them to their Churches, and writ to the Eastern Bishops, whom he rebuked for deposing them; but we must alwaies remem­ber, that they were Arrians and Persecutors, and that the Controversie was not between party and party. If Bellar­mine deny it, or if he answer, that he must look here only to the form of proceeding, which was ordinary, we will take him at his word, and presently oppose to him the Authority of his own Author; who saith, that these Bishops, so soon as they had received these letters, fram'd an answer full of Ironies and threats, and confessed (as he said) that the Church of Rome was the principal, as that which was from the Prime of the Apostles, and the Metropolitan from the beginning for Piety (howbeit these that planted Christian Religion there, came first out of the East) but they were displeased, that he should think they were inferior to him­self, because his Church was of greater lustre, though they [Page 52]excelled him in Virtue, and Sanctity of life; they objected also against him as a crime, that he had communicated with Athanasius and the other Bishops, and that they could not indure to see their sentence made invalid by him, as if it were by a Council;’ so that what he did was by way of Usur­pation, and not by Right: and that which our Author cites out of Theodoret for the contrary is very disingenuous. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 4. Mr. C. p. 59. For Theodoret saith only thus; That Athanasius foreseeing, what designs were on foot against him, fled to Rome to Pope Julius; and those that were Eusebians, sent many Calumnies against him to the Pope; But Julius [...] fol­lowing the way of the Church (in not condemning a Bishop before he hath been heard, and put in his plea for himself) bids them come to Rome to make good their Accusations, and shew that their proceedings were just and equal, and ac­cordingly appointed a day [...], for the deciding of the Case, at which Athanasius was ready to appear, but these lyars would not. In this therefore he followed the Law of the Church, that he required evidence of the fact, before he renounc't his Communion; but Theodoret doth not so much as mention the other Circumstances, which we meet with in Sozomen; much less say, that the Pope followed the Law of Custome of the Church in them: and so much for that in­stance. Nor doth it at all conclude his Supremacy, that he is said to have the care of all the Churches upon him; for this was common to him, not only with other Patriarchs, but other Bishops, as the Fathers everywhere speak; I will cite Origen for them all, who in his sixth Hom. on Isaiah, saith, He that is call'd to a Bishoprick, is call'd ad servitutem totius Ecclesiae: which you may see confirmed by Mr. Collins his Defence of the Bishop of Ely p. 174. and more copiously elsewhere; yet the Bishop of Rome was to do it more espe­cially for the dignity of his Seat, which made him Prime in or­der of the Bishops.

Again, Sect. 5 He tells us p. 59. s. 9. That the Council of Ephesus entring into a debate about the cause of John Patriarch of Alexandria, the Bishop of Jerusalem interposed, affirming that according to the ancient custome, the Church of Antioch was alwayes governed by the Roman, whereupon the whole Council [Page 53]referred the judgement of that cause to the Pope. And for this he cites Conc. Eph. p. 2. Art. 5. in relat. ad Caelestin; But he might as well have cited Aristotle; for there it not one Iota of any Bishop of Jerusalem in that place, nor one syllable of any such affirmation of his, nor any such reason alleadged to Caelestinus, but there say they, we deliberated of passing the same sentence upon him, which he did upon them who were condemned of no crime; but that we might overcome his temerity with long suffering, albeit we might justly have done it, or he would justly have suffered it, yet have we refer­red it to the judgement of your Holiness. Indeed Act. 4. The Bishop of Jerusalem saith, that John ought presently to have had recourse to the Apostolick seat sitting with him, viz. by his Legates in the Synod, [...]. But tis the Apostlique seat of Jerusalem, not of Rome, which he tells us he ought to have been directed and guided by; Well then, this John of Antioch being a Patriarch, and Cyrill being his enemy, they did well to stay their sentence against him, till they knew the mind, and had the suffrage of the Patriarch of Rome, who was Prime of the Patriarchs. But sure our Author did not so well in foysting in Rome for Jerusalem, albeit Binnius was his warrant for it. Add to this that even this fiction makes against them; for had the Pope received an universal juris­diction, and that from Christ, why doth the Bishop of Jeru­salem omit the delegation of the power from Christ, and sink down as low as custome? why doth he particularize Antioch, when not only that, but all other Patriarchical Sees (if we may believe our Adversaries) were to be guided and directed by the See of Rome, or by his Holiness?

We are told further, Ibid, Sect. 10. That when Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria, in the Schismatical Council of Ephe­sus had deposed Flavian Bishop of Constantinople, Flavian ap­pealed to the Pope, and this he did saith the Emperour Valen­tinian, [...], according the custom of Sy­nods.

To this it is Answered by the same Author, Review l. 4. c. 4. s. 11. Act 1. Con. Chal. Evag. l. 2. c. 2. Act. 3 Con. Chal. It is easie to make it appear, that it was not so.

For first, It is plain from the Acts, that the appeal was put in simply by the word Appello, without mentioning to whom.

2. The Appealants presented a petition to the Em [...]epours tending to this offect, that they would be pleased to refer the cause unto a Council.

3. The Council passeth the judgement upon the case of the Appeal.

And 4. The Pope himself was condemned by that Synod; He was one of the Plaintiffs against Dioscorus, the head of it. Whereupon it was said to his Legates by the Presidents of the Council of Chalcedon, Act. 1. Con. Chal. Nichol. in Epist. ad Michael. Imperat. that they being accusers, could not be judges. Yea Pope Nicholas himself testifies, that Dioscurus was not so much condemned for his Heresie, as for daring to pass sentence against the Pope; to what end then had it been to appeal to him, seeing he himself was condemned, and was a Plaintiff? Indeed the Epistle of Valentinian tells us that he appealed to the Pope, Ad Theo­dos. in Praeamb. Con. Chal. [...], but it appears to have been no otherwise, then to procure his intermediation to the Emperour for the Calling of a Synod, and this he did [...], because it was the custome, when con­tentions arose about the faith, to Call Synods.

2. What is said to be given to the Pope, was only given to the Legates, that so he might be acquainted with the business, and know that he had appeall'd, as appears from the 23. Ep. of Leo to Theodosius, ‘Because our Legates have stoutly stood it out against the Synod, and this Bishop [Fla­vian] given them a bill of Appeal, we beseech your Gentleness to command a General Synod to be Celebrated in Italy.’

And thus we let him pass to the Council of Sardica, Sect. 6 which hath a Canon to this effect, Mr. C. p. 59. s. 11. That in any Controversie between Bishops, which could not be determined in their own respective Provinces, the person aggrieved must appeal to the Bishop of Rome, who might renew the process, and appoint judges; and when such a case happened, till the Pope had determined the cause, it was not permitted that another Bishop should be chosen in his place. De Oec. Pout. l. 13. c. 7.

But 1. Saith Chamier, this Council was not Oecumeni­cal, [Page 55]but only made up of the Western Bishops. For Sozomen L. 3. C. 10. tell us, that the Bishops of the East and West could not agree, but severally set forth their Decrees, and therefore it useth not to be reckoned among the General Councils. Tis true, as Sulpitius saith, Sac. Hist. l. 2. it was called from each part of the world, but of the Eastern Bishops came but seventy six to Sardis, and these (saith Socrates) would not once come into the sight of the Western Bishops; but their conditi­ons being denyed, Confestim discedunt, they presently depart.

2. This Canon is manifestly contrary to the fifth of the General Council of Nice, which refers the final determina­tion of all causes of Bishops to the Primate or Patriarch, which the Emperour also confirmeth, and will have no man to have power to contradict the sentence which the Primate or Patriarch shall give.

3. The Affricans took no notice of this Decree, Dr. Field p. 566. and yet there were Bishops of Africa at the Council, so that in likelihood this decree was not confirmed by subsequent pra­ctice, acceptation, and execution. Yea they will'd the Pope to send no more any of his Clarks to dispatch causes at any mans suit; for that this was the way to bring in the Smoaky puffe of worldly pride into the Church; and in very earnest be­sought him not to be Eafie in admitting any Appeals brought from them.

4. This Canon makes rather against them; for by it all matters must be ended at home, or in the next Province to that wherein they arise; And the Pope may not call matters to Rome there to be heard, but is only permitted in some cases to send a Presbyter, having his authority, and to put him in Commission with the Bishops of the Province, that so he and they may jointly re-examine things formerly judged.

To which you may add 1. That it was not in the power of the Pope to command Appeals to himself, but only to re­ceive them, when brought.

2. That this power of Appealing was Ad Julium Roma­num not ad Papam Romanum, and therefore a personal pri­viledge, which was to cease on the death of Julius.

3. That the very same thing, viz. the like power of Ap­pealing to the Bishop of Constantinople was defined in the General Council of Chalcedon, Ca [...]. 9.17. as you may see evinced by the learned Crakenthorp, Defens. Eccl. Angl. C. 31. Sect. 7. And therefore if the Argument hold good for the Supremacy of the Pope, it must infer the same in the behalf of the Bishop of Constantinople. As to what he adds of the second propo­sal of Gaudentius, he might have done well to have told us that the Synod would not add their Placets to it as you may see in the three copies of it extant in Binnius; but alas then it would have been unserviceable to them, yea evidently on our sides; for why should they have denyed this to the Pope, or he sued for it, if an universal inspection of the whole world were by Christ allowed him?

His second Council is that of Arles. Sect. 7 Here (saith he) we have a Patriarchical Council sending their Decrees to the Bi­shop of Rome, as being the chief person, from whom all Chri­stians ought to receive information of what they ought to be­lieve and practise, and by whom, no doubt, they were to be obli­ged thereto.

Answ. Our Author doth well to beg the question, when he cannot prove it. In all this (were it perfectly as he re­lates it) there is nothing at all of jurisdiction, but only some­what of trouble to the Pope, viz. to acquaint all whom it concerned, what the Council had decreed; which the King may command the Master of the Post-office to do in his Do­minions; and this He saw, and therefore thought it necessary to add, by whom no doubt they were to be obliged thereto. But indeed he must give us leave to doubt it, till we have a better argument (then his confidence in asserting any thing) to prove it.

2. Vide Sa­masium de Primatu Papae. c. 21. and especi­ally, c. 10. Is it not perfectly ridiculous to prove an acknow­ledgement of his universal jurisdiction from this, that a Pa­triarchical Council sent their Decrees to him?

Especially 3. When they declare that they send their Decrees to him upon this account, quod majores teneat Dioece­ses, or which is the same, because he was the greater Metro­politan. Had the whole world been his Diocess, they might well have said, Majores teneat Dioeceses, albeit they could not have given this reason.

2. The Council seems rather, to bind the Pope with the rest, We have signified to thee, what we have decreed in Common Council, that all might know hereafter what they ought to re­ceive. What then, Will he lay hold on the title Lord? he knows tis frequently given even by Popes to other Bishops. Thus Liberius in his Epistle to Ʋrsacius Valens, and Geminius, His Literis Convenio vos Domini Fratres Charissimi; See more of this in Salmas. p. 155. de Primat. Pap. Is it lastly, that they bid him according to custome to write letters to all? alas, what of Jurisdiction is there in this?

2. This being a Patriarchical Council only, this all can ex­tend it self no further then the Western Patriarchate, and then it will be unserviceable to conclude the Popes Suprema­cy over all the world.

We come now to consider the testimonies of the Fathers, Sect. 8 in behalf of this universal Jurisdiction of the Pope, which he endeavours to conclude from these things;

1. Eusch Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 4, 6. Mr. C. p. 70. s. 5. Because when the Pope inflicted or at least threatned excommunication to some of the Churches of Asia, that held a necessity of rebaptization, after Baptism received by Hereticks, St. Cyprian, and Firmilian never questioned his authority, though as they thought unjustly employed.

Answ. This argument falls very short of the thing intend­ed; for first, See infra, s. 11. as to his refusal to communicate with the Eastern Bishops, which is all that Eusebius saith of him, how unser­viceable, is it to infer an universal Jurisdiction, seeing other Bishops likewise frequently threaten, upon the dislike of the Popes actions, that they would not have communion with him? Secondly, No wonder then if these Bishops did not question this universal Jurisdiction, seeing the Pope in this matter never pretended it, Vid Epist. 75. inter. Epist. Cyp. qu [...] est Firmil. but an antient tradition of keeping Easter contrary to their custome, as appears evidently from their answers.

He tells us further, that St. Cyprian endeavoured to perswade the Pope to depose Marcianus, a Metropolitan Bishop of Arles si­ding with Novatian. Sect. 9

To which it is answered, by the learned Doctor Field, Mr. C [...]p. 70. Cyp. Ep. 67. P. 551. ‘This allegation is too weak to prove the intended conclusion; for it is most certain by all circumstances of the Epistle [Page 58]of Cyprian, that Stephen the Bishop of Rome, did not de­pose Martianus by himself alone, and therefore Cyprian doth not send to Stephen, that he should suspend Martianus, but that he should write to the Bishops of France to do it, and not to suffer him any longer to insult over the company of Catholick Bishops, for that he was not yet suspended and rejected from their communion; but some man perhaps will aske, why Cyprian desireth Stephen to write to the Bishops of France, and writeth not himself.’

Answ. Surely there may be three reasons given of his so doing; ‘the first because he was nearer to them then St. Cy­prian. The second because he as Patriarch of the West, with his Bishops was more likely to prevail, then Cyprian with his Africans only. The third for that as Cyprian ob­serveth in the end of the Epistle, it more concerned him then any other, to maintain the reputation of Lucius and Cornelius his predecessors, and to oppose himself against Martianus, who joined himself with Novatianus, that had Schismatically divided himself from them, and made a breach in the Church.’ But you will say that he is bid to write, commanding that Marcianus be excommunicated.

Answ. True Mr. C. tells us so, but tis his own addition; for Cyprian saith only, let Letters be directed to the people, and Province of Arles, quibus abstento Marciano; by reason of which Marcian being excommunicated (viz by the Bishops following his advice) another may be substituted in his room, viz. chosen by the people with the directions of the Bishops of France, as appears from his words, (qua propter facere te oportet plenissimas literas, ad coëpiscopos nostros in Gallia consti­tutos, ne ultra Marcianum pervicacem & superbum, & Di­vinae pietatis, ac fraternae salutis inimicum, collegio nostro in­sultare patiantur) and yet if all this answer was waved, the instance infers this only that the Pope had power over France, as being Patriarch, not over the whole world, as universal Bishop.

That which he cites out of the sixty eighth Epistle, Sect. 10 is to this effect; Cyprian writes to the Clergy and People of Spain, that they had rightly deposed Basilides, and Martial, and substi­tuted in their room Sabinus, and Faelix, and that it was not [Page 59]sufficient to rescind their ordination; ‘That Basilides after his crime manifested, went to Rome, and there deceived Stephen, being far distant from Spain, and ignorant of the thing done, and of the truth concealed, to the intent that he might request (Exaembiret) to be injustly reposed in his Bishoprick, from which he was justly deposed; Stephen here­upon with his Bishops communicateth with him, and so (as much as in them lyeth) restoreth him to his former Bi­shoprick. Cyprian condemneth the false and ill dealing of Basilides, and reproveth also the negligence of Stephen, that suffered himself so easily to be misled, taxing him, and such as consented with him, for communicating with such wicked ones, shewing that they are partakers of their sins, and that they violate the Canon of the Church, which the Bishops of Africa,’ and all the Bishops of the world, yea even Cornelius the predecessour of this Stephen had consented on to wit, ‘That men so defiled with Idolatry, as Martialis and Basilides were, should be received to penitency, but be kept from all Eccle­siastical honour; these are the circumstances of Cyprians Epistle, wherein he relateth the proceedings against Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office and dignity, and the inconsiderate course of the Bishop of Rome, hastily commu­nicating with them; whereby we may see how wisely and advisedly, our adversaries urge Cyprian to prove, that in antient times the Bishops of Rome had power to restore such Bishops to their places again, as were deposed by others; for thus they must reason from this place of Cyprian, if they will make any use of it, Basilides, and Martialis justly put from their office, fly to Stephen Bishop of Rome, hoping by his means to procure the reversing of that which was done against them; he with such as adheared to him, though they could not restore them to their places, yet communicated with them; Cyprian offended herewith chargeth Basilides with execrable wickedness, for abusing Stephen, and misinforming him, and Stephen with intolera­ble negligence, and unexcusable violation of the Canons, for partaking with such wicked persons, and wisheth all his Brethren, and Colleagues constantly to hold on their course against them, notwithstanding the failing of Stephen, [Page 60]and his adherents; therefore the Antient Bishops of Rome restored to their places such as were judicially deposed by others, and were acknowledged by the Fathers to have power and authority so to do;’ which kind of reasoning is like all the rest in this Chapter, that is, evidently weak; but happily you will say, Why doth not Cyprian tell them, that the Pope hath not power to restore them?

Answ. Doth he yet not sufficiently, in advising them to hold on their course against them, which sure he would not have done had he acknowledged any such power in the Bishop of Rome? for this would have been to contradict lawful au­thority.

2. St. Cyprian is discontented with the proceedings of these Bishops, in going to Stephen so far distant, which sure he would not have been, if he had thought him to have had such an universal Jurisdiction, as our Author pleads for; no certainly, these words savour strongly of what St. Cyprian tells us of Fortunatus and Felicissimus, their appeal to Rome, when condemned in Africk, Ep. 55. ad Cornelium, that it is just and equal, that every ones cause should be there heard, where the crime is committed, and that it behoved not their Bishops over whom they were set, to run about (as these did to Rome) but to plead their cause there, where their ac­cusers, and their witnesses might be had, unless a few despe­rate wretches will think, that the authority of the Bishops of Africa is less, (viz. then that to which they run) What evasions are made against this saying of Cyprian by Bellar­mine, and Pamelius, are taken off by Chamier in the four­teenth Book, De Oec. Pent. the second Chapter, from the sixth section to the two and twentieth.

Another negative Argument we have from Pope Victors excommunicating the Asian Bishops, Sect. 11 as differing from him in the Celebration of the Eastern Festival; now here saith he, It was not imputed to Victor by Irenaeus or Polycrates, that he exercised an usurped Authority over Bishops not subject to him; ergo, he had Authority over these Asian Bishops.

Answ. This (saith Mr. Chillingworth) is to suppose that excommunication is an act, or Argument, or sign of Power and Authority in the party excommunicating, over the party excom­municated, [Page 61]whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church story, that it was often used by Inferiors upon Superiors, and by Equals upon Equals, if the Equals or Inferiors thought their Equals or Superiors did any thing which deserved it.

2. Saith he, When they admonish him, that for so small a cause he should not cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church; what is this, but to esteem that as a small and un­sufficient cause of excommunication, which Victor and his ad­herents thought great and sufficient; and consequently, that Victor and his party declared that to be a matter of faith and necessity, which they thought not so, and where was then their conformity?

To what he adds further out of Cyprian, Sect. 12 de unitate Eccle­siae, that our Lord built his Church upon one Person, &c. the same most learned Author returns this Answer; ‘That who­soever will but read over that Book, shall find most certain­ly, and undoubtedly, that he speaketh not in that Book of St. Peters Headship of the universal Church as our Author phansieth, but of the Head Original; and first beginning of Pastoral commission, which he makes appear by laying down the principal and most material circumstances of this Book, written upon occasion of the Schism of the Novati­ans; The first thing that occurs in the whole discourse of the Book, is the observation of the malice of Satan, in find­ing out Schisms and Heresies to subvert the faith. 2. He sheweth, that this so falls out, because men return not back to the first Origen of Truth, because they seek not the Head, nor keep the doctrine of the Heavenly Master; which if a man would consider, there would be no need of many Arguments, but the truth without any great search would offer it self unto him; for therefore did Christ when he was to lay the foundations of the Christian Church, say especi­ally to Peter, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church: and again after the Resurrection, Feed my sheep, because, though rising again from the dead, he gave like power to all the Apostles, when he said, As my Father sent me, so send I you; Whose sins ye remit, &c. Joh. 20.21, 23. Yet he would by speaking especially to one, and by appointing one Chair, shew what unity should be in the [Page 62]Church; the rest of the Apostles, saith St. Cyprian, were undoubtedly the same that St. Peter was, equal in honour and power, but therefore did Christ in the first place give, or at least promise to give; especially, or particularly to one, that Apostolick Commission which he meant also to give to the rest, that he might thereby shew that the Church must be one, and that there must be but one Episcopal Chair in the World; all the Apostles saith Cyprian are Pastors, but the Flock of Christ is but one, which they are to feed with unanimous consent; there is but one Body of the Church, one Spirit, one Hope of our Calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God; this unity all men must endea­vour to keep, especially Bishops, that they may make it ap­pear that there is but one Episcopal Commission in the Christian Church, cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur, whereof every one indifferently, and in equal sort hath his part: Here is nothing that proveth the universality of the Papal power, but this place most plainly overthroweth it; for Cyprian teacheth, that Christ meant to give equal Power and Authority to all his Apostles; and the reason why in­tending no more to one than to the rest, yet he more espe­cially directed his speech to one than to the rest, was only to shew that there must be an unity in the Church, which He settled in that beginning with one, from him he proceeded to the rest, not meaning that the rest should receive any thing from him, but that from himself immediately they should receive that in the second place, which he had first, and that they should receive the same Commission together with him, into which he was put first, that they might know him to be the first of their Company; for it cannot consist (saith he) either with truth, with the opinion of St. Cypri­an, or of our Adversaries themselves, that the rest of the Apostles received their Ministerial Power from Peter, and were subject to him, as to an Head and absolute Commander over them, seeing he saith expresly that they were the same that Peter was, and equal to him both in honour, and power; and besides both in this book, and in many other places, he is wont to derive the original of Schisms, and Heresies, from the intrusion of men into places, without due admittance [Page 63]and allowance of them that in a kind of coherent concord rule and govern the Church, and never from the resistance of one Supream Commander set over all:’ Well then to the places objected, upon that one, viz. St. Peter, he builds his Church, we Answer in the words of St. Jerome preceding, The Church was built upon St. Peter; but yet true it is, the same thing is done upon others, and the strength of the Church equally rests upon all. But you will say that St. Je­rome there asserts, That among the twelve one was chosen, Cont. Jo­vin. l. 2.that an head being constituted, the occasion of Schism might be taken away, which seems to advance St. Peter above the rest.

Answ. Not as to any thing of Authority; for then St. Je­rome would contradict himself, when he saith, that the Church was founded ex aequo upon the twelve: so that his meaning is, that before the Apostles were sent over the World, and whilst they made up one particular company, for better orders sake, he was chosen Head, that so things might be done communi concilio, and there might be no Schism between them.

2. He tells us this was given to Peter, quia Petrus crat senior, which being but a personal advantage, cannot be ap­plyed to the benefit of the Romanist, who is to prove the Popes Supremacy, and not only the Primacy of St. Peter; not to mention that these words are not St. Jeroms, but Jovinians, and speak not of a plenitude of Power but only Primacy, with many other Answers which you have in Dr. Ham. Sch. dis. p. 238.

And for the second citation from St. Cyprian, Sect. 13 that he who forsakes the Chair of St. Peter upon which the Church is found­ed, cannot think that he is in the Church: Lib. 12 de Oec. Pont. c. 5. s. 3. He might have learn­ed from Chamier, that it is a meer gloss crept into the Text, and not to be found in some Editions; but if it could deserve an Answer, the learned Dr. Field will inform him; ‘That St. Cyprian by that Chair intendeth not one particular Chair appointed for a General Teacher of all the World to sit in, but the joynt commission, unity and consent of all Pastors, which is and must be such, as if they did all sit in one Chair; which sense of one Chair founded upon Peter you may find in the same Cyprian ad universam plebem, Lib. ep. 8, where [Page 64]he urgeth the unity of the Church and Chair (not to shew that obedience was to be given to the Church of Rome, but) to shew that against them that are lawfully placed in a Bishoprick with consenting allowance of the Pastors at unity, others may not be admitted; and that they who by any other means get into places of Ministry, then by con­senting allowance of the Pastors at unity among themselves, are in truth and indeed no Bishops at all.’

And this is a sufficient Answer to that passage of Optatus cont. Sect. 14This would have per­fect truth [...] in it (saith Dr. Ham. Sch dis p. 192) had it been spoken of any other plantations of the A­postles, the Chair of St. John in Asia &c Seeing the meaning of the Chair doth evi­dently sig­nifie the Church brought down by succession from the Apostles, which the Donatists could not pretend to; see him exactly scanning the whole place, p. 190, 192, 193.Parmen. l. 2. At Rome a Chair was placed for St. Peter, to the end that unity might be preserved of all, and for fear the other Apostles should challenge to themselves each one his parti­cular Chair: And sure you could not be ignorant of the Answer returned to the passage by the incomparable Chil­lingworth, viz. The truth is, the Donatists had set up at Rome a Bishop of their Faction, not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church, but of that Church in particular; now Optatus going upon St. Cyprians above mentioned grounds, of one Bishop in one Church, proves them Schismatick [...] for so doing, and he proves it by this Argument; St. Peter was first Bishop of Rome, neither did the Apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair, (understand in that City, for in other places others had Chairs beside St. Peter) and therefore he is a Schismatick, who against that one single Ch [...]ir erects another; Ʋnderstand (as before, in that place) making another Bishop of that Diocess besides him who was lawfully elected to it.

We pass on to St. Chrysostome, from whom two sentences are pressed for the service of the Pope; but to the first I return a Non est inventus; after twice reading the third Hom. cited by him, In Act. Apost. c. 1.4. I can find nothing like the words produced; In the second is evident prevarication, for having told us that these words Follow me, shewed his special care he had of St. Peter, he adds, How then was it, may some say, that St. James [...]; to this I Answer saith he, [...], he (that is Christ) ordained him Teacher, or if you will Master, not of any Throne, but of the whole Werld, (as he did also the rest of the Apostles) for which our Author hath it (not of that See of [Page 65] Rome alone) in which the fraud is manifest; 'tis true, Sect. 15 the Scholiast tells us, that either [...] must be left out as the Interpreter hath done, or else [...] must be added, but then it must evidently refer to the See of Jerusalem, and can by no stratagems be drawn to the See of Rome; well then if he would have this citation serviceable to him, he must first shew that St. Peter was by Christ constituted Bishop of Rome, and by so doing he will contradict St. Chrysostoms [...].

2. That only St. Peter and not any of the Apostles besides him were appointed to be [...], by our Saviour.

3. Which is the most difficult of all, that the Bishops of Rome are to succeed him in being so.

There is one passage remaining of St. Austins, who tells us, Sect. 16 That Melchiades judged the cause of the Donatists in Africk. Judicante Melchiade sedis Ro­manae Epis­copo cum collegis su­is, quos ad preces Do­natistarum miserat Im­perator. ibid. ep. 162. Third def. c. 2. s. 4. Non provo­cent nisi ad Africana concilia, &c. Ad trans­marina au­tem qui pu­taverint appellandū, à nullo in­tra Africam in commu­nionem re­cipiantur. Reply p. 40. Where (not to take notice of his interpreting de collegio suo removere to remove from his Communion.) 1. This was no Authoritative, but only a brotherly decision. 2. Done at the prayers of the Donatists. 3. By power delegated from the Emperour. 4. All this we find in Reverend Dr. Ham. together with a complaint that many other things offered by him in consideration of this passage could find no Answer: Now seeing all these Answers are clearly satisfactory, is it not strangly absurd, that the objection should be brought upon the stage afresh, without the least considerations of the re­turns that were made unto it? Now that St. Austin was far enough from acknowledging the Supremacy contended for, as well as the rest of the African Bishops, is argued from this, that in the Milevitan Council where he was present, speak­ing of Appeals from their Bishops, their rule is cap. 22. that they should appeal to none but the African Councils, or the Primates of their own Provinces; and if any shall think fit to appeal to any transmarine (or forreign) Judicature they are not to be admitted into Communion by any within Africa, and this they determined agreeably to the Council of Nice, and de­clare as much to Pope Celestine, as you may see in the Re­verend Dr. Hammond.

Tis a common Proverb, that the Devil will play at small game, rather than stick out; Sect. 17 so if the Bishop of Rome cannot [Page 66]be Universal Monarch, he will plead for him as Patriarch over the West, and thereby think to bring us into subjection to him; but seeing it is notorious and almost generally confest that the power of Patriarchs is not of Divine but humane institution; if he will affirm that this Dignity was given to him by the Fathers, he must either allow and acknowledge that they never dream'd of his being Universal Monarch, or else were so wise as to decree that he should have allotted to his Jurisdiction the third or fourth part of the World, whom they knew to have received from Christ a title to the whole. 2. Were he Patriarch over all the West, and we included in the circuit of his Patriarchate, yet would not this afford him any Authority over England: Dr. Ha [...]. third def. p. 124. ‘Seeing the dignity of a Pa­triarch includes not any Authority over more then the Pro­vince or [...] that belongs to him as a Primate or Metro­politan, and therefore infers no kind of Authority over all those that belong to the circuit of his Patriarchate:’ Just. vin­et c. p. 249: Bishop Bramhal gives him three further Answers. 1. That the Brittish neither were, nor ought to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch, as is irrefragably proved in his third conclusion. 2. That Patriarchical power being not of Divine right may be quitted (and that this the Pope hath done by taking up an Ʋniversal Monarchy unconsistent with it) forfeited (by many exerbitant abuses of which the Roman Bishops have been guilty beyond expression) or lawfully transferred as was done by the King and the whole body of the Kingdome. And, 3. That the power which we have cashiered, nor any part of it was ever given to any Patriarch by antient Canons; so then tis super­fluous to consider his Authorities, only in short. 1. Zonaras and Balsamon are esteemed Hereticks by himself: And secondly, are affirmed by the Learned Salmasius to have mistaken the mind of the Canon. Salmas. de pr [...]matu Papae. c. ult. 2. St. Basils calling the Bishop of Rome [...] makes him only the chief in order and most eminent Bishop of the West, which title we can very well allow him. Salmas. 16. 3. In the testimony of St. Austin he hath fo [...]sted in the Western Church, whereas St. Austin speaks only of the Church in which St. Peter suffer­ed Martyrdom, that is the Church of Rome; it being searce ever heard, that any one was said to have suffered Martyr­dome [Page 67]in the West. 3. Nor can it be inferred from that place of St. Jeromes, Let them condemn me with the West, that is with Damasus, that he thought him Patriarch of all the West; but his meaning is this, Salmas. ib. Let them condemn me with the most fa­mous men and Churches in the World; of which having men­tioned two, he leaves the rest to be understood. Lastly, 'Tis objected that Justinian the Emperour affirms, that the whole World was subject to five Partriarchs, that is [...] to Western Rome, Constant. Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem; Nevel. 123: now saith he unless Hesperia signifies the whole West, to what Patriarch was France, Spain, Africa, &c. subject? Ans. 'Tis true the Emperour reckoneth up five Patriarchs, but doth he any where say, that all the World was necessarily subject to them? doth he deny that it was in the power of Princes to make more, or limit the Dominions of these? did not he create de novo, Carthage, and Justiniana prima? and give them all power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, the Supream Priesthood, Supream Honour and Dignity; and ordain that final appeals and the Dignity of Apostolical Sees shall be gi­ven to them, as is evident from his very words cited by Dr. Hammond in his [...]ract of Schism, Pag. 101, 102, 103. and then what service can you have from this his testimony? Lastly, Notwith­standing this, there were many Provinces that were not subject to the Jurisdiction of any of the forementioned Pa­triarchs.

I should now cite Fathers against Fathers, Sect. 18 but then this Pamphlet would swell too much; I will therefore conclude with that of the worthy Dr. Crakanthorp, [...] 22. [...]. 56.Poteram integras patrum phalanges per singula saecula agglomerare (vide [...].15. praestitum a celeberrimo Blondello) qui omnes velut agmine facto suprematum tuum (Spalatensem alloquitur) appugnent, sed quidopus? d [...]rtho loxis ad unumomnthus [...]ipso qu [...] conciliis quin (que) primis consensisse eos non est du [...] [...] ab om­nibus suprematum istum tuum qui in e [...]s [...]amnatur anathemati­zari; in which one sentence he evinceth the concurrence of above 1000 Fathers, besides some 1000s more cited by him, when he produceth 26 Councils for the condemnation of this Supremacy of the Pope, and we can be contented to be ac­counted Hereticks, when we have six or seven thou [...]and [Page 68]Fathers at the least that must be thrust into the Catalogue, yea the infallible Church of God, stablishing by their re­iterated decrees this new-found Heresie.

CHAP. VII.

I Pass now to the Vindication of what the worthy Doctor brought against the Usurpation of the Popes Supremacy over the World by Divine Right: Sect. 1 And, 1. The Canon of the Council of Chalcedon sticks very much in Mr. C.'s stomach, and what Arts doth he not use to avoid its stroak? and reason good, for tis a most clear and perspicuous refuta­tion of that dream.

For, [...]. can. 28. [...]. Ibid. P. 76. s. 13. [...], Ibid. 1. The Fathers of the Council tell us, that the pri­viledges of Rome (above other Patriarchs) were given her by the Fathers of the Church; whence it is evidently inferred, that the Primacy of the Pope of Rome (albeit it were a Prima­cy of order only) was not from any appointment of Christ, but the constitutions of the Church.

2. They tell us, this Primacy was by the Fathers allowed unto him (not because he was the Vicar of Christ, or Suc­cessor of St. Peter, but) upon this account that the City he pre­sided in, was the Imperial City; this * Mr. C. would have done by John of Constantinople, that so he might avoid the evidence it carrieth in it.

3. They decree that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal priviledges to the Pope (the first seat excepted) and be advanced to the like greatness in Ecclesiastical affairs indefinitely and Universally, as appears, 1. From the only exception mentioned, that of place; for exceptio firmat regu­lam in non exceptis. 2. From the ground of those equal pri­viledges, the equal dignity of the City, which evidently de­stroyes [Page 69]all the pretensions of the Pope to an universal juris­diction, seeing he could have no jurisdiction over the Bishop of Constantinople, thus made equal to him.

4. [...]. Act. ib. That this Decree was made with the full concurrence of the Council, consisting of six hundred and thirty Bi­shops (the Legates of the Pope excepted only) for after the canvasing of the business, when the Judges had pro­nounced that the Bishop of Constantinople was to have equal priviledges with him, the whole Council presently cryes out, This is a just sentence, this we all say, let this be con­signed or confirmed.

5. The Fathers proceed to the making of this Decree and the confirming of it, notwithstanding the dissent of the Roman Legates, and that by the command of their Pope; whence it is manifest that they did not esteem the approba­tion of the Pope necessary to the establishing of their De­crees, or his contradiction sufficient to make them null (as Mr. C. pretends from an old Canon, the sense of which we have manifested above to be very alien from this business) for otherwise these six hundred and thirty Fathers would never have proceeded to establish this Decree for an Eccle­siastical Law, which was made invito & reclamante Pon­tifice.

6. Aetius Arch-deacon of Constantinople makes a relati­on how after matters of Faith agreed upon, they proceeded according to the manner to some constitutions; in these they desired the Legates to joyn with them, but they refused, say­ing they had received commands from Rome to do so, which being remonstrated to the Judges, and their leave asked that the present Council might determine the business, they or­dered that the Council should proceed; and hereupon the Decree was unanimously made, [...]. P. 51. s. 8, and it was appealed to them all whether it were not true, nothing being done clancularly, or by stealth, but of course regularly and Canonically; whence we may collect,

1. What truth there is in that Parenthesis of our Author, ‘that the Canon was compiled by the Bishop of Constanti­noples bargaining with some Bishops, and violence to others;’ Whereas not only the Council openly contradicts him, but [Page 68] [...] [Page 69] [...] [Page 70]further when by the appointment of the judges, and in the presence of the Legates, they that were most concerned (the Bishops of Asia, Pontus, and Thracia, who were now brought under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, being sup­posed formerly to be free) were called out severally, [...]. and asked whether they had acted under any force; they se­verally answered, I subscribed willingly as in the presence of God.

2. How ingenuously doth our Author deal in telling us ‘that it was an infamous Canon surreptiously made, after the departure of the Judges, the Senate, and of the Legate of the See Apostolick?’ When from the Acts of the Coun­cil it is evident,

1. That the Legates were desired to be present and resu­sed, and that upon their appearance the day following all their objections against the Canon were taken of, and their pretences clearly answered in the Council.

2. Concil. To. 3 p. 460. It is likewise evident that albeit the Judges were then absent, yet did they give order that the Council should pro­ceed, and that when on the morrow they were present and canvased the whole matter, they conclude thus, that they had weighed all, and found that none had injury; the pri­viledges of the Bishop of Rome were preserved intire ac­cording to the Canons; and that the Bishop of Constantino­ple was to have equal priviledges with him, and this being their sentence, [...]. they desire the whole Council to deliver theirs, and they all cryed out, This is a just sentence, this we are all well pleased with; and so the Judges pronounce, the Synod hath confirmed all.

Well, Mr. C p. 51 but he answers further, that this was a despised Ca­non, not inserted among the other Canons; and his reason is, because according to the most antient Greek and Latine Copies of that Council (as appears from Dionysius Exiguus and the testimony of Theodoret Anagnostes a Grecian) the Council of Chalcedon publisht only twenty seven Canons, whereas this is reckoned the twenty eighth.

Answ. This is put in to admonish us, what respect we owe to the Romanists collections; for it is certain this Canon is in all the Greek Copies, both Printed and Manuscript, and [Page 71]from thence the Copy of that Council must originally be fetcht, yea many of the Romanists confess there was such a Canon made, and the story of the fact is by all the Anti­ents agreed on; and Leos Epistles and many other evidences put it beyond all dispute and indeed Lees Legates resisting, and not consenting to it, and complaing to the Judges that it was done without them (when yet they voluntarily did absent themselves) is an evidence still that there was such a Canon made, and made by the Council, and yet it is left out in the Codex vetus Ecclesiae Romanae, and Dionysius Exiguus his Codex; but we sufficiently know in whose interest they did it; and what is it to the purpose whether the Canons of that Council be twenty seven or twenty eight, when it is sure that this was one? yea this despised Canon is not only men­tioned by Socrates and Sozomen, L. 5. C. 8. L. 7. C. 9 but it was also renewed by the Council in Trullo, in these words, renewing the Decree of the hundred and fifty Fathers who met in this City of Constantinople (in which was Trullo (secretarium palatii) from whence the Council was so named) and by the six hundred and thirty Bishops assembled at Chalcedon, We define that the See of Constantinople shall have equal prerogatives of honour with that of Rome, [...]. Mr. C. p. 52. and shall be equally advanced in Ecclesi­astical matters; next we are told that Anatolius Bishop of Con­stantinople was both ashamed, and sorry for this Canon; and this he proves from the fifty fifth Epistle of Leo, which is saith he in Answer to Anatelius; but alas that Epistle is not written to Anatolius, but Pulcheria Augusta, nor hath it any thing of his shame, and sorrow, but much of his pride and ambiti­on; and as for the matter of fact, he was so much ashamed of it that he exercised it in an eminent manner on the Patri­arch of Alexandria, Leo the Emperour having put wholly into his hands the judging of a great affair, and quieting a disturbance in that Church; and if it be considered that this was adjudged to him formerly by the Council of Constanti­nople, determined here by the six hundred and thirty Bishops; that the Bishop of Constantinople held this dignity by a custome that had been long in force, and many other things collected by the Reverenp Dr. Hammond, Reply p. 82, 83, 84. there will be no possibility of assenting to this crude and audacious affirmation that the [Page 72]Patriarch was ashamed of this Canon. Nay, it is much more reasonable to affirm that the Popes themselves were at last ashamed of their opposing it; for within thirty years after we find saith the same Doctor, ‘Faelix the third of his own accord consenting to his Primacy, Ep. 1. and acknowledging Aca­sius Bishop of Constantinople to have power over the Bishops that were under him, and Innocent the third confirms it with a solemn constitution; yea in the Gre­gorian Edition of the Decree, we are told that at last this was granted to the Bishops of Constantinople for peace and quietness sake, Cap. 5. Con. Lat. Dist. 22. ad cap. Const. that I adde not the establish­ment of it again by the Council of Florence, Sess. ult. in tit. Ʋnionis.’ What he adds from Gelasius, as it hath nothing of truth in it, so hath it much of fraudulent dealing. Gelasius there tells us, that this Synod of Chalcedon as to its determinations touching matters of Faith, was universally received; but other things the Apostolick See received not; and afterwards that the See Apostolick consented not to this Canon that the Emperour (albeit he desired the Apostolick See to consent) did not impose it, nor Anatolius use it, and the whole as it is said in sedis Apostolicae positum est potestate (not was put, Petente Marciano Principe. but) is put (as the series of the discourse shewes) in the power of the See Apostolick, arrogating this unto that See, ita quod firmavit in Synodo sedes Apostolica, hoc robur obtinuit, quod refutavit, habere non potuit firmitatem; and therefore what it confirmed in that Synod, (which words our Author was pleased to conceal) that was valid. As the words are related by our Author, any one would imagine, that the deciding of this business, viz. whether the See of Constantinople should have equal priviledges with that of Rome, had been referred to the See Apostolick, whereas in truth here is nothing but the arrogant assertion of a Pope (from an obscure fragment) that the consent of the See of Rome is necessary to the validity of this Ca­non.

Lastly, Whereas we say, with the General Council of six hundred and thirty Bishops, and that other commonly called Trullensis, that these priviledges were Decreed to the See of Constantinople by a former Canon made in the second Gene­ral [Page 73]Council of Constantinople, Mr. C. p. 52. s. 9. he calls upon us to observe the false dealing of the Bishop of Constantinople, and his Clergy, in that they fraudulently thrust in the words [...], when the Canon had only [...].

Answ. Tis well he had the modesty to accuse the Bishop of Constantinople and his Clergy only; for had he spoken out, and told us that the whole Synod, and that in Trulso also, had thus affirmed (which is the very truth as you may see in the twenty eighth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and the words cited from that in Trullo) he would have been called upon to have rubd his forehead for his rashness as he may justly be called upon to do for accusing the Bishop of Con­stantinople and his Clergy of this false dealing; for had he cast an eye upon the Acts of this Council, he might have found Aetius the Arch-deacon reading thus, [...], these things were decreed by the hundred and fifty Bishops met at Constantinople, and after other things concluding with this Canon [...]. So that I cannot imagine how Mr. C. will be able to free himself from the imputation of a manifest un­truth; and indeed it is a likely matter that such a fraud should be committed, and the Roman Legates never object it, nor the Popes amidst all they did to invalidate this act, not mention one syllable of this deceit; so then it was not the Bishop and Clergy of Constantinople that made this addition, but the General Council of Chalcedon, and after them of Con­stantinople that so interpreted it.

And thus from the Council of Chalcedon, Sect. 2 we go on to that of Nice, which tells us that the Antient customs should ob­tain in Aegypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis; that the Bishop of Alexandria enjoy a jurisdiction over them all, for as much as the Bishop of Rome hath the like custome, (viz. to have power over the Suburbicarian Regions) now to this he Answers, Mr. C. p. 64. That the Roman Bishop in his Patriarchate is made the pattern of the Bishop of Alexandria, not in regard of his universal jurisdiction in the Church of God, (which in that time was not in being) but only as to his custome and practice of calling Synods, correcting manners, making ordinations [Page 74]according tr his Patriarchical and Metropolitical jurisdiction; for not only Patriarchical (which Salmasius tells us was not then hatcht) but Metropolitical authority is spoken of in this Canon; so that it signifies no more then this, that the Bishops of Rome did ordain either immediately or by commission all the Bishops in the Suburbicarian Churches (and therefore) so ought the Bishop of Alexandria to do in Egypt, Lybia, and Penta­polis.

Now 1. We Answer, Were this Canon to be limited to ordination, the custome of calling Synods &c., seeing it is granted that as the Bishop of Rome did ordain either imme­diately, or by commission from him, so must the Bishop of Antioch, Alexandria, and other Provinces; hence it follows, that the Pope hath nothing to do in their ordinations, no more then they have to do with his; for such ordinations as were performed by the delegates of the Pope, unless they were supposed to consent to it, would neither be done by them immediately nor by their Commission; and seeing as the learned Bishop Bramhal saith, Rep. p. 193. all other rights of ju­risdiction follow the right of ordination, neither can the Pope plead any jurisdiction over them.

2. In the Canon tis said [...], id est, as in Alexandria and Rome, so also in Antioch, and other Provinces [...], that is the government, Hes. [...]. principalities, or dignities, shall be preserved to the Churches, and consequently it speaks not of ordina­tion, and power of calling of Synods only, but of the whole jurisdiction of each Province, and comparing these with Rome, and telling us that these prerogatives, shall be al­lowed to the Provinces of Alexandria, &c. because the cu­stome was such, that the Bishop of Rome had [...] over the Provinces where he resided, it seems to argue, that the power of the Roman Bishop was not universal, but confined to those Provinces the Canon speaks of; for when we say that Italy reacheth to the Ionian, Adriatick, and Tyrrhenian Seas, and towards France and Germany to the Alpes, we mean that it is terminated there, and extends it self no fur­ther; and in like manner when we describe the Dominions of a Prince or Emperour, so here when the Canon saith the Pope hath [...] in his Provinces, it may consequently be [Page 75]argued that his power is limited to them, and doth not reach to the other Provinces attributed to the Bishop of Antioch. Alexandria, &c. And as when the Patriarch of An­tioch or Jerusalem mentions his Bishops, he is supposed to understand such as are not subject to the Bishop of Alexan­dria; even so here, when it is said the Bishop of Allexandria shall have power over his Bishops, seeing the Bishop of Rome hath power over his, we are to understand by the Bi­shops of Alexandria such as are not subject to the Roman Bishop, and consequently his Oecumenical power must be here denyed; and indeed unless the Roman Diocess were limitted, it could not possibly be a copy or reason of limiting the Alexandrian (it being unreasonable to say Alexandria must have limits because Rome hath none) which yet that it was (besides the evidence of the words themselves) is the express affirmation of one of their own Popes, who tells us That the Nicene Synod conferred no encrease on Rome, Nicholas 1. Ep. 8. but rather took from Rome an example particularly what to give the Church of Alexandria. Well then, if at the making of the Nicene Canon, Rome had bounds, it must needs follow by the Ephesine Canon (viz. that all Provinces everywhere shall ordain their Bishops, within and by themselves, and that no Bishop shall meddle with another Province which hath not from the beginning been under him, (i. e. his predecessours power) that these bounds must be at all tiems observed, which is sufficiently destructive to the universal Pastorship of the Roman See; for hence tis evident that an universal [...] or power of ordaining belongs not to the Bishop of Rome, See Dr. Ham. Sch. disar. p. 105, 106, 107. and therefore ordination and jurisdiction going together, he cannot have the universal jurisdiction over Bishops, or which is all one, universal Pastorship.

3. That the Antients understood it of government and (not only as to the matter of ordination) in the sense we plead for, is apparent from their words; thus Ruffin tells us that the mind of it is, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the care of Egypt, as the other had of the Suburbicarian Churches; and Aristinus, a Greek Author, in his collection of Canons gives us the sixth of Nice thus, Let the Bishop of Alexandria have [...] the government of Egypt, Lybia, [Page 76] and Pentapolis; the Bishop of Rome of those Churches that are about his City, ( [...]) where the words [...] do exactly express Ruffinus's Suburbicarias Ecclesias or regiones; yea the Arabick compilation of these Canons set out by Turrianus the Jesuit speaks thus, Tis de­creed that the Bishop of Egypt (the Alex. Patriarch) should preside and have power over all Egypt and all the places and Castles that are about it (quia sic convenit) for so tis meet, seeing the Bishop of Rome likewise hath power over all the places which are about it, and likewise the Bishop of Antioch, let him have power over that whole Province; and the Para­phrase upon the Canon tells us, that this was done because the Bishop of Rome had power over the Cities or places that were near him; again Zonaras (with whom consent Bal­samon and Nilus) saith that the Alexandrian Bishops shall preside over his Provinces, [...]. Lastly, the Canon as cited by Paschasinus the Popes Legate shews as much; Con. Chal. for thus it runs, The Church of Rome alwayes had its Primacy, ( [...]) let Egypt have so also, that the Bishop of Alex­andria may have power of all (under him) because the Ro­man Bishop hath this custome, likewise he that is constituted Bi­shop of Antioch: and in other Provinces, let the Church of lar­ger Cities have the Primacy. Doth he speak of Primacy of order, which the Popes had over all the world? then is it a ridiculous argument, and a contradiction; if of jurisdiction, then was not the Pope to have any jurisdiction over them, seeing they were all to have [...] Primacy of jurisdiction in their own Provinces. Add to this the Councils following who generally thus interpret it.

