THere can be no greater Argument of a baffled and erroneous Cauſe, than when the Aſſertors of it are forced to maintain it with manifeſt Impoſtures. The Religion of the Church of Rome is in great meaſure owing to Legends and Forged Writings: With the firſt they deluded the vulgar; and with the ſecond, circumvented the wiſer part of mankind. The Uſurpation of the See of Rome was never ſubmitted to, nor its Primacy believed in the Weſt, till the ſpurious Decretals of Iſidore Mercator were univerſally received by a blind and ignorant Age, and believed to be the genuine Decrees of Ancient Popes. No ſooner did Learning begin to flouriſh in the laſt Age, but theſe Phantaſms diſappeared, were decried, and diſowned by all learned and ingenuous men. To produce them anew upon the ſtage, and urge the Authority of them in this learned age, can be no other than the laſt efforts of a deſpairing and dying Cauſe, which wanteth both Reaſon and Truth to uphold it. To recur to theſe Forgeries, after the falſeneſs and folly of them hath been detected and demonſtrated by learned men of both Communions; is an invincible Argument, that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome was at firſt founded on them, and cannot now be maintain'd without them.

It may juſtly be wondred, that men whoſe office and deſign it is to uphold the Cauſe of the Church of Rome, and perſwade others of the truth of it, ſhould make uſe of ſuch artifices, as will infallibly, when diſcovered, make all ſober men ſuſpect her Cauſe of falſeneſs, and accuſe her Agents of diſhoneſty. Yet this hath been lately done by ſome Gentlemen of the Church of Rome, in a little Pamphlet, called Speculum Eccleſiaſticum, or an Eccleſiaſtical Proſpective-Glaſs; wherein all the Ancient Forgeries of the Church of Rome are reproduced, and alledged as undoubted Teſtimonies of Antiquity. An Impoſture ſo groſs and palpable, that if unadviſedly committed, the Ignorance of this Author muſt be deplorable; if voluntarily, his Fraud muſt be deteſtable. Such miſerable deluſions are unfitly calculated for our Age, and can ſerve for no other end, than for what they were at firſt invented, to amuſe Children, and ſeduce weak people.

The Author divideth his Proſpective-Glaſs into eight Parts or Columes; and in them undertaketh to prove the Doctrines of the Church of Rome from Scripture, and the Teſtimonies of the Fathers of the Church for the firſt 500 years. The proofs of Scripture I ſhall not conſider, becauſe they are either wholly impertinent, or have been often anſwered by the Writers of our Church; and upon the Teſtimonies of Antiquity, I will only make ſome few Obſervations: For ſo idle a Paper deſerves not a ſtrict and ſevere Anſwer.

The firſt Column of our Adverſary treateth of the Churches continued Succeſſion, and the tradition of all Chriſtian Doctrines through all Ages of the Church. This might well have been ſpared, and concerns no more the Church of R • me, than it doth any other particular Church. In the Church of England we have a Succeſſion of Biſhops continued down from the Apoſtolick times to this day. The nomination or particular enumeration of them, is neither neceſſary nor uſeful. None will deny the Churches of Epheſus, Smyrna, and Philadelphia to have enjoyed a continued Series of Biſhops from the Apoſtles times; yet are the names of the far greater part of them unknown. Neither is the Succeſſion of the Biſhops of Rome certain and undoubted. The immediate Succeſſors of St. Peter are at this day unknown. Linus moſt probably died before him. Cletus and Anacletus were moſt certainly the ſame perſon. In ſucceeding Ages many great and long Schiſms happened, wherein two, and ſometimes three Popes together pretended to the Papal Chair, whoſe right was ſo dubious and uncertain, that Wernerus Rolluinck Faſcic. Temp. profeſſeth, moſt learned and conſcientious men could not diſcern to which party they ought to adhere. And at this day, the French and Italian Writers agree not in compoſing a Catalogue of Popes; the firſt placing divers among the Popes, which the ſecond reject as Antipopes. No other eminent See of the Catholick Church hath ſuffered theſe diviſions: So that the Succeſſion of the Biſhops of Rome is more doubtful and uncertain than any other Succeſſion of Biſhops in the World. St. Irenaeus indeed, St. Auguſtin, and Optatus, alledged by this Writer, diſputing againſt the Hereticks, object to th • m that they are upſtarts, men of yeſterday, who could not deduce their Succeſſion from the Apoſtles; whereas their Catholicks had a viſible Succeſſion of Biſhops preſiding in their Churches from the Apoſtles times: and to prove this, produce the Succeſſion of Roman Biſhops, not as of ſo many Heads of the Univerſal Church, but as of the Biſhops of the moſt eminent See of the Weſtern Church. For the force of their Argument lay not in the particular Succeſſion of the Roman Biſhops, but in the ſeveral Succeſſions of all the Catholick Biſhops of the Univerſal Church; of which they produced that of Rome as an example. This appears plainly from the words of Irenaeus, who prefixeth this Preface to his Catalogue of Roman Biſhops: Seeing it is too much to reckon up the Succeſſion of all Churches, I will instante only in that of Rome: As for Succeſſion of Doctrine, we may with far greater juſtice claim that, than do our Adverſaries. For the Church of England admitteth, receiveth, and believeth all Doctrines which have been univerſally taught and delivered down by all Churches in all Ages; and propoſeth none to her Children as neceſſary to be believed, which have not that univerſal teſtimony: Whereas the Church of Rome commandeth ſeveral Doctrines to be believed upon pain of Anathema, which were unknown to Antiquity, and are at this day denied by the greater part of Chriſtians.

