A dissuasive from popery by Jeremy, Lord Bishop of Down.

CHAP. I. The Doctrine of the Roman Church in the Controverted Articles is neither Catholick, Apostolick, nor Primitive. (Book 1)

Sect. I.

IT was the challenge of St. Augu∣stine to the Donatists,* 1.1 who (as the Church of Rome does at this day) in∣clos'd the Catholick Church within their own circuits: [Ye say that Christ is Heir of no Lands, but where Dona∣tus is Co-heir. Read this to us out of the Law and the Prophets, out of the Psalms, out of the Gospel it self, or out of the Letters of the Apostles. Read it thence and we believe it.] Plainly di∣recting us to the Fountains of our Faith, the Old and New Testament, the words of Christ, and the words of the Apostles. For nothing else can

be the Foundation of our Faith, what∣soever came in after these, for is est, it belongs not unto Christ. * 1.2

To these we also add, not as Au∣thors or Finishers, but as helpers of our Faith, and Heirs of the Doctrine A∣postolical, the Sen••iments and Catho∣lick Doctrine of the Church of God, in the Ages next after the Apostles. Not that we think them or our selves bound to every private opinion, even of a Primitive Bishop and Martyr; but that we all acknowledge that the whole Church of God kept the Faith entire, and transmitted faithfully to the after-Ages the whole Faith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the form of Doctrine, and sound words, which was at first delivered to the Saints, and was defective in nothing that belong'd unto salvation; and we believe that those Ages sent millions of Saints to the bosom of Christ, and seal'd the true faith with their lives and with their deaths, and by both, gave testimony unto Jesus, and had from him the testimony of his Spirit.

And this method of procedure we

now choose, not only because to them that know well how to use it, to the Sober and the Moderate, the Peace∣able and the Wise, it is the best, the most certain, visible and tangible, most humble and satisfactory, but also be∣cause the Church of Rome does with greatest noises pretend her Conformi∣ty to Antiquity. Indeed the present Roman Doctrines, which are in diffe∣rence, were invisible and unheard-of in the first and best antiquity, and with how ill success their quotations are out of the Fathers of the first three Ages, every inquiring Man may easily dis∣cern. But the noises therefore which they make are from the Writings of the succeeding Ages; where secular interest did more prevail, and the wri∣tings of the Fathers were vast and vo∣luminous, full of controversie, and am∣biguous senses, fitted to their own times and questions, full of proper opi∣nions, and such variety of sayings, that both sides eternally and inconfutably shall bring sayings for themselves re∣spectively. Now although things be∣ing

thus, it will be impossible for them to conclude from the sayings of a num∣ber of Fathers, that their doctrine, which they would prove thence, was the Catholick Doctrine of the Church; because any number that is less than all, does not prove a Catho∣lick consent; yet the clear sayings of one or two of these Fathers truly al∣leged by us to the contrary, will cer∣tainly prove that what many of them (suppose it) do affirm, and which but two or three as good Catholicks as the other do deny, was not then matter of faith or a Doctrine of the Church; for if it had, these had been Hereticks ac∣counted, and not have remain'd in the Communion of the Church. But al∣though for the reasonableness of the thing we have thought fit to take no∣tice of it; yet we shall have no need to make use of it; since not onely in the prime and purest Antiquity we are indubitably more than Conquerors; but even in the succeeding Ages, we have the advantage both numero, pon∣dere & men surâ, in number, weight and measure.

We do easily acknowledge that to dispute these questions from the say∣ings of the Fathers is not the readiest way to make an end of them; but therefore we do wholly rely upon Scriptures as the foundation and final resort of all our perswasions, and from thence can never be confuted; but we also admit the Fathers as admira∣ble helps for the understanding of the Scriptures, and as good testimony of the Doctrine deliver'd from their fore∣fathers down to them of what the Church esteem'd the way of Salvati∣on: and therefore if we find any Do∣ctrine now taught, which was not plac'd in their way of Salvation, we reject it as being no part of the Chri∣stian faith, and which ought not to be impos'd upon consciences. They were wise unto salvation, and fully instructed to every good work; and therefore the faith which they profess'd and deriv'd from Scripture, we profess also; and in the same faith, we hope to be sav'd even as they. But for the new Do∣ctors; we understand them not, we

know them not: Our faith is the same from the beginning, and cannot be∣come new.

But because we shall make it to ap∣pear that they do greatly innovate in al their points of controversie with us, and shew nothing but shadows instead of substances, and little images o•• things instead of solid arguments; we shall take from them their armour in which they trusted, and choose this sword of Goliath to combat their er∣rors; for non est alter talis; It is no•• easie to find a better than the word of God expounded by the prime and best Anti∣quity.

The first thing therefore we are to advertise is, that the Emissaries of the Roman Church endeavour to per∣swade the good People of our Dio∣ceses from a Religion that is truly Pri∣mitive and Apostolick, and divert them to Propositions of their own, new and unheard-of in the first ages o•• the Christian Church.

For the Religion of our Church is therefore certainly Primitive and Apo∣stolick,

because it teaches us to believe the whole Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and nothing else as matter of faith; and therefore unless there can be new Scriptures, we can have no new matters of belief, no new arti∣cles of faith. Whatsoever we cannot prove from thence, we disclaim it, as not deriving from the Fountains of our Saviour. We also do believe the Apostles Creed, the Nicene, with the additions of Constantinople, and that which is commonly called, the Symbol of Saint Athanasius: and the four first General Councils are so intirely admitted by us, that they together with the plain words of Scripture are made the rule and measure of judging Heresies amongst us: and in pursuance of these, it is commanded by our Church that the Clergy shall never teach any thing as matter of Faith religiously to be observed, but that which is agreea∣ble to the Old and New Testament, and collected out of the same Doctrine by the Ancient Fathers and Catholick

Bishops of the Church* 1.3. This was undoubtedly the Faith of the Primi∣tive Church, they admitted all into their Communion that were of this faith; they condemned no Man that did not condemn these; they gave letters communicatory by no othe•• cognisance, and all were Brethren who spake this voice. [Hanc legen•• sequentes, Christianorum Catholicorum•• nomen jubemus amplecti, reliquos ver•• dementes, vesanosque judicantes haere∣tici dogmatis infamiam sustinere] said the Emperors,* 1.4 Gratian, Valentinia•• and Theodosius, in their Proclamation to the People of C. P. All that be∣liev'd this Doctrine were Christian•• and Catholicks, viz. all they who be∣lieve in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one Divinity of equal Majesty in the Holy Trinity; which indee•• was the summ of what was decree•• in explication of the Apostles Creed in the four first General Councils.

And what faith can be the foundati∣on of a more solid peace, the surer li∣gaments of Catholick Communion,

or the firmer basis of a holy life and of the hopes of Heaven hereafter, than the measures which the Holy Primi∣tive Church did hold, and we after them? That which we rely upon is the same that the Primitive Church did ac∣knowledge to be the adaequate foun∣dation of their hopes in the matters of belief: The way which they thought sufficient to go to Heaven in, is the way which we walk: what they did not teach, we do not publish and impose; into this faith entirely and into no other, as they did theirs; so we baptize our Catechumens: The Discrimina∣tions of Heresie from Catholick Do∣ctrine which they us'd, we use also, and we use no other: and in short, we believe all that Doctrine which the Church of Rome believes, except those things which they have superinduc'd upon ••he Old Religion, and in which we shall prove that they have in∣novated. So that by their con∣fession, all the Doctrine, which we teach the people, as matter of Faith, must be confessed to be Ancient, Pri∣mitive

and Apostolick, or else theirs is not so: for ours is the same, and •••• both have received this faith from the fountains of Scripture and Universa•• Tradition; not they from us, or we from them, but both of us from Christ and his Apostles. And there∣fore there can be no question whethe•• the Faith of the Church of Englan•• be Apostolick or Primitive; it is so confessedly: But the Question is con∣cerning many other particulars whic•• were unknown to the Holy Doctor of the first ages, which were no part •••• their faith, which were never put int•• their Creeds, which were not deter∣min'd in any of the four first Gener•••• Councils, rever'd in all Christendom and entertain'd every where with gre•••• Religion and veneration, even next 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the four Gospels and the Apostolic•• writings.

Of this sort, because the Church of Rome hath introduc'd many, an•• hath adopted them into their lan•• Creed, and imposes them upon th•• People, not only without, but again

the Scriptures and the Catholick Do∣ctrine of the Church of God; laying heavy burdens on Mens consciences, and making the narrow way to Hea∣ven yet narrower by their own inven∣tions; arrogating to themselves a do∣minion over our faith, and prescribing a method of Salvation which Christ and his Apostles never taught; cor∣rupting the faith of the ••hurch of God, and teaching for Doctrines the Commandements of Men; and lastly, having derogated from the Prerogative of Christ, who alone is the Author and Finisher of our faith, and hath perfect∣ed it in the revelations consign'd in the Holy Scriptures; therefore it ••s, that we esteem our selves oblig'd to warn the People of their danger, and to depart from it, and call upon them ••o stand upon the wayes, and ask after the old paths, and walk in them; lest they partake of that curse which is ••hreatned by God to them, who remove ••he Ancient Land-marks which our Fa∣thers in Christ have set for us.

Now that the Church of Rome can∣not

not pretend that all which she imposes is Primitive and Apostolick, appears in this; That in the Church of Rome, there is pretence made to a power, not on∣ly of declaring new articles of faith, but of making new Symbols or Creeds, and imposing them as of necessity to Salva∣tion. Which thing is evident in the Bull of Pope Leo the Tenth against Martin Luther, in which, amongst o∣ther things, he is condemn'd for say∣ing, [It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or Pope to constitute Articles of Faith.] We need not ad•• that this power is attributed to th•• Bishops of Rome by Turrecremataa 1.5 Augustinus Triumphus de Anconab 1.6 Petrus de Ancoranoc 1.7, and the Famo•••• Abbot of Panormod 1.8, that the Pop•• cannot only make new Creeds, bu•• new Articles of Faith; that he can make that of necessity to be believ'd

which before never was necessary; that he is the measure and rule, and the very notice of all credibilities; That the Canon Law is the Divine law; and whatever law the Pope pro∣mulges, God, whose Vicar he is, is understood to be the promulger. That the souls of Men are in the hands of the Pope; and that in his arbitra∣tion Religion does consist: which are the very words of Hostiensis e 1.9, and Ferdinandus ab Inciso f 1.10, who were Ca∣suists and Doctors of Law, of great authority amongst them and renown. The thing it self, is not of dubious dis∣putation amongst them, but actually practis'd in the greatest instances, as is to be seen in the Bull of Pius the fourth at the end of the Council of Trent; by which all Ecelesiasticks are not on∣••y bound to swear to all the Articles of the Council of Trent for the present and for the future, but they are put in∣to a new Symbol or Creed, and they are corrobroated by the same decretory clauses that are us'd in the Creed of Athanasius: that this is the true Ca∣tholick

Faith•• and that without this no Man can be saved.

Now since it cannot be imagined that this power, to which they pre∣tend, should never have been reduc'd to act; and that it is not credible they should publish so inviduous and ill-soun∣ding Doctrine to no purpose, and to serve no end; it may without furthe•• evidence be believed by all discerning persons, that they have need of this Do∣ctrine, or it would not have been taugh•••• and that consequently without mo••••adoe, it may be concluded that some 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their Articles are parts of this new faith•• and that they can therefore in no sen•••• be Apostolical, unless their being Ro••man makes them so.

To this may be added another con••sideration, not much less material, th•••• besides what Eckius told the Elector 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bavaria that the Doctrines of Luth•••• might be overthrown by the Father•• though not by Scripture; they ha•••• also many gripes of conscience conce••••ning the Fathers themselves, that th•• are not right on their side; and of th••

they have given but too much demon∣stration by their Expurgatory indices. The Serpent by being so curious a de∣fender of his head, shews where his dan∣ger is, and by what he can most readily be destroyed. But besides their innu∣merable corruptings of the Fathers writings, their thrusting in that which was spurious, and like Pharaoh, killing the legitimate Sons of Israel* 1.11; though in this, they have done very much of their work, and made the Testimonies of the Fathers to be a record infinitely worse, than of themselves uncorrupted, they would have been (of which divers Learned Persons have made publick complaint and demonstration) they have at last fallen to a new trade, which hath caus'd more dis-reputation to ••hem, than they have gain'd advantage, ••nd they have virtually confess'd, that ••n many things, the Fathers are against ••hem.

For first, the King of Spain gave a ••ommission to the Inquisitors to purge ••ll Catholick Authors; but with this

clause, iique ipsi privatim, nullisque consciis apud se indicem expurgatorium habebunt, quem eundum neque aliis com∣municabunt, neque ejus exemplum ulli dabunt: that they should keep the ex∣purgatory Index privately, neither im∣parting that index, nor giving a copy of it to any. But it happened, by the Divine providence, so ordering it, that about thirteen years after, a copy of it was gotten and published by Iohannes Pappus and Franciscus Iunius, an•• since it came abroad against their wills, they find it necessary now to own it, and they have printed it themselves•• Now by these expurgatory Table what they have done is known to a•••• Learned Men. In St. Chrysostom•• Works printed at Basil, these words [The Church is not built upon the Ma•• but upon the faith] are commanded 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be blotted out: and these [There is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 merit, but what is given us by Christ, and yet these words are in his Sermo•• upon Pentecost, and the former wor•• are in his first homily upon that of S•••• Iohn, Ye are my friends, &c.] T••••

like they have done to him in many other places, and to St. Ambrose, and to St. Austin, and to them all* 1.12, inso∣much that Ludovicus Saurius the Cor∣rector of the Press at Lyons shewed and complain'd of it to Iunius, that he was forc'd to cancellate or blot out many sayings of St. Ambrose in that edition of his works, which was printed at Lyons 1559. So that what they say on occasion of Bertrams book [In the old Catholick Writers we suffer very many errors, and extenuate and excuse them, and finding out some commentary, we feign some convenient sense when they are oppos'd in disputations] they do in∣deed practise, but esteem it not suffici∣ent; for the words which make against them they wholly leave out of their edi∣tions. Nay they correct the very Ta∣bles or Indices made by the Printers or Correctors; insomuch that out of one of Frobens indices they have comman∣ded these words to be blotted [The use ••f images forbidden] The Eucharist no ••acrifice, but the memory of a sacrifice] Works, although they do not justifie, yet

are necessary to Salvation] Marriage i•• granted to all that will not contain] Veni∣al sins damn] The dead Saints, afte•• this life cannot helf us] nay out of the Index of St. Austins Works by Clau∣dius Chevallonius at Paris 1531. there is a very strange deleatur [Dele,* 1.13 Solu•• Deus ador andus] that God alone is to b•• worshipped, is commanded to be blotted out, as being a dangerous Doctrine•• These instances may serve instead o•• multitudes, which might be brought o•• their corrupting the witnesses and ra∣zing the records of antiquity, that th•• errors and Novelties of the Church o•• Rome might not be so easily reprov'd•• Now if the Fathers were not again•••• them, what need these arts? Wh•• should they use them thus? Their o•••• expurgatory indices are infinite testimo•••• against them, both that they do so, a•••• that they need it.

But besides these things, we ha•••• thought it fit to represent in on•• aspect, some of their chief Doctrines 〈◊〉〈◊〉 difference from the Church of En••••land, and make it evident that they 〈◊〉〈◊〉

indeed new, and brought into the Church, first by way of opinion, and afterwards by power, and at last, by their own authority decreed into Laws and Articles.

Sect. II.