Nor is this Supremacy condemned only by the Nicene, Sect. 3 Ephesine, Milevitan Council, and most evidently by the Council of Chalcedon, An. Dom. 258. but also by the Council of Carthage under Cyprian, which thus Decrees, That no man should make himself Bishop of Bishops, or go about tyrannically to enforce others to a necessity of obeying, seeing each Bishop hath his liberty, and no one may judge another, nor be judged of another, but they must all be judged of God, in which Decree they directly strike at the priod of Pope Stephen, who had stiled himself Bishop of [Page 77]Bishops, and threatned excommunication to those that thought otherwise, as even Baronius doth acknowledge; A [...]. 258. Na. 42. An. [...]41 in C [...]. Afric. c. 15. & 12. An. 407. The Acts of the Council are extant amongst the African Councils, Acts apud Bi [...]. p. 781. To. 1. Joct [...]am cleri [...]atus accipiant. c. 72. An. 416 in their let­ters to Pope Ce­lastine. yea the Council of Antioch decrees, That a person condemned by all the Bishops of his Province, shall by no means be juaged by others, but the sentence of the Bishops of his Province shall re­main firm, unless the guilty person shall appeal to a more pl [...]nary or General Council: The like we have in another Council of Carthage in which it is decreed, That whoever are cast out of communion in Africa, if they go to communicate bey [...]nd the Seas (they chiefly aim at the Roman Church) shall l [...]se their Priest­hood; now to take away appeals to the Pope to reject his sentence of the persons appearing, is evidently to destroy his Supremacy. Again in the sixth Council of Carthage at which St. Austin was present, it was determined, That the Bishop of Rome should not receive the Priests or excommunicate persons that appealed to him, and that for this reason, because this was never derogated from the Africk Church by any definition of their forefathers; and the Nicene Decree doth commit both the inferior Clergy and the Bishops themselves to their Metropoli­tans; for they most prudently and justly provided, that all busi­nesses should be finished in the places where they were begun, and the Grace of the Holy Ghost ( [...]y they) will not be wanting to each Province. Let this equity (therefore) be constantly and prudently observed by Christs Priests, especially seeing every man hath leave, [...].if he be offended with the judgement of the known, to appeal to a Council of his Province, or to a General Council, unless there be any man that can think that God can inspire a justice of Tryal into any one person (or Pope) and deny it to innumerable that are convened in Council. And whereas the Bishop of Rome would have sent his Legates into those parts to take cognifance of their affairs, they Answered, That any should be sent as Legates from your Sanctity to us, is a thing which we find not constituted by any Synod of the Fa­thers; Can 26. al. 27. An. Do. 397. see Bin. To. 1. p. 759. moreover in the third Courcil of Carthage they de­termined, That the Bishop of the first See shall not be called the chief of the Priests, or the chief Priest, or any such thing, but only the Bishop of the first See. Sect. 4

Again the second General Council determines, That the Bishops that are without any Diocess, Extra dioe­cesia.shall not intermeddle with [Page 78]the Churches beyond their bounds, [...].but according to the Rules constituted (viz. by the Nicene Synod) the Bishop of Alex­andria shall govern those only that are in Egypt; the Bishops of the East shall take care only of the Eastern Churches [...]. And again, The Bishops uncalled shall not go beyond their Dio­cess to ordain Bishops, or dispose of any Ecclesiastical causes, but shall observe the Rule above written, de unaquaque dioecesi (saith the Latine) for it is manifest by what is defined in the Nicene Council that in every Province [...] the Provincial Synod ought to administer and govern all things; Mr. C. p 53. What is this to the Bishop of Rome? is this nothing to the Church of Rome? hath the Bishop of Rome no Province? did the Nicene Canon speak nothing of him? and if all things in every Province must be determined by the Provincial Synod, what will become of Appeals to the Church of Rome?

I will conclude with something which concerns our own Nation, Sect. 5 and it is this, That when Austin proposed three things to the Brittish Clergy; 1. That they should submit to the Romish Bishop (whose very Name they were igno­rant of at that time, Bish. Bra. Just. vind. p. 103, 104. as appears from their language, The man whom thou callest the Pope.) 2. That they should conform to the customes of the Roman Province about the observation of Easter, and the administration of Baptism. And lastly, That they should joyn with him in preaching to the Saxons, all the Brittish Clergy assembled themselves together in two several Synods one after another to deliberate hereupon, Spel. con. an. 601. Galt. Mon. l. 2. c. 12. vid. Bed. his. l. 2. c. 2. and after mature consideration they rejected all his propo­sitions Synodically, and refused flatly and unanimously to have any thing to do with him upon these terms; these things being considered, must not our Author well deserve the whetstone, Pag. 53. when he so confidently affirms, That there was never any received Council in Gods Church that excluded the Pope from an Ʋniversal jurisdiction? when as besides the Council by me cited you have twenty more in the learned Crakanthorp unanimously condemning this usurpation. Def. Eccles.

CHAP. VIII.

THirdly the Doctor argued from the known testimonies of St. Gregory, who flyes out excessively against the ve­ry name of Universal Bishop, calling it a wicked, prophane, and blasphemous title, importing that the times of Antichrist were at hand, yea an imitation of the very Devil, who de­spising the Legions of Angels socially created with him, en­deavoured to mount the top of singularity, Ep ex. Reg. l. 4. cp. 38. It wasdone by Theodo­rus and Is­chiron two distressed Deacons. Dr. Field p 523. To John of Jerusalem by the Synod of Constant. sub. Menna. Act. 5. p. 451. to Minnas by the same Ge­neral. Council, Act. 4. p. 437, 438, 440. and by Justinian. Novel. 42. to Sergius Bishop of Constant. in the sixth General Council, Act. 13. to Tharasius in the Nicene Council, Act. 3. and that even by Hadrian the Pope, as well as other Bishops of the East. that he might seem to be under none, sed solus praeesse videretur: to this we are, 1. Told by him p. 38. That this very title was given to Pope Leo by the Council of Chalcedon (attributing that to a General Council which was done by an inconsiderable part of the Popes flatterers) but were this true as our Adversary pretends, this title was attributed to others also, and there­fore is no fit medium to conclude the Universal Supremacy of any Patriarch, rather then of all to whom it was given, espe­cially seeing it is supposed to have been given to the Pope by that very Council, which determined that the Bishop of Con­stantinople should have equal prerogatives with him, to whom this title was allowed. 2 He tells us, That John of Constan­tinople Ibid. whilst he took this title, still acknowledged the Popes Superiority not only of place but Authority over him. Ans. This affirmation is an immodest fiction (to say no worse) built up­on a forgery which he hath used in foisting John into the place of Eusebius, as before is shewed. At last he comes to the bu­siness [Page 80]and tells us, Sect. P. 39. s. 4. That Gregory did not so much combat Johns present intention as the probable consequences of such a title, which might argue that besides himself there were no Bishops in the Church; for if he were the Ʋniversal Bishop and the whole world his Diocess, since by the Canons there can be but one Bishop in a place, it would fellow that all others were only Bishops in Name, and by their Character had no other office, but as his substitutes, depending on his will, whereas the Apostles received their Office and Authority immediately from our Lord himself. Ans. This is a profound Argument which Gregory (I am confident) would have been ashamed of; for if the Pope be Universal Bishop (whether we stile him so or not) is not the whole World his Diocess? hath he not Authority to exercise the functions of a General Bishop in the whole World? and then doth it not follow with the same evidence of reason, that all the Bishops of the World are only titular? 2. He manifestly opposeth receiving a right of Jurisdiction from any but Christ, and a receiving it from an Universal Bishop, when he saith, The Bishops (the Successors of the Apostle) would never acknowledge the receiving of their Epis­copal right of Jurisdiction from any but Christ himself, not from an Universal Bishop as the words preceding manifestly shew; and yet he presently gives a reason which shews these two to be most consistent; for saith he, Though a par­ticular Bishop be ordained by a Metropolitan, &c. or Pope him­self (might he not have said, or Universal Bishop?) and his Jurisdiction be given him by them, they indeed are the Mini­sters of Christ to conveigh his Authority, but the inherent Authority it self Christ only gives him; by whose means I pray you? supposing him ordained by the Pope, is it not by the means of the Universal Bishop? 3. 'Tis plain and evident, that Gregory speaks against this title as that which argued the subjection of all other Bishops and Patriarchs to him, as appears from these passages. L 4 Ep. 30. Quae super­viendo se caeteris prae­pomit. Ep. 34. He that claimeth this title, i [...] a forerunner of Antichrist, because in making himself proud he setteth himself before others, from the comparison of him with the Devil, who in the singularity of his pride despised the equa­lity of joy among the Angels, saying, I will advance my Throne above the Stars of Heaven: And again, What Answer wilt [Page 81]thou make to Christ the Head of the whole Church,Ep. 38. Cuncta ejus membra tibi supponere. Ep. 34. Ut omnibus dignior esse videatur. Ep. 36. Christi membra sibi subjugare. Ep. 18 Ut nulli sub­esse, & so­lus omnibus par esse videretur. lb. Semet ipsum praeponere, cos (que) sub se premere. Ep. 32. Sine aliorum imminutione. ep. 38. Restat ut ob vos Episcopi non sitis.who goest about under the name of Ʋniversal Bishop to subdue all his members unto thee? The like complaint he hath to the Empress Constantia, That John desired he might seem worthier than all others. To Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, that he studied by the haughtiness of a pompous title to subject under him Christs members: and to John himself, That he did affect that title, that he might be subject to none, and seem only to be over all; that he desired thereby to set himself before all other Bishops, and to press them under him; and wisheth, that this title might be at­tributed to one without the lessening of all others, implying that in his judgment it could not be so.

But you will say, Sect. 2 he evidently infers, that if this title be allowed, it remaineth that then others are no Bishops, and tell sus, that he only endeavoureth to be called Bishop, Solus conetur Episcopus appellari. Ibid.

Answ. Cupis Epis­coporum nomen tui comparati­one calcare. Ibid. Sacerdotum omnis ho­nor adimi­tur dum als uno uni­versalis super omnes authoritas arrogatur. ep. 32. And again, Prisantur honore debi­to universi, dum quod aliis com­mune est, ut privatum uni tribuitur; and a third time, Coercendus ille qui corde tumet & honori im­perii caeterorum se per privatum vocabulum superponit, Ibid. Ep 32. ad Mauritium. He sufficiently explains himself that he means this comparatively, not absolutely, as if he should have said, You are indeed Bishops, but in comparison of him you are none; for when the title of Universal is admitted whereby one may be above another, and depress the rest, they fall from the antient right of Bishops, by which right they are of one me­rit and Priesthood; neither doth the potency of Rome make an higher Bishop, nor the poverty of Eugubium a lower; all are deprived of this due honour, if any thing private be given to one, and they in comparison of him are not to be dignified with the name of Bishops.

2. He saith it, because as he argued, if there should be any such Universal Head, upon the failing of him, the whole Church, and consequently all the Bishops of it must necessa­rily fail; and the same Argument we have in that Epistle of Pelagius cited by our Author, where having told us, That if the Supream Patriarch should be called Ʋniversal, the title would be taken from the rest (they being no longer [...] [Page 82]but under the dominion of another) He adds, If John therefore be permitted to take this title, the honour of all Patri­archs is denyed, and probably he who is called Ʋniversal will perish in his error, and there will not be found one Bishop in the State of Truth; so little was Papal Infallibility dreamd of in in those dayes: Thus Dr. Hammond, As for Patriarchs, 'tis manifest that the Ʋniversal Pastorship of one is a prejudice to that, because a Primate or Patriarch (by the notation of each word) being one that hath none over him in respect of Authori­ty or Power, and so is absolutely first in his own Diocess; this supposing a supream power in one must needs prejudge that, as much as a Monarchick power in one is incompatible with an Aristocracy; and this was the very reason why Pelagius and Gregory refused it, because they should have wronged the rest of the Patriarchs in assuming it. Third Def. p. 406.

Now whether his asserting this Primacy, Sect. 3 or our accusing and condemning it as a Novelty, whether his proofs or ours be more concluding, let the Reader judge; I am content to refer it to his conscience as our Author doth. We come now to discuss the safety of admitting this Supremacy. And, 1. Mr. C. p. 81. Mr. C. assures us, ‘That whilst such a Primacy purely Spiritual was acknowledged (which for the first six hundred years was never so much as heard of) the Church here was never torn in pieces with Schisms nor poisoned with Heresies. Just. Vin­dic p. 58, 59. Answ. Bishop Brumhal can tell you, No Saxon, English or Brittish King ever made any obliging solemn formal acknowledgement of their submission to the Bishop of Rome; that the Popes power in England was of courtesie, not duty; that former Kings were as tart and vehement against him as King Henry the eighth, with this only differ­ence, that they endeavoured to draw the people out of the Popes claws at home, and he thought it more expedient to cast the Pope over the Brittish Seas once for all;’ And if so, your very supposition will give you the lie, unless you will sink down to Queen Maries dayes. Secondly, If they were not torn in pieces with Schisms, yet through your blood-thirsty tyranny they were torne in pieces for Schisms, burned for Heresies, that is for the plain evident Truths of the Gospel, by your ignorance branded with the [Page 83]odious names of Schismatical and Heretical Tenents. Thirdly, I pray you tell me, were there no Protestants in Queen Maries dayes? did none suffer before her dayes when you suppose the Supremacy of Antichrist agnized? how ma­ny righteous souls were butchered by you in prosecution of your Sanguinary Articles against poor Protestants? how many piles were builded in Queen Maries dayes to sacrifice their lives upon to your rage and malice? and durst you be so bloody against those who were neither Schismaticks nor Hereticks? and what wonder is it that you had no Schisma­ticks, &c. when to be such was the sure way to have no be­ing, and they could find no other Answer to their Arguments but fire and faggot; yea when the light was withheld from them that so they might not see the truth! You go on and tell us, Ibid. ‘The Throne was never in the least danger upon that account, never was a sword drawn for or against it.’ Answ. Very good, if Princes will crouch to his Holiness, Nonne Rex Anglorum n [...]er vas­s [...]llus est [...]t (ut [...] di [...] [...] be his Vassals, suffer him to drein their Kingdoms, rob and beg­ger their Subjects, exhaust their Dominions, he will not arm their Subjects against them, dethrone them, or seek their ruine; but if they once offer to withstand his tyranny, que­stion his intolerable encroachments, cannot be content tha [...] their Subjects wealth should be converted into St. P [...] Patrimony, then must they be Sacrifices to Papal [...] ‘Witness that terrible and unparalleld excommunication and interdiction of England, the deprivation of Henry the eighth published at Dunkirk; witness the bull of Anathema­tization and deprivation by Pius the fifth against Queen Elizabeth and all her adherents, absolving all her Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance, without so much as an ad­monition preceding; witness the Popes Negotiations with the English, Spanish, French, &c. to have Queen Elizabeth taken away by murther, published at Rome by Hieronymo Culena Secretary to the Cardinal Alexandrino, in the time and with the priviledge of Sixtus the fifth; witness the Legantine Authority given to Sanders, and the hollowed Banner sent with him and Allen two Romish Priests to countenance the Earl of Desmond in his rebellion; the Phaenix Plume sent to Terowen to encourage him likewise in [Page 84]his rebellion, and a plenary indulgence for him and all his assistants from Clement the eighth. Lastly, witness the two Briefs sent by the same Pope to exclude King James from the inheritance of the Crown of England, unless he would take an Oath to promote the Roman Catholick in­terest.’ Witness the rebellious Tenents of your English Se­minaries, the many treasons and rebellions in the time of Qu. Elizabeth, and King James, all which you may see in the Reverend Bishop Bramhal, pag. 136, 137, 138. of his Repli. so that you do in effect say tis safe for his Majesty to admit the Popes Supremacy; for otherwise he may expect the abso­lution of his Subjects from their obedience, a Spanish Inva­sion, a Gunpowder Treason, or some other mischievous enterprises of the Romish Emissaries to take away his life.

You tell us further, Sect. 4 ‘That the Kings of France account it one of the most sparkling Jewels in their Crown, Ibid. that they call themselves the eldest (and most devoted) sons of the Catholick Church; the acknowledging the spiritual Primacy of the chief Pastor, they find a greater honour and defence in them then many Armies would, because it preserves peace and unity in the Kingdom, by subduing their minds and captivating their consciences to faith and obedience.’ Answ. The acknowledgement of the same Supremacy in the Turk (that civil Pope who gapes for the Universal Monar­chy) would be as great an expedient for peace and unity; let our Authour make the inference. Secondly, Why may we not deny, that this peace and unity is not to be derived from the acknowledgement of the Popes Supremacy, seeing (as our Authour hath it in another case) in so many places both they are not where it is, and are where it is not (as un­der the Turks Dominions, &c.) Thirdly, We tell you that his Majesty of France doth not acknowledge the Popes Su­premacy, From. pag. 190, to 200. as it is undeniably evinced by Bishop Bramhal in his just Vindication.

Lastly, You fall to Divining That without such an Autho­rity all our preaching and laws will prove but shaking Bulwarks for supporting Monarchy.

Answ. Very likely! for to be sure if your Priests and Je­suites (men born for the subversion of Governments) be [Page 85]permitted, Hoc genns hominum natum est ad interi­tum Christi­anae reipub. was the prediction of the University of Paris, and it was confessed this was their business to set all on fire by John Brown a Roman Priest. Prin introd. p. 202. N. 82. s. 20. you will never leave your rebellious Attempts and treacherous conspiracies, till you have brought us into new confusions, and built your nests upon our ruines.

Again we are told how earnestly Roman Catholicks here have protested their renouncing any acknowledgment of the least degree of temporal power or jurisdiction as of right be­longing to the Pope, over any subject of his Majesties. Sect. 5 See B. Bram p. 137, 138.

Answ. We cannot be ignorant that Campian being asked if the Pope should send forces against the Queen, whether he would take part with the Queen or the Pope, openly pro­fessed, and testified under his hand that he would stand for the Pope; yea that his fellows being examined in like manner, either refused to Answer, or gave such ambiguous and pre­varicatory Answers, that some ingenuous Catholicks began to suspect that they fostered some tteachery, that the Col­ledges or Seminaries of English Priests at Rome, at Rhemes, at Doway, held that the Bishop of Rome hath supreme au­thority and most full power over the whole world, yea even in temporal matters: now whether you have changed these opinions or no, we know not.

2. How long you will hold to this, whether after the de­claration of the Pope to the contrary, whether you will esteem his Majesty to have any subjects when absolved by the Pope from his obedience; whether your acknowledge­ments be not with mental reservations, and whether your intent be not (as in Queen Elizabeths time it was acknow­ledged by some of your own party) by reconciling in con­fession to absolve every one in particular from all oaths of allegiance and obedience to the Supream power; See B. Bram. ib. and whe­ther you do not yet think, that faith with Hereticks may be broken, when the good of the Catholick cause requireth it, may be doubted; and therefore you are too hasty in conclu­ding that you acknowledge meerly a pure spiritual autho­rity in the Pope; have you the confidence to affirm it of your Italian Papists or Jesuits? but to yield what you so confi­dently [Page 86]assert, and so weakly prove, you Catechise us thus, Is this now dishonourable? is it unsafe? Answ. Both. To whom? Answ. All Kings and people, the whole Church of God: You reply, Catholick Princes protest against this opinion either of dishonour or danger. Answ. No such thing, it being mani­fest that all Kingdoms and Republicks of the Roman com­munion do exempt themselves from this obedience to, and jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, or at least plead for it, when they have occasion, Just. Vind. c. 7. as is irrefragably evinced by Bishop Bramhal, yea particularly when Pope Adrian would have had Hinemare (a man condemned by three French Synods for a turbulent person, and deposed) sent to him, to recieve justice, the King of France asked him What hell vomited out this law, what bottomless pit had belched it forth? Yea fur­ther, when the Bishops of France were summoned by the Pope to the Trent Council, he finding that all things were done at Rome, rather then at Trent, doth not only contemn all these Papal Decrees, but commands his Bishops to depart and leave the Council, whether they were summoned by the Pope.

2. Are they not ever and anon crying out of grievances? complaining of the Popes usurpations, and tyranny, exhaust­ing the wealth of their Kingdoms, prodigality of indulgen­ces, &c. and is it safe to admit that power which hath such pernitious attendants; that power which albeit it should be purely spiritual, is used almost everywhere in ordine ad temporalia, to enlarge the Popes Coffers, and the like?

2. See B. [...]am. Just. Vind. p. 161, 162. They have more reason to acknowledge him then we; they profess him to have been their Patriarch; but tis beyond all question he hath no title to be ours.

3. They may Protest against a truth, esteem that not to be dishonourable which indeed is so, as being a disclaiming of that power and care over Gods Church which he hath committed to them, suffering a proud ambitious Prelate to rob them of the service they owe to Christ, and tyrannize it over the Bishops they should protect, and the faith they are stiled defenders of; but he proceeds, If only (saith he) to the dissenters from Catholick religion this be dishonourable, Nero and Diocletian had reason on their sides when they per­secuted [Page 87]a religion dishonourable and dangerous to the Roman Em [...]ire.

Answ. But how will it appear to have been so (was it be­gun and upheld by Treason, Rebellions, continual Blood-shed, all manner of vice and wickedness, as the Romans evidently was and is) why forsooth neither St. Peter nor any other Apostle or Bishops but were as to their spiritual Authority in­dependant on the Emperours?

Answ. But what of all this? did such intolerable extorti­ons, excessive rapines accompany the spiritual power of the Apostles or succeeding Bishops, as do accompany this power of the Pope? was there the same reason to resist a power proved to be derived from God, by signs and wonders, yea and manifestly tending to the confirming obedience to high­er powers, and to resist an evident usurpation, and a tyran­nical yoke, unjustly put upon the neck of those that are by the law of God and nature, and the constitutions of the Kingdom free from it, which is found to tend to the subver­sion of the true faith, and the enslaving of the Kingdom; and was not the spiritual power of Bishops regulated by Christian Emperours albeit it was wholly independant upon Pagans?

And what if we acknowledge a pure spiritual authority in our Bishops, over their Presbyters and Diocess, to ordain, Sect. 6 ex­communicate, make orders for decency, &c. (we acknow­ledge such a power in the Pope over the Suburbicarian Pro­vinces) may not the Bishop of Canterbury as well require upon this account to exercise a jurisdiction over the Bishops in Spain, France, &c. and say it would not be dishonourable to them to suffer such an usurpation as the Pope exerciseth over us, because tis purely spiritual? else would it be so, to suffer their own Bishops to exercise the like authority. Is there any statute that hinders the exercise of this authority by our Bishops? is it contrary to the Oath of Supremacy rightly understood? doth not Bishop Bramhal tell you,

1. That this Oath was composed only by Papists, Rep. p. 289, 290, 291, 292, 293. no Pro­testants having any hand in it.

2. That they were zealous in defending the Doctrine con­tained in it.

3. That there is no supremacy ascribed to his Majesty in that Oath, but meerly Political, and such as is essentially an­nexed to the Imperial Crown of every Soveraign Prince.

4. The addition of spiritual causes is thus to be under­stood;

1. Either by himself, or by fit substitutes, who are Eccle­siastical persons.

2. Of these causes which are handled in the exterior Court, not in the inner Court of Conscience.

3. That as for other Ecclesiastical causes, his power con­sists in seeing that Ecclesiastical Persons do their duties.

4. That this is plainly evinced to be the sense of the Oath from the 37. art. of the Church of England.

5. That the same power is exercised by the King of Spain in Sicily, a lay Chancellour in the Court Christian, and an Abbess over her Nuns. But you argue thus, Our Clergy pro­mise Canonical obedience to their Bishops;Pag. 83.they do not so to the King; ergo they admit a jurisdiction in Bishops of which the King is not the root.

Answ. We grant the whole; who ever thought that his Majesty was the root of Episcopal jurisdiction, or that it was only jure Regio?

2. The Bishop that ordains us is authorised by his Majesty to require this obedience, and therefore he is in a sense the root of it. Sect. 7

But you proceed to some questions worthy to be stated in a Court Sermon; only the difficulty would be how to keep the Courtiers serious whilest they were examined; Mr. C. p. 85. thus then you argue; Is it dishonourable either to the King or King­dom that a purely spiritual authority should be acknowledged in him to whom,

1. This whole Kingdom from its first conversion to Christi­anity;

2. The whole Christian world submitted it self as to its su­pream Pastor?

Answ. Yes, Because the person you speak of, is some Utopian Pastor, and both these surmises are evident untruths. And is it honourable that the same authority should be granted to more then twenty of his subjects?

Answ. Yes, because they have a right to it, As if the Bishops were in­dep. on his Ma­jesty. he no title but usurpation, which it would be dishonourable to permit.

Again say you, Is it unsafe that Canonical obedience for Christian unity sake should be professed to one Prelate (to whom we owe no obedience) a thousand miles off?

Answ. Yes, because he is a thousand miles off.

And is there no danger in making the same profession to so many at home? (who are by his Majesty over us, to whom Canonical obedience to all their lawful commands is due, who are present with us.)

Answ. No. What follows, is a surmise that it is to be feared the Bishops may depress, when their interest leads them to it, the royal prerogatives, and I leave it to their Answer.

CHAP. IX. Of the Infallibility of the Church.

IN his ninth Chapter concerning the Churches Infallibility, Sect. 1 he distinguisheth between the rule of faith, and the guide of it, and then tells us, that to the Presbyterians, Indepen­dents, Anabaptists, Quakers, Socinians, &c. the only rule is the holy Scripture: But both Catholicks, and English Protestants, though they acknowledge Divine Revelations [Page 91]to be their only rule, yet they admit certain universally re­ceived traditions, besides express Scripture. But as for the guide, from which we are to learn the true sense of this rule, he tells us ‘That Dr. Pierce, Pag. 91. and the generality of English Protestants own the primitive Church, or four first General Councils; but since their writings, are as obnoxious to disputes, as the Scriptures themselves, a speaking judge of the sense of all these, is our Ecclesiastical Synods, or Bi­shops when Synods are dissolved; but principally those that are to make or determine the sense of Acts of Parlia­ment, and upon those accounts against Sectaries they use the help of Catholick weapons, the authority of the Church, &c. but against Catholicks they turn Fanaticks, and fly to a kind of private spirit or reason, so that let them Preach as much as they will, the result of all the dispute between them and us, must come to this, whether their last speaking judge in England, or ours in the whole Catholick Church, deserves better to be believed and relyed on. But its the Roman Catholick Church alone, that is guided both by reason, God spirit, the primitive Church, and the visible Gover­nours of the present Church:’ this is the sum of his seven first Paragraphs, Through which runs such a palpable vein of dissimulation and falsehood, that the most courteous charity cannot excuse it from being as wilful, as gross. For, Sect. 2

1. You tell us, P. 90. s. 2. That though we acknowledge Divine Reve­lations to be our only rule, yet we admit beside express Scri­pture, certain universal Traditions for the rule of faith; But what are these universally received traditions that we admit to be rules of faith? why did you forbear to name some of them? and yet confidently assert that we hold, what we know we do not hold? do not all English Protestants prove against you, that Scripture is the sole and adequate rule of faith? how then can they admit of any traditions as part of this rule? And though we make use of universal tradi­tion, yet not as a rule, but as a motive or argument for our faith, as one argument that evidenceth the Scripture to be Gods word, is the attestation of the Church in all ages (which upon rational grounds we embrace as creditable) to confirm and conveigh this to us: and this use we may make [Page 92]of the very testimonies of the bitterest enemies to Christia­nity, such as Celsus, Julian, Porphyrie, &c.

But we (say you) Receive the determinations of the Pri­mitive Church or four first general Councils, Sect. 3 whom (if we can believe you) we constitue judges of the traditions received by us.

Answ. We do I confess, appeal to the four first general Councils, not because we believe them infallible, but because we conceive them to agree with Scripture, which is infalli­ble; so that we make them secondary, not primary guides; we resolve not our belief of their decrees into their autho­rity, but into their agreement with Scripture; we do not say, we must believe this or that, because any one of the four first general Councils hath defined it, but because what the Council hath defined, is evident in Scripture, therefore do we believe it; And if we should find, that in any Article they dissented from Scripture, we should in that as much op­pose them as we do you: our Appeal then to them is not as Rules, but as conformable to the Rule; and so we should to the Council of Trent it self, had it been as Orthodox as they; but I hope we should not thence make them guides, or their Decrees rules of our faith. Though (that I may not be mistaken) I allow the four first a preheminence above the ensuing Oecumenical Councils, (were there any such) because from their nearness to the Apostolical times, they had greater advantage of being acquainted with the Apostles minds and practices; but then the preheminence we grant them above others, is derived from the probability of their consonancy with that which we avow to be infallible. We appeal therefore to the four first general Councils, not be­cause we think it absolutely necessary to conform our belief to theirs, but ex abundanti to shew you, that should we ap­peal to the Church, as you would have us, that in the most pure and uncorrupted Ages, its belief carried an exact har­mony with Ours; so that were the Church judge (as it is not) the primitive Church would stand for us; And this is all we mean in our appeal to the four first general Councils. How impertinent then is Mr. Cressys Dilemma, P. 1. s. 8. that if Dr. Pierce submit to the four first general Councils, not because [Page 93]of their inherent authority, but because he judged their de­cisions conformable to Gods express word, then ‘he deludes us, and with Presbyterians, Independents, &c. makes Scri­pture alone the rule of Reformation!’ How doth he delude you? did he ever deny this? what delusion is it to tell you that I hold what I hold? But then (you say) Dr. Pierce must make Scripture his only rule; What then? nothing but this, that Dr. Pierce affirms what he affirms, and what ab­surdity is that? a shrewd Dilemma that forceth Dr. Pierce to believe what he doth believe! In the next place, when you tell us, that beside reason, our Ecclesiastical Synods, Bi­shops or Parliamnts are admitted as guides of our faith, you do but evidence by your imputing to us what we hold not, you cannot confute what we hold. For Sect. 4

We assert therefore that Reason alone is, and can be our guide which we demonstrate, because Reason alone is our judge in all cases; for I either have reason for my belief, (whatever it be) or I have not; if the latter, then my belief is.

1. Irrational; for my belief must be Irrational, when I have no reason to believe; and as Irrational, so

2. Altogether uncertain, and its object may as well be a falsehood as a truth, because if I have no reason why I be­lieve it true, then have I no certainty, but it may be false; for the only certainty I can have that my belief is not false, is because I have rational grounds to evidence it true, which when removed, what certainty can I have that I do not err? But if the former, that is, If whatsoever I believe or assent to, I do it because my reason judgeth it a truth, then reason is my judge and guide in whatsoever I believe, which is the proposition to be proved. And this is easily con­firmed and illustrated by a few particular considerations; as when the question is, Whether I am bound to embrace any religion at all? I bring my reason to judge, which after it hath examined the weight and evidence of the arguments suggested to it, and found them valid, determines and judges, that I ought to own some religion; after this, my next enqui­ry is, Amongst the various kinds of Religion professed in the world, which is the true one? here again having examined all their pretences, my reason judgeth which is most con­sonant [Page 94]to truth, and hereupon I close with the Christian pro­fession, because I find their arguments most valid, and high­ly satisfactory to an ingenuous and unprejudiced understand­ing, and such as carry with them so full an evidence, as that it will make all unbelief infinitely irrational. And hitherto as reason is my only guide, so my only rule too; for I can have no other Canon whereby to guide it, but its own ac­knowledged Laws and Maximes, by which I examine the verity of all other rules, and therefore can have no other rules whereby to judge, seeing they themselves are the mat­ters judged of; and therefore when we dispute with the Romanists, whether Scripture be our sole rule whereby to determine controversies, tis not to be taken absolutely, as if there were no other rule, (for I can never confute a Jew from a text of the new Testament, nor an Atheist or an In­fidel out of either Testaments) but limitedly, that its the sole rule whereby to determine controversies of faith, among those that profess the Christian Religion; in which sense alone it concerns their dispute, which is not with Infidels, but Christians, who have already acknowledged Scripture to be a rule of faith. But to proceed, having by embracing the Christian Religion received a new rule, the old guide may still suffice; that which could guide me into the right way, will much more guide me in it, especially when its plain and easie. But now Christianity is professed, and a new rule owned, my nex quere is, what party among the several pre­tenders adhere to this rule, and so with what Church I must join; here again reason must sit on the bench, and pass judgement of all the Churches in the world, which of them keep to the rule of faith, and which swerve from it. Let us then first call the Socinian Churches to the bar; here the enquiry would be, whether I may embrace any thing for Truth, though sufficiently manifested to be of Divine Reve­lation, if it seem to contradict or thwart my reason? hereto reason it self must be judge, and so the enquiry is, whether it be more rational to believe a Truth Divinely revealed that I cannot comprehend, or upon that account to reject it; My reason judgeth it most rational to captivate and submit it self to infinite Wisdome, and believe what it cannot com­prehend; [Page 95]because I, and all the World beside, do acknow­ledge such things as transcend our comprehensions; v. g. an infinite extension of space, an eternal duration, &c. and therefore I think not their principle sufficient to explode a truth for a falshood; beside, I know the Divine knowledge and wisdome is infinite, and so incomprehensible to any sinite and shallow intellect, and therefore that he may know and consequently reveal such matters which are too deep and too wide to be contained within the bounds of our narrow un­derstandings; and therefore what more absurd then to mea­sure the immensity of the Divine wisdome by the standard of our imperfect and short apprehensions? Wherefore we do not proscribe the Doctrine imputed to the Socinians, be­cause it makes reason the Judge (as the Romanists would fain perswade us) but because it makes it the rule of Faith, and believes nothing for a truth, but what we can comprehend as to the manner of its existence, that it is; whereas nothing is more evident, then that we may be certain of the being of a thing when we understand not the manner of its being. Though I have been already too tedious in this instance, yet because I had rather offend by tediousness, or any thing, rather then disingenuity, I must venture a very short di­gression, to avoid dealing disingenuously with the Socinians. When then I charge this principle upon them, I have it ra­ther from their Adversaries then from themselves; for I must profess, I could never meet with it expresly asserted in their own writings; they will not avow, that they reject mani­festly revealed Truths, because they seem contradict ons; but on the contrary, that they believe not contradictions, because not manifestly revealed, and so they pretend to explode the Doctrine of the Trinity, not in the first place, because it seems a contradiction, but because they conceive it not to be clear­ly discovered in Scripture; and then after this, they urge against it its repugnancy to the principles and common noti­ons of reason; and so their principle runs thus, That which is not clearly revealed in Scripture, and is contradictory to reason, is not to be believed; and if there were as much truth in the first part of their Maxime, as there is in the last, there would be one more Socinian in the world then now there is; [Page 96]I have stayed the longer upon this particular, because as its an irrefragable evidence of reasons soveraignty, so is it a full Answer to the Objections against it; for whereas they ob­ject, that we must captivate and submit our reasons to Faith, how then can we make them Judges of our Faith? from the the preceding instance we Reply, That we even then place reason on the Bench, when we seem to dethrone it, and at the same time make it an Umpire, when we make it a Cap­tive: But in the last place, to come nearer our present pur­pose, and to shew that the Romanists as well as we do at last appeal to their private reasons: If my enquiry were, Whe­ther the Roman Church, or the reformed Churches were the true Church? here neither the Romish Church, nor ours must be judge, seeing they both pretend to it, and both are the purest to themselves: How then shall I know which is really so? only by examining both their pleas, and then that which I judge to be purest, do I adhere to. When Mr. Cressy renounced the Protestant Communion to joyn with the Roman Church, he either did it upon motives of reason, or not; if not, it was a brutish, unreasonable act; but if he did, then did he enter into the Roman Communion, be­cause his own reason judged it to be the purest Church; and when he believes his Church infallible, he either hath reason for his belief, or he hath not; if he hath not, then again is his belief irrational, uncertain, and absurd; if he hath, then he believes his Church infallible, because his reason judgeth it to be so, and so the Church is beholden to the judgement of his private reason for his belief of her infallibility. And hath not Mr. C. given us his reasons (such as they are) why he judgeth and believeth the Church infallible? to what purpose if reason be so unfit a Judge? and let him do what violence he can to his rational faculties, unless he become a meer brute, his own private reason will rule him, and in spight of Pope or Council keep the Chair. And I dare challenge all the Romanists in the World to demonstrate, that unless every mans reason be his guide, he must follow chance and uncertainty. Before I pass hence (to avoid captious mistakes) be pleased to note, that when I make every mans reason his guide, I do not exclude the guidance of the Divine Spirit, but [Page 97]rather imply it; because that doth not move us by irrational and violent impulses, but by discovering to our reasons a fuller evidence or farther connexion of truths, then without its illumination we could have discerned, and so forceth our assents by a stronger conviction of our reasons, which is the Criterion whereby we difference the impressions of the Divine Spirit from delusory and false inspirations; in that these black vapours darken and blast our reasons, and act us by illiterate and brutish phantasmes, whilst the Spirit of God clarifies our understandings and leads us by the rules of rea­son and sobriety. And therefore our Enthusiastical Secta­ries, are in part Romish Proselytes; for their folly is the same, though not in the same instance, viz. of quitting the surer conduct of their reasons, to entrust themselves to more un­certain guides, and such as they cannot know (unless from their reasons, which they dare not trust) but may be meer delusions and impostures.

Now the only exception, Sect. 5 which Mr. C. following his pre­decessors, urgeth against this Supream Authority of reason, is, that its fallible, and so may deceive and misguide us. But,

1. If this impeachment be valid, then lets renounce our reasons, and with one consent turn Scepticks; how shall I be assur'd that twice two make four; that the whole is more then a part; that the same thing cannot at the same time exist and not exist? I must not trust the judgement of my reason, for that may deceive, saith Mr. Cressey; what then must I confide in? must I appeal to a General Council, whether two and two make four?

2. Can you bring me to a surer guide then reason? Yes, you will answer, to the Church; but if my reason being fal­lible may misguide me, why may it not; when it conducts me to the Church; especially when your selves profess to believe the Churches infallibility upon prudential motives, if I may not trust my reason, why should I trust it here? Again, if my considence in the Churches infallibility be built upon my rea­son, and I have no certainty of it but from my reason, then cannot I have more assurance in the Churches guidance, then in the conduct of my reason; for the superstructure cannot be stronger then the foundation; if then my reason be too [Page 98]weak to trust to, much more that which is built upon it.

3. What's your meaning, when you object, that reason is fallible? is it this, that its possible we may be deceived by it? but then, 1. Is it not possible the Church may deceive us too? 2. As long as we follow reasons true rules, its impossible to erre, because they are certain and infallibly true. But if men will abuse their reasons and bend them to their interests, they may so, and so they may the Churches Authority; and may not the Church abuse her Authority? will Christ violently force her into truth? Give us a guide that cannot be abused by wicked and unreasonable men, or else upon that account reject not this. Divine Revelations are abused by some to undermine our Faith; shall they therefore not be allowed to be foundations of it? The question is, What is the surest guide of our Faith? we say pure and unprejudiced reason, and that if we will follow its dictates, we are in the safest way to happiness; and though then we may erre about some lesser truths, because not perspicuous, yet not about any thing that's a necessary Article of Faith. But if men will not follow their own guides, but force them into by-paths, and follow the blind guides of interest, prejudice, or passion, then they may perish, not because they follow their free reasons, but because they either stifle, or violently divert them.

4. I would beseech Mr. C. and his brethren, to beware of strengthning the hands of Atheists and Scepticks, whilst they endeavour to weaken ours; for beside the damages they bring to all. Religion, its no small one they bring to their own; for hereby they shew, that upon the same grounds that a man is a Papist, he may be an Atheist too, and that they cannot build their own Religion but upon the ruins of all Religion. For let me ask, will not his exception become an Atheists mouth, and be more serviceable to his cause then to Mr. Cressey's? What if he should ask, Why do you embrace any Religion? give what account you can, he will enquire what Warrant you have, that you are not deceived? what assurance can we give him, if we dare not credit our own saculties? and how Mr. C. who will not allow us to trust our own reason, will answer him, I understand not. But I am certain, let him reply what he will, the doubt will still return [Page 99]upon him; for if he take refuge at the Church, the quere will be, how he is certain that the Church doth not deceive him? And imagine he could return an Answer, yet unless he at last appeal to his reason, it will serve only to give occasion to a new question. But though Mr. C. by his principles cannot an­swer a Sceptick, yet by ours we may satisfactorily answer him; for I know, that if my faculties are right, and the common notions of humane reason are true, that I err not, and I will never desire greater assurance, that I am in the right, then that my faculties are so; and if the Sceptick will rather reject all certainty, then acknowledge his faculties to be true, his fancy is so odd, that upon the same score he may cast himself from a precipice, because its possible he might only dream that he was there.

But let us talk what we will of reason, Sect. 6 yet we have (as Mr. C. Mr. C. s. 4. would perswade us) our last speaking Judge as well as they, viz. Our Ecclesiastical Synods, or Bishops, or Parlia­ments; so that the result of all dispute must come to this, whether the last speaking Judge in England, or that in the whole Catholick Church, deserves better to be believ'd and relyed on? To this,

1. Have not you your self expresly set down the difference of Protestant obedience from that of Papists unto the judge­ment of the Church? whose words are these, which we find in the thirteenth phragraph of this Chapter: The Ʋniversal Church representative has an influence over the souls of men, requiring much more then an external submission, which yet is all that Protestants will allow to the most authentick General Councils. Now what a vast difference is there between giving external submission as we do, and internal assent to the truth of their decrees as you do?

2. What Protestant ever asserted (what your Church chal­lengeth) that our Convocations, Bishops, or Parliaments are Judges of our Faith? or when did they themselves re­quire that upon pain of damnation we should take up our faith upon their Authority? nay when did they challenge any power over our minds and consciences? do not our Divines affirm, that our internal actions fall not under the verge or cognisance of any external power whatsoever, whe­ther [Page 100]Ecclesiastical or Temporal? do we not teach, that the end of the Government in the Church is to preserve its peace and unity? and that whatsoever disturbs not them, falls not under the Churches cog [...]isance? and that therefore our Church doth not condemn or punish so all difference from her in opinion, but for divulging these differing opinions, which creates Schisms and Factions in the Church? whom did our Convocations ever damn for not internally receiving their Decrees? do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgement? and only challenge the Authority of it (which all men resign up to the Governours of those Socie­ries, of which they are members) they do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe, but that we should submit to their determinations, and not contradict them; their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles, but only submitted to in order to peace and unity (which we esteem to be of an infinitely greater value then the propaga­tion of any little truth) So that their work is rather to silence then determine disputes, or if they do positively de­termine, they either do not then require that all should po­sitively believe their determinations, but expect that all should so far acquiese therein, as not to proceed in opposing them, and so make Schisms and divisions incurable; or if they do require a positive assent, its not upon pretence of any in­fallibility, as your Church doth, but because the thing deter­mined is so evident in Scripture, as that all denying of it, must be willful. v. g. They do not require us to believe there is but one God upon their Authority, but because its expresly asserted in Scripture; but in matters which Scripture hath left doubtful, our Church permits her members every one to abound in his own sence, because she knows no way to de­termine them but by Scripture, and therefore Scripture not having clearly revealed them, she dares not be so arrogant, as positively to determine them. What impudence then is it to charge us as if we had changed the Pope for my Lord of Canterbury? and a General Council for a National Convo­cation? and the Conclave of Rome for a Parliament at Lon­don? giving that very Authority to the Church of England, that we take from the Church of Rome, when the difference [Page 101]is so infinitely great, between the Authority which you give to your Church, and we give to ours?

Whereas Mr. C. Sect. 7 tells us that we fight against Sectaries with the weapons of the Romanists, and against Romanists turn Sectaries, &c. its a most pitiful and false exception; for we accuse not Sectaries for not believing our Church, as the Romanists accuse us for not believing theirs, but for not obey­ing her in things lawful, and separating from her unnecessa­rily. Who ever urged them to believe as the Church believes? or who [...]amns them for not doing it? there are many To­picks used to convince their private reasons (the use of which we allow them) but the Churches infallible Authority is none of them. Now is it all one to say you must believe this, because the Church which is infallible asserts it, as you to us? and, you must do this because the Church hath enjoyned it, and therefore not being unlawful, ought for peace sake to be submitted to, as we to them? keep your weapons to your selves, we can fight and conquer without them.

In the next place, Sect. 8 when he declares that the Papists are ruled and guided by Scripture and Reason, Mr. C. s. 6. and the primitive Church, this is but a specious pretence to varnish over their Churches usurpations; when they have placed all these with their own Church upon the bench, they signifie no more there then do the Russian Emperours poor Senators at the solemn audience of forreign Ambassadours, that sit only to make a shew. The same mockery do the Pontificians put upon Scri­pture and Reason, &c. when they give them the name and title of judges, and yet deny them the office of judges, and this they do when they make their own Decrees our ultimate and supream rule and guide; for if Scripturr must bend to their Decrees, and not their decrees to Scripture, and if we must have no sense of Scripture but what they think fit, then their Decrees and not Scripture must be our last rule; for that is the rule to which other things are reduced; if therefore from their Decrees we must receive the sense of Scripture, which is Scripture it self, then are they the supream standard and rule of faith, and the sole judges of it; As a judge if he have an unlimited power of interpreting the laws, would be both judge and law too. Thus when the Norman Con­querour [Page 102]promised the English, that he would govern them by their own Laws, yet if he did (as some say he did) take an absolute power of interpreting them, and allow them to say only what he pleased, could he be thought to satisfie his promise? might not all exclaim that his own will and tyranny, and not the laws ruled them, because he ruled them after the same manner as he would, if there had been no such laws, and so the laws were made useless, as if they had never been laws? Thus the Romanists may tell us, that they acknowledge Scripture to be in part our rule▪ yet if their Church must have an unlimited power to interpret it, and put what sense upon it they please, and that we must upon peril of Damnation receive their sense, howsoever it seem to us absurd and contradictory to the Scripture it self, they need no more to shut out Scripture, and to make themselves both sole Lords and rules of our faith; its nothing for them to comply with Scripture, when they have forced that to comply with them. After the same manner Councils and Fathers, and all their venerable Antiquity (which they pre­tend so much to reverence) must truckle to their present Church; for they will allow us to receive them no further then they agree with their own Decrees, seeing we must fetch the sense of their writings from their Decrees; so that Scri­ptures, Fathers, Councils, and all must bend to their wills, and can give no other judgement then the Church of Rome will permit, if we must (as they contend that we ought) receive their judgement from the judgement of the Church of Rome. Tis a pretty device first to rule the rule, and then to be ruled by it. When therefore they talke of other guides and rules beside their own pride and tyranny, their hypocrisie is so transparent through all its disguises, that we cannot but discern it, unless we were as blind as they would have us; and lastly as for our private reasons, Mr. C. will call them guides too; strange he dare trust himself with a guide so fallacious! but to avoid the danger of that, it must with humility follow the Church; a strange guide that must be tamely guided and led in a string by ano­ther! if the Church can command our reasons, then must they necessarily cease to be guides, and blindly follow her [Page 103]whithersoever she leads. I wish they would make their Church but such a guide, and then we should soon agree in this point. If then to exclude reason from guiding us be to become beasts (as Mr. C. teacheth us in the fifth Paragraph of this Chapter:) then what must all Romanists be? for no­thing is more plain, then that what is wholly guided by ano­ther, is not it self a guide; otherwise every thing that is guided might be called a guide; therefore if your reasons must follow the guidance of your Church, they cannot be your guides, and then in your own opinions what difference be­tween a Catholik and his Asse?

Now at length having made my way through this black Regiment of falsehoods, Sect. 9 I may combate his great arguments (so carefully guarded with so long a train of fictions) for his Churches infallibility and our meek submission to it; but before I cope with them singly, its not impertinent to under­mine an Hypothesis, on which they seem partly to stand, which stratagem might do me some service, did I want it, that is, if his arguments were as strong as they are weak, and that is this; He through the whole Chapter slily supposes, and sometimes asserts, a necessity of an infallible judge, as if without such a one the way to salvation were uncertain, and controversies endless.

1. But he should first prove, that God hath appointed an infallible judge, and therefore its necessary there should be one, and not conclude that he hath appointed one, because he conceives a necessity of it. I could name an hundred priviledges, that Mr. C. could conceive to be highly benefi­cial to the Church, which yet God never granted to it; and if we may deduce infallibility from the necessity or conve­niency of it to secure us in our way to Heaven, and decide our controversies, then why may we not conclude, that some body else beside your Pope and Council is infallible? Is it not more conducive to these ends, that every Bishop should be infallible? more still, that every Preacher? and more yet, that every individual Christian? would not these infallibly secure them from all danger of erring? Might not God send some infallible interpreter from heaven, to ex­pound all obscure and doubtful places of Scripture? might [Page 104]not the Apostles have left us such a Commentary? might not God (if he had pleased) have spoken so perspicuously in Scripture, that there should be no need of an infallible inter­preter to make it plainer? but if from the advantage and use of these dispensations we should infer their actual exi­stence, the conclusion would confute the Premises.

2. The plea for an infallible guide, to secure us from wandring out of the way to heaven, is invalidated by the plainness and easiness of the way, which we cannot miss unless we will; so that he who will keep his eyes open, is in no more danger of losing his way, then in the walks of his own garden; for we know the conditions which God hath made necessary to sal­vation are clear and easie, unless God should bind us upon pain of damnation fully to know and believe Articles ob­scure and ambiguous, and so damn men for not believing that the truth whereof they could not discover, which is highly repugnant both to his revealed goodness and justice. We therefore distinguish between points fundamental and not sundamental, those being clearly revealed, and so of a neces­sary belief; to determine their sense, there is no more need of a judge, then for any other perspicious truth. What need of a judge to decide whether Scripture affirms that there is but one God? that this God cannot lye? that Jesus Christ was sent by his commission into the world? that he was crucified and rose again? that without faith and obedi­ence we cannot come to heaven? these, and such like, are the truths we entitle Fundamental; and if the sense of these need an infallible judge, then lets bring Euclids Elements to the barr, and call for a judge to decide whether twice two make four. Then for points not fundamental, their belief being not absolutely necessary to salvation, we may err about them, and not err damnably, and so this plea for an infallible judge is wholly evacuated. And with no more difficulty may we baffle the other, taken from its necessity to deter­mine controversies; for if any man oppose fundamental doctrines, or any other evident truths, our Church can cen­sure him, without pretending to be infallible; what need of an infallible judge to convict him of heresie, that shall deny the resurrection of the dead? (which yet some of your [Page 105]own Popes have not believed, if some of your own Histori­ans may be believed) Then for Doctrines not fundamental, being not clearly revealed, our Church doth not take upon her to determine these, but if any disputes arise about such points, its her work to silence and suppress them, and when she gives her judgement of that side she thinks most probable, though she doth not expect that all her children should be so wise as to be of her opinion, yet she expects they should be so modest, as not to contradict her, which is as effectually available to end controversies as is your pretended infalli­bility.

Now my next work must be to consider his arguments for their Churches infallibility, and our submission to it, Sect. 10 where I cannot but request the Reader seriously to consider, upon what little arguings, what pittiful sophisms, what strawy pillars stands not only the great and magnificent fa­brick of the Papal Infallibility and Authority, but also their whole faith, religion, and eternal salvation; seeing they make them all to stand upon the same foundations, on which stands their Churches Infallibility, so that when their weakness is discovered, all must unavoidably fall. To pro­ceed then;

His argument why we must stand to the Churches decisi­ons, under pain of damnation, is, because in Deut. 17.8, 9, 10. God commanded the Israelites in all quarrels to Ap­peal to the Priests and Levites and stand to their sentence, and enacted that the man who would do presumptuously, and would not hearken to the Priest, should be put to death.

To pass by many other exceptions that might be made against this Argument, only take notice,

1. That this Appeal was from the lesser Consistories to the great Sanhedrin, only in civil and private quarrels, as is evident by the eighth verse, If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement between blood and blood, between plea and plea, between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversie, within thy gates, &c. Now because these words so plainly import private injuries and Law suits, Mr. C. jumps from [Page 106]them and cites 2 Chron. 19.8. where this is not so plain, though plain enough too. Now what to his purpose can follow hence, unless he will make out this consequence, We must submit to the decisions of the Magistrate in all our contests and brawls, and therefore we must assent to all the determinations of the Church as true and infallible! But these proportions are at such a wide distance from each other, that I doubt he will never be able to fit himself with a medius terminus large enough to couple them toge­ther.

