CHAP. I. The Jntroduction.

THe Author of the Book, en­tituled, A lost Sheep return­ed home, begins his Book with an INTRODUCTI­ON, which might invite any good Christian to read further, and to fix his Meditations upon the ensuing Dis­course, in hopes to meet with excellent matter, suitable to that ground-work which is so fairly layd, to wit, That the means to attain Eternal Life is not otherwise then by Faith, grounded on the Word of God; and not by Dis­course founded on the Principles of [Page 2]Reason, nor by Reliance upon Autho­rity humane. And that God revealed all these things to Jesus Christ, and he to his Apostles, Joh. 15.15. to the end that they should deliver them to Mankinde, to be received, beleeved, and obeyed over the whole world, even to the end thereof; bidding them, Mat. 28. Go and teach all Nations; and that they did accordingly teach all Na­tions, Mark 16.20. And concludes, That the Universal Christian Church was built upon the Apostles, and that nothing is to be beleeved as matter of Faith besides that which was delivered of them, as S. Paul saith, Eph. 2.20. And are built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief Corner-Stone.

The Doctor (if the Author of that Book) plays the part of a careful buil­der, to seek out a good Foundation; but they who please to examine his work, will finde he proves himself a bungling work-man; for he goes on without line or level in order to this Foundation, and presently his super­structures finde new bottoms: His eyes may be lifted up to the hills, and [Page 3]his purpose might be to have builded upon the Rock; but his minde is pre­sently changed, his Meditations pre­sently become earthly, and his hands are found scratching in the sand: with the Lark he begins to sing and mount up towards Heaven, but his weak quils presently flag; he comes down and builds a nest below upon the Earth.

In his first leaf he professes the Church built upon the Apostles, and that nothing else is to be beleeved as matter of Faith, but what was deli­vered of them; and then presently af­ter he brings in the Traditions of Rome for his ground of all: So that they who please to compare the frontispiece of that work with the inward rooms of the whole building, will finde it to be like Julian his picture, which whil'st Christians (according to the Roman Law) bowed unto it, they were de­luded, he having put false gods in the picture, that they might unwittingly adore those cunningly included Idols. The Frontispiece of that Book invites every Christian Soul to take up its lodging within that Tabernacle, which being further riffled into, it proves a [Page 4]painted Sepulchre. The fairest Apples are not always the soundest at the heart; no more may the ensuing Dis­course of that Book be judged by the Introduction: for who pleases to com­pare that Frontispiece with the matter contained in the following Chapters, must confess, when he meditates upon the Introduction, Here is the chief Corner-Stone in Sion, elect and preci­ous; but when, upon the following matter, that there he meets with the crasied pieces of Babylon, the rubbish and trumpery of humane Inventions; here the chief head of the corner, which the Doctor having forsaken, is become a stone of stumbling, a rock of offence: there the rotten principles of mans framing, for want of this Foundation­stone, sink under the vain top ambiti­on has towered upon them.

The Pharisees made broad their Phylacteries, which S. Jerom, upon Matth. 23. compares to certain wo­men, who carried up and down Par­vula Evangelia, thinking by those Spells to be free from danger: and it may be the Doctor thinks the rest of his Book shall escape censure for its In­troduction [Page 5]sake, but he must not think to escape by reason thereof; it doth rather encrease, then extenuate his con­demnation. Seneca witnesseth, that the Heathen reputed it an indignity to the Emperor, that any should Princi­pis Imaginem obscaenis inferre, much more should Christians beware how they engrave our Saviours name upon vain and unsuitable pieces. If Achan have any thing execrable consecrated, his Tent must be searched, and the Ba­bylonish garment with the wedg of gold (though hid in the midst thereof) must be ransack'd, and exposed to pub­lique defacing or utter demolishing: And must the Doctor think, because he has written upon the Portal IHS, that his new built Babel, standing upon another Basis, and not upon that Cor­ner-stone, shall be free from winds and storms? No: such Paper Buildings must expect that their lofty fames must bury their heads in their sandy bottoms, and serve for no other use then to administer comfort to them that stand upon the Rock, beholding the ruines of Babel.

The Introduction, as it stands in that [Page 6]Book, serves for an Index, to shew from what the Doctor is fallen, from a practique to a speculative Religion, from a Church built upon Christ and his Apostles, to a Synagogue of Sta­tists, who having cast aside the Com­mandments of God, prefer their own humane Inventions, which meerly tend to the vassaling of Princes, and tram­pling upon all the Churches of Gods Saints; who prescribing rules to o­thers, become lawless unruly Masters of all, making the whole World, as it were, an Ass for the triple-crown'd Pope to ride on, who would have it thought humility in him to bestride so dull a Beast.

It likewise speaks the Author a wa­vering and unstedfast man; it contains in it self a Contradiction: and as the Doctor now contradicts that Faith he formerly professed, and sets himself a­gainst that Church he was christened and educated in; so his Book contra­dicts the Introduction, and the Intro­duction contradicts it self, both being the fruits of the spirit of Contra­diction.

In the beginning of the Introducti­on [Page 7]he says, Peter is Prince of the A­postles; in the latter end he says, The Church is built upon the Apostles ge­nerally, Jesus being the chief Corner­stone: and in Chap. 20. he says, It is built upon Peter alone, and his suc­cessors.

From these varieties of his unsetled Opinions results this Conclusion, That Protestants can neither take courage to follow after him, nor Papists gather any assurance (from this experience of his temper) of his non-recoyling.

I hope his change proceeded not out of hardness of heart, that he for pri­vate ends should, against his own judg­ment, set himself against his Mother Church, but onely out of some failings in his Judgment: and therefore I have adventured to lay open the E [...]ors of his choyce, which if he please to con­sider seriously, I may win him again to his proper Sheepfold, from whence he is gone astray; how ever I hope I shall, by the blessing of God, hinder others from wandering after him, and shall be a means to make up that gap, which the Doctor hath made in the pale of our Church; which whilest it [Page 8]lay open, administred occasion for some to escape into the Wilderness: Wherefore I will not hold the Reader longer in suspence with a dilatory In­troduction, but will briefly shew that the Doctor is not gone to the Catho­lique Church, which is the main thing he perswades, (though it be obscurely wrapt in general terms in his first Chap­ter,) but that he has forsaken the faith once given to the Saints; he has gone away from the pu [...]e Fountain of Veri­ty to the puddle of Error; he has for­saken the living water, and chosen the Romish cisterns (digged by mens hands) which hold no water.

CHAP. II.
That the Roman Church is not the Catholique Church, either in re­spect of the Ʋniversality of her Doctrine, or any Jurisdiction she can claim from Peter, or by the consent of the Primitive Churches; and that the Pope is not the governing Head of the Catholique Church.

THe Church is called Catholique in several respects: 1. In respect [Page 9]of places, as being spread universally through the whole world, and is not tyed to any place or Kingdom. 2. In respect of Times, because but one Church of all Times; it having ever been from the beginning of the World, and shall continue on Earth till the end thereof; Isai. 59.21. and Matth. 28. the Church of both Testaments being one and the same. 3. In respect of the Collective Body thereof, the Catho­lique Church being gathered of men of both Testaments, and the Commu­nion of Saints being the union and co­herence of all the Saints in Christ their Head; according to that of Paul, Ephes. 1.10. That he might gather together in one all things, both which are in Heaven, and which are in Earth even into Christ; who is and ever shall be King and Head thereof. And generally when we speak of the Catholique Church, this Collective Church is to be understood; which appellation, Catholique, was used by the Apostles before ever Rome was a Church: So that neither in respect of Place, Time, or Catholiqueness, may Rome justly challenge the onely Title of [Page 10] Catholique, she being but a particular part or member of this Catholique Church, we the Saints being the Body and Members for our part, Eph. 1.22. But for the better illustration of this Point, I will examine the Doctors Ar­guments in particular, concerning Romes Catholiqueship; and I shall in so doing more plainly disprove her Title thereunto.

The word Catholique, as it is de­fined by the Doctor, is not a word of Belief onely, but of Communion also: So that, that Church which holds the same Belief with the ancient Church, and yet doth not communicate with her, may not rightly be called Catho­lique. I shall retort this Argument which he intended against the Prote­stants, and prove it to be their Justifi­cation, and the Church of Romes own Condemnation.

Catholique, as I said, in a general sence comprehendeth all the Elect, and is the full Body of Christ that filleth all things in all things, Eph. 4. And when we in our Creed say, We beleeve in the Holy Catholique Church, it is under­stood of all the Elect of God, which [Page 11]have been, are, or shall be; of which the Church-Militant on Earth is but part. But because I suppose the Doctor means onely of a Church upon Earth, I will therefore insist upon his own de­finition, and treat of the Church upon Earth, which, as it is universally spred over the Earth by the Apostles, who had equal commission to teach all Na­tions, no one particular Church can or ought to claim to be the Catholique or Universal Church upon Earth.

As for the Distinction which the Doctor makes betwixt Doctrine and Discipline, thereby to excuse the un­proper stile of Roman Catholique; That is (says he) Catholique in respect of Doctrine, Roman in respect of Dis­cipline: That will no ways strengthen her claim, or clear her incongruous Title: He doth but thereby shew the World how distinct her Discipline is from her Doctrine, and thereby give occasion to the world to suspect both: And upon this score may the Presby­terian Church of Geneva be called the Geneva Catholique Church; that is, Geneva for Discipline, Catholique for Doctrine, she professing the Catho­lique [Page 12]Faith of the holy and blessed Tri­nity: and yet the Church of Rome, I perswade my self, would think much that such a glorious appellation should be given to such an upstart Youngling, that wind-egg of a Tumult, Geneva Church which being braddened under a Toad of France, is become a staring Cockatrice, and thinks to center the World with­in the compass of his contagious Den, darting poyson upon whom he first espies; as experience tells us, how he glancing upon the poor Scot, has gi­ven him such a deadly wound, that he will scarce ever recover it; teaching those that have escaped that plague, with the Wesel, each morning to bite on Rue, which, says Avicen, secures her against the toxicating of that ve­nomous Basilisk: I say, if the Church of Rome think much that the Geneva Church should arrogate such a glori­ous stile, let her never stand upon her own Title, which is equally weak to challenge the same.

The Doctor proceeds further upon Romes Ti [...]le to her Catholiqueship, and gives a further explication of the same.

Catholique (says the Doctor) im­ports [Page 13]both the vast extention of Doc­trine to Persons and Places, and the union of all these places in commu­nion.

It cannot be denyed but that there were other Churches of ancienter and more reverend setlement then the Church of Rome, as the Churches in the East, as Jerusalem, Antioch, E­phesus, &c. and in after-times the Go­spel was to be carryed before Kings, and to the Gentiles by S. Paul, being by Jesus ordained a Minister and an A­postle of the Gentiles, amongst whom Rome was then a chief City, which as she received the Faith by S. Paul, or S. Peter, cannot properly be called a Mother Church, but as a babe and suckling received the sincere milk of the Word: She was one of the places to which the Doctrine of the Catho­lique Church of Christ was extended, but no extender of that Doctrine. So that by the Doctors own definition, she cannot properly be called the Ca­tholique Church, she being in her In­stitution but a private particular Mem­ber of the Catholique Church, as Eng­lands, or any other Church planted by [Page 14]the Embassadors of Christ. And if since, by the indulgent favors of her nursing Fathers, the Christian Princes, she has grown to that maturity that she has many Daughter Churches of her own plantation in the dark corners of the old known, and the new disco­vered parts of the World; yet she cannot by reason thereof assume to her self any more super-intendency over them as their Mother, then Jerusalem, from whence Paul was sent after he had the laying on of hands, or Anti­och, from whence it is pretended Pe­ter to have came, may by the same rule challenge over her and hers a Ju­risdiction as Mother to her and them.

And as in respect of extention of Doctrine she may not assume the name of Catholique; so neither can she claim that Title to her self in respect of her Communion with the Primitive Churches, as every point of this en­suing Discourse will evidently shew: So that unless the Universality of Pow­er and Jurisdiction she claims from Peter will support this her Title and Dignity, she is altogether at a loss, and must henceforth discontinue her claim [Page 15]to be the onely Catholique Church. It rests therefore to examine, That,

1. 1 It may not be called Catholique in respect of Peters having been there, Rome not Catholique [...]n respect of Peter being there. no more then the Church of Antioch, of which he certainly was Bishop.

The power of planting the Gospel was given in charge to all the Apostles, Go and teach all Nations: And, as the Doctor hath it in his Introduction, they going forth preached every where: And in the Acts it is said, That the A­postles sent out Peter and John unto Samaria, hearing that they had recei­ved the Word, who layd hands on them. If then Peter was subject to their mission, how comes he to give unto Rome any power above other Churches of Apostolical Plantation and by the same mission that Peter was sent out to Samaria, are elswhere planted? Peter was as wel to observe the directions of the rest of the Apo­stles, as to prescribe any Rules to them or others. It is true, Christ said to Pe­ter, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church. Saint Cyprian says (Cypr. in Tract. simp. Praelat.) This was but to denote the [Page 16]Unity of the Church, in that it was built upon one; for the power of go­verning and instructing was alike gi­ven to all: So that admit it was built upon Peter, as the Doctor argues, fol. 284. yet that gives nothing of su­perintendency to Rome; for Christ, after his Resurrection, gave power a­like to the rest; the naming of him a­lone in that place was, ut Ecclesia una monstretur, not to take any power or honor from the rest: For should it be granted that the Church was built up­on Peter alone, so that none else should plant or govern, then it would follow, that any Church planted by any other of the Apostles, who received neither order nor power from Peter, were not Apostolical; or true Churches of Christ, which S. Augustin, de Doctri­na Christiana, lib. 2. cap. 8. plainly affirms to the contrary. The Apo [...]tles Foun­dations of [...]e Church. We are built, says S. Paul, Ephes. 2.20. upon the foundations of the Apostles and Pro­phets, Jesus Christ being the chief Corner-stone: by which it appears, that the rest of the Apostles were foun­dations as well as Peter; and when there was a strife amongst them, who [Page 17]should be greatest amongst them, Mat. 20.26. sayes Christ, Whosoever shall be greatest, let him be your ser­vant; which is not to be understood, that Christ did thereby reprove pride and haughtinesse only, but was against superiority or preheminence amongst them: It is true, Christ was not a­gainst superiority utterly, for he calls himself their Lord and Master, John 13.10. and their head, but this preheminence he did not delegate to any one amongst them, for they were the foundations, he the Cor­ner-stone; they the body; he the Head; they ministers, he their Ma­ster; they equall, he their supe­rior. 2

The Apostles power to plant the Gospell was equall, The Apo­stles pow­er equall. and they disper­sed themselves for the propagation of the Gospell, not by any order re­ceived from Peter, but by the Com­mission they received from Christ himself. In the eighth chapter of the Acts it is said, that Philip went to­wards the South and baptized the Eunuch, the Queen of Ethiopia her chief Governour, and to this day the [Page 18]Catholike Faith is professed in Ethio­pia, being there preached by the said Eunuch: Nor doth the Pope exercise any jurisdiction there, which he might as well as in any other Countries which received the Faith from some of the Apostles, and not from the Bishop of Rome, if Peter was chief Governour of the Church, and he his successor. Doth not the Scripture plainly affirm, that the Holy Ghost came upon all? Acts 2. and Gal. 2. James, Peter and John gave Paul the right hand of fellowship. When Christ instituted his Supper, he said to them, Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur, hoc facite, &c. He gave to all a like power of administration: And Joh. 20. As my Father sent me, so send I you; he speaks it to all the Dis­ciples, and not to Peter alone, Nolite vocari Rabbi, Mat. 23. unus enim ma­gister est vester, scilicet Jesus, omnes autem vos fratres estis, that is, saith S. Austin, you are all equall: And S. Hierome in his Epistle to Evander, Omnes Episcopi, five Romae, five alibie jusdem sacerdotii at (que) potestatis, à Christo collationem habuerunt. The [Page 19]Doctor cites Bellarmines argument, that Christ is the invisible head, but there must be a mysteriall and visi­ble head to govern the whole: and therefore when it is said, 1 Cor. 12. that the head cannot say to the feet, I have no need of you, it must not be un­derstood of Christ, for he the eter­nall Word can say. J have no need, &c.

The Apostles are called skilfull master-builders, 1 Cor. 3. 3 Christ the Head of the Church. but another foundation can no man lay then that which is laid, Jesus Christ: It cannot therefore be understood that Peter was the foundation and rock on which the Church was built. Christ as he is head, it is of the whole Ca­tholike Church, and therefore when Paul (Ephes. 1.) calls him the head, he brings in both men and Angells into the rank of members, men, ver. 4. and Angells, vers. 21. But as touching the particular Churches upon earth, they all are but as so many members of the head, Christ Jesus, and are built upon the Apostles, as the Doctor confesses in his Introduction, who (as I said) are called master-builders, or the heads of those respective Chur­ches, [Page 20]but there was not one of them that was to bear rule over the rest: Peter was primus in ordine, not supre­mus in potestate, you cannot have twelve without one, but every one is as much one as another, whether in respect of Power or Ordination, as S. Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae agrees, some were ordained Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, for the work of the Ministery, for the edifi­cation of the body of Christ, and to every one of the Apostles was grace given, according to the measure of the gift of Christ, by whom he ascen­ded into heaven: but those that were Apostles were aequales inte se, and the Churches founded by them equall, as so many members of the mysticall Head Christ Jesus, and as to one was given by the Spirit of God Faith, to another gifts of healing, to another Prophecie, to another interpretation of Tongues, destributing to every one severally by the same spirit, yet this is but to make up one body com­pleat, for the gathering together of the Saints, for verse 27. ye are the body of Christ, and members for your [Page 21]part, so that he that thinks he hath the greatest gift, must not, because he thinks himself the head, say he hath no need of the other members, for all are not Apostles, all are not Prophets: wherefore let the Church of Rome remember what S. Paul said to the Romans chap. 12. that none presume to understand above that which is meet to understand, [...]ut that he understand according to sobriety: for as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office, so we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one anothers members: wherefore then shall the head say unto the feet, I have need of thee? will the Church of Rome cast off all other Churches, because she supposes her Bishop is Peters Successor? will she be the Rock and Foundation of the Church, and leave others as built upon the sand? S. John in his Revelations ch. 21. sayes, the Apostles are counted the twelve Foundations, or twelve stones of the house of God, and will the late Popes allow no other Foundation but Rome? The Apostles are called [Page 22]Builders and Foundations, but none the chief Stone, but Christ, elect and precious, 1 Peter 2. Behold I put in Sion a chief Corner-stone, elect and pre­cious; and he is the Head of the body of the Church, Colos. 1.18.

Bellarmine being ingaged to main­tain the Popes Supremacy, is not a­shamed to ascribe the Prophecy of Esay, cited by S. Peter, to be meant of the Pope, which S. Peter himself expounds of Christ. I much won­der that so great a Schollar should commit so great an absurdity, he strains the Scriptures to maintain the Supremacy of Rome, because of Peter being there, expounding Babylon, from whence Peter directs his Epistle, to be meant of Rome; and yet he, a­gainst S. Peters interpretation, wil ex­pound the chief Corner-stone, Elect and precious, to be put in Sion, to be the Pope of Rome, and so he makes Rome to be both Sion and Babylon: he will have it Babylon to prove Peter there, and Sion to exclude Christ from being Head of the Church; contrary to S. Peters own interpreta­tion, and contrary to the interpreta­tion [Page 23]of Cyprian, Bede, and severall Fa­thers upon the 21. of John, who agree that Christ was the Rock, upon which Foundation even Peter him­self was built.

The Papists, when that text of Matthew 16.18. will not serve their turn, for to warrant their pretended title, to lord it over all other Chur­ches, they then fly to the 21. of Iohn to the treble pasce, construing to feed, to signifie to govern, and be­cause generally spake to feed my Sheep, to govern all, not some.

The word [...] is not to rule, but to feed, 4 An an­swer to the treble pas­ce. and [...] are not Rectors but Pastors; wherefore to me it seems a strange interpretati­on. But why should I think it strange, it is but like that other interpretati­on of S. Peter afore mentioned. The grand Doctor and Conclave of Rome have the Keys of the Scripture in their Cabinet, and can by a word of their mouth make the dead letter speak as they please, and like an Italian Pad­lock open at a private kue of their own invention: they make Scripture like the Fish Popile, which turns it self [Page 24]into the similitude of every object, and they make the leafs of the holy Bible, as it were a pair of Cards, which they can so pack by false ga­ming, that they can cut Christendome the head, and make the Knave of the Clubs trump when they please.

I hope Christians in these later times, when as deceivers are come a­broad, will be more wise, then to be insnared by the novell Doctrines of Rone, which she holds forth to the people for her self-interest, and not their good and welfare, and doth quite forsake the Primitive truth, exalting her own Traditionall rules above Christ, the Apostles, or the an­cient Fathers, as it were to fascinate the people under a colour of Holi­nesse, to become slaves to her new ac­quired Prerogatives, though incon­sistent with her See and function.

The Fathers severally concur up­on this place of the 21. of Iohn, that it was not said to Peter, whereby to exclude the power of governing, and feeding the flock of Christ from the rest of the Apostles, not for any honor, but rather comfort to Peter, [Page 25]or if for honor, not that it was here­by enlarged to Peter above the rest, but that it was restored to Peter, of whom Christ required a threefold confession of love, that with his threefold confession he might blot out his threefold deniall.

Besides, the words are my Sheep, not thy Sheep, as my sheep seek my glory in them, not thine own, my gain, not thine: Ezechiel 34. Woe to the shep­heards of Jsrael that feed themselves, not my flock. Christ here demands if he loved him, then he should shew that love to them, feed them, not thy self. Chrysostome lib. 2. de sacerdot. when Christ said to Peter, feed my sheep, it was to teach Peter and all the rest, how much he loved the Church, not to teach Peter alone, but all the rest, and fo S. Austin liber de agon. cap. 3. it was spoken to all, when it was spoken to Peter, dost thou love me? feed my sheep; to him, to put him in mind of his threefold deniall; to the rest, to make them mindfull of their charge, that the same love they bare to their Master Christ, they should now henceforth extend that love to­wards his Flock.

And whereas the Church of Rome doth urge, that Christ gave this pow­er to Peter after his Resurrection, which should therefore carry more efficacy, as coming from immortall Christ. I may answer, that this was the third time he appeared after his resurrection, but after this he gathe­red them together, and commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to watch for the coming of the Holy Ghost, Acts 1. which when they were together with one accord, it came and sate upon each of them, Acts 2. After this the Lord Jesus ap­peared to Paul, Acts 9. in a shining fire about him, and he was thereupon converted, and ordained an Apostle and Minister o [...] the Gentiles: So that admit Peter did receive by the treble pasce a generall Jurisdiction (which cannot from thence plainly be evin­ced) yet Christ did after restrain this power, that it should not extend to the Churches of the Gentiles, 5 Paul only being appointed an Apostle and Minister over them. Successor of Peter not equall to Peter.

I might for Argument sake, grant, that Peter had not only a Primacy, [Page 27]but Supremacy over the rest of the A­postles, and yet it would not at all help the Popes case, to claim that power over the rest of the Churches: for if Peter had any such power, it was to him as an Apostle, neither was he the surviver of the Apostles, so that this superiority in him as an A­postle, either died with him, or els sur­vived in John, who was an Apostle, and survived Peter: and Christ had promised to be with them unto the end of the world, so that as long as any of them were living, they were to be preferred before any that suc­ceeded the deceased Apostles, in their severall Sees and Plantations; in res­pect that S. Paul reckoning the de­grees of orders in the Church, 1 Cor. 12.28. God ordained some in the Church, first Apostles, secondly Pro­phets, thirdly Teachers, &c.

Baronius writes that Peter died the 69. year after Christ, and that Iohn the Bishop of Ephesus survived him long. Rome un­certain in her succes­sion. Now if Linus succeeded Peter in the See of Rome, or Anacletus, or Clemens, (of which their own sto­ries differ) I hope they will not de­ny, [Page 28]that S. John whilest he lived was Superiour to Linus or Clemens, o­therwise they give the world occasi­on to laugh at them, to think that the Successors of Peter should be a­bove John, who was an Apostle, that the subordinate should be set above the Superiour, the derivative above the Primitive. I wonder that the Pa­pists should think the world so stupid and void of Christianity, that they should preferre one of her pretended Bishops, and if a Bishop there, it was by humane Institution, before John, who was an Apostle by divine right, and called by Jesus Christ the only Son of the living God, and one, on whom the Holy Ghost had vouchsa­fed to descend and sit upon his head; and therefore certainly was to be preferred before any Linus or Ana­cletus of humane ordination; and if at any time after Peter, any other was to be preferred before the Bi­shop of Rome, then her succession from Peter, by which she claimed her Universall Jurisdiction, is quite de­stroyed.

Bellarmine lib. 2. de Pontif. cap. 12. [Page 29]and Ca [...]tan de Jnstitut. Pontif. cap. 13. to evade, this Argument will have their succession from the fact of Peter, inasmuch as Peter was Bi­shop there, and not from the Insti­tution of Christ, and so they make their Catholique Church matter of fact, not Faith.

And the better to colour this their assertion, they stick not to add, that it was by the speciall appoint­ment of Christ that Peter placed his See at Rome, and died there; and for this they fly to their never failing starting hole, the Magazine of Ro­mish Traditions, and from thence borrow a story, how Christ met Pe­ter as he was flying out of Rome for fear of persecution, and admonisht him to return, that he might die at Rome, and that the very print of their feet, as they two talked together, is at this day to be seen without the Gates of Rome.

The first founder of this story is Linus, a foolish counterfeit writer, as Baronius termes him, and should any Christian give up himself to be­lieve this story, it were to forfeit his [Page 28] [...] [Page 29] [...] [Page 30]faith he hath in S. Peter and the Ca­tholique Church, which believed the profession of Peter to be the Dic­tates of the Holy Ghost, by which is expressely declared, that the heavens shall contain him till he come, Acts 3.21. Now that he should be so cor­poreally there, as to leave the print of his feet behind him, is so much a­gainst the Scripture, and the tenents of the Primitive Church, as I shall shew in the sixteenth chapter, that for my part I dare not admit it into my belief. Yet suppose that Peter was at Rome, and by a Vision was warned to go back to Rome; I know not what this can make for the late Suc­cessors of Popes in that See to claim their Universall Jurisdiction, they have no rule by divine Writ nor Re­velation, or vision, to confirm it to them any further then by humane consent, as by consent of Councells, grant of Princes, and by election of Cardinalls: therefore whatsoever is of late acquisition, if it be contrary to the rules of Christ given to his A­postles, it is not for other Churches to believe and follow it, nor to give [Page 31]their obedience to it as matter of Faith, for they are built upon Christ the chief Corner-stone, and have A­postolicall Foundations, as S. John calls the Doctrine of the Apostles, and if Christ by Vision warned Peter to go to Rome, it cannot be construed, that that Vision shall be a warrant for the succeeding Popes to claim the same Prerogatives Peter had, in that it appeared to Peter, it was to teach him to follow Christ, to lay down his life for the profession of the faith in him, who spared not his own bloud for the redemption of mankind, and is from heaven, but these succeeding Bishops are elected by men, claim more then ever Peter had, giving rules of obedience to o­thers, and lording it over Gods He­ritage, do thereby manifest their cal­ling to be earthly, and not true Successors of Peter. Peter if he planted his See there, it was by Visi­on from heaven, but the late Bishops of Rome, they consult with flesh and bloud, and by sinister means, by stri­vings, contentions, and plottings of aspiring and covetous men, is the [Page 32]Chair continually furnished with a Patron, in so much that a Cicilian Cardinall coming to the Election of a new Pope, and finding such a change from the old way (which was wont to be with supplications to God, for the directions and assistance of his holy Spirit in so great a work, and not by the then present practi­ses, to wit, menaces, promises of re­wards, perfas aut nefas to climbe the Chair) ad hunc modum, saith he, fiunt Romani Pontifices, and so departed and retired himself from that Scarlet tribe for ever after. And here by the way I beg leave of the Reader to speak a word or two concerning the Cardinalls of Rome, though I must confesse it be a little digression from the point, but I will be brief, and re­turn to the subject matter of this chapter again.

I could wish to be satisfied by what Authority Paschalls did create the Parish Priests of Rome Cardinalls, 6 Of the Order of Cardinals for it is no spirituall order, as is con­fessed in sum Sacrament, Rom. Ec­cles. Sect. 154. Cardidalis non est Sa­cerdos, nec habet de jure potestatem ab­solvendi, [Page 33]and it is no honor tempo­rall, because not derived from any King or Prince (from whom all true titles of honor are derived). 'Tis true, Carolus Magnus had then lately en­dowed the See of Rome, with a Do­nation of the Exarchate of Ravenna, and the Dukedome of Spoletto, with some other territories which he an­nexed to the See, for the support of hospitality, and to promote the cha­rity of the succeeding Popes of Rome not giving them thereby any Iura re­galia, as I shall shew anon in the thirteenth Chapter. Neither is there any warrant from Scripture, or other antiquity to warrant these titles, un­lesse like a Sowter the leather with his teeth, his Holinesse will strain Scrip­ture so farre, that he will have that place of 1 Sam. 2. Domini sunt Car­dines terrae to be propheticall of their order, or els orrows the phrase from a Carpenter, who is said to incardi­nate, or mortize, or rivet: and the Pope alluding to this, thinks he has so engeniously strengthened the door of his Pallace, by these adventitious props, which (though at first they [Page 34]were but underhand Vicars to the Parish Priests of Rome, insomuch that a Bishop formerly refused to accept the title, because he would not des­cend from a higher to a lower digni­ty; yet now (through the iniquity of time, the pride of Popes, and the dullnesse of Christian Princes) are started up from minor shrubs, to top the pole of Majesty, and instead of Parish Priests, are become Princes Peers, and by Pope Nicholas the se­cond, made sole Electors of the Pope, of which in the fourteenth chapter.

The first that was elected by their ho­ly honors was Pope Hildebrand, a most troublesome wicked man, of whom you will hear more hereafter; and one, in whom nature seemed to have placed the indelible characters of re­bellion against God and man, a fit­ting son for such a Mother; the first born of this purple Conclave, in whom they perceived their own I­mage, and that the tree might be known by the fruit, did therefore e­lect him Pope, who did not after­wards bastard his calling but ma­nifested through the course of his [Page 35]life, from whence he sprung, and lest in time this plantation should dege­nerate from that sublimity was then challenged by them, they have conti­nually since studied to find out men suitable to their own heart to make Cardinalls of, and generally such are chosen into this order, as will not stick to pull down their naturall Prince, to advance the designs of their new Master: witnesse my Coun­trey-man Allen, who confessed to the Jesuit. Parsons, that his Holinesse had made him Cardinall, intending to send him as his Legat, for the sweeter managing of that great and godly design of the Spanish Armado against England, and that he compiled a book which should have been publi­shed for the better drawing on the people of England to joyne with the Spaniard. The first part whereof was called, A Declaration of the Sen­tence, the second, an Admonition to the Nobility, wherein he promised their safety and preservation, though it may be doubted he intended to practise the feats of an Allen upon them, which saies Purchas in his Pil­grimage, [Page 36] lib. 8. cap. 3. beats other Beads, till they vomit their prey for him to devoure, and then dismisses them away with little meat in their bellies, or feathers on their backs, and t [...]is like he would have used our No­ble [...] no better, had his Bilbo Blades been once brandished on our English plains, and proved successefull in that design. He for this his unnaturall cruelty and trechery against his own dear Countrey and liege Lord, was admitted (as Saul amongst the Isra­elites) chief of the scarlet crew; a godly tribe, & truly worthy of their red Cap and Gown, as thereby deno­ting to the world their bloudy in­ventions and close practises against all that will not become subservient homages, and vassalize themselves to their impious Lord and Master, to whom I desire-to return my present discourse, to disprove his pretended Catholiqueship.

I have hitherto argued ex Conces­so, 7 Peter was not Bishop of Rome. that Peter was not Bishop of Rome, which I desire might be pro­ved. I find that he was appointed o­ver them of the Circumcision, and [Page 37] Paul was to preach unto the Gen­tiles, he was appointed Bishop of Antioch, and I do not find that he was removed by any order or missi­on of the rest to translate his See to Rome, nor that he himself had any vi­sion or revelation to warn him there­unto: when he went to Cornelius, be­ing a Gentile, we read that it was up­on speciall revelation, Acts 10. for ordinarily it was not lawfull for him to accommodate with the Gentiles, he being consigned over them of the Circumcision, insomuch that Paul withstood him to his face, Galat 2. for accompanying with the Gentiles, which the Doctor confesses in his book cap. 20. to be an error of con­versation; wherefore for him to ar­gue that Peter was at Rome, is to charge Peter with more errors, and so it will prove a hard task for the Pope to prove his Church built upon him, to be infallible, unlesse he can prove mission of the rest of the A­postles, or an especial revelation from God for his so doing.

The Popes Parasites must pump for a new tradition, to prove that Peter [Page 38]had another vision for his coming to Rome, as they have already done, to prove his returning back to Rome, when he had intended to have left it, and when that's done, still they are at a non plus; for should they prove that he was there, it doth not there­by follow that he was Bishop there; for if so they charge him again with another condemnable error, as that he should for fear of persecution for­sake his Flock, insomuch as his own traditions say, he was flying out of Rome, for fear of the persecution, which was not done like a good Shepheard, if he had a flock in Rome, wherefore should they prove him there, and that he was warned to re­turn, as their traditionall story doth purport, yet they cannot from thence conclude that he was Bishop there, his walking thorow all quarters did not make him Bishop in anothers Di­cesse; James continued Bishop of Ie­rusalem, notwithstanding Peter and the rest were there, nor is it evident, by the Scripture, that he walked tho­row the Gentiles quarters: For admit universall power of governing was [Page 39]given to him by the treble pasce, yet yet it was afterwards restrained from the Gentiles, Paul being a chosen Vessell for to carry the Gospell to them, and was ordained an Apostle and Minister to that end, Paul ap­pointed o­ver the Gentiles. infra. 63. chap. 8. so that where it is said that Peter walked thorough all quarters, that is to be understood, the then known quarters of the East, for at that time Paul was not called, who after his Ordination preached at Damascus and Hierusa­lem, and after to the people of Rome, and that without let, as it is in the last of the Acts, and he did magnifie his office, Rom. 11.13. in that he was ap­pointed over them, Marsilius defen­sor pacis 2. dict. 16. cap. affirms, that he was Bishop there, and if so, then Peters coming thither did not nullifie his Office, for that it was the directi­on of the Holy Ghost, Rom. 15.19. that none should build upon anothers foundation, that is, they should not be busie Bishops in anothers Diocesse, so that it will be very hard for the Doctor to prove his Holinesse Peters Successor.

Linus, who by some, is supposed [Page 40]immediate Successor after Peter in that Diocesse, was a Disciple of Pauls, and sent greeting to Timothy from Rome, 2 Tim. 4.21. Peter directing his Epistles from Babylon, makes menti­on of Silva [...]us and Marcus, and Paul writing many Epistles from Rome, as the Epistles of the Galati­ans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossi [...]ns, the second Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Philemon, never makes men­tion of Silvanus in any of them; and for Mark, he writes to have him come to Timothy, 2 Tim. 4.11. so that it is probable that Peter wrote not his E­pistle from Rome, and that Linus, if he were Bishop there, succeeded Paul, not Peter.

As for the traditions of Rome, of Peter his being there, and his being Bishop there, they have no ground from Scripture, but rather plain and evident testimonies to the contrary, wherefore as yet they find little faith with many, insomuch that Marsilius, one of their own Writers, suspects the truth thereof: It was (saith he) very strange that Peter should be con­temporary there with Paul; for it is [Page 41]plain by Scripture, that he was not there before Paul, in as much as when Paul came thither, they had never re­ceived any letters concerning him out of Iudaea, nor any of the Brethren e­ver heard of him, Acts 28.21. and cer­tainly he went not along with Paul, insomuch as no mention is made of him in the expresse of that perillous journey, and the severall miraculous occurrences which hapned to them that were with Paul; for if he was, certainly S. Luke would have menti­oned him, or if he was superinten­dent over Paul and the rest (as the Papists perswade) sure he would have shewed some miracle among those Gentiles, and not have letten the people wholly follow Paul, if they had belonged to his charge: wherefore I rather conclude that he was not there, or if he was there, that he never was Bishop there.

Osius Bishop of Cordubia, one of no small account amongst the 318. Fathers, of the first Councell of Nice, in a Couneell at Sardis did declare, quod non licuit episcopo de Civitate sua ad aliam transire civitatem, unde ap­paret [Page 42]se avaritia infl [...]mmari & ambiti­oni servire ut dominattonem agat, to which all the Fathers answered placet, this was the sense of the Fathers of those daies, as may likewise appearby the 1. Councell of Nice. 16. Can. & Concil. Antioch. 21.22. Can. and in the Councel of Chalcedon 10. Can. Si epis­copus confugit ad aliam civitatem ob inanis glo [...]ie cupiditatē, revocari debet ad suam ecclesiam, & ibi tantummodo ministrare: & Concil. Nicaenum 15. Can si quis episcopus de civitate ad civi­tatem transeat & se negotia mancipa­ret in irritum ducatur hoc factum & restituatur ecclesiae cui fu [...]t episcopus,

This was the profession of the Fa­thers of those daies, who certainly, if Peter had removed his See from An­tioch to Rome, would rather for reve­rence sake to him a chief Apostle, have suspended their opinions, then by promulgating thereof, have thrown this scandall upon him.

And i [...] the Doctor would but seri­ously consider of these reasons and o­pinions of the ancient Fathers in this point, he would not ascribe univer­sality to the See of Rome upon Peters [Page 43]score, for by them it appears that Pe­ter ought not to remove his See, and if he did, it was void. And the Doctor confesses fol. 288. he was Bishop of Antioch, and if so, he ought not to remove his See, unlesse you wil make him above Councells, and that is plain in the 14. of the Acts to the contrary, of which I shall speak at large in the chapter of Councells: and to say that by any revelation he came thither, & planted his See there, that were to deny the holy Spirit to the general Councels, who declare the contrary to that Revelation, and so they wil make the Church fallible, of which in the eighth chapter. It might be that upon some extraordinary oc­casion (as Eusebius saies) he came thi­ther to withstand Simon Magus; Paul desiring his assistance, he might come to Rome, but without all doubt he was never Bishop there, for it is both a­gainst the testimony of Scripture, and the infrence of Councells.

Lastly, I conceive that Peter was not Bishop of Rome, though (I confesse) I am something induced to believe he might be there, for that the Bishops [Page 44]of Rome vary in their stiles, somtimes they stile themselves Successors of Peter, & somtimes of Peter and Paul. I my self have seen a Bul of the Popes, dated 1500. wherein his Holinesse is stiled the Successor of Peter & Paul.

Thus these grave Fathers of Rome, like the Elders that would have be­trayed Susanna, cannot agree in a story, they would despoil other Chur­ches of their Rights and Priviledges, and ascribe all Jurisdiction to their own See; but examine them apart, and they cannot agree how and by what means to derive their title thereun­to: for who please to examine Pla­tina, Onup rius, Genebrard, Sabellicus, Anastatius, Baronius, and such like Pope Parasites about this point of Succession from Peter, will find them agree like a dog about a bone; & like Aesops dog, they snatch at he sha­dow, and let go what they had; they that might universally lord it over all other Churches of the world, wil needs give Peter a strange power, and tye that power to themselves, where­as if they could have been content to have acknowledged themselves Suc­cessors [Page 45]to Paul, as he having been Bishop there, and being the Apostle of the Gentiles, I perswade my self that no Churches of this Western world, but would give the Bishop of Rome the right hand of fellowship; but sith the boundlesse ambition of the Pope carries them beyond all li­mit of fellowship, it makes others to set their ambitious ends at defiance, and to stand fast to that Christian li­berty to which they are called, only to beware they use it not as an occa­sion to the flesh, but by love to serve one another, Gal. 5.13.

I have I hope sufficiently proved, that Rome may not challenge to her self any universality in respect of Pe­ter having been there; for that it is not altogether cleare and manifest that he was there, or if he was there, that he was Bishop there, or if he was, it makes not much for them to prove any universality to the succeed­ing Bishops in that See; and if from Peter no universality will arise to them, it rests to examine whether they may claim it by consent of Councells.

The first generall Councell, the Councell of Nice, 8 committed of old the charge of the Catholike Church, The Councells against the Universa­lity of Rome. to three principall Patriarchs, Alex­andria, Rome and Antioch, and after came in Constantinople, & by the sixth Canon thereof, Egypt, Lybia, &c. were allotted to Alexandria, quia & urbis Romae episcopo parilis mos est. And hereupon Athanasius sayes, Roma est metropolis Romanae ditionis; Rome was shut within the compasse of her own Province, inasmuch as she was made like unto Alexandria: therefore the Government of Alexandria was like unto Rome, which likewise proves the Bishop of Rome provinciall, not uni­versall.

The second generall Councell, the first Councell of Constantinople, the second Can. did appoint, that the Bishops of the East were only to go­vern the Eastern Churches, saving to Antioch metropolitan Jurisdiction, the Asian Bishops to govern the Asi­an Churches, Nec non & Ponti episcopi eas quae sunt in Ponto, & Thraciarum quae in Thraciis sunt, gubernent, verun­tamen propterea quod urbs ipsa sit juni­or [Page 47]Roma: By which it appears that Romes primacy over Constantinople is in respect of the honor done to her City and seat of the precedent Em­perors, not in respect of any Juris­diction she could claim from Peter, which certainly if any such had been, they could not be ignorant of it, nor would either the Fathers of those Councells have preferred her for temporall respects, if any divine right did lift up her head above her fellows, nor the then Bishops of Rome have suffered themselves to be made equal with Alexandria, if from Peter they had had any right of Universall Ju­risdiction, which Marsilius, who was a Roman Catholique, and writ 328. years since, affirms to be the professi­on of those daies; and the Bishops of Rome did stile themselves according­ly, Romanae urbis Episcopi, and after Silvester, which was the first Bishop after the persecutions, then they sti­led themselves Archiepiscopi.

Nilus de primatu Romanae ecclesiae, saies; In respect that certain Coun­tries were allotted to the Bishop of Rome, and certain to the Bishop of [Page 48] Alexandria: those under Alexandria, are no more under the Bishop of Rome, then these under Rome were under the Jurisdiction of Alexan­dria.

By these Constitutions of the first Councells it is plain, that no univer­sality will belong to Rome beyond her own Province; all Churches in themselves, as they are members of the Catholike Church being equall, only for order sake and better Go­vernment, the Fathers in those Coun­cells appointing severall Metropoli­tans, to whom others in point of or­der and discipline should within their proper Precincts be subordinate; but for Rome to have universal jurisdiction over all, that can never be evinced from those Councells; and unlesse She will blot out those ancient re­cords, The Church of Rome blots out what makes a­gainst her, Infra. cap. 10. they stand in bar against any Plea she can make for it; wherefore to make good her pretended title, she flies to her index expurgatorius: and as many as she meets with, cor­rects or blots out what makes against her, as witnesse S. Austin, who in his book de doctrina Christiana, lib. 2. c. 8. [Page 49] & de civitat. Dei lib. 15. cap. 23. speak­ing of such Scriptures as are to be ta­ken for Canonicall, sayes, those which the most or greatest part of Christian Churches, amongst the which those Churches be, which de­serve to have Apostolique Sees, and to receive Epistles from the Apostles: The Papists blot out these words, A­postolique Sees, and have put in these words, Apostolique See, meaning thereby the See of Rome, and those Churches which deserve to receive Epistles from the same Church of Rome.

I must confesse by such sleights as these, she may in time gain an opini­on of Universality, and so wrong posterity; nor is she sparing of any costs to compasse those ancient Re­cords, that she may form them anew in her own forge, and make them speak nothing but Universality of Rome: wherefore to prevent the de­ceivings of some by these tricks of hers, I will proceed to lay open some more Records of antiquity and credit which make against her in this point, and which I hope will stand a­gainst [Page 47]her false suggestions to the contrary.

The third generall Councell, the first of Ephesus, called by Theodosius the younger Anno Christi 431. and the fourth generall Councell of Chalcedon, gathered by Valentinian and Marcian, Anno Christi 451. confirm the Canons of the former Councells; and the 28. Can. of the Chalcedon Councell, gives equall pri­viledge to new Rome, that is Con­stantinople, which is afterwards con­firmed by the fifth generall Councel, the second of Constantinople, in the 36. Can. whereby it is evident, that Constantinople had equall priviledge with Rome, or any other Provinci­all.

This I know will be an offensive History to the Papists, that I should make Constantinople equall with Rome, but sith it is the Authority of Councells guides me to it, I may hope the moderate part of them will be satisfied, as for the rest I care not, such as will set all divines Rule a­side; to uphold the unlimited unwar­warrantable power of the late [Page 51]Popes; I leave them to their own phansies, hoping the more sober sort of them will hearken to instruction, sith that which the others would draw them by, to wit, the Authority of Fathers and Councells, calls them to take notice of this truth, and to a sense of the high injuries and indig­nities offered to those sacred De­crees, which are made every day speak new language, such as their Fa­thers never knew, to warrant Romes new inventions. I desire the Jesuits, if wil fully they have not sold them­selves to work wickednesse with greedinesse, to hearken to the Fa­thers of these Counc [...]ls, as for the se­culars, I hope they will not set so highly by them, as to put them in the scale with new-found traditions, or if others do it for them, that they wil see fair play, and then blind Justice will point our these more solid, those more vain and ayrie.

The Fathers of those times search­ed with discerning ey [...] into the My­steries of the Divine Writ, and yet they could not from thence evince, that Peter had any greater or better [Page 52]power given to him, then to any of the other Apostles; there was no more excellent or shining fiery Tongue sate upon him, then did a­light upon the rest, nor did he arro­gate at any time, to be transcendent or superintendent over the rest, he was subject to their Massion, he like­wise did submit to the Centurions power he came at his sending, and gave an account of his fact, and that without saving nay, Acts 10.29.

The Apostl [...]s were men full of the Holy Ghost, and to them was given to know the mysteries of Christ, and if by the words, Thou art Peter, in the 16. of Matthew, or by the treble pasce in the 21. of John, Peter had been made universall Bishop, Peter had never been assigned only over the Circumcision, & Paul to the Gentiles, or els it must follow, that Peter did offend God so highly after that he had received Commission that it was afterwards cancelled, and the charge of the Gentiles committed to Paul, which is one estoppell to the Successor of Rome, to derive a Juris­diction from Peter.

Moreover Peter forbids Superiority in his first Epistle fifth Chapter, he cals himself a fellow-Priest, and in his se­cond Epistle third Chapter, he cals Paul his Brother, and if a fellow Priest, and Paul his Brother, Par in parem non ha­bet potestatem. This likewise destroys his universal Jurisdiction: but I return to search a little further into the Councels. The sixt general Councel the Councell of Carthage, in which S. Austin was present, did confirm the Cannons of the former Councells, No [...]p­peals to Rome. in­fra chap. 11. declaring the powers of the Patriarks to be equall, and the right of appeal­ing to Rome, by such as were con­demned by the Arch bishop of their own Province, was declared unneces­sary. S. Austin after that (who was Bishop of Hippo) opposing three Bi­shops of Rome, Zozimus, Boniface, and Celestine, in this so just a cause common to all provinciall Sees, as appears by the ensuing report. One Apiarius an African Priest, being ex­communicated, and flying to Rome, and being absolved by Zozimus the then Bishop of Rome, Aurelins the Metropolitan of Afrie, with the [Page 54]Councell wrote to Celestine, the suc­ceeding Bishop, stiling him Dominus Frater, and acquainting him that by the sixth Canon of the Councell of Nice, ecclesiastick persons are to be committed to the charge of their Me­tropolitans, appealing to provincials or generall Churches, but not to a­ny forraign See: and reproving the absolving of Apiarius, exhorted Ce­lestine, Nè induceret fumosum typum in Ecclesiam Christi quae lucem simplici­tatis & humilitatis praefert iis qui De­um diligunt; & did afterwards pro­ceed against Apiarius, enjoyning him penance, notwithstanding the Bishop of Romes former absolving of him; and this was acknowledged & recei­ved of all Churches as an Evangelical truth, & acknowledged by the succee­ding Bishop of Rome Gregory I. who lived An. Chri. 590. reputing the de­crees of these first Councells equall with the Evangelists, as proceeding from the same holy Spirit of God, & which he had promised to his Church: Se suscipere quatuor prima concilia si­cu [...] sancti Evangelii quatuor libros, & venerari fatetur, and thus did the [Page 55]Church of o me continue in brother­ly fellowship with the other Patri­arks, not claiming any Jurisdiction over the rest, till Phocas the Empe­rours time, which change was occasi­oned through a vvicked murder, and having by that means acquired a su­perintendency over the other pro­vincialls, the succeeding Bishops have since practised Navigation in the Red See, her universall Ark, not knovving hovv to ansvver its helm in any clear and pure vvaters, the brief of vvhich history follovvs in these fevv vvords.

Mauritius the Emperour having made John of Constantinople univer­sall Patriark, Gregory the Great, 10 John of Constan­tinople u­niversall Patriarch. Bi­shop of Rome, writ against that, and maintained, that whosoever took up­on him that stile, was the forerunner of Antichrist, and did in opposition of that stile assume to himself the ti­tle of servus servorum: Gregory did not oppose that title in that sense, the Doctor would have us to rake it (folio 293.) to wit, that none should be universall Bishop, thereby exclu­ding others, but to be Bishop of the universall Church, it was in Gregories [Page 56]opinion lawfull; a pittifull shift to excuse the unjust usurpations of Gre­gories Successors; by this means he will tie universality to Rome in respect of the place, not as Peter was universall Bishop; and this distinction has destroyed all Bellarmines Argu­ments, who would have the Church built upon Peter, and all power of governing given to him, which Grego­ry, (by the Doctors own distinction confessed) calls Antichristian, so that I would fain know how Rome can be a Universall Church, since no Bishop can be a Universall Bishop: for cer­tainly it was not the Universall See before Peters coming, and if he was not Universall Bishop, how could he make it a Universall See? I send this riddle back to the Doctor, and desire he will recommend it to the Ignatian tribe, to varnish over with a new paint: For if this must passe for cur­rent, that the Bishop of Rome is uni­versall, in respect of his See, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail a­gainst locall Rome, the world knows they maintain a lie, as will appeare more at large in the fourteenth chap­ter of this Book.

[...]t is plain to any judgement not aleady forestalled with a preoccupa­ted conceit of Romes sophisticall de­lusions, that Gregory writ against John of Constantinople his being uni­versall Patriark, for that it was an in­jury to Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, &c. that any should take upon them that title, when both by the holy Scriptures, and the judgements and decrees of the reverend Fathers of the holy Church, the powers and Ju­risdictions of Patriarks were decla­red to be alike: The same Grego­ry when he was by Eulogius Pa­triarch of Al [...]xandria stiled univer­sall, refused the stile as derogatory to his Brethren, and writing an Epistle to the said Eulogius, he calls that stile new, foolish, perverse, wicked and prophane, and whosoever shall arro­gate that stile, he does the work of Satan, to whom it was not sufficient to be alike and equall to other Angells, Phocas made the Bi hop of Rome uni­versall. and did tax John of Constantinople for the same.

It hapned so, that not long after this affront done to Alexandria, Rome, and the other Provinces, that [Page 58] Mauritius was murdered by the means of Phocas, who no sooner had perpetrated so vile and hainous an of­fence, but his guilty conscience con­tracted many dark jealousies upon his soul, and presented to his phansie many sad and fearfull apprehensions; one amongst the rest, was that Italy would certainly shake off all Faith and Allegiance to such a Monster of mankind, who had justly provo­ked their dissents to obey him, who had forfeited all their loves and affe­ctions, by his bloudy violation of the Bonds of Nature and Civility, by this his barbarous assassination of his Liege Lord and Soveraign, and there­upon he casts upon all essaies, which way to preserve his Western Terri­tories (the garden of his new acquired Empire) and calling to mind the res­pect the inhabitants thereof bore to their Metropolitans, and that the af­front done to him, by setting the Constantinopolitan above him, was thorn in his side, and had bred in him a grudge towards the then murdered prince Mauritius.

He to engratiate with the people [Page 59]of those parts, and to engage a prag­maticall Orator to blandish his foul murder, did resolve with himself, to make the then Bishop of Rome Uni­versall Bishop, which he accordingly did, by vertue of which Donation, and by their own strengths and po­licies since, the present Bishop; thereof claim this title and Jurisdi­ction, which their Predecessors did condemn in another, from which bloudy founder they took this Pre­rogative, and in a full measure of ty­ranny, and against all divine Right Ecclesiasticall, and against the do­ctrine of that See, whilest any other had that Prerogative, will needs per­swade the world that the present Church of Rome, is the only Catho­lique Church.

Yet blessed be God, the light of the Gospell having shined in several Nations of this Western world, by the means of S. Paul, who God or­dained by his grace hereunto, hath taken such root in many Churches of the same, that they will not admit of this Antichristian usurpation of the Romish See, according to that of [Page 60]S. Paul, Galat. 2.8. He that was mighty by Peter in the Apostleship, over the Circumcision, was also mighty by me towards the Gentiles, but do, and hope still to hold out the truth they have received against any innovation of the Romish See what­soever, and particularly the Church of England.

When the first Councell of Nice was called, England not subject to Rome. we had a Church planted here, and publike profession of the Faith of Christ 120. years before that Councell, and had Bishops and Me­tropolitans of London and York, and although it might tacitly be in­ferred from the sixth Canon of that Councell, that we were within the Jurisdiction of Rome, as being within the West, yet in the second Canon thereof is mention made of many Provinces, and power of Ju­risdiction reserved to every Metro­politan, which by the next generall Councell 2. Can. is further enlarged, Ecclesias in longinquis Gentibus con­sti [...]utas gubernari convenijtuxta consu­etudinem quae est à patribus observata: By which Canon we may justly claim [Page 61]provincial Jurisdiction to the Church of England, having at that time a Metropolitan of our own, however it is confirmed to us in the Chalce­don Councell 19. Can. Episcopos in unaquaque Provincia bis in anno Me­trapolitano istius provinciae provincia­les Episcopos admonente convenire licet, which was afterwards confirmed and declared in a Councell at Antioch, 20. Can. Provincial Councels. that it was lawfull for Me­tropolitans of Provinces to call Counsells, propter utilitates ecclesiasti­cas & absolutiones earum rerum quae dubitationem controversiam (que) recipi­unt; and by the said Councell of Antioch, the nineth Can. and the Councell of Carthage, the seven­teenth Can. it is decreed that in eve­ry Province there be a Metropolitan, so that had we had none before, we might by these two Canons claime one, but having one, it is confirmed to us to be distinct of our selves, and for one Metropolitan to govern and call Councells, without any appeal to Rome, having the authority of Councells to confirm this unto us: nor is this to arrogate to our selves [Page 62]any more then what of right belongs to us, and what other Provincials may justly challenge to themselves, and what has beeh practised of old, both by the French, Germans, Spaniards, &c. as shall be shewed more at large in the chapter of Councells.

If I should argue like the Doctor, Possession infra chap. 4. I must plead possession of this priviledge, as he doth for Universali­ty, and say it were jus Gentis, but I dare not in cases of this nature stand to that humane Plea, possession for hold, and prescription for time is no good Plea in cases of Religion, though in civill matters for peace sake, and avoiding contentions, it be admitted in bar of after too busie Inquisitors: for the first may be a claim by intru­sion, which is the point in question, and the other antiquity of error, & malus usus est abolendus, let custome yeeld to truth, is a sound axiom of Divinity. I will not therefore stand so much upon possession of this immunity, as upon the right of that possession, though whilest I prove a possession from these Councells, I destroy Romes prescription to Uni­versality, [Page 63]in that these records are above her Donor Phocas, and so an­nihilate her puisne title.

It was the Decree of the Councell of Carthage, 28. Can. that Priests if they thought themselves agrieved at the censures of their Diocesans, to appeal to the primate of their own Province, and not to Rome, or any other See over Sees, and if they did, they stood excommunicate from the rest of the Churches in Africa, and shall we, being as free, and having as good right to this priviledge, subject our selves to a forraign See at Rome; sith, we may call a Councell of our own, which may upon serious debate judge of things maintained and done by other Churches, and resolve whe­ther to admit of them into their own provinciall Churches, without being branded for Heretikes and Schisma­tikes; upon which score, the Church of England, did in her full and law­full assembles heretofore, cast off some usurpations of the See of Rome, and did retain what she conceived A­postolical: what she cast off, we offer to the world, to maintain the action [Page 64]by authority of Scripture, Fathers and Councells, and what we retain, Rome cannot blame; for we being provinciall, and having a Metropoli­tan of our own, and a lawfull Succes­sion of Bishops, (as I shall shew a­non) even from Apostolicall Ordi­nation to this day, we might well re­form propter utilitates ecclesiasticas & absolu iones controversiae infra provinci­am, without either appealing to Rome, or she questioning what we do here­in, yet in those things we differ, we would willingly submit them to the sentence of a generall Councell, might it be free and rightly constitu­ted; of which in the chapter of Coun­cells; In the mean time we may with confidence affirm, that Rome is not the only Catholique Church: and for the better satisfaction of the Reader of the justnesse of this our claim, and to acquit us of all pre­sumption in this point, I will crave pardon, though it do not much con­duce to the subject matter of this chapter any further, then what is al­ready spoke, to give him a brief rela­tion of the planting of the Christian [Page 65]Faith in this Island of Britain. 12

It is recorded by the ancient Wri­ters and preservers of antiquity in this Isle, England converted to the Faith. that the Gospell was plant­ed here, by Joseph of Arimathea, who was sent hither out of France by Philip, who was sent thither by Paul; some affirm it was Philip the Apo­stle, upon dispersion of the Jews to have come to France; but for my part I rather encline to think it was Phi­lip the Deacon, who was ordained by Paul, Acts 6. and that Paul sent him into France, and that he planted the Gospell here, and it is agreed by all that Joseph of Arimathea was here, and did preach the Gospell to the Britains, about the year of our Lord 63. and here remained in this land all this time, and died here, and was bu­ried at Glassenbury, and was the first that preached to the Britains: but whether he was sent of Paul from Rome, or came from Philip out of France, who came thither directly from the East, and not from Rome, (as some suopose,) the histories do not plainly declare, nor is it much materiall, for whether Philip came [Page 66]from the East, or from Rome, and sent Joseph hither, it is certain Joseph had his Mission from Apostolicall order, besides presently after Simon Zelotes was sent out of France hither, as Ni­cephorus lib. 2. cap. 40. reporteth; and here the Gospell was received and nourished, though not publikely professed, before Lucius time, which was Anno 169. after Christ: for as a City upon a hill cannot be hid, so the Gospell having been preached here, (though but in some obscure corners of the Isle) did so spread by Gods blessing upon the labours of them that preached it to the people, that within a short time, the Sunshine thereof arose to such a latitude, that it gave light to the before dark clo­sets of the Kings heart; who there­upon sent to Elutherius Bishop of Rome, two of his best Divines, to en­treat assistance from him, who sent some laborers into this harvest, who for the better promulgating of the Faith, and the winning of souls unto Christ, and that all the people of the Isle might be instructed, did divide themselves into severall circuits; Lu­cius [Page 67]and his Nobles appointing three Superintendents, instead of the three Arch-Flamins, who formerly ruled in the time of Paganisme, one at London, another at York, another at Carleon in Monmouthshire, the Arch-Bishoprick of Carleon was after removed from thence to S. Davids, from thence into Normandy: Lon­don was in after times by Austin the Monk translated to Canterbury, only York continues still a Metropolitan. This Austin was sent by Gregory Bi­shop of Rome hither, and did convert the South Saxons, but the Britains had before his coming received the Faith, and though expulsed from the body of the Land, into the mountain­ous part thereof called Wales, by the impetuous fury of the Heathen Saxons, yet they still retained their faith, and had a Monastery of Monks at Bangor in Caernarvanshire, when Austin came to preach unto the Sax­ons, and this tradition challenges a­ny Christian man his belief, as well as any Romish Tradition whatsoever.