FIrst, we allege that that this very power of making new Articles is a Novelty, and expresly against the Do∣ctrine of the Primitive Church; and we prove it, first, by the words of the Apostle,* 1.14 saying, If we, or an Angel from Heaven shall preach unto you any other Gospel (viz. in whole or in part, for there is the same reason of them both) than that which we have preached, let him be Anathema: and secondly, by ••he sentence of the Fathers in the third General Council, that at Ephesus.* 1.15 ••That it should not be lawful for any Man ••o publish or compose another Faith or Creed than that which was defin'd by the Nicene Council: and that whosoever shall ••are to compose or offer any such to any ••ersons willing to be converted from ••aganism, Iudaism, or Heresie, if they

were Bishops or Clerks, they should be de∣pos'd, if Lay-men, they should be ac∣cursed.] And yet in the Church of Rome Faith and Christianity increase like the Moon; Bromyard complain'd of it long since, and the mischief en∣creases daily. They have now a new Article of Faith, ready for the stamp, which may very shortly become ne∣cessary to salvation; we mean, that of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Whether the Pope be above a Council or no; we are not sure, whether it be an article of faith amongst them or not: It is very near one if it be not. Bellarmine would fain have us believe that the Council of Constance approving the Bull of P. Martin the fifth,* 1.16 declar'd fo•• the Popes Supremacy. But Ioh•• Gerson, who was at the Council sayes that the Council did abate those heights to which flattery had advance'•• the Pope; and that before that Coun∣cil they spoke such great things of th•• Pope, which afterwards moderate Me••••durst not speak; but yet some othe••

spake them so confidently before it, that he that should then have spoken to the contrary would hardly have escap'd the note of Heresie: and that these Men continued the same preten∣sions even after the Council. But the Council of Basil decreed for the Coun∣cil against the Pope; and the Council of Lateran under Leo the tenth, de∣creed for the Pope against the Council. So that it is cross and pile; and whe∣ther for a peny, when it can be done; it is now a known case it shall become an article of faith. But for the present it is a probationary article, and accor∣ding to Bellarmine's expression is ferè de fide,* 1.17 it is almost an article of Faith; they want a little age, and then they may go alone. But the Council of Trent hath produc'd a strange new article;* 1.18 but it is sine controver si â credendum, it must be believ'd, and must not be con∣troverted: that although the Ancient Fathers did give the Communion to in∣fants, yet they did not believe it necessary to salvation. Now this being a mat∣ter of fact whether they did or did not

believe it, every man that reads their writings can be able to inform himself•• and besides that it is strange that this should be determin'd by a Council, and determin'd against evident truth (it be∣ing notorious, that divers of the Fa∣thers did say it is necessary to salvati∣on;) the decree it self is beyond all bounds of modesty, and a strange pre∣tension of Empire over the Christian belief. But we proceed to other in∣stances.

Sect. III.

THe Roman Doctrine of indulgences was the first occasion of the great change and Reformation of the Western Churches, begun by the Preachings of Martin Luther and others; and besides that it grew to that intolerable abuse, that it became a shame to it self and a reproch to Christendom, it was also so very an Innovation, that their great Antoninus confesses that concerning them we have nothing expresly,* 1.19 either in the Scriptures, or in the sayings of the Ancient Doctors: and the same is af∣firmed

by Sylvester Prieria••. Bishop Fisher of Rochester says,* 1.20 that in the be∣ginning of the Church there was no use of indulgences; and that they be∣gan after the people were awhile af∣frighted with the torments of Purgato∣ry; and many of the School-men confess that the use of indulgences be∣gan in the time of Pope Alexander the third, towards the end of the XII Century: but Agrippa imputes the beginning of them to Boniface the VIII. who liv'd in the Reign of King Edward the first of England; 1300 years after Christ. But that in his time the first Jubilee was kept we are assur'd by Crantzius. This Pope * 1.21 lived and died with very great infamy, and therefore was not likely form him∣••elf to transfer much honour and repu∣tation to the new institution. But that about this time indulgences began, is more than probable; much before, it is certain they were not For in the whole Canon Law written by Gratian, and in the sentences of Peter Lombard there is nothing spoken of indulgen∣ces:

Now because they liv'd in the time of P. Alexander III. if he had in∣troduc'd them, and much rather if they had been as ancient as S. Gregory (as some vainly and weakly pretend, from no greater authority than their own Legends) it is probable that these great Men writing Bodies of Divinity and Law, would have made mention of so considerable a point, and so great a part of the Roman Religion, as things are now order'd. If they had been Doctrines of the Church then, as they are now, it is certain they must have come under their cognisance and discourses.

Now lest the Roman Emissaries should deceive any of the good Sons of the Church, we think it fit to acquaint them,* 1.22 that in the Primitive Church, when the Bishops impos'd severe pe∣nances, and that they were almost quite perform'd, and a great cause of pity intervened, or danger of death, or an excellent repentance, or that the

Martyrs interceded, the Bishop did sometimes indulge the penitent, and relax some of the remaining parts of his penance; and according to the example of S. Paul, in the case of the incestuous Corinthian, gave them ease, lest they should be swallowed up with too much sorrow. But the Roman Doctrine of Indulgences is wholly another thing; nothing of it but the abused name remains. For in the Church of Rome they now pretend that there is an infinite of degrees of Christs merits and satisfaction beyond what is necessary for the salvation of his servants: and (for fear Christ should not have enough) the Saints have a sur∣plusage of merits, * 1.23 or at lest of satis∣factions more than they can spend, or themselves do need: and out of these the Church hath made her a treasure, a kind of poor-mans box; and out of this, a power to take as much as they list to apply to the poor souls in Purga∣tory; who because they did not satis∣fie for their venial sins, or perform all their penances which were imposed, or

which might have been imposed and which were due to be paid to God for the temporal pains reserved upon them, after he had forgiven them the guilt of their deadly sins, are forc'd sad∣ly to roar in pains not inferior to the pains of hell, excepting only that they are not eternal. * 1.24 That this is the true state of their Article of Indulgen∣ces, we appeal to Bellarmine.

Now concerning their new foundati∣on of Indulgences, the first stone of it was laid by P. Clement VI. in his ex∣travagant Unigenitus, de poenitentiis & remissionibus, A. D. 1350. This constitution was published Fifty years after the first Jubilee, and was a new devise to bring in customers to Rome at the second Jubilee, which was kept in Rome in this Popes time. What ends of profit and interest it serv'd, we are not much concern'd to enquire; but this we know, that it had not yet passed into a Catholick Doctrine, for it was disputed against by Franciscus de May∣ronis a 1.25 and Durandus b 1.26 not long before this extravagant; and that it was not

rightly form'd to their purposes till the stirs in Germany, rais'd upon the occa∣sion of indulgences, made Leo the tenth set his Clerks on work to study the point and make something of it.

But as to the thing it self: it is so wholly new, so merely devis'd and forged by themselves, so newly crea∣ted out of nothing, from great mi∣stakes of Scripture, and dreams of sha∣dows from antiquity; that we are to admonish our charges, that they cannot reasonably expect many sayings of the Primitive Doctors against them, any more than against the new fancies of the Quakers, which were born but ye∣sterday. That which is not cannot be numbred, and that which was not could not be confuted. But the perfect si∣lence of antiquity in this whole matter, is an abundant demonstration that this new nothing was made in the later labo∣ratories of Rome. For as Durandus said,* 1.27 the Holy Fathers, Ambrose, Hilary, Hierom, Augustine speak nothing of Indulgences. And whereas it is said that S. Gregory DC. years after Christ,

gave indulgences at Rome in the stati∣ons; Magister Angularis who lived about 200. years since, says, he never read of any such any where; and it is certain there is no such thing in the writings of S. Gregory, nor in any histo∣••y of that age or any other that is au∣thentick: and we could never see any history pretended for it by the Roman writers, but a Legend of Ledgerus brought to us the other day by Surius: which is so ridiculous and weak, that e∣ven their own parties dare not avow it as true story; and therefore they are fain to make use of Thomas Aquinas upon the Sentences, and Altisiodorensis for story & record. And it were strange that if this power of giving indulgences to take off the punishment, reserv'd by God after the sin is pardoned, were given by Christ to his Church, that no one of the ancient Doctors should tell any thing of it: insomuch that there is no one writer of authority and credit, not the more ancient Doctors we have named, nor those who were much la∣ter, Rupertus Tuitiensis, Anselm or

S. Bernard ever took notice of it; but it was a Doctrine wholly unknown to the Church for about MCC years after Christ: & Card. Cajetane told P. Adrian VI. that to him that readeth the Decre∣tals it plainly appears, that an indul∣gence is nothing else but an absolution from that penance which the Confessor hath imposed; & therfore can be nothing of that which is now a-days pretended.

True it is, that the Canonical penan∣ces were about the time of Burchard lessen'd and alter'd by commutations; and the ancient Discipline of the Church in imposing penances was made so loose, that the Indulgence was more than the Imposition, & began not to be an act of mercy but remisness, an absolution without amends: It became a trumpet, & a leavy for the Holy War; in Pope Urban the Seconds time; for he gave a plenary Indulgence and re∣mission of all sins to them that should go and fight against the Saracens: and yet no man could tell how much they were the better for these Indul∣gences: for concerning the value of

indulgences, the complaint is both old and doubtful, said Pope Adrian; and he cites a famous gloss,* 1.28 which tells of four Opinions all Catholick, and yet vastly differing in this particular:* 1.29 but the Summa Angelica reckons seven Opinions concerning what that penal∣ty is which is taken off by Indulgences: No man could then tell; and the point was but in the infancy, and since that, they have made it what they please: but it is at last turn'd into a Do∣ctrine, and they have devised new pro∣positions, as well as they can, to make sense of it; and yet it is a very strange thing; a solution, not an absolution (it is the distinction of Bellarmine) that is, the sinner is let to go free without pu∣nishment in this world, or in the world to come; and in the end, it grew to be that which Christendom could not suffer: a heap of Doctrines without Grounds of Scripture, or Catholick Tradition; and not only so, but they have introduc'd a way or remittin•• sins, that Christ and his Apostle•• taught not; a way destructive of th••

repentance and remission of sins which was preached in the Name of Jesus: it brought into the Church, false and fan∣tastick hopes, a hope that will make men asham'd; a hope that does not glorifie the merits and perfect satisfaction of Christ; a doctrine expresly dishonou∣rable to the full and free pardon given us by God through Jesus Christ; a practice that supposes a new bunch of Keys given to the Church, besides that which the Apostles receiv'd to open and shut the Kingdom of Hea∣ven; a Doctrine that introduces pride among the Saints, and advances the opinion of their works beyond the measures of Christ, who taught us,* 1.30 That when we have done all that is com∣manded, we are unpro••itable servants, and therefore certainly cannot super∣erogate, or do more than what is infi∣nitely recompenc'd by the Kingdom of Glory, to which all our doings and all our sufferings are not worth•• to be compar'd, especially, since the great∣est Saint cannot but say with David, Enter not into judgment with thy ser∣vant;

for in thy sight no flesh living can be justified; It is a practice that hath turn'd penances into a Fair, and the Court of Conscience into a Lom∣bard, and the labours of Love into the labours of pilgrimages, superstitious and useless wandrings from place to place; and Religion into vanity, and our hope in God to a confidence in man, and our fears of hell to be a mere scar∣crow to rich and confident sinners: and at last, it was frugally employed by a great Pope to raise a portion for a Lady, the Wife of Franceschetto Cibo bastard Son of P. Innocent VIII. and the mer∣chandize it self became the stakes of Gamesters, at Dice and Cards, and men did vile actions that they might win indulgences; by gaming making their way to heaven easier.

Now although the Holy Fathers of the Church could not be suppos'd in direct terms to speak against this new Doctrine of Indulgences, because in their days it was not: yet they have said many things which do perfectly destroy this new Doctrine and these

unchristian practices. For besides that they teach a repentance wholly reducing us to a good life; a faith that intirely relies upon Christs merits and satisfactions; a hope wholly depen∣ding upon the plain promises of the Gospel, a service perfectly consisting in the works of a good conscience, a labour of love, a religion of justice and piety, and moral vertues: they do also expresly teach that pilgrimages to ho∣ly places and such like inventions, which are now the earnings and price of indulgences, are not requir••d of us, and are not the way of salvation, as is to be seen in an Oration made by S. Gregory Nyssene wholly against pil∣grimages to Ierusalem; in S. Chryso∣stom a 1.31, S. Augustine b 1.32, and S. Bernard c 1.33: The sense of these Fathers is this, in the words of S. Augustine: God said not, Go to the East, and seek righteous∣ness; sail to the West that you may re∣ceive indulgence. But indulge thy brother, and it shall be indulg'd to thee: you have need to inquire for no other in∣dulgence to thy sins; if thou wilt retire

into the closet of thy heart, there thou shalt find it. That is, All our hopes of Indulgence is from GOD through IESUS CHRIST, and is whol∣ly to be obtain'd by faith in Christ, and perseverance in good works, and intire mortification of all our sins.

To conclude this particular: Though the gains which the Church of Rome makes of Indulgences, be a heap al∣most as great as the abuses themselves, yet the greatest Patrons of this new Doctrine could never give any certain∣ty, or reasonable comfort to the Con∣science of any person that could in∣quire into it. They never durst de∣termine, whether they were Absoluti∣ons, or Compensations; whether they only take off the penances actually im∣pos'd by the Confessor, or potentially, and all that which might have been im∣pos'd; whether all that may be paid in the Court of men; or all that can or will be required by the Laws and seve∣rity of God•• Neither can they speak rationally to the Great Question, Whe∣ther the Treasure of the Church con∣sists

of the Satisfactions of Christ only, or of the Saints? For if of Saints, it will by all men be acknowledged to be a defeisible estate, and being finite and limited, will be spent sooner than the needs of the Church can be served; and if therefore it be necessary to add the merits and satisfaction of Christ, since they are an Ocean of infinity, and can supply more than all our needs, to what purpose is it to add the little mi∣nutes and droppings of the Saints? They cannot tell whether they may be given, if the Receiver do nothing, or give nothing for them: And though this last particular could better be re∣solv'd by the Court of Rome, than by the Church of Rome, yet all the Do∣ctrines which built up the new Fabrick of Indulgences, were so dangerous to determine, so improbable, so unreaso∣nable, or at best so uncertain and invi∣dious, that according to the advice of the Bishop of Modena, the Council of Trent left all the Doctrines, and all the cases of Conscience quite alone, and slubber'd the whole matter both in the

question of Indulgences and Purgato∣ry in general and recommendatory terms; affirming, that the power of giving Indulgence is in the Church, and that the use is wholsome: And that all hard and subtil questions (viz.) concerning Purgatory, (which although (if it be at all) it is a fire, yet is the fuel of Indulgences, and maintains them wholly;) all that is suspected to be false, and all that is uncertain; and whatsoever is curious and superstiti∣ous, scandalous, or for filthy lucre, be laid aside. And in the mean time, they tell us not what is, and what is not Super∣stitious; nor what is scandalous, nor what they mean by the general term of Indulgence; and they establish no Doctrine, neither curious, nor incuri∣ous, nor durst they decree the very foun∣dation of this whole matter, The Chur∣ches Treasure: Neither durst they meddle with it, but left it as they found it, and continued in the abuses, and pro∣ceed in the practice, and set their Do∣ctors, as well as they can, to desend all the new, and curious and scandalous

questions, and to uphold the gainful trade. But however it be with them, the Doctrine it self is prov'd to be a direct Innovation in the matter of Christian Religion, and that was it which we have undertaken to demonstrate.

