THE Royal Prerogative Vindicated in the Converted RECUSANT, CONVINCED By Scripture, Reasons, Fathers, and Councils, that the Oath of Abjuration (compared with those of Allegiance, and Supremacy) contain­eth nothing, but what may be lawfully taken by every pious Christian, and Loyal Subject; And that the known Doctrine, and Discipline of the Church of England, in opposi­tion to Popery on the one hand, and all Sects, and Schisms on the other, is the safest way to Peace and Loyalty here, and Salvation hereafter.

TO WHICH IS ANNEXED The KING'S SUPREMACY in all Causes, Ecclesiastical, and Civil, asserted in a Sermon preached at the Assises at Monmouth before Sir Robert Hide, one of His Majestie's Judges, March 30. 1661.

By JOHN CRAGGE, M. A.

Matth. xxii. 21.

Render unto Cesar the things, that are Cesar's; and unto God the things, that are God's.

LONDON, Printed by T. R. for H. Twyford, N. Brooke, Tho. Dring, and John Place, 1661.

TO THE HONOURABLE, And truly-worthy, Heroick Sir TREVIR WILLIAMS, Baronet.

SIR,

I Present, with all Humility, to Your pious consideration, a Defence of that cause, which is, and ought to be infinitely dearer to You, then the riches of China, or the wealth of the West-India Company; as being that, which Divine Providence hath so signally carried on with a Palm of Victory; and promiseth (if we be not deficient to our selves) to crown with the O­live-branch of peace: I mean Religion, and the Royal Prerogative, in opposition to Ro­mish Superstition, and Fanatick disorder, and sedition; which is compendiously set forth in that form of Abjuration, and unparallel'd Oaths of Allegiance, and Supremacy, intend­ed to conjure all Romanized, and other Re­cusant Dissenters within the circle of verity, and obedience. In vindication whereof, I have [Page] taken up the Gantlet against all Antichristian, and Antimonarchical challengers; not doubt­ing, but that, upon this entring the Lists, I shall be censured for undertaking so great a work, so far beyond my weak abilities. But it is satis­faction enough to my self and may be to others, that I was not induced to it out of any unballan­ced conceipt of my self, whose personal defects (according to that of the Oracle, [...]) are the onely thing I presume to know: But under­took it in obedience to him, who exhorted all his Brethren earnestly to contend for the faith, which was once delivered unto the Saints; now torn in pieces, like Hippolytus his body, by Babylonish Wolves, Jesuits, Quakers, and Fifth-Monarchists, swarming like Locusts out of the Infernal pit; which daily invade our Folds, worrie our Flocks, and seduce them both from Piety▪ & Loyalty: whom to countermine (while the Sword of Justice sleepeth not) a ne­cessity lyeth upon every faithful Pastour, not onely by the power of the Keys, as Preach­ing, Praying, and Discoursing, (when oppor­tunity shall fairly tender it self) but even by [Page] Penning; though we must expect our writings will be dealt withall by them, as the tongue of Cicero was, after his death, by Cleopatra, Wife to Mark Anthony, who thrust it through and through with needles, and stabbed it again and again with poysoned pens.

For my inscribing to it Your Patronage; as gratefulness may plead my duty, and obli­gation on the one hand; so your signal suffer­ings, and activity for His Sacred Majesty, may sway acceptance on the other, if the hand­ling of it were answerable to the subject. I con­fess, my person, and parts are over-mean to engage in such an excelse, and sublime Pro­vince. For, if Alexander would commit the proportion of his Body to be effigiated by none, but Lysippus; Apelles himself could never set out the outward beauty of his Face, but slubbered, and far short of the native vivacity: How then shall I, poor Zanie, em­blazon the Seraphick sublimity of the Royal Prerogative, the livelyest Representative upon earth of that great Tetragrammaton in Heaven? But as he, that dwells on high, [Page] despiseth not things below; so I hope my Mite, and Goats-hair, may be accepted, seeing it was intended in all sincerity for the honour of God, and of our dread Sovereign's Royal Majesty, and to confirm his liege people in the right faith, and true love, and obedience of his most just, and gracious Government. As an Angel of God, so is my Lord the King to discern good, and bad; therefore the Lord will be with him: 2 Sam. xiv. 7.

I have no more to apologize; but pray, that he, which ruleth in the Armies of Hea­vens, would crown with the blessings of his right, and of his left hand, Your Self, Your truly virtuous Lady, Your hopeful Issue to the glory of God, and comfort of all Your Rela­tions; which is the daily petition of him, whom you have obliged for ever,

Your Honour's most humble, and devoted Servant in the Lord, JOHN CRAGGE.

To the READER.

Courteous Reader,

PErhaps thou wilt admire, why I vin­dicate the Doctrine of our Church, and the Royal Prerogative, under the Notion of that illegal Oath of Ab­juration: It is well known, I never acknowledged that Power, whence it issued, but made use of it onely, thereby to assert the lawfulness of this present Power; As Saint Paul at Athens did of the Inscription of an Altar, [...], TO THE UNKNOVVN GOD, to introduce the worship of the true God; Or as Arnobius, and Lactantius searched the Sibyls, and other Heathenish Writers, that by the Concessions of their own Oracles they might convince them of their Heathenish Idolatry. For, having been questioned for a Sermon prea­ched before our then Sovereign Lord, King CHARLES the First of ever-blessed Memory; for stiling him a Martyr in a printed Book; com­mitted for not taking, and opposing the Negative Oath; and involved in further danger for replying to Mr. Milton's Answer to Salmasius (which took Air, though, by reason of the times, no Stationer durst print it) I still projected how I might continue [Page] in discharging my Conscience to His Sacred Maje­sty, and the Royal Family; where, lighting upon that Oath of Abjuration, which the then-pretended Power had mounted as a Cannon for their own De­fence, I found, that the force; and fury thereof might easily be turned against themselves; as, if the Con­trivers thereof had acted Caiphas, who, being High-Priest that year, prophesyed what should be. For the matter thereof is in every Syllable concentrick, and symbolical with the Articles, and Apologie of the Church of England, the Oath of Allegiance, and Supremacy; which are the Cynosura, or Pole-star, by which we ought to direct our Sails to the Haven of Piety, and Loyalty. This I endeavoured to im­prove to the best advantage; but, when the Children were brought to the Birth, there was none to deliver them: for it hath lay dormant in the Hands of the Printers almost three years; but now creeps out in these Halcyon days to give the world a visit, where I hope it will finde some Entertainment, seeing it it comes not out of a Cage, where (as is Storied of Macrobius Birds) there was one for Pompey, as well as for Cesar; as perhaps some, who formerly were the greatest Sticklers against, now, since the Suc­cess of the Pharsalian Victory, defend the Oath of God: but it stood up in the worst, and most dange­rous Times, when the Furnace was seven times hotter, then ordinary. Besides, this Dialogue, in a great part, was a real History, crowned with the Success here pretended. Howsoever, if I may discharge my Duty to my Sovereign, if Truth may be advan­ced, true Godlyness countenanced, Disloyalty un­masked, the Church edified, God glorified; I have mine Ends.

I. C.

THE Converted PAPIST Convinced BY Scriptures, Reason, Fathers, and Councills; THAT THE Oath of Abjuration

Containeth nothing, but what may be lawfully taken by every pious Christian, and Loyal Subject.

Minister.

WELL met, Sir, it joyes me to see that Debenairity in one of your Profession; though I resent it not with­out some regret; that we, whom one County, and, which is less, one Parish confines, cannot be contained within the Verge of one Church. What Magical Charms of that Apostate Rome hath bewitched you? that neither our common Mother's Tears, like Monica's: nor divine Motives, like St. Ambrose's to Augustine, Possidonius in Vita Augustini. while a M [...]icke, can prevail with you to come out of Babylon: Speramus meliora; for my mind presa­ges, that a Son of so many Tears, and Prayers cannot perish: and your very [Page 2] Countenance suggests me this hope, which (like Sebastian's Picture, wounded with a Shower of Arrows) speaks Sadness, and Compunction; as if in, or after our last Discourse, your Isaiah xxx. 21. Ears had heard a word behind you, saying, This is the way, walk in it; or Christ by his Embassa­dours had met with you (like Saul go­ing to Damascus) and sent you to some Ananias for further Instruction; or the Augustin. Confess. still Voice of the Spirit had alarmed you to take up the Book (our Bible) and read.

Gentleman.

You mistake in your Physiognomy; for, though my thoughts are troubled, and Spirit perplexed, yet not from any Scru­ple of Conscience, or unsettledness in Re­ligion, which, like the Poles of Heaven, is unmoveable, founded upon that im­pregnable Rock, against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail. But my Sad­ness arises from the Storms of Persecuti­on, which assault us poor Catholicks, like Waves, one after another. As if the rigour of Anno 1581. 24. Elizab. Anno 1584. 27. Eliz. former Statutes had not been severe enough, this late one (like Nebuchadnezzar's Furnace) is seven times hotter then ordinary; throwing us upon the Horns of this inevitable Dilem­ma: either by a solemn Oath to abjure our Faith, or be despoiled of two parts of our Patrimonies; in a word, ship­wrack either Souls, or Estates for ever. [Page 3] Durum telum! And, if you will but tru­ly feel how the Systole, and Diastole of my Pulse beats, this is the right cause of my Distemper.

Minist.

Is that a just cause of Distem­per? or is it so new, or strange a thing, for Laws to inflict a Penalty for breach of Ʋniformity in Religion? You might reflect upon your own Spanish Inquisiti­on, and consider, that Magistrates are Custodes utriusque Tabulae, Guardians as well of divine, as humane Laws, Rom. xiii. 4. executing wrath on them, that do evil. False-Teachers are stiled Philip. iii. 2. evil workers, and Heresie a Fruit of the Flesh. The Spirit of God Revel. ii. 20. condemns the Church of Thyatira for suffering the Woman Jeze­bel, to teach, and seduce Christ's Servants: reproves Revel. ii. 14. the Church of Pergamus, for suffering them, that taught the Do­ctrine of Balaam, for entertaining them, that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. Hence unsound Doctrine is resembled to a Canker, [...] Tim. ii 17. that corrodes the sound Flesh: the Abetters and Fomenters thereof to Thieves, that spoil; to ravenous Wolves, that devour; to deceitful Workers, Cor xi. 13. that undermine the Truth. Now how the Chirurgeon cauterizes, or cuts off a Can­ker, what Penalty is due to Thieves, Wolves, deceiptful Workers; you are not ignorant.

Gent.

I know the Church hath power to anathematize, excommunicate, and ex­ercise Ecclesiastical Censures against con­tumacious [Page 4] Children, and Hereticks. Dic Ecclesiae, Tell the Church; and, if they will not hear Her, let them be as Hea­thens, and Publicans.

Minist.

And what no more? This Doctrine concenters with that, which your Asseruit non licere Haereticum incorrigi [...]lem tradere Saeculari potestati, & permittere com [...]ur [...]re e­um. Bellarm. cap. 21. lib. 5. De la [...]c [...]. Bellarmine Fathers upon John Huss, Johannes Huss, Articul. 14. in Concilio Constantinensi, Sess. 15. as condemned in the Councel of Constance, that It was not lawful to deliver an incorrigible Heretick to the Se­cular Power, and to inflict corporal, or pe­cuniary Mulcts. Which St. Augustine, August. lib. 1. Contra Epistolam Parmeniani, cap. 7. lib. 2. Contra Lit­ [...]ras Petiliani, cap. 10. lib. 2. Contra Epist. Gau­dentii 17. Epist. 5 c. ad Bonisacium. reproves of old in those Donatists, Parmenianus, Petilianus, and Gauden­tius; and is backed by your Cardinal, Bellarm. Tomo secundo, De controversiis Christianae fidei. lib. 3. who undertakes to prove it by a Vollie of Arguments. In time of the Law, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Josiah, and Ne­hemiah, punished abuses in Divine Wor­ship. Under the Gospel, God by Mira­cles supplyed the defect of Christian Ma­gistrates: smiting Ananias, and Sapphi­ra with sudden Death by St. Peter, Ely­mas the Sorcerer with Blindness by St. Paul. Concurrent with Scriptures are the Primitive Fathers. Tertullian saith; Tertull. advers. Ghost. cap. 2. Hereticks must be compelled, not prayed to do their Duty. Athanasius saith; Ar­rius, Eudoxius, and Patrophilus, when they write unsound Doctrines, are wor­thy of all Punishments. Augustine (August. Epist. 48.) tells Vincentius, that it is no Paradox, that men ought to be forced to Righte­ousness, seeing he reads, the Master said to his Servant, Compel all you finde to [Page 5] come in; and that Paul was forced to re­ceive, and embrace the Truth by violent Compulsion of Christ: except he judge Goods, and Lands, dearer unto men, then their Eyes. Gregory Nazianzen Nazianz. Homil. in Dict. Evangel. saith, Cut off the Arrian Impiety, cut off the pernicious Errour of Sabellius: this I say unto the Magistrates. Seing my words have not that Efficacy, their Edict shall, if they will suppress such, as are in­fected with pernicious Heresy. Euseb. de Vita Con­stantini, lib. 2. cap. 36. Constan­tine prohibited the Exercise of all unsound Religions, either in publick, or private Places, commanding their Books to be burned, their Goods to be sold, their Houses to be pulled down, and proscribed them as Traytours, and Enemies to the Truth. Here you have an Abridgment of that large Systeme of coercive Power, that might be alleged against Hereticks.

Gent.

Coercive Power (I confess) is lawful, and usefull in the Church: but this Statute now in Force against us, is (like Draco's Laws) writ in Blood, tend­ing to ruin, either Body, or Soul.

Minist.

Compared with the rigour of yours, where you have any Power, it tru­ly may be said to be writ in Oyl, for the gentleness thereof. If I may have leave to parallel: What think you of your Pope Innocent the Third, Ex Hermanno Mu­tio, Innocentius, 111. Anno 1212. who made but one Bonefire of an hundred Nobles, and others, in the Country of Alsatia, in one day? See these Stories at large in the Book of Martyrs, page 868. Of Minerius, one of the Pope's Captains, who destroyed two and twenty [Page 6] Towns of the Merindolians, barbar­ously murdered the Inhabitants, whether they resisted, or not; ravishing Virgins, and Matrons, butchering Women with Childe: and, when their Men had de­serted their Cities, leaving their Females, and Infants behind, in hope of Commi­seration, the bloody Assasinat practised such inhumane Barbarity upon five hun­dred Women at once, besides innocent Babes, as hath been unheard off. In the Town of Cabriers, he culled out thirty choice Men, carrying them into a Mea­dow, caused them to be hewed in pieces, by his Souldiers: he shut up forty silly Women, whereof some with Childe, in a Barn, full of Straw, and Hay, and cau­sed it to be set on fire at the four Cor­ners▪ and when a Souldier, pitying the out-Cry, let them out, the Tyrant Doctour Taylor in his Romish Furnace. com­manded them to be cut in pieces, exente­rating their Bowels, that their Children fell out, whom they trod under feet. And, Dioclesian-like, he sent a Band of Ruffians into the Church, where a nu­merous Company of Women, Children, and Sucklings had taken Sanctuary, and, without respect of Age, or Sex, slew all they found. In this one Town the Cata­logue of murdered Protestants was above a Thousand. In the year 1560. under Pope Pius the Fourth, Acts, and Monu­ments, pag. 859. were, in two Towns of Calabria, condemned at one time six hundred Protestants, whereof fourscore and eight were executed at [Page 7] once in this manner: having enclosed them in one house; the Executioner singles one out after another, and, blind­folding them with a Muffler, causes them to kneel down, and cuts their throats, till all were dispatched.

Virgil. Aenead. 2.
—Quis talia fando
Myrmidonum, Doloptimque, aut duri Miles Ulyssis
Temperet a lacrymis?—

A direful, and lamentable Spectacle! inso­much that a Romist, writing to his Friend at Rome, and one Simon Florellus, writing to an Italian Doctour of Physick in the Ʋ ­niversity of Basil, profess both, they can­not express themselves without weeping: But the Turkish Histories, the Stories of Nero, Decius, and Dioclesian veils to the Barbarity of that French Massacre at Pa­ris, Gathered out of Ja­nus Augustus Thuanus, President of the Parlia­ment at Paris. where, in the Space of three days, ten thousand; and, in the space of thirty days, thirty thousand Protestants were perfidiously murdered. I need not instance in the Martyrologies of Queen Marie's days, nor revive the Tragick Stories of the Albigenses, Waldenses, Wicklifists, Taborites, and Lollards in former times. The Sufferings of them of Piedmont, under the Duke of Lorrain, is fresh in our Memory.

Gent.

You have said too much: though I do not approve of this Cruelty in the extent, and Dimensions of it; yet it may seem pardonable, in comparison of yours, in a twofold respect. First, This was [Page 8] acted by Catholicks against Hereticks: yours by Hereticks against Catholicks. Secondly, This you mention respects the punishment onely of the Persons of­fending, and hath no influence on Poste­rity: yours tends to the ruin of Posterity, although they should conform to your Profession, leaving the Parents scarce a Shroud, nor the Children any Lively­hood.

Minist.

Whether ye, or we be true Catholicks, I shall demonstrate anon, as impartially, as Solomon decided, whe­ther the living Childe was the true Mo­ther's, or the Strumpet's. For the pre­sent; Have your punishments no influ­ence on Posterity? when the former Re­cords discover so many harmless Babes destroyed, so many Infants perishing in the Womb: you are able to name the Inquisitor; who, when the Childe sprang out of the womb of the Mother bound to the Stake, caused it to be thrown into the Fire,, and burned with her, because it was a young Heretick. Your Fore-Fathers rage was not appeased with the death of Prote­stants, for Acts, and Monu­ments, page. 816. Bucer, and Fagius were cited out of their Graves to appear, or any, that would for them, and that at Cambridge, four years after their Buri­al; which when the silly Ashes could not do, they were digged out, Page 1780. and burned on the Market-Hill. Wickliff Page 739. was condemned after his Death, and [Page 9] his Bones burned one and forty years af­ter his Burial. Richard H [...]n Stow's Chronic. was first apparently hanged, and murdered in Prison by wicked hands, and after­wards burned after his Death. Peter Martyr's Wife, Page 1785. the Divinity-Reader of Oxford, was two years after her Death digged out of her Grave. John Glover Page 1556. was not only excommunicate, but struck with the great Sentence of Maran­atha, after his Death. John Tooly was cited by Bishop Bonner after he was dead, and buryed, to appear before him on such a day: and the time of Citation limited being expired, and, he not appearing, he was excommunicated, and streight Charge was given, that none should eat, or drink with him, or salute him; and, if he came to Church, tempore Divinorum, he must be thrust out: after this Excom­munication, he was condemned, and com­mitted to the Secular Power, to be burned for an Heretick; and so by the Sheriffs the poor man was the second time executed.

Gent.

I love not to hear of these things, neither do I think they were justifiable, moderate Catholicks disclaim them. Prove me two things, and I shall be satisfied. First, That ever such an Oath was approved by any General, or Provincial Council: Secondly, That the matter of this Oath is just, and lawful.

Minist.

If I prove not both these; I'le loose the Gantlet.

Gent.
[Page 10]

If you prove them, I'le yield up mine Arms, and abjure my former Profession.

Minist.

I am contented, let us joyn issue in these. For the former, the Concil. Tolet. 4. Can. 74. Spaniards imposed an Oath upon all those Subjects, of whose Disloyalty they were jealous, and that above a thousand years ago; which was ratified by several fa­mous Toletan Councils: which one of the latter expresses in these Words, Quicunque ex ipsis, vel totius Hispaniae popu­lis, quâlibet conjuratione, vel studio, Sacramentum fidei suae, quod pro patri­â, gentisque statu, vel conservatione Regis sa­lutis po [...]licitus est, temera­ret, aut regem necare at­trectaret, aut potestate regni exueret, aut prae­sumptione Tyrannicâ regi­um fastigum usurparet: Anathema esset in con­spectu Dei Patris, & Angelorum, atque ab Ec­clesia Catholicâ, quam profanaverat, haberetur extraneus. Conc. Tolet. 5, 6, 10. Whosoever of them, (meaning, discontent­ed persons) or of the people throughout all Spain, by any pretense, or endeavour, shall violate the Oath of his fidelity, which he hath engaged for the State of his Country, and Nation, or preservation of the safety of his Prince; or shall attempt the death of his Sovereign, or devest him of his Re­gal Power, or by Tyrannical power usurp the Supremacy: let him be Anathemati­zed in the Sight of God the Father, and Angels, and be excommunicated from the Catholick Church, which he hath pro­phaned.

Gent.

What gather you from hence?

Minist.

I gather four things; First, That there hath been such an Oath ex­acted in former times. Secondly, That Oath very much resembles this of Abju­ration. Thirdly, That that Oath was approved off, and confirmed by several Councils. Fourthly, That the Violaters of that Oath were anathematized by the Ecclesiastical, and otherwise severely [Page 11] handled by the Secular Power; as the Stories of those times relate more at large.

Gent.

But the Contents of that Oath was legal, this illegal, which ought not to be taken, and being taken obliges not. Our Canonists teach us, that Isiodore. Can. 74. Vo­tum non debet esse iniquitatis vinculum; Ʋnjust Vows are not binding.

Minist.

That is the second thing I engaged to prove, that The matter of this Oath is just, and lawful: which I will make good in every Circumstance, if you will be pleased to recite it.

Gent.

I have not the Copy of the Oath by me, neither can I repeat it ver­batim, though my memory (as I have too signal an occasion) is retentive of the whole Substance of it.

Minist.

I shall repeat it for you, ha­ving for mine own, and others Satisfacti­on, digested it into twelve Articles, which in order run thus.

  • Article I.

    I A. B. do abjure, and renounce the Pope's Supremacy, and authority over the Catholick Church in general, and over my self in particular.

  • II. And I do believe the Church of Rome is not the true Church.
  • III. And that there is not any Tran­substantiation in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the Elements of Bread, and Wine, after Consecration there­of, by any Person whatsoever.
  • [Page 12]IV. And I do also believe, that there is not any Purgatory.
  • V. And that the Consecrated Hoast, Crucifixes, or Images ought not to be wor­shipped, neither that any Worship is due to any of them.
  • VI. And I also believe, that Salvati­on cannot be merited by Works.
  • VII. And I do sincerely testifie, and declare, that the Pope neither of himself, nor by any Authority of the Church, or See of Rome, or by any other means, with any other, hath Power, or Authority to depose the chief Magistrate of these Nations, or to dispose of any the Countries, or Territo­ries thereunto belonging, or to authorize any foreign Prince, or State to invade, or annoy him, or them.
  • VIII. I do sincerely testifie, and declare, that the Pope hath not any authority to dis­charge any of the people of these Nations from their obedience to the chief Magi­strate, or to give licence, or leave to any of the said people to bear Arms, raise tu­mults, or to offer any violence, or hurt to the Persons of the said chief Magistrates, or to the State, or government of these Nations, or to any of the people thereof.
  • IX. And I do further swear, that I do from my hear abhorr, detest, and abjure their damnable Doctrine, and Position, that Princes, Rulers, or Governours, which be excommunicated, or deprived by the Pope, may, by virtue of such excommuni­on, or deprivation, be killed, murdered, [Page 13] or deposed from their Rule, or Govern­ment, or any outrage, or violence done unto them by the people, that are under them, or by any other whatsoever upon such pre­tense.
  • X. And I do further swear, that I do believe that the Pope, or Bishop of Rome hath no authority, power, or Jurisdiction whatsoever within England, Scotland, and Ireland, or any, or either of them, or the Dominion, or Territories belonging to them, or any, or either of them.
  • XI. And all Doctrines in affirmation of the said Points, I do abjure, and renounce, without equivocation, mental reservation, or secret Evasion whatsoever; taking the words by me spoken according to the com­mon, and usual meaning of them.
  • XII. And I do believe, no power deri­ved from the Pope, or Church of Rome, or any other person, can absolve me from this my Oath, and I do renounce all Pardons, and Dispensations to the contrary. SO HELP ME GOD.

Duo sunt in unoquo (que) Juramento praecip [...]è ad­vertenda; alterum, ma­teria, sive res illa, in quae juratur; alterum, forma. sive modus jurandi. Dr. Andrews. There are two things especially considerable in this, as in every Oath. First, The res, or matter, that is sworn, or abjured: Secondly, The modus, or manner of abjuration. The former is comprised in the ten first Articles: the latter in the close, or two last. I shall, God willing, give you Satisfaction in or­der; beginning with the first, which is this.

The First Article.

I A. B. do abjure, and renounce the Pope's Supremacy, and Autho­rity over the Catholick Church in general, and over my self in particular.

Gent.

How can I, or any Catholick abjure the Pope's Supremacy over the Church in general, or my self in particular? Seing 'tis an Article of our Creed, Symboli Triden­tini Articulus primus. and my Conscience tells me that, which it did Sir Thomas More Surius. Commentar. at his Tryal; that having studied the point, at least se­ven years, I finde that the Truth there­of is sounded upon Fathers, Councils, Scriptures, and Traditions, with Pre­scription since the Apostles; which de­monstrates it to be of Divine Institution.

Minist.

You will fall short in all these, and upon impartial Survey finde the Rise, and Spring of it to be from novel Usurpation. The Pythagoreans were so accustomed to Numbers, that they fan­cyed the Ingredience of them in every Composure. Your seven years study, with Doway, and Lovain's Education, hath so moulded your imaginations, that it hears no Melody, but, like that of Sappho's Herodotus. in the Woods, Clemens in Prooemio in Glossa. Domi­nus Deus Papa, your Pope's Supremacy. Whence you make Scriptures, and Fa­thers, [Page 15] like Procrustes Plutarch. in vita Thesei. his Bed; what comes short, you rack, and stretch it to your meaning; what is too large, you curtail it by amputation.

Gent.

I read Scriptures, and Fathers with that Traveller's indifferency, that Epictetus Aulus Gellius. Noct. Atti [...]. requires in all, that would finde the Truth: and therein I discover, First, The Necessity of one Head to be constituted over the Catholick Church. Secondly, That St. Peter was that Visible Head, and had Supremacy over the whole Flock of Christ, and the rest of the Apostles. Thirdly, That he fixed his Seat at Rome, and delegated his pleni­tudinem potestatis, fullness of power, to the Bishops, his Successours there. Fourthly, That all Bishops of Rome have enjoyed it since.

Minist.

Not one of these Positions is true, but comes from that spirit of lyes, as shall appear in order. First, there is no necessitie of one Head to be constituted over the Catholick Church; if you mean militant, Christ the triumphant Head is sufficient, for all your Canonists blasphea­my, who say, Non videretur Domi­nus discretus fuisse (ut cū reverentia ejus loquar) nisi unicum post se talem Vicarium reliquisset, & qui haec omnia posset. De majoritate & obedien­tia, unam sanctam, in Glossa. Christ, our Lord should not have seemed to have dealt discreetly (to speak it with reverence) unless he had left one such Vicar behind him, that could do all these things; that is, regulate the whole Church. For neither is it possible for one man to take cognizance of the whole Church, unless he were omniscient, as of all Europe, Asia, Africk, China, and Prester [Page 16] John's Dominions, Peru, Mexico, with Magellanica, and the rest of the Ameri­cans, no Civil Prince had ever the fourth part of it under his Scepter, much less an Ecclesiastick; neither could the Church possibly (if this were granted) be pre­served from ruin. A Pope himself hath de­livered it e Cathedra, and that is Gregory the Great, who said of John Bishop of Con­stantinople, who first claymed to himself this universal power; Si hanc causam ae­quanimiter portamus, to­tius Ecclesiae fidem cor­rumpimus: corruit univer­sa Ecclesia de statu suo, si is, qui Ʋniversalis dicitur, cadit. Gregor. lib. 4. E­pist. 34. 38. & Epist. 78. If we patiently suffer this matter thus to proceed, that one man shall be universal Bishop, we seek not waies to pre­serve unitie, but we overthrow the faith of the whole Church: if he, that is said to be Universal Bishop, happen to fall, the whole Church falleth from her state. And, re­lating to this Question, Saint Augustine saith, Augustinus, De ve­ [...]ae religione, cap 45. Habet & superbia appetitum quen­dam unitatis, & omnipotentiae. Pride it self hath a certain desire of Ʋnitie, and universal power: though the tendence thereof be to ruine. In conformitie to this Saint Paul expresseth the lasting Politie Christ setled in his Church, who, Ephes. iv 12, 13. when he ascended far above any hea­vens, gave (not one Ʋniversal Pope to rule the whole, but) some Apostles, some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastours, and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints, for the working of the mini­stery, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Whereupon Saint Cyprian descanting saith Ʋnus est Episcopatus, cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur. Cyprianus De simplicitate Praela [...]o [...]ū. Ʋnus est Episcopatus, &c. There is but one Bishoprick; part whereof is holden [Page 17] of several Bishops in whole. And again; Ideo plures sunt in Ecclesia Sacerdotes; ut, uno Haeresin faciente, cae­teri subveniant. Cypr. lib. 3. Epist. 13. Therefore there are many Priests, or Bi­shops in the Church, (not one over all the Church) that, if one fall into Heresie, the rest may help. As Paul reproved Peter, and Irenaeus Pope Victor. Upon that place of Hosea, The children of Israel, and the children of Judea shall be gathered to­gether, and appoint them one Head, Saint Hierom Paraphrases thus; Haec omnia fient; quia magnus est dies s [...]mi­nis Dei, qui interpretatur Christus. Hierom. in Ho­seae cap 1. vers. 12. All these things shall come to pass; because it is the great day of the seed of God, which seed is interpreted (not an Ʋniversal Bishop, but) Christ. Lyra harps upon the same string. Congregabuntur fi­liae Judae; id est, Apostoli: & filii Israel; id est, Gen­tiles conversi: pariter; id est una Ecclesia: & po­nent sibi caput unum; id est, Christum. Nicol. Lyra in Hoseae cap. 1. There shall assemble together (saith he) the children of Judah; that is, the Apostles: and Children of Israel; that is, the Gentiles converted: together; that is, in one Church: and shall appoint unto themselves one Head; that is (not one Ʋniversal Bishop, but) one Christ. Saint Augustine is of the same con­sort saying, Recolatur lapis ille angularis, & duo illi pari­etes; unus ex Judaeis, & alter ex Gentibus. Augu­stin. De Civitate Dei. lib. 18. cap. 28. Let us remember that Cor­ner-stone Christ (not any Prelate) and the Walls, the one of the Jews, the other of the Gentiles. Dionysius; In Opere Tripartito, lib. 2. cap. 5. deciphering purposely the Politie of the Church, and comparing the same with the glorious Hierarchie of the Angels, and Powers in Heaven, yet never dropped one word of the universal government by one Prelate. So that we may safely conclude with that Appendage of the Council of Lateran; In caelesti Hierarchia tota congregatio Ange­lorum non habet caput unum, praeter solum Deum: ergo, a simili, in Ecclesiastica [Page 18] Hierarchia hominum non debet esse unum caput, praeter solum Deum: That is; In the Celestial Hierarchie, the whole Chore of Angels hath no other head, but onely God; therefore, by like proportion, in the Ecclesi­astical Hierarchie of men, there ought not to be any one Head, but God; That is, Christ, God-man.

Gent.

I should easily grant, by virtue of those Premises, that there is no appa­rent necessitie of a visible Head over the whole Church. Christ, and his Spirit can easilie supply that defect. And it is con­gruous enough to reason; that no one Prelate (Atlas-like) can bear the axle-tree of the whole Church upon his Shoulders: yet, methinks, there are clear Evidences in Scriptures, and Fathers, that Saint Peter had supremacie over the rest of the Apostles, and the whole flock of Christ.

Minist.

This is your Second Position, which, for all your confidence, will vanish into Ashes, like Sodom's Apples. But, I beseech you, tell me these Evidences out of Scriptures, and Fathers.

Gent.

Of Scriptures, these two places are pregnant: the one, Matth. xvi. 18, 19. [...]. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. Hart against Rai­nolds. Though in [...], and [...], may seem in the Greek to be a difference in termi­nation, and an Enallage of Genders, the Hebrew, or Syriak Word, Cephas, which our Saviour used, signifies both Peter, and a Rock: whence I gather, that [Page 19] Peter was that rock, upon which Christ builded his universal Church; as appears by his further promise, that he would give unto him the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, &c. The other place is, John xxi. 16. [...]. Feed my Sheep. [...] signifies as well to rule, and govern, as to feed. Out of thee shall come, saith Micah Micah v. 2. Matth. ii. 6. of Beth-lehem, [...], a Governour; [...], that shall rule my people Israel. Homer stiles Agamemnon, the Grecian General, [...], the Ruler of the people. Hence I gather, that Christ appointed Peter the Ruler, or Governour of the whole Church.

Minist.

You gather Conclusions with­out Premises, as erroneously, though not as imperiously, as did your Pope Boniface, Declaramus, dicimus, definimus, pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis omni humanae Crea­turae, subesse Romano Pontifici. De Majoritate, & obedientia. who declared, said, defined, determined, and pronounced, that it was of undoubted necessitie of Salvation, for every humane Creature, to be subject to the Bishop of Rome: but it was from his not right understanding of those Texts; whence, as Saint Hierom Hierom. in Matthaeum. cap. 16. lib. 3. said of others, Ali­quid sibi de Pharisaeorum assumpsit super­cilio; He assumed something of the Luci­ferian Pride of the Pharisees. For the Primitive Fathers, who lived nearest the Fountain, judged it no less, then Blasphe­mie, to interpret any mortal man, as Peter was, but onely Christ, the onely Son of God, to be this Rock. So Gregory Nyssen. Gregorius Nyss [...] Testimoniis [...] ex Veteri Te [...] saith, Tu es Petrus, &c. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build [Page 20] my Church: he meaneth the confession of Christ, for he had said before, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. Saint Hilarie saith, Haec est una felix fidei petra, quam Petrus ore suo confessus est. Hilar. De Trinitate, lib. 2. cap. 6. This is the onely-blessed Rock of Faith, which Peter confessed with his mouth, and upon this Rock of Peter's Confession is the building of the Church. Where, you see, Peter, and the Rock, are two distinct things. Cyril saith, Petra nihil aliud est, quàm firma, & inconcussa Discipuli fides. Cyrillus, De Trinitate. The Rock is nothing else, but the strong, and impregnable faith of the Disciple. Saint Chrysostome Supra hanc petram, id est in hac fide, & con­fessione, aedificabo. Chry­sost. in Matthaeum, Ho­mil. 55. goes on in the same Equipage, Ʋpon this Rock, that is to say, upon this Faith, and this Confession, I will build my Church. Saint Augustine speaks home, Augustinus De ver­bis Domini, secundum Matthaeum, Serm. 13. Petra erat Christus, supra quod fundamentum etiam aedificatus fuit Petrus: Christ was the Rock, upon which foundation even Peter himself was builded. And, lest he should leave any in the Clouds, he adds further in the person of Christ, Non me aedificabo super te, sed te aedificabo super me: I will not build my self upon thee; but I will build thee upon me. And, that no man might con­ceive, that Peter was in any sence sin­gularly this Rock, or that he had the mo­nopoly of the Keys, which were first pro­mised to him, but performed in a Juncto, with the rest of the Apostles; Origen, who lived nearer the Original, tells us, Petra est, quicunque est Discipulus Christi, & supra talem petram consti­tuitur omnis Ecclesiastica Doctrina. August. ibidem. He is the Rock, whosoever is the Disciple of Christ, and upon such a Rock all Eccle­siastical Learning is built. Quòd si supra unum illum Perrum existimas aedificari totam Ecclesiam, quid dicturus es de Jo­hanne filio Tonitrui, & Apostolorum unoquoque? nū audebimus dicere, quòd adversus Petrum unum non praevaliturae sunt por­tae Inferorum? an soli Pe­tro dantur claves regni coelorum? Orig. in Mat­thaeum, Tract. 1. If thou think, that the whole Church is built onely upon [Page 21] Peter, what wilt thou say of John, the Son of Thunder, and of every of the Apo­stles? Shall we dare to say, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail onely against Peter? or, are the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven given onely unto Peter? Seeing Saint Cy­prian Cyprian. De simpli­citate Praelatorum. avers, Hoc erant alii, quod Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris, & potesta­tis: The rest of the Apostles were the same, that Peter was, all endowed with the like fellowship both of honour, and power. That Saint Ambrose, balancing them in Scri­pture-scales, is at a stand, Inter Petrum, & Paulum▪ quis cui praeponatur; of Peter, and Paul, whether of the two should be preferred before the other. And, if Gre­gory, Gregorius, lib. 4. Epistol. 32. who was a Bishop of Rome him­self, may be believed, Petrus universalis Apostolus nonvocatur: Peter is not called an Universal Apostle. And for your Criticism, that [...], and [...] are Synonomous, Budaeus [...]. Budaeus in Lexico. denies it, unless in a Dialect the Gospel owns not. Whether our Saviour used the Hebrew, or Syriak word, Cephas, is uncertain, [...]. Aristoteles, lib. 1. De Coelo, cap. 11. text. 110. and more certain, if he did, it is [...], and concludes no­thing, amounting but to a fallacia aequi­vocationis in the one Language, to a Paro­nomasia, or collusion of words, in the other. And Christ's promise of the Keys to Pe­teter inferrs no more, then Saint Augustine gathers from it, Petrus pro omnibus dixit, & cum omnibus accepit: Peter was the mouth, and spake for the rest of the Apostles, and received the promise with all the rest. [Page 22] Now, to concenter all these lines in one point; If by the Rock be meant princi­pally either Faith confessing, and relying upon Christ the Rock himself; or instru­mentally the Apostles, who were all Equal, and by a joynt Commission received the Keys; it comes far short of proving the Supremacie of Peter over the rest of the Apostles, and the whole Church.

Gent.

I have not what further to re­ply in that, being mistaken in the Fathers, which I see are unanimous against us: yet, before I surrender this Hold, Ajacis Clypeus, & [...]. in which our Side most confides, let me hear what you can say to the other Scripture, where­by Christ commissioned Peter to Feed, that is rule, his Sheep, and feed his Lambs, and that thrice repeated in presence of the rest of the Apostles: whence our Pope Bo­niface concludes, Dominus dixit gene­raliter, Pasce oves meas, non singulariter has, aut illas: ergo commisisse in­telligitur universas. De Majoritate, & obedi­enti [...]. The Lord said generally unto Peter, Feed my flock, he said not specially, Feed these, or these: therefore, we must understand, he committed all his flock to him.

Minist.

Your Premises are weak, and Boniface his Conclusion consequentleess. What can be more ridiculous, then this Inference? Christ said to Peter, Feed my Sheep; he said it thrice, he said it in the Presence of the Apostles; [...] si­gnifies also to rule; Therefore he gave him Supremacy over the Apostles: It's my Sheep indefinitely; Therefore he gave him Power over the whole Flock, or Ʋ ­niversal Church, Prince, and People. To [Page 23] answer; St. Augustine, Augustin. supra lo­cum. and the Pri­mitive Fathers gave other reasons. Christ said to Peter thrice, Feed my Flock, in relation to his threefold Denyal; that he, that abjured him thrice, might be ad­jured to Fidelity in his Pastoral Charge, by this Advice repeated thrice. He said it in the Presence of the Apostles, that they, that were scandalized with his fall, might be confirmed by his Establishment, and make use of the Instruction, which al­so concerned themselves. Haec, velut ad Petrū dicta, sunt omnium com­munia. Orig. in Mat­thaeum, Tract. 1. These words, being spoken, as it were, unto Peter, are common to all the Apostles, saith O­rigen. [...] not onely in St. Matthew, and Homer; but in Plato [...]. Plato, lib. 1. De Legibus. (who also u­seth the same words) signifieth to rule; but is (as Budeus saith) Pastorum more gu­bernare, & curare gregem; To rule, and take care of the Flock, Pastour-like. As the Father of Hippo emblazons it, Non te pascere cogita; sed oves meas, sicut meas pasce, non sicut tuas: glo­riam meam in illis quaere, non tuam; Dominium meum, non tuum; lucra mea, non tua. August. in Johannem, Tract. 123. Think not to feed thy self, feed my Sheep; feed them as my Sheep, not as thine own; seek mine Honour in them, seek not thine; seek my Dominion, and not thine; seek my Gains, and not thine own. No man ever denyed this Feeding, this ruling of the Flock to St. Peter; nor did Peter himself ever deny it to any other Pastour; but said, [...]. Feed, or, if you will, for it is the same word, rule the Flock of God, which is among you, [...], 1. Pet. v. 2, 3. taking the Over­sight thereof; not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy Lucre, but of a [Page 24] ready mind; neither as [...], over-ruling (or being Popes) over God's Heritage; but being Ensamples to the Flock. Where you see St. Peter yields that to every Pastor, which Christ yields to him. But, says Boniface, Christ said to St. Peter, Feed my Sheep: There­fore he committed all his Flock to him. What sequel more then in this? Peter said to all Pastours, Feed the Flock: Therefore he committed the whole Flock to all Pastours. Bishop Jewel Defence of the Apo­logic of the Church of En­gland, page 92. Bishop Jewel. challenges the Romanists to produce the Authority of one antient learned Father, that ever made this Collection; but ne [...] qui­dem: yet we deny not, but St. Peter had Commission to feed, and rule the whole Church; but it was a joint Com­mission with the rest of the Apostles, upon whom Christ breathed alike, say­ing, John xx. 22. 23. Receive the Holy Ghost, whose Sins ye remit, they are remitted, and whose Sins ye retain, they are retained: gave them mission, and commission alike in the same extent, and latitude, Matthew xxviii. 19. Go teach all Nations, &c. Whereupon St. Hierom Hierom. Contra Jo­vinianum, lib. 1. saith, All the Apostles received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Stability of the Church was built equally upon them all.

Gent.

But, though I should be forced to relinquish my hold from these Texts, and the antient Commentaries, and Glosses thereupon; yet it is undeniable, that the Fathers give St. Peter Primacy over the rest of the Apostles; for St. Chrysostom [Page 25] Chrysost. in Mat­thaeum Homil. 83. Ho­mil. 87. Homil. 55. calls him Verticem Apostolorum the Head of the Apostles; the Head, and Pastour of the Church; the Master of the World, Ruler over all the World.

Minist.

So doth the same St. Chry­sostom Chrysost. ad Rom. Homil. 18. call Elias Caput Prophetarum, the Head of the Prophets: yet had not E­lias Primacy over Moses, and all his Col­legues. He gives Paul Nullus Paulum an­tecedit, de ea re nemo omnium dubitat. Chrysost. de laudibus Pauli. Chrysost. in Gene­sin Homil. 7. in Genesin Homil. 11. Prehemi­nence over all the rest, over the World: Paulus Magister Orbis, Paul the Master of the World. And from Generalities con­descends to induction of particulars. Paulo tribuitur cura omnium Ecclesiarum, non unius, vel duarum, vel trium, sed omnium, quae sunt in toto orbe. Chry­sost. in Johan. Homil. 11. in Act. 53. Paulo tribuitur cura omnium Ecclesiarum, non unius, vel duarum, vel trium: Ʋnto Paul the charge of all Churches is given, not of one, or two, or three Churches, but of all the Churches, that be in the world. Gregory, Gregor. 1 Reg. lib. 1. cap. 4. a Roman Prelate himself, stiles Paul, caput Nationum, the Head of Nations. Eleutherius, Epistola Eleutherii ad Episcopos Galliae. Stow, Chronic. another Bishop of Rome, writing to the Bishops of France, says, Ʋniversalis a Christo vobis com­missa est Ecclesia: The Ʋniversal Church is committed to you by Christ. Chrysostom Chrysost. in Epist. ad Phil. Homil. 13. calls the Women of Philippi, caput Ecclesiae, the Head of the Church: and sa­lutes Theodosius the Emperour Chrysost. ad populum Antiochen. Homil. 2. with this Encomium, Summitas, & caput omni­um supra terram hominum; the Height, and Head of all men upon Earth. Yet nei­ther had St. Paul, nor the Gaulish Bishops, nor the Women of Philippi, nor Theodosius the Emperour Primacy over the Apostles, or Superintendency over the whole Church.

[Page 26]
Gent.

But St. Ambrose saith, Ambros. in locum, cap. 24. Christus Petrum amoris sui veluti Vicari­um reliquit: Christ left St. Peter, as the Vi­car of his love: which Attribute, and Elo­gy is not given to any of the Apostles.

Minist.

He saith not expressly his Vicar, but as his Vicar: which, Ter­tullian being Judge, is the Holy Ghost's pe­culiar: who, speaking of Christ, saith, Misit vicariam vim Spiritus Sancti, qui cre­dentes agat. Tertull. De praescriptione adversùs Haereticos. He, sitting at the Right Hand of God the Father, instead of himself, sent the power of the Holy Ghost, as his Vicar, to direct them, that believe. But, if St. Peter in a borrowed Sence may be termed Christ's Vicar, the Stile is but the same Eleuthe­rius of Rome gave Lucius, first King of Britain; And that Eusebius gives not onely the Apostles, but all Ministers, say­ing, Eusebius Episcopus Romanus, Epist. 3. 2. Cor. 5. Caput Ecclesiae Christus est. Christi au­tem Vicarii Sacerdotes sunt, qui vice Christi le­gatione funguntur in Ec­clesia. Christ is the Head of the Church, and his Vicars are the Priests, that do their Embassage in the Church in place of Christ. Now the Collection would be wilde, E­leutherius stiles King Lucius, and Eusebi­us calls all Priests Christ's Vicars: There­fore Lucius had, and all Priests have Su­premacy over the whole Church. But I beseech you, if it should be granted, that Peter was Christ's Vicar in some peculiar Sense, (supposito, sed non dato) what makes it for the Pope's Supremacy, and Autho­rity over the Catholick Church in gene­ral; which is the Question?

Gent.

It makes in this, That Peter fixed his See at Rome, and delegated his Plenipotentiary Power to the Bishops, his [Page 27] Successours there; that what Power he had, he left it in Fee, and hereditary to them.

Minist.

You speak much in little; for this is 2 Thess. ii. 7, 8. [...], the my­stery of that wicked one: wherein is touched, Doctour Sclater upon Thessal. pag. 94. First, Temerarium, a rash avouchment, that Peter fixed his Episco­pal See at Rome. Secondly, Erroneum, a palpable mistake, that he could delegate his Apostolick Power to Successours. Thirdly, Haereticum, a notorious falsity, little less then Fundamental, that he actually invested the Bishop of Rome with his Apostolick Power, derivative to all Posterity.

Gent.

Will you deny, that Peter fixed his Episcopal See at Rome? when the Fathers so frequently call Rome the Seat of St. Peter.

Minist.

Gildas, pag. 2. E­pist. De excidio Bri­tanniae. So Gildas the Wise calls Britain St. Peter's Seat, telling the Bri­tish Priests, Quod sedem Petri Apostoli in­verecundis pedibus usurpassent; that They had usurped the Apostle St. Peter's Seat, with unreverent Feet: I hope you will not conclude hence, that St. Peter fixed his Episcopal See in Britain; which is as genuine Logick, as the former. That Peter was ever so much as at Rome, you have neither Scripture Proof, nor Pre­sumption. Vellenus printed by Illyricus. Vellenus, with many others, proves the contrary. Consider but these Reasons impartially: Whereas Peter is said to come to Rome the Secundo anno Claudii, Petrus Apostolus Romā venit; qui annos aliquot anteà Antiochiae praedica­verat, & hic initium su­mit Romana Ecclesia. Carion. Chronic. lib. 3. pag. 122. second year [Page 28] of Claudius, and to reside there twenty five years, which is till the last of Nero; why doth St. Paul, writing his Epistle to the Romans, the last year of Claudius, or first of Nero, make no mention of Peter, saying, Rom. 1. 5, 6. that They were called of Jesus by his Apostleship a­mongst all Nations. Secondly, In the last Chapter, he greets, and salutes near thir­ty eminent Saints at Rome, with their Families; and names not Peter, which had been an irreverent oversight, if he had been resident, as Primate there. Thirdly, Claudius banished all Jews from Rome; Peter was a Galat. ii. 7, 8. Jew. Fourthly, August. in Epist. ad Galat. cap. ii. The Gospel of Circumcision, that is to preach to the Jews wheresoever scattered, was committed unto Peter; but the Romans were Gentiles Ʋncircum­cised. Lastly, The Antients, that averr Peter's residence so many years at Rome, contradict the Stories of the Acts of the Apostles, and amongst themselves vary, speaking the confused Language of Ba­bel. But, admit Peter was at Rome, will it follow, he was fixed as Bishop there?

Gent.

Doth not St. Augustine give a lineal Succession from Damasus, who was Bishop at Rome in his time, till St. Peter? And Doctour Pocklington, Pocklington; Sun­day no Sabbath. one of your own, glories, that he can derive his Pedigree from Augustine the Monk, Bishop of Canterbury, and from thence ascend the Scale of Primitive Succession till St. Peter.

[Page 29]
Minist.

Not from Saint Peter, as Bishop of Rome; but as an Apostle, who, with his Collegues, or Fellow-Apostles, ordained Elders, and Bishops of their times; they, succeeding Pastours, and Teachers, to the world's end. Thus the Apostles divided the earth amongst them; Saint Paul ordained Timothy at Ephesus, Titus at Crete, Saint John Polycarp at Smyrna, and other Bishops of Asia; Saint Bartholomew had his Successours in India, Saint James in Spain: yet Paul was no Bishop of Ephesus, or Crete, John of Asia, Bartholomew of India, or James of Spain. The Apostleship was an Extra­ordinary Office, which expired in the Twelve, and was incommunicable to Po­sterity, and would have been disparaged by Confinement to a particular Charge. Thus Irenaeus; Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. Contra Haereses. It is easie (saith He) for all men to see, that will see the Truth, the antient Traditions of the Apostles in the Church, through the whole World; and we can reckon those, that were ordained Bi­shops of the Apostles themselves, and their Successours also, even until our selves.

Gent.

Confutation of the A­pology of the Church of England. Harding a­gainst Jewel. page 95. Apostolick Power was two­fold: either extraordinary, common to Saint Peter, with the rest of the Apostles; this expired in them, and was incommu­nicable to Successours: or ordinary, which was Saint Peter's peculiar Privi­lege; and this he bequeathed to his Suc­cessours, Bishops of Rome.

Minist.

This is that Erroneum, pal­pable [Page 30] Mistake maintained by Petrus de Palude, who said, Nullus Apostolorum praeter Petrum factus est à Christo Episcopus; alii Apostoli nullam po­testatem jurisdictionis à Christo receperunt; specialiter post Christi Ascensum fuit collata eis à Petro. Petrus de Pa­lude, De potestato Apo­stolorum, Art. 2. That None of all the Apostles, save onely Peter, was Bishop by Christ: and that The rest of the Apostles received no Power of Jurisdiction at Christ's hand; but that specially, after Christ's Ascension, it was given unto them by Peter. Blasphemy worthy of tearing of Garments, as highly prejudicial to Christ's Prerogative, and contradictory to Scripture; as Paul declares, Gal. 1. 1. Paul an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father. Whereupon Saint Chrysostom Paulus nihil opus habe­bat Petro, nec illius ege­bat voce; sed honore par erat illi: nihil hic enim dicam ampliùs. Chrysoft. in Epist. ad Galat. cap. 1. Comments thus; Paul had no want of Pe­ter, nor had any need of his Suffrage, or Allowance, but in honour was his equal: here I will say no more; meaning, he was, in some Sense, his Superiour. And Saint Augustine August. in Epist ad Gal. cap. 2. makes Peter, without a­ny distinction, Fellow, and equal with the other Apostles; avouching, that Christus, sine Personarum acceptione, hoc dedit Pau­lo, ut ministraret Gentibus, quod etiam Petro dederat, ut ministraret Judaeis: Christ, without any respect of Persons, gave the same Authority to Paul, to mini­ster among the Gentiles, that he gave to Peter, to minister among the Jews. Whence is gatherable, that rather Saint Paul, who writ to the Romans, preached at Rome, lived, and dyed there, should have had this ordinary Delegation (if any) then Saint Peter, who was designed the Minister of Circumcision: which he him­self [Page 31] knew well, when he said Galat. ii. 9. James, Cephas, (that is Peter) and John, who seemed to be Pillars, gave to me, and Bar­nabas, the right Hand [...], of Fellow­ship; that is aequalitatis, of equality, saith the Gloss: and further, Non didici ab aliis, tanquam à majoribus; sed contuli cum illis, tan­quam cum amicis, & paribus. Glossa Ordi­naria, ad Galat. 2. I learned not of Peter, and others, as of my betters; but I had Conference with them, as with my equals, and Friends. So that this Di­stinction of extraordinary, and ordinary Jurisdiction, which gives Saint Peter a special Legislative Power, is Scripture­less, and a mere Popish Chimera.

Gent.

Though there be no ground for it in Scripture, yet it may be demon­strated from Tradition of the Church, as the Cause from the Effect; that St. Peter had this Power, and delegated it to his Successours, who, without inter­ruption, have enjoyed it since. Nil dat, quod non habet: as our Gerson, once Chan­cellour of Paris avers; saying, Sicut Christo colla­ta est omnis potestas in coe­lo, & in terra, sic eam Christus omnem Petro, suisque Sucessoribus dere­liquit. Gerson. De pote­state Ecclesiae, Consid. 12. part. 3. As all Power in Heaven, and in Earth, is col­lated upon Christ, so Christ hath delega­ted it to Peter, and his Successours.

Minist.

This is that third thing, [...] Haereticum, a notorious falsitie, which Franciscus a Victoria, a Friar of your own, and once Professour of Divinity in the Ʋniversitie of Salmantica, confesses; saying, Victor. De potestate Ecclesiae, Relect. 1. Sect. 1. 1. pag. 39. Glossatores Juris hoc Dominium dederunt Papae, cum ipsi essent pauperes re­bus, & doctrina: The Glossers of the Ca­non-Law, (not Saint Peter) gave the Pope this Dominion; when they themselves were [Page 32] poor in estate, and Petits in Learning. Which Pope Zosimus Zosimus in Concili. Africano. himself was con­scious of, when, in that long contention with the Bishops of Africa, touching his Supremacie, he alleged not one word out of the Scriptures; but only the Council of Nice, which he himself had falsified. And Meltiades, Meltiades in Epistola Ad Episcopos Hispaniae. writing hereof to the Bishops of Spain, claims it only by Cu­stom, not by Donation of Peter, or Di­vine Right. The Spring, and Rise where­of Philip Mornay Historia Papatus, quibus gradibus ad id Fa­stigii enisus sit. Philippus Mornaius Plessiacus. in his Mystery of Iniquity, or History of the Popedom, dis­covers: and is a Truth so clear, that it extorts this Confession from Bellarmine; Bellarmin. lib. 5. De Romano Pontifice, cap. 9. Etiamsi nihil horum extaret, abunde sufficeret praescriptio 800. Annorum; nam etiam regna, & imperia per latrocini­um acquisita, tandem longo tempore fiunt legitima: Though the Prescription of eight hundred years be sufficient; for even Kingdoms, and Empires gotten by robbery, through continuance of time, become law­full.