2. What more can be deduced hence, then that we are bound to submit to the sentence of superiours? and this what Protestant denies? do not we plead for it as well as you? but what like an Inference can be drawn from this, for an internal submission of judgement? Nothing at all, till he can make good, that we cannot submit to the sentence of our judges, unless we believe them just and true. An assertion ridiculously false. But

3. You tell us, that in this obedience was implyed an assent or submission of judgement; but how Sir will you prove this? I dare not take your bare word for it, not­withstanding your solemn protestation at the begining of your book. Sect. 8 And then a little after you affirm that its possible those very judges might give a wrong sentence. If so, then was it possible for God upon pain of death to require us to believe a falsehood; for it was possible (you say) they should give wrong sentence, and yet you will have them upon pain of death to believe it right. But

4. You tell us, that this assent and submission of judge­ment must be given; otherwise the obedience would be against conscience, in case the party continued in a contrary opinion of the sense of the Law. But we can not submit to the judges sentence without hypocrisie, unless we assent to its equity? suppose they should mistake (as you say they might) the innocent for the injurious, must the party think himself a knave because they think so, like the poor fellow that though he saw the Priest lye with his wife, yet [Page 107]did penance for saying so, and was forced to say, Tongue thou lyest. This is such an assertion, that I believe never yet any Casuist dreamt of. When we appeal to judges, our meaning is not we will think as they think, but we will submissively acquiesce as they shall determine. Again, tis still more strange, that when false judgement is given, the contending party must either believe a lye, or must con­front his conscience in not believing it; for if he assents not to the equity of the decisions, he goes (say you) against his Conscience; and if he doth, he must believe against the truth, when he believes that to be the sense of the law which is not.

Arg. 1. Sect. 11 Next follow his arguments for his Churches infallibili­ty; The first runs thus: Our Saviour hath promised his Apostles, that he would be present with them always to the end of the world: therefore fince not any of them outlived that age, this infallible promise must be made good to their suc­cessours.

Answ. 1. I might perhaps tell you, that the [...], which we translate the end of the world, refers to the end of the Jewish state, and so signifies only the end of that age; as frequently in scripture this very phrase signifies only some great period of time; Now if this sense be taken, as no reason but it may, then did this promise dye with the Apo­stles, and so could not be entaild on their successours. But because I will not be too rigid with him, it shall be The end of the world.

2. Mr. C. from this and the other ensuing arguments, endeavours to evince the Infallibility of the Roman Church, which by reason of their impertinence the Reader may have need to be minded of it, and then its pleasant to behold the wide Chasme between his premises and conclusions, and the large leaps he is forced to make from them to these. Christ hath promised to be with his Apostles to the end of the world, ergo the Roman Church is infallible. Well leapt! Is it possble you should erect your infallibility upon such a foun­dation, were you not first resolved to be infallible, and then catch at any thing to prove it? For here is not one syllable [Page 108]of infallibility, and then why may not any other priviledge be promised here as well as that? I will be with you to the end of the world, that is, say you, I will secure you from all errour; and why not as well, I will exempt you from all sin, or from all persecutions? are not these as express in the promise as infallibility? and yet no body was ever yet so foolish as to argue hence that the Church is free from all sin, and not lyable to any persecutions. Again could not Christ be with them, unless he endowed them with infallibility? Is there no other way for him to be with his servants, unless by inspiring them with that? Is not his spirit with every par­ticular believer as well as with the Church! and must all Christians be therefore infallible? If, in a word, wherever Christ is present by his spirit, there is no errour, then is every individual Christian infallible, and then what need of any other infallible guide? but if where Christ is present by his spirit, there may be errour, then how gross is the in­ference, that because Christ hath promised to be with his Church by his spirit, that therefore he exempts it from all errour?

3. This argument fights alike for every cause, and may be listed for the service of all pretenders. What if the Church of England should arrogate infallibility? would it not serve our turns as much as yours? What if the Greek Church should urge it for themselves, how would you answer them? Is not this consequence, Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world, ergo The Greek Church is infallible, as good as yours? that because our Saviour hath made such a promise, ergo the Roman Church is infallible? What disparity can you give, unless you first suppose whats to be proved! And then what answer you would give to them, the same give to your selves.

Arg. Sect. 12 2. His second Argument runs thus. Christ hath promi­sed, that when two or three of them meet together in his name, he will be in the midst of them; surely to direct them; therefore much more when the whole Church is representatively assembled about his business on­ly.

Ans. This Argument is far more frivolous (if that can be) then the former. Is Infallibility promised here, or is it not? if not, then this Text is nothing to the purpose; if it be, then 1. Whereever two or three Christians meet together in Christs Name they are infallible, and then what need of General Councils, seeing two or three honest men can as in­fallibly decide all controversies? Mr. C. must own this in­ference, if his own is good; seeing therefore this is false, his can not be true. 2. Doth not this Argument furnish every Conventicle with a pretence to infallibility as much as your Church? Doth it not as much justifie all the Doctrines vent­ed at the Bull and Mouth, as the Canons of the Trent Coun­cil? Suppose a Quaker there should urge this Argument for the truth of all their Doctrines, how would you Answer him? fancy what Reply you please, and thats the very same we give you. How strange is it that ever men should damn one another for not believing the validity of such ridicu­lously absurd deductions!

Ar. 3. Sect. 13 He hath promised that he will lead his Church into all truth, at least all that is necessary or but expedient for them to know.

Answ. Now he seems to misgive, and a little to mince the matter: that the Church shall be led into all necessary truths we assert; what need of his running to that? either he would here prove the Church infallible in all things, or not; if the latter, then he either gives up the cause, or beats beside the Question; but if the former, then let him speak out, and let us see how sound his proof is. Where then hath Christ pro­mised to lead his Church into all truth? he knows there is no such promise in all the Bible, and therefore sets down no particular Text, as he is wont to do in his other proofs. Such a promise indeed Christ made to his Apostles, That he would send them his Spirit, that should guide them into all truth, Joh. 16.13. and shew them things to come, which we find fulfilled, Act. 2. But how can we prove that this promise appertains to any besides the Apostles? or if to any, why to the Roman Church more than to the Greeks, the Abassines, the Georgians, &c? Sure that Argument can not be faithful to you, that is as [Page 110]strong for your adversaries as for your selves. Ob. But you are the Successors of the Apostles and not they; A. But the mis­chief of it is, that this is the very thing to be proved. Beside Christ here promiseth the power of Prophecying; but I hope the Church of Rome doth not undertake to foretell-things future (and though she did, the event would soon confute her infallibility) and therefore this promise belongs not to her. Its a pretty inference, that because the Apostles were infallible, that therefore the Churches in all ages must be so; But prettier still, that therefore the Roman Church particu­larly must be so.

Ar. Sect. 14 4. He hath promised, that against his Church built upon St. Peter, the gates of hell (that is Heresie, say the Fathers) shall not prevail; therefore it shall be infallibly free from Heresie.

Answ. As if he were not absurd enough in his former ar­guings, he must now be impertinent too; what is it to the purpose to prove that God will preserve his Church from being overcome with Heresies? which we grant; his task (if to the purpose) is to prove, That God will preserve his Church from all manner of erring. But what if Heresie shall not prevail against the true Church? doth it follow that it shall not prevail against any particular Church? the Greek Church was once a true Church in your esteem, but now you say tis poisoned and destroyed by Heresie. If then this pro­mise was made to no particular Church, why must it be so applyed to your own particular Church? Before you use this Argument to any purpose, first prove yours to be the Uni­versal Church; but of this you presume; its a sad symptome of the weakness of your cause, when you build it upon beg'd and ungranted presumptions, and still suppose your most difficult and material dispute to be granted.

Ar. 5. He hath commanded, that whoever shall not obey his Church, Sect. 15 shall be (cut off from his body) as an Heathen and a Publican; therefore Anathemas pronounced by his Church are valid. Our Lord indeed speaks of decisions made by a par­ticular Church in quarrels among Brethren; therefore if disobedience to such decisions be so grievously punished, [Page 111]what punishment may we suppose attends such as are dis­obedient to the decisions of the Universal Church, (called by the Apostles the pillar and ground of truth) made for the composing of publick debates about the common faith?

Answ. 1. Because his very objection hath furnished us with a superfluity of Answers, it will be superfluous to Criti­cize in the word [...], by not applying it to any establish­ed Christian Government, when it may be, and by many Interpreters is referred to the Colledge or Assembly of the Elders among the Jews; by others, to any multitude by agreement convened, as Justin Martyr Paraphraseth it [...], and so may be equivalent with the [...], 1 Tim. 5.20. and then whats all this to the Churches Authority? but let this go.

2. Whats this to Infallibility? will he infer that particular Churches are infallible, because their Decisions must be sub­mitted to? if he will, then he proves what himself will deny, and constitutes us infallible Judges at home, without recourse to Oecumenical Councils; but if he doth not, then how enormous is his deduction? because the Decisions of parti­cular Churches, which are granted to be fallible, must be obeyed, therefore the Church of Rome is infallible.

3. Our Saviour enjoyned them obedience to the com­mands of the Scribes and Pharisees, are they infallible too? children are commanded, Prov. 6. to be subject to their Parents in all things, are all Fathers too therefore infallible? we must obey the commands of Kings and Princes, cannot they err neither? and is not the inference as concluding, We are bound to obey Parents and Governours, ergo they are infallible; as because we are bound to obey the Church, therefore that is infallible?

4. The judgement of the Church that must here be sub­mitted to, is about quarrels and injuries among Brethren; but doth it follow, that because the Church may be Judge of our quarrels, that it may be Judge of our faith too? if it do, we will have all decided by our Judges of Assize, without going to Rome: its time now you should have learn'd the difference of submitting to the determinations of Judges [Page 112]in matters of right between man and man, from assenting to their decrees in matters of faith between God and man.

5. The Greek Church saith, she is the true Church and you are Hereticks; but to your selves you are the true Church, and she is Heretical. How shall I know to which of your Churches this Text directs me? why is it not as co­gent to drive me to them as to you? if they tell me (as you do) that unless I obey the Church that is their Church, I cease to be a Christian; how shall I answer them? if you can teach me, you will but teach me how to answer you.

Ar. Sect. 16 6. The belief of the Churches unity is an unchangeable Article of our Creed, therefore certainly the only effectual mean to preserve unity (which is an unappealable and in­fallible Authority) shall never be wanting in the Church.

A. Not to repeat that we have as soveraign a remedy to pre­serve unity, without an infallible Authority, as you have with it: We believe the Churches unity, yet believe too that this is only an unity of faith, and an agreement in the essentials of Religion; we are all but one in Christianity, and so one Church. But should we believe such an unity in the Church as that it should have no diversity of opinions, (as you would perswade us) we must believe against experi­ence; for unless we will unchurch all parties but our own, (which would be a most uncharitable presumption) we must acknowledge a diversity of opinions in the true Church, and so not make unity of judgement in the Church an Article of faith. And if there were no Church without it, then your selves must be unchurched, seeing you cannot deny, but that there be variety of differing opinions among your selves, even about the very means to preserve unity. Urge us not then with this Argument any more, till you can prove, that we believe any other unity in the Church, beside an unity and agreement in the Christian faith, and that you are any more then so one among your selves. Now let all thats ra­tional judge, whether we have reason to believe your Com­mission Divine, when you can exhibite no better Credenti­als for it, then these which we have so clearly evinced to be meer blancks, and so your selves, who pretend from their [Page 113]validity to be esteemed as infallible Commissaries autho­rised from Heaven, to be most notorious cheats and im­postors.

By these Answers, Sect. 17 to which it were easie to add hundreds more, I hope tis clear, that we are able to evacuate all pre­tences for their Churches infallibility, Mr. C. p. 101. without flying to that miserable shift, which you most disingenuously fasten on Mr. Chillingworth; viz. That all these promises are only conditional, and depending on the piety of Church Gover­nours: I say disingenuously. For,

1. Why did you not refer us to the page in Mr. Part 1. c 2. p. 86. Chilling­worth? only that your abuse of that worthy person might escape unknown. For,

2. Mr. Chillingworths Answer is, that suppose, God had promised to assist the Roman Church for the delivery of true Scripture, would it follow thence, that he had obliged him­self to teach them this true sense of Scripture, not only suffi­ciently but irresistibly? he gave the children of Israel a fire to lead them by night, and a pillar of cloud by day, but he constrained no man to follow them; what then if your Church will not follow Gods guidance, is he not free from his promise, and yet you in an errour too? do not call this a shift, but shew that it is so.

3. That you may see Mr. Chillingworth could answer you without this shift, read, and confute if you can the next immediately ensuing words. ‘What an impudence is it to pretend that your Church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the Scripture, where­as there are a thousand places of Scripture, which you do not pretend certainly to understand, and about the interpretation whereof your own Doctors differ among them [...]ves? If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the [...] meaning of Scripture, why do not your Doctors follow her infallible direction? and if they do, how comes such difference among them in their interpretations? Again, why does your Church thus put her candle unde a Bushel, and keep her talent of interpreting Scripture in­fallibly [Page 114]thus long wrapt up in Napkins? why sets she not forth infallible Commentaries upon all the Bible? is it be­cause this would not be profitable to Christians, that Scri­pture should be interpreted? tis blasphemy to say so; the Scripture it self tells us, all Scripture is profitable, and the Scripture is not so much the words, as the sense thereof; and if it be not profitable, why doth she imploy her Doctors to interpret Scripture fallibly? unless we must think that fallible interpretations of Scripture are profitable, but in­fallible interpretations would not be so:’ How durst you upbraid this worthy and victorious Champion, as if he had no other shield wherewith to defend himself, when this Ar­gument is so full and cogent?

Well then, the sense of these promises (The gates of hell shall not prevail against you, I will be with you to the Worlds end) is only this, That God will so order it in his Providence, as that his Church shall still continue upon the face of the earth, maugre all the malicious designs of men and devils to overthrow, and quite extinguish her; And so your other quarrell with our Protestant Writers is a meer impertinence, albeit we meet with it once and again in your Treatise of Schism, where we will throw away some time in confuting of it, seeing you are not pleased to afford us any better em­ployment.

In your next Paragraph, Sect. 18 you thus dispute: ‘Seeing these promises, P. 102. (viz. which concern the Church essential, or diffused) are Yea and Amen, the Doctor must apply them to his English Protestant Church, since he will not allow them to the Catholick (i. e. Roman) for to some Church they must be applyed.’

Answ. 1. As if there were no Church besides the Roman and the English Church in Christendome: had the Church of Sardis thus argued for these Promises, against the Church of Thyatira, or others now overrun with Mahumetisme, would not the event have shewed the fallacy?

2. The Doctor allows them to the Catholick in the sense we speak of, viz. That however she may be distressed, and [Page 115]brought low, and seem to be disserted, yet shall she continue and persevere to the worlds end; but doth it follow, that because he allows it to the Catholick, he must do it to the Roman (or any other particular Church) which is but at best an infected member of the whole?

3. We will be so liberal, as to grant you a right in them, but your absurd interpretations of them, and absurder deductions from them we deny; you must first prove that any of them promise infallibility, before you con­clude a necessity from them, that some Church must be infallible.

And to what purpose do you annex a sentence of St. Sect. 19 Gre­gories, and another of Constantines in defence of the four first General Councils? If (say you) the Doctor applyes these promises to his own, and not to the Catholick Church, then doth he condemn St. Gregory that professed he venerated the four first General Councils (ergo the Roman Church against which the Doctor disputes) as the four Gospels; but the Doctor doth allow them to the Catholick, and so no fear of quarrelling with St. Gregory in their own account; yea he will not fear to grant with the Reverend Archbishop, that they are de post facto (that is being received by the Uni­versal Church diffused) infallible, as to the matters of faith determined by them; and yet this sequel seems somewhat harsh, I venerate the four first General Councils as the four Gospels; ergo the promises cited by Mr. C. belong to the (Roman) Catholick Church in all ages; an inference so entirely absurd, and weak, that tis a shame to insult over it; nor will the profession of Constantine any thing avail to prove the infallibility of the Roman Church, but at the most of a General Council only; albeit I cannot see but that it may fairly admit of another sense; for speaking of the Paschal Feast, which the Council had decreed should be kept unani­mously, he calls it a Divine command, and gives this reason, because whatever is decreed in the Councils of Bishops, [...], hath respect to the Divine Will, they medling not with humane affairs, but Divine only; [Page 116]and yet we add, that if it were true, which Constantine is deemed by him to say, it would little avail him, since none of our controversies have been determined by a General Council against us; albeit for a close, we dare not Idolize the holy Emperour so much as to think his verdict in­fallible.

But when you talk of condemning all the Councils Oecu­menical of Gods Church, and our Acts of Parliament, viz. by denying your Church to be infallible (for that is the di­spute) you talk at random, and your reason, (because the Fathers in these Councils pronounced Anathema's against those who would not believe their decisions) is as weak, as it is old; for we have often returned unto you, that these Anathema's are no good Arguments, that the propounders of them conceive themselves infallible, but only that they conceive the Doctrines they condemn evidently damnable, or at least contrary to Scripture and right reason, and so proscribe them with a rational and humane certainty, (the same we have in our Courts of Judicature, on which mens lives and estates wholly depend, and yet are neither the Juries verdict, nor the Judges sentence infallible) as is evi­dent from this, that particular Councils, nay particular Fa­thers have been very prodigal of their Anathema's, which yet were never conceived infallible, Not words but things are the ob­jects of our faith; therefore the intro­ducing new words is no mak­ing of new Articles; but if you will assert that under those new expressions were couched new Articles too, upon this supposition it would be no ill manners to reprove their presumption. either by others or them­selves; and thence it is apparent, that we are not presently to yeild up our assent to proposals, because attended with these Anathema's, seeing by so doing we may assent to an untruth, and be obliged to believe the contrary to what Scripture hath revealed: nor can I imagine, to what end you should inform us of new expressions in these General Councils, as [...](wherein you are mistaken) and [...], will this prove the Roman Church, yea will it prove a Council to be infallible? this sure is an easie way to become infallible: would you thence conclude their Authority to broach new Doctrines? then must not Christ be thought [Page 117] [...], nor his Sacred Mother [...], before the Nicene Council thus decreed, and what else you could design, I am not able to imagine.

And have you not a good stock of confidence, Sect. 20 who after one impertinent citation of a Pope, one bafled Sophisme, and one doubtful sentence of an Emperour, can challenge the consent of all antiquity? whereas the suffrage of antiquity is evidently on our side, who hold the Oracles of God to be the only infallible rule, and guide, whereby we are to judge of Doctrines, as you may see evinced, as elsewhere, so copiously in Mr. Baxters Safe Religion, from p. 299, to 372. but especially from p. 357, to the end.

Lastly, How vainly do you call in the suffrage of the Reve­rend Bishop Bramhall, and Dr. Ham. to conclude this infalli­bility, because forsooth they promise to submit to a lawful General Council; seeing they also promise, and so doth every regular son of the Church of England, to submit to the de­terminatious of the Church of England, and acquiesce in them, without the least manner of opposition, and yet never dreamt of any infallibility residing in them! Yea,

2. The places cited, speak only of a General Council, which finds an approbation and reception among all the Bi­shops and Doctors of the Church diffused. See Dr. H. Her. s. 13. nu. 2. s. 9. nu. 1.

3. Can they be esteemed to have said so much of the Ro­man Church, (whose infallibility the Doctor questioned) and yet write so resolutely and convincingly as they have done, against her tyranny and superstitions?

To the objection taken from that almost General Apostacy in the times of the Emperour Constantius, Sect. 21 when Arrianism commenced Orthodox, and Apostolical truth became the only Heresie: He tells us, 1. Mr. C. p. 105. That the Catholick Bishops were indeed persecuted and many banished, but not one of them changed the profession of the Nicene Faith, unless you will accuse Pope Liberius, who for a while dissembled, and then repented.

Answ. Can this be affirmed with any truth, when as that saying was almost Proverbial, Athanasius opposed the world, [Page 118]and the world Athanasius: Theod. His. l 2. when Liberius having the con­temptible paucity of his adherents objected to him, Answer­ed, There was a time when but three opposed the decree of the King, and yet those three were in the right, and the rest in the wrong. Ep. 48 ad Vincentiū.When the Professors of error (as St. Austin confesseth) surpassed the number of the Professors of truth in proportion, as the sands of the Sea do the Stars of Heaven. When the Au­thor of Nazianzens life testifies, That the Heresie of Arius had possessed in a manner the whole extent of the world: I [...] vita Naz. I [...] Orat. con. Artan. & p [...]o [...]se ipso. Yea and Nazianzene himself cryes out, Where are they that reproach us with our poverty, who define the Church by her multitude, and despise the little flock! they have the people, but we the faith. Yea lastly, When Athanasius was so overborn with floods of Arians, as that he was forced to write a Treatise on purpose against those who judge of the truth only by plurality of ad­herents. Her c. 6. Did you never read Vincentius Lirin. complaining that Arianorum venenum non jam portiunculam quandam, sed paene totum orbem contaminaverat, adeò ut prope cunctis Latini nominis Episcopis, partim vi, partim fraude dece tis, calgio quae­dam mentibus effunderetur? Or [...]t in Athanas. Nor that of Nazian. [...] except a very few, which either because of their ver­tue resisted, or by reason of their obscurity were contemned, all ob [...]yed the times, (i. e. became Arrians) differing only in this, that some did it earlier, some later, some were ring-leaders in that impiety (of Arianisme) some were in the second place, either by fear or gain, flattery or ignorance, circumvented and drawn in; which ignorance will not (saith he) excuse them, it being shameful for a Bishop to be ignorant of the principles of Faith. Nor that of Basil, We may now say, that we have neither Princeps, Basil. ep 71. Propheta, nor Praeses left us; in so much that he cryes out, Hath the Lord quite deserted his Churches? is it the last hour? doth the defection now take place, by which the son of perdition is to be revealed? but if all these must be overlooked, must you needs contradict St. Jerome whilst you had him before your eyes, telling you that, tunc ousiae nomen abolitum est, tunc Nicenae fidei damnatio conclamata est, inge­muit tot us orbis, &c. doth St. Jerome here tell you, that no Bi­shops [Page 119]changed the profession of the Nicene Faith, or did you say it in despite to Dr. Field, who informs us, that in the Council of Seleucia and Ariminum the Nicene Faith was condemned; and all the Bishops of the whole world carried away with the sway of time, fell from the soundness of the Faith, only Athanasius excepted, and some few Confessors, that sub Athanasii nomine exulabant, as Hierome noteth, writ­ing against the Luciferians? His second Answer is, Ibid. That at first all the Articles made in the Council of Ariminum were perfectly Orthodox, and that the Catholick Bishops subscribed to nothing, but what in their sense was true, though defective in delivering all the truth; that presently after being at liberty; themselves and all the rest renounced what they had sub­scribed to.

Answ. We grant, that when the Council was first called, the major part were Orthodox, Socrat. His. Ec. l. 42. c. 29. as their Epistle to the Em­perour Constantius shews; but that afterwards they relented and consented to the Arians, appears from the Epistle of Pope Liberius to the Bishops of the East, who tells them, That albeit all the Bishops of the West who met at Ariminum, Apud So [...]. l. 4. c. 11. and Sulpi­tius. l. 2. c. 58. Plerique nostrorum partim im­becillitate ingenii, par­tim taedio peregrina­tionis evi­cti dedere se adversa­riis — sactaque semel inclinatione animorum catervatim in partem alteram concessum donec ad viginti usque nostrorum numerus est imminutus, that is till 400, came to 20. see c. 5, 6. Soz. His. Ecc. l. 7. c. 2. and which either compelled by force, or enticed by deceits, à fide tum quidem desciverant, yet now they were returned to a sound mind, subscribed to the Nicene Faith, and renounced the forme of Faith made by the Council of Ariminum with an Anathema. So then all these Bishops of the West (as well as the whole East, Jerusalem excepted) did à fide deficere, and albeit they afterwards renounced Arianisme, yet confessedly, for some­times they yeilded to it. And as to their subscriptions to the Arian Creed, where the [...] was changed into [...], if that were not contrary to the Doctrine of the Nicene Council, why did the Orthodox Fathers so stifly plead against it in the Council of Ariminum as such? why did they not assent to the Arian Bishops, or the Emperour, [Page 120]who required no more? See Soz. ubi su [...]ra. Sulp [...]c. S [...]. l. 2. c. 55. ubi [...] crat Seri­ptum quod unius est substantiae, illi [...] quod est similis substantiae scriptum esse diccebant, concedeates sim litudinem dum adimerent unitatem. yea, why did the Orthodox Fa­thers condemn and censure them as Arrians, who subscribed to the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia? but the contra­ry is evident; for seeing nullum simile est idem, he that saith that our Saviour is [...] cannot say that he is also [...].

Next for the Doctrine of the Millenaries he saith, Sect. 22 ‘'Tis great irreverence in the Doctor, to charge upon the Pri­mitive Church the sayings of two Fathers.’

Answ. Were there but two that asserted it? might you not have found in the renounced Dally, Papias, Justine, Ire­naeus;Mr. C s 18. In his Let­ters to Mr. E [...]wich, to Dr. Tw [...]ss.Tertullian, Ambrose, Lactantius, Victorinus, Amphi­lochius? to whom Mr. Mede will add St. Cyprian, yea, and to boot will shew, that it was favoured even by the General Council of Nice; and at last St. Jerome, albeit a profest enemy of the opinion, will add that multi Ec­clefiasticorum virorum & martyrum ista dixerunt? and then might you not have multiplied your two into two hundred?

2. He Answers, That albeit Justin Martyr saith, ‘That all that are purely Orthodox, held this Millenium; yet he thereby shews, that his own opinion was not Uni­versally embraced by the Church.’ I pray you Sir, what Topicks do you use to draw this sequel out of Justins words? especially when they run thus, ‘Indeed I acknow­ledge, there are some who are (not) pure and pious Christians, who thus think; but they are only in name Christians, but indeed Atheists, and arch-Hereticks;’ and anon bids Trypho not look upon such as Christians, and then adds, [...]. but I and all throughly Orthodox Christians, (not only in name) we believe the resurrection and the Millenium, so that he excludes out of the roll of the [...] those that [Page 121]believed not the Millenium: L. 3 Cont. Marc. c. 24.Tertullian likewise brings it in with a Confitemur, we Christians confess, &c. As for the double Millenary that our Author speaks of, 'tis very unserviceable to him, seeing not one of these Fathers (except Lactantius, whom yet Mr. Mede ex­cuseth) are suspected of it. His last refuge therefore is, that it was never condemned by the Church.

Answ. This is not to the purpose; for seeing it is manifest, that it was received by the Church of God for above two hundred years without any manner of contradiction, either you must grant the Church fal­lible, as the Doctor thence argues, or else speak out and say, That 'tis still to be embraced and be­lieved as the Primitive Church esteemed, and then your Church must have erred in not believing but con­tradicting it as we see now they do.

Lastly, Touching the communicating of Infants, Sect. 23 a custome, saith Maldonate, received as necessary by the Church till six hundred years; he tells us, that St. Au­gustine, &c. held a necessity that Infants should com­municate of the flesh and blood of our Lord, but this not Sacramentally, but spiritually, by such a participa­tion as may be had in Baptisme: which Answer may be confuted out of twenty passages of Saint Augu­stine. For,

1. He speaks expresly of the Sacrament, in his Tract against Pelagius and Bonifacius, where com­paring the Pelagians to the Manichees; Both of them, saith he, are unwilling to have Infants freed by the flesh and blood of Christ; the first by denying that Christ took flesh; the second, by saying there is no evil in them, from which by the Sacrament of Christs body and blood, they should be freed.

And again having urged the necessity of Baptisme to Salvation, he adds, When Christ saith, If you eat not my flesh, you shall not have life in you; should I say [Page 122]that an Infant should have life,L. 3. Cont. Julian. c. 1. Dicturus fueram par­vulum ha­biturum vi­tam, qui sine islo sacra­mento finis­set hans vitam! C. 12. L. 5.who ends his life with­out that Sacrament? Yea,

2. He speaks of their receiving the Sacrament after Baptisme, and therefore cannot be thought to speak of such a Spiritual participation of it, as might there be had. Thus in his Book against Julian; Where will you put Infants? for they shall want eternal life (although baptized) because they have not partaken of the bread, &c. and so in his Hypognosticks (where in the Margent you find Eucharistia infantibus, sub utraque specie, fit to admonish our Authour, of what we meet with in his Parenthesis) but most irrefragably in his book de Peccati meritis, L. 1. c. 20. and that in a place, which our Au­thor refers me to for the contrary. Let us hear our Lord, saith he, speaking of the Sacrament of the holy Table, whether none rightly comes, but he that is ba­ptized; Quo nemo [...]te nisi Baptizatus a [...]cedit. and then citing the place, Ʋnless you eat my flesh, &c he adds, Dare any say, that the sentence be­longs not to children, but that they may without the participation of the body and blood of Christ, have life in themselves? and tells us, we may as well conclude, that it belongs not to the adult: which testimony doth conclude most evidently the business; for these words, quò nemo accedit nisi Baptizatus, cannot possibly be understood of any Spiritual participation of the Sacrament at all, L. 10. much less of such an one as may be had in the use of Baptism. Yea,

3. He speaks of Baptisme and the Eucharist, as equally necessary, presseth them both with like Scri­ptures; and then what ground can there be to under­stand the one Spiritually, the other Sacramentally? Thus when he writes in his Book against two Epistles of Pelagius, You give to them that are not baptized a place in Heaven, nor do you attend what is written; He that is not baptized shall be damned; nor do you un­derstand, that those cannot have life, who are expertes corporis & sanguinis Christi, ipso dicente, Nisi man­ducaveritis, [Page 123] &c. and in his 107. Epistle, he saith, ‘That Infants shall receive according to what they have done in their body, when by the hearts and mouths of them that hear them they believed, or not, at which time they were baptized or not, did eat the flesh of Christ or not, and drink his blood or not;’ I say when these things are so conjoyned in the Series of his discourse, without the least intimation of a di­verse sense, what reason can we have so to interpret them? nor do the places he refers to, conclude that St. Augustine meant the contrary, to what these testi­monies seem to speak; nor doth he there say, as our Author cites him, Baptisme alone may suffice to the salvation of Infants: indeed one of the places tels us, that there is full remission of sins in Baptisme, and consequently, if the person Baptized should instantly depart this life (si continuo consequatur ab hac vita mi­gratio) he will not be obnoxious to any thing; agree­able to which, is the place cited from venerable Bede; but hence we can only infer, that St. Austin thought in such a case of absolute necessity they might be dispensed with, through the mercy of God; but yet 'tis evident, he held they had a right to the Sacra­ment, and that ordinarily it was necessary to their obtaining life eternal. Which also most evidently ap­pears from the Book cited by our Author cap. 24. (he cites cap. 22.) From an Antient, and (as I suppose) Apostolical Tradition, the Churches of Christ have this deeply setled in them, that without Baptisme, and the participation of the Lords Supper, no man can attain to the Kingdom of God, nor yet to life eternal, (which af­ter he had endeavoured to prove from 1 Peter 3. and John 6. he proceeds thus) If therefore so many testimo­nies Divine convince us, that everlasting life is not to be expected without Baptisme, and the body and blood of Christ, 'tis in vain to promise it to children without them: Now if this opinion, which St. Austine saith, [Page 124]was so deeply setled in the, See Austin. ep. 95. De usu Patrum. p. 263, 264. Church of God, and which was held by Innocent the first, by St. Cyprian, and others, (as Dally may inform you) be not a flat con­tradiction to the Trent Councils, Anathema upon those, who hold Parvulis necessariam esse Eucharistiae commu­nionem, let any reasonable man judge.

CHAP. X.

IN this Chapter our Author tells us, Sect. 1 ‘That the Church obligeth all Catholicks no further, Sect. 4. & 5. 111, 112. then simply to believe there is a State or place of Souls, in which they are capa­ble of receiving help or ease by Prayers: whereupon he gives us a Prayer of the Mass, which mercifully desires to all that rest in Christ a place of refreshment, light and peace, through Christ our Lord: and also another, which beseech­eth the Lord to absolve the soul of his servant from all the Chains of his sin. Now (saith he) if it can be demonstrated, That by the Universal practice of the Church such Pray­ers as these were made for the dead; it unavoydably fol­lows, that the souls for whom they are made are neither in Heaven, nor Hell; and if so, where are they, Dr. Pierce? speak like an honest man.’ Sect. 1

Answer, This is a shrewd Argument, which forceth the Doctor either to lose his Honesty, or his Cause. But sure the Case is not so desperate: For were this the Do­ctrine of the Church of Rome, (which yet is an evident un­truth; and were these Prayers used from the beginning, and that through the Universal Church of God) which cannot be proved) yet would I defie his Conclusion, and his Argu­ment to infer it.

For 1. Sect. 2 If Prayer for a place of refreshment exclude the person prayed for at present out of Heaven, then is there not [Page 124] [...] [Page 169] [...] [Page 170]one Saint, one Martyr, nay, not the Virgin Mary her self now in Heaven: seeing the Prayer begs this to all that rest in Christ, Sess. 9. De in­vocatione Sanctorum. and then farewel the Council of Trent, which talks of Saints reigning with Christ; & aeterna felicitate in Coelo fruentium. Nay the Liturgy of Saint James prayes for the Spirits of all flesh which they had prayed for and which they had not, from righteous Abel to that very day, that they might rest in the Region of the living, in the Kingdome of God, in the delights of Paradise, in the bosome of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: And yet will our Authour say, That there is not one of these souls in Heaven? And so for the absolving of their sins (which is his second instance:) The Liturgy of Saint Crhysostom: Prayes for all the Fathers and Brethren, [...], that had gone before them, for all that had laboured and administred in the Holy Function before them; for the forgiveness of the sins of the builders of their Man­sions, worthy to be had in perpetual remembrance, and prayes God to pardon ( [...]) all the Orthodox Fathers and Bre­thren which slept in the Communion of God, in the hope of the Resurrection, and Eternal Life. Dall. de Satisfact. page 510. And likewise Saint Augustin prayes for his Mother that the Lord would pardon her sins. Confes. l. 9 c. 13 I know, O Lord, (saith he) That she was merciful, and from her heart forgave her Debtors. Do thou therefore forgive her debts, if she hath contracted any after her Baptisme, for so many years: Forgive her Lord, for­give her. I beseech thee do not thou enter into judgment with her; And so on: and yet the same Austin tells us, what ever it be that is signified by Abrahams bosome, there his Mother is, ibi vivit; nam quis alius tali animae locus, for what other place was fitting for her? Of such prayers our Author may find good store in Dall. ubi supra, & pag. 520. Now then, is Abrahams bosome Purgatory? Are all the Orthodox Fathers in Purgatory? or if not, is it not evident that the Church hath made such prayers for those that are not in Purgatory? Sect. 4

2. We shall tell him, in the sequel of the Chapter, That these prayers of the Fathers depended partly upon supposi­tions exploded by the Romanist himself, partly upon other things, which cannot suppose a Purgatory in the mild'st sence.

Sect. 5 But is it true that the Romanist's Purgatory is onely a [Page 171]place wherein souls are capable of receiving help or ease by prayers, why then may it not be Heaven? for the souls there may be help't to a fuller state of Glory by our prayers, as the Fathers generally affirm.

‘2. The Trent Council tells us that the Catholick Church out of Scripture, and the ancient Tradition of the Fathers, and the holy Councils, hath taught us that there is a Purgatory, and thereupon commands the Bishops to be diligent that the sound Doctrine of Purgatory taught by the Fathers and Councils should be believed, held, and every where prea­ched.’

Now I ask, whether the Scriptures, Thus Bellar­mine. lib. 2. c. 10. That there is some fire in Purgatory, ap­pears from these words of Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 3. He shall, &c. So also from the Testimony of the Fathers eited in the first Book, who ge­nerally call the punishment of Purgatory fire, and this he puts among the thing in which all agree. upon which especial­ly they build their Purgatory, be not such as these: They shall be saved, yet so as by fire; some sins are forgiven in this world, some in the world to come? And as for the Tradition of the Fathers, is not the purging fire they speak of most insisted on? And do not many of the places cited by our Author speak of the pardon of their sins? Well then, if this was the Doctrine confirmed by Scripture, and deliver­ed by Tradition of the Fathers, then must Purgatory needs be a place of fire wherein the souls are tormented, or some­thing analogous thereunto.

2. It must needs follow, that Purgatory is a place where souls be imprisoned till they have satisfied for their sins.

3. Is it not the common Doctrine that sounds almost in every Pulpit, that Purgatory is a place under the Earth, in the lower regions of it, wherein some souls departed are grie­vously tormented, and where they are to continue till they have satisfied Gods Justice for some venial sins, unless they can be helpt out sooner by the prayers of the living, sacrifice of the Mass indulgences of the Pope, &c. Let Master Cressy speak his Conscience, whether this be not the Doctrine most frequently taught in their writings, and in their Sermons ad populum: And being so, I ask him whether it be the sana doctrina the Trent Council speaks of: If it be not, then are all their Bishops disobedient to this Council which charges them to look to it generally that the sound Doctrine be taught: And if so, either this disobedience is wilful and con­trary to their knowledge, and so they live continually in a [Page 172]wilful sin; or from ignorance of the true Doctrine of the Church; and then must our Author say, that he knows the Doctrine of the Church better then all these Bishops. If it be, then is the Doctrine which we commonly oppose the Do­ctrine of the Church of Rome.

Again, are these things tending to Edification, or not? if not, then are all the Bishops in fault for suffering them to be taught, contrary to the Council: If they be, then I hope they are the sound Doctrine of Purgatory The Trent Coun­cil speaks of.

Again, De Puigatorio. Their Bellarmine will tell us, l. 2. c. 6. That Pur­gatory is in a place nigh unto the damned, and prove it from the second of the Acts, solutis doloribus inferni, the pains of Hell being loosed, which Saint Augustine (saith he) under­stands of Purgatory: and that hence it is, that the Church in the Mass for the Dead saith, Deliver the Souls departed from the pu­nishments of Hell, and the deep Lake: Libera animas defunctorum de paenis inferni, & de profundo lacu. Yea, secondly, He will tell you from the venerable Beda, That this was confirmed by a Vision wherein Purgatory was seen next to Hell: And thirdly, that omnes fere Theologi, almost all their Divines assert, that the souls in Purgatory are in the same place, and tormented with the same fire as the damned are. Well then, first if the Mass prayes that the souls in Purgatory may be deliverd from the punishment infernal, & de profundo lacu, then must they be supposed to be in some infernal place; if almost all the Divines teach this place to be the same with that in which the damned are tormented, then must al­most all the Divines be guilty of contradicting the Decree of the Synod of Trent, all the Bishops be negligent of the charge there given, or else this which they teach must be the sana Doctrina which it required to be held. Sess. ult. doc. de Purg. Again, I suppose, your Trent Council when it speaks of holy Councils defining Purgatory, excludes not the Florentine which thus defines it; That if true penitents depart in the love of God, before they have satisfied for their sins of Omission or Com­mission, by fruits of repentance, their souls go to Purgatory to be purg'd: and the Indulgencies which the Pope gives some­times to these poor souls are nothing else but the Applica­tion of the satisfaction of Christ, or his Saints to the dead. [Page 173]So then out of these things so deduced, we have all that usu­ally we charge you with.

First, That there are some sins venial, such as if God should deal with men in rigour deserve onely a temporal punishment.

Secondly, That you hold, that albeit the sin may be pardoned and remitted, yet there may be a guilt of punish­ment to be endured for it. This is clear from the Council of Florence, and these two Bellarmine joyns together; De Purg. l. 2. c. 2. The true and Catholick opinion is, that Purgatory is a place ap­pointed for those that die with some venial sins, which are the hay and stubble mentioned, 1 Cor. 3. and again, for those that depart with the guilt of punishment, the fault being formerly remitted.

Thirdly, That you say the souls of many that die in the Lord go into Purgatory, to satisfie for these venial sins, or to undergo the Temporal punishments due to these sins whose fault is pardoned.

Fourthly, That this Purgatory whither they go is a place of punishment next to Hell, and that there they are tormen­ted with the same torments which the damned suffer, how­ever they may differ for Degree and Space. Now these are things which all your skill shall never be able to deduce from prayers as they were used by the ancients for the dead. Sect. 5

And first, whereas you say, De Satisfac. page 452. these prayers for the dead have confessed Apostolical antiquity to plead for them; here Dally telling you, That of the custome of praying for the Dead, Justine and Irenaeus who flourished in the second Age, do make no mention; so that it is credible it came in after that Age, for Causes we shall hereafter mention. Sect. 6

But to pass on to your proofs, p. 112. Sect. 6. you tell us That the Author of the Book fathered on Saint Denis the Areopagite, by Con­fession of Protestants, lived within the second Century after the Apostles, when as even Bishop Forbs, upon the Question, tells you that he lived in the third or rather the fourth Century; and it is clear that he speaks of Monks, which had no be­ing till the third Century of Temples, and Altars, which Origen and Arnobius, who flourished in the third Century, have told us the Christians never had. And therefore [Page 173]whereas he sayes, that what he teacheth he had from the Apostles, his Divine Teachers, this lye can sure avail you nothing, but to evidence how willing cheats are to put off their ware at the best hand. But as he is, let us hear him telling us what the Priests demand from God, for the person departed, Eccles. Hist. c. 7.a pardon of all fins committed by him through humane frailty, and that he may be conducted into Abrahams bosome, into a place from which grief, sadness and mourning, was ba­nished: But that this place of Dionysius makes nothing for Purgatory, appears, first, in that the party is described by him to have departed out of this life replenished with Di­vine joy, as now not fearing any change to worse, being come to the end of all his labour, and to have been both pri­vately acknowledged by his friends, and publickly pronoun­ced by the Ministers of the Church to be a happy man, See Dr. Fern against Spencer, C. de Purga­torio. and to be verily admitted into the society of the Saints that have been from the beginning of the world.

‘Secondly, in that the Bishop or Priest, so praying, is said by him to be the Interpreter or publisher of the Divine Judgements;’ viz. in giving rewards according as men de­serve: And how that the Divine loving kindness, in great goodness, over-looks their infirmities, or spots and stains of sin contracted by humane weakness. Thus that prayer which begs the full forgiveness of his sins is doctrine to the living, shewing and assuring them of Gods mercy to them that strive to live well; notwithstanding through humane weakness they offend often, and cannot be free from all spots and stains of sin. Then in relation, as it seems, to the other part of the prayer which begg'd, that he might be placed in light, &c. This Author adds: The Bishop or Priest knows such good things are promised, and therefore prayes that they may come to pass and be given to them that have lived well. Also he knows that the good things promised will come to pass; and therefore as the Interpre­ter of Gods Will, he shews that they will surely be made good to them that so live and die; and if these be the in­tents of this prayer, surely they will not conclude a Purga­tory. Well then; when he prayes for the pardon of his fin, he refers to that second sentence of the day of Judge­ment, [Page 174]that God would then proclaim him pardoned, and then would receive him into heaven, Ibid. c. 7. both as to body and soul: And hence our Dionysius tels us, that in these Solem­nities the Church was wont to read the undoubted promi­ses which were recorded touching the resurrection; and then devoutly sang Psalms of the same Argument: As you may see in Bishop Ʋsher, page 205.

Secondly, as for that of Tertullian, Sect. 7 where he bids the faithful wife pray for the soul of her husband—begging for him re­freshment, and a part in the first resurrection:Ter. de Mon, c. 19.Dally will tell you, First that he was infected with the errour of the Mil­lenaries, and thence it was that he required her to pray for a part in the first resurrection, supposing some to be raised soon­er, and some later, within that 1000. years. Or secondly, that this refreshment is begg'd at the day of Judgement, or the Resurrection, See Dall. p. 513. 517. Digna co loco solatia & re­frigeria. and that the Antients supposing those that were departed to be touch'd with a longing desire of being in Heaven, they begg'd a refrigerium to them, that is, the enjoyment of such comforts as they were thought to have had while they lay in the bosome of Abraham, expe­cting the Resurrection.

As touching the place of Saint Cyprian, Sect. 8 Epist. 66. the Answer lies hid in a word which he hath cheatingly conceal'd in his Translation; for whereas Ib. p. 116. p. 516. he hath Translated it, that no Oblation shall be made for him; viz. That names in his Will for an Executor an Ecclesiastical person, The Latine hath it pre Dormitione ejus: (and as Dally an­swers his Bellarm.) refers to the Eucharistical thanksgivings, which they offered ob Dormitionem ejus, that the faithful soul was delivered from the evils of the world; which he confirms from the testimony of the Author of the Commentary on Job, commonly ascribed to Origen; And from Saint Am­brose, who tells us, Diem quo obierint (sancti sc.) De Cor. Mil. c. 3. See Dally, p. 516.colebri so­lennitate renovamus, which is as far from Purgatory, as Earth from Heaven. And this is that which Tertullian saith, Tradi­tion was the Author, and Custome the confirmer of.

The first Testimony which he borrows from Chrysostome, tell us only this, That according to the Apostles Institution, Sect. 9 during the celebration of the Mysteries,In Ep. ad Phi­lip. c. 1. Hom. 3.Commemoration was made of the dead.

Secondly, That this was done that some comfort and re­freshment might accrue to them thereby. Now that the first comes not up to a shew of any proof for Purgatory, is evident to any eye but blur'd with prejudice, as appears from those many other ends, for which the Fathers esteemed it useful; as to bring and keep their souls in Abra­hams bosome, See Dally, de Satisfac. l 5. c. 12. to procure them a portion in the millenary reignhere on earth, an augmentation of their Glory, to pro­cure the Resurrection of their bodles, an abatement or ex­emption from the flames of the last day, and the rigour of the last judgment.

And as for the second, Hom. Cor. in c. 15. v. 46. S. Chrysost. might well say, that 'twas not in vain to pray for sinners, when he held that thereby the torments of the greatest sinners were or might be alleviated, as appeares from his, 21. Hom. on the Acts of the Apostles, where speaking of a man who had not lived one day to himself, but to Voluptuousness, Intemperance, Covetousness, to sin, and the Devil; if he chance to die (saith he) shall we not mourn for him? shall we not endeavour to pull him out of these dan­gers? For there be waies, if we will, whereby his punishment may be made light for him: If then we do continually make prayers for him, if we bestow Almes, though he be unworthy, God will respect us: And whereas he adds, that it was the practice of the Church, we grant it; but the Church then practised it for the ends now specified, not because she believed the Roman Purgatory. For that Saint Chry­sostome thought that the parties deceast if they had lived well were in a state of Joy, and not of Grief, appears by the funeral Ordinances of the Church related by him, which were appointed to admonish the living of it. Hom. 4. in Ep. ad Hebr. For tell me (saith he) What do the bright Lamps mean? Do we not ac­company them therewith as Champions? what mean the Hymns? Consider what thou dost sing at that time. Return my Soul un­to thy rest, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee. And again, I will fear no evil, because thou art with me. And again, Thou art my refuge from the affliction that compasseth me: Consider what these Psalms mean. The same General Practice, and the like Intention of the Church therein, is expressed and earnestly urged by him in the same Homily [Page 177]on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Do we not praise God, and give thanks unto him for that he hath now crowned him that is departed, for that he hath freed him from his labours, for that quitting him from fear be keepeth him with himself? Are not the Hymnes for this End? Is not the singing of Psalmes for this purpose? All these be tokens of rejoycing. Whereupon he thus presseth them that used immoderate mourning for the dead. Thou sayest return O my soul unto thy rest, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee, and dost thou weep? Is not this Stage-playes? Is it not meer simulation? For if thou dost indeed believe the things that thou sayest thou lamentest idly; But if thou playest and dissemblest and thinkest those things to be Fables, why dost thou then sing? why dost thou suffer those things that are done? wherefore dost thou not drive away them that sing? And in the end he concludeth somewhat prophe­tically: That he very much feared, lest by this means some grievous disease should creep in upon the Church. Whether the Doctrine now maintained in the Church of Rome, that the Children of God, presently after their departure out of this life, are cast into a Lake that burneth with Fire and Brim­stone, be not a spice of this disease; and whether their pra­ctice in chanting of Psalmes (appointed for the expression of joy and thankfulness) over them whom they esteem to be tormented in so lamentable a fashion, be not a part of that Scene and Pageantry, at which Saint Chrysostome doth so take on, I leave it unto others to judge; That his fear was not altogether vain, the event it self doth shew.

The Citation out of Eusebius touching the prayers of the people and clergy, not without tears and groanings, Sect. 10 De vita Con­stan. l. 4 c. 9. for the soul of Constantine, what doth it infer more then this, that they were earnest with God, that his soul might be partaker of some of those various benefits which we mentioned be­fore, and none of which at all refer to Purgatory? But yet notwithstanding, that they thought the Emperour in a State of Bliss must needs be granted, if we suppose them to have believed what he told them, being at the point of death, that he had now attained the true life, Euseb. de vita Constant. l. 4 c. 63. and that none but himself did understand of what happiness he was made partaker; and that therefore he hastned his going immedi­ately to God.

As to that of Epiphanius, Sect. 11 telling us, That prayers made f [...] the dead profit us, albeit they do not blot out entirely all (mor­tall) sins: First, if this word stand which he puts in, then must it be granted that they alleviate even Mortal sins, and are well made for those that dye under the guilt of them, and then he is necessarily to be understood in Saint Chryso­stomes sence, or else he contradicts the known Doctrine of the Church of Rome; which is, that those prayers are not made for any that dye under the guilt of Mortal sin. And indeed if this be the sence, viz. That prayers for the dead are profitable; [...], albeit they do not wholly blot out the sins of those that are pray­ed for: then must it be said, that some are prayed for, whose sins are not yet wholly forgiven. Secondly, the Case stands thus; Aerius had objected, if the Prayers of those here do [...] altogether profit the dead, then let him pro­cure some to pray for him after he is dead, that those hei­nous sins he hath committed may not be required at his hands, and then there will be no need of his being good. Now Epiphanius thus Answers; He that would see more of the sence of Epiph. in this place may Consult Bishop Usher, from p. 236. to 246. where he shews evidently that the Roma­nists are A [...] ­rians. not we. Although the prayer for the dead do not cut off all their sins (which is the onely thing thou goest about to prove (yet doth it profit notwithstanding for another purpose. Now from this Sentence can it not be in­fer'd that Epiphanius thought these prayers profitable to the cutting off of any sins which the person had committed in his life time: But this is onely added, because Aerius went a­bout to prove this only, that prayers made for the dead did not cut off all their sins.

