The second part of the dissuasive from popery in vindication of the first part, and further reproof and conviction of the Roman errors / by Jer. Taylor ...

THE SECOND PART OF The Dissuasive from Popery. (Book 2)

The first Book.

SECTION I.

Of the Church: shewing that, The Church of Rome relies upon no certain foundation for their faith.

THat the Scriptures are infallibly true, though it be acknowledged by the Roman Church, yet this is not an infal∣lible rule to them, for several reasons: 1. Because it is imperfect and insuffi∣cient (as they say) to determine all matters of Faith. 2. Because it is not sufficient to de∣termine any that shall be questioned: not onely be∣cause its authority and truth is to be determin'd by something else that must be before it; but also be∣cause its sense and meaning must be found out by something after it. And not he that writes or speaks, but he that expounds it, gives the Rule; so that Scripture no more is to rule us, then matter made the world: until something else gives it form and life, and motion and operative powers, it is but iners massa, not so much as a clod of earth. And they, who speak so much of the obscurity of Scripture, of the seeming

contradictions in it, of the variety of readings, and the mysteriousness of its manner of delivery, can but little trust that obscure, dark, intricate, and at last, imperfect book, for a perfect clear Rule. But I shall not need to drive them out of this Fort, which they so willingly of themselves quit. If they did acknowledge Scripture for their Rule, all Controversies about this, would be at an end, and we should all be agreed: but because they do not, they can claim no title here.

That which they pretend to be the infallible Judge, and the measure of our faith, and is to give us our Rule, is the Church; and she is a rock; the pillar and ground of truth, and therefore here they fix. Now how little as∣surance they have by this Confidence, will appear by many considerations.

1. It ought to be known and agreed upon, what is meant by this word Church, or Ecclesia. For it is a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and the Church cannot be a Rule or Guide if it be not known what you mean when you speak the word. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, said Suidas. His body, viz. mystical, Christ calls his Church: Among the Greeks it signifies, a Convention or Assembly met to∣gether for publick imployment, and affairs; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so Aristophanes understands it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Is there not a Convocation or an Assembly called for this Plutus? Now by Translation this word is us'd amongst Christians to signifie all them who out of the whole mass of mankind are called and come, and are ga∣thered together by the voice and call of God, to the wor∣ship of God through Jesus Christ, and the participation of eternal good things to follow: So that, The Church is a Company of men and women professing the saving do∣ctrine of Jesus Christ. This is the Church in sensu forensi, and in the sight of men; But because glorious things are spoken of the city of God; the Professors of Christs Doctrine are but imperfectly and inchoatively the

Church of God; but they who are indeed holy and obedient to Christs laws of faith and manners; that live according to his laws, and walk by his example; these are truly and perfectly the Church, and they have this signature, God knoweth who are his. These are the Church of God in the eyes and heart of God. For the Church of God are the body of Christ; but the meer profession of Christianity makes no man a mem∣ber of Christ; Nither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing in Christ Jesus, nothing but a new creature; nothing but a faith working by love; and keeping the Commandements of God. Now they that do this are not known to be such, by Men; but they are onely known to God; and therefore it is in a true sense the invisible Church; not that there are two Churches, or two Societies, in separation from each other; or that one can be seen by men, and the other cannot: for then either we must run after the Church, whom we ought not to imitate; or be blind in pursuit of the other that can never be found; and our eyes serve for nothing but to run after false fires. No, these two Churches are but one Society; the one is within the other, They walk together to the house of God as friends, they take sweet Counsel together, and eat the bread of God in common: but yet though the men be visible, yet that quality and excellency by which they are constituted Christs members and distinguish'd from meer Professors and outsides of Christians, this, I say, is not visible. All that really and heartily serve Christ in abdito, do also profess to do so; they serve him in the secret of the heart, and in the secret chamber, and in the publick Assemblies, unless by an intervening cloud of persecu∣tion they be for a while hid, and made less conspicuous: but the invisible Church ordinary and regularly is part of the visible, but yet that onely part that is the true one; and the rest but by denomination of law, and in

common speaking are the Church: not in mystical union, not in proper relation to Christ, they are not the House of God, not the Temple of the Holy Ghost, not the members of Christ; and no man can deny this. Hypocrites are not Christs servants, and therefore not Christs members, and therefore no part of the Church of God, but improperly and equivocally, as a dead man is a man; all which is perfectly summ'd up in those words of S. Austin,* 1.1 saying, that the body of Christ is not bipartitum, it is not a double body. Non enim revera Domini corpus est, quod cum illo non erit in aeter∣num, All that are Christs body shall reign with Christ for ever.] And therefore they who are of their father the Devil, are the synagogue of Satan, and of such is not the Kingdom of God: and all this is no more then what S. Paul said,* 1.2 They are not all Israel, who are of Israel:* 1.3 and, He is not a Jew that is one outwardly, but he is a Jew that is one inwardly. Now if any part of mankind will agree to call the universality of Pro∣fessors by the title of the Church, they may if they will; any word, by consent, may signifie any thing: but if by Church we mean that Society which is really joyn'd to Christ, which hath receiv'd the holy Spirit, which is heir of the Promises, and the good things of God, which is the body of which Christ is head; then the invisible part of the visible Church, that is, the true servants of Christ onely are the Church; that is, to them onely appertains the spirit, and the truth, the promises, and the graces, the privileges and advantages of the Gospel: to others they appertain, as the promise of pardon does; that is, when they have made them∣selves capable.

For since it is plain and certain, that Christs promise of giving the spirit to his Apostles was meerly condi∣tional,* 1.4 If they did love him, If they did keep his Com∣mandments: Since it is plainly affirmed by the Apostle,

that by reason of wicked lives men and women did turn Apostates from the faith, since nothing in the world does more quench the spirit of wisdom and of God than an impure life; it is not to be suppos'd that the Church, as it signifies the Professors onely of Chri∣stianity, can have an infallible spirit of truth. If the Church of Christ have an indefectibility, then it must be that which is in the state of grace, and the Divine favour. They whom God does not love, cannot fall from Gods love; but the faithful onely and obedient are beloved of God: others may believe rightly; but so do the Devils who are no parts of the Church, but Princes of Ecclesia Malignantium; and it will be a strange proposition which affirms any one to be of the Church for no other reason but such as qualifies the Devil to be so too. For there is no other difference be∣tween the Devils faith and the faith of a man that lives wickedly; but that there is hopes the wicked man may by his faith be converted to holiness of life, and consequently be a member of Christ and the Church; which the Devils never can be. To be converted from Gentilism, or Judaism to the Christian faith is an ex∣cellent thing; but it is therefore so excellent, because that is Gods usual way by that faith to convert them unto God, from their vain conversation unto holiness. That was the Conversion which was designed by the preaching of the Gospel; of which, to believe meerly, was but the entrance and introduction.

Now besides the evidence of the thing it self and the notice of it in Scripture;* 1.5 let me observe, that this very thing is in it self a part of the article of faith; for if it be asked What is the Catholick Church? the Apo∣stles Creed defines it; it is Communio Sanctorum, I be∣lieve the holy Catholick Church, that is, the Communion of Saints, the conjunction of all them who heartily serve God through Jesus Christ; the one is indeed exege∣tical

of the other, as that which is plainer is explica∣tive of that which is less plain; but else they are but the same thing: which appears also in this, that in some Creeds the latter words are left out, and parti∣cularly in the Constantinopolitan, as being understood to be in effect but another expression of the same Article. To the same sense exactly Clemens of Alexandria de∣fines the Church to be,* 1.6 the Congregation of the Elect. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. By the Church, I do not mean the place, but the gathering, or heap of the Elect; for this is the better Temple for the receiving the greatness of the dignity of God. For that living thing which is of great price, to him who is wor∣thy of all price, yea to whose price nothing is too great, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is consecrated by the excellency of holiness]. But more full is that of Saint Austin,* 1.7 who spends two chapters in affirming, that one∣ly they who serve God faithfully are the Church of God.

[The temple of God is holy, which Temple ye are. For this is in the good and faithful, and the holy ser∣vants of God, scattered every where, and combin'd by a spiritual union in the same communion of Sacra∣ments, whether they know one another by face or no. Others it is certain are so said to be in the House of God, that they do not pertain to the structure of the house, nor to the society of fructifying and peace-making justice, but are as chaff in the wheat. For we cannot deny that they are in the house, the Apostle Paul saying, That in a great house there are not onely vessels of gold and silver, but wood and earth, some for honour and some for dishonour.]

And a little before

[I do not speak rashly, when I say, Some are so in the house of God, that they also are that very house of God, which is said to be built upon a rock, which is called the onely dove, the fair spouse with∣out spot or wrinkle, the garden shut up, a fountain

sealed, a pit of living water, a fruitful paradise. This is the house which hath received the Keys, and the power of loosing and binding; whosoever shall de∣spise this house (reproving and correcting him, he saith) let him be as an heathen and a Publican.]

And then he proceeds to describe who are this house, by the characters of sanctity,* 1.8 of charity, and unity. Propter malam pollutámque conscientiam damnati à Christo, jam in corpore Christi non sunt, quod est Ecclesia, quoniam non potest Christus habere damnata membra, Those who are condemned by Christ for their evil and polluted con∣sciences are not in Christs body which is the Church; for Christ hath no damned members.

And this, besides that it is expressly taught in the Au∣gustan Confession;* 1.9 it is also the Do∣ctrine of divers Roman Doctors; that wicked men are not true mem∣bers of the body of the Church, but equivocally. So Alexander of Hales, Hugo, and Aquinas, as they are quoted by Turrecremata; so Petrus à Soto, Melchior Canus,* 1.10 and others, as Bellarmine himself con∣fesses; so that if it be said that evil men are in the Church, it is true, but they are not of the Church, as S. John's expression is, for if they had been of us, they would have tarried with us: which words seem to be of the same sense with those Fathers, who affirm the Church to be, The number of the predestinate, whom God loves to the end. But however, the wicked are onely in the body of the Church,* 1.11 as peccant humours, and excrements, and hair, and putrefaction; so said S. Austin as Bellarmine quotes him: and the same thing in almost the same words is set down by* 1.12 Coster the Jesuit: and when Bellarmine attempts to answer this saying of S. Austin; he says, he means that the wicked are not in the Church in the same manner as the godly are; that is, not as living members: which though it

be put in the place of an Answer to amuse the young fellows that are captivated with the admirable me∣thod of Ob. and Sol. yet it plainly confesses the point in question; viz. that the wicked are not members of Christs body; and if they be not, then to them be∣long not the Privileges and Promises which God gave and promised to his Church: for they were given for the sake of the Saints onely,* 1.13 saith S. Austin; and Bel∣larmine confesses it. But I need not be digging the Cisterns for this truth; Christ himself hath taught it to us very plainly;* 1.14 Ye are my friends if ye do what∣soever I command you:] not upon any other terms; and I hope none but friends are parts of Christs mystical body, members of the Church whereof he is head; and the onely condition of this,* 1.15 is, if we do whatsoever Christ commands us. And that this very blessing and promise of knowing and understanding the will of God appertains onely to the godly, Christ declares in the very next words; Henceforth I call you not ser∣vants, for the servant knoweth not what his Lord doth; but I have called you friends, for all things I have heard from my Father I have made known unto you.] So that, being the friends of God, is the onely way to know the will of God; None are infallible but they that are holy; and they shall certainly be directed by Christ, and the Spirit of Christ.* 1.16 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God, or whe∣ther I speak of my self, said our Blessed Lord. And S. John* 1.17 said; Ye have received the unction from above, and that anointing teacheth you all things. The Spirit of God is the great teacher of all truth to the Church; but they that grieve the holy Spirit of God, they that quench the Spirit, they that defile his Temple, from these men he will surely depart: That he shall abide with men unto the end of the world, is a promise not belonging to them, but to them that keep his Command∣ments:

The external parts of Religion may be mini∣stred by wicked persons, and by wicked persons may be received; but the secrets of the Kingdom, the spi∣ritual excellencies of the Gospel, that is, truth and holiness, a saving and an unreprovable faith, and an indefectible love, to be United to Christ, and to be mem∣bers of his body; these are the portions of Saints, not of wicked persons, whether Clergy or Laity. The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom,* 1.18 and the lips of the righteous know what is acceptable, said Solomon: but when we consider those men who detain the Faith in Vnrighteousness, it is no wonder that God leaves them and gives them over to believe a Lye, and deli∣vers them to the spirit of Illusion; and therefore it will be ill to make our Faith to rely upon such dange∣rous foundations. As all the Principles and graces of the Gospel are the propriety of the Godly; so they only are the Church of God, of which glorious things are spoken, and it will be vain to talk of the infallibi∣lity of God's Church: the Roman Doctors either must confess it Subjected here, that is, in the Church in this sense, or they can find it no where. In short; This is the Church (in the sense now explicated) which is the pillar and ground of truth; but this is not the sense of the Church of Rome, and therefore from hence they refusing to have their learning, can never pretend wise∣ly, that they can be Infalliby directed.

We have seen what is the true meaning of the Church of God, according to the Scriptures, and Fa∣thers, and sometimes Persons formerly in the Church of Rome: In the next place, let us see what now a days they mean by the Church, with which name or word they so much abuse the world.

1. Therefore, by Church sometimes they mean the [ I] whole body of them that profess Christianity; Greges pastoribus adunatos, Priest and People, Bishops and

their Flocks, all over the world, upon whom the name of Christ is called, whether they be dead in sins, or alive in the spirit, whether good Christians or false hypocrites: but all the number of the Baptized, except Excommunicates that are since cut off, make this body.

Now the word Church, I grant may and is given to them, by way of supposition and legal presumption; as a Jury of twelve men, are called, Good men and true: that is, they are not known to be otherwise, and there∣fore presum'd to be such: And they are the Church in all humane accounts; that is, they are the Congrega∣tion of all that profess the name of Christ; of whom every particular that is not known to be wicked, is pre∣sum'd to be good; and therefore is still part of the Ex∣ternal Church, in which are the wheat and the tares: and they are bound up in Common by the Union of Sacraments and external rites,* 1.19 name, and profession, but by nothing else. This Doctrine is well explicated by S. Austin [

That is not the body of Christ which shall not reign with him for ever.

And yet we must not say it is bipartite; but it is either true or mixt, or it is either true, or counterfeit; or some such thing.

For not on∣ly in eternity, but even now, hypocrites are not to be said to be with Christ, although they may seem to be of his Church. But the Scripture speaks of those and these as if they were both of one body, propter temporalem commixtionem & communionem Sacramentorum:

they are only combin'd by a temporal mixtion, and united by the common use of the Sacraments.] And this, to my sense, all the Churches of the world seem to say; for when they excommunicate a person, then they throw him out of the Church; meaning, that all his being in the Church of which they could take cogni∣sance, is but by the Communion of Sacraments and external society.* 1.20 Now out of this society no man must depart; because although a better union with

Christ and one another is most necessary, yet even this cannot, ought not, to be neglected; for by the outward, the inward is set forward and promoted: and there∣fore to depart from the external communion of the Church upon pretence that the wicked are mingled with the godly, is foolish and unreasonable; for by such departing,* 1.21 a man is not sure he shall depart from all the wicked, but he is sure he shall leave the com∣munion of the good, who are mingled in the common Mass with the wicked, or else, all that which we call the Church is wicked. And what can such men pro∣pound to themselves of advantage, when they cer∣tainly forsake the society of the good, for an imagina∣ry departure from the wicked; and after all the care they can take, they leave a society in which are some intemperate, or many worldly men, and erect a Con∣gregation, for ought they know, of none but hypo∣crites?

So that which we call the Church is permixta Ec∣clesia, as S. Austin is content it should be called, a mixt Assembly;* 1.22 and for this mixture sake, under the cover and knot of external communion, the Church, that is, all that company, is esteemed one body; and the appellatives are made in common, and so are the addresses, and offices and ministeries: because, of those that are not now, some will be good; and a great ma∣ny that are evil, are undiscernably so; and in that communion are the ways, and ministeries, and engage∣ments of being good; and above all, in that society are all those that are really good; therefore it is no wonder, that we call this Great mixtion by the name of Ecclesia, or the Church: But then, since the Church hath a more sacred Notion, it is the spouse of Christ, his dove, his beloved, his body, his members, his temple, his house in which he loves to dwell, and which shall dwell with him for ever; and this Church is known,

and discern'd, and lov'd by God, and is United unto Christ: therefore although, when we speak of all the acts and duties, of the judgments and nomencla∣tures, of outward appearances and accounts of law, we call the mixt Society by the name of the Church. Yet when we consider it in the true, proper, and pri∣mary meaning, by the intention of God, and the na∣ture of the thing, and the Entercourses between God and his Church; all the promises of God, the Spirit of God, the life of God, and all the good things of God are peculiar to the Church of God, in God's sense, in the way in which he owns it, that is, as it is holy, Uni∣ted unto Christ, like to him and partaker of the Divine nature. The other are but a heap of men keeping good Company, calling themselves by a good name, managing the external parts of Union and Ministery; but because they otherwise belong not to God, the promises no otherwise belong to them, but as they may, and when they ** 1.23 do, return to God. Here then are two senses of the word Church, God's sense and Man's sense: The sense of Religion, and the sense of Government; common rites, and spiritual union.

II. Having now laid this founda∣tion, that none but the true ser∣vants of Christ make the true Church of Christ, and have title to the promises of Christ, and particu∣larly of the Spirit of truth; and having observ'd that the Roman Church, relies upon the Church under an∣other notion and definition: the next inquiry is to be, What certainty there is of finding truth in this Church, and in what sense and meaning it is, that in the Church of God we shall be sure to find it.

Of the Church in the first sense,* 1.24 S. Paul affirms; it is the pillar and ground of truth. He spake it of the

Church of Ephesus, or the Holy Catholick Church over the world; for there is the same reason of one and all; if it be, as S. Paul calls it, Ecclesia Dei vivi, if it be united to the head Christ Jesus, every Church is as much the pillar and ground of truth, as all the Church; which that we may understand rightly, we are to con∣sider that what is commonly called the Church, is but Domus Ecclesiae verae, as the Ecclesia vera is Domus Dei: it is the School of Piety, the place of institution and discipline. Good and bad dwell here; but God onely and his Spirit dwells with the good. They are all taught in the Church; but the good onely are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 taught by God, by an infallible Spirit, that is, by a Spi∣rit which neither can deceive nor be deceived, and therefore by him the good, and they onely, are lead in∣to all saving truth; and these are the men that pre∣serve the truth in holiness; without this society, the truth would be hidden and held in Unrighteousness; so that all good men, all particular Congregations of good men, who upon the foundation Christ Jesus build the superstructure of a holy life, are the pillar and ground of truth; that is, they support and defend the truth, they follow and adorn the truth; which truth would in a little time be suppress'd, or obscur'd, or varied, or conceal'd, and mis-interpreted, if the wicked onely had it in their conduct. That is: Amongst good men we are most like to find the ways of peace and truth, all saving truth, and the proper spiritual advantages and loveliness of truth. Now then, this does no more relate to all Churches, then to every Church, God will no more leave or for∣sake any one of his faithful servants, then he will for∣sake all the world. And therefore here the Notion of Catholick is of no use; for the Church is the Com∣munion of Saints, where-ever it be, or may be; and that this Church is Catholick, it does not mean by any

distinct existence; but by comprehension and actual and potential inclosure of all Communions of holy peo∣ple in the unity of the spirit, and in the band of peace; that is, both externally and internally: Externally means the common use of the Symbol and Sacraments; for they are the band of peace; but the unity of the Spirit is the peculiar of the Saints, and is the internal confederation and conjunction of the members of Christs body in themselves, and to their head. And by the Energy of this state, where-ever it happens to be, all the blessings of the Spirit are entail'd; every man hath his share in it, he shall never be left or forsaken, and the Spirit of God will never depart from him; as long as he remains in, and is of the Communion of Saints. But this promise is made to him onely as he is part of this Communion, that is, of the body of Christ; Membrum divulsum, if a limb be cut off from the union of the body, it dies. No man belongs to God but he that is of this Communion; but therefore the great∣er the Communion is, the more abundance of the Spirit they shall receive; as there is more wisdom in many wise men, than in a few: and since every single Church or Convention receives it in the vertue of the whole Church, that is, in conjunction with the body of Christ; it is the whole body to whom this appellative belongs, that she is the pillar and ground of truth. But as every member receives life and nourishment, and is alive, and is defended and provided for, by the head and stomach, as truly and really as the whole body: so it is in the Church; every member preserves the sa∣ving truth, and every member lives unto God, and so long as they do so they shall never be forsaken by the Spirit of God; and this is to every man as really as to every Church; and therefore every good man hath his share in this appellative;* 1.25 and the Saints of Vienna and Lyons called Attalus the Martyr, a pillar and ground of

the Churches; and truly he seems to have been a man that was fully grounded in the truth, one that hath built his house upon a rock, one with whom truth dwels, to whom Christ the fountain of truth will come and dwell with him; for he hath built upon the foun∣dation, Christ Jesus being the chief corner-stone; and thus Attalus was a pillar, one upon whose strength others were made more confident, bold and firm in their perswasion; he was one of the Pillars that helped to * 1.26 support the Christian faith, and Church; and yet no man supposes that Attalus was infallible; but so it is in the case of every particular Church as really as of the Catholick, that is, as to all Churches; for that is the meaning of the word Catholick; not that it signifies a distinct being from a particular Church; and if taken abstractly, nothing is effected by the word; but if taken distributively, then it is useful, and material, for it signifies, that in every Congregation where two or three are gathered in the name of Christ, God is in the midst of them with his blessing and with his Spirit; it is so in all the Churches of the Saints, and in all of them, (as long as they remain such) the truth and faith is certainly preserv'd. But then that in the Apostolical Creed the Church is recommended under the notion of Catho∣lick, it is of great use and excellent mysterie, for by it we understand that in all ages there is, and in all places there may be a Church or Collection of true Christi∣ans; and this Catholick Church cannot fail; that is, all particular Churches shall not fail; for still it is to be observed, there is no Church Catholick really distinct from all particular Churches; and therefore there is no promise made to a Church in the capacitie of being Catholick or Universal; for that which hath no distinct Being can have no distinct Promises, no distinct capa∣cities, but the promises are made to all Churches and to every Church: onely there is this in it, if any

Church of one denomination shall be cut off, other branches shall stand by faith and still be in the vine: The Church of God cannot be without Christ their head, and the head will not suffer his body to pe∣rish. Thus I understand the meaning of the Chur∣ches being the pillar and ground of truth. Just as we may say, Humane understanding, and the ex∣perience of mankind, is the pillar and ground of true Philosophy: but there is no such abstracted Be∣ing as Humane understanding, distinct from the under∣standing of all individual men. Every Universal is but an intentional or notional Being: so is the word Catholick relating to the Church, if it be understood as something separated from all particular Churches; and I do not find that it is any other ways us'd in Scripture than in the distributive sense. So S. Paul, The care of all the Churches is upon me: that is, he was the Apostle of the Catholick Church of the Gentiles: And so I teach in all the Churches of the Saints: And in this sense it is, that I say, the Apostles have in the Creed comprehended all the Christian world, all the the congregations of Christ's servants, in the word Catholick.

But then 2. It is to be considered that this Epithet of the Church to be the pillar and ground of truth is to be understood, to signifie in opposition to all Religions that were not Christian. The implied Antithesis is not of the whole to its parts, but of kind to kind; it is not so called to distinguish it from conventions of those who disagree in the house of God, but from those that are out of the house; meaning that whatever pretences of Religion the Gentile Temples, or the Jewish Synagogues could make, truth could not be found among them; but only in those who are assem∣bled in the name of Christ, who profess his faith, and are of the Christian Religion: for they alone can truly

pretend to be the conservers of truth; to them only now are committed the Oracles of God, and if these should fail, Truth would be at a loss, and not be found in any other Assemblies. In this sense S. Paul spake usefully and intelligibly; for if the several conven∣tions of separated and disagreeing Christians should call themselves, as they do and always did, the Church; the question would be, which were the Church of God; and by this rule you were never the nearer to know where truh is to be found: for if you say, In the Church of God; several pretend to it, who yet do not teach the truth: and then you must find out what is truth, before you find the Church. But when the Churches of Christians are distinguish'd from the Assemblies of Jews, and Turks, and Heathens; she is visible and distinguishable, and notorious: and there∣fore they that love the truth of God, the saving truth that makes us wise unto salvation, must become Chri∣stians; and in the Assemblies of Christians they must look for it as in the proper repository, and there they shall find it.

3. But then it is also considerable, What truth that is, of which the Church of the living God is the pillar and ground? It is only of the saving truths of the Gospel, that whereby they are made members of Christ, the house of God, the temples of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit of God being the Churches teacher; he will teach us to avoid evil and to do good, to be wise and simple, to be careful and profitable, to know God, and whom he hath sent Jesus Christ, to increase in the know∣ledge and love of them, to be peaceable and charitable, but not to entertain our selves and our weak Brethren with doubtful disputations, but to keep close to the foundation, and to superstruct upon that a holy life; that is, God teaches his Church the way of salvation, that which is necessary, and that which is useful

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that which will make us wise unto salvation. But in this School we are not taught curious questions, Unedifying notions, to unty knots which interest and vanity, which pride and covetous∣ness have introduc'd; these are taught by the Devil, to divide the Church, and by busying them in that which profits not, to make them neglect the wisdom of God and the holiness of the Spirit. And we see this truth by the experience of above 1500 years. The Churches have troubled themselves with infinite variety of questions, & divided their precious unity, & destroy∣ed charity, and instead of contending against the Devil and all his crafty methods, they have contended against one another, and excommunicated one another, and anathematiz'd and damn'd one another; and no man is the better after all, but most men are very much the worse; and the Churches are in the world still divi∣ded about questions that commenc'd twelve or thirteen ages since; and they are like to be so for ever till Elias come; which shows plainly, that God hath not inte∣rested himself in the revelations of such things; and that he hath given us no means of ending them, but Charity, and a return to the simple ways of Faith. And this is yet the more considerable, because men are so far from finding out a way to end the questions they have made, that the very ways of ending them which they propounded to themselves are now become the greatest questions; and consequently themselves, and all their other unnecessary questions, are indeterminable: their very remedies have increased the disease. And yet we may observe, that God's ways are not like ours, and that his ways are the ways of truth and Ever∣lasting; he hath by his wise providence preserv'd the plain places of Scripture, and the Apostles Creed in all Churches to be the rule and measure of that faith by which the Churches are sav'd, and which is only

that means of the unity of Spirit, which is the band of peace in matters of belief. And what have the Chur∣ches done since? To what necessary truths are they, after all their clampers, advanc'd since the Apostles left to them that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that sound form of words and doctrine? What one great thing is there beyond this, in which they all agree, or in which they can be brought to agree? He that wisely observes the ways of God, and the ways of man, will easily perceive that God's goodness prevails over all the malice and all the follies of mankind; and that nothing is to be relied upon as a rule of truth, and the wayes of peace, but what Christ hath plainly taught, and the Apostles from him; for he alone is the Author and Finisher of our Faith; he began it, and he perfected it: and unless God had mightily preserved it, we had spoil'd it.

Now to bring all this home to the present Inquiry. The event and intendment of the premisses is this. They, who slighting the plain and perfect rule of Scri∣pture, rely upon the Church as an infallible guide of faith, and judge of questions; either by the Church mean the Congregation and Communion of Saints, or the outward Church mingled of good and bad: and this is intended either to mean a particular Church of one name; or by it they understand the Catholick Church. Now in what sense soever they depend upon the Church for decision of questions, expecting an in∣fallible determination and conduct; the Church of Rome will find she relies upon a Reed of Egypt, or at least a staff of wooll. If by the Church they mean the Communion of Saints only; though the persons of men be visible, yet because their distinctive cognisance is invisible, they can never see their guide; and there∣fore they can never know whether they go right or wrong.* 1.27 And the sad pressure of this argument Bel∣larmine saw well enough.* 1.28

It is necessary (saith he)

it should be infallibly certain to us which Assembly of men is the Church. For, since the Scriptures, tradi∣tions, and plainly all Doctrines depend on the testi∣mony of the Church, unless it be most sure which is the true Church, all things will be wholly uncertain. But it cannot appear to us which is the true Church, if internal faith be required of every member or part of the Church.]

Now how necessary true saving Faith, or holiness is (which Bellarmine calls internal faith,) I referr my self to the premisses. It is not the Church, unless the members of the Church be mem∣bers of Christ, living members; for the Church is tru∣ly Christ's living body. And yet if they by Church mean any thing else, they cannot be assur'd of an infalli∣ble guide; for all that are not the true servants of God have no promise of the abode of the Spirit of truth with them: so that the true Church cannot be a publick Judge of questions to men, because God only knows her numbers and her members; and the Church in the other sense, if she be made a Judge, she is very likely to be deceiv'd her self, and therefore cannot be relied upon by you; for the promise of an infallible Spirit, the Spirit of truth was never made to any but to the Communion of Saints. 3. If by the Church you mean any particular Church, which will you chuse; since every such Church is esteemed fallible? But if you mean the Catholick Church; then if you mean her an abstracted separate Being, from all particulars, you pursue a cloud and fall in love with an Idea, and a child of fancy: but if by Catholick you mean all particular Churches is the world; then though truth does infal∣libly dwell amongst them, yet you can never go to school to them all to learn it; in such questions which are curious and unnecessary, and by which the salvation of Souls is not promoted, and on which it does not rely: not only because God never intended his Saints and

servants should have an infallible Spirit, so to no pur∣pose; but also because no man can hear what all the Christians of the world do say; no man can go to them, nor consult with them all; nor ever come to the knowledge of their opinions and particular sentiments. And therefore in this inquiry to talk of the Church in any of the present significations, is to make use of a word that hath no meaning serving to the end of this great Inquiry.

The Church of Rome, to provide for this necessity, [ III] have thought of a way to find out such a Church as may salve this Phaenomenon: and by Church they mean the Representation of a Church; The Church represen∣tative is this infallible guide; The Clergy they are the Church; the teaching and the judging Church. And of these we may better know what is truth in all our Questions; for their lips are to preserve know∣ledge; and they are to rule and feed the rest; and the people must require the law from them; and must follow their faith.* 1.29 Indeed this was a good way once, even in the days of the Apostles, who were faithful stewards of the mysteries of God. And the Aposto∣lical men, the first Bishops who did preach the Faith, and liv'd accordingly, these are to be remembred, that is, their lives to be transscribed, their faith and perseve∣rance in faith is to be imitated: To this purpose is that of S. Irenaeus to be understood. Tantae ostensiones cum sint,* 1.30 non oportet adhuc quaerere apud alios ve∣ritatem, quam facile est ab Ecclesiâ sumere; cum Apostoli quasi in repositorium dives plenissimè in eâ contulerint omnia quae sint veritatis, ubi omnis quicunque velit sumat ex eâ potum vitae. Haec est enim vitae introitus. Omnes autem reliqui fures sunt & latrones, propter quod opor∣tet devitare quidem illos. As long as the Apostles lived, as long as those Bishops lived, who being their Disci∣ples, did evidently and notoriously teach the doctrine

of Christ, and were of that communion; so long they, that is, the Apostolical Churches, were a sure way to fol∣low; because it was known and confess'd, These Clergy-guides had an infallible Unerring spirit. But as the Church hath decayed in Discipline, and Charity hath waxen-cold, and Faith is become interest and dis∣putation, this Counsel of the Apostle, and these words of S. Irenaeus come off still the fainter. But now here is a new question, viz. Whether the Rulers of the Church be the Church, that Church which is the pillar and ground of truth; whether, when they represent the diffusive Church, the Promises of an indeficient faith, and the perpetual abode of the Holy Spirit, and his leading into all truth, and teaching all things, does in propriety belong to them? For if they do not; then we are yet to seek for an Infallible Judge, a Church on which our Faith may relie with certainty and infallibility.

In answer to which I find that in Scripture the word Ecclesia or Church is taken in contradistinction from the Clergy; but never that it is us'd to signifie them alone.* 1.31 Then it pleas'd the Apostles and the Elders with the whole Church to choose men of their own company, &c. And the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God.* 1.32 And Hilarius Diac. observes, that the Apostle to the Church of Coloss sent by them a message to their Bishop:* 1.33 Praepositum illorum per eos ipsos com∣monet ut sit sollicitus de salute ipsorum, & quia plebis solius scribitur epistola, ideò non ad rectorem ipsorum destinata est, sed ad Ecclesiam: observing that the Bishop is the Ruler of the Church, but his Flock is that which he intended onely to signifie by the Church. The Clergy in their publick capacity are not the Church, but the Rulers of the Church; Ecclesiastici, but not Ecclesia; they are denominatives of the Church; Bishops and Pastors of the Church: and in their personal capacity

are but parts and members of the Church; and are ne∣ver in the New Testament call'd the Church indefinitely; and this is so notorious and evident in Scripture that it is never pretended otherwise, but in 18 of S. Mat∣thew, Dic Ecclesiae; If thy Brother offend thee, re∣buke him; and then, before two or three; and, if he neglect them, tell it unto the Church, that is, to the Rulers of the Church, say the Roman Doctors. But this cannot be directly so, for Ecclesia or Church is, the highest degree of the same ascent; first in private, to one of the Church surely, for they had no society with any else, especially in the matter of fraternal correpti∣on: then in the company of some few [of the Church still;] for not to heathens: and at last, of the whole Church, that is, of all the Brethren in your publick Assembly: this is a natural Climax; and it is made more then probable by the nature of the punishment of the incorrigible; they become as Heathen, because they have slighted the whole Church; and therefore are not to be reckon'd as any part of the Church: And then last∣ly, this being an advice given to S. Peter and the other Apostles; that they in this case should tell the Church; by the Church must be meant something distinct from the Clergy, who are not here commanded to tell them∣selves alone, but the whole Congregation of Elders and Brethren, that is, of Clergy and people. It is not to be denied but every National Church, whereof the King is always understood to be the supreme Governour, may change their form of Judicature, in things (I mean) that are without; that is, such things which are not immediately by Christ, intrusted to the sole conduct of the Bishops and Priests, such as are the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments; and the immediate cure of Souls. Concerning other things S. Paul gave order to the Corinthians that in the cases of law, and matters of secular division upon interest, which the Apostle

calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.34 those who are least esteemed in the Church should be appointed to judge between them by way of reference; But, by the way, this does not au∣thorize the Rulers of Churches, the Pastors and Bi∣shops to intermeddle; for they are most esteem'd, that is, the Principals in the Church: but then this very thing proves that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or the duty and right of judging is in the whole Church of the Saints; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Know ye not that the Saints shall judge the world; that is, the Church hath the power of judging; and it is yet more plain, because he calls upon the Church of Corinth to delegate this judica∣ture, this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this little, this least Judgement, though now it is esteemed the Greatest; but little or great, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, do you appoint the Judges; those that are least esteemed. And for other things they may ap∣point greater Judges, and put their power in execu∣tion by such ministeries which are better done by one or by a few persons, than by a whole multitude; who in the declension of piety would rather make Tumults than wise Judgements. And upon this account, though for a long time the people did interest themselves in publick Judicatures, and even in elections of Bishops, which were matters greater then any of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and this S. Cyprian said was their due by Divine right,* 1.35 (let him answer for the expression) yet in these affairs the people were also conducted, and so ought to be by their Clergy-guides, who by their abilities to perswade and govern them were the fittest for the execution of that power. But then that which I say is this, that this word Ecclesia or Church signifying this Judicatory, does not signifie the Clergy, as distinct from their flocks; and there is not any instance in the New Testament to any such purpose; and yet that the Clergy may also rea∣sonably, but with a Metonymie, be represented by the word Church, is very true; but this is onely by the

change of words and their first significations. They are the fittest to order and conduct the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the whole Ecclesiastical Judicature. Vt omnis actus Ecclesiae per Praepositos gubernetur,* 1.36 it is S. Cyprian's expression; That whatever act the Church intends to do, it should be governed by their Rulers; viz. by consent, by preaching, by exhortation, by reason and experience, and better knowledge of things: but the people are to stand or fall at these Judicatories, not because God hath given them the judgment of an in∣fallible Spirit, more than to the whole Church or Congregation; but because they are fittest to do it, and for many other great reasons. And this appears without contradiction true, because even the Decrees of General Councils bind not but as they are accepted by the several Churches in their respective Districts and Dioceses: of which I am to give an account in the following Periods.

But if this thing were otherwise; yet if by the Church they understand the Clergy only, it must be all the Clergy that must be the judge of spiritual questions; for no example is offered from the N. T. no instance can be produc'd that by Ecclesia is meant the Clergy, and by Clergy is meant only a part of the Clergy; these cannot in any sense be the Catholick Church; and then, if this sense were obtained by the Church of Rome, no man were the better, unless all the Bishops and Priests of the world were consulted in their Questions.

They therefore think it necessary to do as God did [ IV] to Gideon's Army; they will not make use of all, but send away the multitude, and retain the 10000; and yet because these are too many to overthrow the Mi∣dianites, they Reduce them to 300. The Church must have a representative; but this shall be of a select num∣ber; a few, but enough to make a Council: A General Council is the Church Representative, and it is pre∣tended

here, they can set their foot, and stand fast up∣on infallibity; for all the promises made to the Church, are crouded into the tenure and possession of a Gene∣ral Council:* 1.37 and therefore Dic Ecclesiae is, Tell it to the Council, that's the Church, said a great Expositor of the Canon Law.

This indeed is said by very many of the Roman Do∣ctors, but not by all; and therefore this will at first seem but a trembling foundation, and themselves are doubtful in their confidences of it; and there is an in∣superable prejudice laid against it, by the title of the first General Council that ever was;* 1.38 that, I mean, of Jerusalem, where the Apostles were presidents, and the Presbyters were assistants, but the Church was the bo∣dy of the Council [When they were come to Jerusalem they were receiv'd of the Church,* 1.39 and of the Apostles and Elders: And again; Then it pleased the Apostles and Elders with the Church to send chosen men:]* 1.40 and they did so, they sent a Decretal, with this style; The A∣postles, and Elders, and Brethren, send greeting to the Brethren which are of the Gentiles. Now no man doubts but the Spirit of Infallibility was in the Apo∣stles; and yet they had the consent of the Church in the Decree; which Church was the company of the converted Brethren; and by this it became a Rule: certainly, it was the first precedent, and therefore ought to be the measure of the rest, and this the rather be∣cause from hence the succeeding Councils have de∣riv'd their sacramental sanction, of Visum est Spiritui sancto & nobis: now as it was the first, so it was the on∣ly precedent in Scripture; and it was manag'd by the Apostles, and therefore we can have no other warrant of an Authentick Council, but this; and to think that a few of the Rulers of Churches should be a just repre∣sentation of the Church, for infallible determination of all questions of Faith is no way warranted in Scri∣pture:

and there is neither here, nor any where else, any word or commission that the Church ever did or could delegate the Spirit to any representatives, or pass In∣fallibility by a Commission or Letter of Attorney: and therefore to call a General Council the Church, or to think that all the priviledges and graces given by Christ to his Church is there in a part of the Church, is whol∣ly without warrant or authority.

But this is made manifest by matter of fact; and the Church never did intend to delegate any such power, but always kept it in her own hand; I mean the su∣preme Judicature, both in faith and discipline. I shall not go far for instances, but observe some in the Ro∣man Church it self, which are therefore the more re∣markable, because in the time of her Reign, General Councils were arrived to great heights, and the highest pretensions. Clement the 7th. calls the Council of Ferrara,* 1.41 the Eighth General Synod, in his Bull of the 22th. of April, 1527. directed to the Bishop of Fernae∣sia, who it seems had translated it out of Greek into Latin: yet this General Council is not accepted in France; but was expresly rejected by King Charles the 7th. and the instance of the Cardinals who came from P. Eugenius, to desire the acceptation of it, was denied. This Council,* 1.42 was it seems, begun at Basil; and though the King did then, and his Great Council and Parlia∣ment, and the Church of France then assembled at Bruges, accept it; yet it was but in part: for of 45 Sessions of that Council, France hath receiv'd only the first 32. and those not intirely as they lie, but with certain qualifications, Aliqua simpliciter ut jacent, alia verò cum certis modificationibus & formis; as is to be seen in the pragmatick Sanction. To the same purpose is that which hapned to the last Council of Lateran, which was called to be a countermine to the second Council of Pisa, and to frustrate the intended Refor∣mation

of the Church in head and members: This Council excommunicated Lewis the XIIth. of France, repealed the Pragmatical Sanction, and condemned the second Council of Pisa. So that here was an end of the Council of Pisa, by the Decree of the Lateran; and on the other side, the Lateran Council had as bad a Fate; for, besides that it was accounted in Germany, and so called by Paulus Langius a Monk of Germany,* 1.43 A pack of Cardinals; it is wholly rejected in France: and an appeal to the next Council put in against it by the University of Paris. And as ill success hath hap∣ned to the Council of Trent; which it seems could not oblige the Roman Catholick countries without their own consent: But therefore there were many pressing instances, messages, petitions, and artifices to get it to be published in France. First to Charles the IXth. by Pius Quartus, An. Dom. 1563. than by Cardinal Aldo∣brandino the Pope's Nephew 1572: then by the French Clergy 1576 in an Assembly of the States at Blois, Peter Espinac Arch Bishop of Lyons being Spea∣ker for the Clergy; after this, by the French Clergy at Melun 1579. the Bishop of Bazas making the Oration to the King; and after him, the same year they pressed it again, Nicolas Angelier the Bishop of Brien being Speaker. After this, by Renald of Beaune, Arch-Bishop of Bruges 1582.* 1.44 and the very next year by the Pope's Nuncio to Henry the 3d. And in An. Dom. 1583. and 88. and 93. it was press'd again and again; but all would not do: By which it appears, that even in the Church of Rome, the Authority of General Councils is but preca∣rious; and that the last resort is to the respective Chur∣ches, who did or did not send their delegates to con∣sider and consent. Here then is but little ground of confidence in General Councils; whom surely the Chur∣ches would absolutely trust, if they had reason to be∣lieve them to be infallible.

But there are many more things to be considered. For there being many sorts of Councils; General, Pro∣vincial,* 1.45 National, Diocesan; the first inquiry will be which of all these, or whether all of these, will be an infallible guide, and of necessity to be obeyed. I doubt not, but it will be roundly answered; that only the Ge∣neral Councils are the last and supreme Judicatory, and that alone which is infallible. But yet how Uncertain this Rule will be,* 1.46 appears in this, that the gloss of the Canon Law * says, Non videtur, Metropolitanos posse condere Canones in suis Conciliis; at least not in great matters, imò non licet: yet the VIIth. Synod allows the Decrees, Decistones localium Conciliorum, the de∣finitions of local Councils. But I suppose it is in these as it is in the General: they that will accept them, may; and if they will approve the Decrees of Provincial Councils, they become a Law unto themselves; and without this acceptation, General Councils cannot give Laws to others.

2. It will be hard to tell, which are General Coun∣cils,* 1.47 and which are not; for, the Roman Councils un∣der Symmachus, all the world knows can but pretend to be local or provincial, consisting only of Italians, and yet they bear Vniversal in their Style; and it is always said (as Bellarmine * confesses) Symmachus Con∣cilio Generali praesidens, and the 3d. Council of Toledo, in the 18th Chapter, uses this mandatory form, Praeci∣pit haec sancta & Vniversalis Synodus.

3, But if we will suppose a Catachrêsis in this style; and that this title of Vniversal, means but a Particu∣lar, that is, an Universal of that place; though this be a hard expression; because the most particular or lo∣cal Councils are or may be universal to that place; yet this may be pardon'd; since it is like the Catholick Ro∣man style, that is, the manner of speaking in the Uni∣versal particular Church; but after all this, it will be

very hard in good Earnest to tell which Councils are indeed Universal, or General Councils. Bellarmine reckons eighteen from Nicene to Trent inclusively; so that the Council of Florence is the sixteenth; and yet Pope Clement the seventh calls it the eighth General; and is reproved for it by Surius, who, for all the Pope's infallibility, pretended to know more than the Pope would allow. The last Lateran Council, viz. the fifth, is at Rome esteem'd a General Council; In Germany and France it passes for none at all, but a faction and pack of Cardinals.

4. There are divers General Councils, that, though they were such, yet they are rejected by almost all the christian world. It ought not to be said, that these are not General Councils, because they were conventi∣ons of heretical persons; for if a Council can consist of heretical persons (as by this instance it appears it may) then a General Council is no sure rule or ground of faith. And all those Councils which Bellarmin calls reprobate are as so many proofs of this. For what ever can be said against the Council of Ariminum; yet they cannot say but it consisted of DC▪ Bishops: and therefore it was as general as any ever was before it, but the faults that are found with it, prove indeed that it is not to be accepted; but then they prove two things more, First, That a General Council binds not till it be accepted by the Churches; and therefore that all its authority depends on them; and they do not depend upon it. And secondly, that there are some General Councils which are so far from being infal∣lible, that they are directly false, schismatical, and he∣retical. And if when the Churches are divided in a question, and the communion, like the Question, is in flux and reflux; when one side prevails greatly they get a General Council on their side, and prevail by it; but lose as much, when the other side play the same

game in the day of their advantages. And it will be to no purpose to tell me of any Collateral advantages that this Council hath more than another Council; for though I believe so, yet others do not; and their Council is as much a General Council to them as our Council is to us. And therefore if General Councils are the rule and law of faith in those things they de∣termine, then all that is to be considered in this affair, is, Whether they be General Councils. Whether they say true or no, is not now the question, but is to be determin'd by this, viz. whether are they General Councils or no; for relying upon their authority for the truth, if they be satisfied that they are General Councils; that they speak and determine truth will be consequent and allowed. Now then if this be the question, then since divers General Councils are repro∣bated, the consequent is, that although they be Gene∣ral Councils, yet they may be reprov'd. And if a Ca∣tholick producing the Nicene Council be r'encontred by an Arian producing the Council of Ariminum which was farre more numerous; here are aquilis aquilae & pila minantia pilis; but who shall prevail? If a General Council be the rule and guide they will both prevail; that is, neither. And it ought not to be said by the Catholick; Yea, but our Council determin'd for the truth, but yours for errour; for the Arian will say so too. But whether they do or no; yet it is plain, that they may both say so: and if they do, then we do not find the truth out by the conduct and decision of a General Council; but we approve this General, be∣cause upon other accounts we believe that what is there defin'd is true. And therefore S. Austin's way here is best; Neque ego Nicenum Concilium, neque tu Ari∣minense, &c. both sides pretend to General Councils: that which both equally pretend to, will help neither; therefore let us go to Scripture. But there are amongst

many others two very considerable instances, by which we may see plainly at what rate Councils are declar'd General.* 1.48 There was a Council held at C. P. under Con∣stantinus Copronymus of 338 Bishops. It was in that unhappy time when the question of worshipping or breaking images was disputed.* 1.49 This Council com∣manded images to be destroyed out of Churches; and this was a General Council: and yet 26, or, as some say, 31 years after, this was condemned by another General Council, viz. the second at Nice which decreed images to be worshipped; not long after, about five years, this General Council of Nice, for that very reason was con∣demned by a General Council of Francford, and gene∣rally by the Western Churches. Now of what value is a General Council to the determination of questi∣ons of faith, when one General Council condemns an∣other General Council with great liberty, and without scruple. And it is to no purpose to allege reasons or excuses why this or that Council is condemn'd; for if they be General, and yet may without reason be con∣demn'd, then they have no authority; but if they be condemned with reason, then they are not infallible. The other instance is in those Councils which were held when the dispute began between the Council and the Pope. The Council of Constance consisting of al∣most a thousand Fathers first and last, defin'd the Coun∣cil to be above the Pope; the Council of Florence, and the fift Council in the Lateran, have condemn'd this Council so far, as to that article. The Council of Basil, all the world knows how greatly they asserted their own Authority over the Pope; but therefore though in France it is accepted, yet in Italy and Spain it is not.

But what is the meaning, that some Councils are partly approv'd and partly condemned, the Council of Sardis, that in Trullo, those of Francfort, Constance, and Basil? but that every man, and every Church ac∣cepts

the General Councils, as far as they please, and no further? The Greeks receive but seven General Councils, the Lutherans receive six, the Eutychians in Asia receive but the first three, the Nestorians in the East receive but the first two, the Anti-trinitarians in Hungary and Poland receive none. The Church of England receives the four first Generals as of highest regard, not that they are infallible; but that they have determin'd wisely and holily. Pro captu lectoris habent sua fata—It is as every one likes: for the Church of Rome that receives sixteen, are divided; and some take-in others, and reject some of these, as I have shown.

5. How can it be known which is a General Coun∣cil, and how many conditions are requir'd for the building such a great House? The question is worth the asking, not only because the Church of Rome teaches us to rely upon a General Council as the su∣preme Judge and final determiner of questions; but because I perceive that the Church of Rome is at a loss concerning General Councils.* 1.50 The Council of Pisa, Bellarmine says, is neither approv'd, nor reprov'd; for Pope Alexander the 6th approv'd it, because he ac∣knowledg'd the Election of Alexander the 5th, who was created Pope by that Council: and yet Antoninus called it Conciliabulum illegitimum, an unlawful Conventicle. But here Bellarmine was a little forgetful; for the fift Lateran Council which they in Rome will call a Gene∣ral, hath condemn'd this Pisan, with great interest and fancie; and therefore it was both approv'd and reprov'd.

But it is fit that it be inquir'd, How we shall know which, or what, is a General Council; and which is not. 1. If we inquire into the number of the Bishops there present, we cannot find any certain Rule for that: but be they many or few, the parties interested will,

if they please, call it a General Council. And they will not, dare not, I suppose at Rome, make a quarrel upon that point; when in the sixth Session of Trent, as some printed Catalogues* 1.51 inform us, they may remem∣ber there were but 38 persons in all, at their first sitting down, of which number some were not Bishops: and at last, there were but 57 Archbishops and Bishops in all. In the first Session were but three Archbishops, and twenty three Bishops; and in all the rest about sixty Archbishops and Bishops was the usual number till the last; and yet there are some Councils of far greater antiquity who are rejected, although their number of Bishops very far surpass the numbers of Trent: In Nice, were 318 Bishops; in that of Chalcedon were 600; and in that of Basil were above 400 Bishops, and in that of Con∣stance were 300, besides the other Fathers (as they call them.) But this is but one thing of many; though it will be very hard to think that all the power and ener∣gy, the virtual faith, and potential infallibility of the whole Christian Church should be in 80 or 90 Bishops taken out of the neighbour-Countreys.

6. But then if we consider upon what pitiful pre∣tences the Roman Doctors do evacuate the Authority of Councils; we shall find them to be such, that by the like, which can never be wanting to a witty person, the authority of every one of them may be vilified, and consequently, they can be infallible security to no man's faith. Charles the 7th of France, and the French Church assembled at Bruges, rejected the latter Ses∣sions of the Council of Basil; because they depriv'd P. Eugenius, and created Felix the 5th; and because it was doubtful whether that Assembly did sufficiently represent the Catholick Church. But Bellarmine says, that the former Sessions of the Council of Basil, are in∣valid and null; because certain Bishops fell off there, and were faulty. Now if this be a sufficient cause of

nullity; then if ever there be a schism, or but a divi∣sion of opinions, the other party may deny the Au∣thority of the Council; and especially, if any of them change their opinion, and go to the prevailing side; the other hath the same cause of complaint: but this ought not at all to prevail, till it be agreed how many Bishops must be present; for if some fail, if enough remain there is no harm done to the Authority. But because any thing is made use of for an excuse; it is a sure sign they are but pretended more than regarded, but just when they serve mens turns. The Council of C. P. under Leo Isaurus is rejected by the Roma∣nists; because there was no Patriarch present but S. German; though all the world knows, the reason is because they decreed against images. But if the other were a good Reason; then it is necessary that all the old Patriarchs should be present; and if this be true, then the General Council of Ephesus is null; because all the Patriarchs were not present at it; and particularly the Patriarch of Antioch; and in that of Chalcedon there wanted the Patriarch of Alexandria. And the first of C. P. could not have all the Patriarchs, nether could it be Representative of the whole Church; because at the same time there was another Council at Rome: and, which is worse to the Romanists than all that, the Council of Trent upon this, and a 1000 more is invalid; because themselves reckon but three Patriarchs there present; one was of Venice, another of Aquileia, and the third was only a titular of Jerusalem; none of which were really any of the old Patriarchs, whose Autho∣rity was so great in the Ancient Councils.

7. It is impossible as things are now that a General Council should be a sure Rule or Judge of Faith,* 1.52 since it can never be agreed who of necessity are to be called, and who have decisive voices in Councils.* 1.53 At Rome they allow none but Bishops to give sentence, and to

subscribe: and yet anciently not only the Emperours and their Embassadours did subscribe; but lately at Florence, Lateran, and Trent, Cardinals and Bishops, Abbots and Generals of Orders did subscribe; and in the Council of Basil, Priests had decisive voices, and it is notorious that the ancient Councils were subscri∣bed by the Archimandrites who were but Abbots, not Bishops:* 1.54 and Cardinal Jacobatius affirms, that some∣times Lay-men were admitted to Councils, to be Judges between those that disputed some deep Que∣stions. Nay, Gerson says, that Controversies of Faith were sometimes referred to Pagan Philosophers, who though they believ'd it not, yet, supposing it such, they determin'd what was the proper consequent of such Principles; which the Christians consented in: and he says,* 1.55 it was so in the Council of Nice, as is left unto us upon record. * And Eutropius a Pagan, was chosen Judge between Origen and the Marcionites; and against these he gave sentence, and in behalf of Origen. Certain it is, that the States of Germany in their Diet at Noremberg propounded to Pope Adrian the VIth that Lay-men might be admitted as well as the Clergy and freely to declare their judgments without hindrance. And this was no new matter; for it was practis'd in all Nations; in Germany, France, England, and Spain it self; as who please may see in the 6th 8th and 12th Councils of Toledo. So that it is apparent that the Romanists, though now they do not, yet formerly they did; and were certainly in the right:* 1.56 and if any man shall think otherwise, he can never be sure that they were in the wrong:* 1.57 especially when he shall consider that the Council of the Apostles, not only admitted Presbyters, but the Laity; who were parties in the Decree: as is to be seen in the* 1.58 Acts of the Apostles: And that for this there was also a very great Precedent in the Old Testament in a case perfectly like it; when Elijah ap∣pealed

to the people to Judge between God and Baal,* 1.59 which of them was the Lord, by answering by fire.

8. But how if the Church be divided in a Question which hath caused so great disturbances that it is thought fit to call a Council: here will be an Eternal Uncertainty. If they call both sides, they will never agree. If they call but one, then they are Parties and Judges too.* 1.60 In the General Council of Sardis, by com∣mand of the two Emperors Constans and Constantius,* 1.61 all Bishops, Catholick and Arians, were equally admit∣ted; so it was also both at Ariminum and Seleucia; and so it was at Ferrara, where the Greeks and Latines sate together. But if one side onely, exclude all the ad∣versaries, and declare them criminals before hand, as it happened at Trent and Dort, how is that one party a representative of the Church; when so great a part of Christendom is not consulted, not heard, not suffer'd?

9. Suppose, a Council being called, the Bishops be divided in their opinion, how shall the decision be? By the major number of voices, surely. But how much the major? shall one alone above the equal number carry it? That were strange that one man should de∣termine the faith of Christendom? Must there be two thirds, as it was propounded in Trent, in some cases; but if this be, who shall make any man sure that the Holy Spirit of God shall go over to those two thirds, and leave the remaining party to themselves? And who can ascertain us that the major part is the more wise and more holy; or, if they be not, yet that they shall speak more truth? But in this also, the Doctors are uncertain and divided; and how little truth is to be given to the major part in causes of faith, the Ro∣man Doctors may learn from their own Abbot of Pa∣normo,* 1.62 and the Chancellour of Paris. The first saying, The opinion of one Godly man ought to be preferr'd be∣fore the Pope's, if it be grounded upon better authorities

of the Old and New Testament: and the latter saying, Every learned man may and ought to withstand a whole Council, if he perceive it erres of malice or ignorance.

10. The world is not yet agreed, in whose power it is to call the Councils; and if it be done by an in∣competent authority, the whole convention is schis∣matical; and therefore not to be trusted as a Judge of Consciences and questions of faith. The Emperors al∣ways did it of old; and the Popes of late: but let this be agreed first, and then let the other questions come before them; till then, we cannot be sure.

11. Lastly, if General Councils be suppos'd to be the rule and measure of Faith; Christendom must needs be in a sad condition and state of doubt for ever: not onely because a Council is not called, it may be, in two or three Ages; but because no man can be sure that all things are observed which men say are necessa∣ry: neither did the several Churches ever agree what was necessary, nor did they ever agree to set down the laws and conditions requisite to their being such: and therefore they have well and wisely comported them∣selves in this; that never any General Council did de∣clare that a General Council is infallible. Indeed Bel∣larmine labours greatly to prove it out of Scripture: his best argument is the promise that Christ made, that when two or three are gathered in my name, I will be in the midst of them; and, I will be with you to the end of the world. Now to these authorities I am now no other way to answer but by observing that these ar∣guments do as much prove every Christian-meeting of any sort of good Christians to be as infallible as a Council, and that a Diocesan Council is as sure a guide as a General: and it is impossible, from those, or any other like words of Christ, to prove the contrary; and therefore gives us no certainty here.

[ V] But if General Councils in themselves be so uncer∣tain,

yet the Roman Doctors now at last are come to some certainty; for if the Pope confirm a Council, then it is right and true, and the Church is a rule which can never fail, and never can deceive, or leave men in uncertainty; for a spirit of infallibility is then in the Churches representative, when head and members are joyn'd together. This is their last stress, and if this cord break they have nothing to hold them.

Now for this, there are divers great Considerations which will soon put this matter to issue. For although this be the new device of the Court of Rome, and the Pope's flatterers, especially the Jesuites, and that this never was so much as probably prov'd; but boldly af∣firm'd and weakly grounded: yet this is not defin'd as a doctrine of the Roman Church.* 1.63 For 1. we find Bellarmine reckoning six cases of necessity or utility of calling General Councils; and four of them are of that nature, that the Pope is either not in being, or else is a party, the person to be judg'd: As, 1. if there be a schism amongst the Popes of Rome, as when there hap∣pen to be two or three Popes together; which hapned in the Councils of Constance and Basil. Or 2. if the Pope of Rome be suspected of heresie. Or 3. when there is great necessity of reformation of manner in head and members; which hath been so notoriously called for above 400 years. Or 4. if the election of the Pope be question'd. Now in these cases it is impossible that the consent of the Pope should be necessary to make up the Authority of the Council, since the Pope is the pars rea, and the Council is the onely Judge. And of this there can be no question: And therefore the Popes authority is not necessary, nor of avail to make the Council valid.

2. If the Popes approbation of the Council make it to be an infallible guide, then since without it, it is not Infallible, not yet the supreme Judicatory, it fol∣lows

that the Pope is above the Council: which is a thing very uncertain in the Church of Rome; but it hath been denied in divers General Councils, as by the first Pisan; by the Council of Constance, the fourth and fifth Sessions; by the Council of Basil in the se∣cond, the sixteenth and eighteenth and 33^d Sessions; by the Council of Bruges under Charles the VII^th, and by the pragmatick Sanction: all which have de∣clar'd that

[A General Council hath its authority im∣mediately from Christ (and consequently not de∣pending on the Pope) and that it is necessary that every person in what dignity soever, though Papal, should be obedient to it, in things that concern faith, the extirpation of schism, and the reformation of the Church of God both in head and members]

This is the decree of the Council of Constance; which also addes further

[That whosoever shall neglect to obey the commands, statutes, ordinances and decrees of this or any other General Council lawfully as∣sembled, in the things aforesaid, or thereunto per∣taining [viz. in matters of faith, or manners] made or to be made, if he do not repent of it, he shall un∣dergo a condign penance; yea, and with recourse to other remedies of law against him, of what condition, estate or dignity soever he be, though he be the Pope.]

The same was confirm'd in the Council of Lausanna, and the second Pisan in the third Session: so that here are six General Councils all declaring the Pope to be inferior and submitted to a Council; They created Popes in some of them; they decreed when Councils should be called, they Judged Popes, they deposed them, they commanded their obedience, they threat∣ned to impose penances if they obeyed not, and to pro∣ceed to further remedies in law; and the second Pi∣san, beside the former particulars, declared that the Synod neither could nor should be dissolved without

their universal consent; nevertheless, by the common consent it might be removed to a place of safety, espe∣cially with the Pope, if he could be got to consent thereunto; always provided it be not at Rome. And yet this very Council was approv'd and commended by Pope Alexander the 5th,* 1.64 as both Platina, and Nau∣clerus witness: and the Council of Constance was called by Pope John the 23. He presided in it, and was for his wicked life deposed by it; and yet Platina in his life, says, he approv'd it; and after him so did Pope Martin the 5th (as is to be seen in the last Session of that Coun∣cil,) and Eugenius the 4th,* 1.65 and the Council of Basil, and Lausanna was confirm'd by Pope Nicolas the 5th, as is to be seen in his Bull; and not only Pope Martin the 5th, but Pope Eugenius the 4th, approv'd the Coun∣cil of Basil. It were a needless trouble to reckon the consenting testimonies of many learned Divines and Lawyers, bearing witness to the Council's superiority over Popes. More material it is that many famous Universities, particularly that of Paris, Erford, Colein, Vienna, Cracovia; all unanimously did affirm the power of General Councils over Popes, and principally for this thing relied upon the Authority of the General Councils of Constance and Basil.

Now if a General Council, confirmed by a Pope, be a Rule or Judge of Faith and Manners; then this is an Article of Faith, that the Authority of a General Council does not depend upon the Pope, but on Christ immediately; and then the Pope's confirmation does not make it valid, any more than the confirmation or consent of the other Patriarchs for their respective Provinces. For here are many Councils, and they con∣firmed by divers Popes.

But that it may appear how Uncertain all,* 1.66 even the Greatest things are at Rome, Cardinal Cajetan wrote a Book against this doctrine, and against the Councils

of Constance, Basil, and Pisa, and Gerson the Chan∣cellor of Paris: which book King Lewis the XIIth of France, required the University of Paris to exa∣mine; which they did to very good purpose. And the latter Popes of Rome have us'd their utmost dili∣gence to disgrace and nullifie all these Councils, and to stifle the voice and consciences of all men, and to trample General Councils under their feet. Now how can the Souls of Christian people put their questions and differences to their determination, who them∣selves are biting and scratching one another? He was likely to prove but an ill Physician, who gave advices to a woman that had gotten a cold, when himself could scarce speak for coughing. I am not concern'd here to say what I think of the question, or whether the Council or the Pope be in the right; for I think, as to the power of determining matters of Faith infalli∣bly, they are both in the wrong. But that which I observe, is, That the Church of Rome is greatly divided about their Judge of Controversies, and are never like to make an end of it, unless one Party be beaten into a good compliant belief with the other. I shall only add a conclusion to these premisses in the words of Bellarmine;* 1.67 Si Concilia Generalia possent errare, nullum esset in Ecclesia firmum judicium, quo Contro∣versiae componi, & Vnitas in Ecclesiâ servari possit, If a General Council can erre, there is no sure judge∣ment in Church for the composing Controversies, and preserving Unity. I shall not need to take advantage of these words, by observing that Bellarmine hath by them evacuated all the Authority of the Pope's defi∣ning questions in Cathedrâ for if a General Council can fail, nothing amongst them can be certain. This is that which I observe; that since this thing is rendred so Uncertain upon the stock of their own wranglings, and not agreeing upon which are General Councils; one

part condemning some, which very many others a∣mong them acknowledge for such: it is impossible, by their own Doctrine, that they can have any place where to set their foot, and say, Here I fix upon a Rock, and cannot be moved. And there being so many condi∣tions requir'd, and so many ways of failing laid to their charge, and many more that may be found out; and it being impossible that we can be infallibly assu∣red that none of them hath hapned in any General Council that comes to be question'd: How can any man rely upon the decision of a Council as infallible, of which he cannot ever be infallibly assured that it hath proceeded Concilialiter (as Bellarmine's new word is,) or that it hath in it nothing that does evacuate or lessen its authority. And after all this, suppose we are all agreed about any Convention, and allow it to be a General Council; yet they do not always end the questions when they have defin'd them; and the Decrees them∣selves make a new harvest of Uncertainties: Of this we have too many witnesses, even all the Questions which in the world are made concerning the sense and mean∣ing of the Decrees and Canons in the respective Coun∣cils. And when Andreas Vega, and Dominicus à Soto, and Soto,* 1.68 and Catarinus (who were all present at the Council of Trent, and understood the meaning of the Council as well as any, except the Legats and their se∣cret Juncto) wrote books against one another, and both sides brought the words of the Council for themselves, and yet neither prevailed; Sancta Croce the Legat, who well enough understood that the Council intended not to determine the truth, yet, to silence their wranglings in the Council, let them dispute abroad; but the Coun∣cil would not end it, by clearing the ambiguity. And since this became the mode of Christendom to do so upon design; it can be no wonder that things are left Uncertain for all the Decrees of Councils.

It is well therefore that the Church of Rome requires Faith to her Conclusions, greater than her Premisses can perswade. It is the only way of escaping that is left them, as being conscious that none of their Arguments can enforce what they would have believ'd. And to the same purpose it is, that they teach the Conclusions and definitions of Councils to be infallible, though their Arguments and Proceedings be fallible, and pi∣tiful and false. If they can perswade the world to this, they have got the Goal; only it ought to be confess'd by them that do submit to the definition, that they do so, mov'd to it by none of their Reasons, but they know not why.

I do not here enter into the particular examination of the matters determined by many Councils; by which it might largely and plainly appear how greatly General Councils have been mistaken. This hath been observed already by many very learned men: And the Council of Trent is the greatest instance of it in the world, as will be made to appear in the procedure of this Book. But the Romanists themselves by rejecting divers General Councils have (as I have above ob∣serv'd) given proof enough of this. That all things are here Uncertain I have prov'd; and that if there be error here, there can be no certainty any where else, Bellarmine confesses: So that I have thus far discharg'd what I undertook.

But beyond this, there are some other particulars fit to be consider'd, by which it will yet further appear that in the Church of Rome, unless they will rely upon the plain Scriptures, they have no sure foundation: instance in those several Articles, which some of the Roman Doctors say are de fide; and others of their own par∣ty, when they are press'd with them, say they are not de fide, but the opinions of private Doctors; That, if a Prince turn Heretick, that is, be not of the Roman

party, he presently loses all right to his temporal Do∣minions; That the Pope can change Kingdoms, taking from one, and giving to another, this is esteemed by the Jesuits a matter of Faith. It is certa, indubitata, definita virorum clarissimorum sententia; said Creswel the Jesuit in his Philopater. F. Garnet said more, it is, Totius Ecclesiae & quidem ab antiquissimis temporibus consensione recepta doctrina. It is receiv'd, saith Cres∣wel, by the whole School of Divines and Canon-Law∣yers; nay it is Certum & de fide, It is matter of Faith. I know that the English Priests will think themselves injur'd if you impute this Doctrine to them, or say, It is the Catholick Doctrine: and yet, that this power in Temporals that he can depose Kings sometimes, is in the Pope,* 1.69 Non opinio, sed certitudo apud Catholicos est, said Bellarmine, It is more than an opinion, it is certain amongst the Catholicks. Now since this is not believ'd by all that call themselves Catholicks, and yet by others of greatest note it is said to be the Catholick Doctrine, to be certain, to be a point of Faith; I desire to know, Where this Faith is founded, which is the house of Faith, where is their warrant, their authori∣ty and foundation of their Article. For if an English Scholar in the Colledge at Rome, had, in confession to F. Parsons, Creswel, Garnet, Bellarmine, or any of their parties, confessed that he had spoken against the Pope's power of deposing Kings in any case, or of any pretence of killing Kings: it is certain they could not have ab∣solved him, till he had renounc'd his Heresy; and they must have declar'd that if he had died in that perswa∣sion, he must have been damned; what rest shall this poor man have, or hope for? He pretends that the Council of Constance had declar'd for his opinion; and therefore that his and not theirs, is certain and matter of Faith: They, tell him no; and yet for their Article of Faith, have neither Father nor Council, Scripture nor

Reason, Tradition, nor Ancient Precedent; where then is this foundation upon which the article is built? It lies low, as low as Hell, but can never be made to ap∣pear; and yet amongst them, Articles of faith grow up without root and without foundation; but a man may be threatned with damnation amongst them for any trifle, and affrighted with clappers and men of clouts. If they have a clear and certain rule, why do their Do∣ctors differ about the points of faith? They say some things are articles of faith, and yet do not think fit to give a reason of their faith; for indeed they cannot. But if this be the way of it amongst Roman Doctors, they may have many faiths, as they have Breviaries in several Churches; secundum usum Sarum, secundum usum Scholae Romanae; and so, without ground or rea∣son, even the Catholicks become hereticks one to an∣other: it is by chance if it happen to be otherwise.

2. What makes a point to be de fide? If it be said, The decision of a General Council; Then since no General Council hath said so; then this proposition is not de fide? that what a General Council says is true, is to be believed as matter of faith; for if the authority be not de fide, then how can the particulars of her de∣termination be de fide? for the conclusion must follow the weaker part; and if the Authority it self be left in uncertainty, the Decrees cannot be infallible.

3. As no man living can tell, that a Council hath proceeded rightly; so no man can tell when an Article of faith is firmly decreed, or when a matter is suffici∣ently propounded, or when the Pope hath perfectly defin'd an article: of all this the Canon law is the Greatest testimony in the world, where there is Coun∣cil against Council, Pope against Pope; and among so many decrees of faith and manners it cannot be told what is, and what is not certain. For when the Popes have sent their rescripts to a Bishop, or any other Pre∣late,

to order an affair of life or doctrine; either he wrote that with an intent to oblige all Christendom, or did not. If not, why is it put into the body of the laws; for what is a greater signature, or can pass a greater obligation then the Authentick Code of laws? But if these were written with an intent to oblige all Christendom; how come they to be prejudic'd, re∣scinded, abrogated, by contrary laws; and desuetude, by change of times and changes of opinion? And in all that great body of laws registred in the decretum, and the Decretals, Clementins, and Extravagants, there is no signe or distinctive cognisance of one from an∣other, and yet some of them are regarded, and very many are not. When Pope Stephen decreed that those who were converted from heresie should not be re∣baptiz'd;* 1.70 and to that purpose wrote against S. Cyprian in the Question, and declar'd it to be unlawful, and threatned excommunication to them that did it (as S. Austin tells); S. Cyprian regarded it not, but he and a Council of fourscore Bishops decreed it ought to be done, and did so to their dying day. Bellarmine ad∣mits all this to be true; but says, that Pope Stephen did not declare this tanquam de fide; but that after this definition it was free to every one to think as they list; nay,* 1.71 that though it was plain that S. Cyprian refus'd to obey the Pope's sentence, yet non est omninò certum, that he did sin mortally. By all this he hath made it appa∣rent, that it cannot easily be known when a Pope does define a thing to be de fide, or when it is a sin to dis∣obey him, or when it is necessary he should be obeyed. Now then since in the Canon law there are so very ma∣ny decrees, and yet no mark of difference, of right or wrong, necessary or not necessary; how shall we be able to know certainly in what state or condition the soul of every of the Pope's subjects is? especially since without any cognisance or certain mark all the world

are commanded under pain of damnation to obey the Pope. In the Extravagant de Majoritate & Obedientiâ are these words, Dicimus, definimus, pronunciamus ab∣solutè necessarium ad salutem omni humanae creaturae, subesse Romano Pontifici. Now when can it be thought that a Pope defines any article in Cathedra, if these words, Dicimus, definimus, pronunciamus, & necessa∣rium ad salutem, be not sufficient to declare his inten∣tion? Now if this be true that the Pope said this; he said true or false. If false, how sad is the condition of the Romanists, who are affrighted with the terrible threatnings of damnation for nothing? And if it be true, what became of the souls of S. Cyprian and the African Bishops,* 1.72 who did not submit to the Bishop of Rome, but call'd him proud, ignorant, and of a dark and wicked mind? Seriò praecepit, said Bellarmine; he se∣riously commanded it, but did not determine it as necessary: and how in a Question of faith, and so great Concern this distinction can be of any avail, can never be known, and can never be prov'd; since they declare the Pope sufficiently to be of that faith against S. Cy∣prian, and the Africans, and that in pursuance of this his faith he proceeded so far, and so violently. But now the matter is grown infinitely worse. For 1. the Popes of Rome have made innumerable decrees in the Decretum,* 1.73 Decretals, Bulls, Taxes, Constitutions, Cle∣mentines, and Extravagants. 2. They, as Albericus de Rosate, a Great Canonist, affirms, sometimes exalt their constitutions, and sometimes abase them, according to the times. And yet 3. All of them are verified and im∣pos'd under the same Sanction by the Council of Trent;* 1.74 all, I say, which were ever made in favour of Ecclesiastical Persons, and the Liberties of the Church; which are indeed the greater part of all after Gratians decree: witness the Decretals of Gregory the 9^th, Boniface the 8^th, the Collectio diversarum Constitutio∣num

& literarum Romanorum Pontificum, and the De∣cretal Epistles of the Roman Bishops in three Volumes, besides the Ecloga Bullarum & motuum propriorum. All this is not onely an intolerable burden to the Christian Churches, but a snare to consciences, and no man can tell by all this that is before him, whether he deserve love or hatred, whether he be in the state of mortal sin, of damnation, or salvation. But this is no new thing: More than this was decreed in the Ancient Canon law it self.* 1.75 Sic omnes Sanctiones Apostolicae sedis accipiendae sunt tanquam ipsius Divinâ voce Petri fir∣matae. And again, Ab omnibus quicquid statuit, quicquid ordinat, perpetuò quidem & infragibiliter observandum est. All men must at all times with all submission ob∣serve all things whatsoever are decreed or ordain'd by the Roman Church. Nay, licèt vix ferendum, although what that holy See imposes, be as yet scarce tolerable, yet let us bear it, and with holy devotion suffer it, says the Canon,* 1.76 In memoriam. And that all this might indeed be an intolerable yoke, the Canon, Nulli fas est, addes the Pope's curse and final threatnings. Sit ergo ruinae suae dolore prostratus, quisquis Apostolicis voluerit contraire decretis; and every one that obeys not the Apostolical decrees is majoris excommunicationis de∣jectione abjiciendus. The Canon is directed particu∣larly against the Clergy. And the gloss upon this Ca∣non affirms, that he who denies the Pope's power of making Canons, (viz. to oblige the Church) is a here∣tick. Now considering that the decree of Gratian is Concordantia discordantiarum, a heap or bundle of Contrary opinions, doctrines and rules; and they agree no otherwise then a Hyaena and a Dog catch'd in the same snare, or put into a bag; and that the Decretals and Extravagants are in very great parts of them no∣thing but boxes of tyranny and errour, usurpation and superstition; onely that upon those boxes they write

Ecclesia Catholica, and that all these are commanded to be believ'd and observ'd respectively; and all gain∣sayers to be cursed and excommunicated; and that the twentieth part of them is not known to the Christian world, and some are rejected, and some never accepted, and some slighted into desuetude, and some thrown off as being a load too heavie, and yet that there is no rule to discern these things: it must follow that matters of faith determin'd and recorded in the Canon law, and the laws of manners there established, and the matter of salvation and damnation consequent to the obser∣vation or not observation of them, must needs be in∣finitely uncertain, and no man can from their grounds know, what shall become of him.

There are so very many points of faith in the Church of Rome, and so many Decrees of Councils, which, when they please, make an Article of faith, and so many are presumptuously by private Doctors affirm'd to be de fide which are not; that, considering that the common people are not taught to rely upon the plain words of Scripture, and the Apostles Creed, for a sufficient rule of their faith, but are threatned with damnation, if they do not believe whatever their Church hath deter∣min'd; and yet they neither do, nor can know it but by the word of their Parish Priest, or Confessor; it lies in the hand of every Parish Priest to make the People believe any thing, and be of any religion, and trust to any Article, as they shall choose and find to their pur∣pose. The Council of Trent requires Traditions to be added and received equal with Scriptures; they both, not singly but in conjunction making up the full object of faith; and so the most learned, and indeed ge∣nerally their whole Church understands one to be in∣complete without the other: and yet Master White, who I suppose tells the same thing to his Neighbours, affirms that it is not the Catholick position, That all

its doctrines are not contain'd in Scripture: which pro∣position being tied with the decree of the Council of Trent, gives a very good account of it, and makes it ex∣cellent sense. Thus, Traditions must be receiv'd with equal authority to the Scripture, (saith the Council) and wonder not; for (saith Master White) all the Tra∣ditions of the Church are in Scripture. You may be∣lieve so, if you please; for the contrary is not a Catho∣lick doctrine. But if these two things do not agree bet∣ter; then it will be hard to tell what regard will be had to what the Council says: the People know not that, but as their Priest teaches them. And though they are bound under greatest pains to believe the whole Catholick Religion: yet that the Priests them∣selves do not know it, or wilfully mis-report it; and therefore that the people cannot tell it; it is too evi∣dent in this instance, and in the multitude of disputes which are amongst themselves, about many conside∣rable Articles in their Catholick religion.* 1.77 Pius Quintus speaking of Thomas Aquinas calls his doctrine the most certain rule of Christian religion. And divers particu∣lars of the religion of the Romanists are prov'd out of the revelations of S. Briget, which are contradicted by those of S. Katherine of Siena. Now they not relying on the way of God, fall into the hands of men, who teach them according to the interest of their order, or private fancy, and expound their rules by measures of their own, but yet such which they make to be the measures of salvation and damnation. They are taught to rely for their faith upon the Church, and this when it comes to practise is nothing but their private Priest; and he does not always tell them the sense of their Church, and is not infallible in declaring the sense of it, and is not always (as appears in the instance now set down) faithful in relating of it, but first consens himself by his subtilty, and then others by his confidence;

and therefore in is impossible there can be any certain∣ty to them that proceed this way, when God hath so plainly given them a better, and requires of them no∣thing but to live a holy life, as a superstructure of Christian Faith describ'd by the Apostles in plain places of Scripture, and in the Apostolical Creed; in which they can suffer no illusion, and where there is no Un∣certainty in the matters to be believ'd.

IV. The next thing I observe, is, that they all talking of the Church, as of a charm and sacred Amulet, yet they cannot by all their arts make us certain where, or how, infallibly to find this Church. I have already in this Section prov'd this in the main Inquiry; by shewing that the Church is that body, which they do not rely upon: but now I shall shew that the Church which they would point out, can never be certainly known to be the true Church by those indications and signs which they offer to the world as her characteristick notes. S. Austin in his excellent Book De Vnitate Ecclesiae,* 1.78 affirms, that the Church is no whereto be found, but in Praescripto legis, in prophetarum praedictis, in Psalmo∣rum cantibus, in ipsius Pastoris vocibus; in Evangelista∣rum praedicationibus & laboribus; hoc est, in omnibus Sanctorum canonicis authoritatibus; in the Scriptures only. And he gives but one great note of it; and that is, adhering to the head Jesus Christ; for the Church is Christ's body, who by charity are united to one an∣other, and to Christ their Head; and he that is not a member of Christ cannot obtain salvation. And he adds no other mark; but that Christ's Church is not this, or that, viz. not of one denomination; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dis∣persed over the face of the earth. The Church of Rome makes adhesion to the head,* 1.79 (not Jesus Christ, but) the Bishop of Rome to be of the essential constitu∣tion of the Church. Now this being the great Que∣stion between the Church of Rome, and the Greek

Church, and indeed of all other Churches of the world; is so far from being a sign to know the Church by, that it is apparent, they have no ground of their Faith; but the great Question of Christendom, and that which is condemn'd by all the Christian world but themselves, is their foundation.

And this is so much the more considerable, because concerning very many Heads of their Church, it was too apparent that they were not so much as members of Christ, but the basest of Criminals, and Enemies of all godliness. And concerning others that were not so notoriously wicked, they could not be certain that they were members of Christ; or that they were not of their Father the Devil. The spirit of truth was promis'd to the Apostles upon condition; and Judas fell from it by transgression. But the uncertainties are yetgreater.

Adhering to the Pope cannot be a certain note of the Church; because no man can be certain, who is true Pope. For the Pope, if he be a Simoniac, is ipso facto no Pope: as appears in the Bull of Julius the 2d. And yet besides that he himself was called a most noto∣rious Simoniac, Sixtus Quintus gave an obligation un∣der his hand upon condition that the Cardinal d'Este would bring over his voices to him and make him Pope, that he would never make Hierom Matthew a Cardinal; which when he broke, the Cardinal sent his Obligation to the King of Spain, who intended to accuse him of Simony, but it broke the Pope's heart, and so he esca∣ped here, and was reserved to be heard before a more Unerring Judicatory. And when Pius Quartus used all the secret arts to dissolve the Council of Trent, and yet not to be seen in it, and to that purpose dispatch'd away the Bishops from Rome, he forbad the Archbishop of Turris to go,* 1.80 because he had been too free in decla∣ring his opinion for the Jus Divinum of the Residence of Bishops; he at the same time durst not trust the Bishop

of Cesena, for a more secret reason; but it was known enough to many. He was a familiar friend of the Car∣dinal of Naples, whose Father the Count of Montebello had in his hand an Obligation, which that Pope had gi∣ven to the Cardinal for a sum of money for his Voice in the Election of him to the Papacy. And all the world have been full of noises and Pasquils, sober and grave, Comical and Tragical accusations of the Simony of the Popes for divers ages together; and since no man can certainly know that the Pope is not Simo∣niacal, no man can safely rely on him as a true Pope, or the true Pope for an infallible Judge.

2. If the Pope be a Heretick, he is ipso facto, no Pope; now that this is very possible Bellarmine supposes, be∣cause he makes that one of the necessary cases in which a General Council is to be called; as I have shewed a∣bove. And this uncertainty is manifest in an instance that can never be wip'd off; for when Liberius had subscrib'd Arianism, and the condemnation of S. Atha∣sius, and the Roman Clergy had depriv'd Liberius of his Papacy, S. Felix was made Pope; and then either Liberius was no Pope, or S. Felix was not; and one was a Heretick, or the other a Schismatick; and then as it was hard to tell who was their Churches head, so it was impossible that by adherence to either of them, their subjects could be prov'd to be Catholicks.

3. There have been many Schisms in the Church of Rome, and many Anti-popes which were acknowledged for true and legitimate by several Churches and King∣doms respectively; and some that were chosen into the places of the depos'd even by Councils, were a while after disown'd and others chosen; which was a known case in the times of the Councils of Constance and Basil. And when a Council was sitting, and it be∣came a Question, who had power to chuse; the Coun∣cil, or the Cardinals? What man could cast his hopes

of Eternity upon the adherence to one, the certainty of whose legitimation was determin'd by power and interest, and could not, by all the learning and wis∣dom of Christendom?

4. There was one Pope who was made head of the Church before he was a Priest: It was Constantine the second; who certainly succeeded not in S. Peter's Pri∣vileges, when he was not capable of his Chair; and yet he was their head of the Church for a year; but how adherence to the Pope should then be a note of the Church, I desire to know from some of the Roman Lawyers; for the Divines know it not. I will not trouble this account with any questions about the Female-head of their Church; I need not seek for matter, I am press'd with too much; and therefore I shall omit very many other considerations about the nullities, and insufficiencies, and impieties, and irregularities of many Popes; and consider their other notes of the Church, to try if they can fix this inquiry upon any certainty.

Bellarmine reckons fifteen notes of the Church. It is a mighty hue and cry after a thing that he pretends is visible to all the world. 1. The very name Catholick, is his first note: he might as well have said the word Church, is a note of the Church; for he cannot be ignorant but that all Christians who esteem themselves members of the Church, think and call themselves mem∣bers of the Catholick Church; and the Greeks give the same title to their Churches. Nay all Conventions of Hereticks anciently did so; and therefore I shall quit Bel∣larmine of this note by the words of Lactantius, which himself* 1.81 also (a little forgetting himself) quotes. Sed tamen singuli quique Haereticorum coetus, se potissimum Christianos, & suam esse Catholicam Ecclesiam putant. 2. Antiquity indeed is a note of the Church, and Salmeron proves it to be so, from the Example of Adam and Eve, most learnedly. But it is certain, that God

had a Church in Paradise, is as good an argument for the Church of England and Ireland, as for Rome; for we de∣rive from them as certainly as do the Italians, and have as much of Adam's religion as they have. But a Church might have been very ancient, and yet become no Church; and without separating from a greater Church. The Church of the Jews is the great example; and the Church of Rome, unless she takes better heed, may be another.* 1.82 S. Paul hath plainly threatned it to the Church of Rome. 3. Duration is made a note, now this respects the time past, or the time to come. If the time past, then the Church of Britain was Christian before Rome was; and blessed be God are so at this day. If Duration means the time to come; for so Bel∣larmine says,* 1.83 Ecclesia dicitur Catholica, non solùm quia semper fuit, sed etiam quia semper erit: so we have a rare note for us who are alive to discern the Church of Rome to be the Catholick Church, and we may possibly come to know it by this sign many ages after we are dead; because she will last always. But this sign is not yet come to pass; and when it shall come to pass, it will prove our Church to be the Catholick Church, as well as that of Rome, and the Greek Church as well as both of us; for these Churches, at least some of them, have begun sooner, and for ought they, or we know, they all may so continue longer. 4. Amplitude was no note of the Church when the world was Arian; and is as little now, because that a great part of Eu∣rope is Papal. 5. Succession of Bishops is an excel∣lent conservatory of Christian doctrine, but it is as notorious in the Greek Church as in the Roman; and therefore cannot signifie which is the true Church, unless they be both true, and then the Church of England can claim by this tenure, as having since her being Christian, a succession of Bishops never inter∣rupted, but, as all others have been, in persecution.

6. Consent in doctrine with the Ancient Church may be a good sign or a bad, as it happens; but the Church of Rome hath not, and never can prove, the pure and prime Antiquity to be of her side. 7. Vnion of mem∣bers among themselves and with their head, is very good; if the members be united in truth (for else it may be a Conspiracy); and if by head be meant Je∣sus Christ; and indeed this is the onely true sign of the Church: but if by head be meant the Roman Pope, it may be Ecclesia Malignantium, and Antichrist may sit in the chair. But the uncertainty of this note, as it relates to this question, I have already manifested; and what excellent concord there is in the Church of Rome, we are taught by the Question of supremacy of Councils or Popes; and now also by the strict and lo∣ving concord between the Jansenists and Molinists; and the abetters of the immaculate conception of the B. Virgin-Mother, with their Antagonists. 8. Sanctity of doctrine is an excellent note of the Church: but that is the question amongst all the pretenders; and is not any advantage to the Church of Rome, unless it be a holy thing to worship images, to trample upon Kings, to reconcile a wicked life with the hopes of heaven at the last minute, by the charm of external ministeries; to domineer over Consciences, to impose useless and intolerable burdens, to damn all the world that are not their slaves, to shut up the fountains of salvation from the people; to be easier in dispensing with the laws of God, than the laws of the Church; to give leave to Princes to break their Oaths; as Pope Clement the 7^th did to Francis the first of France to co∣sen the Emperor;* 1.84 and as P. Julius the second did to Ferdinand of Arragon, sending him an absolution for his treachery against the King of France; not to keep faith with hereticks; to find out tricks to entrap them that trusted to their letters of safe conduct; to declare

that Popes cannot be bound by their promises: for Pope Paul the 4^th in a Conclave, A. D. 1555. complain∣ed of them that said he could make but four Cardinals,* 1.85 because (forsooth) he had sworn so in the Conclave; saying, This was to bind the Pope, whose authority is absolute, that it is an Article of faith that the Pope cannot be bound, much less can he bind himself; that to say otherwise was a manifest heresie; and against them that should obstinately persevere in saying so, he threatned the Inquisition. These indeed are holy do∣ctrines taught and practis'd respectively by their Holi∣nesses at Rome, and indeed are the notes of their Church; if by the doctrine of the head to whom they are bound to adhere, we may guess at the doctrine of their body. 9. The prevalency of their doctrine is produc'd for a good note; and yet this is a greater note of Mahumetanism, than of Christianity; and was once of Arianism: and yet the Argument is not now so good at Rome, as it was before Luther's time. 10. That the chiefs of the Pope's religion liv'd more holy lives than others, gives some light that their Church is the true one. But I had thought that their Popes had been the chiefs of their religion, till now; and if so, then this was a good note while they did live well; but that was before Popery: Since that time, we will guess at their Church by the holiness of the lives of those that rule and teach all; and then if we have none to follow amongst us, yet we know whom we are to fly amongst them. 11. Miracles were in the beginning of Christianity a note of true believers;* 1.86 Christ told us so. And he also taught us that Antichrist should be revealed in lying signs and wonders; and commanded us by that token to take heed of them. And the Church of Rome would take it ill, if we should call them, as S. Austin did the Donatists, Mirabiliarios Miracle-mongers; concern∣ing which he that pleases to read that excellent Tract

of S. Austin, De Vnitate Ecclesiae, cap. 14. will be suffi∣ciently satisfied in this particular, and in the main ground and foundation of the Protestant Religion. In the mean time,* 1.87 it may suffice, that Bellarmine says, Miracles are a sign of the true Church; and Salmeron says, that they are no certain signs of the true Church; but may be done by the false. 12. The Spirit of Pro∣phecy is also a prety sure note of the true Church, and yet, in the dispute between Israel and Judah, Samaria and Jerusalem, it was of no force, but was really in both. And at the day of Judgment Christ shall reject some, who will alledge that they prophesied in his name. I deny that not but there have been some Pro∣phets in the Church of Rome, Johannes de Rupe seissâ. Anselmus Marsicanus; Robert Grosthead, Bishop of Lincoln, S. Hildegardis, Abbot Joachim; whose pro∣phecies and pictures prophetical were published by Theophrastus Paracelsus, and John Adrasder, and by Paschalinus Rigeselmus at Venice 1589; but (as Ahab said concerning Micaiah) these do not prophesy good concerning Rome, but evil: and that Rome should be reformed in ore gladii cruentandi was one of the Pro∣phesies; and, Vniversa Sanctorum Ecclesia abscondetur, that the whole Church of the Saints shall be hidden, viz. in the days of Anti-christ; and that in the days of darkness, the elect of God shall have that faith, or wis∣dom to themselves, which they have; and shall not dare to preach it publickly,] was another prophecy, and carries its meaning upon the forehead, and many more I could tell; but whether such prophesies as these be good signs that the Church of Rome is the true Church, I desire to be informed by the Roman Doctors, before I trouble my self any further to consider the particulars. 13. Towards the latter end of this Cata∣logue of wonderful signs, the confession of adversaries is brought in for a note; and no question, they intend∣ed

it so! But did ever any Protestant, remaining so, con∣fess the Church of Rome to be the true Catholick Church? Let the man be nam'd, and a sufficient testi∣mony brought, that he was mentis compos, and I will grant to the Church of Rome this to be the best note they have. 14. But since the enemies of the Church have all had tragical ends; it is no question but this signifies the Church of Rome to be the only Church. Indeed if all the Protestants had died unnatural deaths; and all the Papists, nay if all the Popes had died quiet∣ly in their Beds, we had reason to deplore our sad cala∣mity, and inquir'd after the cause; but we could never have told by this: for by all that is before him, a man cannot tell whether he deserves love or hatred. And all the world finds, that, As dies the Papist, so dies the Protestant; and the like event happens to them all: excepting only some Popes have been remark'd by their own Histories, for funest and direful deaths. 15. And lately, Temporal Prosperity is brought for a note of the true Church; and for this there is great reason: be∣cause the Cross is the high-way to Heaven, and Christ promised to his Disciples for their Lot in this world great and lasting persecutions, and the Church felt this blessing for 300 years together. But this had been a better argument in the mouth of a Turkish Mufty, than a Roman Cardinal.

And now if by all these things we cannot certainly know that the Church of Rome is the true Catholick Church, how shall the poor Roman Catholick be at rest in his inquiry? Here is in all this, nothing but uncer∣tainty of truth, or certainty of error.

And what is needful to be added more? I might tire my self and my Reader, if I should enumerate all that were very considerable in this inquiry. I shall not therefore insist upon their uncertainties in their great and considerable Questions about the number of the

Sacraments: which to be Seven is with them an Article of Faith; and yet since there is not amongst them any authentick definition of a Sacrament; and it is not, nor cannot be a matter of Faith, to tell what is the form of a Sacrament; therefore it is impossible it should be a matter of Faith, to tell how many they are: for in this case they cannot tell the number, unless they know for what reason they are to be accounted so. The Fathers and School-men differ greatly in the defi∣nition of a Sacrament; and consequently in the num∣bring of them. S. Cyprian and S. Bernard reckon wash∣ing the Disciples feet to be a Sacrament; and S. Austin called omnem ritunt cultus Divini, a Sacrament; and otherwhile, he says, there are but two: and the School∣men dispute whether or no, a Sacrament can be defin'd. And by the Council of Trent, Clandestine Marriages are said to be a Sacrament; and yet that the Church al∣ways detested them: which indeed might very well be, for the blessed Eucharist is a Sacrament, but yet private Masses and Communions the Ancient Church al∣ways did detest, except in the cases of necessity. But then, when at Trent they declar'd them to be Nullities, it would be very hard to prove them to be Sacraments. All the whole affair in their Sacrament of Order, is a body of contingent propositions. They cannot agree where the Apostles receiv'd their several Orders, by what form of words; and whether at one time, or by parts: and in the Institution of the Lord's Supper, the same words by which some of them say they were made Priests, they generally expound them to signifie a duty of the Laity, as well as the Clergy; Hoc facite, which signifies one thing to the Priest, and another to the People, and yet there is no mark of difference. They cannot agree where, or by whom, extreme Unction was instituted. They cannot tell, whether any Wafer be actually transubstantiated, because they never can

know by Divine Faith, whether the supposed Priest be a real Priest, or had right intention; and yet they certainly do worship it in the midst of all Uncertainties. But I will add nothing more, but this; what Wonder is it, if all things in the Church of Rome be Uncertain; when they cannot, dare not, trust their reason or their senses in the wonderful invention of Transubstantia∣tion? and when many of their wisest Doctors profess that their pretended infallibility does finally rely upon prudential motives?

I conclude this therefore with the words of S. Austin.

Remotis ergo omnibus talibus,* 1.88 &c. All things there∣fore being remov'd, let them demonstrate their Church if they can, not in the Sermons and Rumors of the Africans [Romans,] not in the Councils of their Bishops, not in the Letters of any disputers, not in signs and deceitful Miracles; because against these things, we are warned and prepar'd by the word of the Lord: But in the praescript of the Law, of the Prophets, of the Psalms, of the Evangelists, and all the Canonical authorities of the Holy Books.]

And that's my next undertaking; to show the firmness of the foundation, and the Great Principle of the Religi∣on of the Church of England and Ireland; even the Holy Scriptures.

SECTION II.

Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Salvation, which is the great foundation and ground of the Pro∣testant Religion.

THis question is between the Church of Rome and the Church of England; and therefore it supposes that it is amongst them who believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God. The Old and New Testament are agreed upon to be the word of God; and that they are so, is deliver'd to us by the current descending te∣stimony of all ages of Christianity: and they who thus are first lead into this belief, find upon trial great after∣proofs by arguments both external and internal, and such as cause a perfect adhesion to this truth; that they are Gods Word: an adhesion (I say) so perfect, as excludes all manner of practical doubting. Now then amongst us so perswaded, the Question is, Whether or no the Scriptures be a sufficient rule of our faith, and contain in them all things necessary to salvation? or, Is there any other word of God besides the Scriptures, which delivers any points of faith or do∣ctrines of life necessary to salvation? This was the state of the Question till yesterday. And although the Church of Rome affirm'd Tradition to be a part of the object of faith, and that without the addition of do∣ctrine, and practises deliver'd by tradition, the Scri∣ptures were not a perfect rule; but together with tra∣dition they are: yet now two or three Gentlemen have got upon the Coach-wheel, and have raised a cloud of dust, enough to put out the eyes even of their

own party,* 1.89 making them not to see, what till now all their Seers told them; and Tradition is not onely a suppletory to the deficiencies of Scripture, but it is now the onely record of faith. But because this is too bold and impossible an attempt, and hath lately been sufficiently reprov'd by some learned persons of our Church; I shall therefore not trouble my self with such a frontless errour and illusion; but speak that truth which by justifying the Scripture's fulness and perfection will overthrow the doctrine of the Roman Church denying it, and, ex abundanti, cast down this new mud-wall, thrown into a dirty heap by M. W. and his under-dawber M. S. who with great pleasure behold and wonder at their own work, and call it a Marble Building.

1. That the Scripture is a full and sufficient rule to Christians in faith and manners, a full and perfect De∣claration of the will of God, is therefore certain be∣cause we have no other. For if we consider the grounds upon which all Christians believe the Scriptures to be the word of God, the same grounds prove that no∣thing else is. These indeed have a Testimony that is credible as any thing that makes faith to men, The universal testimony of all Christians: In respect of which S. Austin said, Evangelio non crederem, &c. I should not believe the Gospel, if the Authority of the Church, (that is, of the universal Church) did not move me. The Apostles at first own'd these Writings; the Churches receiv'd them; they transmitted them to their poste∣rity; they grounded their faith upon them; they proved their propositions by them; by them they con∣futed hereticks; and they made them the measures of right and wrong: all that collective body of doctrines, of which all Christians consentingly made publick con∣fessions, and on which all their hopes of salvation did relye, were all contain'd in them; and they agreed in

no point of faith which is not plainly set down in Scripture. And all this is so certain, that we all profess our selves ready to believe any other Article which can pretend and prove it self thus prov'd, thus descend∣ed. For we know, a doctrine is neither more nor less the word of God for being written or unwritten; that's but accidental and extrinsecal to it; for it was first unwritten, and then the same thing was written; one∣ly when it was written it was better conserv'd, and surer transmitted, and not easily altered, and more fitted to be a rule. And indeed onely can be so: not but that every word of God is as much a rule as any word of God; but we are sure that what is so written, and so transmitted, is Gods Word; whereas concerning other things which were not written, we have no certain re∣cords, no evident proof, no sufficient conviction; and therefore it is not capable of being own'd as the rule of faith or life, because we do not know it to be the Word of God. If any doctrine which is offer'd to us by the Church of Rome, and which is not in Scripture, be prov'd as Scripture is, we receive it equally: but if it be not, it is to be received according to the degree of its probation; and if it once comes to be disputed by wise and good men, if it came in after the Apostles, if it rely but upon a few Testimonies, or is to be labo∣riously argued into a precarious perswasion, it cannot be the true ground of faith; and salvation can never rely upon it. The truth of the assumption in this ar∣gument will rely upon an Induction, of which all Churches have a sufficient experience, there being in no Church any one instance of doctrine of faith or life, that can pretend to a clear, universal Tradition and Testimony of the first and of all ages and Churches, but onely the doctrine contain'd in the undoubted Books of the Old and New Testament. And in the matter of good life, the case is evident and certain; which makes

the other also to be like it; for there is no original or primary Commandement concerning good life, but it is plainly and notoriously found in Scripture: Now faith being the foundation of good life, upon which it is most rationally and permanently built; it is strange that Scripture should be sufficient to teach us all the whole superstructure, and yet be defective in the foun∣dation.

