A vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat lux wherein the principles of the Roman church, as to moderation, unity and truth are examined and sundry important controversies concerning the rule of faith, papal supremacy, the mass, images, &c. discussed / by John Owen.

A Vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat Lux.

CHAP. I.

SIR,

I Have received your Epistle, and therein your excuse for your long silence, which I willingly admit of; and could have been contented it had been longer, so that you had been advantaged thereby to have spoken any thing more to the purpose, than I find you have now done: Sat citò si sat benè: Things of this nature, are alwayes done soon enough, when they are done well enough, or as well as they are cape∣able of being done. But it is no small disappoint∣ment to find 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a fruitless flourish of words, where a serious debate of an important cause was expected and looked for. Nor is it a ju∣stification of any man, when he has done a thing amiss, to say he did it speedily, if he were no way necessitated so to do. You are engaged in a Cause, unto whose tolerable defence, opus est Zephyris & hi∣rundine multa; though you cannot pretend so short a time to be used in it, which will not by many be esteemed more than it deserves; for all time and pains taken to give countenance to errour is un∣doubtedly mispent; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith the great Apostle; We can do no∣thing against the Truth, but for the Truth: which Rule had you observed, you might have spared your whole time and labour in this business. However I shall be glad to find that you have given me just cause to believe what you say, of your not seeing the Animadversions on your Bock before February. As I

find you observant of Truth in your Progress, or failing therein, so shall I judg of your veracity in this unlikely story; for every man gives the best measure of himself. And though I cannot see how possibly a man could spend much time in trussing up such a fardle of trifles and quibbles as your Epistle is, yet it is somewhat strange on the other side, that you should not in eight moneths space, for so long were the Animadversions made publick before February, set eye on that, which being your own especiall con∣cernment, was to my knowledg in the hands of many of your party. To dial friendly with you, nolim caeterarum rerum te socordem codem modo. Yea I doubt not but you use more diligence in your other affairs; though in generall the matter in debate be∣tween us seems to be your Principall concernment. But now you have seen that Discourse, and as you inform me have read it over; which I believe, and take not only upon the same score of present Trust, but upon the Evidence also which you give unto your Assertion, by your carefull avoiding to take any further notice of the things that you found too diffi∣cult for you to reply unto: For any impartiall Rea∣der, that shall seriously consider the Animadversions with your Epistle, will quickly find, that the main Artifice wherein you conside, is a pretence of saying somewhat in general, whilst you pass over the things of most importance, and which most press the cause you defend, with a perpetuall silence: These you turn from, and fall upon the Person of the Author of the Animadversions. If ever you debated this procedure with your self, had I been present with you when you said with him in the Poet, Dubius sum quid faciam.—Tene relinquam an rem, I should have replied with him, me sodes; but you were o∣therwise

minded, and are gone before Ego, ut contendere durum est.

Cum victore, sequar. I will follow you with what patience I can, and make the best use I am able of what offers its self in your Discourse.

Two Reasons I confess you adde why you chose vadimonium deserere, and not reply to the Animad∣versions; which to deal plainly with you, give me very little satisfaction: The first of them you say, is because to do so, would be contrary to the very end and design of Fiat Lux, which shall immediately be considered. The other is, the threats which I have gi∣ven you, that if you dare to write again, I will make you know, what manner of man I am. S^r, Though it seems you dare not reply to my Book, yet you dare do that which is much worse; you dare write pal∣pable untruths, and such as your self know to be so, as others also who have read those Papers. By such things as these, with sober and ingenious Persons, you cannot but much prejudice the interest you de∣sire to promote, as well as in your self you wrong your conscience, and ruine your reputation. Besides all advantage springing from untruth is fading: nei∣ther will it admit of any covering, but of its own kind, which can never be so encreased, but that it will rain through. Only I confess thus far you have promoted your design, that you have given a new and cogent instance of the Evils attending Controver∣sies in Religion. which you declame about in your Fiat; which yet is such, as it had been your duty to avoid. What it is that you make use of to give conntenance unto this fiction (for malum semper habitat in alieno fundo) I shall have occasion after∣wards to consider. For the present I leave you to the discipline of your own thoughts;

Prima est haec ultio quod se Judice, nemo nocens absolvitur.

And I the rather mind you of your failure at this entrance of our discourse, that I may only remit your thoughts unto this stricture, when the like oc∣casion offers it self, which I fear it will do not un∣frequently: But S^r, it will be no advantage unto mee, or you, to contend for the Truth which we profess, if in the mean time, we are regardless of the obser∣vance of truth, in our own hearts and spirits.

Two Principall Heads, the Discourse which you premise unto the Particular consideration of the Ani∣madversions, is reducible unto: The first whereof is, your endeavour to manifest, that I understood not the design and end of Fiat Lux, a Discourse (as you mo∣destly testifie) hard to deal with, and impossible to confute. The other, your Enquiry after the Author of the Animadversions, with your attempt to prove him one in such a condition, as you may possible hope to obtain more advantage from, than you can do by endeavouring the refutation of his Book. Some other occasionall passages there are in it also, which as they deserve, shall be considered. Unto these two Generall Heads I shall give you at present a Candid Return, and leave you when you are free from Flies to make what use of it you please.

The Disign or Fiat Lux, I took to be the promo∣tion of the Papall Interest; and the whole of it, in the relation of its parts unto one another, and the ge∣nerall End aimed at in it, to be a perswasive indu∣ction unto the embracement of the present Romane Faith and Religion. The means insisted on for this end, I conceived principally to be these; 1. A de∣claration of the evils that attend differences in Religi∣on, and disputes about it: 2. Of the good of Union,

Peace, Love, and Concord among Christians: 3. Of the impossibility of obtaining this good by any other wayes or means, but only by an embracement of the Roman Catholick Faith and Profession, with a sub∣mission to the deciding Power and Authority of the Pope, or your Church: 4. A defence and illustrati∣on of some especiall parts of the Roman Religion, most commonly by Protestants excepted against. This was my mistake; unto this mistake I acknow∣ledge my whole discourse was suited. In the same mistake are all the persons in England, that ever I heard speak any thing of that discourse, of what per∣swasion in Religion soever they were. And Aristo∣tle thought it worch while to remember our of Hesiod. Moral. Nicom. lib. 7. that

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

That report which so many consent in, is not altoge∣ther vain. But yet least this should not satisfie you, I shall mind you of one who is with you, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of as much esteem it may be as all the rest, and that is your self; you are your self in the same mi∣stake: you know well enough that this was your End, this your Designe, these the means of your persuing it; and you acknowledge them immediately so to have been, as we shall see in the consideration of the evidence you tender to evince that mistake in me which you surmize.

First you tell me, pag. 4. That I mistake the drist and design of Fiat Lux, whilest I take that as absolutely spoken, which is only said upon an Hypothesis of our present condition here in England. This were a grand mistake indeed, that I should look on any thing proposed as an Expedient for the erding of Diffe∣rences about Religion, without a supposition of Dif∣ferences

about Religion. But how do you prove that I fell into such a mistake? I plainly and openly ac∣knowledge that such differences there are; all my discourse proceeds on that supposition. I bewaile the evil of them, and labour for moderation about them; and have long since ventured to propose my thoughts unto the world, to that purpose. All that you suppose in your Discourse on this account I sup∣pose also; yea and grant it, unless it be some such thing as is in controversie between you and Prote∣stants, which you are somewhat frequent in the supposall of unto your Advantage; and thereon would perswade them unto a relinquishment of Protistancy, and embracement of Popery, which is the end of your Book, and will be thought so, if you should deny it a thousand times: For quid ego verba audiam facta cum video? your Protcstation comes too late, when the fact hath declared your mind: neither are you now at liberty to coyn new designes for your Fiat. But this must be my mistake, which no man in his wits could possibly fall into; neither is it an evidence of any great sobriety to impure it to any man, whom we know not certainly to be distracted. But this mistake you tell me, caused me to judge and censure what you wrote, as impertinent, impious, frivolous, &c. No such matter; my right apprehension of your hypothesis, End, or Designe, occasioned me to shew, that your discourses were incompetent to prevail with ratio∣nall and sober Persons, to comply with your desires.

You proceed to the same purpose pag. 15. and to manifest my mistake of your designe, give an account of it, and tell us, that one thing you suppose, namely, that we are at difference. So did I also, and am not therefore yet fallen upon the discovery of my mi∣stake. 2. You commend Peace, I acknowledge you

do, and joyn with you therein, neither is he wor∣thy the name of a Christian, who is otherwise mind∣ed; that is one great Legacy that Christ bequeathed unto his Disciples; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith he 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. And he is no Disciple of Christ who doth not long for it, among all his Disciples. This you tell us is the whole summe of Fiat Lux in few words. You will tell us otherwise immediately; and if you should not, yet we should find it other∣wise. You adde therefore, that to introduce a dispo∣sition unto peace, you made it your work to demon∣strate the useleslness, endlesness, and unprofitableness of Quarrels: yet my mistake appears not; I percei∣ved you did speak to this purpose; and I acknow∣ledge with you, that Quarrels about Religion are useless and unprofitable, any otherwise than as we are bound to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered unto the Saints, and to stand fast in our Liberty, not giving place to seducers, with labouring by sound do∣ctrine to convince and stop the mouthes of gainsayers; all which are made necessary unto us by the com∣mands of Christ, and are not to be called quarreling. And I know that our Quarrels are not yet actually ended; that they are endless, I believe not, but hope the contrary. You proceed and grant, that you la∣bour to perswade your Countreymen of an Impossibility of ever bringing our debates unto a conclusion, either by Light, or Spirit, or Reason, or Scripture, so long as we stand separated from any superiour Judicative Pow∣er, unto which all Parties will submit, and therefore that it is rationall and Christian like, to leave these endless contentions, and resigne our selves to humility and peace. This matter will now quickly be ended, and that ex ore tuo; give me leave I pray to ask you one

or two plain Questions: 1. Whom do you under∣stand by that Superiour Judicative Power, unto whom you perswade all Parties to submit? Have you not told us in your Fiat that it is the Church or Pope of Rome? or will you deny that to be your inten∣tion? 2. What do you intend by resigning our selves to humility and Peace? Do you not ayme at our qui∣et submission to the determinations of the Church or Pope in all matters of Religion? Have you not declared your self unto this purpose in your Fiat? And I desire a little further to know of you, whither this be not that which formally constitutes a man a member of your Church, that he own the Judicative Power of the Pope or your Church in all matters of Religion, and submit himself thereunto? If these things be so, as you cannot deny them, I hope I shall easily obtain your pardon, for Affirming that you your self believed the same to be the design of your Book, which I and other men apprehended to be so; for here you directly avow it. If you complain any more about this matter, pray let it be in the words of him in the Comoedian, Egomet meo judicio miser quasi sorex hodie perii, This inconvenience you have brought upon your own self: Neither can any man long avoid such misadventures, who designs to cloud his aymes, which yet cannot take effect, if not in some measure understood. Naked Truth mannaged in sincerity, whatever perplexities it may meet with∣all, wit•• never leave his owners in the bryars; where∣as the Serpentine turnings of Errour and falshood to extricate themselves, do but the more entangle their Promoters. I doubt not, bu•• you hope well, that when all are become Papili•• again, that they shall live at peace, though your ••ope be very groundless as I have elswhere demonsirated. You have at best

but the shadow or shell of peace, and for the most part, not that neither. Yea it may be easily shewed, that the peace you boast of, is inconsistent with, and destructive of that peace, which is left by Christ un∣to his Disciples.

But the way you propose to bring us to Peace, is the embracement of Popery, which is that, that was fixed on by me, as the design of your Book, which now acknowledging, you have disarmed your self of that imaginary advantage, which you flourish with∣all, from a Capitall Mistake, as you call it in me, in misapprehending your design. You were told be∣fore, that if by Moderation and Peace, you intended a mutuall for bearance of one another, in our severall perswasions, waiting patiently untill God shall re∣veal unto us the precise Truth, in the things about which we differ, you shall have all the furtherance that I can contribute unto you; but you have ano∣ther aim, another work in hand, and will not allow that any Peace is attainable amongst us, but by a re∣signation of all our Apprehensions in matters of Re∣ligion, to the guidance, determination, and decision of the Pope, or your Church, a way no where pre∣scribed unto us in holy Writ, nor in the Councels of the Primitive Church, and besides against all Reason, Law, and Equity, your Pope and Church in our Con∣tests being one Party litigant; yet in this perswasion, you say, you should abide, were there no other persons in the world but your self that did embrace it. And to let you see how unlikely that Principle is to produce Peace and Agreement, amongst those multitudes that are at variance about these things, I can assure you, that if there were none lest alive in the Earth but you and I, we should not agree in this thing one jot better, than did Cain and Abel about the Sacrifi∣ces;

though I should desire you, that we might ma∣nage our differences with more moderation, than he did, who by vertue of his Primogeniture, seemed to lay a speciall claim to the Priesthood. And indeed for your part, if your present perswasion be, as you sometimes pretend it to be, that your Fiat Lux is not a perswasive unto Popery, you have given a suf∣ficient testimony, that you can be of an opinion, that no man else in the world is of, nor will be, do what you can. But the insufficiency of your Princi∣ples and Arguments, to accomplish your design, hath been in part already evinced, and shall, God willing, in our progress, be further made manifest. This is the summe of what appears in the first part of your prefatory discourse, concerning my mistake of your design, which how little it hath tended unto your advantage, I hope you being to understand.

Your next labour consists in a pacifick, charitable Enquiry, after the Author of the Animadversions, with an endeavour by I know not how many Rea∣sons, to confirm your surmize, that he is a Person, that had an interest in the late troubles in the Nation, or as you phrase it, was a part of that dismall tempest, which overbore all before it, not only Church and State, but Ri••son, Right, Honesty, all true Religion, and even good Nature too. See what despair of ma∣naging an undertaking which cannot well be de∣serted, will drive men unto. Are you not sensible that you cry,

—Vos ô miht manes. Este boni, quoniam Superis aversa voluntas.

Or like the Jews, who when they were convinced of their errours, and wickedness, by our Saviour, be∣gan to call him Samaritane, and Devil, and to take

up stones to cast at him: Or as Crescens the Cynick dealt with Justin Martyr, whom because he could not answer, after he had engaged in a dispute with him, he laboured to bring him into suspition with the Em∣perour, and Senate of Rome, as a person dangerous to the Commonwealth: And so also the Arians dealt with Athanasius. It were easie to manifest, that the spring of all this discourse of yours, is smart, and not Loyalty, and that it proceeds from a sense of your own disappointment, and not zeal for the wel∣fare of others; but how little it is to your purpose, I shall shew you anon, and could quickly render it as little to your advantage: For what if I should fur∣mize, that you were one of the Friers, that stirred up the Irish to their rebellion, and unparralleld mur∣thers? Assure your self, I can quickly give as many, and as probable Reasons for my so doing, as you have given, or can give for your conjecture, about the Author of the Animadversions, on your Fiat Lux. You little think how much it concerns him to look to himself, who undertakes to accuse another; and how easie it were to make you repent your accusati∣on, as much as ever Crassus did his accusing of Car∣bo. But I was in good hope, you would have left such reflections, as are capable of so easie a retortion upon your self, especially being irregular, and no way subservient unto your design, and being warned beforehand so to do. Who could imagine, that a man of so much piety, and mortification, as in your Fiat you profess your self to be, should have so little regard unto common honesty, and civillity, which are shrewdly entrenched upon by such uncharitable surmizes? I suppose you know that the Apostle rec∣kons, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereof you have underta∣ken the management of one, amongst the things

that are contrary to the Doctrine, that is according unto godliness; otherwise suspicion is in your own power; nor can any man hinder you from surmizing what you please. This he knew in Plautus, who cryed,

Ne admittam culpam ego meo sum promus pectori, Suspicio est in pectore alieno sita. Nam nune ego te si surripnisse suspicer, Jovi coronam de capite è Capitolio, Quod in culmine astat summo, si non id feceris, At{que} id tamen mihi lubeat suspicarier, Qui tu id prohibere me potes ne suspicer?

And I know that concerning all your dispute and arguings in these Pages, you may say what Lucian doth about his true Story, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. You write about the things, which have neither been seen, nor suffered, heard, nor much enquired after; such is the force of faction, and sweetness of revenge in car∣nall minds. To deliver you if it may be from the like miscarriages for the future, let me inform you, that the Author of the Animadversions, is a Person, who never had a hand in, nor gave consent unto the raising of any War in these Nations, nor unto any politicall alteration in them, no nor to any one that was amongst us during our Revolutions; but he ac∣knowledgeth that he lived and acted under then, the things wherein he thought his duty consisted, and challengeth all men to charge him with doing the least personall injury unto any, professing himself ready to give satisfaction to any one, that can justly claim it. Therefore as unto the publick affairs in this Nation, he is amongst them who bless God and the King for the Act of Oblivion, and that because

he supposeth, that all the Inhabitants of the King∣dome which lived in it, when his Majesty was driven out of it, have cause so to do, which some Priests and Friers have, and that in reference unto such act∣ings, as he would scorn for the saving of his life, to give the least countenance unto, among whom it is not unlikely that you might be one, which yet he will not averre, nor give Reasons to prove it, be∣cause he doth not know it so to be. But you have sundry Reasons to justifie your self in your Charge, and they are as well worthy our consideration, as any thing else you have written in your Epistle, and shall therefore not be neglected. The first of them you thus express, pag. 12. You cannot abide to hear of Moderation, it is with you most wicked, hypocriticall, and divelish, especially as it comes from me; for this one thing Fiat Lux suffers more from you, than for all the Contents of the Book put together. My reason is your passion, my moderation enftames your wrath, and you are therefore stark wilde, because I utter so much of sobriety. This is your first Reason, which you have exactly squared to the old Rule, Calumniare fortiter, aliquid adhaerebit: Calumny will leave a scar; would you were your self only concerned in these things. But among the many wofull miscarriages, of men prosessing the Religion of Jesus Christ, whereby the beauty and glory of it have been stained in the world, and it self in a great measure rendred ineffectuall un∣to its blessed ends, there is not any thing of more sad consideration, than the endeavours of men to pro∣mote and propagate the things, which they suppose belong unto it, by wayes and means directly contra∣ry unto, and destructive of its most known and fun∣damentall Principles. For when it is once observed and manifest, that the actings of men in the promoti∣on

of any Religion, are forbidden and condemned in that Religion which they seek to promote, what can rationally be concluded, but that they not only dis∣believe themselves what they outwardly profess, but also esteem it a fit mask and cover to carry on other interests of their own, which they prefer before it? and what can more evidently tend unto its disreputa∣tion and disadvantage, is not easie to conceive. Such is the course here fixed on by you: It is the Re∣ligion of Christ you pretend to plead for, and to promote, but if there be a word true in it, the way you take for that end, namely by openly false accusa∣tions, is to be abhorred, which manifests what re∣gard unto it you inwardly cherish. And I wish this were only your personall miscarriage, that you were not encouraged unto it, by the Principles and Ex∣ample of your chiefest Masters and Leaders: The learned Person who wrote the Letters, discovering the Mystery of Jesuitisme, gives us just cause so to conceive; for he doth not only prove, that the Je∣suits have publickly maintained, that Calumny is but a veniall sin, nay none at all, if used against such as you call Calumniators, though grounded on absolute falsities, but hath also given us such pestilent instan∣ces of their practice, according to that Principle, as Paganisme was never acquainted withall, Lett. 15. In their steps you set out in this your first Reason, wherein there is not one word of truth. I had for∣merly told you, that I did not think you could your self believe some of the things that you affirmed, at which you take great offence; but I must now tell you, that if you proceed in venting such notorious untruths, as here you have heaped together, I shall greatly question whether seriously you believe, that Jesus Christ will one day judge the world in righte∣ousness:

For I do not think you can produce a plea∣dable dispensation, to say what you please, be it, nere so false, of a supposed Heretick; for though it may be you will not keep faith with him, surely you ought to observe truth in speaking of him. You tell us in your Epistle to your Fiat, of your dark obscuiri∣ty, wherein you dye daily, but take heed S^r, least

—Indulgentem tenebris imae{que} recessis Sedis, in aspectos Caelo radiis{que} Penates Servantem, tamen assiduis circumvolet alis Saevadies animi, scelerúm{que} in pectore dirae.

Your next Reason is, Because he talks of Swords and Blood, Fire and Fagot, Guns and Duggers, which doth more than show, that he hath not let go those hot and furious imaginations. But of what sort, by whom used, to what end? Doth he mention any of these, but such as your Church hath made use of, for the destruction of Protestants? If you have not done so, why do you not disprove his Assertions? If you have, why have you practised that in the face of the Sun, which you cannot endure to be told of? Is it equall think you, that you should kill, burn, and destroy men, for the profession of their faith in Christ Jesus, and that it should not be lawfull for others to say you do so? Did not your self make the calling over of these things necessary, by crying out against Protestants, for want of moderation? It is one of the priviledges of the Pope, some say, to judge all men, and himself to be judged by none; but is it so al∣so, that no man may say he hath done, what all the world knows he hath done, and which we have just cause to fear he would do again, had he power to his will? For my part I can assure you, so that you will cease from charging others, with that whose

guilt lyes heavier upon your selves, than on all the professors of Christianity in the world besides, and give any tolerable security against the like practices for the future, I shall be well content that all which is past, may be put by us poor worms into perpetuall oblivion, though I know it will be called over ano∣ther day. Untill this be done, and you leave off to make your advantages of other mens miscarriages, pray arm your selves with patience, to hear some∣times a little of your own.

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

said wise Homer of old; and another to the same purpose, He that speaks what he will, must hear what he would not. Is it actionable with you against a Protestant, that he will not take your whole Sword into his bowels, without complaining? S^r, the Author of the Animadversions doth, and ever did ab∣horre Swords and Guns, and Crusadoes, in matters of Religion and Conscience, with all violence, that may tantamount unto their usuall effects: He ever thought it an uncouth sight, to see men marching with Crosses on their backs, to destroy Christians, as if they had the Alcoran in their hearts; and there∣fore desires your excuse, if he have reflected a little upon the miscarriages of your Church in that kind, especially being called thereunto by your present contrary pretences.

Quis tulerit Graculos de seditione querentes? and Major tandem porcas insane minori.

It were well if your wayes did no more please you, in the previous prospect you take of them, than they seem to do in a subsequent reflection upon them: But this is the nature of evil, it never comes and

goes with the same appearing countenance; not that it self changeth at any time, for that which is moral∣ly evil is alwayes so, but mens apprehensions vari∣ously influenced by their affections, lusts, and inte∣rests, do frequently change and alter. Now what Conclusion can be made from the premises rightly stated, I leave to your own judgement, at your bet∣ter leasure.

Thirdly, You adde, Your prophetick assurance so often inculcated, that if you could but once come to whisper me in the ear, I would plainly acknowledge, either that I understand not my self what I say, or if I do, believe it not, gives a fair character of these fana∣tick times, wherein ignorance and hypocrisie prevail'd over worth and truth, whereof if your self were any part, it is no wonder you should think, that I or any man else should either speak he knows not what, or be∣lieve not what himself speaks. That is, a man must needs be as bad as you can imagine him, if he have not such an high opinion of your ability and integri∣ty, as to believe that you have written about no∣thing, but what you perfectly understand, nor assert anything in the persuit of your design and interest, but what you really and in cold blood believe to be true. All men it seems that were no part of the for∣mer dismall tempest, have this opinion of you; Cre∣dat Apella: If it be so, I confess for my part, I have no relief against being concluded to be whatever you please; Sosia or not Sosia, the Law is in your own hands, and you may condemn all that adore you not into Fanaticisme at your pleasure; but as he said, Obsecro per pacem liceat te alloqui, ut ne vapulem; if you will but grant a little truce from this severity, I doubt not but in a short time to take off from your keenness, in the management of this Charge: For

I hope you will allow that a man may speak the truth, without being a Fanatick; truth may get hatred, I see it hath done so, but it will make no man hatefull. Without looking back then to your Fiat Lux, I shall out of this very Epistle, give you to see, that you have certainly failed on the one hand, in writing about things which you do not at all understand, and therefore discourse concerning them, like a blind man about colours; and as I fear greatly also on the other; for I cannot suppose you so ignorant, as not to know that some things in your discourse, are otherwise than by you represented: Nay and we shall find you at express contradictions, which pre∣tend what you please, I know you cannot at the same time believe. Instances of these things you will be minded of in our progress: Now I must needs be ve∣ry unhappy in discoursing of them, if this be Logick and Law, that for so doing, I must be concluded a Fanatick.

Fourthly, You adde, Your pert Assertion so oft occurring in your Book, that there is neither reason, truth, nor honesty in my words, is but the overflowings of that former intemperate zeal; whereunto may be added, what in the last place you insist on to the same purpose, namely, that I charge you with fraud, ignorance, and wickedness, when in my own heart I find you most clear from any such blemish. I do not remember where any of those expressions are used by me; that they are no where used thus altogether, I know well enough, neither shall I make any enqui∣ry after them. I shall therefore desire you only to produce the instances, whereunto any of the cen∣sures intimated are annexed, and if I do not prove evidently and plainly, that to be wanting in your dis∣course, which is charged so to be, I will make you a

publick acknowledgement of the wrong I have done you. But if no more was by me expressed, than your words as used to your purpose did justly de∣serve, pray be pleased to take notice that it is lawfull for any man to speak the truth: And for my part, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as he said in Lucian, I live in the Countrey, where they call a Spade a Spade. And if you can give any one instance, where I have charged you with any failure, where there is the least probability that I had in my heart other thoughts, concerning what you said, I will give up my whole interest in this cause unto you; Mala mens, malus animus. You have manifested your conscience to be no just measure of other mens, who reckon upon their giving an ac∣count of what they do or say: So that you have but little advanced your Charge, by these undue insinua∣tions.

Neither have you any better success, in that which in the next place you insist upon, which yet were it not like the most of the rest, destitute of truth, would give more countenance unto your reflection, than them all. It is, that I give you sharp and fre∣quent menaces, that if you write or speak again, you shall hear more, find more, feel more, more to your smart, more than you imagine, more than you would, which relish much of that insulting humour which the Land groaned under. I suppose no man reads this representation of my words, with the addition of your own, which makes up the greatest part of them, but must needs thinks, that you have been sorely threatned with some personall inconveniencies, which I would cause to befall you, did you not sur∣cease from writing; or that I would obtain some course to be taken with you to your prejudice. Now

this must needs savour of the spirit of our late dayes of trouble and mischief, or at least of the former dayes of the prevalency of Popery amongst us, when men were not wont in such cases, to take up at bare threats and menaces. If this be so, all men that know the Author of the Animadversions, and his condition, must needs conclude him to be very fool∣ish and wicked; foolish, for threatning any with that, which is as far from his power to execute, as the person threatned can possibly desire it to be; wicked, for designing that evil unto any individuall person, which he abhorres in hypothesi to be inflicted on any upon the like account. But what if there be nothing of all this in the pretended menaces? What if the worst that is in them, be only part of a desire, that you would abstain from insisting on the personall miscarriages, of some that profess the Protestant Religion, lest he should be necessitated to make a diversion of your Charge, or to shew the insufficien∣cy of it to your purpose, by recounting the more no∣torious failings of the Guides, Heads, and Leaders of your Church? If this be so, as it is in truth the whole intendment of any of those expressions that are used by me, (for the most part of them are your own figments) whereever they occurre, what Con∣clusion can any rationall man make from them? Do they not rather intimate a desire of the use of mode∣ration in these our contests, and an abstinence from things personall, (for which cause also (fruitlesly as I now perceive, by this your new kind of ingenui∣ty and moderation) I prefixed not my Name to the Animadversions, which you also take notice of) than any evil intention or design. This was my threatning you; to which now I shall adde, that though I may not say of these Papers, what Catullus

did of his Verses on Rufus,

Verum id non impunè feceres, nam te omnia secla Noscent, & qui sis fama loquitur anus.

Yet I shall say, that as many as take notice of this discourse, will do no less of your disingenuity and manifold falshood, in your vain attempt to relieve your dying Cause, by casting odium upon him with whom you have to do; like the Bonassus that Ari∣stotle informs us of Hist. Animal lib. 9. cap. 24. which being as big as a Bull, but having horns turned in∣ward and unusefull for fight, when he is persued, casts out his excrements to defile his persuers, and to stay them in their passage.

But what now is the End in all this heap of things which you would have mistaken for Reasons, that you aym at? it is all to shew how unfit I am to de∣fend the Protestant Religion, and that I am not such a Protestant as I would be thought to be. But why so? I embrace the Doctrine of the Church of England, as declared in the 29 Articles, and other approved publick writings, of the most famous Bishops and other Divines thereof. I avow her rejection of the pretended Authority, and reall Errours of the Church, to be her duty and justifiable. The same is my judg∣ment in reference unto all other Protestant Church∣es in the world, in all things wherein they agree among themselves, which is in all things necessary that God may be acceptably worshipped, and them∣selves saved. And why may I not plead the Cause of Protestancy, against that imputation of demeric which you heap upon it? Neither would I be thought to be any thing in Religion but what I am: Neither have I any sentiments therein, but what I profess. But it may be you will say in some things I differ

from other Protestants: wisely observed; and if from thence you can conclude a man unqualified for the defency of Protestancy, you have secured your self from opposition; seeing every Protestant doth so, and must do so whilest there are differences a∣mongst Protestants: But they are in things wherein their Protestancy is not concerned. And may I be so bold as to ask you, how the case in this instance stands with your self, who certainly would have your competency for the defence of your Church unquesti∣onable? Differences there are amongst you; and that as in and about other things, so also about the Pope himself, the head and spring of the Religion you profess. Some of you maintain his Personall Infallibility, and that not only in matters of Faith, but in matters of Fact also. Others disclaim the for∣mer as highly erroneous, and the latter as grosly blasphemous. Pray what is your judgment in this matter, for I suppose you are not of both these opi∣nions at once, and I am sure they are irreconcileable. Some of you mount his Supremacy above a Gene∣rall Councill, some would bring him into a Coordi∣nation with it, and some subject him unto it; though he hath almost carried the Cause, by having store of Bishopricks to bestow, whereas a Councill has none, which was the Reason given of old for his prevalen∣cy in this Contest. May we know what you think in this Case? Some of you assert him to be de jure Lord of the whole world in Spirituals and Tempo∣rals absolutely; some in Spirituals directly, and in Temporals only in ordine ad Spiritualia, an Abyss from whence you may draw out what you please, and some of you in Temporals not at all; and you have not as yet given us your thoughts as to this dif∣ference amongst you? Some of you assert in him a

Power of deposing Kings, disposing of Kingdoms, transferring Titles unto Dominion, and Rule, for and upon such miscarriages as he shall judg to contein disobedience unto the Sea Apostolick. Others love not to talk at this haughty rate, neither do I know what is your judgment in this matter. This, as I said before I am sure of, you cannot be of all these va∣rious contradictory judgments at once. Not to trouble you with Instances that might be multiplied of the like differences amongst you; if notwithstan∣ding your adherence unto one part of the Contra∣diction in them, you judg your self a Competent Advocate for your Church in generall, and do busi∣ly employ your self to win over Proselytes unto her communion, have the patience to think, that one who in some few things differs from some other Protestants, is not wholly incapacitated thereby, to repell an unjust charge against Protestancy in ge∣nerall.

I have done with the two generall heads of your prefatory Discourse, and shall now only mark one or two incident particulars, that belong not unto them, and then proceed to see if we can meet with any thing of more importance, than what you have been pleased as yet to communicate unto us.

Pag. 5. Upon occasion of a passage in my dis∣course, wherein upon misinformation, I expressed some trouble, that any young men should be en∣tangled with the Rhetorick and Sophistry of your Fiat Lux, you fall into an harangue, not inferiour unto some others in your Epistle, for that candour and ingenuity you give your self unto.

First, You make a Plea for Gentlemen, (not once named in my Discourse) That they must be allowed a sense of Religion, as well as Ministers; that they

have the body, though not the cloak of Religion, and are masters of your own reason. But do you consider with your self, who it is that speaks these words, and to whom you speak them. Do you indeed de∣sire that Gentlemen should have such a sense of Reli∣gion, and make use of their reason in the choice of that, which therein they adhere unto, as you pre∣tend? Is this pretence consistent with your Plea in your Fiat Lux, wherein you labour to reduce them to a naked fanaticall Credo? Or is it your interest to court them with fine words, though your intenti∣on be far otherwise? But we in England like not such proceedings.

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

Nothing dislikes us more than dissimulation. And to whom do you speak? Did I, doth any Protestant deny, that Gentlemen may have? Do we not say, they ought to have their sense in Religion, and their senses exercised therein? Do we deny they ought to improve their reason, in being conversant about it? Are these the Principles of the Church of Rome, or of that of England? Do we not press them unto these things, as their principall duty in this world? Do we disallow or forbid them any means, that may tend to their furtherance in the knowledge and pro∣fession of Religion? Where is it, that if they do but look upon a Bible,

—Furiarummaxima juxta Accubat, & manibus prohibet contingere mentes.

The Inquisitor lays hold upon them, and bids them be contented with a Rosary, or our Ladies Psalter? Do we hinder or disswade them from any Studies,

or the use of Books, that may encrease their know∣ledge, and improve their reason? And hath not the Papacy felt the fruits and effects of these Princi∣ples, in the writings of Kings, Princes, Noblemen, and Gentlemen, of all sorts? And do not you your self know all this to be true? And is it ingenuous to insist on contrary insinuations? Or do you think that truly generous Spirits will stoop to so poor a lure? But you proceed: This is one difference between Ca∣tholick Countreys and ours, that there the Clergy man is only regarded for his vertue, and the power he hath received, or is at least believed to have received from God, in the great Ministery of our Reconciliation; and if he have any addition of learning besides, it is looked upon as a good accidentall ornament, but not as any essentiall complement of his profession; so that it often happens without any wonderment at all, that the Gentleman-Patron is the learned man, and the Priest his Chaplain, of little or no science in comparison. But here in England our Gentlemen are disparaged by their own black Coats, and not suffered to use their judgement in any kind of learning, without a gibe from them. The Gentleman is reasonless, and the scribling Cassock is the only Scholar; he alone must speak all, know all, and only understand. S^r, if your Clergy were respected only for their vertue, they would not be over burthened with their honour, unless they have much mended their manners, since all the world publickly complained of their lewdness, and which in many places the most would do so still, did they not judge the evil remediless. And if the state of things be in your Catholick Countreys, between the Gentry and Clergy, as you inform us, I fear it is not from the learning of the one, but the ignorance of the other. And this you seem to intimate, by re∣jecting

learning from being any essentiall comple∣ment of their profession, wherein you do wisely, and what you are necessitated to do; for those who are acquainted with them, tell us, that if it were, you would have a very thin Clergy left you, very many of them not understanding the very Mass Book, which they daily chaunt, and therefore almost eve∣ry word in your Missalc Romanum is accented, that they may know how aright to pronounce them, which yet will not deliver them from that mistake of him, who instead of Introibo ad altare Dei, read con∣stantly, Introibo ad tartara Dei. Herein we envy not the condition of your Catholick Countreys; and though we desire our Gentry were more learned than they are, yet neither we, nor they, could be con∣tented to have our Ministers ignorant, so that they might be in veneration for that Office sake, which they are no way able to discharge. As to what you affirm concerning England, and our usage here, in the close of your Discourse, it is so utterly devoid of truth and honesty, that I cannot but wonder at your open regardlesness of them. Should you have writ∣ten these things in Spain or Italy. (where you have made pictures of Catholicks put in Bears skins, and torn with Dogs in England, (Eccles. Ang. Troph.) concerning England, and the manners of the Inhabi∣tants thereof, you might have hoped to have met with some, so partially addicted unto your faction and interest, as to suppose there were some colour of truth in what you averre. But to write these things here amongst us, in the face of the Sun, where every one that casts an eye upon them, will detest your confidence, and laugh at your folly, is a course of proceeding not easie to be paraleled.

I shall not insist on the particulars, there being

not one word of truth in the whole, but leave you to the discipline of your own thoughts,

Occultum quatiente animo tortore flagellum.

And so I have done with your Prefatory Discourse, wherein you have made it appear, with what reve∣rence of God, and love to the Truth, you are con∣versant in the great concernments of the souls of men. What in particular you except against in the Animad∣versions, I shall now proceed to the consideration of.

CHAP. II.

Vindication of the first Chapter of the Animadversions. The method of Fiat Lux. Romanists doctrine of the Merit of Good Works.

IN your exceptions to the first Chapter of the Ani∣madversions pag. 20. I wish I could find any thing agreeable unto Truth, according unto your own Principles. It was ever granted, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but alwayes to fail, and faigne at pleasure, was never allowed so much as to Poets. Men may of∣tentimes utter many things untrue, wherein yet some principles which they are perswaded to be agreeable unto Truth, or some more generall mistakes from whence their particular assertions proceed, may countenance their consciences from a sense of guilt, and some way shield their reputation from the sharp∣ness of censure: But willingly and often for a man practically to offend in this kind, when his mind and understanding is not imposed upon by any previous mistakes, is a miscarriage, which I do not yet per∣ceive that the subtilest of your Casuists have found

out an excuse for. Two Exceptions you lay against this Chapter, in the first whereof, by not speaking the whole Truth, you render the whole untruth; and in the latter you plainly affirm that which your eyes told you to be otherwise, First you say, I pro∣posed a dilemma unto you for saying you had concealed your method; when what I spake unto you was upon your saying, first that you had used no method, and afterwards that you had concealed your method; as you also in your next words here confess. Now both these being impossible, and severally spoken by you, only to serve a present turn, your sorry mer∣riment about the Scholler and his eggs, will not free your self from being very ridiculous. Certainly this using no method, and yet at the same time concealing your method, is part of that civil Logick you have learned no man knows where: You had farre better hide your weaknesses under an universall silence, as you do to the most of them, than expose them afresh unto publick contempt, trimmed up with froth and trifles. But this is but one of the least of your e∣scapes; you proceed to downright work in your following words; Going on you deny (say you) that Protestants ever opposed the merit of Good works; which at first I wondred at, seeing the sound of it hath rung so often in my own ears, and so many hundred Books written in this last Age so apparently witness it in all places, till I found afterwards in my thorow per∣usall of your Book, that you neither heed what you say, nor how much you deny; at last giving a distinction of the intrinsick acceptability of our works, the easier to silence me, you say as I say. Could any man, not acquainted with you, ever imagin, but that had denied that ever Protestants opposed the merit of Good works; you positively affirm I did so; you pretend

to transcribe my own words; you wonder why I should say so; you produce testimony to disprove what I say, and yet all this while you know well enough that I never said so: have a little more care, if not of your Conscience, yet of your Reputation; for seriously if you proceed in this manner, you will lose the common Priviledge of being believed when you speak truth. Your words in your Fiat Lux, p. 15. ed. 2. are, that our Ministers cull out various Texts (out of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans) against the Christian doctrine of Good works, and their merit; wherein you plainly distinguish between the Chri∣stian Doctrine of Good works, and their merit, as well you may; I tell you pag. 25, 26 that no Pro∣testant ever opposed the Christian Doctrine of Good Works. Here you repeat my words as you pretend, and say, that I deny that any Protestant ever opposed the Merit of Good works; and fall into a fained won∣derment at mee, for saying that which you knew well enough I never said: For Merit is not the Chri∣stian, but rather as by you explained, the Antichri∣christian Doctrine of Good works, as being perfectly Anti-Evangelicall. What Merit you will esteem this Good work of yours to have, I know not, and have in part intimated what truely it doth deserve. But you adde, that making a distinction of the intrin∣sick acceptability of works, you say as I say: What is that I pray? do I say, that Protestants oppose the Christian Doctrine of Good Works, as you say, in your Fiat; or do I say, that they never opposed the Merit of Good works, as you fain me to say in your Epistle? neither the one nor the other: but I say that Pro∣testants teach the Christian Doctrine of Good works, as revealed in the Gospell, and oppose the Merit of Good works, by you invented, and as by you explain∣ed,

and now avowed. And whilest you talk at this rate, as if you were perfectly innocent, you begin your story as if you had nothing to do but to accuse another of fraud, like him that cried,

—Nec si me miserum fortuna Sinonem Finxit, vanum etiam mendacem{que} improba fingit.

when you know what his business was. But the truth is, when you talk of the merit of Good works, you stand in a slippery place, and know not well what you would have, nor what it is that you would have me believe. Your Tridentine Convention hath indeed provided a limber Cothurnus to fit if it were possible your severall statures and postures. But generall words are nothing but the proportion of a Cirque or Arena for Dogmatists to contend within the limits of. The Antient Ecclesiasticall importance of the word Merit, wherein as it may be proved by numberless instances, it denoted no more than to obtain, you have the most of you, rejected, and do urge it in a strict Legall sense, denoting working for a reward, and performing that which is proportionable unto it, as the labour of the Hireling is to his wages, accor∣ding unto the strict Rules of Justice. See your Rhem. An. 1 Cor. 3. Heb. 6. 10. So is the judgment I think of your Church explained by Suarez, Tom. 1. in Thom. 3. d. 41. A Supernaturall work, saith he, pro∣ceeding from Grace in its self, and in its own nature, hath a proportion unto, and condignity of the reward, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of sufficient value, to be worth the same. And you seem to be of the same opinion in owning that de∣scription of Merit, which Protestants reject, which I gave in my Animadversions; namely an intrinsecall worth and value in works arising from the exact an∣swerableness unto the Law, and proportion unto the re∣ward,

so as on the Rules of Justice to deserve it. Of the same mind are most of you; See Andrad. Ortho∣dox. Explic. lib. 6. Bagus de Merit. Op. Lib. 1. cap. 9. Though I can assure you, Paul was not, Rom. 6. 23. Ch. 8. 18. so that you must not take it ill, If Prote∣stants oppose this Doctrine, with Testimonies out of his Epistle to the Romanes, as well as out of many other portions of the holy Writ; for they look upon it as an opinion perfectly destructive of the Covenant of Grace. Nay I must tell you, that some of your own Church and way, love not to talk at this high and lofty rate. Ferus speaks plain unto you on Mat. 20. If you desire to hold the Grace and favour of God, make no mention of your own merits. Durand slicks not to call the opinion which you seem to espouse, temerarious, yea blasphemous, Quest. 2. d. 27. In the explication of your distinction of congruity and con∣dignity, how wofully are you divided? as also in the application of it? there is no end of your altercations about it; the termes of it being horrid, uncouth, strangers to Scripture and the antient Church, of an arbitrary signification, about which men may with probabilities contend to the worlds end, and yet the very soul and life of your Doctrine of Merit lies in it. Some ascribe Merit of Congruity to works be∣fore Grace, and of Condignity to them done in a state of Grace; some, Merit of Congruity to them, done by Grace, and Merit of Condignity they utterly ex∣clude: Some give Grace and the Promise a place in Merit; some so explain it, that they can have no place at all therein. Generally in your Books of De∣votion, when you have to do with God, you begin to bethink your selves, and speak much more humbly and modestly, than you do when you endeavour to dispute subtilly and quell your Adversaries, And I am

not without hope, that many of you do personally believe as to your own particular concernments, far better than when you doctrinally express your selves, when you contend with us: As when that famous Emperour Charles the fist, after all his bustles in and about Religion, came to die in his retirement, he ex∣presly renounced all merit of works, as a proud sig∣ment, and gave up himself to the sole Grace and Mer∣cy of God in Jesus Christ, on whose purchase of Heaven for him, he alone relied. Toto pectori in Deum revolutus sic ratiocinabatur, saith the renowned Thu∣anus, Hist. lib. 21. se quidem indignum esse qui propriis meritis regnum Caelorum obtineret; sed Dominum Deum suum qui illud duplici jure obtinuit, & patris haereditate, & passionis merito, altero contentum esse, alterum sibi donare, ex cujus dono illud sibi merito vin∣dicet, hac{que}, fiducia fretus minime confundatur; ne{que} enim oleum misericordiae, nisi in vase fiducia poni: hanc homines fiducium esse à se deficientis & innitentis Domino suo, alioqui propriis meritis fidere non fidei esse, sed perfidiae; peccata remitti per Dei indulgenti∣am, ideo{que} credere nos debere, peccata deleri non posse, nisi ab eo, cuisoli peccavimus. & in quem peccatum non cadit, per quem solum nobis peccata condonantur. Words worthy of a lasting memory, which they will not fail of where they are recorded. Casting himself, saith that excellent Historian, with his whole soul up∣on God, he thus reasoned; That for his part he was on the account of any merits of his own, unworthy to obtain the Kingdom nf Heaven; but his Lord and God, who hath a double right unto it, one by inheri∣tance of his Father, the other by the merit of his own passion, contented himself with the one, granted the other unto him; by whose grant, he rightly (or de∣servedly) laid claim thereunto; and resting in this

faith or confidence, he was not confounded; for the oyl of mercy is not powred but into the vessel of faith: this is the faith or confidence of a man fainting or despairing in himself, and resting on his Lord; and otherwise to trust to our own merits, is not an act of faith but of in∣fidelity or perfidiousness; that sins are forgiven by the mercy of God, and that therefore we ought to believe that sins cannot be blotted out or forgiven, but by him against whom we have sinned, who sinneth not, and by whom alone our sins are pardoned. This S^r is the faith of Protestants in reference unto the merit of works, which that Wise and Mighty Emperour, af∣ter all his Military actings against them, found the only safe Anchor for his soul in extremis, his only relief against crying out with Hadrian

Animula vagula, blandula, Hospes, comes{que} corporis, Quae nunc abibis in loca? Pallidula, frigida, nudula Nec, ut soles, dabis jocos.

The only Antidote against despair, the only stay of a soul when once entring the lists of Eternity. And I am perswaded, that many of you fix on the same Principles, as to your hope and expectation of Life and Immortality. And to what purpose, I pray you, do you trouble the world with an opinion, wherein you can find no benefit, when, if true you should principally expect to be relieved and supported by it. But he that looks to find solid peace and consola∣tion in this world, or a blessed entrance into ano∣ther, on any other grounds than those expressed by that dying Emperour, will find himself deceived. S^r, you will one day find, that our own works or me∣rits, Purgatory, the sufferage of your Church, or

any parts of it, when we are dead, the surplussage of the works or merits of other sinners, are pitifull things to come into competition with the blood of Christ, and pardoning-Mercy in him. I confess, the In∣quisition made a shift to destroy Constantine who was confessor to the Emperour, and assisted him unto his departure. And King Philip took care that his Son Charles should not live in the faith wherein his Fa∣ther Charles died; whereby Merit, or our own Righteousness, prevailed at Court: but, as I said, I am perswaded that when many of you are in cold blood, and think more of God than of Protestants, and of your last account than of your present Argu∣ments, you begin to believe that Mercy and the Righteousness of Christ will be a better plea, as to your own particular concernments at the last day. Seeing therefore that Protestants teach the necessity of Good works upon the cogent Principles I minded you of in my Animadversions, I suppose it might not be amiss in you to surcease from troubling them a∣bout their Merit, which few of you are agreed a∣bout, and which, as I would willingly hope, none of you dare trust unto. You have, I suppose, been mind∣ed before now of the conclusion made in this matter by your great Champion Bellarmin, lib. 5. de Justifi∣cat. cap. 7. Propter (saith he) incertitudinem propriae justitiae, & periculum inanis gloriae, TUTISSIMUM est, fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia & be••igni∣tate reponere: Because of the uncertainty of our own righteousness, and the danger of vain-glory, it is the Safest course to place all our confidence in the alone mercy and benignity of God: Wherein, if I mistake not, he disclaimeth all that he had subtilly disputed before about the merit of Works; and he appears to have been in good earnest in this conclusion; seeing he

made such use of it himself in particular, at the close of all his Disputes and Dayes; praying in his last Will and Testament, That God would deal with him, not as aestimator meriti, a Judg of his merit, but largitor veniae a mercifull Pardoner; Vit. Bell. per Sylvestr, à Pet. San. Impress. Antuerpiae 1631. And why is this the safest course? certainly it must be, because God hath appointed it and revealed it so to be; for on no other ground can any course towards Heaven be accounted safe. And if this be the way of his appointment, that we should trust to his mer∣cy alone in Christ Jesus; let them that will be so minded, notwithstanding all perswasions to the con∣trary, as to trust to their own merit, take heed lest they find when it is too late, that they have steered a course not so safe as they expected. And so I desire your excuse for this Diversion, the design of it be∣ing only to discover one reason of your failing in morality, in affirming mee to have said that which you knew well enough I did not; which is this, that you stood in a slippery place as to the point of faith which you were asserting, be∣ing not instructed how to speak constantly and evenly unto it. And to take you off from that vain confidence, which this proud opinion of the Merit of works, is apt to ingenerate in you; whose first Inventours, I fear, did nor sufficiently consider with whom they had to doe, before whom sinners appearing in their own strength and Righteousness will one day cry, Who amongst us shall dwell with devouring fire, who amongst us shall inhabit with everla∣sting burnings? not the purity, perfection and seve∣rity of his fiery Law, judging, condemning, cursing every sinner for every sinne, without the least inti∣mation of mercy or compassion; if you would but

seriously consider, how impossible it is for any man to know all his secret sinnes, or to make compensa∣tion to God for the least of them that he doth know, and that the very best of his works come short of that universal perfection which is required in them, so that he dares not put the issue of his eternal condi∣tion upon any one of them singly, though all the rest of his life should be put into everlasting oblivion; and withall would diligently enquire into the end of God in giving his Son to die for sinners, with the mystery of his Love and Grace therein, the nature of the New Covenant, the Importance of the Promises thereof, the weight that is layed in Scripture on the Righteousness and blood of Christ with the Redem∣ption that is purchased thereby; or to the whole work of our Salvation, and the peremptory exclu∣sion of the merit of our works by Paul form our Justi∣fication before God; I am perswaded you would find another manner of Rest and Peace unto your soul, than all your own works, and your other pretended supplements of them, or reliefs against their defects, are able to supply you withall. And this I hope you will not be offended at, that I have thus occasionally minded you of.

CHAP. III.

A defence of the second Chapter of the Animadversions. Principles of Fiat Lux re-examined. Of our recei∣ving the Gospell from Rome. Our abode with them from whom we received it.

IN the same page, you proceed to the consideration of my second Chapter; and therein of the Prin∣ciples which I gathered out of your Fiat Lux; and which I affirmed, to run through and to animate your whole Discourse, and to be the foun∣dation on which your Superstructure is built. Con∣cerning them all, you say, pag. 21. that in the sense the words do either naturally make out, or in which I understand them, of all the whole you can hardly own any one. Pray S^r, remember that I never pretended to set down your words, but to express your sense in my own. And if I do not make it appear, that there is no one of the Principles mentioned, which you have not (in the sense by me declared) affirmed, and as∣serted; I will be contented to be thought to have done you some wrong, and my self much more, for want of attending unto that Rule of Truth, which I am compelled so often to desire you to give up your self unto the conduct of.

The first Principle imputed unto your Fiat Lux is, That we received the Gospell first from Rome. To which you say, Wee, that is we English men, received it first from thence. Well then, this is one Principle of the Ten; this you own and seek to defend, If you do so in reference unto any other, what will become of your hardly one that you can own? You have al∣ready one foot over the limits which you have newly

prescribed your self; and we shall find you utterly for∣saking of them by and by. For the present you pro∣ceed unto the defence of this Principle and say, But against this you reply, that we received it not first from Rome, but by Joseph of Arimathea from Palestine, as Fiat Lux himself acknowledgeth: S^r, if Fiat Lux say both these things, he cannot mean them in your false contradictory sense, but in his own true one, Wee, that is, wee Englishmen, the now actuall inhabitants of this Land and progeny of the Saxons, received first our Go∣spell and Christendome from Rome, though the Brittans that inhabited the Land before, differing as much from us as Antipodes, had some of them been Christened long before us, and yet the Christendome that prevailed and lasted among the Brittans, even they also as well as we, had it from Rome too; mark this likewise. This mat∣rer must be called over again afterwards, and there∣fore I shall here be the more brief upon it. In my first Answer, I shewed you not only that your posi∣tion was not true; but also, that on supposition it were so, it would not in the least advance your inten∣tion. Here you acknowledg that the Brittans at first received not the Gospell from Rome; but reply two things, first, that belongs not unto us Englishmen or Saxons. To which I shall now only say, that if be∣cause the Brittans have been conquered, we who are now the inhabitants of Brittain, may not be thought to have received the Gospell from them, from whom the Brittans at first received it, seeing it was never utterly extinct in Brittany from its first plantation, then much less can the present inhabitants of the City of Rome, which hath been conquered oftener than Brittain, be thought to have received the Gospell from them by whom it was first delivered unto the old Romans. For though I confess that the Saxons,

Jutes, and Angles made great havock of the Antient Brittans in some parts of this Island, yet was it not comparable unto that which was made at Rome; which at length Totilas, after it had been taken and sacked more than once before, marching out of it against Belisarius, left as desolate as a wilderness without one living soul to inhabit it. Ipse (Totilas) cum suarum copiarum parte progreditur, Romanos qui Senatorii erant ordinis secum trahens; alia omni urbanorum multitudine vel virilis muliebris{que} sexus, & puer is in Campaniae agres missis: ita ut Romae nemo hominum restaret, sed vasta ibi esset solitudo, saith Procopius, Hist, Goth. l. 3. Concerning which action saith Sigonius de Imper. Occid. lib. 19. Vrbs Roma in∣colis omnibus amotis, prorsus est destituta: memoran∣dum inter pauca exempla humanae fortune ludibrium, ac spectaculum ipsis etiam hostibus, quanquam ab omni humanitate remotissimis, miserandum. The City of Rome, all its Inhabitants being removed, was wholly desolate, an unparallel'd reproach of humane condi∣tion, and a spectacle of pity to the very enemies, though most remote from all humanity! Tbe next inhabitants of it, were a mixture of Greeks, Tbracians, and o∣ther Nations brought in by Belisarius: You may go now and reproach the Brittans if you please, with their being conquered by the Saxons; in the mean time pray give me a reason, why the present Inhabi∣tants of England, may not date their reception of Christianity from the first planting of it in this Island, as well as you suppose the present Inhabitants of Rome may do theirs, from the time wherein it was first preached unto the old Romans? But you except again; that the Christendom that prevailed and lasted among the Brittans before the coming of the Saxons, came from Rome too; you bid me, mark that likewise.

I do consider what you say, and desire you to prove it: wherein yet I will not be very urgent, because I will not put you upon impossibilities; and your in∣competency to give the least colour unto this Re∣markable Assertion, shall be discovered in our fur∣ther progress. For the present, I shall only mind you, that the Christianity which prevailed in Brit∣tany, was that which continued among the Brittans in Wales, after the conquest of these parts of the Island by the Saxons; and that, that came not from Rome, is manifest from the customes which they ob∣served and insisted on, differing from those of Rome, and your refusall to admit those of that Church, the story whereof you have in Beda lib. 2. cap. 2. I know, it may be rationally replied, that Rome might, after the time of the first preaching of the Gospell in Brit∣tain, have invented many new customs, which might be strange unto the Brittans at the coming of Austin; for indeed so they had done: but this exception will here take no place; for the customes the Brittish Church adhered unto, were such as having their Rise and occasion in the East, were never admitted at Rome, and so from thence could not be transmit∣ted hither.

But there were also other Exceptions put in, unto your Application of this Principle unto your pur∣pose, upon supposition that there were any Truth in the matter of Fact asserted by you. For, suppose that those who from beyond Sea first preached the Gospell to the Saxons, came from Rome, yea were sent by the Bishop, or if you please the Pope of Rome; I ask, whether it was his Religion, or the Religion of Jesus Christ that they brought with them? Did the Pope first find it out? or did they publish it in the name of the Pope? You say, It was the Popes Reli∣gion,

not invented but professed by him, and from him derived unto us by his Missioners. Well, and what more; for all this was before supposed in my enqui∣ry, and made the foundation of that which we sought further after. I supposed the Pope professed the Reli∣gion which he sent; and your Courtly expression derived unto us by his Missioners, is but the same in sense and meaning with my homely phrase, they that preached it were sent by him. On this I enquire, whe∣ther it were to be esteemed his Religion or no; that is, any more his, than it is the Religion of every one that professeth it; Or did those that were sent ba∣ptize in his name, or teach us that the Pope was cru∣cified for us? You answer, that he sent them to preach: I see

—Nil opus est te Circumagi, quendam volo visere non tibi notum.

you understand not what I enquire after; but if that be all you have to say, as it was before supposed, so what matter is it, I pray, who planted, and who wa∣tered; it was the Religion of Christ that was preach∣ed, and God that gave the encrease: Christ liveth still, his Word abideth still, but the planters and waterers are dead long ago. Again, What though we received the Gospell from Rome? doth it there∣fore follow, that we received all the Doctrines of the present Church of Rome at the same time? Pope Gregory knew little of the present Romane Doctrine about the Pope of Rome. What was broached of it, he condemned in another, (even John of Constantinople, who fasted for a kind of Popedome,) and professed himself an obedient servant to his good Lord the Em∣perour. Many a good Doctrine hath been lost at Rome since those old dayes, and many a new fancy broached, and many a tradition of men taught

for a doctrine of truth.

Hipolyte, sic est; Thes••i vultus amo, Illos priores quos tulit quondam puer, Quum prima puras barba signaret genas, Et ora flavus tenera tingebat rubor.

We love the Church of Rome, as it was in its purity and integrity, in the dayes of her youth and chastity, before she was deflowred by false worship; but what is that to the present Roman carnall confederacy? If then any in this Nation did receive their Religion from Rome, as many of the Saxons had Christianity declared unto them, by some sent from Rome for that purpose; yet it doth not at all follow, that they received the present Religion of Rome.

Hei mihi qualis?—quantum mutatur ab illa?

which of old she prosessed.

Multa dies varius{que} labor mutabilis aevi, Rettulit in pejus.

And this sad alteration, declension, and change, we may bewail in her, as the Prophet did the like apo∣stacy in the Church of the Jews of old, How is the faithfull City become an harlot? it was full of judge∣ment, righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers; thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixt with water. He admires that it should be so; was not ignorant how it became so; no more are others in reference unto your Apostacy.

And what if we had received from you, or by your means, the Religion that is now professed at Rome, I mean the whole of it; yet we might have received that with it, namely the Bible, which would have made it our duty, to examine, try, and reject any thing in it, for which we saw from thence just cause

so to do; unless we should be condemned for that, for which the Bereans are so highly commended. So that neither is your Position true, nor if it were so would it at all advantage your preten∣sions.

I adde also, Did not the Gospel come from another place to Rome, as well as to us, or, was it first preached there? This you have culled out, as supposing your self able to say something unto it; and what is it? Properly speaking, it came not so to Rome, as it came to us: for one of the twelve fountains, nay two of the thirteen, and those the largest and greatest, were trans∣ferred to Rome, which they watered with their blood. We had never any such standing fountain of our Chri∣stian Religion here, but only a stream derived unto us from thence. It is the hard hap it seems of England, to claim any priviledge or reputation, that may stand in the way of some mens designs. No Apostle, nor Apostolicall Person, must be allowed to preach the Gospel unto us, lest we should peirk up into compe∣tition with Rome. But though Rome it seems must alwayes be excepted, yet I hope you do not in gene∣rall conclude our condition beneath that of any place, where the Gospel at first was preached, by one or two Apostles, so as to cry, Properly speaking, it came not to us at all. What think you of Jerusalem, where Christ himself and his twelve Apostles all of them preached the Gospel? Or what think you of Caper∣naum, that was lifted up to Heaven, in the priviledge of the means of light granted for a while unto them? Do you think our condition worse than theirs? The two fountains you mention, were opened at Antioch in Syria, as well as at other places, before they con∣veyed one drop of their treasures to Rome; which whether one of them ever did by his personall pre∣sence,

is very questionable. And by this Rule of yours, though England may not, yet every place where S^t Peter and St Paul preached the Gospel, may contend with Rome as to this priviledge. And what will you then get by your trumphing over us? Non vides id manticae quòd à tergo est: When men are in∣tent upon a supposed advantage, they oftentimes overlook reall inconveniencies that lye ready to seize upon them, as it befalls you more than once. Be∣sides there is nothing in the world more obscure, than by whom, or by what means the Gospel was first preached at Rome: By S^t Paul it is certain it was not: for before ever he came thither, there was a great number converted to the faith, as appears from his Epistle, written about the fourteenth year of Claudi∣us, and the fifty third of Christ. Nor yet by Peter; for not at present to insist on the great incertainty whether ever he was there or no, which shall after∣wards be spoken unto, there is nothing more cer∣tain, than that about the sixth year of Claudius, and fourty fifth of Christ, he was at Antioch, Gal. 2. (Baronius makes the third of Claudius, and the fourty fifth of Christ to contemporize, but upon a mi∣stake) and some say he abode there a good while, sundry years, and that upon as good authority, as any is produced for his coming to Rome. But it is generally granted, that there was a Church founded at Rome that year, but by whom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as Socrates said of the preference of the condition of the living or dead) is known to God alone, of mortall men not to any: Jam sumus ergo pa∣res. For, to confess the truth unto you, I know not certainly who first preached the Gospel in Brittain; some say Peter, some Paul, some Simon Zelotes, most Joseph of Arimathea, as I have elsewhere shew∣ed;

by whom certainly I know not: but some one it was or more, whom God sent upon his arrand, and with his message. No more do you know who preached it first at Rome, though in generall it ap∣pears that some of them at least were of the Circum∣cision, whence the very first Converts of that Church, were variously minded about the observation of Mosaicall Rites and Ceremonies. And I doubt not but God in his infinitely holy wisdome and provi∣dence, left the springs of Christian Religion, as to matter of fact, in the first introductions of it into the Nations of the world, in so much darkness, as to the knowledge of after-times, to obviate those towring thoughts of preheminency, which he foresaw that some men from externall advantages would entertain, to the no small prejudice of the simplicity of the Go∣spel, and ruine of Christian humility. As far as ap∣pears from Story; the Gospel was preached in Eng∣land, before any Church was founded at Rome: It was so, saith Gildas, Summo tempore Tiberii Caesaris, that is, extremo; about the end of the raigh of Tibe∣rius Caesar, who died in the thirty ninth year of Christ, five or six years at least before the foundati∣ons of the Roman-Church were layed; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. These things we must speak unto, be∣cause you suppose them of importance unto your Cause.

The second Assertion ascribed unto your Fiat in the Animadversions is, That whence and from whom we first received our Religion, there and with them we must abide therein, to them we must repair for guid∣ance; and return to their rule and conduct, if we have departed from them. To which you now say, This Principle as it is never delivered by Fiat Lux, though you put it upon me, so is it in the latitude it carries,

and wherein you understand it, absolutely false, never thought of by me, and indeed impossible: For how can we abide with them in any truth, who may not perhaps abide in it themselves? Great part of Flanders was first converted by English men, and yet are they not ob∣liged to accompany the English in our now present wayes. I am glad you confess this Principle now to be false; it was sufficiently proved so to be in the Animadver∣sions, and your whole Discourse rendred thereby use∣less: For to what purpose will the preceding Asserti∣on so often incuicated by you serve, if this be false? For what matter is it from whence or whom were∣ceive the profession of Religion, if there be no obli∣gation upon us to continue in their communion, any further than as we judge them to continue in the truth? And to what purpose do you avoid the con∣sideration of the Reasons and Causes of our not abi∣ding with you, and manage all your Charge upon the generall head of our departure, if we may have just cause by your own concession so to do? It is false then by your own acknowledgement, and I am as sure, in the sense which I understand it in, that it is yours. And you labour with all your art to prove and confirm it, both in your Fiat, pag. 44, 45, 46, 47. and in this very Epistle, pag. 38, 39, 40, 41, &c. On the account that the Gospel came unto us from Rome, you expresly adjudge the preheminence over us unto Rome, and determine that her we must all hear, and obey, and abide with. But if you may say and unsay, assert and deny, avow and disclaim at your pleasure, as things make for your advantage, and think to evade the owning of the whole drift and scope of your Discourse, by having expressed your self in a loose flourish of words; it will be to no great purpose further to talk with you:

Quo te••eam vultus mutantem Protea nodo?

To lay fast hold, and not startle at a new shape, was the counsell his daughter gave to Menelaus. And I must needs urge you to leave off all thoughts of eva∣ding, by such changes of your hue, and to abide by what you say. I confess, I believe you never intended knowingly to assert this Principle in its whole lati∣tude, because you did not, as it should seem, consi∣der how little it would make for your advantage, see∣ing so many would come in for a share in the privi∣ledge intimated in it with your Roman Church, and you do not in any thing love competitors. But you would fain have the Conclusion hold as to your Ro∣man Church only; those that have received the Go∣spel from her, must alwayes abide in her communion. That this Assertion is not built on any generall foun∣dation of Reason or Authority, your self now con∣fess. And that you have no speciall priviledge to plead in this Cause, hath been proved in the Ani∣madversions, whereof you are pleased to take no notice.

CHAP. IV.

Further Vindication of the first Chapter of the Ani∣madversions. Church of Rome not what she was of old. Her Falls and Apostacy. Difference between Idolatry, Apostacy, Heresie, and Schism. Princi∣ples of the Church of Rome condemned by the antient Church, Fathers, and Councels. Imposing Rites unnecessary. Persecution for Conscience. Papall Supremacy. The Branches of it. Papall Personall Infallibility. Religious veneration of Images.

THe third Assertion which you review is, That the Roman profession of Religion, and practice in the worship of God, are every way the same as when first we received the Gospel from Rome, nor can they ever otherwise be; whereunto you say, This indeed though I do no where formally express it, yet I suppose it, be∣cause I know it hath been demonstratively proved a hundred times over. You deny it hath been proved, why do you not then disprove it? because you decline, say you, all common places. All that I affirmed was, that you did suppose this Principle, and built many of your Inferences on the supposition thereof, which you here acknowledge. And so you have already owned two of the Principles, whereof in the forego∣ing Page you affirmed, that you could hardly own any one, and that in the sense wherein by me they are proposed and understood. But what do you mean that you no where formally express it? If you mean, that you have not set it down in those syllables, wherein you find it expressed in the Animadversions, no man ever said you did; you do not use to speak so

openly and plainly: To do so would bring you out of the corners, which somewhat that you pretend unto never lead you into. But if you deny, that you asserted and laboured to prove the whole and en∣tire matter of it, your following Discourse wherein you endeavour a vindication of the Sophisme, where∣with you pleaded for it in your Fiat, will sufficient∣ly confute you. And so you have avowed already two, of the hardly any one, Principles ascribed unto you: And this you say hath been demonstratively proved an hundred times over, and ask me why I do not disprove it, giving a ridiculous Answer, as from me, unto your Enquiry. But pray S^r talk not of Demonstrations in this matter; palpable Sophismes, such as your Masters use in this Cause, are far enough from Demonstrations. And if you think it enough for you to say, that it hath been proved, why is it not a sufficient. Answer in me to remind you that it hath been disproved, and your pretended proofs all refu∣ted. And according to what Rules of Logick, do you expect Arguments from me to disprove your, Assertion, whilest I was only answering yours that you produced in its confirmation? But that you may not complain any more, I shall make some addition of the proofs you require by way of supererrogation, when we have considered your vindication of your former Arguments, for the confirmation of this As∣sertion, wherewith you closed your Discourse in your Fiat Lux. This you thus propose again, The Roman was once a true flourishing Church, and if she ever fell, she must fall either by Apostasie, Heresie, or Schisme. So you now mince the matter; in your Fiat it was a most pure flourishing and Mother Church; and you know there are many that yet acknowledge her a true Church, as a theif is a true man; who will

not acknowledge her to be a pure Church, much less most pure. God be mercifull to poor worms, this boasting doth not become us; it is not unlike hers who cryed, Is it as a Queen and shall see no sorrow; I wish you begin to be sensible and ashamed of it: But yet I fear it is otherwise; for whereas in your Fiat you had proclaimed your Roman Church and Party, to be absolutely innocent and unblameable, you tell us pag. 10. of your Epistle, that you can make it appear that it is far more innocent and amiable than you have made it; more than absolutely innocent it seems, a note so high that it sounds harshly. And whereas we shall manifest your Church to have lost her native beauty, we know that no painting of her, which is all you can do, will render her truly amiable unto a spirituall eye: She hath too often defiled her self, to pretend now to be lovely. But to this you say I reply, The Church that then was in the Apostles time was indeed true, not the Roman Church that now is; and adde, So, so, then I say that former true Church must fall sometime or other, when did she fall, and how did the sall by Apostasie, Heresie, or Schisme. S^r, you very lamely represent my Answer, that you might seem to say something unto it, when indeed you say nothing at all. I discover unto you the equivocation you use in that expression, the Church of Rome, and shew you that the thing now so called by you, had neither being nor name, neither essence nor affection in the dayes of old; its very being is but the terminus as quem, of a Churches fall. I shewed you also, that the Church of old that was pure, fell, not whilest it was so, but that the men who succeed∣ed in the place, where they lived in the profession of Religion, gradually fell from the purity of that pro∣fession, which the Church at its first planting did

enjoy. But all that discourse you pass by, and re∣peat again your former Question, to which you sub∣joyn my first Answer, which was, it was possible she might fall by an Earthquake, as did those of Co∣losse and Laodicea; to which you, We speak not here of any casuall or naturall downfall, or death of mor∣tals, by Plague, Famine, or Earthquake, but a morall and voluntary lapse in faith. What do you speak to me of Earthquakes? It is well you do so now explain your self; your former enquiry was only in generall, how or by what means she ceased to be what she had been before, as though it were impossible to assign any such; neither did I exclude the sense whereunto you now restrain your words. And had I only shewed you, that it was possible she might fall, and come to nothing, and yet not by any of the wayes or means by you mentioned, without proceeding unto the consideration of them also, yet your especiall en∣quiry being resolved into this generall one, from whence it is taken, how a pure flourishing Church may cease to be so, I had rendred your enquiry useless un∣to your present purpose, though I had not answered your intention: For certainly that which ceaseth to be, ceaseth to be pure, seeing non entis nullae sunt af∣fectiones. The Church of the Brittains in this part of the ••sland, now called England, was once as pure a Church as ever was the Church of Rome, yet she ceased to be long since, and that neither by Aposta∣sie, Here sie, nor Schisme, but by the sword of the Sax∣ons. And to tell you the truth, I do not think the old Church of Rome unconcerned in this instance, then especially when Rome was left desolate by Toti∣las, and without inhabitant; for the Church of Rome is urbis, and not as you vainly imagine, orbi•• Ecclesia.

Again, I told you she might fall by Idolatry, and so neither by Apostasie Heresie, or Schisme. To which you reply, Good S^r, Idolatry is a mixt misde∣meanour both in faith and manners; I speak of the sin∣gle one of faith; and he that falls by Idolatry, if he keep still some parts of Christianity entire, he falls by Heresie, by Apostasie if he keep none. I am perswa∣ded you are the first that ever gave this description of Idolatry, and the last that will do so; it is a mixt misdemeanour in faith and manners. Manners you speak of in contradistinction to Faith, and you so explain your self, in which sense they relate only un∣to morall conversation, regulated by the second Ta∣ble. That Idolatry hath been and is constantly at∣tended with corruption in manners, the Apostle de∣clares, Rom. 1. and I willingly grant; but how in its self, or its own nature, it should come to be a mixt misdemeanour in faith and in manners, I know not; neither can you tell me which is the fleshy, which is the fishy part of this Dagon; what it is in it that is a misdemeanour in faith, and what in man∣ners. According to this description of yours, an Idolater should be an ill mannered, or an unmannerly Heretick. But you speak of the single misdemeanour in faith; but who gave you leave so to restrain your enquiry? I allowed you before to except against one instance, whereby many a Church hath fallen; but if you will except Idolatry and Manners also, your endeavour to provide a shelter for your guilt, is shamefull and vain. For what you except out of your enquiry, if you confess not to have been, yet you do that it may be, or might have been: And you do wisely to let your Adversary know, that he is to strike you only where you suppose your self armed, but by all means must let your naked parts alone; and

doubtless he must needs be very wise who will take your advice. The Church of Judah was once a pure Church in the dayes of David; how came she then to fall? by Apostasie Heresie, or Schisme? I answer if you will give me leave, she fell by Idolatry, and corruption of manners, against both which the Pro∣phets were protestants, 2 King. 17. 13.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God protested against them by his Prophets. Again the same Church reformed in the dayes of Ezra, Nehemiah, Zerubbabel,—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the men of the Great Congregation, was a pure Church; how did it fall? not by Idolatry as former∣ly, but by corruption of life, unbelief, and rejecting the Word of God for superstitious traditions, untill it became a den of Thieves. You see then there are other wayes of a Churches falling from its pristine purity, than those by you insisted on. And if you shall enquire how it may fall, you must exclude no∣thing out of your enquiry, whereby it may do so, and whereby some Churches have done so. And if you will have my thoughts in this matter, they are, that the beginning of the fall of your Church and many others, lay in unbelief, corruption of life, conformity to the world, and other sins that were found in the most of its members. And it is a fancy to dream of the purity of a Church, in respect of its outward order, when the power and life of godliness is lost in its members; and a wicked device to sup∣pose a Church may not be separated from Christ by unbelief, whilest it abides in an externall profession of the doctrine of faith. Such a Church though it may have a name to live, yet indeed is dead, and dead things are unclean. We speak of its purity and acceptation thereon in the sight of God; neither will men dead in trespasses and sins, be terrible unto

any, as an Army with banners, unless they are like those in Lucilius, who,

Vt pueri infantes credunt signa omnia ahena Vivere & esse homines; sic isti omnia ficta Vera putant; credunt signis cor inesse ahenis.

as Lactantius reports him. But you say. If they fall by Idolatry and yet keep any parts of Christianity, they fall by Heresie. But why so? would you had thought it incumbent on you to give a reason of what you say. Are Idolatry and Heresie the same? Tertullian who of all the old Ecclesiasticall Writers most enlargeth the bounds of Idolatry, defines it to be omnis circa omne Idolum famulatus & servitus; Any worship or service performed in reference to, or about any Idoll. I do not remember that ever I met with your defini∣tion of Idolatry in any Author whatever. Bellar∣mine seems to place it in Creaturum aeque colere ac Deum to worship the creature as much or equally with the Creator: which description of it, though it be vain and groundless, for his aeque is neither in the Scripture nor any approved Author of old required to the constituting of the worship of any creature Idolatrous, yet is not this Heresie neither, but that which differs from it toto genere. We know it to be cultus religiosus creaturae exhibitus, any religious worship of that whish by nature is not God: and so doth your Thomas grant it to be. Gregory de Valentia ano∣ther of your great Champions contends, that tanqnam Deo, as unto God, is to be added unto the definition: As though religious worship could be given unto any thing, and not as unto God really and indeed, though not intentionally as to the worshipper. Where a man gives religious worship, there he doth ipso facto assign a divine eminencie, say he what he will to the

contrary: Neither will his intention of not doing it as unto God, any more free him from Idolatry, than an Adultress will be free by not looking on her A∣dulterer as her Husband. I confess he adds after∣wards a distinction that is of great use for you, and indispensably necessary for your defence; de Idol. lib. 2 cap. 7. S^t Peter he tells us insinuates some wor∣ship of Idols, cultum aliquem simulachrorum, to wit, that of the holy Images to be right, or lawfull, when he deterreth believers ab illicitis Idolorum cultibus, from the unlawfull worship of Idols; 1 Pet. 4. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, This were somewhat indeed, if all epithetes were distinguishing, none aggrava∣ting or declarative. When Virgil said dulcia mella premes, Geor. 4. he did not insinuate that there was any bitter honey. Nor is it allowable only for Poets, to use explaining and declaring epithetes; but Ari∣stotle allowes it in the best Oratours also, so they use not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, long or unseasonable ones, or the same frequently: and the use of this here by Peter is free from all those vices. When the Ro∣mane Orator cryed out ô scelus detestandum, O wic∣kedness to be abhorred, he did not intend to insinuate that there was a wickedness not to be abhorred, or to be approved. But if it will follow hence that your Church is guilty only of lawfull Idolatry, I shall not much contend about it. Yet I must tell you, that as the poor woman when the Physicians in her sickness told her still that what she complained of was a good sign, cryed out 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, good signes have undone me; your lawfull Idolatry if you take not better heed, will undo you. In the mean time as to the coincidence you imagin between Idolatry and Heresie, I wish you would advise with your Angelicall Doctor, who will shew you how they are contradistinct evils,

which he therefore weighs in his scales, and deter∣mines which is the heaviest, 22^ae q. 94. a. ad 4. The Church in the wilderness fell by its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, its ma∣king and worshiping a golden Calfe, as a representa∣tion of the presence of God. That they kept some parts of the Doctrine of Truth entire, is evident from their proclamation of a feast to Jehovah. Do any men in their wits use to say this fall was by Heresie, though all agree it was by Idolatry? so that your Church might fall by Idolatry and not fall formally by Heresie, according to the genuine importance of the word, the use of it in the Scriptures, or the defi∣nition given of it by the Schoolmen, or any sober Writer of what sort soever. And here I must desire you to stay a little, if you intend to take Protestants along with you: They constantly return this An∣swer unto you in the first place, and tell you, that your Church is fallen by Idolatry; It is fallen in the worship which you give unto the Consecrated Host, as you call it, wherein if the Scriptures which call it bread, and the Fathers who terme it the figure of the body of Christ, if Reason, and all our senses deceive us not, you are as plainely Idolatrous as the poor wretch∣es which fall down and worship a piece of Red Cloth: So your own Costerus assures us, Enchirid. cap. 8. Tolerabilior, saith he, est eorum error, qui pro Deo so∣lunt statuam auream, aut argenteam, aut alterius ma∣teris imaginem, quomodo Gentiles Deos suos venera∣bantur, vel pannum rubrum in hastam elevatum, quod narratur de Lappis, vel viva animalia at quondam Aegyptii, quam eorum qui frustum panis colunt. Their errour is more tolerable who worship a golden or silver Statue, or an Image of any other matter for a God, as the Gentiles worshipped their Gods, or a ragge of Red Cloth lifted upon a spear, as it is reported of

the Laplanders, or living Creatures, as did the Egyp∣tians of old, than theirs who worship a piece of bread. This is that which made Averoes cry out, seeing the Christians eat the God whom they worship, let my soul be among the Philosophers. You do the same in your worship of the Cross, which the chiefest among you maintain ••o be the same that is due to Christ himself. And you are in the same path still in the religious a∣doration you give unto the blessed Virgin, your pray∣ers to her, and invocations of her, which abound in all your books of Devotion, and generall practice. And what need we mention any particular instances, when you have begun some of your Conciliary actions; the greatest solemnities of Christianity amongst you, with invocation of her for help and assistance. So did your Councell of Lateran joyning with Cardinall Ca∣jetan in their opening of the second Session, in these words; Quoniam nihil est quod homo de semetipso sine auxilio ope{que} divina possit polliceri, ad Gloriosam ip∣sam Virginem Dei matrem primum convertam oratio∣nem meam. Seeing there is nothing that a man may promise to himself as of himself without divine help and assistance, I will first turn my prayer unto the Glori∣ous Virgin the mother of God. This was the Doctrine, this the Practice, this the Idolatry of your Lateran Councell. And again in the 7^th Session, Deiparae nostrae presidium imploremus; let us pray for the help or protection of our blessed mother of God. And in the 10^th Session of the same Councell, Stephen Arch•• bishop of Patras prays; Vt ipsa beata Virgo, Ange∣lorum Domina, fons omnium Gratiarum, quae omnes Hereses interemit, cujus opera magus reformatio, Concordia Principum, & vera contra Infideles expe∣ditio fieri debet opem ferre dignetur: That the blessed Virgin, the Lady of Angels, the fountaion of all Graces,

who destroyeth all heresies, by whose assistance, the great Reformation, the Agreement of Princes, and sin∣cere expedition against the Infidels (the business of that Councell) ought to be performed, would vouch∣safe to help him, that he might, &c. And thereupon sings this Hymne unto her, recorded in the Acts of the Councell;

Omnium Splendor decus & perenne Virginum Lumen, genetrix superni Gloria humani generis Maria unica nostri. Sola Tu Virgo dominaris astris, Sola Tu Terrae Maris at{que} Coeli Lumen, inceptis saveas rogamus Inclyta nostris. Vt queam sacros reserare sensus Qui latent chart is nimium severi Ingredi & celsae, duce te benigna Maeniaterra.

O Mary the beauty, honour and everlasting light of all Virgins, the mother of the Highest, the only glory of mankind; Thou Virgin alone rulest the Stars; Thou alone are the light of Earth, Sea and Heaven; do thou O glorious Lady, wee entreat, prosper my en∣deavours; That I may unfold the sacred senses which lye hid in the too severe writings (of the Scripture) and kindly give me under thy goodness to enter the walls of the heavenly Countreys. I suppose it cannot be doubted whence the pattern of this Conciliary Pray∣er was taken; it is but an imitation of

Phaebe, Sylvarúm{que} potens Diana Lucidum Coeli decus, O colendi Semper & culti, date quae precamur tempore sacro.

Alme Sol curru nitido diem qui Promis & celas alius{que} & idem Nasceris, possis nihil urbe Roma visere majus. Rite maturos aperire partus Lenis Itithia, tuere matres Sive tu Lucina probas vocari seu Genitalis Diva.

And if this be not plainely to place her in the Throne of God I know not what can be imagined so to do. Your worship of Angels and of Saints is of the same importance, concerning whom you do well to en∣title your Paragraph Hero's; your Doctrine and Practice concerning them, being the very same with those of the antient Heathen, in reference unto their Daemons and Hero's. So your own Learned Vives confesseth of many of you; in August. de Civit. Dei, lib. 28. cap. ult. Multi Christiani, saith he, Divos Di∣vas{que} non aliter venerantur quam Deum; nes video in multis quod sit discrimen inter eorum opinionem de Sanctis, & id quod Gentiles, putabant de suis Diss. Many Christians worship hee and shee Saints, no other∣wise than they do God; neither do I see in many things what difference there is between their opinion concern∣ing the Saints, and that which the Heathen thought of their Gods. And it is known what Polidore Virgil before him affirmed to the same purpose: Your Ido∣latry in the worship of Images of all sorts shall be af∣terwards declared. Be then this a single or mixt mis∣demeanour it matters not, a misdemeanour it is, whereby we affirm that the Roman Church is fallen from its pristine purity. And this we think is a full answer unto your enquiry. We need not, you can∣not compell us to go one step farther. But our way

is plain and invites us. I shall therefore proceed to let you see once again that she is fallen by all the wayes you thought meet to confine your enquiry unto.

You proceed, finding your self puzled, in the third place you lay on load, she fell say you, by Apostasie, Idola∣try, Heresie, Schisme, Licentiousness and prophaneness of Life. And in this you do not much unlike the drunk∣en youth, who being bid to hit his Masters finger with his, when he perceived he could not do it, he ran his whole fist against it. Seriously S^r, you have the worst success in your Attempts for a little wit and merriment that ever I met with. If you would take my advice, you should not strain your Genius for that which it will not affoard you: you forget the old rule,

Tu nihil invita dies faciesve Minerva.

Any other diversion were better than this which proves so succesless: Yet I must confess you deserve well of pastime, seeing to serve its interests you so often make your self ridiculous, as you now do in this pittifull story. And I cannot tell you whether my Answer have touched your finger or no, but I am sure, if it be true, it strikes your Cause to the heart; and I am as sure of the Truth of it, as I am that I am alive. And you see how I am pusled, even as he was who cryed inopem me copia fecit. Your Church hath fallen so many wayes, all so foully and evidently, that it is hard for any man to chuse what instance to insist upon, who is called on to charge her, as you by your enquiry of them, do on your Protestant Readers. And for my part, I had rather you should take your choyce, against which of the things men∣tioned you think your self best able to defend her. And may it please you to chuse your Instance, if I prove not your Church to have fallen by it, I will

promise you to become a Papist. You proceed to your own particulars, and ask, Did shee fall by Apo∣stasie: to which you subjoyn my words, by a par∣tiall not a totall one; with your reply, Good S^r, in this division Apostasie is set to express a totall relapse in opposition to Heresie which is the partiall. I see you have as little mind to be drawn to the consideration of your Apostasie, as of your Idolatry; and would fain post off all to Heresie, under a corrupt notion of which terme, you hope to find some shelter for your self and your Church, although in vain. But

Verte omnes tete in facies, & contrahe quicquid Sive animis, sive arte vales.