Gent.

This is a shrewd confession of so Learned a Cardinal, and gives our cause a deadly blow. There are four things, wherein Supremacie consists. First, Reformation of the Church. Second­ly, Calling of Councils, and Synods. Thirdly, Promulgation of Church-Laws, and Edicts. Fourthly, Receiving of Ap­peals, and giving Decisions. Have not Bishops of Rome exercised all these, since the Apostles times? According to Gerson, [Page 33] Sicut non est potestas, nisi à Deo; sic nec ali­qua temporalis, vel Eccle­siastica, Imperialis, vel Re­galis, nisi à Papa; in cujus femore scripsit Christus. REX REGUM▪ DOMINUS DO­MINANTIUM. Gerson. De potestate Ecclesiae, Consider. 12. part. 3. As there is no Power, but of God; so neither any Temporal, or Ecclesiastical, Imperial, or Regal Jurisdiction, but of the Pope, in whose Thigh Christ hath writ, KING OF KINGS, LORD OF LORDS.

Minist.

You shall finde upon Exami­nation, for all Gerson's Blasphemy; that not one of these was exercised by the Bishops of Rome, in the Primitive Times. First, Reformation of the Church, by a­bolishing Idolatry, Superstition, and He­resie, and placing of true Religion, was practised by Constantine, and all the god­ly Emperours, his Successours. The Em­perour [saith Eusebius Tanquam communù Episcopus à Deo constitu­tus. Eusebius, De vita Constantini, lil. 1. cap 37.] put down I­dolatry, established Christian Religion, composed differences of Bishops, suppressed Heresies, and Schisms, heard Causes of Religion, and judged them in his own Per­son; made Laws, Decrees, Edicts, and Orders for Religion; and all this, as a common Bishop, or Over-seer, ordained of God. This in special Constantine en­gaged to perform against the Fomenters of Arrianism, and Fautours of Arrian Bishops; saying, Pestium illarum au­dacia ministri Dei, hoc est, meá, executione coer­cebitur. Theodoret. lib. 1. cap. 19. The Boldness of such (Bishops, and others) shall be brought in order by the execution of God's Minister, that is, my self. And the sixth Toletan Council, speaking of Chintillanus the King, saith, Concil. Toletan. vi. cap. 14. Nefas est in dubium de­ducere ejus potestatem, cui omnium guber­natio superno constat delegata judicio. It is an heinous Offence to call his Power (not the Pope's) into Question, to whom, it is [Page 34] apparent, that the Government of all is de­legated by the Divine Decree.

Secondly, Calling of Councils, and Sy­nods, was by the Authority of Empe­rours; not Bishops of Rome. As the four first General Councils were called by four Emperours: The Nicene Council, against Arrius, by Constantine. The Council of Constantinople, against Ma­cedonius, by Theodosius the Elder. The Council of Ephesus, against Nestorius, by Theodosius the Younger. The Council of Chalcedon, against Eutyches, by Martian. The Council of Sardis, by Constans, and Constantine. And many more for many Centuries after Christ: and that not (as Bellarmine Bellarm. De Cen­ciliis, lib. 1. cap. 13. saith) Authoritate Rapae, By the Pope's Authority; which appears, in that Leo, Bishop of Rome, made Sup­plication Supplicationi nostrae dignetur Imperator annu­ [...]c. Leo. Epist. 9. to Theodosius, that he would call a Council in Italy; but the Emperour called it at Ephesus: and the Bishops of Italy could not come in time; so that Eutyches his Heresie was there counte­nanced by means of Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria. Then Leo made a second Supplication Leo, Epist. 24. and alledged the Tears of all the Clergy for to obtain a Council it Italy. Then he solicited the Empe­ress Pulcheria Leo, Epist. 26. to further his Supplica­on to the Emperour; he wrote Leo, Epist. 23. to the Nobles, Clergy, and People of Con­stantinople, to join with him in Supplica­tion to the Emperour, yet could not ob­tain it in the time of Theodosius. When [Page 35] Martian succeeded, by the favour of Pulcheria, a Council was called, not in Italy, but at Chalcedon. Then Leo made a fresh Suit, Leo, Epist. 43. that the Emperour would command the Bishops of the Coun­cil, that the Faith of the Nicene Council might stand in full force, unaltered: which the Emperour did at his Request, and the Emperour's Oration Oratio Martiani in Concilio Chalcedoneusi to that purpose is extant. Now, if Supplication, Intercession of Friends, Sighs, and Tears of Priests be the Authority of the Pope; let him, in God's name, use it still. And, as in the Calling, so in the Subscription of the Council you may further see his Au­thority; Because (saith Leo Leo, Epist. 56. to the Emperour) I must by all means obey your Sacred, and Religious Will, I have set down my Consent, in writing, to those Constitu­tions. Here you see, it is plain, Coun­cils were called by Princes at the Pope's Petition, and subscribed at their Com­mand. Therefore, when Ruffinus Doce, quis eum jusse­rit Imperator convocari [...]è Hieron. in Apologia contra Ruffinum. alledged the Canon of a Council, against Saint Hierom; his Answer was, Shew, what Emperour commanded this Council to be called. I will shut up this Point with Socrates his words, who, giving a rea­son, why in his Church-Story, he made so often mention of Emperours, saith, Propterea, quòd ex illo tempore, quo Constantini esse ceperunt, negotia Ec­clesiae ex eorum nutu pon­dere visa sunt, atque adeò maxima Concilia de e­orum sententia convocata faerunt, & adhuc convo­cantu [...]. Socrat. lib. 5. in Prooemio. Since Emperours became (like Constan­tine) Fathers of the Church, the Causes of the Church have depended upon their ill; and therefore the greatest Councils have been, and yet are called by their Authority.

[Page 36]

The third work of Supremacy is Pro­mulgatio Legum, Promulgation of Church-Laws, and Edicts, expedient for Ec­clesiastical Government. And this was performed by Kings, and Emperours, not Pope's, as Church-Stories are pregnant Proofs. Constantine made many Laws concerning Confessours, and Martyrs, Christians, and Heathens. Eusebius Euseb. De vita Constantini, lib. 2. cap. 20, 21, 24, 44. mentioneth two Laws; one, that a­bolished Idolatry, Images, Sacrifices, and Divinations: another, concerning build­ing, and enlarging of Churches, at the Emperour's Charge. Theodosius made a Law against the Arrians, occasioned thus; Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, having been a long Suitour in vain, used this Stratagem, saluting the Emperour, slighted his Son Arcadius, newly Crea­ted Caesar, which the Father interpret­ing as a Contempt of his Son, grew an­gry, till Amphilochius, discovering him­self, said, Theodoret. lib. 5. cap. 5. Art thou offended, Empe­rour, that I reverence not thy Son? And thinkest thou, that God is not offended with the Arrians, that blaspheme his Son? The Emperour, overcome with these words, Legem scribit, made a Law against the Assemblies of the Arrians. I will not enter particulars, but refer you to the Titles De summa Trinita­te, & side Catholica. De sacro sanctis Ecclesiis. De Episcopis, & Clericis. De Haereticis, &c. of the Civil Law, which were promulgated by Justinian, Theodosius, Valentinian, Honorius, Arcadius, and other Godly, and Religious Empe­rours.

[Page 37]

There is a Collection of Ecclesiastical Laws made by Charls the Emperour, Lodovick, and Lotharius, gathered by Ansegmus, Anno 827. Ansegmus. Of Charls his Laws there be an hundred sixtie eight; of the Laws of Lewis, and Lotharius an hundred fiftie seven. In the Preface, the Emperour Charls professeth, Quapropter & nostros missos ad vos direximus; qui, ex nostri nominis au­thoritate, una vobiscum corrigerent quae corrigenda essent. that he hath di­rected his Commissioners (here you see Princes Commissioners, and Visitours are antient) that shall joyn, with others, to re­dress those things, which need Reformation, according to his Canonical Constitutions in his name, and by virtue of hi [...] authoritie. Gregory the First Gregor. Epist., Bishop of Rome wrote a submissive Letter to Mauritius the Em­perour, and another to Theodorus, his Phy­sician, to intreat the revocation of a Law invented by Julian, and that in a very humble Stile, Ʋtrolique ergo quod debui, exolvi; qui & Im­peratori obedientiā praebui [...] & pro Deo, quod sensi non tacui. Gregor. Epist. 61. lib. 2. Ego quidem jussioni ve­strae subjectus: I, your Servant, and sub­ject to your command, have sent this Law to many parts of the World, and now I write my opinion to your Majestie: in both I have done my duty; I have performed mine obedience to the Emperour, and I have not concealed what I thought fit for God's cause. And Saint Augustine saith Hoc jubent Imperato­res, quod & Christus ju­bet; quia, cùm bonum jubent, nemo jubet, nisi per eos Christus. August. Epist. 166. of this power of Laws, When Emperours command that, which is good; it is Christ, and no man else, that commandeth by them.

The fourth work of Supremacie is re­ceiving of Appeals, giving Decisions, Re­stitutions, and Deprivations, and other [Page 38] punishments of Bishops for Causes Eccle­siastical; which in Primitive Times fell to the judicature of Princes, not Popes: for when Donatus Vide Optatum libr. 1. & August. Epist. 162, 166. had procured Cecilianus to be condemned by seventy African Bi­shops, and had set up another Bishop in his See of Carthage; he appealed to Constan­tine, the Emperour, and desired him to assigne him Judges: Constantine, by Commission extant in Eusebius, Eusebius, lib. 1. cap. 5. dele­gated, and authorised Meltiades, Bishop of Rome, to hear the cause; who gave Sen­tence for Cecilianus: upon a second Ap­peal Euseb. lib. 10. cap. 5. Constantine made a second Dele­gacy to Chrestus, Bishop of Syracuse; who likewise gave Sentence with Cecili­anus: upon the third Appeal, Constantine appointed Elianus, a Civil Magistrate, to examine Felix; who acquitted Felix also. Then the Emperour called both Parties before him, and gave final Sen­tence for Cecilianus, and made a severe Law against the Donatists. In which Passage, I pray you, observe; First, that Meltiades, not as supreme Judg of all Controversies, but as delegated by Con­stantine, did judg of Cecilianus his Cause: and Saint Augustine August. Epist. 162. defended him from usurpation upon the seventie Afri­can Bishops; because the Emperour, not Saint Peter appointed it. Next the Bi­shop of Syracuse did judg the same Cause after Meltiades, without any wrong to the See of Rome; no man in that Age found fault with it. And Thirdly, It is [Page 39] apparent, that Constantine was superiour to Meltiades, and both made him his De­legate, and Judge of his Sentence, and Judgement; which Saint Augustine Ʋltimum Judicium, ultra quod Causa pertran­sire non potest. Augustin. contra Parmenian. lib. 1. cap. 6. calleth the last Judgement, beyond which the Cause could not pass. Socrates, lib. 5. cap. 10. Theodosi­us calling a Council of all Opinions, where Nactarius, and Agilius made the Confession [...] of Consubstantiality; De­mophilus delivered up the Arrian Faith; Eunomius the Eunomian Faith; Eleusi­us the Macedonian Faith: Then the Emperour, alone, separated from all Company [saith Tum solus, & separa­tus, precatur Deum. So­crates, suprá. Socrates] made his Prayers to God to direct him in the Truth; and then he read the several Faiths, and condemned, and rent all the rest, that rent, and divided the Trinity; and commended, and approved that Faith of the Consub­stantiality of the Father, and the Son.

Gent.

You have satisfied me suffici­ently in these; onely one Scruple re­mains behinde, how the Bishop of Rome came to this height, that he is the Head of Councils, Papa sit, qui posset transferre Reges, & re­gna. Gerson. De potestate Ecclesiastica; Consider. 12. dethrones Princes, and disposes Kingdoms.

Minist.

Not at once; but by several Steps: for Popish Primacy is a Mystery of Iniquity, and insinuated by Degrees.

The first Step was the Departure of the Emperour Constantinus from Rome to Constantinople: at which time, Gratian saith, he gave his whole Power, Domini­on, and Territories both in Rome, and Italy, and the West, to the Bishop of [Page 40] Rome; Constantinus Imperator Co­ronam, & omnem Regiam dignitatem in urbe Romana, & in Italia, & in par­tibus Occidentalibus Apostolico concessit: The Emperour gave the Pope his Crown, and all his Royal Dignity in Rome, Italy, and the West. And, in the next Canon, Decrevimus itaque & hoc, ut ipse, & Successores ejus, Diademate, viz. co­ronâ, quam ex capite no­stro illi concessimus, ex au­ro purissimo, & gemmis pretiosis uti debeat pro ho­nore Beati Petri. Grati­an. Distinct. 96. Can. Const. We have made this Decree, that the Pope, and his Successours, shall, for the honour of Saint Peter, wear the Crown of pure Gold, and precious Stones, which We have given him from our own Head. Thus the Decree; though Laurentius Valla, Raphael Ʋolaterranus, Paulus Catthala­nus, Nicolaus Cusanus, and other Po­pish Writers, repute it but fabulous; and even Bellarmine Regna, & Imperia per latrocinium acquisita, tandem longo tempore fiunt legitima. Bellarm. lib. 5. De Romano Pontifice, cap. 9. himself seems to make a Doubt, implyedly ascribing the Original of Popish Claim to Ʋsurpa­tion, and Prescription.

The Second Step was the Fall of the Empire in the West: for, after the Divisi­on of the Empire, it began dayly to de­cline, and was utterly dissolved in Au­gustulus Anno Domini 471., of whom was made this Epigram; Ad Pontac. Bur­deg. pag. 93. Augustus Romanum Imperi­um condidit, Augustulus labefactavit; Augustus set up the Empire, but Augustu­lus pulled it down. And the lower Ebb the Imperial Throne had, the Episcopal See had the higher Tide.

The third Step was the Donation of Phocas; who (having murdered all the Mauricium ipse per­sequi, assequi, in oculis i­psius liberos omnes intersi­cere, pendentem inter a­lios ab uberibus infantem, ac postremò ipsum, tot do­loribus transverberatum, jugulare. Philippus Mor­naius, Mysterii Iniqui­tatis, pag. 112. Emperour Mauricius his Chil­dren in his Sight, amongst the rest, a [Page 41] tender Infant, hanging upon the Nurse's Breast, and lastly him) granted to Boni­face the Third, (that he, this Parricide, might be confirmed in the Empire) Ʋt sanciretur Romanus Pontifex Oecumeni­cus & Summus Episcopus totius Ecclesiae Christianae: That the Bishop of Rome should be established the Oecumenical Pa­triarch, and Bishop of the whole Church of Christ. From that time (saith Cari­on) the Romane Prelates never ceased to labour for the encrease of their Dignity, and Power.

The fourth Step was the Voluntary Charter, which Constantine, the Empe­rour of Constantinople, made Anno Domini 684. Platina in vita Benedicti Secundi. to Pope Benedict the Second; that whomsoever the Clergy, People, and the Romane Souldiers, should chuse to be Bishop, all men should believe him to be the true Vicar of Christ, without tarrying for the Authority of the Emperour of Con­stantinople, or the Deputy of Italy, as the Custom, and manner was ever before that Day.

The fifth Step was the Amity Anno Domini 751. be­tween Zachary Bishop of Rome, and Pi­pin Governour of France, under Chil­derick the King; which Bishop assoiled Pipin, and the other Frenchmen of their Oath of Allegiance, and Fealty made to Childerick, and confirmed Pipin the Traitor in his Master's Kingdom. Which Bellarmine Childericum deposuit Zacharias, & in ejus lo­cum Pipinum, Caroli Magni Patrem, creari jussit. Bellarmin. lib. 5. De Romano Pontif. cap. 8. confesses; saying, Pope Zachary deposed Childerick, and com­manded [Page 42] to place, and invest Pipin, Fa­ther to Charles the Great, in his Throne. For this Kindness the Popes were gratifi­ed by both the Father, and the Son, and all the Caroline Line: for Pipin, having besieged Aistulphus, King of the Lum­bards, at Pavie, forced Anno Domini 756. him to yield up the Exarchate of Ravenna, and Pentapolis into his Hands; who conferred it upon the Bishop of Rome. Ità Roma Roma­nús que Ducatus à Grae­cis ad Romanū Pontifi­cem, propter nefandam corum Haeresin, impieta­témque pervenit. Sigon. lib. 3. De Regno Italiae. So now the Liev-tenants of Constantinople ended their whole Power in Italy; who for­merly had their Seats at Ravenna: and now was he taken out of the way, who, (as the Apostle tells us) did hinder the coming of Anti-Christ, 2 Thes. ii. 7.

The sixth Step was the Vide Philip. Bergo­matem, pag. 277 Constitution of the Electours of the future Empe­rours; for Gregory the Fifth, being a German born, and Kinsman to Otho the Emperour, did appoint Antoninus, part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 5. Sect. 13. Seven Electours of the Empire for ever; viz. the Arch-Bishop of Mentz, the Arch-Bishop of Trevirs, the Arch-Bishop of Colen (all his own Creatures) the Marquess of Brandenburgh, the Count Palatine, the Duke of Saxonie, and the King of Bo­hemia; that the Empire might be esta­blished in their Posterity, and their Blood thereby advanced for ever. Thus I have emblazoned you in brief, how that Beast, that obscurely sprung out of the Earth, was nascent, crescent, regnant, and tri­umphant.

Gent.

But how came he to have Pow­er [Page 43] here in Britain; for I do not see, that any of these Donations expresly reaches that.

Minist.

Centur. 6. lib. 5. cap. 17. Anno Dom. 600. By Augustine the Monk, whom Gregory the First sent to convert the Saxons; which being effected, he oc­casioned them to be forced by the Sword to submit to the Romane Slavery; which they knew not before, murdering twelve hundred Students at Bangor, laying the Foundation of Popery here in Blood; as I shall have Opportunity further to dis­cover.

Gent.

Well; you have almost stag­gered me in this: but, I beseech you, proceed to the Second Article.

The Second Article.

And I do believe the Church of Rome is not the true Church.

Gent.

This Proposition is contradictory to that, which was riveted into me, when a Childe. The Holy Catholick Church is the true Church; The Church of Rome is the Holy Catholick Church: Therefore the Church of Rome is the true [Page 43] Church. [...]. Philo. This was the first Syllo­gism I learned, and probably will be the last, (unless I see sufficient Reason to the contrary) that I shall forget.

Minist.

Sir, your Assumption is palpa­bly false; The Church of Rome neither is, nor ever was the Catholick Church; once it was a sound Member thereof, now, not so much as a sound Member. Dr. Rainolds Rainolds, in his Six Positions. and others, have unan­swerably proved it.

Gent.

What? not the Romane the Catholick Church, whose Faith Rom. i. [...]. [...], is spoken of throughout the whole World, and hath ta­ken Possession thereof, according to the Divine Poet,

Sedes summa Petri, quae Pastoralis honoris
Facta caput mundi, quicquid non pos­sidet Armis,
Relligione te net?—
Minist.

The Romane Church, at the best, was but a particular Church, not the Catholick, or whole: which Saint Paul clears; saying, (Rom. i. 5, 6.) They had received Grace for Obedience to the Faith [...], among all the Gentiles (or all Nations) [...], a­mong whom are ye also. But a Church, which is but one amongst the rest, cannot be the whole, or Ʋniversal Church. It is as absurd to say, that the Romane is the Ʋniversal, or Catholick Church, as to affirm, that England is the Ʋniversal [Page 45] World. Therefore Saint Chrysostome, descanting upon those Words, saith, Romanis scribens, qui, velnt in totius orbis vertice constituti erant▪ nihil, prae reliquis Genti­bus, illis praecipuè adscri­bit. Neque enim ideo, quòd tum potentes erant, & regnabant, plus rerum spiritualium eos habere di­eit; sed Quemadmodū, inquit, omnibus Genti­bus praedicamus, ità & vobis; connumerans eos & Scythis, & Thra­cibus. Nisi enim hoc si­gnificare voluisset, super­fluum erat dicere, In qui­bus estis & vos. Chrysost. ad Rom. Homil. 1. Paul, writing to the Romanes, who were placed, as it were in a sublime Turret of the whole world, ascribes no special prerogative to them above other Nations: for neither then, because they were potent, and bore rule, did he say, they had more of spiritual things: but he saith, As we Preach to all Nations, so to you, reckoning them with the Scythi­ans, and Thracians. And, unless this had been his meaning, it had been superfluous to say, Among whom are ye also. Theodo­ret saith, Theodoret. super Rom. cap. i. He distinguished not them (the Romanes) as having Dominion over the world, from other Nations; but joyned them with them. Eos non, ut qui totius orbis terrarum Dominium obtinerent, aliis Gentibus secrevit, sed aliis commiscuit.

Gent.

Though the Romane Church be not the Catholick, or whole Church, as the Head is not the whole Body: yet, as all the Members depend upon the Head, and receive Animal Spirits thence; so all the Members of the Ca­tholick depend upon the Romane, and communicate with it. Hence Saint Cy­prian Cyptian. lib. 4. E­pist. 8. calleth the agreement with the Bishop of Rome, and communicating with him, Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem; the firm holding the unity of the Catholick Church. And writing to Antonianus, in the same Book, he accounteth it for one thing to communicate with Cornelius the Bishop of Rome, and to communicate with the Catholick Church.

Minist.
[Page 46]

The Antients were of ano­ther Judgement; amongst whom Oecu­menius Oecumenius in Rom. cap. 1. pulls down the Romane Crest, in his Commentary upon Rom. 1. 6. say­ing, [...]. Ad modestiam revocat, (so Budaeus renders it) He humbles, (or brings down) their Wisdom, [the Romanes] as if he had said, Do not think, that the Imperial City [Rome] hath more Prerogative, then others; but ye are called together with other Gentiles. With whom accords Theophylact, say­ing, Hic tollit eorum co­gitationem de Primatu; non enim inquit, Alias an­tecellitis gentes, tametsi imperium vobis usurpetis; verum enim, Perinde ac caeteris, sic vobis praedica­mus, nè igitur turgeatis fastu. Theophyl. in Rom. cap. i. He takes away their Imagination of Primacy: for Paul saith not, Ye excell o­ther Nations, or the rest of the Gentiles, although ye should usurp Rule to your selves; but, We preach even unto you, as we do unto others, lest therefore ye should swell with Pride. There is not that de­pendance of other Churches with Rome; as is of the Members with the Head. The Members cannot live without the Head. The Church was Catholick, before Rome was a Member thereof; and might con­tinue so still, though the Romane Church, and the Hierarchie thereof were wholy extinct. Your Paralogism, taken from Saint Cyprian's Advice, is Complicatio fal­laciarum, a Fardle of Fallacies. First, Non Causae, ut Causae; for the Essence of Catholick Ʋnion did not consist in Communion with the Roman Church [Page 47] Saint Steven, with many thousand, lived, and dyed in the Unity of the Catholick Faith, and never knew Romish Commu­nion. Secondly, Fallacia accidentis; for it is a thing Contingent, and not necessary, that to communicate with the Romish Church is to communicate with the Ca­tholick Church. Christ enjoins the Jews to hear the Scribes, and Pharisees were but Novel Intruders: for An­tigonus Sochaeus was the first, who succeeded Sime­on the Just, being Coëta­nean with Alexander the Great. Godwin, Hebrew Antiquities, lib. 1. page 37. Pharisees; which is more, then to communicate with them: and yet they were not Heads, but unsound Members of the Jewish Church; as appears by our Saviour's Caution, Beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees. The same Saint Cyprian, that calls Agreement with the Bishop of Rome, Catholicae Ecclesia unitatem. [...]prian. lib. 4. Epist. Ʋnity of the Catholick Church, reproves Cornelius, and Stephanus, both Bishops of Rome, and told them, that they were both deceived: and would not therefore agree with them.

Gent.

But we have been taught, that There is no Salvation out of the Romane Church, that [...], Pil­lar, and ground of Truth; 1 Tim. iii. 15. Whose Doctrine is spread over the Earth.

Minist.

There is Salvation to them, that are baptized, believe, and repent; Mark xvi. 16. Act. ii. 38. and which have all the ordinary means of Salvation, 1 Tim. ii. 4. but, without Dependance upon the Church of Rome, people may be Baptised, Beleeve, Repent, and have all the ordinarie means of Salvation; as ap­pears [Page 48] by the Jews; Acts ii. 41. the Evnuch, Acts viii. 37. Lydia, Acts xvi. 14. many Gentiles, Acts xiii. 48. the Elect Lady, and her children, 2 John i. 2, 4. the seven Churches of Asia, Apocal. ii. 3. all these Independents of that Church. This is confirmed by Occham Extrae ecclesiam autē Romanam potest esse sa­lus, quemadmodum post Ascensionem Christi fuit salus, antequam Roma­na Ecclesia inchoaretur. Occham, Dialog. part. i. lib. 5. cap. 23. one of your own Schole-men, who proclaims, that Out of the Romane Church may be Salvation, as after our Saviour's Ascension there was Salvation, before the Romane Church had any being. And Aeneas Syl­vius, Ante Concilium Ni­cenum quisque sibi vive­bat, & parvus respectus habebatur ad Ecclesiam Romanam. Aeneas Syl­vius, Epist. 288. who was afterwards Pope Pius the Second, affirmeth, that, the first three hundred Years, Before the Nicene Coun­cil, small regard was had of the Romane Church. Johanes Major Indi, & Christiani, in aliis locis separati, si re­liqua ad fidem necessaria crederent, nescii quod Ro­manus Pontifex caput sit Ecclesiae, durum est dicere quòd sint in statu Da­mnationis. Major. d. 24. q. 3. saith; It were over hard to affirm, that the Indians, and other Christians, which live in remote Countries, should be in the State of Da­mnation for not knowing that the Bishop of Rome is the Head of the Church, if they believe other necessarie Articles to Salva­tion. And Alchasar Alchasar, Comment. in Apocalyp. cap. xx. v. 1. 2. 3. saith, Antequam nuptiae cum Romana Ecclesia per receptam publicae Christianae Fidei consuetudinem celebrarentur; minus frequens cum Ro­mana communio satis fuit: Before such times, as the publick Nuptials between the Romane Church, and other Churches were celebrated by a common-received Custom, a less frequent communion with that Church was sufficient. Neither the Romane, nor any other particular Church, was ever simply the Ground, and Pillar of [Page 49] Truth; but onely the Primitive, Generale Concilium Papae, Cardinalium, Epi­scoporum, Doctorum, in Scripturis Propheticis intel­ligendis non est nunc tantae authoritatis; quamae fu­erit olim Apostolorum col­legium. Dried. De dog­mat. Eccles. lib. 2. part. 58. com­prising the Apostles, the succeeding Ʋni­versal Church, and the Members thereof, onely by Office, and secundum quid: it was not spoken to the Church of Rome, but of Ephesus, which was never the Head of the Church, and is now no Member thereof. Caveat Roma. And, if the Ro­mane Church be spread over sundrie Parts of the World, because some people, pro­fessing the Romane Faith, travail, or re­side in many Countries, and exercise their Religion where they travail, or live; yet this will not demonstrate, that it is the Church universal: for both Jews, and also sundrie other Christians, which are no Romists (as the Syrians, or Melchites, Georgians, Russians, Nestorians of Saint Thomas in India, Jacobites, Copthi, Ha­bassines, Armenians, Maronites) are largely diffused over the world, and exer­cise their Religion in places, where they make their aboad. And there is nothing more presumptuous, Gregor. Nazianzen. Oratione De seipso contra Arrian. Ʋbi illi sunt, quae Ecclesiam multitudine de­finiunt? Chryost. Ad popul. Antiochenum. Ho­mil. 40. August. su­pra Psal. 39. then to make external Fame, and Amplitude (which are things common, and separable) proper Notes of the true Church, and upon this ground to reject smaller Churches, which have less Fame in the world, but more veritie.

Gent.

Well; admit Salvation be not confined to the Church of Rome, and that it be not the peculiar Ground, and Pillar of Truth; yet it is the Mother-Church: all, or most have received their Christianity from her.

[Page 50]
Minist.

Rome, when she was the most su­perlative, standing upon her highest tiptoes, was not a Mother, but a Sister, or a Daughter Church, juniour to many. If we look into the original; Jerusalem is the Mother of us all. De Sione exibit Lex, & verbum Domini de Jerusalem; Isai. ii. 3. there Christ was Crucified, there the Apostles were commissioned, there they re­ceived the Holy Ghost, there Stephen first sealed the Truth with his Blood: one of the eldest Sisters was Antioch, where men were first called Christians, not at Rome; whereupon Saint Chrysostom Antiochia caput to­tius orbis. Chrysost. Ad populum Antiochenum. Homil. 3. calleth that Citie, The Head of the whole world. The Apostles divided this Earthly known Globe amongst them; which, in few years after the Passion, they compassed. Where­as it is but pretended by Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. 3, & 1. Irenaeus, that Saint Peter came to Rome, when Saint Matthew wrote his Gospel, which was in third year of Caius Caligula, and one and fourty after our Saviour's Nativitie, eight after his Passion, during which time the Foundation of Christianitie was laid by the Apostles through the world, who received not their Faith from Rome, but were rather more antient. Titus was sent to Dalmatia, Crescens to Galathia (2 Timoth. iiii. 10.) or Gallia, (so Eusebius Eusebius, lib. 3. calls it) Aventinus in Anna­libus Boiorum. Sabell. Enncad. 7. lib. 4. Trophimus to Orleance, Pho­tinus to Lyons, Lucius of Cyrene to Ger­manie, Barnabas to Millain, Apollinaris to Ravenna; all the Countries, and many more, were converted by these, and others, without Commission from Rome.

[Page 51]
Gent.

But if not others; yet we of this Nation must acknowledg Rome for our Mother-Church, as receiving our Faith, and Conversion thence.

Minist.

No: for Britain received the Christian Faith, in a manner as soon as Rome; in the second year of Claudius, and fourtie fourth year after the Nativitie, Simon Zelotes, an Apostle, came hither to Preach the Gospel, as Dorotheus witnesseth. Simon Zelotes, per­agratâ Mauritaniâ, & Afrorum regione, Chri­stum praedicavit tandem in Britannia; ubi cruci­fixus, occisus, & sepultus est. Dorotheus in Sy­nopsi. Simon Zelotes, having passed through Mauritania, and the Regions of Africk, at the last Preached Christ in Britain, where he was Crucified, Slain, and Buried. Ni­cephorus Evangelii Doctrinā ad Occidentalem Oce­anum, Insulás (que) Britan­nicas profert. Nicephor. lib. 2. cap. 40. also avouches, that Simon, ha­ving Preached to many Countries, con­veighed at last the Doctrine of the Gospel to the Western Ocean, and British Islands. With these Baronius, Baron. ad diem 28. Octobr. and the Magde­burgenses Magdeburg. Centur. 1. lib 2. cap. 2. agree, which Gildas the Wise summs up, saying, Interea, glaciali frigore rigente, Insula, &c. In the mean time, while Claudius was raging with bloody War, there imparted it self to this cold Iland (removed off from the visible Sun further, then other Countries) that true, and invisi­ble Sun Christ, which, in the time of Tibe­rius Caesar, had shewed himself to the whole World. Theodoret, Sophronius, and Ar­noldus Mirmannus Arnoldus Mirman­nus in Theatro, quarto Neronis, Anno Dom. 59. affirm Saint Paul to have passed to Britain, the fourth year of Nero, and there to have s [...]wn the Seed of Life. To these I might add Aristobulus (whom Saint Paul nameth in his Epistle to the Romanes) recorded Mirmannus in The­atro De conversione Gentium, pag. 43. Do­roth in Synops. Baron. out of the Greek Marty­rol, ad diem 25. Matrii. by Mir­mannus, [Page 52] Dorotheus, and Baronius, to have propagated the Gospel in Britain. As also Joseph of Arimathea with his ten Compa­nions, who pitched in the Iland Avallonia, where Glastenbury after was builded, thence called in our ancient Records Capgravius, Poly­dore Virgil, Cambden, Harpesfiend, Bal [...]us, Flemingus, Scropus. the Burial-place of the Saints: none of these were sent from Rome, nor had any dependence on it.

Gent.

But the first Christian King of Britain, Lucius, required Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome, to send him Preachers to instruct him in the Christian Faith: and he (as the Chronicles record) sent him two Priests, Damianus, and Fugatianus. So it should seem, that Britain received the Faith from Rome.

Minist.

How can that be? Seeing Britain received the Faith the fourty fourth year of our Saviour; and Luci­us was not inaugurated King, till the hundred seventy nineth year. By this Computation it appears, the Britains had been Christians above an hundred thirty five years before Lucius, which Baroni­us, a Romane Cardinal, confesses; say­ing, Cum diu alioqui E­vangelium Christi illuc perlatum fuisset, ut testa­tur Gildas Sapiens. Ba­ron. Annal. Long before Damianus, and Fu­gatianus, came here, the Gospel was preached; as witnesseth Gildas the Wise. It is true, Beda, Asser, Flores Historiarum, Record of Saint Asaph's Church, John Capgrave, Maria­nus Scotus. Lucius, being already a Christian himself, sent Elvanus, and Meduvinus, two learned men in Scri­ptures, with his loving Letters The Epistle of Eleu­therius to Lucius, King of Britain, is extant, lib. Constitut. Londinens. to the Bishop of Rome, importuning him to send the Romane Imperial Laws for reigle­ment [Page 53] of his Kingdom: but he refers him to the Laws of Christ expressed in the Old, and New Testament; whence, he tells him, by the Grace of God, and the advice of his Senatours, he may gather Instructions for ordering of his Subjects. Where observe, First, that the Britains were Christians long before. Secondly, That Lucius himselfe was also a professed Christian. Thirdly, That the Messengers he sent, were mighty in the Scriptures. Fourthly, That they were sent for a di­rectory in the Imperial, or Civil Laws. Fifthly, That the Bishop of Rome challenges no Power of Judicature; but refers him to Scripture, and his Council.

Gent.

Well; though you have driven me out of these four Holds; That the Church of Rome is not the Catholick Church; That it is not the Head, upon which other Churches, as Members, depends; That Communion with Rome is not necessarie to Salvation; That Rome is not the Mother of all Churches, nor of our British: yet, I hope, I may communicate with Rome, as with a Member of the Catholick Church, and a Sister, having prescription of a thousand years, since Ethelbert, W. Malmesburi­ensis, Marianus, Flori­an. Beda. in whose time Augustine, Melitus, and Justus, Commissioned by Gregory the First, converted the Saxons, and made them, with the Britains, conformable to the Romane Church.

Minist.

Augustine, and his Companions, were not the first Converters of the Sax­ons, [Page 54] whose Queen Berta Stow, Chronicl. page 90. was Christia­ned long before, having a Bishop with her of incomparable Holiness, whose Name was Letardus. Neither were the Bri­tains conformable, till, almost two hun­dred years after, King Osuvius his incli­nation, and Ecbertus his blandishments betrayed them thereto: how ever it is not lawfull Ʋbi incurritur crimen Haeresis, ibi sides naufra­gium patitur, & perinde ratio verae Ecclesiae am [...]ti­tur. Perez. P [...]a [...]cuch. sid. vol. 1. cap. 14. for you to communicate with the Church of Rome being shame­fully Apostated, and not so much as a sound Member of the Catholick Church.

Gent.

Your own Doctours approve the Church of Rome to be a true Church; as expressly Bishop Hall in a Sermon, for which when he was checked, he Apologi­zed, that he had delivered the same twen­tie years before, at Paul's Cross, without controul, and appears to Doctour Dave­nant, Bishop of Salisbury, Doctour Pride­a [...]x, and Doctour Ward, Professours in the two Ʋniversities, Doctour Primrose, Preacher of the French Church in London; who all accord with him, as appeareth by their Determinations.

Minist.

They all accord (it is true) that the Church of Rome, in a Metaphy­sical sence, is a true Church: for so to be Veritas transcendentalis nihil positivum, & reale addit Enti. Eustachius, Metaphys. pag. 42. a Church, and a true Church is all one. Ens, & Verum convertuntur: nihil hoc modo falsum dici potest, nisi quod fictitium, & impossibile est. Every thing thus is True, and nothing (saith Eustachius, Meta­phys. pag. 43. Eustachius) can be called false, but that, which is fained, or impossible. So a Leprous, and Hecti­cally [Page 55] diseased Body, is a true body: a Mon­strous conception, a true conception. Thus the Church of Rome, though she hath lost Tot in Ecclesia ab­usus, & gravissimos mor­bos irrupisse, quibus ad sa­nitatis desperationem ferè laboret. Espenc. Com­ment. Tit. cap. 1. pag. 71. as much of her Primitive composure, as Jason's Ship did, and con­sisteth, in a great part, in a Patcherie of Traditions, hath not lost her truth. But they never acknowledged, the Church of Rome was a true Church, more then a Thief is a true man in a Moral sence, as being notoriously depraved. And, to prove, that the Church of Rome in this sence (which is the Question) is not a true Church, I will demonstrate four things. First, That it is corrupted in Doctrine, Secondly, In Manners. Thirdly, That Rome is Apocalyptical Babylon. Fourthly, That the Romish Hierarchie is Anti-Chri­stian.

Gent.

Prove these four, and concla­matum est, the Controversie is at an end.

Minist.

First, The Church of Rome is manifestly corrupted in Doctrine, and therein fallen from the Apostolick, and Primitive puritie. To give some Instan­ces; Christ Nec caro sine sangui­ne, nec sanguis sine carns, jure communicatur. Pa­schas. De corpore, & san­guine Domini, cap. 9. instituted, and gave the Sacrament in both kinds: They rob the Laitie of the one moitie, with a non ob­stante, in the Council of Constance; not­withstanding Christ appointed both Ele­ments: Sit Anathema, Let him be ac­cursed, that saith, one is not sufficient. Christ Non recedet liter Le­gis hujus ex ore tuo: sed meditaberis die, & nocte: ut observes facere omnia, quae scripta sunt in eo. Cyprian. Epist. 74. ad Pom peium. enjoyned the reading of the Scri­ptures, [...], Search the Scriptures: They forbid, and bring un­der [Page 56] the Inquisition all Lay-men, even Regulars unlicenced, that in known Lan­guage read the Scriptures. God saith, Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image: They wholly defalk the se­cond Commandment, and, to make up the Decade, Dichotomize the last. The Scripture saith, [...]psum conteret, The Seed of the woman (Christ) shall bruise the Ser­pent's Head; so See the several pla­ces, as they are quoted by Doctour Raynolds, Ad Anglic. Seminar. Hierom, Irenaeus, Cy­prian, Leo, Serapion, Moses Bar-cepha, Rupertus, Pererius, Isiodorus Clarius, Lipomanus, and St [...]uchus interpret it: Costerus the Jesuit, Picus de Mirandula, Canisius, Gregorie de Valentia, Guido Fa­bricius, maugre the Original, correct it, and make the Vulgar speak, Ipsa conteret, She (the Virgin Mary) shall bruise, &c. Anacletus, and Calixtus, both Bishops of Rome, decreed, Distinctio. 1. Episcop. & 2. pacta. that, after Consecration, all Dominica coena debet omnibus esse communis. Hieron. 1. Cor. xi. present should communicate, or else be thrust out of the Church: They enjoyn, and practise the celebration of Private Masses, onely by the Priests, while the people are Spectatours. In pri­vate Masses (saith In Missis privatis sufficit, si unus sit praesens, scilicet Minister: qui po­puli totius vicem gerit. A­quinas, part 3. Quaest. 83. Art. 5. Aqninas) it is suf­ficient, if there be one present, that is the Minister, that representeth the whole people. Saint Augustine, August. De side, & operibus. with all the Primitive Fathers interpret those words, 1. Cor. iii. 13. The fire shall trie every man's work of what sort it is, of the Fire of Tribulation. Bellarmine Bellarmin. De Purgat. lib. 1. cap. 5. rejects that, and, with his Romane Complices, interprets it of Purga­tory. Saint Augustine saith, Christ [Page 57] spake these words This is my Body, when he gave a sign of his body: Ro­mists say, It is Christ's very body; Ana­thematizing all, that deny Transubstantia­tion. Saint Augustine saith, with Scri­pture; Sine fide etiam, quae videntur, bona opera in peccatum vertuntur: The works, which are done without Faith, though they seem good, are turned into sin. Maldonate, Non sequendum illam opinionem, quam Triden­tinum Concilium nuper merito damnavit, Omnia infidelium opera esse peccata. Maldonat. Com­ment. in Matth. vii. 18. with the Council of Trent, saith, They are not sins. Saint Augustine Augustin. De meri­tis Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 34. saith, I know certain worshippers of Tombs, and Pictures, whom the Church condemn­eth: this the present Church of Rome approveth; whose Mouth Bellarmine is, saying, Bellarmin. De Imag. cap. 6. This Book was witten in the be­gining of Augustin's first conversion to the Catholick faith. And, as Rome is aposta­ted from the Apostolick, and Primitive Veritie, so even from of the ancient Do­ctrine of their former Bishops. Gregory the First, who lived six hundred years after the Nativitie, saith, Greg. Moral. lib. 19. cap. 13. Art. 6. We do not amiss, if we produce a testimony out of the Books of Maccabees, which, though they are not Ca­nonical, yet are they set forth for the edifi­cation, and instruction of the Church: The Council of Trent saith, Concil. Trident. Sess. 6. If any shall refuse the Books of Maccabees for Canonical Scri­pture, let him be accursed. Gregory saith, Gregor. in Ezek. lib. 1. Hom. 9. In hoc volumine omnia, quae erudiunt, cuncta, quae aedificant scripta, continentur; whatsoever serveth for edification, and instruction, is contained in the Volumes of the Scriptures: Romists say, Scripturae sine Tradi­tionibus nec fuerunt simpli­citer necessariae, nec suffici­entes. Bellarmin. De verbo Domini script. Et, Concil. Trident. Sess. 4. Decret. 1. Scri­pture, [Page 58] without Traditions, are neither simply necessarie, nor sufficient. Gregory saith, Gregor. in sex Psal. poe­n [...]ent. Christ giveth unto his Members the most holy Mysteries of his quickening Body, and Bloody, making a plain difference between the body of Christ offered on the Cross, and the Mysterie of that body offered in the Sacra­ment. The Church of Rome saith, Concil. Trident. Sess. 13. cap. 1. In the Sacrament of the Eucharist, after Con­secration, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God, and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the form of sensible things; that the Jesuit Holcot Holcot in 4. Sentent. Quaest. 3. professeth, If there had been a thousand Hosts in a thousand places, at that very time, when Christ hung upon the Cross, then had Christ been crucified in a thousand places. Gregory saith, Gregor. in lib. Ca­pitulari, capit. 7. apud Cassand. Liturg. 33. pag. 83. Sacerdos Missam solus ne celebret; Let not the Priest alone cele­brate Mass: The Trident Conventicle saith, Concil. Trident. Can. 8. Sess. 22. If any affirm, that Private Masses, in which the Priest alone doth sacramentally communicate, are unlawfull, and therefore ought to be abrogated; let him be accursed. Gregory faith, Gregor. in xxviii. 1. Job. lib. 18. cap. 32. There are some, that glory, that they are saved by their own strength, and brag, that they are redeemed by their own precedent merits; but herein they contradict themselves, for whilest they affirm, that they are innocent, and yet re­deemed, they frustrate the name of redem­ption in themselves. The Roman Prose­lytes say, Rhem. Annot. [...] Hebr. vi. 10. Good works are meritorious, and the very cause of Salvation, so far, that God should be unjust, if he rendered not [Page 59] heaven for the same. Gregory saith Gregor. lib. 7. Epist. 109. to Serenus, Bishop of Massilia; Your Bro­therhood, seeing certain Worshippers of I­mages, broke the Images, and cast them out of the Church; the Zeal, which you had, that nothing, made with hands, should be wor­shipped, we praise. The Church of Rome saith, Concil. Trident. Sess. 15. We teach, That the Images of Christ, the Virgin Mother of God, and other Saints, are chiefly in Churches to be had, and retained, and that due Honour, and Wor­ship is to be given to them Gregory saith, Gregor. lib. 6. Epist. 30. Mauritio. August. lib. 6. Epist. 24. Ego confidenter dico, &c. I confidently say, whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called the Universal Bishop, in the Pride of his heart, is the fore-runner of Anti-Christ. Romane Extravagants say, Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae definimus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. Bonifac. viii. in Extrag. We define, that every humane Creature, upon necessity of Salvation, must be subject to the Romane Bishop. I could bring you more of the same Bran, as of their depra­ving of Scriptures, Fathers, Councils, their Indices Expurgatorii, and forged Authours, if you will have the Patience to hear.

Gent.

No; This is sufficient, and more, then I could have believed; but that the Authours, you produce, are so pregnant. I beseech you, proceed to the Second Position, that The Church of Rome is manifestly corrupted in Manners.

Minist.

Your own Friends, and Fol­lowers testifie, that your Church hath been, for many Ages, notoriously de­filed with the Enormity of Vices. Gerson [Page 60] saith Gerson. Tomo 4. Epistol. Brugis script. pag. 71. in general Terms, that, from the crown of the head, to the sole of the foot, the ulcerous matter of enormous sin hath defiled, and deformed the whole body, and state of Christianitie living under your profession. In the Council of Basil, Concil. Basil. respons. Synodal. pag. 139. Suri­us. it was affirmed, that all Ecclesiastical, and Christian Discipline was, in a manner, ex­tinguished in every place. In the Late­ran Council, that Oppression, Rapine, Adulterie, Incest, and all pestilent Vice, did confound all Sacred, and Profane things; and that Ita in fanctā Navicu­lam impetum facere, ut penè scelerum fluctibus illa latus dederit, & propè mersa, & pessundata sit. Oratio Aegidii, Concil. Lateran. sub Julio ii. the same beat Saint Peter's Ship so impetuously, that it began to hull, or wallow upon the one side. Pla­tina saith, Platina in Marcello 1. Vices were so exalted, and multiplyed, that they hardly left any space for God's Mercy. Macchiavel saith, Macchiavel. Disp. De Republ. lib. 1. cap. 12. pag. 73. There is no place, wherein there is found so litle Pietie, and Religion, as in those people, who dwell nearest Rome. Espenceus saith, Espenc. Comment. Tit. cap. 1. pag. 71. that you have not onely imitated, and matched, but surpassed all the Avarice, Ambition, Lubricitie, and Tyrannie, that was ever heard of amongst the Heathens. Sundry of your own part have written Volumes, [as Alvares Pelag. De planctus Eccles. Alvares Pelagius, Nicho­laus Clemangis, Onus Ecclesiae] contain­ing the Narrations of the outragious wickedness, which reigned among you. Platina Platina, in Johanne xiii. stiles your Grand-fathers Monsters of mankind. In the Council of Constance Concil. Const. Sess. 11. Art. 5. they are called the Dregs of Vice, incarnate Devils. Aventine saith, Aventin. Annal. Boiorum, lib. 3. pag. 211. Nothing was more luxurious, covetous, [Page 61] and proud, then Priests; they spent the Church's Patrimony in gluttonie, riot, upon Dogs, and Queans; and all their Preaching was to maintain their own licentiousness. Matthew Paris saith, Matthaeus Paris, Chron. in Henrico iii. pag. 535. The Prelats of Rome seek not to make people devout, but to fill their Coffers with treasure: They stu­dy not to win Souls; but to encroach upon other mens revenues: They oppress the Godly, and impudently usurp other mens right: They have no care of honestie, or right▪ King John of England, from whom Pope Innocent extorted fourtie thousand Marks at once, and twelve thousand annually, to absolve his Kingdom being Interdicted, said, that Matthaeus Paris, ibid. Anno 1213. pag. 327. He had learned by wofull expe­rience, that the Pope was ambitious beyond all men living, an insatiable Gulf, and thirster after money, and ready, for hope of Gain, like wax, to be moulded to any thing, kind, or degree of wickedness. Alvarez hath these words, Alvarez De planct [...] Ecclesiae, lib 2. Artic. 5. literâ Aleph. Vide Suriū Tomo 4. Concil. pag. 820, 824, 569, 579. Abbatem Usperg. anno 99. Luit­prand. Vit. Pap. lib. 6. cap. 6. Dionys. Carthus. Epist. in sine Comment. Apocal. Petrum Blesens. pag. 39, & 40. The Mystical Sion, the Church, which, in her Primitive state, was adorned of her Spouse with such, and so many Royal Graces, is now clouded, and eclipsed with the black mist of ignorance, iniquitie, and errour, and we behold her cast down from heaven, as a Desert unin­habited of virtue: and, if any godly people remain, they are esteemed as Arabians, and Sarracens. The Prelates of the Church are an army of Devils, potius depraedandis, & spoliandis, & scandalizandis hominibus; quam lucris animarum operam dantes: they rather labour to rob, spoil, and scan­dalize [Page 62] men, then to win souls. The con­sideration of which moved Cornelius, Bi­shop of Bitanto, in an Oration at the Council of Trent, to express himself thus; Ʋtinam à religione ad superstitionem, à fide ad infidelitatem, à Christo ad Anti-Christum, à Deo ad Epicurum, velut pror­sus unanimes, non declinâ­ssent: Dicentes in corde impio, & ore imputencio, non est Deus. Epist. Bi­tant. in Concile Trident. O would to God they (meaning the Romish Prelates, and Dependants) had not fallen with common consent, and that altogether, from true Religion to Superstition, from Faith to Infidelitie, from Christ to Anti­christ, from God to Epicurus; saying, with a wicked heart, and shameless mouth, There is no God.

Gent.

This is a loud Out-cry, and I am convinced, that our Church was in a great part guilty; but part of this might be kindled from Factions, and Interests; as, at this present, with you, each Sect studies to disparage the other, and render them ignominious.

Minist.

You might have said so, if I had cited against you, the Evidences of the Albigenses, Waldenses, Wicklifists, Lollards, Taborites, Poor men of Lyons, who were Dissenters from you in Judge­ment; but the Authours I produced, are unbiassed with Partiality, and wholly your own bosom-Friends; who, out of a Sym­pathy, bewailed the Rottenness in their own Bones. No wonder, if, amongst us, Civil Wars have untwisted the Cords of Discipline, and that hath begot Liberty; Liberty, Diversity of Opinions; Diversi­ty of Opinions, Difference in Affections; hence every latter endeavours to rout the former: as the Anabaptists whosoe­ver [Page 63] went before them; the Quakers would dismantle them. It is as antient, as Hostility, for the prevailers to asperse, and burthen the conquered, as they please. But, even in calm Times, the offences of your Church in this Nation were so outragious, that Gulielmus Nu­brigensis, Gulielmus Nubri­gensis, lib. 2. cap. xvi. Roger Hoveden, Anndl. part. post. an Historian of your own, confesses, that the Judges complained to the King, that there were many Robbe­ries, and Rapes, and Murders, to the number of an hundred, committed within the Realm, by Ecclesiastical Persons, in the Compass of one year. And the very Tendency of your Romish Doctrine is to Licentiousness: For, saith Aventine, Quemcunque sceleris obnoxium, Parricidio, In­cestu, Sacrilegio pollutum, continuò, ubi cruciculam vesti assuisset, solutum esse & crimine, & poenâ, d [...] ­clamitabant; quippe, ans [...] hinc acceptâ, inimicos suos prius tollebant, hinc in militiam sacram nomine dabant. Aventin. Annal. Boior. lib. 7. pag. 530. they declare any man guilty of wickedness, contaminated with Parricide, Incest, Sa­crilege, as soon as he hath sewed a Crucifix to his Garment, to be quit from the Crime, and Punishment; which lays open a great Gap to Wickedness; for many first mur­der their Enemies, and then retreat into a Monastery for Sanctuary, and, under the covert of a Cowl, secure themselves. And your Sanctuaries are Harbours, and Dens of Assassines, and other enormous Delinquents tolerated, and supported by your Church; you openly maintain Stews, and receive Nam & Mariscallus Papae de facto eximit [...] ­butum à Meretricibus. Constit. Otho. De con­cubitu Cler. yearly Tribute, and part stake with Harlots.

Gent.

I always disliked those Sanctu­aries, that were receptacles of Murde­rers, and Assassines, as also toleration of Stews. But, admit the Church of Rome [Page 64] be somewhat corrupted both in Doctrine, and Manners, yet I cannot conceive it is become so vile, as to be that Apocaly­ptical Babylon, which is your third Position; because, in Scripture, Rome is never call­ed Babylon.

Minist.

Whether Rome, in Scripture, be ever called Babylon, is not much mate­rial; though Jesuits, for want of beter Arguments, prove, that Peter was at Rome, from 1 Pet. v. 15. The Church, which is at Babylon (that is Rome, say they) saluteth you: but Babylon is not taken here literally, either for Babel in Aegypt, called now Cairus; or for that Babylon in Chaldee Justin. Histor. lib. .1 begun by Nimrod, and finished by Ninus, and Semiramis: but figuratively, as your own Jesuit Ribe­ra confesses; saying, Hoc primum constet, nomen Babylonis hic non propriè; sed figuratè ac­cipi: cum dicit mysterium mysticum esse dicit, quod indicat id est arcanum, quippiam latere in nomine Babylonis, nec ità debere accipi, ut sonat. Ribera in Apocal. xiv. Let this be first a­greed upon, the name of Babylon here not to be taken properly, but figuratively: when he saith a Mystery, he shews that to be mystical, he speaks of, that is some hidden thing to be couched in the name of Babylon, and not so to be taken as it soundeth.

Gent.

But, if Babylon be taken mysti­cally, must it necessarily be interpreted of Rome?

Minist.

Yes; Jesuits of Rhemes upon Revel. xvii. 5. your Divines of Rhemes are forced to confess, that the first persecuting Emperours were but Fi­gures, and it may well be, that the great Anti-Christ shall sit in Rome also, as his Figures sat in Rome: Bellarmine (p) not only confesses Babylon is Rome, but [Page 65] proves it by the Testimonies of antient Fathers. Ribera saith, Romae conveniunt aptissimè omnia, qua de Babylone dicuntur, at­que illud inprimis, quod alii convenire non potest, Septem capita septem sunt montes. Ribera in Apocalyp. cap. 14. Whatsoever in the Apocalypse is spoken of Babylon agrees most properly to Rome, especially that, which can agree to no other, The seven Heads are seven Hills.

Gent.

But none of them, that I re­member; interprets it of Rome in the pre­sent state, as now.

Minist.