Neither do we doubt but that there were many things spoken by Christ and his Apostles which were never written; and yet those few onely that were written, are, by the Divine Providence and the care of the Catholick Church of the first and all descending ages, preserv'd to us, and made our Gospel. So that as we do not dispute, whether the words which Christ spake, and the Miracles he did, and are not written, be as holy and as true as those which are written; but onely say, they are not our rule and measures, be∣cause they are unknown: So there is no dispute, whe∣ther they be to be preferr'd or relied upon, as the written or unwritten Word of God; for both are to be relied upon, and both equally; always provided that they be equally known to be so. But that which we say, is, That there are many which are called Tradi∣tions, which are not the unwritten Word of God; at least not known so to be; and the doctrines of men are pre∣tended and obtruded as the Commandments of God; and the Testimonie of a few men is made to support a weight as great as that which relies upon universal Testimony; and particular traditions are equall'd to universal, the uncertain to the certain; and traditions are said to be Apostolical if they be but ancient; and if they come from we know not whom, they are said to come from the Apostles; and if postnate, they are call'd primitive; and they are argued and laboriously dis∣puted into the title of Apostolical traditions by not

onely fallible but fallacious arguments (as will appear in the following numbers.) This is the state of the Question; and therefore 1. It proves it self, because there can be no proof to the contrary; since the elder the tradition is, the more likely it can be prov'd, as being nearer the fountain, and not having had a long current; which, as a long line is always the weakest, so in long descent is most likely to be cor∣rupted, and therefore a late tradition is one of the worst arguments in the world; it follows that nothing can now, because nothing of Faith yet hath been suffi∣ciently prov'd.

2. But besides this consideration; the Scripture it self is the best testimony of it's own fulness and suffi∣ciencie. I have already in the Introduction against I. S. prov'd from Scripture, that all necessary things of salvation are there abundantly contain'd: that is, I have prov'd that Scripture says so. Neither ought it to be replyed here; that no man's testimony concern∣ing himself is to be accepted. For here we suppose that we are agreed, that the Scripture says true, that it is the word of God, and cannot be deceived; and if this be allow'd, the Scripture then can give te∣stimony concerning it self: and so can any Man if you allow him to be infallible, and all that he says to be true; which is the case of Scripture in the present Controversie. And if you will not allow Scripture to give testimony to it self; who shall give testimony to it? Shall the Church, or the Pope; suppose which we will? But who shall give testimony to them? Shall they give credit to Scripture, before it be known how they come themselves to be Credible? If they be not cre∣dible of themselves, we are not the neerer for their giving their testimony to the Scriptures. But if it be said, that the Church is of it self credible upon it's own authority; this must be prov'd before it can be

ad••itted, and then how shall this be proved? And at least, the Scripture will be pretended to be of it self credible as the Church. And since it is evident that all the dignity, power, authority, office, and sanctity it hath, or pretends to have, can no other way be prov'd but by the Scriptures, a conformity to them in all Do∣ctrines, Laws, and Manners being the only Charter by which she claims: it must needs be, that Scripture hath the prior right; and can better be primely credible, than the Church, or any thing else that claims from Scripture. Nay therefore, quoad nos, it is to be allowed to be primely credible; because there is no Creature besides it that is so. Indeed God was pleas'd to find out ways to prove the Scriptures to be his Word, his immediate Word, by miraculous consignations, and sufficient testimony, and confession of enemies, and of all men that were fit to bear witness that these Books were written by such men, who by miracle were prov'd to be Divini homines, Men endued with God's Spirit, and trusted with his Message; and when it was thus far proved by God, it became the immediate & sole Ministery of intire Salvation, and the whole Repository of the Divine will; and when things were come thus far, if it inquir'd whether the Scriptures were a sufficient institution to salvation, we need no other, we can have no better testimony than it self, concerning it self. And to this purpose I have already brought from it sufficient affirmation of the point in Question: in the preceding answer to I. S. his first Way in his fourth Appendix.

3. It is possible that the Scriptures should contain in them all things necessary to salvation. God could cause such a Book to be written. And he did so to the Jews; he caused his whole Law to be written, he engraved in Stones, he commanded the authentick Copy to be kept in the Ark, and this was the great security of

the conveying it; and Tradition was not relied upon: it was not trusted with any law of Faith or Manners. Now since this was once done, and therefore is always possible to be done; why it should not be done now, there is no pretence of reason, but very much for it. For 1. Why should the Book of S. Matthew, be called [ 1] the Gospel of Jesus Christ; and this is also the very Title of S. Mark's Book; and S. Luke affirms the design of his Book is to declare the certainty of the things then believed, and in which his Friend was instucted, which we cannot but suppose to be the whole Doctrine of salvation? 2. What end could there be in writing [ 2] these Books, but to preserve the memory of Christ's History and Doctrine? 3. Especially if we consider [ 3] that many things which were not absolutely necessary to salvation, were set down; and therefore to omit any thing that is necessary, must needs be an Unreaso∣nable, and Unprofitable way of writing. 4. There yet [ 4] never was any Catholick Father that did affirm in terms, or in full and equivalent sense, that the Scriptures are defective in the recording any thing necessary to salva∣tion; but Unanimously they taught the contrary, as I shall shew by and by. 5. The enemies of Christian Re∣ligion [ 5] oppos'd themselves against the Doctrine con∣tained in the Scriptures; and suppos'd by that means to conclude against Christianity, and they knew no other repository of it, and estimated no other. 6. The [ 6] persecutors of Christianity, intending to destroy Chri∣stianity, hop'd to prevail by causing the Bibles to be burnt; which had been a foolish and unlikely design, if that had not been the Ark that kept the Records of the whole Christian Law. 7. That the revealed will [ 7] of God, the Law of Christ, was not written in his life∣time, but preached only by word of mouth, is plain, and reasonable; because all was not finished; and the salvation of man was not perfected till the Resurrecti∣on,

Ascension, and Descent of the Holy Ghost; nor was it done presently. But then it is to be observed, that there was a Spirit of infallible Record put into the Apo∣stles, sufficient for it's publication, and continuance. But before the death of the Apostles, that is, before this Spirit of infallibility was to depart, all was written, that was intended; because no thing else could infallibly convey the Doctrine. Now this being the case of every Doctrine as much as of any, and the case of the whole, rather than of any part of it; it must follow, that it was highly agreeable to the Divine wisdom, and the very end of this Oeconomy that all should be written; and for no other reason could the Evangelists and Apostles write so many Books.

4. But of the sufficiency of Scripture we may be con∣vinc'd by the very nature of the thing. For the Ser∣mons of Salvation being preach'd to all, to the learned and unlearned; it must be a common Concern, and therefore fitted to all capacities; and consequently made easie, for easie learners. Now this design is plain∣ly signified to us in Scripture by the abbreviatures, the Symbols and Catalogues of Credenda: which are short and plain, and easie; and to which salvation is promis'd. Now if he that believes Jesus Christ to be the Son of God,* 1.90 hath eternal life;* 1.91 that is, so far as the value and acceptability of believing does extend, this Faith shall prevail unto salvation; it follows, that this being the affirmation of Scripture, and declar'd to be a competent foundation of Faith; the Scripture that contains much more, even the whole Oeconomy of salvation by Jesus Christ, cannot want any necessa∣ry thing, when the absolute necessities are so narrow. Christ the Son of God is the great adaequate object of saving Faith;* 1.92 to know God, and whom he hath sent Je∣sus Christ; this is eternal life. Now this is the great design of the Gospel; and is reveal'd largely in the

Scriptures: so that there is no adaequate object of Faith, but what is there. 2. As to the Attributes of God, and of Christ, that is, all that is known of them and to be known is set down in Scripture; That God is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; that he is the fountain of wisdom, justice, holiness, power; that his providence is over all, and mercy unto all: And concerning Christ; all the attributes and qualifications, by which he is capable and fitted to do the work of redemption for us, and to become our Lord, and the great King of Heaven and Earth; able to destroy all his Enemies eternally, and to reward his servants with a glorious and indefectible Kingdom; all this is de∣clar'd in Scripture. So that concerning the full object of Faith manifested in the whole design of the Gospel, the Scriptures are full, and whatever is to be believed of the attributes belonging to this prime and full ob∣ject, all that also is in Scripture fully declar'd. And all the acts of Faith, the antecedents, the formal, and the consequent acts of faith, are there expresly com∣manded; viz. to know God, to believe in his name and word, to believe in his Son; and to obey his Son, by the consequent acts of Faith; all this is set down in Scripture: in which not only we are commanded to keep the Commandments, but we are told which they are. There we are taught to honour and fear, to love and obey God, and his Holy Son; to fear and reve∣rence him, to adore and invocate him, to crave his aid, and to give him thanks; not to trust in, or call upon any thing that hath no Divine Empire over us, or Di∣vine Excellence in it self. It is so particular in recount∣ing all the parts of Duty, that it descends specially to enumerate the duties of Kings and subjects, Bishops and people, Parents and children, Masters and ser∣vants; to show love and faithfulness to our equals; to our inferiours counsel and help, favour and good will,

bounty and kindness, a good word and a good deed: The Scripture hath given us Commandments concern∣ing our very thoughts; to be thankful and hospitable, to be humble and complying; what ever good thing was taught by any or all the Philosophers in the world, all that and much more is in the Scriptures, and that in a much better manner: And that it might appear that nothing could be wanting, the very degrees and the order of vertues is there provided for. And if all this be not the high way to salvation, and sufficient to all intents of God and the souls of men; let any man come forth and say as Christ said to the young man, Restat adhuc unum, there is one thing wanting yet, and let him shew it. But let us consider a little further.

5. What is, or what can be wanting to the fulness of Scripture? Is not all that we know of the life and death of Jesus, set down in the writings of the New Testament? Is there any one Miracle that ever Christ did, the notice of which is conveyed to us by tradi∣tion? Do we know any thing that Christ did or said but what is in Scripture? Some things were reported to have been said by Christ secretly to the Apostles, and by the Apostles secretly to some favourite Disci∣ples; but some of these things are not believed; and none of the other is known: so that either we must conclude that the Scripture contains fully all things of Faith and Obedience, or else we have no Gospel at all; for, except what is in Scripture, we have not a sufficient record of almost one saying, or one miracle. S. Paul quotes one saying of Christ which is not in any of the four Gospels, but it is in the Scriptures, It is better to give then to receive; and S. Hierom records another, Be never very glad, but when you see your Brother live in charity. If S. Paul had not written the first and trans∣mitted it in Scripture, we had not known it any more than those many other which are lost for not being

written: and for the quotation of S. Hierom, it is true, it is a good saying; but whether they were Christ's words or no, we have but a single testimony. Now then, how is it possible that the Scriptures should not contain all things necessary to salvation; when of all the words of Christ in which certainly all necessary things to salvation must needs be contain'd, or else they were never revealed; there is not any one saying, or miracle, or story of Christ in any thing that is mate∣rial, preserv'd in any indubitable record, but in Scripture alone?

6. That the Scriptures do not contain in them all things necessary to salvation, is the fountain of many great and Capital errours; I instance in the whole doctrine of the Libertines. Familists, Quakers, and other Enthusiasts, which issue from this corrupted fountain. For this, that the Scriptures do need a Suppletory, that they are not perfect and sufficient to salvation of them∣selves, is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the great Fundamental both of the Roman religion, and that of the Libertines and Quakers, and those whom in Germany they call Spiri∣tuales; such as David George, Harry Nicholas, Swenck∣feld, Sebastian Franc, and others.

These are the men that call the Scriptures, The letter of the Scripture, the dead letter, insufficient, inefficacious. This is but the sheath and the scabberd, the bark and the sha∣dow, a carcase void of the internal light, not apt to imprint a perfect knowledge in us of what is necessa∣ry to salvation.

But the Roman Doctors say the same things. We know who they are that call the Scriptures, the Outward letter, Ink thus figur'd in a book,* 1.93 Unsensed characters, waxen-natur'd words not yet sensed, apt to blunder and confound, but to clear little or nothing; these are as bad words as the other, and some of them the same; and all draw a long tail of evil consequents behind them. 1. From this Principle as it is promoted by

the Fanaticks, they derive a wandring, unsetled, and a dissolute religion. For, they supplying the insufficien∣cy of Scripture by an inward word, which being onely within, it is subject to no discipline, reducible into no order, not submitted to the spirits of the Prophets, and hath no rule by which it can be directed, examin'd or judged; Hence comes the infinite variety and contra∣dictions of religion, commenc'd by men of this perswa∣sion. A religion that wanders from day to day, from fancy to fancy, and alterable by every new illusion. A religion in which some man shall be esteem'd an infal∣lible Judge to day; and next week, another: but it may happen that any man may have his turn, and any mischief may be believ'd and acted, if the Devil get into the chair. 2. From this very same Principle, as it is pro∣moted by the Papists, they derive a religion imperious, interested, and tyrannical. For, as the Fanaticks supply the insufficiency of Scripture by the word internal; so do the Roman Doctors by the authority of the Church: but when it comes to practice, as the Fana∣tick give the supreme power of teaching and defining to the chief Elder in the love; so do the Papists, espe∣cially the Jesuits, give it to the Pope: and the diffe∣rence is not, that the Fanaticks give the supreme judgement to some one, and the Papists give it to the whole Church; for these also give it but to one man, to the Pope, whose judgement, voice, and definition must make up the deficiencies of Scripture. But be∣cause the Fanaticks (as it happens) change their Judge every moneth, therefore they have an ambulatory re∣ligion: but that of the Roman way establishes Tyran∣ny; because their Judge being one, not in person but in succession, and having always the same interest, and having already resolved upon their way, and can when they list go further upon the stock of the same Prin∣ciples, and being established by humane power will un∣alterably

persist in their right and their wrong, and will never confess an Error, and are impatient of con∣tradiction; and therefore they impose irremediably, and what they please, upon Consciences, of which they have made themselves Judges. Now for these things there is no remedy but from Scripture; which if it be allowed full, perfect, and sufficient unto all the things of God, then whatsoever either of these parties say, must be tried by Scripture, it must be shewed to be there, or be rejected. But to avoid the trial there, they tell you the Scripture is but a dead letter, Unsensed Characters, words without sense, or unsensed; and therefore, this must be supplied by the inward word (says one;) by the Pope's word in Cathedrâ, says the other; and then both the Inward word, and the Pope's word, shall rule and determine every thing; and the Scriptures will signifie nothing: but as under pre∣tence of the word Internal, every new thing shall pass for the word of God; so it shall do also under the Ro∣man pretence. For not he that makes a Law, but he that expounds the Law, gives the final measures of Good or Evil. It follows from hence that nothing but the Scripture's sufficiencie, can be a sufficient limit to the in∣undation of evils, which may enter from these parties relying upon the same false Principle. My Last argu∣gument is from Tradition it self: For,

7. If we enquire upon what grounds the primitive Church did rely for their whole Religion, we shall find they knew none else but the Scriptures; Vbi Scriptum? was their first inquiry:

Do the Prophets and the Apostles, the Evangelists, or the Epistles say so?

Read it there, and then teach it; else reject it: they call upon their Charges in the words of Christ, Search the Scriptures; they affirm that the Scriptures are full, that they are a perfect Rule, that they contain all things necessary to salvation: and from hence they con∣futed all Heresies.

This I shall clearly prove by abundant testimonies: Of which though many of them have been already observ'd by very many learned persons; yet because I have added others, not so noted, and have collected with diligence and care, and have rescued them from Elusory answers; I have therefore chosen to represent them together; hoping they may be of more usefulness than trouble, because I have here made a trial, whether the Church of Rome be in good earnest or no, when she pretends to follow Tradition; or how it is that she ex∣pects a tradition shall be prov'd. For this Doctrine of the Scripture's sufficiency I now shall prove by a full tradition; therefore, if she believes Tradition, let her acknowledge this tradition which is so fully prov'd; and if this do not amount to a full probation, then it is but reasonable to expect from them, that they ne∣ver obtrude upon us any thing for tradition, or any tradition for necessary to be believed, till they have proved it such; by proofs more, and more clear, than this Essay concerning the sufficiency and perfection of the Divine Scriptures.

I begin with S. Irenaeus.* 1.94

[We know that the Scri∣ptures are perfect, for they are spoken by the word of God, and by his Spirit. [Therefore]* 1.95 read diligently the Gospel, given unto us by the Apostles; and read diligently the Prophets, and you shall find every action and the whole doctrine, and the whole pas∣sion of our Lord preached in them. [And indeed] we have receiv'd the Oeconomy of our salvation by no other but by those, by whom the Gospel came to us; which truly they then preached, but afterwards by the will of God delivered to us in the Scriptures, which was to be the pillar and ground to our Faith]

These are the words of this Saint, who was one of the most ancient Fathers of the Church, a Greek by birth, by his dignity and imployment a Bishop in France, and

so most likely to know the sense and rule of the Eastern and Western Churches.

Next to S. Irenaeus,* 1.96 we have the Doctrine of S. Cle∣mens of Alexandria in these words. He hath lost the being a man of God, and of being faithful to the Lord, who hath kicked against Tradition Ecclesiastical, and hath turned to the opinions of humane Heresies.] What is this Tradition Ecclesiastical; and where is it to be found? That follows

But he, who returning out of Error, obeys the Scriptures, and hath permitted his life to truth, he is of a Man in a manner made a God. For the Lord is the principle of our Doctrine, who by the Prophets and the Gospel, and the blessed Apostles at sundry times, and in divers manners, leads us from the beginning to the end. He that is faithful of him∣self is worthy of faith in the Voice and Scripture of the Lord, which is usually exercis'd through the Lord to the benefit of men; for this (Scripture) we use for the finding out of things, this we use as the rule of judging—But if it be not enough to speak our opi∣nions absolutely, but that we must prove what we say, we expect no testimony that is given by men, but by the voice of the Lord we prove the Question; and this is more worthy of belief than any demonstration, or rather it is the only demonstration, by which knowledge they who have tasted of the Scriptures alone, are faithful.]

Afterwards he tells how the Scriptures are a perfect de∣monstration of the Faith:

Perfectly demonstrating out of the Scriptures themselves, concerning themselves; we (speak or) perswade demonstratively of the Faith. Al∣though even they that go after Heresies, do dare to use the Scriptures of the Prophets. But first they use not all, neither them that are perfect, nor as the whole body and contexture of the Prophecy does dictate: but choo∣sing out those things which are spoken ambiguously, they draw them to their own opinion.]

Then he tells

how we shall best use and understand the Scriptures

[Let every one consider what is agreeable to the Al∣mighty Lord God, and what becomes him, and in that let him confirm every thing from those things which are demonstrated from the Scriptures, out of those and the like Scriptures.

And he adds that, It is the guise of Hereticks, when they are overcome by shewing that they oppose Scriptures,—Yet still they chuse to follow that which to them seems evident, rather than that which is spoken of the Lord by the Prophets, and by the Gospel, and what is prov'd and confirm'd by the testi∣mony of the Apostles:] and at last concludes,a 1.97 they become impious, because they believe not the Scriptures;] and a little before this, he asks the Hereticks, [Will they deny, or will they grant there is any demonstration? I suppose they will all grant, there is; except those, who also deny that there are senses. But if there be any demon∣stration, it is necessary to descend to Questions, and b 1.98 from the Scriptures themselves to learn demonstra∣tively, how the Heresies are fallen; and on the contrary, how the most perfect knowledge is in the truth and the ancient Church. But again, they that are ready to spend their time in the best things, will not give over seeking for truth,c 1.99 untill they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves. And after this, adds his advice to Christians, To wax old in the Scriptures, and thence to seek for demonstrations. These things he spoke, not only by way of Caution to the Christians, but also of Opposition to the Gnosticks; who were very busie in pretending ancient traditions. This is the discourse of that great Christian Philosopher S. Cle∣ment; from which, besides the direct testimony given to the fulness and sufficiency of Scripture in all matters of Faith, or Questions in Religion; we find him affirm∣ing that the Scriptures are a certain, and the only, de∣monstration of these things; they are the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the

rule of judging the controversies of faith; that the tra∣dition Ecclesiastical, that is, the whole doctrine taught by the Church of God, and preach'd to all men, is in the Scripture; and therefore that it is the plenary and per∣fect repository of tradition, that is, of the doctrine de∣liver'd by Christ and his Apostles: and they who be∣lieve not these, are Impious. And lest any man should say that, suppose Scripture do contain all things ne∣cessary to Salvation, yet it is necessary that tradition, or some infallible Church do expound them, and then it is as long as it is broad, and comes to the same issue; S. Clement tells us how the Scriptures are to be ex∣pounded; saying, that they who rely upon them, must expound Scriptures by Scriptures, and by the analogy of faith, Comparing spiritual things with spiritual, one place with another, a part with the whole, and all by the proportion to the Divine Attributes. This was the way of the Church in S. Clement's time; and this is the way of our Churches. But let us see how this af∣fair went in other Churches and times, and whether there be a succession and an Universality of this do∣ctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture in all the affairs of God.

The next is Tertullian,* 1.100 who writing against Hermo∣genes that affirm'd God made the world not out of no∣thing, but of I know not what praeexistent matter; appeals to Scripture in the Question, whose fulness Tertullian adores; Let the shop of Hermogenes show that this thing is written. If it be not written, let him fear the Wo pronounc'd against them that adde to or take from Scripture.] Against this testimony it is objected, that here Tertullian speaks but of one question:* 1.101 So Bel∣larmine answers: and from him E. W. and A. L. To which the reply is easie:* 1.102 For when Tertullian chal∣lenges Hermogenes to show his proposition in Scripture, he must mean that the fulness of the Scripture was suf∣ficient

not onely for this, but for all Questions of reli∣gion, or else it had been an ill way of arguing, to bring a negative argument from Scripture, against this alone. For why was Hermogenes tied to prove this proposition from Scripture more than any other? Either Scripture was the rule for all, or not for that. For suppose the heretick had said, It is true, it is not in Scripture; but I have it from tradition, or it was taught by my fore∣fathers: there had been nothing to have replied to this; but that, It may be, he had no tradition for it. Now if Hermogenes had no tradition, then indeed he was tied to shew it in Scripture; but then Tertullian should have said, let Hermogenes shew where it is writ∣ten, or that it is a tradition: for if the pretending and proving tradition (in case there were any such pretense in this Question) had been a sufficient answer; then Tertullian had no sufficient argument against Hermo∣genes by calling for authority from Scripture: but he should have said, If it be not scriptum, or traditum, written or delivered; let Hermogenes fear the wo to the adders or detracters. But if we will suppose Ter∣tullian spoke wisely and sufficiently, he must mean, that the Scripture must be the Rule in all Questions, and no doctrine is to be taught that is not taught there. But to put this thing past dispute, Tertullian himself extends this rule to an universal comprehen∣sion; And by this instrument declares, that hereticks are to be confuted, [Take from the hereticks that which they have in common with the heathens; viz. (their Ethnick learning), and let them dispute their questions by Scripture alone, and they can never stand.] By which it is plain, that the Scripture is sufficient for all faith, because it is sufficient to convince all heresies and de∣viations from the faith; For which very reason the hereticks also (as he observes) attempted to prove their propositions by arguments from Scripture; for indeed,

there was no other way; because the Articles of faith are to be prov'd by the writings of faith,* 1.103 that is, the Scripture; that was the Rule: How contrary this is to the practice and doctrine of Rome at this day, we easi∣ly find by their Doctors charging all heresies upon the Scriptures, as occasion'd by them; and forbidding the people to read them for fear of corrupting their weak heads; nay, it hath been prohibited to certain Bishops to read the Scriptures, lest they become hereticks. And this folly hath proceeded so far that Erasmus tells us of a Dominican,* 1.104 who being urg'd in a Scholastical disputation, with an argument from Scripture, cried out, It was a Lutheran way of disputation, and pro∣tested against the answering it: which, besides that it is more than a vehement suspicion that these men find the Scriptures not to look like a friend to their propo∣sitions; it is also a manifest procedure contrary to the wisdom, religion, and Oeconomy of the primitive Church.

The next I note,* 1.105 is Origen: who when he propound∣ed a Question concerning the Angels Guardians of little children, viz. When the Angels were appointed to them? at their Birth, or at their Baptism? He addes, [You see,* 1.106 he that will discuss both of them warily, it is his part to pro∣duce Scripture for testimony, agree∣ing to one of them both.] That was the way of the Do∣ctors then. And Scripture is so full and perfect to all in∣tents and purposes, that for the confirmation of our discourses, Scripture is to be brought, saith Origen.* 1.107 We know Jesus Christ is God, and we seek to expound the words which are spoken according to the dignity of the per∣son. Wherefore it is necessary for us to call the Scriptures into testimony; for our meanings and enarrations, with∣out

these witnesses have no belief.] To these words Bellarmine answers most childishly: saying, that Origen speaks of the hardest questions, such as for the most part traditions are not about. But it is evident that, there∣fore Origen requires testimony of Scriptures, not be∣cause of the difficulty of things to be inquir'd; but be∣cause without such testimony, they are not to be believ'd. For so are his very words, and therefore whether they be easie or hard, if they be not in Scrip∣ture, the Questions will be indeterminable. That is the sense of Origen's argument.* 1.108 But more plainly yet; [After these things, as his custom is, he will affirm (or prove) from the holy Scriptures what he had said; and also gives an example to the Doctors of the Church, that those things which they speak to the people, they should prove them, not as produc'd by their own sentences, but defended by divine testimonies; for if he so great, and such an Apostle, believes not that the authority of his saying can be sufficient, unless he teaches that those things which he says are written in the Law, and the Prophets: how much rather ought we who are the least, observe this thing, that we do not, when we teach, pro∣duce our own, but the sentences of the Holy Ghost:] Add to this what he says in another place;* 1.109 As our Saviour impos'd silence upon the Sadduces by the word of his Do∣ctrine, and faithfully convinc'd that false opinion which they thought to be truth; so also shall the followers of Christ do, by the examples of Scripture, by which ac∣cording to sound Doctrine, every voice of Pharaoh ought to be silent.

The next in order is S. Cyprian; who indeed speaks for tradition: not meaning the modus tradendi, but the doctrina tradita; for it is such a tradition as is in Scri∣pture; the doctrine deliver'd first by word of mouth, and then consigned in Scripture.* 1.110 [Let nothing be in∣novated but that is deliver'd: Whence is that tradition?

whether descending from the Lord's, and from the Evan∣gelical authority, or coming from the Commandments and Epistles of the Apostles? For that those things are to be done which are written, God witnesses, and pro∣pounds to Jesus Nave, saying; The Book of this Law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou maist observe to do all things which are written. Our Lord also sending his Apostles, commands the nations to be baptized and taught, that they may observe all things whatsoever he hath command∣ed. If therefore it be either commanded in the Gospel, or in the Epistles of the Apostles, that they that come from any Heresie, should not be baptiz'd, but that hands should be imposed upon them unto repentance, then let even this holy tradition be observ'd] This Doctrine and Counsel of S. Cyprian,* 1.111 Bellarmine says was one of the Errors of S. Cyprian: but S. Austin commends it as the best way. And this procedure is also the same that the Church in the descending ages always followed: of which there can in the world be no plainer testimo∣ny given, than in the words of S. Cyril of Jerusalem; and it was in the High Questions of the Holy and my∣sterious Trinity;* 1.112 concerning which, he advises them to

[retain that zeal in their minds, which by heads and summaries is expounded to you, but, if God grant, shall according to my strength be demonstrated to you by Scripture.a 1.113 For it behooveth us not to deliver, no not so much as the least thing of the holy mysteries of Faith without the holy Scriptures. Neither give cre∣dit to me speaking, unless what is spoken be demon∣strated by the Holy Scriptures. For that is the secu∣rity of our Faith, not which is from our inventions, but from the demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.]

To the same purpose in the Dissuasive was produced the Testimony of S. Basil;* 1.114 but the words which were not there set down at large,* 1.115 are these. [What's pro∣per for the faithful man? That with a certain fulness of mind, he believes the force of those things to be true, which are spoken in the Scripture, and that he rejects nothing, and that he dares not to decree any thing that is new. For whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin, but Faith is by hearing,* 1.116 and hearing by the word of God: without doubt, since whatsoever is without the Scripture is not of Faith,* 1.117 it is a Sin.] These words are so plain, as no Paraphrase is need∣ful to illustrate them, to which may be added those fiercer words of the same Saint.

[It is a ma∣nifest defection from the Faith and a conviction of Pride, * 1.118 either to reject any thing of what is writ∣ten, or to introduce any thing that is not, since our Lord Jesus Christ hath said, My sheep hear my voice; and a little before he said the same thing: A stranger they will not follow, but will fly from him; because they know not the voice of strangers.]

By which words S. Basil plainly declares, that the whole voice and words of Christ are set down in Scripture, and that all things else is the voice of strangers. And therefore [the Apostle does most vehemently forbid (by an example taken from men) lest any thing of those which are in Scripture be taken away, or (which God forbid) any thing be added.] To these words Bel∣larmine, and his followers that write against the Dis∣suasive, answer, that S. Basil speaks against adding to the Scripture things contrary to it, and things so strange from it, as to be invented out of their own head: and that he also speaks of certain particular Heresies.* 1.119 Which endeavour to escape from the pressure of these

words, is therefore very vain, because S. Basil was not then disputing against any particular Heresies, as teaching any thing against Scripture, or of their own head; but he was about to describe the whole Chri∣stian Faith: And that he may do this with faithfulness and simplicity, and without reproof, he declares he will do it from the holy Scriptures; for it is infidelity and pride to do otherwise; and therefore what is not in the Scriptures, if it be added to the faith, it is contrary to it, as contrary as unfaithfulness or infidelity: and what soever is not deliver'd by the Spirit of God, is an invention of man, if offer'd as a part of the Christian Faith. And therefore Bellarmine and and his follow∣ers, make here a distinction where there is no difference. S. Basil here declar'd, that as formerly he had it always fixt in mind to fly every voice, & every sentence which is a stranger to the doctrine of the Lord, so now also at this time.]* 1.120 viz. when he was to set down the whole Chri∣stian Faith. Neither can there be hence any escaping by saying* 1.121 that nothing indeed is to be added to the Scriptures; but yet to the faith something is to be rec∣koned, which is not in Scripture. For although the Church of Rome does that also, putting more into the Canon than was among the Jews acknowledged, or by the Primitive Church of Christians; yet besides this, S. Basil having having said,* 1.122 Whatsoever is not in the Scriptures, is not of faith, and therefore it is a sin; he says also by certain consequence, That to add to the Scriptures, is all one, as to add to the Faith. And therefore he exhorts even the Novices to study the Scriptures:* 1.123 for to his 95th question, Whether it be fit for Novices presently to learn the things of the Scripture? he answers, It is right, and it is necessary, that those things which appertain to use, every one should learn from the Scriptures, both for the replenishing of their mind with piety, as also that they may not be accu∣stomed

to humane traditions. By which words he not onely declares, that by the Scriptures our minds are abundantly fill'd with piety; but that humane tradi∣tions (by which he means every thing that is not con∣tain'd in Scripture) are not to be receiv'd, but ought to be, and are best of all banish'd from our minds by entertaining of Scripture. To the same purpose are his words in his Ethicks,* 1.124 [Whatsoever we say or do ought to be confirm'd by the testimony of Divinity inspired by Scriptures, both for the full persuasion of the good, and the confusion or damnation of evil things.] There's your rule; that's the ground of all true faith.

And therefore S. Athanasius speaking concerning the Nicene Council,* 1.125 made no scruple that the question was sufficiently determin'd concerning the proper Divinity of the Son of God, because it was determin'd, and the faith was expounded according to the Scriptures; and affirms that the faith so determin'd was sufficient for the reproof of all impiety (meaning in the Article of Christ's Divinity) and for the establishment of the Orthodox faith in Christ.]* 1.126 Nay, he affirms that the Ca∣tholick Christians will neither speak, nor endure to hear any thing in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written.] Which words I the rather re∣mark,* 1.127 because this Article of the Consubstantiality of Christ with the Father, is brought as an instance (by the Romanists) of the necessity of tradition, to make up the insufficiency of Scripture. But not in this onely, but for the preaching of the truth indefinitely,* 1.128 that is, the whole truth of the Gospel, he affirms the Scriptures to be sufficient. For writing to Macarius a Priest of Alexandria, he tells him that the knowledge of true and divine religion and piety, does not much need the ministery of man; and that he might abundantly draw this forth from the divine books and letters:

for truly the holy and divinely-inspir'd Scriptures are sufficient for the preaching of the truth;* 1.129 ad omnem in∣structionem veritatis; so the Latine Translation; for the whole instruction of truth; or the instruction of all truth. But because Macarius desir'd rather to hear others teach him this doctrine and true religion, than himself to draw it from Scripture, S. Athanasius tells him, that there are many written monuments of the Holy Fathers, and our masters, which if men will dili∣gently read over, he shall learn the interpretation of Scriptures, and obtain that notion of truth which he de∣sires.] Which is perfectly the same advice which the Church of England commands her Sons; that they shall teach nothing but what the Fathers and Doctors of the Church draw forth from Scriptures.

The same principal doctrine in the whole is taught frequently by S. Chrysostom,* 1.130 who compares the Scri∣ptures to a Door, which is shut to hinder the hereticks from entring in, and introduce us to God, and to the knowledge of God.] This surely is sufficient; if it does this, it does all that we need; and if it does not, S. Chrysostom was greatly deceiv'd; and so are we, and so were all the Church of God in all the first ages. But he is constant in the same affirmative:* 1.131 [If there be need to learn, or to be ignorant, thence we shall learn it;* 1.132 if to confute or argue that which is false, thence we shall draw it: if to be corrected or chastis'd to exhorta∣tion; if any thing be wanting for our comfort, and that we ought to have it, nevertheless from thence (from the Scriptures) we learn it. That the man be perfect: there∣fore without it he cannot be perfected. In stead of me (he saith) thou hast the Scriptures; if thou desirest to learn any thing, hence thou mayest. But if he writes these things to Timothy, who was fill'd with the holy Spirit, how much more must we think these things spoken to us? To the same purpose he discourses largely in his eighth

Homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews,* 1.133 which is here too long to transcribe. Let no man look for another master.* 1.134 Thou hast the Oracles of God; No man teaches thee like to them.] Because ever since heresie did infest those Churches, there can be no proof of true Christia∣nity, nor any other refuge for Christians, who would know the truth of faith, but that of the Divine Scri∣pture: but now by no means is it known by them, who would know which is the true Church of Christ, but onely by the Scriptures.]* 1.135 Bellarmine, very learnedly, sayes that these words were put into this book by the Arians, but because he offers at no pretence of reason for any such interpolation, and it being without cause to suspect it, though the Author of it had been an Arian: because the Arians were never noted to differ from the Church in the point of the Scriptures sufficiency; I look upon this as a pitiful shift of a man that resolved to say any thing rather than confess his errour. And at last he concludes with many words to the same purpose, [Our Lord therefore knowing what confusion of things would be in the last days, therefore commands that Christians, who in Christianity would receive the firmness of true faith, should fly to nothing but to the Scriptures; other∣wise, if they regard other things, they will be scandalized and perish, not understanding which is the true Church, and by this shall fall into the abomination of desolation, which stands in the holy places of the Church.]* 1.136 The summe is this, deliver'd by the same Author, What∣soever is sought for unto salvation it is now fill'd full in the Scriptures. Therefore there is in this feast, nothing less then what is necessary to the salvation of mankind.] Sixtus Senensis, though he greatly approves this book, and brings arguments to prove it to be S. Chrysostom's, and alleges from others, that it hath been for many ages approv'd by the Commandement of the Church, which among the Divine laws reads some of these

Homilies as of S. Chrysostom; and that it is cited in the ordinary and authentick glosses, in the Catena's upon the Gospels, in the decrees of the Popes, and in the Theological sums of great Divine; yet he would have it purg'd from these words here quoted (as also from many others.) But when they cannot show by any probable argument that any hereticks have interpolated these words; and that these are so agreeing to other words of S. Chrysostom, spoken in his unquestion'd works; he shews himself and his party greatly pinch'd, and for no other reason rejects the words, but because they make against him, which is a plain self-conviction and self-condemnation.* 1.137 Theophilus Alexandrinus is already quoted in these words, and they are indeed very severe; It is the part of a Devilish spirit to think any thing di∣vine without the authority of the holy Scriptures.] Here E. W. and A. L. say, the Dissuasive left out some words of Theophilus. It is true, but so did a good friend of theirs before me; for they are just so quoted by * 1.138 Bellarmine; who in all reason would have put them in, if they had made way for any answer to the other words. The words are these as they lie intirely. Truly I cannot know with what temerity Origen, speaking so many things,* 1.139 and following his own errour, not the au∣thority of Scriptures, does dare to publish such things which will be hurtful. And a little after addes, Sed igno∣rans quod demoniaci spiritus esset instinctus, sophismata humanarum mentium sequi & aliquid extra Scriptura∣rum authoritatem putare Divinum.] Sophisms of his own mind, and things that are not in Scriptures are explica∣tive one of another: and if he had not meant it meer∣ly diabolical to induce any thing without the autho∣rity of Scripture, he ought to have added the other part of the rule, and have called it Devilish, to adde any thing without Scripture or tradition, which because he did not, we suppose he had no cause to do; and

then whatsoever is not in Scripture Theophilus calls the sophism of humane minds. He spake it indefinitely and universally;* 1.140 It is true, it is instanc'd in a particu∣lar against Origen, but upon that occasion he gives a ge∣neral rule. And therefore it is a weak subterfuge of Bellarmine to say, that Theophilus onely speaks concern∣ing certain Apocryphal books, which some would esteem Divine: but, by the way, I know not how well Bellarmine will agree with my adversaries; for one or two of them say,* 1.141 Theophilus spake against Origen, for broaching fopperies of his own; and particularly, that Christs flesh was consubstantial with the Godhead: and if they say true, then Bellarmine in his want invented an answer of his own without any ground of truth. But all agree in this, that these words were spoken in these cases onely:* 1.142 and it is foolish (says Bellarmine) to wrest that which is spoken of one thing, to another. But I desire that it may be observ'd, that to the testi∣mony of Tertullian, it is answered, He speaks but of one particular. To that of S. Basil, it is answered, He spake but against a few particular heresies. And to one of the testimonies of S. Athanasius, it is answered, He spake but of one particular, viz. the heresie of Samosatenus; and to this of Theophilus Alexandrinus it is just so answered; he spake likewise but of this particular, viz. that against Origen: and to that of S. Hierom* 1.143 in 23. Matth. he onely spake of a particular opinion pretended out of some apocryphal book; and to another of S. Austin, It is spoken but of a particular matter;* 1.144 the case of widowhood. But if Hermogenes, and Origen, and Samo∣satenus, and the hereticks S. Basil speaks of, and they in S. Hierom, be all to be confuted by Scripture, and by nothing else; nay, are therefore rejected, because they are not in Scripture; if all these Fathers confute all these heresies by a negative argument from Scri∣pture; then the rule which they establish must be

more than particular. It is fitted to all as well as to any: for all particulars make a general. This way they may answer 500 testimonies; if 500 Authors should upon so many several occasions speak general words. But in the world no answer could be weaker, and no elusion more trifling and less plausible could have been invented. However, these and other concurrent te∣stimonies will put this question beyond such captious answers.

S. Hierom was so severe in this Article, that dispu∣ting what Zechary it was, who was slain between the Porch and the Altar, Whether it was the last but one of the small Prophets,* 1.145 or the Father of the Baptist; he would admit neither, because it was not in the Scrip∣tures; in these words [This be∣cause it hath not authority from Scripture, is with the same easiness despis'd as it is approv'd] And they that prattle without the authority of Scriptures have no faith, or trust; that is, none would believe them; unless they did seem to strengthen their perverse doctrine with Divine testimonies: but most pertinent and material to the whole inquiry are these words;* 1.146 [Those things which they make and find as it were by Apostlical tradition, without the authority and testi∣monies of Scripture, the word of God smites.] By which words it appears, that in S. Hierom's time it was usual to pretend traditions Apostolical: and yet that all which was then, so early, called so, was not so; and therefore all later pretences, still as they are later, are the worse: and that the way to try those pretences, was the authority and testimony of Scriptures; with∣out which testimony they were to be rejected, and God would punish them.* 1.147 And disputing against Helvidius,

in defence of the perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin. [But as we deny not those things which are written; so, we refuse those things which are not writ∣ten: We believe our Lord to be born of a Virgin, because we read it: We believe not, Mary was married after her delivery, because we read it not.] And therefore this very point the Fathers endeavour to prove by Scrip∣ture;* 1.148 particularly,* 1.149 S. Epiphanius, S. Ambrose, and S. Austin;* 1.150 though S. Basil believ'd it not to be a point of faith: and when he offer'd to prove it by a tradition concerning the slaying of Zechary upon that account, S. Hierom rejects the tradition as trifling; as before, I have cited him. And therefore S. John Damascen going upon the same Principle,* 1.151 says, We look for nothing beyond these things which are deliver'd by the Law and the Prophets, the Apostles and Evangelists.

And after all this, S. Austin, who is not the least amongst the greatest Doctors of the Church, is very clear in this particular [If any one,* 1.152 concerning Christ, or his Church,* 1.153 or concerning any other thing which be∣longs to faith, or our life; I will not say, if we, but (what Paul hath added) if an Angel from Heaven shall preach unto you, Praeter quam in Scripturis legalibus & Evan∣gelicis accepistis, beside what ye have receiv'd in the legal and Evangelical Scriptures, let him be accursed.] The words Bellarmine quotes, and for an answer to them, says, that praeter must signifie contra; besides, that is, against: and the same is made use of by Hart the Jesuit, in his Conference; and by the Lovain Do∣ctors. But if this answer may serve; Non habebis Deos alienos praeter me, may signifie, contra me; and then a man may,* 1.154 for all this Commandment, say, there are two Gods, so one be not contrary to the other; and the Apostle may glory in any thing else in that sense,

in which he glories in the Cross of Christ; so that thing be not contrary to Christ's Cross. But S. Austin was a better Grammarian than to speak so improperly. Praeter,* 1.155 and Praeterquam are all one; as, I am covetous of nothing praeter laudem, vel praeterquam laudis: Nulli places praeterquam mihi; vel, praeter me. And indeed Praeterquam, eandem aut prope parem vim obtinet, quam Nisi, said Laurentius Valla: but to make praeterquam to signifie contra quam, is a violence to be allowed by no Master of the Latin tongue; which all the world knows, S. Austin was. And if we enquire what signi∣cation it hath in law;* 1.156 we find it signifies variously in∣deed, but never to any such purpose. When we speak of things whose nature is wholly separate, then it signifies Inclusively: As I give all my vines praeter domum, besides my house; there the house is suppos'd also to be given. But if we speak of things which are subordinate and included in the general, then praeter signifies Exclusively; as I give unto thee all my Books praeter Augustinum de civitate Dei, besides or except S. Austin of the City of God: there S. Austins Book is not given: And the reason of this is, because the last words in this case would operate nothing,* 1.157 unless they were ex∣clusive; and if in the first they were exclusive, they were not sense. But that praeterquam should mean only what is contrary;* 1.158 is a Novelty taken up without reason, but not without great need.* 1.159 But however, that S. Austin did not mean only to reprove them that introduc'd into faith and manners,* 1.160 such things which were against Scripture; but such which were besides it, and what∣soever was not in it, is plain by an establish'd doctrine of his, affirming that all things which appertain to life and doctrine, are found in those things which are plainly set down in the Scriptures. And if this be true (as S. Austin suppos'd it to be) then who ever adds to this any thing of faith and manners, though it be

not contrary, yet if it be not here, ought to be an ana∣thema, because of his own he adds to that rule of faith & manners which God (who only could do it) hath made. To this,* 1.161 Bellarmin answers; that S. Austin speaks only of the Creed, and the ten Commandments: such things which are simply necessary to all. He might have ad∣ded, that he speaks of the Lord's Prayer too; and all the other precepts of the Gospel; and particularly the eight Beatitudes, and the Sacraments. And what of the infallibility of the Roman Church? Is the belief of that necessary to all? But that is neither in the Creed, nor the ten Commandments. And what of the five Pre∣cepts of the Church; are they plainly in the Scripture? And after all this, and much more; if all that belongs to faith and good life be in the plain places of Scrip∣ture; then there is enough to make us wise unto sal∣vation. And he is a very wise and learned man that is so. For as by faith, S. Austin understands the whole Christian Faith; so by mores vivendi he understands hope and charity, as himself in the very place expresses him∣self. And beyond faith, hope, and charity, and all things that integrate them, what a Christian need to know, I have not learned: But if he would learn more yet; there are, in places less plain, things enough to make us learned unto Curiosity. Briefly, by S. Austin's doctrine, the Scripture hath enough for every one; and in all cases of necessary Religion; and much more then, what is ne∣cessary: nay, there is nothing besides it that can come into our rule.a 1.162 The Scripture is the consummation or utmost bounded rule of our doctrine that we may not dare to be wiser than we ought.] And that not only in the Question of widdow-hood, but in all questions, which belong unto life and manners of living; as himself in the same place declares. And it is not only for Laics and vulgar persons, but for all men: and not only for what is merely necessary;* 1.163 but to make us wise, to

make us perfect,* 1.164 saith the Apostle. And how can this man say, that the Scriptures makes a man perfect in ju∣stice? And he that is perfect in justice, needs no more revelation: which words are well enlarged by S. Cyril. [The Divine Scripture is sufficient to make them who are educated in it wise and most approv'd,* 1.165 and having a most sufficient understanding: And to this we need not any forraign teachers.] But lastly, if in the plain words of Scripture be contained all that is simply ne∣cessary to all; then it is clear, by Bellarmine's confes∣sion, that S. Austin affirm'd, that the plain places of Scripture are sufficient to all Laics and all Ideots, or private persons: and then as it is very ill done to keep them from the knowledge and use of the Scriptures, which contain all their duty, both of faith and good life; so it is very unnecessary to trouble them with any thing else: there being in the world no such trea∣sure and repository of faith and manners, and that so plain, that it was intended for all men, and for all such men is sufficient.* 1.166 [Read the holy Scriptures, where∣in you shall find some things to be holden, and some to be avoided.] This was spoken to the Monks and Brethren in the Desert, and to them that were to be guides of others, & the pastors of the reasonable flock; and in that whole Sermon he enumerates the admirable advanta∣ges, fulness and perfection of the Holy Scriptures, out of which themselves are to be taught, and by the fulness of which they are to teach others in all things. I shall not be troublesome by adding those many clear testimonies from other of the Fathers. But I cannot omit that of Anastasius of Antioch [It is manifest that these things are not to be inquir'd into,* 1.167 which the Scrip∣ture hath pass'd over in silence. For the Holy Spirit hath dispensed and administred to us all things which conduce to our profit.]* 1.168 If the Scriptures be silent, who will speak? said S. Prosper: what things we are ignorant of,

from them we learn said Theodoret,a 1.169 and there is no∣thing, which the Scriptures deny to dissolve, said Theo∣phylact.b 1.170 And the former of these, brings in the Christian, saying to Eranistes.c 1.171 Tell not me of your Lo∣gisms and Syllogisms; I rely upon Scripture only. But Ru∣pertus Tuitiensisd 1.172 his words are a fit conclusion to this heap of testimonies [Whatsoever is of the word of God, whatsoever ought to be known and preach'd of the Incar∣nation, of the true Divinity, and humanity of the Son of God, is so contain'd in the two Testaments, that besides these there is nothing ought to be declar'd or believ'd. The whole coelestial Oracle is comprehended in these; which we ought so firmly to know, that besides these, it is not lawful to hear either Man or Angel.] And all these are nothing else, but a full subscription to, and an ex∣cellent commentary upon, those words of S. Paul, Let no man pretend to be wise above what is written.

By the concourse of these testimonies of so many Learned, Orthodox, and Ancient Fathers we are abun∣dantly confirm'd in that rule and principle upon which the whole Protestant, and Christian Religion is esta∣blished. From hence we learn all things, and by these we prove all things, and by these we confute Heresies, and prove every Article of our Faith; according to this we live, and on these we ground our hope; and what∣soever is not in these, we reject from our Canon. And indeed, that the Canonical Scriptures should be our only and intire Rule, we are sufficiently convinc'd by the title which the Catholick Church gives, and always hath given to the holy Scriptures; for it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; the Rule of Christians for their whole Religion: The word it self, ends this Enquiry; for it cannot be a Canon if any thing be put to it or taken from it, saida 1.173 S. Basil,b 1.174 S. Chrysostome, andc 1.175 Varinus.

I hope I have competently prov'd the tradition I un∣dertook; and by it, that the holy Scriptures contain all things that are necessary to salvation. The sum is this, If tradition be not regardable, then the Scriptures alone are: but if it be regarded, then here is a full Tradi∣tion, That the Scriptures are a perfect rule: for that the Scriptures are the word of God, and contain in them all the word of God (in which we are concern'd,) is deliver'd by a full consent of all these, and many other Fathers, and no one Father denies it; which consent therefore is so great, that if it may not prevail, the topick of Tradition will be of no use at all to them who would fain adopt it into a part of the Canon. But this I shall consider more particularly.

Onely one thing more I am to adde, Concerning the interpretation and finding out the sense and meaning of the Scriptures. For though the Scriptures be allowed to be a sufficient repository of all that is necessary to salvation; yet we may mistake our way, if we have not some infallible Judge of their sense.

To him therefore that shall ask, How we shall inter∣pret and understand the Scriptures? I shall give that answer which I have learned from those Fathers, whose testimony I have alleged, to prove the fulness and sufficiency of Scripture. For if they were never so full, yet if it be fons signatus, and the waters of salvation do not issue forth, to refresh the souls of the weary, full they may be in themselves, but they are not suffi∣cient for us, nor for the work of God, in the salvation of man. But that it may appear that the Scriptures are indeed written by the hand of God, and therefore no way deficient from the end of their design, God hath made them plain and easie to all people that are wil∣ling and obedient.

So S. Cyril,* 1.176 Nihil in Scripturis difficile est iis qui in illis versantur ut decet. It is our own fault, our pre∣judice,

our foolish expectations, our carnal fancies, our interests and partialities make the Scriptures difficult. The Apostles did not, would not, could not under∣stand their Master and Lord, when he told them of his being put to death; They look'd for some other thing: and by that measure they would understand what was spoken, and by nothing else. But to them that are conversant in Scriptures as they ought, nothing is diffi∣cult; So S. Cyril: That is, nothing that is necessary for them to know; nothing that is necessary to make us wise unto salvation, which is the great end of man. To this purpose are the words of S. Austin,* 1.177 Inclinavit Deus Scripturas ad infantium & lactentium Capacita∣tem. God hath made the Scriptures to stoop to the Ca∣pacitie of babes and sucklings.] that so out of their mouths he may perfect praise.* 1.178 And S. Chrysostom says, that the Scriptures are faciles ad intelligendum, & prorsus expositae, they are expounded and easie to be understood, to the servant and the countrey-man, to the widow and the boy, and to him that is very un∣skilful.* 1.179 Omnia clara sunt & plana in Divinis literis; all things are clear and plain in the Divine writings; All things, that is, saith S. Chrysostom, Omnia necessaria aperta sunt & manifesta, All that is necessary, is open and manifest.

2. The Fathers say, that in such things (viz. in which our Salvation is concerned) the Scriptures need no interpreter; but a man may find them out himself by himself. Apostoli verò & Prophetae omnia contrà fe∣cerunt manifesta, claráque; quae prodiderunt, exposue∣runt nobis veluti communes orbis Doctores,* 1.180 ut per se quisque discere possit ea, quae dicuntur, ex solâ lectione. So S. Chrysostom, and therefore (saith he) what need is there of a Preacher? All things are clear and plain out of the Divine Scriptures. But ye seek for Preachers, because you are nice and delicate, and love to have

your ears pleased.] To the same purpose are those words of S. Cyril. Alex.* 1.181 The Divine Scripture is suf∣ficient to make them who are educated in it, wise and most approved, and having a most sufficient understand∣ing. And to this we need not any foreign teachers. There is no question but there are many places in the Divine Scriptures, mysterious, intricate and secret: but these are for the learned not the ignorant; for the curious and inquisitive, not for the busied and im∣ployed, and simple: they are not the repositories of salvation; but instances of labour, and occasions of hu∣mility, and arguments of forbearance, and mutual to∣leration, and an indearment of reverence and adoration. But all that by which God brings us to himself is plain and easie. In S. Paul's Epistles, S. Peter said, there were some things hard to be understood; but they were but quaedam, some things; there are enow besides which are very plain and easie, and sufficient for the instruction and the perfecting the man of God. S. Peter is indeed suppos'd to say; that in S. Paul's Epistles some things were hard; yet if we observe it rightly, he does not re∣late to S. Paul's writings, and way of expressing himself, but [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in which] relates to the mysterious matters contain'd in S. Paul's Epistles,* 1.182 of which S. Peter also there treats: the mysteries were so deep and sublime, so far remov'd from sense and humane experience, that it is very hard for us, poor ignorants, to understand them without difficulty, and constancy of labour and obser∣vation. But then, when such mysterious points occurre, let us be wary and wise, not hasty and decretory, but fearful and humble, modest and inquisitive. S. Paul expressed those deep mysteries, of the Coming of Christ to Judgement, and the conflagration of the world, as plainly as the things would easily bear; and therefore the difficulty was not in the style, but in the subject matter; nor there indeed, as they are in them∣selves,

so much as by the ignorance and instability, or unsetledness of foolish people: and although when things are easie there needs no interpreter, but the ve∣ry reading, and observing; and humility and diligence, simplicity and holiness are the best expositors in the world; yet when any such difficulty does occurre, we have a guide sufficient to carry us as farre as we need or ought to go. Therefore,

3. The way of the Ancient and Primitive Church was to expound the Scriptures by the Scriptures. So S. Clemens of Alexandria:* 1.183 perfectly demonstrating out of the Scriptures themselves concerning themselves: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Confirming every thing from those things which are demonstrated from the Scriptures out of those and the like Scriptures.* 1.184 To the same purpose are the words of S. Athanasius [The knowledge of true and Di∣vine religion and piety does not much need the Mini∣stery of man, and he might abundantly draw this forth from the Divine books and Letters.] S. Paul's way of teaching us to expound Scripture, is, that he that pro∣phecies should do it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the analogy of faith; the fundamental proportions of faith are the measures by which we are to exact the sense and meaning of points more difficult and less necessa∣ry. This way S. Clement urges in other expressions.

[Truth is not found in the translation of significa∣tions,* 1.185 for so they might overthrow all true doctrine: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but in this, that every one consider what is perfectly agreeable to our Lord the Almigh∣ty God, and what is decent, or fit to be said of him.]

If we follow this way close, our interpretations of Scripture can never be impious, and can never lead in∣to dangerous errour.

4. In pursuance of this, the Ancient Fathers took

this way, and taught us to do so too; to expound difficult places by the plain.* 1.186 So S. Austin: Magnificè & salubritèr Spiritus Sanctus, &c. The Holy Spirit hath magnificently, and wholsomly, qualified the Holy Scriptures, that in the more open (or plainer) places, provision is made for our hunger, (viz. for our need) and in the obscure there is nothing tedious (or loath∣som.) Nihil enim ferè de illis obscuritatibus eruit quod non planissimè dictum alibi reperiatur. For there is scarce any thing drawn from those obscure places, but the same in other places may be found spoken most plainly.] Bellarmine observes,* 1.187 that S. Austin uses the word ferè, almost; meaning, that though by plainer places, most of the obscure places may be clear'd; yet not all. And truly it is very probable, that S. Austin did mean so. But then if there be any obscure places that cannot be so enlightned; what is to be done with them? S. Au∣stin says,* 1.188 that in such places, let every one abound in his own sense, and expound as well as he can: quae obscurè vel ambiguè, vel figuratè dicta sunt, quae quisque sicut voluerit interpretetur secundum sensum suum. But yet still he calls us to the rule of plain pla∣ces; Talia autem rectè intelligi exponique non possunt nisi priùs ea quae apertissimè dicta sunt, firma fide te∣neantur. The plain places of Scripture are the way of expounding the more obscure, and there is no other, viz. so apt, and certain.

And after all this; I deny not but there are many other external helps. God hath set Bishops and Priests; Preachers and Guides of our Souls over us; and they are appointed to teach others as far as they can, and it is to be suppos'd they can do it best; but then the way for them to find out the meaning of obscure places is that which I have now describ'd out of the Fathers, and by the use of that means they will be best enabled to teach others.

If any man can find a better way than the Fathers have taught us, he will very much oblige the world by declaring it; and giving a solid experiment that he can do what he undertakes. But because no man, and no company of men, hath yet expounded all hard places with certaintie and without error; it is an intolerable vanitie to pretend to a power of doing that which no charitie hath ever obliged them to do for the good of the Church, and the glory of God, and the rest of in∣quiring Souls.

I end this tedious discourse, with the words of S. Austin.* 1.189 Nolo humanis documentis, sed Divinis oraculis Ecclesiam demonstrari. If you enquire where, or which is the Church; from humane teachings you can never find her: she is only demonstrated in the Divine Oracles.]* 1.190 Therefore if any man speak, let him speak as the Oracles of God.

SECTION III.

Of Traditions.

TRadition is any way of delivering a thing, or word to another; and so every doctrine of Christianity, is by Tradition.* 1.191 I have deliver'd unto you saith S. Paul, that Christ died for our sins. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.192 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, say the Grammarians; and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in S. Jude, the faith deliver'd, is the same which S. Paul explicates by saying 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the traditions, that is, the doctrines ye were taught. And S.* 1.193 Irenaeus calls it a tradition Apostolical that Christ took the Cup, and said it was his bloud; and to believe in one God, and in

Christ who was born of a Virgin, was the old tradition; that is, the thing deliver'd, & not at first written; which the Barbarians kept diligently. But Tradition signified either. Preaching or Writing, as it hapned. When it signified Preaching, it was only the first way of com∣municating the Religion of Jesus Christ: and untill the Scriptures were written, and consign'd by the full testimony of the Apostles, and Apostolical Churches respectively; they, in the Questions of Religion, usual∣ly appeal'd to the tradition, or the constant retention of such a doctrine in those Churches where the Apo∣stles first preach'd, and by the succession of Bishops in those Churches, who without variety or change, had still remembred and kept the same doctrine, which at first was deliver'd by the Apostles! So Irenaeus, If the Apostles had not left the Scriptures to us,* 1.194 must not we (viz. in this case) have followed the order of tradition which they deliver'd to them, to whom they intrusted the Church; to which ordination many Nations of Barbarians do assent? And that which was true then, is also true now; for, if the Apostles had never written at all, we must have followed tradi∣tion; unless God had provided for us some better thing. But it is observable that Irenaeus says, That this way is only in the destitution of Scripture. But since God hath supplied not only the principal Chur∣ches with the Scriptures; but even all the Nations which the Greeks and Romans call'd Barbarous; now to run to Tradition, is to make use of a staff or a wood∣en Leg, when we have a good Leg of our own. The traditions at the first publication of Scriptures were clear, evident, recent, remembred, talk'd of by all Chri∣stians, in all their meetings, publick and private; and the mistaking of them by those who carefully endea∣vour'd to remember them, was not easie; and, if there had been a mistake, there was an Apostle living, or

one of their immediate Disciples, to set all things right. And therefore untill the Apostles were all dead,* 1.195 there was no dispute considerable amongst Christians, but what was instantly determin'd, or suppress'd; and the Heresies that were, did creep and sting clancularly, but made no great show. But when the Apostles were all dead; then that Apostasie foretold, began to appear; and Heresies, of which the Church was warned, be∣gan to arise. But it is greatly to be remark'd; There was then no Heresie that pretended any foundation from Scripture;* 1.196 but from tradition, many:* 1.197 for it was accounted so glorious a thing to have been taught by an Apostle,* 1.198 that even good men were willing to be∣lieve any thing which their Scholars pretended to have heard their Masters preach;* 1.199 and too many were for∣ward to say,* 1.200 they heard them teach what they never taught;* 1.201 and the pretence was very easie to be made by the Contemporaries or Immediate descendants after the Apostles;* 1.202 and now that they were dead, it was so difficult to confute them, that the Hereticks found it an easie game to play, to say, They heard it deliver'd by an Apostle. Many did so, and some were at first be∣lieved, and yet were afterwards discovered; some were cried down at first, and some expir'd of them∣selves, and some were violently thrust away. But how many of those which did descend and pass on to custome were of a true and Apostolical original, and how many were not so, it will be impossible to find now; only, because we are sure there was some false deal∣ing in this matter, and we know there might be much more than we have discover'd, we have no reason to rely upon any tradition for any part of our faith; any more than we could do upon Scripture, if one Book or Chapter of it should be detected to be imposture. But there were two cases, in which tradition was then us'd: The one was, when the Scriptures had not been writ∣ten

or communicated, as among divers nations of the Barbarians. The other was, when they disputed with persons who receiv'd not all the Scriptures; as did the Carpocratians, of whom* 1.203 Irenaeus speaks. In these cases tradition was urg'd, that because they did not agree about the authority of one instrument, they should be admitted to trial upon the other. For as Antonius Marinarius said truly and wisely, The Fathers served themselves of this topick onely in case of ne∣cessity, never thinking to make use of it in competition against holy Scripture.

But then it is to be observ'd, that in both these ca∣ses the use of tradition is not at all pertinent to the Question now in hand. For, first, the Question was not then, as now it is, between personn who equally ac∣count of Scriptures as the word of God; and to whom the Scriptures have been from many generations con∣sign'd. For they that had receiv'd Scriptures at the first, relied upon them; they that had not, were to use tra∣dition, and the topick of succession, to prove their do∣ctrine to have come from the Apostles: that is, they were fain to call Witnesses, when they could not pro∣duce a Will in writing. But secondly, in other cases the old hereticks had the same Question as we have now.* 1.204 For besides the Scripture, they said that, Jesus in mystery spake to his disciples and Apostles some things in secret and apart,* 1.205 because they were worthy. And so Christ said, I have many things to say, but ye cannot hear them now. For this place of Scripture was to this purpose urg'd by the most foolish hereticks: Just thus do the Doctors of the Church of Rome at this day.* 1.206 So Bellarmine [They preach'd not to the people all things, but those which were necessary to them, or profitable, but other things they deliver'd apart to the more perfect.] Here then is the popish ground of their traditions; they cannot deny but necessary and profitable things

were deliver'd in publick, and to all: but some secret things were reserv'd for the secret ones. For the Scriptures are as the Credential Letters to an Embas∣sadour; but traditions are as the private Instructions. This was the pretence of the old Hereticks, and is of the modern Papists: who while they say the same thing, pretend for it also the same authority, saying, that Traditions also are to be receiv'd,* 1.207 because they are recommended in Scripture. Of this I shall here∣after give account: In the mean time,

Concerning this, I remember that a great man of the Roman party falls foul upon Castellio,* 1.208 for saying, The Apostle had some more secret doctrine which he did not commit to writing, but deliver'd it to some more perfect persons; and that the word of God was not sufficient for deciding controversies of religion, how∣ever it be expounded, but that a more perfect revela∣tion is to be expected. Upon which he hath these words, Intolerabile est, ut Paulus, quam accepit recondi∣tiorem doctrinam, non scripto consignaverit; fuisset enim alioqui infidelis depositi Minister. And it was most reasonable which Antonius Marinarius, a Frier Carmelite, did say, If some things were deliver'd in secret, it was under secret; because the Apostles might as well have publish'd it as their disciples: but if it was deliver'd as a secret, and consequently to be kept as secret, how came the successors of the Apostles to pub∣lish this secret? to break open the seal, and reveal the forbidden secret? And secondly, If the secret tradition which certainly was not necessary to all, be made pub∣lick, how shall we know which traditions are necessary, and which are not? Certain it is, the secret tradition could not of it self be necessary; and therefore if it becomes so by being made publick, it is that which the Apostles intended not, for they would have it secret. And therefore it follows that now no man can tell that

any of their traditions was intended as necessary; be∣cause the onely way by which we could know which was and which was not necessary, viz. the making the one publick and keeping the other private, is now de∣stroyed, since they are all alike common. All that which was delivered to all and in publick, was, by the provi∣dence of God ministring apt occasions, and by the Spirit of God inspiring the Apostles and Evangelists with a will to do it, set down in writing, that they might re∣main upon record for ever to all generations of the Church: So S. Peter promis'd to the Jews of the dis∣persion, that he would do some thing to put them in remembrance of the things he had taught them; and he was as good as his word, and imployed S. Mark to write the Gospel: others also of the Apostles took the same care; and all were directed by God, and parti∣cular occurrences were concentred in the general de∣sign and counsel of God.* 1.209 So S. Irenaeus, [The Gospel which the Apostles preach'd, afterwards by the will of God, they deliver'd to us in the Scriptures.] It was a Tradition still; but now the word signified in its primitive and natural sense, not in the modern and Ec∣clesiastical. But Irenaeus speaks of the Gospel;* 1.210 that is, the whole Gospel of God: not all the particulars that Jesus spake and did,* 1.211 but [What ever Christ would have us to read of his words and works, he commanded them to write, as if it were by his own hands.] And there∣fore Electa sunt quae scriberentur, quaè saluti credentium sufficere videbantur. There was a choice made of such things as were to be written: It was not therefore done by chance and contingency (as many of the Roman Doctors in disparagement of the Scriptures sufficiency do object) but the things were chosen, saith S. Austin; it was according to the will of God, said S. Irenaeus; and the choice was very good; all that suffic'd to the sal∣vation of believers: according to the words of S. John,

These things were written that ye might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,* 1.212 and that believing ye might have life through his name. And indeed there cannot be any probable cause inducing any wise man to believe that the Apostles should pretend to write the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that they should insert ma∣ny things more then necessary, and yet omit any thing that was, and yet still call it the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Nicephorus calls the Epistles of S. Paul,* 1.213 A summary of what he plainly and explicitely did teach; much more is every Gospel. But when all the four Gospels, and the Apostolical Acts, and Epistles, and the Visions of S. John were all tied into a Volume, by the counsel of God, by the dictate of the Holy Spirit, and by the choice of the Apostles; it cannot be probable that this should not be all the Gospel of Jesus Christ, all his Will and Testament.* 1.214 And therefore in vain does the Cardinal Perron strive to escape from this by acknow∣ledging that the Gospel is the foundation of Christiani∣ty, as Grammar is the foundation of Eloquence; as the Institutions of Justinian, is of the study of the law; as the principles and institutions of a science are of the whole profession of it. It is not, in his sense, the foun∣dation of Christian doctrine, but it contains it all; not onely in general, but in special; not onely virtual, but actual; not mediate, but immediate; for a few lines would have serv'd for a foundation General, virtual and mediate; If the Scripture had said, The Church of Rome shall always be the Catholick Church, and the founda∣tion of faith; she shall be infallible, and to her all Christians ought to have recourse for determinati∣on of their Questions; this had been a sufficient vir∣tual and mediate foundation: But when four Gospels containing Christs Sermons and his Miracles, his Pre∣cepts and his Promises; the Mysteries of the Kingdom, and the way of Salvation; the things hidden from

the beginning of the world, and the glories reserv'd to the great day of light and manifestation of Jesus; to say, that yet all these Gospels, and all the Epistles of S. Paul, S. Peter, S. James and S. John, and the Acts and Sermons of the Apostles, in the first establishing the Church, are all but a foundation virtual; and that they point out the Church indeed, by saying, she is the pillar and ground of truth; but leave you to her for the foundation actual, special and immediate; is an affir∣mation against the notoreity of fact. Add to this, that S. Irenaeus spake these words concerning the Scrip∣tures;* 1.215 in confutation of them, who leaving the Scrip∣tures, did run to Traditions, pretendedly Apostolical.

And though it be true, that the traditions they re∣lyed upon were secret, Apocryphal, forg'd and sup∣pos'd; yet because even at that time there were such false wares obtruded, and even then the Hereticks could not want pretences sufficient to deceive, and hopes to prevail; How is it to be imagined, that in the descent of sixteen ages, the cheat might not be too prevalent? when, if the traditions be question'd, it will be impossible to prove them; and if they be false, it will (except it be by Scripture) be impossible to confute them. And after all; if yet there be any doctrines of faith or manners which are not contain'd in Scripture, and yet were preach'd by the Apostles, let that be prov'd, let the traditions be produc'd, and the records sufficient, primely credible and au∣thentick, and we shall receive them. So vain a way of arguing it is, to say, The Traditions, against which S. Irenaeus speaks, were false, but ours are true; Theirs were secret, but ours were open and notorious: For there are none such: And Bellarmine himself, acknow∣ledges, that the necessary things are deliver'd in Scriptures; and those which were reserv'd for tradi∣tion, were deliver'd apart; that is, secretly by the

Apostles. Now if they were so on all sides; what rule shall we have to distinguish the Valentinian Traditions from the Roman?* 1.216 and why shall we believe these more than those; since all must be equally taken upon pri∣vate testimony at first? And although it will be said, That the Roman Traditions were receiv'd by after∣ages, and the other were not: yet this shews no∣thing else, but that some had the fate to prevail, and others had not. For it is certain; that some were a long time believ'd, even for some whole ages, un∣der the name of Apostolical Tradition; (as the Mille∣nary opinion, and the Asiatick manner of keeping Easter) which yet came to be dis-believ'd in their time: and also, it is certain that many which really were Apo∣stolical Traditions, perished from the memory of men, and had not so long lives, as many that were not: So that all this is by chance, and can make no difference in the just authority. And therefore it is vainly said of Cardinal Perron, That the case is not the same, be∣cause theirs are wrong, and ours are right. For this ought not to have been said, till it were prov'd; and if it were prov'd, the whole Question were at an end: for we should all receive them which were manifested to be doctrines Apostolical. But in this, there need no further dispute from the authority of Irenaeus: his words concerning the fulness of Scripture, as to the whole doctrine of Christ, being so clear and manifest, as appears in the testimonies brought from him in the foregoing Section. Optatus compares the Scriptures to the Testator's Will:* 1.217 If there be a controversie a∣mongst the descendants of the house, run to the Scrip∣tures, see the Original will; The Gospels are Christ's Testament; and the Epistles are the Codicils annex'd, and but by these we shall never know the will of the Testator. But because the Books of Scripture were not all written at once; nor at once communicated,

nor at once receiv'd, therefore the Churches of God at first, were forc'd to trust their memories, and to try the doctrines, by appealing to the memories of others; that is, to the consenting report, and faith deliver'd and preach'd to other Churches, especially the chief∣est, where the memory of the Apostles was recent, and permanent. The mysteriousness of Christ's Priest∣hood, the perfection of his sacrifice, and the unity of it, Christ's advocation, and Intercession for us in Heaven, might very well be accounted traditions, before Saint Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, was admitted for Canoni∣cal; but now they are written truths: and if they had not been written, it is likely we should have lost them. But this way could not long be necessary, and could not not long be safe. Not necessary, because it was supplied by a better; and to be tied to what was only necessary in the first state of things, is just as if a man should always be tied to suck milk, because at first in his infancy, it was fit he should. Not safe, because it grew worse and worse every day. And therefore in a little while, even the Traditions themselves were so far from being the touch-stone of true doctrine, that themselves were brought to the stone of trial; And the Tradition would not be admitted, unless it were in Scripture. By which it appears, that Tradition could not be a part of the rule of faith, distinct from the Scrip∣tures, but it self was a part of it; that is, whatsoever was deliver'd and preach'd, was recorded; which they so firmly believed, that they rejected the Tradition, unless it were so recorded: and 2. It hence also fol∣lows, that Tradition was, and was esteemed, the worse way of conveying propositions and stories; be∣cause the Church requir'd that the Traditions should be prov'd by Scriptures; that is, the less certain by the more:* 1.218 That this was so, S. Cyprian is a sufficient witness. For when Pope Stephen had said, Let no

thing be chang'd; only that which is deliver'd, mean∣ing the old Tradition, that was to be kept; S. Cyprian enquires from whence that Tradition comes? Does it come from the Gospels, or the Epistles, or the Acts of the Apostles? So that after the writing and reception of Scriptures, Tradition meant the same thing which was in Scripture; or if it did not, the Fathers would not admit it.* 1.219 All things which are deliver'd to us by the Law and the Prophets, the Apostles and Evangelists, we receive, and know, and reverence: But we enquire not further;* 1.220 nothing beyond them. If the Traditions be agreeable to Scripture, (said S. Irenaeus;) that is, if that which is pretended to be taught at first, be record∣ed by them who did teach it, then all is well. And this affair is fully testified by the words of Eusebius,* 1.221 which are greatly conclusive of this Inquiry. [We have (saith he) promis'd that we would propose the voi∣ces of the old Ecclesiastical Presbyters and Writers; by which they declared the traditions by the authority wit∣nessed and consign'd of the approv'd Scriptures.] A∣mongst whom was Irenaeus, says the Latin version.

But I shall descend to a consideration of the particu∣lars, which pretend to come to us by tradition, and without it cannot (as it is said) be prov'd by Scripture.

1. It is said that the Scripture it self is wholly de∣riv'd to us by tradition; and therefore, besides Scrip∣ture, Tradition is necessary in the Church. And in∣deed no man that understands this Question, denies it: This tradition, that these books were written by the Apostles, and were deliver'd by the Apostles to the Churches as the word of God, relies principally upon Tradition Universal; that is, it was witnessed to be true by all the Christian world at their first being so consign'd. Now then this is no part of the word of God; but the notification, or manner of conveying the word of God; the instrument of it's delivery. So that the tradition con∣cerning

the Scripture's being extrinsecal to Scripture is also extrinsecal to the Question; This Tradition can∣not be an objection against the sufficiency of Scripture to salvation: but must go before this question. For no man inquires, Whether the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation? unless he believe that there are Scriptures; that these are they; and that they are the word of God: All this comes to us by Tradition, that is, by universal undeniable testimony. After the Scri∣ptures are thus receiv'd, there is risen another Questi∣on, viz. Whether or no these Scriptures so deliver'd to us, do contain all the word of God; or, Whether or no, besides the Tradition that goes before Scripture, which is an instrumental Tradition onely of Scripture, there be not also something else that is necessary to salvation consign'd by Tradition, as well as the Scri∣pture; and of things as necessary or useful as what is contain'd in Scripture, and that is equally the Word of God as Scripture is? The Tradition of Scripture we receive; but of nothing else but what is in Scripture. And if it be ask'd,* 1.222 Why we receive one, and not the rest: we answer, because we have but one Traditi∣on of things necessary; that is, there is an Universal Tradition of Scripture, and what concerns it; but none of other things which are not in Scripture: And there is no ne∣cessity we should have any; all things necessary and profitable to the salvation of all men, being plainly con∣tain'd in Scriptures; and this sufficiency also, being part of that Tradition as I am now proving.

But because other things also are pretended to be,* 1.223 or are necessary, and yet are said not to be in Scri∣pture, it is necessary that this should be examin'd, 1. First, all the

Nicene definitions, Trinity of persons in one Divine essence. This I should not have thought worthy of considering in the words here expressed, but that a friend,* 1.224 it seems, of my own, whom I know not, but yet an adversary, as he who should know him best (that is, himself) assures me, is pleas'd to use these words in the objection. To this I answer first, that this Gentleman would be much to seek if he were put to it, to prove the Trinity of persons in one Divine es∣sence to be an express Nicene definition; and there∣fore, if he means that as an instance of the Nicene defi∣nitions, he will find himself mistaken. Indeed at Nice, the Consubstantiality of the Father and the Son was determin'd; but nothing of the Divinity of the holy Ghost, That was the result of after-Councils. But whatever it was which was there determin'd, I am sure it was not determin'd by tradition, but by Scripture. So S. Athanasius tells us of the faith which was con∣fess'd by the Nicene Fathers;* 1.225 it was the faith confess'd according to the holy Scriptures: and speaking to Sera∣pion of the holy Trinity,* 1.226 he says, Learn this out of the holy Scriptures. For the documents you find in them, are sufficient. And, writing against Samosatenus, he proves the Incarnation of the Son of God out of the Gospel of S. John, saying, It becomes us to stick close to the word of God.* 1.227 And therefore when Constantine the Empe∣rour exhorted the Nicene Fathers to concord in the question then to be disputed; they being Divine mat∣ters, he would they should be ended by the authority of the Divine Scriptures. [For, saith he, the books of the Evangelists and Apostles,* 1.228 as also the Oracles of the old Prophets, do evidently teach us what we are to think of the Deity. Therefore all seditious contention being laid aside, let us determine the things brought into question by the testimonies of the divinely inspired Scriptures.] And they did so. And by relying on

Scriptures onely, we shall never be constrain'd to quit these glorious portions of Evangelical truth, the In∣carnation of the eternal Word, and the Consubstan∣tiality of the Father and the Son. Whatsoever ought to be known of these mysteries is contain'd in both Te∣staments; saith Rupertus Tuitiensis, before quoted. And if the holy Scriptures did not teach us in these my∣steries, we should find Tradition to be but a lame leg, or rather a reed of Egypt.* 1.229 For Artemon, who was the first founder of that errour which afterwards belch'd into Arianism, pretended a tradition from the Apostles, that Christ was a meer man. And that Tradition descen∣ded to the time of Pope Zepherinus,* 1.230 who first gave a stop to it: and Justin Martyr says, that divers among the Christians, affirm'd Christ to be not God of God, but man of man.* 1.231 And the Arians offer'd to be tried by Tradition; and therefore pretended to it, and there∣fore, the Catholicks did not; at least according to the new doctrine, That if one pretends Tradition, the other cannot. But (for all that trifle) S. Athanasius did some∣times pretend to it, though not always; and this shews that there was no clear, indubitate, notorious, universal Tradition in the Question; and if there were not such an one, as good none at all; for it could not be such a foundation as was fit to build our faith upon, especially in such mysterious articles. But it is remarkable what Eusebius recites out of an old Author, who wrote against the heresie of Artemon, which afterwards Samo∣satenus renewed, and Arius made publick with some alteration [They all say (says he) that our Ancestors and the Apostles themselves,* 1.232 not onely to have receiv'd from our Lord those things which they now affirm, but that they taught it to others; and the preaching or traditi∣on of it run on to the days of Pope Victor, and was kept intire, but was deprav'd by Pope Zepherin. And truly that which was said by them might seem to have in it

much of probability, if the Divine Scriptures did not first of all contradict them, and that there were wri∣tings of some Brethren elder than the times of Victor. The Brethren, whose writings he names, are, Justin, Militiades, Tatian, Clemens, Irenaeus, and the Psalms and Hymns of divers, made in honour of Christ.] From all which it is evident; that the Questions at Nice, were not, and could not be determin'd by tradi∣tion. 2. That Tradition might be, and was pretended on both sides. 3. That when it is pretended by the contra∣dicting parties with some probability, it can effectually serve neither. 4. That the Tradition the Samosatenians and Arians boasted of, had in it much probability, when look'd upon in it's own series and proper state. 5. That the Divine Scriptures were at that time, the best firmament of the Church, and defended her from that abuse, which might have been impos'd upon her, under the title of Tradition. 6. That even when tradition was oppos'd to tradition, and the right to the wrong, yet it was not Oral or Verbal tradition (accord∣ing to the new mode) but the writings of the Doctors that were before them. But after all this, I cannot but observe and deplore the sad consequents of the Roman Doctors pretention that, This great mystery of Godliness, God manifested in the Flesh, relies wholly upon unwritten traditions. For the Socinians, know∣ing that tradition was on both sides claim'd in this Ar∣ticle, please themselves in the Concession of their ad∣versaries, that this is not to be prov'd by Scripture. So they alledge the testimony of Eccius, and Cardinal Hosius, one of the Legats, presiding at Trent; Doctri∣nam de Trino & Vno Deo,* 1.233 esse dogma Traditionis, & ex Scripturâ nullâ ratione probari posse. The same was affirm'd by Tanner, and all that were on that side, in the Conference at Ratisbon, by Hieronymus à S. Hya∣eintho, and others. Now they being secur'd by their

very enemies, that they need not fear Scriptures in this question; and knowing of themselves that tradition cannot alone do it; they are at peace, and dwell in confidence in this their Capital Error: and the false peace is owing to the Roman Doctors; who in Italy help to make Atheists,* 1.234 and in Polonia, Socinians: and as a Consequent to all this, I remember they scorn Ci∣chovius who endeavoured to confute them by a hun∣dred arguments from Scriptures, since his own parties do too freely declare, that not one of those hundred prove the Question.

2. The next necessary Article pretended to stand upon Tradition, is, The baptizing Children. Concern∣ing which, I consider either the matter of fact, or mat∣ter of doctrine. The matter of fact is indifferent, if abstracted from the doctrine. For at the first, they did, or they did not, according as they pleased; for there is no pretence of Tradition, that the Church in all ages, did baptize all the Infants of Christian Parents: It is more certain, that they did not do it always, than that they did it in the first age. S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, and S. Austin were born of Christian Parents, and yet not baptiz'd untill the full age of a man, and more. But that the Apostles did baptize any Children, is not at all reported by a primely credible Tradition, or a famous report: but that they did so is only conjectur'd at; or if it be more, yet that more, whatsoever it be, relies upon the testimony of Scripture; as S. Paul's bap∣tizing the housholds of Stephanas, and the Jaylor. But then if they did, or if they did not, yet without an appendant doctrine, this passes on by the voluntary practise of the Church; and might be, or not be, as they pleas'd; as it was in the case of confirming them, and communicating them at the same time they bapti∣zed them; Concerning which, because we live to have seen and read of several Customs of the Church

in several ages; it is also after the same manner in baptism, if we consider it only in the matter of fact.

But then if we consider the doctrine appendant to it, or the cause why it is pretended they were baptiz'd; even that children should be brought to Christ, should receive his blessing, should be adopted into the King∣dom of God, should be made members of the second Adam, and be translated from the death introduc'd by the first, to the life revealed by the second, and that they may receive the Holy Spirit, and a title to the promises Evangelical, and be born again, and admit∣ted into a state of Covenant, in which they can receive the gift of eternal life (which I take to be the proper reasons, why the Church baptizes Infants:) all these are wholly deriv'd to us from Scripture-grounds. But then as to that Reason, upon which the Church of Rome baptizes Infants, even because it is necessary, and because without it, children shall not see God; it is certain there is no Universal, or prime Tradition for that S. Austin was the hard Father of that doctrine. And if we take the whole doctrine and practice together without distinction, that it was the custom so to do in some Churches, and at sometimes, is without all que∣stion; but that there is a tradition from the Apo∣stles so to do, relies but upon two witnesses, Origen, and S. Austin; and the latter having receiv'd it from the former, it relies wholly upon his single testimony, which is but a pitiful argument to prove a tradition Apostolical.* 1.235 He is the first that spoke it; but Ter∣tullian, that was before him, seems to speak against it; which he would not have done, if it had been a tradi∣tion Apostolical. And that it was not so, is but too certain, if there be any truth in the words of Ludovi∣cus Vives,* 1.236 saying, that anciently none were baptiz'd, but persons of ripe age: which words I suppose are to be understood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and for the most part. But

although the tradition be uncertain, weak, little and contingent; yet the Church of God, when ever she did it (and she might do it at any time,) did do it upon Scripture-grounds. And it was but weakly said by Cardinal Perron,* 1.237 that There is no place of Scripture by which we can evidently, and necessarily convince the Anabaptists. For 1. If that were true, yet it is more certain, that by Tradition they will never be per∣swaded; not only because there is no sufficient, and full tradition; but because they reject the Topick. 2. Although the Anabaptists endeavour to elude the arguments of Scripture, yet it follows not that Scrip∣ture is not clear and certain in the Article: for it is an easie thing, to say something to every thing; but if that be enough against the argument, then no Heretick can be convinc'd by Scripture, and there is in Scripure; no pregnant testimony for any point of faith, for in all questions, all Hereticks prattle something. And therefore, it is not a wise procedure, to say; The ad∣versaries do answer the testimonies of Scripture; and by Scripture, cannot be convinc'd; and therefore chuse some other way of probation. For when that is done, will they be convinc'd? and cannot the Cardinal satis∣fie himself by Scripture, though the Heretick will not confess himself confuted? The Papists say, They an∣swer the Protestants Arguments from Scripture; but though they say so to eternal ages, yet in the world no∣thing is plainer, than that they only say so; and that, for all that confident and enforc'd saying, the Scrip∣tures are still apparently against them. 3. If the Ana∣baptists speak probably, and reasonably in their an∣swers; then it will rather follow, that the point is not necessary, than that it must be prov'd necessary by some other Topick. 4. All people that believe Bap∣tism of Infants necessary, think that they sufficiently prove it from Scripture; and Bellarmine, though

he also urges this point as an argument for Traditions; yet, upon wiser thoughts, he proves it, (and not Unsuc∣cessfully) by three arguments from Scripture.

3. Like to this, is the pretence of the validity of the Baptism of Hereticks: It is Cardinal Perron's own in∣stance, and the first of the four he alledges for the neces∣sity of Tradition, This he holds for a doctrine Ortho∣dox, and Apostolick; and yet (says he) there is no word of it in Scripture. Concerning this, I think the issue will be short; If there be nothing of it in Scrip∣ture, it is certain, there was no Apostolical tradition for it. For S. Cyprian and all his Collegues were of an opinion contrary to that of the Roman Church in this Article;* 1.238 and when they oppos'd against S. Cyprian a Tradition, he knew of no such thing, and bad them prove their tradition from Scripture. 2. S. Austin, who was something warm in this point, yet confesses, the Apostles commanded nothing in it; but then he does al∣most begus to believe, it came from them. Consuetu∣do illa quae opponebatur Cypriano, ab eorum traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est; si cut sunt multa quae universa tenet Ecclesia, & ob hoc ab Apostolis benè praecepta traduntur, quanquam scripta non reperiantur: which in plain meaning is this; We find a Custome in the Church, and we know not whence it comes; and it is so in this, as in many other things; and therefore let us think the best, and believe it came by tradition from the Apostles. But it seems, himself was not sure that so little a foundation could carry so big a weight, he therefore plainly hath recourse to Scripture in this Question.* 1.239 [Whether is more pernitious, not to be baptiz'd, or to be re-baptiz'd, is hard to judge: never∣theless, having recourse to the standard of our Lord, where the monuments of this are not estimated by humane sense, but by Divine authority, I find concerning each of them, the Sentence of our Lord; to wit, in the Scrip∣tures.]

But 3. The Question it self, is not a thing necessary; for S. Cyprian and the Bishops of Cappado∣cia and Galatia, and almost two parts of the known world, whose sentiment was differing from others, yet liv'd and dyed in the Communion of those Churches, who believ'd the contrary doctrin: and so it might have been still, if things were estimated but according to their intrinsick value.* 1.240 And since, as S. Austin says, they might safely differ in judgment before the determina∣tion of this Question in a Council; it follows evident∣ly, that there was no clear tradition against them; or, if there were, that was not esteem'd a good Catholick, or convincing argument. For as it is not imaginable, so great and wise a part of the Catholick Church should be ignorant of any famous Apostolical tradition; especially when they were call'd upon to attend to it, and were urg'd and press'd by it: so, it is also very cer∣tain, there was none such in S. Cyprian's time, because the sixth general Council approv'd of the Canon made in the Council of Carthage,* 1.241 because in praedictorum praesulum locis & solum secundùm traditam eis consue∣tudinem servatus est. 4. It had been best, if the Que∣stion had never been mov'd; and the next best had been to have suppress'd and forgotten it instantly; for as it came in by zeal and partiality in the hands of the Cappadocian Bishops, so it was fed by pride and faction in the hands of the Donatists; and it could have no determination, but the mere nature of the thing it self; all the Apostles and Ministers of Religion were commanded to baptize in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and this was an ad∣mission to Christianity, not to any sect of it; and if this had been consider'd wisely, so it had been done by a Christian Minister in matter and form, there could be no more in it. And therefore the whole thing was to no purpose: so far was it from being an Article of Faith.

4. The next pretence is, that the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, is an Article of our Faith, and yet no where told in Scripture; and consequently tradition must help to make up the object of our Faith. To this some very excellent persons have oppos'd this Consideration, that the Greeks and Latins differ but in modo loquendi; and therefore both speaking the same thing in differing words, show, that the Controversie it self is trifling or mistaken. But though I wish them agreed; yet when I consider, that in all the endeavours for Union at the Council of Flo∣rence, they never understood one another to purposes of peace; I am apt to believe that those who would re∣concile them, shew their piety more than the truth of the thing, and that the Greeks and Latins differ'd intirely in this point. But then that on the Latin side, there should be a tradition Apostolical, can upon no other account be pretended, but that they could not prove it by Scripture, or shew any Ecclesiastical law or authori∣ty for it. Now if we consider that the Greeks pretend their doctrine, not only from Scripture, but also from immemorial tradition, that is, that they have not inno∣vated the doctrine which their Fathers taught them; and on the other side, that the Latins have, contrary to the Canon of the Council of Ephesus, superadded the clause of Filióque to the Constantinopolitan-Creed, and that by authority of a little Convention of Bi∣shops at Gentilly, neer to Paris, without the consent of the Catholick Church; and that by the Confession of Cardinal Perron,* 1.242 not only the Scripture favours the Greeks, but Reason also; because it is unimaginable, that the same particular effect should proceed from two principles in the same kind; and although the three Per∣sons created the world, yet that production was from the Divine essence, which is but one principle; but the opinion of the Latius is, that the Holy Ghost pro∣ceeds

from two Persons, as Persons, and therefore from two principles, it will be very hard to suppose, that be∣cause all this is against them, therefore it is certain, that they had this from Apostolical tradition. The more natural consequence is, that their proposition is either mistaken, or uncertain, or not an article of Faith, (which is rather to be hop'd, lest we condemn all the Greek Churches as Infidels, or perverse Here∣ticks,) or else that it can be deriv'd from Scripture; which last is indeed the most probable, and pursuant to the doctrine of those wiser Latins, who examin'd things by reason, and not by prejudice. But Cardinal Perron's argument is no better than this: Titius was accus'd to have deserted his station in the Battel, and carried false Orders to the Legion of Spurinna; He an∣swers, I must either have received Orders from the General, or else you must suppose me to be a Coward, or a Traytor; for I had no warrant for what I did from the Book of Military Discipline: Well, what if you be sup∣pos'd to be a Coward, or Traytor; what hurt is in that supposition? But must I conclude, that you had Order from the General, for fear I should think you did it on your own head, or that you are a Traytor? That's the case; Either this proposition is deriv'd to us by Aposto∣lical tradition, or we have nothing else to say for our selves: well! Nempe hoc Ithacus velit; The Greeks al∣low the argument, and will say thus: You had no∣thing to say for your selves, unless we grant that to you which is the Question, and which you can never prove, viz. that there is for this Article, an Apostolical tradition: but because both sides pretend that, let us try this thing by Scripture. And indeed that's the only way. And Cardinal Perron's argument may by any Greek be inverted, and turned upon himself. For he saying, It is not in Scripture; therefore it is a tradition of the Church: it is as good an argument; It is not

deliver'd to us by universal Tradition, therefore ei∣ther it is not at all, or it is deriv'd to us from Scripture: and upon the account of this, for my part, I do be∣lieve it.

5. The last instance of Cardinal Perron, is the obser∣vation of the Lord's Day; but this is matter of disci∣pline and external rite; and because it cannot pretend to be an article of faith, or essentially necessary do∣ctrine, the consideration is differnt from the rest. And it is soon at an end; but that the Cardinal would fain make some thing of nothing, by telling that the Jews complain of the Christians for changing Cir∣cumcision into Baptism, and the Saturday-sabbath into the Dominical, or Lord's-day: He might as well have added, They cry out against the Christians for changing Moses into Christ, the Law into the Gospel, the Cove∣nant of works into the Covenant of faith, Ceremonies into substances, and rituals into spiritualities. And we need no further inquiry into this Question, but to con∣sider,* 1.243 what the Cardinal says, that God did the Sabbath a special honour by writing this ceremonial alone into the summary of the moral law. Now I demand, Whether there be not clear and plain Scripture, for the abolish∣ing of the law of Ceremonies? If there be, then the law of the Sabbath is abolished. It is part of the hand∣writing of ordinances, which Christ nail'd to his Cross. Now when the Sabbath ceases to be obligatory, the Church is at liberty: but that there should be a time sanctified, or set apart for the proper service of God, I hope is also very clear from Scripture; and that the circumstances of religion are in the power of the presi∣dents of religion; and then it will follow from Scri∣pture, that the Apostles, or their Successors, or who∣ever did appoint the Sunday-festival, had not onely great reason, but full authority, to appoint that day; and that this was done early, and continued constant∣ly

for the same reason, and by an equal authority, is no question. But as to the Sabbath, S. Paul gave express order that no man should be judged by any part of the ceremonial law, and particularly name's the Sabbath-days,* 1.244 saying, They all were a shadow of things to come, but Christ is the substance. And yet after all this, The keeping of the Lord's-day was no law in Christendom till the Laodicean-Council; but the Jewish Sabbath was kept as strictly as the Chrisian Lord's-day; and yet both of them with liberty, but with an intuition to the avoiding offence, and the interests of religion: and the Lord's-day came not in stead of the Sabbath, and it did not succeed in the place of the Sabbath, but was meerly a Christian festival, and holy day. But at last; That the keeping of the Lord's-day be a Tradi∣tion Apostolical, I desire it were heartily believed by every Christian; for though it would make nothing against the sufficiency of Scriptures in all Questions of faith and rules of manners, yet it might be an engage∣ment on all men to keep it with the greater religion.

6. At the end of this, it is fit I take notice of another particular offer'd by the By, not in justification of Tradition, but in defiance of them that oppose it. If the Protestants oppose all Tradition in General,* 1.245 they must quit every Tenet of Protestant religion (as Protestan∣tism:) for Example sake: The belief of two Sacraments onely, &c. The charge is fierce, and the stroak is little. It was unadvisedly said, That every Protestant Doctrine quâ talis, must be quitted if Scripture be the rule: for this very Proposition, That Scripture is the rule of our faith, is a main Protestant doctrine; and therefore cer∣tainly must not be quitted: if Scripture be the rule, that is, if the doctrine be true it must not be forsaken. And although in the whole progress of this book, Protestant religion will be greatly justified by Scri∣pture, yet for the present I desire the Gentleman to

consider a little better about giving the Chalice to all Communicants; whether their denying it to the Laity be by authority of Scripture? and I desire him to con∣sider what place of the Old or New Testament he hath for worshipping and making the images of God the Fa∣ther, and the Holy Ghost, or for having their publick Devotions in an unknown tongue. But of these here∣after.

As to the instance of two Sacraments onley, I desire the Gentleman to understand our doctrine a little bet∣ter. It is none of the Doctrine of the Church of England that there are two Sacraments onely; But that, of those Rituals commanded in Scripture which the Ecclesi∣astical use calls Sacraments (by a word of art) Two one∣ly are generally necessary to Salvation. And although we are able to prove this by a Tradition much more Universal, than by which the Roman Doctors can prove seven, yet we rely upon Scripture for our Doctrine: and though, it may be, I shall not dispute it with this Gentle∣man that sends his chartel, unless he had given better proof of his learning and his temper; yet, I suppose, if he reads this book over, he shall find something first or last to instruct him, or at least to entertain him in that particular also. But for the present, lest such an unconcerning trifle be forgotten, I desire him to consi∣der that he hath little reason to concern himself in the just number of seven Sacraments; for that there are brought in amongst them some new devices, I cannot call them Sacraments, but something like what they have already forg'd, which being but external rites, yet out-do most of their Sacraments. About the year 1630. there were introduc'd into Ireland by the Franciscans and Carmelite Friers three pretty propositions. 1. Who∣soever shall die in the habit of S. Francis shall never be prevented with an unhappy death. 2. Whosoever shall take the Scapular of the Carmelites, and die in the

same, shall never be damned. 3. Whosoever shall fast the first Saturday after they have heard of the death of Luissa, a Spanish Nun of the Order of S. Clare, shall have no part in the second death. Now these external rites promise more grace than is conferr'd by their Sa∣craments; for it promises a certainty of glory, and an intermediat certainty of being in the state of Grace; which to them is not and cannot be done (according to their doctrine) by all the other Sacraments and Sacramentals of their Church. Now these things are deriv'd to them by pretended revelations of S. Francis, and S. Simon Stoc. And though I know not what the Priests and Friers in England will think or say of this matter, yet I assure them, in Ireland they are of great account, and with much fancy, religion and veneration us'd at this day. And not long since visiting some of my Churches I found an old Nun in the Neighbourhood, a poor Clare (as I think;) but missing her Cord about her, which I had formerly observ'd her to wear, I ask'd the cause, and was freely answered, that a Gentle∣woman who had lately died had purchas'd it of her, to put about her in her grave. And of how great ve∣neration the Saturday-fast is here, every one knows, but the cause I knew not, till I had learn'd the story of S. Luissa; and that Flemming, their Archbishop of Dublin, had given countenance to it by his example and credulity. But now it may be perceiv'd that the question of seven Sacraments is out-done by the in∣tervention of some new ones, which although they want the name, do greater effects, and therefore have a bet∣ter title.