The Fourth Column of the Unity of the Church, is of the ſame ſtamp. We, no leſs firmly, than our Adverſaries, believe the Catholick Church to be one: We willingly allow that there is no hope of Salvation out of the Pale of that Church, and have always aſſerted Schiſm to be a damnable ſin. But that the particular Church of Rome, or in Communion with the See of Rome, is that Univerſal Church; that a ſmall and corrupt member of it is the whole; and that all Churches not Communicating with the Biſhop of Rome, are Schiſmatical; this we neither believe, nor can our Adverſaries prove: Certainly all the teſtimonies here alledged inſinuate no ſuch thing. But if Schiſm be ſo great a ſin, if wilful and unneceſſary Separation from any part of the Catholick Church be damnable; What ſhall we ſay of thoſe perſons, whoſe office and employment it is to promote and foment this Schiſm, and draw the Members of the Church of England into an unlawful ſeparation from her? To accuſe the Church of England of Schiſm or Separation from the Papiſts, is to go contrary to ſenſe and reaſon: For 'tis notorious to the whole World, that all the Subjects of England communicated with our Church till the 10th year of Queen Elizabeth; when upon the Pope's prohibition, a ſmall party flew off into ſeparate Aſſemblies, who have ſince continued their ſeparate Meetings under the name of Roman Catholicks. And ſhall the Church of England be ſaid to have ſeparated from thoſe men? This cannot be ſaid with any colour of Truth. That Papal prohibition began the Schiſm, which till then had no exiſtence. For the Church of England never did by any judicial act forbid her Children to Communicate with the Catholick Churches beyond Sea; nor require of her Communicants the belief of any point denied by them, or disbelief of any point maintained by them.

The third Column, of the Churches Infallibility, is of the ſame nature, and equal impertinence. We believe there ever was ſince the time of Chriſt, and ſhall be to the end of the World, a Church, or collection of men, believing all things neceſſary to Salvation. But that this Church is no other than the particular Church of Rome; and that to the belief of all neceſſary Articles, ſome falſe and erroneous Opinions never was, nor ſhall be intermixed; we do not believe, and it never can be proved. Now all the Teſtimonies alledged by our Author amounts to no more than this, That the Church of Chriſt is indefectible, ever did and always ſhall exiſt. That the whole Faith of Chriſt is always taught and preſerved in it; and that in her Boſom Salvation may ever be found and obtained: But all this doth no more concern The Church of Rome, than it doth the Church of England. Our Author indeed alledgeth Three paſſages, wherein the Church of Rome is particularly mentioned: The firſt is a Complement of St. Cyprian's to Pope Cornelius, That to St. Peter's Chair Infidelity cannot have acceſs.Perfidia. This hath been oftentimes anſwered by our Divines, and is indeed a meer Compliment, or at moſt, a declaration of his expectations grounded upon the proſpect of a Learned and Orthodox Clergy, which then preſided in the See of Rome. Beſides infinite places of the Ancients might be produced, wherein they beſtow no leſs Encomiums upon particular Churches, which by the confeſſion of our Adverſaries not only may, but have actually fallen from the Faith. Thus St. Ignatius ſaith,Epiſt. ad Epheſ. the Church of Epheſus was predeſtinated before all Ages, to continue for ever in a permanent and unchangeable glory. An expreſſion which infinitely ſurpaſſeth St. Cyprians Compliment. The Second paſſage is taken from Victor Vitenſis, whom our Author ignorantly calls Ʋticenſis, where Eugenius Biſhop of Carthage being urged by the Arian Tyrant Hunnericus to give an account of his Faith, deſired leave to ſend to all his Fellow Biſhops in the whole Catholick Church that they might meet in a General Council, particularly to the Biſhop of Rome, who was the moſt eminent Biſhop of the Weſtern Church and firſt Patriarch of the World. For no General Council could be held without the preſence of all the Patriarchs either by themſelves, or by their Legates. That Eugenius deſired not the preſence or advice of the Pope for any belief of his Infallibility, is manifeſt from what Victor De Perſecut. Vandal. l. 2. immediately ſubjoins, that Eugenius ſaid this, not becauſe there were wanting men in Africa, who were able to refute the objections of the Arians, and vindicate the Catholick Cauſe: But that ſuch Biſhops might be drawn into Africa, as feared not the threats and violence of Hunnericus, being none of his natural Subjects. The third is a paſſage of St. Cyril of Hieruſalem in his Apology againſt Ruſinus, that the Roman Faith, commended by the Apoſtles, cannot be changed. Of this Apology I ſhall ſpeak ſomewhat hereafter: To the words alledged, I need only ſay, our Adverſaries can never prove that unchangeable Faith, which the Apoſtle commended, to be the Faith of the preſent Church of Rome.

Thus have we proved three of our Authors eight Columns to be wholly trifling and impertinent; I will next obſerve his ignorance and miſtakes of Chronology. St. Cyprian is by him placed before Origen; when as the latter was a famous Writer of the Church long before the firſt was converted to the Faith. Gregory Nyſſen and St. Hierom are ranked before Athanaſius; who was a Biſhop before either of the other were born. Tertullian before Theophilus Antiochenus, who was a Biſhop near Twenty five years before the other was made Prieſt. Victor Vitenſis placed in the beginning of the 4th Age, who lived in the end of the 5th. But our honeſt Author, becauſe he writ of a Perſecution, thought he muſt neceſſarily mean an Heathen Perſecution, and therefore ſet him before Lactantius. In the ſame manner he placeth St. Cyril of Alexandria before St. Chryſoſtom; and St. Ambroſe before St. Athanaſius. But Chronology is not the buſineſs of our Author. Let us next view his Criticiſm: where we ſhall find all the Fables and Forgeries of Ancient and latter times adapted and produced by him.