No; for that were to yield up their Arms; but they are forced to mi­serable shifts, and to speak the Language of Babel, confounding one another. Bel­larmine saith; By Babel is meant Ethnica Roma sub Imperatoribus, Heathen Rome under Emperors. Viega saith, Sermo non est deantiqua illa Roma, sed de illa, quae flore­bit in extremo mundi tempore: The Speech is not of old Rome, but of Rome, as it shall be in the last time of the World. Ribera joyns both together, saying, Quicquid mali de Roma scribitur in hac A­pocalypsi, vel ad tempus illud spectat, quo Gentili­bus Imperatoribus servi­ebat, vel Pontificatum suum à se ejecerat. Ribera in Apocalys. cap. 14. Whatso­ever evil is spoken of Rome, in this Apoca­lypse, pertains either to that Rome, which was subject to Heathen Emperours, or to that Rome, that will eject the Bishop of Rome. For they grant the Pope will be cast out of Rome, and that the Citie will be ruinated. Thus you see, how they reel, Some say Rome was Babylon; others say, it will be; none deny, that Babylon, spoken of by Saint John for the chief Seat, and Citie of Anti-Christ, is Rome.

Gent.

I confess, they are brought into great straits, when forced to confess, that Rome is Babylon; but they have one [Page 66] main Fort yet untaken, which is this, This present Rome under Popes is not Ba­bylon.

Minist.

Either this present Rome is Babylon, or Heathenish Rome under Em­perours, or that at the end of World: but neither of the later; therefore present Rome is Babylon. The Proposition is their own confession, the branches of the As­sumption I will prove in order.

First, Not Heathen Rome, under perse­cuting Emperours, was Babylon; for the Times of this Mystical Babylon, and Anti-Christ do [...], and are contempora­nean: but Anti-Christ succeeded the persecuting Heathen Emperours; which Viega confesses, for, having spoken of them, he saith, Haec est quarta Visio hujus operis, eaque illu­strissima, & ad Anti-Christi tempora pertinens. Viega. This is the fourth Vision of this work, and that most remarkable, and pertaining to the times of Anti-Christ. With him accords the Jesuit Ribera; who, having finished his Discourse of the Empe­rours, comes to the second part of the Book, which, he saith, Est hujus libri pars secunda, & tota ad Anti-Christum, ejúsque tem­pora pertinet. Ribera, à cap. 12. ad 21. wholly pertains to Anti-Christ, and his Times.

Secondly, Heathenish Rome had never been marryed to Christ; but Carthusian, their own man, interprets Babylon Meretricem adulte­ram. Carthus. in locum. an adulterous Whore, who had fallen from Christ, and committed spiritual fornicati­on. There must be [...], a standing in Faith, before there can be [...], a fall­ing from Faith.

Thirdly, This Whore of Babylon hath a Golden Cup in her hand full of abomina­tions; [Page 67] Revel. xvii. 4. This Golden cup, saith Berengandus, Documenta erroribus plena. Berengandus in locum. is Documents full of errours: but Pagan Rome subdued the World by Sword, not false Doctrine, and Miracles.

Fourthly, This Babylon is called [...]. the Mother of Fornications, Revel. xvii. 5. which not onely, her self, played the Whore, corrupting the true Worship of God, but enforcing her Corruptions, and superstitions, upon others: But Heathen Rome infected not other Nations with su­perstitions, but was rather infected with the superstitions of others, erecting her Pantheon in honour of all Gods.

Fifthly, Saith Carthusian, one of your own, This Babylon est Mysterium, in quo aliud cernitur, aliud intelligitur; A My­sterie, wherein one thing is seen, another thing understood. Quia enim tot simu­latis vi [...]utibus decoratur, non omnibus mulieris hu­jus pravitas innotescit, sed viris justis, & prudentibus. Hieron. in Daniel. 1. Because, she is embelished with so many fained Virtues, the pravitie of this Strumpet appears not to all, but to the just, and prudent: Simulabit se Ducem Foe­deris; (saith Saint Hierom) she shall fain her self to be chief of the New Cove­nant. But we never find, that Heathen­ish Rome put on this Veil of Sanctitie, or ostentaciously set her self forth with the Dress of Hypocrisie, or spake lyes in hypocri­sie, 1 Timoth. 14. 2. which is her Character.

Gent.

It is clear enough from these Characters, that Pagan Rome was not this Babylon; prove, That Rome is Babylon already, and we need no further discovery at the end of the world.

Minist.
[Page 68]

First, Observe, that the Wo­man John saw sitting upon the Beast, is that great Citie, which had rule over the Kings of the Earth; Rev. xvii. 18. and that is confessed to be Rome.

Secondly, The Beast, that was, and is not, and [...]. sic legit Editio Complu­ [...]ensis, Primasius, & Syrus Interpres. yet shall be, Apoc. xvii. 8. who carried the Whore, is the Romane Government.

Thirdly, This Beast, which carried the Whore, had seven Heads, which were se­ven manner of Governments, Quorum quidem quinque, Regum, Consu­lum, Tribunorum, Decem­virorum, Dictatorum, Jo­hannis aevo jam praeteri­erunt. Mede, Comment. Apoc. pag. 260. whereof five were expired in Saint John's time, to wit, Kings, Consuls, Tribunes, Decem­virs, Dictatours; the sixth was then in being, which was shortly to fail, that was the Romane Empire, which hath been taken from Rome above twelve hundred years. The seventh Head is Novissimâ illius (putà Pontisi [...]i [...]) capitis vice, qua demum [...]ajularet Meretricem. Mede, su­pra. that of the Popes, which ever since succeeded the decaied Emperours, and this is that, which carries this Mystical Whore.

Fourthly, These ten Horns of the Beast, that the last Head was adorned withall, are ten Kingdoms not known in Saint John's time, but arising out of the disso­lution of the Romane Empire. 1st, Vorti­mer of the Britains. 2ly, Hengist of the Saxons. 3ly, Childeric of the Franks. 4ly, Gunderick of the Burgundians. 5ly, Riciarius of the Alamans. 6ly, Genseri­cus of the Vandals. 7ly, Theodoricus of the Wisi-Goths. 8ly, Sumanus of the Alamans. 9ly, Theodemir of the Ostro-Goths. 10ly, Marcian of the Grecians. [Page 69] These are characterized to be Contempo­ranean with this Apocalyptical Babylon.

Fifthly, These ten Horns, under the Ban­ner of the false Prophet, that fight against the Lamb, are those ten Kingdoms, that have fought under the conduct of the Pope against Christ; but he rides on upon his White horse, conquering, and will conquer. Which is so evident, that Viega, Nobis etiam iliud d [...] ­cendum videtur cum Are­tha, Primasio, Ambro­sio, Ansberto. Haimone. Idololatriam ejus verbis si­gnificari, defecturamque esse Romam fide, atque adeò futuram esse habitatio­nem Daemoniorum, ob exe­cranda fiagitia, & Idolo­latriae superstitionē. Viega, in locum. after a long Dispute, is forced to conclude, that he is of the same judgment with Arethas, Primasius, Ambrose, Ansbert, Haimon, that Idolatrie is signified, and that Rome shall Apostate from the Faith, and become an habitation of Devils, for her execrable crimes, and superstitious Idolarrie. Thus you see this painted Strumpet described, as if she had been Emblemed by Messalli­na Augusta, in the Satyrist, Juvenal. Satyr. 6.

—Nuda papillis
Constitit auratis, titulum mentita Lyciscae.
Gent.

Well you have made this more probable, then I imagined; prove also your last Position, that The Romish Hie­rarchie is Antichristian, and I will yield you the Church of Rome is not the true Church.

Minist.

I shall supererogate in this, and prove, that the Hierarchist, or Bi­shop of Rome himselfe is Anti-Christ.

Gent.

That will be strange News in the Vaticane, where they are possest, that An­ti-Christ is a Jew of the Tribe of Dan, that should sit in Jerusalem.

Minist.
[Page 70]

That is a Fable, which even your own Jesuits reject: amongst whom Viega In hâc multa sunt, ad quae Visio invita, & repugnans trahitur. Viega, in Apocalyps. xvii. proclaims, it can never be re­conciled to the Apocalyptical Vision. For Anti-Christ must not sit at Jerusalem; but be eminently visible in the Church: where­fore the Apostle saith, 2 Thess. ii. 3. Let no man deceive you by any means; for this day shall not come, except there come [...], a falling away first, and that man of sin be re­vealed, that Son of perdition. The Anti­ents, among whom Saint Augustine, in­terpret this of Anti-Christ's falling from the Faith. Nulli dubium est, e­um de Anti-Christo ista dixisse. August. De Civi­tate Dei, lib. 20. cap. 19. No man doubts, saith he, but the Apostle spake that of Anti-Christ. Aquinas is of the same Judgment.

Gent.

We deny not, but it is meant of a defection from Faith, and of Anti-Christ, but how reacheth it the Pope? may not Luther, and Calvine be as well struck at here, who Apostated from the Church of Rome.

Minist.

No; for this Anti-Christ is further characterized, 1 Timoth. iiii. 1. that he shall depart from the Truth, at­tending to spirits of errour, and Doctrine of Devils. What is that? they shall for­bid marriage, and abstinence from meats, which God hath created to be received with Thanks-giving. When did ever Luther, Calvin, or any of their Followers so? it is apparent, the Pope forbids marriage to all in Holy Orders, interdicts meats, and that under penaltie of Death. Saint Paul saith further, 2 Thess. ii. 7. The Mysterie of [Page 71] iniquitie worketh, onely he, which now withholdeth, will lett it, till he be taken out of the way. All interpret this of the exstir­pation of the Romane Empire. So ex­presly Tertullian. Donec de medio fiat: quis nisi Romanus status? cujus abscissio in decem Reges Anti-Christum su­perinduest, & tunc reve­labitur iniquus. Tertull. De resurrect. carnis. Till he be taken out of the way, saith he, till the Romane State be defalked, whose division into ten King­doms will bring in Anti-Christ, and then that Wicked one shall be revealed. Cy­ril saith, Non priùs vemet Do­minus, quàm regni Ro­mani defectus fiat, & ap­pareat Anti-Christus, qui interficiet Sanctos. Cyril. Carthus. The Lord will not come before there be a defection of the Romane Empire, and Anti-Christ appear, who will slay the Saints. Hilarie saith, Hisar. contra Au­xentium. Anti-Christ shall come, when the times of the Romane Empire shall be com­pleated, and that he shall sit in the same Temple, we now honour, and shall be contrary unto Christ sub specie Euange­licae praedicationis, under the pretext of preaching the Gospel: and we know none, except the Pope, who hath risen by the fall of the Empire, in so much, that now the Imperial Seat, Robes, Crown, Rents, and all except the mere Title, and spread-Eagle are his. A Third Chara­cter of Anti-Christ is, 2 Thess. ii. 4. that He shall sit in the Temple of God, shewing himself, as if he were God. As the Hea­then Emperours sate in the Capitol, pre­scribing Rules to all captivated Nations: so the Pope in the Vatican, dictating Ca­nons to all Churches. So Saint Hierom; Anti-Christus simu­labit se Ducent Foederis; hoc est, Legis, & Testa­menti Dei. Hieron. in Da [...]. x. Anti-Christ shall fain himself to be Head of the Covenant; that is of the Law, and Testament of God. And the Jesuits of [Page 72] Rhemes Divines of Rhemes supra locum. confess; That Anti-Christ, if ever he were in the Church, shall be an Apostate, or Renegado out of the Church, and shall usurp upon it by Ty­rannie, and by challenging Religion, and Government thereof, so that he him­self shall be adored in all the Churches of the world; this is to sit in the Tem­ple of God.

Gent.

It is apparent, that the Pope sit­teth in the Temple of God, and by his Superlative Grandeur overtops the Church. But how doth that other part of the Character also belong unto him, that he shews himself, as if he were God?

Minist.

By assuming to himself, with Herod, the Name, Attributes, and Honour of God. Christopher Marcellus used this Elogie to him in the second Lateran Council, Tues alter Deus in terris; Thou art a second God upon the Earth. The Canonists stile him Dominum Deum Pa­pam, The Lord God the Pope. It is their own expression, Dicere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam non potuisse statuere, prout statuit, Haereticum est. Extravag. Joan. xxii. To say, that our Lord God the Pope might have decreed otherwise, then he hath decreed, is Heretical. And, that they Deifie him, these blasphemous Panegyricks may let you see, Si Papa, suae, & fraternae salut [...]s negligens, innumerabiles secum ducat catervas in Geheunam, hu­jusmodi culpam nullus mortalium praesumat red­arguere. Distinct. 4. cap. Si Papa. If the Pope, secure of his own, and others Salva­tion, should carrie with him innumerable Souls by heaps into Hell, no mortal man may presume to reprove his faults: And That Quòd facta Papae excusantur, ut Homicidiū Sampsonis, Furta He­braeorum, & Adulterum Jacobi. Distinct. 40. The evil deeds of the Pope are to be excused, as the Self-murther of Sampson, the Theft of the Hebrews, and Adulterie of Jacob.

Gent.
[Page 73]

All the Characters are manifest­ly convertible with the Pope, yet I won­der, that there was no more notice taken of it in former Ages, if he be the [...], that signal Anti-Christ.

Minist.

What greater notice could be, then that both Heathens, and Christians have marked it nigro carbone, with black Obelisks. Sibylla said Sibylla, Oraculorum cap. 8. He should be [...], white-headed: so the Bishop of Rome weareth solemnly, on his Head, a white Miter of Silver adorned with three Crowns, and Pretious Sones; or [...], having many heads, as by Saint John the Beast of seven Heads: That he should be called by a Name much like Pontus, which suits with his Title in La­tine PONTIFEX; and That the Seat of his Empire should be upon the Banks of Tyber. Irenaeus, speaking of the number of the Beast's Name, six hundred sixtie six, saith, Irenaeus, lib. 5. that [...] valde verisimile est; An­ti-Christ very likely will be a Latine, or I­talian. Tertullian saith, Babylon apud Jo­annem Romanae urbis Figura est, perinde magnae, & de Rege suo superbae, & Sanctorum Dei bellatricis. Tertull. Contra Marcion. that Babylon in Saint John is a Figure of the Romane Citie, very great, and proud of her King, (Anti-Christ) a Persecutour of the Saints of God. Gregory (who was immediate Pre­decessour to Boniface the Third, from whom, till Pompey's subduing of Syria to the Romane Empire, were six hundred sixtie six Years) saith, Rèx superbiae prope est, &, quod dici nefas est, Sacerdotum et exercitus praeparatur. Gregor. lib. 4. Epist. 38. The King of Pride is at hand, and, which is irreverent to say, an Armie of Priests is made readie for him. In the Abbey of Saint Edmonds-Bury, in [Page 74] Suffolk, the Storie of Anti-Christ was Painted, and he Pictured in a Glass-Win­dow, in the Habit of the Pope wearing his Triple Crown, attended with Monks, Friers, Priests, and Cardinals, stopping their Ears against Enoch, and Elias, and persecuting them, that hearkened to their Preaching: a Transumpt of which was to be seen in Sir John Croft's House of Sax­ham, near Bury. Thetgand, Bishop of Trevir, above seven hundred Years ago, calls the Bishop of Rome Anti-Christ, a Wolf, an Ʋsurper of Dominion, a Deceiver of Christendom, and Rome he calls Babylon. Joachim an Abbot, who lived almost four hundred Years since, said, Joachim. Abbas in 2 Thess. ii. Anti-Chri­stus jamdudum natus est in Roma, & altius extolletur in Sede Apostolica; Anti-Christ long since is born in Rome, and shall be ad­vanced yet higher in the Apostolick Seat. Francis Petrarch, Arch-Deacon of Par­ma, who lived in the thousand, three hundred, and fiftieth Year, compares Petrarch. Epist. 5. 14, 17, 18, 19. the Pope to Judas, who betrayed Christ with a Kiss; his Clergie to the Jews, who said, Ave Rex Judaeorum; his Pre­lates to the Pharisees, who, in mockery, clothed him in Purple, and after Cruci­fied him: and again, Deny, if thou canst, that thou art She, whom Saint John saw sitting upon many Waters, thou art She, and none other, that Babylon, the Mother of Whoredoms of the Earth, drunken with the Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus; thou art She, who hast made all Kings of the Earth [Page 75] drunken with the cups of thy poyson. The like Oration Sub Pontificis Ma­ximi titulo, Pastoris pelle lupum saevissimum (nisi caecisimus) sentimus, Ro­mani Flamines arma ha­bent in omnes Christianos, audendo, fallendo, & bel­la ex bellis ferendo, magni facti, oves trucidant. In Synodo Reginoburgensi, lib. 2. cap. 5. Doctour James, in his Epistle Dedicatorie before his Book, Of the Corru­ption of the Fathers, &c. was delivered by a Bishop against the Pope in the Synod of Regino­burg, part thereof, being Anti-Christ's Description, was, In cujus fronte Contume­liae nomen scriptum est; In whose forehead (the Pope's) the word MYSTERIE, the mark of the Beast, was in those days writ­ten. By this, I hope, you see, That the Church of Rome is neither the Catholick Church, nor the Head thereof; That Communion with Rome is not necessarie; That the Romane Church is not the Mo­ther Church, That neither our British no, nor our Saxon Church ows her conver­sion to her; That Communion with Rome is not lawfull, in so much as she is not a sound Member of the Catholick Church, as be­ing notoriously corrupted in Doctrine, and Manners; That Rome is that Apoca­lyptical Babylon; and the Romish Hierar­chie, Anti-Christ.

Gent.

You have so evidently declared this out of authentick Authours, void of exception, that I have no more to say; but desire you to proceed to the third Article.

The Third Article.

And, That there is not any Transub­stantiation in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the Ele­ments of Bread, and Wine, after Consecration thereof by any person whatsoever.

Minist.

THis is identically the same with the twentie eight Article of the Church of England, wherein is expressed; That The Transubstantiation of Bread, and Wine, in the Eucharist cannot be Non potest per ullam Scripturam probari. Jo­ann. Fisher. Contra Ca­ptivit. Babylon. proved by Sacred Writ: but is contrarie to John vi. 51, 53, 54. evident Testimonies of Scripture, and over­throws the nature of a Sacrament, and gives occasion of many Superstitions.

Gent.

Is Transubstantiation contrary to Scripture? when Christ, in the insti­tution thereof, saith expressly, Matth. xxvi. 26. Take, eat, this is my Body: whereupon your own Casaubon confesses, Casaubon. Respon. ad Caedinalem Peton. pag. 399, 400. Praesentiam credimus, non minus, quam vos veram; We (Protestants) believe a presence, no less true, then you.

Minist.

Real, or true presence is twofold.

[Page 77]

Either by Faith, whereby the true Bo­dy of Christ in the Sacrament is eaten spi­ritually, not corporally. By reason of the relative union between the Elements, and things signified, this is a real presence (as Cajetan Manducatur verum corpus Christi in Sacra­mento; sed non corporaliter, sed spiritualiter: spiritualis manducatio, quae per ani­mam fit, ad Christi car­nem in Sacramento existen­tem pertingit. Cajetan. Tom. 2. Tract. 2. De Eucharist. cap. 5. confesses) but it will not infer Transubstantiation, or a corporal presence, when the the thing signified is, in the na­tural substance thereof, contained under the outward, and visible signs: this is the Transubstantiation, which we denie.

And the Presence acknowledged by us, though expressed by figurative Speeches, is as real Figuratio locutionis veritatem rei non perimit. Rupert. in Joann. lib. 6. pag. 131. as theirs:

For first, a Mystical Head is really present to the Mystical Body, which is taught in Scripture by Tropical Expressi­ons; Psalm xlv. Canticles, Ephes. v. John xv.

Secondly, our Saviour's words about the other part of the Sacrament, (to wit, This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood, Luke xxii. 20.) is confessed by the Romists Non negamus in verbo Calix Tropum esse. Bel. larm. De Eucharist. lib. 1. cap. 11. themselves to be figurative: why may not this as well?

Gent.

But our Catholick Writers have taught, that Transubstantiation may be gathered from those words of Consecrati­on; and that they are not figurative.

Minist.

Here you affirm two things First, That your Catholick Writers taught, that Transubstantiation may be gathered from the words of Consecration: Second­ly, That they are not figurative.

For the former, your Doctour Fisher, [Page 78] once Bishop of Rochester, ingenuously confesses, that Hactenus Matthae­us, qui & solus Testamen­ti Novi meminit, neque ullum hic verbum positum est, quo probetur in nostra Missa veram fieri carnis, & sangiuins, Christi prae­sentiam. Fisher. Contra Captivit. Babylon. There is not somuch as one word there, whereby the real bodily presence of the flesh, and blood of Christ can be proved in the Mass; no nor in any Scripture else: these are his words, Non potest per ullam Scripturam probari. So you see, it is acknowledged, that your Popish Transubstantiation is Scripture­less.

For the latter, That the words of Christ, This is my Body, are not taken fi­guratively, but Substantia panis nun­quam est corpus Christi, quamvis convertatur in i­psum. Richard. 4. Dist. 11. in sine Art. qu. 9. 6. properly, consider these Arguments.

First, If the Elements of Bread, and Wine, remain in their specifical Nature without alteration, even after Consecrati­on, as before, then the Words must needs be figurative; for one individual substance cannot be predicated of another property: but I shall prove anon by Scriptures, and Fathers, That the Elements of Bread, and Wine, remain in their specifi­cal Nature without alteration, even after Consecration, as before.

Secondly, The Body, and Blood of Christ would be delivered, and received without the Soul, and Deitie of Christ. For, in propriety of Speech, the Body is distinguished from the Blood, and Soul. If the Body be onely received, as the letter purports, then Christ is dead, his Soul, and Blood, separated from his Body. If by Body, Blood and Soul be also meant, it is a Synecdochical, and so a figura­tive [Page 79] Expression; the part put for the whole. This Dilemma is not easilie an­swered.

Thirdly, That, which Christ delivered to be participated by his Disciples, he did Sacramentally eat, and drink himself; Luke, xxii. 15. as Hieron. Ad Hedib. Qu. 2. Saint Hierom, Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 83. Saint Chrysostom, Euthym. in Matth. xxvi. cap. 64. Euthymius, with Aquin. 3. Quaest. 81. Art. 1. Vasques. in 3. Disp. 2. Conclusio est af­firmans, in qua omnes Ca­tholici, quos ego legerim, plane conveniunt. Sic. Vas­quez. many Schole-men, affirm: but, if the words be literally interpreted, then he did eat his own Flesh, and drink his own Blood, which the Cannibals abhor.

Fourthly, If the Words be understood literally, then Christ gave his passible, and mortal Body to his Disciples: but a passi­ble, and mortal Body could not be recei­ved of several Communicants, and so be in several places at once, could not wholly be contained in a piece of Bread, be di­vided into parts, without sensible effusion of Blood: But Bellarmine avers, Corpus exhibitum Apostolis, & sumptum ab ipso Christo Domino, vereerat passibile. Bellarm. De Eucharist. lib. 2. cap. 14. That The Body Christ gave his Disciples, and they received, was a passible Body.

Fifthly, If our Saviour's Words be li­terally expounded, then Verum corpus Christi manet adhuc sub speciebus à Brutorum ore acceptis. Turre-Cremata. Dogs, and Swine may eat the Flesh, and drink the Blood of the Son of man: but all, that eat the Flesh, and drink the Blood of the Son of man, have everlasting life; John vi. 49, 50.

Sixthly, If our Saviour's Words were literal, and plain, they themselves could not be so distracted, and divided about the sence thereof: but they are notori­ously divided, as Vasques confesses, (p) In­gens (q) Vasques in 3. Thom. Tom. 3. [Page 80] inter Catholicos de horum verborum sensu est controversia; There is a great Controversie amongst the Catholicks, of the sence of these words. And Suarez saith, Catholici in tanta opinionum varietate sunt constituti, ut singulatim eas recensere, nimis molesiū esset. Suarez, in 3. part. Thomae. Catholicks are in such variety of opini­ons, that, to reckon them severally, were too troublesom.

Gent.

What varietie of Opinions? I had thought, that there had been summa pax, a compleat Harmonie.

Minist.

No; for in every word their different Conceipts outstrip the number of Letters.

First, For the subject of the Proposition, Turre-Cremata saith, Turre-Cremata, De Consecrat. Dist. 2. That The Pro­noun This signifieth nothing; so the sense would be, Nothing is my Body. Alexan­der of Hales saith, Alexander Hales, 4. q. 10. m. 4. Artic. 2. Sect. 3. Hoc, id est, Panis transubstantiandus in corpus meum, est corpus meum: This, that is the Bread to be transubstantiated into my Body, is my Body. Bonaventure saith, Pronomen demonstrat Panis substantiam sub Accidentibus, quae oculis conspici potest. Bonavent. 4. Dist. 8. Art. 1. It signifies the Accidents, and Forms of Bread. O­thers say, Suarez, in 3. partem Thomae, Disp. 58. It signifies the Body of Christ: Others say, It signifieth confusedly that, which is couched under the Forms. And all of these have their Daedalian Windings, Labyrinths, and Limitations.

Secondly, For the Copula, or Verb Sub­stantive Est, Is, Aquinas Aquinas, 3. q. 75. Art. 8. Art. qu. 78. expounds it by Continetur: Under these forms my Body is contained. Bellarmine Bellarm. De Eu­char. lib, 1. cap. 11. interprets it by Erit; This shall be my Body. Marsilius Marsil. 4. qu. 6. Art. 1. by Transmutatur; It is changed, and converted into my Body.

[Page 91]

Thirdly, For the Predicate, corpus me­um, My Body; some make it materia prima, the first matter of Christ's Body; and that is common with the Bread, and needs no Transubstantiation: Others Corpus materiatum, the materiate Body, with the reasonable Soul; Others an organized Body without reference to a living Body; Others a living Body. Du­rand Durand. 4. Dist. 10. q. 4. makes it a Body (indeed bodyless) without quantitie, dimensions, or parts: Occham Occham, 4. Dist. 10. q. 4. a body having quantitie, without extention, figure, and order of parts: Bel­larmine Bellarm. De Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 4. lib. 1. cap. 2. & 14. a Body, having dimensions, without external relation to place, or ubi, a Body without matter: like Angels, and Spirits, which he resembles by the image of man's face reflecting in a Glass. A Body (saith Suarez, in 3. partem Thomae, Disp. 52. Suarez) having the stature of a man (palpable contradiction) and yet contained in every crumb of Bread.

Thus the Romists incurr that of the Poet.

Horat. Satyra 1. Dum vitant vitia, in contraria currunt:

For to avoid one Figure, or Metonymie in our Saviour's Words, they are forced to forge innumerable Figures (sixteen at the least, as Bishop Jewel hath observed) to make it a phantastical Body, or rather Chimera, or Ens fictum impossibile, a Body bodyless.

Gent.

But the antient Fathers, and our Scholemen agree, That this Conversion, though mysterious, and inscrutable, is by Transubstantiation.

Minist.
[Page 92]

Nothing less: for Tonstal, one of your own, confesses, Deo modo, quo id sic­ret satius erat curiosum quenquam relinquere suae conjecturae, sicut liberum fuit ante Concilium La­teranum. Tonstal. De Euchar. lib. 1. pag. 46. That for the manner, how this is Christ's Body, it were beter to leave everie curious Fellow to his own conjecture, as it was free before the Lateran Council. Lombard, Master of the Sentences, saith, Si autem quaeritur, Qualis sit illa conversio, an Formalis, an Substantialis, vel alterius generis? definire non sufficio. Lombard. Sent. 4. Dist. 11. That he is not able to define the manner of conversion in the Sa­crament. Bandinus, Sent. D. Sacr. pag. 367. Some affirm one way, some another. We say, with Saint Augustine, The Mysterie is safely believed, but not with safety searched into. Cyril of Alexan­dria saith, Cyril. in Joan. lib. 4. cap. 13. We ought firmly to believe the Holy Mysterie; but let us never in Matters thus sublime, so much as imagine to utter the manner how, the manner how this is done can neither be conceived by the mind, nor expres­sed by the tongue. Theophylact saith Theophyl. in Joan. vi. when we hear these words of Christ, un­less ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man, &c. We ought firmly to believe the same, and not to enquire after what manner. According to that of Saint Chrysostome, Chrysost. in 1 Cor. Homil. 17. [...]. It is better to be soberly ignorant, then naughtilie intelligent. For this mysterie is of that nature, that Athanasius testifies, Athanas. Ad Serap. [...]. The verie Cherubims veil their faces, when it comes to this: and yet the Romists, with the Beth-shemites; dare look into the Ark, though Salvianus accounts it Sacrilegae temeritatis auoddam genus est, si plus scire cupias, quam sinaris. Salvian. lib. De Provid. a sacrilegious temeritie, to covet to know that, which we are not permitted.

Gent.

But the Fathers, although they [Page 93] mention not Transubstantiation, or the manner of presence, or conversion in the Sacrament, yet they call it the very body, and blood of Christ, as Saint Cyril of Jeru­salem, in his book highly commended by Whitakerus, De Sacris Scripturis. Doctour Whitaker, saith, Cyril. Hierosol. Ca­tech. Mystag. 4. Let us therefore, with all certitude, receive the Body, and Blood of Christ.

Minist.

They call it the Body and Blood of Christ, in conformity to out Saviour's Metonymical, and mystical Expression, but withall, that no man mistake, they un­fold what they mean by Body and Blood: for, treating of the Sacramental signs, the Antients Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 83. & Epist. Hebr. Hom. 17. Gelas. Cont. Eutych Theod. Dial. 2. Dionys. Hierarch. cap. 3. Gregor. Nazianz. Apol. Macar. Homil. 17. call them Figures, Represen­tations, Memorials, Anti-Types; but that, which is a Figure, Similitude, Type, and Representation of a thing, is not properly the same. Saint Augustine saith, August. De Doctr. Christian. lib. 3. cap. 16. It is a figurative speech, commanding us to be partakers of the Lord's Passion, and sweetly, and profitably to keep in mind, that his flesh was Crucified, and wound­ed for us. Dominus non dubita­vit dicere. Hoc est corpus meum. quando dedit si­gnum sui corporis. August. in Psalm. 98. The Lord did not stick to say, This is my Body, when he gave a sign of his Body. Origen, speaking of the conse­crated Element of Bread, saith, Origen. in cap. xv. Matth. This I speak of the Typical, and Figurative Bo­dy. Saint Ambrose Ambros. De Sacr. lib. 4. cap. 5. calls it, figuram corporis, & sanguinis, the figure of the Body, and Blood of the Lord Jesus. Saint Chrysostome saith, Chrysost. Opus im­perfect; in Matth. Homil. 11. In the sanctified Vessel there is not the true Body of Christ, but a Mystery of his body is there con­tained. Gratian's Gloss confirms this, [Page 94] The Divine Bread [saith Gratian. De Conse­crat. Dist. 2. he] which representeth the flesh of Christ, is called the Body of Christ but improperly. Beda saith, Beda in Lucam, 22. Christ substituted his Flesh, and Blood in the figure of Bread, and Wine. Druthmarus, Druthmar. supra Matth. cap. 26. The Blood of Christ is aptly figured thereby. Bertram, Bertram. lib. De corp. & sang. Domini. Bread and Wine is Figuratively the Body, and Blood of Christ. And Tertullian, who lived nearer the Apostolick Times, saith, Tertull. contra Mar­cion. lib. 1. cap. 14. that Bread representeth the Body of Christ, calling it in two places The figure of Christ's Body. By all these it is most evident, that the Ancients taught, That the body of Christ was not essentially, and substantially in the Sacrament, but onely figuratively, and Typically.

Gent.

But the Orthodox Fathers teach, that The Bread our Saviour gave his Di­sciples was changed not in shape, but in nature, and by the omnipotence of the word was made Flesh. Amongst whom Cyprian saith, Cyprian. Serm. De Chrismate. Epist. 102. ad Eudoxium. Christ carried himself in his own hands: and Saint Augustine affirms, Augustin. De Civi­tate Dei, lib. 13. cap. 20. Serm. De Coena Domini. that The Body of our Lord enters in­to our mouth, and that Our tongues are cru­entated with the Blood of Christ: is not this an essential, and substantial Conversion?

Minist.

The Orthodox Fathers never taught, that Bread, and Wine were chang­ed in Essence, and Substance; though hyperbolically sometimes they affirmed them to be changed in nature; meaning in their signification, representation, and exhibition. So Cyprian in your own in­stance [Page 95] interpreteth himself; for, when he had said, The nature of Bread, and Wine were changed in the Sacrament of the Body, and Blood of Christ, he adds, Sacramenta habere nomina earum rerum, quas significant. Cypr. Serm. De Chrismate. Sacra­ments have the names of those things they signifie: which agrees with Chrysostom's Saying, Quod est Symbolum tribuit rei significatae, ma­ximè quoad fidem, & mentis cogitationem. Chry­sost. The Signe hath the Attribute of the thing signed, or signified, especially by Faith, and cogitation of the minde. And, whereas Saint Augustine averrs the Body of our Lord enters our Mouth, he means by Faith; for so he vindicates himself, We cannot [saith Nos Christum in coelis sedentem manu con­trectare non possumus, sed Christum fide contingere possumus. In Epist. in Jo­anem. Aug. Tract. 1. he] touch with hand Christ sitting in heaven, but we can lay hold on Christ by Faith: and a­gain, Ascendit in coelum corpus Christi, quaerat aliquis? quomodo in coe­lum manus mittam? fi­dem mitte, & tenuisti, Aug. Tract. in Joh. The Body of Christ is ascended in­to heaven, some may enquire, How shall I lay hold on him being absent? how shall I send up my hand into heaven, that there I may apprehend him sitting? fidem mitte, & tenuisti, Stretch but out the hand of Faith, and thou hast layd hold on Christ. And, descanting upon the Seventy third Psalm, he saith, Christ did carrie himself in his own hands quodammodo, in a manner, how? quia gestabat in manibus suis cor­poris sui Sacramentum, because he car­ried the Sacrament of his body in his hands: Sacraments have the names of those things they signifie, and are sub­limed to an higher condition, then be­fore, hence Scripture calls the Sup­per, the Supper of the Lord, and the Cup, the Cup of the Lord, and 1 Cor. x. 4. the Rock, of which the Israelites did [Page 96] drink, a Spiritual Rock. I will conclude this with that of Theodoret, which, me­thinks, is more, then satisfactorie, Dominus, quae viden­tur, symbolae, corporis, & sanguinis sui appellatione honoravit, non equidem naturam ipsam transmu­tans, sid gratiam naturae adjicions. Theodoret. Dialog. 1. cap. 8. The Lord hath honoured the (Sacramental) Symbols with the appellation of his Body, and Blood, [...], not changing Nature it self, but adding Grace to Nature.

Gent.

But our Church hath defined, That, After Consecration, the sub­stance of Bread, and Wine is abolished, and the Shapes, Accidents, and Quan­titie thereof onely remain.

Minist.

Your Church (it is true) hath defined it, but without testimonie both of Scripture, and Antiquitie; as your own Authours confess. Cajetan evi­dences, that, secluding the authoritie of the Romane Church, there is Non apparet ex Euan­gelio coactitium aliquod ad intelligendum haec ver­ba proprié. Cajetan. 3. quaest. 75. art. 1. impress. anno 1528. nothing in the Scripture, which may compell one to understand the words properly, or the Ele­ments to be transubstantiated. Scotus saith, Scotus. 4. D. 11. quasi. 3. lit. 13. There is no Scripture, that proveth the substance of Bread doth not re­main. Alphonsus a Castro saith, De Transubstantia­tiono panis in corpus Domi­ni rara est in antiquis Scriptoribus mentio. Al­phonsus à Castro, Contra Haeres. lib. 8. There is seldome any mention in ancient Writers of Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body of our Lord: he might have said, Ne­ver; seeing purer ages know no Doctrine, but that of Macarius, [...]. Bread, and Wine pre­sents in the Church an Antitype of his [Page 97] (Christ's) flesh, and blood, and those, that partake of the apparent bread, do eat the flesh of the Lord spiritually; And of Theo­doret, Signa mystica post Consecrationem no [...] rece­dunt à sua natura. The odor. Dialog. inconfusus. The mystical signes after Conse­cration depart not from their nature; And of Gelasius, Non desinit substantia, vel natura panis, & vini Gelasius, De duabus naturis, Adv. Eutych. It ceases not to be the sub­stance, or nature of Bread, and Wine▪

Gent.

But if the Ancients be against Transubstantiation, and Scriptures coun­tenance it not, is there any Scriptures a­gainst it?

Minist.

Quod non dicit Scriptura, id contradicit: in matters of Faith, that, which the Scriptures countenance not, they discountenance; because, as Au­gustine proclaims, Aperte in Scriptura inveniuntur omnia illa, quae continent fidem; mo­resque vivendi; spem sci­licet, atque charitatem. August De Doctr Christi­an. lib. 2. cap. 6. Therein are found all things plainly, which contain Faith, and Moralitie of life, Hope, and Charitie: with this Weapon onely Tertullian fights a­gainst Hermogenes, saying, Scriptum est, doceat Hermogenis officium: si non est scriptum, [...]meat Vae illud adjicientibus, aut de­trahemibus destinatum. Tertull. Contra Hermog. pag. 373. Let the shop, or Schole of Hermogenes make it appear, that that, which he pretends as a Plea against me, is written; If it be not written, let him fear that Wo, that is denounced against them, that add, or diminish. This Wo the Romists incurr; seeing, by their own con­fession, there is no Scripture extant for Transubstantiation: nay there are ap­parent Scriptures against it.

First, Matth. xxvi. Mark. xiv. Luk. xxii. 1 Cor. xi. it is said, Christ took Bread, blessed Bread, brake Bread, gave Bread to his Disciples. Paul saith, let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup; whosoever shall eat of this [Page 98] Bread, and drink of this Cup unworthily, &c. But Christ brake not his own Body (it was the Souldiers, that Crucified him) This Tertullian clears, saying, Acceptum panem, et distributum Discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura cor­poris mei. Tertull. contra Adamant. cap. 12. contra Marc. lib. 4. He made the Bread taken, and distributed to his Disciples that his body, by saying This is my Body, that is, a Figure of my Body.

Secondly, The Body of Christ was de­livered up for us, Rom. viii. 32. but the Bread, that Sacramentally is called his Bo­dy, was not delivered up for us; Therefore the Bread is not properly Christ's Body.

Thirdly, Christ saith not (as the Tran­substantiatours wrest it) My body is con­tained under these forms of Bread, and wine: but this, The very bread is my Body Antitypum sancti cor­poris, & sanguinis tui. Basil. in Liturg., Antitypa pretiosi san­guinis, & corporis Christi. Greg. Nazianz. Oratione De Pasch. symbolically; that is, as Saint Ambrose tells us Ambros. in 1 Cor. xi. De Sacrament. lib. 4. cap. 5. In edendo, & potando, sanguinē, & carnem Domini, quae pro nobis oblata sunt, significamus; In eating, and drinking, we signifie the flesh, and blood of the Lord, which were offered forus.

Fourthly, Christ saith not, This shall be made my Body: therefore the words of Christ do not convert Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ: but onely declare the Bread in this use to be the Bo­dy of Christ, that is Sacramentally; as Saint Chrysostom evidences, Antequam sanctifice­tur panis, panem nomina­mus, divinâ autem illum sanctificante gratiâ, medi­ante Sacerdote, liberatus est ab appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus est Dominici corporis appella­tione, etsi natura panis in ipso permansit. Chrysost. ad Caes. Monach. Before the Bread be sanctified, we call it Bread; but, Divine Grace sanctifying it, by the mini­sterie of the Priest, it is freed from the ap­pellation of Bread, and is accounted worthy of the style of the Lord's Body, Et si natura panis in ipso mansit, although [Page 99] the nature of Bread remains in it.

Fifthly, If the Bread should be tran­substantiated, it would destroy the na­ture of a Sacrament, which is defined by Saint Paul [...], Rom. iv. 11. a seal of the righte­ousness of Faith; and by Saint Augustine, Ista ideo dicuntur Sa­cramenta, quod in eis ali­ud videtur, aliud intelligi­tur, quop videtur, speciem habet corporalem, uod intel­ligitur, fructum habet spi­ritualem. August. Serm. Ad Infant. a visible signe of invisible grace; now nothing can be imagined, but the Bread, to be this visible signe, this seal, that Signum res prater speciem, quam ingerit sen­sibus, aliud aliquid faeciens in cogitationem venire. August. lib. 2. De Doctr. Christ. cap. 1. presents it self to the senses, and something besides it self to the understanding. In every Sacrament (saith Irenaeus) there is a thing terrestrial, which is visible, a thing celestial, which is invisible: the Terrestrial visible thing in the Eucharist is the Bread, and Wine; the Celestial, and invisible, is the body of Christ, that was broke, and his Blood, that was shed upon the Cross: but Transubstantiation takes away one part; therefore the whole Sacrament, which is Duorum unio, a relative Ʋnion of two.

Sixthly, If the Bread, and Wine were Transubstantiated into the Body, and Blood of Christ, then there were nothing left, that could nourish the body: but there ought to be something in the Sa­crament to feed our body, seeing our Faith is confirmed by the proportion be­tween the Bodilie, and Spiritual Alimo­nie; as the material Bread feeds the bo­dy, so Christ by Faith feeds the Soul: as Euthymius saith, Naturalis cibus, & potus est panis, & vini. quae proponuntur; superna­turalis verò efficax eorum operatio. Euthym. in Matth. xxiii. cap. 64. It is the Natural meat, and drink of Bread, and Wine, which are proposed; but the efficacious opera­tion [Page 100] of them is supernatural. The Accidents of Bread, and Wine, void of matter, and form, cannot nourish, as being not ca­pable to be Nutritio est adjecti alimenti in corporis sub­stantiam conversio, & perfecta assimilatio. Fuch­sius, Institut. Medicinae, lib. 1. Sect. 7. chilified, sanguified, ag­glutinated, or assimulated to our bodies; for Whatsoever nourisheth (saith the Philo­sopher) must be simile genere, like in kind with that, which is nourished, but dissimile specie, specifically different; but Accidents differ from Bodies, which are substances, toto genere, and have nothing common with Flesh, and Blood, that from power can be reduced into act.

Seventhly, If every crumb of Bread, and drop of Wine were transubstantiated into the entire humane Nature of Christ (as the Romists maintain) then in receiv­ing one Element, we should receive the whole mystery, and commit no Sacrilege in detaining the Cup from the Laitie: but the Antients judged otherwise; as Gelasius, Divisio unius ejusdem mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio pervenire non potest; The division of one, and the same my­sterie cannot be without great Sacri­lege: And Ignatius, Ʋnus panis omnibus confractus, [...], unum poculum omnibus distri­butum. Ignatius in Epi­stol. Ad Philadelph. One Bread was broke for all, and one Cup was distributed to all: And Saint Chrysostom, It is not with us, as in the old law, where some parts of the sa­crifice was given to the Priests, others fell to (e) Non est apud nos, ut in Lege veteri, ubi aliae partes ex Victimis daban­tur Sacerdotibus, ali [...]e ve­ró cedebant offerentibus: sed nobis omnibus idem Christi corpus proponitur, atque idem poculum. Chrysost. Homil. in 1. Cor. xxv. them, that offered; but to us all the same bo­dy of Christ is given, and the same cup: here you see he distinguishes the Body from the Cup; where, according to thir Tenet, the Cup is as well the Body, as the Bread.

[Page 101]
Gent.

How then, if not by Transub­stantiation, is the Bread Christ's Body? or what manner of praedication, or enunci­ation is this, This is my Body?

Minist.

Not identical, where the same thing is praedicated of the same, as This my Body is my Body: not proper, and regular, for so one disparate, as the Body of Christ, cannot be praedicated of the Bread: but it is an analogical Enun­ciation, where Tropically, or Figuratively, the thing signified is affirmed of the sign; Ex similitudine Sa­cramenti signa ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. August. Epist. 23. ad Boni­facium. From the similitude (saith Saint Au­gustine) the signes of the Sacraments take the very names of the things themselves; for Dominus non dubita­vit dicere, Hoc est cor­pus meum, cùm signum daret corporis sui. August. contra Adamant. cap. 12. The Lord doubted not to say, This is my Body, when he gave a signe of his Body. Which manner of expression is familiar in Scripture: Circumcision is the Covenant, Gen. xvii. the Lamb is the Passover of Jehovah, Exod. xii. the Sab­bath is the Covenant of God, Exod. xxxi. the seven Kine are seven Years, Genes. xli. 26. I am the Vine, John xv. 1. the Field is the World, Matth. xiii. 38. Herod is a Fox, Luk. xiii. 32. John is Elias, Matth. xi. 4. Christ was the Rock, 1 Cor. x. 4. the Way, the Door, the Bread. John vi. 35. yet Christ was not transubstantiated into a Rock, or Way, or Door, or Bread, And Duae potissimùm cau­sae sunt, cur Spiritus san­ctus, & ipse Christus tae­libus praedicationibus, & Phrasibus sit usus: quarū prima est Analogia, & arctissima unio Sacra­mentalis inter signa, et ros signatas; altera est summa certitudo obsignationis spi­ritualium bonorum, & eorundem in usu legitimo exhibitionis. Kec kerman. Logic. lib. 2. pag. 395. there are two reasons, why the Holy-Ghost, and Christ himself, hath used such enunci­ations, and manners of expression; whereof the first is the Analogie, and most strict Sacramental Union betwixt [Page 102] the signes, and things signed; The other is the infallible certaintie of the obsigna­tion, and exhibition of spiritual good things in the right use of the Seals.

Gent.

All this, I acknowledg, seems very probable. But we have been taught, that in this stupendous Mysterie we must deny both sense, and reason.

Minist.

Where any Mysterie is evi­dently expressed in Sacred Writ, sense, and reason must submit to Divine Revelation, as in the Incarnation of the Word, The Word was made flesh, John i. 14. the Tri­nitie of Persons in the Ʋnitie of Essence. These Mysteries are clearly revealed in Scripture, and though Oportet igitur nos, cùm audiverimus, Nisi e­deretis carnem filii, non habebitis vitam, in sum­ptionibus divinorum My­steriorum indubitatam re­tmere fidem, & non quae­rere quo pacto. Theophy­lact. in Joann. vi. above reason, yet not contrary to reason. But Transub­stantiation (as you have heard it proved, and by the Romists confessed) is Non apparet ex Eu­angelio coactitium aliquod ad intelligendum haec verba proprié. Cajeran. 3. Quaest. 75. dis­countenanced, nay diametrically opposite to Scripture, besides there are sequeles, and concomitances, that attend it, that in­volve Mirum videtur, qua­re in uno Articulo, qui non est principalis Articu­lus fidei, debeat talis intel­lectus asseri, propter quam fides pateat contemptui om­uium sequentium rationem. Scot. 4. Dist. 11. q. 3. lit. 13. contradiction, and inextricable absurdities; as in particular these,

First, That the Bread should be chang­ed into the Body, or humane Nature of Christ, which was Virtute Transub­stantiationis non accipit corpus Domini Esse post Non esse, quoniam priùs erat. Aureol. 4. Dist. 11. q. 1. Art. 1. before.

Secondly, That the accidents, or forms of Bread should be without a subject.

Thirdly, How whole Christ should be in every crumb of Bread, and drop of Wine. Fourthly, That at once Christ should be in Heaven, and in a thousand Hosts up­on Earth.

Gent.

The Meditation of these hath [Page 103] oftentimes staggered me; therefore I request you to lay them open more di­stinctly, and that in order, as you named them; First, That the Bread cannot be changed into the humane Nature of Christ, which was praeexistent, or before.

Minist.

The impossibilitie of this change is apparent; Because in all sub­stantial conversions, natural, or miracu­lous, there is a new thing, which was not before, produced out of that, which is con­verted; as appeareth in the conversion of Water into Wine, Wine, that was not before, is made of Water; and Lot's Wife into a Pillar of Salt, Salt, that was not be­fore, is made of Her Body converted into it. But, in Popish imaginary Transub­stantiation, the Body of Christ is not pro­duced anew; for it is praeexistent, and receiveth no substantial change by the confession of Romists themselves; for Faventinus, one of your own proposes the Question, Quaero quis sit termi­nus formalis hujus actionis [Transubstantiationis] & conversionis? Non est corpus Christi. Faventin. in 4. Disp. 35. cap. 6. What is the terminus formalis, the formal Bound of this Action (Transubstantiation) or conversion? and answers, Non est corpus Christi, It is not the body of Christ: for that, saith he, is the terminus materialis, the material bound, intimating it was before; and concludes Hoc totum est accidentale, there is no sub­stantial change, but onely an accidental alteration. Neither is the Body of Christ substantially united unto the accidents of Bread, and Wine; for it giveth no sub­sistence to them, and it sustaineth them [Page 104] not, but is united accidentally onely, by being made Terminus novae actio­nis accipit Esse per ipsam actionem, sed per Tran­substantiationem, quae est actio nova, non accipit corpus Christi Esse sub­stantiale, sed praesentialita­rem ad specics; ergo cor­pus Christi non est termi­nus Transubstantiationis se­cundium Esse substantiale, sed solùm secundùm prae­sentialitatem. Petigian. Summa Theol. in 4. Dist. 11. q. 3. Art. 3. present, where the sub­stance of the Elements formerly were: now if Water should be poured upon the Ground, or otherwise consumed, and Wine brought from Heaven, as Hail, and Snow are, and be placed where the Water formerly was, here is no substantial con­version: so likewise, when the substance of Bread, and Wine cease according to their Doctrine, and Christ's Body, and Blood are brought into the place where these were, no substantial thing is pro­duced; but one substance succeedeth in the room of another, by that, which they stile, Ubiatio est quando aliquid de Ʋbt non transit ad aliud Ʋbt. Aureol. 4. Dist. 11. q. 1. Art. 3. Ʋbiation: Therefore, I conceive we may safely conclude, thus; That Bo­dy, which was compleatly praeexistent be­fore, was glorified, and impassible, took (q) Praecise unum succe­dit alteri, non est verum dicere, quod illud, cui suc­ceditur, accedat, & con­vertatur ad illud, quod succedit. Aureol. supra. its substance of the seed of the Virgin, cannot be made anew of the Consecra­ted Bread; But Christ's body is com­pleatly praeexistent before, is glorified; and impassible, took its substance of the seed of the Virgin; Therefore Christ's Body is not made anew of the Consecra­ted Bread. Again, Nothing, that is Illud non transit in aliud, quod desinit antè, quàm veniat ad illud. Auteol. 4. Dist. 11. q. 1. Art. 1. annihilated, and ceaseth to be any thing, is changed into that, which was before: Bread, according to the Romish Tenet, is annihilated, and ceases to be any thing, Therefore it cannot be changed into the Body of Christ, which was before.

Gent

I apprehend this as very reason­able, and consequent from our own [Page 105] Grounds, proceed to the second, that The Accidents, and Forms of Bread can­not subsist without a Subject.

Minist.

That Accidents may subsist, and have their natural operation, without a Subject of support, or inhaerencie, im­plies a contradiction; that the Bread shall cease to be, and yet tast, colour, weight, and form to remain, as before; to be sweetness, and nothing sweet, whitness, and nothing white: for it is of the Definiti­on, and Being of Accidents to be, in an­other, or to be in their subject, so Por­phyrie saith, Accidentis Esse est Inesse. Porphyr. Isagog. cap. 5. [...]. Thus you see it is Dissonant to Reason: and Doctour Biel a Romish Champion, confesses, Quomodo ibi fit cor­pus Christi; an per con­versionem, an sine conver­sione incipiat esse corpus Christi, cum pane manen­tibus accidentibus, non in­venitur expresse in Canone Biblii. Gabr. Biel, De Canon. Lect. 4. How the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, whether by con­version, or without conversion, the accidents still remaining, is not contained in the Ca­non of the Bible. And if both reason, and Scripture disclaim it as an erroneous Pro­digie, let us see what countenance it hath from Antiquitie. This Doctour Ton­stall upon search hath found, Cuthbert. Tonstall. De Eucharistia, lib. 1. pag. 45. That it was determined in the Council of La­teran, which was holden in Rome, in the Year of our Lord a thousand, two hun­dred, and fifteen, and that, before that time, it was ever more free for any man without impeachment of his Faith to hold the contrarie. And indeed they learned it from the Manichees, who hold, that Christ was but a spe­ctrum, or phantasm, and what outwardly [Page 106] appeared in him was nothing else, but Accidents. The result is, Post consecrationem accidens est sine subjecto, quia existit tum per se; transit enim substantia, sed remanent accidentia. In­nocent. 3. Myst. Miss. lib. 4. cap. 9. That, which is impossible in Nature, and is supported neither by Scripture, nor Antiquity, is not to be believed; But the Accidents (as sweetness, colour, &c.) to remain without a subject is impossible in Nature, and is supported neither by Scripture, nor Antiquity; Therefore Accidents to remain without a subject, is not to be be­lieved.

Gent.

This is agreeable to Philosophi­cal grounds; and it seems destitute of Scripture-evidence; proceed therefore to the third, That the whole body of Christ cannot be in every crumb of Bread.

Minist.

Aquinas 3. p. q. 76. Art. 1. Aquinas, Bellarm. De Eu­charist. lib. 1. cap. 2. col. 468. Bellarmine, Melchior Canus, Joseph. Angles in 4. 1. pag. 9. 4. De Eucha­rist. Josephus Angles, the Concil. Trident. Sess. 3. Can. 1. Councel of Trent, with all the Romish Proselytes teach, that the whole Organi­cal body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin, crucified, sits now at his Fa­ther's right hand, is wholly, and entire under the Accidents in every crumb of Bread, and drop of Wine; which, by their own Principles, is not to be believed as possible, if Bellarminus De Eu­charist. lib. 3. cap. 19. col. 748. Bellarmine may be cre­dited, who saith, Fides nostra ad id nos non obligat, ut ea defendamus, quae eviden­ter implicant contradictionem; Our faith doth not oblige us to that, that we should de­fend those things, that do evidently imply a contradiction: then, that the body of Christ should be visible, and in perfect stature, and, at the same time, to be not visible, [Page 97] and not in a perfect stature; as it must needs be, if it be confined to a point almost indivisible, as is the form of the least crumb of bread. This Chimaera was not hatched in St. Augustine's time, who affirmed, that Ità futurum sit spiri­tuale corpus, ut propter in­effabilem quandam facili­tatem spirituale dicatur, servet tamen substantiam corporalem. August. En­chir. cap. 91. ep. 76. The body of Christ was to be so spiritual, that by reason of a certain unexpressible facility, it might be stiled spi­ritual, servet tamen substantiam corpora­lem, yet would still keep its corporal sub­stance; nay space, positure, distance of part from part, spacia locorum tolle cor­poribus, & nusquam erunt, & quia nus­quam erunt, non erunt: Take away, saith he, space from bodies, and they will be no where, and because no where, they will not be at all. Hence I conclude, That, which implies a Contradiction, by the Romists confession is not to be believed: but that the same numerical body of Christ should at the same time be in perfect stature, and contained in every crumb of Bread, im­plies a contradiction by the Romists con­fession; Therefore that the body of Christ should be in every crumb of bread is not to be believed.

Gent.