There doth not from this story a­ny thing at all arise, which may con­clude [Page 68]us to be beholden to the See of Rome for our faith, though some say Philip was sent from Rome by Paul; or if they will perswade the world that we received our faith from Rome, I should not much stick to grant it, for it then follows, that if it came from the See of Rome, that Paul was Bishop there, and so they de­stroy their universality built upon Peter.

As for the Allegation of those, who say we first received the faith from Eleutherius, it is false, and ut­terly against the current of all Anti­quity, as may appear by Eleutherius himself, who writing to King Luci­us an Epistle, sayes, Ye have received of late, through Gods mercy, in the realm of Britain, the Law and Faith of Christ; Ye have with you with­in the Realm, both the parts of Scrip­tures, out of that Law; take ye a Law (by Gods grace) with the Councell of your Realm and by that Law; through Gods sufferance, rule ye your Kingdome of Britain, for you be Gods Vicar in your Kingdome, &c.

By this it appears, that this Isle [Page 69]had received the faith before that, and had the Scriptures with them before, and therefore the Papists can­not brag that Rome is the only dispen­ser of those sacred Oracles, of which in the eighth chapter. We became Christians, much what about that time Rome received the Faith, and who was our first Planter, it is not of necessity to be proved, sith we claim no Jurisdiction, but what is common to every Provinciall See to lay chal­lenge unto: Let Rome, who builds upon Peter, take heed to her successi­on precisely from him; it shall suffice us, that we received the faith before Eleutherius time, and that we were acknowledged by him to have that faith, and the holy Scriptures in our Isle, before he writ to King Lucius, and can produce a continued succes­sion of Pastors, if not governing Bishops, from afore him: For those two which were sent by Lucius to E­leutherius, were Bishops, Infra chap. 4. as Gildas and others testifie, without a precise Catalogue of our first founders, and that in respect the Church of Rome did confesse we had the true faith, [Page 70]and the holy Scriptures, which could not otherwise have come, but by the Mission of some of the Apostles, or by some ordained by them to that purpose, of which more at large in the fourth chapter.

Reverend Bede seems to incline, that we first received our faith from the East, for that our Easter was kept almost a thousand years after Christ, after the manner of the East in the full Moon, what day soever it fell upon, and not on the Sunday, and not after the Romane custome.

The like doth Petrus Cluniacensis testifie of the Scots, that they kept their Easter after the manner of the Greek Church, and not after the Romane, by which they collect, that the first planters of the Faith here came from the East: but I shall not much stand upon that, for it makes nothing for the present point; for whether we received the faith from the East, or from Rome, by the means of Paul, I hope none will affirm, but that we are of Apostolicall Plantati­on, and having a Metropolitan of our own, and being a distinct Province of [Page 71]it self, have right to the provinciall Jurisdiction, declared and confirmed by the first Councells, which makes us so free of our selves, and indepen­dent of Rome, that we may justly de­ny her to be the universall Church.

And sith there is no expresse and positive proof that our first planter of the Faith was sent immediately from the East, and sith the induce­ments to that belief are but bare conjecturalls, I should hold it more proper to admit what is desired from the Church of Rome, that she sent Joseph of A imathea hither, or that he was sent by Philip, who was sent from Paul, and that because Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles, to carry the Gospell unto them, and would the Church of Rome not forsake such a Pastor, to feign one by traditionall stories, against that which the Scrip­ture and Primitive Church teached, we should willingly give her the right hand, and honor her as our el­der Sister, and in order to the We­stern plantations from Paul, and I believe the Churches of Germany, France, Denmark, &c. would do [Page 72]the like, not that they prefer Paul before Peter, but because Christ had ordained Paul a Minister over them, and the Scriptures and Councells forbid any to intrude up­on anothers plantation, and especial­ly Peter being reproved for that ve­ry thing, he being appointed over them of the Circumcision; and there­fore unlesse Rome will lay claim to Paul for her Bishop, they cannot al­low her that primacy of order they heartily wish she were honored with: but I much fear, whilest the Ignatian tribe are suffered to put in practise the imperious Dictates of the Scarlet Conclave, this will scarce­ly be embraced, their whole study is to ascribe all pomp and power to the Papall throne, being in hopes to be masters of that Seat e're they die, (it being by their new order of ele­cting Popes, not transferrable to any other) and so to enjoy their long stu­died Dominion, and having by a long expectation so sharpned their appe­tite, and set it on so keen an edge, they greedily gape after all honor and Soveraignty, and think the [Page 73]world too narrow a Province for them to Lord it in; whereas if prima­cy of order would serve their turn, none of the Western world would deny it to them; and as the case stands with the Eastern Churches, they, I am perswaded, would not bogle to condescend hereunto; but by no means let her ever hope to have a supremacy of Iurisdiction, she may force it, but never by argument e­vince it; and so according to its first beginning, prosecute to rear up her tower of Universality, with the ce­ment of bloud, which whilst she pro­secutes, she forges her Keys into a two-edged sword, and when she has done, she like a Heathen Roman destroys her self, by cutting off some of her fellow-members, robbing them of what belongs to their office, and makes them uselesse pieces of the my­sticall body Christ Jesus, of which all the Churches upon earth are fellow-members, and though many, yet make but one body, being all bapti­zed into one body, by one Spirit, 1 Cor. 12.12. Let us therefore follow the truth in love, and in all things [Page 74]grow up unto him which is the Head, that is Christ, by whom all the body being compleat and knit together, by every joynt, for the forniture thereof (according to the effectuall power which is in the measure of e­very part) receiveth encrease of the body, unto the edification of it self in love, Ephes. 4.

The Doctor confesses that Christ is the Head originally, but the Pope is the Head derivatively, for sayes he, with as much reason may we deny a King to be Head of his Kingdome, because the Scripture saith, God is King over all the earth, as deny the Pope to be Head of the Church, be­cause Christ is so; To which I answer, Christ is the Head of the Catholike Church, that is, comprehensive of all the Elect, Pope not Universall Head. Saints, Angells, and men, of which the particular Churches on earth are but members, and the peo­ple, the Saints of God assembled to­gether, to worship God, and call up­on him in his Sacraments, make a Church, Christ being their Head, and as they are a people not conve­ned to that purpose, their severall [Page 75]Princes and Magistracy is to rule over them (which I judge to be the prin­cipall reason of the Law of Sanctu­aries.) Now for the Pope to claim an universall headship over them, is ei­ther to rob Christ of his office, or to deny Caesar his due; for as Head of the whole Catholike Church he can­dot be, and to be Head of the Uni­versall Church upon earth, is not consistent with the plantations of the other Apostles, nor was any such universall headship delegated to any one of the Apostles; Christ sent out his Apostles to all Nations, and they ordained spirituall heads and Gover­nors over their severall plantations, none being to intrude upon anothers foundation, and ever since Christ, there have been superintendents o­ver the severall Churches, yet those superintendents were equal amongst themselves, none lording it over ano­ther, but only within their distinct territories did equally exercise the authori y of their headship, and e­very one within his own Province being representative in point of or­der, of Christ the mysticall Head, [Page 76]without ascribing a single universali­ty to any one of them, although by this means there be many headships over the severall plantations, yet it doth no more destroy the represen­tative headship of Christ here on earth, then the Spanish, French, &c. acknowledging obedience to their distinct Princes are against Monar­chy, because the Turk claims to be Soveraign Lord of the Universe: Wherefore if the Church of Rome wil needs have the Catholike Church to be understood only of a Univer­sall Church upon earth, and some one Bishop to be the governing head thereof, I must tell her, that she can lay no just claim hereto, because if Peter had any power above the o­ther Apostles, it doth not appear to succeed to the Bishop of Rome, for that it is not proved Peter to have been Bishop there, and if he was Bi­shop there, yet there wants a cleare and perfect deraigning of succession from him, some affirming Linus, some Clemens, some Anacletus to succeed him, and some Bishops of Rome claiming as Successors to Paul, [Page 77]some to Peter: or if they could per­fect their Succession, yet it is not evi­dent that Peters power did succeed to them, in respect it was Apostoli­cally in him, and either died in him, or survived to Iohn; besides, they cannot agree in the manner how this power of supremacy should be in them; for if they have it as univer­sall Bishops, Gregory declares it, and the Doctor confesses it to be Anti­christian; for that hereby they deny others to be Bishops, and so rob them of their divine order, and Ec­clesiastique Jurisdiction, granted by consent of Councells to Metropoli­tans, to govern within their provin­ciall precincts, without appealing to Rome, and if they will have it in re­spect of Rome, see how they make Rome the Rock, not Peter, and go against the Symbole of our faith. The Apostles, who composed the Creed (as the Doctor confesses 148.) and professing faith in the Catholike Church, did publish that Creed at Jerusalem, before ever the faith was preached at Rome, and when her Church was invisible, or not in re­rum [Page 78]natura, and did not therefore intend Rome for the Catholique Church.

Wherefore for these reasons, I hope I may, without incurring a censure of presumption, with confi­dence affirm, that Rome is not the Catholique Church, nor the Pope the universall Head of the Catho­like Church, either in respect of any Jurisdiction derived from Peter, or by the consent of Councells, law­fully deraigning any title thereto.

CHAP. III.
That the name Church is proper to England, as well as to Rome.

THe Doctor is pleased in his fifth and thirteenth chapters, to take notice of severall definitions of a Church, which are distinctions of se­verall Sectaries that are in England and elswhere, but never glanced up­on that which is maintained and professed in the Church of England, which belike he omitted, on purpose to make people believe that we had [Page 79]no Church at all properly distingui­shed by her self apart from those Se­ctaries, and therefore he fled to Rome to find one, if he have forgotten, I will put him in mind of it.

The Church of God is a compa­ny of men chosen by him to call up­on his name, and therefore did the Apostles term it Ecclesia, alluding to the custome of Arkens, to call to­gether the people, to hear the pro­mulgation of any Law, or any pub­like Oration, and not Synagogue, that is an inordinately met assem­bly, without a lawfull calling together, wherefore we say that Ecclesia in the most proper and genuine signification, is Ʋni­versitas fidelium credentium & in­vocantium nomen Christi: By which interpretation, if we be in the faith of Jesus, and have our solemn assem­blies to worship and call upon his name, we may properly be called a Church, and a member of the Ca­tholique Church, which (as I said before) is comprehensive of all the Elect of God, which have been, are, or shall be.

The Doctor cannot deny but that we maintain the Apostles Creed, 1(and I may say) so doth not Rome; The Church of Rome a­buses the Apostles Creed. we whilst we say we believe the ho­ly Catholique Church, mean there­by the whole Elect of God, as well Saints in heaven, as the Church up­on earth, which is the full body of Christ, Ephes. 4. and Rom. 12. but they thereby will have Rome under­stood, which as I said, was not in being before the Creed was compo­sed; and it seems strange to some, that the Church of Rome should ad­mit of the following Article, to wit, the Communion of Saints, to extend to the Saints in heaven, and will exclude them from the Catholique Church; but the reason's plain, for it stands not with the Majesty of the Pope, for in admitting the first, he loses his headship, we being all mem­bers of the Catholike Church, but by the other his honor is not dimi­nished, in respect none are to be re­puted Saints, but such as are of his own making.

But if the Doctor will not admit of our definition, I hope he will not [Page 81]be against our embracing of his, which is this, A Church is a Society of those whom God hath called to sal­vation by the profession of the true Faith, and sincere administration of the Sacraments, and the adherence to lawful Pastors.

I wonder what the Doctor means by the society of those that God hath called to salvation by the profession of the true Faith; sure he will not deny, but that those Societies which were ga­thered by other Apostles were true Churches as well as those which were gathered by Peter: He himself, fol. 192. confesses the true Church visible in Ethiopia, where the Eunuch which Philip baptized, preached the Faith; and it is hard he should d [...]ny this to his own mother County which he allowes to Ethiopians; e­specially considering wee (as is believed by some) received the Faith by the same Apostle Philip. But 'tis no great matter, we need not stand to the Doctors courtesie herein, we have a better warrant then his Con­cession, Act. 20.28. the flocks where­of [Page 81]the holy Ghost made the Elders over-seers is called the Church of G [...]d, Paul ordained Elders, and committed charge of Flocks unto them, A Christian Society makes a Church. &c. That the distinct Societies of Christians are called Churches, is likewise manifest by severall o­ther places of Scripture. 1 Cor. 1. Paul writ to the Church that was at Corinth, and to all that call up­on the name of the Lord Jesus, Gal. 1. to the Churches at Galatia, Grace, &c. 1 Thes. to the Church of the Thessalonians; Col. 1.4. salute the brethren which are of Laodicea and Nymphas, and the Church which is in his house: Rev. 1.11. there were seven Churches in Asia, Ephesus, Smyr­na, Pergamos, &c. In the same man­ner Rome may be called a Church, if she have a Soci [...]ty of the faithful cal­ling upon the name of Christ Jesus; wherefore Peter writing his Epistle from Babylon, (which the Papists in­terpret Rome) s [...]es, The Church that is at B [...]bylon elected together with you, saluteth you: that is, the Saints which dwell here and there dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, [Page 83]Asia and Bythinia, the society of the Saints of Babylon saluteth the several societies of the Saints of those parts which were severall respective Churches, members of the Catho­like Church elected together in Christ Jesus: So that from these places it is evident, that the name of Church is applicable to all Christi­an Societies, whether they be of Pe­ters, or any other of the Apostles gathering: For the Apostles had equal commission from Christ for the gathering together of the Saints for the work of the Ministry, and for the edification of the Body of Christ, though in the Church were men of different Gifts, as Apostles, Teachers, Evangelists, &c. yet the Apostles amongst themselves were equall, and their severall plantati­ons coordinate and equal, as to any power or Jurisdiction. If then we be in the faith of Jesus, and have Societies of Christian believers in him, we may properly be called a Church, and that especially, because we are of Apostolical plantation, and are not beholding to Rome for [Page 84]that Plantation, as coming from Eleutherius (successour as they pre­tend to Peter.)

But if we had our Faith from Rome, it came by the means of Paul, and certainly we had that Faith long before Eleutherius time, as I have already proved in the prece­dent chapter; wherefore we may properly, both according to our own, and the Doctors definition of a Church, assume that title to our selves, we being a Society of Chri­stians calling upon the name of Je­sus, which is called a Church, 1 Cor. 1.2. Rome a par­ticular Church. and for Rome, or any other Church to arrogate more then to be a particular member of the Ca­tholike Church whereof Christ is the Head, and Hierusalem which is above, free, and the mother of us all, is Antichristian, and abominable; especially for Rome, that she should stile her self the onely Catholike Church, when as Ephesus, the See of John, and John the surviving Apo­stle, in whom alone survived the Apostleship, calls that Church but one of the seven in Asia, Rev. 1. [Page 85]Were John, Peter, or any of the Apo­stles alive to see to what a lofty pitch ambition has hurried the aspi­ring Prelates of Rome, they would blush to behold such iniquity, and reprove any that should call Rome the Catholike Church. For alas, The Pride of Rome. how little doth she resemble Christs Spouse, his Church. Christs Church was planted in humility, Romes Church lords it in Soveraignty; Christs Church had her White vest of Innocency; Romes Church is clad in her purple of bloud and cru­elty: how little doth the Scarlet tribe resemble the train of Christ? were Peter, or any of Christs di­sciples now at Rome, and should see the Pope, they would rather take him for Pilate, an Officer or Judge of Cesars, then for Peter a fisher-man, and servant of Jesus, and would think his Cardinalls to be rather the Embassadors of Bozra, then the Messengers of the Gospel, and ser­vants of Christ, and should any but assume that Christian boldnes to tel them that their Scarlet Robes did cover, and make invisible the Seam­lesse [Page 86]coat of Jesus, he were in dan­ger of a Councell. To such a height of Majesty are they of late aspired, that they exercise dominion with­out restraint, little regarding Christs precept to his Apostles; the Kings of the Gentiles bear Rule, and exercise dominion, Vos autem non sic. And here by the way I will in­sert a story of Peter, and Simon Ma­gus, incertainty of Peter being at Rome. Aegesippus, lib. 2. de excidio Hieru­sal. cap. 2. reports that Peter came to Rome to withstand Simon Magus, 44 Christi, (Eusebius says he was cru­cified 36 Christi: others, that Paul and he together; others, that Paul was crucified a yeer after, and on the same day: Prudentius, that Paul followed Peter to Rome, from which contradictions no certain­ty of his being there is to be con­cluded) but I return to my sto­ry. It is said that Simon Magus ta­king some offence with the Citi­zens threatned to leave them, and to flie away from them in their sight to fetch down vengeance from Heaven upon them, and the day be­ing appointed, he began to take his [Page 87]flight in mount Capitolinus into the air, and that Peter, by the power of the Lord Jesus brought him down, and broke his bones; which act of Peters occasioned his persecution, for that Simon Magus was beloved of Cesar; this Story is in the Roman Legends. I could wish the Pope to make this moral use of this story, to wit; to beware how he exalts Rome, above the heavenly Hierusalem; for if he continue to cuff the Heavens with his towring waxen pinions, he must expect the divine maje­stick rayes of the heavenly Sun to melt his proud supporters into nothing, he must not think to ex­alt himself against God and pro­sper. Is it not enough for him to be primus Episcoporum ordine, but he will contrary to Gods Word be Supremus Potestate, &c. God gives wings to the Ant. that she may destroy her self the sooner, let Romes Bishop be content with his own Province, for it is a rule, that that State that goes beyond the lists of mediocrity, passes the bounds of safety, all Churches of Europe would [Page 88]honour her as a sister, but 'tis unna­turall to love a stepmother: we are all fellow members of Christ, let not Rome therefore despise her sister England. Let us strive together in love, and let the Church that is at Rome, salute the Church that is in England, and let us greet each o­ther with an holy kisse, she must not rob England of her name of a Church, if she think not to bastard her self, for we are all ingrafted in the same stock, and baptized into one faith by the spirit of Jesus, & it is not for her to be busy in anothers diocess to judge of our matters of discipline or doctrin in that where­in we differ from her any further, then that if she conceive we erre, to give admonishment to those of her own Province, they fall not into the like cōdemnation, she must not upon this score deny the society of Chri­stian believers the name of a church.

Admit the unfriendly appellations of Schismaticks and hereticks which they bestow upon us were deserved, Haereticus est pars ec­clesiae. because we do not in all points agree and communicate [Page 89]w^th Rome, yet we must not therefore be denyed to be a church, & for this assertion I have the authority of the Councell of Trent, I say, which was wholly gathered of men against the reformed churches, and men to­tally for the Popes supremacy, yet they did not deny but that Schis­matichs and Hereticks were in the Catholike Church, and might con­fer orders, administer and baptize, and the councel of Florens agrees herewith sum. Sacrament. Rom. Ec­clesiae Sect. 136.28. and therefore it is very harsh dealing in the Do­ctor to deny us this which their own Councels allow, so that Saint Pauls saying is verified in him, Heb. 12.15. when one falls away from the faith a root of bitternesse springs up in him, and that's the reason the Doctor is so harsh a­gainst the English Church.

The name Protestant, III The name Protestant. and English Protestant, which the Dr. so much spurns at, doth not at all speak us members cut off from the old stock the Catholick Church, for as the Doctor maintains that the [Page 90]name Romane Catholick is proper and significant language and sense, so may we as well say English Pro­testant, and with more reason, for we will note by the Doctors distin­ction thereby the difference between our discipline & doctrine, only for our particular selv s assert the Ca­tholick faith, thereby to manifest the readinesse of us a particular member of the Catholick Church, to give the head thereof our Master Christ, for the word Protestant is comprehensive of Catholick, and is no more but to assert the faith, which faith is Catholick, so that an English Protestant may be said truly to be he that will hold, stick to, and to his power maintain the Catholick faith taught and main­tained in the English Church. For the word Protestant, though of a new addition, proves not the Religion new, or profession not agreeable to the Old Faith and profession of the Primitive Church­es, but being added with refe­rence to their profession is an evi­dence of their zeal, and affection to [Page 91]maintain and professe that ancient and Catholike truth. For we do not professe our selves to have left the Catholike faith once preached and professed at Rome, but that Rome has left of to be a Catholick Church, bringing in strange delu­sions, and perswading people to be­lieve lies, which especially since her pretence to universality has been much studied, to make her new claims good, whereas we desire only to impugne her late errors, and to protest against them, & to maintain the ancient faith, and though in this we may to some seem to set our selves against the Church of Rome, to forfeit our interest in the Catholike Church, because as they suppose, we claimed our Religion from her, yet there is nothing lesse, for we are a Province, and had a Metro­politane of our own, and might call a Councell, and reform things amisse by the authority Ecclesiasti­call without appealing to Rome, nor do we hereby forfeit the title of a Church, But rather justifie the same, in respect we differ in nothing, but [Page 92]we would submit it to a free Gene­rall Councel, and though we were hereticall in some points, yet ha­ving a society of believers in Jesus, and having Apostolicall orders a­mongst us, we still may without offence to any, retain the name and appellation of a Church.

CHAP. IV.
Of the right of Collation to Bishopricks and of the Ordination of Bishops, of succession of Pastors, and particular­ly of the Succession in England, & that the Pope ought not to intermedle in the appointing of Bishops in Eng­land.

THe Doctor has a great spleen towards our succession of Bi­shops in our Church, and would fain perswade the world we are not of the Catholick Church for our defect therein: It rests therefore that I clear our Church from that new devised scandall.

Ecclesia non consistit in hominibus ratione potestatis vel dignitatis Ecclesia­sticae vel secularis, quia multi Principes [Page 93]& summi Pontifices inventi sunt, qui à fide apostatasse, propter quod ecclesia con­sistit in illis personis in quibus est noti­tia vera & confessio fidei & veritatis.

Could we not prove one line of succession, it much matters not, for we may notwithstanding lay claim to be of the Catholick Church, and having a society of believers in Christ, do notwithstanding make a Church. If we agree with the A­postles and Fathers of the Primitive Church, it is sufficient, saith Tertulli­an, to give us the name of Catholike Church, Ecclesia quae licet nullum ex A­postolis authorem suum praeferant, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus A­postolicae reputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae. Though our first planter Joseph of Arimathea, is not certain­ly known to have come, whether from Rome, from Paul, or from Phi­lip out of France, or immediately from the East, it is no great matter for by the confession of the Church of Rome we had the true faith a­mongst us before Eleutherius time, and had Pastors then, and since have continued a lawfull succession of [Page 94]governing Bishops, Succession of Bishops in England. even to the last late reverend father William of Cant. and whereas the Dr. twits against our succession of Bishops, that we cannot maintain it unlesse we fetch it from Rnme, I answer that we be­ing a distinct Province, the Bishop of Rome hath no power of Ordina­tion here, for by the Councell of Nice, the 22. Can. a Bishop is not to ordain in anothers Diocesse: Et si quis tale facere tentaverit irrita sit ejus ordinatio, and though we be different of late from Rome, and that it were time we had our order of Episcopa­cie from thence, yet the late Bishops which were so different from Rome, might ordain others within their own Province though Hereticks, for that as I said before Haereticus est pars Ecclesiae. Moreover it is decreed in the Councell of Florens, that ordo imprimit characterem indele­bilem, & therefore children baptized by an heretick, are not to be rebap­tized which the Councell of Trent hath decreed against the opinion of Cyprian. Nam licet male utuntur pote­state ministri sibi tradita, prosint aliis non [Page 95]sibi. Sicut enim per asinam Balaam lo­quutus est Deus, ita per malos mini­stros Sacramenta praestat. And Sum. Sacr. Rom. eccl. Sect. 136. Episcopi hae­retici veros ordines conferent, & vera praestant Sacramenta.

So that by the rules of the Pa­pists themselves, we, notwithstand­ing we be hereticks or Schismaticks, yet having once lawfull orders, w^ch gave an indelible character, and in that a power of conferring the same upon others, as long as we re­main Christians, and believe in the holy and blessed Trinity, though we differ in other points, yet we re­main still members in the Catho­lick Church, and have a power of conferring orders, and I much wonder the Doctour should be so harsh against our Hierarchy, (unlesse he sometimes made a bait to fly at a Bishoprick, and being canvassed in Peters net, it stirred up some atra bi­lis, which since would never be al­layed) he is so much incensed against it, that he utterly denyes our succes­sion upon the interruption of Ro­mane Bishops in H. 8. and Queen [Page 96] Eliz. time, for my part his allega­tions against it do not much trou­ble me, nor I hope will they find entertainment with many, sith they carry with them no more weight then the bare opinion of himself, he positively affirming up­on his own authority, that our mi­nisters are not in legal Orders inso­much that if one of our Priests came to Rome, he must be ordained a new; which if it be true, it is con­trary to the decrees of Popish Councells, and will be a sufficient testimony to the world to convince them of falshood, and jugling with the world, that they should profess one thing, and practise another, to declare in Councells, that a Here­tick confers true and perfect or­ders, and yet will not in their practice allow of it: however, for them to affirm us Hereticks, is to beg the question, and therefore we may safely within our own pro­vince continue a succession of Or­ders without any approbation of theirs at all: nor is this any more then of right is due to us, as may [Page 97]appear by the 1 Councell of Nice, II Provincial Ordinati­on of Bi­shops. 4 Can. a Bishop ought to be ordain­ed by the severall Bishops of the Province; but if they cannot con­viently all meet to this purpose, then three shall serve to perform the ordination, which is also con­firmed by the Councell of Antioch 19 Can. and the Councell of Car­thage 13 Can. and it is the opinion of some learned Divines, that in case, of necessity the Ministers may Ordain where Bishops are wanting; for that the Presbytery or Ministry have right to impose hands, and the Keyes are said to be Claves eccle­siae, non claves episcoporum seu presbyte­rorum; Infra 43.5 chap. yet God be blessed England was never put to this strait, we still had a continuing succession of Bi­shops, notwithstanding the depriva­tion of the Popish Prelates, and so according to that Canon did or­dain in our own Precincts, which as it is of right our due, and be­longing to us, so it is likewise practised, and hath been the antient Custom of other Provinces as wel as this; as the Eastern Provinces ordain [Page 98]without the assistance of Rome; and in these Western parts, even in France and Germany, and other pla­ces; which right of Ordination being thus by decrees of the Gene­rall Councels annexed to distinct Provinces I much wonder, the moderate Papists of France and Ger­many should suffer themselves to be trampled upon by the Ignatian tribe, sworn Servants to the im­perious Pope, who dayly exercises strange dominion over them, ma­king no other use of them then the Turk doth of his slaves, to wit, to do his drudgery whilst he himself reaps the fruits of their labours: It ar­gues a cowardly spirit to be afraid to right themselves herein, because some of their Princes have fallen in the attempt, amongst whom the 4^th Henries of both Countries were sacrificed to the ambition and ra­pine of the encroaching Popes: such horrid attempts as these should rather stir up their noble spirits to a just revenge, upon the bloudied conclave, for putting into act such cursed designes, then [Page 99]through the base treachery of an ignoble nature, slavishly to sub­mit themselves to the Antichristian yoke of Rome, when as if they would noblely withstand his unjust intrusions upon them, they might restore to themselves a Church free from such Babylonish bondage, and in some commendable measure imitate the heavenly Hierusalem, which is above free, and the Mo­ther of us all. For though their Consciences be not convinced of Romes Errours, yet they may, ha­ving distinct Provinces within themselves, hold Councels, ordain Bishops, and performe other eccle­siastical rights and duties without being appointed thereunto from Rome, or being commanded to give an account thither of their proceedings therein. The Bishop of Rome being onely equal to other Sees in a Pastorall institution, and lockt up within certain provinciall precincts by decrees of the primi­tive Councels; and let them be sure of this, as long as they continue themselves Saints to the Church of [Page 100] Rome, they shall be sure to be fed with step-mothers shives, whereas if th y would put their Churches under natural, and proper heads of their own, they might be sure to find more indulgent cherishing, and tender care, whereby they would in the eyes of their husband look more comely, and the French Lillies would more neerly represent Christ his Spouse. But I return to the Doctor.

The Doctor urges that our suc­cession of Bishops in England was last, for that it was interrupted by the turning out of the old ones in Hen. 8. and Q. Eliz. time, and the temporall Authority prefering o­thers in their roome: III The Civill Magistrate nominate Bishops within his Dominion. I answer, that of right it belongs to the Ci­vil Magistrate to appoint Bishops within his own Territories and Dominions, especially that in England it hath been an antient right and priviledge of the Magi­stracy; nor is the Pope himself free from this right of the Civil Magi­strate, as I shall shew an none.

It doth not impugne any eccle­siasticall [Page 101]priviledge grounded upon Divine Authority, to grant this to the Civil Magistrate: For by this, there is no intrusion upon the function, the Bishops are not here­by deprived of their right of ordi­nation; for this doth not awar­rant any to step into the Ministry, unlesse he have Apostolicall mission according to Christs rule, Mat. 28. and Saint Pauls declaration, Rom. 10.15. By which Mission we un­derstand the Imposition of Hands, Imposition of Hands. which is the outward signe of the invisible grace conferred in that holy Order, and which is the means that Christ hath appointed outwardly for the conveighing of the holy Ghost, and giving them Spiritual Grace, 1 Tim. 4. and Acts 6. and it is according to Christs example, Luke 24.50. Christ lifting up his hands blessed them, and according to his precept he commanding Paul to go to Damascus, and it should be told him what he should doe, and accordingly he was warned in a Vision, that Ananias should come unto him, and [...]ay his hands upon [Page 102]him, and he should receive his sight, Acts the 9. neither did he receive the holy Ghost before this, ver. 17. and this being the outward signe Christ hath appointed, we ought not to admit any into the Ministry without it, for by this they are devoted to us as true Shepherds, coming in at the door, and without it, they should not excercise the Ministery, thereby not assuring us they are no intru­ders; for we are not to give credit to pretended Revelations, to a Mission by a Vision, or by dictates of any Spirit, in regard Christ hath appointed this way and means for us to know to whom he hath in truth given his Spirit: for as the outward means is nothing worth without the inward Grace; neither ought we to be perswaded they have the inward grace, without the outward means, Christ having shewn the way how they must come into this holy Function; if any enter not that way, but climb in another way, he is a thief: Yet this doth not at all contradict the Civil [Page 103]Magistrates recommending any one to supply an empty See, or other Benefice, that being warranted by the example of the Apostles: For Act. 6.3. when they considered that it was not meet to leave the Word of God to serve Tables; The people elect Mini­sters. they called the multitude, and bade them look out amongst themselves seven men of honest report, which they might appoint to the businesse; and Acts 14.23. the Elders, that is, the Mi­nisters of the Church were elected by the people, and after ordained by Paul and Barnabas; by which places it is evident, that the election belonged to the Civil Power, to the people where the Civil Magi­stracy is lodged in them; to the Prince, where he hath the Tempo­rall Sword: so that if we can shew jusgentis for this, it is warrant e­nough, which I purpose not onely to make clear for our selves in Eng­land, but likewise that the Empe­rour hath right of Collation to the See of Rome.

Whilst the Emperours of Rome were Heathens, IV The Pope appointed they had no regard [Page 104]to the Church, either to endow it with Revenues, or to take care who ruled, or had the charge of the Mini­stry: But as soon as Constantine re­ceived the Faith, then not onely he, but his Successors had especiall care towards the Rules thereof; Constan­tine by an Edict confirming Silvester over the Church, and his Successors after him, he appointing who should succeed Silvester in the See: neither was this unreasonable, for it was fit that the Civil Magistrate should appoint who should succeed in that See, because now they were to receive some certain benefit be­longing to this See, by the donation of the Magistrate, and a thing so ap­propriated being part of his Tem­porall possessions, as Lord Para­mount within his own dominions; and for which they become Homa­gers to their donor, they not other­wise having any title to temporall possessions. For as Ministers, they are not to take care for the things of this world, Mat. 7. and Christ denyed to medle with the temporal inheritance of the brethren; and the [Page 105]Disciples were commanded not to carry scrip, Luke 22. but having meat and drink, to be therewith content, 1 Tim. 6. Paul did not seek for gain, Acts the 20, neither was he burthensome, 2 Thes. 3. yet not­withstanding, though they ought not to be solicitous after these things, they were to live of the Gospel, 1 Cor. 9. and the labourer is worthy of his hire, Mat. 10. and he that finds the Sheep, must live of the Milk; it is lawfull for them to require victum and vestitum; and if through the bounty of any Prince, under whom they reside, they have any thing bestowed upon them, which will amount over, and besides this, it ought to be bestowed in Hospitality: For 1 Tim. 3. Episco­pum oportet esse Hospitalem; so that though they are not to seek for any thing more then meat or drink; yet if any more be bestowed on them, it is lawful for them to accept it, provided it be bestowed upon Hospitality. And in all Reason the founder of such overplus ought to have the nomination of the person [Page 106]that must distribute that revenue. Nam cujus est dare ejus est disponere; and for this reason have Princes right of Collation to Episcopall Sees, and other ecclesiasticall places so endowed. And for this reason the Emperours had right to Colla­tion to the See of Rome, as appears by Marsilius defensor pacis dict. 2. cap. 21, &c. as is manifest by what here ensues.

Boniface the third writ an Epistle to Honorius, Infra 142.14 chap. & 76, the 10 chapter. that he would permit him to continue in his Seat at Rome, he having been placed there before by division of the Empire, and Honorius his coming to the West.

Anno 451. Leo, Bishop of Rome writes a gratulatory Epistle to Marrian for his care to the Church, in relation to his calling the Coun­cell of Chalcedon; by which peace was restored into the Church; and as Boniface writ to Honorius, so he entreats, that by the favour of Mar­rian, he might continue in his See: by which it is evident, that it be­longed to the Emperour to appoint [Page 107]the Bishop of Rome. And thus it did continue untill Anno 687. Constant. Pogonot. infra 141. 14 chap. that Benedict 2. obtained of Constantine the 4^th, that the Bishop of Rome should be created without the confirma­tion of the Emperour, which con­tinued not long in that state, but was reduced back, and centred again in its own proper sphear; and that not by any compulsive power, but as if the succeeding Pope Adrian had felt som compunction of Spirit for detaining that which of Right belonged to the Civill Magistrate, he did freely, and by consent of a Councell at Lateran, give power to Charles the Great to appoint the Bishop of Rome, and to dispose of his See Apostolick, which so re­mained in him, and his Successours for a long time; and since diverse Popes of Rome, by vertue hereof, have been deposed, as Benedict 5^th by Otho the first, and Leo placed in his roome; and Gelasius deposed by Hen. 5. and several others which came not in, in right of the Empe­rours, as may appear by the German and Italitan Histores; wherefore [Page 108]the pretence of some Popes Parasite, that Ludovious Pius, successour to Charles the Great, should release this priviledge of Collation back again, is vain, and utterly false, as is evi­dent by these transactions of suc­ceeding Ages. The Romans bound themselves to Henry 3^d, the Empe­rour, by Oath not to meddle with the appointing the Emperour, which after, within four years, when the Emperour was absent was violated, the Clergy of Rome choosing Stephen 9^th, anno 1057. which being but an usurpation in the Clergy so to doe, the Cardi­nalls thought they had as much right as those Clergy-men, and therefore upon the Rule, that one Thief may rob another, did by the assistance of Pope Nicholas 2^d, and Hildebrand, his Cardinal, Chaplain, take it to themselves: so that who­soever is Pope by their Election, hath no right to the Chair; for that the Title of the Cardinalls is sur­reptitious, and illegall in its Commencement; Et quod ab initio valet in tractu, Temporis non conva­liscat. [Page 109]For the Pope being a Spiri­tual man, ought not to plead pos­session, when as his claim is by In­trusion; and prescribe he cannot, for that these Records are extant to the contrary, since therefore by primitive right, and by reduction, after a separation thereof, and that made good by Authority of Pope and Councell, and after by Oath confirmed, it doth belong to the Emperour of the West, or the King of France, to appoint the Bishop of Rome. Let the present Emperour look to his Right, as he will be served; and let him beware of too long a discontinuance of this pri­viledge: for should the gnawing rusty teeth of time worm-eat, and rase all his Records and Testimo­nies that prove him a right to this Collation, he shall never repair his losse, when as he may be sure the Vactitan Hill shall be stored with old and new additions to the Bishop of Rome a right to appoint Germany an Emperour.

And as the Emperour had right to Collate to the See of Rome, so [Page 110]likewise had he the same right to other Metropolitan Sees of Germany, till over looking his Right to Rome, the rest fall from him accor­ding to the Rule, Dato uno ab­surdo mille sequuntur. But I return back to England, and will shew what right the Civill Magistrate hath to appoint Bishops in England without consent of the Pope.

By the Antient Lawes, V and Con­stitutions of this Kingdome, The Kings of England appoint Bi­shops with­out the Pope. the King was Patrone of all the Bishop­ricks in the Land: for the Rule is, Patronum faciunt dos, edificatio, fundus; they were all donative, and of the Kings gift: Per traditionem annuli & Pastoralis baculi, as appears by the Law-books, 7 Edw. 4. Cook 10. Report 73. and Matthew Paris Histo­ry, fol. 62.

The King, by Edward the Con­fessours Lawes, cap. 19. is declared to be Vicarius (which was long be­fore acknowledged by Eleutherius, in his Epistle before recited) summus, & persona mixta cum sacerdote Consti­tutus est, ut Populum dominii, & super omnia ecclesiastica Regat.

By the Judges of old it was de­clared, that Papa non potest mutare leges Angliae: none can Found, or Erect a Colledge, Church, Abbey, &c. without the Kings Warrant, Dyer 271. the Priviledges of the Church were growing out of the Civil Magistrates power, and there­fore by the Articles, Super clerum, made 9 Edw. 2. no suite was to be before the Bishops for any matter whatsoever, but a prohibition lay, and there it is expressed in what cases it shall be allowed.

16 Edw. 3. Excom. 4. and 2 R. 3.22. Excom. by the Pope is no disability of any suit within this Kingdome; which resolutions are grounded upon the Common Law of this Kingdome; which Common Law is but certain reasonable Cu­stomes and usages of the Land refi­ned by the experience of succeeding Ages, and drawn into forme by Edward the Confessor, which ga­thered it out of Divine, natural, and moral principles; and as I said, the antient reasonable usages of the precedent Ages, and that the King [Page 212]is by antient Custome Vicarius su­mus, and with the advice of his nobles did appoint Bishops, is pro­ved by Eleutherius, who was the first Bishop of Rome that ever had any entercourse concerning Church affaires in this Land, which was onely to assist, and further the Ministry, but in no means to take from the King what was his right, or what formerly belonged to him; nor was this Antient right ever invaded till Beckets businesse, that I can find: 'tis true, that some stran­gers were sent hither, and recom­mended by the Bishop of Rome to be by him preferred to English Bene­fices, which were out of courtesie accepted, but this did not prove any right of Collation in the Bi­shop of Rome at all, nor did ever he set up his pretence to that Right, till Hen. 2. time. Which quarrel the advantage of the trou­bled times did occasion, not the Justice of the Popes Cause, to spur him to clear his title thereto, he knew well enough that the King had the sole Power, and just Title [Page 113]without him to set up what Bishops he pleased. And whereas it may be objected, that the Bishops of England are elegible; it is true, they are so, but that was by the consent of King John; for before that they were not elegible, but were made elegible by a Roll, 15 Jan. 17. of K. John; but not­withstanding that grant is so restrai­ned, that they cannot be elected without the Kings Writ of Conge Deslier.

As for the Pope excommunica­ting the King about Beckets quar­rell, Tho. Becket. that doth not prove the Popes power so to do: For to argue de facto ad jus, brings with it an absurd consequence: it pleased the King to submit to it, not being able to oppose the Factions then stirred up against him. Infra 90. 11 chap. But it cannot from thence be evinced, that the Kings voluntary submission out of policy of State, doth make the Popes claim to excercise that power in anothers Province lawfull. I have more at large treated of this particular bu­sinesse in the 11 chapter, to which I refer you. But the main businesse insisted upon by the Papists, is the [Page 212] [...] [Page 113] [...] [Page 114]grand contest between Innocent the third, and King John, about an election of a Bishop of Canterbury, the King electing John Grey, and the Pope Stephen Langton; which Ste­phen Langton was in right of the Pope, set up against the Kings election: Which case, if truly weighed with discretion, and due consideration, it will neither tend much to disparage the King, nor to advantage the Pope in point of claim. The busines was briefly thus, as it is recorded by feverall Authors, domestick and forrain. There was a controversie started between the King and the Monks, Saint Austins (who against the Kings right, & the opinion of Hubert the Archbishop, did withhold the Kings Presenter out of possession of the Church of Feversham, insomuch that the King was forced to make use of the pos­se commitatus, and by force to expulse them from their unjust possession, which was presently reported to his holinesse, who never examining the Kings right did conceive a grudge against King John, and as [Page 115]time and opportunity served, did vent his spleen against him, inso­much as he, after the death of Hu­bert, did upon his own score, and both against the King, & the Monks of Christ Church elect Steph. Langton: A man that was a great friend and familiarly entertained by the French King, who was an utter enemy to King John, and whom the Pope had wrought (to compass a revenge against King John) to prepare a nu­merous and powerful Army to in­vade England; and this upon no other Quarrell, but because King John had by force expulsed the said Monks from their unjust detaining possession of the Church of Fever­sham, pretending that that force which was used for the gaining of the Kings Right, was a violation of the Rights and Priviledge of the holy Church: and so did make use of that liberty for a cloak of mali­tiousnesse, and not as the Servants of God, 1 Pet. 2.16. Stephen Langton. And the crafty Pope having thus prepared the French King to flie into hostility against King John, he thought he [Page 116]might with more confidence oppose the King in his election of Grey: and did after a time work so with the Monkes of Christ Church, that they were induced to adhere to the Popes Election of Stephen Langton. This Langton saith Mathew Paris was Virum strenuum, a man that could exact of the Clergy, keep in awe the Laiety, and encounter the King and Nobility: he was a man after the Popes own heart, and therefore such a man must not want a Bishop­rick. Yet King John did heartily en­veigh against his admission, and the rather, because he was so great a Favorite of the French Kings, who then lay at Calice, ready to invade him. The Pope having thus broke the Kings head, by bringing these innumerate troubles and dangers upon him: That he might appear to the world to be notwithstanding a Holy Father, and one who mind­ed the peace and welfare of Chri­stian soules, he gives a plaister to the wound he himself had made, and steps in to mediate between the two Kings, who then stood in [Page 117]a mutuall posture, of Armes ready to expose the lives of many thou­sands to the hazard of the Sword in this their quarrel, which quarrel being meerly fomented by the Pope, and not proceeding from nationall interests, (which was un­known to King John:) For the French pretended their Invasion up­on the score of Kingship and Con­quest) the Pope knew how to take Philip the French King off, because he was meerly put on by him upon his blessing, and pardon of sins (and promise of the Kingdome of Eng­land, if he could catch it) and upon such promises of reward, and such indulgences, he had poysoned some of the Nobility of England, who thereupon made defection, and seemed to incline to the King of France his side. The Pope I say stept in as a peace-maker betwixt them, and sunt his Legate Pandulphus to King John, who insinuating unto him the danger he then stood in; and how his Kingdom stood open to a powerfull enemy then ready to in­vade, and was like to be made a [Page 118]prey unto them, for that the King went against his Holiness recōmen­dation of Langton, and had violated the priviledge of the holy Church; and for this many of his Subjects were in France with the French King ready to engage against him; and likewise that there were many in the Host, and severall of his Nobi­lity which (if it proceeded to a war) would desert him, and there­fore his holinesse, out of the love and affection he bore to the King, and the tender care of his Christian sons in England, came thither to entreat his Majesty (which word, Majesty. though it was not familiarly ap­plyed to our Kings before Hen. 8. time, yet it was an antient attribute long before King John, as may ap­pear by Bracton, Britton, and other antient writers) to be reconciled to his Holinesse, and he would un­dertake to divert the French, and re­store a generall quiet and peace to his Realme of England: The King warily suspecting the danger of forrain, and treachery of Domestick Enemies, and wisely recounting [Page 119]with himself, the grounds he had to suspect the dangers at hand, did for to avoid that mischief, more then out of any fear he then stood in of the French King, agree to serve the time, and did admit of Langton, and taking the Legate to Dover with him, did there signe a Bull of sub­mission, The Gol­den Bull. by which Bull he acknow­ledged his Crown to be held of the Popes Myter, promising to pay yeerly 1000 marks for England and Ireland to his Holinesse, and his suc­cessours for ever; which promise might have been performed as to that payment, would that yeerly stipend have satisfied the Popes, and have been allowed as a free dona­tion, like to the former grants of Iva offa, and Ethelwolf of the yeerly Peter-pence. But 'twas not that he looked for. The crafty Pope having thus wrought his ends against King John, got double honour by his en­terprise; for by his peace made with King John, he had utterly spoiled the ground of the French King his Quarrell, his Army being raised upon the Score of the Holy Church, which the Pope declaring his peace [Page 120]with K. John, the French King Philip, in great choller, partly for that he was thus deluded, and partly for that he had lost his Navie, which the Ear I of Salisbury had set on fire in the Haven at Calice did retire; he now being out of hopes by this Quarrell, any further to promote his own interest, in respect he found defections at home; not onely the English, but his own subjects not being willing to engage in a natio­nall quarrell against England: be­sides, the discords of England by this peace, made with the Pope, being reconciled, all hopes of prevailing against K. John forsook him, and in a discontented mind & rage he retired back to Paris. And thus the Pope at once fooled two Kings; for the Bull of delusion which was thrown at King John did rebound into the face of King Philip; the same Instru­ment that was made use of to cheat King John out of his right, served likewise to delude King Philip of his vain hopes: which Instrument bringing so much honour and pro­fit to the See of Rome, was af­terwards, with great insultation, [Page 121]and triumph, glased in Gold, and was called the Golden Bull: and Pope Innocent the third, having so good successe against these Kings, he procured presently after, in a Gouncell of L [...]teran, that the Popes should be declared above Kings, as appears in the 14 chapter. This is that Magna Charta by which his Holinesse claimes a superintendency in England, who please duly to con­sider, will find that it is a thing of scorn, and mockery to Rome, and of no dishonour or damage to the Crown of England. For King John subscribing that Bull, and making the Kingdome tributary, was a­gainst the Law of the Land: For the King cannot dispose of those things that are inherent in the Crown, much lesse of the Crown it self, & to make it tributary; and this Moore, a great Roman Catholike, confessed, that unless it were by con­sent of the Nobles. And the Com­mons of the Land, it could not bind the successours of the King, w^ch is the true Rule of our Law, and agreeable to the antient Constituti­ons of our Land: and whereas Steph. [Page 122]Langton was confirmed Bishop, that confirmation, unlesse it had been by the Kings consent, gave him no right to that place; for the consent of the Monks to his election, with­out a Conge deslier, against the Kings consent, who had sole right to col­late to the See of Canterbury, in respect that of that time the Bishops were not elegible, did not at all help the matter: for Stephen Langton was admitted, anno 1205. and the Roll for making them ele­gible, was not till the 17 of King John, which was 12 years after his installment, so that had it not been that the King consented to it, and did repell his electing of Grey, Langton had been an usurper, not­withstanding the election of the Monks; befides, the Monks could not elect him, nor any other with­out the Kings Writ of Conge Deslier.

This Langton (as I have said before) was a man so much qualified, that he could not want his Holinesse fa­vor, for he was a second Hildebrand, a meer State incendiary, and knew how to trouble the clear waters, and make them fit for his Holinesse [Page 123]to fish for gudgeons. P [...] Favors, Railors. And would the Doctor but conspire to plot some mischief against his mother Coun­try, no doubt he might be preferred, as Allen was, to the dignity of a Car­dinall. But I hear he is a man of another temper, and therefore I much honour him, and am sorry he hath betaken himself to the company of those, whose respects towards him will grow cold: for as he is a meek and sober man, he is uselesse to his Holinesse, and must never think to find any extraordi­nary favour or honour from him; for it is a Papall maxime, not to Canonize Innocents amongst Saints: time hath made the Popes experienced, and master builders of their Spiritual Babell, they are grown Cunning architectors, and know how to fit every piece service­ably in the rearing up of the Babi­lonish Tower: The Doctour was presently discovered not to be fit for an ignation, of whom it is re­quired to be active stirring, and tur­bulent: But he would serve for a Carthusian, who spend their time [Page 124]in more confined, and retirednesse, Ex quovis ligno non fit mercurius. But this by the way, I return to the Golden Bull. As the installing of Langton had been void, notwith­standing the election, had not the King consented to a new Conge Defli­er; so was the donation of that tribute to the Pope void and null, notwithstanding the Golden Bull: The Gol­den Bull. which Bull, though it received so much honour, as to be entombed in Gold, and laid up for an everlast­ing Monument of Romes acquired wealth and dignity. Yet (in my judgement) serves for no other use but to take up a room in the Trea­sury of their Superstitious Trum­peries; and instead of being conse­crate to the memory of Pandulphus, and serves to put posterity in mind of his course imployment to cheat Princes, and the Popes wickedness to set him a work about unlawfull designes; which when they were at chieved to their desire, became of no validity; and so this sacred Mo­nument, instead of Glory, becomes a lasting Record of their shame and foolery.

I wonder in what forme this Magna Charta was enclosed when it received its Golden-outside; The Gol­den Bull, Anno 1217. sure it is was made like a Nut, and did thereby Hierogliphick its short continuance, for it was not long preserved, it proved deaf presently after: For that very year it was Sealed, King John dyed, and Hen. 3^d his sonne succeeded him who sent Hugh Biggod, a Noble man, and o­thers to the Generall Councell at Lyons in France, to require that Bull to be Cancelled in respect that it passed not by consent of the Coun­cell of the Realm, which the Pope put off for that time under pretence of more weighty affairs, and still keeps the same amongst his other Monumentall Trophies; nor did England at any time since seek to have the Nut resto [...]ed, but waves all inte­rest to it, and freely proclaims, that any who please may crack it, and take the Kernell for their pains.

By vertue of this grand Charter, the Pope had in conceit under his ju­risdiction the Kingdome of England, [Page 226]but it was but in conceit; for he regained no more benefits, or vertu­all prerogative from thence, then the Turk doth, (who tacitely by his title of being Lord of Europe) stiles himself Lord thereof: Hen. 3^d never paid any tribute, nor ac­knowledged it due, nor any of the three succeeding Edwards, and Anno 6. R. 2. all the Kingdome willingly bound themselves by a Law to maintain the Crown of England, against all Papall citation, suspension, excommunications and censures whatsoever, which they judged free, and subject to none save God: The power of Magistra­cy being innate, not affixed to England.

The next Argument the Papists make to prove the Popes Ecclesiasti­cal power in England, VI The King styled De­fender of the Faith, by the Pope. is from Hen. 8. his accepting the style of Defender of the Faith, as an honour proceeding from his Holinesse, whereby they would perswade that the King is not to meddle with matters of Faith within his own Realms, un­lesse by deputation or consent of [Page 127]his Holinesse; to which I an­swer.

I have proved that by the antient Lawes of the Kingdome, the King is superintendent within his own Dominions, as well in cases Eccle­siasticall as Civill: in Scripture Kings are called Nursing Fathers of the Church, Isai. 49.23. and this right was in the Crown before ever Hen. 8. had it promulged by the Pope for R. 2. in a Commission granted by him used these words, Nos zelo fides Catholicae cujus sumus & esse volumus defensores in omni­bus, &c. wherefore for the Pope to give this stile, it was superfluous; for expressio eorum quae tacite insunt nihil operatur. It doth but argue he is covetous and ambitious; cove­tous in that he hereby makes him­self master of anothers Interest, and ambitious in that he would be thought the Author of Princes dignities.

As for King Hen. 8. his adding that stile to his other distinguish­ments of Dignity it did not pro­ceed from any conceit that he could [Page 128]not have stiled himself so, had not the Pope saluted him with that courteous appellation: But only in respect it was grown into fashion to adde to their temporall Styles, some denotement of their ecclesia­sticall power, as the Emperour of Ethiopia stiles himself the Pillar of Faith, without deriving that digni­ty from Rome.

It is true, the French embrace the stile of Christian, and the Spaniard of Catholick King, from Rome; yet I suppose they might without that be so dignified: As for England, it is plain, that her King may without any donation thereof from Rome: for that it is warranted by her an­tient Lawes; and Eleutherius called Lucius Gods Vicar; the King was stiled, Persona mixta cum sacerdote; which was many hundred years known before Hen. 8. Ante 37. Cap. 4. and there­fore sith by the antient Lawes of the Land the King is Vicarius sūmus infra Regnas. He must nominate, or ought to Authorise some by vertue of his power, (all forrain provinciall Jurisdiction being lockt up by con­sent [Page 129]of Councels within its proper provinciall precincts) to appoint Bishops; this antient right being grounded upon Gods Word, in that I have proved that the Temporall Magistrate did elect such as should be ordained, and therefore for the Doctor, to deny us to be a Church, because we want succession of Bi­shops, the new ones being appoin­ted by the Temporall Magistrate, when as they wanted nothing to compleat their Order, seemes to me strange, and unreasonall.

If the Doctor, VII when he denies our succession of Bishops, No discon­tinuance of Succession of Bishops in England. when Queen Elizabeth turned out the old ones, could prove that the new ones had no Imposition of Hands by Bishops, then his Argument touched us something, though it be not absolute necessary that Bishops ordain Bishops: Ante 33.4 chap. For what if all the Bishops should die so neer at one time, that none were left ordained by them, shall not the Presbytery make Bishops? they have right to the Keyes, which are called Claves ecclesiae non episcoporum, and they are [Page 130]the remaining Pillars of the Church, and certainly may confer the Order of Bishop upon others, and that the rather, because the Councells forbid Bishops of ano­ther Province to ordain in a forrain Province; and though it may seeme strange to some, that Ministers which are subordinate should ordain Bishops, and so con­fer Superiour Orders; it is not (if rightly examined) contradictory to reason: For in this first ordination of Priests and Deacons; they are infra ordines majores, which orders are called Holy, and Sacramentall, and are the Highest Orders, witness Pope Ʋrban decret dist. 60. sum. Sacr. Ro. Eccl. 226. as for the Order of Bishops, it is no more then a Priest as to the Holy and Sacramentall Order onely; more excellent in respect of the Order of Govern­ing, which is rather of Humane then Divine right: Priests or­dain Bi­shops. for as it is Di­vine, it is no more then what eve­ry Priest hath by the Sacramentall order; but as it is Humane, it is transcendent in relation to Disci­pline; [Page 131] Ante 33.4 chap. and therefore the Presby­tery may agree to ordain one over them to govern them in ecclesiasti­call Rites, as the people may choose a Prince to Govern in civill affairs: Hence it was, that the Apostles sent John to Ephesus, Peter to Antioch, and appointed James over the Churches at Hierusalem: which be­fore such their Consignations were but equal with the other Apostles in every respect; but after that, if any other of the Apostles came where they had the over-sight, they were observant of them: Hence was it, that James was prolocutor of the Councel at Hierusalem, and not Peter, because James was Bishop there, (I may from thence infer, that if Peter came to Rome for the same reason, he was observant of Paul) and therefore it is conceived, that in case of necessity Priests may ordain Bishops; for that Bishops in relation to their Jurisdiction, are not a Sacramentall Order, but onely as they are Priests. But if this opinion be by the learned condem­ned, I shall submit, and yet with [Page 132]confidence affirme, that we may in England claim a Church notwith­standing: For when Queen Eliza­beth turned out some Popish Bi­shops, those that were put into their roomes were ordained by the remaining part of the old Bishops: For all the old Bishops were not turned out then, nor in Hen. 8. his time. For first, in Hen 8. time the controversie was about Supre­macy; which question the Inso­lencies of the Pope occasioned, (though I doe not justifie that Prince for all he did) and being once started, it gave occasion of further scrutiny into the primitive Fathers and Councels, Reforma­tion of England. Infra 55.5 chap. which did so far perswade the Consciences of the then Clergy, that many of them did adhere to the Prince against the Pope, and by that and other after inquisitions, they found they had primitive right of calling Coun­cels, and reforming things amisse in their Church without appealing to Rome; and thereupon having the authority of Scriptures, Coun­cells, and Fathers, they restored to [Page 133]themselves their just rights, and shook off their servile obedience to the See of Rome, which the Popes continued over them, by keeping them up in ignorance, not al­lowing them their own judgements and illumination ecclesiasticall to understand the plain letter of any thing, be it never so far de­monstrated to the easiest capacity without his Holinesse interpretati­on; and having thus shaken off that slavish yoke of Rome, the scales of blind obedience fell from their eyes, and they clearly perceived the Popes false cunning, and dam­nable abusings of Scriptures, Fa­thers, Councels, and what not, thorow his unjust usurpations of universality, and infallibility, whereby he became a new Legisla­tor of Divine rules of Faith, which had in them too much of grosse and fleshly compositions, tending meer­ly to enslave Christendome, and to set up the Popes triple Crown; for all the people to worship, thereby making them forsake Christ, and his Truth, for the fables [Page 134]and traditions of that abominable Idoll.