I begin with the Decretals of the Ancient Popes; out of which he cites the Epiſtles of St. Clemens, Anacletus, and Pius. It were ſuperfluous to reſume an Argument ſo often cleared, and to prove theſe Epiſtles to be ſpurious, if we had not to deal with a generation of men, whoſe either ignorance or effrontery requireth it. This hath been often confeſſed, and at large demonſtrated by Learned Writers of the Church of Rome, but more fully by the Reformed Divines: Inſomuch that it is long ſince become a received and undoubted opinion among all the learned men of both Communions. And indeed the thing is manifeſt beyond all contradiction; For no Pope, Father, or Writer, before the 9th Age ever made mention of them. The Vulgar Verſion of the Bible is conſtantly uſed in them, which was not compoſed till the beginning of the fifth Age. They are almoſt wholly made up of an infinite number of paſſages ſtoln from the Writings, Canons and Conſtitutions of Authors, Councils, Popes and Emperors, who lived between the Third and the Ninth Age. They are neither adapted to the genius, nor neceſſities of thoſe times: Frequently they oppoſe Hereſies, which began not till the 4th Age. Are full of ridiculous Anachroniſms, barbarous Phraſes, and fooliſh Soleciſms, which thoſe firſt and purer Ages could not be guilty of. Laſtly, they mention many points of Diſcipline and Eccleſiaſtical Terms, which were unknown to the three firſt Ages, and not introduced till ſome Ages after. Not only the falſity of theſe Decretals is apparent and confeſſed; but their Author and age can be aſſigned. They were firſt publiſhed to the World by Riculphus Biſhop of Mentz, who received them from Iſidore Mercator in the beginning of the Ninth Age. Bellarmin, Baronius, Perron, and Petavius acknowledg them to be dubious, and dare not defend them. But latter Criticks of the Church of Rome openly confeſs them to be ſpurious. Thus Labbe and Coſſart in their Collection of Councils, affix a note of falſity to every one of them: And particularly give this Cenſure of moſt of them: That they are eſteemed ſuppoſititious by learned Catholicks. Baluzius A prefat. ad Reginon. gives an account of their Original, progreſs and reception in the Gallican Church: And Du Pin affirmeth, They are rejected with a common conſent.

The ſpurious Writings of Dionyſius the Areopagite, come next to be conſidered: Which forgery our Author ſo fully believeth, that he ever placeth them immediately after the Holy Scriptures. That they belong not to the Areopagite is manifeſt from the univerſal ſilence of the ancients, till the Sixth Age: The ſubtile argumentation and elaborate ſtile of them far different from the ſimplicity of the Apoſtolick times. They were writ in the flouriſhing eſtate of the Church; and therefore make no mention of Martyrs or Perſecutions; but rather frequently oppoſe the Hereſie of Arius. The Author of them cites the Apocalypſe of St. John, and Ignatius his Epiſtles, particularly that to the Romans, written juſt before his Martyrdom in the year 107. long after the Areopagites death. I might add, that he mentions many Ceremonies not introduced into the Church till the Fourth Age; ſpeaks of the Order of Monks, and cites St. Clemens of Alexandria. But I need not inſiſt any longer upon a thing ſo evident. The falſity of theſe Writings is confeſſed, and demonſtrated by Petavius, Morinus, Launoy, Oudin, Du Pin, and many other learned Authors of the Church of Rome.

The Commentaries of Theophilus Biſhop of Antioch upon the Goſpels, are moſt certainly the product of a Latin Writer, and therefore ſpurious. Such Commentaries were indeed anciently extant under Theophilus his name; but were rejected by St. Hierom De Script. Eccl. cap. 25. as ſuppoſititious. As for thoſe we now have, they were forged after St. Cyprian's time. For the Author tranſcribes a paſſage out of Cyprian's ſixth, Epiſtle to Magnus. Upon which account, Labbe and Du Pin do eſteem this Work to be ſpurious. The Oration of St. Hippolitus the Conſummation of the World, is of the ſame ſtamp, as appears from the barbarous ſtile, childiſh expreſſions, and fooliſh Fables, which may be found in it. For which reaſons Du Pin ſaith, It is very uncertain, and may be juſtly call'd in queſtion.

But to what miſerable ſhifts is our Author reduced, when he citeth the Epiſtle of St. Athanaſius to Pope Felix; an Epiſtle forged by Iſidore Mercator, together with the Decretals, and almoſt wholly patch't up out of the Acts of the Lateran Council under Pope Martin, in the year 649: And wherein Athanaſius tells Faelix; that he had been ordained Biſhop at Rome by his ſacred hands; whereas the true Athanaſius was ordained at Alexandria more than Forty years before Faelix was made Pope. Binius acknowledgeth it to be ſpurious, and Labbe Concil. Tom. II. p. 844. gives this ſcornful cenſure of it Ad malas Mercatoris merces has ineptae farraginis quiſquilias. Baronius, aliique eruditi viri ablegant; which I will not tranſlate, leſt I ſhould be thought to rail, inſtead of confuting.

However, to alledge a ſpurious Writing, may be only a matter of artifice to impoſe upon an unwary Reader: But to cite the undoubted Work of one Author, under the name of another, to whom it was never before attributed, can be no other than groſs ignorance. Our Author citeth St. Hierom's Third Apology againſt Ruffinus under the name of St. Cyril of Hieruſalem, who was dead many years before the name of Ruffinus was known, or this Apology written. Whether this was a matter of deſign, that the Reader might never be able to conſult the place, our Author can beſt tell. Certainly the paſſage is infinitely trifling and impertinent. For St. Hierom accuſing Ruffinus of a forgery in publiſhing at Rome an Apology for Origen, under the name of Pamphilus the Martyr, tells him he had miſt of his deſign; For the Romans did not believe it to be the Work of that Martyr: And then adds, that the Roman Faith, commended by the Apoſtle, could not be impoſed upon by ſuch tricks. This is a piece of flattery, which even no ſober Papiſt will allow to be ſtrictly true. For all grant that the whole Church may be deceived in judging a matter of fact; ſuch is, whether this or that Author writ ſuch a Treatiſe. And the Church of Rome hath been actually deluded by many Impoſtures of this nature, as the Spurious Decretals of Iſidore Mercator, which ſhe received and uſed as genuine for many Ages. But not to depart from this very inſtance, St. Hierom hath ſufficiently refuted his own words by impoſing upon the Romans, in perſwading them that this Apology, tranſlated and publiſhed by Ruffinus, was not the work of Pamphilus, but of Euſebius. For it truly belonged to the former. Euſebius indeed added Five Books to it. But thoſe were not tranſlated by Ruffinus.