Now whereas, Sect. 10. our Author would avoid the An­swer usually return'd upon their Arguments, Sect. 12 (By telling them, that Prayers are made for Martyrs, Apostles, yea, all Saints, p. 115, Sect. 11. by the Fathers, which yet they dare not say are still in Purgatory;) with this old Salvo, ‘that such prayers as are made for remission of sins refreshment, &c. are not made for them but imperfect sinners:’ 'This reply hath been ob­viated already by me, by shewing that such prayers as these he mentions were made for the Martyrs and Apo­stles, as 'tis more largely done by Dally, Page 501. and 507. as to refreshment, with such abundant Evidence, as I am confident Master Cressie will not be able to reply unto it; [Page 179]and as to remission of sins, with convictive Evidence. Yea further, they prayed for them that they might be delivered from the punishments of Hell, and obtain everlasting bliss, as appears from the Liturgy of Saint James: That they might pass by the Gates of Hell, and the wayes of Darkness. From the prayers used of old in the Roman Church; For all de­parted in the Confession of the Holy Trinity, that they might be separated from the punishments of the wicked, and obtain ever­lasting bliss. And from what the Romanists say daily in their Mass, Desiring the Lord Jesus, that he would deliver the souls of all the Faithful that are departed from the pains of Hell, and from the deep Lake, and from the mouth of the Lion, that Hell do not swallow them up, that they fall not into darkness. Sect. 13

Well, but our Author proceeds, and tells us, ‘that indeed many of these prayers did regard the day of Judgement, p. 115. Sect. 11. and the glory ensuing;’ yet withall, that they thought to some souls a present refreshment did accrew in the interme­dial condition is evident from what Saint Ambrose saith, He would never cease his Intercessions for the Soul of the dead Em­perour, till he found a deliverance by them. And we an­swer him, Where is it that Saint Ambrose saith so? And of what Emperour? Doth he think we have nothing to do but to read over Authors to find out his Quotations? Quo­tations did I say, or falfifyings? For let us hear Saint Am­brose thus speaking; Let us believe that Valentinian is ascended from the desert, that is to say, De Obitu Va­lent. Imp. from this dry and unmanured place, unto those flowry delights, where being conjoyn'd to his Brother; He enjoyeth the pleasure of everlasting Life; bles­sed are you both: If my Oraisons can prevail any thing, no day shall overslip you in silence, no Oration shall pass you over un­honoured, no night shall steal by, wherein I will not bestow upon you some portion of my Prayers, with all Oblations will I frequent you: Onely the mischief is, he doth not add, till I find a Deliverance of you from Purgatory, or any such words: Indeed in his Oration on the death of the Emperour Theodosius; he tells us that he will follow him to the Region of the living, nor will he leave him till by his Prayers and tears he hath brought him into that place his deserts did chal­lenge; quò sua merita vocant, viz. Into the Holy Mount of God, where there was everlasting life, where there was no [Page 180]Contagion of Corruption, no sighings, no grief, no company of the dead; (doth he understand it of Souls? then must none of the Souls of the dead be in heaven; of bodies? I hope our bodies must not go to purgatory with our souls,) But the Region of the Living, where this mortall shall put on Immortality, this Corruptible Incorruption. But yet he presently tells us, that Theodosius remains in light, and glo­ries in the companies of the Saints, (purgatory to be sure was a place that he had cause to glory of;) and enjoys rest for his soul (they rest very quietly, sleep in utramque aurem in purgatory.) Yea a little before he told us, that he now enjoy'd Eternal Light, (I suppose as being enlightned by the fire of purgatory) and continual tranquillity, and for the things which he did in this body, he rejoyceth in the fruits of Gods reward, (and was that think you purgatory?) and because he loved the Lord his God he hath obtain'd the society of the Saints. But you will say, If Saint Ambrose thought him in bliss, or an happy State, what is the meaning of his former words?

Ans. You may see, by what is said already, that he cannot Intend to bring him out of purgatory by his prayers: which is sufficient for me; nor (2.) Can he be supposed to weep for him till his mortal did put on immortality, unless he thought he should live till the Resurrection, or Theo­dosius rise before it. Well then (3.) Dally will tell you, that 'tis usuall in Scripture, and Sacred Writers, to speak of things as done, which they were certain would come to pass. So Isaac saith, Gen. 27.37. I have made Jacob Esau's Lord, and all his brethren his servants, because he had foretold it would be so; Even thus S. Ambrose saith, he will never leave praying till the Emperours resurrection, because he was sufficiently as­sured that God would raise him unto life Eternal, and trans­ser him to heaven. Now then, seeing 'tis as clear as the Sun, that Ambrose thought them both in Heaven, or in Abrahams bosome, (viz. The Emperours, Valentinian and Theodosius,) is it possible he should pray for their deliverance out of purga­tory? what good could they need besides that which he prays for, a speedy resurrection, who already enjoyed the pleasures of Eternal life? If Eternal life be purgatory, I will not give [Page 181]two pence for the Popes indulgences, to be deliver'd from it. This being so, is not our Author a brave jugler, who durst adde [for deliverance] to Saint Ambrose; and that he might not be found out, Cite neither place, nor tell us of what Emperour, whether Theodosius, or Valentinian, he meant it, albeit he produceth the place only to prove, that the Ancients thought the Souls departed to have some pre­sent refreshment, which indeed they did allow to Saints, supposed to be in Abrahams bosom; And that from the com­pany of Angels, and Arch-angels, and the vision of Christ which they were supposed to enjoy in those receptacles, & the increments of Divine light and joy, which Ambrose speaks of,

He hath four places more out of Saint Austin in be­half of purgatory. Sect. 14 Confes. l. 9. c. 21 But the (1.) where his mother begs that she may be remembred at the Altar, falls strangely short of purgatory; since I have made it appear, that those who were suppos'd to be in Heaven were there remembred, and this remembrance was made for divers other reasons. Nor (2.) Is there any thing in that which Saint Austine saith, De cnra per mortem, c. 5. we must by no means omit necessary supplications for the Souls of the Dead, that repose might be obtained to them, since 'tis as clear as the Sun, that they pray'd for re­pose to all the Servants of God departed; and Saint Ambrose begs rest for the Emperour Theodosius, of whom he tells us that he was in rest already. Nor will the (3.) place Cited out of his Enchiridion do him service, viz. C. 110. That the Sacri­fice is offer'd as a thanksgiving for Martyrs, but as a pro­pitiation for others. For (1.) It is evident, that Saint Austine, when he wrote this book, was of Saint Chrysostoms opinion; for as much as he tells us, E [...]ch. c. 110. that these whom our suffrages do profit, they do it, either that they may have a full remission, or a more tolerable damnation: And then no wonder if he allowed the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, or prayers to profit for the remission of sins. (2.) It might be offered for a propitation, in respect of others, and they not in purgatory, but in Abrahams bosome, as well as Saint Augustine might pray so earnestly for his mother, that God would be propitious to her, and yet she be in Abrahams bosom, as above is manifested. As to that (4.) Instance, [Page 182]which he calls convincing, Ser. 32. de ver­bis Apost. Note that this 32. Sect. is not to be found in the Index of Possidius. the outmost that can be gathered from it is, that in Saint Austin's and the Churches judge­ment, it was not to be doubted that our Brethren were helped by these prayers, so that God might deal with them more mercifully then their sins deserved, and that prayers and offerings were made for them, out of an intention of commending them to Gods mercy; and what of all this? For (1.) Doth not the same Austine pray, that God would deal more mercifully with his mother then her sins deserv'd? did he not commend her to Gods mercy, al­beit he verily thought she was in Abrahams bosome? (2.) What is this more then what Saint Paul prays for Onesiphorus, that he might find mercy in that day, the day of Judgement, and Saint Peter's speaking of sins to be blot­ted out at the day of our refreshment? Well then, they com­mended their brethren to Gods mercy, as knowing that they deserved these punishments, from which they could not be otherwise delivered then by the clemency and mer­cy of God; which is very true, and yet makes not at all for purgatory; and indeed their prayers for pardon of sins was only thus, that God would at the last day proclaim them pardon'd, and would not cast them into Hell with the damned, but receive them into glory; which prayers the Church of Rome at this day makes for all the faithfull.

Now after these testimonies produced, Sect. 15 our Pag. 120. Authour returns to his Dilemma, before sufficiently confuted; If these Souls were believ'd to be in Heaven, would it not be ridiculous (and must then Liturgies and Fathers cited by us be ridiculous which pray for pardon of sins, refreshment, light and peace, and a place in the bosome of Abra­ham, for those whom you acknowledge to have been al­ready at rest, in the enjoyment of God in Abrahams bo­some?) If in Hell, would it not be impious, (Oh impi­ous St. Chrysostome, St. Augustine, Origen. Greg. Nyssen, Jerome. and perhaps, Epiphanius) to offer the dreadful sacrifice, to make supplications, to be at charge in alms for the obtaining them repose? &c. but if they be neither in Heaven nor Hell, where are they then? Answ. In sinu Abrahae, or at rest in some state of pleasure, and free from all punishment; (as you are told by Irenaeus, [Page 174]Tertullian, Origen, Pseudo-Justin, Lactantius, Victor,Dilly de Sa­tisfact. l. 5. c. 3, 4, 5, 6.Hi­lary, Ambrose, Prudentius, Chrysostome, Jerome, Augustine,) expecting the enjoyment of the Kingdom of Heaven at the Resurrection.

And thus having gone over our Adversaries testimonies in Defence of Pugatory, we shall now add, ex abundanti, a few Arguments against it. And first, if there be no such punishments as the Papists do imagine suffer'd by the faith­full after this Life, then are not their Souls in Purgatory; but there is no such punishment of the faithful after this Life: And first, were there any such punishments of the faithful after this Life, how wonderful is it that no Consola­tions should be given in against them! There is not any evil that can befall us here, but the Scripture hath afforded us some Consolation against it; But though the punishments in Purgatory be more grievous, by their own confession; then any we can suffer here, yet have we not one word of Con­solation against them. Secondly, Abraham tells Dives that he had receiv'd his good things in this Life, and Lazarus his evil; and now he is comforted and thou tormented; what is this comfort, but his being carried into Abrahams bosome? When was he carried thither? when he dyed, verse 22. The beggar died and was carried (not into Purgatory, but) into Abrahams bosome: The rich man dyed also and was buried. I sup­pose, none will deny that the rich man was buried presently after his death, and then why should they deny that Laza­rus was carried into Abrahams bosome soon after his death; And if Abrahams bosome were Purgatory, (I cannot say he had cold, but) I'me sure he had but small comfort of being there; But be it so, that he was not in Abrahams bosome, yet he had receiv'd his evil things in this Life, saith Father Abra­ham; which with what truth could he have so said, had he been to receive so great and so long punishments when his life was ended?

Now seeing this beggar had no prae-eminence over other beggars, that are supposed to live piously as this Lazarus did, or above other of the Saints of God, if he escaped Purgatory, and was immediately receiv'd into Abrahams bosome, why may not they? Thirdly, The evils which [Page 184]the faithful suffer, they suffer in the time of their peregri­nation, and absence from their Fathers house; but that is terminated and defined by our being in the body; thus Peter Ep. 1. c. 1. vers. 17. calls it the time of our sojourning, [...], the time of our being from home, the time of our being in this world, saith Estius; And again; 2 Cor. 5.6. Dum sumus in corpore peregrinamur à Deo? And when we are absent from the body we are present with the Lord; therefore we are not absent from the Lord: when we are in Purgatory we are absent from the Lord; Ergo, when we are absent from the body we are not in Pur­gatory.

A second Argument shall be this; They that go to Abrahams bosome, Paradise, or an house not made with hands, eternal in the Heavens, do not go to Purgatory at the same time; but the faithful presently after death go to the fore-mentioned places, or some of them; Because they go to them when their earthly Tabernacle is dissolved, 2 Cor. 5.1. We know that if our earthly tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building not made with hands, eternal in the Heavens. Now this implies that as soon as we are dispossess'd of one of these houses we go to the other; or else the comfort would be but cold, and the oration not worthy of God, but delusory. For put the Case, I should tell my friend, I see thy house is going to ruine; But care not for it, I have a better for you to betake your self to, when that fails: If he should come to me a while after for this house, and I tell him, true, I have an house for him, but he must be content to lie first ten or twenty years in the street, and after that he shall go into it; would not my friend think, I had dealt very deceitfully with him, having given him ground to hope that presently after the fall of his house he should have another? So God here tells us, well Christians, if your house once fall, your body be dissolved, be not troubled, you shall have an house in heaven; when their body is dissolv'd, they come expect­ing an house in heaven, pleading his promise; should God say, true, you shall have an house in Heaven, but you must burn In purgatory first for a 100. yeers or two: would he not seem to mock us? (2.) The house is said to be had, when our [Page 185]earthly body is dissolved: now this is either because we are then presently to enjoy it, & then down falls purgatory; or else, because after a hundred years in purgatory we shall en­joy it: If so, why may we not be said to have it before this house is dissolv'd, seeing by our good works, Martyrdom, indulgence, procured, we may make our purgatory the shorter while we live here? Bellarmine Answers; true, we shall go to heaven presently, but only we that are cloathed, that is, endued with excellent vertues, and merits, and have perfected our repentance. But the rest that are naked shall be saved so as by fire. But (1.) The Apostle saith, they alone shall have the heavenly house who are cloath'd, that being the condition; yea this is the condition of their groaning to be dissolved, which (saith he) we would not do were we to be found naked; and yet they that were in this tabernacle did groan, therefore none of them would be found naked. (2.) Those that go to Heaven are cloathed upon; But those that go naked to purgatory cannot be so; For seeing to be cloathed is to be adorn'd with more emi­nent degrees of virtue, and they themselves acknowledge that in purgatory there is no place for the encrease of virtue, there is no probability of being cloathed upon, and there­fore they cannot be supposed to go to purgatory naked, since they that go thither are sure afterward to go to heaven. A­gain, vers. 6, 7. the Apostle tells us, that whilest we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord, and that, Here the faithful desire to be absent from the body, because it hinders them from the presence of the Lord, and walking by sight; now had they been acquainted with purgatory, surely they would have express'd their desires of being ab­sent from that also, seeing that was like not only to be more irksome to them, but also more durable, and therefore a greater impediment; since therefore they groan'd so much to be deliver'd from a short life here, which hinders their enjoyment of Gods presence, and not at all for deliverance from a hundred or two hundred years continuance in purga­tory, (for so long, saith Bellarmine, the Church hath pray­ed for Souls in purgatory) we infer, they were not acquaint­ed with it. Again, they that are to be receiv'd into Eternal [Page 186]habitations when their life fails them, are to be received at death, for then they fail: But so are charitable men, (and by parity of Reason other pious souls.) The minor is proved from Luke 16. v. 8. Make unto your selves friends of the Mam­mon of unrighteousness, that is use it so, [...], that when you fail, i. e. dy, they may receive you, that is, may procure you a reception, or rather (as Doctor Ham­mond) you may be received into everlasting habitations.

But our Author hath his arguments also, Sect. 18 which come now to be considered: And first, he tells us of an express testimony for Purgatory in the Book of Macchabees: Now not to call upon him for an Answer to Dr. Cosens of the Canon of Scrip­ture, as knowing how impossible it is to be done; albeit it be necessary to make this Testimony a Cogent proof, seeing he onely tells us that there is such a place in the Book of Mac­chabees: I will add where the words may be found, even in Dally, page 439. where they are fully considered, and it made evidently to appear that they come not up to a proof of Purgatory; neither are they consistent with the received Maxims of the abettors thereof: and whereas our adversary calls in the Universal Tradition, and practice of the Syna­gogue of the Jews to justifie this place, the same worthy per­son hath made it evident, that neither this nor any other Testimony produced by them is any tolerable proof of such practice: p. 449. 450. Nay he evinceth most clearly from this passage that this practice was not received in our Saviour's, or the A­postles time; Ne apud infimos & corruptos Judaeos: yea, he spends the 14. Chapter of his second Book, to evidence that the Jewes were ignorant of Prayers for the dead; and should we after all this give any credit to your confident as­sertions of such evident untruths? It concerns you, if you respect your credit to answer what is extant in the forecited places of the Learned Dally, and to evince this universal Tra­dition and practice you here speak of without the least offer of any proof, unless what follows must be so esteem'd, viz. that from the Jewes no doubt Plato borrowed this Do­ctrine, and from Plato Cicero: But I pray you, Sir, permit us (who have the Arguments fore-mentioned to evidence that in our Saviours time, the Jewes had no such [Page 187]Custome) to doubt of what you boldly here assert, l. 4. c. 5. p. 360. espe­cially when the same Dally runs antipodes unto you, and tells us, though with greater modesty, ab iis (Platonicis) ut videtur illam Purgatorii rationem baustam atque acceptam tum Judaei, tum adversarii retinent; Sect. 19 that both you and they (as it seems received your Purgatory from the Platonists: Mr. Cr. P. 120.

You have one assault more from natural Reason, which you say, will tell us, ‘that heaven, into which no unclean thing can enter, is not so quickly and easily open to imperfect souls, as unto perfect; nor have we any sign that meerly by dying sinful livers become immediately perfect.’ 1 Thess. 4.17. Now to this I Answer, that what ever natural Reason may seem to dictate. I am sure the Oracles of God will tell us that they who are alive at the Resurrection, if pious souls, (though surely some of them shall be imperfect) shall not go to Purga­tory for 100. years, but be caught up into the Clouds to meet the Lord in the Air, and so shall be for ever with the Lord.

Secondly, albeit there be nothing of Reason, or Scrip­ture, to intimate that onely by dying we become perfect, yet doth both Reason and Scripture more then intimate, that presently after death we are amongst the Spirits of just men made perfect; that when this Tabernacle is dissolved we go to an house Eternal in the Heavens; when we are absent from the body we are present with the Lord; and conse­quently are purified by the holy Spirit from the imperfecti­ons that adhered to us.

CHAP. XI.

IN this Chapter we meet with many misadventures, Sect. 1 Mr. Cressie, p. 124. and mistakes, as (1.) that the word [...] is as old as the first general Council, whereas it was never used by any Father, or at least never applied unto this matter, for the space of a thousand years and upwards; nor can I find any of their own writers, besides himself, that ever pleaded the use of such a word. (2.) Another mistake is, that the Church onely saith, the change made in the holy Sacrament is usually called Transubstantiation, when the Trent Council ex­presly tells us, Mr. Cressie, p. 124. that it is called so propriè, convenienter, & aptissime, most fitly, properly, and conveniently. (3.) Where­as you tell us, Sect. 5 that it is a difficult matter to define what is our Churches Tenent in this controversie; I refer you to [Page 189]Bishop Taylor's Discourse upon this Subject: if you are able to except any thing against his Stating of the Question do it; if not, cease to calumniate, and know that the renewed Rubrick is an Explication of what the Church of England believeth in this matter; and if you have any thing to pro­duce against it, besides the empty name of Zuinglianisme, we are ready to consider it.

But to pass these things, Sect. 2 let us come unto his evidence of such a change of the Sacramental elements into the body, and blood of Christ, which makes Christ Corporally present un­der the species of Bread and Wine, but destroys their sub­stance; and here not daring once to fasten upon hoc est cor­pus meum, or the sixth of John, he lays hold on a passage of Saint Paul's in the 1 Cor. 11.29. and tells us, that if this Transubstantiation should not be received, Mr. Cressie, p. 128. none could re­ceive the body of Christ unworthily, because according to Pro­testants it is not the body of Christ, but meer bread, that an impenitent sinner receives. And Saint Pauls charge would be irrationall when he says, such an one receives judgement to him­self, in that he doth not discern the Lords body.

Ans. (1.) This Argument is a manifest contradiction to the Apostle, who saith, let a man examine himself, 1 Cor. 11. and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup, for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily (viz. that bread and cup) eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lords body; so that the unworthy eater of the bread is the person that discerns not the Lords Body. (2.) Such persons are said not to discern the body of Christ, because they deal with the Elements that are Instituted to represent his Body and Blood as with common meat, not treating them with addresses proper to the mystery. So Saint Austine, non dijudicat, [...] c. 8.i. e. non discernit à caeteris cibis ve­neratione singulariter (illi) debita, so also the Greek Schol. upon the place.

Sect. 3. But our Author proceeds thus; ‘If the change be not in the Elements, but in the receivers Soul; (that is, if the Elements be not transubstantiated) what need is there of Consecration? what effect can it have? why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest, administer the [Page 190]Sacrament? what hinders that such a presence may not be effected every dinner and supper?’

Answer. Such Arguments as these, may very well perswade us that our Author receiv'd this Doctrine from Tradition, M [...]. Cressie, p. 12 [...]. s. 8not Ratiocination, as before he tells us; For if he had receiv'd it by such a Ratiocination, his Baptismal water must necessarily have been changed into I know not what. For if it remain water still, may not I ask him what need of any Consecration to become Sacramental? what effect can Consecration have upon it? why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest, administer this Sacrament? what hinders but we may have such a presence of Christ or the Holy Spirit every time we go to wash our selves? This haply our Author saw, and therefore he durst not say, if the elements be not transubstantiated; but if the change be not in the Elements, which we grant it is, (the Bread is no longer common Bread, but holy, separated from a prophane use to a sacred; it is now become an instrument to convey the benefits of Christs death, which before it was not; represents Christ's broken body, which before it did not:) But Thirdly, to make a little sport with his demonstrations, Tell me, is there no use of Consecration but to transubstan­tiate? What is their Holy-water? Are all their Bells, their holy reliques and images, transubstantiate? Secondly, Hath Christ required the Consecration of the Eucharist should be done by a Priest, or not? If not, then let him tell me, why a Master of a family may not consecrate these Elements as well as the Paschal Lamb? If he hath required it, then surely, whether Transubstantiation be true or false, it cannot be effe­cted by a Laick. But, Thirdly, tell me, what is the Bread we eat at dinner, the Bread broken for us? Is the Wine the Papists drink on their fasting-dayes, the Blood shed for the remission of their sins? Do men by eating and drinking remember Christs death till he come? Have they any pro­mise of such blessings from the partaking of their common Bread as Sacramental? If not, why doth our Author trouble us with such a frivolous comparison?

He next proceeds to demonstrate this change out of the Fathers, Sect. 4 and thus he begins, Sect. 10. In all ancient Lytur­gies, [Page 191](that is, all spurious ones) as Blondel himself (and for your better directions, you may see the name of Blondel in the Margin, without any Addition of Book or Chapter.) Though an Hugonot confesseth, the prayer for the Consecration of the Elements was, that God would by his holy Spirit san­ctifie the Elements, whereby the Bread may be made the Body, and Wine the Blood of our Lord. And for this he cites St. Basils Liturgie, Cyrill. Hieros. Mystag. Catech. after that the Acts of the Council of Nice, Cyrill. Alexand. Ep. ad Calosyr. and Greg. Nys­sen. Orat. Catech. And here we have all that pretend to de­monstrate this change, except Optatus, who tells us that the Altar is the seat of the Body and Blood of Christ. Now the mischief is, first, that all these Authors, (unless we may except Cyrill of Alexandria) are spurious, and have been proved so by Dr. Hoyle, in his Answer to a popish Friar, and some others.

And first, as for Saint Basils Liturgie, Sect. 5 he tells us that even Bellarmine himself dares not reckon it among St. Basils works. Secondly, in this Liturgie is appointed to be sung the [...], a Hymn, See the Epist [...]h of the same, Felix to Peter Bishop of An­tioch, and Zeno the Em­petor in the second T [...]mb of the Coun­cils. which began to be sung in the Church about the time of Felix the third, who liv'd Anno Domini, 480. Whereas Basil flourish'd Anno Domi­ni, 370. or thereabouts. It mentions Confessors after Martyrs, whereas the Romanists themselves confess, they were not mention'd in their offices till after the dayes of this St. Basil. These and many other things you may find against it in Mornaeus, and Cocus, and other Protestant Writers.

Secondly, ‘As for the Catechism of Cyrill of Jerusalem, Sect. 6 he tells us, p. 467, 468. that even Papists themselves ascribe it to one John of Jerusalem, that liv'd about 400 hundred years after: Yea, even Gretser tells us, that he hath seen a manuscript which ascribes these Catechis [...]res to John of Jerusalem: Yea, in the Greek Library, which the City of Augusta bought of Antonius Governour of Corcyra, this book goes under the same title; The Mistogogi call Catechismes of John of Jerusalem, as the Index of these books doth evidence. Nor doth the putter forth of this Index in Possevine, among other European Libraries, deny it; [Page 192]and for a taste of the Author, Harken to his notable Hyper­bole, that the wood of the Cross is so multiplied that all the world is full of it.’

Thirdly, Sect. 7 ‘Next, for the Council of Nice, he tells us, p. 466. out of Cardinal Baronius, that they are held a meer forgery. The true Nicene Acts (saith he) (except some fragments raked at second hand out of several Authors) are sufficiently known to be all lost, as being made away, and having suffred shipwrack in the Arrian tempests; And again, whereas all ages have been most eager in the pursuit of so noble a Monument, never a man could hitherto find it; and concludes that now no hope remains of so fertile a vintage: Nay, when hard search was made for a new Nicene Canon pretended by the Bishop of Rome, in defence of his supremacy, and by St. Augustine himself, and many Learned Bishops more, messengers were dispatch'd into Greece and Egypt, where the first and best Copies were; News was return'd both from Atticus of Constantinople, and Cyrill of Alexandria, that no more of that Council could be found save onely twenty Canons.’

Fourthly, Sect. 8 ‘As for Nyssen his Catech. Orat. he tell us, first, that some in their Editions leave it cut, as knowing it (saith the Bishop of Spalat) to be corrupted. So Siphanius his Basil. Ed. Anno Domini 1571. others, that let it pass, tell us, that this 37. Chap. here cited is not frequently to be found in Ancient manuscripts, and that the Book is tainted with the opinions of Origen foysted into it. So the Author of the Paris Edition, 1573. Thirdly, that it mentions Se­verus, an Eutychian, a full 100 years later then Cyrill. Fourthly, that it speaks contrary to Nyssen himself; and Fifthly, that it holds no correspondence with all that Theodoret cites thence.’ And lastly, refers us to twelve Arguments of Spalatensis, against this and the following Chapter.

Fifthly, Sect. 9 Cyrills Epistle ad Calosyr. is not extant among his works; and whether Cyrill of Alexandria wrote it is very uncertain. And (albeit I can no where come to a perusal of it, yet) it is capable of this sence, Christ is not altered; (viz. the Sacrament representing Christ is not alter'd) neither [Page 193]is his Body (that is, the Symbols of his body changed) by being kept till another day but the virtue of Benediction and quickning grace perpetually remains in it; for what is it that is blessed? sure not the Body of Christ, that being not present till after the benediction even when hoc est corpus me­um is pronounced; and therefore 'tis the Eucharistical bread which he calls Christ.

And yet were all these Authors true they might be an­swered by telling our adversaries they might as well have cited our Common Prayer Book, which calls the Bread, Sect. 10 the Body of our Lord Christ; and the Wine, his Blood shed for us. For we acknowledge it is so, viz. Sacramentally, and Representatively, but not by any substantial Mutation.

The rest of the Fathers are quoted for adoration of the Eucharist; Sect. 11 and there are but two Sentences that can seem to incline to Transubstantiation. The first is that of Saint Chrysostome, to wit, The most pretious thing in Heaven I will shew thee plac'd upon Earth: 1 Cor. 10. Hom. 24. But this may be fairly interpreted thus, That it is placed upon Earth in its representation in those Elements which convey the Virtue of his Body to us, and therefore deservedly are called his Body. Let Chrysostome interpret himself; who in his Epistle ad Caesar. contra Hae­res. Apollinar (cited by Damascen, and the Collector of the Sentences of the Fathers against the Severians, set forth by Turrian) hath these words. Before the Bread is sanctified we name it Bread; but the Divine Grace sanctifying it by the means of the Priest, it is freed from that Name, and is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords Bo­dy, although the nature of Bread remains in it.

And yet I must not forget to tell you, p. 130. that whereas our Adversary renders a Clause of Saint Chrysostomes sentence, Thou not onely seest the body it self; Saint Chrysostome hath it [...], Thou dost not indced see the ve­ry same body, not properly the same that the Magi saw; But thou knowest both the Virtue and the whole Dispensation and art ignorant of nothing that was done, being accurately [...], taught all these things (in the Mysteries,) and so the place makes more against then for him.

The same Answer may be returned to that of Ambrose; Sect. 12 [Page 194]That the same flesh is in the Mysteries which the Apostles wor­shipped in our Lord Christ,De Spir.viz. 'tis in the Mystery representa­tively; See Bishop Taylor of real Pres. p, 384. 'tis here in Imagine, as St. Ambrose elsewhere; But in heaven in Veritate, the Truth, the substance is there. Thus l. 4. De sacram. C. 5. He calls it the figure of the Body and Blood of Christ; and c. 4. tells us, It is a wonderful power of God, which makes that the Bread should remain what it is, and yet be changed into another thing: and then again, How much more operative is the word of Christ, that the things be what they were, and yet are changed into another, and so, that which was bread before Consecration, now is the Body of Christ; which words, because they could not answer, they corrupted: And thus having return'd an Answer to his Arguments, we come now to vindicate our own.

The Learned Doctor had framed an Argument thus; Sect. 13 That which remained the fruit of the Vine was not Transubstan­tiated: But the Wine in which Christ Celebrated the Sa­crament remained after Consecration the fruit of the Vine. To this our Adversary answers:

1. Mr. C. 132. S. 12. ‘I confidently pronounce it evident that these Matt. 26.29. words were neither spoken by our Lord in the same breath after the Consecration of the Chalice, nor had they any regard to the Sacrament. And why so I pray you? Because Saint Luke mentions them after the eating of the Paschal Sup­per, and antecedently to the Mystical Consecration of his blessed Body and Blood:’ who saith he will write [...]: Ans. A great reason of Confidence indeed! put it into Syllo­givm, and it runs thus. That which hath reference to the Passeover, and the drinking of the Cup which was annexed to it, hath not Reference to the Sacrament of the Supper of our Lord: But these words have reference to the for­mer: Now all their who tell us that Christ spake the sentence twice will deny his Major, seeing the words might have re­ference to both according to their various times of utterance. Now that this Interpretation must take place against our ad­versary I will prove; because he grants it doth refer to the Pass-over in Saint Luke: And evidently it refers to the Consecrated Cup in Saint Matthew. G. 26. For he saith, Christ took the Cup, and gave it to them, saying, Drink you all of [Page 195]this: this, what? This in the Cup: why so? for this is my Blood, and then immediately follows: But I say unto you, I wil not drink henceforth of the fruit of the Vine, untill the day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom. Now then, this fruit of the Vine Saint Matthew speaks of is this that the Disciples are bid to drink of, as even the series of the words shew; Drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood; but I will not drink of this.

2. The fruit of the Vine must necessarily demonstrate some Wine; so St. Marks fruit of the Vine, must also have reference to some Cup demonstrated by him: But they men­tion no other Cup besides this Sacramental: therefore they must necessarily speak of this: and so much for his Major. Now I deny his Minor, which must be proved thus. That which S. Luke mentioned before any Consecration began. Im­mediately after, the Cup confessedly belonging to the Pass­over must belong to it. But these words St. Luke thus men­tions. Now I retort upon his Major thus; That which Saint Matthew and Saint Mark mentioned not till after Consecration, and immediately after the Sacramental Cup, must belong to it; But this sentence is thus mentioned by them. I know he will tell us the disparity is in this, that St. Luke promised to write [...], which the other Evange­list did not.

Answer; Grotius will tell him, that [...]signifies only sigillatim, as you may see, Acts 4.18.23. which Interpreta­tion must take place here, it appearing sufficiently, that he frequently for the Coherence of things, joyns those passages which were separated in order of time As the same Grotius in his Comment doth evince, Vide Grot. in locum. and therefore this reason of disparity is taken away.

Thus I have confuted his Confidence; Sect. 14 Now though I dare not be Confident, I think it very probable, Vide Jansoni­um in locum. that St Luke also speaks of the Consecrated Cup (as Saint Augustine would have it) by preoccupation, that so this saying, paral­lel to that of eating no more of the Passover, might be joyn­ed together. For Matthew and Mark speak of four things be­longing to this Sacramental Cup:

• 1. Giving of Thanks.
• 2. Distribution of it.
• 3. The asserting of it to be his Blood.

(4.) His protestation of not drinking of it any more. Now Saint Luke speaks onely of the third of these, If you will not allow the other verse to refer to the Sacred Cup. But if this be granted, then are all these actions mentioned in S. Luke directly as in the other Evangelists; Now then the interpretation makes all Harmonious between the E­vangelists, whereas he bids defiance to S. Mark, and espe­cially to S. Matthew, who (as I have prov'd) must necessa­rily be understood of the Eucharistical Cup.

But our Author hath another answer, Sect. 15 if this fail, viz. that were it so that the wine after Consecration were call'd the fruit of the Vine, Mr. C. p. 133. ‘yet this doth not argue against a change of it's nature, for Moses his Rod after it was changed into a Serpent was call'd a Rod still because it had been one. Exod. 7.12 And John 2.9. 'tis said of the Master of the feast, shat he tasted the water that was made wine.’

Now to this I return, (1.) That the cases are no way parallel; for, first, in these instances, the matter remain'd, the form only being chang'd, it being proper conversion; but in the Eucharist; the Trent Council hath defin'd, that the substance of Bread remains not, and so there is not so much Reason why it should have the same name.

(2.) These might well be call'd so, because the Serpent was made out of a Rod, tanquam ex causâ materiali, and the wine out of water; but you dare not say, that the Blood of Christ is so made out of wine.

(3.) There were Circumstances annex'd in these Cases, which did obviate all possibility of Fallacy. The Serpent is call'd a Rod, but such a one as devour'd the other Rods; the wine mention'd by S. John is call'd Water; but 'tis Water made Wine; as if I should say, panis transubstantiatus, which phrase you would not much dislike; you will say, this Wine is call'd the Blood of Christ.

Ans. Well, but whether Spiritually, or Corporally, is not said.

(2.) We answer, that if this be a sufficient reason why the Blood of Christ should be call'd the fruit of the vine, though it be not really so; then may this be a sufficient rea­son why the bread may be call'd the body of Christ, though [Page 197]it be not so; See Paraeus de Reg. phrasium Sacrament. In Cor. 11. v. 23. because Sacramental signs have often the names of the things signified by them. The sequel is evident from the parity of Reason, the same foundation of Each being the Analogous phrase of Scripture: and in the great hold of Transubstantiation must be quitted.

But (3.) He saith he will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine; which Argues, that before, viz. In other pas­overs, Or at least in this, He had drank of it before; now that which he had drank of before (this being the first institution of the Sacramental Cup) must be really the fruit of the Vine; Well then, that which he saith he will drink of no more must be the same also.

From what hath been said we may see sufficiently the weakness of his argument hence for transubstantiation, Sect. 16 which runs thus. Our Saviour drank of the Consecrated Cup, but he did not drink of the fruit of the vine, (because he says, [...],) Ergo, the Consecrated Cup was not the fruit of the Vine. For not to tell him, See Beza in locum. Heins. In Mat. c. 21, v. 41, &c. the Syriack Copies leave out the two verses in which the stress of all this Argument lies, nor yet to mind him of Beza's transposition of the verses, a * thing sufficiently probable.)

(1.) How will he prove that our Saviour drank of the Consecrated Cup? will he run to Matt. 26? Alas, He hath told us, that it Concerns not this Cup; will he cite uni­versal tradition? Let him shew it, and at the same time he will shew, that he interprets Saint Matth. contrary to them, seeing they that affirm it gather it from his words.

(2.) Why may not his [...], be thus interpreted; I will not drink any more, viz. after the solemnity ended? Have we not S. Matthew's [...], to bear us out in't; and Saint Mark's, [...] which also may very well be borrowed from the 16 vers. in Saint Luke; It being very ordinary for Sacred Writers to leave a particle to be understood from the words foregoing or consequent. And if this interpretation stand, it can only be infer'd, that after the solemnity ended He drank no more of the fruit of the Vine, which advantageth him nothing.

And yet (3.) If neither of these two answers could stand, yet seeing we have made it probable, if not necessary, that these words should be understood of the Eucharisticall Cup, [Page 198]His argument falls to the ground irrevocably. Sect. 17 For a close, I will mind him of what Jansenius has long ago told him, that this Argument is frivolous and unconcluding. Hence it appears, In locum. (saith he) How infirm that Argument is, which some of our men suppose efficacious to prove Transubstantia­tion, from this that Christ said, non bibam de genimine vitis, inferring, that what he drank of was not so, &c. For (saith he) should we grant, (which yet is less probable,) that this was said by S. Luke before the Consecration, yet by Saint Matth. and Mark, it seems clearly to be spoken after; so that our arguing from uncertainties, which with greater proba­bilities may be rejected then alledged, will never be sufficient to establish any Dogma, or opinion, but rather give occasion to He­retick's to be more pertinacious in their Errours, when they see such weak arguments brought against them.

Thus I have vindicated the Doctours Arguments; Sect. 18 I will but adde one more, Mich. le Faucheur de la eene de Signeur. though I can tell him where to meet with an hundred; and that is this: That which the Apostle six or seven times in one or two Chapters calls Bread is bread; but the Eucharist after consecration is so call'd by the Apostle. 2 Cor. 10.16, 17. chap. 11. vers. 26.27, 28. The minor is evident to any that hath eyes, and will believe them.

The major I prove thus, (1) If that which is once call'd the body of Christ be sufficiently argued to be so, albeit it hath all the accidents of another thing, and seems to all our senses to be so, then that which is called Bread seven times, and seems to all our senses so to be, is sufficiently proved to be so, but the first is true. For the Council of Trent thence proves the Body of Christ to be Corporally in the Sacra­ment. If it doth it efficaciously, then it must be so; If not, then 'tis not an infallible interpreter of Scripture nor is their argument thence concluding. Now, that this was said but once by Christ, albeit repeated by three Evangelists and one apostle, is clear. This sequel is also evident; For there is greater reason for the one then the other, viz. That what is seven times called bread by the Spirit of God should be so, when all our senses testifie it, then that which was but once call'd the body of Christ should be so, in Contradicti­on to all the senses of the Universe.

To cite all the Fathers that here speak for us would be an endless work; Sect. 19 he that would see some hundreds of evi­dent citations to this purpose, let him consult Bishop Ʋshers Answer to the Jesuits challenge, Bishop Morton, Bishop Tay­lor, and Doctor Featly, on this very Subject; (Books very obvious) but especially the two voluminous confuters of Car­dinal Perron. Mich. Le Faueheur, and Bernardus Albertinus, to whom I refer the Reader for abundant satisfaction; and shall content my self with one only passage of Theodoret, who in his second Dial. brings in a man contending that Christs humane nature was swallowed up of the Divine; which he illustrates thus: As the Elements or Symbols of the Lords body before the invocation of the Priest are one thing, but after Invocation are changed, and made another; so the Lords body after his Ascension is changed into a Divine substance; to which he answereth; You are caught in your own net, for the Symbols do not go out of their proper nature, but remain [...], in the former substance wherein they were.

And thus I have finish'd the first part of the Chapter con­cerning Transubstantiation; Sect. 20 I come now to return an answer to what he hath pleaded for the Adoration of the Sacrament.

And first, the place which he cites out of St. Chrysostome, will not conclude his purpose. For albeit he saith, 1 Cor. 10. Ho. 24. let us imitate the barbarous Magi, yet does he not say (as our Authors parenthesis would have him) that we should imitate them in worshipping our Lord, but onely tells us that they address'd themselves unto him, [...], with a great deal of fear or horrour: Let us therefore stir up our selves, (saith he) [...], and shew [...], far greater fear then they. For this Exposition of the word [...] the comparison requires. And that this word ordinarily bears the sence, if any would farther be inform'd, let him have recourse to Beza, or any other Commentator upon the 5. Heb. 7 and he may receive satis­faction from them.

Secondly, Did Chrysostome indeed speak of Adoration, yet might he bid us imitate these Magi, not by adoring the Elements, but him that is represented by them. Hom. 8q. in Matth. Thus when elsewhere he sayes, that it is Christ who begs and receives [Page 200]in the poor mans sheaf, and bids us reverence him: I suppose he would not have the reverence done to the poor man, but directed to our Lord and Saviour.

The other three Citations tell us onely this, Sect. 21 that they did adore Christs flesh in the Sacrament; Mr. Cr. p. 131. and what is that to the purpose; for it is very well known that the Greek [...], and the Latine Adoro, are used by the Fathers for any kind of reverence; as when it is said by Tertullian, Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem; and by the Council of Car­thage, apud Cyprianum; Adorabilia Scripturae verba, & [...], as Isid. Pelusiot. Lib. 1. Ep. 136.

But to come to particulars; Sect. 22 that place of Saint Ambrose doth not necessarily refer to the Sacrament. De Sp. l. 3. c. 1.

Answ. But were it to be understood of the Eucharist, he saith no more then this; That in these mysteries we worship Christ, and consequently the flesh of Christ, as being not divided from him; but he doth not say, that in adoring the mysteries we adore Christ.

And as for Saint Augustine, Sect. 23 he propounds the very same Objection: ‘I fear (saith he) to worship the Earth, lest he that made Heaven and Earth should damn me for it; thus fluctuating I turn to Christ, and here I find how the Earth may be worshipped, because flesh is of the Earth; now he took flesh upon him, and gave us his flesh to eat, which no man eats, nisi prius adoraverit, but he that hath first adored, viz. Christ;’ As it follows, cum adoras illum, that is, when you worship him, (to wit, Christ,) Let not the thoughts be of the flesh: No, you must not worship that alone, but as con­joyned with the Deity) Do we eat that flesh that is the body which we worship? Saint Austine will tell us presently, no; for he brings in Christ speaking to his Disciples thus; ‘You eat not the body which you see; I have commended to you a Sacrament, which being spiritually understood shall quicken you.’ That which is brought out of the 120 Epistle needs no further answer, but onely to note, that our Adversary hath added (it) to worship, determining the object, which Saint Austine did not; and by the same reason (saith the Lord Du Plessis) may be added to body transubstantiated or what you please.

Sect. 24 Now that the primitive Church did not terminate such [Page 201]Adoration upon the Elements, is made out evidently by the Learned D. Taylor in these words: Lib. de trans. towards the end. ‘If the Primitive Church had ever taught that Divine worship was to be given to the Sacrament, it had been certain that the Heathen would have retorted most of the Arguments upon their heads, by which the Christians reproved their worshipping of Images. The Christians upbraided them with worshipping the works of their hands, to which themselves gave what figure they pleased, and then by certain formes consecrated them; and made by invocation (as they supposed) a Divi­nity to dwell there. They objected to them, that they worshipped that which could neither see, nor hear, nor smell, nor taste, nor move, nor understand; That which could grow old and perish, that could be broken and burn'd, that was subject to the injury of rats and mice, of worms and creeping things, that can be taken by Ene­mies, and carried away; That is kept under lock and key for fear of Thieves, and sacrilegious persons: Now if the Church of those ages had practis'd and thought, as they have at Rome in these last ages, might not they have said, why might not we as well as you? Do not you wor­ship that with divine honours, and call it your God, which can be burnt and broken, which your selves form into a round or square figure, which the oven first hardens: And then your Priests consecrate, and by invocation make to be your God, which can see no more, nor hear, nor smell, then the silver and gold upon our images. Do not you adore that which rats and mice eat? which can grow mouldy and sowre, which you keep under locks and barrs for fear your God be stolne? Did not Lewis the ninth pawn your Deity to the Sultan of Egypt, insomuch that to this day the Egyptian Escucheons, by way of Triumph, bear upon them a pix with a wafer in it? True it is, that if we are beaten from our Cities we carry our gods with us; But did not the Jesuites carry your Host, (which you call God) about their necks from Venice in the time of their interdict? And now, why do you reprove that in us which you do your selves? What could have been answer'd to them if the Doctrine and accidents of the times had furnished them [Page 202]with the like instances? In vain it would have been to have replyed; Yea, but ours is the true God, and yours the false gods. For they would easily have made a rejoynder, that this is to be prov'd by some other Argument: In the mean time, all your Objections against our worshipping of Images return violently upon you, upon this account; since none of the witty and subtle Adversaries of Christi­anity ever did or could make this defence by way of re­crimination, it is certain there was no occasion given; And therefore those trifling pretences made out of some sayings of the Fathers, pretending the practice of wor­shipping the Sacrament, must needs be Sophistry and Illu­sion, and need no particular consideration.’

Will they say that the Fathers kept these mysteries secret, Sect. 29 and so the Heathens could not be acquainted with what they did? I answer. But were not there wise and subtle Apo­states, such as Julian, such as the pesecutors of the Church forc'd to relinquish their profession of Christianity? Such as turn'd Christians chiefly upon these Arguments, enforced upon them by the Champions of the Christian cause? Doth not Saint Paul tell us, that even in his time all that were in Asia fell away from the truth, 2 Tim. 1.15. And could it be that none of these should be able to retort this Objection? Was it not strange that none of the Converts of the Church should be scandaliz'd at this, when as Avicenna presently cries out, Quandoquidem Christiani adorant, quod comedunt, sit anima mea cum Philosophis.

CHAP. XII.

THe State of this Question is not, Sect. 1 as our Author would perswade us, Mr. C. p. 138. Ibid. whether ‘The receiving in both kinds be necessary to the essence of the Communion;’ (Albeit that be very true) but whether the administring the Sacrament in both kinds to the people, or Priests non-Conficients (ca­pable of it in both kinds) be not necessary necessitate prae­cepti, or from the injunction of our blessed Saviour; or, in a word, whether the with-holding of the Cup from such be not a violation of the will of Christ; If so, then farewel Trent Council. Now this we assert to be so; our Author on the contrary will make it good, that the Fathers thought the contrary, and appeals to Doctor Peirces Conscience, Ibid.whether if he should side with us in it, he should not be over­whelmed with the Depositions of the most ancient Fathers a­gainst him; And then he produceth his old Arguments in defence of this apparent Novelty.

And, first, he tells us out of Tertullian and Cyprian, Sect. 2 that during the times of persecution the Eucharist was delivered to the faithful under the species of Bread alone, Ibid.and carried [Page 202] [...] [Page 203] [...] [Page 204]home to be reverently participated by them according to their par­ticular Devotions.

To which we Answer; P. 184. First, in the words of Doctor Featly, That the Sacrament was anciently carried home in both kinds, and not in one, as the Romanist here pleadeth. And this is proved from Justin Martyr, who in his second Apology declaring the order of the Church, saith thus, Of the things that be consecrated, viz. the Bread, Water and Wine, they give a part to every one, and carry them to those that be absent. And Gregory Nazianzen writes to his sister Gor­gonia, [...]. that if her hand had laid up any portion of the tokens of the pretious Body and Blood of Christ, in her Devotions she mingled it with her tears, and so received it.

2. See Dr. Taylor duc. dub. B. 2. c. 3. p. 425. We acknowledge, that it was attempted to be changed upon occasion of the Eremites, who coming but seldome to Church could but seldome receive the Chalice; but desiring more frequently to communicate, they carried the consecrated Bread with them into their Cels; and when they had a mind to it, in that imperfect manner, Can. 3.did celebrate the Lords Supper; But this custome was condemned with a curse in the Council held at Caesar-Augusta in Spain; Non Consump­sisse in Ecclesiâ. which saith, If any man receive the Sacrament, and can be proved not to have finished it in the Church, let him be accursed for ever.

3. We say that the Doctors of the Church in Tertullian and Saint Cyprians time did think it necessary to receive the Cup, and therefore could not be thought to have approved this half communion except in cases of necessity.

Justin Martyr (who was before Tertullian) tells us, P. 97. 98. that the Deacons distributed to all present the body and blood, and that the Apostles in their Gospels had delivered to them, [...], that Christ had so commanded them. S. Lib. 2. Ep. 63. Cyprian tells us, that if it be not lawful to break one of Christs least Commandements, much less is it lawful to break any of those great commandments belonging to the passion of our Lord or the Sacrament of our Redemption, Hom. 16. on Numb.or by humane Tradition to alter them. And Origen saith (speaking of the Sacrament) the Christian people embrace him, who saith, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Now he that saith so, surely, must be supposed to [Page 205]think it necessary that the people should have this blood to drink which is so necessary to their spiritual life.

Fourthly and lastly, Sect. 9 we say that the Fathers cited by you in the Margine do not affirm that they received the bread onely. To. 3 l. 9. c. 3. And this you have been told by Chamier and o­ther Learned Protestants upon this Controversie; pro­duce your Fathers in the next, and confirm it from their words.

The next supposed Evidence he brings, is, Sect. 3 the communi­cating of Infants in one kind. Now here, again, We answer as before.

1. That Saint Cyprian and others cited in his Margine do not say, that the Infants which communicated received in one kind onely, and that they mention but one kind, doth prove no more the thing in contest, then Saint Pauls charge of the unworthy persons not discerning the Lords Body proves that he participated not of the Cup; or if he did participate, discern'd it.

2. We say that Infants did communicate in both kinds; As you may see in D. Feat­ly's Grand Sa­criledge. p. 186. Chamier To. 4. l. 9. and this is proved from the testimony of the same Cyprian, from Saint Anstin, Ep. 107. (To which you may adde a passage in his Hypognostic's cited by the Learned Chamier) and by Gennadius.

3. Sect. 14 We acknowledge the Church in Communicating of Infants did sometimes dip the Holy bread into the Chalice, and so ministred the Sacrament: but this is an Evidence, that they thought not the bread alone sufficient.