You must bear the charge of Apostasie also. For why must that needs be the notion of these termes in the division you made, that you now express? Is it from the strict sense and importance of the words them∣selves, or from the Scripturall or Ecclesiasticall use of them, or whence is it, that it must be so, and that it is so? None of these will give you any relief, or the least countenance unto your fancie. Both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in themselves of an indifferent signification, denoting things or acts, good or evill, according to their accidentall limitations and applications. It is said of some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they will depart from the faith, 1 Tim. 4. 1. And the same Apostle speaking of them that name the name of Christ, sayes, let every one of them depart from iniquity, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2 Tim. 2. 19. so that the word it self signifies no more but a single and bare de∣parture from anything, way, rule, or practice be it good or bad, wherein a man hath been ingaged, or which he ought to avoid and fly from. And this is the use of it in the best Greek Authors: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

are such in Homer who are farre distant or remote on any account from any thing or place. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Aristotle things very remote. To leave any place, company, thing, Society, or Rule, on any cause, is the common use of the word in Thu∣cydides, Plutarch, Lucian, and the rest of their com∣panions in the propriety of that language. Apostasia by Ecclesiasticall writers, is restrained unto either a back sliding in Faith subjective and manners, or a causeless relinquishment of any Truth before pro∣fessed. So the Jews charge Paul, Acts 21. 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, thou teachest Apostasie from Mo∣ses Law. Such also is the nature of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a speciall option, choyce, or way in profession of any Truth or Error. So Paul calls Pharisaisme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Act. 26. 5. the most exact heresie or way of Religion among the Jews. And Clemens Alexandri∣nus, Strom, lib. 8. calls Christian Religion 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the best Heresie. And the great Constantine in one of his Edicts calls it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Catholick or ge∣nerall Heresie; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the most holy He∣resie. The Latines also constantly used that word in a sense indifferent. Cato, faith Cicero, est in ea he∣resi quae nullum orationis florem sequitur. The words therefore themselves you see are of an indifferent signification, having this difference between them, that the one for the most part is used to signifie the Relinquishment of that which a man had before em∣braced, and the other a choice or embracing of that which a man had not before received or admitted. And this difference is constantly observed by all Ec∣clesiasticall writers, who afterwards used these words in the worst or an evill sense; so that Apostasie in this appropriation of it, denotes the relinquishment of any Important Truth or way in Religion; and

Heresie the choice or embracement of any new de∣structive Opinion or Principle or way in the profes∣sion thereof. A man then may be an Apostate by partiall Apostasie, that is depart from the Profession of some Truth he had formerly embraced, or the performance of some duty which he was engaged in, without being an Heretick, or choosing any new opinion which he did not before embrace. Thus you signally call a Monke that deserts his Monasticall Profession an Apostate, though he embrace no opi∣nion which is condemned by your Church, or which you think hereticall. And a man may be an Here∣tick, that is choose and embrace some new false opi∣nion, which he may coyn out of his own imagina∣tion, without a direct renunciation of any Truth which before he was instructed in. And this is that which I intended, when I told you that your Church is fallen by partiall Apostasie and by Heresie. Shee hath renounced many of the important Truths which the old Roman Church once believed and professed, and so is fallen by Apostasie. And she hath invented or coyned many Articles pretended to be of faith, which the old Roman Church never believed, and so is fallen by Heresie also. Now what say you here∣unto? Why, good S^r, in this division Apostasie is set to express a totall relapse in opposition to Heresie, which is the partiall. But who gave you warrant or leave so to set them? It would it may be somewhat serve your turn, in evading the Charge of Apostasie, that lyes against your Church; but, Good S^r, will not prove that you may thus confound things for your advantage. Idolatry is Heresie, and Apostasie is Heresie, and what not, because you suppose you have found a way to escape the imputation of Here∣sie. I say then yet again in answer to your enquiry,

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

that your Church is fallen by Apostasie, in her relin∣quishment of many important truths, and neglect of many necessary duties, which the old Roman Church embraced and performed. That these may be the more evident unto you, I shall give you some few instances of your Apostasie, desiring only that you would grant me, that the primitive Church of Rome believed and faithfully retained the doctrine of truth, wherein from the Scripture it was instructed.

That Church believed expresly, that all they who die in the Lord do rest from all their labours, Rev. 14. 8. which truth you have forsaken, by sending many of them into the flames of Purgatory.

It believed, that the sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed in us, Rom. 8. 18. Your Church is otherwise minded, asserting in our works and sufferings a merit of, and condigni∣ty unto the glory that shall be received.

It believed, that we were saved freely, by grace, by faith, which is not of our selves, but the gift of God, not by works, left any one should boast, Eph 2. 8. Tit. 3. 5. and therefore besought the Lord not to enter into judgement with them, because in his sight no flesh could be justified, Psal. 130. 4. 143. 2. And you are apo∣statized from this part of their faith.

It believed, that Christ was once only offered, Heb. 10 12. and that it could not be that he should often offer himself, because then he must have often suffered and died, Heb. 9. 25. Which faith of theirs you are departed from.

It believed, that we have one only Mediatour and Intercessour with God, 1 Tim. 2. 5. 1 Joh. 2. 2. Wherein also you have renounced their perswasion; as likewise you have done in what it professed, that we may invocate only him, in whom we do believe, Rom. 10. 14.

It believed, that the Command to abstain from Meats and Marriage, was the doctrine of Devils, 1 Tim. 4. 1, 2. Do you abide in the same faith?

It believed, that Every soul without exception, was to be subject to the higher Powers, Rom. 13. 1. You will not walk in the steps of their faith herein.

It believed, that all Image-worship was forbidden, Exod. 20. And whether you abide in the same per∣swasion, we shall afterwards examine. And many more instances of the like kind, you may at any time be minded of.

You hast to that you would fain be at, which will be found as little to your purpose, as those whose consideration you so carefully avoid. You say, Did she fall by Heresie in adhering to any errour in Faith, contrary to the approved doctrine of the Church? Here you smile seriously, and tell me, that, since I take the Roman and Catholick Church to be one, she could not indeed adhere to any thing, but what she did adhere un∣to. S^r, I take them indeed to be one: but here I speak ad hominem, to one that doth not take them so. And then, if indeed the Roman Church had ever swerved in faith, as you say she has, and be her self as another or∣dinary particular Church, as you say she is, them might you find some one or other more generall Church, if any there were, to judge her; some Oecumenicall Councell to condemn her; some Fathers, either Greek and Latin, expresly to writs against her, as Prote∣stants now do; some or other grave Authority to cen∣sure her; or at least some company of Believers, out of whose body she went, and from whose faith she fell. None of which, since you are not able to a assign, (where∣in you have spoken more rightly, than you were aware of; for, not to be able to assign none of them, infers at least an ability to assign some, if not all of

them) my Query remains unanswered, and the Ro∣man still as flourishing a Church as ever she was.

Answ. 1. You represent my Answer lamely. I desire the Reader to consult it in the Animadversions, pag. 66, 67, 68. What you have taken notice of, disco∣vers only your fineness, in making Heresie an adhe∣rence to an errour in faith, contrary to the doctrine of the Church; and your selves the Church, where∣by you must needs be secured from Heresie, though you should adhere to the most hereticall Principles that ever were broached in the world. But nothing of all this, as I have shewed, will be allowed you. 2. As we have seen some of the Reasons, why you were so unwilling to try the Cause of your Church, on the heads of Idolatry and Apostasie; so here you discover a sufficient Reason, why you have pas∣sed over your other head of Schism, in silence. You avow your self one of the most schismaticall Princi∣ples, that were ever adhered unto by any professing the name of Christ. The Roman Church and the Ca∣tholick are with you one and the same. Is not this Petilianus his, in parte Donati; nay Basilides his, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epiphan. Heres. 4. We only are men, all others are Dogs and Swine. Macte virtute! If this be not to shew modcration, and to persue reconciliation, at once to shut out all men but your selves from the Church here, and consequently Heaven hereafter, what can be thought so to be? In earnest S^r, you may talk what you please of moderation, but whilest you avow this one wretched schismaticall Principle, you do your endeavour to exclude all true Christian moderation out of the world. 3. Why do you con∣clude, that your Query is not answered? Suppose one Question could not be answered, doth it necessa∣rily

follow that another cannot? I suppose, you take notice that this is another Question, and not that at first proposed, as I told you before. Your first en∣quiry was about your Churches crime, this is about her conviction and condemnation; and your Con∣clusion hath no strength in it, but what is built on this unquestionable Maxim, that, None ever offended, who was not publickly judged; as though there were no Harlot in the world but those that have been cart∣ed. It is enough S^r, that her condition is sub judice, as it will be, whether you or I will or no; and that there is not evidence wanting for her conviction, nor ever was since her fall, though it may be it hath not at all times been so publickly managed. And yet so vain is your triumphant Conclusion, that we rest not here, but prove also that she hath been of old judg∣ed and condemned, as you will hear anon.

And thus I have once more given you an Answer to your enquiry, how your Church fell; namely, that she hath done so by all the wayes and means, by which it is possible for a Church to fall. She failed under the just hand of God, when the persons of that Vrbick Church were extirpated, partly by others, but totally by Totilas; as the Brittish Church in England fell by the sword of the Saxons. She hath fallen by Idolatry, and corruption of life, as did the Church of the Jews before the Captivity. She hath fallen by her relinquishment of the written Word, as the only rule of faith and worship, and by adhering to the uncertain traditions of men, as did the Church of the Jews after their return from captivity. She hath fallen by Apostasie, in forsaking the profession of many important truths of the Gospel, as the Church of the Galatians did for a season, in their re∣linquishment of the doctrine of Justification by

grace alone. She hath fallen by Heresie, in coyning new Articles of faith, and imposing them on the consciences of the Disciples of Christ, as the Monta∣nists did with their new Paraclete, and rigid obser∣vances. She hath fallen by Schisme in her self, as the Judaical Church did when divided into Essenes, Sadduces, and Pharisees: setting up Pope against Pope, and Councell against Councell, continuing in her intestine broils for some ages together; and from all others, by the wretched Principle, but-now avowed by you, as the Donatists did of old. She hath fallen by Ambition, in the Hildebrandine Prin∣ciple, asserting a Soveraignty in the Pope over the Kings and Potentates of the earth, whereof I can give you no precedent instance, unless it be of him, who claimed the Kingdomes of the world to be his own, and boasted that he disposed of them at his pleasure, Mat. 4. And now I hope you will not take it in ill part, that I have given you a plain An∣swer unto your Question, which, as I suppose, was proposed unto us for that end and purpose.

But although these things are evident and suffici∣ently proved, yet I see nothing will satisfie you, un∣less we produce testimonies of former times, to mani∣fest that your Church hath been arraigned, judged, condemned, written against, by Fathers, Councils, or other Churches. Now though this be somewhat an unreasonable expectation in you, and that which I am no way bound unto by the Law of our Discourse to satisfie you in; yet to prevent for the future such Ivasions, as you have made use of on all occasions in your Epistle, I shall in a few pregnant and unquesti∣onable Instances, give you an account both when, how, and by whom the falls of your Church have been observed, reproved, condemned, and written

against. Only unto what shall be discoursed unto this pnrpose, I desire liberty to premise these three things, which I suppose will be granted.

Dabitur ignis tamen, et si ab inimicis petam.

The first is, that, What is by any previously con∣demned, before the embracing and practice of it, is no less condemned by them, than if the practice had pre∣ceded their condemnation. Though you should say that your avowing of a condemned errour, would make it no errour; yet you cannot say that it will render it not condemned: for that which is done, cannot be undone, say you what you will.

Secondly, that, Where any opinion or practice in Religion, which is embraced and used by your Church, is condemned and written against, that then your Church which so embraceth and useth it, is condemned and written against. For neither do Protestants write against your Church, or condemn it, on any other account, but of your opinions and practices; and you require but such a writing and condemnati∣on, as you complain of amongst them.

Thirdly, I desire you to take notice, that I do not this, as though it were necessary to the security and defence of the Cause which we maintain against you. It is abundantly sufficient and satisfactory unto our consciences, in your casting us out from your com∣munion, that all the wayes whereby we say your Church is fallen from her pristine purity, are judged and condemned in the Scripture, the Word of truth; whither we appeal for the last determination of the differences between us. These things being premi∣sed, to prevent such evasions as you have accustomed your self unto, I shall, as briefly as I can, give you somewhat of that, which you have now twice called for.

1. Your Principle and Practise in imposing upon all Persons and Churches a necessity of the observation of your Rites and Ceremonies, Customes and Traditions, casting them out of Communion who refuse to submit unto this your great Principle of all the Schisms in Europe, was contradicted, written against, condemn∣ed by Councels and Fathers, in the very first instance that ever you gave of it. Be pleased to consider that this concerns the very Life and Being of your Church: For if you may not impose your Constitutions, obser∣vances, and customes upon all others, actum est, there is an end of your present Church State. Let us see then how this was thought of in the dayes of old: Victor the Bishop of Rome, An▪ Dom. 96. condemns and excommunicates the Churches of Asia, because they would not joyn with him in the Celebration of Easter precisely on the Lords day. Did this practise escape uncontrolled? He was written against, by the great Irenaeus, and reproved that he had cast out of Communion 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whole Churches of God, for a triviall cause. His fact also was con∣demned in the justification of those Churches, by a Councell in Palestine, where Theophilus presided; and another in Asia, called together for the same purpose by Polycrates; Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 22, 23, 24, 25. This is an early instance of a con∣siderable Fall in your Church, and an open oppo∣sition by Councels and Fathers made unto it. And do not you, S^r, deceive your self, as though the fact of Victor were alone concerned in this censure of Ire∣naeus and others. The Principle before mentioned, which is the very life and soul of your Church, is con∣demned in it. It was done also in a repetition of the same Instance attempted here in England by you, when Austine that came from Rome would have im∣posed

on the Brittish Churches the observation of Easter according to the custome of the Roman Church; the Bishops and Monks of these Churches, not only rejected your Custome, but the Principle also from whence the attempt to impose it on them did proceed; protesting, that they owned no subje∣ction to the Bishop of Rome, nor other regard, than what they did to every good Christian. Concil. Angli∣can. p. 188.

2. Your Doctrine and Practise of forcing men by carnall weapons, corporall penalties, tortures, and terrors of death, unto the embracement of your profes∣sion, and actually destroying and taking away the lives of them that persist in their dissent from you, is con∣demned by Fathers and Councels, as well as by the Scriptures, and the light of Nature its self. It is con∣demned by Tertullian, Apol. cap. 23. Videte, saith he, ne & hoc ad irreligiositatis elogium concurrat, adi∣mere libertatem Religionis, & interdicere optionem Divinitat is, ut non liceat mihi colere quod velim, sed cogar colere quod nolim; with the like expressions, in twenty other places. All this externall compulsion he ascribes unto profaneness. So doth Clemens Alexand. Stromat. 8. So also did Lactantius; all consenting in that Maxim of Tertullian, Lex nova non se vindicat ultore gladio: The Law of Christ revengeth not its self with a punishing sword. The Councell of Sardis, Epist. ad Alexand. expresly affirms, that they dis∣swaded the Emperour from interpesing his Secular power to compell them that dissented. And you are ful∣ly condemned in a Canon of a Councell at Toledo, Cap. de Judae. distinc. 45. Praecipit sancta Synodns, nemini deinceps ad credendum vim inferre; cui enim vult Deus miseretur, & quem vult indurat. The holy Sy∣nod commandeth, that none hereafter shall by force be

compelled to the faith: for God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Athanasius in his Epistle ad Solitar. falls heavily on the Arians, that they began first to compell men to their heresie, by force, prisons, and punishments; whence he concludes of their Sect, at{que} ita seipsam quam non sit pia nec Dei cultrix manifestat: it evi∣destly declares it self hereby, to be neither pious, nor to have any reverence of God. In a Book that is of some credit with you, namely Clemens his Constituti∣ons, you have this amongst other things for your comfort, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Christ left men the power of their wills free (in this matter), not punishing them with death temporall, but calling them to give an account in ano∣ther world. And Chrysostome speaks to the same purpose on Joh 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He asked them saying, Will you also go away? which is the Question of one rejecting all force and necessity. Epiphanius gives it, as the character of thesemi-Ar∣••ians, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They persecute them that teach the Truth, not confuting them with words, but delivering them that believe aright to hatreds, wars and swords, having now brought de∣struction not to one City or Countrey alone, but to many. Neither can you relieve your selves, by answering that they were true believers whom they persecuted; you punish Hereticks and Schismaticks only, for they thought and said the same of themselves, which you assert in your own behalf. So Salvian informs

us, Haeretici sunt, sed non scientes, deni{que} apud nos sunt Hae∣retici, apud se non sunt. Nam intantum se & Catholicos judicant, ut nos ipsos titulo Haereticae praevitatis infament; quod ergo illi nobis sunt, & hoc nos illis. They are here∣ticks, but they know it not; they are hereticks unto us, but not unto themselves: for they so far judge them∣selves to be Catholick, that they condemn us for the guilt of Heresie: So then, what they are to us, that we are to them, Especilly was your whole practice in this matter solemnly condemned in the Case of Pris∣cillianus, recorded by Sulpitius Severus in the end of his second Book, the only Instance the Bellarmine could fix upon in all Antiquity for the putting of any men to death upon the account of Religion; for, the other whom he mentions, he confesseth himself to have been a Magitian. Ithacius, with some other Bishops his Associates, procured Maximus the Ty∣rant to put Priscillianus a Gnosticke, with some others, to death; and to banish some of their followers. What saith the Historian thereon: Hoc modo, saith he, homines luce indignissimi pessimo exemplo necati, aut exili is mulctati; On this manner, were those un∣worthy wretches either slain or punished by banishment, by a very evil precedent. And what was the success of this zeal? Non solum, saith he, non repressest haeresis, sed confirmata & latius propagata: The heresis was so farre from being repressed by it, that it was the more confirmed and propagated. And what ensued here∣upon in the Church its self? Inter nostros perpetuum discordiarum bellum exarsit, quod jam per quindecim annos foedis dissensionibus agitatum nullo modo sopiri poterat. Et nunc cum maximè discordiis Episcoporum turbari & ••isceri omnia cernerentur, cunctá{que} per eos odio aut gratia, metu, inconstantia, invidia, factio∣ne, av••arit••a, arrogantia, somno, desidia essent depra∣vata;

postremo plures adver sum paucos b••nè consulen∣tes, insanis consiliis & pertinacibus studiis certabant. Inter haec plebs Dei, & optimus quisque, probro at{que} lu∣dibrio habebatur: With which words he shuts up his Ecclesiasticall story. Amongst ours, a lasting war of discord was kindled, which, after it hath now for fifteen years been carried on with shamefull contentions, can by no means be allayed. And now especially when all things appear to be troubled and perverted by the discord of the Bishops, and that all things are depraved by them through hatred, favour, fear, inconstancy, envy, fa∣ction, covetousuess, pride, sleepiness and sloth; the most with mad counsels and pertinacious endeavours opposing themselves to the sew that are better advised. Amongst all these things, the people of God and every honest man, is become a reproach and scorn. Thus that Historian complaining of the consequents of this proceeding. But good men lest not the matter so: Martinus Turonensis presently refuseth all commu∣nion with them who had any hand in the death or banishment of the persons mentioned. So doth Am∣brose declare himself to have done, Epist. 27. as did the rest of the sober godly. Bishops of those dayes. At length both Ithacius and Idacius, the promoters of this work, were solemnly excommunicated, though one of them had before for very shame foregone his Bishoprick. See Prosp. Chron. 389. and I sidore de Vi∣ris Illustribus. So that here also the judgment and practice of your Church which she is fallen into, is publickly eondemned and written against, 1300 years ago. Should I insist on all the Testimonies that of this kind might be produced,

Antè diem clauso componet vesper olympo

than I could make an end of them. I have added this

Instance to the former, as knowing them to be the two great pillars on which the tottering fabrick of your Church is raised; and which if they were remo∣ved, the whole of it would quickly fall to the ground: and you see how long ago, they were both publickly condemned.

3. Your Papall Oecumenicall Supremacy hath two main Branches, 1. Your Popes spirituall Power over all Persons and Churches, in the things of Religion. 2. His Power over Emperors, Kings, and Potentates, in reference unto Religion; or, as you speak, in or∣dine ad spiritualia. The first your Church stumbled into by many degrees, from the dayes of Victor, who made the first notable halt to this purpose. The latter you stumbled into in the dayes of Gregory the seventh, or Hildebrand. It were endless to de∣clare how this fall of your Church hath been decla∣red, written against, opposed, condemned by Church∣es, Councels, Fathers, Princes, and learned men in all Ages. Some few evidences to this purpose, to satis∣fie your request, I shall direct you unto: It was written against and condemned by Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, and that in a Councell at Carthage, an. 258. upon an attempt made by Stephen Bishop of Rome, looking in some small degree towards that usurped Supremacy, which afterwards was attained unto. You may, if you please, there see him rebuked, and the practice of your Church condemned. The same Cyprian had done no less before, in reference unto some actings of Cornelius the predecessor of Stephen, Epist. ad Cornel. Though the pretensions of Cornelius and Stephen were modest in comparison of your present vast Claim; yet the Churches of God in those dayes could not bear them. It is prejudged in the most famous Councell of Nice, which assigned

bounds unto the Jurisdiction of Bishops, giving to severall of them equall Authority, Can. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Let the ancient Cu∣stomes be observed, that, as to Egypt, Lybia, and Penta∣polis, the Bishop of Alexandria have power over them, (or the Churches in them) for so is the custome of the Bishop of Rome, (that is, to have power over the adjoyning Churches;) likewise about Antioch, and in other Provinces, that the ancient Rights of the Churches be preserved. Your Great Pope whom you so frequently call the Pastor of Christendome, was here but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Bishop in the City or Church of Rome, or of the Church in the City of Rome. And bounds are assigned unto the Authority which he claimed by custome, as to his of Alexandria and Antioch. It is true, the Church of Alexandria hath some power assigned, ascribed, or granted unto it, above other Churches of Egypt, Lyb••a, and Pen∣tapolis, for a warranty whereof, the usage of the Roman Church in reference unto her neighbour Churches, is made use of: which to deal freely with you, and to tell you my private thoughts, was a confirmation of a disorder by your example, which you were from that day forward seldome wanting to give plenty of. So to this purpose, Concil. Antioch. Can. 13, and 15. an. 341. Concil. Constantinop. Can 2. an. 381. But this Canon of the Nicene Fathers, open∣ly condemneth and is perfectly destructive of your at present claimed Supremacy. Three Councels to∣gether in Africk, within the space of twenty years, warned your Church of her fall into this Heresie, and

opposed her attempts for the promotion of it. The first at Carthage, an. 407. which forbids all appeals. unto any beyond the Sea; which Rome was to them in Africk, no less than it is unto us in England. The next was the second Milevitan, an. 416. where the same prohibition is revived with express respect unto the See of Rome, as Binius acknowledgeth. The same order is again asserted by another Councell in Africk, wherein the pretensions of Boniface unto some kind of superintendency over other Churches, are sorely reproved, and his way of prosecuting his attempt by pretended Canons of the Councell of Nice, after great pains taken and charge disbursed in the discovery of the forgery, censured and con∣demned. All these testimonies of the condemnation of this fall of yours by Fathers and Councels you have gathered unto your hand in the Cod. Can. Conc. Afric. and by Binius, with others. Also the substance of all these Canons of Provinciall Synods is confirmed in the fourth Chapter of the Decree of the third Oe∣cumenicall Councell at Ephesus, an. 431. Act. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It seemeth good to the holy and generall Councell, that every Pro∣vince retain its Rights, pure and inviolate, which, ac∣cording unto ancient custome, it had from the beginning. The Decree, I confess, was purposely framed against the Bishop of Antioch, who had taken on him to ordain Bishops in Cyprus out of his Province; but it is built on that generall Reason, which expresly con∣demns the Roman pretensions to an unlimited Supre∣macy. The great and famous Councell of Chalce∣don, an. 451. condemned the same Heresie, and plainly overthrow the whole foundation of your Pa∣pall

plea, Act. 15. Can. 18. as the Canons of that Councell are collected by Balsamon and Zonaras; though some of them, with intolerable partiality, would separate this and some others, from the Body of the Canons of that Councell, giving them a place by themselves. The Decree contains the Reasons of the Councel's assigning priviledges next unto, and equall with, the Roman, unto the Constantinopolitan Church; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, say they, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Fathers (our Predecessors) granted priviledges to the See of ancient Rome, be∣cause that was the Imperiall City. Do you see from whence proceeded all the priviledges of the Roman throne? meerly from the grants and concessions of for∣mer Bishops; and I wish they had been liberall only of what was their own. And what was the reason of their so doing? Because the City was Imperiall; in which one sentence, both their Supremacy and the grounds of it are discarded and virtually condemned; for their pretensions are utterly inconsistent with this Synodicall determination. They proceed: for the same reason, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They (the hundred and fifty Bishops) as∣signed the same or equal Priviledges unto the holy See of new Rome, rightly determining that the City which is honoured with the Empire and Senate, should enjoy equal Priviledges in things Ecclesiasticall with the ancient Queen-Rome, or Rome regent of old, Is not your present Supremacy here sufficiently condemned, and that by as famous a Councell as ever the Christian world enjoyed? And it will not avail you, that you

fell into this Heresie fully afterwards, and not before the determination of this Councell; for he that falls into an Heresie after the determination of a Councell, is no less condemned therein, than he that fell into it before, and gave occasion to the Sentence; yea his guilt is the greater of the two, because he despised the Sentence which he knew, which the other it may be neither did, nor could foresee. I gave you an In∣stance before, how it was condemned and written against by the Brittish Church here in this Island, and many more Instances of the same nature might be added.

The Hildebrandine branch of your Supremacy, I mean the power that you challenge over Kings and Potentates, in ordine ad spiritualia, which having made some progress by insensible degrees, was en∣throned by Pope Gergory the seventh, hath as little escaped opposition, censure, and condemnation▪ as any Heresie whereinto your Church is fallen. This Gre∣gory may be accounted the chief Father of this Here∣sie, for he sicked the unshapen Monster into that ter∣rible form, wherein it hath since ranged about in the earth. What this mans Principles and Practices were, I shall not desire you to learn of Cardinall Benno, whom yet I have reason to judge the more impartiall Writer of the two, but of Cardinall Baro∣nius, who makes it his business to extoll him to the skies: Facit eum apud nos Deum, virtutes narrat, he makes almost a god of him, or at least 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Socrates tells us the Lacedaemonians called an ex∣cellent man, Plato in Menn. The chief Kingdoms of Europe, as England and Spain, with Sicilia and Sardinia, and sundry other Principalities, he claim∣ed as his own unquestionable fee. The Empire he ac∣counted his proper Care, making the deposing of

Emperors much of his business. The Principles he proceeded upon, the same Cardinall informs us of, in his Annals ad 〈◊〉〈◊〉 1076. n. 30. And he hath done well to record them, that they might be preserved In per∣petuam rei memoriam, that we might learn what your great Father exercised himself about,

Dum succus pecori & lac subducitur agnis,

whilest the poor sheep famished for want of know∣ledge and instruction. They are called Dictata Pa∣pae, and ex tripode we may not doubt, being in num∣ber twenty seven, whereof I shall mind you of a few. The first is, Quod Romana Ecclesia à solo Domino sit fundata; That the Roman Church was founded by the Lord alone. 2. Quod solus Romanus Pontifex jure vocatiur Vniversalis; That the Roman Bishop is right∣fully called Vniversall. So some think indeed, ever since Pope Gregory the first taught them, that he who assumed that Title, was a forerunner of Anti∣christ. 3. Quod ille solus possit deponere Episcopos, vel reconciliare; That he alone can depose Bishops, or restore them; which agrees well with the practice of all the Councels from that of Antioch, which depo∣sed Paulus Samosatenus. 7. Quod illi soli licet, pro temporis necessitate, novas leges condere; That he alone as necessity requires can make new Laws. Let him proceed; 8. Quod solus possit uti Imperialehus insig∣niis; He alone can use Imperiall ensigns. It is a great kindness in him doubtless to lend them to any of his neighbours, or rather subject, Kings. 9. Quod s∣lius Papo pedes omnes Principes deosculaetur; That it is the Pope alone whose feet all Princes may or ought to kiss. Yea and it is a kindness if he kick not their Crowns from their heads with his foot, as one did our King John's; or tread upon their necks, as ano∣ther

did on the Emperor Frederick's. 11. Quod unicum sit nomen in mundo, Papa scilicet; That there is only one name in the world, to wit, that of the Pope; no other name it seems given under heaven. Once more; 12. Quod illi liceat, Imperatores deponere; That it is lawfull for him to depose Emperours. I hope you will not be offended at the calling over these He∣resies, because the so doing is not suited to our pre∣sent design. I took them out of your Cardinal Ba∣ronius, in the place above quoted, who hath placed them as on a pillar, V. D. P. L. P. where they may be easily read by all men. And that you may not think that these were the Heresies of Gregory alone, the same Baronius affirms that these Dictates were con∣firmed in a Synod at Rome, whereby they became the Heresies of your whole Church. Did Peter thus feed the sheep of Christ? seeing Pasce oves meas, is the great pretence for all these exorbitances. Alas

Hic alienus oves custos his mulget in hor••

all this is but the shearing, milking, and slaying of a stranger; the shepherds being driven into corners. But have these noisome Heresies of your Church, think you, passed without controll? Was she not judged, censured, written against, and condemned in the person of her chief Pastor? You must be a very stranger unto all History, if you can imagine any such thing. A Councell assembled by the Emperor at Worms in Germany, reckons up the miscarriages of this Hildebrand, and pronounceth him deposed, with all those that adhered unto him. Another Synod, an. 1080. at Brixia in Bavaria, condemns him also for the same causes. All the Heroick Potentates of Europe, especially the Emperors of Germany, the Kings of England, and France, with whole Assem∣blies

of their Clergy, have alwayes opposed and con∣demned this branch of your Supremacy. And to this purpose, hundreds of their Laws, Decrees, Edicts, and Declarations, are at this day extant.

4. Your Pope's Personall Infallibility with the re∣quisite Qualifications, is another Hereticall Opinion that your Church hath fallen by. And herein you are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, condemned of your selves, and we need no further witness against you; you have been often taken 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the very fact. I know there is an Opinion, secretly advancing amongst some of you, whereby you would cast out of the bounds of your defence this Personall Infallibility of your Pope; but we have no more reason to esteem that opinion the Doctrine of your Church, than we have to conclude that the Jesuits new Position, asserting him Infallible in matter of fact, is so. And though I know not perfectly, what your opinion is in this mat∣ter; yet I may take a time to shew how utterly un∣serviceable unto your purpose the new way of the ex∣plication of Infallibility is. For it hath but these two generall inconveniences attending it. First, that it is not the opinion of your Church; Secondly, if that be the only Infalliblity we are to rest on, the whole claim of your Church, and its interest therein, falls to the ground; both which I hope to have an opportu∣nity to manifest. In the mean time, we take that for the Doctrine of your Church which is declared by its self so to be, which is explained and defended by her most famous Champions. And indeed, you in your Fiat, assert, as I have shewed, the Pope (Personally) to be an unerring guide, which is that we enquire after. Bel∣larmine tells us, that all Catholicks agree in these two things: 1. Pontificem, cum Generali, Concilio, non posse errare in condendis decretis fidoi, vel generalibus prae∣ceptis

morum; That the Pope with a generall Coun∣cell cannot erre in making decrees of faith, or generall precepts concerning manners. 2. Pontificem solum, vel cum suo particulari Concilio, aliquid in re dubia statuentem, sive errare possit sive non, esse ab omnibus fidelibus obedienter audiendum; All believers must willingly obey the Pope, either alone, or with his par∣ticular Councell, determining in doubtfull matters, whether he may erre or no. I confess, if this be so, and he must be obeyed, whether he do right or wrong, whether he teacheth truly or falsly, it is to no great purpose to talk of his Infallibility; for, follow him we must whither ever he leads us, though it should be to Hell. And the Catholick Pro••osition that he asserts himself, is, that, Summus Pontifex, cum totam Eccle∣siam docet in his quae ad fidem pertinent, nullo casu er∣rare potest. The Pope when he teacheth the whole Church, can in no Caseerre in those things which apper∣tain unto faith. De Rom. Pontif. lib. 4. cap. 2, 3. What a Blind that is, of teaching the whole Church, children can see. The Pope can no way teach the whole Church, but as he declares his opinion, or judgement, which may be divulged unto many, as those of another man. Let us see then, how well they have made good this their Infallibility; and how well their judgement hath been approved of by the Church of old. I will not here mind you of the De∣cree fathered on Clemens, wherein he determines that all things among Christians ought to be common; and, among them, wives; because I know, it is falsly im∣posed on him, though you may be justly charged with it, who are the Authors of those forgeries whereof that is a part. Nor shall I rake the Epistles which you ascribe unto divers of the Ancient Bishops of Rome, that are full of ignorance, errors, and pitti∣full

non-sence; because they are, questionless, Pseudo∣pigraphcall, though you who own them, may be justly charged with their follies. Nor will I much insist on the Testimony of Tertullian in his Book against Praxeas, that the Bishop of Rome owned the Prophesies of Montanus, untill Praxeas perswaded him to the Contrary; because, it may be, you will say, that perhaps Tertullian spake partially in favour of a Sect whereunto he was himself addicted; though, for ought I know, he is as sufficient a Witness in matter of fact, as any one man upon the Roll of Antiquity. But what say you to Marcellinus? Did he not sa∣crifice to Idols, which, according unto you, is a mixt misdemeanour in faith and manners, (Con. Tom. 1. Vita Marcell.) and therefore certainly a shrewd impeachment of his Infallibility: and was he not judged for it? What think you of Liberius, did he not subscribe to Arianism? Soomen tells you ex∣presly that he did so; Lib. 4. cap. 15. And so doth Athanasius Epist. ad Solitarios, giving the reason why he did so, namely out of fear. And so doth Hierome both in Script. Ecclesiast. Fortunat. and in Euseb. Chron. Pope Honorius was solemnly condemned for a Monothelite-Heretick in the sixth generall Councell, Act. 12, 13. which Sentence was afterwards ratified by your own darling, the second of Nice Act. 3 and Act. 7. and is mentioned in a decretall Epistle of Pope Leo the second. So Infallible was he during his life, so infallible was he thought to be when he was dead; whilest he lived he taught Heresie, and when he was dead, he was condemned for an Heretick, and with him the Principle which is the hindg of your present faith. Neither did Vigilius behave himself one jot better in his Chair. The Councell of Pisa deposed Gregory the twelfth, and Benedict the thir∣teenth,

for Schismaticks and Hereticks. The Coun∣cell of Constance accused John the twenty third of abominable Heresie, Sess. 11. And that of Basil con∣demned Eugenius, as one, à fide devium & perti∣nacem Haereticum, Sess. 34. an erroneous Person and obstinate Heretick. Other instances of the like na∣ture might be called over, manifesting that your Popes have erred, and been condemned as persons erroneous; and therein the Principle of their In falli∣bility.

I would be unwilling to tire your patience, yet upon your reiterated desire I shall present you with one Instance more: and I will do it but briefly, be∣cause I must deal with you again about the same mat∣ter.

5. Your Church is fallen by Idolatry; as other∣wise, so in that Religious Veneration of Images which she useth, whereunto you have added Heresie in teaching it for a Doctrine of Truth, and imposing the belief of it by your Tridentine Determination, on the Consciences of the Disciples of Christ. I know you would fain mince the matter, and spread over the corrupt Doctrine of your Church about it, with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 silken words, as you do the Posts that they are made of with Gold; when as the Prophet¦speaks of your predecessors in that work, you lavish it out of the bagge for that purpose. But to what pur∣pose? Your first Councell, the second of Nice (which yet was not wholly yours neither, for it condemns Honorius, calls Th••rnsius the Oecumenicall Patriarch, and he expounds in it, the Rock on which the Church was built to be Christ and not Peter) your last Councell that of Trent, your Angelicall Doctor Thomas of Aquine, your great Champions Bellar∣mine and Baronius, Suarez, Vasquez, and the rest of

them, with the Catholick practise and usage of your Church in all places, declare sufficiently, what is your faith or rather misbelief in this matter. Hence Azorius Institut. Lib. 9 cap. 6. tells us, that, Constans est Theologorum sententia, Imaginem èodem honore & cultu coli, quo colitur id cujus est Imago; It is the constant judgement of Divines, that the Image is to be worshipped with the same honour and worship, where∣with that is worshipped whose Image it is. The Ni∣cene Councell, by the instigation of Pope Adrian, Ana∣thematizeth every one who doth but doubt of the Adoration of Images, Act. 7. Thomas contendeth that the Cross is to be worshipped with Latria, p. 3. q. 25. a. 4. which is a word that he and you suppose to express Religious worship of the highest sort. And your Councell of Trent in their decree about this matter, confirmed the Doctrine of that Lestricall con∣vention at Nice, whose frauds and impostures were never paralleled in the world, but by it's self. And do you think that a few ambiguous flourishing words of you, an unknown person, shall make the world believe that they understand not the Doctrine and Practise of your Church, which is proclaimed unto them, by the Fathers and M••sters of your perswasi∣on herein, and expressed in practises under their eyes, every day? Do you think it so easie for you, Corni∣eum oculos configere, as Cicero tells us an Atturney, one Cn, Flavius, thought to do, in going beyond all that the great Lawyers had done before him, Orat. pro Muraena. We cannot yet be perswaded, that you are so great an Interpreter of the Roman Ora∣cles, as to believe you before all the Sages before mentioned, to whom hundreds may be added. And what do you think of this Doctrine and Practise of your Church? Hath it been opposed, judged, and

condemned, or no? The first Writers of Christiani∣ty, Just In Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Arno∣bius, Lactantius, utterly abhorred the use of all Ima∣ges, at least in Sacris. The Councell held at Elib••∣ris in Spain, tw••ve or thirteen years before the fa∣mous Assembly at Nice, positively forbid all use of Pictures in Churches, Can. 36. Plaquit, Picturas in Ecclesia esse non deb••re, ne quod colitur & adoratur in parietibus depingatur; The Councell resolved that Pictures ought not to be in Churches, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which is worship••d and adored, be not painted on walls. Cy∣prian condemns it, Epist. ad Demetriad. And so generally do all the Fathers, as may be gathered in the pittifull endeavours and forgeries of the second Nicene Councell, endeavouring to confirm it from them. Epiphanius reckons it among the errors of the Gnosticks; and himself brake an Image that he found hanging in a Church, Epist ad Johan. Hierosol. Austin was of the same judgement; see Lib. de mori•• Eccles. Cathol. cap. 34. Your Adoration of them i•• expresly condemned by Gregory the great, in an Epistle to Serinus, Lib. 7. Ep. 111, and Lib. 9. Epist. 9. The Greek Church condemned it, in a ••ynod at Constantinople, an. 775. And one learned man in those last dayes undertaking its defence, (and in∣deed the only man of learning that ever did so, un∣till of late) they excommunicated and cursed him. This was Damascenus, concerning whom they used those expressions repeated in the second Nicene Councell, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Unto Mansour of an evil name, and in judgement consenting with Saracens,

Anathema; To Mansour, a worshipper of Images and writer of Falshood, Anathema; To Mansour, contu∣melious against Christ and traytor to the Empire, Ana∣thema; To Mansour, a teacher of impiety and perverse interpreter of Scripture, Anathema Synod. Nic. 2. Act. 6. For that it was Johannes Damascenus that they intended, the Nicene Fathers sufficiently mani∣fest in the Answer following, read by Epiphanius the Deacon. And this reward did he meet withall, from the seventh Councell at Constantinople, for his pains in asserting the veneration of Images; although he did not, in that particular, pervert the Scripture as some of you do; but laid the whole weight of his opinion on Tradition, wherein he is followed by Vasquez among your selves. Moreover, the West∣ern Churches, in a great Councell at Frankeford in Germany, utterly condemned the Nicene Determina∣tion, which in your Tridentins Convention you ap∣prove and ratifie, An. 794. It was also condemned here by the Church of England, and the Doctrine of it fully confuted by Albinus, Hoveden Annal. an. 791. Never was any Heresie more publickly and so∣lemnly condemned, than this, whereby your Church is fallen from its pristine purity. But hereof more afterwards.

It were no difficult matter to procced unto all the Chief ways, whereby your Church is fallen; and to manifest that they have been all publickly disclaimed and condemned by the better and founder part of Pro∣fessors. But the Instances Insisted on, may, I hope, prove sufficient for your satisfaction. I shall there∣fore proceed to consider what you offer unto the re∣maining Principles, which I conceived to animate the whole Discourse of your Fiat Lux.

CHAP. V.

Other Principles of Fiat Lux re-examined. Things not at quiet in Religion, before Reformation of the first Reformers▪ Diparture from Rome no Cause of Devisions. Returnal unto Rome, no means of Union.

YOu proceed unto the fourth Assertion gathered out of your Fiat, which you thus lay down. It is, say you, frequently pleaded by our Author that all things, as to Religion, were ever quiet and in 〈◊〉〈◊〉, before the Protestants Relinquishment of the Roman Sea. That ever is your own addition, but let it pass; what say you hereunto? This Principle you pretind is drawn out of Fiat Lux, not because it is there, but only to open a door to your self to exspatiate into some wide generall discourse, about the many wars, distra∣ctions, alterations, that have been aforetime up and down in the world in some severall Ages of Christiani∣ty. And you thereforê say, it is frequently pleaded by me, because indeed, I never spake one word of it, and it is in truth a false and fond Assertion. Though nei∣ther you nor I can deny that such as keep unity of faith with the Church, can never, so long as they hold it, fall out upon that account. S^r, I take you to be the Author of Fiat Lux; and if you are so, I cannot but think you were a sleep when you talk'd at this rate. The Assertion is false and fond, you speak not one word of it. Pray S^r, take a little advice of your Son, Fiat, not to talk on this manner; and you will wonder your self, how you came to swallow so much confi∣dence as in the face of the world to vent such things

as these. He tells us from you, p. 234, 235, 236. Chap 4. Ed. 2. that, After the conversion of this Land by the Children of blessed S^t Benet, notwithstanding the interposition of the Norman Conquest, that all men lived peaceably together without any the least distur∣bance upon the account of Religion, untill the end of King Henry the eighth's raign, about five hundred years after the Conquest. See also what in generall you discourse of all places to this purpose, p. 221, 222, And p. 227. you do in express terms lay down the position which here you so exclaim against as false and fond; but you may make as bold with it as you please, for it is your own. Never had this Land, say you, for so many hundred years as it was Catholick upon the account of Religion any disturbance at all; whereas after the exile of the Catholick belief in our Land from the period of King Henry the seventh's Raign to these dayes, we have been in actuall disquiet or at least in fears. Estne haec tunica filii tui? Are not these your words? Doth not your Son Fiat wear this livery? And do you not speak to this purpose in twenty other places? Is it not one of the main sup∣positions you proceed upon in your whole discourse? You do well now indeed to acknowledg that what you spake was fond and false, and you might do as much for the most that you have written in that whole discourse; but now openly to deny what you have asserted, and that in so many places, that is not so well done of you. There are S^t, many wayes to free your self from that dammage you feel or fear from the Animadversions. When any thing is char∣ged on you, or proved against you which you are not able to defend; you may ingenuously acknowledg your mistake, and that without any dishonour to you at all: Good men have done so; so may you, or I,

when we have just occasion. It is none of your Tenents, that you are all of you Infallible, or that your per∣sonall mistakes or miscarriages will prejudice your Cause. Or you might pass it by, in silence, as you have done with the things of the most importance in the Animadversions, and so keep up your reputation that you could Reply to them if you would, or were free from flyes. And we know 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Menander speaks. Silence is with many the best Answer. Or, you might attempt to disprove or answer, as the case requires. But this, that you have fixed upon, of denying your own words, is the very worst course that you could have chosen, upon the account either of Conscience or Reputation. However thus much we have obtained; One of the chief pretences of your Fiat is by your own confes∣sion, false and fond. It is indeed no wonder that it should be so, it was fully proved to be so, in the Ani∣madversions; but that you should acknowl••dge it to be so, is somewhat strange; and it would have been very welcome news, had you plainly owned your con∣viction of it, and not renounced your own off-spring. But I see you have a mind to the benefit you aymed at by it, though you are ashamed of the way you used for the obtaining of it; and therefore adde; That neither you, nor I, can deny that such as keep the unity of faith with that Church, can never, so long as they hold it, fall out on that account. But this, on the first consideration, seems to mee no very singular Privi∣ledge; me-thinks a Turk, a few, an Arian, may say the same of their Societies: It being no more but this. So long as you agree with us, you shall be sure to agree with us. They must be very unfriendly minded to∣wards you, that will call these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into que∣stion. Yet there remains still one Scruple on my

mind, in reference unto what you assert. I am not sa∣tisfied that there is in your Church, any such unity of faith, as can keep men from falling out, or differing in and about the Doctrines and Opinions they profess. If there be, the children of your Church are mar∣vellous morose, that they have not all this while learn∣ed to be quiet; but are at this very day writing vo∣lumes against one another, and procuring the Books of one another to be prohibited and condemned, which the writings of one of the learnedest of you in this Nation, have fately not escaped. I know you will say sometimes, that though you differ, yet you differ not in things belonging unto the unity of faith. But I fear, this is but a Blind, an Apron of Fig-leaves. What you cannot agree in, be it of never so great im∣portance, you will agree to say, that it belongs not unto the unity of faith; when things no way to be compared in weight and use with them, so you agree about them, shall be asserted so to do. And in what you differ, whilest the scales of Interest on the part of the combatanfs hang eeven, all your differences are but in School and disputable points. But if one party prevail in Interest and Reputation, and render their Antagonists inconsiderable as to any outward trou∣ble, those very Points that before were disputable, shall be made necessary, and to belong to the Vnity of Faith; as it lately happened in the Case of the Jan∣senists. And here you are safe again; The Unity of the Faith is that which you agree in; and that which you cannot agree about belongs not unto it, as you tell us, though you talk at another rate among your selves. But wee must think, that the Unity of Faith is bounded by the confines of your wranglements; and your agreement is the Rule of it. This, it may be, you think suits your turn: but whether it be so well suit∣ed

unto the Interest of the Gospell and of Truth, you must give men leave to enquire, or they will do it ingrati, whether you will or no. But if by the Uni∣ty of Faith you intend the substantiall Doctrines of the Gospell, proposed in the Scripture to be believed on necessity unto Salvation; it is unquestionably among all the Churches in the world, and might possibly be brought forth into some tolerable communion in Pro∣fession and Practice, did not your Schismaticall Interest and Principles interpose themselves to the contrary.

The fifth Supposition in your Fiat, observed in the Animadversions, is, That the first Reformers were most of them contemptible Persons, their Means indirect, and their Ends sinister: To which you reply, Where is it S^t, where is it, that I meddle with any mens per∣sons, or say they are contemptible? what and how ma∣ny are those Persons, and where did they live? But this you adde of your own is in a vast universall notion, to the end you may bring in the Apostles and Prophets, and some Kings into the list of Persons by mesur named contemptible; and liken my speech who never spake any such thing, to the Sarcasms of Celsus, Lucian, Por∣phyry, Julian, and other Pagans. So you begin; but ne savi, magne Sacerdos! Have a little patience and I will direct you to the places where you display in ma∣ny words that which in a few I represented. They are in your Fiat, Chap. 4. §. 18. 2. edit. from pag. 239, unto §. 20. p. 251. Had you lost your Fiat, that you make such an outcry after that which in a moment he could have supplyed you withall? Calvin, and a Taylors Widdow, Luther and Catherine Bore, pleased with a naked Vnicorn, swarms of Reformers as thick as Grashoppers, fallen Priests and Votaries, am∣bitious heads, emulating one another, if not the worst,

yet none of the best that ever were, so eagerly quarrel∣ling among themselves, that a sober man would not have patience to hear their Sermons, or read their Books; with much more to the same purpose you will find in the places, which I have now directed you unto. But I see you love to say what you please, but not to hear of it again. But he that can in no more words more truely express the full and genuine sense of your eighteenth and nineteenth Chapter than I have done, in the Assertion you so cry out against, shall have my thanks for his pains; Only I must mind you that you have perverted it, in placing the last words, as if they referred unto the Reformers you talk of, that they did their work for sinister Ends, when I only said, that their Doctrine according to their Insinuations was received for sinister Ends, wherein I comprized your foul reflections upon King Henry the Eighth and Queen Elizabeth his Daughter, not placing them as you now faign among the number of them, whom I affirmed to be reported by you as a company of Contemptible Persons. But now upon a confidence that you have shifted your hands of a necessity to re-inforce this Assertion, which you find, it may be, in your self an incompetency for, you reflect back upon some former passages in the Animadversions, where∣in the generall Objections that you lay against Prote∣stancy, are observed to be the same for substance that long ago were by Celsus objected unto Christi∣anity: And say; So likewise in the very beginning of this your second Chapter you spend four leaves, in a parallel betwixt mee and the Pagan Celsus, where of there is not any member of it true. Doth Fiat Lux say, you lay the cause of all the troubles, disorders, tumults, warres within the Nations of Europe upon Prote∣stants? doth he charge the Protestants that by their

schisms and seditions, they make a way for other re∣volts? doth he gather a Rhapsody of insignificant words? doth he insist upon their divisions? doth he mannage the Arguments of the jews against Christ, &c? so doth Celsus who is confuted by Origen. Where does Fiat Lux, where does, does he, does he, any such thing? Are you not ashamed to talk at this rate. I give a hint indeed of the Divisions that be amongst us, and the frequent argumentations that are made to embroyl and pusle one another; with our much evil and little ap∣pearance of any good in order unto unity and peace, which is the end of my discourse. But must I therefore be Celsus? Did Celsus any such thing to such an end? It is the end that moralizeth and specifies the action. To diminish Christianity by upbraiding our frailties is paganish: to exhort to unity, by representing the incon∣venience of faction, is a Christian and pious work When honest Protestants in the Pulpit speak ten times more full and vehemently against the divisions, warres, and contentions that be amongst us, than ever came into my thoughts, must they therefore every one of them be a Celsus, a Pagan Celsus? What stuff is this? But it is not only my defamation you aym at; your own glory comes in the reer. If I be Celsus, the Pagan Celsus; you then, forsooth, must be Origen that wrote against him, honest Origen; that is the thing. Pray S^t, it is but a word, let me advise you by the way, that you do not forget your self in your heat, and give your Wife occa∣sion to fall out with you. However you may, yet will not your Wife like it perhaps so well, that her Husband should be Origen. Such trash as this, must he consi∣der, who is forced to have to do with you. These, it seems, are the meditations you are conversant with in your retirements. What little regard you have in them unto Truth or honesty, shall quickly be disco∣vered

unto you. 1. Do I compare you with Celsus, or do I make you to be Celsus? I had certainly been very much mistaken, if I had done so, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to compare a Person of so small abilities in literature, as you discover your self so to be, with so learned a Philosopher, had been a great Mistake. And I wish you give me not occasion to think you as much Infe∣riour unto him in morals, as I know you are in your intellectuals. But, S^r, I no where compare you unto him; but only shew a co-incidence of your objections against Protestancy, with some of his against Chri∣stianity, which the likeness of your Cause and inte∣rest cast you upon. 2. I did not say, You had the same end with him: I expressed my thoughts to the con∣trary; nor did compare your act and his, in point of Morality; but only shewed, as I said before, a Co-incidence in your Reasonings. This you saw and read, and now in an open defiance of Truth and Ingenuity express the contrary. Celsus would not have done so. But I must tell you S^r, you are mistaken, if you suppose that the end doth so absolutely moralize an action, that it of its self, should render it good or evil. Evil it may, but good of its self it cannot. For, Bonum ori∣tur ex integris causis, malum ex quolibet defectu. Recti∣fying the intention will not secure your morality. And yet also, on second thoughts, that I see not much difference between the ends that Celsus proposed un∣to himself upon his generall Principle, and those that you propose to your self upon your own; as well as the way whereby you proceed is the same. But yet upon the accounts before mentioned, I shall free you from your fears of being thought like him. 3. When Protestants preach against our Divisions, they charge them upon the Persons of them that are guilty; whereas you do it, on the Principles of the Religion

that they profess; so that although you may deal like Celsus, they do not. 4. The scurrilous Sarcasm wherewith you close your Discourse, is not meet for any thing but the entertainment of a Friar and his Concubine, such as in some places formerly men have by publick Edicts forced you to maintain, as the on∣ly Expedient to preserve their families from being de∣filed by you. 5. Let us now pass through the Instan∣ces that you have culled out of many, charged upon you, to be the same with those of Celsus, concerning which you make such a trebled Outcry, does he, does he, does he. The first is, Doth Fiat Lux lay the cause of all Tumults and Disorders on Protestants: clames licet & mare coelo confundas, Fiat Lux doth so, chap. 4. §. 17. p. 237. §. 18. p. 242, 243. §. 20. p. 255. and in sundry other places. You adde; Doth he charge Pro∣testants that by their schisms and seditions they make way for other revolts? He doth so, and that frequent∣ly, chap. 3. §. 14. p. 187, &c. Doth he, you adde, ga∣ther a Rhapsody of insignificant words, as did Celsus. I say he doth, in the pretended plea that he insists on for Quakers and for Presbyterians also, chap. 3. §. 13. p. 172, 173, &c. Again; Doth he manage the Argu∣ments of the Jews against Christianity as was done by Celsus? He doth, directly, expresly, and at large, chap. 3. §. 12. p. 158. &c. I confess, because it may be you know it not, you might have questioned the truth of my parallel on the side that concerned Celsus, which yet I am ready at any time if you shall so do, to give you satisfaction in; but, that you would question it on your own part, when your whole discourse and the most of the passages in it, make it so evident, I could not foresee. But your whole Defence is nothing but a noise or an outery, to deter men from coming nigh you to see how the Case stands with you. It will not

serve your turn, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, you must abide by what you have done, or fairly retract it. In the mean time, I am glad to find you ashamed of that which elswhere you so much boast and glory in.

With the sixth and seventh Principles mentioned by me, you deal in like manner. You deny them to be yours; which is plainly to deny your self to be the Author of Fiat Lux. And surely every man that hath once looked seriously into that Discourse of yours, will be amazed to hear you saying that you never asserted, Our Departure from Rome to be the Cause of the Evils among Protestants; or that, There is no Remedy for them, but by a Returnal thither again, which are the things that now you deny to be spoken or intended by you. For my part, I am now so used unto this kind of Confidence, that nothing you say, or deny, seems strange unto me. And whereas unto your Denial you adde not any thing that may give occasion unto any usefull Discourse. I shall pass it by, and proceed unto that which will afford us some better advantage unto that purpose.

CHAP. VI.

Further Vindication of the second Chapter of th•• Animadversions. Scripture sufficient to settle men in the Truth. Instance against it, examin∣ed, removed. Principles of Protestants and Ro∣manists in reference unto Moderation, compared and discussed.

THe eighth Principle, which way soever it be de∣termined is of great importance, as to the Cause under debate. Here then we shall stay a while, and examine the difficulties which you labour to entan∣gle that Assertion withall, which we acknowledge to be the great and Fundamentall Principle of our Pro∣fession, and you oppose. The Position I laid down as yours is, That the Scripture on sundry accounts is in sufficient to settle us in the Truth of Religio••, or to bring us to an agreement amongst our selves. Here∣unto I subjoyned the four heads of Reasons, which, in your Fiat, you insisted on to make good your As∣sertion. These you thought meet to pass by, with∣out reviving them again to your further disadvan∣tage. You are acquainted, it seems, with the old Rule,

—Et quà Desperat tractata nitescere posse, relinquit.

The Position its self you dare not directly deny, but yet seek what you can to wave the owning of it, con∣trary to your express Discourse, Chap. 3. §. 15. p. 199, 200, &c. as also in sundry other places, interwo∣ven with expressions exceedingly derogatory to the Authority, Excellency, Efficacy, and fullness of the

Scripture, as hath been shewed in the Animadversi∣ons. But let us now consider what you plead for your self. Thus then you proceed: You speak not one word to the purpose, or against me at all, if I had delivered any such Principle. Gods Word is both the sufficient and only necessary means of both our Conversi∣on and Settlement, as well in Truth as Vertue. But the thing you heed not, and unto which I only speak, is this, that the Scripture be in two hands, for example, of the Protestant Church in England, and of the Pu∣ritan who with the Scripture rose up and rebelled against her, Can the Scripture alone of its self decide the business. How shall it do it? has it ever done it? Or can that written Word now solitary, and in private hands, so settle any in a way that neither himself nor present adherents, nor future generations shall question it, or with as much probability dissent from it either to∣tally or in part, as himself first set it. This is the Case unto which you do neither here, nor in your whole Book, speak one word; and what you speak otherwise of the Scriptures excellency I allow it for Good.

1. Because you are not the only Judge of what I have written, nor indeed any competent Judge of it at all, I shall not concern my self in the Censure which your Interest compells you to pass upon it. It is left unto the thoughts of those who are more im∣partial. 2. Setting aside your Instance pitched on ad invidiam only, with some aequivocall expressi∣ons, as must needs be thought, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, very artificially to be put into the state of a Question, and that which you deny is this, that where any persons or Churches are at variance or difference about any thing concerning Religion or the worship of God, the Scripture is not sufficient for the Vmpirage of that Difference, so that they may be reconciled and center in the Profession

of the same Truth. I wish you would now tell me, what discrepancy there is between the Assertion which I ascribed unto you, and that which your self here avow. I suppose they are in substance the same, and as such will be owned by every one that under∣stands any thing of the matters about which we treat. And this is so spoken unto in the Animadversions, that you have no mind to undertake the examination of it; but labour to divert the discourse, unto that which may appear something else, but indeed is not so. 3. For your Distinction between Protestants and Puritans in England, I know not well what to make of it. I know no Puritans in England that are not Protestants, though all the Protestants in England do not absolutely agree in every punctilio relating to Religion, nor in all things relating unto the outward worship of God, no more than did the Churches in the Apostles dayes, or than your Ca∣tholicks do. You give us then a Distinction like that which a man may give between the Church of Rome, and the Jesuits or Dominicans; or the Sons of S^t. Benet, or of S^t Francis of Assize. A Distinction or Distribution of the Genus into the Genus and one Species comprehended under it; as if you should have said that Animal is either Animal or Homo. 4. Though I had rather therefore that you had pla∣ced your Instance between the Church of Rome and Protestants, yet because any instance of Persons that have different Apprehensions about things belonging to the worship of God, will suffice us as to the pre∣sent purpose, I shall let it pass. Only I desire you once more that when you would endeavour to ren∣der any thing, way, or acting of men odious; that you would forbear to cast the Scripture into a Copartner∣ship therein, which here you seem to do. The Pu∣ritan,

you say, with the Scripture rose up and rebel∣led. Rebellion is the name of an outragious Evil, such as the Scripture giveth not the least Countenance un∣to. And therefore when you think meet to charge it upon any, you may do well not to say, that they do it with the Scripture. It will not be to your com∣fort or advantage so to do. This is but my advice, you may do as you see cause.

—Tales Casus Cassandra canebat.

5. The Differences you suppose and look upon as undeterminable by the Scripture, are about things that in themselves really and in truth belong unto Christian Religion, or such as do not so indeed, but are only fancied by some men so to do. If they are of this latter sort, as the most of the Controversies which we have with you are, as about your Mass, Purgatory, the Pope; we account that all Differen∣ces about them are sufficiently determined in the Scri∣ptures, because they are no where mentioned in them. And this must needs be so, if the Word of God be, as you here grant, the sufficient and only means both of our Conversion and Settlement as well in Truth as in Vertue. S^r I had no sooner written these words, in that haste, wherein I treat with you, but I suspected a necessity of craving your pardon, for supposing my Inference confirmed by your Concession. For whereas you had immediately before, set down the Assertion supposed to be yours about the Scri∣ptures, you adde the words now mentioned, Gods, Word is the sufficient and only means of our Conversion and Settlement in the Truth. I did not in the least suspect that you intended any Legerdemain in the bu∣siness; but that the Scripture and Gods Word had been only various denominations with you of the

same precise Thing, as they are with us. Only I confess at the first view, I wondred how you could reconcile this Assertion with the known Principles of your Church; and besides, I knew it to be perfectly destructive of your design in your following Enquiry. But now I fear you play hide and seek in the ambigui∣ty your Church hath put upon that Title Gods Word, which it hath applyed unto your unwritten Traditi∣ons, as well as unto the written Word; as the Jews apply the same term unto their Orall Law. And therefore, as I said before, I crave your pardon, for supposing my Inference confirmed by your Concessi∣on, wherein I fear I was mistaken, and only desire you that for the future, you would speak your mind plainly, and candidly, as it becomes a Christian and Lover of Truth to do. But my Assertion I esteem never the worse, though it have not the happiness to enjoy your approbation; especially considering that in the particular Instances mentioned, there are ma∣ny things delivered in Scripture, inconsistent with, and destructive of your notions about them, suffici∣ent to exterminate them from the Confines of the Ci∣ty of God. 6. Suppose the matters in difference do really belong unto Religion and the worship of God, and that the Difference lyes only in mens va∣rious Conceptions of them, you ask, Can the Scri∣pture alone of its self decide the business? What do you mean by alone of its self? If you mean, without mens application of themselves unto it, and subjecting of their Consciences unto its Authoritative decisions; neither it, nor any thing else, can do it. The matter its self is perfectly stated in the Scripture, whether any men take notice of it or no: but their various apprehensions about it, must be regulated by their applications unto it, in the way mentioned. On

this only Supposition, that those who are at variance about things which really appertain unto the Religi∣on of Jesus Christ, will refer the determination of them unto the Scripture, and bring the Con••eptions of their minds to be regulated thereby; standing unto its Arbitriment, it is able alone and of its self to end all their differences, and settle them all iu the Truth. This hath been proved unto you a thousand times, and confirmed by most clear Testimonies of the Scri∣pture its self, with Arguments taken from its Na∣ture, Perfection, and the End of its giving forth un∣to men; as also from the practise of our Lord Jesus and his Apostles, with their directions and com∣mands given unto us for the same Purpose; from the Practise of the First Churches, with innumerable Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers and Doctors. Neither can this be denied without that horrible De∣rogation from its Perfection and Plenitude, so reve∣renced by them of old, which is objected unto you, for your so doing. Protestants suppose the Scripture to be given forth by God, to be unto the Church, ••a perfect Rule of that Faith and Obedience, which he requires at the hands of the sons of men. They sup∣pose that it is such a Revelation of his Mind or Will, as is intelligible unto all them that are concerned to know it, if thy use the means by him appointed to come unto a right understanding of it. They sup∣pose that what is not taught therein, or not taught so clearly, as that men who humbly and heartily seek unto him, may know his mind therein, as to what he requireth of them, cannot possibly be the ne∣cessary and indispensable Duty of any one to perform. They suppose that it is the Duty of every man to search the Scriptures with all diligence, by the help and assistance of the means that God hath appointed

in his Church to come to the knowledg of his mind and will in all things concerning their Faith and Obedience, and firmly to believe and adhere unto what they find revealed by him. And they moreover suppose that those who deny any of these Supposi∣tions, are therein, and so farre as they do so, injurious to the Grace, Wisedem, Love, and Care of God towards his Church, to the Honour and perfection of the Scripture, the Comfort and establishment of the Souls of men, leaving them no assured Principles to build their Faith and Salvation upon. Now from these Suppositions I hope you see that it will una∣voidably follow, that the Scripture is able every way to effect that, which you deny unto it a sufficiency for. For where, I pray you, lyes its defect? I am afraid, from the next part of your Question, Has it ever done it, that you run upon a great mistake. The defect that follows the failings and miscarriages of men, you would have imputed unto the want of sufficiency in the Scripture. But wee cannot allow you herein. The Scripture in its place, and in that kind of Cause which it is, is as sufficient to settle men, all men, in the Truth, as the Sunne is to give light to all men to see by: But the Sunne that giveth light doth not give eyes also. The Scripture doth its work, as a Morall Rule, which men are not necessitated or compelled to attend unto or follow. And if through their neglect of it, or not attendance unto it, or dis∣ability to discern the mind and will of God in it, whether proceeding from their naturall impotency and blindness in their laps'd condition, or some evil habit of mind contracted by their giving admission unto corrupt prejudices and Traditionall Principles, the work be not effected; this is no impeachment of the Scriptures sufficiency, but a manifestation of their

weakness and folly. Besides, all that unity in faith that hath been at any time or is in the world accor∣ding to the mind of God, every Decision that hath been made at any time of any difference in or about Religion in a right way and order, hath been by the Scripture, which God hath sanctified unto those ends and purposes. And it is impossible that the miscarriages or defects of men can reflect the least blame upon it, or make it esteemed insufficient for the end now enquired after. The pursuit then of your Enquiry which now you insist upon, is in part vain, in part already answered. In vain it is that you enquire whether the written Word can settle any man in a way that neither himself, nor present adherents, nor future Generations shall question: For our enquiry is not after what may be, or what shall be, but what ought to be. It is able to settle a man in a way, that none ought to question unto the worlds end: So it setled the first Christians. But to secure us that none shall ever question the way whereinto it leads us; that it is not designed for, nor is it either needfull or possible that it should be so: The Orall preaching of the Sonne of God, and of his Apostles, did not so secure them whom they taught. The way that professed, was every where questioned, contradicted, spoken against, and many, after the profession of it, again renounced it: And I wonder what feat you have to settle any one in a way that shall never be questioned. The Authority of your Pope and Church will not do it: Themselves are things as highly que∣stioned and disputed about, as any thing that was ever named with reference unto Religion. If you shall say, But yet they ought not to be so questioned, and it is the fault of men that they are so: You may well spare me the labour of answering your Question,

seeing you have done it your self. And whereas you adde, or with as much probability dissent from it either totally or in part, as himself first set it, when the very preceding words do not speak of a mans own setting, but of the Scriptures setling, the man only embracing what that setleth and determineth: It is answered already; that what is so setled by the Scri∣pture, and received as setled, cannot justly be que∣stioned by any. And you insinuate a most irrationall Supposition on which your Assertion is built, namely that Errour may have as much probability as Truth. For I suppose you will grant, that what is setled by the Scripture is true, and therefore that which dis∣sents from it must needs be an errour; which that it may be as probable indeed as Truth (for we speak not of appearances, which have all their strength from our weaknesses) is a new notion which may well be added to your many other of the like rarity and evidence. But, why is not the Scripture able to settle men in unquestionable Truth? When the people of old doubted about the wayes of God wherein they ought to walk, himself sends them to the Law and to the Testimony for their instruction and settlement, Isa 8. 20. And we think the counsell of him, who can∣not deceive nor be deceived, is to be hearkned unto, as well as his command to be obeyed. Our Saviour assures us, that if men will not hear Moses and the Prophets, and take direction from them for those wayes wherein they may please God, they will not do it, whatsoever they pretend from any other means, which they rather approve of, Luk. 16. 29, 31. Yea and when the great Fundamental of Christian Reli∣gion, concerning the Person of the Messiah, was in question, he sends men for their settlement unto the Scriptures, Joh. 5. 39. And we suppose that that

which is sufficient to settle us in the foundation, is so, to confirm us also in the whole superstructure. Espe∣cially considering that it is able to make the man of God perfect, and to be thoroughly furnished unto all good works, 2 Tim. 3. 16, 17. What more is required unto the settlement of any one in Religion wee know not; nor what can rationally stand in competition with the Scripture to this purpose; seeing that is expresly commended unto us for it by the Holy Ghost, other wayes are built on the conjectures of men. Yea the Assurance which we may have here∣by is preferred by Peter, before that which any may have by an immediate voyce from Heaven, 2 Pet. 1. 19. And is it not an unreasonable thing, now for you to come and tell us, that the Scripture is not suffi∣cient to give us an unquestionable settlement in Reli∣gion? Whether it be meet to hearken unto God or men, judge you. For our parts, wee seek not for the foundation of our settlement, in long uncertain dis∣courses, doubious conclusions and inferences, fallible conjectures, sophisticall reasonings, such as you would call us unto; but in the express direction and command of God. Him we can follow, and trust unto without the least fear of miscarriage; Whither you would lead us wee know not, and are not wil∣ling to make desperate experiments in things of so high concernment. But since you have been pleased to overlook what hath been discoursed unto this pur∣pose in the Animadversions, and with your usuall confidence to affirm, that I no where at all speak one word to the Case that you proposed, I shall for your further satisfaction give you a little enlargement of my thoughts, as to the Principles on which Prote∣stants and Romanists proceed in these matters, and compare them together, that it may be seen whether

of us build on the most stable and adequate foundation as to the superstruction aymed at, by us both.

Two things you profess, if I mistake not, to ayme at in your Fiat, at least you pretend so to do; 1. Mo∣deration in and about our differences whilest they continue: 2. The reduction of all dissenters unto an unity in faith and Profession: Things no doubt great and excellent: He can be no Christian that aymes not at them, that doth not earnestly desire them. You profess to make them your Design: Pro∣testants do so also. Now let us consider whether of the two, you or they, are fitted with Principles accor∣ding unto the diversity of Professions wherein you are engaged, for the regular accomplishment and effecting of these ends: And in the consideration of the latter of them, you will find your present Case fully and clearly resolved.

For the first, of Moderation, I intend by it, and I think so do you also, the mutuall forbearance of one another, as to any effects of hatred, enmity, or ani∣mosities of any kind, attended with offices of Love, Charity, Kindness, and Compassion, proceeding from a frame of heart or gracious habit of mind na∣turally producing such effects, with a quiet, peace∣able deportment towards one another, during our present differences in, or about any thing in Religion. Certainly, this Moderation is a blessed thing; ear∣nestly commended unto us by our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and as necessary to preserve peace among Christians, as the Sunne in the firmament is to give light unto the world. The very Heathen could say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Moderation is the life of all things, and nothingis durable but from the Influence which it receives from it. Now in pressing after mo∣deration Protestants proceed chiefly on two Principles,

which being once admitted make it a Duty indispen∣sable: And I can assure you that no man will long follow after moderation, but only he that looks upon it as his Duty so to do: Incident provocations will quickly divert them in their course, who pursue it for any other ends, or on any other accounts.

The first Principle of the Protestants disposing them to moderation and indispensably exacting it of them as their Duty, is, that amongst all the Professours of the Name of Christ who are known by their Re∣lation unto any Church or Way of Note or Mark in the world, not actually condemned in the Primi∣tive or Apostolicall times, there is so much saving Truth owned and taught, as being received with faith, and submitted unto with sincere obedience, is sufficient to give them that profess it an Interest in Christ, and in the Covenant of Grace, and Love of God, and to secure their salvation, This Principle hath been openly defended by them, and I profess it to be mine. It is true, there are wayes whereby the Truth mentioned may be rendred ineffectuall; but that hinders not, but that the Principle is true, and that the Truth so received is sufficient for the produ∣cing of those effects in its kind and place. And let men ptetend what they please, the last day will dis∣cover, that that Faith which purifieth the heart, and renders the person in whom it is, accepted to God by Jesus Christ, may have its objective Truths confined in a very narrow compass; yet it must embrace all that is indispensably necessary to salvation. And it is an unsufferable Tyranny over the Souls and Consci∣ences of men, to introduce and assert a necessity of believing, whatever this or that Church, any or in∣deed all Churches shall please to propose. For, the proposall of all the Churches in the world cannot

make any thing to be necessary to be believed, that was not so antecedently unto that proposall. Church∣es may help the faith of Believers, they cannot bur∣then it, or exercise any dominion over it. He that believeth that whatever God reveales is true, and that the holy Scripture is a perfect Revelation of his mind and will, (wherein almost all Christians agree,) need not fear that he shall be burdened with multi∣tudes of particular Articles of Faith? provided he do his Duty in sincerity, to come to an acquaintance with what God hath so revealed. Now if mens common Interest in Christ their head, and thereby their par∣ticipation of the same Spirit from him, with their union in the bond of the Covenant of Grace, and an equall sharing in the Love of God the Father, be the Principles, and, upon the matter, the only grounds and reasons of that speciall Love without dissimulation which Christians ought to bear one towards another, from whence the moderation pleaded for must pro∣ceed, or it is a thing of no use, in our present case, at least no way generally belonging to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; and if all these things may be obtained by vertue of that Truth which is professed in com∣mon among all known Societies of Christians, doth it not unavoidably follow, that we ought to exercise moderation towards one another, however differing in or about things which destroy not the Principles of Love and Union: Certainly we ought, unless we will resolvedly stifle the actings of that Love, which is implanted in all the Disciples of Christ, and besides live in an open disobedience unto his commands. This then indispensably exacts moderation in Prote∣stants towards them that differ from them, and that not only within the lines of Protestancy; because they believe, that, notwithstanding that dissent, they

have, or may have for ought they know, an interest in those things; which are the only reasons of that Love which is required in them towards the Disciples of Christ. There is a moderation proceeding from the Principles of Reason in generall, and requisite unto our common interest in humanity; which is good, and an especiall ornament unto them in whom it is; especially if they are Persons exalted above o∣thers in place of Rule and Goveanment. Men fierce, implacable, revengefull, impatient, treading down all that they dislike under their feet, are the greatest defacers of the Image of God in the world, and up∣on the matter the only troublers of humane Society. But the moderation which the Gospel requireth, ari∣seth and proceedeth from the Principles of Vnion with Christ before mentioned; which is that, that proves us Disciples of Christ indeed, and will con∣firm the mind in suitable actings, against all the pro∣vocations to the Contrary, which from the infirmi∣ties and miscarriages of men we are sure to meet withall. Neither doth this at all hinder but that we may contend earnestly for the Truth delivered unto us, and labour, by the wayes of Christ's appointment, to reclaim others from such opinions, wayes, and practi∣ses, in and about the things of Religion and worship of God, as are injurious unto his Glory, and may be destructive and pernicious to their own souls. Nei∣ther doth it in the least put any discouragement upon endeavours, to oppose the impiety and Prophaneness of men in their corruption in life and Conversation, which certainly and unquestionably are inconsistent with, and destructive of the Profession of the Go∣spel, let them on whom they are found, be of what party, Church, or way of Religion they please. And if those in whose hearts are the wayes of God, how∣ever

diversifyed among themselves by various appre∣hensions of some Doctrines and Practises, would sin∣cerely according to their Duty set themselves to op∣pose that prophaneness, wickedness of Life, or open vitiousness of Conversation, which is breaking in like a flood upon the world, and which as it hath al∣ready almost drowned the whole glory of Christian Religion, so it will undoubtedly, if not prevented end in the woful calamity and finall ruine of Chri∣stendome, they would have less mind and leasure to wrangle fiercely among themselves, and breathe out destruction against one another, for their mistakes, and differences about things, which by their own experience they find not to take off from their Love to Christ, nor weaken the obedience he requires at their hands. But whilest the whole power of Christianity is despised, Conversion to God, and separation from the wayes of the perishing World are set at nought, and men think, they have nothing to do in Religion, but to be zealously addicted to this or that party amongst them that profess it, it is no wonder if they think their chiefest Duty to consist in destroying one another. But for men that profess to be leaders and guides of others in Christian Religion, openly to per∣sue carnall and worldly interests, greatness, wealth, outward Splendour, and Pomp, to live in Luxury and pride, to labour to strengthen and support them∣selves by the adherence of Persons of prophane and wicked lives, that so they may destroy all that in any opinion differ from themselves, is, vigorously to en∣deavour to drive out of the world that Religion which they profess; and in the mean time to render it so un∣omely and undesirable, that others must needs be dis∣couraged from its embracement. But these things can∣not spring from the Principles of Protestants, which as I

have manifested lead them unto other manner of act∣ings. And it is to no purpose to ask, why then they are not all affected accordingly. For they that are not so, do live in an open contradiction to their own avowed Principles; which that it is no news in the world, the vicious lives of many in all places profes∣sing Christianity, will not suffer us to doubt. For though that Religion which they profess, reacheth them to deny all ungodliness and wordly lusts, to live soberly, and righteously, and godlily in this present world, if they intend the least benefit by it, yet they will hold the profession of it in a contrary practise. And for this self-deceiving attended with eternall ru∣ine, many men are beholding unto such notions as yours about your Church, securing Salvation within the pale of its externall Communion, laying little weight on the things which at the last day will only stand them in stead. But for Protestants, setting aside their occasionall exasperations, when they begin to bethink themselves, they cannot satisfie their own Consciences in a resolution, not to love them, be∣cause of some differences, whom they believe that God loves, or may love, notwithstanding those Differ∣rences from them: or to renounce all Vnion with them, who they are perswaded are united unto Christ; or not to be moderate towards them in this world, with whom they expect to live for ever in another. I speak only of them on all sides, who have received into their hearts, and do express in their lives the Spirituall Power and energy of the Go∣spel, who are begotten unto Christ by the Word of Truth, and have received of his Spirit promised in the Covenant of Grace unto all them that believe on him. For, not to dissemble with you, I believe all others as to their present state to be in the same con∣dition

before God; be they of what Church or way they will, though they are not all in the same condi∣tion in respect of the means for their Spirituall advan∣tage which they enjoy or may do so, they being much more excellent in some Societies of Christians than others. This then, to return, is the Principle of Protestants, derived down unto them from Christ and his Apostles, and hereby are they eminently fur∣nished for the exercise of that moderation, which you so much, and so deservedly commend. And, more fully to tell you my private judgement, which whe∣ther it be my own only I do not much concern my self to enquire, but this it is; Any man in the world who receiveth the Scripture of the Old and New Te∣stament, as the Word of God, and on that account assents in generall to the whole Truth revealed in them, worshipping God in Christ, and yeelding obe∣dience unto him answerable unto his light and Con∣viction, not contradicting his profession by any pra∣ctise inconsistent with true piety, nor the owning of any opinion or perswasion destructive to the known fundamentals of Christianity; though he should have the unhappiness to dissent in some things from all the Churches that are at this day in the world, may yet have an internall supernaturall saving Principle of his faith and obedience, and be undoubtedly saved. And I am sure, it is my Duty to exercise Moderati∣on towards every man, concerning whom I have, or ought to have, that Perswasion.

2. Some Protestants are of that judgement that ex∣ternall force ought to have no place at all in matters of faith; however Laws may be constituted with Pe∣nalties for the preservation of publick outward order in a Nation, most of them, that Hareticidium or putting men to death for their misapprehensions in the

things of God is absolutely unlawfull; and all of them, that Faith is the Gift of God, for the communicati∣on whereof unto men, he hath appointed certain means, whereof externall force is none. Unto which Two last Positions, not only the greatest Protestant, but the greatest Potentate in Europe, hath lately in his own words, expressive of an heavenly benignity to∣wards mankind in their infirmities, declared his Roy∣all Assent. And I shall somewhat question the Pro∣testancy of them, whom his Authority, Example, and Reason, doth not conclude, in these things. For my part I desire no better, I can give no greater warrant to assert them as the Principles of Protestants, than what I have now acquainted you with. And it is no small satisfaction unto me to contemplate on the hea∣venly Principle of Gospel peace, planted in the noble soyl of Royall Ingenuity and Goodness, whence fruit may be expected to the great profit and advantage of the whole world. Now it is easie to discover the na∣turall and genuine tendency of these Principles to∣wards Moderation. Indeed in acting according un∣to them, and in a regular consistency with them con∣sists the Moderation which we treat about. Where∣ever then Protestants use not that Moderation to∣wards those that dissent from them if otherwise pea∣ceable, which the Lord Jesus requires his Disciples to exercise towards all them that profess the same com∣mon hope with them, the fault is solely in the Per∣sons so offending; and is not countenanced from any Principles which they avow. Whether it be so with those of your Church, shall now be considered.

1. You have no one Principle that you more per∣tinaciously adhere unto, nor which yeelds you great∣er advantage with weak unstable souls, than that whereby you confine all Christianity within the bounds

of your own Communion, The Roman Church and the Catholick are with you, one and the same. No Priviledge of the Gospell you suppose, belongs unto any soul in the world, who lives not in your Com∣munion, and in professed subjection unto the Pope. Vnion with Christ, saving Faith here, with salva∣tion hereafter, belongs to no other, no not one. This is the moderation of your Church, whereunto your outward actings have for the most part been suited. Indeed, by this one Principle, you are ut∣terly incapacitated to exercise any of that moderation towards those that dissent from you which the Go∣spell requires. You cannot love them as the Disciples of Christ, nor act towards them from any such Prin∣ciples. It is possible for you to shew moderation to∣wards them as men; but to shew any moderateon to∣wards them, as those partakers of the same precious faith with you, that is impossible for you to do. Yet this is that which we are enquiring after: not the moderation that may be amongst men as men, but that which ought to be amongst Christians as Christians: This is Gospell moderation, the other is common unto us with Turks, Jews, and Pagans, and not at all of our present disquisition. And I wish that this were found amongst you as proceeding from the Principles of Reason, with ingenuity and goodness of nature, more than it is. For that which proceedeth from, and is regulated by Interest, is Hypocriticall, and not thank-worthy: As occasion offers it self, it will turn and change, as we have found it to do in most Kingdoms of Europe. Apparent then it is, that this fundamentall Principle of your Profession, Subesse Romano Pontifici, &c. that it is of indispensible neces∣sity unto Salvation unto every Soul to be subject unto the Pope of Rome, doth utterly incapacitate you for

that moderation towards any that are not of you, which Christ requires in his Disciples towards one another; seeing you judg none to be so, but your selves. Yet I assure you withall, that I hope, yea I am verily perswaded, that there are many, very many, amongst you, whose minds and affections are so influenced by common ingrafted notions of God and his Good∣ness, with a sense of the frailties of mankind, and weakness of the evidence that is tendred unto them, for the eviction of that indispensible necessity of sub∣jection to the Pope, which their Masters urge, as also with the beams of Truth shining forth in generall in the Scriptures, and what they know or have heard of the practises of primitive times, as that, being seasoned with Christian charity and candour, they are not so leavened with the sowr prejudice of this Principle, as to be rendred unmeet for the due exercise of modera∣tion; but for this, they are not beholding to your Church, not this great Principle of your profes∣sion.

2. It is the Principle of your Church, whereunto your Practise hath been suited, that those who dis∣sent from you in things determined by your Church, being Hereticks, if they continue so to do, after the application of the means for their reclaiming which you think meet to use, ought to be imprisoned, burned, or one way or other put to death. This you cannot de∣ny to be your Principle, it being the very foundation of your Inquisition, the chief corner-stone in your present Ecclesiasticall fabrick, that couples and holds up the whole building together: And it hath been asserted in your practice for sundry Ages in most Na∣tions of Europe: Your Councels, as that of Constance, have determined it, and practised accordingly, with John Huss, and Hierome: Your Doctors dispute for

it, your Church lives upon it. That you are desti∣tute of any colour from Antiquity in this your way, I have shewed before: Bellarmine de Laic. cap. 22. could find no other Instances of it, but that of Pris∣cillianus, which what entertainment it found in the Church of God, I have declared; with that of one Basilius out of Gregories Dialogues, Lib. 1. Cap 4. whom he confesseth to have been a Magitian; and of Bogomilus in the dayes of Alexius Comnenus 1100 years after Christ, whose putting to death notwith∣standing, was afterward censured and condemned in a Synod of more sober Persons than those who pro∣cured it. Instance of your avowing this Principle in your dealing with the Albigenses of old, the Inhabi∣tants of Merindol and Chrabiers in France, with the Waldenses in the valleys of Piedmont, formerly and of late; of your judiciary proceedings against multi∣tudes of Persons of all sorts, conditions, ages, and sexes in this and most other Nations of Europe, you are not pleased with the mention of, I shall there∣fore pass them by. Only I desire you would not que∣stion whether this be the Principle of your Church or no, seeing you have given the world too great assu∣rance that so it is: And your self in your Fiat com∣mend the wisdome of Philip King of Spain in his ri∣gour in the pursuit of it, p. 243. These things being so, I desire to know, what foundation you have to stand upon in pressing for moderation amongst dissen∣ters in Religion: I confess, it is a huge argument of your good nature, that you are so inclinable unto it: but when you should come to the reall exercise of it, I am afraid you would find your hands tied up by these Principles of your Church, and your endeavours thereupon become very faint and evanid. Men in such cases may make great pretences,

At velut in somnis oculos ubi languida pressit Nocte quies, nequicquam avidos extendere cursus Volle videmur, & in mediis conatibus aegri Succidimus.

being destitute of any reall foundation, your attempts are but like the fruitless endeavours of men in their sleep, wherein great workings of spirits and Fancy, produce no effects. I confess notwithstanding all this, others may be moderate towards you: I judg it their duty so to be, I desire they may be so; but how you should exercise moderation towards others, I cannot so well discern. Only as unto the former, so much more am I relieved as unto this Principle, from the perswasion I have of the candour and ingenuity of many individuall Persons of your Profession; which will not suffer them to be captivated under the Power of such corrupt prejudices as these. And for my part if I could approve of externall force in any Case in matters of Religion, it would be against the promo∣ters of the Principle mentioned.