And as In Hen. 8. time all the Bi­shops were not turned out; so neither at the coming of Queen Elizabeth to the Crown, but con­tinued in their Bishopricks, excer­cising their function, ordaining others as formerly, onely the Arch­bishop of York, the Bishops of Elie, Lincoln, Bath, Worcester, and Exce­ster were outed, and the Bishops of Saint Asaph, Bangor, London and Chester fled; the rest continued, and ordained others: The Queen her self being Enaugurated by Bi­shop Oglethorp, one of Queen Maries Bishops, and Bishop of Car­lisle; and Parker, the Arch-bishop was consecrated by the Imposition of Hands of Barlow, Coverdale, and Korey; three of Queen Maries, Bi­shops, and two suffragan Bishops more, as appears by the act of Con­secration: for that our succession was not totally interrupted; or if it had, I hold that succession of Bi­shops is no inseparable mark of a true Church; for if so, then where [Page 135]was the Church before Christ, VIII for he was not of Aarons succession, Succession no insepa­rable mark of a true Church. but after the order of Mesehisedeck; and Peter was designed of Christ, having none to go before him; so that suc­cession is no absolute mark of a true Church.

And whereas the Doctor objects, that we are beholding to the Romish Bishops, if our succession was not interrupted; I have already proved that we had Sacramentall Orders at least, if not governing Bishops be­fore ever Eleutherius sent any Priests into England; Ante 24.32 2 & 4 chap. & our English writers say these two w^ch were sent to Rome by Lucius were Bishops; however, they were in Holy Orders, though I rather incline to think, that none excercised any Episcopall Juris­dictions, till by the Prince Chri­stianity was publickly professed, and being in Orders, did consecrate others; and there were others which had given to them the im­position of Hands; from whom, and not meerly from Rome, we claim a succession of Pastors: yet I might admit, we had it from [Page 136] Rome, and though all of the Romish Institution were extinct, yet we continue a succession; for that still we are pars ecclesiae, though Hereticks: But that's but their begging of the question, we appeal to the Scriptures, primitive Coun­cells and Fathers to Judge, who are of us two the Scismaticks or He­reticks; and I submit to the Judi­cious reader to censure, or con­demn us in the points here contro­verted, whether Rome or we be in the Errour.

Thus briefly I have answered the Doctors condemning of us for want of Succession; and have in some sort proved that the Church of Rome cannot properly be said a true Church in respect of her Suc­cession, Ante 9. Rome un­certain in her succes­sion, chap. 2 of which more in the next chapters; for that she is uncertain in it, and many of the Bishops of Rome usurpers in it: so I will now pro­ceed to examine the rest of his marks by which he hath distin­guished her Truth, and Catholick­ship, and shall prove that she may not ascribe to her self the [Page 137]Title of the Catholick Church, for and by reason of any of them.

CHAP. V.
That the Church of Rome hath been, and any particular Church may be Invisible.

THe first marks by which the Doctor hath laboured to prove Rome the true Church, to wit, Uni­versality and Antiquity are already answered in that I have Proved others equall, and some ancienter then the Church of Rome; it now followes, to look a little further after her, whilst she may be found; for shortly she shall be Invisi­ble.

The Church Visible is a Com­pany professing the Doctrine of the Law, and the Gospell, Visibility. using the Sa­craments, according to Christs In­stitution, in w^ch company are many unregenerate as Hypothules, as by the Parable of the seed and tares is ma­nifest.

The Church Invisible, is a com­pany of those onely which are elect to Eternall life, of whom it is said, No man shall pluck my sheep out of my hands, Joh. 10.28. & is Universal, or comprehensive of all the Elect, w^ch both now have, & heretofore living, had one Faith. The Church visible is Universall, in respect of the disper­sed Companies of those that pro­fesse one faith in Christ, which must continue till the end of the world: And the Visible Church is particu­lar in respect of place and habitati­on, and of diversity of Rites and Ceremonies, as England, Rome, &c. which particular Churches may becoming Invisible; and particu­larly Rome hath been Invisible in respect of her Assemblies, and is in­visible in relation to the true Faith, and Doctrine: for though at pre­sent she hath companies of men which assemble to worship God, and serve him in the Sacrament, yet shee therein followes not Christs institution; she is now in­visible in respect of Faith and Doctrine, and in respect of Men; [Page 139]she cannot boast of this mark of Vi­sibility, but Tares grow as well as Wheat: and as Rome hath been in­visible in these respects, so may any other particular Church be Invisi­ble.

Elijah complained that he was left alone, I A particu­lar Church may be In­visible. and that the Prophets were slain: that complaint of his (saith the Doctor) doth not prove that the true Church may be Invi­sible: for (saith he) that complaint was uttered with relation to the Kingdome of Israel, onely wherein Elijah then was, and not with re­ference to the Kingdome of Judah, where Elijah was not persecuted by Ahab, and where the Church of God doth flourish.

This his Argument, in my opi­nion proves what is objected against the Church of Rome: It is true, it is an Argument that the Church shall not be Universally Invisible; but if by the true Church he mean the Church of Rome, (and I think he would not otherwise be under­stood) it is no Argument but that it may be Invisible: it is true, at one [Page 140]instant of time the Church shall not be universally invisible; (God ha­ving promised his Spirit to be with the Apostles in their teaching of Nations to the worlds end;) but yet in any particular place it hath been, and may be Invisible, as he confesses himself; he saith, it was invisible in relation to the King­dome of Israel; and in Judah they knew not whether to resort, when the Temple it self was defiled; nei­ther was there Place, nor Sacrifice, nor High Priest; the Priest was wicked, the Temple was defiled, 2 King. 19.2. and when the Doctor is charged with its being invisible in Judea, he pleads it invisible in Ethi­opia, the Eunuch having received the Faith by Philip: and so by these landskips he makes intervalls of darknesse, proving that in particu­lar places it was Invisible; and if so, then may not Rome, being a parti­cular Church, boast of absolute truth, by reason of this mark of Visibility? we doe not go about to prove the Church universally invi­sible, at one instant of time, whilst [Page 141]we say that any particular Church (as Rome) may be Invisible; but that no one particular Church but at some time may be Invi­sible.

Time was, when both Rome and we agreed in the same Principles of Religion, conform to the Rules of Scriptures, Councels, and Fathers: but of later years, Rome being grown above Apostolicall Orders, abusing the indulgence of Christian Princes, and other Churches to­wards her: She hath turned the grace of God into wantonnesse, converting Premacy into Supre­macy, and that Supremacy into In­fallibility; and so having acquired that uncontrolable Prerogative, by the dull consent of some lame Prin­ces, and blind servile slavish People, she became the onely evangellicall cradle, accounting the Scriptures dead Letters, and to receive articu­late sense from her dictates, and so for her own advantage pr [...]s [...]ibe Lawes and Religion to her blind obedient Prosylites.

Yet the all disposing power of [Page 142]Heaven, which suffered Romes Bi­shop thus by his own Innovations to darken the light of his neigh­bour Churches, did now and then give him a scourge to let him know he was but a man; and in respect of that frail composition was elemen­tary, and subject to vicissitudes and alterations in his Constitution; and that nothing that was the pro­duction of that various body of in­constant humours but was obnoxi­ous to a countermand by its muta­ble framer, or to be troden down by others, whose strong bulkes cared not for his too curious pre­paratives; and when a general face of quiet seemed to smile upon the Territories of Romes Church; and that she flourished in that height, that she thought her self above all opposition, behold a sudden de­struction overtook her; and as the mighty Elephant, whose power is able to throw down great and ponderous masses, is tamed at the sight of a Ram, and trembleth at the gruntling of a little Pigg: even so her desolation came from an un­suspected [Page 143]and contemptible hand; insomuch that Rome, in the heighth of this her glory, and though she was the admired Metropolis of the Western world, and her Temples adorned with the offerings of seve­rall Nations. Yet she was not se­cure, and above the Heathenish sup­pressions of the runnagate Goths, the beggarly Scithians, and the spoiling Arrian, Vandals, that head City of the World not escaping the sack­ing by Alaricus in Honorius time; nor her Temples free from the ra­pine of the Genserick in Marcianus time, and her Capitoll left unran­sackt by our Belivins, and proved no San­ctuary against Totilas, and his Nor­thern forces. From these Judgments, if she reflected upon Gods Justice, she could not promise to her self security. For if Hierusalem, which was the seat of James, the beloved of the Lord, must not be free from the harrassing of the northern For­ces, how could Rome promise Im­munity to her self from the like afflictions: I wish she would call to minde these her former occurrences [Page 144]of misfortune; Infra 135.14 chap. and that she would by these examples of Gods Justice and indignation towards her, for­bear to claim an Universality in respect of her See; for she may by them cleerly perceive that she is not the rock against whom the gates of Hell shall not prevail; nor are her Temples so immove­able, but the battering shot of the Rummishing Canon can strike a palsey into their lofty heads, and by Divine permission have laid their honours in the dust.

This was the day of her Visita­tion, and now sits she in quiet, whilst we groan under the calami­ties of this mischief; but let her not laugh to see our candle put un­der a bushell [...] the rudenesse of some not respecting the priviledges of our Church, for there hath no evil befallen us, that she her self by ex­perience is not subject to: These sad and dreadfull visitations of the Lord may tell both them, and us, that we are Churches militant, and must after the pattern, and in imi­tation of our Head, Chrst Jesus, [Page 145]suffer her in misery, that we may triumph hereafter in Glory; there is no particular Church but is sub­ject to these tokens of Gods Wrath: When under Dioclesian Christians were so wasted thorow persecuti­on, that there were, in the Judge­ment of many, none left remain­ing, their Books burnt, th [...]ir Churches destroyed, and them­selves put to death by sundry tor­ments; and Pillars erected in every place, with this blasphemous In­scription, Superstitione Christi ubique delecta. Then did we escape that persecution, when the glory of Romes Church was much darkned thereby; and now that our Church suffers an ecclipse; whilst the same occasion of darkness doth not debar the light from Rome: Let not this be an occasion of rejoycing to her, but rather remember her own for­mer sufferings, he that stands take heed lest he fall: for there hath no tentation taken us, but such as is subject to man, and God is faithful, who will not suffer us to be temp­ted above that we are able to bear: [Page 146]God for a time may take away the Candle from amongst us, thereby to shew we of our selves are not per­fect; but if we trust in him, he can restore our light; he is faithfull, and his hand is not shortned so, but that it can help, and he hath power to deliver, Esay 50.2.

Saint Cyprian complained above 1270 years since, that for the great persecution that was against the Church, they could not meet, as they desired, to execute Discipline, and who will deny that the disci­pline of the Church is perpetuall? but yet at all times it is not to be had, which proves it may be In­visible.

These vicissitudes and alterati­ons in every place, are incident not onely to the Civill, but the Ec­clesiasticall state: Constantine may set up the Crosse in Hierusalem, but that cannot free it from Mahomets Banner: where Christ to day hath his Church, he sometimes suffers the Devill to morrow to make his Chappell. The Kingdome of Hea­ven is said to suffer violence, and [Page 147]the societies of men on Earth, must not think to go scot-free; Christ suffers his Saints to be persecuted for the triall of some, and for the utter ruine of others, 1 Pet. 1.7. 2 Pet. 2.9. Christs Church is the Congregation of Saints, and those Saints are subject to persecution and dissipation; so that in any particular place, or Region, this Society may be broke, and so the Church made there Invisible, which is a truth so plainly demonstrated to us, I wonder the Church of Rome should urge the con­trary.

Rev. 2.5. Christ threatned the Church of Ephesus, that he would remove her Candlestick, unlesse she amended: the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches of Asia; and Christ threatens the Church of Ephesus, that because of her back­sliding he would take her Candle­stick away from her, because she had forsaken her first Love: and if her Candlestick were taken away, sure she would be left in darknesse, and made Invisible.

Christ threatens to withdraw his Heavenly Beams from Ephesus, and yet he had promised his Spirit to his Church to the worlds end, and that the gates of Hell should not prevail against her, but that she should be Visible in some one place, and not Universally taken from the face of the Earth at the same instant of time: But that the Church might be Invisible in any one place, is evident by this threatning of Ephesus; at which time she was the onely Apostolique See, John being the [...]e, and Peter being dead when John writ the Apocalipse: and if Ephesus be in danger to be made Invisible, I wonder how Rome should arrogate that immunity to her self, that she alone shall not be made Invisible, when as when Christ promised his Spirit to his Church, the Church of Rome was Invisible, and therefore it cannot be in tend­ed that this mark of Visibility, which is to be applyed to the whole Church, should onely, and meerly be prescribed unto the particular Church of Rome, unl [...]sse her Church [Page 149]be like the Temple of Venus, in which there was a Lanthorn made of the stone A Beston, whose nature, as Isidore, lib. 15. de Genuus saith, is such, that being once set on fire, no wind nor rain can extinguish it, which made the Heathen people Idolize it: but she must not think so to delude us, we know her Vir­gin Lamp is sunk in its sockets, and that fuliginous li [...]k, composed of adulterate combustibles, which she hath set up in its room, is but a thing of exhalation, the heavenly Sun, from whom she formerly borrowed light, having withdrawn his shining beams from her terre­striall Orb, and so she's left in both internall and external darknesse; her understanding being darkned in that, whilst the truth is removed frō her, she thinks others see it with her; and that she neither hath been, nor can be invisible; the contrary whereof is plain, II by what I have already proved, Romes Church hath been Invisible. and by this that followes.

As the Church of Rome hath been, and may be Invisible, in re­spect [Page 150]of persecution, so hath she been by reason of the vacation of her Head.

The Doctor in his 22 Chapter, fol. 360. sayes, the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church, because her Bishop is the Head thereof, and hath been so accounted through all Ages.

That he hath not been so repu­ted through all Ages, appears by the testimony of the first Councels; and if Rome be the Chatholick Church in respect that the Pope is the Head, then it followes, that the Catholick Church hath been In­visible, because of the vacation of that Head, for cessante causâ cessat effectus: The light of the body is the Eye, which is placed in the head; and if the body be without the eye, the whole body, is in dark­nesse. If then this Mark of Visibility be such an incident, and insepara­ble token of her truth, I would fain know where the Universall Head of the Church was whilst Rome had no Bishop: for either they must confesse that the Univen­sall [Page 151]Church must be in darknesse for want of a Head, and so they make Gods promise of none effect, if the Church be universally hid, or else they must confesse that Romes Church is but a particular Member of the Church, and that then like the Church of the Israelites, or the Church of Ephesus, she is subject to be made invisible for a time; and that she hath been invisible, may appear by these enfuing proofs.

Two yeers together, after Pope Nicholas the fourth, no Pope was chosen, and when after much dis­sention amongst the Cardin [...]ls, Ce­lestine was chosen, Boniface the 8^th murdering him, was made Bishop in his stead; where was the visible Head whilst Benedict the tenth, and Nicholas the second both stand Popes at once? The Clergy, who then had the Election of the Popes, not daring to proceed to a new Election, to crosse Benedict, who was very much beloved of the Citi­zens of Rome, withdrew themselves to Sene, and there elected Gerrardus Bishop of Florence, by the name of [Page 152] Nicholus 2^d, who was the onely fa­vou [...]ite of Hildebrand, whom Hilde­brand caused to be made Pope, that he (as then not ripe for the Seat) might under him rule all: for Pope Nicholas was but a dull fellow, though proud, and ambitious of Honour; and be sure, when he saw his own time to out him, that he might succeed in the Chair, and so it happened accordingly: for Hil­debrand succeeded Nicholas 2^d, two fit to go together, the one bringing in at the Councel of Lateran, the new Doctrine of Transubstantia­tion; the other maintaining the then never heard of sin of the Popes power to depose Kings.

Where was the triple Crown; when at once there was 3 Popes, as Innocent 7^th, Gregory 12^th, and at the Councell of Pise, Alexander 5^th cho­sen. I might adde more of this na­ture, but I will reserve the rest of my arrows to shoot at his other Markes, and shut up this point, and conclude that the Church of Rome, in respect of Persecution, and vacancy of her Bishops, can­not [Page 153]be the onely Chatholick Church, and distinguished to be so by any certain Infallible rule of a constant Visibility.

CHAP. VI.
That the Church of Rome cannot be re­puted and taken for a true Church in respect of her Unity in Doctrine, or Sanctity of Life onely.

CHrists Coat was seamlesse, and the Souldiers cast Lots for it; that Coat was to teach the Apostles unity and concord: The Ministers of the old Temple were clad in White, thereby to betoken their Innocency: Let us look upon Romes present Church, and see if her Pastors be not worse then the Souldiers, in rending in pieces the one, and like Baals Priests, not ha­ving any right to the other. And who please to examine their private practices, how they agree with their publique Professions, will find such a disproportion, and dis­sonancy, [Page 155]that it will be hard to judg whether his Holiness's Decrees as compendiums, and true abstracts of the Cannons of Councels, or his Pontificall Robe as the Conusance of Peters successour, then with them lesse of agreeablenesse and represen­tation; the one privately thwart­ing the publick edicts of General Councels, and the other publickly unsuitable and dissonant to a Mini­ster of the Gospell, so that a man cannot at any time judge by his outside what his inside should be, nor prove by his inner closet that ever he was in the publick Halls; so that I may return the Doctors say­ing against Beza, Luther, and others more properly and fitly to the Pope, Vide uiram tunica filii tui sit vel non.

The Church of Rome would fain have us to believe that she is free from the blood of this and that Prince, basely by her practices and instruments assassinated, and barba­rously despoiled of their Crownes and Scepters: and if any question arise about such businesse, she is [Page 154]ready to disavow all privity to the act, though the scene was studied in her Cardinals Conclave, and acted abroad by her own emissaries, as who please to peruse the Anatomy of Popish Tyranny, will find presidents enough of this nature; but it makes not much to my present purpose, & I will forbear to trouble the Reader with them, I will proceed to shew her discords and variances in point of Doctrine.

She professes to maintain the Councels of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Carthage, and the Councell of Constant. hath ap­pointed an Oath to be taken by the Pope (at his installing) to that purpose: But how little he performes that Oath, or observes the Rules of those Councels, let what I have said in the 2^d Chapter serve to witnesse.

The Church of Rome in this re­spect, (I mean the Pope enchathe­drated) who judicially declaring any thing as Pope is confessed by all to represent the Church may be compared to a Water-man, who [Page 156]looks one way, and rowes ano­ther.

She may have some land marks & tokens to steer by, but she quickly layes those observations and wan­ders into unknown latitudes, one Pope this way, another that, the third another way, &c. and so be­ing meandred upon the waves of severall opinions; it is by chance if any of them bottom upon mount Sion.

What good Christian of Aposto­licall Faith looks upon Rome as she now is, and hangs not his Harp upon the Willowes, and with the children of Israel, by the waters of Babylon sit down and weep to re­member Sion: Sion at unity within it self, I and Babylon full of strife, en­vie, Papists dif­fer about the Keyes. and debate. Sanders maintains that S. Peter received both tempo­rall and spirituall power by the Keyes; not so saith another Jesuite, affirming the power of the Keyes to be alia à civili potestate: Baronius affirms that the Pope may positively dispose of Kingdomes.

Bellarmine not so, but onely [Page 157] in ordine ad spiritualia: Cauterenus saith, that this power was given when Christ said to Peter, Quaere Ante 2. Thou art Peter, &c. de sacra Christi lege lib. 3. Bellarmine, de Rom. Pontif. lib. cap. 12. that it was not given untill the treble passe: But of this more at large in the 9^th chapter, why should any be so lame as to allow to Rome this prerogative, sith she cannot tell how to revive her Title to it?

I might instance in many more differences of this nature amongst the Papists themselves, wherein they dissent one from another; nor are these differences onely betwixt Cardinall and Cardinall, Doctor and Doctor, but the Church of Rome against the Church of Rome, differing from the ancient Fathers, and primitive Church; nay, point-blank contradicting their own modern Contestation of Popish Ge­nerall Councels, as I shall shew in the ninth Chapter; neither are the differences amongst them of small consequence, but in the most concerning points of Religion, as [Page 158]whether the holy Ghost proceed more principally from the Father, or the Son, about meritum congrui, about the thing designed by the word hoc est Corpus, about the con­ception of the Virgin, and all high matters of Divinity, and are not of any small importance.

For whereas the Doctor would perswade us, fol. 236. that these are not differences in point of Faith, the Church having not interposed her Decree; and in the mean time, without breach of Unity one Do­ctour may differ against another in point of Reason, which is but to guide to a conclusive Faith; so by the same reason no Church but is at Unity, for in their Councells they may conclude points of Faith, and in the intervals of Councels wrangle about the Reasons of those points; and yet by the Doctors Logick are at unity, because the reasonings of private men.

If they hold against their De­crees, why doth she not punish them as Hereticks? and if the points be of importance, and the Church [Page 159]doth not interpose her Decree, Infra 92.11 chap. she then suffers those contentions to be amongst her own Saints, and then drawes on her a suspition of a false Church, because she seeks not peace and truth, to preserve the unity of spirit, and bond of peace; for dis­cords are not musicall in the hea­venly ear; and if she be not afraid to loose a Faction by displeasing them, should she interpose her Decree, or else have some such like worldly end, why doth she suffer those con­tentions daily to grow, which whilst she doth not rectifie it, ad­ministers just occasion to others to deny her to be a true Church in re­spect of her unity, and they have very much reason to induce them thereunto, as I shall shew anon in the nineth Chapter. II

I am loath to rifle into this mat­ter, could I otherwise avoid it, Sanctity of life no mark of the Church of Rome's truth. I desire rather to lay open the errors of the Chair, then to tax the per­sons possessing that Seat, I would reprove the Heresie of Rome, but not the Bishop: I doe not maligne a Papist, but only Popery. And now [Page 160]that I must goe about to lay open the fulnesse of these men (otherwise the Doctor will take it for granted, that I subscribe to that mark of of Romes truth, that she hath none but godly and sanctified Pastors) it goes against my nature. If I seem satyricall blame the Doctor, who provoked me hereunto by this false position of his, and by an unwor­thy upbrading of the Crown of England, by his cutting Crosse capers upon the dust of one of our Royall Monarchs, whereas he is forbid to speak evill of dignities, Judge 8. the Prophets boldly re­proved Princes, 2 Kings 58. but it was to reclaim their Vices, not to traduce their persons, they may be reproved, being alive, when as by that means amendment may be wrought upon them, or else by vexation they will be grieved; Against Ruling Princes. but these ends cannot be in any re­proving of a person that is Dead.

Saint Paul withstood Peter to his face, but backbiting defileth a mans own soul, Eccles. 21.28. yet the [Page 171]Doctor not caring for to follow these Presidents, takes a liberty to himself to rake in the quiet Urn of a deceased Prince, and with insultation to inscribe a new Epitaph.

Here lies no King, The Doctor his injury to Henry 8. (Kings being called Gods) but such an one as the Poets fain Jupiter, who was trans­formed into a Beast for the Love of Women; which unworthy act of the Doctors gives me occasion to say of him as Saint Jude saith of false Prophets, As beasts without rea­son, they speak evill of these things they know not.

It is reported, that when Silla set one on work to kill Marius; when the Vassall came to put into execution that bloody command, he beheld such Majesty in his face, that his conscience presently was prict with the horrour of the act, his heart failed him, his flesh trem­bled, and his hand knew not how to mannage that black instrument which should have pierced that no­ble Cask, and let his Royall liquor to the ground.

And no lesse Majesty (as our Sto­ries mention) dwelt in the Princely countenance of our noble Henry; so that should the Doctor have ap­peared before him, as a traducer of his worthy and noblenesse with one majestick frown, he would have sent his Satyricall spirit to the infernall shades to study in­vectives.

Principem populi non maledices was Moses precept, Exod. 22. and Saint Paul appears of that rule, Acts 23.5. and by the 74 Cann. of the Apostles, a severe censure was to be against any that should be called Contume­liosus in Magistratum. So that the Doctors reviling of Hen. 8. is on his part inexcusable: now let me ex­amine whether I may not incur the same censure, by setting forth the Errours of the Romane Bishops, and I conceive, under favour, I may not.

1. Because I doe it not out of any malignity towards their persons, but their Profession of Vice, under the hood of godlinesse and infallibility.

2. Because whilst she perswaded others of the truth of her Church, for the mark of sanctity of life, and yet her Bishop, the visible Head of that Church is evill, they hereby draw people into mis-belief: therefore for avoiding of this Er­rour, and for reforming her evill wayes, I may without the compass of censure justly reprove her Bi­shops, whilest I doe not personally traduce the men, but reprove the Errours of the Chair: or if I per­sonally touch any one, it is not I, but some one of their own Church that did it:

3. I shall not speak evil of any lawful Magistrate that ought to bear Rule, and excercise Dominion, nor any to whose right of power I stand naturally obliged to respect and Reverence.

The Doctor would perswade us that the wickednesse of some Popes doth not blemish this Mark, which is strange to me; she will have it a blemish against the reformed Chur­ches, because Luther, Beza, &c. are by Basseck termed with infamous [Page 174]conversations, and shall it be a ble­mish to private Churches to have ungodly Bishops, and not to Rome? this is unequall dealing.

The Bishop of Rome is rather a blemish to the Church of Rome, then any other Bishop is to a pri­vate Church, if they both be wicked; for the higher a man is lifted in ho­nour and dignity, as he is thereby made more neer the similitude of God, who is above all, so he ought to give a testimony of his good workes above others, lest he deface that more noble Image by his un­worthy acts: besides, the Bishops of Rome have of late declared to be above Councels, and are in them­selves representations of the Ca­tholike Church: wherefore for them to be wicked and dissolute, must needs deface this Mark of sanctity.

As for the distinction between the Person of the Bishop, Infra 70.9 chap. and his Power, that is, his judiciall Seat, and so that he may erre as a Man, not as a Bishop, it is a meer juggle, and that which savours of the Te­nents [Page 175]of those they call Heretiques, the Presbyterians, who divide per­son from power, Infra 130.14 chap. and it is redicu­lous, and a meer evasion to escape this censure: For if a man should affront Clemens, Ʋrbam, &c. Bishop of Rome it would be construed an in­jury to the See, and not that perso­nall, of which more in the 9 chap.

I have a warrant from Saint Hie­rome, Causa 11. Questio 3. if any believe that man to be holy that is not holy, and joyne him to the company of God, he doth villany to Christ, whose members we are; I say I have a warrant by this rule to lay open the Iniquities of the Bi­shops of Rome, that men may no longer be drawn into the guilt of this injury by exalting hypocrites, believing them to be true Aposto­lick teachers, which indeed are ravening wolves, not to feed, but to destroy the flock of Christ; wherefore take a view of some of her Bishops of Rome, as I find them described by antient and modern writers.

Those Popes which were con­demned [Page 176]and censured for their in­tollerable abuses towards Princes, I reserve for another chapter, take here onely a view of those that in o­ther most loud and vile positi­ons were most notoriously wick­ed.

Wernerus exclaimeth, that anno 883. Holy men were perished from the earth, and he writ to Martin 2^d. So that in his time there was wickednesse amongst the pastours of Rome.

Wallerus Mapes writes of the Ro­mane Clergy, that they studdy vil­lany, envy reigneth, and truth is buried amongst them.

Peter de Alcaco in lib. de reform eccl. notes the luxuriousnesse, avarice, Idlenesse, Blasphemies, Magick Arts, and other wickednesse of the Bishops of Rome.

John the 12^th. was a Dicer, and a wicked fellow: Gregory the 7^th, as Beno the Cardinall testifieth was a Magitian, Hildebrand Infra 14. chap, 142. and what stirs and com­motions raised he about the electi­ons of his predecessours. Sigebert writes, that he confessed when he [Page 177]felt himself at the point of death that he had raised many stirs by the perswasions of the Devil: it is likewise recorded, that Silvester 2^d, Gregory 6^th, Benedict. 9^th, and Paul the third, and divers others were Magitians. John the 23^d was con­demned by the Councell of Con­stance for denying the resurrection of the dead, and other points of Atheisme. Sixtus the 4^th builded the Stewes at Rome, (a godly foun­dation, and well becoming so Ho­ly a Father) Alexander the 6^th pre­sently became his successour, and much improved the revenues of that delightfull Corporation, he was so bold and shamelesse in the sinne of whoredome, That he open­ly acknowledged the Popes Ne­phews to be his Bastards, as Guic­hard testifies: and thus I have given you a brief of some wicked Popes of Rome before they were declared a­bove Councels, III Wicked heads of the Church. and now see what those are which are professed by the the late Latteran and Trent Coun­cells to be above Councels; and if so, then their wickednesse utterly [Page 178]blots out this mark of Sancti­ty.

Leo, the which was a Blasphe­mour, insomuch that he was often heard [...]ay, Quantas nobis divitias Comparavit ista fabula Christi: Luther his Reforma­tion. Ante 22, 44 chap. 2. In his time (it being high time to shake off such wicked Society) did Luther reforme the Germane Churches, Truth and Falshood, Christ and Belial are incomparable; either he, or some one else must write against these damnable Doctours, and their diabolicall practices, otherwise the Kingdome of Anti-christ would have been universally spred over the face of the Earth; and should none stop the furious course of these Cato demonaick Priests, they would con­vert Tiber into Barathrum, and plung the whole world into that bottomlesse Abisse: (mistake me not, I doe not approve of all that Luther did, onely this, that he be­ing of another distinct province apart from Rome, and having Cure of Souls, and seeing the Errours of Rome, and his Flock addicted to follow after Rome, for the honour [Page 179]and credit her antient truth drew from the hearts of many, might lawfully admonish, and was bound in Conscience to check Rome of her Errours: now that she flew to so high a pitch of wickednesse, and having no hopes of her self-reform­ing, were she not admonished by some one of her faults, might there­fore take upon him, to lay open before her eyes some of her Errors, hoping thereby to reclaim her, or at least to stay his own Flock from wandring after her, by laying be­fore them the present practices of Rome, contrary to the antient Truth: Luthers Reforma­tion. nor was this any more then formerly was practised by the Apostles, and confirmed by Coun­cels for Provincials to reforme: Saint Paul, Peter, James, and Saint John did write to severall Chur­ches, and admonish them, and espe­cially Jude sayes, It was needfull to write, to exhort the people of God ear­nestly to contend for the maintenance of the Faith, which was once given unto the Saints, for that there were certain men crept in which were afore ordained unto [Page 180]this condemnation; ungodly men, which turned the grace of God into wantonnesse, and deny God the onely Lord, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

And if ever they must contend for the maintenance of the antient Faith, it was then the time, when such a brutish Leo, who was the head, and reputed Oracle of the Church should belch forth such bold blasphemies, thereby to bring in the doctrine of Divels, and to obtrude upon the Consciences of men a new profession of a Stygian Creed.

Nor was this Leo the onely Blas­phemour of the God of Heaven, Wicked Popes. of those that possessed the Romane Chair, but to manifest to the world, that these anti-christian a­berrations from the Divine rules of Truth, are common (I much fear they are incident) to the Popes of that See. He hath both before him, and after him, Popes after his own heart; Sixtus the 4^th, and A­lexander the 6^th, his Predecessours, the one denying there was a God, Riserat ut vivens caelestia numina Six­tus [Page 181]sic Morceus nullos credidit esse Deos: and the other, saith Sanazer, dissolved both Gods Lawes, and mans Lawes, and believed not that there was a God. And Clement the seventh, and Julius the third, his Successours, the one in heart doubting whether there was a Heaven (though outwardly he taught both that Hell and Pur­gatory) insomuch, that when he drew towards his end, he said to those that stood about him, that he hoped shortly to be resolved of that he had so long doubted, to wit, whether there was a Hea­ven or Hell, or no; of whom this was said, Contemptor divum scaele­rum vir publicus hostis. The other not inferiour to him in this height of wickednesse, insomuch that the Papists themselves re­port divers speeches proceeding from him, which savoured of A­theisme.

I might, if I would, have been very inquisitive, have made a large muster-Role of these wicked Pre­lates, but I rather weep, then re­joyce, [Page 182]that I should meet with any Records of this nature to refute the Doctour in this point of their pretended Sanctity; nor is this their case onely, I su­spect that in most Churches have been many Ministers bad men, according as our Saviour saith, There must Tares grow up in the Corn till the end of the World. According to the Proverb, Christ cannot have his Church, but the Devill will have his Chap­pell: Satan is busie to cast his evill seed into the field, and scarce any field so well manu­red and tilled, having their sto­ny hearts melted, and their clods of flesh mollified with the beams of the Heavenly light, that in some corner thereof hath not this Zizania growing, and sprung up as high as the tops of the Corn, thereby to teach us, that in our best estate and condition we have not whereof to boast. The An­gels, which are the Reapers, and the labourers to be sent into the Har­vest, will find both Tares and [Page 183]Corn growing in the field, they are called Labourers to gather the Elect, and Reapers to throw the Tares into the fire, but both must grow together till the end of the world, but I hast to an end of this point.

The Doctor, nor any other must not boast of the Truth of the Church of Rome in this respect; for if they make this an absolute Signe, then in respect their Popes the Head of that Church, and de­clared it to be above Councels, have been wicked, it followes that she is not the true Church: I must confesse, that where this Mark is to be found, it is de­monstrative, of a true Church; it is a perswasive argument, but no positive signe of a true Church: In the twelve Apostles one was a Devil, yet God made him the Instrument to bring to passe our Salvation: the Devill confessed Christ, we must not there­fore deny him. So then, as the wicked practices of Pastors is no absolute condemnation of the [Page 184]truths they shall deliver to others; so their uprightnesse of morall conversation is no positive rule to demonstrate the purity of their Faith. For upon this Rule Chri­stians, Turks, Jewes, and Pagans may be all of a true Church, which is absurd to hold; therefore we must not absolutely conclude Rome the true Church upon the score of sanctity of life.

CHAP. VII.
That the Church of Rome cannot be reputed and taken for a true Church in respect of Miracles: and of her abuse in maintaining Images in the Church.

THe Doctor is pleased to argue the truth of Romes Church from her miracles; and he shewes that he has not travelled beyond Seas for nothing: est natura hominum novitatis avida: he has been peeping into her Legenda­ry-stories, that he might be furnished (upon the authority of a traveller) to send news to England. For my own part, I dare not give up my self to such delusions as it is wel known the Church of Rome uses towards the people to gaine their faith to believe in his Holi­ness the Pope, as to credite the most (scarce any) of her miracles: and that the rather, for that it has been by expe­rience found out (especially in England) that most of them were feigned, and invented only to cheat the people into a blind obedience; and I perswade my self, if the Doctor had known as much [Page 178]as I do, by the reading of histories in this point (which histories may as well chalenge belief as the humane tradi­ons of Rome) he would never have insisted upon this mark: but as it fares with men that are groping in the dark, sometimes to run their heads against posts; so the Doctor having forsook the light he was in, and as yet being not well acquainted with the windings and stranges mazes that are in the dark cloisters to which he has betaken him­self, at unawares he dashes his head against the door of miracles, which makes him recule with affront: but I'll so much be his friend, that I'll help him to revenge his quarrel; I'll pick the lock, and furnish him out of her stores with miraculous knick-knacks.

It were to make this book swell with impossible trumperies, Miracles. to report the thousand part of her legen­dary stories; as that Saint Dennis carryed his head in his hand after it was strucken off; and of Saint Cle­ment the first, who being cast into the Sea with a milstone about his neck, the sea forsook the shore three miles, and there was found a Chappel ready built, [Page 179]where his body was bestowed: and many such like stories are to be found in Bozius de Saguius. These ficti­ous wonders, fill the ears, not the hearts of many; therefore the Doctor might have done well to have followed Bozius example, who finding his grand inventions meet with smal belief in these coasts, he runs adrift till he came to Congo, Colachina, and Ja­ponia, and in his return tels of wonders done there, and so gaines of some an opinion of belief, who will rather seem, for satisfaction to the reporter, to lead credulous ears to history, then upon an unknown score to censure him of falsity: wherefore he goes on (with their patience) to tell them that in these forrain Indies he did but lay the Gospel upon a womans breast, and the devil flew from her as if he had been shot out of a gun; he but set up the stand­ard of the cross, and an army of hors­men in glittering armor appeared, whose harness did dazle the eyes, and whose number struck terror into the hearts of the adverse party. But here in England they could do no such feats.

It may be that where people give up themselves to believe in them, deceivable wonders. their priests, as having a power from Hil­debrand, Gregory the sixth, Silvester, and the old Magician Popes may do strange wonders, (as the Doctor confesses, folio 253. wonders may be done by the power of Antichrist) but certainly such cannot before the eys of true believers in Christ shew any wonders at all. And here I desire to re­member a story of a Vestal Nun in Spaine which was cryed up for mi­racles, insomuch that when the late King of England King Charles was there, he was over-intreated by the Infanta to go to see her: it was re­ported to the King, that sometimes she would be lifted up in the aire, and be as fresh as a Rose, though she was furrowed with age. The King came with the Infanta to her, but she could not do any one feat before the King (though she could never have shewen her miracles in a better time.) The King was of too strong a faith for her spirit to work upon, and therefore could she shew none then crede quod habes, & habes. All the answer I can give to [Page 181]the supposed mark of miracles, is, that no good Catholique can well de­ny to credit them; for if he believe the Church of Rome to be the only Catho­lique Church, and the Pope the head of the universal Church, and sticks to believe these stories, strives at a gnat and swallows a Camel; let him never leap at blocks, and stumble at strawes.

Yet lest the Doctor should think that I have given up my self to hard­ness of heart, because I am so hard of belief in this point, I will shew him my reasons for it.

I know many of her miracles are false, and the Church of Rome, hand over head, has recorded the false ones with the true ones; and as the proverb is, We know not how to believe a lyar when he speaks truth. The Doctor confesses fol. 253. that all her miracles are not true: and if she have Cata­loguised the false ones together with the true ones, we know not how to di­stinguish them: if I had not the Doctors own confession that some are false, yet I should not seem rash to any indifferent man, in that I taxe the Church of Rome [Page 182]of false miracles, for that her teachery and cozenage in this point hath been detected in this particular, it being but held forth to the blind people, that they being struck into admiration of their wonderful power, might with fear and reverence become devotaries to their miraculous instruments, offer­ing freely to those Antique Gods, by which cheat the Clergy obtained no small riches. Infra 13. ch. 113. For proof hereof, be pleas­ed to take a veiw of her miraculous images here and hereafter in the chap­pel of Radcaeus.

There is a marble Image at the Castle of Saint Angelo in Rome, Images to delude the people. which when Gregory came in procession with the painted image of the Virgin Mary which he carryed in procession, that marble image bowed it self to the image of the Virgin in the presence of the people, & sung out a loud, Allelu­jah, & regina caeli letare; and there­upon S. Infra 113.13. chap. Gregory made the prayer Ora pro nobis Deum: allelujah &c. For my part, I believe this; for belike that image was made like to the image of Saint Grimbald in the Abby of Box­ley in Kent, which was fastened to a [Page 183]pillar by a private pin, and a man stood privately behind the pillar, and by plucking out of the pin, it might be lifted up by a boy: which posture they exercised to any that freely offe­red: and if one came niggardly offer­ing, it was immoveable; by which trick the people were made believe, when the Image would yeeld to be taken up that their sins was pardoned, by reason of satisfaction made by their offering. There was another Image in the said Abbey, which is more neerly compa­rative with the marble Image of Saint Angelo, which was made of such curious contrivings, that by certaine wyers a man standing within it might make it frown, simile, bow, nod the head, &c. by which postures those which came to offer, knew when they had made satisfaction for their sin, by the pleasantness and acceptance of that carved god; or if they were penurious and sparing in their offerings, that nimble contrivance of foolery gave them some denotement of his displea­sure; and the priests were ready to in­terpret heavy judgements to befall them: or by the similes of that image [Page 184](which onely a golden Wyer procu­red) to assure them of Gods mercy towards them; and that God signifi­ed that to them by his Saint there standing: by which Cheat they got no little advantage.

The like cheating and Idolatry was exercised by means of a Rood at Ash­hyrst in Kent, and in several other places of this Kingdom of England. By which it is evident, that the use of Images was not, as the Doctor would perswade us, onely to put us in mind of the things by them represented, but ra­ther to perswade the people they were the very immediat instruments of God, to signifie his will unto us; & did there­by perswade the people into adoration of them. And yet, lest the Doctor's Arguments for their retaining in the Church might seem with some to be unanswerable by me, should I pass this point so slightly and overly, con­demning the use of them, because they were abused; and lest I should run into an errour with those which upon that score cry down Bishops, which, if as they ought to be, are both a shel­ter and ornament to the Church; and, [Page 185]in my poor judgement, they may as well deny the Apostleship, because there was a Judas amongst them: I will not therefore, from the abuse of any thing, utterly condemn all use thereof. It rests therefore to examine how far the use of them may be law­ful.

The Science of Painting and Car­ving is an Art profitable for mans life and is the gift of God. Images how far lawful. It is profi­table to the memorial of things done; and to that purpose have the Pictures and Monuments of Noble-men been used through all ages, being a grate­ful memory of those they represent: And this Art and Curiosity of Work­manship being an adorning and graceful beautifying of any buildings, the Temples in old time were made sumptuous therewith; which by the Heathen Persecutors were, as the Psalmist witnesses, broke down with axes and hammers, by the enemies of the Church. Yet that amongst those curious Pieces there were any repre­sentations of the Godhead, it doth not appear; but rather, the contrary: For it is impossible for humane flesh to [Page 186]draw any thing that shall represent God by any corporeal or finite image, who is incorporeal and infinite: Isai. 40.18. To whom shall we liken God? or what similitude shall we set up unto him? It is true, that God of old represented himself in mans shape; but we must not therefore think to make semblances of him: it is lawful for him to do as he pleases; but not for us to make such representations of him as are not commanded. Besides, those visible shapes by which he vouchsafed to appear, had God after a special manner with them, and in them pre­sent, to command and hear them to whom he so manifested himself: which cannot be ascribed to mens representa­tions of him, which are against Gods order; he forbidding us to turn the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corruptible man, Rom. 1.13. And though some urge, that such semblances serve as Lay­mens books, to teach them to know Christ; yet that is no excuse for the use of such, sith God hath ordained his Church to be taught by his Word and Sacraments, and not by these. [Page 188]And whereas the Doctor urges that they serve to stir up men to give ho­nour to the thing signified by the signe; that must be understood of a true signe ordained by him who hath authority to ordain it, and the will of him that is honoured prescribing the honour to be given to the signe: which neither he nor any else, can prove that Christ should be honoured by such signes. And as it is not lawful to make such representations of Him, so neither of any creature, to the end to give wor­ship to the signes, as significations of what they represent: And yet I allow that the curious Draughts and Paint­ings of Ecclesiastical Stories, and of other Portraictures set forth with art and skill, may be used to adorn our Churches, so that no adoration be given to any such signes. Wisely there­fore did the Council of Constantino­ple called by Constantinus, Images are dan­gerous to the people in for­bidding the use of Images in the Church: and pernicious was the De­cree of the second Council of Nice, declaring the contrary, which hereby gives occasion of idolatry to the weak. And there being no ground for them [Page 188]in the Scriptures, but rather against them, it were more safe (although to the more learned they be no occasion of offence) to abolish them, then to retain the use of them in the Church. But I doubt his Holiness will not easily be induced hereunto, in respect they are much instrumental, by Oblations made to them, to increase his book: for he, with the people of Zachan in China, feeds the Idols onely with the smoak of the Offering; himself faring deliciously by such libations. And although these golden pieces, which those wooden gods procure him, be the offerings of sins, and sacrificed to Idols; yet, by vertue of his holiness, he can easily wash that iniquity from them, and teach it for a truth, that when once they are laid up in his Ho­liness Chests, the squallid nature of their inquination is changed; and, by a wonderful metamorphosis, they be­come pure Peter-pence: and therefore he will not willingly part with such gainful and profitable instruments. They are of double use to him: for they do not onely serve for the ends of gain, but likewise to win the people to [Page 189]obedience, by the seeming-miraculous apparitions of them: and therefore by no means must the use of them be laid aside. Though of themselves they are but manimate blocks, yet, as Toys and Rattles please Babies, these delude the ignorant vulgar, striking them into ad­miration of them; which is none of the least occasions of the Papists being trained up in ignorance. And whilst his Holiness can by their means be en­riched, who can blame him for retain­ing them in the Church of Rome?

But I return to the other Point con­cerning Miracles, and will shut up this Chapter, touching both with this ad­vertisement to those that believe the Miracles of Romes Church, as done by the power of God, Not to give themselves to such delusion. The Do­ctor confesses, fol. 253. that by the power of Antichrist wonders may be done: and most of Romes Miracles are known to be Mountebank-jug­lings; and the Doctor confesses some may not be true; and yet she proclaims all for true Miracles, as proceeding from the Spirit of God. She doth not declare out of her Legends which are [Page 190]true and which are false. But her Le­gends being filled with several bundles of them, she delivers all for true mi­racles, and therefore is credit to be given to none of them, as done by the power of the Spirit of God: for did they work by that Spirit, they would not lye in any one of them.

CHAP. VIII.
That the Church of Rome is not the true Church, because of her pre­tended marks of conversion of Kingdomes and Monarchs, or because of her not having been separate from any Societies of Christians more ancient then her self.

IF the church of Rome have converted any Church since her declining the Apostles doctrine, it is no more then what the Arrians did unto the Goths, and so by the Doctors own rule, fol. 256. she hath not whereof to boast: and if other Nations have the Apostles doctrine, the pure and primitive faith, they now differing in material points [Page 191]from Rome, it serves rather to con­demn her Apostacie, then to record her charity towards them; in that if she gave them faith, it was but such an one as she her self condemnes; or if they have the pure faith, the present Church of Rome, having faln away from the the faith of those first plants, may not properly be called their mother-Church. But however, I will argue de facto that this mark is not only pro­per to Rome.

Conversion of kingdoms may as well be applyed to the Church of Eng­land, which hath planted the Gospel in several Northern parts of the late discovered world; and although not in so large a measure as the Spaniards Westward, and the Portugals East­ward, yet it manifests that other Churches have a title to that mark, and that Rome must not soley monopolize that to her self. Besides, I do not think that many of the Plantations in the West were by immediate Mission from Rome, but that the Bishops of Spaine and Portugal sent Priests thither to Preach Christ unto them; and they, and not the Bishops which his holiness sent [Page 192]to rule and govern the Churches so planted, are, to be called the converters of the Nations and People: and [...]bough the Priests so sent by the Spani­ards and Portugals, be of the same faith with the Church of Rome, yet they coming from distinct provinces and not from the peculiar See of Rome; and those Bishops having power to or­daine those Ministers, and they by the command of their Prince being re­commended to his new Plantations, I wonder why Rome should for this bragg and vainely arrogate to her self that she is the sole converter of these Nations and Monarchs.

The Spaniard and Portugal had the faith of Christ first preached to them by Saint Paul, who was himself a­monst them; and the Church of Rome claimes from Peter, who had not com­mission to carry the light to the Gen­tiles, and to Kings; For that as I said in the second Chapter, the general commission given to go and teach all Nations, Ante 13. 2 Chap. was afterwards restrained as [...]o the Gentiles, Paul being a chosen vessel thereunto ordained by God himself.

Besides, Spain, as I said before, is a distinct Province from Rome, and has held several councels without the Bishop of Rome; as the several coun­cels of Toledo. Cardubia, &c. Where­fore if his priests have planted the Gos­pel, how comes this to denote the truth of Rome? But so it is, that the Pope has got such a hank upon the Spaniards, that he as Superintendent lords it over all his provincial Sees; and whatsoever is done or acted which may bring glory or honour to the Church, or if any profit may redound from thence, his holiness is ready to patrize the action, not allowing a jot to any Spanish provincials; it not being con­sistent with his universality and head­ship, to have a partner or sharer in any his exploits But if any thing amiss or enormious arise in these planted Churches, his holiness then disclaimes to own them as his, and declares them to be members of the Spanish Sees: so that it fares with the Spanish Planta­tion, as once it did to the Temple in Rome, dedicated to Castor and Pollux, which presently after the building obtained a sole name of [Page 194] Castors Temple: whereupon Bubulus (who was fellow-Conful with C [...]sar, and did expend more in the publique Trophies of the City, and in that contributed more f [...]ely to grace the City, then Cesar during his Consul­ship did, and seeing for all that that Cesar had the name and carryed all the honor of those and other actions wherein Bubulus was equally con­cerned) merrily said, it fared with him as it did with Pollux, who had lost his name in the Temple. And thus may the Spaniard and Portugal say of their Westerne and Easterne Plantati­ons, that it is with them as with Pollux; they must not so much as be named the planters of the Cospel in those parts, but his holiness alone must be said the sole converter of those kingdoms; as if his painted Sepulcher were not suf­ficiently notorious, without the varnish of the counterfeit Plaister. And I won­der the Spaniard and Portugals should suffer themselves to be despoiled of these glorious works of their, and thus to suffer the Pope, like Venus trans­formed waiting-maid, to minks it, and pride himself in this disguise, un­less [Page 195]it be that the grave Dons have a de­signe upon the Papacy, and for some private ends forbear at present, but purpose cre long to shew a mouse be­fore the counterfeit, that he may dis­cover his false habit, and prove him­self not the only Catholique father in respect of his converting of those kingdomes, and thereby at once to manifest the depth of their policy, and the Popes foolishness and vaine glory. Rome has separated from the Churches more an­cient then her self. And as the Church of Rome cannot alone be said a true Church, in respect of her converting of Nations, so may she in no sort lay any just claime to that denomination, in respect of the other mark by which she desires to be distinguished, viz. her non-separati­on from Churches more ancient then her self.

The Doctor confesses that Jerusa­lem, Antioch, and other Churches are of more antiquity: But Rome cannot be said to have separated from them, in respect they were of Romes faith. To which I answer, it were more proper to say that Rome is of their faith, because he confesses her puisnee to them, and they to have [Page 194] [...] [Page 195] [...] [Page 196]the faith, when Rome had not; and they may lay claime to the former mark of conversion, in respect they ex­tended the faith to Rome: and if Rome have converted any, the first foundation coming from the Easterne Churches, Rome ought not to chalenge that attribute, which belongs to them in that particular. And as these Churches were more ancient, and had the true faith; it is manifest that Romes title to this mark, is as improper, as her claime to be sole owner of the other; for that she has made a separation in forsaking the Primitive faith, and publique Decrees of the ancient, holy, and Catholique Church on earth, as may appear by every particular point in question in this Troatise, and by some others; of which the Doctor not having started the question, and I not minding to make her gap of separati­on wider then the Doctor himself has done do forbear to mention them: I do keep my self only to answer those points, upon which the Doctor doth insist.

It is manifest that Rome has in fun­damental points changed her faith, [Page 197]and though as she inclined or declin­ed, she drew these parts (being too much addicted to imitate her, upon a bare score of the antiquity of Romes having the pure faith) to pin their faith upon her sleeve: yet all other parts of Apostolical Plantations did not for­sake their first faith, and turn after the Lateran weather-cock. There was a remaining part of the Greeks Church, which the black wings of Mahoma­tisme and Judaisme had not over­spread; and in Aethiopia the light of the Gospel did still continue to shine; neither were all the Indies of Portugal Plantation (and so Rome to be their founder, in that she claims to convert Portugal.) Demetrius Bishop of Alexandria, sent Pante­nus to Preach to the Indies, not long after Christ; The East Indies not totally converted by the Potugal. and when he came thi­ther, he found Saint Matthews Gospel writ in Hebrew, and left there by Saint Bartholomew, which the said P [...]nte­nus brought to Alexandria; by which it appears that some part of the Indies received the faith, not from Rome with the Westerne Churches. Fox. Mar. 48. Therefore may we not conclude Rome [Page 198]to be the true Church, or else the true Church has been utterly extinguished; nor that because it was not of late any where else, but where she planted therefore she cannot err or the like. We must not with the Doct. upon this score, argue that Rome hath not forsaken her first faith; he himself confesses, fol. Ante 192. that the faith was in Ae­thiopia by the Plantation of Philip: And by this it appears, some part of the Indies retaine the faith from the Plantation of Bartholomew; nor can the Church of Rome deny this, in re­gard that then she makes the Church universally invisible, which is absurd, and contrary to Christs promise. For in that she in many points maintaines contrary to the Apostles Doctrine, contrary to the first councels, and con­tray to her own modern constitutions as shall appear in this next Chapter; she may not properly be said the true Catholique Church, in respect of her non-separation from a society of Christians more ancient then her self.

CHAP. IX.
That any particular Church may err, that the Church of Rome is not Infallible, that she hath erred in matters of faith as well as in matters of fact.

I Know I shall incur the grand dis­pleasure of his Holiness, and his pontificial tribe, and not altogether please the Doctor, in truly laying open some errors of Rome. The one will tell me some truths are censured for trea­son against the triple crown: the other will say according to the Proverb, Sooth seems not at all times. I fear not the censure of the one, for I shall as much please him, as displease him; if I break his head, I shall make a plaister of his blood; I may dis­please him in laying open his errors, but I shall be his darling, whilst in so doing I make his Church visible. As for the Doctor, I presume, when he seriously considers how much we are concerned in this point to lay open Romes errors, he will not altogether condemne me; for should we in silence [Page 200]pass by, and tacitely consent that the church of Rome is infallible in what she maintaines, Then it follows we are Hereticks because she sayes so. I have partly cleared our selves from this as­persion already: it rests now that I prove Rome to have faln into errors; and if so (according to the Doctors rule, folio 210.) if (sayes he) she err in any one point, she can­not be prudentially sure of the least tit­tle she affirmes.

Mercurius gave the Egyptians laws, Je. chall. received (as he said) of the God Mena; Licurgus to the Lacedemo­nians, from Apollo Velphicus, and Lactantius, lib. 1. cap. 15. divinar. Institut. Minus to the Cretians, from Jupiter; the Lady Pallas di­rected the Tro [...]ans, Caberius the Macedonians, Ʋrania the Carthagi­nians, Phaunus the Latines Juno the Samnites, Venus the Paphites; and all (as they would make us be­lieve) proceed from some god or god­dess. The Turk affirms his Alcaron to have been received from heaven and the Ephesians de Diana sua cogita­tarunt eam à Jove delapsam fore. [Page 201]Even so doth Rome at this present, boast of an infallible Church, which to prove, she must go to some Heathen Deity or other; for as she is a Church militant here upon earth, governed by humane flesh and blood, and but a particular society or Church (and so a member of the Catholique Church comprehensive of all the Elect and Saints of God, which have been, are, or shall be, and whereof Christ Jesus is the mystical head) she is subject to fall into errors; and though she were the See of Peter, and that power which Peter received from Christ, to be re­maining with her (which she would faine perswade the world to believe) yet notwithstanding she may err: For still she is but a particular Church, and may err, though the universal Church cannot err, in respect of Christs Spirit given to her, and his promise that she shall continue in her foundati­on till the end of the world.

Saint Peter did err after he had re­ceived the Holy Ghost, Act. 10.34. Saint Pe­ter did err. he was of opinion that the Gospel per­tained not at all unto the Gentiles, un­till he was informed by a vision, that [Page 202]he should goe to Cornelius; for, saith he, I perceive of a truth that God is no respecter of persons, but in e­very Nation he that feares him, whether Jew or Gentile, and work­eth righteousness, is accepted with him; so that there was a time whilst Peter was in error; and Gal. 2.14. he walked not with a right foot accor­ding to the light of the Gospel; Paul withstood him to his face, and this was not for any smal fault, or error of con­versation, as the Doct. would perswade us, for Saint Austin against Saint Jerom, doth Justifie the reprehension. Besides, to say it was an error of fact, and not of faith, were to charge Saint Peter with dissimulation either against his conscience or with it: sure he did it not for any worldly respects against his conscience; and if he did it be­cause he thought it was his duty in so doing, to bear with the weakness of the Jews, and to think that a man may dissemble in such a case, then it was matter of faith, whether a man may in eo casu dissimulare, or no; therefore his error was a matter of faith, not of fact only.

I need no other Argument to clear this, then what the Doctor has him­self framed against our proposed diffe­rence between fundamentals and not fundamentals in point of error: for saith he, fol. 88. There is no distincti­on of points of faith, in regard of the object or motive for which we believe; namely the truth of God revealed by his Church, we being equally bound to believe all that is by her proposed to us, whether the matter be great or small.

Upon this the Doctors argument I infer, That the Church having pro­posed before, That the Jews should not eat with the Gentiles, Peter did offend against this injunction which he ought to have believed, as the truth of God; and therefore it was in him an error of faith. Before the vision in the 10. of the Acts, Peter was not to preach to the Gen­tiles. he was not to com­municate to the Gentiles, and would not go to Cornelius before that; and therefore in the 2 of the Acts, when there were men of all Nations, and strangers from Rome, at Jerusa­lem, and when they every one heard their own language, and therefore [Page 204]mocked the Apostles, saying, They were full of new wine; Peter lift­ed up his voice and corrected the men of Judea, that was, only them of the circumcision, and did not intermeddle with the Gentiles, they not belonging to his charge; and therefore did Paul reprove him for eating with them.

Dissoluteness in manners, argues unsoundness in opinion, though it be in things wherein the Church has not interposed her decree: But if she have injoyned a thing to be done, or not done, though it were indifferent in it self; yet her command takes away the indifferency, upon the Doctors own rule; and therefore Peters offence a­gainst the Churches rule, was error of faith.

Shall Peter the blessed Apostle of Jesus Christ, be taxed of errors, he being here by Saint Paul, and in se­veral other places of Scripture repre­hended by our Saviour for his failings before he received the Holy Ghost, shewing hereby he was a man; and after he had received the Holy Ghost, doubting to whom the Gospel was to be preached, and offending against the [Page 205]injunctions of the Church, shewing hereby he was no God? and shall the wicked Popes of Rome think much to be taxed of their errors, and daily failings? I might easily be reprehen­ded for injustice, should I bury their errors in silence, and publish to the world Saint Peters failings; where­fore I must lay open their aberrations to the publique view. In prosecution whereof. I will not as a private man chalenge them of error, but only put them in minde what councels, the an­cient fathers of the Church, and their own latter writers, have given them to understand.

What is the Pope? The Pope may err. he is no Samuel under the Ephod, no Moses on the Mount, no Aaron with Urim and Thummim, he is no Ark with the Tables of God, the Rod of Aaron, or the golden pot of Manna, that the Papists should put such confidence in him; take a view of him as he is de­cyphered to us by their own writers: Peter de Alliaco, a Cardinal, in lib­de reform. Eccl. grants that there were many things amiss in the Romane Church, which had need of reforma­tion [Page 206]both in faith and manners: and Adrian the sixth confesseth, that all the mischiefs in the Church proceeded from the Popes, and promised refor­mation to the Germanes by his Legate Cheregalus. Saint Bernard, in ser­mone primo in conversione St. Pauli, long since complained of the iniquity of Popes, and of the dissoluteness of Priests and people. The Bishop of Bitonto, preaching in the first session of the councel of Trent, acknowledg­eth the Apostacy of the Church of Rome, in the chief heads, both of doctrine and of life. Chrysostome 30. Hom. in 12 Mat. calls them dry men, which have not the dew of Gods Word in their breasts; which he plainly expresses of the Bishops of Rome.