‘4. We acknowledge also, that upon occasion of this use, Bishop Taylor, duc. dub. l. 2. c. 3, p. 426. Can. de Conse­crat. dist. 2d. some fell in love with the trick, and would have had it so in ordinary Administrations; but against those Pope Ju­lius opposeth himself, declaring it to be against the Divine Order, and Apostolical Constitutions, and contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles, and Custome of the Church; and his words are remarkable to shew from whence this Article is to be determined. Non difficulter hoc ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur, in quâ ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum Mysteria proces­serunt: shewing that the very institution of the Sacrament is the Fountain from whence we are to derive the truth in this inquiry: But when this superstition was again re­vived [Page 206]about the year 580. the now mentioned Decree of Pope Julius was repeated in the third Council of Bracca­ra, and all set right again according to the perpetual cu­stome of the Church, and the institution of our blessed Lord: and their pretence (which was, lest they should spill any thing of the holy Chalice) laid aside as trifling and superstitious.’

His third instance is the Communicating of the sick and penitents at the point of death, Sect. 4 Ibid. which according to him was in one kind: Now to this we say, that the two last an­swers given to the former instance suit to this. For the Church did sometimes administer the bread dipped in the Chalice to dying persons; And upon that occasion also it was abused, and the opposition now mentioned was made to that abuse. Next, we say, his proofs are not concluding, in­deed Euseb. l. 6. tells us, That the old mans mouth was dry, and therefore the Boy was desired to moysten the Bread by sopping it: but thence to argue, that the old man received no Wine, is a strange and contradictory inference.

3. We say, and that out of the same Authors by him ci­ted, that such did communicate in both kinds. This appears by the charge that Dionysius Alexand. Euscb. Eccl. Hist. lib. 6. c. 6. gave to his Priests, that if any that were ready to die desired to partake of the Holy Mysteries, they should obtain their desires, If in health they had been humble suiters for it: Yea this may be gathered from Justin Martyr, who, in the place forecited, saith, That the body and Blood of our Lord before hand consecrated was sent to those that were absent, amongst whom were neces­sarily the sick.

‘Lastly, Bishop Taylor, duc. dub. l. 2. c. 3 N. 429. S. 28. the Council of Turon considering the necessities of sick and dying persons appointed the consecrated Bread to be sopped in the Consecrated Chalice; adding this rea­son, that the Priest might truly say, The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be profitable to you for the Re­mission of your sins unto Eternal Life:’ 'wherein they in­timate, that it was necessary to the truth of these words, and cousequently to the receiving an entire Sacrament, that the sick person should participate of both the Elements, and consequently never dreamed of your concomitance, the [Page 207]onely salvo imaginable, for this your sacriledge.

Fourthly, Sect. 5 He tells us this was practis'd in Communions at Sea. Ibid.

Now, First, He should have made this good by testimo­ny, and not have produced it back'd with no authority; especially when,

Secondly, 'Tis manifest from their asserting the necessity of both species, that they would not omit it if it could be otherwise; and therefore Greg. Nazianz. in praise of Gorgonia, saith, Omnes in Navi residentes Corpus & Sangui­nem Christi accepisse.

Thirdly, If this were practis'd, This Answer agrees to all the fore-mentioned instances. it was onely in case of ne­cessity; and that which is onely made lawful by an unavoid­able necessity, when that necessity is taken away is unlawful; And indeed, by the same reason a Jew might have prov'd the neglect of Circumcision lawful at any time, because when the Children of Israel travell'd in the wilderness, by reason of their uncertain removes, it was necessary to omit it.

Fourthly, I cannot tell what necessity of communicating in one kind should happen to them, since they might take Wine with them, or go to Land to procure it.

Fifthly, As to the Communions sent to other Provinces, Sect. 6 I know they were wont to send a loaf to one another, in token of mutual Friendship, Love, and Unity; Yea, they had their Eulogia, in token of their Communion in the same Church. Stillingfleet, Iren. p. 399, 370. But that they participated of it as Sacramental Bread, or that they did it without Wine; or doing it so, supposed themselves to celebrate an entire Sacrament, are things remaining to be proved. And thus we have endeavoured to return somewhat satisfa­ctory unto our Adversaries pretences for Justification of their half-Communion; It remains, that I briefly confute the same, which I shall endeavour by these degrees.

(1.) Christ Instituted the Sacrament in both kinds; Sect. 7 this is granted by our Authour, nor could he possibly deny it.

(2.) I say Christ Instituted in both kinds not only for Priests but Laicks; which appears (1.) from the Reasons annex'd to the receiving of both kinds; and (1.) The Reason of their receiving the bread is this; because 'tis the [Page 208]body broken for them; take it (saith our Saviour) this is my body which was broken for you; Ratio legis est lex. This therefore being the Reason why they were to take and eat, and this Reason concerning all believers as well as the Apostles and other priests, the institution or precept to take and eat most con­sequently concern them; and if it do not, by what Argument will they conclude, that this Institution, as to any part of it, concerns Women, yea, or the successours of the Apostles? Now transfer the Argument to the cup, and it runs thus; The Reason of participating of the Cup, Mat. 26.28. viz. (Because it is the Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for the re­mission of sins) doth concern Laicks as well as priests: Therefore the command [drink ye all of this] to which the Reason is annex'd, 1 Cor. 11. concerns them also. Again, another Rea­son why we must do this, why we must eat the Bread, and drink the Cup, is, that we may remember Christs death, and shew it forth till His second coming, as the Scripture speaks, and all the world acknowledgeth; and doth not this concern all believers as well as priests? Yea, seeing the words recorded, vers. 26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this blood, 1 Cor. 11.24, 25, 26.you shew the Lords death till he come, were not (as we can find in any of the Evangelists) spoken by our Saviour, they must be spoken by S. Paul, who ap­plies himself to the whole Church of Corinth, and conse­quently the words preceding, this do, as often as you drink, in remembrance of me, must belong to them by reason of the connective particle, which connects the 25 and 26 verses; and makes it necessary, that the same persons should be re­lated to in the words; this do, &c. for as often as ye eat, &c.

Again, Sect. 8 I Argue thus, that which is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laicks as well as Priests when worthi­ly receiv'd, concerns Laicks as well as priests; But the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laicks as well as Priests, 1 Cor. 10.16. as saith the Apostle to the Corinthians, (who I suppose were not all priests) upon this account exhorting them not to partake of Idol Sacrifices (in which I suppose he did not grant a liberty to the people, but intended by this argument to restrain them from partaking of the table of [Page 209]Devils, as well as priests.) The Major is evident, for sure it concerns Laicks to partake of that which is to them the Communion or Communication of the body of Christ: this argument may also be transferred unto the Cup: for that being the Communion of the blood of Christ, when wor­thily receiv'd, as well as the bread, it equally concerns them to participate of that as of the bread.

Now that which I foresee may be return'd to these argu­ments is this; Sect. 9 That the people by participating of the bread do participate of the Cup, which is the blood shed for the remission of their sins; that is, they participate of that which is the blood, it being concomitant with the bread, and so the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ; but not so only, but also of his blood.

Now (1) (To omit the refutation of this figment of concomitance till anon) this Answer destroys the Energy of Christs words, who, after they had participated of the body, bids them also drink of this cup, because it was his blood shed for sinners, when as yet he knew that they had already done so, and could have told him that he might have spared his cup and his Reason both.

(2.) Were this so, then would the participation of the cup be evidently superfiuous, it being Instituted after the participation of the body, to exhibit that blood to us which by the participation of the Body was already exhi­bited.

Arg. (3.) Sect. 10 If in this Institution the Apostles were consi­dered not as priests, Bishop Taylor duc. Du [...]. p. 422, 423. S. par. 2. but as representatives of the whole Church, Then was the Sacrament Instituted in both kinds not only for priests but Laicks; for that which was given to them, and they required to receive as representatives of the whole Church, must concern the whole Church, not only priests but Laicks: Now if they were not to be considered in this capacity, where shall we find a warrant that the people may receive at all? for if they receiv'd only in the capacity of Clergy men, then the Institution extends no farther; and 'tis as much Sacriledge for the people to eat and drink the Symbols, as 'tis to offer at the consecration (for 'tis a med­ling with Sacra, which equally belongs not to them.) But [Page 210]if they receiv'd in the capacity of Christians onely, then they receiv'd the Commandment for drinking in the Chalice for themselves, and for all Christians. Their usual evasion is, that the Apostles as Laicks receiv'd the Bread; But then when Christ said, hoc facite, he made them Priests, and then gave them the Chalice as representatives of the Clergy, not of the people.

This one would think were a strange shift, and yet 'tis such a one as they are forced to fly unto.

But, First, Let it be considered how unlikely 'tis that Christ should at one time institute two Sacraments (for they pretend Ordination also to be a Sacrament) of so different natures, and yet speak nothing of the use, or the reason, the benefit or the necessity of one of them; nor tell them that he did so, nor explicate the mysterie, nor distinguish the rite or the words, but leave all this to be supposed by the most improbable construction in the world.

Secondly, If the Apostles were made Priests by hoc facite, spoken before the institution of the Chalice, then doth not hoc facite, signifie offerte sacrificium, as the Trent Council (that infallible interpreter of Scripture) would have it, and consequently cannot make them Priests, that is, in their lan­guage, Sacrificers. For by their own Doctrine to offer both kinds is necessary to a sacrifice.

Thirdly, If the Apostles were thus made Priests, and drank of the Chalice under that capacity, then seeing this is a Command (as we presently shall evince) it ought to be followed, at least so far, and all the Priests that are present ought to receive the Chalice; which because they do not in the Church of Rome, it is apparent that they praevaricate the institution; and that they may exclude the Laity from the Cup, they use their Clergy as bad when non-Conficients.

Thirdly, Sect. 11 I say, that the institution of Christ touching the receiving of both Elements ought not to be violated. This will sufficiently be made out, if it can appear that the institution includes in it a Command to receive those Ele­ments, and that not temporary, but reaching even to us: Now the Trent Council tells us, that hoe facite, &c. is a command or an injunction to the Disciples and their successours to [Page 211]offer the same body and blood which was offered by him. Yea, the Apostle Intimates to us, that this is a standing In­stitution, in telling us of shewing forth the Lords death till [...]e come. Now it is evident, that hoc facite is a command to eat the Bread or Body of Christ; in that it is said, Take, eat, this is my Body; this do, this which I bid you do; what was that? eat his Body. But it is more clear concerning the Cup, of which it is said, this do as oft as you drink it, in remembrance of me: Clearly shewing that to do this was to drink the Cup; and with greater evidence if possible from the 26. verse, where the Apostle infers, that we do this in remembrance of Christ, because as oft as we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we shew forth the Lords de [...]th till he come; Clearly intimating, that to do this is to eat this Bread and to drink this Cup: Wherefore this being a Command, it is apparent we have a Command to eat this Bread and drink this Cup, [...]. Sect. 12

Now that Antiquity sides with us is beyond-dispute; In 1 Cor. 11. Quest. 59. in Levit. for beside the evidence already given, St. Augustine saith, Not onely no man is forbidden to take the blood of the sacrifice for nourishment; but, on the contrary, all men who desire life are exhorted to drink it: By whom? sure, by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles.

Pope Leo calls the refusal of the Cup, Hom 4. de quadr. practised by the Manichees, sacrilegious simulation, and would have such men driven from the society of the Saints: Yea, when at the gene­ral Council of Calcedon, Act 10. there was an accusation brought in against Iba, Bishop of Edessa, that in some Churches of his Diocess there was but little Wine, and that corrupt and sowre, provided for the Altar to be sacrificed and distributed to the people, that Bishop was severely taxed; Whereby it appears, that at the time of this Councill, the Ad­ministring of the Sacrament of the Lords supper to the people without Wine was held a prophanation of it. De Consecrat. dist. 2. compe­rimus &c. The words of Pope Gelasius are remarkable, (as you find them in Gratian) We find that some receiving a portion of Christs holy Body, abstain from the Cup of his most sacred Blood; which because they do out of I know not what superstition, we command that either they receive the entire Sacraments, or that they be entire­ly [Page 212]with-held from them;In Psa. 6. poen.because this division of one and the self-same mysterie cannot be without Grand Sacriledge. Thus a Pope, è Cathedra; And Saint Gregory cries out, Who can sufficiently express what a mercy it is to have these mysteries of Christs Body and Blood distributed, De C rp. & Sang. Domini, c. 15. & 19.by the perception of which the Church, his Body, pascitur & potatur: I will conclude with Paschasius, who tells us, That neither the Flesh without the Blood, nor the Blood without the Flesh, is rightly communi­cated: And expounding the words of Christ, saith, He alone it is that breaks this Bread, and by the hands of his Mini­sters distributeth it to all believers, saying, Take, drink ye all of this, as well Ministers as the rest of the faithful. He that would see more of Antiquity let him go to Cassander, and De Eccles. l. 4. c. 19. Modrevius, Papists; and to Doctor Featly, who vindicates these places from Bellarmines exceptions.

We pass on now to the Fourth Section; Sect. 13 wherein we are told, M [...]. C. p. 139. That the Receivers in one kind, in the fore-mentioned cases, did not think they received more of Christ at publick Communions in the Church, when the Sacrament was delivered in both species, then when at home in one onely.

But, First, How came he acquainted with their Mind? Hath hi [...] Guardian Angel told him so?

Secondly, In the fore-mentioned cases, which include in them a necessity of participating in one kind, (if there be any such) we can readily allow them to expect as much benefit from one as both, yea from spiritual Communion as cor [...]oreal, or by the Elements, when this latter way can­not be had; but thence to argue against the necessity of par­ticipating by outward Symbols would be strangely ridicu­lous and impertinent.

But he tells us farther, Sect. 14 that they believed that entire Christ was received by them in each divided particle of the spe­cies of Bread,Ibid.and every divided drop of the species of Wine; and that the Flesh of Christ eould not be received without con­comitance of the Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ; Nor his Blood without the concomitance of his flesh, &c. Now, not to require a proof of him, that ever the Fathers made any men­tion of the species of Bread or Wine, (a strong suspicion of their ignorance of the Romanists Transubstantiation) nor to [Page 213]inquire too rigidly what pretty creatures particles of species no where subjected, and divided drops of species, should be, let us come to his proofs. Sect. 15

And, First, He summons in Saint Ambrose, to tell us, that Christ is in the Sacrament, because it is the Body (that is the representation of the Body) [...]f Christ: Next, the Council of Ephesus, to inform us, that we participate the flesh of Christ, not as common, but as truly quickening flesh; That is, which by our spiritual reception of it is made quickening to us.

And, Thirdly, Saint Austine, This he did, saith he, quodammodo con. 2. in Ps. 33. And this quo­dammodo is non rei virtute sed signifi­cante mysterio, cp. 23. ad Bonif. l. 12. in Joan. c. 32. to teach us that Christ was carried in his own hands, that is, (Christ real and corporeal di [...] carry these Elements which represented him in his hand) Ergo, in every divided particle of the species of Bread is the Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ; A Consequence very irrational and absurd: Nor will the testimony of Saint Cyrill be able to conclude the business; for if he argue from these words; The four parts of the world have divided amongst themselves his flesh, without dividing of it. I Answer, he adds, The Paschal Lamb was found amongst all the Israel­ites, divided and yet undivided; And will our Author thence argue, that he esteemed each part of the Paschal Lamb to be the whole, or that he that received the least particle thereof received the whole? [...]. If he argue from the following words, for the onely begotten (not passing into, as he rendreth it, but) being distributed to them all, and sanctifying each of their Souls and Bodies by his own flesh, is in all of them whole and entire, being every where one; for, as Saint Paul teacheth, he is not divided: I say, if hence he argue, I answer, that he is in all of them whole and entire, as being truly God, and truly (though mystically) united to them; For having san­ctified them by his flesh spiritually received, he is spiritually made one with them, as the Apostle tells us, 1 Cor. 10.17. And thus have we dispatch'd his pretences for concomitance; his fifth and sixth Sections are built upon the third and fourth, and therefore must fall with them; C. 13. S. 4. I pass on there­fore to urge an Argument against concomitance.

And (1.) Sect. 16 I will take for granted what our Author af­fords me, viz. that this Sacrament is a commemoration of [Page 214]Christs Sacrifice, Mr. C. p. 146.of his former immolation, and the real [...] shedding of his Blood; do this in remembrance of me being sufficient warrant for his assertion.

(2.) I suppose that in this Sacrament the shedding of Christs blood is by the Symbols represented.

For (1.) Why else have we the Wine separated from the bread?

(2.) How is it a representation of Christs Sacrifice up­on the cross? that being a Sacrifice in which his Sacred blood was shed?

(3.) How do we by partaking of his blood shew forth his death, but by shewing that his blood was separated from his body?

(4.) I suppose that Christs blood is represented by the wine consecrated, not antecedently to the consecration; else may it represent it in the Cellar, as well as in the Church.

(5.) I suppose that shedding of Christs Blood is the se­parating it from the body, or at least from the veins; and consequently the representation of it as shed is the repre­sentation of it as severed from the veins; but now it is im­possible that such a representation should be made to an as­sertor of concomitance, seeing he is bound to believe that where one single drop of blood is resident, there also must the Sacred body of Christ reside entirely; and consequently it is impossible that concomitance should be a truth.

(2.) Sect. 17 If there be such a necessary concomitance, then must each part exhibit whole and entire Christ, and consequently the depriving the Laity of one part must be the depriving them of whole Christ as offered to them, for the remission their sins, and Sanctification. Now then in doing so, either you deprive them of some benefit, or not; if the first, then are you Sacrilegious in depriving the people of some benefit from those Sacred mysteries they formerly received, and that agreeably to the Institution of S. Paul received from Christ, and the common practice of the Church for a thousand years.

Secondly, Then must you grant that by communicating in both kinds, more of Christ is received, contrary to your fourth Section; if the latter, then (not to speak of the su­perfluity [Page 215]of Christs instituion.) First, you must assert, that albeit a man receive entire Christ, and that worthily, and have the pardon of his sins, and the benefits of the new Co­venant sealed to him, yet may he be never the better.

And secondly, You will be troubled to give a reason why the Conficient should be obliged by you to drink the Cha­lice, and not excused by concomitance.

Thirdly, Sect. 18 If they who receive the body by concomitance receive the blood, then they who consecrate the body by reason of concomitance do also consecrate the blood (the pa­rity of Reason being most notorious) and consequently no Reason can be assigned, why Christ in his Institution should be thought to oblige us to the Consecration in both kinds, rather, then the Reception in both kinds; and therefore seeing the Trent Council saith peremptorily, De Missa, Sess. sexta. c. 10. that Christ com­manded the Apostles and their Successors to offer in both kinds, why should she not also say, that he commanded them and their Successors to distribute in both kinds?

But were this salve good, Sect. 19 yet would it not free them from the imputation of an half Sacrament, though it would from the delivering of half Christ; for seeing a Sacrament is an outward visible sign, it follows evidently that he who hath but half of the outward visible signs hath but half of the Sacrament, and consequently hath an half Sacrament; these and many other things may be alledged against this half Communion, which I suppose will a little exercise their Reason in the Answer of them; and therefore our Author did well to take Sanctuary in the infallibility of the Church, and then proceed to give some account of the Reasons that induced her to this grand Sacriledge.

And (1.) He tells us, Sect. 20 that it was done by reason of the wonderful increase of the Communicants, and decay of their devotion, whence very great danger of irreverence and effusion of the precious blood of our Lord was like to follow, if not thus prevented.

Now (1.) (Not to tell him that this excuse hath been by the Primitive Church rejected as Superstitious) lay a­side that monstrous opinion of Transubstantiation, and [Page 216]what great harm will it be, if casually and by no fault of ours, or wilfull contempt, some of the Wine should be spilt?

(2.) With what conscience can they pretend their Re­verence to the Sacrament, for this, when our Authour sup­poses there be multitudes little sensible of Religion, and so multitudes of wicked men to whom they without scruple give the holy bread which is Christs body, albeit some of them may haply vomit him, som spit him out again, some throw him to the Dogs, &c. I can very easily perswade my self that Christ had rather be spilt upon the ground, then devoured by wicked men.

Secondly, Sect. 21 He conjectures that the heresie of Berengarius might occasion this order of the Church. Mr. C. p. 142.

Ans. But who gave the Roman Church warrant to violate Christs Institution to those ends, to commit Sacriledge to uphold a gross untruth, and to conspire with the heresie of the Manichees against an Orthodox and apparent truth? and here our Authour leaves Divining, though some of his bre­thren adde, that should the Laity have the Cup, then some drops of Christs blood might stick unto their beards, some might be ejected with their spittle; and if I may be per­mitted to adde my Symbol, some of them may be poisoned by the cup; the Romanist knows how to play such pranks.

Oh, Sect. 22 Mr. C. p. 141. but a dispensation may haply be had, seeing the Trent conventicle, or the General Council of fifty Bishops, hath referred this matter to the Pope.

Ans. Very good, but with these provisoes.

(1.) That those who are willing thus to communicate do in every other thing agree with the received faith, do­ctrine and manners of the Roman Church, and religiously observe all the decrees of this Synod.

Secondly, That they believe and confess that the custom of communicating in one kind is laudable and to be obser­ved as a Law, unless the Church decree the contrary; and that those who continue to think otherwise are Hereticks (that is, she will permit the Pope to grant us a dispensation if we will acknowledge it to be needless.)

Thirdly, That they will give all Reverence to the Pope [Page 217]as Bishop and Pastor of the Universal Church, (the Pope you see hath not this power of dispensation given him for nothing) with other the like stuff; and after all these things 'tis but videtur posse concedi, it seems the Pope may grant a dispensation.

But were it, as he would have it, seeing we openly de­clare this, as one ground of our separation, that the Church of Rome necessitates us not only to receive an half Com­munion, but also to profess, that we believe this manner of Administration agreeable to the word of God, is it pos­sible that the Schisme should be on our part, who proclaim our selves willing to close with her, if she will cease to re­quire these unlawful terms of Communion; and not rather on the part of the Church of Rome, which still obstinately persists in exacting such conditions from us?

CHAP. XIII.

THe Council of Trent hath pronounced her Anathema upon all who shall affirm that in the Mass there is not offered a true and proper Sacrifice, Sect. 1 and that propitiatory: This therefore is the Doctrine of the Romanist; and we are now to consider whether Scripture, Reason, or the Fathers of the Primitive times do countenance it.

1. Sect. 2 Therefore the name of Sacrifice is attributerd to those things, both by Scripture and the Primitive Fathers, which even the most rigid Papist must acknowledge not to be tru­ly and properly so called; and consequently the Argument taken from this Topick must be invalid.

And first, [...], in locum: [...] Haer. 79. Coul. Collor. in Lovit. l. 5. Mr. C. P. 146. l. 2 [...]. De Civ. Dei, c. 10. C. 20. v. 6. Qui proprie jam vocantur in Ecclesiâ Sa­cerdotes. the preaching of the Gospel is called a Sacrifice, Rom. 15.16. where the Apostle tells the Romans that he did ( [...]) Sacrifice the Gospel of God. Whence Origen stiles the preaching of the Word a work of Sacrificing, Epiph. saith that the Apostles were elected to Sacrifice the Gospel, and Cyril of Alexandria, that the Priest did slay the Host of the Word of God, and offer the victimes of Holy Doctrine. To omit the like sayings of Chrysostome, and others: and hither we refer that of Saint Austine (cited by Mr. C. to evince this proper Sacrifice) where descanting upon that passage of the Apocalyps, They shall be Priests with God and Christ, and shall reign with him 1000. years; he informs us that this Text speaks not in a peculiar manner of Bishops and Presbyters. [Page 219]to whom the name of Priests was appropriated in the Church, but is to be extended to all Christians, so stiled, as being members of their high Priest. So that he saith they are Priests properly so called, not in reference to any proper sacrifice to be offer­ed by them (of which no mention at all was made:) but in Opposition to other Christians not entred into holy Orders; Seipsum obtulit & ejus sacri­ficii similitudi­nem in suae pas­sionis memori­am celebrandum obtulit, lib. qu. 83. qu. 6. Epist. 23. ad Bonif. and therefore catachrestically called so. And that Saint Austine was far enough from asserting the Eucharist to be a proper sacrifice, is extremely evident, in that he calls it the similitude of Christs sacrifice, and tells us He that saith Christ is immolated in this Sacrament would not lie, because if Sacra­ments had not a similitude of things of which they are Sacra­ments, they could not be so: Now from this similitude they take the names of the things themselves, even (as saith he) after a manner the Sacrament of Christs Body is his Body, Secundùm quendam mo­dum.and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ his blood: which there­fore, according to Saint Austine, are such only by way of si­militude, or by a Metonymie of the sign for the thing signi­fied, and accordingly the Sacrifice must be so stiled on the same account: And hence it is that elsewhere he saith, L. 10. Cont. Faust. c. 2. L. 20. c. 21. and c. 28. Chri­stiani peracti ejuedem sacrifi­cii memoriam, celebrant sacro­sancta oblatione & perticipati­one corporis & sanguit is Chri­sti. That which by all is called a true sacrifice, is the sign of a true sacrifice; and then presently after will have it to be a sacrifice of remembrance, or the remembrance of a sacrifice.

§. 3. Secondly, Almes and Offerings made for the poor are called Sacrifices: S. Paul stiles them Offerings well pleasing and acceptable to God, Philip. 4.14. and Victims, Heb. 13.16. l. 4. c. 32. De Elemosyna. L. 4. c. 32. Mr C. p. 114. 1. Irenaeus saith, That these first fruits are the Offerings of the Ʋniverse, S. l. 4. c. 32. Dee Elemosyna. L. 4. c. 32. M. C. p. 114.1. Cyprian checks the rich widow for approaching the Lords Table without her Corban, without a Sacrifice, yea eating of the sacrifice the poor man bronght. And in St. Austins phrase, the Alms of pious Matrons are Oblations. And of this sacrifice doth: Irenaeus speak (in the Sentence urged by Mr. C. to evince this proper sacrifice) when he tells us That our Saviour giving counfel to his Disciples to offer the first fruits to God of his creatures; (not as if he wanted any thing; but that they might not be unfruitful, or ungrateful) took the creature of bread, and gave thanks, saying, this is my Body, Qui est ex ea creatura quae est secun [...]um nos.and the C [...]p likewise (which consists of a creature which is u­sual amongst us, he confessed to be his blood, and brought a new [Page 220]Oblation of the New Testament, which the Church receiving from the Apostles offers through all the world unto that God who gives us nourishment (to wit) the first fruits of his gifts in the New Testament, of which the Prophet Malachy speaks, cap. 1. vers. 11. where it is manifestly declared that the former people (of the Jewes) have ceased to offer unto God, and in all places a pure sacrifice is now offered to him: Where first, not to deal rigidly with him, in telling him that Irenaeus doth not determine whether this Oblation be Eucharistical, or Ilastical; or if Ilastical, whether properly or rather me­tonimycally: so I confidently affirm that the Sacrifice here mentioned can not be the sacrifice of the Mass, or of Christs Body and Bloud; the reasons are:

1. From these words, Chap. 34. The Oblation of the Church which the Lord taught us to be offered in the whole world is reputed a pure sacrifice before God, and acceptable to him; not because God wants our gift or sacrifice; but because he that offereth is glorified thereby if his gift be accepted: When therefore thou offerest this gift at the Altar: Matt. 5.24, 25. Go first and be reconciled to thy brother, then come and offer it. You must therefore offer to God the first fruits of his creatures; Deut. 16.26.as Moses said, Thou shalt not appear empty before God. Now had he spoken of the sacrifice of Christs Body and Blood, would he have told us that it is reputed apure sacrifice, not is so; when to be, and to be reputed are disparates.

But secondly, the Oblation which he speaks of is that which all Christians offer not the Priest onely as is evident from the two places cited, when thou offerest thy gift. And thou shalt not appear empty before God. Seeing therefore that the first fruits of the creature to be offered to God here, are not the Body and Blood of Christ; (and Irenaeus tells us that he speaks of this Oblation which the Church offers throughout all the world) neither can that be such.

3. You have a further Evidence in that it is said, We offer this sacrifice to God; not that he wants it, but that we should not be unfruitful, For that this passage must refer to Almes, not to Christs Body; Let Irenaeus himself assure us, who in this 34. Chapter tells us, that God wants not any thing of ours; but yet 'tis needful we offer somewhat to him: [Page 221]for, as Solomon saith, Pro. 19.17. He that hath mercy on the poor lendeth to the Lord; and that God which wants nothing yet takes our good works as done to him, that he may give us a reward of his good things for them, as our Lord saith, Come you blessed of my Father &c. for I was an hungry and you gave me to eat; I, Mat. 24.25. and a little after he tells us, that God will have these things done by us, that we may not be unfruitful; so that evi­dently this refers to Almes and the Oblations at the Eu­charist, not of the Eucharist; and therefore the same words in this Sentence touching the same matter, must in all rea­son be esteemed to refer unto them also.

Again, in the same Chapter he addes, The Sacrifice doth not sanctifie the man, but the conscience of him that offers, be­ing pure, doth sanc [...]ifie the Sacrifice. Seeing therefore with simplicity (or sincerity.) The Church doth offer the Sa­crifice is justly reputed pure by God. And hence it is that Saint Paul calls them an Odour of sweetness, an Offering acceptable and well pleasing unto God: For we must offer un­to God; Thus the Church offers to him the first Fruits, and that of his Creatures; and a little after, we offer, sanctifying the Creature.

Now first, can it be tollerably said, we sanctifie the sacri­fice of Christs body, and that it sanctifieth not us? That this sacrifice is reputed pure before God from our sincerity in offering? That the Apostle in the place now cited, speaks of the Body of Christ, not Alms? And consequently can the Offering of the first Fruits of his Creatures be any other? Seeing therefore this Offering of the New Testament which the Church offers is expresly said to be primitias suorum mu­nerum, the first fruits of her gifts offered to him that affords us sustenance: is it not rationally inferred, that it refers also to these Almes and Oblations made at the Sacrament, not to any Oblation of the Sacrament? well then;

‘2. Mr. Mede's Christian Si­crifice. In short in the Primitive times the Church of God was wont to offer very freely of what God afforded them; and amongst the rest, they offered Bread and Wine to him that was [...], chief Minister of the Brethren, who took it and gave thanks and glory to the Lord of the whole world: then made a large and prolix thanksgiving to him [Page 222]that had made them worthy of such gifts, and the rest of the Offerings were distributed either to serve the necessities of the poor, or for other uses of the Church, as you may find in Justin Martyr, Apol. 2. and Irenaeus, every where.’ And to this it is that he here refers, when he tells us that our Lord instituting this Sacrament taught us a new Oblation of the New Testament.

I confess Bellarmine here objecteth that Irenaeus speaks of such a sacrifice as was to succeed the sacrifices made in the Jewish Paedagogy; Now such were not the sacrifices of Almes, Prayers, Thanksgivings; and therefore Irenaeus can­not be supposed to speak of them.

But first, Irenaeus doth no where say, that the sacrifice he speakes of succeeds those of the Jewish Laws, but onely that they have ceased to Offer, and in their places we now do.

2. See this Argu­ment shamtful­ly balfled, in Mat. Boehart. traitte du sa­crifice de la M [...]sse, seconde partiè, Chapi­tre 5. Will it hence follow, that we must offer a proper sa­crifice as they did? Doth not our service succeed theirs, and must it be therefore carnal, as well as this service of the Jewes? If this Argument be good, our sacrifice succeeds a proper sacrifice, and therefore it is so: must not this also be esteemed so? Our sacrifice succeeded a bloodysacrifice and therefore it is such; our sacrifice succeeded a sacrifice of bruit beasts, and therefore it is such,

Our second Consideration is, that the Eucharist may be called a sacrifice symbollically, as representing, apply­ing, and some way impetrating for us all the benefits of Christs real sacrifice on the Cross: For seeing the signes are often put for the things signified, Chrysost. H. 27. in Heb. [...], Euseb. dem. Evan l. 1. [...] Vide For. Cons. mod. p. 451. and the [...] acquire the names of what they represent, and bring to our remembrance; Yea seeing the Apostle tells the Galathians, that Christ was crucified amongst them; because his suffer­ings on the Crofs were most lively represented to them by his preaching; why may not we on the same account call the Eucharist in this sense a sacrisice, as being that in which Christs sufferings, are far more lively and accurately set forth? Yea, a perfect remembrance of a sacrifice as the Fathers call it? yea secondly, we allow it to be a sacrifice in this sence, as exhibi ting to us all the benefits of Christs sacrifice upon the Cross. [Page 223]for we all allow, that what ever Christ dying and shed­ding his blood for us procured, is not only represented there, but applyed to the faithful, and exhibited to his faith.

And here come in the residue of his citations and (1.) That of Ignatius is Spurious, Epist. ad Smyrn. S. 2 p. 144. you may find the words upon which the force of the argument depends, written in Red Letters, in the Edition of Bishop Ʋsher.

Secondly, As to that of S. Cyprian, In his Epis. to Caecil. (not. Cyril. as Mr. C.) ‘who was more a Priest of the most high God then our Lord who offered a sa­crifice to God the Father, and offered the very same that Mel­chisedec offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, his own body and blood, (which it could not be otherwise then figuratively, or significatively) and commanded the same (viz. bread and wine) to be afterward done in memory of him; that Priest therefore doth truly supply the place and function of Christ, and imitates that which Christ did, who undertakes to offer, as he sees Christ himself offered, viz.’ bread and wine, as the Ancient Church was wont to do (and this they believed our blessed Saviour himself did, ‘when at the Institution of this holy Rite, Mr. Mede, ib. he took the Bread and Cup into his hands, and looking up to heaven gave thanks and blessed) who after his example first offered the bread and wine unto God, to agnize him Lord Paramount of the Creature, and then received them from him again in a banquet, as the Symbols of the body and blood of his Son:’ now the words thus expounded have nothing in them Son: now the pertinent to your purpose, nothing to prove any sacrifice of Christs body; much less to prove a true and proper sacri­fice, which that S. Cyprian never dream'd of we may be sufficiently assured from this Epistle to Caecilius, whose words are these, because (saith he) we make mention of Christs passion in all our sacrifices, (for the passion of the Lord is the sacrifice we offer) we ought to do no other thing then what Christ did; If the passion of Christ be the Sacrifice we offer, how is the Eucharist properly so? seeing the Scripture tells us that Christ ought to suffer only once, and his glo­rious body is now impatible, how doth he really suffer? and if not, then is there only a remembrance of his passion [Page 224]made, and therefore his passion (that is, the Commemo­ration of it) must sure be call'd the sacrifice offered by the Church. Ubi supra, and especially in his first Chap. of the same, 2. part. where Bellar. Arg. hence is abundantly re­futed. Mr. C. p. 145. And as Bochartus hath it, how impertient is it to alledge a passage where it is said that Christ offered the same which Melchisedech offered, which was undoubtedly true bread and wine, without any transubstantiation, to prove that Christ was sacrificed under the Species of bread and wine.

Lastly, The eighteenth Canon of the Nicene Council tells us, ‘that it is a thing which neither Canon nor custome hath delivered, that those who have no power of offering,’ (viz. the Symbols in commemoration of Christs sacrifice made up­on the Cross) should give the Body of Christ (that is, these Symbols of his body) to those who offer.

Ans. What of all this? Is there any thing in this passage to evince a true and proper sacrifice of Christs body and blood?

Secondly, Eusebius, who was present at this Council, can tell us what kind of sacrifice the Church then offered. Dem. Evang. l. 1. c. 10. [...]. For thus he speaks, Christ offered an excellent sacrifice for the sal­vation of us all, delivering to us the memory thereof to be presented to God in lieu of a sacrifice; And towards the end of that chapter, we sacrifice the memory of that great sacrifice according to the mysteries delivered to us by Christ.

Secondly, Gelasius from whose Authority you have this Canon, [...]. Premire partie Chapitre 10. tells us moreover, that the Nicene Fathers said, the Lamb of God was here sacrificed by the Priest, without a sacri­fice, that is, Representatively so, for so the Grecians call'd [...], holy things not offered, as you may see evinced by Bochartus de la Messe, where the interpretation of Car­dinal Perron is abundantly refuted, and it is made good that the words were not intended to signifie [...], as the Cardinal contends, but only sans estre Sacrifie which is the proper and natural signification of the word [...].

Fourthly, and lastly, we allow it to be a propitiatory sacrifice, for as much as by the right participation of it we enjoy remission of sins; not as if we thought there was any force in those mysteries to satisfie Gods justice; but because [Page 225]hereby we have sealed to us that remission which was pur­chased by the sacrifice of the Cross. And this affords us an ‘Answer to that of S. Chrysostome, Hom. 21. Mr. C. p. 145. that the Eucharist is a sa­crifice for remission of sins, for the Priest that offers, for the multitude, for the procuring plenty,’ which indeed it was esteemed partly upon this account that so many peti­tions were put up to God at the solemnity; (for this obla­tion of prayer was made through Jesus Christ commemora­ted in the creatures of bread and wine; ‘and it was the cu­stome of the Antients, upon the consecration of the dona, Mede ib. to be the Body and Blood of Christ, to offer to the Divine Majesty as it were over the Lamb of God, then lying upon the table, their supplications and prayers for the whole State of Christs Church, and all sorts and degrees therein; thus the Authour of the Mystagogical Catechis. Lib. 5. upon these propitiatory hosts we beseech God for the common peace of the Church,’ the tranquillity of the world, for Kings, Souldiers, Companions, the afflicted; in fine for all that stand in need of help. Christ. Sac. S. 3. See more of this in the Ingenious Master Mede) and partly because it was such a comme­moration of Christs sufferings as conveyed unto us an interest in what he hath suffered for us, which there­fore we are enabled to plead for our selves and others; but that Saint Chrysost. never esteemed it a proper Sacrament is apparent from these words of his 17. Hom. on the Heb. ‘What do we not continually offer? Yes (saith he) we offer, but only by a commemoration of his (Christs) death, there is but one host, not many; how so? because it was offered once, and that host (viz. once offered) was carried up into the holy of holies, this that we celebrate is the figure of that for­mer, and that the truth of this. And a little after, he is our high Priest who offers that sacrifice which cleanseth us which we now offer, (and) which then was offered, [...].nor possibly can be consumed; this is done in a remembrance of that which was then done, according to that of Our Saviour, do this in re­membrance of me, we do not offer another sacrifice, as the Jewish Priests, but continually the same, or rather a remem­brance of a sacrifice;’ what can be more express then this?

And indeed our Authour saith the same thing; S. 4. p. 146. his words [Page 226]are these, ‘Ordinarily the conception of a sacrifice is supposed to import an immolation, shedding of blood, and killing; and no such matter appearing here, but only a commemoration of a former reall immolation, and shedding of Christs Blood, therefore we (Sectaries) will not allow it the name of sacrifice;’ Now (not to note, that if this be the ordinary conception of a sacrifice, that then the Fathers must be granted in this matter to have spoken contrary to the ordinary sence which the word beareth, and to that which it is supposed com­monly to import, (1) hence it is clear that he holds the cele­bration of the Eucharist to be only a commemoration of a sa­crifice; which we will endeavour to evince from his own words (only premizing that Christs sacrifice was a reall immolation, and shedding of his blood) thus; where there is only a commemoration of the reall immolation, and shed­ding of Christs blood, there is only the commemoration of Christs sacrifice offered on the Cross, but here (that is, in the celebration of the Mass,) there is only a commemora­tion of a former reall immolation, and shedding of Christs blood, and therefore a commemoration only of his sacri­fice; S. 6. p. 148. nor is it any thing to the purpose which he adds, that it is in the most proper rigorous sence an oblation of the very same body and blood that our Lord now offers in heaven. For (to let pass the question, sufficiently handled already, whether the very same body and blood which Christ offered on the Cross be present in the Sacrament, or only the Symbols of it) either he terms this a proper oblation, be­cause in the Sacrament somewhat is properly tendred, or presented unto God, and thus we all acknowledge a proper oblation in the Sacrament, for there we shew forth the Lords death by presenting before him the sacrifice of a­tonement that Christ hath made, commemorating the pains that he endured, entreating God that we may all enjoy the purchase of his blood, and reap the benefit of his passion reached forth unto us in the Symbol; and that for the sake of the Bloody sacrifice of his Son, in which by the faithful receiving of the elements we are interested, he will turn away all his anger from us. Or Secondly, as this word is taken in a stricter sence, to signifie a sacrifice [Page 227]of inanimate things, as fruits, incense, &c. (and thus it is distinguished from a sacrifice of an animate being, which was accompanied with an [...], or an effusion of blood) to which it is requisite, Clopen. Scb. Suc. ab initio. if properly and strictly such, ut vel incendio, vel alio convenienti ri [...]u sacro, per sacerdotis ministerium destruatur, that it be destroyed by fire, or any other convenient Rite, by the ministery of a Priest; and if this be his sense of an oblation, we deny that there is any such destruction or consumption of the reall body and blood of the Lord in the holy Sacrament, and shall now consider it.

Fourthly, Sect. 7 Therefore that this is no true and proper sacri­fice appears, (1.) because to a proper sacrifice is requisite that the thing sacrificed suffer some Physical mutation; but here is no Physical mutation of the thing sacrificed: the Major is proved by Bell: from the perpetuall use of Scrip­ture, when speaking of a proper sacrifice; for what ever in Scripture is properly so call'd was necessarily to suffer such a mutation, if it had life, by the deprivation of it; if it were an inanimate and solid, being as Frankincense, Salt, &c. by combustion; if liquid, as wine, blood, and water, by effu­sion. Levit. 1.2.

Secondly, He proves it, because all the Sacraments did prefigure the death of Christ, their death or mutation being Typical of his; with Bellarmine consents Cardinal Alanus, De Eucha. sacrif. l. 2. c. 3. who tells us, that unless the intervention of some mutation be allowed to the nature of a sacrifice, we must acknow­ledge that first-fruits, Tythes, the first-born, religious per­sons, and innumerable other things (which in the Law were consecrated to God) must be called sacrifices; there being no difference in them from true and proper sacrifices imagi­nable but this, that these gifts thus consecrated remain en­tire, but the things which are sacrificed do not, but suffer as it were a change into another species; being either kill'd, roasted, bruised, or boiled, or by some other action of the Priest consumed; But now there is no real mutation here of the thing sacrificed; for the thing sacrificed is the very same body and blood which our Lord offered upon the Cross, [Page 228]as our Author tells us, P. 148. and p. 135. We ac­knowledge an oral manduca­tion, but with­out any suffer­ing or change in the divine body it self. and the victim (saith he) suffers no­thing; But should he eat his words as he doth his God? I will thus force him to confesse the truth; If the body of Christ suffer any mutation when sacrificed, then either as to its real being in Heaven, or its Sacramental, but neither can with reason be affirmed. Not the first, for Christs na­tural body is now impassible; not the second, for then would the body of Christ lose its being in the Sacrament; which, first, is contrary to what P. 131. he himself produceth from Cyrils Epistle ad Calosyrium; And, secondly, were it so, either it loseth this Sacramental being when it is eaten, or before or after, viz. when the species of bread cease to re­main. If this last, then is it sacrificed in the belly, not on the Altar; if when it is eaten, 'tis sacrificed in the mouth; if before, then do not the Communicants eat the body and blood of Christ.

Secondly, if this be sufficient to make it a proper mutation, because the body of Christ loseth his esse Sacramentale, and ceaseth to be present under these species; then by parity of rea­son, God himself (and his Angels) may be said to suffer a real Physical mutation, when he ceaseth to be where he was, by the destruction of that wherein he was, or the annihilation of the same.

Secondly, If Christ did not offer a true and proper sacri­fice, then neither do his Ministers; but the first is so; the sequel is evident; because that which is delivered to us to be done, was receiv'd from Christ; for seeing it is deliver'd by the Evangelists and Saint Paul, and we are peremptorily told by him delivering what the Evangelists had rehearsed, that he received it of Christ, and delivered no other thing; If Christ did not offer a true and proper sacrifice, neither did he deliver it to us from Christ; but Christ did not offer such a sacrifice; Hist. Conc. Trent. for then the oblation of the Cross would have been superfluous, because Mankind would have been redeemed by that of the Supper, which went before. Besides, the Sacrament of the Altar was instituted by Christ for a me­morial of that which he offered on the Cross; now there cannot be a memorial but of a thing past, and therefore the [Page 229]Eucharist could not be a sacrifice before the oblation of Christ on the Cross, but shewed what we were afterwards to do.

And thus I have considered what is material in this Chapter, and onely desire Mr. C. in case he reply, to state evidently this Doctrine of their Church; and wherein they differ from us, and what are the requisites of a sacrifice; that so we may know what we are to dispute against.

CHAP. XIIII.

WE come now to consider his Pleas for the Roman Churches practice in veneration of Images, Sect. 1 of which the Doctor saith onely this; That the Council of Trent was not afraid to make new Articles, the Invocation of Saints, the worship of Images; yea, saith he, many humane writings, the Apocryphal Books, and many unwritten Traditions also were by her decreed to be of equal Authority with the Scripture, and an Anathema added to all that should not so receive them. Now because he formerly had managed a dispute with Mr. Bagshaw about Images, he takes advantage of these few words, to transcribe the whole dispute, over-looking that which more copiously is insisted on; to wit, the ascribing Divine Authority to the Books which we commonly stile Apocryphal, Doctor. John Reynolds, and Bishop Cousens. which sure was onely upon this account; be­cause it hath been made appear by two Champions of our Church, that this decree of the Trent Council is contrary to Reason, and the suffrage of the Fathers and learned men, even from Christ time to the Sessi [...]n of this worthy Conven­ticle, we call upon him for answer to them in his next: Well, but we will be content to undergo this trouble also, and that the rather because this peice is esteemed by some to have a vein of Reason in it, although it be fraught (if I mistake not) with inconsiderable Sophismes. Sect. 2

First if then he catechizes us thus, ‘Should you see the Pi­cture [Page 231]of our Lord hanging on the Cross, Mr. C. p. could you possibly avoid the calling to mind who our Lord was, and what he had done and suffered for you?’

Answer. Your own Gerson will tell us another story, comper­tum est, &c. ‘It is very well known that some devout persons by aspect of Images had their thoughts turn'd from holy cogitations and pure affections, to carnal, filthy, wicked, and impure, yea, execrably blasphemous; but to let this passe.’

Secondly, I see a Crucifix almost every day in our Col­ledge windows, and yet seldom have found such an effect upon me; and I appeal to the carvers of these Pictures, whether they do not often behold their workmanship without this effect; to the members of our Colledges, whether they do not often look upon their windowes, without such re­membrance of the Saints or Apostles there lively pictured, as may make them spiritual, or compell them into a fit of devotion; yea, the reason why our Church thinks meet yet to preserve them in her Assemblies, notwithstanding the loud cries of the Phanaticks, that they are scandalous and dangerous, is evidently this; because she knows they have an historical use, and that the people upon the sight of them are not found inclined to yield any worship or corporeal reverence unto them.

Thirdly, The picture of Cromwell or Bradshaw, the parts of the Rebels that hang up at the Gates of London, Spanish Inquisition, Irish Rebellions, Popish Cruelties to the Walden­ses, and Albingenses, yea, the picture of Hell and the Devil, are apt to bring their cruelties and torments into our remem­brances; and doing so, may not I adresse my self with Praises and Thanksgivings to this God who hath delivered us from such Tyrants, and pray heartily to be freed from the torments of Hell, and tyranny of Satan? Is not there as much reason for my devotion here, as at the sight of an Image? yea, the very names of Peter and Paul, Heaven and Hell, are as subservient to the productions of such thoughts; and therefore when I read in a play, Heavens bless, &c. must I turn to my devotions? I might be endlesse in such instances. Again he tells us, Sect. 3 Should we have the picture of his Majesty and [Page 232]Bradshaw, should we have the Bible and Pantagruel, they would force upon us quite contrary thoughts, almost impossible to be avoided.

Answer. First, Would not the mention of their names have the same effect upon us?

Secondly, When he walks along London streets, and there sees the sign of his Majesty at so many Taverns, doth he find it impossible for him to avoid thoughts of due sub­jection and reverence? And should he have Faux in his Ora­tory? Would he after two or three sights of him be moved against his Rebellions? Yea, when he goes to the Book­sellers, and sees many gilt Bibles on the one hand, Playes and Romances on the other, is he troubled with a diversity of Passions in his breast? But we suffer him to proceed; well then.

He infers, Sect. 4 ‘If then unavoidably he must think reverently of the objects, or contemptuously, he may as well speak, or behave himself externally, after the same manner to them respectively.’

Answer. True, will any body say, he should not reverence his Majesty? Or may not behave himself contemptuously to­wards Bradshaw, or any other Rebel now alive? But,

Secondly, If thence he would infer a reverence due to that which represents these objects (albeit we grant the thing of a civil reverence) yet his deduction he infers it from will as well prove that his Majesties name in print should be reverenced, and men should do obeysance to his Proclama­tions, especially if his Picture be there also; Yea, seeing the Ladies carry him upon their breasts, we should do well to bow to them upon this account; yea, seeing Cromwell and Bradshaw, and the greatest Rebels, may represent unto us his Majesties Clemency; Hell, and the Devil, Christs exceeding love in induring these torments, and delivering us from the roaring Lyon; we should therefore do reverence to the pictures of these Rebels, yea, of Hell and the Devil; or at least, on the same score, we should reverence a Lamb, as putting us in mind of the Lamb of God; a Dove, as put­ting us in mind of the Spirit of God; an old man, as being the Emblem of the ancient of dayes, and such like things.

‘In his fifth Section he proves that we have affections not onely to the person, but picture representing him; Sect. 5 for we would not place the Kings Picture in an unclean or disho­nest place; if any should defile it, we should be ready to strike him: Not so, if the like usage were given to Judas and Bradshaw's picture. Moreover the Bible we would not put to an unclean use, as haply we might deal with Aesops Fables.’

A. I should not scruple to tear his Majesties pictures, which sometime may be found in smoky Ale-houses, so strangely deformed, that it is no way apt to create a reve­rence, and were the greatest Rebel pictured by the hand of an Apelles, I should be loath to have it defiled. Yea had I Ogil­bies, Aesops Fables, I should be very unwilling to condemn it to such an office: But had I a a piece of the Popish Mass, in which happily an Episte or Gospel may be extant: I should without remorse permit it to this use: for let me ask him a few questions.

1. Should he meet with a Postiller that had stuft both pages with Citations from Scrip. or any such like Authour, would he think it a sin to condemn that page with the rest to such an use.