That the Book de Caena Domini ſhould in this Age be cited under the name of Cyprian, may be juſtly admired; when it is not only confeſſed by all to be ſpurious, but the true Author of it is known, Arnoldus Abbot of Bonvalle in France, in the Twelth Age. To him do Raynaudus, Labbe, Oudin, Du Pin, and almoſt all Manuſcript Copies aſcribe it.

St. Ambroſe's Work of the Sacraments hath been call'd in queſtion by many great and learned men of the Reformed Churches. If it ſhould be allowed in the main to belong to St. Ambroſe; they muſt, however, grant that it hath been miſerably interpolated and corrupted by latter hands. For Bertram citeth ſeveral places out of it, which cannot now be found in it. But if this be dubious, it is moſt certain that the Sermons of St. Ambroſe are ſpurious: Being no other than a Collection of the Sermons of ſeveral Authors, ſome more, others leſs ancient. This Bellarmin and Labbe acknowledg. Many of them may be found among the Sermons of Maximus Taurinenſis, and particularly that of St. Peter and Paul, cited by our Author. The books de Paenitentia, Petrus Soto Inſtitut. Sacerd. tit. de neceſſ. Confeſ. Lect. 2. maintains to be ſpurious; and ſome learned men have ſubſcribed to his Opinion. In like manner Eraſmus contends that the Homilies of Origen upon the Pſalms are ſpurious, and Bellarmin placeth them among the dubious Writings. But in theſe Two laſt Caſes, nothing certain can be determined.

The books de Viſitatione Infirmorum, cited by our Author, under the name of St. Auguſtin, Bellarmin and Labbe confeſs to be ſpurious. That they are ſo, need no other argument than the fooliſh arguments and barbarous ſtile of them, unworthy of the judgment and learning of St. Auguſtin. Eraſmus giveth this Cenſure of them, The work of a prating Fellow, who had neither Wit nor Learning. What ſhame or reaſon have thoſe perſons left, who obtrude ſuch Writings to us under the name of Auguſtin? Our Author refers us to the Second book of this Treatiſe for a proof of Sacerdotal confeſſion. There indeed we may find this Confeſſion commended, adviſed and enjoyned (which is alſo done by the Church of England) but in the mean while the neceſſity of it diſowned, and the ſufficiency of a private confeſſion to God acknowledged. For the Author blaming ſome perſons who dehorted men from Sacerdotal confeſſion, ſaith, Let not the ſuperſtition of theſe Dreamers ſeduce you, which confirmeth ſinners in their reſolutions of not confeſſing to a Prieſt, Quia ſalvat Sacerdote inconſulto ad Deum peccatorum confeſſio: Becauſe confeſſion of ſins to God without conſulting any Prieſt, is ſufficient to Salvation: Where he plainly allows the truth of this propoſition, but blames the ill application of it. But becauſe our Author refers us to this ſpurious Treatiſe;O exterminanda cordis caecatio. O perditionis animarum occaſio. l. 2. c. 8. I would deſire him to turn one Page farther, where he will find the Doctrine of doing any Penance after Death, and conſequently of Purgatory, called a deteſtable blindneſs of heart, and occaſion of the deſtruction of Souls.

The Quaeſtiones ad Graecos, cited by our Author under the name of St. Juſtin Martyr, are on all ſides confeſſed to be ſuppoſititious, particularly by Bellarmin, Labbe, and Du Pin. The juſtice of this Cenſure is evidently evinced from the frequent mention therein, made of the Manichees, who were not heard of till more than a Hundred years after Juſtin's death. The Lamentation of Origen is the trifling product of ſome fooliſh Latin Writer; and therefore juſtly rejected as ſpurious by Bellarmin, Baronius, Ad an. 252. Labbe, Huetius, and Du Pin. I might add, that it was formerly condemned by Pope Gelaſius, if his Decretal were not equally ſpurious. However, that excuſeth not our Author; ſince that Decretal is univerſally received by all the Writers of the Church of Rome.

Our Author citeth, Two Fragments of Euſebius Alexandrinus out of Jodocus Coccius. But we have great reaſon to believe, that they are not genuine. For Euſebius Caeſarienſis Hiſt. Eccl. l. 7. c. 2. in mentioning Euſebius Alexandrinus, ſpeaks not one word of his Writings; which that accurate. Hiſtorian would by no means have omitted, if there had heen any known in his time. No one of the Ancients make the leaſt mention of ſuch a Writer: Nor was he ever heard of till Coccius and Turrain produced ſome fragments out of his Homilies. As for Coccius, he had not skill enough in this kind to paſs a critical judgment upon the Writings of the ancients: and Turrain cannot be ſecurely truſted. For all the World knows with how great violence he maintained the Apoſtolick Canons and Conſtitutions to be genuine: A poſition which none but fools and mad men can believe.