There is but one difficultie yet remaining, that it is Cùm quaeritur, Ʋtrū aliquid sit Deo possibile, quod naturae sit impossibile, distinguendum est de im­possibili; quia si hujusmodi impossibile dicitur, quia re­pugnat ipsi Esse, prout est verificatio contradictori­orum, sic quod naturae im­possibile est, est Deo impossi­bile. Ae [...]idius Rom. 1. Sent. D. 42. q. 4. impossible, that at the same time Christ's body should be wholly in heaven, and in a thousand con­secrated Hoasts upon the earth.

Minist.

That an individual body may be in many places at once, and in divers forms, and according to divers actions, and have no reference to place, nor any [Page 98] properties inward, nor outward of a true body, is not divine veritie, but an audaci­ous fiction, and incongruous dream, dis­owned by all the Antients. Vigilius, an holy Martyr, taught, that Caro Christi cùm esset in terra, non erat in coelo, & nunc, quta est in coelo, non est utique in terra. Vigil. cont. Euticher. lib. 1. The flesh of Christ, when it was on earth, was not in hea­ven; and now, when it is in heaven, cannot be also upon earth. Saint Cyril demonstrates, Christus non poterat versari in carne cum A­postolis, postquam ascendit ad patrem. Cyril. in Jo­an. lib. 1. cap. 3. Christ could not be conversant with the Apostles in the flesh, after that he had a­scended to the Father, the Heavens must contain him till the end of all. Saint Au­gustine testifies, that Donec saecula finian­tur, sursum est Dominus, sed tamen hic nobiscum est veritas Domini: corpus enim, in quo resurrexit, in uno loco esse oportet, veri­tas autem ejus ulique dif­fusa est. August. De conse­cr. Dist. 2. Our Lord is above untill the world's end, but yet his truth is with us here; for the body of our Lord, wherein he rose again, must be in [...] place, but his truth is diffused everie where And that, Secundum praesentiam corporalem simul & in Sole, & in Luna, & in Cruce esse non posset. Au­gust. contra Faustum, lib. 20. cap. 11. Tom. 6. according to his corporal pre­sence, it was not possible for him to be both in the Sun, and in the Moon, and on the Cross at one, and the same time. This Truth is so clear, tha [...] [...] [...]torts this confession from Aquinas, Corpus Christi non esse in pluribus locis secundum proprias dimensiones; The body of Christ cannot be in many places according to the proper dimensions thereof; for An­gels cannot, which are pure spirits, much less a body. They are, saith Marsilius, Marsilius, 2. q. 2. Art. 1. in loco definitive, quia sunt sic in uno situ, quod non sunt in alio quolibet; Defini­tively in a place, because they are so in one positure, that, at the same instant, they can­not be in any other. Thus you see the impossibility of Christ's body to be wholy [Page 99] in heaven, and in innumerable consecrated Hoasts upon earth at the same time, de­monstrated by Scriptures, and Fathers: Hence my final Conclusion about this Article is, That Doctrine, which is not expressly taught, or formally deduced from holy Scripture, which no antient Council, or Church, for the first six hundred years plainly taught, and unto which many adverse passages are extant in the Monuments of Antiquitie, also which is repugnant to sense, and common reason, and hath no apparent utilitie, ought not to be believed to be effected by any man whatsoever, but rather to be abjured, and renounced: But Audito nomine Tran­substantiationis, tanta inter recentiores aliquos Scho­lasticos de natura illius ex­orta fuit controversia, utquó magis se extricare conati sunt, eo seipsos majoribus difficultatibus implicârunt. Vasques in 3. Thom. Tom. 3. Disp. 183. cap. 1. such is the Doctrine of Romish Transubstantiation; Therefore it ought not to be believed to be effected by any man whatsoever, but rather abjured, and renounced.

Gent.

Well; by that, which you have delivered, I am convinced to be of Do­ctour Andrews judgment, De Hoc est, firmâ fide tenemus quòd sit, de hoc modo est (nempe Transubstantiato in corpus pane) de modo, quo fiat ut sit, sive per in, sive con, sive sub, sive trans, nullū inibi verbum est, & quia verbum nullum, merito à fide ablegamus procul; inter scita Scholae fortasse. inter fidei Articulos non pronimus. Doctour An­drews. Bishop of Win­chester, Contra Apol Bellarm. cap. 1. pag. 11 believ­ing firmly, that the words of Christ are true, and, in the sence he meant it, to be his body; but for the manner, how it is his body, seeing there is not one express word, I dare not make it a matter of faith; rank it we may a­mongst the Nicities of Scholes, but not amongst the Articles of our Creed. Therefore you may proceed to the fourth Article.

The Fourth Article.

And I do also believe, that there is not any Purgatorie.

Minist.

THIS is symbolical, and concentrick with the two and twentieth Article of our English Confession, wherein it is said, that The Romish Doctrine of Purga­torie is a vain Fiction, Quòd fuerit divina institutio non possit mani­festè probari; quia non constat ex Sacris Literis, neque ex Conciliis. Nu­gnus. Addit. in 3. part. Thom. q. 20. Art. 3. Dif. 1. grounded upon no Testimonies of Scripture, but contrarie to the word of God; and the Apologie of the Church of England, which saith, That It is no better, then a blockish, and old wife's device.

Gent.

Here, me thinks, that I may cope with you with better success, then formerly; for Purgatorie is so far from being a vain fiction, and old wife's device, that it mounteth high upon the Wings of Antiquitie. Saint Augustine, who lived in the fourth Centurie, and may be stiled The Standard-bearer of the Fathers, makes August. Enchirid. ad Laurent. cap. 6 [...]. cap. 68. ad Dulcitium, Quaest. 1. De fide, & openbus, cap. 16. De Civitate Dei. lib. 12. cap. 26. often mention of it.

Minist.

Your Argument in form is this▪ That, which Augustine makes often mention of, is no vain fiction; but a credi­table [Page 101] veritie: Augustine makes often mention of Purgatorie.

I first deny your Proposition: for all, that Augustine makes frequent mention off, is not creditable veritie, and void of fiction; he insists often upon Infants dam­nation, that dy without Baptism, of the Eucharist to be given to Babes, that Sine fide etiam quae videntur bona opera in peccatum vertuntur. Au­gust. De fide, & operibus. all Works of Infidels are sins, which the Concilium Tridenti­num meritò damnavit Omnia Infidelium opera esse peccata; etiamsi gra­vem habeat authorem Au­gustinum. Maldonat. Comment. in Matth. vii. 18. Romists deny. In the Bull of Pius Quar­tus, by the Oath their fore-man hath ta­ken, all Priests, and Jesuites are sworn, not to receive, or interpret the Scriptures, but according to the uniform consent of Fathers; Saint Augustine is but one, Aristoteles, Ethic. lib. 1. [...].

Secondly, to your Assumption; Saint Augustine, in the pretended places, men­tions Purgatory, not as a creditable veri­tie; but as a doubtfull opinion, for thus he writes to Laurentius, August. ad Laurent. cap. 67. Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri, incredibile non est, & utrum ita sit, quaeri potest: Some such thing as Purgatorie to be after this life, is not incredible, and whether it be so, or no, it may be a Question. And to Dulcitius, Quòd spiritus defun­ctorum ignem transitoriae tribulationis inveniant, non redarguo, quia forsitan verum est. August. in 8. Quaest ad Dulcitium. That the spirits of the dead finde a fire of transitorie tribulation, I reprove it not; for perhaps it is true. ‘And in his Civitate Dei, Quis sit ille modus, aut quae sint illa peccata, quae ità impediunt perventio­nem ad regnum Dei, ut tamen sanctorum amico­rum meritis impetrent in­dulgentiam, difficilimum est invenire, pericalesissimū definire, ego certè usque ad hoc tempus, cùm indè satagerem, ad eorum inda­ginem perventre non potut. Aug. De civitate Dei, lib. 21. cap. 27. The manner how, and what sins they be, which so let a man from coming to the Kingdom of God, that they not withstanding obtain pardon by the merits of holy friends, it is very hard to finde, and very dangerous to determine, [Page 102] certainly I my self, not withstanding my Study, and Travail taken in this behalf, could never attain to the knowledg of it. Thus you see, how Saint Augustine is pendulous; These crochets, and quavers, Whether there be any such thing, as Pur­gatorie after this life, or no, it may be a Question, Perhaps it is true, As much as I think, I cannot tell, I could never attain to the knowledge of it; make no full consent, or perfect Musick in matters of Faith: But, what if these Sentences be forged, and interfoisted into Augustine's Works? Lu­dovicus Vives, a Romish Rabbie, and there­fore not partial on our behalf, confesses, that in antient Manuscripts of several Ʋniversities, and Monasteries, he could not finde them; and it is no wonder, see­ing Erasmus, Melancthon, Oecolampadius, Possevinus, in Select. Bibl. lib. 1. cap. 19. Possevinus, Crastov. in Bello Je­suit. Crastovius, Rainolds, in lib. De Idolol. Roman. Do­ctour Rainolds, Doctour James, and Felkmanus have discovered so many Forgeries in this one Father, who, unless Saint Augustine contradicteth himself, there is no probability, those Sentences ever dropped from his pen; for in his Hypognosticks he maintaineth, there are but two places after bodily Dissolution: The first place, saith he, the Catholick faith by Divine authority believeth to be the Kingdom of Heaven; The second place the same Catholick Faith believeth to be Hell, where all Apostates, and whosoever is without faith of Christ, shall tast ever­lasting [Page 103] punishment; as Tertium locum peni­tùs ignoramus; imò nec in Seripturis sacris inve­nimus. August Hypo­gnost. lib. 5. for any third place, we are utterly ignorant, neither shall we finde in holy Scriptures, that there is a­ny such. And again Non est ullus locus me­dius, ut possit esse, nisi cum Diabolo qui non est cum Christo. August. De peo­ca merit. & remiss. cap. 28. There is no middle place for any to be else-where, then with the Devil, who is not with Christ. Thus you have Augustine's mature, and setled re­solution, with the Juncto of the Ca­tholick Church, in traverse, and counter­check to his private scruple, if his.

Gent.

The Doctrine of Purgatory was not in traverse, and opposition to the Quidam nullas poenas, nisi purgatorias, volunt esse post mortem. August. De Civitat. Dei, lib. 21. cap. 13. whole Catholick Church; seeing Origen, whom Perkins places in the year 230. a­vouches it.

Minist.

All, that Origen avouches, is not Catholick Doctrine for, amongst many er­rours, he proclaims [...] general Gaol-deli­very of all Devils, and damned Spirits, and converts Hell [...] self into a Purgato­ry. Besides Origen's Purgatory hath no affinity, or alliance with your Romish.

First, Your Purgatory is pretended to be immediately after death: Origen's after the Resurrection.

Secondly, Yours onely of the Soul: Origen's of the Body also, as well as the Soul.

Thirdly, Yours onely of some few, that die in venial sins unsatisfied: Ori­gen's of all; though eminent Saints, and Martyrs.

Fourthly, Yours onely of a purging fire in an higher vault of Hell: Origen's of that universal fire, that shall dissolve [Page 104] the Heavens at the last Trumpet, joyned with the Sacrament of Baptism: for these are his words, Ʋt ego arbitror, omnes nos necesse est venire in il­lum ignem, etiamsi Pau­lus aliquis sit, vel Petrus. Origen. in Psalm. 36. Ho­mil. 3. I suppose, that all we must come into that fire, yea, although it be Paul, or Peter: and, Ego puto, quòd post Resurrectionem ex mortu­us, indigebimus Sacra­mento elu [...]e nos, atque purga [...]te: nemo enim abs­que sordibus resurgere po­terit, neque ullam puto posse animam reperiri, quae universis statim vitiis ca­reat. Origen. in Lucam, Homil. 14. I think, that, after the Resurrection from the dead, we shall need the Sacrament of Baptism to wash, and purge us; for no man can rise again without filth, neither do I think there can be any soul found void from all manner of sin.

Gent.

But, though Origen was mista­ken, Purgatory, as stated by the Roman Church, hath been received as an antient Tradition.

Minist.

Your own Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, writing against Luther, was more modest, and ingenuous; for he confesses, that De Purgatorio apud priscos nulla, vel quàm rarissima sicbat mentio, sed & Graecis, ad hunc usque diem, non est creditum Purgatorium esse: legat, qui velit, Graece­rum [...]crum Commenta­rios, & nullum, q [...] [...]m opinor, vel rarissma [...] Purgatorio sermonem in­veniet. Sed neque Latini somulomnes, a [...] sensi [...] hu­jus rei veritatem concepe runt. Cum itaque Purgatorium tam serò cogni­tum, atque receptum uni versae Ecclesiae suerit, quis jam de Indulgentiis mi­rari potest, quia in pr [...]i­piis nascentis Ecclesiae nul­lus fuerit earum usus. Roffens. Contra Luther. Art. 18. p. 496. Amongst the Antients, there was either none, or very seldom, men­tion of Purgatory; and that the Greeks, to this very day, do not believe it, and who­soever shall read their ancient Monuments, or Commentaries, so far as he sees, shall finde very seldom mention of Purgatory, or none at all; and the Latines, in the Western Church, did not receive the truth of this matter altogether, but by little, and little; neither indeed was the faith, either of Purgatory, or Indulgences, so needful in the Primitive Church, as now it is. Here you see, he affirms five things, whereof every one overthrows your Romish subterranean Gulf. First, That There is no mention of it amongst the Anti­ents. [Page 105] Secondly, That the Greeks deny it, till this day. Thirdly, That it was late be­fore the Latines received it. Fourthly, That they received it by little, and little. Fifthly, That the faith of Purgatory was not needful in the Primitive Church. Du­rand Durand. 4. d. 20. q. 3. is of the same judgement, profes­sing, that Sancti Ambrosius, Hilarius, Augustinus, Hieronymus, minime de eis loquuntur, St. Ambrose, Hilarie, Augu­stine, Hierom, spake nothing of them; [Pur­gatory and Indulgences.] And Alphon­sus a Castro, Alphons. Castro Contr. Haeres. lib. 8. Inter omnes res, de quibus in hoc opere disputamus, nullae sunt, de qui­bus vetusti Scriptores minus dixerint, apud priscos nulla mentio Indulgentiarum; Of all things discoursed in this work, antient Writers speak nothing less, then of In­dulgences, or Popes Pardons, for pur­gatorial punishment; for the Antients make no mention of them. With them concurs De Indulgentiis nihil expressè habemus ex di­ctis antiquorum Docto­rum, vel modernorum. Antonin. Summa Moral. pag. 1. tit. 10. cap. 3. Antonine.

Gent.

But the Antients make frequent mention of Prayer for the dead, which necessarily infers our Catholick Doctrine of Purgatory, and Indulgences, received from the Apostles.

Minist.

That Purgatroy, and Indul­gences were received from the Apostles, is as true, as that St. Peter said Mass in Rome with a golden Cope, & triple Crown; and is a conclusion, that hath no depen­dance on your premises; which are Quoties affertur pro vera causa, quod vel nul­la est, vel tantùm causa per accidens, aut dissimi­lis effectûs. Fasciculus Praecept. Logic. pag. 224. fallacia non causae, ut causae, assigning that for a reason, which is no reason, For St. [Page 106] Ambrose, Dionysius, and Epiphanius gave four other reasons, besides Purgatory (of which they never dreamed) for praying for the dead.

  • First, A continuation of the same af­fection towards them dead, they had living.
  • Secondly, Their imperfect bliss in soul, without the body, and Fellow-Saints.
  • Thirdly, Imperfection, in comparison of Christ.
  • Fourthly, A meer thanksgiving for their departure in the true faith.

Thus St. Ambrose, in his Oratio Panegyrica pro Theodosio, & Valenti­niano. Ambros. Funeral Orations, made at the Funerals of Theo­dosius, and Valentinianus, two Empe­rours, rejoyced for their sakes, that they had already attained eternal felicity, yet prays, that God would grant them their desired rest, in regard of their bodies, and communion with all Fellow-Saints. St. Basil, and St. Chrysostome, in their Li­turgies, make solemn Orisons thus; Offerimus tibi rationa­lem hunc cultum pro in fide requiescentibus Ma­joribus. Patribus, Patri­archis, Prophetis & A­postolis, Praeconibus, & Evangelistis, Martyribus, Confessoribus, &c. praeci­puè vero pro suavissima, immaculatà, supra omnes bonedicta Domina Dei para, & semper-Virgine Maria. Basil. & Chry­sost. We offer, O Lord, unto thee, this reaso­nable service for them, that rest in faith, our Elders, our Fathers, the Patriarchs, the Prophets, the Apostles, the Preachers, the Evangelists, the Martyrs, the Con­fessours, &c. specially for the most holy, without spot, blessed above all, our Lady, Gods Mother, and ever-Virgin Mary. St. Cyprian [...]. Cyprian. lib. 3. Epist. 6. also saith, Sacrificamus pro Martyribus; We make Sacrifices of prayers, and praises for the Martyrs. Yet the Romists themselves will not conclude [Page 107] hence, that the Patriarchs, Prophets, A­postles, Preachers, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessours, and the blessed Virgin Mary, were all in Purgatory.

Gent.

But there are authentick Scri­ptures for Purgatory; how dare we then abjure, or disbelieve it?

Minist.

Now you speak something to the purpose, if your Assumption were true; for Chrysostom. Contra Gentes. [...]. The holy Scriptures given by inspiration (saith Athanasius) are of them­selves sufficient for the discovery of truth. Bring but one clear place for Purgatory, and you win the Goal. But your own Champions disclaim such Weapons. Du­rand saith, Nec Scriptura ex­pressè de iis loquitur. Durand. 4. Dist. 20. q. 3. Scripture speaks nothing of Purgatory, and Indulgences. Antonine saith, Nihil expressè habe­mus in sacra Scriptura. Antonin. Summa Moral. p. 1. Tit. 10. cap. 3. We have nothing expresly of them in holy Scripture. Alphonsus a Castro saith, Nulla res, quam mi­nùs apertè sacrae Scriptura prodiderunt. Alphons. à Castro, Contr. Hares. lib. 8. There is nothing, of whom Scripture speaks less plainly. Else why should Rof­fensis acknowledge the Latine Church discovered it lately, and that by little, and little. The Greeks have no glimpse of it yet. Whitak. Contra. 1. cap. 5. Quaest. 6. If it were revealed in Scripture, Scripture was the same, and as clear in Primitive, and succeeding times, as now. Besides, Bellarmine, Lindan, and other Bigots of your Faction, marshal Purga­tory amongst Traditions, which are, as your Doctor Kellison Doctor Kellison. Survey, lib. 8. cap. 3. describes them, an opinion, or Custom of the Church, not written in holy Scriptures, but delivered by [Page 108] the hands of the Church, from time to time. With whom consents Bellarmine, saying, Bellarmin. De verbo Dei, lib. 4. cap. 2. Traditions signifie that Doctrine, that is not written by the first Authours in any Apostolick Book.

Gent.

There is express Scripture, 2 Macchab. xii. 44. for praying for the dead; a reconciliation for the dead, vers. 45. that they might be delivered from sin: which inforces Purgatory.

Minist.

First, The Jews, from whom Christians received the Canon, with Ori­gen, Cyprian, Hierom, Augustine, Melito Bishop of Sardis, Eusebius, Epiphanius, deny that Book to be Veteris Testamenti li­bros meditare duos & vi­ginti, tu itaque, cùm sis filius Ecclesiae, non trans­gredieris illius terminos. Cyril. Catech. 4. Canonical Scri­pture, and therefore from it can nothing be concluded. The Church (saith St. Hierome Maccabaeorum li­bros legit Ecclesia, sed eas inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit: legit ad aedifi­cationem plebis, non ad au­thoritatem Dogmatum con­firmandam. Hieron. in Prafat. lib. Solom. reads the Books of Maccha­bees, but receives them not amongst Canonical Scriptures; reads them for edification of the people, but not for confirmation of the Authority of doubt­ful Opinions. Else one might from thence, with the Circumcelliones, digest that mistake, that Self-murder is lawful, from that unnatural act of Razias com­mended, 2 Macchab. xiv. 41. as He­roical.

Secondly, Admit the Authority were authentick, Purgatory will not follow from prayer for the Dead; there are ma­ny other reasons assigned, as it formerly hinted. And whereas it is said, He made a Reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin; the mean­ing [Page 109] is, that the living might be delivered from the plague, or punishment deserved by that prophanation, or Sin, that was committed by them, which are dead: and this will neither infer Purgatory, nor any Popish Errour.

Gent.

Scriptures also, that are un­doubtedly Canonical, make for Purgato­ry. Matth. xxv. 26. Agree with thine ad­versary quickly, whilest thou art in the way with him, lest at any time the Adversary deliver thee to the Judg, and the Judg de­liver thee to the Officers, and thou be cast in­to prison; verily, I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast payed the uttermost farthing.

Minist.

He must be a good Chymist, that can extract the fire of Purgatory hence.

First, The words are symbolical, which by Bellarmine's Convenit inter nos, & adversarios, ex solo li­terali sensu peti debere ar­gumenta efficacia. Bel­larm. lib. 3. De verbo Dei, cap. 3. Confession are not argumentative. For Arguments (saith he) can onely be drawn from the literal sense.

Secondly, Saint Augustine Donec solvas no­vissimum quadrantem. miror, si non eam signifi­cat poenam, quae vocatur aeterna. August. De serm. Dom. in monte, lib. 6. here by prison understands Hell, not Purgatory, and parallels with that place of the Psal­mist, Psalm cx. 1. Sit thou on my right­hand, until I make thine enemies thy foot­stool; and that of the Evangelist Matth. i. (o) In illis sunt, quae cū libris Canonicis pugnani, vel [...], vel [...], vel apertê falsa, 1 Macchab. vi. 2. Macchab. 14. 2. M. 12. Bucan. Institut. Theol. p. 37. 25. He knew her not, untill She had brought forth Her first begotten Son; where the first implies not that, after Christ's Ene­mies were subdued, He should sit on God's right hand no longer; nor the lat­ter [Page 110] helpeth the Inference of Helvidius, that, after our Saviour's Birth, Joseph knew his Wife. Saint Augustine therefore concludeth, Donec significat non finem poenae, sed continua­tionem miseriae. August. supra locum. that (till) in this place signifies not an end of pain; but a conti­nuance of Misery. Thou shalt (saith Hu­go Semper solves, nun­quam persolves. Hugo ex Remigio. out of Remigius) be ever paying, yet never satisfy. Which exposition Calvine, and Bucer, and Musculus, do not onely (q) Ostendit debitum sol­vendum, sed non debitorem solvendo. Piscator. in Matthaeum, v. 26. embrace; but Anselm, and Beda, Aqui­nas, and Gorram, Ammonius, and Avenda­do, Maldonat, and Jansenius, with I know not how many of their own Consorts: now the sequel would be prodigious, The damned souls in Hell shall never fully sa­tisfy, therefore there is Purgatory, cujus contrarium est verum.

Gent.

Christ saith Matt. xii. 32. Who­soever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this World, neither in the World to come; im­plying, that there is a remission, or par­don, in the World to come.

Minist.

None ever held a remission, and pardon of Sins in the World to come, but Origen, Origenes ipsum Di­abolum, atque Angelos e­jus post graviora pro me­ritis, & diuturniora sup­plicia, ex illis cruciatibus cruendos, atque sociandos sanctis Angelis credidit. August. De Civitate Dei, lib. 21. cap. 17. who with his misericor­des Doctores believed, that the Devil him­self, and his Angels after great, and long punishment suffered for their wickedness, shall be delivered from their torments, and shall be placed in Heaven with the Holy Angels of God; and that Origen in Episto­la cap. 6. lib. 5. Christ should descend into Hell, and be crucifi­ed again for them, for whom the preach­ing of his former Death, and Passion was [Page 111] not prevalent. Romish pretended Pur­gatory, and Indulgences pleads not for a remission, or pardon of Sins, but onely of temporal punishment due to Sins unsatis­fied. So, conformable to Aquin. Quodlib. 2. artic. 66. & 1, 2. Q. 47. art. 3. 4. Cajet. Opusc. Tom. 2. q. 4. Aquinas, and Cajetan saith Zerula, Per Indulgentiam non remittitur culpa peccati, nec poena aeterna mututur in temporalem; sed solae temporalis remittitur tota, vel pars. Zerula, De In­dulgentiis,, lib. 1. cap. 11. By Indulgence is not remitted the Fault of Sin, neither is an eternal punishment changed into a temporal; but onely the temporal is re­mitted whole, or part. But admit, par­don of Sin were in Purgatorie's jurisdicti­on, how is it gathered from these words, It shall be forgiven him neither in this World, nor in the World to come. A­mongst the Logicians, Ex meris Negativis Syllogismus est vitiosus, ut Aristoteles prolixè repe­tit cap. 4, 5, 6. primi Pri­orum. two Negative Propositions are not wont to conclude an Affirmative; it is an Hebraism by way of exaggeration, intimating it shall never be forgiven; for so Saint Mark iii. 29. in aequivalent Terms expresseth the same thing, [...]. It is said Rom. viii. 38. Neither things present (that is of this Life,) nor things to come (that is of the Life to come) shall separate us; none gathers hence, that they, that are in Christ, shall be separated from his Love in the World to come; but it is an emphatical expression signifiying, They shall never be separated.

Gent.

But the Apostle Saint Paul speaketh expressly of Purgatory-fire, 1 Cor. iii. 15. If any Man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he him­self shall be saved, yet so as by Fire.

[Page 112]
Minist.

You are like them, that think the Bells ring whatsoever they fancy; or the Pythagoreans, that had so moulded their imagination to Numbers, that they found them in every thing. You are so possessed with this Lunacy of Purgatory, that Kitchin-fire, Elementary-fire, Hell­fire, yea Metaphorical fire must serve to kindle your Ʋtopian-Forge. Erasmus, in his Annotations upon this place, saith, Erasmus, Annot. supra locum. It is a vain thing, to interpret it of Purgatory, seeing it is here meant far o­therwise. Saint Chrysostom, Chrysost. supra lo­cum. with the Greek Scholies, understands it of Hell. St. Augustine, August. De Fide, et operibus, cap. 15, 16. En­chirid. ad Laurent. cap. 69. De Civitate Dei, lib. 21. Octo quaestiones ad Dulcit. q. 1. Supra Psalm. xxix. and Saint Ambrose di­scover it to be onely a Symbolical, or Typical fire, and that by it is onely meant the Word, Spirit, and Afflictions, which, Mal. iii. 2. like a Refiner's fire, or Ful­ler's sope, shall try every Man's Doctrine, whether it be Sound, or Heterodox; and is such a fire (as they finde it rivetted in the Text) which is common both to the Good, and Bad Builder, whether funda­mental, or praeterfundamental, which is not pretended for Purgatory. Peter Martyr, Josias Sinlerus, in Oratione, De vita, & mor­te Petri Martyris Ver­milii. Governour of the Neapoli­tan College of Saint Peter, at Spoletum, reading his usual Lecture (as it fell out) upon this Chapter, coming to those words, He shall be saved, yet as by Fire, in conformity to Saint Augustine, and the Antients, interprets it of a Metaphorical, not Purgatorial fire; because it was common both to Saints, and Reprobates: [Page 113] whereupon he was interdicted to proceed any further, which occasioned his more diligent search into Antiquity, (which he found against Purgatory, and other Po­pish points) and consequently his Re­formation.

Gent.

But nothing, that is defiled, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Men, when they dy, are not perfectly pure, and sanctified; therefore it is requisite, before they enjoy the presence of the Lamb, and eternal bliss, that they have their purgation.

Minist.

We have our Purgation, not by the natural energy of any Creaturè, as Fire, Water, but by the moral, and spiritual influence of the Blood of the Lamb applyed by faith; 1 John 1. 7. The Blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all Sin. The Holy Scripture teacheth us ex­presly, that all spiritual redemption is Vult docer [...] Aposto­lus legem veterem per Christum abolitam esse, totámque ejus obligationem cessare, introductâ lege Christi. Estius. immediately wrought by the blood of Christ. Hebr. i. 3. When he had by him­self, [...] purged our Sins; Coloss. 2. 15. Triumphed over them in himself, [...]. whereupon Saint Cyprian saith, Sanguis tuus, O Do­mine, non quaerit ultionem, sanguis tuus lavat crimi­na, peccata condonat. Cy­prian De passione Christi. Thy blood, O Lord, seeketh no revenge, thy blood washeth our Sins, and pardoneth our Trespasses. And Saint Augustine, Valeat mihi ad per­fectionem liberationis tan­tum pretium sanguinis Do­mini mei. Augustin. in Psalm. xxv. Let onely the price of the Blood of my Lord avail me to the perfection of my Delivery. And whereas Purgatery-mongers restrain these, and the like places, to the stain, and eternal guilt of Sin; the Apostle, Colloss. 11. 14. Lex enim judicabat nos reos, dum non praesta­bamus quod praecip [...]ebatur, unde etiam dicit Chiro­graphum ipsum fuisse contrarium nobis: hoc Chirographum delevit Christus, quia ejas bene­ficio non amplius tenemur lege. Adam Sa [...]bo [...]. affirmeth, that Christ bletted [Page 114] out, [...], the handwriting of Decrees contained in the Law, that was against us, and took it out of the way: But the tem­poral punishment of Sin is contained within the latitude of the Law, Levit. xxvi. 14. Deut. xxviii. 15. therefore Christ Jesus our Saviour immediately, and by him­self, and not mediately, and the passions of Saints, or Purgatory-fire, wiped out, and removed out of the way the male­diction of temporary punishment, as well as the guilt of eternal.

Gent.

But Sins cannot be washed a­way, but by long tract of time, and pain in Purgatory.

Minist.

There needs no tract of time to them, that truly by faith lay hold on the infinite merits of Christ. Isaiah, liii. 5. By his Stripes we are made whole. Revel. xiv. 13. Blessed are the Dead, that dy in the Lord, even so saith the Spirit; for they rest from their Labours, and their works follow them: he saith not, They shall be in Purgatory, but they rest from their Labours. Revel. vii. 16, 17. They shall hunger no more, they shall thirst no more; for the Lamb, which is in the midst of the Throne, shall lead them (not in­to Purgatory, but) into the lively Foun­tains of waters, and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes. Whereupon St. Au­gustine saith, Quando aliquis se con­verterit ad Deum. prorsus illi omnia dimittuntur. Au­gust. De Verbo Dom: [...]erm. 59. Whensoever any man turn­eth himself unto God, all things are utterly forgiven him; let no man be doubtful, lest any thing haply be not forgiven. And St. [Page 115] Chrysostome engages thus in the Person of God, Ego fide jubeo, si quis nostrum recedat à peccatis ex animo, & verè promit­tat Deo, se ad illa non re­diturum, nihil Deum re­quisiturum ad satisfactio­nem. Chrysost. De B. Philogonio. I will stand bound in God's behalf, if any of us forsake his sins with all his heart, and make true promise unto God, he will no more return unto them, that then God shall require no­thing else to satisfaction. St. Cyprian saith, In eodem articulo temporis, cum jam anima festinat ad exitum, & e­grediens ad labia expirantis emerscrit, poenitentiam cle­mentissimi Dei benignitas non aspernatur, nec sera est, quae vera est. Cypr. De Caena Dom. In that very moment of time, even when the Soul is ready to pass, and is even at the lips of the Party, ready to yield up the spirit, the goodness of our merciful God refuseth not repentance, and whatsoever is truly done, is never too late. St. Chrysostome saith, Chrysost. in Genes. Homil. 27. Ne­que uno die, neque brevi hora. The Thief on the Cross had not a day, no not an hour, before he was with Christ in Pa­radise.

Gent.

But, though the guilt of sin be remitted to the penitent, yet is a stain in­herent to the soul, which must be purged by satisfactory punishment, or Indulgence before the last Judgment.

Minist.

After bodily dissolution there is neither purgation, nor satisfaction; for as the Tree falls, so it lies; as death leaves us, so judgment findes us. Joh. v. 24. He, that heareth my Word, and believeth on him, that sent me, hath everlasting life, [...], and cometh not unto judgment, but is passed from death unto life: whereof St. Augustine renders rea­sons consonant to analogie of faith, August. in Apocal. Homil. 11. Qualem invenit Dominus, cum hinc vocat, talem & judicat; As our Lord findeth [Page 116] a man, when he calleth him hence, even so he judgeth him. Qui in hac vita non plac [...]erit, habebit quidem poenitentiam in futuro sae­culo de malis suis, sed in­dulgentiam in conspectu Dei non inveniet; quia etsi erit ibi stimulus poenitudi­nis, nulla tamen erit cor­rectio voluntatis. August. ad Petr. Diac. cap. 3. Who in this life shall not please God, shall in the World to come, have repentance for his sins, but pardon in the sight of God he shall not finde; for although there shall be there the pricks of repentance, yet there shall be no amendment of the will. Olympiodorus seconds him, saying, In quocunque loco de prehenditur homo, cum mo­ritur, in eo gradu, atque ordine permanet in aeternū. Olympiodor. in Eccles. cap. 9. In what place, or state soever a man shall be found, when he dyeth, in the same state, and degree shall he remain for ever.

Gent.

How then came Purgatory, and Indulgences to be so generally received; if they have no ground from Scriptures, nor uniform consent of Fathers?

Minist.

That they have neither ground in Scriptures, nor uniform consent of Fa­thers, is already demonstrated, and by your own confessed; and therefore wants that infallible mark of Catholick Doctrine, given by Vincentius Lyrinensis, Vir centius Lyrinen­sis Adversus profanas no­vationes haeresium; pag. 646. he requires the Marks of Catholick Do­ctrine, Ʋniversality, An­tiquity, and Consent, or Succession. In ipsa ecclesia Cathelica magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; In the Catholick Church, we must have an especial care, that we hold that, which was believed every where, always, and of all. But Purgatory was not believed every where; for saith Nilus, Nilus de Purgatotio, Catholica Traditio. quaest. 16. We know, that the Eastern Church doth not believe it: and Roffensis, Roffensis contra Lu­therum, Art. 18. Graecis usque ad hunc di­em non est creditum; The Greeks be­lieve no I urg [...]t [...]ry till this day. Not al­ways; [Page 117] for (saith the same Roffensis) de Purgatorio apud priscos nulla est mentio; The Antients make no mention of Pur­gatory. And Marcus, Bishop of Ephesus, in the Apologie of the Greeks to the Council of Florence, begins, Marcus Ephes. in Graecorum Apol. de igne Purgatorio ad Concilium Florentinum. Where­as our Fathers had delivered unto them many Visions, and Dreams, and other wonders concerning the everlasting punishment in Hell; yet none of them had declared any thing concerning the temporary fire of Purgatory. Not of all, for the Muscovites, Cophites, the Abis­sines, the Georgians, and Armenians, the Syrians, and Chaldeans, that are subject to the Patriarchs of Antioch, and Babylon, from Cyprus, and Palestina until the East-Indians, never made discovery of this new-found Land of Purgatory: Car­dinal Cusanus, and the Deputies of the Council of Basil, in the year 1438. do sufficiently manifest the Opinions of the Greek Church, wherein the Grecians be­gan their Disputations in this manner. [...], &c. [...]. Marcus Crus. in Turco-Graec. pag. 186. A Pur­gatory fire, and a punishment by fire, which is temporal, and shall at last have an end, neither have we received from our Doctours, neither do we know, that the Church of the East doth manifest it. And from these, and the like Progosi­tions, they make this peremptory conclu­sion, [...]. Ibid. For these Reasons therefore, nei­ther have we hitherto affirmed any such thing, neither will we at all affirm i [...].

Gent.
[Page 118]

Whence then had Purgatory its Original, if it have neither Ʋniversality, Ecclesiastick Antiquity, nor Succession? such a great fire (as it is pretended) could not be kindled from a small spark.

Minist.

It had its first spring, and rise from the Heathens; Plato Plato in Timaeo. made dis­covery of it amongst the Grecians; St. Augustine August. De Civitate Dei, lib 7. cap. 7. amongst the Pagan Romans, who had a Sacrifice, called Sacrum Pur­gatorium, a Purgatory Sacrifice; they probably borrowed it from Homer; he communicated his fictions to succeeding Poets: hence Quid negotii est, haec Tocta [...]um, & Pictorum portenta convincere. Cicero, Tusculan. those Fables arise of Her­cules delivering Theseus; Orpheus his Wife Eurydice; Aeneas his visit of his Father Anchises. The manner whereof Virgil, who was Homer's Imitator, ex­presses.

Virgilius, Aeneid. 6.
Quin & supremo cum lumine vita reliquit,
Non tamen omne malum miseris, nec funditus omnes
Corporeae excedunt postes; penitusque necesse est
Multa diu concreta modis mollescere miris.
Ergo exercentur poenis, veterumque ma­lorum
Supplicia expendunt; aliae panduntur inanes
Suspensae ad v [...]ntos; aliis s [...]b [...] gurgite [...]as [...]o
Infectum eluitur scelus, aut exuritur igne;
Quisque suos patitur manes. And Claudian;
Quos ubi per varios annos, per mille figuras
Egit Laethaeo purgatos flumine, tandem
Rursus ad humanae revocar primordia formae.
Gent.

How came this Heathenish, and Poetical Figment traduciary to Christi­ans? It is not probable, they should in­termingle their Fables with Divine ve­rity.

Minist.

Corruption was introduced, and Divine Oracles contaminated with humane Traditions three ways.

First, By retaining some reliques of former Superstitions; for when Pagans were converted Christians, Quo semel est imbuta recens, servabit odorem Te­sta diu. Horat. the Casket still relished of the precedent Liquor. Constantine Eusebius in Vita Constantini. the Emperour, when a professed Christian, continued the Plutarch. in Numa Pompil. Heathen Office of Pontifex Summus, with other remainders of Idolatry.

Secondly, The People's Credulity, and the Clergie's policy; for whereas Cardinal Cajetan tells us, Indulgentias dari tan­tum de impositis poeniten­tiis. Cajetan. Opusc. Tom. 1. tr. 8. q. 1. Indulgences at the first, were onely given after penance impo­sed; the manner how, is described in the Nicene, and Ancyran Concil. Ancyr. Con­cil. 1. Nic. Burchard. lib. 19. & Gratian. Dist. 12. cap. Presb. Councils, thus, Concil. Anc. Can. 5. Nic. 1. Can. 11. After grievous crimes, men were put to grievous penances; it fell out sometimes, that it was thought convenient, that pe­nance should be mitigated; which favour the Bishops, and Priests, invested with ju­risdiction, had authority to grant; at [Page 120] length, they began to redeem them with mo ney: by little, and little, Superstition took so deep root, that the common people began to think, that if they did not perform, or re­deem them, while they lived, they could not die in peace. The Romish Higlers took ad­vantage of this, and affrighted them on their Death-beds with exquisite tortures to be endured hereafter, if not ransomed by themselves, or friends: hence it was a common opinion in the days of Albert. 4. Dist. 12. Art. 17. Alber­tus, and Gand. Quodlibet. 15. Henricus de Gandavo, that Popes Pardons, and Purgatory were onely pious frauds. So Altisiodorus expresly; Dicunt quidam, quod relaxatio non valet, quan­tum Ecclesia promittit; sed facit, ut ex [...]it [...]ntur fidcles ad dandum, & decipit eos Ecclesia. Altisiodor. Sum. lib. 4. De relap. The end of Indulgences is, that the Faithful may be excited to give, and the Church deceives them.

Thirdly, Satan, having got Videtur dicendum, quod valet ad tot annos. ad quot secundum divinam or­dinationem pro peccatis praeteritis haberet sustinere in Purgatorio, si ante in­dulgentiae consecutionem in gratia decessisset. Viguer. Institut. cap. 16. sect. 6. vers. 22. this hint, drove on the design by Frater Justus. qui de­functus fuerat, nocte qua­dam fratri suo Germano Copioso per visionem ap­paruit, quem cùm vidisset, inquisivit dicens, Quid est frater? quomodo es? cui respondet, Nuncusque malé: sed jam modo bene habet quia hodie commu­nionem recepi. Gregor. Dialog. lib. 4. cap. 55. Apparitions to the living, in the shape, and persons of the Dead; telling them, they were scorch­ed in Purgatorial Flames, and not to be delivered from thence; but by Popes Pardons, Pilgrimages, Masses, Oblati­ons, Prayers for the Dead, and other Su­perstitious superstructures, which this sub­tile Serpent builded upon this foundation. Hence, as some Geographers for proving of a Vide Tabulam M [...]r­eat. universam. black Magnetick Rock, many hundred miles about, directly under the Northern Pole, sends us to Gyraldus Cambrensis, he to a Priest of Norway; the Priest to an Oxford Magician, who was carried thither to see it by the Devil: So the best Romish proofs for their sub­terranean [Page 121] Purgatory come by many de­ductions from the same Authour, as ap­peareth by the divers Apparitions they so confidently alledge for it. The result of the whole epitomized is this; That, which is not grounded upon Scripture, and can justly plead neither Ʋniversality, Anti­quity, nor Succession; but had its spring, and rise, from Poetical Fictions, People's credulity, Priest's avarice, Satan's subtle­ty, ought not to be believed, but rather abjured, and renounced; But such is Pur­gatory: Therefore it ought not to be believed, but rather abjured, and re­nounced.

Gent.

Well; I clearly perceive, there is no Purgatory, but in a man's Imaginati­on, with which Lunacie I have been vex­ed these many years; but I thank you for delivering me out of it, and desire you to proceed to the next Article.

The Fifth Article.

And that the Consecrated Hoast, Crucifixes, or Images, ought not to be worshipped, neither that any Worship is due to any of them.

Minist.

THis Article innovates nothing, but is synonomous, and, without any consi­derable alteration in effect, the same with the twenty second of our English Confes­sion, wherein it is said, That the Romish Doctrine of Veneration, and Adoration, both of Images, and Reliques, are grounded upon no warrant of Scripture; but rather con­tradictory to the Word of God.

Gent.

There is some difference; for in the present Article there is no mention of Reliques; in that of the English Con­fession, none of the Consecrated Hoast; which seems to me distinct things, and re­quires a distinct manner of handling: Therefore, I beseech you, begin with the former, that the consecrated Hoast ought not to be worshipped.

Minist.

They are coincident, and the handling of them will fall in toge­ther; for the consecrated Hoast, and Images, are in this distinguished; that the former represent the Prototype by a Di­vine, the latter onely by a humane institu­tion: but both concenter in this, (which is essential to the Question) that they are but signs, or Creatures at the best, and so not adorable: we have been long since [Page 123] taught of St. Augustine, Ea demum est misera­bilis anima servitus signa pro robus accipere. August. De Doct. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 5. That it is a miserable servitude of the Soul, to take the signs instead of the thing signified.

Gent.

But Christ calls the consecrated Hoast his Body; and Theodoret tells us, Intelliguntur ea esse, quae facta sunt, & credun­tur, & adorantur. Theo­doret. Dialog. 2. The Mystical signs are understood to be those things, which they are made, and so they are believed, and are adored.

Minist.

In what sense the Consecrated Hoast is the Body of Christ, you have heard in the Article of Transubstantia­tion; your own quoted Theodoret, (if you desire it) will give you further satisfacti­on; for an Heretick having avouched (as you do now) That Symbola Dominici cor­poris, & sanguinis, aliae quidem sunt ante invoca­tionem Sacerdotis, sed post invocationem mutantur, & aliud fiunt. Respondetur. Signa mystica post sanctifi­cationem non recedunt à natura sua, manent anim in priori substantia, & fi­gura, & forma. Theodo­ret. Dialog. 2. The Sacraments, or signs of Christ's Body, and blood, are one thing before the blessing of the Priest, but after the blessing they are changed, and made other things: Theodoret answers no; For the mystical signs after the blessing (of the Priest) depart not from their own na­ture, for they remain in their former sub­stance, figure, and form; the same Bread, and Wine, remains as before, are under­stood, and believed as before; but he ad­deth, They are also adored; his meaning is, They are reverenced, or honoured: for Theodoret was a Father of the Greek Church, who adore not the Sacrament till this day, yet would speak reverently of it, as St. Augustine doth of Baptism, saying, Baptisma ubique est veneramur. August. E­pist. 164. We honour, or adore Baptism, wheresoever it be. I hope the Romists will not gather hence, that Baptism must be worshipped: It was the Counsel of Ana­stasius, [Page 124] that Dominica verba at tentè audiant, & fideliter adorent. Athanas. De Cons. Dist. 1. Apostolica. Men should deligently hear, and faithfully adore the Words of God; yet Papists themselves give no divine Wor­ship to sacred Oracles: we may reverence, and admire the Eucharist, with Venisti ad Altare vi­disti Sacramenta posita su­pra Altare, & ipsum qui­dem miratus es creaturam; tamen creatura solennis, & nota. Ambros. De Sacr. lib. 4. cap. 3. St. Ambrose, yet give no divine Worship to it; as the Wise men did the Stars, Cognove­runt hanc stellam esse, quae hominem, De­umque signabat, sed adoraverunt parvu­lum. They knew (saith St. Ambrose) (g) Ambros. in Lucam. lib. 2. cap. 2. this was the Star, that signified him un­to them, that was both God and Man, but they adored the little one, and not the Star.

Gent.

But why may we not worship the Consecrated Hoast, seeing it signifies, represents, and exhibits Christ, who is to be worshipped?

Minist.

Because there is no worship due to it, either by Divine Institution, or otherwise, that is free from Idolatry. For as Theophilus, being sometimes demanded, Wherefore he would not adore the Empe­rour, as the manner was then, with divine honour? made answer thus, Quia non est ad hoc institutus Imperator, ut a­doretur; sed ut legitimo honore honoretur. Theo­philus contr. Autolycum. lib. 1. Because the Emperour is not appointed to that end he should be worshipped; but that we should give him that honour, that to him appertain­eth: so the Sacrament was not appointed to be worshipped, but reverently to be re­ceived by Faith. And, as St. Augustine saith of the anointed Pillar, so we may say of the consecrated Bread, Non sic posuit Jacob lapidem acutum, ut veniret, & adoraret; alioqui Ido­lolatria est, non significatio Christi. August. in Johan. Tract. 7. Jacob did not erect the anointed stone to the intent to come, and to adore it; otherwise it were I­dolatry, [Page 125] and not a signification of Christ. Sulpitius Sulpitius in Vita Martini. relates of St. Martin, that when the Devil appeared unto him, and demanded Worship, telling him, he was Christ, the holy man refused, saying, I cannot tell, whether thou be Christ, or no; unless I see Christ in the same shape, and form he was crucified in upon the Cross, I will not adore him in any wise. So we, know­ing not any warrant, that Christ is essenti­ally, and substantially in the Sacrament, dare not worship it; for in all the Scri­ptures, and holy Fathers, we have neither commandment to force us, nor Quis tam stultus, ut id, quod vescitur, credat esse Deum? Cicero. De natura Deorum. example to lead us thereto.

Gent.

If adoration of the Hoast be dis­owned both by Scriptures, and antient Fathers; how was it introduced into the Church, or when began it?

Minist.

Extravag. De caie­brat. Missar. It is a thing lately devised by Pope Honorius, about the year of our Lord, 1226. afterwards increased by the new solemn Feast of Corpus Christi day, about the year of our Lord 1264, and that by Pope Ʋrbanus: and last of all, con­firmed for ever by multitudes of Par­dons in the Council of Vienna, by Pope Clement the Fifth, Cleme [...]. lib. 3. Tit. 16. [...]pite Si Dominum. Anno 1310. The Church of Asia, and Graecia, never re­ceived it until this day. The matter is weighty, and cannot be attempted with­out imminent danger to the soul; for saith St. Hierome, Dum Sacramenta vie­lantur, ipse, cusus Sacra­mem a s [...]nt. vi [...]l [...]ur. Hie­ron, in Malac [...]. cap. 1. While Sacraments are abused, God himself, whose Sacraments they are, is dishonoured. To give the ho­nour [Page 126] of God to a creature, that is no God, is manifest Idolatry; and all Idolaters, (saith St. John, Apocalyp. xxi. 8.) shall have their portion in the Lake, that burneth with fire; and brimstone.

Gent.

But, admit adoration of the Hoast in particular was introduced within these few Centuries; yet worship of Crucifixes, and Images in general, is acknowledged by Protestants (as Andrews in Re­spons. ad caput 18. Per­ronii. Doctour Andrews, Casaubon. in Exer­citat. Baronii; ad Annum 24. Casaubon, and Montacutius in Re­spons. ad Higham, & Appello Caesarem. Montague) to be ve­ry antient.

Minist.

Imagerie is twofold; either Veneration largely taken; which signifies an external regard, and reverence of Pictures, such as is given to Churches, sa­cred Vessels, and Ornaments of sacred pla­ces; and this Hoc nemo nostrum di­cit, Non esse colendas, nec ullo modo; suo modo coli probamus, velut Imagines, sed non religioso cultu. Ju­nius advers. Bellarm. De Imag. cap. 11. Junius, with the for­mer quoted Authours, confesses to be both antient, and (in their judgment) in­nocent: Or Adoration properly taken, which signifieth an internal submissi­on of soul to the acknowledging of some excellency; an outward expressi­on of the body by kneeling, kissing, censing, holding up the hands. Worship­ping of Images in this manner, by re­ligious adoration; either primary, or se­condary, absolute, or respective, is not acknowledged to be antient, or Ca­lick Doctrine, practised by Primi­tive Fathers: But, on the contrary, it is a superstitious Dotage, and re­mainder of Paganism, as Cornelius A­grippa, a Papist, confesses, saying, [Page 127] Qui quidem corruptus mos Gentilium, & falsa religio, cùm ipsi ad Chri­sti fidem converti caeperunt, nostram quoque Religionem infecit, & in nostram Ec­clesiam simulachrae, & I­magines, multaque pompa­rum steriles ceremoniat in­troduxit; quorum, &c. Cornelius Agrippa, De vanitate Scientiarum. The corrupt custom of the Gentiles, and false Religion, when they began to be converted to the faith of Christ, infect­ed also our Religion, and introduced into our Church, Pictures and Images, and ma­ny barren pompous Ceremonies, quorum nihil omnino fuit apud primos illos Chri­stianos, whereof there was not any thing a­mong those primitive Christians.

Gent.

Cornelius Agrippa in this, as in other Points, acts the part rather of a Sa­tyrist, then of a true Casuist; what reason had he thus tartly to inveigh against in­troduction of Images?

Minist.

He might, and we have suffici­ent reason.

First, The Canon of the Old Testament is diametrically opposite to Image-Wor­ship; Exod. xx. 5. Levit. xxvi. 1. Deut. v. 9. Psal. cvi. 9. Isai. xxviii. Micha. v. 13. that the best-learned among your Romish Rab­bies are forced to confess, it was prohibi­ted to the Jews. The Angelical Doctour saith▪ Prohibitum est in ve­teri Lege, nè Imagines fl­erent ad adorandum. A­quin. 3. Sent. Dist 9. q. 2. The making of Images to be wor­shipped was interdicted in the Old Law. The same is affirmed by Alexand. Hales pa. 3. q. 30. m. 3. Art. 3. Alexander Hales, Albert. 3. Dist. 9. Art. 4. Albertus, Bonavent. 3. Dist. 9. Bonaventure, Marsilius, Gerson, Abulensis, and vouch­ed by the modern Schole-men; to wit, Soto, Corduba, Cabrera, Palacius, Tapia, Oleaster, amongst whom the Jesuit Vas­ques shall bring up the Rear; who de­clares, That Lege veteri non fuisse vetitam omnem similitudi­nem, aut effigiem quomodo­cunque; sed omnem cul­tum, & adorationem ipsius, atque adeo quoque omnem Imagmem, seu effigiem mo­do accommodato adorationi erectam, aut constitutam. Vasques, De Ador. lib. 2. Dis 4. cap. 6. In the Old Law, every I­mage, and Portraicture was not forbidden; but every Worship, and Adoration of Ima­ges: [Page 128] and therefore every similitude, or re­presentation erected, or constituted by way of application to Adoration, was prohibited.

Secondly, The Brazen Serpent was a figure of Christ, John iii. 14. was formed by God's Commandment, Numb. xxi. 9. yet the worship thereof, being (as Vasques Vasques, De Ador. lib. 2. Dis. 4. cap. 5. saith) cultus, qualem etiam imaginibus deferre nos consuevimus, no other, then such as Romists use towards their Images, was unlawful; 2 Kings xviii. 4.

Thirdly, The Scriptures of the New Testament, neither expresly, nor by con­sequence, maintain the worship of Images; neither is there in all the Apostles Do­ctrine, any abrogation of the negative Precept, delivered to the Jews, concern­ing the worship of Images; and there­fore the same Law is Morale simpliciter, quod omni tempore, & ab omnibus servandum est. Alexand. Hales, 4. q. Art. 1. moral, and obli­geth Christians, as it did the Jews.

Fourthly, The worshipping of Images was not practised, or held lawful by the Primitive Fathers, as Cassander Quantum veteres, in­itio Ecclesiae, ab omni ve­neratione Imaginum ab­horruerunt, declarat unus Origenes adversus Cel­sum. Cassand. Consult. De Imag. & Simulachr. ga­thers out of Origen against Celsus; and Gregory the Great, six hundred years af­ter Christ, condemned the same; for, wri­ting to a Bishop, he useth this Suasive, Gregor. lib. 7. Epist. 109. lib. 9. Epist. 9. Tua fraternitas ab earum adoratu populum prohibere debuit; Your Brother-hood ought to hinder the people from wor­shipping of them; and adorare imagines omnibus modis devita, avoid the wor­shipping of Images by all means. The Council of Frankford seven hun­dred, ninety; and fourscore years [Page 129] after Christ, opposed the Definition of the second Nicene Synod, concerning wor­shipping of Images, as Ado saith, Ado, Chron. atatis 6. fol. 181. Pseudo-Synodus, quam septimam Graeci ap­pellant, pro Imaginibus adorandis abdicata penitus; The false Synod, which the Greeks call the seventh, for worshipping of Images was wholly disclaimed. And our Historian, Carolus, Rex Fran­corum, misit librum Syno­dalem ad Britanniam, in quo libro multa inconveni­entia, & verae fidei con­traria, maximè imagines debere adorari, quod om­nino Ecclesia Dei execra­tur. Roger Hoveden. Annal. part. 1. pag. 232. col. 2. Roger Hoveden, though a Papist, informs us, that Charles, the French King, sent a Book of the Synod to Britain, in which Book, many Inconveniences, and contrary to the true faith, were asserted, especially, that Images ought to be adored, which (saith he) the Church of God altogether ex­ecrates. And this was done, even with the authority of the Pope; for, saith Cassan­der, Cassander, Consult. De Imagin. Cum Legati Romani Pontificis in­terfuerunt, &c. When the Legates of the Bi­shop of Rome were present, by uniform con­sent of Fathers, that Synod (the second Ni­cene) so far as it judged Images to be ado­red, was condemned, as contrariant, not onely to Scriptures, and the antient tradition of Fathers, but also to the custom of the Ro­man Church.