But I proceed to more material considerations. Car∣dinal Perron hath chosen no other instances of matters necessary (as he supposes them;) but there are many ritual matters, customs, and ceremonies which were (at least it is said so) practis'd by the Apostolical Churches;

and some it may be are descended down to us: but be∣cause the Churches practise many things which the Apostles did not; and the Apostles did and ordain'd many things, which the Church does not observe; it will not appertain to the Question, to say, There are, or are not, in these things Traditions Apostolical. The Colledge of Widows is dissolv'd; the Canon of ab∣staining from things strangled,* 1.246 obliges not the Church: and S. Paul's rule of not electing a Bishop that is a No∣vice, or young Christian, is not always observ'd at Rome; nay S. Paul himself consecrated Timothy, when he was but twenty five years of age: and the* 1.247 Wed∣nesday and Friday Fast, is pretended to have been a precept from the very times of the Apostles; and yet it is observed but in very few places: and of the fifty Canons called Apostolical, very few are observed in the Church at this day; and of 84 collected by Cle∣ment (as was suppos'd,)* 1.248 Michael Medina says, scarce six or eight are observed by the Latin Church. For in them many things are contain'd, saith Peresius, which by the corruption of times are not fully observed; others ac∣cording to the quality of the matter and time being ob∣literated, or abrogated by the Magistery of the whole Church.* 1.249 Tertullian speaks of divers unwritten Cu∣stoms; of which tradition is the author, custom is the confirmer, and faith is the observer. Such are the renunciations in the office of Baptism, trine Immersion, tasting milk and honey; abstinence from the Bath, for a week after; the receiving the Eucharist before day, or in the time of their meal from the hand of the presi∣sidents of Religion; anniversary oblations on birth∣days, and for the dead; not to fast, not to kneel on Sundays; perpetual festivities from Easter to Whitsun∣tide; not to endure, without great trouble, bread or drink to fall upon the ground; and at every motion, to sign the forehead, with the sign of the Cross. Some of these

are rituals, and some are still observed, and some are superstitious and observ'd by no body; and some that are not, may be if the Church please: these indeed were traditions, or customes before his time; but not so much as pretended to be Apostolical; but if they were, are yet of the same consideration with the rest. If they be customs of the Church, they are not, without great reason and just authority, to be laid aside: But are of no other argument against Scripture, than if all the particular customs of all Churches were urg'd. For, if they had come from the Apostles (as these did not,) yet if the Apostles say, dicit Dominus, they must be obeyed for ever; but if the word be, dico ego, non Dominus, the Church hath her liberty to do what in the changing times is most for edification. And there∣fore in these things, let the Church of Rome pretend what traditions Apostolical she please of this nature, the Church may keep them, or lay them aside, accord∣ing to what they judge is best. For if those Canons and traditions of the Apostles, of which there is no question, and which are recorded in Scripture, yet are worn out, and laid aside; those certainly which are pretended to be such, and cannot be proved, cannot pass into perpetual obligation, whether the Churches will or no.

I shall not need upon this head, to consider any more instances; because all the points of Popery are pretended to rely upon Tradition. The novelty of which, because I shall demonstrate in their proper places, proving them to be so far from being traditions Apostolical, that they are mere Innovations in Religion: I shall now re∣present the uncertainty and fallibility of the pretence of Traditions in ordinary; and the certain deceptions of those who trust them, & the impossibility of ending ma∣ny questions by them. I shall not bring the usual argu∣ments which are brought from Scriptures against tradi∣tions;

because although those which Christ condemns in the Pharisees, and the Apostles in Heretical persons, are not reprov'd for being Traditions, but for being without Divine authority; that is, they are either a∣gainst the Commandment of God, or without any warrant from God: yet if there be any traditions, real and true; that is, words of God not written, they (if they could be shown) would be very good. But then I desire the same ingenuity on the other side; and that the Roman Writers would not trouble the Question, or abuse their Readers, by bringing Scriptures to prove their traditions: not by shewing they are recorded in Scripture;* 1.250 but by bringing Scriptures where the word tradition is nam'd.* 1.251 For besides that such places can∣not be with any modesty pretended, as proofs of the particular traditions; it is also certain, that they can∣not prove that in General there are, or can be, any un∣recorded Scripture, when the whole Canon should be written, consign'd, and entertain'd. For it may be ne∣cessary, that traditions should be call'd on to be kept before Scriptures were written, and yet afterwards not necessary; and those things which were deliver'd and are not in Scripture, may be lost, because they were not written; and then that may be impossible for us to do, which at first might have been done. But this being laid aside, I proceed to Considerations proper to the Question.

1. Tertullian, S. Hierom, and S. Austin are pretend∣ed the Great Patrons of Tradition; and they have given rules by which we shall know Apostolical Tradi∣tions: and it is well they do so; for sand ought to be put into a glass, and water into a vessel; something to limit the running element, that when you have receiv'd it, you may keep it. A nuncupative record is like figures in the air, or diagrams in sand; the air and the wind will soon disorder the lines. And God

knowing this, and all things else, would not trust so much as the Ten words of Moses to oral tradition, but twice wrote them in Tables of Stone with his own sin∣ger.* 1.252 [I know (said S. Clement) that many things are lost by length of time, for want of writing; and there∣fore I of necessity make use of memorials, and collection of Chapters, to supply the weakness of my memory.] And when S. Ignatius, in his journey towards Martyrdom, confirm'd the Churches through which he passed, by private exhortations, as well as he was permitted; he exhorted them all, to adhere to the tradition of the Apostles, (meaning that doctrine which was preach'd by them in their Churches) and added this advice, or caution,* 1.253 That he esteem'd it was necessary, that this Tradition should be committed to writing,* 1.254 that it might be preserv'd to posterity: and Reports by word of mouth are uncertain, that for want of good Records, we cannot tell who was S. Peter's Successor immediate∣ly; whether Clemens,* 1.255 Linus, or Anacletus; and the subscriptions of S. Paul's Epistles, having no record but the Uncertain voice of Tradition, are in some things evidently mistaken, and in some others, very uncertain. And upon the same account, we cannot tell how many Bishops were conven'd at Nice: Eusebius says they were 250. S. Athanasius says, they were just 300. Eustra∣tius in Theodoret,* 1.256 says they were above 270. Sozomen says, they were about 310. Epiphanius and others, say they were 318. And when we consider how many pretences have been, and are daily made of Traditions Apostolical, which yet are not so, a wise man will take heed, lest his credulity and good nature, make him to become a fool. S. Clemens Alexandrinus says, that the Apostles preach'd to dead Infidels, and then rais'd them to life: and that the Greeks were justified by their Philosophy; and accounts these among the An∣cient Traditions.* 1.257 Pope Marcellus was bold to say,

that it was an Apostolical Tradition or Canon, that a Council could not be called but by the authority of the Bishop of Rome: but the Churches in the first ages pra∣ctis'd otherwise, and the Greeks never believ'd it; nor are all the Latin Churches of that opinion, as shall be shown in the sequel: The second Canon of the Council in Trullo, commands observation of no less than fourscore and five Canons Apostolical deliver'd to the Church; but, besides that no Church keeps them, there are not many who believe that they came from the Apostles. S. Austin said that the Communicating of Infants was an Apostolical Tradition; but neither the Protestants, nor the Papists, believe him in that particular.* 1.258 Clemens Alexandrinus said, that Christ preach'd but one year; S. Irenaeus confutes that Tradi∣tion vehemently, and said it was an Apostolical Tradi∣tion, That Christ was about 50 years of age when he died, and therefore it must be, that he preach'd almost 20 years; for the Scripture says,* 1.259 Jesus began to be about 30 years old,* 1.260 when he was baptiz'd; and presently after he began to preach.* 1.261 Now this story of the great age of Christ, Irenaeus says, That all the old men that were with Saint John the Disciple of our Lord, say, that S. John did de∣liver unto them. Nay, not only so, but some of them heard the same from others also of the Apostles. There were many more of such traditions; the day would fail to reckon all the Vnwritten Mysteries of the Church,* 1.262 said the Author of the last Chapters of the Book de Spiritu Sancto, falsly imputed to S. Basil: and yet he could reckon but a few; all the rest are lost: and of those that remain, some are not at all observ'd in any Church. But there cannot be a greater instance of the vanity of pretending Traditions, than the collection of the Ca∣nons Apostolical by Clement,* 1.263 which Damascen reckons as parts of the New Testament, that is, equal to Ca∣nonical Writings of the Apostles; but Isidore Hispalen∣sis

says, they were Apocryphal, made by hereticks, and pub∣lish'd in the name of the Apostles;* 1.264 but neither the Fathers nor the Church of Rome did give assent to them: and yet their authority is receiv'd by many in the Church of Rome even at this day. But it is to be observ'd, that men accept them, or refuse them, not according to their authority, which in all the first fifty, at least, is equal: But if they be for their interest, then they are Aposto∣lical; if against them, then they are interpolated, and Apocryphal, and spurious, and heretical: as it hath happened in the fifth Canon, and the 8⅘.

But this is yet more manifest, if we consider what * 1.265 Origen says, No man ought for the confirmation of doctrines (or opi∣nions) to use books which are not Canoniz'd Scriptures. Now, for ought appears to the contrary, ma∣ny Traditions were two or three hundred years old the first day they were born; and it is not easie to reckon by what means the Fa∣thers came, or might come, to ad∣mit many things to be Tradition; and themselves were not sure: therefore they made rules of their conjecture, presumptions, and sometimes weak argu∣ings. It will be much more hard for us to tell which are right and which are wrong; who have nothing but their rules, which were then but conjectural, and are since prov'd in many instances to be improbable.

1. Such is that rule of S. Austin,* 1.266 Whatsoever was an∣ciently receiv'd, and not instituted (so far as men look∣ing back may observe) by posterity, that is, not decreed by Councils, may most rightly be believ'd to descend from Apostolical Tradition: That is, if we do not know the beginning of an universal custom, we may safely

conclude it to be Primitive, and Apostolick. Which kind of rule is something like what a witty Gentle∣man said of an old man and an old woman in Ireland; that if they should agree to say that they were Adam and Eve, no man living could disprove them. But though these persons are so old that no man remem∣bers their beginning, and though a custom be imme∣morial, and hath prevail'd far and long; yet to reduce this to the beginning of things may be presum'd by him that a mind to it, but can never convince him that hath not. And it is certain, this rule is but a precarious pitiful Presumption, since every ancient custom that any succeeding age hath a mind to continue, may, for the credit of it, and the ignorance of the original, like new upstart Gentlemen, be entituled to an Honourable House. Every one believes the Commandments of his Ancestors to be Traditions Apostolical, said S. Hierom: And that these came in by private authority, and yet obtain'd a publick name, we have competent warranty from Tertullian,* 1.267 who justifies it thus far. [Do you not think it lawful for every faithful man to appoint what ever he thinks may please God, unto discipline and sal∣vation? And [From whomsoever the Tradition comes, regard not the Author, but the Authority.] And S. Ire∣naeus tells,* 1.268 that the variety of keeping Lent (which puts in strongly also to be an Apostolical Tradition) be∣gan among his Ancestors [who did not accurately ob∣serve their customs, who by a certain simplicity or pri∣vate authority appointed any thing for their posterity.] So that here it is apparent that every private man that was of an ancient standing in the Church, might intro∣duce customs and usages which himself thought pious. And next, it is also evident, that when these customs deriv'd from their Ancestors, hapned to continue in a lasting use, their posterity was very apt to call them Traditions Apostolical: according to* 1.269 Tertullian, who

confessed this very thing. Thus things indifferent be∣ing esteem'd useful or pious, became customary, and then came for reverence into a putative and usurp'd authority: But they who, having this warning from the very persons whence the mistake comes, will yet swallow the hook, deserve to live upon air and fancy, and to chew deceit.

But this Topick of pretended Tradition is the most fallible thing in the world; for it is discover'd, of some things that are called Apostolical tradition, that they had their original of being so esteemed upon the au∣thority and reputation of one man. Some I say have been so discover'd. Papias was the Author of the Mille∣nary opinion, which prevailed for about three whole ages; and that so Universally, that Justin Martyr said it was believ'd by all that were perfectly Orthodox; and yet it recurres to him onely as the fountain of the Tradition. But of this I shall say no more, because this instance hath been by others examin'd and clear'd. The assumption of the Virgin Mary is esteem'd a Tra∣dition Apostolical, but it can derive no higher then S. Austin,* 1.270 whose doctrine alone brought into the Church the veneration of the Assumption; which S. Hierom yet durst not be confident of. But the Tra∣dition of keeping Easter the fourteen day of the Moon, deriv'd onely from S. John,* 1.271 and the As••atick Bishops: but the other from S. Peter, and S. Paul prevail'd, though it had no greater authority. But the Communicating of Infants prevail'd for many ages in the West,* 1.272 and to this day in the East, and went for an Apostolical Tradition; but the fortune of it is chang'd, and it now passes for an errour: and S. Hierom said, It was an Apostolical Tradition, that a Priest should never baptize without Chrism; but of this we have scarce any testimony but his own.

But besides this, there was in the beginning of

Christianity, some Apocryphal books: of these, Origen gave great caution;* 1.273 and because the falsity of these, e∣very good man could not discover, therefore he charges them, that they should offer to prove no Opinion from any books, but from the Canonical Scriptures, as I have already quoted him; but these were very busie in reporting traditions. The book of Hermes seduc'd S. Clemens of Alexandria into a belief, that the Apo∣postles preach'd to them that died Infidels, and then rais'd them to life: and the Apocryphal books under the title of Peter and Paul, make him believe that the Greeks were sav'd by their Philosophy: and the Go∣spel of Nicodemus (so far as yet appears) was author of the pretended tradition of the signing with the Sign of the Cross, at every motion of the body; and led Tertullian, and S. Basil, and, in consequence, the Chur∣ches of succeeding ages, into the practise of it. A lit∣tle thing will draw on a willing mind; and nothing is so credulous, as piety and timerous Religion; and no∣thing was more fearful to displease God, and curious to please him than the Primitive Christians; and eve∣ry thing that would invite them to what they thought pious was sure to prevail; and how many such pre∣tences might enter in at this wide door, every man can easily observe.

Add to this, that the world is not agreed about the competency of the testimony; or what is sufficient to prove tradition to be Apostolical. Some require and allow only the testimony of the present Catholick Church, to prove a Tradition: which way if it were sufficient, then it is certain, that many things which the primitive Fathers and Churches esteem'd tradition, would be found not to be such; because (as appears in divers instances above reckon'd) they admitted ma∣ny [ 2] traditions which the present Church rejects. 2. If this were the way, then truth were as variable as time;

and there could be no degrees of credibility in testimo∣ny, but still the present were to carry it; that is, eve∣ry age were to believe themselves, and no body else. And the reason of these things is this, because some things have in some ages been universally receiv'd, in others universally rejected. I instance in the state of Saints departed, which once was the opinion of some whole ages; and now we know in what ages it is esteem∣ed an error. 3. The Communicating Infants, before in∣stanc'd [ 3] in, was the practise of the Church for 600 years together.* 1.274 Now all that while, there was no Apostolical tradition against this doctrine and practice, or at least none known: for, if there had, these Ages would not have admitted this doctrine: But if there were no tra∣dition against it at that time, there is none now. And indeed the Testimony of the present Church cannot be useful in the Question of Tradition, if ever there was any age or number of orthodox and learned men, that were against it: only in a negative way it can be pre∣tended; that is, if there was no doctrine, or practice, or report ever to the contrary, then they that have a mind to it, may suppose, or hope, it was Apostolical; or at least, they cannot be sure that it was not. But this way can never be useful in the Questions of Christen∣dom, because in them there is Father against Son, and Son against Father; Greeks against Latin: and their minds differ as far, as East and West; and therefore it cannot be in our late Questions, that there was never any thing said to the contrary; but if there was, then the testimony of the present Church is not sufficient to prove the tradition to be Catholick and Apostolick. 4. If the testimony of the present Church were a sure [ 4] record of Tradition Apostolical, then it is because the present Church is infallible; but for that, there is neither Scripture, nor Tradition: or, if there were for its infal∣libility in matter of faith, yet there is none for its infal∣libility

in matter of fact; and such is the Tradition: concerning which the Question only is, Whether such a thing was actually taught by an Apostle, and trans∣mitted down by the hand of uninterrupted succession of Sees and Churches. Antiquissimum quodque, verissi∣mum. We know the fountains were pure; and the cur∣rent, by how much the nearer it is to the spring, it is the less likely to be corrupted. And therefore it is a begin∣ning at the wrong end, to say, The present Church be∣lieves this, therefore so did the primitive: but let it be shewed that the primitive did believe this; for else it is Out-facing of an Opponent; as if he ought to be a∣asham'd to question whether you have done well, or no. For, if that question may be ask'd, it must be submitted to trial, and it must be answer'd; and the holding the opinion, will not justifie the holding it; that must be done by something else: therefore the sampler and the sampled must be compar'd together; and it will be an ill excuse, if a servant, who delivers a spotted garment to his Lord, and tells him, Thus it was deliver'd to me, for thus you see it is now. If he can prove it was so at first, he may be justified, but else at no hand. And I and all the world will be strangely to seek what the Church of Rome means, by making conformity to the Primitive Church, a note of the true Church; if [being now as it is] be the rule for what it ought to be: For if so, then well may we exa∣mine the primitive Church by the present, but not the [ 5] present by the primitive.* 1.275 5. If the present Catholick Church were infallible, yet we were not much the nearer, unless this Catholick Church could be consult∣ed with, and heard to speak; not then neither, unless we know which were indeed the Catholick Church. There is no word in Scripture, that the testimony of the present Church, is the infallible way of proving the unwritten word of God; and there is no tradition.

that it is so, that I ever yet heard of; and it is impos∣sible it should be so, because the present Church of several ages have had contrary traditions: And if nei∣ther be, why shall we believe it? if there be, let it be shewed. In the mean time, it is something strange, that the infallibility of a Church, should be brought to prove every particular tradition; and yet it self be one of those particular traditions which proves it self.

But there is a better way: Vincentius Lerinensis his way, of judging a traditional doctrine to be Apostolical and Divine, is, The consent of all Churches, and all Ages. It is something less that S. Austin requires,* 1.276 Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurimùm sequatur (authoritatem,) inter quas sane illae sunt quae Apostolicas sedes habere, & Epistolas accipere meruerunt.

He speaks it of the particular of judging what Books are Canonical; In which, as tradition is the way to judge, so the rule of tradition is the consent of most of the Catholick Churches; particularly, those places where the Apo∣stles did sit, and to which the Apostles did write.

But this fancy of S. Austin's, is to be understood so, as not to be measur'd by the practise, but by the doctrine of the Apostolical Churches. For that any, or more of these Churches did, or did not do so, is no argu∣ment, that such a Custom came from the Apostles; or if it did, that it did oblige succeeding ages: unless this Custom began by a doctrine, and that the tradi∣tion came from the Apostles, with a declaration of it's perpetual obligation. And therefore this is only of use in matters of necessary doctrine. But because there is in this question, many differing degrees of authority; he says that our assent is to be given ac∣cordingly.

Those which are receiv'd of all the Ca∣tholick Churches are to be preferr'd, before those which are not receiv'd by all; and of these, those are to be preferr'd, which have the more and the graver

testimony: but if it should happen (which yet is not) that some are witnessed by the more, and others by the graver, let the assent be equal.]

This indeed, is a good way to know nothing; for if one Apostolical Church differ from another in a doctrinal tradition, no man can tell whom to follow, for they are of equal authority; and nothing can be thence proved, but that Oral tradition is an uncertain way of convey∣ing a Doctrine. But yet this way of S. Austin, is of great and approved use, in the knowing what Books are Canonical; and in these things it can be had, in some more, in some less, in all more than can be said against it: and there is nothing in succeeding times, to give a check to our assents in their degrees, because the longer the Succession runs, still the more the Church was established in it. But yet concerning those Books of Scripture, of which it was long doubted in the Church, whether they were part of the Apostoli∣cal Canon of Scripture; there ought to be no pretence, that they were deliver'd for such by the Apostles, at least not by those Churches, who doubted of them: unless they will confess, that either their Churches were not founded by an Apostle; or that the Apostle, who founded them, was not faithful in his Office, in transmit∣ting all that was necessary; or else that those Books (particularly, the Epistle to the Hebrews, &c.) were no necessary part of the Canon of Scripture; or else, lastly, that that Church was no faithful keeper of the Tra∣dition which came from the Apostle. All which things, because they will be deny'd by the Church of Rome concerning themselves; the consequent will be, that Tradition is an Uncertain thing; &, if it cannot be intire and full in assigning the Canon of Scripture, it is hard∣ly to be trusted for any thing else which consists of words subject to divers interpretations. But in other things (it may be) the case is not so: For we find that

in divers particulars, to prove a point to be a Tradition Apostolical, use is made of the testimony of the three first Ages. Indeed, these are the likest to know; but yet they have told us of some things to be Traditions, which we have no reason to believe to be such. Onely thus far they are useful; If they never reported a do∣ctrine, it is the less likely to descend from the Apostles; and if the order of succession be broken any where, the succeeding ages can never be surer. If they speak a∣gainst a doctrine, as for example, against the half-Com∣munion, we are sure, it was no Tradition Apostolical; if they speak not at all of it, we can never prove the Tradition; for it may have come in since that time, and yet come to be thought or call'd Tradition Apostolical from other causes, of which I have given account. And indeed there is no security sufficient, but that which can never be had; and that is, the Universal positive testimony of all the Church of Christ; which he that looks for in the disputed Traditions, pretended by the Church of Rome, may look as long as the Jews do for their wrong Messias. So much as this is, can never be had; and less than this, will never do it. I will give one considerable instance of this affair:

The Patrons of the opinion of the immaculate con∣ception of the Blessed Virgin-mother,* 1.277 allege, that they have the consent of almost the Universal Church, and the agreeing sentence of all Universi∣ties, especially of the chief, that is, of Paris; where no man is admitted to be Master in Theology, unless he binds himself by oath to maintain that doctrine. They allege, that since this question began to be dis∣puted, almost all the Masters in Theology, all the Preachers of the Word of God, all Kings and Princes, republiques and peoples, all Popes and Pastors, and Religions (except a part of one) consent in this do∣ctrine. They say, that of those Authors which are

by the other side pretended against it, some are fals∣ly cited, others are wrested and brought in against their wills; some are scarce worth the remembring, and are of an obsolete and worn-out authority.]

Now if these men say true, then they prove a tradition, or else nothing will prove it but a consent absolutely Universal, which is not to be had. For, on the other side,

They that speak against the immaculate Con∣ception of the Blessed Virgin, particularly Cardinal Cajetan, bring (as he says) the irrefragable testimony of fifteen Fathers against it: others bring no less then two hundred; and Bandellus brings in almost three hundred:]

and that will go a great way to prove a Tradition. But that this also is not sufficient, see what the other side say to this.

They say [that Scotus, and Holcot, and Vbertinusde Casalis, and the old Definition of the University of Paris, and S. Am∣brose, and S. Augustine are brought in falsely or vio∣lently; and if they were not, yet they say it is an il∣literal disputation, and not far from Sophistry, to proceed in this way of arguing: For it happens sometimes that a multitude of Opiners proceeds onely from one famous Doctor; and that when the Donatists did glory in the multitude of Authors, S. Austin answer'd, that it was a sign the cause wanted truth, when it endeavour'd to relie alone upon the authority of many: and that it was not fit to relate the sentiment of S. Bernard, Bonaventure, Thomas, and other Devotes of the Blessed Virgin, as if they were most likely to know her priviledges, and therefore would not have denied this of Imma∣culate Conception, if it had been her due. For she hath many devout servants the world knows not of: and Elisha, though he had the spirit of Elias doubled upon him, yet said, Dominus celavit à me, & non in∣dicavit mihi; and when Elias complain'd he was left

alone, God said he had 7000 more. And the Apostles did not know all things; and S. Peter walk'd not ac∣cording to the truth of the Gospel; and S. Cyprian err'd in the point of rebaptizing hereticks. For God hath not given all things unto all persons, that every age may have proper truths of its own, which the for∣mer age knew not.]

Thus Salmeron discourses, and this is the way of many others, more eminent; who make use of authority and antiquity when it serves their turn; and when it does not, it is of no use, and of no value.

But if these things be thus, then how shall Tradition be prov'd? if the little remnant of the Dominican par∣ty, which are against the Immaculate Conception, should chance to be brought off from their opinion (as, if all the rest of the other Orders, and many of this be already, it is no hard thing to conjecture, that the rest may) and that the whole Church (as they will then call it) be of one mind, shall it then be reasonable to conclude, that then this doctrine was and is an Aposto∣lical Tradition; when as yet we know and dare say, it is not? That's the case, and that's the new doctrine: but how impossible it is to be true, and how little rea∣son there is in it, is now too apparent. I see that Vow∣ing to Saints is now at Rome accounted an Apostolical doctrine: but with what confidence can any Jesuite tell me that it is so, when by the Confession of their chief parties it came in later than the fountains of Apo∣stolical Doctrines.* 1.278 When the Scriptures were written, the use of vowing to Saints was not begun, saith Bellarmine; and Cardinal* 1.279 Perron confesses that in the Authors more neer to the Apostolical age, no footsteps of this cu∣stom can be found. Where then is the Tradition Apo∣stolical? or can the affirmation of the present Church make it so? To make a new thing, is easie; but no man can make an old thing.

The consequence of these things is this: All the do∣ctrines of faith and good life are contain'd and ex∣press'd in the plain places of Scripture; and besides it, there are and there can be no Articles of faith: and therefore they who introduce other articles, and upon other principles, introduce a faith unknown to the Apostles and the Fathers of the Primitive Church. And that the Church of Rome does this, I shall manifest in the following discourses.

SECTION IV.

There is nothing of necessity to be believ'd, which the Apostolical Churches did not believe.

IN the first Part of the Dissuasive, it was said, that the two Testaments are the Fountains of Faith; and whatsoever (viz. as belonging to the faith) came in after these, foris est, is to be cast out; it be∣longs not to Christ: and now, I suppose, what was then said is fully verified. And the Church of Rome, ob∣truding many propositions upon the belief of the Church, which are not in Scripture, and of which they can never shew any Universal or Apostolical Tradition, urging those upon pain of Damnation, imposing an ab∣solute necessity of believing such points, which were either denyed by the Primitive Church, or were count∣ed but indifferent, and matters of opinion, hath disor∣dered the Christian Religion, and made it to day a new thing, and unlike the great and glorious Founder of it, who is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. The charge here then is double, they have made new Ne∣cessities, and they have made new Articles.

I chuse to speak first of their tyrannical Manner of imposing their Articles; viz. every thing under pain of damnation: The other of the new Matter, is the subject of the following Sections.

First then, I alledge that the primitive Church being taught by Scripture and the examples Apostolical, af∣firm'd but few things to be necessary to salvation. They believed the whole Scriptures; every thing they had learn'd there, they equally believ'd: but because every thing was not of equal necessity to be believ'd, they did not equally learn and teach all that was in Scripture. But the Apostles (say some,) othes say that immediately after them the Church, did agree upon a Creed, a Symbol of Articles which were in the whole, the foundation of Faith, the ground of the Christian hope; and that, upon which charity, or good life, was to be built. There were in Scripture many Creeds; the Gentiles Creed,* 1.280 Martha's Creed, the Eunuch's Creed, S. Peter's Creed,* 1.281 S. Paul's Creed; To believe that God is, and that he is the rewarder of them that seek him diligently: To believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God,* 1.282 that Jesus is come in the flesh;* 1.283 that he rose again from the dead; these Confessions were the occasions of ad∣mirable effects; by the first the Gentiles come to God; by the following,* 1.284 blessedness is declar'd, salvation is promis'd to him that believes, and to him that con∣fesses this, God will come and dwell in him, and he shall dwell in God; and this belief is the end of writing the Gospel, as, having life through Christ, is the end of this belief:* 1.285 and all this is more fully explicated by S. Paul's Creed;* 1.286 This is the word of faith which we preach, that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,* 1.287 and shalt believe in thine heart,* 1.288 that God hath raised him from the Dead, thou shalt be saved.* 1.289 This is the word of faith;* 1.290 which if we confess with our mouths, and entertain and believe in our heart; that is, do live ac∣cording

to it, we shall certainly be sav'd. If we ac∣knowledge Christ to be our Lord, that is, our Law-gi∣ver, and our Saviour, to rescue us from our sins and their just consequents, we have all faith; and nothing else can be the foundation, but such Articles which are the confession of those two truths, Christ Jesus our Lord, Christ Jesus our Saviour; that by Faith we be brought unto Obedience and Love; & by this love we be brought to Christ, and by Christ unto God; this is the whole com∣plexion of the Christian faith, the Oeconomy of our sal∣vation. There are many other doctrines of Christianity of admirable use, and fitted to great purposes of know∣ledge and Government;* 1.291 but the word of faith (as S. Paul calls it) that which the Apostles preach'd, viz. to all, and as of particular remark, and universal efficacy, and absolute sufficiency to salvation, is that which is describ'd by himself, in those few words now quoted. Other foundation than this, no man can lay, that is, Jesus Christ. Every thing else is but a superstructure; and though it may, if it be good, be of advantage; yet if it be amiss, so the foundation be kept, it will only be matter of loss and detriment, but consistent with sal∣vation. And therefore S. Paul judged, that he would know nothing but Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And this is the summe total of all; This is the Gospel: so S. Paul, most fully; I declare unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand, by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I have preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain: And what is this Gospel, this word preach'd and received, that by which we stand, and that by which we are sav'd? It is nothing but this, I de∣liver'd unto you first of all that which I receiv'd, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures. This was the tradi∣tum,

the depositum, this was the Evangelium; Christ died: he died for our sins, and he rose again for us; and this being the great Tradition, by which they tried the Spi∣rits, yet was it laid up in Scriptures.* 1.292 That Christ died, was according to the Scriptures; that he rose again, was according to the Scriptures; and that S. Paul twice,* 1.293 and that so immediately, remarks this, is not without mystery; but it can imply to us nothing but this, that our whole faith is laid up in the Scriptures; and this faith is perfected, as to the essentiality of it, in the Death and Resurrection of Christ; as being the whole Oeconomy of our pardon, and Justification. And it is yet further remarkable, that when S. Paul (as he often does) renews and repeats this Christian Creed;* 1.294 he calls upon us,* 1.295 not to be wise above what is written; and to be wise unto sobriety. Which he afterwards expound∣ing, says;* 1.296 He that prophesies, let him do it according to the proportion of Faith; that is, if he will enlarge him∣self he may, and prophesie greatly; but still to keep himself to the analogy of Faith; not to go beyond that, not to be wiser than that measure of sobriety. And if we observe the three Sermons of S. Peter, the Sermon of S. Philip, and S. Silas,* 1.297 the Sermons of S. Paul often preached in the Synagogues; they were all but this: that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; that he is the Lord of all;* 1.298 that he is the Christ of God, that God an∣ointed him,* 1.299 that he was crucified and raised again from the dead; and that repentance, and remission of sins, was to be preach'd in his name.

But as the Spirit of God did purpose for ever with strictness to retain the simplicity of Faith, so also he was pleas'd so far to descant upon the plain ground, as to make the mystery of godliness to be clearly under∣stood by all men. And therefore that we might see it necessary to believe in Jesus, it was necessary we should understand he was a person to be relied upon, that he

was infinitely credible, powerful, and wise, just and ho∣ly; and that we might perceive it necessary and profi∣table to obey him, it was fit we understood Why; that is, What good would follow him that is obedient, and what evil to the refractory. This was all; and this indeed was the necessary appendage of the simple and pure word of Faith; and this the Apostles drew into a Symbol, and particular minute of Articles. Now al∣though the first was sufficient; yet they knowing it was fit we should understand this simplicity, with the investiture of some circumstances; and yet knowing, that it was not fit, the simplicity of Faith, should be troubled with new matter, were pleased to draw the whole into a Scheme, sufficient and intelligible, but nothing perplex'd, nothing impertinent: and this the Church hath call'd the Apostles Creed; which contains all that which is necessary to be inquir'd after, and believ'd by an Universal and prime necessity.

True it is, other things may become necessary, by accident, and collateral obligations; and if we come to know what God in the abundance of his wisdom and goodness, hath spoken to mankind, we are bound to believe it: but the case is different. Many things may be necessary to be believ'd, that we may acknow∣ledge God's veracity: and so also many things are ne∣cessary to be done, in obedience to the empire and dictates of the conscience; which oftentimes hath au∣thority, when she hath no reason; and is a perempto∣ry Judge, when she is no wise Counsellour. But though these things are true; yet nothing is a necessa∣ry Article of Faith, but that which ministers necessarily to the great designs of the Gospel, that is, a life confor∣mable to God, a God-like life, and an imitation of of the Holy Jesus. To believe, and to have faith in the Evangelical sense, are things very different. Every man is bound to have Faith in all the proper objects of

it. But only some men are bound to believe truths, which are not matters of Faith. This obliges upon supposition of a manifest discovery, which may, or may not happen; but in the other case, we are bound to inquire; and all of us must be instructed, and eve∣re man must assent: and without this, we cannot be Christ's Disciples; we are rebels, if we oppose the o∣ther, and no good man can or does.

For if he be satisfied, that it is the word and mind of God, he must and will believe it, he cannot chuse; and if he will not confess it, when he thinks God bids him, or if he opposes it when he thinks God speaks it, he is malicious and a villain; but if he does not believe God said it, then he must answer for more than he knows, or than he ought to believe, that is, the Articles of Faith: but we are not Subjects or Children, unless we consent to these. The other cannot come into the common accounts of mankind, but as a man may become a law unto himself, by a con∣fident, an unnecessary, and even a false perswasion (be∣cause, even an erring conscience, can bind) so much more can God become a law unto us, when we by any accident, come into the knowledge of any Reve∣lation from God: but these are not the Christian Faith (in the strict and proper sense;) that is, these are not the foundation of our Religion: many a man is a good Christian without them; and goes to Heaven, though he know nothing of them; but without these, no Christian can be sav'd.

Now then, the Apostles, the founders of Christiani∣ty, knowing the nature, design, efficacy and purpose of the Articles of Faith, selected such propositions, which in conjunction did integrate our Faith, and were there∣fore necessary to be believ'd unto salvation; not be∣cause these Articles were for themselves commanded to be believ'd; but because, without the belief of them,

we could not obtain the purposes and designs of faith; that is, we could not be enabled to serve God, to de∣stroy the whole body of sin, to be partakers of the Di∣vine Nature. This Collect or Symbol of propositions is that which we call the Apostles Creed, which I shall en∣deavour to prove to have been always in the Primitive Church esteemed a full and perfect Digest of all the necessary and fundamental Articles of Christian Religi∣on: and that beyond this, the Christian faith or the foundation was not to be extended; but this, as it was in the whole Complexion necessary, so it was suf∣ficient for all men unto Salvation.

S. Paul gave us the first formal intimation of this measure,* 1.300 in his advises to S. Timothy: Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me in faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost, which dwelleth in us.] This was the depositum that S. Paul left with Timothy; the hypotyposis or summa∣ry of Christian Belief, the Christian Creed; which S. Paul opposes to the prophane new talkings,* 1.301 and the disputations of pretended learning: meaning, that this Symbol of faith is the thing on which all Christians are to relie; and this is the measure of their faith; other things, it is ods, but they are bablings, and pro∣phane quarrelling, and unedifying argumentations. S. Ignatius recites the substance of this Creed in four of the Epistles usually attributed to him;* 1.302 some of which are witnessed by Eusebius and S. Hierom; and adds at the end of it this Epiphonema; Haee qui planè cognôrit & crediderit, beatus est. And S. Irenaeus re∣citing the same Creed, or form of words, differing one∣ly in order of placing them,* 1.303 but justly the same Ar∣ticles and Foundation of faith, affirms that this is the faith which the Catholick Church to the very ends of the Earth hath received from the Apostles and their

disciples. And this is that Tradition Apostolical of which the Churches of old did so much glory, and to which with so much confidence they appealed, and by which they provoked the hereticks to trial.* 1.304

[This Preaching and this Faith when the Church scattered over the face of the world had receiv'd, she keeps diligently as dwelling in one house; and believes, as having one soul and one heart; and preaches and teaches, and delivers these things, as possessing one mouth. For although there are divers speeches in the world, yet the force of the Tradition is one and the same. Neither do the Churches founded in Ger∣many believe otherwise, aut aliter tradunt, or have any other tradition; nor the Iberian Churches, or those among the Celtae, nor the Churches in the East, in Egypt, or in Lybia, nor those which are in the midst of the world.]

But he adds, that this is not onely for the ignorant, the idiots or Catechumeni; but [neither he who is most eloquent among the Bishops can say any other things than these: for no man is above his Master: neither hath he that is the lowest in speaking lessened the tradition. For the faith is one and the same; he that can speak much, can speak no more; and he that speaks little, says no less.] This Creed also he recites again, affirming that even those Nations, who had not yet received the books of the Apostles and Evangelists, yet by this Confession and this Creed,* 1.305 did please God, and were most wise through faith: for this is that which he calls, the tradition of the truth; that is, of that truth which the Apostles taught the Church; and by the actual retention of which truth, it is, that the Church is rightly called, the pillar and ground of truth, by S. Paul;* 1.306 and in relation to this, S. Irenaeus reckon'd it to be all one; extra veritatem, id est, extra Ecclesiam. Upon this Collect of truths the Church was founded, and upon this it was built up; and in this, all the Apo∣stolical

Churches did hope for life eternal; and by this they oppos'd all schisms and heresies; as knowing what their and our great Master himself said in his last Sermon,* 1.307 This is life eternal to know thee the onely true God, and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ.

This also is most largely taught by Tertullian,* 1.308 who when he had recited the Apostolical Creed, in the words and form the Church then used it, calls it the Rule of faith; he affirms this Rule to have been in∣stituted by Christ; he affirms that it admits of no que∣stions; and hath none but those which the heresies brought in, and which indeed makes hereticks.

But this form remaining in its order, you may seek and handle, and pour out all the desires of Curiositie, if any thing seems ambiguous or obscure; in case any Brother be a Doctor endued with the grace of knowledge; but be curious with your self, and seek with your self: but at length, it is better for you to be ignorant, lest you come to know what ye ought not, for you already know what you ought. Faith consists in the rule.* 1.309 To know nothing beyond this, is to know all things.* 1.310]

To the same purpose he affirms, that this Rule is unalterable, is immoveable, and irre∣formable; it is the Rule of faith, and it is one; un∣changeably the same: which when he had said, he again recites the Apostles Creed;* 1.311 he calls it legem fidei; this law of faith remaining; in other things of disci∣pline and conversation, the grace of God may thrust us forward, and they may be corrected and renewed:] But the faith cannot be alter'd, there is neither more nor less in that. And it is of great remark what account Ter∣tullian gives of the state of all the Catholick Churches, and particularly of the Church of Rome in his time.

[That Church is in a happy state into which the Apo∣stles with their bloud pour'd forth all their doctrine:* 1.312 let us see what she said, what she taught, what she pub∣lished

in conjunction with the African Churches: she knows one God, the creator of the World; and Jesus Christ of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator; and the resurrection of the flesh: she min∣gles the Law and the Prophets, with the Evangelical, and Apostolical writings, and from thence she drinks that faith: she sings with Water, she cloaths with the holy Spirit, she feeds with the Eucharist, she ex∣horts to Martyrdom, and against this Institution re∣ceives none.]

This indeed was a happy state; and if in this she would abide, her happiness had been as unalterable, as her faith. But from this, how much she hath degenerated, will too much appear, in the or∣der of this discourse.

In the confession of this Creed, the Church of God baptiz'd all her Catechumens; to whom in the pro∣fession of that faith, they consign'd all the promises of the Gospel.* 1.313 For the truth of God, the faith of Jesus Christ, the belief of a Christian is the purest, simplest thing in the world. In simplicitate fides est, in fide justitia est, in confessione pietas est: Nec Deus nos ad beatam vitam per difficiles quaestiones vocat, nec multi∣plici eloquentis facundiae genere sollicitat; in absoluto nobis ac facili est aeternitas. Jesum Christum credimus suscitatum à mortuis per Deum, & ipsum esse Dominum confitemur. This is the Breviary of the Christian Creed: and this is the way of salvation,* 1.314 saith S. Hilary. But speaking more explicitely to the Churches of France and Germany; he calls them happy and glorious, qui perfectam atque Apostolicam fidem conscientiâ & professione Dei retinentes, conscriptas fides hûc usque nescitis; because they kept the Apostolical Belief: for, that is perfect.

Thus the Church remaining in the purity, and innocent simplicity of the Faith; there was no way of confu∣ting Hereticks, but by the words of Scripture, or by ap∣pealing

to the tradition of this Faith, in the Apostolical form: and there was no change made till the time of the Nicene Council; but then, it is said, that the first simplicity began to fall away, and some new thing to be introduc'd into the Christian Creed. True it is, that then Christianity was in one complexion with the Empire; and the division of Hearts, by a different Opinion, was likely to have influence upon the publick peace, if it were not compos'd by peaceable consent, or prevailing authority; and therefore the Fathers there as∣sembled, together with the Emperour's power, did give such a period to their Question as they could; but as yet it is not certain, that they at their meeting reci∣ted any other Creed than the Apostolical; for that they did not,* 1.315 Laurentius Valla, a Canon in the Lateran Church, affirms, that himself hath read in the ancient Books of Isidore, who collected the Canons of the an∣cient Councils. Certain it is, the Fathers believ'd it to be no other than the Apostolical faith; and the few words they added to the old form, was nothing new, but a few more explicate words, of the same sense in∣tended by the Apostles, and their Successors; as at that time the Church did remember by the successive prea∣chings, and written Records which they had, and we have not; but especially by Scripture. But the change was so little, or indeed so none as to the matter, that they affirmed of it;* 1.316 This was the Creed deliver'd by the Holy Apostles; and in the old Latin Missal, published at Strasburgh, An. Dom. 1557. after the recitation of the Nicene Creed (as we usually call it) it is added in the Rubrick; Finito Symbolo Apostolorum dicat Sacer∣dos, Dominus vobiscum. So that it should seem, the Nicene Fathers us'd no other Creed, than what them∣selves thought to be the Apostolical. And this is the more credible, because we find that some other Copies of the Apostles Creed; particularly, that which was us'd

in the Church of Aquileia, hath divers words and amplifications of some one Article; as, to the Article of, God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, is added invisible and impassible: which, though the words were set down there, because of the Sabellian Heresie; yet they said nothing new, but what to every man of reason was included in the very nature of God; and so was the addition of Nice, con∣cerning the Divinity of the Son of God, included in the very natural Filiation expressed in the Apostles Creed: and therefore this Nicene Creed, was no more a new Creed, than was that of Aquileia; which al∣though it was not in every word, like the Roman Sym∣bol, yet it was no other, than the Apostolical. And the same is the case even of those Symbols, where something was omitted, that was sufficiently in the bowels of the other Articles; Thus in some Creeds, Christ's Death is omitted; but his Crucifixion and Bu∣rial are set down. The same variety also is observa∣ble in the Article of Christ's descent into Hell; which as it is omitted in that form of the Apostolical Creed, which I am now saying was us'd by the Nicene Fathers; so was it omitted in the six several Recitations and Ex∣positions of it, made by Chrysologus, and in the five Ex∣positions made of it by S. Austin, in his Book de Fide & Symbolo, and in his four Books, de Symbolo ad Cate∣chumenos, and divers others. So the Article of the Communion of Saints, which is neither in the Nicene, nor Constantinopolitan Creed, nor in the ancient Apo∣stolical Creeds, expounded by Marcellus, Ruffinus, Chry∣sologus, Maximus Taurinensis, Venantius Fortunatus, E∣therius and Beatus:* 1.317 yet because it is so plain in the Article of the Church; as, the omission is no prejudice to the integrity of the Christian Faith, so the inserting it is no addition of an Article, or Innovation. So these Copies now reckon'd, omit in the beginning of the Creed,

Maker of Heaven and Earth; but out of the Constan∣tinopolitan Creed, it is now inserted into all the Co∣pies of the Apostolical Symbol. Now, as these omis∣sions, or additions respectively, that is, this variety is no prejudice to these being the Apostles Creed; So neither is the addition made at Nice, any other, but a setting down what was plainly included in the Filia∣tion of the Son of God; and therefore was no addi∣tion of an Article, nor properly an explication, but a saying in more words what the Apostles, and the Aposto∣lical Churches did mean in all the Copies, and what was deliver'd before that Convention at Nice. But there was ill use made of it; and wise men, if they had pleased, might easily have foreseen it. But whether it was so, or no (for I can no otherwise affirm it, than as I have said) yet to add any new thing to the Creed, or to ap∣point a new Creed, was at that time so strange a thing, so unknown to the Church, that though what they did, was done with pious intention, and great advantage in the Article it self; yet it did not produce that ef∣fect, which from such a concurrence of sentiments, might have been expected. For first, even some of the Fathers then present, refus'd to subscribe the Addi∣tions, some did it (as they said) against their will, some were afraid to use the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Consubstantial: and most men were still so unsatisfied, that presently af∣ter, Council upon Council, was again called, at Sirmium, Ariminum, Seleucia, Sardis, to appease the new stirrs, rising upon the old account; and instead of making things quiet, they quench'd the fire with oyle: and the Principal persons in the Nicene Council,* 1.318 chang'd their minds, and gave themselves over to the contrary temptation. Even Hosius himself, who presided at Nice, and confirm'd the former Decrees at Sardis; yet he left that Faith, and by that desertion affrighted, and shook the fabrick of the Christian Church, in the

Article added or explained at Nice. In the same sad condition was Marcellus of Ancyra,* 1.319 a great friend of S. Athanasius, and an earnest opposer of Arius; so were the two Photinus's, Eustathius, Elpidius, Heracides, Hygin, Sigerius, the President Cyriacus, and the Em∣perour Constantine himself; who by banishing Atha∣nasius into France, by becoming Arian, and being bap∣tiz'd by an Arian Bishop, secur'd the Empire to his sons; as themselves did say, as it is reported by Lucifer Cala∣ritanus* 1.320 and that he was vehemently suspected by the Catholicks, is affirmed by Eusebius, Hierom, Ambrose, Theodoret, Sozomen, and Socrates. But Liberius Bishop of Rome was more than suspected to have become an Arian,* 1.321 as Athanasius himself, S. Hierom, Damasus, and S. Hilary report. So did Pope Felix the second, and Leo his successor. It should seem by all this, that the defini∣tions of General Councils were not accounted the last determination of truths, or rather that what propo∣sitions General Councils say are true, are not there∣fore part of the body of faith, though they be true; or else that all these persons did go against an establish'd rule of faith and conscience; which if they had done they might easily have been oppress'd by their adversa∣ries urging the plain authority of the Council against them. But, Neither am I to urge against thee the Nicene Council, nor thou the Council of Ariminum against me, was the saying of S. Austin; even long after the Coun∣cil of Nice had by Concession obtain'd more authority than it had at first. Now the reason of these things can be no other than this; not that the Nicene Council was not the best that ever was since the day that a Council was held at Jerusalem by all the Apostles; but that the Council's adding something to the Creed of the Church, which had been the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Chri∣stian faith for 300 years together, was so strange a thing, that they would not easily bear that yoke. And

that this was the matter, appears by what the Fathers of the Church after the Council did complain.* 1.322 [After the Nicene Synod we write nothing but Faiths, viz. (new Creeds:) while there is contention about Words, while there is question about Novelties, while there is complaint of ambiguities, and of Authors, while there is contenti∣on of parties, and difficulty in consenting, and while one is become an Anathema to another, scarce any man now is of Christ.] And again, [We decree yearly and monethly faiths of God; we repent when we have decreed them; we defend them that repent, we anathematize them that are defended; we either condemn foreign things in our own, or condemn our own in forein things; and biting one another we are devour'd of one another.] This was the product of leaving the simplicity and perfection of the first rule; by which the Church for so many ages of Martyrdom was preserv'd and defended, and con∣summated their religious lives, and their holy baptism of bloud, and which they oppos'd as a sufficient shield against all heresies arising in the Church.

And yet the Nicene Fathers did adde no new Article,* 1.323 of new matter; but explicated the Filiation of Jesus Christ, saying in what sense he was the Son of God; which was in proper speaking an interpretation of a word in the Apostles Creed: and yet this occasion'd such stirs, and gave so little satisfaction at first, and so great disturbances afterward; that S. Hilary* 1.324 call'd them happy, who neither made, nor knew, nor receiv'd any other Symbol besides that most simple Creed us'd in all Churches ever since the Apostles days.

However, it pleas'd the Divine Providence so to conduct the spirits of the Catholick Prelates, that by their wise and holy adhering to the Creed as explicated at Nice, they procur'd great authority to the Nicene faith, which was not onely the truth, but a truth de∣liver'd and confirm'd by the most famous and excellent

Prelates that ever the Christian Church could glory in, since the death of the Apostles. But yet that the in∣convenience might be cut off which came in upon the occasion of the Nicene addition; (for it produc'd thir∣ty explicative Creeds more in a short time, as Marcus Ephesius openly affirm'd in the Council of Florence;) in the Council of Ephesus, which was the third general, it was forbidden that ever there should be any addi∣tion to the Nicene faith;* 1.325 [That it should not be lawful from thence forward, for any one to produce, to write, or to compose any other faith [or Creed] besides that which was defin'd by the Holy Fathers meeting at Nice in the Holy Spirit.] Here the supreme power of the Church, a General Council, hath declar'd that it never should be lawful to adde any thing to the former confession of faith explicated at Nice; and this Canon was re∣newed in the next General Council, that of Chalcedon; [That the faith formerly determin'd should at no hand, in no manner be shaken or moved any more:]* 1.326 meaning, by addition or diminution. There are some so imperti∣nently weak as to expound these Canons to mean one∣ly the adding any thing contrary to the Nicene faith; which is an answer against reason and experience; for it is not imaginable that any man, admitting the Nicene Creed, can by an addition intend expressly to contra∣dict it; and if he does not admit and believe it, he would lay that Confession aside, and not meddle with it: but if he should design the inserting of a clause that should secretly undermine it; he must suppose all men that see it to be very fools, not to understand it, or infinitely careless of what they believe and profess: but if it should happen so; then this were a very good reason of the prohibition of any thing whatsoever to be added, lest secretly and undiscernably the first truth be confuted by the new article: And therefore it was a wise caution to forbid all addition, lest some may

prove to be contrary. And then secondly, it is against the experience of things; for first the Canon was made upon the occasion of a Creed brought into the Council by Charisius; but all Creeds thereupon were rejected, and the Nicene adhered to, and commanded to be so for ever.* 1.327 For as Balsamon observes, there were three things done in this Canon; 1. There was an Edict made in behalf of the things decreed at Ephesus. 2. In like manner the holy Creed being made in the first Synod, this Creed was read aloud, and caution was given that no man should make any other Creed upon pain of deposition, if he were an Ecclesiastick; of excommu∣nication, if he were a Laick. 3. The third thing he al∣so thus expresses [The same thing also is to be done to them who receive and teach the decrees of Nestorius.] So that the Creed that Charisius brought in was re∣jected, because it was contrary to the Nicene faith; but all Symbols were for ever after forbidden to be made, not onely lest any thing contrary be admitted, but be∣cause they would admit of no other; and this very reason S. Athanasius assign'd why the Fathers of the Council of Sardis denyed the importunity of some,* 1.328 who would have something added to the Nicene confession; they would not do it, lest the other should seem de∣fective. And next to this, it was carefully observed by the following Councils, 4. 5. 6. and 7. and by it self in a great Affair: for 1. though this Council determin'd the Blessed Virgin Mary to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Mother of God, against Nestorius; yet, 2. the Fathers would not put the Article into the Creed of the Church; but esteemed it sufficient to determine the point and con∣demn Nestorius: And 3. the Greek Church hath ever since most religiously observ'd this Ephesine Canon: And, 4. upon this account have vehemently spoken against the Latines, for adding a clause at Gentilly in France.* 1.329 5. S. Athanasius speaking of the Nicene Faith

or Creed, says, It is sufficient for the destruction of all impiety, and for the confirmation of all the Holy Faith in Christ: and therefore, there could be no necessity of adding any thing to so full, so perfect an Instru∣ment; and consequently, no reasonable cause pretend∣ed, why it should be attempted: especially since there had been so many, so intolerable inconveniencies al∣ready introduc'd by adding to the Symbols their un∣necessary Expositions. 6. The purpose of the Fathers is fully declar'd by the Epistle of S. Cyril,* 1.330 in which he recites the Decree of the Council, and adds, as a full explication of the Council's meaning, We permit neither our selves nor others, to change one word or syl∣lable of what is there. The case is here, as it was in Scripture, to which no addition is to be made; no∣thing to be diminished from it. But yet every Doctor is permitted to expound, to inlarge the expressions, to deliver the sense, and to declare (as well as they can) the meaning of it. And much more might the Doctors of the Church do to the Creed: To which, although something was added at Nice, and Constanti∣nople; yet from thence forward they might in private, or in publick, declare what they thought was the mean∣ing, and what were the consequents, and what was virtually contain'd in the Articles; but nothing of this by any authority whatsoever, was to be put into the Creed. For in Articles of Belief, simplicity is part of it's excellency and sacredness; and those mysterious∣nesses, and life-giving Articles which are fit to be put into Creeds, are, as Philistion said of Hellebore, medi∣cinal when it in great pieces, but dangerous, or deadly, when it is in powder. And I remember what a Heathen aid of the Emperour Constantius, who troubled himself too much in curiosities, and nice arguings about things Unintelligible, and Unnecessary: Christianam religio∣nem absolutam & simplicem anili superstitione confudit.

In qua scrutandâ perplexiùs quàm in componendâ gra∣viùs excitavit dissidia, quae progressa fusiùs aluit con∣certatione verborum, dum ritum omnem ad suum trahere conatur arbitrium. Christian Religion is absolute, and simple; and they that conduct it, should compose all the parts of it with gravity, not perplex it with curious scrutinies; not draw away any word or Article, to the sense of his own interest. For if it once pass the bounds set by the first Masters of the Assemblies, and lose that simplicity, with which it was invested; there is no term or limit, which can be any more set down. Exem∣pla non consistunt, sed, quamvis in tenuem recepta trami∣tem, latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem. The devesting the Church from the simplicity of her Faith; is like removing the ancient Land-mark: you cannot tell by the mark, in what Countrey you are in, whe∣ther in your own, or in the Enemies. And in the world nothing is more unnecessary. For if that faith be suf∣ficient; if in that faith the Church went to Heaven, if in that she preserv'd unity, and begat Children to Christ, and nurs'd them up to be perfect men in Christ, and kept her self pure from Heresie, and unbroken by Schism; whatsoever is added to it, is either contain'd in the Article virtually, or it is not. If not, then it is no part of the Faith, and, by the laws of Faith, there is no obligation pass'd upon any man to believe it. But if it be, then he that believes the Article, does vir∣tually believe all that is virtually contain'd in it: but no man is to be press'd with the consequents drawn from thence; unless the Transcript be drawn by the same hand, that wrote the Original; for we are sure it came in the simplicity of it, from an infallible Spirit; but he that bids me believe his Deductions under pain of damnation, bids me under pain of damnation, be∣lieve that he is an Unerring Logician: for which, be∣cause God hath given me no command; and himself

can give me no security; if I can defend my self from that man's pride, God will defend me from Damna∣tion.

But let us see a little further, with what constancy, That, and The following Ages of the Church, did ad∣here to the Apostles, Creed, as the sufficient, and per∣fect Rule of Faith. There was an Imperial Edict of Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius; Cunctos populos quos clementiae nostrae regit imperium, in eâ volumus religione versari, quam Divinum Petrum Apostolum tradidisse Romanis, religio usque nunc ab ipso insi nua∣ta declarat; quámque pontificem Damasum sequi claret, & Petrum Alexandriae Episcopum, virum Apostolicae sanctitatis: hoc est, ut, secundum Apostolicam discipli∣nam, Evangelicamque doctrinam, Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus sancti Vnam Deitatem, sub pari majestate, & sub piâ Trinitate, credamus. Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum Catholicorum nomen jubemus amplecti: reliquos verò dementes vesanósque judicantes, Haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere, divina primùm vindictâ, pòst etiam motu animi nostri, quem ex coelesti arbitrio sumpserimus, ultione plectendos. Part of this being ci∣ted in the Dissuasive; to prove that in the early Ages of the Church, the Christian Faith was much more simple than it is now in the Roman Church;* 1.331 and that upon easier terms, men might then be Catholick: It was replied by some one of the Opponents, That by this law was not meant, that all who believ'd the Trinity, were Catholicks absolutely, but only as to those points: and the Reason given, is this, Because after this law, the Novatians, Donatists, Nestorians, Eutychians, &c. were proceeded against as Hereticks and Schismaticks, notwithstanding their belief of the Trinity and Vnity of the God-head:] But this thing was spoken, without all care whether it were to the purpose or no. For when this law was made, that was the Rule of Ca∣tholicism

(as appears by the words of the law:) and if afterward, it became alter'd, and the Bishops became too opinionative, or thought themselves forc'd into further declarations; must therefore the precedent law be judged ex post facto by what they did after∣wards? It might as well have been said; the Church was never content with the Apostles Creed, because afterwards the Lutherans and Calvinists, and Zuin∣glians, &c. were proceeded against as Hereticks and Schismaticks, notwithstanding their belief of all that is in the Apostles Creed. Ex post facto nunquam crescit praeteriti aestimatio, says the law. But for the true understanding of this Imperial law, we must know that the confession of the Holy Trinity and Unity, was not set down there, as a single Article, but as a Sum∣mary of the Apostles Creed; the three parts of which, have for their heads, The three Persons of the holy and undivided Trinity. And this appears by the relation, the law makes to the faith Saint Peter taught the Church of Rome; and to the Creed of Damasus, which may be seen in Saint Hierom, who rejects the Creed of that worthy Prelate, in the se∣cond Tome of his Works; in which the Apostolical Creed is explicated, that what relates to the Trinity and Unity, spoken of in the Imperial Law, or Rule of Catholicks and Christians, is set down in it's full pur∣pose and design: And this thing may better be under∣stood by an instance in the Catechism of the Church of England; for when the Catechumen hath at large re∣cited the Apostles Creed; he is taught to summe it up in this manner: First, I learn to believe in God the Fa∣ther, who hath made me, and all the world: Secondly, In God the Son, who hath redeemed me, and all man∣kind: Thirdly, In God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me, and all the elect people of God. This is the Summary of the Creed; and these things are not to be consi∣dered

as Articles distinct and complete, and integra∣ting the Christian Faith, but as a breviary of that Faith, to which in the same place it is made to relate; just as the Imperial Law does relate to the Faith of S. Peter, and the Creed of Damasus, and Peter of Alexandria: Concerning which, he that says much, says no more; and he that says little, says no less; for the Faith is the same, as I have already cited the words of S. Irenaeus. Since then the Emperours made the summary of the Apostles Creed, to be the rule of discerning Catholicks from Hereticks; it follows, that the Roman Church, Catho∣lick, signifies something else than it did in the primitive Church. S. Ambrose says, Faith is conceiv'd by the Apostles Creed; all Faith lies in that, as the Child in the Mother's Womb; and he compares it to a Key, because by it the darknesses of the Devil are unlock'd, that the light of Christ might come upon us; and the hidden sins of conscience are opened, that the manifest works of righteousness may shine. This Key is to be shown to our Brethren, that by this, as Scholars of S. Peter, they may shut the gates of Hell, and open the doors of Heaven. He also calls it, The Seal of our Heart, and the Sacrament of our Warfare. S. Hierom speaking of it,* 1.332 says, The Symbol of our Faith and Hope, which was deliver'd by the Apostles, is not written in Paper and Ink, but in the fleshy tables of our hearts. After the confession of the Trinity, and Vnity of the Church, the whole, or every Sacrament of the Christian Religion, is concluded with the resurrection of the flesh. Which words are intimated, and in part transcribed by Isidore of Sevil. Ruffinus says, The Apostles being to separate, and go to their several charges, appointed, Normam futurae praedicationis, regulam dandam cre∣dentibus, unanimitatis & fidei suae indicium; the Rule of what they were to preach to all the world, the measure for believers, the Index of Faith and Unity;

Not any speech, not so much as one, even of them that went before them in the faith, was admitted or heard by the Church.

By this Creed the foldings of infidelity are loosed; by this, the gate of life is set open; by this, the glory of Confession is shewn. It is short in words, but great in Sacraments. It confirms all men with the perfection of believing, with the desire of confessing, with the confidence of the Resurrection. Whatsoever was prefigured in the Patriarchs, what∣soever is declar'd in the Scriptures, whatsoever was foretold in the Prophets, of God who was not be∣gotten,* 1.333 of the Son of God who is the onely begot∣ten of God, or the Holy Spirit, &c. Totum hoc brevi∣ter juxta oraculum propheticum Symbolum in se conti∣net confitendo.] So S. Austin, who also cals it, [The ful∣ness of them that believe. It is the rule of faith, the short, the certain rule, which the Apostles comprehen∣ded in twelve Sentences, that the believers might hold the Catholick Vnity, and convince the heretical pravity. The comprehension and perfection of our faith.]

* 1.334 The short and perfect Confession of the Catholick Symbol is con∣signed with so many Sentences of the twelve Apostles,* 1.335 is so furnished with celestial ammunition; that all the opini∣ons of Hereticks may be cut off with that sword alone, said Pope Leo.] I could adde many more testimonies declaring the simplicity of the Christian faith, and the fulness and sufficiency of the Apostolical Creed. But I summe them up in the words of Rabanus Maurus,

[In the Apostles Creed there are but few words,* 1.336 but it contains all Religion, (Omnia in eo continentur Sa∣cramenta:) for they were summarily gathered toge∣ther from the whole Scriptures by the Apostles; that because many Believers cannot read, or if they can, yet by their secular affairs are hindred that they do not read the Scriptures, retaining these in their hearts they may have enough of saving knowledge.]

Now then since the whole Catholick Church of God in the primitive ages, having not only declar'd that all things necessary to salvation are sufficiently contain'd in the plain places of Scripture; but that all, which the Apostles knew necessary, they gathered together in a Symbol or form of Confession, and esteem'd the belief of this sufficient unto salvation; and that they re∣quir'd no more in credendis, as of necessity to Eternal life, but the simple belief of these articles: these things ought to remain in their own form and order. For, what is and what is not necessary, is either such by the Nature of the Articles themselves, or by the Oeconomy of Gods Commandment: and what God did command, and what necessary effect every Article had, the Apostles onely could tell, and others from them. They that pretend to a power of doing so as the Apostles did, have shown their want of skill; and by that, confess their want of power of doing that which to do is beyond their skill. For, which sins are venial and which are mortal, all the Doctors of the Church of Rome cannot tell; and how then can they tell this of Errors, when they cannot tell it of Actions? But if any man will search into the harder things, or any more secret Sacrament of Religion, by that means to raise up his mind to the contemplation of heavenly things, and to a contempt of things below, he may do it if he please, so that he do not impose the belief of his own specu∣lations upon others, or compel them to confess what they know not, and what they cannot find in Scriptures, or did not receive from the Apostles. We find by experience, that a long act of Parliament, or an Inden∣ture and Covenant that is of great length, ends none, but causes many contentions; and when many things are defin'd, and definitions spun out into declarations, men believe less, and know nothing more. And what is Man, that he who knows so little of his own body,

of the things done privately in his own house, of the nature of the meat he eates; nay, that knows so little of his own Heart, and is so great a stranger to the secret courses of Nature? I say, what is man, that in the things of God he should be asham'd to say, This is a secret; This God onely knows;* 1.337 This he hath not reveal'd; This I admire, but I understand not; I believe, but I under∣stand it to be a mystery? And cannot a man enjoy the gift which God gives, and do what he commands, but he must dispute the Philosophy of the gift, or the Meta∣physicks of a Command? Cannot a man eat Oysters, unless he wrangle about the number of the senses which that poor animal hath? and will not condited Mushromes be swallowed down, unless you first tell whether they differ specifically from a spunge?* 1.338 Is it not enough for me to believe the words of Christ, say∣ing, This is my body? and cannot I take it thankfully, and believe it heartily, and confess it joyfully; but I must pry into the secret, and examine it by the rules of Aristotle and Porphyry, and find out the nature and the undiscernable philosophy of the manner of its change, and torment my own brains, and distract my heart, and torment my Brethren, and lose my charity, and hazard the loss of all the benefits intended to me, by the Holy Body; because I break those few words into more questions, than the holy bread is into particles to be eaten? Is it not enough, that I believe, that, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's, in case we serve him faithfully? but we must descend into hell, and inquire after the secrets of the dead, and dream of the circum∣stances of the state of separation, and damn our Bre∣thren if they will not allow us and themselves to be half damn'd in Purgatory? Is it not enough that we are Christians? that is, that we put all our hope in God, who freely giveth us all things by his Son Jesus Christ; that we are redeemed by his death, that he rose again

for our justification; that we are made members of his body in Baptism, that he gives us of his Spirit, that be∣ing dead to the lusts of this world we should live ac∣cording to his doctrine and example; that is, that we do no evil, that we do what good we can; that we love God, and love our Brother; that we suffer pati∣ently, and do good things in expectation of better, even of a happy Resurrection to eternal life, which he hath promis'd to us by his Son, and which we shall re∣ceive, if we walk in the Spirit, and live in the Spirit? What is wanting to him that does all this? but that he do so still? Is not this faith unto righteousness, and the confession of this-faith, unto salvation? We all believe we shall arise from our graves at the last day; one sort of Christians thinks with one sort of body, and another thinks with another; but these conjectures ought not to be accounted necessary; and we are not concern'd to dispute which it is; for we shall never know by all our disputing; but we may lose the good of it, if we make it an argument of Uncharitableness. But besides this,

Did not the Apostles desire to know nothing but Christ Jesus, and him crucified, and risen again? and did not they preach this faith to all the world, and did they preach any other; but severely reprove all curi∣ous and subtle questions, and all pretences of science, or knowledge falsely so called, when men languished about Questions and strife of words? Are we not taught by the Apostles, that we ought not to receive our weak Brother unto doubtful disputations; and that the servant of God ought not to strive? Did not they say, that all that keep the foundation shall be sa∣ved; some with, and some without loss? and that erring brethren are to be tolerated; and that if they be servants of God, and yet, in a matter of doctrine or opinion, otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this also

unto them? And if these things be thus, Why shall one Christian Church condemn another, which is built up∣on the same foundation with her self? And how can it be imagined, that the servants of God cannot be sav'd now as in the days of the Apostles? Are we wiser than they, are our Doctors more learned, or more faithful? Is there another Covenant made with the Church since their days? or is God less merciful to us, than he was to them? Or hath he made the way to heaven narrow∣er in the end of the world, than at the beginning of the Christian Church? Do men live better lives now, than at the first; so that a holy life is so enlarged, that the foundation of faith laid at first is not broad enough to support the new buildings? We find it much other∣wise. And men need not enlarge the Articles and Con∣ditions of Faith in these degenerate ages, wherein when Christ comes he shall hardly upon earth find any faith at all: and, if there were need, yet no man is able to do it, because Christ onely is our Lord and Master, and no man is Master of our faith.

But to come closer to the thing. It is certain, There is nothing simply necessary to salvation now, that was not so always: and this must be confess'd by all that admit of the so much commended rule of Vincentius Lirinensis; That which was always, and every where be∣liev'd by all; that's the rule of faith: and therefore, there can be no new measure, no new Article, no new determination, no declaration obliging us to believe any proposition that was not always believ'd. And therefore as, that which was first is true, that which was at first, and nothing else, is necessary. Nay, sup∣pose many truths to be found out by industry, and by Divine Assistances, yet no more can be necessary; be∣cause nothing of this could ever be wanting to the Church. Therefore the new discover'd truth cannot of it self be necessary. Neither can the discovery

make it necessary to be believ'd, unless I find it to be discover'd and reveal'd by him, whose very discovery, though accidental, yet can make it necessary; that is, unless I be convinced that God hath spoken it: Indeed, if that happen, there is no further inquiry. But, be∣cause there are no new revelations since the Apostles died, whatever comes in after them is onely by mans ratiocination: and therefore can never go beyond a probability in it self, and never ought to pretend higher, lest God's incommunicable right be invaded, which is to be the Lord of humane Understandings. The consequent of all this is, There can be nothing of necessity to be believ'd, which the Church of God, taught by the Apostles, did not believe necessary.

SECTION V.

That the Church of Rome pretends to a power of in∣troducing into the Confessions of the Church, new Articles of faith; and endeavours to alter and sup∣press the old Catholick Doctrine.

NOw then having establish'd the Christian Rule and Measure, I shall in the next place shew how the Church of Rome hath usurp'd an Empire over Con∣sciences, offering to enlarge the Faith, to add new pro∣positions to the Belief of Christians; and imposes them under pain of damnation. And this I prove, 1. Be∣cause they pretend to a power to do it. 2. They have reason and necessity to do so in respect of their interest, and they actually do so both in faith and manners. 3. They use indirect and unworthy arts that they may do it without reproach and discovery. 4. Ha∣ving

done this, they, by enlarging Faith, destroy Charity.

1. They pretend to a power to do it. The Au∣thorities which were brought in the first part of the Dissuasive,* 1.339 did sufficiently prove this; but because they were snarl'd at, I shall justifie, and enlarge them, and confirm their sense by others. First, the Pope hath authority (as his Doctors teach the world) to declare an Article of Faith, and this is as much as the Apostles themselves could do; that is, As the Apostles, by ga∣thering the necessary Articles of Faith, made up a Symbol of what things are necessary, and by their imposing this Collection on all Churches, their bapti∣zing into that Faith, their making it a Rule of Faith to all Christians, did declare, not only the truth, but the necessity of those Articles to be learn'd, and to be believ'd; So the Pope also pretends he can declare. For declaring a thing to be true, and declaring it to be an Article of Faith, are things of vast difference. He that declares it only to be true, imposes no necessity of believing it; but if he can make it appear to be true, he, to whom it so appears, cannot but believe it. But if he declares it to be an Article of Faith, he says, that God hath made it necessary to be known, and to be be∣liev'd; and if any hath power to declare this, to declare I say, not as a Doctor, but as an Apostle, as Jesus Christ himself, he is Master and Lord of the Conscience. Now that the Pope pretends to this, we are fiercely taught by his Doctors, and by his Laws. Thus the Gloss upon the Extravagant de verborum significatione,* 1.340 Cap. Cum inter. verb. Declaramus, says, He being Prince of the Church, and Christ's Vicar, can in that capacity make a declaration upon an Article of the Catholick Faith. He can declare it authoritativè, not only as a Doctor, but as a Prince; by Empire and Command, as Princeps Ecclesiae. The Sorbon can Declare as well as he upon the Catholick Faith, if it be only matter of

skill and learning; but to declare so, as to bind every man to believe it; to declare so, as the Article shall be a point of Faith, when before this Declaration, it was not so quoad nos; this is that, which is pretended be declaring: And so this very Gloss expounds it; ad∣ding to the former words [The Pope can make an Ar∣ticle of Faith, if an Article of Faith be taken not pro∣perly, but largely, that is, for a Doctrine which now we must believe, whereas, before such declaration, we are not tied to it. These are the words of the Gloss. The sense of which is this; There are some Articles of Faith, which are such before the declaration of the Church, and some which are by the Churches decla∣ration made so: some were declar'd by the Scriptures, or by the Apostles; and some by the Councils, or Popes of Rome: after which declaration, they are both alike, equally necessary to be believ'd; and this is that which we charge upon them, as a dangerous and intolerable point. For it says plainly, that whereas Christ made some Articles of Faith, the Pope can make others; for if they were not Articles of Faith, before the declaration of the Pope, then he makes them to be such; and that is truely (according to their own words) facere Articulum fidei: this is making an Article of Faith. Neither will it suffice to say; that this Proposition, so declar'd, was, before such a decla∣ration, really and indeed, an Article of Faith in it self; but not in respect of us. For this is all one in several words. For an Article of Faith is a relative term; it is a Proposition which we are commanded to believe, and to confess: and to say, This is an Article of Faith, and yet that no man is bound to believe it, is a contradi∣ction. Now then, let it be considered: No man is bound to believe any Article till it be declar'd; as no man is bound to obey a Law, till it be promulgated; Faith comes by hearing; till there be hearing, there can be

no Faith; and therefore no Article of Faith. The truth is Eternal; but Faith is but temporary, and de∣pends upon the declaration. Now then, suppose any Ar∣ticle: I demand, did Christ and his Apostles declare it to the Church? If not, how does the Pope know it, who pretends to no new Revelations? If the Apostles did not declare it, how were they faithful in the house of God?* 1.341 and how did S. Paul say truly, I have not fail∣ed or ceased, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to declare, to annunciate to you all the whole Counsel of God. But if they did say true, and were faithful, and did declare it all; then was it an Article of Faith, before the Pope's Declara∣tion; and then it was a sin of ignorance not to believe it, and of malice, or pusillanimity not to confess it, and a worse sin to have contradicted it. And who can suppose that the Apostolical Churches and their descen∣dants should be ignorant in any thing that was then a matter of Faith? If it was not then, it cannot now be de∣clar'd that it was so then; for to declare a thing pro∣perly, is to publish what it was before; if it was then, there needs no declaration of it now, unless by decla∣ring, we mean preaching it, and then every Parish Priest is bound to do it, and can do it as well as the Pope. If therefore they mean more, as it is cer∣tain they do, then, Declaring an Article of Faith is but the civiller word for Making it. Christ's preaching, and the Apostles imposing it, made it an Article of Faith, in it self and to us; other declaration except∣ing only teaching, preaching, expounding and exhort∣ing we know none, and we need none; for they only could do it, and, it is certain, they did it fully.

But I need not argue, and take pains to prove that by Declaring, they mean more than meer Preaching; Themselves own the utmost intention of the Charge. The Pope can statuere Articulos fidei; that's more than declare meerly; it must be to appoint, to decree,

to determine that such a thing is of necessity to be be∣liev'd unto salvation;* 1.342 and because Luther said, the Pope could not do this, he was condemn'd by a Bull of Pope Leo. But we may yet further know the mean∣ing of this; For their Doctors are plain in affirming, that the Pope is the Foundation,* 1.343 rule, and principle of faith. So Turrecremata: For to him it belongs to be the measure and rule, and science of things that are to be believ'd, and of all things which are necessary to the direction of the faithful unto life Eternal. And again, It is easie to understand that it belongs to the Authority of the Pope of Rome,* 1.344 as to the general and principal Ma∣ster and Doctor of the whole World, to determine those things which are of faith; and by consequence to publish a Symbol of Faith: to interpret the senses of Holy Scrip∣tures: to approve and reprove the sayings of every Doctor belonging to Faith. Hence comes it to pass, that the Doctors say, that the Apostolical See, is call'd the Mi∣stress, and Mother of Faith.] And what can this mean; but to do that, which the Apostles could not do; that is,* 1.345 to be Lords over the Faith of Christendom. For to declare only an Article of Faith, is not all they chal∣lenge; they can do more: As he is Pope, he can, not only declare an Article of Faith, but introduce a new one. And this is that, which I suppose Augustinus Triumphus to mean,* 1.346 when he says; Symbolum novum condere ad Papam solum spectat: and, if that be not plain enough, he adds.* 1.347 As he can make a new Creed, or Sym∣bol of Faith; so he can multiply new Articles, one upon another.* 1.348 For the conclusion of this particular, I shall give a very considerable Instance, which relies not up∣on the Credit and testimony of their Doctors, but is matter of fact, and notorious to all the World. For it will be to no purpose for them to deny it, and say, that the Pope can only declare an Article, but not make a new one. For it is plain, that they so declare an old

one, that they bring a new one in; they pretend the old Creed to be with Child of a Cushion, and they in∣troduce a suppositious Child of their own. The In∣stance I mean, is, that Article of the Apostles Creed, I believe the holy Catholick Church: The Question is made, What is meant by it? They that have a mind to it, understand it easily enough; it was a declaration of the coming of the Messias into the world; the great proof that Jesus of Nazareth was the Shiloh, or he that was to come. For whereas the Jews were the Inclo∣sure, and peculiar people of God; at the comming of the Messias it should be so no more; but the Gentiles being called, and the sound of the Gospel going into all the world, it was no more the Church of the Jews, but Ecclesia totius mundi, the Church of the Universe, the Universal, or Catholick Church; of Jews and Gen∣tiles, of all people, and all Languages. Now this great and glorious mystery, we confess in this Article; that is, we confess, that God hath given to his Son, the Hea∣then for an Inheritance, and the utmost parts of the world for a possession; that God is no respecter of persons,* 1.349 but in every Nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. This is the plain sense of the Article, and renders the Article also highly considerable, and represents it as Funda∣mental; and it is agreeable with the very Oecono∣my of the Gospel; and determines one of the greatest questions that ever were in the world, the dispute be∣tween the Jews and Gentiles; and is not only easie, and intelligible, but greatly for Edification.

Now then, let us see how the Church of Rome, by her Head and Members, expound, or declare this Ar∣ticle, I believe the Holy Catholick Church; so it is in the Apostles Creed. I believe one Holy, Catholick, and Apostolick Church; so the Nicene Creed. Here is no difference, and no Commentary; but the same

thing with the addition of one word to the same sense; onely it includes also the first Founders of this Catho∣lick Church; as if it had been said, I believe that the Church of Christ is disseminated over the world, and not limited to the Jewish pale; and that this Church was founded by the Apostles upon the rock Christ Je∣sus. But the Church of Rome hath handled this Ar∣ticle after another manner; she hath explain'd it so clearly, that no wise man can believe it; she hath de∣clar'd the Article so as to make it a new one, and made an addition to it that destroys the principal: Sanctam Catholicam & Apostolicam Romanam Ecclesiam, omnium Ecclesiarum Matrem & Magistram agnosco, I acknow∣ledge the holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church, the Mother and Mistress of all Churches. And at the end of this declaration of the Creed, it is added as at the end of the Athanasian; This is the true Ca∣tholick faith, without which no man can be saved. And this is the Creed of Pope Pius the fourth, enjoyn'd to be sworn by all Ecclesiasticks, secular or Religious. Now let it be considered, Whether this Declaration be not a new Article, and not onely so, but a destruction to the old. 1. The Apostolical Creed professes to believe [ 1] the Catholick or Universal Church: The Pope limits it, and calls it the Catholick Roman Church; that, by all he means some, and the Vniversal means but particular. But besides this, 2. It is certain, this must be a piece of a new [ 2] Creed; since it is plain, the Apostles did no more intend the Roman Church should be comprehended under the Catholick Church, than as every other Church which was then, or should be after. And why Roman should be put in, and not the Ephesine, the Caesarean, or the Hierosolymitan, it is not to be imagined. 3. This [ 3] must needs be a new Article, because the full sense and mystery of the old Article was perfect and com∣plete before the Roman Church was in being. I believe

the holy Catholick Church, was an Article of faith be∣fore [ 4] there was any Roman Church at all. 4. The in∣terposing the Roman into the Creed, as equal, and of the extent with the Catholick, is not onely a false, but a malicious addition. For they having perpetually in their mouths, That out of the Catholick Church there is no Salvation; and now against the truth, simplicity, in∣terest and design of the Apostolical Creed, having made the Roman and Catholick to be all one: they have also establish'd this doctrine as virtual part of the Creed, that out of the Communion of the Church of Rome there is no Salvation to be hoped for; and so by this means damn all the Christians of the world who are not of their Communion; and that is the far biggest [ 5] part of the Catholick Church. 5. How intolerable a thing it is to put the word Roman to expound Catho∣lick in the Creed; when it is confess'd among* 1.350 them∣selves that it is not of faith, that the Apostolick Church cannot be separated from the Roman; and* 1.351 Bellarmine proves this; because there is neither Scripture nor Tra∣dition that affirms it: and then if ever they be separa∣ted, and the Apostolick be remov'd to Constantinople, then the Creed must be chang'd again, and it must run thus, I believe the holy Catholick, and Apostolick Con∣stantinopolitan [ 6] Church. 6. There is, in this declara∣tion of the Apostolical Creed, a manifest untruth de∣creed, enjoyn'd, profess'd and commanded to be sworn to, and that is, that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches: when it is confessed that S. Peter sate Bishop at Antioch seven years before his pretended coming to Rome: and that Hierusalem is the Mother of all Churches. For the Law went forth out of Sion, and the Word of the Lord from Hierusalem:* 1.352 and therefore the Oecumenical Council of Constantinople in the Con∣secration of S. Cyril, said,* 1.353 We shew unto you Cyril the Bishop of Jerusalem, which is the Mother of all other

Churches. The like is said of the Church of Cesarea, (with an exception onely of Jerusalem,) quae prope ma∣ter omnium Ecclesiarum, & fuit ab initio, & nune quoque est, & nominatur: quam Christiana respublica, velut centrum suum circulus, undique observat. How this saying of S. Gregory the Divine can consist with the new Roman Creed, I leave it to the Roman Doctors to consider. In the mean time, it is impossible that it should be true, that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches, not onely because it is not imaginable she could beget her own Grand-mother; but for an∣other pretty reason, which Bellarmine hath invented;

[Though the Ancients every where call the Roman Church the Mother of all Churches,* 1.354 and that all Bi∣shops had their Consecration and Dignity from her;* 1.355 yet this seems not to be true, but in that sense, be∣cause Peter was Bishop of Rome: he ordain'd all the Apostles and all other Bishops, by himself, or by others. Otherwise since all the Apostles constituted very many Bishops in divers places, if the Apostles were not made Bishops by Peter, certainly the great∣est part of Bishops will not deduce their original from Peter.]

This is Bellarmine's argument, by which he hath perfectly overthrown that clause of Pius quartus his Creed; that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches. He confesses she is not, unless S. Peter did consecrate all the Apostles; he might have added, No, nor then neither, unless Peter had made the Apostles to be Bishops, after himself was Bishop of Rome; for what is that to the Roman Church, if he did this be∣fore he was the Roman Bishop? But then that Peter made all the Apostles Bishops is so ridiculous a dream, that in the world nothing is more unwarrantable. For, besides that S. Paul was consecrated by none but Christ himself, it is certain that he ordain'd Timothy and Titus, and that the succession in those Churches ran from

the same Original in the same Line; and there is no Record in Scripture that ever S. Peter ordain'd any; not any one of the Apostles who receiv'd their autho∣rity from Christ and the Holy Spirit, in the same times altogether: which thing is also affirm'd bya 1.356 Azorius, andb 1.357 Suarez, who also quotes for it the Authority of S.c 1.358 Austin, and the Gloss. So that from first to last, it ap∣pears that the Roman Church is not the Mother-Church, and yet every Priest is sworn to live and die in the belief of it, that she is. However, it is plain, that this assumentum and shred of the Roman Creed, is such a declaration of the old Article of believing the Ca∣tholick Church, that it is not onely a direct new Ar∣ticle of faith but destroys the old.

By thus handling the Creed of the Catholick Church we shall best understand what they mean, when they affirm that the Pope can interpret Scripture authorita∣tivè, and he can make Scripture. Ad quem pertinet sa∣cram Scripturam authoritativè interpretari: Ejus enim est interpretari, cujus est condere. He that can make Scripture can make new Articles of faith surely. Much to the same Purpose are the words of Pope Innocent the fourth,* 1.359 He cannot onely interpret the Gospel, but adde to it. Indeed if he have power to expound it authorita∣tivè, that is as good as making it; for by that means he can adde to it, or take from the sense of it. But that the Pope can do this, that is, can interpret the Scriptures authoritativè, sententialitèr, obligatoriè, so as it is not lawful to hold the contrary, is affirm'd by Augustinus Triumphusa 1.360, Turrecrematab 1.361, and Herveyc 1.362. And Cardinal Hosiusd 1.363 goes beyond this, saying,

That although the words of the Scripture be not open, yet being uttered in the sense of the Church, they are the express words of God; but uttered in any other sense, are not the express word of God, but rather of the Devil.]

To these I only adde what we are taught

by another Cardinal; who perswading the Bohemians to accept the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in one kind, tells them; and it is that I said before; If the Church,* 1.364 viz. of Rome (for that is with them the Ca∣tholick Church) or if the Pope, that is, the Virtual Church, do expound any Evangelical sense contrary to what the current sense and practice of the Catholick Primitive Church did; not that, but this present inter∣pretation must be taken for the way of Salvation. For God changes his judgement as the Church does.* 1.365 So that it is no wonder, that the Pope can make new Articles, or new Scriptures, or new Gospel; it seems the Church of Rome can make contrary Gospel: that if in the pri∣mitive Church to receive in both kindes was via salu∣tis, because it was understood then to be a precept Evangelical; afterwards the way of Salvation shall be changed, and the precept Evangelical must be under∣stood, To take it in one kind. But this is denyed by Balduinus,* 1.366 who, to the Question Whether can the Pope find out new Articles of Faith? say's, I answer, Yes: But not contrary. It seems the Doctors differ upon that point: but that which the Cardinal of Cusa, the Legat of P. Nicolas the fifth, taught the Bohemians, was, how they should answer their objection: for (they said) if Christ commanded one thing, and the Council, or the Pope, or the Prelates commanded con∣trary, they would not obey the Church but Christ. But how greatly they were mistaken, the Cardinal Legat told them,* 1.367 Possible non est, Scripturam quamcunque, sive ipsa praeceptum sive consilium contineat, in eos qui apud Ecclesiam existunt, plus auctoritatis ligandi hae∣bere aut solvendi fideles, quàm ipsa Ecclesia voluerit, aut verbo aut opere expresserit: and in the third Epi∣stle he tells them, The authority of the Church is to be preferr'd before the Scriptures.* 1.368 The same also is taught by Elysius Nepolitanus.

It matters not what the primitive Church did; no, nor much what the Apostolical did:* 1.369 For the Apostles indeed, wrote some certain things, not that they should rule our Faith, and our Religion, but that they should be under it; that is, they submit the Scriptures to the Faith, nay, even to the Practice of the Church. For the Pope can change the Gospel, said Henry, the Master of the Roman Palace,* 1.370 and, according to place and time, give it another sense: insomuch, that if any man should not believe Christ to be the true God and man, if the Pope thought so too, he should not be damn'd, said the Cardinal of S. Angelo; And Silvester Prierias* 1.371 express∣ly affirmed, that the authority of the Church of Rome, and the Pope's, is greater than the authority of the Scriptures. These things being so notorious, I won∣der with what confidence Bellarmine can say, That the Catholicks, meaning his own parties, do not subject the Scripture, but preferre it before Councils; and that there is no controversie in this; when the contrary is so plain in the pre-alledged testimonies: but because his conscience check'd him in the particular, he thinks to escape with a distinction: If the Catholicks some∣times say, That the Scriptures depend upon the Church, or a Council, they do not understand it, in respect of authority, or in themselves; but by explication, and in relation to us* 1.372. Which is too crude an affirmative to be believ'd: for, besides that Pighius in his Epistle to Paul III. before his Books of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy affirms, that the whole authority of the Scripture, de∣pends upon the Church; and the Testimonies, above cited, doe in terms confute this saying of his; the di∣stinction it self, helps not all: for if the Scriptures have quoad nos, no authority, but what the Pope, or the Church is pleas'd to give them; then they have in themselves none at all. For the Scriptures were writ∣ten for our learning; not to instruct the Angels, but

to conserve the truths of God for the use of the Church; and they have no other use or design; And if a man shall say the Scriptures have in themselves great autho∣rity; he must mean that in themselves they are highly credible quoad nos, that is, that we are bound to be∣lieve them for their own truth and excellency. And if a man shall say, They have no authority quoad nos, but what the Church gives them; he says, They are not credible in themselves, and, in se, have no authority; so that this distinction is a Metaphysical Nothing, and is brought only to amuse men that have not leisure to consider. And he that says one, says the other; or as bad, under a thin and transparent cover. The Church gives testimony external, to the Scripture; but the internal authority is inherent and derives only from God. But let the witness of the Church be of as per∣fect force, as can be desir'd, I meddle not with it here; but that which I charge on the Roman Doctors, is, that they give to their Church a power of introducing, and imposing new Articles of Belief; and pretending that they have power so to do; and their definitions are of authority equal (if not superiour) to the Scriptures. And this I have now prov'd by many testimonies: to all which I add that of the Canon Law it self.* 1.373 In which Gratian most falsly alledges pretended words of Saint Austin (which Bellarmine* 1.374 calls a being deceiv'd by a false Copy) and among the Canonical Scriptures, reckons the decretal Epistles of the Popes; inter quas sanè illae sunt, quas Apostolica Sedes habere, & ab eâ alii meruerunt accipere Epistolas: Now who can tell of any Copy of S. Austin, or heard of any, in which these words were seen? Certainly, no man alive; but if Gra∣tian was deceiv'd, the deceivers were among them∣selves; and yet they lov'd the deception, or else they might have expung'd those words, when Gregory the 13th. appointed a Committee of learned men to purge

that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But it yet remains; and if they do not pass for Saint Austin's words, yet they are good Law at Rome.* 1.375 And Hereticks indeed talk otherwise, said Eckius. Objiciunt Haeretioi, Major est authoritas Scrip∣turae quam Ecclesiae; but he hath confuted them with an excellent Argument. The Church using bloud and strangled, hath by authority chang'd a thing, defin'd by the Scripture. Behold (says he) the power of the Church over Scripture! I love not to take in such pol∣luted channels; he that is pleased with it, may find enough to entertain his wonder, and his indignation, if he please to reada 1.376 Capi∣strano,b 1.377 Cupers,c 1.378 Andradius, d 1.379 Antonius,e 1.380 Pighius,f 1.381 Syl∣vester Prierias,g 1.382 Johannes Maria Verratus,h 1.383 Coster, i 1.384 Zabarel, andk 1.385 Bellarmine himself, who yet, with some more modesty of expression, affirms the same thing in sub∣stance, which according as it hath been, is, and is still likely to be made use of, is enough to undo the Church; The word of the Pope, teaching out of his Chair, is non omnino, not (altogether, or not at all) the word of man, that is a word liable to error, but in some sort the word of God, &c. Agreeable to which is that which the Lawyers say, that the Canon Law is the Divine Law; so said* 1.386 Hostiensis. I hope, I shall not be esteemed to slander her, when these writers think they so much ho∣nour the Church of Rome in these sayings. In pursu∣ance of this power and authority, Pope Pius the 4th. made a new Creed; and putting his power into act, did multiply new Articles, one upon another. And in the Council of Trent, amongst many other new, and fine Doctrines, this was one, That it is Heresie to say, That Matrimonial Causes do not pertain to Eccle∣siastical

Judges: and yet we in England owe this pri∣viledge to the favour and bounty of the King, and so did the Ancient Churches to the kindness and Religion of the Emperour; and, if it were so, or not so, it is but matter of Discipline, and cannot by a simple denial of it, become an Heresie. So that what I have al∣ledged, is not the opinion of some private Doctors, but the publick practise of the Roman Church.* 1.387 Commissum ei (Papae) munus non modò articulos indeterminatos de∣terminandi, sed etiam fidei Symbolum condendi: atque hoc ipsum Orthodoxos omnes omnium saeculorum agno∣visse, & palam confessos esse; it was said to Paulus Quintus, in an address to him. And how good a Ca∣tholick Baronius was in this particular,* 1.388 we may guess by what himself says concerning the business of the Apollinarists, in which the Pope did, and undid; Vt planè appareat, says Baronius, ex arbitrio pependisse Ro∣mani Pontificis, Decreta sancire, & sancita mutare.

2. That which I am next to represent, is, that the Church of Rome hath reason and necessity to pretend to this power of making new Articles; for they ha∣ving in the body of their Articles, and in the publick Doctrines allowed by them, and in the profession and practises of their Church, so many new things, which at least seem contrary to Scripture, or are not at all in Scripture; and such for which it is impossible to shew any Apostolical, or Primitive tradition, do easily and openly betray their own weakness and necessity in this affair. My first Instance is of their known Arts of abusing the people, by pretended Apparitions, and false Miracles, for the establishing of strange Opinions. Non obscurum est quot opiniones invectae sunt in orbem per homines, ad suum quaestum callidos, confictorum mi∣raculorum praesidio, said Erasmus. These Doctrines must needs be things that come over the Walls, and in at the Windows; they come not the right way.

For besides that,* 1.389 as S. Chrysostome says, It was at first profitable,* 1.390 that miracles should be done; and now it is profitable, that they be not done: for then our Faith was finished by Miracles, but now by the Divine Scrip∣tures:] Miracles are like watering of plants, to be done when they are newly set, and before they have taken root. Hence the Apostle saith, Tongues are for a sign to them that believe not, and not for them that believe.] So S. Gregory,a 1.391 Our Ancestors followed af∣ter signs; by which it came to pass, that they should not be necessary to their posterity; Andb 1.392 he that yet looks for Miracles that he may believe, is himself a Miracle. Nay, to pretend Miracles now adays, is the worst sign in the world. And here S. Austin in great zeal, gives warning of such things as these.

[c 1.393 Let not a man say, This is true, because Donatus, Pontius, or another, hath done wonderful things; or because men praying at the memories of Martyrs are heard; or because such, or such things there happen, or because that Brother of ours, or that Sister of ours waking saw such a Vi∣sion, or sleeping dreamt such a Dream: let those fi∣ctions of lying men, or wonders of deceitful spirits, be remov'd. For either those things which are spoken, are not true, or if any miracles of Hereticks be done, we ought to take heed the more. Because when our Lord said, Some deceivers should arise, which should do signs, and deceive, if it were possible, the very Elect; he,* 1.394 commending this saying, vehemently added, Behold, I have told you of it before.]

; This same is also taught by the Author of the imperfect work on S. Matthew,* 1.395 imputed to Saint Chrysostom, who calls the power of working Miracles (after the first vocation of the Go∣spel) seductionis adjutoria, the helps of seduction; as at first they were us'd by Christ, and Christ's servants, as instruments of vocation; and affirms, These helps of deceit were to be deliver'd to the Devil.] It was the

same in the Gospel, as it was in the Law of Moses; after God had by signs and wonders in the hand of Moses, fix'd and establish'd his Law, which only was to be their Rule; and Caution was given, Deuter. 1. 13. that against that Rule, no man should be believ'd, though he wrought miracles.* 1.396 Upon which words Theo∣doret says, [We are instructed, that we must not mind signs, when he that works them, teaches any thing contrary to piety.] And therefore these things can be to no purpose, unless it be to deceive; except this only, that where mi∣racles are pretended, there is a warning also given, that there is danger of deception, and there is the Seat of An∣ti-christ, who is foretold should come in all signs, & lying wonders.* 1.397 Generatio nequam signum quaerit, said Christ. But it is remarkable by the Doctrines, for which in the Church of Rome, Miracles are pretended, that they are a Cover fitted for their Dish; new miracles to de∣stroy the old truths, and to introduce new opinions. For to prove any Article of our Creed, or the necessity of a Divine Commandment, or the Divinity of the Eternal Son of God, there is now no need of miracles, and for this way of proving these, and such Articles as these, they trouble not themselves; but for Transub∣stantiation, Adoration of the consecrated Bread and Wine, for Purgatory, Invocation, and worship of Saints, of their Reliques, of the Cross, Monastical Vows, Fraternities of Friars and Monks, the Pope's Supremacy, and double Monarchy in the Church of Rome, they never give over to make, and boast Prodi∣gious Miracles. But with what success, we may learn from some of the more sober and wise amongst them. In Sacramento apparet Caro,* 1.398 interdum humanâ procura∣tione, interdum operatione diabolica, said Alexander of Ales: this indeed was an old trick, and S. Irenaeus re∣ports,* 1.399 that it was done by Marcus, that great Haersiarch, that by this prayer he caus'd the Eucharistical Wine to

appear as if it were turned into Bloud;* 1.400 and Biel affirms, that Miracles are done to men who run to Images, some∣times by operation of Devils, to deceive those inordinate worshippers; God permitting it, and their infidelity exacting it. And when, in the Question of the imma∣culate Conception, there are miracles produc'd on both sides (as the learned Bishop of the Canaries tells us) it must needs be,* 1.401 that on one side the Devil was the Ar∣chitect, if not on both. And such stories are so fre∣quently related by the Romish Legends, by S. Gregory Bishop of Rome, by Beda, by Vincentius Belvacensis Antoninus, by the Speculum Exemplorum, and are ac∣counted Religious stories, and are so publickly preach'd and told by the Friars in their Sermons, and so believ'd by the people, and the Common sort of Roman Catho∣licks, and indifferently amongst many of the better sort, that their minds are greatly possess'd with such a superstitious credulity, and are fed with such hypochon∣driacal, and fond opinions, that it is observable, how they, by those usages, are become fond News-mongers, and reporters of every ridiculous story. Hi piè nonnihil admentientes, supponunt reliquias, fabricant miracula, confinguntque (quae Exempla vocant) vel plausibiles; vel terribiles fabulas:* 1.402 So Cornelius Agrippa complains of the Writers of such ridiculous stories in that Church; that, as one of their own Writers said, they equal, if not exceed, Amadis and Clarianus. Who please to see more of this, may be satisfied with reading Canus, in the Chapter above quoted: or, if he please, he may observe it in Bellarmine himself; who out of those very legends and stories, which are disallowed by Canus, and out of divers others, as Garetius, Tilmanus; Bredenbachius, Thomas of Walden, and I know not who besides, recount seven miracles, to prove the proper natural presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament; amongst which, it is not the least which he tells; of the

fellow's beast,* 1.403 who left his barley at the Command of S. Anthony of Padua, and went to worship the Sacra∣ment. Such things as these it is no wonder that they are either acted or believ'd in the Church of Rome, since so many Popes and Priests are Magicians; and since that villain of a man, Pope Hildebrand (as Cardinal Beno relates in his life) could by shaking of his Sleeve make sparks of fire fly from it. I end this, and make no other use of it then what is made by Aventinus,* 1.404 saying, That this Pope under shew of Religion is said to have laid the foundation of the Empire of Antichrist. Multi falsi prophetae nebulas offundunt; fabulis, miracu∣lis (Exempla vocant) à veritate Christi plebem avertunt. Falsi tum prophetae, falsi Apostoli, falsi sacerdotes emer∣sêre, qui simulatâ religione populum deceperunt, magna signa atque prodigia ediderunt, & in templo Dei sedere atque extolli super id quod colitur, coeperunt. Dumque suam potentiam, dominationémque stabilire conantur, charitatem, & simplicitatem Christianam extinxerunt.] And they continue to do so to this day, where they have any hopes to prevail without discovery. Se∣condly, themselves acknowledge, That there are many things of which was no inquiry in the Primitive Church▪ which yet upon doubts arising are now become perspi∣cuous by the diligence of after-times; it is the ac∣knowledgement of the Cardinal of Rochester.* 1.405 And Bellarmine helps to make this good with a considerable instance,* 1.406 Cum scriberentur Scripturae nondum coeperat usus vovendi sanctis;* 1.407 and Cardinal Perron addes, Et quant aux autheurs plus proche du siccle Apostolique, encore qu'il ne se trouve pas de vestiges de ceste coustume, &c. Neither in the age of the Apostles, that is, when the Scriptures were written, nor in the age next to it, are there any footsteps of Vowing to Saints; for then the custom was not begun. The Pope's infal∣libility

goes amongst very many for a Catholick do∣ctrine; In Spain and Italy, in Austria and Poland it is so,* 1.408 and every where else where the Jesuits prevail: but when Bellarmine had affirm'd that Nilus, Gerson, Almain, Alphonsus à Castro, and Pope Adrian the VI. had taught that the Pope might be a heretick, if he de∣fines without a General Council; and in his censure of them, affirm'd that this opinion is not propriè haeretica, he plainly, by certain and immediate consequence, confesses that for 1400 or 1500 years the Judgement of the Pope was not esteem'd infallible. Now if this be true, it is impossible that it can ever be determin'd as a Catholick truth; for there is no Catholick Tra∣dition for it. There was not for many ages; and there∣fore, either there is no Tradition in the present Church for it, or if there be, it is contrary to the old Tradition: and therefore, either the Tradition of the present Church is no rule, or, if it be, it is a very new one; and several ages are bound to believe contradictory propo∣sitions. That the Pope is above a Council is held by some Roman Catholicks, and it is held so by all the Popes, and hath without scruple been determin'd in the chair, and contended for earnestly, for about two hundred years past; and yet all the world knows, it was not so of old.* 1.409 For we know when the Question began,* 1.410 even in the time of the first Council of Pisa, a little before the Council of Constance; and now, that the Pope is above the Council, is sententia ferè commu∣nis; nay, it is ferè de fide, saith Bellarmine. Which expression of his shows plainly, that Articles of faith grow in the womb of the Roman Church, as an Embryo, to be perfected when the Pope shall see his time. Nay, if the Pope's definition in Cathedrâ be infallible, or if it can be known where the Popes does define in Cathedrâ this proposition that the Pope is above a Council is more

than ferè de Fide: for, that the Council is superior, is an heretical opinion, and the favourers of it Here∣ticks, Pius quartus affirm'd in his Complaint against Lansack the French Embassadour in the Council of Trent,* 1.411 and he threatned to persecute and chastise them. And the like is to be said concerning that fine new Ar∣ticle of faith made by Pope Paul the fourth (of which I have spoken in the first Section) that a Pope cannot be bound, much less can be bind himself, viz. by any Oath; for that was the Subject matter of the dis∣course. The number of the seven Sacraments is now an Article of the Roman faith, taught in their Cate∣chisms, determin'd in their Councils, preach'd in their Pulpits, disputed for against their adversaries; and yet the Council of Florence was the first Council, and Peter Lombard was the first man we find ever to have pre∣cisely fixt upon that number, as Bellarminea 1.412, and Va∣lentia b 1.413 sufficiently acknowledge, even when they would fain deny it. Here I might instance in the Seal of Confession, which as they have at Rome passed it under a Sacramental lock and key, and founded upon a Divine law (for so they pretend,) is one of the new Articles of Faith, which wholly depends upon the au∣thority of the Church of Rome; who for the sake of this, and many other Articles, is compell'd to challenge a strange power even of making and imposing new Creeds, or of quitting her new Articles. But the whole order of Sections in this Chapter will be one continued argument of this particular.