Nicolas Lyra, who writ three hun­dred yeers since, says, Ab Ecclesia Romana jam diu est quod recessit gratia; and Johannes Episcopus Che­mensis, one of Romes Religion, con­fesses in his book intituled Onus Ec­clesiae, chap. 9. Ecce, Roma nunc est vorago & mammon inferni, ubi diabolus totius avaritiae Capitaneus Je. ch. 12. [Page 207] residet. Gerson, a man of great esteem amongst the fathers of the councel of Constance, and Chanceler of Paris, in prima parte exam. doctr. consid. 2. saith, that the resolution of the Pope alone in things pertaining to faith, doth not tye a man to believe it; and infinite of other presidents of this nature might be produced, all concur­ring to this point, that the Church of Rome hath and may err. For is this any more but what other Churches have done? as for example, Particular Churches have and may err. the Church of Galatia is said to have erred, not as the Church of Corinth, which erred but in part, some of her Church deny­ing the resurrection, 1 Cor. 15.12. but totally about the matters of justi­fication, Gal. 3.1. O foolish Gala­tians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth? and the Churches of Ephesus, Pergamus, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea, are blamed by Saint John in his Revela­tion, for their erring from the truth: and this is a truth so manifest, that the Papists themselves cannot deny, onely they would excuse the Church of Rome by the subtle sophistry of hu­mane [Page 208]invention, and salve the errors of Romes Church with distinction; they confess (to their own shame) that Bishops per se may err, which Bellar­mine in his book de conc. cap. 2. in fine, Sine dubio singuli Episcopi errare possint, & aliquando errant, & inter se quandoque dissentiunt; so that we may not know which of them to follow: How the Pope may crr. and if this be so, I wonder he should elswhere contradict himself maintaining the Pope alone infallible: of which contradiction he having been formerly taxed, he was put to his trumps, and plaid another distinction, that he might err in mat­ter of fact, not of faith: in matter of fact as concerning the condemnation of this or that Bishop, &c. but in matters of faith he cannot judicially err; and thus the learned Cardinal being too busie in this point, Meanders himself into contradictions, without satisfactory conclusions to the principal point, according to that saying of So­lomon, Eccl. 12.12. There is no end of making many books.

The stout maintainers of his Holi­ness infallibily being thus tript in their [Page 209]own devices, and forced to wave the quarrel, being overcome with the strength of Reason, drawn from divine examples, and the testimony of many learned Authors; and being thorow­ly convinced, yet notwithstanding, out of a self-love, and pertainacy to main­taine their pontificial patron, having drawn from their education blind prin­ciples of his justification, will not quite desist, but scrue their wits to new in­ventions, to deceive the world; per­swading the world, that they are not overcome with dispute, nor his Holiness right to infallibily (though shaken) quite blown up by the root; and therefore they publish to the world, that notwithstanding all gaine­saying, the Church of Rome is infal­lible; with this distinction, that her Bishop per se may err, but not when the Bishops are met together; then they cannot err. To which I answer, If the Bishop of Rome may err per se, then the late councels of Laterane and Trent, which have declared him above councels, have thereby consented that the Church of Rome may err; or else if it be to be understood that the Pope [Page 210]of Rome, with his other Bishops of Rome, cannot err, they do hereby make the private Councel of Rome above the general Councel; which is ab­surd, and utterly against all principles of reason and divinity; I will there­fore proceed to shew that Councels have erred, and therefore, in no re­spect whatsoever, is the Church of Rome infallible.

The Pope is declared above Coun­cels, General Councels have erred in matter of faith. and yet he is confessed to be falli­ble per se. And whereas he would force a distinction upon the world, that he may err as a man, not as a Pope judicially; Ante, ch. 6. I have elswhere an­swered to that point; it now remaines to look upon him in his chaire, Infra. with his Court of Cardinals about him, to examine his judical proceedings, and try if they be infallible.

I would fain know in what capacity the Pope claims this infallibility: by the power of succession from Peter, I have proved he cannot claime it; and if he claime it as from the consent of the late councels, then is this his politick capacity dirivative from thence, and must not exalt it self above the Primi­tive; [Page 211]or admit that those councels de­clared the then present Popes infallible, for such certain notes of sanctity as was to them discovered, it doth not follow that their successors should be so. But that I may put all scruples out of mens hearts concerning this point, I will prove that those Councels in themselves were not infallible, and much less any substituted power of judicature which must have its rise from them.

The councel of Carthage decreed rebaptisation of those that were Bap­tised by Hereticks: Councils erred in matter of faith. this Saint Austine after opposed, and the Councel of Trent, Sess. 7. can. 4. repealed this, and allowed of such baptisme to be sufficient, if done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

The second councel of Nice was diametrically against the councel of Constantinople in matters of Images; the one approving, the other condem­ning the use of them in the Church.

The councels of Constantinople, and Basil, decreed the councels to be above the Pope; and the councels of Laterane and Trent, decreed the Pope above councels. Fox. 132. Pope John the tenth [Page 210] [...] [Page 211] [...] [Page 212]called a Council at Ravenna, and sentenced the Acts of Pope Steph. which were in a Synod by him de­creed, to be burned.

The Council of Constantinople took away the cup, which another Coun­cil restored; and which decree of the Council of Constantinople, and the now present practice of Rom's Church, in that point, is utterly against the doctrine of Christ, and the practice of the Apostles, and the Primitive Church, as I shall shew in the sixteenth Chap. The Council of Nice declared Angels to be circumscriptible; and the souls of men, and that they have bodies, and are visible, and circumscriptible; which is against the rules of our faith; for we believe that God is the Crea­tor of all things, visible and invisible; and if Angels and Spirits be visible, then are there no invisible things (as one argues upon this point.) But I do not much urge this, in regard some hold that spirits may assume visible shapes; nor doth my argument much rely upon this mistake in that Council. I need not rifle much into Councels, to pick out contradictory Canons, sith [Page 213]the Councils themselves declare they are not infallible; insomuch that the whole Council prayeth, at the end of every Council, in a set form of prayer, that God would pardon their igno­rance, and errors; & quia conscien­tia remordente, fabescimus, &c. and because our own conscience accusing us we do faint, lest either ignorance hath drawn us into error, and hasty will driven us to decline from thy will and pleasure of heavenly Father, &c. In which it appears, that they confess the frailty of that Assembly, that it may not onely err in matter of fact through ignorance, but in faith also, by de­clining from justice.

Lame and frivolous therefore are those distinctions, Alledged that the contrary decrees of later, are but the ex­plications of former Councils. by which the Papists would deceive the world, that Coun­cils do but declare and explain the meaning of former Councils, but do never gainesay any by a contrary de­cree: for the contrary is absolutely proved to you already, in that they are diametrically opposite one to ano­ther: and besides, the four first Councils were reputed and taken to be so holy, that Gregor, the Gr. in regist. primo, [Page 214]libr. 24. and Masilius def. pac. dict. 2. fol. 229. affirm they are to be believed sacred tanquam quatuor Evangelia; and if a later council shall decree any thing contrary to them, it shall not be received into the Church. How then can the Church of Rome for shame claim universality to her self, and supream jurisdiction? the Church of Rome being but equal with Alexandria, and declared to those Councils, sicut Alexandria, as I have proved in the second chapter. But the Church of Rome, by vertue of her new-acquired attributes of universality, infallibility, and supremacy, may declare as she please, and none to question her for it; and she has her champions with So­phistry to make good whatsoever she proposes; and therefore, whereas those first councils were accounted sacred by the ancient Fathers, even as the four E­vangelists, and therefore none might add to or diminish from them, not­withstanding Rome may, by her new prerogatives, being declared above Councils, do what she please; and so, upon the matter, all Religion is by her made arbitrary, we having neither [Page 215]Scripture, Fathers, nor Councels, but must be interpreted by her, after her own fancy; and no other sence to be received of any thing, though never so plaine, but what she gives; and what­soever interpretation she makes, through never so repugnant to the plaine text, words, and sense of Scrip­ture, Councils, and Fathers, must not be denyed, but understood to be grow­ings, and explanations of the first faith, spun out of the stock or depositum Ecclesiae; with which delusive pre­tences of her strange contexture, drawn from her own Spiders womb, she en­tangles the lesser and small flies; but the more sollid break the net of her ar­tificial cunning, and leave her in the snare she prepares for others; and hereupon she has in the Council of Milan added a new Symbole of faith to the Nicene Creed, which she cals new rules of faith; which indeed, are new articles of faith, Explana­tions of Councils. as common un­der one kind; worshiping images, su­premacy, &c. which cannot be as they would have them, understood explana­tions: for explanations are declara­tive illustrations of a truth involved in [Page 216]some former article, and not additi­ons of a doctrine newly conceived for truth.

I allow that out of the depositum Ecclesiae, Depositum Ecclesiae. as the Doctor says, fol. 123. there may be growings in faith and knowledge, and new articles imposed upon the people by representatives in collective or Provincial Councels, which upon new questions and disputes may resolve (being the proper inter­preter and reconciler of differences) and by the authority of Scriptures frame new articles, which before were not thought of, as occasion to that purpose may be administred; and ha­ving framed such articles by authority of the Church, may deliver them to be received as matters of faith; by which the people by the approbation of the civil magistrate of the respective juris­dictions are bound. But if those be contrary to what former Councils have resolved, it proves their decrees peccant, as Romes supremacy by the Laterne and Trent Councils, as against the first Councils of Nice and Con­stontinople: or, if those new rules, or articles of faith, be not warranted [Page 217]by Scripture, they are not binding to absent provincials: as I shall shew in the twelfth Chapter, for it is cleer and evident, that the Scripture is above the authority of any Council that ever was since the Apostles Council at Jerusalem; and it self doth, in matters of points necessary, judge it self, Infra. 102.112. as is in that Chapter plainly proved, though all those points were not at first digested into a Symbole of faith. Scriptures above Councils. For if by authority of explanation, the Church represented in ordinary councils shall not be bound by Scripture, so that she shall not frame new rules contrary to the plaine letter, of those points of our salvation the Holy Ghost has set down in the Scriptures; we do then submit the whole matter of our salva­tion unto the power of humane judge­ments, and so make void the dictates of the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures, at the wils and discretions of mortal men; which though they were Angels sent from heaven, in that case are not to be believed, shall they teach con­trary to that the Apostles here de­livered: therefore, I say, because all points of salvation may not be me­thodized [Page 218]into a certaine Symbole and rule of faith, the Church as occasion may require, may, out of the treasure of the Scriptures, take new rules; but those rules must not impugne the plain letter of Scripture, which, because such a Council is fallible, must be made the square and rule to judge that Council by. Now because God has promised his Spirit to his Church, and Councils are the representation of Churches; and for that it is more probable, that they shall decree according to the rule of Scripture, which every private man in charity ought to think, and there­fore to incline himself to follow the rules she shall prepose, I will shew how far a Council is Binding.

It doth not destroy the Church of Christ universally, to say that a General Council may err; For concerning the true faith of Christ, it is already made known by the preaching of the Apo­stles to most parts of the known world: which faith God will have in some part of the world, till the disso­lution thereof; for, as I have already said, at one instant of time Christs Church shall not be universally in­visible. [Page 219]The Councils of Laterane, By the er­ring of the General Councils, the uni­versal Church doth not err. Trent, Milan, and Nice, may err from the faith they had formerly recei­ved: But this doth not prove a univer­sal falling away; and any other Coun­cel that of latter times hath been, can­not assure it self upon the promise of Christ's Spirit, that it is infallible, be­cause not collective of all parts where the faith of Christ is preached; which if it were so collective, it argued infi­delity of any private Church to di­strust their rules. For in such a condi­on as they are representive of the uni­versal Church, they have the same Spi­rit with them the Apostles had; and though but men, yet by vertue of that Spirit became infallible in their judicial decrees of Articles and Rules of faith. But such a Council was never gathered since the Council of Jerusa­lem; therefore the later Councils be­ing but representive of particular Churches, as those particular Churches may err, so these Councils may err.

For as much as since the Apostles Councils, Who shall tax the Councils of errors. there was never any Coun­cil which was collective of the univer­sal [Page 220]Church, and so had the assurance of Christs Spirit; It is requisite that every provincial, who by suffragan vote is not represented there, shall examine within his own jurisdiction, how the rules of such Council agree to the Scrip­tures, which he is already assured are of the Holy Ghost, and in themselves prime verities, and to walk according as Gods Spirit shal give him to under­stand those Scriptures, he being within his own charge and territory, made a dispensor of those sacred oracles: and as for any private man, he is to be guid­ed by the rules of the particular Church of which he is a member, without o­penly taxing his mother-Church of error.

I do not infer hereby, that because there has not lately been, How pro­vincials are bound by a col­lective Councel. or because that it is very difficult (if not impossi­ble) to have a general Council col­lective of all Christian Churches, that therefore every provincial Coun­cil has the same efficacy of decreeing, that a General Council, collective of many provinces, hath. For according to the Council of Antioch, 14. Can. and Carthage, 19. Can. I approve of [Page 221]provincials appealing one to another, to decide controversies, and to bring the the neighbor provinces into unity of faith, that they may support one ano­ther, by keeping the unity of the Spirit, in the Bond of peace, Ephes. 4. and that it is convenient that such provinci­cals as are represented in such a Coun­cil, should acquiesce in the result of that council so convened; but not to con­clude that such councils are infallible for that because they proceed upon humane judgements, not being assured of the Holy Ghost by Christs promise to his Church, in respect they are not a perfect representation of that Catho­lique Church: and as the Scripture is to be the guide to any Council, so more especially shall it be a rule to others, by which the absent provincials are to examine the rules of that Council. As for the several provincials and Sees then by suffragan vote represented, I hold it fit for them to acquiesce in the result of such a collective Council; wherefore, for the further illustration of this point, I hold it necessary to add a Chapter of the constitutions of Councils, thereby the better to lay open this point of [Page 222] Romes errors in her ascribing to her See infallibility.

CHAP. X.
Wherefore general Councils are called: of their power, that they are above the Pope; and how they are of later times, by the abuses of the Pope, made of none effect.

I Look upon a general Council with that respect and reverence, The con­veniency of Ceneral Councils. that I account her the Bulwark of Christian Churches, the Tower of defence a­gainst the enemies thereof, the hill whereon Christs City is built, in whose heavenly top ariseth a fountain of uni­ty, which sends forth such irresistible streams, that, with the advantage of that Rise from whence they descend, they beat back any muddy inundati­ons of error which Satan the prince of the aire sends down to trouble her channels; and, notwithstanding any rubbish which by his industry shall be cast in their ways to dam and straiten their course, they, (with the supplies they receive from this inexhaustible [Page 223]source) beat down those malicious ob­structions; and, in spight of all opposi­tion of evil angels, smoothly glide away unto the pacifick sea.

I look upon her as a bundle of ar­rows, not easily broke; from whose qui­ver the particular Churches are com­pleatly armed, to resist the fiery darts of Satan. In brief, I honor, respect, love, and in all humility reverence her: and when I consider her in her right constitution, I hold my self ob­liged in a tye of indispensible obedience to conform and submit to whatsoever rules of faith she shall constitute and appoint: I account her the mother of the particular Churches there represented, betwixt whom there is an harmonious intercourse of reciprocal love and duty; she to acquit her obligations, provides for her daughters their portions, food & raiment, Heavenly Manna, & Christ's seamless coate; and her daughters, to discharge their duty, return her a tribute of honor and obedience. Thus, and no otherwise, do I look upon her.

These are her just and proper attri­butes: and who, without regret, can consider that this beauteous Lady, the [Page 224]mistris and mother of us all, should, through adulteries, and her late Apo­stacies, have dethroned her self from this her so glorious and Celestial estate! she to forsake her husband Christ, and to go a whoring after her own inven­tions; by which she has contracted such black spots of lepresie upon her ruddy cheeks, that she is no more white and ruddy, the fairest of ten thou­sand; she is no more the beloved of Christ, and the fairest amongst women: she with the Jews has chosen Barab­bas, and cast off her husband Christ; her inner roomes are the chambers of death, into which Solomon enters, and commits fornication with her. She has taken the divels counsel, and thrown her self from off the Pinacles of the Temple; and, forsaking the house of the Lord, she has erected a house which is the way unto the Grave; her house tendeth to death, and her paths unto the dead; and for this cause many of her former daughter-Churches are be­come strangers to their mothers womb, and have withdrawn that tribute of honor and reverence which they for­merly ascribed to her, and give it to [Page 225]that Nurse and foster-mother, who, with indulgent care, lets her suck from her brests, the sincere milke of the word, humbly complaining un­to the General Council, Sal. Song. 5.17. Oh thou fair­est among women, whither is thy well-beloved gone? whither is thy well-beloved turned aside, that we may seek him with thee? Return, re­turn, O Shulamite return, that we may behold thee, Solomons Song. 6.12.

The unkindness of this our natural mother, By whom Councels are to be called. charmed my senses into stupe­faction, and made me dwell too long upon her, admiring her unnaturalness, of which I could wish I had no ground or proof. But lest my bold assertions against this reverend Lady, might with some finde no credit, and with others be accounted the evapora­tions of a revengeful spirit, I will lay open her digression, and acquit my self from all aspersions of slander.

The stile of a General Council runs thus: Jussu Imperatoris, fraterni­tatis nostrae coetus est adventus, as may appear by several records of anci­ent Councils, and by what follows.

The Emperor in General Councils of the West, and every prince respective­ly within his province and dominions, is supream head of Ecclesiastical af­faires, as I have already proved in the fourth Chapter; and has right to col­late to Bishops to call Councils, and to reform the Church, &c. I do not mean hereby, that he should determine judi­cio definitivo to resolve what is sound divinity, & so to impose that upon men for faith which he defines to be so; But the Civil Magistrate may, Infra 142.14. chap. judicio ex­equutivo, or by right of jurisdiction; and ought to command the profession of faith determined and decreed by the Church: he is supream, and has the sword, that he should not bear it in vaine; and as the head in the body is reliquorum membrorum impera­tor, so he is the guide and director of other members, to enjoyn Church-of­ficers and others the discharge of their several duties, and to punish their neg­ligence and contempt: and to deny this to him, is to make him no longer a nursing father, but pinching suppres­sor, at least a cold-hearted favorer, of the Church. As then the Civil Ma­gistrate [Page 227]is supreme head and governor, Infra 14. chap. 149. & 10. chap 76. (of which more at large in the 14 Chapter) to him of right it belongs, to call a Council, for the correcting of sin and schisme; otherwise to what purpose should there be any Council at all, sith that nothing there decreed can be put into practice, without the approbation and allowance of the Ci­vil Magistrate, who onely has the corrective power, to enjoyn obedience to what shall be there decreed? Saint Austin sayes, that it is the duty of Kings to command, not only in mat­ters pertaining the state of men, but the Religion of God also: and Saint Ambrose, though he was against the Emperor, to allow him power as Judge of Doctrine, by determining points of faith, yet he did not intrench upon his other Civil power, he being to have obedience performed him, as well of the Temporal as Ecclesiastical persons, and to punish the negligence of the Clergy, if they shall make rules of faith, and not themselves observe them; the King or Civil Magistrate being hereunto ordained, to punish the of­fences and miscarriages of his people, [Page 228]and is therefore said supreme: omnis sub ipso ipse sub [...]nullo nisi tantū sub Deo; nor is he bound to give an account for his so doing, saving to God alone; by whom he decrees justice; and this Saint Ambrose allowes, in his Com­ment upon the 50 Psalme: Against the O Lord onely have I offended. said David. Blind Homer in his Iliads could say, [...] and will not the holy father of Rome, being full of visibility, vouchsafe to reflect thus much upon Kings and Princes? if he will not, it behooves the Tem­poral powers which have the sword, to look to their charge, and by the ex­amples of David, Hezekiah, and Josi­ah, to punish wicked Priests, and to let them know, that their power is from God: and let them withall take this caution to themselves, as they have that power from God, God will re­quire an account from them, how they use that power, either through negli­gence, or wilfully turning the power of justice into unequal tyranny. But this by the way: I return to the subject point in hand.

That the General Councils of the Western Empire were of Right to be called by the Emperor, The Em­peror or Civil Ma­gistrate may of right sum­mon a Councel. Infra. 10 chap. fol. 76. ante 36.4. chap. it doth plainly appear by these ensuing presidents. The first Council of Nice was called by the Emperor Constantine, as Marsilius, dict. 2. cap. 21. and Theodosius the Elder, called the first Council of Con­stantinople. The Ephesine Council was called by Theodosius the yonger, at the earnest request of Celestine Bishop of Rome, and Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria: and the Council of Chalcedon, ex decreto piissimorum imperatorum Valentiniain & Mar­ciani congregatus, as the preface to that Council plainly witnesses; and Marsilius in his 2. dict. 20. cap. who wrote above 320 yeers since, sayes, that though the Popes then did call some General Councils, it was not of right, that the Pope with his Car­dinals should do so. It is true, that for order sake, and for honor to the City of Rome, her Bishop is president in the Council, he being by the Council of Constantinople made prime Bishop, in honor to the City of Rome, and in af­ter times by Phocas was made univer­sall; [Page 230]yet for all that, he never challen­ged any supremacy of power, as to this point of calling Councils, till long after; onely hereby enjoyed a prima­cy of order, which would it satisfie him, I believe few would gainsay it. But for the power and priviledge of summoning a General Council, it still notwithstanding this, remained unque­stioned in the Civil Magistrate. And whereas it is alleadged by a president of Saint Ambrose, that the Bishop had power to convene a Council, and not the Prince; I shall cleer that ob­jection, and plainly prove that it makes nothing for the Bishops of Romes pur­pose.

Saint Ambrose denyed to dispute with Auxentius the Arrian before Valentinian in the Consistory, Saint Am­brose de­nial to dis­pute be­fore Va­lentinian, proves not the power to call Councels to be in [...]he Pope. and shews his reasons for it: he doth not positively deny, but layes down his reasons why he cannot, venissem im­perator, &c. Epist. lib. 5. he had come but for these reasons.

1. Because the Emperor was a young man, not then in the faith of the Trinity, being brought up an Arrian, and having made a law for the Arrian [Page 231]doctrine: Tolle legem, si vis esse cer­tamen, saith Saint Ambrose.

2. The conference was to be in a publike theatre, amongst a company of Jews and Hereticks, where he could expect no other issue, but what the Apostles found when they spake with divers tongues, to wit, mocks, and scoffs; and there are some places not fit either for actions or arguments: our Saviour could do no miracles in his own Country.

3. Because there was none there to be judge, but the young Emperor, and other Arrian Hereticks; which in mat­ters of faith is not allowed, and there­fore Saint Ambrose might not come: for the spirit of the Prophets must be subject to the Prophets, by the Apostles rule, 1 Cor. 14.32.

Saint Ambrose denyed likewise to tolerate a Church for the Arrians in Millaine, Saint Am­brose a­against resistance. that being to set up the king­dom of Antichrist; yet in his oration against the said Auxentius, Epist. 5. he declares against resistance of the Prince; and though not to be obeyed actively in unjust commands, yet not to be resisted in any case; wherefore if [Page 232]the Emperor resolved to have a Church in Millaine, he would not resist; For as he could not consent, so he would not resist: for, saith he, preces & la­crymae sunt armae Ecclesiae. Inf [...]a 147.14. chap. Now what may be gathered from hence, to prove that the Emperor his appointing the publike dispute was unlawful, and in that that the Emperor had not right to call a Council? Saint Ambrose layes down his reasons wherefore he could not come, and in that desires ex­cuse: he is not peremptory to deny: for if the law made against Christians might be abrogated, he would have come: wherefore this is a poor shift to prove that the Emperor has no power to call a Council; and indeed, it is an absolute abuse to that deceased holy Father Saint Ambrose, who never meant any [...]uch thing; he plainly teaching the con­trary, as may appear by his own writ­ing. For when the Synod of Aqni­leia (convened by the Emperors com­mand) broke up, he wrote with the rest of his fellow-brethren (there assem­bled) to the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian, Humbly desiring them to make good what they had in that [Page 233]assembly concluded, Ne obtemporan­tes vestrae tranquillitatis statutes frustra convenisse videamus &c. lest that this meeting, made in obedience to their clemencies command, should be frustrate and to no purpose. So that it is plaine he was not against the Emper­or his calling of a Council, onely could not approve of the manner of the pub­like assembly appointed for dispute a­gainst Auxentius: wherefore, for shame, let none urge that, to the injury of that holy father, and to the per­verting of truth, whilst they strive to prove thereby, that the right of con­vening Councils belonged not to Civil Magistrates: for it was practised by the first Councils a hundred yeers be­fore Saint Ambrose time, and by Saint Ambrose professed, and till of late maintained, as may appear by latter writers, as Gerson, in sermone coram Concil. Constant. prim. part. A General Council may be called, saith he, with­out express mandate of the Popes.

The first Council, the Council of Jerusalem, was not called by Saint Peter, or any one of the Apostles; but the text saith, that the Apostles and El­ders [Page 234]came together, after Paul and Barnabas had warned them of the dis­sention, Act. 15. and when Judas and Silas were from thence sent to Antioch, and letters writ by them, those letters were not directed from Peter, But thus: The Apostles and Elders, unto the brethren which are at Antioch, send greeting.

So that the Pope cannot claime this prerogative jure Apostolico, as de­riving it from Peter: and if he have it by the gracious grant of the Emperor, or any humane law, I for my part do not grudge it; nor doth it much matter who be the summoner of it; I shal allow to the Bishop of Rome, sith he is primus inter Episcopos, to have his priviledge, if the Emperor have given it to him: for as he was made primus inter Episcopos in ho­nor of the City of Rome; so let those Bishops appear at his summons, to convene about matters of the Church, which I should think to be fit and con­venient so to do, might the Council be free. Covenient the Pope call a Councel.

Not that [...] are thereunto bound, in relation [...] charge or duty lies [Page 235]upon them (for the Pope claiming this priviledge from the Emperor, it cannot positively oblige provincials not within his jurisdiction) but for order sake, and for that some one must call it, and the Bishop of Rome may as well be the trumpeter to summon them, as no. Therefore I should think it convenient for them to appear there, might it be free: and for that by order of Coun­cil, primacy of order is given to the Bishop of Rome, I hold it fit that he should be president of such a Council. But by no means may it be allowed, that by reason of this prerogative gran­ted by the Emperor, other Princes not subject to him, shall not have privi­ledge to summon a provincial Council: within their respective provinces and jurisdictious: and that notwithstanding the Pope may for order sake summon them to a general meeting, yet if he be negligent, and will not call a Council, the several provincials may agree to convene without him: for that is gran­ted to them by ancient Councils; and what they shall so decree, may by the consent of the several Princes (under whom they are) be imposed as rules [Page 236]of faith upon the people, to which their obedience shall positively be required: for it is not much material by whom a collective Council be summoned. I will admit it lawfully assembled, and now proceed to examine its power.

Gerson, a famous Papist, and Chancellor of the University of Paris, in sermone pro viagio-regis Ro­manorum direct. 1. prim. parte. A General Council representing the Church, is a rule directed by the Holy Ghost, and given of Christ, that every one of what estate soever, even Papal, must hear and obey the same, or else he must be reputed and taken as an E­thnick or publican. And againe in another place, prim. part. de exami­nat. doctr. consid. 2. the Pope doubt­less is subject to Councils, and a Coun­cil hath power to depose him, as was done upon John the 12. & Joh. the 23. And the same Author in another place affirmeth, in prim. part. pro viagio regis Romanorum, consider. 2. A Ge­neral Council may not only induct one to be Pope, but may compell any Pope to depart from the Popedome by way of authority. And though [Page 237]this may seem but one Doctors opini­on, yet it has formerly been the ge­neral doctrine of the Church, as may appear by the ancient Councels, espe­cially that of Constant. which expresly in that point declared the General Councel above the Pope; and should it be otherwise, the General Councel is useless and vaine, if the Pope with his Cardinals should be esteemed and judged above them: I will therefore examine this point.

As the Pope is not universal Bishop (which title the Doctor disclaims) nor the Church of Rome universal, Councels above the Pope. as I already proved: so neither may he be said to be above Councels, which though not representive of the universal Church upon earth, for that all parti­cular Churches and provinces may not be there by suffragans represented; yet for all that, it is a collective Coun­cel of distinct provincials; which pro­vincials are not subordinate nor subju­gate to the See of Rome. The Pope with his Cardinals (the representative church of that particular society) may not properly or of right be said above that Councel, which is there for order sake [Page 238]and unity convened, that those several provinces, of which she is collective, may concur in unity of Doctrine, and conformity of Rules of Faith there decreed; which decrees and Rules, should by the approbation of the Civil Magistrate be put into execution, within those respective provinces, and distinct jurisdictions, without any further al­lowance or approbation, or control­ment of the Pope of Rome, who is thereunto equally obliged with any o­ther provincial; and to assert the con­trary, is novelty, and the unjust usur­pations of the proud pontifical prelates of Rome, and those cursed Lordly parasites about him, that thus have flattered the chair into this deceivable mischief, and erroneous novelty; which according to Tertullian's Rule, ad­versus prax. in princip. Id esse ve­rum quod primum esse, adulte­rum quod posterius semper adjudi­candum est. Wherefore this new doctrine of the Popes supremacy above Councels representive of many pro­vinces, must not be received as true and justifiable doctrine; for that it is cleer­ly opposite to the ancient faith of [Page 239] Rome; insomuch that the former Popes of Rome did as Popes did at an Altar, promise to hold the faith taught by the traditions of the first Councels of Nice and Constantinople, &c. Infra 84. which made Romes Bishop but equal with other Patriarks: but now contra­ry to that sacred vow, his holiness will be above Councels, and utterly de­stroyes the constitutions of those Coun­cels.

The Councel of Nice hemmed in the See of Rome into certaine limits, The Pope inferior to Councels. wherein being included, she should not break forth: yet such is the restless motions of her troublesome head, the Pope, that he has made corruptions be­yond his bound, and like as a violent Tide that has lately overwhelmed some parcel of ground not before made a prey to Neptunes wide swallowing jawes, doth for joy of its new mastery, tumble it self upon its new-acquired Lordship, making new beds of ease, whereon it intends the next high-springing flood shall lay his foamy head: so doth his holiness, having broke down this pale of the Church, which kept her within a known and certaine [Page 240]Rule of Faith & maners, insult over the poor captive Lady; & having thus trod her down, which formerly was a ram­pire to circumscribe his power and jurisdiction, he recommends his law­less president to his successors imitati­on, and proclaimes the See of Rome boundless, save only as her will shall please to prescribe unto her self a limit­ed confine.

And having, Samson-like, thus tore the Lions whelp of the tribe of Judah, he expects to finde a nest of honey in her dead carcase; and from his Papal chair puts forth such riddles that none that plows not with his Heifer can declare: which riddles and Ro­mane mysteries, shall any interpret, or put a sense upon them contrary to his will, or displease him in abating any jot of his new-acquired Soveraignty, he sends his Foxes with fire-brands to de­stroy the corn of the field, and to spoil the vineyard which Christ with his own right hand hath planted.

Is this Pastor-like? is this to follow Pauls rule to the Rom. chap. 11.8. Boast not thy self against the bran­ches: for if thou boast thy self, thou [Page 241]bearest not the Root, but the Root thee? Surely no, This is rather to pull up the tree of life by the roots, because her branches wither; and if other branches sprung of the same stock de­cay, it may serve to put Rome in mind, that the sap she has robbed from others will not long maintain life in her arms, in respect she has thus lopped her self from the bulk of the Church.

She may for a time flourish like a green Palme-tree; but if she do not play the good husband, and inoculate her self againe into the old stock, it is more then probable she will shortly become a dotard; wherefore I hear­tily pray she would no longer exalt her self against that that gave her what she has, I mean a Councel that made her equal with the chief Patriarks, and the Princes that gave her honour, lifting her head above her fellows: Let her no longer triumph above measure, knowing this, that whilst she rejoyces in her boasting, all such rejoycing is evil.

Now lest any may censure me for slan­dering the Church of Rome herein, I will shew how she has changed by de­grees from her primitive faith in point of [Page 242]her honor and confidence in a General Councel, and at length quite destroy it, by claiming to her self to be above it.

First, Boniface by the edict of Pho­cas (as you have heard) claimed to be above a Bishop; then in process of time Greg. 7. claimed a power above kings, as shal appear in Chap. 14. after which the wings of the succeeding Popes being chipt by four Councels, Worms, Papia, Brixis and Mentz, grew again in his successors, that at last they flew above Councils, till the 3 General Councils of Pise, Constance & Basil did not onely displace Popes out of the Popedom, but decreed that Councils were above the Pope. Popes dis­placed by Councils. The Pisen Councels did out two, Greg. 12. & Benedict. and placed Alexander 5. and the Council of Con­stant. deposed John 23. & placed Mar­tin 5 in his stead, and decreed that the Pope himself for ever should be subject to their decrees. The Councel of Basil deposed Eugen. 4. & placed Nicholas 5. and declared the Councel of Con­stant. in this point of the Councels su­premacy, to be a matter of faith; so that the late Councels of Laterane and Trent do not only prove the fallibility [Page 243]of Romes Church, but that Rome has changed her faith. For such is the am­bition and pomp of the possessors of the Romane chaire, that they could not rest quiet as long as the edicts of the Councels of Constant. and Basil were in force; it bred heart-burings and struglings in the breasts of the succeed­ing Popes, it being an undervaluing to their claimed Imperial dominion, to be Tenants at will of their triple crown; and that a Councel should at pleasure put an end to their state and Empire: wherefore, as a current kept back by some forced rampire, if it shall once break down that dam, runs head-long with more force and violence; even so the Popes having pack't the Councels Laterane and Trent after their own humors, did procure them to remove and batter down that bulwarke of Constant. and Basil, which was rais­ed against his crown and dignity; and dismounting those Canons, to pro­claim in a loud volley of their own artillery his holiness the Pope not only above Councels (which was the for­mer dispute) but above Scripture too; and that from henceforth none shall [Page 244]have voices in the General Councel, An Oath to be en­joyned those that sit in Council. but such as shall first swear obedience to the Pope, and promise to defend his Canon Law; which oath put Bel­larmine to hunt about for an evasion, and lib. 1. de concil. cap. ult. he would have it understood, that this oath is only intended of obedience to the Pope whilst he is Pope, but not against the deposing of an heretical Pope, which is a mist the Cardinal would throw be­fore the eyes of the people, that a man should not see the gross violation of priviledges, and grand abuse offer­ed, and henceforth to be exercised up­on the liberty, freedome, and prehemi­nence of so sacred and reverend a Lady as a General Councel is, and of right ought to be; whenas whosoever knows the Popes Canons, Popes Ca­nons. which teach that the Pope cannot err in his judicial decrees of faith and mannors, that no Councels are of force without the Popes confirmation; that all Coun­cels confirmed by him are approved by the holy Ghost; That he can ex­communicate and depose all Emperors and princet, and many such like strange and horrible positions plainly under­stands [Page 245]that he is bound by this oath to maintaine those Cannons of the Popes, which are in themselves, another pow­der plot to blow up the General Coun­cels: For if they were but to obey him whilst he taught and ruled according to God and the holy Canons, none would be averse from it, for by that rule every one might have liberty to ex­amine him, which I believe Bellarmine would not grant: wherefore it was but a meer evasion of the oath for that time, whenas he knew well enough the oath was positive, enjoyning obedience to the then known Canons of the Pope, which in themselves are destructive to Councels, had not the late Laterane and Trent Councels decreed already his holiness to be above any Councel: so that since these decrees of those two Councels, since this oath to be enjoy­ned to them that shall come to sit in Councels, and since these Canons made and forced upon the consciences of them that shall be members of that Councel; it may no longer be proper­ly called a Councel, but rather a con­venticle of Pope-Parasites, who came thither forestalled in Judgement, and [Page 246]pre-obliged by oath to maintaine the Pope in his present Canonical power; whenas by this means, nothing that shall reflect upon his unjust usurpati­ons can or may there receive a free de­bate; or if it should, and be there de­creed against the Pope, yet he being above that decree, may alter it in his closet at Rome, at pleasure: and till this be rectified, we may all bid fare­well to General Councels; nay, such is their impudence and vaine glory, now that they have attained to this pitch of height, that they may teach what they please, no power being to question them, that they stick not boldly to af­firme, that the first Councels of Nice, Constant. &c. had not been of force, had not the Pope been there; and had he not been there, they had erred: For he is the onely head, and infallible legi­slator of rules pertaining to faith, he is the onely interpreter of the Scriptures, the Sphynx that can lay one all form­er decrees, and the holy Writ it self (be it never so plaine) to be a riddle, to ex­pound it according to his own sense and best a vaile.

He may call all Bishops of the Chri­stian [Page 247]world to decide and deter­mine controversies in Religion; Abuse of General Councils. but yet (salvo jure) they must decree no­thing against what he please to decree in his chaire at Rome. For as for himself, he never comes at a General Councel; for if he should, the Empe­ror must sit above him, and that stands not with his princely highness and magnificence: besides, the Easterne Churches do not acknowledge his pri­macy; and should he come there, it might give an occasion to have that questioned, which the old Fox would not have brought into dispute, because that thereby the unjustness of his claim to others as much transcendent prero­gatives, would be laid open to the world.

The Bishops, as I said, may meet at his beck, fast long, pray long, consult gravely, deliberate maturely, decree soberly, command strictly, and accurse severely: But neither they, nor any o­ther, shall tell what shall be of force: for all shall be as please his holiness, sit­ting in state in his only-infallible chaire at Rome; wherefore a Romane Bishop Melchior Canus, lib. de locis 5. cap. [Page 248]5. non itaque quod in humanis con­cessionibus fit, plurimum apud nos sententia prevalet, &c. It is not, saith he, with us, as it is with other humane assemblies, where plurality of voices prevaile, for lo here matters are not to be judged by number, but by weight; and the Councels, saith he, receive their weight from the gravity and sole au­thority of the Pope: and the Papists of Rhemes, upon the 15. of the Acts alledge, that the determination of Councels is needless, because his holi­ness the Pope alone is infallible; and therefore, say they, they are but called for the contentation of the weak, not for necessity sake; which if this was the Religion of the primitive Church, let their own Councels, the fathers of the primitive times, and their own consci­ences (in the presence of God) wit­ness.

First, Councils abused. they deeree Canons in Coun­cels, under paine of Anathema, and yet the Pope may withstand them sal­va conscientia: whereupon their An­gelical Doctor Thomas Aquinas, 4. con. pag. 422. touching that Canon of the Ephesine Councel, that none un­der [Page 249]pain of damnation, should frame any other Symbole, or adde any other thing to that of the Nicene Council, answers (to excuse the new Symbole set forth in the Millain Council) that that Anathema is onely to private men and doth not binde the Pope. Is not this a strange exposition of a learned Doctor? As if the Councils of Nice and Ephesus prefumed that private men should make new Articles of Faith, and enjoyn them as canons of the Church: or as if they had allowed the Bishop of Rome any Legislative power to frame new Rules without a Council. I blush to see how the Popes parasites, to help a lame dog over the stile, will bolster up his Holiness in whatsoever he propounds; and shall either receive a cloak to blinde its con­tradictions from former principles and practices, or, if they cannot easily dis­semble the grosness of the Tenent, will enforce it upon his Holiness score of in­fallibility; or else, by vertue of an In­dex expurgatorius, alter the Rules and Canons of the first Councils, and make them speak new doctrines sutable to the humour and present tenents of [Page 250]the Church of Rome: or if the Popes genius cannot see far enough to ad­vance the Papal Throne, they will in his name, and by his authority, make Scriptures, Infra 12 Chap. Councils, and Fathers, noses of wax, make the dead Fathers speak things they never thought or ut­tered, and put new faces upon the old Fathers and Councils. As for ex­ample:

S. Fathers & Councils a bused by the Popes Parasites. Austin de civitate Dei, lib. 15. cap. 23. speaking of Canonical Scri­pture, says, Those Scriptures are to be taken for Canonical, which the most part of the Christian churches so take; amongst which those Churches be, that deserve to have Apostolike Sees, and to receive Epistles from the Apostles: the word Sees is turned into See, as I have already alleadged. Ante Ch. 2

The sixth canon of the first Council of Nice, which made Rome equal with Alexandria, is corrupted, and fifty false canons are added to the twenty canons of the same Council; and the Jesuites would hereby per­swade the world, that his Holiness su­premacie, which was shortened by the Fathers of the Nicene Council being [Page 251]alive, is enlarged by his Holiness they being dead; and contrary that Coun­cil, his Holiness gives leave to Abbots to consecrate Bishops; which Abbots are not, quatenus Abbots, infra sacros ordines: and, contrary to the fifth canon, he absolveth those that are ex­communicated by other Bishops. Con­trary to the sixth canon, he invades the Diocesses of other Patriarchs. which Eutiches condemned in the Council of Chalcedon. He believeth that Christ hath a body neither solid nor palpable, nor like to ours: (for such is that transubstantiated body he maintains to be in the Sacrament.) He has further abused the Fathers of the Chalcedon Council, who, being alive, said, Let the See of Constantinople be as well advanced as the See of Rome, being the next unto it: which words are filthily corrupted by a negative ad­ded to the last words, Let her not be advanced in matters Ecclesiastical as she: let her be the next unto it. So in like manner he hath abused the eight and twentieth canon of the Council of Carthage, speaking how the Churches of Africa should not appeal beyond [Page 252]seas, he has added this clause, Ʋnless it be to the See of Rome.

I might instance a thousand more of the like nature; but these particu­lars may serve to give a light unto their dark proceedings. Hercules is known by his foot; and by this brief epitome of the Church of Rome's tricks and juglings (for note, Reader, where thorowout the Book I name the Pope. I thereby generally understand the Church of Rome) with Fathers and Councils, you may ghess what multi­tudes of errours and wrongs she daily commits, not making conscience to abuse the dead Fathers, (which, were they alive, could not think much at it, because the dictates of the holy Ghost, the Scripture it self, is not free from his abuses in points that contradict his new profitable tenents) and to make the Rules of Councels stand upon new pantables which his Holiness has shod them with, to make them tread Papal measures in.

To this pass are general Councels come: those of old speak new lan­guage, those of later times teach things contrary to the old: nor are these mo­dern [Page 254]Councels free in their Constituti­ons; every member thereof must be engaged by Oath to maintain the Pope in his new-usurped priviledges: and should they freely debate and decree any thing, yet it is to no purpose, being subject to alteration, controlment, or denial of his Holiness: and therefore since they are brought to this pass, who will give ear to their Edicts, or honour them as a Representative of several Churches united in that body? sith thus by the practice of the Church of Rome, general Councels are brought into this servile condition, and made subordi­to the Pope, it behoves Provincials to reform themselves, and to call Provin­cial councils to that purpose, and no longer to expect the decision of Con­troversies from a General Council which is thus made servile to the Pope, to decree to please the people, but in no ways to displease the Pope. Sith then General Councils are brought to this pass, I say, it behoves Provincials, as they tender the purity of doctrine de­livered by Christ, and the dictates of the holy Ghost by the mouth of the A­postles to be preserved in the several [Page 254]Churches of Christ, without being per­verted to please the humours of men, To cast off these wicked designers of the Churches slavery, and introducers of errour and innovation; and to de­sire the assistance of the holy Spirit of God, to direct them in their own re­spective Provincial Councils, which they may by the example of the Pri­mitive Churches, and by authority of the first Councils, lawfully convene, without any Rule or Order from the See of Rome for their so doing; and no longer (unless those things may be amended, and that they have sufficient assurance thereof from the See of Rome) to appeal to any General Coun­cels called by the Pope.

CHAP. XI.
That there may be Provincial Coun­cils called, without the Popes ap­probation; which councils have power to reform Schisms and He­resies, and may enjoyn Rules of Faith, which the people by the consent of the civil Magistrate are bound to obey: and especially that the church of England hath this power.

THat the Metropolitanes of distinct Provinces have power to call Councils for reformation of any Schisms, or decision of any Questions or Doubts in Religion, it was the pra­ctice of the Primitive Churches: and if the Pope of Rome have any preemi­nence of Jurisdiction in order to Coun­cils, it was but derived from the power of Councels, as I have proved before; and therefore the same power giving authority to other Provincials to call Councils, they are not debarred of this priviledge by any Order or Decree of the Church of Rome, they not being under her jurisdiction or power (espe­cially [Page 256]those Provincials which were not by Suffragans represented in the late Laterane and Trent-Councils, which gave this supremacy over Councils to the Pope.) And that this was granted to all Metropolitanes of distinct Pro­vinces, may appear by these ensuing presidents and warrants so to do.

By the General Councils of Chalce­don, the 19 Canon, it is decreed. Quod oporteat per Provinciales bis in anno Concilia celebrare; and this is like­wise agreed by the Council of Anti­och, can. 20. and by the first Council of Nice; and by the the 18 Canon of the Council of Antioch, that one Bi­shop should not meddle in the Diocess of another: and herewith agrees the first Council of Constantinople, Can. 2. Provincial Councils, and seve­ral Pro­vincials to meet in one, with out the Popes ap­probation. By the Council of Carthage, Can. 19. if any difference arose, it was to be referred to the Metropolitan of the Province, who should call the Bishops of his Province together: and if they could not resolve the doubt, it was to be transmitted to a General Council: and if any party thought himself a­grieved at the Decrees of the Provin­cial, he was to appeal to the General [Page 257]Council within a yeer. And by the Council of Antioch, can. 13. if any thing of controversie did arise in any Province, and the Metropolitane could not in his Provincial Synod de­cide the matter, the Metropolitane might call upon his neighbour-Pro­vinces for assistance in Council (a shame therefore for the Church of Rome to affirm that no Council is of validity without the Pope:) which canon of the Popes to that purpose, is contrary to the practice and doctrine of the Primitive Church, Ante Chap. 10. and there­fore to be rejected. By the ninth ca­non of the Councel of Antioch, the Metropolitane of every Province has the Government of that Province as­signed to him.

By all and every of which canons it is plain, that one Bishop should not intermeddle in the Diocess of another, Ante Ch. 2 nor one Metropolitane in the Province of another; for that every Metropo­litane has the government of his own distinct Province committed to him & that he may call a council within his own Province; and if there the matter in question cannot be determined, may [Page 258]desire the assistance of his neighbour-Provincials; which makes by that means a general Council, by calling in the neighbour-Provincials as the cause shall require: and this is decla­red by these Councils for to be lawful so to do, without any reservation to the See of Rome, (as if without her Provincial this might not be done) who by the sixth canon of the first Council of Nice, is but equal with Alexandria; and Alexandria, An­tioch, Rome and other Provinces, have like priviledges reserved to them by the express words of that canon.

This was the practice of the primi­tive Churches; England equal with Rome. and when those con­stitutions were made, and long before, was England a province, and had her Metropolitane, who after King Lucius conversion did publikely exercise the Jurisdiction of a Metropolitane; which was 120 yeers before that Council of Nice: and by the words of that ca­non the several Provincials then in be­ing having equal Jurisdiction reserved to them, England may by vertue here­of claim equality with the Church of Rome, the same Authority making [Page 259]them equal in power and jurisdiction: nor had she so much as primacie of Order, till the ensuing Council of Constantinople (can. 2.) gave it her onely for honour to the city of Rome, and no other respect. Nor doth it ap­pear that England had any Suffragan in that Council; so that had it not in after-times been confirmed by other Councils, England had not been hereunto bound. Which council of Constantinople was not called till 26 yeers after the council of Nice. So that for the Doctor to alleadge against us (as he doth positively in his book, fol. 221.) that we cannot call a Council, seems something strange to me, to proceed from a Doctor; for it is an argument that he is ignorant of those canons, or else if he have read them, those copies he has perused are of Rhemish print, and much vary from the Originals. However, I must needs wonder at his harsh censure a­gainst his native country, and his quondam-mother-Church, that he should deny her that priviledge and jurisdiction which is not due to her alone, but common to all Provincials, [Page 260]which by the authority of Councels and by the practice of the Primitive, and by the ensamples of later ages, have and do call Provincial Councils within their respective territories and precincts, and do there decree Rules of faith to be observed of all within the Province, as may appear by these en­suing presidents.

There was a Provincial Council called at Ancyra in Galitia of eigh­teen Bishops; Provinci­als called of old. and that other of Neo­caesaria, of fourteen Bishops, before any General Council: and after the General Council of Nice, were held several Provincial Councils in the East; as that Council of Grangene, of sixteen Bishops; that of Antioch, of thirty Bishops of several Provinces in the East (in which respect it rather deserves the name of a General Coun­cil, then a Provincial Synod.) Like­wise the Council of Laodicea, of se­veral Provinces of Asia; Councils held with­out the Bi­shop of Rome. and this without the Bishop of Rome: for he was not to govern the Asian churches; but the Bishops of Asia and Alexan­dria the Churches in Egypt, and the Bishop of Pontus them in Pontus [Page 261]according to the Council of Constant. can. 2. Hereupon likewise the Afri­can Province held several Councils under Theodosius the third, without any dependencie upon Rome; which upon the authority of the Primitive Churches and Councils hath been continued down to these days, not onely in those of the Eastern, Asian and African Provinces, but in other of the Western European Provinces; it being a Right equally due to every Province: and therefore I need not travel so far for Presidents; I might have saved labour, and answered the Doctor with presidents neerer home and have instanced in France those of Arles, Tours, Tholouse, &c. which Genebrard in his Chronicle. lib. 4. anno 814. calls Concilia reforma­toria: and in Germany those of Worms, Mentz, Brixia, Frankfort, Noremberg, and Ratisbone. And in Spain those of Toledo; and one of Sardis called by Osius Bishop of Corduba a little afore the Council of Nice. And in England, the Coun­cils of London Winchester, Glouce­ster: and many and several even to [Page 262]this day, the Pope never intermedling in any of them, but in most of the afore-mentioned Provincial Councils was opposed, and declared upon seve­ral questions started that he ought not to intermeddle, Provincial Councels not to ap­peal to the Bishop of Rome. nor any Appeals ought from those Provincials to be made unto him, it being against the privi­ledges of the several Provincials to al­low of Appeals to him.

And as it was their ancient Right, Ante Ch. 2. so was it maintained by the Princes of later times, who like careful nursing fathers would not suffer their Provin­cial Rights to be invaded by the am­bitious and covetous incroaching Popes of Rome. Hereupon, Ludovicus Pius the Emperour did by publike Edict prohibit all exactions of the Popes: which Ludovicus perceiving they began to grow proud upon the freedom and donation his predecessor Charles the Great had bestowed up­on them, did hereby shew unto the world, that the clemencie and indul­gencie of the Imperial Crown should not be an occasion to make other Princes suffer in their Ecclesiastical Rights by the Popes of Rome, under [Page 263]colour of shelter from the Emperour to invade them in their said Ecclesiasti­cal priviledges belonging to any Pro­vinces within their proper dominions: and therefore by publike Edict did the said Emperour prohibit all exactions of the Popes Court within his Realm. The like was done in France by Phi­lip the fair, prohibiting all Appeals to Rome, 1246. and that was confirm­ed by Charles the 5 and 6. punishing some as traitors for appealing. And in the Reign of Charles the 7. was set forth a Decree against the annates, re­servations, expectations, and other pro­ceedings of the Popes of Rome's pre­tensed Jurisdiction. And 'twas thought by many that H. 4. would have re­vived this; which many conceive did given occasion to shorten his days.

And as these Provincials were free and immune without appealing to the See of Rome, so had England the same priviledge and jurisdiction; nor did she ever in any businesses appeal to Rome she being a distinct Province of old, and declared by the Bishop of Rome, Eleutherius, that the King is Vicarius summus infra Regna, [Page 264]might call Councils; and by the en­suing Liberties granted to Provincials by the first Councils, might make Rules of Faith, to which the people by the Princes consent were bound; and this to be without appealing to the See of Rome: and never before Becket's business, Becket's c [...]se, ante Chap. 4. of which I have already spoken in the fourth Chapter, did the Pope intermeddle here. Be­sides, that business of Becket was be­twixt the King and his own Clergie, about a Law made at Clerudun, by which Law Ecclesiastical persons were not to be freed by Church-priviledge from murder: and one Brock a Monk after committing a murder, was by contrivance of Becket and others delivered from publike Justice; whereupon the variance began, and the Pope excommunicating the King, the King was forced, through necessity of State, at that time to submit: yet nevertheless in the Articles made be­tween the King and Pope Alexander, at that time, it was conditioned a­mongst other things, that the King should suffer the people of England to appeal to Rome; as appears by the [Page 265]Annals of those days; which is an argument it was not before due to the See of Rome. And indeed, that it was not due, is a truth so manifest, and a right and jurisdiction belonging to every Province so unquestionably, that I will forbear to insist any further upon this particular; and submit to the Reader, whether, upon what I have here fairly laid down, we in England may not call a Council without ap­pealing to the See of Rome. For as for that concession of H. 2. it was after­wards declared void, it being a thing not properly lying within his conu­sance, compass, or capacity, to grant, being a right inherent in his Provinci­als: and those bare Articles forced through necessity of State from the King could no ways oblige the succes­sors in the See of Canterbury and York; but that still notwithstanding there may be Provincial Synods in England, for reformation of Schism, or reconcilement of Controversies, as occasion shall require, and that with­out any allowance or approbation of the Pope of Rome.

For to argue a claim to the Pope to [Page 264] [...] [Page 265] [...] [Page 266]require Appeals from hence, by reason of the Articles between H. 2. and Pope Alexander, and that the Pro­vinces of Canterbury and York should be thereby bound, is no more reasonable, then if the Emperour should condition with a Bishop of Canterbury that the Bishops of Rome should appeal to them; which I believe his Holiness would not think should bind him or his successor. And for that there was no right to be proved before those Articles, I say the case is equally just; and therefore as the Bishop of Rome for shame must not claim it from this argument of H. 2. so may we in no other respect grant it, but that we, as I said before, may still without his allowance call Provincial Councils for deciding controversies, and correction of Schism and Disor­ders in our Church.

I must confess that the Doctor has justly reproved some dissentions and varieties of Opinions amongst us in England. Sects in England. But that excuse he made for the differences which are amongst the Papists, salvs up our sore as well as theirs. For as the Doctor (fol. 236.) [Page 267]says, They are but Reasonings of pri­vate men, and (the Church not having interposed her Decree) may not be properly said differences of our Church, or distracted contradictions in our Articles of Faith. For should our Church convene a Synod, she would either reconcile the differences, or condemn them as Hereticks which dissent from her: and after that sen­tence pronounced, they are no more of our Church, though they may be said to be in our Church, according to that of S. John, 1 Joh. 2.19. Si ex nob is essent, permanserint nobiscum. And let me not appear partial in this point, to pass it over barely thus, without shewing the reasons the Church of England doth not reform these dif­ferences, sith before in this Treatise (Chap. 5.) I have taxed the Church of Rome of errour of negligence in this particular.

The Church of Rome at present is in so flourishing a condition, that no­thing can stop her (unless the private interest of her Pope hinder her) to re­form the differences that are in her own Church. She may convene a [Page 268]Council without any opposition: But such is the distressed condition of the Church of England that on a sudden her [...]lilies were over-topped with weeds: the Sectaries which fed upon wilde olives, gave thereof unto the giddy multitude, who were presently like cursed children of old Adam tempted to eat that forbidden fruit; and having Liberty promised to be masters and lords of the whole Vin­tage, they claim bargain with the merchandizers of holy wares, and presently cry down the ancient Hus­bandmen of the Vineyard. Which strange and unheard-of change struck such amazement in the hearts of the people, and caused such struglings in nature, to digest this new-tempered Potion she was to drink, that the whole body of the Land was severed; so that till this fit of her sickness be over, her ancient Husbandmen cannot nay must not enter into the Vineyard to prune and dress her, and to cut off those extravagant branches, which like ill weeds, have thriven fast, and make the whole Plantation seem out of order. Let us therefore pray the [Page 269]Lord of the Vineyard that he would restore her Husbandmen unto her, that he would repair her walls which are troden down, and make up her hedge, that she may no longer be eaten up; that in stead of these wil [...]e grapes she may bring forth fruits meet for her Lord and Master: and that he would strengthen their hearts in this day of visitation, and give them patience to undergo the Cross that's laid upon them; and no doubt but in due time he will give her joy for heaviness and turn the hearts of her persecutors, to support with the right hand whom they have buffered with the left.

This is the Lords doing thus to visit her: and would it please him to say to the destroying Angel. It is enough; would he in mercy turn to his Vine­yard, and have pity on her; would he please to restore her beauty, that she might rejoyce in her salvation; and and that the world might no longer laugh to see Christs disciples weep, Joh. 16.20: Then I dare on her behalf promise, she would not be slack to reform the enormities com­mitted against Christ and his Truth. [Page 270]And as in the mean time she may not justly be taxed for negligence herein; so neither hath she heretofore been careless in this point. It is true, accor­ding to that of S. Paul. 1 Cor. 11.19. that there must be heresies, that they which are approved might be known: But she was never wanting friendly to admonish, and with mo­therly reasons to perswade her Chri­stian sons to obedience, as witnesseth the several publike Conserences had at Hampton and elsewhere; which was all that of her self she was able to do. Bishops cannot re­form with­out appro­hation from the Parlia­ment. She may decree things in her Convocation and Church-assemblies; but they are no binding Rules by the Laws of the Land, without the ap­probation of the Civil power: and therefore is it ordinarily that the Con­vocation sits when there is a Parlia­ment, that if there be any new Rules of Faith to be declared, they may re­ceive the approbation and allowance of the Temporal Magistrate, by force whereof they become obligatory to the people.

As for the Bishops their sitting in Parliament, they do not sit there as [Page 271]Bishops to judge, but as Barons they judge: as Bishops they onely advise, left any Moral Law be made repugn­ant to Gods Word; and so likewise the Judges sit in Parliament to advise lest any new Law be made either in it self irregular, or contradictory to the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom: but neither the Bishops as Bishops, or the Judges sit in Parliament as Judges to decree and vote in the legislation of any new Rule.