The Arabick Canons of the firſt Council of Nice, are a no leſs fooliſh than evident forgery of latter times. All the Greek and Latin Copies give us no more than XX. Canons of that Council. Gelaſius Cyzicenus ſaith Hiſt. Con. Nic. l. 2. c. 30. no more were made. The African Biſhops ſending into the Eaſt for true and correct Copies of them, receive from Atticus of Conſtantinople, and Cyril of Alexandria no more than XX. and theſe LXXX. Arabick Canons were never heard of till brought out of the Eaſt in the laſt Age by the Legates ſent by Pius IV. to the Patriarch of Alexandria to invite him to the Council of Trent. But I need not uſe many arguments. They ſufficiently betray themſelves by the frequent mention of Names, Rites, and Cuſtoms which obtained not in the Church till after the Council of Nice. I will inſtance only in their ſeveral Conſtitutions, about Monaſteries, Monks and Nuns, as that they be ſhaved, and uſe a diſtinct habit from the reſt of mankind; cuſtoms which were not known till ſome Ages after. And that we may not ſeem ſingular in making this Cenſure, the Learned Abraham Ecchellenſis Prefat. ad Verſion. confeſſeth, That many of them were forged, others changed, and all accommodated by the ſeveral Sects of the Eaſt to their ſeveral Ages and Perſwaſions.

The ſincerity of our Author deſerveth next to be conſidered, which I fear would be found very ſmall if I had time and leiſure to compare all his Citations with the Originals. Thoſe few which I have compared, give me a juſt ſuſpicion of his fraudulent dealing in the reſt, and may reaſonably create the ſame prejudice in all his Readers. I will produce a few Inſtances. In the Fifth Column he citeth theſe words of Irenaeus (a), How can they be aſſured the Bread is made the Body of our Lord? In the Original it is eſſe Corpus ſuum, where he hath Tranſlated eſſe to be made. A few lines after he produceth a paſſage of Tertullian, which no man in his right wits could ever have alledged for Tranſubſtantiation: For the intire ſentence is one of the moſt pregnant Teſtimonies of all Antiquity, againſt that monſtrous opinion; the words are theſe L. 4. c. 57., The Bread taken and diſtributed to his Diſciples, (e) Adv. Marcion. l. 4. c. 40. he made his Body, by ſaying, This is my Body, that is, the Figure of my Body. Our Author hath cut off the latter part, and given us only the firſt words of this Paſſage. What name ought juſtly to be given to this Artifice, let others judg; but certainly none can call it ſincerity. The corruption of Juſtin Martyr in the 7th Column is no leſs groſs and evident; where our Author citeth theſe words out of his Second Apology: We worſhip them (the good Angels) both by words and deeds, even as we our ſelves have been taught and inſtructed. The Greek words are theſe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; honouring them both in word and deed; and freely teaching every one who deſireth to learn thoſe things wherein we been inſtructed. A little before, he had cited Dionyſius the Areopagite, for Prayers to the departed Saints, where he wilfully miſtakes that Writers meaning; and what the Counterfeit Dionyſius ſpeaks of the Prayers of our pious Fellow-Chriſtians here on Earth, applieth to Prayers made to departed Saints; and not only ſo, but falſifieth his words in more than one place; the paſſage is thisDe Eccleſiaſt. Hierarch. c. 7.; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . This I affirm conſonantly to the Scripture; That the prayers of holy men are very uſeful in this life, this way. If any one deſiring the Divine Graces, and be well diſpoſed for the reception of them, ſhall (as being conſcious of his own unworthineſs) come to ſome holy man, and deſire him to aſſiſt him, and pray together with him, he ſhall receive hence the greateſt benefit. The words thus juſtly Tranſlated, do neither favour nor relate to Prayers to the Dead. In the ſame Column he hath produced ſome words of St. Chryſoſtom Orat. de SS. Bernic. & Proſdoce., with no more ingenuity; for he tranſlates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Let us pray to them; indeed the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 follows, Let us deſire them, (which yet our Author after his wonted manner exaggerates, Let us heartily beſeech them): But that this was a meer rhetorical Flight, may be demonſtrated beyond all doubt; for in the immediately foregoing ſentence he ſpeaks much greater things of their dead Reliques, and Repoſitories; to which yet even our Author will grant that Prayers are not in a ſtrict and proper ſenſe to be addreſſed: In this Fire of Devotion, ſaith he, let us fall down to their Reliques; let us embrace their Repoſitories; for even the Repoſitories of Martyrs have great Virtue, as the Bones of Martyrs have great Force. Theſe Rhetorical Apoſtrophes are frequent to all Orators, and ought not to be drawn into Dogmatical Propoſitions.