—Cogendus— In mores hominem{que}. Creon.

When men under pretence of Zeal for Religion, de∣pose all sense of the Laws of Nature and humanity, some earnestness may be justified in unteaching them their untoward Catechisms, which lye indeed not only against the design, Spirit, Principles, and letter of the Gospell: but Terrarum leges & mundi foedera; the very foundations of Reason on which men co∣alesce into civill society. But as we observed before out of one of the Anfients, Force hath no place in or about the Law of Christ, one way or other.

That which gave occasion unto this Discourse, was

your insinuation of the Scriptures Insufficiency for the settlement of men in the Unity of Faith, the con∣trary whereof being the great Principle of Protestan∣cy, I was willing a little to enlarge my self unto the consideration of your Principles and ours: not only with reference unto the Vnity of Faith, but also as unto that moderation which you pretend to plead for, and the want whereof you charge on Protestants, premising it unto the ensuing discourse, wherein you will meet with a full and a direct Answer unto your Question.

CHAP. VII.

Vnity of Faith wherein it consists. Principles of Pro∣testants as to the setling men in Religion and Vnity of Faith, proposed and confirmed.

THe next thing proposed as a Good to be aymed at, is Vnity in Faith and settlement, or infal∣lible assurance therein. This is a Good desireable for its self; whereas the moderation treated of, is only a medium of relief against other evils, untill this may be attained. And therefore though it be, upon sup∣position of our Differences, earnestly to be endea∣voured after, yet it is not to be rested in, as though the utmost of our Duty consisted in it, and we had no prospect beyond it. It is a Catholick Vnity in Faith, which all Christians are to aym at, and so both you and wee profess to doe; only wee differ both about the Nature of it, and the proper means of at∣taining it. For the Nature of it, you conceive it to consist in the explicit or implicit belief of all things and Doctrines determined on, taught, and proposed by

your Church be believed, and nothing else, (with faith supernaturall) but what is so taught and proposed. But this description of the Vnity of Faith, wee can by no means admit of. 1. Because it is Novel; it hath no footstep in any writings of the Apostles, nor of the first Fathers or Writers of the Church, nor in the practice of the Disciples of Christ for many Ages. That the Determination of the Roman Church, and its proposall of things or Articles to be believed should be the adequate Rule of Faith unto all Belie∣vers, is a matter as forreign unto all Antiquity, as that the Prophesies of Montanus should be so. 2. Be∣cause it makes the Unity of Faith after the full and last Revelation of the Will of God, flux, alterable, and unstable, lyable to increase and decrease; where∣as it is uniform, constant, alwayes the same in all Ages, times, and places, since the finishing of the Canon of the Scriptures. For we know, and all the world knows, that your Church hath determined many things lately, some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it were but yesterday, to be believed, which its self had never before determined, and so hath increased the Rule of Faith, moved its Center, and extended its Circumfe∣rence: and what she may further determine and pro∣pose to morrow, no man knows; and your duty it is to be ready to believe whatever she shall so propose; whereby you cannot certainly know unto your dying day whether you do believe all that may belong to the Vnity of Faith, or no. Nay 3. your Church hath determined and proposed to be believed express Contradictions, which Determinations abiding on re∣cord, you are not agreed which of them to adhere unto, as is manifest in your Conciliary Decrees about the Power of the Pope and the Councill, unto which of them the preheminence is due. Now this is a

strange Rule of the Unity of Faith, that is not only capable of encrease, changes, and alterations, so that, that may belong unto it one day, which did not be∣long unto it another, as is evident from your Triden∣tine Decrees, wherein you made many things necessa∣ry to be believed which before were esteemed but pro∣bable, and were the subjects of Sophisticall altercati∣ons in your Schools; but also comprizeth in its self express Contradictions, which cannot at all belong unto faith because both of them may be false, one of them must be so; nor to Vnity, because Contrary and adverse. 4. Whereas holding the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, or the Unity of faith is so great and important a Duty unto all Christians, that they can no way discharge their Consciences unto God, without a well grounded satisfaction that they live in the performance of it, this description of its Nature, renders it morally impossible for any man ex∣plicitly to know, (and that only a man knows which he knows explicitly) that he doth answer his Duty herein. For 1. the Determinations of your Church of things to be believed are so many and various, that it is not within the Compass of an ordinary Diligence and ability to search and find them out. Nor when a man hath done his utmost, can he obtain any tole∣rable security, that there have not other Determinati∣ons been made, that he is not as yet come to an ac∣quaintance with all, or that he ever shall so do; and how in this Case he can have any satisfactory perswa∣sion that he keeps the Unity of Faith, is not as yet made evident. 2. In the Determinations he may meet withall, or by any means come to the know∣ledge of, he is to receive and believe the things de∣termined and proposed unto him, in the sense intended by the Church, or else he is never the nearer to his

end. But what that sense is in the most of your Churches proposals, your Doctors do so endlesly quar∣rell among themselves, that it is impossible a man should come unto any great Certainty in his enquiry after it; yet a precise meaning in all her proposals your Church must have, o•• she hath none at all. What shall a man do when he comes unto one of your great Masters to be acquainted with the genu∣ine sense of one of your Churches Proposals, this be∣ing the way that he takes for his satisfaction. First he speaks unto the Article or Question to be consi∣dered in Generall; then gives the different senses of it according to these and those famous Masters, the most of which he confutes; who yet all of them pro∣fessed themselves to explain, and to speak according to the sense of your Church; and lastly gives his own interpretation of it, which it may be within a few moneths, is confuted by another. 3. Suppose a man have attained a knowledge of all that your Church hath determined and proposed to be believed, and to a right understanding of her precise sense and meaning in all her determinations and proposals, which I believe never yet man attained unto, yet what assurance can he have if he live in any place re∣mote from Rome, but that your Church may have made some new Determinations in matters of faith, whose embracement in the sense which she intends belongs unto his keeping the Unity of Faith, which yet he is not acquainted withall. Is it not simply impossible for him to be satisfied at any time that he believes all that is to be believed, or that he holds the Vnity of Faith? Your late Pontific all Determi∣nation in the Case of the Jansenists and Molinists, is sufficient to illustrate this instance. For I suppose you are equally bound, not to believe what your

Church condemneth as Hereticall, as you are bound to believe what it proposeth for Catholick Doctrine.

4. I desire to know when a man who lives here in England, begins to be obliged to believe the Deter∣minations of your Church that are made at Rome. It may be he first hears of them in a Mercury or week∣ly News book; or it may be he hath notice of them by some private Letters from some who live near the place; or it may be he hath a knowledge of them by common report; or it may be they are printed in some Books, or that there is a brief of them published somewhere under the name of the Pope; or they are put into some Volume written about the Councels; or some Religious Persons on whom he much relyes, assures him of them. I know you believe that your Churches Proposition is a sufficient means of the Re∣velation of any Article, to make it necessary to be believed; but I desire to know what is necessary to Cause a man to receive any Dictate or Doctrine as your Churches proposition; not only upon this ac∣count, that you are not very well agreed upon the Requisita, unto the making of such a Proposition, but also because, be you as infallible as you please in your Proposals, the means and wayes you use to commu∣nicate those Proposals you make, unto Individuals in whom alone the faith whereof we treat exists, are all of them fallible. Now that which I desire to know is, What is, or what are those certain means and wayes of communicating the Propositions of your Church unto any Person, wherein he is bound to ac∣quiesce, and upon the application of them unto him to believe them, fide divina cui non potest subesse fal∣sum. Is it any one thing, or way, or means, that the hinge upon which his assent turns? Or is it a Compli∣cation of many things concurring to the same pur∣pose?

If it be any one thing, way, or medium, that you fix upon, pray let us know it, and we shall exa∣mine its fitness, and sufficiency for the use you put it unto. I am sure we shall find it to be either infallible or fallible. If you say the former, and that par∣ticular upon which the Assent of a mans mind unto any thing to be the proposall of your Church de∣pends, must in the testimony it gives, and evidence that it affords be esteemed infallible, then you have as many infallible Persons, things, or writings, as you make use of to acquaint one another with the determinations of your Church; that is, upon the matter you are all so; though I know in particular that you are not. If the latter; notwithstanding the first pretended infallible Proposition, your faith will be found to be resolved immediately into a fallible information. For, what will it advantage me, that the proposall of your Church cannot deceive me, if I may be deceived in the Communicating of that Pro∣posall unto me? And I can with no more firmness, certainty, or assurance, believe the thing proposed unto me, than I do believe that it is the Proposall of the Church wherein it is made. For you pretend not unto any self-evidencing efficacy in your Churches Propositions, or things proposed by it; but all their Authority, as to me, turns upon the Assurance that I have of their relation unto your Church, or that they are the Proposals of your Church; concerning which I have nothing but very fallible evidence, and so cannot possibly believe them with Faith Divine and Supernaturall. If you shall say that there are many things concurring unto this Communication of your Churches Proposals unto a man, as the notorit∣ty of the Fact, suitable proceedings upon it, books written to prove it, Testimonies of good men, and the

like; I cannot but mind you, that all these being si∣gillatim, every one apart fallible, they cannot in their Conspiracy improve themselves into an Infalli∣bility. Strengthen a Probability they may, testifie infallibly they neither do nor can. So that on this account it is not only impossible for a man to know whether he holds the Vnity of Faith or no; but indeed whether he believe any thing at all with Faith Supernaturall and Divine; seeing he hath no infallible evidence for what is proposed unto him to believe, to build his faith upon.

5. Protestants are not satisfied with your generall implicit assent unto what your Church teacheth and determineth, which you have invented to solve the difficulties that attend your Description of the Vnity of Faith. Of what use it may be unto, other purpo∣ses, I do not now dispute, but as to this, of the pre∣servation of the Vnity of Faith, it is certainly of none at all: The Vnity of Faith consists in all mens express believing all, that all men are bound expresly to be∣lieve, be it what it will: Now you would have this preserved by mens not believing what they are bound to believe: For what belongs to this keeping the Vnity of Faith they are bound to believe expresly, and what they believe implicitly, they do indeed no more but not expresly disbelieve; for if they do any more than not disbelieve, they put forth some act of their understanding about it, and so farre expresly believe it: So that, upon the matter, you would have ment to keep the Unity of Faith, by a not believing of that, which that they may keep the Unity of Faith they are bound expresly to believe: Nor can you do otherwise whilest you make all the Propositions of your Church of things to be believed, to belong to the Unity of Faith. Lastly, The Determinations of

your Church you make to be the next efficient Cause of your Unity; now these not being absolutely in∣fallible, leave it, like Delos, flitting up and down in the Sea of Probabilities only: This we shall manifest unto you immediately; at least we shall evidence that you have no cogent reasons, nor slable grounds to prove your Church infallible in her Determina∣tions. At present, it shall suffice to mind you, that she hath Determined Contradictions, and that in as eminent a manner as it is possible for her to declare her sense by; namely by Councils confirmed by Popes; and an infallible determination of Contradi∣ctions, is not a Notion of any easie digestion in the thoughts of a man in his right wits. We confess then, that we cannot agree with you in your Rule of the Unity of Faith, though the thing its self we press af∣ter as our Duty. For, (2.) Protestants do not con∣ceive this Vnity to consist in a precise Determination of all Questions that are or may be raised in or about things belonging unto the Faith, whether it be made by your Church or any other way. Your Thomas of Aquine, who without question is the best and most sober of all your School Doctors, hath in one Book given us 522 Articles of Religion, which you esteem mraculously stated; Quot Articuli, tot Miracula. All these have at least five Questions one with another stated and determined in explication of them; which amount unto 2610 Conclusions in matters of Reli∣gion. Now we are farre from thinking that all these Determinations, or the like, belong unto the Unity of Faith, though much of the Religion amongst some of you, lyes in not dissenting from them? The Que∣stions that your Bellarmine hath determined and as∣serted the Positions in them as of faith, and necessary to be believed, are I think neer 40 times as many as

the Articles of the antient Creed of the Church; and such as it is most evident that, if they be of the nature and importance pretended, it is impossible that any considerable number of men should ever be able to dis∣charge their duty in this business of holding the V∣nity of Faith. That a man believe in generall that the holy Scripture is given by inspiration from God, and that all things proposed therein for him to believe, are therefore infallibly true, and to be as such believed, and that, in particular, he believe every Article or point of Truth, that he hath sufficient means for his instruction in, and conviction that it is so revealed, they judg to be necessary unto the holding of the Uni∣ty of Faith. And this also they know, that this suffi∣ciency nf means unto every one that enjoys the bene∣fit of the Scriptures, extends its self unto all those Articles of Truth, which are necessary for him to believe, so as that he may yield unto God the obedi∣ence that he requireth, receive the holy Spirit of pro∣mise, and be accepted with God. Herein doth that Vnity of Faith which is amongst the Disciples of Christ in the world consist; and ever did, nor can do so in any thing else. Nor doth that variety of Ap∣prehensions that in many things is found among the Disciples of Christ, and ever was, render this Vnity, like that you plead for, various and incertain. For the Rule and formall Reason of it, namely Gods Reve∣lation in the Scripture, is still one and the same, per∣fectly unalterable. And the severall degrees that men attain uuto in their Apprehensions of it, doth no more reflect a charge of variety upon it, than the difference of Seeing as to the severall degrees of the sharpness or obtuseness of our bodily eyes, doth up∣on the Light given by the Sunne. The Truth is; if there was any common measure of the Assents of men,

either as to the intension of it, as it is subjectively in their minds; or extension of it, as it respecteth Truths revealed that belonged unto the Vnity of Faith, it were impossible there should be any such thing in the world, at least that any such thing should be known to be. Only this I acknowledg, that it is the Duty of all men to come up to the full and explicit acknowledgment of all the Truths revealed in the word of God, wherein the Glory of God, and the Christi∣ans Duty are concerned: as also to a joynt consent in Faith objective, or propositions of Truth revealed; at least in things of most importance, though their faith subjective, or the internal assent of their minds have, as it will have, in severall Persons, various de∣grees, yea in the same Persons it may be, at different seasons. And in our labouring to come up unto this joynt-acknowledgment of the same sense and intend∣ment of God in all revealed Truths, consists our en∣deavour after that perfection in the Vnity of Faith which in this life is attainable; as our moderation doth in our walking in peace and love with and to∣wards others, according to what we have already attained. We may distinguish then between that Unity of Faith which an interest in, gives Vnion with Christ unto them that hold it, and Communion in Love with all equally interested therein; and that Accom∣plishment of it, which gives a sameness of Profession, and consent in all acts of outward Communion in the worship of God. The first is found in, and amongst, all the Disciples of Christ in the world where-ever they are; the latter is that which moreover it is your Duty to press after. The former consists in an Assent in generall unto all the Truths of God revealed in the Scripture, and in particular unto them that we have sufficient means to evidence them unto us to be so

revealed: The latter may come under a double con∣sideration; for either there may be required unto it in them who hold it, the joynt perception of, and assent unto every Truth revealed in the Scripture, with an equall degree of certainty in adherence and evidence in perception, and it is not in this life, wherein the best of us know but in part, attainable; or only such a concurrence in an assent unto the necessary Proposi∣tions of Truth, as may enable them to hold together that outward Communion in the worship of God which we before mentioned. And this is certainly attainable, by the wayes and means that shall imme∣diately be layed down: And where this is, there is the Vnity of Faith, in that compleatness which we are bound to labour for the attainment of. This the Apostolicall Churches enjoyed of old; and unto the recovery whereof, there is nothing more prejudiciall than your new stating of it upon the account of your Churches Proposals.

This Unity of Faith we judg good, and necessary, and that it is our Duty to press after it: So also in generall do you. It remains then, that we consider what is the way, what are the means and Principles, that Protestants propose and insist upon for the at∣tainment of it; that is, in answer to your Question, What it is that can settle any man in the Truth of Reli∣gion, and unite all men therein. And then because you object this unto us, as if we were at some loss and incertainty therein, and your selves very secure, I shall consider what are the grounds and principles that you proceed upon for the same ends and purpo∣ses, namely to settle any man in the Truth of Religion, and to bring all men to an harmony and consent therein.

Now I shall herein manifest unto you these two things; I. That the Principles which the Protestants

proceed upon, in the improvement whereof they obtain themselves assured and infallible settlement in the Truth, and labour to reduce others unto the Uni∣ty of Faith, are such as are both suited unto, and sufficient for, the end and work which they design to effect by them, and also in themselves of such unque∣stionable Truth, Certainty, and Evidence, that either they are all granted by your selves, or cannot be de∣nied without shaking the very Foundations of Christi∣anity. 2. That those which you proceed upon, are some of them untrue, and most of them dubious and questionable, none of them able to bear the weight that you lay upon them; and some of them such as the admission of, would give just cause to question the whole Truth of Christian Religion. And both these S^r, I crave leave to manifest unto you, whereby you may the better judg whether the Scripture or your Church be the best way to bring men unto settlement in Religion, which is the thing enquired after.

1. Protestants lay down this as the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the very beginning and first Prin∣ciple of their confidence and Confession, that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, as the Holy Ghost teacheth them, 2 Tim. 3. 16. That is, that the Books of the Old and New Testament were all of them written by the immediate guidance, direction, and inspiration of God; the hand of the Lord, as David speaks, 1 Chron. 28. 19. being upon the Penmen there∣of in writing; and his Spirit, as Peter informs us, speaking in them, 1 P••t. 1. 11. So that whatever is contained and delivered in them, is given out from God, and is received on his Authority. This Prin∣ciple I suppose you grant to be true; do you not? if you will deny it say so, and we will proceed no far∣ther, untill we have proved it. I know you have various

wayes laboured to undermine the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Ho∣ly Scriptures; many Queries you put unto men, How they can know it to be from God, to be true, from Heaven, and not of men; many scruples you indea∣vour to possess them with, against its Authority; it is not my present business to remove them: It is suffi∣cient unto mee, 1. That you your selves who differ from us in other things, and with whom our contest about the best way of coming to settlement in the Truth alone, is, do acknowledg this Principle were proceed upon to be true. And 2. That yee cannot oppose it without setting your selves to digge up the very foundations of Christian Religion, and to open a way to let in an inundation of Atheism on the world. So our first step is fixed on the grand fundamentall Principle of all the Religion and acceptable worship of God that is in the world.

2. They affirm that this Scripture evidenceth it self by many infallible 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be so given by Inspiration from God; and besides is witnessed so to be, by the Te∣stimony of the Church of God from the dayes of Moses, wherein it began to be written, to the dayes wherein we live; our Lord Christ and his Apostles asserting and confirming the same Testimony; which Testimony is conveyed unto us by uninterrupted Catholick Tradi∣tion. The first part of this Position, I confess, some of you deny; and the latter part of it you generally all of you pervert, confining the Testimony mention∣ed unto that of your present Church, which is a very inconsiderable part of it, if any part at all. But how groundlesly, how prejudicially, to the verity and ho∣nour of Christian Religion in generall you do these things, I shall briefly shew you.

Some of you, I say deny the first part of this Asser∣tion; so doth Andradius Defens. Concil. Trident.

Lib. 3. Ne{que} enim, saith he, in ipsis Libris quibus Sacra Mysteria conscripta sunt, quicquam inest Di∣vinitatis, quod nos ad Credendum qua illis continentur, religione aliqua constring at; Neither is there in the Books themselves, wherein the holy Mysteries are writ∣ten, any thing of Divinity, that should constrain us by vertue of any religious respect thereunto, to believe the things that are contained in them. Hence Cocleus, Lib. 2. de Authoritate Eccles. & Script. gathers up a many in∣stances out of the Book of the Scripture, which he declares to be altogether incredible, were it not for the Authority of the Church I need not mention any more of your Leaders, concurring with them; you know who is of the same mind with them, if the Author of Fiat Lux be not unknown to you. Your resolving Vniversal Tradition into the Authority of your present Church, to which end there is a Book written not long since by a Jesuit under the name of Vincentius Severinus, is no less notorious. Some of you, I confess, are more modest, and otherwise mind∣ed, as to both parts of our Assertion. See Malderus Episcop. Antwerp. de Object. Fidei, qu. 1. Vaselius Groningen. de Potestat. Eccles. & Epist. ad Jacob. Hock. Alliacens. in Lib. 1. Sentent. Artic. 3. Gerson Exam. dos. part. 2. Consid. 1. Tom. 1. sol. 105. and in twenty other places. But when you come to deal with Protestants, and consider well the Tendency of this Assertion, you use I consess an hundred rergi∣versations, and are most unwilling to come to the ac∣knowledgment of it; and rather then suffer from it, deny it downwright; and that with Scurrilous re∣flections, and Comparisons, likening it, as to any characters of Gods truth and Holiness upon it, unto Livy's Story, yea Aesops Fables, or a Piece of Poetry. And when you have done so, you apply your selves

to the canvasing of Stories in the Old Testament, and to find out appearing Contradictions, and tell us of the uncertainty of the Authors of some particular Books; that the whole is of its self a dead letter which can prove nothing at all; enquiring, Who told us that the Penmen of it were divinely inspired, seeing they testify no such things of themselves and if they should, yet others may do, and have done so, who notwithstan∣ding were not so inspired; and ask us, Why we receive the Gospel of Luke who was not an Apostle, and re∣ject that of Thomas who one; with many the like Cavilling Exceptions.

But (1.) That must needs be a bad Cause which stands in need of such a Defence. Is this the voice of Jacob, or Esau? Are these the expressions of Christians, or Pagans? from whose quiver are these arrows taken? Is this fair, sober, Candid Christian dealing? have you no way to defend the Authority of your Church, but by Questioning the Authority of the Scripture? Did ever any of the Fathers of old, or any in the world before your selves, take this course to plead their interests in any thing they professed? Is this Practice Catholick, or like many of your Principles; singular, your own, Donatisticall? Is it any great sign that you have an interest in that living Child, when you are so ready he should be destroyed, rather than you would be cast in your Contest with Protestants? (2.) Do you think that this course of proclaiming to Atheists, Turks, and Pa∣gans, that the Scripture, which all Christians main∣tain against them to be the Word of the Living GOD, given by inspiration from Him, and on which the Faith of all the Martyrs who have suffered from their opposition, rage, and cruelty, and of all others that truly believe in Jesus Christ, was and is founded, and

whereinto it is resolved, hath no Arguments of its Divine Original implanted on it, no lines of the Ex∣cellencies and Perfections of its Author drawn on it, no power or efficacy towards the Consciences of men, evidencing its Authority over them, no ability of its self to comfort and support them in their tryals and sufferings with the hope of things that are not seen? Is this, think you, an acceptable service unto the Lord Christ, who will one day judg the secrets of all hearts according unto that Word? or, Is it not really to expose Christian Religion to scorn and contempt? And do you find so much sweetness in, Delus an Vir∣tus? quis in hoste requirat, as to cast off all Reverence of God and his Word, in the pursuit of the supposed Adversaries of your earthly Interests? (3.) If your Arguments and Objections are effectuall and priva∣lent unto the end for which you intend them, will not your direct issue be the utter overthrow of the very foundation of the whole Profession of Christians in the world? And are you, like Sampson, content to pull down the house that must fall upon your selves also, so that you may stifle Protestants with its sall? It may be, it were well you should do so; were it an house of Dagon, a Temple dedicated unto Idols: but, to deal so with that wherein dwels the Majesty of the Living GOD, is not so justifiable. It is true; Evert this Principle, and you overthrow the foundation on which the faith of Protestants is built; but it is no less true, that you do the same to the foundation of the Christian Faith in generall, wherein wee hope your own concernment also lyes And this is the thing that I am declaring unto you; namely, that either you acknowledg the Principles on which Protestants build their Faith and Profession, or by denying them you open a door unto Atheism, at least to the

extirpation of Christian Religion out of the world. I confess you pretend a relief against the present in∣stance, in the Authority of your Church, sufficient as you say to give a Credibility unto the Scriptures, though its own self-evidencing Power and Efficacy, with the Confirmation of it by Catholick Tradition exclusive to your present suffrage, be rejected. Now I suppose you will grant, that the Prop you supply men withall upon your casting down the foundations on which they have laid the weight of their eternall Salvation, had need be firm and immoveable. And remember that you have to do with them, who though they may be otherwise inclineable unto you,

Non tamen ignorant quid distent aera a lupinis;

and must use their own judgement in the Considerati∣on of what you tender unto them. And they Ask you, 1. What will you do if it be as you say with them who absolutely reject the Authority of your Ch••••ch, which is the condition of more than a moye∣ty of the Inhabitants of the world, to speak suffici∣ently within compass? And 2. What will you ad∣vise us to say to innumerable other Persons that are pious and rational, who, upon the meer considerati∣on of the lives of many, of the most, of the guides of your Church, your bloody inhumane practices, your pursuit of worldly carnall designs, your visible secu∣lar interest wherein you are combined and united, cannot perswade themselves, that the Testimony of your Church in and about things that are invisible, spirituall, heavenly, and eternall, is at all valuable, much less that it is sufficient to bear the weight you would lay upon it. 3. Was not this the way and me∣thod of Vaninus for the Introduction of his Atheism; first to question, sleight, and sophistically except

against the old approved Arguments, and Evidences manifesting the beeing and existence of a Divine self∣subsisting Power, substituting in their room, for the confirmation of it, his own Sophisms, which him∣self knew might be easily discussed and disproved? Do you deal any better with us in decrying the Scri∣pture's self-evidencing Efficacy, with the Testimony given unto it by God himself, substituting nothing in the room thereof but the Authority of your Church? A man certainly can take up nothing upon the sole Authority of your Church, untill, contrary to the pretensions, Reasons, and Arguments of far a greater number of Christians than your selves, he acknowledge you to be a true Church at least; if not the only Church in the world. Now, how I pray will you bring him into that state and condition that he may rationally make any such judgement? How will you prove unto him that there is any such thing as a Church in the World; that a Church hath any Authority, that its Testimony can make any thing credible, or meet to be believed, You must prove these things to him, or whatever assent he gives un∣to what you say, is from fanaticall credulity. To suppose that he should believe you upon your word, because you are the Church, is to suppose that he be∣lieves that, which you are yet but attempting to in∣duce him to believe. If you persist to press him without other proof, not only to believe what you first said unto him, but also even this, that whatever you shall say to him hereafter that he must believe it, because you say it; Will not any rationall man nause∣ate at your unreasonable importunity? and tell you that men who have a mind to be befooled, may meer with such Alchymisticall pretenders all the world over. Will you perswade him that you are the

Church, and that the Church is furnished with the Authority mentioned, by rational Arguments? I wish you would inform me of any one that you can make use of, that doth not include a Supposition of something unproved by you, and which can never be proved but by your own Authority, which is the thing in Question, or the immediate Authority of God which you reject. A number indeed of preten∣ces, or, it may be, Probabilities you may heap toge∣ther, which yet upon examination will not be found so much neither, unless a man will swallow amongst them that which is destitute of all Probability; but what is included in the evidence given unto it by Di∣vine Revelation which is not yet pleaded unto him. It may be then you will work Miracles to confirm your Assertions. Let us see them. For although ve∣ry many things are requisite to manifest any works of wonder that may be wrought in the world to be reall Miracles, and good Caution be required to judge unto what end Miracles are wrought; yet if we may have any tolerable evidence of your working Miracles in Confirmation of this Assertion, that you are the true and only Church of God, with the other Inferences depending thereon, which we are in the Consideration of, you will find us very easie to be treated withall. But herein also you fail. You have then no way to deal with such a man as we first sup∣posed, but as you do with us; and produce Testi∣monies of Scripture to prove and confirm the Autho∣rity of your Church; and then you will quickly find where you are, and what snares you have cast your selves into. Will not a man who hears you proving the Authority of your Church by the Scripture, ask you, And whence hath this Scripture its Authority? yea that is supposed to be the thing in Question,

which denying unto it an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, you yet produce to confirm the Authority of that, by whose Autho∣rity alone, its self is evidenced to have any Authority at all. Rest in the Authority of God manifesting its self in the Scripture, witnessed unto by the Catholick Tradition of all Ages, you will not. But you will prove the Scripture to be the Word of God by the Testimony of your Church; and you will prove your Ch••••••h to be enabled sufficiently to testifie the Scri∣ptures to be of God, by the Testimonies of the Scri∣pture. Would you knew where to begin and where to end? But you are indeed in a Circle which hath neither beginning nor ending; I know not when we shall be enabled to say,

Inventus, Chrysippe, tui finitor acervi.

Now do you think it reasonable that we should leave our stable and immoveable firm foundations, to run round with you in this endless Circle, untill through giddiness we fall into Unbelief or Atheism? This is that which I told you before, you must either ac∣knowledge our Principle in this matter to be firm and certain, or open a door to Atheism, and the Con∣tempt of Christian Religion; seeing you are not able to substitute and thing in the room thereof, that is able to bear the weight that must be laid upon it, if we believe. For how should you do so; shall man be like unto God, or equall unto him? The Testimo∣ny we rest in is Divine, fortified from all Objections by the strongest humane Testimony possible, namely Catholick Tradition. That which you would sup∣ply us with, is meerly Humane and no more. And 4. your Importunity in opposing this Principle, is so much the more marvellous unto us, because therein you openly oppose your selves to express Testimonies

of Scripture and the full Suffrage of the Ancient Church. I wish you would a little weigh what is af∣firmed, 2 Pet. 1. 19, 20. Psal. 119. 152. Joh. 5. 34, 35 36, 39. 1 Thess. 2. 13. Act. 17. 11. 1 Joh. 5. 6, 10. 1 Joh. 2. 20. Heb. 11. 1 Tim. 1. 15. Act. 26. 22. And will you take with you the consent of the Ancients? Clemens Alexand. Strom. 7. speaks fully to our pur∣pose, as he doth also lib. 4. where he plainly affirms that the Church proved the Scripture by its self•• and other things, as the Unity of the Deity, by the Scri∣pture. But his own words in the former place are worth the recital, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For the beginning of Faith, or Principle of what we teach, we have the Lord; who in sundry man∣ners, and by divers parts, by the Prophets, Gospel, and holy Apostles, leads us to knowledge. And if any one suppose, that a Principle stands in need of another (to prove it) he destroys the nature of a Principle; or, it is no longer preserved a Principle. This is that we say: The Scripture, the Old and New Testament, is the Principle of our Faith. This is proved by its self, to be of the Lord who is its Author; and if we cause it to depend on any thing else, it is no longer the Prin∣ciple of our Faith and Profession. And a little after, where he hath shewed that a Principle ought not to be disputed, nor to be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of any debate, he addes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: It is meet then, that receiving by Faith the most absolute Principle without other demonstration, and

taking demonstrations of the Principle from the Princi∣ple its self, that we be instructed by the voice of the Lord unto the knowledge of the Truth. That is; we believe the Scripture for its own sake, and the Te∣stimony that God gives unto it, in it and by it; and do prove every thing else by it, and so are confirmed in the faith or knowledge of the Truth. So he fur∣ther explains himself, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For we do not simply or absolutely attend or give heed unto men determining or defining, against whom it is equall that we may define or declare our judgements. So it is; whilest the Authority of man, or men, any Society of men in the world, is pleaded, the Authori∣ty of others, may be as good reason be objected against it; as whilest, you plead your Church and its definitions, others may on as good grounds oppose theirs unto you therein. And therefore Clemens proceeds; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For if it be not sufficient meerly to declare or assert that which appears to be truth, but also to make that Credible or fit to be believ∣ed which is spoken, we seek not after the Testimony that is given by men, but we confirm that which is proposed, or enquired about with the voice of the Lord, which is more full than any demonstration, or rather is its self the only demonstration; according to the knowledge whereof they that have tasted of the Scriptures, are be∣lievers. Into the voice, the Word of God alone, the Church then resolved their Faith, this only they built upon, acknowledging all humane Testimony to be too

weak, and infirm to be made a foundation for it; And this voice of God in the Scripture evidencing its self so to be, is the only Demonstration of Faith which they rested in; whereupon a little after he addes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; so wee ha∣ving perfect Demonstrations out of the Scriptures, are by Faith demonstratively assured or perswa∣ded of the Truth of the things proposed. This was the Profession of the Church of old; this the reso∣lution of their faith; This is that which Protestants in this Case adhere unto. They proved the Scripture to be from God, as he elswhere speaks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as we also do. Strom. 4. To this pur∣pose speaks Salvianus de Gub. Lib. 3. Alia omnia (idest humana dicta) argumentis & testibus egent; Dei autem Sermo ipse sibi test is est, quia necesseest ut quicquid incorrupta verityas loquitur, incorruptum sit testimonium veritatis: All other sayings stand in need of Arguments and witnesses to confirm them, the Word of God is witness to its self; For, whatever the Truth incorrupted speaks, must of necessity be an in∣corrupt Testimony of Truth, And although some of them allowed the Testimony of the Church as a motive unto believing the Gospell or things preached from it, yet as to the belief of the Scripiure with faith Di∣vine and Supernaturall to be the Word of God, they required but these two things; 1. That Self-Evi∣dence in the Scripture its self which is needfull for an indemonstrable Principle; from which, and by which, all other things are to be demonstrated: And that Self-Evidence Clemens puts in the place of all Demon∣strations. 2. The Efficacy of the Spirit in the heart, to enable it to give a saving assent unto the Truth proposed unto it: Thus Austin in his Confessions

Lib. 6. cap. 5. Persuasisti mihi, ô Domine Deus, non eos qui crederent libris tuis quos tanta in omnibus ferè Gentibus authoritate fundasti esse culpandos; sed eos qui non crederent, new audiendesesse, siqui mihi forte dicerent, Unde scis, illos libres unius veracissimi Dei Spirituesse, humano generi ministratos; idipsum enim maximè credendum erat. O Lord God, thou hast per∣swaded me, that not they who believe thy Books which with so great Authority thou hast setled almost in all Nations, were to be blamed; but those who believe them not, and that I should not hearken unto any of them who might chance to say unto me, Whence dost thou know those Books to be given out unto mankind from the Spirit of the only True GOD; for that is the thing which principally was to be believed. In which words, the holy man hath given us full direction what to say when you come upon us with that Question which some used it seems in his dayes. A great Te∣stimony of the Antiquity of your Principles. Adde hereunto what he writes in the 11^th Book and 3^d Chapter of the same Treatise, and wee have the summe of the Resolution and Principle of his Faith: Audiam, saith he, & intelligam, quomodo fecisti Coe∣lam & terram: Scripsit hoc Moses, scripsit & abiit, transivit hinc ad Te. Ne{que} enim nunc ante me est: nam si esset, tenerem eum, & rogaremeum, & per Teobsecra∣rem ut mihi ist a pa••derct, & praberem aures corporis mei, sonis erumpentibus ex ere ejus. At si Hebraea voce loqueretur, frustra pulsaret sensum meum, nec inde mentem meam tangeret: si autem Latinè, scirem quid diceret; sed, Unde scirem an verum dicoret? quod si & hoc scirem, num & ab ill•• scirem? Intus uti{que} mihi, intus in domicilio cogitationis, nec Hebraea, nec Graeca, nec Latina, nec barbara verityas sine oris & lin∣guae organis, sine strepitu syllabarum diceret, verum

di••it; & ego statim ••••tus confidenter illi homini tuo dicerem, Verumolits. Cum ergo illum interrogare non possim, Te, quo 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vera dixit, Veritas, rogo Te Deus meus, rogo, partepeccatis meis, & qui illi servo tuo dedisti haec dicere, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & mihi haEc intelligere. I would bear and understand, O Lord, how thou hast made the Heavens and the earth: Moses wrote this, he wrote it and is gene, and he is gone to Thee. For now he is not present with mee; if he were, I would lay hold on him, and ask him and beseech him for thy sake, that he would unfold these things unto me, and I would cause the ears of my body to attend unto the words of his mouth. But if he should speak in the Hebrew tongue, he would only in vain strike upon my outward sense, and my mind within would not be affected with it. If he speak in Latine, I should know what he sayed; but whence should I know that he spake the Truth? should I know this also from him? The Truth, that is neither Hebrew, Greck, Latine, nor expressed in any Barba∣rous Language, would say unto me inwardly in the dwelling place of my thoughts, without the organs of mouth or tongue, or noyse of syllables, He speaks the Truth; and I with confidaence should say unto him thy servam, Thou speakest the Truth. Seeing therefore I cannot enquire of him, I beseech Thee that art Truth, with whom he being filled spake the Truth, I beseech thee O my God, pardon my sinnes, and thou who gavest unto him by servant to speak these things, grant unto me tounderstand Thus this holy man ascribes his assent into the one unquestionable Principle of the Scripture, as to the effecting of it in himself, to the work if Gods Spirit in his heart. As Basil also doth on Psal. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Faith which

draws the soul unto consent above the efficacy of all rational wayes or methods of perswasion; Faith, that is wrought and begotten in us not by geometricall en∣forcements or demonstrations, but by the effectuall operations of the Spirit. And both these Principles are excellently expressed by one amongst your selves, even Baptista Mantuanus. Lib. de Patientia, Cap. 32, 33. Saepenumerò, faith he, mecum cogitavi, Unde tam s••adibilis esset ista Scriptura, ut tam potenter insluat in animos auditorum; unde tantum habeat energiae, ut non adopinandum sed ad solidè credendum omnes infle∣ctat. I have often thought with my self Whence the Scripture is so perswasive, whence it doth so powerfully influence the minds of the hearers; whence it hath so much efficacy, that it should incline and bow all men, not to think as probable, but solidly to believe, the things it proposeth. Non, saith he, est hoc imputandum ra∣tionum evidentiaequas non adducit, non artis industriae & verbis suavibus & ad persuadendum accommodatis quibus non utitur. It is not to be ascribed unto the evidence of Reasons, which it bringeth not, neither to the excellency of Art, sweet words, and accommoda∣ted unto per swasion, which it makes no use of. Sed vi∣de an id in causa sit quod persuasi sumus eam à prima veritate fl••xisse; But see if this be not the Cause of it, that wee are perswaded that it proceeds from the prime Verity. He proceeds, Sed unde sumus ita persuasi nisi ab ipsa, quasi ad ei credendum non sua ipsi•••• trahat Authoritas. Sed unde quaeso hanc sibi Authoritatem vindicavit? Neque enim vidimus nos Deum concionan∣tem, scribentem, docentem; tamen ac si vidissemus, credimus & tenemus à Spiritu Sancto fluxisse quod le∣gimus: Forsitan fuerit haec ratio firmiter adharendi, quòd in ea veritas sit solidior quamvis non clarior, Habet enim omnis veritas vim inclinativam, & major

majorem, maxima maximam. Sed cur ergo omnes non credunt Evangelio? Respondeo quod non omnes trahuntur à Deo. And again, Inest ergo Scripturis Sacris nescio quid Natur â sublimius, idest inspiratio facta divinitus & divinae irradiation is influxus certus. But whence are wee perswaded, that it is from the First Verity, but from it Self; Its own Authority draws us to believe it. But whence obtains it this Authority •• we see not God preaching, writing, teaching; but yet, as if we had seen him, we believe and firmly hold that which we read to have come from the Holy Ghost. It may be that this is a reason of our firm adhering unto it, that the Truth in it is more solid, though not more clear (than in any other way of proposall) and all truth hath a power to incline unto belief; the greater the Truth the greater its power, and the greatest Truth must have the greatest power so to incline us. But, why then do not all believe the Gospell? I answer, because all are not drawn of God. There is then in the holy Scripture somewhat more sublime than Nature, that is, the Divine Inspiration from whence it is, and the Divine Irradiation wherewith it is accompanied. This is the Principle of Protestants. The Sacred Scripture is credible as proceeding from the first Verity: this it manifests by its own Light and Efficacy; and we are enabled to believe it by the effectuall working of the Spirit of God in our hearts. Whence our Saviour asks the Jews, Joh 5. If you believe not the writing of Moses, how will you believe my words. They who will not believe the written Word of the Scripture, upon the Authority that it hath in its self, would not believe if Christ should personally speak unto them. So saith Theophylact on the place; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉?

3. Protestants believe and profess, that the End

wherefore God gave forth his Word by Inspiration, was that it might be a stable Infallible Revelation of his mind and will, as to that knowledge which he would have mankind entertain of him, with that Worship and Obedience which he requireth of them, that so they may please him in this world, and come unto the fru∣ition of him unto all eternity. God who is the for∣mal object, is also the prime Cause of all Religious worship. What is due unto him as the first Cause, last End, and Soveraign Lord of all, as to the substance of it, and what he further appoints himself, as to the manner of its performance, suited unto his own Holi∣ness, and the Condition wherein in reference unto our Last end we stand and are, making up the wh••le of it. That he hath given his Word to reveal these things unto us, to be our Rule, Guide, and Direction in our wayes, walkings, and universal deportment before him, is, as I take it, a fundamentall Principle of our Christian Profession. Neither do I know that this is denied by your Church; although you startle at the inferences that are justly made from it. I shall not need therefore to adde any thing in its Confirma∣tion, but only mind you again, that the calling of it into question, is directly against the very heart of all Religion, and the unanimous consent of all that in the world are called Christians, or ever were so. Yea, and it must be granted, or the whole Scripture esteemed a Fable, because it frequently declares, that it is given unto us of God for this End and Purpose. And hence do Protestants inferre two other Conclu∣sions, on which they build their Perswasion concern∣ing the Vnity of Faith, and the proper means of their Settlement therein.

1. That therefore the Scripture is perfect and every way compleat; namely with respect unto that end

whereunto of God it is designed. A Perfect and com∣pleat Revelation of the Will of God as to his Worship, and our Obedience. And we cannot but wonder that any who profess themselves to believe that it was given for the end mentioned, should not have that sacred Reverence for the Wisdome, Goodness, and Love of its Author unto mankind, as freely to assent unto this Inference and Conclusion, He is our Rock, and his work is perfect. And lest any men should please themselves in the imagination of contributing any thing towards the effecting of the end of his Word, by a supply unto it, he hath strictly forbidden them any such addition, Deut. 4. 2. & 12. 12. Prov. 30. 6. Which if it were not compleat in reference unto its proper End, would hold no great correspon∣dency with that Love and goodness which the same Word every where declares to be in Him. I suppose, you know with how many express Testimonies of Scri∣pture its self, this Truth is confirmed, which, added unto that light and evidence, which as a deduction from the former fundamental Truth it hath in its self, is very sufficient to render it unquestionable. You may at your leasure, besides these forenamed consult, Psal. 19. 8. Esa. 8. 20. Ezek. 28. 18. Mat. 15. 6. Luk. 1. 3, 4. ch. 16. 29, 31. ch. 24. 25, 27. Job. 5. 39. ch. 20. 10 Act. 1. 11. ch. 17. 2, 3. ch. 20. 27. chapt. 26. 22. Rom. 10. 17. ch. 15. 4. 1 Cor. 4. 6. Gal. 1. 8. Eph. 2. 19, 20. 2 Tim. 3. 16, 17. Heb. 1. 1. 2 Pet. 1. 19. Rev 22. 18. For though Texts of Scripture are not appointed for us to throw at one anothers heads as you talk in your Fiat, yet they are for us to use and insist on in the Confirmation of the Truth; if we may take the example of Christ and all his Apostles, for our warrant. And it were endless to recite the full and plain Testimonies, of the Ancient Fathers and

Councels to this purpose. Neither is that my pre∣sent design; though I did somwehat occasionally that way, upon the former Principle. It shall suffice me to shew, that the deny all of this Assertion also, as it is inferred from the foregoing Principle, is Prejudiciall, if not pernicious to Christian Religion in Generall. The whole of our Faith and Profession is resolved into the known Excellencies and Perfections of the Nature of God. Amongst these, there are none that have a more immediate and quickning influence into them, than his Wisdom, Goodness, Grace, Care and Love to∣wards them, unto whom he is pleased to reveal him∣self. Nor is there any property of his Nature that in his Word he more frequently gives testimony unto. And all of them doth he declare himself to have exalted and glorified in a signall manner, in that Revelation, which he hath made of himself, his Mind and Will therein. I suppose, this cannot be denied by any, who hath the least sense of the importance of the things revealed. Now, if the Revelation made for the End before proposed be not perfect and compleat, that is sufficient to enable a man to know so much of God his Mind and Will, and to direct him so in his Worship and Obedience unto him, as that he may please him here, and come to the fruition of him hereafter; it must needs become an evident means of deceiving him, and ruining him, and that to all eter∣nity. And the least fear of any such event, over∣throws all the notions which he had before entertained of those blessed Properties of the Divine Nature, and so consequently disposeth him unto Atheism. For if a man hath once received the Scripture as the Word of God, and that given unto him to be his guide unto Heaven, by God himself; if one shall come to him and tell him, Yea but it is not a perfect Guide,

but though you should attend sincerely to all the Di∣rections that it gives you, yet you may come short of your Duty and Expectation; you may neither please God here, nor come to the fruition of Him hereafter: In case he should assent unto this suggesti∣on, can he entertain any other thoughts of God, but such as our first Parents did, when by attendance unto the false insinuations of the old Serpent, they cast off his Soveraignty, and their dependance on him? Neither can you relieve him against such thoughts by your pretended Traditionall supply; see∣ing it will still be impossible for him to look on this Revelation of the Will of God, as imperfect and in∣sufficient for the End, for which it plainly professeth its self to be given forth by him, without some in∣trenchment on those notions of his Nature which he had before received. For it will presently occurr un∣to him, that seeing this way of revealing himself for the Ends mentioned, is good and approved of Himself so to be, if he hath not made it compleat for that end, it was either because he could not, and where then is his Wisdome; or because he would not, and where then is his Love, Care, and Goodness; and see∣ing, he saith, he hath done, what you would have him to believe, that he hath not done, where is his Truth and Veracity? Certainly a man that serious∣ly ponders what he hath to do, and knows the vani∣ty of an irrationall fanatical Credo, will conclude, that either the Scripture is to be received as Perfect, or not to be received at all.

2. Protestants conclude hence, That the Scri∣pture given of God for this purpose is intelligible unto men, using the means by God appointed to come to the understanding of his Mind and Will therein. I know many of your way are pleased grievously to mistake

our intention in this Infêrence and Conclusion. Sometimes they would impose upon us to say, that All places of Scripture, all words and sentences in it are plain, and of an obvious sense, and easie to be understood. And yet this you know, or may know if you please, and I am sure ought to know, before you talk of these things with us, that we absolutely de∣ny. It is one thing to say, that all necessary Truth is plainly and clearly revealed in the Scripture, which we do say; and another that every text and passage in the Scripture is plain and easie to be understood, which we do not say; nor ever thought, as confes∣sing that to say so, were to contradict our own ex∣perience, and that of the Disciples of Christ in all ages. Sometimes you faign, as though we asserted all the things that are revealed in the Scripture, to be plain and obvious to every mans understanding; whereas we acknowledge that the things themselves revealed are many of them mysterious, surpassing the comprehension of any man in this world; and only maintain that the propositions wherein the Revelati∣on of them is made, are plain and intelligible unto them that use the means appointed of God to come to a right understanding of them. And sometimes you would commit this with another Principle of ours; whereby we assert that the supernaturall Light of Grace to be wrought in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, is necessary to give unto us a saving perception and understanding of the Mind of God in the Scri∣pture; for what needs such speciall assistance in so plain a matter? as though the asserting of perspicui∣ty in the object, made ability to discern in the subject altogether unnecessary: Or that he who affirms the Sun to give light, doth at the same time affirm also that men have no need of eyes to see it withall. Be∣sides

we know there is a vast difference between a no∣tionall speculative apprehension, and perception of the meaning and Truth of the Propositions contained in the Scripture, which we acknowledge that every reasonable unprejudiced Person may attain unto; and a gracious saving spirituall perception of them, and assent unto them with faith Divine and Supernatural; and this we say is the especiall work of the Holy Ghost in the hearts of the Elect. And I know not how many other exceptions you make to keep your selves from a right understanding of our intention in this Inference; but, as your self elsewhere learnedly observes, who so blind as he that will not see? I shall therefore once more, that we may proceed, declare unto you what it is that we intend in this Assertion. It is, namely; that the things which are revealed in the Scripture, to the end that by the belief of them, and obedience unto them, we may please God, are so proposed and declared, that a man, any man, free from prejudices and temptations; in and by the use of the means appointed him of God for that purpose, may come to the understanding (and that infallibly) of all that God would have him know or do in Religi∣on; there being no defect or hinderance in the Scri∣pture, or manner of its revealing things necessary, that should obstruct him therein. What are the means appointed of God for this purpose, we do not now enquire, but shall anon declare. What de∣fect, blindness, or darkness, there is, or may be, in and upon the minds of men in their depraved lapsed Con∣dition, what disadvantages they may be cast under by their prejudices, Traditions, negligences, sins, and prophaneness, belongs not unto our present disqui∣sition. That which we assert concerns meerly the manner of the proposall of the Truths to be believed,

which are revealed in the Scripture; and this we say is such, as that there is no impossibility, no nor great difficulty, but that a man may come to the right un∣derstanding of them; not as to the comprehension of the things themselves, but the perception of the sense of the Propositions wherein they are expressed. And this Assertion of ours, is, as the former, grounded on the Scripture its self. See if you please, Deut. 30. 11. Psal. 1. 19. 9. and 119. 105. Prov. 6. 22. 2 Cor. 4. 3. 2 Pet. 19. And to deny it, is to pluck up all Religion by the roots, and to turn men loose unto Scepticism, Libertinism, and Atheism; and that with such an horrible reproach unto God himself, as that nothing more abominable can be invented. The Devil of old, being not able to give out certain An∣swers unto them that came to onquire about their Concernments at his Oracles, put them off a long time with dubious, aenigmaticall, unintelligible So∣phisms. But when once the world had by experi∣ence, study, and observation, improved its self into a Wisdome beyond the pitch of its first rudeness, men began generally to despise what they saw could not be certainly understood. This made the Devil pluck in his horns, as not finding it for the interest of his kingdome to expose himself to be scoffed at by them, with whose follies and fanaticall credulity in esteem∣ing highly of that which could not be understood, he had for many generations sported himself. And do they not blasphemously expose the Oracles of the true, holy, and living God, to no less contempt, who for their own sinister ends would frighten men from them with the ugly scare-crow of obscurity, or their not being intelligible unto every man by the use of means, so far as he is concerned to know them, and the mind of God in them. And herein also Protestants

stand as firmly as the fundamentals of Christianity will bear them.

4. Protestants believe, that it is the Duty of all men who desire to know the will of God, and to worship him according unto his mind, to use diligence in the improve∣ment of the means appointed for that end, to come unto a right and full understanding of all things in the Scri∣pture, wherein their faith and obedience are concerned. This necessarily follows from the Principles before laid down. Nor is it possible it should be otherwise. It is doubtless incumbent on every man to study and know his Duty; that cannot be a mans Duty which he is not bound to know, especially not such a Duty as whereon his eternall welfare should depend: And I suppose a man can take no better Course to come to the knowledge of his Duty, than that which God hath appointed for that purpose. The Commands and Exhortations which we have given us in the Scri∣pture for our Diligence in this matter, with the Ex∣plications and improvements of them in the Writings of the Fathers, are so obvious, trite, and known, that it were meer loss of time to insist on the Repeti∣tion of them. I suppose, I should speak within com∣pass, if I should say, that one Chrysostome doth in a hundred places exhort Christians of all sorts, to the diligent study and search of the Scriptures, and espe∣cially of the Epistles of Paul, not the most plain and easie part of them. I know, the practise of your Church lyes to the contrary, and what you plead in the justification of that practise; but I am sorry both for Her and you; both for the contrivers of and con∣senters unto this abomination: and I fear what your accoun•• will be as to this matter, at the last day. God having granted the inestimable benefit of his Word unto mankind, revealing therein unto them

the only way by which they may attain unto a bles∣sed eternity; Is it not the greatest ingratitude that any man can possibly contract the guilt of, to neglect the use of it? What then is your Condition, who, upon sleight and triviall pretences, set up your own Wisdome and Authority, against the Wisdome and Authority of God; advising and commanding men, upon the pain of your displeasure in this world, not to attend unto that which God commands them to attend unto, on pain of his displeasure in the world to come? So that though I confess that you deny this Principle, yet I cannot see but that you do so, not only upon the hazard of your own souls, and the souls of them that attend unto you, seeing, that if the blind lead the blind, both must fall into the ditch; but also, that you do it to the great prejudice of Christian Religion in the very foundations of it. For what can a man rationally conclude,

that shall see you driving all Persons,

and that on no small penalties, excepting your selves who are concerned in the con∣spiracy, and some few others whom you suppose suf∣ficiently initiated in your Mysteries, from the reading and study of those Books, wherein the world knows, and your selves confess, that the Arcana of Christian Religion are contained; but that there are some things in them like the hidden Sacra of the old Pagan Hierophants, which may not be disclosed, because however countenanced by a remote veneration, yet are indeed turpia or ridicula, things to be ashamed of, or scorned? And the Truth is, some of your Do∣ctors have spoken very suspiciously this way; whilest they justifie your practise in driving the people from the study of the Scripture, by intimations of things and expressions, not so pure and chast as to be fit for the knowledge of the promiscuous multitude; when

in the mean time Themselves or their Associates do publish unto all the world, in their rules and directions for Confession, such abominable filth and ribaldry, as I think was never by any other means vented amongst mankind.

5. Protestants say that the Lord Christ hath insti∣tuted his Church, and therein appointed a Ministry, to preside over the rest of his Disciples in his Name, and to unfold un to them his mind and will as recorded in his Word; for which end he hath promised his presence with them by his Spirit unto the end of the World, to enable them in an humble dependance on his assistance, to find out and declare his Commands and Appoint∣ments unto their brethren. This Position, I suppose, you will not contend with us about; although I know that you put another sense upon most of the terms of it, than the Scripture will allow, or wee can ad∣mit of.

These are the Principles of Protestants; this is the Progress of their Faith in coming unto settlement and assurance. These are their Foundations, which are as unquestionable as any thing in Christianity; the most of them, your selves being judges. And from them, one of these two things will necessarily follow; Either that all men, unto whom the Word of God doth come, will come to an agreement in the Truth, or the Unity of Faith; or Secondly, That it is their own fault if they do not so do: For what upon these Principles should hinder them from so doing? All saving Truth is revealed by God in the Scripture, unto the end that men may come to the knowledge of it. It is so revealed by Him, that it is possible, and with his assistance, easie formen to know aright his Mind and Will about the things so revealed: and be hath appointed regular wayes and means for men

to wait upon him in and by, for the obtaining of his assistance. Now pray revive your Question that gave occasion unto this discourse; however men may differ in Religion, why is not the Scripture suffi∣cient to bring them unto an agreement and settle∣ment? Take heed that in your Answer, you deny not some Principle that will involve the whole interest of Christianity in its ruine: Where is the defect? where the hinderance, why all men upon these Principles however differing at present, may not come to a full Settlement and Agreement? I hope, you will find none but what are in them selves; and for them; ipsi-viderint; the Scripture is blameless. Here is Cer∣tainty of Revelation from God, Fullness of that Revelation as to our Duty, Clearness and perspicu∣ity for our understanding of it, Means appointed and sanctified for that end; what I pray is wanting? All Truths wherein it is the Duty of men to agree are fixed and stated, so that it can never be lawfull for any man, in any generation, to call any of them into question; plain and evident, that no man can mi∣stake the mind of God in them in things wherein his Duty is concerned, without his own crime and guilt. You will say then, it may be, But why then do not men agree, why do you not agree among your selves, but I would hope, that it is scarcely possible for any man to be so ignorant of the Condition of mankind, and a∣mongst them of the best of men, as seriously to ask this Question. Are not all men naturally blind in the things of God? Do not the best of men know on∣ly in part? have not the different tempers, constitu∣tions, and Educations of men, a great influence up∣on their understandings and judgements? Besides do not Lusts, Corruptions, Carnall Interests, and Re∣spect unto Worldly things bear sway sin the minds of

many that profess Christian Religion? Are not many prepossessed with prejudices, traditions, customes and usages against the Truth? And are not these things and the like, sufficient to keep up variance in the world without the least suspition of any disability in the Scripture to bring them to an holy agreement and im∣moveable Settlement? Neither is there any other way for men to come unto Settlement and Agreement in Religion according to the mind of God, but that only which hath been now proposed, and this they will come unto, when all men shall be perswaded to capti∣vate their understandings to the obedience of Faith. I deny not but that by outward force and compulsion, by supine negligence of their own concernments, by re∣fusing to btehink themselves, and such other wayes and means, some men may come to some Agreement amongst themselves in the things of Religion. But this Agreement, we say, is not of God, it is not built upon the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the foundation of faith towards God, and so is of no esteem with him. That such is all the Vnity which on your Principles you are able to bring men unto, wee shall manifest in our next Discourse. For the present, I dare chal∣lenge you, or any man in the world, to question or oppose any one of the Principles before laid down▪ and which whilest they stand firm, it is evident unto all, how the Scripture is able to se••tle men unque∣stionably in the Truth and that for ever; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I shall close this Discourse with a passage out of Chrysostome, which fully confirms all that I have asserted; it is in Homil 33. in Act. Apost. Chap. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. What shall wee say unto the Gentiles? A Gen∣tile cometh and faith, I would be a Christian, but I

know nat unto whom amongst you I should adhere. Let us hear the reasons of his haesitation; saith hee, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. There are many con∣tentions, seditions, and tumults amongst you: what opinion to choose I know not: every one sayes, I am in the Truth; and I am utterly ignorant of what is in the Scripture about these things. Do you know whose Objections these are, and by whom they have been lately mannaged? Will you hear what Chrysostome answers? Saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This makes wholly for us; for if wee should say, that wee believe on pro∣bable reasonings, thou maist justly be troubled; but see∣ing wee profess that we believe in the Scriptures, which are plain and true, it is easie for thee to judg and de∣termine. He that yeilds his consent unto them, he is a Christian; and he that contends against them, is farre from the Rule of Christianity. And in the process of his Discourse, which is well worth the perusall before you write any more familiar Epistles, he requires no more of a man to settle him in the Truth, but that he receive the Scripture and have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a mind and judgment, to use in the consideration of it.

It remaineth now that wee consider what it is that you propose unto men to bring them unto a Settle∣ment in Religion, and all Christians to the Vnity of Faith, with the Principles that you proceed upon to that purpose: which because I would not too far lengthen out this Discourse, I shall refer to the next Chapter.

CHAP. VIII.

Principles of Papists whereon they proceed in bringing men to a Settlement in Religion and the Vnity of Faith; examined.

YOur Plea to this purpose is blended with a dou∣ble pretence of Pope, and Church. Sometimes you tell us of the Pope and his succession to S^t Peter; And sometimes of the Church and its Authority. Some∣times you speak as if both these were one and the same; And sometimes you seem to distinguish them. Some of you, lay most weight upon the Papall suceession and Infallibility; and some on the Churches Jurisdiction and Authority. I shall crave leave to take your pleas a-sunder: and first to consider what force they have in them as unto the End whereunto they are applied, severally and apart; and then see what in their joint concurrence they can contribute thereunto. And what ever you think of it, I suppose this course of proceeding will please ingenuous persons, and Lovers of Truth; because it enables them to take a distinct view of the things whereon they are to give judgment. Whereas in your handling of them, something you suppose, something you insinuate, something you openly averr, yet so confound them with other heterogenious Dis∣courses that it can hardly be discerned what grounds you build upon. A way of proceeding, which as it argues a secret guilt and fear of bringing forth your Principles to Light, so a gross kind of Sophistry, ex∣ploded by all Masters of Reason whatsoever. They would not have us fumum ex fulgore, sed ex fumo

dare lucem, darken things clear and perspicuous in themselves; but to make things dark and confused, perspicuous. And the Orator tells us, that Epicu∣rus his discourse was ambiguous, because his Sententia was inhonesta, his Opinion shamefull. And to what purpose should any one contend with you about such generall ambiguous expressions; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; I shall then begin with the Pope and his Infal∣libility, because you seem to lay most weight thereon and tell us plainly, pag. 379 of your Fiat, Edit, 2^d, That if the Pope be not an unerring guide in Affairs of Religion, all is lost; And that, A man once rid of his Authority, may as easily deride, and as solidly confute the Incarnation, as the Sprinkling of Holy water; so re∣solving our faith of the Incarnation of Christ into his Authority or Testimony: Yea and in the same page; That if it had not been for the Pope, Christ himself had not been taken in the world for any such Person, as he is believed this day: And p. 378. to the same purpose; The first great fundamental of Christian Religion, which is the Truth and Divinity of Christ, had it not been for him, had failed long ago in the world; with much more to the same purpose. Hence it is evident that in your judgment, all Truth and Certainty in Re∣gion depends on the Popes Anthority and Infallibili∣ty; or, as you express it, his unerring guidance. This is your Principle, this you propose as the only medium to bring us unto that Settlement in Religion, which you suppose the Scripture is not able to do. What course should we now take? would you have us believe you at the first word without further tri∣all or examination? would you have a man to do so, who never before heard of Pope or Church? We are commanded to try all things, and to hold fast that which is good; to try pretending Spirits and the Be∣raeans

are commended for examining by the Scri∣pture, what Paul himself preached unto them: An implicit Credulity given up to such Dictates, is the height of Fanaticism. Have wee not reason then to call you and your copartners in this design to an accoun ••how you prove that which you so strenu∣ously assert and suppose; and to examine the Prin∣ciples of that Authority whereunto you resolve all your faith and Religion. If upon mature consi∣deration, these prove Solid, and the Inferences you make from them Cogent, it is good Reason that you should be attended unto. If they prove otherwise; if the first be false, and the latter Sophistical; you cannot justly take it ill of him that shall advise you to take heed, that whilest you are gloriously display∣ing your Colours, the ground that you stand upon do not sink under your feet. And here you are forced to go many a step backward to fix your first footing, (untill you leave your Pope quite out of sight) from whence you advance towards him by severall de∣grees, and so arive at his Supremacie and Infallibili∣ty; and so we shall have—Reditum Diomedis ab interitu Meleagri.

1. Your first Principle to this purpose is, That Peter was the Prince of the Apostles, and that in him the Lord Jesus founded a Monarchy in his Church. So pag. 360. you call him, the head and Prince of the whole Congregation. Now this wee think no meet Principle for any one to begin withall, in asserting the foundation of Faith and Religion: Nor do we think that if it were meet so to be used, that it is any way subservient unto your design and purpose.

1. A Principle, fundamental, or first entrance into any way of Settlement in Faith or Religion, it cannot possibly be; because it presupposeth the knowledg of,

and assent unto many other great fundamental Ar∣ticles of Christian Religion; yea upon the matter all that are so: For before you can rationally talk with a man about Peters Principality, and the Monar∣chical state of the Church hereon depending, you must suppose that he believes the Scripture 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be the Word of God, and all things that are taught therein concerning Jesus Christ, his, Person, Nature, Offices, Work, and Gospell, to be certainly and infallibly true: for they are all: supposed in your Assertion; which without the knowledg of them is uncouth, hor∣rid, insignificant, and forraign to all notions that a man can rationally entertain of God or Religion: Nay no attempt of proof or confirmation can be gi∣ven unto it, but by and from Scripture, whereby you fall directly into the Principle which you seek so carefully to avoid: namely that the Scripture is the only way and means of setling us in the Truth; since you cannot settle any man in the very first pro∣position which you make to lead him into another way but by the Scripture: So powerfull is Truth, that those who will not follow it willingly, it will lead them captive in Triumph, whether they will or no.

2. It is unmeet for any purpose, because it is not true. No one word from the Scripture can you pro∣duce in its confirmation: wherein yet if it be not re∣vealed, it must pass as a very uncertain and frivolous conjecture. You can produce no suffrage of the An∣cient Church unto your purpose; which yet if you could, would not presently render any Assertion so confirmed infallibly certain, much less fundamental. Some indeed of the 4^th Century call Peter, Principem Apostolorum: but explain themselves to intend there∣by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first or Leader, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the

Prince, or Ruler. And when the ambiguity of that word began to be abused unto pretensions of Pre∣eminence, the Council of Carthage expresly con∣demned it, allowing none to be termed Princeps Sa∣cerdotum. Many in those dayes thought Peter to be among the Apostles like the Princeps Senatus, or Princeps Civi atis, the chief in their Assemblies, or Principall in dignity, how truly I know not; but that he should be amongst them and over them a Prince in Office, a Monarch as to Rule and Power, is a thing that they never once dreamed of; and the Asseveration of it is an open untruth. The Apostles were equall in their Call, Office, Place, Dignity, Employ∣ments: All the difference between them, was in their Labours, Sufferings, and Success; wherein Paul seems to have had the pre-eminence; who as Peter, and all the rest of the Apostles, every one singly and for himself, had the care of all the Churches commit∣ted unto him; thought it may be for the better dis∣charge of their Duty, ordinarily they divided their work, as they found it necessary for them to apply themselves unto it in particular. See 2 Cor. 11. And this equality between the Apostles is more than once insinuated by Paul, and that with speciall reference unto Peter, 1 Cor. 1. Gal. 1. 18, 19. ch. 2. 9. And is it not wonderfull, that if this Assertion should not only be true, but such a Truth as on which the whole faith of the Church was to be built, that the Scripture should be utterly silent of it, that it should give us no Rules about it, no directions to use and improve it, afford us no one instance of the exercise of the Power and Authority intimated, no not one? but that on the contrary it should lay down Prin∣ciples exclusive of it; Matth. 22. 25, 26. Luk. 22. 26. And when it comes to make an enumeration of all the

Offices appointed by Christ in his Church, Eph. 4. 11. should pass over the Prince and his Office in silence, on which all the rest were to depend? You see what a Foundation you begin to build upon; a meer ima∣gination, and groundless presumption which hath not the least countenance given unto it by Scripture or Antiquity. What a perplexed condition must you needs cast men into, if they shall attend unto your perswasions to rest on the Pope's unerring guidance for all their Certainty in Religion, when the first mo∣tive you propose unto them to gain their Assent, is a Proposition so far destitute of any cogent Evidence of its Truth or innate Credibility, that it is apparent∣ly false, and easily manifested so to be.

3. Were it never so true, as it is notoriously false, yet it would not one jot promote your design: It is about Peter the Apostle, and not the Pope of Rome, that we are yet discoursing. Do you think a man can easily commence per saltum, from the imaginary Principality of Peter unto the Infallibility of the pre∣sent Pope of Rome? Quid Pape cum Petro? what relation is there between the one and other? Sup∣pose a man have so good a mind unto your company, as to be willing to set out with you in this ominous stumbling at the threshold, what will you next lead him unto? You say.

II. That S^t Peter besides his Apostolical Power and Office, (wherein setting aside the prerogative of his Princedome before mentioned, the rest of the Apo∣stles were partakers with him,) had also an Oecume∣nical Episcopal Power invested in him, which was to be transmitted unto others after him. His Office pure∣ly Apostolical, you have no mind to lay claim unto. It may be, you dispair of being able to prove, that your Pope is immediately called and sent by Christ:

that he is furnished with a power of working Mira∣cles, and such other things as concurred to the con∣stitution of the Office Apostolical: and perhaps himself hath but little mind to be exercised in the discharge of that Office, by travelling up and down, poor, despised, persecuted, to preach the Gospel: Monarchy, Rule, Supremacie, Authority, Jurisdi∣ction, Infallibility, are words that better please him: And therefore have you mounted this Notion of Pe∣ters Episcopacy, whereunto you would have us think that all the fine things you so love and dote upon, are annexed. Poor, labouring, perfected Peter the Apostle, may die and be forgotten: but Peter the Bi∣shop, harnessed with Power, Principality, Soveraignty, and Vicarship of Christ,. This is the man you enquire after: But you will have very hard work to find him in the Scripture, or Antiquity, yea the least footstep of him. And do you think indeed that this Episco∣pacy of Peter, distinct from his Apostleship, is a meet stone to be layed in the foundation of faith? It is a thing that plainly overthrows his Apostleship; For if he were a Bishop, properly and distinctly, he was no Apostle: If an Apostle, not such a Bishop: That is, if his Care were confined unto any one Church, and his residence required therein, as the Case is with a pro∣per Bishop, how could the Care of all the Churches be upon him? How could he be obliged to pass up and down the world in pursuit of his Commission of preaching the Gospel unto all Nations? or to travail up and down as the necessity of the Churches did re∣quire? But you will say, that he was not Bishop of this or that particular, but of the Church Vniversal. But I supposed you had thought him Bishop of the Church of Rome, and that you will plead him after¦wards so to have been: And I must assure you, that

he that thinks the Church of Rome in the dayes of Peter and Paul was the same with the Church Catho∣lick, and not looked on as particular a Church as that of Hierusalem, or Ephesus, or Corinth; is a person with whom I will have as little to do as I can in this matter. For to what purpose should any one spend time to debate things, with men absurd and un∣reasonable, and who will affirm that it is midnight at noon day? I know, the Apostolical Office did in∣clude in it the power of all other Offices in the Church whatever, as the less are included in the greater: But that he who was an Apostle should formal∣ly also be a Bishop, though an Apostle might exercise the whole Power and Office of a Bishop, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, somewhat allyed unto Impossibilities. Do you see what a Quagmire you are building upon? I know, if a man will let you alone you will raise a stru∣cture, which after you have painted and gilded, you may prevail with many harbourless Creatures to ac∣cept of an habitation therein: For when you have layed your foundation out of sight, you will pretend that all your building is on a Rock, whereas indeed you have nothing but the rotten posts of such Suppo∣sitions as these, to support it withall. But suppose that Peter was thus a Prince, Monarch, Apostle, Bi∣shop, that is, a Catholick, Particular Officer, What is that to you? Why

III. This Peter came and preached the Gospel at Rome. Though you can by no means prove this As∣sertion, so as to make it de fide, or necessarily to be believed of any one man in the world, much less to become meet to enjoy a place among those fundamen∣tals that are tendred unto us to bring us unto Set∣tlement in Religion; yet being a matter very uncer∣tain, and of little importance, I shall not much con∣tend

with you about it. Witnesses meerly humane and fallible you have for it a great many; and ex∣ceptions almost without number may be put in against your Testimonies, and those of great weight and moment. Now although that which you affirm might be granted you, without any reall advantage unto your Cause, or the enabling of you to draw any lawfull inferences to uphold your Papal claim by, yet to let you see on what sorry uncertain pre∣sumptions you build your faith and profession, and that in and about things which you make of indispen∣sable necessity unto Salvation; I shall in our passage remind you of some few of them, which I profess se∣riously unto you, make it not only Questionable unto me whether or no, but also somewhat improbable that ever Peter came to Rome. 1. Though those that follow and give their assents unto this Story are many, yet it was taken up upon the credit and re∣port of one or two Persons, as Eusebius manifests, Lib. 2. cap. 25. Whether Dionysius Corinthius, or Pa∣pias, first began the Story, I know not; but I know certainly that both of them manifested themselves in other things, to be a little too credulous. 2. That which many of them built their Credulity upon, is very uncertain, if not certainly false; namely that Peter wrote his first Epistle from Rome, which he calls Babylon in the Subscription of it. But where∣fore he should then so call it, no man can tell. The Apocalypse of John who prophesied what Rome should be in after-Ages, and thereon what name should be accommodated unto it for its false wor∣ship and Persecution, was not yet written. Nor was there any thing yet spoken of or known among the Disciples, whence they might conjecture Rome to be intended by that Appellation. So that accor∣ding

unto this Supposition, S^t Peter intending to ac∣quaint them unto whom he wrote, where he was, when he wrote unto them, and to present them with the respects of the Church in that place, had by an aenigmatical expression rather amuzed than informed them. Besides, he had before this, agreed with and solemnly engaged himself unto Paul to take care of the Circumcision; unto whom after he had preached a while in Palestine, it is more than probable that he betook himself unto Babylon in Assyria, the princi∣pal seat of their residence in their first and most po∣pulous dispersion, from whence he wrote unto all their Colonies scattered abroad in the neighbouring Nati∣ons. So that although I will not, because of the consent of many of the Ancients, deny that Peter went to Rome and preached there, yet I am fully sa∣tisfied that this foundation of the Story told by them, is a perfect mistake, consisting in an unwarrantable causless wresting of a plain expression unto a mystical sense and meaning. 3. Your Witnesses agree not at all in their Story; neither as to the time of his going to Rome, nor as to the occasion of it, nor as to the sea∣son of his abode there. Many of them assign unto him 25 years for his residence there, which is evi∣dently false and easily disproved. This computation is ascribed to Eusebius in Chron. Lib. 1. but it is evi∣dently an addition of Hieroms, in whose dayes the Tradition was encreased; for there is no such thing in the Original Greek Copy of Eusebius, nor doth it agree with what he had elsewhere written concern∣ing him. And it is very well worth while, to consi∣der how On••phrius Panvinus, a very learned Anti∣quary of your own party, makes up these 25 years of Peter's Episcopacy at Rome, Annotat. in Plat. in Vit. B. Petr. Ex novem primis annis, saith he, post

Christi mortem usque ad initium secundi and Imperii Claudii, Petrum Judaea nunquam excessisse, ex Actis Apostelorum & Pauli Epistola ad Galatas, apertissimè constat. Si igitur, ut inter omnes Authores convenit, co tempore Romam venit, illud certe necessarium vide••ur eum ante ad urbem adventum Antiochiae septem annis non sedisse; sed hanc ejus Antiochenam cathedram alio tempore fuisse. Quam rem ex vetustissimorum authorum testimonio sic constitui. Secundo Imperii Claudii anno Romam venit, à quo tempore usque ad il∣lius obitum, anni plus minus viginti quinque intersunt, quibus etsi eum Romae sedisse Veteres scribunt, non ta∣men praeterea sequitur, ipsum semper in urbe commora∣tum esse. Nam, quarto anno ejus ad urbem adventus, Hierusolymam reversus est, & ibi Concilio Apostolo∣rum interfuit; inde Antiochiam profectus septem ibi∣dem annis usque ad Neronis Imperium permansit, cu∣jus initio Romam reversus Romanam dilabentem repa∣ravit Ecclesiam. Peregrinatione inde per universam fere Europam suscepta, Romam rediens novissimo Ne∣ronis Imperii anno, martyrium Crucis passus est.

For the first nine years after the death of Christ, unto the beginning of the second year of Claudius, it is most evi∣dent from the Acts, and Epistle to the Galatians, that Peter went not out of Palestine. If therefore, as all agree, he came at that time to Rome, it is certain that he bad not abode at Antioch seven years before his com∣ing thither; (which yet all the Witnesses agree in) but this his Antiochian Chair fell out at some other time. Wherefore I thus order the whole matter from the Testimony of most Ancient Authors, (not that any one before him ever wrote any such thing, but this he supposeth may be said to reconcile their Con∣tradictions); In the second year of Claudius He came to Rome. From thence unto his death were 25 years

more or less: which space of time although the Ancients write that he sate at Rome, yet it doth not follow thence, that he alwayes abode in the City; for in the 4^th year after his coming, he returned unto Jerusalem to be pre∣sent at the Council of the Apostles; thence going unto Antioch, he continued there seven years, unto the raign of Nero. In the beginning of his raign, he returned unto Rome, to repair the decaying Church there; from thence passing almost through all Europe, he re∣turned again to Rome in the last year of Nero, and under went Martyrdome by the Cross. You may easi∣ly discern the uncertainty at least of that Story, which this learned man, can give no countenance unto, but by multiplying improbable imaginations to shelter one another. For, 1. Who ever said that Peter came from Rome to come up to the Councel at Hierusalem; when it is most manifest from the Story of the Acts that he had never before departed out of Judea; and this Councel being granted to have been in the 6^th year of Claudius, as here it is by Onuphri∣us, quite overthrows the Tradition of his going to Rome in his second. 2. The abode of 25 years at Rome, as thus disposed, is no abode indeed; for he con∣tinued almost twice as long at Antioch as he did at Rome. 3. Here is no time at all allowed unto him for preaching the Gospel in Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia, which certainly are not Provinces of Europe, in which places Eusebius, Hist. Lib. 3. cap. 1. Origen, and all the Ancients agree that he did at∣tend unto his Apostleship towards the Jews; and his Epistles make it evident. 4. Nor is there any time left for him to be at Babylon, where yet we know he was; so that this fancy can have no countenance gi∣ven it, without a full rejection of all that we know to be true in the Story.

4. The Scripture is utterly silent of any such thing as Peters going to Rome. Other journeyings of his it records, as to Samaria, Lydda, Joppa, Caesaria, Antioch. Now it was no way materiall that his coming unto any of these places should be known, but only in reference unto the things done there by him; and yet they are recorded. But this his going to Rome, which is supposed to be of such huge importance in Christian Religion, and that according to Onuphrius falling out in the middest of his other journeyings, as it must do if ever it fell out, is utterly passed by in silence. If it had been to have such an influence into the very being of Christi∣anity as now is pretended, some men will be apt to think, that the mention of it would not have been omit∣ted. 5. Paul in his Epistle to the Roman••, written a good while after this imaginary going of Peter to Rome, makes no mention of him, when yet he saluted by name those of chief note and dignity in the Church there. So that undoubtedly he was not then come thither. 6. The same Apostle being at Rome, in the reign of Nero, in the amidst of the time allotted un∣to the abode of Peter there, never once mentions him in any of the Epistles which from thence he wrote unto the Churches and his fellow labourers; though he doth remember very many others that were with him in the City. 7. He asserts that in one of his Epistles from thence, which as I think sufficiently proves that Peter was not then there; for he saies plainly that in his triall he was forsaken by all men, that no man stood by him, which he mentions as their sin, and prays for pardon for them. Now no man can reasonably think, that Peter was amongst the number of them whom he complained of. 8. The Story is not consistent with what is expresly writ∣ten

of Peter by Luke in the Acts, and Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians. Paul was converted unto the faith about the 38^th year of Christ, or 5^th after his Ascension. After this he continued 3 years preaching the Gospel about Damascus, and in Ara∣bia. In the 40^th or 41^st year of Christ he came to Jerusalem, to conferr with Peter, Gal. 1. which was the first of Claudius. As yet therefore, Peter was not removed out of Judaea: 14 years after, that is, either after his first going up to Jerusalem, or rather 14 years after his first Conversion, he went up again to Jerusalem, and found Peter still there, which was in the 52^d year of Christ, and the 13^th of laudius. Or if you should take the date of the 14 years men∣tioned by him shorter by 5 or 6 years, and reckon their beginning from the passion and Resurrection of Christ, which is not improbable; then this going up of Paul to Hierusalem, will be found to be the same with his going up to the Councel from Antioch, about the 6^th or rather 7^th year of Claudius. Peter was then yet certainly at Hierusalem. That is, about the 46^th year of Christ; some while after you would have the Church to be founded by him at Rome. Af∣ter this, when Paul had taken a long progress through many Countreys, wherein he must needs spend some years, returning unto Antioch, Act. 18. 22. he there again met with Peter, Gal. 2. 11. Peter being yet still in the East to wards the end of the Raign of Claudius. At Antioch where Paul found him, if any of your Witnesses may be believed, he abode 7 years. Be∣sides he was now very old, and ready to lay down his mortality, as our Lord had shewed him; and in all probability after his remove from Antioch, spent the residue of his dayes in the Eastern Dispersion of the Jews. For, 9^ly, much of the Apostles work in Pa∣lestine

among the Jews was now drawing to an end; the elect being gathered in, troubles were growing upon the Nation; and Peter had, as we observed be∣fore, agreed with Paul to take the Care of the Cir∣cumcision, of whom the greatest number by far, ex∣cepting only Judaea its self, was in Babylon and the Eastern Nations about it. Now whether these and the like observations out of the Scripture concerning the Course of S^t Peters life, be not sufficient to out∣ballance the Testimony of your disagreeing Witnesses, impartial and unprejudiced men may judge. For my part, I do not intend to conclude peremptorily from them, that Peter was never at Rome, or never preached the Gospel there; but that your Assertion of it is improbable, and built upon very Questiona∣ble grounds, that I suppose I may safely conclude. And God forbid, that we should once imagine the present faith of Christians, or their Profession of Christian Religion, to be built upon such uncertain Conjectures, or to be concerned in them whether they be true, or false. Nothing can be spoken with more reproach unto it, than to say, that it stands in need of such supportment. And yet if this one Sup∣position fail you, all your building falls to the ground in a moment. Never was so stupendous a fabrick raised on such imaginary foundations. But that we may proceed; Let us suppose this also, that Peter was at Rome, and preached the Gospel there, What will thence follow unto your advantage? what, to∣wards the settlement of any man in Religion, or bringing us unto the Unity of faith, the things en∣quired after? He was at, he preached the Gospel at Hierusalem, Samaria, Joppa, Antioch, Babylon, and sundry other places, and yet we find no such Conse∣quences pleaded from thence, as you urge from his

Coming to Rome. Wherefore you adde,

1 V. That St Peter was Bishop of the Roman Church; that he fixed his seat there, and there he died. In gathering up your Principles I follow the footsteps of Bellarmine, Baronius, and other great Champi∣ons of your Church; so that you cannot except against the method of our proposals of them. Now this Conclusion is built on these three Suppositions. 1. That Peter had an Episcopal Office distinct from his Apostolical; 2. That he was at Rome. 3. That he fixed his Episcopal Sea there; whereof the Se∣cond is very Questionable, the First and Last are ab∣solutely false. So that the Conclusion its self must needs be a notable fundamentall Principle of Faith. It is true, and I shewed it before, that the Apostles when they came into any Church did exercise all the Power of Bishops in and over that Church, but not as Bishops but as Apostles. As a King may in any of the Cities of his dominions where he comes, exer∣cise all the Authority of the Mayor, or particular Governour of that place where he is, which yet doth not make him become the Mayor of the place; which would be a diminution of his royall Dignity. No more did the Apostles become Local Bishops, because of their exercising Episcopal Power in any particular Church, by virtue of their Authority Apostolical, wherein that other was included, as hath been declared. And Cui Bono? to what pur∣pose serves this fictitious Episcopacy? All the Privi∣ledges that you contend for the Assignation of unto Peter, were be••••owed upon him as an Apostle, or as a believing disciple of Christ. As such he had those peculiar grants made unto him. The Keys of the Kingdome of heaven were given unto him as an Apostle (or, according to S^t Austin, as a believer) as

such was he commanded to feed the sheep of Christ. It was unto him as an Apostle, or a professing belie∣ver, that Christ promised to build the Church, on the faith that he had professed. You reckon all these things among the priviledges of Peter the Apostle, who as such is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or first in order. As an Apostle he had the Care of all Churches commit∣ted unto him; As an Apostle he was divinely inspired and enabled infallibly to reveal the mind of Christ. All these things belonged unto him as an Apostle; and what Priviledge he could have besides as a Bishop nei∣ther you nor I can tell; no more than you can when, how, or by whom he was called and ordained unto any such office; all which we know well enough con∣cerning his Apostleship. If you will then have any to succeed him in the enjoyment of any, or of all these Privileges, you must bespeak him to succeed him in his Apostleship, and not in his Bishoprick. Besides, as I said before, this imaginary Episcopacy which limits and confines him unto a particular Church, as it doth if it be an Episcopacy properly so called, is destructive of his Apostolical Office, and of his Duty in answering the Commission given him of preaching the Gospel to every Creature, following the Guidance of Gods Providence, and conduct of the Holy Ghost in his way. Many of the Ancients I confess affirm that Peter sate Bishop of the Church of Rome; but they all evidently use the word in a large sense to imply that during his abode there, (for that there he was, they did suppose,) be took upon him the especial Care of that Church. For the same Persons constantly affirm that Paul also was Bishop of the same Church, at the same time; which can∣not be otherwise understood than in the large sense mentioned. And Ruffinus, Prafat. Recog. Clement. ad G••udent. unriddles the mystery: Linus, saith

he, & Cl••tus fuerunt ante Clementem Episcopi in ••rbe Roma, sed superstite Petro; videlicet, at illi Episcopatûs Curam gererent, iste verò Apostolatûs simpleret officium. Linus and Cletus were Bishops in the City of Rome before Clemens, but whilest Peter was yet alive; they performing the Duty of Bishops, Peter attending unto his office Apostolical. And here∣by doth he utterly discard the present new plea of the foundation of your faith. For though he assert that Peter the Apostle was at Rome, yet he denies that he ever sate Bishop there, but names two others that ruled that Church at Rome joyntly during his time, either in one Assembly, or in two, the one of the Cir∣cumcision, the other of the Gentile-Converts. And if Peter were thus Bishop of Rome, and entred as you say upon his Episcopacy at his first coming thither, whence is it that you are forced to confess that he was so long absent from his charge? Five years, saith Bellarmine, but that will by no means salve the Dif∣ficulty. Seven saith Onuphrius, at once, and abiding at one place; the most part of his time besides being spent in other places, and yet allowing him no time at all for those places where he certainly was: Eigh∣teen, saith Cortefius; strange that he should be so long absent from his especiall Cure, and never write one word to them, for their instruction or consola∣tion; whereas in the mean time he wrote two Epistles unto them, who it seems did not in any speciall man∣ner belong unto his Charge: I wish we could once find our way out of this maze of uncertainties. This is but a sad disquisition after Principles of faith, to settle men in Religion by them; And yet if we should suppose this also, wee are farre enough from our journeys end. The present Bishop of Rome is as yet behind the curtain, neither can he appear upon the stage, untill h•• be ushered in by one pretence more

of the same nature with them that went before, And this is,

V. That some one must needs succeed Peter in his Episcopacy: But why so? why was it not needfull that one should succeed him in his Apostleship? Why was it not needfull that Paul should have a successor as well as Peter? and John as well as either of them? Because, you say, that was necessary for the Church, not so these. But who told you so? where is the proof of what you averre? who made you judges of what is necessary, and what is not necessary for the Church of Christ, when himself is silent? And why is not the succession of an Apostle necessary as well as of such a Bishop as you fancie? had it not been better to have had one still residing in the Church, of whose Infalli∣bility there could have been no doubt or question? One that had the power of working Miracles, that should have no need to scare the people by shaking fire out of his slieve, as your Pope Gregory the 7^th was wont to do, if Cardinall Benno may be believed. But you have now carried us quite off from the Scri∣pture, and Story, and probable conjectures, to attend unto you whilest you give the Lord Jesus prudentiall advice, about what is necessary for his Church; It must needs be so, it is meet it should be so, is the best of your proof in this matter: Only your fratres Wa∣lenburgici adde, that never any man ordained the Go∣vernment of a Community more weakly, than Christ must be supposed to have done the Government of his Church, if he have not appointed such a Successour to Peter as you imagin. But it is easie for you to assert what you please of this nature, and as easie for any one to reject what you so assert if he please. These things are without the verge of Christian Religion; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Towers and Palaces in the ayr: But what must S^t Peter be succeeded in? his Episcopacy

and what therewithall? his Authority, Power and Jurisdiction over all Churches in the world, with an unerring judgement in matters of faith. But all these belonged unto Peter, as far as ever they belonged unto him, as he was an Apostle, long before you fan∣cie him to have been a Bishop: As then his Episco∣pacy came without these things, so for ought you know, it might goe without it. This is a matter of huge importance in that Systeme of Principles, which you tender unto us, to bring us unto settlement in Religion, and the Unity of Faith; would you would consider a little, how you may give some tolerable ap∣pearance of proof unto that which the Scripture is so utterly silent in; yea which lyes against the whole Oeconomy of the Lord Jesus Christ in his ordering of his Church, as delivered unto us therein; dic aliquem dic, Quintiliane, colorem. But we come now to the Pope, whom here we first find latentem, post Pri••∣cipia, and coming forth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with his Claim. For you say.