Whereas in old Presidents it is said By assent of the King, Bishops si [...] as Barons, not as Bi­shops, in Parlia­ment. by the advice of the Lords spiritual and temporal, &c. it is not hereby to be understood that as Spiritual Lords they judged in the making of the Municipal Law; onely they were named before the Temporal Lords, for that they were the greater number, and all Barons or Peers were alike. The Bishops, Ab­bots, and Priors which had Baronies annexed to them, were far exceeding the number of the Temporal Lords, as may appear by ancient Rolls: there were 27 Abbots, and 2 Priors, which had Baronies annexed to their Spiri­tualties; by vertue whereof, both they [Page 272]and the Bishops (which likewise had Baronies annexed to their Sees) sate on Parliament in a distinct capacity from the Spiritualty, as to the matter of Judicature.

Now that they were the greater number, appears by this: The Ab­bots. Priors, and Bishops, which held by Barony, were fifty; and there were but few Noble-men of the Laity: there were none or few Earls, but of the Blood Royal, Noble-men in England. and therefore to this day they are termed by the Kings Writs, Consanguinei nostri: in after­time they were made more common; insomuch that whereas Alfred had divided the Kingdom into Shires, and committed the Government of every Shire, and appointed a Lieutenant to every Shire to govern it, and to rule and controul the outrageous subjects at home, as well as to defend it from forraign enemies, That Officer in after­times became a Count, and the coun­try over which he was appointed Go­vernour was called a County; which since was changed, the King taking from the Earl or Count that power, he not liking that this power should re­main [Page 273]main in one hereditary, and which had it not immediately from himself. And because the Earl to whom such charge was committed was not so ready to be corrected if he did amiss, and that the administration of justice might immediately proceed from the King himself, it was therefore taken from the Earl, and given to one yeerly ap­pointed thereto; who because he did execute that power which the Earl formerly had, is called Vice-comes, quia vicem Comit is suppleat. Mir­ror. cap. 1. sect. 3. By which it ap­pears, that there were not many Peers of the Laytie.

And as for any other degrees of Nobility, as Duke, Marquess, Nobility in England. or Vis­count, they were but puisne names of titular dignity, and doth not make them Peers or Judges of Parliament, unless they have Baronies annexed to them, as it is resolved by the Law of England, 14 H. 4.7. and therefore in Parliament all Peers votes are e­qual, without distinction of their ti­tular dignities. For as for the name Duke, there was none in England af­ter the Conquest, before the Black [Page 274]Prince Edward, son of Rich. 2. nor any Marquess before Robert Earl of Ox­ford was made Marquess of Dublin by R. 2. nor any Viscount before John de bello monte was made Viscount Bellamont, or Beaumont, by H. 6. By which it is manifest, that the No­bility was but few in ancient time; and therefore the Lords Spiritual being the greater number of Peers, are named before the Lords Temporal: not that they either have any superiority in Ju­dicature, or that they sit there as Judges in their Spiritual capacity, as may likewise appear by Roll of Par­liament, 18 H. 3. m. 17. The Bi­shops sitting in a Convocation at Gloucester, were inhibited to meddle of the Temporal state of the King or his Nobles, &c. upon pain of having their Baronies confiscate: for they had distinct capacities: as they are Bi­shops, they were not to meddle with Temporal affairs, wherefore were they inhibited in that Assembly at Gloucester, which was meerly of spiritual men, to proceed in matters temporal: and as they are Barons, and therefore sit in Parliament, they [Page 275]may not there judge of things spiritu­al, all transactions of that nature be­ing to receive debate in the Convoca­tion of the Clergie. Wherefore it may not be laid to the charge of the Bishops, that they sitting in Parlia­ment did not reform the Schisms in the Church, for that they were not proper Judges thereof as they sate in Parliament, but onely when they sate in the Convocation; which Convo­cation was prevented to be convened according to the old Rules and Cu­stoms of this Nation by the popular sort; which then not knowing what they would have, at all adventure cri­ed down Episcopacie; and having pulled down that stately glorious fa­brick, all that ever the then-busie Re­formers could frame out of the timber of the old building, was but to patch and cobble up a Presbyterian cottage and that so weakly joynted and set to­gether, that it was judged by the most of them that it could not stand above three yeers. A pitiful change!

It is an evil bird defiles its own nest: and must our English Sion, which was the glory of this Land, and the envie [Page 276]of other Nations, be made a scorn unto her enemies by her own adopted sons? If children live honestly, (says Solomon, Ecclus 22.) they shall put away the shame of their parents: but if they be proud with haughti­ness and foolishness, they defile the nobility of their own kindred.

Wherefore I humbly beg of the chief Governours and Rulers of the people, to reflect upon their mother-Church, and to consider her in her suf­ferings, to pray for her, and to endea­vour her peace: Pray for the peace of Jerusalem; they shall prosper that love her: And to put to their helping hand to lift up her head out of the dust, That she may no longer lie groaning and groveling under the heavie hands of wilde persecutors, but may by the assistance and loving aid of the Judges of the people, be called upon, that she may either clear her self to the condemnation of her opposers, or suffer according to her deserving, by the grave judgement and sentence of the Wise of the Land, and not to be troden down and cen­sured without a fair trial, (any fur­ther [Page 277]then her sufferings with patience witness her faith:) which if they would please to condescend unto, it would certainly conduce to satisfie the consciences of many that doubt, and by the blessing of God would bring peace into the Land: and that ac­cording to Solomons saying, that there might be a Rod and Correction in the Church, whereby the sons obtain wisdom; but the liberty of the chil­dren makes the mother ashamed.

Now the Lord open the hearts, and give bowels of compassion to the Ru­lers of the people, that by their fa­vours the Church may be again resto­red to us, so that we may worship God in spirit and truth; and that we having again restored unto us a Jeru­salem at unity within it self, we may keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; that we may suck and be satisfied with the brefts of her consolation; that we may milk out, and be delighted with the bright­ness of her glory; and that by the means of her nursing fathers, it would please God to extend peace on her like a flood, that we may suck, be born [Page 278]upon her sides, and be joyful upon her knees; to the quieting of all differences amongst us, and to the everlasting peace of those that wish well to Sion.

But I have dwelled too long upon this point: I return to the subject matter of this Chapter.

You may partly perceive that the Church of England is not altogether to be blamed for the Errors and Divi­sions in our Land in matters pertaining to Faith and Discipline. I dare be bold on her behalf to assure the Papists she desires a fair debate of all those diffe­rences, and would willingly reconcile them, or cast off those that would not hearken to her instructions: and might she by the favour and free leave of the Civil Magistrate convene, and were encouraged to have his assistance in order to put in execution her Decrees (without which▪ whatsoever she re­solves is but like a Laterane Junto not obligatory to the Western Princes, nor the people under their jurisdicti­on) she would not be sparing to launce the wounds of these divisions to the bottom, that, if there were any hopes of amendment, to cause sound [Page 279]and new flesh to grow a gain; or else, finding them irrecoverable by reason some are grown desperately wicked beyond all remedy, to cut off such as withered branches, that they might no longer be a cause to putrifie the stock and body of the tree: and when she has done, would not be ashamed of her work, but would recommend it to the publike consideration of others; which being by them approved, might be exemplary for their imitation; or if by the Divine Rule of Scripture it was to be faulted, then to be by them re­jected, and receive a just condemna­tion.

I dare be bold to say, that if any thing should be debated in her Con­vocation, which might not seem satis­factory to any other sister-Province she would entertain a free debate with her: and if they two could not de­termine the controversie, so far as might be satisfactory to others, she would agree to submit the debate to a General Council, might but that Council be free in its constitution, and not subservient to one man the Pope; which by the confession of Bellarmin. [Page 280](lib. de Concil. cap. 21. non potest fieri ut aliquando ad finem contro­versiarum deveniatur Synodus, nisi detur locus majori parti suffragio­rum. No Appeal to a Gene­ral Councel whilst the Pope is al­lowed a­bove that Councel. And in another place, lib. 2. cap. 11. de Concil. Est verum De­cretum Concilii quod fit a majore parte) destroys the very being of a General Council; whenas what shall there be concluded by a major part must stand null, unless his Holiness ap­prove thereof, or shall be subject to be altered at his will and pleasure.

It is reported by Quintus Curtius, fol. 13. that in the City of Gordin in Phrygia was laid up in Jupiters tem­ple the furniture of King Midas Waggon, knit up in such an intricate knot, that it was extreme difficult to be untyed: and the country-men had a Prophecie, that whosoever should unt [...]e it, should be Lord of Asia. A­lexander coming thither, and viewing the knot, and doubting if he should not inexplicate it, that it might be re­puted as an evidence to those supersti­tious people of his bad fortune to come, with his sword cut it asunder, by which the Prophecie was expected to [Page 281]be fulfilled: and thereupon those peo­ple submitted to him; and, not long after, he became Lord of Asia. And thus the Pope deals with Councils: if any thing of consequence be to receive debate there, he will not abide the can­vasing of the Question, and the sober unfolding of the knot and difficulty thereof, but uno flatu resolves the scruple, and with his false key picks the lock of the business; by which means he promises to himself an uni­versal obedience, as the onely never­erring Oracle; claiming by this means a soveraignty over Councils, Kings, and Bishops: which all other Chur­ches of Apostolical plantation judge to be an horrible presumption. And till this be rectified, we utterly deny all Appeals to a General Council of the Popes convening: and as S. Am­brose said to Valentinian, so we say to the Pope; Tolle Legem, si vis esse certamen.

CHAP. XII.
That the Scriptures are onely infal­lible rules of faith, and contain all things necessary to salvation: That all people are to read them, because those points are plain and easie: That they themselves witness this truth in those points of salvation: And how the Church of Rome abuses the Scri­pture.

SCripture is the onely foundation and basis on which our Faith is built, Of the force and efficacie of the Scri­ptures. according to that of S. Paul to the Ephesians, chap. 2. the faithful are built upon the Apostles and Pro­phets: it is the sword of the Spirit, Eph. 6. being profitable to instruct, and reprove, and being able to make the man of God perfect.

Irenaeus in his third book against Heresies, cap. 11. says, The Apostles first preached the Gospel, and after­wards delivered the same to us in Scri­ptures, that it might be the founda­tion and pillar of our faith. And O­rigen upon Matth. 25. says, They [Page 283]are to be brought for proof of all Doctrines. Our Saviour by Scri­pture convinced the devil; teaching us thereby to know what weapons we are to use against all Heresie and Schism. And in the General Coun­cils of old, not the Popes Decretals, but the Scriptures were laid before the holy Fathers. Est firmamentum & columna Ecclesiae Evangelium. It onely is infallible in it self; all other Councils and Traditions may erre, saith Tom. lib. 2. contra Donatistos, cap. 3. And though an Angel from heaven teach another doctrine, no faith is to be given thereunto. Ter­tullian contra Hermogen. pag. 373. I reverence (saith he) the fulness, ple­nitude, and perfection of Scriptures, as that which shews to me both the Maker and the things which are made. Austin confesseth the autho­rity of Scripture to be above the au­thority of the Church, in his Epistles contra Manich. tom. 6. cap. 4. The consent of people and nations the au­thority of the Church, begun by mira­cles, nourished with hope, increased with charity, established with antiqui­ty, [Page 284]succession of Priests, and the name of Catholike, saith he, are great mo­tives to keep me in the unity of the Church: but above these, he prefers the truth of Scripture; in regard whereof, he promiseth Manicheus to give more credit to his doctrine then to the Church, if he be able to prove it out of Scripture.

These and many more authorities in this point might be produced, to manifest what credit and reverence the Fathers of the Primitive Church did attribute to the sacred Oracles of God. Now what may we think of those that count them a bare letter, Inkie Divinity, a matter of strife, and ground of Heresies? And by the Do­ctor, fol. 255, the light of the Gospel is termed Ignis fatuus, because not borrowed from Rome's dark lanthorn. Others affirming, that if any contemn the authority of the Romane Church, that he shall not be able to assure himself of Scripture, any more then of a Robinhood-tale.

To which I answer: The Council of Laodicea, can. 59. (which Council was held long before ever Rome's Bi­shop [Page 285]claimed a Supremacie over o­ther Churches) hath declared which shall be taken and accepted for Ca­nonical Scripture, and hath decreed that none else should be read in the Churches besides them: & we accord­ing to that Canon, accept and embrace them, and, according to the ancient co­pies, doth our Clergie retain them in the Church; nor are we altogether be­holding to Rome for the Translations. 'Tis true, she hath a glorious Library (as many witness) the onely ornament of her Vatican Hill. And in some competent measure is our Oxford re­plenished with the ancient Manuscripts of the Primitive Fathers and of old ap­proved Translations of the Scriptures, both after the Hebrew, Syriack, Rome not the onely dispenser of the Scri­pture. Chal­dee, Greek, and Latine Translations; which the Fathers and the Reverend Governours of the Primitive Churches have permitted to be transmitted to o­ther parts: and in these later days we have been beholding to Rome for some Translations: But she was not the first that sent the Gospel hither, as may appear by Eleutherius his Epi­stle to Lucius: You have heretofore [Page 284] [...] [Page 285] [...] [Page 286]saith he, received the law and faith of Christ; ye have within your Realm both the parts of Scripture out of which by the counsel of your Realm take a law, and by that law rule your kingdom: for you be Gods Vicar within your own kingdom &c. And in this particular, I think Rome as well as we, is beholding to other Churches: why then should she boast that we know not what is Scri­pture, but that which she has deliver­ed? Had not the Apostles equal au­thority to teach all nations? Doth not Peter direct his Epistle to the Saints which are dwelling about Cappado­cia, Galatia Asia, and Bithynia: and S. James to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: and S. Jude to all which are sanctified and called of God? And S. Paul writes as well to the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, as to the Romans: wherefore how comes it that the Church of Rome should be the onely Monopolizer of Scripture? Was not the holy Ghost given to them which Philip, Paul, and Barnabas did or­dain, [Page 287]as well as those Peter did ordain? And admit that Peter was Bishop of Rome, had not the rest of the Apostles received the holy Ghost as well as Pe­ter? did it not sit upon each of them like cloven tongues of fire? And why should the Church of Rome boast her self to be onely and alone endowed with an onely spirit of interpretation? Let none understand more then is meet to understand, was S. Paul's in­structions to the Romanes: But such is the uncharitableness and presumpti­on of the present Church of Rome, that she accounts her self the onely wise interpreter, and no other Church to have the spirit of discerning the Truth, unless she have received that spirit mediately from her. I must needs tell her, that she has no warrant to arrogate this transcendency and su­per-excellencie in this point of wisdom from any divine precept: it is but her own humane institution, (no other Church approving of it) and so it is but the wisdom of this world, which, as S. Paul says, 1 Cor. 1.20, is found foolishness before God; and accord­ing to that saying of Solomon, Prov. [Page 288]12.15. The way of a fool is right in his own eyes.

The treasure of the holy Writ is no common or ordinary bank, That the Scripture contains things ne­cessary to salvation. but a pre­cious store of eternal happiness: in them is laid up life everlasting, according to that of S. Paul, Rom. 1.16. It is the power of God unto salvation, to eve­ry one that believeth to the Jew first, and also to the Greek: and 2 Tim. 3.14. Timothy had known the Scri­ptures from a childe, which were able to make him wise unto salva­tion: It is profitable to teach, to im­prove, to correct, to instruct in righte­ousness, that a man of God may be absolute, being made perfect to all good works. Therefore are we bid­den, Joh. 4.39, to search the Scri­ptures; for in them is eternal life, and they are they which testifie of Christ. It is true, All things that Jesus did, are not written, saith S. John: but, saith he, these things are written; that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and be­lieving ye might have life through his Name, Joh. 20.31. Cyril, lib. 2. upon that place of S. John, saith, [Page 289] Non omnia quae Dominus facit transcripta sunt, sed quae Scriptores tam ad mores quam ad dogmata sufficere putarunt ut recta fide & operibus ad regnum coelorum per­veniamus. And Saint Austin like­wise says, that all things were not written, but onely so much was writ­ten as was thought to be sufficient to the salvation of the faithful. And whereas in the 20 of the Acts ver. 27. it is said, I have not spared to shew unto you the whole counsel of God; Lyranus and Carthusianus expound it onely to be understood of things pertaining to our salvation: which S. Austin lib. de doctr. Christian. 2. & cap. 6. plainly affirms, that all things necessary to our salvation are plainly contained in the written Word. And Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. 1. We know (saith he) the dispensation of our sal­vation, by whom onely the Gospel came to our hands; which Gospel they first preached, but afterwards by Gods appointment they delivered the same to us in writing, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith. Wherefore seeing that this is the Ma­gazine [Page 290]of our salvation, let us onely repair hither to be spiritually furnished against all temptations of Satan; and let us cast off all other traditions of humane invention, which shall declare any other thing then what is contained in these Evangelical truths.

Now sith the ground of our faith is contained in these Scriptures, All people to read the Scripture. and laid open unto us by the blessed authors of these sacred and holy testimonies of our salvation; why should not any one be permitted to read and to peruse these glad tidings of his eternal Re­demption from the bondage of sin and Satan? sith we are not onely al­lured by its worth and efficacie, it be­ing of so high a consequence as the eternal redemption and salvation of our souls, and being profitable to teach, to improve, to instruct in righ­teousness, 2 Tim. 3. but likewise are commanded to search them, Joh. 5.39 Till I come, (saith Paul to Timothy 1 Tim. 4.13.) give attendance to reading, to exhortation, and to do­ctrine. And Coloss. 3. the Saints of Colossus are commanded to let the Word dwell in them pleteously in all [Page 291]wisdom, admonishing themselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs. And not onely the Saints of Colossus; and Timothy, are enjoyned to this diligence; but all in general, by S. John in the place afore-cited. And Acts 18.24. A certain Jew named Apollos was great in Scri­pture, and taught diligently. And Acts 17. the Noble-men at Thessa­lonica received the Word with all rea­diness, and searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so which Paul and Silas taught at Be­rea; and many of them, and honest women and men, not a few, believed.

S. Chrysostom, the golden-mouth'd Doctor, discourseth at large upon this subject in several places of his Works. I shall shew you two or three. In his Proeme in the Epistle to the Romanes, he saith, If therefore you will read the Scripture with alacrity of minde ye need no other help at all: for Christ's Word is true, Seek and ye shall finde, &c. because many of you are charged with wives, children, and domestick affairs, and so cannot wholly addict your selves to this study, [Page 292]yet be ready to hear what others have gathered; and bestow as much dili­gence in hearing as you do in scraping worldly goods together: for the cause of your infinite evils is your ignorance in Scripture. So that by his Rule, 1. We need no other help to our sal­vation. 2. All sorts should study it. 3. Evil manners, dissolute life, and all other mischiefs, proceed of ignorance of the Scriptures, and by not reading of them.

Again, the same Chrysostom in his 29 Hom. upon Gen. 9. I beseech you (saith he) that you now and then come hither, and attend diligently the reading of the holy Scripture; neither that onely when you come hither, sed & domi divina Biblia in manus su­mite, & utilitatem in illis positam magno studio suscipite. Again, the same godly and zealous Father in his 9. Hom. upon the Colossians, saith, Hearken, all ye that are encumbered with worldly affairs, and have wives and children, how ye are especially commanded to read the Scriptures: Comparate vobis Biblia, animae Pharmaca. If ye will have no other [Page 293]thing; at least provide ye the new Te­stament, &c. S. Austin de tempore, serm. 55. Nec solum vob is sufficiat quod in Ecclesiis divinas lectiones auditis, sed etiam in domibus ve­stris, aut ipsi legite, aut alios le­gentes requirite, & libenter audite. And herewith accords S. Hierome upon the 133 Psalm, affirming, that in his time both Monks, men, and women, did contend which should learn most Scripture without book; & in co putant esse meliores, si plu­res edicerint. The Council of Lao­dicea, can. 59. positively decrees, Li­cet plebeis legere sola sacra volu­mina veteris & novi Testamenti.

Thus you see the invitation by way of perswasion, as it is for advantage, it being the means of our salvation, and a charge and command by the Apo­stles to search those Scriptures, lest we fall into evils and mischiefs, and holy Fathers instructing all to follow those Evangelical precepts: whereby it is not pressed unto us as a thing of con­veniency onely, but likewise of necessi­ty for every one to perform this duty; every one being concerned to read and [Page 294]learn the Scriptures. How much then is the Church of Rome to be blamed, that debarreth men of this means of salvation? she excommunicating eve­ry one that shall read the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue. And so much are the Papists bewitched with the ter­rours of the Popes curses and the flat­tery of his blessings, that they will not read any thing that is opposite to Po­pery, not having license so to do; and so they make Ignorance the mother of their devotion, and that contrary to the practice of the Primitive Church, as appears by the Council.

As touching this Point, Who are to judge of the Scri­ptures. Who shall be Judge of the Scripture, the Doctor is pleased to accuse our Church of uni­versal errour, because of some Prote­stants that hold strange opinions con­cerning this matter; and yet he cites but an opinion or two of private Mi­nisters in our Church. So I may justi­fie our Church from the imputations he herein lays to her charge, as he has elsewhere done in the like case. That it is not the opinion and judgement of the Church, but onely the conceptions of those private men. Certainly the [Page 295]Doctor could not be ignorant of our Churches Tenent in this particular: and truely this gives me occasion to suspect the Doctor is not the Author of that Book called The Lost Sheep, but it was composed by some one that was less knowing of the Doctrines and Tenents of our Church. However, for satisfaction of others, I will here set down what our Church has pre­scribed de fide in relation to this point.

The Church of England teaches, that the Scripture is the onely Judge of Traditions, and Rule of salvation; and that it contains all things necessa­ry to salvation: and whatsoever is not contained therein, or may not be proved thereby, is not to be received as an Article of faith, or thought requi­site to salvation.

But she doth not determine that this Scripture shall be interpreted by every mans private fancy: for, The things necessary to salvation are plain, and easie to be un­derstood. to charge her with that, is a known un­truth, and contrary to the 6 and 20 Articles of the Church. I confess that we generally maintain that those things which are necessary to salvation [Page 296]are clear and manifest; the whole Scripture being termed a light unto our feet, and a lanthorn to our steps, Psal. 139. And if it be hid, it is hid unto them that are lost, whom the God of this world hath blinded, [...]hat the light of the Gospel of the glory of Jesus Christ should not shine unto them, 2 Cor. 4. For it is plain by the Scripture, that Jesus was the Christ, Acts 18.28. And Joh. 5. The Father hath sent the Son, and his works bear witness of him; and the Scriptures testifie of him: God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost the Comforter, his Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, and the com­ing of the holy Ghost, being so plainly preached and set down, that a man may read them running: and this Word endureth for ever, and this Word is preached unto us, 1 Pet. 1.25. And Joh. 3.16, God so loved the world, that he gave his onely begotten Son, that whosoever belie­veth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life: and what need we any more? This is eternal life, to know the Father, and Jesus [Page 297]Christ, whom thou hast sent, Joh. 17.3. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. We believe that thou art Christ the Son of the ever-living God, and thou hast the words of e­eternal life, Joh. 5.68. Hence S. Austin, lib. de doctr. Christianae, cap. 9. did affirm, that all things per­taining to mans salvation are plain and easie to be understood. And Chryso­stome upon 2 Thessal. 2. Hom. 3. Omnia plana sunt sunt ēx divinis Scripturis, quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt.

It is not therefore an idle and pre­sumptuous doctrine in the Church of England to maintain this, since we have both authority of Scripture and the Fathers for the same. Nor do we hereby rob the Church of her autho­rity to judge of and determine contro­versies, and those things that are doubtful in the Scriptures.

There are some things of Discipline, and pertaining to Manners, in which the Scriptures may be doubtful, or not easie for every capacity to under­stand: and for those, it is fit the Church should determine them, and having [Page 298]determined them, to impose them by the Princes authority as Rules of faith upon the people; and so teaches the Church of England, in the twentieth Article. Lay-men to read Scri­pture. But the main things neces­sary to our salvation, concerning our faith to be grounded upon Jesus the Son of the ever-living God, the author and finisher of our faith, those, as I said before, are clear and manifest: and though Angels from heaven should teach any other doctrine, they are to be accursed, Gal. 1. Where­fore sith this is plain and manifest in Scripture, that Jesus gave himself for our sins; and whosoever believeth in him, shall not perish, but have ever­lasting life; and for that this faith is given by the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 12. Phil. 1.29. 2 Pet. 1.3. and Matth. 16.17. and is the gift of God, and no man hath it of himself (for flesh and blood doth not reveal it) and for that Christ has prescribed the way how and by what means we shall ob­tain this gift, even by searching the Scriptures, Rom. 10; It must needs be a grievous and intolerable sin in the Church of Rome to debar the people [Page 299]of this means to attain this precious jewel, the salvation of their souls.

Upon these grounds do we allow the Laytie to read the Scripture; but we do not hereby give them liberty to interpret it according to their will and humour. They may in them finde Jesus to be the life everlasting, the Spi­rit giving them faith; and therefore must not be debarred the means. But they are not allowed in points of diffi­culties to be their own interpreter, but to repair to the Fathers of the Church to declare the meaning of those Ora­cles of God, to whom it is given by the power of the holy Ghost to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, Matth. 13.11. For which end, Christ has commended the Scriptures to the Church, that she may discern, keep, and publish them: Christ open­ed the Scriptures to his disciples Luke 24. and they preached it to all na­tions. The Apostle Paul, 1 Tim. 3. calls the Truth the fountain of the Church, and the Church the pillar of Truth: as Solomon made his Chari­ots to have a golden axletree, and pil­lars of silver; understanding by the [Page 300]axletree (says one) sound doctrine; by the pillars, the faithful teachers of the same. The Scripture is the truth of God, and the Church the house of God; the Scripture the foundation, the Church the pillar: and the foun­dation is not sustained by the pillar, but the pillar supported of the foun­dation. Truth makes the Church, not the Church the Truth. We are to observe the Scripture as it were the Candle, the Church as the Candlestick; according as S. Austin upon Gal. 1. says, Church how to in­terpret. The Scriptures are not true, be­cause the Church says they are the Word of God; but the testimony of the Church is true, because they are the Word of God.

Now as we ascribe to our Church this priviledge of interpretation of difficult and obscure places, Scriptures above Councels, [...]nte, Chap. 9. we do not either deprive Rome of her right, or too much extol our own Church. Nor do we hereby make void the Laytie's reading of Scripture. The Laytie may read it, because the main points are easie; and it is the means to obtain faith, as well as by hearing the Church, in those points that are easie; and it is [Page 301]the way enjoyned by God to attain faith, as well as by preaching; and he has promised his Spirit to those that seek him earnestly, and with unfeign­ed lips. And when it shall please God by their reading to give them of his holy Spirit, that Spirit will guide them to come to the Church, to be in­formed in those things they understand not; or shall the Church understand that through weakness they misunder­stand any point in those Scriptures, and she shall reprove them, the same Spirit guiding them into the way of Truth, will lead them to hearken to the dis­pensers of the sacred Oracles. And if the Church shall deliver any thing which to other Churches may seem strange, and not satisfactory; she, as I said before in the precedent Chapter, will call a Synod; and if there the business receive not an absolute and satisfactory resolution, to submit the business to a General Council rightly constituted, and free in it self. And in the mean time, if our Church offend the Church of Rome, for that she dif­fers from her in any particular; let her make her self capable to reform by a [Page 302]General Councel, by taking off the slavery that lies upon it by the Popes Canonical Law, and we shall submit our Church to the free debate in a perfect Council to decide the points wherein we differ; (otherwise the Church of Rome might seem to have just cause to accuse us▪ for that we cast off the discipline of the Primitive Churches as to that particular:) but in the mean time, upon the former re­cited texts of Scripture, upon the au­thority of the Fathers, and the exam­ple of former ages, we shall persist to affirm, That the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation, That those points necessary are plain and easie, and That the Laytie may read the Scriptures. And for any blemishes which the Doctor would in this parti­cular have thrown upon our Church, I hope it is but dust thrown against the winde, and is flown back into his own eyes. I wish the Scriptures received no more injury by the Church of Rome, then it doth from our Church: but that is manifest to the contrary, as may appear by that which here next follows.

The Doctor in his Book, fol. 229. Scriptures abused by the Church of Rome. reckons up a great number of cor­ruptions and errours crept into our Translations, but named not any; onely cites one Broughton for his au­thor. I must confess it was wisely put off: for should he have named them, they would have appeared to have been different from the Rhemish Translation, but not dissonant from the ancient Copies; and so he would, in stead of faulting ours, have censured their own Translations. Yet he craf­tily imagining that those 848 cor­rupted places should be believed to be so, if he could instance any, he names four in his 22 Chapter.

1. Answer to the mis­translations we are tax­with. He brings in Beza and Luthers Translations, adding the word onely in Rom. 3.28. And this he would have to be an errour of our Church. He might as well tax Rome as Eng­land for this fault: for the Church of England doth not adde that word in her Bibles which are printed by autho­rity, and by direction of the Church enjoyned to be read: nor is the word to be found in Fulk and Rhemes, those two quarrellers each with other. [Page 304]Wherefore I must needs wonder that the Doctor should be so injurious to us, to bring false accusations against us.

2. The second place which the Do­ctor alleadges to be a mis-translation in our Bibles, is 2 Pet. 1.10. Giving diligence (by good works) to make your calling and election sure: He charges us with corruption, for leaving out these words, by good works. This I must confess is different from the Rhemish Translation: but I rather suspect that that Translation is to be faulted, not ours: for Rome, to main­tain her doctrine of Merits (by which she cozens poor silly souls, and to en­rich her Clergie, cheats them of what they have) has added these words. And I am the rather induced here­unto, for that I have seen an ancienter Bible then the days of Luther, and it has them not in: and Erasmus his Translation has them not in. So that as the Negro's blame all that's white in others, because nothing to them is more comely then their own tawny black; so the Doctor quarrels against our Translation, because of its inno­cency, [Page 305]it is not besmeared with Romes new adulterate alterations, and there­fore not in fashion, or to be approved; and upon this score I may say the Do­ctor was modest that taxed us with no more then four. For he might as well have named the 848. if all must be censured for corruptions wherein we differ from the Rhemish translations. But let the Church of Rome remember Saint Pauls rule to the Corinthians, 2 Epist. 13.5. Prove your selves whe­ther ye be in the faith. Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 9.27. beat down his body and put it subjection, lest while he preach­ed to others, he himself might be re­proved. Wherefore let Rome examine the ancient Copies, and try if she find those words there; and till then, let her forbear to tax us of error, who in this follow antiquity; and so upon the old rule, Id verum est quod prius; id adulterum quod posterius, Tertul. adversus prax. in prim. part.

3. The third errour he taxes us with, is, In putting and for or in the 1 Cor. 11.27. which he himself, to excuse Rome of perverting the Scrip­ture, she being taxed in this very par­ticular, [Page 306]in another place, she putting or for and, and thereby to prove com­munion in one kind, affirms that et is often rendred or; and if so, it may as well be taken so out of the English as out of any other tongue. But I re­ferr the reader to a fuller answer of this objection in the sixteenth Chap­ter.

4. His fourth objection is the 15 verse of the 2 of Saint Peter 1. I will do my diligence you to have of­ten in remembrance after my de­cease. The English translation reads it thus, I will endeavor that you may be able after my decease to have these things in remembrance. For this we likewise appeal to any transla­tion which was before the second councel of Nice: and many of their own translators long after that coun­cel did render it post exitum, non post obitum. Peter being to go to his See at Antioch in Syria, writes to the Saints that dwell in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, that after his departure they should strive to have in memory to make their call­ing and Election sure; of which in [Page 307]the 12 verse he says, He would not be negligent to put them in remem­brance. Now how can this be inter­preted, that after his decease he should put them in remembrance, unless he should come againe unto them? it must therefore be interpreted of his departing from amongst them to An­tioch, and that he would send to them to put them in mind, knowing that his end drew neer, when he could not; and therfore, says the text, he would use all diligence to put them in mind. Now how he should put them in mind af­ter his decease, is to expect that Peter shall not rest from his labors, as if he were not dead in the Lord, which is unchristian to think: wherefore I sub­mit this to the learned in the Hebrew tongue, to illustrate this further to weaker capacities, if there be any oc­casion of scruple in our translation, which for my part I conceive, that, taking that verse with the sense of the former, our translation is more genuine and carries more of integrity then that of Rhemes.

The Bishops of Rome having by the politick practices of their predecessors, [Page 308]and by the unworthy complottings of the Cardinals (who being in hopes to ascend the Papal Throne themselves care not what dominion and Lordship they ascribe unto the Pontifical seat) gained a superiority over Kings and Councels, controlling the one and or­dering the other as they please, did daily consult not only how to preserve what they have (though their possessi­on be utterly unjust) but likewise continually study to enlarge (if possible) this their pomp and dignity. For their ambitious minds not satisfied with these large acquisitions, thinking them but an earthly soveraignty, & too narrow for their large souls to strut in, they would perswade the world that the Pope is an angel or more, and hath Com­mission from heaven, and is sent from thence to possess the chaire, and tan­quam à Tripode to deliver new ora­cles upon earth.

Thus wisely casting with themselves and reflecting upon the curiosity of some who would be over-scrutinous to examine the points of this Commissi­on by the rule of the holy Writ, at last they concluded upon this result.

That it must be de fide received that his holiness is the only exposito [...] (and by the same rule of gradation an Evangelist to deliver new Scrip­ture) of the old and new Testaments: The Pope abuses the Scriptures. and having perswaded some and for­ced others into this opinion, without care for the souls upon earth, with­out respect of Saints and Angels in Glory, and without all fear of the Al­mighty God of heaven, he commands the holy writ (which was the dictates of the holy Spirit of God) to be blot­ted, wrested mangled, and tortured at his will and pleasure, making no more account thereof, then if it were but the Embryo of a Bear, which by the licking of its dam were to receive shape and perfection. And if there be any text which doth impugne this his usurped unlimited power, it must not be suffered to pass the Press before first it be either rubbed over with his holiness index expurgatorius, or else brushed with his Ghostly interpretati­on. As for example, Josh. 1.18. the people professing an unlimited power to Joshua in all things to obey him, The words (in all things) are ex­punged [Page 310]in the Rhemish translations: for it stood not with his holiness in­terest and prerogative to let them be for a president. For if the people of God were in all things to be obedient to their Prince, this spoiles his holiness claime to command in temporalibus; wherefore it was thought fit to send these words to the index expurgato­rius:

Object. The Doctor in his book, fol. 59. argues the truth of Romes doctrine, for that she has not cor­rupted or extinguished the text, that being easier to do then to change her doctrine. To which I answer.

Resp. The Scriptures which Rome hath she received from other churches; and those Churches from whom Rome received them, sending aswell to other places as to Rome copies of those holy writs, it would much ashame her to alter them, in respect that true original Copies would be produced against her to her condemnation; but the Bishop of Rome being to teach these Scrip­tures within his own precincts and territories, he as times served, to ad­vantage himself, might and has in [Page 311]many places strained courtesie to wrest the sense, delivering to the people do­ctrines not warranted by this holy writ: which he might with more con­fidence do, in respect that no other Bishop was to meddle in his diocess; and he by the favour of Princes being accounted summus pontifex: where­fore reason tels, that his doctrine and traditions are more questionable then his translations of the Scriptures: for he needed not much to alter the Scriptures in respect it matters not what they say, being but dead letters without the spirit of his holiness interpretation. Yet so much did they dote upon the pomp and vainty of this world and upon that lordly height they have aspired to here upon earth, that the divel did bewitch them to alter that text of Joshua, which did directly gainesay such their dominion and power, though by reason of their new preheminence they being above coun­cels, and the onely infallible exposi­tors of the divine oracles, they needed not so to have done: or rather thus, that corruption of Joshua was before the late councels of Lateran and Trent; [Page 312]which made the Pope above councels; and it behoved them to blot out such words as did impugne their other power of lording it over Kings and Princes: but since these councels, they may now put them in againe. For it is no matter what the Scripture says, for his holiness will give such an expositi­on as shall not destroy his own inte­rest; and since those councels, such ex­position though it be never so contra­dictory to the word of God, it must de fide be received. O tempora, O mores!

Saint Basil saith, they which have been brought up in Gods word, will not suffer one syllable of her doctrine to be betrayed: what then shall we think of the fathers of Rome's Church that practice (as time serves) these tricks upon those sacred letters?

These divine writs the dictates of Gods holy Spirit [...] no marvel if they make bold with the fa­thers, mis-translating and altering their writings, and crying up their own tra­ditions, making their own mole-hills mountaines, and making the fathers like unto Moles, whose nature as Ari­stotle [Page 313]saith, is never to open her eyes till she be dead; and so they make the fathers, being dead, to witness things they never dreamed on or saw being living, as I have shewed in the tenth Chapter. If these divine oracles of God must not escape the venom of their claws; if these must not be deli­vered to the people without corrupti­on, I know not how we may give faith or credit to her traditions, the vanity of which I will briefly disco­ver in this ensuing Chapter.

CHAP. XIII.
That because all things were not written the Church may deliver traditions, such as she derives from the doctrine of the Apostles or ancient fathers. That the Scri­ptures are to judge of those tradi­tions. That Rome is to be bla­med for her traditions because they are against Scripture.

THe Jews say, That when Moses was with God on the Mount, and received the written law, that he [Page 314]had unwritten law likewise delivered him by word of mouth: for certainly (say they) God staid not fourty dayes and fourty nights on the mount to keep Geese, nor needed he stay so long to interpret the law of the tables; wherefore they conclude that Moses received traditional law, which he taught Joshua, Joshua the elders, the elders the Prophets, the Prophets taught the people. Now because those their traditions were uncertaine, the sects of the Pharisees sprung up, and Essenes, obtruding new traditions as simply necessary and a more perfect Rule of Sanctity then that that was writ: whereupon our Saviour in the seventh of Mark reproves them, saying, They worship me in vaine, teaching for doctrines the command­ments of men; and yet in the 23 of Mat. he hath commanded us, saying, All that they bid you observe, that ob­serve and do; but after their works do not: for they say, and do not.

These two texts seem to impugne each other: but the fathers of the pre­mitive Church have resolved this knot, and reconciled these texts, by this ex­position: [Page 315]that all traditions agreeable and consonant to the holy word, are to be observed; but such traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees as were not agreeable to the holy word of God, were to be rejected.

We confess that all things which Christ and his Apostles did, No traditi­ons but such as are a­gree able to the word of God, are to be embrac­ed. were not written, according as is expressed, Joh. 21. vers. ult. And that the Apostles had order to teach the people what­soever Christ had commanded them: but as we allow this; so by no meanes must we admit that they taught any thing contrary to what they writ: they had the Holy Ghost, that never-erring Spirit, that did lead them into all truth, and could not at one time write one thing, and after teach another. We allow that they did deliver traditi­ons to the people; but Saint Peter in his 1 Epist. 1.25. tells us it was the word of the Lord that was preached amongst them; for nothing contrary to that was preached and delivered: and that the people were bound to observe all things they did teach by the commandment of God, Mat. 28.20. and therefore Saint Paul en­joynes [Page 316]the Thessalonians, 2 Thess. 2.15. to hold fast the traditions they had learned, whether by word or Epistle.

The old Testament was delivered by the Jews, and confirmed by Christ and his Apostles; and therefore the Church of Rome did embrace that, and reject the other traditional books of the Jews, which were not by Mo­ses written, or by Christ approved of.

Now we make bold in this to fol­low her example: if the Church of Rome have any traditions which are not repugnant to the written word we shall not disallow of them; but if they make against that with the Evan­gelists and the Apostles have delivered to us in writing (which writing we approve in our Judgement as the in­fallible oracles of God) we by her own e [...]ample as rejecting those traditions of the Jews which were not consonant to the written law of Moses, or ap­proved of by Christ, and likewise by warrant of Christ not to leane to the traditions of men, and to cast off the commandments of God, desire to be [Page 317]excused for not embracing every tra­dition the Church of Rome would obtrude upon us: and we perswade our selves, that sith she hath rejected the traditions of the Jews, because not warranted by the written word, she cannot be so impartial to deny us the same liberty to reject her traditions upon the same score; and that the ra­ther, because she hath not so good a ground for her traditions, as the Jews had, in respect Moses talked with God face to face, Exod. 33. Besides, the Jews traditions were certaine, and re­duced into writing by the late Rab­bins; and therefore the Church of Rome might better have embraced them, then think that we shall follow hers, which are daily of new inven­tion.

After the destruction of Jerusa­lem, and scattering of the Jews, Papist tra­ditions un­certaine. one Rabbi Juda Hannasi got leave of Antoninus to assemble the people; and because the books of their old traditions were utterly lost and peri­shed, they then being met, writ all that they could remember, The Jews Talmud. calling it Mischna, that is, Deuteronomy, or a [Page 318]Law reiterated, which was a memo­rial of their Cabala, or traditional law; which collections of theirs were afterward, Anno Christi 219. by Rabbi Jochanan enlarged, and called the Talmud, which Tal­mud was after, Anno Christi 500. perfected, and received as a Rule in all cases Ecclesiastical and civil. So that the Jews having thus reduced their traditions into certainty, it were more reasonable for the Church of Rome to embrace them, then to think that we shall hand over head accept of her ever-growing traditional rules, which are not held forth in any certainty to us, but every day upon colour of Church-traditions, she plays an Af­frican trick, and brings out new monsters; so that I may say, it is as easie to make a gown for the Moon, as for any man to think he can keep and observe her traditional rules.

The variety of her strange producti­on in this particular, might serve to cloy the appetite of any that should desire to render himself obedient to her rules: but the vanity of them, and their contrariety to Gods word, doth more [Page 319]especially and justly detaine every good Christian for being her superstiti­ons proselyte to embrace them, and e­ [...]pecially those Christians which are not within her jurisdictions, nor belong­ing unto his charge; Amongst whom I may rank our English Church, which being of Apostolical foundati­on, and in power and Church-au­thority equal with the Church of Rome, and for that the Law of God was as well extended to other Churches, and particularly to her, as to Rome, as I have proved in the second and fourth Chapters, may in that respect as well prescribe traditi­onal law to the Church of Rome, as she should send forth her historical e­dicts to England.

Yet lest some may think that if up­pon this score we cast off her traditi­ons, we do but thereby evade the question of validity and authority of her traditions in themselves, as they are by her held forth unto the world; I will therefore make it evident, that nei­ther those of her own Church and province, nor the Romane Catholicks of other Kingdomes, are bound or [Page 320]ought to receive and embrace what­soever traditions the Church of Rome shall hold forth to them, as being so imposed upon them to be received for matter of faith.

I have in some measure in the for­mer Chapter treated upon the autho­ [...]ity and excellency of Scriptures, wherein I have shewed, that she is the ground and foundation of the Church: and if so, then it follows, that what­soever tradition the Church shall deli­ver as matter of Doctrine, must either stand upon this ground-work, or else [...]t is a paper-building, an airey peece, a black cloud of humane condensing, hurried to and fro by contrary winds, [...]ill [the loosly-contracted vapour dash [...]t self upon this rock of Christ, and [...]ke smoak vanish into nothing. She [...]s the touchstone, must distinguish the gold from the drossy and courser peeces of Rom's treasure; she is the Fan must winnow and purge the floor of the Churches granary from all chaff and light corn, and from those Tares, which being cast into her field by Satan, sprung together with her better graine. And hereupon the [Page 321]good Emperor Constantine (as it is recorded in the Ecclesiastical History lib. 1. cap. 7.) did say, That seeing the Evangelical and Apostolical books, and the Oracles of the Old Testament, do plainly teach us any thing that we ought to know or learn concerning God; whether concern­ing his Divine Nature, as Saint Luke useth the words, Acts 17.25. Or his attributes and qualities, as Saint Peter applies it, 2 Pet. 1.5. Or his Law and Religion, as the penner of Maccabees takes it, 2 Mac. 4.7. Away therefore with all strife, and seek for the solution of these matters out of the Scriptures, inspired by God himself. And herewith agreeth Bellarmine, Tom. 1. Col. 2. saying That the books of the Prophets and Apostles are the true word of God, and the sure and true rule of our faith. And as I said before in the precedent Chapter, All things necessary to our salvation are contained in the Scri­ptures. It is true indeed, that in the Scriptures we do not finde any men­tion of Peter being Bishop of Rome or of the Assumption of Mary the [Page 322]mother of Jesus: nor can we finde by Scriptures, that Saint Luke was a Painter, or that Nicodemus had so much skill in Appelles Art, that he drew that exquisite picture of Christ (which Rome has) representing unto us his posture whilst the Jews whipt him. I must confess that for these matters of importance, we must sub­mit to the traditions of Rome. But all things touching God, and the means to attaine faith in him, are plentifully therein to be found.

Chrysostome sayes in his 41 Hom. upon the 22 of Matth. Quicquid queritur ad salutem, totum eam ad­emptum est in Scripturis; and upon the 95 Psalm, Si quid dicatus ab­sque Scriptura, &c. If any thing be spoken without the Scripture, the cogitation of the Auditors faile; but so soon as the Testimony of Gods voice is heard, out of the Scripture, it con­firmeth both the word of the speaker, and the mind of the hearer.

Saint Hierom upon the 9 of Je­remy, Nec parentum ne majorum error sequendus est, sed author it as Scripturarum & Dei docenti impe­rium. [Page 323]Saint Cyprian who writ almost 1400 yeers ago, would not yeeld to Stephanus Bishop of Rome, but re­proved him for leaning to tradition and demanded of him by what Scri­pture he could prove his tradition Cyprian Epist. ad Pompeium, 74. So then, if in his time it was not enough to alleadge tradition for the proof of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, much less is it lawful to follow the Popes definitive sentence in matters of faith and doctrine.

When the Arrians would not admit the word [...], because it could not be found in Scripture, A­thanasius did not plead tradition for it, but said, Although the express words be not found in the Scripture yet have the Scriptures that meaning and sense in them, as every one that readeth the Scriptures may plainly understand, and therefore by warrant th [...]eof that word might be maintained.

Saint Austine de unitat. Eccl. cap. 10. Nemo mihi dicat, quid dixit Donatus, quid dixit Parmenianus quid Paulus, aut quillibet illorum; quid nec catholicis episcopis consen­tiendum [Page 324]est sicubi forte falluntur ut contra canonicas Dei Scriptures ali­quid sentiant.

Methinks the very word Canoni­cal (which the Church of Rome having approved, Canonical Scripture disprove [...]raditiods. what Scriptures shall be Canonical, what not) is sufficient of it self to prove this point: for, signifies a rule, and thereupon those books are called Canonical, because they are the rules of our faith; and consequently whatsoever is not conso­nant to the Scripture, ought to be re­jected as pernicious, and swerving from the rules of our faith. For as whatsoever is not of faith is sin, and as faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, therefore what­soever is extra Scripturam cum ex fide non sit peccatum est. This was the saying of Basil one of the Church of Rome's Saints, in his Ethicks difi­nit. ult. prope finem. And for my part, I shall not be so harsh with her as this St. was. I should be willing to allow of her traditions, if they do not impugne the Scriptures; and not to be so rigid against her traditional power, as upon Basil's rule, utterly to reject [Page 325]all, if not expresly contained in Scri­pture. I say for my part, I should al­low of such and approve of them, as to be cerdited for the matter of fact; but if she enjoyn them as do­ctrinal and to be rules of faith, then [...]ith Cyprian I desire to examine them by this Touchstone of truth, the Scriptures. For if once she propound traditions to be rules of faith then with Hierome Cyprian and Austin I must examine the truth of them by the rule of Scripture, and with Saint Chrysostome, in his 13 Hom. upon the 2 Cor. 7. do pray and beseech the Church of Rome to reject what this or that man says, and search the truth out of the Script [...]re that learning true riches▪ we may follow them, and so attain life everlasting; neither let any Church be wedded with her own traditions, or give her self to believe the traditions of other Churches, un­less (saith he) she can bring authority from these truths, to a warrant her do­ctrine, and not to receive for doctrine the commandments of men: and with Saint Cyprian examine from whence such tradition came, whether it de­scended [Page 326]from authority of our Lord Jesus Christ or his Gospel; or whe­ther it came from the Mandates of the Apostles, or their Epistles. If so saith he, let such divine and holy tradition be observed; if no, let it be rejected especially any tradition that shall con­tradict the written verities of God, for such certainly proceed from spirits of error.

Here is a cloud of witnesses all a­greeing in one, that no traditions are to be embraced, that have not war­rant from the word of God; so that for the Church of Rome to put her traditions upon the people for rules of faith, upon that score, that it is the power and authority of the Church that awarrants those traditions, is vain, and not binding to the consci­ence of men, unless she can justifie and maintaine them warrantable by the word, according to Saint Pauls say­ing to the Galat. 1.9. Though an Angel from heaven come and teach any other doctrine then what we have preached, let him be accursed. For the Testimony of no Church whatsoever is to be received, if it be [Page 327]contrary to the Scripture; S [...]riptures above the Church. Ante 73. Chapter 9. according to that of Saint Austin upon that text, The Scriptures are not true, because the Church sayes they are the word of God; but the testimony of the Church is true, be­cause they are the word of God; and should Rome or any other Church teach contrary to the holy Scripture, it is to be rejected, as that which hath nothing of verity in it.

Now sith the Scriptures are the onely rules of our faith, The vanity and false­ness of the traditions of the Church of Rome. and do containe in themselves the necessary points of our faith, what shall we think of the traditions of the Church of Rome, which have no warrant from the holy Scriptures, but many of them being repugnant, and utterly contrary to those Scriptures (which therefore by the rule of Christ himself in the 7 of Matthew, and by the general consent of the fathers of the primitive Church, are to be rejected) yet notwithstanding are by her enjoy­ned (upon her pretended authority of universality and infallibility) to be rules of faith unto others? And lest any should think me injurious to the [Page 328]Church of Rome in this particular, I wi [...]l give you a smal taste (for I delight not to lay open her infirmities, there­by to draw a scandal upon her) of such of her traditions as are not war­ranted by the holy word of God, only maintained out of self interest, and to warrant her claim of universal power Spiritual and Temporal, by these en­suing examples, and further refer you to the 7 Chapter.

The Church of Rome, that she might perswade the world of Peters being Bishop of Rome, by which she would derive all her power, and juris­dictions, doth therefore teach the peo­ple this tradition under paine of Ana­thema That Jesus met Peter as he was, going out of Rome, and the steps of their feet as they two stood talking, have left an impression in the place, which remaines to this day. Now let a man examine the Scriptures, and he shall find Saint Peter himself wit­ness against this tradition, in the third of the Act. 21. where he says, That Christ ascended, and the heavens shall containe him till he come; which com­ing is called his second coming to [Page 327]Judgement, according to the Article of the Apostles Creed: and therefore that he should be bodily there with Peter, so bodily as to leave the im­pression of his footsteeps, is against Saint Peters own saying, against the whole current of the Scriptures, and against the Apostles Creed. So I referr this to the Reader, whether to believe Saint Peter himself, or his pretended successor, in this point.

It may be that Peter might see Christ in a vision as Stephen did, Act. 7. but not bodily, for that he is there in heaven, whom the heavens must containe till all things be dissolv­ed.

Another tradition the church of Rome teaches, How that in the Church of the Fryers minors at Rome, is a picture of the Virgin Mary, drawn by Saint Luke, which Gregory carrying in procession in the time of a Plague, the Plague ceased; and they taught the people that it was by our Ladyes meanes, for the honor done to her Image; and so ascribe that to her, which is due unto the Lord God, he correcting by Judgements, and out of [Page 330]his goodness extending his mercy as seems best to his divine wisdome: and hereby they neglect that duty God has enjoyned them, in that they did flye to the Lady Mary for succor in that day of their visitation, whenas God has commanded them to call upon him in the day of trouble, and he will hear them.

The Papists likewise teach, that in the Church of Sebastian in Rome, an Angel appeared to Saint Gregory as he was saying Mass at the Altar of Saint Sebastian, and said to him these words, In this place there is true re­mission of all sins, brightness and light everlasting, joy and gladness without end. And this favours of Atheisme, to affirme, that on earth there can be light everlasting, as if the world should never have an end, which is contrary to Scripture, for that they plainly affirm an utter dissolution of all things 2 Pet. 3. And Saint Mat­thew witnesses, How that at the end of the world, the Sun shall be turned into darkness, and the Moon and the Stars shall lose their light, the Stars shall fall from Heaven, and the powers [Page 331]of the Heavens shall be shaken. They likewise teach, that in the Church of Calixius, is the Altar whereon Saint Peter said Mass; which is not prob­able in respect he never mentions it in Scripture; nor Saint Luke, that ever he used any such thing; besides, the sacrifice of the Altar is against the Scripture, as may appear in the six­teenth Chapter.

The Church of Rome likewise teaches, that in the Church of Saint Johns the Lateran in Rome, is a Chap­pel called the Sacrists, wherein is re­mission of all sins, both à poena & culpa; and that not far from the same Chappel is an ascent of thirty two steps, which were the same Christ went up when he went before Pilate, and were brought from Hierusalem thither; and that whosoever ascends those steps, for every step he hath a hundred yeers of pardon: which is contrary to the Scriptures. Matth. 1.21. It is Jesus that must save his people from their sins; and the whole Scriptures witness, that by his stripes we are healed; it is his blood, that is shed for many, for the remission of [Page 332]their [...], It is the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world, Joh. 1.29. Neither is there salvation in any other. Act. 4.12. and through his name all that believe shall receive remission of sins, Act. 10.43. he being for that end sent into the world, 1 Tim. 1.29. which gave himself for our sins, that he might re­deem us out of this present evil wo [...]ld, Gal. 1. and is a reconciliation for our [...], 1 Joh. 4. without which we are not cleansed, his blood onely being our remission. Hebr. 9. Wherefore how [...]bominable is this Romish tradition, which is for no other end, but to co­zen people out of their money, who for the pardon to be received by go­ing up those steps, must liberally dis­ [...]urse to his holiness use, who more thinks upon that private advantage, then Christian-like considers how by [...]hat tradition he makes the death of Christ in vaine.

With many such like traditional sto­ries, doth the Church of Rome de­lude her blind votaries, which I blush to repeate, and will rather send the Reader to her own Legends, where [Page 333]he shall finde great store of these Pa­pal knocks, then that I should be the [...]uthor to discover these her fopperies; w^ch I rather wish were not at all, then to her shame to be remembered. For my part I honour Rome as the metro­polis of Europe, and her Church, as be­ing at first of Apostolical faith and do­ctrine; and do heartily wish that these late gross absurdities I finde repeated of her, were not true; that so we might embrace her as one sister, and might together serve the true and ever­living God, who is a Spirit, and will be worshiped in Spirit and in Truth; and that we might together keep the unity of Spirit in the bond of Peace: for GOD is not the Author of confusion but of Peace, as we see in all the Churches of the Saints.

Thus Reader I have briefly run through most part of the Doctors book: and though I have not obser­ved the very same method the Do­ctor has followed, yet many of his Chapters being to one and the same purpose (as who please to peruse his book, will finde it true) I have couch­ed an answer to most material parts [Page 334]thereof in what I have formerly writ: and now I am come to his twentieth Chapter, which is concerning the Popes headship.

Now for that I have given answer to this in the second Chapter, in rela­tion to his universality, it may be thought by some needless to treat any further thereof in relation to his spiritual jurisdiction; and for that the Doctor hath not at all treated of his Temporal power, it may be others be thought extravagant in me, to add a Chapter concerning that particular: Yet, because that the Pope is bolstered up in this point, by vertue of his Spi­ritual headship, by many who extend it generally, as well over temporalties, as spiritualties; And for that the Do­ctor having formerly treated of Romes Catholickship, and of her universali­ty, and of her being the onely Catho­lick Church, yet notwithstanding adds this twenteth Chapter of the Popes headship: and for that, as I said, this headship is by same extended unto Temporalties; I crave pardon to add this ensuing Chapter, and that the rather, because I will therein give [Page 335]a brief account of the state of the Popes, and of the means and wayes by which they have grown to the present height of jurisdiction they now exercise, as well over other Churches, as over Princes; and in that respect, it may serve for an answer to the Do­ctors twentieth additional Chapter, without incurring a just censure of an absolute digression from the subject matter of the Doctors discourse.

CHAP. XIV.
That the Pope hath no power to de­pose any Prince, although an Heretick. That Bishops are not equal with Kings; and that the antient practice of Rome's church was against this, neither claim­ing the same in Spiritual or Tem­poral capacities.

THe Pope of Rome claimes to be Peters successor, and by vertue thereof to be Christs Vice-general, uni­versal father of the Church, the onely dispensor of Apostolick Benedictions, and supreme head of the Catholick [Page 336]Church, these are the titles and ap­pellations, by which he desires to be distinguished, that by these it may be known he is dignified above all the Clergy upon earth.

I have in the second Chapter given some satisfaction concerning the un­justness of this his claime; yet I might admit him what he here desires to be thought to be, and notwithstanding prove that that power of jurisdiction will not extend to a warrant his busie intermedling in temporal affaires much less be a sufficient warrant for his dethroning of any Prince or Po­tentate, or disobliging his people and subjects from their obedience and du­ty to such civil Magistracy, as is set over those people to rule and govern them. In prosecution of this matter, I will first treat of the power of Kings and Bishops in general, then examine the Popes power in particular.

Kings are called sons of the most high, Of the preroga­tive of Kings. 2 Sam. 7.14. Gods on earth, Psal. 82.6. All people are to obey them in all they command, Josh. 1.28. They have their Commission from Al­might God: by me Kings reign, [Page 337] Prov. 8.15. and Rom. 13. Their wrath is as the roaring of a Lyon Prov. 19.12. And if they transgress, none is to question them, Psal. 51.4. Lyranus upon this Psalm says, David had sinned against God alone; as a Judge to punish him: for being a King, he had no superior to punish him, and yet he had sinned against Ʋriah, causing him to be murdered: but as to be punished, he crys out unto the Lord, Against thee only have I done this evil. And herewith agree. Saint Ambrose de Apolog. David. cap. 10. pag. 386. and Hugo Cardi­nalis upon that Psalm. Kings shall bear rule and exercise dominion, Luk. 22. He is the Minister of God to take vengeance on them that do evil. The whole Scripture magnifies the majesty power and dominion of Kings; which it witnesses to be given to those abso­lute Monarches and Kings mentioned in Scripture, even by God himself, that power which they had being of God, Rom. 13. And none should say unto them, What dost thou?

As for Priests, it is plain by the Scri­pture that those under the Law were [Page 338]to offer sacrifice for the sins of the peo­ple, Of the Of­fice of Bi­shops. 1 Chron. 9.2. Heb. 9.6. & 5.1. Gods Covenant with them was of life & peace, and that their lips should preserve knowledge, Malach. 2.4. And the Priests under the Gospel are a holy Priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. 2.5. they are com­manded to pray for all men, 1 Tim. 2. For Kings and all that be in au­thority: and Peter the prime Apostle was commanded to follow Christ, who left him an example of suffering and obedience; which S. Peter him­self witnesses to the world, 1 Pet. 2.21. For hereunto are ye called: for Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an ensample that yee should follow his steps. From all which places of Scri­pture may be deduced these conclu­sions.