2. Suppose the Printer of a Bible had a sheet superfluous, must it be laid up as an holy Relique? or may it be put to a prophane use? should a shop keeper send him Tobacco in a part of it: whether he would think it meet to reprove him for it? When a Church Bible is grown old and worm-eaten, whether the good women would sin in putting it un­der their [...]ies? Or should they meet with one of the Old Translation, with the Gelding baptized by Philip; (which yet in its literal sence is not more ridiculous then the Bells bap­tized by that Papists) and the knave of Jesus Christ whether it might not be lawful thus to use it? Whether I might not change my Bible for an Aesop's Fables of far greater worth? When his Casuistical faculty hath been exercised on these Question, he shall have some more: In the interim, we pass on to.

‘Sect. 6. In which he tells us that we look on Saint Peter, Sect. 6 as one, that by his writings and examples had been a great [Page 234]instrument of promoting our eternal happiness; and there­fore we place his Picture in our Oratory.’

Ans. He proves it from Lactanti­us, who lived An. Dom. 330. 1. Did not the Primitive Christians know this as well as we, of whom yet I may say with Cassander, that it is certain that in the beginning of the Gospel aliquanto tem­pore (for 300. years) there was no use of Images in the Church of God.

2. May you not procure the picture of some good man living, that hath been instrumental these wayes, and will you give it sacred veneration, will you bow and cringe be­fore it? Well, but why is that placing it in my Oratory a sacred veneration of it?

‘Ans. Ibid. Because all things that are appointed on purpose to mind us of God and Heaven, and the salvation of our souls we call sacred.’ Now sure the Picture of Hell, the Devil, the great enemy of their souls may put them in mind of securing their salvation, and then I hope he must into their Oratory to have sacred veneration from them; yea they must give sacred veneration to the whole Universe, seeing God made it to this end, that these visible things might shew unto us him that is invisible: yea seeing, praesen­tem refert quaelibet herba Deum, they must afford a Bow to every one of them.

Well, Sect. 7 but our Authour presently jumps into a Conside­ration of bowing and kneeling to Images, Mr. C. p. 156. as if no reverence could be paid but this; or at least if it be lawful to reve­rence them, then to kneel to, and bow with an &c. at the end of it. We reverence the Bible, and so do they, but do we bow and kneel to it? We reverence the Names and Writings of good men, but do we bow and kneel to them, or do they so? ‘Well but they give outward reverence only to to the picture. And this veneration, common Reason, and humane Naeure cannot but allow.’

A. I pray Sir, what were the Primitive Fathers? Were they not men of common Reason, and had they not humane Natures whilest they lived? L. 2. c. 17. (Though now you have Deified some of them:) Let us then hear their Verdict. Lactantius having told us, that these images which vain men worship are Earth, he infers; Now who is there that understandeth [Page 235]not, that it is unfit for an upright Creature to be [...]o [...]ed down, that he may worship the Earth, which for this cause is put un­der our feet, that it may be trodden upon, not worshipped by us? Orat. Adhors. ad Gentes. So Clemens Alexandr. Are they not prodigious creatures, who worship stones? these Images (made of stone) are more vile then any (the most despicable) creatures, then Worms, Earwigs, Moles, Annon terra & ex terra? Ego autem ter­ram calcare di­dici, in Ps. 113. part. 2d.Mice' &c. These are all better then Images. But haply their Images are made of Gold and Silver, if so, let the same Father tell you, that Gold & Silver, Brass and Iron, and preciousstones, are they not Earth, and taken out of the Earth? But as for me, I have learned to tread upon the Earth, not worship it. So Saint Augustin saith, they are worse then bruit beasts: Lib. 7. Conr. Celsum. and if you are asham'd to worship the one, you may be asham'd to worship the other. So Origen, we do not venerate Images, with many other like places; In Consul. lit. de Imag. which made Cassander cry out. How far the Ancients were ab omni veneratione, from all veneration of Images one Origen declares. Cruces (saith Mi­ntius Felix) nec Colimus, nec optamus; and there we find it objected to them, cur nulla nota simulachra habetis: Hence Lactan. l. 2. c. 7. They think there is no Religion where these (I­mages) appear not. not as if they had any kept secretly, but (as * Dallie puts it be­yond dispute) because the Heathens thought it impossble to worship God without some sensible Image. Saint Cyprian Why dost thou bow thy captive body before foolish Images, and terrene figments! God hath made thee straight, and when o­ther animals are made prona & ad terram depressa, thou hast a countenance erect towards God and Heaven: thither look, thither direct thy eyes, not to Images, seek God above. The 36. Canon of the Iliberine Council tells us its pleasure was, there should be no Images in the Church. De Imag. Ep. ad. Demetr. Lib. 2. cap. 19.Lactantius tells us, there can be no Religion, where there is an Image. Saint Ambrose will tell you the Church knoweth no vain Idea's and divers Figures of Images: Yea, Ambr. de sugâ secul. c. 5. this was so notorious to the very Heathens, that when Adrian commanded that Tem­ples should be made in all places without Images, they pre­sently conceived they were for Christians, Lamprid. in vit. Alexandri Severi:

What should I say? Orig. in Cels. l. 2. p. 373. there is not any Father almost but is evidently against you. Nay, you can scarce find out any excuse, which they have not prevented with their contra­diction.

‘1. You tell us that images are instruments to call to your me­mories the Objects they represent:’ Orig. tells us, If we be not out of our wits, we must needs laugh at this folly who look on Ima­ges, and by the sight thereof offer prayer to him who is conceived thereby. In Ps. 113. Saint Augustine will tell you this answer is bor­rowed from the Heathens, who use to say, I neither wor­ship the very Image, nor the Devil, but by corporcal representa­tion I look upon the sign of that which I ought to wor­ship. Dissert. 38. And indeed Max. Tyr. hath taught you, that these [...] are [...] They lead you by the hand to the remembrance of the things they represent. That in procuring them, you do like lovers, who willingly behold the Images of those they love, that so their memory may be stir'd up in them.

2. Sect. 8 Your ninth Section tels us, we help our selves by them to fix our thoughts upon Objects good for our souls; and every where you insist upon the usefulness of them to Com­mon people. In Ps. 113. But Saint Augustine saith, they are very dan­gerous, especially to them; for who is it that adores or prayes, beholding an Image, and is not so affected as to think he is heard by it? Epiphanius will warn them to avoid these helps. Have this in your memories, beloved Children, not to bring Images into the Church, nor into the Coemeteries of the Saints; no not into any ordinary House, but al­wayes carry about the rememberance of God in your hearts:Epiph. Ep. ad Joan. Hicros. Tom. 1. oper. Hier. Ep. 60.for it is not lawful for a Christian man to be carried a­bout in suspence by his Eyes, and the wandering of his mind. He will tell you, that the having them in the Church is contrary to our Religion to the authority of Scripture. Give charge against it, He is cited by the Fathers of the Council of Constant. An. Dom. 754. Eus. Hist. l. 7. C. 17. Ubi supra. and tear such a one, though it were the Image of our Lord and Saviour. Amphilochius will adde we have no care to figure by colours the bodily Visages of the Saints in Tables, because we have no need of such things, but by virtue to imitate their conversations. Eusebius will assert that you borrowed this Custome from the Heathens. And surely Max. Tyrius lent you this pretence, who tells you that the use of Images is [...], quoniam tenuita­tis Nostrae ita poscat ratio and 'tis the [...], that was the cause of it.

You say that Humane nature cannot hinder it, Sect. 11.

They say that God and Religion forbid it: (And doth God forbid what humane nature cannot hinder?) and the Jews abhorred it; had they razed out their natural principles?

You say, that we call this Honour given to him worship, sect. 9 to make you odious.

Ans. 2. Council of Nice by them General. S [...]e the places in Dally. de Imag. Cat. Rom. par. 1. C. 2.5.14 ut Co­lantur. & licet illis cultum adhibere. In 3. par Th. quaest. 24. Art. 3. Orthodox. Consul. par. 2. Reg. 1. In Ep. ad Rom. C. 1. In 3. Th. quaest. 25. Art. 3. disp 2. Nu. 5. Apud Cabr. ib. p. 796. Hath not a General Council call'd it so an hundred times? do not almost all your writers call it so? Doth not your Trent Catech. require the priest to declare that the ‘images of Christ are put in Churches that they may be Worshipped? and that it is lawful to worship them; and that it hath still been done,’ to the great good of the faith­full? Doth not Cajetan tell us, that they are painted that they may be worshipped (ut adorentur) as the frequent use of the Church doth testifie? And Boverius, that this is the Doctrine of the Roman Church, imagines piâ religione colen­das esse; will not Jacobus Naclantus tells you, that albeit you speak warily in this matter, yet the very truth is, that the faithful in the Church do adore, not only coram imagine, sed & imaginem? Will not Friar Pedro de Cabrera teach you your lesson a little better, that you must downright and ab­solutely say, that images are to be worshipped in Churches, and out of Churches, and that the contrary is heretical? And Franc. Victoria will back him in asserting it to be plainly so; Yea, and Arriaga for a close, will tell you, Haeretici, negant non Exemplarium venerationem; and what you plead for he does not think any Heretick so simple as to deny. I might here adde half an hundred of your Authors, who tell us that Images are to be worshipped with that very homage we afford to the exemplar; but I let that pass, for haply I may have an­other opportunity to acquaint you with them. I shall con­clude with the Roman pontifical, which tells us, Cap 2. de bened. Sanct. Crucis. that the Ponti­fex, (in which name other Bishops are included) ante ima­ginem crucis genua flectit, eamque devotè adorat & osculatur. Magist. Ceremon. lib. 2. & de feria 6. Majoris Heb. And feriâ sextâ, or on good Friday, when the Pope or Priest uncovereth Gently the Cross, and crys ccce signum cru­cis, and the singers answer, venite, adoremus, that the Pope puts off his shoes, or makes as if he did so, & genu ter flexo adorat, & osculatur, and then all the rabble ad infimum cau­datarium [Page 238]omnes crucem adorant & osculantur. So then you have no cause (I hope) to quarrel with us for saying you worship images, when so many of your great Doctors, that knew this practice of the Church as well as your self, ac­knowledge that as a doctrine of faith which you so warily disclaim, when General Councils yea and common practice can assure us of the truth thereof.

‘You ask us further, Sect. 10. p. 158. whether indeed we think that you worship false gods, and true devils?’

Ans. You may be idolatrous in worshipping the true God, in an image, as well as the Israelites in their worship­ping God in a Calf, (2.) That you worship false Saints and Elilim, De cultu Sanct. Ibid. see abundantly evidenced in the Sedan Divines.

(3.) ‘You ask, whether we consider our Images, as they did their Idols, to which by magicall conjurations they an­nexed an evill Spirit to do wonders, and extort Divine Worship from the seduced.’

Ans. What if some of the learned among the Heathens, as Athenaeus confesseth, Legat. pro Christ. thought that the deity or some di­vine vitrue accompanyed the statute after consecration, would it cease to be Idolatry if the Image of Jupiter were wor­shipped, or any other Deity, without these magical In­chantments?

(2.) What shall we think of these images which you call miraculous, which you say sometimes sweat blood, sometimes nod their heads, or stretch forth a wooden or stony arm unto their suppliants? Vid. miss. Rom. sub tit. de ritu Serm. where you have as bad or worse in the Dedication of the Cross, the Image of Saint John, and the Agnus Dei. or of the form of Consecration? ‘Viz. Sanctifie, O God, this form of the blessed Virgin, that it may bring saving health to thy faithful people, that thun­drings and lightnings may be driven away the sooner; that immoderate rains or floods, and civil wars, may at the pre­sence of this be suppressed. Pont. Rom.’

(3.) Might not the Jews have put the same question to those that accused them of idolatry in worshipping the bra­zen image?

(4.) What matter is it whether the Heathens esteemed their Deity present or absent, Quis nisi totus fatuus haec Deos esse credit? seeing they acknowledge most evidently that they did not worship their images, but their Gods by these images? as you may see in Origen, Contr. Cels. [Page 239]l. 7. p. 384. Arnob. l. 6. advers. Gentes. Lact. l. 2. de divin. Deos per simu­lachra vener­amur.Institut. c. 2. we fear not the works of mens hands, (viz. these Images,) but those we fear to whom these are consecrated. August. in ps. 96. I do not worship that stone, or that image which is without sense, but I adore what I see, and serve him whom I do not see.

(5.) 'Tis evident, that many of the Heathens thought their Gods to dwell in heaven, Act. 14. and to be absent from their Statutes. Hence the Lycaonians cry out, upon the miracles wrought by Paul and Barnabas, the Gods are come down a­mongst us. See Price upon the place, making out this by Heathen Authours: and what said the Chaldeans to Nebu­chadnezzar, even that their Gods dwelt not with flesh, Dan. 2. vers. 11. what need I cite Max. Tyr. Plut. de Isid. & Osyr. Cicero, &c. for a thing so clear?

‘Lastly, you tell that us, sect. 11 there is not in Catholick countrys a Groom or Kitchin-maid so ignorant, but had rather burn an image then afford it any honour due to God only.’

Ans. True. But neither would these Heathens; who thought them arrant fools who esteemed images to be God.

(2.) Nor can we reasonably think, that the Israelites intended any such thing in worshipping the Calf. But,

(3.) Tom. 1. de prob. sp. Num. 17. Gerson will tell you that people were so infected with Superstition as to yield divine honour to Images. And Cornelius Agrippa, that it is not to be spoken, De vanit. scient. de Imag. fol. 73. how great Idolatry is foster'd among rude people by Image-worship, while the Priests connive at these things, and make no small gain thereby. Cassander; Consul. de Imag. it is more manifest then that it can be denyed, that the worship of Images and Idols hath too much prevailed, and the Superstitious humour of peo­ple hath been so cherished, that nothing hath been omitted among (you) either of the highest adoration or vanity of Panims, in worshipping and adoring Images. De invent. l. 6. c. 13. And Poly­dor Virgil, that there are many rude and stupid persons that repose more trust in Images then in Christ, or the Saints to whom they were dedicated.

Lastly, Simon Majolus, a great stickler for Imagery, Defens. Imag. Con. 9. c. 19. con­fesseth, that some rural persons esteem Images as if they were God.

You tell us Sect. Sect. 12 that it would be ridiculous to pray to an Image.

Ans. To let pass your O crux Ave, what can you say to

And again, Brevar. Rom. Reformatum in par. Hyemali ad 3. Martii in festo inventio­nis Sanctae crucis. O crux, &c. quae sola fuisti digna portare mun­di talentum, dulce lignum, dulces claves, dulcia ferens pon­dera, salva proesentem catervam, in tuis hodiè laudibus con­gregatam.

Lastly, all your distinctions are used with you, as mira­cles, and the gift of tongues were, not for them that be­lieve, but them that believe not. For strangers and them that make objections, not for the obedient, that worship Images and break the Commandment.

Well, Sect. 13 but you have Arguments as well as Pretences, which must not be over-look'd; Mr. C. p. 156. And,

First, ‘You tell us, that in Scripture we find Kings a­dored, and a prostration of body paid to them; yet for all this, no man will suspect that any dishonour was intended to God thereby.’

Answer. True, and yet you may dishonour him by giving this worship unto Images, seeing he hath commanded, say­ing; Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them, which your Gerson paraphraseth thus: In comp. Theol. explic. praecepti. primi. Thou shalt not bow down to them with the veneration of thy body, ut inclinando eis, vel genu flectendo: Nor shalt thou worship them with the affection of thy mind.

Secondly, Cap. de Imag. The Divines of Saumur have already told you, this is a wide sequel from the honour done to the (living) Image of God, to infer we may bow and kneel to Images; whereas the one lives, the other wants all sense and motion; the one is civil worship, and such as hath the precept and ex­ample of Christ and his Apostles, the other neither.

Thirdly, What did Job mean by telling us, C. 13. v. 26, 27. that had he kissed his hand upon the beholding of the Gun, (that glorious pourtraicture of Gods power, Wisdome, and Goodnesse,) he had been guilty of Idolatry; our Author could have in­formed him better, by telling him that Children kisse their hands when they do homage to their Superiors; yea, he had lesse reason to suspect himself then Papists have; for God hath set the Sun in the firmament to give light unto this truth, that there is a wise disposer and orderer of all things, but never appointed any Images to be a medium to bring us to the knowledge or service of him.

Secondly, P. 157. ‘You argue that Images are capable of a sinful disrespect, and consequently a due respect may be paid unto them.’

Answer. We may grant all this, and yet not bow unto them, as questioning whether that respect be due unto them; I suppose you do not bow to the picture of his Majesty, and yet you will not deny that due respect may be paid unto it.

Secondly, A Surplice or Cope, &c. yea a good advice, are capable of disrespect; and yet will you infer that this is motive sufficient for us to come down upon our knees before them?

Thirdly, An Image is not capable of any disrespect by the neglect of religious actions or veneration, and, conse­quently, is not capable of any such respect by their per­formances.

Thirdly, Ibid. ‘You tell us that by honouring with outward regard a picture, you intend onely to give a testimony what respect you bear to the person or holy thing repre­sented by it; so the reverence that we shew to Saint Peters picture signifies onely we venerate Saint Peter.’

Answer. First, ‘This is a contradiction to what immedi­ately precedes, viz. that we give a respect unto them, because such sacred things as fix our thoughts upon objects, good for our Souls.’

Secondly, We say 'tis evidently absurd; and that upon the same score you may bow and kneel to, go bare before, and kisse a Lyon, Eagle, or an Ox, as representing St. Mark, Saint John, Saint Luke, &c.

Thirdly, This pretence might have been made by the Jews, in venerating the Calf; yea, the very Heathens have instructed you in this lesson, as I have shewed before: Now to requite your story.

I shall return you one Argument amongst many lying by me, Sect. 14 which haply ere long may beg your Answer; and it is this; To offer incense to an Image is to commit Idolatry; the Papists use to offer incense to their Images, Ergo, they are wont to commit Idolatry: l. 10. de Eccle­sia, c. 13. In tertiam partem, Th. p. 25. ar. 3. dist. 2 num. 15. The minor is evident from their own Authors, who tell us, suaves odores etiam offe­rimus in Ecclesia (not onely coram imagine, but, Imaginibus) & reliquiis. Thus Bellarmiue, and Petrus de Cubrera, amongst the things to be perform'd to Images, reckoneth Oblationes Suffituum; Yea, the Roman Pontifical, set forth by Pius the fifth, informs us in the Chapter of the be­nediction of the Cross, Mox cam incen­sari, i. e. ei in­censum adoleri. that the Pope puts incense into the Censer, then sprinkles it with holy-water, and presently offers Incense to it; The major I evince from the Idolatry of the Israelites, in offering Incense to the brazen Serpent, the reason being evidently the same; for whereas Bellarmine tells us, that the Israelites did offer Incense to it, tanquam Deo, if he means they gave it that worship which was due to God, 'tis very true, but a confirmation of what we say; that to offer Incense to a creature is to give it the honour due to God: if he mean that the Israelites esteemed it as God, 'tis shamefully ridiculous to imagine that what had been so long kept without any sign of the least virtue proceeding from it, should presently. be thought by them to be the maker of Heaven and Earth, that which they knew to have been made by Moses, yet to have been before all time.

Secondly, He tells us, that Incense was a sacrifice under the Old Testament, because none but Priests might offer it; not so now, because in their Church 'tis offered by them that are not so.

Ans. So then, it seems, if a whole Hecatomb should be offered not onely to God, but to the people (as he tells us their Incense is) 'twould not be a sacrifice, if not offered by a Priest, and consequently not Idolatry; nor could any of the Christians that were not Priests by offering to Idols com­mit Idolatry.

Secondly, How ridiculous is it from an instance in his own Churches behaviour, which we accuse of manifest Ido­latry, to prove that they are not Idolaters. Well then, seeing there can be no sufficient disparity, John 3. this being a repre­sentation of Christ as well as their Images, and worship­ped not because a God, but as an instrument which God had used to work miracles by; or the like; if we can evince that this was Idolatry, we shew also that the Papists are Ido­laters; now that this is so, may be gathered.

First, From the Context, which reekons it with the confess'd Instruments of Idolatry; 2 Kings 18.4. He removed the high places, and brake the Images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen Serpent.

Yea, Secondly, He calls it Nehustan, a piece of brasse, of which appellation no other reason can be easily assigned, but that this was done in opposition to their Idolatry, in giving it that worship which could by no means agree to a piece of brasse.

Thirdly, The sin that occasioned the breaking of this Serpent, was the Children of Israels offering Incense to it; now 'tis evident this was no sin against the second Ta­ble, no breach of the Sabbath, no taking of Gods Name in vain; for if it were an acknowledgment of it for a Deity, it was the most gross Idolatry; and therefore the Romanist will not yield to that: Well then, it must be a sin against the second Commandement; it cannot be a sin against any other clause of it then this, Thou shalt not worship Images, or as the Papists will needs have it, Idols; and if so, it must conse­quently be Idolatry: Again, did they give dulia onely to it, or latria? if the first, then can you not say they sinned, or did any thing which should justly cause it to be broken: Seeing you acknowledge dulia due unto your Images; if latria, then again, according to your own principles, they were the grossest of Idolaters.

Secondly, The Idolatry of Achaz is thus described, that he made high places wherein to burn Incense unto other gods, and likewise the Idolatry of Israel: This burning Incense is therefore Idolatry, Jer. 44.21, 23. because the Nature of Idolatry agrees to it, which is to give the honour due unto God [Page 244]unto another thing; and therefore seeing this was done by burning Incense to the brazen Serpent, that also must be Idolatry; for to say that 'tis not sufficient to make an act idolatrous, that it attributes the honour due to God unto another thing, unlesse it be an Idol, is very false; for then the offering of sacrifice to the Image of Christ would not be Idolatry; the giving it latria terminated thereon, would not be so: The Arrians could not have been accused of Idolatry in worshipping our Saviour with divine hon­ours, and yet esteeming him to be [...]; The Collyridians, in worshipping the Virgin Mary; the Carpocra­tians in worshipping, the Image of Christ, and a 1000. other things.

2. This major may be farther confirmed thus; to offer sa­crifice is Idolatry by the confession of the Mag sent. l. 3. dist 9. Bell. li. de Eccles. Tri­umph. c. 12. See Exod. 22. He that effers sa­crisice to any but God alone shall be cut off. And Act. 7. The Israelites are said to offer sacrifice to the Calf, and then presently are called Idolaters. Ste 1 Cor. 10. Papists themselves; but to offer Incense to an Image (or any other thing) is to offer sacrifice. Thus Tertull. Apol. c. 30. Offero majorem hostiam quam ipse mandavit, non grana Thuris; so that, according to him, Incense must be a sacrifice; and Gyprian de lapsis, speak­ing of those that presently went to offer Incense, They would not stay (saith he) to be apprehended, nor did they leave this to themselves, ut sacrificare Idolis inviti viderentur. Saint Basil tells us, in his Oration on Barlaam the Martyr, that they brought him to the Altar, and put Incense into his Hands, that so by casting it out he might seem to offer sacrifice; and this he calls, [...]: Thus Lib. de poenit. c. 14. p. 512. Tom. primi. [...] (male [...]) [...], Lat. ver. pro more daemoniaci libaminis. Peter Bishop of Alexandria (as we have it in Balsamon) tells us that the hands of many were brought unwillingly to offer prophanum sacrificium, that is, as Balsamon hath it, coacti sunt thus immolare; yea, Saint Austin, C. 16. de unico Baptismo, having said that Petilian accused Melchiades de Thurificatione, of offering Incense, he adds, that had it been true, he might have been excused as being not bound to plead his cause coram homine sacrificijs idolorum inquinato: It may be Answered, that to offer animate or living sacrifice, is Idolatry; but as for inanimate sacrifices, they may be given to a creature.

Rep. Now not to mention how arbitrary this distinction is, the Fathers frequently teach this offering of inanimate sacrifices to be Idolatry: Thus Epiphanius condemns the [Page 245] Collyridians for offering cakes to the blessed Virgin, which yet were inanimate sacrifices; Ep. au [...] num, l. 10. Ep. 97. so Pliny tells the Empe­rour, that some worship his Image with Incense and Wine, which they that are true Christians cannot be compelled to do (albeit it was the Image of him who was himself [...]) as counting that homage due to God alone. Now this refusal Tertullian calls, obstinationem non sa­crificandi; The onely fault, saith he, with which the Chri­stians stood charged by Pliny in his Epistle to the Emperour; yea, the Carpocratians were condemned as Hereticks for of­fering Incense to the Image of Christ, among other things, l. 1. c. 24. as you may see in Irenaeus. Observationem circa cas similiter ut Gentes faciunt, they observed the rites of the Gentiles to­wards them; what were they? Saint Austine tels us, l. de Haer. c. 7. they did it, adorando incensum (que) ponendo. Eis thura adolebant ac libahant, saith Theodoret; l. de Haer. fab And this as he condemned in the Israelites (who worshipp'd the brazen Serpent) of Ido­latry, calling them Ophitae, worshippers of a Serpent, qu. 18. in 4. Reg so here he adds, & tanquam deos adorabant, not that they did it by any other sacrifice of which we have no mention made, but that the performing of these ceremonies was an evidence thereof, this being worship proper to a Deity; Haer. 27. and Epi­phanius tells us, that with the Images of the Philosophers, imagines Jesu collocant, they place the Images of Christ, and worship them, and perform the Rites of the Gentiles to them, or Heathenish Rites; and then presently he adds, Gentium my­fleria persi­ciunt. Tom. 2. l. 1. [...]( [...]) [...]. Cap. nunc autem, di­stinct. 2. P. 334, 335. what are the Rites of the Gentiles, but sacrificium, & alia? Now what he means by sacrifice, he tells us in his Epit. viz. to offer Incense; yea, Bellarmine informes us that Marcelli­nus sacrificed to Idols, and proves it from the Pontifical of Damasus, the Epistle of Nicholaus the first to Michael; but the Pontifical onely saith, he did incendere & offerre, burn Incense and offer it; and Nicholaus, that he did grana thuris super prunas imponere, put corns of Incense on the coals. So then, from Scripture, and the assertions of Fathers grounded on it, we have evinced them to be Idolaters.

And yet I cannot chuse but requite your story with an other out of Master Chillingworth; ‘That one great impedi­ment which among many kept the seduced followers of the [Page 246]faction of Donatus from the Churches Communion, was a visible Calumny raised against the Catholicks, that they did set some strange thing upon their Altar, which as Optatus in­formes us, was a picture which the Donatists (knowing how detestable a thing it was to all Christians at that time to set up any Pictures in a Church to worship them as your new fashion is) bruted abroad to be done in the Churches of the Catholique Church; but what Answer do Saint Austine and Optatus make to this accusation? do they con­fess and maintain it? Do they say as you would now, it is true, we do set Pictures upon our Altars, and that not onely for ornament and memory, but for worship also; but we do well to do so, and this ought not to trouble you, or fright you from our Communion what other. Answer, your Church could now make to such an Objection is very hard to imagine: And therefore were your Do­ctrine the same with the Doctrine of the Fathers in this point, they must have answered so likewise; but they on the contrary, not onely deny the crime; but abhor & detest it.’ 'Yea, Optatus tells us that had the matter been so their separation would have been just, that this mix­ture of Images would have been a pollution of divine service that it was a thing which Christians should be afraid of, and very different from the Custome of the Church; the whole passage of Optatus runs thus: Opt. l. 3. Cont. Don. Dicebatur illo tempore, venturos esse Paulum & Macarium qui interessent sacrificio & cum altaria solenniter aptarentur, proferrent illi Imaginem quam primo in altari ponerent sic sacrificium offeretur. Hoc cum ac­ciperent aures perculsi sunt & animi; & uniuscujusque lingua in haec verba commota est, ut omnis qui haee audieret, diceret qui inde gustat de sacro gustat. Et recte dictum erat si talem famam talis veritas sequeretur. At ubi ventum est à supra di­ctis, nihil tale visum est, ex eo quod fuerat paulo mentita fama nihil viderunt Christiani oculi quod horrerent. Nihil probavit aspectus ex iis, quibus perturbatus crat auditus. Visa est puritas & ritú solito solennis consuetudo perspecta est.

CHAP. XV.

IN this Chapter our Authours pen runs out against the holy Scripture, Sect. 1 and he most prophanely blasphemes the Ora­cles of God, Let us consider a little his great Argument, his Alpha. and Omega, which is drawn from a Consideration of the perniciousness of the use of Scripture, which he thus Rhetorically sets forth, telling us that ‘the Calamities alrea­dy happened both to the Royal Family, and the whole Nation,’ are chiefly to be imputed to it's publick use; Hence he derives the rudeness of the Common people the Iast twen­ty years in this our Kingdome; ‘what was it (saith he) but Scripture as it was used, and of which use themselves were the first cause (by suffering it freely to be Read) and hereafter will never be able to prevent that justified dis­contentment against the Government Civil and Ecclesi­astical, that put swords and guns into the hands of sub­jects against their King, and all that were faithful to him, that dissolv'd the entire frame of the Kingdome, that en­couraged men to plunder: and all manner of Rapine, that arraigned and murthered our last and excellent King, that [Page 248]endanger'd the life of his most Gracious Majesty now li­ving, and forced him into a long necessitous Banishment; that has revived and given strength to old and new mon­sters of Heresies, to the astonishment of mankind, some of which are no where else to be seen, and the rest in no place so venemous as in England.’

And why doth the Church of Rome thus spit her venome against the Word of God? Sect. 2 Is it not because she knows her deeds of darkness cannot endure the lights approachment? She knows how impossible it is to keep up her Idolatry in worshipping Images, if she permit the second Command­ment entire to the people. How impossible it is to cheat them with an half Communion, if they permit them to see the in­stitution: How impossible 'tis to keep their latine service, in defiance of the word of God, and yet permit that word to come into their hands thus abused by them. Could they set up their doctrine of Daemon's, or be approved in prohi­biting of Marriage, if the people might be permitted to view their condemnation so legible, that he that runs may read it? But though the Roman Proctors cry out so vehe­mently of the dangerous Consequences of this our practice, yet dare we not violate the Law of God, or suffer his Book to be a sealed one unto our people: We dare not, with the Romanists bereave them of the Food of Life, and give them nothing but their poyson in lieu thereof: We dare not deprive them of the Characters of a Blessed person, Ps. 1.2. by rendering it impossible for them to meditate in the word continually, or to obey their Saviour, Joh. 5. v. 39. requiring them to search the Scrip­tures; we dare not bereave them of that Touch-stone of Truth, the Law and the Testimonies to which they are ex­horted to have recourse; we dare not imitate their sacri­ledge who rob them of that Law which is the rule they are to walk by, Ps. 197. that Law that converts the soul, that so they may continue Aliens from God; Ibid. those Testimonies that make wise the simple, that so they may continue in their sim­plicity, and be induced to worship stocks and stones, as the Vulgar Papists do; that Law which enlightneth their Eyes, V. 8. that so they may be still blinded by the Prince of Darkness; once more, that Scripture which is able to make [Page 249]them wise unto salvation; 2 Tim. 3.15. that so they may eternally miss of it. Nor do we so much regard these false Disciples of St. Peter, as blessed Peter himself, who teacheth, that they do well who take heed unto this Word, 2 Pet. 1.19. As David, who tells us, that 'tis more precious then Gold, yea then fine Gold, sweeter then Hony, or the Hony Comb: Well then, to return an answer to his Sophism.

1. It is not Scripture, or the frequent reading of it, Sect. 3 which hath been esteemed by the Learned Fathers a Fosterer of Errours, or the Original of corrupt Manners; but the neg­lect of reading and pondering the Word of God. Thus Chrysostome in his Preface to the Ep. to the Romans, tells his Flock, That from the ignorance of Scripture have infinite evils sprung: Hence is that great Plague of Heresies that bud among us, hence is that negligence of our lives: Thus he; and a grea­ter then Chrysost. could tell the Sadduces, that they Err'd not knowing the Scripture, Matth. 22.29.

2. Sect. 4 If these Enormities and Rebellions were to be impu­ted to the use of Scripture, since it is manifest, that in the Primitive times they read it vulgarly, and were exhorted so to do: What is the Reason, no persecutions, no pressures, no torments could prevail upon them to rebel? Why is it they enter'd into solemn Covenants not to defraud each other by theft and rapine, nor to ingage in any of the like implicities? Was it not the awe of Scripture they con­tinually pretended? Was it not because they had no instru­ments of sedition in their Pulpits, to allarm them to war; but had wholsome Texts of Scripture pressed upon them, and may not we hope that the like practice of our Ministers may produce such Loyaltie?

Again, may not we as well argue, that the restraining of Scripture is thus pernicious? What made the Irish Rebels destroy so many thousands in cold blood? Was it not the restraining of that Scripture from them, which saith, Thou shalt not kill? What made so many illiterate Papists be in­strumental in the Gun-powder Treason? Was it not the restraint of that Scripture, which cries out touch not mine a­nointed which made the insurrection thereupon? Was it not the restraint of the Scripture, telling us, that to resist is [Page 250]the ready way to procure Damnation to our selves?

Thirdly, Sect. 5 To whom do we owe all these monsters of He­resie he so complains of? Are they not all hatch'd by the Jesuit? Have not some of them been Butchers, some Smiths, some Captains in the Army, See the Jesuits Letter in Rush­worth, coll. ct. and done all that they could to invent and broach new Doctrines? Was it not a Jesuit who tells us, How some of their own Coat have re-incountred themselves, how admirably in speech and gesture they could act the Puritan? These, these are they who have industriously led others to Hell, industriously instructed them in damnable Doctrines, studying how they might by damning so many Souls make way for their Idolatry and Tyranny.

Now seeing it is evident, that it was not the common people that wrested these Scriptures of their own accord, but Jesuits (and others) that taught them so to do; what follows? Not surely that Scripture should be hid from them; but that all Jesuits, Popish Priests, men that can teach them what they know will infallibly lead them into Hell, should be re­moved.

And as for the rebellions of the people, if the Scripture had any hand in them, it was onely thus, as it was wrested by the Preachers: These were the Trumpets of sedition, who cried out so loudly, Curse ye Meroz; And had not these men wrested the Scripture, the people would have been at quiet. Now surely this Argument proves nothing against the permission of the publick use of Scripture, but onely the wrested interpretations of it made by seditious Ministers; and infers this onely, that seditious Preachers ought most care­fully to be prevented, and most severely punished, as Incen­diaries of the State.

Again, that you may see how instrumental the Holy Scriptures were in the promoting these Rebellions, were not the forwardest in them, viz. the Quaker, Anabaptist, &c. to quit themselves of these enforcements of Obedience from Scripture, forced either to throw off Scripture, and run to the light within them, or to present Impulses of the Spirit, or, thirdly, to say they might comply with providence against precept? Was there any thing more cogent to keep many thousands from such rebellion, then that place [Page 251]of Saint Paul to the Romans? &c. Cap. 13. And how were the ring­leaders of the people forced to winde and turn and squeeze it, that they might perswade the multitude of the legality of their actions? And yet at last could not by any means effect it, but by telling them that the Parliament was equal to the King, and so robbing him of his higher Power: Yea,

Thirdly, Sect. 6 Had the Scripture been kept from the common people, and they had none of these Texts to go to, how far more easily might their seditious Preachers have led them into rebellion? What could they have had to return to their urgent sollicitations? And do not these men well to pretend friendship to his Majesty, who would have Scripture hid from his Subjects eyes, that so they might have nothing to restrain them from the like enormities?

Fourthly, Sect. 7 To argue from this accidental abuse of Scripture to the with-holding it, is as ridiculous as may be: For,

First, How hard a thing is it to make a right use of the grace of God? Do not the generality of men abuse it, and turn it into wantonnesse? And yet, I hope, this doth not hinder but the people may be made acquainted with it as revealed in the Gospel: Yea,

Secondly, Did not our Saviour know how likely the Jews were to reject and crucifie him, to blaspheme his miracles, and continue obstinate against all the evidences of his being the Messias? And will our Author add, that therefore he should not have been revealed unto them?

Thirdly, who knows not how hard a thing it is for persons to have parts and not be proud of them, to be in high places, and not be partiall, tyrannical, or addicted to some vices, which commonly attend such greatnesse? Shall we therefore have no Magistrates? Shall we have no endeavour­ing to procure the greatest talents?

Fourthly, Yea, on the same ground, seeing the Common-Prayer and the Ceremonies were accidentally the cause of the War; and we see by experience, how unlike, weak, and unstable men are to make good use of them, they must down too.

Lastly, Seeing the power of Parliaments was so abused, [Page 252]it would be necessary to dissolve them: seeing preaching and instructing of the people was abused most of all, It would be requisite (a thing which the Papists heartily desire) to hinder that: Yea, seeing that, among the old Heresies, scarce one was broach'd but by the Learned, and our late swarms of monstrous opinions were evidently the products of Learned Men, whether Jesuits or others; If this Argument were good, it would rather prove that Scripture should be with-held from the Learned, then from the vulgar sort of people.

Fifthly, Sect. 8 Were not the Jews as stupid and ignorant a people as any under the cope of Heaven, and yet God re­quires of them, that they should declare his precepts, his word, unto their Children; that they should meditate on them sitting in their house, and walking on their journey, when they lay down, and when they rose up; that they should bind them for a sign upon their hands, and as frontlets between their eyes; that they should write them upon the posts of their houses, and upon their gates, Deut. 6.7, 8, 9. So earnest was God with them to be acquainted with his Word, albeit it seemed not then so full of moral precepts, so plain and intelligible, as the great­est part of the New Testament: Yea, and the sweet singer of Israel commends it, as that which will make wise, not per­vert the simple, as that which is more to be desired then glod, not rejected as poyson. And our Saviour calls upon the Jews to search the Scriptures; which if it were spoken, [...], as Saint Cyrill has it; and the word Jews not limit­ed by the Context fairly pleads, then have we our Saviours command to the vulgar to read the Scripture. But if it be spoken to the Pharisees, as Stapleton restrains it, yet is it a more cogent Argument, they being men so notorious for the abuse of the Scripture, as never were the like: What brought up their Phylacteries, but an abuse of the place fore-cited? What caused their obstinacy against the Gospel, but the mis-interpretation of the Law? And a supposition; falsely deduced from Texts, that it was eternal? How much of this may any body see in Buxtorf, Selden, Lightfoot, and others, that concern themselves in these matters? Our Sa­viour (pardon the expression) was either not so wise as to [Page 253]know this was the way to make them worse, or else so malicious as to set them in that way which would be so pernicious to them. Origen, as great a Scholar as he was, Hom. 2. in Esai. knew not the danger we are now acquainted with, when he so vehemently cries out, De Baptismo, l. 2. cap. 4. In cap. tertium ad Colos. I would to God we could all do what is written, viz. search the Scriptures. Nor Saint Basil, when he requires the same duty from us. Nor did Saint Chrysostome consider this, when he so passionately called upon the people; O all ye secular men get you Bibles, the physick of the Souls; else sure he would have bid them throw them away as the poyson of the Soul; but the good Father had not learn'd to blaspheme the Scripture: Yea, even Saint Paul himself was ignorant of this Divinity, (so necessary to prevent the murther of Kings, the dissolution of Governments, the Schismes and Ruptures of the Church, the swarmes of Here­sies that fly about, if we may believe this Advocate of the Church of Rome.) For this is the Encomium that he gives to Timoth, 2.3. That from a youth he had learned the Scriptures, and makes it a part of nobility in the Be [...]eans, that they com­pared his Doctrine with the Word of God, brought it to this touch stone, to see if it could abide the proof; And lastly, writing to the Corinthians, assures them, 2 Ep. 1.13. that the matter of his Epistle was no other then what they read and did ac­knowledge.

But let our Confuter proceed, p. 167. he tells us, Sect. 9 That Catholicks knowing how impossible it is for ignorant persons to understand it, and for passionate minds to make good use of it; think it more conducing to Edification, that such easily misled Souls should be taught their duties rather by plain Catechismes and inst ructions, prudently, and with all clearness gathered out of Scripture.

Answ. Be it so, but let them not perswade us to think that the one must exclude the other, when we protest against them still for doing so; let them not be angry, if we with our blessed Saviour and his Apostles think both expedient, and very much conducing to Edification, if we ad­here in this to the Primitive Church, and among other instructions exhort them diligently to read the Scripture: Nor do we think any person so ignorant that can read, as not [Page 255]to know the Essentials of his Christianity, and to find things plain and easie which will suffice for his Salvation; Nor is it therefore fit to be restrain'd, because we have some of passionate minds, which, whilest such, are not like to make good use of the Word of God, no more then they are to be hindred from a good Sermon, Catechisme, or other means of instruction; because, whilst such, they are not like to make good use of them; or to be deprived of their goods, because they are apt to abuse the creature. But rather they are to read the Scripture, that they may learn thereby to lay aside their passion.

'Tis true, Sect. 10 what he tells us, Sect. 6. That the abuse of Scripture by ignorant and passionate Laicks is not so certain and probable to follow in the Catholick Church, where men are bred up in a belief of that most necessary duty of submission, even of their minds to her authority, for the delivery of the onely true sence of Scripture; whereas in our Church no person can be perswaded that the sence of Scripture given by us, can challenge an inter­nal assent, or that it may not with sin be contradicted.

But then we say, First, If this be so, how can you plead the danger of your peoples erring, as a pretence to restrain Scripture, when as this would more confirm them, they being bred up in a belief, that what sence you put upon Scripture is the mind of God? What an evident contradi­ction therefore is there in these two pretences?

Secondly, We dare not thus Lord it over the Consciences of men, as not thinking we have any such assistance of the Scripture, as will guide us infallibly into the true sence of Scripture; and therefore supposing our selves fallible, we do not bind our people to an internal assent unto our inter­pretations upon our sole authority, lest we should bind them to believe an Errour; Glad would we be to find the Roman Church indued with this infallibility; how fast would we nestle into her bosome were it so? But we know that chal­lenge is vain and idle: Yet seeing they pretend thus much, is it not a wonder that this Church, which hath authority gi­ven her to deliver the true sence of the Scripture, should never do it? To what end, I pray you, hath God given it, but that your people should have the benefit thereof? Why [Page 254]then are parties at so great a variance among you, about the true sence of Scripture, and your Church still neglects the exercise of its authority, in putting an end to those strifes, by her declaration of it? But speak your Conscience; do you not know or fear that this would be a most convincing Ar­gument against that infallibility you so much boast of? When we should make it appear (as no doubt we could) that some of your interpretations were false, and contrray to the infallible Rule of Scripture.

Thirdly, Therefore albeit we do not require of our peo­ple that they should assent to such an interpretation of Scripture, because that we who interpret it are guided by an infallible Spirit; yet do we say that the people ought to receive the interpretation of doubtful places from the Pastors God hath placed over them, not contradicting them with­out evident reason, but submiting to them; that when they are by some passage of Scripture induced to think otherwise, they ought not presently to condemn the Church of Errours, but re­flect upon their own weakness, and seek for better information from men of Learning and Judgement, and acquiesce in it; unlesse they can evidently shew that they err in their inter­pretation. And indeed, I could never perswade my self that the vulgar Jews were bound to accept all those false and corrupt interpretations which the Scribes and Pharisees put upon Scripture; And indeed, had they been so obliged, then might they have refused to give maintenance either to Father or Mother, by telling them that it was Corban by which they should be relieved; yea, then they were bound to believe that our Saviour Christ was not the Messias, that he was not from God, but an Impostor: Well then, either these were Judges infallible or not; if so, then the absurdity fore­mention'd is not avoidable; if not, then let him tell us what other infallible Judge they had, or acknowledge they had none; and if so, then I ask leave to inquire what ne­cessity have we to think the people should have such a one under the Gospel, when they were far more ignorant under the Law, nor had such guidance of the Spirit to lead them into all truth; and yet God did not then think it meet to constitute such a one.

Well, Sect. 11 but our Adversary seems to triumph in an Argu­ment from Scripture against the reading of this Sacred book, Mr. C. 168. and it may thus be formed; Certainly none of them whom we know to be apt to pervert the Scriptures should be per­mitted to read them. 2 Pet. 3.16. But the unlearned and unstable are apt to do so: therefore, &c. And for Confirmation of this we are told, that the unlearned and unstable of England are 99 of each hundred; therefore if they are not to be permit­ted to read the Scripture, 99 of each hundred in England should not be permitted. To this Argument we reply,

(1.) That the major is false, as is evident. For tell me, were not the Jews apt to pervert the Scripture? who were yet commanded to be daily conversant in the same? were not the Scribes and Pharisees apt to pervert Scripture? And yet our Saviour bids the one search the Scripture: tells the other, that they erre not knowing the Scripture.

(2.) Doth not Saint Peter, 1 Epist. chap. 1. prescribe at­tending to the word as a remedy to keep us from the de­ceptions of false prophets? And if you will say, with Staple­ton, we are bid indeed to attend to Scripture, but as preach'd by the Pastours of the Church, not read, the contrary is e­vident; for 'tis a word of prophecy, which holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; and sure, that is the Scripture.

(3.) If this were true, then were the fathers much to blame, who call'd the Heretiques to Scripture, bid them look to Scripture and see their Errours, when it is notorious that they were made Hereticks by perverting Scripture. A­gain, to the minor I say, that the Apostle doth not say, that such are apt to pervert all Scripture, but something hard and difficult in Saint Pauls Epistle and other Scripture; and now, the benefit we receive by the other places not so hard may recompence the danger.

(2.) I say the unlearned are so, if they proceed to judge of the scripture, and will take things in their own sence without going to God for direction, begging his Spirit, and using the help of the guides set over them; whence 'tis well infer'd, they should not read scripture, without a sense of weakness and aptness to pervert it, when they permit them­selves [Page 257]to draw conclusions and decide controversies by it: and therefore should not read it after such a manner; but pray to God more for his Assistance in reading, and have closer dependance on the guides that are given them, and not dote upon questions, which administer strife, rather then edifying.

The second part of this Chapter is taken up in a miser­able defence of their Churches prayers in an unknown tongue, which cannot more effectually be confuted, Sect. 12 then by an impartial consideration of those pitiful sophisms that uphold it.

And (1.) he tells the Doctor, Mr. C. p. 172. that he mistakes the Chur­ches meaning, as if one of it's positions were, that Gods publick worship ought to be in an unknown tongue; or as if it forbad the people to understand it, And truly (saith he) if it were so, we could never hope to be reconciled with that passage of Scrip­ture, out of Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 14.13. thus he: Answ. But where I pray you hath the Doctor one Iota from whence you can be able to make good this charge? why did you not direct us to his words from whence this consequence could be infer'd? but confidently tell him he mistakes, when as 'tis only your prevarication makes him do so? did you peruse that paragraph, or not? if you did not, then what unparallel'd boldness was it at all adventures to charge him with mistakes? if you did, what wilfull insincerity was it to charge him with that which you knew to be a palpable un­truth?

Secondly, Had he affirmed what you unjustly charge him with, yet might he very easily be freed from a mistake; for seeing your Trent Conventicle hath determined that 'tis not expedient that the publick service should be celebrated in the vulgar Tongue, it must have consequently determined that it ought not to be so; seeing the Apostles rule requires that in things lawful in themselves we should be guided, 1 Cor. 6.12. See Bishop Sanderson his Sermon In locum. as to practise, by expedience, and consequently that if the vul­gar tongue be not expedient in Gods publick service, it ought not to be used; and if so then sure a tongue not vulgar or unknown, must necessarily take place.

Thirdly, I affirm that if you could not reconcile her com­mand [Page 258]to celebrate Gods publick service in an unknown tongue with that passage of S. Paul, neither can you reconcile her practice; it being notoriously evident that what S. Paul there speaks respects the practice, not the commands of the Church of Corinth, but only as the prohibition of the practice infers a prohibition of the commanding such a pra­ctice, so that our Authors mouth sufficiently condemns him; but to proceed.

He tells us, Sect. 13 Sect. 9. That they generally acknowledge the service of God in the primitive times to have been performed in a tongue better understood then now it is, but yet not for many places, or countrys, in their vulgar native or best known tongue; for (saith he) 'tis evident by Saint Augustine that in Africa it was in the Latine, not in the Punick, which yet was the only tongue the vulgar understood.

Ans. If this be not related Punica fide let any indifferent man judge, for do we not know that his Sermons ad popu­lum were in Latine? when as yet you generally acknow­ledge they ought to be in the vulgar tongue; doth not he tell us in his retractions, l. 1. c. 10. psalmum qui iis cantaretur per latinas literas feci. De verbis Apost. Ser. 16. In psal. 50. & ps. 138. that being willing to have the cause of the Donatists known to the meanest of the vulgar, that it might stick upon their memories he made a psalm which should be sung to them in Latine Letters. Yea, doth he not give them a Punick proverb in the Latine tongue? and annex this reason, quia Punice non omnes nostis? did he not condescend to the use of barbarous words, ossum for os, sanguines and sanguina, upon this account, because it was better Gramarians should reprehend him, See Dr. Field, p. 246. &c. & du pless. Sac Mis l. 2 c. 6. c. 7.then that the people should not under­stand him; could you be ignorant of these (and other evi­dences of this truth) and cite so frequently that Dr. Field from whence I had them.

And would it not make an Heraclitus laugh to hear you tell us of S. Sect. 14. Ib. Basils Liturgy used in the Greek tongue in most parts of the Eastern Churches, and adde that this was not the vulgar (or tongue sufficiently understood) in many of these Eastern Churches, Act. 14.11. and that because the people said in the language of Lycaonia the Gods are come down to us in the likeness of men; Act. 2.8, 9, 10. and further, Parthians, and Medes, and Ela­mites, and the dwellers of Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and [Page 259]Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphilia heard the Apostles speak in their own tongues the wonderful works of God. For can this do you any service till you have proved these things?

(1.) That Saint Basils Liturgy was in all, or any of these places?

(2.) That those places where this Liturgy was used did not understand Greek, as well as their vulgar tongue;

(3.) That if they could not understand Greek in the days of the Apostles, neither could they do it 600 years af­ter their decease and upwards (about which time this spu­rious Liturgy might haply have been used) and when all this is done, which will be ad Graecas Calendas, the conse­quence will be only this, that after six hundred years Saint Pauls precept was disregarded by some Eastern Churches.