VI. That the Bishop of Rome is the man that thus sue∣cceds Peter in his Episcopacy, which though it were settled at Rome, was over the whoee Catholick Church. So you say, and so you profess your selves to believe. And we desire that you would not take it amiss if we desire to know upon what grounds you do so; being unwilling to cast away all Consideration that we may embrace a fanatical Credo in this unlikely business. We desire therefore to know, who. appointed that there should be any such succession; who, that the Bishop of Rome should be this Successor, Did Jesus Christ do it? we may justly expect you should say. He did: but if you do, we desire to know when, where, how; seeing the Scripture is utterly silent of say such thing. Did S^t Peter himself do it? Pray, manifest un∣to us that by the appointment of Jesus Christ he had

power so to do; and that secondly he actually did so: Neither of these can you prove, or produce any Te∣stimony worth crediting in confirmation of it. Did it necessarily follow from hence, because that was the place where Peter died: But this was accidentall, a thing that Peter thought not of: for, you say, that a few dayes before his death he was leaving that place. Besides according to this insinuation, why did not every Apostle leave a Successour behind him in the place where he dyed, and that by vertue of his dying in that place? or produce you any Patent granted to Peter in especiall, that where he dyed there he should leave a Successour behind him. But it seems the whole weight of your faith, is layed upon a mat∣ter of fact accidentally falling out, yea and that very incertain whether ever it fell out or no. Shew us any thing of the will and institution of Christ in this mat∣ter: As, that Peter should go to Rome, that he should fix his seat there, that he should dye there, that he should have a Successour, that the Bishop of Rome should be his Successour, that unto this Successour I know not what, nor how many Priviledges should be conveyed: All these are arbitrary 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Inven∣tions that men may multiply in infinitum at their pleasure: For what should set bounds to the imagi∣nations of men, when once they cast off all Reverence of Christ and his Truth? Once more; Why did not Peter fix a Seat and leave a Successor at Antio••h, and in other places, where he abode, and preached, and exetcised Episcopal Power without all question? Was it because he dyed at Rome? This is to acknowledg that the whole Papacy is built, as was said, upon an accidentall matter of fact; and that supposed not proved. Further, if he must be supposed to succeed Peter, I desire to know what that succession is, and wherein he doth succeed him: Doth he succeed him

in all that hee had and was, in reference unto the Church of God? Doth he succeed him in the manner of his Call to his Office? Peter was called immediately by Christ in his own Person: the Pope is chosen by the Conclave of Cardinals, concerning whom, their Of∣fice, Priviledges, Power, Right to choose the Succes∣sour of Peter, there is not one iota in the Scripture, or any Monuments of the best Antiquity: and how in their Election of Popes they have been influenced by the interest of powerfull Strumpets, your own Baro∣nius will inform you. Doth he succeed him in the way and manner of his Personal Discharge of his Office and imployment? Not in the least; Peter in the pursuit of his Commission and in obedience unto the command of his Lord and Master, travailed up and down the world, preaching the Gospel, plant∣ing and watering the Churches of Christ, in patience, self-deniall, humility, zeal, temperance, meekness. The Pope raigns at Rome in case, exalting himself above the Kings of the earth, without taking the least pains in his own Person for the conversion of Sinners, or edification of the Disciples of Christ, Doth he succeed him in his Personal Qualifications which were of such extraordinary advantage unto the Church of God in his dayes; his Faith, Love, Holi∣ness, Light and Knowledg; you will not say so. Many of your Popes by your own confession, have been ignorant and stupid; many of them flagitiously wicked, to say no more. Doth he succeed him in the way and manner of his exercising his Care and Au∣thority towards the Churches of Christ? as little as the rest: Peter did it by his prayers for the Churches, personal visitation, and instruction of them, writing by inspiration for their direction and guidance ac∣cording to the will of God: The Pope by Bulls, and Consistorial Determinations, executed by intricate

Legal Processes, and Officers unknown not only to Peter but all Antiquity, whose ways, practices, or∣ders, terms, S^t Peter himself were he upon the earth again would very little understand, Doth he succeed him in his Personal Infallibility? agree among your selves if you can, and give an answer unto this inqui∣ry. Doth he succeed him in his power of working Mi∣racles? you do not so much as pretend thereunto. Doth he succeed him in the Doctrine that he taught? it hath been proved unto you a thousand times, that he doth not; and wee are still ready to prove it again if you call us thereunto. Wherein then doth this Succession consist that you talk of? In his Power, Au∣thority, Jurisdiction, Supremacy, Monarchy, with the Secular Advantages of Riches, Honour, and pomp that attend them; things sweet and desireable unto car∣nall mindes: This is the Succession you pretend to plead for: And are you not therein to be commended for your wisdome? In the things that Peter really enjoyed, and which were of singular Spiritual ad∣vantage unto the Church of God, you disclaim any Succession unto him; and fix it on things wherein he was no way concerned, that make for your own Se∣cular advantage and interest. You have certainly layed your design very well if these things would hold good to Eternity. For, hence it is that you draw out the Monarchy of your Pope, direct and absolute in Ecclesiasticall things over the whole Church; in∣direct at least, and in ordine ad Spiritualia, over the whole world. This the Diana in making of Shrines for whom your occupation consists, and it brings no small gains unto you. Hence you wire-draw his Ca∣thedrall Infallibility, Legislative Authority, Freedom from the Judgment of any, whereby you hope to se∣cure him and your selves from all opposition, endea∣vouring to terrifie them with this Medusa's head that

approach unto you. Hence are his Titles: The Vicar of Christ, Head and Spouse of his Church, Vice-Deus, Dius alter in Terris, and the like, where by you keep up popular venexation, and preserve his Majestick distance from the poor Disciples of Christ. Hence you warrant his practices suited unto these pretensions and Titles, in the deposing of Kings, transposing of Titles unto Dominion and Rule, giving away of Kingdoms, stirring up and waging mighty warres, causing and commanding them that dissent from him, or refuse to yield obedience unto him, to be destroyed with fire and sword. And who can now question but that you have very wisely stated your Succession.

This is the way, this the progress, whereby you pretend to bring us unto the Vnity of faith. If we will submit unto the Pope, and acquiesce in his De∣terminations, (whereunto to induce us we have the Cogent Reasons now considered,) the work will be effected. This is the way that God hath, as you pre∣tend, appointed to bring us unto Settlement in Reli∣gion. These things you have told us so often, and with so much Confidence, that you take it ill we should question the truth of any thing you averr in the who∣e matter; and look upon us as very ignorant or unrea∣sonable for our so doing. Yea he that believes it safer for him to trust the everlasting concernments of his soul unto the Goodness, Grace, and Faithfulness of God in his Word, than unto these Principles of yours, is rejected by you out of the limits of the Catholick Church, that is, of Christianity; for they are the same. To make good your judgement and censure then, you vent endless Cavils against the Au∣thority, Perfection, and Perspicuity of the Scriptures, pretending to despise and scorn whatever is offered in their vi••dication. This rope of Sand, composed •• false suppositions, groundless presumptions, inconse∣quent

inferences, in all which there is not one word of infallible Truth, at least that you can any way make appear so to be, is the great Bond you use to gird men withall into the Unity of Faith. In brief, you tell us that if wee will all submit to the Pope, wee shall be sure all to agree, But this is no more, but, as I have before told you, what every party of men in the world tender us upon the same or the like condi∣tion. It is not a meer agreement wee aym at, but an agreement in the Truth; not a meer Vnity, but a Unity of Faith; and Faith must be built on Principles infallible; or it will prove in the close to have been fancy not Faith; carnall imagination, not Christian belief: otherwise wee may agree in Turcism, or Judaism, or Paganism, as well as in Christianity, and to as good purpose. Now what of this kind do you tender unto us? Would you have us to leave the sure word of Prophesie, more sure than a voyce from Heaven, the Light shining in the dark places of this world which wee are commanded to attend unto by God himself, the Holy Scripture given by Inspi∣ration, which is able to make us wise unto Salvation, the Word that is perfest, sure, right, converting the Soul, enlightning the eyes, making wise the simple, whose observation is attended with great reward, to give heed, yea to give up all our Spirituall and eter∣nall concernments, to the credit of old groundless uncertain Stories, inevident presumptions, fables in∣vented for and openly improved unto carnal, secu∣lar and wicked ends? Is your request reasonable? Would wee could prevail with you to cease your im∣portunity in this matter: especially considering ••the dangerous consequence of the admission of these your Principles unto Christianity in generall. For, if it be so that S^t Peter had such an Episcopacy as you talk of, and that a continuance of it in a Succession by the

Bishops of Rome, be of that indispensable necessity unto the preservation of Christian Religion as is pre∣tended, many men considering the nature and qua∣lity of that Succession, how the means of its conti∣nuation have been arbitrarily and occasionally changed, what place formerly popular Suffrage, and the Imperial Authority have had in it; how it came to be devolved on a Conclave of Cardinals, what vio∣lence and tumults have attended one way, what bri∣beries and filthy respects unto the lusts of unclean Persons the other, what Interruptions the Succession it self hath had by vacancies, Schisms, and contests for the place, and uncertainty of the Person that had the best right unto the Popedome according to the customes of the dayes wherein he lived, and that many of the Persons who have had a place in the pre∣tended Succession, have been plainly men of the world, such as cannot receive the Spirit of Christ, yea open enemies unto his Cross: would find just cause to suspect that Christianity were utterly failed many Ages ago in the world, which certainly would not much promote the Settlement in Truth and Unity of Faith that we are enquiring after. And this is the first way that you propose to supply that Defect which you charge upon the Scripture, that it is in∣sufficient to reconcile men that are at variance about Religion, and settle them in the Truth. And if you are able by so many uncertainties and untruths to bring men unto a Certainty and Scttlement in the Truth, you need not despair of compassing and thing, that you shall have a mind to attempt.

But you have yet another Plea which you make no less use of than of the former▪ which must therefore be also, (now you have engaged us in this work,) a little examined: This is the Church, its Authority and Infallibil••ty. The truth is, when you come to

make a practical Application of this Plea unto your own use, you resolve it into, and confound it with that foregoing of the Pope, in whom solely many of you would have this Authority and Infallibility of the Church to reside. Yet because in your mannage∣ment of it, you proceed on other Principles than those before mentioned, this pretence also shall be apart considered. And here you tell us,

1. That the Church was before the Scripture, and giveth Authority unto it. By the Scriptures you know that wee understand the Word of God, with this ••ne Adjunct of its being written by his command and appointment. We do not say that it belongs unto the Essence of the Word of God that it be written: Whatever is spoken by God. wee admit as his Word, when wee are infallibly assured that by Him it was spoken; and that wee should do so before, himself doth not require at our hands: for he would have us use our utmost diligence not to be imposed upon by any in his Name. Therefore wee grant that the Word of God was given out for the Rule of men in his Wor∣ship, two thousand years before it was written; but it was so given forth, as that they unto whom it came, had infallible assurance that from Him it came and his Word it was: And if you, or any man else, can give us such assurance, that any thing is, or hath been spoken by him, besides what we have now written in the Scripture, wee shall receive it with the same faith and obedience, wherewith wee receive the Scripture its self. Whereas therefore you say, That the Church was before the Scripture, if you intend no more but that there was a Church in the world, before the word of God was written, wee grant it true; but not at all to your purpose. If you intend that the Church is before the Word of God, which at an appointed time was written, it may possibly be wrested unto your

purpose, but is farre from being true; seeing the Church is a society of men, called to the knowledg and worship of God by his Ward. They become a Church by the call of that Word, which it seems you would have not given untill they are a Church: of Effects produce their Causes, Children beget their Parents, Light brings forth the Sunne, and Heat the Fire: So are the Prophets and Apostles built upon the founda∣tion of the Church, whereof the Pope is the Corner stone: So was the Judaical Church before the Law of i•• constitution, and the Christian before the Word of Promise whereon it was founded, and the Word of Command by which it was edified. In brief; from the day wherein Man was first created upon the earth, to the days wherein we live, never did a Person or Church yield any obedience, or perform any ac∣ceptable worship unto God, but what was founded on, and regulated by his Word, given unto them ante∣cedently unto their obedience and worship, to be the sole foundation and Rule of it. That you have no concernment in what is, or may be truly spoken of the Church, we shall afterwards shew; but it is not for the interest of Truth, that wee should suffer you with∣out controul, to impose such absurd notions on the minds of men; especially when you pretend to direct them unto a Settlement in Religion. Alike true is it, that the Church gives Authority unto the Scripture: Every true Church indeed gives witness or Testimony unto it, and it is its Duty so to do; it holds it forth, declares, and manifests it, so that it may be considered and taken notice of by all; which is one main End of the Institution of the Church in this world: But the Church no more gives Authority to the Scripture than it gives Authority to God himself: He requires of men the discharge of that Duty which he hath assigned unto them, but stands not in need of their

suffrage to confirm his Authority. It was not so in∣deed with the Idols of old, of whom Tertullian said rightly; Si Deus homini non placuerit, Deus non erit: The reputation of their Deity depended on the Testi∣mony of men; as, you say, that of Christ's doth on the Authority of the Pope. But I shall not farther insist upon the disprovement of this vanity; having shewed already, that the Scripture hath all its Autho∣rity both in its self, and in reference unto us, from Him whose Word it is: and wee have also made is appear, that your Assertions to the contrary, are meet for nothing but to open a door unto all Irreligious∣ness, Prophaneness, and Atheism; so that there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ nothing sound or savoury, nothing which an heart carefull to preserve its Loyalty unto God, will not nauseate at, nothing not suited to oppugn the fun∣damentals of Christian Religion in this your Position. This ground well fixed you tell us.

11. That the Church is infallible, or cannot erre in what she teacheth to be believed. And we ask you what Church you mean, and how far you intend that it is infallible? The only known Church which was then in the world, was in the Wilderness when Moses was in the mount. Was it infallible when it made the golden Calf, and danced about it proclaim∣ing a feast unto Jebovah before the Calf? was the same Church afterward Infallible in the dayes of the Judges, when it worshipped Baalim and Aftaroth? or in the dayes of Jeroboam, when it sacrificed before the Calves at Dan and Bethel? or in the other branch of it in the dayes of Ahaz, when the High-Priest set up an Altar in the Temple for the King to offer Sacrifice unto the gods of Damascus? or in the dayes of Jehoiaki•• and Zedekiah, when the High-Priest with the rest of the Priests, imprisoned and would have slain Jeremiah for preaching the word of

God? or when they preferred the worship of the Queen of Heaven before that of the God of Abra∣ham? Or was it infallible when the High-Priest, with the whole Councel or Sa••edrim of the Church, judicially condemned as far as in them lay their own Messias, and rejected the Gospel that was preached unto them? You must inform us what other Church was them in the world, or you will quickly perceive how ungrounded your generall Maxim is, of the Churches absolute infallibility. As farre indeed as it attends unto the Infallible Rule given unto it, it is so; but not one jot farther. Moreover, we desire to know, What Church you mean in your Assertion, or rather what is it that you mean by the Church? Do you intend the Mystical Church, or the whole number of Gods Elect in all Ages, or in any Age, militant on the Earth, which principally is the Church of God, Ephes. 5. 26? Or, do you intend the whole diffused body of the Disciples of Christ in the world, separated to God by Baptism and the Profession of saving truth, which is the Church Ca∣tholick visible; Or, do you mean any particular Church as the Roman, or constantinopolitan, the French, Dutch, or English Church? If you intend the first of These, or the Church in the first sense; we acknowledge that it is thus far infallible, that no true member of it shall ever totally and finally re∣nounce, lose, or forsake that faith, without which they cannot please God and be saved. This the Scri∣pture teacheth, this Austin confirmeth in an bun∣dred places. If you intend the Church in the second sense; we grant that also so far unerring and infalli∣ble, as that there ever was, and ever shall be in the world, a number of men making Profession of the saving Truth of the Gospel, and yielding professed subjection unto our Lord Jesus Christ according unto

it, wherein consists his visible Kingdome in this world; that never was, that never can be utterly overthrown. If you speak of a Church in the last sense, then we tell you, That no such Church is by virtue of any Promise of our Lord Jesus Christ, freed from erring, yea so farre as to deny the fundamentals of Christianity, and thereby to lose the very being of a Church. Whilst it continues a Church, it can∣not erre fundamentally; because such Errours de∣stroy the very being of a Church; but those who were once a Church, by their failing in the Truth, may cease to be so any longer: And a Church as such may so fail, though every Person in it do not so; for the individual members of it, that are so also of the Mysticall Church, shall be preserved in its Apostasie. And so the Mysticall Church, and the Catholick Church of Professors may be continued, though all particular Churches should fail: So that no Person, the Church in no sense is absolutely freed in this world from the danger of all errours: that is the conditi∣on wee shall attain in Heaven; here where we know butin part wee are incapable of it. The Church of the Elect and every member of it, shall eventually be preserved by the power of the Holy Ghost, from any such errour as would utterly destroy their Commu∣nion with Christ in Grace here, or pr••vent their fru∣ition of him in Glory hereafter: or, as the Apostle speaks, they shall assuredly be kept by the Power of God through faith unto salvation. The Generall Church of Visible Professors, shall be alwayes so farre preserved in the world, as that there shall never want some, in some place or other of it, that shall profess all needfull saving Truths of the Gospel, in the belief whereof and obedience whereunto a man may be saved. But for Particular Churches as such, they have no security but what lyes in their diligent attendance

unto that Infallible Rule, which will preserve them from all hutfull Errours, if through their own de∣fault they neglect not to keep close unto it. And your flattering your selves with an imagination of any other Priviledge, is that which hath wrought your ruine: You are deceived if in this matter you are of Menander's mind, who sayed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that, all will of its own accord fall out well with you though you sleep secure∣ly. As for all other Churches in the world besides your own, wee have your concession not only that they were and are fallible, but that they have actually er∣red long since: and the same hath been proved against yours a thousand times; and your best Reserve against particular charges of Errour lyes in this impertinent generall pretence, that you cannot erre. It may be you will ask, for you use so to do, and it is the design of your Fiat to promote the ••nquiry, If the Church be fallible, that is to propose unto us the things and Doctrines that we are to believe, How can we with faith infallible believe her proposals? And I tell you truly I know not how we can, if we believe them only upon her Authority, or she propose them to be belie∣ved solely upon that account; but when she proposeth them unto us to be believed on the Authority of God speaking in the Srciptures, we both can, and do believe what she teacheth and proposeth, and that with faith infallible resolved into the Veracity of God in his Word: and we grant every Church to be so farre in∣fallible as it attends unto the only Infallible Rule a∣mongst men: When you prove that any one Church is by any promise of Christ, any grant of Priviledge ex∣pressed or intimated in the Scripture, placed in an un∣erring condition, any farther than as in the use of the means appointed she attends unto the only Rule of her preservation, or that any Church shall be ••ecessitated

to attend unto that Rule whether she will or no, whereby she may be preserved, or can give us an in∣stance of any Church since the foundation of the world, that hath been actually preserved and abso∣lutely from all errour, (other than that of your own, which you know we cannot admit of,) as you will do, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a great and memorable work, so we shall grant as much as you can reasonably desire of us upon the account of the Assertion under consi∣deration. But untill you do some one, or all of these, your crying out, The Church, the Church the Church cannot erre, makes no other noyse in our ears, than that of the Jews, The Temple of the Lord, the Tem∣ple of the Lord, the Law shall not fail, did in the ears of the Prophets of old. Neither do we speak this of the Church, or any Church, as though we were concerned to question or deny any just Privi∣ledges belonging unto it, thereby to secure our selves from any pretensions of yours; but meerly for the sake of Truth. For we shall manifest anon unto you, that you are as little concerned in the Pri∣viledges of the Church, be they what they will, more or less, as any Society of the Professours of Chri∣stianity in the world; if so be that you are concerned in them at all. So that if the Truth would permit us to agree with you in all things that you assign unto the Church, yet the difference between you and us were never the nearer to an end; for we should still differ with you about your share and interest therein; and for ever abhor your frowardness in appropriating of them all unto your selves: And herein, as I sayed, hath lyen a great part of your ruine; Whilest you have been sweetly dreaming of an Infallibility, you have re∣ally plunged your selves into errours innumerable: and when any one hath jogged you to awake you out of your fatall sleep, by minding you of your particular

errours, your dream hath left such an impression upon your imagination, as that you think them no errours, upon this only ground, because you cannot erre. I am perswaded, had it not been for this one errour, you had been freed from many others: But this perfectly disi••∣ables you for any candid Inquisition after the Truth: For why should he once look about him, or indeed so much as take care to keep his eyes open, who is sure that he can never be out of his way. Hence you inquire not at all, whether what you profess be Truth or not, but to learn what your Church teacheth and defend it, is all that you have to do about Religion in this world: And whatever Absurdities or Inconvenien∣cies you find your selves driven unto in the handling of particular points, all is one, they must be right though you cannot defend them, because your Church which cannot erre hath so declared them to be: And if you should chance to be convinced of any Truth in particular that is contrary to the determination of your Church, you know not how to embrace it, but must shut your eyes against its light and evidence, and cast it out of your minds, or wander up and down with a various assent between Contradictions. Well said he of old

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

This is flat folly, namely for a man to live in rebellion unto his own light: But you adde,

III. That your selves, that is, the Pope with those who in matters of Religion adhere unto him, and live in subjection unto him, are this Church; in an assent unto whose infallible teachings and Determinations, the Vni∣ty of Faith doth consist. Could you prove this Assertion I confess it would stand you in good stead. But before we enquire aftes that, we shall endeavour a little to come unto a right understanding of what you say.

When you affirm t••at the Roman Church, is the Church of Christ, you intend either that it is the only Church of Christ, all the Church of Christ, and so con∣sequently the Catholick Church; or you mean that it is a Church of Christ, which hath an especiall Prerog a∣tive enabling it to require obedience of all the Disci∣ples of Christ. If you say the former, we desire to know (1.) when it became so to be. It was not so when all the Church was together at Hierus••lem, and no foundation of any Church at all laid at Rome, Acts 1. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. It was not so when the first Church of the Gentiles was ga∣thered at Antioch; and the Disciples first began to be cal∣led Christians; for as yet we have no tydings of any Church at Rome. It was not so, when Paul wrote his Epistles, for he makes express mention of many other Church in other places, which had no relation unto any Churches at Rome, more than they had one to ano∣ther in their common Profession of the same faith, and therein enjoyed equall gifts and Priviledges with it. It was not so, in the dayes of the Primitive Fathers of the first three hundred years, who all of them, not one excepted, took the Roman to be a local particular Church, and the Bishop of Rome to be such a Bishop, as they esteemed of all other Churches and Bishops: Their perswasion in this matter is expressed in the be∣ginning of the Epistle of Clemens, or Church of Rome unto the Church of Corinth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Church that is at Rome, to the Church that is at Corinth; both locall Churches, both equall: And such is the lan∣guage of all the Writers of those times. It was not so in the dayes of the Fathers and Councels of the next three Centuries, who still accounted it a particular Church; Diocesaen or Patriarchal; but all of them par∣ticular, never calling it Catholick, but upon the ac∣count of its holding the Catholick faith, as they called

all other Churches that did so, in opposition to the Errours, Heresies, and Schilms of any in their dayes. We desire then to know when it became the only or absolutely Catholick Church of Christ: As also (se∣condly) by what means it became so to be? It did not do so by virtue of any Institution, Warrant, or Com∣mand of Christ: You were never able to produce the least intimation of any such Warrant out of any Wri∣ting of Divine Inspiration, nor approved Catholick Writer of the first Ages after Christ, though it hugely concern you so to do, if it were possible to be done; but they all expresly teach that which is inconsistent with such pretences. It did not do so, by any Decree of the first Generall Councels, which are all of them si∣lent as to any such thing, and some of them, as those of Nice, Ephesus, and Chalc••don, expresly declare and determine the contrary, at least that which is contrary thereunto. We can find no other way or means where∣by it can pretend unto this vast Priviledge, unless it be the grant of Phocas unto Boniface, that he should be called the Vniversal Bishop, who to serve his own ends was very liberal of that which was not at all in his power to bestow: And yet neither is this, though it be a means that you have more reason to be ashamed than to boast of, sufficient to found your present Claim, considering how that name was in those dayes no more than a name, a meer a••ry ambitions Title, that carried along with it no reall power; and, stet magni nominis umbra.

Secondly, We cannot give our assent unto this Claim of yours, because we should thereby be neces∣sitated to cut off from the Church, and consequently all hope of salvation, farre the greatest number of men in the world who in this and all foregoing Ages have called and do call upon the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours. This we dare not do espe∣cially

considering that many of them have spent and do spend their dayes in great Affliction for their Testi∣mony unto Christ and his Gospell, and many of them every day seal their Testimony with their blood, so be∣longing as we believe unto that holy army of Mar∣tyrs, which continually praiseth God: Now as herein we dare not concurre with you considering the charge given unto Timothy by Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be not partaker of other mens sins, so indeed we are perswaded that your opinion, or rather presum∣ption in this matter, is extreamly injurious to the Grace of Christ, the Love and Goodness of God, as also to the Truth of the Gospell▪ And therefore

Thirdly, We suppose this the most Schismaticall Principle that ever was broached under the Sun, since there was a Church upon the earth: and that because, 1. It is the most groundless, 2. The most unchrita∣ble that ever was; and 3. Of the most pernicious consequence, as having a principal influence into the present irreconcileableness of Differences among Christians in the world; which will one day be char∣ged on the Authors and Abettors of it; For it will one day appear, that it is not the various Conceptions of the minds of peaceable men about the things of God, nor the various degrees of knowledge and faith that are found amongst them, but groundless impositions of things as necessary to be believed and practised, beyond Scripture warrant, that are the Springs and Causes of all, or at least the most blameable and sin∣full differences among Christians.

Fourthly, We know this pretence should it take place, would prove extreamly hazardous unto the Truth of the Promises of Christ given unto the Ca∣tholick Church. For, suppose that to be one and the same with the Roman, and whatever mishap may be∣fall the one must be thought to befall the other; for

on your Supposition, they are not only like Hippocra∣tes twins, that being born together, wept and joyed together, and together died, but like Hippocrates himself, as the same individuall Person or thing, be∣ing both the same; one Church, that hath two names, Catholick and Roman, that is Universall-Particular; no otherwise two, than as Julius Caesar was, when by his overawing his Collegue from the execution of his Office, they dated their Acts at Rome, Julio & Casare Consulibus. For, as they said,

Non Bibulo qui••quam nuper sed Caesare factum est; Nani Bibulo fieri Consule nil memini.

Now, besides the failings which we know your Church to have been subject unto in point of Faith, Manners, and Worship; it hath also been at least in danger of Destruction in the time of the prevalency of the G••ths, Vandals, Huns, and Longobards; especially when Rome its self was left desolate and without In∣habitant by Totilas. And what yet farther may be∣fall it before the End of the world, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Only this I know that many are in expectation of a sad Catastrophe to be given unto it, and that on grounds not to be despised. Now God forbid, that the Church unto which the Promises are made, should be once thought to be subject unto all the dangers and hazards that you wilfully expose your selves un∣to. So that as this is a very groundless presumption in its self, so it is a very great aggravation of your mis∣carriages also, whilest you seek to entitle the Catho∣lick Church of Christ unto them, which can neither contract any such guilt as you have done, nor be lia∣ble to any such misery or punishment as you are.

Fifthly, We see not the Promises, made unto the Catholick Church, fulfilled unto you; as we see that to have befallen your Church, which is contrary un∣to

the Promises that ever is should befall the Catho∣lick. The conclusion then will necessarily on both instances follow, that either your are not the Catholick Church, or that the Promises of Christ have failed and been of none effect. And you may easily guess, which part of the Conclusion, it is best and most safe for us to give assent unto. I shall give you one or two instances unto this last head. Christ hath promi∣sed his Spirit unto his Church, that is the Catholick Church, to abide with it for ever, Joh. 14. 16. But this Promise hath not been made good unto your Church at all times; because it hath not been so un∣to the head of it. Many a time the Head of your Church hath not received the Spirit of Christ; for our Saviour tells us in the next words, that the world cannot receive him; that is men of the world, carnal∣ly minded men cannot do so: for he is the peculiar inheritance of those that are called, sanctified, and do believe. Now if ever there was any world in the world, any of the world in the earth, some, many of your Popes, have been so, and therefore by the te∣stimony of Christ could not receive the Spirit that he promised unto his Church. Again it is promised, un∣to the Church Mysticall or Catholick in the first and chiefest notion of it, that all her children shall be ho∣ly, all taught of God, and all that are so taught, as our Saviour informs us, come to him by saving faith; you will not I am sure for shame affirm that this Pro∣mise hath been made good to all, either Children or Fathers, of your Church. Innumerable other Promi∣ses, made to the Catholick Church, may be instanced in, which you can no better or otherwise apply unto your Church, than one of your Popes did that of the Psalmist to himself, Thou shalt tread on the Lion and the Basilisk, when he set his foot on the neck of Fre∣drick the Emperour. But the Arguments are end∣less

whereby the vanity of this pretence may be di∣sproved; I shall only adde,

Sixtly, That it is contrary to all Story, Reason, and common sense: For it is notorious that far the great∣est part of Christians, that belong to the Catholick Church of Christ, of have done so from the dayes that Christianity first entred the world successively in all Ages, never thought themselves any otherwise con∣cerned in the Roman Church, than in any other parti∣cular Church of name in the world: And is it not a madness to exclude them all from being Christians, or belonging to the Catholick Church, because they belonged not to the Roman: This I could easily de∣monstrate throughout all Ages of the Church succes∣sively. But we need not insist longer on the dispro∣ving of that Assertion, which implyes a flat Contra∣diction in the very terms of it. If any Church be the Catholick, it cannot therefore be the Roman; and if it be the Roman properly, it cannot therefore be the Catholick.

2. If you shall say that you mean only that you are a Particular Church of Christ, but yet that, or such a Particular Church, as hath the great Privi∣ledges of Infallibility, and universall Authority an∣nexed unto it, which makes it of necessity for all men to submit unto it, and to acquiesce in its Determina∣tions: I answer, 1. I fear you will not say so; you will not, I fear, renounce your claim unto Catholicism. I have already observed that your self in particular af∣firm the Roman and Catholick Church to be one and the same. It is not enough for you that you belong any way to the Church of Christ, but you plead that none do so but your selves. 2. Indeed you do not own your selves in this very Assertion to be a Particular Church; your claim of Universall Authority and Ju∣risdiction, which you still carry along with you, is in∣consistent

with any such concession 3. To make the best of it that we can; what ground have you to give us this Difference between the Churches of Christ, that one is fallible, another infallible; that one hath power over all the rest, that one depends on Christ, all the rest on that one? where is the least intimation given of any such thing in the Scripture? where or by whom is it expresly asserted amongst the Antient Writers of the Church? Was this Principle pleaded or once as∣serted in any of the Antient Councels? Some ambigu∣ous expressions of particular Persons, most of them Bishops of Rome in the declining days of the Church, you produce indeed unto this purpose: But can any rationall man think them a sufficient foundation of that stupendious fabrick, which you endeavour to erect upon them? I suppose you will not find any such Per∣sons hasty in their so doing: Those who are already engaged will not be easily recovered: For new Prose∣lytes unto these Principles you have small ground to expect any, unless it be of Persons whose lives are ei∣ther tainted with sensuality, which they would gladly have a refuge for against the accusations of their Con∣sciences, or whose minds are entangled with worldly secular advantages suited to their conditions, tem∣pers, and inclinations.

Thus I have, with what briefness I could, shewed you the uncertainty, indeed falsness of those Generall Principles from which you educe all your other pleas and reasonings, into which they must be resolved. And now I pray consider the ground-work you lay for the bringing of men unto a Settlement in the Truth and unto the unity of Faith, in opposition to the Scripture which you reject as insufficient unto this purpose. The summe of it is, an acquiesceney in the proposals and Determinations of your Church, as to all things that concern faith and the worship of

God. The two main Principles that concurre unto it, we have apart considered, and have found them every way insufficient for the end proposed. Nei∣ther have they one jot more of strength▪ when they are complicated and blended together, as they usually are by you, than they have in and of themselves as they stand singly on their own bottoms. A thousand falshoods put together will be farre enough from making one Truth. A multiplication of them may encrease a Sophism but not adde the least weight or strength to an Argument. An army of Cripples will not make one sound man. And can you think it rea∣sonable, that we should renounce our sure and firm Word of Prophecy, to attend unto you in this chase of uncertain Conjectures, and palpable untruths? Suppose this were a way that would bring you and us to an Agreement, and take away the evil of our Dif∣ferences; I can name you twenty, that would do it as effectually; and they should none of them have any evil in them, but only that whch yours also is open∣ly guilty of, namely the Relinquishment of our Duty towards God, and Care of our own Souls, to come to some peace amongst our selves in this world, which would be nothing else, but a plain Conspiracy against Jesus Christ, and rejection of his Authority. At present I shall say no more, but that he who is lead into the Truth by so many Errors, and is brought unto establishments by so many uncertainties, hath singular success, and such as no other man hath rea∣son to look for. Or he is like Robert Duke of Nor∣mandy who when he caused the Saracens to carry him into Jerusalem, sent word unto his friends in Europe, that he was carried into Heaven on the backs of Devils.

It may also in particular be easily made to appear how unsuited your means of bringing men unto the unity of faith, are unto that Supposition of the present

Differences in Religion between you and us, which you proceed upon. For, suppose a man be convinced that many things taught by your Church are false, and contrary to the mind of God, as you know the case to be between you and us; what course would you take with him to reduce him unto the Unity of Faith? would you tell him that your Church cannot erre, or would you endeavour to perswade him that the particulars which he instanceth in as Errours, are not so indeed, but real Truths and necessarily by him to be believed? The former, if you would speak it out, down-right and openly, as becometh men who distrust not the Truth of their Principles (for he that is perswaded of the Truth never fears its strength) would soon appear to be a very wise course indeed. You would perswade a man in generall that you can∣not erre, whilest he gives you instances that you have actually erred. Do not think you have any Sophisms against Motion in generall, that will prevail with any man to assent unto you, whilest he is able to rise and walk to and fro. Besides, he that is convinced of any thing wherein you erre, believes the opposite unto it to be true, and that on grounds unto him sufficiently co∣gent to require his assent: If you could now perswade him that you cannot erre, whilest he actually believes things to be true, which he knows to be contrary to your Determination, what a sweet condition should you bring him into? can you enable him to believe Contradictions at the same time? Or, when a man on particular grounds and evidences is come to a setled firm perswasion that any Doctrine of your Church, suppose that of Transubstantiation, is false and con∣tradictory unto Scripture and right Reason; if you should, abstracting from particulars, in generall puzzle him with Sophisms and pretences for your Churches Infallibility, do you think it is an easie thing

for him immediately to forego that perswasion in particular, which his mind upon cogent and to him unavoidable grounds and arguments was possessed withall, without a rationall removall of those grounds and Arguments? Mens belief of things never pierces deeper into their Souls than their imagination, who can take it up and lay it down at their pleasure. I am perswaded therefore, you would take the latter course, and strive to convince him of his mistakes in the things that he judgeth erroneous in the Doctrine of your Church. And what way would you proceed by for his Conviction? Would you not produce Testimo∣nies of Scripture, with Arguments drawn from them, and the Suffrage of the Fathers to the same purpose? Nay would you not do so, if the errour he charge you withall, be that of the Authority and Infallibility of your Church? I am sure, all your Controversie-Writers of note take this course. And do you not see then, that you are brought, whether you will or no, unto the use of that way and means for the reducing of men unto the Unity of Faith, which you before rejected, which Protestants avow as sufficient to that purpose?

CHAP. IX.

Proposals from Protestant Principles tending unto Mo∣deration and Unity.

YOu may, from what hath been spoken, perceive how upon your own Principles you are utterly disenabled to exercise any true moderation towards Dissenters from you: And that which you do so exer∣cise, we are beholding for it, as Cicero said of the Ho∣nesty of some of the Epicureans, to the Goodness of their Nature which the illness of their Opinions can∣not

corrupt. Neither are you any way enabled by them to reduce men unto the Vnity of Faith; so that, you are not more happy in your proposing of Good Ends unto your self, than you are unhappy in chusing mediums for the effecting of them. It may be, for your own skill, you are able like Archimedes to remove the earthly-Bull of our Contentions; but you are like him again, that you have no where to stand whilest you go about your work. However we thank you for your Good intentions; In magnis voluisse, is no small commendation. Protestants on the other side, you see, are furnished with firm stable Principles and Rules in the pursuit both of Moderation and Unity: And there are some things in themselves very practicable, and naturally deducible from the Principles of Pro∣testants, wherein the compleat exercise of Moderation may be obteined, and a better progress made towards Vnity than is likely to be by a rigid contending to impose different Principles on one another; or by im∣petuous clamours of lo here and lo there, which at pre∣sent most men are taken up withall: Some few of them I shall name unto you, as a pacifick Coronis to the preceding ••ristical Discourse; and

—Si quid novisti rectius ist is Candidus imperti; si non, his ntere mecum.

And they are these:

1. Whereas our Saviour hath determined that our happiness consisteth not in the knowing the things of the Gospell, but in doing of them; and seeing that no man can expect any benefit or advantage from or by Christ Jesus, but only they that yeeld obedience unto him, to whom alone he is a Captain of Salvation; the first thing wherein all that profess Christianity ought to agree and consent together is, joyntly to obey the commands of Christ, to live godlliy, righteously and so∣berly

in this present world, following after holiness without which no man shall see God: Untill we all agree in this, and make it our business, and fix it as our end, in vain shall we attempt to agree in notionall and speculative Truths; nor would it be much to our ad∣vantage so to do. For as I remember I have told you before, so I now on this occasion tell you again, It will at the last day appear, that it is all one to any man what party or way in Christian Religion he hath been of, if he have not personally been born again, and upon mixing the Promises of Christ with faith, have there∣upon yeilded obedience unto him unto the end. I con∣fess men may have many advantages in one way that they may not have in another: They may have better means of instruction, and better examples for imita∣tion; But as to the event, it will be one and the same with all unbelievers, all unrighteous, and ungodly Per∣sons; And men may be very zealous believers in a Par∣ty, who are in the sight of God unbelievers as to the whole design of the Gospell. This is a Principle wherein as I take it all Christians agree, namely that the Profession of Christianity will do no man the least Good as to his eternall concernments, that lives not up to the power of it; yea it will be an aggravation of his condemnation: And the want hereof, is that which hath lost all the ••ustre and splendour of the Re∣ligion taught by Jesus Christ in the world. Would Christians of all Parties make it their business to re∣trive its reputation, wherein also their own bliss and happiness is involved, by an universall obedience unto the precepts of it, it would insensibly sink a thousand of their Differences under ground. Were this at∣tended unto, the world would quickly say with admi∣ration

Magnus ab integro sêcloram nascitur ordo: Jam nova progenies Coelo demittitur alto.

The old glorious beautifull face of Christianity would be restored unto it again, which many deform more and more every day by painting a dead carcass in stead of the living Spouse of Christ. And if ever we intend to take one step towards any agreement or unity, it must be by fixing this Principle in the minds of all men, that it is of no advantage to any man what∣ever Church or way in Christian Religion he be of, unless he personally believe the promises, and live in obedience unto all the precepts of Christ. And that for him who doth so, that it is a trampling of the whose Gospel underfoot to say that his salvation could be endangered, by his not being of this or that Church or way; especially considering how much of the world hath immixed its self into all the known wayes that are in it. Were this once well fixed on the minds of men, and did they practically believe that men shall not be dealt with all at the last day by gross, as of this or that party or Church, but that every Individuall Person must stand upon his own bottome, live by his own faith, or perish for want of it, as if there had been no other persons in the world but himself; wee should quickly find their keenness in promoting and contending for their severall parties, taken off, their∣heat allayed, and they will begin to find their business and concernment in Religion to be utterly another matter than they thought of. For the present, some Protestants think that when the Roman Power is by one means or other broken which they expect, that then wee shall agree and have peace; Romanists on the other side look for, and desire the extirpation of all that they call Heresy or Hereticks by one way or other: some pretending highly to Moderation on both sides, especially among the Protestants, hope that it may be attained, by mutuall condescension of the Parties at variance, contemperation of opinions

and practises unto the present distant apprehensions and interests of the chief leaders of either side; what issue and event their desires, hopes, and attempts, will have, time will shew to all the world. For my part, until by a fresh powring out of the Spirit of God from on high, I see Christians in profession, agreeing in pursuing the end of Christianity, endeavouring to be followers of Jesus Christ in a conversation becom∣ing the Gospell, without trusting to the Parties wherein they are engaged; I shall have very little hopes to see any Unity amongst us, that shall be one jot better than our present Differences: To see this, if any thing, would make me say

O mihi tam longe maneat pars ultima vitae.

The present face of Christianity makes the world a wearisome wilderness: Nor should I think any thing a more necessary Duty, than it would be for Persons of Piety and ability to apologize for the Religion of Jesus Christ; and to shew how inconcerned it is in the wayes and practises of the most that profess it; and how ut∣terly another thing it is, from what in the world it is represented to be, so to put a stop unto that Atheism which is breaking in upon us from the contempt that men have of that Idaea of Christian Religion which they have taken from the manner of its profession, and lives of its Professors; were it not that I suppose it more immediately incumbent on them and us all, to do the same work in a reall expression of its power and excellency, in such a kind of goodness, holiness, righteousness, and heavenliness of conversation, as the world is only as yet in sacret acquainted withall, When this is done, the way for a farther agreement will be open and facile; and, untill it be so, men will fight on,

Ipsi{que}, nepotes{que} Et nati natorum, & qui nascentur ab illis.

We shall have no end of our Quarrels. Could I see an Heroick temper fall on the minds of men of the seve∣rall parties at variance, to bid adieu to the world, its customs, manners, and fashions, which are all vain and perishing, not in a locall corporall retirement from the men and lawfull businesses of it, or a relinquish∣ment of the necessary callings and employments in it, but in their spirits & affections; could I see them taking up the Cross of Christ, not on their backs in its figure, but on their hearts in its power, and in their whole conversation conforming themselves unto his blessed example, so teaching all others of their parties what it is that they build upon for a blessed Eternity, that they may not please and deceive themselves with their conceited Orthodoxie in the trifling Differences which they have with other Christans, I should hope the ve∣ry name of persecution and every thing that is contra∣ry to Christian Moderation would quickly be driven out of Christendome, and that errour, and what ever is contrary to the Vnity of Faith, would not be long li∣ved after them. But whilest these things are farre from us, let us not flatter our selves, as though a windy flou∣rish of words had any efficacy in it to bring us to Mo∣deration and unity. At variance we are, and at vari∣ance we must be content to be; that being but one of the Evils that at this day triumph in the world over conquered Christianity. This being suposed.

11. Whereas the Doctrine of God is a Mystery, in the knowledge where ofmen attain unto Wisedome, ac∣cording to that measure of light and Grace, which the Spirit who devides unto every man as he will is pleased to communicate unto them, if men would not frame any other Rule or standard unto that Wisedom, and the various degrees of it but only that which God himself hath assigned thereunto, the fuell would upon the matter be wholly taken away from the fire of our

Contentions. All men have not, nor let men pretend what they please to the contrary ever had, nor ever will have the fame light, the same knowledg, the same spirituall Wisdome and understanding, the same degree of assurance, the same measure of comprehen∣sion in the things of God. But whilest they have the same Rule, the same objective Revelation, the use of the same means to grow spiritually wise in the knowledg of it, they have all the agreement that God hath ap∣pointed for them, or calls them unto. To frame for them all in Rigid confessions, or Systemes of suppo∣sed credible Propositions a Procrustes bed to stretch them upon, or crop them unto the size of, so to reduce them to the same opinion in all things, is a vain and fruitless attempt that men have for many Generations wear••ed themselves about, and yet continue so to do. Remove out of the way Anathemas upon Propositions arbitrarily compo∣sed and expressed, Philosophical Conclusions Rules of faith of a meer humane composure, or use them no otherwise but only to testifie the voluntary consent of mens minds, in expressing to their own sa∣tisfaction the things which they do believe, and let men be esteemed to beleive and to have attained de∣grees in the faith according as they are taught of God, with an allowance for every ones measure of means, light, grace, gifts, which are not things in our own Power, and we shall be nearer unto quietness than most men imagine. When Christians had any unity is the world, the Bible alone was thought to contain their Religion, and every one endeavoured to learn the mind of God out of it, both by their own endea∣vours, and as they were instructed therein by their guides; neither did they pursue this work with any other end, but only that they might be strengthened in their faith and hope, and learn to serve God and

obey him, that so they might come to the blessed en∣joyment of him. Nor will there ever, I fear, be again any Unity among them, untill things are reduced to the same state and condition. But among all the vani∣ties that the minds of men are exercised with in this world, there is none to be compared unto that, of their hoping and endeavouring to bring all Persons that profess the Religion of Jesus Christ, to acquiesce in the same opinions about all particulars, which are any way determined to belong thereunto; especially considering how endlesly they are multiplied and branched into instances, such for ought appears the first Churches took little or no notice of; nay neither knew, nor understood any thing of them, in the sense and termes wherin they are now proposed as a tessera of Communion among Christians. In a word; leave Christian Religion unto its primitive Liberty, wherein it was beleived to be revealed of God, and that Re∣velation of it to be contained in the Scripture, which men searched and studied, to become themselves, and to teach others to be wise in the knowledg of God, and living unto him, and the most of the Contests that are in the world, will quickly vanish and disappear. But whilest every one hath a Confession, a Way, a Church, and its Authority, which must be imposed on all others, or else he cryes to his nearest relations

Lupis & agnis quanta sortito obtigit Tecum mihi discordia est.

We may look for peace, Moderation, and Vnity, when we are here no more, and not sooner: So that

III. If those Theologicall Determinations that make up at this day amongst some men the greatest part of those Assertions, Positions, or Propositions, which are called Articles of Faith, or Truth, which are not de∣livered in the words that the Spirit of God teacheth, but in termes of Art, and in Answer unto Rules and

Notions, which the world might happily without any great disadvantage been unacquainted withall unto this day, had not Aristotle found them out, or stumbled on them, might be eliminated from the City of God, and Communion of Christians, and left for men to exercise their wits about who have nothing else to do, and the Doctrine of Truth which is according unto Godliness, left unto that Noble, Heavenly, Spirituall generous amplitude wherein it was delivered in the Scripture and beleived in the first Churches, innu∣merable Causes of strife and Contentions would be taken away: but—ferri video meà gaudia ventis, small hopes have I to see any such impression and con∣sent to besall the minds of concerned men; and yet I must confess, I have not one jot more, of the reuniting the Disciples of Christ in love and concord. But most men that profess any thing of Divinity, have learned it as an Art, or humane Science; out of the road, compass, and track where of, they know nothing of the mind of God; nay many scarce know the things in themselves and as they are to be believed, which they are passing skilfull in, as they are expressed in their arbitrary termes of Art, which none almost under∣stand but themselves. And is it likely that such men who are not a few in the world, will let go their skill and knowledge, and with them their repntation and advantage, and to sacrifice them all to the peace and agreement that we are seeking after? Some learn their Divinity out of the late, and Modern Schools, both in the Reformed and Papall Church; in both which a Science is proposed under that name, consisting in a farrago of Credible Propositions, asserted in termes suited unto that Philosophy that is variously predo∣minant in them. What a kind of Theology this hath praduced in the Papacy, Agricola, Erasmus, Vives, Jansenius, with innumerable other Learned men of

your own, have sufficiently declared. And that it hath any better success in the Reformed Churches, many things which I shall not now instance in, give me cause to doubt. Some boast themselves to learn their Divinity from the Fathers, and say they depart not from their sense and idiome of expression in what they beleive and profess: But we find by experience, that what for want of wisedom and judgement in themselves, what for such reasons taken from the writings which they make their Oracles, which I shall not insist upon, much of the Divinity of some of these men consists in that, which to avoid provocation I shall not express. Whilest men are thus preing aged, it will be very hard to prevail with them to think, that the greatest part of their Divinity, is such, that Christian Religion, either as to the matter, or at least as to that mode wherein alone they have imbibed it, is little or not at all concerned in; nor will it be easie to perswade them that it is a Mystery layed up in the Scripture; and all true Divinity a Wisedom in the Knowledg of that Mystery; and skill to live unto God accordingly; without which as I said before, we shall have no Peace or agreement in this world. Nobis curi∣ositate opus non est post Jesum Christum, nec inquisitione post Evangelium, sayes Tertullian. Curiosity after the Doctrine of Christ, and Philosophicall inquisitions (in Religion) after the Gospel belongs not unto us. As we are

IV. It were well, if Christians would but seriously consider, what and how many things they are wherein their present Apprehensions of the mind and will of God do center and agree; I mean as to the substance of them, their nature and importance, and how far they will lead men in the wayes of pleasing God, and coming to the enjoyment of him. Were not an endeavour to this purpose impeded by many mens importunate cryes of all or none, as good nothing at all, as not every thing,

and that in this or that way, mode, or fashion; it might not a litlle conduce to the Pea••e of Christendom. And I must acknowledg unto you, that I think it is preju∣dice, Carnall interest, love of Power, and present en∣joyments, with other Secular Advantages, joyned with Pride, Self-will and contempt of others, that keep the professours of Christianity from conspiring to improve this Consideration. But God help us, we are all for Partyes, and our own exact being in the right, and therein the only Church of Christ in the earth; at least that others are so, only so far as they agree with us, we being our selves the Rule and Stan∣dard of all Gospell Church state, laying weight upon what we differ from others in, for the most part ex∣ceedingly above what it doth deserve. Were the Same mind in us that was in Christ Jesus, the same frame of spirit that was in his blessed Apostles, we should be willing to try the effects of his love and care towards all that profess his Name, by a Sedate Consideration at least, how far he hath instructed them in the know∣ledg of his will, and what effects this learning of him may produce. And to tell you truly; I do not think there is a more horrid monster in the earth than that opinion is, which in the great diversity that there is among Christians in the world, includes happiness and Salvation within the limits and precincts of any party of them; as though Christ, and the Gospell, their own faith, obedience, and sufferings, could not possibly do them any good in their station and condition. This is that Al••cto,—Cuitristia bella

Iraque insidiaeque & crimina noxia Cordi, Odit & ipse pater Pl••ton, odere sorores Tartareae Monstrum: Tot sese vertit in ora. Tam saevae facies, tot pullulat atra Colubris.

Whereever this opinion takes place, which indeed bid•• defiance to the Goodness of God, and the blood of Christ

with a Gigantick boldness, for men to talk of Mode∣ration, Vnity, and Peace, is to mock others and to befool themselves in things of the greatest impor∣tance in the world: altera manu ostentant panem, alter a lapidem ferunt: for my own part, I have not any fir∣mer per••wasion in and about these things, nor that yields more satisfaction and contentment unto my mind in reflections upon it, than this; that if a man sincerely beleive all that, and only that, wherein all Christians in the world agree, and yield obedience unto God according to the guidance of what he doth so beleive, not neglecting or refusing the knowledg of any one Truth that he hath sufficient means to be instruct∣ed ••, he need not go unto any Church in the world to se∣cure his Salvation: Hic murus aheneus esto. It is true, it is the Duty of such a man, to joyn himself unto some Church of Christ or other, which walks in professed subjection unto his institutions, and in the observati∣on of his appointments. But to think that his not being of, or joyning with this or that Society, should out him off from all hopes of a blessed eternity, is but to en∣tertain a viper in our minds, or to act suitably to the Principles of the old Serpent, and to put ••orth the venome of of his poyson. Some of the Antients indeed tell us, that out of the Catholick Church there is no Salvation. And so say I also; bu•• withall, that the beleif mentioned of the Truths generally em∣braced by Christians in their present divisions in the world, (I still speak of the most famous and numerous Societies of them,) and its profession, do so constitute a man a member of the Catholick Church, that whilest he walks answerably to his pro∣fession, it is not in the power of this, or that, no not of all the Churches in the world, to divest him of that Priviledge. Nor can all these cryes that are in the world, We are the Church, and we are the Church; you are not the Church, and you are not the Church, perswade me but that as every Assembly in the generall notion of it is a Chorch, so every Assembly of Christians that ordinarlly meet to worship God in Christ according to his appointment, is a Church of Christ,

Haec mi pater Te dicere aequum fuit & id defendere

when you talked of Moderation and Unity, such Principles as these, had better become you, than those which you either privately couched in your Discourse, or openly insisted on. Men that think of Reducing unity among Christians, upon the precise terms of that Truth which they suppose themselves insolidum possessors of, Ipsi fibe somnia fingunt, do but entertain themselves with pleasant dreams, which a little Consideration may awake them from Charity, condescension, a retrenchment of opinions with a rejection of secular interests, and a design for the pur∣suit of generall obedience, without any such respect to the Par∣ticular enclousures which diversity of opinions and different mea∣sures of Light and Knowledge have made in the field of the Lord as should confine the effects of any Duty towards the Disciples of Christ, unto those within them, with the like actings of minds suited unto the example of Jesus Christ, must introduce the desired Vnity, or wee shall expect it in vain.

These are some of my hasty thoughts upon the Principles of Protestants before mentioned, which you and others, may make use of, as you and they please. In the mean time, I shall pray that we may amidst all our Differences, love one another, pray for one another, wait patiently for the communication of farther Light unto one another, leave evil surmizes, and much more the condemning and seeking the ruine of those that dissent from us, which men usually do on various pretences, most of them false and coyned for the present purpose. And when we can ar∣rive thereunto, I shall hope that from such generall Principles a•• before mentioned, somewhat may be advanced towards the Peace of Christians; and that there will be so, when the whole concernment of Religion shall in the Providence of God be unra∣velled from that worldly and secular interest, wherewith it hath been wound up and entangled for sundry Ages; and when men shall not be ingaged from their cradles to their graves in a pre∣cipitate Zeal for any Church, or way of Profession, by outward Advantages inseparably mixed and blended with it before they came into the world. In the mean time, to expect unity in pro∣fession, by the Reduction of all men to a precise agreement in all the Doctrines that have been and are ventilated among Christi∣ans, and in all Acts and wayes of worship; is to refer the Su∣pream and last Determination of things evangelical to the sword secular power, and violence; and to inscribe vox ultima Chri∣sti, upon great guns and other engines of war; seing otherwise it will not be effected, and what may be done this way I know not.

Sponte tonat coeunt ipsae sine flamine nubes••

CHAP. 10.

Further Vindication of the second Chapter of the Ani∣madversions; the remaining Principles of Fiat Lux considered.

IT is time to return, and put an end unto our review of those Principles, which I obser∣ved your Discourse to be built upon. The next as laid down in the Animadversions, p. 103. is, That the Pope is a good man, one that seeks nothing but our good, that never did us harm, but hath the Care and inspecti∣rn of us committed unto him by Christ. In the Repetiti∣on hereof you leave out all the last part, and express no more, but the Pope is a good man, and seeks nothing but our good: and therein aim at a double advan∣tage unto your self. First, That you may with some colour of Truth, though really without it, deny the Assertion to be yours, when as the latter part of it, which upon the matter, is that which gives the sence, and determines the meaning of the whole, is expresly contended for by you, and that frequently, and at large. Secondly, That you may vent an empty Cavill against that expression, seeks nothing, but our good; whereas had you added the next words, and never did us harm, every one would have perceived in what sense the former were spoken, and so have prevented the frivolous exception. Your words are, This also I nowhere aver, for I never saw him, nor have any such acquaintance with him as to know whither he be a good man, or no: though in charity I do not use to judge hardly of any body; much less could say, that he whom I know to have a general sollicitude for all Churches, seeks nothing but our good,

Sir if I had pondered my words in Fiat Lux no better then you heed yours in your Animadversions upon it; they might even go together both of them to lay up Pep∣per and Spices, or some yet more vile employment.

For what you have said of the Pope, I desire the Reader to consult your Paragraph so entitled: and if he find not that you have said ten times more in the commendation of him then I intimated in the words layed down for your Principle, I am content to be esteemed to have done you wrong. You have indeed not only set him out as a good man, but have made him much more then a man, and have ascribed that unto him, which is not lawful to be ascribed un∣to any man whatever. Some of your Expressions I have again reminded you of; and many others of the same nature might be instanced in: and what you can say more of him then you have done, unless you would exalt him above all that is called God, and worshipped; unless you should set him in the Temple of God, and shew him that he is God, I know not. Let the Reader if he please, consult your expressions, where you have placed them; I shall stain Paper with them no more. And you do but trifle with us, when you tell us that you know not the Pope, nor have any such acquaintance with him, as to know whether he be a good men or no?. As though your personal acquain∣tance with this or that Pope, belonged at all to our question. Although I must needs say, that it seems very strange unto me, that you should hang the weight of Religion, and the salvation of your own soul, upon one of whom you know not so much as whither he be a good man, or no. For my part I am perswaded there is no such hardship in Christian Re∣ligion, as that we should be bound to believe, that all the safety of our Faith and Salvation depends

on a man, and he such an one as concerning wh••m we know not whither he be a good man or no. The Apostle layes the foundation of our hope in better ground, Heb. 1. 1, 2, 3. And yet what ever opinion you may have of your present Pope, you are forced to be at this indifferency about his honesty, because you are not able to deny but that very many of his Predecessors, on whose shoulders the weight of all your Religion lay, no less then you suppose it doth on his who now swayes the Papal Scepter, were ve∣ry brutes, so far from being good men, as that they may be reckoned amongst the worst in the world. Protestants as I said, are perswaded that their faith is laid up in better hands. With the latter part of my words, as by you set down, you play sophistically, that you might say something to them: (as to my knowledge, I never observed any man so hard put to it, to say somewhat, were it right or wrong) which seems to be the utmost of your design. You feign the sense of my words to be, that the Pope doth no other thing in the world but seek our good: and confute me by saying, that he hath a general sollici∣tude for all Churches. But Sir, I said nor, be doth nothing but seek our good; but only, he se••ks nothing but our good, and never did us harm. And you may quickly see how causelesly you tall into a contem∣plation of your accuracy in your Fi••t, and 〈…〉〈…〉 loosness of my expressions in the 〈…〉〈…〉 For although I acknowledge that 〈…〉〈…〉 heen written in greater haste then 〈◊〉〈◊〉 judgements of learned men might well 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as is also this return unto your Epistle, 〈…〉〈…〉 of them proportioned rather unto the merit of your Discourse, then that of the Cause in agitation be∣tween us; yet I cannot see that you or any 〈◊〉〈◊〉

else, hath any just cause to except against this ex∣pression of my intention, which yet is the only one, that in that kind, falls under your censure. For whereas I say, that the Pope seeks nothing but our good, and that he never did us harm, would any man living but your self, understand these words any otherwise, but with reference unto them of whom I spake? that is as to us, he seeks nothing but our good, whatever he doth in the world besides. And is it not a wild interpretation, that you make of my words, whilest you suppose me to intimate, that absolutely the Pope doth nothing in the world, or hath no other business at all that he concerns himself in, but only the seeking of our good in particular? If you cannot allow the books that you read the common Civility of interpreting things indefinitely expressed in them, with the limitations that the subject mat∣ter whereof they treat requires, you had better em∣ploy your time in any thing then study, as being not able to understand many lines in any Author you shall read. Nor are such expressions to be avoided in our common discourse. If a man talking of your Fiat should say that you do nothing but seek the good of your Countreymen, would you interpret his words, as though he denyed that you say Mass, and hear Confessions, or to intimate that you do nothing but write Fiats? and you know with whom lies both jus & norma loquendi.

The tenth and last Principle is, That the Devotion of Catholicks far transcends that of Protestants; so you now express it: what you mention being but one part of three, that the Animadversions speak unto. Hereunto you reply; But Sir, I never made in Fiat Lux any Comparisons between your Devotions; nor can I say how much the one is, or how little the

other: but you are the maddest Commentator that I have ever seen: you first make the Text, and then Animadversions upon it. Pray Sir have a little pati∣ence, and learn from this instance not to be too con∣fident upon your memory for the future. I shall rather think that fails you at present, then your Conscience; but a failure I am sure there is, and you shall take the liberty to charge it where you please, which is more then every one would allow you. I would indeed desirously free my self from the labour of transcrtbing ought that you have written to this purpose in your Fiat; and only re∣fer you to the places which you seem to have for∣gotten. But because this is the last instance of this kind that we are to treat about, and you have by degrees raised your Confidence, in denying your own words to that height, as to accuse them of madness, who do but remind you of them; I shall represent once again unto you what you have writ∣ten to this purpose; and I am perswaded upon your review of it, you will like it so well, as to be sor∣ry that ever you disowned it. I shall instance only in one place, which is Sect. 22. p. 270, 271. where your wordsare these, When I beheld (in the Catholick Coun∣treys) the deep reverence and earnest Devotion of the people, the Majesty of their Service, the Gravity of their Altars, the decency of their Priests; certainly said I within my self, this is the House of God, the Gate of Heaven. Alass our Churches in England as they be now, be as short of those, either for decency, use, or piety, as stables to a Princely Pallace. There they be upon their knees all the week long at their prayers, many of them constantly an hour together in the morning, and half an hour he that is least; and my house said God, is the house of Prayer; but our

Churches are either shut up all the week, or if they be open, are wholly taken up with boyes shouting, running and gambolling all about. On Sundayes in∣deed our people sit quiet, and decently drest, but to bow the knee is quite out of fashion; and if any one chance to do it, as it is rare to behold, so he is very nimble at it, and as soon up as down, as if he made a courtship with his knees, and only tryed if his nerves and sinews were as good to how as to stand upright, and our whole Religious work here, is to sit quietly whilest the Minister speaks upon a Text,—and that we spend all our dayes, ever learning and teach∣ing, &c. If this Discourse must be esteemed Text, I pray tell me whose it is, yours or mine; or whe∣ther it doth not contain a comparison between the Devotion of your Catholicks and Protestants; and whether that that of the former be not preferred above the other: And when you have done so, pray also tell me whether you suppose it an honest and candid way of handling matters of this importance, or indeed of any sert whatever, for a man to say and unsay at his pleasure, according unto what he apprehends to be for his present advantage. And whether a man may believe you, that you so accu∣rately pondered the words of your Fiat, as you seem to pretend; seeing you dare not abide by what you have written, but disclaim it! And yet I confess this may fall out, if your design in the weighing of your words, was so to place them, as to deceive us by them; which indeed it seems to have been. But it is your unhappiness, that your words are brought unto other mens seales after they had so fairly pas∣sed your own. For the Devotion its self (by the way) of Catholicks which you here paint forth un∣to us, it looks very suspitiously to be painted. The

piety of your Churches wherein they exceed ours, I confess I understand not; and your peoples fre∣quenting publick places to perform their private de∣votions, leans much to the old Pharisaism, which our Saviour himself hath branded to all eternity for hypocriticall, and carried on with little attendance unto his precept of making the closet, and that with the door shut upon the Devotionists, the most proper seat of private supplications. Besides if their pray∣ers consist, as for the most part they do, in going over by tale a set number of sayings which they lit∣tle understand; you may do well to commend your Devotion to them that understand not one word of Gospel for those that do, will not attend unto it. And so I have once more passed through the Principles of your work, with a fresh discussion of some of them, which I tell you again I suppose sufficient to satisfie judicious and ingenuous Per∣sons, in the sophistry and inconclusiveness of the whole: My further proceedure being intended for the satisfaction of your self, and such others as have imbided the prejudices which you endeavour to forestall your minds with all, and thereby have given no small impeachment unto your judgement and ingenuity.

CHAP. 11.

Judicious Readers. Schoolmen the forgers of Popery. Nature of the Discourse in Fiat Lux.

YOur ensuing Discourses are such as might well be passed by, as containing nothing serious or worth a review.

An passim sequerer corvum?

Ludicrous Similitudes, with trisling exceptions to some words in the Animadversions, cut off from that coherence wherein they are placed, are the chief ingredients of it. With these you aim with your wonted success to make sport:

—Venite in ignem Pleni ruris & insicetiarum Annales Volusi—

I wish we had agreed before hand,

Vt facerestu quod velles, nec non ego possem, Indulgere mihi.

That I might have been freed from the Considera∣tion of such trifles: As the Case stands I shall make my passage through them with what speed I can.

First, You except against the Close of the conside∣ration of your Principles, namely that I would do so to my Book also, if I had none to deal with, but inge∣nuous and judicious Readers. And tell me, that it seems what follows is for Readers neither judicious, nor in∣genuous. But why so I pray? That which is written for the information of them who want either

judgement or ingenuity, may be also written for their use who have both. Neither did I speak ab∣solutely of them that were ingenuous and judicious, but added also, that they were such as had an ac∣quaintance with the state of Religion of old, and at this day in Europe, with the concernment of their own souls in these things. With such as these, I suppos∣ed then, and do still, that a discovery of the Sophistry of your Discourse, and the falseness of the Principles you proceeded on, was sufficient to give them satisfa∣ction as to the uselesness of the whole, without a particular ventilating of the flourishes that you made upon your sandy foundations. But because I know there were some, that might by the commendation of your friends light upon your Discourse, that ei∣ther being prepossessed by prejudices might want the ingenuity to examine particularly your Asserti∣ons and Inferences, or through unacquaintedness with the Stories of some things, that you referred unto, might be disenabled to make a right judge∣ment of what you averred, I was willing to take some further pains also for your satisfaction. And what was herein done, or spoken amiss, as yet I can∣not discern. But I am perswaded, that if you had not supposed that you had some of little judgement and less ingenuity to give satisfaction unto, you would never have pleased your self, with the wri∣ting of such empty Trifles, in a business wherein you pretend so great a concernment.

Pag. 31. You observe that I say, the Schoolmen were the hammerers and forgers of Popery: And add, Alas Sir, I see that anger spoyls your memory; for in the twelfth and thirteenth Chapter you make Popery to be hammered and forged not a few hundreds of years before any Schoolmen were extant; And thorefore tell

me that I hate the Schoolmen as the Frenchmen do Talbot, for having been frightened with them for∣merly;

Sed risu inepto res ineptior nulla est.

I confess the language of your Schoolmen is so cor∣rupt and barbarous, many of the things they sweat about, so vain, curious, unprofitable, their way of handling things, and expressing the notions of their minds, so perplexed, dark, obscure, and oftentimes unintelligibe, divers of their Assertions and suppo∣sitions so horrid and monstrous; the whole system of their pretended Divinity, so aliene and forreign unto the mysterie of the Gospel that I know no great reason that any man hath much to delight in them. These things have made them the sport and scorn of the learnedest men that ever lived in the Communi∣on of your own Church. What one said of old of others, may be well applyed unto them.

Statum lacessunt omnipotentis Dei Calumniosis litibus. Fidem minutis dissecant ambagibus Vt quis{que} est linguar nequior. Solvunt ligant{que} quaestionum vincula Per Syllogismos plectiles.

Indeed to see them come forth harnassed with Syl∣logismes and Sophisms, attended with Obs and Sols, speaking part the language of the Jews, and part the language of Ashdod, fighting and contending amongst themselves, as if they had sprung from the teeth of Cadmus Serpent, subjecting all the proper∣ties, decrees and actions of the holy God to your profane bablings, might perhaps beget some fear in the minds of men not much guilty of want of Con∣stancy,

as the sight of the Harpyes did of old to Aenaeas and his Companions, of whom they gave that account,

Tristius hand illis monstrum nec saevior ulla Pestis, & ira Deum, Stygiis sese extulit undis. Viaimus, & subita gelidus formidine sanguis Diriguit, cecidêre animi.

But the Truth is, there is no real cause of fear of them: They are not like to do mischief to any, un∣less they are resolved aforehand to give up their faith in the things of God to the Authority of this or that Philosopher, and forego all solid rational con∣sideration of things, to betake themselves to Sophi∣stical canting, and the winding up of subtilty into plain non-sence; which oftentimes befalls the best of them; Whence Melchior Canus one of your selves sayes of some of your learned Disputes, Pude∣ret me dicere non intelligere, si ipsi intelligerent qui tractarunt. I should be ashamed to say I did not un∣derstand them, but that they understood not themselves. Others may be entangled by them, who if they can∣not unty your knots, they may break your webbs, especially when they find the Conclusions, as often∣times they are, directly contrary to Scripture, right reason, and natural sense it self. For they are the genuine off-spring of the old Sophisters whom Lu∣cian talks of in his Menippus, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and tells us that in hearing the Disputations, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That, saith he, which seemed the most absurd of all, was,

that when they disputed of things absolutely contrary, they yet brought invincible and perswasive reasons to prove what they said: so that I durst not speak a word against him that affirmed hot and cold to be the same, although I knew well enough that the same thing could not be hot and cold at the same time. And therefore he tells us that in hearing of them, he did like a man half asleep, sometimes nod one way, and sometimes another, which is certainly the deport∣ment of the generality of them who are conversant in the wrangles of your Schoolmen. But whatever I said of them, or your Church, is perfectly con∣sistent with its self, and the Truth. I grant that before the Schoolmen set forth in the world, many unsound opinions were broached in, and many Su∣perstitious practices admitted into your Church: and a great pretence raised unto a Superintendency over other Churches, which were parts of that Mass out of which your Popery is formed. But before the Schoolmen took it in hand, it was rudis indige∣sta{que} moles, an heap, not an house. As Rabbi Juda Hakkadosh gathered the passant Traditions of his own time among the Jews, into a body or Systeme, which is called the Mishnae or Duplicate of their Law, wherein he composed a new Religion for them, sufficiently distant from that which was professed by their fore-fathers; so have your Schoolmen done also. Out of the passant Traditions of the dayes wherein they lived, blended with Sophistical cor∣rupted notions of their own, countenanced and gilded with the sayings of some Ancient Writers of the Church, for the most part wrested or misunder∣stood, they have hammered out that Systeme of Phi∣losophical Traditional Divinity, which is now en∣stamped with the Authority of the Tridentine Coun∣cil,

being as far distant from the Divinity of the New Testament, as the Farrago of Traditions col∣lected by Rabbi Juda, and improved in the Talmuds, is from that of the old.

Pag. 33, 34, 35. Having nothing else to say, you fall again upon my pretended mistake, of considering that as spoken absolutely by you, which you spake on∣ly upon supposition; and talk of Metaphysical Specu∣lations in your Fiat, which you conceive me very un∣meet to deal withal; and direct me to Bellarmines Ca∣techism, as better suiting my inclination and capacity. But Sir, we are not wont here in England to account cloudy dark Sophistical declamations to be Meta∣physical Speculations; nor every feigned supposition to be a Philosophical abstraction. I wish you would be perswaded that there is not the least tin∣cture of any solid Metaphysicks in your whole Dis∣course. It may be indeed you would be angry with them that should undeceive you; and cry out,

—Pol me occidistis amici, Non Servâstis,

As he did,

Cui demptus per vim mentis gratissimus Error.

You may perhaps please your self with conceits of your Metaphysical atchievements; but yonr friends cannot but pitty you to see your vanity. The least youth in our Vniversities will tell you, that to make a general Supposition true or false, and to flourish upon it with words of a seeming probability, with∣out any cogency or proof, belongs to Rhetorick, and not at all to Metaphysicks. And this is the ve∣ry nature of your Discourse. Nor do I mistake your aim in it, as you pretend: I grant in the place you

would be thought to reply unto, though you speak not one word to the purpose, that your enquiry is after a means of setling men in the Truth, upon sup∣position that they are not yet attained thereunto; and you labour to shew the difficulty that there is in that attainment, upon the account of the insuffici∣ency of many mediums that may be pretended to be used for that end. In answer unto your en∣quiry, I tell you directly, that the only means of setling men in the Truth of Religion, is Divine Reve∣lation; and that this Revelation is entirely and per∣fectly contained in the Scripture, which therefore is a sufficient means of setling all men in the Truth. Suppose them rasae tabulae, suppose them utterly ig∣norant of Truth; suppose them prejudiced against it; suppose them divided amongst themselves about it; the only safe, rational, secure way of bringing them all to settlement is their belief of the Revela∣tion of God contained in the Scripture. This I manifested unto you in the Animadversions, where∣unto you reply by a commendation of your own Metaphysical Abilities with the excellencies of your Discourse: without taking the least notice of my answer; or the reasons given you against that Fa∣natical groundless credo, which you would now again impose upon us.

CHAP. 12.

False Suppositions, causing false and absurd conse∣quences. Whence we had the Gospel in England, and by whose means. What is our Duty in refe∣rence unto them by whom we receive the Gospel.

PAg. 36. You insist upon somewhat in particu∣lar that looks towards your purpose, which shall therefore be discussed; for I shall not willingly miss any opportunity that you will afford me, of exami∣ning what ever you have to tender in the behalf of your dying Cause. You mind me therefore of my answer unto that discourse of yours; If the Papist or Roman Catholick who first brought us the news of Christianity, be now become so odious; then may like∣wise the whole story of Christianity be thought a Ro∣mance. You speak with the like extravagancy, and mind not my Hypotheticks at all, to speak directly to my inference as it became a man of Art to do: but neglecting my Consequence, which in that Discourse is principally and solely intended; you seem to deny my Supposition: which if my Discourse had been drawn into a Syllogisme, would have been the Minor of it. And it consists of two Categories; First, That the Papist is now become odious. Secondly, That the Pa∣pist delivered us the first news of Christianity. The first of these you little heed: the second you deny. That the Papist say you, or Roman Catholick first brought Christ and his Christianity into this Land, is most untrue: I wonder, &c. And your reason is, be∣cause if any Romans came hither, they were not Pa∣pists, and indeed our Christianity came from the East. And this is all you say to my Hypothetick, or conditio∣nal

ratiocination, as if I had said nothing at all, but that one absolute Category, which being delivered be∣fore, I now only suppose. You use to call me a Civil Logician; but I fear a natural one as you are, will hardly be able to justifie this notion of yours as arti∣ficial. A Conditional hath a verity of its own, so far differing from the supposed Category, that this being false, that may yet be true. For example, if I should say thus, A man who hath wings as an Eagle, or if a man had wings of an Eagle, he might flye in the ayre as well as another Bird; and such an Asser∣tion is not to be confuted by proving that a man hath not the wings of an Eagle.

The substance of this whole Discourse, is no more but this; that because the Inference upon a Supposition, may be a Consequence Logically true, though the Supposition be false, or faigned: there∣fore the Consequent, or thing inferred also is really true, and a man must fly in the ayre, as you say, like another Bird. But Sir, though every Consequence be true Logically, that is lawfully inferred from its pre∣mises, be they true or false; and so must in Dispu∣tation be allowed: Yet where the Consequent is the thing in Question, to suppose that if the Consequence be lawfully educed from the premises, that it also must be true, is a fond surmize. And therefore they know qui nondum aere lavantur, that the way to disappoint the conclusion of an hypothetick Syllogisme, is to disprove the Category included in the supposition, when reduced into an Assumption from whence it is to be inferred. For instance, if the thing in question be, Whether a man can fly in the ayre (as you say) like another Bird; and to prove it, you should say, if he has wings he can do so: the way I think to stop your progress, is to deny that

he hath wings. And if you should continue to wrangle that your Inference is good, if he hath wings, he may fly like another Bird, you would but make your self ridiculous. But if you may be allowed to make false and absurd suppositions, and must have them taken for granted, you are very much to blame if you inferr not Conclusions unto your own purpose. And this in general is your constant way of dealing: unless we will allow you to suppose your selves to be the Church, and that all the excellent things which are spoken of the Church, beloog unto you alone, with the like ground∣less presumptions you are instantly mute, as if there had appeared unto you

Harpocrates digito qui significat St.

But if in the case in agitation between us, I should permit you without controul to make what supposi∣tions you please, and to make Inferences from them, which must be admitted for truth, because Logi∣cally following upon your suppositions, what man of Art I might have appeared unto you, I know not: I fear with others, I should scarcely have pre∣served the reputation of Common sense or under∣standing. And I must acknowledge unto you, that I am ignorant of that Logick which teacheth men to suffer their Adversaries to proceed and insert upon absurdities and false suppositions, to oppose the Truth which they maintain. And yet I know well enough what Aristotle hath taught us con∣cerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in which part of his Logick, you seem to have been most conversant.

But let us once again consider your ratiocination as here you endeavour to reinforce it. Your sup∣position

you say includes these two Categories; First, that the Papists are become odious unto us: Secondly, That the Papists delivered us the first news of Chri∣stianity. Well, both these propositions I deny. Pa∣pists are not become odious unto us, though we love not their Popery: Papists did not bring us the first news of Christianity. This I have proved unto you already, and shall yet do it further. Will you now be angry and talk of Logick, because I grant not the consequent of these false pretensions to be true; as if every Syllogisme must of necessity be true ma∣terially, which is so in form. But yet farther, to discover your mistake, I was so willing to hear you out unto the utmost of what you had to say, that in the Animadversions after the discovery of the fal∣sity of the Assertions that it arose from, I suffered your supposition to pass, and shewed you the weak∣ness of your Inference upon it. And the reason of my so doing, was this; that because though the Pa∣pists brought not the Gopel first into England, yet I do not judge it impossible but that they may be the means of communicating it unto some other place or People; and I would be loth to grant, that they who receive it from them, must either alwayes embrace their Popery, or renounce the Gospel. I con∣fess a great intanglement would be put on the thoughts and minds of such Persons, by the Principle of the Infallibility of them that sent your Teachers, whereinto it may be also they would labour to re∣solve your belief. But yet if withal you shall com∣municate unto them the Gospel its self, as the great Repository of the Mysteries of that Religion wherein your instruct them, there is a sufficient foundation laid for their reception of Christianity, and the re∣jection of your Popery. For when once the Gospel

hath evidenced its self unto their consciences that it is from God, as it will do, if it be received unto any benefit or advantage at all, they will, or may easily discern, that those who brought it unto them, were themselves in many things deceived in their apprehensions of the mind of God therein revealed; especially as to your pretence of the Infallibility of any man, or men, any further then his conceptions agree with what is revealed in that Gospel which they have received, and now for its own sake be∣lieve to be from God. And once to imagine, that when the Scripture is received by faith, and hath brought the soul into subjection to the Authority of God exerting it self in it, and by it, that it will not warrant them in the rejection of any respect unto men whatever, is, to err not knowing the Scri∣pture, nor the Power of God. In this condition of things, men will bless God for any means which he was pleased to use in the communicating the Go∣spel unto them; and if those who were employed in that work shall persist in obtruding upon their faith and worship, things that are not revealed, they will quickly discover such a contradiction in their Prin∣ciples, as that it is utterly impossible that they should rationally assent unto, and embrace them all, but either they must renounce the Gospel which they have brought them, or reject those other Principles which they would impose upon them that are con∣trary thereunto. And whither of those they will do, upon a supposition that the Gospel hath now ob∣tained that Authority over their consciences and minds, which it claims in and over all that receive it, it is no hard matter to determine. Men then who have themselves mixed the Doctrine of the Gospel with many abominable errors of their own,

may in the Providence of God be made instrumen∣tal to convey the Gospel unto others. At the first tender of it they may for the Truths sake which they are convinced of, receive also the errors that are tendered unto them, as being as yet not able to discern the chaff from the wheat. But when once the Gospel is rooted in their minds, and they be∣gin to have their senses exercised therein to discern between good and evil, and their faith of the Truth they receive is resolved into the Authority of God himself the Author of the Gospel, they have their warrant for the rejection of the Errors which they had before imbibed, according as they shall be dis∣covered unto them. For though they may first con∣sider the Gospel on the proposition of them that first bring them the tidings of it, as the Samaritans came to our Saviour upon the information of the woman; yet when they come to experience themselves its power & efficacy, they believe it for its own sake, as those did also in our Lord Jesus Christ upon his own account; when this is done, they will be enabled to distinguish, as the Prophet speaks, between a dream and a prophecy, between chaff and wheat, between error and Truth. And thus if we should grant that the first News of Christianity was brought into England by Papists, yet it doth not at all follow, that if we reject Po∣pery, we must also reject the Gospel or esteem it a Romance. For if we should have received Popery, we should have received it only upon the credit and Authority of them that brought it: but the Truth of Christianity we should have received on the Au∣thority of the Gospel, which was brought unto us: So that our entertainment of Popery and Christiani∣ty standing not on the same bottom or foot of ac∣count, we might well reject the one, and retain the

other. But this consideration as to us, is needless; they were not Papists which brought Christianity first into this Land. Wherefore well knowing that the whole strength of their reasoning depends on the supposition that they were so, you proceed to confirm it in your manner, that is, by saying it over again. But we will hear you speaking your own words.

We had not our Christianity immediately from the East, nor from Joseph of Arimathe••, we Englishmen had not. For as he delivered his Christianity unto some Britans, when our Land was not called England but Albion or Brittany, and the inhabitants were not Englishmen but Britans or Kimbrians, so likewise did that Christianity, and the whole news of it quite vanish, being suddenly overwhelmed by the entient deluge of Paganism; nor did it ever come from them to us: nay the Brittans themselves had so forgot and lost it, that they also needed a second Conversion, which they received from Pove Eleutherius: And that was the only news of Christianity which prequiled and lasted even amongst the very Britans, which seems to me a great seeret of Divine Providence in planting and go∣verning his Church, as if he would have nothing to stand firm and lasting, but what was immediately fixed by, and seated upon that Rock: for all other conver∣sions have variety, and the very seats of the other Apo∣stles failed, that all might the better cement in the unity of one head: Nay the Tables which God wrote with his own hand were broken, but the other written by Moses remained; that we might learn to give a due respect unto him, whom God hath set over us as our Head and Ruler under him, and none exalt him∣self against him. I know you will laugh at this my Observation: but I cannot but tell you what I think.