Kings are representatives of God the Father; to them is given all power and dominion to rule and command: Priests are the lively Images of Christ, to whom he has left his precept of hu­mility, to be obedient and serve. To Kings is left authority to punish evil [Page 339]doers; to Priests, to pray for all men, even their own oppressors; not to re­compence evil for evil, Rom. 12.17. Kings are to use the material sword for vengeance; Priests the spiritual sword the Word to make supplication for all Saints, Eph. 6.18. Kings are not to be rebuked; Priests are to suf­fer with patience. Kings sit in Gods throne; Priests serve at his Altar. Kings are Angels of God, 2 Sam. 14.20. Priests are the Embassadors of Christ, beseeching us in Christs stead to be re­conciled unto God.

Yet Kings, though they be thus ex­alted and superintendent over all, they have an especial charge to respect the Priests, and hearken unto them, Num. 27.21. And it is the duty of Priests to reverence them, 2 Chro. 13. Priests pay their tribute of obedience, and duty; but Kings are to recompence it with respect and love. The power of the Priest over the people ceased, when Saul was King; and yet Saul was to hearken to Samuel. The Majesty of the one must not despise the humility of the other: the King, as I said, is the Minister of Justice, the Priests the [Page 340]Messengers of Mercy. These two must not clash against each other, but with Princely David, ought with har­monious concurrence of spirit to sing of mercy and judgement; mercy and truth to meet together, righte­ousness and peace to kiss each other. For as there is a Noli me tangere for the one. Touch not mine anointed; so there is a precept of preservation for the other, Do my prophets no harm. There is a general tye laid upon all, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; wherein the Ministers of the Gospel are included: and likewise there is a rule of obedi­ence prescribed to all, Heb. 13. Obey them that have the oversight of you, for that they watch for your souls, &c. wherein Princes are not exempt­ed. Which shews, that Princes are to hearken to their word and doctrine, and to be courteous to them, and not to grieve the holy Spirit of God. Eph. 4. and they are to be obedient to Princes, for that they bear not the sword in vain. So that these two seem to have a mutual dependencie each on other: the Priest must exhort [Page 341]with sound doctrine, to which obedi­ence must be given upon paine of dam­nation; and the King may enjoyn the practice of that or any other rule of faith agreeable to the word of God, which the Bishop likewise upon the same paine is bound to observe: onely here is the difference; in point of vari­ance betwixt King and Priest, the King is above the Priest to execute Judge­ment, the Priest being bound to obey not to rule; which is no confusion of the Ecclesiastical estate, they being hereunto ordained to suffer for Christs sake, when it shall please God, for their sins, or the sins of the people, to set an ungodly man to be ruler over them; Against whom should they out of the dictates of humane reason exalt themselves, for that they fleshlily con­ceive that otherwise the Church of Christ will be utterly destroyed, it ar­gues their infidelity of Christs promise to his Church, which shal never be uni­versally invisible: and he having enjoy­ned unto them obedience, they must submit unto that rule, and rely upon Gods providence to his Church, who can (contrary to humane reason) [Page 342]make the blood of the Martyrs the seed of the Church: Wherefore Saint Paul and Saint Peter have left these commendations to the Saints of the several Churches, To suffer is the fruit of the Spirit, Gal. 5. and bles­sed are ye if ye suffer for well doing: and Saint Peter. 1. Pet. 3.14. Blessed are ye if ye suffer for righteousness sake. Wherefore, saith he. 1 Pet. 4.19. Let them that suffer accor­ding to the will of God, commit their souls to him as unto a faith­ful Creator: and you hereby, saith Saint Paul, 2 Cor. 2. make proof of your being in Christ, if ye be obe­dient in all things; knowing this, That if yee suffer, ye shall reign, 2 Tim. 2.12. This was the practise and pre­cepts of the Apostles: and that the Pope is bound hereunto, I shall make it evident by the examples both of the old and new Testaments, and like­wise by the ancient and moderne practises of all Christian states.

The Jesuites, Bishops not above Kings. those stiff maintainers of the Popes prerogative, have endea­voured to beguile the world with their subtil sophistry, that they might by [Page 343]any means set up his holiness above all powers on earth; and therefore they would perswade that Church-men are as far above Kings, as the soul is a­bove the body; and that Kings should be subject to them, in respect their power is from the people, the Bishops power is from God: and if Churchmen obey Princes, it is out of discretion, for order sake, not out of necessity of obedience. To which I answer.

That the people desired a King, tis true, and they had one given them; but his power is from above, and he was by appointment of God anointed, 1 Sam. 9. and after that the people had submitted themselves to the King, they could not cast him off. Samuel told them by way of premonition, that he should rule over them, com­manding their sons, servants, fields, sheep &c. and you shall cry out in that day, as thinking your selves op­pressed but the Lord will not hear you, 1 Sam. 8. For his power once vested, it is from above by which he holds it: he is Ʋnctus Dei; and the Bishop of Rome may in this respect as well as [Page 344]he be said to derive his power from men, for that he is chosen by his Car­dinals, and formerly was nominated by the Emperors, as I have shewed you in the fourth Chapter: so that the Kings deriving their power from the people, as in reference to their parti­cular exercising of the Kingly power, doth not prove their power from the people; their power is from God, though the people desire this or that prince to be over them: and therefore as their power is from God, it is at feast equal with the Bishop in side to the derivation of the power; and if it were no more but so, the Bishop cannot be above Kingship: for par in par [...]m non habet potestatem.

Now that I may further illustrate the truth of this point, I will borrow that Objection; and prove by that Reason of Kings having their power from the people, that the Pope hath no power to dethrone them.

That Monarchy and Civil Magi­stracie have their rise from consent of People, is a truth most clear and ma­nifest. It is true, that Kingship was anciently upon the earth. Nimrod, [Page 345]the son of Cush, the son of Ham, the son of Noah, was King of Babel, Gen. 10. and the Egyptians had a Pharaoh over them, six hundred yeers before Saul. Whereupon, some have from hence conceived Kings to be Jure Divino: which Assertion of theirs admits of this distinction: they may be said Jure Divino, as in refe­rence to their power, because, By God Kings reign; they are the Ge­nerals which go in and out before the people; and it being the Lord of hosts which gives victory in the day of bat­tel, their power is from God. But they are Jure Humano, in reference to their Institution, the People onely having a power of choice, whether such a particular man shall be set over them, so rule them, and to go in and out before them.

Nor is it any thing but reason, Kings de­rive their power from the people. that the People had this power from the beginning. For as the King was to have command over their persons, sons, and servants; so it was nothing but right, that the people should ap­prove and allow, or disallow of the particular man, that should have that [Page 346]particular power over them. Hence was it that Saul, though anointed of Samuel by special appointment of God, yet by that consignement he was not absolute King, but was pre­ordained to be Governour over the in­heritance. For that anointing of Sa­muel did not give him power to exer­cise his kingly Office, till Samuel as­sembled the people in Mizpeh, 1 Sam. 10. and by consent of the Tribes was the lot cast, which fell up­on the Tribe of Benjamin: and vers. 24. All the people shouted, and said, God save the King.

So likewise David was anointed by Samuel, 1 Sam. 16. yet after Saul's death, he was not King, till the men of Judah came and anointed him over Judah, 2 Sam. 2. And though David sware unto Bathsheba that Solomon her son should succeed him; yet it was the people came and confirmed it, saying, God save king Solomon, 1 King. 1. And Reho­boam his son succeeded him; but it is plain, he was not king by descent, but by the peoples making him so: for, says the text, 1 King. 12.1. All [Page 347]Israel were come to Shechem to make him king.

It was not by inherent right, that the sons commonly succeeded the fa­thers in the Regal Throne, as may appear by that, and the example of Joash; who being son and heir of Ahaziah, 2 King. 11. yet was he made king by the people; they crown­ed him, and clapped their hands, saying, God save the king.

And as these Kings. so the Romane Emperours, and indeed, all other kings derive their power of governing from the people, not from any Birth-right; not as Heirs succeeding in right of Blood, but onely receiving their power from the choice and consent of the people; which people would com­monly make choice of such heirs, and crown them kings; with Solomon ac­counting their land blessed, when their king was the son of nobles, Eccles 10.17. For sith they were resolved to have kingly Government over them, (which Kingly Govern­ment is by some naked nations not clo­thed with wholesome Laws and Pri­viledges, but prostitute to the daily va­rious [Page 348]imperious dictates of humane will, without known Rules to govern by, approved of as most good and convenient. And some there be, which, though made trim and comely by kings favours, legal Liveries given by good and bounteous Princes, as heir­boons to them and their posterity, could wish a Royal Master to go in and out before them, in defence of such hereditary freedom; concurring with the other in opinion, That Mo­narchy is the best and safest Govern­ment, for avoiding of factions in the Commonwealth, and preserving a mu­ [...]al confidence and alacrity betwixt the Magistracie and the People; for that the king is but one, and trusted by them, and consented unto to go­vern: whereas oftentimes in Demo­cratical States, the major part sways, and perhaps disposes of particular in­terests, when the party concerned, nei­ther ever heard of, or trusted any par­ticular man of that major part, nor had any vote to elect any one of the same qualification of that major part. Besides, as the king is but one, he is sooner perswaded to Justice, and mo­ved [Page 349]to Mercy, then a multitude) they might as well make choice of such heirs, as of any other; and that the rather; because they had formerly prayed, and in faith were perswaded that God would give righteousness to the kings son. And when he is installed in the Throne, notwithstand­ing he succeed his father, yet he may not properly be said a king by descent, but made so by the consent of the People.

Now sith the title and power of Governing is given, by consenting to have such power over them, I will consider how far the king, and how far the people, are bound each to other.

First, for the People: I conceive, that sith this power of the King [...] de­rived from the stipulation of the Peo­ple, the People on their parts, as they expect to have the King to govern them with regardfulness, stand firmly bound to observe their Covenant made with the King. Wherefore, if they submitted themselves under Absolute Kings, as the kings of Judah, or the Emperours of Rome, &c. those kings [Page 350]were to take their sons, and appoint them to their chariots, &c. and shall command their servants young men, &c. and when they cry, the Lord will not hear them, for that they have covenanted for him so to do; they be­ing thereof advertised before, 1 Sam. 8. and that Covenant is not to be cancel­led, without the Prince his allowance.

Plutarch records, how that Ly­sander and Dionysius (two Heathens) had an Apophthegm, That children were to be mockt with toys, and men with oathes. But I hope Chri­stians will hearken to the holy Ghost, which both by the mouth of Moses and S. Paul commands them to per­form their promises, as in the sight of the Lord. Moses, in Numb. 30.3. commands that he that makes a pro­mise should not break it, but do ac­cording to all that proceeds out of his mouth: for it is (saith one) Vin­culum animae; according to that of S. Paul, Gal. 3.15. Though it be but a mans covenant, yet when it is confirmed, no man doth abrogate it, or addes any thing thereto. Where­fore the people having by stipulation [Page 351]put themselves under that Govern­ment, and that Government over them being Absolute, they may nor so much as say unto that absolute king, What dost thou? but are (as Joshua says, Chap. 1.27.) to obey him in all that he commands.

Again, Kings bound. As by that stipulation the People are bound to submit to the will of that Absolute Monarch; so on the other side, if between the King and the People (when the King is appointed over them by their crown­ing, and acclamations of Vive le Roy) it be conditioned and agreed, that such a king shall be over them, yet never­theless subject to such and such quali­fications; the king is bound to perform those unto them; for it's his Covenant, and the people are onely bound by the pledge of their faith to obey him up­on those terms, and not else. And therefore if such a king on his part break his conditions with such a peo­ple, they may (having power to con­vene a Dyet or Parliament, the com­mencement and determination of such Assembly not depending upon the will of the Prince) depose such a king, and [Page 352]proceed to a new election: and this I conceive (with submission to better judgements) is not against any texts of Scripture; for that obedience ge­nerally enjoyned to kings in Scripture, is meant of absolute Kings, to whom the people having submitted them­selves, could upon no terms disclaim their subjection to them: however every one stands bound, for conscience sake, to any qualified Monarch, indis­pensably, according to the condition of his stipulation, to be obedient to him.

As the power of Kings is meerly from this stipulation with the People who put themselves in subjection to such a mans government; None bound to obey, one­ly such as promise to obey. so this mu­tual personal Contract, as it shall not extend to the heirs of the king, so nei­ther to the heir of the party promi­sing.

That it doth not extend to the heir of the king, is manifest, because of the personal confidence of the peopole in such an one, to go in and out before them and to be over them; and like­wise because of their personal promise onely to that king: which promise, if [Page 353]it had extended to the heir, the people needed not to have met at Shechem to make Rehoboam son of Solomon king. And in all countries and king­doms the people meet and crown their new king, for that he personally is to govern them, and they personally sub­mit to him: which obedience, had it grown from the faith pledged to the old king, it had been needless to have had a meeting to make a new king▪ I must confess, that quilibet potest renunciare juri per se introducto; the people may make a Covenant to be obedient to such a King and his heir; and his heir, by vertue of that Covenant, shall be over them: and according to the connditions of that stipulation, both such heir as king and such people engaged as subjects, are indispensably bound. But yet such stipulation to obey the heir of the king, doth not binde the heir of the party promising; for that, as I said before, the power of governing the people is derived from their voluntary subjection to be under that Govern­ment; which subjection is personal and bins no further then the party promi­sing.

It is true, that such were the condi­tions of the kings of Israel and Ju­dah, that by the promise of the people their sons and servants were bound; that being foretold them by Samuel; and so they condescending unto it, it becomes, de modo concessionis, due and to be obeyed. And thus it was with the Jews under the Romane Em­perours; in which respect, all the Land of Jewry was bound, it being taxed under Augustus Cesar. Luk. 2. and this being generally proclaimed and known, and the sons and servants not gainsaying it, they (as it were re­presented by their parents and masters) are likewise bound to this obedience, though not personally promising the same. But generally in all other Countries, the Covenant between the king and the people is so personal that it is onely restrained to the parties so promising, and no further. For were the son to obey by reason of his fa­thers promise, it were needless to have the fealty of the succeeding genera­tions. And therefore was it, that in England there was a view of Frank-Pledge, where every man of twelve [Page 355]yeers of age shall take the Oath of Allegaince: and it is declared that every one (21 E. 3.12.) ought to be attendant to some view of Frank-pledge or other, to take an Oath to be true and faithful to the King. Which was a very politick constitu­tion: for, should any difference after arise between the king and people con­cerning his mis-government, none should judge thereof, but such as stood bound by Oath to obey the king according to the Laws; whereby the king might be confident the people would not wrongfully tax the king lest they should pull Perjury upon themselves; and the king was likewise hereby to take heed, that he did go­vern according to that Law, lest the succeeding generations would not sub­ject themselves to have him over them and for that without their voluntary and personal consents, they were not thereunto bound.

As for the term of Natural Allegi­ance, Natural Allegiance considered. it is in respect of a mans being born of parents which have right and priviledge in the Laws of the Nation and Country of which they are, for [Page 356]that they are thereby naturalized, en­denized, and made free, to receive pro­tection from those Laws. For those Laws proceeding from the people of such Nation or Country, and being by king and people confirmed to posteri­ty, they are onely proper to the natural people of such Nation or Country; which Laws are to be a guide to such people: and for that they are annex­ed in point of protection to the off-spring of such people, such off-spring is said a [...] natural subject, as having birth-right to those Laws which are to protect and govern them. For as they are onely to receive correction from the Rule of that Law, they may more properly be said local subjects then natural; every stranger being with them, in that respect, during resi­dence in such Nation or Country, equally obnoxious to them: and there­fore being onely born of natural pa­rents of that Country, they are said natural subjects to that Law. Natural Allegiance. For as to the personal subjection of any man to be governed by such a king of that Country, he is not by naturality absolutely concluded under that power [Page 357]before a personal engagement; onely it is a perswasive motive to make him subject himself to such a king or power, but no positive tye; the obli­gation that thereby accrues to king and people, onely arising upon the mu­tual stipulation, personally condition­ed and agreed upon by king and people.

Sith then it is plain, that kings are by the people instituted into their Re­gal power, whether absolute (and so upon no terms to be questioned by the people engaged, God onely being to punish such for their mis-govern­ment, by raising some strange power to scourge them when and as he pleases) or qualified; and so to govern ac­cording to the Articles of Stipulation. The Pope upon no terms is to inter­meddle to depose them: for after they are once invested in this power over the people, whether Absolute or Con­ditional, yet whilst they are so over the people, and to go in and out before the people, their power is from God, by whom they reign, and therefore not to be questioned by his Holiness, who is neither the party without which [Page 358]they were not set up, nor yet having any authority above their power.

And should any Prince or Poten­tate once acquire this Regal power from the alacrity and free consent of people, and afterwards submit that right to the Pope's will; I dare af­firm he betrays the peoples interest to a stranger, and is utterly injurious to his own Crown; for that he being once invested in the Regal Throne, is by Gods power and authority to go in and out before the people: and ha­ving this power under so heavenly a Master, he must not become tenant at will to the Pope, who is belowe him as to question his Power and Govern­ment.

And whereas Bellarmine, de Pon­tif. l. 1. cap. 7. would exalt Bishops above Kings, for that they administer Sacraments, &c. and Kings onely administer Justice in Civil matters; that doth not subject Kingship to Episcopacie: for the credit of the Bishops actions must serve the glory of God, not the Bishop onely; the spiritual work is of God, the bodily service is of the Minister. Now the [Page 359]honour that is to be given him, is in respect of his Officiating, not his Per­son: and in his respect, every man in his own Trade or Calling may be said excellent before the King. The Bishop is a better Bishop then the King, but the King is a more excellent man then the Bishop. The honour due to the King is in respect of his person: Who shall lift his hand against the Lords anointed, and be guiltless? 1 Sam. 26.9. His person is sacred, and above the reach of Violence: his hand bears the Sword, and the obedience there­unto is annexed to his person. But the honour and respect to be given to the Bishops, is in respect of their Mi­nisterial function: as they are men they are subject; and as they are Mi­nisters, or successors to the Apostles, which Office let it in it self be more noble and to be honoured for Bellar­mine's reason, yet if they rightly dis­pense the sacred Oracles of Truth, they must by that not onely teach others, but convince themselves that they are to obey the Civil Magistracie; not out of conveniencie, for order sake; but out of necessity, for conscience sake.

Christ ordained both Powers: Bi­shops to rule the Church, Acts 20. and Kings to rule the men, and to guide and dispose Temporal affairs: though, both have Government an­nexed to them, yet that of Kings is in his own right; that of Bishops, in Christs stead to perswade to rules of Faith and Discipline, not to compel: the power of the one is Absolute; of the other, but Effective: the one may compel, the other onely perswade.

Whereupon Chrysostome upon Rom. 13. The weapons of Bishops are spiritual, those of Kings material: Bishops are to admonish, reprove, and exhort; Kings are to restrain the dis­obedient, by loss of life, limbs, estate, or liberty: the King is to be conversant about holy things, not in the admini­string and execution thereof, as was Ʋzziah, but in appointing and or­dering them, as was Hezekiah; and is to overlook the Bishops in their ex­ercising the spiritual Function. He is to make Laws, and he is to see the ex­ecution of those Laws; and therefore he is to look into the conversation of the Bishops, that they walk according [Page 361]to those Laws, otherwise to punish them.

But if the King be given over to hardness of heart, and will not heark­en to the voice of his Priests, calling unto him in truth and sincerity; yet, where he is an absolute Prince, he is not to be called to an account by them, or the people who have sub­mitted themselves to be governed by him; but, in such a case, Preces & lachrymae sunt arma Ecclesiae, ac­cording as S. Ambrose witnesses, in his Orat. contr. Auxent. l. 5. And this was the practice of the Priests under the Law, and according to Christ's own practice whilst he was upon the earth, and according to the precepts he left to his Apostles for them to walk by, and according to the Rules of those Apostles prescribed to others as examples for their imitation, and according to the ancient practice of the Primitive Church. So that for the Pope upon any pretence to de­throne Kings, is not warrantable, but utterly against all truth recommend­ed unto us by these faithful witnesses.

Christ Jesus our Saviour, the onely [Page 362]Son of the ever-living God, King of heaven, and Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek, being both King, Priest and Prophet, de­nied all Kingship in this world, Joh. 1 [...].36. He was by the Jews called Jesus of Nazareth king of the Iews, partly in scorn, partly to justi­fie their putting him to death, pre­tending he wronged Cesar; and here­unto forging false witnesses, Luk. 23. did give him that title. But Christ in this was innocent; he never wronged Cesar, but commanded his Tribute, and those things that belonged to Ce­sars to be given to Cesar, Matth. 22.

Shall Christ Jesus, a Priest, a King and a Prophet, give tribute to Cesar, and will not the Bishop of Rome al­low it? Shall the Jews be so tender of Cesars right, (though an Heathen and but the second over them, and that by Conquest) that they would not spare Christ himself, upon pretence that he should call himself King; and will not his Holiness vouchsafe that Christian Kings and Princes may en­joy their Rights and Prerogatives?

He may plead for his excuse herein, [Page 363]the Heathens Apophthegm, Si jus violandum est, certe regnandi causa violandum est; and by that Rule, adorn his own Temples (if his triple Turbant be not weight enough) with all the Crowns upon earth: But I am sure he cannot plead any Christian practice or president, either out of the Old or New Testament, to warrant his action. He must not think that that late invention of the Jesuites, forg­ed upon the Anvile of their own brain, to please their master his Holi­ness, (to wit, That after a King is ex­communicated, he ceases to be a King, and no subjects owe obedience to such an heretical Prince) will be a sufficient excuse for his dethroning any such an one.

Aquinas, Papists Ob­jections for the Popes power to dethrone. and a Councel of La­terane, have adhered to this distincti­on, and did, to justifie their opinion, cite for an evidence and proof the ex­ample of Hildebrand against H. 4.

To which I answer:

De facto ad jus non valet conse­quentia. Aquinas was 1200 yeers after Christ, and was the Popes vassal and overtaken with the errors of his [Page 362] [...] [Page 363] [...] [Page 364]time: and he did not alleadge any warrant from the Scripture for this his opinion, and therefore, being a thing of novelty, upon the Papists own rules, is to be rejected.

As for the Councel of Laterane, Councel of Laterane, call'd 1215 which set Popes a­bove Kings. it was called at the beck of Innocent the third, he being at that time at odds with the Emperour Otho, with John King of England, with Peter King of Arragon, the Earl of Tholouse, and divers others: and at that time, this Juncto, consisting of eight hun­dred Covent-Friars, and their Vicars▪ (who ought not to have sate there) to please their great master, overcame four hundred Bishops, not with strength of Reason, but Voices; where he likewise was with his Court to over-awe them. And therefore when any thing of Papal interest is to be passed by Councel, this place is ever pitched upon, as most convenient, for that his Holiness is at hand either with fair means to allure, or with threats to force the opposers to condescend to his desires. Hence was it, that in a Councel here, anno 1056, Pope Ni­colas the second was not afraid to [Page 365]broach the doctrine of Transubstanti­ation: And here Pope Innocent the third did ratifie that doctrine. And here first was hatched that other te­nent of the Popes Supremacie over Councels. Wherefore, this being a Laterane-Decree [...]it ought to be of the less credit: and that the rather, because the thing in question was the Popes own par [...]cular case, (who be­ing at that present in open defiance a­gainst those Princes) it was for flat­tery to the Pope, and for necessity of State (thereby to divert many from joyning with those Princes against his Holiness) who, if the differences a­mongst them were not appeased, were like to sit too heavie upon his Holiness skirts; declared that his Holiness was above kings. And for this they instance the president of Hildebrand's excom­municating H. 4. and his successor Paschalis deposing him.

Now these things considered, I leave it to the Reader, whether to give credit to that Councel, or the Councel of Mentz, which deposed all the Clergie which joyned with Hilde­brand, it being an unwarrantable act [Page 366]in Hildebrand to oppose the Empe­rour, and was by Sigebert called Novellum Schisma; and Sigebert wrote above five hundred yeers since, and therefore, according to the Pa­pists rules, that which is later, is less to be credited in those points wherein it differs from the ancient profession. And sith there is no warrant from Scripture for the decree of this Coun­cel, or the opinion of Aquinas, I hope there is no judicious Christian but will adhere to that of Mentz, and not in his judgement approve of the Laterane Councel, which was of more puisne time, and strave in all things to please the Pope: and that the rather, because Otho Frisigensis, lib. 6. cap. 35. and Vincentius, and di­vers others concurred with Sigebert, and the Councel of Mentz, in this opinion; whose resolutions in this point are grounded on Gods Word, but the Decree of Laterane on mans will, and therefore none may submit his judgement to be deluded with the erroneous and unwarranted decrees thereof.

The Jesuites therefore thinking this [Page 367]too weak a prop to support so weighty a Potentate as they would fain make his Holiness to be, Objections out of the Old Testa­ment an­swered. wave their confidence in this, and flee to their last refuge, to wrest and abuse the Scriptures, under pretence of Ecclesiastick power of in­terpretation; and therefore they cite some presidents out of the Old Testa­ment, which they mis-apply, and would fain have them mis-understood. As for example: They would prove by the examples of Saul, Jeroboam, Joash, Athaliah, and Ahab, being put from their kingdom by the High-Priests, to be a warrant for the Popes dethro­ning of what Prince he pleaseth to ac­count wicked. Whenas those presi­dents rightly understood, make no­thing for the Popes pretended power herein, but rather against him.

As for Saul, he was not cast out by Samuel; Samuel onely denounced Gods will, (which was to him re­vealed, how that Saul should be cast from his kingdom) and he did there­fore by divine appointment anoint Da­vid in his steed. But notwithstand­ing it appears by the Scripture, that although Saul stood excommunicate, [Page 368]as being rejected of God, yet he con­tinued still king, and both David and the Israelites did obey him, David calling him his Lord, and Anointed 1 Sam. 24.7. God forbid (saith he) that I should lay hands upon him: for who shall smite the Lords an­ointed, and be guiltless? 1 Sam. 26.9 And the like was of Jeroboam: the Priest did not impose the punishment, onely denounce the judgement that was to come upon him, by way of Prophecie. And whereas Azariah was shut from men, being a leper, and his son Jotham set up to rule in his stead; this doth not prove that Ex­communication (which the Jesuites would perswade to be the figure of the spiritual leper) doth ipso facto de­throne a King: Azariah continued King till his death: he was called King in the 22 yeer of his Raign, which was the last yeer of his Raign, 2 Kin. 15. So that Jotham was not King, but Vice-gerent, during his fathers le­prosie; and then, his father dying, he claimed an absolute power in his own right, not by vertue of his fathers se­clusion. And whereas Athaliah was [Page 369]deprived of her kingdom by Jehoiada the Priest, that was by vertue of Joash whom the Priest preserved in the Temple, he being the right heir, and Athaliah an Usurper, and murderer of old Azariahs children, onely Joash escaped her bloody treachery; and after that, the people did adhere to make Joash their king, and did pro­mise to put themselves under his Go­vernment: whereupon, the high-Priest did command Athaliah the usurper to be put from the throne, for that Joash was both heir in blood, and had the general approbation of the people. 2 King. 11. They clapped their hands, and said, God save the king. And for Elijahs withstanding King Ahab, it was because of his Baalitish Prophets, whom by a miracle he de­monstrated to Ahab to be the cause of the famine and the drought, which he shewed by prayer for rain: and A­hab being herewith convinced, gave consent that the Baalitesh Priests should be delivered up; which, by consent of the people, by a publike Decree were put to death by Elijahs hands.

But none of these examples do prove that Priests have a right to de­pose Kings; though the contrary may be proved that Kings deposed Priests, as Saul slew Abimelech for taking part with David, Joash commanded Jehoiadahs sons to be put to death, and Solomon displaced Abiathar the high-Priest from his primacy and dig­nity, for following Adonijahs faction. The Scripture recites nineteen Kings of Israel, and fourteen of Judah, who brake the Covenant made with the Lord, and followed strange gods, and drave the people to apostacie; yet was not one of them deposed by a Priest or a Prophet; for they knew that they [...]eld their authority from God, not from them; and therefore, with Da­vid all agreed to subscribe, Who can lay his hand upon the Lords anoint­ed and be guiltless?

Now as there can be no proof pro­duced from the Old Testament, so much less from the New; but positive­ly and plainly to the contrary, Christ himself commanding tribute to Caesar; and Rom. 13. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers: and [Page 371]1 Tim. 2. Let prayers and supplica­tions be made for princes: and 1 Pet. 2. Submit your selves for the Lords sake whether to the king as supreme or unto governours sent by him. Again, Christ said to his Apostles, The kings of the Gentiles bear rule, and exercise dominion: Vos autem non sic. Luke 22.25. There must be no strivings amongst them, who should be the greatest; which Christ manifesteth, by setting a childe amongst them, Matth. 18. By all which texts of Scripture it is plain, that Ministers of the Gospel, and successors of the Apostles, are to sub­mit to, pray for, but not oppose kings; neither are they to look after worldly power and lordship, Christ himself denying to meddle with the dividing of the land betwixt the two brethren Luke 12. For this was praeter his business he came about.

Now if the Pope would be thought to be Peters successor, let him follow Peters precept; and let him imitate Christ, who commanded Peter to follow him: let him do his Masters business. Let him never think to in­tangle [Page 372]himself with the temporal af­fairs of this world, let him never think of disposing of earthly Crowns, but seed his flock, and instruct them in the ways of godliness, that they may with meekness, temperance, patience, and snffering, attain to a crown of glory, being strengthned through the might of Christ his glorious power, unto all patience and long suffering with joy­fulness, Col. 1.11. For such is the will of God, that by well doing they may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men, 1 Pet. 2.15. Let him not think to turn Peters keys into Hercules club; and when a Prince will not hearken to him, he may de­throne him: for he hath no warrant for his so doing: And the power of the keys given to Peter, did not ex­tend to this; nor may the Pope claim any such priviledge by vertue thereof.

When Christ said to Peter, The power of the keys doth not warrant the Popes deposing of Kings. What­soever thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what­soever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven, He did not there­by give him power to pull down kings, for that after he enjoyned Cesars tri­bute, [Page 373]and Peter himself after sub­mitted, and taught rules of obedi­ence. Nor was this power given to Peter alone, of binding and loosing, but to the rest of the Apostles also: John, James, Bartholomew, &c. had the like power, as I have shewed in the second Chapter. And admit Kings be so included under the power of the Keys, yet that doth not prove any power in the Priest to dethrone him, onely to denounce Gods judgements against his sin, and to admonish him, and to pray for him; but he must not meddle with his Temporal Regiment, nor so far extend his Ecclesiastical power, as to dis-engage Subjects from their Allegiance to such a Prince: for that is against the practice of the Apostles, and against the precepts of Christ. And certainly, if the Apo­stles or Peter had had any such power by vertue of the Keys, they would ne­ver have suffered it to have been de­pressed, without giving testimony to the world of the injury done unto them: Peter, if he suffered at Rome, and Paul, whom all stories agree to have suffered under Domitius Nero [Page 374]never so much as denouncing him Eth­nick, or uncapable to rule because a persecutor of Christs Saints: nay, they were so far from this, that they com­manded others for conscience sake to obey Heathen Princes, and that be­cause of their power which is from God; which power, as I have partly shewed was beyond their compass to take from them.

The Jesuites being beaten from this hold of the Keys, they betake them­selves to the treble Pasce which after Christs resurrection was said unto Pe­ter, Joh. 21. and would fain deduce this power from thence; and so per­swade the world, that the Shepherds Crook is the Arms of all other Sees not of Rome; the Bishop thereof be­ing no ordinary Pastor, but one that is known by more Nable bearing; viz. Mars, a Papal Mitre ensigned with a triple Crown and a Cross. Pater, Sol; which in my opinion stands for no good denotement of E­piscopal dignity, in respect it doth not sympathize with the Successor of Pe­ter; and therefore serves rather to denote him sprung of another tribe. But this by the way.

They would fain perswade the world, The treble Pasce doth not extend to depose Kings. that this power was given to Peter by vertue of the treble Pasce; and by his being Bishop of Rome, is devolved upon the Pope: which I have already touched, in the second Chapter, That nothing doth belong to Rome, any more then anyother See Apostolique, by any power thereby given. I will onely, for better illustra­tion of the present point add this, viz. That Peter and Paul both submitted unto Domitius Nero, a cruel Hea­then and persecutour; neither did they thunder out any Excommuni­cation against him, thereby denoun­cing him uncapable to rule; which if they had thought to have been so, certainly they would not have con­cealed it at their sufferings, when they saw they must die, and all hopes of their natural lives debarr'd from them.

If Peter suffered at Rome, he left no such Testimony behind him, nor Paul neither; so that for the Pope to aspire to this prerogative upon Pe­ters score, is an injury to that bles­sed Apostle, he having received rules [Page 376]from his Master Christ to the contra­ry, of which both he, and the rest of the Apostles were faithful witnesses in their sufferings.

The Papists beaten from all Scri­pture, there being neither from thence, nor any practice Apostolical, the least warrant for this their presumptuous claim, they then begin to strive with flesh & blood; and forsaking the rules of Christ, and the exmples of Peter and the rest of the Apostles, notwith­standing they would have Peter to be the Rock of the Catholike Church, they quit the harbor adjoyning to that Rock, and rove themselves upon the billows of strange contests: And as when the Fish Meron perceiving a storm, lays hold upon a chance pimple stone, & thinks to save it self from the tossing of the waves by sticking to that, whenas both it and its stone are tum­bled to and fro at the will of the sea; so these men think by a new-found in­vention of their own, to make good this their bold assertion against all opposi­tion; whenas any reasonable Christian may easily refute the same; and if with reason they will not be driven off it, [Page 377]dash their brains against Peters Rock. Wherfore they blush not to affirm that God was not provident enough to his Church if he should leave her without a head to rule and govern her, and as a widow to be despoiled by any Heather or persecuting Prince; and therefore of necessity the Pope must have this pow­er: they are the principal wards in S. Peters Keys to depose Princes, and ex­cite subjects to oppose them, if occasion be; otherwise the Church should want the Pope her Head, that Pillar to sup­port, and that Eye to direct her; as Car­dinal Allen in his Apology observes. Allen for deposing of Princes.

This Doctrine of Allen is gross and Heathenish, tending to Blasphemy and infidelity: infidelity in Gods pro­mise, he having promised his Spirit to his Church to the end of the world, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it: she shall not be totally ex­tirpated from off the earth till Shilo come, though she may be invisible in this or that Country as I have shewed in the fifth Chapter; and therefore Christ bids his Apostles suffer for righ­teousness sake: for Sanguis martyrum shall be semen Ecclesiae. Wherfore for [Page 378] Allen to affirme that the Pope must have this power or the Church will be lost, argues his distrust in Gods promise to his Church.

And it likewise savours of Blasphe­my to tye Gods providence to the Papal Chair, and so denying him a power or will to remove the Candle­stick from Rome. and to give it to a­nother. Providence (as Aquinas de­fines it, Aquinas summa contr. Gen­tiles) is said to be invisible, and re­main in Gods secret councel, Nondum rebus impressa: for after it appears, and showes it self in effects sensible, then it is called Fate, not Providence. Now for him to tax God of improvi­dence, unless the Pope should have this visible power of deposing Kings, is neither Scholar nor Divine like; he might as a Sooth-sayer of Egypt, experimentally, upon the coincidence of the effect of some inspection or Heathenish observation; as that when the black Eagle shall preach upon Laterane Steeple, the top of Saint Angelo shall be lifted up, as was at the time of Otho 3. and Gregory the 5. &c. Or have foretold that it was [Page 379]the Fate of Rome, that if any Prince withstood the Pope, he should be de­posed, as was in Henry 4. and Gre­gory 7. dayes; but not to conclude this upon Gods Providence, which no man by the reach of humane reason is able to pry into: it is more transcen­dent then the consult of flesh and blood can apprehend. Saint Paul cries out, How unsearchable are his Iudgements, and his waies past finding out! who hath knowne the minde of the Lord, or who was his Counsellor? Rom. 11.34. And will Allen take upon him to circumscribe Gods Providence? To know the se­crets of mans heart, is Gods attribute: but such is the gross impiety of this blasphemous man, that rather then the Pope should want excuse to de­pose Kings, he will take upon him to know Gods heart, and prove this prerogative by Gods Providence; whereby he runs himself upon these absurdities.

He doth hereby spoyle the honour and credit of the glorious Martyrs, by accusing them of error or igno­rance: of error, for tamely suffering, [Page 380]whenas they should have resisted; of ignorance, if they suffered, because they knew not the will of God herein. And he doth likewise give God the lye: for if it was God's providence to his Church to resist, in case Religion be opposed by the Prince, sure he would not have bid Peter go back into Rome (as the Papists pretend) nor would he have prescribed the forementioned rules of obedience, which are diametrically opposite to Allens pretended knowne Provi­dence.

It is not the revealed will of God, that the Crosier should resist the Scepter, and the Mitre the Crown; none of the Fathers of Romes Church ever practised or published that Do­ctrine before Hildebrands daies: and if it was Gods Providence first known to Allen, then Allen proves the Church of Rome to have been in­visible for 1074 yeares after Christ; and hereupon he has quite spoyled the Doctor; for by this means, he has hudwinkt his marks of Romes truth, to wit, Antiquity, Universality, Uni­ty in Doctrine, &c.

But my Cardinal thinks to salve up this errour by another trick, and that almost as gross as this; onely this re­flects upon the Divinity, that upon the Apostles personally. He takes upon him to make known to us what was the secret opinion of Peter and Paul, &c. which have suffered for Religi­on, to wit that they suffered because they wanted power to resist; not that it was the will of God they should do so; and so he makes the blessed Apo­stles and holy Martyrs dissemblers, speaking one thing, and thinking ano­ther. For, saith he, as soon as a Prince begins to appear heretical ipso facto, though Excommunication be not de­nounced, he shall be put from his Kingdom: for as Fame, so Heresie gathers strength by going forward. Which Axiome of his is verified in this, for that since he wrote▪ Bellar­mine plows with his heifer, and per­swades the same Doctrine. So that hereby S. Paul is accused of dissimu­lation, That he should bid the Ro­manes obey for fashion-sake to please the times: and so he makes the bles­sed Apostle an object of scorn, not [Page 382]pity; That he should be a time-server, and yet play his cards so badly, that he could not humour Domitius Nero better. Is it likely that the Apostles would have commanded others to pray for them, if they would have taken their blood if they could? Un­less these Cardinals would have them like the Presbyters of England who prayed for King Charles, whilst their Armies kept him in prison; or like Charles the fifth, who commanded prayers to be made for Clement the seventh his deliverance, and suffered his own Bands to confine him. Is it likely S. Peter preaching the Word, would bid them submit, which Word he said should endure for ever, 1 Pet. 1.25. even that Word which was preached amongst them, if he knew that it was lawful for them to resist if they had power? This were to ascribe want of faith to Peter, that God would never deliver his Church out of the hands of Persecutors, but suffer her to be always under Tyrants; or else that Peter taught one thing, and thought another. And why should both Peter and Paul press this duty [Page 383]of obedience and submission and that not for wrath, but for conscience sake, were it lawful to resist? This affertion of the Cardinal is therefore gross and impious. It is plain by the Scripture, that this duty of submission to the Ci­vil power was a precept enjoyned by God, not proceeding from any fear, (the production of a base nature.) And whenas Paul and Peter did pra­ctise and recommend this duty to others, it was to give a testimony of their faith in Jesus; who, as he had laid down his life for them (who wanted no power to have withstood the Jews: he might have command­ed legions of Angels to have come and rescued him out of their hands) in obe­dience to the will of the Father: so they, as obedient sons of Christ Je­sus, whom he had in his blood adopt­ed, would, according to his precepts and example, lay down their lives for the testimony of the Gospel. Solo­mon forbade that any should curse the King secretly in his conscience: which sure he never would have done, if it had been lawful (having power) to cast him off. Saint Jude calls them [Page 384] filthy dreamers that speak evil of Government, and despise such as be in Authority: I wonder what he would think of those two Cardinals (were he alive) who would have the Pope drive Kings out of their Kingdomes if he can.

There are some Roman Catholicks, who being with Agrippa half per­swaded to be Christians, and being touched in Conscience, decline these gross absudities of Allen and Bellar­mine, as being pernitious, and tending to the injury of Christ and his A po­stles, and the holy Scripture (and in that, injurious to the holy Ghost, Scri­pture being nothing else but the dictates of that holy Spirit.) But yet for all that, they are so bewitched to the Roman Faith, out of a blind con­ceit of its Antiquity, and therefore of its truth, that they will not leave her, but strive to justifie her in all things, and to excuse this point, for that it is a point controverted by some of their owne Church, and not yet decreed by any publique Councel (nor ever must it be decided, may the Pope chuse.) Besides, should it be referred to a [Page 385]Councel, there is no credit to be given to the result of that Councel, for that none must sit there, but such as first must swear to maintain the Pope in the very point to be controverted; and so it would be coram non judice: or if it should be decreed against his holiness, yet by the prerogatives Spiri­tual of his late Laterane and Trent-assemblies, he might notwithstanding repeal that Decree, or chuse to obey it, for that he is by them declared to be above Councels. And till this be recti­fied, this error can receive no reforma­tion from a Councel, nor can any sa­tisfaction from thence redound to clear the scruples of any mans conscience in this particular. In the mean time. Po­pery is like the Religion of the Phari­sees: Councels declare one thing de fide, the Pope is found contrary de facto; so that as our Saviour said of the Pharisees, Matth. 23.3. so say I of these Roman Catholicks. All that such a Councel should so decree, ob­serve and keep; but after their works do not: for they say and do not.

The last shift that the Jesuites have to maintain this point of Papal pre­rogative, [Page 386]is, The Pope [...] a temporal Prince. that the Pope is more then the Apostles, having acquired a Principality on earth; and so by Jus belli, he may pull downe one Prince and set up another; for, say they, the Apostles had no charge, but onely to preach the Gospel; but his holiness the Pope has other fish to fry, then what Saint Peter left him; he is a temporal Prince, he weares a triple Crown, he disposes of Kingdomes, Crowns, Emperours, Grants Dispensations, sends Indul­gences receives Appeals, answers Am­bassadours, takes Homages, releases Oaths, dissolves Leagues, interposes in the Election of Princes, has an Em­perour to hold his stirrop, bring up his first dish, a King to serve him at Din­ner, and many a glorious matter more, which Saint Peter never dreamed on; so that for him to depose Kings, he being more then ever Peter was, is no such a strange thing. To which I an­swer.

'Tis strange so great a Potentate should be thrust up into so little a Corner of the Earth, as the Territo­ries of the Papacie are, and yet that [Page 387]his Jurisdiction over other Princes should be of such vast latitude: I per­swade my self that as our Saviour said, a Prophet is nothing worth in his owne Country; so the Popes power is made more glorious afar off, then it is in Italy taken to be: whence it is that he is bearded and confronted by his neighbouring petty Princes and puisne States; and it is an observati­on, that his thundering excommuni­ons are forceless, where they meet with resistance: so that this his greatness is caused through the debased Spirits of other Princes, that suffer him to ty­rannize over them; not that he has any right or due so to do, whether in re­lation to any temporal title, or in refe­rence to any Spiritual claim. It remains therefore to examine how he can de­rive any right of title, to make other Crowns as it were Homagers, and holden of his holiness, and that he has an Universal power to dispose of them.

Baronius and others affirm this power to be inherent in the Pope, The Pope­power to depose Kings, is in ordine ad spiritualia and absolutely in him as he is Pope: But Card. Bellarmin sayes it is in ordine ad spiritualia; for, saith he, although [Page 388]he be not the Lord of all temporalties directly, and as Pope hath absolute power to dethorne Kings, yet saith he, it is in him indirectly; that is, in or­der to the Spiritualties, he being uni­versal head of the Catholick Church.

Bellarmine, by this distinction has quite overthrowne the Popes direct Authority: for the Pope is no other­wise spiritual Vicar, but as he is Pope; and if he cannot as Pope dethrone Kings, he cannot do it as Universal Vicar.

That this power is not in ordine ad spiritualia, of right belonging to the Priest, I have already proved, in the fourth Chapter and by what fol­lows, Ante ch. 4. where I have proved that Kings are vicarii summum infra regna. And I may further add these examples out of the Scripture. Infra ch. 14 The Israelites obeyed Nebuchadonosor, Pharaoh, and Cyrus in matters of Spiritual ser­vices. Moses and Aaron did offer Sacrifice unto the Lord by the Kings appointment. Moses was their spiri­tual Governour, yet in the fifth of Exodus, he desired of Pharaoh that he as well as the people might have [Page 389]leave to go and offer Sacrifice. It was the duty of the Priest so to do, it was their Office, and yet they asked the King leave, that they might at such a time do it. Kings have spiritual power. The commandment of Cy­rus was in a cause meerly Ecclesiasti­cal, to wit, the building of the Lords House, and the transporting thither the Consecrate Vessels; and the Priests and Levites at his appointment went, and without that, refused it. Ezra 1. I might produce many examples more to prove that the power of spi­ritual things belongs to the King, as to govern and command the Priests. But sith the Papists differ among them­selves and cannot agree how the pow­er over Kings should be in the Pope, whether directly or indirectly; others affirming that he hath it not at all as Pope, I will try whether he can claim it as Prince.

Franciscus a Victoria, de potest. Eccl. relect. 1. sect. 6. saith, that ma­ny absurd things have been affirmed by the Popes Parasites, to please him: Dederunt dominium papae cum ipsi essent pauperes; amongst which of his flattered attributes, this is the chief, [Page 390]to depose Kings and translate King­domes. I will now, for better satis­faction to the Reader that this is an unjust practice, both in the Popes ex­ercising the power, and in his Jesuites, which bolster him up in so doing, de­scribe their several risings and steps of advancement towards that present Lordly state they now stand in; where­by it may plainly appear, that as it is already made manifest, that by any divine rule he cannot claim this privi­ledge, no more may he by vertue of any civil title arising either out of law­fulness of Custom or property by Do­nation. And being a Spiritual man, it is improper in him to plead Usage, if at first not lawful, as I have already said, in the fourth Chapter.

The first means which gave an ad­vantage to the Popes to lay hold of any Temporal dominion or rule, The Histo­ry of the Pope. was the removing of Constantine from Rome to Constantinople; which gave an occasion to the Popes to lord it over the people of Rome in the ab­sence of the Emperour, for that then there was none appointed above them: and they, in the absence of the Prince, [Page 391]drew the eyes of the people upon them; and that the rather, because Constantine and his successors gave great respect and honor to the Bishop of Rome, in honour to that City which formerly was the seat of the Empire. And even as the Moon gives no shine as long as the Sun is visible in the same Horizon; but he being re­moved thence she becomes a glorious Lamp, and soveraign Lady over the lesser Stars: so the Popes borrowing their light from the Emperour, were nothing illustrious before his face; but he having withdrawn the rays of his presence from the Italian clime, the Pope became the onely admired Lord and Governour over the common people, during the residence of the Emperours at Constantinople, and did still steal by degrees into an opini­on of greatness amongst the people of Rome. And although Theodosius, (anno 399.) divided the Empire to his two sons, Arcadius and Hono­rius; yet the Western Empire stood not long, but like a branch slipt off the main bulk, began presently to wi­ther, wanting that sap and nutriment [Page 392]it formerly received from its old root, whilst it continued entire, and unsepa­rate from the same; so that in less then fourscore yeers, the Western Empire proved Occidental; and setting in Augustulus for above three hundred yeers bade goodnight to the world.

This obscurity and privation of the lustre of the Imperial Diademe, gave again opportunity to the Bishops of Rome to grope about in the dark for Rome's forsaken Sword and Scepter; and making strict and diligent search, at last they found out some splinters of the late Emperours Staff of Majestie, which Staff was shattered into many pieces; and having none to own it, they became a prey to any that could lay hold first.

In this scattering of the Eagles Princely plumes, all people strove to gather up those noble Ensignes, that they might be the honorable orna­ments of their own stock and families: And in this general striving to share those imperial portions, it happened so, that the busie and stirring Visi­goths laid hold of part of the Empire in Spain, The Abtenes in Guien and [Page 393] Gascoigne, The French in the rest [...] France. And in this general happa­cappa, the Vandals in Africk, the Saxons in Britain, and the Herule [...] in Italy, shared the rest amongst them.

A bundle of Arrows is not easily broken; but take one by one and any childe may snap it in pieces. Even so whilst the Empire stood united, the Pope was afraid to attempt any thing against it; but now that such divi­sions were run upon it, first making the Eagle (Monster-like) with two heads; after that, her left side being pluckt bare, whilst her left eye was shut and her feathers scattered thorow all the Western parts; his Holiness in these divisions assumes the confidence to claim a portion.

But the sweet thoughts of enjoying such a Princely dowry had no sooner kindled in his ambitious heart, but behold, a storm arose in the North, which did not onely prevent his fur­ther acquisitions of those Imperial re­liques, but did quite extinguish the sparks of those glowing embers, which he thought (if not by force pre­vented) [Page 394]to have grown to such a flame, that they should have been the light of the Western world.

The Heavens not smiling upon such lofty designes, (much unsutable for one that claims to be Peters successor) permitted the Goths and Vandals to come down in vengeance upon his proud head, and by their subduing sword, to teach him that Maxime of Divinity which he perhaps had forgot, i. e. that Man purposes, but God dis­poses. They let the proud Prelate see, that he that yesterday promised an Empire to himself, to day can finde no Sanctuary even in his holy Temples, to be safe from the fury of a conquer­ing enemy.

Totiles with his Armies, an. 536. forced Rome to become a prey to his Souldiery; plundering her houses de­spoyling her Temples demolishing her Walls, and prosternating her lofty Spires, the glorious ornaments of her towring head, even to the ground. Which current of Heathenish Tyran­ny it pleased God, Ante, ch. 5. not long after, to divert by the means of Bellisares and Narses, two worthy Captains sent [Page 395]thither by Justinian the Emperour: who did subdue the Goths and Van­dals, and restored Italy to its proper Master, the Emperour of Constanti­nople.

And the Western flowers of the Empire being thus returned to grow and flourish in their Royal bed of Majestie, the Bishops of Rome were thereby reduced to their first princi­ples, and thought themselves happie if they might enjoy the Mitre. Their thoughts were no longer fixed upon a Crown: nay, the Bishop of Rome was so far from bearding with Maje­stie, that he was content to be subservi­ent to the Governour of Rome ap­pointed by the Exarch of Ravenna; Justinian at that time setting a Go­veruour over Italy, who kept his resi­dence at Ravenna, and appointed the subordinate Officers in the remoter parts of the Italian territories.

Thus it continued but seventeen yeers: for Narses being upbraided by Sophia, Justin's wife (whose no­ble spirit could not brook any affront, especially from them from whom he had very well deserved) began to [Page 396]check the course of his proceedings; and having driven out the Goths and Vandals, and having gained the hearts of the people of the Country, he was as much through love, as by force master thereof, and therefore thought he could prescribe nothing to the people which they would deny. Whereupon, not fearing the displea­sure of an ungrateful Master, he lets him know, that as he had won Italy from the Emperours enemies, he had equal power to dispose of it to a stran­ger, as to his Master. And being en­raged towards the Emperour for suf­fering his late affront put upon him, (whereby he became accessary to the injury, for that in him onely it lay to redress the wrong) he sent for the Lombards, and made them, under their king Alboinus, anno 568, ma­ster thereof.

The Lombards continued masters of Italy above two hundred yeers: Lombards during which time, the Bishops of Rome being hopeless of any respects from them, did withdraw all en­deavours tending that way, and [Page 397]did wholly apply themselves to the Emperours of Constantinople; and the succeeding Bishops (as if the Chair were infectious, and made the owners ambitious, and seekers after worldly honour and prefer­ment, more then regardful for the souls of their Flock over which they are made Overseers) did bend all their endeavours to please the Em­perour, that being gracious with him, they might (by his favour) lord it over the rest of the Patri­archs.

And whereas formerly, Phocas, ante ch. 2. by De­cree of a General Councel, they were made equal with Alexan­dria, they now procured of Pho­cas, anno 607. to be made Uni­versal Head of the Church: which Boniface procured (as I have al­ready shewed in the second Cha­pter) for favouring Phocas his mur­dering of Mauritius the Empe­rour. A good and godly founda­tion for their Universality.

From this foundation of their Head­ship, they not long after raise another superstructure, (which being a chip of that block, and having that example of Phocas, the succeeding Pope thought the Emperour of Constanti­nople could not blame it.) Pope Za­chary being sent unto by Pepin of France, to know whether he might depose his Master Childerick, the Pope (good man) never made scruple of conscience at it: for he knew that Pepin was his good friend, and was an able States-man, and knew how to settle his affairs, both for his own security and advantage, and so might be in a condition to do courtesies for the Pope; who, upon consideration hereof, did assoil both him and the rest of the subjects of France from their promised Allegiance to Childe­rick, and by that means was Pepin setled in the Throne of France.

During these transactions and af­fairs in the West, the Empire in the East was got into a declining condi­tion; the Saracens encroaching upon them, and having brought them to that strait, that Caliph Zulciman be­sieged [Page 399] Constantinople.

The crafty Popes seeing the glory of the Eastern, Empire to look pale and wan, and perceiving that the Lombards began to gather more strength and heart by the depressions of the Imperial power, thought it was in vain for them any longer to flatter the Emperour of Constantinople, and that because if he was not able to re­dress the injuries done unto him by the Saracens, much less to be assistant to the Pope if he stood in need: wherefore they withdrew their ad­dresses of humility and respect from the Eastern to the Western clime; and Italian-like, will not bestow a cake upon him, that has not one in the oven to requite it. The Pope of Rome, upon these important considerations, quite leaves off the Emperour of Con­stantinople, and insinuates altogether with the French King, he being one that was endeared to the See of Rome for the late courtesie done him; and withal being powerful, might stand by the Pope in his necessities; which ac­cordingly fell out. For it happened that the Lombards seeing the decli­ning [Page 400]of their great enemy the Empe­rour, they began to enlarge their Do­minions in Italy. They took Ravenna from the Empire, being the seat of their Exarch, and besieged Rome: whereupon, Pope Stephen the second made suit to Pepin King of France to march to their relief; who coming with a numerous and powerful army against Astulphus King of the Lom­bards, besieged him in Pavie, and constrained him to yeeld to his mercy; who, in this his strait and necessity, yeelded up the Exarchate of Ravenna and Peutopolis.

This being thus accomplished, Pepin made the Pope Go­vernour of Italy. Pe­pin gave up the Government of Italy into the Popes hands, as a requital of Zachary's favour formerly shewed to him; by whose favour onely he was grown to be so powerful: (for the people of France would never have obeyed him, had not the holy Father of Rome perswaded them of the legality thereof.) So now Pepin was mindful of this great courtesie, and makes good the Proverb, Manus manum fricat.

These employments and great Au­thorities [Page 401]which the Pope had thus acqui­red (though the onely ship of this ad­vancement was that unconscionable perswading the people of France con­trary to their Faith and Allegiance pledged, to depose Childeric) made him proud, and puffed him up, so that he began to insult over the people; who not liking of such tyrannous proceed­ings (especially from a Ghostly fa­ther) and knowing that he was but a Deputy, and had not right inherent in himself to govern and command them, did therefore expel Leo the third from Rome: who appealing to his Patron Charles King of France, Charles the Great made Pa­tron by A­drian pre­decessor to Leo. Ante ch. 4. wrought so much with that King, that he came to Rome, and appeased the matter of difference and pacified the people and restored Leo: by which action, he did not onely please the people, but the Pope likewise. Wherefore the people having a long time conspired to shake off their obedience to the Eastern Empire, and now that op­portunity was offered them, by reason that that Empire was much decayed; and for that at that present there was but a woman to govern them (Irene [Page 402]being the Empress) they did with one consent proclaim Charles Emperour of Rome giving him the title of Cesar and Augustus: and he was crowned by Pope Leo, anno 801.

Charles the Great, son of Pepin, being thus by the consent of the Ro­manes climbed up into the Imperial Chair began to reflect upon the justice and right of his possession. Where­fore, as Blandus and Platina (two Popish Writers) affirm, he fearing to have too many irons in the fire, and not altogether relying upon the Peo­ples choice and consent to have him Emperour, for that it might not be lawful for many of them so to do, in respect they stood already bound by stipulation made with the Empress, not to cast off their Allegiance from her (which Covenant could not law­fully be dissolved, without consent of parties, or that Irene had forfeited her interest to their obedience) did there­fore make his peace with Irene the Empress, and Nicephorus her succes­sor; that by their consents and appro­bations he might rule in the western Empire: which was by them confented [Page 403]unto. And thus it continued in the blood of Charles, till the yeer 920. when Henricus Auceps was chosen Emperour by the Saxons and Fran­cones; Henricus Auceps. which continued in his blood by way of succession, till the Empire was made Elective: and Henricus Claudus, 1002. was by vertue there­of elected Emperour.

Now I submit to the Reader [...] whether any thing from hence may be evinced to prove any right in the Pope to dispose of the Empire. First it is evident, that the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperours, and were but equal with them of Alex­andria. And though they were in af­ter-times made Universal Head, yet still they remained subject to the Em­perour, having nothing to do with the disposing thereof. And when Pepin was made King of France, it was not by the donation of the Pope, but by the people of France; onely the Pope declared his opinion concerning the lawfulness of their casting off Chil­deric. And when the Popes were by Pepin made Governours of Italy, it was but as substitutes to Pepin, and [Page 404]not in their own right. And for Charles the Great being made Empe­rour it was the People of Rome that did it: it may be that the Pope was instrumental to perswade the people thereunto; but that which made him Emperour, was the salutation of the People, Salve Cesar, &c. Besides Charles the Great procured the con­sents of the Empress and her Succes­sor, to confirm him in his Regiment: which is a manifest proof that no right of donation was at all in the Pope, as Sigebert and others testifie concern­ing this very point, That the Pope ne­ver took upon him an absolute right solely to dispose of the Empire, but as instrumental to the People, to inaugu­rate and crown him, after the People had consented to have him over them. Che crown­ing of the Emperours. And the Popes crowning of the Em­perours, doth not prove any right at all in him to be disposer of that Crown, any more then the Bishops of Canterbury their inaugurating the Kings of England, doth prove a right in them to dispose of that Crown: for this was the Office of the Priests, as may appear by the examples of Sa­muel, [Page 405]who anointed Saul; and Za­dok, who anointed Solomon; and Jehoiadah, who anointed and crown­ed Joash. Which act of theirs was done as they were Priests, not as they had any Temporal right to dispose of those Kingships.