Sect. IV.

THe Doctrine of Purgatory is the Mother of Indulgences, and the fear of that hath introduc'd these: For the world hapned to be abus'd like the Countrey-man in the Fable, who be∣ing told he was likely to fall into a de∣lirium in his feet, was advis'd for reme∣dy to take the juice of Cotton: He feared a disease that was not, and look'd for a cure as ridiculous. But if the Pa∣rent of Indulgences be not from Christ and his Apostles; if upon this ground the Primitive Church never built, the Superstructures of Rome must fall; they can be no stronger than their Suppor∣ter. Now then in order to the proving the Doctrine of Purgatory to be an Inno∣vation,

1. We consider, That the Doctrines upon which it is pretended reasonable, are all dubious, and disputable at the very best. Such are,

• 1. Their distinction of sins Mortal and Venial in their own nature.
• 2. That the taking away the guilt of sins, does not suppose the taking a∣way the obligation to punishment; that is, That when a mans sin is pardon'd, he may be punished without the guilt of that sin, as justly as with it; as if the guilt could be any thing else but an ob∣ligation to punishment for having sin∣ned: which is a Proposition, of which no wise man can make sense; but it is ce••tain, that it is expresly against the Word of God, who promises upon our repentance, so to take away our sins, that he will remember them no more:* 1.34 And so did Christ to all those to whom he gave pardon; for he did not take our faults and guilt on him any other way, but by curing our evil hearts, and ta∣king away the punishment * 1.35. And

• this was so perfectly believ'd by the Pri∣mitive Church, that they alwayes made the penances and satisfaction to be undergone before they gave absolu∣tion; and after absolution they never im∣pos'd or oblig'd to punishment, unless it were to sick persons, of whose reco∣very they despaired not: of them in∣deed, in case they had not finished their Canonical punishments, they expected they should perform what was enjoyn'd them formerly. But because all sin is a blot to a mans soul, and a foul stain to his reputation; we demaud, in what does this stain consist? In the guilt, or in the punishment? If it be said that it con∣sists in the punishment; then what does the guilt signifie, when the removing of it, does neither remove the stain nor the punishment, which both remain and abide together? But if the stain and the guilt be all one, or always together, then when the guilt is taken away, there can no stain remain; and if so, what need * 1.36 is there any more of Pur∣gatory?

• For since this is pretended to be necessary, onely lest any stain'd or unclean thing should enter into Heaven; if the guilt and the pain be removed, what uncleanness can there be left be∣hind? Indeed Simon Magus (as Epipha∣nius reports, Haeres. 20.) did teach, That after the death of the body there remain'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a purgation of souls: But whether the Church of Rome will own him for an Authen∣tick Doctor, themselves can best tell.
• 3. It relies upon this also, That God requires of us a full exchange of pe∣nances and satisfactions, which must regularly be paid here or hereafter, even by them who are pardon'd here: which if it were true, we were all un∣done.
• 4. That the Death of Christ, his Merits and Satisfaction do not procure for us a full remission before we dye, nor (as it may happen) of a long time after. All which being Propositions new and uncertain, invented by the School Divines, and brought ex post fa∣cto, to dress this opinion, and make it to

• seem reasonable; and being the pro∣ducts of ignorance concerning remissi∣on of sins by Grace, of the righteousness of Faith, and the infinite value of Christs Death, must needs lay a great prejudice of novelty upon the Doctrine it self, which but by these, cannot be supported. But to put it past suspition and conjectures:

Roffensis and Polydore Virgil affirm,* 1.37 That who so searcheth the Writings of the Greek Fathers, shall find that none, or very rarely any one of them, ever makes mention of Purgatory; and that the Latine Fathers did not all believe it, but by degrees came to en∣tertain opinions of it: But for the Ca∣tholick Church, it was but lately known to her.

But before we say any more in this Question, we are to premonish, That there are Two great causes of their mi∣staken pretensions in this Article from Antiquity.

The first is, That the Ancient Chur∣ches in their Offices, and the Fathers in their Writings, did teach and practice

respectively, prayer for the dead. Now because the Church of Rome does so too, and more than so, relates her prayers to the Doctrine of Purgatory, and for the souls there detain'd, her Doctors vainly suppose, that when ever the Holy Fathers speak of prayer for the dead, that they conclude for Pur∣gatory; which vain conjecture is as false as it is unreasonable: For it is true, the Fathers did pray for the dead, but how? That God would shew them mercy, and hasten the resurrection, and give a blessed sentence in the great day. But then it is also to be remembred, that they made prayers, and offered for those, who by the•• confession of all sides, never were in Purgatory; even for the Patriarchs and Prophets, for the Apo∣stles and Evangelists, for Martyrs and Confessors, and especially for the bles∣sed Virgin Mary: So we find it in a 1.38 Epiphanius, b 1.39 St. Cyril, and in the Ca∣non of the Greeks, and so it is acknow∣ledged by their own c 1.40 Durantus; and in their Mass-book anciently they prayed for the soul of St. Leo: Of

which because by their latter doctrines they grew asham'd, they have chang'd the prayer for him, into a prayer to God by the intercession of St. Leo, in be∣half of themselves;* 1.41 so by their new doctrine, making him an Intercessor for us, who by their old doctrine was sup∣pos'd to need our prayers to intercede for him; of which Pope Innocent being ask'd a reason, makes a most pitiful ex∣cuse.

Upon what accounts the Fathers did pray for the Saints departed, and in∣deed generally for all, it is not now seasonable to discourse; but to say this onely, that such general prayers for the dead as those above reckon'd the Church of England never did con∣demn by any express Article,* 1.42 but left it in the middle, and by her practice declares her faith of the Resurrection of the dead, and her interest in the communion of Saints, and that the Saints departed are a portion of the Catholick Church, parts and members of the Body of Christ; but expresly condemns the Doctrine of Purgatory,

and consequently all prayers for the dead relating to it: And how vainly the Church of Rome from prayer for the dead, infers the belief of Purgato∣ry, every man may satisfie himself, by seeing the Writings of the Fathers, where they cannot meet with one Col∣lect or Clause for praying for the deli∣very of souls out of that imaginary place. Which thing is so certain, that in the very Roman Offices, we mean, the Vigils said for the dead, which are Psalms and Lessons taken from the Scripture, speaking of the miseries of this World, Repentance, and Reconciliation with God, the bliss after this life of them that die in Christ, and the Resurrection of the Dead; and in the Anthemes, Versicles and Re∣sponses, there are prayers made recom∣mending to God the Soul of the newly defunct, praying, he may be freed from Hell, and eternal death, that in the day of Iudgment he be not judged and con∣demned according to his sins, but that he may appear among the Elect in the glory of the Resurrection; but not

one word of Purgatory, or its pains.

The other cause of their mistake is, That the Fathers often speak of a fire of Purgation after this life; but such a one that is not to be kindled until the day of Iudgment, and it is such a fire that destroys the Doctrine of the interme∣dial Purgatory. We suppose that Origen was the first that spoke plainly of it; and so S. Ambrose follows him in the opinion (for it was no more;) so does S. Basil, S. Hilary, S. Hierom, and Lactantius, as their words plainly prove, as they are cited by Sixtus Se∣nensis, affirming, that all men, Christ only excepted, shall be burned with the fire of the worlds conflagration at the day of Iudgment;* 1.43 even the Blessed Virgin her self is to pass through this fire. There was also another Doctrine very generally receiv'd by the Fathers, which greatly destroys the Roman Purgatory: Sixtus Senensis says, and he says very true, that Iustin Martyr, Tertullian, Victorinus Martyr, Prudentius, S. Chrysostom, Arethas, Euthimi∣us

and * 1.44 S. Bernard, did all affirm, that before the day of Judgment the souls of men are kept in secret receptacles, reserved unto the sentence of the great day, and that before then, no man receives according to his works done in this life. We do not interpose in this opinion to say that it is true or false, probable or improbable; for these Fa∣thers intended it not as a matter of faith, or necessary belief, so far as we find, But we observe from hence, that if their opinion be true, then the Doctrine of Purgatory is false. If it be not true, yet the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory, which is inconsistent with this so gene∣rally receiv'd opinion of the Fa∣thers, is at least new, no Catholick Do∣ctrine, not believ'd in the Primitive Church, and therefore the Roman Writers are much troubled to excuse the Fathers in this Article, and to re∣concile them to some seeming concor•• with their new Doctrine.

But besides these things, it is cer∣tain, that the Doctrine of Purgatory, before the day of Judgment, in S. Au∣gustins time, was not the Doctrine of the Church; it was not the Catholick Doctrine; for himself did doubt of it: [Whether it be so or not,* 1.45 it may be in∣quir'd, and possibly it may be found so, and possibly it may never:] so S. Au∣gustine. In his time therefore it was no Doctrine of the Church, and it con∣tinued much longer in uncertainty; for in the time of Otho Frisingensis,* 1.46 who liv'd in the year 1146. it was got∣ten no further than to a Quidam asse∣runt: [some do affirm, that there is a place of Purgatory after death.] And although it is not to be denied, but that many of the ancient Doctors, had strange opinions concerning Purgati∣ons, and Fires, and Intermedial states, and common receptacles, & liberations of Souls and Spirits after this life; yet we can truly affirm it, and can never be convinc'd to err in this affirmation, that there is not any one of the Anci∣ents within five hundred years, whose

opinion in this, Article throughout, the Church of Rome at this day follows.

But the people of the Roman Com∣munion have been principally led into a belief of Purgatory by their fear, and by their credulity; they have been soft∣ned & en••ic'd into this belief by perpe∣tual tales and legends, by which they love to be abus'd. To this purporse, their Priests and Friers have made great use of the apparition of S. Hierom after death to Eusebius, commanding him to lay his sack upon the corps of three dead men, that they arising from death, might confess Purgatory, which formerly they had denied. The story is written in an Epistle impu••ed to S. Cyril; but the ill-luck of it was that S. Hierom out-lived S. Cyril, an•• wrote his life, and so confuted tha•• story; but all is one for that, they believe it never the less: But the•••• are enough to help it out; and if the•• be not firmly true * 1.47, yet if they b•• firmly believ'd, all is well enough. 〈◊〉〈◊〉

the Speculum exemplorum it is said, That a certain Priest in an extasie saw the soul of Constantinus Turritanus in the eves of his house tormented with frosts and cold rains, and afterwards climbing up to heaven upon a shining pillar. And a certain Monk saw some souls roasted upon spits like Pigs, and some Devils basting them with scald∣ing lard; but a while after they were carried to a cool place, and so prov'd Purgatory.* 1.48 But Bishop Theobald standing upon a piece of ice to cool his feet, was nearer Purgatory than he was aware, and was convinc'd of it, when he heard a poor soul telling him, that under that ice he was tormented: and that he should be delivered, if for thirty days continual, he would say for him thirty Masses: and some such thing was seen by Conrade and Udalric in a Pool of water:* 1.49 For the place of Purga∣tory was not yet resolv'd on, till S. Pa∣trick had the key of it delivered to him; which when one Nicholas bor∣rowed of him, he saw as strange and true things there, as ever Virgil dream∣ed

of in his Purgatory, or Cicero in his dream of Scipio, or Plato in his Gorgi∣as, or Phaedo, who indeed are the surest Authors to prove Purgatory. But because to preach false stories was for∣bidden by the Council of Trent, there are yet remaining more certain argu∣ments, even revelations made by An∣gels, and the testimony of S. Odilio himself, who heard the Devil complain (and he had great reason surely) that the souls of dead men were daily snatch'd out of his hands, by the Alms and Prayers of the living; and the si∣ster of S. Damianus being too much pleas'd with hearing of a Piper, told her brother, that she was to be tormen∣ted for fifteen days in Purgatory.

We do not think that the wise men in the Church of Rome believe these Narratives; for if they did, they were not wise: But this we know, that by such stories, the people were brought into a belief of it; and having served their turn of them, the Master-builders used them as false arches and centries, taking them away when the parts of

the building were made firm and stable by Authority. But even the better sort of them do believe, or else they do worse, for they urge and cite the Dialogues of S. Gregory, the Oration of S. Iohn Damascen de Defunctis, the Sermons of Saint Augustine upon the Feast of the Commemorati∣on of All-souls (which nevertheless was instituted after S. Augustins death) and divers other citations, which the Greeks in their Apology call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉•• The Holds and the Castles, the corruptions and insinuations of Heretical persons. But in this they are the less to be blamed, because better arguments than they have, no men are tied to make use of.

But against this way of proceeding we think fit to admonish the people of our charges, that,* 1.50 besides that the Scri∣ptures expresly forbid us to enquire of the dead for truth; the Holy Doctors of the Church, particularly,* 1.51 Tertul. S. A∣thanasius, S. Chrysost. Isido. and Theophy∣lact, deny that the souls of the dead ever

do appear; and bring many reasons to prove, that it is unfitting they should; saying, if they did, it would be the cause of many errors, and the Devils under that pretence, might easily abuse the world with notices and revelations of their own: And because Christ would have us content with Moses and the Prophets, and especially to hear that Prophet, whom the Lord our God hath raised up amongst us, our Blessed Jesus, who never taught any such Doctrine to his Church.

But because we are now representing the Nov••lty of this Doctrine, and pro∣ving, that anciently it was not the Doctrine of the Church, nor at all estee∣med a matter of faith, whether there was or was not any such place or state, we add this, That the Greek Church did always dissent from the Latines in this particular, since they had forg'd this new Doctrine in the laboratories of Rome; and in the Council of Basil, publish'd an Apology directly disappro∣ving the Roman Doctrine of Purgato∣ry. How afterwards they were press'd

in the Council of Florence by Pope Eu∣genius, and by their necessity; how un∣willingly they consented, how ambi∣guously they answered, how they pro∣tested against having that half consent put into the Instrument of Union; how they were yet constrain'd to it by their Chiefs, being obnoxious to the Pope; how a while after they dissolv'd that Union, and to this day refuse to own this Doctrine, are things so notoriously known, that they need no further de∣claration.

We add this only, to make the con∣viction more manifest:* 1.52 We have thought fit to annex some few, but very clear testimonies of Antiquity, ex∣presly destroying the new Doctrine of Purgatory. S. Cyprian saith, Quando istinc excessum fuerit, nullus jam locus poenitentiae est, nullus satisfaction is effe∣ctus: [When we are gone from hence, there is no place left for repentance, and no effect of satisfaction.* 1.53] S. Dionysius calls the extremity of death, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The end of all our agonies, and affirms, That the Holy men of God

rest in joy, and in never failing hopes, and are come to the end of their holy com∣bates. S. Iustin Martyr affirms, That when the soul is departed from the body 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.54 presently there is a separati∣on made of the just and unjust: The un∣just are by Angels born into places which they have deserv'd; but the souls of the just into Paradise, where they have the conver∣sation of Angels and Archangels. S. Am∣brose a 1.55 saith, that Death is a haven of rest, and makes not our condition worse, but ac∣cording as it finds every man, sort reserves him to the judgement that is to come. The same is affirm'd by b 1.56 S. Hilary, c 1.57 S. Macarius, and divers others; they speak but of two states after death, of the just and the unjust: These are plac'd in horrible Regions reserv'd to the judgement of the great day; the other have their souls carried by Quires of Angels into places of rest. S. Gregory Nazianzen d 1.58 expresly affirms, that af∣ter this life there is no purgation: For after Christs ascension into Heaven, the souls of all Saints are with Christ, saith Gennadius, and going from the body, they

go to Christ, expecting the resurrection of their body, with it to pass into the per∣fection of perpetual bliss; and this he delivers as the Doctrine of the Catho∣lick Church:* 1.59 [In what place soever a man is taken at his death, of light or dark∣ness, of wickedness or vertue, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉•• in the same order, and in the same degree; either in light with the just, and with Christ the great King; or in darkness with the uujust, and with the Prince of Darkness,] said Olimpio∣dorus. And lastly, we recite the words of S. Leo, one of the Popes of Rome,* 1.60 speaking of the Penitents who had not perform'd all their penances [But if any one of them for whom we pray unto the Lord, being interrupted by any ob∣stacles, falls from the gift of the present Indulgence (viz. of Ecclesiastical Ab∣solution) and before he arrive at the ap∣pointed remedies (that is, before he hath perform'd his penances or satisfactions) ends his temporal life, that which re∣maining in the body he hath not receiv'd, when he is devested of his body, he cannot obtain.] He knew not of the new de∣vices

of paying in Purgatory, what they paid not here; and of being cleansed there, who were not clean here: And how these words, or of any the precedent, are reconcileable with the Doctrines of Purgatory, hath not yet entred into our imagination.