SECTION VI.

Of the Expurgatory Indices in the Roman Church.

THey use indirect and unworthy arts, that they may do it without reproach and discovery: and for this I instance in the whole affair and annexes of their Expurgatory Indices. Concerning which, three things are said in the first part of this Dissuasive. 1. That the King of Spain gave a Commission to the Inquisitors to purge all Catholick Authors, but with a clause of secresie. 2. That they purg'd the Indices of the Fathers works. 3. That they did also purge the works of the Fathers themselves. The first and the last are denied by them that wrote against the Dissuasive: The second they confess, and endeavour to justifie. But how well, will appear when I have first made good the first and the last.

1. That the King of Spain gave a clancular Com∣mission to the Inquisitors, can be denyed by no man but by him that hath ignorance for his excuse; and then also the ignorance ought rather to be modestly confess'd,* 1.414 than a fault charg'd up∣on him, who knowing it, did affirm it. But the Commission is printed both in Dutch and Latine, together with the Expurgatory Indices of Belgium and Madrid, at Henovia or Henault by Guilielmus Antonius, 1611. in which the King affirms that he caus'd the Belgick Index to be printed by his own chief Printer, at his own charge, Non quidem

evulgandum, distrahendúmque; sed distribuendum solis Cognitoribus, &c. And a little after, giving faculty to the Prelates to choose one or more Assistants, he addes, Itque ipsi privatim nullisque consciis apud se Indicem Expurgatorium habebunt, quem eundem neque aliis com∣municabunt, neque ejus exemplum ulli dabunt, &c. This then is soon at an end.

2. But Junius that publish'd the Indices seems to say that they did not purge the works of the Fathers. To this the Answer that Junius himself makes is suffi∣cient; for he instances in their purgation of Bertram, who yet was elder than Haymo, Theophylact, Oecume∣nius, and almost two hundred years before S. Bernard; and yet they openly profess'd to use him as they please: and when Bertram had said visibilitèr, they commanded he should be read invisibilitèr: which is a pretty little change, and very meet to Bertram's sense surely. But Bellarmine is also in this particular a witness beyond exception;* 1.415 for when he had recited an objection out of S. Chrysostom,* 1.416 proving that in the times of heresie there is no way of finding truth but by the Scripture; having nothing else to answer, he says, The book was either written or interpolated by an Arian; Et propter∣ea totus hic locus, tanquam ab Arianis insertus, è qui∣busdam codicibus nuper emendatis sublatus est. But the thing is plain also in the Indices themselves; for in the Spanish Index by the Command of Gaspar Quiroga Archbishop of Toledo, and in that also of Sandoval, the purge hath pass'd upon the Bibliotheca sanctorum Pa∣trum collected by Binius; where not onely the Gloss upon S. Gregory of Neocaesarea, but the works of S. An∣thony the Abbot,* 1.417 S. Melito, Mark the Hermit, Dorotheus, and divers others,* 1.418 are purg'd; and that the Reader may be satisfied in the manner and design of the pro∣ceeding, the doctrines or saying to be blotted out are these: [We have learn'd to worship and venerate that

nature onely that is Vncreated: dele [solummodò] said the good Fathers of the purges: Prudence, and Life, and Piety, make the Priest. A wicked mind cannot be justified. He that keeps not the Commandments, does not believe rightly. Onely the Holy Trinity is properly in∣corporeal. A spiritual prayer helps not an unclean mind. These are all doctrines very dangerous and heretical, and therefore though the Fathers teach them, yet dele∣antur; let them pass through the fire, and leave their dross behind them. But I desire the Reader to observe that when in the Sandoval Edition of the Index, and or∣der was taken for the purging the Bibliotheca Patrum in the Edition of it at Colein, the Sandoval Canon was not observ'd; and the reason given for it, was this, Lest the hereticks may have occasion given them to insult; which they could not do, unless they had taken their adversaries in their tampering. But they are gone yet one step further in this particular: for in the latter Editions of the Bibliotheca,* 1.419 they do not adde the title of Sanctorum to them; but Patrum onely, and Ec∣clesiasticorum Scriptorum; according to the order of the Sandoval Expurgatory Index, printed at Madrid, 1612. and of the Quirogian Index, printed there 1583. So that, as they are forc'd secretly to imply that they are not so right for their Catholick cause, as they would have them: so they are resolved, whatsoever is not so, shall not pass with them for Holy. And in this diminution and dishonour of the memory of these An∣tient Fathers, S. Clement of Alexandria his good name hath suffered shipwrack; for in* 1.420 Clemente Alexandri∣no, in duplici titulo operis, dele titulum Divi; for now it happens in some measure to them that have in ho∣nour the memory of such men that seem'd to speak any thing against the errors of the Roman Church, as it did to Arulenus Ruslicus praising of Paetus Thrasea, and to Herennius Senecio commending Helvidius Priscus,

Capitale fuit, said Tacitus; and this is notorious in their Tables, their new-fashion'd diptychs; where men of honourable name and great worth are called damnati Authores, and their very name commanded to be put out, and some Periphrasis set down for them. 2. But that I may give one pregnant instance of their purging the Fathers; I desire him that is curious and would be satisfied in this thing, to see the Edition of S. Austin, at Venice; and in the inscription of his Works he shall find this Confession,

[In quo, praeter locorum multorum restitutionem secundum collationem veterum Exemplarium, curavimus removeri illa omnia quae fidelium mentes haereticâ pravitate possent infi∣cere, aut à Catholicâ Orthodoxâ fide deviare.]

And in the Quirogian Index, which hath these words, Sunt autem ferè omnia quae offendunt in Prologis & Margi∣nalibus Annotationibus, we may easily see, that not the Prologues and Annotations alone are guilty, but even S. Austin's text. But beyond conjecture, the thing is in it self evident. But the Fathers words are expunged in one place, and consequently condemn'd in every place; which is that I intended in the citation of those words by Junius, and which were also set down in the first part of this Dissuasive. But both in the text and In∣dex of S. Cyril of Alexandria,* 1.421 these words are, and yet commanded to be blotted, Habitat Jesus per fidem in cordibus nostris.* 1.422 Which very words are not in S. Cyril only, but in S. Paul too; and by S. Cyril quoted with a sicut scriptum est.

And again,* 1.423 Deleantur ex textu illa verba, Fidei autem gratiam cum his qui valdè inquinati sunt, tum etiam paulum morbo affectis, satis ad emendationem va∣lituram esse fidem, dicens] Fides sola justificat, are commanded to be blotted, and yet they are both in the Index and the text of S. Hierom.* 1.424 So the Gloss of Epiphanius of Creaturam non adorare is commanded to

be blotted out; when the words of Epiphanius Text are, Sancta Dei Ecclesia creaturam non, adorat, and it is so in other places; of which the Indices themselves are the best testimony. And that no man may que∣stion whether they purg'd the Fathers, yea or no, Six∣tus Senensis said it to Pius Quintus, Deinde expurga∣ri & emaculari curasti omnia Catholicorum Scripto∣rum, ac praecipuè veterum Patrum Scripta: especially the Writings of the ancient Fathers were purged.

Now true it is, that in the following words, he pre∣tends a reason why he did so, and tells what things were purg'd; even those things which were infected, and poysoned by the Hereticks of our age. These last words, and this reason, was not cited in the first part, when the former words were made use of; and therefore an out-cry was raised by them that wrote against it, * 1.425 as if they had been concealed by fraudulent design. To which I answer, that I was not willing to interrupt the order of my discourse, with quoting words which are neither true, nor pertinent. For they have in them no truth, and no good meaning. They are protestatio contra factum; as being set there to perswade the world, that none of the Fathers, or modern Catholicks were purg'd, unless the Lutherans had corrupted them; when all the world knows, they have purg'd the Writings of the Catholicks old and new, Fathers and Moderns, which themselves had printed, and for∣merly allowed; but now being wiser, and finding them to give too much evidence against them, they have alter'd them. I could instance in many; but I shall not need, since enough may be seen in Doctor James his Table of Books, which were first set forth and ap∣prov'd, and afterwards censur'd by themselves. I shall trouble my Reader but with one instance. That one is, the work of Ferus upon S. John's first Epistle, which was printed at Antwerp 1556. with the privilege given

by King Philip, to Martinus Nutius, with this Elogy. Nam suae Majestati patuit librum esse omnino utilem, & nihil continere quod pias aures meritò offendere pos∣sit. The same Book was printed at Paris, 1555. by de Marnet, and 1556. by Audoën Petit, or Parvus; at Lyons, 1559. by Jacobus de Mellis; and the same year at Lovain, by Servatius Sessenus, and at Mentz, where he was Preacher, by Francis Behem; and after all this, it was printed at Paris, 1563. by Gabriel Buon, and at Antwerp, 1565. by the heirs of Nutius. Now all these Editions were made by the Papists, and al∣lowed of; and no Protestant, no Heretick of that age (that I may use the words of Senensis) had corrupted them; neither is it pretended that they did: and yet this Book was purg'd at Rome, 1577. and alter'd, added, and detracted in 194. places: of the nature and con∣sequence of which alterations, I give this one Instance: In the second Chapter, where Ferus, in the old Edition of Mentz, Lovain, Antwerp, &c. had these words, Scriptura Sacra data est nobis ceu certa quaedam regula Christianae doctrinae; But in the Roman Edition, 1577. the words are chang'd thus; Sacra Scriptura & Tra∣ditio nobis data sunt ceu certa quaedam regula Christia∣dae doctrinae. By which Instance it plainly appears, that the Inquisitors General, and the Pope, purge others than what the Hereticks have corrupted, and that these words of Sixtus Senensis, are but a false cover to a foul dish, when they could no longer hide it. Nay, even the Rules given by the Pope himself, Clement the VIIIth. give order for prohibiting the Books of the Catholicks,* 1.426 before they be purged. Si nonnulla con∣tineant quae sine delectu ab omnibus legi non expedit: and in the Preface to the Sandoval Index, it is said; Obi∣ter autem in quorundam orthodoxorum libris nonnulli lapsus aut quaedam obscurius dicta deprehensa, quibus expurgatio, explicatio, aut cautio prudenter adhibita,

ne minus cautos lectores contingat impingere. Which is a plain indication, that the Church of Rome proceeds in her purging of Books upon other accounts than re∣moving the corruptions lately introduc'd by the Lu∣therans or Calvinists. And all this, and much more being evident and notorious, there was reason then to think, as I do still, that those words were of no use to be added, unless to give occasion of impertinent wrangling, but that there could be no other design in it, is manifest by what I have now said. 3. But the expurgatory Indices had the less need to do much of this, since their work was done to their hands. For the Fathers works had pass'd though fire Ordeal,* 1.427 many times before. I instanc'd in the Edition of S. Ambrose, by Ludovicus Saurius, wherein many lines were can∣cellated, and the Edition spoyled; and this was done by the authority of two Franciscans;* 1.428 qui pro authori∣tate has omnes paginas dispunxerunt ut vides, & illas substitui in locum priorum curaverunt, praeter omnem librorum nostrorum fidem, said Saurius. Against this, it is said, that it is a slander, because the Index Expur∣gatorius, was not appointed till the end of the Council of Trent, which was An. Dom. 1563. and therefore could not put a force upon Saurius, who corrected this Book, and assisted at the Edition of it, 1559. To which I answer; that it was not said, that the Index Expurgatorius, put a force upon Saurius; but only a force was put upon him: and, that it was so by two Franciscans, Jnnius, who tells the story, does affirm. 2. For ought appears to the contrary, nay, most pro∣bable it was so, that this force was put upon him by the authority of the Expurgatorius Index; for though the Council of Trent appointed one a little before it's end∣ing, which was in 1563; yet there was an Index made before that, by P. Paul the 4th. who died four years be∣fore the end of the Council; and this he made by the

Council of all the Inquisitors,* 1.429 and of many famous men, who sent him advice from all parts, and he made a most complete Catalogue, to which nothing can be added, except some Book come forth within two years, said Friar Augustin Selvago, Arch-bishop of Genua. So that here was authority enough, and there wanted no zeal, and here is matter of fact complained of, by the parties suf∣fering. 4. It would indeed have been matter of great scandal and reproach, to have openly handled all the Fathers indifferently, as they us'd the Moderns; and though (as I have prov'd) this did not wholly restrain them, yet it abated much of their willingness; but there was less need of it, because they had very well purg'd them before; by cancellating the lines, by part∣ing the pages, by corrupting their Writings, by putting Glosses in the Margent, and afterwards putting these Glosses into the Text. Quod lector ineptiens annotârat in margine sui codicis, Scribae retulerunt in contextum; said Erasmus in his Preface to the Works of S. Austin, to the Archbishop of Toledo; and the same also is ob∣served by the Paris-overseers of the press, in their Pre∣face to their Edition of S. Austin's Works at Paris 1571. by Martin and Nivellius. And this thing was noto∣rious in a considerable instance, in S. Cyprian,* 1.430 de V∣nitate Ecclesiae; where after the words of Christ spo∣ken to S. Peter, and recorded by S. Matthew; there had been a marginal note, Hîc Petro primatus datur; which words they have brought into the Roman, and Antwerp Editions; but they have both left out Hîc, and the Roman, instead of it, hath put Et. And where∣as in the old Editions of Cyprian, even the Roman it self, these words were, He who withstandeth, and re∣sisteth the Church, doth he trust himself to be in the Church? some body hath made bold to put the words thus, in the Text of the Edition of Antwerp; He who forsaketh Peter's Chair, on which the Church is founded,

doth he trust himself to be in the Church? But in how many places that excellent Book of S. Cyprian's is in∣terlined, and spoil'd by the new Correctors, is evident to him that shall compare the Roman Edition with the elder Copies, and them with the later Edition of An∣twerp; and Pamelius himself, concerning some words, saith,* 1.431 Atque adeò non sumus veriti in textum inserere. I could bring in many considerable instances, though it be more than probable, that of forty falsities in the abusing the Father's Writings by Roman hands, there was not perhaps above one or two discoveries; yet this, and many other concurrences might make it less needful to pass their Sponges upon the Fathers. But when the whole charge of printing of Books at Rome, lies on the Apostolical See, asa 1.432 Manutius tells us; it is likely enough, that all shall be taken care of, so as shall serve their purposes. And so the Printer tells us, viz.* 1.433 That such care was taken to have them so corrected, that there should be no spot which might infect the minds of the simple, with the shew or likeness of false doctrine. And now by this, we may very well perceive, how the force was put upon Saurius, in the purging S. Ambrose, even by the Inquisitors; and that by the authority and care of the Pope: and therefore though the Works of most of the greater Fathers were not put into the Expurgatory Indices, yet they were otherwise pur∣ged, that is, most shamefully corrupted, torn and maim∣ed, and the lesser Fathers pass'd under the file in the Expurgatory Indices themselves.

3. But then,* 1.434 that they purg'd the Indices of the Fathers Works, is so notorious, that it is confess'd, and endeavour'd to be justified. But when we come to consider, that many times the very words of the Fa∣thers which are put into the Index, are commanded to be expung'd, it at once shows, that fain they would, and yet durst not expunge the words out of the Books,

since they would be discover'd by their adversaries, and they would suffer reproach without doing any good to themselves. Now whereas it is said, [that therefore the words of the Fathers are blotted out of the Indices,* 1.435 because they are set down without antecedents, and consequents; and prepare the Reader to an ill sense:] this might be possible, but we see it otherwise in the Instances themselves, which oftentimes are so plain, that no context, no circumstances, can alter the propo∣sition: which is most of all notorious in the deleatur's of the Indices of the Bible set forth by Robert Stephen. Credens Christo non morietur in aeternum, this is to be blotted out;* 1.436 and yet Christ himself said it, Every one that lives, and believes in me shall never die. Justus co∣ram. Deo nemo, is to be blotted out of Robert Stephen's Index;* 1.437 and yet David prayed, Enter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. Now what antecedent, or what context, or what circumstances can alter the sense of these places; which being the same in the Text and the Index, shews the good will of the Inquisitors; and that like King Edward the 6th. his Tutor, they cor∣rected the Prince upon his Page's back; and they have given sufficient warning of the danger of those words wherever they find them in the Fathers, since they have so openly rebuked them in the Indices. And there∣fore I made no distinction of places; but reckon'd those words censur'd in the Expurgatory Tables as the Fathers words censur'd or expung'd; and in this I fol∣lowed the style of their own Books, for in the Belgick Index, the style is thus; In Hieronymi Operibus ex∣pungenda,* 1.438 quae sequuntur, and yet they are the Scholia, Indices, and sense of the Fathers set down, and prin∣ted in the same volume altogether; and, having the same fate, and all upon the same account, I had reason to charge it as I did.

And how far the evil of this did proceed, may easily be conjectur'd by what was done by the Inquisi∣tion in the year 1559. in which there was a Catalogue of 62 Printers; and all the books which any of them printed, of what authour, or what language soever, pro∣hibited; and all books which were printed by Printers, that had printed any books of Hereticks: insomuch that not onely books of a hundred, two hundred, three hundred years ago, and approbation, were prohibited, but there scarce remained a book to be read.

But by this means they impose upon mens faith and consciences; suffering them to allow of nothing in any man, no not in the Fathers, but what themselves mark out for them; not measuring their own doctrines by the Ancients, but reckoning their sayings to be, or not to be Catholick, according as they agree to their present opinions: which is infinitely against the can∣dor, ingenuity, and confidence of truth, which needs none of these arts. And besides all this, how shall it be possible to find out tradition by succession, when they so interrupt and break the intermedial lines? And this is beyond all the foregoing instances very remarkable in their purging of Histories. In Munsters Cosmogra∣phy, there was a long Story of Ludovicus the Empe∣rour of the house of Bavaria, that made very much against the See of Rome. It is commanded to be left out; and in illius loco inseratur, si placet, sequens hi∣storia:* 1.439 and then there is made a formal story not con∣sonant to the mind of the Historian. And the same Lewis of Bavaria publish'd a smart answer to the Bull of P. John. 22. an information of the nullity of the Popes proceedings against him:* 1.440 but the records and monuments of these things they tear out by their Ex∣purgatory Tables; lest we of latter ages should under∣stand how the Popes of Rome invaded the rights of Princes, and by new doctrines and occasions chang'd

the face, the body, the innocence and the soul of Chri∣stian Religion. The whole Apology of the Emperour Henry the fourth, and the Epistles of Prince Frederick the second, they pull out of the fift Tome of the Wri∣ters of the Germane affairs,* 1.441 Neque in ipsos modò Autho∣res, sed in libros quoque eorum saevitum (that I may use the words of Tacitus complaining), delegato Triumviris Ministerio ut Monumenta clarissimorum ingeniorum in comitio ac foro urerentur: scilicet illo igne vocem po∣puli Rom. & libertatem Senatûs, & conscientiam generis humani, aboleri arbitrabantur, expulsis insuper sapien∣tiae professoribus, atque omni bonâ arte in exilium actâ, ne quid usquam honestum occurreret. For thus they not onely destroy the liberty of the Church, and the names of the honourable, and the Sentences of the wise; but even hope to prevail upon the consciences of all man∣kind, and the History of the World, that nothing may be remembred by which themselves may be reprov'd. But this is not agreeable to the simplicity and inge∣nuity of the Christian Religion.

Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis Christus eget.

But what Arnobius said to the heathen,* 1.442 in their vio∣lent and crafty arts to suppress of growth of Christia∣nity, may be a good admonition to these Artists of the Inquisition, Intercipere scripta, & publicatam velle sub∣mergere lectionem, non est Deum defendere, sed veritatis testificationem timere.

One thing more I am to adde here, that they are so infinitely insecure in their errours, and so unsatisfied with the learning of the world, and they find it so im∣possible to resist the frequent and publick testimonies of truth; or indeed rather they so grow in errour, and so often change their propositions; that they neither agree at one time, nor does one time agree with an∣other,

in their Purgations; that a Saint to day may be a common person to morrow; and that which is an al∣lowed doctrine now, next year may be heretical, or te∣merarious, or dangerous. The Speculum Oculare of Jo∣hannes Capnio was approv'd by Pope Leo the tenth. It was afterwards rejected by Pope Paul the fourth; and him the Council of Trent following, and rejecting the sentence of Pope Leo, did also condemn it; and the In∣quisitors, to whom the making of the Index was com∣mitted by Paul the fourth, caus'd it to be burnt: but afterwards the Censors of Doway permit the book, and so it is good again. What uncertainty can be greater to consciences than what the ignorance or faction of these men cause? Here is Pope against Pope, a Council against the Pope; and the Monks Inquisitors of Doway against both Pope and Council; and what can be the end of these things? When the Quirogian Index came forth, a man would think, there had been an end of so much as was there purg'd: and certain it is, they were cautious enough, and they purg'd all they thought de∣serv'd it:* 1.443 but yet when they of Salamanca published the Bible of Robert Stephens, and strictly had observ'd the Rules of Cardinal Quirago, Ita ut in contextu pauca, in Annotationibus plurima omiserint; yet other Inqui∣sitors, being wiser by a new light, did so blot and raze, and scratch out many things more, that the Bible, which was a very fair one in A. D. 1584. came forth exceed∣ingly defac'd and spoiled in the year 1586.

I need not observe, That in all the Expurgatory In∣dices you shall not find Gasper Schioppius, or the Je∣suites censur'd; nor Baronius, although he declared the Kingdom of Sicily to belong to the Pope, and not to the King of Spain; but if any thing escape which lessens the Popes Omnipotence, (it is their own word) then it is sure to fall under the Sponges and the Rasor: so that this mystery of iniquity is too evident to be

cover'd by the most plausible pretences of any inter∣ested advocate. But if this be the way, to stop all mouths, but those that speak the same thing, it is no wonder if they boast of unity: they might very well do so; but that the providence of God, which over∣rules all events, hath by his Almighty power divided them, in despite of all their cunning arts to seem to be sons of one mother: onely it will be now a much more hard province, to tell when their errours first began, since they have taken order to cut out the tongues of them that tell us. And this they have done to their own Canon-law it self, and to the old Glosses, in which there were remaining some footsteps of the Ancient and Apostolical Doctrine; upon which the craft of the enemy of Mankind,* 1.444 and the arts of interested persons had not quite prevail'd: as is largely to be seen in the very Censures themselves upon the Glosses, published by the Command of Pope Pius quintus 1580.

SECTION VII.

The Vncharitableness of the Church of Rome in her judging of others.

4. THe next thing I charge upon them, is, That having done these things to propagate their new doctrines, and to suppress those which are more Ancient and Catholick; they are so implacably angry at all that dissent from them, that they not onely kill them (where they have power;) but damn them all, as far as their Sentence can prevail. If you be a Roman Catholick, let your life be what it will; their Sacrament of Penance is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it takes

away all their sins in a quarter of an hour: but if you differ from them, even in the least point they have de∣clar'd, you are not to be endur'd in this world, nor in the world to come. Indeed this is one of the insepa∣rable Characters of an Heretick; he sets his whole Communion and all his charity upon his article; For to be zealous in the Schism, that is the Characteristick of a good man, that's his note of Christianity: In all the rest he excuses you or tolerates you, provided you be a true believer; then you are one of the faith∣ful, a good man and a precious, you are of the Congre∣gation of the Saints, and one of the godly. All Soli∣fidians do thus; and all that do thus are Solifidians, the Church of Rome her self not excepted; for though in words she proclaims the possibility of keeping all the Commandments; yet she dispenses easier with him that breaks them all, than with him that speaks one word against any of her articles, though but the least; even the eating of fish, and forbidding flesh in Lent. So that it is faith they regard more than charity, a right belief more than a holy life; and for, this you shall be with them upon terms easie enough, provided you go not a hairs breadth from any thing of her belief. For if you do, they have provided for you two deaths and two fires, both inevitable and one Eternal. And this certainly is one of the greatest evils, of which the Church of Rome is guilty: For this in it self is the greatest and unworthiest Uncharitableness. But the procedure is of great use to their ends. For the great∣est part of Christians are those that cannot consider things leisurely and wisely, searching their bottoms, and discovering the causes, or foreseeing events, which are to come after; but are carried away by fear and hope, by affection and prepossession: and therefore the Roman Doctors are careful to govern them as they will be governed; If you dispute, you gain, it may be,

one, and lose five; but if ye threaten them with dam∣nation, you keep them in fetters; for they that are in fear of death,* 1.445 are all their life time in bondage (saith the Apostle:) and there is in the world nothing so potent as fear of the two deaths, which are the two arms and grapples of iron by which the Church of Rome takes and keeps her timorous, or consciencious, Proselytes. The easie Protestant calls upon you from Scripture, to do your duty, to build a holy life upon a holy Faith, the Faith of the Apostles, and first Di∣sciples of our Lord; he tells you, if you erre; and teaches you the truth; and if ye will obey, it is well; if not, he tells you of your sin, and that all sin deserves the wrath of God; but judges no man's person, much less any states of men. He knows that God's Judgments are righteous and true; but he knows also, that his Mercy absolves many persons, who, in his just Judgment were condemn'd: and if he had a warrant from God to say, that he should de∣stroy all the Papists, as Jonas had, concerning the Ninevites; yet he remembers that every Repen∣tance, if it be sincere, will do more, and prevail greater, and last longer, than God's anger will. Be∣sides these things, there is a strange spring, and se∣cret principle in every man's Understanding, that it is oftentimes turned about by such impulses, of which no man can give an account. But we all re∣member a most wonderful Instance of it, in the Dis∣putation between the two Reynolds's, John and Wil∣liam; the former of which being a Papist, and the later a Protestant, met, and disputed, with a purpose to confute, and to convert each other; and so they did: for those Arguments which were us'd, prevail'd ful∣ly against their adversary, and yet did not prevail with themselves. The Papist turned Protestant, and the Protestant became a Papist, and so remain'd to their

dying day.* 1.446 Of which some ingenious person gave a most handsome account, in an ex∣cellent Epigram, which for the verification of the story, I have set down in the Mar∣gent. But further yet, he considers the natural and re∣gular infirmities of mankind; and God considers them much more; he knows that in man there is nothing admirable but his ignorance, and weakness; his prejudice, and the infallible cer∣tainty of being deceiv'd in many things: he sees, that wicked men oftentimes know much more than many very good men; and that the Understanding is not of it self considerable in morality, and effects nothing in rewards and punishments: It is the will only that rules man, and can obey God. He sees and deplores it, that many men study hard, and understand little; that they dispute earnestly, and understand not one another at all; that affections creep so certainly, and mingle with their arguing, that the argument is lost, and nothing remains but the conflict of two adversaries affections; that a man is so willing, so easie, so ready to believe what makes for his Opinion, so hard to understand an argu∣ment against himself, that it is plain, it is the principle within, not the argument without, that determines him: He observes also that all the world (a few individuals ex∣cepted) are unalterably determin'd to the Religion of their Country, of their family, of their society; that there is never any considerable change made, but what is made by War and Empire, by Fear and Hope: He remembers that it is a rare thing, to see Jesuit of the Dominican Opinion; or a Dominican (untill of late) of the Je∣suit; but every order gives Laws to the Understand∣ing of their Novices, and they never change: He con∣siders

there is such ambiguity in words, by which all Law-givers express their meaning; that there is such abstruseness in mysteries of Religion, that some things are so much too high for us, that we cannot understand them rightly; and yet they are so sacred, and concern∣ing, that men will think they are bound to look into them, as far as they can; that it is no wonder if they quickly go too far, where no Understanding, if it were fitted for it, could go far enough: but in these things it will be hard not to be deceiv'd; since our words cannot rightly express those things; that there is such variety of humane Understandings, that mens Faces differ not so much as their Souls; and that if there were not so much difficulty in things, yet they could not but be variously apprehended by several men; and then considering that in twenty Opinions, it may be not one of them is true; nay, whereas Varro rec∣kon'd, that among the old Philosophers, there were 800 Opinions concerning the summum bonum, and yet not one of them hit the right: They see also that in all Religions, in all Societies, in all Families, and in all things, opinions differ; and since Opinions are too often begot by passion, by passions and violences they are kept; and every man is too apt to over-value his own Opinion; and out of a desire that every man should conform his judgment to his that teaches, men are apt to be earnest in their perswasion, and over-act the pro∣position; and from being true, as he supposes, he will think it profitable; and if you warm him either with confidence, or opposition, he quickly tells you, It is necessary; and as he loves those that think as he does, so he is ready to hate them that do not; and then secretly from wishing evil to him, he is apt to believe evil will come to him; and that it is just it should: and by this time, the Opinion is troublesome, and puts other men upon their guard against it; and then while

passion reigns, and reason is modest and patient, and talks not loud like a storm, Victory is more regarded than Truth, and men call God into the party, and his judgments are us'd for arguments, and the threatnings of the Scripture are snatched up in haste, and men throw arrows, fire-brands, and death, and by this time all the world is in an uproar. All this, and a thousand things more, the English Protestants considering, deny not their Communion to any Christian who desires it, and believes the Apostles Creed, and is of the Reli∣gion of the four first General Councils; they hope well of all that live well; they receive into their bo∣some, all true believers of what Church soever; and for them that erre, they instruct them, and then leave them to their liberty, to stand or fall before their own Master.

It was a famous saying of Stephen, the Great King of Poland; that God had reserved to himself three things. 1. To make something out of nothing. 2. To know future things, and all that shall be hereafter. 3. To have the rule over Consciences. It is this last, we say, the Church of Rome does arrogate and invade.

1. By imposing Articles, as necessary to salvation, which God never made so. Where hath God said; That it is necessary to salvation, that every humane Creature should be subject to the Roman Bishop?* 1.447 But the Church of Rome says it; and by that, at one blow, cuts off from Heaven, all the other Churches of the world, Greek, Armenian, Ethiopian, Russian, Prote∣stants: which is an Act so contrary to charity, to the hope and piety of Christians, so dishonourable to the Kingdom of Christ, so disparaging to the justice, to the wisdom and the goodness of God, as any thing which can be said. Where hath it been said, That it shall be a part of Christian Faith, To believe, that though the Fathers of the Church did Communicate

Infants, yet they did it without any opinion of neces∣ty? And yet the Church of Rome hath determin'd it, in one of her General Councils,* 1.448 as a thing, Sine Con∣troversiâ Credendum, to be believ'd without doubt, or dispute: It was indeed the first time that this was made a part of the Christian Religion; but then let all wise men take heed how they ask the Church of Rome; Where was this part of her Religion before the Council of Trent? for that's a secret: and, that this is a part of their Religion, I suppose will not be denied, when a General Council hath determin'd it to be a truth without controversie, and to be held according∣ly. Where hath God said, that those Churches that differ from the Roman Church in some propositions cannot conferre true Orders, nor appoint Ministers of the Gospel of Christ? and yet, Super totam materiam, the Church of Rome is so implacably angry, and impe∣rious with the Churches of the Protestants, that, if any English Priest turn to them, they re-ordain him; which yet themselves call sacrilegious, in case his for∣mer Ordination was valid; as it is impossible to prove it was not, there being neither in Scripture, nor Ca∣tholick tradition any Laws, Order, or Rule, touching our case in this particular. Where hath God said, that Penance is a Sacrament, or that without confession to a Priest, no man can be sav'd? If Christ did not institute it, how can it be necessary? and if he did institute it, yet the Church of Rome ought not to say, it is therefore necessary; for with them an Institution is not a Command, though Christ be the Institutor; and if Institution be equal to a Commandment, how then comes the Sacrament not to be administred in both kinds; when it is confessed, that in both kinds it was instituted?

2. The Church of Rome does so multiply Articles, that few of the Laity know the half of them, and yet

imposes them all under the same necessity; and if in any one of them, a man make a doubt he hath lost all Faith, and had as good be an Infidel; for the Chur∣che's Authority being the formal object of Faith, that is the only reason why any Article is to be believ'd; the reason is the same in all things else: and therefore you may no more deny any thing she says, than all she says; and an Infidel is as sure of Heaven, as any Chri∣stian is that calls in question any of the innumerable propositions, which with her are esteem'd de fide. Now if it be considered, that some of the Roman doctrines are a state of temptation to all the reason of man∣kind, as the doctrine of Transubstantiation; that some are at least of a supicious improbity, as worship of Ima∣ges, and of the consecrated Elements, and many o∣thers; some are of a nice and curious nature, as the doctrine of Merit, of Condignity and Congruity; some are perfectly of humane inventions, without ground of Scripture, or Tradition, as the formes of Ordina∣tion, Absolution, &c. When men see, that some things can never be believ'd heartily, and many not under∣stood fully, and more not remembred, or consider'd perfectly, and yet all impos'd upon the same necessity; and as good believe nothing, as not every thing; this way is apt to make men despise all Religion, or de∣spair of their own Salvation. The Church of Rome hath a remedy for this; and by a distinction under∣takes to save you harmless: you are not tied to believe all with an explicite Faith; it suffices that your Faith be implicite, or involved in the Faith of the Church; that is, if you believe that she says true in all things, you need inquire no further: So that by this means, the authority of their Church is made authentick, for that is the first and last of the design; and you are taught to be sav'd by the Faith of others; and a Faith is preached, that you have no need ever to look

after it; a Faith, of which you know nothing; but it matters not, as long as others do: but then it is also a Faith, which can never be the foundation of a good life; for upon ignorance, nothing that is good, can be built; no not so much as a blind obedience; for even blindly to obey, is built upon something, that you are bidden explicitely to believe; viz. the infallibility, or the authority of the Church: but upon an implicite Faith, you can no more establish a building, than you can number that which is not. Besides this, an implicite Faith in the Articles of the Church of Rome, is not sense; it is not Faith at all, that is not explicite; Faith comes by hearing, and not by not hearing: and the people of the Roman Church believe one proposition expli∣citely, that is, that their Church cannot erre; and then indeed, they are ready to believe any thing they tell them; but as yet they believe nothing but the infalli∣bility of their Guides: and to call that Faith, which is but a readiness, or disposition to have it, is like fil∣ling a man's belly with the meat he shall eat to morow night; an act of Understanding antedated. But when it is consider'd in it's own intrinsick nature and mean∣ing; it effects this proposition, that these things are indeed no objects of that Faith, by which we are to be sav'd (for it is strange, that men having the use of reason, should hope to be sav'd by the merit of a Faith that believes nothing, that knows nothing, that un∣derstands nothing) but that our Faith is completed in the essential notices of the Evangelical Covenant, in the propositions which every Christian man and woman is bound to know; and that the other propositions are but arts of Empire, and devices of Government; or the Scholastick confidence of Opinions; something to amuse consciences, and such by which the mystick persons may become more knowing and rever'd than their poor Parishioners.

3. The Church of Rome determines trifles and in∣considerable propositions, and adopts them into the family of faith; Of this nature are many things which the Popes determine in their chairs, and send them into the world as oracles. What a dangerous thing would it be esteem'd to any Roman Catholick, if he should dare to question, Whether the Consecration of the Bread and Wine be to be done by the prayer of the Priest, or by the mystick words of Hoc est corpus meum, said ove the Elements? For, that by the force of those words, said with right intention, the bread is trans∣substantiated,* 1.449 and made the body of Christ, Ecclesia Catholica magno consensu docet, said Bellarmine; so it is also in the Council of Florence, in the Instruction of the Armenians;* 1.450 so it is taught in the Catechism of the Council of Trent; so it is agreed by the Master of the Sentences and his Scholars; by Gratian, and the Lawyers; and so it is determin'd in the law it self, Cap. Cum Martha extr. de celebratione Missarum. And yet this is no certain thing; and not so agreeable to the spirituality of the Gospel, to suppose such a change made by the saying so many words. And therefore al∣though the Church does well in using all the words of Institution at the Consecration; for so they are care∣fully recited in the Liturgies of S. James, S. Clement, S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, the Anaphora of the Syrians,* 1.451 in the Universal Canon of the Ethiopians, on∣ly they do not do this so carefully in the Roman Missal, but leave out words very considerable, words which S. Luke, and S. Paul recite; viz. which is broken for you;* 1.452 or which is given for you: and to the words of Consecration of the Chalice, they add words which Christ did not speak in the Institution and Benediction; yet besides this generally the Greek Fathers, and divers of the Latine, do expressly teach, that the Consecration of the elements is made by the prayers of the Church,

recited by the Bishop or Priest: For the Scripture tells us, that Christ took the bread, he blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to them, saying, Take, eat. It is to be supposed that Christ consecrated it before he gave it to them; and yet if he did, all the Consecration was effected by his Benediction of it: And if (as the Romanists con∣tend) Christ gave the Sacrament of the Eucharist to the two Disciples at Emmaus, it is certain there is no record of any other Consecration, but by Christs blessing or praying over the elements. It is indeed possible that something more might be done than was set down, but nothing less; and therefore this Con∣secration was not done without the Benediction; and therefore Hoc est corpus meum alone cannot do it; at least there is no warrant for it in Christs Example. And when S. Peter in his Ministery did found and establish Churches, Orationum ordinem quibus oblata Deo sacrificia consecrantur à S. Petro primò fuisse in∣stitutum, said Isidore, Remigius, Hugo de S. Victore, and Alphonsus à Castro; S. Peter first instituted the order of Prayers by which the sacrifices offer'd to God were consecrated: and in the Liturgy of S. James, after the words of Institution are recited over the Elements, there is a Prayer of Consecration, O Lord, make this Bread to be the body of thy Christ, &c. Which words although Bellarmine troubles himself to answer, as Car∣dinal Bessarion did before him; yet we shall find his answers to no purpose; expounding the prayer to be onely a Confirmation, or an Amen to what was done be∣fore; for if that Consecration was made before that Prayer, how comes S. James to call it Bread after Con∣secration? And as weak are his other answers, saying, The Prayer means that God would make it so to us, not in it self: which although S. James hath nothing to warrant that Exposition; yet it is true upon ano∣ther account, that is, because the Bread becomes Christs

body onely to us, to them who communicate worthi∣ly; but never to the wicked, and it is not Christs body but in the using it, and that worthily too. And there∣fore his third Answer (which he uses first) is certainly the best; and that is the answer which Bessarion makes, That, for ought they know, the order of the words is chang'd; and that the Prayer should be set before, not after the words of Consecration. Against which, although it is sufficient to oppose, that, for ought they or we know, the order is not chang'd; for to this day, and always (so far as any record remains) the Greeks kept the same order of the words; and the Greek Fathers had their sentiment and doctrine agreeable to it. And as in S. James his Liturgy, so in the Missal said to be of S. Clement, the same order is observed; and after the words of the Institution or Declaration, God is invocated to send his Holy Spirit to make the obla∣tion to become the body and bloud of Christ. And in pursuance of this Justin Martyr calls it,* 1.453 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Origen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur,* 1.454 said S. Hierom; and S. Austin calls the Sacrament, Prece mystica consecratum.* 1.455 But of this thing I have given an account in other places: The use I make of it now, is this; that the Church of Rome is not onely forward to decree things uncertain, or to take them for granted, which they can never prove; but when she is by chance or interest, or mistake faln upon a proposition, she will not endure any one to oppose it; and indeed, if she did suffer a change in this particular, not onely a great part of their Thomistical Theology would be found out to be sandy and inconsistent; but the whole doctrine of Transubstantiation would have no foundation. True it is, this is a new doctrine in the Church of Rome; for Amularius affirms that the Apostles did consecrate onely by Benediction; and Pope Innocent the third,

and Pope Innocent the fourth, taught that Christ did not consecrate by the words of Hoc est corpus meum: so that the doctrine is new; and yet I make no questi∣on, he that shall now say so, shall not be accounted a Ca∣tholick.

But the instances are many of this nature, not necessa∣ry to be enumerated, because they are notorious; and when the Quaestiones disputatae, as S. Thomas Aquinas calls a Volume of his Disputation, are (at least many of them) past into Catholick propositions, and become the general doctrine of their Church; they do not so much insist upon the nature of the propositions, as the securing of that authority by which they are taught. If any man dissent in the doctrine of Purgatory, or Concomitancy, and the half Communion, then pre∣sently Hannibal ad portas; they first kill him, and then damne him (as far as they can.) But in the great que∣stions of Predetermination, in which mans duty, and the force of laws, and the powers of choice, and the at∣tributes of God are deeply concerned, they differ in∣finitely, and yet they endure the difference, and keep the Communion. But if the heats and interests that are amongst them had happened to be imployed in this Instance; they would have made a dissent in these questions as damnable as any other. But the events of salvation and damnation (blessed be God) do not de∣pend upon the votes and sentences of men, but upon the price which God sets upon the propositions; and it would be considered, that there are some propositi∣ons in which men are confident and erre securely, which yet have greater influence upon the honour of God, or his dishonour, or upon good or bad life re∣spectively, than many others, in which the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 make more noise, and have less consideration. For these things they teach not, as the scribes, but as having authority; not as Doctors but as Lawgivers; which be∣cause

Christ onely is, the Apostles by the assistance of an infallible spirit did publish his Sanctions; but gave no laws of faith, but declar'd what Christ had made so; and S. Paul was careful to leave a note of diffe∣rence, with a. hoc dico ego, non Dominus: it follows that the Church of Rome does dominari fidei & con∣scientiis, make her self mistress of faith and consciences: which being the prerogative of God, it is part of his glory that he will not impart unto another. But this evil hath proceeded unto extremity, and armies have been raised to prove their propositions; and vast num∣bers of innocent persons have been put to the sword, and burnt in the fire, and expos'd to horrible torments, for denying any of their articles; and their Saints have been their Ensign bearers, particularly S. Dominick; and an office of torment and Inquisition is erected in their most zealous Countries. Nempe hoc est esse Christianum, this is the Roman manner of being Christian: And whom they can, and whom they cannot kill they excommu∣nicate, and curse, and say, they are damned. This is so contrary to the communion of Saints, and so express∣ly against the rule of the Apostle commanding us to receive them that are weak in faith, but not to receive them unto doubtful disputations; and so ruinous to the grace of charity, which hopes and speaks the best, and not absolutely the worst thing in the world; and so directly oppos'd to Christs precept, which commands▪ us, not to judge, that we be not judged; and is an ene∣my to publick peace, which is easily broken with them whom they think to be damned wretches; and is so forgetful of humane infirmity; and but little consi∣ders, that in so innumerable a company of old and new propositions, it is great odds but themselves are or may be deceiv'd; and lastly, it is so much against the very law of nature, which ever permits the Understanding free, though neither tongue nor hand; and leaves all

that to the Divine Judgement, which ought neither to be invaded nor antedated; that this evil doctrine and practice is not more easily reproved than it is per∣nicious and intolerable, and of all things in the world the most unlike the spirit of a Christian. I know that against this they have no answer to oppose, but to re∣criminate; and say that we in the Church of England do so; and hang their priests, and punish by fines and im∣prisonment their lay Proselytes. To which the answer need not be long, or to trouble the order of the dis∣course. For 1. we put none of their Laity to death for their opinion; which shews that it is not the Religion is persecuted, but some other evil appendix. 2. We do not put any of their Priests to death who is not a native of the Kingdoms; but those subjects who pass over hence, and receive orders abroad, and return with evil errands. 3. Neither were these so treated, until by the Pope our Princes were excommunicated, and the Subjects absolved from their duty to them, and incouraged to take up arms against them; and that the English Priests return'd with traiterous de∣sings, and that many conspiracies were discover'd. 4. And lastly, when much of the evil and just causes of fear did cease, the severity of procedure is taken off, and they have more liberty than hitherto they have deserv'd. Now if any of these things can be said by the Church of Rome in her defence, I am content she shall enjoy the benefit of her justification. For her rage extends to all, Laity as well as Clergy; forreign Clergy as well as Domestick, their own people and strangers, the open dissentients and the secretly suspected; those that are delated and those whom they can inquire of; and own that, which we disavow; and which if we did do, we should be reproved by our own sentences and publick profession to the contrary.

But now after all this, if it shall appear that the

danger is on the part of the Roman Church, and safety on our side, and yet that we in our censure of their doctrines are not so fierce, and in our fears of their final condition not so decretory and rash; then this doctrine of theirs against us, is both the more uncharitable, and the more unreasonable.

1. That the Church of Rome is infinitely confident they are in the right I easily believe, because they say they are; and they have causes but too many to create, or to occasion that confidence in them: for they never will consider concerning any of their Articles; their unlearned men not at all, their learned men only to con∣firm their own, and to confute their adversaries, whose arguments though never so convincing, they are bound to look upon as temptations, and to use them accord∣ingly; which thing (in case they can be in an error) may prove so like the sin against the Holy Ghost, as Milk is to Milk; if at least all conviction of error; and de∣monstrations of truth, be the effect and grace of the Spirit of God: which ought very warily to be consi∣der'd.

But this confidence is no argument of truth: for they telling their people, that they are bound to be∣lieve all that they teach with an assent, not equal to their proof of it, but much greater, even the greatest that can be; they tie them to believe it without rea∣son, or proof: for to believe more strongly than the argument inferrs, is to believe something without the argument; or at least to have some portions of Faith, which relies upon no argument; which if it be not effected by a supreme, and more infallible principle, can never be reasonable: but this they supply with telling them, that they cannot erre; and this very pro∣position it self, needing another supply (for why shall they believe this, more than any thing else, with an as∣sent greater than can be effected by their argument?)

they supply this also, with affrighting Homilies and noi∣ses of damnation. So that it is no wonder, that the Roman people are so confident; since it is not upon the strength of their argument, or cause (for they are taught to be confident beyond that) but it is upon the strength of passion, credulity, interest and fear, educa∣tion, and pretended authority: all which, As, we hope God will consider in passing his unerring sentence up∣on the poor mis-led people of the Roman Communi∣on; So, we also, considering their infirmity and our own, dare not enter into the secret of God's judge∣ment concerning all, or any of their persons; but pray for them, and offer to instruct them; we reprove their false doctrines, and use means to recall them from darkness, into some more light than there they see; but we pass no further; and we hope that this charity and modesty will not, (we are sure it ought not) be turn∣ed to our reproach, for this is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that toleration of our erring Brethren,* 1.456 and long sufferance, which we have learn'd from God, and it ought to pro∣cure Repentance in them; and yet if it does not, we do but our duty, always remembring the words of the Great Apostle which he spake to the Church of Rome, Thou art inexcusable,* 1.457 O man, whosoever thou art, that judgest another; for in what thou judgest another, thou condemnest thy self; and we fear, and every man is bound to do so too, lest the same measure of judg∣ment we make to the errors of our Brother, be heap▪d up against our own, in case we fall into any. And the Church of Rome should do well to consider this; for she is not the less likely to erre, but much more for thinking she cannot erre; her very thinking and saying this thing, being her most Capital error, as I shall af∣terwards endeavour to make apparent. I remember that Paganinus Gaudentius, a Roman Gentleman, tells that Theódore Beza, being old, and coming into the

Camp of Henry the 4th. of France, was ask'd by some Whether he were sure that he followed the true Reli∣gion. He modestly answer'd, That he did daily pray to God, to direct him with his holy Spirit, and to give him a light from Heaven to guide him. Upon which answer, because they expounded it to be in Beza, un∣certainty, and irresolution, he says that may who heard him, took that hint, and became Roman Ca∣tholicks. It is strange it should be so, that one man's modesty should make another man bold; and that the looking upon a sound eye, should make another sore. But so it is; that in the Church of Rome, very ill use is made of our charity and modesty. However, I shall give a true account of the whole affair as it stands, and then leave it to be consider'd.

SECTION VIII.

The Insecurity of the Roman Religion.

1. AS to the security which is pretended in the Church of Rome; it is, confidence rather than safety, as I have already said; but if we look upon the propositions themselves, we find that there is more dan∣ger in them than we wish there were. I have already in the preface to the First Part instanc'd in some parti∣culars, in which the Church of Rome hath suffer'd in∣firmity, and fallen into error; and the errors are such, which the Fathers of the Church (for we meddle not with any such judgment) call damnable. As for example; to add any thing to Scriptures, or to intro∣duce into the Faith, any thing that is not written; or to call any thing Divine, that is not in the authority of

the Holy Scriptures; which Tertullian says, whosoever does may fear the woe pronounc'd in Scripture against adders and detracters; and S. Basil says, is a manifest note of infidelity, and a most certain sign of pride; and others add, it is an evil heart of immodesty, and most vehemently forbidden by the Apostles. Against the te∣stimonies then brought, some little cavils were made, and many evil words of railing publish'd, which I have not only washt off in the second Section of this Second part, but have, to my thinking, clearly prov'd them guilty of doing ill in this question, and receding from the rule of the primitive Church; and have added many other testimonies concerning the main Inquiry, to which the weak answers offer'd can no way be ap∣plied, and to which the more learned answers of Bel∣larmine and Perron, are found insufficient; as it there is made to appear. So that I know nothing remains to them to be considered, but Whether or no, the primitive, and holy Fathers, were too zealous in con∣demning this doctrine and practice of the Roman Church too severely? We are sure the thing which the Fathers so condemn, is done without warrant, and contrary to all authentick precedents of the pu∣rest and holiest Ages of the Church, and greatly de∣rogatory to the dignity and fulness of Scripture; and infinitely dangerous to the Church for the intromitting the doctrines of men into the Canon of Faith, and a great diminution to the reputation of that providence, by which it is certain, the Church was to be secur'd in the Records of Salvation; which could not be done by any thing so well, as by writing what was to be kept inviolate; especially in the propositions of Faith, re∣lying oftentimes upon a word, and a phrase, and a manner of expression; which in the infinite variety of reporters, might too easily suffer change. Thus far we can safely argue concerning the error of the Church of

Rome; and to this not we, but the Fathers, add a se∣vere Censure. And when some of these censures were set down by way of caution and warning, not of judg∣ment and final sentence; it seems a wonder to me how these Gentlemen of the Roman Communion,* 1.458 that wrote against the Book, should recite all these terrible sayings out of the Fathers against their superaddition of Articles to the Faith contain'd in Scriptures, and be so little concerned as to read them with a purpose only to find fault with the quotations, and never be smitten with a terror of the judgment which the Fathers pronounce against them that do so. Just as if a man being ready to perish in a storm, should look up and down the ship to see if the little paintings were exact; or as if a man in a terrible clap of thunder should consider whether he ever heard so unmusical a sound, and never regard his own danger. 2. The same is the case in their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, worshipping of conse∣crated Bread: in which, if they be not deceiv'd; all the reason, and all the senses of all the men in the world are deceiv'd; and if they be deceiv'd, then it is certain, they give Divine worship to what they naturally eat and drink; and how great a provocation of God that is, they cannot but know by the whole analogy of the Old and New Testament, and even by natural reason it self, and all the dictates of Religion which God hath written in our hearts. On the other side, if we consi∣der that if the Divine worship they intend to Christ were pass'd immediately to him sitting in Heaven, and not thorow that blessed thing upon the Altar, but di∣rectly and primarily to him whose passion there is re∣presented, and the benefits of whose death are there offer'd and exhibited; there could be no diminution of any right due to Christ. Nay to them who consi∣der, that in the first institution and tradition of it to the Apostles, Christ's body was still whole and unkroken,

and separate from the Bread, and could not then be transubstantiate and pass from it self into what it was not before, and yet remain still it self what it was be∣fore; and that neither Christ did command the Apo∣stles to worship, neither did they worship any thing but God the Father, at that time; it must needs seem to be a prodigious venture of their souls, to change that action, into a needless, and ungrounded supersti∣tion: especially since after Christ's ascension, his body is not only in Heaven, which must contain it until his coming to judgment; but is so chang'd, so immate∣rial, or spiritual, that it is not capable of being broken by hands or teeth. In not adoring that which we see to be Bread, we can be as safe as the Apostles were, who, (that we find) did not worship it; but in giving Divine honours to it, we can be no more safe (in case their proposition be amiss) than he that worships the Sun, because he verily believes he is the God of Hea∣ven. A good meaning in this case will not justifie his action; not only because he hath enough to instruct him better, and to bring him to better understanding, but especially because he may mean as well, if he wor∣ships Christ in Heaven, Ad sua templa oculis, animo ad sua numina spectans; yea, and better, when he does actually worship Christ at that time, directing the worship to him in Heaven, and would terminate his worship on the Host, if he were sure it were Christ, or were commanded so to do. Add to this, that to worship Christ is an affirmative praecept, and, so it be done in wis∣dom and holiness, and love, in all just ways of address to him, in praying to him, reciting his prayers, giving him thanks, trusting in him, hoping in him, and loving him with the best love of obedience: not to bow the knee, hîc & nunc when we fear to displease him by so doing, cannot be a sin, because for that hîc & nunc there is no commandement at all. And after all; if

we will suppose that the doctrine of Transubstantia∣tion were true; yet because the Priest that consecrates may indeed secretly have receiv'd invalid Orders, or have evil Intention, or there may be some undiscern∣able nullity in the whole Oeconomy and ministration; so that no man of the Roman Communion can say, that by Divine faith he believes that this Host is at this time transubstantiated; but onely hath conjectures and or∣dinary suppositions, that it is so, and that he does not certainly know the contrary. He that certainly gives Divine Honour to that which is not certain to be the Body of Christ, runs into a danger too great, to pro∣mise to himself he shall be safe. Some there are who go further yet, and consider that the Church of Rome say onely, that the bread is chang'd into the body of Christ, but not into his soul; for then the same bread would be at the same time both material and immate∣rial; and that if it were, that to give honours abso∣lutely Divine to the humanity of Christ, abstracted from consideration of his Divinity, into which certain∣ly the bread is not transubstantiated, is too neer the doctrine of the Socinians, who suppose the humanity to be absolutely Deified; and Divine Honours to be due to Christ as a man whom God hath exalted above every name. But if they say, that they worship the body in concretion with the Divinity; it is certain that may be done at all times by looking up to heaven in all our religious addresses. And therefore that is the safe way, and that's the way of the Church of England. The other way, viz. of the Church of Rome, at the best is full of dangers, and qui amat periculum peribit in illo, was the wise mans caution.

[ 3] 3. The like to this is the Practice of the Church of Rome in worshipping Angels; which as it is no where commanded in the New Testament, so it is expressly forbidden by an Angel himself twice,* 1.459 to S. John, ad∣ding

an unalterable reason; for I am thy fellow-servant, worship God; or as some Ancient Copies read it, worship Jesus: meaning that, although in the Old Testament the Patriarchs and Prophets did bow before the Angels that appear'd to them as God's Embassadors, and in the Person of God; and to which they were greatly in∣clined, because their law was given by Angels: yet when God had exalted the Son of Man to be the Lord of Men and Angels, we are all fellow-servants; and they are not to receive religious worship as before, nor we to pay it them. And by this we understand the reproof which S. Paul makes of the Gnosticks,* 1.460 of whose practice he forewarns the Christians that they suffer not themselves to be deceiv'd by the worshipping of Angels. Now by these authorities it is plain, that it can at least be no duty to worship Angels; and therefore they that do it not, cannot be blamed: but if these words mean here, as they do in all other places, there is at least great danger to do it.

4 And of the like danger is Invocation of Saints; [ 4] which if it be no more than a meer desire to them to pray for us, why is it express'd in their publick Offices in words that differ not from our Prayers to God? if it be more, it creates in us, or is apt to create in us, con∣fidence in the creatures; it relies upon that which S. Paul us'd as an argument against worship of Angels, and that is, intruding into those things we understand not; for it pretends to know their present state, which is hid from our eyes; and it proceeds upon the very reason upon which the Gnosticks and the Valentinians went; that is, that it is fit to have mediators between God and us: that we may present our prayers to them, and they to God. To which adde, that the Church of Rome presenting Candles and other Donaries to the Virgin Mary as to the Queen of Heaven, do that which the Collyridians did; the gift is only differing, as Candle

and Cake, Gold and Garments, this vow or that vow. All which being put together makes a dangerous Li∣turgy; not like to the Worship and Devotion us'd in the Primitive Church, but so like to what is forbidden in Scripture, that it is much the worse. The advantage got by these things cannot countervail the evil of the suspicion; and the wit of them that do so, cannot by a secure answer escape the force of a prohibition; and therefore it were infinitely more safe to let it alone; and to invocate and adore him only who is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Father of the Aeönes, the Father of Men and Angels, and God, through Jesus Christ; and that answers all objections.

[ 5] 5. What good does the worship of Images do to the souls of Christians? What glory is done to God by be∣ing represented in little shapes, and humane or phan∣tastick figures? What Scripture did ever command it? what prophet did not reprove it? Is it not in all ap∣pearance, and grammatical and proper understanding of words, forbidden by an express Commandment of God? Is there any duty incumbent on us to do it? Certainly, all the arts of witty men of the Roman side, are little enough, and much too little to prove, that it is lawful to make and worship them: and the distincti∣ons and elusions, the tricks and artifices are so many, that it is a great piece of impertinent learning to re∣member them, and no small trouble to understand them; and they that most need the distinctions (that is, the common people) cannot use them; and at the best, it is very hard to think it lawful, but very easie to understand that it is forbidden; and most easie to be assur'd it is very innocent to let it alone. Where an image is, there is no religion, said Lactantius; and we ought rather to die than to pollute our faith with such impieties, said Origen. Now let us suppose that these fathers speak against the heathen superstition of

worshipping the images of their gods;* 1.461 certainly, if it was a fault in them, it is worse in Christians, who have received so many Com∣mands to the contrary, and who are tied to worship the Father in spirit and in truth, and were ne∣ver permitted to worship him by an image. And true it is, that images are more fit for false gods, than for the true God, the Father of Spirits; the supersti∣tion of images is more proportion'd to the Idolatry of false gods, than to true religion and the worship of him whom eye hath not seen, and cannot see, nor heart can comprehend. And it is a vain Elusion to say, that these Fathers did not severely censure the use of images among Christians; for all that time among the Christi∣ans there was no use of images at all in religion; and for the very reasons by which they condemn'd the hea∣then superstition of image-worship, for the same rea∣sons they would never endure it at all amongst Chri∣stians. But then if this be so highly criminal (as these Ancient Fathers say) I desire it may be consider'd, for what pretended reasons the Church of Rome should not onely permit, but allow, and decree, and urge the use of images in their religious adorations? If it be onely for instruction of the Laity, that might be better sup∣plied by Catechisings, and frequent Homilies; and if instruction be intended, then the single Statues are less useful; but Histories and Hieroglyphicks are to be painted upon Tables; and in them I suppose there would be less temptation of doing abomination. But when the images simple or mixt are painted or carved, the people must be told what their meaning is; and then they will not need such books, who may with less danger learn their lesson by heart: and besides this, they are told strange stories of the Saints whose images

they see, and of the images themselves that represent the Saints; and then it may be these Lay-mens books may teach them things that they must unlearn again. But yet if they be useful for instruction, what benefit is done to our spirits by giving them adoration? That God will accept it as an honour done to himself, he hath no where told us; and he seems often to have told us the contrary; and if it be possible by mans wit to acquit this practice from being (what the prophets so highly reprove) spiritual whoredom, in giving Gods due to an image; yet it can never be prov'd to be a part of that worshipping of God in spirit and in truth which he requires. And though it would never have been believed in Origen's, Tertullian's, or Lactantius's days, that ever there would arise a sort of Christians that should contend earnestly for the worshipping images, or that ever the heathen way of worship, viz. of what they call'd God, by an image, should become a great part of Christianity, or that a Council of Bi∣shops should decree the worship of images, as an ar∣ticle of faith; or that they should think men should be damned for denying worship to images; yet after all this, when it is considered that the worshipping of images by Christians is so great a scandal to the Indi∣ans, that they think themselves justified in their reli∣gion by this; and so great a scandal to Jews and Turks, that they hate Christianity it self for that very reason; it is a strange pertinacy in the Church of Rome to retain this practice for so little pretensions of good, and with so evident a mischief: To which, if this be added, that many of the ruder people do down-right worship the image without a distinction, or scruple, or difference; and that for ought we know, many souls perish by such practices, which might be secur'd by the taking away the images and forbidding the superstition: I for my part cannot imagine how the Guides of souls

can answer it to God, or satisfie their conscien∣ces in their so vilely and cheaply regarding Souls, and permitting them to live in danger, and die in sin, for no spiritual good which can accrue to the Church, which can countervail the danger, much less the loss of one Soul. However, it will be very hard from any principle of Christian Religion, to prove it is a damnable sin, not to worship Images; but every man that can read, hath very much to say, that to worship them, is a provocation of God to anger, and to jea∣lousie.

6. Thus also it must needs be confessed, that it is [ 6] more safe for the Church of God, to give the Holy Communion in both kinds then but in one; and Bel∣larmine's foolish reason of the Wine sticking to lay mens Beards, is as ridiculous, as the doctrine it self is unreasonable; and if they would shave Lay-mens Beards, as they do the Clergy, it would be less incon∣venience than what they now feel; and if there be no help for it, they had better lose their Beards, than lose their share of the Bloud of Christ. And what need is there to dispute such uncertain and unreasonable pro∣positions, as that Christ's Bloud is with the Body, by way of Concomitancy, as if the Sacrament were not of Christ's Body broken, and the Bloud poured out; and as if, in case it be so, Christ did not know, or not con∣sider it, but, for all that, instituted the Supper in both kinds. And what more is gotten by the Host alone, than by that and the Chalice too? And what can be answered to the pious desires of so many Nations, to have the Chalice restored; when they ask for nothing but their part of the Legacy which Christ left them in his Testament? And the Church of Rome, which takes upon her to be sole Executrix, or at least, Overseer of it, tells them, that the Legacy will do them no good; and keeps it from them, by telling them, It is

not necessary, nay, it is worse than so; for when in the time of the Council of Trent, instance was made, that leave might be given to such as desire it; the Oracle was utter'd by the Cardinal of Alexandria,* 1.462 but was given after the old manner, so that no man was the bet∣ter. For no man was capable of receiving the favour but he that profess'd he did not believe it necessary; and then there could be no great reason to desire it: He that thought he needed it, could not receive it; and he that found no want of it, in all reason would not be importunate for it, and then he should be sure not to have it: So that, in effect, there were two sorts of persons denyed it; Those that required it, and those that did not require it. And to what Christian grace to referre the wisdom and piety of this answer, I can∣not yet learn. Neither can I yet imagine why the Cardinal S. Angelo should call Giving the Cup to the Laity,* 1.463 a giving them a Cup of deadly poyson; since cer∣tain it is, that the Bloud of Christ is a savour of life, and not of death; and, as the French Embassadour replied,

The Apostles who did give it, were not impoysoners; and the many ages of the primitive Church did re∣ceive it with very great emolument and spiritual comfort.

To this I know it will be said by some, who cannot much defend their Church in the thing it self, That it is no great matter; and if all things else were accorded, this might be dispens'd withall; and the Pope could give leave to the respective Churches, to have according as it might be expedient, and fit for edification. But this will not serve the turn: For first the thing it self, is no small matter, but of greatest con∣cernment. It is the Sacramental Bloud of Christ. The Holy Bread cannot be the Sacrament of the Bloud; and if Christ did not esteem it as necessary, to leave a Sacra∣ment of his Bloud, as of his Body, he would not have done it; and if he did think it as necessary, certainly it

was so. But 2. Suppose the matter be small; why then shall a Schism be made by him that would be thought the Great Father of Christians? and all Chri∣stendom almost displeas'd and offended, rather than he will comply with their desires of having nothing but what Christ left them? If the thing be but little, why do they take a course to make it (as they suppose) damnation to desire it? And if it be said, Because it is Heresie, to think the Church hath erred all this while in denying it; to this, the answer will be easie, that themselves who did deny it, have given the occasion, and not they who do desire it; neither have all the Christian Churches denyed it; for I think none but the Roman Church does; and if the Roman Church by granting it now to her own Children, will be suppos'd to have erred in denying it; to continue this denial, will not cure that inconvenience: for that which at first was but an Error, will now become Heresie, if they be pertinacious in the refusal. But if it were not for po∣litical, and humane considerations, and secular interests, there will be little question, but that it will be safer, and more agreeable to Christ's institution, and the Apostolical doctrine, and the primitive practice, to grant it lovingly, than to detain it sacrilegiously: For at least, the detention will look like Sacrilege; and the granting it, cannot but be a Fatherly, and pious ministra∣tion: especially since when it is granted, all parties are pleased, and no man's authority real, or pretended, is questioned. But whatever become of this considera∣tion which is nothing but a charitable desire, and way of peace with our adversaries, and a desire to win them by our not intermedling with their unalterable, and pertinacious interest; yet as to the thing it self, it is certain, that to communicate in both kinds, is justifiable by the institution of Christ, and the perpetual practice of the Church for many ages; which thing certainly is,

or ought to be, the greatest Rule for the Churches imi∣tation. And if the Church of Rome had this advantage against us in any Article, as I hope there would not be found so much pertinacy amongst us, as to resist the power of such an argument; so it is certain there would not be amongst them so much modesty as to abstain from the most absolute triumph, and the fiercest de∣clamations: In the mean time, our safety in this Arti∣cle also is visible and notorious. Against the saying of Saint Ambrose, which in the Preface to the first part I brought to reprove this practice; those who thought themselves oblig'd to object, will find the quotation justified in the Section of the Half-Communion; to which I referre the Reader.

[ 7] 7. What a strange Uncharitableness is it, to believe and teach, that poor babes, descending from Christi∣an Parents, if they die unbaptized, shall never see the face of God, and that of such is not the Kingdom of Heaven? The Church of England enjoyns the Parents to bring them; and her Priests to baptize them, and punishes the neglect where it is criminal, and yet teach∣es no such fierce and uncharitable proposition, which can serve no end, but what may with less damage and affrightment, be very well secur'd; and to distrust God's goodness to the poor Infants, whose fault it could not be, that they were not baptized; and to amerce their no-fault with so great a fine, even the loss of all the good which they could receive from him that created them, and loves them, is such a playing with Heads, and a regardless treatment of Souls, that for charity sake, and common humanity, we dare not mingle in their Counsels. But if we erre, it is on the safer side; it is on the one side of mercy and charity. These seven particulars are not trifling considerations; but as they have great influence into the event of Souls, so they are great parts of the Roman Religion,

as they have pleased to order Religion at this day. I might instance in many more, if I thought it necessary, or did not fear they would think me inquisitive for objections: therefore I shall add no more; only I pro∣fess my self to wonder at the obstinacy of the Roman Prelates, that will not consent, that the Liturgy of their Church should be understood by the people. They have some pretence of politick reason, why they forbid the translation of the Scriptures; though all wise men know they have other reasons, than what they pretend, yet this also would be considered; that if the people did read the Scriptures, and would use that liberty well, they might receive infinite benefit by them; and that if they did abuse that liberty, it were the Peoples fault, and not the Rulers; but that they are forbidden, that is the Rulers fault, and not the Peoples: But for prohibiting the understanding of their publick, and sometimes of many of their private devotions, there can be no plausible pretence, no excuse of policy, no end of piety; and if the Church of England be not in this also, of the surer side, then we know nothing, but all the reason of all man-kind is faln asleep.

Well, however these things have at least, very much probability in them; yet for professing these things according to the Scriptures, and Catholick tradition, and right Reason (as will be further demonstrated in the following paragraphs) they call us Hereticks, and sen∣tence us with damnation;* 1.464 with damnation, I say; for not worshipping of Images; for not calling the Sacramental Bread, our God & Saviour; for not teaching for doctrines, the Commandements of men; for not equalling the sayings of men, to the sayings of God; for not worshipping An∣gels, for not putting trust in Saints, and speaking to dead persons, who are not present; & for offering to desire to receive the Communion, as Christ gave it to his Disciples, & they to all to whom they preach'd. If these be causes

of damnation; what shall become of them that do worship Images; and that do take away half of the Sacrament from the people, to whom Christ left it? and keep knowledge from them, and will not suffer the most of them to pray with the Understanding; and worship Angels, and make dead men their Guardians, and erect Altars, and make Vows, and give consump∣tive Offerings to Saints, real, or imaginary? Now tru∣ly, we know not what shall become of them; but we pray for them as men not without hope: only as long as we can, we repeat the words of our Blessed Saviour, He that breaks one of the least Commandments,* 1.465 and teaches men so, shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.

SECTION IX.

That the Church of Rome does teach for Doctrines, the Commandements of Men.

THe former Charge hath occasion'd this, which is but an instance of their adding to the Christian Faith new Articles upon their own authority. And here, first, I shall represent what is intended in the re∣proof which our Blessed Saviour made of the Phari∣sees; saying, They taught for doctrines, the Commande∣ments of men. And 2. I shall prove that the Church of Rome is guilty of it, and the Church of England is not.

1. The words of our Blessed Saviour are to be un∣derstood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Conjunctively; that is, In vain do ye worship me,* 1.466 teaching doctrines, and Commandements of men; that is, things which men only have deliver'd; and if these once be esteemed to be a worshipping of

God, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a vain worship. Now this ex∣press'd it self in two degrees; The first was in over-valuing humane ordinances; that is, equalling them to Divine Commandments; exacting them by the same measures, by which they require obedience to God's laws, and this with a pretended zeal for God's honour and service. Thus the Pharisees were noted and re∣proved by our Blessed Saviour.

1. The things of decency, or indifferent practices, [ 1] were counselled by their Forefathers; in process of time they became approved by use and Custom; and then their Doctors denied their Communion to them that omitted them, found out new reasons for them, were severe in their censures concerning the causes of their omission, would approve none, no not the cases and exceptions of charity or piety. And this is in∣stanc'd in their washings of cups and platters, and the outside of dishes; which either was at first instituted for cleanliness and decency, or else as being symboli∣cal to the Purifications in the Law: but they chang'd the Scene, enjoyn'd it as necessity; were scandalized at them that us'd it not; practis'd it with a frequency, passing into an intolerable burden; insomuch that at the marriage of Cana in Galilee there were six water-Pots set after the manner of the Purification of the Jews; because they washed often in the time of their meals; and then they put new reasons, and did it for other causes than were in the first institution. And al∣though these washings might have been used without violation of any Commandment of God; yet even by this Tradition they made Gods Commandment void, by making this necessary, and imposing these useless and unnecessary burdens on their brethren, by making snares for Consciences, and making Religion and the Service of God to consist in things indifferent. So they made

void Gods Commandment by turning Religion into su∣perstition.

[ 2] 2. Whereas humane laws, customs and traditions may oblige in publick, and for order sake, and decency, and for reputation and avoiding scandal, and to give testimony of obedience; and are not violated if they be omitted without scandal and contempt, and injury, with a probable reason: yet to think they oblige beyond what man can see, or judge, or punish, or feel, is to give to humane laws the estimate which is due to divine laws. So did the Pharisees: Quicquid sapi∣entes vetant palàm fieri, id etiam in penetralibus ve∣titum est, said Rabbi Bachai. But this is the Preroga∣tive of Divine Laws which oblige as much in private as in publick; because God equally sees in the Closet and in the Temple: Men cannot do this, and therefore cannot make Laws to bind, where they can have no cognisance and no concern.

[ 3] 3. Humane authority is to command according to its own rate; that is, at the rate of humane under∣standing; where the obedience may be possibly defi∣cient, because the understanding is fallible. But the Divine authority is infallible, and absolute, and su∣preme: and therefore our obedience to it must be as absolute, perpetual, and indeficient. But the Phari∣sees had a saying, and their practice was accordingly; Si dixerint scribae dextram esse sinistram, & sinistram esse dextram, audi eos, said the forenamed Rabbi.

2. The second degree in which this express'd it self among the Pharisees, was, that they did not onely equal, but preferr'd the Commandments of men be∣fore the Commands of God. Plus est in verbis scriba∣rum quam in verbis legis* 1.467; and of this the instance that our Blessed Saviour gives is in the case of the Corban, and not relieving their Parents. Sacrum erit

quicquid paravero in futurum ad os patris* 1.468, If they said it was dedicated; their Father's hungry belly might not be relieved by it. And this our Blessed Saviour calls, as being the highest degree of this superstition, a making the Commandment of God of no effect by their tradition; this does it directly; as the other did it by necessary and unavoidable consequence.

Now that the Church of Rome is greatly guilty of this criminal way of teaching and mis-leading the Con∣sciences of her disciples, will appear in these (amongst many other) instances.

SECTION X.

Of the Seal of Confession.

1. I First instance in their Seal of Confession; And the question is not, Whether a Priest is to take care of his Penitent's fame, or whether he be not in all prudent and pious ways to be careful, lest he make that Entercourse odious: For certainly he is. But whether the Seal of Confession be so sacred and im∣pregnable that it is not to be opened in the immi∣nent danger of a King, or Kingdom; or for the doing the greatest good, or avoiding the greatest evil in the world: that's now the question, and such a Broad Seal as this, is no part of the Christian Religion, was never spoken of by the Prophets or Apostles, in the Old or the New Testament, never was so much as men∣tion'd in the Books of the Ancient Fathers and Do∣ctors, not so much as named in the Ancient Councils of the Church; and was not heard of until after the time of Pope Gregory the seventh. Now how this is deter∣min'd

& practis'd in the Church of Rome, we may quick∣ly see. The first direct Rule in the Western Church we find in this affair,* 1.469 is the Canon of the Lateran Council; Cap. Omnis utriusque, in which to Confess at Easter, was made an Ecclesiastical Law; and, as an Appendix to it, this caution, Caveatautem omninò, ne verbo aut signo aut alio quovis modo aliquatenus prodat peccatorem: sed si prudentiore consilio indiguerit, illud absque ullâ ex∣pressione personae requirat. This Law concerning them that do confess their secret sins to a Priest, in order to Counsel, comfort, and pardon from God by his Mini∣stery, is very prudent and pious; and it relates only to the person, not to the crimes: these may upon the account of any doubt, or the advantage of better counsel and instruction be reveal'd; the person upon such accounts may not, Nisi veritas aut obedientia aliud exigat,* 1.470 as S. Bonaventure said well; Unless truth, or obedience require the contrary: for indeed the person is not often so material as to the inquiry of future counsel, or present judgment, as the greatness, and other circumstances of the sin. But this was an ancient Ec∣clesiastical Rule,* 1.471 as we find it related by Sozomen, Pres∣byterum aliquem vitae integritate quam maximè specta∣bilem, secretorum eitam tenacem ac sapientem huic of∣ficio praefecerunt, A penitentiary Priest was appoint∣ted for the Penitents, a man that was of good life, wise, and secret. So far was well, and agreeable to com∣mon prudence, and natural reason, and the words of Solomon;* 1.472 Qui ambulat fraudulenter revelat arcanum, qui autem fidelis est celat amici commissum. There is in this case, some more reason than in ordinary secrets; but still the obligation is the same, and to be governed by prudence, and is subject to contradiction, by great∣er causes. The same also, is the Law in the Greek Church,* 1.473 mentioned by S. Basil, Our Fathers permitted not that women, that had committed Adultery, and were

penitent, should be delated in publick* 1.474. This is the whole ground and foundation, on which the Seal of Confessi∣on does, or can rely, save only that in several Churches there were several Laws in after-ages to the same pur∣pose, and particularly, in the 11th. Canon of the Church of England; adding also the penalty of irregu∣larity, to every Priest that shall reveal any thing com∣mitted to him in private Confession, but with this Proviso; that it be not binding, in such cases where the concealment is made capital, by the Laws of the King∣dom: which because it is very strict, and yet very pru∣dent, I shall make it appear, that the Church of Eng∣land walks wisely in it, and according to the prece∣dents of the Ancient Catholick Church, in command∣ing the Seal to be broken up in some cases; and yet she hath restrain'd it more than formerly was observed in the Churches of God.

Burchard expres••ly affirms,* 1.475 that before the Nicene Council, the penitentiary Priest might publish what he heard in Confessions, if it were for the good of the penitent, or, for the greatness of the crime, it seem'd fit to the Confessor.

And that he says true, we have sufficient testimo∣ny from Origen.* 1.476 Tantum modo circumspice diligentius cui debeas confiteri peccatum tuum—Si intellexerit & praeviderit talem esse languorem tuum qui in conventu totius Ecclesiae exponi debeat & curari, ex quo fortassis & caeteri aedificari poterunt, & tu ipse facilè sanari, multâ hoc deliberatione & satis perito medici illius con∣silio procurandum est. By which words he affirms, 1. That it was in the power of the Confessor, to com∣mand the publication of certain crimes, 2. That though it was not lightly to be done, yet upon great reason it might. 3. That the spiritual good of the penitent, and the edification of others, were causes sufficient for the publication. 4. That of these; the Confessor was

judge. 5. That this was no otherwise done by the consent of the party, but because he was bound to consent when the Confessor enjoyn'd it: And the mat∣ter is evident, in the case of the incestuous Corinthian; who either was restor'd without private Confession; or, if he was not, S. Paul caus'd it to be publish'd in the Church, and submitted the man to the severest disci∣pline and yet publick, that was then or since in the world. The like to this, we find in a decretal Epistle of Pope Leo;* 1.477 for when some Confessors, exceeding the ancient Ecclesiastical Rule, were not so prudent and deliberate in conducting their Penitents, as formerly they were, but commanded that all their whole Con∣fessions should be written down, and publickly read; he says, Though the plentitude of Faith might be lan∣dable, that is not afraid to blush in publick, yet the Con∣fession is sufficient, if it be made in secret first to God, and then to the Priest: and adds, Non omnium hujus∣modi sunt peccata, ut ea quae poenitentiam poscunt, non timeant publicare; All sins are not of that nature, that are fit to be publish'd: and therefore removeatur tam improbabilis consuetudo; let such a reprovable custome be taken away.] In which words of S. Leo; we find, 1. That the Seal of Confession (as at this day it is un∣derstood at Rome,) was no such inviolable, and reli∣gious secret; for by a contrary custom it was too much broken. 2. That he blames not the publication of some sins, but that they indiscriminately did publish all. 3. That the nature of some sins did not permit it: for (as he adds afterwards) men by this means were betrayed to the malice of their Enemies, who would bring them before tribunals, in some cases. 4. That this was not spoken in case of publick Crimes, delated, and brought into publick notice, but such as were spoken in private Confession. And here I cannot but desire, there had been some more ingenuity in Bel∣larmine,

who relating to this Epistle of S.* 1.478 Leo, affirms, that S. Leo says, It is against the Apostolical Rule, to reveal secret sins, declar'd in Confession; when it is plain, that S. Leo only blames the Custom of reveal∣ing all; saying, that all sins are not of that nature, as to be fit to be reveal'd. And by these precedent au∣thorities, we shall the easier understand that famous fact of Nectarius, who abolished the Custom of having sins published in the Church, and therefore took away the penitentiary Priest, whose Office was (as I prov'd out of Origen, Sozomen, and Burchard) to enjoyn the publication of some sins, according to his dis∣cretion. It hapned in Constantinople, that a foul fact was committed, and it was published in the ears of the people, and a tumult was rais'd about it; and the Remedy was, that Nectarius took away the Office, and the Custom together. Consulentibus quibusdam ut Vnicuique liberum permitteret, prout sibi ipse conscius esset & consideret, ad mysteriorum Communionem ac∣cedere, poenitentiarium illum presbyterum exauthoravit. Every man was thenceforth left to his liberty, accord∣ing to the dictate and confidence of his own conscience, to come to the Communion; and this afterwards pass'd into a Rite: for the manners of men growing degenerate, and worse sins being now confess'd than (as he supposes) formerly they had been; the judges having been more severe, and the people more modest, it was fit enough that this Custom, upon the occasion of such a scandal, and so much mischief like to follow it, should be laid aside wholly; and so it was. Here is a plain story, truly told by Sozomen, and the matter is easie to be understood. But Bellarmine, seeing the practice, and doctrine of the Church of Rome pinch'd by it, makes a distinction (deriv'd from the present Custom of his Church) of publick Confession and pri∣vate, saying, That Nectarius took away the publick,

and not the private. This I shall have occasion to dis∣cuss in the next Section. I am now onely to speak con∣cerning the Seal of Confession; which from this au∣thority is apparent was not such a sacred thing, but that it was made wholly to minister to the publick and private edification of the penitent, and the whole Church.

Thus this Affair stood in the Primitive Church. In descending ages when private Confessions grew fre∣quent, and were converted into a Sacrament; the Seal also was made more tenacious; and yet by the disci∣pline of the Church, there were divers Cases in which the Seal might be broken up. 1. There is a famous Gloss in Cap. Tua nos. lib. 4. Decretal. tit. 1. De Sponsalibus & Matrimonio; where the Pope answer∣ing to a question concerning a pretended contract of marriage, says, that the marriage is good, unless the In∣quiring Bishop of Brescia could have assur'd him, that the man did never consent, or intend the marriage, Quod qualiter tibi constiterit, non videmus: The Gloss upon these words says, Imò benè potuit constare; quia vir ille hoc ei confitebatur,

The Bishop might well know it, because the man had confessed it to him; or because he had revealed it to him in peni∣tential confession. For though in Judicial confession before a tribunal no man is to be believed to the pre∣judice of a third person, yet in penitential Confessi∣on he is to be believ'd; because it is not to be sup∣posed that he then is unmindful of his salvation.]

Where the Gloss observing that he did or might have received it in Confession, and yet make use of it in Consultation with his superiors, and upon that answer was to pronounce it to be, or not to be, a marriage, and to treat the persons accordingly; it follows that the thing it self might be revealed for the good of the penitents soul, and this was done by the Cardinal of

S. Laurence in the case of a woman introducing a sup∣posititious Child to the inheritance of her husband;* 1.479 and this revelation of the Confession produc'd a de∣cretal Epistle from the Pope in that particular case;* 1.480 and of this the Doctors give this reason;* 1.481 because a thing so odious, and that would bring so certain ruine to souls, might not be permitted, with so great scandal, and so great mischief. 2. And that Confession may [ 2] be revealed for the regulating a doubtful case of marriage, is the opinion of many great Canonists. 3. That it may be revealed in the case of Heresie con∣fess'd, [ 3] I think there was no doubt of it at any time. 4. And that every Confessor may reveal the Confes∣sion [ 4] by the Penitent's leave, is taught by Durandus, Almain, Medina, and Navar; and generally by all the ancient Scholars of S. Thomas. Now if a law be made that in certain cases, the Confessor shall publish the Confession, then every mans consent is involved in it, as his private right is in the publick interest; of which it is a part, and to which it is subordinate and must yield. But who pleases to see how this affair once did stand in the Church of Rome, and more especially in the Catholick Church, if he be not yet, may be satis∣fied by the proofs which Altisiodorensis gives of the lawfulness of publishing Confessions in certain cases. 5. Lastly, if a sinful intention of committing a grievous [ 5] Crime be revealed in Confession, and the person con∣fessing cannot desist from, or will not alter his purpose; then that the Seal of Confession may be broken open, is affirmed bya 1.482 Alexander of Ales, by theb 1.483 Summa Ange∣lica, which also reckons five cases more, in which it is lawful to reveal Confessions. The same also is taught byc 1.484 Panormitan,d 1.485 Hostiensis, thee 1.486 Summa Sylvestrina, and by Popef 1.487 Innocent himself.

But now if we consider how it is in the Church of Rome at this day, and hath been this last age for the

most part; we shall find that this humane constitution, relying upon prudent and pious considerations, is urged as a Sacramental Obligation, and a great part of the Religion; and is not accounted obliging onely for the reasons of its first Sanction; nor as an act of obedience to the positive law, but as a Natural, Essential, Divine and unalterable Obligation. And from thence these doctrines are derived. 1. That what a Priest knows in Confession, he knows it not as a man, but as God: which proposition (as it is foolish, and too neer to blasphemy, and may as well inferr, that the Priest may be then ador'd by the penitent with the distinction, viz. not as man, but as God; so) is expressly confuted by the Gloss above-cited,* 1.488 and by Scotus; but taught by the Modern Casuists, and is the ground of a strange practice. For 2. as a consequent of the former, it is taught in the Church of Rome by their greatest Guides, that if a Priest having heard a thing onely in Confession;a 1.489 If being asked, and sworn, he shall say, he never heard that thing, he neither lies nor forswears. So Emanuelb 1.490 Sa teaches; and adds, that in the same manner the peni∣tent may also swear, that he said nothing, or no such thing in Confession. But how this should be excus'd, or whether they think the Penitent to have spoken to none but God; I am not yet satisfied. 3. It is not law∣ful to reveal any thing that is told onely in Confession, though it be to avoid the greatest evil that can happen, so saidc 1.491 Bellarmine; to save a whole Commonwealth from damage temporal or spiritual, sod 1.492 Suarez; to save the lives of all the Kings in Christendom, soe 1.493 Binet told Isaac Causabon in the Kings Library at Paris. The same is openly avowed by Eudaemon Johannes,f 1.494 That there is no evil so great, for the avoiding of which it can be lawful to reveal Confession; and that this may appear to be a Catholick doctrine, the same Author reckons up so many Moderns teaching the same, that

the very names of the Authors and Books fills up se∣veral pages: and that it is the Catholick doctrine, is expressly taught by the Author of the famous Apo∣logy made for the Jesuites, after the horrid parricide of Henry the fourth of France. They adde, even be∣yond this, all the Curiosity of the very circumstances of silence; That this silence does not onely oblige in the case of perfect Confession, but, if it be begun, not onely in case of Confession clear and express, but if it be so much as in relation to Confession: not onely the Confessor, but the Messenger, the Interpreter, the Coun∣sellour, he that hears it by chance, or by stealth: and he that was told of it by him that should but did not conceal it; the Seal is to be kept by all means, direct∣ly and indirectly, by words and signs, judicially and extrajudicially, unless the penitent give leave: but that leave is to be express, and is not to be ask'd but in the case of a compelling necessity; neither can the Confessor impose a publick penance upon him, who hath confessed privately. Which things, especially the last, are most diametrically opposed to the doctrine and discipline of the Primitive Church, as I have already proved; but these things are expressly taught as the doctrine of the most famous Casuists of the Church of Rome,* 1.495 by Escobar, who comparing his Book in method to the seven Seals of the Revelations, which the four living Creatures read; Suarez the Ox, Molina the Man, Vasques the Eagle, and Valentia the Lion; and 24. El∣ders, that is, 24. Jesuites also read these seven Seals; though when they come to be reckon'd, they prove 25. so fatal is that Antichristian number to the Church of Rome, that it occurs in every accident: but his mean∣ing is, that the doctrines he teaches are the doctrines of all those 25. famous leading men; Penes quos Imperium I••∣terarum & Conscientiarum. If now it be not the Ca∣tholick doctrine, then is it heretical? and then, why is it

not disown'd? why are not they that say so, censur'd? why is not the doctrine condemned? why is it pub∣lickly maintain'd and allowed by authority? why is it pleaded in bar against execution of justice in the case of treason; as it was by F. Garnet himself, and all his Apologists? But if this be the Catholick doctrine, then let it be consider'd how cheap are the lives of Kings in their eyes, who consult more with the safety of a Villain, whom they dare not absolve* 1.496, than of a King, who is worthy ten thousands of his people; and let it be also considered, that by using all the ways in the world to make Confession easie to Traitors and Homicides, they make it odious to Kings and Princes, and to all that love the safety of their Sovereigns, and of the publick. We find that the laws of God yield to charity and necessity, and Christ followed the act of David; who, when he was hungry, eat the Shew-bread, which was unlawful to be eaten but by the Priest alone: and he that commanded us to go, and learn what that means, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, intended not that the Seal of Confession should upon pretence of Religion be us'd to the most uncharitable ends in the world; no, though it had been made sacred by a Di∣vine Commandment; which it is not, but is wholly introduc'd by Custom and Canons Ecclesiastical: And when we see that things dedicated to God, and made sacred by Religion, and the laws of God confirming such Religion, can be alien'd and made common in cases of extreme necessity, or great charity; it is a strange superstition, that shall hold that fast with teeth and nails, and never let it go, no not to save a soul, not to preserve the life of Kings, not to prevent the greatest m••schief in the world; This is certainly a making the Commandments of men greater and more sacred than the Commandments of God, and a passing them into a doctrine, great, necessary and unalterable, as a Funda∣mental Article.

SECTION XI.

Of the imposing Auricular Confession upon Consciences, without authority from God.

THat Confession to a Priest, is a Doctrine taught as necessary in the Church of Rome, is without all question; and yet that it is but the Commandment of men, I shall (I hope) clearly enough evince; and if I do, I suppose the Charge laid against the Church of Rome, which is the same Christ laid against the Pharisees, will be fully made good, as to this instance; For this is one of the sorts of that Crime, to say, Dixit Dominus, Dominus autem non dixit; to pretend a Rite to be of Divine institution when it is not so, but humanum inventum, a device of man's brain. The other (which is, still supposing an institution to be hu∣mane and positive, yet to urge it with the same severe Religion, as they do a Divine Commandment) I shall consider in other instances. For the present, the in∣quiry is concerning Auricular Confession, and it's pre∣tended necessity. The first Decree concerning it, was in the Lateran Council;* 1.497 in which every person of years of discretion, is commanded to confess all his sins to his own Priest, at least once in the year; or to another Priest, with the leave of his own; otherwise, while he is living, he must be driven from entrance into the Church; and, when he is dead, he must have no Christian Burial. This is very severe; but yet here is no damnation to them that neglect it; and the duty is not pretended to be by Divine Commandment: and therefore lest that se∣verity might seem too much to be laid upon humane

Law, they made it up in the new forge at Trent; and there it was decreed that, To confess all, and every mor∣tal sin, which after diligent inquiry we remember, and every evil thought or desire,* 1.498 and the circumstances that change the nature of the sin, is necessary for the remis∣sion of sins, and of Divine institution; and he that denies this, is to be Anathema.

Whether to confess to a Priest, be an adviseable discipline, and a good instance, instrument, and mini∣stery of Repentance, and may serve many good ends in the Church, and to the souls of needing persons, is is no part of the Question. We find that in the Acts of the Apostles, divers converted persons came to S. Paul, either publickly, or privately, and confess'd their deeds;* 1.499 and burnt their books of Exorcism, that is, did what became severe, and hearty penitents, who needed Counsel and Comfort, and that their Repen∣tance should be conducted by wise Guides. And when S. James exhorts all Christians to confess their sins to one another, certainly it is more agreeable to all spiri∣tual ends, that this be done rather to the Curates of Souls, than to the ordinary Brethren. The Church of England is no way engag'd against it, but advises it, and practises it. The Calvinist-Churches do not pra∣ctise it much, because they know not well how to de∣vest it from it's evil appendages which are put to it by the customs of the world, and to which it is too much expos'd by the interests, weaknesses, and partialities of men. But they commending it, show they would use it willingly, if they could order it unto edifica∣tion. a 1.500 Interim quin sistant se Pastori oves, quoties sacram Coenam participare volunt, adeò non reclamo, ut maximè velim hoc ubique observari. And for the Lu∣theran Churches, that it is their practice, we may see it inb 1.501 Chemnitius, who was one of greatest fame amongst them; and he is noted to this purpose by* 1.502 Bellarmin,

only they all consent, that it is not necessary nor of Divine institution; and being but of man's invention, it ought not to pass into a doctrine; and, as the Apo∣stles said in the matter of Circumcision, a burden ought not to be put upon the necks of the Disciples: and that, in lege gratiae,* 1.503 longè difficilimum too, as Maior observes truly, by far greater than any burden in the Law of Grace, the time of the Gospel. Let it be commanded to all, to whom it is needful, or profitable; but let it be free, as to the Conscience precisely, and bound but by the cords of a man, and as other Ecclesiastical Laws are, which are capable of exceptions, restrictions, cau∣tions, dispensations, rescindings, and abolitions, by the same authority, or upon greater reasons.

The Question then is, Whether to confess all our greater sins to a Priest, all that upon strict enquiry we can remember, be necessary to salvation? This the Church of Rome now affirms; and this the Church of England, and all Protestant Churches deny; and com∣plain sadly, that the Commandments of men are chang'd into the doctrines of God, by a Pharisaical empire, and superstition. Here then we joyn issue.

1. And in the first place, I shall represent that the doctrine of the necessity of Confession to a Priest is a new doctrine, even in the Church of Rome, and was not esteemed any part of the Catholick Religion before the Council of Trent. For first, the Gloss de poenit. dist. 5. c. in poenitentiâ, inquiring where, or when Oral Confession was institued, says, Some say it was instituted in Paradise, others say it was instituted when Joshuah called upon Achan to confess his sin: others say it was instituted in the new Testament by S. James: It is better said, that it was instituted by a certain univer∣sal tradition of the Church, and the tradition of the Church is obligatory as a praecept. Therefore confession of deadly sins is necessary with us (viz. Latins) but not

with the Greeks; because no such tradition hath come to them.] This is the full state of this affair, in the age when Semeca, who was the Glossator, liv'd; and it is briefly this. 1. There was no resolution, or agreement whence it came. 2. The Glossator's opinion was, it came from the Universal tradition of the Church. 3. It was but a kind of Universal tradition; not absolute, clear, and certain. 4. It was only a tradition in the Latin Church. 5. The Greeks had no such tradition. 6. The Greeks were not oblig'd to it; it was not necessa∣ry to them. Concerning the Greek Church, I shall after∣wards consider it in a more opportune place; here only I consider it as it was in the Latin Church: and of this I suppose there needs no better Record than the Canon Law it self, and the authentick Glosses upon it; which Glosses, although they be not Law, but as far as they please, yet they are perfect testimony as to matter of fact, and what the opinions of the Doctors were at that time. And therefore to the former, I add this; that in cap. Convertimini, Gratian hath these words, Vnde da∣tur intelligi, quod etiam ore tacente veniam consequi pos∣sumus, Without confession of the mouth we may obtain pardon of our sins; and this point he pursues in all that long Chapter; and in the chapter Resuscitatus, out of S. Austin's doctrine; and in the Chapter Qui natus, out of the doctrine of S. John's Epistle; the conclusion of which Chapter is, Cum ergo ante Confessionem (ut pro∣batum est) sumus resuscitati per gratiam, & filii lucis facti; evidentissimè apparet quod solâ cordis contritione sine Confessione oris, peccatum remittitur: and, in the Chapter Omnis qui non diligit, he expressly concludes out of S. John's words: Non ergo in confessione peccatum remittitur, quod jam remissum esse probatur: fit itaque confessio ad ostensionem poenitentiae, non ad impetratio∣nem veni••. And at the end of this Chapter, according to his custom in such disputable things; when he says,

Alii è contrario testantur; others witness to the con∣trary, that without confession Oral, and works of sa∣tisfaction, no man is cleansed from his sin; the Gloss upon the place, says thus: Ab hoc loco usque ad Sed his authoritatibus; pro aliâ parte allegat, quod scil. adulto peccatum non dimittitur sine oris Confessione, quod tamen falsum est: Only he says, that Confession doth cleanse, and Satisfaction doth cleanse: so that though by contriti∣on of the heart, the sin is pardon'd; yet these still cleanse more and more, as a man is more innovated] or amend∣ed. But these authorities brought in, (viz. that sin is not pardon'd without confession) if they be diligently expounded, prove but little.] But Frier Maurique, who by Pius Quintus, made and publish'd a censure upon the Glosses, appointed these words (quod tamen fal∣sum est) to be left out; but the Roman Correctors under Greg. 13th. let them alone; but put in the Margent a mark of contradiction upon it; saying, Imò verissimum est. But that was new doctrine, and although Semeca, the Author of the Gloss, affirm'd it expressly to be false, yet Gratian himself was more reserv'd; but yet not of the new opinion, but left the matter indiffe∣rent: for after he had alledged Scripture, and authori∣ties of Fathers on one side, and authority of Fathers on the other;* 1.504 he concludes, Quibus authoritatibus vel quibuslibet rationum firmamentis utraque sententia Sa∣tisfactionis & Confessionis innitatur, in medium bre∣viter exposuimus. Cui autem harum potius adhaerendum sit, lectoris judicio reservatur. Vtraque enim fautores habet sapientes & religiosos viros. Now how well this agrees with the determination of the Council of Trent,* 1.505 every man, by comparing, can easily judge; only it is certain, this doctrine cannot pretend to be de∣riv'd by tradition from the Apostles. Of the same opi∣nion was the Abbot of Panormo; saying, That opinion (viz. of the Gloss) does much please me: because there is no

manifest authority that does intimate, that either God or Christ instituted Confession to be made to a Priest. But it were endless to name the Sentences of the Cano∣nists in this question; once for all, the testimony of Maldonat may secure us,* 1.506 Juris Pontificii periti, secuti suum primum interpretem, omnes dicunt Confessionem tantum esse introductam jure Ecclesiastico. But to clear the whole Question, I shall first prove, that the neces∣sity of confessing our sins to a Priest is not found in Scripture; but very much to disprove it. 2. That there is no reason enforcing this necessity, but very much against it. 3. That there is no Ecclesiastical Tradition of any such necessity; but apparently the contrary: and the consequent of these things will be, that the Church of Rome hath introduced a new doctrine, false, and burdensome, dangerous and super∣stitious.