Agobardus, the Bishop of Lyons, who lived (as Ado saith) about the year 815, in his Book De Picturis, & Imaginibus, a­vers, that Nullus antiquorum Catholicorum unquam eas colendas, vel adorandas ex­istimavit, nemo se fallat, quicunque aliquam pi­cturam, vel fusilem adorat statuam non exhibet cultum Deo, &c. Agobard. Bib­liothec. Patr. edit. Colon; Tom. 19. p. 598. None of the antient Catho­licks thought that Images were to be wor­shipped, or adored; and delivering his own judgement, he saith, Nemo se fallat, &c. Let no man beguil himself, whosoever wor­shippeth any Picture, or carved Statue, nei­ther [Page 130] honoureth God himself, nor Angels, or Saints, but Idols.

Fifthly, Many modern Pontificians have condemned the worship of Images; according as the same was practised by the vulgar, and maintained by Aquinas, and other prime Scholemen. Holcoth saith, Holcoth. in dibr. Sap. cap. 13. pag. 524. Nulla adoratio debetur Imagini, nec licet aliquam Imaginem adorare; No adoration is due to an Image, neither is it lawful to worship any Image. Cassan­der writeth in this manner, Sanioribus Scholasticis displicet sententia Thomae; qui censeat imaginem ea­dem adoratione colendam, qua res ipsa colitur. &c. Cassand. Consult. De Pictur. The Opini­on of Thomas Aquinas, who holdeth, that Images are to be worshipped, as their sam­plers, is disliked by sounder Scholemen: and they affirm, that it is not very safe, unless it be qualified with favourable interpre­tation; among these is Durand, and Hol­coth. Gabriel Biel reports the Opinion of them to be more sound, which say, that an Image neither as considered in it self ma­terially, nor yet according to the nature of a sign, or Image, is to be worshipped. Peresius Ajala saith, (m) All Scholemen, (n) Omnes ferè Schola­stici in hoc sunt, quôd ima­go Christi, & Sanctorum adorari debent, &c. neque Scripturam, neque tradi­tionem Ecclesia, neque communem sensum San­ctorum, neque Concilii ge­neralis determinationem a­liquam adducunt. Peres. De Trad. part. 3. De Imag. in a manner, hold, that the Images of Christ, and the Images of Saints, are to be worship­ped with the same adoration, that their sam­plers; but they produce, so far as I have seen, no sound proof of this Doctrine, to wit, nei­ther Scripture, nor Tradition of the Church, nor consent of Fathers, nor the determinati­on of a general Council, nor any other effe­ctual reason, sufficient to perswade be­lievers.

Gent.

But we finde, that the Crucifix, [Page 131] or the sign of the Cross was in great e­steem amongst the Antients; as was pre­sented in a Vision to Ezekiel, where God commanded one clad in white, to imprint the Letter Tau, which (St. Hierome Hieron. Comment. in Ezek. saith) amongst the antient Hebrews re­presents the Cross, in the forehead of e­very mourner, Ezek. ix. In conformity to this, when Constantine, Eusebius, Ecclesiast. Histor. libr. 1. cap. 9. the Emperour, had marshalled his Army to encounter Maxentius, he beheld in the Sky the sign of the Cross of a glorious splendor, and heard a voice, [...], In this overcome. When Sozomen Tripartit. Histor. lib. 9. cap. 29. Julian the Apostate, had deserted Christianity, and sacrificed to Idols, drops of rain, as they marched, formed in his, and his Souldiers Garments, the effigies of the Cross. Ruffinus, Ecclesia­stic. Histor. lib. 10. in fine. When the Jews attempted to build the Temple at Jerusalem, by Julian's encouragement; they being driven from that design by Tempests, and Earth-quakes, indelible Characters of the Cross were imprinted on their Cloaks. Socrates, Histor. Tri­part. lib. 9. cap. 29. In the Temple of Se­rapis, [...], Hiero­glyphical Letters were found engraven in stone, representing the figure of the Cross.

Minist.

What will you gather hence? If you affirm, that either de facto they did worship the Cross; or de jure they might, or ought to have done it; you will finde no History for the one, nor any reason for the other. We acknowledge there are Stories extant, when Jews, and [Page 132] Pagans blasphemed him, that died upon the Cross, the figure thereof was either wonderfully imprinted, or wonders done thereby: but any Argument drawn from thence to prove the adoration of it will as well conclude the worship of Moses his Rod, Elizeus his Bones, Paul's Napkin, and Peter's shadow. The Brazen Serpent serves for an instance unanswerable; which, though set up by God, miracu­lously curing the sting of the fiery Ser­pent, enjoyned to be kept for a Monu­ment; yet, when adored, was Quando Ezekias ipsum confregit, quòd videret ei incensum adoleri; cùm ta­men in memortam praeteriti beneficii à Deo accepti in populo illo servaretur, non ideo fecit, quia existimaret à populo pro Deo coli, & adorari; sed quod ali­quem cultum, qualem eti­am Imaginibus deferre nos consuevimus. Vasques, De Adorat. lib. 2. Dis. 4. cap. 5. justly by Ezekias demolished, and broken in pieces. Grant all these Stories should be true; That the Letter Tau, in Ezekiel's Vision, should represent the Cross; That Constantine saw the Crucifix in the Air; That the Souldiers Coats were stained with the Cross under Julian; That Crosses were burned, or stained in the Jews Gar­ments at Jerusalem; That the Hierogly­phical Letters, bearing the form of the Cross, were found in the Temple of Sera­pis in Aegypt: It will demonstrate no more, (as St. Chrysostome Mors Christi apud Judaeos maledicta, apud Gentiles abominanda, &c. Chrysostom. De laudibus Pauli. Homil. 4. expresses) then that the death of Christ, which a­mong the Jews was held accursed, among the Heathens was accounted abominable; might be rendered honourable every where by these miraculous Prodigies.

Gent.

Tertullian. Apolo­getico, cap. 16. Ecclesia­stic. Histor, lib. 11. cap. 19. authore Ruffino. Histo­ria Tripart. lib. 1. cap 9. The Christians of Alexan­dria, when they had pulled down the Arms, and Monuments of Serapis, caused the sign of the Cross to be painted in the [Page 133] same place. Constantine enjoyned the same to be painted in all his Flags, and Banners of War, to be stamped in his Coins, and Moneys; to be pourtrayed in his Arms, Escutcheons, and Targets: of which the Divine Poet, Libr. 1. contra Sym­machum. Aurelius Pru­dentius, maketh mention.

Christus purpureum, gemmanti textus in auro,
Signab at Labarum: clype [...]rum Insi­gnia Christus
Scripserat, ardebat summis crux ad­dita Cristis.
Minist.

But neither the Christians of Alexandria, nor Constantine, worship­ped the Cross; nor doth your Divine Poet so much as fain any such thing, which you were to prove: we yield, Princes did then (as now) paint the Cross on their Imperial Banners: Labarum, Cassidor. lib. 1. cap. 9. Tertull. in Apologetico. amongst the antient Romans, was the Im­perial Standard, richly wrought with Gold, beset with pretious Stones, carried before the General of the Field, as wit­nesseth Sozomen, Sozomen. lib. 9. cap. 4. Aelianns Spartianus. [...]. The one of the Standards, which the Romans call Labarum; in this the Cross was wrought, or pourtrayed. To which Gregory alludes, encouraging Christ's Souldiers, saying, Christum belli socium babuisti, cujus Labarum insigne gestasti, ipsam dico vivificatricem crucem. Gregor. ad German. Patriarch. Thou hast had Christ thy fellow-Soul­dier, whose Ensign, or Banner thou hast car­ried, I mean that enlivening Cross. This [Page 134] Standard Constantine so blazed with the Cross, as the Romans. Heathen Emperours had done before with the Minotaur, and Eagle. And, though Eusebius saith, that Eusebius in Vita Constantini, Orat. 1. Constantine [...], used this Cross, as a preser­vative of his safety; yet Nicephorus Nicephor. lib. 8. cap. 32. makes it appear, his confidence was onely in Christ, not in the material Cross; for he caused these words to be engraven in the Cross, [...], Jesus Christ conquereth, and not the Cross: as St. Ambrose stories his Mother Helena, to have done before him; Invenit titulum, Re­gem adoravit, non lignum utique; qui his Gentilis est Error, et vanitas impiorum. Ambros. in Orat. f [...]ebri Theodosii. She found the Title, but she worshipped Christ the King, and not the wood; for (saith he) that is an Heathenish errour, and the vanity of the wicked.

Gent.

Eusebius Eusebius Caesatiens. cap. 14. reports, he saw in Caesarea Philippi an Image of Christ in Brass, as also of the Woman, which he cured of the bloody Issue; which when the Apostate Julian had taken down, and erected his own Statue in the place there­of, it was cleft in pieces with Thunder, and Lightning from Heaven. Therefore apparently great reverence is to be exhi­bited to Crucifixes, or the Image of Christ.

Minist.

I will answer Eusebius with Eusebius, who avoucheth not one word of worshipping, but the contrary; for having declared, that the Phoenicians, being Heathens, and hearing the strange Mira­cles, that had been wrought by Christ, [Page 135] and his Apostles, made these Images in honour of him, onely out of Heathenish, and vain Superstition: his words are these, Nec mirum est ve­teres Ethnicos, beneficio affectos à Servatore nostro, ista fecisse; nam & ipsius Christi imagines coloribus ductas, & servatas vidi­mus: [...]. Euseb. Caesar. lib. 7. cap. 17. It is no marvel, that the Hea­thens, receiving such benefits of our Savi­our, did these things; for we have seen the Image of Christ drawn in colours, and pre­served; and it may well be thought, that men in old times, being not yet removed from the Superstition of their Fathers, used after this sort to reverence them by an Heathe­nish Custom, as their Saviours. Where­by it is plain, that the use of Images came not from Christ, and his Apostles; but from the Superstitious Custom of the Heathens; neither were these in that age set up in any Church, but in the open street; for an Herb grew at the feet thereof. Ju­lian, out of inveterate malice to Christ, took down his Image, and set up his own in the place thereof, to affront the Lord of Life; therefore it was darted with a Thunder-bolt from Heaven, as an ominous presage of his ensuing ruine, who prodi­giously wounded, and throwing out handfulls of blood, cryed out, [...]. Thou hast conquered, O Ga­lilean. This will infer, that Julian was punished for dishonouring Christ; but will not prove, that Images were then set up in Churches, much less, that they were adored: for about that time the godly Emperours, Valens, and Theodosius, gave out this Pro­clamation throughout all Christendom; [Page 136] For as much as we have a diligent care in (i) Cùm sit nobis curae di­ligens in rebus omnibus su­pernt numinis religionem tueri, signum Salvatoris nostri Christi nemini con­cedimus, coloribus, lapide, [...]liavè materia fingere, sculpere, aut pingere; sed quocunque reperitur loco, tolli jubemus, gravissima poena eos mulctando, qui contrarium Decretis nostris, & imperio quicquam ten­taverit. Constantinopol. Concil. Petrus Crinitus, lib. 9. cap. 9. all things to maintain the Religion of the most high God, therefore we suffer no man to fashion, to grave, or to paint the Image of our Saviour Christ either in colours, or in stone, or in any other kind of Metal, or mat­ter; but wheresoever any such Image shall be found, we command it to be taken down, assuring our Subjects, that we will most straitly punish all such, as shall presume to attempt any thing contrary to our De­crees. And before this time, it was Ar­nobius his Plea against the Gentiles, Accusatis nos, quod non habemus Imagines, & al­taria; non est dubium, quin religio nulla sit, ubi est si­mulaehrum. Arnobius Contra Gentes, lib. 2. pag. 214. Lactant. lib. 2. cap. 2. Ye accuse us, that we have neither Images, nor Altars; out of doubt, where there is any Image, there is no Religion.

Gent.

But suppose Images, and their worship be interdicted by Scriptures, Fathers, and antient Councils; yet they are consequent out of the Principles of Nature, and Christianity; for an Image is a distinct, and lively Pourtraicture of some visible, and corporal thing, by its very aspect exciting the beholders to compassion. Thus Virgil Virgil. Aeneid. 2. brings in Aeneas weep­ing at the sight of a painted Table, disco­vering at Carthage the Trojan Wars: Ovid Ovid. Epist. 13. personates Laodamia comfort­ing her self with the waxen Image of her Husband Protesilaus in his absence. Ap­pian Appian. De bellis Civilibus, lib. 2. emblazons the manner how the Friends of Julius Caesar brought his Statue in the same bloody Garb, as he was wounded in the Senate, thereby ma­king a deeper impression upon the Roman [Page 137] Citizens, to revenge his death, then the most eloquent Oration could have done.

Minist.

Your Argument (if any thing seemingly to the purpose) in form sounds thus:

That, which hath a natural inclina­tion to move compassion, ought to be ado­red;

But such are Images.

Your Proposition is manifestly false; and your Assumption may be questioned. And whereas you describe an Image a lively Pourtraicture of some corporal, and visible thing; I demand how this can be affirmed of the Images you make of God the Father, and the Trinity, which are incorporeal, and invisible? Clemens of A­lexandria is so far from avouching an I­mage to be a lively Portraicture; that the saith, [...]. Clemens A­lexand. [...]. It is a dead matter, formed by a Work-man's hand; but we use (saith he) no Image made of sensible matter, but such onely, as is perceived by understanding. But, methinks, you are brought to a great dearth, when, for lack of other matter, you are forced to produce Heathen Histo­riographers, and Poets, who (as Athenaeus [...]. Athe­naeus. saith) have liberty to say, and do what they please. That Story of Terence, Suspectans tabulam quandam pictam, ubi ine­rat pictura haec, Jovem quo pacto Danae misisse aiunt quondam in gremium Imbrem aureum, egomet quoque id spectare cepi. &c. Terent. in Eunucho. in Eunuchus had been as concentrick to your purpose, where in the Picture Chaerea, seeing Jupiter in a Golden shower de­scending into Danae's Lap, was encoura­ged to deflowre the Virgin committed un­to [Page 138] his charge. I grant, Images do often­times vehemently move the minde di­versly to sundry affections. So Salust te­stifies, that Quintus Maximus, and Publius Scipio, were inflamed with Nobi­lity of courage to advance themselves to like adventures, when they beheld their Ancestours Images. But every thing, that may delight, or move the minde, is not therefore Quantum autem visi­bilia noceant ad invisibilia capienda, et quantum amor corporearum rerum, etiam bonarum, ad spiritualia contemplanda, ipse Domi­nus demonstrat, dicens, Ego veritatem dico vo­bis, expedit vobis, ut ego vadam; si enim non a­biero, non mittam eam ad vos. Agobard. lib De pict. & imag. Tom. 4. Bibliothec. meet for the Church of God, much less adoration. God's House is the House of Prayer, not of gazing. There­fore the antient Lacedemonians would not suffer any Image, or Picture, to stand in their Council-House, lest the Senatours minds thereby should be drawn from instant imployments to extravagant ima­ginations. That Counsel of the Wise man is conceived Canonical, though the Book be Apocryphal, Wisd. xv. 5. Aspectus ima­ginis dat insipienti concupiscentiam; The sight of an Image in the unwise stirreth up concupiscence.

Gent.

Christ, to whom all adoration, and worship is due, became truly, and ve­rily man; as visible, and a spectable, as any other man, and consequently, as ima­ginable, that he may be figured by an Image, no less truly, and distinctly, then another man. That Story in Eusebius of Publius Lentulus is well known, who sent a perfect Description of our Saviour to the Roman Senate.

Minist.

Conclusions borrow their strength from the Premises; but these [Page 139] your Premises have no power to enforce the controverted Conclusion: for, al­though Christ be true Man, and suppose Divine Providence had permitted a true Transumpt to have been taken in his life­time upon earth, truly resembling the Prototype, and transmitted till our times without alteration; yet his painted, or carved Image wanteth evident, and unde­niable right to represent him: because such right presupposeth Divine Institution. The same represents him, and stands for him onely by humane imagination; but religious Worship must have a more sound, and certain foundation: otherwise we must say to Papals, when they are thus prodigal in giving Christ's honour to I­dols, [...], John iv. 22. Ye worship ye know no [...] what: as appears by Cùm Idolum non su­erit, id est cujusque Dei falsi, & alieni simulachrū; sed Ephod, id est, unum de Sacramentis Taberna­culi, quod ad vestem Sa­cerdotalem pertinet, quo­modo fornicationem Scriptura dicat populi istae sequentis, atque veneran­tis? Ideò scilicet, quòd praeter Tabernaculum Dei, ubi erant ista, qua sibi fie­ri jusserat Deus Israel, ex­trà simile aliquid fieri fas non erat. Aug. q. 41. su­pra librum Judicum, pag. 415. Gideon's Ephod, Judges viii. 27. And, if it should be granted, that artificial Images did represent, figure, or teach Christ Jesus by divine Institution, as fully as the Books of Holy Scripture, or as the Internae imagines multò perfectiùs represen­tant ipsum exemplar, quàm imagines externae. Cabre [...]. 3. Quaest. 25. Art. 3. v. 28. inward Conceits, or Images of the minde; yet it were inconsequent to infer, that the same were therefore to be worshipped in such manner, as Papals re­quire. They were indeed to be used with reverence; but reverent using, and adora­tion are divers actions.

Gent.

We ascribe no divine honour to the Image, but to the samplar; as when we reve­rence, or do honour to the Image, of Christ, it is onely Christ himself, that we adore with latria, or divine worship.

[Page 140]
Minist.

Your own eminent Doctours, and Schole-men are Biassed another way. Aquinas saith, Cùm Christus adore­tur adoratione Latriae, con­sequens est, quòd ejus Ima­go sit adoratione Latriae a­doranda. Aquin. 3. q. 25. Art. 3. When Christ him­self is adored with divine honour, it is consequent, that his Image is to be ado­red with the worship of Latria. Picus of Mirandula saith, Picus Mirand. Apol. q. 3. Crux Christi, & imagines sunt adorandae Latria eodem modo, quo ponit Thomas; The Cross of Christ, and Images are to be worshipped in that manner Aquinas sets down, that is latria. Henriquez, a Jesuite saith, Henriquez, Sum. Theol. Mor. lib. 8. cap 32. Some do evil, in denying, that it is meet to preach to the common people, that the Image of Christ is to be adored with di­vine Worship. Suarez hath these words, Dicendum ergò primò est, fieri rectè posse, ut Prototypon in Imagine, & Imago cum Prototypo, uno actu adoretur, atque hoc modo posse Imaginē Christi adorari Latria. Suarez in 3. Tom. 1. Dist. 54. It may rightly be, that the Image, and the Prototype may be adored with one act, and in this manner the Image of Christ may be adored with Latria. Vasques saith, Vasques, De Ador. lib. 2. Dis. 8. cap. 14. n. 385. If an Image be taken formally, as it exerciseth the act of an Image, that is for the very Samplar in the Image, and for the Image, as it containeth the Sam­plar, and is as it were animated by it, then, without doubt, we must say, that true Latria in spirit is exhibited unto it. Jacob de Graphiis hath these words, Jacob. de Gra­phiis, Decis. Aur. p. 1. lib. 2. cap. 2. n. 15. We are to worship every Image with the same worship, wherewith the Samplar is worshipped, to wit the Image of God, or Christ, or sign of the Cross, (as it bringeth the Lord's Passion into our minde) with the worship of Latria. This same is affirmed by Paramo, De orig. In­quis. lib. 2. Tit. 3. cap. 8. n. 9. Ludovicus Paramo, Puiol. De Ador. Dis. 8. Sec. 6. Bernard­us [Page 114] Puiol, Petig. Sum. 3. Sent Dist. 9. q. 1. Art. 3. Franciscus Petigianis, Petrus de Cabrera, Azorius,, Lucius Lamas, Thomas Elysius, Arch. Rubeo, Thomas Bustus; and though some of these Au­thours use wire-drawn Distinctions to qua­lifie the harshness of their Assertions, they are (as Bellarmine Per se, per accidens; Absoluta, & respectiva; Propria, impropria; Pro­priè, Analogice. Bellarm. professeth) so subtile, and intricate, ut ipsimet viz in­telligunt, nedum populus imperitus; That they themselves scarce understand them, much less the Ignorant Vulgar.

Gent.

I never relished their Judge­ment, who give divine honour to Images. Our Saviour's Check to Satan con­troles that, Thou shalt worship thy Lord God, [...], Matth. iv. 10. him onely shalt thou serve with (La­tria, or) divine honour. Nay, the Second Council of Nice forbids it, which, you say, first introduced Image-worship; Though our Zonaras in Leone Isaurico. Doctours affirm, that Leo Isauri­cus, before that Council, opposed it, and so Iconolatria was more antient.

Minist.

Qui creaturam adorat, etiamsi in nomine Christi id facit, simulachrorum cultor est. Clemens Ro­manus, Recog. lib. 5. pag. 71, 73. You do well to disrelish not onely Divine honour, but all honour, that is given to Images, not grounded on Divine Revelation, whereby God is rob­bed of his honour. Adorare imagines omnibus modis devita, saith Gregory; Take heed how thou worship Images any way. We do not say, that the Second Nicene Synod brought in Iconolatry, or worship of Ima­ges simply; but, by defining the same to be necessary, and by appointing the pra­ctise thereof to be received universally; [Page 142] for we acknowledge, that the Israelites worshipped molten Images in Dan, and Bethel; and the Scholars of Simon Ma­gus worshipped Images, as Eusebius Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 13. stories it. The Irenaeus, lib. 2. cap. 24. Gnosticks worshipped Christ his Image; and Marcellinus August. De Haeres. 7. Haeres. worshipped the Images of Jesus, and Paul: The Marsilians Gregor. lib. 7. Epist. 109. also, or people there­about, worshipped Images in the days of Serenus; but all these were condemned of Superstition, and Idolatry, by the Ca­tholick Church; and the Second Nicene Synod was censured, and the Definition thereof resisted by that of Francoford, and contrary to that of Helleboris, Contra quod scripsit Albinus Epistolam ex authoritate divinarum Scripturarum mirabiliter affirmatam, illámque ex eodem libro, ex persona E­piscoporum, & Principis, Regi Francorum attulit. Roger [...]s Hoveden. Against which also Albinus wrote an Epistle, marvellously confirmed by the authority of divine Scripture, and car­ried the same to the French King toge­ther with the Nicene-Synodal Book, in the name of Bishops, and Princes.

Gent.

How then were Images, and their Adoration introduced at the first, if they were Plants the Heavenly Father planted not.

Minist.

St. Hierome Argento, & auro de­coravit illud, ut fulgore utriusque materiae decipiat simplices; qui quidem error ad nos transivit. Hierony­mus in Hieremiam, lib. 2. cap. 10. tells us, it was from the Heathens, which adorn their I­mages with Silver, and Gold, that by the shine, and splendour of both these Metals, they may deceive the simple, which errour, saith he, is now crept in amongst us, that be Christians. Athanasius saith, Athanasius Adver­sus Gentes. [...]. [Page 143] The invention of Images is of evil, and not of good, and the thing, that hath an evil beginning, can never be judged good in any thing, as being in all respects, and alto­gether evil. St. Cyprian saith, Ad defunctorum vultus per imagines det [...] ­nendos expressa sunt simu­lachra, indè posteris facta sunt sacra, quae primitùs fuerunt assumpta solatia. Cyprian. De Idolorum va­nitate. Images were first drawn, thereby to keep the coun­tenance of the dead in remembrance, upon occasion thereof things grew at length unto holiness, which at the first were taken onely for solace. Concil Nic. 2. Ar­tic. 6. Gregory, the Bishop of Neocaesarea saith, Gentilitas inventrix, & caput est imaginum; Heathenism was the first deviser, and head of Images. Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 17. Eusebius, speaking of the Images of Christ, Peter, and Paul, saith, that it is [...] by observation of an Heath­enish Custom; for with such Images they honoured them, whom they thought worthy of honour. Saint Augustin saith, Augustin. Contra A­damant. Simulant se favere simulachris, quod propterea faciunt, ut miserrimae, & vesanae suae sectae etiam Paganorum concilient bene­volentiam; They would seem to favour Images, which thing they do, to the in­tent, to make the Heathens to think the better of their most miserable, and lewd sect. For, according to Verentur nè Religio vana sit, si nihil videant, quod adorent. Lactan. lib. 2. cap. 2. La­ctantius, They are afraid their Religion should be in vain, if they see nothing, that they may worship. Hence (if you have nothing further to object) I conclude,

That, which is contrary to Scriptu­res, Nè facias adversus le­gem similitudinem aliquam. nisi & ibi Deus jusserit, & tu imitare Mosen. Ter­tul De Idololatria. Fathers, and all venerable Antiquity, had its ground from Paga­nism; and condemned Hereticks, and [Page 121] is plain Idolatry, ought to be renounced, Idem Deus & lege vetuit similitudinem fieri, & ex­traordinario praecepto Ser­pentis similitudinem edixit. Tertul. suprá. and abjured.

But such is worshipping of the con­secrated Hoast, Crucifixes, Images;

Therefore it ought to be renounced, and abjured.

Gent.

I have spent my whole stock of Objections concerning this, and I am ready to entertain your Discourse touching the next Article.

The Sixth Article.

And I also believe, That Salvation cannot be merited by Works.

Gent.

THis is contrary to the Canon of the Council of Trent, wherein it is defi­ned; Si quis dixerit, Homi­nis justificati bona opera ità esse dona Dei. ut non sint etiam bona ipsius justi­ficati merita; aut ipsum justifica [...]um bonis operibus, quae ab eo per Dei grati­am, & Jesu Christi me­ritum, cujus membrum vivum est, fiunt, non verè mereri augmentum Gratiae, vitam aeternam, et ipsius vitae eternae, si tamen in gratia decesserit, consecuti­onem, atque etiam gloriae augmentum, Anathema sit. Concil. Trident. Sess. 6. Can. 32. If any shall say, that the good works of the justified man are so the gifts of God, that they be not also the good merits of him, that is justified; or that the justified man by his good works, which he doeth by the grace of God, and merit of Christ Jesus, whose lively member he is, doth not truly merit the increase of grace, eternal life, and the conse­cution of the same eternal life, if he shall depart hence in Grace, and also the augment of glory, let him be accursed. And this is consonant to the antient Fathers, in whose writings no Term is more fre­quent, then that of Merit.

Minist.

Though it clash with the De­finition of your Novel Trident Conven­ticle, yet it is agreeable, not onely to the eleventh Article of our English Confes­sion, and the Homily of Justification, but to Scripture, and all reverend Antiquity. And, albeit the Word [Merit] be some­times [Page 146] used by the Antients, yet never with approbation in your sence: for the name of Merit is taken in two Notions;

First, Properly, strictly, and univo­cally, Rom. iv. 4. Deut. vii. 10.

Secondly, Improperly, largely, and aequivocally, Eccles. xvi. 15. The first is termed, by Scholemen, Merit of Condigni­ty. The latter, Merit of Impetration, or Cengruity. If you maintain Merit accor­ding to the first acceptation, then out of all question, the Doctrine of Merit is not Catholick; for St. Hierome saith, Nee aff [...]rmare licet [...] nostra ex aequo Dei gratiae, et misericoratae re­ [...]nd [...]re: alioqui perpe­r [...]m dixisse [...] Paulus Rom. xii. Non sunt condignae passiones. Hieron. supra Ephes. 2. It is not lawful to affirm our Merits equally to answer the grace, and mercy of God; for then Paul had spoken amiss, saying, Rom. viii. 18. I account the sufferings (Mar­tyrdoms) of this present time not to be worthy of the glory to be revealed. And St. Basil avoucheth, That Manet requies sempi­ [...] [...]lio [...], qui hac vita le­ [...] certaverunt, non [...]uam de [...]i [...] operibus [...], sed ob munifi­ [...] Dei gratiam, in [...] speraverunt, exhibi­ [...]. Basil. supr. Psalm. c [...]i [...]. Eternal rest abides for them, that have lawfully striven, not as merit, or due debt to be rendered to their works, but for the grace of the most bountiful God, in whom they have trusted. If it be onely Merit of congruity, and meetness, you maintain, we acknowledge it sometimes the Language of the Fathers: but they meant no more by Mereri, to merit, but Impetrare; to obtain, or impe­trate, seeing they apply it to wicked, and graceless men: as St. Augustine saith, [...]. et alia vitae [...] [...]oe [...]um accipere [...] non per [...] [...] reg [...]u [...] Dei. Au­ [...] Dei. [...] 24. (d) These, and the gifts of this life, certain worshippers of Devils have merited to re­ceive, who pertain not to the Kingdom of God. This acceptation is so far from being [Page 147] advantageous, that it countermines your design.

Gent.

But our Authours tells us, that you extenuate the value of the price of our Re­demption, not making it sufficient to give inward sanctity, and purity to mens souls, nor to raise the good works of God's Children to a due proportion with their reward.

Minist.

No Christian Church ever pri­zed the oblation, and Merits of Christ, more highly, and religiously, than we, Hebr. x. 14. Ephes. v. 2. Acts iv. 12. John i. 29. and we firmly believe the Mirabilis Passio tua, Domine Jesu, quae pastio­nes omnium nostrum pro­pulsavit, propitiata est omnibus iniquitatibus no­stris, & nulli unquam pesti nostrae invenitur inefficax. Bernard. 4. Heb. Pente­cost. ine­stimable price, and virtue thereof for man's redemption, sanctification, justifica­tion, and glorification, 1 Cor. i. 30. and in particular, we believe expresly, and contrary to our Adversarie's accusation, that the same is Itse Christus est os nostrum per quod Patri lo­quimur; oculus noster, per quem Patrem videmus; dextra nostra, per quam Patri offerimus; omnia hae­bemus in Christo: si vul­nera curare desideras, Me­dicus est; si febribus ae­st [...]as, fons est; si grava­ris iniqua sententia, justi­tia est: si indiges auxilio, virtus est; si mortem times, vita est; si teneb a f [...] ­gis, lux est; si coelum desi­deras, via est: si alimen­tum quaeris, cibus est. Am­bros. lib. d. Isai. cap. 8. all-sufficient to justi­fie a sinner in the sight of God, and to give true, and inherent Sanctity, and purity to mens Souls, and actions; First, in this life, sanctity, and purity secundum statum viae, according to the condition of man's wayfaring state: Secondly, in the life to come sanctity, and purity of perfect righ­teousness without errour of sin. And we believe, that the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross effecteth all this, both by way of merit, and influence, Rom. vi. 1, 5. John xv. 1. yet for all this, it doth not raise our works to that sublime pitch, as condignely to merit salvation, at the hands of God; as Pontificians say, God were un­just, [Page 148] if he did not condignely reward our works, which even your own Durand con­demneth as temerarium, & blasphemum, a rash, and blasphemous Assertion.

Gent.

Bellarmine Bellarm. De Justifie. lib. 4. cap. 1. saith, that ye hold good works, reipsa, & simpliciter morta­lia peccata, in deed, and simply to be mor­tal sins; bona non nisi nomine, & secundum quid, to be vertuous onely by extrinsecal denomination.

Minist.

That Bellarmine unjustly ca­lumniates us, may appear from the twelfth Article of our English Confession, where­in it is said, That Good works are the fruits of Faith, and follow Justification, are ac­ceptable unto God, and accepted in Christ. With which agrees Melancth. Corp. Doctr. Tit. De bouis operibus, pag. 20. Melancthon, and Beza, Quaesi. & Re­spons. in Opusc. Tom. 2. pag. 676. Rucer, & alu in Colloquio Ratisbonen­si, pag. 313. Beza, who profess in their Treatise of this question, That Although the works of Regenerate persons are not so perfect, and good, as that they are able to merit Eternal life; yet they are truly good, because they proceed from the Holy Ghost, who purifieth the heart by faith, and because God is glo­rified by them, and we our selves receive ex­cellent fruit by them.

For first we believe, that Apologia Ecclesiae Anglicanae testatur, Bona opera necessaria esse Chri­stiano ad salutem. Rai­nold. Apolog. Thes. pag. 263. Good works are necessary to salvation, and that all men, that will be saved, must carefully apply themselves to the practise, and ex­ercise thereof; which is St. Augustine's golden Aphorism, Augustin. De Spiritu, & litera, cap. 14. Praecepta Legis tam sunt salutaria facienti, ut, nisi quis ea fece­rit, vitam habere non posset: Divine pre­cepts are so necessary, that none can have [Page 149] salvation, but he, which observes them. Tit. iii. 8. Joh. xv. 2, 8. Hebr. xii. 14. Apoc. xxii. 8.

Secondly, God rewards good works of his bounty, and grace with benefits spiritual, and temporal, Gen. xxii. 16. Luke vi. 35. yet so, as Marsilius saith, Talis est obligatio Creaturae ad Deum, quod quantò plus solvit, tanto plus tenetur. Marsil. 2. q. 18. Art. 14. The more debt he payeth unto God, the more he is indebted.

Thirdly, In giving the reward, he con­sidereth the minde, and quality of the doer; the integrity, measure, and quality of the work; 2 Cor. ix. 6.

Fourthly, The reward is certain, and infallible, yea more certain, saith St. Non ita fidere debemus his, quae in manibus habe­mus, & videmus, ut pro­missionibus Dei. Chrysost. Genes. Hom. 55. Chrysostome, then any temporal benefit, which man presently enjoys in the World. Gen. xxii. 16.

Fifthly, There is in all good works a dignity not of desert, or aequiparance, either in respect of God, of whom we can deserve nothing, or in respect of the re­ward; but onely of grace, divine simili­tude, goodness, and honour, Phil. iv. 8. So Pe­rerius; Praeter debita gratitu­dinis, quae nemo satis exsol­vere Deo potest, ea quoqu debita, quae divino prae cepto persolvere tenemur nemo perfectè persolvit. Perer. in Genes. vi. p. 5 Dis. 5. n. 148. Besides the debt of gratitude, which none can sufficiently pay to God, no man also can perfectly pay those debts we are bound to discharge by divine precept.

Sixthly, The reward of good works is called a Crown of Righteousness, 2 Tim. iv. 8. because it is bestowed on them, which exercise Righteousness, and in regard of their righteousness: but merit of con­dignity, and righteousness are divers things, as appeareth in Angels, and In­fants, [Page 150] which have righteousness, and are crowned with glory, and yet they do not merit, as is declared in the Council of Co­len, Apposita est nobis co­rona justitiae Dei quia justū est, ut reddat, quod r [...]s [...] ­piscentibus promisit, non quidem ex debito, sed ex gratia. Enchirid. Concil. Colon. A Crown of the righteousness of God is laid up for us, it being just he should give that, which he promised to penitents, but not of debt, but of grace.

Seventhly, The antient Fathers main­tained no merit of condignity, but by merit (as is formerly glanced) they un­derstood impetration by any means; some­times without a man's privacy, or know­lege: as Saint Ambrose saith of St. John, Ambros. Serm. 53. Tantam gratiam nascendo meruit; He merited so much grace in (or at) his Birth.

Eightly, Hujus vitae justitia non consistit in perfectione vir­tutum, sed remissione pec­catorum. August. De Ci­vitate Dei, lib. 19. cap. 27. The prime part of man's right­eousness consists not (as Saint Augustine saith) of perfection of virtues; but remission of sins. Thus you see, we cut the chanel even between Scylla, and Charybdis, give­ing good works their guerdon, or due En­comium, but not merit of salvation, which is Christ's peculiar.

Gent.

Catholicks themselves hold, that no work is meritorious with God of its own nature; but, to make the same meritorious, many graces are requi­red, and those most divine, and excel­lent.

Minist.

Your Rhem. Annotat. in Hebr. vi. n. 4. Divines of Rhemes so far extenuate Christ's merits, and ad­vance man's, that they affirm good works are meritorious, and, without any qualifi­cation, the very cause of Salvation, so [Page 151] far, that God should be unjust, if he ren­dred not Heaven for the same. And Bel­larmine adventures to say, That Non est temerarium. nec blasphemum, sed pium, & sanctum dicere. Deum fore injustum, si non ser­varet promissa. Bellarm. De Justificat. lib. 5. cap. 16. It is neither rash, nor blasphemons; but pi­ous, and holy to assert, that God were not just, if he kept not his promise, that is of rewarding merits. And whereas you pretend Romists hold not works simply me­ritorious of themselves, but in complexion with many exquisite Graces; it implies a contradiction: for that, which is of merit, is not of grace, but of debt, and divine grace doth not elevate virtuous actions, by adding unto them a force of meriting, but onely by making them susceptible of a free, and liberal reward, and by placing them in the state, and order of causes im­petrant, or dispositive conditions. This An­dradius clears, saying; Paulus cùm demon­strare statuisset Abraham side fuisse justificatum, & non ex operibus, hac una potissimism id ratione effi­cit, Ei, qui operatur, me ce; non imputatue secundum gratiam. sed secundum debitum; er­gò si justitia Abrahae esset operum, illius merces sa [...]è debitum potus quam gra­tia dici debuisser. An [...]. Orthod. Explic. lib. 6. pag. 518. Paul, when he would demonstrate Abraham to have been justified by Faith, and not by works, effected that principally by that one reason. To him that worketh, reward is not imputed ac­cording to grace, but according to debt therefore if Abraham's righteousness was of works, his wages ought rather to be called a debt, then grace. But what are those divine graces, that are required to make works meritorious?

Gent.

They are seven, whereof the first is Divine preordination, by which Man, and his actions are ordained by God to a supernatural end, otherwise not seisable.

Minist.

By Divine preordination virtu­ous Actions have reference (not of de­sert, [Page 152] but of disposition, and instrumental tendency) to beatitude, or the last super­natural end; as Saint Bernard saith, Si propriè appellentur ea, quae dicimus nostra me­rita, spei quaedam sunt seminaria, charitatis in­centiva, occultae praedesti­nationis indicia futurae fe­licitatis praesagia, via re­gni, non causa regnandi. Bern. De lib. Arbitr. If we do not nickname those things, that are called our Merits, they are certain Semi­naries of hope, incentives of Charity, disco­veries of hidden predestination, presages of future Felicity, the way to the heavenly Kingdom, but not the meritorious cause of reigning. But what are your other Gra­ces?

Gent.

The second is the grace of Redemp­tion, by Christ, whereby God giveth us the inestimable Treasure of his Son's merits.

The Third is the grace of Adoption in Baptism, whereby we have God for our Father, Christ for our head, the Holy Ghost for our Paraclete, who works in us, ma­king our works meritorious.

Minist.

The grace of Redemption pur­chaseth for us the influence, and inestima­ble efficacy of Christ's merits both for pardon of Sins, and the new Creature; but that Christ's merits makes man's actions meritorious, and that his Satisfactio est reddi­tio ejus, quod debetur se­cundum justitiam. Jo­hannes de Coloma, Quaest. Magistrat. q. 363. satisfaction enableth man to satisfie God's justice, is as unsavory an Inference, as if one should say, Christ hath redeemed us by his passion, and he communicates to us the grace of Re­demption; Therefore he makes us Re­deemers. The grace of Adoption it is true in Baptism makes the regenerate partakers in a sence of the divine nature, and com­municates divine rays from the distinct Persons in the Trinity, yet makes not the [Page 153] works of man so qualified condignely me­ritorious: for the divine persons work ac­cording to a certain degree, and measure of grace, and not according to the fulness of power, or as an elicitive cause: Alio­quin (saith Vasques) sequeretur nostra opera esse infiniti valoris; Otherwise it would follow, that our works were of infinite value; Cum opera nostra non alia ratione tribuantur Christo tanquam capiti mystico, nisi quia ab eo ac­cipimus gratiam, justitiam, & auxilia omnia, nequa­quam autem sicut, elici­ente illa, fit ut minimè ac­cipiunt dignitatem, neque dignitatis incrementum à Christo, sed solùm à per­sona ipsa eliciente suam dignitatem justitiae, & sanctitatis: alioqum seque­retur nostra opera esse in­finiti valoris. Vasques, 1. 1. Dis. 214. cap. 7. seeing our works upon no other account are attributed un­to Christ, the mystical head, but that we receive grace of him, righteous­ness, and all aids; but in no wise as the cause elicitive, it falls out, that they cannot receive their dignitie, nor en­crease of dignity of Christ, but onely of the person, that acts them, according to the dignity of his righteousness, and sanctity, from whom (as Bonaventure Bonaventur. 3. Dist. 20. q. 4. evidenceth) vitium humanae originis nunquam separatur a carne peccati, the fleshly stain, traduciary from original sin, can never be separated. And our Adversaries, that pretend to so much a­cuteness, might know, that the Persons in the Trinity in effecting our adoption con­cur not as simply Pro exclusione virtu­ris mediae in eodem genere causarum secundarum, & in hac significatione sola causa proxima est immedi­ata. Keckerm. System: Log. pag. 148. immediate, but re­mote; not as total, but partial; not as univocal, but aequivocal; not as natural, but voluntary causes, dispensing graces according to the necessity of the receiver, and the wisdom, and good pleasure of the donour. But it is neither necessary for men, nor stands with the good pleasure of God, to receive power of meriting properly; [Page 154] seeing it is most honourable for God to bestow life eternal freely; Non est volen­tis, nec currentis, sed operantis Dei.

Gent.

The fourth grace, requisite to make works meritorious, is prevenient, and adjuvant; whereby our actions are sub­limed to a supernatural pitch, above hu­mane capacity.

The fifth is the grace of merciful In­dulgence, whereby God exacts not of us in rigour what he might by the title of Religion, the title of Justice, the title of Gratitude; but is content, that we make use of our good works, for the gaining of glory.

Minist.

It is granted, that the will of Man by preventing, adjuvant, and subse­quent graces produceth works supernatu­ralin their kinde, yet so as it is principium vulneratum, wounded with sin, and soyled with many imperfections; We know but in part, Rom. vii. 18, 19. Gal. v. 17. Heb. xii. 1. Whence Tertullian professeth, that In optimis nonnihil est pessimi, solus enim Deus sine peccato. Tertul. De Anima, cap. 23. In the best men there is something of that, which is worst, for onely God is without sin. Hereupon it is consequent, that re­generate men cannot challenge a reward by merit of debt, because they offend in many things, James, iii. 2. according to Gregorie's Magni viri licèt jam magna vitae charitate luce­ant, aliquas tamen peccati nebulas, velut quasdam noctis reliquias trahunt. Non de meis meritis confi­dens, ut me salvum facias supplico, sed de sola mise­ricordia tua praesumens impetrare, quod non de me­ritis meis spero. Gregor. in 1 Psal. poenitent. Litany, I supplicate (saith he) that thou wouldest save me, not as having confidence in mine own merits, but presuming to obtain of thy mercies alone, which I hope not for mine own merits. And for your grace of Deus hoc in mercedem imputat, non quòd justis no­bis debeat; sed quod miseri­cors est, & pius. Chrysost. in 2. Cor. Homil. 23. merciful Indulgence, [Page 155] whereby it is said, God exacts not what he might by the Titles of Justice, Religion, and Gratitude; it dismantles, and sets on fire all your former Fabrick, as appeareth by this Dilemma; If God exacteth accord­ing to his due, then (upon your own ground) there is no merit; If he do not in rigour exact, then this Indulgence for Christ's sake taketh away all plea of me­rit from us, and casteth it upon Christ a­lone. But what are the remainders of your graces?

Gent.

The sixth concurrent grace, to make works meritorious, is God's free promise to reward them according to their desert. The seventh, which crowns all, is the grace of Perseverance to the end.

Minist.

First, the promise of God, whereby he obligeth himself to confer a benefit to his people upon their obedi­ence, inferreth not desert, or merit on their part. It is your own Durand's A­phorism, Promissio divina in Scripturis sanctis non sonac in aliquam obligationem, sed insinuat meram dispo­sitionem liberalitatis divi­nae; quia quod redditur non ex debito praecedentis operis, sed ex promissione praecedente, non quidem redditur ex merito operis de condigno, sed solum, vel principaliter ex promisso. Durand. 2. Dist. 27. q. 2. n. 15. That, which is given nor from debt of a precedent work, but of a prece­dent promise, is not given for the merit of the work condignly, but onely, or principally by promise. God promised to bestow the Land of Canaan upon the Israelites, and bound himself by Oath, Exod. xiii. 5. yet he gave this good Land to them, not for their own merits, but of his free boun­ty, Deut. vii. 7, 8. And it is Talis dignitas in actu nihil est, nisi acceptatio passiva voluntatis divina. Leuchet. Quodlib. 17. Art. 2. untrue, that God hath obliged himself by pro­mise to reward the good works of his Chil­dren, according to their deserts; for he [Page 156] rewardeth them according to his own bounty, but not according to their desert, yea, he rewardeth above desert, (as Gre­gory Arimine Gregor. Arimin. 1. Dist. 17. q. 1. Art. 2. saith), and in part contra­ry to desert, Psal. ciii. 10. Which Gregory, the last of good Popes, and first of bad, confesses, Gregor. Papa. Mo­ral. lib. 9. cap. 27. Si, semota misericordia, dis­cutimur, opus nostrum poena dignum est, quod remunerari praemiis postulamus: If we should be judged without mercy, our works deserve punishment, which we beg to be recompensed with rewards. And as for the grace of Perseverance, as it is a ne­cessary condition of glory, Apocal. ii. 20. so it is of grace, and not of merit, Rom vi. 23. Jer. xxxii. 4. 1 Cor. i. 8. Psal. i. 6. So that your seven graces specified are seven En­gines to demolish your Babel of merit; for the Chaldean builders were not more divided, then these Romish Architects. Dionys. Cistert. 3. Dist. 1. q. 2. Art. 3. Marsil. 2. q. 18. Art. 3. & 4. Some of them simply, and absolutely deny merit.

Secondly, Some say Bona opera per se spe­ctata non habere condigni­tatem, & rationem meriti, sed totam rationem meriti habere petitam ex promis­sione, & pacto Deo affir­mant Scotus. Gregorius A­rimin. Gabriel Orcham; Alphonsus Castro, Vega, &c. Hi Doctores revera denegant meritum operum, & totam vim merendi a­scribunt operibus Christi. Vasques sup. 1. 2. Disp. 214. cap. 1. Good works are meritorious, onely by reason of the pro­mise, and acceptation of God; and these also in effect deny it.

Thirdly, Others, (as Cajetan, Soto, and Petigianis) affirm, they merit condignely by the very nature, and dignity of the work, secluding divine promise.

Fourthly, Others (as Bellar. De Justif. lib. 5. cap. 14. Bellarmine Suarez, and Medina) affirm, that Merit of works is founded partly upon the di­gnity of the work, and partly upon the promise of God.

[Page 157]

Fifthly, Some of them hold, that God re­wardeth according to the rule of Commu­tative justice; others say according to Di­stributive; and others according to both.

Gent.

It seems to me a wonder, that they are so divided; but prodigious, that any denies merit of salvation, seeing the Council of Trent is so definitive.

Minist.

It is neither a wonder, nor pro­digie, but a just judgement; seeing it is contrary to Scripture, Fathers, and your most renowned Scholemen.

Gent.

If it be contrary to all these, I shall willingly abjure it, if you first make me clear demonstration of it, and that in order; first, that Merit of salvation by works is contrary to Scriptures.

Minist.

I shall refuse no pains for your soul's good. The first place of holy Scri­pture, wherewith I affront your Tenet, is Rom. vi. 23. [...]. The gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord; the gift (not merit) so Arias Montanus truly languages the word [...] by donation, a free gift; not as the Rhemists, to extenu­ate it, by gratia, grace; which is also suf­ficient for one purpose. Now upon these words (that we may not be our own In­terpreters) Theodoret descants thus, Hic non dicit merce­dem, sed gratiam; est e­nim Dei donum vita aeter­na: & si quis enim sum­mam, et absolutam justiti­am praestiterit, temporali­bus laboribus aeterna in ae­quilibrio non respondent. Theod. in cap. vi. ad. Rom. The Apostle saith not here reward, but grace; for eternal life is the gift of God: for although one could perform the highest, and absolutest justice, yet eternal joys, being weighed with temporal labours, are nothing [Page 158] answerable. St. Chrysostome thus; Non eundem servat op­positorum ordinem, non enim dicit, Merces bene­factorum vestrorum vita aeterna, sed Donum Dei vita aeterna, ut ostende­ret, quòd non propriis viri­bus liberati sint, neque de­bitum, aut merces, aut la­borum sit retributio; sed omnia illa ex divino mune­re gratuitò acceperint. Chrysost. in Rom. vi. The Apostle observeth not the same order of op­posites; for he saith not, Eternal life is the reward of your good works; but, Eter­nal life is the gift of God; that he might shew, that they are not delivered by their own strength, or virtues; and that it is not a debt, or wages, or a retribution of labours: but that they have received all those things freely of the gift of God. Origen thus; Origen. in cap. vi. ad Rom. It was not a thing worthily beseeming God, to give stipends to his Soldiers, as a due debt, or wage; but to bestow on them a gift of free grace, which is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord. St. Ambrose thus; Ambros. in cap. vi. ad. Rom. Sequentes peccatum acquirent mortem, ita & sequentes gratiam Dei, id est fidem Christi, quae condonat peccata, habebunt vi­tam aeternam. As they, that follow sin, gain death; so they, that follow the grace of Christ, that is the faith of Christ, which forgiveth sins, shall have eternal life. Theophylact thus, Gratiam autem, non mercedem dixit à Deo futuram perindè ac si in­quiat, Non enim labo­rum accipitis praemia, sed per gratiam, fiunt haec omnia in Christo Jesu, qui haec operatur, & fa­ctitat. Theophyl. in cap. vi. ad Roman. St. Paul said Grace, not Wages was to come from God; as if he should say, for ye receive not re­ward of labours; but all these things are done by grace in Jesus Christ, who worketh, and doeth them. By these Te­stimonies of the holy Fathers it is evi­dent, That eternal life is not purchased by desert of man, That eternal life is not a due debt, a deserved wages, or retribution of man's labours; but proceedeth whol­ly of the free mercy, and grace of God; That man's works, weighed in the balance [Page 159] with the joys of Heaven, are nothing at all answerable to them.

Gent.

This Text, and the Fathers gloss thereupon, is as clear, as if writ with the Sun-beams; produce (if you please) another.

Minist.

Observe then Rom. viii. 18. I recken, that [...], the passions, or sufferings, of this present time, are [...], not worthy to be compared with the glory, that shall be revealed in us. That, which is not worthy to be compared with glory, doth not condignely merit; but the very passions, martyrdoms of this present time, are not worthy to be compared with glory; Therefore they do not con­dignely merit. Theodoret doth live­ly express this verity in this golden A­pophthegme, Superant certamina coronae, non comparantur cum laboribus remunerati­ones; labor enim parvus est, sed magnum lucrum speratur: et propterea non Mercedem, sed Gloriam vocant ea, quae expectantur. Theodoret. in cap. viii. ad. Roman. The Crown outstrips the conflict, the labours are not comparable to the rewards; for the labour is small, but the gain hoped for is great: and therefore the things expected are not called Reward, but Glory. And St. Chrysostome, Chrysost. imperfect. in Matth. Homil. 55. What have we wrought in this World, to merit communion with God in his Celestial King­dom? and therefore the Apostle speaketh justly, I do not think the passions of this life condignely worthy of future glory. Anselme hath these words, Si quis pateretur omnes poenarum acerbitates, quae tempore praesentis vitae sus­ferri possunt, non essent omnes illae passiones dignum meritum ad consecutionem futurae gloriae, quae, ablato omni velamine, revelabitur in nobis. Anselm. in viii. cap. ad Roman. If one should suffer all kinds of torment, which can be endured in this life, yet would not all those afflictions, or tor­ments, or passions, be a sufficient, and condigne merit to attain the future glo­ry, [Page 160] which when every vail is taken out of the way, shall be revealed in us. And if any reply, Though not sufferings, some­thing else may merit salvation condignely; your own Durand rejoyns, that Inter opera meritoria maximè videntur esse me­ritoriae Sanctorum passio­nes, et tamen illae non sunt meritoriae de condigno. Du­rand. 2. D. 27. q 2. n. 3. A­mongst all meritorious works the passions of Saints seem to be most meritorious, and yet they are not meritorious condignely.

Gent.

Produce onely another Divine Testimony, that in the mouth of two, or three witnesses, it may be confirmed.

Minist.

Ponder well that place, Tit. iii. 5. by the Rhemists themselves translated thus; Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy he hath saved us by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost: whence we may frame this Argument.

They, which are not saved of works of justice, which they have done, but accord­ing to God's mercy, are not saved by merit of works:

But we are not saved by works of ju­stice, which we have done, but according to God's mercy;

Therefore we are not saved by merit of works. Anselme, upon the place, approves this conclusion to be naturally grounded upon the Premises; Then (saith Tunc salvos nos fecit, qui nostris meritis eramus perditione digni, non enim ex operibus justitiae, quae fe­cerimus nos, processit haec salus; quia nulla opera ju­stitiae seceramus, unde sa­lutem meruissemus, sed ipse secundùm misericordiam suam salvos nos fecit, non secundum merita nostra nobis hanc salutem dedit. Anselm. in Tit. cap. [...]ii. [...]. he) did he save us, who by our own merits deserved perdition; for this salvation came not from the works of justice, which we have done, because we had done the works of justice, by which we should merit salvation; but [Page 161] he according to his mercy saved us, and not according to our merits gave he us this salvation. You may have the Te­stimony of Dionys. Carthus. in Tit. iii. Dionysius Carthusianus, and others upon this Text besides.

Gent.

No; this is sufficient, proceed to your second reason drawn from the au­thority of Holy Fathers.

Minist.