To conclude this particular, We complain greatly, that this Doctrine which in all the parts of it is uncertain, and in the late additions to it in Rome is certainly false, is yet with all the faults of it passed into an Article of Faith by the Council of Trent. But besides what hath been said, it will be more than sufficient to oppose against it these clearest words of Scripture,* 1.61 Bles∣sed are the dead which die in the Lord, from henceforth, even so saith the Spi∣rit, that they may rest from their labours. If all the dead that die in Christ be at rest, and are in no more affliction or la∣bours, then the Doctrine of the hor∣rible pains of Purgatory is as false as it is uncomfortable: To these words we add the saying of Christ, and we re∣lie upon it [He that heareth my word,

and believeth on him that sent me,* 1.62 hath eternal life, and cometh not into judg∣ment, but passeth from death unto life.] If so, then not into the judgment of Purgatory: If the servant of Christ passeth from death to life, then not from death to the terminable pains of a part of Hell. They that have eter∣nal life, suffer no intermedial punish∣ment, judgment or condemnation af∣ter death; for death and life are the whole progression, according to the Doctrine of Christ, and Him we choose to follow.

Sect. V.

THe Doctrine of Transubstantiation is so far from being Primitive and Apostolick, that we know the very time it began to be own'd publickly for an opinion, and the very Council in which it was said to be passed into a publick Doctrine, and by what arts it was pro∣moted, and by what persons it was in∣troduc'd.

For all the world knows that by

their own parties, by a 1.63 Scotus, b 1.64 Ocham, c 1.65 Biel, Fisher Bishop of d 1.66 Rochester, and divers others, whom e 1.67 Bellarmine calls most learned and most acute men, it was declared, that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible; that in the Scri∣ptures there is no place so express (as without the Churches Declaration) to compel us to admit of Transubstantia∣tion, and therefore at least, it is to be suspected of novelty. But further, we know it was but a disputable question in the ninth and tenth ages after Christ; that it was not pretended to be an Ar∣ticle of faith till the Lateran Council in the time of Pope Innocent, the third, MCC years and more after Christ; that since that pretended * 1.68 determina∣tion, divers of the chiefest teachers of their own side have been no more sa∣tisfied of the ground of it, than they were before, but still have publickly af∣firm'd, that the Article is not ex∣press'd in Scripture, particularly, Io∣hanes de Bassolis, Cardinal * 1.69 Cajetan, and Melchior * 1.70 Canus, besides those a∣bove

reckon'd: And therefore, if it was not express'd in Scripture, it will be too clear, that they made their Articles of their own heads, for they could not declare it to be there, if it was not; and if it was there but obscure∣ly, then it ought to be taught accordingly; and at most, it could be but a probable doctrine, and not certain as an Article of Faith. But that we may put it past argument and probability, it is certain, that as the Doctrine was not taught in Scripture expresly: so it was not at all taught as a Catholick Doctrine, or an Article of the Faith by the Primitive ages of the Church.

Now for this, we need no proof but the confession and acknowledgment of the greatest Doctors of the Church of Rome. Scotus says, that before the Lateran Council, Transubstantiation was not an Article of faith,* 1.71 as Bellarmine confesses; and Henriquez affirms, that Scotus says, it was not ancient, inso∣much that Bellarmine accuses him of ignorance, saying, he talk'd at that rate, because he had not read the Ro∣man

Council under Pope Gregory the VII. nor that consent of Fathers which (to so little purpose) he had heap'd to∣gether.* 1.72 Rem transubstantiation is Pa∣tres ne attigisse quidem, said some of the English Jesuits in Prison: The Fathers have not so much as touch'd or medled with the matter of Tran∣substantiation; and in Peter Lombard's time it was so far from being an Article of Faith, or a Catholick Doctrine, that they did not know whether it were true or no: And after he had collect∣ed the sentences of the Fathers in that Article, he confess'd, He could not tell whether there was any substantial change or no.* 1.73 His words are these, [If it be inquir'd what kind of conversion it is, whether it be formal or substantial, or of another kind? I am not able to de∣fine it: Onely I know that it is not for∣mal, because the same accidents remain, the same colour and taste. To some it seems to be substantial, saying, that so the substance is chang'd into the sub∣stance, that it is done essentially. To which the former authorities seem to

consent. But to this sentence others op∣pose these things, If the substance of bread and wine be substantially converted into the body and blood of Christ, then every day some substance is made the bo∣dy or blood of Christ, which before was not the body; and to day something is Christs body, which yesterday was not; and every day Christs body is increased, and is made of such matter of which it was not made in the conception:] These are his words, which we have remark'd, not onely for the arguments sake (though it be unanswerable) but to give a plain demonstration that in his time this Doctrine was new, not the Doctrine of the Church: And this was written but about fifty * 1.74 years before it was said to be decreed in the Lateran * 1.75 Council, and therefore it made hast, in so short time to passe from a dispu∣table opinion, to an Article of faith. But even after the Council, * 1.76 Durandus, as good a Catholick, and as famous a Doctor as any was in the Church of Rome, publickly maintain'd, that even after consecration, the very matter

of bread remain'd; and although he says, that by reason of the Authority of the Church, it is not to be held, yet it is not onely possible it should be so, but it implies no contradiction that it should be Christs body, and yet the matter of bread remain; and if this might be ad∣mitted, it would salve many difficul∣ties, which arise from saying that the substance of bread does not remain. But here his reason was overcome by authority, and he durst not affirm that of which alone he was able to give (as he thought) a reasonable account. But by this it appears, that the opini∣on was but then in the forge, and by all their understanding they could never accord it, but still the questions were uncertain, according to that old Distich,

Corpore de Christilis est, de san∣guine lis est, Déque modo lis est, non habitura modum.

And the opinion was not determin'd in the Lateran, as it is now held at Rome; bu•• it is also plain, that it is a stranger

to antiquity.* 1.77 De Transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in anti∣quis scriptoribus mentio, said Alphon∣sus à Castro. There is seldome men∣tion made in the ancient writers of transubstantiating the bread into Christs body. We know the modesty and interest of the man; he would not have said it had been seldome, if he could have found it in any reasonable degree warranted; he might have said and ju∣stified it, There was no mention at all of this Article in the primitive Church: and that it was a mere stranger to An∣tiquity, will not be denyd by any sober person, who considers, That it was with so much uneasiness en∣tertained, even in the corruptest and most degenerous times, and argued and unsettled almost 1300 years after Christ.

And that it was so,* 1.78 will but too evi∣dently appear by that stating and reso∣lution of this question which we find in the Canon law. For Berengarius was by P. Nicolaus, commanded to recant his error in these words, and to affirm,

Verum corpus & sanguinem Domini no∣stri Iesu Christi sensualiter, non solùm in sacramento, sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri. That the true body and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ sen∣sually, not onely in sacrament, but in truth is handled by the priests hands, and broken and grinded by the teeth of the faithful. Now although this was publickly read at Rome before an hun∣dred and fourteen Bishops, and by the Pope sent up and down the Churches of Italy, France and Germany, yet at this day it is renounc'd by the Church of Rome, and unless it be well expounded (says the Gloss) will lead into a heresie, greater than what Berengarias was commanded to renounce; and no interpretation can make it tolerable, but such an one, as is in another place of the Canon law, statuimus, i. e. abrogamus; nothing but a plain denying it in the sense of Pope Nicolas. But however this may be, it is plain they understood it not, as i•• is now decreed. But as it happened to the Pelagians in the beginning of their

heresie, they spake rudely, ignorantly, and easily to be reprov'd; but being asham'd and disputed into a more sober understanding of their hypothesis, spake more warily, but yet differently from what they said at first: so it was and is in this question; at first they under∣stood it not; it was too unreasonable in any tolerable sense, to make any thing of it; but experience and necessity hath brought it to what it is.

But that this Doctrine was not the doctrine of the first and best ages of the Church, these following testimonies do make evident. The words of Tertulli∣an are these.* 1.79 The bread being taken and distributed to his Disciples, Christ made it his body, saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body.

The same is affirmed by Iustin Mar∣tyr.* 1.80 The bread of the Eucharist w••s a figure which Christ the Lord com∣manded to do in remembrance of his pas∣sion. Origen * 1.81 calls the bread and the chalice, the images of the body and bloud of Christ: and again, That bread

which is sanctified by the word of God, so far as belongs to the matter (or sub∣stance) of it goes into the belly, and is cast away in the secession or separation; which to affirm of the natural or glori∣fied body of Christ, were greatly bla∣sphemous: and therefore the body of Christ which the Communicants re∣ceive, is not the body in a natural sense, but in a spiritual, which is not capable of any such accident, as the elements are.

* 1.82Eusebius says, that Christ gave to his Disciples the Symbols of Divine Oeco∣nomy, commanding the image and type of his own body to be made: * 1.83 and that the Apostle received a command according to the constitution of the New Testament, to make a memory of this sacrifice upon the Table by the symbols of his body and healthful bloud.

* 1.84S. Macarius says, that in the Church is offered bread and wine, the antitype of his flesh and of his bloud, and they that partake of the bread that appears, do spi∣ritually eat the flesh of Christ. By which words the sense of the above cited Fa∣thers

is explicated. For when they af∣firm, that in this Sacrament is offered the figure, the image, the antitype of Christs body and bloud, although they speak perfectly against Transubstantia∣tion, yet they do not deny the real and spiritual presence of Christs body and bloud; which we all believe as certain∣ly, as that it is not transubstantiated or present in a natural and carnal manner.

The same thing is also fully explica∣ted by the good S. Ephrem,* 1.85 The body of Christ received by the faithful, de∣parts not from his sensible substance, and is undivided from a spiritual grace. For even baptism being wholly made spiri∣tual, and being that which is the same, and proper, of the sensible substance, I mean, of water, saves, and that which is born, doth not perish.

S. Gregory Nazianzen spake so ex∣presly in this Question,* 1.86 as if he had un∣dertaken on purpose to confute the Article of Trent. Now we shall be par∣takers of the Paschal supper, but still in figure, though more clear than in the old

Law. For the Legal Passover (I will not be afraid to speak it) was a more ob∣scure figure of a figure.

* 1.87S. Chrysostom affirms dogmatically, that before the bread is sanctified, we name it bread, but the Divine grace san∣ctifying it by the means of the Priest, it is freed from the name of bread, but it is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords body, although the nature of bread re∣mains in it. And again: As thou eat∣est the body of the Lord: so they (the faithful in the old Testament) did eat Manna; as thou drinkest bloud, so they the water of the rock. For though the things which are made be sensible, yet they are given spiritually, not according to the consequence of Nature, but accor∣ding to the grace of a gift, and with the body they also nourish the soul, leading unto faith.

To these very many more might be added; but instead of them, the words of S. Austin may suffice, as being an evident conviction what was the do∣ctrine of the primitive Church in this question. This great Doctor brings

in Christ thus speaking as to his Di∣sciples,* 1.88 [You are not to eat this body which you see, or to drink that bloud which my crucifiers shall pour forth. I have commended to you a sacrament, which being spiritually understood shall quicken you:] And again;* 1.89 Christ brought them to a banquet, in which he commended to his Disciples the figure of his body and bloud] For he did not doubt to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body] and,* 1.90 That which by all men is called a sacrifice, is the sign of the true sacrifice, in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebra∣ted by the sacrament of remembrances.]

But in this particular the Canon Law it self,* 1.91 and the Master of the Sentences are the best witnesses; in both which collections there are divers testimonies brought, especially from S. Ambrose and S. Austin, which whosoever can reconcile with the doctrine of Tran∣substantiation, may easily put the Hy∣aena and a Dog, a Pigeon and a Kite in∣to couples, and make fire and water en∣ter into natural and eternal friend∣ships.

Theodoret and P. Gelasius speak more emphatically, even to the nature of things, and the very philosophy of this Question. [Christ honour'd the symbols and the signs (saith Theodoret) which are seen with the title of his body and bloud, not changing the nature, but to nature adding grace. * 1.92 For neither do the mystical signs recede from their na∣ture; for they abide in their proper sub∣stance, figure and form, and may be seen and touch'd, &c. And for a testi∣mony that shall be esteem'd infallible, we allege the words of Pope Gelasius,* 1.93 [Truly the sacraments of the body and bloud of Christ, which we receive, are a Divine thing; for that by them we are made partakers of the Divine nature; and yet it ceases not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine. And truly an image and similitude of the body and bloud of Christ are celebrated in the acti∣on of the mysteries.

Now from these premises we are not desirous to infer any odious consequen∣ces in reproof of the Roman Church, but we think it our duty to give our

own people caution and admonition; 1. That they be not abus'd by the rhe∣torical words and high expressions al∣leged out of the Fathers, calling the Sa∣crament, The body or the flesh of Christ. For we all believe it is so, and rejoyce in it. But the question is, after what manner it is so; whether after the man∣ner of the flesh, or after the manner of spiritual grace, and sacramental conse∣quence? We with the H. Scriptures and the primitive Fathers, affirm the later. The Church of Rome against the words of Scripture, and the expli∣cation of Christ * 1.94, and the doctrine of the primitive Church, affirm the for∣mer. 2. That they be careful not to admit such Doctrines under a pretence of being Ancient; since, although the Roman errour hath been too long admit∣ted, and is ancient in respect of our days, yet it is an innovation in Christianity, and brought in by ignorance, power and superstition, very many ages after Christ. 3. We exhort them, that they remember the words of Christ, when he explicates the doctrine of giving us

his flesh for meat, and his bloud for drink,* 1.95 that he tells us, The flesh profit∣eth nothing, but the words which he speaks are spirit, and they are life.