Where I speak then of the news of Christianity first brought to this Land I mean not that which was first brought upon the earth or soyle of this Land, and spoken to any body then dwelling here, but which was delivered to the forefathers of the now present Inhabitants, who were Saxons or English men. And I say, that we the now present Inhabitants of England, off spring of the Saxons or English, had the first news of our Christi∣anity immediately from Rome, and from Pope Gre∣gorius the Roman Patriarch, by the hands of his Missioner St. Austin. Sith then the Categorick Asserti∣ons are both clear, namely that the Papists first brought us the news of Christianity: and Secondly, that the Papist is now become odi us unto us: What say you to my Consequent? that the whole story of Christianity may as well be deemed a Romance, as any part of that Christianity we at first received, is now judged to be a part of a Romance. This Consequence of mine, it behoved a man of those great parts you would be thought to have, to heed attentively, and yet you never minded it.

Some few Observations upon this Discourse of yours, will further manifest the Absurdity of that Consequence, which you seign not to have been taken notice of in the Animadversions, for which you had no cause, but that you might easily discern that it did not deserve it. 1. Then you grant that the Gospel came out of the East into this Land. So then we did not first receive the Gospel from Rome, much less by the means of Papists. But the Land was then called Albion, or Brittany, and the people Brittans or Kimbrians, not Englishmen. What then, though the names of places or people are changed, the Go∣spel whereever it is, is still the same. But the Brit∣tans lost the Gospel until they had a new Conversion

from Rome by the means of Eleutherius. But you fail Sir, and are either ignorant in the story of those times, or else wilfully pervert the truth. All the Fathers and favourers of that Story, agree, that Chri∣stianity was well rooted and known in Brittain, when Lucius as is pretended, sent to Eleutherius for As∣sistance in its propagation. Your own Baronius will assure you no less, ad An. 183. n. 3, 4. Gildas de Excid, will do it more fully. Virunnius tells us, that the Brittans were then strengthened in the faith, not that they then received it: Strengthened in what they had, not newly converted, though some as it is said, were so. And the dayes of Lucius are assigned by Sabellicus, as the time wherein the whole Province received the name of Christ, publicitus cum ordina∣tione, by publick decree: That it was received there before, and abode there, as in other places of the world under persecution, all men agree. In this interval of time did the British Church bring forth Claudia, Ruffina, Elvanus and Meduinus, whose names amongst others are yet preserved. And to this space of time do the Testimonies of Tertullian ad Judae and of Origen. Hom. 4. in Ezek. concer∣ing Christianity in Brittain belong. Besides, if the only prevalent Religion in Brittany were as you fan∣cy that which came from Rome, how came the Ob∣servation of Easter both amongst the Brittans, as Beda manifests, and the Scots, as Petrus Cluniacensis declares to be answerable to the Customs of the Eastern Church, and contrary to those of the Ro∣man? Did those that came from Rome teach them to do that which they judged their duty not to do? But what need we stay in the confutation of this sigment? The very Epistle of Eleutherius manifests it abundantly so to be. If there be any thing of

Truth in that rescript, it doth not appear that Lucius wrote any thing unto him about Christian Religion, but about the Imperial Laws to govern his Kingdom by; and Eleutherius in his answer plainly intimates that the Scripture was received amongst the Brittans, and the Gospel much dispersed over the whole Nation. And yet this figment of your own you make the Bottom of a most strange contempla∣tion; namely that God in his Providence would have all that Christianity fail which came not from Rome. That is the meaning of those expressions, be would have nothing stand firm or lasting, but what was immediately fixed by, and seated on that Rock, for all other Conversions have vanished. Really Sir, I am sorry for you, to see what wofull shelves your prejudicate Opinions do cast you upon, who in your self seem to be a well meaning goodnatured man. Do you think indeed that those Conversions that were wrought in the world by the means of any Persons not coming from Rome, which were Christ himself and all his Apostles, were not fixed on the Rock? Can such a blasphemous thought enter into your heart? If those primitive Converts that were called unto the faith by Persons coming out of the East, were not built on the Rock, they all perished ever∣lastingly every soul of them; and if the other Churches planted by them, were not immediately fixed and seated on the Rock, they went all to Hell, the Gates of it prevailed against them. Do you think indeed that God suffered all the Churches in the world to come to nothing, that all Christians might be brought into subjection to your Pope, which you call cementing in an Vnity of one Head? If you do so, you think wickedly, that he is altogether like unto your self; but be will reprove you, and set your

faults in order before your eyes. Such horrible dis∣mal thoughts do men allow themselves to be con∣versant withall, who are resolved to sacrifice Truth, Reason and Charity unto their prejudices and inte∣rests. Take heed Sir, least the Rock that you boast of, prove not seven hills and deceive you. In the persuit of the same Consideration, you tell me. that I will laugh at your Observation, that the Tables written by Gods own hand were broken, but those written by Moses remained, that we may learn to give a due respect to him whom God hath set over us. But you do not well to say so; I do not laugh at your ob∣servation, but I really pitty you that make it. Pray Sir, what were those Tables that were written by Mo∣ses, when those written by God were broken? Such mistakes as these you ever and anon fall into, and I fear for want of being conversant in Holy Writ, which it seems your Principles prompt you unto a neglect of. Sir, the Tables prepared by Moses were no less written with the finger of God, then those were which he first prepared himself: Exod. 24. 28. Deut. 10. 1, 2, 4. And if you had laid a good ground for your notion, that the Tables prepared by God were broken, and those hewed by Moses preserved: and would have only added what you ought to have done, that there was nothing in the Tables delivered unto the people by Moses, but what was written by the finger of God, I should have commended both it, and the inference you make from it. As it is built by you on the sand, it would fall with its own weight, were it no heavier then a feather. But you lay great stress I suppose on that which follows: namely, that the Brittans being expelled by the Saxons, the Saxons first received their Christianity from Rome. You may remember what hath been

told you already in answer to this Case, about Romes being left without inhabitants by Totilas. Besides if we that are now Inhabitants of England must be thought to have first received the Gospel then when it was first preached unto our own Progenitors in a direct line ascending, this will be found a matter so dubious and uncertain, as not possibly to be a thing of any concernment in Christian Religion; and moreover will exempt most of the chief families of England from your enclosure, seeing one way or other they derive themselves from the Antient Bri∣tains. Such pittifull trifles are you forced to make use of, to give countenance unto your cause. But let it be granted that Christianity was first commu∣nicated unto the Saxons from Rome in the dayes of Pope Gregory, which yet indeed is not true neither: for Queen Berta with her Bishop Luidhardus had both practised the worship of Christ in England be∣fore his coming, and so prepared the people, that Gregory sayes in one of his Epistles, Anglorum gen∣tem voluisse fieri Christianam. What will thence ensue? why plainly, that we must be all Papists or Atheists, and esteem the whole Gospel a Romance. But why so I pray? Why, the Categorick Assertions are both clear; namely, that the P••pist first brought us the news of Christianity; and that Papists are now odi∣ous. But how comes this about? we were talking of Gregory, and some that came from Rome in his dayes. And if you take them for Papists, you are much deceived. Prove that there was one Papist at Rome in the dayes of that Gregory, and I will be ano∣ther; I mean such a Papist as your present Pope is, or as your self are. Do you think that Gregory be∣lieved the Catholick Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope, the doing whereof in an especial manner

constitutes a man a Papist. If you have any such thoughts, you are an utter stranger ••o the state of things in those dayes, as also to the writings of Gre∣gory himself. For your better information you may do well to consult him, lib. 4. Epist. 32, 36, 38. And sundry other instances may be given out of his own writings, how remote he was from your present Po∣pery. Irregularities and superstitious observations were, not a few in his dayes crept into the Church of Rome, which you still pertinaciously adhere unto, as you have the happiness to adhere firmely unto any thing that you once irregularly embrace. But that the main Doctrines, Principles, Practices and Modes of Worship which constitute Popery, were known, admitted, practised, or received at Rome in the dayes of Gregory, I know full well that you are not able to prove. And by this you may see the Truth of your first Assertion, that Papists brought us the first news of Christianity: which you do not in the least endeavour to prove; but take it hand over head, to be the same with this, that some from Rome preached the Gospel to the Saxons in the dayes of Gregory, which it hath no manner of affinity withall. Your second true Assertion is, that the Pa∣pist is now become odious unto us; but yet neither will this be granted you. Popery we dislike, but that the Papists are become odious unto us, we abso∣lutely deny. Though we like not the Popery they have admitted, yet we love them for the Christiani∣ty which they have retained. And must not that needs be a doubty Consequence that is enduced out of Prin∣ciples where in there is not a word of truth! Besides, I have already in part manifested unto you, that sup∣posing both of them to be true, as neither of them is; yet your Consequence is altogether inconsequent,

and will by no means follow upon them. And this will yet more fully appear in an examination of your ensuing Discourse.

That which you fix upon to accept against, is towards the close of my Discourse to this purpose in these words as set down by you, pag. 40. Many things delivered us at first with the first news of Chri∣stianity, may be afterwards rejected for the love of Christ, and by the Commission of Christ. The truth of this Assertion I have newly proved again unto you, and have exemplified it in the instance of Pa∣pists bringing the first news of Christianity to any place, which is not impossible but they may do, though to this Nation they did not. I had also be∣fore confirmed it with such reasons as you judged it best to take no notice of; which is your way with things that are too hard for you to grapple withall. I must I see, drive these things through the thick ob∣stacles of your prejudices with more instances, or you will not be sensible of them. What think you then of those who received the first news of Christianity by believers of the circumcision, who at the same time taught them the necessity of being circumcised, and of keeping Moses Law? were they not bound after∣wards upon the discovery of the mistake of their teachers to retain the Gospel, and the truth thereof taught by them, and to reject the observation of Mosaical rites and observations? or were they free upon the discovery of their mistake to esteem the whole Gospel a Romance? What think you of those that were converted by Arians, which were great multitudes, and some whole Nations? were not those Nations bound for the Love of Christ, by his word, to retain their Christianity, and reject their Arianisme, or must they needs account the whole

Gospel a fable, when they were convinced of the Errour of their first teachers, denying Christ Jesus in his Divine nature to be of the same substance with his Father, or essentially God! To give you an instance that it may be will please you better; There are very many Indians in New England or elsewhere Converted unto Christianity by Prote stants, without whose instruction they had never received the least rumor or report of it. Tell me your judgement; if you were now amongst them, would you not en∣deavour to perswade them that Christian Religion indeed was true, but that their first Instructers in it had deceived them as to many particulars of it, which you would undeceive them in, and yet keep them close to their Christianity! And do you not know that many who have in former dayes been by He∣reticks converted to Christianity from Paganism, have afterwards from the Principles of their Christianity been convinced of their heresie, and retaining the one, have rejected the other? It is not for your advantage to maintain an oppositi∣on against so evident a Truth, and exemplified by so many instances in all ages. I know well enough the ground of your pertinaciousness in your mistake, it is that men who receive the Gospel, do resolve their faith into the Authority of them that first preach it unto them. Now this supposition is openly false and universally as to all persons what ever not divinely inspired, yea as to the Apostles themselves but only with respect unto their working of Miracles, which gave Testimony unto the Doctrine that they taught. Otherwise Gods Revelation contained in the Scri∣ptures is that which the faith of men is formally and ultimately resolved into; so that what ever Proposi∣tions that are made unto them, they may reject, un∣less

they do it with a non obstante for its supposed Re∣velation, the whole Revelation abides unshaken, and their saith founded thereon. But as to the Persons who first bring unto any the tidings of the Gospel, seeing the faith of them that receive it, is not resolved into their Authority or Infallibility, they may, they ought to examine their proposals by that unerring word which they ultimately rest upon, as did the Beraeans, and receive or reject them at first or afterwards as they see cause, and this without the least impeachment of the truth or Authority of the Gospel its self which under this formal consideration as revealed of God, they absolutely believe. Let us now see what you except hereunto. First you ask, What love of Christs dictates, what commission of Christ allows you to choose and reject at your own pleasure? Ans. None; nor was that at all in question, nor do you speak like a man that durst look upon the true state of the Controversie between us. You proclaim your cause desperate by this perpetual tergiversation. The Question is, whither when men preach the Gospel unto others, as a Revelation from God, and bring along the Scripture with them wherein they say that Reve∣lation is comprized, when that is received as such, and hath its authority confirmed in the minds of them that receive it, whither are they not bound to try all the teaching in particular of them that first bring it unto them, or afterwards continue the preaching of it, whither it be consonant to that Rule or Word, wherein they believe the whole Re∣velation of the will of God relating to the Gospel declared unto them to be contained, and to embrace what is suitable thereunto, and to reject any thing that in particular may be by the mistakes of the teachers imposed upon them? Instead of believing

what the Scripture teacheth, and rejecting what it condemns, you substitute choosing or rejecting at your own pleasure, a thing wherein our discourse is not at all concerned. You adde, What Heretick was ever so much a fool as not to pretend the Love of Christ, and Commission of Christ for what he did? What then I pray! may not others do a thing really upon such grounds as some pretend to do them on falsly? may not a Judge have his Commission from the King, because some have counterfeited the great Seal? May not you sincerely seek the good and peace of your Country upon the Principles of your Religion, though some pretending the same Principles have sought its distur∣bance and ruine? If there be any force in this ex∣ception, it overthrows the Authority and Efficacy of every thing that any man may falsly pretend unto, which is to shut out all order, Rule, Government, and vertue out of the world. You proceed, How shall any one know you do it out of any such Love or Commission, sith those who delivered the Articles of saith now rejected, pretended equal love to Christ and Commission of Christ for the delivery of them as any other! I wonder you should proceed with such im∣pertinent enquiries. How can any man manifest that he doth any thing by the Commission of ano∣ther, but by his producing and manifesting his Com∣mission to be his? and how can be prove that the doth it out of Love to him, but by his diligence, care, and conscience in the discharge of his Duty, as our Sa∣viour tells us, saying if you love me, keep my Command∣ments, which is the proper effect of love unto him, and open evidence or manifestation of it. Now how should a man prove that he doth any thing by the Commission of Christ, but by producing that Commission? that is, in the things about wh••ch we

treat, by declaring and evidencing that the things he proposeth to be believed, are revealed by his spirit in his word, and that things which he rejects are con∣trary thereunto! And what ever men may pretend, Christ gives out no adverse Commissions; his word is every way and everywhere the same, at perfect harmony and consistency with its self; so that if it come to that, that several Persons do teach contrary doctrines either before or after one another, or to∣gether, under the same pretence of receiving them from Christ, as was the case between the Pharises of old that believed, and the Apostles, they that attend unto them, have a perfect guide to direct them in their choice, a perfect Rule to judge of the things proposed. As in the Church of the Jews the Pha∣rises had taught the people many things as from God, for their Traditions or Oral Law they pretended to be from God: Our Saviour comes, really a teacher from God, and he disproves their false Doctrines which they had prepossessed the people withall, and all this he doth by the Scripture the Word of Truth which they had before received. And this Example hath he left unto his Church unto the end of the world. But you yet proceed; Why may we not at length reject all the rest for love of something else, when this Love of Christ which is now crept into the very out side of our lips is slipt off from thence! Do you think men cannot find a cavil against him as well as his Law delivered unto us with the first news of him, and as easily dig up the root as cut up the branches! You are the pleasantest man at a disputation that ever I met withal, haud ulli veterum virtute secun∣dus; you outgo your masters in palpable Sophistry. If we may, and ought for the Love of Christ, reject errours and untruths taught by fallible men, then we

may reject him also for the love of other things. Who doubts it, but men may if they will, if they have a mind to do so? they may do so Physically, but may they do so Morally? may they do so upon the same or as good grounds and reasons as they reject errours and false worship for the sake of Christ? With such kind of arguing is the Roman Cause supported. Again, you suppose the Law of Christ to be reject∣ed, and therefore say that his Person may be so also. But this contains an application of the general Thesis unto your particular case, and thereupon the begging of the thing in Question. Our enquiry was general Whither things at first delivered by any Persons that preach the Gospel may not be rejected without any impeachment of the Authority of the Gospel it self? Here, that you may insinuate that to be the case be∣tween you and us, you suppose the things rejected to be the Law of Christ, when indeed they are things rejected because they are contrary to the Law of Christ, and so affirmed in the Assertion, which you seek to oppose. For nothing may be rejected by the Commission of Christ, but what is contrary to his Law. The truth is, he that rejects the Law of Christ as it is his, needs no other inducement to reject his Person; for he hath done it already in the rejection of his Law: but yet it may not be granted, though it belong not unto our present discourse, that every one that rejects any part of the Law of Christ, must therefore be in a propensity to reject Christ himself, provided that he do it only because he doth not be∣lieve it to be any part of his Law. For whilest a man abides firm and constant in his faith in Christ and love unto him, with a resolution to submit himself to his whole Word, Law, and Institutions, his misap∣prehensions of this or that particular in them, is no

impeachment of his faith, or Love. Of the same im∣portance is that which you add, namely, Did not the Jews by pretence of their love to the immortal God, whom their forefathers served, reject the whole Gospel at once? and why may not we possibly by piece meale? You do only cavil at the expression I used, of do∣ing the thing mentioned for the love of Christ, but I used it not alone, as knowing how casie a thing it was to pretend it, and how unwarrantable a ground of any actings in Religion such a pretence would prove; where••ore I added unto it, his Commission, that is his Word. And so I desire to know of you whither the Jews out of love to God and by the dire∣rection of his word did reject the Gospel or no. This you must assert if you intend by this instance to op∣pose my assertion. Besides indeed the Jews did scarce pretend to reject the Gospel out of love to God, but to their old Church-State, and Traditions, on which very account your selves at this day reject many important truths of it. But it is one thing vainly to pretend the Love of God, another so to love him indeed as to keep his Commandments, and in ••o doing to cleave unto the Truth, and to reject that which is contrary thereunto. You add as the issue of these enquiries, Let us leave cavils, grant my supposition which you cannot deny; then speak to my Consequence, which I deem most strong and good, to in∣ter a Conclusion which neither you nor I can grant. Answ. I wish you had thought before of leaving Cavils that we might have been eased of the consi∣deration of the foregoing Queries, which are no∣thing else, and those very trivial. Your supposition which is, that Papists first brought the Gospel into England, you say I cannot deny: but Sir, I do deny it, and challenge you or any man in the world to

make it good, or to give any colour of Truth unto it. Then your Consequence you say you deem strong and good; I doubt not but you do so; so did Suffenus of his Poems, but another was not of the same mind who says of him,

Qui modo scurra Aut si quid h••c re tritius (or hoc re tritius) vi∣debatur, Idem inficeto est inficetior rure, Simul poe••ata attigit, ne{que} idem unquam Ae{que} est beatus ac poema cum scribit, Tam gaud••t in se, temque se ipse miratur.

You may for ought I know have a good faculty at some other things; but you very unhappily please your self in drawing of Consequences; which for the most part are very infirm and naught, as in particular I have abundantly manifested that to be, which you now speak of. But you conclude; I tell you plainly and without tergiversation before God and all his holy Angels what I should think if I descended unto any Conclusion in this affair. And it is this, Either the Papist who holds at this day all these Articles of faith which were delivered at the first Conversion of this land by St. Austin, is unjustly become odieus amongst us, or else my honest Parsons, threw of your Cassocks, and resign your benefices and 〈…〉〈…〉 into the hands of your neighbours whose they were 〈…〉〈…〉 My Consequence is irrefragable. And I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you pl••i••ly that I greatly pitty you for your di courte, and that on many accounts. First, That in the same breath wherein you so solemnly protest before God and his holy Angels, you should so openly prevaricate, as to intimate that you descend unto no conclusions in this affair, wherein notwithstanding your pretences you

really dogmatize and that with as much confidence as it is possible I think for any man to do. And 2. That you cast before God and his holy Angels the light froth of your scoffing expressions, my honest Parsons, &c. a sign with what conscience you are conver••ant in these things. And 3. That undertak∣ing to write and declare your mind in things of the nature and importance that these are of, you should have no more judgement in them or about them, then so solemnly to entitle such a trifling Sophism by the name of irrefragable Consequence. As also 4. That in the Solemnity of your Protestation you for got to express your mind in sober sense; for aiming to make a disjunctive conclusion you make the parts of it not at all disparate, but coincident as to your in∣tention, the one of them bring the direct consequent of the other. 5. That you so much make naked your desires after Benefices and gleab lands, as though they were the great matter in contest amongst us, which reflects no small shame and stain on Christian Religion and all the Professors of it. 6. Your Irre∣fragable Consequence is a most pittiful piece of So∣phist••y, built upon I know not how many false sup∣positions, as 1. That Papists are become odious unto us, where as we only reject your Popery, love your Persons, and approve of your Christianity. 2. That Papists brought us the first tidings of the Gospel, which hath been sufficiently before disproved. 3. That Papists hold all things in Religion that they did, and as they did, who first brought us the news of Christianity, which we have also manifested to be otherwise in the signal instance of the opinion of Pope Gregory about your Papal Power and titles. 4. That we have no occasion of exception against Papists, but only their holding the things that those

did, who first preached the Gospel here; when that is no cause at all of our exceptions, but their multi∣tude of pretended Articles of faith, and idolatrous superstitious practises in worship, superadded by them since that time, are the things they stand charg∣ed withall. Now your Consequent being built on all these suppositions, fit to hold a principal place in Lucians vera historia, must needs be irrefragable.

What you add farther on this subject, is but a re∣petition in other words of what you had said before, with an application of your false and groundless sup∣position unto our present differences; but yet least you should flatter your self, or your Disciples de∣ceive themselves with thoughts that there is any thing of weight or moment in it, shall also be con∣sidered. You adde then, that if any part, much more if any parts, great substantial parts of Religion brought into the Land with the first news of Christianity be once rejected (as they are now amongst us) as Romish or Romanical, and that rejection or Reformation be permitted, then may other parts and all parts, if the gap be not stopped, be looked upon at length as points of no better a condition.

I have given you sundry instances already, unde∣niably evincing that some opinions of them who first bring the news of Christian Religion unto any, may be afterwards rejected without the least impeach∣ment of the Truth of the whole, or of our faith there∣in. Yea men may be necessitated so to reject them, to keep entire the Truth of the whole. But the re∣jection supposed, is of mens opinions that bring Christian Religion, and not of any parts of Christi∣an Religion it self. For the mistakes of any men what∣ever, whither in Speculation or Practice about Re∣ligion, are no parts of Religion, much less substantial

parts of it. Such was the Opinion of the necessity of the observation of Mosaical Rites taught with a suitable practice, by many believers of the Circum∣cision, who first preached the Gospel in sundry places in the world. And such were the Rites and Opinions brought into England by Austin that are rejected by Protestants, if any such there were, which as yet you have not made to appear. There is no such affinity between Truth and Errour, however any men may endeavour to blend them together, but that others may separate between them, and ••eject the one without any prejudice unto the other; male sart•• gratia nequaquam coit. Yea the Truth and Light of the Gospel is of that nature, as that if it be once sincerely received in the mind and embraced, it will work out all those false notions, which by any means together with it may be instilled: As rectum is index sui & obliqui. Whilest then we know and are perswaded that in any Systeme of Religion which is proposed unto us, it is only error which we reject, having an infallible Rule for the guidance of our judgement therein, there is no danger of weakning our assent unto the Truth which we retain. Truth and falshood can never stand upon the same bottom, nor have the same evidence, though they may be pro∣posed at the same time unto us, and by the same Persons. So that there is no difficulty in apprehend∣ing how the one may be received, and the other re∣jected. Nor may it be granted (though their con∣cernment lye not therein at all) that if a man reject or disbelieve any point of Truth that is delivered un∣to him in an entire Systeme of Truths, that he is there∣by made enclinable to reject the rest also, or disena∣bled to give a firm assent unto them, unless he reject or disbelieve it upon a notion that is common to

them all. For instance; He that rejects any Truth revealed in the Scripture on this ground, that the Scripture is not an infallible Revelation of Divine and supernatural Truth, cannot but in the persuit of that apprehension of his, reject also all other Truths there in revealed, at least so far as they are knowable only by that Revelation. But he that shall disbe∣lieve any Truth revealed in the Scripture, because it is not manifest unto him to be so revealed, and is in a readiness to receive it when it shall be so manifest, upon the Authority of the Author of the whol••••, is not in the least danger to be induced by that disbelief to question any thing of that which he is convinced so to be revealed. But as I said, your Concernment lyes not therein, who are not able to prove th•••• Pro∣testants have rejected any one part, much less sub∣stantial part of Religion; and your conclusion upon a supposition of the rejection of errours and pra∣ctises of the contrary to the Gospel or principles of Religion, is very infirm. The ground of all your Sophistry lyes in this, that men who receive Christi∣an Religion, are bound to resolve their saith into the Authority of them that preach it first unto them: whereupon it being impossible for them to question any thing they teach without an impeachment of their absolute Infallibility, and so far the Authority which they are to rest upon, they have no firm foun∣dation left for their assent unto the things which as yet they do not question, and consequently in pro∣cess of time may easily be induced so to do. But this presumption is perfectly destructive to all the certain∣ty of Christian Religion. For whereas it proposeth the subject matter of it to be believed with divine faith and supernatural, it leaves no formal reason or cause of any such faith, no foundation for it to be

parts of it. Such was the Opinion of the necessity of the observation of Mosaical Rites taught with a suitable practice, by many believers of the Circum∣cision who first preached the Gospel in sundry places in the world. And such were the Rites and Opinions brought into England by Austin that are rejected by Protestants, if any such there were, which as yet you have not made to appear. There is no such affinity between Truth and Errour, however any men may endeavour to blend them together, but that others may separate between them, and reject the one without any prejudice unto the other; male sarta gratia nequaquam coit. Yea the Truth and Light of the Gospel is of that nature, as that if it be once sincerely received in the mind and embraced, it will work out all those false notions, which by any means together with it may be instilled: As rectum is index sui & obliqui. Whilest then we know and are perswaded that in any Systeme of Religion which is proposed unto us, it is only error which we reject, having an infallible Rule for the guidance of our judgement therein, there is no danger of weakning our assent unto the Truth which we retain. Truth and falshood can never stand upon the same bottom, nor have the same evidence, though they may be pro∣posed at the same time unto us, and by the same Persons. So that there is no difficulty in apprehend∣ing how the one may be received, and the other re∣jected. Nor may it be granted (though their con∣cernment lye not therein at all) that if a man reject or disbelieve any point of Truth that is delivered un∣to him in an entire Systeme of Truths, that he is there∣by made enclinable to reject the rest also, or disena∣bled to give a firm assent unto them, unless he reject or disbelieve it upon a notion that is common to

them all. For instance; He that rejects any Truth revealed in the Scripture on this ground, that the Scripture is not an infallible Revelation of Divine and supernatural Truth, cannot but in the persuit of that apprehension of his, reject also all other Truths therein revealed, at least so far as they are knowable only by that Revelation. But he that shall disbe∣lieve any Truth revealed in the Scripture, because it is not manifest unto him to be so revealed, and is in a readiness to receive it when it shall be so manifest, upon the Authority of the Author of the whole, is not in the least danger to be induced by that disbelief to question any thing of that which he is convinced so to be revealed. But as I said, your Concernment lyes not therein, who are not able to prove that Pro∣testants have rejected any one part, much less sub∣stantial part of Religion; and your conclusion upon a supposition of the rejection of errours and pra∣ctises or the contrary to the Gospel or principles of Religion, is very infirm. The ground of all your Sophistry lyes in this, that men who receive Christi∣an Religion, are bound to resolve their faith unto the Authority of them that preach it first unto them: whereupon it being impossible for them to question any thing they teach without an impeachment of their absolute Infallibility, and so far the Authority which they are to rest upon, they have no firm foun∣dation left for their assent unto the things which as yet they do not question, and consequently in pro∣cess of time may easily be induced so to do. But this presumption is perfectly destructive to all the certain∣ty of Christian Religion. For whereas it proposeth the subject matter of it to be believed with divine faith and supernatural, it leaves no formal reason or cause of any such faith, no foundation for it to be

built upon, or Principle to be resolved into. For how can Divine faith arise out of humane Authori∣ty! For acts being specificated by their objects, such as is the Authority on which a man believes, such is his faith, humane if that be humane, divine if it be divine. But resolving as we ought all our faith into the Authority of God revealing things to be belie∣ved, and knowing that Revelation to be entirely contained in the Scriptures, by which we are to examine and try whatever is by any man or men proposed unto us as an object of our faith, they pro∣posing it only upon this consideration that it is a part of that which is revealed by God in the Scripture for us to believe, without which they have no ground nor warrant to propose any thing at all unto us in that kind, we may reject any of their proposals which we find and discern not to be so revealed, or not to be agreeable to what is so revealed, without the least weakning of our assent unto what is revealed indeed, or making way for any man so to do. For whilest the formal reason of faith remains absolutely unimpeached, different apprehensions about parti∣cular things to be believed, have no efficacy to weak∣en faith its self, as we shall farther see in the exami∣nation of your ensuing Discourse.

The same way and means that lopt off some branches, will do the like to others, and root too: (but the er∣rours and mistakes of men are not branches growing from the root of the Gospel) A Vilification of that Church wherein they find themselves who have a mind to prevaricate upon pretence of Scripture and power of interpreting it, light, spirit or reason, ad∣joyned with a personal obstinacy that will not submit, will do it roundly and to effect. This first brought off the Protestants from the Roman Catholick Church;

this lately separated the Presbyterians from the En∣glish Protestant Church, the Independent from the Presbyterian, and the Quakers from the other Inde∣pendent. And this left good, maintains nothing of Christian Religion but the moral part, which indeed and truth is but honest Paganism. This speech is wor∣thy of all serious Consideration.

That which this Discourse seems to amount unto, is that if a man question or reject any thing that is taught by the Church whereof he is a member, there remains no way for him to come unto any cer∣tainty in the remaining parts of Religion, but that he may on as good grounds question and reject all things as any. As you phrase the matter, by mens vili∣fying a Church which a mind to prevaricate upon pre∣tence of Scripture, &c. though there is no consequence in what you say, yet no man can be so mad as to plead in justification of such a proceeding. For it is not much to be doubted, but that he who layeth such a foundation, and makes such a beginning of a separa∣tion from any Church, will make a progress suitable thereunto. But if you will speak unto your own purpose, and so as they may have any concernment in what you say with whom you deal, you must otherwise frame your hypothesis. Suppose a man to be a member of any Church, or to find himself in any Church state with others, and that he doth at any time by the light and direction of the Scripture, discover any thing or things to be taught or practi∣sed in that Church whereof he is so a member, which he cannot assent unto, unless he will contradict the Revelation that God hath made of himself, his mind and will, in that compleat Rule of all that Religion and worship which are pleasing unto him, and there∣fore doth suspend his assent thereunto, and therein

dissent from the determination of that Church; then you are to assert for the promotion of your design, that all the Consequents will follow which you expatiate upon. But this supposition fixes im∣moveably upon the penalty of forfeiting their interest in all saving truth, all Christians whatever, Greeks, Abissines, Armenians, Protestants in the Churches wherein they find themselves, and so makes ••••ustrate all their attempts for their reconciliation to the Church of Rome. For do you think they will attend unto you, when you perswade them to a relinquish∣ment of the Communion of that Church wherein they find themselves to joyn with you, when the first thing you tell them is, that if they do so, they are undone and that for ever? And yet this is the summ of all that you can plead with them, if there be any sense in the Argument you make use of against our relinquishment of the opinions and practises of the Church of Rome, because we or our forefathers were at any time members thereof, or lived in its commu∣nion. But you would have this the special Priviledge of your Church alone. Any other Church a man may leave, yea all other Churches besides; he may relinquish the principles wherein he hath been in∣structed, yea it is his duty to renounce their Com∣munion; only your Church of Rome is wholly sa∣cred; a man that hath once been a member of it must be so for ever; and he that questions any thing taught therein, may on the same grounds question all the Articles of faith in the Christian Religion. And who gave you leave to suppose the only thing in Question between us, and to use it as a medium to educe your Conclusion from? is it your business to take care,

bullatis ut tibi nugis Pagina turgescat, dare pondus idonea fumo

We know the condition of your Roman Church to be no other then that of other Churches, if it be not worse then that of any of them. And therefore on what terms and reasons soever, a man may relinquish the opinions and renounce the Commu∣nion of any other Church, upon the same may he renounce the Communion and relinquish the Opi∣nions of yours. And if there be no reasons suffici∣ently cogent so to deal with any Church whatever, I pray on what grounds do you proceed to perswade others to such a Course, that they may joyn with you?

—Dicis{que} facis{que} quod ipse Non Sani esse hominis non sanus juret Orestes.

To disintangle you out of this Labyrinth whereinto you have cast your self, I shall desire you to observe, that if the Lord Christ by his Word be the Supream Revealer of all Divine Truth; and the Church, that is any Church whatever, be only the Ministerial proposer of it, under and from him, being to be re∣gulated in all its propositions by his Revelation, if it shall chance to propose that for Truth, which is not by him revealed, as it may do, seeing it hath no se∣curity of being preserved from such failures, but on∣ly in its attendance unto that Rule, which it may neglect or corrupt: A man in such a Case cannot discharge his Duty to the Supream Revealer, without dissenting from the Ministerial proposer. Nay if it be a Truth which is proposed, and a man dissent from it, because he is not convinced that it is revealed, he is in no danger to be induced to question other

Propositions, which he knows to be so revealed, his faith being built upon, and resolved into that Reve∣lation alone. All that remains of your discourse lyes with its whole weight on this presumption, because some men may either wilfully prevaricare from the Truth, or be mistaken in their apprehensions of it, and so dissent from a Church that teacheth the truth, and wherein she so teacheth it, without cause; there∣fore no man may or ought to relinquish the errors of a Church, which he is really and truly convinced by Scripture and solid reason suitable thereunto, so to be. An inference so wild and so destructive of all assurance in every thing that is knowable in the world, that I wonder how your Interest could induce you to give any countenance unto it. For if no man can certainly and infallibly know any thing by any way or means wherein some or other are ignorantly or wilfully mistaken, we must bid adiew for ever to the certain knowledge of any thing in this world. And how slightly soever you are pleased to speak of Scripture Light, Spirit and Reason, they are the proper names of the wayes and helps that God hath graciously given to the sons of men, to come to the knowledge of himself. And if the Scripture by the assistance of the Spirit of God, and the light unto it communicated unto men by him, be not sufficient to lead them in the use and improvement of their Reason unto the saving knowledge of the will of God, and that assurance therein which may be a firm foundation of acceptable obedience unto him, they must be content to go without it; for other wayes and means of it, there are none. But this is your manner of dealing with us. All other Churches must be sleighted and relinquished, the means appointed and sanctified by God himself to bring us unto the

knowledge of, and settlement in the Truth must be rejected, that all men may be brought to a fanatical unreasonable resignation of their faith to you and your Church; if this be not done, men may with as good reason renounce Truth as Error; and after they have rejected one error, be inclined to cast off all that Truth, for the sake whereof that error was re∣jected by them. And I know not what other incon∣veniences and mischiefs will follow: It must needs be well for you, that you are

—Gallinae filius albae,

Seeing all others are

—Viles pulli nati infelicibus ovis.

Your only misadventure is, that you are fallen into somewhat an unhappy age, wheréin men are hard-hearted, and will not give away their Faith and Rea∣son to every one that can take the confidence to beg them at their hands.

But you will now prove by instances, that if a man deny any thing that your Church proposeth, he may with as good reason deny every Truth whatever. I shall follow you through them, and consider what in your matter or manner of proposal is worthy that serious perusal of them which you so much de∣sire. To begin, See if the Quakers deny not as re∣solutely the regenerating power of Baptisme, as you the efficacy of Absolution. See if the Presbyterians do not with as much reason evacuate the Prelacy of Protestants, as they the Papacy. All things it seems are alike, Truth and Error, and may with the same reason be opposed and rejected. And because some men renounce errors, others may on as good grounds renounce the Truth, and oppose it with as solid and

cogent reasons. The Scripture it seems is of no use to direct, guide, or settle men in these things that relate to the worship and knowledge of God. What a strange dream hath the Church of God been in from the dayes of Moses, if this be so! Hitherto it hath been thought that what the Scripture teach∣eth in these things turned the scales, and made the embracement of it reasonable, as the rejection of them the contrary. As the woman said to Joab, They were wont to speak in old time, saying, they shall sure∣ly ask counsel at Abel, and so they ended the matter: They said in old time concerning these things, To the Law and the Testimonies, search the Scriptures, and so they ended the matter. But it seems tempora mutantur, and that now Truth and Falsehood are equally probable, having the same grounds, the same evidences. Quis leget haec, min, tu istud ais. Do you think to be believed in these incredible figments, fit to bear a part in the stories of Vlysses unto Alci∣nous! Yet you proceed, See if the Socinian Argu∣ments against the Trinity, be not as strong as yours against the Eucharist. But where did you ever read any Arguments of ours against the Eucharist? Have you a dispensation to say what you please for the promotion of the Catholick Cause? Are not the Arguments you intend, indeed rather for the Eucha∣rist then against it? Arguments to vindicate the na∣ture of that holy Eucharistical Ordinance, and to preserve it from the manifold abuses that you and your Church do put upon it. That is, they are ar∣guments against your Transubstantiation and proper sacrifice that you intend. And will you now say, that the Arguments of the Socinians against the Tri∣nity, the great fundamental Article of our Prosessi∣on plainly taught in the Scripture, and constantly be∣lieved

by the Church of all Ages, are of equal force and validity, with those used against your Transub∣stantiation, and Sacrifice of the Mass, things never mentioned, no not once in the whole Scripture, ne∣ver heard of, nor believed by the Church of old, and destructive in your reception unto all that rea∣son and sense, whereby we are, and know that we are men and live? But suppose your prejudice and partial addiction unto your way and faction, may be allowed to countenance you in this monstrous comparing and coupling of things together like his, who

Mortua jungehat corpora vivis;

is your inference from your enquiry any other but this, that the Scripture setting aside the Authority of your Church, is of no use to instruct men in the Truth, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 all things are alike uncertain unto all! And 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you farther manifest to be your mean∣ing in your following enquiries. See say you, if the Jew do not with as much plaufibility deride Christ, as you his Church. And would you could see what it is to be a zealot in a faction, or would learn to deal candidly and honestly in things wherein your own and the souls of other men are concerned. Who is it amongst us that derides the Church of Christ? Did Elijah deride the Temple at Jerusalem, when he opposed the Priests of Baal? or must every one pre∣sently be judged to deride the Church of Christ, who opposeth the corruptions that the Roman faction have endeavoured to bring into that part of it, wherein for some ages they have prevailed? What Plausibility yon have found out in the Jews derision of Christ, I know not. I know some that are as conversant in their writings at least, as you seem to

have been, who affirm that your arguings and re∣vilings are utterly destitute of all plausibility and tolerable pretence. But men must have leave to say what they please, when they will be talking of they know not what; as is the case with you, when by any chance you stumble on the Jews or their con∣cernments. This is that which for the present you would perswade men unto; That the Arguments of the Jews against Christ, are as good as those of Protestants against your Church, credat Apella. Of the same nature with these is the remainder of your Instances and Queries. You suppose that a man may have as good reasons for the denyal of Hell, as Purgatory; of Gods Providence and the Souls Immortality, as of any piece of Popery; and then may not want appearing incongruities, tautologies, improbabilities to disenable all Holy Writ at once. This is the condition of the man who disbelieves any thing proposed by your Church, nor in that state is he capable of any relief. Fluctuate he must in all uncertainties: Truth and error are all one un∣to him; and he hath as good grounds for the one as the other. But Sir, pray what serves the Scri∣pture for all this while? Will it afford a man no Light, no Guidance, no Direction? Was this quite out of your mind? or did you presume your Reader would not once cast his thoughts towards it for his relief in that maze of uncertainties which you en∣deavour to cast him into? or dare you manage such an impeachment of the wisdom and goodness of God, as to affirm that that Revelation of himself which he hath graciously afforded unto men to reach them the knowledge of himself, and to bring them to settlement and assurance therein, is of no use or va∣lidity to any such purpose? The Holy Ghost tells

us, that the Scripture is profitable for doctrine and instruction, able to make the man of God perfect, and us all wise unto salvation, that the sure Word of Prophecy, where unto he commands us to attend is a light shining in a dark place; directs us to search in∣to it; that we may come to the acknowledgement of the Truth; sending us unto it for our settle∣ment, affirming that they who speak not according to the Law and the Testimonies have no light in them. He assures us that the word of God is a light unto ou•• feet, and his Law perfect, converting the soul: That it is able to build us up, and to give us an inheritance among all them that are sanctified: that the things in it are written that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing we may have life through his name. See also Luke 16. 29, 31. Psal. 19. 18. 2 Pet. 1 19. John 5. 39. Rom. 15. 4. Heb. 4. 12. Is there no truth in all this, and much more that is affirmed to the same purpose? or are you surprized with this mention of it, as Caesar Borgia was with his sickness at the death of his fa∣ther Pope Alexander, which spoiled all his designs, and made him cry, that he had never thought of it, and so had not provided against it. Do you not know that a, volume might be filled with Testimo∣nies of antient fathers, bearing witness to the suffi∣ciency and efficacy of the Scripture for the settlement of the minds of men in the knowledge of God and his worship? Doth not the experience of all Ages, of all places in the world render your Sophistry con∣temptible? are there not, were there not millions of Christians alwayes, who either knew not, or regard∣ed not, or openly rejected the Authority of your Church, and disbelieved many of her present pro∣posals, who yet were, and are stedfast and in move∣able

in the faith of Christ, and willingly seal the Truth of it with their dearest blood? But if neither the Testimony of God himself in the Scriptures, nor the concurrent suffrage of the antient Church, nor the experience of to many thousands of the Disciples of Christ, is of any moment with you, I hope you will not take it amiss if I look upon you as one giving in your self as signal an Instance of the power of prejudice, and partial addiction to a party and interest, as a man can well meet withall in the world. This discourse you tell me in your close, you have bestowed upon me in a way of supererogation, where∣in you deal with us as you do with God himself. The Duties he expresly by his commands requireth at your hands; you pass by without so much as take∣ing notice of some of them; and others, as those of the second Command you openly reject, offering him somewhat of your own that he doth not re∣quire, by the way, as you barbarously call it of Supererogation; and so here you have passed over in silence that which was incumbent on you to have replyed unto, if you had not a mind vadimonium deserere, to give over the defence of that Cause you had undertaken; and in the room thereof sub∣stitute this needless and useless diversion, by the way as you say of Supererogation. But yet because you were to free of your Charity, before you had payed your debts, as to bestow it upon me, I was not un∣willing to require your kindness, and have there∣fore sent it you back again, with that acknowledge∣ment of your favour where with it is now attended.

CHAP. 13.

Faith and Charity of Roman Catholicks.

YOur following Discourse pag. 44, 45. is spent partly in the Commendation of your Fiat Lux, and the Metaphysical abstracted & scourses of it; partly in a repetition in other words of what you had before insisted on. The former I shall no fur∣ther endeavour to disturb your contentment in. It is a common error

—Ne{que} est quisquam Quem non in aliquare videre Suffenum Possis.

I am not your Rivall in the admiration of it, and shall therefore leave you quietly in the embracements of your Darling. And for the latter, we have had enough of it already, and so by this time I hope you think also. The close only of your Discourse is considerable, and therefore I shall transcribe it for your second thoughts. And it is this,

But Sir what you say here, and so often up and down your book of Papists contempt of the Scripture, I beseech you will please to abstain from it for the time to come. I have conversed with the Roman Ca∣tholicks of France, ••••anders and Germany; I have read more of your Books both Histories, Contempta∣tive and Scholastical Divines▪ th••n I believe you have ever seen or heard of. I have seen the Col∣ledges of Sacred Priests and Religious houses, I have communed with all sort of people and perused their Counsells. And after all this I tell you, and out of my love I tell you that their respect to Scripture is

real, absolute and cordial, even to admiration. Others may talk of it, but they act it, and would be ready to stone that man that should diminish Holy Writ. Let us not wrong the innocent. The Scripture is theirs, and Jesus Christ is theirs, who also will plead their Cause when he sees time.

What you mention of your own diligence and at∣chievements, what you have done, where you have been, what you have seen and discoursed, I shall not trouble you about. It may be as to your souls health

—Tutior, poter as esse domi.

But yet for all the report that you are pleased to make of your self, it is not hard to discern that you and I

—Nec pondera rerum Nec momenta sumus.

And notwithstanding your Writings, it would have been very difficult for any man to have guessed at your great reading, had you not satisfied us by this your own information of it. It may be if you had spared some of the time which you have spent in the reading of your Catholick Books unto the study of the Scripture, it had not been unto your disadvan∣tage. In the mean time there is an Hyperbole in your confidence a little too evident. For it is pos∣sable that I may, and true that I have seen more of your Authors in half an hour, then you can read I think in an hundred years; unless you intend al∣wayes to give no other account of your reading, then you have done in your Fiat and Epistola: But we are weary of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

Quin tu alium quaer as quoi centones farcias.

But to pass by this boasting, there are two parts of your Discourse, the one concerning the faith, the other expressing the Charity of Roman Catholicks. The first contains what respect you would be thought to have for the Scripture, the latter what you really have for all other Christians besides your selves. As to the former you tell me, that I speak of the Pa∣pists contempt of the Scripture, and desire me to ab∣stain from it for the time to come. Whither I have used that expression anywhere of contempt of the Scripture, well I know not. But whereas I look up∣on you as my friend, at least for the good advice I have frequently given you, I have deserved that you should be so, and therefore shall not deny you any thing that I can reasonably grant; and whereas I cannot readily comply with you in your present request, as to the alteration of my mind in reference unto the respect that Papists bear unto the Scriptures, I esteem my self obliged to give you some account of the reasons why I persist in my former thoughts, which I hope, as is usual in such cases, you will be pleased to take in friendly part. For besides Sir, that you back your request with nothing but some overconfident asseverations, subscribed with teste meipso, I have many reasons taken from the pra∣ctice and Doctrine of your Church, that strongly in∣duce me to abide in my former perswasion. As 1. You know that in these and the neighbouring Nations, Papists have publickly burned the Scriptures, and destroyed more Copies of them then ever An∣tiochus Epiphanes did of the Jewish Law. And if you should go about to prove unto me that Prote∣stants have no great regard to Sacred Images that

have been worshipped, because in these and the neigh∣bouring Nations they brakes and burned a great number of them, I should not readily know what to answer you. Nor can I entertain any such con∣fidence of your abilities, as to expect from you a satisfactory answer unto my instance of the very same nature, manifesting what respect Papists bear unto the Scriptures. 2. You know that they have imprisoned and burned sundry persons for keeping the Scripture in their houses, or some parts of them, and reading them for their instruction and comfort. Nor is this any great sign of respect unto them, no more then it is of mens respect to treason or murder, because they hang them up who are guilty of them. And 3. Your Church prohibiteth the reading of them unto Lay-men, unless in some special cases, some few of them be licenced by you so to do▪ and you study & sweat for arguments to prove the reading of them needless and dangerous, putting them as translated, into the Catalogue of Books prohibited. Now this is the very mark and stamp that your Church sets upon these books which she disapproves, and discounte∣nanceth as pernicious to the faithful. 4. Your Councel of Trent hath decreed that your unwritten Traditions are to be received with the same faith and veneration as the Scripture, constituting them to be one part of the Word of God, and the Scri∣ptures another, then which nothing could be spoken more in contempt of it, or in reproach unto it. For I must assure you, Protestants think you cannot pos∣sibly contract a greater guilt by any contempt of the Scripture then you do, by reducing it into or∣der with your unwritten Traditions. 5. You have added Books not only written with an humane and fallible Spirit, but farced with actual mistakes and

falshoods unto the Canon of the Scripture, giving just occasion unto them who receive it from you only, to question the Authority of the whole. And 6. You teach the Authority of the Scripture at least in respect of us, (which is all it hath, for Autho∣rity is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and must regard some in rela∣tion unto whom it doth consist) depends on the Authority of your Church; the readiest way in the world to bring it into Contempt with them that know what your Church is, and what it hath been. And 7. You plead that it is very obscure and unintel∣ligible of its self, and that in things of the greatest moment, and of most indispensible necessity unto Salvation; whereby you render it perfectly useless, according to the old Rule, Quod non potest intelligi, debet negligi; it is fit that should be neglected, which cannot be understood. And 8. There is a book lately written by one of your party, after you have been frequently warned and told of these things, entitu∣led Fiat Lux, giving countenance unto many other hard reflections upon it, as hath been manifested in the Animadversions written on that Book. 9. Your great Masters in their writings have spoken very contemptuously of it: whereof I shall give you a few instances. The Council of Trent which is properly yours, determines as I told you, that their Traditi∣ons are to be received and venerated pari pietatis af∣fectu & reverentia, with an equal affection of piety and reverence, as the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament: which is a setting up of the Altar of Damascus with that of God himself in the same Tem∣ple. Sess. 4. Dec. 1. And Andradius, no small part of that Convention, in his defence of that Decree tells us that, cum Christus fragilitati memoriae Evan∣gelio scripto succurrendum putavit, it a breve com∣pendium

libris tradi voluit, ut pars maxima tanquam magni precii thesaurus traditionibus intimis Ecclesiae visceribus infixis relicta fuerit. As our Lord Christ thought meet to relieve the frailty of memory by the written Gospel, so he would have a short compendium or abridgement committed unto books, that the great∣est part as a most precious treasure might be left unto Traditions fixed in the very inward bowels of the Church. This is that cordial and absolute respect even unto admiration that your Catholicks bear un∣to the Scripture: And he that doth not admire it, seems to me to be very stupid. It contains some small part of the mysteries of Christian Religion, the great treasure of them lying in your Traditions; and thereupon he concludes, Canonem seu Regulam fidei exactissimam non esse Scripturam, sed Ecclesiae judicium; that the Canon or most exact Rule of Faith is not the Scripture but the judgement of the Church; Much to the same purpose as you plead in your Fiat and Epistola. Pighius another Champion of your Church, Ecclesiast. Hierarch. Lib. 1. c. 4. after he hath given many reasons to prove the obscurity of the Scripture, with its flexibility to every mans sense, as you know who also hath done, and re∣ferred all things to be determined by the Church, concludes, Si hujus Doctrinae memores fuissemus, hae∣reticos scilicet non esse informandos, vel convincendos ex Scripturis, meliore same loco essent res nostrae; sed dum ostentandi ingenii & eruditionis gratia cum Lu∣thero in certamen discenditur Scripturarum, excitatum est hoc quod, proh dolor, nunc videmus incendium. Had we been mindful of this Doctrine, that Hereticks are not to be instructed, nor convinced out of the Scri∣ptures, our affairs had been in a better condition then now they are: but whilest some to shew

their wit and learning would needs contend with Lu∣ther out of the Scriptures, the fire which we now with grief behold, was kindled and stirred up. And it may be you remember who it was that called the Scripture Evangelium nigrum, and Theologiam atramentariam, seeing he was one of the most famous champions of your Church and Cause. But before we quite leave your Council of Trent, we may do well to remember the advice which the Fathers of it, who upon the stirs in Germany removed unto Bo∣nonia, gave to the Pope, Julius the third, which one that was then amongst them afterwards published. Deni{que} say they in their letters to him, quod inter omnia consilia quae nos hoc tempore dare possumus om∣nium gravissimum ad extremum reservavimus. Oculi hic aperiendi sunt, omnibus nervis adnitendum erit ut quam minimum Evangelii poterit (praesertim vulgari lingua) in iis legatur Civitatibus, quae sub tua ditione & potestate sunt, sufficiat{que} tantillum illud quod in missa legi solet, nec eo amplius cuiquam mortalium legere liceat. Quam diu enim pauculo illo homines contenti fuerunt, tam diu res tuae ex sententia successêre, ••aedemq, in contrarium labi caeperunt ex quo ulterius legi vulgo usurpatum est. Hic ille (in summa) Est liber qui praeter caeteros hasce nobis tempestates ac tur∣bines conciliavit quibus prope abreptisumus. Et sane siquis illum diligenter expendat, deinde quae in nostris fieri ecclestis consueverunt, singula ordine contemple∣tur, videbis plurimum inter se dissidere, & hanc do∣ctrinam nostram ab illa prorsus diversam esse ac saepe contrariam etiam. Quod simul at{que} homines intelli∣gant, à docto scilicet aliquo adversariorum stimulati, nou ante clamandi finem faciunt, quam rem plane om∣nem divulgaverint, nos{que} invisos omnibus reddiderint. Quare occultandae pauculae illae chartulae sed abhibita

quadam cautione & diligentia, ne ea res majores nobis turbas ac tumultus excitet, Last of all, that which is the most Weighty of all the advices which that at this time we shall give unto you, we have reserved for the close of all. Your eyes are here to be opened; you are to endeavour with the utmost of your power, that as little as may be of the Gospel (especially in any vul∣gar tongue) be read in those Cities which are under your government and Authority; but let that little suffice them which is wont to be read in the Mass (of which mind you also know who is) neither let it be lawful for any man to read any more of it. For as long as men were contented with that little, your affairs were as prosperous as heart could desire, and began immedi∣ately to decline upon the custome of reading any more of it. This is in brief that book which above all others hath procured unto us those tempests and storms where∣with we are almost carryed away headlong. And the Truth is, if any one shall diligently consider it, and then seriously ponder on all the things that are accustomed to be done in our Churches, he will find them to be ve∣ry different the one from the other, and our Doctrine to be divers from the Doctrine thereof, yea and often∣times plainly contrary unto it. Now this when men be∣gin to understand, being stirred up by some learned man or other amongst the adversaries, they make no end of clamouring until they have divulged the whole mat∣ter, and rendred us hateful unto all. Wherefore those few sheets of Paper are to be hid but with caution and diligence, least their concealment should stir us up great∣er troubles. This is fair and open; being a brief summary of that admiration of the Scriptures which so abounds in Catholick Countreys; That Herman∣nus one of some account in your Church, affirmed that the Scriptures could be of no more Authority

then Aesops Fables, were they not confirmed by the Testimony of your Church; we are informed by one Brentius, and we believe the information to be true because the saying is defended by Hosius de Authoritat. Script. Lib. 3. who adds unto it of his own; Revera nisi nos Authoritas Ecclesiae doceret hanc scripturam esse Canoncam, perexiguum apud nos pon∣dus haberet: the truth is, if the Authority of the Church did not teach us that this Scripeure is Canomical, it would be of very light weight unto us. Such Cordial respects do you bear unto it. And the forementi∣oned Andradius Defens. Con. Trid. Lib. 2. to the same purpose; Ne{que} enim in ipsis libris quibus sacra mysteria conscripta sunt, quicquam in est Divinitatis quae nos ad credendum quae in illis continentur religione aliqua constring at; sed Ecclesiae, quae codices illos sacros esse docet, & antiquorum Patrum fidem & pietatem commendat▪ tanta inest vis & amplitudo, ut illis nemo sine gravissimâ impietatis nota possit repugnare; neither is there in those books wherein the Divine Mysteries are written any thing or any character of Divinity or di∣vine original which should on a religious account oblige us to believe the things that are contained in them. But yet such is the force and Authority of the Church which teacheth th••se books to be sacred, and commend∣eth the faith and piety of the Antient fathers, that no man can oppose them without a grievous mark of im∣piety. How, by what means, from whom should we learn the sense of your Church, if not from your Council of Trent, and such mighty Champions of it? Do you think it equitable, that we should listen to suggestions of every obscure Frier, and entertain thoughts from them about the sense of your Church, contrary to the plain assertion of your Councils and and great Rabbies? And if this be the respect that

in Catholick Countries is given to the Scripture, I hope you will not find may of your Countrymen ri∣vals with them therein. It is all but Hayle and Cr••∣cifie; We respect the Scriptures, but there is another part of Gods word besides them; we respect the Scriptures, but Traditions contain more of the Do∣ctrine of Truth; we respect the Scriptures, but think it not meet that Christians be suffered to read them; we respect the Scripture, but do not think that it hath any character in it of its own Divine ori∣ginal for which we should believe it; we respect the Scripture, but yet we would not believe, were it not commended unto us by our Church; we respect the Scripture, but it is dark, obscure, not intelligible but by the interpretation of our Church. Pray Sir, keep your respects at home, they are despised by the Scri∣pture it self, which gives Testimony unto its own Authority, Perfection, Sufficiency, to guide us to God, Perspicuity and Certainty without any respect unto your Church, or its Authority: And we know its Testimony to be true. And for our parts we fear that whilest these Joabs kisses of respect are upon your lips, you have a sword in your right hands to let out all the Vitals of Divine Truth and Religion. Do you think your general expressions of respect, and that unto admiration, are a covering long and broad enough to hide all this contempt and reproach that you continually poure upon the Scriptures? Deal thus with your Ruler, and see whether he will accept your Person. Give him some good words in general, but let your particular expressions of your esteem of him come short of what his state and regal dignity do require, will it be well taken at your hands? Expressions of the same nature with these instanced in, might be collected out of your chiefest

Authors sufficient to fill a volume, and yet I never read nor heard that any of them were ever stoned in your Catholick Countreys, whatever you intimate of the boyling up of your zeal into a rage against those that should go about to diminish it. Indeed whatever you pretend, this is your faith about the Scripture; and therefore I desire that you would accept of this ac∣count why I cannot comply with your wish, and not speak any more of Papists slighting the Scripture, seeing I know they do so in the sense and way by me expressed, and other wayes I never said they did so.

From the account of your Faith, we may proceed to your Charity wherewith you close this Discourse. Speaking of your Roman Catholicks, you say, the Scripture is theirs, and Jesus Christ is theirs, who will one day plead their Cause. What do you mean Sir by theirs? Do you intend it exclusively to all others; so theirs as not to be the right and portion of any other. It is evident that this is your sense, not only because unless it be so, the words have neither sense nor emphasis in them; but also because suitably unto this sense, you elsewhere declare that the Roman and the Catholick Church are with you one and the same. This is your Charity fit to accompany, and to be the fruit of the faith before discoursed of. This is your Chatholicism, the impaling of Christ, Scripture, the Church and consequently all acceptable Religion to the Roman Party and Faction; down right Donatism, the wretchedest Schism that ever rent the Church of God, which makes the wounds of Christendome in∣curable, and all hope of coalition in Love de∣sperate.

Saint Paul directing one of his Epistles unto all that in every place call upon the name of our Lord Je∣sus Christ, that no countenance from that expressi∣on

of our Lord Jesus Christ might be given unto any surmize of his appropriating unto himself and those with him a peculiar interest in Jusus Christ, he adds immediately both their Lord and ours; the Lord of all that in every place call upon his name, 1 Cor. 1. This was the old Catholicism, which the new hath as much affinity unto as darkness hath to light, and not one jot more. The Scripture is ours, and Christ is ours, and what have any else to do with them? what though in other places, you call on the name of Je∣sus Christ, yet he is our Lord, not yours. This I say is that wretched Schism, which cloathed with the name of Catholicism (which after it had slain, it robbed of its name and garments) the world for some ages hath groaned under, and is like to do so, whilst it is supported by so many secular advantages and interests, as are subservient unto it at this day.

CHAP. 14.

Of Reason. Jews objections against Christ.

PAg. 27. You proceed to vindicate your unreaso∣nable Paragraph about Reason, or rather against it. What reason we are to expect in a dispute against the use of Reason in and about the things which are the highest and most proper object of it, is easie for any one to imagine. For by Reason in Religion we understand not meerly the Ra••ocina∣tion of a man, upon and according to the inbred Principles of his nature, but every acting of the un∣derstanding of a man about the things of God, pro∣ceeding from such Principles, or guided by any such

rule, as no way impeach its rationality. To vindicate your discourse in your Fiat upon this subject you make use of two mediums. (1.) You pretend that to be the whole subject of your Discourse about Reason, which is but a part of it: and (2.) You deny that to be the Design and aime of your Book which your self know, and all other men acknowledge so to be.

On the first head you tell me that your Discourse concerned Reason to be excluded from the employment of framing Articles of Religion. It is true, you talk somewhat to that purpose; and you were told that Protestants were no way concerned in that Dis∣course. And it is no less true, that you dispute against the use and exercise of Reason in our choise of or adhering unto any Religion, or any way or practice in Religion; that is the Liberty of a mans rational judgement in determining what is right, and what is wrong, what true, what false, in the things that are proposed unto him, as belonging unto Re∣ligion, guided, bounded, and determined by the only Rule measure and last umpire in and about such things; This you oppose and that directly; and that to this end, to shew unto Protestants that they can come unto no certainty in Religion by this exercise of their Reason, in and about the things of God. That men should by the use of Reason endeavour to find out and frame a Religion, is fond to imagine. They who ever at∣tempted any such thing, knew it was not Religion but a pretence to some other end, that they were coyn∣ing. To make the reason of a man proceeding and acting upon it its own light and inbred Principles, the absolute and Soveraign judge of the things that are proposed to be believed or practised in Religion, so as that it should be free for him to receive or reject

them according as they answer and are suited there∣unto, is no less absurd and foolish; and who ever will assert it must build his Assertion on this supposi∣tion, that a man is capable of comprehending fully and clearly, whatsoever God can reveal of himself; which is contrary to the prime Dictates of Reason in reference unto the simplicity and infiniteness of Gods being, and so would imply a contradiction in its first admission. It is no less untrue, that a man in the lapsed depraved condition of nature, can by the light thereof and the utmost improvement of his reason, come to a saving, sanctifying perception of the things themselves, that God hath revealed concern∣ing himself his will and worship, which is the pe∣culiar effect of the spirit and grace of Christ. But to say, that a man is not to use his reason in finding out the sense and meaning of the propositions wherein the Truths of Religion are represented unto him, and in judging of their truth and falshood by the Rule of them, which is the Scripture, is to deny that indeed we are men, and to put a reproach upon our mortality, by intimating, that men do not, cannot, nor ought to do that which they not only know they do, but also that they cannot but do. For they do but vainly deceive themselves who suppose or ra∣ther dream that they make any determination of what is true or false in Religion, without the use and exercise of their Reason; it is to say they do it as beasts, and not as men; then which nothing can be spoken more to the dishonour of Religion, nor more effectual to deter men from the entertainment of it. For our parts, we rejoyce in this, that we dare avow the Religion which we profess to be highly rational; and that the most mysterious Articles of it are pro∣posed unto our belief on grounds of the most un∣questionable

reason, and such as cannot be rejected without a Contradiction to the most Soveraign di∣ctates of that Intellectual nature wherewith of God we are endued. And it is not a few trifling instan∣ces of some mens abuse of their Reason in its preju∣dicate exercise about the things of God, that shall make us ingrateful to God that he hath made us men, or to neglect the laying out of the best that he hath intrusted us with by nature, in his service in the work of Grace. And what course do you your self proceed in? When any thing is proposed unto you concerning Religion, do you not think upon it? doth not your mind exercise about it those first acts of Reason or Understanding which prepare and dispose you to discourse and compute it with your self? do you not consider whither the thing it self be good or evil? and whither the propositions wherein it is made unto you are true or false? do you not call to mind the Rule and measure whereby you are to make a judgement, whither they be so or no? we talk not now, what that Rule is, but only whither you do not make a judgement of the Propositions that are made unto you by some Rule or other, and whither with that judgement, your mind do not assent unto them or dissent from them? Yea is not your judge∣ment which you so make, the assent or dissent of your mind? or what course do you take? I wish you would inform us of your excellent expedient to teach a man to cry Credo without the use or exercise of his Reason to bring him thereunto. But when you have done so, I know it is no other way but that by it you may teach a Parrat or Starling to say as much, or the Crow that cryed of old 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But you would evade all concernment in this Discourse, by denying that your Fiat Lux, was written unto any

such concernment against Protestants. I know not well what you mean by your, Vnto any such concern∣ment against Protestants. That the main design of your Discourse, is to bring Protestants unto an uncer∣tainty in their profession by everting the Principles which you apprehend them to build upon, and there∣on to perswade them unto Popery, I was in hope you would have no more denyed. It hath been eviden∣ced unto you with as needless a labour as ever any man was put unto; but it is done because you would needs have it so, and shall not now be done again.

Your ensuing Discourse wherein you attempt to say something unto the ninth Chapter of the Anim∣adversions is not unlike the preceding; and there∣fore I shall cast them under one head. Your business in it, is to cast a fresh dishonour upon Christian Reli∣gion by questioning the defensibility of its Principles against Jewish Objections, any otherwise then by an irrational Credo. Let us hear you speak in your own language; Your vaunting florishes, You say, about Scripture which you love to talk on, will not without the help of your Credo and humble resignation solve the Argument, which that you may the easilier be quit of, you never examine, but only run on in your usual florishes about the use and excellency of Gods Word. I told you in Fiat Lux, what the Jew will reply to all such reasonings: but you have the pregnant wit not to heed any thing that may hinder your florishes; but if you were kept up in a Chamber with a learned Jew with∣out bread, water and fire, till you had satisfied him in that objection, I am still well enough assured, for all your veryvaunts, that if you do not make use of your Credo, which here you contemn, you might there stay till hunger and cold have made an end of you. The mean∣ing of this Discourse is, that the Jews pretence

of rejecting Christ upon the Authority and Traditi∣on of their Church, was not, nor is to be satisfied by Testimonies given in the Scripture unto the Person, Doctrine and Work of the Messias. The sum of the Objection said down in your Fiat Lux is that which I have now mentioned; It was the Plea of the Jews against Christ and his Doctrine, managed from the Authority and Tradition of their Church; That Christ and his Apostles gave the Answer unto this objection, which I have now intimated, namely the Testimony of God himself in the Scripture to the Truth of that which they objected against, which was to be preferred unto the Authority and Testi∣mony of their Church, I have undeniably proved unto you in the Animadversions; and it is manifest to every one that hath but read the New Testament with any Consideration or understanding. The same way was persisted in by the Antient Fathers, as all their writings against the Jews do testifie. And I must now tell you that your calling the validity of this Answer into Question, is highly injurious unto the honour of Christianity, and blasphemous against Christ himself. The best interpretation that I can give un∣to your words, is, that you are a person wholly igno∣rant of the Controversies that are between the Jews and Christians, and the way that is to be taken for their satisfaction or confutation. You tell us indeed in your Fiat, that the Jews will reply to these Testi∣monies of Scripture which are alledged as giving witness to our Lord Jesus Christ and his Doctrine, and contend about the interpretation of them; and this you tell me, I have the wit to take no notice of; which by the way is unduly averred by you, and contrary to your own Science and Conscience, seeing you profess that you have read over my Animadver∣sions;

and probably the very place wherein I do take notice of what you said to that purpose and replyed unto it, was not far from your eye when you wrote the contrary. And as I shewed you what was the opi∣nion of the Antients of that reply of the Jews which you mention, so I shall now add, that nothing but gross ignorance in these things can give countenance to an imagination that there is any thing but folly and madness in the Rabbinical evasions of the Testi∣monies of the old Testament given unto our Lord Christ and his Gospel. And your substitution of a naked fananical Credo, not resolved into the Testi∣mony of the Holy Writ in the room of that express Witness which is given in Holy Scripture unto the Person and Doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ, to op∣pose therewith the Judaical Plea from their Church, State, Power and Authority, is an Engine fit to un∣dermine the very root of Christianity, and to render the whole Gospel highly Questionable. Besides it is so absurd as to the Conviction of the Jews, such a mere petitio principii or begging of what is in Contro∣versie between Christians and them, that I challenge you to produce any one learned man that hath made use of it to that purpose. To think that your Cre∣do built on principles which he despiseth, which you cannot prove unto him, will convince another man of the Truth of what you believe, can have no other ground but a magical fancy, that the fixing of your imagination shall affect his, and conform it unto your apprehension of things. Such is your course in tel∣ling the Jews of the Authority of your Church, and your Credo thereupon, which cannot be supposed to have any existence in rerum natura, unless it be first supposed that their Church was failed, which sup∣posal that it was not, is the sole foundation of their

objection. What end you can propose herein, but to expose your self and your profession unto their scorn and contempt, I know not. Sir, the Lord Christ confirmed himself to be the Son of God, and Saviour of the world by the Miracles which he wrought; and the Doctrine which he taught was testified to be Divine by signs and express words from Heaven. He proved it also by the Testimonies out of the Law and Prophets, all which was confirmed by his Resurrection from the dead. This coming of the promised Messiah, the work that he was to per∣form, and the characteristical 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of him, in application unto the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the Apostles and Evangelists proved out of the Scri∣pture, to the conviction and conversion of thou∣sands of the Jews, and the confusion of the rest. And if you know not that the Antients Fathers and learned men of succeeding Ages, have undenyably proved against the Jews out the Scripture of the Old Testament, and by the Testimony thereof, that the promised Messiah was to be God and man in one Per∣son, that he was to come at the time of the appear∣ance of our Lord Jesus Christ in the flesh, that the work which he was to perform was the very same and no other then what was wrought and accom∣plished by him, with all the other important concern∣ments of his Person and office, so that they have no∣thing left to countenance them in their obstinacy, but meer senseless trifles, you are exceedingly unmeet to make use of their objections, or the condition of the controversie between them and Christians. For what you add in reference unto my self, I shall need only to mind you that the Question is not about any Personal ability of mine to satisfie a Jew, which whatever it be, when I have a mind to encrease it,

for somewhat that I know of, and which I have learn∣ed out of their writings, I will not come unto you for assistance; but concerning the sufficiency of that Principle for the confronting of Judaical objections, taken from the Authority of their Church, which I have formerly proved unto you, that our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles made use of unto that pur∣pose. And I will not say that it was from the preg∣nancy of your wit, that whatever heed you took unto the stating of the Case between you and Protestants in the Animadversions parallel unto that between the Jews and the Apostles, (seeing a very little wit will suf∣fice to direct a man to let that alone which he finds too heavy for him to remove out of his way) that you speak not one word unto it, yet I will say, that it is a thing of that kind whereof there are frequent instan∣ces in your whole Discourse, and for what reason, is not very difficult for any man to conjecture.

CHAP. 15.

Pleas of Prelate Protestants. Christ the only supream and absolute Head of the Church.

PAg. 49. You take a view of the tenth Chapter of the Animadversions, opposed unto the thir∣teenth and fourteenth Paragraph of your Fiat Lax, wherein you pretend to set forth the various Pleas of those that are at Difference amongst us in matters of Religion. These you there distribute into Inde∣pendents, Presbyterians and Protestants. Here omit∣ting the Consideration of the two former, you apply your self unto what was spoken about Prelate Prote∣stants as you call them. You endeavour, say you,

to disable both what I have set down to make against the Prelate Protestant, and also what I have said for him. I said in Fiat Lux, that it made not a little against our Protestants, that after the Prelate Protestancy was setled in England, they were forced for their own pre∣servation against the ••uritans to take up some of those Principles again, which former Protestants had cast down for Popish, as is the Authority of the visible Church, efficacy of ordination, difference between Clergy and Laity. Here first you deny that these Principles are Popish; But Sir, there are some Jews even at this day who will deny any such man as Pontius Pilate to to have ever been in Jewry. I have other things to do then to fill volumes with useless texts, which here I might easily do out of the books both of the first Reform∣ers and Catholick Divines and Councils.

What acquaintance you have with the Jews, we have in part seen already, and shall have occasion hereafter to examine a little further. In the mean time you may be pleased to take notice that men who know what they say, are not easily affrighted from it by a shew of such Mormoes, as he in the Comaedian was from his own house by his servants pretence that it was haunted by Sprights, when there were none in it, but his own debauched companions. I denyed those Opinions to be Popish, and should do so still, were I accused for so doing before a Roman Judge as corrupt and wicked as Pontius Pilate. For I can prove them to be more Antient then any part of Popery, in the sense explained in the Animadversions, and admitted generally by Protestants. We never esteem every thing Popish that Papists hold or be∣lieve. Some things in your Profession belong unto your Christianity, some things to your Popery. And I am perswaded you do not think this Proposition, Jesus Christ is the Son of God, to be Heretical, be∣cause

those whom you account Hereticks do profess and believe it. Prove the Principles you mention to be invented by your selves, without any foundation in the Scripture, or constant suffrage of the Antient Churches, and you prove them to be Popish, to be your own. If you cannot do so, though Papists profess them, yet they may be Christian. This is spoken as to the Principles themselves, not unto your explanation of them, which in sundry particulars is Popish, which were never owned by Prelate Protestants. You pro∣ceed, You challenge me to prove that these Principles were ever denyed by our Prelate Protestants, And this you do wittily and like your self. You therefore bid me prove that those principles were ever denyed by our Pre∣late Protestants, because I say that our Prelate Protestants here in England, as soon as they became such, took up again those forenamed Principles, which Protestants their fore∣fathers both here in England and beyond Seas before our Prelacy was set up had still rejected. When I say then that our Prelate Protestants affirmed and asserted those Principles which former Protestants denyed, you bid me prove that ever our Prelate Protestants ever denyed them. But whatever you can prove or cannot prove, you have made it very easie for any man to prove, that you have very little regard unto truth and sobriety in what you aver, so that you may ac∣quit your self from that which presseth you, and which according to the rules of them you cannot stand before. You tell us in the entrance of this discourse, that you said, that Prelate Protestants for their own preservation took up some of those Principles again which former Protestants had cast down for Po∣pish. And here expresly, that you said not that they took up the Principles which themselves had cast down, but only those which other before them had so dealt withall. Now pray take a view of your own words, whereby

you express your self in this matter. Chap. 3. S. 14. p. 189. ed. 2. Are they not these? The Prelate Protestant to defend himself against them (the Pres∣byterians and Independents) is forced to make use of those very Principles, which himself afore time (not other Protestants but himself) when he (not others) first contended against Popery, destroyed. So that upon him falls most heavily even like Thunder and Light∣ning from Heaven, utterly to kill and cut him a sunder, that great Oracle delivered by St. Paul, If I build up again the things, I (not another) formerly destroyed, I make my self a prevaricator, an Impostor, a Repro∣bate. What think you of these words? do you charge the Prelate Protestant with building up what others had pulled down, or what he had destroyed himself? Is your Rule out of St. Paul applicable unto him upon any other account, but that he him∣self was both the builder and destroyer? Sir, such miscarriages as these Protestants know to be mortal sins; and if without contrition for them you have celebrated any Sacrament of your Church, it cannot be avoided but that you have brought a great incon∣venience on some of your Disciples. Besides sup∣pose you had spoken as you now faign your self to have done, I desire to know who they are whom you intend when you say our Prelate Protestants so soon as they became such, as though they were first Prote∣stants at large and destroyed those Principles, which afterwards they built up when they became Prelate Protestants; seeing all men know that our Refor∣mation was begun by Prelates themselves, and such as never disclaimed the Principles by you instan∣ced in.

But you tell me, I do not only reject what you object against Prelate Protestants, but also what you alledge

in their behalf. I do so indeed; though I laugh not at you or it, as you pretend; and so must any man do, who pleading for Protestancy hath not a mind openly to prevaricate. For your Plea for them is such, as if admitted, would not only overthrow your Prelacy which you pretend to assert, but also destroy your Protestancy which you will not deny but that you seek to oppose. Nay it is no other, but what was contradicted in the very Council of Trent by the Spanish Prelates, as that which they conceived to have been an engine contrived for the Ruine of Episcopacy under a pretence of establishing it; and which insteed of asserting them to be Bishops in the Church, would have rendred them all Curates to the Pope. You would have us believe that Christ hath appointed one Episcopal Monarch in his Church with plenitude of power to represent his own Per∣son, which is the Pope, and from him all other Bishops to derive their power, being substituted by him, and unto him unto their work. And must not this needs be an acceptable defensative or Plea unto Prelate Pro∣testants, which if it be admitted, they can be no lon∣ger supposed to be made Overseers of their flocks by the Holy Ghost, but by the Pope, which forfeits their Prelacy, and besides asserts his Supremacy, which de∣stroyes their Protestancy?

Upon this occasion, you proceed to touch upon somewhat of great importance concerning the Head of the Church, wherein you know a great part of the difference between your self and those whom you oppose to consist. In your passage you mention the use of true Logick, but I fear we shall find that in your Discourse laudatur & alget. I should have been glad to have found you making what use you were able of that which you commend. It would I

suppose have directed you to have stated plainly and clearly what is it that you assert, and what it is that you oppose, and to have given your Arguments Ca∣tasceuastical of the one, and Anasceuastical of the other; but either you know not that way of pro∣ceedure, or you considered how little advantage unto your end you were like to obtain thereby. And therefore you make use only of that part of Logick which teacheth the nature and kinds of Sophisms; in particular, that of confounding things which ought to be distinguished. However your Discourse, such as it is, shall be examined, and that by the rules of that Logick which your self commend.

You say pag. 51. The Church says I must have a Bishop, or otherwise she will not have such a visible Head as she had at first. This that you may enervate, you tell me, that the Church hath still the same Head she had which is Christ, who is present with his Church by his Spirit and his Laws, and is man God still as much as ever he was; and ever the same will be; and if I would have any other visible Bishop to be head, then it seems I would not have the same head, and so would have the same, and not the same.

This is but one part of my answer, and that very lamely and imperfectly reported. The Reader if he please may see the whole of it, Ch. 10. p. 223, &c. and therewithall take a specimen of your ingenuity in this Controversie. It were very sufficient to ren∣der your following exceptions against it useless unto your purpose, meerly to repeat what you seek to op∣pose; but because you shall not have any pretence, that any thing you have sayd is passed over undiscus∣sed, I shall consider what you offer in way of excepti∣on to so much of my answer as you are pleased your self to express, and as may be supposed, thought

your self qualified to deal withal. Thus then you proceed;

I cannot in Reason be thought to speak otherwise, if we would use true Logick, of the Identity of the head, then I do of the Identity of the body of the Church. This body is not numerically the same; for the men of the first age are long ago gone out of the world, and another generation come, who yet are a body of Christians of the same kind, though not nu∣merically the same; So do I require that since Jesus Christ as man, the head immediate of other believing men, is departed hence to the glory of his father, that the Church should still have an Head of the same kind, as visibly now present, as she had in the begin∣ning; or else say I, she cannot be compleatly the same body, or a body of the same kind visible as she was. But this she hath not, this she is not, except she have a visible Bishop as she had in the beginning present with her guiding and ruling under God. Christ our Lord is indeed still Man God, but his manhood is now separate; nor is he visibly present as man, which im∣mediately headed his believers under God, on whose in∣fluence their nature depended. His Godhead is still the same in all things not only in its self, but in or∣der to his Church also as it was before equally invi∣sible, and in the like manner believed; but the nature delegate under God, and once ruling visibly amongst us by words nnd examples, is now utterly withdrawn. And if a nature of the same kind be not now delegate with a power of exterior Government, as at the first then was, then hath not the Church the same head now, which she had then: qui habet aures andiendi au∣diat.