‘I'le begin with Origen, who saith, Ego vix mihi persuadeo ullum o­pus esse posse, quod ex debito remune­rationem deposcat; I do scarcely be­lieve, that there can be any work, that may of duty require reward: and a­gain, Dicite vos servos in [...] ­tiles; nam etst omnia fe­cerimus quae praecepta sum, non tamen bonum aliquid fecimus, nec enim si bona essent, [...]essemus mutilos; omne autem bonum nostrum non propriè, sed abusivò bonum dicitur. Origeno in Matt. Tract. 8. We are unprofitable servants, for, admit we have done all things, that were commanded, yet we have done no good thing; for if our doings were good indeed, then were we not unprofitable, but any good deed of ours is called good, not rightly, and duly, but by abuse of speech. St. Augustine saith, Si Deus vellet pro meritis agere, non inve­niret, nisi quod damnaret; If God would deal with us according to that we have deserved, he should finde nothing, but that which he might condemn. ‘Saint Ambrose saith, Caro contra spiritum, & contra carnem spiritus concupiscit, nec invenitur in ullo hominum tanta con­cordia, ut legi mentis lex, quae est membris insita, non repugnet, propter quod ex omnium sanctorum persona accipitur quod Johannes Apostolus ait, Si dixeri­mus quoniam peccatum. non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus, & vetitas in. nobis non est. Ambros lib. 10. Epist. 84. Tom. 3. The flesh covereth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; neither can there be found in any man such con­cord, that the Law, which is ingrafted in the members, fighteth not against the law of the minde; and for that cause St John's words are taken, as spoken in the person of all Saints, If we say we have no sin, we decieve our selves, and there is no [Page 162] truth in us.’ St: Chrysostom is consonant to St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine, these are his words, Chrysost. De com­punct. cordis, lib. 2. Tom▪ 5. col. 592. Etsi millies moriamur, etsi omnes virtutes animi expleamus, nihil dignum gerimus ad ea, quae ipsi percepimus a Deo; Though we dy a thousand times, and though we accomplish all virtues of the minde, yet do we nothing worthy of those things, which we receive of God. ‘As also St. Basil Basil. De humilitate. Haec est nostra integra, & per­fecta gloriatio in Deo, quando propriae justi­tiae nos inopes agnoscimus; sola autem fide in Christum justificari; This is our full, and perfect rejoycing in God, when we acknowledg, that we are void of any of our own righteousness, and are justi­fied by faith onely in Christ. St. Hierom saith, Hierom in Epist. ad Ephes. cap. 11. In Christ, we have boldness, and liberty to come unto God, and trust, and affiance by the faith of him; not through our righteousness, but through him, in whom our sins are for­given. Theophylact saith, Servavit nos in aeter­num, non ex operibus, quae fecimus, hoc est, neque fe­cimus opera justitiae, neque per haec conservati sumus, sed universam salutem [...]o­nitas ipsius, atque clemen­tia operata est. Theophy­lact. in iii. cap. Titi. He hath saved us eternally, not of the works, which we have done; that is, neither have we done the works of justice, neither are we saved by them; but his goodness, and his clemency; hath wrought our salvation wholly. Saint Bernard, which saw not all things saw this; Bernard. Serm. in Annunc. p. 160. Tom. 1. Touching (saith he) eternal life, we know, that the sufferings of this time are not worthy of the Glory to come; no, not if one man could sustain all: for the merits of men are not such, that for them eternal life [Page 163] is due by right; or that God should do some injury if he gave it not, it derogates from grace, whatsoever thou ascribes to merit; I will have no merit that excludeth grace, meritum meum miserationes Domini, my merit is the mercies of God.

Gent.

These are more, then sufficient, let me hear, what you can say to your third reason taken from the testimony of your best approved Catholicks, and re­nowned Scholemen; clear this, and I, for my part, shall confess, we are [...], self-condemned.

Minist.

I will begin with your Ange­lical Doctour Aquinas, who saith, Manifestum est, quòd inter Deum, & hominem est maxima inaequalitas, in infinitum enim distant, to­tum, quod est hominis, bo­num est à Deo, unde non potest hominis à Deo esse justitia secundùm absolu­tam aequalitatem, sed se­cundùm proportionē quan­dam, &c. ideò meritum hominis apud Deum esse non potest. Aquin. 1. 2. Quaes. 114. Art. 1. That it is manifest, that between God, and man there is exceeding great ine­quality, as which do differ in infinite, all the good, that man hath, is of God: wherefore man's Justice received of God cannot be according to absolute equality, but after a certain proportion, to wit, as much as either worketh ac­cording to his condition; now man hath the measure, and condition of his virtue from God, and therefore man's merit cannot be with God, &c. Velosillot saith, that Velosillot. Advert. in 8. Tom. August Quaesit. 13. Scotus also negat meritum de con­digno, & tenet quod ultra gratiam tale o­pus acceptatur ad gloriam, Scotus de­nies merit of condignity, and that the work of the faithful is accepted even, beyond grace to glory. Brulifer saith; Brulifer. 2. Dist 27 q. 6. No man in this life, admit he were pure, and perfect, can merit heavenly glory condignely. Wal­densis [Page 164] charges it with the Pelagian Here­sie, to affirm, that God, according to the measure of meritorious works, shall reward a man so meriting, and reputes him the more R [...]puto saniorem The­olog [...] fideliorem Catholicum, & Scripturis sanctis magis concordem, qui tale moritum simpliciter abnegat, & cum modifi­catione Apostoli, & Scri­pturarum con [...]dit, quia simpliciter quis non meretur regnum coelorum, sed ex gratia Dei, aut voluntate largitoris. Waldens. De Sacrament. t. 1. c. 7. nu. 5. sound Divine, more faithful Catho­lick, and more concording with holy Scri­ptures, which simply abrenounceth such merit, and with the modification of the A­postle, and Scriptures, yields that no man simply merits the Kingdom of Heaven; but that it is of the grace of God, or the will of the giver. Durand, a famous Schole-Doctour, is of the same judgement, saying, that Meritum de condigno invenitur inter homines; sed non est hominis ad De­um: quod patet, qutae quod redditur potius ex liberali­tate dantis, quàm ex debito operts, non cadit sub merito condigni strictè, & propriè accepto: sequitur, quod si quis dicat, quod. quamvis Deus non constituatur nobis debitor ex altquo opere ne­stro, &c. Durand. in 2: Sent. dis. 27. q. 2. in med. Condign merit is found a­mong men; but it is not between God and man: which hereby is clear; because that, which is rendred rather of the libe­rality of the giver, then of the debt to the work, falleth not under condign merit, properly so called. If any say, that if God become not our debtor, by rea­son of our work, yet he is made our debtor, by reason of his promise, which the Scripture expresseth: That answer is of no force, for two reasons;

First, Because God's promise in the Scriptures doth not sound to any obligation, but insinuateth the meer disposition of God's liberality:

Secondly, Because that, which is given, is not given for the debt arising of the work, but of promise, that went before; not that it is rendred for the condign merit of the works, but onely, or principally for his promise sake. Thus far he. Dominicus Soto, a zealous [Page 165] Monk, and famous Popish Writer, tells his Colleagues roundly, that No man is a­ble to make condign satisfaction for his sins, nor by condign merit attain eternal life; for thus he saith, Soto De Natura. & Gratia, lib. 3. cap. 6. pag. 138. Perfect satisfaction is that, whose price, and value, proceedeth wholly from the Debter, without either pre­venting, or intervening grace of the Credi­tour, so as the voluntary reddition be of that, which is equivalent, and not otherwise due; but so no man is able to perform. Dionysius Carthusianus saith, Non ex operibus justi­tiae, quae fecimus not. id est, non propter merita no­stra, quae nulla fuerunt; sed secundùm suam miseri­cordiam salvos nos fecit à potestate Diaboli, & rea­tu aeterni tormenti merito suae conversationis, & passionis. Dionys. Car­thus. in Tit. iii. Not of the works of righteousness, which we have done, that is, not for our merits, which were none at all, because we were subject to the fore-named sins; but according to his mercy, hath he saved us from the power of the Devil, and guilt of eternal torment, by the merit of his holy Conversation, and Passion. Andreas Vega saith, Vega, Opusc. Quaest. 4. that many other Schole-men, to wit, Gregor. Arimin. 1. d. 17. q. 1. Art. 2. Gregory Arimine, Mar­silius, Burgens. supra Psal. xxxv Paulus Burgensis, Eckius, Centur. De Praedest. Eckius, Dionys. Cister. lib 3. Sent. d. 1. q. 2. Art. 3. Dionysius Cisteriensis, Pighius, Fe­rus, and in a manner Vasques, do all with one consent, reject the Romish Doctrine of merit of condignity: and why may not I say all besides, seeing they daily pray in the Litany of their Mass, In sanctorum nos consortium non aestimator meriti, sed veniae, quaesumus, largitor, ad­mitte; Admit us into the fellowship of Saints, not weighing our merits, but for thy mercie's sake? The Elixar extract­ed is this;

That, which is derogatory to the all­sufficient [Page 166] merit of Christ, and is contrary to Scriptures, Fathers, and (for the very horridness thereof) to the Popish Schole­men themselves, ought to be abjured.

But such is the merit of salvation by works.

Therefore it ought to be abjured.

Gent.

I abjure them willingly in the Language of St. Bernard, Bernard in Psalm. Qui habitat. totum est me­ritum meum, si totam spem meam ponam in Domino: This is all my merit, to put all my hope in the Lord. Now (if you think fit) proceed to that, which in or­der is

The Seventh Article.

And I do sincerely testifie, and declare, that the Pope, neither of himself, nor by any authority of the Church, or See of Rome, or by any other means, with any o­ther, hath power, or authority to In sacra Historia nun­quam deprehendimus Pon­tifices, aut Sacerdotes de­jicisse Reges; at Reges è diverso Pontifices, & Sacerdotes in ordinem redegisse videmus: Quin & in orbe Christiano Justinianus Imperator per Bellisarimum priùs re­movit Silvestrum deinde Vigilium Romanos E­piscopos. Petrus Martyr. in lib. 1. Reg. cap. 2. de­pose the chief Magistrate of these Nati­ons, or to dispose of any the Countries, or Territories thereunto belonging, or to au­thorize any foreign Prince, or State to invade, or anoy him, or them.

Minist.

THis is consonant to the The Apologie, cap. 6. Division 7. 8. Apologie of the Church of England, the thirty seventh Article, and the Oath of Suprema­cy, [Page 167] which all Romanus Pontifex nullam habet jurisdictio­nem in Anglia Artic. 37. excluded the Pope's u­surped power, justly out of these Nati­ons; And in this Article, we may observe three things at least implied;

First, That the chief Magistrate of these Nations is supreme.

Secondly, That the Pope hath no power over him.

Thirdly, That he can neither lawfully excite foreign Princes against him, nor de­pose him from his Dominions, nor collate them upon others, either by his own, or any borrowed power.

Gent.

Before you condescend to these particulars, tell me what is the reason, why it is inserted in this Article, Papa nec per seipsum, nec per authoritatem ali­quam Ecclesiae, sedisve Romanae nec per ulla alia media, cum quibuscunque alits, aliquam potestatem habeat aliqua dominia in alium transferendi, aut a­licui Principi ex raneo au­thoritatem concedendi, ut ipsum, ejúsve dominia mo­lestet. Juramentum fide­litatis. That the Pope neither of himself, nor by any authori­ty of the Church, or See of Rome, or by any other means with any other, hath power, or authority to depose, had not the first been sufficient?

Minist.

You must call to memory that distinction of Bellarmin, De Ec­clesiae, lib. 3. cap. 2. Bellarmine, concerning a fourfold Church.

The first Essential, which (saith he) is a Company of men professing the same faith, and acknowledging the Bishop of Rome to be Vicar of Christ upon Earth.

The second Representative, an Assem­bly of Bishops in a general Council, repre­senting the whole body of the Church.

The third Consistorial, made up of the Pope, & his Cardinals, termed by the Sor­bonists, Curia Romana, the Court of Rome.

The fourth virtual, the Pope himself, [Page 168] who is pretended eminently, and virtually to comprise the power of all the rest. The Glossa supra Grati­an. causa. 24: q. 1. c. ar­recta. Gloss upon Gratian ascribes this transcendent, superlative authority to the essential Church, or Congregation of the Faithful; Bellarm. De Concil. & Ecclesia, lib. 1. cap. 18. Bellarmine to the Repre­sentative Church, or a general Council law­fully called; Defensio pacis, part. 2. cap. 2. Matsil. Patavi­nus. Marsilius Patavinus to the Consistorial Church, or the Pope, and his Conclave; Per Ecclesiam intelli­gimus Pontificem Roma­num, qui pro tempore Ec­clesiae naviculam modera­tur, & Ecclesiam Papam interpretari non abnuo. Gretzerus, cap 10. lib. 3. De verbo Dei. Gretzerus, the Jesuite, to the virtual Church, which is the Pope onely. This Roman Vertumnus turns him­self into all these shapes; sometimes urging the deposition of Princes in his own name; sometimes of his Consistorie; sometimes of a general Council; sometimes of the Catholick Church; these words are used to exclude all the pretences.

Gent.

All these pretences will vanish, and come to nothing, if you can make it good, that Princes, and chief Secular Ma­gistrates are supreme, and independent within their Territories.

Minist.

This Proposition, that Princes, and chief secular Magistrates are su­preme, and independent within their Terri­tories, and consequently (which is the se­cond Thesis) that The Pope hath no power over them; I shall make good, first by Scripture, secondly by Fathers, thirdly (as applicable to us) by the Annals, and Gests of this Nation.

First, By Scriptures, that Papal juris­diction is not supreme by Divine Instituti­on; but that Princes are invested with it [Page 169] by divine, civil, and natural right; which Gregory, the Great, a Roman Pope, con­fesses, saying, Nullus pradecessorum meorum, Pontificum Ro­manorum, Ʋniversalis E­piscopi nomen sibi assum­psit; quòd si assum­pserit, typhus esse dico ar­rogantia, vocabulum su­perbum, novum, pompati­cum, perversum, ssultum, temerarium, superstitio­sum, profanum, impium, sceleratum, nomen singula­ritatis, nomen erroris, nomen hypocriseos, nomen vanita­tis, nomen blasphemiae, e­úmque, qui se appellaverit. aut appellari desideraverit illo arrogantissimo vocabu­lo, in clatione sua Anti­christum praecurrere, illi­usque quietam, & gratam usurpationem fidei univer­salis Ecclesiae calamitatem esse. Gregor. lib. 4. E­pistol. 60. None of the Roman Bi­shops, my Predecessours, assumed to himself the name of Universal Bishop, and, if any man else assume the same, I say, it is a swel­ling of arrogancy, a proud, novel, pompous, perverse, temerarious, superstitious, pro­fane, and impious Title, a name of sin­gularity, a title of error, a word of vanity, and blasphemy, and whosoever taketh upon him, or desireth this arrogant title, by this exalting himself he is a fore-runner of Antichrist, and if he be permitted to usurp the same, it will prove the bane of the faith of the universal Church. Thus far Gre­gory.

Gent.

This zealous acknowledgement of so learned, so pious a Pope, is very pre­judicial to their cause; but let me hear Scriptures.

Minist.

When the Kingdom, and Priest-hood were divided in Moses, and Aaron; Moses, the civil Magistrate, ex­ercised a supremacy over Aaren, the High Priest, not onely in causes Civil, but Ecclesiastical, whom he reproved, Exod. xxxii. 21. for making the golden Calf; and in his time, the breach of the Sabbath, by gathering of sticks, was punished by the civil Sword, Numb. xv. 31. Joshua, a Prince, no Priest, succeeded Moses in his charge, and by this Commission, Joshua, v. 2. he circumcised the Sons of Israel, erected an Altar of Stone, Jos. viii. 30. [Page 170] Read the Law Jos. viii. 32, 34. did execu­tion on him, that concealed things dedi­cated to Idols; Jos. vii. 24, 25. caused the people to put away strange Gods, and re­nued the Covenant between God, and the people; Jos. xxiv. 23, 25. David's whole study was well for causes Ecclesiastical, as Civil, after he had freed Israel from all enemies, then did he compose 1 Paral. xvi. 7. Psalms to be sung by Asaph, and his Brethren; then did he set 1 Paral. xxiii. orders in the Temple, appointed 1 Paral. xxiv. Priests, Levites, 1 Paral. xxv. Singers, and other 1 Paral. xxvi: inferiour Servitours, and assigned to them their 1 Paral. xxvii. dignities, courses, and offices. Solomon by this commission built the 1 Kings vi. Temple, and 1 Kings viii. dedicated it, deposed 1 Kings ii. 35. Abiathar the High-Priest, and placed Sadock in his room. I hope this is matter, and argument of express Supre­macy. Asa took away 2 Paral. xiv. 3, 4, &c. altars of strange Gods, the High-places, and groves; He put down his 2 Paral. xv. 8, 12, 13, 14, 15. Mother, because she had made an Idol; He took an 2 Paral. xv. 13. Oath of Judah, and Benjamin (which may be paralleled with this Oath) that whosoever would not serve the LORD, and abjure Idolatry, should be slain. Jehoshaphat sent his 2 Paral. xvii. 6, 7. Princes to reform Religion in the cities of Judah, and with them Priests, and Levites: himself went from 2 Paral. xix. 4. Beer-sheba to Mount Ephraim, and brought the people again to the God of their Fathers; He 2 Paral. xix. 8. set of the Priests, and Levites, and chief of the families of Israel, for the Judgment, and causes of the LORD, [Page 171] 2 Paral. xxix. 3. 4, 5. Ezechias his execution of supremacy, even over the High-Priest in this kinde, is famous, he opened the doors of the House of the LORD, and brought the Priests, and Levites in, He 2 Paral. xxix. 30. commanded them to sanctify themselves, and offer burnt-offer­ings, which they did according to the 2 Paral. xxx. 1, 6, 12. King's commandment. Here Priests are obedient to the King's Injunction, even in their own Duties, and Charge: He commanded the Levites to praise God with the words of David; There he en­joyned a Liturgy, He commanded all Judah, and Israel to keep the Pass-over. Here is (as Saint Augustine saith) omnia cum imperio, all for the civil power; He 2 Paral. xxxi. 2. appointed the course of Priests, and Levites by turns, He 2 Paral. xxxi. 1. took away the high-places, broke down the Images, and brake the 2 Kings xviii. 4. Brasen-Serpent, made by Moses, because the people burned In­cense unto it. Manasses that had set up Altars, Groves, and Images before his captivity; after his 2 Paral. xxxiv. 3, 4, 19, 30, 31, 32, 33. repentance he took away the strange Gods, and the Image, that he had put in the house of the Lord, and restoring the worship of God, commanded Judah to serve the Lord. The last instance I will produce is that of Josias, who purged Judah, and Jerusalem from 2 Paral. xxxv. 1, 2, 3, 10, 18. high-places, Groves, and Images, he gathered all Isra­el, read the Law, renued the Covenant, compelled them to serve the Lord, kept the famous Pass-over, and reduced the Priests, and Levites to their courses set by [Page 172] David, and Solomon: I suprasede the al­legation of any further evidence of this kinde; seeing the Jesuite Salmeron con­fesses, that In Veteri Testamento sub lege naturae, vel Mo­sis, summi Sacerdotes Re­gibus subdebantur. Salem­ron in Tractatu 63. De potestate Ecclesiastica, & Saeculari. In the Old Testament, under the Law of Nature, or Moses, the High-Priests were subject to Kings.

Gent.

But I have known others of our Allen. Defens. An­gl. Cathol. cap. 8. Catholick Doctours preferring the High-Priest's Crosiar before the King's Scepter, and for their warrant, alledged these examples out of Scripture 2 Paral. xxvi. first of Azarias the High-Priest, who, accom­panied with fourscore other Priests, ma­gnanimously assaulted King Ʋzziah smit with leprosy, because he had burned In­cense to the Lord, drave him out of the Temple, according to the Levit. xiii. Levitical Law, sent him out of the City, and de­posed him from his Kingly authority. Bellarm. lib. 5. De Roman. Pontif. cap. 8. The other example is of Jehoiada, who, whilest he was executing the Priest's office, commanded Queen Athaliah to be slain, because she countenanced the worship of Baal, and substituted Joash King in her place. These are Presidents of High-Priests (or Papal authority) over Prin­ces.

Minist.

These two Histories being truly understood, make nothing for ad­vancement of Papal above Civil power; but rather give it a deadly blow: for first, the Scripture saith not, that Azari­ah assaulted Ʋzziah the King, or that he violently forced him out of the Temple; for he was forced by the hand of God, [Page 173] when the leprosy arose in his forehead: And whereas Azariah, the High-Priest' with the rest of the Priests, is said 2 Pa­ral. xxvi. 20. festinato illum templo expu­lisse, to have thrust, and also hastened him to go out, Josephus Joseph. Antiq. Ju­daic. lib. 9. cap. 11. quem sequitur Cajetanus in 2. Paral. xxvi. Visa lepra, Sacerdotes Regem leprosū ad festinè egrediendum mo­nent. interprets it a per­swasion onely by words, not any compulsion by deeds: whereof Chrysostome gives the reason, saying, Sacerdotis est tantum arguere, liberámque prae­stare admonitionem, non movere arma, non clypeos usurpare, non vibrare lan­ceam, nec arcum tendere, nec jaculum mittere: sed tantum arguere, & liberā praestare admonitionem. Chrysoft. De verb. Isaiae, Hom. 4. It is the Priest's office onely to reprove, and freely admonish; not to move arms, not to use shields, not to shake lances, not to bend a bow, or throw a dart: but onely to argue, and freely to reprove. Neither did Azariah depose Ʋzziah from his royal authority, which he retain­ed till death; for a Kings xv. 2. he was sixteen years old, when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty two years in Jerusalem; for he was sixty and eight years old (as Josephus Joseph. lib. 9. Anti­quit. cap. 11. relates) when he died. And, though he was 2 Kings xv. 5. 2 Pa­ral. xxvi. 21, 23. shut up according to the Law, and his Son Jothan substituted, as Lieu-tenant under him, to oversee the King's house, and judg the people of the land; yet he arrogated not to himself the reins of government, till Ʋzziah slept with his Fathers.

Gent.

You have given a satisfactory answer to this of Azariah; but, me­thinks, that of 2 Kings xi. Athaliah is more in­tricate, and intangled with more difficul­ties.

Minist.

The Answer of both is alike easy; which I shall clearly discover unto you, if you will be pleased to remember [Page 174] first, when 2 Kings xi. 1, 2. Ahaziah, the Son of Joram, and King of Judah, was dead, his Mother Athaliah, slew all the royal seed, except Joah, the Son of Ahaziah, whom his Aunt Jehosheba, the Wife of Je­hoiada the Priest, had privily hid for the space of six years in the house of the Lord: then 2 Paral. xxiii. 1, 2, 11. Jehoiada, not as High-Priest, but as the King's Ʋnkle by affini­ty, and his guardian; nor he alone, but the Captains of hundreds, the Levites ga­thered out of all the cities of Judah, and the chief of the Fathers of Israel brought out Joash, the King's Son, and put upon him the Crown, admitting him In regnum, quod ei tam jure haereditario, tum ipsius Dei consilio debebatur ad­scivisse. Andreros. into possession of that Kingdom, which was his own by right of inheritance, and God's de­cree. Lastly, When Joash was thus in­vested with royalty, Jehoiada the High-Priest, commissioned with his authority, 2 Paral. xxiii. 14. brought forth the bloody Ʋsurpress Athaliah, and sentenced her to death, as a condigne punishment for her cruelties.

Gent.

I am convinced, that they that prefer the Mitre before the Diadem, that is Papal before Princely power, have no countenance from the Old Testament: is it disowned also by the New?

Minist.

If Civil Magistrates before the coming of Christ exercised supream authority, both over Priests, and people, as subject to them; it is not probable, that Christ took it away, or impeached it in the least: which Saint Augustine pro­claims in the Name, and person of Christ, [Page 175] Audi circumcisio, au­di praputium, audite omnia regna terrena; Non impe­dio dominationem vestram in hoc mundo, regnum me­non est de hoc mundo sed celeste est. August. Tract. 115. in Johan. Hear circumcision, hear uncircum­cision, hear all Kingdoms of the earth; I do not hinder your dominion in this World; my Kingdom is not of this World, but is celestial or spiritual. And St. Choysostom declares that Christus leges suas non ad hoc induxit, ut po­licias everteret; sed ut me­lius institueret. Chrysost. Hom 23. in xiii. ad Rom. Christ did not introduce his Laws for this end, that he might overthrow States, and Governments; but that he might better instruct them. Now among all the divine Aphorisms of Govern­ment registred in the New Testament, that of Saint Paul is most solemn. Rom. xiii. 1. Let every soul be subject [...], to the higher powers, that is, those that carry the Sword, to whom tri­bute is due; so that your Jesuit Pererius is forced to acknowledg, that Augustine, Chrysostome, and almost all the Antients understood Paul to speak here onely of secular power; Every soul (saith Saint Omnis omnino anima, etiamsi Apostolus sit, si E­vangelista, si Propheta, quisquis tandem fuerit. Chrysost. in xiii. ad Ro­man. cui Theodoret. The­ophylact. Oecumenius assentiuntur. Chrysostome) whether it be Apostle, or Evangelist, or Prophet, or whosoever He shall be, (Pope, or Patriarch) [...], must be subject. Which Paul confirms by his own example, standing at Caesar's judgment seat, of whom (saith Acts xxv. 10. he) [...], I must be judged: and no wonder, seeing Christ John xix. 11. himself paied tribute to Caesar, and confessed, that Pi­late, the President of a little Province, had power over him given from above. And Saint Peter, who exhorts his fellow Pres­byters to 1 Pet. v. 2. feed the flock of God, admo­nishes them also to 1 Peter ii. 13. submit themselves to every Ordinance of man for the Lord's [Page 176] sake, whether it be to the King, [...], as supreme.

Gent.

I see the New Testament, also is clear for civil Princes Supremacy; yet one scruple troubles me, how Sheep should be superiour to their Pastours; e­ven civil Princes, who are also Sheep, are commanded, Heb. xiii. 17. to obey them; that have the rule over them, and submit themselves; for they watch for their Souls. Whereupon Saint Ambrose saith, Nihil in hoc saeculo ex­cellentius Sacerdote, nihil Episcopo sublimius reperiri. Ambros. De dignitate Sa­cerd. cap. 3. There is nothing more excellent in this world, then a Priest, nothing higher then a Bishop. How can these things agree?

Minist.

Well enough; for Princes, and Presbyters are mutually Pastours, one to another in diverse respects; which Saint Chrysostom lays open; saying, Oves Pastor magnà po­testate cogere ad perferen­dam morborum curationem queat, quam non sus­tinent sponte; easque ad feracia, & tuta pàscua compellere, si vagae depa­scantur sterilia, & abrupta loca. Chrvsost. lib. 2. De Sacerdotio. A Pastour can compel his Sheep with great power to submit to the cure of their diseases, which willingly they would not, and drive them to fruitful, and wholsom Pastures, when they stray to barren, and infectious places. Thus secular Princes are stiled Pastours by a borrowed Speech; because they gather their Subjects (whether Clergy, or Lai­ty) into order by coercive, and external power, and fear of punishment. But, saith the same Episcopi, & Presby­teri, homines, & rationales Christi oves, suadendo, non vim afferendo commo­vere debent, ut se curari si­nant. Chrysost. ibid. Chrysostom, Bishops, and Presbyters, which are Pastours of Souls, ought to work upon men, as the reasonable sheep of Christ, by per­swasion, not by compulsion, to suffer themselves to be cured. Thus the Bi­shop [Page 177] of Rome hath onely a perswasive, but no just coercive power over his own Ita­lian flock; much less over these Nations, which are no part of his charge.

Gent.

But Salmero, Gregorius de Va­lentia, Bellarmine, Suarez, Sa, Richeo­mus, Heissius, and Antonius Sanctarellus have proclaimed to the world the contra­ry Doctrine; whereof the last, in his Trea­tise Of Heresie, and the Pope's power, af­firms, That Papae, ac Christi u­num esse tribunal; Papá jus, & potestatem habere in spiritualia simul, & in omnia temporalia, & in eo de jure divino esse utram­que potestatē. nec eam mo­dò in aedificationem, sicut Apostolis data fuerat, sed etiam in destructionem; a­deóque Papam etiam sine Concilio posse Imperato­res, & Reges non tan­tùm propter Haeresin, &c. regno privare. Anton. Sanctarell. Tract. De potestate Summi Ponti­ficis. the Pope, and Christ have but one Tribunal; That the Pope hath right, and power both in Spiritualities, and all Temporalities, and to claim both powers by Divine right, not onely for Edification, as the Apostles did, but for Destruction; and therefore the Pope, even without a Council, may de­pose Emperours, and Kings, not onely for Heresie, Schism, or any other crime not tolerable to the people; but also for insufficiency, and that their persons are unprofitable, &c. with much moreof the same leaven.

Minist.

It is true, which Seneca saith, Nullum facinus caret Exemplo; No wickedness is so abominable, but it hath some President: as this Diabolical Do­ctrine hath the patronage of the Jesuits; yet that it was disrellished, and detested even by the Romists themselves, appears in that, as soon as the Book of Sanctarel­lus was brought into France, the Ʋ ­niversity of Paris, and especially the Col­lege of Sorbone, publickly condemned, [Page 178] and proscribed by a sharp Decree the Je­suitical Doctrine, as Parisiensis Acade­mia, &c. praescripsit, ve­luti exitialem, ac pestilen­tem, cùm sit falsa, nova, erronea, verbo Dei contra­ria, schismati occasionem praebens, supremae Regum authoritati à Deo solo dependenti derogans, re­gnorum, statuum, rerum­publicarum eversiva, sub­ditos ab obedientia, & subjectione, avocans; & ad factiones, rebelliones se­ditiones, & Principum parricidia excitans. Al­phonsus de Vargas, pag. 118. destructive, and pe­stilent, and detestable; and that it was new, false, erroneous, contrary to the word of God, giving occasion of Schism, derogating from the supreme authority of Kings depending on God alone, disturbing publick peace, de­structive to Kingdoms, States, and Com­mon-wealths, withdrawing Subjects from obedience, and subjection, stiring them up to rebellions, seditions, and murder of Prin­ces; and I may add contradictory to Scri­ptures (as is already demonstrated) and also all the antient Fathers.

Gent.

That this Decree of the Ʋniver­sity of Paris, and the Doctours of Sorbone is consonant to Scripture, I make no scru­ple; let me hear what the Primitive Fa­thers say to this Point; which is the se­cond proof, you promised.

Minist.

I will only give you a few of ma­ny, that [...], you may discern Hercules his whole Dimensions by his foot. Tertullian, speaking of Imperial, or Civil power, saith, Colimus Imperatorem, ut hominem a Deo secun­dum, & quicquid est à Deo consicutum, sold Deo minorem. Tertul. ad Sca­pulam. We honour the Emperour, as a man second to God, obtaining of God whatsoever he hath, and inferiour to God onely, (not the Pope.) Opatus saith, Optatus, lib. 3. contra Parmenianum. Super Impe­ratorem non est nisi solus Deus, qui fecit Im­peratorem; Above the Emperour there is none, but onely God (not the Ro­mane Prelate) that made the Emperour. Saint Chrysostome, speaking of the Empe­rour Theodosius, saith, Non habet parem su­pra terram, summitas, & caput omnium supra ter­ram hominum. Chrysost. Homil. 3. Ad populum An­tioch. He hath no Peer [Page 179] upon earth, the height, and head of all men upon earth; therefore of the Romish Bi­shop. Saint Cyril, writing to Theodosius the Younger, saith; Cyril. Epistol. ad The­odosium praefixa libro, adversus Julianum. Vestrae Serenitati nullus status est aequalis; There is no state, (therefore not the Romish Hierarchy) e­qual to your Sovereignty. Agapetus affirms of the Emperour Justinian, Agapetus, Paraenet. num. i. num. 21. Eum homi­nem quolibet sublimiorem habere dignita­tem, That His dignity was more sub­lime then any other man's; Non se ha­bere in terris quemquam altiorem, That He had no man upon earth (therefore not a Priest sitting in the Romane Vatican) higher then himself.This was the con­tinued Doctrine of the Church in Primi­tive, and pure times; for betwixt Opta­tus, and Agapetus, were well nigh two hundred years. Pelagius first of that name; Bishop of Rome, five hundred years after Christ, salutes Childebert, King of France, with this submissive language; Quanto nobis studio, & labore satagendum est, ut proferendo suspi [...]ionis scandalo obsequium con­fessionis nostrae Regibus ministremus, quibus nos e­tiam subditos sanctae Scri­pturae praecipiunt. Epistol. 16. ad Chil [...]eb. apud Bin. Tom. 2. Concil. pag. 6 [...]3. How studiously, and painfully ought we to endeavour, that we may avoid the suspi­cion of scandal, to perform obedience to Kings meet for our (Christian) pro­fession, to whom the holy Scriptures commands even us (the Bishops of Rome) to be subject. And Gregory the Great, who sate in the Romane See six hundred years after the Incarnation, piously con­fesses, That Potestatem supra o­mnes homines Dominorum suorum pietati caelitus da­ [...]um esse; utrobique quod debui exsolvi, qui & Im­peratori obedientiam prae­bui, & pro Deo quod sen­si minimè tacui. Gregor. lib. 2. Epist. 61. Power was given from Heaven to his Lords, the Emperours, over all men; in which universal Catalogue he also compriseth himself, Ego jussioni [Page 180] vestrae subjectus; I also subject to your com­mand; and that not out of fained humility, but conscience, and duty; for he subjoyns, On both sides I have discharged my duty, who both performed obedience to the Empe­rour, and concealed not what I thought for God's cause. This Holy Mount was not touched for nine hundred years after the Passion, during which time Princes kept their power, and jurisdiction unimpeach­ed over the Roman Prelates, sometimes deposing them from their Episcopal charge for impurity of life, as Reversus est Otho Romam, ut Papam Jo­hannem corriperet, quod plurimorum criminum reus ageretur: proinde sceleris sui conscius sibi Pontifex ob metum Othonis profu­git. Carion, Chror. lib. 3. pag. 190. Otho the Em­perour ejected John the Twelfth for his wickedness, and Necromancy.

Gent.

But this Emperour Otho was crowned by John, and performed an Oath of Fealty to him; therefore some think he was unjustly deposed.

Minist.

He was crowned by him, and Forma Juramenti ex­tat 63. Distinct. capite Ti­bi, Domina. swore Fealty, but, as Carion, the Hi­storian, saith, Carion, supra. Otho hic primus est Im­perator, qui Pontifici juramentum praestitit: This Otho was the first Emperour, that ever was sworn to the Pope. Therefore it was a just judgment, that he should be ejected for this usurpation first attempt­ed nine hundred thirty eight years after Christ whereas all Romish Prelats had been ever subject to the Emperour before.

Gent.

You have made good, accord­ing to promise, both by Scriptures, and Fathers, that Civil Princes de jure ought to have, and de facto have had power o­ver the Bishop of Rome, till the tenth Cen­tury, [Page 181] let me hear your third proof taken from the Tangit illam perve­tustam quaestionem, an An­glia sit Feudatoria Papae. Franciseus de Sancta Ciara pag. 33 [...]. Annals, and Gests of this Nation, as applicable to us.

Minist.

De regione libera, per chartam lugubrem, ancil­lam fecit, & feudatoriam summo Pontisici. Matthaeus Paris. Matthew Paris, and Matthew Westminster, two Popish Chro­niclers, both witness, that King John in the twelve hundred, and thirteenth year of Christ, made England, which was a free Nation, to be subject, and in fee to the Pope, by a sorrie Charter. The occasion why, and the manner how, this was performed to the Pope's Legate Pandolph, our Historians Stow. Chronicl. pag. 243. Cogshal. are pregnant; This continued not long, e're his Son, Henry Henricus ejus silius in Concilio Lugdunensi huic reclamavit, & praeci­puè Episcopus Can nati­ensis. ut testatur Wal­singham ad annum 1245. & postea Cancellarius Angliae, Episcopus Eli­ensis, in publicis regni Co­mitus, consenti [...]ntiius tri­bus ordinibus parriae recla­mavit, non obstante priva­ta sponsione Johannis, ut testatur Harpsfield ad sae­culum 14. cap. 5. imo et armis se à temporali juris­dictione Papae desensuros protestabantur. the Third, in the Council at Lions, reclaimed it, and especially the Bishop of Canterbury, as Walsingham witnesseth in the year 1245. and afterwards it was revoked, and cancelled at the instiga­tion of the Bishop of Ely, Chancellour of England, by act of Parliament, the three or­ders of the Nation, Lords Spiritual, Tem­poral, and Commons, generally consenting, notwithstanding John's private promise; and protestation made, That they would defend themselves by force of arms from the tempo­ral jurisdiction of the Pope. Here you may observe three things,

First, That it was above twelve hun­dred years after the Incarnation, before the Papal power was manifestly attempted to be obtruded over Princes in this Na­tion.

Secondly, That King John out of weak­ness, without his lawful Council, being embroyled with the Barons War, was the [Page 182] first, that basely submitted unto it.

Thirdly, That it was protested against, as unlawful, in a Provincial Council, and re­voked by an act of Parliament, with a National engagement to maintain the an­tient rights by force of arms.

Gent.

When then began the Bishop of Rome to be so rampant, as to invade Imperi­al rights, and to trample their Diadems under his feet, or to attempt their depri­vation?

Minist.

Above a thousand years after the Ascension. Then Gregory the Seventh, alias Hildebrand, Tandem in hane ca­tastrophem abi [...]t haec Trae­goedia, quòd Caesar ipse à summo Pontifice non est ex­communicatus solûm, sed et reliquis Principibus mandatum est, ut Impera­torem alium designarent. Carion. Chronic. pag. 202. about the year one thousand seventy three, deprived Hen­ry the Fourth of his Imperial power, and conferred it on Rodolph, Duke of Suecia, sending him a Diadem with this Inscription; Petra dedit Petro, Petrus Diadema Ro­dolpho.

Lego. & relego Ro­manorum Regum. & Im­peratorum gesta, & nus­quam invenio quenquam eorum, ante hunc, a Ro­mano Pontifice excommu­nicatu [...], vel regno priva­tum. Otho Frisingens. lil. 9. cap. 35. I have read, and read again, (saith Otho Frisingensis, a grave Historian, who lived in the succeeding age) the gests of Roman Kings, and Emperours, and never finde any of them, before this Henry, excom­municated by the Roman Bishop, or depri­ved of their Kingdom.

Gent.

What was the issue, and event of this? for God is oftentimes seen in his Judgments; Seneca. Medaea Tra­goed. Raro antecedentem scelestum Deseruit pede poena claudo. Wick­edness is attended commonly with signal judgments proportionable.

[Page 183]
Minist.

By the tragical ends of those prime agents, who had a hand in confede­rating against this Emperour, Romane Prelates might be discouraged from such attempts for the future, if their hearts were not feared with more then Pharaoh's hardness; for Rodolph, whom, by the in­stigation of Gregory, some Princes of Ger­many had chosen Anti-Emperour, having, in battel against his liege Lord, lost his right hand; by reason of which, and o­ther wounds, when he was about to give up the Ghost; Abscissam dextram in­tuitus ad Episcopos, qui fortè aderant, graviter sus­pirans dixit; Ecce! haec est manus, qua Domino meo Henrico fidem sacramento firmavi. Uspergensis, an­no 10 [...]0. looking upon his hand, that was cut off, he spake unto the Bishops, and standers by, with a grie­vous groan; Lo this is the land, with which I swore fealty to Henry my Lord, as Ʋspergensis hath it. And Hildebrand himself, while he was busied about depo­sing the Emperour, was by the Votes, and suffrages of his Romans, ejected from the Popedom, and brought to extream mi­serie, and calling to him one of the Cardi­nals, whom he loved more intimately, then the rest, he confessed (as Sigebert In extremis positus ad se vocavit unum ex Gar­dinalibus, quem muliùm diligebat prae caeteris; & confessus est Deo, & sancto. Petro, & teti Ecclesiae, se valdè peccasse in Pasiorale cura, quae ei ad regendum commissa erat, &, suadente Diabolo, contra humanum genus iram, & odium con­citasse. Sigebert. Anno 1084, 1085. saith) to God, and St. Peter, and the whole Church, that he had greately sinned in his Pastoral charge, which was committed unto him, and by the perswasion of the Devil had stirred up wrath, and hatred against mankind. And this crime (saith Otho Frisingensis) of Hildebrand deposing Henry, like a whirl­winde, or tempest striking all things down before it, Tot mala, tot schisma­ta, tot animarum, ouam corporum pericula invol­vit, ut solum ex persecu­tionis immanitate, ac tem­poris diuturnitate ad hu­manae miseriae infelicitatem sufficeret comprodandam. Otho Frisingens. 1. [...]. [...]. cap. 33. involved so many miseries, so many Schisms, so many perils both of souls, [Page 184] and bodies; that it alone by the barbarous­ness of the persecution, and the continuance thereof, were sufficient to prove the infelicity of humane misery.

Gent.

This truth is written in so clear Characters of Scriptures, Fathers, our own Historians, and sealed with signal, and stupendous judgments, that I am con­vinced, and I wonder that more of our profession are not, touching this Ar­ticle.

Minist.

You heard the Ʋniversity of Paris, with the Sorbonists, condemned Sanctarellus, Read the Bishop of Rochester, De potestate Papae, cap. 8. qui multos citat autores. and there are many more besides them, that hold this negative; to wit, The Pope by virtue of his office hath not any power, or authority, to de­pose Princes, or to dispose of their crowns, or lives, for any cause, crime, end, or good whatsoever. So that (I think) I may safely conclude, That, which is contrary to Scripture, antient Fathers, the Annals, and Gests of our own Nation, hath been at­tended with signal judgments, Qui Summi Pontificis omne de re qualibet judici­um temerè, ac sine delectu defendunt, eos sedis Apo­stolicae authoritatem labe­factare, non sovere, non firmare. Cand. lib. 5. Quaest. 5. and is disclaimed by moderate Papals themselves, ought to be abjured: But such is the Po­pish pretended power to depose the chief Magistrate, &c. Therefore it ought to be abjured. But we shall have this more fully discussed in the next Article, which is,

The Eighth Article.

I do sincerely testifie, and declare, That the Pope hath not any authority to discharge any of the people of these Nations from their obedience to the chief Magistrate, or to give licence, or leave to any of the said people to bear Arms, raise Tumults, or to offer any violence, or hurt to the persons of the said chief Magistrates, or to the state, or government of these Na­tions, or to any of the people thereof.

Minist.

BY reason of cruel Positions, and pra­ctises of Jesuits, in the year one thou­sand five hundred eighty two it was made high Treason, Si non vis esse obnoxi­us Caesari, noli habere qu [...] sunt mundi; si habes di­vitias, obnoxius es Caesari. Ambros. in Lucam, lib. 9. cap. 20. to disswade any Subject from Dices, Quid mihi, & Regi? quid tibi ergo, & possessioni? per jura Regum possessiones possi­dentur. August. in Jo­han. Allegiance to their Prince; and from the Religion, that was established in England. This Article in­tends the Abjuration of that, which was then enacted as treasonable.

Gen.

What difference is there betwixt this Article, and the former? it is not ob­vious to me easily to distinguish between them.

Minist.

They are principally differen­ced in this, that the former Article ex­cluded [Page 186] the Pope's authority to excite any forein power to annoy, depose the chief Magistrate of these Nations, or to dispose of his Territories. This disclaims the Pope's power to arm Subjects against their Sovereign; or, being disobliged by him from their obedience, to move commo­tions, seditions, or rebellions.

Gent.

Doth the Pope arrogate by his pleni-potentiary power to stir up any forein Prince against another, and collate their Dominions upon them?

Minist.

Yes; Papa Johannes no­nus, conspiratione facta cum Gallorum Regibus à Germanis Imperii Maje­statem studebat transferre in Carolum Calvum, de­inde in Ludovicum Bal­bum, ejus filium: sed Im­perium per vim retinue­runt Germani. Carion, Chronic. pag. 179. Pope John the Ninth atempted (though in vain) to translate the Romane Empire from the Germans to the French; and first collated the Diadem upon Carolus Calvus, and afterwards upon Ludovicus Balbus his Son, Kings of France: He encouraged, at the last, Sicut Zacharias transtulit imperium á Graecis ad Teutonicos; ita nos possumus illud transferre ab Alemannis ad Graecos. Carion, Chronic. pag. 179. Lewis, Son to the French King, to raise arms against John King of England. In the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, Paul the Fourth being Pope, Se­bastianus Martignius could hardly be perswaded from entring England with a thousand foot, and some horse; after­wards he stirred up the Duke D'Alva against her, and promised (if need were) to go himself in person against England, and engage the goods of the Apostolick See. It were too tedious to relate the Stories of the Scottish Queen, the Duke of Norfolk, Stucklie, James Boncompa­gno, Bastard-son to Gregory the Thirteenth, Squire, Babington, Parry, Lopez, Ty­rone, [Page 187] the intended Invasion in Eighty eight by Pererius Guzmannus Duke of Medina, the Gun-powder-Treason, to in­vade, or embroil this Nation; as Bishop Carlton Thankful Remem­brance of God's Mer­cies, by G. Carleton, Bishop of Chichester. hath faithfully discovered at large, to whose Book I refer you.

Gent.

I perceive by these Histories, Ecce! in potestate no­stra est, ut demus illud cut volumus: propterea constituti sumus à Deo su­per Gentes, & regna; ut destruamus, & evella­mus, aedificemus, & plan­temus. Dictum Adria­ni Frederico. Aventinus in Adriano iv. 1154. Popes have been Incendiaries to stir up one Prince against another, for advan­tage of their Romane Jurisdiction; have they been as busy to unrivet the obedi­ential tye of people to the chief Magi­strate?

Minist.

Yes; you cannot but have heard of their pragmaticalness also here­in, that Cornelius Agrippa, one of your own, saith, Cornelius Agrippa. De vanitate Scientiarum, cap 6. ex Camatensi. Legati Romanorum Pon­tificum sic debacchantur in Provinciis, ac si ad flagellandam Ecclesiam Satan egressus sit a facie Domini; The Pope's Legates keep such Revels, and Rackets in King­doms, and Countries, as if Satan were sent abroad from the face of the Lord, to scourge the Church. Witness that Ipsam pratenso regni jure; nec non omni, & quocunque dominio, digni­tate, privilegióque priva­tam praecipimus, & interdi­cimus universis, & singulis Proceribus, subditis, & po­pulis, nè illi, ejusque mo­nitis, mandatis, & legibus audeant obedire: qui se­cùs egerint, eos simili A­nathematis sententia inno­damus. Bulla Pii Quinti. Bull of Pius Quintus, fastened by that Ardelio Felton, upon the Bishop of London's Palace-Gate, wherein he makes it known, that he had deprived Queen Elizabeth from the right she pretended to have in her Kingdoms, and also from all, and e­very her authority, dignity, and privilege; charging, and forbidding all, and singular Nobles, Subjects, and people, that they adventure not to obey her, her Moniti­ons, Commands, or Laws, upon pain [Page 188] of his Grand Anathema, or Curse.

Gent.

They pretend great reason for this; for In Concilio Late­ranen si sub Leone Deci­mo, Sess. 10. Stephanus, Bishop of Patrica, in our Laterane Council said; In Papa est omnis potestas supra omnes potestates tam eoeli, quam terrae; All power is in the Pope above all powers, as well of heaven, as of earth; and in the Cere­moniary it is written, Ceremoniat, lib. 1. cap. 2. Moderatio Impe­rii Romani pertinet ad Papam, Dei vices gerentem in terris, tanquam ad eum, per quem Reges regnant; The Government of the Romane Empire belongeth unto the Pope, being God's Vicar on earth, as unto him, by whom Kings rule. Jo­hannes Andreas compares the Pope to the Sun, and the Emperour to the Moon, and, by Mathematical Proportion, makes him seventy seven times greater, then the greatest Prince. Abbot Panormitan saith, Plenitudo potestatis sis­perat omnem legem positi­vam. Panormitan. Ex­travag. De constitut. cap. 1. His. fulness of power passeth all positive Laws.

Minist.

It is true; your modern Court Parasites have fawned upon the Pope with such Blandishments of fulness of power; yet (as Baldus saith) this pleni­tudo potestatis est plenitudo tempestatis, fulness of power is fulness of tempest, or disorder. And your own barbarous Gloss confesses, Imperator in Tempo­raelibus habet potestatem a solo Deo, & imperium fu­it, antequam Apostolus esset. Extravag. De Ma­joritate, & Obedientia. The Emperour in temporal things hath his authority, (not from the Pope, but) from God onely, and the Em­perour was before the Apostles were. The Emperour Ludovicus the Fourth asserted his own right thus, Mea potestas non pen­det a Papa, sed a Deo im­mediaté: & vanum, quod dici solet, Papam non ha­bere superiorem. Parali­pomena Uspergensia in Ludovico iv. My power hath no [Page 189] dependance of the Pope, but immediately of God alone, and it is a vain tale, that they say, The Pope hath no superiour. Jo­hannes Major, your own Colleague, saith, Bonifacius Octavus multùm apparenter defini­vit, quòd Romanus Pon­tifex est supra Reges in Temporalibus, quod tamen oculatissimi Theologi di­cunt esse falsum. Johan­nes Major, 4. Sent. 20. q. 2. Pope Boniface the Eight hath defined many things with great shew of reason, that even in temporal causes the Pope is a­bove Princes, but I may tell you (saith he) the wisest Divines say it is false. And your Romish Ceremoniary, you so confide in, declares to the world, Ante Carolum Magnum neminem Imperii Romani coro­nam ex manu Romani Pontificis Romae suscepisse; That before the Emperour Charles the Great (that is for the space of eight hundred years after Christ) no man ever received the Crown of the Romane Empire at Rome, by the hands of the Bishop of Rome. Therefore Ber­nard, though an Abbot, living in the mists of Popery, tells Pope Eugenius without mincing, Esto, ut alia quacun­que ratione tibi vendices, non tamen Apostolico jure, nec illud tibi dare, quod non habuit, Petrus potuit. Bernardus, De Conside­ratione ad Eugenium. lib. 2. Be it, he may claim this pretended right by some other means, yet by Apostolical right he cannot claim it, neither could Peter give him that right, he never had.

Gent.

But to your Testimonies (which I approve) be pleased to add some rea­sons, why the Pope hath not any authori­ty to discharge any of the people of these Nations from their obedience to the chief Magistrate.

Minist.

The reasons are two;

First, Colimus Imperatorem ut à Deo secundum, & quicquid est a Deo couse­cutum, solo Deo minorem. Tertull. ad Scapulam The chief Magistrate receiveth his authority onely of God, and may acknow­ledge [Page 190] none above him within his Territories, but God.

Secondly, The Ty, or Obligation, where­by people are obliged in Duty to the chief Magistrate is perpetual, indissoluble, and may not lawfully be broken.

The former will be pertinent to this Article; the latter will fall in; in the next. And that not only primitive Fa­thers, and Protestants, but even moderate Papists maintain this Doctrine, appears by those Primò, Rex statum suum non nisi à Deo, & gladio suo debet recogno­scere. Secundò, Rex so­lum Deum, mortalem ve­rò neminem, in regno suo superiorem agnoscit. Ter­tiò, Papa non potest nec Regem, nec regnum ejus supponere Interdicto, seu Sacris interdicere, nec sub­ditis relaxare Sacramen­tum fidelitatis ei debitae propter quamcunque cau­sam, & occasionem. Al­phonsus de Vargas, pag. 123. three Articles, agreed upon by the French Parliament at Paris, and sub­scribed unto by the Sorbonists, and other Divines.

First, That the King, (or chief Magi­strate) ought to hold his state of none, but God, and his Sword.

Secondly, He acknowledges onely God, but no mortal man, superiour in his King­dom.

Thirdly, That the Pope cannot inter­dict, or excommunicate the King, or his Kingdom, or absolve his Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance, for any cause, or pretext whatsoever.

Gent.

Make good your former reason (which you say pertains to this Article) That the chief Magistrate receiveth his authority onely of God, and may acknow­ledg none above him within his Territories, but God.

Minist.

The latter Branch of this Pro­position, That the chief Magistrate may acknowledge none above him within his Ter­tories, [Page 191] but God alone, is partly proved alrea­dy; but that all scruple may be removed, I will add two Texts of Scripture more, with the Fathers descant upon them, and then proceed. The former, 2 Sam. xii. ii. where the Prophet Nathan, having convinced Da­vid of his murder, and adultery, and using this Preface, Haec dicit Dominus, Thus saith the Lord; onely (as Leo Haec dicit Dominus, monuit Regem Davidem, ut per poenitentiam peccata sua expiaret, non tulit in eum sententiam, quae, tan­quam Adulter, & Homici­da, juxta Legem morti ad­diceretur. Leo Quartus. 2. q. 7. cap. Non si com­petenter. saith) admo­nished him to expiate his sins by repentance, but passed no sentence upon him, that, as a murderer, or adulterer, according to the Law, he might be put to death. Hence we may collect, if Nathan a Prophet extraor­dinarily commissioned by God, was not impowered to sentence David, the chief Magistrate, or stir up his Subjects against him; much less may a Roman Prelate [...], put his sickle into ano­ther's harvest, and out of his Diocess mo­lest Princes, Potentates, and States.

Gent.

Perhaps, Nathan, who was an extraordinary Prophet, had an extraordi­nary dispensation to spare David, who was an extraordinary Prince.

Minist.

No; the other Text I shall produce, relating to the same History, o­verthrows that; which is Psalm li. 4. Tibi soli peccavi; Against thee, thee onely (saith David unto God) have I sinned. St. Ambrose gives the reason; Rex utique erat, nullis ipse legibus tenebatur hu­manis; neque enim Reges ullis ad poenam vocantur legibus, tuti imporii potesta­te; homini ergo non pecca­vit, cui non tenebatur ob­noxius. Ambros. in Apo­log. Davidis, cap. 4. lib. 2. ep. 7. He was (saith he) a King, or supreme Regent, and so subject to no Law of man: for Princes, beeing freed by Royal Prerogatives of Im­perial power, are not punishable by humane [Page 192] Laws; he therefore sinned not to man; to whom he was not subject. With him agrees Euthymius in these words; Cùm sim Rex, & te so­lum commissorum à me scelerum judicem habeam, tibi soli peccasse videor; hoc est, tibi soli judici sub­jicior: caeterorum enim o­mnium ego Dominus sum, & ob potentiam meam lice­re mihi videtur, quaecun­que libuerit. Euthym. in Psalm. li. Seeing I am a King, and have thee onely my Judg over my sins, I seem to sin onely to thee; that is, I am subject onely to thee, as to my Judg: for I am Lord o­ver all others, and in regard of my power, and Majesty, whatsoever plea­seth me, seemeth to be lawful for me. Lyranus his Note is concentrick with the former; Lyranus in Psal. li. Tibi soli peccavi, scilicet tan­quam Judici, & punire potenti; peccave­rat enim contra Uriam, & alios occasione hujus interfectos; tamen, quia erat Rex, non habebat Judicem superiorem, qui posset eum punire, nisi Deum: To thee onely have I sinned, that is, to say, To thee onely, as to my Judg, and to him, that can pu­nish me; for he had now sinned against Ʋrias, and others, whom he caused to be murdered by that occasion; yet be­cause he was a King (or supreme Ma­gistrate) he had no superiour Judg, that could punish, or controll him, save God alone. With these accord Saint Hierom, Arnobius, Cassiodorus, Beda, Didymus, Cyril, and Nicetas.

Gent.

Perhaps all the Antients brought in their verdict, that none of his Subjects were competent Judges to punish, or con­troll him; this makes nothing against the Pope's jurisdiction.

Minist.