I return now to conſider our Authors Columns ſeparately. The Second is about the Primacy of the Pope, and conſiſts of ſome Teſtimonies of the Fathers, which abating the ſpurious ones, inſinuate no more than that St. Peter was Prince or Firſt of the Apoſtles, the Foundation upon which the Church was built, and the Keeper of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; all this we readily acknowledg: None ever denied a Primacy of Order to St. Peter; the Scripture aſſures us that the Apoſtles were all Foundations of the Church; and our Saviour committed the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to them all: If any of theſe Teſtimonies ſeem to attribute ſomewhat greater and more eminent to St. Peter, we are to conſider that Orators ſeldom contain themſelves within the ſevere bounds of truth, when they ſet themſelves to make an Encomium of any. The Ancients ſpeak no leſs things of St. Paul, and attribute to him no leſs ſwelling Titles, as might eaſily be proved, if our intended brevity would permit it. I will produce only ſome paſſages of St. Chryſostom Hom. in Rom. xvi. 3. in terra mot. & Laz. in Paulum, &c., who calls him The Tongue of the World, the Light of the Churches, the Foundation of Faith, the Pillar and Ground of Truth, the Veſſel of Election, the Temple of God, the Mouth of Christ, the Harp of the Holy Ghoſt, the Doctor of the World, the Teacher of Divine Opinions, the Schoolmaſter of the World, upon whom the eyes of the whole World were cast, and upon whom the care of all the Churches in the World depended; to whoſe Government God had committed the whole World, Hom. ad eos qui ſcandalizati ſunt Hom. de eſemos. & collat. to whom the whole World was committed, and all the Churches under the Sun, who governed all the Churches, People, Nations and Cities of the Earth, to whom none can be equalled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . who had the Primacy, greater than all others; to Michael was committed the Government of the Jews, but to Paul, the Earth, the Sea, both the habitable, and inhabitable World, the Illuminator of the World, the greatest of all Men, who alone poſſeſſed all the perfections of the other Patriarchs, Apostles, Saints and Martyrs, who is admired and honoured beyond all the other Apostles. None of them was greater than him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . yea none was equal to him. I am confident no paſſages can be found in all Antiquity in favour of St. Peter, which can equal theſe produced out of one Author in favour of St. Paul. The moſt expreſs paſſage which our Author alledgeth, is that of Tertullian Lib. de Pudic., where he is ſuppoſed to call the Pope Chief Pastor, Biſhop of Biſhops, and Bleſſed Pope. But alas! all theſe are Ironical Expreſſions, directed to, not the Pope, but the Biſhop of Carthage, as hath been invincibly proved by a Learned ManAlix. Diſſert. de Script. Tertul. p. 70., now of our Church. The more expreſs Teſtimonies which remain, are only the firſt and the laſt of this Column: The firſt our Author thought ſo conſiderable, that he choſe againſt his uſual cuſtom to give it us in Latin: It is part of the Inſcription of St. Ignatius's Epiſtle to the Romans, wherein he calls them the ſanctified and illuminated Church, which preſides in the Country of the Romans. Theſe inſcriptions of Epiſtles were according to the Cuſtom of the Eaſtern Nations, filled with great and ſwelling Titles, of which unhappily this to the Romans was one of the moſt modeſt; for he beſtows far greater Titles upon other Churches in ſome of his Epiſtles, and particularly calls the Church of the Philadelphians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 raiſed to the utmost pitch of perfection; as for the word illuminated, it is a Title which the Ancient Chriſtians beſtowed upon all Baptized Perſons, whom they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Baptiſm was commonly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And then for preſiding in the Countrey of the Romans, every particular Epiſcopal See preſideth in her own Dioceſs; and therefore Ignatius doth not ſay, which preſideth in the whole World, but which preſideth in the Province of Rome. The laſt Teſtimony is taken from Socrates and Sizomen atteſting that the Eaſtern Synods were not valid, unleſs confirmed by the Pope; that he had a peculiar Priviledge of reſtoring Biſhops unjuſtly depoſed, and that to him belonged the care of all the Churches. But firſt, neither of the Hiſtorians affirm, That the Pope had any ſuch priviledge which was not common to the other Patriarch. For it was the conſtant cuſtom of the Ancient Church, that in all emergent occaſions of the Church, the Patriarchs ſhould interpoſe their judgments, as being more peculiarly obliged to it, by that eminent ſtation which they held among other Biſhops: Not that the judgment of every one was authoritative, or immediately put in execution (for their judgments were oft-times contrary) but they thereby only declared what they thought juſt and Canonical, which if it was not performed, they with the Biſhops ſubject to them, uſed to deny communion to the other party. Beſides, there was a particular reaſon in the caſe mentioned by theſe Hiſtorians. For Athanaſius being depoſed by the Arians, both Catholicks and Arians had ſubmitted the Arbitration of the whole cauſe to Pope Julius. As for the confirmation of Councils; no Council could be General, till approved by all the Patriarchs; & therefore if a Synod were held in the Eaſt, wherein the Roman Patriarchs was preſent, neither by himſelf, nor by his Legates; no wonder if the Decrees of it obliged not the Weſtern Patriarchate, till confirmed by the Pope. For no more did the Weſtern Synods oblige the Eaſtern Churches, till confirmed by the Eaſtern Patriarchs.

The Fifth Column treateth of Tranſubſtantiation, wherein moſt of the Teſtimonies produced by our Author, ſay no more than that the Euchariſtical elements after Conſecration are the Body and Blood of our Lord. This we alſo aſſert and believe; but then the queſtion remaineth ſtill, in what ſenſe they are the body and blood of Chriſt; of the remaining citations the moſt expreſs are thoſe of Juſt in Martyr, St. Ambroſe, and St. Auguſtin. The firſt even in the words cited by our Author affirms, That our Fleſh and Blood are nouriſhed by the Euchariſtical elements; and therefore could not believe Tranſubſtantiation. The Second indeed ſaithDe initandis, cap. 9. that a preternatural change is made in the elements after Conſecration, and the Bread then becomes the Body of Chriſt, which was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified and buried. But that he means his typical not natural body, is manifeſt from the beginning of this Chapter, where he compares this heavenly food to Manna, or the Bread of Angels; and prefers it becauſe that is ſubject to corruption, if it be kept from day to day; but this is free from corruption, which whoſoever religiouſly taſts, cannot ſuffer corruption. From which words, Three ſeveral Arguments of a typical ſenſe may be formed. For firſt, as Manna was not truly, but typically the Bread of Angels: So neither is the conſecrated Bread truly, but typically the Body of Chriſt. Secondly, The conſecrated elements are as to the matter of them ſubject to corruption: And therefore St. Ambroſe believed not the matter of them, but only what they repreſented, to be the body of Chriſt. Thirdly, He affirms this incorruptible Body of Chriſt to be received only by the Religious communicant: Whereas if Tranſubſtantiation, be true, it is equally received by the moſt Irreligious perſon. St. Auguſtin in the placeComm. in Pſal. 33. cited by our Author expreſly denieth all natural preſence. His words are theſe, When our Lord Jeſus Chriſt ſpoke of his Body, He ſaid, Whoſoever eateth not my fleſh, and drinketh not my blood, ſhall not have eternal Life: For my fleſh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. His Diſciples, who followed him, were afraid, and ſcandalized at that ſpeech, and not truly underſtanding it, thought that our Lord ſpoke ſomewhat harſh, as if they were to eat that fleſh, and drink that blood, which they ſaw. They could not bear this; as if they had ſaid, How can this be? Error, ignorance and folly had poſſeſſed them: Where he goes on to ſhew that this averſion of the Apoſtles proceeded from a miſapprehenſion of our Lord's meaning; as if he intended to give them his natural fleſh and blood to eat:Sacramenta praedicabat. Whereas our Lord knew what he meant; he ſpoke of Sacraments, or a ſacramental preſence. This paſſage ſufficiently explains the following Clauſe cited by our Author, unleſs we can ſuppoſe St. Auguſtin in this obſcure ſentence to have contradicted the Doctrine by him plainly delivered in the precedent Words.