Farther, we have sufficient evidences, that in many parts of Asia the Greek was a sufficiently vulgar tongue; Saint Chrysostom preached in Greek at Antioch; S. Basil at Cae­sarea, Athanasius at Alexandria, Cyril at Jerusalem: thus from Constantinople to Antioch throughout Asia was the Greek language sufficiently known; S. Jerom will tell us, Tom. in Ep. ad Gal. in proamia pro Archia Pocta. sermme Graeco omnis oriens loquitur; all the East used the Greek tongue; and Cicero, Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus, that almost all Nations used it; and why not then those places in which this Liturgy was used?

But you go on to inform us, Sect. 15. Ib. that your Church did not in­tend that her publick devotions should therefore be in Latine, because it is not vulgarly understood, but this hath hapned as it were by accident of the mixture of barbarous nations, (but why then was it thus performed in England where it was always a tongue unknown unto the vulgar:) and notwith­standing this accident you do not think meet to change it upon these accounts.

(1.) Because no example can be given of anciently esta­blished Churches, that any of them changed the Language of Gods publick service entirely?

Ans. Were it so, the reason evidently must be the no-ne­cessity of such a change, seeing 'tis evident beyond all possi­bility [Page 260]of contradiction, that the most holy and pious of e­very age required the performance of Gods service in a lan­guage known; Rupert. de Diz. officiis, l. 3. c. 8. hence in mixt congregations the Service was read both in Greek and Latine; and at the funeral solemni­ties of Paula the Greeks, Hier ad Eustoch. Epitaph. Paulae. Syrians, Latines, &c. had their devotions in their proper tongues. Yea Innocent the third decreed that seeing there were mixed people of divers langua­ges in sundry parts within the same Diocess, or City, the Bi­shops of these places should provide fit men to Celebrate Di­vine Service,p. 248. De Sac. Mis. l. 2. c. 6.according to the diversities of their Rites, and Languages, as you may see in Doctor Field; he that would be glutted with the suffiages of Antiquity let him have re­course to the honourable the Lord du Plessis, and he shall find abundant sati [...]faction.

Secondly, As the evasion is evidently weak and imperti­nent, so is it notoriously false; for Methodius having transla­ted the Scripture into the S [...]lavenian tongue, perswaded the Dalmatians to explode the Latine, and make use of their own in the service of God, p. 434. as Aventinus informs us; yea, the same M [...]thodius went into the Kingdoms of Boiaria, and sought to perswade Noricum, Pannenia, & Veneda to abandon the Latine, and have the service in the vulgar: and albeit at the present he was resisted, yet afterwards the attempt took effect, See Doctor Field, ubi supra. at least in part, as appears by Aventinus, telling us that in his age the priests of Liburnia did celebrate Divine Ser­vice in their own, De missa Latine facienda in locis communi­bus. p. 241. that is, in the Sclavonian tongue; yea, Eckius, a rigid Papist, will consess, that heretofore the Divine Service was in the Dalmatian tongue, throughout all Illiri­cum; the same you may find evinced of many others that now use the Latine, in the most Learned Dr. Field.

You go on, Sect. 16 and tell us, that the Greeks now use the An­cient Mass of Saint Chrysostom, Mr. C. p. 173. written in pure Greek, as much dissering from the vulgar, as Latine from the Italian, Spanish, &c. and that the like may be said of the Syrian, Cophtites, &c. yea, the Jews continue their devotions in the Hebrew to this day; albeit understood by few of them.

Ans. 1. The Lord du Plessis would have informed you, albeit the Mass which the Greek Church useth is different from their vulgar, p. 268. non tamen quantum aut Italica à Latinâ, [Page 261]aut Gallica ipsa à Narbonensi; and farther that where the Greek tongue is not in use (as among the Muscovians and Russiane) albeit they follow the Greek customs, yet do they celebrate Divine Service in the vulgar tongue; and I have so much confidence of the truth of his assertion, as to judge your contradiction to it to exceed the bounds.

Secondly, The Aegyptians indeed have their service in a bastard Chalde, or Syriaque, their vulgar being Arabique, Field, p. 241. but then they first read the Gospel in the Chaide, and after­wards in Arabique, which is not done in their publick Services.

Thirdly, When the example of the Russians, Muscovians, Com. in 1 Cor. 16. disp. 50. s 7. l 2: de verbo dei c. 16.Aethiopians, &c. was objected to Salmeron in behalf of Service in the vulgar tongue; he Answers, we will not be moved with the examples of such barbarous people; and their famous Bellar, adds 'tis all one as if Lutherans and Ana­baptists should be called for confirmation of an opinion, seeing these are Hereticks as well as they; so that our adversary might as well have argued that Arrius and his followers de­nyed the Godhead of Saviour, and therefore we also ought to do so; the Jews deny him to be the Saviour of the world, blaspheme him in their Services; and therefore so should we.

Again, he argues thus, Sect. 17. Ib. a great fitness there is that the most publick service should be in the most publick tongue; but La­tine is the most publick tongue in Europe. But,

(1.) This Sophisme will turn our Sermons into Latine, which yet the Romanists, notwithstanding their other im­pudent oppositions to the word of God) have not as­serted.

Secondly, What reason can any mortall man imagine, why the service of God should be celebrated in that Lan­guage which is most publick in Europe, rather then in Asia?

Thirdly, How blind were the primitive Churches, which could not see so great a fitnes in this way of worship? Cont. Cels. l. 8. singuli precen­tur propria lingua. Just. novel. 123 Ed. Haloandri, for amongst them, as Origen tells us, every one prayed in his own tongue, and Justinian commanded all Bishops and Pres­byters to celebrate holy prayers and mysteries, clara & vernaculâ voce, so that the vulgar might understand telling [Page 262]them out of the Apostle, to what little putpose it was to do it otherwise; and that they should not only be accountable for it at the day of judgement, but punished by him also upon transgression of this command.

Fourthly, We deny that the Latine tongue is the most publick in Europe, or that there is any fitness that the Ser­vice of God should be celebrated in all Europe in that Lan­guage which is most publick.

And what if the Latine tongue be understood (which yet is not always true) by those that frequently recite the prayers, Sect. 18 (even as the unknown tongue which S. Paul so ve­hemently cryed down was understood by him that spake it) what if that were a truth which you so crudely suggest, p. 175. that a great part of the service was composed for the Clergies proper use? when as the thing you are blamed for, is, that in the publick service which concerns the common people, and according to the Apostles Doctrine, ought to be done so as that they may understand it, and be edified thereby, is lock'd up by you in a tongue unknown; Again, why do you marry in the Latine tongue? is that proper to your Clergy?

Your last evasion is, Sect. 19. Ib. 6. that by this means, (viz. the keeping of your service in the Latine tongue) your Doctrine is kept from being innovated, whereas by the change of other Lan­guages the Doctrine would lie under a danger of being changed; Liturgyes (preserved the same in the Latine tongue) must ever and anon be altered, and infinite expen­ces be laid out in Printing them.

Ans. Is not this a shrew'd sign of a sinking cause to lay hold upon such bul-rushes as these? to catch at such vain and empty shadows? what, is it better that the poor people should want the bread of life, the comfort and edification of the Churches service, then buy a Common Prayer Book once in 20 or perhaps an 100 years? Is there any dan­ger of being undone by such a contribution of the parish that in an age will rob each family of a single peny? should these infallible keepers of the truth of God fear the loss of their Religion upon the change of a word or (2.) In the Chruches Liturgy? what new Doctrine hath been [Page 263]broached by having our Liturgy in the vulgar tongue? what great need have we had of new translations? or what danger have we found by turning Paul the knave of Jesus Christ into the servant of Jesus Christ? how did the Syriack, Greek, &c. corrupt in the time of the Antient Fathers, who yet did never complain of these inconveniences, or think them sufficient to make use of the Latine tongue in their pub­lick service; these objections are so absurd as that nothing can make them more ridiculous.

For a close, he tells us that Popes have granted, p. 177. that the service of God should be celebrated in that maner which we con­tend for, one of them having been induced to it by a miracle. Sect. 20

A. And is it not wonderful that they should dare to con­tradict a miracle, and when upon their consultation touching this matter God answered from heaven, let every tongue confess unto me, should say, not so, only the Latine tongue shall do it?

Farther he saith, Sect. 21 that haply an indulgence may be granted.

Ans. Very good: but till then let them not blame us for not communicating with them, seeing we continually proclaim that we are ready to communicate with them when ever we can procure a dispensation, from these and the like enor­mities; yea let them acknowledge that the Church of Rome hath erred by introducing this service into the Church; hath contradicted the verdict of the infallible word of God; which that it is the very truth we come now to demon­strate from that place of 1 Cor. 14. mistaken (if we may be­lieve him) by the Doctor.

Now to pass over those arguments which with sufficient evidence may be drawn from the 11 first verses of this Chapter, in the 12 vers. Sect. 22 the Apostle thus exhorts these emu­lators of the gift of tongues, that seeing they so importunate­ly desired to abound in gifts, they would do it to the edifi­cation of the Church, endeavouring to excel in that which tends unto this noble end. Now what was that? the Apostle Ans. The interpreting of tongues, that the people may know [...], the import of the voice, wherefore (seeing we ought with greatest vigor to pursue [Page 264](those things that make most for the edification of the Church) he that speaketh with an unknown tongue let him pray that he may interpret, where two things may be inquired.

(1.) To what part of service that verse refers.

Ans. Prayer, As is evident from the reason given, vers. 14. Let him pray that he may interpret, for if I pray in an un­known tongue, &c.

Secondly, Why must he pray that he may interpret?

Ans. That the Church may receive edification, vers. 5. Yea, this is farther evident from the series of the words, vers. 12. seek that you may excell to the edification of the Church; wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret, as also from the Apostles precept; that all things should be done to edification, and consequent­ly prayer. Now hence I argue.

That which is requisite, that we may excell to the edifi­cation of the Church, we ought to practise in our publick prayers; for as much as the Apostle bids us seek to excell (in this matter) to the edification of the Church; but praying in a tongue known to the people which joyn in ser­vice with us is requisite to this and (this being the end of our praying that we may interpret) therefore we ought to pra­ctise it. Our Authour here tells us that the Trent Council ob­serves the mind of the Apostle, in that she hath commanded all Pastors, during the Celebration of the Mass, to expound some part of what is read. An Answer worthy such a cause.

For (1.) Was it ever heard before that expounding perhaps an Epistle or Gospel (or something else, which to be sure is not a prayer) should be interpreting the Churches Prayer? or dare he affirm that the Pastors interpret their Prayers as they are Read?

(2.) Doth the Apostle require that onely some part of the Prayer should be interpreted? is there not equall rea­son for the whole? especially when he adds, let all be done for edification?

(3.) Were this done frequently, yet it is evident that the Apostles precept would be neglected, though more rarely:

His 2 Ans. I shall confute in consideration of the 16. v. [Page 265]It follows. Sect. 23 For if I pray in an unknown tongue my spi­rit prays, that is, v. 14. the extraordinary gift of the Spirit in me; thus Chrysostome, Theodoret, Photius: I know the Rhe­mists by Spirit understand affections, and make the sence run thus; in this case my heart and affections pray, albeit I un­derstand not what I say; But were this the truth, that he that speaketh in an unknown tongue understandeth not himself;

Then (1.) We must acknowledge that when the A­postles at the day of Pentecost were endued with the gift of tongues, they understood not what they said; which will not easily be granted.

Secondly, The word [...], in this Chapter, ordina­rily imports the gift of tongues, and therefore most pro­bably it doth so here.

Thirdly, The Fathers generally do thus interpret it, be­sides the three already cited; Saint Hierom, Basil, Oecu­menius are clearly for this sence, and therefore Papists cannot without perjury run counter to it.

But (4.) The Apostle in this very Chapter tells us, he that speaks with tongues edifies himself, vers. 4. and also that where the voice is not understood it doth not edifie. vers. 15, 16.

Fiftly, In the very next verse he requires that over and above praying by the spirit, we should adde praying with the Understanding also; so that how ever you interpret your praying with the spirit, yet must you pray so also as to be understood: well then our Exposition must take place. It follows, but my mind is unfruitful, that is the reason why an unknown tongue is prohibited in prayer, viz. because although our spiritual gift perform it's work, the mind be­comes unfruitfull: now here by mind some understand the Intellect, some (as the Reverend Bishop Morton) the matter of the prayer, which is the effect of the mind, and made out of the conceptions that we have of the necessities of Gods Church, &c. But this is not material in our dispute; this mind is said to be unfruitful, not to our selves, as the fore­going arguments evince, but to the hearer; thus Saint Jerome, mens ejus non ipsi efficitur fine fructu sed audienti, In loeum. [Page 266]and Saint Basil, In locum. when they that are present understand the prayer, then he that prayeth hath fruit, to wit, the edification of those that are helped by his prayer; now to be unfruitful in this sence, what is it but to be such whereby the Audi­tour reaps no benefit, the Church is not edifyed; others are not instructed? as the 19. verse doth clearly intimate, where we have these words, in the Church I had rather speak five words, [...] with my mind (under­stood) that I may instruct others, then ten thousand in an unknown tongue; now hence I argue, That which makes the prayer unfruitful to the hearers ought not to be done, (this being the reason of the Apostles prohibition) but the expres­sing of publick prayers in an unknown tongue makes them unfruitful to the hearer.

Vers. 15. Sect. 24 [...] what therefore is the result of this, even that this gist of the Spirit may be so managed in pray­er that the Church may understand us, that this (or some­what like it) must be the sence of orabo mente is evident, as from the precedent verse, which tells us that if we do not pray in a known tongue our mind will be unfruitful unto others, and thence infers that we must so pray in the Spirit as that we pray [...] vol sc. [...], for to un­derstand it of the mind of him that prays is to make a ri­diculous inference, after this manner, if you use only the gift of the Spirit you will be unfruitfull unto others, therefore pray so as to understand your self, or that your mind may be employed; Nay, it is further evident from the next verse, which tells us that otherwise the Ideot can­not say Amen; Now surely my understanding my own mind, will nothing contribute unto the Ideot, or make him more able to say Amen. Well then, to pray with the mind, or understanding, is to pray so as that the Con­gregation, made up of learned and unlearned, may com­prehend the import of our words, and so this verse affords us a third Argument. If we must pray so as to be understood by the Congregation, made up of literate and illiterate per­sons, & Ideots, then must we not pray in an unknown tongue, but in the publick service of the Church we should thus pray, according to the mind of our Apostle.

Verse 16. Sect. 25 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit (which is a part of prayer) how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned, say Amen at thy giving of thanks? for he under­standeth not what thou sayest; still the Apostle speaks of Thanks-giving (which is a part of prayer) and must be concluded with Amen: Now here we shall inquire what is meant by the [...]? The Clerk, say some Papists; but surely they themselves are Ideots; for 'tis very evident that the whole people in the time of the Apostle, yea, See Du Plessis ubi supra. a great while after their Martyrdome (as Justine Martyr, Clom: Alexand: and others do inform us) did sound forth Amen with the greatest vigour: Well then, tis an Hebrew Idiotism, and signifies no more then he that is an Ideot; for as Moses Egypt. informes me, More Nevoc. part 1. c. 8. and Bux. lex Talm. p. 2001. voce [...]. the Hebrew [...] is extended to note, estimationem hominis in certâ quapiam re; and they use to say, N: est in tali loco, in hac vel illâ re, and such a one [...] doth patrissare; So here, [...], he is an Ideot: And thus the Fathers generally interpret it; Chrysostome and Oecumenius, indoctum, and Plebium, Jerome, and Theodoret, laicum; Ambrose, imperitum, Sedulius, Anselme, Haymo, and Thomas Aquinas, propriam linguam tantum modò scientem, all in locum. Well then, this Ideot is he that understands not the learned Tongues; and the Congregation is divided into two parts, (see Acts 4.13.) the literate, and the unlearned; and prayers in an unknown Tongue are here prohibited, because the unlearned part of the Church are not able to say Amen unto them; and the reason given, because they understand not what is said by him that prayeth in such a Tongue: Whence we infer,

First, That 'tis the duty of the unlearned to joyn with the Minister in prayer, for he must say Amen, which he can­not do if he joyn not with him; that is, if his understanding doth not accompany his prayer.

Secondly, That such are unable to perform this duty, unlesse they understand the matter of the prayer; for that is the reason assigned by the Apostle, why they cannot say Amen.

Thirdly, That to say Amen, is not barely to pronounce [Page 268]the word (for that assuredly might be done by him that understands not what we say) but to professe our Assent to what is prayed, our willingnesse that it should be granted, our confirmation of the benediction; which the Ideot cannot do, as not knowing whether thou dost beg a blessing, or imprecate a curse; whether thou blessest God, or rather dost blaspheme him: Now hence I argue,

First, That which the Ideot or unlearned cannot say Amen to is not to be used in the Church; but prayer in an unknown. Tongue is such, according to the Apostles Doctrine.

Secondly, That which the Ideot understands not is not to be used in the Church (because he cannot say Amen thereto but an unknown Tongue) is that which the Ideot un­derstands not; and consequently ought not to be used in the Church.

Now here our Author answereth; That the Latine Tongue is alwayes a known Tongue to some, if not to all; and there are alwayes of those that understandingly say Amen: But,

First, What is this to the purpose, when the Apostle distinguisheth the Congregation into the Ideot and others, and blames the prayers which were uttered in an unknown Tongue, because they were such as the Ideot could not understand; will he have the whole Church, besides the Minister, to be Ideots?

Secondly, Is God an accepter of persons? would he have the learned edified by the Churches service, which have least need of these helps, and the unlearned want the be­nefit? If not, must it not be acknowledged that the Apo­stles Reason dictated by the Spirit of God concernes them both?

Thirdly, Is it not the duty of the unlearned to say Amen unto the prayers that are used in publick service? And if so, then must he also understand them; for otherwise as the Apostle here assures us, he cannot do it.

Again, Sect. 26 verse 17. For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified; It might have been replyed, why may not the Ideot say Amen, seeing the matter of my prayer is good?

Answer. True, saith the Apostle, thou for thy part givest thanks well, but albeit it be so that which makes thy thanks­giving unlawful; is that [...], others that are Ideots are not edified thereby; thy benediction or thanks-giving contributes nothing to his spiritual joy, doth not enlarge his heart with a sense of Gods goodnesse into thanks-giving and prayses, and so he is not edified; where­as 'tis better to speak five words to his instruction and edifica­tion, then five hundred in that Tongue which he understands not, and consequently is not profited by: Hence I argue, that which the Ideot is not edified by, is not to be used in the Church; this being the reason assigned by the Apostle why the unknown Tongue should not be used; but prayer in an unknown Tongue is that by which the Ideot ( [...], spoken of, verse 16.) is not edified.

The other answers which our Author returns are very weak; but as they are we shall consider them. Sect. 27

First, ‘Then, he tells us that the service of the Church be­ing a known set form in one set Language, P. 176. recurring con­tinually the same according to the feast; those that are ig­norant of it at first, may by due attention and other dili­gence, arrive to a sufficient knowledge, at least, of the chief parts thereof; they having in their Manuals, Primers, and Psalters, ready translated both the Psalmes, Hymnes, and Prayers, &c. And there being severeal Books both in English, and all vulgar Languages, that expound the Church­service, even to the meanest.’

Answer. Quid verba audio cum facta videam, what do you tell us, that such and such things might by the due attention of the ignorant be done; When it is notoriously known, that the people still continue ignorant? and whilest it is so, you transgresse the Laws of the Apostle by praying in a Tongue they understand not? was it not notorious here in Eng­land, in the dayes of Q. Mary, that scarce two in a Parish under stood the Service? Let us have service in a vulgar Tongue, untill you find the Latine service understood, and then we will cease to charge you with contradicting the Apostle?

Secondly, Could they at last be able to understand the Latine service as to its chief parts, yet would not this [Page 270]acquit you from a violation of the Apostles precept; Who would have every benediction spoken to their capacity, all things done to their edification; and consequently, so a that they may be able to understand them? Do not his rea­sons conclude against the performance of any part of divine service in an unknown Tongue? Seeing that Hymne, Prayer, or Psalme, that is so performed, is such by which the Ideot is not edified, with which he cannot joyn, as being not able to understand it: Yea farther, do you not read your les­sons and other portions of holy Scripture in Latine also? And will you permit them an English Bible, by which they may learn to understand them?

Thirdly, is it not a thing extremely difficult, if not mo­rally impossible, for an illiterate person to retain in his me­mory a bulky quarto Mass; or at least by comparing Manu­als, &c. with it to understand it, and be able to joyn with the Priest each Holy-day? Can you produce any illiterate Papists amongst us that have used this diligence? And if some were able, What must those many thousands, yea, Myriads, that know not Letters, do? What will their Manuals and Primers avail them?

Fourthly and lastly, For I might be endless, is the whole Mass extant in these Manuals or not? Is it so extant as that the meanest of the vulgar may have recourse unto it? Are you diligent to instruct them what parts of their English Manuals, &c. do Answer to the parts of their Mass read on every day throughout the year? Do you suffer them to bring these Books into the Assemblies, and is it usual so to do? Do you exhort them to the attention so requisite to their understanding of the Churches service, reprove them for not doing it? If you deal sincerely with us here, all these que­stions must be answered in the affirmative, which I suppose you will blush to do.

Your last Answer is, Sect. 28 ‘That the Latine Tongue by reason of its affinity with many vulgar Tongues, P. 177. and its constant use, is not so much unknown as we imagine, and so there is not the same motive for a dispensation as in other places; Hil. l. 1. c. 1. yea, and our venerable Bede informes us, that in his time to the English, Scotch, Britains, Picts, the Latine Tongue [Page 271]by perusing the Scripture, (a fit citation for a Chapter penned in defiance of it) was made common to them all.’

Answer. Notwithstanding all this, i [...] it not evident that the people do not understand their service, will not their own witers confesse as much? Hear Billet on this subject cited by Cassander; What shall we say of our times, l. de off. pij viri, p. 41.wherein scarce, or not at all, either he that heareth or readeth understandeth what he heareth or readeth; and Cassander himself saith, it were to be desired that consideration should be had of the people, according to the mandate of the Apostle, and that the ordinary and vulgar sort of believers might not for ever be excluded wholly from all communion in prayers and di­vine service: Yea, was there ever any Papist that durst say the people understood their Latine Service? In a word, ei­ther they do understand it so far as to be able to joyn with the Priest, or not; if the latter, to what end is this Answer produced by you? If the former, what need of all the former evasions, what need of an interpreter of their Mass, of Manuals, and other helps, to understand the Churches prayer? Doubtlesse, the Peasants in France, and Carters in England, understand Latine both alike, and the recourse of the service once a year is very like to help them much.

Secondly, If there were lesse reason for a change in France and Italy, &c. why had we not a change in England? why have they not in Germany, Ireland, &c? Yea, Retento ubi (que) cujus (que) Ecclefia antiquo ritu. why doth the Council of Trent require that the old custom of Latine service should every where remain?

To conclude, in your citation of venerable Bede, Sect. 29 you shamefully abuse us; his words are these; Haec (Britannia) in praesenti juxta numerum librorum quibus Lex divina scripta est, quinque gentium linguis unam eandem (que) summae veritatis, & verae sublimitatis scientiam scrutatur & confitetur; Anglo­rum, Britannorum, Scotorum, Pictorum, & Latinorum, quae meditatione Scripturarum caeteris omnibus est facta communis; That is, in short, Britain at present enjoyes five Tongues; English, Scots, Picts, British, and Latine; which by me­ditation of the Scripture is made common to them all, that [Page 272]is some learned men there are in all these parts, some Scots, Picts, English, &c. that have attained to a knowledge of the Latine Tongue; John Trevison, l. 5. c. 24. but yet that the Vulgar did not under­stand it, and that Bede could not so imagine, is Evident; because this Bede Translated a part of the Bible into the Saxon Tongue for the peoples use. L. 4. c. 24. Yea, and in this same Historie, tells us of a certain Brother in the Monastery of the Abhess Hilda, Quicquid ex divinis literis per interpretes disceret. Cuncta quae au­diendo discerc poterat. See Dr. Field ubi supra. who would presently express in verse in his own Tongue, that is in the English; whatsoever he learn­ed by Interpreters out of the Holy Books, and whatsoever by hearing he could possibly learn, he turned it into most sweet Poems. And no wonder if the Scriptures were read in Latine by the Saxons, when as Learned men are of Opi­nion, they knew not how, before Bedes time, to write in their own Language.

CHAP. XVI.

IN this Chapter we have the Definition of the Trent Coun­cil touching the Invocation of Saints, P. 179. wherein we are told

All this might be evinced with a little pains, but it is al­ready done in many Treatises of the Romanists Idolatry; and therefore I shall content my self to shew their practice, and leave it to impartial considering men to judge.

And first, Solve polluti labii reatum nunc potens no­stri meritis opi mispectorisdures lapides repelle. they pray to them for pardon of sins; thus the Roman Breviary in the Nativity of Saint John Baptist: Thou that art powerful, break the hard stones of our hearts by thy rich merits, and absolve as from the guilt of a polluted lip: And if you would be so charitable as to think that they in­tend no more then that the Saints should pray for their ab­solution, they will not suffer you to be so, for they else­where have it: Nos à peccatis omnibus solvi­te jussu quaesu­mus, quorum pracepto sub­ditur salus & languor omni­um, Brev. Rom. in Cor. Apost. (speaking to the Apostles.) You that shut Heaven with a word, and loose its Locks, we pray you com­mand that we be absolved from all our sins, for the health and languishing of all men is subject to your precept. And in the Feast of Saint Peter, and Paul to Saint Peter, they pray much after the same manner; and yet the Scripture puts the que­stion, Who can forgive sins but God? Mar. 2.7.

Secondly, They pray to them for Grace and Glory: Ps. 56. Lady in thy name let me be safe, and free me from my unrigh­teousness; have mercy upon me, and cleanse me from all mine iniquities: and again, Ps. 27. & 50. Dissolve the Bonds of mine iniqui­ties: Take away the bundles of our sins purge my soul from its filth.Ps. 3. & 87.By thy Holiness are my sins purged. Ps. 44.Thou art the beginning, and end of my whole salvation, totius salutis meae, &c. Ps. 41. Ps. 136.By her are sins purged, by her is made true satisfaction for sins: &c. whereas 'tis Gods propriety to be the God of all Grace.

Thirdly, they pray for these things upon the account of the merits of the Saints. Thus the Roman Breviary By [Page 275]the merits of Saint Franciscus, April 2. Let us enjoy our promised re­wards, and grant that by the merits of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, we may attain to eternal Glory: July 6.That by the merits of Saint Nicholaus, the Church may enjoy perpetual peace, by the intercession of the merits of Saint Basil, Sept. 10. Let us be absolved from allour sins; and to the blessed Virgin Mary; Jan. 14.By thee let the wrath of God be averted from me, appease him by thy merits: and again, By the blood which Saint Thomas shed for thee, Ps. 72.make us to ascend that Heaven whither Thomas is ascended: and this is consonant to that of Bellarmine, Prec. ad usum Sacrum in fest. Th. Becket. who tells us that it is lawful to pray unto the Saints even for salvatian, and other spiritual blessings, if so be we understand it thus, that they should impetrate them by their merits. Now if this be not derogatory to the Merits of Christ to have veram satisfactio­nem de'peccatis, to have Grace and Glory purchased by the blood and merits of others, let any unreasonable Man judge.

Section 4th. and 5th. Sect. 3 Our Authour affords us some con­siderations, from which (I suppose) he would infer the law­fulness of this practise, and first saith he, ‘we may beg pray­ers from one another, as Saint Paul himself did from the Ephesians (and others) c. 6.19. c. 2. Thes. 3.1.4. Col. 3. where he bids the Brethren pray for him.’

Answer, Very good, but yet we dare not beg from these our Brethren Grace, Glory, pardon of sins; nor say with the Roman Breviary, to the Virgin Mary, We flye unto thee, O Virgin Mary for thy defence, and for as much as (being conscious of our great offences, we fear the wrath of a severe Judge, whom we dare not see; We flye unto thee his Mother, that thou wouldst intercede for us unto God, excuse our sins, and obtaining for its the Grace of thy Omnipotent Son procure us the pardon of what ever we have committed.

Secondly, ‘He tells us such begging of prayers is far from Idolatry or diminution to Christ since holy persons (li­ving or dead) are not invocated as donors, but fellow beg­gars with God for us.’

Answer, Why then doth your Breviary talk so often of procuring Grace and Glory, and the pardon of sins, by the merits of the Saints? Why do you tell us, that by the Ho­liness [Page 276]of the Virgin Mary are your sins purged; That she is the beginning and end of your salvation, that she hath made true satisfaction for us; are these things no diminution to Christs merits, and satisfaction, to procure mercy for us upon these scores is this to procure it as fellow b [...]eggars

‘Thirdly, say you the refusing of the assistance of those whose prayers God more willingly hears is a neglect of using all means helpful to us.’

Answer, True, but if the neglect of this Invocation of Saints, be the neglect of any means thus helpful, then were the Apostles negligent in giving us no intimation of our du­ty in this particular: Yea, the Saints of God for some thou­sand of yeares under the Old Testament, and the Pri­mitive Church for 300 years, must be accused of this negli­gence; for of their practise in this case nullibi vola nec vesti­gium, Scripture and Histories afford us no one Tittle, but pregnant Evidence to the contrary.

‘But you proceed, Mr. C. S. 5. If the praiers to Sts. departed be prejudi­cial to the merits & intercessions of our Lord, Sect. 4 so is the beg­ing of the prayers of those alive, if one be unlawful, so is the other: and if both be lawful, the prayers of Saints de­parted will be incomparably more effectual, and there­fore will better deserve to be made use of then the other.’

Answer, Is it not then a wonder that Saint Paul (if he may be permitted to have known as much as Mr. C.) should thrice call upon his Brethren alive for their supplications, and yet not put up one Petition to a Saint or Angel?

Secondly, We know it is the duty of living Saints to pray for one another but whether the Saints departed pray at all, whether for any in particular, and how far, we know not. We know a certain way to excite the Saints on earth to the performance of that Duty in reference to us; but we are ignorant of any way of conveighing our desires to the Saints in Heaven. We have Rule, President, and Command in Scripture for the first, not one jot of all these in reference to the second: the Requests we make to the living are no elicite Acts of Religion, the requests made by the Romanist to the Saints departed are. We pray to the living neither directly nor indirectly, but de­sire [Page 277]them only, by vertue of our Communion with them to assist us in their prayers, as we might ask an Alms or any other good turn at their hands the Saints departed are by you directly invocated, and in your devotions you imme­diately step from God and Christ unto a Saint. We do not plead the merits of our Brethren, nor bid them do so in our behalf, you do both in reference to the Saints departed; we do not kneel to our Brethren, or ly prostrate before them on these accounts; we do not invoke them in our Churches, insert them into our Liturgies, believe them to be [...] any way, or that we are committed to their care or custody; all this you do believe in inreference to the Saints departed: Is not this therefore a very good Argument if the prayers made to Saints departed by the Romanists, wherein they beg of them Grace and Glory, and all spiritual good things, trust in their Patronage, plead for audience on the account of their merits be prejudicial to the merits of satis­faction, and intercession of our Saviour, or otherwise un­lawful; then must the asking of my brothers prayers (in spight of all these differences) be so.

Again, Mr. C. informs us, Sect. 5 that the most learned and sober of our party, question not whether the Saints pray for us in general.

Answer, But let me tell him that it is generally questio­ned by our French Divines. Chamier solves all their Argu­ments with the greatest perspicuity, except that single one which is taken from the advancement of their Charity; whence you infer that they should be more respectful of our welfare then they were on Earth, where they did afford us the benefit of their Prayers: but this Argument albeit the most plausible, is yet unconsequent: for whilest they were here on Earth, they haply procured good men to exhort their Relations unto Piety: if Ministers spent themselves in preaching, and the like, but in Heaven they send no An­gels (that I ever heard of) on such errands, nor have we any Preachers from the dead. Whilest they were here, they were sollicitous touching the welfare of their absent friends; but do they now (think you) ask their Guardian Angel how 'tis with them?

Secondly, Notwithstanding they have their Charity aug­mented, yet will it not follow that they must pray for their friends below (much less for others) seeing haply the very knowledge of their friends may be hid from them: and were it otherwise, it may seem to be grievous to them to consider in what state many of their Relations have been left; add to this, that they have no certainty that they do not dy the next moment after them. Yea lastly, how can any man assure me, that the Saints in Heaven pray at all?

Secondly, P. 182. S. 6. ‘You tell us these Learned sober men will not deny that they may and do pray personally for their for­mer known acquaintance, as Saint Austin believed his Mo­ther did for him.’

Answer, This I have already obviated and albeit some who are not willing to think contrary to what some Fathers do allow of may grant it to you; yet seeing you can pro­duce neither Scripture for it, nor the universal consent of Fathers; To. 2. S. 8. And seeing your Arguments are so clearly answer­ed by Chamier, we take the liberty to deny, or at least to question it.

Once more, Ibid. ‘Yov tell us they will grant, that albeit they be in Heaven, they may either by Gods Relation, or the Revelation of Angels be informed of the Prayers made to them by any others on Earth.’

Answer, That this is not impossible at least for God to do, we willingly acknowledge; but I very much doubt, whe­ther any Protestants allow that they actually do so, or that it is probable they should be thus acquainted with our de­sires, or if any doe, they are never the more Learned for it.

Secondly, 'Tis not perhaps impossible, there may be men in the Moon, and they good Christians; and that if a Papist should pray unto them, God or his Angels might re­veal it: And yet I suppose, should they upon this account become Petitioners unto them, they would be thought lit­tle better then Lunaticks; yea the same may be said of the Saints in Purgatory, which you affirm of the Saints in Hea­ven; and why then do you not pray unto them? Will you refuse the assistance of those who are perfected in Charity, [Page 279]and other Graces, and consequently whose Prayers God hears more willingly then your own? will not their pray­ers be more effectual? for sure in Purgatory they will be servent, or will they refuse to do us the kindness who do the like for them? sure one good turn deserves another; and if they will be so surly to us we, with the leave of his Holiness, will be so to them.

But to proceed, ‘Mr. C. P. 183. will tell us that albeit this rests upon so many uncertainties, yet is not that sufficient to hin­der them from acknowledging that the practice of invo­cating Saints by name, is very beneficial to them, and that on these accounts.’

1. P. Id. ibid. Because the Angels are continually present with us on the Earth, and that it is by them we are defended ‘from the Devils malice, who having such a wonderful strength ex­ceeding ours, would otherwise destroy us all in our sins, nor can it be said that God hinders him, seeing he doth not ordinarily interpose his power immediately in Natural Actions.’

Answer, This then is the best figment they can Ima­gine, and yet it is most strangely ridiculous to any con­sidering man; for was it not the protection of God, which kept Satan from Job, so that he could do nothing without his Commission: and when he had given him Commission could not go beyond it? and may he not as easily do the same to others?

Again, secondly the Scripture tells us, the Angels are Mi­string spirits, sent forth for the good of those onely that be­lieve; and why doth not the Devil post the wicked down into Hell presently, seeing they have no such good Angel to relieve them?

3. Will Mr. Crossie say, that all the Cattle, the sheep and Camels and Oxen; yea the Asses of Job had their Guardian Angels? if so we will allow our Authour one; if not, then let him tell us, why Satan complain'd he could not come at them.

Again, Have the Tombes of the Martyrs, the holy reliques and Images of their Saints every one an Angel to keep them? if not, why doth not Satan break them, or conveigh them [Page 280]away? Unless perhaps he approves of your Idolatry; and how are ye sure that your Reliques are not changed by him? Once more, and I have done; Have all the Houses in Lon­don, all the Papists Houses in Rome, as many Angels as will guard them, & keep the Devil from setting fire on them? If so, the blessed Angels are well employed; if not, why doth not that Gand Enemy of Mankinde, set fire on them every Night?

Again, when on the Lords Day all the Angels of so many Millions of souls come to Saint Peter, to tell him such a one in treats his Prayers for such a thing, who guards the persons committed to their charge the while? or if these Angels be bound to stay here, who carries up the prayers to Saint Peter?

Again, seeing so many prayers are put up to the Virgin Mary, Surely she must do nothing else but pray, there being not one moment, when some or other do not pray to her, and then what time will she have to hear these nimble Tàbellarii, telling her of New suitors, must they interrupt her in her Prayers?

Again, These Saints must not only be told when such a one prayes; but whether Hypocritically or no, and so I sup­pose, that question must be asked of the Nuncio's. Now here is work enough for Saint Mary to receive so many Mes­sengers every day, and to enquire whether her suppliants pray in sincerity or not. But haply it may be said, if any one pray Hypocritically the Guardian Angel will not present that Prayer.

Answer, Very good, but seeing the Angel Guardian knows not the heart, How will he be able to judge of this? Once more, when all the Saints in Heaven are prayed to at once, (as it is in many Collects, and peculiarly on all Saints Dayes) surely that day is not an holy day to the Guardian Angel, who must be fain to trot to all the Saints in Hea­ven, and acquaint them that Serenus Cressie being very sick and weak desires their prayers. But when they pray to all Angels, then the poor Angel must not travel over all the Heavens onely, but the Earth to boot.

But we will not deal too severely with him; let him pro­ceed, [Page 281]and thus he doth it, ‘History tells us, that Magiclans have alwaies the Devil ready to come at their call; why then should not Angels be witnesses of our Actions, P. 184. and especially our prayers, which (as the Scrripture saith) they offer as Incense to God.’ Now to I eave the Scripture till anon) Here we have more work for the Angel, for seeing 'tis an Angel, Apoc. 8.3. that offers up the prayers and incense of all Saints, the Guardian Angel must make a journey to him to, unless you will have him to be Christ, which will do our Author but little service.

2. History likewise will tell us, that Magicians and Witches can swim over the Sea in a shell, can creep through a key-hole, Can dip their finger in a little juice and flie away out of the Chimnie, & he may believe one as soonas the other. Lastly, the number of Magitians (I hope) is few in comparison of other men, and so there is some difference as to that, for one Devil may better afford to be nigh them, especially see­ing his service is so much promoted thereby. As to that dispute of Saint Austine which concludes the Section, I say,

1. That he was very uncertain in it, and one while de­nies; and again suspects that such a thing might be.

2. He saith only possit fieri, it may be done this way. And again,

3. Ʋt quaedam cognoscant that they may know something, and how little service this will do him, every one may see. P. 184. S. 8.

2. He further tells us, ‘We are ignorant how great the sphere of Activitie of the glorified Saints may be, in respect of this whole visible world: perhaps saith he (in the words of Spalatensis) the whole sensible world may be no more to one of them, then its proper body to an humane soul informing it.’

Answ. And are not these men think you put to their shifts who are fain to coin such inventions to salve their Hypothe­sis. But tell me, is it probable they inform the whole world so, as to be present each of them in every part of the world?

Or, Secondly, to operate in each part of the world, al­beit not present there; If the first, then will they be little short of omnipresent, nor will it be proper to God to fill Heaven and Earth: and they being in Hell as well as Heaven, [Page 282]and also in Purgatorie, How do they escape the fire? How [...]re the Angels said to ascend to Heaven, and descend from it? Is it [...] only? How are the souls of the Fa­thers delivered from their limbus, said to depart thence, and to be with Christ? to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord; was Lazarus's soul carried to Heaven, and afterwards extended?

Again, to what end is this extension, seeing they may be happie without it, and why should we imagine it, seeing here 'tis certain they are not extended beyond their bodies? If the second, let them tell me how, or by what Operation, a soul that is in Heaven can tell that such a one, who praies in his mind only, is praying to him? And suppose two were praying together, and the one prayed to Peter, and the other to Paul; by what operation can these spirits discern that the one prayed to him, and not the o­ther? I suppose a Praier to Saint Paul makes a different motion in their Orb of Aether; but then how doth St Paul know who it is that praies to him? Perhaps different men, make different motions; but Saint Paul never knew them, and how shall he be informed? Why, the Guardian Angel must go up, and tell him 'tis S. C. that makes such a motion, and haply he will remember it. But how will he know when he prayes Hypocritically, why truly; when an Hypo­crite praies it makes a different motion from a sincere one in the spirits Orb of Air. This Platonical stuff is all that I can imgine to salve the Hypotheses: Si quid novisti rectius istis candidus imperti.

Lastly, be it that their presence or operations were so vast, yet could they not judge of the heart, seeing to be [...], is proper to God, and consequently must be as zealous for an Hypocrite as a devout Christian.

Thirdly, Sect. 9 we cannot tell (saies he) what things God may reveal to them.

Answ. Nor he, whether he reveals any thing to them at all; and therefore in these things he doth most evidently [...].

2. What a ridiculous thing is this to suppose such a Cir­cle, that when a man hath made a praier, that praier should [Page 283]come to God, and be revealed by him to a Saint, and that Saint bring it to God again?

3. Why must he be thought to reveal this to the Spirits in Heaven, and not to the Souls in Purgatorie? or if equal­ly, why are not they also praied to?

4. But it is evident from Scripture, that God doth not make any revelations of this kind: for 'tis said, Eccles. 9.5. The Dead know nothing that is done in this world, neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the Sun.

And again, Abraham is ignorant of us. Esay 93.16.

5. Bellar. himself confutes this Evasion by 2 Arguments:

1. If it were so, the Church would not say so boldly to all Saints, Orate pro nobis, but sometimes would prayto God to reveal our desires to them.

2. No good reason can be given, why Saints under the Old Testament should not be invoked; for God might have revealed their Petitions to them, though in Limbo Patrum: and sure their praiers might have been as beneficial as the praiers of such as were alive.

6. Why upon the same presumption should we not pray to the Saints living? for albeit their praiers be not quite so effectual, as the praiers of Saints departed, yet they are effe­ctual, and consequently to neglect this will be to neglect one means conducing to our welfare. I say upon the same presumption for this reason why God must be supposed to reveal our Praiers, can be no other then our good, and would not the reason move him to reveal them to. Saints on Earth, as well as those in Heaven: Mr. Cr. p. 185. Oh but (saith our ad­versarie) ‘If God said to Abraham, a Pilgrim on Earth, shall I hide from Abraham the thing that I do; how much more may we imagine, tha he hideth not the mightie works of his,’ mercie and justice here from his Domestick Servants? 'Tis pitie that this Argument was not framed before the Church of Israel madeher complaint, that Abraham was ignorant of her? It would have taught her better divinity

2. 'Tis no Demonstration; sure God would not hide from Abraham the thing he was to do, which concern'd so much his Brother Lot: (albeit he never revealed afterwards [Page 284]to any of his dearest servants that we read of, unless his Pro­phets, any such thing: therefore he will reveal to any Saint in Heaven the praiers that are made to them by any person whatsoever. By what hath been said I may be bold to infer, that the invocation of Saints is very foolish; and if so, that the Church of Rome is not infallible.

But our Authour claps in two places of Scripture without any coherence at all, Sect. 10 to prove I know not what; and albeit they have been answered an 150. times, (he shall not bate me a single unite) Yet doth he bolt them forth with­out any notice of the answers given: ‘We read (saith he) not only an Angel, but every one of the four and twentie Elders to have in their hands golden Censers, and Vials full of Odours, Rev. 8.3.5.8.which are the prayers of the Saints;’ that is, of their Brethren upon Earth.

Now to take these two places in their Order:

1. Revel. 8.3 We read another Angel came and stood be­fore the Altar, having a golden Censer and many Odours were given to him that he should offer them with the prayers of all Saints, upon the Golden Altar, which was before the Throne: and verse 4. The smoke of the Odours which came of the prayers of the Saints, ascended up before God out of the Angels hand:

Now 1. Let it be granted, that to one Angel was this given, to offer Odours to come up with the praiers of all Saints: How doth it follow that they are to be invocated? or that he knows when any particular person praies to him, or any other Saint? May not he offer up his incense continu­ally, as knowing onely this, that praiers are made conti­nually?

2. If one Angel do this, How will it follow that all do it, or that all Saints?

3. If this be a created Angel, is there not a fine round of Praiers?

1. They are carried by an Angel, or revealed by God to the Saints, then he pteseuts them to the Angel, the Angel to Christ, and Christ to the Father.

2. This Angel is said to offer Odours, to come up with the praiers of all Saints, which surely is to do somwhat which may make them more acceptable to God, and will they [Page 285]say that the Virgin Mary is no Saint? or that any Created Angel offers somwhat to God which makes her praier more acceptable? Well, but we denie it to have been a created Angel, but say it was the Angel of the Covenant, who by the incense of his merits and intercessions, offers the praiers of all Saints to God, and makes them more acceptable unto him. For 'tis manifest, that here is reference to that which was used to be done in the Levitical administration; where the Priest entering the Temple offered Incense on the Gol­den Altar, whilest the people in the Court put up their praiers to God, Luk. 1.10. Whence we may understand that phrase that the Angel offered his Odours with the pray­ers of the Saints.

Now the Levitical Priest, who offered incense, was a type of Christ, not of the Angels: and this is that which the A­postle intimates, that Christ the Angel of the Covenant, Typified by the Levitical Priest, offers up the praiers, and sighes of his members, groaning under the Tyrannie of wicked men, and by the incense of his merits makes them acceptable unto God.

The second Scripture is Apocal. 5.8. where we are told, That twenty foure Elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them Harps and Golden Vials full of Odours in their hands, which are the prayers of the Saints.

Answ. 1. Many interpret these of the Elders of the Church as Beda in verse 10. Here it is more plainly declared, that the Beasts and the Elders are the Church, redeemed by the blood of Christ, and gathered from the Nations; also he sheweth in what Heaven they are, saying, they shall reign upon the Earth. And so Irenaeus, lib. 4. cap. 33. Ambrose on the Apccalyps, and Haimo.

2. Vossius will tell you that here is nothing intended but Eucharistical praiers, not petitory; and the four and twenty Elders onely intimate that the whole Family of Christians in Earth and Heaven, did render continuall Doxologies to God for the redemption of the World by his Son.

There is one Argument of greater moment insisted on, and that is taken from the miraculous effects, not onely of [Page 286]prayers directed to God at the monuments of the Saints, but also directed to the Saints themselves: Now to this I answer.

First, By denyal that any approved testimonies can be produced of such miraculous effects wrought by any prayers immediately directed unto Saints; the Instances which Mr. C. refers us to, shall be answered anon.

Secondly, I say that these pretended miracles may justly be suspected for Satanical delusions, and that upon several accounts.

First, From the silence of all undoubted Antiquity of any such Sepulchre wonders, in the three first ages; albeit the Christians long before had used to keep their assemblies at the Coemiteries and Monuments of their Martyrs. When God had ceased to exert his power as in former times; that he should thus freshly exert it upon these occasions, seems in­credible; and that which cannot easily be admitted, by considering men who are acquainted with the Artifices of the Devil.

Secondly, from the nature of them, which rendreth them very ridiculous. Basilius Selu­tensis, l. 2. c. 10. Thus of Saint Thecla, we are told, that they who watch the night before her festivity do at at that time yearly see her, driving a fiery Chariot in the aire; and removing from Seleucia unto Dalisandus, a place which she did principally affect in regard of the commodity and pleasantness of the scituation; that when she had demanded of Alypius the Grammarian, C. 24. for­saken by the Physitians what he ailed, and he had replied upon her in that of Homer, [...], thou knowest, why should I tell it thee that knowest all things? the Martyr being delighted partly with the man, and partly with the verse, (for you must know that after her death she was much affected with Poetry and Oratory, C. 21. & 24. and continually delighted with such as would be accurate in her praises,) conveyed a certain round stone into his mouth, with the touch whereof he was presently healed: Yea, the same Basil tells us, how having prepared an Oration for her anniversary festivity, the day before it should be pronounced he was taken with such an extream pain in his ear, C. 27. that the Auditory was like to be quite dis­appointed: [Page 287]But that the Martyr the same night appeared to him, and shaking him by the ear took all the pain away. He addeth further, C. 16. that when he begun to be weary of writing this same Book she sits her down close by him, smiles whilest she reads it, shews her self wonderfully pleased with it, and that it behoved him to finish it: The like mi­racles we have related by Severus, of one Martinus a Monk, De vita B. Mart. S. 24. Ibid. S. 17. who could see the Devil though he remained in his own substance, fright him with the sign of the Cross continually; who putting his hand into the mouth of a Demoniack, forced the Devil out at his posteriors; Yea, (which is most wonderful of all) that could by the smell of the body, Hieron. in Hi­larione. or the clothes, know what Daemon tyrannized in such a body. These were the miracles that helped forward the worship­ping of Saints, and the monkish superstitions.

Thirdly, Because the old Daemons worship prevailed upon the world by the same means. Thus Tertullian, Apol. c. 51. ‘Search therefore the Deity of Christ, whether it be true or not; if it be that by the knowledge whereof a man shall be re­formed to good, it follows then that the false be renounced, especially that whole mysterie (of Daemon-worship) being discovered; which under the names and images of the dead through Signes, Miracles, and Oracles, obtaineth a Divi­nity.’ And Chrysostome, they (the Gentile Daemons) often­times by their skill cured diseases,Orat. in Ju­daizantes.and restored to health those that were sick; what should we partake therefore with them in their iniquity, God forbid? De Praep. Evan. l. 5. c. 2. And the like we have from Eusebius, who informes us, that the wicked Daemons coun­terfeited by working many miracles the Souls of them that were deceased; and thence they were thought worthy to be celebrated with greater service: But,

Thirdly, we Answer, Mr. Stillingfleet p. 351. ‘That after the true Doctrine is confirmed by divine miracles, God may give the Devil power to work, if not real miracles, yet such as men can­not judge by the things themselves whether they be so or no; and this for tryal whether we will forsake the true do­ctrine confirmed by greater miracles, for the sake of such doctrines as are contrary there to; and are confirmed by false Prophets, by signes, and wonders: Now in this case [Page 288]our rule of tryal must not so much be the miracles consider­ed in themselves, whether real or no, as the comparing them with the miracles wrought in confirmation of that doctrine which is contrary to this, which these words tend to the proving of. Therefore Gods people under the Law were to examine the drift and scope of the miracles; and if they were intended to bring them to Idolatry, what ever they were they are forbid to hearken to them; as you may see most evidently, Deut. 13.1, 2, 3. So now under the Gospel, the worship of the true God through Jesus Christ, and by the doctrine revealed by him, is the stand­ard whereby we ought to judge of all pretenders unto miracles; so that let the miracles be what they will, if they contradict that doctrine which Christ revealed to the world, we are to look upon them as onely tryals of our faith in Christ, to see whether we love him with our whole hearts or no, and accordingly we look upon these miracles as tryals whether we will forsake the Head Christ Jesus, give this worship of the Creator to the creature, and the like; and are sufficiently warded against the force of this assault, 2 Thes. 2.9. by being told that Antichrist must be ushered in with signes and lying wonders.’