'Tis true, Emperour elective. that Gregory the fifth be­ing neer kinsman to Otho the third, did by his favour and consent procure that the Empire should be Elective, the Emperours thereof to be chosen by seven Electors; the Archbishops of Mentz, Triers, and Collen, the King of Boheme, the Duke of Saxo­ny, the Marquess of Brandenburg, and the Count Palatine of Rhene. This Constitution was enacted, an [...]o 994. and was done by the approba­tion of the Emperour; the Pope not so much as having any right at all ap­pointed to him to give a voice in the Election.

And I wonder how they can pre­tend any title to dispose thereof: for, by reason of their spiritual Function they cannot; and by colour of any Temporal right, they may not. And although the Councel of Laterane [...] [Page 406]he [...]d under Innocent the third, did declare them to be above Kings; yet the succeeding Popes did not rely up­on that Edict, as being too little to be given to their Pontifical Seat in re­gard it was declared conditionally, i. e. in case any King became Ethnick; and therefore Boniface the eighth did make a Law himself, more full, and of ampler power: for, says Appen­dix Puldensis, Constitutionem fece­rat, in qua se dominum spiritualem & temporalē in universo mundo as­serebat. And if from this Edict this Regal power must be ascribed to them, it is strange and unreason­able.

Shall the Pope, by a Decree of his own making, rob others of their right? I am sure there is no right in such a Constitution. To transfer a property in any thing, requires the consent of the owners; otherwise it is Robbery, not a lawful Contract. And yet be­cause this is done by his Holiness, who cannot erre (as his flatterers tell him) it must be construed against all Princi­ples and Rules of Law and Nature, to be a lawful Constitution, and bind­ing [Page 407]unto Kings. Which if they be so tame, as to suffer themselves to be fet­tered with this Paper-gin, when the heirs of their bodies may not succeed them, they will finde but few to pity them.

This is the Popes Royal Charter, by which he entitles himself to this Celestial power: and this is the chief and principal Canon of the Popes Law. This is that which every one must swear to maintain, before he be admitted into the General Councel; and whose blinde obedience is to be pitied as much, as the Popes presum­ptuous ruling by this counterfeit Re­cord, is to be lamented. And I much wonder the Christian Princes will suf­fer the Pope, upon such groundless and unjust terms, to be Lord Para­mount over them, whenas the warrant by which he claims this power, is meerly void in it self, for that it wants their concurrence. Nor is it credited as authentick as many of the Romane Bishops and Popes, practising the con­trary, have been honest witnesses.

Pliny says, It is the nobleness of the Eagle, to leave part of her prey for [Page 408]other birds. Whence it is, that other birds of prey still follow after the Ea­gle, to feed upon her scraps. But if the Crow presume to come too neer the Eagle, she lets her feel her talons; and, in stead of being fed, the Crow becomes a prey her self. And will the Germane Eagle suffer himself to be out-towred and cuffed with an Ita­lian Rook? It argues a degenerating spirit from the true Eagle, to suffer it; and gives occasion to the world to suspect, that he is that bird the Eagle throws out of her nest, and not one of those which the Eagle (ciscovering Majestick rays in their eyes) n [...]urishes up, and carries on her wings, above the common region here belowe.

The ancient Bishops of Rome ne­ver tasted of this sowre grape; and I wonder how the later Popes came to set their teeth on edge. Resist not evil, was Christs precept, Matth. 5.39. But the Pope is so far from this Rule, that he will not do good to them that have been benefactors to him. Kings have been kinde nursing fathers to the Church of Rome; and will she be so unnatural, to cast them off, now [Page 409]that by their indulgence she is grown to a riper state? Kings granted he [...] precedency above her sister-Churches, Kings have endowed her above them and in necessity have relieved her Popes: and will the Pope now, lik [...] the Wolf in the Fable, devour the Crane that took the bone out of her throat? Will the arrogant Hop, ha­ving overtopped the Pole by which it grew, think to bear up its weak head above its first supporter? Sure these are practices which do little become a Spiritual Father, an Universal Head of Christs Church; who, by how much his head is lifted on high, should be more given to good works, to piety, to humility, to charity, and to pati­ence; and that the rather, because on such an one, in so eminent a place, all eyes are fixed, and should there finde examples of Godliness, which might be as a heavenly light to guide them unto their Lord and Master Christ Jesus.

But I should wrong Romes Church, should I for some mens faults con­demn all. All are not Tares, that grow in that field. In these last days, [Page 410]Satan is more busie to throw in his seed, because his time is short. But heretofore, she had Bishops which ne­ver laid claim to these unjust de­mands. Wherefore that I may make the present Pope ashamed of this his unjust claim, I will produce the godly practices of his predecessors, to his own condemnation.

Notwithstanding all the shifts and tricks the Jesuites use, The anci­ent Bishops of Rome, & modern Popes, have obeyed the Emperour. Ante ch. 10 and cha. 4. to maintain this strange power they ascribe unto his Holiness, they fall short to give satis­faction to any reasonable man, that hath not given himself up to a stupid sense, to believe all they say be it right or wrong. And who please to reflect upon the practices of former Ages, will finde this to be a meer Innovati­on and in [...]roachment upon the Tem­poral power.

Melciades, Bishop of Rome, ac­knowledged Constantine the Great to be Supreme, even in things Spiri­tual. The same Constantine called a Councel at Aralatensis, excluding Melciades out of it. Where was then his Supremacie, either in Spiritual or Temporal affairs? Did not Dama­sus, [Page 411]Siritius, and Anastasius, ac­knowledge Theodosius the elder their Supreme Lord, and submitted unto him, whenas Flavianus was accused before the Emperour for intruding into the See of Antioch? who was by the Emperour freed against their wills, as Theodor witnesses, Lib. 5. cap. 23.

Innocent the first obeyed Arca­dius when he bid him call a Councel for the examination of Chrysostomes cause.

Gregory the Great being comman­ded to publish a Law made by Mau­ritius, desired to be excused, and shewed his reasons against it; but those not prevailing, he submitted, and did publish the Law, as appears by his Epist. 61. lib. 2. cap. 100. S. Ambrose ante ch. 10

S. Ambrose being commanded by Valentinian to allot a Church in Millain for the Arrians, his answer was, He would not willingly; but be­ing compelled, he had learned not to resist. And this is by some much pressed, How that he did utterly with­stand it, How that he did excommu­nicate Theodosius the elder, and made [Page 412]him do Penance. For my part, I do not credit the story: for it is not like­ly that there was any such ruffling be­twixt them, whenas it appears by the testimony of all Writers, that whenas Theodosius had freed the Empire from all troubles, he retired himself to Mallain, where S. Am­brose was Bishop; and leaving off the charge of the Empire to his two sons, Arcadius and Honorius, he died in peace at Millain. And cer­tainly if there had been any such clash­ing betwixt them, he would have made choice of some other place for his retirement. Besides it doth not stand with S. Ambrose doctrine: for he af­firms, Preces & lachrymae sunt ar­ma Ecclesiae. He never taught, that it was lawful to take vengeance upon the Supreme Magistrate; as his Epist. contr. Auxentius doth witness. He freeth Kings from all Laws made by man, as appears in his book Apolog. David. cap. 10. pag. 386. Rex nullis legibus tenetur humanis, ho­mini non peccavit David, cui non tenetur abnoxius. Now if he should inflict Penance upon the Emperour, it [Page 413]was against this doctrine: and so the Papists wrong S. Ambrose, in father­ing a practice upon him which was contrary to his profession. Where­fore I suspect this tradition of the Church of Rome in this point, that S. Ambrose should make Theodosius the Emperour do penance. It may be he enjoyned Penance to Theodo­sius after he was become a private man, during his retirement at Mil­lain, and after he had left off the Re­giment of the Empire to his sons: but that is no warrant for the Pope to do the like to the Emperour or any other King; for that if he did so, it was a punishment inflicted, not upon the Emperour, but upon Theodosius, be­ing a private man. And as this makes nothing for the Pope in this particular point, so may he not arrogate this by reason of his Universality granted by Phocas, for that his predecessors ne­ver claimed, or was it allowed or in­tended by the Emperour, that he should have this power by vertue thereof, as may be proved by these ex­amples.

Pope Agatho, who when Con­stantine [Page 414]Pogonot the Emperour called a Councel, Consiant. Pogonot, ante. writ that he had sent his fellow-servants to his most excellent Lord, according to the most holy De­cree of his Princely Majestie, and the duty he owed him. After that, Leo the fourth shewed to the Emperour Ludovicus the second, that if he had not dealt justly with them over whom he was placed, whatsoever was amiss, he would amend, at the discretion of his Excellency. And some other Pre­sidents of this nature I have shewed, in the fourth and tenth Chapters.

Thus you see in all Ages, Ante ch. 10 and ch. 4. the Popes acknowledged themselves obedient and subject to the Emperours, till that fire-brand of dissention, Halde­brand, ante. Hilde­brand, or Gregory the seventh, oppo­sed Henry the fourth; which by the Fathers of those days was called No­vellum Schisma. Neither did it pass unpunished, he being afterwards thrust from the Popedom, and himself con­fessing at his death the unjustness of his proceedings, as I have formerly touched in the sixth Chapter. And as Hildebrand escaped not the divine hand of Vengeance, so did none after [Page 415]him attempt the like, but it was punished either in themselves, or their immediate successor.

Pope Innocent the third did ex­communicate Frederic the second: but the Bishops of Germany denyed to obey the Bull; insomuch that one Eberhardus Archbishop of Saltz­burg did condemn that proceeding of Pope Innocent against Frederic, and likewise disapproved of what his Pre­decessor Pope Celestine the fourth had done to Henry the sixth, uncle to Frederic; basely and unworthily crowning him with his foot: and what Pope Alexander the third most insolently and antichristianly did to Frederic the first, treading upon his neck: and calls them worse then if Luther or Calvin had been to have spoken their epithets in a full Coun­cel: all agreed to withstand the Pope in those his unjust proceedings.

The French and Spani­ards oppose the Pope. Nor were the Germanes sole oppo­sers of his Holiness in this point, as may appear by the practices both of the French and Spaniard.

The French, as I have formerly ex­pressed in the eleventh Chapter. And [Page 416] anno 1600. the whole body of the Sorbonne, and the University of Pa­ris, did condemn this tenent as Schis­matical and pernicious. And the Spaniards, his dearly beloved Catho­like darlings, did in a Councel at To­ledo oppose his Holiness in this point, as may appear by the six Councels of Toledo, can. 18. Testamus coram Deo & omni ordine angelorum, &c. We protest before God and his angels, that no man ought to intend or enter­prise the destruction of the King: they having formerly by the fourth Coun­cel of Toledo and can. 75. establish­ed an Oath of Allegiance indispensa­ble; which was done, anno 633. and was revived by the sixth Councel, and since observed and kept even to this day; the Pope having no right or usage to dispose of that Crown. England not under the Pope.

And as of right this is due to other Princes especially may England claim this immunity, she having had Kings to govern her, before ever there were Bishops of Rome. Nor can Rome lay any title to dispose of her Crown, she having still continued a succession of Princes, without any appointment [Page 417]by the Pope, and having an ancient Law to establish them in her Throne, without any appealing to his Holiness. And should any, under pretence of Religion (as Allen did) go about to betray the Magistracie of his native Country into the hands of a forraign power, he becomes a sinner against the God of Nature, rebelling against his own native Country, to which he stands inseparably engaged to reve­rence, obey, and love: and such his Treason is not any jot extenuated, for that it has the cloak of Religion; for no man must do evil that good may come thereon, unless he think with the A theist, that in nomine Domini be­gins all mischief. Wherefore, how Allen would answer his Treason be­fore the court of Heaven (he being na­turally bound to his King and Coun­try, and not, against that tye, to con­federate with strangers to make it a prey, as he confessed to persons he did, Quod lib. S. Art. 7. page 247.) let God and his Truth witness. Alas, it was not the Popes Bull could excuse that: the Pope cannot dispense with inseparable duties, especially when the [Page 418]interest of Kings is concerned: he has no Commission (but one of the Popes forging) to dethrone Kings, or to dis­engage Subjects from their stipulation of obedience: Peters au­thority. He, as he pretends to be Peters successor, is to use the Spi­ritual sword, the Word: he is to make intercessions and prayers: he is not in that capacity to use the mate­rial Sword. Peter had command to put up his sword; he might not use it, though in defence of Christ his Master: his office was to perswade, not to compel: his commission was to feed, not to kill; to obey, not to rule. Christ commanded his Apostles to wash one anothers feet: Peter was not to tread upon Kings necks, nor was any to kiss his toe. Peter would not suffer Cornelius to fall down at his feet and worship him, but took him up, and said, Stand up, for even I my self am a man. And now that the Pope should cause all these things to be done, under pretence of power derived from him, seems to me a meer Solcecism, and a knot so inexplicable, that let the whole tribe of Ignatius Loyala study till their brains resolve to [Page 419]jelly, they shall never produce a con­vincing reason for it. And it is an ar­rant shame for Princes, in the mean time, thus to be troden by Romes Crows; which, like Aesop's Chough, being made fine with others feathers, moveat Cornicula risum. It is brave pastime for the Grand Seignior, to see his Holiness with borrowed fea­thers mount above the Eagle; whilst other Princes, like little birds, onely stare with wonder to behold such a monstrous Owl abroad at noon-day, neither offering to beat her back to her Ivie-bush, nor to take from her their own proper plumes: by which means, they make the Pope an object of admiration and glory; themselves, of scorn and misery. And whilst they suffer him to trample upon any one particular Prince, they consent to their own ruines; whenas they ought to make it their own case in general: and every one ought to consider it as a wound in his own side in particular; which whilst it is suffered, and not re­medied, it grows to gangrene the very body of Kingship, and all Temporal Magistracie. Be wise therefore, O [Page 420]ye kings; and learn ye that be judges of the earth.

CHAP. XV.
That Christ is spiritually eaten and drunken by the faithful and wor­thy Receiver. That Christs call­ing the bread and wine his flesh and blood, was a figurative speech. That the outward ele­ments are not changed: and That the doctrine of Transubstan­tiation is utterly against the truth of the Catholike faith.

THe Doctor in his One and twen­tieth Chapter, fol. 323. calls the Protestants startling at the Romish doctrine concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, a Prodigie of Opi­nions: And he musters up several Te­nents concerning the same; which be­ing various in themselves, and contra­dictory each to other, I wonder he should offer them against any parti­cular Church, especially the Church of England, (against whom I suppose his [Page 421]darts are by this intended, for that elsewhere (fol. 259.) he speaking of Protestants, offers grounds of con­verting to them again: which must needs be intended to the Church of England, (from whence he is gone) which he in this particular goes about to tax her of Error. Wherefore I made bold to recapitulate these ensuing Truths professed by her, and which she assumes to maintain against the Er­rours and Innovations of Rome, touching this Sacrament: wherein my desire is, rather to clear her from all malicious dirt by Satans instruments thrown upon her, then that I should by this means lay open the failings of the Doctor, or his ingratitude to his Mother-Church.

The Church of England doth maintain, That Christs body is given, received, and eaten, after an heavenly and spiritual, not after a carnal and corporal manner; and doth utterly disallow of the new doctrine of Romes Transubstantiation: not condemning it as new, in respect of the Word; but as it is a doctrine and practice in it self [Page 422]varying from what Christ, his Apo­stles or the Primitive Churches taught; and contrary to what the Church of Rome has formerly maintained; for that it is a meer novelty, through the corruption of later times; and by co­vetous and ambitious Popes, for self-interest, obtruded upon the people; making them believe a real transub­stantiated presence by the Priests con­secration, and by him offered up for the sins of the people: that so the people giving money to the Clergie, they may buy Masses and Sacrifices for their sins, and for the sins of others, as well quick as dead. Against which impious practice, and vain as­sertions, I will, for the satisfying of some doubting, and others deluded in opinion, offer these professions of the English Church to their serious consideration.

The Church of England teacheth, 1. Christ is spiritually eaten. That Christ is not in the bread and wine, but onely to such as worthily eat & drink them: That as Christ is a spiri­tual meat, so he is spiritually eaten and digested with the spiritual part of us, by faith. And for this her doctrine, she [Page 423]has warrant from Christ himself, who speaking of the bread of life which came down from heaven, and the bread which he would give them, which was his flesh, Joh. 6.51. the Jews and many of his disciples were offended, saying, How can he give us his flesh to eat, and his blood to drink? Christ perceiving their mur­muring, (that they should not re­main in ignorance) explains it to them, saying, What if you see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the Spirit that giveth life, and flesh availeth nothing. The words which I speak unto you, are spirit and life. Which is a manifest clear­ing how the flesh is to be eaten, and how the blood to be drunk; that is, after a spiritual manner: and so A­braham, and many others, did eat him many yeers before he was born of the Virgin, according as S. Paul wit­nesses, 1 Cor. 10. They did eat the same spiritual meat, and drank the same spiritual drink, that is to say, Christ.

For, to eat that meat, and drink that drink, is to have Christ dwelling [Page 424]in us, The wicked do not eat the body. and we in Christ: which must needs be understood of worthy recei­vers and not of the ungodly, in whom Christ cannot be said to dwell: it must needs be understood of one that truly believing, feeds upon Christ in his heart; and the wicked unbelieving sin­ner, he receiveth onely the bread and wine, not discerning the Lords body. Saint Paul witnesseth this truth, 1 Cor. 11. He that eateth of this bread, and drinketh of this cup, un­worthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ. He saith not, He that eateth and drinketh the body and blood: for none but a wor­thy receiver doth that.

Nor doth this doctrine deny any to receive unworthily, as the Doctor (fol. 328.) would perswade us; be­cause (saith he) such onely receive bread and wine, and not the Lords body. But it rather serveth to con­demn their errours, who would per­swade that the wicked receive very Christ; and so none should be guilty, because whoso verily eateth his flesh, and drinketh his blood, hath everlast­ing life. Therefore the Church of [Page 425] England is careful to avoid this error, and maintains, according to Christ his explanation, that Christ is onely spiri­tually given, received, and eaten; and that those onely that believe in Christ, eat him, and live by him; and that every one eating that bread according to Christs institution and Ordinance, is assured, by Christs own promise and testament, that he is a member of his body, and receives the benefit of his passion: and likewise be that drinks of that cup according to Christs insti­tution, is certified that he is made par­taker of Christ his legacie, his blood, which was shed for remission of sins. Whereas the unworthy receiver com­ing to this divine Ordinance without due reverence and a lively faith, eateth and drinketh his own damnation; for that he receiveth that bread and that wine unworthily, which ought with faith to have been received, be­lieving that as that bread and wine nourish the outward man, so Christ is thereby conveyed, to the nourish­ment of the inner man; and so Christ is in him, and he in Christ. And by thus receiving, is the saying of Christ [Page 426](in Joh. 6. My flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink) to be understood: for none but the faithful are partakers of this heavenly ban­quet. Christ is the bread of life: he that eateth that bread, shall live for ever; which must be by faith in the Son of God. Gal. 2. It must needs be understood of a mystical, and not a real eating; that even as the bread and wine which we receive, is turned into our flesh and blood, and is so joyned and mixed together with our flesh and blood, that they be made one body together: so be all faithful Christians spiritually turned into the body of Christ, and be so joyned un­to Christ, and also together amongst themselves, that they do but make one mystical body of Christ, as S. Paul, 1 Cor. 10. We be one bread and one body, as many as be partakers of one bread and one cup. The wicked are not partakers of this banquet, but onely the members of Christ: there­fore none verily eat the flesh and drink the blood, but the believers. It is not like the eating of Manna: both good and bad ate that; saith our Sa­viour, [Page 427] Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead: but he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever; which must be by faith, and in heart believing unto this salvation. And herewith agree the Fathers of the Primitive Churches.

Origen, who writ about two hun­dred yeers after Christ, upon the text of Matth. 15. The Word was made flesh, and very meat, which whoso eateth, shall live for ever; says, that no evil man can eat thereof: for it is onely eaten by faith. And here­with agrees S. Cyprian, in Serm. de Coena Dominic. saying, Our eating and drinking is a certain hunger and desire to dwell in him; and that none do eat of this Lamb, but such as be true Israelites; which hunger is term­ed of the soul, as David was an hun­gry, Psal. 41. My soul hath thirst­ed after God, which is the well of life. For the soul feeling nothing but the horrour of death, and the terrour of Gods justice, sin, by the Laws im­peachment, having drawn that dire­ful sentence upon her; in her pensive meditations of her just demerits, be­takes [Page 428]her self to this spiritual refresh­ment of comfort and solace, being hereunto invited with the sweet ap­pellation of blessed, if she hunger and thirst after righteousness; and a cheer­ful promise of comforts, that she shall be satisfied, Matth. 5.

Which spiritual hunger and thirst, as it is not perceived of a carnal man, but onely of such as inwardly desire this refreshment, and ease from the deep throws of their sad condition: so is it not given to any, but such as spiritually long and seek after it. God feedeth the hungry; but the rich those that stand upon their own integrity, he sends empty away. It is no carnal banquet, that flesh and blood can thirst after: Have ye no houses to eat and drink in? 1 Cor. 11. It is not eating an ordinary Supper, to sa­tisfie the greedy appetite of a natural man; but, as Christ said to his disci­ples, Joh. 4.32. I have other meat to eat, which ye know not. The disciples themselves, as carnal men, knew not of this spiritual food; and therefore Christ minding to draw them from their gross fleshly principles, and to convince [Page 429]them that there is spiritual food, as well as that which the mouth and throat take and swallow, plainly says unto them, Is any dry? let him come to me, Joh. 7. for he is meat, he is drink, which whosoever by faith spiri­tually eat and drink, live for ever.

Athanasius, de peccat. in Spir. sanct says, Christ made mention of his ascension, to pluck men from corporal fancie, and thereby to perswade them that his flesh was spiritual food: the things which he spake, were spirit and life. It must needs therefore be under­stood of spiritual eating and spiritual drinking his flesh and blood; which hereticks & unbelievers could not do, as S. Hierome upon Hos. 8. witnesses. And S. Ambrose, de benedict Patr. cap. 9. says, Jesus is the bread which is the meat of the Saints; and he that taketh this bread, dieth not a sinners death: for this bread is remission of sins. And S. Austin, in his 26 Tract upon John; Bread and wine which nourisheth the body, a man may eat and drink, and nevertheless die; but the very body and blood no man eat­eth, but hath everlasting life.

And in another place, in sententiis ex Prosp. decerpt. cap. 339. He that agreeth not with Christ, doth neither eat his flesh, nor drink his blood, al­though (to the condemnation of him­self for his presumption) he every day receive the Sacrament of so high a na­ture. Judas did eat the bread, saith he, in his 59 Tract, but not the bread that was the Lord. Christ is onely spiritually in the bread and wine, to such as by a lively faith receive him. As for the wicked they receive but the meer bread and wine, abusing the Or­dinance.

From these Authorities may clearly be evinced, that the Church of Eng­land doth maintain in this point as the ancient Fathers taught, concerning this Sacrament. Nor can any other­wise understand of this holy mystery: for if Christ be corporally in the bread and wine, then the wicked receiving him, receive his body, and not his Spi­rit: for, Rom. 8. as he that hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his; so he that hath Christ in him, believeth, because he is justified. And if his Spirit that raised Jesus from the [Page 431]dead, dwell in you; he that raised Christ from death, shall give life to your mortal bodies, for his Spirits sake that dwelleth in you. So that no wicked man hath the Spirit of Christ in him: and to maintain that he hath him corporally, and not spiritu­ally, is to divide his Humanity from his Divinity; which blasphemy the Catholike Church abhors.

Now the Church of England doth not thus divide the Natures, but holds that both his Body and Spirit is by faith received; but not that the body is corporally in the bread; the bread and wine being but the elementary parts, signifying the spiritual substance: and that God worketh this faith in­wardly in our hearts, 3. The bread and wine are but figures of the body and blood. by his holy Spi­rit, and outwardly confirmeth the same to our ears, by the Word; and to our senses, by the eating and drink­ing the Sacramental bread and wine in his holy Supper: Which eating and drinking is a spiritual feeding, requi­ring no real presence of Christ, but onely in Spirit, grace, and effectual o­peration. And that when Christ said, Hoc est corpus meum, it was but [Page 432]figuratively spoken; it being bread which he brake and gave, as a type, for a remembrance how his body was crucified for us. And let none won­der at this her tenent, to say that Christ spake in figures, when he did institute this Sacrament: for it is the nature of a Sacrament to be figures and types, signifying mystical grace thereby re­ceived. Hence it was that the Phili­stims, when the Ark came into the ar­my of the Israelites, said that God was come into the army, 1 King. 4. And God himself at that time, by the mouth of his Prophets, said, that from that time that he had brought the chil­dren of Israel out of Egypt, he dwel­led not in houses, but that he was car­ried about in tents and tabernacles, 1 King. 7. which was a figurative speech, he speaking that thing of him­self, which was to be understood of the Ark. Which phrase of speaking, Christ himself often used; as in Mat. 13.11, 17. The field is the world, The enemy the devil, &c. Joh. 16. I am the vine, you are the branches. Joh. 4. I have meat to eat, which you know not. And Joh. 10. I am [Page 433]the door, Matth. 12. He that doth my Fathers will, is my brother and sister, &c. These, and many more, Christ spake in Parables, Tropes, and Figures; but chiefly, when he said, Hoc est corpus a figurative speech. This cup is the new Testament in my blood; the word my, taken for the thing in the cup. Neither is the cup nor the wine Christs Testament, but a signe and figure of his Testa­ment. And admit that by the word cup neither the cup nor wine is meant but the blood; yet it is a figure of the Testament of Christ, which was to be sealed with his blood. For his blood is not the Testament, but the thing that confirms the new Testa­ment. This is so evident a place to disprove the tenents of Romes Church in this particular, that her champions are forced to their last refuge of abu­sing Scripture; and therefore they render that text thus: This blood is a new Testament in my blood: which translation I submit to the ju­dicious Reader, whether it be not more strange then any figurative speech.

Christ saith, we must be baptized [Page 434]with the holy Ghost: this is a figu­rative speech. So likewise, Except a man be born again, &c. that was a figurative speech, intending thereby spiritual regeneration. S. Paul saith, that in Baptism we cloathe us with Christ, and be buried with him Rom. 6. which are figurative speeches of our newness of life, and mortification of sin. The Paschal Lamb without spot, signified Christ; the effusion of that blood, signified Christ's passion; and the sprinkling of the posts with blood, whereby the first-born escaped death, is a type of those which at the last day shall be saved, being sprink­led with the blood of Jesus. As in the Old Testament, Exod. 12. God said. This is the Lords passeover; which was not the Lords Passeover, but a figure representing the Lords passing by: so Christ in the New Testament says of the bread and wine, This is my body, This is my blood; which is not so in substance, but in significa­tion.

A figure hath the name of a thing that is signified thereby; as we say a mans image is called a man; the [Page 435]figure of a tree, a tree, or the like. So we say, Let us go to S. Peter of Mil­lain, to S. James in Compestella, &c. not meaning thereby the things them­selves, but understanding by the things representive, the things represented. Even so the bread and wine, though Christ call them his body and blood, yet they are not verily so, but the ele­mentary parts and outward signes of the invisible grace, his flesh and blood thereby signified.

Nor is this a strange interpretation, but according to Christs own figura­tive speech, saying, Luk. 22. I have much desired to eat this passeover with you. Which words none can de­ny to be figurative. God himself used that figurative speech; and Je­sus, the onely Son of that Father, to ssure us of his unity with the God­head breathes out the same Spirit to his Apostles; This is my passeover, This is my body, This is my blood As the shedding of that Lamb's blood was a token of the shedding of Christs blood then to come, and forasmuch as the Sacraments of the Old Testa­ment ceased and ended in Christ; lest [Page 436]we should, through corrup [...]ion and depravity, forget the accomplishment of those Types, and not take heed to print in our memories the benefits we receive by Christ: Therefore Christ at his last Supper, when he took leave of his disciples, being shortly to de­part out of the world, according to the will of the Father, did make a new Will. He did make a new Will and Testament, wherein he bequeath­ed clear remission of sins; which he sealed next day with his blood; and instituted this holy Sacrament in re­membrance thereof; and ordained the same in bread and wine, saying This is my body; This cup is my blood, which is shed for remission of sins. Do this in remembrance of me. And Saint Paul says, 1 Cor. 11. As often as we eat this bread, and drink this cup, we shew the Lords death till he come. There­fore, when we come to be made par­takers of this heavenly food, we should seriously call to minde the wonderful sufferings, great good­ness, and marvelous kindness of Christ, he offering himself for our [Page 437]redemption; and, by a lively faith apply the merits of his Passion to our souls: and so we verily receive Christ, he to be in us, and we in him.

The Scriptures do sufficiently set forth this truth, That when Christ said, Hoc est corpus, it was a figu­rative speech: and the Church of England holds forth this truth, a­gainst all adversaries and opposers thereof. And that in this she may not seem arrogant, to assume a self-interpretation of the Scriptures, to maintain this her assertion, I will bring in some ancient Fathers to bear witness for her.

Saint Augustine, How to in­terpret Scri­p ure. de doctrina Christiana, lib. 3. advising us how to interpret Scripture, bids us beware how we take literally any thing that is spoken figuratively, and figura­tively any thing that is spoken literal­ly. And he therefore gives this Rule in way of caution: If the thing (saith he) that is spoken, be to the furtherance of Charity, then [Page 438]it is a proper speech, and no figure; as when it commands any good, or for­bids any evil act, then it is no figure: but if it command any evil thing, or forbid that that is good, then it is a fi­gurative speech. Now this saying of Christ, Except ye eat my flesh, and drink my blood, ye have no life in you, seems to enjoyn a hainous and vicked thing; and therefore, upon S. Austin's rule, it is a figurative speech. But I will not onely conclude it upon that general rule to be so; But I will likewise, for better clearing this truth, [...]t down the express opinions of the Fathers in this point. The anci­ent Fathers agree that it was a figurative speech.

Irenaeus contr. Valent. lib. 4. c. 32. [...]aith, Christ confessed bread, which is creature to be his body, and the cup to be his blood. And in cap. 57. he [...]ith, that Christ taking bread of the [...]ame sort that ours is of confessed that [...]t was his body. It was (saith he) ma­ [...]erial bread, and therefore a figurative [...]peech.

Cyprian ad Magn. lib. 1. Epist. 6. Christ called bread made of many corns, and wine pressed out of many grapes, his body and blood.

Cyril in Johan. lib. 4. cap. 14. Christ gave to his disciples pieces of bread, saying, Take, eat; this is my body.

And herewith agree Austin de Trinit. lib. 3. cap. 4. Theodoret. dialog. 1. all concurring, that when Christ took bread and wine, and spake these words, This is my body. This is my blood, that it was bread and wine which he gave, and not any other sub­stance.

And Origen in Levit. Hom. 7. de­clareth the eating and drinking of Christs flesh and blood to be figura­tive: therefore, saith he, understand them as spiritual, not as carnal men.

Tertul. contra Marcion, lib. 1. calls bread broken by Christ, a figure of his body, and wine his blood; be­cause, saith he, in the Old Testament bread and wine were figures of his bo­dy and blood.

And Chrysostome upon Psal. 22. saith, that Christ ordained the Table of his holy Supper for this purpose, that in that Sacrament he should shew unto us bread and wine for a si­militude of his body and blood. So [Page 440]that all agree, it is a figurative speech.

S. Ambrose, upon 1 Cor. 11. saith, that in eating and drinking the bread and wine, we do signifie the flesh and blood which he offered for us. And the Old Testament (saith he) was instituted in blood, because that blood was a witness of Gods benefits; in signification and figure whereof, we take the mystical cup of his blood, for the tuition of our body and soul: he and many more concur­ring in judgement in this point, that the Sacramental bread and wine are not corporally and really the natural sub­stance of the flesh and blood of Christ, but that they are similitudes significa­tions, figures and s [...]gnes of his body and blood and therefore be called and have the name of his flesh and blood, and were but indeed tokens thereof, and meant of a spiritual grace; as Christ witnesses, The words which he spake were spirit and life, Joh. 6. It was bread which he took; it was wine which he gave, saying, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, till I drink it with you in my [Page 441]Fathers kingdom. They were the elementary parts of the Sacrament, signifying the spiritual substance of his body and blood. And when he took the bread, and the cup, and said, This is my body, this is my blood; it is manifest, by what I have already spoken, that that saying was a figura­tive speech.

To maintain that it was very flesh and very blood Christ gave to his disciples, Bread and wide are the out­ward ele­ments of the invisi­ble grace. doth utterly destroy the nature of a Sacrament, both ac­cording to the Tenents of the Church of Rome, and all other Churches, concerning the nature of a Sacrament.

The Church of England holds, that the bread and wine are but the outward visible signes of the inward spiritual grace.

And herewith agrees S. Austin, in his definition of a Sacrament, lib. 2. de doctr. Christian. Sacramen­tum est sacrae rei signum sensibile, sanctificans nos.

S. Tho. part. 3. quaest. 60. art. 3. says, Tria significantur: primū, cau­sa effectiva nostrae sanctificationis, [Page 442]scilicet, Passionem Christi: Hoc facite in mei commemorationem, 1 Cor. 11. secundum, causam for­malem, nostrae sanctificationis; scil. gratiam: tertium, cansam finalem, quae est gloria. Whereupon, the Church hath this heavenly Song: Oh sacred banquet, in which Christ is re­ceived, and the memory of his Passion recollected; by which our mindes are filled with grace, receiving a blessed pledge of future glory!

Hugo de Sancta Victoria part. 1. cap. 1. Sacramentum è materiale elementum foris sensibus praeposi­tum, ex similitudine representans, ex institutione significans, ex san­ctificatione continens, aliquam in­visibilem & spiritualem gratiam.

And herewith agreeth S. Austin, saying, Sacramentum signum est, quod praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus facit quicquid in cognitio­nem venire.

The Councel of Florens treating upon the Sacrament of Confirmation, have resolved that all Sacraments must consist of matter and form: there must be an outward signe, to signifie [Page 443]the inward grace. Wherefore I won­der that the Papists can for shame de­ny that the matter of bread and wine should remain in the Eucharist: for, by this means they deny it to be a Sa­crament, destroying the end of Christs holy institution; which was, That it should be had in remembrance of him. And they generally gainsay the publike profession of their Church, by the contradictory practices in private and particular Masses and Altar-Sa­crifices. And they likewise go a­gainst Christ, who says, This bread is my body: He did not say. This is no bread, but my body. And certainly, if Christ would have had us to think the substance of the elements were changed, he would not have called them bread, and the fruit of the vine. Nay, he would not, when he explained the words of giving his flesh to eat, and his blood to drink, have said, his words were spirit and life. And S. Paul therefore to wit­ness this truth with the Church of England, says, The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? He thereby ex­plaining [Page 444]Christs saying, Hoc est cor­pus meum, to be meant of a spiritual eating, and of a communion of his body we being hereby made one with Christ; he dwelling in us, and we in him.

Besides, when Christ bade them drink all of the Cup, it was wine he bade them drink: for the words of consecration follow. And therefore, if the Apostles drank any thing else, they did not fulfil the precept; or else Christ commanded them to drink that that was not there; which were im­pious to imagine. And as for the bread, it is called bread after conse­cration: for S. Paul calls bread the communion of Christs body; which must needs be understood of bread consecrate, otherwise it is not the com­munion of his body. So that it is e­vident, that the elements of bread and wine remain in the Sacrament, and are not materially changed. And this the Monks which administred to King John of England, and to Hen­ry the seventh the Emperour, knew well enough: which Princes, the better to further the holy designes of [Page 445]the Pope, were dispatched hence out of this world by the poysoned ele­ments of the Eucharist; which ele­ments Christ ordained Sacramentally to be received, for our nourishment; thereby signifying our communion with Christ, by the bread and wine, made of many ears and many grapes; and our growing up by faith in Jesus: even as those elements turn into our flesh and blood by natural digestion, so Christ is spiritually conveyed unto our souls, which are fed by his flesh and blood, which every faithful and worthy receiver is, by the receiving of this Sacrament, made partaker of.

The Doctor would perswade us, fol. 327. that if, by denying the bo­dily presence, we mean onely not with accidents of his body, as quantity, fi­gure, and the like; and that Christ is [...]ot so bodily in the Sacrament, but spiritually; Then we agree with the Catholikes. But then in the same leaf [...]e would again perswade us that Christ cannot be really there unless his body be there; and that it must be as well corporally as spiritually there, or else we deny Christs being there.

To which I answer, The errour of Tran­substantia­tion. We by main­taining a spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood, do not divide the spirit from the body, as the Church of Rome doth, by maintaining a bo­dily presence; because, according to their doctrine, the wicked receive the body, and not the Spirit, as I have al­ready proved: we by taking the bread and wine, which tend to the nourish­ment of our outward bodies, the thing signified by them, to wit, Christ Jesus, is hereby conveyed unto us, to be the food of our souls, and becomes spirit and life to us; he living in us, and we in him: and this is onely to the wor­thy receiver, who by faith feeds upon him, and lays hold of the benefits of his Passion: The ungodly, they onely receive the bread & wine, not discern­ing the Lords body. And if the Church of Rome mean that his body is significantly there present, then they agree with us: but if really in the bread, then we do not concur in opini­on with them, for the reasons afore in pare rehearsed, and for other reasons hereafter following.

I might instance many particular [Page 447]reasons against this Romish errour of Transubstantiation; as that,

1. Nothing was broken, eaten, drunken, and chawed, but the acci­dents of the body, (because they deny the bread and wine to be the visible elements) which is against Reason, and all authority: or else if they will have a body there, That it is without accidents; and so they must either make accidents without substances, or substances without accidents.

2. When the bread mouldeth, and turneth into worms; or the wine sowreth, or turneth into vinegar; it is the bread mouldeth, and the wine that sowreth: Christ is the same yester­day, to day, and for ever: There­fore are the bread and wine substan­tially there: and if they were but ac­cidents, then no body could be made thereof, as worms, or material vine­gar.

3. Let a dog, or cat, &c. eat of that bread, and he is nourished there­by: which could not be, if the sub­stance remained not.

4. The Scripture calleth them bread and wine, after consecration; [Page 448]which are names of substance, not of accidents; which if substance remain­ed not, it were a meer illusion of our senses; and so we with the Jews make Christ a Jugler, making things appear to our outward senses, which are not.

5. The Sacrament had a beginning, and hath an end put to it: it is to be received in remembrance of Christs death, till he come, and then to cease. Wherefore there can be no real tran­substantiated presence of Christ: for he is from eternity to eternity.

6. If there be a transubstantiated body of Christ, then is Christ every day new made; and as many Wafers, as many Christs: which is impossible for his substantial body to be in seve­ral places either in the several Wafers or the several places of consecration at one and the same instant of time.

7. This doctrine doth impugn the consent of the ancient Catholike Church, which de fide professeth and believeth Christ to be made of the nature and substance of his blessed mother, and therefore not every day to be made anew of the substance of [Page 449]bread and wine: for if it were so, then the same body that was crucified, is not eaten; or else, that body which was crucified, was made of bread and wine: which is flat blasphemy against the holy Ghost, by whose ope­ration Christ was made and born of the flesh of his mother, and suffered upon the Cross for the salvation of all believers. Which Christ is no other­wise joyned to the elements in this Sa­crament, but Sacramentally, as the holy Ghost in Baptism is joyned to the water; not that the holy Spirit is made of the substance of the water, or the water turned into the holy Ghost.

8. It is against the express Scri­pture, and Symbole of Faith ground­ed upon that Scripture; which teaches that Christ, concerning his body and humane nature, is in heaven. We be­lieve that he was conceived of the ho­ly Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was cru­cified, dead & buried; that he descend­ed into hell; the third day he rose a­gain from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father; from whence he [Page 450]shall come to judge both quick and dead. Christ said to his disciples, I leave the world, Joh. 16. and Mat. 26. Ye shall ever have poor folks with you, but me ye shall not have always. Mark 16. He was taken up into heaven, and sits at the right hand of his Father, Col. 1.3. Heb. 8. and Heb. 10. He sits continually at the right hand of God. And Saint Peter, Act. 3. faith, that the hea­vens shall contain him until the time that all things shall be restored. And Christ himself gave warning of this errour aforehand, in Matth. 24. saying, The time will come, when there shall be many deceivers in the world, which shall say, Here is Christ, and there is Christ, but be­lieve them not.

Thus the whole current of the Scripture makes against this Romish errour of Transubstantiation.

And because the Papists may not object against us, that it is a novel in­terpretation, or our mis-understand­ing of Scripture in this point; I will make it manifest, that the Primitive Church never taught this doctrine of [Page 451]Transubstantiation, but were utterly against it, as may appear by the testi­mony of these ancient Fathers.

Origen upon Matthew, Tract. 33. The Fa­thers a­gainst Transub­stantiation. saith, Christ hath two natures, God and Man: as God, he is with us al­ways, unto the end of the world; as man, he is not: He is gone hence and absent in his Humanity, but is always present in his Divinity.

S. Austin, in his Epist. 55. ad Dardanium: Christ, as concerning his Manhood, is now there, from whence he shall come to judge both quick and dead: and as he ascended, so shall he come, in the self-same form and substance to the which he gave immortality, but thereby did not change the nature. Now, saith he, after this form, we must not say that he is everywhere: for we must take heed, saith he, that we do not so sta­blish his Divinity, that we take away the verity of his body.

Cyril upon S. John, lib. 6. cap. 14. Christ took away from hence the pre­sence of his body; but, in the majesty of his Godhead, he is everywhere: he, according to his promise, is with [Page 452]his disciples, even unto the end of the world.

S. Ambrose upon Luke, lib. 10. cap. 24. We must not seek Christ upon earth, but in heaven, where he sits at the right hand of God.

And S. Gregory in Hom. Pasch. saith, Christ is not here in the presence of his flesh; and yet, as he is God, he is absent nowhere by the presence of his majestie; all unanimously and Apostolike being of one consent in this, that Christ, as touching his hu­manity, is onely in heaven, at the right hand of God. And particularly, these Fathers following are absolutely a­gainst this very point of Transubstan­tiation.

Justinus, The Fa­thers a­gainst Transub­stantiation. an ancient Writer, and holy Martyr, who wrote about an hundred yeers after Christ, in his se­cond Apologie, saith, that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are not to be taken as other meats and drinks be; they being purposely ordained to give thanks to God in, and therefore be called Eucharistia, and be called the body and blood of Christ; and yet the same meat and drink be chang­ed [Page 353]into our flesh and blood, and nourish our bodies. By which it is plain, that the substance of the ele­ments remain, because, saith he, they are changed into flesh and blood, and nourish our bodies.

Irenaeus contr. Valent. lib. 1. c. 4. who wrote about 150 yeers after Christ, and was a disciple of Polycar­pus, who was a disciple of John the Evangelist, says, The bread wherein we give thanks to God, hath two things in it; one earthly, another hea­venly: by the heavenly, understand­ing the sanctification which cometh by the invocation of the name of God; and by the earthly, the substance of bread which doth nourish our bodies.

Shortly after Irenaeus, was Origen, about 200 yeers after Christ, who affirms, in Matth. cap. 15. that the material bread remains, whose matter availeth nothing but goeth down into the belly, and is voided downward: but the Word spoke upon the bread, is it that availeth.

Eusebius Emissaenus, who wrote a­bout 300 yeers after Christ, de conse­crat. dist. 2. says, that outwardly was [Page 454]nothing changed; all the change was inwardly. As man made new in Baptism, doth visibly remain in the same measure receiving a new inward, without making any change in the outward man, not seen, not felt, but believed: so likewise, when thou dost go up to the altar, to receive the spiri­tual meat in thy faith, look upon the body and blood of Christ, and feed upon him with thy inward man. By which it is plain, that it is onely a spi­ritual change by faith, not an out­ward and corporal change.

Epiphanius contra Haereses, lib. 3. tom. 2. The bread, saith he, is meat; but the vertue that is in it, giveth life.

Chrysostome, who wrote about 420 yeers after Christ, ad Caesarium Monachum: The bread, saith he, be­fore it is consecrate, is called bread; but after it is consecrate, it is delivered from the name of bread, and exalted to the name of the Lords body, al­though the nature of the bread doth still remain.

S. Austin, who lived about the same time, in Sermone ad Infantes: That which you see on the Altar, is the [Page 355]bread; and the cup which your eyes shew you, is the wine: but faith shew­eth you that that bread is the body, and that cup the blood of Christ.

Gelasius Bishop of Rome, contra Eutichem & Nestorium, proving the Godhead and Humanity of Christ, he enforceth it with two reasons; the one drawn from the example of Man, who, being but one, is made of two parts, and hath two natures, the Bo­dy, and the Soul: the other drawn from the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ; which, saith he, is a godly thing, and yet the nature of the bread and wine do not cease to be there still.

This was the opinion of the Fa­thers of those days; and thus, Transub­stantiation is a new doctrine. and no otherwise, held the Church of Rome, for a thousand yeers after Christ; there being never so much as question made about this point, for a thousand yeers compleat; (the time of Satans being let at large, Apoc. 20.) at which time, by reason of some pretended miracles, this doctrine was by the private opinion of some men set abroach: which being once pub­lished, [Page 456](it being the nature of evil weeds to spread and grow fast, if once they get rooting in any garden) it pre­sently got abettors and champions to justifie it against all opposers; some out of curiosity of Wit striving to blinde Truth with subtil reasons; o­thers, out of dulness of apprehension, (God having withdrawn his Spirit from them) were given up to this de­lusion: so that in 60 yeers, this new bantling wanted not foster-fathers to nourish it up to a greater and fuller growth.

A mongst the rest, one Paschasius was one that first publikely main­tained it; and after him, the Popes enclined to this opinion; insomuch that Berengarius a French-man, and Arch-deacon of Anjou, opposing this Heresie, was himself censured of, that he urged against the then Pope of Rome; and was the first that ever was questioned for main­taining against this doctrine of Tran­substantiation: and the Pope adhe­ring to the adverse party, which was for Transubstantiation, Berengarius was forced to recant, the Councel of [Page 457] Vorcellense, held 1051. swaying a­gainst him: which opinion of his he again resumed, and did recognize the Truth again, after that the then-Pope was dead; which when Pope Nico­las 2. heard of, he sent his busie agent, and Cardinal-Chaplain, Hildebrand, into France, to bring Berengerius under coram nobis: who being sore troubled and molested, and seeing by the faction of the Pope and Hilde­brand, that the current was against him, through the treachery of a base timorous nature, he suffered his noble parts, his intellects, to be clouded with the mists of the times errour, and tamely did recant his former tenents, and did therefore take an Oath never to oppose that doctrine of his Holi­liness in this point of Transubstantia­tion. And thus this doctrine began. And although Pope Nicolas did a­vouch this doctrine in a Councel at Laterane, held anno 1059. Ante, chap. 14. and there framed the term of Transub­stantiation; yet, notwithstanding this pretty Papal babe of Heresie was Christned and put forth to nurse, yet nevertheless it grew not to be [Page 458]free, and to bear rule, till 1215. when Pope Innocent the third manumitted the stripling, and, by another Lateran-Councel, did decree this doctrine as a point of Catholike Faith, enjoyning all to the obedience thereof upon pain of Hetesie.

Johannes Scotus, who was called Duns, lib. 4. writing of this matter, saith, that the words of the Scripture might be expounded more easily and plainly, without Transubstantiation: but it pleased the Church to chuse this sense which is more hard, being moved thereunto, most chiefly, because that of the Sacraments men ought to hold as the holy Church of Rome doth hold.

Which kinde of blinde obedience, Blinde obe­dience. makes the Popish Religion in no bet­ter condition then the State of Athens was whilst it was governed by the ar­bitrary power of a standing Legisla­tive Councel, which daily gave new Laws unto the people; so that the peo­ple could not, by any known Rule, say their clothes were their own; all the Law by which they derived any pro­perty being under an arbitrary power; insomuch that as they were not secure [Page 459]by walking after any known Law, so neither was it safe for them to rely up­on such new Laws as the Councel it self proposed; the Councel altering every day her own Laws, as time ad­ministred occasion for self-advantage: so that Athens was in a miserable condition, during this slavery of her Legislative power, not dissolvable by any Authority; the people not having liberty to dissolve it, and to call, as oc­casion shall require, a Councel to re­dress grievances, and not otherwise to continue, but to be dissolved, that so in the intervals they might know what Law stood good and unalterable a­mongst them.

Even so stands the Religion of the Papists: Now that the Pope is decla­red above Councels, and that he may continually prescribe Rules of Faith, by vertue thereof, their Religion is a meer nose of wax, alterable at his will and pleasure; who has a faithful tribe of Ignations, which will blandish his new doctrines, and make the people believe they are but growings in faith, whenas they are diametrically oppo­site to the Catholike Faith of the Pri­mitive [Page 460]Church: but if it stand for conveniency or advantage to the Pope and his creatures, it must be believed as a matter of faith, and that upon pain of damnation; as witness this novel point, and some others which are of later times crept into that Church.

And when any thing of Papal will and interest must be held forth to the other Churches, then is the Lateran at Rome pitched upon, Ante, chap. 14. as I have for­merly said, as the onely convenient place to have the matter debated, it being there likely to receive the least opposition, by reason his Holiness is at hand, to take notice of his enemies, and to punish them; and to flatter and promote such as stand for his Pa­pal pleasure.

In this Councel of Laterane, The Coun­cel of La­terane, chap. 17. like­wise, was hatched that other Cocka­trice, that strange brazen-fac'd and staring opinion of deposing Kings; from which root of bitterness springs many tart branches of dangerous and poysonful Errours; the nause­ating [Page 461]juyce of whose sowre grapes being given to some other Churches to drink, it hath intoxicated them, making their Vertigious heads turn after the Laterane Weather-cock, and, in their brain-sick fit, con­ceit that her high-reared Spire is the onely supporter of the heaven­ly Pole: whilst the sober and dis­creet Christian knows, that her proud top being exalted to that height, is but so much the neere [...] the pattern of Babels Tower.

And whilst they think she is dignified before others, her head being lifted above them; others know she hath not whereof to boast, unless in this, That shee has the upper room in Satan 's airy principality; which how much the higher she is lifted, she is but thereby rendered more subject to be muffled with the black con­tractions of the Devil's Cimerian clouds of Errours. And though the top thereof be forged out of that material Sword (as is by the Romish Legends maintained) which cut off Saint John Baptist's [Page 462]head, it should not therefore arrogate to be the onely decolling instrument of Principality and Temporal power. But I return to the subject matter of this Chapter.

That I may the further lay open the errours of the Church of Rome in this particular, Miracles the cause of Transub­stantiation. and that the Papists shall not have whereof to boast, in that I said they were induced by Miracles to maintain this doctrine, should I pass those Miracles by in silence; I will let the Reader know what they were.

It is reported that a Bishop of Canterbury, about the time of this change, did shew unto some, for their conversion, the Host turned into flesh, and blood in outward appearance dropping into the Chalice; and that thereupon they believed Transubstan­tiation.

Another is reported by Paschasius of one Plegildus a Priest of Almain, who did see and handle visibly the shape of a childe upon the Altar; and after it turned into bread, and he was to receive it.

Another is reported of a Jew-boy, who coming into the Church with an­other [Page 463]boy which was a Christian, he saw upon the Altar a little childe torn in pieces, and afterwards by portions distributed: which he reporting was condemned to be burned; but was af­ter rescued from the flame by the Chri­stians.

These Miracles were the onely ar­guments used against Berengarius, and the convincing perswasions of the facile consciences of those days: which how it stands with the doctrine of Christ. Joh. 6.63. the practice of the Apostles, the profession of the Primi­tive times, and the faith and doctrine of the ancient Fathers, let any judge. S. Paul says, 1 Cor. 11. That which he had received of the Lord Jesus, that he delivered; That as often as they did eat the bread, and drink the cup, they shewed the Lords death till he came. Saint Paul calls it bread, and the Evangelist wine, and that after consecration: and the Fa­thers of the Church taught that do­ctrine with them: and Christ himself calls them bread, and fruit of the vine; and S. Paul, The communion of the body. And this being the do­ctrine [Page 464]of Christ and his Apostles, though an Angel from heaven should come and teach any other doctrine, let him be accursed, Gal. 1.

Wherefore, these miraculous appa­ritions were no ground for Rome to change her faith in this point. If these stories be true, they ought to be consi­dered as extraordinary apparitions, like the light from heaven which shone about S. Paul. These exter­nal miraculous apparitions, were but to perswade the consciences of Infidels and Heathens to turn to the faith of Christ, and to be perswaded of the truth of that Sacrament; and not to make the true and already-grounded Christians to change the nature of their faith, which is the ground of things hoped for, and the evidence of things which are not seen, Heb. 11.1. This was to perswade the mis-believ­ing Jew of Christ, and of the truth of this blessed Sacrament, whereby he was to be made partaker of the bene­fits of his precious death and passion; not to teach the Christian any new doctrine concerning the same. These miracles should rather confirm him in [Page 465]his faith received, that it was a spiri­tual banquet; in respect that after the apparition (as the story runs) at the receiving, that which was received was become bread again; and not to ensnare him into this novel errour which was contrary to Christs do­ctrine, the Apostles preaching, and the practice of the Primitive Church.

But I will no longer insist upon this point. I submit to any good Chri­stian, whether it be safer to follow Christs explanation of this mystery to be spiritual, (with which S. Paul and the ancient Fathers do concur) then to humour the times, and to be observant to the late Popes; which, about the time of this change, were grown great, and since have, by cunning practices, enlarged that power; insomuch that now they are declared above Coun­cels; and whatsoever they propound, must de fide be received, upon the score of their infallibility, be it never so contrary to the truth of Gods Word. And they by this doctrine receiving advantage by their Altar-Sacrifices, will not easily be induced to renounce the errour thereof: and though never [Page 466]so palpably against the Truth of God, yet the Jesuites will maintain it for their Masters advantage; this doctrine tending more to his avail, then any good to the souls of his flock. Where­fore, the Church of England having a right to reform errours in her own Province, has chosen to cast off this blinde tenent of the Pope and his Pa­rasites: and she having the warrant of Christ, the rules of the Apostles, the practice of the Primitive Church, and the consent of the ancient Fathers, for her doctrine in this point, hath there­fore made choice with them, in unity of Spirit, firmly to hold and maintain that Christ in his humanity is not real­ly and corporally in the Sacrament, but figuratively in the outward ele­ments being thereby signified; and is spiritually eaten and drunken of the worthy receiver.

CHAP. XVI. Against Communion in one kinde.
That the Church of Rome's with­holding the Cup from the Layty is a novelty, against Christs pre­cept, and the ancient practice of the Church. That the Sacrifice upon the Altar is superstitious: and, The authority of the Church no excuse to change the admini­stration of the Lords Supper into one kinde.

THe Church of Rome having thus gained a general consent (though at first forced upon many, by the pow­er and domineering of the Popes) to her doctrine of Transubstantiation; she stuck not long in this station, but, part­ly to make good what she had intro­duced into the Church, and partly to shew to the world the divine Legisla­tive power of her Head, she soared a pitch higher: & whereas before this she but maintained an opinion (which but to some weak capacities did convince, all not being satisfied with the sincerity [Page 468]of her doctrine) concerning the na­ture and quality of this Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which Christ him­self instituted, and by his last Will and Testament left it as a Legacie to his faithful servants; her Popes now take upon them (after their former opi­nion was confirmed by Councel, and generally received and believed as an Article of Faith) to dispense with that Sacrament of Christ Jesus, and have in stead thereof instituted one of their own making; administring in one kinde, and denying the Cup to the Lay-people: which is a novel trick of Papal invention, and never practised in the Churches upon earth, till they forced it upon some over which the Popes did without controul rule at will and pleasure.

Christ Jesus did institute this Sacra­ment in both kindes. Paul enjoyns both; the whole Church did admini­ster in both; and the Fathers teach, that as well the wine, as the bread, is to be received; and did think wine so necessary, that it could not be admini­stred in water, much less in the cake alone, in which there is no liquid ele­ment [Page 469]to represent the shedding of Christs blood; for which end it was ordained.

Cyprian, who wrote 260 yeers af­ter Christ, in his 3 Epist. ad Cecili­um, lib. 2. Forasmuch (saith he) as Christ said, I am the true vine, and the Cup is his blood; it cannot be thought that his blood is in the cup, if wine be not in the cup, whereby the blood is signified unto us.

Chrysost. in Matth. cap. 26. Hom. 83. Christ used wine as well before his Resurrection, as after.

S. Hierome in Sophon. cap. 3. doth witness that in his time the Priest did administer the Eucharist, and di­vide the blood unto the people.

In the Canon of Pope Gelasius, and in the Popes Decrees de Conse­crat▪ a strict Injunction is laid, that all receive in both kindes, for that the dividing of that Sacrament is sacri­ledge.

I need not instance in this any more particulars, in respect that none can deny but that anciently it was in both kindes administred. I will therefore examine the reasons the Church of [Page 470] Rome gives for her alteration from this antient way, and for administring in one kind; and in so doing, I shall plainly lay open her errors in this point.

The Councel of Constance held 1414. Councel of Constance. Ses. 13. decreed Quod nullus Presbyter, sub conditione excommu­nicationis, communicet populo sub utroque specie Panis & Vini. Which notwithstanding, the Councel of Basil did after restore to the people again, Anno 1431. So that in this new do­ctrine of hers, Rome has met with much controversie even in her self. Gelasius the Pope decreeing it to be sacrilegious to omit either kind; by which it is evident, that the Church of Rome has erred de fide: For Ge­lasius taught that judicially as Pope, and the Council of Constance was ap­proved by Pope John 23. and this Councel of Basil by Eugenius the 4. Which proceedings wound the infal­libility of the Church of Rome, and spoiles her unity; one Pope being a­gainst another, and one Council a­gainst another: To decide which strivings, the late Prerogative Royal [Page 471]of the Popes being above Councels was therefore decreed; which not­withstanding by that means the Church of Rome is made infallible, yet it spoiles her of her marks of anti­quity and constant visibility, and therefore absolutely spoiles her for be­ing taken to be the onely Catholick Church; for if so, then the Catholick Church was once utterly extinguish­ed from off the earth; which is against Gods promise, and impious to ima­gine.