It makes against all alike, e­specially any pretended authority above [Page 193] Supreme Magistrates, which even your Ordinary Gloss upon this Psalm confesses, saying, Rex, omnibus superi­or, tantùm à Deo, punien­dus est. Glossa Ordinaria in Psalm. li. The King, or Regent, is above all, and he can be punished by none, but by God alone. If that suffice not, hear a Ro­mane Cardinal, to thee onely (saith Tibi soli, quia non est super me alius, quàm tu, qui possit punire: ego e­nim sum Rex, & non est aliquis, praeter te, super me. Hugo Cardinalis in Psal. li. Hugo) because there is not any above me; but thy self alone, that hath power to punish me; for I am a King, and so besides thee is none above me. And, if my Sophister with Bellarmine shall say, There was none above Kings under the Law; but now his Holyness of Rome is above Emperours, and Dynasts, under the Gospel: Gregory, himself a Roman Pope, shall decide the controversie; for thus he writes to the Emperour, Ego quidem, jussioni vestrae subjectus, eandem legem per diversas terrarū partes transmitti feci; &. quia lex ipsa omnipotenti, Deo minime concordat, Ecce! per suggestionis nicae paginam serenissimis Dominis nuntiavi Ʋtro [...] [...] ergo quod debui ex­solvi, qui & Imperatori o­bedientiam praebui, & pro Deo quod sersi minimè ta­cui. Gregor. lib. 2. Epist. 61. cap. 100. I being your subject, and at your command, have caused the same Law to be sent through divers parts of the Land, and because the Law it self doth not accord to God's will, be­hold! I have signified so much unto Your Majesty by my Epistle, and so I have discharged my duty in both respects; as having rendred mine Obedience to the Emperour, and have not concealed what I thought in God's cause.

Gent.

Nothing is more clear, then this, yet Pope Adrian thus advanced himself a­bove the Emperour Frederick; By means of us (saith Imperator per nos im­perat, unde habet imperium nisi à nobis? ecce! in po­testate nostra est, ut demus illud cui volumus. Aven­tinus, lib. 9. pag, 616. he) the Emperour hath his Diadem; for whence hath he his Em­pire, but of us? behold! it is in our power to bestow the Empire upon whom we list.

Minist.

Emperours, Kings, and all [Page 194] Chief Magistrates by what title soever they be called, receive their authority onely of God, not of any Roman Priest: which is the former branch of the Propo­sition, I engaged to prove. It is I (saith Psalm, lxxxii. 6. God) not any Creature, that have said, Ye are Gods. It is he, Daniel, iv. 32. the most High, that ruleth in the Kingdoms of men, and giveth them to whomsoever he will. Job. xxxvi. 7. It is his omnipotent hand, as the Vulgar Edi­tion hath it, qui Reges collocat in solio, places Kings upon their Throne, Proverbs, viii. 15. by whom Kings reign, and Princes decree Justice. He, that said by Nathan, to David, 2 Sam. xii. 7. I have anointed thee King over Israel. He, by whom Solomon confesseth he was 1 Kings, ii. 24. established, and set on the Throne of David his Father. In whose name the Prophet Ahias said to Jeroboam 1 Kings, xi. 31. I will give unto thee ten Tribes; who challenges Psalm, xxi. 3. Crowns, Psalm. lxxxix. 20. Anoynting, Scepters, and 2 Paral. 9. 8. Thrones as his peculiar, and stiles them 2 Sam. xiv. 17. Angels of God, and Psalm, lxxxii. 6. Sons of the most High, whom he empowers.

Gent.

But it is said, 1 Sam. xi. 15. All the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul King before the Lord; And, 2 Sam. ii. 4. The men of Judah, and Elders of Israel anoynted David over Judah, and Israel: how then received they their authority from God?

Minist.

2 Sam. v. 3. The Elders of Judah, and Israel anoynted David, not as Masters of the substance, but of the ceremony; not making him, but declaring him to be King, whom by 1 Sam. xvi. special command God had [Page 195] designed before. And Saul was first an­oynted by the Lord 1 Sam. x. 1. Captain over his inheritance, chosen immediately of him by lots, as Matthias Acts, i. 26. was; so that he had all his jura regalia from God, not the people; who are also said to have 1 Sam. xi. 15. made Saul King, because they approved the election made of God, and admitted him into the Constituere Regem est Verbum tertiae Conju­gationis, quod cùm esserat duplicem actionem, pro­priè significat facere te­nare, & regnate est re­giam exercere potesta­tem; quasi diceret, Fe­cerunt, ut regiam po­testatem exerceret. Je­suita Pineda, De rebus Solomonis. possession, and administration of the Kingdom; whom the Sons of Belial impiously by contempt had re­jected. For the Jews had a special com­mand, Deut. xvii. 15. to set him King over them, whom the LORD their God should choose. And, as in spiritual things 1 Cor. iii. 7. Paul may plant, Apollos water, yet it is God, that gives the whole encrease; So it is his sole act to set on high whom he pleases, though the votes, and suffra­ges of the people may be subservient, and obediential instruments.

Gent.

But Government, and Principa­lity sometimes descends by Succession, or are conferred upon victorious Comman­ders, as Trophies of their Conquests law­fully atchieved; how then are they im­mediately conferred of God?

Minist.

Order of Succession, and vi­ctorious event of lawful war, are onely qualifications preparative, or concomitant to the Investiture of Government: but are not the principal, or conjunct cause of it, as heat, cold, moysture, dryness, with the Crasis, or Temperature, that crises, [Page 196] of the mixture of them, are dispositions prerequisite in an organized humane body, to the receiving of the Soul; which (as Saint Augustine Creando infunditu [...], & infundendo creatur. Lom­bard. 2. Sent. Distinct. 17. saith) is created by In­fusion, and infused by Creation; but are not the causes of Creation, or Infusion of it: for that is God's peculiar Prerogative, qui format animas in medio eorum. Even so that of constituting Rulers, and Gover­nours: as Tertullian saith, Indè ille potestas, un­de spiritus. Tertul. in A­pologe [...]. cap. 30. Thence is their power, from whence is their Spirit, or Soul; and Irenaeus, Cujus jussu nascun­tur homines, ejus jussu con­stituuntur Principes. I­renaeus, lib. 5. Contra Haeres. By whose command men are born; by the same power are Prin­ces, or Governours, made, which is onely Gods. This the Romish Extravagants approve, determining, that Imperator non habet gladium a populo, sed im­perium est a solo Deo. Ex­travag. De Majoritate, & Oledientia. Dist. 96. The Em­perour hath not his Sword of the people, but the Empire is onely from God.

Gent.

I see it perspicuously evident by Scriptures, Fathers, and Imperial Consti­tutions, that Chief Magistrates receive their Authority onely of God; and that, None is above them within their Domi­nions, but God. What say the antient Laws of our Nation to this?

Minist.

Bracton, who executed the office of Lord Chief Justiciarie for twenty years together under Henry the Third, treating of the antient rites, and customs of England, saith, that Sunt sub Rege liberi homines, & servi, ejus potestati subjecti. & omnes quidem sub eo, & ipse sub nullo, nisi tantum sub Deo. I [...]émque r [...]sus; Si ab eo peccatur (cùm Bre [...]e non currat contra ips [...]m) locus erit supplicationi, quod factum suum corri­gat, & emende [...], quod qui­dem si non fe [...]rit, satis erit ei ad poenam, quod Do­minum expectet ultorem: nemo enim de factis suis praesumat disquirere, [...]ou [...] ­ [...]o minus contra factum suum venire Bracton. De lege & consuetudine An­g [...]. lib. [...]. cap. 8. num. 5. Under the King are Freemen, and Servants, subject to his power, and all are under him, and he under none (therefore not the Pope of Rome) but onely under God; and, i [...] he offend, seeing no Brief can issue [Page 197] out against him (much less, a Romish [f] This is to be under­stood, either in relation to the Pope onely, or of them, which are also­lutely supreme in legisla­tive, and executive pow­er, whether Monarchs, Optimates, or Senate, which is to be referred to the Laws of every Nation; as His Majesty is supreme with us, both in legislative, and execu­tive power. Bull) there is onely place for Supplica­tion, that he would correct, and re­form his Errour, which if he will not do, it is sufficient punishment for him, that he must expect, God will revenge; for none may presume, (therefore not the Pope) judicially to enquire into his actions, much less to make insurrection against him.

Gent.

I understand, that not onely the modern, but antient Laws of this Nation are against Papal Jurisdiction, if not ex­presly, yet consequently: but, at this pre­sent▪ you need not fear his annoying the Chief Magistrate, State, or people of this Nation,

Minist.

There was never more cause of fear, then now, and, unless you dis­semble, you must confess, the Regno privare, atque etiam interficiendos, atque populos subjectos, re­laxato juris jurandi vin­cul [...], potestate eorum ex­imere, atque ab obedientia, & sidei debito liberare, & ipsum regnum alteri Prin­cipi donare, & armis in­vadendum, sibique sub­jugandum permittere: Re­gem a Papa, sive Haere­t cum, sine aliàs viti [...]s [...]m, au [...] inu [...]lem judica [...]um, ac propterea per sententiam ejus, velut superioris regni, jure privatum, jam jus, & authoritatem imperandi amisisse, nec ultra Regem esse, sed Tyrannum. & a quovis de populo occidi pos­se: Clericos etiam nequa­quam ulli Regum esse sub­ditos, ac propterea nul­lam ab eis laesae Majesta­tis crimen commi [...], etiam­si rebellionem in Reges mo­lia [...]ur, & monitis, atque exemplo populos rebellare, & obedientiam, fidelitatē, tribulū, & omnia obsequia Principibus negare do [...]e [...]t: Apostolos Regibus de facto tantum, non etiam de jure subjectos f [...]i [...]se Sanctarel. apud Alphonsum de Var­gas, pag. 117, 118. Brood of Ignatius Loyola were never more active, then now at this present. That Romish Argus in the Apocalyptical Beast, full of eyes, he rides upon, is intensly vigi­lant to widen the breaches, he hath made, taking advantage of our distractions:

—haud tanto cessabit cardine rerum. I will give a glance of his attempts in this kind, since Queen Elizabeth's Inaugura­tion. In the fourth year of Her Reign, Arthur Pole of the Race of George Duke of Clarence, and Fortescue, his Brother-in-Law, conspired by an army in Wales to proclaim the Queen of Scots. Pope Pi­us the Fifth in the year 1569. sent out an [Page 198] Excommunication against her, absolving all her Subjects from the Oath of Allegi­ance. By him, and the King of Spain, the Duke of Norfolk was excited to stir up what Forces he could, and to join with the Earls of Northumberland, and West­merland, who were seduced by Nicholas Morton, a Priest sent from his Holyness. The same year Johannes Mendoza was sent out of Spain to inflame the Rebellion begun in Ireland, by Edmund, and Peter Botelers, Brethren to the Earl of Ormond. In the year, 1570. Don John of Austria, disappointed of the Kingdom of Tunis, practised secretly with the Pope the over­throw of England. Gregory the Thir­teenth promised a Cruciata, (as was used in the Holy Wars) if the Spaniard, and Stukeley (an Englishman, whom he had furnished with men, and ammunition) would turn their Forces against England. Sanders, and Allen, two Popish Priests, with Power Legantine, a consecrated Ban­ner, and Letters of Commendation came to Spain, from thence to Ireland with three Ships, and a few Soldiers to stir up Com­motions. In the year 1580. these Emis­saries, House, Main, Nelson, Sherwood, Campian, Parsons, all Romish Priests, taught, that Queen Elizabeth was an He­retick, and therefore worthily deposed. The Jesuits by their seditious Libels en­couraged Summervile, and Arden to at­tempt the Queen's death, Anno 158 [...]. And Bernardinus Mendoza, the Spanish [Page 199] Embassadour, was thrust out of England, for secret Conspiracies against the State. At Venice, Parry, a Doctour of Civil Law, had communication with Benedi­ctus Palmius, a Jesuit, who recommen­ded him to Campegius, the Pope's Nuncio, and Campegius to the Pope; so that Let­ters of Credence were sent to him by the Cardinal of Come, and he excited to at­tempt the Queen's death by a Stab, which they called special service for the Catho­lick cause; which he consented unto, ha­ving got a plenary indulgence by Raga­zonius, the Pope's Nuncio, Ballard, a Rhe­mish Priest, perswaded Babington, with Chernock, and other of his Complices, to assault Her Majesty; commending the Scots, who had lately intercepted their King at Sterling; and Gerard the Bur­gonian, who killed the Prince of Orange. In the year 1587. Sir Aribespinaeus, the French Embassadour, would have per­swaded one Stafford, a young Gentleman, to take away the Queen's life. Pope Six­tus Quintus sent Cardinal Allen into Flanders, and renewed the Bull of Pius Quintus, and Gregory the Thirteenth, to encourage the Spanish Armado to invade England in Eighty eight. Doctour Lopez, the Queen's Physician, was hired by the Romish Rabbies for fifteen thousand Crowns to poyson Her. Whalpool, a Jesuit, in confession imposed upon Squire to poy­son the Queen's Saddle; which he attem­pted accordingly. Tyrone, by the instiga­tion [Page 200] of the King of Spain, and the Pope, moved the Irish Subjects to Rebellion. Watson, and Clark, two Romish Priests, perswaded Lord Cobham, Lord Grey, Sir Walter Rawleigh, and others by surprising of King James in the first year of His Reign to force him to a Toleration in Re­ligion. Father Creswell, a Lieger Jesuit in Spain, Don Pedro Frankesa, Secretary of State, and the Duke of Lerma, did all negotiate with the Pope, and his Cardinals for the advancement of the Powder-plot: and all upon this ground, Solus Papa est Domi­nus Temporalium; ita ut possit auferre ab alio quod alias suum est; & tenet factum ejus, licèt peccet: sed Praelati caeteri, & Principes non sunt Domi­ni, sed Tutores, Procura­tor [...], & Dispensatores. Johannes de Parisiis, De potestate Regia, & Papali, cap. 5. That Prin­ces, being Hereticks, or excommunicated, may be deposed; their Subjects disob­liged, and all the sinews of Government disjointed; if the Pope send out his Bull to bellow against them.

Gent.

I utterly detest, and abhor these, and all such Machinations, as pernicious, and destructive to Church, and State.

Minist.

You will not onely detest them, but the very Ground, and Basis, upon which they are founded; if you considerately, and conscientiously weigh the next Article, which is

The Ninth Article.

And I do further swear, That I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure their damnable Doctrine, and Position, That Princes, Rulers, or Governours, which be excommunicated, or deprived by the Pope, may, by virtue of such Excom­munication, or Deprivation, be killed, murdered, or deposed from their Rule, or Government, or any outrage, or vio­lence done unto them by the People, that are under them, or by any other whatsoe­ver, upon such pretense.

Gent.

WHat differs this Article from the former? what Acts, or Objects in them are remarkably distinguished?

Minist.

The two former dismantled the Pope's power justly to arm either fo­rein Princes, or homebred Subjects, against their Native Sovereign: This abjures those Heretical Principles, upon which this practical Doctrine is bottomed.

Gent.

What are those Principles, which sustain the Superstructure of all the Romish Hierarchy, and Grandeur?

Minist.
[Page 202]

Their name is Legion, because they are many. First, That Constituti sumus à Deo super gentes, & re­gna, ut destruamus, & e­vellamus, & aedificemus, & plantemus, Aventin. lib. 6. pag. 636. The Pope is placed by God over Nations, and Kingdoms, that he may destroy, and pluck up, and build, and plant. Whence (as Matthaeus Hieromonachus [...]. Matthaeus Hieromona­chus. hath it) The Consistorial Conclave gave in De­cree, and Commandment to all Lords, and the Senate of the Empire, That the Bishop of Rome, and the Successour of St. Peter chief of the Apostles, have au­thority, and power in all the world, more then that of the Empire is; and, That he be honoured, and worshipped more then the Emperour; and, That he be Head of the four Patriarchal Seats; and, That things, appertaining to the right Faith, be of him judged, and de­termined.

Gent.

Where do they lay the ground of the proof of this Doctrine? whether upon Divine Oracles, or Imperial Decrees, and Constitutions?

Minist.

Some challenge it from Di­vine Revelation, which you have heard refuted by Scripture, Antients, and Ro­mists themselves. The most father it up­on the Donation of Constantine. So express­ly your own Champian, Doctour Har­ding; The first Christian Emperour Con­stantine the Great, being fully instructed of the godly, and learned Bishops of the time, thought good by his Imperial Com­mandment, and Decrees, to confirm, rati­fie, and for his own person to yield unto [Page 203] blessed Sylvester, then Pope, and to his Suc­cessours, Bishops of Rome, the same Au­thority, and Superiority, not onely over Bi­shops, and Patriarchs; but also Power, and Honour higher, and greater, then that of Kings, and Emperours.

Gent.

What think you of this Donation, or Charter of Constantine? Johannes de Pa­risiis, saith, Volunt aliqui, quòd, ratione hujus doni, Papa est Imperator, & Domi­nus mundi; & quòd po­test Reges instituere, & destituere, sicut Imperator. Johannes de Parisiis, De potestate Papae. Some are of opinion, that by force, and virtue thereof, the Pope is the Emperour, and Lord of the world; and that hereby he hath power both to set up, and also to put down Kings, as an Emperour.

Minist.

Because my thoughts are not so authentick with you; I will tell you what your own chief friends, Schole-men, Histo­rians, & Canonists think. Platina, Cardinal Cusanus, Marsilius Patavinus, Lauren­tius Valla, Antonius Florentinus, Otho Frisingensis, Hieronymus Paulus Catali­nus, Volaterranus, Nauclerus, Capnion, Mallinaeus, and others have discovered the forgery of it to the world, as ashamed of such a fiction. I will alledg one, or two, in place of many. Cardinal Cusanus con­fesseth, that Donationem Con­stantini diligenter expen­dens, reperi ex ipsamet scriptura manifesta argu­menta confictionis, & fael­sitatis. Cusanus. De con­cordantia Catholica, lib. 3. cap. 2. while he advisedly weigh­ed this Donation, or Grant, of Constantine (whereby the Pope challengeth all his temporal power) even in the penning there­of he found manifest tokens of false-hood, and forgery. And in Gratian, the Pope's own Register, it is found onely in the Pa­lea, and not in the Original allowed Text; and in many old Books, that have no Gloss, it is not found; and in the Gloss upon [Page 204] the same it is noted thus, Palea ista non legitur in Scholis, in qua contine­tur Privilegiū, quod Con­stantinus concessit Ro­manae Ecclesiae; scilicet, ut Primatum inter omnes Ecclesias obtineret. Gra­tian. Distinct. 98. Glossa, eodem loco. This patch is not read in the Scholes, wherein is contain­ed the Priviledge, that Constantine, the Emperour, granted to the Church of Rome; that is, that the said Church should have Sovereignty over all Churches. Pope Pius the Second, himself, saith, Dicta Palea, Con­stantinus, falsa est. Pius in Dialogo. It is false: which Felinus his Canonist further declares, saying, Invehit contra mise­ros Legistas, qui laborant in disputando, an valuerit id, quod nunquam fuit. Felinus, De Majorit. & Obedientia. He inveighed ear­nestly against the poor Lawyers, for that they take such pains to reason, whether that thing may be good, and available in Law, which never was made. And those Au­thours, who own the truth of it, disclaim the lawfulness of it, avouching, that In vita Sylvestri. Jo­hannes de Parisiis, cap. 22. In donatione illa audita est vox Angelorum, in aere dicentium, Hodie venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam; At the time of the con­firming, and passing of this Donation, there was a voice of Angels heard in the Air, This day poyson is poured upon the Church.

Gent.

Enough of this; tell me in order the other Romish Principles, upon which Papal Transcendency leans.

Minist.

The second is, That His triple-Crowned Sovereignty hath a direct pow­er to depose, and instate Princes; and that Romish Catholicks are obliged to assist the Pope in the execution of his sentence of decrowning chief Magistrates, and translating their Crowns. Which is false­ly fathered upon Pope Zacharie the First; but indeed is no elder, then Pope Gregory the Seventh, a brand of Hell, and it was [Page 205] ripened by many of his Successours, and fomented by sundry Parasites, and Assas­sines of Rome, and by Carerius, De potestate Romani Pontificis, lib. 2. cap. 3. Boskier, Legat. Aposiol. con. 14. pag. 35. Baron. Annal. Tom. 11. many Moderns (as Marta, Simancha, Baronius, Bosius, Carerius, Paulus Cararia) defended; of which Gratian gives an instance, Zacharias Regem Francorum non tam pro suis imquitatibus, quàm pro co, quòd tantae potestati erat mutilis, à regno de­posuit. Gratian. caus. 15. quaest. 6. cap. Atius. Pope Zachary deposed the King of France, not so much for any Delinquency of his, but that he was not competently qualified to manage such a power.

Gent.

The novelty of this, with other rea­sons you have formerly given, speaks suffi­ciently the unlawfulness of it: what is the next?

Minist.

The third is pendulous with shew of limitation, and mitigation, to wit, The Pope hath an indirect power limited, and circumscribed by many cautions, & pro­visions in deposing Princes. This is main­tained by Bellarmin. De Pontif. lib. 5. cap. 1. 6. 7. 8. Gret­ser. Defens. Bellarm, De Pontif. Victoria, De po­test. Eccles. quaest. 2. Ca­jetan. Apol. cap. 13. Bellarmin, and may seem (for manner of speaking) to be more mo­derate, then the former; but in weight, and consequence is equally false, and perni­cious: for it hath the same effects, yield­ing authority to Popes to depose Princes, when the same appeareth to themselves reasonable, and for the benefit of the Ro­man cause. Then saith Si quid tale accidat Spiritualis potestas potest ac delet coërcere Tempora­lem omni ratione, ac viâ, quae ad id necessaria vidi­bitur. Bellarm. De Roma­no Pontifice, cap. 6. Bellarmine, the Spiritual power may, and ought to curb the Temporal by all means, and ways, which may seem conducible to that end. It armeth also Subjects to rebellion, and enemies to mischief, and it provideth, that regal, or supreme Magistracy shall depend upon Papal discretion, and devotion [Page 206] Thus the cunning Jesuite brings water in the one hand, and fire in the other; say­ing, Quantum ad personas, non potest Papa, ut Papa, ordinariè temporales Prin­cipes deponere etiam justa de causa, eo modo, quo de­ponit Episcopos, id est, tan­quam ordinarius Judex; tamen potest mutare regna, & uni auferre, atque alteri conferre, tanquam summus Princeps Spiritualis; si id necessarium sit ad anima­rum salutem. Bellarm. De Rom. Pontif. lib. 5. capp. 6, 7. As to the persons, the Pope, as Pope, cannot ordinarily depose temporal Princes, though the cause be just, after that manner, as he deposeth Bishops, that is, as an ordi­nary Judge; yet he can change Kingdoms, and take from one, and collate upon another, as the Chief Spiritual Prince, if it shall be requisite for the health of Souls. But the most malignant venom is yet behind in the sting: for, saith he, quod Christiani o­lim non deposuerunt Neronem, & Diocle­sianum, & Julianum Apostatam, & Va­lentem Arrianum, & similes, id fuerat, quia deerant vires Temporales Christianis; That Christians formerly deposed not Ne­ro, and Dioclesian, and Julian the Apo­state, and Valens the Arrian, and such the reason was, because Christians wanted tem­poral forces. To these three pestilential Principles, all the Romish Doctrine, that relates to deposing, or annoying of Princes, may be reduced.

Gent.

Are these Doctrines generally maintained by Catholicks, or an aspersion fastened upon them for some few? or who are they, that foment them?

Minist.

That they are not maintained by all, I have hinted to you already, and shall haply more fully hereafter. If the Disease be not hectical, but of a few, that asperse the rest, you may more rationally abjure them, which is the scope I aim at: but you shall finde, that the maintainers, [Page 207] and fomenters of them, are neither few, nor inconsiderable. I'le instance in two, or three: By a drop you may discern the saltness of the Ocean. Baronius saith, Non eos homicidas ar­bitramur, qui, adversus excommunicatos zelo Ca­tholicae matris ardentes, eorum quoslibet trucidasse contigerit. Baron. Annal. Tom. 11. Anno 1089. We judge not them murderers, who, enflamed with a zeal of their Catholick Mother a­gainst excommunicated persons, shall chance to kill any of them. Alvares Pelagius saith, that, Apud illum reside [...] Regalis, sive Imperialis dignitatis plenitudo, cui de jure competit imperium transferre. Sicut nullus fidelis dubitat, quòd Chri­stus fuerit Rex, & Sa­cerdos, & Rex coeli, & terrae, &c. sic nullus Ca­tholicus dubitare debet, quin summus Vicarius Ge­neralis in terris pariter u­tramque habet potestatem, imò uon longè abesset ab Haeresi contrarium affir­mare. Alvares Pelagius De planctu Ecclesia, lib. 1. Art. 37. With the Pope resides the fulness both of Regal, and Imperial dignity, who hath lawful power to translate Empires. And, as no Believer doubts, that Christ was both King, and Priest, King of Heaven, and Earth; so no Catholick ought to doubt, that the chief Vicar General upon earth hath both powers, Spiritual and Temporal, it would not much fall short of Heresie to af­firm the contrary. Bosius saith, Bosius, De Ecclesiae signis, lib. 7. cap. 4. In quo elucescit authoritas Papae, qui potest justis de causis, vel sine culpa, ab aliis in alios jura maxima, qualia sunt imperia summa, de­creto suo transferre. Herein appeareth the authority of the Pope, that he can for just causes, or when there is no fault, transfer by his greatest in­terests, as chief Empires. Augustine ab Ancona saith, August. ab Ancona, Sum. de Eccles. Quaest. 1. Art. 1. Immediata potestas jurisdictionis omnium Spiritualium, & Temporalium est solum in Papa; All power of Spiritual, and Temporal juris­diction is onely in the Pope.

It seems to me a prodigious Tenet, to hold, The Pope hath power to depose, and translate Empires for no fault, as well as for condigne causes. But what are the princi­pal causes, they assign?

[Page 208]
Minist.

Bosius Quatuor causas habe­mus, ex quibus Papa, & Episcopi possunt regna illis quidem auferre, his verò adjudicare; quarum pri­ma est, in scelere aliquo admisso posita, quae multis exemplis illustra [...]i potest: secunda est, in socordia: duae postremae respiciunt ae­tatem ad regendum in e­ptam; & tranquillitatem communem Reipublica Christianae. Bosius, De signis Ecclesiae, lib. 17. cap. 4. assigns these four, for which the Pope, and his Cardinals may take Kingdoms, and Dynasties from one, & adjudge them to another. The first is, If they be wicked, or guilty of hainous crimes, and this (he saith) may be illustrated by ma­ny examples. The second is sloathfulness, or want of activity in Government. The third is Child-hood, and decrepid old age, unfit for the managery of State-designs. The fourth, if it be inconsistent with the publick tranquillity of a Christian Common-wealth. I shall demonstrate, in the last Article, these, and all of the like nature, to be in­sufficient to produce such an effect.

Gent.

But whether was ever this Do­ctrine of deposing excommunicate Princes, and arming their Subjects against them, countenanced by any Synod, or Council?

Minist.

Never of any of the ancient Oe­cumenical Councils, or Provincial Synods; for they abhorred it. Nay, even the pre­sent Jesuites seem to make a semblance of the detestation of it; for the In virtute obedientiae commendatur Provincia­libus, nè in sua Provinciae quicquam, quàcunque oc­casione, aut linguà evul­gari patiantur à nostris, in quo de potestate Summi Pontificis supra Reges, Principésque, aut de Ty­rannicidio agatur. Ex Epi­stola, Pub. Claudii, Dat. 1614. 2. August. General of their Order hath given in command to his Provincials, that they should not suf­fer within their respective Provinces any thing to be published upon any occasion, in any Language, wherein it should be treated of the power of the Pope over Kings, and Princes, or of deposing, or mur­dering of Tyrants: yet Bellarminus contra Ba [...]claium enumerat Sy­nodos Beneventinam sub Victore iii. Placentinam sub Urbano ii. Roma­nam sub Paschali iii. Coloniensem sub Gela­sio ii. Rhemensem sub Calixto ii. Lateranen­sem sub Innocentio iii. &c. Bellarmine, the Jesuite, recites divers modern, and novel Synods, to wit, the Beneventine under Pope Victor the Third, the Placentine un­der [Page 209] Ʋrbane the Second; of Colen under Gelasius the Second; of Rhemes under Ca­lixtus the Second; of Literan under In­nocent the Third; whereof all (saith he) have exalted the Pope's Temporal So­vereignty above the chief Civil Magi­strate's.

Gent.

Have they ever been checked for this Doctrine? hath it passed in the lat­ter times for Catholick, without con­trol?

Minist.

No; for you have already heard, how the Sorbone Divines, and o­thers disrelished it; and the Parliament at Paris sentenced those dangerous Positions of Sanctarellus: and you may further take notice, that the Jesuite Suares his Book Contra sectam Anglicanam was con­demned at Paris in France, and burned by the hand of the Hangman; and because they were promoters of such pestilent, and seditious Principles, the whole Retinue of Loyalists were banished out of the Domi­nions of the Venetians, and out of some o­ther Countries professing Romish Faith. Mariana, the Jesuite's work De institutione Principis, wherein he maintaineth Regi­cide, is censured by many Romists. I will present you with a few of his poysoned Dishes, and then leave it to the judgment of your own Pal [...]te. For thus he plays the Panegyrist, and Encomiast or Parri­cide, and Regicid [...] ;Henricus, eo nomine Tertius, Galliae Rex, ja­ceat manu Monachi per­emptus, medicato cultro in viscera adacto; Jaco­bas Clemens inter [...]ctus, & vulnera, impense laeta­batur: scilicet, caeso Rege, ingens sibi nomen fecit. Ab omni memoriae considera­mus, in magna laude fuisse, quicunque Tyrannos peri­mere aggressi sunt. Et sa­lutaris cogitatio, ut sit Principibus persuasum, si Rempublicam oppresserint, si vitiis, & foeditate intole­randi erunt, ea conditione [...]ivere, ut non jure tantum, sed cum laude, & gloriae perimi possunt. Mariana, De Rege. lib. 1. cap. 6. Henry the Third of that name, King of France, was slain by the hand of a Monk, the poysoned [Page 210] Knife being sheathed in his bowels; James Clemens, the Actor, in the mid­dest of stripes, and wounds, exceedingly rejoycing, that he had made himself so eminently famous by killing of the King: for (saith he) we consider, that time out of minde they have been high­ly commended, who attempted to kill Tyrants. And it is a wholsom Medita­tion for Princes, to perswade themselves, if they shall oppress the Commonwealth, if they shall be vitiously intolerable, the condition of their life is such, that to murder them is not onely lawful, but praise-worthy, and glorious. Thus far he.

Gent.

Truly I cannot otherwise cen­sure this Doctrine, then King James is re­ported Joseph Hall, Epist. 5. Decad. 1. to have done that Book of Lipsius concerning his Ladies of Halle, and Zichem: for when he had well view­ed it, and read some passages, he threw it to the ground, with this censure; Dam­nation to him, that made it, and to him, that believes it.

Minist.

You are not singular in this censure; for the whole Parliament at Paris (though Papists) professed the same in the Subscription to those three Positions in op­position to Sanctarellus, touching the (im­peached) authority of Princes; and that Se malitiosam, & pe­stiferam de Regum autho­ritate Sanctarelli Doctri­nam detestari, ac paratos esse diversam sententiam, velut veram, quacunque occasione, vel sanguinis, vi­ta que impensa, confirmare. Quam quidem sententiam nostram improbare nemo potest, nisi qui Christi prae­captum simul & exemplum improbet; nisi Martyribus, cùm rebellare possent, mo­destiae gloriam eripiat, & crescenti Ecclesiae ignaviam exprobrare velit, quòd nu­mero fortior ferrum Impe­ratoribus, quo saeviebant, non extorserit: Ea siqui­dem est non Christiano­rum, sed Haereticorum contumacia, qui vel levis­simo metu Religionis ad arma concurrunt, leges calcant, jura violant, & à Deo ordinatae potestati, qua possunt via, resistant. Al­phonsus de Vargas, De Stratagematis Jesuita­tum, pag, 119, 121. they were ready to defend the con­trary thereof, as true, upon every occa­sion, even with their blood, and loss of life: and give their reason, because none [Page 211] could dislike their judgement, which did not withall dislike the precept, and ex­ample of Christ, unless they would take a­way the glory of modesty from Martyrs, when they had power to wage War; and would upbraid the Primitive Church with cowardise; which, being stronger, and more in number, might have extort­ed the Sword from persecuting Empe­rours, when they raged. But that is the malepert peevishness of Hereticks, not Christians, who for the least fear of Reli­gion fly to Arms, trample Laws under foot, violate Statutes, and, with all their might, resist the power ordained of God.

The result of the whole is this;

That Doctrine, which is contrary to Scriptures, Primitive Fathers, ancient Councils, and is disclaimed by all mode­rate Papists themselves, ought to be abju­red.

But such is that Jesuitical Doctrine, that Princes, Rulers, or Governours, which be excommunicated, or deprived by the Pope, may, by virtue of such Excommunication, or Deprivation, be killed, murdered, or deposed from their rule, or government; or any outrage, or violence may be done unto them by the people, that are under them, or by any other whatsoever upon such pretense.

Therefore it ought to be abjured.

Which you will more chearfully do, if you consider the next Article.

The tenth Article.

And I do further swear, That I do believe, that the Pope, or Bishop of Rome hath no authority, power, or jurisdiction whatsoever, within England, Scotland, and Ireland, or any, or either of them, or the Do­minions, or Territories belonging to them, or any, or either of them.

Minist.

YOu are here enjoyned to abjure no more, then what all Ecclesiasticks, or Clergie were enforced formerly to sub­scribe unto; for it is expressed in the thirty seventh Article of our English Con­fession, that The Supreme Magistrate in this Kingdom of England, and the rest of his Dominions, hath the chiefest power, to whom the supreme Government of all States of this Kingdom, whether they be Ecclesia­stical, or Civil, in all causes, pertains, and neither is, nor ought to be subject to any fo­reign Jurisdiction; Romanus Pontifex nullam habet jurisdictio­nem in hoc regno Angliae. Confessionis Anglicanae A [...]. 37. Anglia non est Feudato­ria Papae. Harpsfield. The Pope, or Bishop of Rome, hath no jurisdiction in this Kingdom.

Gent.

The Canonists, or Pope's Pages of Honour, say otherwise, enfeoff [...]ng their [Page 213] Master with the Extravagant. De ap­pellat. Ut debitus. in Glossa. possession of all the World. One saith thus; Extravagant. De stae­tu Regularium periculos. in Glossa. Dominus Papa est Ordinarius omnium hominum; Our Lord, the Pope, is the Ordinary, or Bishop of all men. Another saith, Extravagant De poe­na Felicis, in Glossa. Papa totius mundi obtinet principatum; The Pope hath the Principality of all the World. Another saith, Extravagant. De con­cessione Praebendae, & Ec­clesiae non vacantis; Quia diversitatem ab. Papa, etiam cessante negligentia Praelatorum, potest conferre Be­neficia totius orbis; quia ipse est Ordinarius totius mundi: Though there be no de­fault, or negligence in any Bishop, yet may the Pope bestow the Benefices of all the World; for that he is the Bishop of all the World.Therefore, when the chief Deacon investeth, and enrobeth the Pope at his Consecration, he saith unto him, Ego te investio Papatu, ut praesis urbi, & orbi; I invest thee with the Popedom, that thou mayst rule both the City and the World: if the World, then England; which pre­supposeth he hath jurisdiction in these Nations.

Minist.

It is true, that Sycophants have given, and modern Popes have taken such jurisdiction to themselves; resembling Antiochus, King of Syria, who stiled him­self a [...]. Hieronymus in Daniel. cap. iii. God; and the Emperour Do­mitian, who used to assign his Proclama­tions with this Elogie, Dominus Deus vester Domitianus. Suetonius in Domitiano. Your Lord God Domitian; the Emperour Caligula, who called himself the Deum Optimum Maximum, & Jovem Latialem. Pomponius Laetus. best, and most mighty God, and the great God Jupiter of Italy; Sapores, the King of Persia, who entitled himself the Brother of the Sun, and Moon; [Page 214] Manichaeus, the Heretick, who called himself the Holy Ghost, as did that A­rabian Impostour, Mahomet; Simon Ma­gus, who obtained that esteem with the antient Romanes, that they erected him a Statue with this Inscription,

Eusebius, lib. 2. cap. 13. SIMONI SANCTO DEO, In the honour of Simon, the Holy God. So Potestas Papae est ma­jor omni alia potestate cre­ata, aliquo modo se exten­dens ad coelestia, terre­stria, & infernalia ut de ea verificari possit quod di­ctum est, Omnia subje­cisti sub pedibus ejus. Antonin. in Sum. part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 5. Antoninus, Arch-Bishop of Florence, gives the Pope greater power, then any o­ther power, that ever God made, which af­ter a sort even stretcheth it self to things in heaven, things in earth, and things in Hell, so that of him that saying of the Pro­phet David may be verified; Thou hast made all things subject to his Feet. But of this Luciferian Ambition, and inordi­nate Ʋsurpation, many Pontificians them­selves have complained, amongst whom Franciscus Zabarella, Cardinal of Rome, avers, that Ex hoc infiniti secuti sunt errores, quia Papa occupavit omnia jura in­fertorum Ecclesiarum, & nisi Deus succurrat statui Ecclesiarum, universa Ec­clesia periclitabitur. Fran­ciscus Zabarella. Thereupon have ensued infinite Errours; for that the Pope hath invaded the Rights of all inferiour Chur­ches, and, unless God help the state of the Churches, the universal Church is injeo­pardy. The learned Lady, Anna Daugh­ter to the Emperour Alexius, and Irene, in her Greek Story writeth thus, Anna in Historia Graeca. The Pope is Lord of the whole world, as the La­tines think, and speak of him; [...], for this is a piece of their ambition.

Gent.

What then was the Pope confined to a peculiar Diocess, beyond which, without Ʋsurpation, he could not extend his Phylacteries?

[Page 215]
Minist.

The antient learned Fathers ever­more bounded, and limited the Pope with­in his own particular Jurisdiction. Ruffinus saith, Romanus Pontifex suburbicavarum Ecclesia­rum solicitudinem great. Ruffinus, Historiae Eccle­siast. lib. 1. cap. 9. The Fathers in the Council of Nice appointed the Pope to oversee the Churches of his own Suburbs; these our Nations are not within his Suburbs. A­thanasius saith, Roma est Metropolis Romanae ditionis. Atha­nasius Ad solitariam vi­tam agentes. Rome is the Mother-Church (not of England, or the whole world, but) of her own particular Romish jurisdiction. The Bishops, in the Council of Rome, writ thus to the Bishops of Illyri­cum, Sozomen. lib. 6. cap 23. It is convenient [...], that all the Bishops, which be within the juris­diction of Rome, accord together. Flavianus, Patriarch of Constantinople, writeth thus to Leo, Bishop of Rome; Dignetur Sanctitas vestra indicare impietatem Eutychetis omnibus E­piscopis sub Beatitudine vestra degentibus. Inter E­pistolas Leonis, Epist. 9. Let Your Ho­lyness vouchsafe to make known the wicked­ness of Eutyches to all Bishops, that live un­der you; not to all the Bishops through the world. Saint Hierom, speaking of the use, and order of the Church of Rome, objected against him, saith, Quid mihi profers u­nius urbis consuetadinem? Hieronymus ad Euagri­um. What alledgest thou against me the Custom of one City? So much he abridgeth the Pope's Jurisdiction, that he extendeth it not to the circumfe­rence of the world; but restraineth it to the Confines of one City: because Hieronymus ad­versus Vigilantium. Non solum unius urbis, sed etiam totius or­bis erant Episcopi; They were the Bishops not onely of one City (as Rome) but of the whole world. Gennadius, together with the Council of Constantinople, writeth thus to the Bishop of Rome; Curet Sanctitas tua universas tuas. Custodias, tibique subjectos Episcopos. Gennadius Ad omnes Metropolitanos, & ad Papam Rom. Let Your [Page 216] Holyness see unto (not all the world, but) all Your own charge, and such Bishops, as be subject unto You.

Gent.

But these were but the Speeches of private Doctours, not of any general Council, whose Definitions if you can pro­duce, I shall submit.

Minist.

It was the Definition of the Council of Constantinople; That Definimus sedi Con­stantinopolitanae paria jura, & privilegia cum sede veteris Romae. Con­cil. Constantin. 2. cap. 36. The See of Constantinople [...], should have the Rights, and pri­vileges equal with the See of Rome. And that Ʋt liquidiùs appareat Papam non imperare aliis omnibus Episcopis, legatur sextus Canon Synodi Ni­cenae, quo disertè praeci­pitur, ut aliis Ecclesiis Alexandrinus, aliis Ro­manus, aliis Antioche­nus praesit, ut non liceat alteri alterius Provinci­am invadere. Nilus De Primatu Romani Ponti­sicu. it may well, and plainly appear, that the Pope hath no power, or go­vernment over other Bishops, Nilus bids us read the sixth Canon of the Ni­cene Council, where it is expresly com­manded, that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have rule over certain Churches, and the Bishop of Rome over certain, and the Bishop of Antioch likewise over certain, [...], and that it shall not be lawful for any one of them to invade the Ju­risdiction of another. Whereupon it was declared by the Emperour Justinian, that Ecclesia urbis Constantinopolitanae Romae veteris Praerogativa laetatur; The Church of the City of Constantinople enjoyeth the Prerogative of antient Rome. And, that none may think this is spoken of the Churches, and not of the Bishops thereof, Nicephorus saith, Romano, & Con­stantinopolitano Episec­po ex aequo paria sunt & dignitatis praemia, & ho­norum jura. Nicephor. lib. 12. cap. 13. The title of dignity, and right of honour given to the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishop [Page 217] of Constantinople are one, and equal. Whereupon Pope Liberius, as if he were inferiour, writeth in this submissive stile to Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria Epistola Liberii ad Athanas. Quaeso, ut huic confessioni subscribas, ut ego securior efficiar, & tua mandata inhae­sitanter obeam; I beseech you to sub­scribe to this confession, that I may be out of doubt and do your Command­ment without delay.

Gent.

I perceive, that the Bishop of Rome is not the universal Bishop, which Gregory disclaimed in himself, and reproved in John, Bishop of Alexandria; yet the Ca­tholick Church was divided into those four Patriarchates of Rome, Constanti­nople, Alexandria, and Antioch, with whom Jerusalem had shared; were not we of this Western part of the World under the Roman Patriarchate, and so subject to the Bishop of Rome?

Minist.

No; for at the Council of Nice, when this division of Patriarchates was made, England neither was, nor ever had been under the Romish jurisdiction; But the Metropolitan here was accounted alteri­us orbis Patriarcha, a Patriarch of another World. This Nation received the Christi­an faith the second year of Claudius, as you have heard, the fourty fourth year after the Incarnation, by the ministery of Simon Zelotes, Simon Zelotes, per­agrata Mauritania, & A­frorum regione, praedicat Christum tandem in Bri­tannia, ubt crucifixus, oc­cisus, & sepultus est. Do­rotheus in Synopsi. and others, nigh an hundred, and fifty years before Constan­tine, in whose time the Council of Nice was held, which distinguished the Patri­archs [Page 218] jurisdictions. And the Romish ju­risdiction was never attempted to be im­posed upon the Church of Britain, till three hundred years after, that Augustine the Monk laboured with sword to force it upon them; that (as Galfridus Monu­mothensis Mille ducenti coruns, in ipso die martyrio decora­ti, regni coelestis adepti sunt sedem. Galfrid. Monu­mothens. lib. 8. cap. 4. saith) a thousand, two hun­dred Religious men, or Students were in one day honoured with Martyrdom, and obtain­ed a seat in the Kingdom of Heaven; and Erant septem Episco­patus, & Archiepisco­patus religiosissimis Prae­sulibus muniti, & Abba­tiae complures, in quibus grex Domini rectum ordi­nem tenebat. Galfrid. ibid. seven Bishopricks, and an Arch-Bi­shoprick possessed with many Godly Pre­lates, and many religious houses, in which the Lord's flock held the right religion, were heavily persecuted, and by degrees sub­jugated to the Roman slavery: yet so as Stow. Chronic. pag. 91. Augustine received from the free Char­ter of King Ethelbert (not Pope Gregory) the City of Rex dedit licentiam praedicandi, & manisionem in Civitaete Dorovernensi (id est, Cantuaria) quae imperii sui totius erat me­tropolis. Beda Histor. lib. 1. cap. 25. Canterbury, and the ruins of a demolished Church, which he repaired for his Cathedral, and dedicated it to our Saviour.

Gent.

It is confessed then, that England, and the associated Nations, and Dominions, were once subject to the Pope's jurisdicti­on: how came he to be ejected, and loose possession?

Minist.

As was said of Pope Boniface, Captus est Bonifaci­us Octavus, & in carcere periit, atque hinc est, quòd dicitur de eo; Intravit ut Vulpes, regnavit ut Lu­pus, mortuus est ut Canis. Carion. Chron. pag. 228. that he entred as a Fox, tyrannized as a Lion, died as a Beast; So the insinuati­on of Papal jurisdiction into these Nations was subtile, the continuation tyrannical, and the ejection disgraceful; of which I will give you a glance, referring you for the more exact, and particular discovery here­of [Page 219] to our National Annals, and municipal Laws.

First, The insinuation was subtile, taking advantage of the superstitious devotion of Ina, King of the West-Saxons, and in a manner, Monarch of England; who having builded the College of Wells, and Abbey of Glastenbury, before resignation of his royal dignity, and retiring to Rome, caused Peter-pence to be paid to the Pope.

Secondly, The continuation was tyranni­cal, as appears by the Gests of Stow, Chronic. pag. 204, 206, 207. Thomas Becket, Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, who, with other Bishops, and Barons, having abjured the Pope's usurped jurisdiction, at least in part, appeals, and repairs to the Court of Rome for an absolution, crea­ting King Henry the Second Daniel, History of Henry the Second. many troubles; at length restored to his E­piscopal See, by the mediation of Pope Alexander, and Lewis of France, and continuing his turbulency, was slain by William Tracy Baron of Brayns, Reign­old Fitz-urse, Hugh Morvilt, and Ri­chard Briton, Knights; whereupon the Nation was Interdicted, the King excom­municated, and not absolved without cor­poral penance. And, though Pope's Bulls were rampant in times of weak Princes, or those, that were embroyled with civil Wars, as King John, and Henry the Third; yet those, that were magnanimous, and vi­ctoriously successful, shaked them off with contempt; as Edward the Third, who in [Page 220] the fourtieth year of his reign, The King com­manded, that Peter's pence should no more be gathered, or paid to Rome. Saint Peter's pence is the King's alms (ob­serve, not the Pope's due) and all, that had twenty penyworth of goods, should pay that peny at Lammas. Stow, Chron. pag. 461. comman­ded that Peter-Pence should be no more col­lected, or paid to Rome.

Lastly, The ejection of Papal jurisdi­ction out of England was disgraceful: for, Stow, Chron. pag. 1003. in the twenty sixth year of the reign of Henry the Eight, it was enacted by Par­liament at Westminster, that the Pope with all his authority should be clean banished out of this Realm, and that he should be no more called Pope (which title he (i) Gesta Abbat. Sancti Albini. Regist. Monast. Sancti Albini. John Bale. Onuphrius, Giraldus Cambrensis. borrowed of Jupiter) but Bishop of Rome, and that the King should be reputed, and taken as supreme moderatour of the Church of England, having full authority to re­forme all errours, heresies, and abuses thereof, with the appendage of First-fruits, Tenths, all spiritual Dignities, and Promotions, annexed to his Royal Dignity.

Gent.

Can you vindicate this from ex­traordinary rigour; That the Pope's ju­risdiction confessedly possessed, and en­joyed so many Centuries, should be whol­ly ejected in one day out of all these Nati­ons? especially Ireland, the regiment whereof was conferred upon Sanderus in Secta Anglicana. Henry the Second by Pope Adrian the Fourth, con­ditionally to hold it of him.

Minist.

That the Pope could give that, which he never had, is a Paradox both in Logick, and Politicks. Lunatick Thra­silaus Athenaeus. claimed all the Athenian Ships. The Cham of Tartary challenges to be Master both of substance, and ceremonies to the whole Universe. Therefore ha­ing [Page 221] dined himself, he causeth a Trumpet to be sounded, that all other Princes through the World may dine. Henry Plantagenet The Kings &c. with other Princes, and Bishop, submitting them­selves, and theirs to the King of England, and his successours, building him a great Palace at Dublin, where he held his Christmas. Stow, Chron. pag. 207. compleated that con­quest over Ireland, which was begun by Strongbow, Earl of Strigule; not holding it of the Pope, (as the Jesuit Sanders pre­tends) but of God, and his sword; for Giraldus Cambren­sis, Radulph Cogshall. Gervasius Dorob. the King of Conach, Devuntius King of Cork, Morice King of Me [...]th [...] he King of Ʋriel, Duvenald King of Ossery, Du­venald King of Limerick, with other Princes, and Bishops, submitted themselves unto him, and his Successours, not by vir­tue of the Pope's Charter, but his prevail­ing army.

Gent.

But I am not yet satisfied, how the Pope could be lawfully dispossessed of that, which he had so long possessed.

Minist.

The Pope's pretended juris­diction is claimed either by Divine right, or humane: according to both claims, e­ven by the Principles of your own Schole­men, and Canonists, he was lawfully dis­possessed.

Gent.

How was he lawfully dispossessed, if his jurisdiction was claimed by divine right? that seems improbable.

Minist.

Supposing, but not granting, that Anti-Christian Principle, that the Pope's universal jurisdiction was by divine right, your own Sancta Clara confesses, Substractio ab obedi­entia non sedis Aposto­licae, seu authoritatis an­nexae illi sedi, quantum est ad actum primum seu si­gnatum, sed solum quantum ad actum exercitum, id est in quantum exercetur à tali persona, cui pro tem­pore commissa est sedes illa. Franciscus De Sancta Clara. pag. 335. that Substraction, or withdrawing from obedience annex'd to the Apostolick See, according to the actus exercitus, [Page 222] as it is so qualified, or is exercised by such a power, to wit Heretical, or Ty­rannical, is lawful. And for proof of this he quotes Gerson, once Chancellour of Paris; who affirms, Hoc etiam practicum est per quoscunque Reges, & Principes, qui sese substra­xerunt abobedientia eorum, quos isti, vel illi judica­bant esse Summos Pontifi­ces: quae tamen substracti­ones approbatae sunt per sacrum Constantiense Concilium, quaedam ex­presse, quaedam implicitè, vel aequivalenter. Gerson. that It was practised by all Kings, and Princes, who withdrew themselves from the obedi­ence of those, whom they acknowledg­ed to be Popes; which withdrawings nevertheless were approved by the holy Council of Constance, some expresly, some impliedly, and equivalently; Conclusum est per Concilium Turonense Principem posse ab obedi­entia Papae sese subducere, ac subtrahere pro tuitione tantum, ac defensione ju­rium suorum temporalium. Concilium Turonense. as also a Synod of Turon in France, wherein it was concluded, that a Prince may withdraw himself from obedience of the Pope for safeguard, and defence of his temporal rights. And, if a Prince may withdraw from obedience, for de­fence of his temporal rights; how au­thentick a commission had our Princes, when both temporal, and spiritual rights were at the Stake? The Church noto­riously corrupted both in Doctrine, and Manners; Rome, that Apocalyptical Ba­bylon, and the Romish Hierarchy Anti-Christian, as is formerly evidenced.

Gent.

You have made this clearer then I imagined; if Princes, and Nations may withdraw themselves from Papal obedi­ence, even supposing their jurisdiction were by divine right, much more, if the claim be but from humane grounds, conquest, consent, pact, prescription, or the like.

Minist.

You say right; for it will [Page 223] follow a majore ad minus, from the greater to the less; but the Pope's claim of jurisdi­ction in England was from none of these, but was insinuated by subtilty, continued by usurpation, and enforced by tyranny. For Harpsfield doth unanswerably de­monstrate Legibus autem nostrū fuisse concessum jus nomi­nandi, & providendi de Beneficiis, testatur post a­lios Harpsfield, Saculo 14. fuisse etiam aliam con­suetudinem immemorialem ex privilegio ortam causas Clericorum cognoscendi, patet ex decisione Rotae, 304. Sancta Clara, pag. 330. Supreme Magistrates of this nation in all Ages to have enjoyed the right of nomination, and provision of Bene­fices, and taking cognisance of the causes of the Clergy. Which even Suarez proves to be their just interest by divine, and natural right, seeing Cui conceditur regnum, necessariò omnia censentur concessa. sine quibus regnum gubernari non potest: re­gnum vero gubernari non posset, nisi Principes hac po­testate potirentur etiam in Clericos. Suarez, lib. 3. De primatu Summi Pon­tisicis. Wheresover God collates a Kingdom, he collates also all things necessary for the managerie thereof, and without which, government cannot be duely administrated; but government cannot be duely administrated, unless Princes have a power in reformation of the Church, to be exercised even over the Clergy: which was wholly obstructed, while the Pope dispen­ced his exorbitant, and apocryphal jurisdi­ction, till the Supreme Magistrates by the consent of the three orders of the Kingdom were necessitated to reassume that (s) Cajetanus, De pote­state Papae, cap. 27. tyrannidi resistendi potestatem, quam jure naturali, & gentium habent etiam in rebus Ecclesiasticis, power of resisting Tyran­ny, which Cajetan confesseth they have even in Ecclesiastical affairs both by the Law of Nature, and Law of Nations.

Gent.

Seeing then in your sense the Bishop of Rome is an Ʋsurper; tell me what you conceive he holds by divine right; what canonically, or by humane in­dulgence [Page 224] lawfully conferred; what by tyranny, and usurpation: for this discus­sion will give great light to the point in hand.

Minist.

I will digest this into Propositi­ons, which are all, or the most of them demonstrated in the foregoing discourse.

First, That all the Apostles were equal, according to that saying of Saint Cypri­an; Hoc erant caetari Apo­stoli, quod fuit Petrus, pa­ri consortio praediti & bo­noris, & potestatis. Cy­prian. De simplicitate Praelatorum. The rest of the Apostles were the same that Saint Peter was, all endowed with the same fellowship, and power.

Secondly, It cannot be proved by Scripture, that Peter was ever at Rome.

Thirdly, The Bishop of Rome succeeded neither Peter, nor any of the Twelve, in the Apostolick Charge.

Fourthly, The Bishop of Rome was primatively but equal with other Bishops.

Fifthly, Bishops are essentially distin­guished from Presbyters but, at the most, in original power to ordain, and exercise of spiritual Jurisdiction indeterminately: which is Saint Hierom's determination, In divinis instituendis quid potest Episcopus facere, quod non Presby­ter, excepta ordinatione? Hieron. What can a Bishop do in divinis insti­tuendis, in instituting, or executing of di­vine things, which a Presbyter may not do; except Otherwise in distin­ction of order, and Ju­risdiction, Irenaeus just­ly calls Episcopacy Tradi­tionem Apostolicam toti mundo manifestam. Ordination?