4. That if those ancient and primi∣tive Doctors above cited, say true, and that the symbols still remain the same in their natural substance and pro∣perties, even after they are blessed, and when they are receiv'd, and that Christs body and bloud are onely present to faith and to the spirit, that then who∣ever tempts them to give Divine ho∣nour to these symbols or elements (as the Church of Rome does) tempts them to give to a creature the due and in∣communicable propriety of God; and that then, this evil passes further than an errour in the understanding; for it carries them to a dangerous practice, which cannot reasonably be excus'd from the crime of Idolatry. To con∣clude,

This matter of it self is an error so prodigiously great and dangerous, that we need nor tell of the horrid and blas∣phemous questions which are sometimes

handled by them concerning this Di∣vine Mystery. As, if a Priest going by a Bakers shop, and saying with intenti∣on, Hoc est corpus meum, whether all the Bakers bread be turned into the body of Christ? Whether a Church mouse does eat her Maker? Whether a man by eating the consecrated sym∣bols does break his fast? For if it be not bread and wine, he does not: and if it be Christs body and bloud naturally and properly, it is not bread and wine. Whether it may be said, the Priest is in some sense the Creator of God himself? Whether his power be greater than the power of Angels and Archangels? For that it is so, is expresly affirmed by Cassenaeus.* 1.96 Whether (as a Bohemian Priest said) that a Priest before he say his first Mass, be the Son of God, but afterward he is the Father of God and the Creator of his body? But against this blasphemy a book was written by Iohn Huss, about the time of the Council of Constance. But these things are too bad, and therefore we love not to rake in so filthy chanels,

but give onely a general warning to all our Charges, to take heed of such per∣sons, who from the proper consequences of their Articles, grow too bold and ex∣travagant; and, of such doctrines, from whence these and many other evil Pro∣positions 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, frequently do is∣sue. As the tree is, such must be the fruit. But we hope it may be suffici∣ent * 1.97 to say, That what the Church of Rome teaches of Transubstantiation, is absolutely impossible, and implies con∣tradictions very many, to the belief of which no faith can oblige us, and no rea∣son can endure. For Christs body be∣ing in heaven, glorious, spiritual and impassible, cannot be broken. And since by the Roman doctrine nothing is broken, but that which cannot be bro∣ken, that is, the colour, the taste, and other accidents of the elements; yet if they could be broken, since the acci∣dents of bread and wine are not the sub∣stance of Christs body and bloud, it is certain that on the Altar, Christs body naturally and properly cannot be bro∣ken * 1.98 And since they say that every

consecrated Wafer is Christs whole body, and yet this Wafer is not that Wafer, therefore either this or that is not Christs body, or else Christ hath two bodies, for there are two Wafers. * 1.99 But when Christ instituted the Sa∣crament, and said, This is my body which is broken: because at that time Christs body was not broken naturally and properly, the very words of Institution do force us to understand the Sacra∣ment in a sense not natural, but spiritual, that is, truly sacramental. * 1.100 And all this is besides the plain demonstrations of sense, which tells us it is bread and it is wine naturally as much after as before consecration. * 1.101 And after all, the na∣tural sense is such as our blessed Savi∣our reprov'd in the men of Capernaum, and called them to a spiritual under∣standing; the natural sense being not onely unreasonable and impossible; but also to no purpose of the spirit, or any ways perfective of the soul; as hath been clearly demonstrated by many learned men against the fond hypothesis of the Church of Rome in this Article.

Sect. VI.

OUr next instance of the novelty of the Roman Religion in their Ar∣ticles of division from us, is that of the half Communion. For they deprive the people of the chalice, and dismem∣ber the institution of Christ, and prae∣varicate his express law in this particu∣lar, and recede from the practise of the Apostles; and though they confess it was the practise of the primitive Church, yet they lay it aside, and curse all them that say they do amiss in it; that is, they curse them who follow Christ, and his Apostles, and his Church, while themselves deny to follow them.

Now for this we need no other testi∣mony but their own words in the Council of Constance.* 1.102 [Whereas in certain parts of the world some temerari∣ously presume to affirm, that the Christi∣an people ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds of bread and wine, and do every where communi∣cate the Laity not onely in bread but in

wine also; — Hence it is, that the Council decrees and defines against this error, that although Christ instituted after supper, and administred this ve∣nerable Sacrament under both kinds of bread aud wine, yet this notwithstand∣ing — And although in the primi∣tive Church this Sacrament was receiv'd of the faithful under both kinds] Here is the acknowledgment, both of Christs institution in both kinds, and Christs ministring it in both kinds, and the practise of the primitive Church to give it in both kinds; yet the conclusion from these premises is [We command under the pain of Excommunication, that no Priest communicate the people under both kinds of bread and wine.] The opposition is plain: Christs Testa∣ment ordains it: The Church of Rome forbids it: It was the primitive custom to obey Christ in this: a later custom is by the Church of Rome introduc'd to the contrary. To say that the first pra∣ctise and institution is necessary to be followed, is called Heretical: to re∣fuse the later subintroduc'd custom in∣currs

the sentence of Excommunication: and this they have pass'd not onely into a law, but into an Article of Faith; and if this be not teaching for do∣ctrines the commandments of men, and worshipping God in vain with mens tra∣ditions; then there is, and there was, and there can be no such thing in the world.

So that now the question is not, whether this doctrine and practise be an INNOVATION, but whether it be not better it should be so? Whether it be not better to drink new wine than old? Whether it be not better to obey man than Christ, who is God blessed for ever? Whether a late custom be not to be pre∣ferr'd before the ancient? a custom dis∣sonant from the institution of Christ, before that which is wholly consonant to what Christ did and taught? This is such a bold affirmative of the Church of Rome, that nothing can suffice to rescue us from an amazement in the consideration of it: especially since, although the Institution it self, being the onely warranty and authority for

what we do, is of it self our rule and pre∣cept; (according to that of the Law∣yer,* 1.103 Institutiones sunt praeceptiones qui∣bus instituuntur & docentur homines) yet besides this, Christ added preceptive words, Drink ye all of this:* 1.104 he spake it to all that receiv'd, who then also re∣presented all them, who for ever after were to remember Christs death.

But concerning the doctrine of An∣tiquity in this point, although the Coun∣cil of Constance confess the Question, yet since that time they have taken on them a new confidence, and affirm, that the half Communion was always more or less the practise of the most Ancient times. We therefore think it fit to produce testimonies concurrent with the saying of the Council of Constance, such as are irrefragable, and of persons beyond exception. Cassander affirms,* 1.105 That in the Latine Church for aboue a thousand years, the body of Christ, and the blood of Christ were separately giuen•• the body apart, and the blood apart, after the consecration of the mysteries. So

Aquin as also affirms,* 1.106 [According to the ancient custom of the Church, all men as they communicated in the body, so they communicated in the bloud; which also to this day is kept in some Churches.] And therefore Paschasius Ratbertus re∣solves it dogmatically,* 1.107 That neither the flesh without the bloud, nor the bloud with∣out the flesh is rightly communicated; because the Apostles all of them did drink of the chalice. And Salmeron being forc'd by the evidence of the thing,* 1.108 ingenuously and openly con∣fesses, That it was a general custom to communicate the Laity under both kinds.

It was so, and it was more: There was anciently a Law for it,* 1.109 Aut integra Sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur, said Pope Gelasius. Either all nor none, let them receive in both kinds, or in neither; and he gives this reason, Quia divisio unius & ejusdem mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest pervenire. The mystery is but one and the same, and therefore it cannot be di∣vided without great sacrilege. The

reason concludes as much of the Recei∣ver as the Consecrator, and speaks of all indefinitely.

Thus it is acknowledged to have been in the Latine Church,* 1.110 and thus we see it ought to have been: And for the Greek Church there is no questi∣on; for even to this day they commu∣nicate the people in the chalice. But this case is so plain, and there are such clear testimonies out of the Fathers recorded in their own Canon Law, that nothing can obscure it; but to use too many words about it. We there∣fore do exhort our people to take care that they suffer not themselves to be robb'd of their portion of Christ, as he is pleas'd sacramentally and graci∣ously to communicate himself unto us.

Sect. VII.

AS the Church of Rome does great injury to Christendom, in taking from the people what Christ gave them in the matter of the Sacrament; so she also deprives them of very much

of the benefit which they might re∣ceive by their holy prayers, if they were suffered to pray in publick in a Language they understand. But that's denied to the common people, to their very great prejudice and injury.

Concerning which, although it is as possible to reconcile Adultery with the seventh Commandment, as Service in a Language not understood to the four∣teenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians; and that therefore if we can suppose that the Apostolical age did follow the Apostolical rule, it must be conclude, that the practise of the Church of Rome is contrary to the practise of the Primitive Church: Yet besides this, we have thought fit to declare the plain sense and practise of the succeeding Ages in a few testimo∣nies, but so pregnant, as not to be a∣voided.

* 1.111Origen affirms, that the Grecians in their prayers use Greek, and the Romans the Roman language, and so every one according to his Tongue, prayeth unto God, and praiseth him as he is able.

S. Chrysostom urging the precept of the Apostle for prayers in a Language un∣derstood by the hearer, affirms that which is but reasonable, saying, If a man speaks in the Persian Tongue, and understands not what himself says, to himself he is a Barbarian, and therefore so he is to him that understands no more than he does. And what profit can he receive, who hears a sound, and di∣scerns it not? It were as good he were absent as present: For if he be the better to be there, because he sees what is done, and guesses at something in general, * 1.112 and consents to him that ministers: It is true, this may be, but this therefore is so, because he under∣stands something; but he is onely so far benefited as he understands, and therefore all that which is not under∣stood, does him no more benefit that is present, than to him that is absent, and consents to the prayers in general, and to what is done for all faithful peo∣ple. But [If indeed ye meet for the edi∣fication

of the Church, those things ought to be spoken which the hearers under∣stand,] said S. Ambrose: And so it was in the primitive Church; bles∣sings and all other things in the Church were done in the Vulgar tongue, saith a 1.113 Lyra; Nay, not onely the publick Prayers, but the whole Bible was anciently by many Transla∣tions, made fit for the peoples use. S. Hierom b 1.114 affirms, that himself tran∣slated the Bible into the Dalmatian Tongue; and c 1.115 Ulphilas a Bishop a∣mong the Goths, translated it into the Gothick Tongue; and that it was translated into all Languages, we are told by d 1.116 S. Chrysostome, e 1.117 S. Austin, and f 1.118 Theodoret.

But although what twenty Fathers say, can make a thing no more certain than if S. Paul had alone said it, yet both S. Paul and the Fathers are fre∣quent to tell us, That a Service or Prayers in an unknown Tongue do not edifie: So g 1.119 S. Basil, h 1.120 S. Chrysostom, i 1.121 S. Ambrose, and k 1.122 S. Austin,l 1.123 and this is consented to by Aquinas, m 1.124 Lyra,

and n 1.125 Cassander: And besides that, these Doctors affirm, that in the pri∣mitive Church the Priest and People joyn'd in their Prayers, and understood each other, and prayed in their Mo∣ther-tongue: We find a story (how true it is, let them look to it, but it is) told by o 1.126 AEneas Sylvius, who was af∣terwards Pope Pius the II. that when Cyrillus Bishop of the Moravians and Methodius had converted the Slavoni∣ans, Cyril being at Rome, desir'd leave to use the language of that Nation in their Divine Offices. Concerning which when they were disputing, a voice was heard, as if from Heaven, Let every spirit praise the Lord, and every tongue confess unto him: Upon which it was granted according to the Bishops desire. But now they are not so kind at Rome; and although the Fathers at Tre••t confess'd in their De∣cree, that the Mass contains in it great matter of erudition and edification of the people, yet they did not think it fit, that it should be said in the vulgar Tongue: So that it is very good food,

but it must be lock'd up; it is an ex∣cellent candle, but it must be put un∣der a bushel: And now the Question is, Whether it be fit that the people pray so as to be edified by it; or is it better that they be at the prayers when they shall not be edified? Whether it be not as good to have a dumb Priest to do Mass, as one that hath a tongue to say it? For he that hath no tongue, and he that hath none to be understood, is alike insignificant to me.* 1.127 Quid prodest locutionum integritas quam non sequitur intellectus audientis? cum loquendi nulla fit causa, si quod loquimur non intelli∣gunt propter quos ut intelligant loqui∣mur, said S. Austin: What does it avail that man speaks all, if the hearers under∣stand none? and there is no cause why •• man should speak at all, if they, for whose understanding you do speak, understand it not. God understands the Priests thoughts when he speaks not, as well as when he speaks; he hears the prayer of the heart, and sees the word of the mind, and a dumb Priest can do all the ceremonies, and make the signs; and

he that speaks aloud to them that un∣derstand him not, does no more. Now since there is no use of vocal prayer in publick, but that all together may sig∣nifie their desires, and stir up one ano∣ther, and joyn in the expression of them to God; by this device, a man who understands not what is said, can onely pray with his lips; for the heart cannot pray but by desiring, and it cannot desire what it understands not. So that in this case, prayer cannot be an act of the soul: There is neither af∣fection nor understanding, notice or desire: The heart says nothing, and asks for nothing, and therefore receives nothing. Solomon calls that the sa∣crifice of fools, when men consider not; and they who understand not what is said, cannot take it into consideration. But there needs no more to be said in so plain a case. We end this with the words of the Civil and Canon Law. Iustinian the Emperour made a Law in these words, [We will and command, that all Bishops and Priests celebrate the sacred Oblation, and the Prayers there∣unto

added in holy Baptism, not in a low voice, but with a loud and clear voice, which may be heard by the faithful peo∣ple; that is, be understood, for so it follows,* 1.128 that thereby the minds of the hearers may be raised up with greater de∣votion to set forth the praises of the Lord God; for so the Apostle teacheth in the first to the Corinthians. It is true, that this Law was rased out of the La∣tine versions of Iustinian. The fraud and design was too palpable, but it pre∣vail'd nothing; for it is acknowledged by Cassander and Bellarmine,* 1.129 and is in the Greek Copies of Holoander.

The Canon Law is also most express from an Authority of no less than a Pope and a General Council, as them∣selves esteem; Innocent III. in the great Council of Lateran, above MCC years after Christ, in these words, [Because in most parts within the same City and Diocess,* 1.130 the people of divers Tongues are mixt together, having under one and the same faith divers ceremonies and rites, we straitly charge and com∣mand, That the Bishops of such Cities

and Dioceses provide men fit, who may celebrate Divine Service according to the diversity of ceremonies and langua∣ges, and administer the Sacraments of the Church, instructing them both by word and by example.]

Now if the words of the Apostle, and the practise of the primitive Church, the Sayings of the Fathers, and the Confessions of wise men a∣mongst themselves; if the consent of Nations, and the piety of our fore-fa∣thers; if right reason, and the necessity of the thing; if the needs of the igno∣rant, and the very inseparable condi∣tions of holy prayers; if the Laws of Princes, and the Laws of the Church, which do require all our prayers to be said by them that understand what they say; if all these cannot prevail with the Church of Rome to do so much good to the peoples souls, as to consent they should understand what in parti∣cular they are to ask of God, cer∣tainly there is a great pertinacy of opi∣nion, and but a little charity to those precious souls, for whom Christ dy∣ed

and for whom they must give ac∣count.

Indeed the old Toscan Rites, and the Sooth-sayings of the Salian Priests, Vix Sacerdotibus suis intellecta,* 1.131 sed quae mutari vetat Religio: were scarce un∣derstood by their Priests themselves, but their Religion forbad to change them. Thus anciently did the Osseni Hereticks of whom Epiphanius tells, and the Heracleonitae of whom S. Austin gives account;* 1.132 they taught to pray with obscure words; and some others in Clemens Alexandrinus, suppos'd, that words spoken in a barbarous or un∣known tongue, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are more powerful. The Jews also in their Syn∣agogues at this day, read Hebrew, which the people but rarely understand; and the Turks in their Mosques read Arabick, of which the people know no∣thing. But Christians never did so, till they of Rome resolved to refuse to do benefit to the souls of the people in this instance, or to bring them from intolerable ignorance.

Sect. VIII.