How you have secured your Logick in this Di∣course, shall afterwards be considered; your Divi∣nity

seems at the first view lyable unto just except¦••ons. For, 1. You suppose Christ in his humane na¦ture only to have been the Head of his Church, and therefore the absence of that, to necessitate the con∣stitution of another. Now this supposition is open∣ly false and dangerous to the whole being of Chri∣stianity. It is the Son of God who is the Head of the Church; who as he is man, so also is he over all God blessed for ever: And as God and man in one per∣son, is that Head, and ever was since his incarnati∣on, and ever will be to the end of the world. To deny this is to overthrow the foundation of the Churches faith, preservation and consolation, it being founded and built on this, that he was the Son of the living God, Matth. 16. and yet into this sup∣position alone, is your imaginary necessity of the Substitution of another Head in his room resolved. 2. You plainly confess that the present Church hath not the same head, that the Church had when our Lord Christ conversed with them in the dayes of his flesh. That, you say, was his humane nature delegate under God, which being now removed and separate, another Person so delegate under God, is substituted in his place. Which not only deprives the Church of its first Head, but also deposeth the humane nature of Christ from that office of headship to his Church, which you confess that for a while it enjoyed: leav∣ing him nothing but what belongs unto him as God, wherein alone you will allow him to be that unto his Church which formerly he was: Confessing I say, the humane nature of Christ to have been the head of the Church, and now denying it so to be, you do what lyes in you to depose him from his Office and Throne, allowing his humane nature as far as I can perceieve to be of little other use then

to be eaten by you in the Mass. 3. You make your intention yet more evident, by intimating that the Humane Nature of Christ is now no more Head of the Church, then the present Church is made up of the same numerical members, that it was constituted of in the days of his flesh. What change you suppose in the Church the body, the same you suppose and assert in the head thereof. And as that change excludes those former members from being present members: so this excludes the former Head from being the pre∣sent Head. Of old the Head of the Church was the humane nature of Christ delegate under God; now that is removed, and another person in the same nature is so delegated unto the same office. Now this is not an Head under Christ, but in distinction from him in the same place wherein he was, and so exclusive of him, which must needs be Antichrist, one pretending to be in his room and place to his exclusion, that is, one set up against him. And thus also what you seek to avoid doth inevitably follow upon your discourse, namely that you would have the Church for the preservation of its oneness and same∣ness, to have the same head she had, which is not the same, unless you will say that the Pope is Christ: these are the Principles that you proceed upon. First, you tell us, that the humane nature of Christ delegate under God was the visible Head of the Church; Se∣condly, That this nature is now removed from us and ceaseth so to be, that is, not only to be visible, but the visible Head of the Church, and is no more so, then the present Church is made up of the same individual members as it was in the dayes of his flesh, which, as you well observe, it is not. Third∣ly, That a nature of the same kind in another Person is now delegate under God to the same office of a

Visible Head, with that power of external Govern∣ment which Christ had whilest he was that head. And is it not plain from hence, that you exclude the Lord Christ from being that head of his Church which he was in former dayes? and substituting another in his room and place, you at once depose him, and assign another head unto the Church, and that in your attempt to prove that her head must still be the same, or she cannot be so. Farther, the humane nature of Christ was personally united un∣to the Son of God: and if that Head which you now fancy the Church to have, be not so united, it is not the same Head that that was: and so whilest you seek to establish not indeed a sameness in the Head of the Church, but a likeness in several Heads of it as to visibility, you evidently assert a change in the nature of that Head of the Church which we enquire after. In a word, Christ and the Pope are not the same; and therefore if it be necessary to maintain that the Church hath the same Head that she had, to assert that in the room of Christ she hath the Pope, you prove that she hath the same head that she had, because she hath one that is not the same she had: and so qui habet aures audiat. 4. You vainly imagine the whole Catholick Church any otherwise visible, then with the eyes of faith and understanding. It was never so, no not when Christ conversed with it in the earth; no not if you should suppose only his blessed Mother, his twelve Apostles, and some few more only to belong unto it. For though all the members of it might be seen, and that at once by the bodily eyes of men, as might also the humane nature of him who was the head of it, yet as he was Head of the Church, and in that his whole Person wherein he was so, and is

so, he was never visible unto any, for no man hath seen God at any time. And therefore you, substitu∣ting an Head in his room who in his whole person is visible, seeing he was not so, do change the Head of the Church as to its visibility also, (for one that is in his whole person visible, and another that is not so, are not alike visible) wherein you would principally place the identity of the Church. 5. Let us see whether your Logick be any better then your Divinity. The best Argument that can be formed out of your discourse, is this. If the Church hath not an head visibly present with her, as she had when Christ in his humane nature was on the earth, she is not the same that she was; but according to their Principles she hath not an head now so visibly present with her; therefore she is not the same accor∣ding unto them. I desire to know how you prove your inference. It is built on this supposition, that the sameness of the Church depends upon the visi∣bility of its Head, and not on the sameness of the Head its self; which is a fond conceit, and contrary to express Scripture, Ephes. 4. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. and not capable of the least countenance from Reason. It may be you will say, that though your Argument do not conclude that on our supposition the Church is not the same absolutely as it was, yet it doth that it is not the same as to visibility. Whereunto I an∣swer, 1. That there is no necessity that the Church should be alwayes the same as to visibility, or al∣wayes visible in the same manner, or alwayes equal∣ly visible as to all concernments of it. 2. You mistake the whole nature of the visibility of the Church, supposing it to consist in its being seen with the bo∣dily eyes of men: whereas it is only an affection of its publick profession of the Truth, whereunto its

being seen in part or in whole by the eyes of any, or all men, doth no way belong. 3. That the Church, as I said before, was indeed never absolutely visible in its Head and members: He who was the Head of it being never in his whole person visible unto the the eyes of men, and he is yet as he was of old visible to the eyes of faith, whereby we see him that is invisible. So that to be visible to the bodi∣ly eyes of men in its head and members, was never a property of the Church, much less such an one, as that thereon its sameness in all Ages should de∣pend. 6. You fail also in supposing that the nume∣rical sameness of the Church as a body, depends absolutely on the sameness of its members: For whilest in succession it hath all things the same that concur unto its Constitution, order, and existence, it may be still the same body corporate, though it con∣sist not of the same individual persons or bodies na∣tural: As the Kingdom of England is the same King∣dom that it was two hundred years ago, though there be not now one person living that then it was made up of. For though the matter be the same only specifically, yet the form being the same nume∣rically, that denominates the body to be so. But that I may the better represent unto you, the pro∣per genius and design of your Discourse, I shall briefly mind you of the principles which you oppose in it, and seek to evert by it, as also of those which you intend to compass your purpose by. Of the first sort are these; 1. That the Lord Christ God and Man in one person is, and ever continu••s to be the only absolute Monarchical Head of his own Church. I suppose it needless for me to confirm this Principle by Testimonies of Scripture, which it being a matter of pure Revelation is the only way of confirmation

that it is capable of. That he is the Head of his Church, is so frequently averred, that every one who hath but read the New Testament will assent unto it upon the bare repetition of the words, with the same faith whereby he assents unto the writing its self whatever it be: and we shall afterwards see that the notion of an Head is absolutely exclusive of competition in the matter denoted by it. An Head properly is singly and absolutely so: and therefore the substitution of another head unto the Ch••rch in the room of Christ, or with him, is perfectly exclu∣sive of him from being so. 2. That Christ as God-man in his whole person was never visible to the fleshly eyes of men: and whereas, as such, he was Head of the Church, as the Head of the Church, he was never absolutely visible. His humane nature was seen of old, which was but some∣thing of him; as he was, and is the Head of the Church, otherwise then by faith, no man hath seen him at any time: and it changeth the condition of the Church, to suppose that now it hath a Head, who being a meer man, is in his whole person visi∣ble, so far as a man may be seen. 3. That the visi∣bility of the Church consisteth in its publick profes∣sion of the Truth, and not in its being objected to the bodily eyes of men. It is a thing that faith may believe, it is a thing that Reason may take notice of, consider and comprehend; the eyes of the body being of no use in this matter. When a Church pro∣fesseth the Truth, it is the ground and pillar of it, a City on a hill; that is visible though no man see it, yea though no man observe or contemplate on any thing about it. Its own Profession, not other mens observation constitutes it visible. Nor is there any thing more required to a Churches visibility, but

its Profession of the Truth, unto which all the outward advantages which it hath or may have of ap∣pearing conspicuously or gloriously to the conside∣ration of men, are purely accidental, which may be separated from it without any prejudice unto its visibility. 4. That the sameness of the Church in all Ages doth not depend on its sameness in respect of degrees of visibility. That the Church be the same that it was, is required that it profess the same Truth it did, whereby it becomes absolutely visible: but the degrees of this visibility, as to conspicuousness and notoriety, depending on things accidental unto the being, and consequently visibility of Church, do no way affect as unto any change. Now from hence it fol∣lows, 1. That the presence or absence of the Humane nature of Christ with, or from his Church on earth, doth not belong unto the visibility of it; so that the absence of it, doth no way inferr a necessity of substituting another visible head in his stead. Nor was the presence of his humane Nature with his Church any way necessary to the visibility of it; his conversation on the earth being wholly for other ends and purposes. 2. That the presence or absence of the humane nature of Christ, not varying his headship, which under both considerations is still the same, the supposition of another Head is perfectly destructive of the whole Headship of Christ▪ there being no vacancy possible to be imagined for that supply, but by the removal of Christ out of his place. For he being the Head of his Church as God and man, in his whole person invisible, and the visibi∣lity of the Church consisting solely in its own profes∣sion of the Truth, the absence of his humane nature from the earth, neither changeth his own Headship, nor prejudiceth the Churches visibility: so that ei∣ther

the one or the other of them should induce a necessity of the supply of another Head. Consider now what it is that you oppose unto these things. You tell us, ••. That Christ was the Head of the Church in his humane nature delegated by and under G••d to that purp••se You mean he was so absolutely, and as man, exclusively to his divine nature. This your whole Discourse with the Inferences that you draw from this supposition abundantly manifests. If you can make this good, you may conclude what you please: I know no man that hath any great cause to oppose himself unto you, for you have taken away the very foundation of the being and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Church in your supposition. 2. You inform us. That Christ by his Ascension into heaven ceased to be that Head that he was, so that of necessity another must be substituted in his place and room; and this we must think to be the Pope. He is I confess absent from his Church here on earth, as to his bo∣dily appearance amongst us; which as it was not necessary as to his Headship, so he promised to sup∣ply the inconvenience which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Disciples apprehen∣ded would ensue thereupon, so that they should have great cause to rejoyce at it, as that wherein their great advantage would lye: John 16. 7. That this should be by giving us a Pope at Rome in his stead, he hath no way intimated. And unto those who know what your Pope is, and what he hath done in the world, you will hardly make it evident, that the great advantage which the Lord Christ promised un∣to his Disciples upon his absence, is made good unto them by his Supervisorship. 3. You would have the visibility of the Church depend on the visibility of its Head, as also its sameness in all ages. And no one, you are secure, who is now visible, pretends

to be the Head of the Church, but the Pope alone, and therefore of necessity he it must be. But Sir, if the Lord Jesus Christ had had no other nature then that wherein he was visible to the eyes of men, he could never have been a meet Head for a Church dispersed throughout the whole world, nor have been able to discharge the Duty annexed by God unto that office. And if so, I hope you will not take it amiss, if on that supposition, I deem your Pope, of whom millions of Christians know nothing but by uncertain rumors, nor he of then, to be very unmeet for the discharge of it. And for the visibi∣lity of the Church, I have before declared wherein it doth consist. Upon the whole matter, you do not only come short of proving the Indentity and Oneness of the Church to depend upon one visible Bishop as its Monarchical Head, but also the Princi∣ples whereby you attempt the confirmation of that absurd position, are of that nature that they ex∣clude the Headship of Christ, and in••er no less change or alteration in the Church, then that which must needs ensue thereon, and the substitution of another in his room, which destroyes the very essence and being of it.

Let us now consider what you further reply unto that which was offered in the Animadversions unto the purpose now discoursed of. Your ensuing words are,

And here by the way we may take notice what a fierce English Protestant you are, who labour so stoutly to evacuate my argument for Episcopacy, and leave none of your own behind you, nor acquaint the world with any, though you know far better, but would make us be∣lieve notwith tanding those far better reasons, for Pre∣lacy, that Christ himself, as he is the immediate Head

of invisible influence, so is he likewise the only and im∣mediate Head of visible direction and government amongst us, without the interposition of any Person de∣legate in his stead to oversee and rule under him in his Church on earth, which is against the tenor both of sacred Gospel and St. Pauls Epistles, and all Antiquity, and the present Ecclesiastical Polity of England, and is the Doctrine not of any English Protestant, but of the Presbyterian, Independent and Quaker.

How little cause you have to attempt an impeach∣ment of my Protestancy, I hope I have in some mea∣sure evidenced unto you, and shall yet farther make it manifest, as you give me occasion so to do. In the mean time as I told you before, that I would not plead the particular concernment of any party amongst Protestants, no more then you do that of any party among your selves, so I am sure enough that I have de∣livered nothing prejudicial unto any of them, because I have kept my self unto the defence of their Prote∣stancy wherein they all agree. Nor have I given you an answer unto any Argument that tends in the least to the confirmation of such a Prelacy as by any sort of Protestants is admitted, but only shewed the emptiness and pernicious Consequences of your So∣phism, wherewith you plead in pretence for Prelacy, indeed for a Papal Supremacy, and that on such Prin∣ciples as are absolutely destructive of that Protestant Prelacy which you would be thought to give coun∣tenance unto. And your ensuing Discourse where∣in you labour to justifie your reflection on me, is a pittiful piece of falsehood and Sophistry. For first, this double Head of the Catholick Church, one of in∣fluence, the other of direction and government, which you fancy some Protestants to admit of, is a thing that—they declare against as injurious to

the Lord Christ, and that which would render the Church biceps monstrum horrid and deformed. It is Christ himself, who as by his Spirit he exercises the office of an head by invisible influence, so by his Word that of visible direction and rule; He is I say the only Head of visible direction to his Church, though he be not a visible Head to that purpose, which that he should be, is to no purpose at all. 2. If by the interposition of any person under Christ, dele∣gate in his stead, you understand any one single Per∣son delegated in his stead to oversee and rule the whole Catholick Church, such an one as you now plead for in your Epistle, it is intolerable arrogancy to intimate that he is designed either in the Gospel or St. Pauls Epistles, or Antiquity; whereas you are not able to assign any place, or text, or word in them, directly or by fair Consequence to justifie what you assert. And for the present Ecclesiastical policy of the Church of England, if you yet know it not, let me inform you, that the very foundations of it are laid in a direct contrary supposition; namely that there is no such single Person delegated under Christ for the Rule of the whole Catholick Church; which gives us a new evidence of your Conscientious ••are in what you say and write. 3. If you intend, (that which is not at all to your purpose) Persons to rule under Christ in the Church, presiding according to his direction and institution, in and over the Parti∣cular Churches whereunto they do relate, govern∣ing them in his name, by his Authority, and accord∣ing to his Word, I desire you to inform me, wherein I have said, or written, or intimated any thing that may give you the least countenance in your affirming that by me it is denied; or where it was ever denied by any Protestant whatever, Prelatical, Presbyteri∣an,

or Independent: neither doth this concession of theirs in the least impeach the sole Soveraign Mo∣narchy of Christ, and single Headship over his Church to all ends and purposes. A Monarch may be, and is the sole supream Governour and Political Head of his Kingdom, though he appoint others to execute his Laws by virtue of Authority derived from him, in the several Provinces, Shires and Pa∣rishes of it. And Christ is the only head of his Church, though he have appointed others to preside and rule in his name, in those distributions of his Disciples whereinto they are cast by his appoinment. But you proceed, Christ in their way is immediat•• head not only of subministration and influence, but of exterior derivation also and government to his Church. Ans. He is so, the supream and only Head of the Church Catholick in the one way and other, though the means of conveying influences of Grace, and of exterior Rule be various. Then say you, is he such an Head to all Belivers or no? to all, the whole body in general, and every individual member thereof in particular? if he be so to all, you say, then no man is to be governed in Affairs of Religion by any other man: But why so I pray? can no man govern in any sense or place but he must be a supream Head? The King is immediate Head unto all his subjects, he is King not only to the whole Kingdom, but to every individual person in his Kingdom; doth it thence follow that they may not be governed by officers sub∣ordinate delegated under him to rule them by his Authority according to his Laws? or that if they may be so, that he is not the only immediate King and supream Head unto them all? The Apostle tells us ex∣presly that the Head of every man is Christ, 1 Cor. 11. 3. And that an head of Rule, as the husband is the head

of the wife, Ephes. 5. 23. as well as he is an head of influence unto the whole body, and every member of it in particular, 1 Cor. 12. 12. Col. 2. 19. And it is a senseless thing to imagine, that this should in the least impeach his appointment of men to rule under him in his Church according to his Law; who are thereupon not heads, but in respect of him servants, and in respect to the particular Churches wherein they serve him, Rulers or guides, yea their servants for his sake; not Lords over the flocks, but Mini∣sters of their faith. By these are the flocks of Christ governed, as by shepherds appointed by him the great Bishop and Shepherd of their souls, according to the Rules by him prescribed for the rule of the one, and obedience of the other. But if by governed by ano∣ther man, you mean absolutely, supreamly, at his will and pleasure, then we deny that any Disciple of Christ is in the things of God, so to be governed by any man, and affirm that to assert it, is to cast down Jesus Christ from his Throne. But you say, if he be not immediate head unto all, but Ministers head the peo∣ple, and Christ heads the Ministers, this in effect is no∣thing but to make every Minister a Bishop. Why do you not plainly say what it is more then manifest you would have? All this while you heed no more the Laws of the Land, then constitutions of the Gospel. Answ. I have told you how Christ is the immediate Head unto all, and yet how he hath appointed others to preside in his Churches under him; and that this should infer an equality in all that are by him appointed to that work, is most senseless to imagine, nor did I in the least intimate any such thing, but only that therefore there was no need of any one supream head of the whole Catholick Church, nor any place or room left for such an one without

the deposition of Christ himself. Because the King is the only supream Head of all his people, doth it therefore follow that if he appoint Constables to rule in every parish, with that allotment of power which by his Laws he gives unto them, and Justices of Peace to rule over them in an whole County, that there∣fore every Constable in effect is a Justice of Peace, or that there is a sameness in their office? Christ is the head of every man that is in the Church, be he Bishop, or Minister, or private man: and when the Mini∣sters are said to head the people, or the Bishops to head them, the expression is improper; an inferiour Mi∣nisterial subordinate rule being expressed by the name of that which is supream and absolute: or they head them not absolutely, but in some respect only, as every one of them dischargeth the Authority over and towards them wherewith he is intrusted. This assertion of Christs sole absolute Headship, and de∣nial of any Monarchical state in the Church Catho∣lick but what ariseth from thence, doth not as every child may see, concern the difference that is about the superiority of Bishops to Ministers or Presbyters. For notwithstanding this, there are degrees in the Ministry of the Church, and several orders of men are engaged therein, and whatever there are, there might have been more, had it seemed to our good Lord Christ to appoint them. And whatever order of men may be supposed to be instituted by him in his Church, he must be supposed to be the Head of them all, and they are all to serve him in the Du∣ties and Offices that they have to discharge towards the Church and one another. This headship of Christ is the thing that you are to oppose, and its ex∣clusiveness to the substitution of an absolute Head

over the whole Catholick Church in his place be∣cause of his bodily absence from the earth. But this you cast out of sight, and instead thereof, fall upon the equality of Bishops and Ministers, which no way ensues thereon. Both Bishops and Presbyters agreeing well enough in the Truth we assert and plead for: This, you say, is contrary to the Gospel and the Law of the Land. What is I pray? that Christ is the only absolute Head of the Catholick Church? No; but that Bishops and Ministers are in effect all one. But what is that to your purpose? will it advantage your Cause what way ever that problem be determined? Was any occasion offered you to discourse upon that Question? Nay you perceive well enough your self, that this is nothing at all to your design, and there∣fore in your following discourse you double and so∣phisticate, making it evident that either you under∣stand not your self what you say, or that you would not have others understand you, or that you confound all things with a design to deceive: for when you come to speak of the Gospel you attempt to prove the appointment of one supream Pastor to the whole Ca∣tholick Church, and by the Law of the Land, the Su∣periority of Bishops over Ministers, as though these things were the same, or had any relation one to another: whereas we have shewed the former in your sense to be destuctive to the latter. Truth ne∣ver put any man upon such subter fuges; and I hope the difficulties that you find your self perplexed with∣all, may direct you at length to find, that there is a deceit in your right hand. But let us hear your own words.

As for the Gospel, the Lord who had been visible Go∣vernour and Pastor of his flock on earth, when he was now to depart hence, as all the Apostles expected one to

be chosen to succeed him in his care, so did he notwith∣standing his own invisible presence and providence over his flock, publickly appoint one. And when he taught them, that he who was greatest among them should be as the least, he did not deny but suppose one greater; and taught in one and the same breath, both that he was over them, and for what he was over them, namely to feed, not to tyrannize; not to domineer and hurt, but to direct, comfort, and conduct his flock in all humility and tenderness, as a servant of all their spiritual necessities; and if a Bish••p be otherwise affected, it is the fault of his Person not his place.

And what is it that you would prove hereby? is it that Bishops are above Ministers, which in the words immediately foregoing you asserted, and in those next ensuing confirm from the Law of the Land? is there any tendency in your Discourse to∣wards any such purpose? Nay do not your self know that what you seek to insinuate, namely the insti••uti∣on of one supream Pastor of the whole Catholick Church, one of the Apostles to be above and ruler over all the rest of the Apostles, and the whole Church besides, is perfectly destructive of the Hierar∣chy of Bishops in England as established by Law; and also at once casting down the main if not only foundation that they plead for their station and or∣der from the Gospel. For all Prelate Protestants as you call them, assert an equality in all the Apostles, and a superiority in them, to the 70. Disciples, whence by a parity of reason, they conclude unto he superi∣ority of Bishops over Ministers to be continued in the Church. And are you not a fair Advocate for your Cause, and well meet for the reproving of others for not consenting unto them? But waving that which you little c••re for, and are not at all concern∣ed

in, let us see how you prove that which we know you greatly desire to give some countenance unto; that is, an universal visible Pastor over the whole Catholick Church in the place and room of Christ himself. First, You tell us, that the Apostles expected one to be chosen to succeed Christ in his care. But to have one succeed another in his care, infers, that that other ••••••s•••• o take and exercise the Care which formerly he ha•• and exercised; which in this case is highly blasphemous once to imagine. I wish you would ••ake more Care of what you say in things of this nature▪ a••d not suffer the impetuous 〈…〉〈…〉 your interest to cast you upon expressions so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to th•• honour o•• Christ, and safety of his Chur•••• And how do you prove that the Apostles had any such expectations as that which you mention? Our Saviour gave them equal commission to teach all Na∣tions, told them that as his father had sent him, so he sent them; that he had chosen them twelve, but that one of them was a Devil: never that one of them should be Pope. Their Institution, Instructi∣on, Priviledges, Charge, Calling, were all equal. How then should they come to have this expectation that one of them should be chosen to succeed Christ in his Care, when they were all chosen to serve un∣der him in the continuance of his care towards his Church? That which you obscurely intimate from whence this expectation of yours might arise, is the contest that was amongst them a••••••t preheminence, Luk. 22. 24. There was a strife, ••mongst them which of them should be the greatest. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you suppose was upon their perswasion that one should be chosen in particular to succeed the Lord Christ in his Care, whereupon they fell into difference about the place, But 1. Is it not somewhat strange unto your self,

how they should contest about a succession unto Christ in his absence, who had not once thought that he would ever be absent from them, nor could bear the mention of it without great sorrow of heart when afterwards he began to acquaint them with it? 2. How should they come in your apprehension to quarrel about that which as you suppose and con∣tend, was somewhile before determined? For this con∣test of yours, was somewhile after the promise of the Keys to Peter, and the saying of Christ that he would build his Church on the Rock. Were the Apostles think you as stupid as Protestants, that they could not see the Supremacy of Peter in those passages, but must yet fall at variance who should be Pope? 3. How doth it appear that this strife of theirs who should be greatest, did not arise from their apprehension of an earthly Kingdom, a hope whereof according to the then current perswasion of the Judaical Church, to be erected by their master whom they believed in as the true Messiah, they were not delivered from, until after his Resurrection, when they were filled with the Spirit of the New Testament? Act. 1. Cer∣tainly from that root sprang the ambitious desire of the Sons of Zebedee, after preheminence in his King∣dom; and the designing of the rest of them in this place from the manner of its management, by strife, seems to have had no better a spring. 4. The stop put by our Lord Jesus unto the strife that was amongst them, makes it manifest that it arose from no such expectation as you imagine; or that at least if it did, yet your expectation was irregular, vain, and groundless. For, 1. He tells them that there should be no such greatness in his Church, as that which they contended about, being like to the Soveraignty exercised by, and in the Nations of the earth, from

which he that can shew a difference in your Papal Rule, erit mihi magnus Apollo. 2. He tells them, that his Father had equally provided a Kingdom, that is heavenly and eternal, for all them that believed, which was the only greatness that they ought to look or enquire after. 3. That as to their Priviledge in his Kingdom, it should be equal unto them all, for they should all fit on Thrones, judging the twelves tribes of Israel; so ascribing equal power, Autho∣rity and dignity unto them all; which utterly over∣throws the figment of the supremacy of any one of them over the rest, Luk. 22. 30. Matth. 19. 28. And 4. Yet further to prevent any such conceit as that which you suppose them to have had concern∣ing the prelation of any one of them, he tells them that one was their Master, even Christ, and that all they were brethren, Mat. 23. 8. so giving them to un∣derstand, that he had designed them to be perfectly & every way equal among themselves. So ill have you layed the foundation of your Plea, as that it guides us to a full determination of the contrary to your pretence, and that given by our Saviour himself, with many reasons perswading his Disciples of the equity of it, and unto an acquiescency in it. And what you add, that he presently appointed one to the preheminence you imagine, is altogether inconsistent with what you would conclude from the stri••e about it. For the appointment you fancy, preceded this contention, and had it been real, and to any such pur∣pose, would certainly have prevented it. Thus you do neither prove from the Gospel what you pretend unto, namely that Bishops are above Ministers, so well do you plead your Cause, nor what you intend, namely that the Pope is appointed over them all. Only you wisely add a caution about what a Bishop ought

to be and do de jure, and what any one of them may ••o or be de facto; because it is impossible for any ••an to find the least difference between the domina∣tion which our Saviour expresly condemns, and that which your Pope doth exercise; Although I know not whither you would think meet to have him de∣vested of that Authority on the pretence whereof he so domineers in the world.

Finding your self destitute of any countenance from the Gospel, you proceed to the Laws of the Land. To what purpose? to prove that Christ ap∣pointed one amongst his Apostles to preside with pleni∣tude of Power over all the rest of them, and conse∣quently over the whole Catholick Church, succeed∣ing him in his care? certainly you will find little countenance in our Laws to this purpose. But let us hear your own words again. As for the Laws of the Land, say you, it is there most strongly decreed by the consent and Authority of the whole Kingdom, not only that Bishops are our Ministers, but that the Kings Majesty is head of the Bishops also in the line of Hie∣rarchy, from whose hand they receive both their places and jurisdiction. This was established not only by one, but by several Parliament Acts, both in the reign of King Edward, and Queen Elizabeth. What will hence follow? that there is one universal Bishop ap∣pointed to succeed Christ in his Care over the Church Catholick, the thing you attempted to prove in the words immediately foregoing? Do not the same Laws which assert the order you mention, exclude that which you would introduce? Or would you prove that Bishops by the Law of this Land have a jurisdiction superior unto Ministers? who ever went about to deny it? or what will the remembrance of it advance your pretension•• And yet neither is this

fairly expressed by you. For as no Protestants as∣sert the King to be in his power and office interpo∣sed between Christ and Bishops or Ministers, as to their ministerial office which is purely spiritual, so the power of supream Jurisdiction which they ascribe unto him, is not as you falsly insinuate, grant∣ed unto him, by the Laws of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth, but is an inseparable Priviledge of his imperial Crown, exercised by his Royal Prede∣cessours, and asserted by them against the in••rusions and usurpations of the Pope of Rome; only diclared by those and other Laws. But I perceive you have another design in hand. You are entring upon a discourse wherein you compare your selves not only with Presbyterians and Independents, but Prelate Protestants also, in what you ascribe unto Kings in Ecclesiastical affairs, preferring your selves before and above them all. What just cause you have so to do, we shall afterwards consider. Your Confi∣dence in it, at first view, presents its sel•• unto us. •• on whereas there was not in the Animadversions any oc∣casion of it administred unto you, and your self confess that your whole discourse about it is besides your purpose, pag. 66. yet waving almost every thing that was incumbent upon you to have insisted on, if you would not plainly have appeared vadimonium deseruisse, and to have given up your Fiat as indefen∣sible, you divert into a long harangue about it. The Thesis you would by various florishes give counte∣nance unto is this. That Papists in their deference un∣to Kings, even in Ecclesiastical matters, and in their principles of their obedience unto them, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pro∣testants of all sorts. That this is not to ou•• present purpose, your self cannot but see and acknowledge, Hower your Discourse such as it is, relating to one

special head of Difference between us, shall be a part considered by its self in our next Chapter.

CHAP. 16.

The Power assigned by Papists and Protestants unto Kings in matters Ecclesiastical. Their several Principles discussed and compared.

YOur Discourse on this head is not reducible by Logick its self unto any method or rules of Ar∣gument. For it is in general, 1. So loose, Ambigu∣cus and Metaphorically expressed: 2. So Sophistical and inclusive; 3. So inconsistent in sundry instances with the Principles and practices of your Church, if you speak intelligibly; 4. So false and untrue in many particulars, that it is scarcely for these excel∣lent qualifications to be paralleld with any thing ei∣ther in your Fiat or your Epistola. First, It is loose and ambiguous: 1. Not stating what you intend by the Head of the Church, which you discourse about: 2. No•• determining whither the King be such an head of Execution in matter of Religion, as may use the Liberty of his own judgement as to what he puts in execution, or whether he be not bound to ex∣ecute your Popes Determinations on the penalty of the forfeiture of his Christianity; which I doubt we shall find to be your opinion; 3. Not declaring wherein the power which you assign unto him is founded; whether in Gods immediate institution, o•• the Concession of the Pope, whereon it should solely depend, unto whom it is in all things to be made subservient. Secondly, Sophistical. (1.) In playing with the ambiguity of that expression Head

of the Church, and by the advantage thereof impo∣sing on Protestants contradictions between their pro∣fession and practice, as though in the one they ac∣knowledged the King to be head of the Church, and not in the other: (whereas there is a perfect con∣sonancy between them in the sence wherein they un∣derstand that expression) shrowding your own sence and opinion in the mean time under the same ambiguity. (2.) In supposing an absolute univer∣sal Head of the whole Catholick Church, and then giving reasons why no King can be that Head; when you know that the whole Question is whither there by any such head of the Catholick Church on earth or no. (3.) In supposing the Principles and pra∣ctises of the Primitive Church to have been the same with those of the present Roman, and those of the present Roman to have been all known and allowed of old, which begs all that is in Controversie be∣tween us; and sundry other instances of the like nature may be observed in it. Thirdly, Inconsistent with the Principles and Practices of your own Church, both 1. In what you ascribe unto Kings, and 2. In your stating of the power and Jurisdiction of your Pope, if the ambiguity of your words and expressions will allow us to conclude what you in∣tend or aim at. Fourthly, False. (1.) In matter of fact, as to what you relate of the obedience of your Church unto Kings. (2.) In the principles and Opinions which you impose on your Advertaries; (3.) In the declaration that you make of your own; and (4.) In many particular Assertions whose consideration will afterwards occur.

This is a business I could have been glad you had not necessitated me to the Considera••ion of; for it cannot be truly and distinctly handled, 〈…〉〈…〉

such reflections upon your Church and way, as may without extraordinary indulgence redound unto your disadvantage. Your have by your own volun∣tary choice called me to the discussion of those Prin∣ciples which have created you much trouble in these Nations, and put you oftentimes upon attempting their disquiet. Now these are things which I desire not. I am but a private man, and am very well con∣tented you should enjoy all that peace and liberty which you think not meet in other Nations where the P••wer is at your disposal, to grant unto them that dissent from you. Lex talionis should be far from influencing the minds of Christians in this mat∣ter: however the equity of it may at any time be pleaded or urged to relieve others in other places, under bondage and persecution. But I am sure, if I judge your proceedings against other men dis∣senting from you in Conscience, to be unjustifiable by the Scripture or Light of Nature, or suffrage of the Antient Church, as I do, I have no reason to de∣sire that they should be drawn into president against their selves, in any place in the world. And there∣fore Sir, had you provided the best colour you could for your own Principles, and palliated them to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, so to hide them from the eyes of those, who it may be are ready to seek their disturbance and trouble from an apprehension of the evil that may ensue upon them, and had not set them up in com∣parison with the Principles of Protestants of all sorts, and for the setting off your own with the better grace and luster, untruly and individiously reported theirs, to expose them unto those thoughts, and that severity from supream powers which you seek your selves to wave, I should have wholly passed by this discourse, unto which no occasion was administred

in the Animadversions; but now as you have han••dled the matter, unless I would have it taken for granted that the Principles of the Roman Church, are more suited unto the establishment and promo∣tion of the interest and Soveraignty of Kings and other supream Magistrates, and in particular the Kings of these Nations, then those of Protestants, which in Truth I do not believe, I must of necessity make a little further enquiry into your Discourse. And I desire your pardon, if in my so doing, any thing be spoken that suits not so well your interest and designs, neither expecting nor desiring any, if ought be delivered by me not according to Truth.

To make our way the more clear, some of the ambi∣guous expressions which you make use of to cloud and hide your intention in your enquiry after the Head of the Church, must be explained.

1. By the Church, you understand, not this, or that particular Church, not the Church of this of that Nation, Kingdom, or Countrey, but the whole Catholick Church throughout the world. And when you have explained your self to this purpose you endeavour by six Arguments, (no less, p. 67, 68.) to prove that no King ever was or can be Head of it. He said well of old,

In causa facili quemvis licet esse disertum.

I wonder you contented your self to give us six Reasons only, and that you proceeded not at least unto the high hills of eighteenthly and nineteenthly, that you talk of in your Fiat Lux where you scoff at the preaching of Presbyterians; it may be you will scarely ever obtain such another opportunity of shewing the fertility of your invention. So did he florish who thought himself secure from adversaries.

Ca••ut altum in praelia tollit, Ostendit{que} humeros latos, alterna{que} jactat Brachia protendens, & verberat ictibus auras.

But you do like him, you only beat the ayre; Do you think any man was ever so distempered as to dream that any King whatever could be the absolute Head of the whole Catholick Church of Christ? we no more think any King in any sence to be the Head of the Catholick Church, then we think the Pope so to be. The Roman Empire was at its hight and glory when first Christianity set forth in the world, and had extended its bounds beyond those of any King∣dom that arose before it, or that hath since succeeded unto it. And yet within a very few years, after the Resurrection of Christ, the Gospel had diffused it self beyond the limits of that Empire, among the Par∣thians, and Indians, and unto Britannorum Romanis inaccessa loca, as Tertullian calls them. Now none ever supposed that any King had power or Authori∣ty of any sort in reference unto the Church, or any members of it, without or beyond the precise limits of his own Dominions. The Enquiry we have under Consideration about the Power of Kings, and the obedience due unto them in Ecclesiastical things, is limited absolutely unto their own Kingdoms, and unto those of their subjects which are Christians in them. And this

Hi motus animorum at{que} haec certamina tanta Pulveris exigui jactu concussa quiescunt.

A little observation of this one known and granted Principle, renders not only your six Reasons alto∣gether useless, but surpersedes also a great part of your Rhetorick, which under the ambiguity

of that expression you display in your whole Dis∣course.

Secondly, You pleasantly lead about your unwary Reader with the ambiguity of the other term, the Head. Hence p. 58. you fall into a great exclama∣tion against Protestants, that acknowledging the King to be the Head of the Church, they do not supplicate unto him, and acquiesce in his judgement in Religious affairs, as if ever any Protestant acknowledged any King or any mortal man to be such an Head of the Church as you fancy to your selves, in whose deter∣minations in Religion all men are bound spiritually and as to their eternal concernments to acquiesce; and that not because they are true according to the Scripture, but because they are his. Such an Head you make the Pope; such an one on earth all Proce∣stants deny, which evacuates your whole Discourse to that purpose, p. 58, 59. It is true in opposition unto your Papal claim of Authority and Jurisdicti∣on over the subjects of this Kingdom, Protestants do assert the King to be so Head of the Church with∣in his own Realms and Dommions, as that he is by Gods appointment the sole fountain and spring a∣mongst men of all Authority and Power to be ex∣ercised over the Persons of his subjects in matters of external cognizance and order; being no way ob∣noxious to the direction, supervisorship and super∣intendency of any other, in particular not of the Pope. He is not only the only striker as you phrase it, in his Kingdoms, but the only Protector under God of all his subjects, and the only Distributor of Justice in rewards and punishments unto them, not depending in the administration of the one or other on the determinations or orders of your Pope or Church. Not that any of them do use absolutely

that expression of Head of the Church, but that they ascribe unto him, all Authority that ought or can be exercised in his Dominions over any of his Subjects whither in things Civil or Ecclesiastical, that are not meerly Spiritual, and to be ministerially ordered in obedience unto Christ Jesus: And that you may the better see what it is that Protestants ascribe unto the King, and to every King that is Absolutely supream, as his Majesty is, in his own Do∣minions, and withall, how exceeding vain your un∣reasonable reproach is, which you cast upon them for not giving themselves up unto an absolute acqui∣escency in humane determinations as meerly such, on pretence that they proceed from the Head of the Church; I shall give you a brief account of their thoughts in this whole matter.

First, They say, that the King is the supream Go∣vernor over all Persons whatever, within his Realms and Dominions, none being exempted on any ac∣count from subjection unto his Regal Authority. How well you approve of this Proposition in the great astignations you pretend unto Kingly power we shall afterwards enquire. Protestants found their perswasion in this matter, on the Authority of the Scripture both Old Testament and New, and the very Principles constituting Soveraign Power amongst men. You speak fair to Kings, but at first dash exempt a considerable number of their born sub∣jects owing them indispensible natural Allegiance, from their jurisdiction. Or this sort are the Clergy. But the Kings of Judah of old were not of your mind. Solomon certainly thought Abiathar though High Priest subject to his Royal Authority, when he denounced against him a sentence of death, and actu∣ally deposed him from the Priest hood. The like course

did his successors proceed in. For neither had God in the first provision he made for a King amongst his people, Deut. 18. nor in that prescription of the manner of the Kingdom which he gave them by Sa∣muel, once intimated an exemption of any persons, Priests or others from the Rule or Authority of the Prince, which he would set over them. In the New Testament we have the Rule, as the practice in the Old, Rom. 13. Let every soul be subject to the High∣er Powers, the power that bears the sword, the stri∣ker. And we think that your Clergy men have souls (at least pro sale) and so come within the circumference of this Command and Rule. Chry∣sostome in his Comment on that place is of our mind, and prevents your pretence of an exception from the Rule by special Priviledge, giving us a distribution of the universality of the Per∣sons here intended into their several kinds. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He sheweth that these things are commanded unto all, unto Priests and Monks, and not to secular persons on∣ly, which he declareth in the very entrance of his Dis∣course, saying Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers; whither thou be an Apostle, or an Evangelist, or a Prophet, or whatever thou be. For subjection overthrows not Piety. And he saith not simply, Let him obey, but let him be subject. The very same in∣stances are given by Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Theophilact. Bernard, Epist. 42. ad Archiepisc. Seno∣nens. meets with your exception which in his dayes

began to be broached in the world, and tells you expresly that it is a delusion. In conformity un∣to this Rule of St. Paul, Peter exhorts all Christians, none excepted, to submit themselves unto the King as Supreme, 1 Epist. ch. 2. 13. And what ever we con∣clude from these words in reference unto the King, I fear that if instead of the King, he had said the Pope, you would have thought us very impudent, if we had persisted in the denyal of your monstrous ima∣ginary Headship. But in this Principle, on these and the like grounds do all Protestants concur. And indeed to fancy a ••••veraign Monarch with so great a number of men as yonr Clergy consists of in many Kingdome exempted from his regal Authority, is to lay such an ax unto the root of his Government, as whereby with one stroke you may hew it down at your pleasure.

2. Protestants affirm, that Rex in regno suo, every King in his own Kingdom is the Supreme dispenser of Justice and Judgement unto all Persons, in all Cau∣ses that belong unto, or are determinable in foro ex∣teriori in any Court of Judicature, whither the mat∣ter which they concern be Civil or Ecclesiastical. No Cause, no difference determinable by any Law of man, and to be determined by Coercive Vmpirage or Authority, is exempted from his cognizance. Neither can any man, on any pretence, claim any Jurisdiction over any of his Subjects not directly and immediately derived from him. Neither can any King, who is a Soveraign Monarch, like the Kings of this Land, yield or grant a power in any other to judge of any Ecclesiastical Causes among his Sub∣jects, as arising from any other Spring, or growing on any other root but that of his own Authority, without an impeachment and irreparable prejudice

to his Crown and Dignity: neither doth any such Concession, grant or supposition make it indeed so to be, but is a meer fiction and mistake, all that is done upon it, being ipso facto null, and of none ef∣fect. Neither if a King should make a pretended le∣gal grant of such power unto any, would any right accrew unto them thereby; the making of such a Grant being a matter absolutely out of his power, as are all things whereby his regal Authority, where∣in the Majesty of his Kingdom is enwrapped, may be diminished. For that King, who hath a power to diminish his Kingly Authority, never was in∣trusted with absolute Kingly Power. Neither is this Power granted unto our Kings by the Acts of Par∣liament, which you mention made in the beginning of the Reformation; but was alwayes inherent in them, and exercised in innumerable instances, and often vindicated with an high hand from Papal en∣croachments, even during the hour and power of your darkness, as hath been sufficiently proved by many, both Divines and Lawyers. Things of meer spiritual order as preaching the word, Administration of the Sacraments and the like, we ascribe not unto Kings, nor the communicating of power unto any for their performance. The Soveraign Power of these things, is vested in Christ alone, and by him committed unto his Ministers. But Religion hath many concernments that attend it, which must be desposed of by forensical, juridical process and and determinations. All these with the Persons of them, that are interested in them, are subject immediately to the power and Authority of the King, and none other; and to exempt them, or any of them, or any of the like nature, which may emerge amongst men in things relating unto Consci∣ence

and Religion, whose Catalogue may be end∣lesly extended, from Royal Cognizance, is to make meer properties of Kings in things which in a very special manner concern the peace and wellfare of their subjects, and the distribution of rewards and punishments among them. Of this sort are all things that concern the authoritative publick Con∣ventions of Church Officers, and differences amongst them about their interests, practices, and publick profession of Doctrines, Collations of Legal Digni∣ties and Benefices, by and with investitures legal and valid, all Ecclesiastical revenews with their inci∣dencies, the Courts and Jurisdictions of Ecclesiasti∣cal Persons for the reig••ement of the outward man by Censures and Sentences of Law, with the like. And as this whole matter is sufficiently confirmed by what was spoken before of the Power of Kings over the Persons or all their Subjects, and (for to what end should they have such a power, if in respect of many of them, and that in the chief concernments of their rule and Government, it may never be ex∣erted?) so I should tire your patience, if I should report one half of the Laws, Instances and Pleas, made, given and used, by the Antient Christian Kings and Emperours in the persuit, and for the Confirmation of this their just power. The Decrees and Edicts of Constantine the Great, commanding, ruling and disposing of Bishops in Cases Ecclesiastical, the Laws of Justinian, Charls the Great, Ludovicus his Son, and Lotharius his Successor, with more innu∣merable to the same purpose are extant and known unto all. So also are the Pleas, Protestations and Vindications of most of the Kingdoms of Europe af∣fer once the pretensions of Papacy began to be broached to their prejudice. And in particular,

notable instances you might have, of the exercise of this royal power in the first Christian Magistrate in∣vested with supreme Authority, both in the case of Athanasius, Socrat. Lib. 1. cap. 28. & cap. 34. Athan. Apol. 2. as also of the Donatists, Euseb. lib. 10. cap. 5. August. Epist. 162, 166. and advers. Crescon. lib. 3. c. 17. whereunto innumerable in∣stances in his Successors may be added.

3. Protestants reach unanimously, that it is in∣cumbent on Kings to find out, receive, embrace and promote the Truth of the Gospel, and the Worship of God appointed therein, confirming, protecting and defending of it, by their Regal Power and Au∣thority: as also that in their so doing, they are to use the Liberty of their own judgements informed by the wayes that God hath appointed for that end, in∣dependently on the dictates, determinations and or∣ders of any other Person or Persons in the world, unto whose Authority they should be obnoxious. Heathen Kings made Laws for God, Dan. 3. chap. 6. Jona 3. And the great thing that we find any of the Good Kings of Judah commended for is, that they commanded the worship of God to be observed and performed, according unto his own appointment. For this end were they then bound to write out a Co∣py of the Law with their own hands, Deut. 14. 18. and to study in it continually. To this purpose were they warned, charged, exhorted and excited by the Prophets; that is, that they should serve God as Kings. And to this purpose are there innumerable Laws of the best Christian Kings and Emperours still extant in the world.

In these things consists that Supremacy or Headship of Kings which Protestants unanimously ascribe unto them; especially those in England, to his Royal

Majesty. And from hence you may see the frivo∣lousness of sundry things you object unto them.

As first of the Scheme or Series of Ecclesiastical Power which you ascribe to Prelate Protestants, and the Laws of the Land, from which you say, the Presbyterians dissent, which you thus express;

By the Laws of our Land, our Series of Go∣vernment Eccle¦siastical stands thus,

• God,
• Christ,
• King,
• Bishop,
• Ministers, People.

The Presby∣terian Pre∣dicament is thus,

• God,
• Christ,
• Minister,
• People

So that the Ministers head in the Presbyterian Predi∣cament toucheth Christs feet immediately and nothing intervenes. You Pretend indeed that hereby you do exalt Christ; but this is a meer cheat as all men may see with their eyes. For Christ is but where he was, but the Minister indeed is exalted, being now set in the Kings place one degree higher then the Bishops, who by Law is under King and Bishops too.

If I mistake not in my guess, you greatly pleased your self with your Scheme, wherein you pretend to make forsooth an ocular Demonstration of what you undertook to prove; whereas indeed it is as trivial a fancy as a man can ordinarily meet withal For 1. Neither the Law, nor Prelates, nor Presbyte∣rians ascribe any place at all unto the Kings Maje∣sty in the Series of Spiritual Order; he is neither Bi∣shop, nor Minister, nor Deacon, or any way autho∣rized by Christ to convey or communicate power meerly spiritual unto any others. No such thing is claimed by our Kings, or declared in Law, or asserted by Protestants of any sort. But in the series of ex∣teriour

Government, both Prelate Protestants and Presbyterians assign a Supremacy over all Persons in his Dominions, and that in all Causes that are in∣quirable and determinable by, or in any Court ex∣ercising Jurisdiction and Authority, unto his Majesty. All sorts assign unto him the Su∣preme place under Christ in external Government and Jurisdiction. None assign him any place in Spiritual Order and meerly Spiritual Power. Secondly, If you place Bishops on the Series of exte∣rior Government as appointed by the King and con∣firmed by the Law of the Land, there is yet no dif∣ference with respect unto them. 3. The Question then is solely about the Series of Spiritual order, and thereabout it is confessed there are various appre∣hensions of Protestants, which is all you prove, and so do, magno conatu nugas agere: who knows it not? I wish there were any need to prove it: But Sir, this difference about the Superiority of Bishops to Presbyters, or their equality, or Identity, was agi∣tated in the Church many and many a hundred year before you or I were born, and will be so probably when we are both dead and forgotten. So that what it makes in this dispute, is very hard for a so∣ber man to conjecture. 4. Who they are that pre∣tend to exalt Christ, by a meer asserting Ministers, not to be by his institution subject to Bishops, which you call a cheat, I know not, nor shall be their ad∣vocate; they exalt Christ who love him and keep his Commandments, and no other.

2. You may also as easily discern the frivolous∣ness of your exclamation against Protestants for not giving up their differences in Religion to the Vm∣pirage of Kings upon the assignment of that Supre∣macy unto them which hath been declared. When

we make the King such an Head of the Catholick Church as you make the Pope, we shall seek unto him as the fountain of our faith, as you pretend to do unto the Pope. For the present we give that ho∣nour to none but Christ himself; and for what we assign in profession unto the King, we answer it wholly in our practical submission. Protestants ne∣ver thought, nor said that any King was appointed by Christ to be supreme infallible Proposer of all things to be believed and done in the Worship of God; no King ever assumed that power unto him∣self. It is Jesus Christ alone who is the Supreme and absolute Lawgiver of his Church, the Author and finisher of our Faith; and it is the honour of Kings to serve him in the promotion of his Interest, by the exercise of that Authority and duty which we have before declared. What unto the dethroning and dishonour as much as in you lyeth of Christ himself, and of Kings also, you assign unto the Pope, in making him the Supreme head and fountain of their faith, hath been already considered. This is the substance of what you except against Prote∣stants either as to Opinion or Practice in this matter of deference unto Kingly Authority in things Eccle∣siastical. What is the sense of your Church which you prefer unto your sentiments herein, I shall after I have a little examined your present pretensions manifest unto you, (seeing you will have it so,) from those who are full well able to inform us of it;

Fas mihi Pontificum sacrata resolvere jura, —at{que} omnia ferre sub auras, ••Siqua tegunt; tenear Romaenec ligebus ullis.

For your own part you have expressed you se••f

in this matter so loosely, generally and ambiguously, that it is very hard for any man to collect from your words, what it is that you assert, or what you deny. I shall endeavour to draw out your sense by a few en••quiries. As 1. Do you think the King hath any An ••ority vested in him as King in Ecclesi∣astical affairs, and over Ecclesiastical Persons? You tell us, That Catholicks observe the King in all things as well Eeclesiastick as Civil, pag. 59. that in the line of Corporal power and Authority the King is immediately under God, p. 61. with other words to the same purpose, if they are to any purpose at all. I desire to know whither you grant in him an Au∣thority derived immediately from God in and over Ecclesiastical affairs, as to convene Synods or Coun∣cils, to reform things amiss in the Church, as to the outward administration of them? or do you think that he hath such power and Authority to make, constitute or appoint Laws with penal Sancti∣ons in and about things Ecclesiastical? And Se∣condly, Do you think that in the work which he hath to do for the Church, be it what it will, be may use the liberty of his own judgement directed by the light of the Scripture, or that he is precisely to follow the declarations and determinations of the Pope? If he have not this Authority, if he may not use this liberty, the good words you speak of Catholicks, and give unto him, signifie indeed nothing at all. If then he hath, and may, you openly rise up against the Bulls, Briefs and Interdicts of your Popes them∣selves and the universal practice of your Church for many Ages. And therefore I desire you to inform me Thirdly, Whether you do not judge him absolutely to be subject and accountable to the Pope for what ever he doth in Ecclesiastical affairs in his own Kingdoms and Dominions? if you answer suitably

to the Principles, Maximes and practise of your Church, you must say he is; and if so, I must tell you that whatever you ascribe unto him in things Ecclesiastical, he acts not about them as King, but in some other capacity. For to do a thing as a King, and to be accountable for what he doth therein to the Pope, implyes a Contradiction. Fourthly, Hath not the Pope a power over his Subjects, many of them at least, to convent, censure judge and punish them, and to exempt them in Criminal Cases from his Jurisdiction? And is not this a fair Supremacy that it is meet he should be contented withal, when you put it into the power of another to exempt as many of his Subjects as he pleaseth and are willing, from his Regal Authority? 5. When you say, that in matters of faith, Kings for their own ease remit their Subjects to their Papal Pastor, pag. 57. Whe∣ther you do not collude with us, or indeed do at all think as you speak? Do you think that Kings have real power in, and about those things wherein you depend on the Pope, and only remit their Subjects to him for their own ease? You cannot but know that this one Concession would ruine the whole Papacy, as being expresly destructive of all the foundations on which it is built. Nor did ever any Pope proceed on this ground in his interposures in the world about matters of faith; that such things indeed belonged unto others, and were only by them re∣mitted unto him for their ease. 6. Whether you do not include Kings themselves in you•• general Assertion, pag. 55. That they who after Papal deci∣sions remain cont••nacious forfeit their Christianity? And if so, whether you do not at once overthrow all your other Splendid Concessions, and make Kings absolute Dependents on the Pope for all the Privi∣ledges

of their Christianity, and whether you ac∣count not among them, their very Regal Dignity it self? Whereby it may easily appear how much Protestant Kings and Potentates are beholding unto you, seeing it is manifest that they live and rule in a neglect of many Papal Decisions and Determinati∣ons. 7. Whether you do not very fondly pretend to prove your Roman Catholicks acknowledgement of the power of Princes to make Laws in Cases Ec∣clesiastical, from the Laws of Justinian, p. 59. where∣as they are instances of Regal Power in such Cases plainly destructive of your present Hildebrandine faith and Authority: and whether you suppose such Laws to have any force or Authority of Law, with∣out the Papal Sanction and confirmation? 8. Whi∣ther you think indeed that Confession unto Priests is such an effectual means of securing the peace and in∣terest of Kings as you pretend, p. 59. and whether Queen Elizabeth, King James, Henry the third and fourth of France had cause to believe it; and whe∣ther you learned this notion from Parry, Raviliac, Mariana, Clement, Parsons, Allen, Garnet, Gerard, Oldcome, with their Associates? 9. Whether you forgot not your self when you place Aaron and Jo∣shuah in government together? p. 64. 10. Whether you really believe, that the Pope hath Power only to perswade in matters of Religion as you pretend? p. 65. and if so; from what Topicks he takes the Whips, Wires and Racks that he makes use of in his Inquisi∣tion? And whether he hath not a right even to de∣stroy Kings themselves, who will not be his Execu∣tioners in destroying of others? I wish you would come out of the clouds, and speak your mind freely and plainly to some of these enquiries. Your pre∣sent ambiguous discourse, in the face of it fai••ed

unto your interest, gives no satisfaction, whilest these snakes lye in the grass of it. Wherefore leav∣ing you a little to your second thoughts, I shall en∣quire of your Masters and Fathers themselves, what is the true sense of your Church in this matter, and we shall find them speaking it out plainly and round∣ly: For they tell us,

1. That the Government of the whole Catholick Church is Monarchical: A State wherein all Power, is derived from one fountain, one and the same Person. This is the first Principle that is laid down by all your Writers, in treating of the Church and its power; and that which your great Cardinal Ba∣ronius layes as the foundation on whirh he builds the huge Structure of his Ecclesiastical Annals.

2. That the Pope is this Monarch of the Church: the Person in whom alone the Soveraign Rule of it is originally vested: so that it is absolutely impossible that any other Person should have, enjoy, or use any Ecclesiastical Authority, but what is derived from him. I believe you suppose this sufficiently proved by Bellarmine or others. Your self own it, nor can deny it without a disclaimure of your pre∣sent Papacy. And this one Principle perfectly dis∣covers the vanity of your pretended attributions of Power in Ecclesiastical things to Kings and Princes. For to suppose a Monarchical estate, and not to sup∣pose all Power and Authority in that state to be de∣••ived from the Monarch in it and of it alone, is to suppose a perfect contraiction, or a State Monarchi∣cal that is not Monarchical. Protestants place the Monarchical State of the Catholick Church in its relation unto Christ alone: and therefore it is in∣cumbent on them to assert that no man hath, or can have a power in the Church as such, but what is

derived from and communicated unto him by him. And you placing it in reference unto the Pope, must of necessity deny that any power can be exercised in it, but what is derived from him, so that whatever you pretend in this kind to grant unto kings, you allow it unto them only by concession or delegation from the Pope. They must hold it from him in cheif, or he cannot be the chief only, and absolute head and Monarch of the Catholick Church which you would perswade us to believe that he is: Kings then may even in Church affairs be strikers under him; be the servants and executioners of his will and plea∣sure; but Authority from God immediately in and about them they have none, nor can have any whilest your Imaginary Monarchy takes place. This one fundamental Principle of your Religion sufficiently discovers the insignificancy of your florish about Kingly Authority in Ecclesiastical things, seeing up∣on a supposition of it, they can have none at all. But you stay not here; for

3. You ascribe unto your Popes an universal Do∣minion even in Civil things over all Christian Kings and their subjects. In the explanation of this Domi∣nion, I confess you somewhat vary among your selves; but the thing it self is generally asserted by you, and made a foundation of practice. Some of you maintain that the Pope by Divine right and Con∣stitution hath an absolute supream Dominion over the whole world. This opinion, Bellarmine Lib. 5. de Pont. cap. 1. confesseth to be maintained by Augusti∣nus Triumphus, Alvarus, Pelagius, Hostiensis, and Panoruitanus. And himself in the next words con∣demns the opinion of them who deny the Pope to have any such temporal power, as that he may com∣mand secular Princes, and deprive them of the

Kingdoms and Principalities, not only as false but as down right Heresie. And why doth he name the first opinion as that of four or five Doctors, when it is the Common opinion of your Church, as Baronius sufficiently manifests in the life of Gregory the seventh? That great preserver of your Pontificial omnipotency in his Bull against Henry the German Emperour, affirms that he hath power to take away Empires, Kingdoms and Principalities, or what ••ver a mortal man may have, as Platina records it in his life. As also Pope Nicholas the second in his Epistle ad Mediolanens▪ asserts, that the rights both of the heavenly and earthly Empires are committed unto him. And he that hath but looked on the Dictates of the fore∣named Gregory confirmed in a Council at Rome, and defended by Baronius, or into their Decretals, knows that you give both swords to the Pope, and that over and over. Whence Carerius, Lib. 1. c. 9. affirms that it is the Common opinion of the School Divines that the Pope hath plenissimam Potestatem, plenary power over the whole world, both in Ecclesiastical and Temporal matters; and you know the old com∣parison made by the Canonists cap. de Major. & Obed. between the Pope and the Emperour, namely that he is as the Sun, the Emperour as the Moon, which bor∣rows all its light from the other. Bellarmine and those few whom he follows, or that follow him, maintain that the Pope hath this Power only indirect∣ly and in order unto spiritual things; the meaning of which assertion as he explains himself, is, that be∣sides that direct power, which he hath over those Countreys and Kingdoms which on one pretence or other he claims to be Feaudatory to the Roman See, which are no small number of the chiefest Kingdoms of Europe, he hath a Power over them all, to dispose

of them, their Kings and Rulers, according as he judgeth it to conduce to the good and interest of the Church: which as it really differs very little from the ••ormer opinion, so Barclay tells us that Pope Sixtus was very little pleased with that seeming depression of the Papal Power, which his words intimate. But the stated Doctrine of your Church in this matter is so declared by Bozius, Augustinus Triumphus, Ca∣rerius, Schioppius, Marta and others, all approved by her Authority, that there can be no question of it. Moreover to make way for the putting of this indirect Power into direct Execution, you declare,

4. That the Pope is the supream Judge of faith, and his Declarations and Determinations so far the Rule of it, as that they are to be received, and finally submitted unto: not to do so, is that which you ex∣press Heresie, or Schism, or Apostacy. About this Principle also of your Profession there have been, as about most other things amongst you, great Disputes and wranglings between the Doctors and props of your Church. Much debate there hath been whi∣ther this power be to be attributed unto the Pope without a Council, or above a Council, or against one. About these Chimaera's are whole volumes filled with keen and subtil argumentations. But the Popes Personal, or at least Cathedral Determination hath at length prevailed. For whatever some few of you may whisper unto your own trouble and dis∣advantage, to the impeachment of his Personal In∣fallibility, you are easily decryed by the general voice of your Doctors; and besides those very per∣sons themselves, wherever they would place the In∣fallibility of the Church that they fancy, are for••ed to put it so far into the Popes hand and manage∣ment, as that whatever he determines with the neces∣sary

solemnities in matters of faith, is ultimately at least to be acquiesced in. So your self assure us, averring that he who doth not so, forfeits his Chri∣stianity, and consequently all the Priviledges which thereby he enjoyes; and we have reason sufficient from former experience to believe that the Pope have he ability unto his will, is ready enough to take the forfeiture. Whither upon a Princes falling into Heresie, in not acquiescing in your Papal deter∣minations, his subjects are discharged ipso facto from all obedience unto him, as Dominicus Bannes and others maintain, or whither there needs the Denun∣ciation of a sentence against him by the Pope for their absolution, you are not agreed. But yet

5. You affirm that in Case of such Disobedience un∣to the Pope, he is armed with Power to depose Kings and Princes, and to give away, and bestow their Kingdoms and Dominions on others; Innumerable are the instances whereby the Popes themselves have justified their claim of this Power in the face of the world, and it were endless to recount the Emperours, Kings, and free Princes that they have attempted to ruine and destroy, (in the persuit of some wherof they actually succeeded) with the desolations of Nations that have ensued thereon. I shall menti∣on but one and that given us in the dayes of our Fa∣thers, and it may be in the memory of some yet alive. Pope Pius V takes upon him contrary to the advice and entreaties of the Emperour of Germany and others, to depose Queen Elizabeth, and to de∣vote her to destruction. To this end he absolved all her Subjects from their Allegiance, and gave away her Kingdoms and Dominions to the Spaniard, assisting him to his utmost in his attempt to take pos∣session of his grant: and all for refusing obedience

to the See of Rome. You cannot I presume be of∣fended with my mention of that which is known unto all, for these things were not done in a corner. And is it not hence evident that all the power which you grant unto Kings, is meerly precarious, which they hold of your Pope as Tenants at will? and should they not appear to do so, were his force, wit and courage answerable to his will and pretence of Authority? But be it that because you cannot help it, you suffer them to live at peace and quietness in the main of their Rule, yet you still curb them in their own Dominions; for

6. You exempt all the Clergy from under their Rule and Power. See your Bellarmine sweating to prove that they are not bound to their Laws, so as to be judged by them, without their leave, if they trans∣gress; or to pay any tribute, De Cleric. Lib. 1. Cap. 28. They are all reserved to the Power and Jurisdiction of the Pope. And he that shall consi∣der into what a vast and boundless multitude by rea∣son of the several disorderly orders of your City Monks and Friars, your Clergy is swelled into in most places of Europe, will easily perceive what your interest is in every Kingdom of it. I am perswa∣ded there is scarce a Considerable Nation wherein the Profession of your Religion is enthroned, in which the Pope hath not an 100000. able fighting men, that are his peculiar subjects, exempted from the Power and jurisdiction of Kings themselves; which you must needs conceive to be a blessed inter∣pretation of that of the Apostle, Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers. And

7. You extend the Papal Power to Things as well as Persons in the Dominions of all Kings and Com∣monwealths. For the Lands and Possessions that

are given unto any of the Popes especial Subjects, you will have to be exempted from Tributes and publick burdens of the state. And you farther con∣tend that it is not in the power of any Kings or Ru∣lers, to hinder such alienations of Lands and Possessi∣ons from their Dominions. By this means no small part of the Territories of many Princes is subduced from under their power. The dreadful consequences of which Principles so startled the wise state of Venice, that you know they disputed it to the utmost with your Vice-god Paul the V. In dealing with them, as I remember, their attempt was successless: for not∣withstanding the defence made of the Papal process against them by Baronius, Bellarmine and others, yet the actings of that sober state in forbidding such alienation of Lands and Fees from their Rule and power without their consent, with their plea for the subjection of Ecclesiasticks unto them in their own Dominions, was so vindicated by Doctor Paul Suave, Marsilius of Padua, and others, that the horns of the Bull which had been thrust forth against them into so great a length, were pulled in again.

I told you in the entrance of this Discourse, how unwilling I should have been to have given you the least disquietment in your way, had you only attem∣pted to set off your own respects unto Royal Power unto the best advantage you could; but your set∣ting up your Principles and Practices in competition with those of Protestants of any sort whatever, and preferring them before and above them as unto your deference unto Kings, and that in matters Ecclesiasti∣cal, hath made these few instances expressive of the real sense of your Church in this matter, as I suppose necessary and equal.

CHAP. 17.

Scripture. Story of the Progress and declension of Religion vindicated. Papal Artifices for the promo∣tion of their Power and Interest. Advantages made by them on the Western Empire.

YOu proceed pag. 70. unto the Animadvèrsions on your 13. Paragraph, entituled Scripture, wherein how greatly and causelesly it is by you un∣dervalued, is fully declared. But whatever is offer∣ed in it for the discovery of your miscarriage and your own conviction, you wisely pass over without taking notice of it at all; and only repeat again your Case to the same purpose, and almost in the very same words you had done before. Now this I have already considered and removed out of our way, so that it is altogether needless to divert again to the discussion of it. That which we have to do, for the answering of all your Cavils and objections in and about the case you frame and propose, is, to declare and manifest the Scriptures sufficiency for the Reve∣lation of all necessary Truths therein affording us a stable Rule of faith every way suited to the decision of all differences in and about Religion, and to keep Christians in perfect peace, as it did of old; And this we have already done. Why this proper work of the Scripture is not in all places and at all times effected, proceeds from the Lusts and prejudices of men, which when by the Grace of God they shall be removed, it will no longer be obstructed.

Your next attempt p. 72. is upon my story of the pro∣gress and Corruption of Christian Religion in the world, with respect unto that of your own. Yours, you tell

us, is serious, temperate, and sober; every way as excellent as Suffenus thought his verses. Mine, you say, is wrought with defamation and wrath against all Ages and People; very good. I doubt not but you thought it was fit you should say so, though you knew no reason why, nor could fix on any thing in it for your warrant in these intemperate reproaches. Do I say any thing but what the stories of all Ages, and the Experience of Christendome do proclaim? Is it now a defamation to report what the learned men of those dayes have recorded, what good men bewayled, and the sad effects whereof the world long groaned under, and was at length ruined by? What wrath is in all this? may not men be warned to take heed of falling into the like evils by the mis∣carriages of them that went before them without wrath and defamation? Are the books of the Kings, Chronicles, and Prophets fraught with wrath and de∣famation because they report, complain of, and re∣prove the sad Apostasies of the Church in those dayes, with the wickedness of the Kings, Priests and People that it was composed of, and declare the abo∣mination of those wayes of false worship, licencious∣ness of life, violence and oppression, whereby they provoked God against them to their ruine? If my story be not true, why do you not disprove it? if it be, why do you exclaim against it? Do I not direct you unto Authors of unquestionable credit com∣plaining of the things which I report from them? And if you know not that many others may be added unto these by me named, testifying the same things, you know very little of the matter you undertake to treat about. But we need go no further then your self to discover how devoid of all pretence your reproaches are, and that by considering the excepti∣ons

which you put in to my story, which may ratio∣nally be supposed to be the most plausible you could invent, and directed against those parts of it which you imagined were most obnoxious to your charge. I shall therefore consider them in the order wherein they are proposed, and discover whether the keeness of your assault answer the noise of your out-cry at its entrance.

First, You observe, that I say, Joseph of Arima∣thea was in England, but that he taught the same reli∣gion that is now in England. Unto which you reply; But what is that Religion? and this enquiry I have observed you elsewhere to insist upon. But I told you before, that I intend the Protestant Religion and that as confirmed and established by Law in this Kingdom; and the advantage you endeavour from some differences that are amongst us, is little to your purposes, and less to the commendation of your in∣genuity. For besides that there are differences of as high a nature, and considering the Principles you proceed upon of greater importance among your selves, and those agitated with as great animosities and subtilties, as those amongst any sort of men at variance about Religion in the world, you that so earnestly seek and press after a forbearance for your profession besides and against the established law, should not, me thinks, at the same time, be so forward in reproaching us, that there are dissenters in the Kingdom from some things established by Law, espe∣cially considering how utterly inconsiderable for the most part they are, in comparison of the things wherein you differ from us all. This I fear, is the reward that they have cause to expect from many of you, who are enclined to desire that you amongst others might be partakers of indulgence from the

extremity of the Law, though from others of you for whose sakes they are enclined unto those desires, I hope they may look for better things, and such as accompany charity, moderation, and peace, so that your first exception gives a greater impeachment unto your own Candor and ingenuity then unto the Truth or Sobriety of my story.

You proceed and say, that I tell you that the story of Fugatius and Damianus Missioners of Pope Eleu∣therius, is suspected by me for many reasons, and reply, because you assign none, I am therefore moved to think they may be all reduced unto one, which is that you will not acknowledge any good thing ever to have come from Rome. But see what it is for a man to give himself up unto vain surmizes. You know full well, that I plead, that you are no way concerned in what was done at Rome in the dayes of Eleutherius, who was neither Pope nor Papist, nor knew any thing of that which we reject as Popery, so that I had no reason to disclaim or deny any good thing that was then done at Rome, or by any from thence. Besides, I can assure you, that to this day I would willingly own, embrace, and rejoyce in any good that is, or may be done there; may I be truly and impartially inform∣ed of it; and should be glad to hear of more then unprejudiced men have been able of late Ages to in∣form us of. I am far from making an enclosure of all goodness unto any party of men in the world, and far from judging or condemning all, of any party, or supposing that no good thing can be done by them or proceed from them. Such conceits are apt to flow from the high towring thoughts of Infallibility and supremacy, and the confining of Christianity to some certain company of men, in some parts of the world, which I am a stranger unto, I know no

party among Christians that is in all things to be admired, nor any that is in all things to be condem∣ned; and can perfectly free you, if you are capable of satisfaction, from all fears of my dislike of any thing, because it came, or comes from Rome. For to me it is all one, from whence Truth and Virtue come. They shall be welcome for their own sakes. But you seem to be guided in these and the like sur∣mizes by your own humour, Principles and way of managing things in Religion; a Lesbian Rule, which will suffer you to depart from the Paths of Truth and Charity, no oftener then you have a mind so to do. To deliver you from your mistake in this particular, I shall now give you some of those rea∣sons, which beget in me a suspicion concerning the Truth of that story about Fagatius and Damianus, as it is commonly told, only intimating the heads of them with all possible brevity.

First then I suppose the whole story is built on the Authority of the Epistle of Elutherius unto Lucius, which is yet extant: other foundations of it, that I know of, is neither pleaded nor pretended. Now there want not Reasons to prove that Epistle as the most of those fathered on the old Bishops of Rome, to be supposititious. For 1. The Author of that Epistle condemneth the Imperial Laws, and rejecteth them as unmeet to be used in the Civil Government of this Nation, which Eleutherius neither ought to have done, nor could safely do. 2. It supposeth Lucius to have sent unto Eleutherius to have the Roman Law sent unto him, which had been long be∣fore exercised in this Nation, and was well known in the whole Province, as he witnesseth of dayes be∣fore these;

Gallia causidicos docuit facunda Brittannos.

2. The first Reporters of this Story agree not in the time wherein the matter mentioned in it, should fall out. Beda lib. 1. cap. 4. assigns it unto the year 156. which was twenty two years before Eleu∣therius was Bishop, as Baronius manifests. Henricus de Erfordia ascribes it unto the nineteenth year of the reign of Verus the Emperour who reigned not so many years at all. Ado refers it unto the time of Commodus with some part of whose reign the Epis∣copacy of Eleutherius did indeed contemporate. 2. Geoffrey of Monmouth the chief promoter of this report, joyneth it with so many lyes and open ficti∣ons, as may well draw the Truth of the whole story into Question. So that divers would have us believe that some such thing was done at one time or other, but when they cannot tell. 3. Both the Epi∣stle of Eleutherius, and the reporters of it, do sup∣pose that Lucius to whom he wrote, was an Absolute Monarch in England, King over the whole King∣dom with Supreme Authority and Power, ruling his Subjects by the Advice of his Nobles, without being obnoxious unto or dependent in his Govern∣ment on any others. But this Supposition is so openly repugnant to the whole story of the State of things in the Province of England in those dayes, so that it is beyond the wit of man to make any recon∣ciliation between them: For besides that Caesar and Tacitus do both plainly affirm, that in the dayes of the Romans ••••ance upon this Island, there was no such King or Monarch among the Brittans, but that they were all divided into several Toparchies, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••ortal feuds and variance among themselves, 〈…〉〈…〉 de for the conquest of them all, it was now

become a Presidiary Province of the Roman Empire, and had been so from the dayes of Claudius, as Sue∣tonius, Tacitus and Dio inform us. Especially was it reduced into, and settled in that form by Pub. Ostorius in the dayes of Nero, upon the Conquest of Boadicia Queen of the Iceni, and fully subjected in its remainders unto the Roman Yoak and Laws, af∣ter some struglings for liberty, by Julius Agricola in the dayes of Vespatian, as Tacitus assures us in the life of his Father in Law. In this Estate Brittan continued under Nerva and Trajan, the whole Pro∣vince being afterwards secured by Hadrian from the incursion of the Picts and other barbarous Nations, with the defence of his famous walls, whereof Spar∣tianus gives us an account. In this condition did the whole Province continue unto the death of Com∣modus, under the rule of Vlpius Marcellus as we are informed by Dio and Lampridius. This was the state of affairs in Britain, when the Epistle of Eleutherius is supposed to be written. And for my part I can∣not discover where this Lucius should reign with all that Soveraignty ascribed unto him. Baronius thinks he might do so beyond the Picts wall, which utter∣ly overthrows the wholy story, and leaves the whole Province of Brittan, utterly unconcerned in the coming of Fugatius and Damianus into this Island. These are some, and many other reasons of my suspition I could add, manifesting it to be far more just then yours that I had no reason for it, but only because I would not acknowledge that any good could come from Rome.

Let us now see what you further except against the account I gave of the progress and declension of Religion in these, and other Nations. You add, then say you, succeeded times of Luxury, Sloth, Pride,

ambition, scandalous riots, and corruption both of faith and manners over all the Christian world, both Princes, Priests, Prelates and people. But you some∣what pervert my words, so to make them lyable unto your exception: for as by me they are layed down, it seems you could find no occasion against them. I tell you p. 253. that after these things a sad decay in faith and holiness of life befell professors, not only in this Nation, but for the most part all the world over; the stories of those dayes are full of no∣thing more then the Oppression, Luxury, Sloth of Rulers, the pride, ambition and unseemly scandalous contests for preheminence of Sees, and extent of Juris∣diction among Bishops, the sensuality and ignorance of the most of men. Now whether these words are not agreeable to Truth and Sobriety, I leave to every man to judge, who hath any tolerable acquaintance with History, or the occurrences of the Ages respe∣cted in them. Your reply unto them is, not a grain of virtue or Goodness we must think in so many Chri∣stian Kingdoms and Ages: But why must you think so? who induceth you thereunto? when the Church of Israel was professedly far more corrupted, then I have intimated the state of the Christian Church in any part of the world to have been, yet there was more then a grain of virtue or goodness, not on∣ly in Elijah, but in the meanest of those seven thou∣sand who within the small precincts of that Kingdom had not bowed the knee to Baal: I never in the least questioned, but that in that declension of Chri∣stianity which I intimated, and remission of the most from their pristine Zeal, but that there were thou∣sands and ten thousands that kept their integrity and mourned for all the Abominations that they saw practiced in the world. Pray reflect a little upon

the condition of the Asian Churches mentioned in the Revelation. The discovery made of their Spi∣ritual State by Christ himself chap. 2. 3. was with∣in less then forty years after their first planting, and yet you see most of them had left their first love, and were decayed in their faith and Zeal. In one of them there were but a few names remaining that had any life and integrity for Christ; the body of the Church having only a name to live, being truly and really dead, as to any acts of Spiritual life, wherein our Communion with God consists. And do you make it so strange, that whereas the Churches that were planted and watered by the Apostles themselves and enriched with many excellent Gifts and Graces, should within the space of less then forty years, by the Testimony of the Lord Christ himself, so decay and fall off from their first purity, faith and works, that other Churches who had not their advantages, should do so within the space of four hundred years, of which season I speak? I fear your vain conceit of being rich and wanting nothing, of Infallibility and impossibility to stand in need of any Reforma∣tion, of being as good as ever any Church was, or as you need to be, is that which hath more preju∣diced your Church in particular then you can rea∣dily imagine. And what I affirmed of those other Churches, I know well enough how to prove out of the best and most approved Authors of those dayes. If besides Historians which give sufficient Testimony unto my observation, you will please to consult, Chrysostome Hom. 3. de Incomprehens. Dei natur. Hom. 19. in Ac. 9. Hom. 15. in Heb. 8. and Augùstin. lib. de Fid. & bon. op. cap. 19. you will find that I had good ground for what I said. And what if I had minded you of the words of Salvian

de provid. lib. 3. Quemcun{que} invenies in Ecclesia non aut ••briosum, aut adulternus, aut fornicatorem, aut raptorem, aut ganeonem, aut latronem, aut homi∣cidam, & quod omnibus potius est, prope haec cuncta sine fine? Should I have escaped your censure of giving you a story false and defamatory, loaden with foul language against all Nations, ages and conditions, that none can like who bear any respect either to mo∣desty, Religion or Truth: ne saevi magne Sacerdos. What ground have you for this intemperate railing? What instance can you give of any thing of this na∣ture? What expression giving countenance unto this severity? If you will exercise your self in writing Fiats, you must of necessity arm your self with a little patience to hear sometimes things that do not please you, and not presently cry out, defamations, false, wrath, foul language, &c. I suppose you know that not long after the times wherein I say Religion as the power and purity of it much de∣cayed in the world, that God brought an overflowing scourge and deluge of Judgements upon most of the Nations of Europe, that made Profession of Christi∣anity. What in sadness do you think might be the cause of that dispensation of his Providence? Do you think that all things were well enough amongst them, and that in all things their wayes pleased God? is such an apprehension suitable to the Good∣ness, Mercy, Love and faithfulness of God? or must he lose the glory of all his properties in the admi∣nistration of his righteous Judgements, rather then you will acknowledge a demerit in them whom he took away as with a Flood? So indeed the Jews would have had it of old under their sufferings; but he pleaded and vindicated the equality and righteous∣ness of his wayes against their proud repinings.

Pray be as angry with me as you please, but take heed of justifying any against God: The task will prove too hard for you. And yet to this purpose are your following contemptuous expressions; For unto my observation, that after these times, the Goths and Vandals with others, overflowed the Chri∣stian world, you subjoyn, either to punish them we may believe, or to teach them how to mend their man∣ners. Sir, I know not what you believe, or do not believe, or whither you believe any thing of this kind or no. But I will tell you what I am perswaded all the world believes, who know the story of those times, and are not Atheists: and it is, that though the Goths and Vandals, Saxons, Huns, Francks and Longobards, with the rest of the barbarous Nations, who divided the Provinces of the Western Empire amongst them, had it may be no more thoughts to punish the Nations professing Christianity, for their sins, wickedness and superstition, (though one of their Chief Leaders proclaimed himself the Scourge of God against them) then had the King of Babylon to punish Judah for her sins, and Idolatry in especi∣al, yet that God ordered them, no less then he did him in his Providence for those ends which you so scorn and despise, that is, either to punish them for their sins, or to provoke them to leave them by repentance. Take heed of being a scoffer in these things, least your bands be made strong. God is not unrighteous who exerciseth judgement. The Judge of all the world will do right. Nor doth he afflict any people, much less extirpate them from the face of the earth with∣out a Cause. Many wicked, provoking, sinful Ido∣latrous Nations, he spareth in his patience and for∣bearance, and will yet do so; but he destroyes none without a Cause. And all that I intended by the

remembrance of the sins of those Nations, which were exposed unto devastation, was but to shew that their destruction was of themselves.

You leap unto another clause which you rend out of mydiscourse, that these Pagans took at last unto Christianity, and say, happily because it was a more loose and wicked life then their own Pagan Profession. But are you not ashamed of this trifling? doth this disprove my Assertion? Is it not true? Did they not do so? Did not the above mentioned Nations when they had settled themselves in the Provinces of the Empire, take upon them the Profession of the Chri∣stian Religion? Did not the Saxons do so in Britta∣ny the Francks in Gaule, the Goths and Longobards in Italy, the Vandals in Africk, the Huns in Banno∣nia? I cannot believe you are so ignorant in these things, as your exceptions bespeak you. Nor do I well understand what you intend by them, they are so frivolous and useless, nor surely can any man in his right wits suppose them of any validity to impeach the evidence of the known stories, which my dis∣course relates unto.

But you lay more weight on what you cull out in the next place, which as you have layed it down is, That these now Christened Pagans advanced the Popes authority, when Christian Religion Was now grown de∣generate, and say, now we come to know how the Ro∣man Bishop became a Patriarch above the rest, by means namely of the new converted Pagans. But I wonder you speak so nicely in their chief affair. As though that were the Question whether the Bishop of Rome according unto some Ecclesiastical constitu∣tions were made a Patriarch or no, and that whither he were not esteemed to have some kind of prehemi∣nence in respect of those other Bishops, who upon

the same account were so stiled. When we have oc∣casion to speak of this Question we shall not be back∣ward to declare our thoughts in it. For the present you represent the Pope unto us as the absolute Head of the Church Catholick, the supream Judge of all controversies in Religion, the sole fountain of Uni∣ty, and spring of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, &c. Nor did I say that your Pope was by these Nations after their conversion advanced unto the height you la∣bour now to fix him in, but only that his Authority was signally advanced by them, which is so certain a Truth that your own Historians and Annalists open∣ly proclaim it, and you cannot deny it unless you would be esteemed the most ungrateful Person in the world. But this is your way and manner; all that is done for you is meer duty, which when it is done you will thank no man for. Are all the Grants of Power, Priviledges and Possessions made unto your Papal See, by the Kings of this Nation both before and since the Conquest, by the Kings of France, and Emperours of the Posterity of Charles the Great, by the Kings of Poland, Denmark and Sweden, by the Longobards in Italy not worth your thanks? It is well you have got your ends; the net may be cast away when the fish is caught.

But an odd chance, you say, it was that they should think of advancing him to what they never heard ei∣ther himself or any other advanced unto before among Christians: but yet this was done, and no such odd chance neither. Your Popes had for a season be∣fore been aspiring to greater heights then formerly they had attained unto, and used all wayes possible to commend themselves and their Authority, not what truly it was, but what they would have it to be, unto all with whom they had to do; and there∣upon

by sundry means and artifices imposed upon the nations some undue conceits of it, though it was not fully nor so easily admitted of as it may be you may imagine. But in many things they were willing to gratifie him in his pretensions, little knowing the tendency of them; many things he took the ad∣vantage of their streights and divisions to impose upon them; many things he obtained from them by flattery and carnal compliances, untill by sundry serpentine advances he had brought them all unto his bow, and some of the greatest of them to his stirrup.

It was yet more odd, say you, and strange that all Christendome should calmly submit unto a power set up anew by young converted Pagans: no Prince or Bishop either here or of any either Christian Kingdom either then or ever after to this day excepting against it. Had not all the Bishops and Priests of Africa, Egypt, Syria, Thrace, Greece and all the Christian world acknowledged by an hundred experiments the supream Spiritual Authority of the Roman Patriarch in all times before this deluge of Goths and Vandals? But why do I expostulate with you, who write these things not to judicious Readers, but to fools and children, who are not more apt to tell a truth, then to believe a lye. But Sir, you shall quickly see whose discourse, yours or mine, stand in need of week and credulous Rea∣der. That which you have in this place to oppose is only this, that your Papal Authority received a sig∣nal advancement, by and among the Northern Nations, who after long wars divided the Provinces of the Wes∣tern Empire among them. Now this is so broad a Truth, that nothing but brutish ignorance, or obsti∣nate perversness can possibly cause any man to call it into Question. It was not absolutely the setting up

of the Papacy, but an accession unto the Papal power and authority which I ascribed unto that original. And this if you dare to deny, it were easie out of your own Annalists to overwhelm you with instan∣ces in the confirmation of it. But yet neither were your Concessions made, nor his assumptions carried on in that silence which you fancy, when you ima∣gine, that his aspirings were neither taken notice of, nor opposed, but that all Christendom should calmly submit unto them. Where do you think you are, that you talk at this rate? Did you never read of any opposition made in former dayes unto your pre∣tended Papal Power? none at all? from no Kings, no Princes, no Bishops, no parts of Christendom? happy man, who hath lived so quietly as you seem to have done, and so little concerned in things past or pre∣sent. Did you never read or hear of the Declara∣tions and Edicts of Emperours and Kings, of Deter∣minations of Councils, Writings of Learned men in all Ages against your Papal Usurpations? Did you never hear how before the times that we now talk of, Irenaeus reproved Victor, how Cyprian opposed Cor∣nelius and Stephen, how the Councils of Africk ad∣monished Celestine and Boniface of their miscarri∣ages in their claims of Power and Jurisdiction? Are you an utter stranger unto the opposition made by the German Emperours unto your Hildebrandine Supremacy, with the books written against your pre∣tensions to that purpose? Have you not read your own Baronius a great part of whose Voluminous An∣nals consists in his endeavours to vindicate your Pa∣pal Power from the open opposition that was made to its introduction in every Age? You must needs sleep quietly, seeing you lye so far from noise. I have already in part let you see the fondness of this dream,

that your Papal Supremacy was ever calmly submitted unto, and have manifested that it was publickly con∣demned before it was born. But because I then con∣fined my self unto more antient times then those which are now under discourse, I shall mind you of a few instances of the opposition made unto it, either about or presently after that signal advancement, which I affirmed that it received from the newly con∣verted Nations of the West.

About the year 608. presently after the Saxons had received Christianity, and therewithall contri∣buted their power, some of them at least to the fur∣therance of your Papal claim, which was then set on foot, though in a much inferiour degree unto what you have since promoted it unto, it was pub∣lickly excepted against and disclaimed by a Conven∣tion or Synod of the Brittish Clergy, who denyed that they owed any subjection unto the See of Rome, or any respect, but such as Christians ought to bear one towards another, and would not give place unto its Authority in things of very small weight and mo∣ment. Bed. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 2. Concil. Anglic. p. 188. The sixth general Council that condemned Pope Honorius for an Heretick, An. 681. with the Second Nicene, An. 787. which confirmed the same sentence, do shrewdly impeach your present supre∣macy. In the fourth Council of Constantinople, An. 870. the Epanagnosticum of Basilius the Em∣perour to the Synod approved by them all, begins thus: Cum Divina & benignissima Providentia nobis guberncula universalis navis commisit, omne studi∣um arripuimus, & ante publicas curas, ecclesiasticas contentiones dissolvendi: whereas the gratious Divine Providence has committed unto us, the Government of the Vniversal ship, we have taken all occasion before

other publick cares to dissolve or compose Ecclesiasti∣cal Dissensions. How suitable these expressions of the Emperour are unto your present pretensions, your self may judge. And having mentioned that Synod which you call the eighth general Council, because of its opposition to the learned Photius, I shall only ask of you, whither you think there was no exception made to your supremacy by that Photius, with the Emperours and Bishops of the East, who consulted with him, and afterwards justified him against the Censures, procured against him by Pope Nicholas and Hadrian? do not all your writers to this day complain of this opposition made unto you by Photius? What think you of the Council of Frank∣ford assembled by Charles the Great, which so openly condemned that Doctrine which Pope Hadrian and the Roman Clergy with him laboured so earnestly to promote, as we shall afterwards shew? In the same order you may place the Councils that deposed their Popes, as did one at Rome under Otho the Emperour, John the 12. a sweet Bishop, An. 963. another at Sutrinum An. 1046. when Cerberus as Baronius himself confesseth, ruled at Rome, An. 1044. n. 5. Three Popes at once domineering there, Vno contra duos, saith Sigibert, & duobus contraunum, de Papat•• contendentibus, Rex contra eos vadit, eos{que} Canonica & Imperiali Censura deponit. One against two, and two against one contending about the Papacy, the King went against them all, and deposed them by Canonical and Imperial Censure. Or as Platina Vit. Greg. 6. Henricus habita Synodo, tria ist a teterrima monstra ab∣dicare se magistratu coegit: Henry calling a Synod compelled those three filthy monsters (Benedict, Sil∣vester and Gregory) to renounce their Magistracy or Papacy. Have you not heard how many Synods and

Councils were convened against the Usurpations and Innovations of Gregory the seventh, as at Worms, Papia, Brixia, Ments, and elsewhere? what think you of the Assembly at Clarendon here in England, An. 1164. where it was decreed saith Matth. Paris, juxta antiquas Regni consuitudines non licere vel Archiepiscopis vel Episcopis vel aliis Personis exire Regnum abs{que} licentia Regis, that according to the Antient Customs of the Kingdom it was not Lawful for any Archbishops, Bishops or other persons to depart the Kingdom without the leave of the King; that is to go to Rome, and that in all Appeals, ultimo perve∣niendum ad Regem ita ut non debeat ulterius procedi sine assensu Domini Regis, the last is to be made unto the King, without whose assent no further process ought to be made. For opposition unto which Decree Thomas of Becket had the hap to become a Traytor and a Saint. The stories of the Patriarchs of Ra∣venna in times more remote, and in those of the Council of Constance and Basil in latter Ages are too well known to be particularly again insisted on. Were Princes more silent then Synods? Reconcile if you are able the Laws of Charles the Great and his Son Lewis with their Popes now claimed Autho∣rity. Henry the second of Germany both deposed Popes and limited their Power. Henry 3. attempted no less, though with less success. See Sigibert Chron. An. 1046. Platin. vita Gregor. 6. Sigon. de Reg. lib. 8. From that time forward untill the Reformation no one age can be instanced in, wherein great, open and signal opposition was not made unto the Papal Au∣thority, which you seek again to introduce. The in∣stances already given are sufficient to convince the vanity of your pretence, that never any opposition was made unto it.