The Sixth Column corncerns Sacramental Confeſſion, Prieſtly Abſolution and Penance; and in all reſpects is wholly impertinent; as may appear by theſe few conſiderations. Firſt, Then the Church of England retaineth and adviſeth to her Children Confeſſion, Abſolution and Penance; But then ſhe maketh not the firſt abſolutely neceſſary to Salvation; nor the Second a judicial, but only declaratory act; nor the Third properly ſatisfactory for ſins: Nor do any of the Teſtimonies produced by our Author, prove theſe poſitions. Secondly, The Confeſſion uſed in the ancient Church was not Auricular, but publick; not lodged in the breaſt of the Prieſt, but made before the whole Congregation. And when afterwards about the time of the Decian Perſecution theſe confeſſions became ſo numerous, that the Church could not hear them all, a Paenitentiarius was choſen out of the Presbyters to receive them, he did not keep them ſecret to himſelf, but only paſs judgment which were fit to be made known to the whole Church, and to be performed in the publick Congregation, and which not. 3. Abſolution of the Prieſt was not believed to be judicial or authoritative, and immediately to abſolve before God, but only declaratory of the promiſes of pardon made by God to all penitent ſinners, and to have no other neceſſary effect, than the reſtoring of the penitents to the peace of the Church. This may be proved by that very paſſage of St. Hierom, which our Author citeth, where he compareth the Prieſtly abſolution, to the cleanſing of Lepers by the Prieſts under the old Law; a compariſon very frequent with the Fathers. For as the Jewiſh Prieſts made not the Lepers clean, but only declared them ſo to be, and ſuppoſed them to be clean before their declaration; otherwiſe the declaration would not in the leaſt have contributed to their cleanſing: So a ſacerdotal Abſolution remits not the guilt of ſins, but ſuppoſeth them to have been before remitted by God, and declareth ſo to be; otherwiſe the abſolution of a Prieſt will avail the ſinner nothing, nor ſet him right in the Court of Heaven. 4. Penance in the ancient Church was chiefly intended, not as a ſatisfaction to God for the violation of his Laws, but as a ſatisfaction to the Church, for the ſcandal given to others, and reproach drawn upon the whole Church by the former crimes or irregular practice of the penitents: And therefore was ever augmented or relaxed according to the various exigencies or neceſſities of times. 5. In the ancient Church, Penance ever preceded Abſolution, and was the means of obtaining it: Whereas in the Church of Rome, the Penitent is firſt abſolv'd, and then ſome ſubſequent Penance is impoſed on him: Which takes away the very nature of Penance, Confeſſion and Abſolution, as they were uſed and deſigned the ancient Chriſtians; and tends only to the intereſts of the Prieſt, and deluſion of private ſouls.

The Seventh Column undertaketh to prove the lawfulneſs of Invocation or Prayer to Saints, and that they pray for us: the latter we need not deny; but maintain, that that will not warrant the former. So that when all the ſpurious Teſtimonies, thoſe which we have already anſwered, and thoſe which prove only that the departed Saints pray for us, be expunged; there remain no more than one of St. Ambroſe (for that of St. Hierom is a plain hiſtorical Apoſtrophe) and one of Theodoret. As for the firſt, I might juſtly oppoſe the authority of ſome learned men, who maintain this Book de Viduis, whence the paſſage is taken, to be ſuppoſititious. But I will content my ſelf to ſay, That our Author hath falſely tranſlated the place, by rendring Obſecrandi ſunt Angeli pro nobis, ut, &c. Obſecrandi ſunt Martyres, We are to deſire the aſſiſtance of the Angels; we are to pray to the Martyrs: Whereas the words do not in the leaſt inſinuate an Exhortation of Prayer to be made to them by us; but only a wiſh, that they would pray for us, and that we ſhould gratefully accept their charitable kindneſs in ſo doing. The PaſſageDe curand. affect. Graec. Orat. 8. of Theodoret, as cited by our Author, is a plain forgery. For Theodoret ſpeaks not one Syllable of praying to the Martys; and what our Author tranſlates, beſeech them as Holy men to intercede to God for them, is no more in the Greek than this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . We honour, or reverence them as holy men.