THe Church of Rome hath to very bad purposes introduc'd and im∣pos'd upon Christendom the worship and veneration of Images, kissing them, pulling off their hats, kneeling, falling down and praying before them, which they call, giving them due honor and ve∣neration. What external honor and veneration that is, which they call due, is express'd by the instances now rec∣kon'd, which the Council of Trent in their Decree enumerate and establish. What the inward honor and worship is, which they intend to them, is intima∣ted in the same Decree. By the Ima∣ges they worship Christ and his Saints; and therefore by these Images they pass that honor to Christ and his Saints which is their due: that is, as their Do∣ctors explain it, Latria or Divine wor∣ship to God and Christ. Hyperdulia or more than service to the Blessed Virgin Mary; and service or doulia to other canoniz'd persons. So that upon the

whole, the case is this: What ever worship they give to God, and Christ and his Saints, they give it first to the image, and from the image they pass it unto Christ and Christs servants. And therefore we need not to enquire what actions they suppose to be fit or due. For whatsoever is due to God, to Christ or his Saints, that worship they give to their respective Images: all the same in external semblance and ministery; as appears in all their great Churches, and publick actions, and pro∣cessions, and Temples and Festivals, and endowments, and censings, and pilgrimages, and prayers, and vows made to them.

Now besides that these things are so like Idolatry, that they can no way be reasonably excused (of which we shall in the next Chapter give some account) besides that they are too like the reli∣gion of the Heathens,* 1.133 and so plainly and frequently forbidden in the Old Testament, and are so infinitely unlike the simple and wise, the natural and holy, the pure and the spiritual religion

of the Gospel; besides that they are so infinite a scandal to the Jews and Turks, and reproach Christianity it self amongst all strangers that live in their communion, and observe their rites: besides that they cannot pretend to be lawfull, but with the laborious artifices of many Metaphysical notions and distinctions, which the people who most need them, do least under∣stand; and that therefore the people worship them without these distincti∣o••s, and directly put confidence in them; and that it is impossible that ignorant persons, who in all Christian countreys make up the biggest number, should do otherwise, when otherwise they cannot understand it; and besides that, the thing it self with or without distinctions, is a superstitious and for∣bidden, an unlawful and unnatural wor∣ship of God, who will not be worship∣ped by an Image: we say that besides all this, This whole Doctrine and pra∣ctise is an innovation in the Christian Church, not practis'd, not endured in the primitive ages; but expresly

condemned by them, and this is our present undertaking to evince.

The first notice we find of Images brought into Christian Religion, was by Simon Magus: indeed that was very Ancient, but very heretical and abominable: but that he brought some in to be worshipped, we find in * 1.134 Theo∣doret, and * 1.135 S. Austin, * 1.136 S. Irenaeus tells, That the Gnosticks or Carpo∣crations did make images, and said, that the form of Christ as he was in the flesh, was made by Pilate; and these Images they worshipped, as did the Gentiles: These things they did, but against these things the Christians did zealously and piously declare: We have no Image in the world, said S. Cle∣mens of * 1.137 Alexandria: It is apparently forbidden to us to exercise that deceitful art: For it is written, Thou shalt not make any similitude of any thing in Hea∣ven above, &c. And Origen wrote a just Treatise against Celsus; in which he not onely affirms,* 1.138 That Christians did not make or use Images in Religion, but that they ought not, and were by

God forbidden to do so. To the same purpose also Lactantius discourses to the Emperor, and confutes the preten∣ces and little answers of the Heathen in that manner, that he leaves no pre∣tence for Christians under another cover, to introduce the like abomina∣tion.

We are not ignorant, that those who were converted from Gentilism, and those who lov'd to imitate the customs of the Roman Princes and people, did soon introduce the Histo∣rical use of Images, and according to the manner of the world, did think it honourable to depict or make Images of those whom they had in great e∣steem; and that this being done by an esteem, relying on Religion, did by the weakness of men, and the impor∣tunity of the Tempter, quickly pass into inconvenience and superstition; yet even in the time of Iulian the Emperor, S. Cyril denies, that the Christians did give veneration and wor∣ship to the Image, even of the Cross it self, which was one of the earliest

temptations;* 1.139 and S. Epiphanius (it is a known story) tells, that when in the village of Bethel he saw a cloth picture, as it were of Christ, or some Saint in the Church, against the Authority of Scripture; He cut it in pieces, and advis'd that some poor man should be buried in it; affirming, that such Pi∣ctures are against Religion, and unwor∣thy of the Church of Christ. The Epistle was translated into Latine by S. Hierome; by which we may guess at his opinion in the question.

* 1.140The Council of Eliberis is very an∣cient, and of great fame; in which i•• is expresly forbidden, that what is wor∣shipped, should be depicted on the walls; and that therefore Pictures ought not to be in Churches. S. Austin complaining, that he knew o•• many in the Church who were Wor∣shippers of Pictures, calls them Super∣stitious; and addes, that the Church condemns such customs, and strives to correct them: and S. Gregory writing to Serenus Bishop of Massilia, says he would not have had him to break the

Pictures and Images, which were there set for an historical use; but commends him for prohibiting any one to wor∣ship them, and enjoyns him still to forbid it. But Superstition by degrees creeping in, the Worship of Images was decreed in the seventh Synod, or the second Nicene. But the decrees of this Synod being by Pope Adrian sent to Charls the Great,* 1.141 he convoca∣ted a Synod of German and French Bishops at Francfurt, who discussed the Acts pass'd at Nice, and condemn'd them: And the Acts of this Synod, although they were diligently suppres∣sed by the Popes arts, yet Eginardus, Hincmarus, Aventinus, Blondus, Adon, Aymonius ••and Regino, famons Histo∣rians, tell us, That the Bishops of Francfurt condemn'd the Synod of Nice, and commanded it should not be called a General Council; and pub∣lished a Book under the name of the Emperor, confuting that unchristian Assembly; and not long since, this Book•• and the Acts of Francfurt•• were published by Bishop Tillius; by which,

not onely the infinite fraud of the Ro∣man Doctors is discover'd, but the worship of Images is declar'd against and condemned.

A while after this, Ludovicus the son of Charlemain, sent Claudius a fa∣mous Preacher to Taurinum in Italy, where he preach'd against the worship∣ping of Images, and wrote an excellent book to that purpose. Against this book Ionas Bishop of Orleans, after the death of Ludovicus and Claudius, did write: In which he yet durst not assert the worship of them, but confu∣ted it out of Origen; whose words he thus cites, [Images are neither to be esteemed by inward affection, nor wor∣shipped with outward shew;] and out of Lactantius these, [Nothing is to be wor∣shipped that is seen with mortal eyes: Let us adore, let us worship nothing, but the name alone of our onely Parent, who is to be sought for in the Regions above, not here below:] And to the same pur∣pose, he also alleges excellent words out of Fulgentius and S. Hierom; and though he would have Images retain'd,

and therefore was angry at Claudius who caus'd them to be taken down, yet he himself expresly affirms, that they ought not to be worshipped; and with∣all adds, that though they kept the Images in their Churches for history and ornament, yet that in France the worshipping of them was had in great detestation. And though it is not to be denied, but that in the sequel of Ionas his book, he does something prevaricate in this question; yet it is evident, that in France this Doctrine was not accounted Catholick for al∣most nine hundred years after Christ;* 1.142 and in Germany it was condemned for almost MCC years, as we find in Ni∣cetas.

We are not unskill'd in the devices of the Roman Writers, and with how much artifice they would excuse this whole matter, and palliate the crime imputed to them, and elude the Scri∣ptures expresly condemning this Su∣perstition: But we know also, that the arts of Sophistry are not the ways of Salvation. And therefore we exhort

our people to follow the plain words of Scripture, and the express Law of God in the second Commandment; and add also the exhortation of S. Iohn,* 1.143 Little children, keep your selves from Idols. To conclude, it is impos∣sible but that it must be confessed, that the worship of Images was a thing un∣known to the primitive Church; in the purest times of which, they would not allow the making of them; as (amongst divers others) appears in the Writings of Clemens * 1.144 Alexandrinus, * 1.145 Tertullian, and * 1.146 Origen.

Sect. IX.

AS an Appendage to this, we great∣ly reprove the custom of the Church of Rome, in picturing God the Father, and the most holy and undivi∣ded Trinity; which, besides that i•• ministers infinite scandal to all sober minded men, and gives the new Arri∣ans in Polonia and Antitrinitarians, great and ridiculous entertainment exposiag that sacred Mystery to deri∣sion

and scandalous contempt: It is also (which at present we have under∣taken particularly to remark) against the doctrine and practise of the primi∣tive Catholick Church.

S. Clemens of Alexandria says,* 1.147 that in the Discipline of Moses, God was not to be represented in the shape of a Man, or of any other thing: and that Christians understood themselves to be bound by the same Law, we find it expresly taught by Ori∣gen a 1.148, Tertullian b 1.149, Euse∣bius c 1.150, Athanasius d 1.151, S. Hi∣erom e 1.152, S. Austin f 1.153, Theo∣doret g 1.154, Damascen h 1.155, and the Synod of Constanti∣nople, as it is reported in the 6. Action of the second Nicene Council. And cer∣tainly if there were not a strange spirit of contradiction or superstition or de∣flexion from the Christian Rule, greatly prevailing in the Ch. of Rome, it were impossible that this practise should be so countenanc'd by them, and defen∣ded so, to no purpose, with so much scandal, and against the natural reason

of mankind, and the very Law of Na∣ture it self: For the Heathens were sufficiently by the light of Nature, taught to abominate all Pictures or Images of God.

* 1.156Sed nulla effigies, simulacra{que} nul∣la Deorum: Majestate locum, & sacro imple∣vere timore.

They in their earliest ages had no Pi∣ctures, no Images of their Gods: Their Temples were filled with majesty, and a sacred fear; and the reason is given by Macrobius,* 1.157 Antiquity made no Image (viz. of God) because the supreme God, and the mind that is born of him, (that is, his Son, the eternal Word) as it is beyond the Soul, so it is above Nature, and therefore it is not lawful that Fig∣ments should come thither.

* 1.158Nicephorus Callistus relating the he∣resie of the Armenians and Iacobites says, they made Images of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, quod perquam absurdum est. Nothing is more ab∣surd,

than to make Pictures or Images of the Persons of the holy and adorable Trinity. And yet they do this in the Church of Rome. For in the windows of their Churches, even in Conntrey-villages, where the danger cannot be denied to be great, and the scandal in∣supportable; nay, in their books of Devotion, in their very Mass-books and Breviaries, in their Portuises and Manuals they picture the holy Trinity with three noses and four eyes, and three faces in a knot, to the great dis∣honour of God and scandal of Christia∣nity it self. We add no more, (for the case is too evidently bad) but re∣prove the error with the words of their own Polydore Virgil:* 1.159 Since the world began never was any thing more foolish than to picture God, who is present eve∣rywhere.

Sect. X.

THe last Instance of Innovations in∣troduc••d in Doctrine and Practise by the Church of Rome, that we shall

represent, is that of the Popes Uni∣versal Bishoprick. That is, not onely that he is Bishop of Bishops, superiour to all and every one; but that his Bi∣shoprick is a Pleni••ude of Power; and as for other Bishops, of his fulness they all receive, a part of the Ministery and sollicitude; and not onely so, but that he onely is a Bishop by immediate Di∣vine Dispensation, and others receive from him whatsoever they have. For to this height many of them are come at last. Which Doctrine, although as it is in sins, where the carnal are most full of reproch, but the spiritual are of greatest malignity; so it happens in this Article. For though it be not so scandalous as their Idolatry, so ridicu∣lous as their Superstitions, so unrea∣sonable as their Doctrine of Transub∣stantiation, so easily reprov'd as their Half Communion, and Service in an unknown Tongue; yet it is of as dan∣gerous and evil effect, and as false, and as certainly an Innovation, as any thing in their whole Conjugation of Er∣rours••

When Christ founded his Church, he left it in the hands of his Apostles, without any prerogative given to one, or eminency above the rest, save onely of priority and orderly precedency, which of it self was natural, necessary and incident. The Apostles govern'd all; their Authority was the sanction, and their Decrees and Writings were the Laws of the Church. They exer∣cis'd a common jurisdiction, and divi∣ded it according to the needs and emer∣gencies, and circumstances of the Church. In the Council of Ierusa∣lem, S. Peter gave not the decisive sen∣tence, but S. Iames, who was the Bi∣shop of that See. Christ sent all his Apostles as his Father sent him; and therefore he gave to every one of them the whole power which he left behind; and to the Bishops congregated at Mi∣letum,* 1.160 S. Paul gave them caution to take care of the whole flock of God, and affirms to them all that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops: and in the whole New Testament, there is no act or sign of superiority, or that one

Apostle exercised power over another: but to them whom Christ sent, he in common intrusted the Church of God: according to that excellent saying of S. Cyprian,* 1.161 [The other Apostles are the same that S. Peter was, endowed with an equal fellowship of honour and power: and they are all shephards, and the flock is one] and therefore it ought to be ••ed by all the Apostles with unanimous consent.

This unity and identity of power without question and interruption did continue and descend to Bishops in the primitive Church, in which it was a known doctrine that the Bishops were successors of the Apostles: and what was not in the beginning, could not be in the descent, unless it were innovated and introduc'd by a new authority. Christ gave ordinary power to none but the Apostles, and the power being to continue for ever in the Church, it was to be succeeded to, and by the same au∣thority, even of Christ, it descended to them who were their successors, that

is, to the Bishops, as all antiquity * 1.162 does consent and teach: Not S. Peter alone, but every Apostle, and therefore every one who succeeds them in their ordinary power, may and must remember the words of S. Paul; We are Embassa∣dors or Legates for Christ: Christs Vicars, not the Popes Delegates: and so all the Apo∣stles are called in the Preface of the Mass; quos oper is tui Vicarios eidem con∣tulisti praeesse Pastores; they are Pa∣stors of the Flock and Vicars of Christ; and so also they are in ex∣press terms called by S. Ambrose,* 1.163 and therefore it is a strange usurpation, that the Pope arrogates that to him∣self by Impropriation, which is common to him with all the Bishops of Christen∣dome.

The consequent of this is, that by the law of Christ, one Bishop is not su∣perior to another: Christ gave the power to all alike; he made no Head

of the Bishops; he gave to none a su∣premacy of power or universality of ju∣risdiction. But this the Pope hath long challenged, and to bring his pur∣poses to pass, hath for these Six hun∣dred years by-gone invaded the rights of Bishops, and delegated matters of order and jurisdiction to Monks and Friers; insomuch that the power of Bishops was greatly diminished at the erecting of the Cluniac and Cistercian Monks about the year ML: but about the year MCC, it was almost swallow∣ed up by privileges granted to the Beg∣ging Friers, and there kept by the pow∣er of the Pope: which power got one great step more above the Bishops, when they got it declared that the Pope is above a Co••ncil of Bis••ops: and at last it was turn'd into a new doctrine by Cajetane (who for his prosperous inven∣tion was made a Cardinal) that all the whole Apostolick or Episcopal power is radical and inherent in the Pope, in whom is the fulness of the Ecclesiasti∣cal authority; and that Bishops receive their portion of it from him: and this

was first boldly maintain'd in the Council of Trent by the Jesuits; and it is now the opinion of their Order: but it is also that which the Pope chal∣lenges in practise, when he pretends to a power over all Bishops, and that this power is deriv'd to him from Christ; when he calls himself the Universal Bi∣shop, and the Vicarial Head of the Church, the Churches Monarch, he from whom all Ecclesiastical Authority is derived, to whose sentence in things Divine every Christian under pain of damnation is bound to be subject * 1.164.