Fourthly, We add, that these miracles might have been done by God himself, and that at these Martyrs Tombs, but onely to confirm the faith they suffer'd for.

Now as for the testimony of Antiquity in this point, Sect. 12

First, Many of the places produced by him speak nothing of the Invocation of the Saints departed; nor do they infer any thing but what we generally confess; thus that of Saint Hillary tells us, Ps. 129. That our infirmity needs the intercession of Angels.

Answer. Be it so, we add that our infirmity needs the intercession of good men on earth; yet we are not able to see this consequence, that they must or may be invocated or prayed unto; Again, doth the Council of Chalcedon say, let Flavian pray for us, Act. 11. we say so too; let all the Saints and Angels in Heaven, all the men on earth pray for us, we are willing to have the benefit of their intercessions or prayers [Page 289]for us: Albeit (to speak the truth) this sentence looks quite anothery way; the business was this; there was a long contention betwixt Bassianuus and Stephanus, for the Bishop­prick of Ephesus; Bassianus, albeit not rightly ordained, kept it for the space of four years, and with him communicated Flavianus; this was urged in the Synod by the favourers of Bassianus, as an acknowledgment made by Flavian, that Bas­sianus was lawful Bishop: This Argument they thus enforce, if you will not hearken to our reasons, let Flavianus the Martyr entreat this of you, he, though dead, judgeth the cause to Bassianus; then after Cecropius had spoken in his behalf, the Bishops and Clergy of Constantinople stand up and cry, this is the truth; (viz. Flavianus was a favourer of Bassia­nus, &c.) Flavian lives after death, (that is, his judgement and his memory, as afterward Flavian is here, that is, we have here his judgement for Bassianus) let the Martyr entreat for us, (that is, in this cause of Bassianus, let him entreat the Council for us) Haec vera & genuina verborum mens est, cui nisi pertinax aut imperitus refragari nemo potest, saith our Crackanthorp; Nor do we scruple to say, with Austine, Def. Eec. Ang. c. 59. let Cyprian, yea, let Mr. C. help us as with his prayers; onely let him remember, that this is not vox invocantis, sed op­tantis, an indication of our willingnesse, Sect. 13 not our petitions that it should be so. Orat. in 40. Mart. Mr. C. p. 190. [...], let it here be noted that Mr. C. could scarce be ignorant of his forgery, it being charged upon them by the Bishop of Ely, and Forbs, in those very Books which are cited by him in this Chapter.

Saint Basil is suborned to say, whosoever is in any pressure let him fly to the assistance of these Martyrs; and again, whoso­ever is in a state of joy let him pray to them; the former, that he may be delivered from misery; the later, that he may be pre­served in prosperity.

Answer. Here we have a double corrupting of the Text, (an Artifice which our Author, notwithstanding his solemn protestation to the contrary doth every where use.) Saint Basil saith, [...], he doth fly to them, (Mr. C. let him fly) Saint Basil, he doth run to them, (that is, to their monuments) Mr. C. let him pray to them; and then Saint Basil adds, here it is that a woman praying for her sons is heard, or wishing a safe return to her travelling Husband; wherefore, to­gether with these Martyrs, let us poure forth our prayers: Im­mediately before he told the people they had often sought [Page 290]for one that might intercede to God for them; Here (saith he) are forty sending up as it were one prayer; and if where two or three be gathered together God is there present, who doubts his presence where forty are? He therefore, &c. From whence it is plain, that here is not one Iota that bids us pray unto them; but when it is said, he that is under any pressure flyes unto them, it is not to pray unto them; but because they were esteemed (which the Fathers frequently intimate) to pray with them; and this interpretation is evinced, as by the ar­gument that we shall be heard because we are in the presence of fourty; so from that which follows, that upon this account it is, that the Wife comes hither and is heard. And the te­stimony of Ruffinus will reach no higher then this doth; Hist. Ecc. l. 2. c. 23. and it onely shews that the Emperour came to the monu­ments of the Martyrs, that so he might more assuredly procure the intercession of the Saints; according to that vulger opinion above mentioned. But Mr. C. will never be able from this intercession to conclude their Invocation, unlesse he can assure us that they hear us, and shew us a com­mand to pray unto them; no, saith Bishop Andrews, they will intercede for us on their own accord, not being called upon to do so, but must not be invocated by us so to do.

Saint Chrysostom's 66. Sect. 14 Hom. ad pop. Antioch. must be cited, albeit he knows it to be spurious, Possevin appa­rat: in Chrys. Bellar. de Scrip. Eccl. in eundem Reply to Card. Perron. and his own party do confesse it; and as for the same passage cited from the 26. Hom. in 2 Cor. Bishop Andrews hath told him that it smelt rank of forgery in Erasmus's nose; ‘who in his Preface before his Latine Translation of Basil and Amphilooc. de Spiritu Sancio, saith that there are some things there which must own him for their Parent, qui dulcissimis Athanasii libellis de Spiritu Sancto suas loquaces, sed Elumbes, attexit noenias, qui (que) in Epistola ad Corinthios posteriore, & in Actis Apostolerum, Chrysostomus haberi studuit:’

And, Secondly, ‘That this passage is not extant in the Latine Edition by Stelsius at Antwerp, 1556. set forth by Johannes Affinius, so that all Copies had it not; yea further, that this place is found in Garetius, P. 69.de Invocatione Sanctorum, cited under the name of Theodorus Daphnopatus;’ whom thence the Reverend Bishop well concludes to have been the [Page 291]Author of it: And yet if it had not been spurious, we could have told you that it was thus to be interpreted; The Empe­rour who is cloathed with purple makes a journey to visit these Sepulchres (of Saint Peter and Saint Paul) and laying aside his pomp stands, [...], [...]. Consid. Modest. p. 113. wanting the Saints to go before him in their prayers to God, or intercede for him; He whose Temples are encompassed with a Diadem wants for his protection even the Tent maker and Fisher-man though dead. Bishop Forbs, I acknowledge, quarrels with this interpreta­tion, but he hath nothing at all confuting it, as will appear to an unprejudiced eye.

Yea, lastly, In Saint Chrysostome's Rhetorical stile, he might very well be said to desire the prayers of the Saints, because he went to those places where the assistance of their prayers (according to the vulgar opinion then on foot) was especially to be had. As to that of Saint Ambrose, Sect. 15 Martyrs are to be intreated,De Viduis. l. 1. de off.and let us not be ashamed to employ them as Intercessors for our infirmities.

I Answer, Bishop Andrews makes it evident that this was written by him whilest a Neophite; ‘for (saith he) he was fain to be christened before he could be consecrated; now the very next year after that he wrote his Commen­taries upon Luke, as Baronius proves from his own words in his eleventh Book upon the twentieth Chapter; in which Commentary he cites this Book de viduis, which therefore must needs be written before these Commentaries, and so consequently in the first year of his Christianity; yea, he ingeniously confesseth, that he began [...] to teach before he had learnt; and Saint Austine confirmes it, saying, Instruct. Hist. Ambr. Vix Christanus de rebus Ecclesiae scribit, thus he. Now here we must be sent to Vossius and Forbs, who consi­dereth some other passages, but gently slideth over this con­vincing evidence without the least notice taken of it; but because he sends us to Forbs, let him hear him giving us this rule. l. 7. c. 5. When one and the same Writer seems to speak’ ‘contradictions, let it be considered where he professedly states the Question, and confirmes his sentence by the suffrage of Scripture and Reason, confuting disertly the opposite opinion, and where he speaks of the same [Page 292]thing (as it were aliud agens, by the by, without such confirmation from the testimonies of Scripture and Reason, and confutation of the opposite opinion) such things as do not well consist therewith; and in this case that which he taught in the former manner must be esteemed to be his Doctrine. l. 3. c. 12. C. 1. Thus saith he, [...]aint Ambrose in his Book De Spiritu Sancto, and De Fide, teacheth that God alone is to be worshipped? not the Virgin Mary, or any creature: This he confirmes, ex professo, by the testimonies of Scripture and manifest Reason; and yet in his Dook De Viduis he delivers a Doctrine which is plainly otherwise; but then it is not operose confirmata, industriously confirmed; and therefore we must estimate Saint Ambrose his judge­ment from the former places.’ To which we add, that as he grew elder he grew wiser; Ambros. de obitu Theod. for afterwards he had learnt to say, Thou, O Lord, onely art to be invocated.

Secondly, This may be interpreted to be the obsecration of deeds rather then words; for there he teacheth the Widow (pleading she was weak and without help) to make the Apostles her friends and neighbours, to procure her help, as Peter and Andrew entreated our Saviour to cure Peters wives Mother; Now the way, saith he, to make them so to her, was to draw near to them in the fellowship or likeness of piety and doing good; for it was not the re­lation of blood, but the kinred of Virtue, that makes the Mar­tyrs our Friends and neighbours. Sect. 16

To that place of Austine, Ad viginti Martyres, &c. ut vestiretur oravit. Further, let lt be considered, that here we have no better presi­dent then a Taylor, and that so simple as to bargain with the Mar­tyrs how many half-pence he would have to buy his Cloak. cited from the 22. Book, De Civ. Dei, and the eighth Chapter; (to let pass the corruption of this Chapter, by Ludovicus Vives, ingenuously confessed.) We say that it is thus to be interpreted; He prayed, (viz. to God) at the twenty Martyrs, that is, at their Tombes or Monuments: (so in Basil, [...], that is, at their Monu­ments, as above we have shew'd) and this Exposition the very words do lead us to; for who ever heard of orare ad ali­quem, to pray unto one? But you will Object, that the boyes jeered him, as if he had begged of the Martyrs fifty half pence.

Answer. It can be no more concluded hence that he pray­ed unto them, then that our Saviour prayed unto Elias, be­cause the Jews were pleased to say so.

Next for his 32. and 33. Homilies, de diversis, I could have told him that Bellarmine himself doubts of 43. of them; Rivet of them all, but especially of those which were added by the Divines of Lovain, (and indeed we have reason to suspect what ware you obtrude upon us) and therefore I take leave to pass the sentence thence cited over.

Lastly, that which is cited from his Book, De cura pro mortuis, I interpret thus; Ut dum reco­lunt ubi sint pofita corum quos diligunt corpora, cisdem Sanctis illos tantum patro­nos susceptos apud Deum adjuvandos orando, com­mendent. That whilest they call to mind where the bodies of those that are dear to them are laid, they com­mend them to the Saints as to Patrons, that by their prayers (or praying for them) they may be helped with the Lord; and then the Argument is null.

Secondly, They may very well be said to be commended to the Saints by praying to God for them, either at the Monuments of the Saints and Martyrs, or at the remem­brance of the Saints and Martyrs; for that Saint Austine speaketh of such prayers as were to be directed to God, is evident from the very next Chapter; where continuing his discourse, he tells us, that it very much concernes any, where they place the body of their deceased, who pray for his Spirit unto God; because both the preceeding affection hath chosen an holy place, and the body being placed there the remembrance of that holy place renews and augments the affection: So then, they do commend them by praying, but it is to God, not to Saints and Angels; See Doctor Fernes Answer to Spencer. P. 276. Nor is it any thing to the purpose that followeth, viz. That whensoever the Mind recounts where the body of some dear friend lies buried, and straight the place occurs renowned for the name of some Martyr, the affection of him who thus remem­breth and prayeth forthwith commends the beloved Soul to the same Martyr: For this may be done by praying to God, (as we do for the help and assistance of the holy Angels) that he would commend the Soul unto such a Martyr.

Secondly, This prayer, albeit poured out to God, may be stiled a commendation of him to the Martyr, because done at the Monument or remembrance of the Martyr, even as Saint Austine in this very place tells us, Meritis Mar­tyris. that the be­lieving that the Soul is helped by the merits of the Martyr, Supplicatio quaedam est, is a kind of prayer; and if any thing profiteth, it is this:

We have two other Authours in the front; Sect. 17 but the mischief is that they are both spurious. Tom. 2. l. 8. de uno Med. c. 7. And (1.) for Greg. Nyssen. you have five Arguments produced against him by Chamier, none of which are touched by Mr. C. or Bishop Forbs; yea, haply, this was the reason that he cited him in gross, and would not vouchsafe to direct us to the place.

Secondly, As for that of Theodoret, it is proved spurious, not only because we have no mention of it in Nicephorus, to whom you may add Photius, but also because what is here cited from him directly contradicts what he hath in his un­doubted Comment on the Colessians; this Argument you manfully skip over; and for your Answer to the first, that he mentions not some which are extant in Gennadius, if you had looked into the Preface of your Gennadius, you might have found that there were some things added to him; that he approves variety of Authours rejected by the Church; that he is under the censure of your Catholicks at Lovain, (enough to crack his credit with you,) And lastly, that he names but two of his Books, one of which we have (though imperfect) the other is no where to be found: And yet if all these Fathers had given in their suffrages for you, they would not have advantaged you one whit; Seeing many of our Divines acknowledge, that about the fourth age (in which all your Fathers are comprehended) this corruption began to be introduced. Albeit, to tell you of it in transitu, Vossius, who is cited by you for this confession, doth, in his tenth Thesis, manifestly restrain his words to some; telling us that, plurimi invalescenti se errori opponcbant, p. 201. That very many opposed this errour.

The Doctor had cited a passage from Saint Austine, Sect. 18 which affirmes, that the Saints were not invoked by the Priest who sacrificeth. Now to this, you tell us,

First, That here is an evidence for a sacrifice, yea, and this Propitiatory; But how can you free your self from dis­ingenuous dealing, when even in the place cited by you in answer to this Argument, Saint Austine tells you, that he means onely Sacramentum Memoriae, which Protestants ac­knowledge as well as you.

2. Have you not need to rub your forehead when you so considently tell us that the Doctor saith there was no such thing as a Christian Sacrifice; whereas that which hath given occasion to your whole Discourse upon this subject is onely this, that he tells us there were new Articles of Faith, viz. The Sacrifice of the Mass, the Doctrine of Purgatory imposed on us; but doth he any where deny a Christian Sacrifice, such as before hath been granted by us, by the Trent Conventicle?

Secondly, You tell us that the Saints are not sovereignly invocated by way of sacrifice, which is a meer imperti­nence; for S. Austin doth not say they are not sacrificed unto, but are not so much as invocated by the Priest who sacrifi­ceth; farther you tell us that they are not invocated at the Mass, nay nor the second or third Person of the Trinity accord­ing to the Canon of the Council of Carthage.

Ans. Still you are resolved to be impertinent; for what is this to you who in your Mass invoke the whole Trinity, have 3 Collects to the second Person of the Trinity, as you are told by the Reverend Bishop Andrews; yea what say you to that return of his to this Answer, what reason can be alledged why if the Saints may be pray'd unto they may not be so as well by the Priest as by the people, as well at Mass, as at Mattins, as well at the Altar as in the body of the Church. Indeed you tell us it might have been lawful if the Church had so or­dered it. But do you think S. Austin would have said so too? is it not his business to distinguish betwixt the honour which was given to the Martyrs by the Christians, and by the Gentiles to the Daemons? and having said that they erect no Altars to them as the heathens did for sacrifice, but sacrificed to God alone, he adds, that at this sacrifice the Martyrs were not invocated (as the Gentile Daemons were) but only nominated? now what is it to his purpose to tell us they are not invocated at the Altar, if they were invocated elsewhere? well then your last refuge is the invocation of Latria which Saint Austin must be thought to speak of; C. 21. because he tells, us in his twentieth Book against Faustus Manichaeus, that they do not worship the Saints with Latria.

Ans. But who told you that invocation of them was not [Page 296]esteemed Latria by him, why else doth he say that the Saints were not worshipped sicut dii, as the Heathen Gods, and then after this non invocantur?

Secondly, Doth he not say non invocantur, sed nominantur? now I hope your invocation is not nomination, and there­fore 'tis somewhat above it, and consequently somewhat comprehended in that which he opposeth to it; so likewise, in the place you cite, he tells us they afforded that cultum dilectionis, and such as was given to holy men, that were now alive; yea, saith he, we sound forth their praises, but we do not worship them with Latria; where albeit Faustus there objected that they worshipped them votis similibus, with such prayers or vows as the heathens worshipped their Idols with, yet could he not get Saint Austin to acknow­ledge they prayed unto them at all; but having told us that they praised them, there he stops and riseth no higher, albeit the objection, and the business in hand (which was to shew what honour the Saints did receive from them, and what they thought not fit to yield unto them) did require it. Thus have we returned an Answer to our Authours pleas from Scripture and Antiquity: our next work should be to con­front to them those many arguments by which our Cham­pions do confute this superstition, and plead the cause of Christ against them; but I shall wave it at present, and con­tent my self with evidencing the judgement, and practice of Antiquity to run contrary to them. And

(1.) Sect. 19 It is a strong presumption that this Invocation of Saints is not so pious, so profitable, as the Trent Council doth imagine, in that we find neither precept, nor example of all the Fathers of the Old Testament, whereby this kind of ser­vice to them may be warranted?

To this the usual Answer of the Papist is, Vid. Bellar. praefat. in controvers. de Eccles. triumph ante. that the spirits of the Patriarchs and Prophets, and other Worthies who flourished under the Old Testament, were kept in limbus patrum, a place nigh to hell, appointed for these Fathers to be retained in till the descent of our Blessed Saviour thither.

But this Answer is evidently grounded upon a false [Page 297]foundation, it being clear from Scripture, that they were not included in such a place, but did enjoy the Kingdome of Heaven, Luk. 13, 28. For Abrahams bosom is clearly propounded as the place into which the Blessed Angels be­fore the death of Christ convey'd the souls of those which departed in the favour of God; Luke 16. and that this bosome is virtually, and in terms equivalent, Cap. 8. [...]. Shall ly down. promised to those which afterwards should believe, is sufficiently evinced from that place of Saint Matthew, many shall come from the East and West and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of heaven, for the joys of heaven are likened to a feast in which according to the custom then in use they lay down with the head of one towards the breast of another who is therefore said to lie in his bosom; and therefore when 'tis said of the faithful that believed after Christs death [...], they shall lie down (at this feast,) with Abraham 'tis as much as if he had said [...], as Euthymius pa­raphraseth it, that is, they shall lie down in the bosom of Abraham; adde to this, that when God translated Enoch, and Elias was carried up in a Chariot to heaven, they could not be conveyed to this limbus patrum, a place so nigh to the receptacle of the damned spirits; yea 'tis not likely they were conveyed to a place where they had no vision of God; and yet there is no reason to think Abraham, David, Daniel, and other of the Prophets, should be in a worse place or con­dition then Enoch or Elias, seeing they had as large a testi­mony of their pleasing God as they.

We go farther yet, and urge against them, Sect. 20 that in the New Testament it self we can descry no footsteps of this Invocation, more then we did in the Scriptures of the Old: Saint Paul doth frequently sollicite his brethren to pray for him, and for the furtherance of the Gospel, P. 1. but not one pe­tition can we find directed to an Angel, or Saint departed; here presently they flie to their traditions, but in vain, for if any such tradition as this were at first delivered, we de­mand how it should come pass that for the space of 360 [Page 298]years together after the birth of our Saviour we can find no mention in the Fathers of any such thing; but, on the contra­ry, when urged by heathens that it was their duty to pray to Saints and Angels, they stoutly denied it, and cried away with such evil counsel. Irenaeus, in his first book, speaks of Hereticks that had strange phansies concerning Angels, at­tributing much unto them, in relation to which he denies that the Church did any thing, l. 2. c. 57. (viz. in reference to miracu­lous cures) by invocation of Angels, or by incantations, but purely and manifestly directing prayers to the Lord which made all, and invocating the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; now whereas Fevardentius tells us that he speaks of the invoca­tion of evil spirits, we ask him why then is it that no limita­tion is given, but all Angellical invocation absolutely denied? why is it that he binds up the prayers of the Church to God the Father through the name of his Son? Lib. de Orat. cap. 12. Tertullian saith, ‘we deservedly upbraid those prayers with vanity which are made without the Authority of any precept of our Lord or his Apostles, for such are rather to be esteemed supersti­tious then Religious;’ shew us then a precept of our Lord or his Apostles, and we will cease to impeach your practice as superstitious vanity; but seeing that is impossible to be done, you must not be angry with Tertullian for saying you are superstitious; Apolog. c. 30. Again, when he had told us that Christians pray for the safety of the Emperour, entreating for him, quaecumque hominis & Caesaris vota sunt, he adds, these things; I may not ask from any other then from him from whom I know I shall obtain them, because he it is who alone vouchsafeth them, and I am his Servant unto whom it appertain­eth to obtain what is requested,Et ego sum famulus ejus qui eum solum observo. Lib. de orat. Dom.who observe or worship him alone, (viz. in my prayers) and therefore he gave no heed to Saints and Angels in them. Thirdly, S. Cyprian informs us ‘that to pray otherwise then Christ hath taught us is not only our ignorance but fault, he having said, you reject the command of God that you may stablish your own tradition;’ Wherefore unless the Papists can shew us this doctrine taught by Christ, we must esteem them ignorant and [Page 299]blame-worthy in the exercise thereof. Fourthly, When Celsus had said that Angels belong to God, and in that re­spect we should pray unto them to be favourable to us, [...]. l. 8. Orig. Cont. Cels. [...]. Ori­gen answereth him, away with Celsus his counsel saying that we must pray to Angels, and let us not so much as afford any little audience unto it, for we must pray to him alone who is God over all, and we must pray to the word of God, his only begotten, and the first-born of all Creatures: and whereas Celsus had further said that we must offer first-fruits unto An­gels and prayers as long as we live that we may find them propitious unto us. Answer is returned by Origen in the name of the Christians, that they held it rather fit to offer first fruits unto him who said, let the earth bring forth grass, Gen. 1.the herb yielding seed; (that is to the Creator of the world) and to whom we give the first fruits (saith he) to him also do we send our prayers, having a great high Priest that is entered into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God; pag. 239. A­gain, in his fifth book, he lays down this conclusion, All prayers and supplications, and intercessions, and thanksgi­vings, are to be sent up unto God, the Lord of all, by the high Priest, who is above all Angels, being the Living word, and God; for to call upon Angels (the like may be said of Saints departed) we not comprehending the knowledge of them which is above the reach of man is not aggreeable to rea­son; and if by supposition it were granted that the knowledge of them might be comprehended, their very knowledge declaring their nature to us, and the charge over which every one of them is set, would not permit us to presume to pray unto any other but unto God, the Lord over all, who is abundantly sufficient for all, by our Saviour, the Son of God.

(5.) Athanasius saith, never any man prayed to receive any thing from God and the Angels, or any created being; l. 4. Cont. Arian. the Papists say frequently Deus custodiat te & Virgo Maria.nei­ther did ever any body conceive such a form of prayer, God and the Angel give thee such a thing; but on the contrary, he begs (it) from the Father and the Son by reason of their unity and uniform reason of giving.

(6.) That of Saint Austins is very worthy to be pon­dered; [Page 300] whom should I find that might reconcile me unto thee? should I have gone unto the Angels (he might as well have added Saints) with what prayer? with what Sacraments? many endevouring to return unto thee, and not being able to do it by themselves, as I hear, (he then had no experience of it from the Churches practice) have tryed these things, and have fallen into the desire of curious visions and were accounted worthy of illusions.

(7.) In Cap. 1. ad Rom. See an excellent place parallel to this in Arnob. adv Gentes. l. 3. p. 101, 102. Saint Ambrose (or whoever was the Author of the commentaries upon Saint Pauls Epistles extant among his works,) saith, those that are ashamed of their neglecting God, are wont to use this miserable excuse that by those (Saints or Angels) we may go to God as to a King by his Officers; go too (saith he) is there any man so mad, or so un­mindful of his safety as to give the kings honour to an Of­ficer, whereas if any shall be found but to treat of sucha matter, they are justly condemned as guilty of high Treason; and yet those men think themselves not guilty who give the ho­nour of Gods name to a creature, and leaving the Lord adore their fellow servants, as though there were any thing more that could be reserved to God; for therefore do men go to the King by tribunes or Officers, because the King is but a man, and knoweth not to whom he may commit the State of the Common wealth; but to procure the favour of God, from whom no­thing is hid, we need no spokesman but a devout mind; for wheresoever such a one shall speak unto him he will Answer him; So then, to go to God by others, is to neglect God, and to adore our fellow creature; it is a miserable excuse, yea 'tis to give the honour of God to a creature, and so Idolatry, a superfluous thing, and consequently superstitious in those who esteem it necessary.

Farther, Sect. 21 the Antients put God into the very definition or description of prayer, and therefore cannot be thought to have esteemed it lawfull to pray to any other, or to Saints whom they esteemed not to be Gods: Orat. in Julit. Mart. Orat. 1. de Or. thus Basil. prayer is a request of some good thing which is made by pious men to God. Greg. Nysen. prayer is a conference with God, and a­gain [Page 301]it is a request of good things which is offered with sup­plication unto God. Chrysost. 2. de Orat. dom. In Gen. Hom. 30 de Orat. l. 2. Prayer is a colloquy or discourse with God; and again, every one that prays discourseth with God, and Damascene Prayer is an ascension of the mind to God, as a request of things that are fit, from God.

Again, Sect. 22 they tell us that prayer is to be made to God a­lone, and therefore not to Saints or Angels, In Ps. 5. ad De­um solum diri­gitur. Tom. 10. vide Forb. confid. mod. p. 295. In 1 Cor. Hom. 1. thus (to omit Saint Ambrose above cited) Saint Basil saith, Prayer is not di­rected to man but to God alone. Saint Ephraim, to the (O Lord) and to none besides thee, do I make my prayer, and further Chrysost. on those words, with all that call upon the name of the Lord, giveth this Exposition, not of this or that (Creature) but of the Name of the Lord. Again, on these words do all in the name of the Lord Jesus [...], giving thanks (or praying) to God the Father by him, he thus Paraphraseth, do all things to God, bring not in Angels, doest thou eat? give thanks to God, (or pray, [...] See 1 Cor. 14.16, 17.) before and after meat, doest thou sleep? give thanks to God before and after, and so in other things. And that prayer is one of these things that must be done to God, and not to Angels, appears from that which follows, Or [...]. Lat. orantem vel quidvis facientem. what­ever you do in word or deed, that is, saith he, either pray­ing or doing any other thing; then presently after he tels us that it was the Devil that brought in [...] This Invocating and worshipping of Angels (for he is speaking still of Prayer.) and this he did, envying us that honour of going immediately to the Trinitie or Christ; but (saith he) be he Angel or Archangel, yea or Cherubin, do not suffer it, (much less if he be a Saint only) for they will not endure it, but shake you off; when they see this contumely done unto their Lord. I have honoured thee (saith God) and said call upon me, ànd thou dishonourest him, Viz. by invocating Angels or others besides him. Sect. 23

Thirdly, the Fathers argue that Christ is God blessed for ever, because he is invocated by us, and accepteth of our prayer; and therefore could not invocate the Saints whom they esteemed not to be gods. Thus Origen, Saint Paul [Page 302]when in the beginning of the Epistle to the Corinthians, L. 8. in Ep. ad Rom. c. 10. he speaks thus, (with all that call upon the name of Christ Jesus) pronounceth Jesus Christ whose name is called upon to be God: De Trin. c. 14. and Novatian, If Christ be only Man, why is a Man invocated in our prayers as Mediator? seeing the invocation of a Man is judged of no force to yield salvations: why is there Hope reposed in him, seeing hope in man is said to be accursed: so likewise Athanasius, C. 16.23. in the place forecited, Cyril of Alex­andria upon that of Saint John, If you ask any thing in my Name, I will do it, crieth out, He clearly manifests himself to be God, in that he promiseth to receive our prayers.

Theophilus Alexand. Paschae Sec. How will they call upon him in whom they have not believed? We must therefore first believe that He is the Son of God, that our invocation of Him may be right: And as he is not to be worshipped (who is not God, So on the contrary, He is to be worshipped who is manifestly so.

Yea the Council of Laodicea decreed that we ought not to forsake the Church of God, Can. 35. S. 24.and depart aside, and invocate Angels, [...]and make meetings, which are things forbidden: If any man therefore be found to give himself to this privie Idola­try, let him be accursed, because he hath forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, and betaken himself to Idolatry. Some very wisely would read angulos corners; and make the Councel forbid the invocating corners; Brev. Can. S. 90 Cod. Con. num 138. Brev. Can. S. 184. Henric. Canis. Tom. 6. p. 424. but the Greek ex­presly readeth [...], which in that Tongue hath no affi­nitie at all with corners: Cresconius, Dionysius, Exiguus, Fulgentius, Ferrandus, and pope Adrian, in the Epitome of the Canons which he delivered to Charles the Great at Rome, readeth Angelos; and Theodoret gives us the mind of the Synod thus: The Synod, of Laodicea following this rule viz. of the Apostle, [...] On the 3d. chap. of the Col. v. 17 On the 2d. chap. Col. 3.17. (of coming to the Father by Christ, and not by Angels) and desiring to heal that old Disease, made a Law that they should not pray unto Angels, nor forsake our Lord Jesus Christ. And again, The Synod forbad them by Law to pray unto Angels: And Oecumenius saith, The Synod of Laodicea did by Law forbid to come unto Angels, and pray unto them. Yea, in that great Council of [Page 303]three hundred thirty eight Bishops, at Constantinople, l. 1. de Con. c. 6. which Binius and Bellarmine stile general, these two Canons were fra [...]dulently inserted.

1. Defin. 15. Conc. Const. citat. in Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 6. pag. 380. Ib. Defin. 17. Crakanth: Def. Ec. An. pag. 420. Ab omnibus rejectum est For which the cites Paul. Dial. l. 22. and again, Omnes uno ore rejicerunt san­ctorum invoca­tionem & Can­nonem illum. Notis in Con. Const. sub Steph. 30. If any with a sincere Faith implores not the Intercessions of the Virgin Mary, let him he Anathema.

2. If any one shall not confess all the Saints to be Honoura­ble before God, and shall not entreat their prayers, let him be Anathema; But when the definition came to be read in the Council ( [...]) they rejected them, and caused them to be blotted out; and this, saith the Conluter Act the 6th. [...] all men know; yea further they bound their Members or themselves by an Oath (Juramentum Sacro Sanctum & solenne à suis exegerunt) That they would never invocate the Saints, Apostles, Martyrs, or the blessed Virgin? as Binius relates.

Yea, Lastly, the greater part of the Fathers, viz. Ire­naeus l. 5. in fine; Justine Martyr, qu. 76. Tertull. ad. Mar. l. 4. Clem. Rom. l. 2. Hypotepos. Origen. Hom. 7. in Lev. Lactantius, l. 7. Institut. c. 21. Victorinus Com. in Apoc. c. 6. Prudentius, Hym. pro exequio defunct. Ambrosius, l. 2. de Cain & Abel, c. 2. Chrysostome, Hom. 39. in 1. ad Cor. Au­stin, in Ps. 36. Euthymius in c. 23. luc. Theodoret in cap. 11. ad Heb. Arethus, in Apoc. Oecumenius, in cap. 11. ad Heb.) Cont. Whit. 1. c. 2. In part. 2. direc. inquis. Com. 21. denied the souls of the Saints to have nay enjoyment of the beatifical Vision; and this is acknowledged by their Stapleton, and Franciscus Pegna: and therefore these Fa­thers according to their own doctrine, and practice of invo­cating only the Saints in Glory, and the fruition of the be­atifical Vision, can not be reasonably supposed to have held the Invocation of Saints.

To Conclude, I know what Distinctions they use, of Prayer direct and indirect, of prayer relative or termina­tive, &c. but

First, They are onely shifts to cover a des [...]erate cause; the Fathers never used any one of them on this Occasion, but reject this worship & invocation without such distinctions, even in those places where it seemed necessary to have used [Page 304]them, had they been acquainted with this Sophistry; yea Celsus and others intended no more.

Secondly, These distinctions are equally serviceable for the evacuating the Fathers Argument hence for the Divinity Christ.

And Lastly, are contradicted by the Fathers; Let one Athanasius speak for all; who not content to tell the Ar­rians, they must acknowledge that Saints (i. e. Christi­ans) do not pray to any created being to be their helper elsewhere adds, Or. 2. Cont. Ar. sub finem. De incar. verbi p. 528. that if they worship the Lord Christ, be­cause the Word of God inhabited in him, they might as well worship the Saints, because God dwells in them.

CHAP. XVII.

IN the seventeenth chapter, Sect. 1 touching the Celibacy of Priests, hee states the matter thus;

‘The question must bee, Sect. 4. p. 204. whether a perpetual abstinence from Marriage, and all Carnal lusts, may lawfully by Priests be made the matter of a vow; and tells us, that we con­demn the practise, at least consider'd, as extending it self generally, to any whole order or state of men, and especi­ally any obligation imposed on them to this practise: On [Page 370]the contrary he tells us, that the Church of Rome enjoins Celibacy to Priests, and holds that 'tis such a gift, that is denied to none, that rightly seek it, and therefore may bee made the matter of a vow:’ Agreeably to their Trent Council, which tells us, Deus id recte petentibus non deneget.

Now here (to omit his stating the question of Carnal lusts) are two differences betwixt us.

1 They say, all may have this gift of Continence, who rightly seek it.

2 That it is lawful to impose such an obligation of per­petual Celibacy upon their Priests; both which we deny.

And first, Sect. 2 that this is not a gift to bee attained by every man, appears abundantly from the 7. chap. of the 1 Ep. Cor.

In which, the first Question moved, is, Whether a Christi­an should embrace a Conjugal estate?

To this 'tis Answered, V. 1. It is good for a man not to touch a wo­man. That (as the case stood then) 'twas very commendable for a man, so to moderate his affections, and get such a noble victory over the flesh, as not to need this remedy; ('tis good for a man not to touch a Wife.)

Nevertheless, seeing the condition, by reason of the rare­ness of the gift of Continency, will lay you open to the dan­ger of Fornication; V. 2. To avoid Fornication, let every one have his own wife. V. 3. Let the Husband rend­er to the wife due benevo­lence. V. 4, The wife hath not power over her own body. V. 5. Defraud not one the o­ther, except it be with consent for a time, that you may give your selves to fasting and prayer, & come together again, lest Satantempt you for your in­continency. V. 6. I speak this by permis­sion, and not of command. V. 7. I would that all men were even as I, but every one hath his proper gift. V. 8. I say ther­fore to the un­marryed and widdows, it is good for them if they abide e­ven as I. V. 9. But if they cannot contain, let them marry. for the avoiding of the same, let eve­ry man (to whom this special gift is not vouchsafed) either procure himself a Wife, ( [...]) or retain her, if he hath pro­cured her, and every woman her proper Husband; or if she be a Virgin, submit to the bond of Matrimony; and when the Conjugal knot shall once be tyed, and they be under this relation of Man and Wife (since avoiding Fornication was the cheif motive to this condition) let due benevolence be mutually given; for the woman not having any longer power over her own body, cannot without open fraud deny it, when moderately desired: And in prosecution of the ends of Marriage (which reason equally concerns the Husbands body) unless it be by the interceding of some such Cautions as these,

1 That it be with the mutual consent of both.

2 That it bee in some rare and extraordinary case; viz. in time of Fasting, or being importunate with God in Pray­er.

3 Thatsuchseparation be not long. And these cautions are necessary to be observed, least Satan, who will neglect no opportunity, do ensnare you; and by reason of your defi­ciency in this gift of Continence, prevail upon you, and kin­dle the flames of unclean desires. Yet would I not here seem to enjoyn all married state, or a continual use of the marri­age bed, neither do I speak this as a precept to all, but ad­vice to the incontinent. For verily I could be glad that the Divine bounty (if it were his pleasure) would afford this gift of Continence, he hath given me, to every Christian; but see­ing his infinite wisdome hath thought meet that it should be otherwise, and that this gift (as others which according to his pleasure are distributed) should be peculiar to some; my decision is, that 'twere more commodious for Widdows and Virgins (if they could contain) to live in Celibacy, as I do. But if they finde it otherwise, then doth a necessity lye up­on them, either to enter into the state of Matrimony, or to burn; and therefore to extinguish these flames, they must use this means to prevent it, which God hath appointed for this end.

This Paraphrase is clear and evident, yet will I further evince, what ever can be denied in it by the obstinate.

Do they tell us, in answer to the 2 verse, that the Apostle speaks of persons already married? I assent; do they tell us it is a counsel? I say so also, only minding them that thence, according to their doctrine, unavoidably it will follow, that it is of greater virtue and merit, for every one to have his own wife, then not.

Will Bellarm. add, that the Apostle speaks of Fornication, not ustions; I must minde him, that the Apostle determines very plainly, that 'tis better to marry then to burn.

2 That these lustful motions and stimulations, which the Apostle intends by ustion, must needs be sins, for according to our Saviours rule, Mat. 5.28. They are spiritual Adul­tery.

Lastly, Is it farther said, that this concerns those that have not made this vow of Continence?

Answer, Must not others then avoid Fornication? may they defraud each others? or if single, may they live in un­cleanness? [Page 372]or refuse to marry though they be not able to con­tain? must a vow be the bond to manifest iniquity?

Secondly, If any obstinately deny my interpretation of due benevolence, for the use of the body; the reason assign­ed will confute them; viz. that the Husband hath not pow­er over his own body, &c. and that they must not defraud each other.

Thirdly, That by Prayer verse 5. is understood accurati­or precatio, as St. Chrysostome there hath it, or some extra­ordinary ingagement in that duty, is evident from it's con­junction with fasting, it's limitation to a time, it's exempti­on from the marriage bed, and lastly, the charge of the A­postle, to return to Cohabitation, when 'tis ended.

These things being thus evinced, Sect. 3 from the 2 verse, I ar­gue thus. If it be a necessary means for the avoiding Forni­cation, to procure or use a Wife, then all have not, nor can have the gift of Continence, but the former is true from the Apostle; for he doth not say, let them fast and pray, and vow Continence, but let them use the remedy God appoint­ed. Whence 'tis obvious to conclude, that this was the re­medy necessary for some, to avoid Fornication, which could not be, if all may attain to the gift of Continence.

From the 5 verse, thus. If abstinence from the marriage bed, even in those, that are engaged in fasting and prayer, must be but for a time, and that least Satan prevail upon them to incontinence, then will not the use of means bee sufficient to procure the gift to all; (For what means more available then fasting and prayer?) But the first is evident from the words of the Apostle, and therefore the consequence of it must be so.

From the 8 verse, thus. That which is a proper gift, and that upon this account, because it pleaseth the Divine boun­ty to afford it some, and not to others, cannot be common to all, though never so diligent in the use of means (seeing it cannot bee procured by any, to whom 'tis not the good pleasure of God to give it) but such is the gift of Continence.

From the 10th verse, thus. The Apostle saith to the un­married and widdows, if they cannot contain let them mar­ry; therefore he supposes that all cannot have this gift of Con­tinency.

Again verse 25. The Apostle tells us, in these indifferent matters, I have no precept, but yet my counsel is, that Virgins and Widdows would abstain from Marriage (if they have the gift of Continence) as being a condition, in which they are more free from the combrances of the world, and will finde less impediments of an holy life: this therefore I speak, consulting their good; but by no means would I lay a necessity on them to imbrace this Celibacy, for this would be a certain way to cast a snare on them. The imposition of such a Yoke, without the least respect unto their power of Continency, or the want thereof, would prove such a conti­nual perplexity, that I think it necessary to decline, even the very suspitions of it.

Now from hence I argue, if all may have this gift of Con­tinency, then would it not be a snare to impose it (especial­ly, when it was so exceedingly more Eligible) but the Apo­stle so esteems it: Ergo.

From Verse. 37. Thus: if the Apostle saith, if need so re­quite, that a Virgin marry, let her do it, shee sinneth not. and Hieron. in locum. si sentiat Carnem, &c. If she be sensi­ble, of the too much prevailing of the flesh, that it doth Ebullire in libidinem, is not to be kept back by the Bridle of Continency, but she must either marry, or fall; Then hath not every one the gift of Continency; But this they evidently assert, ergo.

Now here our Author hath somewhat to say in answer to us (I suppose.) For having told us, that we deny Celibacy, Sect. 4 may lawfully be made the matter of a vow, generally to any whole order, or state of men, upon supposition, that 'tis a spe­cial gift of God (as the Apostle tells us, 1 Cor. 7.7.) not be­stowed on all: P. 205. Sect. 6. ‘well (saith he) 'tis granted that 'tis a gift of God, the fruit of his Holy Spirit, and cannot by natural means be obtained,’ so as to be practised in obedience to him, but (then he replies with his Master Stapleton, Antid. p. 280) so are all vertues, so is faith, so is repentance, so is charity; all which notwithstanding we vow in our Baptism, and why do we vow a practice of these vertues, which are pure gifts of God? Because we are assured, the same God, who commanded that vow, will not be wanting to supply strength to perform it, in all those [Page 374]that sincerely beg those gifts of him, by earnest prayer, and by a­voiding all known, and possible to be avoided impediments to the practice of these vertues. But (1) This would never have made a shew of any answer, had not the word special, where­in the whole stresse of our argument consists, been Sophisti­cally left out. (2) As it is, it hath received two answers, from Pareus, Notes upon Cor. p. 379. who tells his Stapleton, that there is a manifest disparity. (1) Because the vow of Baptism is command­ed by God, and cannot be neglected without sin, but as for perpetual Celibacy, it hath no command, for if it had, it would not be a Counsel, as our Antagonist contends. Well therefore, seeing God hath commanded the one vow should be made, and not commanded so much as the matter of the other, there is not the same reason surely for the exercise of both. (2) Saith he, the obedience we promise in our vow of Baptism is Ʋniversal, enjoyned on all upon pain of Dam­nation, and albeit the performance of that vow exceed our natural strength, yet God hath promised that he will give that faculty and grace, which shall enable us to perform it; but the vow of perpetual Celibacy, is neither commanded to all, nor is it given to all [ex parte dei] nor hath it the promise of God, that it shall be so. Now then wee say, to whom God commands this vow, assuredly hee will give strength to per­form it, but to suppose, that hee hath done it to all, is the most ridiculous begging of the question imaginable, yea it makes the marriage of all men sinful, as being contrary to Gods Command of a vow of Celibacy, and it makes the Celibacy of Priests, jure divino, which our Author dares not aver.

But our Author hath an Argument against himself, Sect. 5 sect. 7. Which I form thus: Ibid. Sect. 7. Those, that aspire to perfection, are but few, even in the opinion of the Roman Church, this councel concerns onely them, that aspire to perfection, ergo, it concerns but few, and consequently ought not to be im­posed upon all, of any order, unless we would impose it be­yond the intent of Christ. And what doth our worthy Author return to this? Sect. 8. p. 207. al. 206. Even that all this, Cum Grano Salis, is acknow­ledged by them. What is it, that they acknowledge? That this Counsel reacheth but few. What follows? That withal Protestants know, that this abstinence, is a gift bestowed upon [Page 375]very many, and I hope they may be allowed to know, that very many, are not few, and consequently, hee that tells us, this gift is bestowed upon very many, is not of his opinion, who tells us it respects but few, that aspire to perfection. 'Tis not a grain of salt, that will make this savour, otherwise, then a Contradiction.

But let us see how he will prove, Sect. 6 that this gift is bestowed on very many, and in some cases, is necessary to almost all. (1) Then he brings us an Argument of Maldonates, Ibid. that otherwise it would be unlawful for Parents to keep their Chil­dren unmarryed, after the time they are Capable, and thereby to expose them to unlawful lusts, since they are not sure they have such a gift.

To which we answer, when the children declare, or they have reason to suspect the want of this gift, they ought not to hinder their marryed state, or the procuring the remedy God hath appointed, but if they declare themselves not to be stimulated with such desires, but to be able to contain, must they compel them to marry, may they not in charity suppose the contrary? (2) He saith, Ibid. It would be unlawful for Merchants and Travellours to make long Voyages abroad, and leave their Wives at home, deprived of the necessary lawfull means against the incursions of Lust.

Answer. If there be no necessity of leaving their Wives at home, it seems more convenient to have them with them, according to the Apostle's Rule, 1 Cor. 7.5. But if there bee a necessity, God who put them upon it, will give them relief, if they wait upon him for it, but (3) He tells us, Ibid. that were it otherwise, all Statutes of Colledges ought to be re­pealed, which forbid marriage still to all Fellows, and hereto­fore to all Precedents, upon penalty of forfeiting their whole sub­sistence. As if they might not leave their Fellowships, and seat themselves in Parsonages, but must necessarily want means of subsistence, when they leave the University. But (4) he tells us, with the worthy refuter of Bishop Hall, that a long sicknesse inflicted by God on either of the parties, Ibid.would be far more dangerous to their souls, then to their bodies, so as if the abstinence now spoken of, were such an extraordinary gift of perfection, England would have more Saints, or more Adul­terers, [Page 376]then she is aware of. Answ. Yes, and so peradventure, she hath; And not few of the latter, as having more Jesuits, and Pseudo Catholick Priests, then she is aware of. VVho, if their own party may be credited, are not a little guilty of this notorious uncleanness.

Secondly, Why have we no return to Bishop Halls substanti­al answer; viz. if they call on him, who calls them to Con­tinency by this hand of his, hee will hear them and enable them to persist [and why not then in the necessity of our vows?]

Answ. This is a necessity of our own making, Ibid. that is, of His; he hath bound himself to keep his own promises, not ours.

And here he comes in with a question which will strike all dead; Sect. 7 P. 206. al. 207. ‘Why do the Ministers of England live many of them till thirty years of age, and then Marry? I doubt (quoth he) they force themselves to live single till they have a Benifice; and then assoon as they can maintain a Wife, they get one; and then concludes, is not this meer Hypo­crysie, to talk of marrying out of tenderness of Conscience, to allay their Concupiscence, when the danger is almost past, and make no provision to prevent the unruliest part of their age.’ To this worthy question, we return these answers. (1.) I hope this is charity mistaken, to say they make no provision to prevent incontinency: He ought to suppose, that these that stay till thirty (which are not the half nor third part) and then marry, have made provision, unless he were assured of the contrary. But then he may object, Why will not that provision serve them for the future? A. Haply God may restrain their concupifcence for some time, for ends best known to himself, and afterwards cease to do it. (2.) Perhaps a stronger diet may be necessary for them in the Country, as hav­ing more work to do, than in the University, and yet that Diet may enflame them. (3.) Perhaps all that Marry do it not to the end, but for the better Convenience of living, that they may keep up their Name, or satisfie their Parents, or a hun­dred other Ends; which may legitima [...]e that Marriage to them, which is honourable in all. (4.) It may be the earnest de­fire of the Wife, that may make it necessary. (5.) VVee will satisfie you with question for question: If it be so easie to [Page 377] abstain, dist. 81. how is it that you have so many Fornicatours among you? that the gloss upon Gratian complains, pauci sine illo vitio inveniantur, and that if your Fornicatours should be deposed, Consult. Art. 23. you would have but few Clerks. Why is it that your honest Cassander tells us, vix Centesimum invenias, you can scarce finde one in an hundred free? VVhy did Cauda Salax sacrificulorum become a Proverb? Brom. sum. pred. voce luxuria. And why did a Ghost com­plain that there came daily such store of Priests to Hell for Letchery, that he had not thought there had been any left on Earth? VVhy doth Erasmus tell you, Apol. pro Declar. Matri. Thuan. Hist. 136. De. invent. Rer. lib. 5. C. 4. that under pretence of Chastity, you are more vile and filthy in your Lusts? VVhy is it, that Caesar Maximilian Complains, that in his age you were, omnes fere scortatores Publici, almost all com­mon whore-masters? VVhy is it, that your Polidore Virgil, cries out, of the great Infamy, that was cast upon you, the great dishonour brought upon Religion, the great grief to all good men, by the lustful practises of the Priests? VVhy is it, that your Monastical Ladies, are so often pregnant, and there may be found so many bones of Infants in your Ponds? Have you never seen the Mystery of Jesuitism, what in continence he charges them with? Have you never heard of Peter Jar­ridge, a Jesuit for the space of twenty four years, who Chap. 2. tells us of the Jesuits murthering of Infants. Chap. 10. Of their uncleannesse in their own Classes, and their foul actions in their visits. Chap. 12. their filthinesse committed in their Churches. and Chap. 13. In their own Houses. Chap. 14. In their travails, and in their Countrey Houses. Nor yet the sad stories of Alvarus Pelagius, (de planctu Ecclesiae lib. 2. Art. 73.) who tells us, of the Incests and Fornications of the Priests and Friers, of their receiving Boyes into their Houses, and Cloisters, their Conversation with Nuns and secu­lar women? Nor that St. Bernard, (lib. de convers. ad clerum Chap. 20.) Compared the Clergy even of his age to the Ni­cholaitans, whom God hated for their uncleannesse? Not to mention Wicelius his Via Regia. Andreas Fricius and Mo­drevins de Matrim: Clericorum, and his Apology (Chap. 20. lib. 4. de Eccles.) a Controv. 15. sub initioAlbertus Pighius, b l. 7. de just. & jur. Quest. 6. Art. 11.Dominicus Soto, c Gravam. 75.91. the Hundred grievances of Germany, and many others, whose words you may find in Calixtus de conjug. Cleric. in [Page 378]many places. The scandal must needs be notorious and intol­lerable, when so many persons of your own party durst so o­penly complain, and wish the disanulling of that Law of Ce­libacy, to the Clergy. Yea do we not know, that the Offi­cials of your Bishops, have taken annuities from all the parish Priests, for licences to keep Concubines, and if they came to a continent person, that told them he kept none, they replyed, that yet he must pay, for as much as liberty was granted so to do. In Ep. ad Tit. C. 1. As is reported by the Hundred grievances, and by Espencaeus. So that we shall conclude with Cassander, that if ever there was time to change an old custome, certainly these times require it, wherein all the best and most religious Priests acknowledging their infirmity, and abhorring the tur­pitude of perpetual Fornication, if publickly they dare not, yet privately they marry. And I doubt whether such Advocates of Celibacy as Mr. C. If strict inquiry were made, might not be often found, even where the Cardinal of Crema was.