The laſt Column treateth of Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead. The firſt we believe to be a Fable, and to have no ground, either in Scripture or Antiquity. The ſecond our Church doth not condemn, only hath prudently omitted it in the publick Service, becauſe it is a thing dubious in it ſelf, and not approved by Scripture. The uſe of it in the Ancient Church, doth not in the leaſt prove the belief of Purgatory. For they anciently prayed for all Saints departed whatſoever, even for the bleſſed Virgin, Apoſtles, Martyrs and Confeſſors; and their Prayers reſpected not alleviation of freedom from any internal Puniſhment, but only the day of Judgment, that God would haſten it; and when that comes, receive all departed Souls into the beatifical Viſion, which they generally believed was not beſtowed to the departed Saints till the day of Judgment. That Purgatory was anciently believed, our Author's Teſtimonies do in no wiſe prove. Some of them indeed mention a purging Fire; But that Fire was not to exiſt till the Day of Judgment, when all Souls were to paſs through it, and to continue a ſhorter or longer time in it, according to their greater or leſſer Purity. No intermediate puniſhment between Death and Judgment was believed, beſides the delay of Reſurrection; if that can properly be called a puniſhment.

There remains only to conſider our Author's Catalogue of general Councils: Wherein he hath committed many groſs, and, as I fear, wilful miſtakes. He makes Pope Sylveſter preſide over the Council of Nice; but Euſebius and Socrates, whom he citeth, ſay no ſuch thing. Baronius indeed ſaith it: but all the World knows the contrary. For Hoſius Biſhop of Corduba preſided, and ſubſcribed in his own name before the Legates of Pope Sylveſter. That Damaſus preſided over the firſt Council of Conſtantinople, is ſo egregiouſly falſe; that that Council was both begun and ended without ſo much as the knowledg of the Pope, or any other Weſtern Biſhops. That Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria, not Pope Celeſtin, preſided over the Council of Epheſus, is manifeſt from the Acts of that Council, from the Commiſſion given to him by the Emperor for that purpoſe, and from all the Hiſtorians of thoſe times. Cyril indeed acted for Pope Celeſtin, but not as preſident, but as one Fellow-Biſhop manageth the Proxy of another here in England, in the Houſe of Lords. In the Council of Chalcedon Pope Leo's Legates were ſo far from preſiding, that all the Canons of the Council were made in their abſence, and not only without, but againſt their conſent. For when the Legates in the next Seſſion proteſted againſt the Canons, they were over-ruled by the Council and forced to ſubmit. That Pope Vigilius preſided over the Fifth General Gouucil, or Second of Constantinople, is ſo impudent a Falſhood, that it might with equal reaſon be pretended that Luther or Calvin preſided over the Council of Trent: For Vigilius who was then at Constantinople, gathered an oppoſite Convention of Western Biſhops, wherein publiſhing a long Conſtitution or Decree in favour of the Tria Capitula, he concludes with a ſevere Cenſure and Condemnation of all who ſhould hereafter Write, Teach, or Propoſe any thing contrary to his Decree, which he knew was then in doing in the General Council. The Popes Conſtitution was read in the Council, and notwithſtanding it was Decreed, Can. 12, 13, 14. That whoſoever defended the Tria Capitula, or even did not Anathematize them, ſhould be himſelf Anathematiz'd. After the Concluſion of the Council, and not till then, Vigilius ſubmitted, and writing an Epiſtle to Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople, who had preſided over the Council, profeſſeth he was now very ſorry that by the inſtigation of the Devil he had diſſented from the Council, and in contempt of brotherly Charity had openly diſagreed from them, and contended with them; that now he was convinced of his Errors, and therefore retracting his former actions, ratified and ſubmitted to the Decrees of the Council. In the Seventh General Council our Author reckoning up the Hereticks condemned by it, as Paulus, Sergius, Cyrus, Theodoſius, comes off with an &c. the meaning of which may eaſily be diſcovered; for this &c. was invented to ſave the reputation of Pope Honorius, who together with the reſt was Anathematized by the Council as a notorious and peſtilent Heretick. The Second Council of Nice was formerly denied to be General by Theodorus Studites, altho a great Patron of Image-Worſhip; and was condemned in the ſame age by the great Council of Francfort. The Fourth Council of Constantinople in the Year 869 was ever accounted a Schiſmatical Conventicle by the Greek Church. All the following Councils were confined to the West, and wanted both the Preſence and Suffrage of the Eastern Patriarchs, and conſequently were not Oecumenical: Many of them are not at this day univerſally received in the Church of Rome; and others are rejected and condemned by the Gallican Church, as the Firſt Second, Third, and Fourth of Lateran, Firſt, and Second of Lyons, as to the Conſtitutions and Canons injurious to the Civil Right of Princes: The Councils of Florence, and Fifth of Lateran, are wholly rejected by her, and the Council of Trent but in part received: Our Author pretendeth, that in the Council of Florence the Greeks were united to the Church of Rome, and ſubſcribed the Union. If a forced compliance of a few Biſhops compelled by the threats and force of their Emperor can be call'd an union, this was indeed one: But many of them ſubſcribed for fear of Death, and moſt for fear of ſtarving, as Sylvester Sguropulus an Eye-witneſs aſſureth us; and all of them when returning home, were ſo deteſted and hated by their Country-men, that they were eſteemed worſe than Infidels, and not permitted to be buried in holy Ground.

I might make ſome farther Obſervations upou our Authors Paper, as why he left that of Constance out of the number of General Councils, and yet afterwards produced its Authority; how diſagreeing the forms of Recantation, preſcribed to Berengarius, are to the preſent Belief of the Church of Rome, and how little the Teſtimonies produced by him in favour of Apoſtolical Traditions, concern the Romiſh Doctrine of Traditions. But what I have already ſaid, is enough to ſhew that there is a Generation of men in the World, who adding a profound Ignorance to a falſe Zeal, fear not to ſacrifice all conſiderations of Shame and Honeſty, of Truth and Reaſon, to a preſent Intereſt, and the poor advantage of a ſhort-liv'd Impoſture.