1. If we consider how this Article is managed in Scripture, we shall find that our Blessed Saviour said nothing at all concerning it; the Council of Trent in∣deed makes their new doctrine to relie upon the words of Christ recited by S. John,* 1.507 Whose sins ••e remit they are remitted, &c. But see with what success: for, besides that all the Canonists allow not, that Confession was in∣stituted by Christ; Aquinas, Scotus, Gabriel Clava∣sinus, the Author of the Summa Angelica, Hugo de S. Victore, Bonaventure, Alensis, Tho. Waldensis, Ferus, Cajetan, Erasmus, B. Rhenanus, and Jansenius, though differing much in the particulars of this question, yet all consent that precisely from the words of Christ, no necessity of Confession to a Priest can be concluded. 2. Amongst those of the Roman Church who did en∣deavour to found the necessity of Confession upon those words, None do agree about the way of draw∣ing their argument;* 1.508 as may be seen in Scotus, Aureolus, Johannes Maior, Thomas de Argentina, Richardus, Du∣randus,

Almain, Dominicus à Soto, Alphonsus à Castro, Adrianus, Petrus dae Aquilae, and others, before the Council of Trent. 3. Though these men go several ways (which shows, as Scotus expresses it, hoc verbum non est praecisum) yet they all agree well enough in this, that they are all equally out of the story, and none of them well performs what he undertakes; It is not mine alone, but the judgement which* 1.509 Vasquez makes of them, who confuted many of them by ar∣guments of his own, and by the arguments which they use one against another, and gives this censure of them, Inter eos qui planè fatentur ex illis verbis Joh. xx^o ne∣cessitatem Confessionis (supple, elici) vix invenias qui efficaciter deducat. And therefore this place of S. John is but an infirm foundation to build so great a structure on it as the whole Oeconomy of their Sacra∣ment of Penance, and the necessity of Confession upon it; since so many learned and acute men, master-build∣ers believe nothing at all of it; and others that do, agree not well in the framing of the Structure upon it, but make a Babel of it, and at last their attempts prove vain and useless, by the testimony of their fellow-labourers.

There are some other places of Scripture which are pretended for the necessity of Confession, but they need no particular Scrutiny;* 1.510 not only because they are rejected by their own parties as insufficient; but because all are principally devol∣ved upon the twentieth of S. John, and the Council of Trent it self wholly relies upon it.* 1.511 This there∣fore being the foundation, if it fails them as to their pretensions, their building must needs be ruinous. But I shall consider it a little.

When Christ said to his Apostles, Whose sins ye re∣mit, they shall be remitted to them; and whose sins ye retain, they shall be retained; he made (says Bellar∣mine, and generally the latter School of Roman Do∣ctors) the Apostles, and all Priests, Judges upon earth; that, without their sentence, no man that hath sinned after Baptism, can be reconciled. But the Priests who are Judges can give no right or unerring sentence, un∣less they hear all the particulars they are to judge. Therefore by Christs law they are tied to tell in Con∣fession all their particular sins to a Priest: This is the summe of all that is said in this affair. Other light skir∣mishes there are, but the main battel is here.

Now all the parts of this great Argument must be considered: And 1. I deny the argument; and sup∣posing both the premisses true, that Christ had made them judges, and that without particular cognisance they could not give judgement according to Christs intention; yet it follows not, that therefore it is ne∣cessary, that the penitent shall confess all his sins to the Priest. For, Who shall compel the penitent to appear in judgement? Where are they oblig'd to come and ac∣cuse themselves before the judges? Indeed if they were before them, we will suppose the Priests to have power to judge them; but how can it be hence de∣duc'd, that the penitents are bound to come to this Judicatory, and not to stand alone to the Divine tribu∣nal. A Physician may have power to cure diseases, yet the Patients are not bound to come to him; neither it may be will they, if they can be cur'd by other means. And if a King sends a Judge with competent autho∣rity to judge all the Questions in a Province; he can judge them that come, but he cannot compel them to come; and they may make an end of their quarrels among themselves, or by arbitration of neighbours; and if they have offended the King, they may address

themselves to his clemency, and sue for pardon. And since it is certain by their own confession, that a penitent cannot by the force of these words of Christ be com∣pelled to confess his venial sins, how does it appear, that he is tied to confess his mortal sins? For if a man be tied to repent of all his sins, then repentance may be per∣formed without the ministery of the Priest, or else he must repent before the Priest for all his sins. But if he may repent of his venial sins, and yet not go to the Priest; then to go to the Priest is not an essential part of the repentance: and if it be thus in the case of venial sins, let them shew from the words of Christ any dif∣ference in the case between the one and the other, espe∣cially if we consider, that though it may be convenient to go to the Priest to be taught and guided, yet the necessity of going to him is to be absolved by his Mi∣nistery. But that of this there was no necessity believ'd in the Primitive Church, appears in this; because they did not expect pardon from the Bishop or Priest in the greatest Crimes, but were referred wholly to God for the pardon of them: Non sine spe tamen remissionis, quàm ab eo planè sperare debebit qui ejus largitatem solus obtinet; & tam dives misericordiae est, ut nemo de∣speret: So said the Bishops of France in their Synod held about the time of Pope Zephyrinus. To the same purpose are the words of Tertullian; Salvâ illâ poeni∣tentiae specie post fidem, quae aut levioribus delictis ve∣niam ab Episcopo consequi poterit, aut majoribus & ir∣remissibilibus à Deo solo. The like also is in the 31^th Epi∣stle of S. Cyprian. Now first it is easie to observe how vast the difference is between the old Catholick Church and the present Roman: these say, that venial sins are not of necessity to be confessed to the Priest or Bishop; and that without their Ministery they can be pardoned: But they of old said, that the smaller sins were to be submitted to the Bishop's Ministery. On the other side,

the Roman Doctors say, it is absolutely necessary to bring our mortal sins, and confess them, in order to be absolved by the Priest; but the old Catholicks said, that the greatest sins are wholly to be confessed and submitted to God, who may pardon them if he please, and will if he be rightly sought to; but to the Church they need not be confessed, because these were onely and immediately fit for the Divine Cognisance. What is now a-days a reserved case to the Pope, was anciently a case reserved to God; and what was onely submitted formerly to the Bishop, is now not worth much taking notice of by any one. But now put these together. By the Roman doctrine, you are not by the duty of repen∣tance tied to confess your venial sins; and by the Pri∣mitive, it is to no purpose to bring the greatest crimes to Ecclesiastical repentance; but by their immediate address to God they had hopes of pardon: From hence it follows, that there is no necessity of doing one or other, that is, there is no Commandment of God for it; nor yet any necessity in the Nature of the thing requi∣ring it.

Venerable Bede had an opinion that those sins onely which are like to leprosie ought to be submitted to the judgement of the Church:* 1.512 Caetera verò vitia tanquam valetudines, & quasi membrorum animae atque sensuum per semetipsum interius in conscientiâ & intellectu Dominus sanat.* 1.513 And Goffridus Vindocinensis tells of one William a learned man, whose doctrine it was, That there were but four sorts of sins, which needed Confes∣sion, the Errour of Gentilism, Schism, Heretical pravity, and Judaical perfidiousness:* 1.514 Caetera autem peccata à Domino sine confes∣sione sanari. But besides this, I de∣mand, Whether or no hath the Priest a power to remit venial sins, and that this power (in the words

of S. John, Chap. XX.) was given to him by Christ? If Christ did in these words give him power to remit ve∣nial sins, and yet the penitent is not bound to recount them in particular, or at all to submit them to his Ju∣dicatory; it will follow undeniably, that the giving power of remission of sins to the Priest, does not inferre a necessity in the penitent to come to confess them. And these things I suppose Vasquez understood well enough; when he affirms expressly, that it may well stand with the ordinary power of a Judge, that his power be such as that it be free for the subjects to sub∣mit to it, or to end their controversies another way. And that it was so in this case, is the doctrine of* 1.515 Sco∣tus, above cited, and many others. Add to this, the Argument of* 1.516 Scotus, The Priest retains no sins, but such, which some way or other are declar'd to him to have no true signs of repentance; & yet those which are no way manifested to the Priest, God retains unto the vengeance of Hell: therefore neither is that word (whose sins ye remit) precise; that is, If God retains some which the Priest does not retain, then also he does remit some which the Priest does not remit; and therefore there is no negative affix'd to the affirma∣tive, which shews that the remission, or retention does not necessarily depend on the Priest's ministration. So that, supposing it to be true, that the Priest hath a power to remit, or retain sins, as a Judge, and that this power cannot be exercis'd without knowing what he is to judge; yet it follows not from hence, that the peo∣ple are bound to come this way, and to confess their sins to them, or to ask their pardon. But

2. The second proposition is also false: for, suppo∣sing the Priest by the words of Christ, hath given to him the ordinary power of a Judge; and that, as such, he hath power of remitting and retaining sins: yet this power of judging may be such, as that it may be per∣formed

without enumeration of all the particulars we remember. For the Judgement the Priest is to make, is not of the sins, but of the persons. It is not said Quaecunque, but Quorumcunque remiseritis peccata. Our Blessed Saviour in these words did not distinguish two sorts of sins, one to be remitted, and an other to be retained; so that it should be necessary to know the special nature of the sins: he only reckon'd one kind, that is, under which all sins are contain'd. But he distinguish'd two sorts of sinners; saying, Quorum, and Quorum; the one of Penitents (according to the whole design and purpose of the Gospel) and their sins are to be remitted;* 1.517 and an other of Impenitent, whose sins are not to be remitted, but retained. And therefore it becomes the Ministers of Souls, to know the state of the penitent, rather than the nature and number of the sins. Neither gave he any power to punish, but to pardon, or not to pardon. If Christ had intended to have given to the Priests a power to impose a punishment according to the quality of every sin; the Priest indeed had been the Executioner of the Divine wrath: but then, because no punishment in this life can be equal to the demerit of a sin which deserves the eternal wrath of God; it is certain, the Priest is not to punish them by way of vengeance. We do not find any thing in the words of Christ, obliging the Priest directly to impose penances on the penitent sin∣ner; he may voluntarily submit himself to them if he please, and he may do very well, if he do so: but the power of retaining sins, gives no power to punish him whether he will or no; for the power of retaining is rather to be exerciz'd upon the impenitent, than upon the penitent. Besides this, the word of [remitting] sins, does not certainly give the Priest a power to im∣pose penances; for it were a prodigie of interpreta∣tion to expound remittere by punire. But if by [re∣taining]

it be said, this power is given him; then this must needs belong to the impenitent, who are not re∣mitted; and not to the penitent, whose sins at that time, they remit, and retain not: unless they can do both at the same time. But if the punishment design'd, be only by way of Remedy, or of disposing the sinners to true penitence; then if the person be already truly penitent, the Priest hath nothing to do, but to pardon him in the name of God. Now certainly both these things may be done without the special enumeration of all his remembred sins. For 1. The penitent may, and often does, forget many particulars; and then in that case, all that the Priest can expect, or proceed to judg∣ment upon, is the saying in general, He is truly sor∣rowful for them, and for the time to come will avoid them: and if he then absolve the penitent, as he must, and usually does; it follows, that if he does well (and he can do no better) he may make a judgment of his penitent without special enumeration of his sins; and if the Priest pardons no sins but those which are enu∣merated, the penitent will be in an evil condition in most cases: but if he can and does pardon those which are forgotten, then the fpecial enumeration is not in∣dispensably necessary; for it were a strange thing, if sins should be easier remitted for being forgotten, and the harder for being remembred; there being in the Gospel no other condition mentioned, but the confes∣sing, and forsaking them: and if there be any differ∣ence, certainly he, who out of carelessness of Spirit, or the multitude of his sins, or want of the sharpness of sorrow (for these commonly are the causes of it) forgets many of his sins, is in all reason further from pardon, than he whose conscience being sore wound∣ed, cannot forget that which stings him so perpetually. If he that remembers most, because he is most peni∣tent be tied to a more severe Discipline, than he that

remembers least; then according to this discipline, the worst man is in the best condition. But what if the sinner, out of bashfulness, do omit to enumerate some sin? Is there no consulting with his modesty? Is there no help for him, but he must confess, or die? S. Ambrose gives a perfect answer to this case, Lavant la∣chrymae delictum quod voce pudor est confiteri,* 1.518 & veniae fletus consulunt, & verecundae lachrymae sine horrore culpam loquuntur. Lachrymae crimen sine offensione vere∣cundiae confitentur. And the same is almost in words affirm'd by Maximus Taurinensis.* 1.519 Lavat lacryma deli∣ctum, quod voce pudor est confiteri: lachrymae ergo verecundiae pariter consulunt & saluti; nec erubescunt in petendo, & impetrant in rogando. And that this may not seem a propriety of S. Peter's repentance, be∣cause Sacramental Confession was not yet instituted (for that Bellarmine offers for an answer;) besides that Sacramental Confession was (as I have made to ap∣pear) never instituted, either then, or since then, in Scripture, by Christ, or by his Apostles; besides this, I say, S. Ambrose applies the precedent of S. Peter to every one of us.* 1.520 Flevit ergo amarissimè Petrus: flevit ut lachrymis suum posset lavare delictum; & tu si ve∣niam vis mereri, dilue culpam lachrymis tuam. And to the same sense also, is that of Cassian; Quod si, ve∣recundiâ retrahente, revelare [peccata] coram homini∣bus erubescis, illi quem latere non possunt, confiteri ea jugi supplicatione non desinas, ac dicere, Tibi soli pec∣cavi, & malum coram te feci, qui & absque illius ve∣recundiae publicatione curare, & sine improperio peccata donare consuevit. To these I shall add a pregnant te∣stimony of Julianus Pomerius, or of Prosper (de vitâ contemplativa lib. 2. cap. 7.) Quod si ipsi sibi Judices fiant, & veluti suae iniquitatis ultores hic in se volunta∣riam poenam severissimae animadversionis exerceant, temporalibus poenis mutaverint aeterna supplicia, & la∣chrymis

ex verâ cordis compunctione fluentibus re∣stinguent aeterni ignis incendia. And this was the opi∣nion of divers learned persons in Peter Lombard's time,* 1.521 that if men fear to confess lest they be disgrac'd, or lest others should be tempted by their evil example; and therefore conceal them to man, and reveal them to God; they obtain pardon.

Secondly,* 1.522 for those sins which they do enumerate; the Priest by them cannot make a truer judgement of the penitent's repentance and disposition to amend∣ment, than he can by his general profession of his true and deep contrition, and such other humane indica∣tions, by which such things are signified. For still it is to be remembred he is not the judge of the sin, but of the man. For Christ hath left no rules by which the sin is to be judged; no penitential tables, no Chance∣ry tax, no penitential Canons; neither did his Apostles: and those which were in use in the Primitive Church, as they were vastly short of the merit of the sins, so they are very vastly greater than are now in use, or will be endur'd: By which it plainly enough appears, that they impose penances at their pleasure, as the people are content to take them; and for the greatest sins we see they impose ridiculous penances; and themselves profess they impose but a part of their pe∣nance that is due: which certainly cannot be any com∣pliance with any law of God, which is always wiser, more just, and more to purpose. And therefore to ex∣act a special enumeration of all our sins remembred, to enable the Priest onely to impose a part of penance, is as if a Prince should raise an army of 10000 men to sup∣press a tumult raised in a little village against the petty Constable. Besides which, in the Church of Rome they have an old rule which is to this day in use among them;

Sìtque modus poenae justae moderatio culpae; Quae tanto levior, quanto contritio major.

And therefore, fortiter contritus leviter plectatur; He that is greatly sorrowful, needs but little penance. By which is to be understood, that the penance is but to supply the want of internal sorrow; which the Priest can no way make judgement of, but by such signs as the penitent is pleased to give him. To what purpose then can it be to enumerate all his sins; which he can do with a little sorrow, or a great one, with At∣trition, or Contrition, and no man knows it, but God alone; and it may be done without any sorrow at all, and the sorrow may be put on, or acted; and when the penance is impos'd, as it must needs be less than the sin, so it may be performed without true repen∣tance. And therefore neither is the imposing penance any sufficient signification of what the Priest inquires after. And because every deliberate sin deserves more than the biggest penance that is impos'd on any man for the greatest, and in that as to the sin it self there can be no errour in the greatness of it; it follows that by the particular enumeration the Priest cannot be helped to make his judgement of the person; and by it or any thing else he can never equally punish the sin; therefore supposing the Priest to be a judge, the necessi∣ty of particular confession will not be necessary: espe∣cially if we consider,

Thirdly, That by the Roman doctrine it is not ne∣cessary to salvation that the penitent should perform any penances, he may defer them to Purgatory if he please; so that, special Confession cannot be necessary to salvation for the reason pretended, viz. that the Priest may judge well concerning imposing penances, since they are necessary onely for the avoiding Purga∣tory, and not for the avoiding damnation. 4. This

further appears in the case of Baptism; which is the most apparent and evident use of the power of the Keys, it being truly and properly the intromission of Catachumens into the house of God, and an admitting them to all the Promises and Benefits of the Kingdom, and, which is the greatest, the most absolute and most evident remission of all the sins precommitted; and yet towards the dispensing this pardon, no particular Con∣fession of sins is previous, by any necessity or Divine Law. Repentance in persons of choice and discretion is and was always necessary: but because persons were not tied to confess their sins particularly to a Priest be∣fore Baptism; it is certain, that Repentance can be per∣fect without this Confession. And this argument is yet of greater force and persuasion against the Church of Rome; for since Baptizing is for remission of sins, and is the first act of the power of the Keys, and the evi∣dent way of opening the doors of the house of God, and yet the power of baptizing is, in the Church of Rome, in the absence of a Priest, given to a lay-man, and frequently to a Deacon; it follows, that the power of the Keys, and a power of remitting sins is no Judi∣ciary act; unless a Lay-man be declar'd capable of the power of judging, and of remitting sins. 5.* 1.523 If we consider, that without true repentance no sin can be pardon'd; and with it all sins may; and that no one sin is pardon'd as to the final state of our souls, but at the same time all are pardon'd: it must needs follow, that it is not the number of sins, but the condition of the person, the change of his life, the sorrow of his heart, the truth of his Conversion, and his hatred of all sin, that he is to consider. If his repentance be a true change from evil to good, from sin to God, a thousand sins are pardon'd as soon as one; and the infinite mercy of God does equally exceed one sin and one thousand. Indeed, in order to counsel or comfort, it may be

very useful to tell all that grieves the penitent, all that for which he hath no rest, and cannot get satisfaction: but as to the exercising any other judgment upon the man, either for the present, or for the future; to rec∣kon up what is past seems not very useful, or at all reasonable: But as the Priest, who baptizes a Convert, judges of him, as far as he can, and ought; that is, whether he hath laid aside every hindrance, and be dispos'd to receive remission of sins by the Spirit of God in Baptism: so it is in Repentance, the man's con∣version and change is to be considered; which cannot be by what is past, but by what is present, or future.

And now, 3:* 1.524 Although the judicial power of the Priest cannot inferre the necessity of particular Confes∣sion; yet if the judicial power be also of another na∣ture than is supposed, or rather be not properly judi∣cium fori, the judgment of a tribunal, coercive, poe∣nal, and exterminating by proper effect, and real change of state and person; then the superstructure, and the foundation too, will be digged down. And this therefore shall be consider'd briefly. And here the Scene is a little chang'd, and the words of Christ to S. Peter, are brought in as auxiliaries, to prove the Priest's power to be judicial; and that, with the words of Christ to his Apostles, John XX, must demonstrate this point. 1. Therefore I have the testimony and opini∣on of the Master of the Sentences, affirming that the Priest's power is declarative, not judicial; the Sen∣tence of an Embassadour,* 1.525 not of a Judge; Sacerdoti∣bus tribuit potestatem solvendi & ligandi; id est, osten∣dendi homines ligatos vel solutos;]

The Priest's power of loosing and binding, is a power of shewing and declaring who are bound, and who are loosed. For when Christ had cur'd the Leper, he sent him to the Priest, by whose judgment he was to be declar'd clean: and when Lazarus was first restor'd

to life by Christ, then he bade his Disciples loose him and let him go.]

And if it be inquir'd, To what purpose is the Priest's Solution, if the man be pardon'd already? It is answer'd; that

Although he be ab∣solv'd before God, yet he is not accounted loosed in the face of the Church, but by the judgment of the Priest.]

But we have the Sentence of a greater man in the Church,* 1.526 than Peter Lombard; viz. of S. Hierom himself, who discourses this affair dogmatically and fully, and so as not to be capable of evasion: speaking of those words of Christ to S. Peter, I will give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; whatsoever thou shalt bind ••n Earth, shall be bound in Heaven; and what∣soever thou shalt loose in Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven: This place (saith S. Hierom) some Bishops and Priests not understanding, take upon them something of the su∣perstitiousness of the Pharisees, so as to condemn the Innocent, or think to acquit the Guilty; whereas God inquires not, what is the Sentence of the Priest, but the life of the Guilty. In Leviticus, the Lepers were com∣manded to shew themselves to the Priests, who neither make them leprous, nor clean; but they discern, who are clean, and who are unclean. As therefore there, the Priest makes the leprous man clean, or unclean: So here, does the Bishop, or the Priest bind or loose; i. e. according to their Office, when he hears the variety of sins, he knows who is to be bound, and who is to be loosed.] S. Ambrose adds one advantage more, as consequent to the Priest's absolving of penitents; but expresly declares against the proper judicial power. [Men give their Ministery in the remission of sins,* 1.527 but they exercise not the right of any power: neither are sins remitted by them in their own, but in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Men pray, but it is God who forgives: It is mans obsequious∣ness,

but the bountiful gift is from God. So likewise, there is no doubt, sins are forgiven in Baptism, but the operation is of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.] Here, S. Ambrose affirms the Priest's power of pardoning sins, to be whol∣ly Ministerial, and Optative or by way of Prayer. Just as it is in Baptism, so it is in Repentance after Baptism: Sins are pardon'd to the truly penitent; but here is no proper Judicial power. The Bishop prays, and God pardons: the Priest does his Ministery, and God gives the gift. Here are three witnesses against whom there is no exception; and what they have said, was good Catholick doctrine in their ages; that is, from the fourth age after Christ, to the eleventh: How it hath fallen into Heresie since that time, is now not worth in∣quiring; but yet how reasonable that old doctrine is, is very fit to consider.

4. Of necessity it must be true; because what ever kind of absolution, or binding it is, that the Bishops and Priests have power to use; it does it's work intended, without any real changing of state in the penitent. The Priest alters nothing; he diminishes no man's right; he gives nothing to him but what he had before. The Priest baptizes, and he absolves, and he commu∣nicates, and he prays, and he declares the will of God; and, by importunity, he compells men to come, and if he find them unworthy, he keeps them out; but it is such, as he finds to be unworthy: Such who are in a state of perdition, he cannot, he ought not to admit to the Ministeries of life. True it is, he prays to God for pardon, and so he prays that God will give the sinner the grace of Repentance; but he can no more give Pardon, than he can give Repentance; he that gives this, gives that.

And it is so also in the case of Absolution; he can ab∣solve none but those that are truly penitent: he can give thanks indeed to God on his behalf; but as that Thanks∣giving

supposes pardon, so that Pardon supposes re∣pentance: and if it be true Repentance, the Priest will as certainly find him pardon'd, as find him peni∣tent. And therefore we find in the old Penitentials and Usages of the Church, that the Priest did not ab∣solve the penitent in the Indicative or Judicial form. To this purpose it is observed by Goar,* 1.528 in the Eucholo∣gion; that now, many do freely assert, and tenaciously defend, and clearly teach, and prosperously write that the solemn form of reconciling, Absolvo te à peccatis tuis, is not perhaps above the age of 400 years; and that the old form of Absolution in the Latin Church, was composed in words of deprecation, so far forth as we may conjecture out of the Ecclesiastical history, ancient Rituals, Tradi∣tion, and other Testimonies without exception.] And in the Opuscula of Thomas Aquinas,* 1.529 he tells that a Doctor said to him, that the Optative form, or deprecatory, was the Usual; and that then it was not thirty years since the Indicative form of, Ego te Absolvo, was us'd; which computation, comes neer the computation made by Goar. And this is the more evidently so, in that it ap∣pears, that in the ancient Discipline of the Church, a Deacon might reconcile the penitents, if the Priest were absent:* 1.530 Si autem necessitas evenerit, & Presbyter non fuerit praesens, Diaconus suscipiat poenitentem, ac det Sanctam Communionem: And if a Deacon can minister this affair, then the Priest is not indispensably necessa∣ry, nor his power judicial and pretorial.

But besides this, the power of the Keys is under the Master in the hands of the Steward of the house; who is the Minister of Government: and the power of re∣mitting and retaining being but the verification of the Promise of the Keys, is to be understood by the same analogy, and is exercised in many instances, and to ma∣ny great purposes, though no man had ever dreamt of a judicial power of absolution of secret sins; viz. in

discipline and government, in removing scandals, in re∣storing persons overtaken in a fault to the peace of the Church, in sustaining the weak, in cutting off of cor∣rupt members, in rejecting hereticks, in preaching peace by Jesus Christ, and repentance through his name, and ministering the word of reconciliation, and interceding in the ministery of Christ's mediation; that is, being God's Embassadour, he is God's Messenger in the great work of the Gospel, which is Repentance and For∣giveness. In short, Binding and Loosing, remitting and retaining, are acts of Government, relating to publick discipline. And of any other pardoning or retaining, no Man hath any power but what he ministers in the Word of God and prayer, unto which the Ministery of the Sacraments is understood to belong. For what does the Church, when she binds a sinner, or retains his sin, but separate him from the communication of publick Prayers and Sacraments? according to that saying of Tertullian,* 1.531 Summum futuri judicii prae∣judicium est, si quis ita deliquerit, ut à communicatione orationis & conventus & omnis sancti commercii rele∣getur.* 1.532 And the like was said by S. Austin, Versetur ante oculos imago futuri judicii, ut cum alii accedunt ad altare Dei, quo ipse non accedit, cogitet quàm sit con∣tremiscenda illa poena, qua percipientibus aliis vitam aeternam, alii in mortem praecipitantur aeternam. And when the Church, upon the sinner's repentance, does restore him to the benefit of publick Assemblies and Sacraments; she does truly pardon his sins, that is, she takes off the evil that was upon him for his sins. For so Christ prov'd his power on Earth to forgive sins by ta∣king the poor man's palsie away: and so does the Church pardon his sins by taking away that horrible punishment of separating him from all the publick communion of the Church: and both these are, in their several kinds, the most material and proper pardons.

But then▪ is the Church gives pardon propertion∣able to the evil she inflicts, which God also will verifie, if it be done here in truth, and righteousness; so there is a pardon, which God onely gives. He is the injured and offended Person, and he alone can remit of his own right. But yet to this pardon the Church does co-operate by her Ministery. Now what this pardon is we understand best by the evils that are by him inflicted upon the sinner. For to talk of a power of pardoning sins, where there is no power to take away the punish∣ment of sin, is but a dream of a shadow: sins are only then pardoned, when the punishment is removed. Now who but God alone can take away a sickness, or rescue a soul from the power of his sins, or snatch him out of the Devils possession? The Spirit of God alone can do this, It is the spirit that quickneth, and raiseth from spiritual death, and giveth us the life of God. Man can pray for the spirit, but God alone can give it; our Blessed Saviour obtain'd for us the Spirit of God by this way, by prayer; I will pray unto the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, even the spirit of truth; and therefore much less do any of Christ's Ministers convey the spirit to any one, but by prayer and holy Ministeries in the way of prayer: But this is best illustrated by the case of Baptism.* 1.533

It is a matter of equal power (said Alexander of Ales) to baptize with internal Baptism, and to absolve from deadly sin. But it was not fit that God should communicate the power of baptizing internally unto any, lest we should place our hope in Man.

* 1.534 And S. Austin (if at least he be the author of the Scala Paradisi) says,

The office of baptizing, the Lord granted unto many; but the power and authority of remitting sins in Baptism, he retained unto himself alone;

wherefore S. John, antonomasticè & discretivè, by way of di∣stinction and singularity, affirms, that He it is who

baptizes with the holy Ghost. And I shall apply this to the power of the Keys in the ministery of repentance, by the words of S. Cyprian;* 1.535 Remissio peccatorum, sive per Baptismum sive per alia Sacramenta donetur, propriè Spiritûs Sancti est, & ipsi soli hujus efficientiae privi∣legium manet. As therefore the Bishop, or the Priest, can give the holy Ghost to a repenting sinner; so he can give him pardon, and no otherwise: that is, by prayer, and the ministery of the Sacraments to per∣sons fitly disposed, who also can and have received the holy Ghost, without any such ministery of man; as appears in S. Peter's Question, What hinders these men to be baptized, who have received the holy Ghost as well as we? And it is done every day, and every hour, in the Communion of Saints, in the Immissions and visitations from heaven, which the Saints of God daily receive and often perceive and feel. Every man is bound by the cords of his own sins, which ropes and bands the Apostles can loose, imitating therein their Master, who said to them, Whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Solvunt autem eos Apostoli, sermone Dei,* 1.536 & testimoniis Scripturarum, & exhortatione vir∣tutum, saith S. Hierom. For the word of God, which is intrusted to the Ministery of the Church, is that rule and measure by which God will judge us all, at the last day; and therefore by the word of God we stand or fall, we are bound or loosed: which word when the Ministers of the Gospel dispense rightly, they bind or loose; and what they so bind or loose on earth, God will bind and loose in heaven. That is, by the same measures he will judge the man, by which he hath commanded his Ministers to judge them by; that is, they preach remission of sins to the penitent, and God will make it good; and they threaten eternal death to the impenitent, and God will inflict it. But other powers of binding and loosing than what hath been al∣ready

instanc'd, those words of Christ prove not. And these powers, and no other, do we find us'd by the Apostles.* 1.537 To us (saith S. Paul) is committed the word of reconciliation: Now then we are Embassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christs stead, be ye reconciled to God. Christ is the great Minister of Reconciliation; we are his Embas∣sadours to the people to that purpose: and we are to preach to them, and to exhort them; to pray them, and to pray for them; and we also by our Ministery reconcile them; and we pardon their sins; for God hath set us over the people to that purpose: but then it is also in that manner that God set the Priest over the leprous;* 1.538 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The priest with pol∣lution shall pollute them; and the priest shall cleanse him, that is, shall declare him so. And it is in the same manner that God set the Prophet Jeremy over the na∣tions,* 1.539 to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, to throw down, to build, and to plant; that is, by put∣ting his word into his mouth to do all this, to preach all this, to promise or to threaten respectively, all this. The Ministers of the Gospel do pardon sins, just as they save men;* 1.540 This doing, thou shalt save thy self, and them that hear thee; that is, by attending to and continuing in the doctrine of Christ: and he that converts a sinner from the errour of his way, saves a soul from death, and covers a multitude of sins.* 1.541 Bringing the man to re∣pentance, persuading him to turn from vanity to the living God; thus he brings pardon to him, and salva∣tion. And if it be said, that a lay-man can do this: I answer, It is very well for him if he does; and he can, if it please God to assist him: but the ordinary mini∣stery is appointed to Bishops and Priests: so that al∣though a lay-man do it extraordinarily, that can be no prejudice to the ordinary power of the Keys in the hands of the Clergy; which is but a ministery of prayer,

of the Word and Sacraments: according to the saying of their own Ferus upon this place;

Christ in this word shews how, and to what use, he at this time gave them the Holy Ghost,* 1.542 to wit, for the remission of sins: neither for the Apostles themselves alone; sed ut eun∣dem Spiritum, eandemque remissionem peccatorum Ver∣bo praedicationis, & Sacramentis verbo annexis, di∣stribuerent.

And again, he brings in Christ saying, I therefore chuse you, and I seal your hearts by the Holy Ghost unto the word of the Gospel, and confirm you, that going into the world, ye may preach the Gospel to every Creature, and that ye may distribute that very remission by the word of the Gospel, and the Sacraments.] For the words of Christ are general and indefinite; and they are comprehensive of the whole power and mini∣stery Ecclesiastical: and in those parts of it which are evident, and confessed, viz. preaching remission of sins and Baptism, a special enumeration of our sins is neither naturally necessary, nor esteemed so by custom, nor made so by vertue of these words of Christ; there∣fore it is no way necessary, neither have they at all proved it so by Scripture. And to this I add only what Ambrosius Pelargus, a Divine of the Elector of Triers, said in the Council of Trent;* 1.543 That the words of our Lord, Quorum remiseritis, were perhaps not expounded, by any Father, for an institution of the Sacrament of Penance: and that by some they were understood of Bap∣tism; by others, of any other thing by which pardon of sins is received.]

But since there is no necessity declar'd in Scripture of confessing all our sins to a Priest, no mention of sacra∣mental penance, or confession, it must needs seem strange that a doctrine of which there is no Command∣ment in Scripture, no direction for the manner of do∣ing so difficult a work, no Office, or Officer describ'd to any such purpose; that a doctrine, I say, of which

in the fountains of salvation there is no spring, should yet become in process of time to be the condition of salvation: And yet for preaching, praying, bapti∣zing, communicating, we have precept upon precept, and line upon line; we have in Scripture three Epistles written to two Bishops, in which the Episcopal Of∣fice is abundantly describ'd; and excellent Canons established; and the parts of their duty enumerated: and yet no care taken about the Office of Father Con∣fessor. Indeed we find a pious exhortation to all spiri∣tual persons, that; If any man be overtaken in a fault, they should restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; restore him, that is, to the publick peace and commu∣nion of the Church, from which by his delinquency he fell; and restore him also, by the word of his proper Ministery, to the favour of God; by exhortations to him, by reproving of him, by praying for him: and besides this, we have some little limits more, which the Church of Rome, if they please, may make good use of in this Question;* 1.544 such as are, That they who sin should be rebuk'd before all men, that others also may fear; which indeed is a good warranty for publick Disci∣pline, but very little for private Confession. And Saint Paul charges Timothy, that he should should lay hands suddenly on no man, that he be not partaker of other mens sins; which is a good caution against the Roman way of absolving them that confess, as soon as they have confess'd, before they have made their Satis∣factions. The same Apostle speaks also of some that creep into houses, and lead captive silly women; I should have thought he had intended it against such as then abus'd Auricular Confession; it being so like what they do now; but that S. Paul knew nothing of these lately-introduced practices: and lastly, he com∣mands every one that is to receive the Holy Commu∣nion to examine himself, and so let him eat: he forgot,

it seems, to enjoyn them to go to confession to be exa∣min'd: which certainly he could never have done more opportunely than here; and if it had been necessary, he could never have omitted it more undecently. But it seems, the first Christians were admitted upon other terms by the Apostles, than they are at this day by the Roman Clergy. And indeed it were infinitely strange, that since in the Old Testament remission of sins was gi∣ven to every one that confessed to God, & turn'd from his evil way,* 1.545 that,* 1.546 in the New Testament,* 1.547 to which liberty is a special priviledge,* 1.548 and the imposed yoke of Christ infinitely more easie than the burden of the Law;* 1.549 and Repentance is the very formality of the Gospel-Covenant; and yet that, pardon of our sins shall not be given to us Christians on so easie terms as it was to the Jews; but an intolerable new burden shall be made a new condition of obtaining pardon. And this will appear yet the more strange; when we consider that all the Sermons of the Prophets concerning Repentance, were not derivations from Moses's Law, but Homilies Evangelical, and went before to prepare the way of the Lord; and John Baptist was the last of them; and that, in this matter, the Sermons of the Prophets were but the Gospel antedated; and in this affair there was no change but to the better and to a clearer manifesta∣tion of the Divine mercy, and the sweet yoke of Christ: The Disciples of Christ preach'd the same do∣ctrine of Repentance that the Baptist did, and the Bap∣tist the same that the Prophets did, and there was no difference; Christ was the same in all, and he that commanded his Disciples to fast to God alone in pri∣vate, intended that all the parts of Repentance trans∣acted between God and our consciences, should be as sufficient as that one of Fasting, and that other of Pray∣er: and it is said so in all; for if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse

us from all unrighteousness. It it is God alone that can cleanse our hearts, and he that cleanses us, he alone does forgive us; and this is upon our confession to him: his justice and faithfulness, is at stake for it; and therefore it supposes a promise: which we often find upon our confessions made to God, but it was never promised upon confession made to the Priest.

But now in the next place if we consider, Whether this thing be reasonable, to impose such a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples, which upon their Fathers was not put in the Old Testament, nor ever command∣ed in the New; we shall find that although many good things, might be consequent to the religious and free, and prudent use of Confession; yet by changing into a Doctrine of God, that which at most, is but a Com∣mandment of man, it will not, by all the contingent good, make recompence for the intolerable evils it intro∣duces. And here first I consider, that many times things seem profitable to us, and may minister to good ends; but God judges them useless and dangerous: for he judges not as we judge. The worshipping of Angels, and the abstaining from meats, which some false Apo∣stles introduc'd, look'd well, and pretended to humi∣lity, and mortificatioh of the body; but the Apostle approv'd them not: and of the same mind was the suc∣ceeding ages of the Church, who condemned the dry Diet, and the ascetick Fasts of Montanus, though they were pretended only for discipline; but when they came to be impos'd they grew intolerable. Certainly, men liv'd better lives, when by the discipline of the Church, sinners were brought to publick stations and penance, than now they do by all the advantages, real or pretended, from Auricular Confession; and yet the Church thought fit to lay it aside, and nothing is left but the shadow of it.

2. This whole topick can only by a prudential con∣sideration,

and can no way inferre a Divine institution; for though it was as convenient before Christ, as since, & might have had the same effects upon the publick or private good, then, as now; yet God was not pleased to appoint it in almost forty ages; and we say, He hath not done it yet. However let it be consider'd, that there being some things which S. Paul says are not to be so much as nam'd amongst Christians; it must needs look undecently, that all men & all women should come and make the Priests Ears a Common-shoar to empty all their filthiness; and that which a modest man would blush to hear, he must be us'd to, and it is the greatest part of his imployment to attend to. True it is, that a Phy∣sician must see and handle the impurest Ulcers; but it is, because the Cure does not depend upon the Pa∣tient, but upon the Physician, who by general adver∣tisement cannot cure the Patient, unless he had an Universal medicine, which the Priest hath; the medi∣cine of Repentance, which can indifferently cure all sins, whether the Priest know them or no. And there∣fore, all this filthy communication is therefore intole∣rable because it is not necessary: and it not only pol∣lutes the Priest's Ears, but his Tongue too; for, lest any circumstance, or any sin be concealed, he thinks himself oblig'd to interrogate, and proceed to particu∣lar questions in the basest things. Such as that which is to be seen in Burchard,* 1.550 and such which are too large∣ly describ'd in Sanchez,; which thing does not only deturpate all honest and modest conversation, but it teaches men to understand more sins then ever they (it may be) knew of. And I believe, there are but few in the world at this day, that did ever think of such a Crime, as Burchard hath taught them by that question; and possibly it might have expir'd in the very first in∣stances, if there had been no further notice taken of it. I need not tell how the continual representment

of such things to the Priest, must needs infect the fancy and the memory with filthy imaginations, and be a state of temptation to them that are very often young men and vigorous, and always unmarried and tempted. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Aretines Tables do not more pollute the heart through the eyes, than a foul narrative of a beastly action with all the circumstances of perpetration do through the ears; for, as it was said of Thomas Cantipratanus,* 1.551 Vexatis exteriùs auribus, inte∣riùs tentationum stimulis agitabitur. And Marcus Ere∣mitae that liv'd in that age in which this Auricular Con∣fession began to be the mode of the Latine Church,* 1.552 he speaks against it severely.* 1.553 If thou wilt offer to God an unreproveable Confession, do not recount thy sins parti∣cularly, for so thou doest greatly defile thy mind; but generously endure their assaults, or what they have brought upon thee. We need no further witness of it, but the Question and Case of Conscience which Ca∣jetan puts,* 1.554 Vtrum Confessor cognoscens ex his quae audit in Confessione, sequi in seipso Emissionem seminis sibi displicentem, peccet mortaliter audiendo vel prosequendo tales Confessiones? The question is largely handled, but not so fit to be read; but in stead of it, I shall onely note the answer of another Cardinal:* 1.555 Confessarius si fortè dum audit Confessiones in tales incidit pollutiones non ob id tenetur non audire alios, nisi sit periculum complacentiae in pollutione;* 1.556 tunc enim tenetur relin∣quere confessiones, & auferre peccati occasionem; secus non. This Question and this Answer I here bring to no other purpose, but to represent that the Priests dwell in temptation; and that their manner of receiving Confessions is a perpetual danger, by which he that loves it may chance to perish. And of this there have been too many sad examples remark'd, evidencing that this private Confession hath been the occasion and the opportunity of the vilest crimes. There happened but

one such sad thing in the ancient Greek Church, which became publick by the discipline of publick Confession, but was acted by the opportunity of the private Enter∣course; and that was then thought sufficient to alter that whole discipline: but it is infinitely more reaso∣nable, to take off the law of private Confession, and in that manner as it is enjoyned; if we consider the in∣tolerable evils which are committed frequently upon this scene. Erasmus makes a sad complaint of it, that the penitents do often light upon Priests, who under the pretext of Confession,* 1.557 commit things not to be spoken of; and, in stead of Physicians, become partners, or masters, or disciples of turpitude. The matter is notorious and very scandalous, and very frequent: in∣somuch that it produc'd two Bulls of two Popes contra sollicitantes in Confessione; the first was of Pius quar∣tus to the Bishop of Sevil, A. D. 1561. April the 16. The other of Gregory the fifteenth, 1622. August 30. which Bulls take notice of it, and severely prohibit the Confessors to tempt the women to Undecencies when they come to confession. Concerning which Bulls, and the sad causes procuring them, even the intolerable and frequent impieties acted by and in Confessions, who desires to be plentifully satisfied may please to read the book of Johannes Escobar à Corro,* 1.558 a Spanish Lawyer, which is a Commentary on these two Bulls;* 1.559 and in the beginning he shall find sad complaints and sadder stories.* 1.560 But I love not to stir up so much dirt. That which is altogether as remarkable, and, it may be, much more, is, that this Auricular Confession not onely can, but oftentimes hath been made the most advantageous way of plotting, propagating, and carrying on treason∣able propositions and designs. I shall not instance in that horrid design of the Gun-powder treason; for that is known every where amongst us; but in the Holy Ligue of France.

When the Pulpits became unsafe for tu∣multuous

and traiterous preachers, the Confessors in private Confessions did that with more safety; they slandered the King, endeavoured to prove it lawful for Subjects to Covenant or make Leagues and Con∣federacies without their King's leave; they some∣times refus'd to absolve them, unless they would en∣ter into the Ligue; and perswaded many miserable persons to be of the faction. But this thing was not done so secretly, but notice enough was taken of it; and complaint was made to the Bishop, and then to Franciscus Maurocenus the Cardinal Legat; who gave notice and caution against it: and the effect it produced was onely this; they proceeded after∣wards more warily; and began to preach this do∣ctrine; That it was as great a fault if the Confitent reveal what he hears from the Confessor in Confessi∣on, as if the Priest should reveal the sins told him by the penitent.

* 1.561 This Narrative I have from Thuanus. To which I adde one more, related in the life of Padre Paolo; that Hippolito da Lucca fù in fama sinistra d' haver nelle confessioni, e raggi onamenti corrotto con larghe promesse e gran Speranza persuaso alla Duchessa d' adherir alla fattione Ecclesiastica.] Hippolitus of Lucca was evil reported to have in discourse or in confession persuaded the Dutchess of Vrbin against Caesar d' Este, and to have corrupted her into the facti∣on of the Church.* 1.562 For which he was made a Bishop, and in Rome was always one of the Prelates deputed in the examination of that controversie. If it were possi∣ble, and if it could be in the world, I should believe it to be a baser prostitution of religion to temporal designs,* 1.563 which is written of F. Arnold the Jesuite, Con∣fessor to Lewis the thirteenth of France; that he caused the King at Confession solemnly to swear, never to dis∣like what Luines the great favourite did, nor himself to meddle with any State-affair. Now what advantage

the Pope hath over Christian Princes in this particular, and how much they have, and how much more they may suffer by this Oeconomy, is a matter of great consideration: Admonetur omnis aetas posse fieri, quod jam factum vidimus.

3. There is yet another very great evil that attends upon the Roman way of Auricular Confession; and that is, an eternal scruple of conscience, which to the timerous and to the melancholy, to the pious and con∣sidering, and zealous, is almost unavoidable. For, be∣sides that there is no certainty of distinction between the mortal and venial sins; there being no Catalogues of one and the other, save only that they usually reckon but seven deadly sins; and the rest are, or may be easily by the ignorant supposed to be venial; and even those sins which are under those seven heads, are not all mortal; for there are amongst them many ways of changing their mortality into veniality; and, conse∣quent to all this, they are either tempted to slight most sins, or to be troubled with perpetual disputes concerning almost every thing: besides this, I say, there can be no peace (because there can be no certain rule given) concerning the examination of our Con∣sciences; for who can say, he hath done it sufficiently, or who knows what is sufficient; and yet if it be not sufficient, then the sins which are forgotten by careless∣ness, and not called to mind by sufficient diligence, are not pardon'd, and then the penitent hath had much trouble to no purpose. There are some Confessions imperfect but valid, some invalid for their imperfecti∣on, some perfect, and yet invalid: and they that made the distinction, made the Rule, and it binds as they please; but it can cause scruples beyond their power of remedy; because there is no certain principle from whence men can derive peace and a certain determi∣nation, some affirming, and some denying, and both

of them by chance, or humour. There are also many reserv'd cases; some to the Bishop, some to the Patri∣arch, some to the Pope; and when you shall have run through the fire for these before the Priest, you must run once or twice more; and your first absolution is of no force: and amongst these reserv'd cases, there is also great difference; some are reserved by reason of censures Ecclesiastical, and some by reason of the great∣ness of the sin; and these things may be hidden from his eyes, and he supposing himself absolv'd, will per∣ceive himself deceiv'd; and absolv'd but from one half. Some indeed think, that if the superiour ab∣solve from the reserv'd cases alone, that grace is given by which all the rest are remitted; and on the other side, some think if the inferiour absolves from what he can, grace is given of remitting even of the reserved: but this is uncertain, and all agree, that the penitent is never the nearer but that he is still oblig'd to confess the reserv'd cases to the superiour, if he went first to the inferiour; or all to the inferiour, in case he went first to the superiour, confessing only the reserved. There are also many difficulties in the Confession of such things, in which the sinner had partners: for if he confess the sin so, as to accuse any other, he sins; if he does not, in many cases he cannot confess the circum∣stances that alter the nature of the crime. Some there∣fore tell him, he may conceal such sins till a fitter op∣portunity; others say, he may let it quite along: others yet say, he may get another Confessor; but then there will come another scruple, whether he may do this with leave, or without leave; or, if he ask leave whether or no in case it be denied him, he may take leave in such an ac∣cident. Upon these and many other like accounts, there will arise many more Questions concerning the iter∣ation of his confession; for if the first confession be by any means made invalid, it must be done over again.

But here in the very beginning of this affair, the peni∣tent must be sure that his former confession was invalid. For if it was, he cannot be pardon'd unless he renew it; and if it was not, let him take heed: for to confess the same things twice, and twice to be absolv'd, it may be is not lawful;* 1.564 and against it, Cajetan, after the scho∣lastical manner, brings divers reasons. But suppose the penitent at peace for this, then there are very many cases, in which Confession is to be repeated; and though it was done before, yet it must be done over again. As if there be no manner of contrition, without doubt it must be iterated; but there are many cases concerning Contrition: and if it be at all, though im∣perfect, it is not to be iterated. But what is, and what is not contrition; what is perfect, and what is imperfect; which is the first degree that makes the Confession va∣lid, can never be told. But then there is some com∣fort to be had; for, the Sacrament of Penance may be true,* 1.565 and yet without form or life, at the same time. And there are divers cases, in which the Confession that is but materially half, may be reduc'd to that which is but formally half: and if there be but a propinquity of the mind to a carelessness concerning the integrity of confession; the man cannot be sure, that things go well with him. And sometimes it happens that the Church is satified, when God is not satisfied, as in the case of the informis confessio; and then the man is ab∣solved, but his sin is not pardon'd; and yet, because he thinks it is, his soul is cozen'd. And yet this is but the beginning of scruples. For, suppose the penitent hath done his duty, examin'd himself strictly, repent∣ed sadly, confess'd fully, and is absolved formally; yet all this may come to nothing by reason that there may be some invalidity in the Ordination of the Priest, by crime, by irregularity, by direct deficiency of something in the whole Succession and Ordination; or it may

be he hath not ordinary, or delegat jurisdiction; for, it is not enough that he is a Priest, unless he have another authority,* 1.566 says Cajetan; besides his Order, he must have Jurisdiction, which is carefully to be inquir'd after, by reason of the infinite numbers of Friers, that take up∣on them to hear Confessions; or if he have both, yet the use of his power may be interverted or suspended for the time, and then his absolution is worth nothing. But here there is some remedy made to the poor di∣stracted penitent; for by the constitution of the Coun∣cil of Constance, under Pope Martin the 5th. though the Priest be excommunicate, the confession is not to be iterated: but then this also ends in scruples; for this constitution it self does not hold, if the excommunica∣tion be for the notorious smiting of a Clergy-man; or if it be not, yet if the excommunication be denounc'd, be it for what it will, his absolution is void: and therefore the penitent should do well to look about him; espe∣cially since, after all this, there may be innumerable deficiencies; yea some even for want of skill and knowledge in the Confessor; and when that happens, when the confession is to be iterated, there are no cer∣tain Rules but it must be left to the opinion of an∣other Confessor. And when he comes, the poor peni∣tent, it may be, is no surer of him than of the other; for if he have no will to absolve the penitent, let him dis∣semble it as he list, the absolution was but jocular, or pretended, or never intended; or, it may be, he is secret∣ly an Atheist, and laughs at the penitent & himself too, for acting (as he thinks) such a troublesome, theatrical Nothing; and then the man's sins cannot be pardon'd. And, is there no remedy for all this evil? It is true, the cases are sad and dangerous, but the Church of Rome hath (such is her prudence & indulgence) found out as much relief as the wit of man can possibly in∣vent. For though there may be thus many and many

more deficiencies; yet there are some extraordinary ways to make it up as well as it can. For, to prevent all the contingent mischiefs, let the penitent be as wise as he can, and chuse his man upon whom these defailances may not be observed; For a man in necessity, as in dan∣ger of death, may be absolved by any one that is a Priest; but yet, if the penitent escape the sickness, or that dan∣ger, he must go to him again, or to somebody else; by which it appears that his affair was left but imperfect. But some persons have liberty by reason of their dignity, & some by reason of their condition, as being pilgrims or wanderers; and they have greater freedom, and cannot easily fall into many nullities; or they may have an ex∣plicite, or an implicit licence: but then they must take heed; for, besides many of the precedent dangers, they must know that the license extends only to the Paschal Confessions, or the usual; but not the extraordinary or emergent: and moreover, they can go but to the appoint∣ed Confessors, in the places where they are present; and because under these there is the same danger, as in all that went before, the little more certainty which I hop'd for in some few cases, comes to nothing. But I go about to reckon the sands on the shore. I shall there∣fore summe this up with the words of a famous preach∣er,* 1.567 reported by Beatus Rhenanus to have made this observation, that Thomas Aquinas and Scotus, men too subtle, have made Confession to be such, that, accord∣ing to their doctrines, it is impossible to confess: and that the consciences of penitents, which should be ex∣tricated and eased, are (by this means) catch'd in a snare,* 1.568 and put to torments, said Cassander; so that al∣though Confession to a Priest prudently manag'd, with∣out scruple, upon the case of a griev'd and an unquiet conscience, and in order to Counsel and the perfections of Repentance, may be of excellent use; yet to enjoyn it in all cases, to make it necessary to salvation, when God

hath not made it so; to exact an Enumeration of all our sins in all cases, and of all persons; to clog it with so many questions and innumerable inextricable diffi∣culties, and all this, besides the evil manage and con∣duct of it, is the rack of Consciences, the slavery of the Church, the evil snare of the simple, and the arti∣fice of the craftie: it was or might have been as the brazen serpent, a memorial of duty, but now it is Nehushtan, aes eorum; something of their own fra∣ming.

And this will yet further appear in this, That there [ 3] is no Ecclesiastical tradition of the necessity of con∣fessing all our sins to a Priest in order to pardon. That it was not the established doctrine of the Latine Church, I have already prov'd in the beginning of this Section; The case is notorious; and the Origi∣nal law of this we find in Platina, in the life of Pope Zephyrinus. Idem praetereà instituit, ut omnes Christia∣ni, annos pubertatis attingentes, singulis annis in solenni die paschae publicè communicarent. Quod quidem in∣stitutum Innocentius tertius deinceps non ad Communio∣nem solum, verum etiam ad Confessionem delictorum tra∣duxit. Platina was the Pope's Secretary, and well un∣derstood the interests of that Church, and was suffi∣ciently versed in the records and monuments of the Popes; and tells, that as Zephyrinus commanded the Eucharist to be taken at Easter; so Innocent 3. com∣manded Confession of sins.] Before this, there was no command, no decree of any Council or Pope en∣joyning it: only in the Council of Cabailon, Can. 8. it was declared to be profitable, that Penance should be enjoyn'd to the penitent by the Priest, after Confession made to him. But there was no command for it; and in the second Council of Cabailon,* 1.569 it was but a disputed case, Whether they ought to confess to God alone, or also to the Priest. Some said one, and some said an∣other,

Quod utrumque non sine magno fructu intra san∣ctam fit Ecclesiam.* 1.570 And Theodulsus Bishop of Or∣leans, tells the particulars.

The Confession we make to the Priests gives us this help, that, having received his salutary counsel, by the most wholsom duties of repentance, or by mutual prayers, we wash away the stains of our sins. But the Confession we make to God alone, avails us in this, because by how much we are mindful of our sins, by so much the Lord for∣gets them; and on the contrary, by how much we forget them, by so much the Lord remembers them, according to the saying of the prophet, and I will remember thy sins.]

But the Fathers of the Council gave a good account of these particulars also. Con∣fessio itaque quae Deo fit, purgat peccata: ea verò quae sacerdoti fit, docet qualiter ipsa purgentur peccata? Deus enim, salutis & sanitatis Author & Largitor, plerunque hanc praebet suae potentiae invisibili admini∣stratione, * 1.571 plerunque medicorum operatione: which words are an excellent declaration of the advantages of Confession to a Priest, but a full argument that it is not necessary, or that without it pardon of sins is not to be obtained. Gratian quoting the words cites Theo∣dore Archbishop of Canterbury; but falsly: for it is in the second Council of Cabailon, and not in Theodore's Penitential. But I will not trouble the Reader further, in the matter of the Latine Church; in which it is evident, by what hath been already said, there was concerning this no Apostolical Tradition.

How it was in the Greek Church is onely to be in∣quir'd. Now we might make as quick an end of this also,* 1.572 if we might be permitted to take Semeca's word, the gloss of the Canon Law; which affirm's that, Con∣fession of deadly sins is not necessary among the Greeks, because no such tradition hath not descended unto them. This acknowledgement and report of the Greeks

not esteeming Confession to a Priest to be necessary, is not only in the Gloss above cited;* 1.573 but in Gratian himself, and in the more ancient Collection of Canons by Burchard, and Ivo Carnotensis. Bellarmine fancies that these words [ut Graeci] are crept into the Text of Gratian out of the Margent. Well! suppose that; but then how came they into the elder Collections of Burchard, and Ivo? That's not to be told; [but creep in they did, some way or other; because they are not in the Capitular of Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury; and yet from thence this Canon was taken; and that Capitular was taken from the second Council of Ca∣baillon;* 1.574 in which also, there are no such words ex∣tant:] So the Cardinal. In which Bellarmine betrays his carelessness, or his ignorance, very greatly. 1. Be∣cause there is no such thing extant in the world, that any man knows and tells of, as the Capitular of Theo∣dore. 2. He indeed made a Penitential, a Copy of which is in Benet College Library in Cambridge, from whence I have receiv'd some Extracts, by the favour and industry of my friends; and another Copy of it, is in Sir Robert Cotten's Library. 3. True it is, there is in that Penitential no such words as [ut Graeci] but a direct affirmation, Confessionem suam Deo soli, si ne∣cesse est, licebit agere. 4. That Theodore should take this Chapter out of the second Council of Cabaillon, is an intolerable piece of ignorance or negligence in so great a Schollar as Bellarmine; when it is notorious that the Council was after Theodore, above 120. years. 5. But then lastly, because Theodore, though he sate in the Seat of Canterbury, yet was a Greek born; his words are a good Record of the opinion of the Greeks, that Confession of sins is (if there be need) to be made to God alone. But this I shall prove with firmer testi∣monies; not many,* 1.575 but pregnant, clear and undeniable.

S. Gregory Nyssen observ'd that the ancient Fathers

before him in their publick discipline, did take no notice of the sins of Covetousness, that is, left them without pub∣lick penance, otherwise than it was order'd in other sins; and therefore he interposes his judgment thus. [But con∣cerning these things, because this is praetermitted by the Fathers, I do think it sufficient to cure the affections of Covetousness with the publick word of doctrine, or in∣struction, curing the diseases, as it were, of repletion by the Word. That is plainly thus: The sins of Covetous∣ness had no Canonical Penances impos'd upon them: and therefore many persons thought but little of them: therefore, to cure this evil, let this sin be reprov'd in publick Sermons, though there be no imposition of publick penances. So that here is a Remedy without Penances, a Cure without Confession, a publick Ser∣mon instead of a publick or private Judicatory.

But the fact of Nectarius in abrogating the publick penitentiary-Priest upon the occasion of a scandal, does bear much weight in this Question. I shall not repeat the story; who please, may read it in Socrates, Sozo∣men, Epiphanius, Cassiodore, and Nicephorus; and it is known every where.* 1.576 Only they who are pinch'd by it, endeavour to confound it, as Waldensis and Canus; some by denying it,* 1.577 as Latinus Latinius; others by dis∣puting concerning every thing in it; some saying, that Nectarius abrogated Sacramental Confession; others, that he abrogated the publick only, so very many say: and a third sort (who yet speak with most probability,) that he only took away the office of the publick Peni∣tentiary, which was instituted in the time of Decius, and left things as that Decree found them; that is, that those who had sin'd those sins which were noted in the Penitential Canons, should confess them to the Bishop, or in the face of the Church, and submit themselves to the Canonical penances. This pass'd into the office of the publick Penitentiary; and that into nothing, in the Greek

Church. But there is nothing of this that I insist up∣on; but I put the stress of this Question upon the pro∣duct of this. For Eudaemon gave counsel to Nectarius and he followed it, that he took away the penitentiary Priest,* 1.578 ut liberam daret potestatem utì pro suâ quisque conscientiâ,* 1.579 ad mysteria participanda accederet. So Socrates, and Sozomen, to the same purpose; ut Vni∣cuique liberum permitteret, prout sibi ipse conscius esset & confideret, ad mysteriorum Communionem accedere, poenitentiarium illum Presbyterum exauthoravit. Now if Nectarius by this Decree took away Sacramental con∣fession (as the Roman Doctors call it) then it is a clear case, the Greek Church did not believe it necessary; if it was onely the publick Confession they abolished, then, for ought appears, there was no other at that time; I mean, none commanded, none under any law, or under any necessity: but whatever it was that was abolished, private Confession did not by any decree succeed in the place of it; but every man was left to his liberty, and the dictates of his own Conscience, and according to his own persuasion, to his fears or his con∣fidence, so to come and partake of the Divine myste∣ries. All which is a plain demonstration, that they under∣stood nothing of the necessity of Confession to a Priest of all their sins, before they came to the holy Sacrament.

And in pursuance of this, are those many Exhorta∣tions and discourses of S. Chrysostom, who succeeding Nectarius, by his publick doctrine could best inform us how they understood the consequence of that de∣cree, and of this whole Question. The summe of whole doctrine is this; It is not necessary to have your sins revealed, or brought in publick, not onely in the Congregation, but not to any one, but to God alone.* 1.580 Make a scrutiny, and pass a judgement on your sins inwardly in your Conscience, none being present but God alone that seeth all things. And again, Declare

unto God alone thy sin,* 1.581 (saying) Against thee onely have I sinned and done evil in thy sight; and thy sin is for∣given thee.* 1.582 I do not say, tell to thy fellow-servant, who upbraids thee, but tell them to God who heals thy sins.] And,* 1.583 that after the abolition of the Penitentiary-Priest nothing was surrogated in his stead, but pious Homi∣lies and publick Exhortations, we learn from those words of his, [We do not bring the sinners into the midst, and publish their sins; but having propounded the com∣mon doctrine to all, we leave it to the Conscience of the Auditors, that out of those things which are spoken every one may find a medicine fitted for his wound.]* 1.584 Let the discussion of thy sins be in the accounts of thy Conscience; let the judgement be pass'd without a witness:* 1.585 let God alone see thee confessing; God who upbraids not thy sins, but out of this Confession blots them out.] Hast thou sinned, enter into the Church, say unto God, I have sinned. I exact nothing of thee, but that alone.]* 1.586 The same he says in many other places: Now against so many, so clear and dogmatical testimo∣nies it will be to no purpose to say, that S. Chrysostom onely spake against the Penitentiary-Priest set over the publick penitents;* 1.587 and this he did,* 1.588 in pursuance of his predecessors act. For, besides that some of these Ho∣milies were written before S. Chrysostom was Bishop, viz. his one and twenty Homilies to the people of An∣tioch, and the fourth Homily of Lazarus which was preach'd at Antioch before he came to Constantinople, when he was but a Priest under Flavianus his Bishop; and his Homilies on S. Matthew; besides this, it is plain that he not onely speaks against the publick judicial Penance and Confession; but against all, except that alone which is made to God; allowing the sufficiency of this for pardon, and disallowing the necessity of all other. To these things Bellarmine, Perron, Petrus de Soto, Vasquez, Valentia, and others, strive to find out an∣swers;

but they neither agree together, neither do their answers fit the testimonies; as is evident to them that compare the one and the other, the chief of which I have remark'd, in passing by. The best An∣swers that can be given are those which Latinus Lati∣nius, and Petavius, give; The first affirming, that these homilies 1. are not S. Chrysostom's. Or 2. that they are corrupted by hereticks; and the latter confessing they are his, but blames S. Chrysostom for preaching such things. And to these answers I hope I shall not need to make any reply.* 1.589 To the two first of Latinus, Vas∣quez hath answered perfectly; and to that of Petavius, there needs none; Petavius, in stead of answering, making himself a Judge of S. Chrysostom. I suppose if we had done so in any question against them, they would have taken it in great scorn and indignation; and therefore we choose to follow S. Chrysostom, rather than Master Petavius.

I do not deny, but the Roman Doctors do bring many sayings of the Greek and Latine Fathers, shewing the usefulness of Confession to a Priest, and exhorting and pressing men to it: But their arts are notorious, and evident; and what (according to the discipline of the Church at that time) they spake in behalf of the Exomologesis or publick discipline, that these Doctors translate to the private Confession; and yet what ever we bring out of Antiquity against the necessity of con∣fession to a Priest, that they will resolvedly under∣stand onely of the publick. But, besides what hath been said to every of the particulars, I shall conclude this point with the sayings of some eminent men of their own, who have made the same observation. In hoc labuntur Theologi quidam parùm attenti, quòd, quae veteres illi de hu jusmodi publicâ & generali confessione, quae nihil aliud erat quàm signis quibusdam & pia∣minibus ab Episcopo indictis, se peccatorem, & bonorum

communione indignum agnoscere,* 1.590 trahunt ad hanc occul∣tam & longè diversi generis: So Erasmus. And B. Rhe∣nanus says, Let no man wonder that Tertullian speaks nothing of the secret or clancular confession of sins;* 1.591 which, so far as we conjecture, was bred out of the (old) Exomologesis, by the unconstrained piety of men. For we do not find it at all commanded of old.

The Conclusion of these Premises is this, That the old Ecclesiastick discipline being pass'd into desuetude and indevotion, the Latine Church especially, kept up some little broken planks of it; which so long as cha∣rity and devotion were warm, and secular interest had not turn'd religion into arts, did in some good measure supply the want of the old better discipline; but when it had degenerated into little forms, and yet was found to serve great ends of power, wealth, and ambi∣tion, it pass'd into new doctrines, and is now bold to pretend to divine institution, though it be nothing but the Commandment of men, a snare of Consciences, and a ministery of humane policy; false in the Proposition, and intolerable in the Conclusion.

There are divers other instances reducible to this charge, and especially the Prohibition of Priests mar∣riage, and the abstinence from flesh at certain times; which are grown up from humane-Ordinances to be established Doctrines, that is, to be urged with greater severity than the Laws of God; insomuch that the Church of Rome permits Concubinate and Stews at the same time when she will not permit chaste Mar∣riages to her Clergy. And for abstinence from flesh at times appointed, Veluti parricida penè dixerim rapitur ad supplicium, qui pro piscium carnibus gustârit carnes suillas.* 1.592 But I shall not now insist upon these; having so many other things to say, and especially, having al∣ready in another place verified this Charge against them in these Instances.* 1.593 I shall onely name one testimo∣ny

of their own, which is a pregnant Mother of many instances:* 1.594 and it is in their own Canon Law. [They that voluntarily violate the Canons, are heavily judged by the Holy Fathers, and are damned by the holy Ghost, by whose instinct they were dictated.* 1.595. For they do not incongruously seem to blaspheme the holy Ghost.] And a little after [Such a presumption is manifestly one of the kinds of them that blaspheme against the holy Ghost.] Now if the laws of their Church,* 1.596 which are discor∣dant enough, and many times of themselves too blame∣able, be yet by them accounted so sacred, that it is taught to be a sin against the holy Ghost, willingly to break them; in the world there cannot be a greater verification of this charge upon them: it being con∣fessed on all hands, that, Not every man who voluntarily violates a Divine Commandement does blaspheme the holy Ghost.

The End of the First Book.

THE SECOND BOOK.

SECTION I.

Of Indulgences.

ONE of the great instances to prove the Roman Religion to be new; not primi∣tive, not Apostolic, is the foolish and unjustifiable doctrine of Indulgences. This point I have already handled; so ful∣ly and so without contradiction from the Roman Doctors (except that they have causelesly snar∣led at some of the testimonies) that for ought yet ap∣pears, that discourse may remain a sufficient reproof of the Church of Rome until the day of their reformation. The first testimony I brought, is the confession of a party: for I affirm'd that Bishop Fisher of Rochester did confess, That in the begining of the Church there was no use of Indulgences, and that they began after the people were a while affrighted with the torments of Purgatory.] To this there are two answers, The first is, that Bishop Fisher said no such words. No? proferte tabulas. His words are these,* 1.597 Who can now wonder that in the begining of the Primitive Church there was no use of Indulgences? And again, Indulgences began a while after men trembled at the torments of Purgatory. These are the words of Roffensis. What in the world can be plainer? And

this is so evident, that Alphonsus a Castro thinks him∣self concerned to answer the Objection,* 1.598 and the danger of such concessions

[Neither upon this occasion are Indulgences to be despis'd because their use may seem to be receiv'd lately in the Church, because there are many things known to posterity which those Ancient Writers were wholly ignorant of. Quid ergo mirum si ad hunc modum contigerit de indulgentiis ut apud pris∣cos nulla sit de iis mentio.]

Indeed Antiquity was wholly ignorant of these things:* 1.599 and as for their Ca∣tholic posterity, some of them also did not believe that Indulgences did profit any that were dead. Amongst these Hostiensis and Biel were the most noted. But Biel was soon made to alter his opinion; Hostiensis did not, that I find.

The other answer is, by E. W. That Roffensis saith it not so absolutely, but with this interrogation. Quis jam de indulgentiis mirari potest? Who now can wonder con∣cerning Indulgences? Wonder! at what? for E. W. is loth to tell it: But truth must out. Who now can won∣der that in the begining of the Church there was no use of Indulgences? So Roffensis; which first supposes this; that in the Primitive Church there was no use of In∣dulgences; none at all: And this which is the main question here, is as absolutely affirm'd as any thing; it is like a praecognition to a scientifical discourse. And then the question having presuppos'd this, does by di∣rect implication say, it is no wonder that there should be then no use of Indulgences. That is, it not only absolutely affirms the thing, but by consequence, the notoreity of it and the reasonableness. Nothing af∣firms or denies more strongly than a question. Are not my ways equal, said God, and are not your ways unequal? that is, It is evident and notorious that it is so. And by this we understand the meaning of Roffensis; in the follow∣ing words [Yet (as they say) there was some very Ancient

use of them among the Romans.] They say, that is, there is a talk of it amongst some or other; but such they were, whom Roffensis believ'd not; and that, upon which they did ground their fabulous report, was no∣thing but a ridiculous legend,* 1.600 which I have already confuted.

The same doctrine is taught by Antoninus, who con∣fesses that concerning them we have nothing expresly either in the Scriptures, or in the sayings of the Anci∣ent Doctors.] And that he said so cannot be denied; but E. W. says, that I omit what Antoninus addes [That is] I did not transcribe his whole book. But what is it that I should have added? This. Quamvis ad hoc indu∣catur illud Apostoli. 2 Cor. 2. Si quid donavi vobis, propter vos in persona Christi. Now to this there needs no answer, but this; that it is nothing to the purpose. To whom the Corinthians forgave any thing; to the same person S. Paul for their sakes did forgive also. But what then; Therefore the Pope and his Clergy have power to take off the temporal punishments which God re∣serves upon sinners after he hath forgiven them the temporal? and that the Church hath power to forgive sins before hand, and to set a price upon the basest crimes and not to forgive, but to sell Indulgences? and lay up the supernumerary treasures of the Saints good works, and issue them out by retail in the Market of Purgatory? Because S. Paul caus'd the Corinthians to be absolved and restored to the Churches peace after a severe penance; so great, that the poor man was in danger of being swallowed up with despair and the subtleties of Sathan; does this prove that therefore all penances may be taken off when there is no such danger, no such pious and charitable consideration? And yet besides the inconsequence of all this; S. Paul gave no indulgence, but what the Christian Church of Corinth (in which at that time there was no Bishop) did

first give themselves. Now the Indulgence which the people give will prove but little warrant to what the Church of Rome pretends; not only for the former reasons, but also because the Primitive Church had said nothing expresly concerning Indulgences; and therefore did not to any such purpose expound the words of S. Paul; but also because Antoninus himself was not moved by those words to think they meant any thing of the Roman Indulgences; but mentions it as the argument of other persons. Just as if I should write that there is concerning Transubstantiation no∣thing expresly said in the Scriptures, or in the writings of the Ancient Fathers; although Hoc est corpus meum be brought in for it: Would any man in his wits say, that I am of the opinion that in Scripture there is some∣thing express for it, though I expresly deny it? I sup∣pose not.

It appears now that Roffensis and a Castro declared against the Antiquity of Indulgences; Their own words are the witnesses; and the same is also true of Antoninus; and therefore the first discourse of Indul∣gences [in the Dissuasive] might have gone on prospe∣rously and needed not to have been interrupted. For if these quotations be true as is pretended, and as now appears, there is nothing by my Adversaries said in defence of Indulgences, no pretence of an argument in justification of them; the whole matter is so foul, and yet so notorious that the novelty of it is plainly ac∣knowleged by their most learned men and but faintly denied by the bolder people that care not what they say. So that I shall account the main point of Indul∣gences to be (for ought yet appears to the contrary) gain'd against the Church of Rome.

But there is another appendant Question that hap∣pens in by the by; nothing to the main inquiry, but a particular instance of the usual ways of earning Indul∣gences,

viz. by going in pilgrimages; which very par∣ticularly I affirmed to be reproved by the Ancient Fa∣thers: and particularly by S. Gregory Nyssen, in a book or Epistle of his written wholly on this subject, (so I said) and so Possevine calls it, librum contra pere∣grinationes; the book against Pilgrimages. The Epi∣stle is large and learned and greatly dissuasive of Chri∣stians from going in Pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Domi∣nus profectionem in Hierosylma inter recte facta quae eo (viz. ad regni coelorum haereditatem consequendam) diri∣gant non enumeravit; ubi beatitudinem annunciat, tale studium, talemque operam non est complexus. And again, spiritualem noxam affricat accuratum vitae genus insisten∣tibus. Non est ista tanto digna studio, imo est vitanda summo opere. And if this was directed principally to such persons, who had chosen to live a solitary and pri∣vate life; yet that was, because such strict and religi∣ous persons where those, whose false shew of piety he did in that instance reprove; but he reproves it by such arguments all the way, as concern all Christians, but especially women; and answers to an objection made against himself for going; which he says he did by command, and public charge, and for the service of the Arabian Churches, and that he might confer with the Bishops of Palestine. This Epistle of S. Gregory Nyssen de adeuntibus Hierosolymam was printed at Paris in Greek by Guilielmus Morellus, and again published in Greek and Latin with a double version by Peter du Moulin, and is acknowledged by Baronius to be legi∣timate;* 1.601 and therefore there is no denying the truth of the quotation; the Author of the letter had better to have rub'd his forehead hard and to have answered as Possevine did [Ab haereticis prodiit liber sub nomine Gregorii Nysseni;* 1.602 and Bellarmine being pinch'd with it, says, Forte non est Nysseni; nec scitur quis ille verte∣••••t in sermonem latinum, & forte etiam non inveni∣tur

Graece. All which is refuted by their own parties.

That S. Chrysostom was of the same judgement,* 1.603 ap∣pears plainly in these few words. Namque ad impe∣trandum nostris secleribus veniam, non pecunias impen∣dere nec aliud aliquid hujusmodi facere: sola sufficit bonae voluntatis integritas.* 1.604 Non opus est in longinqua pere∣grinando transire, nec ad remotissimas ire nationes, &c. S. Chrysostom, according to the sense of the other Fa∣thers, teaches a Religion and Repentance wholly re∣ducing us to a good life, a service perfectly consisting in the works of a good conscience. And in the exclu∣sion of other external things, he reckons this of Pil∣grimages. For, how travelling into Forain Coun∣tries for pardon of our crimes differs from Pilgrim∣ages, I have not been yet taught.

The last I mention'd is S. Bernard;* 1.605 his words are these, It is not necessary for thee to pass over Sea to pene∣trate the clouds, to go beyond the Alps; there is I say, no great journey proposed to you; meet God within your self, for the word is nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, &c. So the Author of the letter acknowledges S. Bernard to have said in the place quoted: yea but says this objector,* 1.606 I might as well have quoted Moses, Deut. 13. 14.] Well, what if I had quoted Moses; had it been ever the worse? But though I did not, yet S. Bernard quoted Moses, and that it seems troubled this Gentleman. But S. Bernards words are indeed agreeable to the words of Moses, but not all out the same: For Moses made no prohibition of going to Rome, which I suppose S. Bernard meant by▪ transal∣pinare.

There remains in A. L. yet one cavil, but it is a que∣stion of diligence and not to the point in hand. The authority of S. Austin I mark'd under the title of his Sermon de Martyribus.* 1.607 But the Gentleman to shew

his Learning tells us plainly that there is but one in S. Austins works with that title, to wit his 117. Sermon de diversis, and in that there is not the least word to any such purpose. All this latter part may be true, but the first is a great mistake; for if the Gentleman please to look in the Paris Edition of S. Austin 1571. tom. 10. pag. 277. he shall find the words I have quoted. And whereas he talkes of 117. Sermons de diversis, and of one only Sermon de martyribus, I do a little wonder at him to talk so confidently; whereas in the Edition I speak of, and which I followed, there are but 49. Ser∣mons, and 17. under the title de diversis, and yet there are six Sermons that bear the title de Martyribus, but they are to be found under the title de Sanctis; so that the Gentleman look'd in the wrong place for his quo∣tation; and if he had not mistaken himself he could have had no colour for an objection. But for the satis∣faction of the Reader; the words are these in his 3. Ser∣mon de Martyribus diversis. Non dixit vade in orientem & quaere justitiam, naviga usque ad occidentem ut acci∣pias indulgentiam. Dimitte inimico tuo & dimittetur tibi: indulge & indulgetur tibi, da & dabitur tibi; ni∣hil a te extra te quaerit. Ad teipsum & ad conscientiam tuam te Deus diriget. In te enim posuit quod requirit. But now let it be considered that all those charges which are laid against the Church of Rome and her greatest Doctors respectively in the matter of Indul∣gences are found to be true; and if so, let the world judge whether that doctrine and those practices be to∣lerable in a Christian Church.

But that the Reader may not be put off with a mere defence of four quotations; I shall add this; that I might have instanc'd in worse matters made by the Popes of Rome to be the pious works, the condition of obtaining Indulgences. Such as was the Bull of Pope Julius the second, giving Indulgence to him that meet∣ing

a Frenchman should kill him, and another for the killing of a Venetian. But we need not to wonder at it, since according to the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, We ought to say that in the Pope is the fulness of all graces;* 1.608 because he alone bestows a full Indulgence of all our sins; so that what we say of our chief Prince and Lord (viz. Jesus Christ) does fit him, for we all have received of his ful∣ness. Which words besides that they are horrid blas∣phemy; are also a fit principle of the doctrine and use of Indulgences to those purposes, and in that evil manner we complain of in the Church of Rome.

I desire this only instance may be added to it, that P. Paul the third, he that conven'd the Council of Trent, and Julius the third, for fear (as I may suppose) the Council should forbid any more such follies, for a farewell to this game gave an Indulgence to the Frater∣nity of the Sacrament of the Altar,* 1.609 or of the Blessed Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, of such a vastness and unreasonable folly, that it puts us beyond the Questi∣on of Religion, to an inquiry whether it were not done either in perfect distraction, or with a worse design to make Religion to be ridiculous, and expose it to a contempt and scorn. The conditions of the Indulgence are either to visit the Church of S. Hilary of Charters, to say a Pater Noster, and an Ave Mary every Friday, or at most to be present at processions and other Divine Service upon Corpus Christi day. The gift is as many priviledges, indults, exemptions, liberties, immunities, plenary pardon of sins and other spiritual graces as were given to the Fraternity of the Image of our Sa∣viour ad Sancta Sanctorum; the Fraternity of the Cha∣rity and great Hospital of S. James in Augusta of S. John Baptist, of St. Cosmus and Damianus; of the Florentine Nation, of the Hospital of the Holy Ghost in Saxia, of the order of S. Austin and S. Champ, of

the Fraternities of the said City; of the Churches of our Lady de populo & de verbo: and all those which were ever given to them that visited these Churches; or those which should be ever given hereafter. A pretty large gift. In which there were so many pardons, quar∣ter pardons, half pardons, true pardons, plenary par∣dons, Quarentaines, and years of Quarentaines; that it is a harder thing to number them, than to purchase them. I shall remark in these some particulars fit to be considered.

1. That a most scandalous and unchristian dissolu∣tion and death of all Ecclesiastical discipline, is con∣sequent to the making all sin so cheap and trivial a thing; that the horrible demerits and exemplary punishment and remotion of scandal and satisfactions to the Church are indeed reduc'd to trifling and Mock-penances. He that shall send a servant with a Candle to attend the Holy Sacrament when it shall be carried to sick people, or shall go himself, or if he can neither go nor send, if he say a Pater Noster and an Ave; he shall have a hundred years of true pardon. This is fair and easie. But then,

2. It would be considered what is meant by so many years of pardon, and so many years of true pardon. I know but of one natural interpretation of it; and that it can mean nothing, but that some of the pardons are but phantastical, and not true: and in this I find no fault, save only that it ought to have been said; that all of them are phantastical.

3. It were fit we learned how to compute four thou∣sand and eight hundred years of Quarantaines; and re∣mission of a third part of all their sins; for so much is given to every Brother and Sister of this Fraternity, upon Easter day and eight days after. Now if a Bro∣ther needs not thus many, it would be considered whe∣ther it do not encourage a Brother or a frail Sister to

use all their Medicine and to sin more freely, lest so great a gift become useless.

4. And this is so much the more considerable be∣cause the gift is vast beyond all imagination. The first four days in Lent they may purchase 33000 years of pardon, besides a plenary remission of all his sins over and above. The first week of Lent a hundred and three and thirty thousand years of pardon, besides five ple∣nary remissions of all their sins, and two third parts besides, and the delivery of one soul out of Purgatory. The second week in Lent a hundred and eight and fifty thousand years of pardon besides the remission of all their sins and a third part besides; and the delivery of one soul. The third week in Lent, 80000 years be∣sides a plenary remission, and the delivery of one soul out of Purgatory. The fourth week in Lent; three∣score thousand years of pardon besides a remission of two thirds of all their sins; and one plenary remission and one soul delivered. The fifth week 79000. years of pardon and the deliverance of two souls, only the 2700. years that is given for the Sunday may be had twice that day, if they will visit the Altar twice; and as many Quarantaines. The sixth week 205000. years besides Quarantaines; and four plenary pardons. On∣ly on Palme Sunday whose portion is 25000. years it may be had twice that day. And all this is the price of him that shall upon these days visit the Altar in the Church of S. Hilary. And this runs on to the Fridays, and many Festivals and other solemn days in the other parts of the year.

5. Though it may be that a Brother may not need all this; at least at that time, yet that there may be no insecurity, the said Popes give to every Brother and Sister of the Fraternity, plenary pardon and Indul∣gence of all their sins thrice in their life, upon what day and hour they please. I suppose that one of the

times shall be in the article of death; for that's the surest way for a weak Brother.* 1.610 I have read that the Popes do not only give remission of sins already com∣mitted, but also of such as are to be committed. But whether it be so or no; There is in the Bulls of this Fraternity as good provision; for he, that hath a dormant faculty for▪ a plenary pardon laying by him to be us'd at what hour he please; hath a Bull before hand for pardon of sins afterwards to be committed when he hath a mind to it.

6. To what purpose is so much wast of the Treasure of the Church? Quorsum perditio haec? Every Bro∣ther or Sister of this Fraternity may have for so many times visiting the Altar aforesaid, fourteen or fifteen plenary pardons. Certainly the Popes suppose these persons to be mighty Criminals, that they need so ma∣ny pardons, so many plenaries. But two Alls of the same thing is as much as two Nothings. But if there were not infinite causes of fear that very many of them were nullities, and that none of them were of any cer∣tain avail, there could be no pretence of reasonable∣ness in dispensing these Jewels with so loose a hand, and useless a freedom, as if a man did shovel Mustard, or pour Hogsheads of Vinegar into his friends mouth, to make him swallow a mouthful of Herbs.

7. What is the secret meaning of it, that in divers clauses in their Bulls of Indulgences,* 1.611 they put in this clause, A pardon of all their sins [be they never so hein∣ous] The extraordinary cases reserved to the Pope; and the consequent difficulty of getting pardon of such great sins, because it would cost much more mo∣ny, was or might be some little restraint to some per∣sons from running easily into the most horrible impie∣ties; but to give such a loose to this little, and this last rein and curb; and by an easie Indulgence to take off all, even the most heinous sins, what is it but to give

the Devil an argument to tempt persons that have any conscience or fear left, to throw off all fear, and to stick at nothing.

8. It seems hard to give a reasonable account, what is meant by giving a plenary pardon of all their sins; and yet at the same time an Indulgence of 12000. years, and as many Quarentaines; it seems the bounty of the Church runs out of a Conduit, though the Vessels be full, yet the water still continues running and goes into wast.

9. In this great heap of Indulgences (and so it is in very many other) power is given to a Lay Sister or Bro∣ther to free a soul from Purgatory. But if this be so easily granted, the necessity of Masses will be very little; what need is there to give greater fees to a Phy∣sician when a sick person may be cur'd with a Posset and Pepper. The remedy of the way of Indulgences is cheap and easie, a servant with a Candle, a Pater and an Ave, a going to visit an Altar, wearing the Scapu∣lar of the Carmelites, or the Chord of S. Francis: but Masses for souls are a dear commodity, five pence or six pence is the least a Mass will cost in some places; nay it will stand in nine pence in other places. But then if the Pope can do this trick certainly, then what can be said to John Gersons question.

Arbitrio Papa proprio si clavibus uti Possit, cur sinit ut poena pios cruciet? Cur non evacuat loca purgandis animabus Tradita? The answer makes up the Tetrastic; sed servus esse fidelis amat.

The Pope may be kind, but he must be wise too; a faithful and wise Steward; he must not destroy the whole state of the purging Church; if he takes away all the fuel from the fire; who shall make the Pot boyl?

This may not be done, Ut possint superesse quos peccasse poeniteat: Sinners must pay for it, in their bodies or their purses.

SECTION II.

Of Purgatory.

THat the doctrine of Purgatory as it is taught in the Roman Church is a Novelty, and a part of their New Religion, is sufficiently attested by the words of the Cardinal of Rochester, and Alphonsus a Castro; whose words I now add that he who pleases may see how these new men would fain impose their new fancies upon the Church, under pretence and title of Ancient and Catholic verities. The words of Rof∣fensis in his eighteenth article against Luther are these, * 1.612 Legat qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios, & nullum, quantum, opinor; aut quam rarissimum de pur∣gatorio sermonem inveniet. Sed neque latini simul omnes, at sensim hujus rei veritatem conceperunt.

He that pleases, let him read the Commentaries of the Old Greeks and (as I suppose) he shall find none, or very

rare mention (or speech) of Purgatory. But neither did all the Latins at one time, but by little and little conceive the truth of this thing. And again [Ali∣quandiu incognitum fuit, sero cognitum Universae Eccle∣siae. Deinde quibusdam pedetentim, partim ex Scrip∣turis, partim ex revelationibus creditum fuit. For somewhile it was unknown; it was but lately known to the Catholic Church. Then it was believ'd by some, by little and little; partly from Scripture, part∣ly from revelations.]

And this is the goodly ground of the doctrine of Purgatory, founded no question up∣on tradition Apostolical; delivered some hundreds of years indeed after they were dead; but the truth is, because it was forgotten by the Apostles, and they ha∣ving so many things in their heads, when they were alive wrote and said nothing of it, therefore they took care to send some from the dead, who by new revela∣tions should teach this old doctrine. This we may conjecture to be the aequivalent sense of the plain words of Roffensis. But the plain words are sufficient without a Commentary.* 1.613

Now for Polydore Virgil his own words can best tell what he says,* 1.614 The words I have put into the Margent because they are many; the sense of them is this. 1. He finds no use of Indulgences before the stations of S. Gregory; the consequent of that is, that all the Latine Fathers did not receive them before S. Gre∣gories time; and therefore they did not receive them altogether. 2. The matter being so obscure, Polydore chose to express his sense in the testimony of Roffensis. 3. From him he affirms, that the use of Indul∣gences

is but new, and lately re∣ceived amongst Christians. 4. That there is no certainty concerning their original. 5. They report, that amongst the Ancient Latins there was some use of them. But it is but a report, for he knows nothing of it before S. Gregories time, and for that also he hath but a meer report. 6. Amongst the Greeks it is not to this day be∣liev'd. 7. As long as there was no care of Purgatory, no man look'd after Indulgences; because if you take away Purgatory, there is no need of Indulgences. 8. That the use of Indulgences began after men had a while trembled at the torments of Purgatory.] This if I understand Latin or common sense, is the doctrine of Polydore Virgil; and to him I add also the testimony of Alphonsus a Castro.* 1.615 De Purgatorio fere nulla mentio, potissimum apud Graecos scriptores. Qua de causa usque hodiernum diem purgatorium non est a Graecis creditum. The consequent of these things is this. If Purgatory was not known to the Primitive Church; if it was but lately known to the Catholic Church; if the Fathers seldom or never make mention of it; If in the Greek Church especially there was so great silence of it, that to this very day it is not believed amongst the Greeks; then this doctrine was not an Apostolical doctrine, not Primitive, not Catholic, but an Innovation and of yesterday.

And this is of it self (besides all these confessions of their own parties) a suspicious matter, because the Church of Rome does establish their doctrine of Pur∣gatory upon the Ancient use of the Church of praying for the dead. But this consequence of theirs is whol∣ly vain; because all the Fathers did pray for the dead, yet they never prayed for their deliverance out of Pur∣gatory, nor ever meant it. To this it is thus objected,

It is confessed that they prayed for them that God would shew them a mercy.* 1.616 Now, Mark well, If they be in hea∣ven they have a mercy, the sentence is given for Eternal happiness. If in Hell, they are wholly destitute of mercy; unless there be a third place where mercy can be shewed them.] I have according to my order mark't it well; but find nothing in it to purpose. For though the Fathers prayed for the souls departed that God would shew them mercy; yet it was, that God would shew them mercy in the day of judgment, In that formidable and dreadful day, then there is need of much mercy unto us, saith S. Chrysostom. And methinks this Gentleman should not have made use of so pitiful an argument, and would not, if he had consider'd that S. Paul pray∣ed for Onesiphorus, that God would shew him a mercy in that day; that is in the day of judgment, as generally interpreters Ancient and Modern do understand it, and particularly S. Chrysostom now cited. The faith∣ful departed are in the hands of Christ as soon as they die, and they are very well; and the souls of the wic∣ked are where it pleases God to appoint them to be, tor∣mented by a fearful expectation of the revelation of the day of judgment; but heaven and hell are reserved till the day of judgment;* 1.617 and the Devils themselves are reserved in chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day, saith S. Jude; and in that day they shall be sentenc'd, and so shall all the wicked, to everlasting fire, which as yet is but prepar'd for the Devil and his Angels for ever. But is there no mercy to be shewed to them unless they be in Purgatory? Some of the Ancients speak of visitation of Angels to be imparted to the souls departed; and the hastening of the day of judgment is a mercy; and the avenging of the Martyrs upon their adversaries is a mercy for which the souls un∣der the Altar pray, saith S. John in the Revelation: and the Greek Fathers speak of a fiery trial at the day of

judgment through which every one must pass; and there will be great need of mercy. And after all this; there is a remission of sins proper to this world, when God so pardons that he gives the grace of repentance, that he takes his judgements off from us, that he gives us his holy spirit to mortifie our sins, that he admits us to work in his laboratory, that he sustains us by his power, and promotes us by his grace, and stands by us favourably while we work out our salvation with fear and trembling; and at last he crowns us with perseve∣rance. But at the day of Judgment there shall be a pardon of sins, that will crown this pardon; when God shall pronounce us pardon'd before all the world; and when Christ shall actually and praesentially rescue us from all the pains which our sins have deserved; even from everlasting pain: And that's the final par∣don, for which till it be accomplished, all the faithful do night and day pray incessantly: although to many for whom they do pray, they friendly believe that it is now certain, that they shall then be glorified. Saepissi∣me petuntur illa quae certo sciuntur eventura ut petuntur,* 1.618 & hujus rei plurima sunt testimonia, said Alphonsus à Castro: and so also Medina and Bellarmine acknow∣ledge.* 1.619 The thing is true, they say; but if it were not,* 1.620 yet we find that de facto they do pray Domine Je∣su Christe, rex gloriae libera animas Fidelium defuncto∣rum de poenis Inferni & de profundo lacu: libera eos de ore leonis, ne abforbeat eos Tartarus, ne cadant in obscurum. So it is in the Masses pro defunctis.* 1.621 And therefore this Gentleman talking that in Heaven all is remitted, and in Hell nothing is forgiven, and from hence to con∣clude that there is no avoiding of purgatory; is too hasty a conclusion: let him stay till he comes to Hea∣ven, and the final sentence is past, and then he will (if he finds it to be so) have reason to say what he does; but by that time the dream of Purgatory will be out;

and in the mean time let him strive to understand his Mass-book better. S. Austin thought he had reason to pray for pardon and remission for his Mother; for the reasons already expressed, though he never thought his Mother was in Purgatory. It was upon conside∣ration of the dangers of every soul that dies in Adam; and yet he affirms she was even before her death alive unto Christ. And therefore she did not die miserable, nor did she die at all (said her son,)* 1.622 Hoc & documentis ejus morum, & fide non ficta, rationibus certis teneba∣mus; and when he did pray for her; Credo jam feceris quod te rogo, sed voluntaria oris mei approba Domine: which will yet give another answer to this confident Gentleman; S. Austin prayed for pardon for his Mo∣ther, and did believe the thing was done already; but he prayed to God to approve that voluntary oblation of his mouth. So that now all the objection is vanish∣ed; S. Austin prayed (besides many other reasons) to manifest his kindness, not for any need she had. But after all this, was not S. Monica a Saint? Is she not put in the Roman Calendar, and the fourth of May ap∣pointed for her festival? And do Saints, do Canoniz'd persons use to go to Purgatory? But let it be as it will, I only desire that this be remembred against a good time; that here it is confessed that prayers were offered for a Saint departed. I fear it will be denied by and by.

But 2. The Fathers made prayers for those who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory; for the Patriarchs, Apostles, &c. and especially for the Blessed Virgin Mary; this which is a direct and perfect overthrow of the Roman doctrine of Purgatory, and therefore if it can be made good, they have no pro∣bability left, upon the confidence of which they can plausibly pretend to Purgatory. I have already offer∣ed something in proof of this, which I shall now re∣view,* 1.623 and confirm fully. I begin with that of Duran∣tus,

whom I alledged as confes∣sing that they offer'd* 1.624 for the Pa∣triarchs, and Prophets, and the Blessed Virgin: I intend him for no more; for true it is, he denies that the Church prayed for them, but that they communicated and offered sacrifice for them, even for the Blessed Virgin Mary her self, this he grants. I have alledged him a little out of the order, because observing where Durantus and the Roman Doctors are mistaken, and with what boldness they say, that offer∣ing for them is only giving thanks, and that the Greek Fathers did only offer for them Eucharists, but no Prayers; I thought it fit first to reprove that initial error, viz. [that Communicantes, & offerentes pro san∣ctis is not Prayer;] and then to make it clear that they did really pray, for mercy, for pardon, for a place of rest, for eternal glory for them who never were in Purgato∣ry, for it is a great ignorance to suppose, that when it is said the sacrifice or oblation is offered, it must mean only thanksgiving. For it is called in S. Dionys, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Eucharistical prayer; and the Lords Supper is a sacrifice in genere orationis, and by themselves is intended as propitiatory for the quick and dead.* 1.625 And S. Cyprian speaking of Bishops, being made Executors of Testaments, saith, Si quis hoc fe∣cisset, non offerretur pro eo, nec sacrificium pro dormitio∣ne ejus celebratur. Neque enim ad altare Dei meretur nominari in sacerdotum prece, qui ab altari sacerdotes avocare voluit. Where offerre and celebrare sacrifici∣um pro dormitione is done sacerdotum prece, it is the oblation and sacrifice of prayer: and S. Cyprian pre∣sently after joyns them together, pro dormitione ejus ob∣latio aut deprecatio. And if we look at the forms in the old Roman Liturgy us'd in the days of Pope Innocent

the third we shall find this well expounded, prosit huic sancto vel illi talis oblatio ad gloriam. They offered, but the offering it self was not Eucharistical but de∣precatory. And so it is also in the Armenian Liturgy publish'd at Crackow: per hanc etiam oblationem da aeter∣nam pacem omnibus qui nos praecesserunt in fide Christi, sanctis Patribus, Patriarchis, Apostolis, Prophetis, Martyribus, &c. which testimony does not only evince, that the offering sacrifices and oblations for the Saints, did signifie praying for them; but that this they did for all Saints whatsoever. And concerning S. Chryso∣stom,* 1.626 that which Sixtus Senensis says is material to this very purpose. Et in Liturgia Divini sacrificii ab eo edita, & in variis homiliis ab eodem approbata, con∣scripsit formulam precandi, & offerendi; pro omnibus fidelibus, defunctis, & praecipue pro animabus beatorum, in haec verba, offerrimus tibi rationalem hunc cultum pro in fide requiescentibus Patribus, Patriarchis, Prophetis, Apostolis & Martyribus, &c. By which confession it is acknowledged not only that the Church prayed for Apostles and Martyrs, but that they intended to do so, when they offered the Sacramental oblations; and of∣ferimus is offerimus tibi preces. Now since it is so, I had advantage enough in the confession of their own Durantus, that he acknowledged so much, that the Church offered sacrifice for Saints. Now though he presently kick'd this down with his foot, and denied that they prayed for Saints departed; I shall yet more clearly convince him and all the Roman contradictors of their bold and unreasonable error in this affair. Epiphanius is the first I mentioned as a witness,* 1.627 but be∣cause I cited no words of his, and my adversaries have cited them for me, but imperfectly, and left out the words where the argument lies, I shall set them down at length.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. We make mention of the just and of sinners, for

sinners that we may implore the mercy of God for them. For the just, the Fathers, the Patriarchs, the Prophets, Evangelists and Martyrs, Confessors, Bishops and Anachorets, that prosecuting the Lord Jesus Christ with a singular honour, we separate these from the rank of other men, and give due wor∣ship to his Divine Majesty, while we account that he is not to be made equal to mortal men, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, although they had a thousand times more righteous∣ness than they have.]

Now first here is mention made of all in their prayers and oblations, and yet no mention made that the Church prays for one sort, and only gives thanks for the other,* 1.628 (as these Gentle∣men the objectors falsely pretend.) But here is a double separation made of the righteous departed; one is from the worser sort of sinners, the other from the most righteous Saviour. True it is, they believ'd they had more need to pray for some than for others; but if they did not pray for all, when they made men∣tion of all, how did they honour Christ by separating their condition from his? Is it not lawful to give thanks for the life and death, for the resurrection, ho∣liness and glorification of Christ? And if the Church only gave thanks for the departed Saints, and did not pray for mercy for them too, how are not the Saints in this made equal to Christ? So that I think the te∣stimony of Epiphanius is clear and pertinent:* 1.629 To which greater light is given by the words of S. Austin, Who is he for whom no man prays, but only he who inter∣ceeds for all men? viz. our Blessed Lord. And there is more light yet, by the example of S. Austin, who though he did most certainly believe his Mother to be a Saint, and the Church of Rome believes so too, yet he prayed for pardon for her. Now by this it was that Epiphanius separated Christ from the Saints departed,

for he could not mean any thing else; and be∣cause he was then writing against Aerius who did not deny it to be lawful to give God thanks for the Saints departed, but affirm'd it to be needless to pray for them, viz. he must mean this of the Churches praying for all her dead, or else he had said nothing against his adversary, or for his own cause.