Sixthly, The Bishop of Rome's Juris­diction at the first was indefinitely over Christians, in, or about Rome.

Seventhly, It was by the Indulgence of Constantine, that the Romane Diocess was further extended, which St. Hierom at the least meant in that Curb; Noverint Episcopi se magis consuetudine, quàm dispositionis Dominicae ve­ritate, Presbyteris esse majores. Hieron. in Epist. ad Titum. Let [Page 225] Bishops understand, that they be greater then Presbyters more by Custom, and pre­scription, then by verity of divine Ordi­nance.

Eightly, More by custom extensivè, not denying Superiority of order, and jurisdiction, intensivé. It was humane Councils, not any divine Authority, that distinguished the Church into Patriarchates, confer­ring that of the West upon the Bishop of Rome; which Aeneas Sylvius, afterwards Pope, confesseth; Ante Concilium Nicenum quisque sibi vi­vebat, & parvus respectus habebatur ad Ecclesiam Romanam. Aeneas Syl­vius, Epist. 188. little respect was had to Rome before the Council of Nice.

Ninthly, It was by humane Institution, that for Ʋnity, and Peace sake, the Bi­shop of Rome had Priority of Order in Ge­neral Councils.

Tenthly, His claim of universal Juris­diction was usurped, and unlawful: So St. Hierom, Si authoritas quaeri­tur, orbis major est urbe, ubicunque fuerit Episco­pus, sive Romae, sive Eu­gubii, sive Constantino­poli, sive Rhegii, ejusdem est meriti, ejusdem Sacer­dotii. Hieron. ad Eua­grium. If we seek for authority, the world is bigger then the City of Rome; wheresoever there is a Bishop, whether he be at Rome, or at Eugubium, or at Con­stantinople, or at Rhegium, he is of like worth, of like Priesthood. Gregory the First disclaimed the Title of Ʋniversal Bishop in himself, saying, Nemo praedecessorum meorum hoc profano voca­bulo usus est. Greg. lib. 4. Epist. 38. None of his Predecessours used such a profane Term; and checks the Bishop of Constantinople for it, saying, Quid tu Christo uni­versalis Ecclesiae capiti in extremi judicii dicturus es examine, qui cuncta ejus membra tibimet conaris Ʋ ­niversalis appellatione sup­ponere? Gregor. lib. 4. Epist. 38. What answer wilt thou make unto Christ, who is indeed the Head of the Ʋniversal Church; at the trial of the last judgment, that thou goest about un­der the Name of Ʋniversal Bishop to sub­due all his Members unto thee?

Eleventhly, The Pope had no jurisdi­ction in this Nation for the first six Cen­turies:

[Page 226]

Twelfthly, Austin, and his fellow-Monks were the first Seminaries of it, who introduced it by blood, and super­stition.

Lastly, Bonifacius Tertius magna contentione obtinuit à Phaca Caesare, ut sanci­retur Romanus Pontifex Oecumenicus, & sum­mus Episcopus totius Ec­clesiae Christinae. Ab eo tempore nunquam de­sierunt Romani Pontifi­ces conari pro dignitate, & potentia sua augenda. Ca­rion. Chron. pag. 161. It is justly excluded out of these Nations, as inconsistent with civil Government, and destructive to the peace of Church, and State.

Gent.

All this seems to be probable, and you have given such evident Demon­stration of the particulars, that I know not what to reply.

Minist.

Then I may safely conclude; That, which hath no ground in Scri­ptures, Fathers, or antient Councils, was not known for six hundred years after the Incarnation, was introduced with blood, and superstition, and maintained with Tyranny, and is inconsistent with civil Government, and destructive to peace of Church, and State, ought to be abjured: But such is the Pope's pre­tended jurisdiction in these Nations; Therefore it ought to be abjured.

The Eleventh Article.

And all Doctrines in affirmation of the said Points I do abjure, and re­nounce without Equivocation, men­tal reservation, or secret evasion whatsoever, taking the words by me spoken, according to the com­mon, and usual meaning of them.

Gent.

WHat new matter presents it self to be abjured in this Article? all Doctrines in affirmation of the Points in question were renounced before.

Minist.

The ten former Articles (as was premised in the beginning) compri­sed the rem, or matter to be sworn, or ab­jured; The two last contain the modum, or manner of abjuration; being undistin­guishably the same with that of the Oath of Supremacy, which concluded thus; Haec omnia planè, ac sincerè agnosco, & juro juxta expressa verba pera me hic prolata; & juxta, planum, & communem sensum, & intellectum e­orundem verborum▪ absque ulla aequivocatione, aut mentali evasione, aut tacita reservatione quacunque, Andreros. I acknowledge, and swear all these things plainly, and sincerely according to the express words by me here uttered; and according to the plain, and common mean­ing, and understanding of the same words, [Page 228] without any equivocation, or mental reser­vation, or secret evasion whatsoever.

Gent.

I beseech you therefore give me a distinct Survey of this Article.

Minist.

I shall anatomize it for you;

  • First, Here is the action, which is Ab­juration, or Renunciation.
  • Secondly, The [...], how it must be ab­jured; and that either negatively,

  • First, Without equivocation.
  • Secondly, Without mental reservation.
  • Thirdly, Without secret evasion.

Or affirmatively; Taking the words by me spoken, according to the common, and u­sual meaning of them.

Gent.

I desire a more distinct discove­ry of these in order, for satisfaction of Conscience; Therefore tell me first, what it is to abjure, or what an Oath is.

Minist.

An Oath is an Invocation, or calling upon God, whereby we pe­tition him as the onely Searcher of the Heart, that he would bear witness to the Truth, and punish the Jurour, if he wittingly deceive; or it is a Juramentum est Peti­tio Divini Testimonii ad nostri Testimonii veritatem confirmandam. Amesius in Medulla Theologiae. Peti­tion of the Divine Testimony for Confir­mation of the Truth of our Testimony: So that in this Oath of Abjuration the Jurour, or Party deposed, Propriè verò Jura­mentum est Invocatio Det, quâ petitu [...]t [...]is, tanquam untcus cordium inspector, restimonium det veritati, & jurantem puniat, si sci­ens fallat. Ursinus in Corpore Orthodoxae Doctrinae. petitions God, as the onely Diver into the Heart, that he would bear witness to the truth of his renouncing all Doctrines, and pra­ctises therein contained; and punish him, if he play the Hypocrite, or dissemble. And in this (as in most of other Oaths) [Page 229] Sex quaedam Jura­mentum praestat: nam pri­mò Deum superiorē agno­scit, Apostolus enim (ad Hebraeos sexto) ait, quòd Homines per majorem sui jurant. Deinde eun­dem veracem, & constan­ti side praeditum profitea­tur, à qua deficere non possit. Tertiò, Eum rerum omnium scientem, & ar­canorum omnium consci­um, & quem nihil lateat, asseverat, quod ad Divinae Majestatis commendationē c [...]fert. Quarto, Huma­nae fidei vindicem, & ve­ritatis inter homines Pa­tronum, & assertorem commendat; quà laude nulla major ab homine po­test exspectari. Denique, Dilectionem, & amorem in Deum commendat. Ad­di etiam postremo posset, Debitum honorem exhibe­ri Deo. Rangolius, Com­memar. in lib. 1. Regum, pag. 1201. six things pertaining to Religion are filed;

First, The Jurour acknowledges God for his Superiour; for Heb. vi. 16. [...], Men verily swear by the greater.

Secondly, He confesseth God to be true, and veracity to be so essential to him, as he cannot be without it.

Thirdly, He asseveres, that God knows all things, and that he is privy to all secrets, and from him nothing is hid; which conduceth to the Glory of his Divine Majesty.

Fourthly, It commends God, as the Vindicatour of man's fidelity, if he speak truth; the Revenger, if hely; and appeals unto him, as the patrone, and Assertour of Verity amongst men; which is the greatest honour can be ex­hibited from the Creature to the Cre­atour.

Fifthly, It commends the parties love, and zeal towards God.

Sixthly, It presents due honour, to his Divine Majesty, (as Saint Hierom Hieronymus super Matthaeum. cap. V. saith) He, that sweareth, either reve­renceth, or loveth him, by whom he swear­eth; and Aristotle Aristoteles, primo Metaphysic. cap. 3. saith, [...], An Oath is the most honourable thing, that pertaineth to Reli­gion.

Gent.

But what necessity is there of this solemn Oath? Would not separa­ting our selves from the Roman Church, [Page 230] and conjoyning with yours, be a signal ex­pression of our conformity, without abju­ration?

Minist.

In no wise, for there is a Aquinas, secunda secundae. Quaest. 89. Art. 4 conditional necessity at the least of Oaths, since our prevarication, and fall in Adam; because after sin man lost even that cre­dence, that ought to be given to his bare Testimony, and that credit, that other­wise ought to be given to the Testimony of others: for this cause (as Rangolius Rangolius in lib. 1. Regum, cap. xiv. pag. 1201. saith) quoniam vácillat humana fi­des, & incerta pendet spes promissorum, ob humani ingenit levitatem, idcirco Deus testis adhibetur, ut & tuto praeteritis, at­que praesentibus credere possimus, & futura absque angore, & sollicitudine expectare; Because man's credit is staggering, and the hope of promises is uncertainly pendulous, by reason of the fickleness of humane disposition, therefore God is used, as witness, that we may safely give credit to things present, and past, and expect future without anxiety, and trouble.

Gent.

They, that make no conscience of lyes, will not scruple an oath, nor shrink at perjury; so that of some this Camel of Abjuration will be swallowed without straining.

Minist.

An Oath is a most sacred kind of Ty, which by a certain secret Religion, and impression of Divine fear, obliges so strictly the very hearts, and inward sen­ces of man; that the greatest part of man­kinde, [Page 231] though otherwise hardened, and stiffned to other crimes, yet trembles, and relents at the violating of an Oath. Of­tentimes (saith Saepijsimè homines, de quarum adulterio suspi­cantur, ad jusjurandum provocant conjuges suas; quod utique non facerent, nisi crederent etiam illas, quae non timuerunt adul­terium, timere posse perju­rium; quia & reverà non­nullae impudicae, quae non timuerunt illicit [...] concu­bitu viros suos fallere, iis­dem viris, quos fefellerunt, timuerunt Deum testem fallaciter adhibere. Au­gust. Contra Mendac. ad Consent. cap. 21. Saint Augustine) men, who suspect their Wives of Adultery, pro­voke them to an Oath, which they would not do; unless they believed even those, that feared not Adultery, would fear Perjury; because it is evident some unchast Dames, that scrupled not to injure their Husbands by unlawfull Copulation, trembled to call God falsely to witness, or make him their Compurgatour, who was conscious to their guilt. Therefore the Apostle saith, Hebr. vi. 16. [...]. An Oath for confirma­tion is to them an end of all strife; especi­ally if it be without Meritò Dei testimo­nium invocatur ad verita­tem confirmandam; quia ille est summa veritas, qui nec fallere, nec falli potest. Amesius, Medulla Theo­logiae. pag 203. Equivocation, which is the [...], or manner required.

Gent.

Seeing the form, or life of this Oath consisteth in the manner of Abjura­tion, tell me what Equivocation is?

Minist.

Fallacia Aequivoca­tionis est, cùm quis utitur vocabulo ullo ambiguo, & sumit in duplici sensu, cum videri vult sumere in uno tantum. Cracanthorp. Logic. pag. 469. Equivocation (which So­phisters call Graeci ejusmodi Co­thurnos vocant [...], quales pleraque sunt responsa Daemonum. Keckerman. System. Logic. pag. 555. [...]) is an ambigu­ous, or doubtfull speech, which may be taken in two sences; the speaker subtilly meaning one thing, and the hearers innocently appre­hending another.

Gent.

Will you be pleased to give me some instances hereof; and tell me who was the first Authour of it?

Minist.

As God is the Authour of truth, and swearing in Justice, and Judgment: so Satan of lyes, and equivocating Perju­ry. In which Amphibologies the Enemy [Page 232] of mankind (either because he knew not the event, or had an intention to deceive) gave forth his Oracles at Daphne, and Delphos. Croesus, King of Lydia, consult­ing that impure Shrine, whether his war­like advancing with the Babylonians a­gainst Cyrus should be successful, re­ceived this Answer,

Croesus, Halin penetrans, magnam per­vertet opum vim;

Croesus, entering Halis, shall destroy a great mass of wealth; which he appre­hended of the enemies, but it fell out to be his own. Pyrrhus, King of Epire, received this Riddle from the Pythian Priest,

Quod dedit Pyrrho, Regi Epirotarum, ope Pythii Sacerdotis, Aio te, Aeacide, Romanos vincere posse. Cicero. 2. De Divinatione. Aio te, Aeacide, Romanos, vince­re posse:

Which may indifferently be construed two ways; I affirm, That thou Pyrrhus may conquer the Romans, or, that the Ro­mans may conquer thee: he took it in the former sence, and was deceived. Albertus, Duke of Placentia, was courted into secu­rity with this Aenigma; Domine, sis secu­rus, inimici intrabunt terram tuam, & sub­jicientur; which he interpreted thus, Sir, you may be secure, your enemies shall enter your Land, and shall be subjected unto you; but the Jugler, by accenting it Domi nè sis securus, inimici intrabunt terram tuam & subjicient [...]. other­wise, meant thus, You may not be secure at home, the enemies shall enter your Land, and set all on fire. Hieronymus Moronus, Coun­sellour to the Duke of Millain, advising with this Arch Sophister, whether he might safely go with his Embassage to the [Page 233] Emperour's Camp, was answered; Ibis, redibis, non eris captivus; which he un­derstood thus, Thou shalt go, return, not be captive: but the sad event proved, that the Comma was to be placed after non, Ibis redibis non, eris captivus. Thou shalt go, not return, be a captive. Nay, so cunning a Sophister is the Devil, that, for all the Pope's infallibility, he some­times by equivocating deceives his Holy­ness: for Sciscitabatur Sylve­ster Secundus Diabolum quamdiu in Pontificatu vi­cturus erat, responsum ha­buit, quamdiu non celebra­ret in Hierusalem; ga­visus valde est Papa; nam Hierosolymam omnino non proficisci decretum e­rat. Quum quarto Ponti­ficatûs anno Romae ad Ecclesiam S. Crucis, qua in Hierusalem vocatur, celebraret, & Daemonis a­quivocationem, & fatalem diem sibi adesse miser intel­lexit. Platina in Vita Syl­vestri Secundi; & Mar­tinus Polonus, Anno 1007. Sylvester the Second, de­manding of the Devil, (with whom he had frequent conference) how long he should continue in the Popedom, he re­ceived this Answer, As long as he did not officiate, or celebrate, the Mass at Jerusa­lem: at which the Pope rejoyced; for he resolved never to go to Jerusalem, when as in the fourth year of his Popedom he was officiating in Rome, at the Church Sanctae Crucis, which is called Jerusalem, he understood Satan's Equivocation, and that his fatal day was at hand.

Gent.

I have oftentimes heard, that Satan sometimes useth such equivocating Paralogisms, and Amphibolies to deceive men; but, I hope, no Christian imitates that subtile Serpent in this.

Minist.

Too many; for this was the fraudulent dealing of the Hâc fraude Arriani olim usi, Nicena, dicebant, fides, sen quae Niceae de­creta fuit, amplectenda est: Haec nostra est Nicena, & Niceae decreta; Ergo am­plectenda; scilicet Arriani aliquot Episcopi, tempore Ariminensis Concilii, Ni­ceam contenderant, ibi Synodum habent, & Ari­minensm fidem Niceae confirmant, & sic fides e­orum Nicena verè fides erat. Conventiculi scilicet illius Niceni; sed non illa, quae 318. Patribus in Oe­cumenico Concilio declarata erat. Socrates, lib. 2. cap. 29. Arrians, in the time of the Council of Arimine, who, being to subscribe to the Nicene Creed, re­paired privately to Nice, and there kept a secret conventicle, decreeing their own faith, and calling it the Nicene faith; fal­laciously arguing thus, The Nicene [Page 234] faith is to be embraced; but this, which we hold (denying the Deity of Christ) is the Nicene Faith; and so it was, but not of that lawful Oecumenical Council of Nice, which was celebrated by three hundred, and eighteen Fathers, but a private act of their tenebrizing there. When Gurnay, and Matrevirs, Keepers of Edward the Second, then in durance at Berkley-Castle, demanded of some of the Peers, whether they should secretly mur­der Edward; Tarleton, Bishop of Here­ford, cunningly contrived this equivocal resolution; Edvardum occidere nolite ti­mere, bonum est: which, as by him it was accented, they rightly Englished thus, To kill Edward do not fear, it is a good thing. But, when the Tragedie was ended, by al­tering one Edvardum occidere nolite, timere bonum est. Comma, he excused him­self, pretending he meant thus, To seek to shed King Edward's blood refuse, to fear I count it good.

Gent.

This is a Diabolical cheat, and he were a Devil incarnate, and no Christian, that would invoke the divine omnisciency to the truth of his Testimony, knowing he did equivocate, and dissemble with God. What do you mean by mental reserva­tion?

Minist.

Mental reservation is a secret reserve of the minde, whereby a man cunningly windes himself from all en­gagement of assertion, or promise, and acts the Jugler so, that when we think he is fast, he is loose. This Stratagem [Page 235] is as frequent with the Jesuites, as Equivo­cation. To give you a few instances. A Loyalist perhaps will not scruple to abjure the Pope's Supremacy over the Catholick Church, to wit, with this reservation, in the interregnum, or vacancy between one Pope, and another. He will abjure the Church of Rome to be the true Church, to wit, in Julius Cesar's time. That there is not any Transubstantiation in the Sa­crament of the Lord's Supper, with this reserve, if it be consecrated by a Lay-man. That there is not any Purgatory, with this mental caution, after the Resurrection. That Crucifixes ought not to be adored, to wit, of the two Thieves. That Images ought not to be worshipped, to wit, of Heathen Gods. That salvation cannot be merited by works, with this reservation, If they be done before conversion. This was the impo­sture of that infamous Arrius ille infamis Ha­reticus dejeràsse fertur, qui quaerenti Imperatori. num vellet Nicenae fidei, quae ipsius Haeresin de ab­negata Christi divinitate damnaverat, subscribere; continuò se facturum re­spondit. Poscente verò Im­peratore (quòd fidem ejus quodammodo suspectam ha­berit) ut in ipsius Synodi verba juraret, confessio­nem quandam Haereticam, & suam composuit, eam (que) subsignatam sinu abdidit ac tum demum cogitatione in hanc, quam ipse secum ha­buit, intenta, juravit se ve­rè, & ex animo sul scri­psisse. Socrates, Histor. Heretick Arrius, who, when the Emperour enquired whe­ther he would subscribe to the Nicene Creed, which condemned his Heresie of denying the Divinity of Christ, he forth­with answered, he would. And the Empe­rour requiring (because he suspected his fidelity) that he would swear in the very words of the Synod it self; he subtilely composed a certain Heretical confession of his own, and having sealed it, hid it in his bosom, and his minde being intent upon that, which he had hid there, he swore, that he had subscribed truly, and from his heart; and so, in his own conceit, eluded the sacred [...]ty of his Oath.

[Page 236]
Gent.

This is more horrid, then the for­mer, and ought not onely to be abjured in Religion, but exterminated out of hu­mane society. What do you mean by the third secret evasion?

Minist.

Secret evasion intended here is any shift, either suggested by Satan, or contrived by a man's self to disoblige, and disingage himself from this Oath. Such was the evasion of him, Ille, qui cùm triginta dierum essent cum hoste pa­ctae induciae, noctu popula­batur agros, quòd dierum essent pactae, non noctium induciae. Ciceto, lib. 1. Officiorum. who, when a Truce of peace was covenanted with the enemies for thirty days, spoiled all their fields by night, because the Truce was made for days, not nights: Romani deceperunt Antiochum, cum quo pa­cti erant de dimidio navium reddendo, singulas naves dissecuerunt, & cujusque navis dimidium reddide­runt. Valer. Maximus. of the Romans, who indenting with Antiochus, to restore him half his Navy, divided all the Ships in the middest, rendering him the half of every one, and so disenabled him of all for any service: of that Cicero, lib. 1. Offic. perfidious Souldier, who, sent from the Carthaginian Army to Rome upon parole, bound by an Oath to return; when he had gone a few furlongs from the Camp, returned, feigning he had forgot something; thinking, that, by this means, he was disingaged for further per­formance: of the Sabinis proditae portae per vigilem, nec dolo; sed puella pretium rei, quam gerebant in sinistris, petierat: dubium, elypeos, an armillos; illi, ut fidem solverent, & ulciscerentur, clypeis obruê­re. Lucius Florus, lib. 1. pag. 10. Souldiers to Tarpeia, who betrayed the Roman Capitol into the enemies hands, bargaining to have that, which they carried upon their left hands for her Treason (meaning the golden bracelets) now the enemies, when they were admitted, did cast not their Bracelets onely, but their Bucklers also upon her, through the weight whereof she was pressed to death.

[Page 237]
Gent.

We may say with Cicero, Deci­pere hoc quidem, non Jurare est; This is to deceive, or forswear, not to swear: how then ought an Oath to be in justice, judge­ment, and verity; for so the Prophet Je­remie saith, Jer. iv. 2.

Minist.

That is expressed in the affir­mative part of the [...], or manner of Ab­juration; Taking the words by me spoken ac­cording to the common, and usual meaning of them. For (saith Religio juramenti tanta est, ut nullam admittat ae­quivocationem, aut menta­lem reservationem; inter­pretanda sunt verba jura­menti in foro conscientiae ad sensum jurantis, si sim­pliciter, & candidè egerit, sin minùs ad sensum ejus, quem fallere volunt, aut cui juravit: in foro autem externe verba jurantium accipienda sunt, ut vulgò intelliguntur. Amesius. Medulla Theolog. pag. 164, 166. Amesius) the Re­ligion, or tye of an Oath is so sacred, that it admits of no equivocation, or mental reservation; but the words of abjuration are to be interpreted in the Court of Conscience, according to the meaning of him, that swears, if he deal plainly, and candidly; if not, according to the meaning of him he would de­ceive, or to whom he hath sworn. But in foro externo, or the Judicature of men, words of them, that swear, are to be ta­ken as they are vulgarly understood. And Isiodore Isiodor. Hispan. Sent. lib. 2. cap. 21. gives the reason, Quacunque verborum arte, quisque juret, Deum tamen, qui conscientiae testis est, ita hoc accipere, si­cut ille, cui juratur, intelligit; With what craft, or cunning of words soever any man can swear, God, who is witness of our conscience, so takes the words, as he, to whom we depose, or swear, un­derstandeth them: which the Heathen Romans knew by the glimmering light of nature, when they condemned their own Citizens to perpetual slavery in the bra­zen [Page 238] Mines, for falsifying their Oaths, and equivocating with their enemies. And Marcus Regulus, Ad supplicium redire maluit, quàm fidem hosti datam fallere. Cicero, lib. 1. Offic. though he knew he was to undergo exquisite tortures, would rather return to Carthage to his deadly enemies, then violate his Oath.

Gent.

I, for my part, had rather dy a thousand deaths, then perfidiously to dis­semble with God, who searches the heart, and tries the reins. Therefore I shall in­genuously, and sincerely abjure, if you can but with like success clear the next Article, and some other scruples.

The Twelfth Article.

And I do believe no power derived from the Pope, or Church of Rome, or any other person, can absolve me from this my Oath; and I do re­nounce all Pardons, and Dispen­sations to the contrary: So help me God.

Gent.

IS it usual for the Pope, or Church of Rome to absolve men, that have depo­sed, from solemn Oaths? or out of their plenary power to grant Pardons, and Di­spensations from Oaths? for I am not much versed in this History.

[Page 339]
Minist.

You have heard how Pope Pius Quintus Proceres, subditos, & populos dicti regni, ac ca­teros omnes, qui illi quo­modocunque juraverunt, ab juramento hujusmodi, ac omni prorsus dominii, fide­litatis, & obsequii debito, perpetuo absolutos; praeci­piens, & interdicens uni­versis, & singulis Proceri­bus, subditis, populis, nè e­jus mandatis, & legibus auderent obedire sub poena Anathematis. Bulla Pii Quinti, Anno Elizabethae 12. 1570. pronounced, that all, whosoever, by any occasion, had taken the Oath of Allegiance, or Supremacy unto Queen Elizabeth, were for ever discharged of such their Oath, and also from all fealty, and service, which was due to her by reason of her Govern­ment, commanding, and interdicting all, and singular Nobles, Subjects, & People, not to be obedient to her Mandates, and Laws, under pain of his great Anathe­ma, or curse. And Frier Sigebert con­fesseth it to be one of your novel Roman Heresies to Docent populum, quod malis Regibus nullam de­beant subjectionem, & licèt eis Sacramentum Fidelitatis fecerunt, nullam tamen de­beant fidelitatem, nec per­juri dicantur, qui contra Regem senserint: imò, qui Regi paruerit, pro excom­municato habeatur; qui contra Regem fecerit, noxa injustitiae, & perjurii ab­solvatur. Sigebert. Anno 1088. teach the people, that they ow no subjection to wicked Prin­ces; and that, although they have taken the Oath of Fealty, yet do they ow them no Allegiance, neither are they perju­red, that think ill against their Supreme Majesty; yea, he, that obeyeth the King, or Supreme Magistrate, is repu­ted an excommunicate person; and he, that taketh part against him, is absolved from the crime of injustice, and perjury. From this Diabolical Principle, it was, that Pope Boniface the Third absolved Phocas from his fealty to the Emperour Mauritius; Pope Zachary assoiled Pipine, and other Frenchmen of their Oath of Al­legiance, and fidelity made to Childerick King of France; Caesar â Summo Pon­tifice non est excommuni­catus solum; sed & reli­quis potentioribus Principi­bus mandatum est, ut Im­peraterem alium designa­rent. Carion. Chron. lib. 3. pag. 202, Pope Hildebrand, or Gregory the Seventh, dispensed with Rodolph, Duke of Suecia, for his Oath, he had taken to the Emperour Henry the [Page 240] Fourth, his liege Lord. Histories are as full of such examples; as the Deserts of Arabia of Quick-sands, or dangerous wilde Beasts.

Gent.

There are very few Catholicks, but are convinced, that Bishops of Rome have transgressed in the frequency of their Absolutions, and misapplication of their Pardons, and Dispensations; yet this prejudices not the Papal power to grant Absolutions, and Dispensations, when there is just cause.

Minist.

There can be no just cause for absolving Subjects of their Oath, and ty of fealty to their Sovereign, for the rea­son formerly assigned, that I engaged to insist upon in this last Article; which was, Vinculum illud officii, quo majestatis suae subditi ad ipsum teneantur, perpe­tuum esse, solvique sine pia­culo non posse. Andreros The Bond, and Obligation, whereby people are obliged in duty to their chief Ma­gistrate is perpetual, indissoluble, and may not lawfully be broken; In so much, as it is grounded upon the fifth Commandment, and so the Law of Nature, which even your own Angelical Doctour acknow­ledgeth to be out of the reach of Papal absolution, or dispensation, as being Naturale jus ab exordio rationalis creaturae nec va­riatur tempore, sed immu­tabile permanet. Aquinas, 1. 2. Quaest. 94. Art. 5. im­mutable from the very beginning of the rational Creature; and that moral Com­mandments are such, as they are altoge­ther Praecepta Decalogi sunt omnino indispensabilia. Aquin. 1. 2. q. 100. Art. 8. in Decreto, Dist. 5. indispensable by any power.

Gent.

What if Supreme Magistrates be Tyrants, Infidels, Hereticks, Apostates, or Renegadoes from the truth, may not the Pope absolve their Subjects from former Oaths, and Engagements? To what end [Page 241] serve those Arrows of Dispensation, Ex­communication, the Seal of Confession, if they may not be levelled at such Marks?

Minist.

Even Tyrants, Infidels, Here­ticks, Apostates are so harnessed with the Panoplie of the Law of Nature, and the Moral Law, that they are impenetrable by these pretended Papal Darts, maugre the Romish Conclave; which I shall demon­strate in order. First, Tyrants are shot-free, as appeareth by Saul, who injuriously hunted David's Soul, sought his life, 1 Sam. xxiv. 12. 1 Sam. xxii. 23. who was faithful amongst all his Servants, 1 Sam. xxii. 14. recompensed him good for e­vil, 1 Sam. xxiv. 18. who commanded Doeg to fall upon the Priests of the Lord, and slew fourscore, and five persons, that did wear a linen Ephod; and smote Nob, the City of the Priests, with the Edg of the Sword, both men, and women, chil­dren, and sucklings, 1 Sam. xxii. 18, 19. with a conflux of many other crimes, which importuned the Lord to revenge; yet David, though no private man, but de­signed to a Kingdom, and General of the King's Army, durst presume of no dispen­sation from the High Priest to disingage himself to Saul, when he had him at an ad­vantage; but, out of tender touch of con­science, cryed out, when his Servants pressed him to lay violent hands upon him, The LORD forbid, that I should do this thing unto my Master, the Lord's Anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him, see­ing [Page 240] [...] [Page 241] [...] [Page 242] he is the Anointed of the LORD. Which signal Loyalty, presidential to all Posteri­ty, Optatus elegantly describeth, saying, Occasionem victoriae David habet at in mani­bus, incautum, & secu­rum adversarium sine la­bore poterat jugulare, & sine sanguine, & consti­ctu multorum, poterat bel­lum mutare in caedem; & pucri ejus; & occasio sua debant, ad victoriam op­portunitas hortabatur, stringere jam caeperat fer­rum, tre jam caeperat ar­mata manus hostium in jugulos, sed obstabat plena divinorum memoria man­datorum: hortantibus se puerts, & occasionibus contradicit, tanquam & hoc diceret, Sine causa mr, Victorit, provocas, frustrà me in triumphū invitas, vole [...]am host [...] vincere, sed prius ost divina praecepta serva re; non (inquit) mu­tam manum in Ʋnctum Domini: repressit cum gladio manum, & dum ti­muit o'cum, servabat ini­mi [...]um. Optatus, lib. 2. Adversits Parmenianum. David had the opportunity of victory in his hands, he might have slain his un­wary, and secure Adversary without la­bour, have changed War into Slaughter without Blood, and Skirmish of many; both his Servants, and the occasion per­swaded, the opportunity encouraged to Victory; now he began to draw his Sword, now his armed Troops began to make at the Enemies throats: but the perfect Remembrance of God's Countermand did hinder; he checks his Servants, and occasions, that egged him on, as if with this Soliloquie; O Victory, thou causelesly provokest me, th [...] invitest me to triumph in vain, I am willing to conquer mine Enemie, but more willing to observe the precepts of the Deity; I will not (saith he) lay mine hand upon the Lord's Anointed. He pluck­ed back his hand with his Sword, and, while he feared the Oil, he preserved his Enemy.

Gent.

David, and Saul lived under the Law; it may be pretended, that the Bishop of Rome, the Evangelical High-Priest, hath more superlative Power, then the Legal High Priest had.

Minist.

A pretense indeed, but ground­less; for the Apostle Saint Paul bids eve­ry Soul be subject [...], to the higher Powers; which was then the [Page 243] Tyrannical Emperour Nero, and his Com­missioners. Tertullian adviseth to submit to the Emperour Severus, who was the Severus quintâ post Neronem severissima Persecutione Ecclesiam ex­cruciavit. Anno Christi 205. Orosius, & Baro­nius. fifth Persecutour of Christians after Nero; for, having declared, that Malè velle, malè fa­cere, malè dicere, malè ce­gitare de quoqudin ex ae­quo vetdri; quod in nemi­nem licet, cò forsitan ma­gis nec in ipsum, qui per. Deum tantus est, licere, hoc est, Imperatorem, Ter­tul. Apol. 1. cap. 36. we are interdicted by the word to do evil, speak evil, think evil of any, he gathers, that we are much more interdicted to act a­ny of these things against him, who is so highly advanced by God, that is, the Em­perour Severus.

Gent.

But if Tyranny doth not discom­pose the Ligatures of obedience of Sub­jects to their chief Magistrates; some think, that Infidelity joined with Tyran­ny armes the Pope's Bulls, and Anathe­mas against such exorbitant Rulers.

Minist.

No; Infidelity joyned with Ty­ranny, much less alone (which is the second thing) is ineffectual as to this purpose. The two forementioned Emperours, Nero, and Severus (to whom the Apostles, and Fa­thers perswade Subjection) were not onely Tyrants, but Heathens. Saint Peter, from whom the Pope challengeth his exorbitant Jurisdiction, writing to his Countrymen, the Jews, dispersed through Pontus, Ga­latia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, exhorteth them to carry themselves as Multis ante Claudi­um annis, Pompeius Magnus eas (scilicet Pontum, Galatiá, Cap­padociam, &c.) in Provinciarum formam re­degerat. Sigonius, Com­ment. in lib. 2. Sulpitii. free; not as using their Liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the Servants of God; fearing God, and honouring the King: 1 Pet. ii. 16, 17. Now who was this King, when Peter wrote this Epistle? Petrus. priorem Epi­stolam suam conser psit, imperante Claudio. Ba­ronius, Tom. 1. Anno 45. Clau­dius the Emperour, for (as Appianus Appianus, Praefat. Historiarum. [Page 244] saith) the Romane Emperours were [...], Kings in all their acti­ons. This Claudius was both a Persecu­tour, and a Pagan; so cruel by nature, and bloody-minded, (as Suetonius Claudius natura sae­vus, & sanguinarus, tor­menta quaestionum, poenás­que Parricidarum coràm exegerit, salutatoribus scrutatores semper appo­suit, & quidem omnibus, & acerbissimos; Gladia­torum (quos fortè prolapsos jugulari jusserat) expi­rantium facies cum volu­ptate solitus est intueri: libidinis in foeminas profu­sissimus fuit; libertis, & uxoribus tam miserè ad dictus, ut compendio cu­jusque horum, vel etiam studio, ac libidine, honoris, exercitus, impunitates sup­plicii largitus est. Suetoni­us, capp. 22, 23, 24, 25. saith) that he took Examinations on the Rack, ex­acted Murderers to be executed in his pre­sence, appointed Scrutatours, and Spies to observe all private conferences; was a delightful Spectatour of the appaled counte­nances of dying Sword-players; profusely libidinous towards women, slavishly adicted to Ganymedes, and Catamites, that he conferred Honours, and Privileges of Im­munity upon them, that had studied the compendious art of Sodomy, and could me­thodically teach it others: yet the Apostle perswadeth obedience, and subjection to such a Pagan, such a Persecutour, such a prodigious Monster of mankind.

Gent.

But some conjecture, that this obedience, and subjection exhibited by Chri­stians, to Pagan, and persecuting Empe­rours, was extorted, and pumped out of them by violence, and coercive power, not freely presented, and of a willing mind.

Minist.

Their conjecture is ground­less; for Saint Paul, writing to the Ro­manes, who lived either under the same, or a worse Emperour, Nero, commandeth every Soul to be subject to the higher powers; Rom. xiii. 1. not onely for anger, (that is, force, or fear) but for Conscience sake; because it is the ordinance of God, and they are the Ministers of God; Rom. xiii. 5. [Page 245] which is the same he elsewhere presseth, that we should obey our Lords, or Masters, out of singleness of heart, as desiring to please God, not men; Colos. iii. 22. Eph. vi. 5, 6. Whereupon Justin, who lived in the year 150, in the name of all Christi­ans saluteth the Emperour Antoninus, who was both an Infidel, and a Persecutour, say­ing, Nos solum Deum a­doramus, & vobis in re­bus aliis laeti inservimus. Tertul. Apologia 2. ad Antoninum Imperat. We worship God onely, and chearfully serve you in all other things. To which St. Augustine subscribeth, professing, that Potestates, quae sunt, a Deo ordinatae sunt: [...] est, ut Gentilem in po­testate tamen positum ho­norificemus; licet ipse indignus sit, qui Dei ordi­nem tenens gratias agit Diabolo: potestas enim exigit, quia meretur ho­norem. Augustin. Quaest. ex Vet. Test. cap. 35. The powers that are, are ordained of God: hence it is, that we honour a Gentile, placed in authority; although he be unworthy, who, being God's Vice-gerent, and representing him, giveth thanks, or sacrificeth to the De­vil, yet the power requireth obedience, as being ordained of God.

Gent.

But if Infidelity be ineffectual; because Christians were with patience, and prudence, to wait for the Conversion of Jews, and Pagans; yet may not Heresy, and Apostasy unrivet the Ty of Obedience, from Subjects to their Supreme Magi­strates? Some think, that for this purpose God hath set the Bishop of Rome over Na­tions, and over Kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant; Jer. i. 10.

Minist.

That onely concerned Jeremy, an extraordinary Prophet, upon an extraordi­nary occasion: that in a spiritual sence one­ly; not any legal Priest, or Evangelical Presbyter. Therefore we never read, that any Romane Bishop encouraged the [Page 246] Primitive orthodox Christians to renounce the authority of Constantius, Valens, and Valentinianus the Younger, who were all Heretical Emperours, Fautours, and Fo­menters of Arrianism. And, as relating to Julian, who was not onely an Heretick; but an Apostate from the whole known truth, Saint Augustine gives us a true Hi­storical Character of him, and those times; Was not Julian (saith Julianus nónne exti­ [...] Apostata, iniquus Ido­lolatra? tamen milites Christiani servierunt huic Imperatori infideli, & quando dicebat, Produ­cite aciem, ite contra istam gentem, statim ob­temperabant. Augustin. in Psalm. cxxiv. he) an Apostate, unjust, an Idolater: yet Christian Soldi­ers served this unbelieving Emperour; and when he said March on, advance against such a Nation, they presently obeyed: and that even when they wanted no compe­tent force for resistance, the greatest part of Julian's Army being Christians, as ap­peared at his death, for when the Soldi­ers had unanimously made choice of Jo­vinian to be their Emperour, and he re­fused, being a Christian, to rule over Hea­thens, and Pagans, Omnes una voce confes­si sunt se esse Christianos. Ruffinus, lib. 2. Hist. cap. 1. They all confessed with one voice, that they were Christians. Therefore it is not credible, that so nu­merous an Army, and so victorious, o­beyed an Apostate, because they were o­vermatched by him, and not able to resist; but rather (as St. Augustine Subjectos fuisse propter Dominum aeternū Domino Temporali. Augustin. in Psalm. cxxiv. saith) They were subject to their Temporal Lord, for their Eternal Lord's sake.

Gent.

But some say, If the Bishop of Rome had absolved them from their Sa­cramentum militare, or Soldier's Oath, whereby the Romanes were usually tyed to their Generals, they might have been [Page 247] dispensed withall for Subjection.

Minist.

Praecepta secundae Ta­bulae cominent ordinem ju­stitiae inter homines obser­vandae, ut scilicet nulla fiat indebitum, & cuilibet reddatur debitum: secundū enim hanc rationem sunt intelligenda praecepta De­calogi; & ideò praecepta Decalogi sunt omnino in­dispensabilia. Aquinas. Prima Secunda, Quaest. 100. Art. 8. The Law of Nature, Mo­ral Law, and lawful Oaths admit of no dispensation. If the High Priest, or any pretended power had interposed, when David said, I have sworn to keep the judg­ments of thy righteousness, they could not have made void that solemn Oath: propor­tionably, if any Christian, in pious imita­tion of David, shall out of conscience swear inviolably to observe those com­mandments of not committing Adultery, of obeying Parents, and Magistrates; the Pope's Dispensations are so far inef­fectual, that whosoever, presuming upon his Absolution, should adventure to vio­late them, would be found guilty both of Rebellion, and Adultery. Therefore Du­rand confesseth, Olim Papam dispensando errasse; That the Pope hath formerly been mistaken in his Dispensations: as when Em­manuel, King of Portugal, was dispensed withall to marry two Sisters: Ferdinan­dus, King of Naples, to marry his Aunt; Catharine, Queen of England, to marry two Brothers. Pope Martin the First gave Dispensations to marry with a natural Sister, against which even Antoninus Reperitur Papa Mar­tinus dispensesse cum quo­dam, qui contraverat, & consummaverat Matrimo­nium cum quadam ejus germana Anton. 3. part. Tit. 1. cap. 11. a Popish Arch-Bishop, exclaims.

Gent.

But, if not Papal Dispensations, may not the Anathema of Excommunica­tion (whereby they are rendred as Publi­cans, and Heathens) unbrace the Ty of Subjects to their Sovereign.

Minist.

Bellarmine, the late Romish [Page 248] Cardinal is bold to broach this pestilent Doctrine; saying Si ergo Princeps ali­quis ex Ove, aut Ariete fiar Lupus, id est, ex Christiano fiat Haereti­cus, poterit Pastor Eccle­siae eum arcere per Excom­municationem & simul ju­bere populo, nè eum sequan­tur, ac proinde privare e­um Dominio in subditos. Bellarmin. lib. 5. De Ro­mano Pontif. cap. 7. col. 824. If any Prince, of a Ram, or Sheep, become a Wolf, that is, of a Christian become an Heretick, the Pastour of the Church may cast him out by Excom­munication, and at once command the people not to follow him, and thereupon de­prive him of Dominion over his Subjects. But the Holy Ghost speaks another Lan­guage; as knowing that Excommu­nication, though denounced for con­tempt of the Church, makes not one worse, then an Heathen; now the Apostles, St. Peter, and St. Paul (as is formerly e­videnced) seriously exhorts us to perform obedience to Pagan, and Ʋnchristianed Princes. The same therefore is as due to Christian Magistrates, when ex­communicated. And, if we consult the Ro­mish erroneous Oracles themselves, we shall finde the resolution given from their own impure Shrines; that Aquinas, in Sap. Quaest. 23. Tolet. Instit. Sacerd. lib. 1. cap. 9. Excom­munication neither exempts Servants from the dominion of their Masters, nor Children from observance to their Parents. Supreme Magistrates are Lords; their Subjects, Servants: so David stiles Saul his Lord, and himself his servant; 1 Sam. xxiv. 11. They are Fathers, their people are Chil­dren: so King Hezekiah calls the Priests (who were spiritual Fathers to their charge) his Sons; 2 Chron. xxix. 11. De­borah was a Mother in Israel, Judg. v. 7. But, for the most part, the Pope's Excom­munications are unjust, and always rela­ting [Page 249] to these Nations, where he hath no jurisdiction; and his Canon Law tells us, Qui illicitè alium ex­communicat, scipsum, non illum condemnat. Quaest. 24. Art. 3. Comperimus rubri. He, that unlawfully excommunicateth another, condemneth not the party, but him­self. And St. Augustine, Quid obest homini, si eum de illa tabula delere velit humana ignorantia; quem de libro viventium non delet iniquae conscien­tia. Augustin. Ad Cleri­cos Hipponenses. What is a man the worse, if humane ignorance rase him out of the Book of the Church, whom an e­vil conscience wipes not out of the Book of life.

Gent.

Are then the chief Rulers of these Nations no whit impeached by the Pope's Excommunications? nor the People pri­vileged by his Absolutions, and Dispensa­tions?

Minist.

Our chief Rulers are no more impeached by Papal Excommunication, then Christ, and his Apostles were, when they were cast out of the Synagogue by the chief Priests; then the faithful Chri­stians were, when they were excommu­nicated by Diotrephes, who first claimed Papal Primacy, 3 John 9. It is fore-pro­phesied, that Antichrist shall excommuni­cate all them, that will not adore the Image of the Beast, Rev. xiii. 17. Quid sibi velit emen­di, & vendendi Interdi­ctum, jam antè ostendi; nempe Papalem excommu­nicationem notari, in quam qui incidunt, reliquorum civium consuetudine, & commercio arcentur. Mede, Comment. Apocalypt. p. 213 for by prohi­bition of buying, and selling, there is meant Papal Excommunication; into which cen­sure whosoever fell, were driven from all commerce, and fellowship with other Citi­zens. So that Canon of the Lateran Coun­cil set forth against the Waldenses, and Al­bigenses, signally prohibits, under the pe­nalty of the great Anathema, Nè quis eos in domo sua, vel terra tenere. vel fo­vere, vel negotiationem cum iis exercere praesumat. To­mo 4. Concil. edit. Ro­mae. pag. 37. That none should presume to keep them within their Precincts, or harbour them in their [Page 250] houses, or negotiate, or traffique with them. The Synod of Tyron doth the like, Nè receptaculum quis­quam eis in terra sua prae­bere, aut prasidium imper­tive prasumat; sed nec in venditione, aut emptione, a­liqua cum iis communio habeatur. Apud Reve­rend. Armachan De Suc­cessione Ecclesiae, pag. 239. in­terdicting all to afford them any shelter, or receptacle, to supply them with any relief, or have commerce with them in buying, and selling. Neither are the people more privi­leged by the Pope's Absolutions, and Di­spensations to attempt disloyalty; then the Soldiers, and Jewish rabble were to cru­cifie Christ, by the High Priest's deliver­ing him up unto Pilate.

Gent.

But, if neither Papal Excommu­nications, Absolutions, or Dispensations pri­vilege the Laity from subjection to their Sovereign; yet some conceive, that the holy Seal of Confession exempts Sacerdos Dei vices su­stinet, nec aliter, quàm ipse Deus, humiles, ac devotas peccatorum confessiones au­diat. Aquinas, in Sap. Quaest. 11. Art. 1. Priests from former Oaths, or Engagements: because they are bound by their order, and the Laws of the Church, to conceal whatsoe­ver is disclosed unto them by Auricular Confession, though it should tend to the prejudice, and ruine of Princes.

Minist.

That pretended Canon and Law of the Church, is no ancienter, then Inno­cent the Third, being one of the Constitu­tions inserted in the Omnis utriusque: De poenitent. & remission. Decretals. But, admit it had antiquity, and authority of the whole Church, it amounts to no more, then an Ecclesiastical Ordinance, which must veil Bonnet to the Moral Law, which provideth by all means the safety, and se­curity of Supreme Magistrates; which those French Priests knew well (though of the Romish stamp) when they discover­ed unto their Prince treason, made known [Page 251] unto them onely by Auricular Confession; whereupon the Plotters were executed, and they for their Loyalty rewarded. Nobilis quidam Nor­mannus cùm propositum habuisset Regem Franci­scum occidendi, consilium illud suum Fratri cuidam Minoritae inter confiten­dum aperuit; qui rem to­tam ad Regem detulit, qua Judicilus Curiae Parisien­sis communicata, reus ipse capitis damnatus est; Sa­cerdote, qui denuntiaverat, nulla violati Sacramenti poena ab Ecclesia mulctato. Bodinus, lib. 2. De Re­publica. cap. 5. A Nobleman of Normandy having con­fessed to a Minorite Fryar, that he had a purpose to murder the King of France, of which he repented, and re­ceived Absolution; yet so, as the Fryar discovered all to the King: which be­ing examined by the Judges of the Court of Paris, the Noble-man was sentenced to death, and the Fryar honourably dis­missed without Misprision, or Irregula­rity.

Gent.

But, if no power derived from the Pope, or Church of Rome, can absolve, or grant Pardons, or Dispensations from Oaths, is there no other power can do it? for it is further asserted in this Article, Nor any other person can absolve me from this my Oath.

Minist.

No single person can; nor a­ny society, or corporation (who interpreta­tively in Law make a person) can absolve, or dispense with an Oath, that Subjects have justly made to their chief Magi­strate; while, according to the intention of the Legislative power, it was obligato­ry. In that the People of Athens, and Sparta were discharged from obedience to their Princes, and Governours, it was because the Areopagites had the chief legislative, and executive power in the one, and the Ephori in the other; as the Senate of Venice hath over their Dukes at this present. But [Page 252] where in the fundamental Laws of any Nation one person (whether Emperour, Sultan, King, or by what Title soever) is declared Sovereign, or Supreme Magi­strate, as the King with us, and subject to no superiour Legislative, and executive power; all Dispensations, and Absoluti­ons from Oaths, that were taken to such a Prince, are in vain. That confession of Hen­ry the Third was declared by a succeeding Parliament to be unlawful, and extorted by force; That Liceat omnibus de regno Nostro contra Nos in­surgere, & ad gravamen Nostrum opem, & operam ferre, ac si Nobis in nullo tencantur. 15. Parliamento Henrici Tertii, Londini ordinat. inter Record. Civitatis Londinensis Charta Originalis sub Sigillo. It might be lawful for all his Subjects to rise against him, and to annoy him with all their power, as if they were tyed in no bond of Allegiance unto him. Sed vela reprimam; I love not to launch into this tempestuous Sea; it is enough for our purpose, to know in general, Non minorem injuriam Deo faciunt, potestatem de Regibus judicandi, quam ipse sibi soli reservavit, ei praeripientes, quàm Regi­bus ipsis, solius Dei judicio subjacentibus: magna me­tiam injuriam faciunt fi­dei, qui eam putant salvam esse non posse; nisi Regum jus pereat, & gentium jura subvertantur. Parisiensis Academia, as propriè Sorbonicum Theologo­rum Collegium, apud Alphonsum de Vargas. that no Papal, or any other subordinate power can absolve from Oaths legally taken to the Supreme Magistrate; leaving it to the discussion of the Fundamental Laws of every Nation in particular, who are Supreme Magistrates, as the King is, doubtless, here. But, if neither the Pope, nor his Conclave, nor any inferiour Priest, by delegated authority from them, can di­spense with this Oath of Abjuration (which I think is the purport of this Arti­cle) you may rest satisfied.

Gent.

I am fully satisfied in this, and all the precedent Discourse, if one incon­venience be met withall, which is this; If the Ty, and Oath of Subjects to their So­vereign, be so sacred, and inviolable, that [Page 253] no Papal, or other subordinate power can dispense with it; if Supreme Magistrates turn Tyrants, and make havock of Church and Common-wealth, what remedy is left?

Minist.

Persecuting, and Idolatrous Princes, like Nero, and Julian, may pro­ject the ruine of the Church, but in vain; because Christ hath builded it upon a Rock, against which the Gates of Hell cannot pre­vail; Matth. xvi. 18. Oppugnare possunt, expugnare non possunt. The onely defensive, and offensive Weapons we have against such raging Monsters, are Prayers, and Tears; bewailing our sins, which have ex­posed us to this calamity, and importuning him, in whose hands the hearts of Kings are as Rivers of water, that he would turn them, Prov. xx. 1. You may remember the visible Church, before the Incarnati­on, was confined onely to the Nation of the Jews; who, while they were under the captivity of the Persian King, a Decree went out, by the procurement of Haman, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish all Jews, both young, and old, little children, and women in one day; Esther iii. 13. Thus una litura, with one wipe, the whole Church was to be blotted out; now At quid illi? non sedi­tionem movent, non ad ar­ma convolant, non Assue­rum, aut Hammanem veneno tollendi consilium capiunt, non ad libertatem suam vindicandam Sicartos quaerunt, & parricidines▪ Andreros. what course take the people of God to coun­termine such an Hellish Plot? They move no seditions, take up no Arms, contrive not the death of Haman, suborn no As­sasines to vindicate their liberty by blood, or poyson: Haec panoplia, this is their whole Magazine; in every Province, whither soe­ver [Page 254] the King's Commandment, and his De­cree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, and fasting, and weeping, and wail­ing, and many lay in Sack-cloth, and Ashes; Esther iv. 3. that they might humble them­selves under the mighty hand of God, and divert his heavy wrath, ready to be execu­ted by the merciless hand of the Barba­rous Tyrant. And, under the Gospel, Pri­mitive Christians have followed the same president; for, when Julian the Apostate had projected the extirpation of the Chri­stian name (as Gregory Nazianzene Cùm Julianus Apo­stata totius Christiani no­minis cladem, atque inter­necionem minaretur, inoi­bitus, atque repressus est Christianorum lacrymi [...], quas multas multi prof [...] ­derunt, hoc unum adver­sus persecutorem medica­mentum habentes. Nazian­zen. Orat. i. in Julian. saith) He was hindered, and repressed by the tears of Christians, which many in abun­dance poured out; having this onely remedy, and Preservative against the Persecutour. As often therefore, as any shall finde themselves ready to be swallowed up of the deluge of Persecution issuing from the hand of Supreme Authority, it is the coun­sel of Ad patrocinium cle­mentiae Dei humiliati con­fugiant, & puras manus levantes ad Dominum, de­votis precibus stagellum, quo asstiguntur, avertant; Peccata enim delinquenti­um vires sunt T [...]rannorum. Sarisb. lib. 8. cap. 23. Sarisburiensis (a man, who lived in the thick mists of Popery) with hu­mility to fly for Sanctuary to the Divine pro­tection and lifting up of pure hands to the Lord by devout prayers to divert his scourge, that afflicteth us; for the Sins of Transgressours are the Arms of Tyrants.

Gent.

But what, if after many tears, and prayers, and addresses to the Throne of Grace, God shall leave us under the scourge?

Minist.

That is the onely remedy in this case (not any Papal Dispensation) which St. Augustine of yore spake of: The rod [Page 255] (saith Sentitur virga pecca­torum super sortem justo­rum, sed non in aeternum; veniet tempus, quando unus agnoscetur Deus, veniet tempus, quando unus Christus, in claritate sua apparens, congreget ante se omnes gentes, & dividat eos, sicut dividit pastor hae­dos ab ovibus: oves ponet ad dextram, hae­dos ad sinistram; & vide­bis ibi multos servos, & subditos inter oves, & mul­tos Dominos, ac Principes inter haedos, & è contrá. Augustin. in Psalm. cxxiv. he) of sinners, is felt upon the back of the righteous, but not for ever; the time will come, when one God will be acknowledged, the time will come, when one Christ, appear­ing in his brightness, shall gather all Nations before him, and divide them, as the Sheepherd divides the Goats from the Sheep; he will place the Sheep on his right hand, the Goats on his left. There you shall see many Ser­vants, and Subjects among the Sheep; many Lords, and Princes amongst the Goats: and again many Lords, and Princes amongst the Sheep, and many Servants, and Subjects a­mongst the Goats. If all humane relief be denyed us, look for a Crown of Martyr­dom to be reveiled that day, when all tears shall be wiped from our eyes; till then wait with patience, leaving vengeance to him, whom it concerneth to repay, and take not the Sword out of his hand, or use inordi­nate means, as Papal Excommunications, Pardons, Absolutions, or Dispensations with Oaths, much less popular Insurrections.

Gen.

Well, Sir, by the demonstrative clear­ness of your Arguments, I am convinced of the legality of this Oath of Abjuration, as also of Allegiance, and Supremacy; and am willing to conform to the Doctrine, and Discipline of the Church of England, especially under so gracious a Sovereign, who is truly the Defender of the Faith.

Minist.

You have reason to say so, if you consider his Restauration; which was more then miraculous; his Constancy, which renders him a Confessour; his Suf­ferings, [Page 256] a Martyr; his Piety, and unpa­rallel'd Virtues, which make him a peerless Paragon of the present Age, and a Presi­dent unimitable to posterity: whose Sacred Majesty God long preserve.

[...].

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.