Of the same nature is that which you nextly af∣firm, of all the Bishops and Priests of Africa, Egypt, Syria, Thrace, Greece, and all the Christian world by an hundred experiments acknowledging the supream spiritual Authority of the Roman Patriarch. I must I see still mind you of what it is that you are to speak unto. It is not the Patriarchate of your Pope, with the Authority, Priviledges and preheminences which by virtue thereof he layes claim unto, but his singu∣lar succession to Christ, and Peter, in the absolute Headship of the whole Catholick Church, that you are treating about. Now supposing you may be bet∣ter skilled in the affairs of the Eastern Church then for ought as I can yet perceive you are in those of the Western, let me crave this favour of you, that you would direct me unto one of those hundred experiments, whereby the acknowledgment you men∣tion, preceding the Conversion of the Nothern Na∣tions, may be confirmed. It will I confess unto you be a singular kindness, seeing I know not where to find any one of that nature within the time limited; no•• to tell you the Truth, since unto this day. For I suppose you will not imagine that the faigned Pro∣sessions of subjection, which poverty and hopes of supplies from the Court of Rome hath extorted of late from some few mean persons whose Titles only were of any Consideration in the world, will deserve any place in this disquisition. Untill you are pleased therefore to favour me with your information, I must abide in my ignorance of any such experiments as those which you intimate.

The Artifices I confess of your Popes in former dayes to draw men, especially in the Eastern Church to an acknowledgement of that Authority, which in their several seasons they claimed, have been

many, and their success various. Sometimes they obtained a seeming compliance in some; and some∣times they procured their Authors very shrewd re∣bukes. It may not be amiss to recount some of them.

1. Upon all occasions they set forth themselves; the dignity and preheminence of your See, with swel∣ling Encomiums and Titles, asserting their own Pri∣macy and Power. Such self assumings are many of the old Papal Epistles stuffed withall. A sober hum∣ble Christian cannot but nauseate at the reading of them. For it is easily discernable how Antievange∣lical such Courses are, and how unbecoming all that pretend themselves to be Disciples of Jesus Christ; from these are their chiefest Testimonies in this Case taken; and we may say of them all, they bear witness to themselves, and that contrary to the Scripture, and their witness is not true.

2. When, and wherever such Letters and Epistles as proclaimed their Priviledges have been admitted through the inadvertency of Modesty of them to whom they were sent, unwilling to quarrel with them about the good opinion which they had of themselves (which kind of entertainment they yet sometimes met not withall) the next successors allwayes took for granted, and pleaded what their predecessours had presum∣ptuously broached, as that which of right and un∣questionably belonged unto them. And this they made sure of, that they would never lose any ground, or take any one step backwards from what any of them had advanced unto.

3. Wherever they heard of any difference among Bishops, they were still imposing their Vmpirage upon them, which commonly by the one or other of the parties at variance, to ballance thereby some disad∣vantages, that they had to wrestle withall, was ad∣mitted;

yea sometimes they would begin to take part with them that were openly in the wrong, even Hereticks themselves, that they might thereby pro∣cure an address to them from others, which after∣wards they would interpret as an express of their subjection. And wherever their Vmpirage was ad∣mitted, they were never wanting to improve their own interest by it, like the old Romans who being chosen to determine a Controversie between other People about some lands, adjudged them unto them∣selves.

4. If any Person that was really injured, or pre∣tended so to be, made any Address unto them for any kind of Relief, immediately they laid hold of their Address as an Appeal to their Authority, and acted in their behalf accordingly, though they were sometimes chidden for their pains, and advised to meddle with what they had to do withall.

5. Did any Bishops of note write them Letters of respect, presently in their rescripts they return them thanks for their profession of subjection to the See Apostolick; so supposing them to do that, which in truth they did not, they promise to do for them that which they never desired, and by both made way for the enlargment of the confines of their own authority.

6. Where any Prince or Emperour was entangled in his affairs, they were still ready to crush them into that condition of trouble, from whence they could not be delivered but by their assistance; or to make them believe that their adherence unto them, was the only means to preserve them from ruine, and so procured their suffrage unto their Authority.

Unto these and the like heads of Corrupt and sin∣ful Artifices may the most of the Testimonies com∣monly pleaded for the Popes Supremacy be referred.

By such wayes and means hath it been erected. Yet far enough from any such prevalency for seven hundred years, as to afford us any of the experiments which you boast of.

The next thing you except against in my story, is, my affirming that Austin the Monk who came hither from Rome, was a man as far as appears by story the lit∣tle acquainted with the Gospel. In the repetition of which words to keep your hand in ure, you leave out that expression as far as appears by the story, which is the evidence whereunto I appeal for the Truth of my Assertion, and add to aggravate the matter, the word very, very little, and then add, here is the thanks that good St. Austin hath, who out of his love and kindness entred upon the wild forrest of our Paganism, with great hazards and inexpressible sufferings of hunger, cold, and other corporal incon∣veniencies! But in the place you except against, I acknowledge that God made him a special instru∣ment in bringing the Scripture or Gospel amongst us, which I presume also he declared, according to the light and ability which he had. But you are your own Mothers Son; nothing will serve your turn, but absolute, most pure and perfect. For what I have further intimated of him, there are sundry things in the History of his coming hither, and proceedings here that warrant the suggestion. The Questions that he sent for Resolution unto Gregory at Rome, discover what manner of man he was. Let a man be never so partially addicted unto him, and his work, he must acknowledge that their frivolousness and impertinency, considering the work he had in hand, discover somewhat besides learning and wis∣dom in him. So also did his driving of 10000. men, besides an innumerable company or women and chil∣dren

altogether into the river Swale in Yorkshire, and there causing them to baptize one another: His Contest with the British Bishops about the time of the observation of Easter, breaking the peace for a Circumstance of a Ceremony that hath cost the Church twenty times more trouble then it is worth, is of the same nature. And I desire to know whence you have your story of his inexpressible suffering here amongst us. All that I can find, informs us that he was right meetly entertained by King Ethelbert, at his first Landing by the means of Berda his wife a Chri∣stian before his coming, with all plentifull provision for himself and his companions. The next news we hear of him, is about his Archiepiscopacy, his Pall, and his Throne, from whence he would not rise to receive the poor Brittans that came to con∣fer with him. Further of his sufferings as yet I can meet with nothing.

And these are the things which you thought your self able to except against in my story or the Progress and Declension of Religion. The summ of it I shall now comprize in some few Assertions, which you may do well to consider, and get them disproved.

1. The First is, That the Gospel was preached in this Island in the dayes of the Apostles, by persons coming from the East, directed by the Providence of God for that purpose; most probably by Joseph of Ari∣mathea in chief, without any respect to Rome, or mission from thence.

2. That the Doctrine preached then by them, was the same that is now publickly professed in England; and not that taught by the Church of Rome, where there is a discrepancy between us.

3. That the story of the coming of Fugatius and Damianus into the Province of Brittain, sent by

Eleutherius unto Lucius, is uncertain, improbable, and not to be reconciled unto the state and conditi∣on of the Affairs in these Nations, at the time sup∣posed for its accomplishment.

4. That about the fourth, fifth and sixth Centuries, the Generality of the Professors of Christian Religion in the world, were wofully declined from the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 zeal, piety, faith, love and purity in the wor∣ship of God, which their Predecessors in the same Profession glorified God by; and that in particular the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Church was much degenerated.

5. There the Bishops of Rome for five hundred years never laid claim unto that Soveraign Power and In∣fallibility which they have challenged since the dayes of Pope Gregory the seventh.

6. That the Bishops of Rome in that space of time, pretending unto some disorderly Supremacy over other Bishops and Churches, though incomparably short of their after and present pretences, were rebuked and opposed by the best and most learned men of those dayes.

7. That the distraction of the Provinces of the Western part of the Empire by Goths, Vandals, Hunns, Saxons, Alans, Franks, Longobards, and their asso∣ciates, was to less just in the holy Providence of God upon the account of the moral evils and Super∣stitions of the Professors of Christianity amongst them, then was that which afterwards ensued of the Eastern Provinces by the Saracens and Turks.

8. That these Nations having planted themselves in the ••rovinces of the Empire, together with Chri∣stianity either received anew, or retained many Pa∣ga••ish Customs, Ceremonies, Rites and Opinions therewithal.

9. That their Kings, by Grants of Priviledges, Do∣nations

and Concessions of Power, made partly out o blind zeal, partly to secure some interests of their own, exceedingly advanced the Papal Power, and confirmed their formerly rejected pretensions.

10. That when they began to perceive and feel the pernicious effects and consequences of their own facility, their grants being made a ground of farther incroachments, they opposed themselves in their Laws and Edicts and Practices against them.

11. That there was on all hands a sad declension in the Western Church, in Doctrine, Worship and Manners continually progressive unto the time of Reformation.

These are the principal Assertions on which my story is built, and which it supposeth. If you have a mind to get them, or any of them called to an account and examined, I shall if God will, and I live, give them their confirmation from such undoubted re∣cords as you have no just cause to except against.

CHAP. 18.

Reformation of Religion. Papal contradictions. Ejice ancillam.

SOme of your following leaves are such as admit of no useful consideration. Wilful mistakes, diversions from the Cause under debate, with vain flourishes make up both pages in them. I shall pass through them briefly, and give you some account from them of your self, and your prevarication in the Cause whose defence you have undertaken. Pag. 75. you undertake the thirteenth chapter of

the Animadversions, which discusseth the Story of the Reformation of Religion, which you took up on common fame.

Fama malum quo non aliud velocius ullum.

And that you may be able to say somewhat to the discourse before you, or to make a pretence of doing so, you wholly pass by every thing that is contained in it, and impose upon me that which is not in it at all, which you strenuously exagitate. For whereas a little to take off your edge in reflecting on the Persons whom you supposed instrumental in the Re∣formation, especially King Henry the eighth, I mind∣ed you how easie a thing it was to deprive you of your pretended Advantage, by giving you an account o•• the wicked lives, with the brutish and Diaboli∣cal pract••ces of many of your Popes whom you ac∣count the Heads of your Church, and the very Cen∣ter wherein all the lines of your Profession meet, you feign as though I had imposed all the crimes I intimated them to be guilty of, and many more whose names you ••eap together, upon Popery, or the Rel••gion that you profess; yea that I should say that it is nothing else but only an heap of the wick∣con••sses by you enumerated. Now this I did not do, but you feign it of your own heads, that you may have somewhat to speak against, and a pretence of intimating in the close of your discourse, that you have considered the Chapter about Reformation, where∣as in truth you have not spoken one word unto it, nor unto any thing contained in it. And yet when you have done, as if you had been talking about any thing wherein I am in the least measure concern∣ed, you come in, in the close with your grave ad∣vice, That I should take heed of blaspheming that

innocent Catholick flock, which the Angels of God watch over to protect them. As though a man could not remember the wicked crimes of your nocent Popes, but he must be thought to blaspheme the innocent flock of Christ, which never had greater enemies in this world, then some of them have been. If this be to blaspheme, then some of your own Councils, all your Historians, many of the most learned men of your Church are notorious blasphemers. But you wilfully mistake, and begg that their Schismati∣cal Papal faction may be esteemed the innocent Ca∣tholick Church of Christ, without a Concession whereof, your inferences and perswasions are very weak and feeble.

Of the like nature unto this, is your ensuing dis∣course about the Contradictions which you fancied in your Fiat Lux to be imposed on Papists, pag. 77. Two things you insist upon, waving those that you had formerly mentioned, as finding them in their examination unable to yield you the advantage you thought to make of them; you feign a new contra∣diction, which you say is imposed on Papists. For say you, while our Kings reign in peace, then the Pa∣pist Religion is persecuted as contrary to Monarchy; when we have destroyed that Government, then is the Papist harrassed, spoyled, pillaged, murdered, because their Religion is wholly addicted unto Monarchy, and Papists are all for Kings; These are Contradictions; is there not somewhat of the power of darkness in this? But you again mistake, and that I fear because you will do so; There was no Persecution of Papists in this Land at any time, but what was in persuit of some Laws that were made against them. Now not one of those Laws intimate any such thing, as that they were opposite unto Monarchy, but rather their

design to promote a double Monarchy on different accounts in this Nation, the one of the Pope, and the other of him to whom the Kingdom was given by the Pope, and who for many years in vain attemp∣ted to possess himself of it. And on that account were you charged with an opposition to our Mo∣narchs, but not unto Monarchy it self. And yet I must say, that if what hath been before discoursed of your faith and perswasion concerning the Papal Soveraignty be well considered, it will be found that if not your Religion, yet the Principles of some of the chief Professors of it, do carry in their womb a great impeachment of Imperial Power. Nor can I gather, that in the times of our Confusion you suf∣fered as Papists for your friendship and love to Monarchy, whatever some individual Persons amongst you might do: Seeing some of you would have been contented with its everlasting Seclusion, so that your interest in the land might have been secured. And whether your Popes themselves be not of that mind, I leave to all men to judge, who know how much they are wont to preferr their own interest before the rights of other men. In the mean time you may take notice, that whilest men are owned to persue one certain End, they may at several times fix on mediums for the compassing of it, opposite and contrary one to another. Haec non successit, alia aggrediamur via; when one way fails, another quite contrary unto it may be fixed on. And whilest it is supposed that their end is the promotion of the Papal Interest, it is not improbable but that at seve∣ral times you may make use of several wayes and means opposite and contrary one to another; and that this may be imputed unto you, without the charge of Contradictions upon you. But you may

if you please omit discourses of this nature. I am none of those that would charge any thing upon you to your disadvantage in this world. Neither do I desire your trouble any more then mine own. My aim is only to defend the Truth which you oppose.

Your next attempt is to vindicate your self from any such intention in your application of ejice ancillam cum puero suo, as I apprehended. Whi∣ther what you say to this purpose will satisfie your Reader or no, I greatly question. For my part, as I shall speak nothing but what I believe to be accor∣ding unto truth, so if I am, or have been at any time mistaken in my apprehension of your sense and mind, I am resolved not to defend any thing because I have spoken it. Homo sum, and therefore sub∣ject to mistakes; though I am not in the least con∣vinced that I was actually mistaken in my conceptions of your sense and meaning in your Fiat. But that we may not needlesly contend about words, yours or mine, I shall put you into a way whereby you may immediately determine this difference, and ma∣nifest that I mistook your intention, if I did so in∣deed. And it is this, Do but renounce those Prin∣ciples, which if you maintain, you constantly affirm all that in those words I supposed you to intimate, and this strife will be at an end. And they are but these two; 1. That all those who refuse to believe and worship God according to the Propositions and Determinations of your Church, are Hereticks. 2. That obstinate Hereticks are to be accursed, per∣secuted, destroyed and consumed out of the world. Do but renounce these Principles, and I shall readily acknowledge my self mistaken in the intention of the words you mention. If you will not so do, to

what purpose is it to contend with you about▪ one single expression, ambiguously as you pretend used by you, when in your avowed Principles you main∣tain whatever is suggested to be intimated in it! Thus easily might you have saved your longsome dis∣course in this matter. And as for the embleme which you close it with, of the Rod of Moses, which as you say, taken in the right end was a walking staff, in the wrong a Serpent, it is such a childish figment, as you have no cause to thank them that imposed it upon your credulity.

CHAP. 19.

Of preaching the Mass: And the Sacrifice of it. Transubstantiation. Service of the Church.

WE are arrived at length unto the Considera∣tion of those particulars in your Roman faith, which in your Fiat you chose out either to adorn and set off the way in Religion which you invite your Countreymen to embrace, or so to gild it, as that they may not take any prejudice from them against the whole of what you profess. The first of these is that which you entituled Messach, which you now inform us to be a Saxon word, the same with Mass. But why you make use of such an ab∣solete word to amuze your Readers withal, you give us no account. Will you give me leave to guess? for if I mistake not▪ I am not far from your fancy. Plain downright Mass is a thing that hath gotten a very ill name amongst your Countreymen, especi∣ally since so many of their forefathers were burned to death for refusing to resort unto it. Hence it

may be you thought meet to wave that name, which both the thing known to be signified by it in its own nature, and your procedure about it had rendred obnoxious to suspicion. So you call it by a new old name, or an old new name, that men might not at first know what you intended upon your invitation to entertain them withal: and yet it may be, that they would like it under a new dress, which the old name might have startled them from the Considera∣tion of. But Mass or Messach let it be as you please, we shall now consider what it is, that you offer afresh concerning it, and hear you speak out your own words. Thus you say, p. 81.

Having laughed at my admiration of Catholick Service, you carp at me for saying that the Christi∣ans were never called together to hear a Sermon; to convince me you bring some places out of St. Pauls Epistles, and the Acts which commend the Ministry of the Word. This indeed is your usual way of refuting my Speeches. You flourish copiously in that which is not at all against me, and never apply it to my words, least it should appear as it is, impertinent. I deny not that Converts were further instructed, or that the preaching of Gods Word is good and usefull; but that which I say, is, that Primitive Christians were never called together for that end, as the great work of their Christianity. This I have clearly proved.

Well Sir, without retorsion, which just indignation against this unhandsome management of a desperate Cause is ready to suggest, be pleased to take a little view of your own words once more, pag. 279. you tell us, that the Apostles and Apostolical Christians placed their Religion not in hearing, or making Ser∣mons, FOR THEY HAD NONE, but in at∣tending to their Christian Lyturgie; and the Ser∣mons

mentioned in the Acts, were made to the Jews and Pagans for their Conversion, not to any Christians at all. Could I now take any other course to confute these false and impious Assertions, then what I did in the Animadversions? I proved unto you, that Ser∣mons were made unto Christians by the Apostles for their edification; that order is given by them for the instant preaching of the Word, in and unto the Chur∣ches unto the end of the world; and that those are by them signally commended who laboured in that work; and what can be spoken more directly to the confuta∣tion of your Assertion? You would now shrowd your self under the ambiguity of that expression, the great work of their Christianity, which yet you make no use of in your Fiat. The words there from which you would get countenance unto your present evasion are these. Nowhere was ever Sermon made to formal Christians either by St. Peter or Paul or any other, as the work of their Religion that they came together for; nor did the Christians ever dream of serving God after their Conversion by any such means, but ONLY by the Eucharist or Liturgy. Here is somewhat of the work of their Religion which they came together for, nothing of the great work of their Christianity. Now that preaching was a work of their Religion that they came together for, though not the only work of it, no•• only end for which they so convened, which no man ever dreamed that it was, and that the Primitive Christians did by, and in that work serve God, hath been proved unto you from the Scri∣pture. And all Antiquity with the whole story of the Church, gives attestation to the same Truth. Sir it were far more honourable for you to renounce a false and scandalous Assertion when you are convin∣ced that such it is, then to seek to palliate it, and to

secure your self by such unhansome evasions. Preach∣ing of the word unto believers is an Ordinance of Christ, and that of indispensible necessity unto their edification or growth in Grace and knowledge which he requireth of them. In the practice of this ordinance were the Apostles themselves sedulous, and commanded others so to be. So were they in the Primitive following times, as you may learn from the account given us of Church meetings by Justin Martyr, and Tertullian in their Apologies, and all that have transmitted any thing unto Posterity con∣cerning their Assemblies. For this end, to hear the word preached, Christians came together, not only, or solely, or exclusively to the administration of other Ordinances, but as to a part of that worship which God required at their hands, and wherein no small of their spiritual advantage was enwrapped. To deny this, as you do in your Fiat, is to deny that the Sun shines at noon day, and to endeavour to dig up the very roots of P••ety, Knowledge, and all Christi∣anity; to what ends and purposes, and for the en∣throning of what other thing in your room, let all indifferent men judge. And I shall take leave to say, that to my best observation, I never met with an As∣sertion in any Author of what Religion so ever more remote from truth, sobriety and modesty then that of yours in your Fiat, pag. 275. Nor did the Primi∣tive Christians for 300. years ever hear a Sermon made unto them upon a Text, but meerly flocked toge∣ther at their Priests appointment unto their Messachs. This I say is so loudly and notoriously untrue, and so known to be so, to all that have ever looked into the stories of those times, that I am amazed at your con∣fidence in the publishing of it. It may be you will hope to shelter your self under the ambiguity of that

expression made unto them upon a text. Supposing that an instance cannot be given of that mode of preaching, wherein some ••ertain Text is read at the entrance of a Sermon and principally insisted upon. But this Fig leaf will not cover you from the just Censure of knowing men. For 1. Their following adversative, but meerly, is perfectly exclusive of all preaching be it of what Mode it will be. 2. The reading of one certain Text before Preaching is not necessary unto it, but all preaching is and ever was upon some Text or Texts, that is, it consisted in the ex∣plication and application of the word of God, that is, some part of portion of it. 3. Whereas it is certain that our Saviour himself preached on a Text, Luk. 4. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. as also did his Apostles, Act. 8. 35. and the Fathers of the following Ages, it is suffi∣ciently evident that that was also the constant mode of preaching in the first 300. years, as may be made good in the instance of Origen and sundry others.

You go on, and except against me for saying, that we hear nothing of your Sacrifice of the Mass in the Scripture; and say you will neither hear nor see; say you the passion of our Lord is our Christian Sa∣crifice? do not I say s•• too? but that this incruent Sa∣crifice was instituted by the same Lord before his death to figure out daily before our eyes, that passion of his which was then approaching in commemoration of his death so long as the world should last.

I must desire you to stay here a little; This Sacri∣fice you make the main of Christian Religion. Pro∣testants for the want of it, you esteem to have no Re∣ligion at all. We must therefore consider, what it is that you intend by it, for I suppose you would not have us accept of we know not what, and you seem both in your Fiat and in your Epistola to obscure it

as much as you are able. 1. You call it an incruent Sacrifice, which (1.) Shews only what it is not, and that in one only instance which is a very lame descri∣ption of any thing; and this also may be affirmed of any Metaphorical Sacrifice what ever; as offering unto God, the calves of our lips; it is an incruent Sa∣crifice. 2. Your Expression implyes a contradiction. Every proper Propitiatory Sacrifice was bloody; and an incruent proper Sacrifice, such as you would have this to be, is a proper improper Propitiatory Sacri∣fice. 2. You say it was instituted by our Lord to figure out his Passion. (1.) This is a weighty proof of what you have in hand, being the only thing to be proved. (2.) I suppose in the examination of it, it will ap∣pear that you Sacrifice that very body and blood of Christ in your own conceits, which himself offer∣ed unto God; and how you can make any thing, to be a figure of it self, as yet I do not perfectly under∣stand. (3.) That the Lord Christ appointed the Sa∣crament of his body and blood, and our Eucharisti∣cal Sacrifice therein to be a Commemoration of his death and Passion, is the Doctrine of Protestants, where with your Sacrifice hath a perfect inconsisten∣cy, as we shall find in the Consideration of it. This is the substance of what you are pleased to acquaint us with about this great business of our Religion. But because you shall perceive that it was not without good grounds and reasons that I affirmed the Scripture to be utterly silent of this that you make the great work of Christianity, I shall a little further enquire after the nature of it; that I mean which by you it is fancied to be, for it is a mere creature of your own imagination.

1. You alwayes contend that it is a proper Sacri∣fice which you intend. The first Canon of your Coun∣cil

accurseth them who deny it to be verum & pro∣prium Sacrificium, a True and proper Sacrifice, wherein as they say before Christus inimolatur, Christ is Sacrificed. Many things in the New Testa∣ment in respect of their Analogy unto the Insti∣tutions of the old, are called Sacrifices, even almost all spiritual actions that are acceptable unto God in Christ. The preaching of the Gospel unto the con∣version of sinners, is termed Sacrificing, Rom. 15. 16. So is Faith it self, Phil. 2. 17. So Prayers and Thanks∣giving are an oblation, Heb. 5. 7. chap. 13. 15. and good works are called Sacrifices, Heb. 13. 16. Phil. 4. 18. And our whole Christian Obedience is intima∣ted by Peter so to be. In the Sacrament of the Eu∣charist it is that you seek for your Sacrifice. And if you would be contented to call it, and esteem it so, upon the account of its comprizing some of the things before mentioned, or meerly as a spiritual action ap∣pointed by God and acceptable unto him, there would be an end of this contest. But you must have it a proper Sacrifice, like those of Aaron of old: not a remembrance of the Sacrifice of Christ, but a Sa∣crifice of Christ himself, wherein Christus immolatur, Christ is sacrificed, as the Council speaks.

2. The Secrifices of old were of two sorts, 1. Eu∣charistical, or Oblations of the fruits of the earth or other things, whereby the Sacrificers acknowledged God as the Lord and Author of all good things and mercies, with thanksgiving. 2. Propitiatory for the atoning of God, the reconciling him unto sin∣ners; for the turning away of his wrath and the im∣petration of the pardon of sin. This was done typi∣cally and Sacramentally by virtue of their respect unto the oblation of Christ, by the old bloody Sacri∣fices of the Law; really and effectually by that bloody

Sacrifice which the Lord Jesus Christ once offered for all. Now because in the Sacrament of the Eu∣charist it is our Duty to offer up unto God our thankeful prayers for his unspeakable love in sending his only Son to dye for us, we do not contend with any, who on that accont, and with respect unto that peculiar act of our duty in it, shall call it an Eucha∣ristical Sacrifice, yea affirm it so to be. But you will have it a propitiatory Sacrifice, a Sacrifice of Atonement like that made by Christ himself; a Sa∣crifice for the sins of the living and the dead, making reconciliation with God, obtaining Pardon of sin, and eternal life, things peculiar to the one Sacrifice of Christ in his death and passion.

3. Though you usually exclude the communion from it, wherein you do wisely, that it may have no affinity with the Institution of Christ, yet you do not precisely determine your Sacrifice unto any one act or action in your Mass, but make it comprize the whole with the manner of its celebration, from the first setting forth of the Elements of bread and wine mixed with water, unto the end of the Offer∣tory after their Transubstantiation and religious ado∣ration thereupon, and their offering up unto God the body and blood of Christ under the accidents of bread and wine. The presentation of the bread and wine, you would prove to belong unto your Sacri∣fice from the example of Melchisedeck. Your Transubstantiation is also of the essence of it: for it is required in a Sacrifice sayes your Bellarmine, that the sensible thing to be offered unto God be changed and plainly destroyed. de Miss. Lib. 1. cap. 2. which you esteem the substance of your bread and wine to be in your Transubstantiation. Your religious adorati∣on of the consecrated ••••st belongs also unto it, for

that in the Canon of the Mass immediately ensues your Transubstantiating Consecration, before the oblation it self, and so must necessarily be a part of your Sacrifice: Your offering up unto God of Jesus Christ, praying him to accept of him at the Priests hands (supra quae propitio & sereno vultu respicere digneris & accepta habere) belongs also unto it. So doth your direction of it to the propitiating of God, and the expiation of the sins of the Quick and the Dead; The Ceremonies also wherewith your Masse is celebrated, as I suppose, most of them belong to your Sacrifice; and those who believe them not to be du∣ties of Piety, are accursed by your Council of Trent. The Priests eating of the Host belongs to the Sacri∣fice, yea saith Bellarmine, it is pars essentialis Sacri∣ficii, though not tota essentia, an essential part of the Sacrifice, though the whole Essence of it doth not con∣sist therein. I know you are at a great loss and va∣riance among your selves to find out what it is, that is properly your Sacrifice, or wherein the essence of it doth consist. Some of your discrepant opinions are given us by your Azorius Lib. 10. Chap. 19. Sunt saith he, qui putant rationem sacrificii totam constitui in verbis, precibus, ceremoniis & ritibus, qui in con∣s••oratione adhibentur, eo quod Sacrificii ratio, inqui∣unt, nequit in ipsa consecratione consistere, quin è con∣trario consecratio ad rationem Sacramenti potius quam ad naturam Sacrificii pertinet. Alii existimant Sa∣crificii rationem tribus Sacerdotis actionibus constare, consecratione, oblatione & sumptione. Alii quidem se••sere ad rationem hujus Sacrificii quat uor imo quin∣que actiones concurrere, Consecrationem, oblationem, fractionem, sumptionem. Alii rationem S••crificii po∣nunt in duobus actibus, consecratione & oblatione. Alii constituunt totam rationem. Sacrificii in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 acti∣one,

viz. Consecratione. There are who think the na∣ture of the Sacrifice to consist in the words, rayers, ceremonies and rites which are used in the Consecra∣tion, because say they the nature of the Sacrifice can∣not consist in the Consecration it self, which rather be∣longs unto the nature of a Sacrament then of a Sacri∣fice. Others think that the Sacrifice consists in three actions of the Priest, Consecration, Oblation and Sum∣ption, or receiving of the Host. Others in four or five, as Consecration, Oblation, Fraction, Sumption. Others in two, Consecration and Oblation; and some in one, Consecration. And is not this a brave business to im∣pose on the Consciences of all men, when you know not your selves what it is that you would so impose? A Sacrifice must be believed, and they are all accur∣sed by you that believe it not; but what the Sacrifice is, and wherein it doth consist, you cannot tell. And an easie matter it were to manifest that all the parti∣culars which you assign as those that either belong necessarily unto the integrity of a Sacrifice, or those wherein some of you, or any of you, would have its essence to consist, are indeed of no such nature or importance; but that is not my present business. I am only enquiring what your Sacrifice is according unto you own sense and imagination. And that we may not mistake, I shall set down such a general description of it, as the Canon of the Mass, the ge∣neral rubrick of the Missal, the rites and cautels of its celebration, will afford unto us. Now in these it is represented as a sacred action, wherein a proper Priest or Sacrificer, arrayed with various consecrated attire, standing at the Altar, taketh bread and wine, about which he useth great variety of ••ostures and gestures, inclinations, bowings, kneelings, stretching out and gathering in his arms, with a multitude of

Crossings, at the end and in the midst of his pronuncia∣tion of certain words of Scripture, turns them into the real natural body and blood of Christ the Son of God, worshiping them so converted with religious ado∣ration, shewing them to the people for the same purpose, and then offering that body and blood unto God, praying for his acceptance of them so offered, and that it may be available for the living and the dead, for the pardon∣ing of their sins, and saving of their souls; after which he takes that body of Christ so made, worshipped and offered, and eats and deavours it, by all which Christ is truly and properly Sacrificed.

This is the Sacrifice of your Church, wherein as you inform us, the main of your Devotion and Wor∣ship doth consist. Of this Sacrifice I told you for∣merly the Scripture is silent; and I now add that so also is Antiquity. You cannot produce any one approved writer for the space of 600. years that gives testimony to this your Sacrifice. For what ever florish you may make with the ambiguity of the word Sacrifice, which we cleared before, your Transubstantion and other things asserted by you to belong unto the integrity, if not the Essence of your Sacrifice, are strangers unto Antiquity, as hath been lately proved unto you, and will no doubt be yet further confirmed so to be.

I told you as you observe, that this Sacrifice is an utter stranger to Scripture, as also that it is incon∣sistent with what is therein delivered. The Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews plainly affirms that the Sacrifice of the Church of the Christians is but one, and that once offered for all; whereas those of the Jews by reason of their imperfection were often re∣peated; which you choose out to reply unto, and say, It is true the Sacrifice of our Lords Passion

of which the Apostle in that whole discourse intends on∣ly to treat in opposition unto that of Bulls and goats, was so done but once, that it could not be done twice. But as the Sacrifices of the Old Law were instituted by Almighty God to be often iterated, before the Passion of the Messias for a continual exercise of Religion; so did the same Lord for the very same purpose institute another to be iterated after his death, unto which it was to have reference when it should be past, as the former had to the same death when it was to come. So you.

But first, This begs the Question; for you only repeat and say that such a Sacrifice was institued by Christ, which you know is by us utterly denyed. (2.) It plainly contradicts the Apostle, and over∣throws his whole argument and design. 1. It con∣tradicts him in express terms; for whereas he sayes not only that Christ once offered himself, but also that he was once offered for all, that is, no more to be offer∣ed, you affirm that he is often offered, and that every day. 2. His design is to demonstrate the excellency of the Condition of the Church of the New Testa∣ment and the worship of God therein above that of the Old. And this he proves to consist here in a special manner, that they had many Sacrifices which were of necessity to be reiterated because they could not take away sin; for saith he, if they could, then should they not have been repeated, nor would there have been need of any other Sacrifice. But, now saith he, this is done by the one Sacrifice of Christ, which hath so taken away sin, as that it hath made the repe∣tition of its self, or the institution of any other Sa∣crifice needless; and therefore we have no more but that one, and that one once performed. Now unless you will deny the Apostles Assertions, either

(1.) That if one Sacrifice can take away sin, there is no need of another; or (2.) That the one Sacrifice of Christ did perfectly take away sin as to Attone∣ment: and also (3.) assert that the condition of the Gospel Church is still the same with that of the Jews, and that we have need of a Sacrifice to be re∣peated, not only as theirs was year by year, from whence he argues the imperfection of the greatest solemn Sacrifice of Expiation, but day by day with a further and greater weakness, (repetition in the judgement of the Apostle being an evidence thereof) there will be no place left for your Sacrifice; that is, your main worship belongs not to the Church of God at all. (4.) You pretend that in this worship Christ himself is Sacrificed unto God, but incruenter, and without suffering: but the Apostle plainly tells us, that if he be often offered, he must often suffer, Heb. 9. 26. And the Sacrifice of Christ, without his passion, his offering without suffering, evacuates both the one and the other.

But what of all this? if the Apostles used the Sa∣crifice you talk of, that of the Mass, is it meet we should do so also? Hereof you say, were not the Apostles according to this rite 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sa∣crificing to our great Lord God, when Paul was by im∣posi••ion of hands segregated from the Layity to his Divine Service, as I clearly in my Paragraph 〈◊〉〈◊〉 out of the History of the Acts of the Apostles? 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you, the Apostles were not then about any Sa∣crifice, but only preaching Gods word or some such thing to the people in the name and behalf of God. But Sir, is this to be in earnest or jest? the sacred text says they were Sacrificing to our Lord, liturgying and ministring unto him; you say they were not Sacrificing to God, but only preaching to the people. And now

the Question is whither you or I more rightly under∣stand that Apostolical Book; for my sense and mean∣ing I have all Antiquity as well as the plain words of the sacred Text; You have neither.

How empty and vain this Discourse of yours is, wherein you seem greatly to triumph, will quickly be discovered. And you are a merry man if you think by such arguments as these to perswade us that the Apostles Sacrificed to God according to the rite of your Mass, as though we did not know by whom the chief parts of it, particularly those wherein you place your Sacrifice, were invented many hundreds of years after they fell asleep. 1. You say they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sacrificing to our great Lord God, as though it were God the Father, or God abso∣lutely that is intended in that expression 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the Lord. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Lord is Sir peculiarly donota∣tive of the Person of the Mediator, Jesus Christ, God and Man, according to that Rule given us ••y the Apostle; 1 Cor. 8. 6. To us there is one God the Father, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and one Lord Jesus Christ. And this is the constant denotation of the word, wh•••• used absolutely as here it is, throughout the wh•••••• New Testament. To Christ the Mediator were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Churches ministring, Act. 13. That is in his na•••••• and Authority, according to his appointment, and unto his service. And this one observation suffic••∣ently discovers the vanity of your Argument: for you will not say that they offered Sacrifice to the Lord Christ emphatically and reduplicatively, seeing if you may be believed it is he whom they offered in Sacrifice. Of such force is the Sophism wherein you boast. And (2.) You wisely observe that Paul by the imposition of hands there mentioned was segre∣gated from the Layity, whereas he tells you, that

he was an Apostle, (wherein certainly he was segre∣gated from the Layity) neither of men, nor by men, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, Gal. 1. 1. that is, there was no intimation or interposition of the Ministry or Authority of any man in his call to that office, which he had for sundry years exercised be∣fore this his peculiar separation to the work of preaching anew to the Gentiles. So well are you skilled in the sense of that Apostolical Book. 3. And not to insist on the repetition of my former Answer, which in your wonted manner you lamely and unduly represent, could you by other Arguments and on other testimonies, prove that the Sacrifice you plead for was instituted by Christ, and offered by the Apostles, there might possibly be some colour for a man to think that they performed that duty also when they were said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the service of God. But from that general expression intimating any kind of publick Ministery whatever, and never used in any Author sacred or Prophane precisely and absolutely to signifie sacrificing, to conclude that they were offering Sacrifice, and to use no other testi∣mony to prove they had any such Sacrifice, is such a fondness as nothing but insuperable prejudice can perswade a man in his right wits to give countenance unto. St. Paul tells us that the Magistrate is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; doth he mean that he is Gods Sacrificer? or his Minister? And he sayes of himself that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth he intend that he was Christs Sacrificer? or his Servant? Rom. 15. 16. & v. 27. he sayes that it was the duty of the Gentiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth he mean to Sacrifice in your carnal things, or to minister of them to the Jews? (1.) But you will it may be except that they were not said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as those here (that is

the Prophets of the Church of Antioch and not the Apostles as you mistake) are said to do, to liturgie to the Lord; it must needs be Sacrificing, because it was to the Lord. But 1. I have shewed you how this pretence is perfectly destructive of your own intendment, in that it is the Lord Christ that is espe∣cially meant, unto whom distinctly you will not say they were sacrificing. And (2.) Were it ••ot so, yet the expression would not give you the least co∣lour of advantage. What think you of, 1 Sam. 3. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the child Samuel was Liturgying (seeing you will have it so) unto the Lord before Eli. Do you think that the child, which was not of the family of Aaron, nor yet called to be a Prophet was offering Sacrifice to God, and the high Priest looking on? Do you not see the fondness of your pretension? (3.) I told you before, but now begin to fear that you are too old to learn what you do not like, that the 70. ne∣ver translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sacrifice, or to Sacrifice by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nor intimate any Sacrifice any∣where by that word. And you may if you please now learn by the Instance of Samuel, that what men perform in the worship of God according to his command, they may be said therein to Minister unto or before the Lord in. (4.) The note of your own Cajetan upon the place is worth your Consideration, non explicatur species Ministerii, sed ex to qu••d di••••rant (prophetae & doctores) insinuatur 〈…〉〈…〉 Domino, docendo & prophetando; 〈…〉〈…〉 Ministery is spoken of is not explained, but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they were Prophets and Teachers (that 〈…〉〈…〉 in it) it is insinuated that they ministred 〈…〉〈…〉 Lord by teaching and prophesying. What have 〈◊〉〈◊〉 phets and Teachers to do with Sacrifice? if as 〈…〉〈…〉

they administred unto the Lord, they did it by pro∣phesying and teaching which were accompanied by prayer. Here is no mention of Sacrifi••e nor work for Priests, so that the context excludes your sense. The same is the interpretation of Erasmus. (5.) Your vulgar Latine reads the words, administrantibus Do∣mino, as they were ministring unto the Lord, exclu∣ding their notion of Sacrificing. And (6.) The Syriack transposeth the words and interprets the Sa∣crifice intended in them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and when they were fasting and praying unto the Lord. Praying (together with pro∣phesying and preaching) was their Ministry, not Sacrificing. To the same purpose all antient Trans∣lations, not one giving countenance unto your fan∣cy. So well have you the plain words of the sacred Text for you. (7.) Are you not ashamed to boast that you have all Antiquity for your sense and mean∣ing? Produce any one antient Author, if you can, that gives the least countenance unto it. This boast∣ing is uncomely because untrue. Bellarmine out of whom you took your Plea from this place, and your q••otation of Erasmus in your Fiat, cannot pro∣duce the suffrage of any one of the Antients for your interpretation of the words, no more can any of your Commentators. The Homilies of Chrysostom on that passage are lost. Oecumenius is quite blank against you; so is Cajetan, Erasmus, and Vatablus of your own: and do you not now see what is be∣come of your boasting? And are not your Coun∣trymen beholding unto you, for endeavouring so industriously to draw them off from the Institution of Christ, to place their Confidence and devotion in that which hath not the least footstep in Scripture or Antiquity, but is expresly condemned by them both?

But to tell you my judgement, you will prevail with very few of them to answer your desires. Will they judge it meet and equal think you to change a bles∣sed Sacrament that Christ hath appointed, to embrace a Sacrifice that you have invented? to leave calling upon God according to the sense of their wants with understanding, as they do in that Celebration of the Eucharist which now they enjoy, to attend unto a Priest sometimes muttering, sometimes saying, some∣times singing a deal of Latine whereof they under∣stand never a word? To forego that internal humi∣lity, self abasement, and prostration of soul unto God which they are enured unto in that Sacrament, to become spectators of the Theatrical gestures of your Sacrificers? Besides they are not able to com∣ply with your request, and to make your Mass the sum of their Devotion and worship of God, without offering the highest violence to their Faith as they are Christians, their Reason as they are men, and that Sense which they have in common with other Creatures. And what are you, or what have you done for them that you should at once expect such a pro∣fuse largeness at their hands?

I. For your Faith, if it be grounded on the Scri∣pture as every true Protestants is, your Sacrifice if admitted, will unquestionably evert it; To accept of a worship pretended to be of such huge importance, as to be available for the impetration of Grace, Mer∣cy, Pardon of sins, removal of punishment, life eter∣nal, for the living and the dead, destitute of all foun∣dation in, or countenance from the Scripture, abso∣lutely inconsistent with their faith.

2. It is no less to have a Sacrament which is given unto us of God as a pledge and token of his Love and Grace, turned into a Sacrifice, which is a thing

by us offered unto God and accepted by him, so that they differ as in other things, so in their terms, à quo and ad quem, from what they proceed, and by whom they are accepted.

3. Besides they will quickly discover your preten∣sions to be contrary unto what the Scripture teach∣eth them, both concerning the Sacrifice of Christ and also his institution of his last supper, which is your Rule and comprizeth the whole of your Duty in the administration of it. They do not find that there∣in Christ offered himself unto his Father, but to his Disciples; not to him to be accepted of him, but to them to be by faith received.

4. And whereas the Apostle expresly affirms that he offered himself but once, if he offered himself a Sa∣crifice in his last Supper, you must maintain that he offered himself twice, unless you will deny his Sacri∣fice on the Cross.

5. Moreover it is greatly opposite to your Coun∣treymens faith about the Priesthood of Christ and his real Sacrifice, which are to them things of that mo∣ment, that whosoever shakes their faith in and about them, shakes the very foundations of their hope, consolation and salvation. They have been taught that Christ remains an High Priest for ever, and the multiplication of Priests in succession arising meerly from the mortality and death of them that preceded, they believe that no Priest can be sustituted unto him in his office to offer a proper Sacrifice unto God, the same which he offered himself, without a suppo∣sition of an insufficiency in him for his work. It is true there are persons who in his name and Autho∣rity, as he is the great Prophet of the Church, do Minister unto it, whom some of them, either as the word may be an abreviation of Presbyter, or out

of analogy unto them who of old served at the altar, do call Priests; but that any should intervene be∣tween God and Christ in Sacrificing, or the dis∣charge of his Priestly office, you will not find your Countrymen ready to believe. For they are per∣swaded there are as many Mediators, and Sureties as Priests or Sacrificers of the New Covenant.

6. Moreover they believe that the Sacrifice of the Mass is an high derogation from the vertue and effi∣cacy of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and to be set up in competition with it.

7. They are at a stand at the whole matter; to see you turning bread and Wine into that very body and blood of Christ which suffered on the Cross, and then to worship them, and then to pray to God to accept at your hands that Christ which you have made, and then to eat him. But when they consider that by so doing, you suppose your selves to effect that which they believe to be wrought only by the blood of the Cross of Christ once offered for all, and therein fancy a Sacrifice of Christ, wherein he dyeth not, contrary to so many express Testimonies of Scripture, they are utterly averse from it. For whereas they look for Redemption, Forgiveness of sins, and Reconciliation with God by the one Sacri∣fice of Christ upon the Cross, wherein consists the foundation of their hope and consolation, because it being absolutely perfect was every way able and suf∣ficient without any repetition, as the Apostle teacheth them, to take away sin, and for ever to consummate them that are Sanctified, you teach them now to look for the same things from this Sacrifice of yours, which would make them question the validity and perfection of that of Christ.

8. And when they have so done, yet they would still be forced to question the validity of yours, be∣cause it is a pretended Sacrifice of Christ without his death, which they know to have been indis∣pensably required to render his Sacrifice valid and effectual.

9. And they cannot but think that this repeated Sacrifice being pretended to be for the very same ends and purposes with that of Christ himself, is ve∣ry apt to take off the minds and confidence of men from that one Sacrifice performed so long ago, which they have not seen, and to fix them on that which their eyes daily look upon, as the praesens numen that they can immediately apply themselves unto▪ Thus they fear that insensibly all faith of the true Propitiation wrought by Christ is obliterated, and that which they think an Idol set up in the room of it.

10. And which further troubles them, they are jealous that by this your fiction you quite over∣throw the Testament of Christ, which certainly no man ought to endeavour the disannulling of. For whereas in this Sacrament believers come to re∣ceive from him the great Legacy of his body and blood, with all the fruits of his death and Passion, you direct them to be offering and Sacrificing of them unto God, which quite alters the Will of our great Testator. And very many other things there are, wherein your Countreymen affirm that your Sacrifice is contrary to the faith wherein from Scri∣pture they have been instructed, and that in things of the greatest importance to their Consolation here, and Salvation hereafter.

II. Neither is this all: your request also lies cross to your Reason, no less then to your Faith.

For your Sacrifice cannot be performed, without a Supposition of a change of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, and the substance of that body and blood, in every consecrated Host under the species of Bread and Wine, Christ himself alive being in every Host and every particle of it. Hence many things they say ensue, which no man can possibly admit of, without offering violence unto the main Principles of that Reason whereby we are distinguished from the beasts that perish. Some few of them may be instanced in.

1. Accidents subsisting without a Subject, follows hence necessarily in the first place; so that there should be whiteness, and nothing white; length, and nothing long; bredth, and nothing broad; weight, and nothing heavy. For all these accidents of Bread remain, when you would have them say that the bread is gone; so that there is left a white, sweet, long, broad, heavy nothing. This your Countreymen cannot understand.

2. Besides they say you hereby teach them, that one and the same body of Christ which is in heaven, is also on the Altar, not by an impletion of the whole space between heaven and earth, that some part of it should be in heaven, and some on earth; but that the one body which is in heaven, and whilest it is there, is also on the Altar in the Accidents of Bread, which upon the matter is, that one and the same body is two, yea an hundred or a thousand, accor∣ding as in the Mass you are pleased to multiply it. Now that one and the same body should be locally divided or separated from its self, that whilest that one body is on the Altar, that other one body which is the same, should be in heaven, your Countreymen think to imply a Contradiction.

3. And so also they do that a body should be in any place, and yet not as a body, but as a Spirit. For whereas you say that whole Christ is contained un∣der each Species of Bread and Wine, and under eve∣ry the most minute part of either Species, as your Council speaks, you make the body of Christ to be whole in the whole, and whole in every part; when the very nature of a body requires that it have partes extra partes, its parts distinct from one another, and those occupying their distinct parti∣cular places. But you make the body of Christ nei∣ther to be compassed in, nor to fill the place where∣in it is, that is, to be in a place, and not to be in a place. For if it be a body, and be under the Species of bread and wine upon the Altar, it is in a place; and if it be not comprehended in that space where it is, and doth fill it, it is not in a place, and there∣fore is there, and is not there at the same time.

4. And moreover we all know that the Consecrated wafer bears no proportion to the true natural body of Christ, and yet this is said to be contained under that. So that the body contained is much greater and farther extended, then the body that contains it, or the space wherein it is; for it is so under the Host as not to be elsewhere, unless in another Host.

5. N••y it is in every minute part of the Host, which multiplies contradictions in your Assertion.

6. Of the same nature is it that you are forced to feign the same body in 10000. distant places at the same time, and that with all contradictory adjuncts and affections. Now your Countreymen think that these and innumerable other consequences of your Transubstantiation which you presuppose to your Sacr••fice, or rather make it a principal part thereof,

are such as overthrow the whole order of nature, and being of things, and leave nothing certain among the Sons of men.

III. Their sense is equally engaged against you with their Reason. Your Host is visible, tangible, gustible; when they see it, they see bread; when they feel it, they feel bread; when they taste it, they taste bread; and yet you tell them it is not bread: whom shall they believe? if things be not as they see them, feel them, taste them, it may be they are not men, nor do go on their feet, but are de∣ceived in all these things, and suppose they see, per∣ceive and understand what they do not. You tell them indeed that the bread is changed▪ into the body of Christ, that body that was born of the blessed Virgin, and was crucified at Jerusalem; that all taste, length, breadth, weight is taken away from it, and that the taste and weight of the bread is con∣tinued, which are the things they see, feel and taste; but they likewise tell you, that your perswasion is an inveterate prejudice which you have blindly cap∣tivated your minds unto, and that if you would but give your selves the liberty of exercising any reflex thoughts upon your own acts, you would find that upon the suppositions you proceed on, you have not any just grounds to conclude your selves to be living men. For you teach men to deny and question all that from Reason or Sense you can insist upon to prove that so you are. Ou these and the like accounts the Encomiums you give of your Sa∣crifice will scarce prevail with your Countreymen to relinquish all the worship of God, wherein they find daily comfort and advantage to their souls for the embracement of it.

CHAP. 20.

Of the Blessed Virgin.

UNto the sixteenth Chapter of the Animadver∣sions directed to your Paragraph of the Blessed Virgin, you can find it seems nothing to say, and therefore betake your self to clamorous revilings. All that you say in your Fiat on this head, is but an heap of false accusations against Protestants for dishonouring her; and all that you say in in your Epistle in its Vindication is railing at me for minding you of your miscarriage. My whole Book you say is nothing but calumnies, a bundle of slanders, a meer quiver of sharp arrows of desolation. I am not sorry that you are sensible that it hath ar∣rows in it, tending to the desolation of your Abo∣minations. But I challenge you to give an instance of any one calumny or slander in it, from the begin∣ning to the end. If you do not do so, I here de∣clare you to be really and highly guilty of that which you would falsly impose upon another. Free your self by some one instance if you can: if you cannot, your reputation will follow your Conscience whether it will be hard for you to find them again. The substance of that Chapter is this, which is all that I shall now say to your nothing against it. Pro∣testants yield to the blessed Virgin all the honour that the Scripture allows them, or direct them unto, or that the Primitive Church did ascribe unto her, and the Papists give her the honour due to God alone, whereby they horribly dishonour God and her.

CHAP. 21.

Images. Doctrine of the Council of Trent. Of the second Nicene. The Arguments for the Adoration of Images. Doctrine of the antient Church. Of the chief Doctrine of the Roman Church. Practice of the whole. Vain foundations of the pretences for Image Worship examined and disproved.

YOur next procedure is to your Discourse of Figures or Images, and my Animadversions up∣on it. And here you say, you will come up close un∣to me; you mean in replying unto what I delive∣red about it; But Sir, I thought this had been con∣trary to your design; You professed at the be∣ginning of your Epistle that it was so, and have made good use of that declaration of your self, by avoiding every thing in my discourse that you found your self pressed with, and too difficult a task for you to deal withal. Why do you now begin to forget your self and to cast off the pre∣tence you have hitherto shaddowed your self under, and excused your self by from tergiversation? Surely you think you are upon this head able to say somewhat to the purpose, which you despaired of doing upon others of as great importance, and therefore now you may argue and dispute, which before the design of your Fiat would not permit you to do. As far as I can observe, you speak nothing at any time but what you think is at pre∣sent for your turn. But whether it have any con∣sistency with that which elsewhere you have deli∣vered, you make it not much your concernment to enquire. But we shall quickly see whether you had

any just ground of encouragement to harness your self, and to come up, as you speak, close to me in this business or no. It may be before the close of our Discourse you will begin to think it had been as well for you to have persisted in your former avoidance, as to make this profession of a close di∣spute; and whatever you pretend to the contrary, really you have done so. You hide the opinion and practice of your Church about the Worship of Ima∣ges which you seem to be ashamed of, instead of defending them; and except against some passages in my Animadversions instead of answering the whole, which you seem to pretend unto. I shall therefore declare what is the true judgement of your Church in this matter, and then vindicate the passages of my Discourse which you take notice of in your ex∣ceptions, and under both heads declare the abomina∣tion of your faith and practice in your Doctrine about Images and Worship of them.

The Doctrine of your Church in this matter I sup∣pose we may be acquainted with from the Determi∣nations of your Councils, the explication of your most famous Doctors, the Practice of your people, and the distinctions used by you to quit your selves from Idolatry in your Doctrine and Practice. And you will thereby learn, or may at lest to what pur∣pose it is for you to seek to palliate and hide the deformity of that which your Mother and her wise men have made naked to all the world.

Your Council of Trent is very wary in this matter, as it was in most of its other affairs: and indeed seeing it was resolved not to give place to the Truth, it became it so to be, that it might keep any footing in the minds of men, and not tumble headlong into contempt and reproach. Many difficulties it had to

wrestle withal. It saw the practice of their Church which was not totally to be deserted, least the great mysterie of its Infallibility should be impaired, and its nakedness laid open: the general complaint on the other side of learned and sober men, that under a pretence of Image Worship as horrible Idolatry was brought into the Church of God, as ever was practiced amongh the Heathen, did not a little per∣plex it. It had also the various and contradictory opinions of the great Doctors of your Church, and Masters of your Faith about the kind of Worship which is due to Images, all which had great follow∣ers ready to dispute endlesly in the maintenance of their several conceits. Amidst these rocks and op∣positions, the Fathers found no way to sail safely, but by the help of general and ambiguous words; a course which in the like difficulties had frequently before stood them in good stead. Wherefore they so expressed themselves, that no party at variance among them might think their opinions condemned, that the general practice of their Church might be countenanced, and yet no particular asserted that was most obnoxious to the exceptions of the Lu∣therans. Thus then they speak, Imagines porro Chri∣sti, Deiparae Virginis & aliorum Sanctorum in Tem∣plis praeertim habendas & retinendas; eis{que} debitum honorem & venerationem impertiendam, non quod credatur—quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur refertur ad Prototypa, quae illae representant; with much more to that purpose. And we may observe, That the Decree speaks only of the Images of Christ, the bles∣sed Virgin, and other Saints, not expresly mentioning the Images of God the Father, of the Trinity, and of the Holy Ghost, nor of Angels, which they knew to be made, and to be had in veneration in their

Church, nor do they anywhere reject the use, make∣ing, or worshipping of them. Yea in their follow∣ing words they do plainly allow of the figuring of the Deity. Quod, say they, si aliquando historias & narrationes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Scripturae cum id indoctae plebi ex∣pediet exprimi & figurari contigerit, doceatur popu∣lus, non 〈◊〉〈◊〉 divinitatem figurari quasi corporeis oculis consp••i, vel coloribus aut figuris exprimi pos∣sit. The words are as most of the rest in this par∣ticu••ar, as an big••ous as the Oracles of Delphos. This cannot be denyed to be in them however, That the unlearned people are to be taught, that the Deity is not painted or figured, as though it could be seen or ex∣pressed by colours, but for some other end, as it seems for their instruction; which indeed is honest and fair dealing; for they plainly tell them that by their pictures they teach them lyes; the language of the Picture being, that God may be so pictured, where∣by all your pictures and Images of God the Father as an old man, of the Trinity as one person with three faces, and the Holy Ghost as a Dove, are approved. 2. Religious Worship of Images is confirmed, due honour and veneration or worship is to be given unto them, saith the Council. Now it is not mutual com∣plement they are discoursing about. There is no such intercourse between their Images and them or∣dinarily, though sometimes civil salutations have passed between them; Nor is it any token of Civil Subjection, for Images have no eminency or autho∣rity of that kind; but it is divine or religious vene∣ration, and worship which they affirm is to be assigned unto them. 3. They say that due honour and vene∣ration that is religious, is to be assigned unto them; but what in especial that honour and worship is, they do not determine; whither it be the same that is

due to the s••mplar as some, the most of your Di∣vines think, or whether it be an honour of some inferiour nature as others contend, pugnant ipsi ne po∣tesq, the Synod leaves them where it found them, sufficiently at variance among themselves. 4. They further assert the worship that is given by them to Images to be religious or divine; in that they affirm the honour done to the Image, is refer••ed un•••• ••he Prototype which it doth represent. Now suppose this be Jesus Christ himself; I suppose that they will grant that all the honour we yield to him by any way or means is divine or religious, and therefore so con∣sequently that which they would have to be given unto his Image, (that is a stock or stone which they fancy so to be) must be so a••so. Now Sir, you may see from hence, what it is that you are to speak unto and to defend, or else to hold your peace in this matter. And I shall yet make it a little more plain unto you. Your Trent Council approves and commends the second Council of Nice as that which taught and confirmed that Doctrine and practice about Images, and their Worship which your Church allows. I shall therefore briefly let you know what was the judgement of that Council, and what was the Do∣ctrine and Practice confirmed in it, under many dreadful Anathematisms.

This Second of Nice, or Pseudo-Synod of the Greeks, as it is called by the Council of Frankford, whereunto we are sent by the Tridentine Fathers to be instructed in the due Worship of Images, was assembled by the Au∣thority of Irene the Empress, a proud imperious wo∣man, & her Son Constantine, whose eys she afterwards put out, and thrust him into a Monastery in the year, 490. Tharasius was then Patriarch of Constantinoples and Hadrian the first Bishop or Pope of Rome. This

man most zealously or superstitiously addicted unto the worship of Images, and that contrary to the judgement of most of the Western Churches, as soon afterwards appeared in the Council holden at Frank∣ford, by the Authority of Charls the Great, had a particular advantage both over the Empress and the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Eastern Empire being then greatly weakened by its own intestine divisions, and pressed on all sides by the Saracens, the Empress began to entertain some hopes of re∣lies from the French in the West, whose power was then grown very great: and to that end sollicited a marriage for her Son with the daughter of Charls the great; and supposed that she might be helped therein by the mediation of Hadrian: the Bishops of Rome having no small hand in the promotion of the attempt of Pipin and Charls the Great for the Crown of France, and afterwards for the conquest of Italy and Germany. And besides, she was a wo∣man her self zealously addicted to that kind of su∣perstition which Hadrian had espoused, as having in the time of Leo her Husband kept her Images in private, contrary unto what she had solemnly sworn unto her Father, as Credenus relates in his Annals. As for Tarasius, he was contrary to all Ecclesiastical Canons, of a meer Lay-man at once per saltum made Patriarch of Constantinople, which Hadrian upon his first hearing of, greatly exclaimed against, and re∣fused to receive him into the society of Patriarchs upon his sending of his significatory Epistle. This is fully declared in the Epistle of Hadrian extant in the Acts of the Council. But yet afterwards bethink∣ing himself how usefull this man might be unto his design in getting the worship of Images established in the East, he declares that if he will use means to

get the Heresie as he called it of the Image-opposers ex∣tirpated, and their veneration established, he would consent to his Election and Consecration, or else not. Finding how the matter was like to go with him, this Lay-Patriarch undertakes the work and effectually prosecutes it in this Synod assembled at Nice by the Authority of Irence the Empress and her Son Constantine. But by the way, when the Coun∣cil was assembled, he omitted not the opportunity of improving his own interest, getting himself stiled Oecumenical, or Vniversal Patriarch, which Anastasius Bibliothecarius in his dedication of his Translation of the Acts of this Convention unto John the eighth, bewayles, and ascribes it unto the flattery of the Greeks. The frauds, forgeries and follies of this Council, and ignorance and dotage of the Fathers of it, have been sufficiently by others discovered. Our present concernment is only to enquire, First, What they taught concerning Image Worship: and Secondly, How they proved what they taught, seeing unto them we are sent by the Tridentine Decree to be instructed in your faith in this mat∣ter.

First, They make the having and use of Images in the Worship of God of indispensible necessity, so that they anathematize and cast out of the Commu∣nion of the Church, all that refuse to receive and use them according to their prescript. Yea, they proceed so far as in their approbation of the Con∣fession of Theodosius the Bishop of Ammoria, as to denounce an Anathema against them that do but doubt of their reception: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: so he closeth his Confession which they all approve as Orthodox, Anathema to them

that are ambiguous or doubtful in their minds, and do not confess with their hearts (ex animo) that Sacred Images are to be worshipped; wherein they and and you with them add Schism to their Idolatry, casting out of the Churches those who offend nei∣ther against the Gospel, nor the determination of any General Council of old; making the Rule of your Communion to consist in a sorry piece of Will-worship of your own invention; which dou∣bles the crime of your Superstition, and layes an in∣tolerable intanglement upon the Consciences of men, which are perswaded from the Scripture, that they shall be accursed of God if they do re∣ceive Images into his Worship, after the manner of your prescription.

Secondly, They affirm an hundred times over, that Images are religiously to be adored and worship∣ped, that is, with Divine Worship. So in the Con∣fession of the same Theodosius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so of the rest: I confess, con∣sent unto, receive, embrace or salute, I wor∣ship or adore the Image of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Blessed Virgin, and of the Apostles and Mar∣tyres. The same is affirmed in the Epistle of Hadrian recited in the second Act of the Synod, which they all approve; and afresh curse all them that dogmatize or teach any thing against that worship of Images. And Gregory the Monk no small man amongst them, affirms that he hoped by his Confession of this Do∣ctrine he believed, he should obtain the forgiveness of his sins, Act. 2. And John who falsly pretended himself to be delegated from the Oriental Patriarchs, when he was sent only by a few ignorant Monks of Palestine, prefers Images above the Word its

self, Act. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; an Image is greater then the word; and again 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, honourable Images are equivalent to the Gospel. And they prove the wor∣ship they intend to be divine by their wise explica∣tion of that Text, The Lord thy God shalt thou wor∣ship, and him only shalt thou serve, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vnto the Word Thou shalt serve, only is subjoyned, but not un∣to the word Worship; so that it is lawfull to worship (Images) but not to serve them. A wise business! but it discovers sufficiently what is the worship which they ascribe unto Images, even the same that is given unto God; for if we may believe them, other things are not excluded from Communion with God in this matter of worship and adoration. Whence the Council of Frankeford doth expresly charge them, that they taught that Images were to be adored with the honour due to God, Act. 4. And so much weight do they lay upon this devotion that they approve the Councel given by Theodorus the Abbot unto the Monk whom the Devil vexed with temptations for worshipping the Image of Christ, who told him that he had better resort to all the Stews in the Town, then cease worshipping of Christ in his Image; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: it seems it was uncleaness that the Devil tempted him unto, as well knowing that Spiritual and Corporal fornication commonly go together.

Thirdly, In every Session they instance in some particulars wherein the Adoration of Images which they professed did consist; as in particular in reli∣gious saluting of them, kissing of them, bowing be∣fore

them, and so adoring of them. To this pur∣pose their words are very express. Now all these were ever esteemed tokens, pledges and expressions of Religious or Divine Worship, and were the very wayes whereby the Heathen of old expressed their veneration of their Images and Idols. Job intimating the way whereby they worshipped the Sun, Moon, and host of Heaven, which crimes he denyes himself to be guilty of, tells us, that when he considered the Sun and the Moon, his heart did not seduce him that he should put his hand to his mouth, that is to salute them; for this, saith he, had been to deny God above, Job 31. 26, 27. As Catullus,

Constiteram Solem exorientem sorte salutans, Cum subito à laeva Roscius exoritur.

He stood saluting, or worshipping the rising Sun. And that also was their meaning in kissing of them, or kissing their hands in saluting of them, Hos. 13. 2. Let them kiss the Calves, that is worship them; ex∣press their religious adoration of them by that outward sign. As Cicero in Ver. 4. Herculis simulacrum non solum venerari, sed etiam osculari soliti fuerunt. So Minutius Felix tells us, that his companion Caecilius coming where the Image of Serapis was set up, admovit manum ori & osculum labris pressit, put his hand to his mouth and kissed it, as worship∣ping of it. And for creeping, kneeling, or bowing, it is so certain an evidence of Divine Worship, that all Worship both false and Idolatrous or true, is oftentimes expressed thereby. So the worship∣ping of Baal, is called bowing the knee to Baal. They that bowed the knee unto him or his Image, in their so doing worshipped him, 1 Kings 19. 18. Rom. 11. 4. And where God promiseth to bring all Nations to

the worship of himself he sayes, they shall bow the knee to him, Rom. 14. 11. So that these are all ex∣pressions of Religious worship, and they are all ac∣cursed over and over by the Council, who do not by these means express their worship of Images. This is the Doctrine, this is the practice which the Tri∣dentine decree aprroves of, and sends us to learn of the second Synod of Nice. And this they express in most places, in those very termes, that were used by the Pagans in the worship of their Idols, making in∣deed no distinction, but that whereas the Pagans worshipped the images of Jupiter and Minerva and the like, they in the like manner worshipped the Images of Christ and his Apostles. And therefore in the Indies, the Catholick Spaniards took away the Zemes or Images of their Idols, that the poor natives had before, and gave them the Images of Christ and his Mother in their stead.

This being the Doctrine of the Council it may not be amiss to consider a little how they proved and con∣firmed it. Two things they principally insisted on. 1. Testimonies of Scripture. 2. Miracles. Some sayings also they produced out of some antient wri∣ters of the Church, but all of them either perverted or forged. The Scriptures they insisted on were all of them gathered togethered in the Epistle of Pope Hadrian, which was solemnly assented unto by the whole Council. And they were they these. God made man of the dust of the Earth after his own Image, Gen. 1. Abel by his own choise offered a Sacrifice unto God of the first lings of his flock, Gen. 4. Adam of his own mind called all the beasts of the field by their proper names, Gen. 2. Noah of his own accord built an altar unto the Lord, Gen. 8. Abraham of his own free will erected an altar to the Glory of God, Gen. 11. Jacob

having seen in his sleep seen the Angels of God ascend∣ing and descending by the ladder, set up the stone on which his head lay for a pillar, Gen. 28. And again, he worshipped on the top of his staffe, Gen. 29. Moses made the brasen Serpent, and the Cherubims; Esaiah, saith in those dayes there shall be an Altar unto the Lord, and it shall be for a sign and a Testimony, Chap. 19. Da∣vid the Psalmist sayes, Confession and beauty are before him; and again, Lord I have loved the beauty of thine house. And again, Thy face Lord will I seek, Psal. 26, And again, The rich among the people shall bow them∣selves before thy face, Psal. 44. And again, The light of thy Countenance is signed or lifted up upon us, Psal. 4. Si hoc non sit testimoniorum satis, ego nescio quid sit satis: he must be very refractory, and de∣serve a world of Anathematismes that is not con∣vinced by all these testimonies, that Images ought to be worshiped. But, quod non dant proceres, dabit Histrio; if the Scripture will not do it, Miracles shall: Of these we have an endless number heaped up by the good fathers to prove their Doctrine, and justi∣fie their practice. The worst is that Tharasius almost spoiles the market, by acknowledging that the images in their dayes would work none of the miracles they talked of, so that they had them all upon hearesay, Act. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But if any should say, Why do our images work no mira∣cles? to them we answer, because as the Apostles saith Signes are for unbelievers, not for them that believe. And yet the misadventure of it is, that the most of the Miracles which they report and build their faith up∣on, were wrought as by so amongst their chiefest be∣lievers. And what were the Miracles themselves

they boasted of? such a heap of trash, such a fardle of lyes, as the like were scarce ever heaped together, unless it were in the Golden Legend. Hadrian insists on the leprosie and cure of Constantine, as loud a lye as any in the Talmud or Alcoran, Theodorus of Myra, tells us of a Deacon that dreamed he saw one in his sleep whom he took to be St. Nicholas, Ac. 4. Another tells us a tale of one that strock a nail in the forehead of an image, and was troubled with a pain in his head untill it was pulled out. Another dream∣ed, that the blessed Virgin, brought Cosma and Dami∣ana to him and commanded them to cure him of his distemper; One mans daughter, anothers wife, is helped by those images. And they all consent in the story of the image of Christ made without hands, or humane help by God alone, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) that he sent to Abgarus King of the Edessenes; as bellowing a lye as any in the heard. So true was it, that the Council of Franckeford affirmed of this Ido∣latrous Conventicle, that they endeavoured to con∣firm their superstition by feigned wonders and old∣wives tales.

Sir, This is the Doctrine, this the Confirmation of it, which we are directed unto, and enjoyned to embrace by your Tridentine decree. This is that, yea and more also, as you will hear by and by, that you are bound to maintain and make good, if you intend to say any thing to the purpose about figures or Images; For you must not think by your sleight florishes to blind the eyes of men in these dayes as you have done formerly. Own your Doctrine and practice, or renounce it; This Tergiversation is shameful; and you will yet find your self farther pressed with the doctrine of Chiefest pallars of your Church, and the publick practice of it. For though

this superstitious Conventicle at Nice, departed from the faith of the antient Church, and was quickly re∣proved, and convinced of folly by persons of more learning, sobriety and modesty then themselves in the very age wherein they lived, yet it rose not up unto the half of the Abominations, in the filth and guilt whereof your Church hath since rolled it self. And yet because I presume you are well pleased with these Nicenians, who gave so great a list to the setting up of your Idols, I shall give you a brief account, both what was the judgement and practice of them that went be∣fore them in this matter, as also of some that followed after them, with joynt consent detesting your folly and superstition. You tell us somewhere in your Fiat, that the Primitive Christians had the picture or half portraiture of Christ upon their Altars. I sup∣pose you did not invent it your self; I wish you had told us of the Legend that suggested it unto you. For you seem in point of story to be conversant in such learned Authors, as few can trace you in. If you please to have a little patience, I shall mind you of some that give us another account of things in those dayes.

1. Some there are, of the first Christians, who give us an account of the whole worship of God with the manner and form of it, which was observed in their Assemblies in their dayes. So doth Justin Martyr in his Apologies, Tertullian in his, Origen against Celsus with some others. Now in none of these, is there any one word concerning Images, their use, or their worship in the service of God, al∣though they descend to describe very minute particu∣lars and circumstances of their way and proceeding.

2. Some there are, who give an account of the persecutious of several Churches, with the out-rages of

the Pagans against their Assemblies, the Scriptures, all the ordinances and worship, as do those golden fragments of the first and best Antiquity, the Epistles of the Churches of Vienna and Lions, to the parishes of Asia, of the Church of Smyrna about the Mar∣tyrdome of Polycarpus, preserved and recorded by Eusebius; and yet make no mention of any figures, pictures, or Images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin or his Apostles, or of any rage of their adversaries against them, or of any spite done unto them, which they would not have omitted, had there been any such in use amongst them.

3. There are besides these some unquestionable remnants of the conceptions that the Wisest and so∣berest of the heathen had concerning the Christians and their worship: as in the Epistle of Pliny about their Assemblies, and the rescript of Trajan, as also in Lucian Philopatris; in none of which is any inti∣mation of the Nicene Images or their Adoration. It may be you will undervalue this consideration, be∣cause built upon testimony negatively, when it doth not follow, that because such and such mentioned them not, therefore they were not then in use or be∣ing. But Sir, an Argument taken from the absolute silence of all approved Authors, concerning any thing of importance, supposed to be or happen in their dayes, and who would have had just occasion to make mention of it, had any such thing then been in rerum naturâ, is as great an evidence, and of as full a certainty, as the monuments of times are capa∣ble of. Is it possible for any rational man to con∣ceive, that if there had been such an use and venera∣tion of Images in the primitive Churches as is now in the Roman, or that the reception and veneration of them was made the tessara of Church Communi∣on,

as it is by the (Nicene Conventicle, that all the first Writers of Christianity treating expresly and purposely of the Assemblies of the Christians and the worship of God in them, with the manner and cir∣cumstances thereof, would have been utterly silent of them; or that those who set down and com∣mitted to record all the particularities of the Pagans rage in scattering their Assemblies, would not drop one word of any indignity shewed to any of their sacred images, when they pass not by their wrath against their houses, goods and cattel? Such things are fond to imagine.

2. Many of the Antients, do note it as an abomi∣nation in some of the first Hereticks, that they had introduced the use of Images into their worship, with the adoration of them. Theodoret. haeret. sub. lib. 1. tells us, that Simon Magus gave his own image and that of Selene to be worshistped by his follow∣ers. And Iraeneus, Lib. 1. cap. 23. that the followers of Basilides used images and invocations: and cap. 24. that the Gnosticks had images both painted ones and carved, and that of Christ, which they said was made originally by Pontius Pilate, and this they adored. And so doth Epiphanius also, Tom. 2. lib. 1. Haer. 27. Carpocrates procured the images of Christ and Paul to be made and adored them: and the like is recorded of others. Now do you think they would have observed and reproved this pra∣ctice as an abomination in the haereticks, if there had been any thing in the Churches usage that might give countenance thereunto? or at least that they would not have distinguished between that abuse of images, which they condemned in the hereticks, and that use which was retained and approved among themselves. But they are utterly silent, as unto any

such matter, contenting themselves to report and reprove the superstition and idolatry of the He∣reticks in their Adoration of them. But this is not all.

3. They positively deny that they had any images or made any use of them, and defend themselves against the charge of the Pagans against them for professing an imageless Religion. Clemen. Alexand. Strom, Lib. 6. plainly and openly confesseth and testifieth, that Christians had no Images in the world. And in his Adhortat. ad Gent. he positively asserts that the arts of Painting and Carving as to any religious use were forbidden to Christians, and that in the worship of God they had no sensible image made of any sensible matter, because they worshipped God with understanding. What was the judgement of Tertullian, is known from his book de Idololatria, from whence if we should transcribe what is argumenta∣tive against image worship, very little would be re∣maining. But of all the Antients Origen doth most clearly manifest what was the doctrine and practice of the Church of God in his dayes; as in other places, so in his seventh book against Celsus he directly han∣dles this matter: Celsus charged the Christians, that they made use of no images in the worship of God, telling them that therein they were like the Persi∣ans, Scythians, Numidans and Seres, all which im∣pious nations hated all images, as the Turks do at this day. To which discourse of his, Origen return∣ing answer, grants that the Christians had no images in their sacred worship, no more then had the Bar∣barous nations mentioned by Celsus; but withall adds the difference that was between those and these; and tells you, that their abstinence from Image worship was on various accounts. And after he hath shewed

wherefore those Nations received them not, he adds that Christians and Jews abstained from all sacred use of Images because of Gods command. Thou shalt fear (as he reads the text) the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve; and thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, and adds, that they were so far from praying to the images as the Pagans did, that saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a thing expresly commanded in the Nicene Conventi∣cle, we do not give any honour at all to Images, least we should give countenance to the error of ignorant peo∣ple, that there were somewhat of Divinity in them; with very much more to the same purpose, ex∣presly condemning all the use of Images in the wor∣ship of God, and openly testifying that there was no such usage among the Christians in those dayes heard of in the world. Arnobius or Minutius Faelix acknowledgeth the same; Cruces nec colimus nec optamus, we do no more worship Crosses then desire them, and grants that Christians had nulla note simulachra, because no image could be made to or of him whom alone they worshipped. What was the judgement of the Elibertine Council I have before told you. Lactantius in his Institut. ad Constant. lib. 2. by an happy anticipation, answers all the arguments that you use to this day, in defence of your image wor∣ship, and concludes peremptorily, that where there are any Images, there is no Religion; shewing how perverse a thing it is that the image of a dead man should be worshipped by a living image of God. The time would fail me to relate the words of Euse∣bius, Athanasius, Hilarius, Ambrosius, Cyrillus, Chrysostome, Epiphanius, Hierom, Austin, and others to the same purpose. I cannot but think that

it is fully evident to any one that consults antiquity, that the image use and worship, which is become the Tessera of your Church Communion, by your espousing the Canons and Determinations of the second Nycene Synod, was in part utterly unknown unto, and in part expresly condemned by the whole Primitive Church for 600. years after Christ; and that you have plainly by your Tridentine decree and Nicene Anathematismes cut off your selves from the Communion of the Catholick Church of Christ, and all particular Assemblies that worship him in sin∣cerity, for the space of some hundreds of years in the world.

Thus things went in the Church of God before your Nicene Convention. How did they succeed af∣terwards? did image worship presently prevail upon their determinations? or was that then the faith of the generality of the Church of Christ, which was declared by the fathers of that Convention? no∣thing less; no sooner was the rumor of this horrible innovation in Christian Religion spread abroad in the world, but that upon it there was a full assembly of 300. Bishops of the Western Provinces assembled at Franckeford in Germany, wherein the superstition and folly of the Nicene Assembly was layed open, their Arguments confuted, their determinations re∣jected, and image worship absolutely condemned, as forbidden by the word of God, and contrary to the Antient constant known practice of the whole Church of God.

And now Sir as I said you may begin to see what you have to do, if you intend to speak any thing to the purpose concerning your figures and Images. You must take the Decree of your Council of Trent, and the Nicene Canons therein confirmed, and

prove, confirm, and vindicate them from the oppo∣sition made to them by Tertullian, Arnobius, Origen, Lactantius, the Synod of Franckeford and others of the Antients innumerable by whom they are rejected and condemned; and yet when you have done so, if you are able so to do, your work is not one quarter at an end. You can make nothing of this business untill you have confuted or burned the Scripture it self, wherein your Images making and Image worship is as fully condemned as it is possible any superstition or Idolatry should be. Your present loose discourses, whereby you endeavour to possess the minds of un∣wary men, that you do not do that which indeed you do every day, and which almost all the world know that you do, and which you curse others for not doing, will not with considering persons re∣dound at all unto your advantage.

2. That you may the better also discern what is in∣cumbent on you, and expected from you the next time you talk of figures, I shall make bold to mind you of what is the Doctrine of the chief Masters and In∣structors of your Church, from whence certainly we may better learn what the Doctrine and practice of it is, then from one who discovers enough in what he sayes and writes, to keep us from laying any great weight on his authority. Now I confess that you do in this, as in sundry other points of your Religi∣on, give us an egregious specimen of that consent and unity among your selves which you so frequent∣ly boast of. Raphael de Torre in his Sum. Relig. Quaest. 94. Artic. ••. disput. 6. dub. 5. gives us an account of five several opinions maintained by your Doctor in this matter, of all which he rejects that only of Durand and some others, affirming that images are not worshipped properly but only impro∣perly

and abusively, as rash and savouring of heresie The same doth Bellarmine also; and the Truth is that that opinion of Durrand, Gerson, and same others is plainly condemned by the Tridentine De∣cree, as hath been already declared. The Authors of the other four opinions, though they differ among themselves and have several digladiations about s••me expressions and distinctions framed meerly in the••r own imaginations, agree well enough, that Images are religiously to be worshipped. Worshipped religi∣ously they are to be, but whither per se and absolute∣ly, directly and ultimately, whither with the same kind of worship wherewith that is to be worshipped which they represent, they are not so fully agreed as might be desired in a matter of this importance. For it is justly to be feared that whilest your Doctors are wrangling, your people are committing as gross Idolatry as any of the Heathen were guilty of. In the mean time, the most prevalent Opinion of your Doctors is that of Thomas and his followers, that images are to be adored with the same kind of worship wherewith that which they represent is to be worshipped. And therefore whereas the Lord Christ is to be worshipped with Latria, that which is pecu∣liar in your judgement to God alone, it follows saith he, that his image is to be worshipped with the same worship also. And as some of your learned men do boast, that this indeed is the only approved opi∣nion in this matter in your Church; so the truth is, if you will speak congruously and at any consistency with your selves it must be so. For whereas you lay the foundation of all your worship of them, be it of what fort it will, in that figment, that the honour which is done to the image redounds unto him whose image it is, if the honour done to the image

be of an inferior sort and kind unto that which is due unto the exemplar of it by referring that honour thereunto, you debase and dishonour it, by ascribing less unto it then is its due. If then you intend to answer just expectation in this matter, the next time you speak of figures pray consider what your Thomas teacheth as the Doctrine of your Church, 3. p. q. 25. ae. 3. which Azorius sayes is the con∣stant judgement of Divines, lib. 9. cap. 6. As also the exposition of the Tridentine Decree by Suarez Tom. 1. d. 54. §. 4. Vasquez, Costerus, Bellarmine and others. And

3. You may do well to consider the practice and usage of your Catholick people all the world over, especially in those places where you have preserved them from being disturbed in their Devotion, by the Arguments and exceptions of Protestants, as also the direction that is given them for the exercise of their Devotion in that prescription of Rites and prayers which is afforded unto them. Is not your bowing, kneeling, creeping, kissing, offering, singing, praying to the Cross and images notorious? yea your placing your trust and confidence in them; Yea, have you omitted any of the abominations of the heathen, that you have not acted over again to provoke the Lord to anger? And

4. Do you think to relieve them from the guilt of Idolatry by a company of distinctions, which nei∣ther they nor you understand? The next time you see one of your Catholicks worshipping an image upon his knees, I pray go to him and tell him that he must worship the Image with dulia, or superdulia, but not with latria, or if with latria, yet not by its self and simply but after a sort, analogically and reductively, or that he is about a double worship;

one terminated in the image, and the other passing by it unto the examplar of it, and you will find what thanks he will give you for your good instructi∣on. And how small a portion are these of that Mass of distinctions which you have coyned to free them from Idolatry who worship Images, who all the while understand not one word of what you intend by them, nor can any rational man reduce them unto any thing intelligible!

Sir, In this matter of images you talk of coming up close to your business, and I was willing to take a little pains with you to direct you in your way, that having a mind to your work as you seem to pretend, you may not mistake and wander away from your duty, but address your self unto that which you un∣dertake and which is expected from you. You are to prove that there is a necessity of receiving the use of images in the worship of the Church, so that who∣soever doth not admit them, is to be cast out of the Communion thereof; and 2. That these Images so received are to be worshipped and adored with religious veneration, if not with the very same worship that is due to the Persons represented by them, yet with that which redounds unto them; and that not only by the outward gesture of the body but the inward motions of the mind. And when you shall have proved that the Doctrine and practice of your Church in this matter of making and worshipping Images is not contrary to the Scripture, or was ever received or approved by the primitive Church for six hundred years, I will promise you setting aside all other Considerations, immediately to become a Papist: for the present I see no cause so to do, and shall therefore return to consider what you here say for the further adorning of your pictures.

The first thing you reflect upon is my censure of that passage in your Fiat, that the sight of Images in the Church is apt to cast the minds of men on that medi∣tation of the Apostle, Heb. 12. You are come to mount Sion, to the City of the living God, to the Heavenly Hierusalem, the Society of Angels, and Church of the first born written in heaven, to God the judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Me∣diator of the new Covenant. These, I tell you, upon the sight of an House full of Images may be the thoughts of a man distracted of his wits, not of any that are sober and wise. To which you reply, mad men it seems can tell what figures represent, sober and wise men cannot. But who told you that your images represent the things mentioned by the Apo∣stle? for instance, God the Judge of all, the spirits of just men, Angels, and the Church of the first born; or can any man unless he be greatly distempered in his imagination, fancy any such thing. The house of Micah, Judg. 18. was notably furnished with Images of all sorts. Judg. 17. he had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an house full of Gods, or a Chappel adorned with Images, for there was in it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 carved image, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a sacred ornament for it, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lesser portable Image, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a molten statue, Judg. 18. would it not think you, notwithstanding the gaiety of all this provision, have bee a mad thought in the Danites if upon their entrance into this house, they had ap∣prehended themselves to be come to the Communion of the Catholick Church, and therein to the invisible God, to Angels and Saints departed? The truth is, there is aliquid dementiae, a tincture of madness in all Idolatry, whence the Scripture testifies that men are mad upon their Idols, but yet we do not find that these Danites though resolved upon false worship,

were so mad as to entertain such vain thoughts as you imagine the Chappel full of images might have suggested unto them. Or do you think Ezekiel had any such thoughts, when God shewed him in vision the imagery of the house of Israel with all the Dei∣ties portrayed on the wall, and the elders worship∣ping before them? Ezek. 8. God and the Prophet discover other thoughts in reference unto them. Besides Sir, the Holy Ghost tells us that a graven image is a teacher of Lyes, Hab. 2. 18. and how like∣ly it is, that a man should learn any truth from that whose work it is only to teach lyes, I do not as yet understand.

You proceed to another exception; the violation of an image say you, redounds to the Prototype if it be rightly and duely represented, not else. To which you reply, and, when then for example is Christ crucified rightly and duly represented? are you one of those that can tell what figures represent or not? 1. You do not rightly report my words, though you might as easily have done it as set down those you have made use of. My words were, that the violation of an Image redounds to the Prototype, provided it be an Image rightly and duely destined to represent him, that is intended to be injured; which is so cleared by an instance there expressed, as turns your exception out of doors as altogether useless. For first, I require that the Image be rightly and duly destined to the re∣presentation of the Prototype; that is, by him or by them who have power so to do, and by the express consent and will of him whose image it is, who other∣wise is not concerned in it. Now nothing of all this can you affirm concerning your Images. 2. I require an intention of doing injury or contumely un∣to the Person represented by the image, without

which whatever is done to the image reflects not at all upon him; And so a man may break an Image of a King which he finds formed against his will in some ugly shape to expose him to contempt and scorn, as I suppose out of Loyalty unto him, without the least violation of his honour, which is the very condition of your Images and those that reject them. And this also may suffice to what you add about hanging of Traitors in Effigie, which is a particular instance of your general Assertion that the violation of an Image redounds to the Prototype; which we grant it doth when the Image is rightly designed to that purpose by them who have just authority so to do, and when there is an intention of casting contempt upon it; the first whereof is not found amongst your Images, nor the latter among them who reject them.