Now this is it which as it is produ∣ctive of infinite mischiefs, so it is an Innovation and an absolute deflexion from the primitive Catholick Do∣ctrine, and yet is the great ground∣work and foundation of their Church. This we shall represent in these follow∣ing testimonies. Pope Eleutherius * 1.165 in an Epistle to the Bishops of France says that Christ committed the Universal Church to the Bishops;* 1.166 and S. Am∣brose says that the Bishop holdeth the place of Christ, and is his substitute••

But famous are the words of S. Cypri∣an,* 1.167 [The Church of Christ is one through the whole world, divided by him into ma∣ny members, and the Bishoprick is but one, diffused in the agreeing plurality of many Bispops.] And again, [To every Pa∣stor a portion of the flock is given, which let every one of them rule and govern.] By which words it is evident that the primitive Church understood no Prela∣tion of one and Subordination of ano∣ther, commanded by Christ, or by virtue of their Ordination; but onely what was for orders sake introduc'd by Princes and consent of Prelates. And it was to this purpose very full which was said by Pope Symmachus:* 1.168 As it is in the holy Trinity, whose power is one and undivided, (or to use the expressi∣on in the Athanasian Creed, none is be∣fore or after other, none is greater or less than another) so there is one Bishoprick amongst divers Bishops, and therefore why should the Canons of the ancient Bi∣shops be violated by their Successors? Now these words being spoken against the invasion of the rights of the

Church of Arles by Anastasius, and the question being in the exercise of Jurisdiction, and about the institution of Bishops, does fully declare that the Bishops of Rome had no superiority by the laws of Christ over any Bishop in the Catholick Church, and that his Bishoprick gave no more power to him, than Christ gave to the Bishop of the smallest Diocese.

And therefore all the Church of God, whenever they reckoned the se∣veral orders and degrees of Ministery in the Catholick Church, reckon the Bi∣shop as the last and supreme, beyond whom there is no spiritual power but in Christ.* 1.169 For as the whole Hierarchy ends in Iesus, so does every particular one in its own Bishop. Beyond the Bi∣shop there is no step, till you rest in the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls. Under him every Bishop is supreme in spirituals, and in all power which to any Bishop is given by Christ.* 1.170 S. Ig∣natius therefore exhorts that all should obey their Bishop, and the Bishop obey Christ, as Christ obeyed his Father.

There are no other intermedial degrees of Divine institution. But (as Origen teaches) The Apostles, and they who after them are ordain••d by God, that is, the Bishops, have the supreme place in the Church, and the Prophets have the se∣cond place. The same also is taught by P. Gelasius * 1.171, by S. Hierom * 1.172, and Fulgentius * 1.173, and indeed by all the Fa∣thers who spake any thing in this mat∣ter: Insomuch that when Bellarmine is in this question press'd out of the book of Nilus by the Authority of the Fathers standing against him, he an∣swers, Papam Patres non habere in Ec∣clesiâ, sed Filios omnes; The Pope ac∣knowledges no Fathers in the Church, for they are all his Sons.

Now although we suppose this to be greatly sufficient to declare the Do∣ctrine of the primitive Catholick Church, concerning the equality of power in all Bishops by Divine right: yet the Fathers have also expresly de∣clared themselves, that one Bishop is not superiour to another, and ought not to judge another, or force another

to obedience. They are the words of S. Cyprian to a Council of Bishops:* 1.174 [None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops, or by tyrannical power drives his collegues to a necessity of obedience, since every Bishop according to the li∣cense of his own liberty and power, hath his own choice, and cannot be judged by another, nor yet himself judge another; but let us all expect the judgment of our L. Iesus Christ, who onely and alone hath the power of setting us in the Go∣vernment of his Church, and judging of what we do.] This was••spoken and in∣tended against P. Stephen, who did then begin dominari in clero, to lord it over Gods heritage, and to excommu∣nicate his brethren, as Demetrius did in the time of the Apostles themselves: but they both found their reprovers. Demetrius was chastised by S. Iohn for this usurpation, and Stephen by S. Cyprian,* 1.175 and this also was approv'd by S. Austin. We conclude this par∣ticular with the words of S. Gregory Bishop of Rome, who because the Pa∣triarch of Constantinople called himself

Universal Bishop, said,* 1.176 It was a proud title, prophane, sacrilegious, and Anti∣christian: and therefore he little thought that his successors in the same See should so fiercely challenge that Antichristian title; much less did the then Bishop of Rome in those ages challenge it as their own peculiar; for they had no mind to be, or to be estee∣med Antichristian. Romano pontifici oblatum est, sed nullus unquam eorum hoc singularitatis nomen assump sit. His predecessors (it seems) had been tempt∣ed with an offer of that title, but none of them ever assumed that name of sin∣gularity,* 1.177 as being against the law of the Gospel and the Canons of the Church.

Now this being a matter of which Christ spake not one word to Saint Peter, if it be a matter of faith and salvation, as it is now pretended, it is not imaginable he would have been so perfectly silent. But though he was silent of any intention to do this,

yet S. Pau•• was not silent that Christ did otherwise; for he hath set in his Church primùm Apostolos; first of all, Apostles; not first S. Peter and se∣condarily Apostles; but all the Apo∣stles were first. It is also evident that S: Peter did not carry himself so as to give the least overture or umbrage to make any one suspect he had any such preheminence; but he was (as St. Chrysostom truly says) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.178 he did all things with the common consent, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nothing by special authority or principality: and if he had any such, it is more than probable that the Apo∣stles who survived him, had succeeded him in it, rather than the Bishop of Rome: and it being certain (as the Bishop of Canaries confesses) That there is in Scripture no revelation that the Bi∣shop of Rome should succeed Peter in it,* 1.179 and we being there told that S. Peter was at Antioch, but never that he was at Rome;* 1.180 it being confessed by some of their own parties, by Cardinal Cusa∣nus, Soto, Driedo, Canus and Segovius,

that this succession was not addicted to any particular Church, nor that Christs institution of this does any other way appear; that it cannot be proved that the Bishop of Rome is Prince of the Church: it being also certain that there was no such thing known in the primitive Church, but that the holy Fathers both of Africa and the East did oppose Pope Victor and Pope Stephen, when they began to interpose with a presumptive Authority in the affairs of other Churches; and that the Bi∣shops of the Church did treat with the Roman Bishop as with a brother, not as their superiour: and that the General Council held at Chalcedon did give to the Bishops of C. P. equal rights and preeminence with the Bishops of Rome: and that the Greek Churches are at this day and have been a long time great opponents of this preten∣sion of the Bishops of Rome: and after all this, since it is certain that Christ, who foreknows all things, did also know that t••ere would be great di∣sputes and challenges of this preemi∣nence,

did indeed suppress it in his Apo∣stles,* 1.181 and said not it should be otherwise in succession, and did not give any command to his Church to obey the Bishops of Rome as his Vicars, more than what he commanded concerning all Bishops; it must be certain that it cannot be necessary to salvation to do so, but that it is more than probable tha•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 never intended any such thing, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Bishops of Rome have to the great prejudice of Christendom made a great schism, and usurped a title which is not their due, and challenged an authority to which they have no right, and have set themselves above others who are their equals, and im∣pose an Article of Faith of their own contriving, and have made great pre∣paration for Antichrist, if he ever get into that Seat, or be in already, and made it necessary for all of the Roman Communion to believe and obey him in all things.

Sect. XI••

THere are very many more things in which the Church of Rome hath greatly turn'd aside from the Doctrines of Scripture, and the practise of the Catholick Apostolick and primitive Church.

Such are these: The Invoc••••••n of Saints: the Insufficiencie of S••••••••ures without Traditions of Faith unto Sal∣vation: their absolving sinners before they have by canonical penances and the fruits of a good life testified their repentance: their giving leave to simple Presbyters by Papal dispensation, to give confirmation or chrism: selling Masses for Ninepences: Circumgesta∣tion of the Eucharist to be ador'd: The dangerous Doctrine of the necessity of the Priests intention in collating Sacra∣ments; by which device they have put it into the power of the Priest to damn whom he please of his own parish: their affirming that the Mass is a pro∣per and propitiatory sacrifice for the

quick and the dead: Private Masses, or the Lords Supper without Communi∣on; which is against the doctrine and practise of the ancient Church of Rome it self, and contrary to the tradition of the Apostles, if we may believe Pope Calixtus, and is also forbidden under pain of Excommunication.* 1.182 Peractâ consecratione omnes communi∣cent, qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus; sic autem etiam Apostoli statuerunt, & sancta Romana tenet Ec∣clesia. When the consecration is fi∣nished let all communicate that will not be thrust from the bounds of the Church; for so the Apostles appoin∣ted, and so the Holy Church of Rome does hold. The same also was decreed by P. Soter and P. Martin in a Council of Bishops, and most severely en∣joyn'd by the Canons of the Apo∣stles as they are cited in the Canon Law. * 1.183

There are divers others; but we sup∣pose that those Innovations which we have already noted, may be sufficient to verifie this charge of Novelty. But we have done this the rather, be∣cause the Roman Emissaries endeavour to prevail amongst the ignorant and prejudicate by boasting of Antiquity; and calling their Religion, the Old Religion and the Catholick: so insna∣ring others by ignorant words in which is no truth; their Religion as it di∣stinguishes from the Religion of the Church of England and Ireland, being neither the Old nor the Catholick Re∣ligion; but New and superinduc'd by arts known to all who with sincerity and diligence have look'd into their pre∣tences.

But they have taught every Priest that can scarse understand his Breviary, (of which in Ireland there are but too many) and very many of the people, to ask where our Religion was before Lu∣ther? Whereas it appears by the pre∣mises, that it is much more easie for us to shew our Religion before Luther,

than for them to shew theirs before Trent. And although they can shew too much practise of their Religion in the degenerate ages of the Church, yet we can and do clearly shew ours in the purest and first ages; and can and do draw lines pointing to the times and places where the several rooms and stories of their Babel was builded, and where polished, and where fur∣nished.

But when the Keepers of the field slept, and the Enemy had sown tares, and they had choak'd the wheat, and almost destroyed it: when the world complain'd of the infinite errors in the Church, and being oppressed by a vio∣lent power, durst not complain so much as they had cause: and when they who had cause to complain were yet themselves very much abused, and did not complain in all they might; when divers excellent persons, S. Bernard, Clemangis, Grosthead, Marsilius, Ocham, Alvarus, Abbat Ioachim, Petrarch, Sa∣vanarola, Valla, Erasmus, Mantuan, Gerson, Ferus, Cassander, Andre as Fri∣cius,

Modrevius, Hermannus Coloniensis, Wasseburgius Archdeacon of Verdun, Paulus Langius * 1.184, Staphilus, Telespho∣rus de Cusentiâ, Doctor Talheymius, Francis Zabarel the Cardinal, and Pope Adrian himself, with many others; not to reckon Wiclef, Hus, Hierom of Prague, the Bohemians, and the poor men of Lions, whom they call'd Here∣ticks, and confuted with fire and sword; when almost all Christian Princes did complain heavily of the corrupt state of the Church and of Religion, and no remedy could be had, but the very in∣tended remedy made things much worse; then it was that divers Christian Kingdoms, and particularly the Church of England,

Tum primùm senio docilis, tua saecula Roma Erubuit, pudet exacti jam tem∣poris, odit Praeteritos foedis cum relligio∣nibus annos.

Being asham'd of the errors, superstiti∣ous, her••••••es and impieties which had deturpated the face of the Church;

look'd into the glass of Scripture and pure Antiquity, and wash'd away those stains with which time, and inadverten∣cy and tyranny had besmear'd her; and being thus cleans'd and wash'd, is ac∣cus'd by the Roman parties of Novel∣ty, and condemn••d because she refuses to run into the same excess of riot and deordination. But we cannot deserve blame who return to our ancient and first health, by preferring a New cure before an Old sore.

Notes

• * 1.1

  De unit. Ec∣cles. cap. 6.
• * 1.2

  Ecclesia ex s••cris & ca∣nonicis Scri∣pturis osten∣denda est, quaeque ex il∣lis ostendi non potest, Eccle∣siae non est, S. Aug. de uni. Eccles. c. 4. &c. 3. ••bi quae∣ramus Eccle∣siam, ibi de∣cernamus causam no∣stram.
• * 1.3

  Lib. Cano. discip, Eccle. Angl. & in∣junct. Regin. Elis. A. D. 1571. Can. de concionatori∣bus.
• * 1.4

  Dat. 3. Ca••en. Mart. Thes∣salonicae.
• a 1.5

  Quod sit metrum•• & regula, ac¦sciet••a cre∣dendorum. Summae de Ecclesia, l. 2 c 203.
• b 1.6

  Novum Symi••ium condere so∣lum ad Pa∣pam specta••, quia est caput fidei Christianae, cujus authoritate omnia quae ad•• dem spectant firmantur & roborantur. q. 59 a. 1. & art. 2. sicut petest no•••• symbolum condere, i•••• po••est novos articulos supra alios multiplicare.
• c 1.7

  Papa potest facere novos articulos fidei, id est, quod modo credi oport••at, cum prius non oport••ret. In cap. cum Christus. de ••••aeret. n 2.
• d 1.8

  Papa potest induceren•• vum arti••u um fidei. In idem.
• e 1.9

  Super 2. Decret. de ju∣r••jur. c. ni∣mis. n. 1.
• f 1.10

  Apud Pe∣trum Ciezam t. 2. ins••it. pe∣r••••nae ca•• 69.
• * 1.11

  Iohanne•• Clemens ali∣quo•• folia Theodoreti laceravit & abjecit in fo∣cum, in qui∣bus contra transubstan∣tionem prae∣clare disse∣ruit. Et cum ••on ita pri∣dem Orige∣nem ••xcude∣rent, totum illud caput sextum Io∣hannes & quod com∣mentabatur ••rigen••s ••mis••runt, & mutilum ••did••runt libru•• propt••r candem ca••sa••.
• * 1.12

  Sixtus S••∣nensis epis••. dedicat. ad. P••••••m Q••••n. ••auda•• Pon∣••••sic••m id haec verba, Expur∣gari & ••ma∣culari carasti omnium Ca∣tholicorum Scriptorum, ac prae••i••ue ve••erum pa∣tr••m scrip••a.
• * 1.13

  Index expur∣gator. Ma∣drili. 1612. in Indice li∣bror. expur∣gatorum pag. ••9.
• * 1.14

  Gal. ••.••.
• * 1.15

  Part. 2. act. 6. c. 7.
• * 1.16

  De potest. Eccles. Consi••. 12.
• * 1.17

  De Consil. author. l. 2. c. 17. Sect. 1.
• * 1.18

  Sess. 21. c. 4.
• * 1.19

  Part. 1. Sum. tit. 10. p. 3.
• * 1.20

  In art. 1••. Luther.
• * 1.21

  Intravit ut vulpes, regnavit ut leo, mori••ba∣tur ut canis, de eo saepiu•• d••ctum.
• * 1.22

  Tertul. 1•• ad Martyr. c. 1. S. Cy∣prian. lib. 3.

  Ep. 15. apud Pamelium 11.