S. Cyril (though he be confidently denied to have said what he did say yet) is confessed to have said these words,* 1.630 Then we pray for the deceased Fathers and Bishops, and finally for all who among us have departed this life. Believing it to be a very great help of the souls,* 1.631 for which is offered the obsecration of the holy and dreadful sacri∣fice.] If S. Cyril means what his words signifie, then the Church did pray for departed Saints; for they prayed for all the departed Fathers and Bishops, it is hard if amongst them there were no Saints: but suppose that, yet if there were any Saints at all that died out of the militant Church, yet the case is the same; for they prayed for all the departed: And 2. They offered the dreadful sacrifice for them all. 3. They offered it for all in the way of prayer. 4. And they believed this to be a great help to souls. Now unless the souls of all Saints that died then, went to Purgatory (which I am sure the Roman Doctors dare not own) the case is plain that prayer, and not thanksgivings only were offered by the Ancient Church for souls, who by the Confession of all sides never went to Purgatory; and therefore praying for the dead is but a weak argument to prove Purgatory. Nicolaus Cabasilas hath an evasion from all this; as he supposes, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is the word us'd in the memorials of Saints, does not alwayes sig∣nifie praying for one, but it may signifie giving of thanks; This is true, but it is to no purpose; for when ever it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we pray for such a one, that must signifie to pray for, and not to give thanks, and that's

our present case: and therefore no escape here can be made; the words of S. Cyril are very plain.

The third allegation is of the Canon of the Greeks; which is so plain, evident and notorious, and so con∣fess'd even by these Gentlemen the objectors, that I will be tried by the words which the Author of the let∣ter acknowledges. So it is in the Liturgy of S. James, Remember all Orthodox from Abel the just unto this day, make them to rest in the land of the living, in thy King∣dom, and the delights of Paradise. Thus far this Gentle∣man quoted S. James, and I wonder that he shall urge a conclusion manifestly contrary to his own allegati∣on. Did all the Orthodox from Abel to that day go to Purgatory? Certainly Abraham, and Moses, and Elias, and the Blessed Virgin did not, and S. Stephen did not, and the Apostles that died before this Litur∣gy was made did not, and yet the Church prayed for all Orthodox, prayed that they might rest in the land of the living, &c. and therefore they prayed for such which by the confession of all sides never went to Purgatory. In the other Liturgies also, the Gentleman sets down words enough to confute himself, as the Reader may see in the letter if it be worth the reading. But be∣cause he sets down what he list, and makes breaches and Rabbet holes to pop in as he please, I shall for the satisfaction of the Reader set down the full sense and practice of the Greek Canon in this que∣stion.

And first for S. James his Liturgy,* 1.632 which, being mer∣rily disposed and dreaming of advantage by it, he is pleased to call the Mass of S. James, Sixtus Senen∣sis gives this account of it

[James the Apostle in the Liturgy of the Divine sacrifice prays for the souls of Saints resting in Christ, so that he shews they are not yet arriv'd at the place of expected blessedness. But the form of the prayer is after this

manner, Domine Deus noster, &c. O Lord our God remember all the Orthodox, and them that believe rightly in the faith from Abel the just unto this day. Make them to rest in the region of the living, in thy Kingdom, in the delights of Paradise, in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob our Holy Fathers; from whence are banished grief, sorrow and sighing, where the light of thy countenance is president and perpetually shines.]

In the Liturgy of S. Basil,* 1.633 which he is said to have made for the Churches of Syria, is this prayer, [Be mindful, O Lord, of them which are dead and departed out of this life, and of the Orthodox Bishops, which from Pe∣ter and James the Apostles unto this day, have clearly pro∣fessed the right word of faith, and namely, of Ignatius, Dionysius, Julius and the rest of the Saints of worthy memory. Nay, not only for these, but they pray for the very Martyrs. O Lord remember them who have re∣sisted (or stood) unto blood for religion, and have fed thy holy flock with righteousness and holiness.] Certainly this is not giving of thanks for them, or praying to them, but a direct praying for them, even for holy Bishops, Confessors, Martyrs, that God (meaning in much mercy) would remember them, that is, make them to rest in the bosom of Abraham, in the region of the living, as S. James expresses it.

And in the Liturgies of the Churches of Egypt at∣tributed to S. Basil, Greg. Naz. and S. Cyril, the Churches pray;

[Be mindful O Lord of thy Saints, vouchsafe to receive all thy Saints which have pleas'd thee from the beginning, our Holy Fathers, the Pa∣triarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Preachers, Evangelists, and all the Souls of the just which have died in the faith, but chiefly of the ho∣ly, glorious and perpetual Virgin Mary the Mother of God, of S. John Baptist the forerunner and Martyr,

S. Stephen the first Deacon and first Martyr, S. Mark Apostle, Evangelist and Martyr.]

Of the same spirit were all the Ancient Liturgies or Missals, and particularly that under the name of Saint Chrysostom is most full to this purpose;

Let us pray to the Lord for all that before time have laboured and per∣formed the holy offices of Priesthood. For the memory and remission of sins of them that built this holy house, and of all them that have slept in hope of the resurrection and eternal life in thy society: of the Orthodox Fathers and our Brethren. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 O thou lover of men pardon them.] And again, [moreover we offer unto thee this rea∣sonable service for all that rest in faith, our Ance∣stors, Fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets and Apostles, Preachers, Evangelists, Martyrs, &c. especially the most holy and unspotted Virgin Mary] and after concludes with this prayer [Remember them all who have slept in hope of Resurrection to Eternal life, and make them to rest where the light of thy countenance looks over them.]

Add to these if you please, the Greek Mass of S. Peter:

To them, O Lord, and to all that rest in Christ, we pray that thou indulge a place of refreshing light and peace.]

So that nothing is clearer than that in the Greek Canon they prayed for the souls of the best of all the Saints, whom yet because no man believes they ever were in Purgatory; it follows that prayer for the dead us'd by the Ancients does not prove the Roman Purgatory.

To these add the doctrine and practice of the Greek Fathers:* 1.634 Dionysius speaking of a person deceased, whom the Ministers of the Church had publickly pro∣nounced to be a happy man, and verily admitted into the society of the Saints, that have been from the be∣ginning of the world, yet the Bishop prayed for him, that God would forgive him all the sins which he had com∣mitted

through humane infirmity, and bring him into the light and region of the living, into the bosoms of Abra∣ham, Isaac and Jacob, where pain and sorrow and sighing have no place; To the same purpose is that of S. Gre∣gory Naz.* 1.635 in his funeral Oration upon his Brother Cae∣sarius, of whom he had expresly declar'd his belief, that he was rewarded with those honours which did befit a new ••reated soul; yet he presently prays for his soul; Now, O Lord, receive Caesarius. I hope I have said enough concerning the Greek Church, their doctrine and practice in this particular: and I desire it may be observed, that there is no greater testimony of the do∣ctrine of a Church than their Liturgy. Their Do∣ctors may have private opinions which are not against the doctrine of the Church; but what is put into their publick devotions, and consign'd in their Liturgies, no man scruples it, but it is the confession and religion of the Church.

But now that I may make my Reader some amends for his trouble in reading the trifling objections of these Roman adversaries, and my defences; I shall also [ I] for the greater conviction of my Adversaries shew, that they would not have oppos'd my affirmation in this particular, if they had understood their own Mass-book, for it was not only thus from the beginning un∣til now in the Greek Church, but it is so to this very day in the Latin Church. In the old Latin Missal we have this prayer,* 1.636 [Suscipe sancta Trinitas hanc oblatio∣nem quam tibi offerimus pro omnibus in tui nominis con∣fessione defunctis, ut te dextram auxilii tui porrigente vi∣tae perennis requiem habeant, & à poenis impiorum segre∣gati semper in tuae laudis laetitia perseverent. And in the very Canon of the Mass, which these Gentlemen I suppose (if they be Priests) cannot be ignorant in any part of, they pray, Memento Domine famulorum fa∣mularumque tuarum qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei,

& dormiunt in somno pacis. Ipsis Domine & omnibus in Christo quiescentibus, locum refrigerii, lucis & pacis, ut indulgeas deprecamur. Unless all that are at rest in Christ go to Purgatory, it is plain that the Church of Rome prays for Saints, who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory. I could bring many more testimonies if they were needful; but I summ up this particular with the words of S. Austin:* 1.637 Non sunt praetermittendae supplicationes pro spiritibus mortuorum; quas faciendas pro omnibus in Christiana & Catholica so∣cietate defunctis etiam tacitis nominibus quorumque, sub generali commemoratione suscepit Ecclesia. The Church prays for all persons that died in the Christian and Ca∣tholic faith. And therefore I wonder how it should drop from S. Austins pen,* 1.638 Injuriam facit Martyri qui orat pro Martyre. But I suppose he meant it only in case the prayer was made for them, as if they were in an uncertain state, and so it is probable enough, but else his words were not only against himself in other places, but against the whole practice of the ancient Catholic Church. I remember that when it was ask'd of Pope Innocent by the Archbishop of Lyons,* 1.639 why the prayer that was in the old Missal for the soul of Pope Leo; Annue nobis Domine, animae famuli tui Le∣onis haec profit oblatio, it came to be chang'd into Annue nobis Domine ut intercessione famuli tui Leonis haec profit oblatio; Pope Innocent answered him, that who chang'd it or when, he knew not, but he knew how, that is, he knew the reason of it, because the authority of the Holy Scripture said, he does injury to a Martyr that prays for a Martyr, the same thing is to be done for the like reason concerning all other Saints.] The good man had heard the saying somewhere, but being little us'd to the Bible, he thought it might be there, because it was a pretty saying. However though this change was made in the Mass-books, and prayer for the

soul of S. Leo, was chang'd into a prayer to S. Leo* 1.640; and the Doctors went about to defend it as well as they could,* 1.641 yet because they did it so pitifully, they had reason to be asham'd of it; and in the Missal reformed by order of the Council of Trent, it is put out again, and the prayer for S. Leo put in again* 1.642, That by these offices of holy atonement (viz. the celebration of the Holy Sacrament) a blessed reward may accompany him, and the gifts of thy grace may be obtain'd for us.

[ II] Another argument was us'd in the Dissuasive, against the Roman doctrine of Purgatory, viz. How is Purgatory a Primitive and Catholick doctrine, when generally the Greek and many of the Latin Fa∣thers taught, that the souls departed in some exterior place expect the day of judgment, but that no soul enters into the supreme heaven, or the place of Eter∣nal bliss till the day of judgment; but at that day, say many of them, all must pass through the universal fire. To these purposes respectively the words of very many Fathers are brought by Sixtus Senensis; to all which being so evident and apparent, the Gentlemen that write against the Dissuasive are pleas'd not to say one word,* 1.643 but have left the whole fabric of the Roman Pur∣gatory to shift for it self against the battery of so great authorities, only one of them, striving to find some fault, says, that the Dissuader quotes Sixtus Senensis, as saying, That Pope John the 22. not only taught and declar'd the doctrine (that before the day of judgment the souls of men are kept in certain receptacles) but command∣ed it to be held by all, as saith Adrian in 4. Sent. when Sixtus Senensis saith not so of Pope John, &c. but only reports the opinion of others. To which I answer, that I did not quote Senensis as saying any such thing of his own authority. For besides that in the body of the discourse there is no mention at all of John 22. in the margent, also it is only said of Sixtus, Enumerat S. Ja∣cobum

Apostolum— & Johannem Pontif. Rom. but I add of my own afterwards, that Pope John not only taught and declar'd that sentence,* 1.644 but commanded it to be held by all men, as saith Adrian. Now although in his narrative of it, Adrian begins with novissime fer∣tur, it is reported, yet Senensis himself when he had said, Pope John is said to have decreed this; he himself adds that Ocham and Pope Adrian are witnesses of this decree. 2. Adrian is so far a witness of it, that he gives the reason of the same, even because the Univer∣sity of Paris refus'd to give promotion to them who de∣nied, or did refuse to promise for ever to cleave to that opinion. 3. Ocham is so fierce a witness of it, that he wrote against Pope John the 22. for the opinion. 4. Though Senensis be not willing to have it believed; yet all that he can say against it, is, that apud probatos scriptores non est Undequaque certum. 5. Yet he brings not one testimony out of antiquity, against this charge against Pope John, only he says, that Pope Benedict XI. affirms, that John being prevented by death could not finish the decree. 6. But this thing was not done in a corner, the acts of the University of Paris and their fierce adhering to the decree were too notorious. 7. And after all this it matters not whether it be so or no, when it is confessed that so many Ancient Fathers expresly teach the doctrine contrary to the Roman, as it is this day, and yet the Roman Doctors are not what they say, insomuch that S. Bernard having fully and frequently taught, That no souls go to Heaven till they all go, neither the Saints without the common people, nor the spirit without the flesh; that there are three states of souls, one in the tabernacles (viz. of our bodies) a se∣cond in atriis or outward Courts, and a third in the house of God; Alphonsus à Castro admonishes that this sen∣tence is damn'd; and Sixtus Senensis adds these words, (which thing also I do not deny) yet I suppose he ought to be

excus'd ob ingentem numerum illustrium Ecclesiae patrum, for the great number of the illustrious Fathers of the Church,* 1.645 who before by their testimony did seem to give authority to this opinion.

[ III] But that the present doctrine of the Roman Purga∣tory is but a new article of faith, is therefore certain, because it was no article of faith in S. Austins time, for he doubted of it. And to this purpose I quoted in the margent two places of S. Austin.* 1.646 The words I shall now produce, because they will answer for themselves. In the 68. chapter of his Manual to Laurentius he takes from the Church of Rome their best armour in which they trusted,* 1.647 and expounds the words of S. Paul, he shall be saved yet so as by fire] to mean only the loss of such pleasant things as most delighted them in this world. And in the beginning of the next chapter he adds,* 1.648 [That such a thing may also be done after this life is not incredible, and whether it be so or no it may be in∣quir'd, & aut inveniri aut latere, and either be found or lie hid. Now what is that which thus may, or may not be found out? This, that [some faithful by how much more or less they lov'd perishing goods, by so much sooner or later they shall be sav'd by a certain Purgatory fire.] This is it which S. Austin says is not incredible, only it may be inquir'd whether it be so or no. And if these be not the words of doubting, [it is not incre∣dible, such a thing may be, it may be inquir'd after, it may be found to be so, or it may never be found, but lie hid] then words signifie nothing: yea [but the doubt∣ing of S. Austin does not relate to the matter or question of Purgatory, but to the manner of the particular pu∣nishment,

viz. whether or no that pain of being troubled for the loss of their goods be not a part of the Purgatory flames?

(says E. W.* 1.649) A goodly excuse! as if S. Austin had troubled himself with such an impertinent Question, whether the poor souls in

their infernal flames be not troubled that they left their lands and mony behind them? Indeed it is possible they might wish some of the waters of their springs or fishponds to cool their tongues: but S. Austin surely did not suspect that the tormented Ghosts were trou∣bled they had not brought their best cloaths with them, and money in their purses; This is too pitiful and strain'd an answer; the case being so evidently clear, that the thing S. Austin doubted of was, since there was to some of the faithful, who yet were too voluptu∣ous or covetous persons, a Purgatory in this world, even the loss of their Goods which they so lov'd, and therefore being lost so grieved for, whether or no they should not also meet with another Purgatory after death: that is, whether besides the punishment suffer∣ed here, they should not be punish'd after death; how? by grieving for the loss of their goods? Ridicu∣lous! what then, S. Austin himself tells us, by so much as they lov'd their goods more or less, by so much sooner or later they shall be sav'd. And what he said of this kind of sin, viz. too much worldliness, with the same reason he might suppose of others; this he thought possible, but of this he was not sure, and therefore it was not then an article of faith, and though now the Church of Rome hath made it so, yet it appears that it was not so from the beginning, but is part of their new fashion'd faith. And E. W. striving so impossibly, and so weakly to avoid the pressure of this argument, should do well to consider, whether he have not more strained his Conscience, than the words of S. Austin. But this matter must not pass thus. S. Austin repeats this whole passage verbatim in his answer to the 8. Quest. of Dulcitius, Qu. 1. and still answers in this and other appendant Questions of the same nature, viz. whether prayers for the dead be available, &c. Quest. 2. and whether upon the instant

of Christs appearing,* 1.650 he will pass to judgment, Qu. 3. In these things which we have describ'd, our and the infir∣mity of others may be so exercis'd and instructed, never∣theless that they pass not for Canonical authority. And in the answer to the first Question he speaks in the style of a doubtful person

[whether men suffer such things in this life only, or also such certain judgments fol∣low even after this life, this Understanding of this sentence, is not as I suppose abhorrent from truth.]

The same words he also repeats in his book de fide & operibus, Chap. 16. There is yet another place of S. Austin, in which it is plain he still is a doubting person in the Question of Purgatory. His sense is this;* 1.651

After the death of the body until the resurre∣ction, if in the interval the spirits of the dead are said to suffer that kind of fire, which they feel not, who had not such manners and loves in their life∣time, that their wood, hay and stubble ought to be consum'd; but others feel who brought such build∣ings along with them, whether there only, or whe∣ther here and there, or whether therefore here that it might not be there, that they feel a fire of a transito∣ry tribulation burning their secular buildings, (though escaping from damnation) I reprove it not; for peradventure it is true.]

So S. Austin, perad∣venture yea, is always, peradventure nay; and will the Bigots of the Roman Church be content with such a confession of faith as this of S. Austin in the present ar∣ticle? I believe not.

But now after all this, I will not deny but S. Austin was much inclin'd to believe Purgatory fire, and therefore I shall not trouble my self to answer the cita∣tions to that purpose, which Bellarmine, and from him these transcribers bring out of this Father, though most of them are drawn out of Apocryphal, spurious and suspected pieces, as his Homilies de S. S. &c. yet

that which I urge is this, that S. Austin did not esteem this to be a doctrine of the Church, no article of faith, but a disputable opinion; and yet though he did in∣cline to the wrong part of the opinion, yet it is very certain that he sometimes speaks expresly against this doctrine, and other times speaks things absolutely in∣consistent with the opinion of Purgatory, which is more than an argument of his confessed doubting; for it is a declaration that he understood nothing certain in this affair, but that the contrary to his opinion was the more probable. And this appears in these few fol∣lowing words.* 1.652 S. Austin hath these words; some suf∣fer temporary punishments in this life only, others after death, others both now and then: Bellarmine, and from him Diaphanta urges this as a great proof of S. Austins doctrine. But he destroys it in the words immediate∣ly following, and makes it useless to the hypothesis of the Roman Church; This shall be before they suffer the last and severest judgment (meaning as S. Austin fre∣quently does such sayings, of the General conflagrati∣on at the end of the world.) But whether he does so or no,* 1.653 yet he adds; But all of them come not into the everlasting punishments, which after the Judgment shall be to them who after death suffer the temporary.] By which doctrine of S. Austin, viz. that those who are in his Purgatory shall many of them be damn'd; and the temporary punishments after death, do but usher in the Eternal after judgment; he destroys the salt of the Roman fire, who imagines that all that go to Pur∣gatory shall be sav'd: Therefore this testimony of S. Austin, as it is nothing for the avail of the Roman Purgatory, so by the appendage it is much against it, which Coquaeus, Torrensis, and especially Cardinal Perron, observing, have most violently corrupted these words, by falsely translating them. So Perron, Tous ceux qui souffrent des peines temporelles apres la mort, ne

viennent pas aux peines Eternelles qui auront tien apres le judgement, which reddition is expresly against the sense of S. Austins words.

2. But another hypothesis there is in S. Austin, to which without dubitation he does peremptorily ad∣here, which I before intimated, viz. that although he admit of Purgatory pains after this life, yet none but such as shall be at the day of Judgment,* 1.654 [Whoever therefore desires to avoid the eternal pains, let him be not only baptiz'd, but also justified in Christ, and truly pass from the Devil into Christ. But let him not think that there shall be any Purgatory pains but before that last and dreadful Judgment] meaning not only that there shall be none to cleanse them after the day of judg∣ment, but that then, at the approach of that day the General fire shall try and purge: And so himself de∣clares his own sense;* 1.655 All they that have not Christ in the foundation are argued or reproved; when? in the day of Judgment; but they that have Christ in the foundation are chang'd, that is purg'd, who build upon this foundati∣on wood, hay, stubble.] So that in the day of Judg∣ment the trial and escape shall be; for then shall the trial and the condemnation be. But yet more clear are his words* 1.656 in other places: So, at the setting of the Sun, that is, at the end (viz. of the world) the day of judgment is signified by that fire, dividing the carnal which are to be sav'd by fire, and those who are to be dam∣ned in the fire;] nothing is plainer that that S. Austin understood that those, who are to be sav'd so as by fire, are to be sav'd by passing through the fire at the day of judgment; that was his opinion of Purgatory. And again [out of these things which are spoken it seems more evidently to appear, that there shall be certain purgatory pains of some persons in that judgment. For what thing else can be understood, where it is said, who shall endure the day of his coming, &c.

3. S. Austin speaks things expresly against the do∣ctrine of Purgatory;

[know ye that when the soul is pluck'd from the body presently it is plac'd in Para∣dise, according to its good deservings, or else for her sins is thrown headlong in inferni Tartara,* 1.657 into the hell of the damned; for I know not well how else to render it.] And again [the soul retiring is receiv'd by Angels and plac'd either in the bosom of Abraham, if she be faithful, or in the custody of the infernal prison,* 1.658 if it be sinful, until the appointed day comes, in which she shall receive her body:]

pertinent to which is that of S. Austin,* 1.659 if he be Author of that excellent book de Eccles. dogmatibus, which is imputed to him. [After the ascension of our Lord to the Hea∣vens, the souls of all the Saints are with Christ, and going from the body go unto Christ, expecting the resurrection of their body.]

But I shall insist no further upon these things; I suppose it very apparent, that S. Austin was no way confident of his fancy of Purgatory, and that if he had fancied right, yet it was not the Roman Purgatory that he fancied. There is only one objection which I know of, which when I have clear'd I shall pass on to other things. S. Austin, speaking of such who have liv'd a middle kind of an indifferent pious life, saith, Constat autem, &c. but it is certain, that such before the day of judgment being purg'd by temporal pains which their spirit suffer, when they have receiv'd their bodies, shall not be deliver'd to the punishment of Eternal fire;] here is a positive determination of the article, by a word of confidence, and a full certi∣ficate; and therefore S. Austin in this article was not a doubting person. To this I answer, it may be he was confident here, but it lasted not long; this fire was made of straw and soon went out; for within two Chapters after, he expresly doubts, as I have prov'd.

2. These words may refer to the purgatory fire at the general conflagration of the world; and if they be so referred, it is most agreeable to his other sentiments. 3. This Constat, or decretory phrase, and some lines before or after it, are not in the old books of Bruges and Colein, nor in the copies printed at Friburg; and Ludovicus vives supposes they were a marginal note crept since into the Text. Now this objection being remov'd,* 1.660 there remains no ground to deny, that S. Au∣stin was a doubting person in the article of Purgatory. And this Erasmus expresly affirm'd of him;* 1.661 and the same is said of him by Hofmeister, but modestly; and against his doubting in his Enchiridion he brings only a testimony in behalf of prayer for the dead, which is nothing to the purpose; and this is also sufficiently noted by Alphonsus a Castro,* 1.662 and by Barnesius. Well! but suppose S. Austin did doubt of Purgatory? This is no warranty to the Church of England, for she does not doubt of it as S. Austin did, but plainly condemns it. So one of my adversaries objects; To which I an∣swer, that the Church of England may the rather con∣demn it, because S. Austin doubted of it; for if it be no Catholic doctrine, it is but a School point, and without prejudice to the faith may be rejected. But 2. I suppose the Church of England would not have troubled her self with the doctrine, if it had been left as S. Austin left it; that is, but as a meer uncertain opinion, but when the wrong end of the opinion was taken, and made an article of faith, and damnation threatned to them that believed it not; she had reason to consider it, and finding it to be chaff, wholly to scatter it away. 3. The Church of England is not therefore to be blamed, if in any case she see more than S. Austin did, and proceed accordingly; for it is cer∣tain the Church of Rome does decree against divers things, of which S. Austin indeed did not doubt, but

affirm'd confidently; I instance in the necessity of communicating infants, and the matter of appeals to Rome.

The next Authority to be examin'd is, that of Otho Frisnigensis, concerning which there is a heavy quarrel against the Dissuasive, for making him to speak of a Purgatory before, whereas he speaks of one after the day of judgment, with a Quidam asserunt, some affirm it, viz. that there is a place of Purgatory after death; nay but you are deceiv'd says E. W. and the rest of the adversaries; he means that some affirm there is a place of Purgatory after the day of judgment. Now truly that is more than I said; but that Otho said it, is by these men confess'd. But his words are these; [I think it ought to be search'd,* 1.663 whether the judgment being pass'd, besides the lower hell, there remain a place for lighter punishments; for that there is (below, or) in hell a Purgatory place, in which they that are to be sav'd are either affected (a••ficiantur, invested, punish'd) with darkness only, or else are boiled in the fire of expiation, some do affirm.] What is or can be more plainly said of Purgatory; for the places of Scripture brought to confirm this opinion are such, which relate to the in∣terval between death and the last judgment; juxta illud Patriarchae, lugens descendum ad inferos; & illud Apostoli, ipse autem salvus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem; I hope the Roman Doctors will not deny, but these are meant of Purgatory before the last day: and therefore so is the opinion for the proof of which these places are brought. 2. By post judicium, in the title, and tran∣sacto judicio in the Chapter, Otho means the particular judgment passing upon every one at their death: which he in a few lines after calls terminatis in judicio causis singulorum. 3. He must mean it to be before the last great day; because that which he says, some do affirm, quidam asserunt; is, that those which are salvandi, to

be sav'd hereafter, are either in darkness or in a Purga∣tory fire; which therefore must be meant of the inter∣val; for after the day of judgment is pass'd, and the books shut, and the sentence pronounc'd, none can be sav'd that are not then acquitted, unless Origens opi∣nion of the salvation of Devils and damned souls be re∣introduc'd. which the Church before Otho many ages had exploded, and therefore so good and great a per∣son would not have thought that fit to be then dispu∣ted: and it was not then a Question, nor a thing Un∣determined in the Church. 4. Whether Otho means it of a Purgatory before or after the day of the last judgment, it makes very much against the present Ro∣man doctrine; for Otho applies the Question to the case of infants dying without Baptism; now if their Purgatory be before the day of judgment, then I quo∣ted Otho according to my own sense and his; but if he means it to be after the day of judgment, then the lim∣bus infantum of the Roman Church is vanish'd. (for the scruple was mov'd about infants) Quid de parvulis qui solo Originali delicto tenentur fiet? and there is none such till after dooms day; so that let it be as it will, the Roman Church is a loser, and therefore let them take their choice on which side they will fall.

But now after S. Austins time; especially in the time of S. Gregory, and since, there were many strange stories told of souls appearing after death, and telling strange things of their torments below; many of which being gather'd together by the speculum exemplo∣rum, the legend of Lombardy and others, some of them were noted by the Dissuasive to this purpose to shew, that in the time when these stories were told, the fire of Purgatory did not burn clear; but they found Pur∣gatory in baths, in Eves of houses, in frosts and cold rains, upon spits rosting like Pigs or Geese, upon pieces of Ice. Now to this there is nothing said; but

that in the place quoted in the speculum there is no such thing: which saying as it was spoken invidiously, so it was to no purpose; for if the objector ever hath read the distinction which is quoted, throughout; he should have found the whole story at large. It is the 31. example page 205. Col. 1. printed at Doway 1603. And the same words are exactly in an Ancienter editi∣on printed at the Imperial Town of Hagenaw 1519. Impensis Johannis Rynman. But these Gentlemen care not for the force of any argument, if they can any way put it off from being believ'd upon any foolish pre∣tence.

But then as to the thing it self,* 1.664 though learned men deny the Dia∣logues of S. Gregory, from whence many of the like stories are de∣riv'd, to be his, as Possevine con∣fesses, and Melchior Canus though a little timorously affirms; yet I am willing to admit them for his, but yet I cannot but note; that those Dialogues have in them ma∣ny foolish, ridiculous and im∣probable stories, but yet they and their like are made a great ground of Purgatory; but then the right also may be done to S. Gregory, his doctrine of Purgatory cannot consist with the present article of the Church of Rome, so fond they are in the alledging of authorities; that they destroy their own hypothesis by their undiscern∣ing quotations. For 1. S. Gregory P. affirms that which is perfectly inconsistent with the whole do∣ctrine of Purgatory.* 1.665 For he says, That it is a fruit of our redemption by the grace of [Christ] our author, that when we are drawn from our dwelling in the body, Mox,

forthwith we are lead to coelestial rewards; and a little after speaking of those words of Job,* 1.666 In profundissimum infernum descendunt omnia mea] he says thus [Since it is certain that in the lower region the just are not in poenal places, but are held in the superior bosom of rest, a great question arises, what is the meaning of Blessed Job.] If Purgatory can stand with this hypothesis of S. Gregory, then fire and water can be reconcil'd. This is the doctrine of S. Gregory in his own works: for whether the Dialogues under his name be his or no, I shall not dispute; but if I were studying to do honour to his memory, I should never admit them to be his, and so much the rather because the doctrine of the Dia∣logues contradicts the Doctrine of his Commentaries, and yet even the Purgatory which is in the Dialogues is unlike that which was declar'd at Basil;* 1.667 for the Gre∣gorian Purgatory supposed only an expiation of small and light faults, as immoderate laughter, impertinent talking,* 1.668 which nevertheless he himself says are expi∣able by fear of death;* 1.669 and Victoria, and Jacobus de Graffis say, are to be taken away by beating the breast, holy water,* 1.670 the Bishops blessing;* 1.671 and S. Austin says they are to be taken off by daily saying the Lords prayer; and therefore being so easily, so readily, so many ways to be purg'd here, it will not be worth esta∣blishing a Purgatory for such alone, but he admits not of any remaining punishment due to greater sins forgiven by the bloud of Christ. But concerning S. Gregory I shall say no more, but refer the Reader to the Apology of the Greeks, who affirm that S. Grego∣ry admitted a kind of Purgatory, but whether allego∣rically or no, or thinking so really, they know not; but what he said was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and by way of dis∣pensation, and as it were constrained to it, by the arguments of those who would have all sins expiable after death, against whom he could not so likely pre∣vail,

if he had said that none was; and therefore he thought himself forc'd to go a middle way, and admit a Purgatory only for little or venial sins, which yet will do no advantage to the Church of Rome. And be∣sides all this, S. Gregory or whoever is the Author of these Dialogues hath nothing definite, or determin'd, concerning the time, manner, measure or place; so wholly new was this doctrine then, that it had not got∣ten any shape or feature.

Next I am to account concerning the Greeks, whom I affirm always to have differed from the Latins, since they had forg'd this new doctrine of Purgatory in the Roman laboratories:* 1.672 and to prove something of this, I affirm'd that in the Council of Basil they publish'd an Apology directly disapproving the doctrine of Pur∣gatory.] Against this, up starts a man fierce and angry, and says there was no such Apology publish'd in the Council of Basil, for he had examined it all over, and can find no such Apology. I am sorry for the Gentle∣mans loss of his labour, but if he had taken me along with him, I could have help'd the learned man. This Apology was written by Marcus Metropolitan of Ephe∣sus as Sixtus Senensis confesses,* 1.673 and that he offered it to the Council of Basil.* 1.674 That it was given and read to the deputies of the Council,* 1.675 June 14. 1438. is attest∣ed by Cusanus, and Martinus Crusius in his Turco-Graecia. But it is no wonder if this over-learned au∣thor of the letter miss'd this Apology in his search of the Council of Basil, for this is not the only material thing that is missing in the editions of the Council of Basil; for Linwood that great and excellent English Canonist made an appeal in that Council, and prose∣cuted it with effect in behalf of King Henry of Eng∣land, Cum in temporalibus non recognoscat superiorem in terris, &c. But nothing of this now appears, though it was then registred, but it is no new thing to forge or

to suppress acts of Councils: But besides this, I did not suppose he would have been so indiscreet as to have look'd for that Apology in the editions of the Council of Basil, but it was deliver'd to the Council by the Greeks, and the Council was wise enough not to keep that upon public record; however if the Gentleman please to see it, he may have it among the Booksellers, if he will please to ask for the Apologia Graecorum de igne purgatorio published by Salmasius; it was supposed to be made by Marc Archbishop,* 1.676 but for saving the Gentlemans charge or trouble, I shall tell him a few words out of that Apology which will serve his turn, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. For these reasons the doctrine of a Purgatory fire is to be cast out of the Church, as that which slackens the endeavours of the diligent, as perswad∣ing them not to use all means of contention to be purged in this life, since another purgation is expected after it. And it is infinitely to be wondred at the confidence of Bel∣larmine (for as for this objector,* 1.677 it matters not so much) that he should in the face of all the world say,* 1.678 that the Greek Church never doubted of Purgatory: whereas he hath not brought one single, true and perti∣nent testimony out of the Greek Fathers for the Ro∣man doctrine of Purgatory, but is forc'd to bring in that crude allegation of their words for prayer for the dead, which is to no purpose, as all wise men know; Indeed he quotes the Alchoran▪ for Purgatory,* 1.679 an au∣thentic author (it seems) to serve such an end. But besides this, two memorable persons of the Greek Church, Nilus Archbishop of Thessalonica, and Marc Archbishop of Ephesus, have in behalf of the Greek Church written against the Roman doctrine in this particular. And it is remarkable that the Latines were and are so put to it to prove Purgatory fire from the Greek Fathers, that they have forg'd a citation from

Theodoret,* 1.680 which is not in him at all, but was first cited in Latin by Tho. Aquinas either out of his own head, or cosen'd by some body else; And quoted so by Bellarmine* 1.681, which to wise men cannot but be a very great argument of the weakness of the Roman cause in this Question from the Greek Fathers, and that Bellar∣mine saw it, but yet was resolv'd to run through it and out-face it; but Nilus taking notice of it, says that there are no such words in Theodoret in the many copies of his works which they had. In Greek it is certain they are not, and Gagneius first translated them into Greek to make the cheat more prevalent, but in that translation makes use of those words of the wisdom of Solomon,* 1.682 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as gold in the fornace (meaning it of the affliction of the righteous in this world) but unluckily he made use of that Chapter: In the first verse of which chapter, it is said, The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God, and no torment shall touch them, which is a testimony more pregnant against the Roman Purgatory, than all that they can bring from the Greek Fathers for it. And this Gentle∣man confutes the Dissuasive, as he thinks, by telling the story according as his own Church hath set it down, who as with subtle and potent arts they forc'd the Greeks to a seeming Union, so they would be sure not to tell the world in their own records how unhand∣somely they carried themselves. But besides this, the very answer which the Archbishop of Ephesus gave to the Latines in that Council (and which words the ob∣jector here sets down and confesses) are a plain confuta∣tion of himself, for the Latines standing for a Purgatory fire, temporary; the Archbishop of Ephesus denies it, saying, That the Italians, confess a fire, both in the pre∣sent world and purgatory by it (that is, before the day of Judgment) and in the world to come, but not Purgatory but Eternal; But the Greeks hold a fire in the world to

come only, (meaning Eternal) and a temporary punish∣ment of souls, that is, that they go into a dark place, and of grief, but that they are purged, that is, delivered from the dark place, by Priests prayers and sacrifices, and by alms, but not by fire.] Then they fell on disputing about Purgatory fire, to which the Greeks delay'd to an∣swer: And afterwards being pressed to answer, they refus'd to say any thing about Purgatory, and when they at the upshot of all were utcunque United, Joseph the Patriarch of C. P. made a most pitiful confession of Purgatory in such general and crafty terms, as suf∣ficiently shew'd, that as the Greeks were forc'd to do something, so the Latins were content with any thing, for by those terms, the Question between them was no way determin'd, Romae veteris Papam Domini nostri Jesu Christi vicarium esse concedere, atque anima∣rum purgationem esse non in••icior. He denied not that there is a Purgatory. No, for the Greeks confess'd it, in this world before death, and some of them acknow∣ledged a dark place of sorrow after this life, but nei∣ther fire nor Purgatory; for the purgation was made in this world, and after this world by the prayers of the Priests, and the alms of their friends, the purgation was made, not by fire, as I cited the words before. The Latins told them there should be no Union without it; The Greek Emperor refus'd, and all this the ob∣jector is pleas'd to acknowledge; but after a very great bussle made, and they were forc'd to patch up a Union, hope to get assistance of the Latins: But in this also they were cosen'd, and having lost C. P. many of the Greeks attributed that fatal loss to their dissembling Union made at Florence; and on the other side the Latins imputed it to their opinion of the procession of the Holy Ghost: however, the Greek Churches never admitted that union as is averred by Laonicus Chalcon∣dylas, de rebus Turcicis. lib. 1. non longe ab initio. And it

is a strange thing that this affair, of which all Europe was witness, should with so little modesty be shuffled up, and the Dissuasive accused for saying that which themselves acknowledge. But see what some of them∣selvs say, Unus est ex notissimis Graecorum & Armeno∣rum erroribus quo docent nullum esse purgatorium, quo animae ex hac luce migrantes purgentur sordibus quas in hoc corpore contraxerunt,* 1.683 saith Alphonsus a Castro. It is one of the most known errors of the Greeks and Arme∣nians that they teach there is no Purgatory: And Aqui∣nas writing contra Graecorum errores labors to prove Purgatory:* 1.684 And Archbishop Antoninus who was pre∣sent at the Council of Florence, after he had rejected the Epistle of Eugenius, adds, Errabant Graeci purga∣torium negantes quod est haereticum, Add to these the testimony of Roffensis and Polydore Virgil before quo∣ted,* 1.685 Usque ad hunc diem Graecis non est creditum purga∣torium: and Gregory de Valentia.* 1.686 saith, Expresse autem purgatorium negarunt Waldenses haeretici,* 1.687 ut refert Guido Carmelita in summa de haeresi: Item schismatici Graeci re∣centiores, ut ex concilio Florentino apparet. And Al∣phonsus a Castro* 1.688 saith, Unto this very day, Purgato∣ry is not believ'd by the Greeks. And no less can be imagin'd, since their prime and most learned Prelate, besides what he did in the Council, did also after the Council publish an Encyclical Epistle against the de∣finition of the Council, as may be seen in Binius his narrative of the Council of Florence: By all which appears how notoriously scandalous is the imputati∣on of falsehood laid upon the Dissuasive by this ob∣jector; who by this time is warm with writing, and grows uncivil, being like a baited Bull, beaten into choler with his own tayl, and angred by his own ob∣jections.

But the next charge is higher; it was not only doubted of in S. Austins time, and since; but the Ro∣man doctrine of Purgatory without any haesitation or doubting is against the express doctrines deliver'd by divers of the Ancient Fathers; and to this purpose some were remark'd in the Dissuasive, which I shall now verifie and add others very plain and very conside∣rable.

S. Cyrian exhorts Demetrianus to turn to Christ while this world lasts,* 1.689 saying,* 1.690 that after we are dead there is no place of repentance, no place of satisfacti∣on.] To this the letter* 1.691 answers; It is not said when we are dead, but when you are dead, meaning that this is spoken to heathens, not to Christians. As if quando istinc excessum fuerit, being spoken impersonal∣ly, does not mean indefinitely all the world, and cer∣tainly it may as well one as the other, Christians as well as Heathens, for Christians may be in the state of deadly sin, and aversion from God as well as Heathens, and then this admonition and reason fits them as well as the other. E. W* 1.692. answers, that S. Cyprian means that after death there is no meritorious satisfaction; he says true indeed, there is none that is meritorious, nei∣ther before nor after death, but this will not serve his turn, for S. Cyptrian says, that after death there is none at all; no place of satisfaction] of any kind what∣soever, no place of wholsome repentance. And there∣fore it is vain to say that this Council was only given to Demetrianus, who was a Heathen; for if he had been a Christian, he would or at least might have us'd the same argument, not to put any part of his duty off up∣on confidence of any thing to be done or suffered after this life. For his argument is this, this is the time of repentance, after death it is not; now you may satisfie (that is, appease) the Divine anger, after this life is ended, nothing of this can be done. For

S. Cyrian does not speak this dispensative,* 1.693 or by relati∣on to this particular case, but assertive, he affirms ex∣presly speaking to the same Demetrian; [that when this life is finish'd we are divided, either to the dwel∣ings of death or of immortality. And that we may see this is not spoken of impenitent pagans only,* 1.694 as the letter to a friend dreams, S. Cyprian renews the same caution and advice to the lapsed Christians:* 1.695 [O ye my Brethren let every one confess his sin,* 1.696 while he that hath sin'd is yet in this world, while his confession can be admit∣ted, while satisfaction and pardon made by the Priests is grateful with God.] If there had been any thought of the Roman Purgatory in S. Cyprians time, he could not in better words have impugned it, than here he does. All that have sinn'd must here look to it, here they must confess, here beg pardon, here make amends and satisfie, afterwards neither one nor the other shall be admitted. Now if to Christians also there is granted no leave to repent, no means to satisfie, no means of pardon after this life, these words are so various and comprehensive that they include all cases; and it is plain S. Cyprian speaks it indefinitely, there is no place of repentance, no place of satisfaction; none at all, neither to Heathens nor to Christians. But now let these words be set against the Roman doctrine, viz. that there is a place called Purgatory, in which the souls tormented do satisfie, and come not out thence till they have paid, (viz. by sufferings, or by suffrages) the utmost farthing, and then see which we will follow: for they differ in all the points of the Compass. And these men do nothing but betray the weakness of their cause by expounding S. Cyprian to the ••ense of new distinctions, made but yesterday in the forges of the Schools. And indeed the whole affair upon which the answer of Bellarmine relies, which these men have tran∣slated to their own use, is unreasonable. For is it a

likely business, that when men have committed great crimes they shall be pardon'd here by confession, and the ministeries of the Church, &c. and yet that the venial sins though confess'd in the general, and as well as they can be, and the party absolved, yet there should be prepared for their expiation the intolerable torments of hell fire for a very long time; and that for the greater sins, for which men have agreed with their adversary in the way, and the Adversary hath forgiven them, yet that for these also they should be cast into prison, from whence they shall not come till the ut∣most farthing be paid; that's against the design of our Blessed Saviours Counsel, for if that be the case, then though we and our adversaries are agreed upon the main, and the debt forgiven, yet nevertheless we may be deliver'd to the tormentors. But then concerning the sense of S. Cyprian in this particular, no man can doubt that shall have but read his excellent treatise of mortality: that he could not, did not admit of Purga∣tory after death before the day of judgment, for he of∣ten said it in that excellent treatise which he made to comfort and strengthen Christians against the fear of death; that immediately after death we go to God or the Devil:

and therefore it is for him only to fear to die, who is not willing to go to Christ, and he only is to be unwilling to go to Christ who believes not that he begins to reign with Christ.] That we in the mean time die, we pass over by death to immortality. It is not a going forth, but a pass over, and when our temporal course is run, a going over to immortality. •• Let us embrace that day, which assigns every one of us to our dwelling, and restores those which are snatch'd from hence, and are disintangled from the snares of the world to Paradise, and the Heavenly kingdom.]

There are here many other things so plainly spoken to this purpose, that I wonder any Pa∣pist

should read that treatise, and not be cur'd of his in∣firmity.

To the same purpose is that of S. Dionys,* 1.697 calling death the end of holy agonies;] and therefore it is to be suppos'd they have no more agonies to run through immediately after death. To this E. W. answers; that S. Denis means,* 1.698 that death is the end of all the ago∣nies of this life. A goodly note! and never revealed till then and now; as if this were a good argument to incourage men to contend bravely, and not to fear death, because when they are once dead, they shall no more be troubled with the troubles of this life; indeed you may go to worse, and death may let you into a state of being as bad as hell, and of greater torments than all the pains of this world put together amount to.] But to let alone such ridiculous subterfuges, see the words of S. Dionys,

[They that live a holy life, looking to the true promises of God, as if they were to behold the truth it self in that resurrection which is according to it, with firm and true hope, and in a Divine joy come to the sleep of death, as to an end of all holy contentions;]

now certainly if the doctrine of Purgatory were true, and that they who had contended here, and for all their troubles in this world were yet in a tolerable condition, should be told, that now they shall go to worse, he that should tell them so would be but one of Jobs comfor∣ters. No, the servant of God [coming to the end of his own troubles (viz. by death) is fill'd with holy gladness, and with much rejoycing ascends to the way of Divine re∣generation, •• viz. to immortality] which word can hardly mean, that they shall be tormented a great while in hell fire.

The words of Justin Martyr,* 1.699 or whoever is the Au∣thor of those Questions & Answers imputed to him, af∣firms that presently after the departure of the soul from the

body, a distinction is made between the just and unjust, for they are brought by Angels to places worthy of them; the souls of the just to Paradise, where they have the conver∣sation and sight of Angels and Archangels, but the souls of the unrighteous to the places in Hades, •• the invisible re∣gion or Hell. •• Against these words because they pinch severely,* 1.700 E. W. thinks himself bound to say something; and therefore 1. whereas Justin Martyr says, after our departure presently there is a separation made, he an∣swers, that Justin Martyr means here to speak of the two final states after the day of judgment, for so it seems he understands 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or presently after death, to mean the day of judgment; of the time of which neither men nor Angels know any thing. And whereas Justin Martyr says, that presently the souls of the righteous go to Paradise,* 1.701 E. W. answers: 2. That Justin does not say that all just souls are carried presently into Heaven; no, Justin says, into Paradise, true, but let it be remembred that it is so a part of Heaven, as lim∣bus infantum is by themselves call'd a part of hell; that is, a place of bliss; the region of the blessed. But 3. Justin says that presently there is a separation made, but he says not that the souls of the righteous are car∣ried to Paradise.] That's the next answer, which the very words of Justin do contradict. There is pre∣sently a separation made of the just and unjust, for they are by the Angels carried to the places they have deserved. This is the separation which is made, one is carried to Paradise, the other to a place in hell. But these be∣ing such pitiful offers at answering, the Gentleman tries another way, and says, 4. That this affirmative of Justin contradicts another saying of Justin, which I cited out of Sixtus Senensis, that Iustin Martyr and ma∣ny other of the Fathers, affirm'd that 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. To this I answer, that one opinion does not contradict another; for though the Fathers believ'd that they who die in the Lord rest from their labours, and are in blessed places, and have antepasts of joy and comforts, yet in those places they are reserv'd unto the judgment of the great day: The intermedial joy or sorrow respectively of the just and unjust does but antidate the final sentence; and as the comforts of Gods spirit in this life are indeed graces of God and rewards of piety, as the torments of an evil conscience are the wages of impiety, yet as these do not hinder, but that the great reward is given at dooms-day and not before, so neither do the joys which the righteous have in the interval. They can both consist together, and are generally affirm'd by ve∣ry many of the Greek and Latin Fathers.* 1.702 And me∣thinks this Gentleman might have learn'd from Sixtus Senensis how to have reconcil'd these two opinions; for he quotes him, saying there is a double beatitude, the one imperfect of soul only, the other consummate and perfect of soul and body. The first the Fathers call'd by several names of Sinus Abrahae, Atrium Dei, sub Altare, &c. The other, perfect joy, the glory of the resurrection, &c. But it matters not what is said, or how it be contradicted, so it seem but to serve a pre∣sent turn. But at last, if nothing of this will do, these words are not the words of Iustin, for he is not the Author of the Questions and Answers ad orthodoxos. To which I answer, it matters not whether they be Iustins or no: But they are put together in the colle∣ction of his works, and they are generally called his, and cited under his name, and made use of by Bellar∣mine * 1.703, when he supposes them to be to his purpose. However the Author is Ancient and Orthodox, and so esteem'd in the Church, and in this particular speaks according to the doctrine of the more Ancient Do∣ctors;

well! but how is this against Purgatory? says E. W.* 1.704 for they may be in secret receptacles after they have been in Purgatory. To this I answer, that he dares not teach that for doctrine in the Church of Rome, who believes that the souls deliver'd out of Pur∣gatory go immediately to the heaven of the Blessed, and therefore if his book had been worth the perusing by the Censors of books, he might have been question'd, and followed Mr. Whites fortune. And he adds, it might be afterwards according to Origens opinion; that is, Purgatory might be after the day of judgment, for so Origen held, that all the fires are Purgatory, and the Devils themselves should be sav'd. Thus this poor Gentleman thinking it necessary to answer one argu∣ment against Purgatory brought in the dissuasive, cares not to answer by a condemned heresie, rather than reason shall be taught by any son of the Church of England. But however, the very words of the Fathers cross his slippery answers so, that they thrust him into a corner; for in these receptacles the godly have joy, and they enter into them as soon as they die, and abide there till the day of judgment.

S. Ambrose is so full,* 1.705 pertinent and material to the Question in hand, and so destructive of the Roman hy∣pothesis, that nothing can be said against it. His words are these,

[therefore in all regards death is good because it divides those that were always fight∣ing, that they may not impugne each other, and be∣cause it is a certain port to them, who being toss'd in the sea of this world require the station of faithful rest; and because it makes not our state worse, but such as it finds every one, such it reserves him to the future judgment, and nourishes him with rest, and withdraws him from the envy of present things, and composes him with the expectation of future things.]

E. W.* 1.706 thinking himself bound to say something to

these words; answers, It is an excellent saying, for worse he is not, but infinitely better, that quit off the oc∣casions of living here, is ascertain'd of future bliss hereaf∣ter, which is the whole drift of the Saint in that Chapter: Read it, and say afterwards if I say not true.] It is well put off. But there are very many that read him, who never will or can examine what S. Ambrose says, and withal such he hopes▪ to escape. But as to the thing: That death gives a man advantage, and by its own fault no disadvantage is indeed not only the whole drift of that Chapter, but of that whole book. But not for that reason only is a man the better for death, but be∣cause it makes him not worse in order to Eternity; nay, it does not alter him at all as to that, for as death finds him, so shall the judgment find him (and there∣fore not purified by Purgatory) for such he is reserved; and not only thus, but it cherishes him with rest, which would be very ill done if death carried him to Purgato∣ry. Now all these last words and many others, E. W. is pleas'd to take no notice of, as not being for his pur∣pose. But he that pleases to see more, may read the 12. and 18. Chapters of the same Treatise.

S. Gregorie's saying,* 1.707 that after this life there is no purgation, can no way be put off by any pretences. For he means it of the time after death before the day of judgment, which is directly oppos'd to the doctrine of the Church of Rome; and unless you will suppose that S. Gregory believ'd two Purgatories, it is certain he did not believe the Roman; for he taught that the purgation which he calls Baptism by fire, and the sa∣ving, yet so as by fire, was to be perform'd at the day of judgment: and the curiosity of that trial is the fierce∣ness of that fire, as Nicetas expounds S. Gregories words in his oration in sancta lumina. So that S. Gre∣gory affirming that this world is the place of purgati∣on, and that after this world there is no purgation,

could not have spoken any thing more direct against the Roman Purgatory.

S. Hilary,* 1.708 and S. Macarius speak of two states after death, and no more. True says E. W. but they are the two final states. That is true too, in some sense, for it is either of eternal good, or evil; but to one of these states they are consigned and determined at the time of their death, at which time every one is sent either to the bosom of Abraham, or to a place of pain, where they are reserved to the sentence of the great day. S. Hillary's words are these [There is no stay or delaying. For the day of judgement is either an eternal retribution of beatitude or of pain: But the time of our death hath every one in his laws whiles either Abraham (viz. the bosom of Abraham) or pain reserves every one unto the Judgment.] These words need no Commenta∣ry. He that can reconcile these to the Roman Purga∣tory,* 1.709 will be a most mighty man in controversie. And so also are the words of S. Macarius, when they go out of the body, the quires of Angels receive their souls, and carry them to their proper place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to a pure world, and so lead them to the Lord.] Such words as these are often repeated by the Holy Fathers, and Doctors of the Ancient Church; I sum them up with the saying of S. Athanasius,* 1.710 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. It is not death that happens to the righteous, but a translation: For they are translated out of this world into everlasting rest. And as a man would go out of prison, so do the Saints go out of this trouble∣some life, unto those good things which are prepared for them.] Now let these and all the precedent words be confronted against the sad complaints made for the souls in Purgatory by Joh. Gerson, in his querela de∣functorum, and Sr. Tho. More in his supplication of souls, and it will be found that the doctrine of the Fathers differs from the doctrine of the Church of

Rome as much as heaven and hell, rest and labor, hor∣rid torments and great joy. I conclude this matter of quotations by the saying of Pope Leo,* 1.711 which one of my adversaries could not find, because the printer was mistaken; It is the 91. Epistle, so known, and so us'd by the Roman writers in the Qu. of Confession, that if he be a man of learning it cannot be suppos'd, but he knew where to find them. The words are these

But if any of them, for whom we pray unto the Lord being intercepted by any obstacle, falls from the benefit of the present Indulgences, and before he comes to the constituted remedies shall end his tem∣poral life by humane condition (or frailty) that which abiding in the body he hath not received, being out of the flesh he cannot.

Now against these words of S. Leo, set the present doctrine of the Church of Rome; [that what is not finished of penances here, a man may pay in Purgatory] and let the world judge whether S. Leo was in this point a Roman Catholic. Indeed S. Leo forgot to make use of the late distinction of sins venial and mortal, of the punishment of mortal sins remaining after the fault is taken away; but I hope the Roman Doctors will excuse the Saint, because the di∣stinction is but new and modern. But this Testimony of S. Gregory must not go for a single Testimony: That, which abiding in the body could not be receiv'd, out of the body cannot; that is, when the soul is gone out of the body, as death finds them, so shall the day of judg∣ment find them. And this was the sense of the whole Church; for after death there is no change of state before the General Trial: no passing from pain to rest in the state of separation, and therefore either there are no Purgatory pains, or if there be, there is no ease of them before the day of judgment; and the Prayers and Masses of the Church cannot give remedy to one poor soul; and this must of necessity be confessed by

the Roman Doctors, or else they must shew that ever any one Catholic Father did teach, that after death, and before the day of Judgment, any souls are translated in∣to a state of bliss out of a state of pain: that is, that from Purgatory they go to heaven before the day of Judgment. He that can shew this, will teach me what I have not yet learned, but he that cannot shew it, must not pretend that the Roman doctrine of Purgatory was ever known to the Ancient Fathers of the Church.

SECTION III.

Of Transubstantiation.

THE purpose of the Dissuasive was to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be new, neither Catholic nor Apostolic. In order to which I thought nothing more likely to perswade or dissuade, than the testimonies of the parties against themselves. And although I have many other inducements (as will ap∣pear in the sequel;) yet by so earnestly contending to invalidate the truth of the quotations, the Adversaries do confess by implication, if these sayings be as is pre∣tended, then I have evinc'd my main point, viz. that the Roman doctrines, as differing from us, are novel∣ties, and no parts of the Catholic faith.

Thus therefore the Author of the letter begins. He quotes Scotus,* 1.712 as declaring the doctrine of Transubstanti∣ation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible; which he saith not. To the same purpose he quotes Ocham, but I can finde no such thing in him. To the same purpose he quotes Roffensis but he hath no such thing.] But in order

to the verification of what I said, I desire it be first ob∣serv'd what I did say, for I did not deliver it so crudely as this Gentleman sets it down: For 1. These words [the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible] are not the words of all them before nam'd, they are the sense of them all, but the words but of one or two of them. 2. When I say that some of the Roman Writers say that Transubstantiation is not express'd in the Scripture, I mean, and so I said plainly, [as without the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of it.] Now then for the quotations them∣selves, I hope I shall give a fair account. 1. The words quoted,* 1.713 are the words of Biel, when he had first affirmed that Christs body is contained truly under the bread, and that it is taken by the faithful (all which we believe and teach in the Church of England) he adds; Tamen quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus, an per con∣versionem alicujus in ipsum (that is, the way of Transub∣stantiation) an sine conversione incipiat esse Corpus Christi cum pane, manentibus substantia & accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Canone Biblii: and that's the way of Consubstantiation; so that here is expressely taught what I affirm'd was taught, that the Scriptures did not express the doctrine of Transubstantiation; and he adds, that concerning this, there were Anciently di∣vers opinions. Thus far the quotation is right: But of this man there is no notice taken. But what of Scotus? He saith no such thing; well suppose that, yet I hope this Gentleman will excuse me for Bellarmines sake, who says the same thing of Scotus as I do, and he might have found it in the Margent against the quota∣tion of Scotus if he had pleas'd.* 1.714 His words are these [Secondly he saith (viz.* 1.715 Scotus) that there is not extant any place of Scripture so express, without the declaration of the Church, that it can compel us to admit of Transub∣stantiation:

And this is not altogether improbable: For though the Scriptures which we brought above seem so clear to us, that it may compel a man that is not wilful, yet whether it be so or no, it may worthily be doubted, since most learned and acute men (such as Scotus eminently was) believe the contrary.] Well! But the Gentleman can find no such thing in Ocham: I hope he did not look far, for OCham is not the man I mean; however the printer might have mistaken, but it is easily par∣donable, because from O. Cam. meaning Odo Camera∣censis, it was easie for the printer or transcriber to write Ocam, as being of more public name; But the Bi∣shop of Cambray is the man, that followed Scotus in this opinion,* 1.716 and is acknowledged by Bellarmine to have said the same that Scotus did, he being one of his docti & acutissimi viri there mentioned.* 1.717 Now if Rof∣fensis have the same thing too,* 1.718 this Author of the letter will have cause enough to be a little ashamed: And for this, I shall bring his words, speaking of the whole in∣stitution of the Blessed Sacrament by our Blessed Sa∣viour, he says, [Neque ullum hic verbum positum est quo probetur in nostra Missa veram fieri carnis & sanguinis Christi praesentiam. I suppose I need to say no more to verifie these citations, but yet I have another very good witness to prove that I have said true; and that is Salmeron who says that Scotus out of Innocentius reck∣ons three opinions] not of heretics,* 1.719 but of such men who all agreed in that which is the main; but he adds, [Some men and writers believe that this article cannot be proved against a heretic, by Scripture alone, or rea∣sons alone.* 1.720 And so Cajetan is affirm'd by Suarez and Alanus to have said; and Melchior Canus; perpetuam Mariae virginitatem—conversionem panis & vini in corpus & sanguinem Christi—non ita expressa in libris Canonicis invenies,* 1.721 sed adeo tamen certa in fide sunt ut contrariorum dogmatum authores Ecclesia haereticos judicarit. So that

the Scripture is given up for no sure friend in this Q. the article wholy relies upon the authority of the Church, viz. of Rome, who makes faith, and makes heresies as she please. But to the same purpose is that also which Chedzy said in his disputation at Oxford;

In what manner Christ is there, whether with the bread Transelemented or Transubstantiation the Scripture in open words, tells not.]

But I am not likely so to escape,* 1.722 for E. W.* 1.723 talkes of a famous or rather infamous quotation out of Peter Lombard, and adds foul and uncivil words, which I pass by: but the thing is this; that I said, Petrus Lombar∣dus could not tell whether there was a substantial change or no. I did say so, and I brought the very words of Lom∣bard to prove it, and these very words E. W. himself acknowledges. Si autem quaeritur qualis fit ista conversio, an formalis an substantialis, vel alterius generis, definire non sufficio: [I am not able to define or determine whether that change be formal or substantial:] So far E. W. quotes him, but leaves out one thing very material, viz. whe∣ther besides formal, or substantial, it be of another kinde. Now E. W. not being able to deny that Lombard said this, takes a great deal of useless pains, not one word of all that he says being to the purpose, or able to make it probable that Peter Lombard did not say so, or that he did not think so. But the thing is this: Biel reckon'd three opinions which in Lombards time were in the Church; the first of Consubstantiation which was the way which long since then, Luther followed. The second that the substance of bread is made the flesh of Christ, but ceases not to be what it was. But this is not the doctrine of Transubstantiation for that makes a third opinion, which is that the substance of bread ceases to be, and nothing remains but the acci∣dent. Quartam opinionem addit Magister, that is, Peter Lombard adds a fourth opinion; that the sub∣stance

of bread is not converted, but is annihilated: this is made by Scotus to be the second opinion] Now of these four opinions, all which were then permitted and disputed;* 1.724 Peter Lombard seems to follow the se∣cond; but if this was his opinion it was no more, for he could not determine whether that were the truth or no. But whether he does or no truly, I think it is very hard for any man to tell; for this question was but in the forge, not polished, not made bright with long handling. And this was all that I affirm'd out of the Master of Sentences, I told of no opinion of his at all, but that in his time they did not know whether it (viz. the doctrine of Transubstantiation) were true or no, that is, the generality of the Roman Catholics did not know: and he himself could not define it. And this appears unanswerably by Peter Lombards bringing their several sentiments in this article: and they that differ in their judgements about an article, and yet esteem the others Catholic, may think what they please, but they cannot tell certainly what is truth. But then as for Peter Lombard himself, all that I said of him was this, that he could not tell, he could not de∣termine whether there was any substantial change or no. If in his after discourse he declares that the change is of substances, he told it for no other than as a meer opinion: if he did, let him answer for that, not I; for that he could not determine it, himself ex∣pressely said it, in the beginning of the eleventh di∣stinction. And therefore these Gentlemen would better have consulted with truth and modesty, if they had let this alone, and not have made such an outcry against a manifest truth. Now let me observe one thing which will be of great use in this whole affair, and demonstrate the change of this doctrine. These three opinions were all held by Catholics,* 1.725 and the opinions are recorded not only by Pope Innocentius 3. but in the

gloss of the Canon Law it self.* 1.726 For this opinion was not fix'd and setled, nor as yet well understood, but still disputed (as we see in Lombard and Scotus:) And although they all agreed in this (as Salmeron observes of these three opinions, as he cites them out of Scotus) that the true body of Christ is there, because to deny this were against the faith; and therefore this was then enough to cause them to be esteemed Catholics, be∣cause they denied nothing which was then against the faith, but all agreed in that, yet now the case is other∣wise; for whereas one of the opinions was, that the substance of bread remains, and another opinion, that the substance of bread is annihilated, but is not con∣verted into the body of Christ; now both of these opi∣nions are made heresie, and the contrary to them, which is the third opinion pass'd into an article of faith.* 1.727 Quod vero ibi substantia panis non remanet, jam etiam ut articulus fidei definitum est, & conversionis sive transubstantiationis nomen evictum. So Salmeron. Now in Peter Lombards time; if they who believed Christs real presence were good Catholics, though they belie∣ved no Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation, that is, did not descend into consideration of the manner, why may they not be so now? Is there any new revelation now of the manner? Or why, is the way to Heaven now made narrower than in Lombards time? For the Church of England believes according to one of these opinions; and therefore is as good a Catholic Church as Rome was then, which had not determined the manner. Nay if we use to value an ar∣ticle the more, by how much the more Ancient it is, certainly it is more honourable that we should reform to the Ancient model, rather than conform to the new. However, this is also plainly consequent to this dis∣course of Salmeron; The abettors of those three opinions, some of them do deny something that is of faith, there∣fore

the faith of the Church of Rome now is not the same it was in the days of Peter Lombard. Lastly, this also is to be remark'd, that to prove any ancient Author to hold the doctrine of Transubstanti∣ation, as it is at this day an article of faith at Rome, it is not enough to say, that Peter Lombard, or Durand, or Scotus, &c. did say that where bread was before, there is Christs body now; for they may say that and more, and yet not come home to the present article; and therefore E. W. does argue weakly, when he de∣nies Lombard to say one thing, [viz. that he could not define whether there was a substantial change or no, (which indeed he spake plainly) because he brings him saying something as if he were resolv'd the change were substantial, which yet he speaks but obscurely. And the truth is, this question of Transubstantiation is so intricate and involved amongst them, seems so contrary to sense and reason, and does so much vio∣lence to all the powers of the soul, that it is no won∣der, if at first the Doctors could not make any thing distinctly of it. However, whatever they did make of it, certain it is they more agreed with the present Church of England, than with the present Church of Rome; for we say as they said, Christs body is truly there, and there is a conversion of the Elements into Christs body, for what before the Consecration in all senses was bread, is after Consecration in some sense, Christs body; but they did not all of them say, that the substance of bread was destroyed, and some of them denied the conversion of the bread into the flesh of Christ; which whosoever shall now do, will be esteem∣ed no Roman Catholick.* 1.728 And therefore it is a vain procedure to think they have prov'd their doctrine of Transubstantiation out of the Fathers also; if the Fa∣thers tell us,

[That bread is chang'd out of his na∣ture into the body of Christ: that by holy invocation

it is no more common bread: that as water in Cana of Galilee was chang'd into wine; so in the Evange∣list, wine is changed into bloud: That bread is only bread before the sacramental words, but after conse∣cration is made the body of Christ.]

For though I very much doubt, all these things in equal and full measures cannot be prov'd out of the Fathers, yet sup∣pose they were, yet all this comes not up to the Ro∣man Article of Transubstantiation: All those words are true in a very good sense, and they are in that sense believ'd in the Church of England; but that the bread is no more bread in the natural sense, and that it is na∣turally nothing, but the natural body of Christ, that the substance of one is passed into the substance of the other, this is not affirmed by the Fathers, neither can it be inferred from the former propositions, if they had been truly alledged; and therefore all that is for nothing, and must be intended only to cosen and amuse the Reader that understands not all the windings of this labyrinth.

In the next place, I am to give an account of what passed in the Lateran Council upon this article. For says E. W.* 1.729 the doctrine of Transubstantiation was ever believed in the Church, though more fully and expli∣citely declared in the Lateran Council. But in the Dis∣suasive it was said,* 1.730 that it was but pretended to be deter∣mined in that Council, where many things indeed came then in consultation, yet nothing could be openly de∣creed. Nothing, (says Platina) that is, says my Ad∣versary, nothing concerning the holy land, and the aids to be raised for it: but for all this, there might be a de∣cree concerning Transubstantiation. To this I reply, that it is as true that nothing was done in this question, as that nothing was done in the matter of the Holy War; for one was as much decreed as the other. For if we admit the acts of the Council, that of giving aid

to the Holy Land was decreed in the 69. Canon,* 1.731 alias 71. So that this answer is not true: But the truth is, neither the one nor the other was decreed in that Coun∣cil. For that I may inform this Gentleman in a thing which possibly he never heard of; this Council of La∣teran was never published, nor any acts of it till Coch∣laeus published them A. D. 1538. For three years be∣fore this John Martin published the Councils, and then there was no such thing as the acts of the Lateran Council to be found. But you will say, how came Cochlaeus by them?* 1.732 To this the answer is easie: There were read in the Council sixty Chapters, which to some did seem easie, to others burdensome; but these were never approved, but the Council ended in scorn and mockery, and nothing was concluded, neither of faith nor manners, nor war, nor aid for the Holy Land, but only the Pope got mony of the Prelates to give them leave to depart. But afterwards Pope Gregory IX. put these Chapters, or some of them into the Decretals; but doth not intitle any of these to the Council of La∣teran, but only to Pope Innocent in the Council, which Cardinal Perron ignorantly, or wilfully mistaking, affirms the contrary. But so it is that Platina affirms of the Pope plurima decreta retulit, improbavit Joachi∣mi libellum, damnavit errores Almerici. The Pope re∣cited 60. heads of decrees in the Council, but no man says the Council decreed those heads. Now these heads Cochlaeus says he found in an old book in Germa∣ny. And it is no ways probable, that if the Council had decred those heads, that Gregory IX. who pub∣lished his Uncles decretal Epistles, which make up so great a part of the Canon Law, should omit to publish the decrees of this Council; or that there should be no acts of this great Council in the Vatican, and that there should be no publication of them till about 300. years after the Council, and that out of a blind corner,

and an old unknown Manuscript. But the book shews its original, it was taken from the Decretals; for it contains just so many heads, viz. LXXII. and is not any thing of the Council in which only were recited L. X. heads, and they have the same beginnings and endings, and the same notes and observations in the middle of the Chapters: which shews plainly they were a meer force of the Decretals. The consequent of all which is plainly this, that there was no decree made in the Council, but every thing was left unfinish∣ed, and the Council was affrighted by the warlike pre∣parations of them of Genoa and Pisa, and all retir'd. Concerning which affair, the Reader that desires it may receive further satisfaction, if he read the Anti∣quitates Britannicae in the life of Stephen Langton out of the lesser History of Matthew Paris;* 1.733 as also Sabelli∣cus, and Godfride the Monk. But since it is become a question what was or was not determin'd in this Late∣ran Council, I am content to tell them that the same authority, whether of Pope or Council which made Transubstantiation an article of faith, made Rebellion and Treason to be a duty of Subjects; for in the same colle∣ction of Canons they are both decreed and warranted under the same signature, the one being the first Ca∣non, and the other the third.

The use I shall make of all is this; Scotus was obser∣ved above to say, that in Scripture there is nothing so express as to compel us to believe Transubstantiation, meaning, that without the decree and authority of the Church, the Scripture was of it self insufficient. And some others as Salmeron notes,* 1.734 affirm, that Scripture and Reason are both insufficient to convince a heretic in this article; this is to be prov'd ex Conciliorum defini∣tione, & Patrum traditione, &c. by the definition of Councils, and tradition of the Fathers, for it were easie to answer the places of Scripture which are cited,

and the reasons. Now then, since Scripture alone is not thought sufficient, nor reasons alone, if the defi∣nitions of Councils also shall fail them, they will be strangely to seek for their new article. Now for this their only Castle of defence is the Lateran Council. Indeed Bellarmine produces the Roman Council under Pope Nicholas the second, in which Berengarius was forc'd to recant his error about the Sacrament, but he recanted it into a worse error, and such which the Church of Rome disavows at this day: And therefore ought not to pretend it as a patron of that doctrine which she approves not. And for the little Council under Greg. 7. it is just so a general Council, as the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church, or a particu∣lar is an Universal. But suppose it so for this once; yet this Council medled not with the modus, viz. Transubstantiation, or the ceasing of its being bread, but of the Real Presence of Christ under the Ele∣ments, which is no part of our question. Berengarius denied it, but we do not, when it is rightly under∣stood. Pope Nicholaus himself did not understand the new article; for it was not fitted for publication until the time of the Lateran Council, & how nothing of this was in that Council determin'd, I have already made appear: and therefore as Scotus said, the Scripture alone could not evict this article; so he also said in his argu∣ment made for the Doctors that held the first opinion mentioned before out of Innocentius: Nec invenitur ubi Ecclesia istam veritatem determinet solenniter. Neither is it found where the Church hath solemnly determin'd it. And for his own particular, though he was carri∣ed into captivity by the symbol of Pope Innocent 3. for which by that time was pretended the Lateran Coun∣cil;* 1.735 yet he himself said, that before that Council it was no article of faith: and for this thing Bellarmine reproves him, and imputes ignorance to him, saying,

that it was because he had not read the Roman Council under Greg. 7.* 1.736 nor the consent of the Fathers. And to this purpose I quoted Henriquez, saying, that Scotus saith the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not anci∣ent; the Author of the Letter denies that he saith any such thing of Scotus: But I desire him to look once more, and my Margent will better direct him.

What the opinion of Durandus was in this Question, if these Gentlemen will not believe me, let them be∣lieve their own friends. But first let it be consider'd what I said, viz. that he maintain'd (viz. in disputati∣on) that even after consecration the very matter of bread remain'd. 2. That by reason of the Authority of the Church, it is not to be held. 3. That nevertheless it is pos∣sible it should be so. 4. That it is no contradiction, that the matter of bread should remain, and yet it be Christs bo∣dy too. 5. That this were the easier way of solving the difficulties. That all this is true, I have no better ar∣gument than his own words, which are in his first que∣stion of the eleventh distinction in quartum numb. 11. & n. 15. For indeed the case was very hard with these learned men, who being pressed by authority, did bite the file, and submitted their doctrine, but kept their reason to themselves: and what some in the Council of Trent observed of Scotus, was true also of Durandus and divers other Schoolmen, with whom it was usual to deny things with a kind of courtesie. And therefore Durandus in the places cited, though he dis∣putes well for his opinion, yet he says the contrary is modus tenendus de facto. But besides that his words are, as I understand them plain and clear to manifest his own hearty perswasion, yet I shall not desire to be believed upon my own account, for fear I be mistaken; but that I had reason to say it,* 1.737 Henriquez shall be my warrant: Durandus dist. qu. 3. ait esse probabile sed abs∣que assertione, &c. He saith it is probable, but without

assertion, that in the Eucharist the same matter of bread remains without quantity. And a little after he adds out of Cajetan, Paludanus and Soto, that this opinion of Durandus is erroneous, but after the Council of Trent it seems to be heretical: And yet (he says) it was held by Aegidius, and Euthymius, who had the good luck it seems, to live and die before the Council of Trent, otherwise they had been in danger of the inqui∣sition for heretical pravity. But I shall not trouble my self further in this particular;* 1.738 I am fully vindica∣ted by Bellarmine himself, who spends a whole Chap∣ter in the confutation of this error of Durandus, viz. that the matter of bread remains, he endeavours to an∣swer his arguments, and gives this censure of him. Itaque sententia Durandi haeretica est; Therefore the sentence of Durandus is heretical, although he be not to be called a heretic, because he was ready to acqui∣esce in the judgment of the Church. So Bellarmine, who if he say true, that Durandus was ready to sub∣mit to the judgement of the Church, then he does not say true when he says the Church before his time had determined against him: but however, that I said true of him, when I imputed this opinion to him, Bellar∣mine is my witness. Thus you see I had reason for what I said, and by these instances it appears how hardly, and how long the doctrine of Transubstantia∣tion was before it could be swallowed.

But I remember that Salmeron tells of divers, who distrusting of Scripture and reason, had rather in this point rely upon the tradition of the Fathers, and there∣fore I descended to take from them this armour in which they trusted. And first, to ease a more curious inquiry, which in a short dissuasive was not conveni∣ent, I us'd the abbreviature of an adversaries confessi∣on. For Alphonsus à Castro confess'd that in ancient writers there is seldom any mention made of Transub∣stantiation:]

* 1.739 one of my adversaries says this is not spoken of the thing, but of the name of Transubstantiati∣on, but if a Castro meant this only of the word, he spake weakly when he said, that the name or word was seldom mention'd by the Ancients. 1. Because it is false that it was seldom mention'd by the Ancients, for the word was by the Ancient Fathers never mention'd. 2. Be∣cause there was not any question of the word where the thing was agreed; and therefore as this saying so un∣derstood had been false, so also if it had been true, it would have been impertinent. 3. It is but a trifling artifice to confess the name to be unknown, and by that means to insinuate that the thing was then under other names; It is a secret cosenage of an unweary Reader to bribe him into peace and contentedness for the main part of the Question, by pleasing him in that part which it may be makes the biggest noise, though it be less material. 4. If the thing had been mention'd by the Ancients, they need not, would not, ought not to have troubled themselves and others by a new word; to have still retained the old proposition under the old words, would have been less suspicious, more prudent and ingenious: but to bring in a new name is but the cover for a new doctrine; and therefore S. Paul left an excellent precept to the Church to avoid pro∣phanas vocum novitates, the prophane newness of words, that is, it is fit that the mysteries revealed in Scripture should be preached and taught in the words of the Scripture, and with that simplicity, openness, easiness, and candor, and not with new and unhallow∣ed words, such as is that of Transubstantiation. 5. A Castro did not speak of the name alone; but of the thing also, de transubstantiatione panis in Corpus Christi; of the Transubstantiation of bread into Christs body; of this manner of conversion, that is, of this doctrine; now doctrines consist not in words but things, how∣ever

his last words are faint and weak and guilty; for being convinc'd of the weakness of his defence of the thing, he left to himself a subterfuge of words.

But let it be how it will with a Castro, whom I can very well spare if he will not be allowed to speak sober sense, and as a wise man should, we have better and ful∣ler testimonies in this affair; That the Fathers did not so much as touch the matter or thing of Transubstantiati∣on, said the Jesuits in prison, as is reported by the Au∣thor of the modest discourse; And the great Erasmus who liv'd and died in the Communion of the Church of Rome, and was as likely as any man of his age to know what he said, gave this testimony in the present Question; In synaxi transubstantiationem sero definivit Ecclesia,* 1.740 & re & nomine veteribus ignotam. In the Com∣munion the Church hath but lately defin'd Transub∣stantiation, which both in the thing and in the name was unknown to the Ancients.

Now this was a fair and friendly inducement to the Reader to take from him all prejudice,* 1.741 which might stick to him by the great noises of the Roman Doctors, made upon their pretence of the Fathers being on their side; yet I would not so rely upon these testimonies, but that I thought fit to give some little Essay of this doctrine out of the Fathers themselves.

To this purpose is alleged Justin M. saying of the Eucharist, that it was a figure, which our Lord com∣manded to do in remembrance of his Passion] These were quoted not as the words, but as the doctrine of that Saint; and the Letter will needs suppose me to mean those words, which are (as I find) in 259, and 260. page of the Paris edition;* 1.742 [The oblation of a Cake was a figure of the Eucharistical bread which the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his Passion.] These are Justins words in that place, with which I have nothing to do (as I shall shew by and by:) But because

Card. Perron intends to make advantage of them, I shall wrest them first out of his hands, and then give an account of the doctrine of this holy man in the present article; both out of this place and others. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The oblation of a Cake was a figure of the bread of the Eucharist, which our Lord deliver'd us to do; therefore says the Cardinal, the Eucharisti∣cal bread is the truth, since the Cake was the figure or the shadow.] To which I answer, that though the Cake was a figure of the Eucharistical bread, yet so might that bread be a figure of something else: Just as baptism, I mean, the external rite, which although it self be but the outward part, and is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or fi∣gure of the inward washing by the spirit of grace, and represents our being buried with Christ in his death, yet it is an accomplishment in some sense of those ma∣ny figures, by which (according to the doctrine of the Fathers) it was prefigured. Such as in S. Peter the waters of the deluge, in Tertullian were the waters of Jordan into which Naaman descended, in S. Austin the waters of sprinkling: These were types, and to these baptism did succeed, and represented the same thing which they represented, and effected or exhibited the thing it did represent, and therefore in this sense they prefigur'd baptism: And yet that this is but a figure still, we have S. Peters warrant; The like figure whereunto e∣ven baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away the filth of the flesh,* 1.743 but the answer of a good conscience towards God. The waters of the floud were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a type of the waters of baptism; the waters of baptism were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, a type answering to a type: and yet even here there is a typical representing, and sig∣nifying part, and beyond that there is the veritas, or the thing signified by both. So it is in the oblation of the Cake, and the Eucharistical bread, that was a type of this, and this the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or correspondent

of that; a type answering to a type, a figure to a figure; and both of them did and do respectively re∣present a thing yet more secret. For as S. Austin said, these and those are divers in the sign, but equal in the thing signified, divers in the visible species, but the same in the intelligible signification; those were promissive, and these demonstrative, or as others express it, those were pronunciative, and these of the Gospel are conte∣stative. * 1.744 So Friar Gregory of Padua noted in the Coun∣cil of Trent: And that this was the sense of Justin M. appears to him that considers what he says. 1. He does not say the Cake is a type of the bread, but the oblation of the Cake, that is, that whole rite of offering a Cake after the Leper was cleansed in token of thank∣fulness, and for his legal purity, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, which for the remembrance of the passion which he suffer'd for these men whose minds are purged from all perverseness, Jesus Christ our Lord commanded to make or do.] To do what? To do bread? or to make bread? No, but to make bread to be Eucharistical, to be a me∣morial of the Passion, to represent the death of Christ: so that it is not the Cake and the bread that are the type and the Antitype; but the oblation of the Cake, was the figure, and the Celebration of Christs memo∣rial, and the Eucharist are the thing presignified and prefigur'd; But then it remains, that the Eucharisti∣cal bread is but the instrument of a memorial or re∣cordation, which still supposes something beyond this, and by this to be figured and represented. For as the Apostle says, Our Fathers did eat of the same spiritual meat, that is, they eat Christ, but they eat him in figure, that is, in an external symbol: so do we, only theirs is abolished, and ours succeeds the old, and shall abide for ever. Nay the very words us'd by Justin M. do evince this, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when it is an Eucha∣rist, it is still but bread; and therefore there is a

body of which this is but an outward argument, a ve∣hicle, a chanel and conveyance, and that is the body of Christ; for the Eucharistical bread is both bread, and Christs body too. For it is a good argument to say, this is bread Eucharistical, therefore this is bread; and if it be bread still, it must be a figure of the bread of life; and this is that which I affirmed to be the sense of Justin M. The like expression to this is in his second Apology; It is not common bread, meaning, that it is sanctified and made Eucharistical. But here, it may be, the argument will not hold; it is not common bread, therefore it is bread: for I remember that Cardi∣nall Perron hath some instances against this way of ar∣guing. For the Dove that descended upon Christs head was not a common Dove, and yet it follows not; therefore this was a Dove. The three that appeared to Abraham were not common men; therefore they were men, it follows not. This is the sophistry of the Cardinal, for the confutation of which I have so much Logic left as to prove this to be a fallacy, and it will soon appear if it be reduc'd to a regular proposition. This bread is not common, therefore this bread is extraor∣dinary bread,* 1.745 but therefore this is bread still; here the Consequence is good; and is so still, when the subject of the proposition is something real, and not in appear∣ance only: Because whatsoever is but in appearance and pretence, is a Non-Ens in respect of that real thing which it counterfeits. And therefore it follows not, This is not a common dove; therefore it is a Dove; because if this be model'd into a right proposition, nihil supponit; there is no subject in it, for it cannot in this case be said, This Dove is no common Dove; but this which is like a Dove, is not a common Dove; and these persons which look like men, are not common men. And the rule for this and the reason too is, Non entis nulla sunt praedicata. To which also this may be added,

that in the proposition as C. Perron expresses it, the negation is not the adjective, but the substantive part of the praedicate; It is no common Dove; where the ne∣gative term relates to the Dove, not to common; It is no Dove, and the words not common are also aequivocal, and as it can signifie extraordinary, so it can signifie Natural. But if the subject of the proposition be something real, then the consequent is good; as if you bring a Pigeon from Japan, all red, you may say, This is no common Pigeon, and your argument is still good; therefore it is a Pigeon. So if you take sugred bread, or bread made of Indian wheat, you saying this is no common bread, do mean it is extraordinary or un∣usual, but it is bread still; and so if it be said, this bread is Eucharistical, it will follow rightly, therefore this is bread. For in this case the praedicate is only an infinite or Negative term, but the subject is suppos'd and af∣firm'd. And this is also more apparent if the proposi∣tion be affirmative, and the terms be not infinite, as it is in the present case; This bread is Eucharistical. I have now I suppose clear'd the words of Justin M. and expounded them to his own sense and the truth, but his sense will further appear in other words which I principally rely upon in this quotation. For speaking that of the Prophet Isai, Panis dabitur ei, & aqua ejus fidelis; he hath these words, It appears sufficiently [That in this prophecy he speaks of bread which our Lord Christ hath deliver'd to us to do 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for a memorial that he is made a body for them that believe in him, for whose sake he was made passible; and of the Cup which for the recordation of his bloud he de∣livered to them to do, that is [give thanks] or celebrate the Eucharist.] These are the words of Justin: Where 1. Ac∣cording to the first simplicity of the primitive Church, he treates of this mystery according to the style of the Evangelists and S. Paul, and indeed of our Blessed

Lord himself, commanding all this whole mystery to be done in memory of him. 2. If S. Justin had meant any thing of the new fabric of this mystery he must have said,* 1.746 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the bread made his body, though this also would not have done their work for them; but when he says, he gave the bread only for the remembrance of his being made a body, the bread must needs be the sign, figure and representation of that body. 3. Still he calls it bread even then when Christ gave it; still it is wine when the Eucharist is made, when the faithful have gi∣ven thanks; and if it be bread still, we also grant it to be Christs body, and then there is a figure and the thing figured, the one visible and the other invisible; and this is it which I affirmed to be the sense of Iustin Martyr.* 1.747 And it is more perfectly explicated by Saint Greg. Naz. calling the Paschal Lamb a figure of a figure, of which I shall yet give an account in this Section. But to make this yet more clear, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

We do not receive these as common bread or common drink; but as by the word of God, Jesus Christ our Lord was made flesh, and for our salvation had flesh and bloud: so are we taught, that that very nourishment on which by the pray∣ers of his word thanks are given, by which our flesh and bloud are nourished by change, is the flesh and bloud of the incarnate Iesus.]

Here S. Justin compares the con∣secration of the Eucharist by prayer to the incarnation of Christ, the thing with the thing, to shew it is not common bread, but bread made Christs body; he compares not the manner of one with the manner of the other (as Cardinal Perron would fain have it belie∣ved* 1.748) for if it were so, it would not only destroy an article of Christian faith, but even of the Roman too; for if the changes were in the same manner, then ei∣ther the man is Transubstantiated into God, or else the

bread is not Transubstantiated into Christs body; but the first cannot be, because it would destroy the hypo∣statical Union, and make Christ to be one nature as well as one person; but for the latter part of the Di∣lemma, viz. that the bread is not Transubstantiated, whether it be true or false it cannot be affirmed from hence: and therefore the Cardinal labours to no pur∣pose, and without consideration of what may follow. But now these words make very much against the Ro∣man hypothesis, and directly proves the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the consecrated bread, that is, after it is consecrated to be natural nourishment of the body, and therefore to be Christs body only spiritually, and Sacramentally: unless it can be two substances at the same time; Christs body and bread in the Natural sense, which the Church of Rome at this day will not allow; and if it were allowed, it would follow that Christs body should be Transubstantiated into our body, and suffer the very worst changes which in our eating and digestion and separation happen to common bread. This argu∣ment relies upon the concurrent testimony of many of the ancient Fathers besides Iustin Martyr,* 1.749 especially S. Irenaeus, and certainly destroys the whole Roman ar∣ticle of Transubstantiation; for if the Eucharistical bread nourishes the body, then it is still the substance of bread: for accidents do not nourish, and quantity or quality is not the subject or term of Nutrition; but reparation of substance by a substantial change of one into another. But of this enough.

Eusebius is next alledged in the Dissuasive, but his words, though pregnant and full of proof against the Roman hypothesis are by all the Contra-scribers let alone,* 1.750 only one of them says, that the place of the quotation is not rightly mark'd, for the first three chapters are not extant: well! but the words are; and the last chapter is, which is there quoted, and to the 10. chap∣ter

the Printer should have more carefully attended, and not omit the Cypher, which I suppose he would, if he had foreseen he should have been written against by so learned an adversary. But to let them agree as well as they can, the words of Eu∣sebius,* 1.751 out of his last chapter, I translated as well as I could; the Greek words I have set in the Margent, that every one that understands may see I did him right; and indeed to do my Ad∣versary right, when he goes about to change, not to mend the tran∣slation, he only changes the order of the words, but in nothing does he mend his own matter by it: for he acknowledges the main Questi∣on, viz. that the memory of Christs sacrifice is to be celebrated in certain figns on the Table; but then that I may do my self right, and the question too; whosoever translated these words for this Gentleman hath abused him, and made him to render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as if it were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and hath made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be governed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is so far off it, and hath no relation to it, and not to be govern∣ed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with which it is joyn'd, and hath made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be governed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when it hath a substantive of its own [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] and he repeats 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 once more than it is in the words of Eusebius, only because he would not have the Reader suppose that Eusebius call'd the consecrated Elements, the symbols of the body and bloud. But this fraud was too much studied to be excusable upon the stock of hu∣mane infirmity, or an innocent perswasion. But that I may satisfie the Reader in this Question, so far as the testimony and doctrine of Eusebius can extend, he

hath these words fully to our pur∣pose.* 1.752 [First, our Lord and Savi∣our, and then after him his Priests of all Nations celebrating the spiri∣tual sacrifice according to the Eccle∣siastick Laws, by the bread and the wine signifie the mysteries of his body and healing bloud.]* 1.753 And again, [By the wine which is the symbol of his bloud, he purges the old sins of them who were baptized into his death, and believe in his bloud.] [Again he gave to his Disciples the symbols of the divine Oeconomy, commanding them to make the image (figure or representation) of his own body.]* 1.754 And again, [He re∣ceived not the sacrifices of bloud, nor the slaying of divers beasts instituted in the Law of Moses,* 1.755 but ordained we should use bread, the symbol of his own body.] So far I thought fit to set down the words of Eusebi∣us, to convince my Adversary that Eusebius is none of theirs, but he is wholly ours in the doctrine of the Sacrament.

S. Macarius is cited in the Dissuasive in these words,* 1.756 [In the Church is offered bread and wine, the An∣titype of his flesh and bloud, and they that partake of the bread that appears, do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ.] * 1.757 A. L. saith, Macarius saith not so, but rather the contrary, viz. bread and wine exhibiting the Exemplar [or an antitype] his flesh and bloud.] Now although I do not suppose many learned or good men will con∣cern themselves with what this little man says; yet I cannot but note [that they who gave him this answer,

may be asham'd,] for here is a double satisfaction in this little answer. First, he puts in the word exhibi∣ting of his own head, there being no such word in S. Macarius in the words quoted. 2. He makes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be put with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by way of apposition, ex∣presly against the mind of S. Macarius, and against the very Grammar of his words. And after all, he studies to abuse his Author, and yet gets no good by it him∣self; for if it were in the words as he hath invented it, or some body else for him, yet it makes against him as much, saying, bread and wine exhibite Christs body; which is indeed true, though not here said by the Saint, but is directly against the Roman article, because it confesses that to be bread and wine by which Christs body is exhibited to us: but much more is the whole testimony of S. Macarius, which in the Dissuasive are translated exactly, as the Reader may see by the Greek words cited in the Margent.

There now only remains the authority of S. Austin,* 1.758 which this Gentleman would fain snatch from the Church of England, and assert to his own party. I ci∣ted five places out of S. Austin, to the last of which but one, he gives this answer; that S. Austin hath no such words in that book, that is, in the 10. book against Faustus the Manichee. Concerning which, I am to in∣form the Gentleman a little better. These words [that which by all men is called a sacrifice, is the sign of the true sacrifice] are in the 10. book of S. Austin de C. D. cap. 5. and make a distinct quotation, and ought by the Printer to have been divided by a colume, as the other. But the following words [in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebrated by the sacrament of remembrance,] are in the 20. book cap. 21. against Faustus the Manichee* 1.759 All these words and divers

others of S. Austin I knit together into a close order, like a continued discourse; but all of them are S. Au∣stins words, as appears in the places set down in the Margent. But this Gentleman car'd not for what was said by S. Austin, he was as well pleased that a fi∣gure was false Printed; but to the words he hath no∣thing to say. To the first of the other four only he makes this crude answer; that S. Austin denied not the real eating of Christs body in the Eucharist, but only the eating it in that gross, carnal, and sensible manner, as the Capharnaites conceiv'd. To which I reply, that it is true, that upon occasion of this error S. Austin did speak those words: and although the Roman error be not so gross and dull as that of the Capharnaites, yet it was as false, as unreasonable, and as impossible. And be the occasion of the words what they are, or can be, yet upon this occasion S. Austin spake words, which as well confute the Roman error as the Capharnaitical. For it is not only false which the men of Capernaum dreamt of, but the antithesis to this is that which S. Au∣stin urges, and which comes home to our question, [I have commended to you a sacrament which being spiritual∣ly understood shall quicken you:] But because S. Austin was the most diligent expounder of this mystery among all the Fathers, I will gratifie my Adversary, or rather indeed my Unpraejudicate Readers, by gi∣ving some other very clear and unanswerable evidences of the doctrine of S. Austin, agreeing perfectly with that of our Church.

[At this time after manifest to∣ken of our liberty hath shin'd in the resurrection of our Lord Iesus Christ, * 1.760 we are not burdened with the heavy operation of signs, but some few instead of many, but those most easie to be done, and most glorious to be understood, and most pure in their observation, our Lord himself, and the Apostolical discipline hath delivered: such is the sa∣crament of Baptism, and the celebration of the body and

bloud of our Lord, which when every one takes, he under∣stands whether they may be referr'd, that he may give them veneration, not with carnal service, but with a spi∣ritual liberty. For as to follow the letter, and to take the signs for the things signified by them, is a servile in∣firmity; so to interpret the signs unprofitably is an evil wandring error. But he that understands not what the sign signifies, but yet understandeth it to be a sign, is not press'd with servitude. But it is better to be press'd with unknown signs so they be profitable, than by expoun∣ding them unprofitably to thrust our necks into the yoke of slavery, from which they were brought forth.]

All this S. Austin spake concerning the sacramental signs, the bread and the wine in the Eucharist; and if by these words he does not intend to affirm, that they are the signs signifying Christs body and bloud; let who please to undertake it make sense of them, for my part I cannot.

To the same purpose are these other words of his,* 1.761 [Christ is in himself once immolated, and yet in the sacra∣ment he is sacrificed not only in the solennities of Easter, but every day with the people. Neither indeed does he lye who being ask'd, shall answer, that he is sacrificed: For if the sacraments have not a similitude of those things of which they are sacraments, they were altogether no sa∣craments; but commonly for this similitude they take the names of the things themselves, sicut ergo secundum quendam modum, &c. As therefore after a certain manner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ, the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is the bloud of Christ; so the sacrament of faith (viz. Baptism) is faith.] Christ is but once immolated or sacrificed in himself, but every day in the sacrament; that properly, this in figure; that in substance, this in similitude; that na∣turally, this sacramentally and spiritually. But therefore we call this mystery a sacrifice, as we call

the Sacrament Christs body, viz. by way of similitude or after a certain manner, for upon this account the names of the things are imputed to their very figures. This is S. Austins sense: which indeed he frequently so expresses. Now I desire it may be observed, that of∣tentimes when S. Austin speaking of the Eucharist, calls it the body and blood of Christ; he oftentimes adds by way of explication, that he means it, in the Sacramental, figurative sense; but when ever he calls it, the figure or the Sacrament of Christs body, he never offers to explain that by any words, by which he may signifie such a real or natural being of Christs body there, as the Church of Rome dreams of; but he ought not, neither would he have given offence or Um∣brage to the Church, by any such incurious and loose handling of things, if the Church in his age had thought of it otherwise, than that it was Christs body in a Sacramental sense.

Though I have remark'd all that is objected by A. L. yet E. W. is not satisfied with the quotation out of Greg. Naz. not but that he acknowledges it to be right,* 1.762 for he sets down the words in Latin; but they con∣clude nothing against Transubstantiation. Why so? because, though the Paschal was a type of a type, a figure of a figure, yet [in S. Gregories sense Christ con∣cealed under the species of bread may be rightly called a figure of its own self, more clearly hereafter to be shewed us in heaven.] To this pitiful answer the reply is easie. S. Gregory clearly enough expresses himself, that in the immolation of the Passeover Christ was figured; that in the Eucharist he still is figured, there more ob∣scurely, here more clearly, but yet still but typically, or in figure; nunc quidem adhuc typice: here we are partakers of him typically. Afterwards we shall see him perfectly, meaning in his Fathers Kingdom. So that the Saint affirms Christ to be receiv'd by us in the Sacra∣ment

after a figurative, or typical manner: and there∣fore, not after a substantial, as that is oppos'd to figu∣rative. Now of what is this a type? of himself to be more clearly seen in heaven hereafter. It is very true, it is so; for this whole ceremony, and figurative, ritual receiving of Christs body here, does prefigure our more excellent receiving and enjoying him hereafter; but then it follows that the very proper substance of Christs body is not here; for figure or shadow and sub∣stance cannot be the same, to say a thing that is pre∣sent is a figure of it self hereafter, is to be said by no man but him that cares not what he says.* 1.763 Ne∣mo est sui ipsius imago, saith S. Hilary; and yet if it were possible to be otherwise, yet it is a strange figure or sign of a thing, that what is invisible should be a sign of what is visible.* 1.764 Bellarmine, being greatly put to it by the Fathers calling the Sa∣crament the figure of Christs body, says, it is in some sense a figure of Christs body on the Cross; and here E. W. would affirm out of Naz. that it is a figure of Christs body glorified. Now suppose both these dreamers say right, then this Sacrament which whe∣ther you look forwards or backwards is a figure of Christs body; cannot be that body of which so many ways it is a figure. So that the whole force of E. W s. answer is this, that if that which is like be the same, then it is possible that a thing may be a sign of it's self, and a man may be his own picture, and that which is invisible may be a sign to give notice to come see a thing that is visible.

I have now expedited this topic of Authority in in this Question, amongst the many reasons I urged against Transubstantiation:* 1.765 (which I suppose to be un∣answerable, and if I could have answered them my self, I would not have produc'd them;) these Gentlemen my adversaries are pleas'd to take notice but of one; But

by that it may be seen how they could have answered all the rest, if they had pleased. The argument is this, every consecrated wafer (saith the Church of Rome) is Christs body; and yet this wafer is not that wafer, therefore either this, or that is not Christs bo∣dy, or else Christ hath two natural bodies; for there are two Wafers.] To this is answered, the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies to Christ, no more than head and feet infer two souls in a man, or con∣clude there are two Gods, one in heaven, and the other in earth, because heaven and earth are more distinct than two wafers. To which I reply, that the soul of man is in the head and feet as in two parts of the body which is one and whole, and so is but in one place, and consequently is but one soul. But if the feet were parted from the body by other bodies intermedial, then indeed, if there were but one soul in feet and head, the Gentleman had spoken to the purpose. But here these wafers are two intire wafers, separate the one from the other; bodies intermedial put between; and that which is here is not there; and yet of each of them it is affirm'd, that it is Christs body; that is, of two wa∣fers, and of two thousand wafers, it is at the same time affirm'd of every one that it is Christs body. Now if these wafers are substantially not the same, not one, but many; and yet every one of these many is substantially and properly Christs body, then these bodies are many, for they are many of whom it is said, every one distin∣ctly and separately, and in its self is Christs body. 2. For his comparing the presence of Christ in the wa∣fer, with the presence of God in heaven, it is spoken without common wit or sense; for does any man say that God is in two places, and yet be the same-one God? Can God be in two places that cannot be in one? Can he be determin'd and number'd by places, that fills all places by his presence? or is Christs body in the

Sacrament, as God is in the world, that is, repletive, filling all things alike, spaces void and spaces full, and there where there is no place, where the measures are neither time nor place, but only the power and will of God. This answer, besides that it is weak and dan∣gerous, is also to no purpose, unless the Church of Rome will pass over to the Lutherans and maintain the Ubiquity of Christs body.* 1.766 Yea but S. Austin says of Christ, Ferebatur in manibus suis, &c. he bore him∣self in his own hands: and what then? Then though every wafer be Christs body, yet the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies: for then there would be two bodies of Christ, when he carried his own body in his hands. To this I answer, that concerning S. Au∣stins minde we are already satisfied, but that which he says here is true, as he spake and intended it; for by his own rule, the similitudes and figures of things are often∣times called by the name of those things whereof they are similitudes: Christ bore his own body in his own hands, when he bore the Sacrament of his body; for of that also it is true, that it is truly his body in a Sacramental, spiritual, and real manner, that is, to all intents and purposes of the holy spirit of God. Ac∣cording to the words of S. Austin cited by P. Lombard,* 1.767 [We call that the body of Christ which being taken from the fruits of the Earth, and consecrated by mystic prayer, we receive in memory of the Lords Passion; which when by the hands of men it is brought on to that visible shape, it is not sanctified to become so wor∣thy a Sacrament, but by the spirit of God working in∣visibly.] If this be good Catholic doctrine, and if this confession of this article be right, the Church of Eng∣land is right; but then when the Church of Rome will not let us alone in this truth and modesty of con∣fession, but impose what is unknown in Antiquity, and Scripture, and against common sense, and the reason

of all the world;* 1.768 she must needs be greatly in the wrong. But as to this question, I was here only to justifie the Dissuasive; I suppose these Gentlemen may be fully satisfied in the whole inquiry, if they please to read a book I have written on this subject intirely, of which hitherto they are pleas'd to take no great notice.