The Pope being thus grown above Councels, he now (as he pleases) de­clares this Councel void, the other to be of force; and by vertue of this his Prerogative, he has approved the Councel of Constance, and yet but in part, for he onely takes as much out of that Councel as makes for his turn; he onely confirmes their Decree pro­hibiting the Cup to the Laity; but their other Decree of the power of Councels to be above the Pope, that's abominable; and his Holiness com­mands that Decree to, be believed to be Heretical. By this is to be noted, that the Popish Religion is a nose of [Page 472]wax, as pleaseth his Holiness to set it forth: it must be received upon the score of his infallibility: though it be never so destructive to former Chri­stian principles, to the ruine of Coun­cels, and overthrowing of the true antient Catholick Faith; yet such is the condition of the Pope, that his will can guide him into no tenent, (though never so contrary to truth) but his faithful Papal servants the Je­suites will dawb over his rotten Do­ctrine with the smooth plaisters of humane reason, and think with subtile Sophistry to beguile the simple; the deluding of whom, doth not in their uneven hands counterpoise the plea­sing of their Master the Pope; and therefore did they strive to varnish over this new point of Communion in one kind, with some counterfeit Paint: Will you please to take a view thereof, and I hope I shall so far convince their reasons, that the case will meerly stand upon the Popes will; and if so, I presume none will be so irreverent to their Master Christ, to forsake his institution, and to ad­here to the Popes institution, lest they [Page 473]may be said with the Jewes to reject Christ, and chuse Barabbas.

The Doctor would perswade that it was no precept to receive in both kindes; but onely being of insti­tution, and not precept, the Church has power to alter it as occasion may serve.

To which I answer: 2. It was christs pre­cept to re­ceive in both kinds. It was in­joyned us by way of command, to re­ceive in both kinds: for Christ, in the 6 of John, v. 53▪ sayes, Except ye eat the flesh, [...] [...]rink the blood of the Son of man, ye have no life in you: Christ took the Bread and said, Take, eat: And also he took the Cup and said, Drink ye all of it, Matth. 26. This is an absolute pre­cept as well for the Cup as the Bread; and Saint Paul delivered it so to the Corinthians, according as he had received of the Lord; he likewise en­joyning it to them as a precept probet seipsum, let a man examine himself, let him eat, let him drink; the Com­mandment extending to the one as well as to the other; which Com­mandment is drawn from the example of Christs precept, who himself gave [Page 474]the Cup as well as the Bread, and bade them drink as well as eat, the one being the outward element to sig­nifie his flesh, the other his blood; and Christ having said, Ʋnless ye eat the flesh, and drink the blood, ye have no life in you; it follows of ne­cessity, and in obedience to the pre­cept, that both be given, that both be received. Wherefore the Doctor might well have spared his twit a­gainst the Protestants▪ who do not by that place of John▪ [...]derstand bare faith, as he saith, without the out­ward elements, fol. 340. but they do thereby understand the holy Sa­crament of Christs body and blood; which by the receiving of those out­ward elements, (according to Christs institution and the operation of faith) is conveyed to the spiritual nourish­ment of the soul. Such weak objecti­ons as these against the Protestants, gives occasion to the world to suspect the Doctor did not understand the Protestant Religion, and that his go­ing to the Romish Church, proceeded of ignorance; and if so, he is less to be blamed for chusing Rome for his [Page 475]Mother Church; for unless she reform, he may (according to such humour) be shaddowed under her wing, and spend the rest of his dayes in blind o­bedience, and make his own igno­rance mother of his devotion.

The Doctor would perswade that these words import no precept, be­cause in respect Christ intended to in­joyn no more but the substance, to wit, really to receive his body and blood; which (sayes he, fol. 341.) may be done under one kind.

'Tis a strange presumption to ar­gue this against the express words of Christ and Saint Paul. Do this, drink of this: Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood &c: Which certain­ly they would never have practised ac­cording to these words, had it been needless to receive the Cup as well as the Bread, whenas they are thereby made all to drink into one Spirit, 1 Cor. 12.13.

Plutarch reports that Pericles had such skill in wrastling, that though he received a fall, he would perswade the standers by and the wrastler that cast him, that he him­self [Page 476]was the Conqueror: and such art doth the Doctor use in denying this to be a precept; and yet beside the o­verthrows that Christ and Saint Paul have given him, he has crossed legs with himself, and given himself the fall. So fol. 338. he sayes, the Priests re­ceive in both kinds, because they of­fer a sacrifice upon the Cross, which (sayes he) is not perfect without that: and if that be not a perfect sa­crifice of Christ that suffered without the Cup, I desire to know how it came to pass to be a perfect Transub­stantion of perfect Christ in the Cake, onely to the people, and not to the Priest; unless he will confess the people receive nor the same body the Priest doth offer, I for my part know not how this should be, and desire to be better informed herein, otherwise to persist to maintain the Cup to be necessarily given to the people.

We do not (when we receive his flesh by the Bread, and his blood by the Wine) receive dead Christ (as the Doctor would infer, fol. 342.) be­cause we separate the blood from the flesh: for this were to tax Christ of [Page 477]giving, and the Apostles of receiving dead Christ, which is gross and im­pious: Besides, he himself has answer­ed himself as to that objection, fol. 338. for (saith he) the Priest recei­ving under both, doth not receive two Sacraments, because the Sacra­ment is essentially and entirely con­tained under either kind; and being received both at once, they make but one refection, signifying one thing, and producing one effect; no more (saith he) then 6 or 7 dishes of meat make but one dinner. Now as the Priest doth not divide the flesh and blood, and receive two Sacraments, no more do we; and if the Doctor would have advisedly considered with himself, when he taxed us in this, he might ea­sily have perceived that he did through our sides wound Christ and his Apo­stles, nay the Church of Rome it self, for that she administred, and her people received in both kinds, and af­ter the same manner; and unless he can shew stronger reasons then these for her change, the Church of Eng­land desires her not to censure too se­verely of her, for not conforming with [Page 488]her; for that she is not easily induced to forsake the practice of Christ and his Apostles, and for that the Sacra­ment is to be administred in remem­brance of Christ, she conceives we ought not to forget the manner of Christs institution, were there no pre­cept for it; but especially sith we are enjoyned so to do, we desire to drink the blood, and to eat the flesh, that we may have eternal life thereby.

We must drink his blood, Eating and drinking. as well as eat his flesh; and although as the Doctor affirms, (admitting Transub­stantiation) we may be said to drink that that is drinkable, and eat that that is eatable, yet we are to remem­ber the end for which we are com­manded to drink that blood, which is, in remembrance that Christs blood was shed; This Cup is my blood in the new Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins, Matth. 26.28. And Saint Paul witnessing, that it was Christs will it should be drunk in remembrance thereof, 1 Cor. 11. which cannot be properly signified in the Cake, there being no outward Element to repre­sent [Page 489]the shedding of Christr blood, and precious price of our redemption, and for which end this Sacrament was ordained. Besides, Christ calls him­self the Vine as well as the Bread, and we hereby become Branches, lively, growing, and budding upon our e­ver-living Root Christ Jesus; whose holy institution whilst we follow, and reject any other rule of humane insti­tution, we may truly say, We bear not the Root, but the Root beareth us, Rom. 11.18.

The Doctor, 3. And ta­ken for or by the Do­ctors con­struction. to avoid the precept of Christ in relation to the Cup takes upon him to construe and for or, Joh. 6.53. Except ye eat the flesh, and drink the blood, (he reads it, or drink the blood) ye have no life in you: And this he would have done, for avoiding of contradiction; because that in the same Chapter, eternal life is promised to them that eat onely.

To which I answer: The Bread is not Sacramentally so often in Scri­pture mentioned alone, as it is with the Cup joyntly; wherefore if avoid­ing contradiction be the reason, then must we not admit or for and in that [Page 480]of John and 1 Cor. 11.27. For if so, then we contradict 1 Cor. 10. Our Fathers did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink, (Saint Cyprian, lib. 2. Epist. 3. sayes this was prefigured by the bread and wine which Melchizedek gave to Abraham, Gen. 14.) and likewise that text of the 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat and drink &c. And we fur­ther do hereby contradict all the E­vangelists, who witness with one con­sent, that Christ took the Bread, and also (or after the same manner) he took the Cup; we must not say that he took the Bread or the Cup: for so we destroy the Sacrament, as being of incertainty, and having no certain ground either for its institution, or the precept for the administring thereof. Wherefore for the Doctor here to con­strue and, or, is to multiply contra­dictions, and so his reason is become invalid, in respect that the general scope of the Scripture is, that this Sa­crament is to be administred under both kinds; therefore it is more safe to construe those few places where Sa­cramental [Page 481]Bread alone is mentioned without the Cup, to be understood of the whole Sacrament, rather then in many places to wrest and into or: For the mentioning of Bread onely, doth not exclude the Cup negatively, but rather (according to Cyprians speech) by the naming of part of the action, the whole is to be understood; and herewith agreeth Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 10.17. And we that are many, are one bread, and one body, because we are all partakers of one bread. We must not think, that be­cause here Saint Paul names bread onely, that therefore the Corinthians did not communicate in the cup; for that is against the precedent verse, where he saies, The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the com­munion of the blood of Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Besides, in the ensuing Chapter he enjoyns both to be recei­ved, and that to the people; so that where the breaking of Sacramental bread is onely mentioned, we are not thereby to exclude the cup; for the [Page 482]Hebrew phrase is (under the breaking of bread) to signifie the whole feast; as in the Prophet Esay, Frangere esurientis panem, is as well to give drink as bread.

Besides, should we admit of any other construction, as that when bread is mentioned alone, thereby to under­stand communion in one kind, we should in that change Saint Luke in Act. 2. to teach contrary to the practice of Christ, and the rest of the Apostles, which did both receive and deliver to the people under both kinds; which were an impious and presum­ptuous charge. Wherefore let the Church of Rome for shame confess her errors herein, and let her not longer wrest, mangle, and misconstrue Scripture contrary to Christs rules herein, contrary to the sense of the Primitive Church, and contrary to the judgement and practice of the an­tient Fathers, and her own antient Bi­shops; and that but for self-interest, to maintain a new doctrine of her own framing, taken up upon a light score, and never heard of or believed in the Church for a thousand years af­ter [Page 483]Christ; and let her confess the truth with us herein, by which means she shall neither alter the sense, nor wrest any particular word, to maintain her doctrine herein: and if she will not for unitie sake, and for communion with us, yet for avoiding an absurdi­ty against her own principles, let her never construe that place of Luke to signifie an entire Sacrament; for then she makes the whole Sacrament one­ly breaking of bread, and destroyes Transubstantiation.

As for the Doctor, if he be not herewith satisfied, but that he will persist notwithstanding, that it must be understood of communion in one kind; and furthermore, to maintain that opinion, will here construe and for or, I must tell him, that he has here­by wiped off one error which he els­where, fol. 337. taxed our Transla­tors with, 1 Cor. 11.27. which if it be mis-translated, it makes nothing for communion in one kind; but whether we receive the one or the other, that we should take heed to receive with due reverence so Heavenly a banquet: and it doth further illustrate to us, that [Page 484]though we receive the bread worthily, yet if we receive the cup unworthily, we are guilty of the body and blood; which is an argument (and indeed an absolute proof) that they both make but a perfect Sacrament of the body and blood; therefore I encline to think with the Doctor, that it is a corruption in our printed Bibles, ren­dring and for or; I find it various from the old copies: and I will not presume upon the Doctors rule to ju­stifie it: however, it is something excu­sable, for that in the very same Chap­ter, 26, 28, and 29. verses, eating the bread, and drinking the cup is ex­pressed, and not eating the bread, or drinking the cup; which upon the Doctors rule (for avoiding contradi­ction) should be construed or: but whether it be taken or, or and, yet notwithstanding it makes nothing for the Popish communion in one kind.

The Doctor layes down for the Priests receiving in both kinds, Of the sa­crifice offe­red upon the Altar by the Priest. because he offers up a sacrifice; I will there­fore a little consider of that: I hope I shall give satisfaction to any reaso­nable [Page 485]soul, that the Priest and the people offer up one and the same sa­crifice; and if so, then by the Doctors rule, they are to receive in both kinds; because (saith he) Christs sacrifice up­on the Cross is not perfectly repre­sented but by both kinds, as it was prefigured in Melchizedek's sacri­fice of bread and wine.

For the better explaining of this point, it is to be understood, that there are two kinds of sacrifices; one is a perpetual sacrifice, pacifying Gods wrath, whereby mercy and forgive­ness of sins is obtained; which is onely the death of Christ, prefigured by the sacrifices under the Law. The other is a sacrifice of laud and thanksgiving, which doth not reconcile us unto God, but is offered up of such as be already reconciled unto him, by faith in him, which is the reconciliation for our sins, even Christ Jesus. By the first, Christ offered us unto the Father; by the se­cond, we offer our selves and all that we have unto him and his Father; ac­cording as David sayes, Psal. 50. A sacrifice to God, is a contrite heart: and Hebr. 13. Alwaies we offer up [Page 486]to God a sacrifice of laud and praise by Jesus Christ: and Saint Peter saith of all people, that they are A holy Priest-hood, to offer up spiritu­al sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

The Papists object that saying of Saint Paul. Heb. 9. Every High­priest is ordained to offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins, To prove thereby their sacrifice of the Altar of­fered up in their Mass; which who please to read, may plainly discover, that that saying is meant of the Priests under the Law, who did offer Bul­locks and Goats for the sins of the people; and therefore in the old Te­stament such sacrifices are sometimes called Propitiatory sacrifices, being indeed but shaddows and types of Christs sacrifice which was to come, which was the true and perfect sacri­fice for the sins of the whole world: wherefore in the very same Chapter S. Paul saith, it were impossible our sins should be taken away by the blood of Oxen and Goats, verse 1 [...]. By his own blood entred he once into the Holy place, and obtain­ed [Page 487]Eternal Redemption for us.

Christ was such an High-priest, that he once offering himself, by once ef­fusion of his blood, did cleanse the sins of all that believe; he took unto him­self, not onely their sins which many years before were dead, and put their trust in him; but likewise the sins of those that (until his coming again) should believe in his Gospel; so that we look for no other Priest or sacri­fice to take away our sins, but onely his sacrifice made once for all. If he should have made any oblation for sin more then once, he should have died more then once; but he hath made a full and plenary oblation for sin by his death; by the will of God are we sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once made, Heb. 10.10. For with once offer­ing, hath he consecrated for ever them that are sanctified. If Christ then have taken upon him the burden of our sins, and become a reconciliati­on not onely for our sins, but the sins of the whole world; if he himself have made a full oblation for our sins, by the offering of his body once made [Page 488]how shall the Popish Priests be ex­cused, who presume daily to perswade the people they offer in their Mass a Propitiatory sacrifice, and the same that was offered by Christ himself up­on the Cross? Which if it be so, then may we say of them, that they crucifie again the Lord of life; whereas the Scripture tels us plainly, he was not to be offered often, as the High-priest offered every year, but onely once did put away sin by the sacrifice of him­self, Heb. 9.26. For as a man must once die, so Christ was once offered, to take away sins for many; and to them that look for him, shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvati­on; for, Heb. 10. Every Priest ap­peareth daily ministring, and offer­eth ofttimes one manner of offering, which can never take away sins; but Christ (after he had offered one sa­crifice for sins) for ever sitteth at the right hand of God.

It is a rule in Logick, Dato uno absurdo, mille sequuntur; the Papists deduce this Doctrine from their other errors of Transubstantiation, and so they proceed from iniquity to iniquity: [Page 489]they hereby, when they have made the people believe their transubstantiated god, that now they may as well rob God of his office, and their Priest may make a Propitiatory sacrifice upon the Altar for the sins of the people, which S. Paul saith was onely pro­per to Christ himself; He himself en­tred into the holy place by his own blood: It was the office of himself, to offer himself the satisfactory oblation for our sins by the will of the Father, he being the High-priest of good things to come, having an everla­sting Priest-hood, being holy, harm­less, separate from sin, made high­er then the heavens, which need­ed not daily to offer up sacrifice, as the other High-priest did, first for his own sins, and then for the peoples; for that did he once, when he offered himself up once for all.

Moreover, when the Popish Priests take upon them to offer up satisfacto­ry sacrifice at their Altar, it must ei­ther be understood such a sacrifice as the Priest under the Law offered, which were but typical of the Messias, and so they become Jewes, deny­ing [Page 490]Christ to be already come, or else if they think they offer Christ upon the Altar for quick and dead, and make the same oblation which Christ made upon the Cross, they do hereby either deny the sufficiency of Christs oblation, as if his offering once for all, did not satisfie without their daily of­fering and crucifie again the Lord of life; or else, if that sacrifice of Christ was sufficient, they must needs con­fess that this of theirs is vain and need­less, being added to the sacrifice which is already sufficient and perfect; or if this of theirs be requisite, they make the death of Christ of none effect, or in vain, because this their offering is satisfactory for the sinnes of the people.

This doctrine is very well known to have sprung up of lucre, the Priests by this doctrine finding a means to sell Masses for the quick, and promi­sing, for and in consideration of such and such Legacies, to say so many Masses for the dead, whereby they should be released from pains in Pur­gatory; and finding the sweet benefit that doth arise by this doctrine to the [Page 481]Priests and to his Holiness, by this do­ctrine and the other of Indulgences, they bend all their wits, and wholly apply themselves to darken the truth, with the mists of subrile sophistry and fleshly interpretations of the word, to gain grateful and liberal Proselytes to this their new doctrine.

I do not deny that this Sacrament is by some Fathers called a sacrifice; it is so properly called: but it must not be therefore understood to be a sa­crifice for sin, onely a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; or else it is called a sacrifice, to put us in mind of the sacrifice which Christ himself hath made, and so is significantly a sacri­fice, as the bread is called his body, and the cup his blood: And herewith agreeth Saint Austine in his 33. E­plstle to Boniface, and in his book de civitate Dei, lib. 10. cap. 5. That (saith he) which men call a sa­crifice is a figure and representation of the true sacrifice. And Magist. Sentent. lib. 4. distic. 12. That which is offered and consecrated of the Priest, is called a sacrifice, because it is the memory or representation of [Page 492]the true sacrifice of Christ, and that holy oblation made in the Altar of the Cross. And Chrysostome upon the Hebr. That which we offer, is but in remembrance of Christs sacri­fice: he himself in his own Person made a sacrifice for our sins upon the Cross, by whose wounds all our dis­eases are healed, all our sins pardon­ed, and so did never any man or crea­ture but he; the benefit whereof, is in no mans power to give unto another, every man must receive it at Christs hands, himself, by his own faith and belief: we are made one body, as ma­ny as are partakers of one bread. If then this be a representation of Christs sacrifice, which sacrifice (by the Doctors own confession) is not perfect without the cup, then must the people either receive both kinds, or else they do not sufficiently com­memorate Christs sacrifice, which they ought to do, in respect the Priest doth not, nor can offer up a Propiti­atory sacrifice for the Reasons afore­said.

As this Sacrament has the name of a sacrifice, it is to be understood [Page 493]significantly of Christs sacrifice; or else as it is in it self a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving: if it be significant­ly a sacrifice, the people ought to be partakers of it as it is a perfect sacri­fice in both kinds: and if it be a sa­crifice of praise and laud unto the Lord, then the people (as well as the Priest) are required to, and concern­ed in that service, as it is made mani­fest in the ensuing Chapter: The hum­ble confession of all penitent hearts, their acknowledging of Christs bene­fits, their thanksgiving for the same, their faith and consolation in Christ, their humble submission to his will, is a sacrifice of laud and prayse accepta­ble unto God, no less then the sacri­fice of the Priest.

Christ did not ordain this Sacra­ment, that any one might receive it for another; but that every one for himself is to be made partaker of this mystery of his salvation: For, as one may not be baptized for another (for the Godfathers answering for the child, say he hath faith, because he hath the Sacrament of faith by the outward element of water; which as it [Page 494]self cleanseth, so the childe thereby is born again of water and of the Spirit to newness of life; Baptism. the infant spiritu­ally receiving regeneration by the out­ward element of the water, according to the effectual working of the holy Spirit, unto newness of life; the infant being thereby made a member of Christ, by faith in Jesus given unto him in that Sacrament of Baptism. So may not one receive this holy Sa­crament for another: Let every man be baptized, Act. 2. here is spiritual regeneration to every man by himself. And Mat. 26. Christ said to the multi­tude, Take, and eat, and drink ye all of this: and here is spiritual growth and living in Christ every man by himself; and by this means, we that are many branches, become one Vine, being baptized into one Spirit, and all made to drink into one Spirit, 1 Cor. 12.13.

Whereas the Doctor urges, that those words, Drink ye all of this, were spoken to the Apostles, and that therefore the cup is not to be given to the people; He might as well con­clude they shall not have the bread, [Page 495]because Christ gave that to his Apo­stles: whereas all Divines agree, that what was spoken to them, was there­by meant of the whole Church upon earth, which are all the Saints of God upon earth & of particular Churches, whensoever assembled into a Society: which is manifest by S. Paul, who delivered to the Corinthians that which he had received formerly of the Lord Jesus, to wit, both the bread and the cup; enjoyning every one to exa­mine himself, and so let him eat, and so let him drink. By which it is plain, that it was to be delivered to the peo­ple in both kindes. And if one kinde had been sufficiently significant of Christs flesh and blood offered by himself upon the Cross for our redem­ption, sure Christ would never have added the cup as part of that Sacra­ment, thereby to signifie his blood, if already it had been sufficiently signified in the bread. Wherefore, unless the Papists will charge Christ to be super­fluous in his institution of this Sacra­ment, they must allow the cup unto the people, as well as bread; and both as well as one.

Lastly, the Doctor would justifie the change of the Church of Rome in this particular, upon the authority of the Church given by Christ to his A­postles so to do. And for this he urges S. Austin, who was dead five hun­dred and fifty yeers before ever this doctrine of Rome was heard of.

S. Austin stood much for the signi­ficancie of the bread and wine, that this Sacrifice was but a representation of Christs Sacrifice; and that which you see on the Altar (or Table) is the bread; and the cup which your eyes shew you, is the wine: but, saith he, faith sheweth that that bread is the body, and that cup is the blood of Jesus Christ. It was the practice of the Church in his time, to administer in both kindes: he, when he lived, taught the necessity of wine, against those that mingled water: and so did Cyprian, and others: and now that they are dead, the Doctor will have them teach another doctrine. S. Au­stin might say, that Christ left autho­rity to his Apostles to make such ap­pointments in what order this Sacra­ment should be received; as, whether [Page 497]sitting, kneeling, how often, or the like; but not that they should institute a new Sacrament: Christ gave both Elements, Saint Paul delivered both, according as he had received, and it was to be done in remembrance of Christ, and they were commanded to be imitators of him, Ephes. 5.1. Christ left this as a Legacy to his Church, and he made the Apostles Executors of this his last Will and Testament; which they were to dis­charge, by dispensing that Legacy to Christs faithful Saints and People. Wherefore for them to withhold part of the thing bequeathed, to wit, the participation of the cup: which is by S. Paul called The Communion of his blood, is to forfeit that trust Christ has reposed in them, and to forget his precept he enjoyned them, command­ing to teach all Nations whatsoever he had commanded them.

We are bound to hold fast the tra­ditions we have learned. If then the Scripture tell us, that Christ with his Apostles did communicate in both kinds, and Saint Paul administring to the Corinthians, said, Traditi vobis [Page 498]quod accepi a Domini. how comes the Church of Rome to forsake this tradition which Christ himself taught and practised, and the Primitive Church for a thousand yeers held for faith? if it ought to be reduced to one kind, how came it to pass to be let a­lone so long? and by what Authori­ty doth Rome claim this power? sith the ancient Fathers and the Primitive Church, did not onely use to admini­ster to the people in both kinds, but maintained and defended the necessity of Bread and Wine, the outward ele­ments of this Sacrament; as may ap­pear by the Testimony of the afore­cited Fathers; and particularly it was the profession of the Church of Rome, as Gelasius Bishop thereof witnes­seth.

Shall but the Church of Rome prescribe any new rule of faith or man­mers, and shall any disobey, he is straightwaies anathematized for ca­sting off the Tradition of the Church: and the Catholick Church upon earth communicated in both k nds; and shall the late Popes of Rome alter this and escape the censures? Were there no­thing [Page 499]for it but the bare usage of the Primitive Churches, it were enough to convince the Church of Rome; but whenas there is Christs precept and institution for it, how doth the Church of Rome justly incur the condemnati­on of the Pharisees teaching for do­ctrines the commandments of men, and laying aside the commandments, of God, follow their own traditions? Mark 7. But such was the transcen­dent wickedness of the Church of Rome in these dayes, that scarce any Apostolick Rule but has suffered some alteration by his Holiness, and his Legislative conclave of Cardinals; who being soared to a height above Councels, Princes, and all other Powers on earth, stick not to wrestle against these commandments of the God of Heaven; witness their additi­ons to the Baptisme, as if the Bap­tisme wherewith Christ was Baptized▪ were not sufficient, without the Romish spittle and salt; and as if this Sacra­ment of Bread and Wine were super­fluous as to the cup, the Church of Rome administers in one kind, as if [Page 500]nothing were perfect and to be recei­ved in the Catholick Church, but what his Holiness please to teach and allow. And their reasons are so weak they offer for such their alterations, that any one may plainly discern it is Will, not Reason, brings her into such changes. Who but knows that Christ as he was man, and the Apostles like­wise, were obnoxious to the same in­conveniences of spilling the Wine (as the Doctor alledges) or part sticking upon their beards, as the people of these dayes are? But they knowing that it was Christs order to separate the cup from the bread, and give it to be divided amongst them, (thereby denoting to them how his blood should be separated from his flesh) and by Christ left as a pattern for them to follow, and to have continu­ance till his comming again, they, by eating the bread, and drinking the cup, shew the Lords death till he come; and for that the same was to be continued in remembrance thereof; and they being commanded likewise hereunto, Drink ye all of this: Let a man examine himself, [Page 501]and let him eat, and let him drink; They would not (and we dare not) admit of Romes alteration, but desire of God to hold fast this truth we have received, and that it would please him to confirm us herein, that we may be blameless in the day of the Lord Jesus; praying that all other Chur­ches, as in this, so in all other points of faith and doctrine, may be of one consent, and firmly united together in one mind and one judgement; that we may all proceed in one Rule, and walk together as followers of Christ and his Apostles, having them for an ensample to us, that we may with one mind and one mouth praise God, even the Father of our Lord Je­sus Christ, Amen.

CHAP. XVII.
That the Lyturgie and private Prayers, ought not to be in an un­known Language, which the Congregation doth not under­stand.

WHereas Saint Paul in the 1 Cor. 14. is against gi­ving of thanks, or praying without understanding, because the hearer is not edified, nor can say A­men to he knows not what; the Do­ctor (to help the lame Dogg over the style and to clear his new step-mother the Church of Rome, from the errors which other Churches lay to her charge, for that she restrains her Prayers and her Lyturgy universally to the Latine tongue) would needs have us to understand that S. Paul doth not hereby impugne the Lytur­gie of the Church of Rome, which (sayes he) was for the service and praise of God, and he to whom it is directed, understands any tongue: but it is meant (sayes he) of Church-meet­ings, [Page 503]which were onely for instruction and edification of the Auditors, and not at all to be understood to gainsay the Lyturgie of Romes Church.

To which I answer,

1. S. Paul's meaning is as well meant of the one, as of the other: for vers. 26. When ye come (says he) to­gether, according as every one hath a tongue, or hath interpretation, let it be done to edifying. By which it is plain; that both praises and prayers, Psalms as well as doctrine, ought to be with understanding. For, vers. 28. If any man hath an unknown tongue, let him keep silence in the Church, and speak to himself and to God. That man that hath the spirit of Tongues, may speak to God and him­self; but he must be silent to others, unless they can understand him: for how shall they say Amen to they know not what?

God requires from us the heart: Give me thine heart. David de­sired to praise the Lord in soul and spirit: Praise the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me praise his holy Name. We must not think that [Page 504]a little lip-labour, to say Amen to we know not what, can be acceptable un­to God. 1 Sam. 1. Hannah prayed in her heart to the Lord. Not every one that saith, Lord, Lord, shall be saved, Matth. 7. God doth not re­quire lip-service: he condemned the Scribes and Pharisees, who drew neer unto him with their lips, but their hearts were far off, Matth. 15. We are commanded to serve God with all our heart and soul, Josh. 24. We must sing and make melody to the Lord in our hearts, Ephes. 5. We must approve that which is pleasing to the Lord, vers. 10. God is King of all the earth: sing ye praises there­fore with understanding. By all which and many more places of Scri­pture, it is plain, that the service of the Congregation it must be with the heart, that is, with the understanding. We must not think that God is well pleased with the peoples devotion that proceeds not from the heart. I will, for the better satisfaction of those that seem to be satisfied with the Doctor's exposition of S. Paul, offer these rea­sons to his consideration, against those [Page 505]he has propounded, to justifie the Ro­mane Lyturgie universally.

Platina writes, La [...]ne ser­vice first set up. that the first Latine Service that ever was at Constantino­ple, was anno 687. whenas the sixth Councel, there held was assembled: for, before that, it was never had in the Latine, but in the Greek or He­brew Tongue. But now was the Pope grown to be universal, by the late donation of Phocas, for counte­nancing his murder of Mauritius: and it did not stand with his new-ac­quired honour and dignity, that the Language of any other Church should be preferred before that of Rome; and therefore at a General Councel (the representative of the several Churches) must the Language of the Romane See be preferred before any other. For as the Pope was univer­sal Head, he must needs have an Uni­versal Tongue, otherwise his Univer­sality were dumb. And this was the true ground of composing the Latine Lyturgie; and not (as the Doctor would perswade us because it was the most general Tongue: for whenas this was consented unto by many other [Page 506]Bishops, to please the Lordly Pope, the Emperours great favourite, it gave occasion for the spreading of that Language, because the Service began to be in many places in it; not that it was so copious or known a Tongue before. Nor doth the reason the Do­ctor brings, justifie, but rather con­demn the Latine Lyturgie: for, saith he, the Lyturgie of the Eastern Churches was used in Greek, though all the Eastern parts spoke not that Language; therefore why may not Rome prescribe a Lyturgie in Latine to the Western Churches? To which I answer: It was thought fit, by the Fathers of the Primitive Church, to have one uniform Lyturgie in all the Churches upon earth; and [...]o that end, did those then-visible Churches use the Greek Tongue: Why has the Church of Rome set up another form? By this, the Doctor contradicts her Antiquity, and the other mark, that she should never have separated from a Society more ancient then her self; or else den [...]es her Universality, in that she is but to prescribe a Latine Lytur­gie to the Western Churcbes: and so [Page 507]he makes those marks by which he would have her distinguished to be a true Church, to become Brands and Stigmatizings of her errors, and fal­ling from the Primitive Church.

3. Another reason the Doctor en­forces, is this; that there are many words in peoples Languages, which are hard to be understood; and there­fore they may as well have all in La­tine, for that the common people do not understand every word they speak.

This seems to me a very strange Argument: whilst he thus strives to clear this point, he doth more con­demn it, or obscure the truth; for this is ignotum per ignotius, because the common people do not understand all the words of their Language, there­fore they shall understand none at all; he may perchance perswade some fool that is blind of the one eye, to put out the other, to make them both alike: but he must bring stronger reasons, and prove himself a better Scholar▪ else it will be hard for him to turn our English into Latine, and make the Lyturgie of other Churches to speak the Romane tongue.

When Vitalianus decreed the La­tine service, Greek was more general­ly known then the Latine; insomuch that in several parts of Italy, the La­tine was not spoken; as in Calabria the Greek was spoken, in Itruria the Tuscan, in Apulia the Mesapi­an tongue, the Latine being onely the proper language of the territories of Latium, in which Rome is situate: neither was any thing generall wrote but in the Greek tongue: so that if it was convenient to have the Lyturgie in one tongue universally, the alterati­on from the Greek into Latine was at first unlawful, in respect of the nar­rowness of the language in those daies; it being done onely out of ostentation, and for the glory of the Romane See, to make others receive the Latine Ly­turgie, after she had surreptitiously acquired the title of Universality.

4. Whereas the Doctor alledges, If the Lyturgie should be in distinct proper languages of several people, whether could the Church of Rome understand the errors therein, nor they be sure there were none in it? This ar­gues Romes intolerable arrogancy, as [Page 509]if none could be Christians, which had not received the faith from her; when­as the Apostles were sent to all Nati­ons, and preached the Gospel in their own languages; and having re­ceived the faith by Apostolical planta­tion, it is equally just with them, to correct Rome, as she to correct them; both being herein bound to the Disci­pline of a general Councel, sending thither some one or other, which shall in some general language there, make known their case. Besides, this argu­ment of the Doctors has given Rome a most deadly blow: for if Rome be the onely Catholick Church, and her Bishop have all Apostolical power de­volved upon her own head, certainly she is either enabled to teach all Na­tions, or else it will follow, that those people which have not yet received the faith, must still remain in darkness, be­cause Rome wants the gift of interpre­tation of tongues, and knows not how to make them understand the Gospel of Jesus: and for that faith comes by hearing, not by dumb shewes, unless Rome be able to make such people understand service and [Page 510]prayer, they will think her Priests are mad. It is not his praising God with an understanding heart that can edi­fie them: though the Priest should praise the Lord upon the Harp, they will but think as the Negroes did when they first heard Bag-pipes, that they were living creatures, and ascribe Deity to them; and so instead of preaching Jesus, or offering praise to him, they would make the people commit Idolatry, if the Priest knew not how to perswade them of their errors, much less to make them sensi­ble of the Church of Rome's prescri­bed rules; and so by this means the Doctor has confessed the people to want Brains correspondent to his uni­versal head.

And whereas the Doctor alledges, The diffe­rence of languages. that all Languages are not of equal extent, and therefore incongruities would arise; Besides (sayes he) the inconvenience of having it in Latine, is but in part, and that to the ignorant: I conceive these reasons make rather against it, then otherwise.

It is true, all Languages are not of the same latitude; in some Languages [Page 511]one word comprehending several word in another language; God has given to every Nation several gifts of tongues. Reason taught men to re­duce out of confused and indictinct sounds articulate sillables and pecu­liar words, to signifie their own mean­ing; and time and Art hath perfected those beginnings: so that now every Nation abounds in its own language, the languages of the Nations being at first made different, according to the different imaginations of several people, at the first composing of such languages; but yet nothing that is i­maginable, but they have, or can give a name whereby to represent to their senses the nature of the thing: or if they already have a name for any thing, and do not know the reason of that denomination, yet they rest sa­tisfied with the articulate sound of the words which brings, unto their mind the thing intended and meant. Now because of those several Nations and people, which at first invented several different languages, (insomuch that in the language of one Country, one word may comprehend a pare­phrasis [Page 512]of another) that therefore such a Countries language is too short, it must not be imagined: For though to strangers it seem imperfect, yet amongst themselves, it is sufficient­ly to describe the thing intended; wherefore I should think, that (un­derstanding the Doctors objection) it were fit that every Nation had a Ly­turgie in its own proper language: it perchance may seem to some to breed incongruities, but indeed it doth not; it denotes the difference of languages in respect of latitude or extent, but it retains a royal and concuring sense and understanding of the thing pre­sented to their fancy; without which, the people must for ever remain in darkness, and lockt up in ignorance; which was not Gods will: he com­manded his Apostles to teach all Na­tions, and sent them especially to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Matth. 10. God is light, and Je­sus is the tender day-spring from on high, which hath visited us; to give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death, and to guide our feet in the way of peace: Where­fore [Page 513]for Rome to take away this light, to let this inconvenience, (as the Do­ctor says to be upon the ignorant) is not to discharge the office of Peter and Paul, who were sent out to bring into light them that sit in darkness, Matth. 4. To them that sate in darkness, is light risen up. Jesus came into the world a light, says S. John, John 12.46. that whosoe­ver believeth in him, should not a­bide in darkness. Whether Jewes or Gentiles, we are one sheep under one Shepherd, Christ Jesus. John 10.16. Wherefore for the Doctor (to extenuate this error of Rome) to say, that the inconvenience is onely to the ignorant, is to me a strange Divi­nity; for, The whole have no need of a Physitian, but the sick, Matth. 9. Christ having sent his Apostles to preach him, that is, light unto them that sit in darkness, and to bring them unto this marvellous light: So that it is the principal part of the Priests du­ty, to propagate the Gospel to them that yet remain in darkness, and not to keep them in ignorance, and se­clude them from this light by clouding [Page 514]their Intellects with a Vail of dark language: a Candle ought not to be set under a Bushel; let your light shine before men, that others seeing, may glorifie God which is in heaven: give then to the several people their Lytur­gie in their own tongue, that they may understandingly, and with a contrite heart, offer up their sacrifice of Prayer and praise, which is a reasonable sa­crifice, and acceptable service to God; for if a people ignorant of the Latine, must have their Lyturgie in that tongue, these inconveniences and ab­surdities do from thence arise:

1. If the praise and service of God said by the Minister, (who knowes what he saith) be sufficiently accepta­ble unto God: it is to no purpose for the people (which understand it not) to come to hear it; which to assert, were Diabolical, in respect that God has commanded all to draw neer un­to him, whether Jew or Gentile; as many as believe in Jesus, shall be sa­ved. Who being consecrate, is made the Author of salvation unto all them that obey him, Heb. 5. There is no difference between the Jew [Page 515]and the Grecian; he that is Lord of all, is rich unto all that call upon him, Rom. 10. And Saint Peter tels us, that In every Nation he that feareth him, and worketh righte­ousness, shall be saved, Acts 10. Come unto me all ye that are heavy laden, and I will ease you, Matth. 12. Call upon me in trouble, and I will hear you, Psal. 17.6. He is nigh unto all them that call upon him faithfully, Psal. 145.18. And more especially is he to be found in his house, the house of Prayer, of them that seek him: Where two or three are gathered together in my Name, there am I in the mid'st of them▪ Matth. 18.

Now as all are enjoyned to this duty, so is it requisite that they per­form it with due reverence; knowing to whom they speak, and not with rash lips, nor ignorantly; for the word must be in thy heart, as well as thy mouth, Rom. 10.8. The men of Athens worshipped an unknown God, but Saint Paul rebuketh them Acts 11. Be ye not strangers from the life of God, through ignorance, [Page 516](was S. Paul's rule to the Ephesi­ans) but understand what the will of the Lord is. So that as all people are commanded to serve and praise God, so must they do it in heart and mind, and with understanding; wherefore it is not sufficient onely for the Priest to understand when he prayes or praiseth God, but the people likewise must concur in the un­derstanding of the present service: If it be sufficient for the Priest alone to know and understand the prayer and praises offered to God, then need not the people come; or if the coming of the people be necessary, then must they understand what the Priest prays or saith: For if a man pray Pater noster, &c. as the Doctor sayes, fol. 339. and may not measure his thoughts Mathematically with his words, it is no more than if a Parat were taught it; his understanding is without fruit: in a Rational soul, the heart is to declare to the tongue, o­therwise, whilst he speaks, he either babbles like a Bruit, without under­standing, (A good man out of the good treasure, bringeth forth good; [Page 517]an evil man, out of the evil treasure of his heart, bringeth forth evil: For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks; Luk. 6.) or otherwise, if there be no concur­rence between the heart and the mouth, he speaks with feigned lips, not uttering what he thinks. It is not sufficient for a man to suppose it is the Lords prayer, because he has heard so, and that he knows the Lords prayer in English, or that his thoughts go along with the Latine: For suppose he should be saying Da nobis panem quotidianum, and he was supposing he was praying for the Kingdome to come, how shall God answer such a prayer?

2. The Doctor (whilst he goes a­bout to set up the Church of Rome a­bove her fellowes, and to magnifie her Lyturgie, he) doth indeed destroy Christ's Church, by excluding the people who are Members of the Church, and make a Church, as I have shewed in the third Chapter. For it is not the practice at Rome onely in Quires, and in Collegiate Chappels, which are onely for societies of such [Page 518]as understand that tongue, this were t [...]l [...]rable; but it extends to all Con­gregations, excluding the people, which is abominable: For, the Church of Rome, though she be Head, she cannot say unto the Members, I have no need of you: We all make but one body in Christ, whether we be Jewes or Gentiles, bond or free: We are all by one Spirit baptized into one bo­dy and have been all made to drink into one Spirit, 1 Cor. 12. So then, if the society of the Saints do make the Church, it is fit that this society serve and praise the Lord in heart and spirit, for as God is a spirit, so he will be worsh pped in spirit and in truth. Wherefore, to say, that it is sufficient for the Priest to understand, because he alone offers the sacrifice of praise; that is to destroy the Church, by ex­cluding the Saints from this duty: and therefore, that they may do this with heart and spirit, it is requisite for the people to have this Lyturgie in a tongue they understand, that they may praise the Lord with all their heart, according as the Lyturgie en­joyns then, bidding them lift up their [Page 519]heart unto the Lord. And I much wonder, that these words escaped razing, when Vitellianus about the year 666. (the number of the Beast) did command▪ that the service in all Churches should be in Latine; but Nihil simul est inventum & per­fectum: and now that it remains still, having escaped the Index expurga­torius, it stands to the condemnation of the Church of Rome, to shew from what she is fallen; from truth, to er­ror; from Apostolick practice, to let all things be done to edifying 1 Thes. 5.11. to follow her own inventions, hood-winking the people in igno­rance, that she may the better tyran­nize over them. For whereas the Do­ctor would perswade us, fol. 329. that Peter and Paul used a Lyturgie in one of the learned languages, which could not be known to all; he must prove that, before it be to be believed: It may be they used amongst them­selves one constant language in their service, which might not be under­stood by others, by chance by-stan­ders; but when they preached or pray­ed with others, in a publick Assem­bly, [Page 520]we do not finde but that the people understood them in their own language.

3. Our prayer and praise ought to be in faith, Whatsoever ye ask, if ye believe, ye shall receive it, Matth. 21.22. We must come unto the Fa­ther in the Sons Name, and he will hear us; ask, and he will do it, John 14.14. By faith in Jesus, we have boldness and entrance with confi­dence, Eph. 3.12. So that Whatso­ever we desire when we pray, be­lieve that we shall have it, and it shall be done unto us Mark 11.24. But without faith it is impossible to please God: For He that cometh to God, must believe that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him, Heb. 11. And without faith, our prayer turns into sin; for, Whatsoever is not of faith, is sinne, Rom. 14.23. So then, for any soci­ety to come to Divine service in a Tonge they do not understand, their prayer and praise cannot be of faith, in respect they know not what they ask; their Priest is their mouth, and they cannot in heart go along with [Page 521]him, because they understand not what he sayes; and their saying Amen to they know not what, cannot be ac­ceptable unto God; according as S. Paul writes to the Romanes, Rom. 10.14. How shall we call on him in whom we have not believed? and how shall we believe in him, of whom we have not heard? We must believe in him, and by him, and by him offer the sacrifice of praise to God; we must draw neer unto him with a pure heart, in the assurance of faith, Heh. 10.22. This was the Doctrine of the Apostles, and this was the practice of the Primitive Churches.

Theodoret, lib. 5. de Graec. af­fect. curat. pag. 521. telleth us, that in his time (which was about 440 years after Christ) the Scriptures were translated into all manner of langua­ges, and that they were not onely un­derstood of Doctors and Masters of the Church, but of Lay-people and common Artificers; Hebraici libri non modo in Graecum Idioma con­versi sunt, sed in Romanam, Aegy­ptam, Persicam, Judicam, Arme­nicam, [Page 522]& Scyithicam linguam; se­melque ut dicam in omnes linguas quibus ad hunc diem nationes utun­tur. It was then the practice, that e­very Nation should have the Scri­ptures in their own Tongue; (which Bellarmine unawares confessed, Bellarm. Chap. 106. Tom. 1. col. 191. lib. 4. de verb. Dei Script. cap 11.) But such is the pride and vain-glory of the Popes of Rome, that they will not admit this in these latter dayes; for since the Bi­shop of Rome grew up to be the Uni­versal head, all Churches must receive anew the Scriptures in their own Tongue; and not onely so, but their Lyturgies too; burning such Scriptures as the people understand in their own vulgar Tongue, and excommunica­ting all persons of the Laity, (be they neve [...] so well learned) that shall rea­son of matters of faith, or dispute of his power; commanding Latine Ser­vice, and Latine Homilies to the vul­gar; and though they cannot under­stand it. yet he has Decreed it shall be so, 6 Decret. lib. 5. cap. quicun­que. By which means he thinks to gain an opinion of being the onely [Page 523]Planter of those Churches; whenas indeed, he is but a busie intruder upon the Apostolical foundations of others: and in this his Holiness has a further reach, for by this means, he pleads Authority to rule over them, produ­cing this in evidence against them, (should they oppose him) that Con­queror-like, he has given them a Law in the proper language of Rome. And if any questions should arise concern­ing any points taught in those Trans­lations, he likewise did (by this means) obtain the priviledge to be the Interpreter; it being more proper to Rome to unfold the sense of that lan­guage, than to any other place. And thus and for those ends, did the Popes of Rome obtrude the Latine Lytur­gies upon several Churches, which, how it agrees with the Law Divine, for the work of the Ministry, for the gathering of the Saints, and for the e­dification of the body of Christ, till we all meet together in the unity of the faith, and knowledge of the Son of God, let the holy Spirit of that God, and the Angels of the several Churches witness.

CHAP. XVIII. The Conclusion.
Wherein the Reformation of Eng­land is justified, notwithstanding the Objections of Rome against it; and that the Pope was the cause of the Protestant Churches their separations from the Church of Rome.

I Have briefly touched most of those points which the Doctor hath urged against the Protestants; wherein (I conceive) the Church of England doth differ from the Church of Rome: and for that it is not my desire to make the breaches wider, but (if possible) to reconcile them in­to one, and to make up the gap of separation betwixt them, I now ha­sten to a conclusion. Yet let not any one censure me, as if I were weary of my enterprize, because to some parti­cular Chapters I have not given parti­cular answers: for I conceive, that the scope of their matter is sufficiently [Page 525]refuted in this discourse; and those Chapters not concerning any points of controversie betwixt us, any further than I have already answered, I did therefore forbear to multiply words against the Doctor, but hastned to the conclusion.

The Doctor in his 22. and 23. Chapters, doth flutter with the Lap­wing, and makes most bussle, when he is furthest off the Nest: He had for­merly cast his sting, and there (in con­clusion) ends with buzzing and noise onely; he rolls up himself in Rheto­rick, and with the Seriphian Froggs (of which Pliny writes, lib. 8. cap. 85.) he is clamorous in invectives; he, (like an untamed Colt) having leaped the Pale, which kept him in a safe and fitting Pasture, ranges up and down the miry paths, throwing up dirt be­hind him: till at length (having run himself out of breath) he becomes tame, and is content to take scraps at the Jesuites hands: he feeds upon the Orts of Parsons, Saunders, and such like Renegadoes; he has turned away his face from England's Sion, in whose true mirror of divinity, he might [Page 526]have seen the image of Christ himself, and his own face beauteous, as a Son of that Church; but now having turn­ed aside, he has forgot what manner of man he was, or what before he had beheld by the help of the reflections; and now he altogether contemplates upon a false gloss, which doth present unto him deceiving objects: on the one hand is the Church of England, presented to him black and ugly, be­ing transformed by the false Vail they (and such like) have put upon her; for which they are (with all indulgence) cherished and encouraged by his Ho­liness, according to the saying of Sa­lomon, Prov. 26.22. The words of a Tale-bearer are as flatterings, and they go down into his belly. But on the other hand, the Church of Rome is set out. with all the Art ima­ginable; so that any who will give up himself unto the speculative Religion of Popery, is cheated into an opinion of Romes beauty and comliness, and into a [...]a [...]en and de [...]tation of the Protest [...]nt Religion, because of her spots and defor [...]mity▪ whereas, if any please to seaken them both, he shall [Page 527]finde, that Englands Church (which is thus presented to him, is black but comely; and, like the curtains of Salo­mon, is set all with precious Stones and Jewels on her inner side, Cant. 1.4. I am black, but comly; as the curtains of Salomon. And if he please to make inquisition into the Church of Rome, he will finde, that she has onely a glorious outside, she is a painted Jezebel, that cares not to venter through a Sea of blood, to take possession of her Neighbours Vineyards, causing the Prophets of the Lord to be slain, 1 Kin. 18. She is Harpy-like, with a fair face, and a foul heart; and in that fair face (were but the Ignatian paint taken off) would rivelled browes, and wan­worn cheeks appear. How much there­fore is the Doctors case to be lament­ed, who hath joyned himself to the Heathen, to open his mouth that he may praise the power of the Idols, and to magnifie a fleshly King for ever, Esth. 5.10.

Hence is it, that in his second and third Chapters, taking for granted that Rome is the onely Catholick [Page 528]Church, and her Bishop Peter's Suc­cessor, and absolute and sole possessi­oner of all Apostolical Power and Ju­risdiction; he doth hereupon conclude, that the Protestant Churches are here­tical Conventicles, and that they know not the Scriptures, without the Tra­dition of Rome; nor can disperse and teach them without Commission from thence.

Now for that it is my desire, not to multiply words, I will forbear any particular answer to these Assertions; and refer the Reader to my second Chapter, where his Holiness Univer­sality is fully refuted.

And as touching that Assertion of his, concerning the Scriptures, my 2.8.11. and 12. Chapters are suffici­ent answers: where first I have pro­ved equal Commission; then, that the Scriptures are to judge the truth of themselves, Traditions, and Councels; and that other Churches had the Scri­ptures, and not from Rome; that the Provincials of Apostolical plantation, have equal power, having the same Spirit to guide them, as by the out­ward means the visible sign of the in­visible [Page 529]grace given in the Sacrament of order, is in Christian charity to be presumed; and therefore may as well judge of those points of Scripture, which admit of explanation, as the Church of Rome.

And the many arguments used by the Doctor in those Chapters, are not onely grounded upon false suppositi­ons, but in themselves are injurious, wrongfully accusing the Church of England, laying opinions to her charge concerning the wayes and means to understand the meaning of those Scriptures, which she doth not profess as Doctrinal.

And then in the 22. Chapter, he would disprove our ground of sepa­ration from Rome; as to this, I have in part touched in the 2.4. and 6. Chapters: and in the 11. Chapter I have proved aright in Provincials to reform Schismes and Heresies: And whereas he saies we ought not to have separated from Rome, hecase (saith he) we pretending the truth of our opini­ons, ought to have demonstrated them to the world, whereby to have reform­ed Rome, and not to have separated our selves: To this I answer.

The first occasion of the separation, was about the difference of the Popes Supremacy; and he having in a high way got the upper hand of many Churches, which were vassallized un­der his power, and the Councels be­ing so abused, and made invalid by the late Lateran Prerogative; it was to no purpose to offer the difference to a general Councel, which must either act for, or not against his Holiness; having no power to decree any thing against his Holiness, as I have proved in the tenth Chapter. This gave occa­sion to other Provinces, (which could get opportunity) to back the right and priviledge proper to their own Sees, to cast off any further appealing, either thither or to Rome. And they knowing this to be an usurpation in Popes, it gave them occasion to sus­pect the truth of many other of her Doctrines; and betaking themselves to the holy word of God delivered to them, and approved through all ages for the verities of God himself; and searching into the Primitive Churches, and practices of the antient Fathers, they found Rome to have [Page 531]changed her faith, as those particulars I have already treated on make men­tion.

Vincentius adversus Hereticos sayes, that Doctrine is to be account­ed Catholick, quod semper & ab om­nibus credendum est; and if this must be the rule, then are neither we Hereticks, nor Rome Catholick: Rome cannot be said Catholick, in respect the faith of Christ was at o­ther places professed, when it was not at all at Rome; nor may we be by her called Hereticks, because she has changed.

The Doctor (upon Saint Austin's rule, fol. 120.) sayes, that Doctrines without known beginnings, are not to be disputed against; but those Do­ctrines of Rome, of which I have treated, I have fairly proved them to be innovations; and therefore by that we are not to be censured for op­posing them.

And whereas the Doctor sayes that Rome must either be the true Church, or else there is none, he here­by proves himself to be in darkness: he has confessed it in Aethiopia with­out [Page 532]her planting, and in several other places, I have proved it to have been planted, and not from Rome; where­fore it is not necessarily to be conclud­ed (upon the score of her onely dis­pensing the Gospel) that she is the visible Church: if the Gospel be hid, it is hid to those that are lost; the lost s [...]eep's gone to Rome to idolize the pontifical Pope, whom the God of this world hath blinded, that the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, which is the Image of God, should not shine unto him; for (saith Saint Paul) We preach not our selves, but Christ Jesus our Lord; and our selves your servants for Jesus sake: Which is neither the Jesuites Doctrine, (who teach nothing but the infallibility of his Holiness) nor the Popes profession, who would every where be a Master, but no servant to the Saints and people of God. We therefore, be­cause of his change from this Do­ctrine, and because of his intolerable pride and usurpations, and as the o­ther Churches shake him off, but do not change from the Primitive faith taught by the Apostles, and formes [Page 533]maintained by the Church of Rome it self.

And though we lay long under Romes innovation, yet this is no Ar­gument for the Doctor to urge a­gainst us, that we should not at all reform; Christ has withdrawn his Spirit for a time from several Chur­ches, as I have proved in the 5. Chap­ter. Magna est veritas, & prae­valebit: Truth is stronger than all the power of man, as I have proved by Zerubbabel, 1 Esdr. 4. And though the Pope (with the inventions and polices of his Cardinal conclave) had so warded the several Churches of the West, that he thought them absolutely mastered, and under his command, to be servants to do his drudgery; he did (as we say) reckon without his Host, he did consult with flesh and blood, whilst a Divine hand master'd his humane polices, and their works of darkness were brought into light, when least suspected to have them laid open to the world.

And though the persons (the out­ward Instruments of this separation and change from Romes errors) were [Page 534]not in all things approvable, touching Moral conversation; yet this doth not absolutely disprove the truth of their Doctrine, as I have proved in the 6. Chapter. Bellarmin accounted Pope Sixtus an Heretick; and the Jesuites hold, Hominem non Christianum posse Romanum esse Pontificem, quodlib: 4, art. 2. pag. 100. And it is unequal dealing, to censure others of that, of which they themselves will not be condemned. God made use of Balaam's Ass to open the eyes of Balaam; and Luther (I crave par­don for the comparison) retorting up­on his Master the Pope, who smote him and his Princes with Romes Thunderbolts, was a means to open the eyes of the English Clergie, who saw the Angel of the Lord standing in the way; and I hope none can blame them for hearkning to his voice: we do not in all things approve of Luther, Calvin, Beza, &c. In those things wherein we do not differ from Rome, she cannot blame us; and in those things wherein we differ, we can prove, that not any one point, but was for 600. yeers after Christ by [Page 535]the Church of Rome it self professed; and since has (by the pride and arro­gancy of wicked and aspiring Popes) by little and little been forsaken, and by her deserted: so that who please impartially to consider of what I have in this Treatise fairly laid down, may plainly perceive, that it is Rome, not England, has forsaken the Primi­tive truth; and whilst the Doctor, or any other shall strive against the truth of England's Church, they do but wound their own soul; by back-bi­ting her, they bring a staffe to their own head; all the injury and mischief they frame against her, falls down on their own Pates; they themselves are caught in the Net, which they have privily laid for others; all the Argu­ments and strength of Reason they bring against her in this point, being but so many domestick witnesses to their own condemnation. I need not study reproofs for Romes Apostacy: it is sufficient that I have proved her to have changed her faith; and by that means I have returned all the Doctors ingenious upbraidings against the Church of England, upon the Church [Page 537]of Rome's own score; so that I will declaim no longer upon this Theam; I will deliver the rest with sighs and groans (the prolocutors of an o're­fraight heart,) and in anguish of spi­rit, weep out the rest of this sad Scaene; and hanging my Harp (with David) upon the Willowes, I will forbear to run any more divisions upon these discourses: heartily beseeching the Almighty God, to reconcile us into one faith, by the Spirit of his Son Je­sus; and shall from my very soul pray,

That it would please God to open the heart of the Romane Clergy, to see their own errors; and that he would in mercy turn unto them, and turn them unto him, and would gra­tiously cause them to remember from whence they are fallen, and to do their first works: and likewise, that it would please him, to put courage and strength into the hearts and hands of Christian Princes and Ministers, that they might thereby be embold­ned (by the operations and effectual workings of his holy Spirit) to reprove the present Bishops of Rome of the [Page 538]errors of their wayes; knowing this, that if a man rebuke a wise man, he will love him; Give admonishment to the wise, and he will be wiser, Prov. 9. and plainly to let him know how the Church of Christ suffers vi­olence, under his Tyrannical persecuti­on, whilst he sits above her Councels, and exercises a Legislative power over her heavenly treasure, her Scriptures, left to her by the Apostles, and over her Apostolical traditions, moulding them into new formes, for to promote thereby the interest of the Papal Chair: and likewise to let him know, that Councels were the onely means to keep the several Churches in unity; and that these being invalid by the late usurpations of the Popes, all our discords do arise from thence; and that till this be freely and satisfacto­rily abandoned, there is no hopes of uniting the neighbouring Churches with her; and that in the mean time, the Pope himself is the occasion of the separations made: and though it be necessary that offences come, that there be Heresies amongst you, (as Saint Paul saith, 1 Cor. 11.) that [Page 588]they which are approved may be known; yet for that the Pope is the cause of these divisions and offences, by reason of those his unjust proceed­ings towards the several Christian Churches, that he might expect the woe denounced by the Evangelist, Matth. 7. It must needs be that offences shall come, but woe be to that man by whom the offence com­eth; and that therefore he would no longer tempt God, by his wilful per­sisting in his new-taken-up errors; but that he would (as his Predeces­sors the Antient Bishops of Rome have done before him) cast himself upon a general Councel, utterly re­nouncing his late Trent and Late­rane-Prerogatives, and the injunction of obedience to his Papal Canon-Law; without which there is no hope of reconciling our differences; and by whieh means (by the blessing of God) the multitude of Believers may be of one heart, and one soul, Act. 4. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, they shall prosper that love her.

Now that we may all with one minde, and one mouth praise God, [Page 539] even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, (Rom. 15.6.) that there may be no dissentions amongst us, but that we may be knit together in one minde, and one judgement, (1 Cor. 1.10.) that we may pro­ceed in one Rule, that we may minde one thing, and have the Apostles for our ensample, Phil. 3. that as Christs coat was seamless, as his Legacy was Peace, so we may all be cloathed with Righteousness, and keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, Eph. 4. Grant▪ O Lord, for thy onely Sonne our Saviour Christ his sake, Amen.

Glory in the Highest to God, on on Earth Peace to men of good will