  Concil. Nicen. 1. can. 12. Conc. Ancyr c. 5. Concil. Laodicen. c. 2. S. Basil. in Ep. canoni∣cis habentur in Nomocanone Phot••i, can. 73.
• * 1.23

  Communis opinio D.D. tam Theol••∣gorum, quam Canonico∣rum, quod sunt ex a∣bundantia meritorum quae ultra mensuram demeritorum suorum sancti su∣stinnerunt, & Christi, Sum. Angel. v. In∣dulg 9.
• * 1.24

  Lib. 1. de in∣dulgent. cap. 2. & .3.
• a 1.25

  In. 4. l. sen. dist. 19. q 2.
• b 1.26

  Ibid. dist. 20. q 3.
• * 1.27

  Ubi supra.
• * 1.28

  In lib. 4. sent.
• * 1.29

  Verb. Indul∣gentia.
• * 1.30

  Vt quid non praevides tibi in die judicii, quando nemo poterit per a∣lium excusa∣ri, vel defen∣di; sed unus∣quis{que} suffici¦ens onus erit sibi i••si: Th. a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••. 1. d•• ••mit. c. 24.
• a 1.31

  Homil. 1. in ep. ad Philem.
• b 1.32

  Serm. de Martyrib.
• c 1.33

  S••rm. 1. de Advent.
• * 1.34

  Eze. 1••. 22.
• * 1.35

  Ne{que} ab iis quos sanas lente languor abscedit, sed illico quem restituis ex integro ••m∣valescit, qu••a consummatum est quod sacis, & perfectum quod largiris, S. Cyprian de caena Do∣mini: vel potius Ar••o••dus. P. Ge••asius de vincul. anath••m. neg••t p••n••m deberi culpaesi culp•• co••rigatur.
• * 1.36

  D••let gra∣tia finalis p••ccatum ve∣niale in ipsa d••ssolutione corporis & animae. Hoc ab antiquis d••ctum ••st. Albert. Mag. in compend. Theolog. verit. ••. 3. 6. 13.
• * 1.37

  Art. 18. con, Luther. In∣vent. rerum. l. 8. c. 1.
• a 1.38

  Haeres. 75.
• b 1.39

  Cateches, mystag. 5.
• c 1.40

  De riti••us, lib. 2. c. 35.
• * 1.41

  Innocent. P. de Celeb. Mis∣sar. cap. c••m Martha.
• * 1.42

  Apologia confessionis Augustanae expresse ap∣probat clan∣sulam illam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Deus de•• ei pacatam q••i••••em, ad v••am re∣surre••tionem.
• * 1.43

  Biblieth ••. l, 5. Anno••. clxxi Vide etiam Bellar. l. 2 de Pur∣gat sect. c. 1. Ambr••sius.
• * 1.44

  Lib. 6. Bi••l. Sa••ct. annot. 345, Bernandum e••c••ssandum arbi••ror ob ingentem nu∣merum illu∣strium Ec∣c••esiae Pa∣trum, q••i ante ipsum huic d••gmati authori••••n••m suo testim••nio visi sunt praebuisse; prae••er cita∣tos; enum••∣ra••, S. Ja∣cobum A∣postolum, Irenaeum, Clemen∣tem Roma∣num, Augu∣stinum, Theodore∣tum, Oecu∣menium, Theophy∣lactum, & Johannem 22. ponif. Rom.quam sententia•••• non m••do d••∣cuit, & de∣claravit, sed a•• om••i••us ••eneri mandavit, ut ••it Adrianus P. in 4. lib. sent. in fine quaest. i•• sa••ram confirmationis.
• * 1.45

  Enchyrid c. 69. lib. 21. ••••¦civit. Dei c. 26.
• * 1.46

  Lib. 8. Chron. cap. 26.
• * 1.47

  Haec de∣scri••simus, ut tamen in i•• nuila veluti Canonica constituatur authoritas. l. de 8. quaest. Dulcitii. c. •• Dist. 3. exem. 3. Exempl. 60.
• * 1.48

  Histor. Lom••.
• * 1.49

  Legend. 185.
• * 1.50

  Deut. 18. 11, &c. Isa. 8.19.
• * 1.51

  Vide Mald••∣nat. in 16. cap S. Luca.
• * 1.52

  Ad Demetri∣an. sect. 16.
• * 1.53

  Eccles. hier. c. 7.
• * 1.54

  Quast. & re∣spons. ad or∣thod. qu. 75. Iustino im∣putat.
• a 1.55

  De bono mortis, cap. 4.
• b 1.56

  In Psal. 2.
• c 1.57

  Homil, 22.
• d 1.58

  Orat. 5. In Piagam grandinis & orat. 42 in Pascha. De E••cles. dog∣mat. c. ••79.
• * 1.59

  In Eccle. c. 11.
• * 1.60

  Epist. 59.
• * 1.61

  Rev. 14 13.
• * 1.62

  John 5.2••.
• a 1.63

  In 4. lib. sent. d. 11. q. 3
• b 1.64

  Ibid. q. 6.
• c 1.65

  Lect. 40. in can. missa.
• d 1.66

  ••ap. 1. contr. captiv. Babyl.
• e 1.67

  De Euchar. l. 3. cap. 23. sect. secundo dicit.
• * 1.68

  Venere tum quidem mul∣ta in consisla∣tionem, nec decerni tam••n quicquam a∣perte po••••it. Platina in vit•• Innocen. III.
• * 1.69

  Apud Suar. Tom. 3. disp. 46. sect. 3.
• * 1.70

  Loc. com. l. 3. c. 3. fund. 2.
• * 1.71

  L. 3. d•• Euch. cap. 23. sect. unum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 S••m. l. ••. c. 20.
• * 1.72

  Discurs. mo∣dest. p. 13.
• * 1.73

  Lib. 4. sent. dist. ••1. lit. a.
• * 1.74

  A. D. MCLX.
• * 1.75

  A. D. MCCXV.
• * 1.76

  A. D. MCCLXX. secund. ••u∣chol. sed se∣cundum Vo∣laterranum MCCCxxxv. In lib. 4 sent. dist. 11. qu. 1. sect. pro••••er ••er∣tium.
• * 1.77

  De haeres. lib. 8. Verbo Indulgentiá.
• * 1.78

  Cap. E••o Berengarius de Conse∣crat•• dist. 2.
• * 1.79

  A••ver. Mar∣c••on•• l 4. c. 40.
• * 1.80

  Contr. ••ryph. Jud.
• * 1.81

  In dial••g. cont. Marci∣on. collect••s •••• Maximo, tempo e 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & Seve•••• Im••. In Ma••. 1••.
• * 1.82

  Demonst. Evang lib. 1 c••p. 1.
• * 1.83

  & cap. ult.
• * 1.84

  Homil. 27.
• * 1.85

  De sacris Antioch. le∣gibus apud Photium, l. 1. c. 229.
• * 1.86

  Orat. 2. in Pasch.
• * 1.87

  Ep. ad Caes. cont. heres. Apollinarii. cit. per Da∣mascen. & per collect. senten. Pp. cont. Sere∣rianos, edit. per Tur••ia∣num

  Homil. 23. in 1 Cor.
• * 1.88

  In Psal. 98.
• * 1.89

  Cont. Adi∣mantium cap. 12.
• * 1.90

  Lib. 10. cont. Faust. Ma∣nich.
• * 1.91

  De consecrat. dist. 2. cap. Qui mandu∣cant, & cap. Prima qui∣dem, & cap. Non hoc cor∣pus, & cap. Vt quid pa∣ras.

  Sentent. l. 4. dist. 11.

  Dialog. 1. c. 8
• * 1.92

  Dial. 2. c. 24.
• * 1.93

  D•• duabus naeturis con r•• Eutych. & Nestor.

  Videatur Pi∣ch••rellus in dissert. de Missa & ex∣positione v••r∣borum insti∣tutionis coenae Domini.
• * 1.94

  Iohn 6.63.
• * 1.95

  Vbi supra.
• * 1.96

  Gloria mun∣di 4. num. 6.
• * 1.97

  1.
• * 1.98

  2.
• * 1.99

  3.
• * 1.100

  4.
• * 1.101

  5.
• * 1.102

  Concil. Con∣s••ant. s••ss. 13.
• * 1.103

  Accursius praefat. super Instit. Iustin.
• * 1.104

  Mat. 26. 27
• * 1.105

  Consult. sect. 22.
• * 1.106

  Commen. in 6 Ioh. lect. 7.
• * 1.107

  De corp. & sang. Domini, cap. 19.
• * 1.108

  Tract. 35.
• * 1.109

  Apud Gra∣tian. de con∣secr. dist. 2. cap. Compe∣rimus.
• * 1.110

  Vide Ocha∣gav de Sacr. tract. 2. de Euchar. q. 18. De consecrat. dist. 2. cap. Si non sunt•• & cap. Quia passus, & cap. Prima qui∣dem, & cap. Tunc ei••, & cap. Accesse∣run••.
• * 1.111

  Lib. 8. contra Celsum.
• * 1.112

  Affectus consequitur intelle∣ctum: ubi autem nullus earum rerum quae petuntur vel dicuntur habetur intellectus•• aut g••••erali∣ter tantum, ibi exiguus assurgit affectus. Azor. Inst. moral. to. 1. lib. 9. c. 34. q. ••.
• a 1.113

  In 1 Cor. 14
• b 1.114

  Epist ad Su••hron.
• c 1.115

  Sozom. l. 6. ••ist. cap. 37.
• d 1.116

  Hom. 1. in 8 ••̄••an.
• e 1.117

  De Doctr. Christ. cap 5.
• f 1.118

  Serm. 5. de Graecar. ••f∣fect. curat.
• g 1.119

  Li••. Q•• ex var. Script. lo••••q. 278.
• h 1.120

  In 1 Cor. h••m. 35.
• i 1.121

  Super 1 Cor. 14.
• k 1.122

  S••per Psal. 1••. con. 2.
• l 1.123

  In 1 Cor. 14.
• m 1.124

  Ibid.
• n 1.125

  Liturg. cap. 28.
• o 1.126

  Histor. Bo∣hem. ••
• * 1.127

  De Doctr. Christ. lib. 4. cap. 10.
• * 1.128

  Novel. 123.
• * 1.129

  De Missa l. 2. ••. 13. sect. ad Novellā.
• * 1.130

  Cap. 9.
• * 1.131

  Quintil. l. 1.
• * 1.132

  Verb. Osseni. Cap. 6. ad Quod vult De••m.
• * 1.133

  Chap. 2. Sect. 12.
• * 1.134

  Lib. 1. ••a∣ret. fabul.
• * 1.135

  De haeres.
• * 1.136

  Lib. 1. cap. 23. vide eti∣am Epiphan. 10. 2. lib. 1. haeres. 27. & S. August. de haeres.
• * 1.137

  Lib. 6. strom. & in paran••••i ••.
• * 1.138

  Lib. 7. & 3. cont. Cels.
• * 1.139

  Epist. ad Ioh. Hi••ros.
• * 1.140

  Can. 36. Pla∣cuit pictur as in Ecclesia esse non debe∣re, ne quod colitur aut a∣doratur in pari••••ibus depingatur.

  De mori••.

  Eccles. ••. 1. c. 34. Idem de fide & Sym∣b••••o. c. 7. & contr. Adi∣mant. cap. 13.
• * 1.141

  A••no Dom. DCCLXIV.
• * 1.142

  Lib 2•• in vitae Isaac•• An∣geli, A.D. 1160.
• * 1.143

  1 John 5.21
• * 1.144

  Strom. l. 6. & in Pro••rep.
• * 1.145

  Lib. 2. c. 22. advers. Mar∣cion. & de Ido••olatr. c. 3.
• * 1.146

  Lib. 4. cont. Celsum.
• * 1.147

  Stromat. l. 1.
• a 1.148

  Lib. 7. contra Celsum.
• b 1.149

  De coron a ••il••is.
• c 1.150

  Lib. 1. c. 5. praep. Evang.
• d 1.151

  Orat. contra gentes.
• e 1.152

  In c. 40. Isa.
• f 1.153

  De fide & symbol. c. 7.
• g 1.154

  In Deut. q. 1.
• h 1.155

  Lib•• 4. d•• Orthod. fide c. 17.
• * 1.156

  Sil. Italic.
• * 1.157

  Lib. 1. in somn. Scip. cap. 2.
• * 1.158

  Lib. 18. c. 53.
• * 1.159

  Lib. 2. de In∣vent. c. 23.
• * 1.160

  Acts 20. 2••.
• * 1.161

  Epist. de unit. Ecclesia ad Novatian. & habetur caus. 24. qu. 1.
• * 1.162

  Irenae. lib. 4. c. 43, 44. S. Cy∣prian: lib. 1. ep. 6. & lib. 2. ep. 10. & lib. 4. ep. 9. S. Ambrose. de dignit. sacerd. c. 1. S. Aug. de baptism. contra Donat. l. 7. c. 43. & ibid. Claru•• a Muscula. Idem de verb. Dom. Ser. 24. Con. Rom. sub Sylvest. Const. Apost. l. 8. c. ult. Anacl. P. ep. 2. Cle∣mens P. ep. 1. S. Hieron. ep. 13. & ep. 54. Euthym. in Ps. 44. S. Gregor. in Evang. Hom. 26. ad Heliod••••. ep. 1. S. Chrysost. ser. Damascen. de imaginibus: Orat. 2. S. Greg. Naz. Orat 21. de laud Basilii.
• * 1.163

  In epist. 1. ad Corin. cap. 3. & in epist. ad Roman. c. 1.
• * 1.164

  Extravi Com lib 1. tit. 9. de ma∣ior. & obed. cap. Vnam Sanctam.
• * 1.165

  〈…〉〈…〉 Arch••••pisc. Granate••si in Concil. ••rid.
• * 1.166

  Vbi sup••a.
• * 1.167

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 4 〈◊〉〈◊〉 2
• * 1.168

  Ap••d Ba••••. ••••m. 6. A.D. 499. n. 36.
• * 1.169

  Dionys. Ar••∣op. de Eccles. hierarch. de sacer. p••rfect.
• * 1.170

  E••is••. ad S••••••••••ne•••• & ad P••••••a••••••.
• * 1.171

  Dist. 97. c. Duo sunt.
• * 1.172

  In Ierem. hom. 7. & adver. Lucif.
• * 1.173

  In Conc••••. Pari••. l. 1. c. 3
• * 1.174

  In Co••cil•• Cart••ag.
• * 1.175

  De Bapt. contr. Dina∣t••s••••l 3. c. ••.
• * 1.176

  Lib. 4. ep. 76, 78, 31, 34, 38, 39•• & lib. 6. ep. 24.
• * 1.177

  Lib 4 p 32. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••st 〈…〉〈…〉, cont••a Ca••••n••m de∣cret••. novum sibi usurpare nomen praesumit? Videatur Epistola S. Hieron. a•• Evagrium, Concil. Ch••••ced. action. 16. Concil. Nicen. can. 6. & can. 7. & Conci••. C. P can. 3. & Nov••l. Iustin. 131.
• * 1.178

  In Acta A∣post. hom. 3.
• * 1.179

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 loc. lib. 6 c. 8 p 23••. Ed. S••••man••. 1563.
• * 1.180

  C••ncor. Cu•••• l. 2. c. 34 S••nt. l. 4 〈◊〉〈◊〉 24 q 2 〈…〉〈…〉 4 c. 3.
• * 1.181

  Luk. 22.25. Mat. 20.26, 27.
• * 1.182

  De consecra. d••st. 2. cap. Peracta. Vi∣de etiam ib. cap. In coena, & cap. Si quis.
• * 1.183

  De consecr. dist. 1. c. Omnes fidel. Omnes fideles qui conveni∣unt in solen∣nitatibus sacris ad Ecclesiam & Scripturas Apostolorum & Evange••••a audian••. Qui autem non perseverant in oratione usque dum Missa peragatur, nec Sanctam Commu••ienem percipiunt, velut inquie••udines Ecclesiae commove••es convenit communione privari.
• * 1.184

  In Chron•• Zilizensi.