SECTION IV.

Of the half Communion.

WHen the French Embassador in the Council of Trent A. D. 1561. made instance for restitu∣tion of the Chalice to the Laity, among other opposi∣tions the Cardinal S. Angelo answered; that he would never give a cup full of such deadly poison to the peo∣ple of France, instead of a medicine, and that it was better to let them die, than to cure them with such re∣medies. The Embassador being greatly offended, re∣plied: that it was not fit to give the name of poyson to the bloud of Christ, and to call the holy Apostles poy∣soners, and the Fathers of the Primitive Church, and of that which followed for many hundred years, who with much spiritual profit have ministred the cup of that bloud to all the people: this was a great and a pub∣lic, yet but a single person, that gave so great of∣fence.

One of the greatest scandals that ever were given to Christendom was given by the Council of Constance;* 1.769 which having acknowledged that Christ administred this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine, and that in the Primitive Church this Sacra∣ment

was receiv'd of the faithful under both kinds, yet the Council not only condemns them as heretics, and to be punished accordingly, who say it is unlawful to observe the custome and law of giving it in one kinde only; but under pain of excommunication forbids all Priests to communicate the people under both kinds. This last thing is so shameful and so impious, that A. L. directly denies that there is any such thing: which if it be not an argument of the self-conviction of the man, and a resolution to abide in his error, and to deceive the people even against his knowledge, let all the world judge: for the words of the Councils de∣cree, as they are set down by Carranza,* 1.770 at the end of the decree are these [Item praecipimus sub poena excom∣municationis quod nullus presbyter communicet populum sub utraque specie panis & vini.] I need say no more in this affair: To affirm it necessary to do in the Sacra∣ments what Christ did, is called heresie; and to do so is punished with excommunication. But we who fol∣low Christ, hope we shall communicate with him, and then we are well enough, especially since the very in∣stitution of the Sacrament in both kinds, is a suffici∣ent Commandment to minister and receive it in both kinds. For if the Church of Rome upon their suppo∣sition, only, that Christ did barely institute confessi∣on, do therefore urge it as necessary, it will be a strange partiality, that the confessed institution by Christ of the two Sacramental species, shall not con∣clude them as necessary, as the other upon an Un∣prov'd supposition. And if the institution of the Sa∣crament in both kinds be not equal to a command, then there is no command to receive the bread, or indeed, to receive the Sacrament at all: but it is a meer act of supererogation, that the Priests do it at all, and an act of favour and grace, that they give even the bread it self to the Laity.

But besides this, it is not to be endur'd that the Church of Rome only binds her subjects to observe the decree of abstaining from the cup jure humano, and yet they shall be bound jure Divino to believe it to be just, and specially since the causes of so scandalous an alteration are not set down in the decree of any Coun∣cil; and those which are set down by private Doctors, besides that they are no record of the Church, they are ridiculous,* 1.771 weak and contemptible. But as Grana∣tensis said in the Council of Trent this affair can neither be regulated by Scripture nor traditions, (for surely it is against both) but by wisdom; wherein because it is ne∣cessary to proceed to circumspection, I suppose the Church of Rome will always be considering, whether she should give the chalice or no; and because she will not acknowledge any reason sufficient to give it, she will be content to keep it away without reason: And which is worse, the Church of Rome excommunicates those Priests that communicate the people in both kinds;* 1.772 but the Primitive Church excommunicates them that receive but in one kind. It is too much that any part of the Church should so much as in a single instance administer the Holy Sacrament other∣wise than it is in the institution of Christ; there being no other warrant for doing the thing at all, but Christs institution, and therefore no other way of learning how to do it, but by the same institution by which all of it is done. And if there can come a case of necessity, (as if there be no wine, or if a man cannot endure wine) it is then a disputable matter whe∣ther it ought or not to be omitted; for if the necessity be of Gods making, he is suppos'd to dispense with the impossibility: But if a man alters what God appoin∣ted he makes to himself a new institution; for which in this case there can be no necessity, nor yet excuse. But suppose either one or other; yet so long as it is, or is

thought a case of necessity, the thing may be hopeful∣ly excus'd, if not actually justified; and because it can happen but seldom, the matter is not great: let the institution be observed always where it can. But then in all cases of possibility let all prepared Christi∣ans be invited to receive the body and bloud of Christ according to his institution; or if that be too much, at least let all them that desire it, be permitted to re∣ceive it in Christs way: But that men are not suffered to do so, that they are driven from it, that they are called heretic for saying it is their duty to receive it as Christ gave it and appointed it, that they should be excommunicated for desiring to communicate in Christs bloud, by the symbol of his bloud, according to the order of him that gave his bloud; this is such a strange piece of Christianity, that it is not easie to imagine what Antichrist can do more against it, unless he take it all away. I only desire those persons who are here concerned to weigh well the words of Christ, and the consequents of them: He that breaketh one of the least of my Commandments, and shall teach men so, (and what if he compel men so?) shall be called the least in the Kingdom of God.

To the Canon last mentioned it is answered, that the Canon speaks not of receiving the sacrament by the communicants, but of the consummating the sacrifice by the Priest. To this I reply, that it is true that the Canon was particularly directed to the Priests, by the title which themselves put to it; but the Canon meddles not with the consecrating or not consecrating in one kind, but of receiving; for that is the title of the Canon. The Priest ought not to receive the body of Christ without the bloud; and in the Canon it self, Comperimus autem quod quidam sumpta corporis sacri portione, à calice sacrati cruoris abstineant. By which it plainly appears, that the consecration was intire;

for it was calix sacrati cr••ioris, the consecrated chalice, from which out of a fond superstition some. Priests did abstain; the Canon therefore relates to the sumption or receiving, not the sacrificing (as these men love to call it) or consecration, and the sanction it self speaks indeed of the reception of the sacrament, but not a word of it as it is in any sense a sacrifice; aut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur. So that the distinction of sacrament and sacrifice in this Question will be of no use to the Church of Rome. For if Pope Gelasius (for it was his Canon) knew nothing of this distinction, it is vainly applied to the expound∣ing of his words; but if he did know of it, then he hath taken that part which is against the Church of Rome; for of this mystery as it is a sacrament Gelasius speaks, which therefore must relate to the people as well as to the Priest. And this Canon is to this pur∣pose quoted by Cassander.* 1.773 And 2. no man is able to shew that ever Christ appointed one way of receiving to the Priest, and another to the people. The law was all one, the example the same, the Rule is simple and Uniform, and no appearance of difference in the Scripture, or in the Primitive Church: so that though the Canon mentions only the Priest, yet it must by the same reason mean all; there being at that time no difference known. 3. It is call'd sacriledge to divide one and the same mystery; meaning that to receive one without the other, is to divide the body from the bloud, (for the dream of concomitancy was not then found out) and therefore the title of the Canon is thus express'd, Corpus Christi sine ejus sanguine sacèr∣dos non debet accipere; and that the so doing, viz. by receiving one without the other, cannot be without sacriledge. 4. Now suppose at last, that the Priests only are concern'd in this Canon, yet even then also they are abundantly reprov'd, because even the Priests

in the Church of Rome (unless they consecrate) com∣municate but in one kind. 5. It is also remarkable, that although in the Church of Rome there is great use made of the distinction of its being sometime a sacri∣fice, sometime only a sacrament, as Friar Ant. Mon∣dolphus said in the Council of Trent, yet the arguments, by which the Roman Doctors do usually endeavour to prove the lawfulness of the half communion, do de∣stroy this distinction, viz. that of Christs ministring to the Disciples at Emaus, and S. Paul in the Ship, in which either there is no proof or no consecration in both kinds, and consequently no sacrifice: for there is mention made only of blessing the bread, for they re∣ceiv'd that which was blessed; and therefore either the consecration was imperfect, or the reception was in∣tire.

To this purpose also the words of S. Ambrose are se∣vere, and speak clearly of communicants without di∣stinction of Priest and People: which distinction, though it be in this article nothing to the purpose, yet I observe it to prevent such trifling cavils, which my Adversaries put me often to fight with. His words are these:

[He (viz. the Apostle S. Paul) saith,* 1.774 that he is unwor∣thy of the Lord who otherwise ce∣lebrates the mystery than it was deliver'd by him. For he cannot be devout that presumes other∣wise than it was given by the Au∣thor: Therefore he before admo∣nishes, that according to the or∣der delivered, the mind of him that comes to the Eucharist of our Lord be devout; for there is a judgment to come, that as every one comes, so he may render an account in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ, because

they who come without the discipline of the delivery (or tradition) and of conversation are guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord.]

One of my Adversa∣ries says these words of S. Ambrose are to be under∣stood only of the Priest:* 1.775 and it appears so, by the word celebrat, not recipit; he that celebrates other∣wise than is delivered by Christ. To this I answer, that first it is plain, and S. Ambrose so expresses his meaning to be of all that receive it, for so he says [that the mind of him that cometh to the Eucharist of our Lord ought to be devout.] 2. It is an ignorant conceit, that S. Ambrose by celebrat, means the Priest only, be∣cause he only can celebrate. For however the Church of Rome does now almost impropriate that word to the Priest, yet in the Primitive Church it was no more than recipit or accedit ad Eucharistiam, which appears not only by S. Ambrose his expounding it so here,* 1.776 but in S. Cyprian, speaking to a rich Matron, Locuples & dives Dominicum celebrare te credis, & corban omnino non respicis? Doest thou who art rich and opulent sup∣pose that you celebrate the Lords Supper, (or sacri∣fice) who regardest not the poor mans basket? Cele∣brat is the word, and receive must needs be the signifi∣cation, and so it is in S. Ambrose; and therefore I did (as I ought) translate it so. 3. It is yet objected, that I translate [aliter quam ab eo traditum est] other∣wise than he appointed; whereas it should be, otherwise than it was given by him. And this surely is a great matter, and the Gentleman is very subtle. But if he be ask'd, whether or no Christ appointed it to be done as he did, to be given as he gave it? I suppose this deep and wise note of his will just come to nothing. But ab eo traditum est, of it self signifies, appointed; for this he deliver'd not only by his hands, but by his commandment of Hoc facite; that was his appoint∣ment. Now that all this relates to the whole institu∣tion

and doctrine of Christ in this matter, and there∣fore to the duplication of the Elements, the recep∣tion of the chalice, as well as the consecrated bread, appears first by the general terms; qui aliter mysteri∣um celebrat, he that celebrates otherwise than Christ delivered. 2. These words are a Commentary upon that of Saint Paul, He that eats this bread, and drinks the Cup of the Lord Unworthily, is guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord.] Now hence S. Ambrose arguing that all must be done, as our Lord delivered, says also that the bread must be eaten, and the cup drunk as our Lord delivered: and he that does not do both, does not do what our Lord delivered. 3. The con∣clusion of S. Ambrose is full to this particular: They are guilty of the body and bloud of Christ, who came without the discipline of the delivery and of conversa∣tion, that is, they who receive without due prepara∣tion, and not after the manner it was delivered, that is, under the differing symbols of bread and wine. To which we may add that observation of Cassander,* 1.777 and of Vossius; that the Apostles represented the per∣sons of all the faithful, & Christ saying to them, take & eate, he also said, Drink ye all of this; he said not, Eat ye all of this; and therefore if by vertue of these words, Drink ye all of this, the Laity be not com∣manded to drink, it can never be proved that the Laity are commanded to eat; Omnes is added to bibite, but it is not expresly added to Accipite & Co∣medite,* 1.778 and therefore Paschasius Radbertus, who lived about eight hundred and twenty years after Christs incarnation, so expounds the precept without any haesitation, Bibite ex hoc omnes, i. e. tam Ministri quam reliqui credentes, Drink ye all of this, as well they that Minister, as the rest of the believers. And no wonder, since for their so doing they have the ex∣ample and institution of Christ; by which as by an

irrefragable and undeniable argument, the Ancient Fathers us'd to reprove and condemn all usages which were not according to it. For saith Saint Cyprian, [If men ought not to break the least of Christs com∣mandments,* 1.779 how much less those great ones which belong to the Sacrament of our Lords passion and re∣demption, or to change it into any thing but that which was appointed by him?] Now this was spo∣ken against those who refus'd the hallowed wine, but took water instead of it; and it is of equal force against them that give to the Laity no cup at all; but whatever the instance was or could be, S. Cyprian re∣proves it upon the only account of prevaricating Christs institution. The whole Epistle is worth reading for a full satisfaction to all wise and sober Christians; Ab eo quod Christus Magister & praecepit & gessit humana & novella institutione decedere, by a new and humane institution to depart from what Christ our Master commanded and did; that the Bishops would not do; tamen quoniam quidam, &c. because there are some who simply and ignorantly [In calice Dominico sanctificando & plebi ministrando non hoc faci∣unt quod Jesus Christus Dominus & Deus noster sacrificii hujus author & Doctor fecit & docuit, &c.] In sancti∣fying the cup of the Lord, and giving it to the people do not do what Jesus Christ did and taught, viz. they did not give the cup of wine to the people; therefore S. Cyprian calls them to return ad radicem & originem traditionis Dominicae, to the root and original of the Lords delivery. Now besides that S. Cyprian plainly says, that when the chalice was sanctified, it was al∣so ministred to the people; I desire it be considered, whether or no these words do not plainly reprove the Roman doctrine and practice, in not giving the conse∣crated chalice to the people: Do they not recede from the root and original of Christs institution? Do they

do what Christ did? Do they teach what Christ taught? Is not their practice quite another thing than it was at first? Did not the Ancient Church do otherwise than these men do? And thought themselves oblig'd to do otherwise? They urg'd the doctrine and example of our Lord, and the whole Oeconomy of the Mystery was their warrant and their reason: for they always believed that a peculiar grace and ver∣tue was signified by the symbol of wine; and it was evident that the chalice was an excellent represent∣ment and memorial of the effusion of Christs bloud for us, and the joyning both the symbols signifies the in∣tire refection and nourishment of our souls, bread and drink being the natural provisions; and they design and signifie our redemption more perfectly, the body being given for our bodies, and the bloud for the clean∣sing our souls, the life of every animal being in the bloud: and finally, this in the integrity, signifies and represents Christ to have taken body and soul for our redemption. For these reasons the Church of God always in all her publick communions gave the chalice to the people for above a thousand years. This was all I would have remarked in this so evident a matter, but that I observed in a short spiteful passage of E. W. Pag. 44. a notorious untruth spoken with ill intent concerning the Holy Communion as understood by Protestants. The words are these, [seeing the fruit of Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith in the receiver, I can find no reason why their bit of bread on∣ly, may not as well work that effect, as to taste of their wine with it.] To these words, 1. I say, that al∣though stirring up faith is one of the Divine benefits and blessings of the Holy Communion, yet it is falsely said, that the fruit of the Protestant Com∣munion is only to stir up faith. For in the Cate∣chism of the Church of England it is affirmed, that

the body and bloud of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lords Supper; and that our souls are strengthened and refreshed by the body and bloud of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine,] and that of stirring up our faith is not at all mentioned: So ignorant, so deceitful, or deceiv'd is E. W. in the doctrine of the Church of England. But then as for his foolish sarcasm, calling the hallowed Element a bit of bread, which he does in scorn; he might have considered, that if we had a mind to find fault whenever his Church gives us cause, that the Pa∣pists wafer is scarce so much as a bit of bread, it is more like Marchpane than common bread, and be∣sides that (as Salmeron acknowledges) anciently,* 1.780 Olim ex pane uno sua cuique particula frangi consueve∣rat, that which we in our Church do was the cu∣stom of the Church; out of a great loaf to give par∣ticles to every communicant, by which the Com∣munication of Christs body to all the members is bet∣ter represented,* 1.781 and that Durandus affirming the same thing, says that the Grecians continue it to this day; besides this (I say) the Author of the Roman order (says Cassander) took it very ill,* 1.782 that the loaves of bread offered in certain Churches for the use of the sacrifice should be brought from the form of true bread to so slight and slender a form, which he calls Minutias nummulariarum oblatarum, scraps of little penies or pieces of money,] and not wor∣thy to be called bread, being such which no Nation ever used at their meals for bread. But this is one of the innovations which they have introduc'd into the religious Rites of Christianity, and it is little noted, they having so many greater changes to an∣swer for.

But it seems this Section was too hot for them, they loved not much to meddle with it; and therefore I shall add no more fuel to their displeasure, but desire the Reader, who would fully understand what is fit to be said in this Question,* 1.783 to read it in a book of mine which I called Ductor dubitantium, or the Cases of Consci∣ence; only I must needs observe, that it is an unspeak∣able comfort to all Protestants, when so manifestly they have Christ on their side in this Question against the Church of Rome. To which I only add, that for above 700. years after Christ, it was esteemed sacri∣ledge in the Church of Rome to abstain from the Cup, and that in the ordo Romanus the Communion is al∣ways describ'd with the Cup; how it is since, and how it comes to be so, is too plain. But it seems the Church hath power to dispense in this affair, because S. Paul said, that the Ministers of Christ are dispensers of the mysteries of God: as was learnedly urg'd in the Council of Trent in the doctrine about this que∣stion.

SECTION. V.

Of the Scriptures and Service in an unknown Tongue.

THe Question being still upon the novelty of the Roman doctrines, and Practices; I am to make it good that the present article and practice of Rome is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Primi∣tive Church.* 1.784 To this purpose I alledged S. Basil in his Sermon or book de variis scripturae locis: But say my adversaries, there is no such book.] Well! was there such a man as S. Basil? If so, we are well enough; and let these Gentlemen be pleas'd to look into his works printed at Paris 1547. by Carola Guillard, and in the 130. page, he shall see this Book, Sermon,* 1.785 or Homily, in aliquot scripturae locis, at the beginning of which he hath an exhortation in the words placed in the Margent, there we shall find the lost Sheep: The beginning of it is an exhorta∣tion to the people, congregated to get profit and edification by the Scri∣ptures read at morning prayer, the Monitions in the Psalms, the precepts of the Proverbs; Search ye the beauty of the history, and the examples, and add to these the precepts of the Apostles. But in all things joyn the words of the Gospel, as the Crown and per∣fection, that receiving profit from them all, ye may at length turn to that to which every one is sweetly affected, and for the doing of which he hath received the grace of the Holy Spirit.]

Now this difficulty being over, all that remains for my own justification is, that I make it appear that S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Austin, Aquinas and Lyra do respectively exhort to the study of the Scriptures, exhorting even the Laity to do so, and testifie the cu∣stom of the Ancient Church in praying in a known tongue, and commending this as most useful, and condemning the contrary as being useless and without edification. I shall in order set down the doctrine they deliver in their own words, and then the imperti∣nent cavils of the adversaries will of themselves come to nothing.

S. Chrysostom commenting upon S. Pauls words con∣cerning preaching and praying for edification,* 1.786 and so as to be understood; coming to those words of S. Paul, If I pray with my tongue, my spirit prayeth but my mind is without fruit [you see (saith he) how a little extolling prayer he shews, that he who is such a one (viz. as the Apostle there describes) is not only unprofitable to others, but also to himself, since his minde is without fruit.] Now if a man praying what he understands not, does not, cannot profit himself; how can he that stands by, who understands no more, be profited by that which does him that speaks no good? For God understands though he does not, and yet he that so prays reaps no benefit to himself, and therefore neither can any man that under∣stands no more. The affirmation is plain, and the rea∣son cogent: To the same purpose are the words of S. Chrysostom which A. L. himself quotes out of him [If one speaks in only the Persian tongue,* 1.787 or some other strange tongue, but knows not what he saith, certainly he will be a barbarian even to himself, and not to another only, be∣cause he knows not the force of the words.] This is no more than what S. Paul said before him; but they all say, that he who hears and understands not whether it be the speaker or the scholar,* 1.788 is but a Barbarian. Thus

also S. Ambrose in his Commenta∣ry upon the words of S. Paul [The Apostle says,* 1.789 It is better to speak a few words, that are open or under∣stood, that all may understand, than to have a long oration in obscurity: That's his sense for reading and preaching: Now for prayer he adds, [The unskilful man hearing what he understands not, knows not when the prayer ends, and answers not Amen, that is, so be it, or it is true, that the blessing may be esta∣blished: and a little after, If ye meet together to edifie the Church, those things ought to be said, which the hear∣ers may understand. For what profit is it to speak with a tongue, when he that hears is not profited? Therefore he ought to hold his peace in the Church, that they who can profit the hearers may speak.* 1.790 S. Au∣stin compares singing in the Church without understanding to

the chattering of Parrots and Magpies, Crows and Jackdawes. But to sing with understanding is by the will of God given to man. And we who sing the Divine prai∣ses in the Church, must remember that it is written, Blessed is the people that understands singing of praises. Therefore most be∣loved, what with a joyn'd voice we have sung we must understand and discern with a serene heart.]

To the same purpose are the words of Lyra and* 1.791 Aquinas, which I shall not trouble the Reader with∣all

here, but have set them down in the Margent, that the strange con∣fidence of these Romanists out-fa∣cing notorious and evident words may be made, if possible, yet more conspicuous.

In pursuance of this doctrine of S. Paul and the Fathers, the Pri∣mitive Christians in their several ages and Countries were careful, that the Bible should be translated into all languages where Christia∣nity was planted. That the Bibles were in Greek is no∣torious; and that they were us'd among the people S. Chrysostom homil. 1. in Joh. 8. is witness, that it was so, or that it ought to be so. For he exhorts, Vace∣mus ergo scripturis dilectissimi, &c. Let us set time apart to be conversant in the Scripture, at least in the Gospels, let us frequently handle them to imprint them in our minds, which because the Jews neglected they were com∣manded to have their books in their hands, but let us not have them in our hands, but in our houses and in our hearts] by which words we may easily understand that all the Churches of the Greek communion had the Bible in their vulgar tongue, and were called upon to use them as Christians ought to do, that is to imprint them in their hearts:* 1.792 and speaking of S. John and his Gospel, he says that the Syrians, Indians, Persians and Ethiopians and infinite other nations, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; they grew wise by translating his (S. Johns) doctrines into their several lan∣guages.* 1.793 But it is more that S. Au∣stin says, The divine Scripture by which help is supplied to so great dis∣eases proceeded from one language

which opportunely might be carried over the whole world, that being by the various tongues of interpreters scattered far and wide, it might be made known to the Nations for their salvation. And Theodoret speaks yet more plainly, [we have manifest∣ly shown to you the inexhausted strength of the Apostolic and pro∣phetic doctrine; for the Universal face of the earth, whatsoever is under the sun is now full of those words. For the Hebrew books are not only transla∣ted into the Greek idiom, but into the Roman tongue, the Egyptian, Persian, Indian, Armenian, Scythian, Sauroma∣tic languages, and that I may speak once for all, into all tongues which at this day the Nations use.] By these au∣thorities of these Fathers we may plainly see how dif∣ferent the Roman doctrine and practice is from the sentiment and usages of the Primitive Church, and with what false confidence the Roman adversaries deny so evident truth, having no other way to make their doctrine seem tolerable, but by out-facing the known sayings of so many excellent persons; and especially of S. Paul, who could not speak his minde in apt and intelligible words: if he did not in his Epistle to the Corinthians exhort the Church to pray* 1.794 and prophecy so as to be understood by the Catechumens, and by all the people; that is, to do otherwise than they do in the Roman Church: Christianity is a simple, wise, in∣telligible and easie Religion; and yet if a man will resolve against any proposition, he may wrangle himself into a puzzle, and make himself not to un∣derstand it so, though it be never so plain; what is plainer than the testimony of their own Cajetan [that

it were more for the edification of the Church that the prayers were in the vulgar tongue.]* 1.795 He says no more than S. Paul says; and he could not speak it plainer. And indeed no man of sense can deny it, unless he affirms at the same time that it is better to speak what we understand not, than what we do; or that it were better to serve God without that noble faculty than with it; that is, that the way of a Parrot, and a Jackdaw, were bet∣ter than the way of a man; and that in the service of God, the Priests and the people are to differ as a man and a bird.

But besides all this; was not Latin it self when it was first us'd in Divine service the common tongue, and generally understood by many Nations and very ma∣ny Colonies? and if it was then the use of the Church to pray with the understanding, why shall it not be so now? however, that it was so then, and is not so now, demonstrates that the Church of Rome hath in this material point greatly innovated: Let but the Roman Pontifical be consulted, and there will be yet found a form of ordination of Readers,* 1.796 in which it is said, that they must study to read distinctly and plain∣ly, that the people may under∣stand: But now it seems that labour is sav'd. And when a notorious change was made in this affair, we can tell by calling to mind the following story. The Moravians did say Mass in the Slavonian tongue; for which Pope John the eighth severely reprov'd them, and commanded them to do so no more; but being better inform'd, he wrote a letter to their Prince Sfentopu∣tero, in which he affirms, that it is not contrary to faith and found doctrine to say Mass and other prayers

in the Slavonian tongue, and adds this reason; be∣cause he that Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, hath made the others also for his glory; and this also he confirms with the authority of S. Paul's first Epistle to the Corin∣thians, and some other Scriptures, only he command∣ed for the decorum of the business, the Gospel should first be said in Latin and then in the Slavonian tongue. But just two hundred years after this, the Tables were turned, and though formerly these things were per∣mitted, yet so were many things in the Primi∣tive Church; but upon better examination they have been corrected. And therefore P. Gregory the seventh wrote to Vratislaus of Bohemia, that he could not permit the celebration of the divine offices in the Slavonian tongue, and he commanded the Prince to oppose the people herein with all his forces. Here the world was strangely altered, and yet S. Pauls Epi∣stle was not condemned of heresie; and no Council had decreed that all vulgar languages were prophane; and no reason can yet be imagined why the change was made, unless it were to separate the Priest from the people, by a wall of Latin, and to nurse stupendious ignorance in them, by not permitting to them learn∣ing enough to understand their public prayers, in which every man was greatly concerned. Neither may this be called a slight matter; for besides that Gregory the seventh thought it so considerable, that it was a just cause of a war or persecution, (for he commanded the Prince of Bohemia to oppose the people in it with all his forces;) besides this (I say) to pray to God with the understanding, is much better, than praying with the tongue; that alone can be a good prayer, this alone can never; and then the loss of all those advantages which are in prayers truly understood, the excellency of devotion, the passion of desires, the ascent of the minde to God, the adherence to and acts of confidence

in him, the intellectual conversation with God, most agreeable to a rational being, the melting affections, the pulses of the heart to & from God, to and from our selves, the promoting and exercising of our hopes, all these and very many more (which can never be intire but in the prayers and devotions of the hearts, and can never be in any degree but in the same, in which the prayers are acts of love and wisdom, of the will and the understanding) will be lost to the greatest part of the Catholic Church, if the mouth be set open, and the soul be gag'd; so that it shall be the word of the mouth, but not the word of the mind.

All these things being added to what was said in this article by the Dissuasive, will more than make it clear, that in this article (the consequents of which are very great) the Church of Rome hath causelesly troubled Christendom, and innovated against the Primitive Church, and against her own ancient doctrines and practices, and even against the Apostle: But they care for none of these things. Some of their own Bigots profess the thing in the very worst of all these expressi∣ons; for so Reynolds and Gifford in their Calvino Tur∣cismus complain that such horrid and stupendious evils have followed the translation of Scriptures into vulgar languages, that they are of force enough ad istas tran∣slationes penitus supprimendas, etiamsi Divina vel Apo∣stolica authoritate niterentur: Although they did rely upon the authority Apostolical or Divine, yet they ought to be taken away. So that it is to no purpose to urge Scripture, or any argument in the world against the Roman Church in this article; for if God himself command it to be translated, yet it is not sufficient: and therefore these men must be left to their own way of understanding, for beyond the law of God, we have no argument. I will only remind them, that it is a curse which God threatens to his rebellious people,

[I will speak to this people with men of another tongue,* 1.797 and by strange lips, and they shall not understand. This is the curse which the Church of Rome contends earnestly for, in behalf of their people.

SECTION VI.

Of the Worship of Images.

THat society of Christians will not easily be refor∣med, that think themselves oblig'd to dispute for the worship of Images, the prohibition of which was so great a part of the Mosaic Religion, and is so infinitely against the nature and spirituality of the Christian; a thing which every understanding can see condemned in the Decalogue, & no man can excuse, but witty persons that can be bound by no words, which they can interpret to a sense contradictory to the de∣sign of the common: a thing for the hating of, and abstaining from which the Jews were so remark'd by all the world, and by which as by a distinctive cognisance they were separated from all other Nations, and which with perfect resolution they keep to this very day, and for the not observing of which, they are intolerably scandaliz'd at those societies of Christians, who with∣out any necessity in the thing, without any pretence of any Law of God, for no good, and for no wise end, and not without infinite danger, at least, of idolatry, retain a worship and veneration to some stocks and stones. Such men as these are too hard for all laws, and for all arguments; so certain it is, that faith is an obedience of the will in a conviction of the understan∣ding; that if in the will and interests of men there be a

perverseness and a non-compliance, and that it is not bent by prudent and wise flexures and obedience to God, and the plain words of God in Scripture, no∣thing can ever prevail, neither David, nor his Sling, nor all the worthies of his army.

In this question I have said enough in the Dissua∣sive, and also in the Ductor dubitantium; but to the arguments and fulness of the perswasion, they neither have, nor can they say any thing that is material; but according to their usual method, like flies they search up and down, and light upon any place which they suppose to be sore, or would make their prose∣lytes believe so. I shall therefore first vindicate those few quotations which the Epistles of his brethren ex∣cept against; (for there are many, and those most pregnant which they take no notice of) as bearing in them too clear a conviction. 2. I shall answer such testimonies, which some of them steal out of Bellar∣mine, and which they esteem as absolutely their best. And 3. I shall add something in confirmation of that truth of God, which I here have undertaken to de∣fend.

First, for the questioned quotations against the worship of images; S. Cyril was nam'd in the Dissua∣sive as denying that the Christians did give veneration and worship to the image even of the cross it self, but no words of S. Cyril were quoted; for the denial is not in express words, but in plain and direct argument: for being by Julian charg'd with worshipping the cross, S. Cyril in behalf of the Christians takes notice of their using the cross in a religious memory of all good things, to which by the cross of Christ we are ingag'd, that is, he owns all that they did, and therefore ta∣king no notice of any thing of worship, and making no answer to that part of the objection, it is certain that the Christians did not do it, or that he could not justi∣fie

them in so doing. But because I quoted no words of S. Cyril, I now shall take notice of some words of his, which do most abundantly clear this particular by a general rule;* 1.798 [Only the Divine Nature is ca∣pable of adoration, and the Scripture hath given ado∣ration to no nature but to that of God alone;] that, and that alone ought to be worshipped. But to give yet a little more light to this particular; it may be no∣ted that before S. Cyrils time this had been objected by the Pagans,* 1.799 particularly by Caecilius, to which Minu∣tius answers by directly denying it, and saying, that the Pagans did rather worship erosses, that is, the woodden parts of their Gods. The Christians indeed were by Tertullian called Religiosi crucis, because they had it in thankful use and memory, and us'd it fre∣quently in a symbolical confession of their not being asham'd, but of their glorying in the real cross of Christ: But they never worshipped the material cross, or the figure of it, as appears by S. Cyrils owning all the objections, excepting this only, of which he nei∣ther confessed the fact, nor offered any justification of it when it was objected, but professed a doctrine with which such practice was inconsistent. And the like is to be said of some other of the Fathers who speak with great affections and veneration of the cross, meaning, to exalt the passion of Christ; and in the sense of S. Paul to glory in the cross of Christ, not meaning the material cross, much less the image of it, which we blame in the Church of Rome: And this very sense we have expressed in S. Ambrose,* 1.800 Sapiens Helena egit, quae crucem in capite regum levavit, ut Christi Crux in Re∣gibus adoretur. The figure of the material cross was by Helena plac'd upon the heads of Kings, that the cross of Christ in Kings might be ador'd:] How so? He answers, Non insolentia ista sed pietas est cum defertur sacrae redemptioni. It is to the holy redemption, not

to the cross materially taken; this were insolent, but the other is piety. In the same manner also S. Chryso∣stom is by the Roman Doctors, and particularly by Gretser,* 1.801 and E. W. urg'd for the worshipping Christs cross. But the book de cruce & latrone, whence the words are cited; Gretser and Possevine suspect it to be a spurious issue of some unknown person: It wants a Father; and sometimes it goes to S. Austin, and is crouded into his Sermons de Tempore:* 1.802 But I shall not trouble my discourse any farther with such counterfeit ware. What S. Chrysostoms doctrine was in the mat∣ter of images, is plain enough in his indubitate works, as is, and shall be remark'd in their several places.

The famous testimony of Epiphanius, against the very use of images in Churches, being urg'd in the Dissuasive as an irrefragable argument that the Roman doctrine is not Primitive or Catholic, the contra-scri∣bers say nothing;* 1.803 but that when S. Hierome translated that Epistle of S. Epiphanius, it appears not that this story was in that Epistle that S. Hierome translated; which is a great argument that that story was foisted into that Epistle after S. Hieromes time.] A likely mat∣ter! but spoken upon slight grounds. It appears not, saith the Objector, that this story was in it then: To whom does it not appear? To Bellarmine indeed it did not, nor to this Objector who writes after him. Alan Cope denied that Epiphanius ever wrote any such Epistle at all, or that S. Hierome ever translated any such; but Bellarmine, being asham'd of such unreason∣able boldness, found out this more gentle answer, which here we have from our Objector: well! but now the case is thus; that this story was put into the Epistle by some Iconoclast is vehemently suspected by Bel∣larmine and Baronius. But this Epistle vehemently burns their fingers, and the live coal sticks close to them, and they can never shake it off. For 1. who

should add this story to this Epistle? Not any of the reformed Doctors; for before Luthers time many ages, this Epistle with this story was known, and confessed, and quoted, in the Manuscript copies of divers Nati∣ons. 2. This Epistle was quoted, and set down as now it is, with this story by Charles the great above DCCC. years ago. 3. And a little after by the Fa∣thers in the Council of Paris; only they call the Au∣thor John Bishop of C. P. instead of Jerusalem. 4. Sir∣mondus the Jesuite cites this Epistle as the genuine work of Epiphanius.* 1.804 5. Marianus Victor, and Dionysi∣us Petavius a Jesuite of great and deserved fame for learning in their Editions of Epiphanius, have publish∣ed this whole Epistle; and have made no note, given no censure upon this story. 6. Before them* 1.805 Thomas Waldensis, and since him Alphonsus a Castro acknow∣ledge this whole Epistle as the proper issue of Epi∣phanius. 7. Who can be supposed to have put in this story? The Iconoclasts? Not the Greeks, because if they had, they would have made use of it for their ad∣vantage, which they never did in any of their disputa∣tions against images;* 1.806 insomuch that Bellarmine makes advantage of it, because they never objected it. Not the Latins that wrote against images; for though they were against the worship of images, yet they were not Iconoclasts: Indeed Claudius Taurinensis was, but he could not put this story in, for before his time it was in, as appears in the book of Charles the great before quoted. These things put together are more than suf∣ficient to prove that this story was written by Epipha∣nius, and the whole Epistle was translated by S. Hie∣rome, as himself testifies.* 1.807 But after all this, if there was any foul play in this whole affair, the cosenage lies on the other side; for some or other have destroyed the Greek original of Epiphanius, and only the Latin co∣pies remain; and in all of them of Epiphanius's works,

this story still remains. But how the Greek came to be lost, though it be uncertain, yet we have great cause to suspect the Greeks to be the Authors of the loss: And the cause of this suspicion is the command made by the Bishops in the seventh Council,* 1.808 that all writings against images should be brought in to the Bishop of C. P. there to be laid up with the books of other heretics. It is most likely here it might go away: But however, the good providence of God hath kept this record to reprove the follies of the Roman Church in this particular.

The authority of S. Austin, reprehending the wor∣ship of images,* 1.809 was urg'd from several places of his writings cited in the Margent. In his first book de moribus Ecclesiae,* 1.810 he hath these words which I have now set down in the Margent; in which, describing among other things the difference between su∣perstition and true religion, he presses it on to issue; [Tell not me of the professors of the Christian name. Follow not the troops of the unskilful, who in true religion it self either are superstitious, or so given to lusts, that they have forgot∣ten what they have promis'd to God. I know that there are many worshippers of sepulchers and pictures, I know that there are many who live luxuriously over [the graves of] the dead.] That S. Austin reckons these that are worshippers of pictures among the superstiti∣ous and the vitious, is plain, and forbids us to follow such superstitious persons.* 1.811 But see what follows, [But how vain, how hurtful, how sacrilegious they are,

I have purpos'd to shew in another volume.] Then ad∣dressing himself to the Manichees, who upon the occa∣sion of these evil and superstitious practices of some Catholics, did reproach the Catholic Church, he says, [Now I admonish you that at length you will give over the reproaching the Catholic Church, by reproaching the man∣ners of these men, (viz. worshippers of pictures, and sepulchers, and livers riotously over the dead,) whom she her self condemns, and whom as evil sons she endea∣vours to correct.] By these words now cited, it ap∣pears plainly, that S. Austin affirms that those few Christians, who in his time did worship pictures, were not only superstitious, but condemned by the Church. This the Letter writer denies S. Austin to have said; but that he did say so, we have his own words for wit∣ness. Yea, but 2. S. Austin did not speak of worship∣pers of pictures alone: what then? Neither did he of them alone say they were superstitious, and their acti∣ons vain, hurtful and sacrilegious. But does it fol∣low that therefore he does not say so at all of these, because he says it of the others too? But 3. neither doth he formally call them superstitions,] I know not what this offer of an answer means, certain it is, when S. Austin had complained that many Christians were su∣perstitious, his first instance is of them that worship pictures and graves. But I perceive this Gentleman found himself pinch'd beyond remedy, and like a man fastned by his thumbs at the whipping-post, he wries his back and shrinks from the blow, though he knows he cannot get loose.

In the Margent of the Dissuasive,* 1.812 there were two other testimonies of S. Austin pointed at; but the * 1.813 Letter says, that in these S. Austin hath not a word to any such purpose: That is now to be tried. The purpose for which they were brought, is to reprove the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome in the

matter of images: It was not intended that all these places should all speak or prove the same particular; but that which was affirmed in the text being suffici∣ently verified by the first quotation in the Margent, the other two are fully pertinent to the main inquiry, and to condemnation of the Roman doctrine, as the first was of the Roman practice. The words are these,

[Neither is it to be thought that God is circumscri∣bed in a humane shape, that they who think of him should fancy a right or a left side, or that because the Father is said to sit, it is to be supposed, that he does it with bended knees, lest we fall into that sacriledge, for which the Apostle Execrates them that change the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corruptible man. For, for a Christian to place such an image to God in the Church is wickedness, but much more wicked is it to place it in our heart.]

So S. Austin. Now this testimony had been more pro∣perly made use of in the next Section, as more rela∣ting to the proper matter of it, as being a direct con∣demnation of the picturing of God; but here it serves without any sensible error, and where ever it is, it throws a stone at them, and hits them. But of this more in the sequel.

But the third testimony (however it pleases A. L. to deny it) does speak home to his part of the questi∣on,* 1.814 and condemns the Roman hypothesis: the words are these, [See that ye forget not the testimony of your God which he wrote, or that ye make shapes and ima∣ges:] But it adds also saying, Your God is a consuming fire, and a zealous God. These words from the Scrip∣ture Adimantus propounded; [Yet remember not only there, but also here concerning the zeal of God, he so blames the Scriptures, that he adds that which is com∣manded by our Lord God in those books, concerning the not worshipping of images; as if for nothing else he repre∣hends

that zeal of God, but only because by that very zeal we are forbidden to worship images. Therefore he would seem to favour images, which therefore they do that they might reconcile the good will of the Pagans to their mise∣rable and mad sect,] meaning the sect of the Mani∣chees, who to comply with the Pagans, did retain the worship of images. And now the three testimonies are verified; and though this was an Unnecessary trouble to me, and I fear it may be so to my Reader, yet the Church of Rome hath got no advantage but this, that in S. Austins sense, that which Romanists do now, the Manichees did then; only these did it to comply with the Heathens, and those out of direct and meer superstition. But to clear this point in S. Austins do∣ctrine, the Reader may please to read his 19. book against Faustus the Manichee, cap. 18. and the 119. Epistle against him, chap. 12. where he affirms that the Christians observe that, which the Jews did in this, viz. that which was written, Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God, thou shalt not make an idol to thee, and such like things: and in the latter place, he affirms that the second Commandment is moral, viz. that all of the Decalogue are so, but only the fourth. I add a third as pregnant as any of the rest: for in his first book de consensu Evangelistarum, speaking of some who had fallen into error upon occasion of the pictures of S. Peter and S. Paul, he says, Sic nempe errare merue∣runt qui Christum & Apostolos ejus non in sanctis condicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesiverunt.

The Council of Eliberis is of great concern in this Question, and does great effort to the Roman practi∣ces.* 1.815 E. W. takes notice of it, and his best answer to it is, that it hath often been answered already. He says true; it hath been answered both often and many ways. The Council was in the year 305. of 19. Bi∣shops, who in the 36. Canon, decreed this [placuit pi∣cturas

in Ecclesiis esse non debere.] It hath pleas'd us that pictures ought not to be in Churches; That's the decree: The reason they give is, ne quod colitur & adoratur in parietibus depingatur, lest that which is worshipped be painted on the walls. So that there are two propositions; 1. Pictures ought not to be in Churches. 2. That which is worshipped ought not to be painted upon walls.* 1.816 E. W. hath a very learned Note upon this Canon. Mark, first the Council suppo∣seth worship and adoration due to pictures, ne quod colitur & adoratur. By which mark, E. W. confesses that pictures are the object of his adoration, and that the Council took no care and made no provision for the ho∣nour of God, (who is and ought to be worshipp'd and ador'd in Churches, & illi soli servies) but only were good husbands for the pictures for fear, 1. they should be spoiled by the moisture of the walls, or 2. defaced by the Heathen; the first of these is Bellarmines, the latter is Perrons answer: But too childish to need a se∣verer consideration. But how easie had it been for them to have commanded that all their pictures should have been in frames, upon boards or cloth, as it is in many Churches in Rome, and other places. 2. Why should the Bishops forbid pictures to be in Churches; for fear of spoiling one kind of them, they might have permitted others, though not these. 3. Why should any man be so vain as to think, that in that age, in which the Christians were in perpetual disputes against the Heathens for worshipping pictures and images, they should be so curious to preserve their pictures, and reserve them for adoration. 4. But then to make pictures to be the subject of that caution, ne quod coli∣tur, & adoratur, and not to suppose God and his Christ to be the subject of it, is so unlike the religion of Christians, the piety of those ages, the Oeconomy of the Church, and the analogy of the Commandment,

that it betrays a refractory and heretical spirit in him, that shall so perversely invent an Unreasonable Com∣mentary, rather than yield to so pregnant and easie testimony. But some are wiser, and consider, that the Council takes not care that pictures be not spoil'd, but that they be not in the Churches; and that what is adorable be not there painted, and not, be not there spoiled. The not painting them is the utmost of their design, not the preserving them; for we see vast num∣bers of them every where painted on walls, and preser∣ved well enough, and easily repair'd upon decay, therefore this is too childish; to blot them out for fear they be spoiled, and not to bring them in∣to Churches for fear they be taken out. Agobardus Bishop of Lions, above 800. years since cited this Ca∣non in a book of his which he wrote de picturis & imagi∣nibus, which was published by Papirius Massonus; and thus illustrates it, Recte (saith he) nimirum ob hujusmodi evacuandam superstitionem ab Orthodoxis pa∣tribus definitum est picturas in Ecclesia fieri non debere [Nec] quod eolitur & adoratur in parietibus deping atur. Where first he expresly affirms these Fathers in this Canon to have intended only rooting up this supersti∣tion, not the ridiculous preserving the pictures. So it was Understood then. But then 2. Agobardus reads it, Nec, not [Ne] quod colitur, which reading makes the latter part of the Canon, to be part of the sancti∣on, and no reason of the former decree; pictures must not be made in Churches, neither ought that to be painted upon walls which is worshipped and adored. This was the doctrine and sentiment of the wise and good men above 800. years since. By which also the Unreasonable supposition of Baronius, that the Canon is not genuine, is plainly confuted; this Canon not be∣ing only in all copies of that Council, but own'd for such by Agobardus so many ages before Baronius, and

so many ages after the Council. And he is yet farther reproved by Cardinal Perron, who tells a story, that in Granada in memory of this Council, they use frames for pictures, and paint none upon the wall at this day. It seems they in Granada are taught to understand that Canon according unto the sense of the Patrons of ima∣ges, and to mistake the plain meaning of the Council. For the Council did not forbid only to paint upon the walls, for that according to the common reading is but accidental to the decree; but the Council com∣manded that no picture should be in Churches. Now-then let this Canon be confronted with the Council of Trent, Sess. 25. decret. de S. S. invoc. [Imagines Christi, Deiparae virginis, & aliorum sanctorum in Templis praeser∣tim habendas & retinendas, that the images of Christ, and of the Virgin Mother of God, and of other Saints be had and kept especially in Churches:] and in the world there cannot be a greater contradiction between two, than there is between Eliberis and Trent, the old and the new Church: for the new Church not only commands pictures and images to be kept in Churches, but paints them upon walls, and neither fears thieves nor moisture. There are divers other little answers amongst the Roman Doctors to this uneasie objection; but they are only such as venture at the telling the se∣cret reasons why the Council so decreed; as Alan Cope saith, it was so decreed, lest the Christians should take them for Gods, or lest the Heathen should think the Christians worshipped them; so Sanders. But it matters not for what reason they decreed: Only if ei∣ther of these say true, then Bellarmine and Perron are false in their conjectures of the reason. But it mat∣ters not; for suppose all these reasons were concen∣tred in the decree, yet the decree it self is not observ'd at this day in the Roman Church, but a doctrine and practice quite contrary introduced. And therefore

my opinion is,* 1.817 that Melchior Canus answers best, [aut nimis duras aut parum rationi consentaneas a Consiliis pro∣vincialibus interdum editas, non est negandum. Qualis illa non impudenter modo verum etiam impie a Consilio Elibertino de tollendis imaginibus. By this we may see not only how irreverently the Roman Doctors use the Fathers when they are not for their turns; but we may also perceive how the Canon condemns the Roman do∣ctrine and practice in the matter of images.

The next inquiry is concerning matter of History, relating to the second Synod of Nice in the East, and that of Francfurt in the West. In the Dissuasive it was said, that Eginardus, Hincmarus, Aventinus, &c. affirmed, 1. That the Bishops assembled at Francfurt, and condemned the Synod of Nice. 2. That they commanded it should not be called a General Council. 3. They published a book under the name of the Em∣peror confuting that Unchristian Assembly. These things were said out of these Authors, not supposing that every thing of this should be prov'd from every one of them, but the whole of it by its several parts from all these put together.

1. That the Bishops of Francfurt condemned the Sy∣nod of Nice or the seventh General. Whether the Dissuasive hath said this truly out of the Authors quo∣ted by him, we need no further proof, but the confessi∣on of Bellarmine.* 1.818 Auctores antiqui omnes conveniunt in hoc, quod in concilio Francofordiensi sit reprobata Synodus VII. quae decreverat imagines adorandas. Ita Hincmarus, Aimoinus, Rhegino, Ado, & alii passim docent. So that if the objector blames the Dissuasive for alledging these authorities, let him first blame Bellarmine, who confesses that to be true, which the Dissuasive here af∣firms. Now that by the VII. Synod Bellarmine means the II. Nicene,* 1.819 appears by his own words in the same chapter. Videtur igitur mihi in Synodo Francofordiensi

vere reprobatam Nicaenam II. Synodum; sed per errorem, & materialiter, &c. And Bellarmine was in the right; not only those which the Dissuasive quoted, but all the Ancient writers saith Bellarmine. So the Author of the life of Charles the Great, speaking of the Council of Francfurt; [There Queen Fastrada died. Pseudo∣synodus Graecorum quam falso septimam vocabant pro ima∣ginibus, rejecta est a pontificibus. The same is affirm'd by the Annals of the Francsa 1.820; by Adhelmus Benedicti∣nus in his Annals, in the same year; by Hincmarus Rhemensisb 1.821 in an Epistle to Hincmarus his Nephew; by Strabus the Monk of Fulda, Rhegino prumiensis, Ur∣spergensis, and Hermanus Contractus in their Annals and Chronicles of the year 794. By Ado viennensisc 1.822; sed pseudosynodus, quam septimam Graeci appellant, pro ado∣randis imaginibus, abdicata penitus; the same is af∣firmed by the Annals of Eginhardusd 1.823; and by Aimoi∣nus e 1.824 and Aventinus. I could reckon many more, if more were necessary, but these are they whom the Dis∣suasive quoted, and some more; against this truth no∣thing material can be said, only that Hincmarus and Aimoinus (which are two whom the Dissuasive quotes) do not say that the Synod of Francfurt rejected the se∣cond Nicene, but the Synod of C. P. But to this Bel∣larmine himself answers, that it is true they do so, but it is by mistake; and that they meant the Council which was kept at Nice: so that the Dissuasive is ju∣stified by his greatest adversary. But David Blondel answers this objection, by saying that C. P. being the head of the Eastern Empire, these Authors us'd the name of the Imperial city for the provinces under it: which answer though it be ingenious, yet I rather be∣lieve that the error came first from the Council of Francfurt, who called it the Synod at C. P. and that after it, these Authors took it up: but that error was not great, but always excusable, if not warrantable;

because the second Nicene Council was first appointed to be at C. P. but by reason of the tumults of the people, was translated to Nice. But to proceed, That Blondus (whom the Dissuasive also quotes) saith, the Synod of Francfurt abrogated the seventh Synod, the objector confesses, and adds, that it confuted the Felician heresie for taking away of images: concerning which, lest the less wary Reader should suppose the Synod of Francfurt to have determin'd for images, as Alan Cope, Gregory de Valentia, Vasquez, Suarez, and Binius would fain have the world believe; I shall note, that the Synod of Francfurt did at the same time con∣demn the Heresie of Felix Urgetitanus, which was, that Christ was the adopted son of God. Now because in this Synod were condemned the breakers of Images, and the worshippers of images; some ignorantly (amongst which is this Gentleman the objector) have suppos'd that the Felician Heresie was that of the Ico∣noclasts.

2. Now for the second thing which the Dissuasive said from these Authors; that the Fathers at Franc∣furt commanded that the second Nicene should not be called a general Council, that matter is sufficiently cleared in the proof of the first particular; for if they abrogated it, and called it pseudosynodum, and decreed against it; hoc ipso, they caused it should not be, or be called a General Synod. But I shall declare what the Synod did in the words of Adhelmus Benedictinus;* 1.825 Synodus etiam quae paucos ante annos C. P. sub Helena & Constantino filio ejus congregata, & ab ipsis non tantum septima, verum etiam Universalis est appellata, ut nec sep∣tima nec Universalis diceretur, habereturque quasi super∣vacua, in totum ab omnibus abdicata est.

3. Now for the third thing, which the Dissuasive said, that they published a book under the name of the Emperor; I am to answer that such a book about that

time, within three or four years of it, was published in the name of the Emperor, is notoriously known, and there is great reason to believe it was written three or four years befor the Synod, and sent by the Empe∣ror to the Pope; but that divers of the Church of Rome did endeavour to perswade the world that the Emperor did not write it, but that it was written by the Synod, and contains the acts of the Synod, but published un∣der the Emperors name. Now this the Dissuasive af∣firm'd by the authority of Hincmarus, who does affirm it,* 1.826 and of the same opinion is Bellarmine; Scripti vi∣dentur in Synodo Francofordiensi & acta continere synodi Francofordiensis: & enim asserit Hincmarus ejus tempo∣ris Author.] So that by all this the Reader may plain∣ly see how careful the Dissuasive was in what was af∣firm'd, and how careless this Gentleman is of what he objects: Only this I add, that though it be said that this book contained the acts of the Synod of Francfurt, though it might be partly true, yet not wholly. For this Synod did indeed do so much against that of the Greeks, and was so decretory against the worship of images, (quod omnino Ecclesia Dei execratur,* 1.827 said Hoveden, and Matthew of Westminster) that it is vehe∣mently suspected, that the Patrons of Images (the ob∣jector knows whom I mean) have taken a timely course with it, so that the monuments of it are not to be seen, nor yet a famous and excellent Epistle of Alcuinus written against the Greek Synod, though his other works are in a large volume carefully enough preser∣ved.

It was urg'd as an argument a minori ad majus,* 1.828 that in the Primitive Church it was accounted unlawful to make images; and therefore it was impossible that the worship of images should then be the doctrine or pra∣ctice of the Catholic Church.* 1.829 To this purpose Cle∣mens Alexandrinus, Tertullian and Origen were alledg∣ed.

First for Tertullian, of whom the Letter says, that he said no such thing: sure it is, this man did not care what he said; supposing it sufficient to pass the common Reader, to say Tertullian did not say for what he is alledged: for more will believe him, than exa∣mine him. But the words of Tertullian shall manifest the strange confidence of this person. The Quotati∣ons out of Tertullian are only noted in the Margent, but the words were not cited, but now they must, to justifie me and themselves.* 1.830 1. That reference to Ter∣tullians book of idolatry, the objector takes no notice of, as knowing it would reproach him too plainly: see the words, [the artificers of statues and images, and all kind of representations,* 1.831 the Devil brought into the world,] and when he had given the Etymology of an Idol, saying 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is formula, he adds, Igitur omnis forma vel formula idolum se dici exposcit: Inde omnis Ido∣li artifex ejusdem & Unius est criminis. And a little before. Exinde jam caput facta est Idololatriae ars omnis quae Idolum quoquo modo edit. And in the beginning of the fourth chapter, Idolum tam fieri quam coli Deus pro∣hibet. Quanto praecedit ut fiat quod coli possit, tanto pri∣us est ne fiat si coli non licet. And again, toto mundo ejusmodi artibus interdixit servis Dei. And a little af∣ter he brings in some or other objecting; Sed ait qui∣dam adversus similitudinis interdictae propositionem, cur ergo Moses in eremo simulachrum serpentis ex aere fe∣cit? To this at last he answers. Si eundem Deum ob∣servas habes legem ejus, ne feceris similitudinem, si & praeceptum factae postea similitudinis respicis & tu imita∣re Moysen. Ne facias adversus legem simulachrum ali∣quod, nisi & tibi Deus jusserit. Now here is no subter∣fuge for any one: For Tertullian first fays, the Devil brought into the world all the artists and makers of sta∣tues, images and all sorts of similitudes. 2. He makes all these to be the same with Idols. And 3. that

God as well forbad the making of these and the worship of them, and that the maker is guilty of the same crime; and lastly I add, his definition of Idolatry, Idololatria est omnis circa omne idolum famulatus & servi∣tus. Every image is an idol, and every service and obeysance about any or every idol is idolatry. I hope all this put together will convince the Gentlemen that denied it, that Tertullian hath said some such thing as the Dissuasive quoted him for. Now for the other place quoted,* 1.832 the words are these; proinde & similitu∣dinem vetans fieri omnium quae in coelo & in terra & in aquis, ostendit & causas, idololatriae scilicet substantiam exhibentes. God forbidding all similitude to be made of things in Heaven and Earth, and in the Waters, shews the causes that restrain idolatry: the causes of idolatry he more fully described in the fore-cited place; Quando enim & sine idolo idololatria fiat: for he suppo∣ses the making of the images to be the cause of their worshipping, and he calls this making statues and ima∣ges Daemoniis corpora facere.* 1.833 But there is yet another place in his books against Marcion, where Tertullian affirming that S. Peter knew Moses and Elias on Mount Tabor by a spiritual extasie, says it upon this reason, Nec enim imagines eorum aut statuas populus habuisset aut similitudines lege prohibente. The same also is to be seen in his book De spectaculis, c. 23. Jam vero ipsum opus personarum quaero an Deo placeat qui omnem simili∣tudinem vetat fieri, quanto magis imaginis suae. By this time I hope the Gentleman thinks himself in some shame, for denying that Tertullian said the making of images to be Unlawful.

Now let us see for the other two Authors quoted by the Dissuasive;* 1.834 The objector in the Letter says, they only spake of making the Images of Jupiter and the other heathen Gods: but E. W. says he cannot find those quotations out of Clemens Alexandria,* 1.835 because

the books quoted are too big, and he could not espy them. The author of the Letter never examined them, but took them for granted; but E. W. did search a little, but not exactly. However he ought not to have look'd in the sixth book of the Stromata for the words there quoted, but in the protrepticon, as I shall shew by and by. That other quotation in the Stromata is the sixth book, and is only referred to, as to the question in general against images, for so, S. Clement calls it spiritual adultery to make idols or images. Now to this E. W. says, although he did not find what he look'd for, yet he knows before-hand, that the word in the Latin translation is simulachrum, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Idol.* 1.836 It is indeed well guessed of E. W. for the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and if he had seen the place, he now tells us what answer we might have expected. But I am before-hand with him in this particular, and out of Tertullian have prov'd, idolum to be the same with formula, deriv'd from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and consequently means the same with an image. And he had a good warrant from the greatest Master of the Latin tongue. Imagines quae idola nominant,* 1.837 quorum incursione non so∣lum videamus, sed etiam cogitemus, &c. said Cicero: and the same notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in a great Master of the Greek, S. Chrysostom, who speaking of the statues and images with which they adorned their houses, calls them idols.* 1.838 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But it matters not so much what Greek or Latin word is us'd in any translation, for in the Hebrew in which the spirit of God spake, when he forbad the worship of images, he us'd two words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pesel and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Themunah, and the latter of these signifies always an image or similitude, and that most properly, and is always so translated; and the former of these is tran∣slated indifferently by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, image, carved image and idol, for they are all one.

And therefore proportionably Justin Martyr reciting this law of God, says, that God forbad every image and similitude, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the words. But suppose that idolum and imago were not the same; yet because the Commandment forbids not only idolum but imago, not only Pesel, but Themunah; they do not observe the Commandment, who make to themselves, viz. for worship, either one or the other. But to re∣turn to S. Clement, of whom our present inquiry is. And to deal most clearly in this affair, as in all things else, that out of the Stromata of S. Clement, that I ra∣ther remark, is not this of the sixth book, but out of the fifth.* 1.839 S. Clement of Alexandria saith; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Pythagoras commanded that his dis∣ciples should not wear rings, or engrave them with the ima∣ges of their Gods, as Moses many ages before made an ex∣press law, that no man should make any graven, cast or painted image; and of this he gives two reasons. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that we may not attend to sensible things, but pass on to the things discernible by the Understanding. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The custom of seeing so readily causes that the Majesty of God becomes vile and contemptible, and by matter to wor∣ship that which is perceiv'd intellectually, is to disesteem him by sensation.] Now the Reader may perceive that S. Clemens speaks against the making of any images,* 1.840 not only of Jupiter and the Heathen Gods, but of the true God, of whatsoever intelligible being we ought to worship; and that upon such reasons which will greatly condemn the Roman practices. But hence also it is plain,

how careless and trifling this objector is, minding no truth but the number of objections. See yet further out of S. Clement. Nobis enim est aperte vetitum falla∣cem artem exercere. Non facies enim (inquit Propheta) cujusvis rei similitudinem, we are forbidden to exercise that cosening art, (viz. of making pictures or ima∣ges) for says the Prophet (meaning Moses) thou shalt not make the likeness of any thing.* 1.841 E. W. it seems could not find these words of S. Clement in his Paraene∣tic: He should have said his Protreptic, for I know of no Paraenetic that he hath written. But E. W. fol∣lowed the Printers error in the Margent of the Dissua∣sive, and very carefully turned over a book that was not, and compared it in bigness with a book that was. But I will not suppose this to be ignorance in him, but only want of diligence: however the words are to be found in the 41. page of this Protreptic, or his admo∣nition to the Gentiles, and now they are quoted, and the very page named; only I desire E. W. to observe, that in this place S. Clement uses not the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not simulachrum, but cujusvis rei si∣militudinem.

In the place which was quoted out of Origen in his fourth book against Celsus,* 1.842 speaking of the Jews, he hath these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. All makers of images were turned from their common-wealth: for not a painter or statuary was admitted, their laws wholly forbidding them, lest any occasion should be given to dull men, or that their mind should be turned from the wor∣ship of God to earthly things by these temptations.] Then he quotes the law of God against making images, and adds, by which law this was intended, that being content with the truth of things they should beware of lying fig∣ments.] There it is plain that Origen affirms the law of God to have forbidden the making images, any simi∣litude

of things in Heaven, Earth or Waters: which law also he in another place* 1.843 affirms to be of a moral and eternal obligation, that is, not to be spoken to them only who came out of the terrestrial Egypt; and therefore is of Christian duty. And of the same mind are S. Irenaeusa 1.844, Tertullianb 1.845, S. Cyprianc 1.846 and S. Au∣stin d 1.847 affirming the whole decalogue, except the law of the Sabbath to be an unalterable, or natural law. But for the further verification of the testimony from Origen against the worship of images in the Primitive Church, I thought fit to add the concurrent words of the prudent and learned Cassander* 1.848: Quantum autem veteres initio Ecclesiae ab omni veneratione imaginum ab∣horruerunt declarat unus Origines adversus Celsum: but of this I shall have occasion to speak yet once more. And so at last all the quotations are found to be exact, and this Gentleman to be greatly mistaken.

From the premisses I infer; if in the Primitive Church it was accounted unlawful to make images, certainly it is unimaginable they should worship them, and the argument is the stronger, if we understand their opinion rightly; for neither the second Com∣mandment, nor yet the Ancient Fathers in their Com∣mentaries on them, did absolutely prohibit all making of images; but all that was made for religious wor∣ship, and in order to adoration, according as it is ex∣pressed in him, who among the Jews collected the ne∣gative precepts, which Arias Montanus translated in∣to Latin:* 1.849 the second of which is, signum cultus causa ne facito; the third, simulachrum Divinum nullo pacto conflato; the fourth, signa religiosa nulla ex materia facito.

The authorities of these Fathers being rescued from slander, and prov'd very pungent and material. I am concerned in the next place to take notice of some au∣thorities which my adversaries urge from antiquity,* 1.850

to prove that in the Primitive Church they did wor∣ship images. Concerning their general Council, viz. the second Nicene, I have already made account in the preceding periods; The great S. Basil is with great so∣lemnity brought into the Circus, and made to speak for images as apertly, plainly and confidently, as Bel∣larmine or the Council of Trent it self.* 1.851 His words are these, [I ad∣mit the holy Apostles, and Prophets, and Martyrs, and in my prayer made to God call upon them, that by their intercession God may be propitious unto me. Whereupon I honour and adore the characters of their images; and especially those things being delivered from the holy Apostles, and not prohibited, but are mani∣fested, or seen in all our Churches.] Now I confess these words are home enough, and do their business at the first sight; and if they prove right, S. Basil is on their side, and therefore E. W. with great noise and preface insults, and calls them Unanswerable. The words he says are found in S. Basils 205. Epistle ad Julianum. I presently consulted S. Basils works, such as I had with me in the Country, of the Paris Edition by Guil∣lard 1547. and there I found that S. Basil had not 205. Epistles in all; the number of all written by him and to him being but 180. of which, that to Julianus is one, viz. Epistle 166. and in that there is not one word to any such purpose as is here pretended. I was then put to a melius inquirendum. Bellarmine (though both he, and Lindan and Harding cry up this authority as irre∣fragable) quotes this authority not upon his own cre∣dit,* 1.852 but as taking it from the report of a book publish∣ed 1596, called Synodus Parisiensis, which Bellarmine calls, Unworthy to see the light. From hence arises this great noise; and the fountain being confessedly cor∣rupt, what wholsome thing can be expected thence?

But in all the first and voluminous disputations of Bel∣larmine upon this Question, he made no use of this au∣thority, he never saw any such thing in S. Basils works, or it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted it. But the words are in no ancient Edition of S. Ba∣sil, nor in any Manuscript that is known in the world. 2. Iohn Damascen, and Germanus Bishop of C. P. who wrote for the worship of images, and are the most learned of all the Greeks that were abus'd in this Que∣stion; yet they never urg'd this authority of S. Basil, which would have been more to their purpose than all that they said beside. 3. The first mention of this is in an Epistle of Pope Adrian to the Emperors in the seventh Synod, and that makes the business more sus∣picious; that when the Greek writers knew nothing of it, a Latin Bishop, a stranger, not very well skill'd in Antiquity, should find this out, which no man ever saw before him, nor since in any Copy of S. Basils works: But in the second Nicene Council such forge∣ries as these were many and notorious. S. Gregory the Great is there quoted as Author of an Epistle de vene∣ratione imaginum; when it is notorious, it was writ by Gregory III. and there were many Basils, and any one of that name would serve to give countenance to the er∣ror of the second Nicene Synod; but in S. Basil the Great there is not one word like it. And therefore they who set forth S. Basils works at Paris 1618. who either could not, or ought not to have been ignorant of so vile a cheat, were infinitely to blame to publish this as the issue of the right S. Basil, without any mark of difference, or note of inquiry.

There is also another saying of S. Basil, of which the Roman writers make much, and the words are by Damascen imputed to the Great S. Basil; Imaginis ho∣nor exemplum transit, which indeed S. Basil speaks on∣ly of the statues of the Emperors, and of that civil ho∣nour,

which by consent and custom of the world did pass to the Emperor, and he accepted it so; but this is no argument for religious images put up to the ho∣nour of God, he says not, the honour of any such images passes to God; for God hath declar'd against it, (as will appear in the following periods) and therefore from hence the Church of Rome can have no argument, no fair pretence; and yet upon this very account, and the too much complying with the Heathen rites and manners, and the secular customs of the Empire, the veneration of images came into Churches. But sup∣pose it be admitted to be true; yet although this may do some countenance to Thomas Aquinas and Bonaven∣tures way of worshipping the image and the sampler with the same worship; yet this can never be urg'd by all those more moderate Papists, who make the wor∣ship to an image of a lower kind: For if it be not the same worship, then they that worship images, wor∣ship God and his Saints by the image not as they de∣serve, but give to them no more than the image it self deserves: let them take which part they please, so that they will but publickly own it. But let this be as it will, and let it be granted true, that the honour done to the image can pass to the sampler, yet this is but an arbitrary thing, and a King may esteem it so if he please, but if the King forbids any image to be made of him, and counts it a dishonour to him, then I hope it is; and that's the case now, for God hath forbidden any such way of passing honour to him by an image of him; and he hath forbidden it in the second Commandement, and this is confessed by Vasquez* 1.853: So that upon this account, for all the pretence of the same motion to the image and the sampler, to pass such a worship to God is no better than the doing as the Heathen did, when they worshipped Mercury by throw∣ing stones at him.

An other authority brought by E. W. for veneration of images,* 1.854 is from Athanasius, but himself damns it in the Margent, with and without ingenuity; for inge∣nuously saying, that he does not affirm it to be the Great Athanasius, yet most disingenuously he adds, valeat quantum valere potest, that is, they that will be cosened let them. And indeed these Questions and Answers to Antiochus are notoriously spurious, for in them are quoted S. Epiphanius, and Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostom, Scala Johannis, Maximus, and Nicephorus, who were after Athanasius; and the book is rejected by Delrio,* 1.855 by Sixtus Senensis, and Possevine. But with such stuff as this the Roman Doctors are forc'd to build their Babel; and E. W. in page 56. quotes the same book against me for worshipping the Cross, together with another spurious peice de Cruce & passione Domini, which Nannius, a very learned man of their own and professor at Lovaine, rejects, as it is to be seen in his Nuncupatory Epistle.

Yea, but S. Chrysostoms Liturgy is very clear, for it is said, that the Priest turns himself to our Saviours pi∣cture, and bows his head before the picture, and says this prayer; These words indeed are very plain, but it is not plain that these are S. Chrysostoms words, for their are none such in S. Chrysostoms Liturgy in the Editions of it by Claudius de Saintes, or Morellus, and Claudius Espencaeus acknowledges with great truth and ingenui∣ty, that this Liturgy begun and compos'd by S. Chryso∣stom was enlarged by many things put into it, accord∣ing to the variety of times. And it is evidently so, be∣cause divers persons are there commemorated, who liv'd after the death of Chrysostom, as Cyrillus, Euthymi∣us, Sabas, and Iohannes Eleemosynarius, whereof the last but one liv'd 126. years, the last 213. years after S. Chrysostom. Now how likely, nay how certain it is that this very passage was not put in by S. Chrysostom,

but is of later interpolation, let all the world judge by that known saying of S. Chrysostom;* 1.856 Quid enim est vili∣us atque humilius homine ante res inanimatas se incurvan∣te & saxa venerante? What in the world is baser and more abject than to see a man worshipping stones, and bowing himself before inanimate things?] These are his great authorities which are now come to nothing; what he hath from them who came after these, I shall leave to him to make his best of them: for about the time of Gregory some began to worship images, and some to break them, the latter of which he reproves, and the former he condemns; what it was afterwards all the world knows.

But now having clear'd the Question from the trifling arguments of my adversaries, I shall observe some things fit to be considered in this matter of images. 1. It came at first from a very base and unworthy stock. I have already pointed at this, but now I shall explain it more fully; it came from Simon Magus and his crew; Theodoret says, that the followers of Simon brought in the worship of images, viz. of Simons in the shape of Jupiter,* 1.857 and Helena in the figure of Minerva; but S. Austin says that Simon Magus himself, imagines & suam & cujusdam meretricis quam sibi sociam scelerum fecerat discipulis suis praebuisse adorandas. E. W. upon what confidence I know not, says, that Theodoret hath nothing like it, either under the title de Simone or Car∣pocrate. And he says true, but with a shameful pur∣pose to calumniate me, and deceive his Reader; as if I had quoted a thing that Theodoret said not, and there∣fore the Reader ought not to believe me. But since in the Dissuasive Theodoret was only quoted lib. 5. hae∣ret.* 1.858 fabul. and no title set down; if he had pleased to look to the next title, Simonis haeresis, where in reason

all Simons heresies were to be look'd for, he should have found that which I referred to. But why E. W. denies S. Austin to have reported that for which he is quoted, viz. that Simon Magus brought in some ima∣ges to be worshipped, I cannot conjecture, neither do I think himself can tell; but the words are plain in the place quoted, according to the intention of the Dis∣suasive. But that he may yet seem to lay more load upon me, he very learnedly says that Irenaeus, in the place quoted by me, says not a word of Simon Magus being Author of images; and would have his Reader believe that I mistook Simon Magus for Simon Irenaeus.* 1.859 But the good man I suppose wrote this after supper, and could not then read or consider that the testimony of Irenaeus was brought in to no such purpose; neither did it relate to any Simon at all, but to the Gnostics or Carpocratians, who also were very early and very deep in this impiety; only they did not worship the pi∣ctures of Simon and Selene,* 1.860 but of Iesus, and Paul, and Homer, and Pythagoras, as S. Austin testifies of them; But that which he remarks in them is this, that Mar∣cellina, one of their sect, worshipped the pictures of Iesus, &c. adorando, incensumque ponendo, they did adore them, and put incense before them: I wish the Church of Rome would leave to do so, or acknowledge whose Disciples they are in this thing. The same also is said by Epiphanius; and that the Carpocratians pla∣ced the image of Iesus with the Philosophers of the world, collocatasque adorant, & gentium mysteria perfi∣ciunt. But I doubt that both Epiphanius and S. Austin, who took this story from Irenaeus, went farther in the Narrative than Irenaeus; for he says only that they pla∣ced the images of Christ, &c. Et has coronant: No more, and yet even for this, for crowning the image of Christ with flowers* 1.861, though they did not so much as

is now adays done at Rome; S. Irenaeus made an outcry and reckoned them in the black Catalogue of heretics, not for joyning Christs image with that of Homer and Aristotle, Pythagoras and Plato, but even for crowning Christs image with flowers and coronets, as they also did those of the Philosophers; for though this may be innocent, yet the other was a thing not known in the religion of any, that were called Christians, till Simon and Carpocrates began to teach the world.

2. We find the wisest and the most sober of the Heathens speaking against the use of images in their religious rites. So Varro, when he had said that the old Romans had for 170. years worshipped the Gods with∣out picture or image, adds, quod si adhuc mansissent, castius Dii observarentur, and gives this reason for it, qui primi simulachra Deorum populis posuerunt, & civi∣tatibus suis & metum dempsisse, & errorem addidisse. The making images of the Gods took away fear from men and brought in error:* 1.862 which place S. Austin quo∣ting, commends and explicates it, saying, he wisely thought that the Gods might easily be despised in the blockishness of images. The same also was observed by Plutarch,* 1.863 and he gives this reason, nefas putantes augustiora exprimere humilioribus, neque aliter aspirari ad Deum quam mente posse. They accounted it impie∣ty to express the Great Beings with low matter, and they believed there was no aspiring up to God but by the mind.] This is a Philosophy which the Church of Rome need not be ashamed to learn.

3. It was so known a thing, that Christians did abo∣minate the use of images in religion, and in their Churches; that Adrian the Emperor was supposed to build Temples to Christ,* 1.864 and to account him as God, because he commanded that Churches without images should be made in all Cities, as is related by Lam∣pridius.

4. In all the disputations of the Jews against the Christians of the Primitive Church, although they were impatient of having any image, and had detested all use of them, especially ever since their return from Babylon, and still retained the hatred of them, even af∣ter the dissolution of their Temple, even unto superstiti∣on (says Bellarmine;)* 1.865 yet they never objected against Christians their having images in their Churches, much less their worshipping them. And let it be con∣sidered, that in all that long disputation between Iu∣stin Martyr and Tryphon the Iew, in which the subtle Iew moves every stone, lays all the load he can at the Christians door, makes all objections, raises all the envy, gives all the matter of reproach he can against the Christians, yet he opens not his mouth against them concerning images. The like is to be observed in Tertullians book against the Iews; no mention of ima∣ges, for there was no such thing amongst the Christi∣ans, they hated them as the Iews did; but it is not imaginable they would have omitted so great a cause of quarrel. On the other side, when in length of time images were brought into Churches, the Iews forbore not to upbraid the Christians with it. There was a dialogue written a little before the time of the seventh Synod, in which a Iew is brought in saying to the Chri∣stians, [I have believed all ye say, and I do believe in the crucified Jesus Christ, that he is the son of the li∣ving God;* 1.866 Scandalizor autem in vos Christiani quia imagines adoratis, I am offended at you Christians that ye worship images; for the Scripture forbids us every where to make any similitude or graven image. And it is very observable that in the first and best part of the Talmud of Babylon, called the Misna, published about the end of the second Century, the Christians are not blam'd about images; which shews they gave no occasion: but in the third part of the Talmud about

the 10. and 11. age after Christ, the Christians are sufficiently upbraided and reproached in this matter. In the Gemara, which was finished about the end of the fifth Century, I find that learned men say the Iews call'd the Christian Church the house of Idolatry; which though it may be expounded in relation to images, which about that time began in some Churches to be placed and honoured; yet I rather incline to believe, that they meant it of our worshipping Jesus for the true God and the true Messias; for at this day they call all Christians Idolaters, even those that have none, and can endure no images in their Religion or their Churches. But now since these periods, it is plain that the case is altered, and when the learned Christi∣ans of the Roman communion write against the Jews, they are forced to make apologies for the scandal they give to the Iews in their worshipping of images, as is to be seen (besides Leontius Neopolitanus of Cyprus his apology which he published for the Christians against the Iews;) in Ludovicus Carretus his Epistle, in Se∣pher Amana, and Fabianus Fioghus his Catechetical Dialogues. But I suppose this case is very plain, and is a great conviction of the innovation in this matter made by the Church of Rome.

5. The matter of worshipping images looks so ill, so like Idolatry, so like the forbidden practices of the Heathens, that it was infinitely reasonable, that if it were the practice and doctrine of the Primitive Church, the Primitive Priests and Bishops should at least have considered, and stated the question how far, and in what sense it was lawful, and with what inten∣tion, and in what degrees, and with what caution, and distinctions this might lawfully be done; parti∣cularly when they preach'd, and wrote Commenta∣ries and explications upon the Decalogue; especially since there was at least so great a semblance of opposi∣tion

and contradiction between the commandment and any such practice; God forbidding any image & simili∣tude to be made of himself, or any thing else in Hea∣ven, or in Earth, or in the Sea, and that with such threatnings and interminations of his severe judgments against them that did make them for worship, and this thing being so constantly objected by all those many that opposed their admission and veneration; it is cer∣tainly very strange that none of the Fathers should take notice of any difficulty in this affair. They objected the Commandment against the Heathens for doing it; and yet that they should make no account, or take no∣tice how their worshipping Saints and God himself by images, should differ from the Heathen superstition that was the same thing to look upon: This indeed is very Unlikely. But so it is; Iustin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus speak plainly enough of this matter, and speak plain down-right words against making and wor∣shipping images, and so careless they were of any fu∣ture chance, or the present concern of the Roman Church, that they do not except the image of the true God, nor the image of Saints and Angels, no not of Christ,* 1.867 or the Blessed Virgin Mary her self. Nay Ori∣gen expounds the Commandments, and S. Austin makes a professed commentary upon them, but touch'd none of these things with the top of his finger, only told that they were all forbidden: we are not so careless now adays in the Church of Rome; but carefully expound the Commandments against the unsufferable objecti∣ons of the Heretics of late, and the Prophets and the Fathers of old. But yet for all this, a suspicious man would conclude that in the first 400. years, there was no need of any such explications, inasmuch as they had nothing to do with images, which only could make any such need.

6. But then in the next place I consider, that the

second Commandment is so plain, so easie, so per∣emptory against all the making and worshipping any image or likeness of any thing, that besides that every man naturally would understand all such to be forbid∣den, it is so expressed, that upon supposition that God did intend to forbid it wholly, it could not more plainly have been expressed. For the prohibition is absolute and universal, and therefore of all particulars; and there is no word or sign by the vertue of which it can with any probability be pretended that any one of any kind is excepted. Now then to this, when the Church of Rome pretends to answer they over-do it, and make the matter the more suspicious. Some of them answer by saying, that this is no moral Com∣mandment not obligatory to Christians, but to the Iews only: Others say, that by this Commandment it is only forbidden to account an image to be very God; so Cajetan: Others say that an idol only is forbidden, and that an image is no idol. Others yet distinguish the manner of worshipping, saying that the image is worshipp'd for the Samplers sake, not for its own. And this worship is by some called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or service; by others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; saying that the first is to images of Saints, the other to God only. And yet with this dif∣ference; Some saying that the image of God is ador'd with the same kind of adoration that God is; only it is to the image for Gods sake; so S. Thomas of Aquine, and generally his scholars. Others say that it is a re∣ligious kind of Worship due to Images, but not at all Divine; some say it is but a civil worship. And then it is for the image sake, and so far is intransitive, but whatever is paid more to the image is transitive, and passes further. And whatsoever it be, it cannot be agreed how it ought to be paid: whether properly or improperly, Univocally or aequivocally, for themselves or for something else, whether analogically or simply,

whether absolutely or by reduction. And it is remark∣able what Bellarmine answers to the Question, with what kind of worship images may be ador'd? He answers with this proposition;* 1.868 [The worship which by it self and properly is due to images, is a certain imperfect wor∣ship, which analogically and reductively pertains to a kind of that worship, which is due to the Exemplar:] and a little after, to the images a certain inferior worship is due, and that not all one, but various according to the va∣riety of images. To the images of Saints is due dulia secundum quid, which if you do not understand, Bel∣larmine in the next words explains most clearly; dulia secundum quid, is as a man may say, reductive and ana∣logical. But after all this we may be mistaken, and we cannot tell whom to follow nor what to do in the case. Thomas and his Scholars warrant you to give the same worship to Gods image as to God: And is the ea∣siest way indeed to be understood, and indeed may quickly be understood to be direct idolatry. Bellar∣mine and others tell you, stay, not so altogether; but there is a way to agree with S. Thomas, that it shall be the same worship, and not the same worship; for it is the same by reduction, that is, it is of the same kind, and therefore Divine, but it is imperfectly divine, as if there could be degrees in Divine worship; that is, as if any worship could be divine, and yet not the great∣est. But if this seems difficult, Bellarmine illustrates it by similitudes. This worship of images is the same with the worship of the Example, viz. of God, or of Christ, as it happens, just as a painted man is the same with a living man, and a painted horse with a living horse, for a painted man and a painted horse differ spe∣cifically; as the true man and the true horse do; and yet the painted man is no man, and the painted horse is no horse.] The effect of which discourse is this, that the worship of images, is but the image of wor∣ship;

hypocrisie and dissimulation all the way; no∣thing real, but imaginative and phantastical; and in∣deed though this gives but a very ill account of the agreement of Bellarmine, with their Saints, Thomas and Bonaventure, yet it is the best way to avoid idola∣try, because they give no real worship to images: But then on the other side, how do they mock God and Christ, by offering to them that which is nothing; by pretending to honour them by honouring their ima∣ges; when the honour they do give to images, is it self but imaginary, and no more of reality in it, than there is of humane Nature in the picture of a man. Howe∣ver, if you will not commit down-right idolatry, as some of their Saints teach you, then you must be care∣ful to observe these plain distinctions, and first be sure to remember that when you worship an image, you do it not materially, but formally; not as it is of such a sub∣stance, but as it is a sign; next take care that you ob∣serve what sort of image it is, and then proportion your right kind to it, that you do not give latria to that where hyperdulia is only due; and be careful that if doulia only be due that your worship be not hyperduli∣cal. In the next place consider that the worship to your image is intransitive but in few cases, and ac∣cording but to a few Doctors; and therefore when you have got all these cases together, be sure that in all other cases it be transitive. But then when the wor∣ship is pass'd on to the Exemplar, you must consider, that if it be of the same kind with that which is due to the Example, yet it must be an imperfect piece of worship, though the kind be perfect; and that it is but analogical, and it is reductive, and it is not absolute, not simple, not by it self; not by an act to the image di∣stinct from that which is to the Example, but one and the same individual act, with one intention, as to the supreme kind, though with some little variety, if the

kinds be differing. Now by these easie, ready, clear, and necessary distinctions, and rules and cases, the people being fully and perfectly instructed, there is no possibility that the worship of images should be against the second Commandment, because the Com∣mandment does not forbid any worship that is transi∣tive, reduct, accidental, consequential, analogical and hyperdulical, and this is all that the Church of Rome does by her wisest Doctors teach now adays. But now after all this, the easiest way of all certainly is to worship no images, and no manner of way, and trouble the peoples heads with no distinction; for by these no man can ever be at peace, or Understand the Commandment, which without these laborious de∣vices (by which they confess the guilt of the Com∣mandment, does lie a little too heavy upon them) would most easily by every man and every woman be plainly and properly understood. And therefore I know not whether there be more impiety, or more fearful caution in the Church of Rome in being so curi∣ous, that the second Commandment be not expos'd to the eyes and ears of the people; leaving it out of their manuals, breviaries and Catechisms, as if when they teach the people to serve God, they had a mind they should not be tempted to keep all the Commandments. And when at any time they do set it down, they only say thus, Non facies tibi Idolum, which is a word not us'd in the second Commandment at all; and if the word which is there us'd be sometimes translated Ido∣lum, yet it means no more than similitude; or if the words be of distinct signification, yet because both are expresly forbidden in that Commandment, it is ve∣ry ill to represent the Commandment so, as if it were observ'd according to the intention of that word, yet the Commandment might be broken, by the not obser∣ving it according to the intention of the other word,

which they conceal. But of this more by and by.

7. I consider that there is very great scandal and of∣fence given to Enemies and strangers to Christianity; the very Turks and Jews, with whom the worship of images is of very ill report, and that upon (at least) the most probable grounds in the world. Now the Apostle having commanded all Christians to pursue those things which are of good report, and to walk cir∣cumspectly & charitably towards them that are with∣out, and that we give no offence neither to the Jew nor to the Gentile: Now if we consider, that if the Christian Church were wholly without images, there would no∣thing perish to the faith or to the charity of the Church, or to any grace which is in order to Heaven; and that the spiritual state of the Christian Church may as well want such Baby ceremonies as the Synagogue did; and yet on the other side, that the Jews and Turks are the more, much more estranged from the religion of Christ Jesus, by the image-worship done by his preten∣ded servants;* 1.869 the consequent will be, that to retain the worship of images is both against the faith and the charity of Christians, and puts limits, and retrenches the borders of the Christian pale.

8. It is also very scandalous to Christians, that is, it makes many, and endangers more to fall into the di∣rect sin of idolatry.* 1.870 Polydore Virgil observes out of S. Jerome, that almost all the holy Fathers dam∣ned the worship of Images, for this very reason, for fear of idolatry; and Cassander says, that all the an∣cients did abhor all adoration of

images;* 1.871 and he cites* 1.872 Origen as an instance great enough to verifie the whole affirmative. Nos vero ideo non honoramus simulachra, quia quantum possumus cavemus, ne quo modo incidamus in eam credulitatem, ut his tribuantus divinitatis aliquid. This authority E. W. page 55. is not ashamed to bring in behalf of himself in this question, saying, that Origen hath nothing against the use of images, and declares our Christian doctrine thus, then he re∣cites the words above quoted; than which, Origen could not speak plainer against the practice of the Roman Church; and E. W. might as well have disputed for the Manichees with this argument: The Scripture doth not say that God made the world, it only declares the Chri∣stian doctrine thus, In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth, &c. But this Gentleman thinks any thing will pass for argument amongst his own people. And of this danger S. Austin* 1.873 gives a rational account; [No man doubts but idols want all sense: But when they are plac'd in their seats, in an honourable sublimity, that they may be attended by them that pray and offer sacrifice, by the very likeness of living members and senses, although they be senseless and without life, they affect weak minds, that they seem to live and feel, especially when the venera∣tion of a multitude is added to it, by which so great a wor∣ship is bestowed upon them.] Here is the danger, and how much is contributed to it in the Church of Rome, by clothing their images in rich apparel, and by pre∣tending to make them nod their▪ head, to twinkle the eyes, and even to speak, the world is too much satis∣fied. Some such things as these, and the superstitious

talkings and actings of their Priests made great impres∣sions upon my Neighbours in Ireland; and they had such a deep and religious veneration for the image of our Lady of Kilbrony, that a worthy Gentleman, who is now with God, and knew the deep superstition of the poor Irish, did not distrain upon his Tenants for his rents, but carried away the image of the female Saint of Kilbrony; and instantly the Priest took care that the Tenants should redeem the Lady, by a punctual and speedy paying of their rents; for they thought themselves Unblessed as long as the image was away; and therefore they speedily fetch'd away their Ark from the house of Obededom, and were afraid that their Saint could not help them, when her image was away. Now if S. Paul would have Christians to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols, to avoid the giving offence to weak brethren, much more ought the Church to avoid tempting all the weak people of her Communion to ido∣latry, by countenancing, and justifying, and impo∣sing such acts, which all their heads can never learn to distinguish from idolatry.

I end this with a memorial out of the Councils of Sens and Mentz,* 1.874 who command moneri populum ne imagines adorent:* 1.875 The Preachers were commanded to admonish the people that they should not adore images. And for the Novelty of the practice here in the British Churches, it is evident in Ecclesiastical story, that it was introduc'd by a Synod of London, about the year 714. under Bonifacius the Legat, and Bertualdus Arch∣bishop of Dover; and that without disputation or inqui∣ry into the lawfulness or unlawfulness of it, but whol∣ly upon the account of a vision pretended to be seen by Eguinus Bishop of Worcester; the Virgin Mary ap∣pearing to him, and commanding that her image should be set in Churches and worshipped. That Au∣stin the Monk brought with him the banner of the

Cross, and the image of Christ, Beda tells; and from him Baronius, and Binius affirms, that before this visi∣on of Egwin the cross and image of Christ were in use; but that they were at all worshipped or ador'd Beda saith not; and there is no record, no monument of it before this Hypochondrical dream of Egwin: and it further appears to be so,* 1.876 because Albinus or Alcuinus an English-man, Master of Charles the Great, when the King had sent to Offa the book of C. P. for the wor∣ship of images, wrote an Epistle against it, ex autho∣ritate-Divina scripturarum mir abiliter affirmatum; and brought it to the King of France in the name of our Bishops and Kings,* 1.877 saith Hovedon.

SECTION. VII.

Of Picturing God the Father, and the Holy Trinity.

AGainst all the authorities almost which are or might be brought to prove the Unlawfulness of Picturing God the Father, or the Holy Trinity, the Roman Doctors generally give this one answer; That the Fathers intended by their sayings, to condemn the picturing of the Divine Essence; but condemn not the picturing of those symbolical shapes or forms in which God the Father, or the Holy Ghost, or the Blessed Trinity are supposed to have appeared. To this I re∣ply, 1. That no man ever intended to paint the essence of any thing in the world. A man cannot well under∣stand an Essence, and hath no Idea of it in his mind, much less can a Painters Pensil do it. And therefore it is a vain and impertinent discourse to prove that they do ill who attempt to paint the Divine Essence.* 1.878 This

is a subterfuge which none but men out of hope to de∣fend their opinion otherwise, can make use of. 2. To picture God the Father in such symbolical forms in which he appear'd, is to picture him in no form at all; for generally both the Schools of the Jews and Christi∣ans consent in this, that God the Father never appear'd in his person; for as S. Paul affirms, he is the invisible God whom no eye hath seen or can see; He always appear∣ed by Angels, or by fire, or by storm and tempest, by a cloud or by a still voice; he spake by his Prophets, and at last by his Son; but still the adorable majesty was reserved in the secrets of his glory. 3. The Church of Rome paints the Holy Trinity in forms and symboli∣cal shapes in which she never pretends the Blessed Tri∣nity did appear, as in a face with three Noses and four Eyes, one body with three heads, and as an old man with a great beard, and a Popes Crown upon his head, and holding the two ends of the transverse rafter of the Cross with Christ leaning on his breast, and the Holy Spirit hovering over his head: And therefore they wor∣ship the images of God the Father, & the Holy Trinity, figures which (as is said of Remphan and the Heathen Gods and Goddesses) themselves have made; which therefore must needs be idols by their own definition of idolum; s••mulachrum rei non existentis; for never was there seen any such of the Holy Trinity in Unity, as they most impiously represent. And if when any thing is spoken of God in Scripture allegorically, they may of it make an image to God, they would make many more Monsters than yet they have found out: For as Durandus* 1.879 well observes,

If any one shall say, that because the Holy Ghost appeared in the shape of a Dove, and the Father in the old Testament under the Corporal forms, that therefore they may be re∣presented by images, we must say to this, that those corporal forms were not assumed by the Father and

the Holy Spirit; and therefore a representation of them by images is not a representation of the Divine person, but a representation of that form or shape alone. Therefore there is no reverence due to it, as there is none due to those forms by themselves. Nei∣ther were these forms to represent the Divine persons, but to represent those effects which those Divine per∣sons did effect.]

And therefore there is one thing more to be said to them that do so;* 1.880 They have chang'd the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a mortal man. Now how will the Reader imagine that the Dissuasive is confuted, and his testimonies from Antiquity answered?* 1.881 Why, most clearly E. W. saith, that one principle of S. John Damascen doth it, it solves all that the Doctor hath or can alledge in this matter. Well! what is this principle? The words are these; (and S. Austin points at the same) Quisnam est qui in∣visibilis & corpore vacantis ac circumscriptionis & figurae expertis Dei simulachrum effingere queat?* 1.882 Extremae ita∣que dementiae atque impietatis fuerit Divinum numen fin∣gere & figurare.* 1.883] This is the principle to confute the Do∣ctor:* 1.884] why, but the Doctor thinks that in the world there cannot be clearer words for the reproof of pictu∣ring God and the Holy Trinity. For to do so is mad∣ness and extreme impiety, so says Damascen: But stay says E. W.* 1.885 these words of Damascen are [as who should say, He that goes about to express by any image the perfect similitude of Gods intrinsecal perfections or his Nature, (which is immense without body or figure) would be both impious, and act the part of a Mad-man.] But how shall any man know that these words of Damascen are as much as to say this meaning of E. W. and where is this principle (as he calls it) of Damascen, by which the Doctor is so every where silenc'd? Certainly E. W. is a merry Gentleman, and thinks all mankind are fools. This is the ridiculous Commentary of E. W.

but Damascen was too learned and grave a person to talk such wild stuff. And Cardinal Cajetan gives a better account of the doctrine of Damascen.* 1.886

[The Authority of Damascen in the (very) letter of it condemns those images, (viz. of God) of folly and impiety. And there is the same reason now concern∣ing the Deity which was in the old law. And it is certain, that in the old law the images of God were forbidden.]

* 1.887 To the like purpose is that of the famous Germanus, who though too favourable to pictures in Churches for veneration, yet he is a great enemy to all pictures of God. Neque enim invisibilis Deitatis imaginem,* 1.888 & similitudinem, vel schema, vel figu∣ram aliquam formamus, &c. as who please may see in his Epistle to Thomas Bishop of Claudiopolis;* 1.889 But let us con∣sider when God forbad the children of Israel to make any likeness of him,* 1.890 did he only forbid them to express by any image the perfect similitude of his intrinsecal per∣fections? Had the children of Israel leave to picture God in the form of a man walking in Paradise? Or to paint the Holy Trinity like three men talking to Abra∣ham? Was it lawful for them to make an image or pi∣cture, or (to use E. W. his expression) to exhibit to their eyes those visible or circumscribed lineaments, which any man had seen? And when they had exhibited these forms to the eyes, might they then have fallen down and worshipped those forms, which themselves exhibi∣ted to their own and others eyes? I omit to enquire how they can prove that God appear'd in Paradise in the form of a man, which they can never do, unless they will use the Friers argument; Faciamus hominem ad similitudinem nostram, &c. and so make fair way for the Heresie of the Anthropomorphites.

But I pass on a little further; Did the Israelites,

when they made a molten calf, and said, These are thy Gods O Israel, did they imagine that by that image they represented the true form, essence or nature of God? Or did the Heathens ever pretend to make any image of the intrinsecal perfections of any of their Majores or Minores Dii, or any of their Daemons and dead Heroes? And because they neither did nor could do that, may it therefore be concluded, that they made no images of their Gods? Certain it is, the Heathens have as much reason to say they did not pi∣cture their Gods, meaning their nature and essence, but by symbolical forms and shapes represented those good things which they suppos'd them to have done. Thus the Egyptians pictur'd Joseph with a Bushel upon his head, and called him their God Serapis; but they made no image of his essence, but symbolically repre∣sented the benefit he did the nation by preserving them in the seven years famine. Thus Ceres is painted with a Hook and a Sheaf of corn, Pomona with a Basket of Apples, Hercules with a Club, and Jupiter himself with a handful of symbolical Thunderbolts; This is that which the Popish Doctors call picturing God, not in his Essence, but in history, or in symbolical shapes: For of these three ways of picturing God, Bellarmine says, the two last are lawful. And therefore the Heathens not doing the first, but the second, and the third only, are just so to be excused as the Church of Rome is. But then neither these nor those must pretend that they do not picture God: For whatever the intention be,* 1.891 still an image of God is made, or else why do they worship God by that, which if it be no image of God, must by their own doctrine be an Idol? And therefore Bellarmines distinction is very foolish, and is only craf∣ty

to deceive; for besides the impertinency of it in an∣swering the charge, only by declaring his intention, as being charged with picturing God; he tells he did it indeed, but he meant not to paint his nature, but his story or his symbolical significations, which I say is impertinent, it not being inquir'd with what purpose it is done, but whether or no; and an evil thing may be done with a good intention: Besides this I say, that Bellarmines distinction comes just to this issue: God may be painted or represented by an image, not to ex∣press a perfect similitude of his form or nature, but to express it imperfectly, or rather not to express it, but ad explicandam naturam, to explain it, not to de∣scribe him truly, but historically; though that be a strange history, that does not express truly and as it is: But here it is plainly acknowledged, that besides the history, the very Nature of God may be explicated by pictures or images, provided they be only metaphori∣cal and mystical, as if the only reason of the lawfulness of painting God is, because it is done imperfectly and unlike him; or as if the metaphor made the image law∣ful; just as if to do Alexander honour, you should pi∣cture him like a Bear, tearing and trampling every thing, or to exalt Caesar, you should hang upon a table the pictures of a Fox and a Cock and a Lion, and write under it, This is Cajus Julius Caesar. But I am asha∣med of these prodigious follies. But at last, why should it be esteemed madness and impiety to picture the nature of God, which is invisible, and not also be as great a madness to picture any shape of him, which no man ever saw? But he that is invested with a thick cloud, and encircled with an inaccessible glory, and never drew aside the Curtains to be seen under any re∣presentment, will not suffer himself to be expos'd to vulgar eyes, by phantastical shapes, and ridiculous forms.

But it may be, the Church of Rome does not use any such impious practice, much less own so mad a do∣ctrine; for one of my adversaries says, that the pictu∣ring the forms or appearances of God is all that some (in their Church) allow, that is, some do, and some do not: So that it may be only a private opinion of some Doctors, and then I am to blame to charge Popery with it.* 1.892 To this I answer, that Bellarmine indeed says,* 1.893 Non esse tam certum in Ecclesia an sint faciendae imagines Dei sive Trinitatis,* 1.894 quam Christi & Sanctorum; It is not so certain, viz. as to be an article of faith. But yet besides that Bellarmine allows it, and cites Ca∣jetan, Catharinus, Payva, Sanders and Thomas Walden∣sis for it; this is a practice and doctrine brought in by an unproved custom of the Church; Constat quod haec consuetudo depingendi Angelos & Deum modo sub specie Columbae, modo sub Figura Trinitatis, sit ubique inter Ca∣tholicos recepta: The picturing Angels, and God some∣times under the shape of a Dove, and sometimes under the figure of the Trinity▪ is every where received among the Catholicks,* 1.895 said a great Man amongst them.* 1.896 And to what purpose they do this, we are told by Cajetan, speaking of images of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost saying,* 1.897 Haec non solum pinguntur ut ostendantur sicut cherubim olim in Templo sed ut adoren∣tur. They are painted, that they may be worshipped, ut frequens usus Ecclesiae testatur: This is witnessed by the frequent use of the Church. So that this is recei∣ved every where among the Catholicks, and these ima∣ges are worshipped, and of this there is an Ecclesiasti∣cal custom; and I add, In their Mass-book lately prin∣ted, these pictures are not infrequently seen. So that now it is necessary to shew that this, besides the impi∣ety of it, is against the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church, and is an innovation in religion, a propriety of the Roman doctrine, and of infinite dan∣ger and unsufferable impiety.

