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.

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, 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.

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.

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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

Of Scriptures, theſe two places are pregnant: the one, Matth. xvi. 18, 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. Hart againſt Rainolds. Though in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Feed my Sheep. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Governour; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that ſhall rule my people Iſrael. Homer ſtiles Agamemnon, the Grecian General, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Ruler of the people. Hence I gather, that Chriſt appointed Peter the Ruler, or Governour of the whole Church.

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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are Synonomous, Budaeus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ariſtoteles, lib. 1. De Coelo, cap. 11. text. 110. and more certain, if he did, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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. 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.

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 non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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.

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; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not onely in St. Matthew, and Homer; but in Plato 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Feed, or, if you will, for it is the ſame word, rule the Flock of God, which is among you, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1. Pet. v. 2, 3. taking the Overſight thereof; not by conſtraint, but willingly; not for filthy Lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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

You ſpeak much in little; for this is 2 Theſs. ii. 7, 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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.

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

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

This is that Erroneum, palpable 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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.

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.

This is that third thing, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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.

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, 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.

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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Real, or true preſence is twofold.

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

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, 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 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. 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.

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

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.

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

But the Fathers, although they 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.

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, 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.

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?

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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not changing Nature it ſelf, but adding Grace to Nature.

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.

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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Bread, and Wine preſents in the Church an Antitype of his (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▪

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

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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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.

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?

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 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.

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

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.

The Meditation of theſe hath 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.

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 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.

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

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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Your Argument in form is this▪ That, which Auguſtine makes often mention of, is no vain fiction; but a creditable 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

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, 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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

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. 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.

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.

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. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 hence, that the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apoſtles, Preachers, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confeſſours, and the bleſsed Virgin Mary, were all in Purgatory.

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

Now you ſpeak ſomething to the purpoſe, if your Aſſumption were true; for Chryſoſtom. Contra Gentes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , vel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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.

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.

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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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.

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.

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: 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.

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.

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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 purged our Sins; Coloſs. 2. 15. Triumphed over them in himſelf, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 out, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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.