Besides if all that were granted you which you express, yet what you aime at would not ensue. For though it should be supposed that the violation of an Image would redound unto the injury of the Proto∣type upon a meer intention of reflecting upon him, without which it is a foolish conceit to apprehend any such thing, yet it doth not thence follow that the honour done to an Image redounds unto him that is represented by it, provided that the intention of them that give the honour be so to do: For besides our intention in the worship of God, we have a rule to attend unto, without the observation whereof the other will stand us in little stead. And if this might be admitted, the grossest Idolatry that ever was in the world might easily be excused. That for in∣stance of the Israelites setting up a golden Calf, and worshipping it, must needs be esteemed excel∣lent, seeing they thought to give honour to Jehovah

thereby. When the things mentioned then are wanting, Images may be dealt withal as false money, which his Majesty causeth every day to be broken, though it have his own Image and superscription up∣on it, because stamped without his warrant.

You proceed and add as my words, where the Psalmist complains of Gods enemies breaking down his Sculptures, he means not thereby any Images or figures, but only wainscot or carved Ceilings. Would you could find in your heart rightly to report my words. The reason is evident why you do not, namely because then you had not been able to make any pretence of a reply unto them; But yet this ought not to have prevailed with you to persist in such unhandsome dealing. My words are, The Psal∣mist indeed complains that they broke down the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or carved works in the Walls and Ceilings of the Temple (though the Greeks render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 her doors, the Verb signifying prin∣cipally to open) but that those apertiones or inci∣surae were not Pictures and Images for the people to adore and venerate, or appointed for their instruction you may learn. You see Sir, I grant that the Word may denote carved works: and if so, I think they must be either in the walls or ceiling; that which only I deny was, that these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or carved works were proposed to the people to be adored or venerated. This you should have confuted, or held your peace. But you take another course; having misreported my words to gain some counte∣nance thereby unto what you had to except against them, you add, Surely the Prophet wanted a word then to express himself, or Translators to express the Prophet: If we must guess at his meaning without heeding ••is words, one might think it as probable that

the House of God was adorned with Sculptures of Cherubims and other Angels to represent his true house that is above, as with the Circles, &c. of wainscot. Sir, the Prophet wanted not a word rightly to ex∣press his meaning and intention; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is originally aperire, to open, and solvere to loose, and because en∣gravings are made by opening the matter engraved with incisions, it signifies also to engrave, as 2 Chron. 3. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he graved Cherubims, and thence is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zech. 3. 9. engraving, or work engraving, the word here used by the Psalmist ex∣pressing the effect of what is affirmed, 2 Chron. 3. 7. and elsewhere. And this is well enough expressed by sundry Translators; and you speak very faintly when you talk of the guessing at the Psalmists mean∣ing about the Temples being adorned with engraven Cherubims, as though you knew not certainly that it was so, or as though it were a thing at all que∣stionable. Sir, the Text is express for it, both in the Kings, Chronicles and Ezechiel; neither was it ever called in question; but withall the same places inform us that there was as many Palm trees as Cherubims, and those attended with flowers and Pomegranats; And the Cherubims in Ezechiels vision had each one two faces, the one of a man, the other of a young Lion, the one face looking towards one Palm tree, the other towards another; all which we grant were used for ornament in that wonderfull and magnificent Structure; but so to imagine that they were proposed to the people to adore and ve∣nerate, is a little flowing, if not foaming of the mad∣ness we lately discoursed of. That Cherubims were not Images, I shall shew you by and by. And I de∣sire to be informed of you, what Palm tree and flow∣ers, or Angels with two faces, one of a man, another

of a Lyon, you think there are in heaven, that you should suppose them represented by these below? you may easily discern how well you have evinced the conclusion manifested before, to expect some proof at your hands, by faintly intimating that the walls of the Temple were engraven with Cherubims, Palm trees and flowers, and therefore doubtless he that will not worship Images deserves to be Ana∣thematized.

You add nextly as my words, The eye may not have her species as well as the ear, because God hath commanded the one, and not the other. You know full well that you do not express my words, nor meaning as you ought. But I shall now cease to expect better dealing from you, and make the best that I may of what you are pleased to set down. Speaking in general, I do not, nor did deny that the eye might have its use and the species of it to help and further our faith and devotion in the worship of God. It hath so in the Sacraments by him insti∣tuted; but I tell you it can have no use to these ends in things which God hath forbidden, as he hath done the making of Images for religious adoration. But you say, Fiat Lux makes it appear that God com∣mands both, and the natue of man requireth both, nor can I give any reason why I may not look ••pon him who was crucified, as well as hear him. Pray Sir talk not of Fiat Lux making it appear. The design of Fiat Lux is rather to hide then to make any thing appear; and you might have done well to direct us unto that place in your Fiat, where you fancied that you had made it appear that God commands that use of Images in his worship which you plead for; and as for what the nature of man requireth we suppose God knows as well at least as the Pope, and is as

careful to make suitable provision for its relief and help in the duties he calls us to the performance of. And it is an easie thing to give you a reason why you may not look on him that was crucified, that is with your bodily eyes, as well as hear him by the preaching of the word, and it is because you cannot. You your self tell us, when you think it for your pur∣pose, that Christ as to his humane nature is now in∣visible, and that is it I think you intend. Now how you will look with your bodily eyes on that which un∣to you and us is at present invisible, I cannot un∣derstand. I know that one of the great Fathers of your second Nicene faith, publickly affirmed in the Council with the approbation of his Associates, that Christ is so present with, or related unto his Image, that he should speak of it and should say, this is Christ, should not err. But I know also he did it with as much wisdom as he whom the Prophet de∣rides for carving a stock into the likeness of a man, and then saying unto it, Thou art my God. So Sir you may not with your bodily eyes look on him that was crucified because you cannot; and as looking on the picture of him, which you mean, is nothing of that which we contend about: so I fear it is unto you only a means of taking you from looking after his Person in a way of believing which he so earnestly calls us unto.

Your next progress is to some words of mine about the end of preaching, which you set down: Nor is the sole end of preaching as Fiat Lux would have it, only to move the mind of hearers unto corre∣sponding affections; whereas indeed they are; he is mistaken if he think the sole end of preaching the Cross and death of Christ, is to work out such repre∣sentations to the mind, as Oratory may affect for the

moving of Corresponding affections: which if you know not to differ very much from what you have expressed, I wish you would let these matters alone, and talk of what you understand. How∣ever, your reply unto what you are pleased to ex∣press, is such a piece of ridiculous Scurrility, as I shall not stain paper with a recital of. In summ, you deny there is any other end of preaching, and excuse your self that you thought not of those other ends, which you suppose I might have in my heart, but yet conceal; and then instance in such a rabblement of foolish wicked fancies, as I wonder how your thoughts came to be conversant about. As to the thing its self I must tell you Sir, whither you are willing to hear it or no, that if you know no other end of preaching the Cross and death of Christ, but meerly to work upon the minds of men, so as to stir up their Affections, that you are a Person bet∣ter skilled in the Mass book then the Gospel, and much fitter to be employed in sacrificing according to the Order of that, then in preaching of the My∣sterie and Doctrine of this. Did never any man in∣form you, that one end of preaching the word was to regenerate the whole souls of men, and to beget them anew unto God? that it was also to open their eyes, and to illuminate them with the saving know∣ledge of God in Christ, that it was to beget and encrease faith in them; that it was to be a means of their growth in Grace, and in the knowledge of God; that the Word preached is profitable for re∣proof, Correction, Dotrine and instruction in righte∣ousness; that it is appointed as the great means of working the souls of men into a likeness and con∣formity unto the Lord Jesus, or the changing of them into his Image; that it is appointed for the

refreshment of the weary, and consolation of the sorrowful, and making wise of the simple? Did you never hear that the word preached hath its effect upon the understanding and will as well as upon the Affections, and upon these consequentially only unto its efficacy on them, if they are not deluded? Is growth in knowledge, faith, grace, holiness, conformity unto Christ, Communion with God, for which end the word is commanded to be preached, nothing at all with you? is being made wise in the mysterie of the Love of God in Christ, to have an insight into, and some understanding of the unsearchable treasures of his Grace, and by all this the building up of souls in their most holy faith, of no value with you? Are you a stran∣ger unto these things, and yet think your self a meet person to perswade your Countreymen to for∣sake the Religion they have long professed, and to follow you they know not whither? Or do you know them, and yet dare to thrust in your scur∣rility to their exclusion? Plainly Sir, the most cha∣ritable judgement that I can make of this Discourse of yours, is that it proceeds from ignorance of the most important truths and most necessary works of the Gospel.

You next proceed to your plea from the Cheru∣bims set up by Moses in the Holy place over the Ark; and thence you will needs wrest an argument for your Images and the worship of them. Although your Vasquez is ashamed of it, and hath cashiered it long ago, and that worthily, as not at all belong∣ing unto thus matter: For 1. The Cherubims were not Images, to which you say, since the real Cheru∣bims are not made of beaten Gold, those set up by Moses must be only figures; but it is of Images that

we are speaking precisely, and not in general of figures; figures may include Types and Hieroglyphicks and any representation of things. Images repre∣sent Persons, and such alone are those about which we treat. And if a Person be not presented by an Image, it is not his Image. Now I pray tell me what personal subsistences these Cherubims with their various wings and faces did represent? Do you believe that they give you the shape and like∣ness of Angels? It is true, John the Bishop of Thes∣salonica in your Synod of Nice with the approbation of the rest of his company, affirms that it was the opinion of the Catholick Church that Angels and Archangels were not altogether incorporeal and in∣visible, but to have a slender body, of ayre or fire, Act. 5. But are you of the same mind? or do you not rather think that the Catholick Church was be∣lyed and abused by the Synod? And if they are absolutely incorporeal and invisible, how can an Image be made of them? Should a man look on the Cherubims as Images of Angels, would not the first thing they would teach him be a ley? namely that Angels are like unto them, which is the first lan∣guage of any Image whatever. The truth is, the Mosaical Cherubims were meer Hieroglyphicks to represent the constant tender love and watchful∣ness of God over the Ark of his Covenant, and the people that kept it, and had nothing of the nature of Images in them. 2. I say, suppose of them what you please, yet they were not set up to be adored, as your Images are; To which you reply, It is not to my purpose or yours that they were not set up to be adored; for Images in Catholick Churches are not set up for any such purpose, nor do I anywhere say so. No man alive hath any such thought, no Tr••••••∣tion,

no Council hath delivered it, no practice infers it. And do you think meet to talk at this rate? have you no Tradition amongst you that you plead for the Adoration of Images? hath no Council amongst you determined it? doth not your practice speak it? were you awake when you wrote these things? did you never read your Tridentine Decree, or the Ni∣cene Canons commended by them? is not the adora∣tion of Images asserted an hundred times expresly in it? hath no man alive such thoughts? are not on∣ly Thomas and Bonaventure, but Bellarmine, Gregory de Valentia, Baronius, Suarez, Vasquez, Azorius, with all the rest of your great Champions now utterly defeated, and have not one man left to be of their judgement? I would be glad to hear more of this matter. Speak plainly, do you renounce all adora∣tion and worship of Images? is that the Doctrine of your Church? prove it so, and I shall publickly ac∣knowledge my self to have been a long time in a very great mistake. But it was for this cause that I gave you a little Image of the Doctrine and pra∣ctice of your Church in this matter, at the entrance of our discourse, foreseeing how you would preva∣rica••e in our progress. Come Sir, if Image Worship be such a shameful thing that you dare not avow it, deal ingenuously and acknowledge the failings of your Church in this matter, and labour to bring her to amendment. If you think otherwise, and in truth yet like it well enough, d••al like a man, and dare to dete••d it at least as well as you can, and more no 〈◊〉〈◊〉 can look for at your hands. You mention somewhat of the different opinions of your Schoolmen in this matter, which you sleight. But Sir, I tell you again, that you and all your Masters are agreed that Images are to be adored and vene∣rated▪

that is, worshipped; and their disputes about that honour that rests absolutely on the Image, and that which passeth on to the Prototype, with the kind of the one and the other, are such as neither them∣selves, nor any other do understand. You tell us indeed, All Catholick Councils and practice, declare such sacred figures to be expedient assistants to our thoughts in our divine meditations and prayers, and that is all you know of it. But if you intend Coun∣cils and practice truly Catholick or Primitive, you can give no instance of allowing so much to Images as here you ascribe unto them; no not one Council can you produce to that purpose for some hundreds of years, but a constant current of Testimonies for the rejection of such pretend expediencies and as∣sistances. The first beginning of their use arising from Heathens, as Eusebius declares Lib. 7. cap. 18. But if you intend your Roman Catholick Councils and Practice, your Assertion is as devoid of Truth as any thing you can possibly utter. What kind of Assistance in devotion these your sacred Figures do yield, we shall anon consider.

It is added in the Animadversions that it was God who appointed these Cherubims to be made, and placed where they were never seen of the people, and that his special dispensation of a Law constitutes no general rule; so he commanded his people to spoil the Aegyptians, though he forbid all men to steal. This was said on supposition that they were Images or adored, both which I shewed to be false. And it is the answer given by Tertullian; When he was pleading against all making up of pictures which we do not. Now do you produce Gods special command for the make∣ing, use and veneration of your Images, and this contest will soon be at an end. But whereas God

who commanded these Cherubims to be made, hath severely interdicted the making of Images, as to any use in his worship unto us, what conclusion you can hence draw I see not. To this you reply in a large discourse wherein are many things Atheological. I shall briefly pass through what you say. Thus then you begin, We must know, you as well as I, that God who forbids men to steal, did not then command to steal as you say he did, when he bad his People spoil the Aegy∣ptians under the species of a loan. Malum omen▪ You stumble at the threshold. Did I say that God commanded men to steal? porrige frontem; the words of the Animadversions lay before you when you wrote this, and you could not but know that you wrote that which was not true. This immorality doth not become any man of what Religion soever he be. Stealing denotes the pravity of taking that which is another mans. This God neither doth nor can command; for the taking of that which for∣merly belonged unto another, is not stealing if God command it; for the reason which your self have stumbled on, as we shall see afterwards. The Aegy∣ptians were spoyled by Gods Command, but the People did not steal; for his Command who is the Soveraign Lord of all things the great possessor of Heaven and earth, dispenced with his Law of one mans taking that which before belonged unto ano∣ther as to that particular whereunto his Command extended, in reference whereunto stealing or the pravity of that act of alienation consists, and so it is in other Cases. It is murder for a Father to slay his Son. Neither can God command a man to murder his Son: and yet he commanded Abraham to slay his. To so little purpose is your following attempt to prove that the Hebrews did not steal, and that

God did not command them to steal, which ••ou fancied or rather feigned to be asserted in the Ani∣madversions, that you might make a pretence of saying something; so that it had been much better to have passed over this whole matter with your wonted silence, which relieves you against the things which you despair of returning a reply unto. You say, the Hebrews might have right to those few goods they took in satisfaction for their long oppression, and it may be their own allowance was not paid them. But this right whatever it may be pretended, was only ad rem, a general equity, which they had no war∣rant to put in execution by any particular instance: And therefore you add Secondly, Because it is a thing of danger that any servant should be allowed to right himself by putting his hand to his Masters Goods, though his Case of wrong be never so clear; therefore did the Command of God intervene to justifie their action. But why do you call this a thing of danger only? is it not of more then danger, even ex∣presly sinfull? Then is a thing morally dangerous when there may be sin in it, not when unavoidably there is; then indeed there is danger of punish∣ment, or rather certainty of it without repentance; but we do not say then there is danger of sinning. It may be you do it to comply with your Ca∣suists, who have determined that in some Cases it is lawful for a servant himself to make up his wrongs out of his Masters Goods, which caused your friends some trouble as you know in the Case of John de Alva. You proceed and insist upon the Command of God proceeding from his Soveraignty and Lordship over all, warranting the Hebrews to take the Aegyptians goods and so spoil them, and that rightly. But this say you, can no way be applyed un∣to

Images: nor could God command the Hebrews to make any Images, if he bad absolutely forbidden to have any at all made. Sir, This is not our Case, God forbad the Hebrews to make any images, so as to bow down to them, in a way of Religious Wor∣ship, and yet might command them to make Hiero∣glyphical representations of his care and watchful∣ness, and to set them up where they might not be worshipped. But let us suppose that you speak ••d idem, and pertinently, let us see how you prove what you say: For this, say you, concerns not any affair between neighbour and neighbour, whereof the Supreme Lord hath absolute dominion, but the service only and ••••ration due from man to his Maker, which God being absolutely good, and immutably true, can∣not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dispense with. Nor doth it stand with his nature and Deity to change, dispence, or vary the first table of his Law concerning himself, as he may the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which concerns neighbours, for want of that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ever himself, which h•• hath over any crea∣•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 away its right, to preserve or destroy it, 〈…〉〈…〉 pleaseth; and therefore you conclude that 〈…〉〈…〉 his people to set up no Images, 〈…〉〈…〉 h••ve commanded them to set up any; be∣•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 would imply a contradiction in himself. A very 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Theol••gical discourse, which might bec•••••• one of the Angelical or Seraphical Doctors of your Church! But who I pray told you that the••e was the same resason of all the Commands of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Table? Vows and Oaths are a part of the worship of God 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the third Command∣ment yet 〈◊〉〈◊〉 God can do, your Pope takes upon himself 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dispense with them every day. He so dispe••••ed with the Oath of Ladis••aus King of Hunger•••• made in his Peace with the Turks, to the

extream danger of his whole Kingdom, the irrep••ra∣ble loss and almost ruine of all Christendom. So he dispensed with the Oath of Henry the Second of France, which ended in his expulsion out of Italy, his loss of the famous Battail at St. Quintins, and the danger of his whole Kingdom. The strict Ob∣servation of the Sabbath by the Jews was commanded unto them in a Precept of the first Table, and w••s not a matter between neighbours, but belonged im∣mediately to the worship of God himself: according to your Divinity, God could not dispense with them to do any labour that day: But our Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us that by his Command the Priests were to labour on that day in killing the Sa∣crifice, by vertue of an after exception. And your Book of Macchabees will inform you that the whole people judged themselves dispensed withal in case of imminent danger. The whole fabrick of Mosaical worship was a thing that belonged immediately to God himself, aod was not a matter between neigh∣bours, which had its foundation in the second Com∣mandment: and yet I suppose you will grant that God hath altered it, changed it, and taken it away. So excellent is your Rule as to all the precepts of the first Table, which indeed holds only in the first Command. Things that naturally and necessarily belong to the dependance of the rational creature on God as the first Cause, last End, and Supreme Lord of all, are absolutely indispensable, which are in general all comprized as to their nature in the first precept, wherein we are commanded to receive him alone as our God, and consequently to yield him that obedience of faith, love, honour, which is due to him as God: but the outward modes and wayes of expressing and testifying that subjection and obedi∣ence

which we owe unto him, depending on his arbi∣trary institution, are changeable, dispensable and ly∣able to be varied at his pleasure, which they were at several seasons, before the last hand was put to the Revelation of his will by his Son. And then though God did absolutely forbid his people the making of images as to any use of them in his Wor∣ship and Service, he might by particular exception have made some himself; or appointed them to be made, and have designed them to what use he pleas∣ed: from whence it would not follow in the least, that they who were to regulate their obedience by his command, and not by that instance of his own parti∣cular exception unto his institution, might set up any other images for the same end and purpose, no more then they might set up other Altars for Sacrifice be∣sides that appointed by him, when he had command∣ed that they should not do so. Supposing then that which is not true, and which you can give no colour of proof to, namely that the Cherubims were Images properly so called, and set up by Gods command to be adored, Yet they were no less still under the force of his prohibition against the making of Images, then if he had never appointed any to be made at all. It was no more free for them to do so, then it is for you now under the New Testament to make five Sacra∣ments more of your own heads, because he hath ap∣pointed two. So unhappy are you in the Confirma∣tion of your own supposition, which yet as I have shewed you, is by no means to be granted. And this is the substance of your plea for this practice and usage of your Church, which whether it will justifie you in your open transgression of so many express Commands that lye against you in this matter, the day that shall discover all things will manifest.

You proceed to the vindication of another pas∣sage in your Fiat, from the Animadversions upon it, with as little success as the former you have attem∣pted. Fiat Lux sayes, God forbad forreign Images, such as Moloch, Dagon, and Astaroth, but he com∣mand his own (Sir, Moloch and Astaroth were not Images properly so called, whatever may be said of Dagon; the one was the Sun, the other the hoast of Heaven, or the Moon and Stars) but the Animad∣versions say that God forbad any likeness of himself to be made; they do so, and what say you to the contrary! why, You may know and consider, that the Statues and graven Images of the Heathen, towards whose land Israel then in the wilderness was journey∣ing, were ever made by the Pagans to represent God and not any devils, although they were deluded in it. But 1. Your good friends will give you little thanks for this concession, whose strongest plea to vindicate themselves and you from Idolatry in your image worship is, that the Images of the Heathen were not made to represent God, but that an Idol was really and absolutely nothing. 2. God did not forbid the people in particular the making Images unto Molock, Dagon or Astaroth, but prohibits the worshipping of the Idols themselves in any way; but he forbids the making of any Images and simili∣tudes of himself in the first place, and of all other things to worship them. But what of all this? why then say you, there was good reason that the He∣brews who should be cautioned from such snares, should be forbidden to make to themselves any similitude or likeness of God. Well then they were so forbidden, this is that which the Animadversions affirmed be∣fore, and Fiat Lux denyed, affirming that they were the ugly faces of Moloch that were forbidden▪

Moses say you, p. 294. forbad prophane and forraign images, but he commanded his own; but here you grant that God forbad the making of any similitude or likeness of himself; the reason of it we shall not much dispute, whilest the thing is confessed; though I must inform you, that himself insists upon another, and not that which you suggest, which you will find if you will but peruse the places I formerly directed you unto. But say you, what figure or si∣militude the true God had allowed his people, that let them hold and use untill the fulness of time should come, when the figure of his substance, the splendor of his glory and only image of his nature should appear; and now since God hath been pleased to shew us his face, pray give Christians leave to keep and honour it. I presume you know not, that your discourse is So∣phistical and Atheological, and I shall therefore give you a little light into your mistakes. 1. What do you mean by figure or similitude that the true God had allowed his people? Was it any figure or simili∣tude of himself, not of Moloch which you were speaking of immediately before, and which your fol∣lowing words interpret your meaning of, where you affirm that in the fulness of time he hath given us the image of himself? have you not denyed it in the words last mentioned? have you no regard how you jumble contradictions together, so you may make a shew of saying something? Do you intend any other likeness or similitude? why then do you deal sophistically in using the same expression to denote diverse things? 2. It is Atheological that you af∣•••••••• Christ to be the image of the nature of God. He is, and is said▪ to be, the image of his fathers per∣son, Heb. 1. 2. And when he is said to be the image of the invisible God, the term God is to be taken

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the Person of the Father, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the nature, or substance, or essence of God. 3. Christ is the essen••eal image of the Father in his Divine nature, in as much as he is partaker with him of all the same Divine properties and excellen∣cies, and morally in his whole Person, God and man as Mediator, in that the Love, Grace, Will, and Wisdom of the Father, are in him fully represented unto us, and not in the outward Lineaments of his humane nature, Esa.. 52. & 53. And what is all this to your Images that give us the shape and form of a man, and of what individual person neither you nor we know? 4. And is it not a fine business to talk of seeing the face of God, which shone forth in Christ, in a carved image or a painted figure? Is not this to confess plainly that your Images are teachers of Lyes? 5. Your Logick is like your Divinity. Inartificial argument or Testimony you use none in this place, and I desire you would draw your Dis∣course into a Syllogisme. Christ is the brightness of the Glory of God, God shews us his face in him, there∣fore we ought to make Images of wood and stone, caved and painted, and set them up in Churches to be adored, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And hereby you may also discern what is to be judged of your defence of what you had affirmed in your Fiat, namely that we had a command, that we should have Images, and a command that we should not have Images; which I never imagined that you would put upon a various ••ection of the Text, and thought it sufficient to ma∣nifest your failing, to intimate unto you the express preciseness of the prohibition, with which your fan∣cied command for Images is wholly inconsistent. God hath strictly forbidden us to make any Image either of himself or of any other person or thing to adore

or worship it, or to put it unto any use purely religi∣ous. This is an everlasting Rule of our Obedience. His own making of Cherubims and placing them in the most holy place whilest the Judaical Oeconomy conti∣nued gives us no dispensation as to the obedience which we owe to that Command and rule, whereby we must be judged at the last day.

Your last exception is layed against what I affirmed concerning the Relation you fancy between the Image and its prototype, whereby you would excuse the honour and worship which you give unto it, which I said is a meer effect of your own imagination. To which you reply, that speaking of a formal re∣presentation or relation and not of the efficient cause of it, you cannot but wander at this illogical Assertion. But sir, this your formal representation or relation which you fancy, must have an efficient cause, and hath so; a real one, if it be real; an imaginary one if it be fictitious, and this I enquired after; and I think it is not illogical to affirm that the relation you pretend is fictitious because it hath no cause but your own imagination on which alone it depends. A divine institution constituting such a relation you have none, nor doth it ensue on the nature of the thing it self. For the carving of a stock into the likeness of a man, gives it no such relation to this or that individual man, as that which is done unto the one should have any respect unto the other. But you add; Is the picture made by the spectators imagination to represent this or that thing, or the ima∣gination rather guided to it by the picture? By this Rule of yours the image of Caesar, did not my imagina∣tion help it, would no more represent a man then a mouse. But you quite mistake the matter; the relation you fancy includes two things; first that this Image re∣presents

not a man in general, but this or that indivi∣dual man in particular, and that exclusively to all others; for instance; Simon Peter, and not Simon Magus, who was a man no less then he or any other man whatever. Now though herein the imagina∣tion may be assisted when it hath any certain grounds of discerning a particular likeness in an image unto one man when he was living more then to another, yet you in most of your images are destitute of any such assistance. You know not at all that your images represent any thing peculiar in the persons whereof you pretend them to be the images, which sufficiently appears by the varity that is in the images whereby you represent the same Person, even Christ himself in several places. So that though every man in his right wits may conceive, that an Image is the image of a man and not of a mouse, yet that it should be the image of this or that man, of Christ himself; or Peter, he hath no ground to imagine, but what is suggested unto him by his imagination, directed by the circumstances of its place and Title. When Clo∣dius had thrust Cicero into banishment to do him the greater spite, he demolished his house, and dedicated it as a devoted place to their Gods, setting up in it the image of the Goddess Libertas. The Or••tor up∣on his return in his Oration ad Pontifices for the re∣covery of his house to overthrow this pretended dedication and devotion of it, pleads two things, first that the Image pretended by Clodius to be the Image of Libertas, was indeed the Image of a fa∣mous or rather infamous whore that lived at Tanager; had this dedication passed, I wonder how this Image could have any relation unto Libertas, but by vertue of the imagination of its worshippers when in very deed it was the Image of a Tangraean whore; And

the same Orator tells us of a famous Painter who making the picture of Venus and her Companions for their Temples; still drew them by some Strumpet or other that he kept company withall. And whither you have no•• been so imposed upon sometimes or no, I very much question. In which Case nothing but your imagination can free you from the worship of a quean, when you aime your devotion another way; Again he pleads, that the dedication of that Image was not regularly religious, nor according to that institution which they esteemed Divine; whence no sacredness in it could ensue; and want of institu∣tion which may be so esteemed, is that also which we object against your dedication of Images. For be∣sides a relation to this or that Individual person, which as I have shewed, the most of your Images have not, but what in your fancy you give unto them, which is natural or Civil; you fancy also a religious relation, a sacred conjuction between the Image and Prototype, so that the worship yielded to the one should redound to the other in a religious way. And this, I say, is also the product of your own fancy. If it be not, I pray, will you assign some other cause of it: for to tell you the truth, excluding divine Insti∣tution which you have not, other I can think or none▪ And if you could pretend Divine Institution consti∣tuting a sacred relation, between Images and their prototypes, yet it would not presently follow, that they were to be worshipped, no not supposing the Prototypes themselves to be the proper objects of re∣ligious adoration, which as to the most of them you know we deny, unless you have also a Command to warrant you. For there is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Institution of God himself a Sacramental 〈◊〉〈◊〉 b••••ween the wa∣ter in Baptism and the 〈…〉〈…〉; and yet I do

not know that you plead that the water is to be wor∣shipped. And thus is it as to your wooden Cross; you put two sticks a cross and worship them, you take them asunder and burn them; it is the very instance of your Nicene Council, for so they repeat the words of Leontius and approve them, Act. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; whilest the two sticks of the Cross are put together or com∣pacted, I adore that figure for Christs sake who suffer∣ed thereon; but when they are separated, I cast them away and burn them; a pretty course, whereby a man may keep a sacred fire, and worship all his wood pile before he burns it. And all this you are behold∣ing unto your imagination for.

We have done with your exceptions and pleas, and I dare leave it to the Conscience and judgement of any man fearing God, and not captivated under the power of prejudices and a vain conversation re∣ceived by tradition from his Fathers, whither your pretences are sufficient to warrant us to break in upon those many and severe interdictions of God, lying expresly in the letter against this usage and practice, and so apprehended in their intention by the whole primitive Church. In the Command its self, we are forbidden to make to our selves, that is in reference unto the worship of God treated of in that pre∣cept, not only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sculptile a graven Image, but also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 any kind of likeness of anything in heaven, earth or sea, so as that a man should 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bow down, adore, or venerate them, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 serve them with any sacred veneration. And the natural equity of this precept was understood by the wises•• of the Hea∣then.

For not only doth Tacitus witness that the antient Germans had no Images of their Gods, but it is known that Nama Pompilius the Roman Solon admitted not the use of them. Seneca decryes them, Epist. 33. and Macrobius denies that anti∣quity made any image to the most high God. What Silius, Persius and Statius observed to the same pur∣pose, I have shewed elsewhere. And from this Prin∣ciple Paul pleads with the Athenians that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was not to be represented with images of Gold and Silver, or carved stones. Neither doth God leave us under this interdiction as proceeding from his Sove∣raign Authority, but frequently also shews the rea∣sonableness of his will, by asserting the Incomprehen∣sibility of his nature, and minding us that in the great manifestation of his glory unto the people, they saw no manner of likeness or similitude, which should have been shewed unto them had he been by any sensible means or matter to be represented. And yet, Sir, all this will not deter you from making Images and various Pictures of God himself and the blessed Trinity. Indeed you say you do not do it to represent the essence and nature of the Invisible God, but only some divine manifestations of his ex∣cellency or presence, so that those images are only metaphorical. But you venture too boldly on the Commands of God with your cobweb distinctions; nor do you difference your selves hereby from the more sober Heathen, who openly professed that in their many names and images of God they had no design to teach a multiplication of the Divine es∣sence, but only to represent the various properties and excellencies of that one Deity which they ado∣red, as Lactantius will inform you. Neither I fear do you consider aright, or sufficiently esteem the

scandal that by this means you cast before the Jews and Turks, who abhor the worship of God amongst you, upon the account of your Images; and Christi∣ans also kept from participating in their Sacra by this means. Lampridius tells us in the life of Alex∣ander Severus, that Hadrian the Emperour erected Temples in sundry Cities without Images in them, un∣till he was forbidden by the Soothsayers, affirming that this was the only way to make all men become Christians, as though the weight of the Controversie between Christians and Pagans had turned on this hinge, whither God were to be worshipped in Images or no. As for other Images and Pictures which may as to a civil use be made, which you set up in your Churches to be adored and venerated, is not your Doctrine and practice a meer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a will worship condemned by the Apostle? Col. 2. 23. A worship destitute of Institution, promise, command or any ground of acceptance with God. A worship wherein you do what is right in your own eyes like the people in the wilderness, and not that only which is commanded you, which God complains of and re∣proves, Deut. 12. 8, 23. And besides you are con∣versant in a will worship of a most dangerous impor∣tance, wherein you ascribe the honour that is due un∣to God alone, unto that which by nature is not God, which is downright Idolatry. I know how you turn and wind your selves into various forms and multi∣ply unintelligible distinctions, to extricate your selves out of the ••nare that you wil••ully cast your selves into. But you all agree well enough in this, if your Nicene and Trent Councils, your Baronius, Vasquez, Suarez, and other great Masters of your Sacr•• may be believed, that they are to be adored and worship∣ped, that is with adoration religious, which what ever

you may talk of its modes, or distinguish about its kind, is to give the honour due to God alone unto 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and stones. And the best security you have to free you from the horrible guilt of Idolatry, lyes in the pretended conjunction and religious relation that is between the image and its Prototype, which is plainly imaginary and fictitious. And, now Sir, I hope I shall obtain your excuse for having drawn forth this discourse unto a length beyond my inten∣tion, your self having given me the occasion so to do, by pretending that you would upon this head of Images, come up close unto me, which caused me to give you a little tast of what entertainment you are to expect, if you shall think meet to continue in the same resolution.

CHAP. 22.

Of Latine Service.

THe 18. Chapter of the Animadversions about Tongues and Latine Service, is your next task. Of this you say, that it hath some colour of Plausibi∣lity, but because I neither do nor will understand the Customes of that Church which I am so eager to oppose, all my words are but wind. Answ. No such thing as plausibility was aimed at in any part of that Dis∣course. It was the Promotion or defence of Truth which was designed throughout the whole, and no∣thing else. For that, are all things to be done, and nothing against it. What you are able to except against in that discourse, will speedily appear. In the mean time pray take notice, that I have no eagerness to oppose either you or your Church; so you will

let the Truth alone, I shall for ever let you alone, without opposition. It was the defence of that, and not an opposition to you that I was engaged in. In the same design do I still persist, in the vindication of what I had formerly written, and shall assure you that you shall never be opposed by me, but only so far, and wherein I am fully convinced that you oppose the Truth. Manifest that to be on your side, and I shall be ready to embrace both you and it. For I am ab∣solutely free from all respects unto things in this world, that should or might retard me in so doing. But that I may hereafter speak somewhat more to the purpose in opposition unto you, or else give my consent with understanding unto what you teach, pray inform me how I may come to the knowledge of the customs of your Church, which you say, I nei∣ther do, nor will understand. I have read your Coun∣cils, those that are properly yours; your Mass Book, and Rituals, many of your Annalists or Histo∣rians, with your writers of Controversies, and Casu∣ists, all of the best note same and reputation amongst you. Can none of them inform us what the Customs of your Church are? If you have such Egyptian or El••usinian mysteries as no man can understand be∣fore he be initiated amongst you. I must despair of coming unto any acquaintance with them. For I shall never engage into the belief of I know not what. For the present, I shall declare you my apprehension as to that Custome of your Church as you call it, which we have now under consideration, and desire your charity in my direction, if I understand it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 aright. It is your Custome to keep the Scriptures from the people in an unknown tongue; somewhat contrary to this your former custome, in this last age you have made some Translations out of a Translation

and that none of the best, the use whereof you per∣mit to very few, by virtue of special dispensation, pleading that the use of it in the Church among the body of its members is useless and dangerous. Again it is the Custome of your Church to celebrate all its publick worship in Latine, whereof the generality of your people understand nothing at all, and you for∣bid the exercise of your Church worship in a vulgar tongue understood by the Community of your Church or people. These I apprehend to be the Customes of your Church, and to the best of my understanding they are directly contrary, (1.) To the End of God in granting unto his Church the inestimable benefit of his Work and worship; and (2.) To the Com∣mand of God given unto all to read, meditate and study his Word continually. And (3.) Prejudicial to the souls of men, in depriving them of those un∣speakable spiritual advantages which they might at∣tain in the discharge of their duty, and which others, not subject unto your Au••hority, have experience of. And (4.) Opposite unto, yea destructive of that edification which is the immediate end of all things 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to be done in publick Assemblies of the Church. And (5.) Forbidden expresly by the Apo∣stle who inforceth his prohibition with many cogent reasons, 1 Cor. 14. And (6.) Contrary to the express practice of the primitive Church both Judaical and Christian, all whose worship was performed in the same language wherein the People were instructed by preaching and exhortations which I presume you will think it necessary they should well understand; be∣ing (7.) Brought into use gradually and occasionally through the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 negligence of some who pretend in the Churches of those dayes, when the Languages wherein the Scripture was first written

and whereinto for the use of the whole Church it had been of old translated, as the Old Testament into Greek, and the whole into Latine, through the Tumults and Wars that fell out in the world, became corrupted, or were extirpated. And (8) A means of turning the worship of Christ from a rational way of strengthening faith and increasing Holiness, in∣to a dumb histrionical shew exciting brutish and ir∣regular affections; and (9) Were the great cause of that darkness and ignorance which spread its self in former dayes over the whole face of your Church, and yet continueth in a great measure so to do. And in summ are as great an Instance of the power of inveterate prejudices and carnal interests against the light of the Truth as I think was ever given in the world.

These are my apprehensions concerning the Customs of your Church in this matter, with their nature and tendency. I shall now try whither you who blame my misunderstanding of them, can give me any better information, or Reason for the change of my thoughts concerning them. But Carbones pro thesauro, instead of either further clearing or vindicating your Customs and practice, you fall into Encomiums of your Church, a story of a Greek Bi∣shop, with some other thing as little to your pur∣pose.

Fur es ait Pedo; Pedius quid? crimina rasis Librat in Antithetis doctas posuisse figuras Lundatur.

You are accused to have robbed the Church of the use of the Scripture, and the means of its Edifica∣tion in the worship of God, and when you should produce your defensitive, you make a fine Discourse

quite to other purposes. Such as it is, we must pass through it.

First you say, I have heard many grave Protestant Divines ingenuously acknowledge that divine Comfort and Sanctity of life requisite unto Salvation, which Religion aymes at, may with more perfection and less inconvenience be attained by the Customs of the Ro∣man Church then that of ours. For Religion is not to fit perching upon the lips, but to be got by heart, it consists not in reading but doing, and in this, not in that, lives the substance of it, which is soon and easily con∣veighed. Christ our Lord drew a Compendium of all divine Truths in two words, which our great Apostle again abridged into one. Ans. (1.) I hope you will give me leave a little to suspend my assent unto what you affirm. Not that I question your veracity as to the matter of fact related by you, that some Persons have told you what you say, but I suppose you are mistaken in them. For whereas the Gospel is the Doctrine of Truth according unto Godliness, and the promotion of Holiness and Consolation (which can∣not at all be promoted but in wayes and by means of Gods appointment) is the next end of all Reli∣gion; they can be no Protestant Divines who acknow∣ledge this end to be better attainable in your way, then their own; because such an acknowledgement would be a vertual renunciation of their Prote∣stancy. The judgement of this Church, and all the reall grave Divines of it, is perfectly against you, and should you condescend unto them in other things, would not embrace your communion, whilest you impose upon them a necessity of Celebrating the worship of God in a tongue unknown unto them, amongst whom and for whose s••ke, it is publickly celebrated. The reasons you subjoyn to the con∣cession

you mention, I presume are your own, they are like to many others that you make use of. The best sense of the entrance of your words that I can make, is in that description they afford us of the worship of your Church as to the peoples concern∣ment in it. The words of it may ••it perching upon your lips, as on the tongue of a Parrot, or it may be, may be got by heart, or as we say without Book, when the sense of them affects not your minds nor under∣standings at all. If in these vain loose expressions you design any thing else, it seems to be an oppositi∣on between reading and studying the Scriptures, or joyning with understanding in the prayers of the Church, the things under Consideration, and the getting of the power of the word of God to dwell in the heart; which is skilfully to oppose the means and the end, and those placed in that relation not only by their natural aptitude, but also by Gods ex∣press appointment and command. So wisely also do you oppose reading and doing in general; as though reading were not doing, and a part of that obedience which God requires at our hands, and a blessed means of helping and furthering us in the remainder of it. For certainly that we may do the will of God, it is required that we know it. And what better way there is to come to the knowledge of the will of God then by reading and me litating in and upon the word of Truth wherein he hath re∣vealed it, with the advantage of the other means of his appointment for the same end in the publick preaching or proposition of it, I am not as yet in∣formed. And I wish you had acquainted us with those two words of our Saviour, and that one of the Apostle, wherein they give us a Compendius of all Divine Truths. For if it be so, I am perswaded

you will be to seek for your warrant in imposing your long Creeds, and almost Volumes of Propositi∣ons to be believed as such. But you cannot avoid mistakes in things that you might omit as not at all to your purpose. Our Saviour indeed gives us the two general heads of those duties of Obedience which are required at our hands towards God and our Neighbours; and the Apostle shews the Perfe∣ction of it to consist in Love, with its due exercise; but where in two or three words they give us the Compendium of all Divine Truths which we are to believe, that we may acceptably perform the Obedi∣dience that in general they describe, we are yet to seek, and shall be so, for any information you are able to give us.

In your following Discourse you make a florish with what your Church hath in Gospels, Epistles, Good books, Anniversary observations, and I know not what besides. But Sir, we discourse not about what you have, but what you have not, nor will have though God command you to have it, and threaten you for not having it. You have not the Scripture ordinarily in a language that they can understand, who if they are the Disciples of Christ are bound to read, study, and meditate in it continually; which are therefore hindred by you in the discharge of their duty, whilest you neither enter into the Kingdom of heaven your selves, nor suffer them that would. N••y you have burned men and their Bibles together for attempting to discharge that duty which God requireth of them, and wherein so much of their spiritual advantage is enwrapped. Neither have you the entire worship of God in a tongue known to the people, whereby they might joyn in it, and pray with understanding, and be edified by what they

hear (which the Apostle makes the end of all things done or to be done in publick Assemblies) but are left to have their brutish affections led up and down by dumb shews, pestures and gestures, whereunto the Scripture and Antiquity are utter strangers. These things you have not, and which renders your Condition so much the worse, you re∣fu••e to have them though you may, though you are entreated by God and man to make use of them; yea where great and populous nations under your power, have humbly petitioned you that by your leave and permission they might enjoy the Bible, and that Service of God which they could understand, you have chosen rather to run all things into con∣fusion and to fall upon them with fire and sword, then to grant them their request;

O curvae in terris animae & caelestium inanes!

But you add, Besides what you mention, what can promote your Salvation; for say you, What further Good may it do to read the letter of St. Paul's Epistles, to the Romans for example, or Corinthians, wherein Questions, and Cases, and Theological discourses are treated, that vulgar people can neither understand, nor are at all concerned to know. And I pray you tell me ingenuously and without heat, what more of Good could acrew to any by the translated letter of a book, whereof I will be bold to say that nine parts in ten concern not my particular either to know or practice, then by the conceived substance of Gods will unto me, and my own duty towards him. Sir, I shall deal with you with∣out any blameable heat, yet so as he deserves to be dealt withall, who will not cease to pervert the right wayes of the Lord. And 1. who taught you to make your apprehensions the measure of other mens faith

and practice? If you know not of any thing need∣full to promote Salvation, but what you reckon up in the usage of your Church, hinder not them that do. It is not so much your own practice, as your Impositi∣on of it on others, that we are in the consideration of▪ Would it worth suffice you to reject as to your own interest the means appointed of God for the further∣rance of our Salvation, and that you would not com∣pell others to joyn with you in the refusal of them? Is it possible that a man professing himself a Divine, a Priest of the Catholick Church, an Instructor of the Ignorant, an undertaker to perswade whole Nations to relinquish the way of Religion wherein they are engaged, to follow him and his in wayes that they have not known, should profess that he knows not of what use unto the promotion of the Salvation of the Souls of men the use of the whole Scripture given by inspiration of God is! Be advised not to impose these conceptions of your fancy and mind, as it seems unexercised in that heavenly treasury, on those who have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, senses exercised therein, so as to be able to discern between good and evil. It no other reason can prevail with you, I hope experi∣ence may give you such a despair of success, as to cause you to surcease. (2.) This Vulgar people that you talk of (as the Pharises did of them that were willing to attend unto the preaching of Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Joh. 7. This vul∣gar rout that knows not the Law) if they are Christi∣ans, they are such as to whom those Epistles were originally written, and for whose sakes they are pre∣served, such as Christ hath redeemed and sanctified in his own blood, and given the annointing unto, where∣by they may know all things, and are pattakers of the Promise that they shall be taught of God. The

Gospel takes not away the outward differences and distinctions, that are on other accounts amongst the children of men, but in the things of the Gospel its self there are none Vulgar or Common, nor as such to be despised; but believers are all one in Christ Jesus; Col. 3. 11. Jam. 2. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. How it is now I know nor, but I am sure that the begin∣ning of the preaching of the Gospel, the poor prin∣cipally received it, and the greatest number of them that were effectually called, was of those whom you speak so contemptuously of, as the Apostle testifies, 1. Cor. 1. 26. And the same is made good in all an∣tient story. Neither are these vulgar people such Ignoramus's as you imagine, unless it be where you make and keep them such, by detaining from them the means of knowledge, and who perish for the want of it, as the Prophet complained of old. I speak not of them who continue willingly ignorant under the most effectual means of light; but of such as being really born of God, and becoming thereby a Royal Nation, an holy Priesthood as they are called, yea Kings and Priests unto God, do conscientiously atterd unto his teachings. Of these there are thousands, yea ten thousands in England, who are among the vulgar fort as to their Outward and Civil Condition, that if occasion were administred, would farther try your Divinity then you are aware, and give you another manner of account of Pauls Epistles then I perceive you suppose they would. You are mistaken if you imagine that either greatness, or Learning, Or Secular Wisdom will give a man understanding in the Mysteries of the Gospel, or make him wise therein. This wisdom is from above, is wrought by the Spirit of God in the use of Spiritual means by himself appointed for that

purpose. And we know not that men of any condi∣tion are excepted from his dispensations of Light and Grace. 3. To whom, and for whose instruction were those Epistles of Paul written? Were they not to the Churches of those dayes? to all that were at Rome called to be holy. ch. 1. 7. and to the Church of God that was at Corinth sanctified in Christ Jesus, 1 Cor. 1. 2. with all that everywhere call on his name. And why I pray may not the Churches of these dayes be concerned to know the things that the Spirit of God thought meet to instruct the former Churches in? Are Believers now grown unconcerned in the Doctrine in the law and Gospel, of Sin and Grace, of Justification, Sanctification, Adoption, the Obe∣dience of Faith, and duties of Holiness, which S. Paul reveals and declares in his Epistles? What would you make of them? or what would you make of the Apostle to write things for the standing use of the Church, wherein so few were like to be con∣cerned? Or do you think that there are but few things in the Scripture wherein the souls of the peo∣ple are concerned, and that all the rest are left for learned men to dispute and wrangle about?

But you say, there are particular Cases in them, that belonged it may be only to them unto whom their resolution was directed. But are you such a stranger in the Israel of the Church, as not to know that in the same Cases, or others of a very neer allyance unto them determinable by the Apostolical Rules delivered in them, the Consciences of your vulgar people are still concerned? 4. Those Epistles of Paul wherein you instance, were written by divine Inspiration, and given out by the direction of the Holy Ghost for the use of the Church of God in all Ages; This I suppose you will not deny. If so, why do you set up your

wisdom built on frivolous Cavils, against the Will, Wisdom, Love and Care of God? I fear you are a stranger unto that Benefit, Strength, Supportment, Light, Knowledge, Grace, Wisdom and Consolation, which true believers, the Disciples of Christ do every day receive by reading, studying and meditating on Pauls Epistles. I wish you would mind some of old Chrysostoms Exhortations unto all sorts of persons to the reading and study of them; they are so interwoven in all his Expositions and Sermons on them, that it were lost labour to direct you unto any place in particular. 5. The latter part of your Discourse would make me suspect that your con∣verse with the Quakers that you talked of in your Fiat, had a little tainted your judgement, but that I can ascribe the rise of it unto another Cause. Your preferring the conceived substance of Gods Will before the letter of the Scripture, is their very Opini∣on. But what do you mean by the conceived sub∣stance of Gods Will? Is it the D••ctrine concerning the Will of God delivered in the Scripture, or is it somewhat else? If some other thing, why do you not declare it? If it be no other, why do you di∣stinguish it from its self, and prefer it above it self? or do you conceive, there is a conceived substance of Gods Will that is taught, or may be by men, bet∣ter then by God himself? 6. Somewhat you inti∣mate, it may be to this purpose, in the close of this Discourse, p. 96. where you say, the Question be∣tween us is not, whether the people are to have Gods Word or no, but whether that Word consist in the letter left to the Peoples disposal, or in the substance ur∣gently imposed upon the people for their practice. And this because you understand not, but mistake the whole business, all your talk in this your eighteenth Chap∣ter

vades into nothing. Truly Sir, I never heard be∣fore that this was the state of the Controversie be∣tween us, nor do I now believe it so to be. For (1.) We say not that the letter of the Scripture is to be left unto the Peoples disposal, but that the Scripture is to be commended unto their reverend use and meditation, which we think cannot be in∣genuously denyed by any man that hath read the Scripture, or knows ought of the Duty of the Disci∣ples of Christ. (2.) The Conceived substance of the Word of God, as by any man conceived and pro∣posed, is no otherwise the Word of God, but as it answers what is written in the Scripture, and by virtue of its analogy therewith. (3.) If by urging the substance of the Word of God on the People, you understand their instruction in their Duty out of the Word of God, by Catechizing, Preaching, Admoni∣tions and Exhortations, as you must if you speak intelligibly, why do you oppose these things as in∣consistent? May not the people have the use of the Scripture, and yet have the Word preached unto them by their Teachers? Did not Paul preach the substance of the Word unto the Bereans, and yet they are commended that they tryed what he delivered unto them by the Scripture its self which they en∣joyed? And (4.) Why do you appropriate this urging of the substance of the Word of God unto your usage and practice, giving out as ours, the leaving of the letter of the Scripture to the Peoples disposal, when we know the former to be done far more ef∣fectually among Protestants, then among you, and your self cannot deny it to be done more frequent∣ly? (5.) You reproach the Scripture by calling it the Letter in opposition to your conceived substance of the Word of God. For though the Literal sense

of Metaphorical expressions (by you yet adhered un∣to) be sometimes called the Flesh, John 6. 33. and the carnal sense of the Institutions of the Old Testa∣ment, be termed the Letter, 2 Cor. 3. 6. Rom. 2. 2. yet the Covenant of God is, that his Spirit and Word shall ever accompany one another, Isa. 59. 21. and our Saviour tells us, that his Words are Spirit and life, John 6. 63. and the Apostle, that the Word of God is living and powerful, and sharper then any two-edged sword, Heb. 4. 12. There is in the written Word a living and life-giving power and efficacy, which be∣lievers have experience of, and which I should be sorry to conclude you to be unacquainted withal. It is the power of God unto salvation, the immortal seed whereby we are begotten unto God, and the food whereby our souls are nourished. And all this, is to not only as to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that which is written, but the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the writing, or Scripture it self, which is given by Inspiration from God. For though the things themselves written are the Will of God, and intended in the writing; yet the Writing its self being given out by inspiration, is the Word of God, and only original means of Communicating the other unto us: or the Word of God wherein his will is contained; formally so, as the other is mate∣rially. (6.) I find you are not well pleased when you are minded of the contemptuous expressions which some of your friends have used concerning the Holy Scripture; but I am now enforced to tell you that you your self have equalled in my appre∣hension the very worst of them, in affirming that nine parts in ten of it concerns not your particular either to know or practice. For I presume you make the instance only in your self, intending all other in∣dividual Persons no less then your self. The Apostle

tells us, that all Scripture is given by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. You, that nine parts in ten of it do not concern us to know or practice; that is, not at all. He informs us, that what ever things were written afore time, were writttn for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scripture might have hope; not above one part of ten of what is so written, if you may be be∣lieved, is useful to any such purpose. Do you con∣sider what you say? God hath given us his whole Word for our use and benefit. Nine parts in ten of it, say you, do not concern us. Can possibly any man break forth into an higher reflection upon the Wis∣dom and Love of the Holy God? Or do you think you could have made a more woful discovery of your unacquaintedness with your own duty, the nature of faith and Obedience Evangelical, then you have done in these words? You will not make thus bold with the Books that Aristotle hath left us in Philosophy, or Galen in Medicine. But the wis∣dom of God in that writing which he hath given us for the Revelation of his will, it seems may be de∣spised. Such fruit in the depraved nature of man will 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 produce. The practice we blame in you, is not worse then the reasonings you use in its confirmation. I pray God neither of them may be ever laid unto your charge.

Your following words are a Commendation of the zeal and piety of the dayes and times before the Reformation, with reflections upon all things amongst us since, and this I shall pass by, so to avoid the occasion of representing unto you the true state of things both here and elsewhere in the Ages you so much extoll. Neither indeed is it to any great pur∣pose

to lay open anew that darkness and wicked∣ness which the world groaned under, and all sober men complained of. You proceed to other Excepti∣ons and say:

Where Fiat Lux sayes, That the Pentateuch, or Ha∣giography was never by any High Priest among the Jews put into a Vulgar Tongue, nor the Gospel or Lyturgie out of the Greek in the Eastern part of the Christian Church, or Latin in the Western, you sleight this dis∣course of mine, because Hebrew, Greek and Latin were Vulgar Tongues themselves: I know this well enough: but when, and how long ago were they so? Not for some thousand years to my knowledge. And was the Bible, Psalms, or Christian Lyturgie then put in∣to Vulgar Tongues, when those they were first written in, ceased to be Vulgar? This you should have spoken un∣to, if you had meant to say any thing, or gainsay me. Nor is it to purpose to tell me that St. Jerom translated the Bible into Dalmatian. I know well enough it hath been translated by some special per∣sons into Gothish, Armenian, Aethiopian and other particular Dialects. But did the Church either of the Hebrews, or the Christians either Greeks or Latin ever deliver it so to translated to the generality of People, or use it in their Service, or command it so to be done as a thing of general Concernment and necessity? so far is it from that, that they would never permit it.

I thought you would as little have medled with this matter again, as you have done with other things of the like disadvantage unto you. For (1.) I told you sufficiently before what a vanity it was to enquire after a Translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew before the Babylonish Captivity, there being no other language but that

understood amongst the Generality of the Jewish People. And I then manisested unto you, and shall do so further immediately, that the Translation of the Scripture into Syriak which you enquire after, could have had no other design amongst the Jews in those dayes, then your keeping of it in Latin hath; namely that the People might not under∣stand it. For if you shall persist to think that the Jews before the Babylonish Captivity at least, had any other vulgar language but the Hebrew, you will make all men of understanding smile at you at an extraordinary rate. Some while after the return of the people from their Captivity, they began to lose the purity of their own tongue, and most of them understood the Syrochaldaean, wherein about that time some small parts of the Scripture also were written, In no long process of time a great portion of them living scattered in the Provinces of the Macedonian Empire, and therefore called Hellenists, used and spake the Greek tongue, their own ceasing to be vulgar unto them. All these both in private, and in their publick Synagogne Worship made use of a Translation of the Scri∣pture into Greek, which was now become their vulgar tongue, and that made either by the LXXII. Elders sent from Jerusalem to Ptolomy Philadelphus, or which is more probable by the Jews of Alexan∣dria, unto which City multitudes of them repaired, the Nation being made free of it by its founder; or it may be some while after by the Priest Onias, who lead a great Colony of them into Aegypt, and there built them a Temple for their Worship. So did these Hebrews make use of a Translation, when their own tongue ceased to be vulgar unto them. The monster of serving God by rational men with a

tongue whereof they understand never a word, was not yet hatched. The other portion of the people, who either lived in Palestina, or those parts of the East where the Greck tongue never prevailed into common use, so soon as their language began to be mixed with the Syrochaldean, and the purity of it to grow into disuse, made use constantly of their Targums, or Translations into that tongue. Nei∣ther can it be proved, but that the Jerusalem Jews un∣derstood the Hebrew well enough until the destru∣ction of the City and Temple by Titus. So that from the Church of the Jews you cannot obtain the least countenance to your practice. And there lyes in Gods dealing with them a strong Argument and Testimony against it. For if God himself thought meet to intrust his Oracles unto his People, in that language which was common unto them all, hath he not tanght us that it is his Will they should still be so continued? And is there not still the same rea∣son for it as there was at first? (2.) Farther, the practice of the Latin Church is unavoidably against you. For whereas the Scripture was no part of it written in Latin which was their vulgar tongue, it it was immediately both Old Testament and New turned thereinto: and therein used, as in their publick Worship, so by private Persons of all sorts, upon the encouragement of the Rulers of it. And no reason of their translation of it, which they made and had from time immemorial, can possibly be imagined, but only the indispensible necessity which they apprehended of having the Scripture in a Lan∣guage, which the People did generally speak and un∣derstand. (3.) The case was the same in the an∣tient Greek Church. The New Testament was Ori∣ginally written in their own vulgar tongue, which

they made use of accordingly. And as for the old, they constantly used a Translation of it into the same dialect. So that it is impossible that we can obtain a clearer suffrage from the Antient Churches, both Jews and Christians, and these both of Latins and Greeks in any thing, then we have against this custom of your Church. But these languages you say have ceased to be vulgar for some thousand years to your knowleage. Bona verba! You know much I per∣ceive, yet not so much, but that it is possible you may sometimes fail in your Chronological faculty. Pray how many thousand years is it think you since Christs birth, now this year 1663.? or since the ruine of the Greek or Latin Empire, and therein the Corruption of thei•• Languages. I believe you will not find it above three or four thousand at the most, upon your next Calculation: though I can assure you an ingenuous Person told me, he thought from the manner of your speaking you might guess at some nine or ten. What then? Was the Bible say you put into other vulgar tongues when they ceased to be vulgar? Yes by some they were: Hierom translated it into the Dalmatian tongue: Vlphilus into the Gotish: Beda a great part of it into the Saxon, and the like no doubt was done by others. The Eastern Countreys also, to whom the Greek was not so well known, had Translations of their own from the ve∣ry beginning of their Christianity. And for the rest, shall the wretched negligence of men in times of confusion and ignorance, such as those were wherein the Greek and Latin tongues ceased to be vulgar, prescribe a Rule and Law unto us of practice in the worship of God, contrary to his own direction, the nature of the thing its self, and the example of all the Churches of Christ for five hundred years?

For besides that in the Empire it was alwayes used, and read in the vulgar tongues, those Nations that knew not the two great Languages that were com∣monly spoken therein, from the time that they re∣ceived the Christian faith, took care to have the Scri∣ptures translated into their Own mother tongue. So Chrysostom tells us, that the Gospel of John, where∣in occasionally he especially instanceth, was in his dayes translated into the Syrian, Egyptian, Indian, Persian and Ethiopian Languages. Hom. 1. in John. But you say, Did the Church either of the Hebrews or Christians, Greek or Latin, ever deliver it transtlated to the generality of the People, or use it in their Ser| vice, or command it so to be done, as a thing of Gene∣ral concernment; so far is it from that, that they would never permit it. But you do not sufficiently consider what you say. The Hebrew Church had no need so to do. God gave the Scripture unto it in their own mother tongue, and that only. And they had no reason to translate it out of their knowledge and understanding. The Greek Church had the New Testament in the same manner, and the Old they translated or delivered it so translated by others unto the generality of the people, and used it in their Service. The Latin Church did so also. The Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament also being originally written in Languages unknown vulgarly unto them; they had them translated into their own common tongue for the generality of the People, and used that Translation in their Publick Service. The same was the practice of the Syrians and all other Nations of old, that had a language in common use peculiar to themselves All your Plea ariseth from the practice of some who through ig∣norance or negligence provided not for the good

and necessity of the Churches of Christ, when through the changes and confusions that happened in the world, the Greek and Latin tongues ceased to be vulgar, which how many thousand years ago it was, you may calculate at your next leisure. This is that, which in them we blame, and in you much more because you will follow them after you have been so frequently admonished of your miscarriage therein; for you add to your sin by making, that which was neglect in them, wilful choice in you, com∣manding that not to be done, which they only omit∣ted to do.

But you will not leave this matter; you told us in your Fiat, that neither Moses, nor any after him did take care to have the Scripture turned into Syriack. I desired to know why they should, seeing Hebrew was their vulgar tongue, and the Syriak unknown unto them, which I proved from the saying of the Princes of Hezekiah, when they desired Rabshakeh to speak unto them in Syriak which they understood, and not in the Jews Language in the hearing of the people to affright and trouble them. This I did for your satisfaction, the thing its self being absolutely out of question, and not in the least needing any proof amongst those who understand any thing of this business. But you yet attempt to revive your first mistake, and to say somewhat unto the instance whereby it was rectified, but with your usual suc∣cess. Will you therefore be pleased to hear your self talk you know not what in this matter once more? Thus then you proceed, Sir you are mistaken, for the longue the Princes perswaded Rabshakeh to speak was the Assyrian, his own language which was learned by the Gentry in Palestine, as we in England learn the French; which although by abbreviation it be called

Syriack, yet is differed as much from the Jews Language which was spoken by Christ and his Apostles (whereof Eli Eli lama Sabacthani is a part) and was over since that time called Syrian or Syriack, as French differs from English. And if you would read atten∣tively, you may suspect by the very words of the Text, that the Jews Language even then was not the Hebrew. For it had been a shorter and plainer expression, and more answerable to their custom so to call it if it had been so, then by a paraphrase to name it the Jews Language: which if then it was called Syrian, as afterwards it was, then had the Princes reason to call it rather the Jews Language then Syrian, because that and the Assyrian differed more in nature then appella∣tion; though some difference doubtless there was in the very word and name, although Translators have not heeded to deliver it. Shibbolet and Sibbolet may differ more in signification then sound: nor is Brittish and brutish so neer in nature as they are in name. And who knows not that Syria and Assyria were several Kingdoms, as likewise were the Languages?

I had much ado at first to understand what it is that you would have in this discourse; and no won∣der, for I am sure you do not understand your self. And I am perswaded that if you knew how many prodigies you have poured out in these few lines, you would be amazed at the product of your own imagination. For (1.) You yet again suppose Syriack to have been the vulgar language of the Jews in the dayes of Hezechiah, a thing that never fell upon the fancy of any man before you, being contrary to express Scripture in the Testimony be∣fore recited, and all the monuments of those dayes, wherein the Sermons of the Prophets unto the peo∣ple are recorded in the purest Hebrew; neither had

the people as yet been carried captive out of their own land, or been mixed with strangers, so as to have lost their language as you imagine, unless you think that indeed the Hebrew was never their vulgar tongue. 2. You suppose, the Syrian and As∣syrian at that time to have been different Languages, whereof those who understood the one understood not the other: when they were but one and the same called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the tongue of Aram, nei∣ther was there ever any other difference between the Language of the Assyrians or Chaldaeans, and that which was afterwards peculiarly called Syriack, but in some few words and various terminations, and how far this differed from the Jews Language you have an instance in the names given by Jacob and Laben to the same heap of witness, Gen. 31. 47. the one calling it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Galead, the other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 iegar Sahadutha; neither was it at all understood by the common people of the Jews, Jer. 5. 15. (3.) You suppose that in the Language wherein Rabshakeh and the Princes conferred, their Syriack was an abbre∣viation of Assyriack, because in sound it was so near the other, that they would have him speak in. So that the Jews speaking Syriack, when the Princes desired Rabshakeh to speak Syriack, they meant ano∣ther Language, as much differing from that, as French from English. But you are in the dark, and know not how you wander up and down to no purpose. There is nothing of the words that you pretend to be an abbreviation the one of the other in the Text, nor is there any such relation between them as you imagine, that they should be near in sound, though not in nature. Eliakim entreats Rabshakeh that he would speak 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aramith, Aramice, that is, as the Greeks and Latins express that people and

Language Syriace in Syriack; that he would speak the language of Aram: which Language was spoken also by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the King and People of Assyria. And truly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aram is no abreviation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ashur, as I suppose. (4.) You talk of the lenghth of that expression, in the Jews Language, when there is no∣thing in the Text but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehudith Judaice, that is, in Hebrew. (5.) Some difference you sup∣pose there was between the Assyrian and Syrian in sound and name, though Translators have not heeded to deliver it; When there is no agreement at all between them: but you say there was more in na∣ture, when there was none at all. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lashon Arami, the tongue of Aram was the Language of Assyria, Ashur being but a Colony of Aram. (6,) So you think that Shibboleth and Sibboleth may differ more in signification then sound. But pray what do you think is the signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the Ephra∣mites pronounced 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, just as much as a word falsly pronounced signifieth, and no more; that is, of its self just nothing at all: For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sibboleth is no Hebrew word, but meerly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shibboleth falsly pronounced. 7. You imagine that the Lan∣guage spoken by Christ, and his Apostles was the same that was spoken in the dayes of Hezekiah, and this you would prove from those words Eli Eli lama Sabacthani, to be that which is now common∣ly called Syriack, and fancy an Assyrian tongue, as much differing from it, as French differs from En∣glish, which manifests your skill in the Oriental Languages, for want whereof I do not blame you; for what is that to me? but I cannot take it well that you should choose me out to trouble me with talking about that which you do not understand. For here you give us two Languages, the Syriack,

and Assyriack, which names in the Original differed but little in sound, but the languages themselves did as much in nature as French and English. And the Syriack you tell us, was that which is now so pecu∣liarly called, but what the Assyriack was you tell us not, but only that when the Princes perswade Rab∣shakeh to speak 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aramith, he intended an Assyrian language that was not Syrian. The boys that grind colours in our Grammer Schools, laugh at these Mormoes. (8.) Neither do you know well what you say when you affirm that the Language of Christ, and his Apostles was the same that was ever since called the Syriack: for the very instance you give, manifests it to have been a different dialect from it; the words as recorded by the Evangelists being absolutely the same neither with the Hebrew, nor Targum, nor Syriack Translation of the Old Testament: That wherein we have the Translation of the Scripture, and which prevailed in the Eastern Church, being a peculiar Antiochian dialect of the old Aramaean Tongue. And that whole language called the Syriack peculiarly now, and whereof there were various dialects of old, seems to have had its beginning after the Jews return from their captivi∣ty, being but a degenerate mixture of the Hebrew and Chaldee; whereunto also after the prevalency of the Macedonian Empire many Greek word were admitted, and some Latine ones also afterwards. (9.) You advantage not your self by affirming that Assyria and Syria were several Kingdoms. For as Strabo will inform you, they were both originally called Syrian, and indeed were one and the same, until the more Eastern Provinces about Babylon obtaining their peculiar denominations, that part of Asia, which contains Comogena, Phaenicia, Palestina and

Coelosyria, became to be especially called Syria. Originally they were all Aramites as every one knows that can but read the Scripture in its Original Language.

And now I suppose you may see how little you have advantaged your self; or your cause by this maze of mistakes and contradictions. For no er∣rour can be so thick covered with others, but that it will rain through. The Jews you suppose to have lost their own language in the dayes of Hezekiah, and to have spoken Syriack; the Syrian and Assyrian to have been languages as far distant as French and English; that when the Princes entreated Rabsha∣keh to speak the Syrian language 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they in∣tended not the Syrian Language which was indeed the Jews, but the Assyrian quite differing from it; and so when they desired him not to speak 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 you suppose them to have desired him not to speak in the Jews language, but to speak in the Jews language which you say was the Syriack. And sundry other no less unhappy absurdities have you amassed together.

But you will retrive us out of this Labyrinth, by a Story of what a Greek Biship did and said at Paris in the presence of Doctor Cousins now bishop of Dur∣ham, how he refused the Articles of the English Church, and did all things according to the Roman mode, asserting the use of Liturgies in the vulgar Greek. Unto which I shall say no more, but that it was at Paris and not at Durham;

Graeculus esuriens in caelum jusseris, ibit.

I have my self known some eminent members of that Church in England, two especially; one many years ago called Conopius, who if I mistake not, up∣on

his return obtained the honour of a Patriarchate, being sent hither by the then Patriarch of Constan∣tinople; the other not many years ago, called Ana∣statius Comnenus Archimandrite as his Testimonials be spake him, of a Monastry on Mount Sinai. Both these I am sure made it their business to inveigh a∣gainst your Church & practices, having the Arguments of Nilus against your Supremacy at their fingers ends. And if the Greek Chruch and you are so well agreed as you pretend, why do you censure them as He∣reticks and Schismaticks, and receive only some few of them who are runnagates from their own Tents? What may those whom you proclaim to be your enemies expect from you, when you deal thus severely with those whom you give out to be your friends? But as for this matter, of the Scripture, and prayers in an unknown tongue, though they transgress not with so high an hand as you do, the old Greeks being not so absolutely remote from the present vulgar, as the Latine is from our English, and the Languages of diverse other Nations whom you compell to your Church Service in that toague, and besides they have the Scripture translated into their present vul∣gar tongue, for the use of private persons; yet we ap∣prove not their practice, but look upon it as a great means of continuing, that ignorance and darkness which is unquestionably spread over the major part of that Church: which in some places as in Russia is to such a degree, as to dispose the people unto Barbarism. We know also that herein they are gone off from the constant and Catholick usage of their forefathers, who for some Centuries of years from the dayes of the Apostles themselves, who planted Churches amongst them, both had the Bible in their own vulgar Tongue, and made no use of any

other in the publick Service of their Assemblies. And that their example in your present degenerate condition, which in some things you as little approve of as we do in others, should have any great power upon us, I know as yet little reason to judge.

Your last attempt in this matter is to vindicate what you have said in your Fiat, as you now affirm, That the Bible was kept in an Ark or Tabernncle, not touched by the people, but brought ont at times to the Priest that he might instruct the people out of it. To which you say, I answer, That the Ark was placed in the Sanctum Sanctorum which was not entred into but by the Priest and that only once a year; And Reply, But Sir I speake not there of any Sanctum Sanctorum, or of any Ark in that place; was there or could there be no more Arks but one? If you had been only in these latter days in any Synagogue or Convention of the Jews, you might have seen even now how the Bible is still kept with them in an Ark or Tabernacle, in imitation of their forefathers, when they have no Sanctum Sanctorum amongst them. You may also discern how according to your custome, they ••ringe and prostrate at the bringing out of the Biblt, which is the only solemn adoration left amongst them; there be more Arks then that in the Sanctum Sanctorum; if I had called it a Box or a Chest, or a Cupboard you had let it pass; but I used that word as more sacred.

The oftener that you touch upon this string, the harsher is the found that it yields. I would desire you to free your self from the unhappiness of sup∣posing that it tends unto your disreputation to be esteemed unacquainted with the Jews language and customes. If you cannot do so, you will not be able to avoid suffering from your own thoughts, especi∣ally if you cannot for bear talking al out them. This

was all that in your former discourse you were ob∣noxious unto, but this renewal of it hath rendred your condition somewhat worse then it was. For failures in Skill and Science, are not in demerit to be com∣pared with those in Morality, which are voluntary and of choice. Your words in your Fiat, after you had learnedly observed that the Bible was never in Moses time nor afterwards by any high Priest tran∣slated into Syriack for the use of the People, are, Nay it was so far from that, that it was not touched nor looked upon by the people, but kept privately in the Ark or Tabernacle, and brought for that times by the Priest who might upon the Sabboth day read some part of it to the people. I confess your expression in the Ark or Ta∣bernacle was somewhat uncouth, and discovered that you did but obscurely guess at the thing you ventu∣red to discourse about. But I took your words in that only sense they were capable of; namely that the Bible was kept in the Ark, or at least in the Ta∣bernacle, that is some part of it, whereunto the Peo∣ple had no access. And he must be a man devoid of reason and common sense, who could imagine that you intended any thing but the sacred Ark and Ta∣bernacle, when you said that it was kept in the Ark or Tabernacle. For not only by all rules of inter∣pretation is the word used indefinitely to be taken in sensu famosiori, but also your manner of Expressi∣on will admit of no other sense or intention. Now herein in the Animadversions I minded you of your failure, and told you that not the whole Bible as you imagined, but only the Pentateuch was placed, not in, but at the sides of the Ark. That the Ark was kept in the Sanctuary, that no Priest went in thither, but only the High Priest and that but once a year, that the book of the Law was never brought forth

from thence to be read to the people; and lastly that whatever of this kind you might fancy, yet it would not in the least conduce to your purpose, it being openly evident that besides the Publick lections out of the Law, that People had all of them the Scri∣pture in their houses, and were bound by the com∣mand of God to read and meditate in them conti∣nually. What say you now to these things? (1.) You change your words and affirm that you said it was kept in an Ark or Tabernacle, as though you meant any Ark or Chest. But you too much wrong your self; your words are as before represented, in the Ark or Tabernacle, and you remembred them well enough to be so, which so perplexeth you in your attempt to rectifie what you said. For after you have changed the first word, the addition of the next leaves you in the briars of nonsense; in an Ark or Tabernacle, as though they were terms con∣vertible; a Chest or a Tent. I wish you would make an end of this fond shooting at rovers. (2.) You apply that to the practice of the present Jews in their Synagogues, which you plainly spake of the antient Jews, whilest their Temple and Church state continu∣ed, wherein again you intrench upon morality for an Evasion. And besides you cast your self upon new mis∣takes. For (1.) The Book kept in a Chest by them, and brought forth with the veneration you speak of, is not the whole Bible as you imagine but only the Pentateuch which was read in their Synagogues on the Sabbath dayes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as James tells us, Act. 15. 21. Only whereas their Law was particu∣larly sought after to be destroyed by Antiochus Epi∣phanes, they supplyed the room of it with the other parts of the Scripture divided into Haphters answe∣rable unto the Sections of the Law. Nor (2.) Is

that brought out to, or by a Priest, but to any Rabbi that precides in their Synagogue worship; for they have no Priest amongst them, nor certain distinction of Tribes; so that if you your self have been in any Synagogue or Convention of the Jews, it is evident that you understood little of what you saw them do, (3.) For their Prostration at the bringing out of the Book which you seem to commend as a solemn Ado∣ration, it is down right Idolatrous, for in it they openly worship the material roll or book that they keep.

But what is it that you would from hence con∣clude? Is it that which you attempted in yout Fi∣at, namely that the People amongst the Jews had not the Bible in their own language, and in common use among them? You may as easily prove that the Sun shines not at noon day. The Scripture was com∣mitted unto them in their own mother tongue, and they were commanded of God to read and study it continually, the Psalmist pronouncing them blessed who did accordingly. And the present Jews make the same duty of indispensable necessity unto every one amongst them, after he comes to be filius prae∣cepti, or lyable to the keeping of any command of God. The Rules they give for all sorts of Persons, high and low, rich and poor, young and old, sick and in health, for the performance of this duty, are known to all, who have any acquaintance with their present Principles, Practices, State and Condition. And you shall scarcely meet with a child amongst them of nine ytars old who is not exercised to the reading of the Bible in Hebrew. And yet though they all ge∣nerally learn the Hebrew tongue for this purpose in their Infancy, yet least they should neglect it, or through trouble be kept from it, they have translated

the whole Old Testament into all the Languages of the Nations amongst whom in any nambers they are scattered. The Arabick Translation of the Mauri∣tanian Jews, the Spanish of the Spaniards and Portu∣gues I can shew you it you please. Upon the whole matter, I wish you knew how great the work is, wherein you are engaged, and how contemptible the engines are whereby you hope to effect it. But such Positions, and such Confirmations are very well suited. And this is the summ of what you plead afresh in vindication of your Latine Service and keeping the Scripture from the use of the People. If you suppose your self armed hereby against the express Institution of Christ by his Apost••es, the ex∣ample of Gods dealing with his people of old, the nature of the things themselves, and universal pra∣ctise of the Primitive Church, I really pitty you, and shall continue to pray for you, that you may not any longer bring upon your selves the blood of souls.

CHAP. 23.

Communion.

THE Defence of your Paragraph about Commu∣nion in one kind, is totally deserted by you. I know no other cause of your so doing, but a sence of your incompetency for its defence: seing you ex∣pend words enough about things of less importance. But you please your self with the commendation of what you had written on this subject in your Fiat as full of Christian Reason, convincing Reason and Sobri∣ety, and how it would have prevailed upon your own judgement, had you been otherwise minded. You seem to dwell far from neighbours, and to be a very easie man to be entreated unto what you have a mind unto. But you might not have done amiss to have waited a little for the praise of others; This out of your own mouth is not very comely. And I shall only take leave once more to inform you, that an opposition to the Institution of Christ, the command of the Apostle, the Practice of the Primitive Church, with the faith and Consolation of Believers, such as is your Paragraph about Communion in one kind, whatever overweening thoughts you may have of the product of your own fancy, cannot indeed have any one grain in it, of Sobriety or Christian Rea∣son.

CHAP. 24.

Heroes: of the Asses Head, whose Worship was ob∣jected to Jews and Christians.

YOur last end endeavour consists in an excepti∣on to somewhat affirmed in the twentieth Chap∣ter of the Animadversions directed unto your Para∣graph about Saints and Heroes. And I am sorry that I must close with the Consideration of it because I would willingly have taken my leave of you upon better terms, then your discouse will allow me to do. But I shall as speedily represent you unto your self as I am able; And then give you my Salve aeter∣num{que} Vale.

You tell us in your Fiat, that the Pagans defamed the Christians for the worship of an Asses head, and you give this reason of it because the Jews had de∣famed our Lord Jesus Christ whose head and half Por∣traicture Christians used upon their Altars, even as they do at this day, of his great simplicity and igno∣rance. Two things you suppose, (1.) That the Christians placed the Head and half Portraicture of our Saviour in those dayes on their Altars; which is alone to your purpose. (2.) That this gave occa∣casion to the Pagans to defame them with the worship of an Asses head, because the Jews had so blasphemed the Lord Christ as you say. These things I told you are fond and false, and destitute of all colour of Testimony from Antiquity. That the worship of an Asses head was originally charged on the Jews them∣selves, and on Christians no otherwise, but as they were accounted a Sect of them, or their off spring▪ and that what in the same place you assert, of the Jews

accusing the Christians for the worship of Images, or the Christians using the Picture of Christs head, or his half Portraicture on their Altars, are monsters that none o•• the Antients ever dreamed of. What plead you 〈…〉〈…〉 your Vindication? quite omitting that what 〈◊〉〈◊〉 alone you are concerned, you only under∣take to prove that the worship of an Asses head was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 used to the Christians as well as to the Jews, which you say I deny, and say that it was not charged on the Jews at all. And the reason of this charge you say, was, because they were reckoned among the Jews in odiosis, and accounted of them. So well do you mind what you had said before, of the rise of that imputation on the Christians, from the blas∣plemy of the Jewes. So (1.) In your Fiat you say no hi••g of the Jews at all, but only that by their 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the Pagans took occasion to slander the 〈◊〉〈◊〉; being now better instructed by the Ani∣madversions, in the rise of that foolish calumny, you change your note and close in with what is in them 〈◊〉〈◊〉. (2.) You unduely affirm that I deny this to have been charged on the Christians, when I grant it was, and that in the very same manner and on the same account, that your self, now contrary to what you had written before, acknowledge it to have been. He must be as much unacquainted with these things, as some body else whom I shall not name honoris gratia, seems to be, who knows not that this foolish impiety was imputed in process of time to the Christians, by the Pagans, among a litter of other follies, as well as unto the Jews. Caecilius in Minucius tells us, audio ••os ineptissimae pecudis Caput Asini consecratum inepta nescio qua persuasi∣one venerari: I heer that by a foolish perswasion they worship the head of an Ass, a vile beast. And Ter∣tullian

Apol cap. 16. Nam quidam somniastis Caput Asininum esse Deum nostrum. Some of you dream that an Asses head is our God, presently declaring there∣on, that this imputation was derived on them from the Jews, who first suffered under that Fable. And if any thing gave new occasion unto it among the Christians, it was not the Picture of Christ despised by the Jews as you imagine, but the report of his riding on an Ass; which Athanasius takes notice of, Homil. ad Pagan, they said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the God of the Christians, who is called Christ, sate on an Ass. But you will prove what you say out of Tertullian; say you, the same Tertullian in his Apologeticks adds these words, The Calumnies, saith he, invented to cry down our Religion grew to such an excess of impiety that not long ago in this very City, a picture of our God was shewn by a certain infamous Person, with the ears of an Ass, and a hoof on one foot, cloathed with a gown, and a book in his hand with this inscri∣ption, Onochoetes the God of the Christians; And he adds that the Christians in the City as they were much offended with the impiety, so did they not a little won∣der at the strange uncouth name the villain had put upon our Lord and Master. Onochoetes, forsooth he must be called Onochoctes. In this Testimony of you know not what, you triumph and conclude, are you not a strange man to tell me that what I speak of this business is notoriously false; nay and that I know it is false, and that I cannot produce one Au∣thentick Testimony, no not one, of any such thing: but this is your Ordinary Confidence. Seriously Sir, I wonder where you got this Quotation out of Tertullian? Let me desire you to be wary in re∣ceiving any thing hereafter from the same hand, out

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

of Authors that you want the Confidence to venture upon your self. The words of Tertullian, which your Translator hath abused you in, are these: Sed nova jam Dei nostri in ista Civitate proxime editio publicata est, ex quo quidam in frustrandis bestiis mercenarius noxius picturam proposuit cum ejusmodi inscriptione, Deus Christianorum Ononychites; is erat auribus Asininis, altero pede ungulatus, librum gestans & togatus; risimus & nomen & formam. Sed illi debebant adorare statim biforme numen qui canino & leonino capite commistos Deos receperunt. Lately in that City (that is Rome) there was a publick shew made of our God; wherein a guilty Person hired to fight with wild beasts, and to cousin their rage, pro∣posed a Picture with this Inscription Ononychites the God of the Christians: he had Asses ears, hoofed on one foot, carrying a Book and in a gown: we laughed at the name and shape; but they ought immediately to have adored this double shaped Deity, who have received Gods mingled with Doggs and Lyons heads. You see how well you have given us the words of Tertullian, which you pretend to do, saying, he adds these words. But I confess though he sayes no such matter, it is like enough he would have wondred at the name of Onochoetes, had the villain given it unto his picture: For neither he, nor any man else knows what it should mean. He knew well enough what Onony∣chites signified, and laughed at it. It is but Asi∣nungulus, which it may be comes neerer their under∣standing. I confess some would read it Onochoerites, as if it were compounded of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because of those words of Epiphanius concerning the Gno∣sticks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Some say their Sabaoth had the form of an Ass, seme of a Hogg. But Tertullian in the description

of the Picture mentions no part of a Hogg, nor rejects the abomination of the Gnosticks, as was the manner of the Christians when charged with their silliness and folly, as may be seen abundantly in Ori∣gen against Celsus. But who, or what your Onocho∣etes should be, no man knows. But see your fur∣ther unhappiness. You prove not by your Quota∣tion that which no man denyes, namely that the Christians also were charged with the worship of an Asses head, which if you had but looked into Tertul∣lian himself, you must have found him expresly af∣firming it in the beginning of that Chapter, from whence your story is taken. Much less do you prove any thing of the Christians placing the head and half Portraicture of our Saviour upon their Altars, before or in the dayes of Constantine, which was that alone that was incumbent on you to have done. And now to give a brief view of that whole Portraicture that you have drawn of your self in your Epistle, I shall only mind you of those words of mine, that your Assertions were notoriously false, and that you could not produce so much as one Testimony of any such thing, were not by me used at all in reference unto the Pagans charge upon the Christians for worship∣ping an Asses head, but unto what you said about the use of the Picture of Christ on the Altars of Chri∣stians, with the rise of the charge mentioned from thence. This you know to be so; for my words must needs lye before you in your attempt for a re∣ply unto them, and finding them to be true, and that you were not able to produce one Testimony, no not one in the confirmation of what you had written; you pretend them now to be spoken in re∣ference unto that whereunto you know they did not at all relate, the thing it self being acknowledged

by me. This dealing becomes not any man pretend∣ing to ingenuity, or professing Christianity.

What remains of your Epistle, is Personal; Men are busie; and not so far concerned, I am sure in me, nor (I am almost perswaded) in you as to trouble themselves with the perusal of what belongs unto us personally. For my part I know it is my duty in all things, especially in those that are of such near concernment unto his Glory, as are all his Truths, and Worship, to commend my conscience unto God, and to be conversant in them in simplici∣ty and godly sincerity, and not in fleshly wisdom, not corrupting the word of Truth, nor lying in wait with any subtile sleights to deceive. And this through his Grace I shall attend unto, whatever reward I may meet withal in this world. For I know in whom I have believed, who is able to keep that which I desire to commit unto him. And for your part, I desire your prosperity as my own. I rejoyce in your quiet, and shall never envy you your liberty, and do pray that you may receive Grace, Truth and Peace from him, who alone is able to bestow them on you.

FINIS.