To some of these purposes the Dissuasive alledged Tertullian,* 1.898 Eusebius and S. Hierom; but A. L. says, these Fathers have nothing to this purpose. This is now to be tried. These men were only nam'd in the Dissuasive. Their words are these which follow.

1. For Tertullian,* 1.899 A man would think it could not be necessary to prove that Tertullian thought it unlaw∣ful to picture God the Father, when he thought the whole art of painting and making images to be unlaw∣ful, as I have already proved. But however let us see. He is very curious that nothing should be us'd by Chri∣stians or in the service of God, which is us'd on, or by, or towards idols; and because they did paint and pi∣cture their idols, cast, or carve them, therefore no∣thing of that kind ought to be in rebus Dei, as Tertulli∣an's phrase is. But the summ of his discourse is this,

[The Heathens use to picture their false Gods that indeed befits them,* 1.900 but therefore is unfit for God; and therefore we are to flee, not only from idolatry, but from idols: in which affair a word does change the case, and that, which before it was said to appertain to idols, was lawful, by that very word was made Unlawful, and therefore much more by a shape or figure; and therefore flee from the shape of them; for it is an Un∣worthy thing, that the image of the living God, should be made the image of an idol or a dead thing. For the idols of the Heathens are silver and gold, and have eyes without sight, and noses without smell, and hands without feeling.]

So far Tertullian ar∣gues. And what can more plainly give his sense and meaning in this Article? If the very image of an idol be Unlawful, much more is it unlawful to make an

image or idol of the living God, or represent him by the image of a dead man.

But this argument is further and more plainly set down by Athanasius, whose book against the Gentiles is spent in reproving the images of God real or imagi∣nary; insomuch that he affirms that the Gentiles dis∣honour even their false Gods, by making images of them, and that they might better have pass'd for Gods, if they had not represented them by visible images. And therefore, that the religion of making images of their Gods,* 1.901 is not piety, but impious. For to know God we need no outward thing; the way of truth will direct us to him. And if any man ask which is that way, viz. to know God, I shall say, it is the soul of a man, and that under∣standing which is planted in us; for by that alone God can be seen and Un∣derstood.] The same Father does discourse many excellent things to this purpose, as that a man is the only image of God; Jesus Christ is the perfect image of his Glory, and he only repre∣sents his essence; and man is made in the likeness of God, and therefore he also in a less perfect manner re∣presents God: Besides these, if any man desires to see God, let him look in the book of the creature, and all the world is the image and lively representment of Gods power, and his wisdom, his goodness and his bounty. But to represent God in a carved stone, or a painted Table, does depauperate our understanding of God, and dishonours him below the Painters art; for it represents him lovely only by that art, and therefore less than him that painted it. But that which Athana∣sius adds is very material, and gives great reason of the

Command, why God should severely forbid any image of himself: Calamitati enim & tryannidi servientes ho∣mines Unicum illud est nulli Communicabile Dei nomen lig∣nis lapidibusque imposuerunt: Some in sorrow for their dead children, made their images and fancied that pre∣sence; some desiring to please their tyrannous Prin∣ces, put up their statues, and at distance by a phanta∣stical presence flattered them with honours. And in process of time, these were made Gods; and the in∣communicable name was given to wood and stones.] Not that the Heathens thought that image to be very God, but that they were imaginarily present in them, and so had their Name. Hujusmodi igitur initiis idolo∣rum inventio Scriptura teste apud homines coepit. Thus idolatry began saith the Scripture, and thus it was promoted; and the event was, they made pitiful con∣ceptions of God, they confined his presence to a sta∣tue, they worshipped him with the lowest way imagi∣nable, they descended from all spirituality and the noble ways of Understanding, and made wood and stone to be as it were a body to the Father of Spirits, they gave the incommunicable name not only to dead men, and Angels, and Daemons, but to the images of them; and though it is great folly to picture Angeli∣cal Spirits, and dead Heroes, whom they never saw, yet by these steps when they had come to picture God himself, this was the height of the Gentile impiety, and is but too plain a representation of the impiety practised by too many in the Roman Church.

But as we proceed further, the case will be yet clear∣er. Concerning the testimony of Eusebius, I wonder that any writer of Roman controversies should be igno∣rant, and being so, should confidently say, Eusebius hath nothing to this purpose, viz. to condemn the pi∣cturing of God,* 1.902 when his words are so famous, that they are recorded in the seventh Synod; and the words

were occasioned by a solemn message sent to Eusebius by the sister of Constantius and wife of Licinius, lately turned from being Pagan to be Christian, desiring Eu∣sebius to send her the picture of our Lord Jesus; to which he answers: Quia vero de quadam imagine, qua∣si Christi, scripsisti, hanc volens tibi à nobis mitti, quam dicis, & qualèm, hanc quam perhibes Christi imaginem? Utrum veram & incommutabilem, & natura characte∣res suos portantem? An istam quam propter nos suscepit servi formae schemate circumamictus? Sed de forma qui∣dem Dei nec ipse arbitror te quaerere semel ab ipso edoctam, quoniam neque patrem quis novit nisi filius, neque ipsum filium novit quis aliquando digne, nisi solus pater qui eum genuit. And a little after, Quis ergo hujusmodi digni∣tatis & gloriae vibrantes, & praefulgentes splendores exa∣rare potuisset mortuis & inanimatis Coloribus & scripturis Umbraticis? And then speaking of the glory of Christ in Mount Thabor, he proceeds; Ergo si tunc incarnata ejus forma tantam virtutem sortita est ab inhabitante in se Divinitate mutata, quid oportet dicere cum mortalitate exutus, & corruptione ablutus, speciem servilis formae in gloriam Domini & Dei commutavit? Where besides that Eusebius thinks it unlawful to make a picture of Christ, and therefore consequently, much more to make a picture of God; he also tells Constantia, he supposes she did not offer at any desire of that.] Well, for these three of the Fathers we are well enough, but for the rest, the objector says, that they speak only against representing God as in his own essence, shape or form. To this I answer, that God hath no shape or form, and therefore these Fathers could not speak against making images of a thing that was not; and as for the images of his essence, no Christian, no Heathen ever pretended to it; and no man or beast can be pictured so: No Painter can paint an Essence. And therefore although this distinction was lately

made in the Roman Schools, yet the Fathers knew no∣thing of it, and the Roman Doctors can make nothing of it, for the reasons now told. But the Gentleman saith, that some of their Church allow only and pra∣ctise the picturing those forms, wherein God hath ap∣peared. It is very well they do no more; but I pray in what forms did God the Father ever appear, or the Holy and Mysterious Trinity? Or suppose they had, does it follow they may be painted? We saw but now out of Eusebius, that it was not esteemed lawful to pi∣cture Christ, though he did appear in a humane body: And although it is supposed that the Holy Ghost did appear in the shape of a Dove,* 1.903 yet it is forbidden by the sixth General Council to paint Christ like a Lamb, or the Holy Spirit like a Dove. Add to this, where did ever the Holy and Blessed Trinity appear like three faces joyned in one, or like an old man with Christ cru∣cified, leaning on his breast, and a Dove hovering over them; and yet however the objector is pleas'd to mince the matter, yet the doing this is ubique inter Ca∣tholicos recepta; and that not only to be seen, but to be ador'd, as I prov'd a little above by testimonies of their own.

The next charge is concerning S. Hierom, that he says no such thing; which matter will soon be at an end, if we see the Commentary he makes on these words of Isaiah; Cui ergo similem fecisti Deum?]* 1.904 To whom do you liken God?]* 1.905 Or what image will ye make for him, who is a Spirit, and is in all things, and runs every where, and holds the earth in his fist? And he laughs at the folly of the nations, that an Artist, or a Brasier, or a Gold∣smith, or a Silversmith makes a God,] viz. by making the image of God. But the objector adds, that it

would be long to set down the words of the other Fa∣thers quoted by the Doctor: And truly so the Doctor thought so too at first; but because the objector says they do not make against what some of his Church own and practise, I thought it might be worth the Readers pains to see them.

The words of S. Austin in this question are very plain and decretory.* 1.906

For a Christian to place such an image to God, (viz. with right and left-hand, sit∣ting with bended knees, that is, in the shape of a man) is wickedness; but much more wicked is it to place it in our hearts.

But of this I have given ac∣count in the preceding Section.

Theodoret, Damascen, and Nicephorus do so expresly condemn the picturing God, that it is acknowledg'd by my adversaries, only they fly for succour to the old mumpsimus; they condemn the picturing the essence of God, but not his forms and appearances; a distin∣ction which those good old writers never thought of, but directly they condemned all images of God and the Holy Trinity. And the Bishops in the seventh Synod, though they were worshippers of images, yet they thinking that Angels were Corporeal, believ'd they might be painted, but denied it of God expresly. And indeed it were a strange thing that God in the old Te∣stament should so severely forbid any image to be made of him, upon this reason because he is invisible; and he presses it passionately by calling it to their memo∣ry, that they heard a voice, but saw no shape; and yet that both he had formerly and did afterwards shew himself, in shapes and forms which might be painted, and so the very reason of the Commandment be wholly void. To which add this consideration, that although the Angels did frequently appear, and consequently had forms possible to be represented in imagery, yet none of the Ancients did suppose it lawful to paint

Angels, but they that thought them to be corporeal. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.907 said Philo. To which purpose is that of Seneca,* 1.908 Effugit oculos, cogita∣tione visendus est: And Antiphanes said of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: God is not seen with eyes, he is like to no man; therefore no man can by an image know him. By which it appears plainly to be the General opinion of the Ancients, that whatever was incorporeal was not to be painted, no, though it had appeared in symboli∣cal forms, as confessedly the Angels did. And of this the second Synod of Nice it self is a sufficient witness;* 1.909 the Fathers of which did all approve the Epistle of John Bishop of Thessalonica, in which he largely discourses against the picturing of any thing that is incorporeal. He that pleases to see more of this affair, may find much more, and to very great purpose in a little book de imaginibus,* 1.910 in the first book of the Greek and Latin Bibliotheca Patrum; out of which I shall only tran∣scribe these words: Non esse faciendum imagines Dei: imo si quis quid simile attentaverit, hunc extremis suppli∣ciis, veluti Ethnicis communicantem dogmatis, subjici. Let them translate it that please, only I remember that Aventinus tells a story,* 1.911 that Pope John XXII. caused to be burnt for Heretics, those persons who had paint∣ed the Holy Trinity, which I urge for no other reason, but to shew how late an innovation of religion this is in the Church of Rome. The worship of images came in by decrees, and it was long resisted, but until of late, it never came to the height of impiety as to pi∣cture God, and to worship him by images: But this was the state and last perfection of this sin, and hath spoiled a great part of Christianity, and turn'd it back to Ethnicism.

But that I may summe up all; I desire the Roman Doctors to weigh well the words of one of their own

Popes,* 1.912 Gregory II. to the Question, Cur tamen Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi non oculis subjicimus? Why do we not subject the Father of our Lord Jesus to the eyes? He answers, Quoniam Dei natura spectanda proponi non potest ac fingi: The nature of God cannot be expos'd to be beheld, nor yet fain'd.] He did not conclude that therefore we cannot make the image of his essence, but none at all, nothing of him to be expos'd to the sight. And that this is his direct and full meaning, besides his own words, we may conclude from the note which Baronius makes upon it. Postea in usu venisse ut pinga∣tur in Ecclesia Pater & Spiritus Sanctus. Afterwards it became an use in the Church (viz. the Roman) to paint the Father and the Holy Ghost. And therefore besides the impiety of it, the Church of Rome is guilty of innovation in this particular also, which was the thing I intended to prove.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  De doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap 22
• * 1.2

  Rom. 9. 6.
• * 1.3

  Rom. 2. 28, 29.
• * 1.4

  Joh. 14. 15, 16.
• * 1.5

  Ephes. 2. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
• * 1.6

  Clem. Alex. strom. lib. pag. 715. edit. Paris. A. D. 1629.
• * 1.7

  De Papt contr. Donatist. lib. ••. cap 51. & 52.
• * 1.8

  S. Aug. lib. 2. c••nt••. Cres••n. cap. 21. vide eund. lib. ••. contr. Pet••. cap. ult. l. ••. de bapt. cap. 3. l. 6. c. 3.
• * 1.9

  Mali quidem sunt in Ecclesi••, sed non de Ecclesiâ; quia mali non su••t de regn•••• ei, sed de regn Diaboli. Vide etiam Gregor. M. lib. 28. Moral. c 9.
• * 1.10

  Lib. 1. cap. 57. apud B. ll. l. 3. cap. 9. De Eccle∣siâ mil••tante.
• * 1.11

  Tract. 3. in Epist. Johan Bellar. ubi su∣prà. Sect. Idem Augustinus.
• * 1.12

  Coster. ap. log∣pro parte 3••. Enchirid. c. 12. Sect. Qui non.
• * 1.13

  Ibid. Sect. Re∣spondeo, Augu∣sti••um.
• * 1.14

  Joh. 15. 14. & Joh. 14. 21.
• * 1.15

  ver. 15.
• * 1.16

  Joh. 7▪ 17.
• * 1.17

  1 Joh. 2. 27.
• * 1.18

  Prov. 10. 31.
• * 1.19

  De doctr. Christ. lib. 3. c. 32.
• * 1.20

  Imped ri non debet fides aut charitas nostra, ut, quoniam zi∣zania esse in Ecclesiâ cerni∣mus, ipsi de Ec∣clesiâ receda∣mus. ••. Cypr. lib. 3. ep. 3. ad Maximum.
• * 1.21

  Scil. ep. 51. edit. Rigaltianae.
• * 1.22

  Vbi suprà.
• * 1.23

  In Ecclesiâ non est macula aut ruga; quia peccatores, donec non poenitet eos vitae prioris, n••n sunt in Ecclesiâ; cum autem poenitel, jam sani sunt. Pacian ep. 3. ad Symp onium.

  Idem a••t S. Hieron. comment. in Ephes. c. 5. Macula••i ab eâ [Ecclesiâ] alieni esse censentur▪ nisi rursum per poenitentiam fue∣rint expurgati.
• * 1.24

  1 Tim. 3. 15, ••6.
• * 1.25

  Apud Euseb. Eccles. hist. lib. 5. c. 1.
• * 1.26

  Pu••o quod con∣venienter hi qui Episcopa••um be∣nè administrant in Ecclesiâ, Tra∣bes dici possunt quibus susten∣tatur & tegitur omne aedifici••m. Origen. homil. in Cantica.
• * 1.27

  Lib. 3. de Eccl. milit. cap 10.
• * 1.28

  Sect. Ad hoc, necesse est.
• * 1.29

  Heb. 13. 7.
• * 1.30

  Lib. 3. cap. 3. in principis.
• * 1.31

  Act. 15. 22.
• * 1.32

  Act. 20. 28.
• * 1.33

  In Col. 4. 16.
• * 1.34

  1 Cor. 6. 2, 3, 4.
• * 1.35

  Vide S. Cypr. ep. 68. 32. 28.
• * 1.36

  Epist. 27.
• * 1.37

  Archidiac: in cap. Praecipu. 11. q. 3.
• * 1.38

  Acts 15. 4.
• * 1.39

  22.
• * 1.40

  23.
• * 1.41

  Vide edit. Ro∣man. Actorum Generalis octa∣vae Syn••di per Anton. Bladrum 1516.
• * 1.42

  A. D. 1431.
• * 1.43

  In Chron. Siti∣zensi, A. D. 1513.
• * 1.44

  Vide Thuan. hist. lib. 105. & revieu du Con∣cile de Trent. lib. 1.
• * 1.45

  Gratian dist. 3. ca••. P••rrè.
• * 1.46

  Vbi supra. act. 3.
• * 1.47

  Lib. 1. c. 4. de Concil. & Ec∣cles. Sect. Vocuntur enim.
• * 1.48

  A. D. 755.
• * 1.49

  A D. 786. aut 789.
• * 1.50

  A. D. 1409. de••••o••cil. & Eccles. l. ••. c. 8.
• * 1.51

  1546.
• * 1.52

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil. & Eccles. cap. 15.
• * 1.53

  Sect. At a∣th••licorum.
• * 1.54

  L ••b. 2. de Con∣cil. act. 6.
• * 1.55

  Socrat. l. ••. c 5. Eccles. hist.
• * 1.56

  Vide Marsil. Patav. in de∣fens: pacis.
• * 1.57

  Part. 2. c. 20.
• * 1.58

  Cap. 15. V. 22. 23.
• * 1.59

  1 Kings 18.
• * 1.60

  Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 16.
• * 1.61

  Sozomen. l. 3. c. 10.
• * 1.62

  Panorm. in corp. s ignificasti▪de Elect.
• * 1.63

  Lib. 3. cap. 9 de Concil. & Ec∣clesia.
• * 1.64

  Platina in Alex. Quinto. Naucl. tom. 2. gene∣rat. 47.
• * 1.65

  Vide 16. c. 18. Session.
• * 1.66

  De comparatio∣ne authoritatis Papae & Con∣ci. ii.
• * 1.67

  De Concil cu∣thor. l. 2. c. 24. Sect. Accedit.
• * 1.68

  A. D. 1546.
• * 1.69

  Contr. Barclai. cap. 3.
• * 1.70

  Euseb. lib. 7. hist. 4. c. 3 & 4. lib. de unico baptis. c. 14.
• * 1.71

  Bellar. lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. c. 7. Sect. Et per hoc.
• * 1.72

  Epist. S. Cyprian. ad Pompeium.
• * 1.73

  In l. Benè à Zeno••e c. de quadrien. prae∣script.
• * 1.74

  Sess. 25. c. 20.
• * 1.75

  Decret. dist. 19. c. Sic omnes, C. Eni••vero.
• * 1.76

  Ibid.
• * 1.77

  Vide Wadding of Immac. on∣cept. p. 282. & p. 334. & alibi.
• * 1.78

  Lib. de Vnit. Eccles. cap. & cap. 17. Ergo in Scri∣pturis Canoni∣cis eam (Eccle∣siam) requira∣mus. cap. 3.
• * 1.79

  Bellarm. de Ec∣cles. Militant lib. 3. cap. Sect. Nostra autem Sententia.
• * 1.80

  Hist. Concil. Trid. lib. 7, ••. D. 156••.
• * 1.81

  Bellarm. l. 4. de Notis Eccles. cap. 1. Lact. lib. 3. Divinar. insti∣tut. cap. ult.
• * 1.82

  Rom. 11. 20, 21.
• * 1.83

  Denotis Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 6.
• * 1.84

  Vid. The Le∣gend of Fla∣mens, & Re∣vieu. de Concile de Trent. l. ••, ••. 7.
• * 1.85

  Hist. Concil. Trident. lib. 5.
• * 1.86

  Marc. 16. 17.
• * 1.87

  Tom. 13. p. 193.
• * 1.88

  De Vnit. Ec∣cles. cap. 16.
• * 1.89

  Vid. hist. ••oncil. Trident. sub Paul. 3. A. D. 1546.
• * 1.90

  1 John 5. 10.
• * 1.91

  John 17. 3.
• * 1.92

  John 17. 3.
• * 1.93

  J. S. in Sure scoting, and in 4. Append.
• * 1.94

  Rectissimè quidem scientes quia Scripturae quidem perfectae sunt, quippe à verbo Dei & Spiritu ejus di∣ctae. lib. 2. cap. 47. &
• * 1.95

  Lib. 4. c. 66. Legite diligen∣tius id quod ab Apostolis est E∣vangelium no∣bis datum, & legite diligen∣tius Prophetas, & invenietis Vniversam actionem, & omnem doctri∣nam Domini no∣stri praedicatam in ipsis.
• * 1.96

  Strom. lib. 7. P. 757 edit. Par••s 1629.
• a 1.97

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. pag. 755.
• b 1.98

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c 1.99

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.100

  Contr. Hermog. cap. 22.
• * 1.101

  De verb. Dei, lib 4. c. 11. Sect.
• * 1.102

  Profert unde∣cimo.
• * 1.103

  De Praescript.
• * 1.104

  In Epist.
• * 1.105

  Tract. 5. in Matth. versus finem.
• * 1.106

  Vide etiam Origen. bomil. 25. in Matth. ho∣mil. 7. in Ezek. hom l. ••. in Jerem. Quos locos citat Bellarm. ubi supra, Sect. Secundò profert.
• * 1.107

  Jesum Christum scimus Deum: quaeri••us verba quae dicta sunt, juxta personae exponere dignitatem. Quapropter necesse nobis est Scri∣pturas sanctas in testimonium vocare: sensus quippe nostri, & enarrationes, sine his testibus non habent fidem.
• * 1.108

  In Epist. ad Rom. lib 3.
• * 1.109

  Tract. 23. in Matth.
• * 1.110

  Epist. ad Pom∣peium.
• * 1.111

  lib. 4. de Bapt. contra Donatist. cap. 3. &c. 5.
• * 1.112

  Catech. ••. & 5. & 12. & 16. & 18. Illumi∣nat. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Catech. 4. Il∣luminat.
• a 1.113

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.114

  S. Basil. moral.
• * 1.115

  Reg. 8. c. 12. edit. Paris. 1547. ex offici∣nâ Carol▪ ••uillard.
• * 1.116

  Vide etiam Epist. 80. Stemus itaque arbitratui à Deo in∣spiratae Scripturae.] Questio erat an dicendum in Deo tres hy∣postases, & vnam naturam; apud Bellar. de verbo Dei non scripio lib. 4. cap. 11. Sect. Alium locum.
• * 1.117

  Vide etiam Reg. 72. c. 1. cum ti••ulo prae∣fixo. capiti.
• * 1.118

  Homil. de vera fide. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• * 1.119

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Pr••face 2.
• * 1.120

  Ibidem in se∣q••entibus.
• * 1.121

  Truth will out pag. 3.
• * 1.122

  Vbi supra.
• * 1.123

  In Regul. brev. reg. 95. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.124

  Moral. Re∣gul. 26.
• * 1.125

  Epist. ad Epi∣cte••um Corin∣thiorum Episc.
• * 1.126

  De Incarnat.
• * 1.127

  Idem Athanas. in Exhort. ad Monachos.
• * 1.128

  Moral. contra Gentiles, in 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.129

  Coloniae ex of∣fic•••• Melc•••••••••• Novefiani. 1548.
• * 1.130

  Homil. 58. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Johan.
• * 1.131

  Homil 9. in 2 Timoth.
• * 1.132

  Idem in Psal. 95. versus fi∣nem.
• * 1.133

  Homil. 9. in Coloss. & in 2 Thess. 2.
• * 1.134

  Homil. 49. in Matth. 23. oper. imperfecti.
• * 1.135

  De verbo Dei, l. 4. c. 11. Sect. Sextò profert.
• * 1.136

  Idem homil. 41. in Matth.
• * 1.137

  Dissuasive in the Preface.
• * 1.138

  Lib. 4. de ver∣bo Dei, cap. 11. Sect. Profert nonò Theo∣philum.
• * 1.139

  In censuris su∣per Matth. ex∣positoribus.
• * 1.140

  Paschal. 11. vide etiam, Paschal. 3.
• * 1.141

  A. L. and E. W. page 4.
• * 1.142

  Lib. 4. De verb. Dei, cap. 11.
• * 1.143

  Cited in the next page.
• * 1.144

  Lib. de bono vid••itatis, c. 1.
• * 1.145

  S. Hierom. in 23. Matth. Hoc quiae de Scripturis non habet authoritatem, eâdem facilitate contemnitur quâ pr••batur. Et 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Epist. ad Titum. Sine authoritate Scriptura∣rum garrulitas non habet fidem, nisi videren∣tur perver sam doctrinam etiam Divi••is testi∣moniis roborare. Sic citantur verba apud Bellarm. qui sequutus Kemnitium in objectio∣nibus responsi••nem de bene esse paravit. Non curavit tamen nec metuit ne non recte cua∣rentur verba.
• * 1.146

  In c. 1. Aggaei. Sed & alia, quae absque authori∣tate & testimo∣niis Scriptura∣rum quasi tra∣ditione Aposto∣licâ sponte re∣periunt at{que} con∣tingunt, percu it gladius Dei.
• * 1.147

  Adver•• Helvid.
• * 1.148

  Ambr. tom. ••.
• * 1.149

  Ep. 9. Epiphan. haeres. 78.
• * 1.150

  August. de hae∣res. 84. S. Ba∣sil▪ de human. gen Christi Homil. 25.
• * 1.151

  Lib. 1. de orthod. fide cap. 1 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.152

  Lib. 3. cont. lit.
• * 1.153

  Pet••••••ani. c. 6.
• * 1.154

  Absit mihi glo∣riari praeter∣quam in Cruce Jesu Christi.
• * 1.155

  Elegant. lib. 3. cap. 54.
• * 1.156

  In vocab••lar. utrius{que} Juris.
• * 1.157

  S. August. vocat Scripturas sac••as Divinam state∣ram. l. 2. contr.
• * 1.158

  Donat. c. 1••.
• * 1.159

  Lib. ••. de doctr.
• * 1.160

  Christ. c. 9. vide eundem l. 1. c. ult. de Consens•• Evangelista∣rum. [Quicquid Servator de suis factis & dictis nos legere volu∣it, hoc scriben∣dum illis tan∣quam suis ma∣nibus impera∣vit.]
• * 1.161

  Lib. 4. de ver∣bo Dei non sc••ipto c. 11.
• a 1.162

  Lib. de bono vidui••a••. cap. 1.
• * 1.163

  2. Tim. 3.
• * 1.164

  Salmeron in hun•• locum tom. 15. p. 607. vide plura apud eandem: p. 606.
• * 1.165

  Cyril. Alex. l. 7. contr. Julian.
• * 1.166

  S. August. ser. 38. ad fratres in erem••.
• * 1.167

  Lib. 8. anago∣gic•• contempt. in Hexameron.
• * 1.168

  De voca••. gen∣tium in 2. tem. operum S. Am∣bros. l. 2. c. 3.
• a 1.169

  In 2. t••m. 3. in illud [ad docendu••.]
• b 1.170

  Ibidem.
• c 1.171

  Dial. 1.
• d 1.172

  Commen••. in ••ib. Regum. lib. 3. c. 12.
• a 1.173

  lib. 1. contr. Eunom.
• b 1.174

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, S. Chrysost. Hom. 12. In 3. Philip. Idem dixit Theophyl.
• c 1.175

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Varinus.
• * 1.176

  Lib. 9. contr. Julian.
• * 1.177

  In Psal. 8.
• * 1.178

  Homil. primâ in Matth.
• * 1.179

  Homil. 3. in 2 Thess.
• * 1.180

  Homil. 3. de Lazaro, & ho∣mil. 3. in 2 Thess.
• * 1.181

  Lib. 7. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Julian.
• * 1.182

  2 Pet. 3. 16.
• * 1.183

  Stromat. lib. 7. p. 757. & 758.
• * 1.184

  Contr. Gentil. in initio.
• * 1.185

  Ubi suprà, pag. 758.
• * 1.186

  Lib. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 6.
• * 1.187

  De verbo Dei l. 3. cap. 2. Sect. Respon∣deo i••pimis.
• * 1.188

  Lib. de Vnit. Ecclesiae c. 16.
• * 1.189

  De Vnit. Eccles. cap. 3.
• * 1.190

  1 Pet. 4. 1.
• * 1.191

  1 Thes. 2. 15.
• * 1.192

  Sic S. Pasilius lib. 3. contr. Eunomium 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.193

  Lib. 3. c. 4.
• * 1.194

  Ibid.
• * 1.195

  Heg••sip. apud Eccles. li••. 38. c. 32. Grec. 26. Latin.
• * 1.196

  Acts 20. 29. 30.
• * 1.197

  1 Tim. 4. 1. &c.
• * 1.198

  2 Tim 3. ••. &c. & 4. 3.
• * 1.199

  2 Thes. 2. 3.
• * 1.200

  2 Pet. 2. ••. &c.
• * 1.201

  1 Joh. 2. 18. 19.
• * 1.202

  Jude. 4. v. &c.
• * 1.203

  Lib. 1. c. 1. &c. 24.
• * 1.204

  S. Irenaeus, l. 1. c. 24.
• * 1.205

  S. August. tract: 97. in Johan.
• * 1.206

  De verb. Dei, non script. lib. 4. ca. 11. Sect. His notatis.
• * 1.207

  Pag. 16.
• * 1.208

  Salmeron tom. 15. in 2 Tim. 3. disp. 4. p. ••07.
• * 1.209

  Lib. 3. c. 1.
• * 1.210

  Tract. 49. in Johan.
• * 1.211

  S. Augustin. lib. 1. c. 35. de consensu Evangel.
• * 1.212

  Joh. 20. 30, 31.
• * 1.213

  Lib. 2. hist. c. 34.
• * 1.214

  Contre le Roy Jaq. p. 715.
• * 1.215

  Lib. 3. cap. 2.
• * 1.216

  Vbi supra c. 11. de verb. Dei non Script. l. 4.
• * 1.217

  l. 5. contr. Par∣mer. biblioth. Patrum per Bi∣nium ••om. 4. Paris. 1589. pag. 510.
• * 1.218

  Epist. ad Pom∣peium contra epist. Stephani.
• * 1.219

  Damasc. de or∣thod. fide c. 1.
• * 1.220

  Apud Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.221

  Lib. 5. cap. 8.
• * 1.222

  It is therefore weakly said by E. W. pag 5. If he says, that he impugns all tradition in General, all doctrine not expressly con∣tain'd in Scripture; forced he is to throw away Scripture it self, &c.
• * 1.223

  E. W. ibid. He is forc'd not onely to throw away Scripture it self, and the Nicene defi∣nitions; not only to disclaim a Trinity of persons in one Divine essence, Baptizing of children, &c. but every tenet of Protestant religion (as Protestantism,) E. g. The belief of two Sacraments onely, &c.
• * 1.224

  The same also he says concer∣ning the Ni∣cene and the other three Councils, and S. Athanasius Creed p. 8.
• * 1.225

  Epist. ad Epi∣ctet. Corinth. Episc.
• * 1.226

  Lib. 3. ad Serap. de Spir. S. Id. de Incarnat.
• * 1.227

  Theodoret. l. 1. c. 7.
• * 1.228

  Et apud Gelas. Cyzicen. in actis Concil. Nicen. l. 2. c. 7.
• * 1.229

  Apud Euseb. Eccles. hist. lib. 5. c. 27.
• * 1.230

  Dial. contr. Tryph. Jud.
• * 1.231

  Vide etiam Theodor. l. 1. Eccles. hist. c. 8.
• * 1.232

  Euseb. Eccles. hist. lib. 5 c. 27. Lat. 28. Gr.
• * 1.233

  In locis Com∣mun. pag. 208. 209.
• * 1.234

  Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae & combustae Manium à R. D. Nicolao Ci∣chovio lacessito∣rum, sui vindi∣ces. Impress. A. D. 1652.
• * 1.235

  Secundum Ecelesiae obser∣vantiam (a••) in Levit. c. 12. 13. Hom. 8. quem locum ci∣tat Perron: haec autem ver∣ba non aiunt, ab Apostolis hanc manasse observantiam. Lib. de baptis. cap. 18.
• * 1.236

  In S. August. de civit. Dei l. 1. c. 27.
• * 1.237

  Replique à la response du Roy Jaques. p. 701.
• * 1.238

  Epist. ad Pompeium.
• * 1.239

  Contra Dona∣tist. l. 4. c. 14. &c. 17. & 24.
• * 1.240

  Lib. 1. de Bap∣tist. cap. 18.
• * 1.241

  Can. 2.
• * 1.242

  Contr. le R••y Jaques. p. 709.
• * 1.243

  Perron ibid. 710.
• * 1.244

  Colos. 2. 16.
• * 1.245

  E. W. p. 5.
• * 1.246

  Vide Ductor. dub tantium, Rule of Con∣science lib. 3. Reg. 11. n. 5. 6.
• * 1.247

  Regirald. Pra••is sori pae ••i. l. ••. c. 12. Sect. 3. n. 133.
• * 1.248

  de Sacr. h••m. conti. l. 5. c. 105. Peres. de tradi••. part. 3. c. de author. Canon. Apost.
• * 1.249

  De Coron. milit. cap. 3. & ••.
• * 1.250

  2. Thes. 2.
• * 1.251

  2. Tim. 2.
• * 1.252

  Clem. Alexan. Strom. lib. 1. pag. 276.
• * 1.253

  Eusib lib. 3.
• * 1.254

  Eccles. hist. c. 35. Graec.
• * 1.255

  Theo loret. l. r. c. 8. Eccles. hip••.
• * 1.256

  Bellar. de Con∣cil. & Eccles. l. 1. c. 5. Sect. De numer••.
• * 1.257

  Epist. ad Episc. Antioch.
• * 1.258

  Stromat. lib. 1. lib. 2. c. 39.
• * 1.259

  Matth. 4. 17.
• * 1.260

  Marc. 1. 14.
• * 1.261

  Luc. 3. 23.
• * 1.262

  Cap. 29.
• * 1.263

  Lib. 1. c. 18. C••••h. fide.
• * 1.264

  Apud Gratian. dist. 16. c. Canon••s.
• * 1.265

  Tract. 26. in Matth. Oportet causè considera∣re, ut nec omnia secreta, quae feruntur nomine Sanctorum, suscipiamus, propter Judae••s, qui fortè ad destructionem veritatis Scripturarum nostrarum quaedam finxerunt confirmantes dogmata falsa; nec omnia abjiciamus, quae pertinent ad demonstrationem Scripturarum nostrarum: magni ergo viri est audire & adimplere quod dictum est, Omni probate, quod bonum est tenere. Tamen propter eos qui non possunt quasi Trapezitae inter verba discernere, vera hobeantur an falsa, & non possunt semetipsos cautè•• servare ut verum qui∣dem teneant apud se, ab omni autem specie malâ abstineant, nemo uti d••b••t ad confirma∣tionem dogmatum libris qui sunt extra Cano∣nizatas Scripturas]
• * 1.266

  Lib. 4. de baptis. contr. Donat. c. 24. &c. 6.
• * 1.267

  De Coronâ Milit. c. 4.
• * 1.268

  Apud Euseb. l. 5. c. 26. Gr. 24. L••t.
• * 1.269

  Lib. de Coronâ Militis. Si legem nusquam repe∣rio, sequitur ut Traditio con∣suetudini morem hunc dederit, habitu um quandóque Apostoli autho∣ritatem ex in∣terpretatione rationis.
• * 1.270

  In serm. de Assumptione.
• * 1.271

  Salmeron tract. 51. in Rom. 5. p. 468 in marg.
• * 1.272

  S. Hierom. dial. adv. Lucifer.
• * 1.273

  Tract. 26. in Matth.
• * 1.274

  Maldonat. in 6. Joh. 53. vide∣etiam Espén∣caeu•• de ado∣rat. Eucharist. l. 2. c. 12.
• * 1.275

  5.
• * 1.276

  Lib. 2. de doct. Christiana. c. 8.
• * 1.277

  Salmeron. disp. 51. in Rom. 5.
• * 1.278

  De cultu S S. lib. 3. c. 9. Sect. Praetereà.
• * 1.279

  Contre le Roy Jaques.
• * 1.280

  Matth. 16. 16.
• * 1.281

  1 Joh. 4. 2. & 15.
• * 1.282

  Joh. 20. 31. & 11. 27.
• * 1.283

  Hebr. 11. & 6. 69.
• * 1.284

  Matth. 16. 17.
• * 1.285

  Rom. 10▪ 8.
• * 1.286

  M••tth. 10. 32.
• * 1.287

  Marc. 8. 38.
• * 1.288

  Luc. 9. 26. & 12. 8.
• * 1.289

  2 Tim. 2. 12.
• * 1.290

  Apocal. 3. 5.
• * 1.291

  Rom. 10. 8.
• * 1.292

  1 Cor. 3. 11.
• * 1.293

  1 Cor. 15. 3. 4. 1 Cor. 2. 2.
• * 1.294

  1 Cor. 4. 6.
• * 1.295

  Rom. 12. 3.
• * 1.296

  vers. 5.
• * 1.297

  Acts 2. 24. & 3. 12.
• * 1.298

  Acts 8. 12. 37, 38.
• * 1.299

  Acts 9. 20. & 17. 2. & 16. 31. & 1••. 2. 18. 2. 31.
• * 1.300

  2 Tim. 1. 13.
• * 1.301

  1 Tim. 6. 20.
• * 1.302

  Epist 3. ad Magnes. & 5. ad Philipp. & 7. ad Smyrnens. & 11. ad Eph••sio.
• * 1.303

  S. Irenaeus, lib. 1. ca ••▪2.
• * 1.304

  Et. cap. 3.
• * 1.305

  Lib 3 cap. 4. Propter fidem per quam sapi∣entissimi sunt.
• * 1.306

  Lib. 4. cap. 62.
• * 1.307

  John 17. 3.
• * 1.308

  Tertul de prae∣script. adv. haer••t. c. 13. & 14.
• * 1.309

  Lib. de veland.
• * 1.310

  Virg. c. 1. Re∣gula quidem fi∣dei una ••mnino est, sola immo∣bilis & irrefor∣mabilis.
• * 1.311

  Lib. de veland. Virg. c. ••.
• * 1.312

  De praescript. c. 36.
• * 1.313

  S. Hilar. l. 10. de Trinit. vers. finem.
• * 1.314

  lib. de Synodis.
• * 1.315

  In Antidoto ad Nicolaum 5. Papam.
• * 1.316

  Epiphan. in. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.317

  Lib. 1. contra. Elipand. Tolet.
• * 1.318

  Casu Hosii, pla∣nè miserab••li, Cathulicus Or∣bis contrem••it, concussae{que} sunt solidissimae pe∣trae. Baron. A. C. 347. 17. 18.
• * 1.319

  Vide Epist. Mar∣cellinorum ad Episcipos in Dio-Caesarea exulantes.
• * 1.320

  Pro S. Atha∣nas. l. 1. apud Baron. A.••. 336. 13.
• * 1.321

  Idem aiunt Martinus Po∣l••nus, Alphon∣sus de Castro, & Volaterra∣nus.
• * 1.322

  Dum in verbis pugna est, dum de novitatibus quaestio est, dum de ambiguis, dum de Autho∣ribus querelae est; dum de studiis certamen est, dum in con∣sensu difficultas est, dum{que} alter alteri anathema esse coepit, prope jam nemo est Christi. S. Hilar.
• * 1.323

  Quid unquam aliud Ecclesia Conciliorum de∣cretis enisa est, nisi ut, quod an∣tea simpliciter credebatur, h••c idem posteà di∣ligentiùs crede∣retur. Vincent. Lirin. contr. haeres. cap. 32.
• * 1.324

  Lib. de Sy∣nodis.
• * 1.325

  Concil. Ephes. Can. 7.
• * 1.326

  The Author of the Letter] p. 7.
• * 1.327

  In Can. 7. vide Balsam. in ••un••.
• * 1.328

  Epist ad Epict.
• * 1.329

  Epist▪ ad Epict.
• * 1.330

  Cyril. Alex. ad Johan. Antioch. Sess. 5.
• * 1.331

  The Letter to a friend. p. 4.
• * 1.332

  Epist. ad Pam∣mach. contra ••rro es Johan. Hierosolymit. Exp si••. Sym∣bol. c. 2, 3. l. 6. Orig. c. 9.
• * 1.333

  Serm. 131. de tempore, sive Serm. 2. de ex∣posit Symboli ad Competente••.
• * 1.334

  Serm. 181. de tempore. Hom. 115.
• * 1.335

  Epist. 13. ad Pulcher. Au∣gustum.
• * 1.336

  Lib. 2. de insti∣tut. Clericorum, cap. 56.
• * 1.337

  S. Athanas. ep. ad Serapion.
• * 1.338

  S. Basil. de Spir. S. c. 13.
• * 1.339

  Chapt. 1. Sect. pag. 10. edit. Dublin 1664.
• * 1.340

  Gloss ibid.
• * 1.341

  Acts 20. 27.
• * 1.342

  Art. 27. Cer∣tum est in man•• Ecclesiae aut Papae prorsus non esse, statue∣re articulos fi∣de, &c.
• * 1.343

  Turrecrem. l. 2. cap. 107.
• * 1.344

  Idem ibid.
• * 1.345

  Extravag. de v••rb. signifi. cap quia Quo∣rundum gloss.
• * 1.346

  Qu. 59 art. 1.
• * 1.347

  Art. 2.
• * 1.348

  Vide Salmeron. orolog. in com∣ment. in Epist. ad Roman. part. 3 p. 176. Sect. Tertiò di∣citur.
• * 1.349

  Acts 10. 35.
• * 1.350

  Driedo de dogmat. Eccl. lib. 4. c. 3. p. 3.
• * 1.351

  Lib. 4. de Pontif. Rom. c. 4. Sect. At secundum.
• * 1.352

  Apud Baron. AD. 382. n 15.
• * 1.353

  Vide etiam S. Basil, tom. 2. ep. 30. & Greg. Theol.
• * 1.354

  Lib. 1. de Rom.
• * 1.355

  Pontif. c. 23. Sect. Secunda ratio.
• a 1.356

  Institut. mo∣ral. part. 2 l. 4. c. 11. Sect. Al∣tera opinio.
• b 1.357

  De tripl. virt. Theolog. disp. 10. Sect. 1. n. 5. & 7.
• c 1.358

  Quaest. Vet. & N. Test. q. 97.
• * 1.359

  Innocent. 4. in cap. super eo. de Bigamis.
• a 1.360

  Qu. 67. a. 2.
• b 1.361

  Lib. 2. c. 107.
• c 1.362

  De potestate Papae.
• d 1.363

  De expresso Dei verbo & in Epilogo.
• * 1.364

  Card. Cusan. Ep••st. 2. ad B••h••m••s, de usu Communionis, p. 833.
• * 1.365

  Epist. 3. p. 838.
• * 1.366

  In 1. Decret. de summa Tri∣nitate & fide Cathol. n. 44. 15. dist. Cano∣nes.
• * 1.367

  Epist 2. ad Bo∣hemos, p. 834. edit. Basil. A. D. 1565.
• * 1.368

  In piorum Cly∣peo. qu 29. ar∣tit. 5.
• * 1.369

  Pighius Hie∣rarch. l. 1. c. 2.
• * 1.370

  Ad legatos ••ohemicos sub Fe∣lice Papa. A. D. 1447. vide Polan. in Dan. 11. 371.
• * 1.371

  Sylvest. Prieri∣as cont. Luthe∣rum, Conclu. 56.
• * 1.372

  Bellarm. de Concil. author. lib. 2. cap. 12. Sect. Diximus.
• * 1.373

  Dist. 19. Can. in Canonicis.
• * 1.374

  De Concil. authorit. lib. 2. cap. 12. Sect. Respond••o ad Gra••ianum.
• * 1.375

  10••. Com. tit. 1. de Ecclesiâ & ejus authorit.
• a 1.376

  fol. 126. 1. b. & 104. b. & 133. b.
• b 1.377

  pag. 42. n. 15. & p. 11. n. 18. & 124. n. 9.
• c 1.378

  defens. Trid. l. 1. & l. 2. & explic. orthod. l. 2.
• d 1.379

  pag. 3. l. 22. cap. 3. Sect. 3.
• e 1.380

  de fide & justif. 74. 6. & hierarch. Eccl. l. 1. c. 2. 3. 4. & in praefatione ad Paulum ter••ium.
• f 1.381

  Contr. Luth••. Concl. 56.
• g 1.382

  dis. contr. Luther. 8. de Eccl. Concl. 1. l. edit. 1554.
• h 1.383

  Encherid. cap. 1.
• i 1.384

  in 3. l. dec••etal. de convers. conjug. c. ex publico. n. 16.
• k 1.385

  de verb. Dei l. 3. c. 10. Sect. Ad decimum quintum.
• * 1.386

  Super. 2. de∣cret. de jure∣jur. c. Nimis. n. 1.
• * 1.387

  Lib. Benedicti de Benedict. Bon niae excu∣sus. A. D. 1600.
• * 1.388

  An. Dom. 373. n. 22.
• * 1.389

  In 1 Cor. 2.
• * 1.390

  Tom. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.391

  Homil. 29. in Evangel.
• b 1.392

  S. Aug. de verâ relig. c. 25.
• c 1.393

  Id de civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8.
• * 1.394

  August. tract. 13. in Evang▪
• * 1.395

  Johan. Homil. 49.
• * 1.396

  Quest. in Deuter.
• * 1.397

  Hic. 11. 1••. vide Stellam; ibid.
• * 1.398

  In quartam sent. qu. 53.
• * 1.399

  Iren l. 1. c. 9.
• * 1.400

  In Canon Mis∣sae. lect. 49.
• * 1.401

  Melchior. ca∣n••s lo••. Com. mun. l. 11. c. 6.
• * 1.402

  De vanit. Scier. cap. 97.
• * 1.403

  Bellar. lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 8.
• * 1.404

  Lib. 5. & l. 7.
• * 1.405

  Lib. 3. De cultu sanctorum, c. 9.
• * 1.406

  Sect. Praetered.
• * 1.407

  Contre le Roy de la Grand Bretaigne.
• * 1.408

  Lib. 4. De Pon∣t••fi•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉, cap. 2. Sect. Se∣cunda 〈◊〉〈◊〉. & Sect. Ex 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.409

  Lib. 2. de Con∣cil. author. c. 14.
• * 1.410

  Sect. Vltima sententia, & ca. 17. Sect. Ter∣tia propositi••.
• * 1.411

  A D. 1562.
• a 1.412

  Lib. 2. De ef∣fect. Sacr. c. 25. Sect. Secunda probatio.
• b 1.413

  In Thom. tom. 4. disp. 3. q. 6. punct. 2. Sect. Tertiò obji∣ciunt, &c.
• * 1.414

  E. W. page. 17. He is false and faulty through this whole Section; faulty in tel∣ling us of a clancular Commission given by the King of Spain to the Inquisitors, &c. without directing us to either Book or In∣dex where to find it.] This Commission is in Junius his Edition of the Indices Expur∣gatorii; and of this Book the author of a Letter to a friend did make use, as appears in his 6. page under n. 16.
• * 1.415

  lib. 4. De verb•• Dei, cap. 11.
• * 1.416

  Sect. Sext•• profert.
• * 1.417

  Pag. 282. Edit.
• * 1.418

  Hanov. 1611.
• * 1.419

  Edit. Paris. 1610.
• * 1.420

  Index Expurg. Saniov. p. 83.
• * 1.421

  In Esai. lib. 1. c. 51. in fin.
• * 1.422

  Ephes. 3. 17.
• * 1.423

  Index Quirog. p. 74.
• * 1.424

  In Epist. ad Rom. c. 10. haeres. 69.
• * 1.425

  F. W. p. 12. and the Au∣thor of a Let. pag. 7.
• * 1.426

  Reg. 6.
• * 1.427

  By the Au∣thor of the Letter and E. W.
• * 1.428

  Junius in Prae∣fat. ad. Ind. Expurg. Belgic.
• * 1.429

  Concil. Trident. in primâ Sessio∣ne sub Pio Quarto.
• * 1.430

  Vide Pamelii annot. in librum.
• * 1.431

  ibid.
• a 1.432

  Epist. l. 9. ad Jacobum Gorseium.
• * 1.433

  In Praef. ad Pium, Quartm in librum Car∣dinalis Poli de C••ncilio.
• * 1.434

  The Author of a Letter to a friend, pag 7. E. W. p. 20.
• * 1.435

  E. W. p. 1••.
• * 1.436

  Joh. 11. 26.
• * 1.437

  Psal. 142. v. 1. alias 143.
• * 1.438

  pag. 70. Edit. 1611.
• * 1.439

  Index. Beig. p. 161. Impres. A. D. 1611. Hanoviae.
• * 1.440

  Cantellarius Bavariae egregiè vindicavit principis sui memoriam à Bz••vianis im∣postu. is.
• * 1.441

  In vitâ Julii Agric.
• * 1.442

  Lib. 3. adv. gentes.
• * 1.443

  Vide Praefatic∣nem ad Lecto∣rem in Ind. Sandov.
• * 1.444

  Imprimebantur etiam Hanoviae, procurantibus Junio & Papp••. 1611.
• * 1.445

  Heb. 2. 15.
• * 1.446

  Bella, inter geminos, plusquam civilia, fratres Traxerat ambiguus Religionis apex. Ille reformatae fidei pro partibus instat: Iste reformandam denegat esse fidem. Propositis causae rationibus; alter utrinque Concurrêre pares, & cecidêre pares. Quod fuit in votis, fratrem capit alter uterque: Quod fuit in fatis, perdit uterque fidem. Captivi gemini sine captivante fuerunt, Et victor victi transfuga castra petit. Quod genus hoc pugnae est, ubi victus gaudet uterque; Et tamen al••eruter••se su••erâsse dolet?
• * 1.447

  Extrav. de Ma∣jorit. & obe∣dien. Dicimus, definimus, pro∣nunciamus ab∣solutè necessa∣rium ad salu∣tem omni hu∣manae Creaturae subesse Roma∣no Pontifici.
• * 1.448

  Sess. 1. cap. 4
• * 1.449

  Lib. 1. de Sacr. Euchar. cap. 12. Sect. Est igitur.
• * 1.450

  Lib. 1. Sent. dist. 8.
• * 1.451

  Inter Evange∣listas quae omittuntur ab uno supplentur ab alio. Inno∣centius de offic.
• * 1.452

  Missae l. 3. c. 17.
• * 1.453

  Apol. 2. lib. 8. cont. Celsum.
• * 1.454

  Lib. 3. de Tri∣nit. c. 4.
• * 1.455

  Vide Divine instit. of the Office Mini∣steri••l, ••ect 7. Of the Real and Spi••. presence, Sect. 4.
• * 1.456

  Rom. 2. 4.
• * 1.457

  v. 1.
• * 1.458

  Letter, and Truth will out, &c.
• * 1.459

  Revel. 22.
• * 1.460

  Col. 2.
• * 1.461

  Against these quotations us'd in the Pre∣face of the first Part, the Author of the Letter to a friend, page 3. And the Au∣thor of Truth will out, page 6. object that these Fathers speak against the worship∣ping of the images of heathen gods, not of the use of images amongst Christians: which cavil the Reader may see largely refuted in the Sect. Of Images.
• * 1.462

  Concil. Trident. lib. 5. A. D. 1561. Sub Pio Qua••••••.
• * 1.463

  Ibid.
• * 1.464

  Suarezius and Bellarmine con∣fesse, that to believe Tran∣substantia∣tion, is not absolutely ne∣cessary to sal∣vation.
• * 1.465

  Matth. 5. 19.
• * 1.466

  Matth. 15. 9.
• * 1.467

  In ••itulis Thalmudicis Baba Metzias B. recho••h, &c.
• * 1.468

  Rabbi Nissim.
• * 1.469

  Decretal. de poenitent••is & remissionibus.
• * 1.470

  In 3. dist. 21.
• * 1.471

  ••ib. 7. cap. 16. hist. Eccles.
• * 1.472

  Prov. 11. 13.
• * 1.473

  Epist. ad Am∣philochium.
• * 1.474

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. A. D. 1603.
• * 1.475

  Lib. 19. De∣creti sui. c. 37. Concil Mogua••. cap. 10. & 21.
• * 1.476

  Homil. 2. in Psal. 37.
• * 1.477

  Epist. 80. ad Epist•• Compa∣niae.
• * 1.478

  De poenitentiâ lib. 3. cap. 14. Sect. Denique cum secreta.
• * 1.479

  Lib. 5. decret. tit 38.
• * 1.480

  Cap. officii. de poenit. & remiss.
• * 1.481

  Vide Suarez. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Paz. in practica▪ Criminal. Ec∣cles. cap. 10••.
• a 1.482

  Part. 4. Q. 28. memb. 2. art. 2. in resp ns.
• b 1.483

  Confessio ult. num. 7.
• c 1.484

  Cap. Omnis. de poenit. & remis. num. 24.
• d 1.485

  Super 5. cap. Omnis.
• e 1.486

  In Confess. 3. num. 2.
• f 1.487

  In Cap. Omnis. verb. prodit.
• * 1.488

  In quartum li∣brum sent. dist. 21.
• a 1.489

  Vide Richard. in l••b 4. sent. d••st. eâd. art. 4. q. ••.
• b 1.490

  Aph••r. v. Con∣fessor. n. 23.
• c 1.491

  Apolog. adv. Reg. M. Brit.
• d 1.492

  Disp 33. in 3. part. ••. Thom. Sect. 1. n. ••.
• e 1.493

  Praestaret Re∣ges omnes pe••i∣re quam si vel semel Confessio∣nis sigillum violaretur. Epist. ad Fon∣tonem Ducaeum. p. 140.
• f 1.494

  Apolog. pro Garnett••. c. 13.
• * 1.495

  Moral. Theol. 1 act. 7. Exa∣m••n. 4. de poe••it. Sect. 6. n. 63, 64, 65, &c.
• * 1.496

  Script. Gar∣netti apud Is. Casaub ni Epist. ad Fron. Du caeum, p. 13••.
• * 1.497

  Can. 21.
• * 1.498

  Sess. 14. Capp. 6. & 7.
• * 1.499

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. e. magicas incan¦tationes; simile illud ibidem, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nimirum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.500

  Calvin. Instit. lib. 3. cap. 4. Sect. 12. 13.
• b 1.501

  2. Part. Exam. Concil. Trid. cap. 5. de poenit.
• * 1.502

  Lib. 3. de poenit. cap. 1. Sect. Martinus Kemnitius.
• * 1.503

  In ••. dist, 17. q. 2. ex Scoto.
• * 1.504

  De poe••it. ••. ••. cap. Quamvis plentitudo.
• * 1.505

  Lib. de 5. de∣cret. de poeni••. & rem. in cap. Omnis utrius{que} sexus.
• * 1.506

  Disp. de Sacr. tom. 2. de Con∣fess. Orig. c. 2.
• * 1.507

  John 20. 21.
• * 1.508

  In lib. 4. sent. dist. 17.
• * 1.509

  Qu. 90. in 3••. Thom. dub. 2.
• * 1.510

  Primum istorum esse•• magis conveniens lenen∣d••m, si posset evidenter haberi istud praeceptum ex Evangelio. Nec oporiet ad hoc adducere illud Matthaei 16. Tibi dabo claves regni coelorum, quia non est nisi promissio de datio∣ne futura. Sed si aliquid in Evangelio, vi∣delicet, ad hoc videtur illud Joh. xx. Accipi••e Spir. S. Quorum remiseritis, &c.
• * 1.511

  Dicitur quod sic, de illo verbo Jacob. 5. Confiremini alter utrum peccata, &c. sed nec per hoc videretur mihi quod Jacobus prae∣ceptum hoc dedit, nec praecepum à Christo promulgavit. Scotus in l. 4. dist. 17. Sect. De Secundo.
• * 1.512

  In Lucae Evang. cap. 69. tom. 5. Colon Agripp. 1612.
• * 1.513

  Lib. 5. ep. 16.
• * 1.514

  Concil. T••id. sess. 14. c. 5. Nam venialia quibus à gratia Dei non excludimur, & in quae fre∣quentiùs labimur, quanquam rectè & utiliter citráque omnem praesumptionem in confessione dicantur, quod piorum h••minum usus demon∣strat, tateri tamen citrà culpam, multisque al••is remediis expiari possunt.
• * 1.515

  Vide Vasquez. in 3. tom. 4. q. 90. art. 1. dub. 2. Sect. 3.
• * 1.516

  Vbi supra.
• * 1.517

  Vid. Padre Paolo hist. Conc. Trid. lib. 4.
• * 1.518

  In Lucam. lib. 10. cap. 22.
• * 1.519

  Homil. 2. de poenitentiâ Petri.
• * 1.520

  Collat. 20. c. 8.
• * 1.521

  Lombard. se••t. l. 4. d. 7. ad finem lit. C.
• * 1.522

  2
• * 1.523

  5
• * 1.524

  3
• * 1.525

  Sent. lib. 4. dist. 18. lit. F.
• * 1.526

  S. Hierom in Matth. lib. 3. ad cap. 16.
• * 1.527

  Homines in remissione peccatorum ministerium suum exhibent, non jus alicujus potestatis exercent: Neque enim in suo, sed in Nomine Patris, Filii, & Spiritus Sancti, peccata di∣mittuntur. Ist••rogant, Divinitas donat, &c. S. Ambrose: de Spir. S. lib. 3. cap. 19.
• * 1.528

  Pag. 676.
• * 1.529

  Opusc. 22.
• * 1.530

  Aleuin. de Di∣vini Offic. cap. De••jejunio.
• * 1.531

  Apolog. c. 39.
• * 1.532

  Homil. 50. c. 9.
• * 1.533

  Summ. part. 4. q. 21. memb. 1.
• * 1.534

  Tom. 9. operum Aug••st. Scola Parad. cap. 3.
• * 1.535

  De operibus Card••nalibus Christi inter Cy∣priani opera; sed varius Ar∣n••l••i Bonae∣valle••sis.
• * 1.536

  Lib. 6. Com∣ment. in Isai. cap. 14.
• * 1.537

  2 Cor. 5. 19, 20.
• * 1.538

  Lev. 13. 44. v. 5. 7.
• * 1.539

  Jer. 1. 10.
• * 1.540

  1 Tim. 4. 16.
• * 1.541

  Jam. 5. 20.
• * 1.542

  John 20.
• * 1.543

  Hist. Concil. T••id. A. D. 155. sub Ju∣lio Te••••io.
• * 1.544

  1 Tim. 5. 20.
• * 1.545

  Isai. 1. 16. 17. 18.
• * 1.546

  Ezek. 18. 22.
• * 1.547

  Ezek. 33. 15. 16.
• * 1.548

  Isai. 30. 15. secundum.
• * 1.549

  LXX. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.550

  Lib. 19. decret. de Matrimonio.
• * 1.551

  In vitâ ejus apud Hagiolog. B••a••ant.
• * 1.552

  De ••is qui pu∣tant se operibus justificari.
• * 1.553

  Biblioth. Pa∣tram, tom. ••. Gr. Lat.
• * 1.554

  Opusc. Cajet. tract. 22.
• * 1.555

  Lib. ••. inst. S••cerd. c. ••3. subfig. 5. edit.
• * 1.556

  Paris. 1619. p. 372.
• * 1.557

  In Exomolog. p. 128, 129, &c.
• * 1.558

  Videatur etiam Orlandini hist.
• * 1.559

  Societ. J. lib. 9.
• * 1.560

  Sect. 70.
• * 1.561

  Hist. l. ••5. pag. 100. in Leida. 1646.
• * 1.562

  By Card. Aldobrandino ••he Nephew of P. Clement 8.
• * 1.563

  Memoires da Duc de Roban. lib. 1.
• * 1.564

  Qaest quod libet Quaest. 6. de confess.
• * 1.565

  Cajetan: summ. verb. Confessio.
• * 1.566

  Summ. verb. Absolutio.
• * 1.567

  Praesat. in lib. Tertul. de poeniter.
• * 1.568

  Consult. art. 11. videatur etiam Johannes de Sylva in fine tractat. de ju∣rejurando.
• * 1.569

  C. 33.
• * 1.570

  In Tom. 2. Con∣ci. Gallic. c. 30. p. 219.
• * 1.571

  Sola contri∣tione, ait glossa, ibid. & habetur de poenit dist. 1. cap. Quidam Deo.
• * 1.572

  De poenit. dist. 5. c. In poenit.
• * 1.573

  De poenit. dist. 1. c. Quidam Deo.
• * 1.574

  De poenit. lib. 3. cap. 5.
• * 1.575

  Epist. Canon. ad Letorum.
• * 1.576

  Relect. de poe∣nit. part. 5. Sect.
• * 1.577

  Ad sextum. p. 31. edit. Sal∣manticae. 1563. per Matthiam Gartium.
• * 1.578

  Lib. 5. cap. 19.
• * 1.579

  Eccl. hist. lib. 7••. cap. 16.
• * 1.580

  Homil. 56. si∣ve 8. de Poe∣nit. tom. 1.
• * 1.581

  Homil. 9. de Poenit. sive Homil. 59.
• * 1.582

  Homil. 2. in Psal. 50.
• * 1.583

  Homil. Quod peccata non sint evulganda. vid. tom. 57.
• * 1.584

  Homil. de Poe∣nit. & Con∣fessione. tom. 58. tom. 5.
• * 1.585

  Homil. 68. tom. 5.
• * 1.586

  Homil. 31. in Ep. ad Hebr. Homil. 2o. in Matth.
• * 1.587

  Homil. 28. in 1 Cor.
• * 1.588

  Homil. 21. ad Pop. Antioch. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Homil. 4. de Lazaro.
• * 1.589

  In 3. part. Th••. tom. 4 q. 90. a. 1. dub. 3. n. 31.
• * 1.590

  In. S. Hierom. Epist. ad Ocea∣num, sive Epi∣taph. Fabiolae.
• * 1.591

  Praefat. in l. Tertul. de Poeni••.
• * 1.592

  Rule of Con∣science, lib. 3. cap. 4.
• * 1.593

  Rule 13. and Rule 19. and 20.
• * 1.594

  Caus. 25. qu. 1. c. Violatores Canonum.
• * 1.595

  Dicati pro¦dictati.
• * 1.596

  Vide quae supra annotavi e•• Decreto Gra∣tiani. Sect. 1.
• * 1.597

  In art. 18. contr▪ Luther.
• * 1.598

  Lib. 8. adv. haeres. t••t. In∣dulgen••iae.
• * 1.599

  H••stiensis in summâ l. 5. tit. de remiss. Biel in Canon. Missae. lect. 57. vide Bellarm. l. 1. c. 14. de Indul. Sect. Quod ad primam.
• * 1.600

  Dissuasive. 1. part. Sect. 3.
• * 1.601

  Tom. 4. ad A. D. 386. num. 39.
• * 1.602

  Lib. 3. de cultu SS. cap. 8. Sect. Ad Magdebur∣genses.
• * 1.603

  1 Homil. in Philom.
• * 1.604

  A. L. p. 9. n. 23.
• * 1.605

  A. L. ibid. p. 9. num. 24.
• * 1.606

  Non oportet ô homo maria transfretare, non penetrare nubes, non tran∣salpinare ne∣cesse est. Non grandis inquam tibi ostenditur via: usque te∣met-ipsum oc∣currere Deo tuo.
• * 1.607

  Ibid. num. 25.
• * 1.608

  De regimine principum l. 3. c. 10. inter opuscula. num. 20.
• * 1.609

  Impress. Paris per Philippum Hotot. 1550.
• * 1.610

  Vide revie••, d•• Concile de Trent. l. 5. c. 1.
• * 1.611

  Bull. Julii. 3. de an. Jubilii.
• * 1.612

  A letter to a friend touch∣ing Dr. Taylor▪ Sect. 4. n. 26. p. 10. which if the Reader please for his curiosity or his recreation to see, he shall find this plea∣sant passage, of deep learning, and subtle observation (Dr. Tay. had said that Roffensis and P. V. affirm, that who so searcheth the Writings of the Greek Fathers, shall find that none, or very rare∣ly any one of them ever makes mention of Purgatory.) Whereas Pol. Virgil affirms no such thing; nor doth Roffensis say, That very rarely any one of them menti••ns it, but only, that in th••se Ancient Writers, he shall find none, or but very rare mention of it. If this man were in his wits when he made this answer (an answer which no man can unriddle, or tell how it opposes the objection) then it is very certain, that if this can pass among the answers to the Protestants objections, the Papists are in a very great strait; and have very little to say for themselves: and the letter to a friend was written by compulsion, and by the shame of confutation; not of conscience or ingenuous persuasion. No man can be so foolish, as to suppose this fit to be given in answer to any sober discourse▪ or if there be such pittiful peo∣ple in the Church of Rome, and trusted to write Books in defence of their Religion; it seems they care not what any man says or proves against them; if the people be but co••••n'd with a pretended answer; for that serves the turn, as well as a wiser.
• * 1.613

  Lib. 8. cap. 1. de inven. rerum.
• * 1.614

  Ego vero Originem quod mei est muneris quaeritans non reperio ante fuisse, quod sci∣am, quum D. Gregorius ad suas stationes id praemii proposuerit. Qua propter in re pa∣rum perspicuâ, utar testimonio Johannis Roffensis Episcopi, qui in eo opere quod nu∣per in Lutherum scripsit, sic de ejusmodi veniarum initio prodit. Multos fortasse movit indulgentiis istis non usque adeò fide∣re, quod earum usus in Ecclesiâ videatur recentior, & admodum serò apud Christi∣anos repertus. Quibus ego respondeo, non certò constare a quo primum tradi caeperint. Fuit tamen nonnullus earum usus (ut aiunt) apud Romanos vetustissimus, quod ex statio∣nibus intelligi potest & subiit. Nemo certe dubitat orthodoxus an purgatorium sit, de quo tamen apud priscos nonnull•• vel quam rarissime fiebat mentio. Sed & Gracis ad hunc usque diem, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 est creditum esse •• quam di•• enim nulla fuerat de purgatorio cura. nemo quaesivit Indulgentias; nam ex illo pendet omnis indulgentiarum existi∣matio: si ••oll•••• purgatorium, quorsum in∣dulgentiis opus erit? caeperunt igitur in∣dulgentiae postquam ad purgatorii cruciat•••• aliquandiu trepid••tum est.
• * 1.615

  Lib. 8. verb. In∣dul. vide etiam lib. 12. lil. pur∣gatorium.
• * 1.616

  E. W. Truth will out. cap. 3. pag. 23.
• * 1.617

  Vers. 6.
• * 1.618

  Contr. haeres. lib. 12. tit. pur∣gator. Jo. Me∣d••na de poenit. tract. 6. q. 6.
• * 1.619

  Cod. de oratio∣ne.
• * 1.620

  Bellar. de pur∣gat. lib. 2. cap. 5.
• * 1.621

  Vide missam in commemoratio∣nem omnium defunctorum.
• * 1.622

  Confess. lib. 9. cap. 12. & 13.
• * 1.623

  Letter pag. 11. n. 31.
• * 1.624

  But then it is to be remembred, that they made prayers, and offered for those who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory: so we find in Epiphanius, S. Cyril, the Canon of the Greeks, and so (viz. that they offered) is acknowledged by their own Dura••us. Disswasive, pag. 27. line 30. &c. Lib. 2. de ritibus cap. 35.
• * 1.625

  Lib. 1: Epist. 9.
• * 1.626

  Lib. 6. biblioth. Annot. 47.
• * 1.627

  Haeres. 75.
• * 1.628

  Letter pag. 10. Truth will out, pag. 25.
• * 1.629

  In Psal. 36. Conc. 2. To. 8. p. 120.
• * 1.630

  A. L p. 11.
• * 1.631

  Mysta. Catech. 5.
• * 1.632

  Biblioth. Sanct. 1. 6. Annot. 345▪ Sect. Jacob. Apostolus.
• * 1.633

  Basilii 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ab An∣drea Masio ex Syriaco con∣versa.
• * 1.634

  Eccles. hier. Cap. 7. in theo∣ria.
• * 1.635

  Naz. in fu∣••••s Caesarii. orat. 10.
• * 1.636

  Missa latina Antiqua edit. Argentinae. 1557. pag. 52.
• * 1.637

  De curapto mortuis, cap. 4.
• * 1.638

  De verbis A∣postoli Serm. 17.
• * 1.639

  Sacramentari∣um Gregor. an∣tiquum.
• * 1.640

  Vide Missal. Roman. Paris 1529.
• * 1.641

  Cap. cum Mar∣thae. Extrav. de celebrat Mis∣sarum in Glos∣lâ.
• * 1.642

  Missale Rom. in decreto Con∣cil Trid. restit. in festo S. Leo∣nis.
• * 1.643

  Letter to a friend, pag. 12.
• * 1.644

  And these are the words of Senensis con∣cerning P. John 22. and P. Adrian.
• * 1.645

  Annot. 345.
• * 1.646

  Enchirid. cap. 68, 69.
• * 1.647

  1 Cor. 3.
• * 1.648

  Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri in∣credibile non est, & utrum ita sit qu••ri potest.
• * 1.649

  E. W. pag. 28.
• * 1.650

  De octo Quest. Dulcit. Qu. 3.
• * 1.651

  S. Aug. de ci∣vit. Dei. lib. 21 cap. 26.
• * 1.652

  De C. Dei. lib. 21. c. 13.
• * 1.653

  Ibid.
• * 1.654

  Purgatorias autem poenas nullas futuras opinetur, nisi ante illud ulti∣mum tremen∣dumque judici∣um. Cap. 16.
• * 1.655

  In Psal. 6.
• * 1.656

  De C. D. lib. 16. c. 24. & lib. 20. c. 25.
• * 1.657

  Aug. tam. 9. de vanitate saecu∣li, c. 1. & de consolatione mortuorum Serm. 2. cap. 1.
• * 1.658

  De D••gmat. 6. Eccles. cap. 79.
• * 1.659

  Aut Augustini aut Gennadii.
• * 1.660

  Contra Pharis. tit. 8.
• * 1.661

  In exposit pre∣cationis missae. Advers. haeres. lib. 12. tit. Pur∣gatorium.
• * 1.662

  In Cathol. Ro∣mao pacifico 9▪ de purgat.
• * 1.663

  Esse quippe a∣pud inferos lo∣cum purgatio∣num in quo sal∣vandi vel te∣nebris tantum afficiantur, vel expiationis ig∣ne decoquantur quidam asse∣runt.
• * 1.664

  Post hoc apparuit eidem presbytero columna quaedam jubaris immensi, cujus claritas ul∣tra communem solis valentiam, coruscare videbatur, de coel•• usque ad terram por∣recta, per quam anima quaedam Angelico ductu ad sydera contendebat. Sciscitante verò presbytero, quidnam hoc esset Re∣spondit alter, ipsa est anima Constantini quondam Judicius & domini Turritani, haec autem per novem annos ventis & pluviis & algoribus semper exposita à die exitus sui usque nunc in stillicidi•• domus suae con∣stitit, ibique suorum excessuum poenas luit, sed qui misericors & liberalis in pauperes extitit, & judicium injuria•• patientibus fecit, in super etiam de malis quae commi∣sit confessa & poenitens à corpore exivit, id∣circò misericordiam à Deo consecuta, hodi∣ernâ die meretur ab omnibus malis libera∣ri, &c. Haec & multa alia sacerdos ille vi∣dit & audivit de secretis alterius vitae.
• * 1.665

  S. Greg. M. lib. 13. in. Jobum. c. 15. c: 17.
• * 1.666

  Cum constat quod apud infe∣ros justi non in locupoenalibus, sed in superiori quietis sinu te∣nerentur, mag∣na nobis o••ori∣tur questio quidnam sit quod B. Job. asserit.
• * 1.667

  Lib. 4. Dialog. c. 39.
• * 1.668

  Cap. 46.
• * 1.669

  In summa sa∣cram.
• * 1.670

  Eccles. n. 110.
• * 1.671

  Decis. cas. con∣f••ient. part 1. lib. 1. c. 6. n 10.
• * 1.672

  The letter pag. 14.
• * 1.673

  Biblioth. lib. 6.
• * 1.674

  Annot. 259.
• * 1.675

  Lib. 2. p. 186.
• * 1.676

  P. 93.
• * 1.677

  De purgat••rio lib. 1. c. 15. Sect.
• * 1.678

  Ad secundum dico.
• * 1.679

  Bellar. lib. 1. c. 11. Sect. de Mahumetanis.
• * 1.680

  In 1 Cor. 3.
• * 1.681

  Lib. 1. de purgat. c. 5. Sect. ex Graecis
• * 1.682

  Sap. 3. v. 6.
• * 1.683

  Lib. 12. tit pur∣gatorium.
• * 1.684

  See Binius tom. 4. Concil.
• * 1.685

  Art. 18. contr. Luther.
• * 1.686

  Disp. 11. Qu. 1. punctum. 1. Sect. 5.
• * 1.687

  De locis ani∣marum post mortem.
• * 1.688

  Lib. 8. adv. haeres. tit. In∣dulgentiae.
• * 1.689

  Ad Demetrian.
• * 1.690

  Sect. 16. & Sect. 22.
• * 1.691

  Pag. 17.
• * 1.692

  Pag. 32.
• * 1.693

  Donec aevi temporalis fi∣ne completo ad aeternae vel mortis vel im∣mortalitatis hospitia divi∣damur. Ibid.
• * 1.694

  Sect. 16.
• * 1.695

  Serm. de lapsis.
• * 1.696

  Confiteantur singuli vos fra∣tres delictum suum, dum ad∣huc qui deli∣quit i•• saeculo est, dum admit∣••i confessio ejus potest, dum sa∣tisfactio, & re∣missio facta per sacerdotes apud Dominum grata est.
• * 1.697

  S. Dionys.
• * 1.698

  Pag. 32.
• * 1.699

  Justin Martyr resp. ad Quest. 75.
• * 1.700

  Pag▪ 33.
• * 1.701

  Pag. 33.
• * 1.702

  E. W. pag. 36.
• * 1.703

  Lib. de bap∣tis. c. 25. & 26. lib. de con∣firmat▪ c. 5 l. 3. de Euchar. c. 6.
• * 1.704

  P. 36. line 29.
• * 1.705

  De bono mortis cap. 4.
• * 1.706

  Pag. 34.
• * 1.707

  S. Greg. Nazi∣anz. orat. 15. in plagam gran∣di••is. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.708

  In Psalm.
• * 1.709

  Homil. 22. vide etiam ho∣mil. 26.
• * 1.710

  De Virgin:
• * 1.711

  Letter p. 18.
• * 1.712

  P. 18.
• * 1.713

  Lect. 40. in Can. Missae.
• * 1.714

  Lib. 3. de Eu∣char. c. 23.
• * 1.715

  Sect. Secundò dicit.
• * 1.716

  Vbi suprae.
• * 1.717

  Contra. Captiv.
• * 1.718

  Babyl. c. 1.
• * 1.719

  Tom. 9. tract. 16. p. 108. p. ••10.
• * 1.720

  Lib. 1. de Eu∣char. c. 34.
• * 1.721

  Page 37. vide Letter. p. 18.
• * 1.722

  Pag. 38.
• * 1.723

  See also the letter to a friend, p. 19.
• * 1.724

  Vbi supra.
• * 1.725

  Innocent. de of∣fic. Mis. part. 3. cap. 18.
• * 1.726

  Cap. cum Mar∣tha in gloss. ••••trav. de ce∣lebr. miss.
• * 1.727

  Vbi supra.
• * 1.728

  E. W. pag. 37.
• * 1.729

  Pag. 37.
• * 1.730

  Letter to a friend pag. 18.
• * 1.731

  Ad liberandum terram san∣ctam de mani∣bus impiorum. Extrav. de Ju∣daeis & Sara∣cenis. Cum sit.
• * 1.732

  Vide praefat. Later. Concil. secundum p. Crab.
• * 1.733

  Vide Matth. Paris, ad A. D. 1215. & Na••cteri gene∣rat. 41. ad eun∣dem annum. Et Sabellicum E••••ead. 9. lib. 6. & Godfri∣dum Mona∣chum ad A. D. 1215.
• * 1.734

  Tract. 16. tom. 9. p. 110.
• * 1.735

  Lib. 3. de Eu∣char. c. 23. Sect. Vnum tamen.
• * 1.736

  Scotus negat doctrinam de conversione & transubst. esse antiquam. Hen∣riquez lib. 8. c. 23. in Marg. ad liter. h.
• * 1.737

  Summa. l. 8. c. 23. p. 448. lit. C in Marg.
• * 1.738

  Lib. 3. de Eu∣char. cap. 13.
• * 1.739

  Letter. p. 21.
• * 1.740

  In priorem E∣pist. ad Corin∣thios. citante etiam Salme∣ron. tom. 9. tract. 16. p. 108.
• * 1.741

  Videat lector Picherellum exposit: verbo∣rum instituti∣onis coenae Do∣mini, & ejus∣dem disserta∣tionem de Mis∣sâ.
• * 1.742

  1615.
• * 1.743

  1 Pet. 3. 21.
• * 1.744

  A. D. 1547.
• * 1.745

  A propositione tertii adjecti, ad propositio∣nem secundi adjecti valet consequentia, si subjectum sup∣ponat realiter. Reg. Dialect. Vide Sect. 5. n. 10. Of Christs real presence and spiritual.
• * 1.746

  Pag. 296.
• * 1.747

  Oratio 2. in Pascha.
• * 1.748

  Sic solem•••• loqui: ficut panis est vita corporis: ita verbum Dei est vita animae. Non scil. eun∣dem conversio∣nis aut nutri∣endi modum connot ando, sed similem & a∣nalogicum ef∣fectum ••trius{que} nutrimenti ob∣servando.
• * 1.749

  Lib. 4. c. 34. & lib. 5. c. 2.
• * 1.750

  A. L.
• * 1.751

  Demonstr. Evang. l. 1. c. ult. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Apostle received a command according to the constitution of the N. T. to make a memory of this sacrifice upon the table by the symbols of his body and health∣ful bloud.) So the words are transla∣ted in the Dissuasive. But the letter translates them thus. Seeing therefore we have received the memory of this sacri∣fice to be celebrated in certain signs on the Table, and the memory of that body and healthful bloud, as is the institute of the new Testament.)
• * 1.752

  Lib. 5. c. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]
• * 1.753

  Et lib. 8. c. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Et Paulo post: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.]
• * 1.754

  [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.]
• * 1.755

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.756

  Macarius ho∣mil. 27.
• * 1.757

  Pag. 22.
• * 1.758

  Pag. ibid.
• * 1.759

  Hujus sacri∣ficii caro & sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur: in passione Christi per ipsa•• veritatem redde∣batur, [po•• ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur.] lib. 20. c. 21. contr. Faustum Manich.
• * 1.760

  De doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 9.
• * 1.761

  Epist. 23.
• * 1.762

  P. 41. Orat. 2. in pas∣cha. Jam verò paschlis par∣ticipes erimus, nunc quidem adhuc typicè, tametsi aperti∣ùs licet quam in veteri; lega∣le siquidem pascha (nec e∣nim dicere ve∣rebor) figurae figurae erat ob∣scurior.
• * 1.763

  Lib. de Synod.
• * 1.764

  De Euchar. l. 2. c. 15. Sect. est igitur tertia.
• * 1.765

  E. W. p. 42.
• * 1.766

  In Ps. 33.
• * 1.767

  Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 4. in fine P. Lombard dist. 11. lib. 4. ad finem. lit. C.
• * 1.768

  Christs real and spiritual presence in the Sacrament against the doctrine of Transubstanti∣ation, printed at London by R. Royston.
• * 1.769

  Sess. 13.
• * 1.770

  Lugduni. A. D. 1600. apud Hiratium Car∣don. p. 440.
• * 1.771

  A. D. 1562.
• * 1.772

  Vide Preface to the Dissua∣sive part 1. Canon comperi∣mus de conse∣crat. dist. 2.
• * 1.773

  In consult. de sacra Commun.
• * 1.774

  In Corinth. 11. Indignum dicet esse Do∣mino qui alitèr mysterium celebrat quam ab eo traditum est. Non enim potest devo∣tus esse qui aliter praesumit quam datum est ab Authore. Ideóque praemonet ut secun∣dum ordinem traditum devota mens sit ac∣cedentis ad Eucharistiam Domini: quoni∣am futurum est judicium, ut quemadmo∣dum accedit unusquisque. veddat causas in Die Domini Jesu Christi, quia sine dis∣ciplinâ traditionis & conversationis qui accedunt rei sunt corporis & sanguinis Do∣mini.
• * 1.775

  A. L. p▪ 4.
• * 1.776

  Serm. 1. de eleemos.
• * 1.777

  Disp. 5. de sa∣cra coena.
• * 1.778

  Lib. de corp. & sang. Domini. cap. 15.
• * 1.779

  Epist. 63.
• * 1.780

  Salmer. in 11. Cor. 10. disp. 17. pag. 138.
• * 1.781

  Durand. rati∣on. Divin. offic. l. 4. c. 53.
• * 1.782

  Cassand. liturg. c. 27. Sect. Et cum mensa.
• * 1.783

  Lib. 2. Chap. 3. Rule 9.
• * 1.784

  E. W. p. 45. and A. L. p. 25
• * 1.785

  Recordemini quae••, ex his spiritualibus sermonibus qui lecti sunt medicinae. Re∣miniscamini earum quae sunt in psalmis mo∣nitionum proverbialia praecepta, historiae pulchritudinem, examplaque investigate. His addite Apostolica mandata. In omnibus verò tanquam coronida, perfectionemque verba evangelica conjungite, ut ex omni∣bus utilitatem capientes, ad id demum convertatis & revertamini ad quod quisque jucundè est affectus, & ad quod obeundum gratiam à spiritu sancto accepit.
• * 1.786

  35. Homil. in 1 Cor. 14. chap.
• * 1.787

  Pag. 25.
• * 1.788

  In 1 Cor. 14.
• * 1.789

  Vtilius dicit (Apostolus) paucis verbis in apertion•• sermonis loqui, quod omnes intelli∣gant, quam prolxam orationem habere in obscuro. Imperitus enim audiens quod non intelligit, nescit finem erationis, & non re∣spondet Amen, id est, verum, ut confirme∣tur benedictio. Et in haec verba Nam tu quidem bene gratias agis] De eo dicit qui cognita sibi loquitur quia scit quid dicit, (sed alius non aedificatur) si utique ad Ec∣clesiam aedificandam convenitis, ea de∣bent dici quae intelligant audientes. Nam quid prodest ut lingua loquatur quam solus scit, ut qui audit, nihil proficiat. Ideò tacere debet in Ecclesiâ, ut ii loquantur qui prosunt audientibus.
• * 1.790

  S. August. in 2. Comment. in ps. 18. De∣precati Dominum ut ab occultis nostris mun∣det nos, & ab alienis parcat servis suis, quid hoc sit intelligere debemus, ut huma∣nâ rati••ne non quasi avium voce cantemus. Nam & Meruli, & Psittaci, & Corvi, & Picae, & hujusmodi volucres saepe ab homi∣nibus docentur sonare quod nesciunt. Sci∣enter autem cantare non avi sed homini Divinâ voluntate concessum est. Et paulo post. Nos autem qui in Ecclesiâ divina eloquia cantare didicimus simul etiam in∣stare debemus esse quod scriptum est, Beatus populus qui intelligit jubilationem: proinde charissimi quod consonâ voc•• cantavimus, sereno etiam corde nosse ac videre debemus.
• * 1.791

  Tho. Aquin. in 1 Cor. 14. Ille qui intel∣ligit reficitur, & quantum ad intellectum & quantum ad affectum; sed mens ejus qui non intelligit, est sine fructu refecti∣onis. And again, quantum ad fructum devotionis spiritualis privatur qui non at∣endit ad ea quae orat, seu non intelligit. Lyra. Caeterum hic consequenter idem o∣stendit in oratione publicâ, quia si populus intelligat orationem seu benedictionem fa∣cerdnis, m••lius reducitur in Deum & de∣votius Amen. And again, propter quod in Ecclesiâ primitivâ benedictiones & coeterae omnia lege communia * fiebant in vulgari. * For of common things, that is, things in public the Diss••asive speaks, Common prayers, common preachings, Common Eucharists and thanksgivings, common blessings. All these and all other pub∣lic and common things being us'd in the vulgar tongue in the Primitive; Com∣munia and omnia are equivalent, but Com∣munia is Lyra's word.
• * 1.792

  Homil. 1. in 8. Johan. Videat. lector. s. Basil. in Ascert. in 278. resp. in regul. brevior. & Cassidore.
• * 1.793

  De doctrin: Christianâ lib. 2. c. 5. Ex quo factum est, ut etiam scriptura divina, quâ tantis morbis humanarum voluntatum sub∣venitur, ab unâ linguâ profecta, quae oppor∣tunè potuit per ••rbem terrarum disseminari, per varias interpretum linguas longè laté∣que diffusainnotesceret gentibus ad salu∣tem. Theodoret. lib. 5. de curand. Graec. affect. Nos autem verbis Apostolicae prophe∣ticaeque doctrinae inexhaustum robur mani∣festè ostendimus. Vniversa enim facies terrae quantacunque soly subiicitur, ejusmodi verborum plena jam est. Hebraei verò li∣bri non modo in Graecum idioma conversi sunt, sed in Romanam quoque linguam, E∣gyptiam, Persicam, Indicam, Armenicam∣que & Scythicam, atque adeò Sauromati∣cam, semelque ut dicam in linguas omnes quibus ad hunc diem nationes utuntur.
• * 1.794

  Quamvis per se bonum sit ut officia divina celebrentur eâ linguâ quam plebs intelligat, id enim per se confert ad aedi∣ficationem, ut bene probat hic locus. Estius in 1. ep. Corin. cap. 14.
• * 1.795

  Respon ad artic. pacis. magis fore ad aedi∣ficationem Ecclesiae, ut preces vulgari lin∣guâ conciperentur. Ex hâc doctrinâ Pauli, habetur quod melius ad aedificationem Ec∣clesiae est orationes publicas quae audiente populo dicuntur, dici linguâ communi Cle∣ricis & populo, quam dici latina. Idem in 1 Cor. 14.
• * 1.796

  Studete verba Dei, viz. Lectiones sacras distinctè & apertè ad intelligentiam & aedi∣cationem fidelium absque omni mendacio falsitatis proferre, &c.
• * 1.797

  Isa. 25. 11.
• * 1.798

  N••mo autem ignorat nulli prorsus naturae, praeterquam Dei, adoratio∣nem à scrip••u∣ris contribui.
• * 1.799

  Thesaur. l. 2. c. 1. & alibi. Vna Natura est deitatis quam solum∣modo adorare oportet.
• * 1.800

  Orat. de obitu Tbecdos.
• * 1.801

  E. W. pag 57.
• * 1.802

  Serm. 30.
• * 1.803

  A. L.
• * 1.804

  Sirmond. Not. in Concil. Nor∣bon. c. 13. l. ••. Concil. Gal.
• * 1.805

  Tom. 3. lit. 19. c. 157. & apud Bellarm. lib. 2. de imag. c. 9.
• * 1.806

  Lib. 2. de imag. cap 9. Sect. se∣cundò quia he∣retici.
• * 1.807

  In Epist. 61. & 101. ad Pam∣mach.
• * 1.808

  Syn. 7. Act. 8. Can. 9.
• * 1.809

  De moribus Eccles. lib. 1. c. 34.
• * 1.810

  Jam videbitis quid inter ostentationem & sinceritatem—postremo quid inter super∣stitionis Sirenas & portum religionis inter∣sit. Nolite mihi colligere professores No∣minis Christiani, nec professionis suae vim aut scientes aut exhibentes. Nolite con∣sectari turbas imperitorum, qui vel in ipsâ verâ religione superstitiosi sunt, vel ita li∣bidinibus dediti, ut obliti sint quid pro∣miserint Deo. Novi multos esse sepulchro∣rum & picturarum adoratores, novi mul∣tos esse qui luxuriosissimè super mortuos vi∣vant.
• * 1.811

  Sed & illa quàm vana sint, quàm noxia, quàm sacrilega, quemadmodum à magnâ parte vestrum, atque adeò penè ab omnibus v••∣bis non observentur, alio volumine oftendere instit••i. Nunc vos illud admaneo, ut aliquando Ecclesiae Catholicae maledicere definatis, vituperando mores hominum quos & ipsa condemnat, & quos quotidie tanquam malos filio•• corrigere stude••.
• * 1.812

  De fide &. symb. c. 7. Contr. Adi∣mant. c. 13.
• * 1.813

  Pag. 27.
• * 1.814

  Contr. Adi∣mant. c. 13.
• * 1.815

  E. W. pag. 57.
• * 1.816

  Pag. 57.
• * 1.817

  Ioc. Theol. lib. 5. c. 4.
• * 1.818

  Lib. 2. de ima∣gin. c. 14. Sect. secundò quia.
• * 1.819

  Sect. neque ob∣stat.
• a 1.820

  Ad annum 794.
• b 1.821

  Opusc. 55. N. cap. 20.
• c 1.822

  Chron. aetat. 6 ad annum Christi eundem & 792.
• d 1.823

  Ad eund. annum.
• e 1.824

  Lib. 4. c 85.
• * 1.825

  In annal.
• * 1.826

  Vide supra. Sect. primò quia.
• * 1.827

  A. D. 793.
• * 1.828

  Of making of images.
• * 1.829

  A. L. p. 27.
• * 1.830

  Cap. 3.
• * 1.831

  Diabolum soe∣culo intulisse artifices statu∣arum & ima∣ginum & om∣nis generis si∣mulachrorum.
• * 1.832

  Lib. 2. advers. Marc. c. 22.
• * 1.833

  Lib. 4. c. 22.
• * 1.834

  Pag. 27.
• * 1.835

  Pag. 54. 55.
• * 1.836

  Strom. l. 6. p. 687. edit. Pa∣ris. 1629.
• * 1.837

  Lib. 1. de fin. bon. & malor.
• * 1.838

  In cap. 3. Epist. ad Philip. hom. 10.
• * 1.839

  Lib. Strom. 5. Pag. 559. Pa∣ris. 1629. Gr. Lat.
• * 1.840

  Vide etiam eundem in Pre∣treptico. pag. 41. Nobis enim est apertè veti∣tum falla∣cem artem exercere. Non facies enim (inquit Propheta) cujusvis rei similitudinem. Id. Stromat. lib. 6. p. 687.
• * 1.841

  Pag. 55.
• * 1.842

  Pag. 181. edit. G. L. Cantab. 1658.
• * 1.843

  Homil. 8 in Exod. apud Bellarm. ima∣gin l. 2. c. 7. Sect. sed haec.
• a 1.844

  L. 4 c. 31. & 32
• b 1.845

  L. de idolo∣lat. cap. 5.
• c 1.846

  L▪ 3. ad Qui∣rinum c. 59. & de exhort. mar∣tyrii. c 1.
• d 1.847

  L. 15. contra Faustum c. 4. & 7.
• * 1.848

  Consult. de imagin. & si∣mulachris.
• * 1.849

  Lib. 4. de gene∣rat. & regene∣ratione Adam.
• * 1.850

  E. W. pag. 49.
• * 1.851

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.852

  Appendix ad Tract. de cultu imaginum in prooem. ante Cap. 1. & in Cap. 4.
• * 1.853

  Tom. 3. Com∣ment. in 3. part. Qu. 25. art. 3. disp. 94. c. 3.
• * 1.854

  Pag. 50.
• * 1.855

  Martinus Del∣rio Vindiciae Areopag. c. 14.
• * 1.856

  Comment•• in Isai. c. 2. T 3.
• * 1.857

  De haeres ad qued vult De∣um paulò ab initio. haeres. 1. E. W. pag. 51.
• * 1.858

  Cum ejus sta∣tuam in Jovis figuram con∣struxissent, Helenae autem in Minervae speciem, eis thura adolebant, & libabant, & tanquam Deos ado∣rabant, Simonianos seipsos nominantes. Theodoret. haeret. fab. lib. 1. tit. Simonis haeresis in fin.
• * 1.859

  Vide Irenae. lib. 1. adv. haeres. c. 23. & 24.
• * 1.860

  Vbi suprà hae∣res. 7.
• * 1.861

  Iren. reli∣quam observa∣tionem circa eas similitèr ut gentes faciunt, i. e. sicut coeterorum illustrium virorum imaginibus consueverunt facere.
• * 1.862

  Prudenter ex∣istimavit Deos facile posse in simulachrorum stoliditate con∣temni.
• * 1.863

  Plut. in Numâ.
• * 1.864

  Aelius Lam∣prid. in Alex∣andro Severo. edit. Salmat. p. 120.
• * 1.865

  De imag. c. 7. Sect. Ad pri∣mum.
• * 1.866

  Synod. 7. Act. 5.
• * 1.867

  Homil. 8. in Exod.
• * 1.868

  Lib. 2. de ima∣gin. S. 8. Cap. 25.
• * 1.869

  1 Cor. 8. 13.
• * 1.870

  De invent. rerum l. 6. c. 13. E•• insaniae deventum est, ut haec pietatis pars parum differat ab impietate. Sunt enim benè multi rudiores stupidioresque qui saxeas vel ligneas, seu in parietibus pictas imagines colant, non ut figuras, sed. perinde acsi ipsae sensum aliquem habeant, & eis magis fidant quam Christe, Polyd. Virg. lib. 6 c. 13. de invent. rerum. Lilius Giraldus in Syntag. de Diis Gentium loquens de excessu Romanae Ecclesiae in negotio imaginum, praefatur, [Satius esse ea Harpocrati & Angeronae consignare. Illud certè non praetermittam, nos dico Christianos, ut aliquando Romanos fuisse sine imaginibus in primitivâ quae vocatur Ecclesia.] Erasmus in Catechesi ait, usque ad aetatem Hieronymi erant probatae religionis viri, qui in Tem∣plis nullam ferebant imaginem, nec pictam, nec sculptam, nec textam, ac ne Christi quidem.]
• * 1.871

  Et ibid: Vt imagines sint in Templis nulla praecepit vel humana co••s••itutio, & ut facilius est, ita lutius quoque omnes ima∣gines è Templis submavere.] Videatur etiam Cassandri consultatio; sub hoc titul•• & Masius in Jesuah cap. 8. Sic autem queritur Ludovicus Vives Comment. in lib. 8. c. ult. de civit. Dei. Divos Divasque non alitèr venerantur, quàm Deum ipsum. Non video in multis quid discrimen sit in∣ter eorum opinionem de sa••ctis, & id quod Gentiles putabant de Diis suis. Diodorus Siculus dixit de Mose, imaginem statuit nullam, ideo quod non erederet Deum ho∣mini similem esse, & Dion. lib. 36 Nullam effigi••m in Hieroso••ymis habuere, quod De∣um crederent ut ineffabilem, ita inaspi∣cuum [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.]
• * 1.872

  Consul. de imagin. ex Origene contr. Cel∣sum. lib. 7. versus finem.
• * 1.873

  Epist. 49. q. 3.
• * 1.874

  C. 14.
• * 1.875

  C. 41. apud Bellarmin. lib. 2. de imag. S. S. c. 22. Sect. Secunda propo∣sitio.
• * 1.876

  A. D. circit••r 792.
• * 1.877

  Annal. part. 1.
• * 1.878

  Vide Plutarch. de Iside & Osir.
• * 1.879

  In 3. sent. dist. 9. q. 2. n. 15.
• * 1.880

  Rom. 1. 23.
• * 1.881

  Pag. 60.
• * 1.882

  De fide & symbole. c. 7.
• * 1.883

  Damasc. lib. 4.
• * 1.884

  Orthod. fidei. cap. 17.
• * 1.885

  E. W. pag. 60.
• * 1.886

  Authoritas Damasceni in literâ damnat illas (imagines Dei) ins••pientiae & impi∣etatis. Et eadem est ratio nunc de Dei∣tate quae erat in veteri 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quoad rem fig••∣rabilem vel non secundum se. Constat au∣tem in veteri lege imagines Dei esse prohi∣bitas.
• * 1.887

  Videat (si pla∣cet) lector Lu∣cum Eudensem adv. Albig. er∣ror. l. 2. c. 9.
• * 1.888

  Tom. 4. Bibl. p. p. part 2.
• * 1.889

  Apud. Nicen.
• * 1.890

  Synod. 11. Act. 5.
• * 1.891

  Observandum est tribus mo••i•• posse aliquid pingi. Vno modo ad ••xpri•• mendam perfe∣ctam similitu∣dinem formulae, & naturae rei ipsius. Altero modo ad historiam aliquam oculis exhibendam. Tertio potest aliquid pingi extra historiam ad explicandam naturam rei, non per immediatam & propriam similitudinem, sed analogiam, sive metaphoric••, mysti••asque significationes. Be••. de imag lib. 2. c. 8. Sect. pro solutione. Hoc modo pingimus Deum ibid. Sect. Hoc modo.
• * 1.892

  Lib 2. de reliq. & imagin. S.
• * 1.893

  S. cap 8. Sect.
• * 1.894

  Ego dico tria.
• * 1.895

  Pujol. de ado∣rat. disp. 3.
• * 1.896

  Sect. 4.
• * 1.897

  In 3. part. Tom. q. 25. a. 3.
• * 1.898

  Pag. 28.
• * 1.899

  De coronâ mi∣lit.
• * 1.900

  De Cor. Milit. Johannes Filioli inquit, Cu∣stodite vos ab idolis, non jam ab idolola∣tria quasi ab officio, sed ab idolis, id est, ab ipsâ effigie eorum: Indignum enim est ut imago Divini, imagoidoli & mortui fi∣at: Si enim verbo nudo conditio polluitur ut Apostolus docet, si quis dixerit idolothy∣tum est, non contigeris, multo magis cum habitu, & ritu, & apparatu, &c. Quid enim tam dignum Deo quàm quod indignum idolo?
• * 1.901

  Nam si ut dicitis literarum instar Dei prae∣sentiam signant, atque adeò acsi Deum significantia Divinis dignae censentur hono∣ribus, cerrè qui ea sculp••it, eisque effigi∣em dedit, multo magis hos promerebatur honores. Et paulò post. Quocircae hujus∣modi religio, Deorumque fictio non pietatis esse, sed iniquitatis invectio—Veritatis via ad eum qui veru•• Deus est diriget. Ad eum verò ••ognoscendum & exactissimè in∣telligendum nullius extrà nos positae rei opem necessariam haebemus—Quod si quis in∣terrogat quanam ista sit? V••iuscujusque animam esse dixerim, atque insitam illam intelligentiam, per ipsam enim solam Deus inspiciet, & intelligi potest. Orat. contr, ••entiles.
• * 1.902

  Synod. 7. act. 6.
• * 1.903

  Concil. ••. P. Ca•• 82.
• * 1.904

  In Cap. 40. Isai.
• * 1.905

  A••t quam imaginem ponetis ei, qui spiri∣tus est, & in omnibus est, & ubique dis∣currit, & terram quasi pugillo continet? Simulque irridet stultitiam nationum, quod artifex sive Faber aerarius, aut auri∣••ex a••t argentarius Deum sibi faciant.
• * 1.906

  De fide & symb. c. 7. Tale enim simul••chrum Deo nefas est Christiano in Templo colloca∣re, multò magis in corde nefari∣um est, ubi vé∣rè Templum est.
• * 1.907

  Lib. de legat.
• * 1.908

  Natur. q. 8. 30.
• * 1.909

  Act. 5.
• * 1.910

  Pag. 734. &c.
• * 1.911

  Annal. Biorum. l. 7.
• * 1.912

  In Epistolâ quam Baroni•• Gracè edidit Tom. 9. Annal. ad A. D. 726. in Margine.